Killer's Shouldn't Kill. Let's discuss the Dev Philosophy.
We've all seen it. Here on the forums, or even in the Dev streams, twice in the latest one actually. Staff will explain why they changed certain things with some form of "Survivors have to survive." A good example of this is remember me. The changes around this perk make the game much easier to survive. And it's all because a killer could get all his stacks on one of only 4 perks they can take, kill 3 survivors, and get to the hatch first, closing it. After all that, they think the killer doesn't get to cash in on his hard work and forethought and gameplan for picking an end game perk and playstyle, and didn't let it back fire on him.
Further examples of this are the Pig Nerfs, and then even the revert of one of 2 of her nerfs. The pig wasn't even strong, they thought the changes to the game might make her strong, so they changed her. Then they realized the TR change could be used in a semi-troll way (crouch chasing as pig.....cause that chase wouldn't last 5 gens...) So they reverted it back. Not because it made her weak, Not because of the pure outrage, and not because people playtesting on the ptb have done 2 gens with RBT's on and got them off wihtout fear. No, they changed it because she was able to play less effeciently and get kills with it.
These are just a couple of the newest examples. But it's very common to get a response from BHVR that says something along the lines of "Even though the killer had to plan ahead for X, take a bunch of steps to achieve X, X meant that a survivor couldn't escape."
It makes me think that maybe we aren't playing the same game they are making. We are all playing this horror game where it's a struggle to survive, and usualy half your friends are going to die, if not more. A struggle between both sides.
They seem to be making a Thriller game that gets the survivors heart pumping with jump scares and long chase scenes. It honestly feels like the Killer is really there for atmosphere. Sure they have some lethality. It wouldn't be scary otherwise. Half the fun of a roller coaster is seeing the ground rush at you. But odds are,the roller coaster isn't going to kill you. And neither will a Killer, if you understand the game's mechanics and know how to perk out and do gens.
But that's what I think. i think we are honestly playing a different game then what the devs are making. We are playing a horror game where personal choices have consequences and they are making a thriller.
Comments
-
There seems to be a misunderstanding here, by no means is a Killer not supposed to kill. The key is that you need to make sure that both sides always have a chance to win, even if that chance is very slim. To use the pig, as an example, if you got chased for a minute after the End Game started and then trapped, you simple would not have a chance to remove your trap escape by the time you get saved (especially now that the End Game timer is two minutes). You would have to win the lottery and remove your trap on the first box.
If you create a situation where someone has no chance to win, it feels like a waste of time. If you know you're going to die and there's nothing you can do about it, it's going to feel awful. You'll just want to get it over with as fast as possible. The same would go for the Killer side as well. If you were in a scenario where you could not possibly win, you would have a miserable time.
It's a tricky to strike a balance in an asymmetrical game, but it's important to make sure that everyone in the match has a chance up until they win or lose, whether losing is dying or getting sacrificed, or if losing is all the survivors getting out the gates.
20 -
i think the philosphy is more like killers shouldn't 4k all the time.
20 -
It's about balance, they want the perfect two escape two die scenario that has always been a goal.
That is why killing all four and all four escaping should not be the normal games outcome and why the hatch was introduced.
The hatch itself wasn't balanced which has always been an issue but now they are fixing it it needs to be better balanced and not tilted more to one side, if certain aspects allow that to happen then logically they would need to be balanced to suit that need.
Maybe it's the user base that wants the game to be something it never was or is intended to be that's the problem with complaints.
Each side has objectives before the final outcome of kill or escape.
Killer have to multi hook and survivor have to do gens, all the while engaging in chases, these are just as if not more important than the end result as that's is where the actual gameplay throughout the entirety of the match is.
If the devs want the game to be a thriller as you say then that's up to them, it is afterall their vision and their game.
Maybe it's time players accepted the game for what it is instead of complaining that's it's not what they think it should be.
6 -
"If you create a situation where someone has no chance to win, it feels like a waste of time. If you know you're going to die and there's nothing you can do about it, it's going to feel awful. You'll just want to get it over with as fast as possible. The same would go for the Killer side as well. If you were in a scenario where you could not possibly win, you would have a miserable time."
You mean like the pile of second chance perks Survivors have access to ensure they make it out of the gates? "Oops, I've been hooked. Good thing I have DS into MoM into Dead Hard and out the gate. GGEZ."
19 -
We can still see the fundamental difference here. See, you didn't give this any testing before throwing it onto the ptb. So you don't actually know if the Pig would have been OP in the end game. Especially with good players. With a 2 minute count down that goes to 4 minute,s you have plenty of time to remove a rbt. a RBT only has 2.5 mins of timer on it to begin with. So saying that 2 mins isn't enough time seems weird, don't you think? And that's not counting the egc going to 4 mins in chases ect.
Also you have to know that it is not easy to put a survivor down when the doors are open, because of the sprint and wipe mechanic in your game (when you hit survivors they run out the gate before your animation is done) So even getting that situation means the killer had to play well, and block paths.
Try looking at it from the eyes of people that like to play killer at high ranks. These situations you talk about, we have to plan waaaay ahead for. And we have to prevent the survivors from getting out while we set this stuff up. Pig had to save her traps, letting them rush, which is dangerous. If you have 2 full hp people doing a gate, and it's beeping when you approach, they will both escape, if they body block for eachother. She runs the risk of not using the traps she saved. A VERY STRONG chance of it, with MoM and other perks.
I know it's tricky to balance a game like this. but scalpels over hammers man. My last point is this.
Survivors can pip without surviving, aka win. Killers cannot pip without kills. (heck i've even black pipped with 3 kills)
11 -
In that situation you described, you would still have a chance, though. There are still two generators remaining. At any point you could down a survivor. You may not kill all four, you might only get one or two, but you've still got a chance to kill them.
The end game is not designed to get kills, it is designed to deal with various edge cases that created bad situations (hatch standoffs, survivors refusing to leave, etc.). You can use perks to spin this to your advantage, but by default it should not be a massive game changer.
11 -
First of all thank you for the response, I respect the work you all do for this game.
Second of all, honestly the way I read this...
So by that logic, survivors should have the exposed status effect when the gates open...? If they're totally healthy killers have no chance of killing them before they leave the map... Right? You'd get one hit in and they'd be out the door. As it stands once the gates are open if all survivors are fully healed you might as well just break some pallets to get as many blood points as you can, you have no chance of stopping them.
For those of us in the lower ranks, new players like myself, this can happen -a lot- in low ranks with gen rushing. (Then getting flamed if we happen to have NOED that they somehow missed)
Then there's the infinites, where we have no chance of catching a survivor unless we're playing Nurse.
Or SWF genrushes where you can get down to zero gens at a blinding pace while being able to do very little.
I mean, I'm just throwing that on the table.
Being a big fan of Starcraft, in that game we had a saying: "If you're in a no win situation, you shouldn't have let yourself get into that position, that was your miss play." Got rushed by Zerglings with no chance to win? Should have scouted.
Got swarmed by Mutas? Should have built AA.
Somehow ended up with a trap on your head with a minute left at the end of the collapse? You probably messed up your chase or did something wrong to deserve it. At least that's my view.
14 -
@Sairek I like the point you make, but even if you are being outplayed by a team of SWF that doesn't mean you do/did not have a chance to win.
The BHVR philosophy sounds to be more of trying to eliminate game mechanics that prevent one side or the other from not having a chance. The point you bring up is the human element of PvP. The chance to win is still there from a gameplay perspective, just unlikely because you are outmatched.
1 -
So making a broken perk for M1 killers especially like Mettle of Man, buffing DS to 5 seconds catering to survivor outcries is ok? Catering to survivors is the devs speciality.
Freddy rework isn’t here. Nerfed him to the ground two days after release, gets a rework roughly a decade later. Then legion is essentially useless now.
swf are always pretty much gonna dominate on coms. You don’t help killers with that by bringing a indicator to see how many swfs are in the lobby so killers can better prep.
but it’s ok to have survivors bully the killer with their mates beyond belief.
As of late, the team just caters to survivors. Anything survivors need like a buff or a change of a killer, they will get it.
killers need help, takes a serious amount of thinking and a underwhelming delivery. Took 2 years to hide the killers perks in the tally screen. That’s just sad to be completely honest.
Post edited by HeHeBoii on14 -
Devs treat killers like AI and try to get us to play like one. Don't tunnel or camp, make sure you chase enough or play poorly to get those emblems high. It's ridiculous. They just want survivors to have a good time and escape and be happy.
16 -
*starts match* *gen pops in about 20s with me walking straight towards it* Nah, this is fine. I totally had a chance to play the game. I'll try to see if I have the video, cuz I honestly wanna time it. 3 survivors spawned on a gen with PT, and I think 2 had lunchboxes.
For extra context I was tier 1 Michael, so used some time to stalk and try to locate people as I went to patrol the gen.
5 -
"If you create a situation where someone has no chance to win, it feels like a waste of time. If you know you're going to die and there's nothing you can do about it, it's going to feel awful. You'll just want to get it over with as fast as possible. The same would go for the Killer side as well. If you were in a scenario where you could not possibly win, you would have a miserable time."
That reasoning makes no sense.
Both killer and survivor have the same chance to win, the fact that a killer makes that "situation where someone has no chance to win" happen, is because every decision that killer has made in the game has lead to that moment, meaning that YOU, the devs, are not creating that situation, the players are doing it, therefore those players who make that situation happen should be rewarded for it because they spent time and effort to get to that situation and they take the risks that may come alongside it.
In other words, this game is chess, a game in which both sides have the same chance to win from the start, and you are just punishing the player who earned his checkmate.
8 -
They're saying that if the devs made the killers or survivors OP in a situation then it would be frustrating and unfair for the other side. How is that reasoning false?
If the Killer or Survivors are of equal skill, there should never be a situation where either side has "no chance to win."
1 -
@Peanits The power in an asymmetrical game should always pivot in the favor of the power role. The developers are nerfing ######### left and right based upon rare fringe cases.
In your example with the survivor getting chased by the Pig.. what if the chase was just after the Pig closed the hatch? The survivor is equally #########, with or without a trap on his head. Perhaps you should introduce a grace period where the killer cannot interact with survivors when the end-game triggers, so the survivors can safely open the doors without fear of getting into a situation where they have no chance to win? Wouldn't that be fair?
8 -
The problem is that if everytime killers have some kind of advantage the game gets review bombed and then the devs concede to the pressure of that, we're gonna be survivor sided forever. If Killers complain, devs say: "Gotcha guys, don't worry, we'll do some fixes" and the fixes normally tend to be even more nerfs (like legion for example:
+ Hey guys, 4 seconds of fatigue is too much, can you fix this some way?
Devs: Don't worry we're on it (proceeds to nerf the CD addons) There you have it! Hope this enrich your gaming experience!
Seriously, don't hide it devs. It's always been this way. I really like the game a lot, i enjoy it a lot. But EGC didn't fix anything because people have been 99% the gates so EGC has no impact, you nerf Remember Me, make legion a far worse wraith and when you said you were making wraith buffs, it actually wasn't a buff because the speed we get with the default windburst it's actually the distance we could've got before the "buff" because of the slowdown while uncloaking got bigger. I get that if you get review bombed the game gets bad fame and all that, but if you're just gonna be for one side, you better be preparing Killer bots so survivors have something to play
11 -
There is no situation designed by Devs in which one of the sides is not able to win.
Take Pig for example, they nerfed her because they thought "hey, if she manages to get you in the end-game it's gonna be almost impossible to win" but every decision the Pig has made through the game has lead to that specific moment and she has earned it, why is she getting punished for that?
5 -
It's crazy how some of y'all take anything the devs say and twist it into the worst possible interpretation of what they meant.
10 -
Agree with most things you said accept for the concede button. I don't think changing Pigs RBTs and nerfing Remember Me means endgame is dead. I think it means it will just change to different scenarios now.
As for the other stuff you mention, as Peanits said, it is very tricky to balance an asymmetrical game with anything new they add the balance will always shift one way or the other. I personally main killer so I know how little room for error there is. I play survivor to relax cause it is so easy and I can mess up tons.
I personally like EGC cause it is new content that we haven't seen before. Sure you won't always play in the EGC, but there will be some really fun scenarios on both sides because of it. I would much rather have new content be added and changes be made, due to that content, to eliminate 'absolute no win scenarios' then continuing to play the same game forever.
1 -
Because most killers are frustrated at seemingly not having a 'power' role in the game along with the frustration of all the survivors second chance perks. Pigs changes are only reinforcing that feeling.
That and recent changes to Pig and Legion make it seem like we are not playing the game that the devs have envisioned.
7 -
I actually like the EGC too. It is a positive thing for the game. With some fine tuning it could add some great fun to the endgame, and be more then something to stop people from abusing eachother. I like that the devs are talking about perks that effect it. Maybe Left Behind can get reworked into something really neat finally.
It is definately tricky to ballance games like this, but they have been, lately, doing really bad about it. I feel they need to rework the objectives a bit, and make people have to find a part to put into a gen before starting repair time. That would make second chance perks a bit more fair.
I also think Pig should be tested wihtout changes, so the devs can get better data, and skilled players can test and offer insight for adjustment from there. This is because they have a chance of making the pig play different, and be quite strong, without being op, if they do it right. Which, IMHO, will help the game. especially at higher skill levels.
1 -
"To use the pig, as an example, if you got chased for a minute after the End Game started and then trapped, you simple would not have a chance to remove your trap escape by the time you get saved (especially now that the End Game timer is two minutes). You would have to win the lottery and remove your trap on the first box."
Just pause the EGC timer while someone has a trap on. Ezpz
1 -
I like the idea, but it can be tweaked.
How about making it so the EGC timer goes to the slower timer, if someone has a RBT on? Meaning it's a 4 min timer now. This gives more playaround for the survivors, and keeps her end game lethality. She just needs to work a little harder for it.
2 -
Smokepotion, why are you complaining, aren't you a Hag main? These changes barely affect us.
0 -
Because I use the pig and clown when i'm not against e-sports teams.
though, as a hag main, egc is pretty fun. And i have a sneaking suspicion trapper mains will also have fun when they start playing around it.
1 -
You know what's the worst part about the Pig's changes?
Ok, so they nerfed Legion in a lot of ways because he would be too powerful (ms while in FF, Tr, swing miss cancels FF, power gauge, etc) but when they nerfed the Pig they didnt give her anything to compensate for that...
2 -
exactly. it was a preemptive strike. They did't know if she would be strong or not, but they couldn't risk that chance, it seems.
0 -
@TreemanXD Well he was a spirit main as far as I know, I wonder why he became a hag main. Sound issues maybe?
I, myself, am a survivor main and I care about the other side and every killer.
1 -
@Delfador it's not like that, I just feel like Hag mains should be complaining the least, endgame collapse is massive for us. We are ridiculously strong with it.
@SmokePotion see I didn't know, I thought you strictly played Hag so it's not affecting you.
But I mean Pigs and Legions issues are massive, I'm thinking of buffs for her and Legion rn, but I didn't expect a Hag main to talk about it. No offense.
0 -
Why do survivors ALWAYS have to have a chance? It's a 4v1 game for God's sake! The killer is supposed to be stronger.
8 -
@KaoMinerva well would a 1v1 be fun? Survivors not having a chance.
0 -
@Delfador I still main Spirit, but more so Hag. I play survivor a lot now too, and I take unbiased points of view. The sound issues did drive me away from Spirit though.
I care about all the issues with all killers, hence why I expressed my concerns for Legion, but I found it strange someone like @SmokePotion is concerned with it all. It surprised me.
0 -
It would be good if killers just weren't weak. Only Billy & Nurse are constant threats at all time. 2/14 is a terrible percentage.
3 -
@KaoMinerva we have 4 top tier killers. Not every killer should be strong though, we definitely need mid-tier and steppingstones killers.
0 -
Hag is far stronger than Billy @KaoMinerva and Spirit when she's not bugged is stronger.
Huntress and Myers can be threats. Plague too. Even Wraith. That's 8/15.
2 -
You would be missing the last part of that post. If the Survivor plays poorly, they will go down, allowing you to hook them. If they do that enough, they will be sacrificed. As long as they're not dead, they still have the chance to turn that around and escape. It would be the same as a Killer that plays poorly. They might not win that chase, but they still have a chance to catch the next Survivor they chase.
5 -
If the killer plays poorly then he/she can win if the survivors play even worst, on the other hand when the survivors play the best they can the killer can't win because you give so many slims chances. Best example when you play nurse for the first time you will lose the game except they are worse than you, but when you are master her you lose when the survivors use stealth and play save.
2 -
Killer isn’t necessarily killing, just like how Survivors aren’t necessarily surviving. It’s just gathering emblems to pip by receiving tokens.
1 -
I just think the devs underestimate how strong survivors can be in this game.
3 -
What you've essentially just said is that if one side does better than the other, they will likely win. This is generally the case anywhere. If the Survivors completely outclass the Killer, they're going to stand a better chance at winning. If the Killer completely outclasses the Survivors, they are going steamroll right over them and kill all four of them.
Although at no point is it a hard game over for anyone involved. As a Killer, you have an opportunity to kill somebody until they escape. As a Survivor, you have the opportunity to escape until the Killer kills you. When you end up in scenario where you have no chance to kill or escape, you're just waiting out the clock. That's something that's best to avoid for both sides.
4 -
######### kind of comparison is that? The game is not made for a 1v1 , it's made for a 4 vs1 and yes, you should lose 1v1 against the power role as a numbers role, what kind thinking is this? You think a number role should be equal too the power role or something?
Is this the only asymmetrical game you ever played?
1 -
Just adapt...I wonder what perks you use on survivor for being a survivor main who..."adapts"
0 -
Yep, you got the idea exactly. +1
1 -
@AlexAnarchy he said survivors shouldn’t always have a chance so I said should it be a 1v1? That would make survivors not have a chance.
0 -
Ahhh okay, this makes sense then : )
1 -
Cote said in an interview the game's early design was as a 1v1. This was before other killers, perks, ect.
1 -
Mate, you seriously nailed it. The devs really don't have issues tweaking/destroying things for killer. When it comes to survivor, they are afraid of survivor outcries and criticism/threats. Sad tbh, imagine all the beautiful things we can have like a SWF indicator for killers to see. Then every survivor and their mother would explain why it would destroy the game and not pull through with it.
5
