http://dbd.game/killswitch
Thoughts on this suggestion? (Secondary goals, efficiency playing and random rewards)
Hi there. I stopped playing DbD quite a long time ago since I found it enfuriating, but recently I re-installed it again, and while I haven't played yet I have been reading these forums again, and so I see the game is facing the same issues it has always suffered from (efficiency in playing, toxicity, lack of secondary goals) so I thought of a little something that I think it might be a little help in 'solving' some of them. But I would like honest insight from seasoned players.
First and foremost I'd like to address the lack of secondary goals, and while what I thought of isn't actually a goal per se, I do think it might offer a little reward to try and entice players to explore the maps a bit. And what I thought of was the addition of some well hidden, eerie chests (a random amount per map, maybe 3 or 4) which would reward players with something the likes of iri add-ons (not applicable in trial, but it would go straight to the character add-on pool), a random amount of BP (ranging from, say, 5000 to 30000) and, what is most important to this point, and also highly unlikely, a very rare chance to find some low amount of iri shards (say, 5 to 20).
Now addressing the 'efficiency' in playing the game for each side. How about adding some levers to the maps (the number depending on the size of each map) which would 'activate' the gens. So whenever a gen is completed, the levers pop and survivors are unable to work on gens until one of the levers is activated (no regression applied, simply the inability to work on them).
This would be paired with a stronger anti camping and tunnelling measures I'm still working on, and a new addition for the killer. An 'entity gauge'. So for each survivor being hooked, advancing a stage or sacrificed, the gauge increases. Whenever the gauge is full, the entity stops working and needs to be reactivated by making an offering in the basement. Now, this would create a complication if, say, the killer decides to guard the basement and hooks several survivors there. So maybe if there are at least 2 survivors in the basement at any given time, the offering would need to be done on a different, random spot.
So, if you've read this far, please share your opinion and I would appreciate if you try to be respectful. No need to be rude. Thanks anyway, to those of you who stay here after this, and any insight provided will be interesting and valuable.
Comments
-
Hiya! Thanks for taking your time to read and post a reply. About my name, not sure. I tried to participate in a respectful and constructive way but most likely ended up being the opposite since disrespectful attitudes tend to bring out the worst in me. Anyway, nice of you to remember (if remembered correctly).
I know rewarding Iri shards is most likely the biggest issue BHVR could have with this system. That's why I think making the chance for them to drop be extremely low (maybe 3%) and then giving diffferent quantities based on probability once again (say 60% chance to get 5 Iri Shards, 30% to get 10, 10% to get 20) could sweeten the deal. Specially when we're talking about 3 - 4 chests per map. Like, when you add all those conditions up, how many Iri Shards would they actually be giving away? And then you do need to take into account that players need to be invested into going out of their way to try and find them or else they will just be mostly ignored. That's what I thought when 'designing' the system. I already tried to desing different goals but all of them felt not worthy or more like a punishment for survivors, which wasn't fair.
And in regards to the 'efficiency' solutions I proposed -and yes, your understanding on the levers design is correct-, why do you think it wouldn't work if paired with the levers idea? The way I see it, balance in the game is extremely difficult to achieve, and making one side 'suffer' a minor setback could really change the whole game, so imo, it goes without saying that if I'm changing things for survivors to need more actual time to complete their goals, killer needs something similar too. That's why I thought an 'entity gauge' could be an interesting idea to work around. This kind of works like a snowball breaker in my head. Of course, it might turn out entirely different from expected, hence why I'd like to read different opinions and insight.
As for the anti camping and tunneling measures… Well, that I know some killer players won't ever accept. But I usually play -used to play- both roles evenly and I disliked having gens pop in no time as much as a killer tunneling and camping, and so tried to not rely on any of those tactics. And yet I'm trying to take into account both the fact that sometimes a killer might be 'forced' to play around a hook or hit a survivor abusing off the hook buffs as well as the fact that survivors need some buff to compensate for a extremely aggressive tunneling or camping killer to have a chance. And tbh I don't really find an in between solution I feel comfortable with.-1 -
Those chests have one big problem. They are valued differently by every player. Nothing is stopping me from ignoring them if i value a win more. And while some players need whats in there, others have over 100k shards, plenty of addons and bp.
0 -
I like the idea of a secondary objective, and sure, free iris? Gimme.
However, I worry what this might do for player mentality. Do survivors immediately disregard the actual gameplay loop to search for eerie chests? How many times are you going to be left on hook until stage 2 because Leon found a box and must unlock it before someone else finds it? Or how often are you going to be the only one working on progressing the gamestate while your stalwart allies scour the map for a reward that won't apply until their next game, one you are very unlikely to be a part of unless SWF. It'd essentially be a form of throwing.
I just know people will over-engage with this system as you describe it because there's potential 'money' on the line with iri shards.
I think the reward for prospective new objective should be tied exclusively to the current match.-1 -
You both raise very good points I hadn't considered. I mean, obviously I had considered different people valueing rewards differently, but not to the point that they might be a good chunk of the playerbase who either have thousands of iri shards, buy the stuff they want with money or simply don't care. I always thought that 'hey, there's a chance to have some nice rewards for free, so why not have a look around if we have free time?'. But yeah, I guess there will always be people who rather have an easy win over 20 Iri Shards (or more accurately, the possibility of getting 20 iri shards).
And do you really think the rewards are 'good' enough that a noticeable percentage of the playerbase will throw a game or postpone other more vital actions for a chance to get some decent rewards? I'm not doubting your point, at all. In fact, I do believe I should have thought of it myself. But I do wonder, what would an estimated average percentage of the playerbase be who acted like that? And what rewards for the current match could incentivize disengaging with the main goal enough for people to risk an assured win?
I considered that option myself but every reward I could think of benefits the already winning side, so there's no actual point in it.-1 -
Eerie chests - @zonkednb mentions this, but it really throws off concepts of how the game gets balanced. If some survivors groups do all the chests, and others just focus on the objectives, you have two very differing standards to balance the killer around (same with killers - you also have an issue of people preferring speedy killers to get chests)
Efficiency/Levers - Conceptually, fine, but the problem with most 'secondary objectives' is that my adding layers of complexity to the survivors completing their objective, you create a larger gap between SWFs and soloq. SWFs could coordinate one group on the gens while already having someone running to the levers, something soloq would likely struggle with.
Entity Gauge - Hard to balance the idea around differing killers speeds/teleport (Dredge jumps up the tier rankings). Having a set location instead of a set type of event is going to create larger balance issues.
Also playstyle wise, probably not very fun. You did X, now you have to do Y before the match continues.
-1
