The game seriously needs to be hook focused

Options

Using kills as a win metric stopped being healthy maybe… 7 years ago. A game where you play for hooks instead is way more fun for everyone involved.

  • As a Survivor, escaping is satisfying whether you had zero hooks or two.
  • As a Killer, 12-hook matches are the most fun and rewarding you can have.

Neither Killer nor Survivor has fun when the game is only 4 hooks long. It feels rushed and unfulfilling. Both sides get to fully engage with the game when the goal is to get 12 hooks. And yeah, sometimes you get 9 or 10 hooks instead, but it’s still better than going for kills immediately.

The fact that, as a Killer, you cannot see the hook count is worrying because it literally prevents good games instead of encouraging them. I can't count the times I've killed someone accidentally because of this stupid idea that a hook count would cause tunneling. Instead, it would help Killers aim for those rewarding, extended matches.

If the game slowly started balancing towards hooks instead of kills, I think that it would end in a way better place than now.

Comments

  • hermitkermit
    hermitkermit Member Posts: 255
    Options

    I agree with this. I understand tunneling is a valid strat as is camping as neither are against the rules of the game though I would argue clearly discouraged (basekit bt, otr, ds), but the entire point of a game is to play it, and to go out of your way to make sure someone else doesn't get to play it shouldn't be part of it. This is on the devs for designing the game this way, but of course if that person is choosing to play that way there is a semblence of accountability because they are knowingly choosing to do it.

    Hopefully the devs will be open to changing it up a bit. I think linking the gens to hooks would be a great compromise. If one person is hooked consecutively, then gens get a repair speed buff, making them take less time to complete. When hooks are spread amongst survivors, gens get a repair speed slowdown, making them take longer to complete. This rewards killers to spread their hooks by giving them time to do so, while also allowing each survivor to actually play the game. This doesn't take away a killers ability to tunnel, but it denies them the pressure it used to.

  • bazarama
    bazarama Member Posts: 228
    Options

    I've always said hooks are more fun and would actually give a better idea of killer strength.

    Survivors killing themselves on first hook or giving up counts as a kill. 2 hooks and a 2k. Where is the logic in saying that was a draw?

    I played a game as huntress and got 11 hooks and last survivor got hatch. That's a win not an easy 3k with 3 hooks.

    I don't care if all survivors escape because camping or tunnelling is boring. Why do people feel the need to win on either side and start getting annoyed when they don't?

    Survivors moan about Nurse and Blight being too strong but I wonder what the actual kill count is compared to survivors seeing either character and giving up.

  • RaSavage42
    RaSavage42 Member Posts: 5,545
    Options

    Yes also Gens should be counted…

    Hooks are a positive for Killers but a negative for Survivors

    Gens are a positive for Survivors but a negative for Killers

    I mean that's what Pip's are trying to do

  • HerInfernalMajesty
    HerInfernalMajesty Member Posts: 1,318
    Options

    Sounds like it could be fun, especially if matches last longer. So much would have to change to balance around 12 hooks. Changes that I don’t think many people would like.

  • Blueberry
    Blueberry Member Posts: 13,589
    edited May 18
    Options

    I agree. The game would be in a significantly healthier state if it was balanced around hooks instead of kills. While there will always be people going for kills, we should at least encourage healthier play as much as we can. The game currently encourages playing in the most unfun way possible.

  • Junylar
    Junylar Member Posts: 2,005
    Options

    Agreed. Even in competitive they count hooks instead of kills, and consecutive hooks for the same survivor give you less points.

  • Krazzik
    Krazzik Member Posts: 2,417
    Options

    I'd love it if they balanced around hooks instead of kills but they'd need to make some pretty big changes to how the game plays at a fundamental level. Currently if they just got rid of tunnelling somehow and you had to spread hooks, they'd need to make gens much slower, which people would hate.

  • ArkInk
    ArkInk Member Posts: 581
    edited May 18
    Options

    Honestly, yeah. If a killer could technically 'win' the trial without killing a player, there might be less incentive to be toxic in the match. 12 hooks are extremely satisfying, and it might be better health wise to incentivise an 8 hook over a 3k.

    Post edited by ArkInk on
  • KayTwoAyy
    KayTwoAyy Member Posts: 1,699
    Options

    I used to be on the "play for hooks" train, but the more I think about it as a designer, the more convoluted it makes the win condition.

    The core concept of the game is very straight forward, which makes it very easy to understand and introduce new players.

    I would like to see BHVR experiment with basekit buffs/debuffs that offset the strength of camping/tunneling. Make camping/tunneling feel like throwing, while providing support for players who spread out their hooks.

    Tunneling/Camping are the equivalent of spawn camping. You wouldn't remove the ability to kill players in an FPS game because of spawn camping—you'd give the respawning player limited immunity and/or a safe zone to spawn within so they rejoin the game with a fair opportunity to outplay their opponent.

    It's safe to say that the current basekit BT and paid DLC anti-camping/tunneling perks are not providing survivors with fair opportunities to outplay a camping/tunneling killer. These design solutions feel more like speed bumps than roadblocks to killers.

  • Krazzik
    Krazzik Member Posts: 2,417
    edited May 18
    Options

    And that's the big problem. Currently in game it's far more difficult for survivors to deal with tunneling, than it is for killers to tunnel.

    Tunnelling isn't an auto-win of course, and targeting a good looper can punish it well, but a killer tunnelling a mediocre/bad looper (which most players are, including myself) is pretty easy, and the other three survivors have a really hard time doing much to protect their teammates.

    I'd go so far to argue that's there really isn't much you can do. If the target is a bad looper then bodyblocking isn't going to buy them much time, and is only going to waste time away from gens. You could bring a sabo build but on many maps the killer can just walk to another hook. You can try and provoke the killer to chase you instead by flashlighting and teabagging but… when does that ever work? A tunnelling killer is gonna tunnel.

    At the same time if they're a bad looper, do they deserve to stay in the game?

  • Devil_hit11
    Devil_hit11 Member Posts: 7,353
    Options

    you need hooks in like 90% of cases to get kills. So the game is already balanced around hooks.

  • Blueberry
    Blueberry Member Posts: 13,589
    edited May 18
    Options

    People can die on one hook instead of 3 so I disagree. To illustrate why they are different if we looked at the amount of hooks vs kills at the end of each match you would see very different pictures. If you were right we’d hypothetically see something like a 2k showing 6 hooks roughly, but I don’t think that’s what we’d see. Balancing around hooks also incentivizes less tunneling.

  • Devil_hit11
    Devil_hit11 Member Posts: 7,353
    Options

    so you want them to nerf camping? There is already anti-face camp system. do you want to convert the anti-face camp into full on anti-camping system?

  • Bloodartist
    Bloodartist Member Posts: 123
    Options

    Absolutely the ######### not.

    I much rather look at the cool animations unique to each killer than the same animation for every single character.

  • Krazzik
    Krazzik Member Posts: 2,417
    Options

    Gen speeds I'd guess. If people want longer games, that means you need to make gens take longer, which most people don't want.

  • Jim_Tonic
    Jim_Tonic Member Posts: 176
    Options

    I dont mind gens, but i know the majority of players find them boring. Which is a design flaw, they would needed to be way more interactive than just holding M1. and that would basicly mean core gameplay rework.