Dynamic Generator Completion Times Could fix both Tunneling and Gen-rushing simultaneously
Right now in DBD there are two common complaints. On the killer side, there are complaints that games end too quickly at high levels. On the survivor side, there are complaints that tunneling is too common leading to a frustrating experience.
Currently generators complete in 80 seconds assuming no toolboxes. In optimal play, it can be expected that 3 survivors will be working in parallel. It becomes easy to see that generators can be rushed within 3 minutes especially with SWF comms and toolboxes. It thus becomes very urgent for the killer to make that sacrifice right away so it can be reduced to 2 people working in parallel. Camping isn't always favored, but tunneling is.
Assuming very optimal conditions, let me introduce the concept of generators per minute which is given by (60/gen_completion_time) * (num_of_survivors)
With the current static 80 second base completion time, it looks like:
60/80 * 4 = 3 generators per minute
60/80 * 3 = 2.25 generators per minute
60/80 * 2 = 1.5 generators per minute
60/80 * 1 = 0.75 generators per minute
One can see how appealing and even necessary tunneling becomes but also how stacked the odds are once the number of survivors can be cut down as fast as possible.
But what if generator times scaled with the number of survivors sacrificed? i.e.
4 alive = base time 110s per generator
3 alive = base time 80s per generator
2 alive = base time 50s per generator
1 alive = base time 20s per generator
We can see that the generators per minute becomes:
60/110 * 4 = 2.18 generators per minute
60/80 * 3 = 2.25 generators per minute
60/50 * 2 = 2.4 generators per minute
60/20 * 1 = 3 generators per minute
We can see that tunneling a survivor becomes mathematically unfavorable. Killers would no longer feel the pressure to kill 1 person right away and have more freedom to toy with different survivors. Furthermore, since the initial generator completion time is longer, its less likely that the game is going to end in 3 or 4 minutes.
The benefit of this change can further be seen if we consider the fact that survivors can't teleport to generators; they have to spend some time walking to them. Let's use 10 seconds moving between generators:
60/(110+10) * 4 = 2 generators per minute
60/(80+10) * 3 = 2 generators per minute
60/(50+10) * 2 = 2 generators per minute
60/(20+10) * 1 = 2 generators per minute
What this leads to is a more even game throughout the match. If you have a bad teammate who dies instantly, a survivor team isn't instantly screwed over. If a killer loses track of 1 survivor, its not so much a big deal; he can chase someone else and still have similar results.
Using a system described above (numbers can always be found through testing) would lead to more even games and less frustrating systems. Discouraging tunneling and avoiding super short games at the same time sounds like a win to me.
Thoughts?
Comments
-
Very well made, quality post. Backed by sound reasoning and facts. You have my support. Any solution that addresses complaints on both sides of the fog is always a good thing and healthy for the game as a whole.
8 -
I would like to see how this suggestion would work in testing. This would be perfect material to try out in the PTB. Also this idea would work well with the hatch changes where you have to fix a gen to open it again. Devs please take note as a possible solution to gen rush.
6 -
I like it but feel the 1/2 survivor times shouldn’t be that low with them still having access to toolboxes and perks.
On the killer side, it allows them more breathing room in the beginning to actually find and chase but it still keeps the importance on protecting generators because stopping an almost completed one early on will be more rewarding.
For survivors in solo queue, they are more free to rely on their own skill and not necessarily suffer because one other survivor kept unhooking people right in front of the killer or just not good at escaping chases. SWF would still be coordinated at all points of the game and probably wouldn’t be affected by this much.3 -
@GhostEuant said:
I like it but feel the 1/2 survivor times shouldn’t be that low with them still having access to toolboxes and perks.For the example numbers used, I just did +30s for 4 and -30s for 2 and considered the 1 man situation a killer is probably going to win anyways. There's a lot of unknowns and some good minor things you pointed out in the rest of the post that are secondary ripple effects. The balance between perks will probably also be affected and tweaking is necessary if such a drastic change went through. Its going to take a lot of PTB testing to see if this would work.
0 -
The more I think about it the better it sounds. Great suggestion.
0 -
Aside from the variable of toolboxes and related perks, (in particular left behind) that would need tweaking, I really like this idea. As it would appear, more beneficial long term to save your toolbox, combined with left behind for the end game, especially if you have no faith in teammates. (Despite it probably being more beneficial to get those gens done quickly which gives less time needed to survive) And it would make the current hatch changes on the PTB much much fairer.
I think it could be played with and we could see a nice change. As you said, it takes pressure off the killer. I am also fond of giving survivor more objectives to complete before escaping. Which too would take pressure off of the killer.0 -
The object is too kill all survivors
why would a killer go for someone who’s at full health over the one who’s down at next hit.
tunneling isn’t just driven by the speed of generator popping it’s a strong strategy, survivors come running to get that hook save and makes the killers job far easier.
making generators longer to fix I agree with in general but faster at less survivors will just introduce more ways for the killer to prolong the game by slugging and a single survivor will always go for the hatch even at a 20 second gen pop because it’s the safest option.
3 -
The idea is not that bad per se, but if you know survivors enough you would know that would lead to a lot of hook farming and sandbagging, especially when there are 2-3 swf survivors since the other team mates would be seen as a burden.
1 -
@White_Owl said:
The idea is not that bad per se, but if you know survivors enough you would know that would lead to a lot of hook farming and sandbagging, especially when there are 2-3 swf survivors since the other team mates would be seen as a burden.So long as teams are rewarded properly with a bonus for each survivor that survives to the end such things will not occur.
A little tangental: I think the emblem system was a missed opportunity. Instead of only individuals, the emblems should have judged the entire team as well in addition to each player's personal contribution when evaluating final score.
1 -
There are specific perks that encourage the killer to tunnel too, making hens take longer should be implemented but it won’t discourage tunneling1
-
There are perks that encourage not camping and perks that encourage camping but killers still do what they want. We can’t rely on perks to change behaviors on either side.Paddy4583 said:There are specific perks that encourage the killer to tunnel too, making hens take longer should be implemented but it won’t discourage tunneling1 -
@GhostEuant said:
Paddy4583 said:There are specific perks that encourage the killer to tunnel too, making hens take longer should be implemented but it won’t discourage tunneling
There are perks that encourage not camping and perks that encourage camping but killers still do what they want. We can’t rely on perks to change behaviors on either side.
This is so true and they're always be people doing what they want and the fix is to encourage better gameplay.
0 -
@Doomsaki said:
Right now in DBD there are two common complaints. On the killer side, there are complaints that games end too quickly at high levels. On the survivor side, there are complaints that tunneling is too common leading to a frustrating experience.Currently generators complete in 80 seconds assuming no toolboxes. In optimal play, it can be expected that 3 survivors will be working in parallel. It becomes easy to see that generators can be rushed within 3 minutes especially with SWF comms and toolboxes. It thus becomes very urgent for the killer to make that sacrifice right away so it can be reduced to 2 people working in parallel. Camping isn't always favored, but tunneling is.
Assuming very optimal conditions, let me introduce the concept of generators per minute which is given by (60/gen_completion_time) * (num_of_survivors)
With the current static 80 second base completion time, it looks like:
60/80 * 4 = 3 generators per minute
60/80 * 3 = 2.25 generators per minute
60/80 * 2 = 1.5 generators per minute
60/80 * 1 = 0.75 generators per minuteOne can see how appealing and even necessary tunneling becomes but also how stacked the odds are once the number of survivors can be cut down as fast as possible.
But what if generator times scaled with the number of survivors sacrificed? i.e.
4 alive = base time 110s per generator
3 alive = base time 80s per generator
2 alive = base time 50s per generator
1 alive = base time 20s per generatorWe can see that the generators per minute becomes:
60/110 * 4 = 2.18 generators per minute
60/80 * 3 = 2.25 generators per minute
60/50 * 2 = 2.4 generators per minute
60/20 * 1 = 3 generators per minuteWe can see that tunneling a survivor becomes mathematically unfavorable. Killers would no longer feel the pressure to kill 1 person right away and have more freedom to toy with different survivors. Furthermore, since the initial generator completion time is longer, its less likely that the game is going to end in 3 or 4 minutes.
The benefit of this change can further be seen if we consider the fact that survivors can't teleport to generators; they have to spend some time walking to them. Let's use 10 seconds moving between generators:
60/(110+10) * 4 = 2 generators per minute
60/(80+10) * 3 = 2 generators per minute
60/(50+10) * 2 = 2 generators per minute
60/(20+10) * 1 = 2 generators per minuteWhat this leads to is a more even game throughout the match. If you have a bad teammate who dies instantly, a survivor team isn't instantly screwed over. If a killer loses track of 1 survivor, its not so much a big deal; he can chase someone else and still have similar results.
Using a system described above (numbers can always be found through testing) would lead to more even games and less frustrating systems. Discouraging tunneling and avoiding super short games at the same time sounds like a win to me.
Thoughts?
Ive said it before and Ill say it again. WE NEED TO MAKE THE MATCHES LONGER!!!!!!!!!
WE NEED AN ENTITY FIELD TO STOP CAMPING.
Pallet loops would be easier to deal with if the game was LONGER!!!!. More points!, More hooks, More jukes, More FEAR, MORE BLOOD. Devs have every reason to incease game times BUUUTTT NOOOOOO.
at this point devs are either:
- incompetent
- stupid
- dont care
- or are completely swamped by ideas and dont know where to start....
IM REALLY HOPING ITS THE 4th...
4 -
id Prefer a survivor % based play on gens.
so when 4 survivors are on the map they can only progress a gen to 25% so all four survivors would need to progress a gen 25% before it completes.
This should be the same for HEX totems too1 -
This should be tested through PTB as this not only is given mathematical evidence to support your suggestion, but also does offer a really good encouragement to gameplay style. Awesome job.
3 -
@Doomsaki said:
@White_Owl said:
The idea is not that bad per se, but if you know survivors enough you would know that would lead to a lot of hook farming and sandbagging, especially when there are 2-3 swf survivors since the other team mates would be seen as a burden.So long as teams are rewarded properly with a bonus for each survivor that survives to the end such things will not occur.
A little tangental: I think the emblem system was a missed opportunity. Instead of only individuals, the emblems should have judged the entire team as well in addition to each player's personal contribution when evaluating final score.
The reward should be really huge since hook farming and sandbagging already give a lot of BP, and in that case would make surviving easier.
I disagree on the emblems. Even though it can be played as a team game, DbD is not that. Each survivor is on its own.
0 -
Great post that makes complete sense and would genuinely result not just in games that were a bit longer but also more enjoyable for both sides
0 -
I think these 2 videos highlight the current problem quite well:
Even with randoms wasting some time, a poor wraith doesn't stand a mathematical chance of getting enough hooks in to even pip:
[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJVQih5UwLs[/url]And then it gets worse with SWF:
[url]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP5CnUpComo[/url]0 -
Yeah, dynamic generator completion is what what we need. 110 seconds though... it's too much. Not in term of balance - it's boring. Even with 80 seconds you see so many people who not doing gens.
110 will be insane.I'd better see 80 seconds from the start but buff killer's basic speed to make game overall faster.
0 -
@Ogurcha said:
Yeah, dynamic generator completion is what what we need. 110 seconds though... it's too much. Not in term of balance - it's boring. Even with 80 seconds you see so many people who not doing gens.
110 will be insane.I'd better see 80 seconds from the start but buff killer's basic speed to make game overall faster.
If people get bored repairing generators they should go play Friday the 13th instead.
0 -
@No_Mither_No_Problem said:
@Ogurcha said:
Yeah, dynamic generator completion is what what we need. 110 seconds though... it's too much. Not in term of balance - it's boring. Even with 80 seconds you see so many people who not doing gens.
110 will be insane.I'd better see 80 seconds from the start but buff killer's basic speed to make game overall faster.
If people get bored repairing generators they should go play Friday the 13th instead.
I think he's referring to the afk farmers more than normal players really. The 15-20 ranks have an abundance of them that just go around doing pretty much nothing all game. I've seen as both killer and survivor and even the 10-15 has a few of them doing that.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
@Ogurcha said:
Yeah, dynamic generator completion is what what we need. 110 seconds though... it's too much. Not in term of balance - it's boring.If not generator times, then a scaling secondary objective that is no longer required as people become sacrificed could suffice. Something has to be done though to fix the binary snowballing nature of DBD.
0 -
In light of the last live-stream, I'm going to bump this.
The developers seem interested in fixing situations where the game seems hopeless for one side in an effort to fix disconnects. One of the most hopeless situations in DBD is when a survivor dies or disconnects early. Try winning a match with 3 alive and 4 or 5 generators left and you'll find it an exercise in frustration.
Oftentimes I see everyone disconnecting after that first disconnect happens, but with scaling generator times, there can always be hope for those who remain.
0 -
This is just what the game needs. +1
0
