Should the match go to 1-gen to go if only 2 survivors remain?
In cases where 2 survivors die early in the match or give up on first hook at 5 gens as is usually the case in these types of matches, should the game block all except 3 gens to allow the last 2 survivors a chance? even losing just 1 survivor at 5 or 4 gens is usually a lost match at that point
Comments
-
No, that would be punishing the killer for playing well- most of the time. Now as far as cry baby teammates who ragequit on hook goes, thems the breaks. It sucks, I know- but if anyone should be inconvenienced it should be the survivors.
4 -
So with this change, we would have: first chance to win as a full team, seconds chance to win as a team of two, third chance to escape through the hatch, and fourth chance to escape through gates
"catch up" mechanics is nice and all, but it's kinda funny if we think about it
5 -
Then killers would be force to slug and find the final Survivor. This would punish the killer for playing well or when Survivors trowing the game.
0 -
No.
0 -
something should rather be done about the last 2 players not touching gens and wasting your time rather than rewarding them for being bad
3 -
There are multiple ways that BHVR could address the early game suicides, so far they've just decided to live with it, but this wouldn't be one of the ways.
On the idea of giving survivors a chance: when two survivors die really early it would be nice if something changed because the game just kind of collapses, but I don't think this would work. At that point the entity might as well just sacrifice the other two survivors so we can move on.
1 -
As if those 2 survivors would ever even attempt to do a gen 😂😂😂😂
We had the problem of the last 2 survivor outstealthing forever, making 4 men bleed outs look like instant match endings, since the release of the game.
0 -
Easy solution:
If a survivor hasnt touched an objective for 5 seconds within the last 1-2minutes, they get tagged by crows.
Now survivors cant just "wait till the others die" safely anymore.
2 -
This just doesn’t make any sense. You punish the killer for doing his objective. So should 2 survivors die after 4 gens pop?
1 -
Survivors actively get punished for doing their objective by reducing the area that killers need to patrol.
1 -
this stands only if you finish up the wrong gens and eventually lock yourself into a 3-gen, otherwise it's incorrect
4 -
… No it's literally always how the game works. Three genning is a worst case scenario but even a best case still has significantly limited the area that killers need to patrol. Have… have you played survivor before?
1 -
It's not like killer needs to stay near gen for more than 10 seconds to "patrol" it, as long as longest distance stays same it hardly changes
0 -
i have played and i still am playing lol.
limited yes, but making right gen decision still leaves huge zone that killer has to patrol.
2 -
Okay and that's irrelevant, survivors still are put at a disadvantage by doing their objective. So why is it bad for killers to be at a disadvantage for doing their objective but okay for survivors?
0 -
And that's hardly true, having to worry about 3 gens instead of 7 will always be easier for the killer to deal with.
0 -
Killer never "have to" worry about it beside keygen, they just has to look at them to find survivors
0 -
disadvantage of the killer's side here is literally them being taken hostage by survivors refusing to do their objective and waiting either for server to crash or for killer to DC (if killer is short on nerves)
1 -
That's a terrible idea. Slugging for the 4k is already annoying. Well, this would highly encourage that. Just kill 1 survivor and slug until the others are all down. That way, you make sure the last gen will not be done.
0 -
If the red team scores 5 goals before the blue teams scores 1, should the blue team be given 4 goals for free?
1 -
If matches were consistent I'd say we don't need rubberbanding of any kind. But when you take into account meta perks, busted killer add-ons/survivor items and random matchmaking, it becomes at least worth considering whether some form rubberbanding would be beneficial to the game (as in it reduces the amount of one sided slaughters and encourages more people to play the game).
Whilst I'm not sure about the OP's suggestion, I still think rubberbanding mechanics can be good for a game health. It's doesn't have to be strong enough to give players whiplash, but small changes could make the experience better overall.
0 -
If the goal is "fun game" instead of pure competitive matches, rubberbanding is always welcome on both side
I don't see what they are trying to achieve though, be it a party game or competitive game
0 -
I'm telling you, with this idea you'd better have No Mither or Unbreakabble equipped.
Because I guarantee you it will be a slug fest.
0 -
Yeah I like this idea.
0
