Have the developers ever actually stated how they want killers to play the game?
So, reading the PTB notes and I see the change to Deja Vu:
- We have noticed growing concerns surrounding excessively long matches caused by 3-genning (Killer defending a cluster of three generators). We are working on a long term solution for a future update to limit how effective this strategy can be. However, we recognize that Survivors need more options at their disposal right now to combat 3-genning. With this in mind, some adjustments have been made to Déjà Vu: The perk will now reveal the auras of 3 generators which are in close proximity to one another indefinitely (previously for 30/45/60 seconds at the start of the trial and everytime a generator was completed) and grant a 4%/5%/6% repair speed bonus on the revealed generators (previously 3%/4%/5%).
So 3 genning is now bad? Then why do maps like suffocation pit actually exist? Why did the developers release the knight and then the skull merchant and now another killer with seemingly strong 3 Gen potential. Is this just due to complaining from survivors? Because the developers have made decisions for months (years) which suggest they’re fine with the game being played one way, only for enough moaning to cause them to try and counteract the game design they themselves implemented.
I honestly don’t understand anymore how the developers want killers to play the game. Is it just to “have fun”? Enjoy chases and don’t care about macro strategy or winning? Don’t use slowdown perks as they’re all mostly pretty trash?
I do agree that 3 genning can be tedious, but the solution is not removing that ability without changing other things like map design.
Comments
-
"EXCESSIVELY LONG MATCHES DUE TO 3-GENS"
They are trying to prevent matches where Killers just hold an infinite 3-gen until the server closes or Survivors decide that doing literally anything else would be better than sitting in an hour long game with someone who has an ego issue.
75 -
Map design is pretty bad across the board, so I don't think some maps requiring/forcing 3-gens is a decent defence of it being intended, personally. Hell, that could be part of what they're working on to address the complaints, adjusting the maps in some way.
Also, they released Skull Merchant and Knight to be played the way they're clearly intended, the fact that people use them for obnoxious 3-gen stuff doesn't mean the devs wanted that to happen necessarily. Maybe they were more fine with the possibility then than they are now, but it's not as though either of them were explicitly designed to only or primarily patrol a tight perimeter and never commit to chases.
As for how they want killers to play the game... normally? Spread pressure, use your macro sense, don't delay the game indefinitely and/or minimise gameplay with cheese strats like 3-gens or camping?
12 -
They're ignoring the fact that lots of times the 3gen is survs' fault, because they split bad the map
26 -
Defending your generators now means you have an ego issue? 3 gens are caused by survivors not spreading out how they repair generators.
36 -
Nope, not at all. Sure, it can happen. But there are more than enough instances where a Killer just does not leave their 3-Gen the whole game. And there is not really anything you can do about it as Survivor.
44 -
If you're facing a skully or knight I agree, other killers nah, not really. Most of the times I think is survs fault. I think it is like 80~90% time of 3gen survs fault 20~10% killers holding a 3gen. Maybe I'm wrong with the %, but I've never faced a 3gen holder killer. Same for Pinhead box holding, it was a problem, but I've never faced someone using this strategy
8 -
-"Map design is pretty bad across the board, so I don't think some maps requiring/forcing 3-gens is a decent defence of it being intended"
Look at a map like Azarov's.
You have 3 gens on one side+ 1 generator in the middle + 3 gens on the other side.
There is no M1 killer in the game without a movement power that can contest any combination of two generators on one side and one generator on the other side.
So when the developers say: we don't want 3 gens to be viable you either need:
- To Delete this map
- rework the map to be massively smaller (change that 11 to an 8)
- Prevent any killer without a movement power from playing this map
What most people don't realize is that most of the maps in DBD can be polarized in the same way that this map can be. The removal of "3 gen" as a strategy removes most of the killer roster as being "viable".
If you want to kill the game then removing 3 gens as a tactic is a good way to encourage all nurse/blight all the time.
27 -
Yes. Map design is pretty bad across the board, including maps that force 3-gens because they are poorly designed.
I'm glad you agree...?
Although, to be clear, the language used is "limit the effectiveness of", not "remove".
2 -
Some killers were designed around 3 genning playstyle. For some melee killers 3 gen can be a saving grace. This is soon to be changed.
While it's understandable that 3 genning can be annoying, it's removal will take another game plan from many killers. I have a feeling nothing shall be introduced in exchange to this 3 gen nerf ( survivors won't need to worry about which gen they should do anymore ) which will in turn only lead to faster overall gen progression as survivors will simply latch themselves to the first gen they see without any potential risk down the road.
To sum it up - another nerf to killers, albeit indirect. As for how devs think killers should play - with a clown hat and nose on. That's how.
8 -
When you refuse to leave them and hold the match hostage, yeah, it's an ego thing and clearly the Devs agree to some extent.
13 -
no we are not ignoring that, which is why there's a buff to Deja Vu in the patch notes.
It's the circumstances around the killer going into a match and just setting up for a 3 gen that we're looking to address in the long term. Playing for the game to end in an hour isn't the intended way for DbD to be played.
48 -
This discussion again.
Why should the killer, whose objective it is to prevent the survivors from escaping, be forced to leave the thing that prevents the survivors from escaping, when survivors put themselves in that position to begin with? If there is a 3 gen, and 4 survivors are up, and when i start to chase a survivor they immediately run to the strongest structure in the game, why should i chase them when it is guaranteed i lose at that point?
While it seems like they are doing this, it should be fixed from a game mechanic perspective in some way, not by saying "killer bad" for doing what their role dictates.
17 -
Every Killer can hold a 3-Gen. Skull Merchant and Knight are just better at it, especially Skull Merchant.
But, I have to say, it got better. Mostly new and reworked Maps spawned really disgusting 3-Gens, but they fixed at least the one on Haddonfield. (Before you had 2 fixed Gens in front and inside the Myers House and almost always another Gen close by. Now the house in front of the house is gone or moved to the street and the one in the house moved upstairs... Way better)
5 -
Wanting to win isn’t an ego issue. Everyone is entitled to play how they want
10 -
Bad killers with zero game sense or skill in chase soon won't be able to get free wins due to mindlessly patrolling a three gen that they immediately committed to at the start of the match? Let me break out the world's smallest violin. Absolutely no one who plays survivor is going to miss these types of killers. I'm very glad to see Behavior is finally realizing many of the fundemental flaws in the design of their game. Finally we can go into an era where the game is based purely around chase. Not around facecamping and three genning. It feels like the worst days of this game are finally coming to an end.
10 -
See Mandy's reply above mine
12 -
I mean, sometimes it is.
Also, see Mandy's reply above mine. It's not how DBD is meant to be played.
13 -
So, why not just reworking maps to limit the 3gen possibilities? I know it's a lot of works, but instead of buffing a gen speed perks when gens already fly...
1 -
Even with deja vu buff, I've recently adopted the 3 gen strat into my ordinary gameplay. I actively search out the closest 3 gens only because it benefits me late game as killer to have a close 3 gens. I still defend them because it's my one purpose next to hooking survivors.
0 -
No, the devs have been fine with it for 7 years. It is yet another example of the devs caving to bad players
13 -
That's not what you said, you said holding a 3 gen makes you egotistical, mandy is talking specifically about doing something intentionally from the beginning of the match for the INTENT to hold the game hostage. I'm talking about tactically setting up the 3 gen because i notice the survivors are giving me one, then decided to not chase them when they go to the strongest structure in the game that will minimum make my chase take 60+ seconds.
While we are at it, can we do something to prevent 2 survivors from hiding forever and not repairing gens because they both want the hatch? This also sucks for everyone involved when it happens.
17 -
Me! It's rare I get an L because of it. I highly encourage this gameplay tactic of you're struggling with the bs that suvlrvivors can constantly get away with
0 -
I don't think the Devs have been cool with hostage holding.
That's been against the rules for as long as I've been around.
9 -
So it's ok to ignore that often 3 gen is caused by survivors themselves. It's one thing when 3 gens are spawned near each other with direct line of sight, which should be addressed ( do note, it's not a killer's fault ) but when they are only relatively close to each other compared to the rest of gens then is it fair to punish a killer for trying to play around such triangle?
These potentially imposing changes that are announced do contradict with the idea that killer players are allowed the way they can and want. How far are we from the point where killers will have to play by some kind of rule book which will severely limit their options for the sake of positive survivor experience?
4 -
As we state in the patch notes, this is a temp measure - short term, whilst we look at longer term options
7 -
Any chance you can share what some of the longer term options being looked at are?
I'm sure all of us, one way or another, are curious
7 -
Holding a 3-gen from the very start of the game is not the survivors fault.
7 -
If 3-gens are the next thing to prevent, then hopefully, HOPEFULLY that means Hag will get some sort of buff. You can't add a counter that harms chases on the most counterable killer in the game and then remove their only efficient playstyle. You gotta give em something at some point.
Yes, I am coping hard.
6 -
That popped out to me as I was reading it too. I believe a few factors are at play here, of course, map design, the introduction of heavy gen-defense killers like Knight and SM, and the spawn algorithm for gens have created the perfect ######### storm and the devs kinda backed themselves into a corner on this so something is going to have to give.
At first glance, it seems the devs are compromising to surv complaints of 3 gens. Some may say caving, but regardless of what you want to call it, they are cutting into the 3-gen no matter how you spin it. Both temporary and long-term solutions to 3-genning are being sought. Take that how you will.
I'd say map design & gen spawn are the biggest offenders and more than likely a root of this change because some maps (looking at your RPD) spawn the closest possible 3 gens that is so damn easy to guard that you're already at a gross advantage from the start. Like, yeah survs can easily bring it on themselves but some games are just a losing up-hill battle from the start because that's just the game's design.
Post edited by Nun_So_Vile on2 -
Why do you think killers do this?
5 -
who can still do that with the nerfed gen kick perks tho? maybe just maybe skull merchant or something? i dont think its really a problem anymore
2 -
I agree maps like RPD (specifically when you get a Gen downstairs and upstairs in the main lobby) can be too oppressive 3 Gen wise for survivors. But the solution should surely be to reduce overall map size and make defending all gens actually possible?
Playing a lot of the roster, especially M1 killers, and especially those without mobility, it is impossible to defend all gens. I am almost certain that it is expected for killers to ignore far away gens/gens in bad spots and to try and create dead zones within an area of the map that is easier to defend. Again, it feels like the devs have bought into the argument that “the chase” is everything in this game. Defending certain areas, not chasing like a headless chicken is all part of a killer’s strategy. Are we really supposed to think the likes of Hag and Trapper shouldn’t be playing this way?
IMO four survivors should be able to break a 3 gen- the only ones who don’t are usually solo potatoes or cowards who won’t create even pressure on the killer and are waiting for their teammates to do it. The only exception to this is maybe skull merchant- which goes back to my original point. The latest full release killer is best played by 3 genning. Did the devs really not realise this was going to happen?
Killers and maps will need major reworks if they don’t fairly address this issue long term.
1 -
But consistently ending matches in under 5 minutes is fine, it seems. I understand the sentiment but surely you see how this might look hypocritical.
By the way, this is not going to punish killers that defend a 3 gen from the start of the match at all. In fact it does the opposite as it more or less works as a reminder (with an additional neat bonus), that survivors should break 3 gens early on, which punishes killers that play normally and have to use every survivor mistake to their advantage.
11 -
Or by the Killer consolidating where they patrol?
0 -
Genuine question here; a killer has four survivors left and only 1 generator needs to be completed. Are you saying that if this one generator happens to be in the middle of a very tight 3 gen the killer should actively leave this zone at some point? For what reason?
I understand that four survivors and one gen left is a losing position most of the time (I know other factors can be at play, like perks etc). But the game is not over until the survivors have left the trial by whatever means. Saying defending generators is an “ego” issue is just plain wrong IMO.
6 -
Oh ok, I understand. Thank you
0 -
Then rework the maps !
Deja Vu change is really a BAD BAD BAD change, permament gen speed boost ? always know the location of the gens ? It's truly bad
You're the one who made the maps and you are the one who change change gen spawn location so, instead od buff a perk why don't you fix maps and gen location spawn in order to avoid 3 gens ?
4 -
As I said in a previous post, in my opinion 80~90% of time is surv fault for the 3gen, 20~10% it's the killer holding the 3gen. I never faced a killer keeping the 3gen from the beginning of the match
1 -
Good post.
I genuinely think at this point that BHVR have fully bought into the “chase is the only fun part of the game” argument. Have lots of chases guys, get some hooks if you can (not on the same survivor of course, and never twice in a row) and wave them off at the exit gates! Sounds fun!
8 -
Honesty a bit of everything, not being too extreme and camping 3 gens from the start of the game, rather just normally patrolling gens, tunnel survivors if necessary even, However, killer should not just be played with one thought, rather doing multiple things.
4 -
Wait. How does shrinking maps reduce 3-genning? Less space means more gens spawn closer together as gens have less surface space to load into. If anything shrinking maps makes 3-genning easier. Which is exactly what happened to RPD and New Haddonfield (this one was changed but they can’t really change RPD to prevent the 3-gen that always forms b/c there’s no where else for the gens to go).
4 -
Well, this is the problem isn’t it. And it depends on what these “long term” solutions to 3 genning are.
If the devs don’t want people 3 genning, then all gens need to be close enough together so as not be detrimental to the killer if they leave that zone. But the gens can’t be too close together, as this would make getting gens done as survivors too difficult.
I would still argue however that gens on a lot of maps could be closer together. There’s a lot of dead space on some maps.
1 -
I´m afraid that in a 3 gen both sides are equally culprit of holding the game hostage. Because a survivor who tries to lure the killer away from the gens is just the same as the killer who tries to protect the gens.
You can´t point at the killer and say that he has an ego issue, when survivors have the exact same issue. Both sides want to win.
14 -
To me it just looks like the devs want really short matches. Without gen slowdown or 3 gens, there is only 1 thing left a killer can do to slow the game down.
Which doesn´t exactly sound fun but meh...
6 -
Sure! I can take a crack at that.
So, first of all, two of your three "don't"s here are right, but the third isn't. You can totally patrol defendable gens, that's not the topic being discussed and it'd be disingenuous to claim it is. There's a big, big difference between patrolling defendable gens, and picking three at the start of the match to never lose sight of while refusing to take chase away from them, stalling the game out so it lasts 40 minutes.
Moving on from that, I can't speak for BHVR but I can tell you what's left. Aim to be mobile and decisive, generating your pressure primarily through actions that push multiple survivors to respond; not just one down and stay at that hook, but spread injuries and downs such that survivors have to either dramatically cut down their generator efficiency to respond, or straight up stop doing generators to reset. Randomly roaming the map is a poor idea; if you don't have good enough map awareness to track survivors yourself (which I don't, no shade!) information perks will bridge that gap wonderfully.
Your biggest asset as killer is your ability to pressure survivors, by pushing them to take certain actions. Get an injury, that injury has to be healed or the survivor's vulnerable. Get a down, if you don't pick up, someone has to come pick them up instead or the generator efficiency goes down. Get a hook, someone has to save. That's the idea of spreading pressure, pushing multiple survivors to react at once instead of focusing too hard on one survivor.
There's no one specific playstyle, I hope you'll note. Stealth, chase, information heavy or slowdown heavy, these are all valid playstyles within this framework; the point is that you shouldn't be taking shortcuts that minimise gameplay, like facecamping or jealously defending a 3-gen to stalemate.
Obviously this game has balance issues. I'm fully aware generator completion times can be far too short to generate pressure. But you have to take one step to take any subsequent ones, and it's not an objectively ridiculous claim to say tackling the tactics that stall games out forever or completely remove players from the game for the entire match are a good first step over edge cases where games are over too fast, even if you disagree.
9 -
This is all fine, but I think we all know that when BHVR talk about “long term” solutions for stopping three gens they are not just talking about killers who use the tactic from the very start of a trial.
So I’ll ask you a question I asked another poster- if the killer has a 3 Gen (whether deliberately or inadvertently through survivor error) should they be expected not to defend it just because it’s apparently boring and causes longer matches?
5 -
it is a bad temp measure and shouldn't reach live. Nor should anymore gen speed perks be added or buffed. if anything gen speed perks require a nerf.
if you can't do that then you need to revert the gen regression nerfs or give us something like base kit deadlock. Survivors shouldn't be able to do 3 gens in 90 seconds(or less with perks+toolboxes) at the start of a match during the first chase.
I'm for getting rid of 3 gens, I am for getting rid of camping and tunneling.
6 -
Do we all know that? Because the one person actually from BHVR in this thread said the opposite.
But to answer the question, personally, I think the solution would be to push things so the killer doesn't have to leave, but it's still possible for the survivors to win through good play anyway. A 3-gen, natural or artificial, should not be an automatic win for the killer.
5 -
I’ve always found the discrepancy in answers to the question “how long should a game of DBD be” to be quite bizarre. Especially when I see people advocating for games less than 6 minutes.
3 -
It was stated that they want to stop killer’s going into matches with the intention to 3 Gen. Unless they have some minority report style detection system that can read the killer’s intentions it is highly likely any solution they offer will ultimately make 3 gens impossible unless the survivors misplay massively. In which case they should be punished.
How many killers do you think can hold a 3 Gen against four survivors, if the survivors actually pressure the gens?
5
