Question for the Devs
What is the speed loss by a killer (or speed gain by survivors) when going around a loop, in meters/second? It is understood and acknowledged that, due to movement and collision mechanics, survivors are able to take shorter paths around loops, effectively increasing their distance/second (speed) traveled over the killer, or decreasing the killer's distance/second (speed) traveled in relation to the survivor.
For a fact, I can say that the overall average differential is less than -0.4 meters/second for killers, since slower movement speed killers (Hag, Spirit, Huntress, etc that move at 4.4 meters/second) still can EVENTUALLY catch up to survivors around a loop, even though it takes a ridiculously longer amount of time than it would take for the standard 4.6 meters/second movement speed killer (Trapper, Leatherface, etc).
However, the differential is greater than the difference between Evil Within tier 1 Myers' movement speed and that of survivors, since he can be infinitely walked around several small, irregularly shaped objects with no chance of EVER catching up to a survivor.
It would also vary by loop, since some are tighter than others (such as Autohaven loops), and some loops (such as the tall hay bales on Coldwind Farm) don't have many tight turns but have long pathways.
Rather than doing time trials around every loopable tile of every tileset in the game, which would take hours upon hours with multiple people while recording and many subsequent hours doing calculations, I'd prefer to hear the answer directly from the devs since they have all the numbers, after all.
Comments
-
You seem not to understand what you are talking about.
There is no actual speed loss. The survivor just has to run a shorter path then the killer has to because the survivor hitbox is smaller and he can get closer to the wall.
0 -
The killer usually loses about 5-8 meters at pallets and windows. This is why bloodlust exists, the killer will eventually be quick enough to start gaining ground on the survivor and rendering the loop useless.0
-
@Master said:
You seem not to understand what you are talking about.There is no actual speed loss. The survivor just has to run a shorter path then the killer has to because the survivor hitbox is smaller and he can get closer to the wall.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
Last I've heard from the devstreams, the killer and survivor have an identical collision capsule. They've said this, regardless of the numerous fat shaming spots that have shown up over time. Do I believe that the capsules are identical? Not really. But there is another suspect at play here, regardless of whether or not what the devs have claimed to be true, is true.
Colliding even slightly with the barest touch on the slimmest of objects brings the killer to a full stop. Whereas, a survivor can hug corners and walls while continuing to move at their full speed.
This forces the killer to keep a minimum distance between themselves and an object to be able to keep moving, effectively forcing the killer to take a longer path around what a survivor could take a shorter path around.
Assuming that both the survivor and killer take their shortest reliable path around a given object; the killer remaining at a fixed small minimum distance around the objects' shortest border while traversing tight sections and moving in a straight line wherever possible between open areas to the next tight corner, while the survivor does the same without having to maintain a fixed minimum distance; the distance differential between a survivor and killer around a given loop can be calculated.
Since distance is a function of speed and time, the distance differential creates a technical differential in the relative speeds of a killer and survivor, in that they cover different distances at different speeds and the increased distance to cover makes it take longer to cover, making the killer effectively gain less distance/second on a survivor around a loop in a chase, by definition being 'slower'.
So, yes, it is indeed an effective speed loss.
Since how much the killer is technically 'slower' than usual relative to the survivor would vary by position around a loop, that is why I asked for average values.
2 -
@DarkWo1f997 said:
The killer usually loses about 5-8 meters at pallets and windows. This is why bloodlust exists, the killer will eventually be quick enough to start gaining ground on the survivor and rendering the loop useless.I was not talking about, nor did I intend to mention the hot mess of garbage that is bloodlust.
Additionally, I was not mentioning the distance gained at a pallet or window. That's generally an easy set of calculations.
(pallet drop time + pallet break time) * (survivor movement speed of 4.0 meters/second) = distance gained by a survivor by dropping a pallet when the killer breaks it. Since the majority of pallets are safe pallets that the killer is forced to break anyways, this is generally the applicable calculation method of pallet distance gain.
(killer vault time) * (survivor movement speed of 4.0 meters/second) = minimum distance gained by a survivor by going through a helpful window.
Bloodlust is usually not worth factoring into these calculations, since most pallets force killers to break them to resume the chase if the survivor knows what they're doing, and bloodlust is lost by breaking pallets. Usually, more bloodlust is lost by playing the back-and-forth game at the safer pallets, than bloodlust is gained, since the game doesn't count it as a chase unless the survivor is running at a close distance in line of sight. Bloodlust is pathetic at the moment.
0 -
Ok, well killers do not lose speed for any reason. No calculations needed. The only possible logical thing you might be implying, is the distance lost when moving around obstacles that survivors can go through. There is literally actually no speed slow down at all.shootaman777 said:@DarkWo1f997 said:
The killer usually loses about 5-8 meters at pallets and windows. This is why bloodlust exists, the killer will eventually be quick enough to start gaining ground on the survivor and rendering the loop useless.I was not talking about, nor did I intend to mention the hot mess of garbage that is bloodlust.
Additionally, I was not mentioning the distance gained at a pallet or window. That's generally an easy set of calculations.
(pallet drop time + pallet break time) * (survivor movement speed of 4.0 meters/second) = distance gained by a survivor by dropping a pallet when the killer breaks it. Since the majority of pallets are safe pallets that the killer is forced to break anyways, this is generally the applicable calculation method of pallet distance gain.
(killer vault time) * (survivor movement speed of 4.0 meters/second) = minimum distance gained by a survivor by going through a helpful window.
Bloodlust is usually not worth factoring into these calculations, since most pallets force killers to break them to resume the chase if the survivor knows what they're doing, and bloodlust is lost by breaking pallets. Usually, more bloodlust is lost by playing the back-and-forth game at the safer pallets, than bloodlust is gained, since the game doesn't count it as a chase unless the survivor is running at a close distance in line of sight. Bloodlust is pathetic at the moment.
You’re basically asking if there is BloodFlacid, or BloodSenile. No. No there isn’t.0 -
@DarkWo1f997 said:
shootaman777 said:@DarkWo1f997 said:
The killer usually loses about 5-8 meters at pallets and windows. This is why bloodlust exists, the killer will eventually be quick enough to start gaining ground on the survivor and rendering the loop useless.
I was not talking about, nor did I intend to mention the hot mess of garbage that is bloodlust.
Additionally, I was not mentioning the distance gained at a pallet or window. That's generally an easy set of calculations.
(pallet drop time + pallet break time) * (survivor movement speed of 4.0 meters/second) = distance gained by a survivor by dropping a pallet when the killer breaks it. Since the majority of pallets are safe pallets that the killer is forced to break anyways, this is generally the applicable calculation method of pallet distance gain.
(killer vault time) * (survivor movement speed of 4.0 meters/second) = minimum distance gained by a survivor by going through a helpful window.
Bloodlust is usually not worth factoring into these calculations, since most pallets force killers to break them to resume the chase if the survivor knows what they're doing, and bloodlust is lost by breaking pallets. Usually, more bloodlust is lost by playing the back-and-forth game at the safer pallets, than bloodlust is gained, since the game doesn't count it as a chase unless the survivor is running at a close distance in line of sight. Bloodlust is pathetic at the moment.
Ok, well killers do not lose speed for any reason. No calculations needed. The only possible logical thing you might be implying, is the distance lost when moving around obstacles that survivors can go through. There is literally actually no speed slow down at all.
You’re basically asking if there is BloodFlacid, or BloodSenile. No. No there isn’t.
I'm not talking about a speed slowdown. I'm talking about having reduced overall distance/second on a survivor (down from the normal 0.6 meters/second of normal movement speed killers, 0.4 meters/second of slower movement speed killers, 0.1 meters/second of Evil Within tier 1 Myers, or -0.04 meters/second of the Nurse) due to the increased distance the killer is forced to cover by walking around a loop.
The way this would be calculated, is that the instantaneous extra distance created by a survivor by initiating a loop, would be divided by the time it would've taken to catch up to them in a straight line across the same distance, and then subtracted from the killer's movement speed. This would show the speed differential quite nicely, in easily understood terms - in terms of catching up to a survivor in a straight line.
0 -
In this thread: A scientist tries to talk to teenagers.
1 -
I’m 20 thank you very much.cTrix said:In this thread: A scientist tries to talk to teenagers.
0 -
@DarkWo1f997 said:
cTrix said:In this thread: A scientist tries to talk to teenagers.
I’m 20 thank you very much.
Proving my point.
0 -
I’m gunna punch you.cTrix said:@DarkWo1f997 said:
cTrix said:In this thread: A scientist tries to talk to teenagers.
I’m 20 thank you very much.
Proving my point.
2 -
Capsules are almost identical.Master said:You seem not to understand what you are talking about.
There is no actual speed loss. The survivor just has to run a shorter path then the killer has to because the survivor hitbox is smaller and he can get closer to the wall.
The only thing that comes into play is the killer's acceleration, which is slower than a survivor's. Taking turns too sharply will slow you down slightly. How much is impossible to quantify because all loops are different.
You do not lose ground ever, though, unless you're a no blink nurse.4 -
I like this question. Although, I don't know if this can provide an absolute solution for every loop, given that each loop can vary by the number of corners and edges they have. I might not be understanding this correctly, but could the difference between the survivor and the killer's collision box give you an estimate, per corner within a given loop, assuming they follow the perimeter?
1 -
It might be easiest to just calculate the net distance difference between survivor and killer before a 90° corner vs after, then estimate loops roughly based on corners. The speed is constant outside of corners after all.
You could probably do this empirically by putting the Killer X meters away from a corner, with the Survivor Y meters away from the corner (for X>Y of course), then run to the other side of the corner and stop the survivor at X meters and see at what distance from the corner the killer is (A).
You would end up with (X-Y) - (X-A) = Distance gain per corner.
then contrast against the amount of distance gained in the same time for a straight line.0 -
@shootaman777 said:
@Master said:
You seem not to understand what you are talking about.There is no actual speed loss. The survivor just has to run a shorter path then the killer has to because the survivor hitbox is smaller and he can get closer to the wall.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying.
Last I've heard from the devstreams, the killer and survivor have an identical collision capsule. They've said this, regardless of the numerous fat shaming spots that have shown up over time. Do I believe that the capsules are identical? Not really. But there is another suspect at play here, regardless of whether or not what the devs have claimed to be true, is true.
Colliding even slightly with the barest touch on the slimmest of objects brings the killer to a full stop. Whereas, a survivor can hug corners and walls while continuing to move at their full speed.
This forces the killer to keep a minimum distance between themselves and an object to be able to keep moving, effectively forcing the killer to take a longer path around what a survivor could take a shorter path around.
Assuming that both the survivor and killer take their shortest reliable path around a given object; the killer remaining at a fixed small minimum distance around the objects' shortest border while traversing tight sections and moving in a straight line wherever possible between open areas to the next tight corner, while the survivor does the same without having to maintain a fixed minimum distance; the distance differential between a survivor and killer around a given loop can be calculated.
Since distance is a function of speed and time, the distance differential creates a technical differential in the relative speeds of a killer and survivor, in that they cover different distances at different speeds and the increased distance to cover makes it take longer to cover, making the killer effectively gain less distance/second on a survivor around a loop in a chase, by definition being 'slower'.
So, yes, it is indeed an effective speed loss.
Since how much the killer is technically 'slower' than usual relative to the survivor would vary by position around a loop, that is why I asked for average values.
Killers and survivors most likely have an identically formed hitbox (sausages), but the size differs.
Yeah I know about that sliding thing and I dont have an answer to that.
Yes, theoretically the distance diference between survivor and killer pathing could be calculated if you consider a given loop (every loop has a different difference ofc)
Since distance is a function of speed and time, the distance differential creates a technical differential in the relative speeds of a killer and survivor, in that they cover different distances at different speeds and the increased distance to cover makes it take longer to cover, making the killer effectively gain less distance/second on a survivor around a loop in a chase, by definition being 'slower'.
So, yes, it is indeed an effective speed loss.
Ehm simply no^^
A train with the max speed of 300 km/h doesnt suddenly have a lowre max speed because he has to travel a larger distance, this is not how physics work bro.I mean you can go ahead and try to caculate the actual path difference at a certain loop, but I dont see the purpose of that.
0 -
@Master
Nor am I saying that that is how physics work. If you had read what I wrote, you'd see that I was trying to quantify the distance loss per time spent from a loop, in terms of speed loss in terms of traveling in a straight line.As I stated, I don't think you understand what I'm saying, since the example that your provided is entirely irrelevant to the subject at hand. I'm talking about the difference in relative speed. I'll try to explain it in a third, different way, since perhaps it was not clear enough when I explained it the first two times.
Let's say that we have two cars racing on a small/medium-sized NASCAR-style race track.
Car A is smaller and slightly slower than the other car, while Car B is larger and slightly faster than Car A. They both move at different, but constant speeds.
On every corner, there is a shortcut that Car A can take, but that Car B can never take.
Every time that Car A uses the shortcut, they gain instantaneous extra distance on Car B.
If Car B and Car A started on opposite ends of the track going around in the same direction (clockwise/counterclockwise), and they had both been following the tightest path around the normal track, there should be a given amount of time that it should take for Car B to catch up to Car A.
However, Car A takes shortcuts that Car B can not take. So, every time that Car A takes the shortcut results in an increased gap to cover for Car B. Depending on how short the straightaways are on this course, Car A may even be able to GAIN distance away from Car B along the track due to taking so many shortcuts in rapid succession.
^This is the case that occurs when a survivor loops a non-blinking Nurse or an Evil Within tier 1 Myers.
On a track with medium-length straightaways (comparable to loops with fewer tight corners and longer walls), the instantaneous extra distance gained from taking the corner shortcut at regular intervals, creates a set amount of increased distance between Car A and Car B that takes a set amount of extra time to be covered, but does not necessarily perpetuate a gap between the two cars.
Let's take this example and quantify it in terms of the two cars moving on a long linear track in the same conditions and direction, with Car A starting a distance ahead of Car B, and no shortcut on the track.
This would consist of Car A teleporting a set distance forward on the track from its current position, at regular intervals of distance (or time, as it can be looked at in terms of either one, since the cars are moving at a constant speed).
Now, instead of this teleporting, we can quantify this distance increase in terms of a speed decrease of Car B.
We remove teleporting from the equation, and theoretically/relatively slow down Car B to the speed at which they end up at the same distance behind Car A while moving at a slower speed, as they would've been while moving at normal speed at the exact moment that Car A finishes teleporting. This produces the SAME OVERALL RESULT, and this is how I am theoretically quantifying such an instantaneous distance gain, as a speed decrease.Does that make sense, at least?
Post edited by shootaman777 on0
