Survivor-Caused 3-Gens. No Big Deal Anymore?
Comments
-
Some are decrying this yet to be released feature as a nerf to their play style. Others, who perceive this yet to be released feature as a stability tool to their side, are going to push back against that. Perhaps it’s tribalism, but maybe it’s just that both sides dislike the idea of being limited by in-game mechanics.
2 -
Not necessarily. If that's the only gen the survivors are giving attention to, then there is no other gen to bother defending. Killers are expected to just go sit in a corner afk while the survivors work on it? Defending gens is literally one of the things killers are supposed to do. What's lame is when they park their butt at a 3 gen from the beginning of the match and never leave, but if survivors are all barreling onto 2 or 3 center gens from the get go, the killer is just suppose to accept the fact that he will be forced by the survivors' hands to hit his 8 early on and have to just hand the gen over? That's a ridiculous notion.
4 -
"i got all the survivors on death hook or close to it, and now I have to give up a whole one (1) gen for it? ridiculous"
3 -
Literally never said that. Don't spread misinformation. Also, maybe you're new to the game, but survivors have a variety of tools to escape a killer if they were on a gen. We aren't talking about just things like surge. Killers will want to obviously kick a gen that's being focused on. If that's the only gen survivors are touching, then it's not a true camping situation - it's the only objective to defend. Survivors can entirely get 5%+ in then hoof it the moment they hear a terror radius. Killer will want to start regressing it. Not to mention, if the killer chases, they got 3 more survivors that pop right back onto the gen. Forcing 8 regressions is easy. The only alternative would be for the killer to not kick the gen, but that's practically handing it over at that point.
No matter how you cut it, this update will absolutely affect killers who are not campijg a 3 gen.
3 -
I also just want to quickly mention that your statement isn't exactly true at all either- Legit Eruption users who don't intentionally guard 3-gens have a much higher kick rate than normally expected because Eruption is designed with the intention of kicking multiple gens at a time regardless if they're hardly progressed or not and with the fact that a single activation of Eruption requires TWO regression events at a time that makes it to where you can only kick gens 4 times each which makes that even worst.
If this system is TRULY meant to prevent 3-gens then y'all should tie the system SPECIFICALLY to the "Damage Generator" action(aka kicking) since the primary perks for holding 3-gens are kicking perks such as Call Of Brine, Overcharge, and Eruption and tying this system to kicks exclusively would still prevent the ability to hold 3-gens without SEVERELY punishing legit Eruption users who use the perk normally as intended. Plus, if you really think about it, who's gonna be using Scourge Hook: Pain Resonance to hold a 3-gen? It just doesn't make much sense to punish normal perk users for the wrong reasons.
1 -
it's a perfectly apt summary of what you said
you presented a scenario where one specific gen was the only gen survivors were going after and that they went down to surge 8 times next to it, and then you described it as ridiculous that you might have to let that gen get completed in that extremely specific scenario. sorry you don't like the accurate summary of what you said
1 -
I think if we say it's an issue that a killer prolongs the game too long by doing a 3 gen game, the same should be applied for the survivors doing the same by being overly cautious.
A distinction without a difference. defending the gens is important to make sure the survivors stay in the trial so you can kill them. you can't just ignore them, they are always something you gotta pay attention to. and you can argue that a 3 gen killer also does their job, since the 1 hour game stop kills the survivors.
saying "just don't get in that situation" is not solving the situation. I could say that to a survivor that get slugged all game, but what is that helping?
It is usually a niche case, but as it goes with these, if someone shows it is actually good, others will mimic, and it will become more common to go for it. like how more people did the 3 gen thing after that one video came out.
if that is your impression.
why does a killer need to consider that holding a 3 gen is bad? that is just contradictory to what should be logical. it's like if picking an item from a chest could be bad... it just doesn't compute.
nothing really. it's just that no one asked what it is yet.
"don't get into the situation" is not an answer to the situation. it's just saying "git gud and it won't happen" which doesn't help.
imagine someone said "my house is burning down, what do I do?" and the answer was "don't let your house begin burning down"... at least with this one you can tell what the is issue right?
ok
ok
yes 4. less and taking a long chase is way more excusable.
more likely 2 gens. maybe 3. why would you ever think 1?
making progress is not guaranteed. there's 3 options that I see.
-you can patrol and hope someone will screw up and leave too late, giving a better start on the chase.
-or take a really bad start on a chase, that they maybe will have few resources or will screw up allowing you to get them before the last gen pops.
-or you never even see anyone and have to chose between patrolling again or just looking around hoping to find whoever was around. which is a thing that already happens from time to time (but usually with just 2 survivors left) and from my experience no one likes it.
this to me just creates the same type of game that a 3 gen killer does. one side is going all in on time tactics, the other is not having any fun. which should get the same treatment. if one is bad, both should be.
if you say so.
3 -
But then most players would hate the EGC, wouldn't they?
It tremendously limits the potential of interesting plays happening after the gates are opened, because it added a timer, and yet disliking the EGC is an extremely unpopular opinion.
0 -
i love 3 genning my friends on purpose lol :D
0 -
- The thing is, both sides are different. We agree with the sentiments but its a bit flawed here. Now if your solution meets our standard for fair we'll happily go along, but currently killers can keep burning ridiculous amounts of progress until the game stalls out, the entity gets pissed, and the survivors die (Personally don't know what exactly happens but i'm of the opinion that the killer shouldn't get any points should this happen) or alternatively the survivors go to the gen regardless of the killer being there and either die or get slugged for trying to do the equivalent.
- The distinction comes with the difference of the killer not bothering to really try and kill the survivors and to add a bit of lore, not feeding the entity. While ignoring gens is usually bad you don't need to keep watching them every 10 seconds, especially when the prey is in view or keep going back 5 seconds, especially if you scared off a survivor without even burning a pallet or gaining a hit. If they don't have a fear of you actually coming to kill them then they probably will just keep hanging around. At that point, the killer isn't trying to actually kill the survivors, they're defending gens. If we're goin the 3 gen killer is doing its job route then we're gona say that their doing it so poorly its the reason the entity set this system up so it gets more emotions other than dull apathy.
- Is the killer not responsible for trying to deprive survivors of advantages? We must of missed that. If you have the advantage of not being put in that situation and don't take it, who is to blame? What is helping is teaching that survivor to do better next time. That said, this is probably a poor comparison as the killer has more agency in both these situations.
- Ohh we don't deny a LOT of players are going to try and copy this. The only real question is if its actually effective. We're of the opinion this'll only be effective at those who've become used to camping 3 gens or heavily rely on slowdowns but everyones welcome to place bets. Thing is though, the killer again has agency in what they can do. They can try and combat this and have a realistic chance of succeeding.
- Isn't this like your scenario? Why the killer needs to consider the 3 gen is because if those 3 gens HAVE regressed earlier in the match, then they won't be regressing when those become the last ones. If those gens have regressed then the killer can't buy much more time on those gens than others. This ties into the above "deprive survivors of advantage". Also depending on how many survivors are left then its going to be a losing battle of attrition for the killer. Insult our intelligence and cant compute...
- Fair enough. So. What's your solution? Lets imagine this becomes a genuine problem for the average killer so for this bullet we'll temporarily acknowledge its a problem.
- Ohh its an answer, its not an answer you like but its an answer. To the burning house, most (atleast where we live) are going to ask how it happened. Grease fire? Dont use water. Got a fire extinguisher? Use it *******. You summoned cthulu? Go to a mental ward... Each scene is gona be different depending on what tools you got at the moment. Which sorta ties abit below.
- We think 1 gen because you never specified details so we can think up unicorns and bullets for all we care [vague parameters gets snark and imagination]. If you have 2-3 gens left...then pulsar's answer really does sound good for us. Take a damn chase and try and kill someone. While true progress is not guaranteed, not trying to actively make progress seems like a worse gamble. And both sets of options (yours and ours) are all gambles. But again, the killer CAN chase and the end game starts if they do lose the gen, where time may or may not be on their side.
Haven't really pointed otherwise
1 -
Survivors just ignore the mechanic entirely by just 99ing the gates, which is complained about.
Whose going to complain about a mechanic they can choose to ignore and that rarely ever matters?
0 -
Whose going to complain about a mechanic they can choose to ignore and that rarely ever matters?
Then we should not see many complaints about the new anti 3-gen mechanic. Hopefully that will be the case.
0 -
as long as it rarely ever matters sure. Some people are saying that's not the case but we'll see once it hits live and isn't in the mess that is the PTB.
0 -
If it hits live exactly the way it is on the PTB, we shouldn't have problems. But we have to wait and see.
0 -
What do you think the EGC mechanic for?
1 -
We've moved from one survivor managing to dodge the killer 8 times without ever being caught despite constantly hanging around the same area to a whole gaggle of 'em.
Killer competence in these scenarios keeps dropping and yet...
Also, if they can 'easily put in 5%+', then this'd be an unstoppable tactic in the current game. And yet no one pulls it off?
2 -
What do you think that has to do with circumventing the mechanic to begin with thus not having anything to complain about?
That's like complaining about the DC penalty. Who cares when you can just self sacrifice and ignore it anyway.
"What do you think the DC penalty is for?"
Does it matter when you can just easily ignore it?
Post edited by MrPenguin on0 -
5% isn’t very powerful in the current game, because the current game doesn’t have damage immune generators. If survivors are only repairing in 5% bursts on live, then the killer can always just kick the generators and reverse that small amount of progress.
5% bursts of repairing is only powerful when generators can become damage immune, because that means any % of repairing, no matter how small, gets permanently locked in, and therefore can eventually reach 100% if the game extends long enough.
2 -
- I believe the killer should. because that means the survivors need to progress the game or they lose. like a push the cart game, one side needs to progress the thing, the other side win if they stop it.
otherwise survivors don't really need to interact with the killer, which I think their objective should incorporate it beyond saving teammates. (I know saying "doing gens interacts with the killer" is a bit of a push in logic, but they are in an area where the killer should be around so it promotes interaction at some point...better than nothing)
- they do if it comes easy and as risk free as possible.
if you can chase survivors and make them waste resources at normal pace, you are not at the scenario I described. just a regular game.
- no, not really. it's good if the killer does it but it's not their job. Is it my responsability to remember the perks of my fellow survivors and what their cooldowns are at aswell? or just better for me if I do?
- How often do you face immersed survivors? how do those go?
- so you meant earlier in the match, and that the killer should give up certain gens currently being pressured because they would eventually not be able to defend them. fair enough but I don't think being forced to give up a gen in this way is good strategy, more just playing around an issue. and what is stopping the survivors from realizing you did just that and not finish that gen?
- just add a 20 min timer to the matches. that way the survivors just don't have the time to do what I said. they HAVE to act.(can be 25+ if 20 seems too little but I think 20 is plenty)
considering the vast majority of my matches end before 15 min, this timer shouldn't matter to most games I would assume.
now, if you don't wanna just end the match at that time without anything, you can always add something like a special egc that triggers. maybe lasts half the time, killer sees the aura of the survivors for 5 seconds and survivors sees the killers aura for 1 second. nothing hides this aura reveal.
for lore reasons we can say the entity got annoyed and decided that you either finish it now or it will.
I believe this would solve any potential issue with anyone dragging out the game. because it now has a set time to end regardless.
- only if you consider captain hindsight a superhero.
- because if the survivors are doing it to only 1 gen, the killer would have all the time to look around that gen and find them. they need to be applying pressure in multiple places so the killer has to make one of a few bad choices.
0 -
You're not kicking for 5% though, and if the killer is not able to start ANY chases, that means the killer gets 0 progress, while survivors still make some progress themselves! And a lot of regression perks like Pop and Surge would not come into play either!
This tactic sounds infallible!
2 -
It doesn’t matter when the killer kicks the generators. If the survivors are doing a strategy of “repair for short bursts to time, then excessively hide”, then eventually the generator progress will be high enough for the killer to kick, and this process can repeat itself until the generator is damage immune.
3 -
No, you don't get what I mean.
The killer currently kicks for 2.5%. So if survivors can easily do 5% of repairs and then hide so the killer literally physically can't find them, they can just do that forever! Yeah, the killer gets infinite kicks, but that doesn't matter, this tactic still makes it impossible for the killer to win.
Excessive hiding is therefor surely the way to go on live servers and the absolute top strategy across the board.
2 -
So you agree that excessive hiding needs to be nerfed or punished somehow, because it makes it impossible for the killer to win?
0 -
Except they have been on the ptb, and people are posting about it in the ptb feedback.
2 -
I think you missed my sarcasm. Nobody employs this strategy because it doesn't work.
People are complaining about gen dribbling, which is the opposite problem.
2 -
No, you're not getting it. What RpTheHotrod is describing is a tactic that -should- also be operable on live. Not as effectively, but it would still work. And it would be more efficient than banking on a long chase.
What you have been positing here is that a killer consistently fails to find any survivor for a very long time, despite those survivors also consistently getting work done on gens. That doesn't require a regression stop. That's feasible on live, too. Possibly more effective, even, since gen-kicking doesn't do as much. The killer would need to kick 16 times to get the equivalent value.
What I and others have been trying to tell you is that the scenario you are worried about is not a feasible scenario. It's not a functional tactic. If it was, it would be on live, too.
You are just constantly lowering the bar of competence for the killer, and then insisting that his rock-bottom MMR is valid reason to redo the entire system.
Post edited by Rizzo on2 -
- Fair, but we got different beliefs. We believe the killer should also be actively progressing the game. Survivors shouldn't be the ones to start the interactions as it's on the killer to be trying to kill them, they should try to be avoiding unnecessary interactions so they don't end up dead. Not to say survivors shouldn't also be actively progressing the game as well but theirs comes with the risk of elimination. We also agree that saying doing gens is interacting is a bit of a leap.
- Your going to need to elaborate that first part. "they do if it comes easy and as risk free as possible." (In actual details preferably) As for the second, since the killer can always chase, we can only conclude that they purposely put themselves in that scenario instead of a regular game. It sounds more like they camped a 3 gen the more we think on it.
- Fair enough, but then the killers really can't complain if survivors do take advantage of it since they didn't stop them.
- Often enough to notice. Tends to go pretty well for us since we can actually search pretty well, especially since we play both roles. Few things on that though. 1 is that theres a myriad of tracking perks (one of which is even extremely complained about for doing its job) that killers can run to help find survivors. Instead what most run is 3-4 regression or gen blocking perks which shockingly doesn't help find survivors. 2 is that hunting down survivors is a skill killers do need to learn how to do. Not just chasing down, locating them too. Crows flying off? Theres somethin there. A lack of crows in the area? Someones here recently.
- Thing is this also comes with risk to survivors as not finishing it means it could regress at the worst time. Both sides have to measure if its worth it.
- Are we to assume this comes with the gen regressing limit? If so then we admit it would be a simple and fair fix (though we'd personally go for 30 max. We like playing with our prey.) and agree to it.
- Still is a valid answer.
- We think something got lost in translation here. We are referring to 1 gen left correct? Not just one singular gen.
0 -
- I agree, both sides should want to be interacting.
- if the down comes easily, most 3 gen killers will take it. doubt they'll defend the hook, but they'll take it.
only if you think survivors have no agency over how the game goes.
- if it's a skill thing, yes.
- and how often is that fun? assuming the survivors are good at it and aren't just behind the first wall.
do you often use perks that happens to help with immersed survivors?
- but the gen can only be regressed so much, and was heavily contested already. I don't see any big risk in this scenario. and the killer supposedly gave up on the gen correct? why would it regress?
- we can always tune the timer afterwards. I assume it would be a quick fix.
- let's just agree to disagree on this one.
- something did get lost in translation... my bad. yes it is the 1 gen left to do, when there's 3 on the map.
0 -
- One less bullet
- We are assuming your referring to why 3 gen killers do what they do correct? If so we are unsure as to how this bullet goes with the corresponding one.
Survivors do have agency, but less than the killer. Its more of who does what then the other side reacts then repeats till the matches end. Survivors try this stalling tactic? The killer can simply chase them down and force the survivors to react by either doing the gens now, or someones going on hook and they got to deal with that while the killer comes back looking for someone new. If they're doing bite sized bits and assuming the killer notices, then usually the killer chasing should either catch someone or quickly burn resources for the next chase which they can easily find. Lose a gen now, get hooks later.
- Wouldn't call it just a skill thing as the killer also chooses not to stop them. That's a choice thing. Sure sometimes skill is involved but if they chose not to try can they say anything about it?
- For us its ok (we're not exactly standard here) as we like to actually hunt down people instead of running around a rock we can see over for 3 laps. Our build depends on the killer but generally we do not use many tracking perks. We learned to track through brains and being thorough (having to hunt down blenddettes during our early years without them helped). And just because we don't use tracking perks often doesn't mean they aren't an option. If people have a hard time finding survivors then the perks help shore that weakness. We are not opposed to something that would reveal super immersed survivors though like on IDV.
- The killer gave up on early on it but if its not finished they can go back and regress it. Theres also the fact perks like pain res and oppression can regress gens that were left. More time for the killer should equal more time to kill the survivors. We also can't find the heavily contested part in any post but if so then there should be burned resources if it genuinely was contested.
- And another one down
- And another one down
- [Damn so close] Then the previous point stands. The killer will eventually need to make some gamble as if 4 survivors are still kicking and theres 3 gens left, they're in a slowly loosing position by staying there. The killers objective is again the survivors and should be trying to actively kill them and now they can only wait so long before needing to make a move.
0 -
- not why. why is way too relative. just that they will take the easy down if presented. like survivors in that possible situation would in theory do the slow progress thing and just finish the gen if it was given easily.
exactly, the killer is kinda forced into bad choices. similarly to how survivors were against the 3 gen skull merchant. it's all bad choices but you just gotta brute force one of them and hope for the best.
if survivors doing this becomes a thing, I hope it gets a similar treatment. that is basically what it boils down to.
- for me it's generally ok too but sometimes... it's just the worst. way too long walking around checking hiding spots and nothing happens. if 4 survivors good at it decide to go for this playstyle, it would be miserable against the average killer (character).
- the point of giving up the gen was because the gen was getting close to not being able to be regressed anymore, right? so it had to be contested. even if not directly by kicks.
they can still play safe around it, so they are far enough away from the gen to reach some resources.
- 🎼another one bites the dust
- yea. which goes back to the first point in this. it's all bad choices that you just need to brute force one and hope it works.
0 -
Apologies for the delay, all of us been busy
- Which brings it to the killer to not make it easy. Yes easier said than done but atm many don't even try.
Kinda flips everything on its head don't it~ Amusement aside yea, if it does become a problem for the average players then something should be done. Till then sit and watch the fireworks.
- Character and not player? We can see players not liking it (though that's on a case by case base) but we don't see the killer character in question having issues.
- Few things on this. The first is you can contest the gen without regressing the gen meaning you can regress it later if need be. Second is close to doesn't equal to being unable. Each detail maters and being able to regress a certain gen at the right moment can flip a trial.
The killer can play smart as well as survivors may end up stretching resources too far for safety. The killer is against people, not picture perfect bots, and humans have a history of screwing up.
- 🎶~
- Which brings us back to saying that taking a chase is probably the better gamble.
We find it funny how it went from saying that Pulsar said to take a chase to this
0
