http://dbd.game/killswitch
"What are survivors supposed to do if 2 are dead and 3 gens are left?"
I saw a thread on Twitter engaging with this question and I feel like the answer is rather obvious, isn't it?
The killer won. You lost. So get on with it.
Yeah in theory you can drag out the match until somebody gets caught for the hatch standoff. But just being honest if you could play an entire new round in the time it would take for somebody to get caught hiding in a corner then it's better to just move on with your life.
Maybe this is short sighted but like, there is no alternative right? I guess in theory both survivors could play perfectly. That's not going to happen. Why waste your own time?
Comments
-
It's a tough one, because it drags out for as long as the survivors want it to. If I felt there was no alternative then I'd just find the killer and practice a chase before I move on, or even just bend over there and then. Unless the killer is stealthing, they're not too hard to find. Heck, make obnoxious sound notifications to bring them over. The average killer would be happy to end a trial quickly in such a situation too.
In this case the length is proportional to how much the survivor wants the escape. It's 99% unlikely both will make it out alive, albeit I remember one trial ages ago when there were 2 of us left with 3 or 2 gens to go, and we both escaped despite the killer's best efforts. Depends on the story you want.
4 -
Both 2v1 and 3v1 situations desperately need to be looked at. This is going to sound unpopular but there needs to be a catch up mechanic for when a survivor dies early to keeps survivors engaged instead of what we have now where the game grinds to a halt and the survivors eventually all die. For me this is the biggest pain point in the game, before it was manageable since you could just die on hook but now that its removed you are forced to stay in the match for several more minutes than before. Complete misery for everyone involved, even as a killer because now if you want an actual interesting match you need to play worse to give the other side a chance.
27 -
wrong answer. you're supposed to escape, obviously
3 -
- When these things happen (2 dead survs and 3 gens left) ... I try to make the most "flashy" plays possible, I work on gens etc etc, I try to "force" the chase and use all the resources the map offers. It makes no sense (for me) to play stealth, now it's victory for killer, so I try to "have fun" as much as I can. You can't realistically do anything else. Escaping in pairs is impossible (unless the killer is a complete idiot)
5 -
bhvr should add a rock paper scissors mini game and who whatever loses gets their aura revealed for the rest of the trial, and this only triggers when 2 survivors are left alive and no gens has been done in 5 mins
this is optional for course :)
edit : aren't yall just a fun bunch
Post edited by PigWithTvs on3 -
It's probably one of the biggest issues in DbD and its potentially unfixable.
Because survivors are allowed, and even encouraged, to play for themselves, the logical thing to do in this scenario is hide and hope the other is caught first. Except that is really boring and draws out the game. You could potentially allow an abandon mechanic or something like that in this situation, but there are players who don't enjoy that as well (BHVR also made a couple of unforced errors on that issue as well).
7 -
While you're not wrong, this situation does mean the game kinda grinds to a halt and nothing happens. If possible, it would be a good idea to try and make sure all three players are still engaged.
I've pitched before that the hatch should spawn, but not open, with two survivors left alive. Ideally this would mean the two survivors are moving around to try and find that hatch, then moving around to chests to try and find a key, or something. With a few tweaks to make sure people bringing a key don't guarantee the last two escaping (something like the hatch closing again and respawning somewhere else after it's used) and to make sure the killer can't just camp the hatch for the same outcome as now (making it invisible to them until it's open, for example), I think that'd help make the 2v1 a bit more engaging.
11 -
The issue was supposed to have been fixed in phase 1, with the AFK crows. The whole point of the AFK crows, was that it was supposed to punish survivors that were excessively hiding, which is why it was called "hiding prevention".
BHVR declared excessive hiding as problematic survivor behavior, and intended for the solution to be AFK crows, but then people complained so the entire AFK crow mechanic got nerfed into uselessness. I've seen a grand total of ZERO survivors revealed by AFK crows, ever since they were nerfed. And I'm STILL stuck searching the entire map when all the remaining survivors decide to excessively hide, but the AFK crows are so useless that they never reveal these survivors.
-7 -
It's called a hatch game. Hope that you're not the one found first.
-2 -
Just keep trying and deal with it. There is no "catch up mechanic" when the scoreboard shows a huge lead, but the game is still played till the end.
4 -
Me personally, I do these:
If neither of us are in danger, I work on gens.
If the other survivor is being chased, if they are on death hook, I head to known hatch spawns. Otherwise, I attempt a rescue. Next person who gets caught. The other tries for hatch.
If I'm in chase, I try to get the killer as far away from the other survivor as possible. Once hooked, I give up on hook to give the other survivor a hatch chance.
6 -
I could agree with this but surely killers should have catch up mechanics too, i regularly lose 4 gens and i have like 1 or 2 hooks. At that point the game is lost.
4 -
Unfortunately the only way to make a good catchup mechanic is to make it equal for both sides. This means if the Killer is struggling, gens will grind to a near halt until they start to even the score out, too. But that isn't fun for Survivor, is it? It wouldn't be fun for me as Survivor.
The unfortunate truth is you have to accept that such a game is a loss if the Killer plays hard, which many do because the game tells you to. Chill players on Killer side are few and far between; there is no incentive to be nice and take the 3k or even the 2k. The game doesn't allow for it, and punishes you with less points if you do. The same is true on Survivor side, there is no incentive to befriending the Killer except you dying.
Losing on both sides feels unfun and punishing, more than losing should a loss should only ever feel like an "aww dang, maybe next round" moment and currently it feels like a "no, bad, do better loser".
Besides we have something like this in 2v8. It feels bad there, it is bad there, it's not a fun mechanic and not really the solution you want. I promise it's not.
Post edited by LockerLurk on8 -
I really like the "catch up mechanism" idea. It would be an intrinsic anti- tunneling mechanism too.
I get a LoL out of "killers need a catch up mechanic tooooo"
The game skews killer the longer it runs. Pallets get burned. The killer has fewer gens to patrol. Consumables are gone. And I pick up a hook or two at endgame, every other game.
That's your catch-up mechanic.
But that's cool. When we're down to two, I'll be the one rapidly exiting lockers to distract you and then hiding.
Over and over.
For five minutes or so.
Post edited by TiSeraph on-12 -
Yes and no.
Yes: The killer can fall behind. I wouldn't be opposed to the concept up catch up mechanics there, but there are three differences.
1: The inherent catch up mechanic the killer has is less gens to defend. Now depending on how much they have been split (and the killer type, pallets left on the map, etc), this can mean with 4 gens done and 1 or 2 hooks the match still might be somewhat even (no good pallets, survivor hooked in the center of a 3 gen), or an easy end for the survivors (gen spread out, killer who doesn't have good map speed).
Broadly speaking though, a killer already has much more capability to come back from being way behind already than the survivors do .
2: Killers can still get a 1k. Some players don't care about this, but in BHVR's metrics a 1k is a better result than a 0k, and getting kills is always possible with a killer basically until the very end of the game.
Survivors version of this is hatch, but the 2 player situation creates a 'what do we do now?' type of scenario.
3: The time scale. Barring blatant BMing, survivors can finish the gens and leave. With the two survivors left their logical course of actions, if they are trying to maximize escaping is hiding, and hoping the other survivor is caught. Even if they put in place more anti-hiding mechanics, the survivors goal (again presuming they are trying to maximize their chances at the goal and not violating the rule about ratting out the other survivor) is to do just enough to not trigger the anti-hide mechanic.
This is a problem somewhat unique to DbD's elimination format. Mismatches happen in all games. In something like a Team Deathmatch or Control Point, by the time its clear its a mismatch, the game is probably getting close to over, because mismatches inherently result in quicker games. A mismatch in the killer's favor, without any BMing whatsoever and players just trying to maximize their chance at the game's objective, can still really draw the match out.
1 -
Make Gens 100 seconds when 4 survivors alive, 75 when 3 and 50 seconds when 2 alive. Thats the best i can come up with thats fair for both sides.
-6 -
Killers do have catch-up mechanics. Less gens to patrol, less pallets for Survivors to use, and those "un-fun" strategies such as tunneling, camping, or slugging. On top of all that, they have perks that can easily turn a game around, like Devour Hope, or dedicated endgame perks like Terminus, No Way Out, Remember Me, or NOED. Heck, yesterday I faced a Ghostface who only had one hook when we busted out the gens, but thanks to NOED, the match ended in a 3k, and me feeling awful about leaving everyone else to die on first or second hook.
Meanwhile, if Survivors have a bad start, they just can't recover. The Killer essentially wins the game by only completing half of their objective.
12 -
That would be endgame. It's common for me to pick up one or two kills in endgame.
4 -
Not much, I'm afraid. I usually just try to work on gens, since that is what I usually do anyway, and if the killer hooks me then I let go. Give my teammate a chance to find hatch and escape.
4 -
It is a ######### situation. I still just play normal to get in as many BPs as I can before the inevitable happens.
4 -
Not much to be honest. Its a loss.
I got insanely lucky yesterday with a juicer Jill of a teammate and I actually got 3 gens done against a huntress on springwood.
She saved her styptic til the end and got great distance for a LONG chase, eventually she got on hook at the end.
Huntress was running her iri one shot addon and tunneled/camped out 2 survivors stupid fast.
One survivor barely got like 2k points it was so sad to watch, completely unnecessary play.
But she whiffed here at the end with her iri hatchet and we got out 😂
3 gens and a 2v1 I bagged HARD.
Justice.
7 -
Agreed. I've always wanted them to transport a random survivor to the void with the killer, similar to the Halloween events. The other survivor has to do a 60 charge gen to force endgame while the survivor in the void has to last for 60+ seconds. Adds tension to the situation and adds a comeback mechanic to potentially get a draw. Gives the survivors that are still alive a chance to impact the outcome.
Maybe make it so the void survivor is instantly eliminated if they don't make it 60 seconds. Block the last gen and open hatch like normal. Also eliminates slugging for the 4k.
It still favors the killer. End a chase in under a minute. Not a tall order in most cases. But it smooths out the pacing issues in a 2v1 with multiple remaining gens.
-3 -
So people getting crows while working on objectives or doing the correct play of hiding during no way out was a good thing? Are you being intentionally facetious?
5 -
You have to be careful with catchup mechanics, because if not done properly or carefully, you just end up rewarding someone for playing badly. You should not be punished for playing well and have your opponent be rewarded for playing badly.
Ideally instead of a "Catchup mechanic" the game should just fundamentally be designed at a core level to not snowball as hard. For example if survivors shared the 1st hook state, then you couldn't be eliminated from them atch until the 6 hook at the absolute earliest. That would help solve much of that snowball potential.
On the other side of things, adding in more basekit gen defense that is gained through more rewarding gameplay like hooking survivors would go a long way to helping out the killer side.
11 -
At that point the games over unless one of the survivors goes on a God tier chase. Best thing to do imo is simply try to rack up as many points as possible before the end.
4 -
"The correct play of hiding"? So if killers do "the correct play of slugging", they shouldn't be punished?
-1 -
Most of the time this happens while I play killer it just turns into the world's dumbest, most unnecessary game of hide forever since neither survivor wants to give themselves up. Caught last 2 sitting in basement lockers together; it was petty but I slugged them both. Waste my time for no reason and I do the same
I really wish there was a mercy rule. 3+ gens at 2 survs down? Spawn that hatch. Soon as it closes by killer or 1 surv escaping, exit gates are powered.
I want to see a real hatch race. Force the survs to get moving. Maybe one looks and one waits for gate. Maybe they hide at separate exit gates and wait for killer to close hatch. Maybe survs race against eachother and killer. Maybe surv gives it to other surv. Think about all the interesting moments it could make.
3 kills is already killer win. If a mercy rule cuts down on my 4ks I don't care. If nobody ever escapes there's no potential hope to feed on1.
I see literally no downside. 2 survs left at 5,4,3 gens? Mercy rule. Close game out with hype moments and aura and then everyone can move on
1 -
Honestly, this is one of the biggest issues with the balance of the game. If the Killer hasn't killed a single Survivor by the time all the gens are done, they still have ways to win that aren't particularly hard - from perks to strategies, etc. But Survivors? The moment it becomes a 2v1, there's nothing you can really do, especially if you still have more than 1 gen left. That's just not good balance.
While it shouldn't be a guarantee, Survivors need something - a perk, maybe the hatch spawning (but not open), or anything else someone could think of to give them a chance in this no-win situation. Something that won't screw over the Killer, but will give Survivors a chance.
-5 -
It's a valid question. If the Killer camps/tunnels/slugs early on, especially if someone dies, there's not much that can be done. But giving up is also not really allowed anymore. So you just have to pretend you're a bot.
8 -
I have been saying this many times
The game should be designed and balanced around 2k
Once 2 survivors are dead at 5 to 2 gens, the remaining 2 are auto sacrificed
-15 -
It would fit the PVE direction the game has gone.
6 -
or... you could do gens.... just saying
-1 -
That’s what others and myself said we do. Let’s be real unless the killer shows mercy, goes afk or is completely clueless those 3 remaining gens are not getting done.
8 -
I see. You are just being intentionally obtuse. Why is this even being brought up when your entire message was ranting about the AFK crows and not the slugging?
BHVR declared excessive hiding as problematic survivor behavior, and intended for the solution to be AFK crows, but then people complained so the entire AFK crow mechanic got nerfed into uselessness.
People complained because you got AFK crows while performing actions on gens, totems, gates, healing other survivors, chests, and crows while hiding from the killer during no way outs timer.
The correct or best choice for a survivor while No Way Out is active is to hide, which under this system was giving them crows despite actively participating in the game.
I've seen a grand total of ZERO survivors revealed by AFK crows, ever since they were nerfed.
There's an argument to be made that the timer was changed to be too long but given that it was changed in a hotfix that's expected. However, this system is just flawed and really should be more complex than it is.
I'll entertain the blatantly "whataboutism" of your reply though I don't think it'll ever be good enough.
With this hypothetical anti slug change coming in phase 2 there is zero indication that the change will in any way punish killers for slugging in the normal course of gameplay. The last change that "negatively" impacted killer gameplay in this manner would be the Anti-Face Camping mechanic. This "punishment" of having to stand up to 16 meters away actually benefits killers more since it gives them more clear lines of sight on survivors coming in to save their teammates. Proxy camping has always been way more beneficial for Killers to apply pressure than face camping and this change provided the negative feedback necessary to incentivize killers to move away from the hook to a position that arguably is better for them than just sitting right in front of the hook (before there was no "negative" feedback. i.e. a consequence for their action in game).
The comments around the Anti-slug changes have almost consistently been expressing that the focus of the mechanic is aimed at the "excessive" slugging rather than punishing the killer for slugging that is a necessity (under a pallet and what not). Given how the AFC mechanic has been a tool that encourages "proxy camping" over face camping which is better for the killer anyways I am not expecting anything that isn't a net positive for the killer at the end of the day. But who knows, maybe the real issue is shoulder the burden and how that punishes the killer for breathing.
3 -
You are not wrong, but we should still strive for a better game. Just saying "oh well it is what it is" and keeping the current system is not productive. Although not always true, both sides shouldn't feel like one bad decision can lead to losing the entire game.
Its a tricky issue for sure and needs to be done right. I'm also positive the devs are aware of it, but not high on their to do list as it's not a prominent concern among the community (but it should be!). Your idea sounds good on paper and I hope they end up using the limited time events to try some basekit changes to help combat this and other issues plaguing the game.
2 -
This would be a terrible move. There are only a few things that would make me give up playing all together and this would be one. You'd think they could come up with a better idea in this scenario than just sacrificing the remaining two.
2 -
The problem with that, the survivors now have much less incentive to save someone on death hook. Gens before friends actually becomes a powerful strategy. This leads to two problems
1: A sense for the killer that their progress means nothing. Don't eliminate a survivor, you have to face 4 of them, eliminate a survivor and the remaining ones do gens faster.
2: Now instead of feeling pointless being alive, it now feels pointless when you are on hook and know people are not coming for you. Especially given the current anti-go next, you still have survivors being stuck, just in a different position.
2 -
The forum comments around anti-slugging very often suggested giving survivors a basekit unbreakable, that can activate even when the survivors forced the killer to slug.
-2 -
Unfortunately not even half sometimes. Hard tunneling the first survivor basically makes the game a race to see if the survivors can finish 3 or 4 gens before the killer gets 3 hooks.
If they can't get 3 gens done, the killer basically wins the game. If they can get 3-4 gens done, there's still a chance the killer wins the game.
The only way anyone is escaping if 3+ gens are left when the first survivor dies, is if the killer consciously chooses to allow hatch to come into play (most won't), or if the killer severely misplays repeatedly or stops playing entirely (like afk or disconnection).
2 -
Almost every time any anti-slug is talked about, the person speaking acknowledges that sometimes the killer needs to slug. Very few people argue otherwise.
So… yes. There are circumstances where the correct play is hiding, there are circumstances where the correct play is slugging, and players broadly speaking shouldn't be punished for either.
11 -
Yep. Survivors have to play flawlessly, or else they just lose, and I believe this was the core of the go-next epidemic.
0 -
You literally suggested an anti-slugging mechanic, that gave survivors a basekit unbreakable, even if the survivors forced the killer to slug.
4 -
Almost!
I suggested an anti-slugging mechanic that would allow survivors to get themselves up off the ground, but that was specifically designed to still allow the killer to slug people when the survivors forced it. I even put something in that post for people doing unhookable builds, just to make absolutely certain the killer still had answers to these kinds of situations.
What you're doing here is acting like because you disagreed with the idea, that means I wanted to punish the killer for making the correct play and slugging. That's not what actually happened, though; as I said in my previous post here, what happened is that I talked about anti-slugging while acknowledging that sometimes the killer needs to slug.
You're reinforcing my point, here.
3 -
Your suggestion gave survivors unbreakable, even when the survivors forced the killer to slug.
For example, if there is only one hook that is within hooking range, and it is currently broken because of the Breakdown perk, your suggestion would still give the survivor basekit unbreakable, even though the killer literally can't hook the survivor, and therefore is forced to slug the survivor.
1 -
That post talks extensively about how sometimes killers need to slug, and attempts to provide a way forward that still preserves their ability to do it.
You disagreeing with the idea doesn't change that.
3 -
You still gave survivors basekit unbreakable, even when the survivors forced the killer to slug. And therefore you were still punishing killers for slugging, even when the survivors forced the killer to slug.
The fact that your post talked about slugging extensively, doesn't change the fact that you still gave survivors the basekit unbreakable.
0 -
Again, you're just relitigating that you disagree with me.
The point is that "if survivors need to hide sometimes, killers need to slug sometimes" isn't a gotcha when almost everyone - including the people you disagree with - will just answer "yes, true".
5 -
That might be a useful anti-tunneling mechanic though. It would encourage spreading the hook states around since if the killer tries to tunnel someone out, the survivors might let them and get a buff because of it. You could have something in place where it only triggers if each hook state was reached because of a separate hooking - that way no one could argue it’s efficient to just leave someone on hook to die.
0 -
Question for you: Did your anti-slugging suggestion give survivors a basekit unbreakable, in situations where the killer was literally unable to hook the survivor?
This is a YES or NO question.
-7 -
Alright, man, I gave it a shot. You do you.
6
