Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Survivors got nothing this chapter, what Equal Attention Buff would you like to see?
Comments
-
But that is not what you said.
You missed the "And when talking about those "106 seconds" people refer precisely that those two survivor could have done 106 charges in two gens" part.
Sharpshooter fallacy.
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.
Bringing arguments because my point is that even if it is not as efficient as splitting up, in some cases grouping up is more beneficial. Doesn't means that I'm arguing that splitting up is not more efficient in any moment.
Strawman fallacy and a possible "black and white" fallacy, as you are treating this whole thing as the only options are one being better than the other at all times.
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.
No, that's me pointing out that it is highly debatable because there are cases where grouping up is more beneficial, and after that I argumented why.
Strawman and sharpshooter fallacy, as you are cherry picking that first statement without taking in count the following arguments I made and distorting what I said in first place.
To quote:
Yeah, it's precisely there where all your arguments and fallacies break apart, as you keep insisting that I said that grouping up is always better and / or more efficient when in there I made clear that my point was that even if that is true, in a real match there are points and situations where securing a gen faster is better.
Anyway, you still fail to point out how in any part of this... :
... I argued that:
- A) Splitting up is not more efficient than grouping up.
- B) Splitting up is not more efficient than grouping up because "But the killer could find one of the survivors!"
As that is what you was accusing me of.
Because that is the only scenario you considered in the situation and specifically because it is the one that best supports your argument.
False. You are lying, as after I gave that example I said this:
"In a real case, you have to count walk times, healing times, countermeasures time, chase time as a survivor being chased is unable to put any charges or time in doing any of the other things, and of course regression."
I never based my statements in just that specific example I gave.
So, another sharpshooter fallacy.
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.
And where I argued the contrary?
I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, I'm saying that you are handwaving the scenario where it doesn't happen.
That doesn't even make any sense. If I didn't know you, I would say you are going for an "Ambiguity of language" fallacy this time.
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.
So let me get this straight, first you accuse me of sticking to just one scenario, a "handwave best-case" one, to support my argument... and you do that exact same thing now? Specially with an scenario where we had an specific killer involved and can't be applied generally?
Come on, dude... it isn't even relevant for the main point of the argument. 3 genning has nothing to do with survivors grouping or splitting up, as a killer would chose 3 gens and defend them till the end game whatever survivors try to do those gen or not, or if the survivors are the ones leaving those 3 gens it would not matter if they left them for the end splitting or grouping up.
I don't even know what kind of fallacy you had tried to make here. Probably a false correlation.
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.
Special pleading, you were wrong so now you are trying (keyword being trying) to move the goalpost to... I don't even know.
What you said here has nothing to do with what you wrongfully claimed first and my counter argument to it. But the funny thing is that by your one logic there, again, only one gen is getting kicked and only other survivor is progressing a gen, so it is still -0.25 c/s vs 1 c/s total, not 2.
Also, funny that you made half of your arguments about accusing me of using a handwaved best-case scenario to support my claims, and now you did it not only once, but two times.
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.
I don't even know what you are trying to argue with this. "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.
Exactly, which means that two survivors would do it in 17.65 seconds, which according to you all means 17.65 charges lost that the second survivor should had pump in another gen... your point?
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!
Your lie is that I'm saying that those 17.65 seconds can't be lost as well, and you are lying about it again here. And I keep saying it, because the ones that talk as those other 30 seconds of progress in a second gen are guaranteed are you, as that is the main point of your argument, than splitting is always better than grouping up because splitting up would mean the double of charges in total pumped up in gens, which is always correct mathematically speaking, not as much in a real match.
That's the whole point of this conversation. You are saying "Scoring a goal every 40 seconds is the most efficient way to win a soccer match, so we should always go to attack everytime", and I'm saying "But in a real soccer match, the other team would not let you do that many shots or even get close to the goalpost, so sometimes is better to keep the ball and pass it until you get the opportunity", and you are disagreeing with this because your sole objective is prove me wrong.
Stop it.
What? You don't like your lack of logic and constant use of fallacies being pointed out?
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?
No need to, as I never claimed that anything I said didn't apply to the other, as I have pointed out multiple times.
But next time, it would be nice if you stopped with the sharpshooter fallacies and didn't cherry picked what I'm saying. Or even better, not argument with fallacies at all.
I thought it was everyone BUT you that didn't understand the game!
Never claimed such thing, less so when I stated multiple times that people are right in what they are saying.
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.
And how is that me having problems with the mathematical theory of splitting up being more effective in total times, exactly?
The only one where that applies is regression, but you did also mention movement, chases, and even healing for some reason.
... re-read the post, and told me exactly how in the context I said that has anything to do with what you are saying.
But no, regression is not the only drawback that applies for the simple reason that, in your own words, "everything that could happen when splitted up could also happen grouped up", except when splitting up the killer has 90 second before a gen is done to mess with it and disrupt the survivors in it, while grouping up only gives him from 41 to 53 seconds depending on the number of survivors in it without even counting progression boosters.
A simple enough concept to understand, but here we are.
Along with the nebulous 'countermeasures'.
Pinhead's box? Plague's cleaning? Pig's inverted traps? Wesker and Nemesis's chests? What is so nebulous about you having to invest extra time on those things outside of just pure gen fixing?
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.
Wrong. Here is where you are wrong and why your main argument is a strawman fallacy.
I never said that "splitting up is NOT more efficient" than grouping up. Ever. In any moment of the conversation I said that.
What I said is, again, that when all those factors are in place (in other words, in any normal day match), splitting up is not always the best option even if it is the most charge per second efficient thing to do. And splitting up is not always the best option, even if it is more efficient, for the reasons I already gave. That's what you are distorting and making fallacies around non stop to base your arguments on.
Also, explain to me how "walk time, healing time, countermeasure time and chase time" are "either neutral, or in favour of splitting up" in the 100% of the cases.
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.
Again, how and why it illustrate that well or how it is a proof that I'm mistaken in saying 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".
For someone with a fetish for the term 'fallacy', you do sure like to court Ad Hominems a lot.
An Ad hominem is when you use an attack to somebody as an argument instead of responding to the point they made.
In other words, saying that you have the tendency of derailing and distort the main argument after I already argumented all of my points against your fallacies is not an ad hominem, is stating a fact.
0 -
I'm done with you.
You have no idea what the discussion is about, you have no idea what you are saying, you have no idea what the subject is, you lose track of what you're talking about halfway through a post, you lie about what you're saying, you misunderstand your own points and arguments, you deliberately misrepresent scenarios and yell fallacy whenever you don't understand something.
You need to read your own stuff and think about what you are saying. I am not going to keep going over it with you.
Least of all with you taking that high horse position all the time to feed your own ego. Get over yourself.
5 -
... and your point with all of this is what, exactly... ?
Either way, there are some inconsistencies in your explanation:
- If that Rebecca and Kate would have go back to the gen instead of going to the other side of the map, by the time you found again Ripley, downed, hooked, and get back, they would had finished that gen or have it so advanced that your only option to defend it (not the best one, but still an option) would had being, again, lose time by staying near it while letting both go if you didn't catch any of them instantly (something you probably would do as by the number of totems and hook in the match both of them were affected by Plaything).
- Ripley obviously had self healing, she didn't need anyone to heal her even if it is not the most time efficient way of healing yourself, so she would have no need to find anybody. And the only reason you got her there was because she was Oblivious and didn't hear you coming. If she hasn't that would had being another possible chase and more time not pressuring the gens, which would had give Rebecca and Kate to do more gen progress.
- Tell me how "Hex: Plaything" is not an indirect slow down perk.
So, if this is proof of anything is that those survivor could have done it better.
0 -
GG, have a nice day.
0 -
I like how you put every reasons from survivors' bad and I use the perks so I could down. To make up the reasons you have to use meta in hope for winning.
It is a proof that, you could have be better to not relied on meta.
4 -
Good advise. Totally agree with it. Not know what me using meta have to do with anything, but fair enough.
0 -
There is a total of 243 perks in the game 131 for a total of 39 survivors and 112 for a total of 33 killers, this mean: no, you main role don't need to get something if the other one do (for both nerf and buff) the game need to be balanced across both roles and across all characters (no nurse you are special we all know that)
0
