Solution to the proposed Mori Changes (and farewell to the Hatch??)
Last survivor goes down.
Killer gets presented with 3 options on screen.
- Kill (plays the mori animation);
- Save (plays the killer dumping the body at the exit and survivor crawling out with their life spared animation);
- Entity Decides (Entity steps in and takes over, randomly picking between the two, for which the killer is bound by).
Not as interesting as the killer letting the survivor out more manually, but also is a workaround for what seems to be the current thinking ["As soon as the final living Survivor standing is put into the dying state, the game ends." - https://news.deadbydaylight.com/en/news/MoriRework]. Also adds an interesting randomiser option.
Heck, just get rid of the Hatch.
- There aren't many perks it affects - rework coming.
- Solves the problem about what to do with keys and to some extent maps - merged to new helper item. [ https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/321559/from-keys-and-maps-to-compass ]
- Removes a gameplay mechanic that doesn't impact the game heavily at all - the game is basically over when you are down to the last survivor.
- The Hatch mechanic can be saved and reimagined for some sort of future gameplay implementation.
- Not too difficult to rework tome tasks.
- Simplifies the gameplay.
To compensate, maybe the last survivor gets a (much?) faster rate of opening the gate - the Entity trying to help a bit. Similar risk and outcome that you might or might not get out to the Hatch. Also an interesting new gameplay mechanic with pros and cons for both sides.
If you think about it like this, maybe the current proposed changes and make sense and maybe the Hatch is on the way out.
I like the hatch and hatch escapes, but if I was a dev doing a big overhaul and there was an acceptable enough alternative that potentially simplifies a bunch of stuff with not so much drawback, then...............
Comments
-
What's the point of added complexity? If you want to let last survivor leave, don't down him. It's that simple.
7 -
Nothing complex about it.
If anything this complicates things.
Maybe I want to hit the survivor. Maybe I'll want to save them but hit them first. Maybe I won't realise they are the last survivor because I am distracted elsewhere. Maybe they were a bad sport and I might have wanted to save a survivor but not them. Maybe I chainsawed them "accidentally" with the second last survivor. Maybe they are hiding in a corner bleeding out. Maybe I am not wanting to spend 3 minutes roaming to map to find the hatch. Maybe I am not willing to wait 3 minutes for the survivor to roam the map to find the hatch. Etc etc etc.
Not downing someone intentionally to work around the game itself is poor design. There are too many niche possibilities that means the killer "just not downing them" (what the killer is actually designed to do) shouldn't get through QA.
It's quite obvious the devs are taking the game in a stated direction. I'm just trying to make an improvement on it.
If the game is now saying that I have to down the person to end it, let it not be dragged out. The above way gives me as the killer still a choice and though it's not as elegant as the hatch, the outcome is still the same.
0 -
In this game killers are designed to kill. If it doesn't accommodate your specific personal wishes about nice merciful killers, that's not a game design flaw. But you are welcome to try "Hooked on you" this summer if you want a game designed around friendly killers.
0 -
"In this game killers are designed to kill."
"If you want to let last survivor leave, don't down him. It's that simple."
Ok then.
*
"If it doesn't accommodate your specific personal wishes about nice merciful killers,"
I never said this, nor implied it. I suggested why "not downing the last survivor" isn't as simple as you make it out to be, given the clearly new direction the game is taking. If a system is designed to do a very specific thing and there is a "workaround" that circumvents said thing happening in that system, then it's a flaw. My wishes about being a nice killer or not are irrelevant.
If you have specific concerns with the new functions, you should take it up with the development team, of which I am not. I am an anonymous person on an internet forum sharing an idea that I thought through quite a lot. If you don't like it, that's fine.
0 -
I can't make any sense of it. And I never said I have any concerns. What exactly do you want me to read in your examples?
Let's see... "Maybe I won't realise they are the last survivor because I am distracted elsewhere." - than don't be distracted elsewhere? Or are you saying that developers should spend time adding features just to accommodate someone not paying attention? You will be able to practice paying attention in bot matches soon.
0
