Bad gameplay to win (killers)
Comments
-
"hatch is gameplay" - OK, well so is the killer doing all the things you don't like. It's all part of the gameplay. You are just choosing to only complain about the gameplay that YOU don't like and making no attempt to view things from the other side's perspective.
0 -
and it never gets enforced because you need video evidence.
0 -
If a Killer got a 4K because teammates are bad they still earned that 4k because they still had to spend the time chasing, downing and hooking everyone. Sure it may have been an easy time because the teammates were bad but that’s the fault of the teammates, not the Killer.
The Killer made their choice in avoiding the good looper until the end, killed two people and incapacitated the third in order to buy time so they can go after the fourth. That is a good play by the Killer and doesn’t show any poor skill. A bad Killer would just keep chasing the good looper and lose all the gens.
The hatch is hand holding mechanic due to the fact that it only appears after three Survivors are dead in order for the final Survivor (regardless if they were a good looper or not) to have a chance to escape by bypassing the objectives they originally needed to complete.
0 -
The killer couldn’t catch me and does not deserve a 4K that they didn’t earn, despite my teammates being horrible.
But the killer made the right play. You are not supposed to waste your time chasing a survivor that is difficult to catch.
Knowing when to drop chase is a skill you have to learn.
0 -
No need to apologize, we're just two people having a conversation even if our opinions don't align. I don't think any less of you as a person regardless what your stance is, and I wouldn't say you're being difficult you're just expressing your opinion. I appreciate this conversation and want to clarify that none of my points are meant to be personal or disrespectful. I’m passionate about the game, so if I sound intense at times, please know it's just my love for discussion, not a reflection of how I feel about you as a person. It's never that deep lol.
To break it down point by point:
"I’m holding Survivors to the same standard they hold Killers."I disagree because you're expecting survivors to meet multiple objectives (completing gens, being a good teammate, and escaping with doors) while holding killers to a simpler standard of getting kills, no matter how they achieve them. Survivors can play skillfully (looping, evading) but you suggest they’ve "failed" if they don’t finish gens. Meanwhile, killers can use less skillful tactics (like tunneling or camping) to get kills regardless of gens progress wether they've popped or not, and still be considered successful. This feels like an imbalance in expectations and standards.
"Killers are bad if they tunnel, camp, slug, or use certain perks."This is a generalization, but I understand why you bring it up. Many players (myself included) dislike these tactics because they remove a lot of the skill expression and counterplay the game offers. It’s similar to how killers dislike perks like old MFT or Distortion—because they can shut down entire strategies with minimal effort. The frustration comes from the fact that these tactics require little effort to perform, but much more effort to counter. In addition to counter you must get perks that are not free, that will take up perk slot space when the killer can do these things without perks, and have an additional build. And the counter perk themselves have restrictions.
For example, OTR gives you protection from being tunneled but for a limited amount of time, and you are restricted from making any kind of progress in the game, and it disables in endgame. Imagine if Lightborn had these kind of restrictions or disabled at end game? Lightborn is important, killers need an optional perk to counter flashlights, flash bangs etc because getting a down is pressure, and that doesn't change for either side. But if Lightborn wasn't a free perk, and it only worked for "x" amount of time after picking a survior up, and it disabled in end game, I can understand why people would feel frustrated with that. And this can only happen because survivors brought flashlights. If we're using the tunneling example, then the surviors could blind you without even needing the item, because they could do it baseline. But in order to counter something they can do without a perk, you would still need a perk, and the counter comes along with all those restrictions. To question why players are frustrated or complain about this feels very obvious.
"If Survivors need to escape through hatch, they’re bad."This simplifies the survivor experience unfairly. The hatch isn’t a sign of failure; it’s a secondary win condition for survivors who outlast their team. Expecting a lone survivor to complete multiple gens in a 1v1 is unrealistic and unreasonable. No survivor can out-gen a killer solo. Hatch is a balance mechanic that gives the last survivor a chance to escape, just like how killers can shift their tactics based on game progress.
"Killers earn the time from slugging by outplaying survivors."I didn’t argue against slugging, but rather pointed out that the hatch isn’t a "hand-holding" mechanic. Just as killers earn their advantages by applying pressure, survivors who reach the hatch have earned their opportunity by surviving that long. Slugging for pressure is valid, but survivors outlasting their team to reach the hatch should be recognized as well. But I wasn't the person who commented on Slugging, that was someone else.
"The hatch makes it easier for survivors because they no longer need to do gens."The hatch isn’t a hand-hold, it’s a balancing tool. A 1v1 against a killer always in favor of the killer, and the hatch gives that lone survivor interaction with the game to reach the end state. It’s not a guarantee of escape, it’s a last chance, just like how endgame perks give killers a last chance when gens are finished. To take away one without the other is unreasonable.
"Good loopers deserve endgame but not the hatch."If a survivor has outlasted their team, have not been killed by the killer and made it to the endgame, they’ve earned the chance to escape through the hatch. It’s not a free win. It’s the game’s way of making it possible to progress in the game because the objectives created were not designed to be possible to complete for 1 person. Dismissing the hatch escape disregards the effort required to reach that point.
To clarify, I’m not arguing that killers shouldn't have a chance 4k. My stance is the last survivor also deserves a chance to escape via the hatch because outlasting an entire team and evading getting killed by the killer until endgame isn’t a sign of failure. If killers can still win regardless of whether gens are popped, a single survivor should have a chance to win regardless of gens too.
To argue against this seems like a double standard, where one sides objectives are downplayed while the others are inflated. If the game were balanced for one survivor to complete all gens and open the gates solo, there would never have been a need for four to begin with. But it is not possible because killer will always rightfully be dominant in a 1v1. Survivors do not win or lose as a team—they win or lose individually. Punishing a lone survivor for the failures of others is unfair. I believe both sides should have a fair chance to adapt and win, which is why the hatch mechanic is a way to balance things out. It’s not even guaranteed every time. If the last survivor always automatically escaped, I’d understand the frustration or the feeling of being robbed. But that’s not the case.
Expecting one survivor to complete a game designed for four, without holding the killer to a similar standard, feels like saying, "If I got a 3k, I should automatically get a 4k," which comes off as more entitled than anything else. If the rule were that if three survivors escaped, the last one automatically did too, that would be equally ridiculous.
The killer deserves a chance to secure their final/possibly only kill at endgame, just as the last survivor deserves a chance to escape.
2 -
While annoying yes there's nothing you can really do about it other than hope for better teammates to get you in that situation less.
0 -
First, I’m glad that we can have a reasonable conversation with no hate, name calling or denigrating. I wasn’t worried about you being passionate, it was more so about me being stubborn and emotional (I could never be a world leader, my emotions would destroy the planet 😭).
I actually had to go over your responses a few times and I hate saying this because we all know The Bush is never wrong, but you’re correct with your stance. After taking time away from the conversation and just thinking about it what you’ve written. I realized was letting my aggravation with the OP and their rant, along with my stubbornness, control my train of thought rather than be rational. For that, I apologize. I have issues, and it can be hard for me to not be argumentative. It’s a horrible trait that I have and one that I hope I one day can leave behind and become a better version of myself.
Don’t expect the change to happen over night and do expect to see me make snippy comments in the future, even if I’m wrong, just because I’m a spiteful Bush.
Thank you for the discussion.
This never happened and The Bush is always(hardly ever) correct 😉
1
