Have the developers ever actually stated how they want killers to play the game?

"EXCESSIVELY LONG MATCHES DUE TO 3-GENS"

They are trying to prevent matches where Killers just hold an infinite 3-gen until the server closes or Survivors decide that doing literally anything else would be better than sitting in an hour long game with someone who has an ego issue.

Nope, not at all. Sure, it can happen. But there are more than enough instances where a Killer just does not leave their 3-Gen the whole game. And there is not really anything you can do about it as Survivor.

-"Map design is pretty bad across the board, so I don't think some maps requiring/forcing 3-gens is a decent defence of it being intended"

Look at a map like Azarov's.

You have 3 gens on one side+ 1 generator in the middle + 3 gens on the other side.

There is no M1 killer in the game without a movement power that can contest any combination of two generators on one side and one generator on the other side.

So when the developers say: we don't want 3 gens to be viable you either need:

1. To Delete this map
2. rework the map to be massively smaller (change that 11 to an 8)
3. Prevent any killer without a movement power from playing this map

What most people don't realize is that most of the maps in DBD can be polarized in the same way that this map can be. The removal of "3 gen" as a strategy removes most of the killer roster as being "viable".

If you want to kill the game then removing 3 gens as a tactic is a good way to encourage all nurse/blight all the time.

Some killers were designed around 3 genning playstyle. For some melee killers 3 gen can be a saving grace. This is soon to be changed.

While it's understandable that 3 genning can be annoying, it's removal will take another game plan from many killers. I have a feeling nothing shall be introduced in exchange to this 3 gen nerf ( survivors won't need to worry about which gen they should do anymore ) which will in turn only lead to faster overall gen progression as survivors will simply latch themselves to the first gen they see without any potential risk down the road.

To sum it up - another nerf to killers, albeit indirect. As for how devs think killers should play - with a clown hat and nose on. That's how.

Every Killer can hold a 3-Gen. Skull Merchant and Knight are just better at it, especially Skull Merchant.

But, I have to say, it got better. Mostly new and reworked Maps spawned really disgusting 3-Gens, but they fixed at least the one on Haddonfield. (Before you had 2 fixed Gens in front and inside the Myers House and almost always another Gen close by. Now the house in front of the house is gone or moved to the street and the one in the house moved upstairs... Way better)

Bad killers with zero game sense or skill in chase soon won't be able to get free wins due to mindlessly patrolling a three gen that they immediately committed to at the start of the match? Let me break out the world's smallest violin. Absolutely no one who plays survivor is going to miss these types of killers. I'm very glad to see Behavior is finally realizing many of the fundemental flaws in the design of their game. Finally we can go into an era where the game is based purely around chase. Not around facecamping and three genning. It feels like the worst days of this game are finally coming to an end.

I mean, sometimes it is.

Also, see Mandy's reply above mine. It's not how DBD is meant to be played.

That's not what you said, you said holding a 3 gen makes you egotistical, mandy is talking specifically about doing something intentionally from the beginning of the match for the INTENT to hold the game hostage. I'm talking about tactically setting up the 3 gen because i notice the survivors are giving me one, then decided to not chase them when they go to the strongest structure in the game that will minimum make my chase take 60+ seconds.

While we are at it, can we do something to prevent 2 survivors from hiding forever and not repairing gens because they both want the hatch? This also sucks for everyone involved when it happens.

I don't think the Devs have been cool with hostage holding.

That's been against the rules for as long as I've been around.

Holding a 3-gen from the very start of the game is not the survivors fault.

But consistently ending matches in under 5 minutes is fine, it seems. I understand the sentiment but surely you see how this might look hypocritical.

By the way, this is not going to punish killers that defend a 3 gen from the start of the match at all. In fact it does the opposite as it more or less works as a reminder (with an additional neat bonus), that survivors should break 3 gens early on, which punishes killers that play normally and have to use every survivor mistake to their advantage.

I´m afraid that in a 3 gen both sides are equally culprit of holding the game hostage. Because a survivor who tries to lure the killer away from the gens is just the same as the killer who tries to protect the gens.

You can´t point at the killer and say that he has an ego issue, when survivors have the exact same issue. Both sides want to win.

Sure! I can take a crack at that.

So, first of all, two of your three "don't"s here are right, but the third isn't. You can totally patrol defendable gens, that's not the topic being discussed and it'd be disingenuous to claim it is. There's a big, big difference between patrolling defendable gens, and picking three at the start of the match to never lose sight of while refusing to take chase away from them, stalling the game out so it lasts 40 minutes.

Moving on from that, I can't speak for BHVR but I can tell you what's left. Aim to be mobile and decisive, generating your pressure primarily through actions that push multiple survivors to respond; not just one down and stay at that hook, but spread injuries and downs such that survivors have to either dramatically cut down their generator efficiency to respond, or straight up stop doing generators to reset. Randomly roaming the map is a poor idea; if you don't have good enough map awareness to track survivors yourself (which I don't, no shade!) information perks will bridge that gap wonderfully.

Your biggest asset as killer is your ability to pressure survivors, by pushing them to take certain actions. Get an injury, that injury has to be healed or the survivor's vulnerable. Get a down, if you don't pick up, someone has to come pick them up instead or the generator efficiency goes down. Get a hook, someone has to save. That's the idea of spreading pressure, pushing multiple survivors to react at once instead of focusing too hard on one survivor.

There's no one specific playstyle, I hope you'll note. Stealth, chase, information heavy or slowdown heavy, these are all valid playstyles within this framework; the point is that you shouldn't be taking shortcuts that minimise gameplay, like facecamping or jealously defending a 3-gen to stalemate.

Obviously this game has balance issues. I'm fully aware generator completion times can be far too short to generate pressure. But you have to take one step to take any subsequent ones, and it's not an objectively ridiculous claim to say tackling the tactics that stall games out forever or completely remove players from the game for the entire match are a good first step over edge cases where games are over too fast, even if you disagree.