Comments

• Thanks for the thoughtful replies — I actually agree with both perspectives being shared here.

  I fully understand the point that everyone should be free to choose whatever offering they want. I’m not trying to argue that players should always prioritize efficiency or be forced into bringing cakes or ribbons.

  I also agree that event offerings are naturally used more often because they’re temporary, abundant, and tied to event-specific scoring. That makes complete sense from a practical standpoint.

  What I wanted to highlight with my original post is something slightly different. To me, the current system feels similar to a prisoner’s dilemma:
  if everyone brings cakes or ribbons, everyone benefits the most overall. But in reality, the player who chooses to bring them can end up feeling like they lost out — especially if they get tunneled out early, or if the opposing side benefits more from it.

  *For example, in the situation mentioned above, survivors can get +100% for all actions and +200% for event actions, while the killer only gets +100% for all actions and +0% for event actions.

  
  So the issue I’m trying to raise isn’t about restricting player choice, but about this structure where:

  • Acting for the collective benefit doesn’t always feel rewarding
  • And in some cases, it can even feel punishing

  That’s why I suggested a system where the bonus applies primarily to the user, and only stacks among those who also choose to bring it. I feel like that could reduce the frustration without taking away freedom of choice.

  I’m curious how others feel about this “prisoner’s dilemma” aspect in the current design. Thanks!

  in Rethinking Ribbon & Cake Offerings Comment by TBD20200512 April 12, 2026