Killers behavior has been disgusting lately

Because to be completely blunt, there ARE times when camping is what you should be doing. Personally even during EGC, I won't camp because even then I just find it boring to try to secure one kill when I could run around and try to get more kills but if I were playing the "smart" way, I'd camp that survivor and force the rest to either abandon them or come to me.

It's the reason you can't really do things that would eliminate camping. There are times when it is the correct play and I have no idea how you would make the game be able to differentiate between someone playing smart with their camping and someone camping because they're a jerk.

I am wondering. Could that watered down unbreakable work? Thinking about situations where you want to use a slug as pressure so another Surv has to pick them up instead of doing a gen. Would even one Surv go and pick the slugged one up if they know it will take a bit but the slug can pick themself up? I remember I got kept on the floor for less by teammates :x

And what about those killer who are slugging the last person, camping and bm-ing them. It won't help with that I think.

It would fix the slugging for the 4k though (bled out yesterday while the killer searched for last person, totally not annoying xD).

Guess it could also work with Oni because people should have an incentive to pick up fast to not end up with a 4-people down, but I don't know much about Oni and the maximum duration of their power and if they would be harshly affected by that.

The devotion thing sounds interesting, but I feel a mori as reward won't be enough to give a nice incentive for playing in a sportmanlike manner. It would make the mori offering kinda obsolete as well. Wouldn't they go back to be an indicator for 'toxic killer', who want to get the mori even with camping/tunneling? They would need another rework or get removed completely (only yellow mori would make sense to be kept then I guess).

Do you want to know why people will say that would be abused?

Because BHVR tried doing exactly that a few years ago in the PTB and guess what? It was abused to hell by survivors (especially SWF groups who could communicate).

One guy sits by the hook and forces the killer to chase them around it. The person on the hook is never in danger because the killer is "camping" while the other two survivors slam gens. Even if you eliminate the "still does it during the chase part", survivors just stay outside the range and then force the killer to go after a chase they won't win (as the survivor is a mile away and can kill 30-some seconds before the killer can even get near them).

There are also natural times as put by Crowman right above where a killer will just be in the area because the survivors three gen'ed themselves. The killer isn't camping because but they're getting punished as if they were camping because the area they need to defend is where the survivor is.

So yeah, you might not like that people keep instantly refusing your one idea but as I asked in my very first post, pitch an idea that isn't going to be abused by survivors and/or punish innocent killers and I will gladly hear it out.

This is where the error occurs. You call this 'abusing the system'. I call it 'making a tactical mistake'.

You get looped around a hook. Sure, sounds bad, the timer doesn't go down. But the flipside is that the survivor on the hook doesn't get rescued either, since you're still really close by and could eaaaasily tunnel if someone hook bombs while you're looping 5 meters away.

The alternative scenario that you want to steer towards sees you getting looped somewhere that's -not- near the hook, which results in the exact same delay, only the person on the hook is getting rescued and healed and is going to be back on a gen soon.

Survivors staying just outside the range and forcing the killer to come after them? Oh no! You get free intel on their exact location! Imagine if they didn't and you had to move away from the hook and actually find them, instead of just taking them up on their offer to let you murder them!

In both cases, the 'system abuse' benefits the killer, because if the survivors -didn't- abuse the system, they'd be left with more resources and would complete their goals faster, with less risk.

The only thing that changes is that the person on the hook doesn't lose a hookstate for what legitimately would amount to -sandbagging-.

But, you know, finetuning the system is important, so how's about this? The effect scales down as gens are finished. At 5 gens, camping protection slows down hook progress by 90%. For every finished gen, the effect loses 15%. So at 4 gens left, it'd be 75%. At 3 gens, 60%. At 2 gens, 45%. At 1 gen, 30%. All gens done, 15%. (Or zero, I'd be fine with that too)

That would weaken it more when it's more likely to be abusive, and less when it is the killer's only hope of getting a kill.

Because survivors don't complain about being left on the ground to bleed out enough as it is.

Why would I hook a survivor farther away from gens that need to be defended? Why am I'm suppose to do the less optimal strat, just so you can feel good and get an unhook?

There are times where hooking the survivor around totems and gens so you can defend multiple things at once is the optimal strat and you just want to punish killers for playing optimal, because you don't like it.

It's an issue to play optimally by being able to pressure survivors on both gens and the unhook? Sounds like you would rather play against a bot you can easily abuse.

Also I'm one of the few people who says SWF aren't an issue and I'm fairly indifferent towards keys.

What happens, though, if they -didn't- pull that well-coordinated tactic?

You put them on the hook, turn around, see no one. You really think that situation is better than having immediate line of sight on two survivors? You really think that having to traipse over to the other side of the map and check every nook and cranny for a trace is better than just starting the next chase off the bat?

The only thing the 'abuse' scenario accomplishes is that there's fewer survivors working on gens and the killer loses less time tracking, UNLESS you assume the goal of the scenario is to prevent the unhook, as opposed to hunting down and killing survivors. But that's a problem with the premise, because then you're judging an anti-camping measure by how well it supports camping.

Oh no, you -have- to chase a survivor! What a tragedy!

I'm sorry, but saying that you have to actually play against your opponents and calling that a 'drawback' seems laughable to me. Again, compare this to a blank scenario where no one shows up. The killer then -has- to go look for a survivor, allowing any survivor that evades them to get the unhook.

Yeah. If you camp. Which is why you don't. Which is the point of the whole concept.

And it will be! As long as you're not sitting under the hook trying to prevent the hooked survivor from playing. As long as you don't camp, the timer will tick down normally.

Again, compare this to a situation in which the survivors -aren't- running this tactic, you put the target on the hook and instead of two survivors trying to force you into a chase, you can't see a single rescuer. Which is better for the killer?

That would be a pretty bad play on the survivors' parts, since that would just allow you to double back once the survivor has committed to the unhook to undo it. The timing would be pretty finnicky to pull off, since too early would give the killer the opportunity to tunnel, and too late would just see the next person downed.

This is not an argument, it's an appeal to authority. BHVR are not the be-all-end-all of game design.

My "fee fees"? I would have continued to engage if you weren't acting like a 10 year old on TikTok, oof.

"My fee fees". This is just more "it's only okay if survivors try to survive, but if a killer tries to win, it's unacceptable".

And survivors behaviour should be taken look at when they're T bagging too much or clicking the flash light too much.

No, how you win doesn't matter, as long as it's per the rules of the game. Not the artificial, one-sided rules of the community. The only issue here is peoples delicate sensibilities and entitlement. Period, end of story.

It kind of does matter how you play, because if every killer, starting tomorrow, exclusively camped or slugged, the game would be dead within the week.

Survivors need killers, sure, but killers also need survivors. This game is PvP within the trial, but we all have to work together to keep the game fun.

It's pretty unintuitive, but it's better not to break totems.

First off: NOED is not declared, so if you do totems, you're banking on the killer actually having it. If it turns out the killer doesn't have it, then you jeopardized your chances at victory by spending time on something that offers no in-trial benefit. You just slowed the survivors down.

Secondly: NOED will survive on -any- dull totem. This means that if you don't get all 5, you get nothing. Cleansing 4 totems gives you zero value in countering NOED, despite the time you spent on them. Again, you just slowed the survivors down.

Thirdly: NOED will survive on -that- dull totem. If you cleanse every totem you find but don't manage to find all of them, then NOED is forced into the totem that you cannot find. If there's only one totem in play that you can't find, that totem will be NOED and thus be incredibly difficult to break. If you leave all totems up, then there's a chance that NOED will instead sink into a totem that you -can- find, or perhaps even have already found.

That's the problems with NOED, and with the whole 'doing bones' argument. It is tactically better not to touch a single dull totem, as the chances of getting all five done are slim, the chances of getting all five done while the killer actually -has- NOED are even worse, and you run the risk of making NOED harder to destroy if it does manage to fire.

If NOED's power was bound to the number of remaining totems, and didn't deliver the full fury for missing just one, it'd do a -much- better job of mandating them.

The system is bad because it gives survivors FREE unhooks. You keep saying it punishes killers, when in reality, it is more of the opposite. It rewards survivors at no risk. They would need to add something to reward hook states, in my opinion, or surely the meta would just shift to slugging. SWF would 100% exploit this idea and to counter that, you can bet people aren't even going to bother with hooks. Rofl.

I have seen more Myers running Judith's Tombstone during this event than I've seen in the last year and a half combined. It's kinda funny. But sad.

its some feast or famine times right now, people are agitated with all the bugs and slow fixes to lagging and console issues, so many people cant play the event because of it. i try to make it fun for everyone cause i like to see it from their point of view, though i will say ive been running starstruck agitation nurse and having way too much fun so i apologize in advance