Hooked Survivor Timers
Revised Version 1.1
I'd like to suggest a feature, or in this case, the removal of a feature that could help change player behavior. Everyone can see the hook timers or hook progression for hooked survivors. I suggest removing hook timers from everyone's view.
I think it's unfair to survivors that a killer could prevent them from being unhooked moments before a phase transition (ie, Struggle Phase or Sacrifice/Death phase) just because they are watching a timer. I think that unhooking, as an event, should not be as predictable as it currently is. Standing within 16m of a hooked survivor (I'm looking at you Kindred), specifically at phase transitioning intervals, would be considered a form of camping. Patrolling hooked survivors and rescuing survivors should be conscious decisions and not things that everyone has a sixth sense awareness of in the form a timer.
In my opinion, removing the timers would lead to less predictable saves and less camping. I believe making this change would do negligible damage to overall game play while also putting a significant dent in the number cases where camping is happening at or near phase transitions. I would like to remind everyone that camping, in any game, is some of the most complained about player behavior. While that may be true, I'm not saying that my suggestion would completely eliminate camping. It is my hope that removing hooked survivor timers would be a healthy game play change that could reduce frustration and increase levels of enjoyment and skill.
Original Version 1.0
I'd like to suggest a feature, or in this case, a removal of a feature that could help change player behavior. When playing as a Killer, I (everyone) can see the hook timers or hook progression for hooked survivors. I suggest removing hook timers from the killers view. I think it's unfair to survivors that a killer could simply check in on them around 60% and 10%. Standing within 16m of a hooked survivor, specifically at phase transitioning intervals, would be considered a form of "camping". Patrolling a hooked survivor should be a conscious decision and not one that everyone has a sixth sense awareness of in the form a timer. Removing the timers from the killers view would create an opportunity to test the killer's memory, provided that they are interested in said "camping" behavior. I believe making this change would do negligible damage to killer game play while putting a significant dent in some of the most complained about killer behavior.
Comments
-
Alternatively, remove the display of the timer from the survivors. The killer has a connection with The Entity. The survivors are just food. Not to mention that power roles in asymmetric games typically provide power by granting uneven information, which this would do.
10 -
@Huntar I guess I should have tagged this as a camping related suggestion/possible solution. Maybe I didn't make that a clear as possible in my original post.
Anyways, I'm not sure how your idea would discourage camping or change player behavior related to camping... Survivors don't need to see the timer to make a save. They could remove the timer for both sides (killer and survivors). That would be better than the live version. Unfortunately, the timer does promote staying in close proximity to a hooked survivor to prevent a save close to a phase transition (also known as camping). The timer also gives survivors a weaker sense of urgency. Often they think they have more than enough time, but they end up waiting until it's too late. I guess what I'm trying to say is the timer hurts both sides more than it helps. Clearly, the timer helps the killer more and it probably should, but it leads to camping which is frowned upon in most player versus player games. Feedback is feedback and I thank you for it.
1 -
ok but need return and give to legion see timer deep cut.. I think it's unfair to killers that a survivors could simply check information about hex .I think it's unfair to killers when survivors using voice programs.I think it's unfair when EGC timer slow when survivor on hook.and when deep cut timer always stop.
Lul.
2 -
I agree with @Huntar . while the killer often checks at the intervals, if survivors could not see when the transition will take place they'd likely be less predictable in regards to timing. Survivors would instead make the save when presented the best opportunity and less often to wait until the last second. Using that time for gens is good overall but also increases risk the closer to second phase a survivor gets.
0 -
This won't help with camping. Camping isn't happening because we can see the timer as if it were only related to that then why bother doing it anyway? The reason people camp can be that the game state has forced their hand into feeling they need to secure a kill at any cost. They could just be jerks who want to be "that person". Yet again, the camping could be the result of a perceived slight from survivor towards the killer. It could also be a calculated strategy in the case of killers like LF.
None of this would change just because the time went away. The only way camping stops is if the core gameplay loop is redesigned to not be focused on static things like hooking to get the kill. You only stop campers by placing them in a game that doesn't have any way to camp. Also it goes without saying that while considered not the greatest thing to do camping isn't a punishable offense. Its not an offense at all in fact.
2 -
I'm sure not how any of these statements are related to the original post. The word camping isn't even in your post. I just don't understand how you got so off topic.
0 -
"the killer often checks at the intervals"
I agree. The killer is more likely to check at the intervals. If they couldn't see the intervals, they would have to keep track of the time in their mind. Multitasking is considered a skill.
"they'd likely be less predictable in regards to timing"
Being less predictable, in an effort to stop camping behavior, is the whole point of removing the timer. Why should there be an extreme likelihood of confrontation at every phase transition unhooking? Preventing a survivor from being unhooked is something that the killer should have to actively try to do. Preventing an unhook is not something the killer should be able to plan ahead of time just because they know the phase transition is going to happen in the next ten to fifteen seconds. These confrontations are too predictable for meaningful game play on either side.
0 -
this same thought can be applied to survivors seeing the hook timer as well.
knowing how much time you can devote to other things before the rescue is a skill
so unless you want to take the timer away from both sides then i can't agree with this change
3 -
@list_of_concems 1 question
Who cooperate with entity?Survivors?I think survivors shouldn't see hook timer because survivors not cooperate with entity.This will allow give opportunity to test survivor's memory.
2 -
@ReikoMori First of all, I don't think anyone knows if the removal of the hooked survivor timer would help prevent camping. It hasn't been tested, as far as I know. It is my hope that the removal of the timer, from either the killer's view, or the view of both sides, would discourage camping.
Also, I'm not suggesting that this change to the visibility of timers would stop camping from ever happening again. I think it'd be a step in the right direction towards changing one aspect of camping behavior. I never said changing timer visibility would be the final or ultimate change that would prevent camping from existing in Dead by Daylight.
"This won't help with camping." "None of this would change just because the time went away."
Not sure how you could possibly know, without a doubt, that removing the timer would have no impact on camping behavior.
"Also it goes without saying that while considered not the greatest thing to do camping isn't a punishable offense. Its not an offense at all in fact."
While camping is not a punishable offense, even you can agree it's not ideal. I don't mean to misinterpret what you said, but it sounds like what you meant to say is that camping is not fun or meaningful.
"The reason people camp can be that the game state has forced their hand into feeling they need to secure a kill at any cost. They could just be jerks who want to be "that person". Yet again, the camping could be the result of a perceived slight from survivor towards the killer. It could also be a calculated strategy in the case of killers like LF."
The scenarios you present here aren't related to the timer itself or the prevention of unhooking at or near phase transitions. Those scenarios are conscious decisions made by the killer regardless of how much time is remaining to unhook the survivor. I've failed to see the point you're trying to make in regards to the removal of hook timers.
0 -
You can take the timer from both sides. It won't change killer behavior cause they are either leaving for a new target or patrolling for rescuers. The main reasons for killers checking at phase intervals is that's the favored tactic with survivors and ensuring one less hook. Its highly predictable to focus on gens and a do last second saves.
1 -
"It won't change killer behavior..."
I think it would change killer behavior because they wouldn't know when the phase interval/transition is even about to occur, unless they are mentally counting down or keeping track. Counting down or keeping track would be a test of memory or multitasking efficiency.
"The main reasons for killers checking at phase intervals is that's the favored tactic with survivors and ensuring one less hook."
Again, if the timer were to be removed, the killer wouldn't know when a phase interval/transition is about to occur. It is more time efficient for survivors to accomplish last second saves. So, of course, that would help make it the favored tactic.
"Its highly predictable..."
This is the part that needs to change.
Thanks for the reply.
0 -
I personally dont like the trend of adding information for survivors while removing it from killers.
If a killer checks at 60% and 10% in your example, it's the other's survivors fault they didnt rescue any earlier, but were risking doing it that late. Actually the killer was right to check those times because survivors are more likely to rescue at those two moments.
And another funny definition of camping....
4 -
"... personally dont like the trend of adding information for survivors while removing it from killers."
This must be another clarity issue on my part. I don't want the developers to add information for survivors. I do want the developers to remove the hook timers from killers. I wouldn't mind if the hook timers were removed for both sides because they hurt both sides. The timers can and do create a predictable event for both sides when it comes to unhooking.
"If a killer checks at 60% and 10% in your example, it's the other's survivors fault they didnt rescue any earlier, but were risking doing it that late."
This is good case for why neither side should see the hook timers. There would be no visible sense of too late. It would change the decision making process. Instead of saving last minute, you'd save simply because you want to or because you feel you should. If there were no timer warning survivors and killers of the approaching phase transition, the unhooking event would be less predictable.
"Actually the killer was right to check those times because survivors are more likely to rescue at those two moments."
Again, unhooking, as an event, is too predictable.
"And another funny definition of camping...."
What would you call it? If you could never be unhooked without either being hooked again in less than fifteen seconds or simply trade one survivor on the hook for another, what would that be called? I'd love to use the correct terminology.
Thanks for the reply.
0 -
I'm explaining to you common reasons for camping. Camping isn't based solely on because we can see the timer. The timer doesn't mean anything. We all know its a two minute timer that is broken into two phases. Removing the ability to see it doesn't fix a issue that existed before we had timers to see. I've play the game on and off for most of its lifespan. I've seen the changes, read the notes, and been in multiple ptbs. I've played during every instance where they tried to make a change to killers to prevent camping and every single one failed. You hyper focused on timers when they aren't the issue. Everyone else whose been on this game can understand that. I have no idea why you feel that would make a difference when people have been camping before before the game even came out of beta.
2 -
I'm not against removing the timer for both survivors and killers. Deciding when to patrol a hooked survivor or when to unhook a survivor should not be determined by a timer. As you said, it should be determined by skill.
Thanks for the reply.
1 -
To answer your questions, the killer cooperates with The Entity. Survivors do not cooperate with The Entity.
I wouldn't mind if survivors couldn't see the hook timer. By all means, remove the timer for everyone. I don't know how cooperating with The Entity has anything to do with camping. Also, I agree that the removal of the timers would test the survivor's memory.
Thanks for the reply.
0 -
"I'm explaining to you common reasons for camping."
Should there be a reason to camp? If you like the great outdoors, by all means, enjoy. It's just not my cup of tea.
"Camping isn't based solely on because we can see the timer. The timer doesn't mean anything. We all know its a two minute timer that is broken into two phases. Removing the ability to see it doesn't fix a issue that existed before we had timers to see."
I disagree that timer doesn't mean anything. I never said camping or tunneling were based solely on the timer. Preventing all camping and tunneling is a near impossible feat. My intent is to try and mitigate (to make less severe and/or painful) camping and tunneling behavior.
"I've play the game on and off for most of its lifespan. I've seen the changes, read the notes, and been in multiple ptbs. I've played during every instance where they tried to make a change to killers to prevent camping and every single one failed."
Camping and/or tunneling will never stop, but that doesn't mean we/they should stop trying to prevent it from happening.
"You hyper focused on timers when they aren't the issue. Everyone else whose been on this game can understand that. I have no idea why you feel that would make a difference when people have been camping before before the game even came out of beta."
I'm hyper focused on the timers because I feel removing them would be an easier and quicker tool to change compared to some of the more drastic changes that could be made. Aim small, miss small. I feel it would make a difference, even if only slightly, to tactics used and the predictability that follows. People having been camping in video games since it was found to be a viable, and in some cases (like this one) unpunishable act. That doesn't make it a desirable game play strategy, especially when you're the person on the receiving end.
Thanks for the reply.
0 -
-
"I think u troll."
What? How?
"Survivors cooperate with other survivors"
I would hope so. The survivors do share a common goal. It'd be a lot easier to reach that goal if they worked together.
0 -
No. This would make SWFs even stronger than before. Why go as solo when you can get a friend to help you out and tell you their timer and then ######### that the killer is camping because he doesn't know when the timer is about to change so he stays longer? Yeah. No thank you. The timer use to be 45 seconds per stage. Its now a minute. They added swivel hooks to make it possible to unhook. They gave invulnerability frames and borrowed time that doesn't go in terror radius. Now you want to take this away also? So SWFs can be even better? Again, no thank you.
1 -
Majority of the players are solo so we should care about the solo. SFWs are just a minor thing. If you have missed the statistics just google it. We should really focus on what the solo players can do and not the SFWs
1 -
Camping wouldnt be a problem if killers were capable of winning the game by playing fair.
0 -
they could also take the timer away from the hooked person, not like they really need it other than to show new players trying to jump off the hook is bad
1 -
"No. This would make SWFs even stronger than before. Why go as solo when you can get a friend to help you out. So SWFs can be even better? Again, no thank you."
This post isn't about SWF in any way, shape, or form. Since you bring up SWFs, I will say this: Not everyone has friends. Even if they do have friends, those friends may not play video games. Even if their friends do play video games, those friends may not play horror games. Even if their friends do play horror games, those friends may not have compatible play time schedules. What I'm getting at is, not everyone (and definitely not the the majority of players) is playing with a friend and/or acquaintance.
Furthermore, I don't need you to take my word for it that solo survivors are the majority. Here is a direct quote from recent data (April 2019) posted on the Dead by Daylight official forums: "This is the overall average, between all ranks and platforms, of how many other Survivors players are queuing up with. More than half of the total Survivors are playing solo, while only 3-6% are playing in a full Survive With Friends group. This is based on the group size out of the total number of matches."
"...and then ######### that the killer is camping because he doesn't know when the timer is about to change so he stays longer? Yeah. No thank you."
The killer doesn't need to stay near the hooked survivor. It's quite the opposite, in fact. If the killer wants to win, they should be applying as much pressure as they can on multiple survivors and multiple areas of the map. I know the killer can't be everywhere at the same time. Staying near the hooked survivor longer would mean that the killer is choosing to camp instead of pursuing another survivor or patrolling other areas. The choice to camp wouldn't be getting removed. User Interface/Heads Up Display elements (timers and progression bars) would be what's getting removed. The timers often lead to predictable events and behaviors. Among those events and behaviors is the act of camping or the prevention of unhooking a survivor.
Thanks for the reply.
0 -
"Majority of the players are solo so we should care about the solo. SFWs are just a minor thing. If you have missed the statistics just google it.
It is factual, as of April 2019, that the majority of players are playing Dead by Daylight solo. For anyone that's interested, here's a link to a direct quote regarding Solo vs Survive with Friends percentages: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/61114/data-sheets-community-requests
Here is the quote for those of you that may not want to click on a link: "This is the overall average, between all ranks and platforms, of how many other Survivors players are queuing up with. More than half of the total Survivors are playing solo, while only 3-6% are playing in a full Survive With Friends group. This is based on the group size out of the total number of matches."
"We should really focus on what the solo players can do and not the SFWs"
The recent data collected in April would suggest that it might be wiser to balance around solo play. Since it's often times more effective to balance while leaning towards the majority, I don't see why the players only using the Survive with Friends mode would be the first demographic considered when making balance changes in Dead by Daylight.
Thanks for the reply.
0 -
Oh yeah because you totally couldn't "see the timer" with the entity spikes appearing...
Also i srsly don't see what this would bring.
0 -
"Camping wouldnt be a problem if killers were capable of winning the game by playing fair."
What certain players consider winning conditions varies from player to player. This is probably because some players play for rank, some play for kills, and some play just to have fun. Also, what is considered fair play may not align with what players consider to be fair. Rules can made, changed, or removed if the majority agree that a rule or lack of a rule results in unfairness.
"... if killers were capable of winning the game..."
If a player were to consider their kill count a reflection on whether or not they are winning, only three killers across all platforms have a lower than 50% kill rate according to data collected in April 2019. Here is a link to that information: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/61114/data-sheets-community-requests
In the above case, it could argued that almost all killers are capable of winning the game the majority of the time.
Thanks for the reply.
1 -
"they could also take the timer away from the hooked person, not like they really need it other than to show new players trying to jump off the hook is bad"
I agree. The timers aren't doing much in the way of promoting positive outcomes. In my opinion, never getting off the hook and camping aren't positive things to have happening in Dead by Daylight.
Thanks for the reply.
0 -
"Oh yeah because you totally couldn't "see the timer" with the entity spikes appearing..."
Technically, you aren't seeing the timer with the entity spikes appearing. The spikes appearing represents a phase transition or something akin to a change in a survivors hook health state. In other words, the spikes appearing represents a survivor losing one of the three times that they needed to be hooked before they are sacrificed to The Entity. The spikes, appearing after a survivor has been hooked for a second time, represent how many times that survivor can still be hooked without being sacrificed to The Entity. The spikes do not show you how much time is left before a phase transition is going to happen.
"Also i srsly don't see what this would bring."
I'm not sure how many of the replies you've read in this discussion. I've tried to reply to everyone. In doing so, I've tried to outline and refine what removing the hooked survivor timers would bring to Dead by Daylight. You may not have read those replies. In that case, I could understand why you don't see what this would or could bring. It's my hope that removing the hooked survivor timers would help reduce the number of times survivors are prevented from being unhooked and being camped. Even if the removal of the timers didn't reduce the number of cases where hooked survivors are being purposefully camped, I'd still appreciate the change if the intent behind the change is made perfectly clear. It's not about bringing an end to camping once and for all. It's about removing a timer in the User Interface/Heads Up Display that I believe can be and is being abused to make camping, as a play style, too easy and/or unskillful.
Thanks for the reply.
0 -
1. From the spikes you can judge your remaining.time to the 2nd phase (not 100% accurate fair enough)
2. Why only remove the timer for killer?
3. If the killer is patrolling around the hook this wouldnt matter
4. If a killer is getting looped near hooked wont matter THAT much. (Again spikes)
2 -
This is going nowhere.
We're two pages into this thread with the majority of players disagreeing with the OP. Same with their other thread on the same topic in general discussion. Now, granted the OP has been pretty civil in their responses, but enough is enough. This isn't a good idea when put forth to the board. You've got maybe 6 people on the forum who agree with this sort of idea. You're also constantly trying to shut out any relevant discussion points that aren't exactly about the timer. A discussion tactic that isn't going to win over any of those who may potentially agree if the discussion was allowed to lean more towards similar fields they actually care about.
Can we just put this to bed already?
2 -
"From the spikes you can judge your remaining.time to the 2nd phase (not 100% accurate fair enough)"
Players being required to judge the time remaining on their own is exactly what I'm asking for. When there is no longer a measure of time remaining, unhooking survivors would become less predictable. If the killer can't predict when a survivor is going to be unhooked, they can't return to the hooked survivor just in time to prevent a survivor from being unhooked.
"Why only remove the timer for killer?"
I still need to edit my original post, but I've since changed my mind about who should see the timer. I don't think anyone should see the timer. I think the timers should be removed for the survivors and the killer.
"If the killer is patrolling around the hook this wouldnt matter"
If there were no hooked survivor timers, patrolling around the hook would be a choice the killer has to make based on little to no information. They'd be making a conscious decision to stay in close proximity to the hooked survivor. At the very least, the killer wouldn't be making that decision based on information being provided and tracked for them by an existing element in the User Interface/Heads Up Display.
"If a killer is getting looped near hooked wont matter THAT much. (Again spikes)"
If a killer is getting looped near a hooked survivor, the killer would simply be reacting to a survivor's decision to allow the next chase take place in such close proximity to the hooked survivor. The killer would be making the decision to chase the nearest target (survivor). I'd think the killer would be trying their best to be time efficient. In this case, the survivor that isn't hooked and is currently in a chase with the killer should try to put as much distance between themselves and the hooked survivor as possible.
Thanks for the reply.
0 -
"This is going nowhere."
This may be true, but I'd like to keep this discussion going and and I will continue to reply to a many replies as I can. I didn't make a post on the forums with the intent of never responding to any of the replies I received.
"We're two pages into this thread with the majority of players disagreeing with the OP."
Yes, we are two pages into this thread now. Also, I'm not preventing players from disagreeing with my original post. I don't have the authority to disable their ability to down vote my posts nor would I exercise that authority even if I had access to it.
"Now, granted the OP has been pretty civil in their responses..."
I've tried to be civil. I'll take that as a compliment. Thank you.
"... but enough is enough."
Is deciding when enough of my posts and/or replies are enough within the scope of your authority on the forums? I'd like to find out.
"This isn't a good idea when put forth to the board. You've got maybe 6 people on the forum who agree with this sort of idea."
I don't need anyone to agree my idea. If even one person replies, I can reply to them and we can discuss the idea further.
"You're also constantly trying to shut out any relevant discussion points that aren't exactly about the timer."
I'm trying to stay on topic while also encouraging other people to stay on topic. What someone else finds relevant to the discussion, anyone else could find irrelevant. That is the nature of opinions. I shouldn't have to apologize if, in my opinion, I find a discussion point irrelevant and/or off topic. It's just my opinion.
"A discussion tactic that isn't going to win over any of those who may potentially agree if the discussion was allowed to lean more towards similar fields they actually care about."
I'm asking for something rather specific. I'm not saying that I don't care about the way this proposed change to timers relates to other fields, but I'm also not trying to lead people into other fields. I'm trying to stay on topic. I have had replies lean on other fields and I will make changes to my proposal. For instance, I no longer think that the timers should only be removed from killers. I think it would be beneficial for survivors and killers if neither could see the timers.
"Can we just put this to bed already?"
We can't. I suppose a moderator could. I could also stop responding to people who took the time to reply. I don't intend to stop replying. I do intend to try and make contact with a moderator @MandyTalk to find out if your request is justified or if you are simply trying to have my posts and replies silenced.
Unfortunately, I don't feel the need to thank you for your reply this time. I hope you have a nice day.
0 -
What you're not seeing what I'm saying. You want SWFs to be even more of a thing? Do this. Why play solo when you can get a friend and tell them when to unhook? That's my point. It would make SWF's even more powerful and with that, make it even more likely that survivors team up with friends to make an already unbalanced game even more unbalanced. I also forgot to MENTION, they even made a way so if I killer is near the hooked, the timer stopped. You know what happened? Survivors abused it. After all these fixes, camping exists. It's not camping is a problem, punish the killers. It's, "the game goes too fast because its too easy to do gens but lets punish the killers for trying to slow the game down by getting rid of 1 person quickly." So still, no thank you.
1 -
"What you're not seeing what I'm saying. You want SWFs to be even more of a thing? Do this. Why play solo when you can get a friend and tell them when to unhook? That's my point."
I read what you posted and saw your concerns. I'm trying to tell you that many real world things, such as location, time zones, and responsibilities dictate whether or not players can play the Survive With Friends game mode. Those things impact the Survive With Friends population or percentages more than balance changes ever could.
"It would make SWF's even more powerful and with that, make it even more likely that survivors team up with friends to make an already unbalanced game even more unbalanced."
I'm not currently interested in how Survive With Friends, as a game mode, would impact the decision to remove hooked survivor timers. Survive With Friends, as a game mode, isn't unbalanced in my opinion. Allowing third party software that can be used to communicate with your voice and your team (in real time) is the only thing that makes Survive With Friends unbalanced. If you couldn't use any third party software, the forms of communication built into the game are limited to emotes/gestures and crouching repeatedly. You might be able to signal someone with a flashlight too.
"I also forgot to MENTION, they even made a way so if I killer is near the hooked, the timer stopped. You know what happened? Survivors abused it. After all these fixes, camping exists."
I'm glad they tested an idea to help reduce camping. It may or may not be common knowledge, but just because you fail at something doesn't mean you should stop trying or give up. Camping isn't going anywhere. I just don't think camping should be made easier by watching a timer.
"It's not camping is a problem, punish the killers."
Camping is a problem in many player versus player games. Camping can't be completely eliminated. Changes can made to help prevent camping. The Dead by Daylight developers have tried many changes. I hope they continue to do so.
"... punish the killers. It's, the game goes too fast because its too easy to do gens but lets punish the killers for trying to slow the game down by getting rid of 1 person quickly."
As far as dishing out punishment, survivors don't have much of a reason prevent another survivor from being unhooked. Having more survivors off hooks and still alive should almost always be beneficial to the survivors. On the other hand, killers have plenty of motive to prevent a survivor from being unhooked. You've outlined that motive perfectly in your post. The killer would stand to benefit greatly by getting rid of one person quickly.
Thanks for the reply.
0 -
Increase gen times by 30 seconds and that would make camping a lot less meaningful unless they want to be #########. I use to ignore unhooks and get gen rushed non-stop. It's not based upon killer skill, but the mistakes of survivors and how many they make. Increasing gen time would make it not as necessary to have to remove someone quickly and would make it easier to kick a gen but they need to make it so kicking a gen reduces it by 5% so gen tapping in a chase will stop. Do those and I bet the only ones who camp are just people who like camping. I camp if I finally caught 1 person, 3 gens have popped and Ruin is gone. The game is technically over. You ruin my game, I ruin yours. Camping is fair. You don't like it, tough titties. Camping is a valid strategy most of the time unless you camp immediately catching someone after 5 seconds of the match starting but even then, it still removes 1 person out of the match and guarantees a 3-man if skilled. Camping will never go away and if they change something again to "punish" campers for just trying to secure a kill with DS, MOM and Dead Hard being a thing, I'll camp everyone. I'll do as long as I play this game just to be an #########. You ruin my fun, I ruin yours. I get gen rushed but nothing is done to survivors but killers get punished every time? Nah, Bro. I'll camp just to be an ######### every match because I can't even enjoy chasing without 5 gens popping in 3 minutes.
0 -
This is going to be a long reply or response because of how many topics were touched on. I'll include a TLDR at the end.
"Increase gen times by 30 seconds and that would make camping a lot less meaningful unless they want to be [BAD WORD]s. Increasing gen time would make it not as necessary to have to remove someone quickly and would make it easier to kick a gen but they need to make it so kicking a gen reduces it by 5% so gen tapping in a chase will stop. Do those and I bet the only ones who camp are just people who like camping."
If increasing the time it takes to complete a generator would reduce camping, I'm all for it. By all means, change the time it takes to complete a generator.
"I use to ignore unhooks and get gen rushed non-stop. I camp if I finally caught 1 person, 3 gens have popped and Ruin is gone."
In these scenarios, you are making the decision to camp based on how many times you've hooked survivors and how many generators still need to be completed. I don't think making the decision to camp a hooked survivor, after the End Game Collapse is triggered, is wrong. I think making the decision to camp a survivor because you looked at a timer, saw they were about to experience a phase transition, and prevented them from being unhooked is wrong.
"It's not based upon killer skill, but the mistakes of survivors and how many they make. You ruin my game, I ruin yours."
Is a game ruined because your skill level, experience as a killer, and/or luck didn't allow you to win that game? You said it's not based upon a killer's skill, but I disagree. A killer's skill is, in part, a measure of how often they can capitalize on a survivor's mistake.
I do not agree that the correct response to being outplayed, or feeling you've been defeated early, is to ruin someone's game or camp them. You might say: "Isn't it ruining the game for the killer if survivors are outplaying the killer?" I don't think so. The survivor(s) are either playing well, making very few mistakes, or simply not being hit (or hooked) by the killer when they make a mistake. Completing generators is, first and foremost, the primary objective for survivors. A killer can use Perks that give survivors secondary objectives (ie, cleansing hex totems and healing "slugged" survivors). The killer's primary objective is to either hook each survivor three times, have them bleed out in the dying state, or kill them with a Mori. Camping isn't a primary objective for the killer. If the killer isn't successfully preventing survivors from doing their primary objective (generators), the killer should lose that game.
"Camping is fair. You don't like it, tough... Camping is a valid strategy most of the time unless you camp immediately catching someone after 5 seconds of the match starting..."
I couldn't wait to respond to this part of your post. Camping is a valid strategy sometimes. In my opinion, camping immediately is actually one of those times. I don't like it, but it's still valid. If you camp immediately, you aren't using a timer to decide when you should start camping. Most likely, you already made that decision before the match even started.
"...but even then, it still removes 1 person out of the match and guarantees a 3-man if skilled."
Camping immediately does have a very high chance of removing one person from the match before it's over. I wouldn't say that camping requires much skill. A camping player certainly isn't required to have as much skill as a player who is hooking the survivors twelve times (four sacrifices) without camping at all. Also, if a player is using a lower skill cap strategy, like camping, I would be surprised if they can guarantee any outcome other than camping a survivor until they have been sacrificed.
"Camping will never go away."
I've said either the exact same thing or something very similar in many of the replies in this thread/post. My goal isn't to have camping eradicated. My goal is to decrease predictable game play when it comes to unhooking and preventing a survivor from being unhooked. In my opinion, preventing a survivor from being unhooked at or near phase transitions because you can watch a timer, is camping. The timer is making camping, as a play style, too easy and/or unskillful.
"... and if they change something again to "punish" campers for just trying to secure a kill with DS, MOM and Dead Hard being a thing, I'll camp everyone. I'll do as long as I play this game just to be an [BAD WORD]. Nah, Bro. I'll camp just to be an [BAD WORD] every match because I can't even enjoy chasing without 5 gens popping in 3 minutes."
So, if the developers decide to add new perks that aid survivors (Survivor Perks 😉), which I'm sure they plan on doing at some point, you're going to retaliate by acting like or becoming an [BAD WORD]? I'm not really sure how to respond to you sharing your plan to become an [BAD WORD]... I'm not feeling good about it and I hope you change your mind.
" I get gen rushed but nothing is done to survivors but killers get punished every time?"
I fail to see how survivors efficiently completing their primary objective is somehow a form of punishment for killers. Do you think losing a game or match is a form of punishment? Winning isn't a reward and losing isn't a punishment. When it comes to winning and losing, they are just words to signify which person (or group of people) succeeded and which person (or group of people) failed. By definition, to lose is to be defeated. To be defeated is to have have been beaten. If we're still talking about gaming, being beaten in a game or contest of skill is not a form of punishment. If we're talking about our physical bodies, here on the planet Earth, being physically wounded and/or beaten is often a form of punishment. If you're referring to balance changes (buffs and nerfs), both survivors and killers receive balance changes regularly.
Thanks for the reply.
TLDR; I am interested to see if your idea (changing the amount of time required to complete a generator) would help reduce camping. Unfortunately, it sounds like for every game or match that you lose, it is your intent to ruin a game for four other players. I sincerely hope you don't follow through with your plan to become an [BAD WORD]. I'd hate for the world to find you unrecognizable in an ever growing sea of [BAD WORD]s.
1 -
Taking away a strategy for a killer while buffing survivors and giving them more and more second chance perks on top of insta-heals and BNPs makes 3-hooking someone unbearable and gens use to be 2 minutes. They reduced them. Hooked survivors also use to be 1 minute 20 seconds so survivors had to choose to either unhook after 25 seconds or risk the second stage. They buffed it to 2 minutes. 40 seconds extra for a survivor to just chill and helping other survivors pop gens in your face. Every update, they just seem to increase something for survivor and lower another for killer. 30 seconds and a 5% gen regression upon kick would make this a much better game as killer. If I had that and didn't feel rushed every chase, it would be a much more enjoyable experience. I do apologize earlier. I was getting hostile because I'm sick of killers getting nerfs and punishments for just trying to reduce the gen rush but survivors get more and more second chance perks. Like come on. Really? This just makes camping better. Why let him off the hook and risk, BT, Dead Hard, DS, MOM, insta-heal, deliverance and possibly adrenaline if its near the end of the match? When you can camp him, probably get some easy interrupts and have a chance at ANOTHER hook if someone is unlucky and gets down next to the hooked. The risk vs the reward is much different. Don't give us bloodpoints. Make it so if we LEAVE, the guy dies faster. That would make a survivor rush, less gen time and a happier killer. Add 30 seconds to gens to make it a little easier and 5% regression upon a kick so no gen tappers during a chase. Wa-la. See how small buffs compared to getting random crap shoved down your throat is much different? I do appreciate you being civil so I'll be civil. We camp because sometimes we are helpless to do anything else. Why risk getting shot in the foot when you can guarantee a kill and maybe more? Small buffs like this. MYC doesn't stop gen rush, you got a timer to FIND the correct person and if they hide, you're just wasting time searching while gens are getting completed still. It's like a lose/lose situation. Sometimes you get lucky but most of the time, you blow 35 seconds with nothing to show for it. I also voted up your last one because I did like the responses and you was being civil, which I'm not use to seeing most of the time on this forum.
1 -
"Taking away a strategy for a killer while buffing survivors and giving them more and more second chance perks on top of insta-heals and BNPs makes 3-hooking someone unbearable and gens use to be 2 minutes. They reduced them. Hooked survivors also use to be 1 minute 20 seconds so survivors had to choose to either unhook after 25 seconds or risk the second stage. They buffed it to 2 minutes. 40 seconds extra for a survivor to just chill and helping other survivors pop gens in your face. Every update, they just seem to increase something for survivor and lower another for killer."
That is a lot of nerfs when it comes to being a time efficient killer. I'm not sure if everyone would agree, but I'm really glad they are trying and have possibly succeeded in fixing the dreaded end game phase for killers (End Game Collapse). If the developers believe the end game phase (End Game Collapse; 2 minute cap after being triggered) is an acceptable amount of time, maybe they can use that hard cap (that didn't exist before) to tweak all of the timers again. I sincerely hope they'll take another look someday.
"30 seconds and a 5% gen regression upon kick would make this a much better game as killer. If I had that and didn't feel rushed every chase, it would be a much more enjoyable experience. Add 30 seconds to gens to make it a little easier and 5% regression upon a kick so no gen tappers during a chase. Wa-la. Small buffs like this. See how small buffs compared to getting random crap shoved down your throat is much different?"
I agree that small buffs are usually better than huge nerfs. I think changing the time it takes to complete generators might be easier to adjust since they've implemented the End Game Collapse. Knowing that matches can't potentially drag on forever should help narrow down exactly how long they think a match should be. A 5% gen regression would be a really nice quality of life change for killers. That's a good idea, in my opinion.
"I do apologize earlier. I was getting hostile because I'm sick of killers getting nerfs and punishments for just trying to reduce the gen rush but survivors get more and more second chance perks. Like come on. Really?"
Apology accepted.
"I do appreciate you being civil so I'll be civil. I also voted up your last one because I did like the responses and you was being civil, which I'm not use to seeing most of the time on this forum."
Thank you! Maybe we can set a new example for forum behavior. 😁
"This just makes camping better. Why let him off the hook and risk, BT, Dead Hard, DS, MOM, insta-heal, deliverance and possibly adrenaline if its near the end of the match?"
I would say Borrowed Time is fairly balanced considering it doesn't work against certain killers. Borrowed Time, when used in response to camping (within 16m or so) often times results in one survivor trading places with the other.
When it comes to exhaustion perks, like Dead Hard, I think removing the exhaustion reset after being hooked would help alleviate some killer frustration. They could just pause the exhaustion timer while you're hooked. Then, it would function the same way it does while you are sprinting.
I think the new Decisive Strike is far less rewarding than it used to be. You can't decide when to trigger DS anymore. I think we were able to delay wiggling until the most opportune time. Basically, we didn't have to use DS unless we chose to. If it's active now, the skill check is triggered immediately.
It sounded like Mettle of Man might be getting changed soon. They mentioned it in one of the live streams.
I don't know if it'd be fair to remove insta-heal(s). Isn't it fairly expensive? I think it's the same cost as a four player Mori, right?
Also, I think Deliverance is fairly balanced because you can only use it the first time you are hooked. You also receive the broken status (one of my least favorite) for quite some time.
I could see Adrenaline being extremely annoying. Even I find it fairly annoying that my teammates would assume we're going to get all five generators completed. Also, I don't know if it's worth it to essentially play with one less perk until end game. I've had teammates refuse to heal me before completing the last generator simply because they assumed I'd being using Adrenaline too.
"MYC doesn't stop gen rush, you got a timer to FIND the correct person and if they hide, you're just wasting time searching while gens are getting completed still. It's like a lose/lose situation. Sometimes you get lucky but most of the time, you blow 35 seconds with nothing to show for it."
Hmmm. I wonder if they might consider adding a few seconds of seeing the Make Your Choice target's aura. I don't know if that would be over buffing the Perk or not. That would certainly make it easier to get some value out of it.
Thanks for the reply.
1 -
They got 2 types of insta-heals, they got perks that increase the speeds of gen time, they got toolboxes to increase gen time, takes us 2 and half seconds to kick then takes 2 and a half seconds before it even regresses but takes them a split second to stop it by tapping, a lot of good pallet loops and the perks themselves. DS can't be stopped when endgame happens, I also forgot about Unbreakable, I've been DS'd at the very end because you can't always stop everyone near a gate once everyone blocks and even had games where a survivor would unhook and for some reason, It would hit the unhooked instead and waste a complete hit. I've talked about increasing gen time before not to what it use to be (2 minutes each) but to 1 minute and 50 seconds and that would still be fair. Don't give us a perk that increases gen timer because that's just stupid. That means it'll never be balanced in the long run. No more band-aid fixes. Everyone says add a second objective. Why do that if it's not mandatory? Why make secondary objectives if its just gonna be ignored by survivors unless they have already won then they'll do it for points? Make 5 or 6 objectives takes 30 seconds to complete for bonus points is stupid as hell. That doesn't help us? Increase totem times from 15 seconds to 25 seconds. There is a lot that devs can do but the survivor base would just review bomb them like Freddy. I rather know that 3 gens won't pop instantly after 40 seconds because of 3 toolboxes (It's if they all have BNPs and Purple Toolboxes by themselves). Survivors don't like it when they get mori'd but we always seem to get shafted? We've been asking for gen time increases for over 2 years now. The devs response: Survivors won't like that so we'll add secondary objectives". Really? 2 years and butkiss. And it won't be mandatory ones, either. I play both sides and I'll tell you right now, it's easier to play survivor when the team is decent at Rank 1 then Killer at Rank 1 with decent survivors.
(Final note) My point is, this game use to be balanced. 80 second hook timers all together (40 seconds per stage) and gens took 2 minutes. Then Killers started camping because of infinites. Then the hook sabo meta so killers slugged. Then they fixed infinites, added BT and nerfed gen and hook times so camping came back. Then nothing but nerfs to combat camping. Some people will camp just because its what they want to do but sometimes, I camp because I can't do anything else. I already know I lost so I might as well try to get at least 2 people and usually end up with 3k to 4k because of altruistic survivors. I don't like doing it but when someone is pushed against a wall.. you gotta do what you gotta do to win.
0 -
😧 It's already hard enough for solo survivors to know when to leave their gens and go save even with the timer. Why would you suggest things to make the solo survivor experience even worse?? It's incredibly punishing if a survivor is less than 3-hooked, especially in stealth games. Not having that timer would severely increase the detestable gap between solo and swf players.
Edit: Comms SWF
Post edited by Kind_Lemon on0 -
"They got 2 types of insta-heals, they got perks that increase the speeds of gen time, they got toolboxes to increase gen time, takes us 2 and half seconds to kick then takes 2 and a half seconds before it even regresses but takes them a split second to stop it by tapping, a lot of good pallet loops and the perks themselves."
Maybe they could reduce the time it takes to kick the generators down to around 1 second. They would have to remove the second kick from the animation, which I suspect, they'd rather not do. I don't see why they couldn't shorten the animation to just one kick, though. Maybe then, killers could even kick generators and still have a very high chance to maintain a chase. I like this idea of evening out how long it takes to tap and/or kick a generator regardless of whether or not it's a survivor or a killer. 😁
"DS can't be stopped when endgame happens... I've been DS'd at the very end because you can't always stop everyone near a gate once everyone blocks..."
This is probably the strongest or most opportune time to use Decisive Strike and it really just comes down to luck, in my opinion. I don't think I'd like to see it be stopped simply because the survivor got lucky. For example, if they were unhooked and put into the Dying State again while also being close to a fully power gate (during End Game Collapse), that's a very specific (lucky) scenario. Also, I'm not completely sure, but I think a survivor can only use Decisive Strike once per game. Maybe they can use it twice. I've only used it a few times since it was reworked and I truly can't recall.
"I've talked about increasing gen time before not to what it use to be (2 minutes each) but to 1 minute and 50 seconds and that would still be fair. Don't give us a perk that increases gen timer because that's just stupid. That means it'll never be balanced in the long run. No more band-aid fixes. I rather know that 3 gens won't pop instantly after 40 seconds because of 3 toolboxes (It's if they all have BNPs and Purple Toolboxes by themselves). Survivors don't like it when they get mori'd but we always seem to get shafted? We've been asking for gen time increases for over 2 years now. The devs response: Survivors won't like that so we'll add secondary objectives". Really? 2 years and butkiss. And it won't be mandatory ones, either."
I think the Perks that increases generator repair speed (Resilience, Prove Thyself, and Spine Chill) are in a good place balance wise. Resilience forces you to stay Injured. Prove Thyself requires an survivor to work with you on the same generator. Prove Thyself is also heavily countered by Discordance. Spine Chill has the lowest speed increase of the three. Maybe they could remove the speed increase from Spine Chill.
As far as balancing the time required to complete generators goes, I'd rather see nerfs to Items and Add-ons. Teachable Perks take significantly more effort to unlock than purchasing one Tool Box or one Brand New Part, in the blood web.
"Everyone says add a second objective. Why do that if it's not mandatory? Why make secondary objectives if its just gonna be ignored by survivors unless they have already won then they'll do it for points? Make 5 or 6 objectives takes 30 seconds to complete for bonus points is stupid as hell. That doesn't help us? Increase totem times from 15 seconds to 25 seconds."
I agree that some of the secondary objectives aren't even recognized or completed for any reason other than extra points. That doesn't make much sense to me. While I do think changing the time it takes to break and/or disable a (hex) totem could be adjusted, I hope that change wouldn't make Perks like Hex: Thrill of the Hunt useless.
"There is a lot that devs can do but the survivor base would just review bomb them like Freddy."
There are a lot things the developers could try or test, but there is always going to be at least one person that doesn't like the changes or change in general. It's hard to tell the two groups apart a lot of the time. I've only just started posting again, here on the forums, recently. I'm not a developer and it's difficult for me decide if someone truly hates my idea, they simply hate change, or they hate ideas that could inspire a change.
"I play both sides and I'll tell you right now, it's easier to play survivor when the team is decent at Rank 1 then Killer at Rank 1 with decent survivors."
Maybe BHVR hasn't found the perfect balance just yet. I do think that the skill ceiling for survivors, as a whole, will always be higher than the ceiling for killers. We're talking about four player's combined skill compared to one player's skill. It might just be the case that killers are hitting their ceiling way too early compared to survivors. They could definitely try to raise the ceiling for killers.
"(Final note) My point is, this game use to be balanced. 80 second hook timers all together (40 seconds per stage) and gens took 2 minutes. Then Killers started camping because of infinites. Then the hook sabo meta so killers slugged. Then they fixed infinites, added BT and nerfed gen and hook times so camping came back. Then nothing but nerfs to combat camping."
I just hope that the developers at BHVR don't give up when it comes to combating camping behaviors. It's not always easy to keep pressing forward if and when it feels like you're not making any progress towards your goal.
"Some people will camp just because its what they want to do but sometimes, I camp because I can't do anything else. I already know I lost so I might as well try to get at least 2 people and usually end up with 3k to 4k because of altruistic survivors. I don't like doing it but when someone is pushed against a wall.. you gotta do what you gotta do to win."
I don't mind when killers make the decision to camp out of a sense of desperation. If they pull it off because the survivors kept being overly altruistic, good for them. What I don't like is when killers try to get an extra free hook by patrolling a hooked survivor moments before they reach a phase transition. I feel like the hooked survivor timers make this style of camping ridiculously easy. I'm sure plenty of us have tons of experience when it comes to being on time for an event. The phase transitions, in certain situations, (nobody has even moved in your direction with the intent to unhook you yet), are extremely likely events.
Thanks for the reply.
1 -
The reason we come back and check is because we KNOW someone will be coming to unhook. Survivors rather stay on gens (gen rush) then get them sooner. If they want to wait to the last few seconds, we earned that second phase by leaving initially. Doing so can ensure a second phase and maybe another down so if they do get swapped, you got pressure and if we catch the other person again, thats a sacrifice and immediate pressure.
0 -
I've included a TLDR.
"It's already hard enough for solo survivors to know when to leave their gens and go save even with the timer. "
It shouldn't be difficult for survivors to judge when they should leave their generator (in the live version) and go save. Any time a survivor is currently on a hook, the amount of time that is left, is quite accurately shown via the timer/progression bar. Being able to tell time isn't a requirement to play Dead by Daylight. There are many icons that will appear or disappear to let you know something has happened. You don't need a timer, in my opinion. Also, there are Notifications and Auras (Dying State) that will allow you to play in very similar fashion to the way we play now (live version).
"Why would you suggest things to make the solo survivor experience even worse?? It's incredibly punishing if a survivor is less than 3-hooked, especially in stealth games."
You've answered your own question. In my opinion, it often times feels punishing if a survivor is less than 3-hooked due to camping. It feels especially unfair if it were based on the results of a killer abusing the timers to camp.
"Not having that timer would severely increase the detestable gap between solo and swf players."
People seem to keep defending their ideas and opinions based on the current perceived balance for the Survive With Friends mode (and not based on the majority of players that are playing the Solo mode). Also, name dropping Survive With Friends doesn't mean the developers should stop making any changes to Dead by Daylight. I don't understand this logic. In my opinion, Survive With Friends isn't unbalanced because of game design.
The Survive With Friends game mode can be and/or is being abused by players who choose to use live (real time) voice communication programs to discuss current match information in Dead by Daylight. Allowing third party software that can be used to communicate with your voice and your group (in real time) is the only thing that makes Survive With Friends unbalanced. If you couldn't use any third party software, the forms of communication built into the game are limited to emotes, gestures and crouching repeatedly. You might be able to signal someone with a flashlight too.
Discord and similar programs could be removed from the allowed programs list (whitelist) on Easy Anti-Cheat. When it comes to player population, I feel that removing voice communication programs would do more harm than good. For example, just because you're using a voice communication program, it doesn't mean you're using that program to discuss Dead by Daylight. Eventually, players interested in abusing Survive With Friends would probably resort to using the integrated Steam Voice if it were the only voice comm still allowed.
This is my current stance on the Survive With Friends game mode (and I wish I knew how to clip it to every post I make going forward): I don't hate the Survive With Friends mode. I don't wish to see the Survive With friends mode removed. I wouldn't want less people to play Dead by Daylight just because they couldn't play with their friends or acquaintances any longer.
TLDR; I didn't intend to give you a ridiculously long response, but I hope you still take the time to read it. I just wanted to be absolutely clear on the topic of Survive With Friends as it pertains to making future balance changes. I don't think Survive With Friends should motivate or prevent balance changes. If it's balanced for one, it's balanced for all.
Thanks for the reply.
Post edited by List_of_concerns on0 -
Sorry, this post was more directed @Huntar than anyone else. I say solo survivors have a hard time judging the situation to see if they should save because often times nobody knows what anyone else is doing especially if no one has Bond or Empathy. Are other people going for the save? Are we trying to finish the last generator before saving? What's the plan? I've had too many games where survivors don't have that awareness, can't plan, rush in for the save just before the survivor on the hook reaches second state, only to have a killer return and deny the save.
I agree that killers should not see the progression of the hook timer, just like not seeing the progression of the Deep Wounds timer, but solo survivors need that information. Otherwise, less last second solo saves would happen to prevent the two or one hook scenarios.
1 -
"The reason we come back and check is because we KNOW someone will be coming to unhook. Doing so can ensure a second phase... thats a sacrifice and immediate pressure."
Yikes. This is exactly what I've been talking about. This scenario disgusts me. I do agree that both the survivors and the killer are to blame for these scenarios. I believe these scenarios would be less common if there were no hooked survivor timers. The survivors couldn't wait until the last second because they'd have no idea when it's too late. The killer couldn't check in the last seconds because, they too, would have no idea as to how much time is left.
" If they want to wait to the last few seconds, we earned that second phase by leaving initially."
This is a perfect example of the survivors sharing in the blame. I don't know if another survivor failing to do an altruistic action early is equal to a killer earning a free hook on a survivor that didn't make a mistake. Did you really earn it? I believe it was handed to you if you looked at or used the hooked survivor timers. I'd much rather see the survivor that made the mistake pay for the mistake (not someone else in the group).
Thanks for the reply.
0 -
"Sorry, this post was more directed @Huntar than anyone else."
I'm sorry too. I've been getting a little overzealous when I'm trying to debate within a thread I started. I try to reply to everyone in the thread (even if they weren't replying to me directly.) Sometimes, I worry if people mean exactly what they write in their posts. For that reason, I've tried to be very careful with how I've worded my posts. I don't want others to be confused or angry about something I didn't type. I don't want them to feel the need to read between the lines.
"I say solo survivors have a hard time judging the situation to see if they should save because often times nobody knows what anyone else is doing especially if no one has Bond or Empathy. Are other people going for the save? Are we trying to finish the last generator before saving? What's the plan? I've had too many games where survivors don't have that awareness, can't plan, rush in for the save just before the survivor on the hook reaches second state, only to have a killer return and deny the save."
If only we could choose our entire groups Perk loadout... I'd get rid of everyone's Adrenaline. 🤣
On a more serious note, I would urge all four survivors to use Aura reading perks. If having more information about your group or the killer (what the survivors are currently up to and what the killer is currently up to), is something you feel would impactful to you or your group's success, I would make all four Perks mandatory Aura reading Perks. Sure, you could get countered by the Blindness Status Effect. For every second you weren't afflicted with the Blindness Status Effect, you'd be receiving so much more useful information during your matches. Also, it couldn't hurt to run the Perk Open-Handed. Your Aura reading would be even stronger with Open-Handed.
I don't like talking about SWF, but here I go. In my opinion, (this may be proven factual some day) with enough Aura reading Perks being used by your group, you'd be quickly approaching the same level of information that is gathered by your typically complained about SWF group.
"I agree that killers should not see the progression of the hook timer, just like not seeing the progression of the Deep Wounds timer, but solo survivors need that information. Otherwise, less last second solo saves would happen to prevent the two or one hook scenarios."
Solo survivors may or may not need that information. I'd be willing to make the change for both survivors and killers, especially if it meant camping would be reduced. If the timers were removed, only time would tell if survivors needed or just wanted to see the timer.
Thanks for the reply.
1
