What is my incentive to stay in a game with a hook camper or tunneler?
Comments
-
No just don't go for the save in the Killers face… so either wait for the Killer to walk away or if they stay then forget about them and do Gens
I mean… is it worth sitting around the hooked Survivor if the Killer isn't going to go far or is it worth it to do Gens
4 -
Exactly what I'm saying. OP asks what their incentive is to continue playing in these scenarios where the killer camps or tunnels, and you argue 'these scenarios should be way more common'.
That just makes the problem bigger.
2 -
I also said to play Killer… is that going to make the problem bigger???
And no I am not saying that this SHOULD be more common… but dealing with the problem is going to be a lot harder on the game
6 -
I have to say in advance that tunnelling does not happen very often on my MMR (which is presumably high) and when it does, it tends to happen at very specific times and usually from a very specific region that is active at the time.
Why should you stay in the game? So that your other 3 survivors can at least get out and the killer can be punished.
If your pursuit is good, you should get 2-3 Gens when you get hung up. Then they have enough time to finish off the others.
Tunnelling and camping are effective because many will just give up and the killer can easily get 3-4k and be rewarded. You also want to finish your turn quickly and well when someone else is tunnelling.
1 -
Yep normalizing the concept of only accepting the very personalized "ideal game" is a very common problem in online gaming in general.
3 -
Firstly - You are really splitting hairs here, valid strategy is part of valid gameplay. Camping and tunneling are part of that and valid as a result.
Whether you like what decisions they make or not, BHVR are the game developers, its their game. We all just pay to play it, like any product.
There is nothing wrong with providing feedback to suggest changes but really if its not constructive its largely pointless and most of the complaining about game mechanics is not really constructive feedback.
Its a great buzz term "the games design flow" but what do you really mean by it? The violence, gore, theme and concept of the game all belong in the survival horror genre. What part of violently stalking, torturing and killing a group of captive survivors while they desperately try to escape doesn't belong in the horror genre?
That's like saying there is not enough sex, drugs and violence in Fall Guys to make it a family friendly game. Its like your choosing to ignore the concepts that make up the horror genre and the concept of DBD in order to simplify a point about its mechanics.
Halloween, Nightmare on elm street, Friday the 13th aren't scary to me since I was a kid, but that doesn't stop them being horror films. The same holds true for DBD.
Secondly - What you mean here is interaction. Yes interaction is part of gameplay but its not the be all and end all of gameplay because avoiding interaction is part of gameplay too.
Its not the most interactive of games as you put it "when everyone plays their cards right" but its still a game of DBD. If you want more interaction from that scenario then force it, get in the killer's face, try and rescue your team mate.
6 -
Firstly - You are really splitting hairs here, valid strategy is part of valid gameplay. Camping and tunneling are part of that and valid as a result.
That's not splitting hairs. They're valid strategies, as in, they're not considered griefing or otherwise bannable conduct. But that's still a chasm away from being healthy for the game. The devs never called it 'valid gameplay'.
There is nothing wrong with providing feedback to suggest changes but really if its not constructive its largely pointless and most of the complaining about game mechanics is not really constructive feedback.
This thread specifically highlights the impact that tunnelling and camping have on the survivor players. This is pretty constructive feedback as it illustrates not just that it's a problem but also -why- it is a problem.
Its a great buzz term "the games design flow" but what do you really mean by it? The violence, gore, theme and concept of the game all belong in the survival horror genre. What part of violently stalking, torturing and killing a group of captive survivors while they desperately try to escape doesn't belong in the horror genre?
Horror is the jacket that it wears. The actual gameplay underneath is a game of tag.
Is tag horror survival?
The only gameplay element that I can think of that DBD does that is specifically horror in its execution is stealth, and with the plethora of intel perks, that's been pared down over time. Not to mention how difficult the game makes that from the get-go with survivor noises, scratch marks and blood pools.
Beyond that, the game is just tag. The horror is just the skin.
Not to mention that horror requires immersion, and nothing is more off-putting to immersion than frustration. ######### behaviour is definitely going to take you out of the horror experience. On both sides.
Secondly - What you mean here is interaction. Yes interaction is part of gameplay but its not the be all and end all of gameplay because avoiding interaction is part of gameplay too.
That is, as long as said avoidance of interaction is, in itself, interactive. Stealth is. Camping is not.
Its not the most interactive of games as you put it "when everyone plays their cards right" but its still a game of DBD. If you want more interaction from that scenario then force it, get in the killer's face, try and rescue your team mate.
And reward the killer with a free win, thus encouraging them to utilise the strategy more.
Post edited by EQWashu on3 -
Strategy is part of gameplay. Having the option to switch up the game tempo by defending a hook is healthier than having every game play out the same way. BHVR are making mechanics to reduce the most "unhealthy" versions of these tactics.
Also the OP wasn't really subject to "unhealthy" tunneling or camping from their example, they just got caught out by player mistakes and a killer who capitalized on them. So there really isn't a constructive element to a lot of this discussion outside of "I lost and am angry about it." I blame tunneling and camping because that's what you are supposed to do. "I feel angry about the outcome" isn't the most constructive of feedback.
"Its just a skin" like I said you are ignoring the theme, to make a more simplified point about the mechanics.
It's not just a game of tag, because loss means elimination, there is consequence when playing DBD. That consequence is elimination from the game, here personified by the death of the player as you would expect from a horror game.
######### behavior as you put it is more likely to be immersion breaking when survivors conduct it rather than killers. Because as the antagonist, the killer is expected to be an #########. Someone who chases you, subjects you to non-participation and then elimination is an ######### but that is the killer role.
That annoyance and frustration you and many describe, as loath as folks may be to admit it, is born of the fear of, or at least the aversion to, elimination. So DBD through its mechanics elicits an emotional response consistent with aversion. Aversion being one of the core concepts of horror.
Camping is still player interaction. Defending a hook increases the risk of making saves. If players choose not to take that risk that is up to them.
Post edited by EQWashu on5 -
BHVR are making mechanics to reduce the most "unhealthy" versions of these tactics.
Almost like they're not valid gameplay.
Also the OP wasn't really subject to "unhealthy" tunneling or camping from their example, they just got caught out by player mistakes and a killer who capitalized on them.
Going for an unhook when the killer is busy chasing another person on another part of the map is not a survivor mistake. This is the entire problem: Unhooking is supposed to be a normal part of gameplay, but in these discussions, it is pretty much, without exception, being labelled a mistake. This means that what the survivor is supposed to do is just sit on a gen and hold M1, or stay on the hook for the other person.
That's the death of gameplay.
"I feel angry about the outcome" isn't the most constructive of feedback.
First off, the thread is about losing incentive to play the game. That is pretty critical. -You- are the one dismissing this as someone being upset about losing, refusing to engage with the feedback that is actually given.
"Its just a skin" like I said you are ignoring the theme, to make a more simplified point about the mechanics.
Theme is not gameplay, and is a terrible reason to mess up balance or gameplay flow. The gameplay has to continue working in order for the theme to function, thus the former has to inform the latter, not the other way around.
######### behavior as you put it is more likely to be immersion breaking when survivors conduct it rather than killers.
That's not the matter of the discussion.
Because as the antagonist, the killer is expected to be an #########. Someone who chases you, subjects you to non-participation and then elimination is an ######### but that is the killer role.
No, they're supposed to be the opponent, not an #########.
That annoyance and frustration you and many describe, as loath as folks may be to admit it, is born of the fear of, or at least the aversion to, elimination. So DBD through its mechanics elicits an emotional response consistent with aversion. Aversion being one of the core concepts of horror.
But we're not talking about aversion wholesale. We're talking about frustration. Frustration isn't a horror element.
If you're purely talking about aversion, you could make the argument that players should be allowed to cheat to work the horror element in. The entire theme stops functioning as soon as it becomes frustrating.
Camping is still player interaction.
It is not. It is indistinguishable from watching paint dry if players play their cards right.
If players choose not to take that risk that is up to them.
Not really, the game does dictate, to a point, what the players should do. If non-interaction is what needs to be done, then it's not really up to the players. Again, choosing to engage with this, and having it result in a win for the killer will simply exacerbate the problem.
The only winning move is not to play.
Which is what this thread is addressing.
Post edited by EQWashu on1 -
Counters to gameplay don't invalidate gameplay. They are simply counters. Almost every mechanic in game can de said to be a counter to another particular mechanic or gameplay. For example players repair gens killers can kick them to regress gens does this mean that repairing or kicking gens is invalid because a mechanic exists to counter it. No not "Almost like they're not valid gameplay" that's a complete fallacy.
If the player lost legitimately and is losing interest in play when they lose legitimately then its not a game problem. Maybe DBD isn't the game for them or even online gaming in general if losing legitimately causes them to want to quit.
The ol adage "if you are going to dice rage then perhaps avoid games that require dice."
Its you whom defined legitimate opponent behaviour as being an ######### refer to my previous comment below
"Some gameplay might not be your desired gameplay but that distinction doesn't make it any less gameplay."
I'm afraid being frustrated by the game and defining play you don't like as other players being ######### says more about you as a gamer and your expectations of others, than it does about the game itself.
You are still playing even when not interacting with the killer, player interaction is just one aspect of the game.
I'm afraid just quitting because the game isn't to your liking is not an example of "The only winning move is not to play" although it may be the best move to not play if you don't like the game, but make that decision before you sign up to play rather than quit and ruin everyone else's fun.
Post edited by EQWashu on4 -
To be fair a killer player doesn't have to play "honorably" by any definition. For the PvP aspect of the game then they have to abide by the rules but how they choose to do that is up to them. Same goes for survivors.
I agree though survivor is not as competitive 1v1 with the killer anymore but that's not necessarily a bad thing given the asymmetric nature of the game. That asymmetry also requires some imbalance in the game design to achieve the concept. Which is big scary killer hunts survivors. The game needs a compelling antagonist, in this case the killer has to represent a tangible threat which will likely lead to some imbalance.
I don't think it s a perfect world to completely "balance" the game but how much imbalance is too much is definitely a worth while consideration.
I like the idea of further spacing hooks and they don't break, but it does shut down some of the tactical element of trying to play into dead zones for survivors. Which I think is still a fun aspect of the game. Planning where to hook to avoid a dead zone should also be a part of killer play. These elements play a big part in how and where you run/chase.
Post edited by pseudechis on0 -
Counters to gameplay don't invalidate gameplay. They are simply counters.
The changes made are not active counters though, they are straight up nerfs. This is not something the survivors can opt to do, this is something that happens passively. It does not create additional interaction and gameplay like kicking gens does. That's the difference.
If the player lost legitimately and is losing interest in play when they lose legitimately then its not a game problem.
It absolutely can be. Loads of games have ways in which you can lose that are legitimate, but not fun. Dying to a gank boss in a Souls-like is a legitimate way to get destroyed, but that does not mean that it being legitimate is a magical ticket to being good game design or good gameplay.
What you are doing here is an appeal to authority. The devs say it's okay, therefor it is automatically good. The problem with that is that this is a forum where feedback is supposed to be aggregated. Feedback that devs will want to listen to.
DBD will still be DBD without camping and tunnelling. They're not integral, core aspects of the game.
Maybe DBD isn't the game for them or even online gaming in general if losing legitimately causes them to want to quit.
You're not even engaging with what is being said in an honest manner, instead choosing to dismiss it as 'you're just upset you lost'.
Some gameplay might not be your desired gameplay but that distinction doesn't make it any less gameplay
Hey, quick quesh for ya:
In one match, a survivor gets to do a gen, takes a chase, gets hooked, gets unhooked, goes for an unhook, heals an ally, does a totem and is ultimately sacrificed.
In the other match, the survivor is only able to do gens and leave.
Which of these two has more gameplay?
You are still playing even when not interacting with the killer, player interaction is just one aspect of the game.
No, player interaction is pretty much the entire game.
I'm afraid just quitting because the game isn't to your liking is not an example of "The only winning move is not to play" although it may be the best move to not play if you don't like the game, but make that decision before you sign up to play rather than quit and ruin everyone else's fun.
No, 'the only winning move is not to play' is in regards to the counters for camping and tunnelling. Which is what this topic is also referencing. The survivors have nothing to do if the killer camps and/or tunnels. They can't make that decision when they queue up, because the circumstances only occur once in the match. They're not DBD's baseline.
1 -
Game 1: survivors make a massive misplay and killer punishes the survivors with good macro
Game 2: survivors make a massive misplay and killer punishes the survivors with good macro
Maybe one day people will learn how to play the game instead of relying on bhvr to remove any killer punishment for bad plays. The biggest problem with this game is the refusal to improve and instead blaming the other side. When I get ran for long enough that a gen pops I don't think "op survivors with no empathy gen rushing!". I think, "I should have dropped chase sooner or not chased here". Not much comeback potential when the instinct for players is to give up instantly when the killer exerts any pressure at all.
8 -
Game 1 is a survivor going for an unhook while the killer is chasing someone else. This is now considered a 'massive misplay'.
Killers are just getting worse, aren't they?
4 -
It's not uncommon for Singularity players to switch to cam mode after downing a Survivor so that they can get off an infection for later on.
Since OP didn't go into detail, my guess is that as lockon via biopod takes much longer to charge up when near a hooked Survivor, OP was probably already infected when going for the rescue. That means OP had ample warning that he was being locked on. Either finding cover or bringing an EMP would have denied Singularity from teleporting. That's the "misplay" that was being referred to.
6 -
What should be done about game one? Should the killer be disallowed from interrupting an unhook? If you catch someone rotating in for the save, is it unsportsmanlike to stop them?
The killer played the game to win and it's framed as some kind of injustice1 -
And would've denied the unhook, while giving the singularity time to walk back to hook. Lose-lose scenario.
What should be done about game one?
Nerf tunnelling. If the killer has no incentive to tunnel, they'd opt to hook the downed survivor instead of sprinting back to hook to tunnel and/or deny unhook.
The killer played the game to win and it's framed as some kind of injustice
No, what's being framed as an injustice is that this survivor player is saying 'I don't see a reason to continue playing if killers do everything in their power to diminish gameplay'. It's the killers once again getting their knickers in a twist over someone saying 'tunnelling/camping is bad for gameplay'.
2 -
This is exactly the kind of sanitization of killer gameplay that should be avoided. Singularity had one survivor hooked, chased another, checked his cam, saw someone rotating in for the save and snowballed into maximum pressure. This is high macro awareness on the killer's part and his reward was the win.
But the survivor main proposition is instead to punish that player's good gamesense because it was interpreted as a toxic offense. The post is a soft admission to wanting the killer to be railroaded into bot-like gameplay and to place a hard cap on the ability to build pressure.
8 -
I assume you are referring to the scenario if OP tried to hide from the camera to prevent Slipstream teleport. When Singularity "wakes up" from using a biopod located near a hooked Survivor, the transition time takes 5 seconds which means OP has ample time to perform the unhook and start moving away. At that point, it's not much different from Trapper seeing an unhook and walking back to it. If OP wanted to demonstrate how unfair camping was, Singularity isn't the Killer to pick given the basekit anticamp limitations on the power.
Once again, since OP didn't go into details, I would just assume the Killer was far enough from the hooked Survivor to justify using the biopod instead of walking back to hook.
1 -
You're fully missing the point of the thread.
The thread is asking: What is my incentive to stay in the game against a hook camper or tunneller?
Your answer: The killer should tunnel.
That's not an answer. And it's not engaging with what is and has been a legitimate problem. You're too obsessed with retaining the ability to tunnel to consider the other perspective.
None of that is going to stop the tunnelling though, is it?
1 -
The OP is riled up about a non-issue. The scenario they gave us was them being resentful of a clever singularity player that outplayed all 4 survivors. I play survivor every day, I know how it works, I know the gameplay loop. Because of that, I recognize what actual hard tunneling is and am able to differentiate it from a good killer playing smart. Otzdarva already came up with the best anti tunnel proposition and everyone hated it. Killer players hated it because it gave an inch and they're worried the balance team will take a mile, and suvivor players hated it because they want to be immune to their own mistakes.
6 -
OP didn't mention in their first post that the Killer targeted the unhooked Survivor immediately after teleporting though? The ending sentence about OP dying on hook gives off the impression that OP went down after the teleport and decided to give up on hook.
Having a conversation about tunneling/camping is fine but the Singularity scenario is not a very good example as it borders more on OP not being familiar with Singularity mechanics or deciding to make a risky play despite knowing the mechanics and the Killer capitalizing on it.8 -
It's not a non-issue, bud. Just because YOU don't care doesn't mean no one else does. The fact that this keeps coming back up consistently proves it's not a non-issue.
Also, if you think a killer leaving a downed survivor on the ground to teleport back to hook in order to tunnel the first hook out is somehow not hard tunnelling but just 'a good killer playing smart' as if these are mutually exclusive things, you don't recognise what tunnelling is at all.
3 -
Very amusing thread.
Great read so far!
1 -
We’re lacking a lot of info on what actually went down but it seems like leon decided to unhook while injured and slip streamed. They must have been close to dying to on hook or Ada had such a bad chase due to being caught out of position that the unhook was able to be contested. Believe it or not going down instantly to singularity and not healing is a survivor misplay. You can argue this is a solo queue/information issue but either way survivors did not play well.
7 -
It's clear I'm not going to get anywhere with you because there is no discourse beyond "survivor hook twice = bad"
7 -
Forum killers see any complaint about tunnelling or camping and just immediately jump to 'Guess I can't hook anyone ever'.
3 -
First situation is unfortunate since the timing allowed it, arguably sweaty from the killer but nothing toxic.
But the second one is 100% the survivors fault. Either Haddie tried to do a save and messed up badly and got downed very quickly, or ran up to Leon while getting chased instead of away from him which would have allowed an easy heal. Also him hooking and returning to Leon is not the Killers fault either since he knows 3 people if not all of them must be around and he went for you not Leon so it was not tunneling either.
Its a skill issue.
0 -
Doesn't matter if it's a "nerf" or "buff" - spinning your wheels on this one.
Fun is subjective and the gameplay is appropriate for the theme. As I said just because you don't like some gameplay that doesn't invalidate it.
You're simplifying the point again with your "appeal to authority" take. Its not that its automatically good just because BHVR say so and players are welcome to critique it. But its part of the game so until something changes expect it might happen. I personally don't think it's problem on this we disagree and that's fine. BHVR have final say on that though and if its not for you then maybe DBD isn't for you.
If you insist on simplifying things then for example - I don't play candy crush its not for me, I also don't expect the developers of candy crush to change their game simply because I'm not a fan. If you aren't a fan move on already.
Here's a quick answer for you - One game has more interaction but both have gameplay.
Interaction is not the be all and end all of gameplay. You may think it is but its not. If you crave constant interaction then some parts of DBD are going to disappoint you. Which is very clear that's what you crave so stock up on disappointment there is a lot coming.
You are still playing the game when countering camping and tunneling. You are simply interacting with game items and enviroment rather than the killer player. Survivors have stuff to do when the killer camps and tunnels its just not interacting with the killer.
There is more to DBD than just being chased by the killer… you may dismiss everything else other than that but there is more. Those other things actually make up a larger portion of the game than player interaction. You choosing to ignore them as gameplay doesn't make them any less gameplay.
Same as your choosing to call players ######### because they don't play how you prefer, it doesn't make them an #########. Same as your dislike of lack of direct interaction doesn't invalidate all of the non-interactive parts of the game.
Its very clear you have an expectation from the game and don't like it when those expectations aren't met. Well guess what… tough. Suck it up or rage quit, the choice is yours. But if you are going to quit do so before you queue up and ruin the game for people who aren't quitters, even when they don't get the specific gameplay they want.
Post edited by EQWashu on1 -
I'd also point out that people like to claim survivor mains just want perfect games then get flashbanged once and then suddenly flashbang is overpowered.
People get too emotionally attached to their role and it makes these discussions obnoxious because every suggested change is taken personally.
3 -
I must have missed all the 'a-hole' talk.
Mega cringe to refer to people playing a game whatever way as such :(
Shame people can't discuss things based in reality instead of their own heated feelings.
0 -
Exactly this, a scenario where a player has died, very little game detail and the culprit must be camping and/or tunneling because they are the most convenient culprits when players die.
DBD is starting to hit a point where there is almost a complex formed around the terms camping and tunneling that extends beyond any tangible aspect of them in game.
The phrase "nerf tunneling" makes a great slogan but what does it even mean. Its so vague to be almost pointless.
4 -
There is more to DBD than just being chased by the killer…
This is the exact problem with tunnelling though…
1 -
To be fair its been some long posts, I don't blame people for missing parts of them or even expect people to read all or any of it.
I'm killing time waiting for an autoclave to finish with not much else to do so why not, but I do sometimes ask myself if I put to much effort into this. Guess its all in good fun.
Looks like the mods have gone through and ####'ed all the ' ' talk. I tip my hat to them can't be the most fun having to trawl through online negativity and edit it out all the time. Although sometimes I wish the cursing would stay we are all adults here anyway or should be given the games rating. (I'm not naïve enough to simply believe that though).
But yes devolving to insults of other players simply because they don't play how you would like them too is one of the great failings of online gamers.
2 -
To be fair the topic was camping and tunneling and you didn't specify that comment referenced to mean only things like WS spamming and tea bagging, just "behaviour"… so to infer its use to describe camping and tunneling was completely appropriate at the time.
I'm more than happy to accept your explanation. But must note it coming after the inappropriateness has been pointed out does cast a slight cloud of its genuinity.
Never the less the label implies that only someone who was one would engage in described play which is still just resorting to insults over gameplay. So Raccoon's point still stands also.
1 -
Some games will involve a lot of chasing, some games will involve a lot of doing gens, some games may have you lie on the ground for a long time. Heck some games you may get hooked and that will be your game, one chase and then die on hook. These things are all part of playing DBD.
You aren't going to get the same level of equal play and interaction across all games but that isn't a bad thing.
Its one of the things that makes DBD as good as it is; is the stakes are high when playing survivor. Because you are at the whim of the killer to some extent, just like a horror film, it can be very costly to get caught.
While some may find this frustrating, the moment it gets watered down the game goes from a horror experience to being just a game of tag.
DBD shines because of its grittier and dirtier parts, camping, tunneling, gen rushing, tilting your opponent are all part of that grittier aspect.
I'd rather play 100 games against a camping or tunneling killer where they have license to kill as they choose over 1 where the killer choices are fixed and play is wholly predictable and relatively safe.
To go back to the question what's the point of playing?… well because that's DBD love it or leave it.
2 -
The point was that frustration and horror are antithetical, which is why 'It's a horror game' is not a bail-out for tunnelling/camping.
If it helps convince you, I did call out that behaviour on both sides, and survivors literally can't camp or tunnel.
2 -
You aren't going to get the same level of equal play and interaction across all games but that isn't a bad thing.
And organically, that occurs to an extent that is perfectly fine. Depending on player skill, you might get more or less interaction, but you're generally going to have a game with, say, anywhere between 60 and 100% interactivity.
But that is a very far cry from a singular player, intentionally, single-handedly, deciding that this match is going to be 30% or less.
While some may find this frustrating, the moment it gets watered down the game goes from a horror experience to being just a game of tag.
It literally doesn't. Tunnelling and camping do not 'elevate' DBD above a game of tag. They devolve it by putting out of play a large amount of elements that elevate it above tag.
DBD shines because of its grittier and dirtier parts, camping, tunneling, gen rushing, tilting your opponent are all part of that grittier aspect.
I'm pretty sure you're the first person to ever dare the claim that DBD 'shines' due to camping and tunnelling.
And it's clear the devs don't agree with that, either.
I'd rather play 100 games against a camping or tunneling killer where they have license to kill as they choose over 1 where the killer choices are fixed and play is wholly predictable and relatively safe.
Those are not the only two options, not by a long shot. This makes it sound like you've been tunnelling/camping for so long, you've forgotten what DBD is outside of that.
3 -
While I don't feel it necessary for any player to justify how or why they play. Since you've now made assumptions about how I play part of your argument, it needs to be addressed.
No I don't really camp and tunnel much. I may if I think defending a hook is warranted or its past the mid game and I want to secure a kill for pressure but outside of those scenarios I find pressuring gens isn't really that big of an effort, for the most part.
The point wasn't just about camping and tunneling, it was about killer license to target and kill whom they choose, which is an important part of the game.
Its that freedom that generates a lot of the in game risk and when it gets attenuated the game suffers. It becomes less high stakes, more predictable and generally safer to play as survivor, which are all bad things for a survival horror.
When the killer has license to kill whom they choose then inevitably some players will camp and tunnel. The ability to defend a hook or eliminate a player of choice, just killer license in general, should not be undermined simply because "wahh its annoying", which is really the only argument you've offered up.
Unless BHVR decide that they aren't legit play and patch them out somehow… you'll just have to be annoyed I guess, which frankly I'm fine with.
4 -
This is fair- but you are not thinking of the longevity of a game where new players are likely playing with experienced friends. People do not want to be tunneled out after just starting a new game. It makes it not fun. I don't know why this is a hard concept to grasp?
0 -
https://steamdb.info/app/381210/charts/#max
Player retention seems to be fine.
2 -
Survivor main detected, opinion rejected
1 -
70 is being generous. A few killers were already at that. They want it to be more like 70 is the worst performing killer. while the higher ones are in the 80's
2 -
The problem is, the game is being balanced only around SWF vs Killer, they never cared about soloQ experience, since devs themselves never ever play soloQ and have no idea there is an abyss between the two survivor modes.
Killer mains know this too, and yet they don't like to mention it, since ranting about survivors in general is beneficial for them, as it bring new and new survivor nerfs after each rant, and mentioning soloQ problems could accidentally bring a dreaded survivor buff which would also make SWFs stronger.
1 -
I'm a killer main, and I said multiple times that survivors need to be able to see their teammates perk loadout in the lobby and at least a Quickchat function to be able to communicate and coordinate like SWF can do. And I'm not the only one.
Personally, can't wait for BHVR to implement those so everybody can see at last that they were right: The problem with SoloQ is not a lack of information, but a general lack of game sense and cooperation. When it happens, hopefully people will be able to give feedback and devs make necessary changes without anyone saying "Won't somebody PlEaSe think of mah SoloQ!?".
Post edited by Batusalen on0 -
Well, in order to bring soloQ closer to SWF in terms of information sharing, you would also have to implement the following:
- Basekit bond+empathy+kindred, basically make survivors see each other's auras unconditionally, since that's what SWF do by constantly updating their coordinates and status in discord.
- Whenever a singe survivor sees a killer, everyone else should have some kind of constant notification about the approximate position of the killer and what he is doing, since that's what SWF share in voice chat. Basically, in SWF if one survivor sees the killer - everyone sees him.
- Whenever a single survivor sees a trap or a totem - everyone else should get a notification about where the said trap or a totem is. Since in SWF if one survivor saw a totem - everyone saw it.
- Somehow share information about the killer's habits mid-chase, like "the killer respected", "the killer double-backed at TL", etc. Once again, SWFs have this "distributed killer profiling" out of the box.
Quick-chat is not a solution for this, because SWFs can exchange information while running or doing a gen, and a quick chat doesn't allow that. Being able to say "hey, his hex is exactly between these boxes in this part of them map!" while running from the killer is a huge advantage only SWFs have.
0 -
Quickchat precisely allows for fast communication without being intrusive or taking a lot of time, to the point of being able to send the info you want in half a second if done right. That's why it's called "Quick"chat.
Also, and this was said to me multiple times by survivor mains in this forum: Not all SWF are SWAT squads relaying their coordinates every second. At this point, what you are asking for is having another 4 perks + more basekit stuff, which would basically buff every SWF and don't accomplish anything.
0 -
If you don't find it fun that's a shame but to blanket state that its not fun for all is just hyperbolic, because that is very subjective.
Case in point - there is nothing wrong with the two examples of gameplay you gave in the OP but you use them as reasons to quit. If regular gameplay makes you want to quit then maybe its time for a break.
I'm also talking about longevity of the game when I say things like -
"Its that freedom that generates a lot of the in game risk and when it gets attenuated the game suffers. It becomes less high stakes, more predictable and generally safer to play as survivor, which are all bad things for a survival horror."
There are two sides of the player coin and the game will oscillate between them in terms of buffs and nerfs. But one thing you don't want to break is the core concept of the game, survival horror, which a lot of suggestions to "fix" camping and tunneling often do and that will kill its longevity.
0 -
I dont like hook suicide in some cases. As those who suicide on hook on early down. Or fail to toxic to killers .ect
But to what Op said, its not about killer should play like this or like that. But its the incentive for survivors to keep playing the match. Killers dont start a match knowing they cant make at least 3K. Survivors have no incentive if they know there is Zero chance to escape. So they suicide on hook.
If a teammate dies at 4 Gens (yep its killers make correct play, yep its survivors make alot of mistakes), Im just saying, for both me and Op. If I die now, or do half a Gen then die later. The results are the same: death. So I prefer to end the game early.
Also it makes killers get a kill easier so I dont understand the complain.
1 -
That's part of the problem though.
Players just give up the moment the game isn't perfect.
This happens on both sides with killers giving up if they lose 3 gens without a hook or lose the first chase and survivors the moment the killer does anything that violates the survivor rule book.
I'd wager half of the easy wins handed to players are not because of mechanics but because the player base (like a lot of online games) is infected with quitters.
Part of that problem stems from equating hard with miserable.
4
