What if totems and chests worked like Potential Energy?
I find that it is hard to incentivize any other target but generators when playing as Survivor. What if totems and chests worked like Potential Energy?
The totems and chests perform their same functions but on top of that you get a small bonus to the next generator you repair. If you lose a health state before you “spend” them on a gen then they’re lost.
It’s a rough idea and I’m not committed to any of the hard details. But as a whole, do you think it could help incentivize side objectives without feeling like you’re throwing?
Comments
-
I like the idea of totems and gens being more useful but I think anything that allows survivors to complete gens faster is gonna be hated by killer mains. I think they tried to get survivors on totems with boons but we see how that turned out. Now they’re releasing random perks that encourage survivors to interact with totems and chests but nobody runs these perks.
5 -
Well I’m a Killer main 100% but play Killer/Survivor 40/60 and the risk reward seems really fun to me, even from a Killer POV. If it ends up being a problem numbers could be tweaked. But as a whole I just can’t seem to let go of this idea.
2 -
I think this is difficult to balance. It can be too little and the survivors ignore this feature and sit on generators because it is still faster than doing a totem and then a gen. Is it too much, it will be unhealthy. Also why should I waste my time with a chest or totem (looking for it and sit on it for a few seconds) to do a gen a little bit faster when I just can bring a Commodious Toolbox for free and do the gen faster with it?
Totems are in a good position. Both sides have good Perks that requires interaction with a totem. The only reason why hex builds are underused is due to bad totem spawns. If they were better, totems would be in a much better position and we would see them more often which means survivors had a good sidequest. on the survivorside, totem perks are in general fine. The issue is that there are stronger or easier to use perks.
Chests are the main issue in the game because they are useless for the survivors. They are just there. Every interaction with a chest is just wasted time. Of cause, there are perks that force you to interact with them but most of them are either outclassed by other things (e.g. why use moment of glory when you jcan just bring syringes for free that are easier to use?) or not strong enough while other perks are easier to use and stronger on their own. So if we want that survivor have a worth it sidequest, we should focus on improving chests by making them better but i don't think slapping a genbonus on them would be the best solution. In my opinion, we need bigger changes.
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of giving survivor more than just sit on generators because this is pretty boring. It would be great if something would change the survivor gameplay to make it more refreshing.
1 -
It’s a good idea to make totems and chests more interactive. I like that you balance it by letting those survivors receive extra gen progress. It feels balanced that way
3 -
But the whole point of side objectives is to slow the game down.
Considering that doing chests and totems can even give you repair buffs with perks/toolboxes, If everything you did contributed to repairs, they'd have to balance that by increasing gen times even more. 120 charges or something at least.
3 -
On totems: I think they are in a good place. They are anywhere between irrelevant and critically important based on the builds that are brought. I think that is a good element to have something that matters sometimes and can be ignored others.
Chests: BHVR, as frequently happens, seems to be trying to fix the issue via perks. That rarely goes well and I imagine chests still won't be touched that much.
I don't mind the idea of chests giving some gen progress, but it seems more complex than needed. Increasing the quality of items that come out of chests, giving them quicker opening times, would seem to be more straightforward solutions.
Post edited by crogers271 on1 -
We're kinda iffy on giving gen progress for them (especially since a perk came out with similar deal) but overall could be worth seeing depending on how it works. We'd rather it be something like a charge selfcare: break bones you get a charge to be able to heal your bones by yourself (at a reasonable speed)
1 -
I read what everyone wrote and you all have good points.
For me the only reason I feel like it has to be this way is because gens will always be a better option given the choice. I feel that tying side objectives to the main objective is the only way. It still has the potential to be slow down, and the bonus can be tweaked to where it still technically would have been better to sit on a gen, but at least this way you’re still advancing the main objective.
Yes I can see how it could be a straight buff but I can also see how it would leave other players feeling good about your teammates’ choice to do side objectives.
This is no way a rebuttal to any of the counterpoints mentioned, just some general musings. I appreciate everyone’s input.
1 -
but it seems more complex than needed.
Yeah I agree, it’s a thorn in the idea for me too. I like all that you wrote, especially about the chests.
0 -
As a perk idea, I think it's fine. I don't think something like this should be a base feature of the game though.
1 -
I feel that tying side objectives to the main objective is the only way.You're probably correct on this as a concept, but I think it might just be too difficult to work into the game design (especiall a game 8 years in with perks, maps, and offerings that might need to be reworked). Most games I can think of that have meaningful side objectives are longer style strategy games. DbD is a fast elimination asymmetrical game, side objectives are always going to be problematic.
Meaningful side objectives also give another advantage to SWFs. Whether you are soloq or SWF, the goal is the gens. You know it, the killer knows it. SWFs could enter games with either a side objective or main objective focused strategy, while it would just cause more confusion between SWFs.
It's not that I don't want it to happen if it was possible, I just think there are more possible problems that could emerge than things it would improve.
1
