http://dbd.game/killswitch
Stop using kill rates as evidence of anything...
Comments
-
Never consistently though.
Depends on your skill as a player.
6 -
If kill rates aren't evidence that the game is killer-sided then killers should have no problem with a 50% kill rate, because it's not evidence of "anything".
13 -
Let me get this straight, what you are arguing is that multi-hooking isn't viable right now and could use some buffs. Does that sum up what you're saying?
3 -
Eh most of it isn't subjective
I think there was a miscommunication. I meant that my personal experience of DBD (in the past) was that the game could be fun while losing. I meant that "I accept that my experience in that was subjective", and your mileage may vary.
Clearly, at least you and I have had different experiences in this.
I loath the "why are you still playing" comment
I mean, I'm not forcing you to do anything, and it's healthy to take breaks. That's all I meant.
It's more a response to the very angry language you use, especially when you generalize that the community as a whole "is spite and salt" as you put it, and then double down with "loathing".
I do agree that DbD does tend to bring it the worst in some people, but that's a trend with games bhvr designs. They give most of the game to over person as the "power role" and just hope that creates a fun enough game to survive. DBD has survived, largely because of licensing, not gameplay. Unfortunately this analysis also applies to death garden and even meet your maker, which didn't.
3 -
I'm arguing because it's been the same song and dance for years.
You started with "buff killers for spreading hooks" and when I pointed out that would *also* buff tunneling, you're now having to backtrack and add layers of exceptions that would attempt to prevent those buffs from applying to tunneling.
And from experience, any time we've had a mechanic that is complicated like this it either has a loophole where it can be bypassed completely, or an unintended consequence where it could be weaponized.
I'm saying we're at a point where the buff needs to be secondary, or not at all. Starting with "buff killer" and then "figure it out later" (which is how you're approaching this ambiguous mechanic in this conversation) is how we've tried it for 3 years now.
Because, all of these extra caveats for "but you can't tunnel with it" are an attempt to whack a mole all the scenarios it might be used to tunnel someone.
Meaningfully nerf tunneling first. Period.
Then we can talk about individual buffs that killers need. Because you can't honestly look me in the eye and say that blight, for example, needs any of these hypothetical buffs to do well. But we probably both agree that trapper probably does.
5 -
I certainly don't believe its 75%. Where did you get that number? Also, yes, IF 75% of the player base does gives up every match the game is doomed.
Where's your compassion to the players that actually want to play but have to deal with selfish ######### who quit because they happen to be found first?
This isn't about killer vs survivor, but yes its mainly survivor because survivor is the only role where quiting results in the match continuing. A killer that doesn't feel like playing a losing match has no ability to leave early without penalty. They can stand in a corner or leave the match with penalty. In other words, they are forced to play a losing match to the end. 😱 Yes, I know. How dare we expect that.
Maybe we should nurture a culture of killers DCing if a gen pops before getting a hook? I wonder how quickly your compsssion would change to disdain.
-4 -
There's a clear difference between in the lobby and in the match. Your time waiting for a match is violated if a player leaves after the match starts. If someone leaves in lobby they are replaced. Besides, both sides do this and I expect one side to do it more often when perk builds get displayed in lobby.
-2 -
How do both sides do this when survivors cannot see anything about the killer? The match begins when the offerings are burnt. If you disconnect after the offerings are shown, people have to wait for the game to realize the player disconnected. That wastes so much time. You're thinking of lobby dodging, which only the killer can do in response to survivors. The survivors know nothing about what the killer will bring until the match starts, aka the offerings screen.
2 -
No it really doesn't. Multihooking is an objectively bad thing to do. There's no positives to it because any remotely competent team of survivors can easily take advantage of the fact that you're letting 4 of them live at the same time. Unless you're ending chases in 15 seconds flat, it's pointless.
???
Yes. And once multihooking is actually remotely viable to do, you can make all the anti-tunneling, anti-camping, anti-whatever changes you want and it won't just actively ruin the killer experience. Because the playstyle you WANT killers to do, won't be complete garbage.
No one's backtracking. I made it very clear what the exceptions were, I told you verbatim that it wouldn't buff tunneling and you ignored that and kept repeating yourself.
You are the problem here. You don't read to understand, you read to argue. I can't help you.
-11 -
Killlers can dodge lobbies because a survivor is wearing a hat. In other words, dumb reasons.
Survivors dodge other survivors for similar dumb reasons. And soon, they can dodge because another survivor is bringing a non-meta build.
-3 -
I wouldn't say im a killer main anymore, but ive played at least 2000 hours on killer. While the UI elements clearly buffs survivors, it's simply to, as you said, bring solo queue in line with swfs. As for basekit borrowed time, that is something that should have been in the game since its inception. It was practically mandatory to have at least one person have BT slotted and be the rescuer which was very frustrating. Imho, it's hard to imagine DBD NOT having basekit BT.
2 -
No it really doesn't. Multihooking is an objectively bad thing to do. There's no positives to it because any remotely competent team of survivors can easily take advantage of the fact that you're letting 4 of them live at the same time. Unless you're ending chases in 15 seconds flat, it's pointless.
People win with this method all the time. Just because it won't hard-carry you to T O P M M R like tunnelling does, doesn't mean the method is 'objectively bad'. That's if you're just comparing it to the other methods, not if you're comparing it to regular results.
Because on that front, you'd have to account for killer skill. Some killers have shown that multihooking is perfectly viable.
But you're not going to be able to do that if your starting point is giving up.
12 -
I'll take things that don't happen for 200 Alex. And even if so, they also DC for the reasons I gave in which survivors cannot. So therefore, killers disconnect and dodge at the same if not a higher rate as survivors do and for more reasons, all while putting the blame solely on survivors. That's called entitlement.
3 -
Even the best killers can start by doing that but as soon as the survivor team is even remotely competent and can take advantage of the fact that you leaving 4 people alive, and can loop for longer than 15 seconds. Guess what they do, they start tunneling and camping IF their goal is too win. Yes, it is an objectively bad playstyle.
It relies heavily on straight RNG. Are the survivors competent?
Yes? You're not multihooking.
No? You can multihook.
Leaving 4 survivors alive is factually bad. Again, the game is hilariously survivor sided in a 4v1, just the same as it is hilariously killer sided in a 3v1 and below. Until that gap can be closed, multihooking will ALWAYS be worse than any other playstyle that results in kills. Introducing a bunch of anti-tunneling, anti-camping, and anti-slugging mechanics will not change that. All you will do, is make killer feel bad to play and survivors feel great. That is not balance. Balance would be making multihooking better to benefit killers AND introducing anti-whatever changes to benefit survivors. Doing just one is dumb.
But evidently from the downvote spam survivor players can't get behind the idea of "Make both sides fun instead of just one". Somehow that is an outlandish take to have.
-5 -
At no point did I even remotely suggest any part of what you said. There is nothing I said that could even be remotely interpreted that way. You actually had to blatantly misquote me to try and somehow prove your point.
What I quite clearly suggested is that if you don't enjoy the game, play a different game. This game isn't for you if you don't find it fun.
It is totally fine to complain about the game being fun because you want it to be fun. It is totally not fun to make the game unfun for others (referring to your misquotation of my comment) by joining and quitting games ruining the experience for those that do find the game fun as it is.
Post edited by Rizzo on-6 -
Leaving 4 survivors alive is
factuallybad. Again, the game is hilariously survivor sided in a 4v1, just the same as it is hilariously killer sided in a 3v1 and below. Until that gap can be closed, multihooking willALWAYSbe worse than any other playstyle that results in kills.But this is the problem.
Other methods being better, doesn't mean multihooking is bad. Competent killers are able to get obscene winrates even without tunnelling, slugging and camping.
But you're not going to -become- a competent killer, if your perspective is, from the outset, that your skill does not matter. If you just attribute every loss to the survivors being competent, rather than looking at your gameplay and thinking 'what could I have done differently?'.
Keep in mind that so far, from you, I've seen:
- My skill does not matter
- I want to win consistently
This is a really bad combination because it basically means that you are expecting a high winrate without having to put in any effort to improve your gameplay. Unless, of course, you genuinely believe your gameplay is 100% flawless, in which case… Good luck with that.
There are probably more competent killer players out there that could easily and handily beat, with multihooking, the teams that you think are unbeatable with multihooking. And they might even be able to give you pointers, to teach you tricks and methods to improve your gameplay.
But you have no impetus to seek out that advice and get better at the game because you start with the assumption that your skill doesn't matter.
So you stagnate, but the survivors you go up against may actually be learning from their mistakes and progressing their skill levels.
And in that scenario, you expect to still win consistently? Don't you think that's pretty unreasonable?
But evidently from the downvote spam survivor players can't get behind the idea of "Make both sides fun instead of just one".
The problem is that the vast majority of killer complaints are little more than 'I lost'. Hell, not even that, sometimes it's just 'The survivors got value out of a perk'.
There ARE legitimate gripes with killer gameplay, like the lack of down-time, like chaining hook-denial, like teabagging and having to escort folks out the exit gate. But those complaints consistently get snowed under by the avalanche of killers complaining that matches are sometimes won by survivors.
What do you expect BHVR to do with that? They have an epidemic on their hands of survivor players that are checking out, and you want them to make the game MORE killer-sided than they already do?
8 -
I do not play the game anymore BECAUSE I did not enjoy Killer anymore. I did not play Survivor much, so not a part of this go next thing you seem to be so set on.
Telling people, "if you don't like it, play something else," is extremely poor advice. Especially when you insist that the people not having fun getting tunneled, gen rushed, BM'd or whatever else are the issue and NOT the fact that those things are so prevalent and problematic.
If you want an ultra-toxic unfun mess that you feel forced to play, maybe you should consider going back to CS2 or League and stop trying to bring that sentiment here.
11 -
Maybe, just maybe, they give up because you're an experienced player on a new account wiping out newer players
8 -
He said they gave up on first hook. They wouldn't even be able to understand if he's smurfing or not after one hook lmao.
-4 -
ngl @Rapid99, been looking through your posts and it's just pure rage posting/complaining. That coupled with the fact that you refuse to engage in discourse with people responding to your posts; instead, you just tell them they're wrong and you're right then suffix it with some sort of emote like lmao.
Here's a basic formula you can follow to engage in more productive conversations going forward:
I see what you're saying about [insert valid/intriguing point made by other party]
I agree/disagree because [reason] ← this part is really important (you can't just regurgitate things from the OP)
Here's what I think the game should do about it [suggestion that people can discuss further]
For example,:
I agree with your OP that DCs & Going Next should not count towards killer statistics. However, it's unclear if the game already factors this in which a lot of people seem to think they do.
I disagree with your sentiment that Behavior needs to use punishment to disincentivize survivors from leaving/going next because doing so doesn't address the root of the issue. I think the root of the issue has to deal with how miserable solo q survivor experience is as well as terribly unbalanced matchmaking. There are other factors, but I think those are the big 2 for me.
To address this issue I think that behavior should 1) change the matching making algorithm to prioritize speed and balance (right now it feels like it's 100% prioritizing speed at the cost of balance) and 2) give baskit things to solo survivors only like kindred (meaning survivors in a party with people do not get those things). TBH these points probably need their own discussion post, but you get the idea.9 -
Telling someone their wrong and that you're right is 99% of arguments gang idk what to tell you. Especially when I'm being responded to with people who aren't reading what I'm saying and just making up responses for the sake of arguing and not to understand.
I've tried saying it a million times. I don't disagree about the game being killer sided or whatever. I just need it to be understood it's BOTH sided. The game is severely killer sided 3v1 and below, and the game is severely survivor sided in the 4v1.
Like my overall summary of a point has been "Instead of just helping one side, while making the other feel worse… just help both sides" and somehow that's something that people disagree with. This forum seems to be filled with disingenuous people who don't want the betterment of the game, they just want the betterment of their own side and nothing else. It's the strangest thing and people act like that's ok.
So I'm not putting in much effort, when effort isn't given in the first place.
-8 -
You would lose that one. Survivor dodging is well known and even meme about. It's not some edge case.
This issue I have with you is equating lobby dodging and DCing in match. These are not equal even if you or I believe both to be bad.
-1 -
Well done on correctly using quotation marks this time and accurately responding to something I said. I still maintain that your last response was total trash BS.
As for this response, I respect it more, though I do disagree.
First of all, why are you playing a game that you don't enjoy? Genuine question. I can understand certain things annoy you about the game, but I genuinely don't understand the concept of playing a game you don't enjoy. It suggests to me that the game has become an addiction, which is not healthy.
Besides, what do the devs use when deciding on what changes to make to the game? By far, the biggest factor is player count. If people who dislike the direction the game is going in continue playing, and thus continue keeping the player count high, then the devs will think everything's fine.
Joining a game and going next within a few minutes is just such a selfish thing to do for people who are playing the game to have fun, and it doesn't serve any purpose. I saw a video of a guy on Youtube who is just mindlessly joining games and quitting immediately game after game. His facial expression never changed and he didn't say anything the whole time. It was weird af. It's just weird to join a game you pre-emptively are going to dislike and quit as soon as you're triggered.
I don't know what CS2 is, but if you feel the game is toxic and want that to change, keeping the game's user counts high is going to do little to change that.
-7 -
They are not equal, yet you are adding instances of lobby dodging to try and help your argument, which wasn't even the point of this entire topic.
Keep the goalposts in place please.
4 -
First off, are we talking about me, or are we talking about the general population of this game? As I said, I do not play anymore because I found nothing to enjoy in Killer, so I quit, albeit begrudgingly.
As for others, well, it's multi-faceted. When you play CoD, and you get pissed off at it, there's a plethora of others FPS games. If you play Hell Let Loose and get tired of it, there are plenty of other mil sims. When you play Overwatch and get tired of it, there are plenty of other Hero Shooters. When you play DBD and get fed up with how poor of an experience it is, you can play……DBD. There's nothing else out there. Plus sunk-cost fallacy and all that.
I would argue that monetary success and good press are more important. When they got absolutely lambasted for not having color blind settings a few years back, after a tone-deaf answer (imo) following a comment about how long the game had been out and it still didn't have basic accessibility options, color blind settings came in the next PTB.
Likewise, skins and DLC are the top priority. The predatory pricing and marketing have only been getting worse.
As for the guy you watched, surely you understand that, well, he isn't normal. Normal players play a couple of games, get frustrated, and maybe they quit. Maybe they suicide, maybe they just give up differently. I'm sure BHVR has numbers on this how often people requeue after DC'ing.
Counter-Strike 2 and I would not touch it with a ten-foot poll lol
9 -
People aren't arguing against making the game better, they're arguing against pandering to children that would quit even if the game started with 0 gens remaining.
Survivor is already the power role. It does not need buffs. Every "unfun" killer playstyle has been nerfed through both basekit changes and perk/kit reworks, while the only toxic survivor one to be nerfed to the same degree is stealth. Which wasn't even powerful to begin with.
-11 -
I believe they should not have addressed the "go next" topic without tackling the issue of slugging as well.
If the argument is that children are quitting because they perceive certain behaviors as "unenjoyable," it is unfair to criticize those individuals without examining the root cause. I have encountered killers DCing at the start of a match, presumably because they dislike the matchup with their current chosen character.
From my perspective, some people here are just suggest that one should consider the broader context rather than resorting to immature insults.
9 -
Okay.
Multi-hooking is already viable. If anything, it's gotten easier over the years with all the aura reading perks in the game now. It looks bad when compared to tunneling, because tunneling someone out of the game is so much easier and more effective.
Multi-hooking has always been viable, and buffing that before implementing anti-tunneling would be putting the cart before the horse.
8 -
Power Role BTW
10 -
Where was I the one bringing lobby dodging? I was replying to you.
Also to make an equivalent statement, assuming people are disconnecting for your killer selection, being first found, etc, do you know how many killers disconnect on the load screen when they see a map offering? I would also consider the killer offering screen dc an epidemic.
-3 -
multihooking isn't viable since all the second chance perks especially ds if you aren't paying attention who to you hooked at what time and get hit with ds it can lead to a killer losing
this is what the slugging meta was about btw and the devs never addressed it they just got rid of knock out entirely and gave the abandon feature and in future they're getting rid of it probably with basekit unbreakable
-10 -
Okay.
Multi-hooking is not already viable.
It relies on a luck system where if you can get bad survivors, you can do it. If they are competent, you can't. Because it relies on being able down people in relatively quick time or else it's immediately cooked. Again, the game is severely survivor sided whilst in the 4v1. It becomes severely killer sided, in the 3v1. Until that problem is solved, nothing will change.
Edit: And again with the spam downvotes only proves my point that survivor players seemingly don't want the betterment of the game, they only want the betterment of their own side.
Foolish.
Post edited by Rapid99 on-13 -
What part of disconnecting on the loading screen is lobby dodging to you? Once the timer hits 0, the match has begun. Burning offerings are a part of the match...
2 -
this statement is incorrect specifically
>So therefore, killers disconnect and dodge at the the same if not higher rate than survivors do
since by design there are more survivors than killers
-7 -
Multi-hooking is viable. Nothing has changed to make it not viable. Second chance perks only, under normal circumstances, come into play if you're tunneling.
Someone who has OTR or DS cannot do anything to progress the objective or assist their team in any way without losing the benefits of the second chance perks. We are long past the days of old DS where survivors could work on gens with DS active.
I can see how you might think multi-hooking isn't viable if you watch big name content creators with thousands of hours, but they don't represent the average player who likely has somewhere between 200 and 1000 hours. For the average player, multi-hooking is perfectly viable. Almost every match is winnable and largely depends on your own skill.
If it relies on a luck system, that would make it a matchmaking problem. Multi-hooking is already viable for the average killer, because the average survivor makes a lot of mistakes. They're less sure of themselves in chase, which makes them easier to mindgame and zone which results in shorter chases.
3 -
i've breached the upper mmr where i have met good survivors and otr users can just bodyblock for the healthy survivor usually standing in a narrow path to force a hit and use the speed boost to make distance it happens with the base borrowed it just doesn't happen often since it doesn't last long and for ds they just hop in lockers to force you to take the ds or let them go for free it's a win win scenario especially if it's down to 1-2 gens but this is only talking about 1 person with these perks add a second person and it becomes really frustrating
-2 -
Lol. Come on. When I had twenty hours in the game I got matched up with a 4 man that had twenty THOUSAND hours in the game. Matchmaking is largely a joke.
-4 -
I'm speaking from my own experience. Nothing changed to make it not viable, correct. But it was never viable in the first place. Multihooking has always been a detriment.
I've had games where I get downs decently quick, those gens still get blasted through. Because again… the game is severely survivor sided in the 4v1. Which is what I mean by luck based. I either get bad survivors, and multihooking is viable. Or I get good survivors, and multihooking is just a free loss.
If multihooking isn't viable across the board against a multitude of skill levels, than I cannot in my right mind consider it viable overall.
-8 -
Killrates are flawed. You can't play solo queue survivor without someone DCing or killing themselves every other game, which massively inflates the stats. Nurse has had a sub 50% killrate for years. This is the only chart I've seen with her so high, and this is actually the *weakest* Nurse has ever been. Are you also going to argue that Nurse used to be the weakest killer? No? Then stop with the killrates. They mean nothing and Nurse proves that.
-10 -
Yeah, except I see survivors leaving against literally anything. It doesn't matter what they're facing, it's just the sort of person the role attracts. I've had people DC against me playing perkless on ######### Sadako. It does not matter to those people.
-11 -
Go next ia a problem because all change after 2021 or 2022 just made this game so easy to predict. After 10 seconds from beggining u can read all thing will happen in the match… "uu nice blight, so, this match will be boring and i go next as soon as posible"
"ohh legion, my god so boring and everyone will be healing in the corner every time, i go next as soon as posible". Every change since 2021, every patch, map changes, perk changes, made this game so predictable and boring. Nice, blight put in the hook the first survivor and we have 5 gen up and that first hook trigger a pain resonance, dead man switch and of course some grim embrace, hmm, nice match coming, when u can do something, another survivor is already in the hook. This type of matches makes people give up everytime when similiar things happen on beggining. The "go next" problem was born like a little dust in the wind after the fateful 6.1.0 patch and has been growing up patch after patch for over the years at nowdays. Before 6.1.0 this game didint have 75% of the base kit "helps" it has today and this problem was nothing to compare today. This epidemic was born from a sum of several wrong changes with each patch by BHVR after the fateful 6.1.0.8 -
I don't have a lot of time to write out a lengthy response right now, but multihooking doesn't need to be viable across all skill levels. It only needs to be viable for the lower and average skill levels, as that's the audience bhvr caters to and aims their changes at.
Dead by Daylight is balanced from the bottom-up, not the top-down.
1 -
I'm sorry, but at this point, your issue is obviously with the possibility that sometimes, better players than you manage to beat you.
You're not asking for 'the betterment of the game', you're demanding free wins.
13 -
So then screw the top people who want to have fun right! (Even though if you're doing it for average players, I don't think average killers would be able to multihook even against average survivors so you're just doing a loop).
Wrong.
I am asking for the betterment of the game by saying "Hey, we should make both sides feel better to play, instead of just one" like a normal human being would. Because what I'm describing is not people being better, what I'm describing is a playstyle that is an active detriment to try and do, against competent players. Multihooking actively handicaps the killer.
If you take a killer and put them against survivors of equal skill, that killer is losing trying to multihook 8/10 times. Because it's objectively bad. Leaving 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time, is bad.
I repeat, leaving 4 survivors alive, is BAD.
Because as I've said, for the 50th time… the game is severely survivor sided in the 4v1, but severely killer sided in the 3v1.
-10 -
If you take a killer and put them against survivors of equal skill, that killer is losing trying to multihook 8/10 times. Because it's objectively bad. Leaving 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time, is bad.
Again, it's bad in comparison to game-breaking tactics that have been wreaking havoc on this game since its inception.
You have no leg to stand on when trying to judge the method on its own merits, because you, yourself, have refuted the concept of killer skill entirely, so how do you know when a killer is matched against survivors of 'equal skill'?
It's like @crogers271 said, it's backwards reasoning.
'Good survivors are unbeatable, ergo, if the killer won, the survivors must not have been good'
I am asking for the betterment of the game by saying "Hey, we should make both sides feel better to play, instead of just one" like a normal human being would.
The problem is that your one complaint is that you lose sometimes, and you're turning a blind eye to several years straight of patches almost exclusively aimed at making killer gameplay better, to focus on the one instance of survivors getting something and demanding 'equality'.
The developers have literally said that they muck up the balance in favour of killers and your primary complaint is still about losing. The changes announced are only the second time the developers have attempted to tackle a problem that's been kicking around for NINE YEARS and you think killers are hard done by?
Not to mention that what you are arguing for is to take an already skewed balance and skew it even further. That's not 'making both sides feel better to play', that's just plainly bolstering one side at the express expense of the other.
And again, you complaining about losing too much when you also hold that your skill doesn't matter makes your complaint entirely dismissible. You shouldn't win 'consistently' if you refuse to consider your own gameplay and your own skill.
11 -
Again, it's bad
in comparison to game-breaking tactics that have been wreaking havoc on this game since its inception.You have no leg to stand on when trying to judge the method on its own merits, because you, yourself, have refuted the concept of killer skill entirely, so how do you know when a killer is matched against survivors of 'equal skill'?
YOU guys are the ones that keep comparing it to tunneling and camping. My judgement of multihooking has entirely been on its own.
And yes, I do have a leg to stand on. Obviously killer skill matters to an extent, my POINT is that if both sides are of equal skill or if the survivor side is better, multihooking immediately becomes a detriment to do.
Because again, say it with me now:
Leaving 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time, is objectively bad.
That is not arguable. That is not debatable. Whatever word you wanna use, it isn't. It's objectively bad, to leave 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time.
The problem is that your one complaint is that you lose sometimes, and you're turning a blind eye to several years straight of patches almost exclusively aimed at making killer gameplay better, to focus on the one instance of survivors getting something and demanding 'equality'.
"The one instance"???
Yea I'm sorry that's the most disingenuous thing I've read so far. I've been playing this game consistently for years now atp, to sit here and lie and say that this is the "one instance" of survivors getting anything, is just factually incorrect.
Not to mention that what you are arguing for is to take an already skewed balance and skew it even further. That's not 'making both sides feel better to play', that's just plainly bolstering one side at the express expense of the other.
Again, why are we acting purposefully dense.
No, me saying to make multihooking better whilst also making tunneling, camping and slugging worse is NOT me skewing it further to one side.
That doesn't even make sense.
And again, you complaining about losing too much
Nowhere did I say I lose too much, often, or anything of the sort.
-9 -
Ok. Let's say you're right. Let's say that I, with my 1200 hours and hundreds of dollars on characters and skins in this game, am actually a terrible player. Maybe you're right. It's not a stretch. I'm certainly not elite.
However, I regularly have to play against players who ARE. I regularly go against survivors who crank gens in under 5 minutes and juke me out of my shoes regularly. My only hope, when I'm faced with these players, is to force a tunnel and maybe scum out a draw if they get too cocky and altruistic. That's it. That's the best case scenario. Most of the time, when I face players of that caliber, I just get bagged at the gates. Which is what should happen. They are objectively better than me, and so should beat me most of the time.
However, if you take away even that small sliver of hope for a draw or win, what am I left with?
So if they're going to take away tunneling, slugging, and all of these other "toxic strategies," then don't pair me with survivors I have no hope of beating. Tighten up matchmaking so I only go up against survivors at my "skill level" that I can reasonably compete with. I'm not expecting to win every match, but I should have a fair shot at winning every match. And if that means that these juicer squads end up with 30 minute queues while they wait for Lilith Omen or some comp Nurse on a win streak to come available, so be it.
However, what's not fair is to throw me to the wolves, then take away any strategies I have of actually fighting them off.
1 -
Already covered how it's viable for the average killer.
I feel like we may have different definitions of multi-hooking, so let me ask, how would you define multi-hooking?
2 -
Please don’t let yourself be swayed by self-righteous and combative rhetoric.
Frankly, I think you’re being far too gentle — but your logic is 100% correct.Managing hooks and eliminating survivors efficiently is the most fundamental aspect of winning as killer.
Tunneling, camping, slugging — these are not “easy outs” or “lazy tactics.”
They’re high-risk, timing-sensitive decisions that often determine whether you lose 3 gens for nothing or actually apply pressure.The only people who call these strategies “braindead” are those who haven’t played killer long enough to understand how fragile the 4v1 truly is.
Anyone who’s played at higher MMR knows: misjudge a tunnel and you hand over the match. Mistime a slug and it’s a full reset.
These aren’t shortcuts — they’re gambles. With real consequences.But of course, survivors who don’t want to learn how to counter them love to repeat the same tired lines, like:
“Good killers don’t need to tunnel.”
“If you have to play like that to win, you just need to get better.”
Funny how the ones who can’t do something themselves always have the strongest opinions on how it “should” be done.To all killers trying to win: don’t be brainwashed or lose sight of yourself.
There’s nothing shameful about using viable strategies to win.What is shameful is pretending to be the voice of fairness, while trying to guilt others into playing by imaginary “honor codes” — codes that just happen to make the game easier for one side and harder for the other.
-7 -
I'm just tired of the idea that survivor players have of "oh multihooking is viable!" even though any killer player knows multihooking is bad.
Like somehow me saying that "leaving 4 survivors alive is objectively bad" is an incorrect statement? It's baffling. It's also funny because they act like I can't search up how top killers play and literally see that when they are going against competent survivors (and they are actively trying to win) they have to tunnel and camp. When they are playing against survivors who can't last 15 seconds in chase, ofc multihooking is phenomenal.
It's just a blatant lie to say multihooking is good.
-6
