"Map design is the problem with 3 genning" is a poor/incomplete argument
Although I am a little concerned about the 3-gen changes coming, I have a reasonable amount of faith it's going to be like the AFC. Restrained and something that doesn't affect normal play.
I watched Scott's take on 3-genning and how he would fix it, and to summarise, the idea is map design is the issue, and the solution is to push gens to the far reaches of the map, and use LOS blockers so a 3-gen can't exist.
A lot of people seem to mirror this stance, and cite maps as the root of problem, and this argument to my mind has been best represented by Scott, whose opinion I ofc respect.
The big issue I have though using map design as the means of solving 3 genning, is you hit none 3 genning killers as well, and it widens the gap between top tier and mid/low tier killers even more... By spreading out the gens to the map limits, you undo the whole point of making maps smaller, which was to make less mobile killers more viable. (You also kill any need for survivors to search for gens cause they're always at the map limits across all maps, which is dull imo).
Regardless this proposed solution slams straight into the obvious issue that Nurse, Blight, Wesker, Spirit, and Xeno are gonna be better than everyone else because they can traverse maps quickly, and aren't hit by the longer map traversal as hard as the other killers are... sure some more balanced killers get to also thrive like Wraith, Chucky, Hillbilly, and Demogorgon... and even Sadako and Nightmare will get by... but your killers who will struggle will be characters like Trapper, Pig, Shape, Pinhead, Huntress, Cannibal, Nemesis, Doctor and Clown, who already have trouble already pressuring the map globally.
Nurse especially doesn't care about your line of sight blockers, so she retains the ability to 3 gen, whereas the other killers that in some cases only remain viable thanks to 3 gens fall even further behind.
I don't know what BHVR have in mind, but just moving the gens to the map limits to handle 3 gens doesn't seem like a good solution to me.
Comments
-
Going by what was said in the AMA, it appears as if Killers will have their ability to kick gens nerfed or removed and/or that gens as a whole will have a regression cap, at least during the last gen.
Quite frankly it is a pretty bad solution since it basically punishes Killers that aren't 3-genning on purpose for the Survivors's mistakes.
What this solution means is that if the Killer can't get 2k before the last gen then the game is now unwinnable since between at least 3 Survivors and with no way to regress gens then it's just a matter of time.
This also means that gen-kick perks might as well be dead because they will now have a hard-limit beyond available gens.
This also massively hits setup Killers (Trapper, Hag etc.) That are built around area denial and not chases since they will now have a limit to their ability to slowdown. Poor Trapper got a buff then a big indirect nerf.
7 -
Same, I really hope I'm wrong for once.
2 -
It is still better to have smaller maps but wider gen spread, because it also makes the edges of the map more usable, which is generally speaking a good thing. Sure killers with good map traversal will still have a benefit, which is the whole point of that part of their kit, however it won't be that big anymore... Think about how little it time it takes to traverse coal tower compared to Ormond or what not... As for Nurse, she would still need to blink behind to wall to check on the gen every single time, which is still quite the time investment.
I think the idea is not to bad. However I would have liked it more if it was just reactivating an already done gen or whatever? I do think though that spreading gens further out is also kind of necessary, because this way the effective map size will get a bit bigger, while the total map size will get smaller, what I mean by that is the area where loopable tiles are will be bigger, but hiding in corners won't give you that much more of the map.
0 -
Indeed, that's why I have concerns in the first place. Though I think a lot of peple are looking at the 3-gen changes the same way a lot of people keep thinking the AFC is an Anti-Camping mechanism.... it isn't, it's there to deal with the most extreme cases, and 99.9% of the time won't come up.
I don't think it would be done if a gen is broken too many times within a certain time frame, as ofc a survivor could keep tapping on Hex: Ruin and activate the 3 -gen countermeasure. My instinct is too many instances of the same gen being kicked and/or instant regressed within a particular time scale would be the trigger, the intent being, instead of just kicking gens repeatedly, you should be committing to a chase at somepoint. I'd imagine it's goal is to target something like Chess Merchant level 3-genning to hold a game as long as possible, not 3-genning as a general strategy.
My above point ties into my response here. I'm not convinced the anti 3-gen announcement is meant to stop 3-genning. I think it's meant to stop people just holding a 3-gen and never trying to actually stop survivors.
With this in mind, moving the generators apart to the edges of the map doens't benefit the game... what sense does it make to explore the map as a survivor and potentially get caught by the killer, when you can just walk around the edges of the map like a crouching bambi Nea and guarantee finding 4 of the 7 gens? It sounds massively dumbed down and boring to me.
You say it's better to use the outside of the map more... but why is it? Players already use the outside of the map to run to and take the killer as far away from hooks and gens as they possibly can before going down. If the killer refuses to chase and insists on just holding the 3 gen, this is when the aforementioned break limit starts to come in.
Maybe its 10 breaks? Maybe it's 20? Who knows the right number? But that's what a PTB is for.
The point is that moving gens to the edge of the map, is not a good solution, and creates far more problems than it solves... the further widening the divide between immobile and mobile killers being the strongest one. Mobility is a very valuable tool in a kilelrs power, consistently one of the best in the game. I for one, am not willing to sacrifice half the killer roster based on mobility, to stop a few boring nerds from playing chess, especially when other options are available.
1 -
Finding the gens on outdoor maps is never an issue? You can see them from very far away usually... And you run around in the open because you usually do not care if the killer sees you, because experienced players mostly wanna get chased anyway...
I think it is better to use the outsideof the map more in the sense of having tiles there and the map also being somewhat equal to the effective map size, so there is not really deadzones around the edges or what not that serves no use but to make the map bigger.
No clue how they will form this in the end...
If the maps are smaller, but the gen spread wider, there is no 3 gen anymore, because the distance between them is too big... And certain killers don't need to 3 gen regardless because they can just end the game beforehand? I don't really see your point here... The distance the killer has to travel is still smaller than on current big maps if you just put the gens on coal tower further to the outskirts, the same with the tiles...So the reliance on map traversal would decrease overall...
0 -
While someone could imagine the bHVR mapteam suddenly becoming godlike beings to make the perfect maps, I RATHER doubt that will happen. They made a very complicated map generation system and yes it has some flaws, but the good outweighs the bad there. I personally RARELY have critique for the map design cause I understand its supposed to be unpredictable.
So while 3 genning isnt a major problem, its still good they are getting around to make a solution that insures good gameplay experience even when a 3 gen happens or gets forced. In fact bHVR promised us that 3 gen solution to come out next year so that will be exciting and I the solution works so people can be happy.
1 -
Sorry dude, we have some big misunderstanding/miscommunication... so please explain it to me like I'm an idiot, because I'm not understanding you.
Low mobility killers don't like large maps, because they're hard to patrol. Larger maps are inherently harder to 3 gen, because they are bigger... so the space between gens is larger... but that by the same token, makes them harder to patrol, because you've got to commit more time to doing it.
Smaller maps exist, so that less mobile killers can still patrol. Smaller maps tend to have more clutter and LOS blockers and places for survivors to hide, and that's the trade off, however ofc naturally smaller maps also make 3 genning easier... If you push the gens out to the very corners and edges of the map, you're back to a large map set up. Yes you can't 3 gen anymore, but also patrolling is harder for a less mobile killer...
You keep saying that map traversal would decrease... but how can it if you're increasing distance between gens? I can't patrol the 4 corners of Coal Tower on Pig; I can barely patrol 2 before a gen pops. Lets take an asinine example of map as a proof by contradiction like this:
Though it is stupid, this is an absolutely impossible to 3-gen set up. However how the hell do you patrol this as a less mobile killer? I've solved 3 genning sure, but I've made it harder for less mobile killers to patrol.
Now even if you take a more reasoned approach, I still ahve the issue as these low mobile kilelrs it's not worth my time to patrol the gens on the outer edge. Something like this, I'd focus my attempts on the green square, and maybe 1 other gen, and just forfeit the rest:
What something like would do for my Pig, or my Trapper, or whoever, would be to find someone, down them, then camp the hell out of them. Force survivors to come through me to get pressure, which coincidently is what 3-genning should do as a strategy when not used to just hostage the game.
How do you push gens to edges, without making less mobile killers less effective? You haven't answered that.
1 -
The difference between gens being on the edges of the map and for example Ormond is that the distance between those gens will still be lower than the travel distance on Ormond, just because the map is that big. Let's say it is about that sweet spot of the map being not too big overall but the gens being far enough apart from each other so you cannot 3 gen.
I don't think larger maps are harder to 3 gen, it all depends on how the gens spawn... Think about old Mothers Dwelling, it was possible to basically have a 3 gen around the main building where gens were like 15 m apart from each other, sure you needed to walk up the main building to protect that one, but if you just stand up there you can look at all 3 of them and reach them within seconds. And that was the biggest map in the game... If the gen spread is terrible the 3 gen is quite easy, otherwise not.
I would not say smaller maps exist for that reason, nor did I notice the amount of clutter and LOS blocker being bigger on these maps? Once again, all about the distance between gens and not the map size, necessarily... Sure if you make a map the size of one floor of midwich not getting a 3 gen will be tough, but even smaller maps like coal tower are big enough.
I don't think patrolling is that much harder, because you don't necessarily need to go really close to them, but can more or less just stand in the middle and look left and right to see if someone is sitting on the generator, or maybe go close enough to hear the gen, in case the gen is behind a line of sight blocker. As long as there are no haddonfield fences or too many line of sight blockers the pre running will be rather hard, because they are already at the edge of the map.. Which would be another benefit, you cannot really run towards the opposite direction the killer is coming from, this also helps the more imobile killers, because if you prerun you don't get as much distance and the killer can possibly cut you off way easier.
Map traversal would decrease compared to bigger maps, as stated before I think the travel distance would be less between coal tower edge map gens and Ormond normal gens.
Coal tower is a rather small map, usually you can traverse the map entirely until even the first gen pops.
To answer the last question in short, despite me probably already answering it in this big text...
- Coal tower edge map gens will probably still have a shorter patrolling distance than bigger maps do right now.
- Pushing them to the edges makes pre-running less effective, since you cannot run in the opposite direction, making it easier for the killer to cut you off, because you can only run along the wall, if the killer is properly approaching you.
That means less traversing than on big maps, hopefully less pre running.
I don't know if campings you that far, since you cannot camp inside a 3 gen anymore, so you will probably just a 2k? technically it is still more efficient to just juggle two survivors and hook them until they die at 6 hook stages total. But I don't think this is still part of the 3 genning issue ^^
0 -
I mean, ofc 3 gens that are specifically put in close proximity, it will be good for 3 genning regardless of map size. My point is large maps afford more space to make that tougher to do, so generally, it should be less common on larger maps than smaller ones.
I get that Coal Tower is a smaller map, so your point is aligning the distance between gens. I guess there is no real consensus between map size/LoS blockers and alike, even the number of string main buildings isn't consistent to map size. It's more trends between realms I guess.
I suppose to my mind gens on the edge of the maps precursors adding appropriate tiles at those edges of the maps. If the gens are just in big dead zones the obviously there's a problem. This ties into the LoS argument. If you've got gens sat in the corners you need survivors to have LoS to know to head to their tiles, or you deny LoS, and killers can't see them either.
In either case, the mobile killers still come out on top. Moving gens out still doesn't square up the differences between lower tier and higher tier characters. Mobile characters will get more out of this change than less mobile killers will because they actually have the speed to be able to cut survivors off before they even get to the safety of their tiles, and can check those locations easier if they don't have LoS.
Like if it can be done, fair enough, but to my mind, I don't see how you push the gens out, without just making fast killers even better than they already are vs. slower killers.
0 -
I think it would make killers without much mobility a bit better because the overall effective map size would be reduced, but ofc mobility will still be a benefit, why would it not? It is part of the killers kit..
0 -
scott argument is the status quo argument. He is saying that big maps decreases 3 gens because they increase walking distance between gens making gen-camping less effective. This is precisely why big map are bad for killer because the bigger the map, the less chance killer has to create 3 gens. that is entire reason why bvhr and community are pushing smaller maps.
By making smaller maps, every nearby map becomes possible to 3 gen in any configuration. Scott's solution is moving gens in corner of the map is artificially making the map bigger because now killer has to travel to the corners of the map to kick gens. This is like complete opposite of what BVHR has been doing. BVHR has been spending so much time shrinking maps that they not going suddenly start increasing size of maps. their objective is not to delete 3 gens. their objective is to limited their effectiveness after x time. Inherently, breaking a 3 gen after 10-15 minute is not that bad. the killer slowed the game down and you finished the game is timely manner. It is just that if a 3 gen takes longer 20 minute to break, many survivor players will not spend 30 minutes or 50 minutes in old skull merchant case to break 3 gen. They'd rather disconnect/kill themselves on hook then progress the game because the game simply takes too long.
The only question now remains is how BVHR will tackle longer then 20 minute 3 gen games. How they used to tackle this problem in very long past was the hatch. The hatch rules were different many years ago. The rule was that for every gen completed, you had to have [survivor alive - # generators completed - 1]. So for example, to escape with 4 people using hatch and key, you had to finish all 5 gens. To escape with 3 survivor alive, you had to finish 4 gens. So already at 3 people, you could escape breaking 3 gen stalemate. With 2 survivor left, you only had to complete 3 gens. The problem with this system was that you needed a key to open the hatch because hatch spawned close.
One of the dev said that if you do not bring the corresponding perk/item to deal with situation than problem still remains. This is exact problem with keys. Even if Keys can get rid of stalemate situation, if nobody bring a key then long 3 gen stalemates will still occur. that is why if they ever do go with hatch type solution, I imagine they will not require you to bring a key to open the hatch. The hatch will likely just spawn open. If the killer kicks the hatch, the end-game collapse begins. if you don't kick hatch then all survivor can escape through hatch resulting the game in a draw.
1
