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!
8-kick limit should activate with 1 gen remaining
I feel like the 8-kick limit should only activate when there's 1 generator remaining for the survivors. I really like the perk Surge for example, but sometimes I reach the limit (or close to) before a 3-gen situation can even form. And when you can't kick a heavily contested generator, the game is pretty much over at that point. What do you guys think?
Comments
-
Agree, this mechanic is the most unfair buff for survivors
10 -
And I don't mean this post as a "oooh evil survivor players" post. I mean just healthy for the game. Yes, it forces an end to a stalemate situation. But shouldn't that mechanic only be active the moment such a scenario can occur?
5 -
Ok, but gen-tapping should be re-enabled at this point up to 1 gen remaining.
6 -
I think the same cause you can bypass limit even if you not holding 3 gen (eruption+jolt/pain ress)
0 -
Agree. Mostly because the change single handily made a bunch of stall perks arguably even worse than they were before. Surge activates whenever you down someone and no matter how much progress a gen has, it counts as a regression event. Eruption counts as TWO regression events (one for the kick, another for the actual explosion from the effect) which for a measly 10% progress (15% if we want to count the initial kick) is outrageously weak. So either those perks need to be buffed to compensate for their worse off states or they should implement the suggested change here.
Oh and please look into Call of Brine and Overcharge, they're so laughably bad it's painful.5 -
Well if all the maps was not the size of a dunkin donuts spawning 3 to 4 gens neck to neck that would have have been fine.
But killers new habit lately is immediate finding 3 4 gen spawns and proxy camping them, am shocked there is not a topic about this.
2 -
I never said to remove the mechanic. You might have misread my original post.
6 -
I don't think this'd be a good change, personally. For one, it'd still allow killers to stall the game quite a bit with a 3-gen, since getting to eight regression events tends to take a while- especially with just kicks.
I've seen the argument about Surge blocking generators before the endgame before, but I'm always a little unsure how you could've gotten eight downs and not had at least most of them convert to hooks. Plus, eight hooks (if it is that many) is extremely likely to have someone dead already, and even if you're going out of your way to spread hooks as much as humanly possible, that's still everyone on death hook.
Do you really need to kick generators when you're that close to winning? I don't see this affecting someone unless they're going for generator stall over their objective, which is what this system was designed to tackle, in the broad strokes.
6 -
Meh, I think it's a non-issue. I've hit the regression limit occasionally with Eruption/Surge without actually 3-genning, but what I've noticed is that whenever it does happen, it's when I'm already in a winning position/about to win the game. If a false positive only occurs when you've won or are about to win then it's not really a big deal.
Also, the killer can still be holding a 3 gen while there are other generators left to do, that doesn't really make it any less of a problem.
2 -
This was implemented to make 3 gen-ing more difficult so no it can't be the last gen because of 3 gen-ing. I haven't had it be in issue.
0 -
Why would you not start the other gens first. I don't see how killers can 3-gen with 7 gens on the map
0 -
As a survivor, you can effectively forced a gen to get the 8 gen limit within 6 minutes of a match. That's actually one of the meta strategies. Find an incredibly important gen, such as rpd lobby, repair it, and the moment you hear a tr, just flee. The killer has no choice but to regress the gen or otherwise let it get completed for free. Then once they leave, you immediately hop back on. The center of the map is vital to win, so they'll be patrolling that gen very often, not to mention almost everyone runs through lobby through chases. They either don't regress it and lose the gen, or they regress it, but since it's such a high traffic gen, you can guarantee that the gen is completed or reached 8 regressions within just a few minutes.
Example of said strat. Half the charges gone in 3 minutes.
https://youtu.be/JsA8ApZOCTA?si=IgAbGTRn5_MLMjhv
3 -
Good argument thread. Imo id just say don't waste a kick for 5% with no other effect to it.
At least PGTW or something to make it worthwhile.
0 -
As a survivor, you are completely incapable of forcing the killer to aggressively damage generators again and again.
I've seen this video before, and it's a good example of what this system does punish. This Knight is very clearly trying to stall that generator for the sake of stalling that generator, and isn't attempting to use the generator as bait for pursuing their actual objective.
Whether they just didn't realise what they should be doing, or they were making an active choice to try and stall the match out, doesn't really matter. All that Knight needed to do to both play ten times better and completely invalidate the anti-3-gen system was just send that guard out to patrol the area and harass the survivors, not continually damage the gen for no benefit. This system does kind of punish you for mindlessly kicking gens over and over, but I'm okay with that false positive, it can push players into unlearning bad habits.
Gen defence is often misunderstood, I think. I think a lot of killers could do with remembering that it's just a tactic to give you more time to achieve your objective, not your objective in and of itself.
4 -
And what was his other option? Just let survivors freely push the gen to completion?
3 -
…Send the guard out to patrol and catch the survivors, then act on that information by chasing them himself.
If it's a high priority gen, the survivors working on it are the ones you should be chasing, not ones across the map. Mindlessly damaging it over and over without trying to stop survivors from repairing it won't do anything for you.
2 -
Sure, sounds fair for 3-gen fight.
0 -
Itd seem nice, but it would be taken out of proportion
A year back it was possible to 3-gen when the game didnt have the limit, since then the limit was made. I think if the killer really wanted to and had enough luck, a 4-gen is possible, and if that is broken the survivors then need to break a 3-gen with each gen having 8 kicks
0 -
I'm not sure there should be a limit at all.
I mean why should there be a special system for "3-gen" scenarios, but nothing for the killer equivalent when there's 1 gen on one side of the map and 2 on the complete opposite side of the map.
Like…it's cool for the killer to be screwed at the macro level, but not the survivors? Why?
2 -
Because the killer has way more ability to both prevent that situation from forming, and still win after getting into that situation.
The worst case scenario for a killer there is that the last generator gets done and they have to make their play in the endgame. The worst case scenario for survivors here is a stalled-out slog where they can't get repair done but the killer won't leave to progress their objective either.
It's healthier for everyone if killers can't stall matches out like that.
3 -
It depends on the killer kit and whether or not the survivors brought gen perks.
If the killer kit has high-mobility or a travel feature, then they could make a last ditch attempt. If not, the killer is pretty screwed unless the team somehow miraculously blunders into a 4-man knockdown.
Let's say we're on Asarov's with 3 gens in a corner and 1 gen on the other side of the map -
If survivors have things like Deja Vu, Resilience, Prove Thyself, Leader, Hyperfocus/Stakeout or Potential Energy, it isn't a fools errand to prevent the scenario or try to snake a generator from an M1 killer defending a 3-gen and suddenly flip things into an indefensible gen-split scenario.
I wouldn't call it healthy to step in and throw down a system that ignores the power level of all killer kits and basically shoves a proverbial middle finger in the face of every killer player just because most survivors refused to pick up the tools at their disposal.
2 -
Sure, different killers are going to struggle more or less in different scenarios, but that's somewhat missing the point.
Assume the worst possible setup for the sake of this argument, an immobile M1 killer on a map that really needs to be reworked for this reason like Azarov's. The survivor's worst case scenario is a massive, almost unwinnable amount of game stall where nothing really happens.
The killer's worst case scenario, here, is that the match progresses to the next stage of the game and they have to play around the exit gates instead of the generators. That's not great for them, but it's not unwinnable and things are still actually happening.
There's no next stage of the game to progress to if the survivors have to deal with an old 3-genning killer, the game just stalled out entirely until someone decided to throw by taking the first risk.
5 -
No just no. As a killer you really dont need more than 1 gen regression perk to do well. 8 generator regressions on a single gen is more than enough. The game was way worse when there was a 3 gen meta.
2 -
I think it's a non issue mostly, but I would like the kick limit changed in one way - perks that pop gens don't cause it to happen until only 2 gens are left. Period.
I also think it's time to address toolbox speeds on some boxes, and how for some reason toolboxes can still stack with perks. There's a lot more Survs can do right now to crush gens that Killers can't do, remove progress on, or avoid. It feels a bit unfair.
1 -
and the moment he chases them, another survivor pops right back onto the gen. It's a lose-lose. Either way, the gen is a loss guaranteed. Chase off the survivor, the gen gets worked on. Dare touch it, and that's one less charge. Don't touch it, and that gen gets pushed further to further to 100%. You're expecting survivors to not touch the gen while you chase off survivors - that isn't realistic. In any situation, if you chase, someone else is hopping onto the gen. If you just camp the area, then you're losing all the other gens on the map.
1 -
I mean, yeah, if the whole team is concentrating on that one gen, it's going to get progress. Even without the eight kick limit that's true.
What you really have to do is end the chase quick enough to get back to the gen before it's completed, if you're trying to defend it. That or make your gameplan around it getting done, which is probably stronger overall in most other circumstances.
There's just no world where continually damaging a generator like that is the right call, and any world where it is the right call would be far too much gen stall for no effort.
2 -
The thing is that this worst case scenario for the survivors is usually self-inflicted due to low or zero macro consideration, after which the killer just isn't allowed to defend from being pushed into an equal scenario of dire straits (unless they have high mobility or a travel feature).
So why exactly should the survivors receive favor, take precedence and benefit from a special system that, in essence, forces the killer to let them score a touchdown?
How does it make any sense in terms of what's actually fair?
3 -
The answer mostly lies in the fact that it's not self inflicted, mostly.
Don't get me wrong, it can be self inflicted, both before and after the 3-gen system was introduced. It's still very bad for the survivors when it happens that way, too.
But, the reason it's okay to include a system like this is because killers could, before, go out of their way to force a 3-gen by just defending it aggressively from the start.
So, to recap, we have a system that still allows for poor macro play to put the survivors in a losing position, but that prevents the killer from stalling excessively in that scenario + stops them from being able to force that scenario either way. I think that's pretty fair, personally.
2 -
I would agree if the tools and procedure to bust an aggressively defended 3-gen didn't exist, but they do exist.
Therefore I maintain that this system isn't truly fair.
3 -
None of those tools were basekit, so you're in a position where players either have to run the exact same tools every single game just in case the killer decided they wanted to 3-gen that game, or lose whenever they face a killer that tries it.
This way, there's something players can leverage no matter what their build is.
It's fair either way because the killer doesn't actually lose out on 3-gen value if the survivors create one, though. As long as you're trying to win instead of stall a 3-gen is still very beneficial to you.
2 -
I think this is a really solid suggestion, but I want to throw a middle ground out there: Gens should still track number of regression events and give the 4-kick warning at the halfway mark, (maybe even moved to a 6-kick warning, with the hard cutoff remaining at 8) but cap out at that point until one gen needs to be completed. Killers shouldn't be prevented from taking extra time to counter pressure on specific gens in the early game if it can't net them an easy 3-gen, and anything that the extra regression events they get this way in the early to mid game could net them isn't really likely to outweigh survivors properly taking that distraction to pressure other gens. It'd just give killers a little more macro agency in some edge-case scenarios.
1 -
Strongly disagree, some maps have 4 or even 5 gens really close to each other, I always use deja vu and I see this mess a lot.
0
