https://dbd.game/4rHHkF5
Please remove the unhook notification
I understand that people will always camp and tunnel as long as it’s the most viable/low effort way to win, but can we please get rid of the unhook notification or at the very least get rid of it for mobility killers? I’ve watched so many people literally drop chase with an injured survivor, just to go back and tunnel when they hear the notification. Efficient? Yes. Very lame to play against tho.
Comments
-
Why should you be able to get a 100% safe unhook?
-2 -
how is it 100% safe? You can still proxy and see if the unhook happened.
13 -
it’s not 100% safe unhook. there are 2 other notifications that killers get when someone is unhooked (hud and visual cue). there shouldn’t be 3 notifications when someone gets off hook. also the loud noise is very unhealthy. it teaches new killers to always go back to the unhook which artificially increases the chances of killers instantly going back to the hook in all matches.
the removal of the loud noise notification unhook and post-unhook Elusive really should’ve came to the game.
15 -
How would you feel if you didn't get a notification when killers hooked a surv?
-2 -
it’s an asymmetrical game. Different impact and it’s totally disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
4 -
we survived years without seeing hook stages i don't see why removing unhook noises would be a big deal. we are already expected to sharpen our game senses
15 -
They really need to do this. It would be such a blessing for the games health
12 -
So you’ve seen a killer make a smart decision to regain or maintain pressure, and because it worked, it’s now “unhealthy” and “lame”?
And because you personally find it lame, we’re supposed to make a balance decision around that and remove the unhook notification from the game?
While we’re at it, can we remove flashlights too? I always have to turn to a wall before picking someone up. Very lame to go against.
If “that worked against me and I didn’t like it” becomes the standard for balance changes, then no mechanic survives.
-9 -
attempting to nerf killers more like always this will effect the weaker killers more than the killers that can actually win.
-9 -
make a smart decision to regain or maintain pressure
Is it, though?
The example OP used is dropping chase with an injured survivor to go back to hook. So the options presented here are either:
A) continue chasing an injured survivor, presumably who is one hit from downed. The unhooked survivor and the unhooker spend time healing (not on gens), and you finish a chase with a down and hook (also not on gens). That's an awful lot of slowdown (time survivors aren't on gens) that results in a hook (pressure) and recovery time (more pressure).
B) expend time dropping chase to cross the map again, interrupting the recovery, so the unhooker and the previous chase survivor go back to doing gens. Then you chase the unhooked survivor who is also injured, but now has unhook protections on top of that.
So, in the first scenario you have a hook almost complete, two survivors who will voluntarily not do gens while you finish that chase/hook if you just leave them alone, and you don't have to waste your time crossing the map.
In the second, you leave two survivors with no choice but to go do gens, expend time crossing the map to chase the person who automatically has more chase left in them.
So, in the "back to hook" scenario here, you're actively giving up map pressure and spending extra time in the hope that you can regain that time back after the first survivor dies. That's the opposite of map pressure, and it's highly debatable if that's the "smart" play in the scenario they gave, especially since other factors are missing here (like map, killer, builds, gens remaining, proximity of chase to hook). It's certainly not automatically the best play with just the information given.
Having survivors not doing gens is the basic definition of map pressure, either by requirement/response to things the killer does, or voluntarily.
Which brings me to the next thing you brought up:
While we’re at it, can we remove flashlights too
Sure, every time killers complain about survivors voluntarily choosing not to do gens, BHVR seems to nerf or remove it and survivors go back to doing gens... (Which leads to complaints about gen speeds and gen "rushing") So I find it interesting that you complain about "being 'smart' for map pressure" and yet would also prefer survivors do gens instead of voluntarily choosing to do literally anything else (voluntary pressure, effectively).
4 -
I think the point of my post completely flew over your head.
My post wasn’t about whether going for the hook was the right choice or not. Obviously that’s situational and depends on the value in that moment. That was never the argument being made.
The argument you’re trying to create has nothing to do with what OP actually said.
He wants the unhook notification removed because it’s “lame.” That’s the entire premise.
So I’m not sure why you decided to segment a piece of my post just to start arguing about something that’s completely irrelevant to the point I was responding to.
OP himself said that it’s "efficient".
So I find it interesting that you complain about "being 'smart' for map pressure" and yet would also prefer survivors do gens instead of voluntarily choosing to do literally anything else (voluntary pressure, effectively).
? completely lost me here.
1 -
wouldn’t bother me tbh.
-1 -
I don't understand how anyone can call what op said a nerf, If you really still want to go back to hook when the unhook happens just pay attention to the HUD. all it is removing is the notification aspect.
8 -
From time to time I think and I beg you not to eat me alive for this but… how about if you get unhooked there is a sound clue but not for the unhooked one but for the unhooker? Like the Entitus ratting the one out which interrupted the sacrifice?
Maybe let it be delayed but show the Killer how he can keep his pressure but on another target? This would work with a time delay ofcourse so that the unhooked person can run away. (Maybe hide scratch marks and so on needed to be tested.
-2 -
bro just say you only play one side and move on lol
2 -
This has been suggested a lot. They should try it. It's a small thing that might help a lot, particularly againat players who brainlessly drop chase and return to the hook as soon as they hear it. You still have the HUD and your eyes. They could also just delay the sound by, say, 5s.
15 -
The PTB proved though that it was a horrible idea. If you remove the notification on unhook then there is literally 0 reason for survivors to just heal right under hook and the killer loses all pressure.
-11 -
That is one of the things which could have come to Live Servers without any issue. Yet they also scrapped it. It would not even reduce tunneling by much, since most of the time the Killer who is tunneling is not that far away and if you pay attention to the HUD (which is not that hard to have one eye on the HUD for the whole match) you would see the Unhook happening right away.
But then tunneling would require a bit more brain power than just waiting for the sound que to get back to the Hook, like it is nowadays.
10 -
Yes, but without the notification the killer doesn't know when to go interrupt, so it becomes free. At least right now if you guess t hey heal under hook, you can go back and interrupt them.
-12 -
How about we stop stripping killer of everything? If important game state information is bad and "lame" lets ditch the survivor HUD then! Seems only fair. Why should one side get more and more info and the other get less and less?
-8 -
I wouldn't have an issue with this. Not a big deal.
5 -
I don’t only play one side though. It’s just funny that when reason and logic aren’t on some players side, the rebuttal suddenly becomes “you must only play killer.”
Instead of addressing the argument itself, the response shifts to labeling the person making it. It’s an easy way to avoid engaging with the actual point.
But that’s pretty typical of the DBD community. When the mechanics and logic don’t support the complaint, the conversation usually pivots to assumptions about who you play instead of what you said.
-5 -
Re-read your post I replied to. OP describes a scenario he encountered as an example of why this mechanic isn't necessary and probably leads to bad habits.
Your first response is to say:
So you’ve seen a killer make a smart decision to regain or maintain pressure,
So I'm not sure why you're confused here. OP is arguing that maybe the game shouldn't train new killers to follow notifications around, and you ignore all context surrounding this scenario they're describing to just say it's "the smart play". That's not OP's argument, that's your assessment.
I'm trying to point out that it isn't always a smart play, and based on the situation OP specifically calls out, it's probably not the correct play unless there's some extreme circumstance involved. (like looping near hook, which would also make the entire arguments about the notification moot since it's right next to you).
5 -
If this change would do next to nothing, then what exactly is the point of it?
You said it would only hurt killers who “autopilot.” Let’s assume that’s true for whatever that means for the sake of argument. Is autopiloting in that situation a balance issue? Is it somehow overpowered?
Because that’s the part some players don’t seem to understand, when you propose a nerf, you have to demonstrate where it actually affects balance.
Removing information from the killer is objectively a nerf. So why would we nerf something that doesn’t have a balance problem?
If the justification is simply that it feels better or seems less “lame,” that isn’t a balance argument. That’s an emotional reaction leading to an illogical conclusion.
At that point, it’s just noise rather than meaningful balance feedback
-6 -
You said it would only hurt killers who “autopilot.” Let’s assume that’s true for whatever that means for the sake of argument. Is autopiloting in that situation a balance issue? Is it somehow overpowered?
If you dont understand what that means I have to assume you are trying to not understand it, but I will explain regardless - currently the Killer has to just listen to the Unhook Notification if they want ot tunnel. With the removal of the Notification, the Killer would still see the exact moment the Unhook happens, they just would need to:
- pay attention to the HUD
- remember where the Hook was
Both very manageable I would say. Survivors also have to pay attention to the HUD. If I am on a Gen, I cannot just ignore the HUD and overlook that the other two Survivors are also on Gens when one is hooked. Someone of us has to watch the HUD and decide to go for the Save. Killers on the other hand get a directional signal which basically is a big sign with "Tunnel here and now". Removing that would have barely any impact, except for those Killers who really are on autopilot.
Saying that Comms are cheating already disqualifies everything you said.
But aside from that, the Killer does not need to check it manually. They just have to look at the HUD at some point. Like the Survivors have to do as well.
Post edited by Balrog on12 -
I’m not sure what post you’re reading, because that isn’t what OP said.
OP described a scenario where the value of dropping chase or continuing it could go either way depending on the situation. But in context he’s clearly referring to situations where going for the unhooked survivor is the most efficient decision.
He literally says in his post “at least remove it for mobility killers.” He also acknowledges that the play is efficient. So using some basic common sense, it’s pretty clear he’s talking about scenarios where going for the unhook makes the most sense.
And the reason he wants the notification removed is because he considers it “lame.”
Instead of addressing that point, you derailed the conversation and started arguing about whether dropping chase is even a smart decision in the first place.
That has nothing to do with what OP said or what I was responding to.
So I'm not sure why you're confused here. OP is arguing that maybe the game shouldn't train new killers to follow notifications around, and you ignore all context surrounding this scenario they're describing to just say it's "the smart play". That's not OP's argument, that's your assessment.
What exactly are you reading? OP never said that. He never mentioned new players once, and that was never his argument. I think you might be on the wrong post.
argument, that's your assessment.
I'm trying to point out that it isn't always a smart play, and based on the situation OP specifically calls out, it's probably not the correct play unless there's some extreme circumstance involved
Nobody ever said it was always the smart play, which is why your response is confusing.
The situation OP described could go either way depending on the circumstances. But in this case he clearly makes it obvious he’s talking about scenarios where going for the unhook is the most efficient decision.
That’s the context the discussion was based on.
-7 -
I'm in two minds about a change like this, personally.
On the one hand, it would be a slight knock to tunnelling. Without the notification to autopilot, especially on higher mobility killers, tunnelling becomes slightly more committal; you need to be keeping an eye on the hook UI, and splitting your attention like that can cause you to make mistakes. Not a bad outcome for the game's biggest balance problem, even if it doesn't fix it outright.
On the other, the loud noise notification does have some legitimate application letting the killer keep up their macro tracking. It wouldn't be impossible to gain that macro tracking back by keeping an eye on the HUD… but like I said above, splitting your attention like that can lead to mistakes. Not a great outcome for one of the game's bigger avenues for skill expression on killer.
A compromise I personally do like is to put it on a perk, like they did for the 9.3.0 PTB- just, y'know, not the same perk, that was kind of a nightmare.
I'd propose Slippery Meat as the candidate. It's a universal perk, so everyone has it, and it's also kind of a bad perk with an unhealthy design at the moment. Reworking it to remove the unhook notification then maybe one small scaling effect for perk tiers would be a win all around in my opinion.0 -
I disagree because whileit would be good anti-tunnel, it would also remove some other strategic plays involved. For example on Twins (especially using leverage) staying like 50m near the hook and going to interrupt heals/chase unhooker can be an effective way to maintain your pressure, same with oni. It also mitigates the need for aura perks.
Plus there are plenty of perks on the survivor end that help provide safety on onhook, not just the anti-tunnel perks but resurgence, renewal etc, which already make unhooks safe enough imo.
-4 -
It was also available to playtest in the 9.2.0 PTB, and I genuinely liked the idea as an isolated case.
0 -
Same. Agreed 💯
-2 -
so information while the killers are getting misinformation? You know how double edged that sounds?
-8 -
I don't think simply removing the explosion audio/visual effect would do anything to really stop tunneling, but I mean…sure, why not. Try it.
I don't ever want to see that black bar nonsense they tried again though. Removing the ability to deduce what perks might be in play and who is healing who from the HUD is bad.
0 -
If killer knows when the unhook happens, survivor HUD should be upgraded so they know exactly which gens other survivors are working on. Seems only fair.
That's the problem with the 'seems only fair' arguments in an asym, we can endlessly go around on things one side has that the other doesn't, because that's the whole concept of the design.
-1 -
You explaining what “autopilot” means doesn’t change the point.
Is it unbalanced?
Calling something “autopilot” isn’t a justification for an information nerf. Where is the balance issue? How does this information actually disrupt the balance of the game?
Putting a label on it doesn’t suddenly make it a problem. “Autopilot” isn’t an argument — it’s just a word being used to justify a nerf that hasn’t been shown to fix any balance issue.
0 -
Not to speak on someone else's behalf, but it's what the killer is autopiloting that matters here. It autopilots their ability to tunnel a survivor, so yes, it's unbalanced.
3 -
For how often I hear complaints about getting 'too much handholding', it's almost surprising to see people defend an aspect that is purely and exclusively handholding to such an extent.
…Almost.
2 -
Lol, so being notified when and where someone was unhooked, and deciding to run back to the hook after it happens, is now considered OP?
So killers shouldn’t be notified when and where an unhook occurs because they might tunnel during that window?
That’s the argument?
This is just another undercover “tunneling is OP” post, isn’t it?
-6 -
…It's not undercover, man, everyone's been talking about tunnelling this entire time.
5 -
Yeqh honestly the loud notification makes me want to go back to hook even I want to chase someone else. It's kinda hit that subsconscious instinct.
3 -
I mean, it’s pretty subtle given that OP’s reasoning for the info nerf was simply that it’s “lame.”
Maybe it would’ve been more transparent to just say the real argument outright, that tunneling is overpowered when done in that situation.
Not saying this was necessarily OP’s intention, but it does seem like some players who think tunneling is OP try to frame their arguments around smaller changes like this instead of stating it directly, because it sounds more reasonable that way.
But if the underlying issue being argued is tunneling, then that should be the discussion, not removing information from the killer and pretending it’s a balance issue.
-5 -
To be fair, they mentioned tunnelling directly twice, I'm really not sure how much more clear they could've been. Specifically their phrasing was that the killer dropped a chase to "go back and tunnel when they hear the notification".
That's also what everyone else has been talking about, at least if they're in favour of this change. The unhook notification is being linked to tunnelling and therefore discussed as a potential way to alleviate tunnelling as a problem.
Even the person you were talking with when I replied, they're talking about tunnelling, they say it outright. I think you might've just misread a few posts? No shade, it happens to the best of us.
-1 -
Why are you trying to reframe what I just said as “he never mentioned tunneling”?
That’s not what I said.
I said he never made it clear that the reason he wants the information nerf is because tunneling in that situation is overpowered. The only reason he actually gave was that it’s “lame.”
So I think you’re the one misreading here.
-7 -
My point is more that if someone suggests a balance change, and their reasoning exclusively references tunnelling, it's pretty implied that they think tunnelling is a problem.
That is the context under which people are discussing the balance change. The actual reason OP gave was tunnelling, which they describe as both efficient and lame to go against.
I was attempting to be charitable because I thought you might've missed the phrasing of going back "to tunnel" and only saw the part where they describe it as lame.
It's the only reason people are discussing the unhook notification to begin with, that tunnelling is therefore a problem is implied. It's not like it's a particularly hot take, even if you personally disagree it's a very common sentiment that tunnelling is an issue.3 -
He made it clear in his post that the reason it’s a problem for him is because he thinks it’s “lame,” not because it’s overpowered.
People can think something is a problem for different reasons. In OP’s case, the reason he gave was that it’s lame.
You’re pointing out that he implied it’s a problem, which is obvious, but what you’re ignoring is the reason he gave for it being a problem.
If the real argument is that it’s overpowered, then that should have been the argument made.
-8 -
This will literally just increase instant/near instant saves, thereby increase proxying, thereby increasing camping, thereby defeating the purpose? At this point we should just let the survivors teleport to lockers after being unhooked. You already have base kit haste and endurance, plus anti camping measures. Like what more do you want lol
-8 -
Alright, I'll admit it, I did misunderstand your position.
I will say though, that's really nitpicky. Tunnelling being unbalanced is an extremely common sentiment, I don't think everyone should be expected to state outright that they also think that when suggesting ways to address tunnelling. That part is still basically implied if someone's talking about it as a problem. Going against unbalanced cheese is definitely something many would call lame.
It also doesn't really convey any disagreement you might have with the idea. It's possible OP wouldn't agree that tunnelling is unbalanced - that's a minority opinion among people who acknowledge it as a problem, but it does exist - but you're not exactly making any case against their idea either way, just nitpicking their phrasing.
8 -
I’m not nitpicking anything. I’m simply responding to OP’s actual argument.
What sense would it make for me to invent my own reason for why OP thinks the unhook notification is a problem when he already stated his reason in the post? Turning the reason he gave into something else isn’t fair. That would just be creating my own argument and pretending he made it.
If someone wants something nerfed or buffed, they need to provide a reason. And he did — he said it’s “lame.”
Saying “I want the unhook notification removed because tunneling with it is lame” is not the same as saying “I want the unhook notification removed because tunneling with it is overpowered.”
Those are two completely different arguments. One is about personal frustration, the other is about balance.
that's a minority opinion among people who acknowledge it as a problem, but it does exist - but you're not exactly making any case against their idea either way
Complaints about tunneling are pretty ancient at this point, and whenever they pop up in threads it’s almost cringe now. There’s a lot of fatigue around the topic because it’s been argued to death, the same points get repeated, and the same counterarguments always follow.
Because of that, some players try to frame changes more strategically to bring indirect nerfs to it. Sometimes it’s through killer adjustments, and sometimes, like in this case, it’s through the killer’s information mechanics.
The classic “tunneling is OP” post hasn’t really disappeared. It’s just evolved.
And sometimes it’s harder to spot now because the argument gets framed in a different way so it sounds more reasonable or more serious.
-7 -
I'm not sure I understand the back half of your response, if you wouldn't mind clarifying.
Posts about tunnelling still happen, yes, and posts about tunnelling have evolved to newer/updated ways of potentially addressing the issue. It's the part about it being "harder to spot" because of the argument being "framed" differently that confuses me.
Is that not just that people continue to talk about the problem? You can spot people talking about the problem because they mention the problem by name. I'm not sure if I'm missing something here?
4 -
Complaints about tunneling have been around forever, and people are pretty tired of the discussion at this point. The same arguments get repeated over and over, and the same responses always follow.
Because of that, some players don’t argue about tunneling directly anymore. Instead, they suggest changes that indirectly weaken it.
Sometimes those suggestions target specific killers. Other times, like in this case, they target the killer’s information mechanics.
So the “tunneling is OP” argument hasn’t really disappeared. It’s just being framed differently so it sounds more reasonable.
The real goal is often the same, but instead of saying it outright, the argument gets wrapped in smaller changes or different reasoning. That way it sounds less like “tunneling is OP” and more like a reasonable balance suggestion. They dont always say it outright because sometimes players wont even take them seriously. Its the same argument over and over and over with the same results.
-7 -
I'm really still not seeing the point, I'm afraid, but I'll try and elaborate on my understanding here.
So, tunnelling is a very old topic. It's been an issue since the start of the game's existence and it still exists, so people still post about it.
Because this is an old topic and has been discussed a lot, some people talk about fixes to tunnelling that try to approach the issue from different angles.All of this is still under the same framing, though. Players feel tunnelling is an issue worth fixing, and obviously that hasn't happened yet, and that's the entire framing. Tunnelling still exists and people still want to fix it.
Just saying "tunnelling is OP" isn't a reasonable suggestion, of course, it's not constructive, which is why people who want to address the issue generally lean towards suggesting specific changes like here.Nobody's trying to hide anything strategically, people just talk about the issue with the aim of trying to fix it. It's pretty upfront.
0
