What if we have 6 gens to do instead of 5
Many people complain about gen speed since the rework, and ask for balance.
Imagine the game remain the same but there is 8 generators on the map instead of 7 and we have to do 6 generators to activate the exit gates.
Would it balance the game or make it worst ?
Comments
-
That wouldnt be a bad idea. On some big maps it would probably balance it out, on small maps it could favor it to much to the killer though. Imo the biggest issue isnt the gen speeds, its that some maps are just to big and they need to be reworked/downsized.
19 -
Some maps feels too big because genspeed is too quick right ?
0 -
Well, on big maps its hard to defend and patrol gens, thats why they get completed faster. On those maps a killer is often forced to play for a 3gen, which isnt the most fun for both sides. but it is what it is.....
3 -
Devs are stale so we'd never see anything like this, or 2-killer mode, or a single player campaign with AI, all we will ever get is rifts that encourage toxic farming like Self Deprecating Joke.
There's no creative juices left. We aren't getting new zones or even new maps with existing zones. Scourge hooks might be kinda fun, but they're only complex amalgamations of existing mechanics.
No new objectives, only new censorship in game lobby chat.
I discovered that "best western" is an illegal phrase. Yes that's right, that hotel chain is censored. Try it.
Politics are the worst and once you use your eyes to learn about the company, it is absolutely dripping with the worst kind thereof.
6 -
I once had Brunswick censored
0 -
Yun-Jin is censored
2 -
Gens would be clustered to much.
They would have to be closer together which would mean stronger 3 gens.
Gen speed isn't the problem. It's the killer having nothing of pressure at the start
9 -
There should already be 6 gens to be completed on big maps. Mother’s Dwelling and Ormond would be so much more fair.
1 -
I dont think its a good idea. It would make it really hard for survivor in low ranks and S-rank-killer which are right now balanced, would be too strong.
The better solution would be to identify why gens are going too fast and then adjust that.
0 -
Nah, I think 5 gens is honestly a good balance. The issue lies more with map sizes and Survivor spawns, but as other people pointed out, on smaller maps it would just make 3 genning even easier on those maps. (I think we've all been seeing the posts about how gen spawns are getting really weird over in Lerys and I know I've been in multiple games over at Chapel with a nasty 3 gen in circus...) I think the better solution would just be to adjust survivor spawns and go from there. There's no reason every survivor should start on separate gens.
1 -
I had a game where we had to do 6. We completed the 4th gen and it did not register so we had to do two more. It made it harder but not impossible.
1 -
That seems excessive. How about first the large maps are further, slightly reduced and not let RNG allow tiles that line up three windows in a row, thereby creating infinites? There's that window in Mother's Dwelling that has no balancing reason to be there, as well as that window in Mikey's house. Hex spawns not out in the wide open for the ISS to see. Slightly reduce the speed bonus two survivors have on a gen (nearly halving it is almost insane, especially when the addition of a third and fourth survivor doesn't help all that much).
There's ways to help this issue without adding a whole extra generator.
0 -
it's the other way around, gens feel too quick cause maps are insuferably big.
0 -
Killers would be way too oppressive. Some Gens spawn way too close to each other for that.
E.g. I played a game on Hawkins yesterday - there were two Gens in one of the long rooms, where you can go up. Updstairs there were two 1-person gens. If the Survivors would need to complete 6 Gens, a Killer could just stand in the middle of this room and would win the game.
7 -
Please no. It's not even about balance, but having to hold M1 even longer just isn't fun, at least for me. Gen repair times are already at the maximum tolerable limit, and maybe a touch beyond that.
5 -
Not only would it bump up killrates even more but killers would end up complaining about having even less control at the start of a match because that 1 additional generator is one more generator they have to patrol and check at the start of a match.
As a result killer gameplay would still feel... "sTrEsSfUl"
3 -
I'd rather there be 0 generators.
0 -
No way.. as if holding M1 wasn’t boring enough let’s add another gen!!!
0 -
But then the gates would never open.
0 -
I assume that also means 8 gens spawn on the map in total as opposed to 7, so the final gen has to be 1/3 remaining ones. In that case... sure? I'd much rather something else than more generator time but that's a whole discussion on its own.
If you mean there's still 7 total gens, hell no. 2 gens really close to eachother is a lot more likely than 3, and even in 3gens there's usually one of the three that's a little bit further away than the other 2 but still close enough to be a 3gen.
0 -
I don't think it would be a bad idea to have a different gen requirement per map, with the average being 5.
0 -
Did you get a clip of that and report it?? That’s crazy
0 -
Make it worse.
Good players would still beat bad killers. Solo q will be affected the most which isn't the desired effect.
1 -
Gen speeds are not the issue, gen splits are.
Punish gen splitting. Make the game detect how many survivors are on seperate gens. If 3 survivors are on 3 generators, give them a 15% slowdown(same as 2 survivors working on 1 gen). It would slow gens from 80 seconds to nearly 100 seconds.
This makes a 2/1 split the new optimal strategy, the 2/1 split has always been the most fun strategy. Its fast enough to combat a tunneling killer if needed, but slow enough for killers to dedicate a bit longer to chase without being forced to give up a chase that was almost going to end.
0 -
We’re not punishing survivors for doing their objective. There’s a reason why we have gen defense perks.
0 -
so is meyers
1 -
wow .. this forum .. care only about killers not survivors
me at noobs lobby ( rate 16-19) not even red rank or any thing .. we keep losing as survivors ... almost every game
today is bad day ..? or maybe killers with red rank come with account ?
1 -
No words. Terrible idea.
0 -
TBH, I rather feel more maps to be too small, like Hawkns' for example. Hardly any room to maneuver apart from a couple obvious oops.
0 -
No, I wish I would have gotten a clip, it was a true ######### moment. I did report it.
0 -
What makes anyone think that protecting 6 gens is any better than protecting 5? It makes it even worse for killers, survivors will spread even more, meaning more travel time for killers, less efficiency on aura reading perks cause they are further away, and considering how riddiculously effortless and EZ shift W makes it for Survivors, i don't want to be forced to look for a 6th gen...
0 -
Discordance would like to know your location.
0 -
Bruh if you hardstuck at rank 16 you haven't learned how to play the game
1 -
The addition of more generators would probably mean we need to adjust the times of each individual generator so that the overall time for 6 generators is the same as 5 generators. The main purpose of a generator is to keep a survivor at a location for a set amount of time. It takes time for a killer to travel to these generators also. Ultimately adding another generator without adjusting times will be too much in the killers favor. However reducing the times even with more generators actually benefits the survivors as there's less time to patrol each generator for the killer preventing the survivors from being forced in one location.
Overall I don't see this being a good idea regardless of intent. I feel giving more additional objectives would be a good idea. Optional objectives that have a huge incentive to complete for each side would also be favorable.
0 -
Gen speeds aren't the problem. The problem comes from the fact that survior's don't have enough objectives prior to gens
0 -
Genspeed is fine, but some maps are simply too big.
1 -
I've had maps where I've done three gens by myself.
I don't know what killers are doing but they're certainly not doing any sort of gen pressure. I'm not even talking the odd occasion - its happened a lot. I think some killers just need to get better at their gen pressure rather than constantly engaging in chases.
More gens isn't the answer.
0 -
You can't fix gen speeds until the Killer kill rate drops below 50%. It's around 70% right now.
2 -
5 and 7 are good numbers. The game should be balanced around 5 gens, not the other way around.
0 -
1) Its so damn boring
2) Some maps and killers would be really broken
3) 1 gen sounds like it would buy you a lot of time but it really wouldnt since survivors would probably be 2 or even 3 manning it
What we really need is map traversal for weaker killers and boosts to regression. There shouldnt be more m1 holding by increasing the gen number to 6 or making gens take 100 seconds to do it should be harder to do 5 80 second gens.
1 -
It doesn't matter how many gens you have if they're each the same speed they are now. Way too fast.
0 -
Mmm... no. No thank you.
0 -
I agree with this overall assessment. Here’s an idea for an additional objective:
Add a mechanic (key, switch, whatever) that activates a specific, multiple or all generators on the map. Survivors have to find this first before they can sit on a gen at the start of the match. Hell, highlight the switch’s aura after 10 seconds but make sure it spawns as far as possible from the survivors at the start of the match.
This is similar to Scott Jund’s trial warmup idea - the purpose is to allow the killer to generate some pressure before a generator or two pops.
0 -
I don't think genspeed is too quick. I think the Ormond realm and Red Forest maps are way too big. I don't think anyone can negate that, it can take 1/4 of a gen progress to go to from one side to the other.
0 -
Then we would have threads asking what if we had 7 gens instead of 6.
0 -
To make that fair, there must be 5 survivors. And gen speeds would have to be drastically less.
0 -
Many maps are just too damn big. Shrink them down, trim the fat.
0 -
I think this change would make solo q next to impossible. I play mostly killer and the only time gens speeds are a real problem for me is against SWF. Their coordination on comms is an unfair advantage that breaks the game. With coordination via comms, each survivor can start the game going to a different generator. If the first survivor doesn’t get downed quickly, then three gens are done by the first hook and it’s pretty much game over for the killer already.
With solo q, unless you’re running specific perks you don’t know where your teammates are, what gens they are on, who is going in for hook rescue. That uncertainty serves to slow down the game when the first survivor is hooked. In SWF, that built-in slowdown factor of uncertainty is negated by their coordination .
I think a more reasonable solution would be to increase gen repair times based on the number of SWF on a team.
0 -
You'd be literally making survivor gameplay more boring that is a hard no from me
0 -
I think it'd be great that way face campers are guaranteed 2ks instead of only 1.
0
