So you want a Second Objective?; An Alternative to Pressing M1!
Comments
-
I agree having a second objective would be fun .. but what kind of an objective ?
this will make it extremly difficult for Survivors ... too overwhelming and there is just too much to do ..Cleansing Totems , Saving Teammates , and then going to craft parts so Making it mandatory to install a part on a Generator before it is being worked on .. is going to kill the fun for Survivors and make it unappealing .
This might work only among Highest Ranks and in Coordinated SWF groups .
But the majority of matches I play below rank 8 like 9 , 10 etc .. Survivors barely finish 2 Generators .. in most games .. if Someone get Hooked once or Twice while 5 Gens are still undone .. the killer chasing someone else .. someone has to go for the save .. leaving 1 person to fix only .. and most Survivors are slacking among these ranks .. like hiding around or cleansing totems , Searching chests.
If someone Dies or DC too early with 5 Gens are still up I find myself Sweating it as it is .. let alone Having to craft a part to be able to fix.
I think there'd be more disconnections and In my opinion it is heavily killer sided.
It should be fun and not mandatory I also Disagree with the Buffs . Then Survivors among highest Ranks will just craft Parts pop them on Gens while you are being looped and boom all 5 gens are done before you even know it .
A Second objective is needed but it could be anything like Barricading a Pipe in the Swap Map so It won't Break .. if survivors do not Pay attention to it and only focus on Generators .. The Pipe could break making water overflood and if survivors must rush through that area they'd waddle through water being slowed down in chases I think interactive stuff like this would make it more fun and interesting..
Or Fortifyig a Wooden Bridge etc you get the idea.. ( Optional ) but if you don't it'd have Consquences.0 -
Please see example to deduce definitionAlwaysInAGoodShape said:@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.
1 -
A "true" new objective should be something that does not obey to the triad
I think you miss their point;
Free_Hugs: If you can complete a gen with 5 parts and 0 M1 holding, yes, I would be content with that being an alternate objective.
Free_Hugs claimed that if the generators were completed through parts alone they'd consider it a second objective. They weren't talking about the time being split, but about the B route having an overlap of inserting charges into that generator, thus using the same progression system (Charges) for the last 10 seconds.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
I think you miss their point;No, I'm sorry but I'm sure you are missing theirs...
But again, feel free to ask them.
1 -
I feel it is pretty self explanatory, yes.
I think your triad you made may be a trap for you more then anything, Always.1 -
@Paddy4583 said:
Please see example to deduce definitionDefinition of a second objective that is distinct from doing a gen:
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.
Which means that everything opposite to this is you doing a gen. Sounds like a ridiculous definition.
0 -
I think you may need help.1
-
I think thats your best argument from fallacy yet!AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
Please see example to deduce definitionDefinition of a second objective that is distinct from doing a gen:
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.
Which means that everything opposite to this is you doing a gen. Sounds like a ridiculous definition.
1 -
For saying that an example does not equal a definition?
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
Which means that everything opposite to this is you doing a gen. Sounds like a ridiculous definition.except that is exactly what you are not getting.
"doing a gen" in the context of this discussion is equivalent to "m1 holding". So yes, even "healing someone" is not that different than "doing a gen": which is exactly the point.You wanted a definition of something "different than doing a gen":
an objective that does not imply the holding of a button in order to be achieved.saving someone from a hook for example.
healing or cleansing a totem, instead, are basically "doing a gen", even with their difference on timing / skill checks / regression... they still are m1 holding.1 -
No, for not having a functioning level of basic logical ability.
I do genuinely believe you may need help.1 -
No; that is the basis of a definition. Everything that does not conform to a definition is not part of that definition.
You cannot know what is meant by a vehicle by staring at a car. If you stare at the car then you might think all vehicles are cars, meaning that a plane is not a vehicle.
This is the basis for language?
0 -
Devs need to see this and really give it some consideration
0 -
0
-
No they really don’tJacoby2041 said:Devs need to see this and really give it some consideration
0 -
@Edys said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
Which means that everything opposite to this is you doing a gen. Sounds like a ridiculous definition.except that is exactly what you are not getting.
"doing a gen" in the context of this discussion is equivalent to "m1 holding". So yes, even "healing someone" is not that different than "doing a gen": which is exactly the point.You wanted a definition of something "different than doing a gen":
an objective that does not imply the holding of a button in order to be achieved.saving someone from a hook for example.
healing or cleansing a totem, instead, are basically "doing a gen", even with their difference on timing / skill checks / regression... they still are m1 holding.Unhooking is also a gen. It's a shorter gen LOL. It's all a progression bar; ranging from 0 to infinite seconds.
When people ask for a second objective, they weren't arguing about the elimination of M1 all together. Or at least I cannot find it in the linked post:https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/46450/why-do-survivors-want-extra-objectives/p1
From what people claim about the second objective:
I think mandatory things will always be stale. Pick up this so you can fix that is what it boils down to>
response: Not necessarily. If you have enough variety, it could certainly alleviate the staleness to a decent degree.Repair Gens
Look for chests
Sabotage Hooks
Find totems
Heal other survivors
Gain tokens for certain perks
Unhooks
Look for the hatch
Heal self and others
Disarm bear traps and hag marks
Open the exit gates
etc...And yet you spend half of the game holding M1 at a gen
See? People didn't challange the idea behind progress bars as you pretend they are xD
They don't want to sit still for 80 seconds. They want to be able to move inbetween and still do their main objective.Sure, but killers can't have more things to do, unless survivors do. Because at the moment, time is already so sparse on the killers side that completing the objectives they already have, can be difficult.
You can look at the debate yourself, but trying to claim that people challange the idea behind progress bars al together has little to do with the second objective debate. That is not why people brought it up.
The reason is that they want to be able to move in between (like switching between totems and gens etc) while that still THEM being them doing the main objective.
0 -
I asked for the definition of what exactly makes something distinct from doing a generator. (Simple question)
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
Unhooking is also a gen. It's a shorter gen LOL. It's all a progression bar; ranging from 0 to infinite seconds.and with this I'm now sure you're either trolling or really incapable of discussing with anyone, and I can't do anything for neither of the two.
Have a good evening
0 -
Pseudo Code:
void Doing a generator:
if m1 = true (on a generator)
x = x + 1 * delta time
if x = 80
generator = done.void Healing:
if m1 = true (on teammate)
x = x + 1 * delta time
if x = 16
healing = done.void Unhooking:
if m1 = true (on hooked survivor)
x = x + 1 * delta time
if x = 2
unhook = done.Yes; yes it's a shorter generator. Because the shorter duration for the attached reward is shorter and that's literally the only difference.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
I asked for the definition of what exactly makes something distinct from doing a generator. (Simple question)
Well, language is communal, so lets see.
https://www.strawpoll.me/17448116
And if this really needs to be said, no, unhooking someone isn't "doing a gen" because you don't need to unhook someone to escape the map.
0 -
Well, language is communal, so lets see.
What?
I asked you what the definition of a vehicle was and you showed me a car. That's not communal. A car is not the definition of a vehicle.Now pick one from your poll, because I only care about YOUR definition, not mine (:
0 -
no, one event is a keyDown (unhook), one is a keyUp (generator/healing).
this is the difference between a m1 holding and a m1 pressing.
Gen tapping is still a keyUp event.The only exception is the struggle phase on the hook, but guess what... there's still a progress bar, and would be criticized just the same.
0 -
@Edys said:
no, one event is a keyDown (unhook), one is a keyUp (generator/healing).
this is the difference between a m1 holding and a m1 pressing.
Gen tapping is still a keyUp event.The only exception is the struggle phase on the hook, but guess what... there's still a progress bar, and would be criticized just the same.
You can cancel unhooking. It's not on pressing; in order to progress, you need to hold for all 3.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
You can cancel unhooking. It's not on keyDown.you are right, I was thinking about "hooking", not "unhooking" but wrote the opposite.
Now that you understood better what I was talking about, do you get it or not?
0 -
Never mind see belowAlwaysInAGoodShape said:I asked for the definition of what exactly makes something distinct from doing a generator. (Simple question)
1 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Free_HugsWell, language is communal, so lets see.
What?
I asked you what the definition of a vehicle was and you showed me a car. That's not communal. A car is not the definition of a vehicle.Now pick one from your poll, because I only care about YOUR definition, not mine (:
I don't think you know how exchange of information works.
Two individuals can only share an idea by understanding what it is they're actually discussing.
You clearly don't.
So I put up a poll to help. You can get a consensus on what people think "doing a gen" is that you'll then be able to refer to with your "they" "them" "everyone" drivel.
1 -
Me: Unhooking is also a gen. It's a shorter gen LOL. It's all a progression bar; ranging from 0 to infinite seconds.
You: and with this I'm now sure you're either trolling or really incapable of discussing with anyone
So I'm no longer trolling for stating the fact, right? Although I'm not too surprise that you are able to abdicate from blatantly false claims as you are smart and did understand the issue with stealth and team-coms.
except that is exactly what you are not getting.
"doing a gen" in the context of this discussion is equivalent to "m1 holding". So yes, even "healing someone" is not that different than "doing a gen": which is exactly the point.You wanted a definition of something "different than doing a gen":
an objective that does not imply the holding of a button in order to be achieved.saving someone from a hook for example.
healing or cleansing a totem, instead, are basically "doing a gen", even with their difference on timing / skill checks / regression... they still are m1 holding.Do you understand what people were complaining about in the post about why people want second objectives?
I understand that you want to break the trinity;
Something like: "Break a vase and have a flying head follow you for x amounts of seconds that can fly through walls and will instantly down you when hit" is breaking that trinity as it would create custom chasing scenario's.But there are 2 things about that:
1: It is not inherently what people complained about. (Which is simultaneously also not a real rebuttal to the idea of trying to break the trinity)
2: That through such solutions that try to play around with moving variables are significantly less likely to ever tackle core issues with the game, where as the part mechanic does address core issues of the game; namely death-efficiency, and is one of the most perfect methods at doing so.
(I mentioned leveraging time somewhere in the OP and the effects of survivor death + the example about side-objectives needing to have interplay between each other. The vase example wouldn't have any of such elements.)0 -
@Free_Hugs said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Free_HugsWell, language is communal, so lets see.
What?
I asked you what the definition of a vehicle was and you showed me a car. That's not communal. A car is not the definition of a vehicle.Now pick one from your poll, because I only care about YOUR definition, not mine (:
I don't think you know how exchange of information works.
Two individuals can only share an idea by understanding what it is they're actually discussing.
You clearly don't.
So I put up a poll to help. You can get a consensus on what people think "doing a gen" is that you'll then be able to refer to with your "they" "them" "everyone" drivel.
When someone asks for a definition, giving an example is simply not a definition. As simple as that.
Also, what does "They", "Them", "everyone" have to do with the definition of doing a generator?
(Maybe you're mistaking a flat generator with doing gens?)I simply ask for your definition. (or everyone elses). Now give me the one I should respond to. (:
0 -
@Free_Hugs said:
"One of the most perfect methods of doing so."You want to have a debate about Death-Efficiency then?
You really are spare parts, aen'tcha bud?
Generic insult. Unimpressed.
It's a shame you care more about getting your ego licked then actually improving gameplay for anyone.
Explains why this thread has gone on for 10 pages despite people expressing their discontent with you.A lot more people were positive than negative about it. You for one were negative about it. Paddy as well.
But after all, paddy didn't see the inherent issue with the moonrise event linked to survivors leaving others alone to die on a hook, due to how the points worked and you believed a diminishing return method would result into problematically high outcomes, so that might say something about the credibility of your criticisms (;Suffice to say, the closest thing to "perfect" you are is "perfectly dense", like a neutron star.
That is enough, Always. You are dismissed.
More generic insults. Again, unimpressed.
You still avoided giving your definition. I've no idea why you'd not simply answer it. I defined all my terms.0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape the issue with the sticks of beef thing is that in order for it to really be that you can do them instead of gens you need a mechanical difference from the suggestion in the op.
Because no matter how many sticks of beef you have it doesn't mean jack ######### if you don't walk up to a generator and hold M1 to give it charges
And also the analogy breaks down when you consider that the different "methods" interact with each other.
I can do a gen for 40 seconds, and THEN go and make then install the parts, doing this is meaningfully different from doing the whole thing with no parts and installing new parts from the start. However if the parts fill a separate bar then this interaction is lost (or in otherwords, a stick of beef would effectively be created in the act of doing a gen, however the act of creating a stick of beef would never be enough to fully complete a generator)
In addition there is the point about how eventually a generator is completed and you no longer can work on it in that location anymore. In the SoB analogy the mechanics wouldn't interact so you would effectively have 2 gens adjacent to each other where now we have 1 for a total of 14 power mechanisms only 5 of which are needed.
TLDR: Stick of beef doesn't work because in order to prove your point it needs to be meaningfully and mechanically different from what it is supposed to represent
0 -
Because no matter how many sticks of beef you have it doesn't mean jack ######### if you don't walk up to a generator and hold M1 to give it charges
you''re not walking up to a generator. You are walking up to a stick, what are you talking about?
the issue with the sticks of beef thing is that in order for it to really be that you can do them instead of gens you need a mechanical difference from the suggestion in the op.
Nope, just sticks. The vanilla gens next beside of them never have to be touched.
I can do a gen for 40 seconds, and THEN go and make then install the parts, doing this is meaningfully different from doing the whole thing with no parts and installing new parts from the start. However if the parts fill a separate bar then this interaction is lost (or in otherwords, a stick of beef would effectively be created in the act of doing a gen, however the act of creating a stick of beef would never be enough to fully complete a generator)
In addition there is the point about how eventually a generator is completed and you no longer can work on it in that location anymore. In the SoB analogy the mechanics wouldn't interact so you would effectively have 2 gens adjacent to each other where now we have 1 for a total of 14 power mechanisms only 5 of which are needed.
TLDR: Stick of beef doesn't work because in order to prove your point it needs to be meaningfully and mechanically different from what it is supposed to represent
No; the stick example works just like the flower example (they are identical). If I hadn't clarified it there then I'd assumed you to understand the part that the stick simply the container of the term Part-Gen, but if you find that example unnatural try the flower example:
(the flower example represents my op more perfectly as I think I didn't mention in the stick example that you wouldn't be able to work on a generator once a part is installed on a stick)Once a part is installed that generator transforms into a flower. ---> You can complete the game without ever progressing a single generator.
(replace generator with flat generator and replace flower with par-generator and notice how the game-play is identical)0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
So I'm no longer trolling for stating the fact, right?Well it was based from a misunderstanding generated from my part so for now you're good
But there are 2 things about that:
1: It is not inherently what people complained about. (Which is simultaneously also not a real rebuttal to the idea of trying to break the trinity)Let's agree to disagree. I don't know what was posted in the topic you mentioned, but can we agree that the definition "dead by daylight is a m1 holding simulator" is broadly used and based on facts (I mean, you even demonstrated that something as trivial as unhooking is in fact a m1 holding simulator :P)?
2: That through such solutions that try to play around with moving variables are significantly less likely to ever tackle core issues with the game, where as the part mechanic does address core issues of the game; namely death-efficiency, and is one of the most perfect methods at doing so.
The core "issues" of the game are also part of its strength - and by the way I still think that your proposal is too survivor sided in a swf team, while too killer sided in a solo-team, especially at low ranks. Yes you proposed some ways to circumvent the problem, but I still don't see where a sweet could be, and to be fair I don't see a sweet spot at all. It's like legion, you can change frenzy duration / deep wound progress all you want, but the mechanic doesn't work anyway.
i don't know what is the "perfect" solution, I can only assume what I would like to see in the game, that is something entirely different. I would enjoy to try even your proposal, don't get me wrong, but just because it's something "new", not because it solves anything. That's just my opinion, of course.
0 -
He completely understands what people are saying, but if he acknowledges it, then he admits his logic is flawed, this will not happen.
It’s clear he understands because he’s changed the OP idea to fit his argument. He wouldn’t need to do this if the logic wasn’t flawed.
He will continue to change his OP idea to fit a narrative, and you’ll agree with this new situational proposal, and he’ll then take that as an agreement to his OP idea.
You call it out as a false argument
rinse and repeat.
2 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape
So in the analogy of the SoB
If I walk up to a generator and give it 40 charges. Then I stop working on the gen to collect 3 pieces of beef which I put on the stick next to the generator. And then I go back to finish the generator, assuming I have no items, always get good checks and am not being effected by any perks how long will it take me to complete the generator?
0 -
Let's agree to disagree. I don't know what was posted in the topic you mentioned, but can we agree that the definition "dead by daylight is a m1 holding simulator" is broadly used and based on facts (I mean, you even demonstrated that something as trivial as unhooking is in fact a m1 holding simulator :P)?
Now if you look at the link posted in OP and in a comment above, do you see that the term: M1 simulation critique comes from the extended bar timers and not from the fact that you'll frequently need M1?; for the same reasons that shooters aren't aggressively (/in negative light) called R2 simulators.
As shown from the comments. People didn't mind doing totems (more M1) etc. The problem was that doing so wouldn't be them completing the main objective.
That is exactly what we are addressing in the OP. We make sure they get to move their legs and get to see the map > have chances to run into a chase, etc.Doing some fun stuff with anti-trinity mechanics like the vase I just mentioned can of course be tried out! But there's no inherent reason for that to be a main objective, especially if they weren't part of a multi-route implementation, as this would make them MANDATORY and thus more repetitive as well!
i don't know what is the "perfect" solution
I mentioned it to be the perfect solution to solving Death-Efficiency (the problem of the game malfunctioning balance-wise upon survivor death, mandating that the main game gets replaced by the hatch). The reason why it's perfect at addressing it is because you can see the part system as a system with
A: more possible places where you can be
B: you circumvent regression
C: you don't have to be at a certain location for too long (which is a little bit part of B )Those are the fundamentals for making the game minimally functional for lower-survivor counts, which are all addressed through parts;
(link to this topic in the OP I think)
0 -
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShapeSo in the analogy of the SoB
If I walk up to a generator and give it 40 charges. Then I stop working on the gen to collect 3 pieces of beef which I put on the stick next to the generator. And then I go back to finish the generator, assuming I have no items, always get good checks and am not being effected by any perks how long will it take me to complete the generator?
Yeah, the flower example is the better example. Remove the sticks; once you instal a part on a generator it transforms into a flower. (you then work on the flower. You can no longer work on the generator since of course a flower isn't the same as a generator.)
You wouldn't be able to work on a (flat)generator the moment you instal a part on a stick. You'd have to work on the stick instead.
Perks in the hypothetical version simple also affect sticks:
Perk x: Increase gen progression and stick progression by y/z/a0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
As shown from the comments. People didn't mind doing totems (more M1) etc. The problem was that doing so wouldn't be them completing the main objective.
Again, let's agree to disagree - I mean, I can trust you that someone in the topic stated so, that doesn't mean this is the general consensus, nor my personal opinion.
Also, a shooter is not a button simulator because the "click" comes after (and during) "aiming", re-positioning, recoil correction and so on and so forth. Repairing a gen is a static endeavour, totem is static, healing is static... In fact the only "fun" parts come before and after those action (finding a gen / hiding from a killer coming / getting to a nice spot to heal your mate / searching for a totem...).
Yes, adding your mechanic increases the amount of time one is not holding m1 and is doing "something else", but is tedious all the same:
imagine that in order to take an item from a box you have to search the box, tap a gen, search the box again, tap a gen, search the box again... Yeah, you spend more time traveling but is it more fun? Not to me.In fact I think my two unfavourite things in the game are mending (...10 seconds...) and removing a reverse bear trap (...12 seconds...).
0 -
His topic title shows he understood the M1 situation...0
-
Also, a shooter is not a button simulator because the "click" comes after (and during) "aiming", re-positioning, recoil correction and so on and so forth. Repairing a gen is a static endeavour, totem is static, healing is static...
That is the beauty about holding m1 and that is that is becomes more exciting when the killer is nearby. In a shooter there's more to it than R2, but in DBD there's also more to it then pressing M1; consideration of whether you should be doing it; added pressure on your decision making when the killer is nearby and whether you can afford to be spotted, etc.
Doing a generators in the end game when there are few left in the end game is intense. In the early game; not so much.
When the killer is chasing someone, the chance of you having to make such considerations is very low. A lot of the time.
That is the beauty of parts: The players that aren't chased are moving through the map. There is a chance that the killer finds them out-positioned and suddenly turns on them. More frequently will you have an interaction with the killer when the killer is chasing someone else.In fact I think my two unfavourite things in the game are mending (...10 seconds...) and removing a reverse bear trap (...12 seconds...).
This is probably not for the reasons of being a short timer necessarily, but because what you "accomplish" by that is a removal of a negative reward rather than a reward, both while in a very fragile situation while compelled by a timer to hurry.
(That timer aspect is also what people complain about when it comes to camping and some believe it should stop ticking if the killer is close. Dealing with debuffs is never fun and doesn't feel like a victory.)I also dislike the bear-timer and the mending, but I do like taking care of the dull-totems, which have a very similar timer and there's also running in between things.
0 -
@Paddy4583 said:
His topic title shows he understood the M1 situation...A second objective (correct); An alternative to pressing M1 (referring to "gen-jockey m1 simulator")
You do get an alternative and through that alternative you aren't going to complete any generator with a bot that can only press M1.0 -
Locate bench and make part by.....?AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
His topic title shows he understood the M1 situation...A second objective (correct); An alternative to pressing M1 (referring to "gen-jockey m1 simulator")
You do get an alternative and through that alternative you aren't going to complete any generator with a bot that can only press M1.
return to gen and install part by...?
Complete gen after installing parts by...?
Like I’ve said it’s just an optional side step to doing a gen!
Only your optional side step means hold M1 somewhere else and moving between holding M1 again to complete the gen.
The side step may offer a different option but it is by no means a secondary objective or an alternative to doing a gen with M1.
most of the linked post was referring to the other listed objectives as not required mandatory to do in order to escape, and your idea is the same!0 -
@Paddy4583 said:
Locate bench and make part by.....?
return to gen and install part by...?
Complete gen after installing parts by...?Like I’ve said it’s just an optional side step to doing a gen!
Only your optional side step means hold M1 somewhere else and moving between holding M1 again to complete the gen.
The side step may offer a different option but it is by no means a secondary objective or an alternative to doing a gen with M1.
most of the linked post was referring to the other listed objectives as not required mandatory to do in order to escape, and your idea is the same!
inflating holding m1 with the actual problem with holding m1-counter: +1
People'd want to do totems, chests etc, but it's simply always putting themselves behind since it's not mandatory.
also:
Misuse of the word mandatory in a multi-route main objective-counter: 3Chests do not progress the 420/440 second timer directly, neither do totems. Doing Parts directly adds 15 seconds of irregressable progression.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShapeSo in the analogy of the SoB
If I walk up to a generator and give it 40 charges. Then I stop working on the gen to collect 3 pieces of beef which I put on the stick next to the generator. And then I go back to finish the generator, assuming I have no items, always get good checks and am not being effected by any perks how long will it take me to complete the generator?
Yeah, the flower example is the better example. Remove the sticks; once you instal a part on a generator it transforms into a flower. (you then work on the flower. You can no longer work on the generator since of course a flower isn't the same as a generator.)
You wouldn't be able to work on a (flat)generator the moment you instal a part on a stick. You'd have to work on the stick instead.
Perks in the hypothetical version simple also affect sticks:
Perk x: Increase gen progression and stick progression by y/z/aLook. The point is that there are 7 locations with a thing. You need to give 5 of those 7 things 80 charges.
Creating a part does not change that nor does it even add charges, just like how hex: ruin and other gen stopping perks don't remove charges or increase the number needed.
Changing the name or model of the exact location does not change the fact that it is a thing that needs 80 charges. Flower, generator whatever it is semantics
If the parts were 100% always required then it would be meaningful since then completing a generator would require more than 80 charges
1 -
If the parts were 100% always required then it would be meaningful since then completing a generator would require more than 80 charges
Meaningful to what?
0 -
5 totems = 70 seconds, and then there is the time running between them. It's like an extra gen.
6 gens isn't enough for some people it seems. I bet these people are loving the load screen issues. 3 vs 1 and Noed, when you need every advantage you can get.
If gens go too fast it's on the player not the gane.0 -
@The_Crusader said:
5 totems = 70 seconds, and then there is the time running between them. It's like an extra gen.6 gens isn't enough for some people it seems. I bet these people are loving the load screen issues. 3 vs 1 and Noed, when you need every advantage you can get.
If gens go too fast it's on the player not the gane.
Yeap, you'd be surprised how many people claiming they want "second-objectives" simply just secretly want to add more gen-time so that they don't have to be confronted with their lack of skill.
They try to make extra gen time come in another form as to make it less obvious.1 -
Exactly lol.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@The_Crusader said:
5 totems = 70 seconds, and then there is the time running between them. It's like an extra gen.6 gens isn't enough for some people it seems. I bet these people are loving the load screen issues. 3 vs 1 and Noed, when you need every advantage you can get.
If gens go too fast it's on the player not the gane.
Yeap, you'd be surprised how many people claiming they want "second-objectives" simply just secretly want to add more gen-time so that they don't have to be confronted with their lack of skill.
They try to make extra gen time come in another form as to make it less obvious.
More than half of survivors are dying but some people can't realize the problem is with the way they play, not the gen times.
Although I do admit that some killers are better than others when it comes to pressuring survivors.1 -
WTAF you see the hypocrisy in this right?AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@The_Crusader said:
5 totems = 70 seconds, and then there is the time running between them. It's like an extra gen.6 gens isn't enough for some people it seems. I bet these people are loving the load screen issues. 3 vs 1 and Noed, when you need every advantage you can get.
If gens go too fast it's on the player not the gane.
Yeap, you'd be surprised how many people claiming they want "second-objectives" simply just secretly want to add more gen-time so that they don't have to be confronted with their lack of skill.
They try to make extra gen time come in another form as to make it less obvious.
That is basically the whole proposal of your idea!
1 -
What do you mean making it less obvious? I've been explicitly pushing for new objectives which slow down the game
0 -
@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@The_Crusader said:
5 totems = 70 seconds, and then there is the time running between them. It's like an extra gen.
6 gens isn't enough for some people it seems. I bet these people are loving the load screen issues. 3 vs 1 and Noed, when you need every advantage you can get.
If gens go too fast it's on the player not the gane.
Yeap, you'd be surprised how many people claiming they want "second-objectives" simply just secretly want to add more gen-time so that they don't have to be confronted with their lack of skill.
They try to make extra gen time come in another form as to make it less obvious.
WTAF you see the hypocrisy in this right?
There is no hypocrisy here. Where as others simply want to nerf survivors, my suggestion creates a tool through which survivors can survivor better in the late-game but is inherently slower than the current 400 seconds.
That is both buffing the killer and survivor in a different area (and exactly the right ones as well)
0
