crogers271
crogers271
About
- Username
- crogers271
- Joined
- Visits
- 8,432
- Last Active
Comments
-
Never lobby dodged.
The only circumstance I could imagine I would is if in the lobby as survivor someone indicated toxic behavior or that they weren't intending to play the game 'normally'.
-
I agree with the OP that the idea that killers tunnel because of how powerful survivors are is unrelated. Tunneling is the obvious path to victory, the idea that killers would play more "fair" if survivors were weaker just means those killers who tunnel would have an easier time.
Also I think the idea that the onus should be on the killers is wrong. Killers and survivors should both be trying to win, anything within the rules of the game should be allowed.
Fixing tunneling is a difficult problem. The game is built around eliminations. I think you'd probably have to rebalance multiple things to actually adjust tunneling. Some killer mains say they should get bonuses (ie gen regression) for hooking multiple survivors. I think that would work, but you'd need to adjust gen progress times to compensate. This means you'd also have to weaken starting gen speeds to prevent the killer from getting overwhelmed.
The problem with the ideas of boosting the survivors in a 3 v 1 is that losing another survivor should hurt. If a survivor gets hooked in a difficult to reach location the other survivors should be faced with a difficult decision of whether to go and rescue. If the survivors see someone hooked across the map, being chased on death hook, and just think 'no problem, we'll get boosted when he's out' it really changes the metrics of the game.
Though being we're all throwing out solutions, I'll give it a go.
If a survivor has 1 more hook state than everyone else (ie they are at 1, everyone else 0, or them at 2 and others at 1) they gain a 7% haste bonus. If a survivor is at 2 hooks and no one else if hooked, they gain a 15% haste. This lasts even if they do conspicuous actions until someone else equalizes them on hook.
This would make it harder, but not impossible to tunnel. Downside is that it wouldn't mean much against a nurse, but hard to balance around someone who already breaks the game concepts.
-
@RavenBirb said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3363651#Comment_3363651
Chapters aside and map changes, the gameplay has been the exact same almost since 2016.
The fact that the model has been working for so long and remained popular indicates otherwise. Nothing wrong if you are bored with the game, everything gets boring over time, that's inevitable.
New Trials? More Maps? Different Objectives. More Perks.New Trials: I'd jump at the idea of trying a new type of trial, but I understand why it probably won't/can't happen. Asymmetrical games are a balance nightmare between a wide variety of killers, perks, items, maps, etc. Balancing for a different type of trial on top of the already existing difficulties would be a massive challenge.
This isn't even factoring in what the underlying engine is capable of.
More maps: Again I wouldn't object to more maps, but we seem to have a lot already. How frequently do you think they need to be adding maps?
Different Objectives: Conceptually I think this is a good idea, but pretty much any suggestion comes with the potential for massive problems.
More Perks: This one I flat out disagree with. We have a mountain of perks on both sides and only get to use four.
I'm starting to think it's gonna be milked till it's done and then the devs will move on.That's kind of how games work. As long as people continue to play the game (financially profitable), they'll continue to invest resources into it. Eventually we, and they, will move on. Nothing lasts forever and DbD has already massively exceeded many games life spans and is still extremely popular.
-
There are a number of problems with balancing DbD that don't exist with other games. Some of them are what I would consider flaws in BHVR's design, others are outside their control.
-Different experience levels of players: lots of people are discussing this, but also partially missing the point. A 10, 100, 500, and 1000(s) hour player aren't just of different skill levels, they are playing different games. Things that work well when you are a starting player become horrible ideas later.
To use other games as a comparison: with a first person shooter you learn which guns are the best, when/if stealth works, and you become quicker/more accurate with your weapons. Those skills though are more linear in progression. With DbD it is different. It would be like if there was a gun that was really powerful at low levels but weak at high levels.
-Different regions play the game differently.
-Players are 'mains' on a side. Things that might make the game fun for one side make it unfun for the other.
-Different standards on what is a win and a loss. Some people play for points. Some killers have no problem face camping the first down they get while others try and get as many hooks as possible. Really hard to balance around that while other games have much clearer win conditions.
-
I tend to not play during peak hours which impacts it, but it's basically 100% BP bonus for survivors for me all the time. When I try to play killer I expect to wait quite awhile. If I'm not into a survivor lobby within 15 seconds I feel surprised.
Balance wise: as survivor I get crushed and as killer I usually feel bad because of how easy the win feels. That's both a comment on when I play there not being a lot SWF but I also 'get' killer a lot more than I do survivor.
-
From a conceptual standpoint, part of the problem with making such big changes at this point is that so much of the game would need to be changed (i.e. perks, maps) that it is incredibly unlikely. But let's throw that out and deal with the idea.
Step 1: Adds a giant amount of randomness to the game. You could find a gas can immediately or have to search the entire map. With generators there is not that much a difference in time to finish between a mid-tier and top-tier player (excluding whether they are using a toolbox or not, which is a different issue).
-this is not a con per se, some people really like randomness in games and is part of the appeal of DBD
Step 2/3: More complexity in generator repair would be a challenge for new players while very easy for experienced players. Right now a player who can hit great skill checks with ease is only gaining a few seconds (again, excluding tool box player). Even relatively new players can hit skill checks pretty consistently. Why does this matter? It would make balancing very difficulty. If newer survivors are taking three to four times as long to finish gens what equivalent challenge could exist for new killers to balance this out?
--we kind of have this problem already with SWF gen rush squads using toolboxes to power through gens far faster than most survivors can manage- that's a big problem with the game's balance that we'd just be amplifying here.
*
I think the problem with more complicated/involved elements is that they are going to either swing the game between newer/more experienced survivors and/or create a larger gap between solo and SWF. Adding minigames is a hindrance for newer players and irrelevant for experienced players. Adding more strategic objectives (finding gas) would benefit SWF even more who could call out where the gas is and plan delivery.
As much as the idea of there being "more" to DbD appeals to me, the more I tend to think about it the more I realize it probably wouldn't work. Asymmetrical games probably have to be simplistic by default - the complexity comes from, primarily, the variety of killers and, secondarily, from the clash of different perks and items.
-
@Archael said:
I'm posting this before reading any answers, so please don't hate me :x
Answer for tunneling is simple - to win a trial. But this one quote is important:
"There is nothing wrong with this attraction towards a swift elimination; we cannot try to shame someone for trying to win or influence the trial! Rather, it is the designers’/developers’ responsibility to ensure that this path to elimination is fun and involves strong player interaction, or more likely that this path is slowed and controlled through design and balance to reduce and contain its negative impacts on a fun player experience."
It's behavior who should understand this, and implement mechanics that reduce unfun interaction, and at the same time make game fun for those who liked it for aby reason other than this being most optimal way to play.
Yet.
I don't think that tunneling is as bad as some people say.
For lot of survs chases are most thrilling and most fun interactions in game, even if they loose and are eliminated early (tho this can loose the game for the rest survs, who does not feel the same way).
Much bigger problem here is camping which make three things:
- As with tunneling - shortened the game for one surv, and eliminates it from the game early.
- Removes ANY interactions with killer.
- Makes hanging survivor being bored af for some time. Disconnecting when camped can help with this, but this screw other survs, and dc penalty is longer than waiting for Entity to consume me.
And removing camping would be also a thing that would reduce tunneling for some killers.
And solution is simple - make hooked survs being randomly transported to another hook while at the same time remove killer ability to see hooked survivor (unless they carry another one to know where to go), and remove loud notification over unhook.
But
The beat way to remove tunneling is to make survivors being progressively faster in doing gens depending on time and how mamy survs have Bern sacrificed.
For example. For every survivor killed before 9min in a game, all remaining survivors get +50% gen repair speed, for a max of +150% for sole survivor.
This would make killers being discourage of removing anyone from the game before first 9min.
This would require some balancing on the survivors side for example - for every gen done before 9min, survs suffer from -15% gen repair speed for every repaired generator, for max of -60% on the last gen. This debuff is applyed on top of aby other gen repair speed modifer do that it will never reach -100% and will be significant even with other bonusses.
Edit:
Im gonna share my recent experience for some though.
I player the Nurse, tho it was long time since i played her last time (its worth noticing).
In the surv team there was 3 claudettes and Meg. Meg was quite good with loops (especially that i had to re-learn blinking), and one claudettes was hiding extremally good.
I could easly kill two other claudettes but i did not wated to tunnel, i wanted just to chill and mess around. If i wanted to win i would kill those claudettes, spend some time over the Meg, maybe camping, and then close the hatch, forcing last Claudette to go out. But i did't wanted that. I wanted to hook everyone at least once, best was doing 8 hooks, and then mess around one surv just to play.
Yet i hooked one claudette 2 times because i wronged her with another Claudette. I noticed in my mind that 3rd Claudette on HUD was hooked two times, and when i downed her next time (2 times) i left her.
I decided to find Meg i spend some time chasing her, and was comminted for reasons i said above.
After hooking her i was going to find lasy Claudette, but found this "3rd Claudette", then last gen popped up. I downed another Claudette that was once on a hook (she had different outfit), and brought her to the gate, then opened the gate and allow her to crawl out.
But at the end, on chat, Meg wrote: "ez. Thx for tutorial". And as far as she really done loops good. I could win this by just tunneling.
I believe some tunneling and camping are made by suche toxic texts.
I agree on camping being a much bigger issue. Tunneling can feel oppressive, but you at least get to play the game.
As for your solution I see four potential issues
1: Theming - maybe not a concern for us, but probably a reason BHVR wouldn't do it. Would seem very weird without a good explanation to be bounced around the map.
2: When survivors lead killers far away from their teammates, there is a trade off. On one hand the killer is now far away from everyone else, but when caught so is the survivor. This would mean a survivor might pop all the way back from where he started and could jump right back on a gen/get healed.
3: How would you handle basement?
4: Would need new perks likely to replace the killer perks that reward getting away from hook. Also probably do away with the perks that increase time on hook, not that those are really useful outside of a SWF anyway.
Potential issues aside, I'd gladly try your idea.
On the tunneling suggestions
1: I feel like 9 mins is excessive or your games are going a lot longer than mine. 5 would be more reasonable.
2: I don't think time would be the best way to go if that was the goal. You could say that a killer needs five total hooks before eliminating someone, or your suggested penalty kicks in.
3: I think the reason not do this though is that it would lead to people being left to die on 2nd hook/sacrifice. Right now if you see someone dying on hook getting to them is the priority (barring you being about to finish the last gen). Would sacrificing a 4th person for a 50% benefit be wise? Probably not. Would it be wise if the survivor was on the other side of the map? I could see it.
-maybe you get around this idea by only having the penalty kick in if the survivor is eliminated via a third hook state death.
-
So I'm going to talk about one of BHVR's previous games, Deathgarden: Bloodharvest (it failed pretty spectacularly, but had elements I loved). The game had a lot of similarities to DbD with Hunters instead of Killers and Runners/Scavengers instead of survivors. Hunters were more FPS, Scavs were more parkour.
Hunters goal was to down the scavs. Unlike current DbD though Hunters could auto execute the survivors, though they got more 'points' for not doing it and allowing scavs to get back up. Frequently Hunters executed the Scav and ignored the points (and if they didn't it was frequently an indication the Hunter was so good you were getting stomped in a totally different way).
*for anyway who played Deathgarden, yes it had multiple versions, but I think this was the version that saw the most play as it coincided with Steam's free weekend
My ultimate conclusion here is that the motivation for tunnelling occurs on a spectrum between a single-minded desire to winTo me a game is about both sides trying to win. I hope both I and my opponents play our best. I'm trying to win and hope the opponents are doing the same. I hate the feeling when I'm playing killer and I come across two survivors and I know one is on deathhook and I chase the other to be 'more fair'.
DbD, Deathgarden, BHVR, and some of the player base have always had an idea that there should be other elements in to the game: i.e. you are playing for overall points, some other win condition like hook states, etc. To me, and others, this is strange. In Deathgarden I would execute scavs and get the response of 'you're giving up so many points!' and my response was always 'I don't care'. You play a game to accomplish the ultimate goal and the joy is in clashing strategies/styles with opponents who are trying to prevent that.
I think the community's anger at Killer's who tunnel/camp is misplaced. Just like the anger at survivors who bring four spare parts, all medkits, etc. is in the wrong place. Players should pursue the best strategies, BHVR just allows strategies that are broken (SWF) or unfun (tunneling/camping). I think BHVR's history though shows that their thinking is different and they want to create a gamespace were multiple views of what a game is can be contained. Which given the game's success can't be said to be a failure, but it does create a lot of toxicity within the community.
-
@ProfessorDunwich said:
It would have been a positive to see something by now, not that I expected it. I have never seen so much backlash to anything they have done. This isn’t much of a game for casuals. They have a dedicated player base that should be addressed in situations such as this.
If this is the most backlash the game has ever received the developers deserve a massive round of praise.
Weak killer: fixable and you don't have to touch the killer if it isn't
Bad aesthetic: debatable, I've seen the cosmetics that are popular
Bad lore: an annoyance, but if this is the worst lore they've written after 61? total characters, good on them
-
I'll echo some other posts that the idea of this being backlash is a bit weird. Saying you aren't interested in the chapter, sure. The reason they aren't going to respond is really soon they are going to have solid data on how well it sells/is played. They'll care far more about that.
-
I love the idea of them suddenly changing course as a surprise and being like 'that's not the real killer, this is the real killer!' It would actually be a really cool marketing ploy.
Reasons it isn't true however
There are 2 survivors already. If there was no survivor it would make a lot more sense. If she became a survivor then we'd suddenly have three survivors without any perk testing for the third.
If this was true, there would be no backstory. Because if she became the predator, the survivors would probably also switch to predator characters. Chance that creates anger from the community for those who liked the new survivors (bait and switch).
No invisibility. While the killer certainly seems Predator based, she has enough differences that if she just became the Predator there would be things missing. I haven't seen all of the Predator movies, but the tracking drones are not something I recall.
She wouldn't be, for lack of a better word, sexy. If this was just a 'hunter' type character with really generic appearance I could see the switch.
Also it would require multiple companies/license holders to keep it a secret, which is not an easy thing to pull off.
Now it is possible she is a complete fakeout. Like the character of Adriana disappears completely and reemerges later, but that seems like it would be a lot of unnecessary work.
-
On the question of whether it is legal - from the End User Agreement
Modify any part of the BHVR Services that BHVR does not specifically authorize you to modify.
You connected to an account that did that. Further down the EULA
BHVR reserves the right...to prevent your use and of any and all BHVR services if your Access...violates these rules of conduct.
So yeah, you agreed to it, you violated it. You can argue the violation was minor (they won't care) or that it was accidental (they might), but they definitely can ban you.
There is an appeal process I believe, you can try that.
-
I probably can't elaborate much beyond the articles, but I'll try.
Many early psychological studies have come under attack for not being able to be replicated. These studies did not have the general checks you would have against observer bias. Basically, the study author saw what he wanted to see and helped make what he wanted. In Stanford you see the person doing the study also participating as one of the roles, which completely throws out the ability to do a neutral evaluation.
Not to mention many of the studies are so small that they could just be a false positive (i.e. coincidence). And in some cases (covered in the Vox article) the authors hid data that would contradict their theory.
With the Stanford case you see some of the participants say they were behaving that way because they thought they were more playing a role (wikipedia even has a note about the guards being instructed to be more brutal). They were meeting the expectations set for them. If they all just sat around and did nothing then their professor would be disappointed and they'd all be bored.
It's not that everything about the study is fake, I'm sure the prisoners experienced actual levels of distress, but the finding that if take a person and lock them up they become deeply unhappy isn't actually shocking.
-
I think there is a lot about DbD that is interesting from a psychological perspective.
The Us vs Them nature of the Survivors/Killer divide.
The fact that many of us talk about it as if our game experiences (killer dominant, survivor dominant, prominence of certain behaviors, etc.) is the standard for everyone and when confronted with the fact that others are having different experiences the reaction is disbelief and anger (kind of like egocentrism).
What circumstances cause a killer to give mercy.
What causes players to just give up.
That the game provides things that are clearly superior (Iri addons), but that frequently these aren't taken to be more fair.
That players can use offerings to either give themselves an advantage or more blood points. Frequently it is blood points. Is this for fairness purposes, or greed?
That the prior two statements seem to go out the window with an SWF.
The thing I find most interesting is how frequently survivors will risk going back for someone stranded on a hook. The game says you aren't a team. The BP reward is minimal and the risk is relatively high. Yet even with the door open it's pretty common to see survivors in a soloQ all work together to rescue their remaining 'teammate' (some form of impromptu altruism? De Toqueville's view on inherent group formations? Straightforward Empathy? The desire to "beat" the killer?).
-
Surprised no one has brought up how the Stanford Prison Experiment has recently been criticized not just for ethical violations, but potentially just being a sham.
The most famous psychology study of all time was a sham. Why can’t we escape the Stanford Prison Experiment?https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication
-
As long as I've been playing the game I've been confused by how items/addons work. I think BHVR's idea was to raise the tension for survivors by making them think they are going to lose something. Given you accumulate so many items however, it just becomes tedious.
It would require a rethink of the bloodweb, but I think that is necessary as well.
-
1: If you want to destroy a boon, there's a perk for that.
2: Boons take 14 seconds. That's a pretty big slowdown even if you don't destroy it.
3: If they keep blessing the same totem, well you now know where they are going to be.
4: CoH is most valuable against a killer over relying on a 3 gen. If the killer decides to stop patrolling certain portions of the map, the survivors should be able to use that to their benefit.
-
I think there are quite a few reasons that build to the toxicity that sometimes comes out.
1: As an asymmetric game, any change feels like an attack on one side of the community. You'll see lots of talk about changes that will either destroy the game or save it. Now, arguments about balance are common for all games, the difference for DbD is that it only applies to one side. In a 5v5 game if a character/tactic is overpowered both sides have access to it. In DbD if something is broken it can only be accessed by one side.
2: Lack of clear objectives. If you are playing a capture the flag style game the goal is clear - how you accomplish it can be debated, but there is agreement about what is trying to be accomplished. In DbD? The devs are cool with playing for BP, or trying to tunnel out survivors, or bullying the killer, or playing for hooks, or playing for hatch, etc. The 'play as you want' style inherently leads to a sense that others are playing the game wrong.
3: Add-ons and offerings. These feel like built in cheats. Survivors can run a gen rush build against a base kit killer. Killers can push to a map that advantages them against a group of survivors bringing zero items. If survivors/killers match up on what they bring, great, but otherwise it feels like one side got access to a difficulty slider.
4: Different communities. This adds to the above points. The strategies that are common/playstyles seem to differ based on various regions leading to more arguments about how the game should be balanced/adjusted because we're all having really different experiences.
5: Self policing. If you feel like your opponents violated any of the above, the game has mechanics to ruin the other side. Survivors can hide in dead zones and really draw the game out, the killer can leave survivors to bleed out, etc. In other games if one side refuses to play/concedes, the game ends pretty quickly, DbD you can make the other side suffer for their playstyle.
6: On a positive note, DbD is meant to elicit strong emotions. I care far more about escaping as a survivor than I do winning a game of Paladins. Killer mains talk about the intense feeling of being outnumbered and pressured by time. It shouldn't be surprising that because DbD is so good at making people feel invested in the game their reactions are even stronger. The higher the highs, the lower the lows.
-
Being other people are mentioning their experience level, first game I really played online was Starcraft in 1996. Toxicity is an element of every online game, though I think it is particularly bad in DbD. The thing that shocks me the most is that when reading other people's thoughts is frequently it feels like they are playing a totally different video game than I am.
-
@Bwsted said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3339570#Comment_3339570
I don't think the devs want to go in the direction of the game giving you direct feedback about victory or loss.
There used to be a Disgraceful Defeat result when double depipping and, most recently, they changed Entity Displeased into Entity Hungers out of concern players felt negatively when reading the old message.
For the rest of your argument, while I do agree that giving survivors a reason to hold on in the form of a team result would be a nice improvement in theory, I'm not sure it would have much effect in practice.
In general, most people play games because they get to do something, not to stay on a timer waiting to be eliminated without any recourse.
So, whoever is currently giving time to teammates when they're getting facecamped is already acting on a team-based mindset and the change would be inconsequential for them. And those who just let go, they simply care about their own individual experience and telling them the whole team won or loss is unlikely to change their mind.
I can't say anything for what the developers want, only an argument about what they should recognize. DbD was designed as a stealth game and they recognized that players were more into chases so they balanced around that - I'm saying they should recognize the same thing about teams. It's not a 1v1v1v1v1 game, it's a 4v1. Most of their decisions toward balance/perks are based around that element anyway, so it is strange to cling to elements of the former.
As for the win messages and players feeling bad about themselves, the game is based on serial killers and death. The killer can bring an item to unlock more graphic killings. Again, you might be absolutely correct on their reasoning, but to me it seems really strange.
-
Umroslav - I think you are specifically asking about shard discounts. General sales, involving real money, seem to happen a lot more frequently than the shard discounts.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3339600#Comment_3339600
Purposely leaving a game early is ragequitting. It doesn’t matter if you use a “built in” way to quit, you’re still ragequitting.
Then look at it this way.
If a survivor is on a hook and being facecamped then trying to escape the hook is playing the game the way it is intended because the small chance of escaping from a hook is greater than the 0% chance of surviving by being facecamped. Sure, that action is dooming the other survivors, but if the survivors aren't a team, doing the escape from hook (ie suicide) is the absolutely right move.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3339570#Comment_3339570
You shouldn’t surrender on hook because even though the game may be over for you and you’ll de-pip, earn fewer bloodpoints and drop in MMR (all tangible measures of loss), you’re helping other players earn more bloodpoints, pip up, and increase their MMR by escaping the trial—which may well come on the back of your loss. We call it ‘sacrifice’ so it doesn’t sting as much. But for some reason DBD is the only game where you’re like expected (mostly by killer mains) to basically give up your enjoyment of the game you’ve purchased so that other people have a good time.
That's kind of my point. I don't give up on hook even when face camped because I see the other survivors as my team.
Some people in this thread, and BHVR themselves, say that each survivor should only care about themselves. The whole 1v1v1v1v1 argument, which, if true, every survivor should give up on hook if facecamped.
That's why recognizing survivors as a team and giving a team 'win' message would help a lot. In plenty of multiplayer games sometimes I end up in the "boring" role, but I do it because I want the team to win.
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3339570#Comment_3339570
You shouldn’t ragequit because that is against the game rules.
Who said anything about rage quitting? The game has a built in get out of the game mechanic.
-
Much like DbD moved away from stealth to looping gameplay I really feel like they need to ditch the idea of survivors are not a team (1v1v1v1v1). While a nice concept, it doesn't really work as a game.
As @StarLost says above, if as a survivor I'm getting facecamped why shouldn't I suicide and go play another game? The way to counter camping on the survivor side is to just do gens/reassurance the survivor on the hook. This all though depends on the survivor sitting on the hook and just accepting a loss. Which they currently have no rational reason to do other than the idea that they are helping their "team".
I feel that the game would be improved by an end screen that says 'survivors win', 'killer win', or 'draw' - we don't even have to discuss new perks/changes. Knowing there is a team to play for will give a reason for the survivor to stay on the hook instead of suicide and also give the killer reason to play more aggressively. You can then also do BP, etc. based rewards on overall survivor performance, but I think the message screen would be a big help.
-
As long as the game is going to have SWF (which will be always), the HUD updates are necessary. If we were talking about a hypothetical without that it would be a different story.
The things I find it changes as survivor:
1: Just knowing at the start whether the other survivors are taking the game seriously.
2: It really helps with the last gen. If you see someone has a gen half done then finding them and trying to help them finish is a good idea. In the past I might jump on an unstarted gen just because I didn't know another was being worked on (though there are still reasons to spread out).
As other people have mentioned, if you see the final gen is almost done you can head for the exit gates.
It doesn't change the game that much though. Looping skills and killer strategy are still the biggest factors.
-
As killer, I try to play with the mindset that I'm supposed to hunt the survivors. As such I try to move away from hooks whenever I can. There are a few exceptions
1: If I just keep running into the same survivor, whether by chance or they are really bad, I'm not going to just run around them
2: If a survivor invites me to chase from the start of the game I'll usually do it. But I'm not going to suddenly stop when they are on deathhook.
3: If I think it's a SWF because then its necessary to balance things out.
4: Once 3 gens are done go gloves off. That means get someone out of the game.
A corollary to the question, and maybe a more important one, is why not tunnel? It's such an obvious strategy, why not do it?
1: Once you tunnel, the rest of the game is boring and it can also be really long. If I've eliminated a survivor, only one gen is done, and I haven't hooked anyone else, I could still be looking between another 5 and 10 minutes of gameplay if the survivors continue to unhook, heal up, etc. However, barring a few possible exceptions, I'm not going to lose. At that point being the killer is just a chore.
2: Because I know how it feels when I'm a survivor and what I do if a teammate is tunneled. If I'm a survivor in the above situation I'll take off my headphones, put on some other music, and park myself on a gen. In the first few hours I played the game watching a survivor get eliminated was tense, now unless gens are almost done, it just means the game is over.
-
I wish such an option existed, but there are a couple reasons it probably never will.
Early game DCs are the biggest problem. Your idea wouldn't change that. Nor can it really be changed, else survivors could just concede if they got a killer they didn't like.
On the killer side, it would probably really mess up how things work. At the 5 minute mark killers who concede if they were outmatched and not try to play for at least a 1k. The exit gate waiting is annoying, but there are ways that could also be addressed (example: if survivors stay in an exit gate area too long it pushes them out and/or locks). BHVR probably though just considers the exit gate an element of the gameplay they don't intend to touch.
Conceding could also be used on the killer side to ruin the experience. Survivors are running for the exit gate, killer realizes they aren't going to catch them, so instead of letting the survivors get the victory of getting out, concede right at the end. Sure, the survivors 'win', but DBD has a lot of theming to it and that would take away from it.
On the survivor side (where I'd really like it), I think BHVR has a different idea on what they think can happen than actually does. In a horror movie as survivors are killed off it gets more tense, DBD is the opposite. Once those first survivors go it's time to tune out of the game.
Honestly, the fact that the concede topic/suiciding/surrendering comes up so frequently points out there is a flaw in the game. There isn't really way to address it though (that I can think of) without fundamental game changes.
-
The way you've put the question together is kind of confusing and is touching on multiple elements.
If you are asking how long chases should be from balance perspective - well then take however long it takes to do all the genes and divide that number by 6 (probably) and you're in ball park.
If you're asking what time is the sweet spot for chases (ie not related to game balance, just the fun element of the chase), I'd say the sweet spot is 30 to 45 seconds. Anything less than that feels like it isn't even a chase, more than that feels like the killer isn't powerful.
-
I wish this was true for me as I'd like to play more killer. Survivor almost all the time, some exceptions in the evening. During the first few days of the new HUD it was different, but didn't last long.
-
@Predated said:
Buffing chase also buffed tunneling. The killers dont actually have a harder time defending gens than before, its just that the 10 second increase gives survivors all the more reasons to split gens in 1/1/1.
Before the generator time increase, the most common generator strategy was 2/1. Then 2/1 and then 3. With 80 seconds gen, this took about 300 seconds assuming survivors werent being tunneled. During a tunnel or a camp, this would be less.
Nowadays, because of the 10 second increase, its 1/1/1 because early game 2/1 isnt really viable anymore, and then 2/1. So while basekit gens are increased, the average time is now 240 seconds, assuming someone is being tunneled, otherwise its about 260.
Personally, I would revert gens back to 80 seconds, and add a 10% slowdown for each extra generator that is being worked on. This makes 2/1 more viable than 1/1/1(2/1 results in 2 gens being finished in 89 seconds, where 1/1/1 results in 3 gens being finished in 100 seconds), as the slowdown is less overall, and results into a time of about 380 seconds, assuming survivors are not being tunneled.
So please BHVR, revert the timer by 10 seconds and add a punishment for multiple gens being worked on. It's a lot more effective in the long run.
So please BHVR, revert the timer by 10 seconds and add a punishment for multiple gens being worked on. It's a lot more effective in the long run.I want to understand the idea here. BHVR has time punishments for working on the same gen. Would those still exist in this plan? Or are we just counting how many survivors are working on gens regardless of where they are? And how much of a slowdown are we talking?
-
I don't get why people consider him boring. Weak? Sure, but boring? I enjoy the teleports, faking teleports, etc. Love faking a teleport twice and then popping on the third and the survivors are right there.
Dream pallets are great when they work. Definitely one of those - okay as long as not SWF type things.
In a video Otz referred to him as 'if you have an ADHD like brain, this killer is awesome' - there's lots of minor things you have to constantly be doing with him.
Also, that shadow he casts is awesome.
-
I loath camping from any killer, but the knight is not really that different at it then most of them. Just played a game in soloQ were we managed to get the facecamp broken. Took a few tries and some hook trades, because yeah, soloQ, but it worked out. All killers are pretty annoying when they do it, though nothing worse than Bubba.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3336247#Comment_3336247
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3336251#Comment_3336251
And this is precisely why this rule is a bit confusing.
For example, if i body block someone in a corner as a killer, the other survivors can do the generators, and end the game. So there is also an end there, yet the body block in a corner is against the rules.
Additionally, wouldn't it make more sense to make these types of hostage holding simply impossible? Why not allow a survivor to walk through a killer (or another survivor) if they are being body blocked, through some sort of detection mechanism? Perhaps if their models collide for 10 seconds, then all the blocked survivor has to do is walk into the killer or survivor for 10 seconds, and then they can pass through them. Being able to walk through a survivor/killer is already a thing that can happen when you get hit, where you lose collision for a bit. So why not use this same logic, and just activate it in this scenario?
Additionally, wouldn't it make more sense to make these types of hostage holding simply impossible?Yeah, but that would be logical.
Now if you create a Rube-Goldberg type solution to the issue, then you're in BHVR's ballpark.
-
@VikingDragonXii said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3335490#Comment_3335490
That's the thing let's say we go with that...Killer Hooks a survivor in a area with a lot of hiding spots that are just out of the range to keep the hook timer going.....the Killer may of seen a Survivor nearby but lost them as they are hiding. The Killer won't leave knowing there's somebody nearby. It's a lose lose for the Killer either they stay and hope to find the Survivor hiding but has the hook timer paused or they leave the resume it and the Survivor geta rescued.
Same thing with being in a chase or not.....there have been plenty of times I was chasing a Survivor but the chase was never activated because of LoS blockers.
Besides BHVR has said Camping, Tunneling, and Slugging are valid Strats when used normally and they don't want to punish those who use them responsibility with those who use it in a toxic way
Which brings me back to the question of how large is the area that is/was considered close to the hook? 6m? 9m? Unless this was some giant radius don't see how it becomes a problem.
Like say I just hooked someone and I know a survivor is close. Okay I go look for them.
Let's say I don't find them and look in the wrong direction. They run and get the unhook. No problem, I have a notification, I run back, probably get a hit.
Two working together? Probably still get a hit.
The killer in either scenario doesn't have to "leave". They just can't sit right on top of the hook. And even if there are circumstances were it makes sense to be right on top, say as the survivor is about to transition hook states, that's solved by just giving the killer 15 seconds or so that they can be within that radius without it having an impact.
-
@NewPlayer100102 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3335461#Comment_3335461
This feels like a waste of time...
But survivors that can loop for 90 seconds, when all pallets are up are not rare. Its like at least one per game usually.
Camping is not easy, aside from bubba. You can of course sit there and face to face them and this will usually work out with a hook trade, but in that time gens are getting done. Basically you're going to lose if you do this from the start. And later SWF types deal with it pretty well, usually resulting in them 2 exiting.(Some people will say thats a draw, but IDK anyone who sets out to play for that goal.).
Tunneling is good game play, but not so much where you can identify the weak survivor(if there is one on the map), figuring that out takes time, and IDK about you, but my matches don't give me that time.
While you are slug camping you are aiming for a 1k or something, never seen anyone seriously do this from the start. Have seen it late match when a survivor was abusing boil over, or broken hit boxes, geometry.
The game has adequate and varied mechanics in place to discourage most of these things most of the time.
Killers do not have an I win button, neither do survivors.
As annoying and frankly repulsive sportmanship wise as most SWF are, neither do they. Its all skills you build through practice and game, map knowledge, and a little observation of your opponents.
As a killer, if I could ask for one thing, it would be time, slow the matches down so we(or maybe just I) can enjoy the observation of specific opponents part.
at the OP, just sandbag a Gen while running bond, the killer while come off to kick the gen/ get on that person, most of the time.
It feels impossible to me mathematically that there can be that many survivors who could loop that well. Two such chases in a game and survivors should win easily, not to mention any additional 'lesser' chases.
Camping: The problem is the concept of winning. SWF can consider a 3 man out a team win, but soloQ it's you survive or not. So things like hook trades don't work out as well. It's also strange because with so much else of the game BHVR's attitude is 'play as a team, or not' and then with camping it suddenly becomes of course people will be willing to work together and sacrifice because the only thing that matters is how many get out. If BHVR even put up win messages at the end ('Survivors Win' - 'Killers Win') it would change things.
Identifying Weak Survivors: I generally don't consider myself a good killer, but maybe this is the skill I have others don't. It doesn't take me long in a chase to figure out how skilled they are and whether I need to find someone else who is an easier target.
Slug Camping: Sure, it's late game, but the point is it guarantees the killer that 1 win (maybe it's the first or the third). It's a point of the game where it just stalemates.
-
I've been playing for about six months so think I still have a good memory of being new. My advice would probably differ based on how much experience your friend has with video games generally, but here goes. I'm going to gear it toward survivors because I presume as a friend you're looking to play together.
1: The game isn't scary. It's tense, but not really conceptually different than a first person shooter were you can get hit out of nowhere. It can be really intense and stressful where a single mistake feels like it changes the game, some people love that aspect, nothing wrong if you don't.
2: Play both sides. Even if a survivor main play the killers to get an idea of how they work.
3: It's a tough game to start because likely everyone will have more experience than you. You'll be trying to just figure out the maps while others are flying around.
4: As a new survivor, be cautious and stay on gens. Let the other survivors worry about chases and rescues. Those concepts will come with time.
5: Don't take self-care.
6: As a survivor, you will be caught. That's inevitable. The goal is to make it take as long as possible. Against most killers, running in a straight line will burn time. Add in loops, pallets, etc. as you get more comfortable with the controls.
7: The killer's vision is poor. On some maps there are lots of places you can crouch and blend in. Don't panic if you make the decision to hide. I've frequently caught survivors who were hiding because they ran and thought I spotted them when I never did.
8: Headphones are a necessity.
9: Don't hide while injured. The sounds of pain make you really easy to pick up.
10: Some people are jerks. I find it more rare than others and not that much different than other multiplayer games, but they exist. Best you know it happens beforehand.
11: Ignore lockers.
12: Some killers feel way stronger than they are. As an example: Wraith's invisibility feels way overpowered when you are new, and kind of inconsequential after awhile.
13: The game can be frustrating, but worthwhile. As survivor it's easy to go on streaks were it feels impossible. You'll know after a few escapes whether the game is for you. For me, escaping in DBD feels incredible. If you don't get that same rush and only have the frustration, you'll know its time to look for something else.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3335477#Comment_3335477
How would that help with survivor staying at arm's length where no chase is initiated but the killer knows that they are there?
Btw, i wouldn't care for a change like this, even if i would still play. My go to "strategy" was to change map sides when i hooked somebody. I played FOR the survivors.
Maybe I'm missing something about the mechanics, but that just seems really rare. Was the zone that the killer had to vacate really large? Because I feel like if survivors are around either you will be registered as being in a chase or being outside the zone.
Or if that doesn't work: Hooks don't progress if a killer is within X meters of the hook UNLESS a survivor is also within Y meters. You could even put a 15 second delay on that so that killers wouldn't know a survivor is close by after a hook.
-
Camping seems the most obviously broken things about the game to me and I'm surprised more efforts aren't made to fix it. About a week ago I hit three campers in a single night. In one game players foolishly rushed in immediately, more downs. Game should have been over quick, but killer still refused to leave the camp. In the second, we made two attempts at trying to free the hook, but being we were soloQ we screwed up the timing. In the other game, no one bothered to go for the rescue, we finished the gens easily, and left. All the game were boring and in none of them was I the person camped.
It's an easy strategy that can be used to be vindictive (if someone outplays the killer guarantee they don't escape) or to try and force a player out early (because frequently the camped survivor will suicide because they have nothing to play for). It's also one of those things that is completely useless against SWF (quick com message is all that's needed to make it irrelevant) and overpowered against soloQ.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3335463#Comment_3335463
Stopping hook sacrifice progress when the killer is in the vicinity of the hook.
Survivor abused that by just swarming around the hook at a visual distance and the killer ended up in a lose/lose scenario back then.
Either chase someone while obviously the other are going for the free save or stay there and nothing progresses and the survivor also don't lose anything by making this stupid play.
Edit: What i mean by stupid play is that it isn't really camping when the killer knows for a fact that survivor are already around. Survivor aren't entitled to a free save every.time without making a smart play aka let the killer leave first.
Isn't there a simple way this could have been fixed? Hook don't progress if killer near the hook UNLESS they are in a chase. It could be that if the killer has a bloodlust chase time any higher than zero hooks progress normally.
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3335136#Comment_3335136
Yes you can, why do you think DCing gives penalties untill you suddenly can't play the game anymore.
This argument is very flawed. Nobody is forcing them to start the game. They do that themself. People who start a game are socially forced to finish it all the time
Imagine going to see a soccer match and one team gets a goal against them early and they just quit. They would recieve serious repricutions for that. Even among friends they would suddenly not be allowed to play anymore if it happens too much
People who quit the game out of petty reasons like that can and should be prohibited from playing the game for a certain time. It's a extremely associal thing to do.
And when you need to quit for a emergency the pentalty doesn't matter cause you have to deal with the emergency
Self unhooking outside of perks that guarantee it should just be removed. It's just used as a way to avoid the penalty that is clearly there for a reason
The problem with the sports analogy:
Most of us aren't playing anything close to 'professional' - if a person rage quit in a tournament I would expect there to be action against them.
If playing sports with friends - if one team gets way ahead, it's reasonable to call the game early and start another one. Usually that's an indication of something being unbalanced and teams need to be put together better. I think about this when I'm in soloQ, no one else brought items, I can tell the killer is using Iri addons and downing everyone without a problem. Great, the killer is better than us, nothing wrong with that, but let's move on so hopefully the next game both sides are better matched.
As for quitting if the slightest thing goes wrong - this isn't limited to DBD. Everyone has a limit for how much they are willing to put up with, for some people that is extremely low. Computer games just make rage quitting easier to do, especially DBD which has a built in mechanism for how to do it.
-
If you're not using addons, and playing legion, not a chance are you sweaty.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3334769#Comment_3334769
Actually, only one thing was ever tried, once, six years ago. Since then, the only thing that can be construed as trying to curb camping was Reassurance, and that was butchered to no longer work against it before it could hit live.
Some of us haven't been around for 6 years, what was tried?
-
@fussy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/363296/leaving-until-tunneling-is-addressed
Do you know what is the best solution to resist tunneling? Be good at the game. It's pure pleasure to run the killer 2-3 generators, then be taken off the hook, run 2 more generators and escape into the gate. This happens only when your team knows how to press m1 on the gens. Sometimes you might not be lucky with RNG. Or it's a very powerful killer with fast chases. But these moments and games are worth it when it happens.
It's a pity that you'll never know what it's like, because modern survivors have stopped even trying to be good at the game. "Mommy, I want the game to protect me from any troubles. Which button should I click to win the game? WDYM it doesn't exist? Well then I'm DC and leaving the game."
On the first part: if every survivor in a game was capable of running the killer for 90+ seconds, survivors win easily. If that was the standard at which defined survivors as just being 'good at the game' killers would have a right to be massively upset about the balance.
The second part is something that always gets brought up when this is discussed and baffles me. You complain that survivors want the game to be easy when what is being pointed out is that the most powerful killer strategies are childishly easy. Camping? Just stand in front of the hook. Tunneling? Identify the weakest player on the team and, if in soloQ, probably get them out really quickly. Slug camp? Just stand over the body.
The very thing you complain about, the request for a press a button and win, is what killers have available to them.
-
The thing I found interesting about the video was saying that camping was less viable and tunneling more. If true, that's a trade I'd gladly take. When I get tunneled I at least get to play the game.
I really don't see a way that you can ever make it so a killer shouldn't tunnel (i.e. an unwise strategy decision), barring making this something other than an elimination game. Getting a survivor out will always be the most obvious strategy. Really the only reason not to as the killer is to try and make the game more fair outside top ranked MMR (which is a weird thing to ask someone to do, but that's were we are). They can make it harder (such as giving a speed boost to whichever survivor has been hooked the most), but it will always be powerful as you are taking out 1/4th of the opponent's power.
It does surprise me though that survivors on death hook don't play more cautiously, especially with the new hud. If you get hooked twice before anyone else be really cautious until you see that someone else is being chased.
-
I'd also like more game varieties, even if they weren't tied to events, but I don't think it is very doable. It is hard enough to balance DBD as it is with one game mode. In most multiplayer games if something is overpowered in a game mode, well it's overpowered for both sides. Wouldn't work that well for DBD.
-
@Saiph said:
I had roughly the same story and impression as you. For a while after I first played killer, I stomped every game with almost only 4Ks. The game ended up feeling so easy and unfair that I voluntarily played without addons, without gen perks, and tried to go for 12 hooks when possible.
However, something happened and now my story differs significantly from yours.
At some point, after a VERY high number of wins (500+), MMR actually started to catch up, and brought me some new types of survivors which I'd call... very sweaty. It was very obvious that something had changed, as my queue times became longer, and in every game I would now get 1-2 people with 4000 hours, sometimes streamers, while I still had barely 200 hours on killer. Suddenly every single survivor knew how to loop, most mindgames stopped working and it felt like they knew the map perfectly etc.
But still, I had already seen some good chasers, didn't prevent me from getting 4K's before. However, what I hadn't see before was the literally insane speed at which these new survivors do gens. The thing is, these players are actually playing to win, and as far as gens is concerned, they do not waste a single second. I have an anecdote here, in low MMR it would often put the game in background while in the loading screen and be literally AFK for the 1st minute of the match. But now, it feels like the total opposite, not only do I have to play with 100% focus from the first second, but if I waste even I'd say ~20 sec because a chase went a bit too long, then I know that I've already lost. Basically by the time I get 1-2 hooks the game is over.
I absolutely don't care about winning so high MMR killer games don't bother me, I still get some fun chases, I just find it a shame that the games are over so much quicker, and I'm very confused by the fact survivors enjoy this playstyle. As a survivor, why would you "gen rush" against a nice killer? We'll just be wasting our time back in the queue, and the game after you're gonna maybe meet a tryhard Nurse with Starstruck. I know as a survivor I would definitely prefer to meme in most situations rather than do gens. But anyway.
It turns out, there is indeed a problem with gen speed in this game. As a killer, it feels like the odds are really not in your favor math-wise. My survivors often bring medkits/toolboxes and gen perks but even without that, just getting 4 efficient survivors is enough to make you feel like you're being "gen rushed". When that happens, the balance of the game completely changes, because as a killer now it is physically impossible to win even if you win all your chases in 15 seconds. The gens are simply just too fast. To catch up, what I considered the "scummy stuff" like broken killer addons, basement, camping, tunneling etc, now becomes required. For me it is not fun to play that way so I still play nice, and I can still not understand the killer mains' logic that "I need to tunnel because they genrush", imo ultimately the fact that the other side plays in a boring way does not mean you should play boring too, but at least now I can understand why killer mains feel like the game is survivor-sided.
I'll tell you that difficulty-wise, this game is actually balanced. The massive problem, is that it is balanced around both sides playing in the most sweaty and anti-fun way. If survivors do gens as they are supposed to, then killers need to bring gen perks and tunnel, and then I think it's probably 50/50. The problem is that 90% survivors don't want to do gens because it is straight up boring gameplay. In this situation, then killer is indeed too easy.
TL;DR: killer is indeed too easy at first, but MMR eventually gives you sweaty matches regardless of which side you play, which is why both sides think the game is other-side-sided. Ultimately, DBD devs only care about high MMR balance, without realizing that very few players want to play this way.
One of the reasons I've been doing these posts every couple hundred hours is because I'm interested in keeping track if my experience will change. I do look forward to see if there is a time I can post that my experiences went from strong survivors feeling like one out of 7 games to every game.
I also get your point about survivors and sweaty and I wish it was something that BHVR took more seriously. I wish they didn't balance the game around the idea that some players weren't playing with addons for example. Instead balance it like everyone was taking addons (which would require treating them like permanent perks, which would require a bloodweb rework, so unlikely to happen).
I also get the idea about how this could be abused by a coordinated SWF if that was what you were hitting regularly. I'll see when I get there I guess.
Thanks for the reply.
-
@Murgleïs said:
TL;DR : killer too easy (I am stomping SWF teams with my Pig), just tunnel, camp, use 4 slowdowns or broken addons. I am so good I have to play meme builds to let them have a chance against me. Please buff survivors.
Or you could read it.
I lose as a killer, as I should. I hit players better than me, sometimes lose out on 50/50 plays, etc. That's how games should work.
It's those games though that actually feel like they have meaning. Stomping survivors is even less fun than being the survivor stomped.
The one part you are correct on, as killer you have to intentionally weaken yourself or know you are hitting a really powerful team to make the game balanced.
-
I'm at about 350, like a few others I started in August.
I don't have statistics but I wouldn't surprised if my most played games were Super Mario Bros, Super Mario World, and/or Zelda. Because back in the day you might have two games and you better well like them :). My memories of the NES are a little vague now, but I know when my brother and I bought the SNES Super Mario World was the only game we had for about 3 months and it got a lot of play.
College was Diablo 2 and Rogue Spear. Goldeneye and Starcraft also way up there.
In terms of Steam I have a few games in similar territory: Dark Souls 2 and 3 as single players game in the 300 hours range each, for strategy games I have Civ 6 (600), Total War: Shogun 2 (600), Darkest Dungeon (350), Dungeon of the Endless (400), for multiplayer games I have Vermintide 2 (300 - a lot of that single player), and Paladins (600)
Though if I was just going off steam record it would be Civ 5 (1100) and the Sims 3 (350), but that is because my wife also played those games so that's really two people.
In terms of games I've played for the longest time though: Dawn of War: Soulstorm. While Steam says I only have 400 hours in it, I started playing the game back in 2005 and have played it off and on since then.
-
Generally multiplayer games will see a lot more play. Involving other humans has a social aspect, but it also keeps the game unique. Like I really loved the Batman Arkham series, but I only have a couple dozen hours in each game. Single player games are like a movie, the first time can be great, but it's never going to be better than the first play through (perhaps the only exception that comes to mind is the original Deus Ex). Multiplayer games frequently get better the more you get into the game.
This is, not surprisingly, why so many companies are trying to monetize it.
Strategy games are perhaps the next closest comparison if they appeal to the player. They frequently have a lot of variety in tactics and the difficulty slider means you can make the game feel fresh once you get good at it.
Simulator games (ala The Sims) also see people in their communities play into the thousands of hours.
-
Original Post
Why does the survivor experience need it's hand to be held I don't understand! That's the problem with these new games today they're dumbed down!Same poster slightly later
Hey! I don't care about all that, the whole point is the killer experience is now significantly harder!You simultaneously complain about survivors wanting a 'dumbed down' experience and then complain that killer might be harder.
-
I have no idea why the Bubba's do it. I don't know how they don't get bored.
Had two games earlier with face camping Bubbas. In the first game the other survivors went for an unhook, got downed, and he kept face camping. In the second game we spotted that the Bubba was camping so we all stayed on gens. He managed to get a second survivor, but that was the game for him. Chase, down, sit, chase, down, sit. Not sure how the player is having fun.
-
I hear the footsteps without a problem as well.
-
I've actually used quite a few of these "useless" perks.
Bloodhound: It's a bit of a noob perk, but its a useful one. Makes it really easy to find injured survivors. The additional time blood pools stay visible isn't bad either, sometimes you'll come across a trail of blood and it will point the direction you should be going.
-Sloppy Butcher + Bloodhound + Willingness to Tunnel, anytime someone gets unhooked race back to the hook, even if they've fled you'll still be able to track them down.
Predator: Again, more for players who aren't that experienced, but does make it easier to follow survivors.
Beast of Prey: I was actually giving this one a go recently. Can be helpful against a survivor playing mind games in high walled loops. I've had survivors who had been looping me efficiently suddenly not know what to do once the blood lust kicked in.
Furtive Chase: Never really tried.
Hangman's Trick: It's a middling aura reading perk. The warning about the hook sabotage is not a big deal. The better use is while carrying the survivor to the hook you'll usually see a survivor or two (requires you to spin around while walking), and occasionally it will let you know if they are grouping up to body block the hook. It's inferior to other aura reading perks, but does avoid some of their downsides.
-if they increased the radius of the hook reads it would easily be viable.
Huntress Lullaby: Devastating to newer players. Makes skill check failures really frequent.
Insidious: Yeah, outside camping Bubbas, it's awful, though for him its necessary.
Unrelenting: If you find yourself getting juked by survivors this can turn the tables as they aren't prepared for how quickly you can swing again. But if you usually don't miss swings its pointless.
-
I don't think any of these perks are "useless" (though I hate basement Bubbas and would be happy for Insidious to disappear), though most of them are clearly geared toward newer players. None of them are close to being the strongest perks, but that's more of an issue that killers have some perks that are just really powerful.
-
I wouldn't mind the hook down times being a bit longer, but as others have said sabo is hard to pull off, but when you do it is a huge reward. Not only did the killer waste time going to the hook, but now they are back into the chase again.
Like many things with DbD, it comes down to soloQ vs SWF. It's hard as a SWF, but doable, while it generally requires just the right circumstances with a soloQ to pull off.
-
While I wouldn't say 4k slugging is common, when it happens it is so incredibly frustrating. Sure, I'll alt tab to something else, but just ridiculous that this is something that can happen in the game. If it's down to two survivors (maybe even three), downed survivor should have the same suicide option they get on the hook.