DS/Mettle rework

I'm not too bothered about the current state of decisive. It would only NEED changing if another perk became too alike to it again (like my new concept for mettle).

Adding more tokens to the old Mettle wouldn't be for the best because it means it would activate later in the match. It wouldn't make a difference overall, it would just be more aggravating to deal with it late game.

Changing it to all altruistic actions might work, but I have a few concerns with that. Ideally with second-chance perks you only want it to trigger in order to counter specific scenarios. For instance, Decisive only counters tunneling. For Mettle, it was to give inexperienced players a chance against stronger killers. My concern with using altruistic actions for the tokens is that it would be far too easy for experienced survivors to use against inexperienced killers and would be useless for inexperienced survivors. If it was an experienced survivor against an experienced killer, it would be balanced, but rank reset happens too often for that to be the primary case.

If we're talking about keeping Mettle as it is, then what I'd personally do is make it so that you only need to take one protection hit to activate it but it deactivates when you heal and permanently deactivates if you get hit while it's active. It would work as a second chance perk, but very specifically only if you were still injured as a result of putting yourself in the firing line - could be a great anti-camping/tunneling perk and would be more viable at higher ranks than lower ones. Only issue is I don't know how the level 1/2/3 perks would vary without complicating the perk.

I like how vague you were with your lack of examples. You can use it to stall killers or take a protection hit I guess. But that could easily get you hooked, killed or used as bait, which is hardly optimal and far from an infinite range of possibilities.

Actually, your suggestion had a subtext of being able to control how you use Decisive, so tell me - how do you use Decisive optimally? Cause as I remember it, the survivor doesn't even get to decide whether or not it activates.

I see Decisive Strike used by about half the players I come across. But on that same note, I see Decisive actually activate less than once every 5 games. Decisive is a perk that relies entirely on the killers choices, so how does a survivor find a more optimal use case than "I hope the killer screws up"?

The killer can just hit you and leave you on the ground instead of pulling you. Then you're back at square one, hoping the killer screws up. Putting yourself in a vulnerable position without healing first just because the killer might make a mistake is usually a terrible idea and far from an optimal use case.

One example of playing poorly isn't what I was expecting when you described it as achieving "infinitely more".

You seem to have this special skill where you manage to be wrong several times in single sentences.

Considering you said infinite possibilities, more than one would be expected. And clarifying that you expect the killer to screw up multiple times instead of just once didn't change that the killer screwing up is out of your control.

Let's give the best chances for your optimal use case. 4 players, swf, all look the same. Killer initiates a chase, one of them unhooks you.

For your optimal use case, the killer has to not tunnel you. If he does, your case fails and the optimal use becomes as an anti-tunneling perk (Hey! That's what I said earlier!)

If he ends the chase too late, he won't make it to you within the 60 seconds, and your case fails.

But if he ends the chase too soon, you won't have time to safely heal and reach an objective, meaning your case fails.

He then has to precisely target the same objective you have gone to. If he doesn't, your case fails.

He also can't get distracted by your team, can't run into any obstacles and can't be too far away from your objective, or the timer will run out and your case will fail.

And finally, if he somehow manages to do all of that but doesn't pull you, your case fails.

It should also be noted that if you pick a high priority objective, a killer would be unlikely to pull you on purpose. And if you pick a low priority objective, a killer would be unlikely to target you before the 60 second timer runs out. Meaning that you have no way to increase your odds of executing this terrible play that you've concocted.

An optimal use case requires you to be able to execute that use case reliably. If you can't, then it's not optimisation, it's luck. A more optimal play than your plan to get caught after a perfect series of luck would be to just not get caught, which as it turns out, Decisive doesn't help with that.

I'm arguing your specific point. That's why I'm not presenting it to "a broader audience". Plus it's an open thread, so everyone can join in if they want. If you want to take your point to it's own thread, feel free to do so.

Arguing doesn't mean verbally putting someone down, for the record. It means countering one point with another. I'm ridiculing you, if that's what you meant.

I'm also ridiculing you specifically because you only responded in the interest of putting me down, while providing no evidence or logical reasoning in your attempt to do so. Your argument effectively boiled down to saying there are reasons that I'm wrong, but you're not willing to provide any. After me goading you, you then provided one poorly presented argument as evidence that there are infinite good ones. Sort of a bad tactic, if you ask me. But to sum it up, I'm ridiculing you because you pretend you know better, but haven't shown the tact or intelligence to back it up.

On the note of not providing logical evidence: 1. Grammar and sticking to perspective are important. You (pressumably) accidentally said that you ignored a wall of evidence. 2. You say the evidence is there, but haven't personally provided any of it. 3. Of all the people you could have quoted, you chose one that agrees with me. 4. After reading that whole thread, there is no solid evidence for your point. Every possible response that could serve to help you also has a strong counter-argument that serves to help me. 5. Many of the points that serve your argument are just as vague and without hypothesis or evidence as yours was. 6. Hey, you commented on this post! You counted how many people disagreed with you, then dismissed their opinion with no evidence or valid arguments. And here you are, 20 days later, still doing what you do... really poorly. "The person you are quoting is best ignored" just like everyone else you disagree with, I imagine?

You even said "The actual bottom line is that you're refuting the anecdotal evidence of other posters with your own anecdotal evidence" which is hilarious, because it completely invalidates the linked thread as anecdotal AND you can't even provide anecdotal evidence to properly support your point.

You're right. You are cringy. Bye!