So you want a Second Objective?; An Alternative to Pressing M1!
Comments
-
@The_Crusader 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.
Exactly lol.
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.
More than half of survivors SHOULD be dying. Since the only way for the game to be perfectly balanced otherwise is to have an ungodly snowball effect to the point where after 1 survivor dies the others are literally guaranteed to lose
0 -
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
What do you mean making it less obvious? I've been explicitly pushing for new objectives which slow down the gameYes, that is simply a terrible idea, for the vast majority of the player-base. A lazy killer nerf that inherently has nothing to do with the topic of new objectives. You simply ask for more gen-time.
0 -
More than half of survivors SHOULD be dying. Since the only way for the game to be perfectly balanced otherwise is to have an ungodly snowball effect to the point where after 1 survivor dies the others are literally guaranteed to lose
Exactly HALF of the survivors should escape through the exit gates and the hatch should not be a free-escape factor in that.
I'm not sure if you checked the win-rates, but I suggest checking them again.
So you wanted more gen-time after all, sugar coated as second objective? No thank you.0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2More than half of survivors SHOULD be dying. Since the only way for the game to be perfectly balanced otherwise is to have an ungodly snowball effect to the point where after 1 survivor dies the others are literally guaranteed to lose
Exactly HALF of the survivors should escape through the exit gates and the hatch should not be a free-escape factor in that.
I'm not sure if you checked the win-rates, but I suggest checking them again.
So you wanted more gen-time after all, sugar coated as second objective? No thank you.if 50% of survivors escape then that is an average of 2 kills per game (duh)
However in a perfectly balanced game Survivor WR = Killer WR
Survivor WR = 50%
Killer WR = 50%So if everyone dies 50% of the time then in order for any given person to always live half the time is for everyone to always escape when ANYONE escapes. Meaning that any game where someone dies must be a game which eventually becomes a 4k
If the snowball effect is lessened then in order to have a fair game the average kills per match must go up and thus the average winrate must go down.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2More than half of survivors SHOULD be dying. Since the only way for the game to be perfectly balanced otherwise is to have an ungodly snowball effect to the point where after 1 survivor dies the others are literally guaranteed to lose
Exactly HALF of the survivors should escape through the exit gates and the hatch should not be a free-escape factor in that.
I'm not sure if you checked the win-rates, but I suggest checking them again.
So you wanted more gen-time after all, sugar coated as second objective? No thank you.Last time I checked the survivor winrate was 40% while the killer winrate was only 25%. Or in otherwords a 15% imbalance
0 -
And seriously. Wanting longer games isn't a bad thing
0 -
Define a win for a killer? They definitely pipped in their matches.
I think ZubatLel pipped/neutral pipped in ALL his games from rank 20 to rank 1 without PERKS AND ADD-ONS.That's about a 100% winrate there.
0 -
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
And seriously. Wanting longer games isn't a bad thingYes; flat out longer games are very bad. Everything is bad about it.
Once the first survivor dies, it's time for the other 2 to DC.0 -
This is literally the whole proposal of your idea in a nut shell... and we are literally saying it’s not a secondary objective.AlwaysInAGoodShape said: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.
You are the person in this situation passing extra gen time off as something else.
1 -
@Paddy4583 said:
This is literally the whole proposal of your idea in a bit shell... and we are literally saying it’s not a secondary objective.
You are the person in this situation passing extra gen time off as something else.Ha, and now it's suddenly no longer a side-quest? (:
I thought a side-quest after all would be ignored.My OP is not a survivor nerf. My OP is twisting power for high-survivor counts to low-survivor counts, creating a more generally functional outcome throughout the board.
0 -
Dang.
As a Killer main, i like it.
But as a Wraith main, it wouldn't really do anything.
Though that's moreso a Wraith issue, truly wish his cloaked movement speed was more...1 -
@Boss said:
Dang.
As a Killer main, i like it.
But as a Wraith main, it wouldn't really do anything.
Though that's moreso a Wraith issue, truly wish his cloaked movement speed was more...You're not the only one...
(been a wraith main too for a while xD)0 -
Where did I state I do not see it as a side quest?AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
This is literally the whole proposal of your idea in a bit shell... and we are literally saying it’s not a secondary objective.
You are the person in this situation passing extra gen time off as something else.Ha, and now it's suddenly no longer a side-quest? (:
I thought a side-quest after all would be ignored.My OP is not a survivor nerf. My OP is twisting power for high-survivor counts to low-survivor counts, creating a more generally functional outcome throughout the board.
my reply to your actual comment is apt and cohearant, it doesn’t need you to twist it and add in content that has nothing to do with your comment!1 -
So a nerf that can be ignored and doesn't progress the main goal. Not really a nerf is it?
0 -
Not realivant to what I called you out on, or the topic we are discussing.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:So a nerf that can be ignored and doesn't progress the main goal. Not really a nerf is it?
Im not moving to a new topic you’ve added in along the way to deflect from you just giving a simple straight answer
2 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2Define a win for a killer? They definitely pipped in their matches.
I think ZubatLel pipped/neutral pipped in ALL his games from rank 20 to rank 1 without PERKS AND ADD-ONS.That's about a 100% winrate there.
Killer win = 4k
Survivor win = escapeI can't stand it when people conflate ranking/pipping with winning
0 -
@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:So a nerf that can be ignored and doesn't progress the main goal. Not really a nerf is it?
Not realivant to what I called you out on, or the topic we are discussing.
Im not moving to a new topic you’ve added in along the way to deflect from you just giving a simple straight answer
You said that me stating that simply nerfing the flat amount time needed for survivors to progress is a bad idea and you said it's hypocrisy.
Showing you how I didn't simply nerf the flat time requires is exactly relevant to the topic lmao.You don't even know what topic you are on yourself. You didn't even know what topic you started with. Every single claim has been wrong.
0 -
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2Define a win for a killer? They definitely pipped in their matches.
I think ZubatLel pipped/neutral pipped in ALL his games from rank 20 to rank 1 without PERKS AND ADD-ONS.That's about a 100% winrate there.
Killer win = 4k
Survivor win = escapeI can't stand it when people conflate ranking/pipping with winning
Killer 4kin is not a win. Pipping is winning, which is why you rank up when you pip and not only when you 4k. When you 4k, you typically double pip meaning you did more than just winning.
You stated that:
Survivor WR = 50%
Killer WR = 50%this would be balance. But if a survivor should survive 50% of the time and a killer should 4k 50% of the time THEN LITERALLY EVERY GAME should be all survivors dying or all survivors escaping, otherwise such a ratio would be IMPOSSIBLE, meaning that if 1 survivor escapes, all should magically become alive, otherwise your suggestion is impossible. xD
0 -
The game needs to be balanced around a 4k. Only then is it considered fair.
I say 7 gens for a survivor at 1 minute 20 seconds each. Also make them look around for fuses before they can power the gens. Also hide totems better and make them take longer so they can't disable NOED.1 -
Nope I never stated such a thing I have never once mentioned nerfs.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:So a nerf that can be ignored and doesn't progress the main goal. Not really a nerf is it?
Not realivant to what I called you out on, or the topic we are discussing.
Im not moving to a new topic you’ve added in along the way to deflect from you just giving a simple straight answer
You said that me stating that simply nerfing the flat amount time needed for survivors to progress is a bad idea and you said it's hypocrisy.
Showing you how I didn't simply nerf the flat time requires is exactly relevant to the topic lmao.You don't even know what topic you are on yourself. You didn't even know what topic you started with. Every single claim has been wrong.
its very clear which of your comments Inwas referring too and why I find it hypocritical.
like I said it doesn’t need your twist on it and additional after the fact circumstances.
its literally a 3 comment thread, no more.1 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2Define a win for a killer? They definitely pipped in their matches.
I think ZubatLel pipped/neutral pipped in ALL his games from rank 20 to rank 1 without PERKS AND ADD-ONS.That's about a 100% winrate there.
Killer win = 4k
Survivor win = escapeI can't stand it when people conflate ranking/pipping with winning
Killer 4kin is not a win. Pipping is winning, which is why you rank up when you pip and not only when you 4k. When you 4k, you typically double pip meaning you did more than just winning.
Pipping is not winning and ranking is also not winning. According to both the tutorial and the fundumental design of the game the Killer's goal is to kill everyone and the survivors goal is to survive. I have a much more drawn out argument if you need it but keep in mind that this isn't the only game which has it's ranking system and winconditions as seperate, overwatch uses contribution to determine if you rank up at lower ranks and only switches to using wins at mid to high ranks for example. This is because ranks have a purpose that isn't necessarily fulfilled by just checking wining, specifically it is there to match players of even skill levels, in a game like this high skilled players can get screwed over and low skill players can get lucky very often so winning isn't a good enough tool for matchmaking. However that doesn't change what your winconditions are in the first place
You stated that:
Survivor WR = 50%
Killer WR = 50%this would be balance. But if a survivor should survive 50% of the time and a killer should 4k 50% of the time THEN LITERALLY EVERY GAME should be all survivors dying or all survivors escaping, otherwise such a ratio would be IMPOSSIBLE, meaning that if 1 survivor escapes, all should magically become alive, otherwise your suggestion is impossible. xD
This is 100% correct. I do not think survivors should be escaping 50% of the time and I don't think killers should be 4king 50% of the time. I'd estimate the ideal to be closer to 30% escape/4k rate. This would mean a 1v1 in a hatch situation is a 50/50 and then you work your way up from there.
2 -
I'd estimate the ideal to be closer to 30% escape/4k rate.
I suggest estimating again.
The survivors need to survive; that's the balance; a 50% survival rate. That means less negative experiences across the board. As simple as that.
0 -
Nope I never stated such a thing I have never once mentioned nerfs.
I stated that many people simply want to make survivors weaker. My OP doesn't do that. No hypocrisy. Just you not understand things, but we are used that.
0 -
Nope not interested in your after the fact comments. I’m very clear in what I’m referring too, seems to me most of the last 10 pages are people who are clear in seeing its you who doesn’t understand!AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Nope I never stated such a thing I have never once mentioned nerfs.
I stated that many people simply want to make survivors weaker. My OP doesn't do that. No hypocrisy. Just you not understand things, but we are used that.
1 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2I'd estimate the ideal to be closer to 30% escape/4k rate.
I suggest estimating again.
The survivors need to survive; that's the balance; a 50% survival rate. That means less negative experiences across the board. As simple as that.
We both agreed that in a perfectly balanced game a 50% survival rate requires an ungodly snowball effect.
Games where you lose more than win tend to be more satisfying in the event that you win, thus having a low winrate across the board.
This is hardly the only game that balances like this, battle royal games only have a 1-5% winrate (depending on the exact game we are talking about) and they are extremely popular. Roguelikes are known for being hard enough that many people never get to the end at all and dark souls is popular enough to almost be it's own subgenre.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
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.
I completely agree with this - in fact this is exactly what people complaining of "m1 holding simulation" are complaining about.
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.
and I agree with this as well, because it's not how much time one needs to accomplish the task the problem, the problem is what do you need to do, before reaching that part?
mending: literally nothing, you either are lucky enough that Legion is chasing someone else, or you simply can't mend at all.
removing a reverse bear-trap: use a wall-hack to locate where the jigsaw boxes are, then reach their spot and try your luck 1 to 4 times.
totem: search for a totem, decide if you want to invest 10 seconds for what is a dull totem but could help in the end game, or use that time elsewhere, if there's thrill of the hunt change your strategy (you can even try some mind game!) etc.It's not the debuff vs buff matter the problem, is the engagement in the activity that differs. Even sabotaging a hook is somehow more entertaining because there's a vague strategic component in it.
0 -
<Nope not interested in your after the fact comments. I’m very clear in what I’m referring too, seems to me most of the last 10 pages are people who are clear in seeing its you who doesn’t understand!
Me: 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.
You:WTAF you see the hypocrisy in this right?
You:That is basically the whole proposal of your idea!My post doesn't want to secretly add more gen to make survivors weaker. My Op both buffs killers and survivors in a different area, which means that if you're a killer you will definitely be confronted for your lack of skill. Same goes for you, since you clearly fall in the category of players that want to simply add gen-time.
0 -
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2I'd estimate the ideal to be closer to 30% escape/4k rate.
I suggest estimating again.
The survivors need to survive; that's the balance; a 50% survival rate. That means less negative experiences across the board. As simple as that.
We both agreed that in a perfectly balanced game a 50% survival rate requires an ungodly snowball effect.
Games where you lose more than win tend to be more satisfying in the event that you win, thus having a low winrate across the board.
This is hardly the only game that balances like this, battle royal games only have a 1-5% winrate (depending on the exact game we are talking about) and they are extremely popular. Roguelikes are known for being hard enough that many people never get to the end at all and dark souls is popular enough to almost be it's own subgenre.
Both genres are not 2 teams against each other. There are very little places where games have 2 teams against each other with an (intended) unequal win-rate.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2I'd estimate the ideal to be closer to 30% escape/4k rate.
I suggest estimating again.
The survivors need to survive; that's the balance; a 50% survival rate. That means less negative experiences across the board. As simple as that.
We both agreed that in a perfectly balanced game a 50% survival rate requires an ungodly snowball effect.
Games where you lose more than win tend to be more satisfying in the event that you win, thus having a low winrate across the board.
This is hardly the only game that balances like this, battle royal games only have a 1-5% winrate (depending on the exact game we are talking about) and they are extremely popular. Roguelikes are known for being hard enough that many people never get to the end at all and dark souls is popular enough to almost be it's own subgenre.
Both genres are not 2 teams against each other. There are very little places where games have 2 teams against each other with an (intended) unequal win-rate.
This game is no exception? I've been talking with the premise of everyone having an equal win rate. In fact the games I just listed have an equal winrate, that 1% is the same for everyone (roguelikes and darksouls are both singleplayer so yeah)
Also Throne of Lies has an intended unequal win-rate.
0 -
It's not the debuff vs buff matter the problem, is the engagement in the activity that differs. Even sabotaging a hook is somehow more entertaining because there's a vague strategic component in it.
I dislike dealing all with all the debuff elements:
Reverse bear traps, Mending, Mangled, etc.
That aside:Even sabotaging a hook is somehow more entertaining because there's a vague strategic component in it.
This is indeed what makes it more exciting.
For a period of time I've tried solo sabotaging and even though in the end I end up doing a lot of progress bars; moving around the map while someone else is getting chased can really switch things up. (Let's ignore that I make my team lose the game by solo sabotaging xd)That is the element that we copy in the generator parts; the strategy is to have generators at certain locations "prepared" for in the end-game, where they will be significantly harder to protect.
While doing so, you'll be moving through the map similar to me when sabotaging all the hooks.What is an interesting afterthought to that is: Part of the fun, (which we haven't really discussed yet) is in the way crafting tables spawn/are available/how plentiful they are.
It is perfectly possible, for example, to use the vase example I gave earlier (breaking the trinity) and use that to buff a workship/crafting table, resulting in parts becoming stronger (translating into you being able to create a part that is the same as 2 or even 3, to name something).
There are a lot of ways to go about things (:
0 -
The rogue-like is a bad example since it's single player, but the fortnite example is good:
The reason why the fortnite example works is that the collection of players in total always have a 100% win-rate.
Fortnite: 100 people with 1% winrate.
Football: 2 people with a 50% winrate = 100% winrate.But in your 4k example, survivors and killers will never total a 100% win-rate per match the same way fortnite and football does.
0 -
Your idea literally adds more time, to doing a gen. it’s that simple.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:<Nope not interested in your after the fact comments. I’m very clear in what I’m referring too, seems to me most of the last 10 pages are people who are clear in seeing its you who doesn’t understand!
Me: 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.
You:WTAF you see the hypocrisy in this right?
You:That is basically the whole proposal of your idea!My post doesn't want to secretly add more gen to make survivors weaker. My Op both buffs killers and survivors in a different area, which means that if you're a killer you will definitely be confronted for your lack of skill. Same goes for you, since you clearly fall in the category of players that want to simply add gen-time.
que additional waffle and misdirection to justify why this isn’t so in 3,2,11 -
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more timeGenerators take 80 seconds do they not?
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
What is an interesting afterthought to that is: Part of the fun, (which we haven't really discussed yet) is in the way crafting tables spawn/are available/how plentiful they are.
In a previous example I asked you if in order to gain a new item you would need to search a chest → tap a gen → search the chest again → tap a gen → repeat... you would enjoy it (I wouldn't).
This is what happens with the parts: even if there are multiple working bench, one can still go back to the same one, or even have to go back to the same one, depending on the overall positioning of killer and workbenches.A possible solution could be to spawn one working bench; once a part has been produced there, that same working bench de-spawns and another spawns elsewhere. Now there's an active search component in the mix. Of course the overall balance would need to change: a part could need more time to be produced (maybe even through co-op to speed it up) in exchange to a bigger increase in repair speed for part installed.
0 -
Great a good start:AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more timeGenerators take 80 seconds do they not?
So when you say people want to add more gen time in another form, give my an example
of what you mean by that...
0 -
The tables would probably not despawn;
This is how I had it in my head:
The work-bench is simply the visual representation of where the parts could be done. (1 always spawns in the basement).
The work bench could have 1 special "thing" standing on top of it; either (or both) indicating whether it is possible to instal a part there at this moment or how strong that part would be.
Adjusting strength of parts could be done through whatever anti-trinity method; the way workbenches become available and switch between availability would switch based on said conditions, though currently unknown.
0 -
@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Generators take 80 seconds do they not?
Great a good start:
So when you say people want to add more gen time in another form, give my an example
of what you mean by that...More gen time refers to the 440 second objective timer;
The following proposal would be part of that:You have to do 5 gens (like normally) >> Now you have to find 2 handles that spawn >>> now you open the exit gates with the handle.
Normally you could just open the exit gates but now you are MANDATED to find handles.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2The rogue-like is a bad example since it's single player, but the fortnite example is good:
The reason why the fortnite example works is that the collection of players in total always have a 100% win-rate.
Fortnite: 100 people with 1% winrate.
Football: 2 people with a 50% winrate = 100% winrate.But in your 4k example, survivors and killers will never total a 100% win-rate per match the same way fortnite and football does.
It actually adds up to MORE than 100%. Since each player wins and loses separately that makes it effectively 5 "teams" (for lack of a better term) rather than 2.
If everyone has a 30% winrate then that's a 150% total winrate, or in otherwords you would expect to see an average of 1.5 winners per game
0 -
Fantastic.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Your idea literally adds more time
Generators take 80 seconds do they not?
Great a good start:
So when you say people want to add more gen time in another form, give my an example
of what you mean by that...More gen time refers to the 440 second objective timer;
The following proposal would be part of that:You have to do 5 gens (like normally) >> Now you have to find 2 handles that spawn >>> now you open the exit gates with the handle.
Normally you could just open the exit gates but now you are MANDATED to find handles.
however you seem to have included the premis of it being mandatory, so is your definition purely an additional mandatory action, making this the single different factor in your proposal?
1 -
however you seem to have included the premis of it being mandatory
It: in the context of what we have previously discussed is the main objective. If there are 10 ways to get to rome, neither route is mandatory to achieve your goal; It means the choice between those routes.
So no:
so is your definition purely and additional mandatory action is a gen in disguise?
That's completely not it, which is as obvious as a dead fish.
0 -
No IT as in the simple context of your example.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:however you seem to have included the premis of it being mandatory
It: in the context of what we have previously discussed is the main objective. If there are 10 ways to get to rome, neither route is mandatory to achieve your goal; It means the choice between those routes.
So no:
so is your definition purely and additional mandatory action is a gen in disguise?
That's completely not it, which is as obvious as a dead fish.
As for
it being clear as a dead fish: not sure why you’d mention it and capitalise it if it wasn’t realivant, which is why I asked for clarity.
Which you’ve clarified as that not being the case so
the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your example, so now the only added time comes from finding handles?
And this is your idea at its simplest level!
Not sure where you go from here, but I look forward as ever to seeing how elaborate your own simple example and definition becomes.1 -
Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your example
You cannot ignore that part. That part is what makes it a nerf. If you didn't have to find handles but you could just add them (dunno, for decoration's sake?) then it wouldn't be a nerf.
What the hell are you doing xD
And thisis your idea at its simplest level!
My idea gives more options. Giving more options to someone is not nerfing them, even if an extra option would be considered so weak that it's impossible to use in the same way that adding:
New totem: Takes 10k hours to cleanse and gives you a cool sound when it breaks!
Note how it doesn't slow the game down? It's just something you can do that you can ignore.But the 10k hours totem being MANDATORY would nerf survivors to the ground, making it impossible to win.
Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your example
Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your example
Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your exampleNo, you cannot ignore that part, what the hell, lmao
0 -
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2The rogue-like is a bad example since it's single player, but the fortnite example is good:
The reason why the fortnite example works is that the collection of players in total always have a 100% win-rate.
Fortnite: 100 people with 1% winrate.
Football: 2 people with a 50% winrate = 100% winrate.But in your 4k example, survivors and killers will never total a 100% win-rate per match the same way fortnite and football does.
It actually adds up to MORE than 100%. Since each player wins and loses separately that makes it effectively 5 "teams" (for lack of a better term) rather than 2.
If everyone has a 30% winrate then that's a 150% total winrate, or in otherwords you would expect to see an average of 1.5 winners per game
Survivors are 1 faction. Killers are 1 faction. There are only 2 numbers that there are to add.
If you play a squad versus squad in fort-nite you don't get a 200% win-rate for each time 1 squad wins. The win-rate per member should be 50% per member in the squad, meaning 50% per team/faction on average thus 100% per game.
0 -
So it being mandatory is the differing factor then? Come on now I thought this was a clear as a dead fish that it wasn’t?AlwaysInAGoodShape said:Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your example
You cannot ignore that part. That part is what makes it a nerf. If you didn't have to find handles but you could just add them (dunno, for decoration's sake?) then it wouldn't be a nerf.
What the hell are you doing xD
And thisis your idea at its simplest level!
My idea gives more options. Giving more options to someone is not nerfing them, even if an extra option would be considered so weak that it's impossible to use in the same way that adding:
New totem: Takes 10k hours to cleanse and gives you a cool sound when it breaks!
Note how it doesn't slow the game down? It's just something you can do that you can ignore.But the 10k hours totem being MANDATORY would nerf survivors to the ground, making it impossible to win.
Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your example
Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your example
Okay so the fact of it being mandatory is not important so we will ignore that part from your exampleNo, you cannot ignore that part, what the hell, lmao
This really shouldn’t be this difficult, for you to convey.0 -
So it being mandatory is the differing factor then? Come on now I thought this was a clear as a dead fish that it wasn’t?
This really shouldn’t be this difficult, for you to convey.
A mandatory route is indeed the problem here. With the handles there's only 1 route.
When there are multiple routes, the choice between those routes is mandatory, but no specific route between the options itself is.Not that hard to understand is it?
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2 said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@NuclearBurrito2The rogue-like is a bad example since it's single player, but the fortnite example is good:
The reason why the fortnite example works is that the collection of players in total always have a 100% win-rate.
Fortnite: 100 people with 1% winrate.
Football: 2 people with a 50% winrate = 100% winrate.But in your 4k example, survivors and killers will never total a 100% win-rate per match the same way fortnite and football does.
It actually adds up to MORE than 100%. Since each player wins and loses separately that makes it effectively 5 "teams" (for lack of a better term) rather than 2.
If everyone has a 30% winrate then that's a 150% total winrate, or in otherwords you would expect to see an average of 1.5 winners per game
Survivors are 1 faction. Killers are 1 faction. There are only 2 numbers that there are to add.
If you play a squad versus squad in fort-nite you don't get a 200% win-rate for each time 1 squad wins. The win-rate per member should be 50% per member in the squad, meaning 50% per team/faction on average thus 100% per game.
That's just it. Survivor's are NOT a faction. At least not a single one anyways.
Idk how you define a faction but I've always used this definition:
A faction is a group of people who:
1: Win and lose together
and
2: Have a mutually exclusive wincondition with all other factionsSurvivors/Killers would meet requirement 2 except survivors don't fit requirement 1
0 -
It wouldn’t be if when I asked you if the finding of parts being mandatory was the differing factor, you’d simply replied YES, instead of NO.AlwaysInAGoodShape said:So it being mandatory is the differing factor then? Come on now I thought this was a clear as a dead fish that it wasn’t?
This really shouldn’t be this difficult, for you to convey.
A mandatory route is indeed the problem here. With the handles there's only 1 route.
When there are multiple routes, the choice between those routes is mandatory, but no specific route between the options itself is.Not that hard to understand is it?
Great so now we are on the same page that, you believe a mandatory additional action added to the game, would in fact just be a way of “adding more time to the gen”, which you believe to be a nerf as it adds mandatory additional steps to pull off the escape, and you would define that as a nerf because it essentially reduces the odds by slowing survivors down?
Are we agreed so far?0 -
Yes you are teammates. Sacrificing yourself for the team can literally be more rewarding than just escaping, both point and pip-wise.
As a survivor you cannot grief your teammates under this definition of griefing:
- Purposefully shooting or otherwise sabotaging your teammates in an online game.
It's bannable, because your are not allowed to deliberately screw over your own team.
0 -
@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:So it being mandatory is the differing factor then? Come on now I thought this was a clear as a dead fish that it wasn’t?
This really shouldn’t be this difficult, for you to convey.
A mandatory route is indeed the problem here. With the handles there's only 1 route.
When there are multiple routes, the choice between those routes is mandatory, but no specific route between the options itself is.
Not that hard to understand is it?
It wouldn’t be if when I asked you if the finding of parts being mandatory was the differing factor, you’d simply replied YES, instead of NO.
Great so now we are on the same page that, you believe a mandatory additional action added to the game, would in fact just be a way of “adding more time to the gen”, which you believe to be a nerf as it adds mandatory additional steps to pull off the escape, and you would define that as a nerf because it essentially reduces the odds by slowing survivors down?
Are we agreed so far?
You did not read what I said. Reread what I said until you understand it:
A mandatory route is indeed the problem here. With the handles there's only 1 route.
When there are multiple routes, the choice between those routes is mandatory, but no specific route between the options itself is.0 -
So agreed or not, it’s not difficult, unless ofAlwaysInAGoodShape said:@Paddy4583 said:
AlwaysInAGoodShape said:So it being mandatory is the differing factor then? Come on now I thought this was a clear as a dead fish that it wasn’t?
This really shouldn’t be this difficult, for you to convey.
A mandatory route is indeed the problem here. With the handles there's only 1 route.
When there are multiple routes, the choice between those routes is mandatory, but no specific route between the options itself is.
Not that hard to understand is it?
It wouldn’t be if when I asked you if the finding of parts being mandatory was the differing factor, you’d simply replied YES, instead of NO.
Great so now we are on the same page that, you believe a mandatory additional action added to the game, would in fact just be a way of “adding more time to the gen”, which you believe to be a nerf as it adds mandatory additional steps to pull off the escape, and you would define that as a nerf because it essentially reduces the odds by slowing survivors down?
Are we agreed so far?
You did not read what I said. Reread what I said until you understand it:
A mandatory route is indeed the problem here. With the handles there's only 1 route.
When there are multiple routes, the choice between those routes is mandatory, but no specific route between the options itself is.
cause it because you know exactly where this is going and you need to deflect before the conclusion?
re-reading and then me making an assumption gives you and exit clause.
That is why I asking for clear statements from you and making sure we BOTH have the same understanding.
i have already implied what my understanding of what you refer to as an extension of gen time and that extension is nothing but a nerf is and asked if we are in agreement, if yes you just state yes if no, you have to further explain, within the context you’ve already provided.
1
