Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
So you want a Second Objective?; An Alternative to Pressing M1!
Comments
-
Neither. I was C where in addition to the gens and gate there is a 3rd (or 4th or 5th or whatever) requirement to escaping and that the whole process takes a total of greater than 420 seconds
So simply, you want to add another gen. Because you believe the games should take longer.
The problem is, you find generators boring, so you want to transform let's say 2 of those gens into (idk) something equivalent in time. (That action would most likely translate into something of the trinity, which may very closely resemble doing a gen/prolongued progress bar.
On top of that, making the game flat out longer has also made the game very frustrating for a majority of the players in lower ranks, who now have a win-rate that drops even below 30% which is where it's currently is.You wouldn't have more choice. Every game you would still have to do the exact same.
0 -
What's the escape rate around 40%? It's less than half.
But apparantly survivors need more objectives to do.
God forbid the problem lies with the person playing killer rather than the objective time.0 -
@The_Crusader said:
What's the escape rate around 40%? It's less than half.But apparantly survivors need more objectives to do.
God forbid the problem lies with the person playing killer rather than the objective time.
At higher ranks its at 40% for survivors. Only at very high level survivors against very high level killers is the problem that killers (actually!) don't have enough time.
Which is why solutions that simply try to make the game longer would all hurt the game for the majority.
0 -
You seem to believe it’s a low survival rate because we play to escape every time?The_Crusader said:What's the escape rate around 40%? It's less than half.
But apparantly survivors need more objectives to do.
God forbid the problem lies with the person playing killer rather than the objective time.0 -
Higher ranks is actually ABOVE 40%. Closer to 45%AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@The_Crusader said:
What's the escape rate around 40%? It's less than half.But apparantly survivors need more objectives to do.
God forbid the problem lies with the person playing killer rather than the objective time.
At higher ranks its at 40% for survivors. Only at very high level survivors against very high level killers is the problem that killers (actually!) don't have enough time.
Which is why solutions that simply try to make the game longer would all hurt the game for the majority.
40% is the overall average. The range is 35-45%
0 -
For PS4 it's exactly 40%.
The other 2 are in between 40-45% I think.At lower ranks, the win-rate drops to almost 25% and that is terrify if you actually consider that at this point everybody is escaping through the hatch and not the exit gates.
The number of people escaping through gates is a lot lower.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2For PS4 it's exactly 40%.
The other 2 are in between 40-45% I think.At lower ranks, the win-rate drops to almost 25% and that is terrify if you actually consider that at this point everybody is escaping through the hatch and not the exit gates.
The number of people escaping through gates is a lot lower.
Rank 20 has a 30% winrate.
Higher ranks also actually escape via the hatch MORE than lower ranked survivors. Although it's only a 1% difference so it's probably just margin of error, and my hatch stats are not up to date
0 -
It's below 30% on all platforms at rank 20 and below 45% on all platforms in rank 1.
0 -
So the problem then becomes, how can the developers justify adding more objectives when survivors are dying anyway? Especially when you add cleansing all totems into the mix.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:For PS4 it's exactly 40%.
The other 2 are in between 40-45% I think.At lower ranks, the win-rate drops to almost 25% and that is terrify if you actually consider that at this point everybody is escaping through the hatch and not the exit gates.
The number of people escaping through gates is a lot lower.
This is why I think if they were to add more mandatory objectives gen times would be lowered a bit to compensate.
I know this isn't the answer a lot of people want or feel is fair but when the survival rate is in the 40's the developers just can't justify making it even harder.1 -
And so the survivor buff will come, but we all know that NOED alone probably accounts for a good chunk of that.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:It's below 30% on all platforms at rank 20 and below 45% on all platforms in rank 1.
Remove NOED, survivors survival rate goes up, devs can justify buffing killers in other ways to compensate.
But no some people just won't hear it.0 -
Your making the assumption That could be completely wrong,The_Crusader said:
So the problem then becomes, how can the developers justify adding more objectives when survivors are dying anyway? Especially when you add cleansing all totems into the mix.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:For PS4 it's exactly 40%.
The other 2 are in between 40-45% I think.At lower ranks, the win-rate drops to almost 25% and that is terrify if you actually consider that at this point everybody is escaping through the hatch and not the exit gates.
The number of people escaping through gates is a lot lower.
This is why I think if they were to add more mandatory objectives gen times would be lowered a bit to compensate.
I know this isn't the answer a lot of people want or feel is fair but when the survival rate is in the 40's the developers just can't justify making it even harder.0 -
@The_Crusader said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:It's below 30% on all platforms at rank 20 and below 45% on all platforms in rank 1.
And so the survivor buff will come, but we all know that NOED alone probably accounts for a good chunk of that.
Remove NOED, survivors survival rate goes up, devs can justify buffing killers in other ways to compensate.
But no some people just won't hear it.
I'm cool with a NOED nerf assuming counterbalancing occurs. Hell these additional objectives could even BE the counterbalencing.
Anyways though, the issue isn't the 45-30% escape rate, the issue is that the KILLER winrate is only 25%. So either we need to lower the survivor winrate, raise the killer winrate or a mix of both
To lower survivor winrate most effectively you need to make the killer early game easier/longer
To raise killer winrate most effectively you need to make killer end game easier (that means hatch)0 -
But yeah. Specific things that are too strong:
Decisive strike
Insta-heal Syringe
NOED
Ebony Mori1 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Maelstrom10with parts though a gen should never take more then 60-80 seconds to complete (this includes, building and installing time, not the time between benches and the actual gen as well as the time after all parts are installed.) but without atleast a single part there should be a efficiency penalty for toolboxes and time taken. i guess thats where a brand new part could come into play? @AlwaysInAGoodShape that a bnp toolbox would let you skip making one part (effectively the 10-20s of making one, and the transportation time)
Interesting. So indeed, there are a LOT more options on the table, especially when it comes to toolboxes. And with more freedom in exploring (hefty) generator regression there must be a way to turn even the toolbox gen-rushes into something that the killer will be at fault for.
BNP, (correct me if I'm wrong) adds 25%? If with my numbers from the OP you'd add 1 part instead, then that'd actually be very funcationl!
Normally it's "a chance" of adding 25% (skillchecks are not up to change in high level play) but in what you suggest it would be 15/80*100 = 18.75%.
Conceptually it also does make a lot of sense. Why not xDExactly! it would make bnp consistent in the case of it, though tbh the skillchecks are easy enough to hit that i think balancing it around 25% seems fair for an ultra rare, and maybe 10-15% for a rare (or just getting rid of the penalty on gens)
Post edited by Maelstrom10 on1 -
Wow. This has been excruciating to read.
Lets see if I can get through to him.
AlwaysInAGoodShape, when people are telling you it is a "sidequest" and they are "still doing a gen" there is a reason for that,
This is because "doing a gen" is holding M1 and watching a progress bar go next to a gen.
Your suggestion does not make that any different in any capacity. In order to complete the game a survivor will have to sit next to a gen and hold M1 until the progress bar fills up.
There is no argument that parts make it different. Parts make it shorter but shorter is not different, a short human is still a human, and a quick gen is still a gen.
This is why people think your idea is a sidequest. Because it doesn't actually change anything that matters. In order to leave a gate a survivor will have to hold M1 on a gen for, absolute minimum, 10 seconds, in your OP.
That is no arguable. You can not say that "part gens are different" because they arn't they're faster not different
Atleast I believe that has been the general position. That when people say "doing a gen" they're not talking about how long they do the gen for, just that the action of holding M1 next to a gen is still the same, and thus it is still "doing a gen" 0 parts or 5.
This is why a secondary objective, in order to be an objective and not a sidequest needs to do something other than have survivors hold M1 on a gen. Because feeling is important and how players feel emotionally about a game isn't defined by the META.
0 -
@Free_Hugs
Try the stick example. You no longer have to do a gen; you have to do a stick.
How is doing the stick a sidequest if you don't have to do a gen either? Doesn't that make doing a gen a sidequest also?0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape I wish the devs would implement this into the ptb for experimentation purposes so that even if it doesn't get implemented, atleast the idea is put across
1 -
No. Listen. Don't try to evade the argument.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Free_Hugs
Try the stick example. You no longer have to do a gen; you have to do a stick.
How is doing the stick a sidequest if you don't have to do a gen either? Doesn't that make doing a gen a sidequest also?
I am telling you why, in your OP aaand for several pages after, people were telling you they were still just "doing gens" because "doing gens" is pressing M1 next to a generator while a progress bar fills up, which your suggestion still did.
I am hoping to alleviate you confusion and to create a bridge of understanding so you may hold a conversation with the others where you are talking to them rathert than past them.0 -
@Free-Hugs
>No. Listen. Don't try to evade the argument.
No argument is being evaded. Doing Part-Generators is simply just as much of a side-quest as doing flat generators are as demonstrated.
>I am telling you why, in your OP aaand for several pages after, people were telling you they were still just "doing gens" because "doing gens" is pressing M1 next to a generator while a progress bar fills up, which your suggestion still did.
Yes, they are doing gens, genius? But doing gens no longer means 1 thing. Doing Gens no longer means that you have to sit still doing a generator. Doing a generator a certain way is literally impossible if you don't move. You cannot complete a part-generator without moving.
The parameter that makes x "the same" is not a word under which is it categorised, but the difference in EXPERIENCE that it creates.
Let's call doing Flat generators doing gens.
Let's call doing Part-generators doing gens.
Let's call going to a swimming pool doing gens.
Let's call breathing doing gens.
Let's call playing DBD doing gens.
Let's call eating doing gens.
See how we can categorise a million things under 1 name, depending on how we call it? If you find doing a FLAT generator boring, that doesn't mean that you find breathing boring, because even though you can categorise them under 1 term doesn't make them the same thing.
Doing a Flat gen =/= doing a Part gen =/= breathing. The parameter of the "boring objective" isn't that someone is "doing a generator"; it is someone doing a FLAT GENERATOR. (Aka a prolonged progression bar, whether is it s generator, or whether it's healing, or whether it's x that takes too long.)
Now, in DBD you are either doing 3 things when there's no killer:
You are walking/searching, you are either doing a progress bar at a certain location (from anywhere to 0 seconds to infinite) or you're picking stuff up.
---
So you mainly have 2 parameters:
A: Doing something with a different name (/appearance) makes doing an objective different.
B: The experience and required inputs is what makes doing an objective different.
If your parameter for a "different objective" is A, then this would be a "new objective":
Instead of having to do 5 gens, there are only 4 Generators and 4 Cankers. Completing a generator or a Canker takes 80 seconds, cause skill-checks and can be regressed after being kicked.
To me, this is doing "the same thing", because my parameter is B. It doesn't create a new experience and required input. You are doing exactly the same thing. To you this is revolutionary, because after all, Cankers are not "doing generators"!
Since my parameter is B, doing a different objective means that they create a different experience through different inputs. This means that "doing a generator" doesn't have to be the same. Instead, doing a Canker and a Flat Generator are the same. Where as a Flat Generator and a Part-Generator are distinct from one another.
(That is what the wooden stick example illustrates. It simply changes up words.)
---
Now, there is a distinction between the main objective and a side-quest; a side-quest is of NO contribution to the main objective, which is both wrong for doing flat gens and doing part gens.
It is wrong for doing part gens since doing and adding a part is basically progressing an unregressable 15 seconds from the total timer of 420/440 seconds.
Through Parted Generators (or call them sticks if you will), you can complete the entire game, without ever touching a Flat Partless vanilla generator, where as in the main game, you can only do Flat Gens.
(The only thing that would make doing the exact same thing doing something different, is when it has a different purpose, like the difference between healing and doing a flat gen, which are both doing a progress bar. We are talking about main objectives here, so their purpose is mainly the same.)
Post edited by AlwaysInAGoodShape on0 -
-
AlwaysInAGoodShape
In your OP, did you state that the minimum time needed to repair a generator with 5 parts on it was 10 seconds?0 -
@Free_Hugs said:
AlwaysInAGoodShapeIn your OP, did you state that the minimum time needed to repair a generator with 5 parts on it was 10 seconds?
Correct. A generator; not a flat generator.
In this case a Part-Generator (or a stick with beef if you will)0 -
Correct. That period of time, the instance of time in which a survivor is holding M1 and prompting a progress bar next to a gen regardless of the duration a survivor is doing so, is communally accepted as "doing a gen"
Note that, no matter how quickly a survivor does that action, it is still "doing a gen" as gen tapping consists of instances lasting less than 2 seconds. So a 10 second duration of time in which a survivor is next to a gen holding M1 to progress a bar would still be universally accepted as "doing a gen"
Can this mutually understood phrasing of "doing a gen" be accepted for reference moving forward, please, AlwaysInAGoodShape?0 -
Can this mutually understood phrasing of "doing a gen" be accepted for reference moving forward, please, AlwaysInAGoodShape?
be accepted? This has never not been accepted by anyone. If this was what you wanted to get accepted then you've been arguing against non-existing people.
What I've been arguing about is that in the not vanilla version of the game (the OP) doing a generator means 2 different things (Part generators and Flat generators);
New (hypothetical) OP
When installing the first part to a generator, it transforms into a flower. The time it takes to finish a flower overlaps that of the OP with x parts as variable)My argument is that in the above mentioned hypothetical case, you'd not be doing generators, neither would you be doing anything different than mentioned in the OP.
See how you're BOTH "not doing generators" while ALSO doing the exact same as in the OP? Strange isn't it.Do you notice how you can do the flowers and escape without ever finishing a generator? Meaning that generators are optional? That means that doing generators is a "side-quest". Weird isn't it?
(now replace flowers with Part-generators and replace generators with Flat generators)
(and if you understood that example, notice how you committing to that answer makes you directly state that: The difference between a side-quest and a main quest is DECIDED by the COSMETICS of an object)0 -
..
1 -
No Paddy. The parameter for distinguishing a main objective and a side-objective is not the cosmetics of an object.
If your point is that you still have to do a progress bar at an adjusted model of a generator for 10 seconds, no, that is not what makes it a side-objective, which means your "point" isn't even related to your claim.
0 -
Why are you editing your posts and then replying to me as if I was replying to a post that didn’t exist at the time of reply???AlwaysInAGoodShape said:No Paddy. The parameter for distinguishing a main objective and a side-objective is not the cosmetics of an object.
1 -
That is the point, though. It is **not** two different things, even in your alternate version of the game.
Because in the end, you're still doing the same thing, "doing a gen" that we agreed upon. Standing beside a generator, holding M1, watching a progress bar.
Your idea is not different enough. That is what everyone has been trying get through to you for the past 8 pages.
Your idea isn't different enough to not just be "doing a gen" still.
When people ask for a secondary objective, they want it to not be doing a gen.0 -
Since you clearly need extra explanation. Chances are that you still don't know what a flat gen is.
0 -
@Free_Hugs said:
That is the point, though. It is not two different things, even in your alternate version of the game.Because in the end, you're still doing the same thing, "doing a gen" that we agreed upon. Standing beside a generator, holding M1, watching a progress bar.
Your idea is not different enough. That is what everyone has been trying get through to you for the past 8 pages.
Your idea isn't different enough to not just be "doing a gen" still.
Well, hugs. I see your point, but this is not what me and paddy were arguing about.
We were arguing whether doing parts was a "side-objective" or not, and I've been trying to explain him/her that in any system through which there are 2 ways to complete the mian objective (to escape) neither of the 2 (or 3/4/5) are mandatory, but all are main objectives as through every route you can complete the main objective.
What is mandatory is that you have to pick from those 2(or/3/4/5) options to finish your main goal, which makes it a main objective.It is that basic fact that we've been arguing about.
0 -
LmfaoAlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Free_Hugs said:
That is the point, though. It is not two different things, even in your alternate version of the game.Because in the end, you're still doing the same thing, "doing a gen" that we agreed upon. Standing beside a generator, holding M1, watching a progress bar.
Your idea is not different enough. That is what everyone has been trying get through to you for the past 8 pages.
Your idea isn't different enough to not just be "doing a gen" still.
Well, hugs. I see your point, but this is not what me and paddy were arguing against.
We were arguing whether doing parts was a "side-objective" or not, and I've been trying to explain him/her that in any system through which there are 2 ways to complete the mian objective (to escape) neither of the 2 (or 3/4/5) are mandatory, but all are main objectives as through every route you can complete the main objective.It is that basic fact that we've been arguing about.
1 -
You: Amazing idea definitely see everyone doing this optional side quest.
You: The objective that I'm going to create will not be mandatory..... and if it’s not mandatory it’s.......
Me: I wouldn't call it an optional side quest. It's 1 of the 2 main routes through which you can complete your objective. With the current variables typically slower than choosing route A but with more late-game security.
If your mission was to fill a glass with liquid and you could choose to fill it with either cola or orange juice, I wouldn't call filling the glass with cola you doing an optional side-quest to filling the glass. It'd be doing the main objective.
You:The objective that I'm going to create will not be mandatory..... and if it’s not mandatory Its???**
You dropped the ball there.
The flat generators weren't necessary when you could do the stick with beefs.
In a multi-route through which you can complete the main objective, neither route is mandatory. Only the mix or sole use of 1 of the, in the pool of routes is mandatory.You tried to weasel out after I replaced the word, since you couldn't answer it. Then you tried to say that you "said different things", while everything you typed is saved xD
This was your argument:
You: Amazing idea definitely see everyone doing this optional side quest.
"Nobody would be doing it since it's a side-quest."
Then I showed you how it's a main quest with the 1000 second gen example, showing there are 2 routes and everything is determined by META.No matter how much you try to distance yourself from your own claims, it's saved. Everyone can read the blatantly false claims. xD
0 -
That is where you are missing the point, though, Always.
Have you asked Paddy why they consider your idea a "side quest" instead of a secondary objective?
It is because, by definition, a "secondary objective" can't be the same objective as the main objective. That just makes it an alternative path, a "side quest" as Paddy refers to it.
No matter what you argue, it will be impossible to convince anyone you've been discussing with that what you suggested is a "secondary objective" because "doing a gen" is still what you are doing and a "secondary objective" is something different.
Ergo, since your suggestion is not a secondary objective as advertised in the thread title, Paddy refers to it as a side quest, in lue of alternatives that came to their mind.
More understandable?
0 -
Have you asked Paddy why they consider your idea a "side quest" instead of a secondary objective?
You're making a mistake here; when people talk about doing the main objective, they mean doing that which LEADS UP TO the main objective. It's kind of a collective word play; the main objective of course always is escaping (and to the degree the pip system/BP).
Paddy claimed that people wouldn't use the route since it's inherently a side-quest.
I showed them that it wasn't because it's purely defined by meta.No matter what you argue, it will be impossible to convince anyone you've been discussing with that what you suggested is a "secondary objective" because "doing a gen" is still what you are doing and a "secondary objective" is something different.
If I changed that gen to a flower, would it be doing a secondary objective then, if your parameter is A as we discussed a moment back?
Ergo, since your suggestion is not a secondary objective as advertised in the thread title, Paddy refers to it as a side quest, in lue of alternatives that came to their mind.
This has nothing to do with preferring. If you can complete the game through parts and flowers alone, then either doing flat generators are also "side-quests" or neither of the 2 are.
0 -
No matter what you argue, it will be impossible to convince anyone you've been discussing with that what you suggested is a "secondary objective" because "doing a gen" is still what you are doing and a "secondary objective" is something different.
Imagine it very simply: The generator gets transformed into a flower, meaning you are no longer doing a gen. All you're doing is a progress bar similar to healing, doing gens, sabotaging, etc.
Now would you call this doing a second objective then, since by your quoted reason it would be?
0 -
But you cant complete the gens through flowers alone.
If you collect 5 flowers for a gen, is it completed? Does it light up?
If it does not then it is deceptive to say that parts complete gens.0 -
@Free_Hugs said:
But you can but complete the gens through flowers alone.If you collect 5 flowers for a gen, is it completed? Does it light up?
If it does not then it is deceptive to say that parts complete gens.
No, parts and flowers. That's all you need. Now would you consider this to be a secondary objective?
0 -
Pssst I’ve always referd to the collecting of parts as a side quest that hasn’t changed, I don’t need to change my argument.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:You: Amazing idea definitely see everyone doing this optional side quest.
You: The objective that I'm going to create will not be mandatory..... and if it’s not mandatory it’s.......
Me: I wouldn't call it an optional side quest. It's 1 of the 2 main routes through which you can complete your objective. With the current variables typically slower than choosing route A but with more late-game security.
If your mission was to fill a glass with liquid and you could choose to fill it with either cola or orange juice, I wouldn't call filling the glass with cola you doing an optional side-quest to filling the glass. It'd be doing the main objective.
You:The objective that I'm going to create will not be mandatory..... and if it’s not mandatory Its???**
You dropped the ball there.
The flat generators weren't necessary when you could do the stick with beefs.
In a multi-route through which you can complete the main objective, neither route is mandatory. Only the mix or sole use of 1 of the, in the pool of routes is mandatory.You tried to weasel out after I replaced the word, since you couldn't answer it. Then you tried to say that you "said different things", while everything you typed is saved xD
This was your argument:
You: Amazing idea definitely see everyone doing this optional side quest.
"Nobody would be doing it since it's a side-quest."
Then I showed you how it's a main quest with the 1000 second gen example, showing there are 2 routes and everything is determined by META.No matter how much you try to distance yourself from your own claims, it's saved. Everyone can read the blatantly false claims. xD
You are the only person changing the scope to fit a narrative, I’ve remain consistant in my view and point.
Im aware of what I have said and I’m fine with people reading it as I don’t think or believe I’ve changed my oppinion since the first comment1 -
Pssst I’ve always referd to the collecting of parts as a side quest that hasn’t changed, I don’t need to change my argument.
You are the only person changing the scope to fit a narrative, I’ve remain consistant in my view and point.
Yes, your referral is wrong and you've not been consistent with anything xD
What I quote is literally the first things you've said. That was the part we were arguing about.
Your claim that by virtue of it being a side-objective it is not necessary, and rejecting the idea that in any system where there are multiple routes to complete anything, neither route is mandatory.You've only been trying to distance yourself from your own claims since in the 1000 gen example, you admitted that you'd never touch a flat gen xD
0 -
If you can complete a gen with 5 parts and 0 M1 holding, yes, I would be content with that being an alternate objective.0
-
You hold m1... at a crafting table, where you basically "repair" generators. (aka the 420/440 bar)
Also, if you'd install the last part for 15 seconds instead of 5 seconds and doing the gen, then it would be the same result; same gameplay, yet you'd recognise the same gameplay to be containing a different objective 1 time, but not in the other.
0 -
Don't try to be a smartass. I'm trying to make a concession for you so you can feel like you understand how to make an argument.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:You hold m1... at a crafting table, where you basically "repair" generators. (aka the 420/440 bar)
Also, if you'd install the last part for 15 seconds instead of 5 seconds and doing the gen, then it would be the same result; same gameplay, yet you'd recognise the same gameplay to be containing a different objective 1 time, but not in the other.
I feel it is not in your best interest to, in ernest detail, explain how pointless your suggestion is to alleviating any kind of problem the game currently has, so we'll just pretend you didn't do that and actually have two working braincells.
**Ahem**
Yes, if your idea is different enough such that it is distinct from "doing gens" it would be an acceptable suggestion to put forward.
Your OP was not that, thus the blowback you've been experiencing.0 -
You can basically see doing a part at doing a generator at another location. Basically you have more locations to do generators! Is that a second objective?
That is my point. In DBD everything translates into something else:
For a main objective: Holding a progress bar at x location >>> x = generator/x = crafting table/ x = whatnot >>> filling the 420/440 second bar >>> escape (win-condition; the actual objective was to escape.)Yet, you state that being able to work on generator progress in more locations is a secondary objective.
Parts are basically finishing 15 seconds of a generator that cannot be regressed.The things that makes it different/an actual new objective is that it introduces aspects of shorted time/different sounds/mandated walking for that route, etc. Which are all elements the OP also has.
0 -
Yes, if your idea is different enough such that it is distinct from "doing gens" it would be an acceptable suggestion to put forward.
Your OP was not that, thus the blowback you've been experiencing.
Then again, answer:
Turning the Gen into a flower, does this make it a second objective?0 -
Fill in the blank adlib semantics does not make a compelling argument.
So. No. this is why your suggestion is bad.0 -
0
-
Sure.
Off the top of my head, for a secondary objective, the killer has a gate key in their back pocket. A survivor must move behind the killer for at least 1 second to grab the key, which is then held as a secondary item.
A survivor must have a key to open an exit gate.1 -
Not distancing at all, just getting back to the actual idea you proposed and showing the irrelevance of an example that has no relation to what you’ve presented as an idea.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Pssst I’ve always referd to the collecting of parts as a side quest that hasn’t changed, I don’t need to change my argument.
You are the only person changing the scope to fit a narrative, I’ve remain consistant in my view and point.
Yes, your referral is wrong and you've not been consistent with anything xD
What I quote is literally the first things you've said. That was the part we were arguing about.
Your claim that by virtue of it being a side-objective it is not necessary, and rejecting the idea that in any system where there are multiple routes to complete anything, neither route is mandatory.You've only been trying to distance yourself from your own claims since in the 1000 gen example, you admitted that you'd never touch a flat gen xD
Your proposal is
DO GENS or DO GENS with additional side step of collecting parts first, the part of collecting the parts I refer to as a side quest using the following reason Side Quests are additional or extra quests that a player can attempt. Side quests are not necessary to complete a game.
you then took this and twisted it to fit to fit a narrative, by trying to make doing a gen and doing a gen 2 separate things within the same outcome by referring to them as flat gens And part gens.
I still stuck to my Original oppinion that doing a gen is the main objective irrispective of the option you use to do it but one option involved the side quest of doing something else first.
You then tried to make out these gens were totally different by removing them from gens altogether and making it a different way to escape, and to that I agreed that it would be a different objective, but as I said that’s not what your idea was.
Ive agreed with you 3 times in this string, but only when you have changed your whole idea to fit your narrative.1 -
@Free_Hugs said:
Sure.Off the top of my head, for a secondary objective, the killer has a gate key in their back pocket. A survivor must move behind the killer for at least 1 second to grab the key, which is then held as a secondary item.
A survivor must have a key to open an exit gate.
I meant the definition; not an example.
0 -
@Free_Hugs said:
Sure.Off the top of my head, for a secondary objective, the killer has a gate key in their back pocket. A survivor must move behind the killer for at least 1 second to grab the key, which is then held as a secondary item.
A survivor must have a key to open an exit gate.
I second this.
A "true" new objective should be something that does not obey to the triad @AlwaysInAGoodShape arbitrarily defined as m1 / searching / picking up. There are other mechanics in the game as it is, like chasing (or hiding), staying in terror radius, blinding, stunning... , others may be created, or evolved from those. Perks already use this (think about the charging of Diversion, or the one of Deliverance), objective may as well.
The vast majority of the players which is complaining about the game being "a m1 simulator" don't care if it's a flower or a steak, they see the problem as intrinsic in the m1 holding. Splitting the m1 holding in shortest timing (that is: build a part - install it - fix gen) may not be what they want.
...for example in this topic a lot of the people participating feel this way.
You @AlwaysInAGoodShape can discuss semantics, meta-narrative and what not all you want, but you'd still be missing where they are criticizing you, and that's your loss - you won't be able to improve your idea by being so adamant in your way of thinking.
1
