Game health and the problem of players not enjoying the game.
Following the "survivor quitting - epidemic"- video, I found this take, which I honestly agree with. The content creator talks about multiple aspects and offers constructive criticism.
Their suggestions honestly seem very reasonable and got me thinking about a possible solution to not just quitting, but to tunneling, this being buffing the 3v1 for survivors.
3v1 at a certain amount of gens is what makes survivor games hopeless and supports the quitter mentality.
Therefore, the 3v1 could be looked at to both disincetivise tunneling and incentivising the 1v4. Obviously the solution is not as simple because of a multitude of other factors, however, this idea could serve as a great starting point to actually find a base that can be worked upon.
What are your thoughts on this. Not just my take, but the video. If you have the time, please take the time and watch it.
PS.: love the Layton - music.
Comments
I agree with a 3v1 being (usually) completely pointless to play out. DbD has a pretty big problem with survivors being locked into a one-sided trial with zero comeback mechanisms. Eliminations are extremely powerful. The amount of gen charges remaining is the same, but you have to account for more gen charges per player with one less player.
And it's not like the games go quicker in a 3v1. It could be a 3v1 at 3 gens, and you're still going to be stuck there for another 10 minutes even though the game is lost barring some statistical anomaly.
2v1? Forget about it. Why should that last 5-10 minutes? What compelling gameplay is happening in a 2v1? Your only play as a survivor is to hide for hatch. There is nothing else you can do. End the game quickly. Let us move on without having to concede.
They should just make it like Among Us, where survivors respawn as ghosts when they die and can continue to contribute to the objective to help their teammates (but not interact with their teammates or the killer).
This would immediately render tunneling useless and solve the problem of people going next in one fell swoop.
I don't see a survivor quitting epidemic. From all metrics that we can see, the playerbase is doing just fine.
Wouldnt this result in a massive loss for the killer because they cant really slow the game down at all? Only a 4k would end the game for killer.
I think most of the ragequitting starts happening while all 4 survivors are still alive.
And if ragequitting happens when there are less than 4 survivors, the #1 reason is because another survivor already ragequit that game.
It would mean that the killer can't slow the game down by making it a completely unfair 3v1 scenario where the survivors have no hope of escape, yes.
But slowdown perks would still exist, and the survivor objective could be rebalanced around having four survivors all game, although not by much.
Strong killers can comfortably go for 12 hook games already against most teams, so weaker killers could also be further buffed to make them more viable as well.
I'm not sure on the idea about increasing gen speeds for every Survivor that's hooked. Why would Killers ever feel incentivised to hook if doing your objective helps your opponent? Wouldn't more Killers choose to slug instead? Just seems like an unhealthy direction to push the game. Surely we want a game in which Killers play for hooks?
I also don't fully understand the tech perk idea. Don't these kinda already exist? (and nobody really runs them, anyway). Why would more of them be healthy for the game? I mean, what perk could be designed for me not to have to deal with Pinhead's stupid chain hunts or his evil Rubik's cube for example? There are lots of Killers I don't like facing that I might want to run a tech perk against. Obviously I can't bring something for every single one of them, so it's just a 1 in 38 chance that I get that specific Killer? I don't see the point in gambling a perk slot like that.
But I do agree that the Survivor role often feels like it does not value your time. Even games that were otherwise fun can leave a sour taste if the Killer decides to slug for the 4K and guarantee the hatch never spawns. I wish more Killers understood that Survivors need something to play on for as well. Slugging for the 4K can make the last 15-20 minutes feel like a waste of time. The Entity needs hope as well as despair in order to feed.
This persons suggestions are horrible honestly.
Adding a mechanic that makes it so gens get bonuses if survivors are hooked just makes the slugging epidemic worse by discouraging killer from hooking survivors.
Secondly, the idea of swapping to a perk like calm spirit if you see a doctor is wild, and the excuse he gives is "well the killer can just go next, and then everyone GETS to go next" is wild to me. Does he just not care about the killer gameplay experience? That really isn't fun at all. Especially since he mentions doctor which is not a problem killer AT ALL.
I do agree with the idea of "unwinnable games" though and understand that is a problem, but i think this person is going about it the wrong way.
The problem is the game is balanced around kills, when it SHOULD be balanced around HOOKS. The problem is that kills are the sole thing that matters. It would be better if it was impossible to eliminate a survivor from the game early. This is why i think that they should remove the 4% mechanic (no more going next) and then make it so survivors SHARE only the FIRST hook state. What this means is, if a killer wanted to hard tunnel a survivor out, they need to hook them 4 times, to burn through the 1st hook state, then hook them again for the 2nd, then finally a 6th time for the kill.
This means the absolute earliest it would be possible to eliminate a survivor from the game, is on the 6th hook. Which is the halfway point. This means no more early kills leading to unwinnable games that still last 10 minutes. Because even if the person is horrible at the game and gets hard tunneled, it should still take the killer a solid 5 minutes before they can just kill that survivor outright. Meanwhile, the other 3 survivors have been on gens and are likely close to completing the objective.
Also, since survivors would only share the FIRST hook state, every survivor still gets 2 hook states of their own, so that if one guy on the team burns through your hook states fast, you still get another shot after your first hook no matter what. So you don't feel like you play well all game but your team doesn't and then you get hooked and immediately die.
From there, you can do some survivor nerfs/killer buffs that more balance the game around hooking survivors, personally i would like to see them heavily nerf all the gen defense perks and make them partially basekit like they do with killer addons. This would make it so killers don't feel like they HAVE to take gen defense perks, and they can take more varied builds. Something like:
We don't need to worry so much about regression now thanks to the 3-gen mechanic. Potentially with these buffs they could go about lowering the gen explosion thing to 6 events instead of 8 since the numbers will be bigger, but obviously do small tweaks along the way to see how things go.
I think this would be a good start to getting the game into a healthier state. Survivors can't give up, survivors can't be eliminated quickly. The game would encourage hooks instead of kills and this would disincentivize tunneling and camping since you have to burn through 6 hooks to get it. On top of that buffing basekit regression and nerfing all the perks means we'll stop seeing the same 6 perks every game from killers, and the game would now be fair for everyone even if you don't have those perks. Given that the game is literally balanced around killers taking gen defense and there are no basekit gen perks, is a big problem for newer players.
There are better ideas i have, but those revolve around completely reworking the core of the game, and is probably something BHVR would not be willing to do at this point, so my above suggestions are a more realistic approach around what i would expect would be in BHVRs power to do.
My personal issue is not so much that there are extremely one-sided games where everyone's dead (or dead on hook) with 4-5 gens left but rather the sheer number of those I have to endure in a row. If I have to play for hours to have one good match at some point I'll just take any opportunity for a shortcut out while I would have continued playing if it was just one or two in between multiple ones that feel fun and fair. I am playing since 2017 and until MMR and the big killer buff patch came along, I can't remember I ever suicided for some reason other than to give the other remaining teammate a chance for hatch. There were always bad matches, but it didn't bother me because there were not that many ones back to back. Plus, I felt there was always an incentive to still keep playing at my best until the end (collecting emblems to rank up and play with better teammates).
If we assume the devs want MMR/matchmaking to stay as it is …
I am not sure if I'd want BHVR to add any comeback mechanics for survivors, I don't like the idea.
I'd be happier if there was some reason to keep on playing. Replace the hatch with some kind of 1v1 that is more fun and interactive and allows the last survivor to survive by skill rather than RNG. Then make it harder to slug for 4k and thus deny the last survivor this chance so there's always some hope and something to keep playing for. This is the one thing that the emblem system did better: it did reward staying in the game and doing whatever you could … MMR defines "being the more skilled player" in a hopeless situation as being the one who is just hiding and waiting for the others to die. Both options I'm being given ruin my mood, I don't want to waste my time hiding better than my teammate, but I don't want to considered worse at the game than somebody else who's not playing any longer by MMR. If I'm out of the game before it gets to this situation I oddly feel better than with those two options. That shouldn't be.
If anyone wants to introduce some kind of "bribe" to make up for unfun matches, the only thing that would always work for me is a chance for MMR increase, I don't need any more blood points (I have almost two dozen millions of them and nothing to spend them on). Iri shards might motivate me a bit more but only for a very short time.
Endorsement system is manipulative way to condition people to play a certain way and not for the player to enjoy themselves how they want.
I would like to support the past tense of quit being 'quat'.
For example: "Our match sucked because Steve ragequat on his first hook."
Then again, why did he quit in the first place?
This would be completely broken. Gens already are flying but having 4 survivors repairing gens even in late game when you spreaded hooks fairly will make it extremly unfair for the killer. At the end survivors would just need to hide and let the ghost do all the gens to get a free win.
Well that would simply not work. You would have to deal with a 4v1 the entire game which completely defeats the purpose of killing a survivor. Even if you play fair you're chances of winning will fall down dramatically.
Because even when someone is playing fair, their still banking on the fact that eventually someone will die which relieves a ton of pressure. That chance would make slugging like the main play since they can't contribute to the objective while on the ground.
And even if we say that ghosts aren't as quick with the objective it would still screw the fair playing killers while tunneling still seems like a valid option since it will still relieve pressure.
I mean how is it gonna work anyway? Can they just work on gens? Will the killer be able to still kick the gen while they are working on it? It doesn't seem like a working concept for me
I mean do these people need a reason past 'I don't like this killer' or 'The start didn't go my way so why bother?'. Some people simply don't really wanna play this game anymore (which at that point should just not play it).
Well, I guess all these long chases in 3v1 which ended up in at least 2 man out now doesn't matter, if mr youtuber have said so?
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2345731159?t=16h9m32s
Here is good example of how game could easily be ended in at least 2 mans out even in 3v1 on 3 gens, but hey, meghead decided to leave.
It's such a bullshit that survivors have no comeback mechanic, when literally 1 good chase is difference between win and lose in most matches. My last such match was against SM, where she tunneled out Feng on 5 gens (and 2 gens were almost done). First 3 minutes we all searched for Hexes (Blood Favour + Undying + Thrill) and when Feng were dead on 5 gens, you know how it ended? 3 man out, in cost of 2 good chases.
Hell, I even had a match against mediocre Nurse, where we did 5 gens after Mikaela gave up on hook at 5 gens. Simply because we all were better.
I despise and hate this mentality, so many interesting matches on both sides simply became boring, because of some braindead player decided that there is no point in trying, but in fact match is just 50/50 and fully depends on decisions on both sides literally right now.
In such cases, most of the community just go to the next match, where they will sit on generators until they simply enter the gate, without even having a single chase with a killer. And it will be the victory that the majority wants. Not that one, where you actually fight, but that one, where you don't even trying. (Same on some killers for sure, but I'm talking only about give up cases right now) Absolutely pathetic.
Surely there are matches, where you can confidently say "Now there is no point in trying", but it's actually not the point from where 80% of player base decided to go next. So no, "lack of cAmBaCk MeChAnIc" is not the reason. Crybaby mentality is, was and always will. Always will, unless devs will finally do something with it and stop endorsing such behavior.
The ragequit starts as soon as some survivors have a horrible start of the game. lets say you get 2 instant down and 2 hooks while you surged the first gen. then you hear plomp and a bot appear.
Sometimes it's hard to play in certain games without outright removing the fourth survivor.
That's why you see tunneling and slugging becoming so prevalent because oftentimes it's best to remove one survivor to alleviate generator progression.
When I did play killer, I tried my best not to tunnel or slug unless the team (in my own views) warranted the tunnel/slug. That's why I don't have a hard opinion on tunneling/slugging because they do help the killer in many cases.
Yeah, it sucks having your teammate tunneled out at 5 gens and the game feels like a dead loss and this type of tunneling can be perceived as unhealthy or toxic. However, other cases of being tunneled out at 3/2/1 gens aren't as unhealthy to me. Slugging isn't toxic or unhealthy to me either, it's a part of the game — however, when it's simply slugging all survivors, bleeding them out, and completely bypassing a fundamental gameplay mechanic such as hooking survivors is when killers lose me.
I don't mind being tunneled (slugging is a little annoying) but there are ways to equip being tunneled if it's a huge epidemic like some survivors say it is. Even if second chance perks get frowned upon, if you find yourself being tunneled match after match, at that point just equip one single second chance perk.
I play with a friend of mine who consistently gets tunneled, I tell him to run Off The Record to compensate for this. Sure, it sucks to run a perk to compensate for how a killer plays or survivor plays, but if you're having issues with such and such perk or strategy - there are ways to work around them.
Literally, I had a game the other day with three friends of mine and a random.
The random killed themselves on hook against The Unknown at 3 generators left. Another game, I went against Scratch Mirror Myers and our random purposely threw the game and got grabbed sabotaging a hook.
It's not just the killer themselves — sometimes it's literally a case of burn out, game fatigue, and simply needing to take a break. People need to learn to find fun in this game without outright giving up because things don't go their way.
For the discussion of a comeback, I wrote this (unfortunately dead) thread for the 2vs8 comeback mechanic, but a lot of it relevant if anyone wants a full in depth breakdown of comeback mechanics:
However the TLDR version is:
Comeback Mechanics should not directly punish a player for playing well and building a lead. The primary reason to have them is to balance out meta choices and rush down strategies.
A good comeback mechanic should create an opportunity for the losing player to make a comeback if the losing player out plays the winning player, in spite the winning players advantage. The idea is to create a risk for the winning player, not outright punishing them.
Trying to make such a system for DBD is difficult because of its asym nature, but I don't believe completely impossible.
The vid creator compares the video to some other games. A normal and valid approach. The problem is we also have to stop and think why are we all playing DbD instead of Marvel Rivals, Overwatch, etc? DbD offers something unique compared to those other games and in attempts to improve DbD we need to be wary of ruining the things that make it unique.
At its core, DbD is an elimination game where survivors are asked to value both their own escape and the escape of others as different goals. This creates some inherent problems that emerge in the game design, but its perhaps an inevitable result of what makes the game good.
As @edgarpoop points out, one of my main problems with the 3v1 isn't that its unbalanced, is that if the 3 survivors are good the game can still take a really long time and feel pointless on both sides.
I think that's a huge difference between DbD and most other games I've played. With other games by the time it becomes clear that one side has won, the game is usually almost over. You might as well play it out. I think this is one of the reasons that people tend to quit DbD more, a feeling of 'get me out of this before it becomes awful'.
As for the solutions offered in the video
1: Comeback Mechanic - Probably a good idea, except really hard to get into the game at this point in time. I think the concept makes 2v8 much healthier, though there it still needs some work.
The problem is that it goes against the core nature of an elimination game so any type of comeback mechanic would need to be carefully balanced.
2: Tech perks - too many killers for this to work out. I think it also underestimates how angry survivors would feel about burning a perk slot just for a killer they find unfun. I think he also oversimplifies why people find certain killers unfun. Everyone has different reasons and trying to account for all of them is impossible.
3: Endorsements - too easy to manipulate, too little feedback to the player.
-
I think the best solution at this point is to just prevent the first survivor hooked from kobe unless they have a perk. If BHVR is truly concerned that this would lead to players quitting the game or otherwise refusing to play, let players DC on hook without a stacking penalty.
Out of curiosity, how would you make it so it's more skill based? A certain duration of time of juicing a killer during end game collapse, lol?
I'm genuinely curious, haha.
You're right! Stevegull only ragequat because the killer was camping his hook!
Actually though, you're not wrong about having a 3v1 be a viable play condition. 3v1 with too many gens left is rough and can lead to matches that seem pointless. It wouldn't be bad to think of a sort of 'lesser escape' or 'lesser win' condition for certain 3v1 scenarios. That is, a lot of killers are thinking about the game in terms of wins/losses, and a lot of survivors are thinking in terms of escapes/deaths. But what if it wasn't as binary as that?
Maybe there could be a sort of intermediate condition where if either the killer or survivor side are losing, they could push toward a mitigated loss. Possibly like a kind of 'maimed escape' for the survivors, where the killer gains something and so do the survivors. But the side pushing for that condition accepts that they're not getting their full sacrifice or escape, and the risk of a full loss still exists, but is less likely?
Not sure at all what that would look like, or if it even makes sense to anyone but me. But maybe worth thinking about. And in the end, maybe just slight 2v8 style comeback mechanisms for both sides are a better idea. Idk :)
Let me assure you: Survivor players are not quitting only because of the tunneling as much as they:
I'm saying what I'm seeing in my matches as one of the killers who don't use tunneling (tactic) at all, at any times.
And it's a chain reaction - 1 Dced, then other Dced, once the survivor team got 1 or 2 DCs, they don't wanna continue to play, which is understandable, it's not their fault
When survivors leaving from match because they don't like the killer against or went down at 20 sec chase instead of 25 - nothing can be done, but punishing this player. Unfortunately - players like this are punishing other players in their team.
So what we've got at the end? The cycle of punishment.
The "win" conditions needs to change for the killers - kills should not matter, only the amount of hooks should be the condition.
Getting 8 hooks (0 deaths) - should be the winning condition for the killer player, going up with the ranking. If this will not help - give 2 endurance hits to survivors who just got unhooked for 30 sec and make them "fasable"\"faseable" (I forgot the word, pardon), so they can't body-block, and can't be body-blocked and can't use the endurance offensively.
To compensate for 0 tunneling - add some seconds to the gens to complete, so killers will have a fair chance\enough time to get at least 8 hooks (win=up rank).
Someone said it above, but I strongly agree that the game should be balanced around hooks instead of kills.
There are actually a number of ways to do this, a lot of it having to do with presentation within the game (perhaps entity visual changes for # hooks), in the menus (emphasis on hooks rather than kills), and in the lore (hooks feeding the terror the entity craves etc) as well as simple buffs based on the number of hooks that could be introduced.
Regarding the other side of how hopeless it can be as a survivor though, I think there actually already exist systems to combat this.
The first is just a general idea that camping and tunnelling can be significantly mitigated by using the cage system that pyramid head and the 2vs8 system uses. It's not ideal, because there are a lot of cool things about hooks, but it does work.
The second idea is from Invocation: Weaving Spiders.
This perk could simply be put in to the base game becoming available when the first player is killed. On successive kills, a random area could be designated as another circle, with each circle giving a further charge reduction to generators.
Whether it puts a character into a permanent broken state or not, or how many charges it grants/time it takes to do is up for debate, but I honestly think it would be a pretty balanced way to offset the penalty of losing a player, and offer a lifeline to the remaining players.
please, just please, if there isn't anything being done about hooking/spreading hooks being buffed, 3v1 should NOT receive any buffs on survivor side. First fix the core problem and then, if tunneling still keeps existing, buff 3v1 for survivors
most of the survivors I see quit do so when they’re about to get death hook so I’ll never understand it.
I see way more killers DC than survivors - normally when two gens have been done too quickly or they’re not getting a down quick enough.
Maps have already been made smaller across the board, hooks are way closer together than they used to be and now can never break permanently. How can you want MORE buffs? This is a completely unjustified comment
Maps are still an issue... but that being said it's still more on the non mobile Killers then the mobile Killers
But one reason why is the fact that Survivors can sabotage hooks... they may not be permanent but still
High skill Killers know to spread hooks but High skill Survivors know which hooks to "get rid of"
Hate to be that guy but old hatch was the comeback mechanic we got rid of. It made the 3v1 and 2v1 actually playable by adding a dynamic secondary objective that incentivised survivors to move around the map for the chance to escape, risking being found by the killer.
The problem with these types of mechanics are that they can be abused by coordinated groups, which are the reason we lost these comeback mechanic in the first place…
That comeback system was maps that used to have resources instead of being deadzone into useless filler pallet into more deadzone. A good survivor could run a below average killer for multiple gens if the killer made the mistake of trying to tunnel them out. Survivor skill expression in chase has been crushed by garbage map reworks.
So basically a few survivor mains are crying despite all the handholding bhvr has done (anti camp 4%, basekit BT, uncounterable flashbangs, etc), maybe make the game about hooks not kills and you'll have the crybabies stop rage quitting or getting tunneled
That isn't a comeback system man, that's a resource management system, and the standard mechanics of the game no matter what the state of the game is.
Those map resources are set and available right from the word go either way. If there are a lot of resources to use, they are there regardless of whether the survivors are winning or not. If there are not a lot of resources to use, they are absent regardless of whether the survivors are losing or not.
This is not a comeback mechanic.
You said you wanted mechanics for losing players to come back without directly punishing the other side. Having actual resources for a survivor being tunneled fits that perfectly. Being tunneled in the current maps you might as well just hold W for 20 seconds and die with most of the new tiles. Might have something to do with why so many survivors want to go next rather than deal with being tunneled and having no chance to actually outplay the killer.
I notice you didn't suggest any ideas of your own.
there is only a small portion of maps that have actually been made smaller.
we are constantly talking about strength of hooks in survivor favor taking in mind how many hook related meta perks on survivor side there are and how hooking is actually more beneficial for survivors nowadays than for the killer, and you are still talking about hooks proximity and hook respawn (which is introduced as a bandaid for people forcing deadzones so that killer can't hook them)?
You really, and i mean really have 0 idea about what the core problem is, this statement from you absolutely proved it.
We saw how badly a comeback mechanic would work in 2v8, these mechanics punish the other side doing their job too well and are not fair to anyone. The issue isn't one-sided games, but how frequent those can be.
What the game needs is better MMR balance and a much broader definition of what a win is. It should be based on how much you help the team, not on escapes. And it should be based on hooks, not on kills. The current emblem system and win cons are much too narrow and reward sweating, not playing. BP gain for Survivors is a pointless fraction of what Killers get. The fact it's harder to pip up every single grade increase is outdated and makes no sense, and simply is not needed when all Grade shows is how much you have played - pipping up should be as easy as breathing because Grades are not a useful, functional mechanic but just another BP investment sink. Frankly, emblems shouldn't be hard to achieve at all.
Maps are also still an issue, in the OTHER direction this time. Some lack resources, and some still have way too many. Low-mobility Killers struggle to compete even on small maps if there are too many resources, but shrinking map size overall doesn't help them and just makes it harder for Survivors to handle stronger Killers due to a lack of resources. Any and all Killers that lack map mobility must be given a bit more mobility, either with the much-maligned added haste mechanic or something else. You cannot keep expecting Trapper and Doctor to compete on maps that Xenomorph and Singularity can compete on, it just isn't possible. Perhaps changing tile spawn type or resource spawns per Killer would help? Do you really need infinity pallets against a Ghostface, or stronger tiles against a Legion? I don't think you do; similarly how do you expect Survivors to do anything against a Dredge or Chucky if there's not enough strong tiles to make tunnelling on these Killers more difficult?
Erm... I did suggest ideas of my own... I can only assume you didn't read it... which is fine, the post was long, but it's kinda off to try and discredit my argument when you didn't even read it.
I'm not even sure why you're attacking/trying to discredit me man at all, you're the one who quoted my post, a post which discussed ideas of what a comeback mechanic is, and how a comeback mechanic should work in an asym, with a bare bones suggestion to give a flavour of what a comeback mechanic could be...
Then you proceeded to claim to describe a comeback mechanic that isn't a comeback mechanic at all, but is instead just regular map balancing, to which I feel I've quite rightly called you out on, since it isn't relevant to points I was making.
If you wanna talk map balance and the number of pallets and windows for survivors to use, fine, but it is not a comeback mechanic, because increasing the pallet count (which seems to be your stance) just inherently swings the game more to survivor favour regardless of how well survivors are doing or not.
If I'm completely honest, to take your argument seriously and address your suggestion, all adding more pallets and windows does is make it so stronger killers who can get hits around and over pallets are far more superior to the rest of the roster, while punishing more macro and m1 style killers with unbeatable braindead hold W and throw pallet gameplay, where all they can do is chew wood until either survivors run out, or the gates open. Doesn't seem so perfect a fix to me.
However, as I say, that is regular killer and map balance, not a comeback mechanic... So if you don't mind, can you clarify what we're even arguing about?
I don't see survivors giving up in a 3v1 as a problem unless the game is still potentially realistically winnable, like if there's 1-2 gens left to do.
Survivors giving up extremely early on either due to rage because they just got outplayed, or they just don't like the killer they're playing against, is the issue. If any survivors choose to die on hook after that happens, I don't blame them. I do the same.
They just need to remove the ability to attempt self-unhooks without a perk like Slippery Meat or Deliverance or if the anti-camp meter is full. There's no reason to keep it in the game. Random self-unhooks can be hype for survivors, but conversely they can feel like total BS as killer. And most of the time the only reason people are trying to self-unhook is to expedite their own death, so it causes far more harm than those random hype moments are worth.
Then this should be addressed in some way.
You can talk about it but that simply isn't true or reality.
Hooking is progressing the killers objective, there are a ton of killer perks that activate on hook, and BP incentives for sacrifices on hook. There's a literal penalty for bleeding out survivors.
Fire up is getting a buff soon, but I don't hear anyone claiming that "completing gens is now in the killers favor"... Because it's ridiculous.
what does it being progressing killer's objective have to do with it being strong or not? I can establish a 2-4 men slug, hook everyone after and still progress the match, and it seems like you have intentionally missed my point.
Regarding perks, please name me one killer hook related perk that is even remotely on the strength level close to perks like Reassurance, Deliverance, OTR and Resurgence. If you are about to say Pain Res, that perk is not even close to being as good as it itself used to be, especially after it's latest nerf which made it just not that good to run anymore.
ohh wow, a niche perk that is barely being used is going to get buffed in order to have slight increase in use and still not be worth running, definitely a perk worth mentioning!
but bro u don't understand, u dont have to deal with reassurance or all those other perks if you just dont tunnel, you see I play trapper with no perks and I never tunnel and I always win, that def doesn't mean im going against potatoes and have a warped view it just means tunneling is never necessary and if u do it you should be banned for 5 years
We desperately need this back. Even killers complain about games taking forever in 2v1s if both survivors decide to hide, so this would benefit everyone.
Plus, if it's competitive scoring what's worrying people, the game could take hatch escapes as kills for the killer and draws for the survivor. There, a 4k for the killer and a quick way to end the match for survivors. Everyone's happy.
Nah please be that guy. I've waited YEARS for this to come full circle and it's kinda sweet, ngl.
can you please explain to me what this abundance of meta hook perks there are for survivor?
Meta perks that have hook conditions/work off the hook
Deliverance
Resurgence
Reassurance
Dead Hard
Second Wind
Babysitter
Wicked
Off the Record
Decisive Strike
We'll Make It
Shoulder the Burden
Perks that indirectly affect hooking in terms of actively denying it:
Saboteur
Breakdown
Breakout
Flip Flop + Power Struggle
Background Player
Boil Over
I think the state of DBD can best be described as a series of events, and those events are: 1. The devs making it clear that ONLY killing and surviving matter. And however you do the killing is great. No problems. 2. Survivors t bagging at exit gates, flashlight clicking, gen rushing builds, map offerings, God like swfs, etc. salty chats and 3. Killers who adapted the fastest, most brutal ways to win. Including just tunneling one person out at five gens to get a more relaxed 1v3.
I don't think anybody is completely to blame for anything. This is all kind of like a misery onion, and the more you pull back the layers, the more your eyes sting. Survivors are miserable when teammates go next and they end up getting stomped in a 1v3. The person getting tunneled out is miserable they didn't even get to touch a gen. The killer gets miserable when they DO go up against survivors who do run the strongest builds with the strongest tactics, or who t bag every second of the match.
Maybe at some point the devs could have been like, "Hey now, this is all getting to be a bit too much. We gotta change something." But part of me thinks things have gone on a bit too long. So many survivors are locked into the mindset of "Oh well, everybody's on death hook at 4 gens might as well go next" or "I got hooked too early this game is gonna blow, might as well go next." And killers are used to slugging, camping and tunneling one person out to have a better game.
I kind of feel for the devs in a way because, no matter what they do, people are gonna get mad. And in a game where people are always two seconds away from quitting the game, that's not good.
So you want to force killers to take certain perks and deny them that freedom of choice? Nah, hard pass on that. If you are dead, you should remain dead, not be forced into some boring gameplay of just repairing generators. And swf would abuse this as well, coordinating repairs. As killer you wouldkick a gen and all of a sudden a ghost would come, stop the regression and keep repairing without you being able to do anything but sit and watch. Perhaps it could all come to a 2v4 in which the 2 alive ones keep hiding while the 2 ghosts repair. In this game, such a mechanic is pointless and unbalanced. So, for the benefit of everyone, if a survivor dies, they go back to the lobby.
This is purely a skill issue. Yes, comming back from there is certainly difficult, but not impossible. Solo Queue would of course have things more complicated in a 3v1, but a swf, a good swf can come through and do a comeback. It all comes down to the choices you take, and if a mistake is made, such as letting a survivor die, I don't see why the team should not be punished.
The problem is that this is mainly a mindset issue. They've played this game to the point where they are simply not enjoying it anymore. Should we just cater to those players and give them what they want? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
I think people just need to take a break and come back like a month later.