Is escape through hatch fair?
Answers
-
When they released statistics last year I think hatch escapes were accounted for. DC's were the ones that weren't counted for.
Hatch escape doesn't raise your MMR though, I don't understand how it doesn't count as an escape when it gives you points. Not counting as a win I can understand.
I don't think people who want to remove hatch want to give compensation to survivors. When people on either side complain about a mechanic that favors one side they don't go thinking that to balance the killrates killers/survivors will receive a different buff. They just want the killrates to change in essence. You also didn't make such an argument until I mentioned it, which makes me think you didn't really care about offering survivors compensation if hatch was removed but feel free to correct me.
If you dislike the RNG aspect of it then I don't understand how this bothers you so but 4% chance which is even worse gets no attention, or gen spawns in certain maps than can be awful etc. If you're coming at it from an RNG side you should be against many other RNG things DBD forces on its players, not just hatch.
Your basekit mechanic that gives you advantage is basically breaking pallets. Imagine a game you would not be able to break pallets, you'd be at a rather huge disadvantage even late game. But by breaking pallets at key places (say shack) you're weakening survivors and making deadzones that makes it easy to down them in any part of the game. Why are we acting as if this is not a basekit mechanic killers have that survivors don't have the equivalent of. Survivors can't rebuild pallets, and to even reset a pallet that's already down they need a specific perk. You should not be taking pallet breaking for granted, it's not. The game would be extremely difficult if pallets could be rebuild or survivors had a basekit ability to protect some.
Killers are have basekit BL in 3 levels and survivors have no such mechanic. BL becomes stronger in deadzones so it has great synergy with basekit pallet-breaking.
As for Hope and MfT, no we do not include that because we're talking on a basekit level. Just like we can not include Unbreakable and we didn't include moris either or add-ons. I addressed those earlier and I still told you that you have slugging on a basekit level. You really don't have to bring anything to counter hatch for the most part. Like a killer who brings 4 slowdowns can still lose a game duh, you cannot expect a 100% winrate on certain strategies that's delusional.
If you wanna have the MfT + Hope discussion I could also say, well just win the game before all gens pop, easy. No need to deal with this combo. MfT + Hope cannot counter 4 slowdown perks.
0 -
I don't think the tutorial explains something that doesn't exist and you haven't refuted what I said either.
If you're not able to explain your argument I'll just assume you don't have one.
0 -
Losing the argument? They either made up points and pretended I said them, straw manned, whataboutismed, ad hominemed, completely ignored points they cant counter, or didn't even understand the game.I don't agree with every argument in this thread, but you way over deploy strawman, especially because you don't explain why..
I was wasting my time with someone either heavily biased or just clueless but doesn't see it.Yet you took the time to respond. If you are going to respond to an argument, saying you didn't read it is silly. If you think its that much of a waste of your time, don't engage.
Ok so like I keep saying and like I've been saying since the beginning, give the killer an equivalent or replace it. Doesn't have to be removed and that's it.You like fallacies: this is the Nirvana fallacy. You are looking for a perfect solution. It's possible the hatch is the best solution that can be achieved.
Even we grant every complaint you have about hatch, we run into these two things:
Not having the hatch would make the game considerably less fun.
Giving the killer an equivalent "power" would make the game considerably less fun.
I might have missed a proposed solution, but I saw base kit blood warden after 3 survivors escape. Would you really be interested in playing a game like this as either the killer or last survivor (not even counting how easily SWFs would deal with this)? I have no interest in playing either scenario.
Alternatively just replace hatch with something like aura reading on the survivor to speed it up the death process then. If your only concern is speeding it up as that would remove the "robbery" or undeserved RNG escape aspect, or w.e. you want to call it.Again, how is that a fun game? The killer has a massive advantage and the survivor is doomed. Why are we even playing the game at that point?
Games require both sides to have some chance of victory. If one side can no longer realistically achieve victory, the game should end (either by design or a mercy rule). There can be a little bit of downtime as one side finalizes the victory: example carrying the survivor to the hook, but otherwise once the chance to progress is gone the game should be over.
The hatch mechanic keeps the idea that there is something to play for. That is absolutely needed.
It's possible there is a superior solution to the hatch mechanic, but I've never heard one that doesn't have even more problems.
3 -
Mini Blood Warden isn't the equivalent of hatch. The killer can actually close hatch. What can the last survivor do to de-activate Blood Warden? Does he have to wait out as now? Obviously this is not going for you but whoever proposed it.
The hatch still exists in its current form exactly because killer can close it. Just slapping a Blood Warden for last survivor while killer can close hatch doesn't address much of the new unfairness that is born of such a mechanic.
0 -
Well saying hatch doesn't count for a kill or escape, then counting it as a kill or escape doesn't make sense. But its BHVR so I wouldn't put it past them.
I can't talk for "people" and what they might be okay with if they haven't said so one way or the other. A that point I'm just heavily assuming. But if a change to solve a problem, or any change, causes an imbalance you should correct it or compensate for it. I didn't bring it up because it was never necessary to bring up. It would have just been unsubstantial fluff convoluting the discussion and point I was trying to make.
I am against all the things you mentioned for RNG. They are just not the topic at this time.
Breaking pallets is the killer equivalent of survivors dropping them, not for hatch. Imagine if killers couldn't break pallets. It's not an advantage it's an equalizer. Hatch still has no equal.
Ok well if we're talking base kit then why did you even bring up the perks to begin with? That's why I said it doesn't matter anyway.
As I told you earlier, a survivor can wait out the slug. The survivor can choose not to and risk getting caught which is what happens sometimes. But as is you can just hide and get hatch to spawn extremely more often than not. People can choose not to but that's on them not the game.
"you cannot expect a 100% winrate on certain strategies that's delusional."
Good thing I never expected or asked for that.
"If you wanna have the MfT + Hope discussion."
I don't. That's not relevant like I said earlier in this and the last post. You're the one who brought it up. I just responded.
0 -
My guy, you have still to figure out that this game is asymmetrical. That the killer and the survivors are playing fundamentally different games.
You say it's unfair that the killer doesn't get the hatch, or an equivalent but you are colossally failing to illustrate why this is unfair. Everyone with experience with this game, which is Dead By Daylight by the way, in case you erroneously wandered in from some other game's forums and are confused, knows that you are able to get any number of kills at any point in the game, up until the second that the survivors actually physically leave the trial.
Your hatch is the entire game up until that point.
Survivors only get it at the last second if they have already lost. Killers get it from the start, lasting the entire game.
You want the equivalent of three dead, one hatch escape? Camp. Tunnel. Get that 1E and throw the game for it. It's the exact same.
Everyone else has cottoned on to the fact that this is an asymmetrical game and thus mechanisms don't translate 1 to 1, except you.
That's why I assumed you have never played this game.
2 -
I mean, do I really have to explain why talking about things that aren't the hatch or relevant to it is unrelated to the hatch? It should be obvious. I did say multiple times when they were talking about perks that we're talking about base kit. If I was questioned or felt like it was not obvious I would/can explain. So if you want to bring up anything you feel like was not explained well enough or wasn't obvious why I believed it was a strawman please do. Also isn't burden of proof usually on the person trying to make the connection to say why they're relevant to each other?
I don't believe I'm looking for an unachievable perfect solution to the point it would fall under that category. I don't even believe there is a perfect solution. I'm also trying to use things already in the game just repurposed to keep it more feasible. But saying hatch as it is now is the best possible solution I do disagree with (obviously). Which is why I'm suggesting improvements when prompted or I feel is necessary.
Fun is subjective, so I try to avoid using it as an argument point. It would be less fun for some, more for others. The game would be less fun for those who want to have privileges over others I suppose. But more for those who want a balanced game. Amongst others on both sides, obviously we can't think of every possible person.
In regards to "fun" and my opinion on that matter, no, I don't have fun playing for hatch on either side. I'd much rather just die and move on as survivor, I'd much rather just get my kill and move on as killer. I know others who feel the same. Hatch can drag the game on, it does not exclusively make the game shorter. Survivors waiting for the 3rd to die, killers bleeding out to try and circumvent it, having to find hatch, close it, have gates power up, look for the survivor, wait for them to open a gate, ect. However, it's better than having survivors hold the game hostage for up to an hour. That doesn't mean there isn't a better solution or we shouldn't suggest one.
If you disagree with the scenario given purpose another to even it out. It's not just about the survivors fun, the killer matters too. I only suggested the aura reading because you put forth ending the game quickly. If that's your main concern, there's better ways to end the game quickly and just let everyone "go next". So I'm not 100% on what you want to take priority in regards to the system.
If I understand correctly, you're saying the game should end once one side wins past the point where it's not longer reasonable. If that's the case, then wouldn't something like an instant sacrifice EGC style also solve that issue? The game won't drag on, it can't be held hostage any more than it could currently, there's no undeserved robbed or w.e. anything going on. Isn't that an even faster solution?
Maybe it doesn't need to replace the hatch completely or be a new system if that's too extreme. Maybe once the killer closes the hatch then the survivor get sacrificed. That would at least be better than having a 2nd and 3rd chance to get out and the match would be over sooner. Hatch is the last chance and both sides get either a kill or escape for finding it. It's at least an improvement on the fairness aspect and keeps some of the aspects I believe you want to keep.
I'm open minded but IIRC as far as I have read in my back and forths, no one has suggested any alternatives improvements or solutions besides myself.
Post edited by MrPenguin on0 -
Hatch is pretty balanced in my eyes. It fulfils an important job of discouraging survivors giving up because there's always a chance for an escape, so even if a strong killer is stomping a team, one person has a chance to escape.
It does cause some issues though. When there's only two survivors left they often choose to hide and wait for the other person to be killed first so that they themselves have a chance for the hatch, but if there are only two survivors left and multiple gens left, there's not really any chance of those gens getting done so it's understandable, if tedious.
Also there are various archives and achievements that -require- 4ks, so the killer is forced to slug for the 4k in these situations, which isn't great, but I still think overall hatch is better how it is than not existing.
Post edited by Krazzik on1 -
The hatch probably favours the Killer if anything. As others have mentioned, the Killer moves slightly faster. The Survivor also needs to avoid the Killer while they're searching, which can make it difficult if the Killer zones them back towards an area they've already searched.
That said, the hatch is mostly there out of necessity, not to be as balanced as possible. Without it, you end up in a situation where one Survivor needs to power multiple generators on their own before they can escape. Meanwhile all the Killer has to do is patrol the generators and listen to see which one has more progress than the last time they walked by. If they touch the gen, they are probably going to die. If they don't touch the gen and hide instead, the game never ends.
The hatch's job at that point is to end the game so these never-ending scenarios can't happen. Either the last Survivor finds it and gets out, or the Killer finds it and starts the EGC. In either case, it's still a win for the Killer by pretty much any metric - the matchmaking system doesn't even count it as a win for the Survivor, there's an exception to make it nullify that match, so nobody gains or losses rating from that Survivor escaping through the hatch.
14 -
Ignoring the ad hominems.
Also going to preface this with If you don't want hatch improved than fine. If you just don't think or want the killer to get anything and keep it unequal and survivor biased in this aspect, then that can be your stance and on that I'm not going to change your mind. Especially not online. We can agree to disagree and move on. I want the game to be improved, and hatch is something that can be improved. Sorry you don't feel the same way and you offered no alternative improvements. Moving on.
My guy, I do realize that. That doesn't mean there aren't comparisons that can be made. There are plenty of equivalents and comparable on both sides. "it's asym" is not the shutdown you're trying to use it as.
- Kills = escapes
- Gens = hook states
- Gen time = chase time
- Pallet drop = pallet break
- Boons = hexes
- Exposed = endurance
- Dead zone = god loops/tile chains/ pallet cities/ w.e. you wanna call them
- Tunnel = gen rush (not hatch)
- Camp = focusing on a single gen (not hatch)
- ect.ect.
If you (general) think they're not comparable you don't understand the game enough to compare them or don't understand they don't need to be exact 1:1 to be "comparable". Speaking of which, some things don't have a 1:1 sure. In this case it's because it literally doesn't exist on one side which is what I've been saying. Boons didn't exist, they got added and now we have a comparable for hexes. You should really stop assuming what others think/know, so far you've gotten them all wrong. Again, "it's asym" is not the shutdown you're trying to use it as.
The entire match is the same as hatch? Hmm lets see:
- Activates when the killer already lost? No.
- 2nd chance at avoiding the worst score? No it's the only chance.
- Activates 3rd chance if the killer loses it as well? No see above.
- Separate from the normal way of completing the objective? No.
- Survivors can "turn it off" for the killer before the match is over? No.
- Voided from results? No.
No I don't think they are comparable. There's no similarities as far as I can see.
Again, if you just don't want hatch improved, think or want the killer to get anything and keep it unequal and survivor biased in this regard, then that can be your stance and on that I'm not going to change your mind. Especially not online. We can agree to disagree and move on. I want the game to be improved, and hatch is something that can be improved. Sorry you don't feel the same way and you offered no alternative improvements.
Post edited by MrPenguin on1 -
Even if the survivor waits out the 4 mins you can still find the hatch first or the survivor first. You're implying that being unable to 100% guarantee hatch denial is not good enough, but then claim you were not insinuating that a 100% winrate...ok? The winrate was not mentioned for all the games, but being able to deny hatch 100% of the time would give you 100% in the scenarios you crush survivors at 4-5 gens, that's where it was pointed at.
0 -
Still consider it a pity door
definitely not as bad as it used to be as it was literally just a “you get to escape with out having to actually do your objective”
1 -
Unless the survivors were a dedicated bully squad and really somehow got under my skin or of course when I am going for an adapt achievment, I have adopted the habit of hocking the 3rd survivor immediately. I still get lots of survivors camping the hatch, when they find it first, till I approach, because they can't live without their little twerk show-off, but this is orders of magnitude less aggrevating then exit gates BM, because that survivor most likely got that hatch, because I didn't sweat.
2 -
I mean, do I really have to explain why talking about things that aren't the hatch or relevant to it is unrelated to the hatch? It should be obvious.In this case yes, because the problem is, as people have pointed out, its an asymmetrical game. It's not "fair". Why does this issue in particular need to be fair?
Fun is subjective, so I try to avoid using it as an argument point.Yes, its subjective, but its the ultimate goal of the game is fun. It's perfectly fine not to find something fun, while also realizing that others do find it fun. Example: I loath the way add-ons and the bloodweb work in this game and would rip it out and rebuild it from scratch if I could, but I also realize that is not an opinion that is shared by most players or that my desire for the game is what the developers are going for. I understand BHVR's reasons and, while its not the choice I would make, live with it.
If you think you have a more fun solution to hatch mechanic, go ahead and explain why. I'm explaining why I think it would be considerably less fun.
In regards to "fun" and my opinion on that matter, no, I don't have fun playing for hatch on either side. I'd much rather just die and move on as survivor, I'd much rather just get my kill and move on as killer. I know others who feel the same. Hatch can drag the game on, it does not exclusively make the game shorter.It's possible you would enjoy your solution, but I don't think most people would. I think one of the things that makes DbD so appealing is that it is better than any other multiplayer game I've ever played at climatic moments. A good story goes through a narrative arc with building tension, its highest moment should come right towards the end. In many other games I've played, having the game decided right at the end with two sides fighting to the bitter end is extremely rare. It's much more common in DbD.
That's why I think ideas like the game just ending wouldn't actually improve the fun. The game needs a tense conclusion. You're not going to get that every game by any means, but that's what you are going for. Hatch allows something to play for at the end, or something to strive for in the middle, that keeps the tension going.
Survivors waiting for the 3rd to die, killers bleeding out to try and circumvent it, having to find hatch, close it, have gates power up, look for the survivor, wait for them to open a gate, ect.I think all of these could be addressed with hatch. Speeding up the bleed out timers is an obvious one, requiring some level of gen interaction before AFK crows is another, but both could keep the hatch.
As for the others, it's not thrilling, but I don't find it nearly as bad as you do. It has at least some mind game elements and creates a feeling of needing to rush.
That doesn't mean there isn't a better solution or we shouldn't suggest one.You can suggest all the solutions you want, but you need to explain why fairness is paramount as a reason for needing a new method and whether your solution would deal with others proposed problems.
It's also fine to realize what you want from the game is not what the game is going for.
It's not just about the survivors fun, the killer matters too. I only suggested the aura reading because you put forth ending the game quickly. If that's your main concern, there's better ways to end the game quickly and just let everyone "go next".Yes, killer fun matters. I think killers, in the long run, would get less enjoyment out of things like free aura reading, basekit blood warden, etc. Hatch is a pretty random element, but its better than just having the game totally decided and still having to play it out (which is an opinion, but I think that's what most people would decide if they actually played both versions).
So I'm not 100% on what you want to take priority in regards to the system.Overall enjoyment of all players. Given the nature of the game there will inevitably be some moments or positions that are considerably unfun for both sides. While those should be minimized, any alternatives must be overall improvements.
Example: Getting camped sucks, but if it was totally impossible for the killer to be near the hook the game would overall be considerably worse off.
If I understand correctly, you're saying the game should end once one side wins past the point where it's not longer reasonable.Somewhat. What I'm saying is a well designed game will, generally, appear competitive for the majority of the game. Let me use some symmetrical games as examples and why they deal with unbalanced situations better.
In a Team Deathmatch gameplay: the kill counter should be set at a point where, by the time it becomes obvious that the team's are unbalanced, the game is pretty much over.
In a Control Point style game: if one team dominates, they are going to totally control the objective, leading to a very quick game.
In both of the above examples if the sides are unbalanced the very nature of the game will result in a quick game. It's not perfect, brutally unbalanced sides will still suck, but the design makes the best of a bad situation.
DbD is an outright failure on that front. Given its stealth and elimination format, its possible the killer can be in a winning position very quickly, but the game not being close to being finished. The hatch is a solution to that problem, though it doesn't address all of the possible issues.
If that's the case, then wouldn't something like an instant sacrifice EGC style also solve that issue?Generally, no. Even if true, I think BHVR would worry it would feel like a farce. Horror requires tension, its what makes DbD appealing, the game just ending because a survivor got sacrificed on the other side of the map probably wouldn't feel satisfying for most players.
That said if we had to change hatch mechanic I'd take instant end game under a variety of conditions to speed things up.
Also, and you avoid this unless I missed a comment, in BHVR's mind the game is 1v1v1v1v1 - I take it you disagree with that idea, but if so we're looking at a larger overhaul then just hatch.
I'm open minded but IIRC as far as I have read in my back and forths, no one has suggested any alternatives or solutions besides myself.That's because most of us either don't seem to have a problem with hatch or don't see a superior alternative. You really seem to have an issue with the fairness, you cite it multiple times as a reason in and of itself, and it just doesn't really bother me given the game's asymmetrical nature.
1 -
If hatch spawns because only one survivor is left in the game, and the killer closes hatch, and the survivor escapes through the gates, does that count as a win for survivor?
Because if that counts as a win for survivor, does that mean if the exit gates are too far apart to defend, that the killer should literally just wait for the survivor to get hatch, if they don’t want to risk an MMR loss? And the last survivor should literally just wait for the killer to close hatch, because the survivor has a high chance of escaping through the gate if the killer closes hatch?
0 -
Well let me try to clarify.
I never said it needs to be 100%, but as is now if the survivor hides and wants hatch to spawn they have pretty damn good odds. Maybe not 100% but way better odds than the killer finding whatever random spot they threw themselves in. Survivors mostly only get caught before then if they make a risky play for the 2nd survivor, get caught as the killer downs the 2nd survivor, or the killer gets lucky.
It only works because the survivors let it, not because it's inherently a good counter. It's stopped by just waiting safely. But it's the only option the killer really has if they want to try and play around it.
Maybe a rewording and deeper explanation would help. My main point is that hatch has flaws, especially from the base kit system and/or the killer side perspective, that make it unequal. Part of the question asked was "is hatch fair". Which from that perspective, no it's not. As with any other perceived flawed thing in the game, people (me included) are going to suggest ways to improve it and their gripes. As a neutral player who plays and cares about both sides of the game, I would like it to be evened out somehow, or at the very least improved upon.
So, as I responded to someone else, if hatch being replaced or removed or a new system for killers is too much, then maybe something else such as cutting out the 3rd chance from the equation would at least be an improvement. Such as when the killer finds hatch the survivor gets EGC sacrificed or something similar to just end the game and improve the slog that can happen sometimes and to balance it out at least a little. Whoever finds hatch first gets the E or gets the K.
I'm open to other solutions and improvements, but so far I haven't really been purposed any as far as I can recall at this time.
0 -
Where are the stats then? Because the majority of the time I've been in that situation the killer ends up finding the survivor anyway. How reliably can the last survivor wait out 4 minutes while hiding perfectly AND get the hatch first?
You spoke about odds I'm expecting some back up on those claims.
1 -
My guy, I do realize that. That doesn't mean there aren't comparisons that can be made. There are plenty of equivalents and comparable on both sides. "it's asym" is not the shutdown you're trying to use it as.
Yes it is. Play the game.
Kills = Escapes
Ignoring that this is already a fundamental misrepresentation of the game's mechanical complexities, this still doesn't work for your argument.
The killer is able to secure a kill at ANY point in the game. Even if the exit gates open, you can pluck a survivor out of there and still kill them.
If kills = escapes, then it means that the killer intrinsically does not need the hatch because of this simple fact. You can make that kill at ANY point in the game. The hatch gives the same benefit to the last survivor.
What you are asking for, what you are equating to the hatch, is being able to secure a kill at the point that the fourth survivor is leaving. That is NOT the equivalent of the hatch. That would be equal to giving the survivors another chance to secure an escape AFTER all four have already died.
Functionally, what you are looking for, the ability to kill a survivor after the gens are done, already exists. You just mistake 'analogous' for 'exactly the same'.
1 -
Well, I might not agree with everything but I can see where you're coming from. I don't think we can come to a cohesive agreement as our views are too different even down to what is enjoyable or bothersome. But I try to get to a point where both sides can acknowledge and understand the others views. Well, or at the very least I can.
Again I see where you're coming from. I don't entirely disagree or agree and you bring up some additional angles to consider, but in interest of time and energy, I don't think it would be worth it to discuss further if that's fine with you. I think I have a good understanding of your argument, and I can't say you're wrong. The most I can say is I disagree on some aspects, but I'm ok with that and I believe that's a good spot to leave it in.
0 -
Hatch in its current state is perfectly fair. In most situations where you'd need it, the game is already pretty much lost for the Survivors. Keys are incredibly niche now, and without items Killers should have an easier time locating it than the Survivor due to superior ground speed.
It's not 2020 anymore where 3 Survivors can escape through hatch with a key lol
1 -
Well, just as your argument is coming from your experience mine is coming from mine. In games where me or someone in my group want hatch for whatever reason, the vast majority of the time we get it to spawn.
If your experience is different then there's not much to say. I'm not playing in your games I'm not seeing what you see. You can't disprove my experience and I can't disprove yours.
We both don't have any stats to work with afaik.
If you are really getting denied hatch most of the time in your games and you feel like there's not much you can do, then I can see why you are taking the stance that you are.
In that case I believe that the core of the friction might be because our experiences with the mechanic and what does and doesn't work for us are wildly different for whatever reason. Maybe region, maybe MMR, maybe mindset, maybe playstyle, maybe something else.
As such, I'm fine leaving the conversation as it it. I don't believe we can really come to any further agreement or take the conversation anywhere else when our experiences appear to be the opposite of one another, as fundamentally what would help for one would harm the other.
0 -
Ok at this point as I see it, I think you have no idea what you're talking about and are making no sense and likewise I'm sure you feel the same.
I don't think we're going to get anywhere. Best to cut out losses and move on imo.
0 -
I play solo and never bother for hatch if killer decides to slug, I just do gens if there are any left and if I find an opportunity I got and heal the other survivor.
My experience above is when I'm the one getting slugged for the 4k. It's very few times that the other survivor actually gets to find the hatch and survive after 4 minutes are gone.
Maybe you experience is different if you play in SWF as it is a more controlled environment. I'm talking as a solo survivor for the most part.
0 -
Not only is the current hatch system perfectly fair, but it’s needed in order to prevent hostage situations and players refusing to end the game (happened a lot in old school DBD before the EGC was implemented).
It creates a situation where either a) the survivor finds it and escapes so the game ends, or b) the killer finds it and closes it which forces the end game collapse.
Equally, it’s completely RNG dependant so both killer and survivor have equal chance of finding it first. I’ve played both sides and been lucky and had the hatch spawn close by; it’s literally luck of the draw.
Finally, it’s gives the final survivor some motivation to continue the game after the penultimate survivor is sacrificed.
And no, it’s not a free escape as many claim as MMR doesn’t register it the same as escaping through the exit gates. Even if the fourth survivor escapes, it’s still a sure fire win for the killer. Most competitive tournaments count either a 4K or a 3k with a hatch escape as a win for killers. Out of many of the issues in this game, hatch is arguably one of the most balanced and fair mechanics in the game.
1 -
I don't think that is how the idea of a win or draw is determined. It is based on "points" think like chess.
A win in chess is 1, and loss is 0 and a draw is 0.5.
In DBD, you aren't playing a 1v1, it is a 1v4. But for "winning and losing" purposes, it is a 1v1, 1v1, 1v1, 1v1 it is 4 separate 1v1s.
So if you had 3 people escape from hatch, and killed one, it would be:
0.5 + 0.5 + 0.5 + 1 = 2.5
A draw would probably be considered a 2, and a loss would be a 1 or 0, while a win would be a 3 or 4. So in this case, it would probably be considered a draw, MAYBE a win depending on how it is calculated.
0 -
Why are y'all getting this heated over hatch in 2023? There isn't much to discuss. It's a luck-based mechanic to bring closure to a match that is already over and it was deliberately designed to be this way.
2 -
Even if we used that point system a 3 hatch 1k is still more than the draw value. The Draw value would have to be the dead center, 2 out+2 kill, or 4 hatch. Essentially you have to sit directly on that middle number of 2, with no leeway. That would mean a theoretical 2.00000000001 would still be a win for that side, or 1.99999999999 for the other, overall. I think in the dev livestream Q&A though, they said draws are thrown out (no positive or negative for either side). Regardless though, a 3 hatch 1k in either method is a 'win' for Killer, even if it may not feel like it.
Now technically, points rewarded is based on the difference in point values. This means if a theoretical 0 point Survivor escaped against a 10000 point Killer, the Survivor would be awarded more points if they escape than to the Killer if they got the kill. IIRC the max point shift from a single person is 20, and we usually work in the 500-2000 range(-ish). But even then, there could be a match where a Killer 'won' by killing 1 person (even if they only facecamped the very first hook and got 1 hook, 3 hook states), getting 20 points, then when the 3 Survivors escaped (by gate) they each got 6 points, so the Killer was still net positive 2. Same with the opposite of a Survivor escape being 20 points, and the 3 kills being 6 point each. I think on the forums though people just assume +1/-1 in general though.
This facecamp MMR raise is why I advocate for hook (action) based MMR instead of raw kills (with a tie being 2 hooks, and a camped/waited out extra stage counting as .51 of a hook). If a baby-Bubba gets backfilled into that giga sweat SWF lobby another Killer dodged, their MMR is raised by getting the 1 hook. Over time their MMR can raise beyond their skill level, to the point they are 'winning' with 1ks in their bottom of 'top-MMR' because they are 1400/1600 going against 2000s.
1 -
I mean... yea I think it's fair
If they didn't change it would people complain about 3Genning
Would Killer's be fine with multiple Survivors getting the hatch
There are pros and cons to everything
0 -
I want hatch grabs back. its so boring now.
0 -
I mean, I have no idea why you guys care so much about a hatch twerk and a teabag at the gate, just force them out. Don't let it get to you. Some survivors teabag, some killers hit on the hook. And why the hell should we all care?
0 -
RIGHT??? They SLUUUUG the third survivor to get their 4k, and now they're pretending hatch is a big problem. I mean...
0 -
Do you happen to know what happens if the Killer closes the Hatch and the Survivor gets the gate? Does that still use the Hatch draw, or does it count as a Survivor win? I've been afk-ing in the corner to incentivize the final Survivor at 4-5 gens to take hatch (especially when I don't want to search for it on swamp maps), but sometimes they are scared and don't want to even search for it. I also get if that specific information wouldn't want to be shared, in fear if it would encourage negative behavior.
0 -
Well some people will never be happy even if the chance for the survivor to escape such a scenario were 1%.
0 -
Hatch is not a BIG problem, but sometimes it rubs you the wrong way, when the survivor, who BMed you all game long finds the hatch first and smugly stands on top, t-bagging you like their life depends on it. Yeah, its dumb and "just crouching omg", but if it were just a button press without any meaning, no one would waste minutes of their life just for 4s of it.
I understand why the hatch is there and why it is sorta necessary, but it can sometimes feel like an utterly undeserved and cheap escape. I am not asking for a change or anything, just venting a bit. The hatch is always there to give an escape option, no matter how well you played and how severely you outplayed the opposition. Yeah, a 3k plus hatch escape is still a full win, but I have a lot of adapt achievments get marred by the hatch. Its just the game.
But as a thought experiment, just imagine if the killer always had a 5% chance, whenever they hit someone while the exit gates are powered and all 4 survivor are alive, to instantly down and mori them. It could be called the "Entities pitty kill" mechanic thats just there, so that killers can at least sometimes walk out of a crushing defeat with a single kill. It wouldn't equate to skill or clever tactic, just a lucky throw of the dice. BTW, the kobe-mechanic is even more so like this, its a 4% chance thats always there and that turned around so many great and deserved 4Ks. I secretly suspect that there is a hidden hope mechanic that kicks in, when all survivors are downed and the killer starts hooking them all. So often one will kobe and then unhook two others :P
1 -
The problem is that killers -always- have a chance to come back. Even if you are at 0 hooks by the time five gens are done, you could still walk out with four kills.
Survivors don't have that. Killers can go from 0K to 4K in seconds, but survivors can't go from 4K back to 0K.
These things are not even. The game is asymmetrical. Things can be analogous, but that does not mean they are the same.
5 -
It's far easier to get kills as killer than to escape as a survivor. Killers don't have a basekit equivalent of hatch because they simply don't need it.
I play both roles pretty equally and killer is easier by far. A 0k game is very rare for me as killer because if i know gens are going to get done I can usually focus one person out and occasionally secure an extra kill or two from ill advised attempts to save the surv I've picked. And I can tolerate the odd 0k game.
As for survivor I die in most of my games. Probably 60-70% which is a lot. Without hatch it would be much higher. And I probably wouldn't bother playing survivor at all.
It comes across in the way i play. As killer i usually deliberately release 1 or 2 survivors in a game i do well in. As surv i think i have taken pity on a killer once or twice and allowed to hook me so they can have a kill when it would have been a 0k. Survivals as surv mean a lot more to me than kills as killer.
You need 4 times as many surv players as killer players for dbd. So you need to make sure that people WANT to play surv. Making the experience too punishing would tank the game and make matchmaking a nightmare. Hatch is a good QoL machanic so survivors don't automatically just die everytime killer pressures gens right. At least there is an opportunity to escape. Its not even a guarantee so I don't see why people have an issue with it. Like it's so easy to counterplay hatch when you have 2 survs left alive
The only time a hatch escape irks me is when i need a 4k for an adept or challenge. Aside from that I couldn't care less as killer.
4 -
it's still a win for the Killer by pretty much any metric
except for bloodpoints, adepts and challenges requiring a 4k and probably emblems too. you are denied 2,5k deviousness points and your sacrifice points.
and it awards survivors with a whole 9,5k points (half of an average survivor match) potentially 10k if they are the obsession, without any effort from their end; which leads to dedicated builds and useless teammates.
0 -
Except for the survivors who play scummy and get everyone killed for the hatch, isn't in an effort to stay alive? I did not know that hatch only spawns when survivors roll over. I guess when survivors are saving teammates and cranking gens, getting in chases atc. the hatch doesn't spawn at all.
You'd imagine killers claiming "just cause you did 5 gens doesn't mean the game ended and you don't deserve an escape!!!" would probably also understand that just cause you did well, you don't deserve a guaranteed 4k.
0 -
survivors have an objective to do in order to escape: do gens and then gates. a game mechanic that only exists to cover core game flaws doesn't need to award absurd amounts of bloodpoints, again, causing selfish playstyles to develop.
hatch wouldn't be an issue if it didn't give any bp, and if survivor escaped that way killer still got their score events as if they killed the last survivor, and their achievements/challenges. in other words, if hatch just and only fulfilled its purpose to exist: preventing "never ending" games.
0 -
considering the survivor is the only one that benefits from hatch, technically, I say it can only favour the survivors. even if the killer has in theory a better chance of finding it first.
*please have this playing as you read... thank you
Hello @Coffeecrashing
I want to play a game.
in front of you there's a hatch.
you may close the hatch, which will force the survivor to have to open one of the 2 gates in order to escape. killing a survivor in that situation is usually an easy feat. but if they manage to escape you will lose MMR.
but, you can choose to leave the hatch open to chase the survivor. they can escape using the hatch but your MMR won't be at risk.
what is more important? your pride in your skills? or your MMR not lowering?
Live or DieRisk your rank or stay in MMR hell Coffee! make your choice!4 -
Ok so you basically want the hatch to count as 1k shile you don't even to hook someone? Excuse me? wut? And also not give BP? What will the point of hatch be then? Decorative?
0 -
putting matches to an end. this is its point.
0 -
That is the point for killer, but what is the point for survivor?
0 -
Ok that's fine.
The original question was was it fair, and no it's not since it only favors one side and killers have no equal. My main point was that and that's the stance I was defending.
That doesn't mean it needs to be changed. I think it can be improved or a better system can be put in its place, but I also don't think that necessarily needs to happen. I would prefer if it did but that's about it. I'm fine if it doesn't.
I think some of those aspects got lost in the mess.
Post edited by MrPenguin on0 -
putting the match... to an end? aren't people complaining about sm because she takes the game hostage?
0 -
Why should I go for the hatch and not ask the killer to kill me? Your point makes no sense. Both end the game and according to your proposal I get nothing for hatch, I have no incentive to try to find hatch. All I can do is hide and wait for killer to close hatch and hope I get out of the gate. And if gates spawn next to each other, it's somehow more fair than hatch??? So killer can now patrol both gates lol. And if I want points I'll need to avoid hatch and go for gate and if killer wants the 4k he'll just not close hatch. I think you just created a new problem there.
2 -
no, i didn't. if you want points, you can hide all you want but now the killer has a choice: they can be petty and look around the map to find you -which is fine since you also don't value your time apparently in that scenario- or they don't care and close the hatch and play gates. BUT they have the choice here and not some rng garbage dictate them they are completely losing their 4k and anything that kill would bring.
0 -
But we accept bullshit rng crap like gates spawning too close. Why?
0 -
? this doesnt have much to do with the topic. gates killers can watch without moving, close 3 gens, nasty window/loop set ups they all should be fixed.
0 -
If the killer wasn't able to completely ignore hatch by slugging the last 2 survivors I would agree that it is unfair. But most of the time killers wont even bother hooking the last survivor so they can avoid hatch all together. They just slug and wait and then down both of them.
0
