Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now.

If you mention WoO as first perk I already doubt you understand the meaning of perks.

In the same place the mechanic has been the entire time, coordination increases simultaneous repair uptime, which means more total seconds where multiple survivors are repairing at once. 

Where?

We've gone from pretending away to pretending in. Which takes us to:

the first posts at least weren’t clear

Clarifying wording later doesn’t mean the mechanic suddenly appeared later, it just means the explanation became more explicit as the discussion kept circling around phrasing instead of the mechanic being discussed

Here's my full quote - "more like the 40th time, but at least we're getting to the point that the first posts at least weren't clear, which is progress."

All you're changing in your response is clear to explicit - clear was more accurate.

Yup, and the connection has already been explained. The point isn’t just that perks exist, it’s that coordinated teams maintain higher simultaneous repair uptime, and percentage-based repair bonuses scale directly with that uptime. That’s the link being argued, coordination increases active repair time, and the bonuses gain more total value from it.

Yup, and the connection has already been explained. - No, the connection has been repeated, but never defended or explained in terms of responses.

If I said Doctor was an S Tier killers exist and my evidence amounted to

-S Tier killers exist

-Doctor can blast multiple survivors off of gens, and gens are the ultimate objective

-Therefore Doctor is S Tier

If I just kept repeating that second line and not dealing with the actual numbers and counter scenarios everyone else proposes, that's not an explanation, its repetition without answers.

Your calling it oversimplifying, but the relationship itself really is simple, percentage repair bonuses scale with total active repair time. The complex part is measuring how much coordinated teams increase that uptime, not wether the scaling exists.

This scaling exists for all coordination. There is nothing unique about gen perks/items.

The complex part is very important (and why oversimplification is dangerous) because its needed to back up your argument that its the gen perks/items which are causing the difference. Without the complex part you are just saying that the more efficient the survivors are, the more value they get - that's just a true statement regardless of builds or SWF/soloq.

The point isn’t that “continuous = better,” it’s that continuous effects scale directly with uptime, while conditional effects scale with event frequency, which is much less predictable.

Much less predictable - So what?

Again - a major effect that occurs every four games might be much more worthwhile than a minor effect that occurs every game.

We're back to words matter - predictable does not equal better.

You keep using words like predictable or continuous in place of showing that this is actually better.

A perk like DS can swing a single moment massively, but it doesn’t apply value every second of the match. Repair speed bonuses do, every additional second of coordinated repair time converts immediately into additional objective progress.

So yes, both are conditional in the broadest sense, but they scale very differently, one depends on specific events happening, the other depends on how efficiently survivors maintain repair uptime, thats is exactly what coordination increases.

One scales frequently at a small value, one scales infrequently at a massive value.

Without specific numbers either one of those could be preferable.

That scenario exists for both soloq and SWF, that part isn't unique. Coordination can increase the value, but that remains true for both.

Yup, everything improves with coordination, but not everything converts coordination into objective completion at the same rate.

This is like frequency. The rate doesn't matter without factoring in the overall value achieved.

Heals, anti-tunnel, or chase perks increase opportunity to do gens.
Repair-speed bonuses increase the rate of generator completion itself.

That difference is why repair speed scaling matters, when coordination increases sustained repair uptime across multiple survivors, percentage repair bonuses apply to every second of that increased uptime, turning coordination directly into faster objective progress rather than indirectly enabling it.

Option A - gives survivors more time on gens

Option B - survivors get more out of their time on gens

Without looking at the numbers of the value actually derived, neither of those is better or worse. Both scenarios increase the value that is drawn out of gens. There's still nothing unique about gen perks and still a lot of reasons they have less of an impact for SWFs.

Thats the whole point, the comparison variable is total coordinated repair time.

When a percentage bonus is applied across more total seconds of simultaneous repair, it naturally produces more total objective progress than when its applied across less repair uptime. There’s nothing “mystical” about that, it’s just how scaling works.

And to be clear, the argument was never that “any percentage bonus is automatically broken.”
The point is that percentage based repair bonuses scale directly with coordinated uptime, which means coordinated swfs extract more total value from the same multipliers than equally skilled solo teams.
That scaling effect, not the existence of the bonuses themselves.

That's how scaling works - That's how scaling works for everything. At the extreme, upper end SWFs will be a little more efficient. You try to argue that the gen perks are better from this efficiency because they are more frequent (continuous, rate, etc.), but as pointed out above it's not how frequently something occurs which is relevant, but what's the actual value derived and then (for this discussion) compared to what an equally skilled soloq would get.

Small per second gains don’t remain small when four survivors apply them across an entire match. Coordinated uptime turns the same percentage bonuses into more total objective progress. Also gen multipliers aren't just limited to perks.

Not really. Again, a high skilled soloq will be slightly less efficient than a coordinated SWF, but we're looking at small differences for gen perks (but large differences for some other perks).

As for things that aren't perks - this is even a smaller difference. If a survivor brings a toolbox and built to last, again the SWF will help, but if a highly skilled survivor is using a gen rush build, they're going to gen rush.

To summarize all this

Frequent, continuous, rate, etc. aren't inherently better. To determine what's better the total derived value needs to be looked at.

The more efficient survivors are, the better. At the extreme upper end, coordinated SWFs will be more efficient than the equivalent soloq, but that efficiency is shown in all elements of the game.

For comparisons of what you propose, you need some standard for how much you think coordinated SWFs are gaining over an equally skilled soloq. That could then be compared to other possible builds. I think gen perks/items provide one of the smallest levels of benefit on the SWF to soloq comparison.

All of that then has to be discussed in how trials actually occur, which brings up issues like trade offs, differing killers, etc.

Let me highlight a line that I think encapsulate the issues:

“Predictable” wasn’t being used to mean “automatically better,” it was used to explain how the value scales.

Then why did you say predictable instead of actually demonstrating the numbers?

You say continuous - I point out it doesn't mean better, just continuous, you say you weren't arguing that, then you go right back to it.

You say predictable - I point out it doesn't mean better, just predictable, you say you weren't arguing that and go right back to it.

As we'll see in your post, you really struggle to explain how these are better without just using these words as if they mean better (I'm going to hit this point a lot here)

You keep treating this like the claim is “continuous = better,” when the actual point is about what coordination scales.

Coordination increases sustained repair uptime, and percentage repair bonuses convert that uptime directly into objective progress. That’s a mechanical relationship, not a vocabulary argument.

“Numbers matter” determines how big the effect is, not whether the scaling exists.

The counter is also incredibly simple.

There's nothing about this that is unique to gen perks. You will say you agree with that, but you never address how the gen perks are actually superior without falling back to the continuous argument.

Your saying it’s not unique because “everything scales with coordination,” but that ignores what it scales into.

Repair-speed bonuses scale directly into objective completion. Most other perks scale into opportunity.

That difference is the entire point, and dismissing it as “continuous argument again” doesn’t refute it.

Or potentially its because you keep refusing to engage with the counter arguments and keep repeating a mechanic.

To look at scaling you need multiple elements - such as how much and what are the other possibilities?

Your framing this as if repeating the mechanic means it’s unproven. It just means your counter hasn’t broken it.

And “we need numbers” isn’t a rebuttal, it’s just saying you don’t like the implication of the scaling relationship.

The mechanism is simple:
More coordinated repair time → more seconds benefiting from percentage bonuses → more total objective progress.

If that relationship is wrong, show where it breaks. Otherwise we’re just circling.

It being the win condition is completely irrelevant. All the gen speed in the world won't matter if survivors are constantly being downed/eliminated (for multiple possible reasons that perks could help with)

This is like arguing in American football teams should always throw the ball because you gain more yards that way or in basketball always go for threes because that's more points - that's silly, its a simple explanation, but just because something is simple doesn't mean its right especially when you have lots of mechanics involved.

Calling the win condition “irrelevant” in a discussion about scaling objective completion is wild.

And sports analogies don’t replace math.
The claim isn’t “simple = correct.”
It’s that the scaling relationship is structurally straightforward, whether you like the implication or not.

We're right back to direct does not equal better.

Correct. Direct does not automatically equal better.

But direct does mean the effect applies to the win condition immediately and continuously.

That matters when we’re discussing scaling under coordination.

You’re acting like “not inherently better” means “irrelevant.” It doesn’t.

Extra steps does not equal worse.

Also correct.

But extra steps introduce additional failure points and variability.

Heals, anti-tunnel, and chase perks depend on:

• Killer behavior
• Hook states
• Map position
• Timing windows

Repair speed bonuses depend on:

• Survivors being on gens

One is event-gated. The other is uptime-gated.

Those are not structurally identical.

If an indirect action yields a greater return than a direct action, then its better.

Sure, if it yields a greater return.

But that’s a numerical question, not a structural one.

The structural point is this:

• Conditional perks spike in isolated moments.
• Percentage repair bonuses apply to every second of coordinated uptime.

In coordinated high-MMR environments where uptime is already maximized, continuous scaling becomes more reliable and compounding.

That doesn’t mean “always better.”
It means “more sensitive to uptime increases.”

The relevance is the outcome - continuous, predictable, direct, etc are neither inherently better or worse.

Right, but you keep pretending the argument is about adjectives.

It’s not.

It’s about how value accumulates over time under coordination.

If coordination increases total simultaneous repair uptime across four survivors, percentage bonuses extract more total value from that uptime.

That’s not wordplay.
That’s how scaling works.

If you want to argue the magnitude is small, argue magnitude.

But pretending the scaling relationship itself doesn’t matter because “direct isn’t automatically better” just sidesteps the actual point.

Except you're distinguishing a mechanic that isn't separate.

The more time a survivor spends on gens, the more use they'll get out of gen perks.

The more times they heal, the more value they'll get out of heal perks.

The more they are in chase, the more value they'll get out of chase perks.

SWFs can hypothetically maximize the efficiency of all of these better than a soloq could via coordination. When you say describing a mechanic accurately again you're saying a part no one disagrees with, more time using perk = more value, you might as well keep repeating there's 4 survivors to 1 killer.

You’re repeating “everything scales with use” like that ends the discussion.

Yes, more time doing X = more value from X. No one disputes that.

The distinction is what that value converts into.

• Heal perks convert into survivability.
• Chase perks convert into time.
• Anti-tunnel converts into safety.
• Repair bonuses convert directly into generator completion — the win condition.

That’s the difference.

Saying “the more time on gens, the more value you get” isn’t refuting the argument — it’s restating it.

The point isn’t that gen perks are the only things that scale.
It’s that when coordination increases sustained simultaneous repair uptime across multiple survivors, percentage repair bonuses apply to every second of that uptime and convert it straight into objective progress.

Other perks can create time.
Repair bonuses turn time into progress at a higher rate.

That’s not “4 survivors vs 1 killer.”
That’s explaining why certain scaling interacts more directly with the win condition.

If you want to argue that indirect scaling produces more total objective progress in high MMR SWFs than uptime-based repair scaling does, then show that.

But just saying “everything scales” doesn’t actually engage with the distinction being made.

You say nobody argued otherwise, then go right into that argument.

Immediately, repeatedly, continuous, do not equal better.

You're saying you do not say these words mean better, but than immediately use them again as the justification for the argument.

That's the repetition I mentioned.

You’re still acting like I’m arguing “continuous = automatically better.”

I’m not.

I’m saying continuous repair bonuses scale directly with sustained uptime, and sustained uptime is exactly what coordination increases.

That’s not a word game, that’s a mechanical relationship.

“Immediately” and “repeatedly” aren’t being used as value judgments. They describe how the effect applies:

• Conditional perks require a trigger.
• Repair bonuses apply every second survivors are repairing.

Whether that produces more total objective progress depends on how much uptime coordination creates, which is the actual debate.

You keep reframing it as if I’m saying “continuous therefore superior,” when the claim is:

Coordination increases sustained repair uptime →
Repair multipliers apply to every second of that uptime →
More total objective progress is extracted from the same multiplier.

If you think that interaction doesn’t meaningfully contribute to the high MMR gap, argue that.

But reducing it to “you said continuous again” isn’t engaging with the scaling argument, it’s sidestepping

Very different ways - no one disagrees with that. It's a core concept of DbD's perk design which I've mentioned, situational perks with really strong effects, or easy to access perks with minor effects. That's not a SWF vs soloq issue. Now if you start talking about some of the situational perks, you can see a lot of much strong SWF possibilities over soloq.

You’re reframing this as “situational vs minor effects,” when that’s not the distinction being made.

The distinction is how value scales.

Continuous repair bonuses scale with uptime.
Uptime is exactly what coordination increases.

That means coordinated teams extract more total value from the same percentage bonus than equally skilled solo teams.

That’s not about “minor vs major.” It’s about scaling mechanics.

And when you say “that’s a core design philosophy issue,” you’re actually conceding the structure of the argument — you’re just moving it to a broader category.

Also, pointing out that situational perks can be strong in SWF doesn’t counter this. Yes, coordination amplifies those too. The difference is:

• Event perks scale with event frequency.
• Repair bonuses scale with total active repair time.
• Generator completion is the win condition.

So if coordination primarily increases sustained repair uptime, then the perks that scale with uptime naturally convert coordination into objective progress more consistently.

That’s the argument. Not “predictable = better.” Not “minor > major.”
Scaling interaction.

And instead of doing that we're right back to

Consistently does not equal better

Continuous does not equal better

Direct does not equal better

Cumulative value from coordination over time does actually mean better, but you actually have to show the cumulative value, not just rely on all the other words.

Additionally, you'd need to show SWFs getting more value out of something like Deja Vu over many matches compared to something like DS in comparison to what an equally skilled soloq could manage with those perks to actually demonstrate your point.

You keep saying “show cumulative value.

That’s exactly what sustained uptime is.

If coordination increases total simultaneous repair time across four survivors, then percentage bonuses applied to that time naturally generate more total progress.

Event perks scale with moments.
Repair bonuses scale with uptime.

Coordination increases uptime more consistently than it increases rare trigger events. .

Let's look at my quote - rate doesn't matter without factoring in the overall value achieved.

That should answer everything you type here. Rate, direct, continuous, predictable, etc. don't matter - what matters is the end result.

On the last thing you type there - "total impact can be larger even if each individual gain is smaller."

Sure, no one disagrees with that in concept.

Demonstrating it with the perks/items that exist in game, in comparison to soloq, in comparison to what else SWFs could run is the issue.

Rate is part of total value.

Total value = value per second × total seconds applied.
You can’t say “rate doesn’t matter” while asking about overall impact — rate directly determines accumulation over time.

Small per-second gains across four coordinated survivors for an entire match can absolutely outscale large but rare effects. That’s just how scaling works.

If you want to argue the magnitude is small, argue it.

But dismissing rate entirely while asking for total value doesn’t make sense.

Varies does not equal worse.

Consistently does not equal better.

If through coordination, a SWF gets an extra ~5 seconds out of their gen perks than they would have compared to soloq every trial, and if coordination nets them an extra 50 seconds out of using DS once every five trial compared to soloq, well on raw numbers DS wins (then we get into strategic applications of these issues which adds another layer to the discussion - because the mechanics in DbD for what is better/worse aren't actually simple)

You’re still comparing isolated perk value instead of team-wide uptime scaling.

Gen multipliers apply to every second of coordinated repair across multiple survivors. That compounds all match long.

DS giving +50 seconds once every five games isn’t the same type of scaling as four survivors converting coordinated uptime into objective progress every second they’re repairing.

This isn’t “consistent = better.”
It’s that sustained uptime × percentage scaling accumulates continuously, not situationally.

If you think the cumulative gain is small, quantify it.

But treating single-event spikes and continuous team-wide scaling as equivalent math isn’t accurate.

So I'd just be repeating myself here as this is the same things. Directly does not equal better.

If you have a preference for predictable values whose value are more consistent, that's great. No one says you can't. But that doesn't make it objectively better.

You keep reducing it to “direct ≠ better” like that’s the whole argument.

The distinction isn’t preference — it’s accumulation.

Opportunity-based perks require events.
Repair multipliers convert every second of coordinated uptime into objective progress.

That’s not about liking “predictable value.”
It’s about sustained team-wide scaling versus conditional spikes.

If you think the cumulative impact is negligible, show that.
But pretending both scale the same way just sidesteps the mechanism.

So this is difficult to prove/disprove because who is soloq and who is SWF is never known unless you are in the SWF or its streamers.

I've been in soloq games where the killer accused us of gen rush despite being soloq. One or two good chases, a team of decent survivors, the gens are going to fly. I've watched SWFs become incredibly inefficient when the things don't go their way.

But if this was the absolute best strategy, we're right back to why aren't more SWFs running it, especially in things like no limit comp matches. Or we can look to Japan were the survivors have higher escape rates and are considered far more efficent, yet they have the self heal meta were sometimes all the survivors are burning multiple perk slots on healing builds.

At some point there should be something demonstrating this mechanic especially given the self evident nature you seem to think it has.

Anecdotes don’t disprove scaling.

“Yes, I’ve seen solo gens fly” just shows efficiency exists — not that coordination + uptime scaling doesn’t amplify multipliers.

“Why aren’t more SWFs running it?” isn’t a rebuttal either. Meta choice depends on trade-offs, killer pool, map, comp rules, etc. Something not being universally spammed doesn’t mean the scaling interaction doesn’t exist.

And saying “we can’t always tell who’s SWF” doesn’t negate the mechanism, it just limits perfect observation. The math of uptime × percentage bonus doesn’t stop working because group labels aren’t visible.

Your reframing this as “continuous = better,” when that’s not the claim.

The claim is about compounding. Repair-speed multipliers apply to the win condition every second survivors are repairing. Coordination increases how many total seconds that happens simultaneously across the team. That’s where the cumulative difference comes from.

Yes, everything scales with coordination. The distinction is that some effects scale through event frequency (chases, unhooks, anti-tunnel), while repair multipliers scale through sustained uptime on the objective itself. One is conditional on specific triggers. The other compounds every second the team maintains pressure.

Saying “show the numbers” is fair — but dismissing the scaling logic entirely because we haven’t attached a spreadsheet yet doesn’t make the mechanism disappear.

If your position is that the total compounded gain from coordinated uptime + multipliers is negligible compared to other perks, then that’s the comparison to argue.

But reducing it to “small frequent vs big rare” misses the structural difference: one compounds directly into objective completion every second, the other doesn’t.

Part 2 because of character limits

And when you say “that’s a core design philosophy issue,” you’re actually conceding the structure of the argument — you’re just moving it to a broader category.

Have been since we've been on this topic. Literally repeated this argument in multiple posts when I've compared how the same scaling happens with other types of perks.

Also, pointing out that situational perks can be strong in SWF doesn’t counter this. Yes, coordination amplifies those too. The difference is:

• Event perks scale with event frequency.
• Repair bonuses scale with total active repair time.
• Generator completion is the win condition.

So if coordination primarily increases sustained repair uptime, then the perks that scale with uptime naturally convert coordination into objective progress more consistently.

Consistently does not equal better.

The differences you cite aren't actually math that back up your argument, they're presumptions which have no relevance without numbers.

The thing you are leaving out of your scenarios is value. Just because an event is frequent doesn't make it better if the value it actually gives is still much less than an infrequent event with a large value.

That’s the argument. Not “predictable = better.” Not “minor > major.”Scaling interaction.

You say that, but you literally just made that argument again. See consistently above. You keep having to add these words that you say don't mean better, but without them your argument falls apart.

You keep saying “show cumulative value.

That’s exactly what sustained uptime is.

Let's look at my actual quote - Rate x value x frequency = overall value compared to the same scenario for soloq.

You need a comparison for this to have relevance. If used more = better is not something anyone has ever argued against.

If coordination increases total simultaneous repair time across four survivors, then percentage bonuses applied to that time naturally generate more total progress.

Event perks scale with moments.Repair bonuses scale with uptime.

Coordination increases uptime more consistently than it increases rare trigger events. .

Consistently does not equal better. Overall value is what mattters.

Rate is part of total value.

Total value = value per second × total seconds applied.You can’t say “rate doesn’t matter” while asking about overall impact — rate directly determines accumulation over time.

Lol, this is the second time you've misquoted this same thing

Let's look at my full quote - rate doesn't matter without factoring in the overall value achieved.

Rate is ONE OF the factors that determines overall value achieved. That word "without" is incredibly important. I literally gave you an equation that I've quoted again in this response.

Just because something has a high rate has no relevance without the other factors.

Small per-second gains across four coordinated survivors for an entire match can absolutely outscale large but rare effects. That’s just how scaling works.

Just going to quote myself again to show how I've already said that:

"On the last thing you type there - "total impact can be larger even if each individual gain is smaller."

Sure, no one disagrees with that in concept.

Demonstrating it with the perks/items that exist in game, in comparison to soloq, in comparison to what else SWFs could run is the issue."

If you want to argue the magnitude is small, argue it.

I have, multiple times. You literally quote me doing one of those arguments right after this, and you haven't made a response to my requests for how much value you actually think survivors are getting out of their gen perks in a soloq in comparison to a SWF.

But dismissing rate entirely while asking for total value doesn’t make sense.

Good thing I didn't dismiss rate entirely.

You’re still comparing isolated perk value instead of team-wide uptime scaling.

Gen multipliers apply to every second of coordinated repair across multiple survivors. That compounds all match long.

DS giving +50 seconds once every five games isn’t the same type of scaling as four survivors converting coordinated uptime into objective progress every second they’re repairing.

This isn’t “consistent = better.”It’s that sustained uptime × percentage scaling accumulates continuously, not situationally.

Sustained does not equal better. That's just you putting in a new word for consistent.

More survivors doesn't equal better, it just enhances the trade off discussion. If one survivors gets an extra five seconds over equivalent soloq on a gen with Deja Vu, that's 0.3 charges. If all four survivors do this, that's 1.2 charges, but that's a trade off of all four survivors trading off for an additional perk.

If you think the cumulative gain is small, quantify it.

What do you think I've been doing every time I've laid out these scenarios? Why do you think I ask you for what you think the numbers are?

But treating single-event spikes and continuous team-wide scaling as equivalent math isn’t accurate.

Presuming just because they are a team that they don't face the same risks on trade off value of perks isn't accurate. Do they have an advantage on it do to preplanning? Sure, but that's not unique to gen perks/items.

You keep reducing it to “direct ≠ better” like that’s the whole argument.

The distinction isn’t preference — it’s accumulation.

You literally say I keep talking about cumulative value earlier and now you are agreeing its what matters. Not sure what the point of everything else you said was if you're just going to agree with me, but, great, end result.

Opportunity-based perks require events.Repair multipliers convert every second of coordinated uptime into objective progress.

Events happen.

That’s not about liking “predictable value.”It’s about sustained team-wide scaling versus conditional spikes.

Sustained does not equal better. There's a killer, he's going to do things, having counters to what he does is very important.

If you think the cumulative impact is negligible, show that.

So I love the continued demands I show something, which I've actually dived into multiple times, despite you not showing it, despite it being your argument. If you want to go back to arguing something like Full Circuit sure, but when I or @FerrousFacade tried to focus on those arguments you said that wasn't the point of the discussion

Anecdotes don’t disprove scaling.

“Yes, I’ve seen solo gens fly” just shows efficiency exists — not that coordination + uptime scaling doesn’t amplify multipliers.

“Why aren’t more SWFs running it?” isn’t a rebuttal either. Meta choice depends on trade-offs, killer pool, map, comp rules, etc. Something not being universally spammed doesn’t mean the scaling interaction doesn’t exist.

And saying “we can’t always tell who’s SWF” doesn’t negate the mechanism, it just limits perfect observation. The math of uptime × percentage bonus doesn’t stop working because group labels aren’t visible.

So this whole part here sounds great, until you actually look at what part of your post I'm replying to - "which is why their cumulative impact becomes more visible when comparing equally skilled coordinated teams to solo play"

You're making an anecdotal argument, I'm responding in kind, though I'm backing it up with both personal experience and high MMR examples.

The claim is about compounding. Repair-speed multipliers apply to the win condition every second survivors are repairing. Coordination increases how many total seconds that happens simultaneously across the team. That’s where the cumulative difference comes from.

Yes, everything scales with coordination.

Glad you're back to agreeing with me that everything scales with coordination, not sure why you spend so long posting about the scaling mechanic for something you are going to agree with.

The distinction is that some effects scale through event frequency (chases, unhooks, anti-tunnel), while repair multipliers scale through sustained uptime on the objective itself. One is conditional on specific triggers. The other compounds every second the team maintains pressure.

So I was about to say compounds does not equal better, which is true, but even better, that's not what compounds means.

Gen perks add a straight linear line of benefit. Each additional second on a gen equal the amount of extra charges from the gen perks/items being used. Compounding would be something like Deja Vu growing in value with each use.

Saying “show the numbers” is fair — but dismissing the scaling logic entirely because we haven’t attached a spreadsheet yet doesn’t make the mechanism disappear.

No one is dismissing the scaling logic that you are now falling back to. It's uniqueness to the perks/items you have chosen in addition to its relevance to the difference between SWF/soloq at the upper end is the issue.

And we don't need a spreadsheet. Roughly how much value do you think a coordinated SWF would extract from these gen perks in comparison to an equally skilled soloq? As I've said, if you start laying out actual figures, you need to lay out some truly absurd scenarios to make these perks seem significant.

If your position is that the total compounded gain from coordinated uptime + multipliers is negligible compared to other perks, then that’s the comparison to argue.

That argument has been made multiple times. It's actually more detailed than that, because your argument is specifically about SWF vs soloq.

I've posted multiple times about how the difference between gen perks on soloq and SWFs would be relatively minor, especially compared to other game perks that SWFs can far more easily extract more coordinated value from.

But reducing it to “small frequent vs big rare” misses the structural difference: one compounds directly into objective completion every second, the other doesn’t.

Consistent does not equal better. Direct does not equal better. You keep saying that's not your argument, but you keep making it.

Man, logging on to see the votes was a mistake...