Survivors got nothing this chapter, what Equal Attention Buff would you like to see?

... do you realize that for PT to work you need 2 or more survivors in one gen, right? So it add more saved time to the base time saved? And that the argument was that it "only" saved 7 seconds (as we were talking about old PT) and that's why it supposedly wasn't that busted (like even the 5.5 seconds it saves now wasn't that much)?

So, a perk that works by percentage of the base regression doesn't have anything to do with that base regression, specially one that only work from that specific base regression and upward? Fascinating...

Yeah, that's why I started it with "In my experience".

That's very much a you problem...

Nice strawman, but dare to explain me how pointing out that fact is me wanting "free wins"? Specially when gen times being too fast has being a problem since I started playing the game. Also, if taking away 37 seconds of a gen by having just another survivor in it is a "co-op penalty", I don't want to see what a co-op reward is by your logic...

Technically the truth, doesn't change the fact that the problem with it is not how much it takes away by itself, but that it takes away it on top of the time the base progression takes.

Read above.

My Entity, dude! From a strawman to a even bigger strawman with a lot more fallacies after.

But I tell you what, if you are able to explain to me where I said that two survivors repairing one gen should take the same time than if they were only one, I would try to answer any of that *word I can't write as is not allowed in the forum*.

More than enough to see gen times has being a problem since a long time now.

It means what I said. But you do you, dude. We both know your tendency to understand what you want and not what the other said. That, and repeat yourself.

You didn't justified your other fallacies and start with another one? You still have to explain where I said that two survivors should save 0 seconds in generator time.

Anyway, GG.

I would like to see renewal get buffed to work automatically after being rescued from a hook without requiring to heal another survivor. that would be my wish.

i think he is complaining that prove thyself exaggerates base progressions because it encourages people to be glued on generators. that is why i said it was really strong perk that people underrated.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WIDSY16gOvA

37 seconds, compared to what, Bat?

You always just play stupid the second you realise you're wrong, just so you don't have to own up to it.

That's precious coming from you.

You still have to justify your fallacies! I don't see you pointing out where I said what you said I said.

But I tell you what, if you own up the fact that you only argumented with fallacies, and explain to me the reason for even making that question, what has to do with anything and how it is any proof that I'm wrong, I would try answer to it.

The keyword being "try", because it doesn't even make sense. "37 seconds compared to what?"... what?

If the situation requires it and you're okay with that, then yes.. But if you're not a competitive player, then you shouldn't tunnel even if it causes you to end up with a few less hooks in the end. What you do care about is having fun, ain't that right?

Killers do tunnel since the very beginning even nowadays, at least in mid-high MMR, and especially while facing solo queue where the saviors do hide and let the injured moaning survivor be found once again.. Killers running four slow downs instead of detection perks, and then excusing their lack of self-awareness when it comes to the loadout selection that they couldn't have found any other survivor besides the recently unhooked one.

The killers who don't tunnel do usually lose the match in my experiences, or they make a comeback if the survivors mess up a little or the killer has a way to injure survivors with ease.

It still takes 90 charges to pop the gen, so I'm not sure why you are saying it would be 53 charges. It takes 2 Survivors ~53s working at .85 charges/second each, instead of 1 charge/second each solo'd, or 3 Survivors ~43s working at .7 charges/second each, or 4 Survivors ~41s working at .55 charges/second each. Each case still requires 90 charges to pop the gen, but varied times to accomplish that same 90 charges.

In real cases it helps the efficiency argument for split gens. That's why many people have been ignoring them to give your case the most benefit possible. If a Killer intercepts a solo gen, 1 Survivor is disrupted. If a Killer intercepts a duo gen, 2 Survivors are disrupted, and they don't get to simply teleport to another gen and keep it progressing, nor do they get to continue to progress the gen they were just on unless they risk giving the Killer a free hit. In addition, take the common jungle gym/shack gen for example. If 2 people are on the gen, the Killer not only gets to pick which Survivor to chase (maybe the unhooked PR Surv, or the death hook for a kill Surv), they also get to pick the Window Survivor or the Pallet Survivor to chase, which could result in an early hit with Bamboozle for the window or pallet break for the Pallet Surv. The Killer is massively advantaged in the 'real example', yet those parts you don't count in it. Those things are far more relevant, but we typically shorter this massive paragraph to "it helps Killer to have Survivors grouped", because we assume people have the capacity to recognize the obvious (although unstated).

'... everyone is adamant for BHVR to not make the two survivor base progress penalty higher.' - Yes, as I said in the first reply in my post (not to you), they should remove the penalty for grouping, and add a penalty for soloing. They should also basekit CoB intel when gens are co-oped, that way Killers can know which gens are being done by multiple Survivors, making it more likely multiple Survivors will interact with the Killer. More Killer/Survivor interaction is better in my eyes, and those changes would facilitate that.

Sprint Burst & Lithe aren't stupidly OP against most killers.

MFT had an infinite speed boost. It looked wrong on paper and was wrong on practice. (I trust I don't need to enumerate all the reasons it was wrong. They have been repeated ad nauseam.) That perk had to change. I'm only surprised they took so much time to do it when they nerfed the Xenomorph in a couple of weeks.

You still here? And you still doesn't understand what you read?

First, told me where I interchanged those terms outside of referring to "1 survivor - 1 gen" scenario where basically are the same, as the base progression for a single survivor is 1 c/s.

Second, if instead of doing a gen with another survivor, you try to find another gen and get chased instead, the number of charges lost and not pumped in another gen are only 53 charges, as you would just only had spent 53 seconds doing the co-op gen, not 90. That was the example I gave in my other post, arguing precisely that nothing guarantees that those 53 extra charges you would get from splitting progression would by pumped on another gen.

To finish:

Yeah... that's what I was talking about, hence the "(charges)" after the "106 seconds" as that is how everybody wrongly refer to it even in this post and I myself said that earlier, so I made clear that those are 106 "charges", not "seconds" as someone said:

So, your argument with all this is what, exactly? Or are you just cherry picking every little thing you believe I'm wrong about at this point?

BHVR is always business business business first. Their game will come second all the time. They'll get their money with this perk strategy to get you to buy, for example, End Transmission because you wanted that shiny MFT. You get it, and then after getting used to it, its gutted. Money well spent? Doesn't matter at that point, they got your money. End Transmission.

And yet, I'm 100% certain that within days of this change going live the forums will call for nerfs to something else.

It might not be sprint burst or lithe, but that was the trend before MfT, and I fully expect it to be the go-to after the MfT nerf lands.

If not those two specifically, it'll absolutely be whatever killers decide is 'the next big thing' that's losing them games, and chase perks are usually high on the list. It's been consistently easier to get perks nerfed by complaining incessantly than for players to actually improve their own gameplay, specifically when it comes to improving skill in chase over the past year or so.

... why it not surprises me that you don't get that when talking about single survivors on one gen, a second is equal to a charge. So, what people is saying is that two survivors on one gen could have being 106 charges in separated gens, or it would not make any friking sense as the effective time would still be 53 seconds.

Except I already addressed that specific "scenario" you are saying in another post:

But as always, you do you.

... and? What has that to do with anything? Because if you are comparing it directly to my example, then, they would be both moving after finishing a gen, which is now secured and with no way of getting regressed. They could also split and go to different gens, or to heal, or do a save, or whatever as they both are free now to do what they have to do.

So, I don't see what your point is.

Aham... so, from "There is a lot of things happening in a match, like moving, getting chased, having to do specific killer things, etc." you just have picked the moving one and now my argument only was "You have to move"? Right.

Maybe it is because the point never was "lose time by moving to another gen", but "There are more things happening in a match than making gens, so not always is better to follow the most efficient charges per seconds route" with an example of how those 53 charges that would have being done by "Survivor B" in another gen instead of doing the gen with "Survivor A" are not guaranteed, as again, a match don't only consist of doing gens uninterrupted and the killer could basically chase and down him before he gets to another gen, maybe even find and disrupt Survivor A before he can finish the gen, while if he stayed with Survivor A maybe by the time the killer would found them that gen would already be finished and secured.

That has being my point since this conversation started, that there is more things happening in a match that makes splitting up not always the best option, and I provided an example in response to something someone else said. That's it.

But again, it doesn't surprises me at all that you either didn't get, or decide to ignore what I really said.

But when talking about the lost result in those two survivors in one gen, we then talk about those two survivors in two separate gens. So hard it is to understand?

What? Have you even read what I said?

It is an example where the survivor would be found if it goes to look from another gen, something that could perfectly happen in a real match. Of course, the contrary is also true, there would be matches were that survivor would go to start repairing another gen and there would be no problem, or other were the two would stay and get found on the same gen.

Who the hell is saying that I pretend to say grouping is better with that example, when the example wasn't even to argue that point? Seriously dude, stop with the strawmans and putting words in my mouth already.

You mean like this?:

He came back again later, but I stayed close again, killer started chasing another survivor again, and we finished the gen as Ada also came back later. As I said, this is not an uncommon occurrence and had done it and had it done to me in a daily basis.

Well, obviously, you don't play killer that much, as not many killer would do that for the simple reason that you would be losing time in starting a chase with two targets at the same time and protecting a gen regressing 4 times slower than a survivor can repair it, while the other survivors are free to do whatever they want. But yeah, it can happen, and if it happens, then the killer would chase the survivor that stayed while the first one can do whatever they want, including get back to that gen.

Also, you are talking like I'm saying all this are facts written in stone or something, while the ones talking like "Spreading is always the best option" is some universal rule of physics are you. What I said is that in my experience in a every day match there are instances where is better to secure a gen than giving the killer the opportunity to mess up the regression of two. I never said one option is always better than the other in every single situation, that's what you is saying and what you are pretending that I said.

Talking about bad comparisons and not analyzing your example!

First, in your example, only one gen would be regressing, so you can't compare it with the charges of two survivors in two individual gens. In any case, it would be -0.25 c/s vs 1.7 c/s as opposed to -0.25 c/s vs 1 c/s as only one survivor would have being repairing that gen. But that didn't fit your narrative, I guess.

Second, you know that for that same reason two survivors on one gen reduces the effectiveness of regression, right? First by reducing the time lost (if 30 charges are lost, and those charges where done in 17.65 seconds at 1.7 c/s, then only 17.65 seconds of work would be lost instead of 30) and second by allowing to recover that charges faster (two survivors would recover those 30 charges in only 17.65 seconds instead of the 30 seconds it would take to only one survivor).

But of course you know, as I already said it in another post above! You just chose to ignore that fact.

Where have someone compared anything to anything? I just provided an example of how those 53 charges that would have being pumped in another gen can be denied. I never compared that situation to any other. I never said it is the only possible outcome of that scenario in a real match where everything is possible. Nothing. Is all in your head and your fallacies, dude.

And what does the definition of example have to do with you reducing my real point (There are a lot of things happening in a match that you have to take into account apart from just raw gen repair) to "You have to move"? Seriously, how do you even get to that point of reasoning? What logic process did you follow to even start to think it was a valid argument?

...and? Who in the entity's name have said the contrary?

...and?

Where had I mention healing in my example? Anyway... and?

Again: And??? What have anything of that to do with what I'm saying and how it contradicts it? Seriously dude, start understanding what the real points of people are and stop distorting them! I never said that any of that doesn't happens when grouping up! I never said that grouping up is always better than splitting up! I never said any of that!

And as you seems to believe I said it, please point it to me where I supposedly said it, specially when I had said "splitting up is the most effective way mathematically speaking" since the beginning.

See how it is you who says one thing is better than the other always?

False, because of the reasons that I already said. There is times where securing a gen faster is better than giving the killer more time to mess up with it. But we both know how you roll, so as always, you do you.

But... two survivors on two gens does! And when talking about those "106 seconds" people refer precisely that those two survivor could have done 106 charges in two gens, but wrongfully call them seconds and...

You know what? Let's just say it is too hard for you to understand it.

And who have said the contrary?

Where I said that. Come on, point it out exactly where I said it.

... I'm starting to believe that you live between parallel universes or something, because that never happened in this reality.

That's not arguing with fallacies anymore, at this point is literally lying.

But you were literally saying it was a "handwaved best-case scenario" where in reality is a common occurrence in a daily match, and again, one of the main reasons for using Nowhere to hide. So common that I recorded that before you even made that claim.

So, I wasn't even arguing that you said it is not a possibility? But that you said it like I was fabricating an utopian scenario where the killer is oblivious of the second survivor like it can't really happen that often when it does, as like I said, the killer can only chase one survivor?...

Who is talking about 3genning and what the SM rework have to do with anything discussed? Back to the fallacies, again.

First, who said it wasn't when that wasn't even the point being made? Second, how is the killer not being able to stop a gen progressing if a second survivor stay by it unless they lose time and let the others free of pressure an argument for that?

Again, where? Point exactly where I said that and how I had being corrected, when I'm the first one that said that in efficiency terms splitting up is the way to go. That, or stop with the strawmans already.

Come on, make a claim based on reality and not your distorted logic for once. You can do it, I believe in you.

But only one gen is regressing, if two gens are regressing that would be -0.50 c/s total, and if they are regressing then no charges are being pumped in any gen. It was already obvious that you don't use any logic behind your "arguments", but to that point, dude? Really?

Yeah, and also give the killer another 30 seconds instead of just 17.65 to do whatever he need to do to catch you all.

Also, and again, those aren't seconds, those are charges, so that other survivor would be able to put 17.65 charges in another gen at the same time, not 30, and again, nothing guarantees that he would be able to do so. That's my point.

Either way, it doesn't change the fact that grouping up reduces the effects of regression.

You referred to my example, where according to you I was comparing "apples with Toyotas". Now, as you can't point out where I compared anything there, you change the goalpost to the whole discussion (wrongfully, as I never compared both things directly). Another fallacy to add to the list.

And when I said the contrary? Specially after just saying explicitly that it can also happen.

So, you are admitting that you did a sharpshooter fallacy and cherry picked my argument to make yours. Great! Another one for the list!

If someone lives in your same reality yes, of course. If not, I didn't even made that point ever to begin with. But even better, that's not a real response to what you are supposedly doing a "counter-argument".

So again: Where I ever said that any of what you said in your other post never happens when grouping up? Where I said that grouping up is always better than splitting up?

So, as I'm not saying what you say I'm saying, then it's me who doesn't understand what I'm saying. Seems legit.

Stop derailing and distorting the argument, and using logical fallacies to support your "arguments".

How I have issues with the "mathematical theory"?

And what you are having trouble is that I never said that those drawbacks are not present when grouping up, but they are less of an occurrence as it reduces the time window where those drawbacks can happen, namely in the time it takes to complete a gen. That's why my real point is and ever was that in some cases, grouping up and finish a gen faster is better than splitting progression, even if you lose efficiency in doing so, as you give the killer less time to mess with that gen. I think is not that hard to understand this, either.

Yet again, that is if you are not adamant in not accepting it because your only interest is being right (or better said, proving that I'm wrong) and no matter what I say, everytime you can't respond to it you would simply distort my point, put words in my mouth that I ever said and argue with fallacies until your arguments "make sense".

But like I said, we both know that's how you do things, so do you do and when I get bored of repeating myself over and over again I would simply stop responding and that's it 🤣

But that is not what you said.

You do. When you bring these factors up as argumentation for why splitting up is not more efficient. If you mention these factors in that discussion, you are either tossing in completely random commentary that is entirely unrelated to the subject matter, or you are bringing it up as an argument.

Which is it?

@C3Tooth said: "Prove Thyself forces survivors to group together, and grouped together gives killers advantage"

To which you replied:

So yeah, that's you claiming that survivors grouping up is not better for the killer, which by nature of the game also means it's not worse for survivors.

To quote:

Because that is the only scenario you considered in the situation and specifically because it is the one that best supports your argument. The reality is that this can also snowball for the killer because having a lot of survivors together is a recipe for the killer getting lots of pressure.

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm saying that you are handwaving the scenario where it doesn't happen.

Because 3genning is where grouping up is practised most and it was the core of Skull Merchant's gameplay before her rework. Did you miss the whole 'Chess Merchant' debacle?

It specifically showed that it was more than feasible for the killer to pressure a generator when it is being targeted by multiple survivors, showing that what you list as an advantage to grouping up isn't necessarily one.

And in practice, as killer, you are not going to get both of those gens regressing at the same time unless they are right on top of one another. And even then you're going to have a rough time. I need to remind you that in these scenarios, there may be two survivors, but there's only one killer, and he's not kicking both gens at the same time.

And in regards to regressing gens not progressing: You're basically pointing out that splitting up is better for survivors because it's harder for the killer to keep two gens regressing than one.

Unless, of course, there's more than one gen left to do, in which case the grouped up team gave the killer the time it took to clear the backlog, plus however long it takes them to catch up to whatever the split-off survivor managed to do.

We're not talking about a set amount of time, we're talking about the amount of time it would take to clear a 30 charge regression.

And stop with the 'nothing guarantees they can put in the 30 seconds' because nothing guarantees you can put in the 17.65 seconds either! That's the problem! Stop saying I'm lying about you using that as an argument, and then, in the very same post, make the same argument again!

Stop it.

Oh, I'm sorry, did you need me to go through the entire list and explain, point by point, why everything you mention applies to both splitting up and grouping up?

I thought it was everyone BUT you that didn't understand the game!

I mean, you did say that two people on the same gen saves 37 seconds and implied that that wasn't a co-op penalty.

The only one where that applies is regression, but you did also mention movement, chases, and even healing for some reason.

Along with the nebulous 'countermeasures'.

This is mentioned to contrast with the mathematical efficiency of spreading. This would be irrelevant if it does not change the balance of efficiencies. Therefor, you mentioning these factors means you are including them as reasons as to why splitting up is NOT more efficient.

However, walk time, healing time, countermeasure time and chase time are all either neutral, or in favour of splitting up. This is what I mean with you applying these conditions to a split-up scenario, but not to a group-up scenario. And as illustrated above, even regression doesn't fully favour grouping up.

The fact that you mentioned walk time specifically illustrates this well, which is why I made it an example of your oversight. To help you understand your mistake.

For someone with a fetish for the term 'fallacy', you do sure like to court Ad Hominems a lot.

I had a vid here that one match of my challenge as no slowdown Myers. With the timestamp starts at 6:07

I injured Ripley and go find others, I could chase Ripley and down her, that will take sometimes, which Kate and Rebecca on the opposite side may complete a Gen, but I denied both. Ripley could go back on Gen injured when I went to Kate & Rebecca, then what? It will be a quick down for me if I go back. Kate could go back to that Gen when I changed my focus on Rebecca, then what? it will be a quick down for me if I go back. Ripley & Kate had to find each other for healing, 64sec of healing and the time it takes for both to find each other, cost 1 Gen.

Abit of game sense so I dont need any slowdown. Spread out pressure is the most powerful slowdown.

The challenge I gave on myself made me learned that killers relied too much on slowdowns, not yet mention high tier killers, strong addon and tunneling just to hope getting at least 2K.