Is escape through hatch fair?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes it is. Play the game.

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'.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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

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.

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 Die Risk your rank or stay in MMR hell Coffee! make your choice!

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.

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.