Why do people want a Secondary objective?
People act like a secondary objective, grab a key for the door or parts for the gens, will change anything. It will make the game longer, but BHVR would probably change the hook states from 3-4 to compensate and there are still infinite loops or near infinite and way too many pallets, that's the the problem not Gen rush.
Comments
-
Second, not secondary. We already have a secondary objective. I guarantee you they wouldn’t add anything to compensate since a second objective would be compensating for the gen rush problem.
7 -
Survivor gameplay has been virtually the same for three years.
Anything will be better. A secondary objective. A new way of escape. A new chase feature. Little ornaments on gens. Hats for hooks. Little party streamers when you put the offering down.
ANYTHING is a welcome change.
15 -
I think removing Ruin and adding a secondary objective at the start would make the game more fun and give killers a little more margin for error. Without Ruin, your first chase as a killer often determines the outcome of the trial. That shouldn't be the case. As a survivor, Ruin isn't all that fun to play against. Could be a win/win.
4 -
This, then first thing I do as survivor is start a gen to see if Ruin is there
1 -
Because sitting there holding m1 for 80 seconds and pressing space occasionally is boring as hell and anything else would be better than that
1 -
We need a 2nd objective for balance reasons. With the current state of the game, killers need more time to get their job done. In theory, you could achieve that by increasing gen time, but that would not be exciting.
A big bonus that comes with a new objective: It would bring something new to the game. A lot of people are playing this game for two or three years and want to play something different. A new game mechanic will surely bring some of the veterans back to the game or make them play more than they are currently doing.
5 -
Because a coordinated team is going to rush through that single objective before even the best killer can put pressure down. Not to mention they need something else to do seeing as they refuse to do totems. It has to be something fun, and meaningful to the gameplay to incentivize both sides to encourage fun gameplay loops/giving each other chances.
2 -
If the survivors wanna win, they're gonna win. Only three-four killers can put enough pressure on the map to slow that down but in the end, it won't matter if the survivors truly wanna win.
3 -
Pallets are already hopefully going to be fixed once the maps start getting reworked.
Honestly this should take priority over any new content.
2 -
Adding a second objective without balancing killerside is pretty biased and ridicolous. Increasing the number of times survivors get hooked or giving some sort of of new ability to break chases is a fine balance tho.
1 -
@Vancold Time is already against the killer. The survivors have one objective: do gens. There are four survivors with five generators. One survivor on a gen takes 80 seconds. So each individual survivor needs approximately 100 seconds to complete their objective. The killer's objective is to sacrifice survivors. There are four survivors. Each survivor will have to be chased, hit twice, and put on a hook. The killer may have to go through that three times for each survivor.
That is not balanced. Adding a second objective for survivors may make it closer to being balanced.
2 -
Gen rushing has become too much of a problem, a game shouldn't last 5 minutes
A second objective is pretty much needed
1 -
I think you're slightly misunderstanding the mechanics of this game. This game's not being played by bots vs bot, but by humans. Sacrifices to escape ratios, expecially solo survivors escape ratios should ring a bell for ya. I consider myself a pretty decent player (a hundred times better as killer, but np) and on 6 games I did yesterday, 5 games had 2 sacrifices before the second gen being done (yep, matches pretty much already decided). Oh, it was at a ######### rank too.
Nah, I don't think a worse experience as a solo survivor is the answer.
I can pretty much 4k (or sometimes 3k) every game till the reds with many different killers. Spewing this "underpowered" crap doesn't work with me.
Not attacking you, personally, there are many unskilled players around here who want the game to be balanced around their lack of skill; not my case, ever.
I definitely think there's an issue, though. Some games finish way to fast in a way (genrush) and some in the other way (1-2 kill or 5-6 hooks before first gen), but I don't take this game as an ultra-competitive e-sports and Bhvr is not treating like it either. I think there's a disconnection between what some players with a competitive background wants and what this game aims to be.
Sorry for my english but I'm doing multiple things at the same time, cheers!
1 -
@Vancold Some adjustments to the killer side have to be made, but that shouldn't stop anybody from implementing a 2nd objective and bringing this game closer to a balanced state.
And bringing the game closer to being balanced should be one of the dev's priorities. Even if this is not e-sports, playing an unbalanced game brings a lot of frustration with itself. Also, this game has potential for e-sports. If the devs would like to go that route, it would be possible.
0 -
Sure thing. Devs should always aim to balance but I simply don't expect a weekly balance update like in most e-sports. They should do something only when ######### hits the fan.
Regarding the balance of the game itself, as I said before, it's brought down to what individuals think. Why should my opinion matter more than yours? Also, should they balance solely based on some streamer and his sheeps or some crybabies?
Nah. For example, we clearly have a different vision on balance. Our feedback must be taken into account, but neither opinion is going to matter more than the other, unless we talk about stats and testing results.
0 -
@Vancold If we're talking about solo survivors, that's a whole other conversation. Playing solo survivor often sucks. Solo survivors are in general weaker than the killer. SWF is stronger. The base kit for survivor needs to put all survivors, solo and SWF, on as much of an even playing field as possible. Playing solo, I have to choose: information or second chances. SWF don't have to choose, they can skip the info perks and load up on the chase-extender and second-chance perks. (That's a generalization, I know.)
So yeah, the game needs more than just a second objective for survivors, but I don't think adding to the killer's load is the answer. Bringing solo survivors up to the same level as SWF is one of the main things that needs to happen. It feels like doing that and giving survivors a second objective at the same time would be the place to start, then see how things go from there. Maybe it will turn out the game is still unbalanced and the killer needs to be slowed down as well. Maybe each individual killer just needs to be tweaked to balance things out. Who knows.
0 -
1. Holding M1 is boring for survivors
2. Probably the only good fix for the genrush issue
3 -
We just all want something like the Visceral Canker from the Hallowed Blight event but that give BloodPoints. A lot of Bloodpoints.
0 -
Because majority wants the game to be balanced around 18 hooks when you can get 4 k by getting 2-4 hooks.
0 -
How are you getting 4 kills with 2 hooks?
0 -
not counting hooking the rest that already on the ground by the end
1 -
Something would absolutely need to be done with killers too. So people want to slow down survivors, but still allow killers to camp and tunnel? That would be a very biased viewpoint. Any second objective needs to involve both sides. I don’t want to hear about emblem penalty, that’s crap. I have no idea what they can do, but all I know is the major issue for both sides, gen speed and camping/tunneling, go hand in hand. Address both or address neither, simple as that. Also with the addition of EGC and the upcoming destruction of MoM, I think that’s going to have a significant effect on kill rates as it stands....which would further support something added to both sides, not just one.
0
