http://dbd.game/killswitch
The biggest problem with a two killer mode.
I won't lie, I want a two killer mode as much as the next guy. However, we will never see this mode in-game until we can figure out how to prevent two killers from cornering a survivor and insta-downing them via the power of friendship.
The biggest problem of a game with two killers would be killers abusing the sheer power of two killers. You could have a friend run Agitation, Mad Grit, Iron Grasp, and Territorial Imperitive and be your hooker (pun partially intended) while you run your normal build. You two hunt together and you escort them to the basement, if the survivor escapes you can just smack them down. This can be used to drag players into the basement and ruin the game for all survs as the presence of two killers running to catch basement rescuers results in a guaranteed down for everyone.
Unless the devs were to add invincibility and no killer collision after a hit to combat two killers cornering a healthy survivor I cannot fathom how to the devs would balance the gamemode a number of us crave.
Comments
-
Sucks for the Survivor.4
-
Yeah, but this would just be a small percentage of players, so it's OK.
4 -
I understand that only a handful of players will play with master strategies to get (6-8?) kills. However in a previous discussion on the two player gamemode @Peanits brought up the point that two killers ganging up can prove very strong. So I just hoped to alleviate their concerns with thoughtful discussion.Orion said:Yeah, but this would just be a small percentage of players, so it's OK.
1 -
@Peasant said:
I understand that only a handful of players will play with master strategies to get (6-8?) kills. However in a previous discussion on the two player gamemode @Peanits brought up the point that two killers ganging up can prove very strong. So I just hoped to alleviate their concerns with thoughtful discussion.Nah, this doesn't need addressing. If SWF concerns can be hand-waved away, so can this.
5 -
I am well aware of the nonsense that survivors get away with. I guess the only difference is that when survivors gang up on a killer it only annoys the killer. Whereas conversely killers ganging up on a survivor can actually kill the survivor.Killigma said:@Peasant said:
(Is ganging up on survivors.)Because it is not like Survivors gang up on Killers, right?
I am not not disagreeing with you. I am just trying play "devil's advocate" I guess.1 -
@Peasant said:
I am not not disagreeing with you. I am just trying play "devil's advocate" I guess.To paraphrase Walter Bishop:
The problem with playing Devil's Advocate is that your client is the Devil.Concerns surrounding SWF were ignored when it was first implemented and continue to be ignored because "not all SWF are deathsquads". I see no reason why this should be any different.
4 -
The biggest problem is that we don't get new game modes in the first place, no matter what.2
-
How bout this? If two killers are chasing the same survivor, the one who hits the survivor triggers a slow down for both killers. This would be proximity based as well, so within like 16 meters the second killer is slowed down for the duration of the hit cooldown.
Both killers would also get a temporary lack of collision in the case of cornering folks within that same proximity.
You shouldn't be safe in the basement, so I would imagine a coordinated killer team (which is apparently a bad thing... Hmm) could potentially get at least two kills if one body blocks the stairs at the right time. Trapper and Hag will be a feared combo.
0 -
@Peasant said:
Killigma said:@Peasant said:
(Is ganging up on survivors.)
Because it is not like Survivors gang up on Killers, right?
I am well aware of the nonsense that survivors get away with. I guess the only difference is that when survivors gang up on a killer it only annoys the killer. Whereas conversely killers ganging up on a survivor can actually kill the survivor.
I am not not disagreeing with you. I am just trying play "devil's advocate" I guess.
I appreciate you raising your concearns for a game mode like this being added but @Orion has hit the nail on the head, 'what is good for the goose, is good for the gander' surely?
2 -
@Orion said:
Nah, this doesn't need addressing. If SWF concerns can be hand-waved away, so can this.This is only a fair comparison in rhetoric though. SWF's mainly increase the team's efficiency.
2 Killers on the other-hand break the otherwise chasing dynamics.1 -
Then you have seven people on gens and a short chase won't be nearly as consequential as having double the gen output and none of the map pressure. Its not an issue.1
-
Arent SWF players allways ganging up? In a game where there shouldnt be communication...?
Ganging up as killer seems fair, lets not forget that there'll be 8 survivors on the map, that means 7 people can bodyblock...1 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Orion said:
Nah, this doesn't need addressing. If SWF concerns can be hand-waved away, so can this.This is only a fair comparison in rhetoric though. SWF's mainly increase the team's efficiency.
2 Killers on the other-hand break the otherwise chasing dynamics.SWF has instantaneous, map-wide communication, which is almost as good as literal wallhacks. Are you telling me that doesn't break the game?
1 -
@Peasant said:
(Is ganging up on survivors.)I won't lie, I want a two killer mode as much as the next guy. However, we will never see this mode in-game until we can figure out how to prevent two killers from cornering a survivor and insta-downing them via the power of friendship.
The biggest problem of a game with two killers would be killers abusing the sheer power of two killers. You could have a friend run Agitation, Mad Grit, Iron Grasp, and Territorial Imperitive and be your hooker (pun partially intended) while you run your normal build. You two hunt together and you escort them to the basement, if the survivor escapes you can just smack them down. This can be used to drag players into the basement and ruin the game for all survs as the presence of two killers running to catch basement rescuers results in a guaranteed down for everyone.
Unless the devs were to add invincibility and no killer collision after a hit to combat two killers cornering a healthy survivor I cannot fathom how to the devs would balance the gamemode a number of us crave.
Well apparently its ok when sth doesnt happen every game, so the navy seals duo would be balanced.....
2 -
I did, but some people are too biased to see that their complaints about a hypothetical KWF mode apply to SWF as well. Difference is, we actually do have SWF in the game.
1 -
Identity v has a 2v8 mode.
Survivors take 3 hits to down, have a gen speed penalty of 30%, need to do 7 gens and cannot be unhooked for 30seconds after first getting hooked.
Once ONE killer decides to camp its a gg for survivors. As swfs and genrush have taught us its simply more effective to spread out.
Those gangbang moments mostly jappen in the midlate to lategame.
EDIT: survs shouldvpay more attention if they get sandwitched between stuff.0 -
@Orion said:
SWF has instantaneous, map-wide communication, which is almost as good as literal wallhacks. Are you telling me that doesn't break the game?What I'm saying is that more between the power balance between solo's and SWF's can be negated through a real ranking based trust system than you think.
Marth88 already showed us that the power wasn't in the comms.
A lot of the power of SWF has been falsely attributed to the SWF's. Most of that power actually comes from being matched with players of exactly the same skill level;
Currently; let's say that killers have 100% power and 4 survivors need 25% power, meaning that they are all equally skilled.
In DBD's ranking system, there is no rank domain. Everyone that grinds well enough gets to rank 1, meaning it's a pool from bad to highly skilled. So here is what happens:
If you are a really good killer, let's say you get 100%. Now imagine you are a really good survivor against that really good killer, you get 27%.
Because there are more bad survivors and highly skilled survivors in rank 1, your other random teammates are going to be say: 20%, 15%, 17%, resulting in a loss.
SWF's not by the virtue of voice coms, but by the virtue of being in charge of custom matchmaking gain a lot of power through this.
Most of the power of SWF's would be solvable through a functioning ranking system. So there really isn't a gap.
Now here is the difference; a double killer can literally break the chasing concept of the game as the premise of a chasing mechanic is that you have somewhere else to run and thus almost all places at least give you 2 directions. (1 occupied by the killer.)
The power that double killers offers is literally gamebreaking, where as SWF's gameplay is mostly just the result of a functional matchmaking system and not voice coms.
There is no real comparison here.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Orion said:
SWF has instantaneous, map-wide communication, which is almost as good as literal wallhacks. Are you telling me that doesn't break the game?What I'm saying is that more between the power balance between solo's and SWF's can be negated through a real ranking based trust system than you think.
Marth88 already showed us that the power wasn't in the comms.
A lot of the power of SWF has been falsely attributed to the SWF's. Most of that power actually comes from being matched with players of exactly the same skill level;
Currently; let's say that killers have 100% power and 4 survivors need 25% power, meaning that they are all equally skilled.
In DBD's ranking system, there is no rank domain. Everyone that grinds well enough gets to rank 1, meaning it's a pool from bad to highly skilled. So here is what happens:
If you are a really good killer, let's say you get 100%. Now imagine you are a really good survivor against that really good killer, you get 27%.
Because there are more bad survivors and highly skilled survivors in rank 1, your other random teammates are going to be say: 20%, 15%, 17%, resulting in a loss.
SWF's not by the virtue of voice coms, but by the virtue of being in charge of custom matchmaking gain a lot of power through this.
Most of the power of SWF's would be solvable through a functioning ranking system. So there really isn't a gap.
Now here is the difference; a double killer can literally break the chasing concept of the game as the premise of a chasing mechanic is that you have somewhere else to run and thus almost all places at least give you 2 directions. (1 occupied by the killer.)
The power that double killers offers is literally gamebreaking, where as SWF's gameplay is mostly just the result of a functional matchmaking system and not voice coms.
There is no real comparison here.
I didn't word my question correctly. Here it is again:
Does instantaneous, map-wide communication, which provides map knowledge and the ability to coordinate every move almost perfectly, break the balance of the game? A simple yes or no will suffice.2 -
Cool thing would be to add in some killers who were made up of 2 parts... Where each killer would have to play their role in the match. For example.. like Master Blaster from Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome....
One could be Master and the other Blaster.1 -
Then the answer is yes. SWF's create very unintended effects, as evidence by perk designs like Hex: The Third Seal.
And this is undeniably problematic.The bonus of this however; It doesn't happen frequently that a team of 4 skilled survivors do go through the effort of utilising high level strategies that would otherwise make the game problematic since they can win normally;
the principle of low effort reigns supreme.Things that get rendered useless, like Hex The Third Seal are also not parts of the core gameplay.
Now with 2 killers the 2 points made above are both false:
It doesn't take high level strategies to just chase the same survivor with 2 killers and second;
This mechanic unlike SWF doesn't break perks like The Third Seal; it breaks the entire chasing mechanic.
That is the point.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionThen the answer is yes. SWF's create very unintended effects, as evidence by perk designs like Hex: The Third Seal.
And this is undeniably problematic.The bonus of this however; It doesn't happen frequently that a team of 4 skilled survivors do go through the effort of utilising high level strategies that would otherwise make the game problematic since they can win normally;
the principle of low effort reigns supreme.Things that get rendered useless, like Hex The Third Seal are also not parts of the core gameplay.
Now with 2 killers the 2 points made above are both false:
It doesn't take high level strategies to just chase the same survivor with 2 killers and second;
This mechanic unlike SWF doesn't break perks like The Third Seal; it breaks the entire chasing mechanic.
That is the point.
Well there wont be a navy seal duo of killers every game too. It wont happen frequently that a team of 2 skilled killers do go through the effort of utilising high lvl strategies which would break the chase gameplay.
So its still fine, just like 4 man navy seals are
4 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionThen the answer is yes. SWF's create very unintended effects, as evidence by perk designs like Hex: The Third Seal.
And this is undeniably problematic.The bonus of this however; It doesn't happen frequently that a team of 4 skilled survivors do go through the effort of utilising high level strategies that would otherwise make the game problematic since they can win normally;
the principle of low effort reigns supreme.Things that get rendered useless, like Hex The Third Seal are also not parts of the core gameplay.
Now with 2 killers the 2 points made above are both false:
It doesn't take high level strategies to just chase the same survivor with 2 killers and second;
This mechanic unlike SWF doesn't break perks like The Third Seal; it breaks the entire chasing mechanic.
That is the point.
Remember what I told you a while back, about making your posts shorter and more to the point? "Yes" was all you had to say. Everything else is likely (I say "likely" because I haven't the patience to read it) a repetition of what you already said before, when I had to clarify the question to see if you wouldn't go off on a tangent.
It was a yes/no question. All you had to say was either "yes" or "no".1 -
@Peasant said:
(Is ganging up on survivors.)I won't lie, I want a two killer mode as much as the next guy. However, we will never see this mode in-game until we can figure out how to prevent two killers from cornering a survivor and insta-downing them via the power of friendship.
The biggest problem of a game with two killers would be killers abusing the sheer power of two killers. You could have a friend run Agitation, Mad Grit, Iron Grasp, and Territorial Imperitive and be your hooker (pun partially intended) while you run your normal build. You two hunt together and you escort them to the basement, if the survivor escapes you can just smack them down. This can be used to drag players into the basement and ruin the game for all survs as the presence of two killers running to catch basement rescuers results in a guaranteed down for everyone.
Unless the devs were to add invincibility and no killer collision after a hit to combat two killers cornering a healthy survivor I cannot fathom how to the devs would balance the gamemode a number of us crave.
you are wrong, the 2-killer game mode will have 2 teams (8v2), so killers do not co-work, go against
0 -
Well there wont be a navy seal duo of killers every game too. It wont happen frequently that a team of 2 skilled killers do go through the effort of utilising high lvl strategies which would break the chase gameplay.
So its still fine, just like 4 man navy seals are
There doesn't need to be a navy seal due every game. You barely need a brain or proper execution to utilise the broken part about the 2 killer mode, unlike in swf, you do actually still need skill, contrary to popular belief.
0 -
That would be balanced by 7 survivors being able to do whatever the hell they want while the two killers stick together to find and chase tht one survivor.
The moment the 2 killers stick together too much, or one of them actively stays and camps someone, they lose this gamemode, its that easy.2 -
The thing is that answering your question doesn't prove a point.
Yeah, but this would just be a small percentage of players, so it's OK.
Nah, this doesn't need addressing. If SWF concerns can be hand-waved away, so can this.
My 2nd comment was explaining why the majority of the SWF power doesn't come from being an SWF but from being customarily matched together. (With explanation and evidence)
The 3rd comment was about the exact part about the "broken" aspect and why the broken aspect of swf rarely comes into fruition. (and again, this side of the broken aspect not to be inflated with the strength discussed in comment 2)
and the 2nd sentence in my 1st comment was the summary of my second comment. the 3rd sentence in my 1st comment was the summary of the 2nd, but you weren't convinced by the summary.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionThe thing is that answering your question doesn't prove a point.
Indeed, it doesn't. Instead, it achieves a much more essential goal in the context of a conversation and/or debate: it answers the question that was asked.
1 -
Indeed, it doesn't. Instead, it achieves a much more essential goal in the context of a conversation and/or debate: it answers the question that was asked.
I can't find the questionmark.
The OP reminded us that there are ways the killers can highly abuse the fact that there are 2 killers and mentions a very specific example.
You said that this wouldn't matter because; look at SWF's. (delegitimising his concern)
Then I rebutted and legitimised his concern, preventing it from being ignored.Isn't that the more essential goal?
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionIndeed, it doesn't. Instead, it achieves a much more essential goal in the context of a conversation and/or debate: it answers the question that was asked.
I can't find the questionmark.
The OP reminded us that there are ways the killers can highly abuse the fact that there are 2 killers and mentions a very specific example.
You said that this wouldn't matter because; look at SWF's. (delegitimising his concern)
Then I rebutted and legitimised his concern, preventing it from being ignored.Isn't that the more essential goal?
No, it's really not, because however the game is broken by SWF or could be broken a hypothetical KWF has no bearing on the fact that they both do/could break the game if used in certain ways. It also has no bearing on the fact that SWF is used to break the game a lot, often to the detriment of Killers and solo Survivors.
Furthermore, note how I said "essential goal in the context of a conversation and/or debate". I was speaking in general terms. You were asked a simple yes/no question, which should be followed by a simple yes/no answer; not an essay on why everything everyone knows about SWF is wrong.
EDIT: Oh, and the question mark was on the original question, but because you can't just say "Yes" or "No" when presented with a yes/no question, we had to go down this alley instead.1 -
because however the game is broken by SWF or a hypothetical KWF has no bearing on the fact that they both break the game if used in certain ways. It also has no bearing on the fact that SWF is used to break the game a lot, often to the detriment of Killers and solo Survivors.
Stating that something IS, doesn't make it true. Maybe your comment should be longer so that it actually included an argument as to why it actually is?
not an essay on why everything everyone knows about SWF is wrong.
Is that really how you handle my TED reference?
OP made a very legit complains about the disfunctionality of having multiple killers and demonstrated it with a specific example. All the factors play a role here; frequency of being abused. Ease of being abused. The degree to which that power directly related to abuse. Everything.
2 killers simply break the chasing mechanics. Pallets don't have a 4 split way where you can jump to. 2 killers means:
Run to the left side of the pallet (where there is a killer) or run to the right side of the pallet (where there is a killer).the fact that SWF is used to break the game a lot
To me it's comical that you still inflate my 2nd comment swf power with the 3rd comment swf power. The 3rd comment discusses a version of SWF power that is barely ever utilised/relevant.
The majority sticks to comment 2 type of strategies, all of which aren't broken and all of which are the ones that the majority complains about.The only time that people actually talk about the broken part about SWF's is when they proposed killer perks to be hidden.
1 -
It's fine, we have glitches to be able to play this sort of mode, with some made up rules to make it more fun.
DEVs probably wouldn't be able to actually code it if they tried. Would break more than the actual game.
Rather they focus on the game than new modes.0 -
To ask you a simple question, since you discard that frequency is a factor here:
Is a gamebreaking bug also gamebreaking if it rarely happens?
1 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Orionbecause however the game is broken by SWF or a hypothetical KWF has no bearing on the fact that they both break the game if used in certain ways. It also has no bearing on the fact that SWF is used to break the game a lot, often to the detriment of Killers and solo Survivors.
Stating that something IS, doesn't make it true. Maybe your comment should be longer so that it actually included an argument as to why it actually is?
Your post is too long for me to read it in full, so I'll just address this bit.
It's an established fact that SWF breaks the game by providing information that Survivors are not meant to have. To say that my comment should include an argument for that is to say that I should include an argument as to why water is H2O. Some things have already been established a priori. They do not need arguments or proofs every single time you address the subject.0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionTo ask you a simple question, since you discard that frequency is a factor here:
Is a gamebreaking bug also gamebreaking if it rarely happens?
To answer in the way that you would, I'm dismissing the OP's concerns due to the low frequency of his completely made-up scenario because it's the same argument used to dismiss any and all concerns about SWF.
0 -
To answer in the way that you would, I'm dismissing the OP's concerns due to the low frequency of his completely made-up scenario because it's the same argument used to dismiss any and all concerns about SWF.
He names a very specific example to prove it and puts the generalised version above and at the bottom.
You do see how
Unless the devs were to add invincibility and no killer collision after a hit to combat two killers cornering a healthy survivor I cannot fathom how to the devs would balance the gamemode a number of us crave.
is not something very specific or particularly demanding, and how it effectively kills of the chase mechanic as it currently stands, don't you?
I also don't think that his specified example will be the main trouble. But the general principle he mentions after will.
1 -
Your post is too long for me to read it in full, so I'll just address this bit.
It's an established fact that SWF breaks the game by providing information that Survivors are not meant to have. To say that my comment should include an argument for that is to say that I should include an argument as to why water is H2O. Some things have already been established a priori. They do not need arguments or proofs every single time you address the subject.As pre-established as that God created the universe? That Zeus is the god of the sky and thunder? I'll skip out on that thought fallacy if you will.
SWF only break the game insofar; Blindness is irrelevant. Dynamic planning (planning in general is available to anyone). Communicating perks after dying (has been eliminated)
Almost all of what actually contributes to the stomps against killers is actually not game-breaking. It's just high level cooperation, achievable through a functional ranking system for solo's as well.0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionYour post is too long for me to read it in full, so I'll just address this bit.
It's an established fact that SWF breaks the game by providing information that Survivors are not meant to have. To say that my comment should include an argument for that is to say that I should include an argument as to why water is H2O. Some things have already been established a priori. They do not need arguments or proofs every single time you address the subject.As pre-established as that God created the universe? That Zeus is the god of the sky and thunder? I'll skip out on that thought fallacy if you will.
SWF only break the game insofar; Blindness is irrelevant. Dynamic planning (planning in general is available to anyone). Communicating perks after dying (has been eliminated)
Almost all of what actually contributes to the stomps against killers is actually not game-breaking. It's just high level cooperation, achievable through a functional ranking system for solo's as well.Dude, you literally agreed that SWF breaks the balance of the game due to its instantaneous, map-wide communication. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now.
0 -
Dude, you literally agreed that SWF breaks the balance of the game due to its instantaneous, map-wide communication. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing now.
Yes. I said that a bug is bad, but because the bug barely appears it's not a gamebreaking bug, where as the bug being discussed is gamebreaking.
You keep saying, well the first bug we didn't solve, so why should we fix the 2nd?
I said frequency matters. You denied it.
You thought the gamecrashing bug should be treated the same as the occasional hook animation bug and I keep objecting to that principle.
If I only were to answer your question just for you to get a wrong conclusion out of it, then maybe it does need explanation after all.
0 -
Let me just get this straight. Are you saying there's a clear advantage to players that can work together, share responsibilities, tailor peris and communicate?
2 killers v 4 survivors, even against the best swf teams, would be plain unfair to survivors. There would have to be large changes to objectives, map size, survivor group size (it would need to be at least 6 survivors) As a game mode for hardened survivors, maybe above a certain devotion level, it could be an interesting way to bring extra challenge and bragging rights to players .I hope they look at this idea and give it some serious thought0 -
*perks0
-
@gamerscrybecauseofme said:
Let me just get this straight. Are you saying there's a clear advantage to players that can work together, share responsibilities, tailor peris and communicate?2 killers v 4 survivors, even against the best swf teams, would be plain unfair to survivors. There would have to be large changes to objectives, map size, survivor group size (it would need to be at least 6 survivors) As a game mode for hardened survivors, maybe above a certain devotion level, it could be an interesting way to bring extra challenge and bragging rights to players .I hope they look at this idea and give it some serious thought
Of course a 2v4 would be insane. Everyone who suggested a two killer mode generally agreed to have 8 survivors to compensate, myself included. Of course other things will have to be looked at, no one is saying otherwise.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@MasterWell there wont be a navy seal duo of killers every game too. It wont happen frequently that a team of 2 skilled killers do go through the effort of utilising high lvl strategies which would break the chase gameplay.
So its still fine, just like 4 man navy seals are
There doesn't need to be a navy seal due every game. You barely need a brain or proper execution to utilise the broken part about the 2 killer mode, unlike in swf, you do actually still need skill, contrary to popular belief.
There doesn't need to be a navy seal due every game. You barely need a brain or proper execution to utilise the broken part about the SWF coordination, unlike in killermode, you do actually still need skill, contrary to popular belief.
Now lets use some actual arguments instead of just using empty words as you did.
A duo of killers will have to act together dynamically in a chase (assuming this is even the best strategy), they are both two moving targets and have to chase another moving target.Then there is SWF, you have 3 stationary targets and a survivor being chased by the killer. Everything is really predictable and there is no dynamical interaction
0 -
It can get strong but the Survivors still outnumber the killers, even MORE SO than normal. they'll rush through those Gens quick. Of course there will be more than 5 Gens but there are still more Survivors so you can count that every Gen being worked on will have 2-3 Survivors on it, any of them have Prove-Thyself or a toolbox and they'll fly through it. SWF could have several designated runners/loopers, Hell the Survivors have more strategy and chances just because of their numbers. Yeah the Killers can overpower the Survivors a lot more than in a normal match but so can the Survivors. TBH I think the 2 Killer mode is probably more fair than the normal game because it gives both sides more strategy and power.
A Hag and Trapper together will dominate, they can place traps over each other's traps. Hillbilly and Leatherface finally get to team up and show the saw truly is family with one protecting Gens and the other protecting the Basement. But that's still two Killers and 6-8 Survivors, each Killer STILL can only focus on 1 Survivor at a time so while 2 Survivors are being chased they still have 4-6 Survivors on Gens. I think this would be more fair than anormal game because both sides would have equal power.
0 -
1 killer following the survivor and the other one walking to the other side of the loop. As that the "dynamic" gameplay we're talking about? Just to make sure.Master said:@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@MasterWell there wont be a navy seal duo of killers every game too. It wont happen frequently that a team of 2 skilled killers do go through the effort of utilising high lvl strategies which would break the chase gameplay.
So its still fine, just like 4 man navy seals are
There doesn't need to be a navy seal due every game. You barely need a brain or proper execution to utilise the broken part about the 2 killer mode, unlike in swf, you do actually still need skill, contrary to popular belief.
There doesn't need to be a navy seal due every game. You barely need a brain or proper execution to utilise the broken part about the SWF coordination, unlike in killermode, you do actually still need skill, contrary to popular belief.
Now lets use some actual arguments instead of just using empty words as you did.
A duo of killers will have to act together dynamically in a chase (assuming this is even the best strategy), they are both two moving targets and have to chase another moving target.Then there is SWF, you have 3 stationary targets and a survivor being chased by the killer. Everything is really predictable and there is no dynamical interaction
I don't know uow long you expect to survive in a 2 killer chase, but let me tell you; the duration is more than halved.0 -
The biggest point that a 2 killer mode makes no sense is the terror radius. Imagine 2 doctors with distressing and annoying addons. It would be a total brainfuck because you cannot tell which TR belongs to which killer and even how near or far it is. Game mechanics like perks, chasing, scoring wouldn't work correctly either.
0 -
Imagine playing vs 2 spirits who remove the phasing sound with discordance and just pull 2 people of every gen everytime. A 2 killer mode would be hilarious, but the whole game should be reworked to fit the playstyle. Don't expect it to be around anytime soon, maybe ever.
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PY9DcIMGxMs
