Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on this and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
Get all the details on our forums: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/436478/sign-up-now-to-receive-a-recap-of-your-2024-dead-by-daylight-stats/p1?new=1
Slowdown Perks Should All Disable When Someone Dies
I've been thinking about this for a while, and I think it would be an appropriate + healthy change to the game to have all slowdown perks deactivate permanently when a survivor is sacrificed or killed, from a handful of angles. The major three reasons are these, though:
- It would work as an incentive to not tunnel to a degree, because tunnelling just disables your slowdown perks when you finish. Combined with the fact that the ACT of tunnelling is crazy inefficient and gives survivors a ton of generator repair for free unless you end chases very quickly, tunnelling would become a losing proposition for a lot of players.
- It would also serve to make games less hopeless for survivor teams if someone dies relatively early. Obviously if they die at five gens left you're screwed no matter what, but if it's any closer than that, the knowledge that at least the killer doesn't have anything outside of base kicks to regress generators with can help it seem a lot more like you have a real chance of winning.
- This one might be wishful thinking, but I would hope it would make stacking three or four slowdown perks less appealing, because you'd end up without any perks partway through the match. This would at least be a step towards addressing the obnoxious and unhealthy situation stacking slowdown perks creates.
There are sure to be some edge cases where what could arguably be called a slowdown perk probably shouldn't deactivate when someone dies, but for most of the major and dedicated slowdown perks, this would be completely appropriate. If you have someone dead, you categorically don't need slowdown perks anymore, and having them active would just make them win-more perks.
I can anticipate a reaction along the lines of "well then gen progression tools should be nerfed too!", but that's a little arbitrary and not that helpful. There's only one problematic gen progression tool currently - toolboxes - and those tend to blow their payload before you had a chance to sacrifice someone in most games anyway. I don't anticipate this change making toolboxes any worse to go against, but either way, toolboxes should be nerfed and it'd be appropriate to do both at the same time, so I guess go nuts there.
Comments
-
I was thinking about it that this was supposed to be change for pain res instead of % nerf.
But for most perks you have to buff them a lot for this to be deserved change.
8 -
Some of them, I don't know about most.
Pain Res would be fine, Deadlock and Grim Embrace would be fine, Eruption would be fine. Something like Jolt may need changes and you could probably justify buffing Pop again if this change were implemented.
Most slowdown perks are worth running right now, and separately, you don't need slowdown perks after someone's died. It stands to reason that what's worth running now would continue to be worth running if they disabled at the point where you no longer need them.
0 -
I proposed that idea specifically for grim embrace and pain res and got told that it would "kill the perks and variety". I actually like the idea. Tunneling and stacking slowdowns are the 2 most effective strats available, so I think they should be (somewhat) mutually exclusive.
2 -
I don't really think any of current slowdown perks should get this change without a buff, when many of them were already nerfed with 3-gen feature. Eruption and Surge most.
You don't need them at 3+ gens left, when someone dies. That's not really true with 1-gen left...
If you know you are going to lose your perks when someone dies, then you would slug like crazy, if you are in situation, where you need them.
Suddenly survivors giving up is an issue for both sides and you would definitely need to display hook counter to the killer.
2 -
I mean, something like Pain Res absolutely does not need a buff even with this hypothetical change because it's already the strongest thing killers have, and considering the 3-gen feature didn't have a meaningful effect on the performance of any slowdown perk save for maybe Eruption, I don't think they need changes because of that either. In the case of Eruption, it has its own problems that are largely independent of this change + is still good and viable even with those problems.
I am fine with killers slugging because that has answers on the survivor side, and the cases where it doesn't need changes anyway. I don't actually think that would be the answer, though, because I feel like killers would just try and swap between survivors to actually use their perks.
Even at one gen remaining, if you've been doing well, you don't need slowdown perks. If you're not doing well, slowdown perks won't save you, contesting the last gen with multiple survivors alive isn't worth it. You'd need to actually get someone killed, rather than stalling the gens. This change wouldn't really affect those situations, and in fact, might push some players into making better plays and winning more because of it.
1 -
If you'd only stack the strongest of the strongest perks that would maybe be okay even tho it would still be very weird because survivor perks also don't deactivate as soon as they hit 1-2 gens and all survivors are alive, but if I only use surge that doesn't do much on it's on and is for sure not too op it would be absolutely insane to deactivate it. The only way your idea could work at all is if it only gets deactivated if you stack more than 1 or 2 regression perks, everything else makes the perks just as useless as the version of ruin after the last nerf, they took that away again because they saw how useless the perk gets because of it.
And yet again (not regarded to your post but all posts that want to punish tunneling): A nurse or blight doesn't care about that punishment very much, a pig will absolutely die because of it, pig doesn't have the chase-speed to win through that and has to slowdown the game heavely, the traps are for sure not enough. Same with myers that is able to instadown but won't generate any preassure without slowdown.
2 -
I don't think that's true, because the time that Surge deactivates here is the time where you don't need slowdown perks anymore because there's an entire survivor no longer able to do generators no matter what.
That means that your average "one on hook, one in chase, one going for the save" scenario results in nobody doing generators. You just flat don't need slowdown perks when you're capable of making the generator efficiency hit 0% all through regular gameplay.
Plus, at this point, multiple survivors should be at least close to dead as long as you weren't tunnelling one person out, so you're not only in a position where gen efficiency is in shambles, you're also a lot closer to winning the game by default anyway.
Yes, weaker killers can use the help of slowdown perks… to help spread pressure and build towards dead survivors. Once someone's dead and others are on death hook, even Trapper doesn't need slowdown perks anymore.
1 -
Truth be told, this wouldn't be that bad. The only problem would be this games, that are the whole time on the razors edge, where you JUST barely manage to knock a gen down a bit to get the hook in and then speed back to defend that gen, etc. This games would completely fall to the survivors, because you would lose all of your defense tools.
I am not saying that every nerf had to be countered by an equal nerf to the other side, most of us can see past this, but the game is often too tightly balanced and I fear that we would lose the fun and tight games entirely with this change, if we don't reel in the survivors gen rushing abilities. I just have no good idea how so.
0 -
None of current slowdown perks need nor deserve such a change tho.
I would be fine with it for prenerf pop and pain res. Not now
3 -
Stacking slowdown perks hasn't gone anywhere, though. Neither has tunnelling someone out and using your slowdown perks afterwards for an even bigger advantage.
It's not that any individual pick is itself strong enough to warrant a huge downside, it's that they all exist in a game where they can be used in an extremely overbearing way, and this change would be to mitigate that without harming their ability to do their job.
2 -
I don't personally believe that kind of game would happen all that often, or at least not to the degree where it'll swing your games all too heavily. Even in those scenarios, where it's the last generator and you otherwise would've been able to stave it off a little longer, it's not as though that makes a huge difference and you've still got the endgame + a dead survivor to try and leverage.
Of course, it'd have to be tested, but my gut instinct is this wouldn't swing things too heavily.
0 -
That's just wrong on many killers, there are many killers that don't chase quick enough to kill efficiency that much by 3 people. Trapper wouldn't even get the tunnel out quick enough to make it possible without slowdown to win the 1vs3, at least if the survivors know what they doing. His chases take longer than the survivors take to save and heal, so they still make progress and you have to get that progress down somehow after the down, normal kicks are just worthless in most cases and waste probably more time than they give.
It's just not viable to go for more than one survivor if they're not potatoes, you will lose you gens insanely quickly even with slowdown xD
3 -
If you're tunnelling someone out and you're not doing it quickly, that's why you're losing gens so rapidly. If you don't capitalise on that hook by using it as leverage to drag two survivors off gens (one in chase, one saving) and start up consistent pressure, and instead stick by the hook and start tunnelling as soon as the save happens, that leaves two to three survivors doing whatever they want. Which, of course… is gens.
Slowdown isn't going to be enough to save you with this amount of inefficiency, and it shouldn't be. Not only because tunnelling is bad for the game and needs to be removed, but because you shouldn't be able to overcome bad play with perks. The scenarios you're describing are why I'm suggesting this change, you shouldn't have access to slowdown after tunnelling someone.
2 -
Stacking slowdown perks hasn't gone anywhere, though.
But it's way worse and combinations are more limited.
Just because it didn't completely go away, it's not a reason for another nerf...
they can be used in an extremely overbearing way
That's simply not true after 3-gen feature and all those nerfs.
this change would be to mitigate that without harming their ability to do their job.
Slow down perks are already just shadows of past.
It doesn't make sense to punish killer for killing someone, even more so when it can often be outside of killers control.
Current perks even combined are not that strong anymore.
Your change would make sense when you get them to strongest version and let 3-gen feature control them.
2 -
I don't personally believe that kind of game would happen all that often, or at least not to the degree where it'll swing your games all too heavily.
If you don't believe it would make a difference, then there is no reason to do it.
Why nerf it when it's not needed and it wouldn't make a difference anyway in your opinion?
2 -
All that is definitely not true. Slowdown perks are still good and viable individually, and can still be extremely oppressive when combined.
I will concede that most of the problematic combinations involve Pain Res specifically, but rather than just nerf that perk down again and wait for the next problematic combo to arise, I'd rather see the devs do something to address stacking slowdown and tunnelling with them.
If you don't stack slowdown, you'd still have your two/three other perks. If you don't tunnel, you'd have all your slowdown for longer. If you're playing well and fairly, you shouldn't notice this change severely harming you.
As an aside, your perk deactivating is not a punishment, it's just part of how the perks work. It wouldn't be punishing you for killing someone, it'd be incentivising you to spread your pressure before someone dies if you want to keep using your perks.
2 -
I don't believe my suggestion would affect games like the one described all that often. I do believe my suggestion would affect games where the killer has multiple slowdown perks and tries to tunnel someone out, which was the actual issue I aim to address.
2 -
it'd be incentivising you to spread your pressure before someone dies if you want to keep using your perks.
You clearly do not understand, how incentive works.
It doesn't do anything different for me if I avoid it, it affects me negatively if I do it. That's a punishment.
And it's going to affect me no matter what, because you have to kill someone in this game to win.
can still be extremely oppressive when combined.
Like what?
Pop was nerfed a lot and so was pain res. That combination is nowhere near as strong it used to be. That's how math works, if you lower %, it's less effective.
Eruption/Surge is trash used together.
Other gen kicking perks were nerfed to the ground and then obliterated with 3-gen feature.
Even just blocking nerfs were nerfed and their time is limited, those can't really snowball.
What is your combination that is not going to trigger 3-gen feature, there won't be negative synergy like pop and deadlock and it's going to be so oppressive that it needs a nerf?
1 -
You said you don't need slowdown perks when someone died, so even at 3-gen left those survivors are dead even with your feature...
Only situation where it is going to matter is when killer actually killed someone at low gens 1, or 2 left. Unless survivors were bodyblocking like crazy that doesn't happen against since 5 gens tunneling killers.
So you are giving free escape to survivors against killers that actually tried to play fair...
What would tunneling killers use? Corrupt, Deadlock, No Way Out (this one simply has to work) and maybe NOED or something.
With that build I am free to tunnel and don't care about your feature.
Issue is when I use slowdown perks to focus different survivors and I actively try to end the game on low gens. Suddenly this feature is definitely going to cost me those close games. So what to do about it? Only thing for me to do is get someone out of the game at gens I am confident playing without any slowdown. That's not 1 gen left...
So you try to combat tunneling by giving a need to tunnel sooner....
2 -
I understand how incentives and punishments work, yes. In order for it to be a punishment, you would have to end up worse off by the effect, which you're not. You're returned to default, because the effect of the perk is the incentive to play in a specific way.
Yes, you'll notice being returned to default in every game. You'll notice it when you don't need slowdown perks anymore because someone's dead. At least, you don't need slowdown perks at that point as long as you've gotten some work done and haven't focused all your attention on one survivor.
As to the combination topic, Pain Res + Pop is still very effective and oppressive. Less effective than "overwhelming" is still "very good". There's also combining Pain Res with Deadlock and Grim Embrace, both individually solid slowdown perks and also quite good when paired together. This, though, is where we'll take a stop and acknowledge the other half of the sentence, which is that they're especially oppressive when paired together with tunnelling. That's why I'm suggesting the change that I am, I think you shouldn't get to use these very strong perk combos if you tunnel someone out.
None of these combos are necessarily unbeatable, but that isn't the line, obviously. I laid out my three reasons why I think this would be a good idea, and I'm especially considering those three combined, not just individually- though it'd be good for those things individually too.
2 -
In order for it to be a punishment, you would have to end up worse off by the effect, which you're not.
Not working perks is worse effect...
For incentive it would need increased effect for each survivor hooked before someone dying.
Your change is not incentive. Perks are exactly same effective as now, they works exactly same until you do something and suddenly stop working. That's a punishment for killing a survivor.
Pain res and Grim embrace are incentive as perks, because they do something for hooking unique survivors.
Other perks simply are not affected in any way by it. Only difference is if someone died or not.
It would be an incentive if you bring unique survivor hooking as % buff for each of current slowdown perks. That gives reason to hook other survivor.
It's an incentive if I want this change to happen.
It's a punishment if I want to avoid it.
2 -
another post suggesting the killer should get punished for doing it’s objective… that’s like saying gens should be repaired 20% slower after 1 has finished.
1 -
Nope, not working perks is the default. If you didn't bring the perk, then you also wouldn't be getting their effect. Is that a punishment too?
You bring the perk because you want its effect, and because of that, you are incentivised to play a certain way in order to get that effect. If you bring, as a random example, the perk THWACK! but never actually kick a pallet or wall, you don't get the effect of the perk, because that perk incentivises kicking pallets or walls. You aren't being punished for not doing it, you're being incentivised to do it.
The incentive is the effect of the perk, it doesn't need to be stronger. You would already bring some of these perks because they're strong and desirable, and they would continue to be strong and desirable if you were incentivised to play well and play fair to maintain them.
2 -
Not a punishment, an incentive. You aren't put at worse than default, you're just returned to that default.
2 -
Seems like I am not good enough at explaining such a basic topic to you, so let's see if AI is better at this...
3 -
I'm not gonna argue against a chatbot, dude.
Though, for the record, that chatbot is agreeing with me in the last point lmfao
1 -
Your change is what reverts it to default. That's worse state than what was at start of the game, which were 4 working perks.
Your change has nothing to do with current effects of those perks, it only makes them worse.
1 -
Well, even chatbot knows the difference between incentive and punishment :D
I agree it would change how killers play, but call your change what it is.
It also wouldn't change how killers you want to fix play, it would only push everyone into trying kill a survivor faster.
There is definitely a threshold where I can reliably win with any killer without a slowdowns. That's definitely not 1 gen left, so your change would make me do it sooner than I do it now...
Incentive is something positive
Punishment is something negative
Perk not working anymore is positive or negative change for me?
I can't explain it more easily....
2 -
A few different perks (on both sides here, even) have deactivation conditions, and to my knowledge, none of them are punishments. There are also plenty of perks (again on both sides) that won't do anything unless you go out of your way to use them, and that also isn't a punishment just because you're being deprived of the perk's effects.
For all of those perks, you bring them knowing that they'll only do what you want under certain conditions, and you let that knowledge affect the way that you approach the game to try and maximise that value, either by activating the perks to begin with or by consciously avoiding their deactivation condition.
In other words, those perks incentivise you to play a certain way in order to get or maintain their effects. They don't punish you for not doing that, because the end result there is just that the perk doesn't do anything, it doesn't make you worse off than if you'd had an empty perk slot.
2 -
Those perks don't do it now.
Your change only makes them worse. That's simply not an incentive.
You can try to fit it into situation so it seems like it, but that's not done by your change. Your change is 100% negative for the killer. There is nothing good for the killer.
2 -
I mean, yeah, the only effects are negative compared to before. It's a nerf, those aren't supposed to make the thing better, lol.
It's just not a nerf that punishes the killer. They have to bring the perk, knowing that it'll deactivate under certain conditions, and change how they play accordingly. That's an incentive, not a punishment. If it were a punishment, they'd have to end up worse than just not bringing the perk to begin with.
The end result of this nerf is an incentive to play a certain way and keep your perk active.
1 -
Is killer in worse situation than start of the game after killing a survivor because of your change?
Yes
The end result of this nerf is to get killer avoid killing a survivor.
And as I have stated before it fails at this anyway....
It least for me, your change would make me kill survivor faster than I do it now.
Right now I am trying to wait until 2 gens left to even try find them, so I expect to kill them at 1 gen left. I simply wouldn't wait that long with your change on most killers.
It's simply impossible to put this on all slowdown perks anyway. It doesn't make sense for No Way Out for example.
2 -
The end result of this nerf is to encourage the killer not to kill someone as fast as possible. You don't need slowdown perks active if one survivor's dead and everyone else is on death hook, pretty categorically- and while that specifically can be hard to do consistently, the concept scales easily.
What I actually want this to do is the following: The killer would pick Pain Res, maybe picking Deadlock or something as some minor passive slowdown, but otherwise picking other perks that aren't slowdown. The killer would then focus on using all their Pain Res tokens rather than tunnelling someone out, because tunnelling someone out would be wasting tokens, and then focus on spreading pressure to keep their other, lesser slowdown perk active.
What I also want is that any killer who does tunnel someone out is at least not so overbearingly oppressive as someone who still has three Pain Res + Grim Embrace tokens left to spend on an already severely weakened team.
I'm fully aware this won't fix tunnelling on its own, but it'd be an appropriate step to take to both weaken tunnelling and achieve the other desirable goals of lessening slowdown stacking and encouraging more healthy play from the killer.
Finally, yes, I agree it wouldn't apply to every slowdown perk, I said that in the main post. It'd definitely only even be something to discuss for generator slowdown perks, so healing slowdown and endgame perks wouldn't be affected here.
2 -
The end result of this nerf is to encourage the killer not to kill someone
as fast as possibleIssue is your change works even if killer did it as late as possiible… While those who did it as fast as possible are still going to win anyway.
You are trying to use your example only on perks that are made exactly in mind to work as incentive. Those are Pain res and Grim embrace.
I said before I would use your idea to nerf instead just nerfing numbers. That would be good change.
It doesn't really work for Surge, Eruption, Pop and whetever other perk you would want to put this on. Those perks were made to work whenever the specific trigger happens, it doesn't matter if that survivor was never hook, or is dead hook. Those perks never worked as incentive to target unique survivors.
So if you want them to be incentives, then make them this way. It's not really difficult to do in my opinion and is actually something that would help the game.
Let's say Surge starts at 4% default regression, whenever I hook unique survivor it gets by 2%, so after I hooked everyone, then total regression is going to be 12%, but if I kill my first hooked survivor, I am going to be stucked at 6% for rest of the game.
You could rework even basekit kick regression exactly same way. You put base value lower than current and maximum value higher and the value gets stuck at whatever you are when survivor dies. For basekit maybe something like 3% and 1% for each unique hooked survivor.
That's how No Way Out works. You have base value and it gets better more unique survivors you hooked. With my way you could add this to No way out too.
That's how you make an incentive.2 -
We're kinda mixed feelings on this as while we'd like something like this, especially if things got rebalanced, we got some minor worries.
First worry is the players themselves. The sheer riot it would cause, while hilarious and most likely deserved, may actually cause an exodus of players or cause more to double up on "scummy" (unfun) tactics such as 4 man slugs (we don't have the highest opinion on the players so this maybe paranoia) in a form of "protest". Many make empty threats about this but we are genuinely worried if something major like this tips that scale to actually do this.
Then there's the whole swinging to death on first hook survivors, which would suck to have your one regression gone because of that. We're less empathetic to the stacking killers but this is a realistic problem. Having your perk gone because someone is a child isn't going to feel good.
Last is some edge cases. Having pop gone when we'd actually need it in a close match but then having it gone because that last hook was a death hook would also be something.
2 -
If the killer gets someone dead "as late as possible", and has been spreading their pressure enough that multiple other survivors have hook states on them and resources have been burned through, they no longer need slowdown. It's overkill at that point, they can win pretty handily just through continuing to play well.
As for everything else, you're just redesigning those perks to explicitly revolve around bouncing between survivors, when they'd be an incentive inherently if they deactivated when someone died. They're already good perks and people already want to use them, they would be incentivised to spread pressure if that's the way they'd get to keep using the perks.
I've given you examples of this before, perks incentivise doing the thing that activates them. Perks that activate on hook already, right now, with no changes, incentivise hooking. Perks that revolve around breaking pallets incentivise breaking pallets. Perks that deactivate when someone dies… incentivise not tunnelling.
I'm not even necessarily against some of those ideas, but what you're describing is ALSO an incentive. It's another WAY of incentivising people. What I'm describing is too.
0 -
Hmm, you bring up a fair point with that second one, I hadn't considered hook suicides.
That might be the spanner in the works that stops it from being viable until such time as hook suicides are addressed, however that ends up happening- if at all.
Though, equally, if you have someone out of the match that quickly, you kinda don't need slowdown that much. A 3v1 would be very difficult to win against even perkless killers unless they're really bad, so maybe that wouldn't be such a huge problem?
1 -
Sure, if it's only when someone dies at like 5-4 gens. Oftentimes there's a couple of gens with 50-89% progress that are basically done and regressing them is crucial to winning the game.
0 -
I mean, I don't see how?
Maybe if everyone's still alive at one gen remaining, but at that point you've already been performing poorly and slowdown isn't exactly going to save you. Plus, at worst, you're trading one generator for a dead survivor, which is a much bigger advantage.
I'm open to this being proven wrong in testing, but I genuinely feel that close games the way some people have described them aren't won by slowdown, especially not with someone dead. They're won by dismantling the team's efficiency by snowballing off a down.
1 -
Slowdown has absolutely saved me during close games with a lot of back and forth. Are you serious? Sometimes a clutch pain res is the only thing that's saved a game for me in a 3v1 where I killed a surv late in the game.
Maybe because I play mostly low tier killers with very little slowdown but I find myself in this situation more often than you'd think. One dead survivor is not always worth a completed gen if there is good progress across all remaining generators. If the last two gens are again, between 50-80% and there's three survivors left it's well within the realm of possibility for them up complete them vs a killer without good mobility. Your thinking is too binary; you're imagining a completed or fresh gen when there are many states in-between. Saying my perk shouldn't enable a comeback in that circumstance is unfair.
1 -
We're not talking about necessary but how the players feel. We agree that you don't particularly need slowdown but as said, gonna feel cheated if you lost it due to a tantrum. But again, these are just minor things we're worried about if this happens.
And too be fair, the 3 of us have very nearly gotten 5 gens as a swf many times in those situations, the killer doesn't need to be bad, the survivors just have to be better.
2 -
Given that they removed this from ruin, I doubt they're going to implement anything this drastic anytime soon.
The only perks that even have anything close to this mechanic currently are thana, and dying light - if you kill the obsession.
0 -
I was thinking about this recently on the topic of 2v8 game mode. After watching the devs vs fog whisperer matches, it seems apparent that the gens pop really fast and most survivors will escape. I don't necessarily think that is a bad thing in and of itself. But I do think it might be healthy for the killers to have tools to slow the game down just a little. While thinking about that, the idea occurred to me that killers in this game mode should have some kind of gen slow down based on the number of living survivors.
I don't hate the idea of applying something like this to generator perks on the live format either. Instead of maybe an all or nothing approach, what if gen related perks were 50% less effective for each survivor killed? That way killer perks aren't completely useless after the first kill but it does ease the pressure on remaining survivors somewhat. I do agree though, when there are only 2 survivors left then the killer doesn't need any gen perks. The game is basically over at that point anyway. I would even go so far as to say that when there are only 2 survivors left, they should get an innate bonus to gen repair speed.
0 -
Idk about a healthy change because this only really accounts for what if you tunneled someone out at the start / midgame, but the question is how many hooks is a fair amount of hooks to get before a survivor dies and at that point would it be fair to have slowdown working.
So lets say just an arbitrary number of hooks you get 6 hooks and on that 6th hook you killed a survivor, meaning you did any combination of hooking the other 3 survivors 3 times aka either 1 each 2/1/0 ect would it be fair for this game state to then lose all slowdown perks
What if you play extremely fair and at what is probably the turning point in the match the 9th hook when someone finally dies you lose all slowdown and can't close out the match anymore, would those players be incentivized to keep playing that way
Basically read down the list of potential hook counts and ask would it be fair to punish a killer for having a kill after only this many hooks
3 hooks (aka only one guy) probably
4 hooks an argument can be made
5? 6? 7?
Theres too many game states to this to just say a blanket thing like when someone dies disable all slowdown perks and expect it to go well, but there are game states where you could very easily say the killer doesn't deserve any slowdown.
Although I will say if this was implemented there should be a mechanic to use another survivors hook state, the distortion Claudette hiding in a corner never being hooked shouldn't get to just watch you lose your slowdown and finally start doing gens so as killer you should be able to choose to "siphon" a hook state from another survivor in the trial rather than hook the same survivor
0 -
Anti-tunnel perks should disable when i have less hooks then generators completed. that is equivalent stalemate to make. Making slowdown perks get disabled when kills someone just enforces people to run Corrupt+deadlock because those perk are unaffected by said change as those perks enable the killer to tunnel.
Killer already have bad perk variety as is vs good teams, we don't need more perk restrictions to limit killer slowdown perk pool.
1
