Too much rides on the first chase, for both sides.

If a survivor goes down too quickly: The other survivors have more map resources to utilize. (The downed survivor wasn't able to use too many pallets)

If a survivor stays alive for too long: The other survivors have fewer map resources to utilize. (The downed survivor used a lot of pallets the Killer "hopefully" broke)

It's macro-scale gameplay. (That being said, there are cases where it's too quick, and too long)

If I'm doing a 3 gen, I'm not looking for a war of attrition lasting 15 minutes. I'm looking to force survivors into a reduce area limiting their options.

Something should be done to smooth out the state of the game so its not just all instant snowball at the sign of one thing going wrong for one side or the other.

Okay, but what though?

The idea that the early game is massively important is pretty well established. I'll even add that lots of it is pretty random, as an example the killer has no idea if the first survivor they take chase with is the survivor with the full chase build or the guy who wants to go for gens.

Can it be fixed?

First there's a conceptual problem. Fixes would come off as a catch up mechanic like exists in 2v8 and that already has a mixed reception. It doesn't feel great to have something go well, especially if you feel like you made a great play/series of plays, and the game to give boosts to the other side.

Okay, let's say we aren't going to worry about that group of players and we'll just focus on the practical problems.

Slowing down the survivors from getting a great start seemingly isn't too hard on first look. You could just create a condition wherein the survivors do gens at a reduce rate until the first down, but also lower the overall time it takes to complete gens. As just an example, say survivors are slowed down by 25% of the current speed until the first down, but the overall charges needed for a gen go from 90 to 80.

Something like that would be doable, but it does still lead to a few problems. What happens if the survivors get a pallet/flashlight save, chase is back on, and the gens are now going, compared to the current game, even faster? You could make it hook instead of down, though that potentially makes slugging too strong, especially for killers like Twins. Okay, well you could write a more complex if statement: if no survivor has been hooked and no survivor is currently downed, survivors get a 25% penalty (this then needs a bit more of coding for the worries about No Mither + Plot Twist).

We then start to get into problems with killers. While giving additional time to set up killers like Trapper would be a good boost, it would be too strong of a boost to killers like Plague and Singularity.

And I have no idea how you'd handle something like a Tombstone Myers.

Let's say we figure out a way to correspondingly nerf the killers who would be too strong, let's get onto survivors. Survivors now adopt a code of 'no one drops a pallet on the first chase'. If the second chase is really long instead of the first, its not a huge change. The big issue for survivors is getting a really good chase in before someone is eliminated so they can maximize time getting gens done. That usually is the first chase, because there is no reason for it not to be, but it wouldn't be hard to evade a system by just using windows on the first chase and leaving pallets for later.

Let's say maybe I'm overthinking this and we just go with something like basekit corrupt. I think you take away an important early game decision making on the survivors for whether they stay where they spawned or spread out, and now its always spread out. Being its always going to happen it becomes something very easy for SWFs to game plan around. And again we still have the issue that basekit slowdown like that would be very lopsided on a killer by killer basis.

And of all of that is just smoothing out the survivor side for when they get too good of a start. What about when the killer gets too good of a start? I'm not even sure there is a workable path forward. If Billy chainsaws someone on the first down do we just apply a BNP to every gen to keep things balanced? Getting survivors into the old 'one on hook, one in chase, one rescue, one on gens' is basically the goal. It's much harder to come up with a solution here that is balanced without it just being 'bad killer, you did too well to start.'

You could, potentially, go killer by killer with the nerfs, as an example not allowing Billy to insta down for the first minute of a match or giving some S Tier killers slower charging powers at game start. Except things like this would be massive nerfs that would impact the game radically at different MMR levels. Even then you still have survivors who just lose all the guessing games early and still get off to a bad start.

Overall: it's an issue with the game, but trying to fix it it creates lots of difficulties. We could get into more radical game overhaul ideas, but that would take us far more into the hypothetical instead of potential.

I know a few people seem to disagree with this take but you're mostly correct?

The one part I disagree with is a survivor going down quickly IS objectively bad for the survivor team because the Killer now has an insanely easy target that could win them the game if they decide to hard tunnel.

But the parts i do agree with:

If you chase a survivor and the first thing they do is immediately waste all the pallets without even trying to loop you on them - next thing you know you've got survivors going down insanely quickly because of the huge deadzone. I've had many games where someone uses shack at 5 gens when they honestly didn't need to and it cost us later in the match.

Survivors who can use minimal resources and waste a lot of time are the ones who lose you games as Killer.

But they'll just pre-run. If you commit to a chase, they'll pop one of the other gens.

The first thing to do is to identify what makes the game "lost" at that point for the survivors, and the point is simple, survivors have 3 hook states and then they are out. Once the game is a 1v3, its effectively over at that point unless there's only 1, or MAYBE 2 gens left (if the killer massively messes up).

We're getting a little bit away from the the original concept of first chase. The killer getting a survivor out before the gens get to a certain point does radically increase their chances of victory, absolutely true, but that's not just a first chase thing. We're more in anti-tunnel territory which BHVR says they have something coming for (and I'll save speculation on it until it comes).

1. Survivors share the 1st hook state.
   1. This makes it so the earliest you can remove a survivor is on your 6th hook, assuming you have hooked that person the 5th and 6th time.
   2. Removing a survivor early isn't really possible, you'll have to get at least 6 hooks, which is half of your total goal, by then the game should be well on its way toward the 2nd half of the match.
   3. I say only the first, because i think if all hooks were shared, and you only could start killing survivors when you got 8 hooks it would feel really bad as a survivor player to be doing well, but my team "burns through all the hook stages" and then you have 1 bad chase and just immediately die.

I ended my post by saying to fix it we would need to get into radical overhaul ideas, and this sounds like a pretty radical change. But I'll jump in as a hypothetical that BHVR would consider it and would be willing to rebalance/change all of the things/perks it would impact:

This would be a pretty massive buff for survivors. You have suggestions for killer side coming but we're looking at a very different game. Not only would the tunnel out be impossible, survivors have no incentive to get off gens and prioritize protecting each other until after the 5th hook. If a survivor gets hooked twice in a row, instead of playing cautious they can just play normally and still attack the gens that most need to be done.

The bigger issue though is fun and game theme. One of the things that makes survivor exciting is that you're never that far from an elimination. I feel like it would really tamp down on the tension, especially in the early game. As is, the survivor role doesn't have a ton of engagement factors, needing to be cautious and avoid elimination is one of the biggest elements.

This is a general danger when trying to 'correct' game design. Yes, you can smooth out the lows, the worst games, but you risk losing the best games as well. DbD gains a lot of its fun from its elimination nature and elimination style games, by their very nature, have the potential to be lopsided, but the eliminations also add a huge element of the excitement.

So basically, it could be done, it would require a lot of rebalancing, you'd take out the worst of the game outcomes, but I feel like the game might lose a lot of its appeal.

1. Killers need some way to either:
   1. Make hooking faster, in a way that doesn't break the game
      1. So no like, remote hooking like the event, because it takes away too much
      2. No "move faster while carrying" because that also breaks the game if they can chase with a survivor on their back.
   2. Some basekit way to regress gens meaningfully after a hook

Again, it kind of feels like we're getting away from the original thread concept of the first chase and to just general balance issues.

Personally, I don't think the hook speed is a big issue. The survivor has a choice to make, run for the corner, or stay in the loop. If they get downed in the loop they are likely near a hook, if they run to the corner too quickly they've given up valuable time they could have spent looping the killer. If they pull it off perfectly that get rewarded, but good gameplay should result in rewards. Both sides can play around that element of gameplay.

• Killers basekit regression is buffed, and the perks are nerfed. Things like:
  • Basekit gen kick to 10% (nerf pop and the like)
  • Basekit regression to 200%
  • Basekit surge at 5% (that works on special attacks) or basekit pain res at 10% (nerf those perks)
  • Basekit corrupt that lasts for say, 30 seconds.

Let's say all of this balances out (which I think could generally be done).

You're creating a slower, more methodical game. Except DbD is a sprint. The thing that makes it stand out is the feeling of tension and heart pumping excitement basically from the time the match starts.

I, personally, don't think a DbD trial has the depth for longer matches as the norm. The pressure of the decision making frequently comes from the 'you must act now!' element when posed with options (take for example comparing a real time strategy game vs a turn based strategy game).

Would some players enjoy such gameplay more? Absolutely, just as some would dislike it. We're now getting into subjective game design questions though.

Gen times (and potentially regression) are adjusted the following way:

• 5 gens left: 130 seconds per gen
• 4 gens left: 110 seconds per gen
• 3 gens left: 90 seconds per gen
• 2 gens left: 70 seconds per gen
• 1 gen left: 50 seconds per gen

Given that gens are static I think you more mean you are impacting the survivors gen speed so

-5 gens: ~0.7 charges a second

-4 gens: ~0.8 chares a second

-3 gens: as is

-2 gens: ~1.2 charges a second

-1 gen: ~1.8 charges a second (this one is way too fast)

This is something I would love to see them test without anything else. I'm not sure if it would work or not, but I'd be very interested in the outcome. My gut reaction is that this would be a big survivor buff as higher speeds for the final gen is worth far more than taking longer early (the alternative possibility is that every game leads to a 3 gen as the killer has plenty of time to protect his most important gens early in the match).

These are just a handful of ideas that, would be hard to say how well they would work without actually testing them. But there are plenty of ideas and things they could do that could even out the early game for both sides in a way that is fun and engaging without breaking the rest of the game.

There are always plenty of ideas. I suspect, just based on what I know of other game companies, that there are some ideas we would consider radical that have been batted around in discussion and potentially testing that never even make it to a public announcement because its decided they don't work.

Fixing issues is certainly something BHVR should try, a fix usually creates complex knock on effects especially in an asym that they have to worry about but can be overcome, but beyond that, there are far more subjective questions on overall game experience that they have to worry about.

I guess it depends more on the killer you're playing but if a chase is going on too long especially at the start i'll either take an injure and move on, or just immediately drop chase and try to pressure another gen. 'The first chase dictates the game' is being said a lot right now to describe DBD and while it isn't necessarily untrue I don't think it has as big of an importance as you're implying

If anything i've always thought the game only really starts at 3 gens. You can defend 5 and 4 all you want but something is bound to give way if survivors are any level of competent.

On Killer side: Pain Resonance, Grim Embrace, Pop Goes the Weasel are some to name about how a game can snowball with these perks helping an early down.

On Survivor Side: A Gen being finished in a key location early, which can make perkless gen defending quite more difficult. but losing gens early can put a lot of pressure on the killer.

I don't think there is a pain res equivalent on survivor side, like a perk which is anti-snowball… Fast Track is the closest we have and it does nothing. Hyperfocus is the closest thing and without stake out it takes too long to activate.

I feel as Killer you always have a chance, as you can get downs in quick succession in an optimal situation, Survivor is the issue right now because you can only do gens so fast, and a gen which was pain res' thats 20 more seconds or so a gen needs to complete PER hook.

An issue here though is that a killer running 4 slowdowns or playing a high tier killer can potentially snowball early like that whereas survivors can potentially get lots of gen progress quickly regardless of what perks the killer has or even who they are playing but obviously lower tier killers who aren't running meta suffer more.

You can pretty much always bounce back but it would be false to say that a killer not being able to secure a down within a reasonable amount of time in the early game can put them at a severe disadvantage that is almost unavoidable on certain maps and when playing as certain killers.

Of course I think the solution is to buff the ######### out of every killer C tier and below in one big "we're sorry" patch

you got a lucky corrupt spawn against a team that simply just wasn't good against the one killer that can afford to run around doing nothing but threatening with space due to her passive injuring (which they seemed deathly afraid of for awhile). that's not universally applicable to every killer in the game.

Mmmmh… Against not-so-good survivors, I'd say this is true. But against a competent team, people are efficient, and going down too quickly doesn't mean it's the end of the game. You can easily use the 70s hook timer to finish at least 1-2 gens.

It's technically impossible to hold a 3-gen indefinitely. It doesn't invalidate the reduced patrol zone and emergent dead-zones as you consolidate chases in that area.

Yeah I'm sorry but no. The "fun" in survivor isn't that you are nearly dead at any time, the fun in survivor is goofing off with friends because you are never expected to win. You are expected to die more often than escape, that's innately how the game is made. Once you know that you realize that there is no fun in "barely escaping" or doing anything meaningful in the game as survivor, majority of 4 mans in any games I am seeing aren't even going for escapes anymore, they exclusively care about bullying the killer, because you get nothing out of escaping except a little MMR and some extra BP, normally not even worth your time because of how cheesy some mechanics can be and how long games can be drawn out just innately. Once people start to realize that escaping is pointless and people stop even trying for it then there can be better changes made to the game, because current balance is absolutely abysmal.

Other than that I agree with all of your points!

Sometimes you have to use your head.

The "fun" in survivor isn't that you are nearly dead at any time, the fun in survivor is goofing off with friends because you are never expected to win.

Everyone gets different things out of games and like any statement about what makes DbD appealing to its player base any answer would be at best an educated guess, but:

1: I see tension, heart pounding, and excitement frequently cited by people as reasons they are into, or at least got into, the game. If I didn't so deeply care about trying to escape as survivor I'd likely gradually forget about DbD.

2: If it was truly about friends then soloq would barely exist instead of being a huge portion of the players.

3: I always have trouble linking the idea of 'goofing off' and a game where people put thousands of hours into over their life. Games I've played that were just silly fun with friends usually get a few hours, maybe a couple dozen. It just seems weird to say something like, 'Yeah, its a silly game that I've put four thousand hours into."

majority of 4 mans in any games I am seeing aren't even going for escapes anymore, they exclusively care about bullying the killer

I haven't seen a bully squad in quite awhile, mostly ran into them when I was a new player, but they seem to be more common in certain regions.

Once people start to realize that escaping is pointless and people stop even trying for it then there can be better changes made to the game, because current balance is absolutely abysmal.

All games are pointless and winning or losing only have as much meaning as the players attach to them.

Not really. Leave the chase if it's taking too long on killer, and don't get downed in two seconds on survivor.

The third part was "you're not facing particularly good survivors". Which you weren't. You had people giving you corrupt purge for free constantly instead of simply not cleansing when you only had 3 hook states just for them to get infected shortly after anyway. They choked. Horribly. Your "conditional M2 power" was up constantly when against a competent team it shouldn't have been. That's not normal (or at least, in a good MMR system that shouldn't be). That's just bad players being matched against a good player with a more favorable setup (and yes it's more favorable despite being Eyrie since C Purge works at a lot of Eyrie tiles & the annoying downside of not being able to hear survivors because of the sand is reduced due to infection, the vision thing goes both ways).

And yes, the CI spawn was luck. There's a huge difference between getting the CI spawn you did and getting a double cubby spawn on Groaning Storehouse. One provides a lot more risk for survivors to get gen progress in early, while the other does nothing but force survivors to the side of the map that's way safer and causes the last gens to be really spread out anyway (which means you will more than likely lose hard if you don't start playing nasty).

If you want me to go in and analyze every single decision & every single chase then I'm going to have to decline because I'm not a goddamn DbD coach. Send it to Hens or something.

If the survivors were so bad why was noone dead and they had me on the ropes pretty much?

because you didn't really commit to many chases (some were sort of understandable like not chasing the sprint burst user on Eyrie so you could go get corrupt purge) and one of the few you did, you missed a purge you could've easily hit. you had no pressure (outside of your power) for so, so long.

if they didn't decide to cleanse so much, giving you so much free corrupt purge and wasting their own time (especially when it was down to 1 gen) there was a good chance you lose there. that's not an example of proactive, "the first chase doesn't matter" good gameplay. that's just an example of a team playing poorly against plague. which i guess if that's the bar we're setting for with the first chase debate then yeah, sure. it's possible to come back from a really bad early-mid game when your opponents screw up colossally. which i concede is fairly likely given how useless MMR is, how ######### up map balance is, and the overall state of sub 4 man queue survivor balance is.

and yeah, my mind is pretty much made up already. i don't have anything more to say on the topic that i haven't already said. your single match doesn't really counter OOP's point at all…if anything i think if you would've actually had a good chase in the beginning you wouldn't have ended up in a 1 gen 4 alive situation.

I'm not saying you're bad, I'm saying that you're conflating some really important stuff your opponents did to themselves with your own skill. You played well enough, but also your opponents dropped the ball near the end. Both things can be true because of how complex the game is.

And I'm not taking what OP says at face value, I've watched people way better than me & played this game too much to the point where my mind immediately says "yeah, OP's generally correct". Outside of some niche scenarios & opponent misplays, the first chase (or more accurately the early game in general) matters a lot.

which was said in a somewhat accusatory way

It's text. There is no tone. Disagreeing with someone or pointing out a larger issue is not an accusation.

You outlined an issue with the game. I unlike a few other posters, agree its an issue, but say that there isn't much that can be done. Pointing out an issue without a solution is not much of a discussion.

These were examples of things that can be done with minimal effort by the devs that would potentially solve these problems.

And I explained why I don't think those ideas would work (or, more specifically, how they might work to solve this issue, but create larger, even worse issues).

I was simply responding the message of "what can you even do" as if to say "there is nothing that can be done" and i was simply wanting to prove that statement wrong, as there are plenty of things that can be done.

Things that can be done and things that work are very different.

Game design changes are complex and will usually involve a lot of pro and con discussions. A solution to any sort of game issue with no negative repercussions is extremely unlikely. If you want to get into those issues, great. As an example @Scarlett1111 does this by disagreeing with my concept of what makes survivor enjoyable, and I respond to them with my reasonings.

And if you don't want to, okay, but as I said in my first reply the idea of the first chase being very important is pretty well established, then we're just having a discussion quibbling over the differences between really important vs really, really important.

You are just back seat gaming at that point. And then offering nothing up in return. What ifs… and you should have… is not constructive gameplay critique. Especially when its offered one sided and then nothing in the return sense.

i'm not your dbd coach, i'm your "your video doesn't inherently disprove the OP's point even though on a surface level it might appear that way, here are some short and sweet reasons why" guy. if you fundamentally disagree with the points i stated and have no cause to give them independent thought and want to focus on how i do or don't perceive your skill level then i agree this is a complete waste of time and there's 0 reason to continue having a back and forth here.

Wheres your gameplay? Wheres "the gameplay that I see so I generally think OP is correct" Anything?

my gameplay would be trash because i'm a washed 60 FPS controller console player that's been babied by games with far superior controller settings (the only reason i have a forum account is to occasionally ######### about that one issue honestly) and a person with ever-worsening eyesight. go watch the dozens of streamers playing the game and/or tournament footage and do some spreadsheeting if you want a real quantitative analysis. otherwise your video is about as useful as anyone else's post in this thread since it's completely anecdotal. it's about as useful as someone posting a video of them getting a 4K with NOED or bloodwarden because the survivors decided to be dumb in the endgame.

If we want to delve into tournaments and what not. Sure Ill take what OP says as true. But noone here is a tournament level player. And thats not a gamemode anyone here is referring to.

We are talking standard pub matches. Everyone here, me, you, reinami, whomever is playing.

to me this is just all sounds like a cop out and it's one of the driving reasons why i hate the MMR system. it's been incredibly damaging to the overall discussion of the game…then again maybe we wouldn't be any better off with a real system given what i've seen elsewhere.

yes, you're not going to face a tournament level/highly coordinated SWF every single match. yes, people will make many mistakes in pubs, i sure as hell am far from a perfect angel of a DbD player. but just because of that, just because the environment of pub matches right now is a total grab bag of random nonsense, doesn't discredit the idea that when you do inevitably face those competent players, that yes your first chase matters a lot. because it opens up a whole can of must-dos for the survivor team and can-dos for the killer player. it fundamentally changes the pacing of the match, and the game provides few basekit ways of coming back from a bad first chase (the ones that exist? camping & tunneling) when people are playing as optimally as they can. to which i'll say once again, the team you were facing could've done a lot better and basically gave your your comeback vector on a sandy platter.