http://dbd.game/killswitch
now that there's a DC penalty, why hide mori offerings?
it's also obvious when all survivors start spread out, so you know killer used veil.
Comments
-
I don’t know
keeping the mystery of the mori?
is it a ebony cringe guy?
Or a chad cypress mori?
5 -
I'd agree that this would be a good reason - To keep it a surprise. Just there's literally no other offerings that are surprises for killer outside of the Shroud ones off the top of my head. It's just safer to assume it's a mori.
Offerings just need a rework to be honest and both sides need better variety. To be honest all offerings should be hidden unless they're bloodpoint offerings or if any of them interact with each other. Sacrificial ward and a map offering being in the same pool for example.
1 -
Killer offering should always be hidden to survivors unless it's a group BP bonus, to keep them guessing.
3 -
what would be the benefit of that? keeping players from DCing during load? I haven't seen that happen for a long long time.
although hiding blueprint offerings from the other team might be interesting...
0 -
Back 2 queue :)
2 -
Map offerings being removed would be even better.
I think Memento should be a base-kit mechanic for all killers. But in a somewhat different way.
Developers almost made it, but with a pretty stupid base-kit unbreakable mechanic (thank God they didn't).
Memento Mori should be like a side quest for a killer to achieve. "Do that, then this" and there you go, you can mori 1 survivor, if they on a death hook and downed.
#Make Mori More Common.
3 -
people would just task manager their game, unless that has changed I believe there is no penalty for that.
I was playing killer and saw someone whos profile said "mori = task manager" so I brought a shroud of separation and sure enough that game never started...
2 -
yeah, I've felt this way for a long time, but i'm happy the devs decided NOT to go with the version that was tested.
I specifically wish that moris were based on how much a survivor aggravates the killer; e.g. chasing a survivor raises your "mori meter" with THAT specific survivor, and if they stun you it raises it more. So if and when you DO finally down them, you have the satisfaction of mori-ing them. And also as a survivor you have to balance being "the runner" vs the threat of getting moried.
1 -
This would be terrible.
This would mean that the better the Survivor, the more likely it will be that they are dead once downed. And since Bloodlust exists, at some point, a Survivor WILL go down. Let alone that a Killer does not need to hit a Survivor, so if they are close before filling up the Meter completely, they can just wait, then when it is filled, down them and kill them instantly.
I also dont really get the "balance" you mentioned. Should the Survivor think about playing badly to not get killed? Let alone that it would be in the Killers control if they actually fell for it or not.
2 -
More offerings should be hidden. They should add map offerings to the hidden options, so people can be less sure of what the hidden offering could be and aren't immediately salty about the map they load into.
0 -
It could be balanced in a way that most of this 'mori meter' is filled by hook actions.
E.g each hook fills it by 40%, then stuns/blinds add 3%, and each minute of chase adds 5%.
So that in order to mori someone, you'd need to hook then twice AND chase then for x second and/or be stunned x times. With the very very unlikely but possible scenario of a significantly aggrivating survivor being moriable after just one hook if no one else takes any aggro.
This would make mori's feel earned, but would also make survivors inclined to share the chase burden.
1 -
I mean 99.9% of the time the killer uses a hidden offering, it's a mori. I guess you don't know what kind of mori it is, but it's usually Ebony and it's not like knowing what it is lets you play around it or anything.
Hiding offerings in general is an outdated feature and just doesn't really do much for the game.
0 -
I would rather have them removed entirely
2 -
Most of the issue with map offerings is psychological. You could just as likely load into an unfavorable map by chance.
If they were changed to be 50% and hidden, you could never know if you ended up on a map due to an offering.
Now blueprints. They're only really fair if all players know about them... but they could add a hidden, green-rarity blueprint to spawn the hatch in "either the shack or main building". So your side gets a straight 50/50 and the opposition is still checking the entire map.
0 -
You could just as likely load into an unfavorable map by chance.
what are the chances of you spawning in a killer sided map after a survivor offers a map? yes it's 0% because survivors will send you to survivor sided maps and killers send you killer sided maps or a map that will perfectly fit their build. should be simple logic.
0 -
No, it's not. Loading into an unfavourable map might make me cringe at the start and course my luck, but that's that.
Survivor's purposefully SENDING me to a certain map, though, has a very high likelihood that they selected their perks to give them maximum advantage, leading to very unfun and unfair games.
It's not just psychological that 70% of Dead Dog Saloon games with the corresponding offering are a painful Head On challenge or 95% of The Game offerings are sweatlevel over 9000.
It really is an outdated and unfair mechanic and the only reasons why BHVR kept it in dbd game is probably, that they don't know what else to do with offerings.
1 -
Two real scenario's that have happened to me.
1. Playing Dredge, tempted to run a Midwich offering because I "always" win as Dredge on Midwich. Decided not to be sweaty. Ended up loading into Midwich without any offerings played anyway, survivors played sweaty, I tried to adapt, suffered my first loss on Midwich.
2. Solo survivor, another survivor plays Haddonfield, killer plays Sacrifical Ward. We end up on Haddonfield anyway. Killer gets 4K.
This animosity to map offerings is largely confirmation bias. Almost every map is perfectly viable for either side, and even if you end up on an unfavorable map you can still win. In instances where a sweaty SWF have played a map offering, the fact that you lost to them has much, much more to do with the fact that they were a sweaty SWF, than because of the map you ended up on. But you end up blaming the map. Confirmation bias, and that's where the psychology comes into it.
Loading into an unfavourable map might make me cringe at the start and course my luck, but that's that.
And if you were unaware you were sent there via offering, you'd be none the wiser and wouldn't be trigered.
Map offerings are a completely valid form of expression, just like choosing your killer or perks. You wouldn't say "remove all perks" because a few were unbalanced, same goes for map offerings. If any maps are unbalanced, fix those maps. If any of these maps were truly a problem, you'd be just as pissed off when you get them by chance. You're not, that means it's psychological.
1 -
you offer a map, you get that map. nothing else matters lmao what's the argument? yes you can get any map with pure luck, and?
0 -
most maps are heavily one sided and they vary in multiple other aspects so getting to choose where to go is way too strong since you can also revolve your entire loadout accordingly.
edit: sorry i couldn't care less about the psychology part since all it reads is "you aren't losing because of the map offering stop coping". hell no wth?
0 -
It's neatly explained just a bit further up. Enjoy.
0
