Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
These perks encourage camping; or tunneling, or going back to the recently unhooked.
Make your choice - Encourages going back to the hook. However, because the unhooked survivor is exposed, they are less likely to body block the recently unhooked thereby encouraging tunneling behavior
Furtive Chase - This has the same problem as Make Your Choice. However, Furtive Chase is just a bad perk overall, but it really should have a condition that doesn't encourage coming back to the hook
Forced Penance - If you have 2 survivors, they are both injured with med kits and one has is broken and the other isn't who do you go for? You go for the individual who isn't broken. That's just common sense. The reason why someone would take a protection hit is usually because the person being chased is on death hook and getting tunneled. This perk rewards bad behavior.
Insidious - encourages camping hooks
Monstrous Shrine - encourages using basement and camping basement, this perk is just in general bad. But if it were good then the behavior that it would encourage would be atrocious.
NOED - You can basically ignore gens completing early game, even camp a bit, and then when the game ends secure a free kill end game, maybe more if the group becomes too altruistic.
-
These perks should be changed.
Comments
-
Like I understand most of these (even though they encourage coming back to the hook, they don't promote tunnelling) but why is noed here?
0 -
You are obviously forgetting the strongest, most oppressive, unfun and unfair tunneling perk there is: territorial imperative
Post edited by Hex_Ignored on6 -
I'm going to be honest when I saw I hardly see any of these perks used, sans NOED. Make your choice is primarily used by Hag players, which are, thankfully, not as common as you might think.
0 -
BBQ actually encourages camping. I have seen many killers that claim they stayed at the hook when they didn’t see the auras of all remaining survs..
0 -
Territorial imperative only works if you're at least 32 meters away from the basement, but it probably could use with a rework.
0 -
I would largely argue that camping is not camping just because they stay near the hook and they don't know where anyone else is. It's only camping if they see other survivors and choose not to chase them. if they stay near hook IMO first survivor there should try to bait them away. It seems totally fair to me to try and force the scenario of "1 on hook, 1 on chase, and 1 going for unhook", and presumably if any of these BBQ players you're talking about were willing to leave the hook if they saw someone's aura, they'd probably leave if they saw someone's physical body.
3 -
...Make Your Choice doesn't promote tunneling. You just exposed the unhooker for sixty seconds. Why would you go after the injured person who may have DS, BT, or an exhaustion perk, when you can take two health states off the unhooker, bypass Dead Hard, and the unhooked player has to spend time healing if left alone when this guy doesn't? Yeah, the killer will return to the hook, but they're not interested in the unhooked player unless they're right in front of them. The only way MYC promotes tunneling is when the unhooker gets spooked and runs the hell away, leaving the injured survivor to fend for themselves, and that's not exactly the killer's fault, is it?
Killers using NOED to camp would be camping without NOED. It is literally the only thing the killer can do at that stage of the game beyond 'give up and let survivors exit peacefully.' There are no more objectives for the killer to defend; hounding a downed or hooked survivor to try and pick off rescuers is the only actual thing they can do to further their goal. Honestly, hard camping the hook with NOED encourages the other survivors to cleanse NOED or just leave.
And half of the perks you've listed are never, ever used by anyone, so I don't understand why you're raising a problem with them. NOED, Insidious, and MYC are the only ones on this list that see the light of day. Furtive Chase and Monstrous Shrine are some of the bottom-of-the-barrel worst killer perks in existence. What would even be the point of changing them to be less campy when nobody uses them to camp to begin with?
I guess I don't see the problem with perks that encourage the killer to return to the hook for some reason, because killers are already encouraged to return to the hook if they don't know where anyone is or don't have a more pressing engagement. There's two survivors there, guaranteed, and at least one is vulnerable. You aren't going to get rid of that no matter what perks you axe - I would argue perks like Make Your Choice and Furtive Chase (along with Borrowed Time) are healthy for encouraging the killer to go after the unhooker instead of smacking down the already injured person again.
2 -
Weird take that Make Your Choice promotes Tunneling.
Like... it literally incentivizes the Killer to go after the Rescuer not the Rescuee by exposing them. Why would you not take the 2 health states for 1 hit if you could?
2 -
The reason why it encourages tunneling is because the rescuer is generally responsible for protecting the unhooked. But the perk makes the rescuer vulnerable and it encourages the killer to come back to the hook.
0 -
Coming back to the hook is strong as a base mechanic, it shouldn't have additional benefits in the form or perks. Perks should encourage healthy gameplay and offer the killer rewards for playing in that way. These perks try and fail by offering benefits for going after the unhooker, but they ultimately end up encouraging tunneling.
0 -
Except it doesn't. The Rescuer is vulnerable and can go down in 1 M1 and the Rescuee likely has Borrowed Time, Decisive Strike, and Dead Hard all ready to go to keep them on their feet. I can tell you that if I'm running MYC I am going after the Rescuer every time. In fact, Make Your Choice is a quite healthy perk because...
- It won't go off if you're face camping.
- If you just tunnel, you may as well not even run the thing.
Sure it incentivizes returning to the Hook but that's not toxic behavior if you go for the Rescuee.
3 -
Yeah, I just completely disagree with you there. I'm not convinced that these perks 'fail' by any stretch of the word to disincentivize tunneling over switching to the new target (a few bad matches where the killer opted to go for the unhooked player are not proof for this kind of argument), and it counters itself. If the killer isn't going to use the reward offered by the perk once they return to the hook, then they may as well not have a perk slot. They aren't using the perk, they're just benefitting off of a base mechanic they could and already would do.
And then you've got the 'nerf furtive chase' portion of your position, which is just what.
2 -
The Killer is making the right play. If the survivors are close enough to avoid BBQ's detection range, it's very likely they're waiting for an opportunity to save and the Killer should spend more time looking around. I mean, if you were Killer, would you leave? I wouldn't.
1 -
But....MYC doesn't encourage tunneling... You literally are incentived to go after the rescuer since they would be the more ideal target to hit. Plus yeah, you have to go away from the hook to even activate the perk in the first place. Also as many have mentioned before, it is more than likely the recently rescued survivor probably has BT, so the roles of protection are reversed and they can take the shot for their teammate.
I don't know, to me it just sounds like you don't think killers should ever return to hooks as they patrol. Do you honestly believe that as a killer, if I am patrolling and looking for other survivors that I should just ignore the unhook notification and keep wandering around to look for people that I have no idea where they're at? If so, then ok that's fine. But then I'm going to demand that you as a survivor should never try to flashlight or pallet save your teammates. If you're entitled to unhook saves with no consequences then as killer I am entitled to hooking survivors that I have spent time chasing and downing without having to worry about losing hook points.
3 -
perks like make your choice, devour hope and deathbound are often considered toxic, but they give killers an extra incentive not to camp by adding the effects only after the survivors are far away. Also how is coming back to an unhooked survivor toxic? That seems like an inherent risk on the survivor side, and an expected behavior on the killer side. Killers are supposed to be working against the survivors, you know.
1 -
I never stated camping is always wrong though… I just stated that. BBQ may encourage camping. Which it does. And sometimes the surv isn’t even nearby but was in a locker or just behind a gen or even just somewhere the killer didn’t look…
and I do play killer and i would rather leave and pressure gens than stand there doing nothing. But that’s a personal decision and I don’t expect others to do that as well..
0 -
I feel like it's pretty unfair to take a perk that discourages camping for blood points, and gives you information on players far away from the hook and say it "encourages camping". It discourages camping in 90% of all scenarios, and in a very small minority of situations it let's the killer know that they are in a situation where camping is "correct". Also even in that minuity of situation only encourages camping if you assume the killer who just hooked WOULDN'T have camped without BBQ.
Baiscally, I would bet anything that BBQ discourages camping FAR FAR more of the time than it promotes it.
2 -
I never said it was toxic. I said that going back to the hook but preventing the unhooker from protecting the unhooked leads to tunneling. Note that I did not even say that tunneling is toxic. I understand that it's behavior that stems from a core mechanic in the game, I just don't feel that perks should increase the likely hood that a killer will camp or tunnel.
0 -
That's just a smart thing to do. If the survivors aren't going to pressure you away from the hook by doing generators, their only objective, then what is the point of leaving the area at all? There is no pressure from them, and you get free pressure as they're all off generators and trying to save a single survivor.
0 -
Never said it was wrong.
BUT maybe all 3 survs are positioned behind a gen or right next to a gen in a locker to avoid BBQ and are immediately on the gen again..
0 -
Then, most likely, the Killer will lose that gen then go away from the hook. Or they stay camping and most likely lost the whole game and the other 3 survivors. There's no way a Killer can know everything, and in general that's the smartest thing to do in that situation.
0 -
Yeah.. the perk still encourages camping though even though many say it does the opposite. I didn’t say if it’s dumb or smart or good or bad..
0 -
Monstrous Shrine... 🤣
0 -
I also never said you said it was, so idk why you're being so defensive. All I simply said was that it is the smartest thing to do in that situation as a killer.
0 -
Don't be silly. You want to know what REALLY encourages returning to the hook? It is that big old DINNER BELL... audible and visual cue the game gives the Killer when you unhook. It is almost as if they WANT your rescues to come with risk. Duh.
0 -
You're right there are base mechanics that encourage going back to the hook. However, generally perks are designed to get you to move away. Examples are BBQ or Pop Goes the Weasel which encourage you to leave the hook and still benefit the killer. I was just saying that I personally believe that perks that lean into camping or tunneling or inadvertently lead to camping or tunneling should get looked at to improve game health.
0 -
Dead by Daylight is all about Player agency, i.e. choice. Both roles are filled by Players, not Bots. It is true that the DEV have Perks that encourage you to move away from the hook and those that would make Tunneling risky. However, for every Perk that they have that which seems to downplay those tactics, they have others which encourage it. You are suffering from confirmation bias and not looking at the big picture. There are Killers who seem specifically designed to Camp and Tunnel too. Perks are optional choices (that agency again) and cannot be used as a measure in regards to what the DEV want or intend. The only thing that gives us a clear picture is the basic mechanics without any Perks at all. And as I already pointed out, the game itself wants rescues to be risky. It makes sure the Killer knows when you unhook, and even gives that visual cue just in case you have gotten busy and turned around.
So let's talk about this fact a bit more, put it in full context. The DEV could have made it so it isn't as obvious. In other words, it might simply show on the HUD, the way it tells you if someone has been healed or not. They could have even put in a time delay so you aren't certain when that unhook happened. They did the opposite. They ring a DINNER BELL, make it impossible for the Killer not to know "SURVIVORS HERE!" I know I repeat that a lot, to the point of redundancy, but there is a point. I'm going to get to it now:
- Rescuing a Survivor adds one more person back to doing Generators, a huge advantage to Survivors toward their objective.
- Rescuing a Survivor means another Survivor that may in turn rescue you, another huge advantage to the Survivor side.
- Rescuing a Survivor undoes all the work the Killer did to get that hook.
- Rescuing a Survivor EARNS the Survivor doing it Emblem Advancement.
- Rescuing a Survivor EARNS the Survivor Blood Points.
I could go on for another few entries actually, probably pass ten clear positives, but these above are the big ones. There is no downside, only positives to rescuing your teammates. Many Survivors have forgotten that this is a 4v1 and each person that dies significantly reduces your chances of getting out. Every person you save, significantly decreases the chance the Killer can achieve his/her objective. The DEV understand this and because you get so much REWARD for unhooks, the DEV have to make that reward come at a risk. That is why they notify the Killer. Because of Player Agency, they don't know for a fact that the Killer will return to the hook, but they want that to be a high probability option. There is no such thing as a free lunch. Thus, many people seem to work under the INCORRECT assumption that Camping and Tunneling are undesirable side-effects, when they are in fact simply part of the game (and to a degree an intended part).
Returning to Player Agency, let's play Devil's Advocate and talk about what would happen if the DEV did manhandle things and somehow force both Camping and Tunneling out of the game. These are the consequences that WOULD immediately follow:
- Survivors would start abusing the limitation for a competitive edge. This is 100% certain because it happened in every case where the DEV tested this in the past. Even the most minor constraint was quickly weaponized by the Survivors who would utilize someone hooked as a penalizing zone of protection. It was so bad the DEV stopped trying entirely. Consider how bad that must have been.
- You would no longer get any Blood Points or Emblem advancement Altruism regarding rescues. Why should you get rewarded for something that is a given, an act that has no risk? You are already rewarded by getting the person off the hook and back on Generators, giving Blood Points or Emblem advancement beyond that would be a "free lunch" and would have to be discontinued.
- The game would get boring very quickly. Without the potential for camping (honeypot traps) and tunneling for strategic pressure, the only thing left is Looping and Hide & Seek. The Killer has no Agency at this point. They can search for you and they can chase you. The choice of whom chase will have been taken from them as will have been the option to defend or guard. That means the game is now just a ritualistic chase, a forgone conclusion of circling terrain and basic mind games that all good Players learn. I don't know if you are old enough to remember video games like Pac Man, but that is the kind of repetitive pattern play we are talking about. It would be Pac Man with better graphics. Frustrating or not, Camping and Tunneling are the only agency options which prevent that.
- You would lose Killers because nobody wants to be a glorified Bot. Players who take on the role of Killer want just as much agency as those who take on the role of Survivor. One of the reasons Dead by Daylight is successful is because it engages the mind. Taking away options would make it less engaging for the side with fewer choices and would lose us players for that role. Since there are no Bots to take their place, the entire system bogs down as Queues get longer and longer.
I could give you a lot more of these too, but these are the biggest ones. You can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs. You can't have a game like Dead by Daylight, one with a sense of urgency and dread, without there being the constant fear, stress, and frustration. The game is often described as a frustration engine. That is true, but it isn't necessarily a bad thing. Horror movies are the same thing, a long stressful experience where the outcome is always in doubt. In the end, it doesn't matter if the protagonists get out alive or not, because it was about the journey (the rollercoaster ride) of your emotions while the struggle continued. Long story short (probably too late for that), the very tactics people curse and complain about are what make this game work.
0 -
You got into a tangent that is unrelated to the topic being discussed here. This is not a topic about whether or not you should be able to camp or tunnel, but rather a topic about which perks are currently encouraging camping and tunneling. I stated why they end up encouraging those actions and suggested that they be changed.
0 -
It isn't a tangent. It is entirely to the point. You want them removed, when you don't understand WHY they exist in the first place. Do you honestly think the DEV don't understand what their MANY different Perks encourage and discourage? :) That is rather arrogant of you. As I said, they created Perks which do encourage and those that discourage it. That is Player Agency. They aren't going to remove them for you because they WANT them there.
0
