Why was fast tracked not changed?

9.5.2 bugfix, yet nothing

And yet i quit the basic trials, just because any 2nd game i see it.

And almost every 2nd game i got destroyed.
Just because 3 dudes pick this perk and 1 dude was just a guy who sacraficed themself for others escape.
Which looks pretty terrible in my opinion.

I d rather change it to reward the unhookers, rather than just punish killer for hooking.

With lara perk, you have to search chests to get value, for brand new part you have to bring toolbox. For Fast track, nothing?
Literally nothing…

these are 3 seperate matches, the duration gives that way no?

edit: Oh wait no I see it on the date, do you get this from click on the survivors?

I'm not sure I understand a prevailing sentiment I'm seeing displayed here. On one hand, people are saying 'since it requires being hooked its not that strong', but then equally in turn are suggesting tunneling is bad. It's not that bad, it's just being hooked, right?

End of the day this is mission objective versus mission objective, isn't it?

Killer needs to complete 12 mission objectives (hook states) to 4K.
Survivor needs to complete 5 gens to 4E.

Fast track is 6% perm progress per hook. That's 1.2% of total gen time, per hook completed with no counter-play if a single person runs it. This means that each time the killer attains 1 hook (8.3% of their objective), the survivors are rewarded with 1.2% of an objective with zero possible counter-play, per instance of perk in play. This means that if four individuals run fast track, they gain (1.2*3) 3.6% total objective per hook. Outlandish or not, this is possible but not likely.

This means if a full hook spread (the desirable killer behavior) is performed, the killer will have completed 33.2% of their total objective. The survivors will get a 'free' 14.4% completion. They are getting 43% of the end output of the killers effort. If the killer plays the way you want them to play, the survivors in this scenario get nearly half the benefit the killer does for the killer playing as you'd like. This could be fixed largely by making fast-track a one-per-match kind of perk, or have a match wide limit on 'permanent progress' on a generator.

The problem remains however that even with one perk in play, a survivor is gaining 1.2% of an objective for free, for every 8.3% the killer completes. In absolutely no world of logic is getting 1/8th of your oppositions efforts as a benefit sensible, even with one instance of the perk in play. No one would approve a killer getting 1% permanent haste for each generator completed, by example. This would just lead to people 99'ing gens - just as fast track leads to tunneling.

The only counter-play of Fast Track is undesirable behavior. Whether it's a problem now or not is not relevant in the discussion, as we are putting yet another piece on the table to contribute to the potential of a future snowball. We know a boon that offers permanent completion is on the horizon, and BNP already exists. Whether these tools are being used at large or not is not relevant to whether or not the current state of the perk is healthy. Unhealthy is unhealthy.

To the counter point, if we are expected to see this kind of balance philosophy applied in the future, I'd expect to start seeing similar ratios on the killer. That is to say, killers getting perks that allow killers to gain 1/8th the 'total output' of survivors as a benefit towards their total objective. That would equate into a perk that says something along the lines of 'When the fourth generator is completed, assign a hook state to a random survivor in the match.' Let's call this perk 'Rule of 8.'

This would be the equivalent of the killer gaining 8.3% of their objectives, in exchange of the survivors completing 80% of theirs, roughly equal to the 1/8 ratio from fast track.

Rule of 8 will never be instituted. Everyone present knows this perk will not be instituted. Survivors would loathe this perk, and killers who would want it don't deserve to have it. At face value it's awful, and most killers would downplay it the exact same way that survivors downplay Fast Track, but it amounts to same math. And that math is a free hook on 4th gen, in a gen rushing meta. This perk would see use, even if it cannot be stacked the way fast track can, meaning it is still categorically inferior to Fast Track.

So if we see this design philosophy continuing, I'd imagine we're going to see something like the Rule of 8 instituted. It would be balanced, mathematically, fair, and even weaker than Fast Track is. That seems reasonable, doesn't it?



TL-DR; No. No it does not. It's not reasonable and neither is Fast-Track. It sets a very unhealthy precedence for future perks, add-ons, tools, and kits. No one should gain 1/8th of their oppositions efforts just from a single perk selection. It's madness.

Certainly, and these are all valid concerns but don't change the shape of the problem we're looking at. A skill check requiring a great is solid, but veteran players regularly nail great checks enough that I don't think it's a meaningful hinderance. This just means high-end players will be more likely to get the benefit from this perk than casual players, which is also questionable in design.

As for their being seven gens, you are absolutely right I am only counting the five. But I'm also not counting for sabo hooks, flashlight saves, etc in the killers 'Effort output.' There are too many variables to account for on both sides and come to an objective reality. You are absolutely correct there. All we can do is model a scenario and go from there.

To dismiss data out of hand because it is not perfect is not sensible either. Perfect is the enemy of good.

If I adjusted accordingly with some rough out of head math to factor 7 gens instead of 5, that would put us somewhere around a 1/10 ratio or so instead of 1/8, with Fast Track rewarding the survivor for 10% of the killers total efforts. That doesn't seem like it steps out of the realm of being problematic at all, to me. 10% return for your oppositions efforts is still a great deal.

I do however agree the example is not perfect: I am not aiming for perfect. I'm just trying to reduce the problem to a mathematical one, as there's enough emotional bickering already. 'I feel like X' doesn't seem particularly productive argument wise, so I want to lean on numbers conversationally and find what number would people be happy with.

If Fast Track was nerfed to 1/32, for instance, would players be happy with a killer getting 1/32 the survivor effort on a similar perk, etc etc. Or even a perk that returns a benefit for each instance of the perk on the survivors given the asymetrical nature of it all. It's difficult to quantify but not so far out of reality that it's a lost cause.

Run Self-Preservation it now gives Elusive for 30 seconds every time a survivor gets hooked. It totally counters BBQ and unless you get hit by the killer during that 30 seconds every other killers aura reading abilities or perks too.

Yh i noticed they were adding very specific counter aura read perks. Tbh I'm not too fussed about countering bbq. I can already counterplay that one with lockers.

To say math cannot be present for the conversation when math is present before it and math is present after it is dismissive and frankly dishonest, don't you think? 

No.

Or, more accurately, if you wanted to discuss the full range of math the length of the discussion would dwarf what we have so far.

DbD is a game of variables where the right answer is frequently dependent upon numerous factors (as a side note: its why tunneling/gen rush are so hated because they take out large elements of this uniqueness). Its why the game has managed to survive for as long as it has.

So even before we get to comparison basis, on the survivor side we have to look at other possibilities and opportunity costs.

Other possibilities have been covered, so looking into opportunity costs. To determine the perks value we would need to look at what else a survivor might get. What did they give up to take Fast Track? Let's say they gave up Sprint Burst which would have led to them extending their chases by a combined 40 seconds across the match. Better or worse? Or something like Botany Knowledge, which could be nothing more than a time saver on heals, or that time saved could be the difference between getting a heal in before a killer comes back to target the injured survivor.

This can go on and on as we start throwing in the full range of perks, different killers and builds that they may have, and then the overall strategy for how the survivors and killer approach the game.

Survivors are going to get value out of the perk, they should, but how much value are they going to get on a balance discussion would need to be compared to other perks. DbD has a general design philosophy - perks fall on a range from low, consistent value (BK, Deja) to perks that give massive value, but are situational and might not come up (anti-tunnel, Reassurance). Fast Track probably falls more towards the consistent side, but is a little stronger than those perks when it comes into play because if the survivor is tunneled they get no value out of it.

The scenario discussion is also just academic at this point. BHVR has the data on how the perk is actually performing - the conclusion already exists we just don't have access to it. (which answers your next lines: I don't think you're trying to be dishonest in earnest, but when the balancing starts with math, and ends with a math outcome, why are we pretending the middle is a black box? I don't think anyone here is under the impression BHVR doesn't use math in perk creation or kit balancing. At least, I hope no one thinks that.)

-

NOED conditionally triggers and has counter play, it's not what I'm talking about. Batteries has conditional triggering as well. 

Why aren't they what you are talking about?

Fast Track also has conditional triggering. Its more frequent and easier to access than NOED, but not nearly as significant as NOED. You can't separate the 'frequency' and 'power' arguments to accurately evaluate the perk.

I'm saying it further encourages it in a clime where we are trying to discourageit. If we're fine with encouragingit, then my position falls apart. If people are just accepting and encouraging tunneling then I can't do anything but throw my hands up.

If 'we' is BHVR - I see no evidence that this is in anyway their philosophy. They seem pretty clearly to be leaving it up to the players on whether they want to play in a certain way,

If 'we' is the community - it will lead to tunneling has been said about so many things its lost meaning.

A perk is inconsequential to just the base kit values of not removing someone (e.g. the fact that an alive survivor is still doing gens/healing etc). If they have Fast Track and the killer spreads hooks, sure they are getting value from the perk, but the value they will get from just doing gens is going to exceed that.

Or put another way, the only way to ultimately counter any survivor perk is by removing them from the game.

This is the only thing you said that I actually find rude. 

Other than lumping your argument with how others have done it, I don't see how. It certainly wasn't my intention.

But when we get to - Which killer perks gives permanent, uncounterable objective progression in the same way FT does?

Show me the survivor equivalent to a Huntress hatch.

Show me the equivalent to Corrupt Intervention - start of game, gen based, immediate value, that survivors can't do anything about.

We're right back to asym territory. The survivors and killers are different. Their perks do different things because killers have powers, survivors have teammates, and they both have different objectives and playstyles.

I and others have already shown you similar perks that exist on the killer side. Having a discussion that you stipulate around these exact specifics, all of them but nothing more, is overly limiting when the discussion should either or both be about:

-Balance in terms of overall value

-Game design based on enjoyability for all players

Additionally it doesn't have objective altering power until the EGC, like NOED. I will say it does inflict permanent exposed, but that's after the survivors have completed their objectives.

This is not uncounterable, and this is permanent from a much later stage in the game than FT. If Rancor triggered earlier, say at gen 3 or 4, it would be comparable

The fact that it triggers late isn't relevant. To win, survivors MUST get to that stage of the game. If it doesn't happen that's because the killer already won.

It would be like arguing that the survivors might not get value out of FT because maybe the killer won't ever get a hook. Which, yeah, could happen, but doesn't seem really the focus. But if its going to be, let's have it be the focus on both sides.

This kind of goes back to the math discussion - it needs to be taken in overall context of the game. Once you focus too much on numbers comparison and lose actual game context the numbers lose their relevancy.

Then when we get to counterable, not if we look at the overall perk. Every time the survivors complete a gen, they will scream and give a loud notification. In turn, the obsession gains something, but from the perspective of the other three survivors they don't.

As for end game counterability, only to the extent of 'you need to avoid the killer'. Which means the survivor is frequently taken out of normal end game activities. So even when countering the perk, the killer is still getting value by the survivor having to alter up their play.

And in terms of adjusting their play, killers can adjust their play to Fast Track in the same way they adjust their play to any gen rush, though whether Fast Track has a significant enough effect to warrant it is another question.

We can go back and forth with this on all the perks. Very few, if any, perks, are going to line up to have an exact copy and many of them can't be 'countered' as in avoiding the value entirely. The ultimate 'counter' to any perk on either side is overall outplaying the opponents.