Endurance in endgame

As @MikaelaWantsYourBoon said, devs are try to close the gap between with and without the perks. Is OTR combined with full stack of DH, DS to 100% guarantee escape fair? It does not. At the same time survivor not having those perks is guarantee death. That would lead survivors only use those meta perks.

Devs made it so with or without OTR, DS, survivors have the same chance of escape or dying.

I'm not sure if you understand what everyone is saying.

The person who chose the hook by the gate made it an easier (not free) escape. I don’t know how it works in your games, but in mine, survivors typically only choose their hooks when point farming.  

Are you really saying you have trouble securing a kill endgame when u start it with someone on the hook?

Im not sure you understand what i am saying?

Try reading my comments again SLOWLY, - im not talking as a killer.

I'm saying that if I or someone from my SWF is hooked near an exit gate, we have a free escape.

Depending on what perks we use and the map configuration, the killer might not have a choice to get one of us to a hook that's far enough from an exit gate so that they can secure the kill in any way, thus ensuring a free escape for us....

I did give a pretty good example here on how it works - https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3625847/#Comment_3625847

Are you really saying that you have trouble escaping, if you are hooked near the exit gate in the endgame??

or saving someone that is??

I'm saying that if I or someone from my SWF is hooked near an exit gate, we have a free escape.

But is that a problem?

If a survivor goes done in the corner of the basement on death hook its a free kill for the killer. That statement seems silly to type because obviously it should be, calling it a free kill negates all of the other things that happened up that point of the game.

If we've got to the point of the game where a killer's only option is to hook a survivor near the gate, that survivor isn't on death hook, and the killer doesn't have a build that is able to capitalize on the situation - at this point survivors have given themselves a considerable advantage because of how they played. They played well which means they should have a higher chance of escaping. Everything that has occurred up that point is the reason for it.

To use sports as an example: if a basketball team was losing by 10 with 30 seconds remaining, the game is almost certainly done. Barring an absolutely epic collapse by the winning side, or legendary play by the losing side, its over. If they were up by 30 with 30 seconds even the worst players in the world wouldn't make a difference. But that doesn't mean one side is getting a free win, there was a whole game that occurred before this that needs to be taken into consideration.

I don't really think it address it.

Why should a hook not be a chance to secure a kill??

You might aswell argue that as soon as 3 gens are done the survivors should win, because the killer could not stop it?

Should all hooks have an equal chance to kill?

To say the killer has no chance to kill is also an exaggeration. Let's throw out everything that has happened in the game up until the point of the down.

The killer can leave the survivor slugged and try and injure others first.

The killer can hook and instead of camping the hook try and intercept the other survivors first.

The killer can try and body block the exit gate instead of the hook and hold the survivor until the basekit endurance wears off.

The killer can do the straight forward hook camp and hope the survivors mess it up.

Are any of those likely? No, but that's the point we are at in the game. Over a course of DbD the match tilts in the killers favor, unless the gens get done in which case it swings back in the survivors favor (barring an end game killer build). That's the game design.

Or perhaps the game should just end as the last gen is done ?

All games, whether they are sports, board games, or computer, have a point where the game is fundamentally over. Outside very rare instances is that moment of ending literally the very last moment of the game. Just because there are points where each side really only has a hail mary option is not a failure, its an inevitable part of competitive games.

Did you read this? i would not call it an exaggeration, this is factual.

I'm trying to understand what you are saying because it sounds like you are talking about a different topic.

I don't think anyone really doubts that a survivor hooked near the exit with a healthy team that is not trapped within the gate is almost certainly going to get out. There's a few extreme plays a killer could try, especially killers like Trickster or Wesker, but the survivors have the advantage. We're not debating the factual nature, we're on the game design.

Why not?

So this is in response Should all hooks have an equal chance to kill?

Because the rest of the game matters.

I almost just typed 'seriously', because it seems so obvious to me, but I'll do my best to answer in more detail.

Did you ever play a game when you were a child where the person losing was like 'next score is worth 9 points' (or however much they were losing by?). That's basically what we're talking about here. Over the course of the game the survivors have gotten themselves into an incredibly advantageous position. They've outplayed the killer. It would be crazy if we just reverted to a 'both sides have an equal chance to win'.

As others have said, it would be like if the killer got an elimination all other survivors got a massive buff ensuring they still had a 50/50 chance of escaping from the exit gates. When one side succeeds at an objective in a game it should increase their chances of winning, when they fail it should decrease their chances.

To be fair, you were the one quoting me and saying i was wrong, why my claim have always been the same, i guess we have a misunderstanding here.

But the way dbd works, the killer gets "stronger" (meaning they are getting closer to the 4k) as the game progresses and are getting more kills closer to the end game than early game.

I dont think you could say "hey we did four gens and the killer have 0 kills, so they lost".

On top of that, there are some killer builds that are all about the endgame.

Design wise - the above is the right design because it supports everything that has happened up to that point.

Does it? we have pulled this off with only 1 survivor + 1 on the hook, the one not on the hook was on death hook. So at that point, following your logic, the we should just have died because the killer had the upper hand, do i have that part right?

The unspoken point to their argument (briefly hinted at when they said the game should favor killer as it goes on) is that killers deserve to a kill at any stage of the game but especially late-endgame, while survivors should certainly fail at endgame. It’s why they’re avoiding your, my, and Firellius’ point that if the survivors play really well up to endgame they should rightfully make it out alive; they outplayed their opponent. Because for OP, that’s not important; it shouldn’t turn the game. For OP survivor death is an inevitability that should not be mitigated by playing well.