Home Discussions General Discussions

Lets Talk Endgame

WolfPad06WolfPad06 Member Posts: 182

I think we can all agree that the endgame is when the killer is at their weakest, unless they devote their entire build for the endgame.

The reason for this, in my opinion, is because the exit gates are quickly opened and there is nothing the killer can do to stop one of the two gates from opening.
Pair this with body blocking, flashlights, dead hard, adrenaline or any of the other evasive options the survivors have and a killer would be lucky to get one more kill (assuming he camps the survivor he hooks).

Some of the ideas that come from the top of my head to allow the killer some play in the endgame (without relying on perks) are:

  1. If interrupted, opening progress exponentially degrades the longer the switch remains untouched.
  2. Killer can actively lower the progress on the gate's opening switch, this could prevent that particular gate from opening soon but would lose precious time the survivors can spend opening the other gate, healing, cleansing, etc.
  3. Once the gate is opened, it will close after an X amount of time. This will allow the killer to punish extreme altruism because as of right now once the gate are open the survivors are pretty much guaranteed escape no matter what (unless blood warden is active).

What do you guys think?

Comments

  • azazerazazer Member Posts: 446
    I like number 3. Gives them incentive to get out. 
  • Mr_Jay_StarkMr_Jay_Stark Member Posts: 539
    Honestly I thought the pig was going to have a perk named game over and what it would’ve done was give the killer the ability to close the hatch and gate. Just like John Kramer did in the end of saw and he said GAME OVER!
  • FrenziedRoachFrenziedRoach Member Posts: 1,640

    I've suggested option 3 several times actually

  • SirFrancelotSirFrancelot Member Posts: 30

    I think that you would need to implement either 1 & 3 or 2 & 3 together since if the gates are only opened for a set amount of time, survivors are more likely to leave them at 99% before going for a save. I like that this would also introduce an interesting dilemma for the survivors to consider, being the choice of escaping immediately or risking getting locked-in to save another.

  • PirscherPirscher Member Posts: 429
    They are good ideas. Hopefully they read this post and discuss it in one of their meetings^^
  • TheTimeMachineTheTimeMachine Member Posts: 229
         It’s funny, do you remember at the end of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre when Sally had a train of friends to keep her safe from the dying state?
         Aw sure you remember! Escape was in sight thanks to that trucker... and a team of coordinated survivors “blocking” Leatherface. Thank the Entity they were Healthy though!
         
         (The “end game” of most horror classics are usually the least suspenseful part of the show. ...What...?)
  • BradyBrady Member Posts: 1,370

    @TheTimeMachine said:
         It’s funny, do you remember at the end of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre when Sally had a train of friends to keep her safe from the dying state?
         Aw sure you remember! Escape was in sight thanks to that trucker... and a team of coordinated survivors “blocking” Leatherface. Thank the Entity they were Healthy though!
         
         (The “end game” of most horror classics are usually the least suspenseful part of the show. ...What...?)

    We're talking about a video game here. You know, the type that's completely different from movies and real life. It's literally like saying why do people respawn in Overwatch if in real life when you die, you stay dead.. Hmmm, makes no sense!!! Must be fixed!!!

    But I'm totally open to idea #3. Punishing you for staying too-long in the end game seems reasonable.

  • TheTimeMachineTheTimeMachine Member Posts: 229
         @Brady I suppose you’re right. Why should the end game be any bit exciting? A “win” is satisfactory enough for players. Predictability can be a real jewel among people- including myself.
  • WolfPad06WolfPad06 Member Posts: 182

    @SirFrancelot said:
    I think that you would need to implement either 1 & 3 or 2 & 3 together since if the gates are only opened for a set amount of time, survivors are more likely to leave them at 99% before going for a save. I like that this would also introduce an interesting dilemma for the survivors to consider, being the choice of escaping immediately or risking getting locked-in to save another.

    I feel like that might be a bit too unfair to survivors. If they already played well enough to do 5 gens without any of them dying they should have good chances to help each other for them all to survive.

    If they leave the gate on 99% as you say, then one of them would have to stay ready to fully open the door while 2 others try to rescue from the hook. It should give them good chances to save the guy (assuming they have Borrowed Time and you don't have stuff like NOED).

    But a slightly more realistic scenario is for only 3 survivors to be alive by the time the gate is powered. This means only 1 survivor can try the hook save while the other is ready to open the door fully (from 99%), making fairly difficult and risky. The other option would be to open the gate and try to save the hooked survivor between the two of them but risk taking two long and having the gate shut trapping all of them, which sounds fair and way more exciting.

    Perhaps implementing #1 and #3 in different values is the key. Depending on the dynamic that is wanted for the endgame.

    You could make the re-closing time 60 seconds and the gate regression fairly slow. Or you could make the re-closing time something like 120 seconds but the gate regression pretty fast (35-40 seconds from 99% to 0%).

  • MringasaMringasa Member Posts: 652

    Gates in the endgame can be a big thing for Survivors to strategize. I'll leave them at 99% and wait for a Killer to hook someone just so that Blood Warden doesn't activate. It's a tactical choice. Sometimes I'll even make sure a Survivor sees me while hanging on the hook and I'm standing at an exit gate. If they are on comms they can pass it to their friends. It also gives them a direction to run after the unhook if they didn't see where the exit gates are located. There are multiple reasons to leave a gate at 99%, or less, for Survivors.

    Rather than messing with the gates, just give the Killers an aura read after X minutes. It can take newer players a bit of time to find them, so 4-5 minutes after the gates are powered seems a fair amount of time. At that point the Survivors' auras are lit up for the Killer to track them down. It prevents bullying (Survivors stealthing the map just to be toxic to the Killer) without being too OP.

    If they're opening the gates, the Survivors have basically won the match unless the Killer is built for it. They shouldn't be penalized for attempting to save their teammates. Some Killers build for the endgame though. They expect the Survivors to finish all the gens, and then their terror hits. Remember Me, NOED, Blood Warden, etc will help the Killer in this instance. It's just a high risk/reward situation. If you put a time limit and aura read in though, all the Killer's endgame material is used up, except in the case of NOED if the totem isn't found.

  • WolfPad06WolfPad06 Member Posts: 182

    Don't take this the wrong way, but there's a lot of things that make your arguments fairly weak. Let me elaborate:

    "Rather than messing with the gates, just give the Killers an aura read after X minutes. It can take newer players a bit of time to find them, so 4-5 minutes after the gates are powered seems a fair amount of time"

    I have no idea how you think 4-5 minutes before the aura read kicks in is a "fair amount of time" when certain games are 5 minutes IN THEIR ENTIRETY thanks to gen rushing.

    Besides that, aura reading does not help a killer win chases or down players. After 5 minutes (FIVE MINUTES!), once the gates are opened permanently, do you really think you'll be in a position (as a killer) to down any players before they escape even if you find them?

    "If they're opening the gates, the Survivors have basically won the match unless the Killer is built for it. They shouldn't be penalized for attempting to save their teammates."

    This would make sense if only doing generators weren't so easy. Do remember that this is an asymmetrical PvP game; 4v1 to be exact. The killer should, in theory be like 3.5/4 times more powerful than a single survivor in every way in order to make this balanced. The burden of proof should be on the survivor to show they have good communications, strategies and team plays in order to best the killer and have all 4 survive.

    You are right, once survivors repair all the gens they have won. So why even have the endgame or the endgame perks at all? You shouldn't need a specific perk build just to balance out core game-play problems. Endgame perks should make that part of the game easier for you, not "barely, maybe, if you're lucky, possible".

    Survivors should CERTAINLY be in risk of punishment if they try to save their teammates. That's the whole point of altruism (high risk, high reward).

    NOED is a wonderful perk, but it is a Hex perk. So once again all the cards are held by the survivors as far as how effective the killer's tools are.

    By the way I am not a "killer main" or "suvivor main". I play both sides pretty much equally.
    I am however, rank 6 on survivor and rank 13 on killer. Mostly because I "win" about 90% of my survivor matches with little effort but have to play flawlessly and hope for survivor mistakes on my killer matches in order to secure at least a 3K win.

  • SirFrancelotSirFrancelot Member Posts: 30

    Let's consider each of the proposed changes and how it will affect the endgame:

    • Exit gate regression (Automatic): With 4/3 survivors remaining this will have a very small impact since both exits can be opened at the same time and if the killer can chase a survivor away from an exit another survivor can resume the progress very soon after. With 2 survivors remaining this will have a slightly bigger impact since both exits can still be opened simultaneously, but chasing a survivor away from one exit will most likely lead to it regressing considerably. With 1 survivor left, this will be very powerful since the killer could simply wait near a progressed exit and let it regress. The survivor would struggle to kite an exit and open it.
    • Exit gate regression (Manual): If this worked similarly to how generator regression works, then it would have very similar effects to when it is automatic. However, if it was an interaction which the killer does and the period of time interacting dictates the regression achieved, this could be more powerful. The only problem being that time is a killer's worst enemy and so this would end up being less useful.
    • Timed Exit Gate Closure: When 1 survivor remains, this makes no real difference since the survivor can escape instantly through the exit upon opening it. With 2 survivors left, if the killer manages to hook someone, then it becomes a lot riskier for the other survivor to attempt a save. With the exit opened they would have limited time to unhook and get to the exit, or they could attempt to open it after saving, which would be a dangerous proposition with the killer in pursuit. With 3/4 survivors, a survivor can remain near a door to open it while a hooked survivor is saved, so the timing would be easier to manage for the survivors. Additionally, this would encourage camping since if an exit is open then it benefits the killer to keep a survivor hooked for as long as possible.

    So upon examining each of these proposals, it's difficult to say which of them would be the most appropriate to implement. Of them all, I would favour timed exits since it would have the largest impact of the 3.

    Another possible change which I thought of while considering these would be to give the killer the ability to close the exits through an interaction with the switch (which could be timed) if they manage to hook a survivor after the exits have been opened. This would discourage camping since the killer can take the opportunity to close the gates and potentially secure more kills while leaving the hooked survivor open to saves. It would also make staying to rescue a survivor more dangerous since if the killer closes the gates, they will have to reopen them. So, in essence, this would be a stronger version of Blood Warden, but I think it could work well as a base ability. Let me know what you think. :)

  • N3_N3_ Member Posts: 3
    One thing about these proposed changes, is that they HAVE to be part of the core game. This game tries to fix way too many problems with perks, and it shows.

    Perks should be good, interesting additions to the game, but not so much as they are considered a "must run" such as Ruin or Self Care. It's why the meta still hasn't changed even with the addition of the last three DLC's.

    Sure, some of them are good perks, but the top three perks on each side remained uncontested.
    Self Care, Decisive Strike, Sprint Burst on survivor side. BBQ & Chili, Ruin, and Nurse's Calling on Killer side.
  • WolfPad06WolfPad06 Member Posts: 182

    @N3_ said:
    One thing about these proposed changes, is that they HAVE to be part of the core game. This game tries to fix way too many problems with perks, and it shows.

    Perks should be good, interesting additions to the game, but not so much as they are considered a "must run" such as Ruin or Self Care. It's why the meta still hasn't changed even with the addition of the last three DLC's.

    Sure, some of them are good perks, but the top three perks on each side remained uncontested.
    Self Care, Decisive Strike, Sprint Burst on survivor side. BBQ & Chili, Ruin, and Nurse's Calling on Killer side.

    That is exactly what I'm proposing here. Change the endgame core mechanics so that it isn't reliant on specific perks to be playable.

Sign In or Register to comment.