Survivors, Win States And...Are We Looking At This All Wrong?

don't forget to see things also from the other perspective... as killer main i would gladly avoid tunneling and camping if it wouldn't be necessary most of the times to get results (at my levels i usually found tryharders that won't allow you to play normally or to have perk variety,), but BEhavior must take into the equation also those tactics regarding the statistics of dead/escaping survivors.

I think your talking about the video game loser video game paradigm. The paradigm is that everyone wants to be a winner in video games but only few people are true winner in video games. most player are losers in video games and a big part of video games in general retention is making losing not feel bad. I think that is huge secret to making successful video games. you want to make losing not feel bad but make winning feel good. This makes player want to play games to win but they do not feel bad from a loss. You want player to keep playing the game even when they lose. Making players feel good about wins is not difficult. Most games provide dopamine hit when you win. Making losing fun is a lot more challenging I think.

Oh, don't worry, there's already been two great deterrents to these strategies, it's just that both got axed.

DS basekit, Reassurance buffed to three times per trial per perk, instead of once per trial total.

Devs attempted to fix tunneling and camping but the killer mains defended these strategies so in the end any anti tunnel and anti camp perk got nerfed to the ground.

As stated above, rebecca's new perk released as useless, so doesn't affect camping outside of comp level 4 SWF.

I think most people can agree 3k-4k is a win for killer. conversely, that means that not getting 3-4k is loss, so 0-2k is loss.

Survivor is unfortunately team game. Its the nature of asymmetric games. for me, 2 or more people escaping is the survivor winning. Survivor a lot easier to win as but the caveat for survivor is that sometimes your team winning means you dying which can feel bad at times. For example I dislike looping a killer for 4 gens then getting facecamped then dying while my team escapes. that kinda sucks but I understand it is part of team game dynamic.

I don't think depip or piping means anything. When I look at this emblem system, it seems that it was designed with the idea to punish killers for optimal plays and punish survivors for optimal efficiency. Its like someone looked at the game and tried to punish camping/tunneling/slugging/mori/instant downs and someone looked at survivor and tries to punish gen-rushing & encourage farming with the killer. at face value, its just weird. That is why when you play killer, certain killer are really bad at getting their adept because their power punishes them in emblems and survivors in general often depip/safety pip if they gen-rush without farming with the killer. it makes it somewhat challenging to go to rank 1 as survivor unless you play a lot and get potato teammate+bad killer. it is meaningless system.

Reassurance does eliminate most camping effectiveness. With co-ordination.

The problem is that, like everything else that works well with co-ordination, it's lacklustre without it. Of course, the flip side is that everything that's strong against a particular tactic without co-ordination becomes absolutely ridiculous once it is available. Which again goes back to the problem where a win or loss for Survivors gets registered (both in MMR and perception) on the individual level outside of playing in a team.

It's either a 1v1 game where you have to accept that, as the Survivor, you're at a massive disadvantage and should be expected to lose without assistance, or it's a team game and should actually acknowledge that.

The obvious thing is that, since release, people have realised the blindingly obvious fact that working together is vastly better than trying to do it all by yourself. And even BHVR's definitely come around to that philosophy--look at the HUD update, which is blatantly meant to facilitate such things.

The rest of the game needs to catch up to the de facto state, rather than half a decade old steam page writeups.

i fail to see what's wrong with the first option. that's what an asymmetrical game is.

"people not accepting that premise" - but how can one argue with a fact? i don't play call of duty and complain about not being able to get a nuke every game? that's not how the game was designed.

i can't speak for the devs. but if i had to guess it's because they're trying to appeal to a new audience since the game has had swf for long enough that the community is now predominantly swf players. and those same players likely hate the solo experience because it's so different from swf.

had swf never been added then these issues would have never arrisen. so if we're to point fingers i think swf should be removed since it's the actual problem.

i can't speak for everyone. but i do remember the lobby dodging issue. that would have been easy to fix. league of legends has a punishment system for lobby dodgers. 🤷🏻‍♂️

at this point we don't even need the lobby. just throw us into a match. why should i spend an additional 2 minutes waiting on people to ready up? that's a side effect of the old killer host system, but now we have a dedicated host and people that disconnect are (supposedly) punished for leaving. why should we sit through an additional loading screen and menu option? when you ready up it should lock your loadouts and your character. no more stream snipers and no more last second item swaps

Technically you get more chase BP the longer the chase.

Also Altruism is a Bloodpoint category.

Working together will increase your individual chance at survival, but not all survivors will make it out. That’s the premise. A 1v4 by necessity until the escape route is open.

The question is how to make it more obvious that a partial victory has been achieved. How to showcase your sacrifice aiding in others escaping, and how to showcase the sacrifices you make as a Killer (problem being this objective only has an obvious threshold at a 4K - as it’s always the same gameplay up to that point).

Much like DbD moved away from stealth to looping gameplay I really feel like they need to ditch the idea of survivors are not a team (1v1v1v1v1). While a nice concept, it doesn't really work as a game.

As @StarLost says above, if as a survivor I'm getting facecamped why shouldn't I suicide and go play another game? The way to counter camping on the survivor side is to just do gens/reassurance the survivor on the hook. This all though depends on the survivor sitting on the hook and just accepting a loss. Which they currently have no rational reason to do other than the idea that they are helping their "team".

I feel that the game would be improved by an end screen that says 'survivors win', 'killer win', or 'draw' - we don't even have to discuss new perks/changes. Knowing there is a team to play for will give a reason for the survivor to stay on the hook instead of suicide and also give the killer reason to play more aggressively. You can then also do BP, etc. based rewards on overall survivor performance, but I think the message screen would be a big help.

If anything I feel we're moving away form this idea where camping and tunneling is discouraged and I don't think BHVR did this on purpose or even thought about this when they made the change but the merciless killer change has lead to kinda weird scenarios where I had a knight game yesterday where I tried to play fair and I two hooked everyone but everyone escaped so 8/12 hook states and I then finish by hearing the "entity hungers" horn that comes in and that was so jarring after having a game where I thought I did alright.

Meanwhile and this hasn't happened to me but you can hypothetically snowball get 4 hooks or taken to it's most extreme 0 hook and bleed everyone out and get merciless. This sends the message hooks don't actually matter and you just need kills. I'm not gonna make any value judgements on that I'm just saying we're very VERY far from sending the message you can play what's regarded as "fair" and get rewarded for it. Killers are encouraged to play as ruthless as possible more and more with every change.

You shouldn’t ragequit because that is against the game rules.

Purposely leaving a game early is ragequitting. It doesn’t matter if you use a “built in” way to quit, you’re still ragequitting.

No, it wasn't. I know that's what BHVR claims it was, but the nerf they chose says different. They could've opted for any number of measures to make the perk not keep survivors on the hook indefinitely, which is a scenario that would require all three other survivors AND the killer to cooperate for that, so that would still be incredibly unlikely to occur, but they went for the absolute most crippling nerf, inventing new conditionals to make sure this perk would be as weak as possible against camping. If it was once per hookstate, it would've worked. But they made it once per hook -instance-, per survivor. It cannot produce more than 30 seconds now under any circumstance. Even if multiple people bring the perk, it's still locked at 30 seconds and no more than that.

So where before, counterperks like DS would be largely useless unless the killer specifically played that one particular strategy, now we have a counterperk that may not even work, even IF the killer is employing the strategy it is supposed to counter.

You could maybe argue incompetence, but let's be honest: It was harder to make Reassurance as ineffective against camping as it is now, than it would've been to just give it three tokens. This would be the weirdest incompetence I've ever seen.

So I'm just going to say it: BHVR lied. They nerfed Reassurance because they wanted to protect camping.

And yes, there were people on the forums adamantly arguing that Reassurance was punishing camping too much.

I don't think you're removing the possibility that requires the fewest additional assumptions.

I think people aren't thinking this through.

If they really -only- wanted to address the 'perma-hook' issue, why add the 'once per hook instance, per survivor' stipulation? That's a new conditional that didn't exist yet in the game, so it's not some numerical adjustment, which would've worked, nor is it a pre-existing condition that could be copy-pasted from another perk.

Why put in -extra- work to make a -less- tailored solution?

Okay, so they put thought into it. And at no point did any of them say 'hey, this completely defeats the point of the perk'?

What other game function uses this?