Otz Makes A Fair Point In Regards To Perks... (And Probably My Worst Take Ever)

Otz clearly states we should know of a perk's existence before it takes effect. I don't need the game to tell me everything. Once a perk is used and made clear I can use my own knowledge and brain to try and counter it.

Devour Hope was an example because it catches you out of nowhere sometimes and if the game told me the killer had that from the get go there's no use in it nor fun factor. This example parallel to Otz's statement.

So a part of my argument isn't that nothing should have a counterplay but rather let the player come up with it instead of exposing eachother's perks to one another for the sake of a guaranteed outplay.

in a case by case basis.

in this case, the perk needs a tell that it activated.

that simple

"which perks then?" is a question that does not follow from what I said.

I agree, dissolution should not inform the survivors of it's existence. you should see the effect, and be aware of it later.

this one, is not obvious. you just have to assume it is there or spend a bunch of time in chase to "confirm" it. it can and will give several false positives and negatives.

other haste perks are obvious, you just look at the survivor and they are zooming.

3% is not easy to tell unless you spent A LOT of time in the game. and the other haste perks, have an obvious activation window, this one is just on.

the tell could be as simple as a survivor with made for this having a slighty different running animation. but something has to show it is in play

you get hit, and a pallet breaks after you vault it.

the tell is there and is quite obvious.

even if you are unnaware of the perk, you will see that the pallet broke, and you can check the end game screen to read the perk that caused it.

so, basic awareness and reading perks is what prevents you from saying it.

I do not see what you mean cause your example is just terrible.

only if your point makes no sense.