What Would "Balancing For Hooks Not Kills" Actually Look Like?

Okay I have one answer following the restriction, and another that explains on the mmr side this first one is following the restriction.

So how would we balance the game itself?

Hook states having unique modifiers for survivors

Example 1)

Survivors first hook, you gain lets say Resolve 1

Resolve 1, gaves a buff to interaction speed, up to end game., this interaction speed focuses on healing, chests, Totem cleansing, and unhooks(to promote altruism a little)

Survivor second hook- Resolve 2, minor Gen speed bonus, your grunts of pain, or liller interactive powers are muffled extremely slightly

1 survivor dead, "Determined to survive " kicks in

Each survivor gains a third of what would a survivor helping you with an interaction from another survivor.

All of this last to endgame, or Hatch opens

Killer side Blood thirst

For each unique hook you gain a token, this token is 5% of basically brutal strength. So if every one is one hooked, 20% brutal, and it stays here.

For each fresh hook, they gain Entity's Delight, which is ether Pop, Pain Res, or Eruption (trying to figure out which is more healthy) for one time.

When a killer has hooked a survivor twice(Feng min on death hook) they can more them, but This will remove every effects you get from the benifits

Again these are ideas

Now lets talk about the why the current state balances off kills rather then hooks.

Survivors gain NOTHING from a death hook, so if a killer gets a survivor out its evident the kill is more important to the over all game then the hook states

The survivor bonuses you listed really don't make up for a basekit brutal or temporary bonuses. Giving death hook survivors more gen speed or make them overall more efficient would encourage tunnelling because its the exact type of thing killers don't want to deal with.

I don't think you can really change it. Doesn't matter if you make BP, MMR, endgame result hook based.
Even for survivors, it simply doesn't matter if you escaped with 0, or 2 hooks. Either you managed or not.

You would have to completely redesign the game system, so it's not about individual escapes at all and that's never going to happen.

What is it about the current state of things that makes you think BHVR are balancing for kills over hooks

Quests/Challenges, MMR, BP, Entity feedback, effect on the game (kill vs hook)

I feel the idea of a death hook mechanic is to help extend the game and encourage spreading hooks, so it shouldn't buff survivor's efficiency. Buffing survivors to make them stronger would do the opposite of extending the game, as having a death hooked survivor on the team would mean someone without death hook could take chase and the people with the bonus could speed gens, which in turn, would just make the killer want to get rid of the buffed survivor.

The only type of buffs a death hooked survivor should get are ones related to escaping the killer, similar to the unhook bonuses they did on the PTB.

As for killer bonuses for having a death hooked survivor on the team? It has to be something worth it as opposed to just eliminating the death hooked survivor, so something that could benefit every killer. Like getting faster bloodlust gain, an extended M1 lunge or even a minor 2-5% haste during chases like the Enforcer in 2v8.

I honestly don't know what killer could get without being crazy busted, but maybe there's an incentive to getting people to death hook. Devour Hope sort of toys with that idea by giving buffs with each stack, something like that could work without the instant kill, of course.

I don't think a hook based MMR would do anything, people would still treat a 3-4k as a win and just go for that anyway because hard tunneling a survivor at 5 gens is the most efficient way to win the match. The only time a killer is actually rewarded for winning chases is when he actually gets to eliminate someone from the game, otherwise, he could be buffing survivors by activating their Dead Hard, Decisive or other perks that get buffed from being hooked.

my brain may be too F13 pilled but I'm naturally against the play for hooks way. Idk, I feel it'd make the game feel more...gamey? like, if you hook a dude a get 5 points, then tunnel hook for 1, or get another fresh hook for another 5 etc. I'd feel like I'm playing a sport when I want to play murder simulator.

I'm not saying that would happen, more that that's my worry about the direction thr game would go. but my opinion could probably be safely disregarded, as I mentioned I am too F13 brained because I didn't hate double Iri Myers.

A 15-20% repair speed penalty is just going to mean survivors get 15-20% less gen-work done in the time it takes the killer to tunnel someone out. It's not going to disincentivise tunnelling at all if it just straight up buffs the very self-same tactic.

The best way to get rid of tunneling is to make other playstyles viable.

The problem is that a sufficiently incompetent player can make every single playstyle non-viable, no matter how good it is, so 'making other playstyles viable' is a pipe-dream.

A 15-20% repair speed penalty is just going to mean survivors get 15-20% less gen-work done in the time it takes the killer to tunnel someone out. It's not going to disincentivize tunnelling at all if it just straight up buffs the very self-same tactic.

Thats part of why I don't agree with the speed penalty as the bonus, though I do feel that the overall idea of addressing time management in a way that directly affects the way killers are pressured on their leniency for mistakes would be the most effective approach. A common trait among the higher tiers is that they can afford more mistakes before losing agency than the weaker ones, regardless of whether it comes from direct strength, synergies, or macro potential. Thats why I both highly recommend having the unique hook rewards be more focused than blanket buffs that ignore the variety of the roster, but also having equally impactful punishments to address those who refuse to adapt to more healthy playstyles.

The problem is that a sufficiently incompetent player can make every single playstyle non-viable, no matter how good it is, so 'making other playstyles viable' is a pipe-dream.

Agree with the beginning (but moreso that the buffs should come with equal targeted nerfs to tunneling,) hard disagree with the end of the sentence. Yes, there will always be players who will not be adept enough to practice higher skill playstyles, which begs the question why that would be a killer-specific disqualifier. MANY of the anti-anything protections, HUD info updates, and other safeguard mechanics were not always necessary most of the time, and their necessity is greatly impacted by the skill of a given survivor who finds themselves needing them. Instead of the skill focus being around avoiding a quagmire, people focus on decreased agency while already inside it.

Tunneling CAN be beaten purely by skill, even if not always. Being downed in smart positions can not only prevent slugging, but even getting hooked in general. Kindred became redundant with the improved HUD info, and even that was never necessary beyond being helpful. These systems are designed irrespective of the lowest common denominator of skill, and even the most egregious versions wouldn't save someone just teabagging under the hook until they eventually get eliminated. You can't cite a lack of absolute result as a reason to not try for the ones who do get impacted by an improvement, and that applies to almost everything in the game on both sides.

The devs are 100% to blame to a lot of problems in the game currently, including the spread of the us vs them mentality caused by the neglect in certain aspects of the game.

But I don't think they're entirely oblivious to critique, since the most recent example of the devs doing something right was Myers' rework having recieved proper buffs after the PTB release when they could have absolutely just ignored him and left Myers with the super weak version Slaughtering Strike.

Chances are low they'll ever listen, but its the best way to promote positive change is to vocal about it in hopes word spread, like the time killer related items were given spawn priority over chests.

Yes, there will always be players who will not be adept enough to practice higher skill playstyles, which begs the question why that would be a killer-specific disqualifier.

Because the killer side issue is viability, and the survivor side issue is enjoyability.

You can be a sufficiently incompetent killer to make any strategy non-viable, but no level of survivor competence is going to make tunnelling engaging.

And before anyone says 'I like taking the killer on a 5-gen chase', the three teammates that get stuck doing gens only don't.

You can be a sufficiently incompetent killer to make any strategy non-viable, but no level of survivor competence is going to make tunnelling engaging.

Again, I completely disagree, and even with my limited skill in chase have punished killers for trying to tunnel me and turned it into a winning game. Players better than me do it more often I'm sure. Punishing someone with a loss for over-relying on LCD strategies is honestly some of the most fun I have in the game, I'm just willing to accept its not going to work 100% of the time. Thats how competition works.

And before anyone says 'I like taking the killer on a 5-gen chase', the three teammates that get stuck doing gens only don't.

Neither do killers who see the exit gates powered in their 3rd chase, or the ones who have to have to deal with flashlights and other objective denial. I will never understand how people pick and choose when to use "fun" as a core argument, rather than an ancillary one.

With the emblem system, survivors pipped based on how well rounded they played. It had its blindspots like how it handled survival and altruism, but the idea was that the less you focus on just one thing, the more emblems you gain. Kinda like how the killer role required more multitasking and macro play than just things like tunneling to secure the power dynamic shift ASAP.

It wasn't perfect, but it was a much more healthy direction than focusing on end results rather than the game itself. If matchmaking was at least good, people probably wouldn't reminisce about it as much as they do.

Again: Tunnelling is an issue of engagement. It's not fun for the players involved. Or rather, not involved, since three people are just not getting most of the game.

Conversely, 'killers who see the exit gates powered in their third chase' is where competence gets involved. Even if the game is horribly slanted in the killer's favour, a sufficiently incompetent killer player will still run into exit gates getting powered in their third chase.

or the ones who have to have to deal with flashlights and other objective denial. I will never understand how people pick and choose when to use "fun" as a core argument, rather than an ancillary one.

Rampant hook denial is actually a fair comparison to make to tunnelling, because that, too, is frustrating. The reason that the 'fun' argument isn't brought up in discussions around that particular issue is because there is no discussion around that particular issue.

Seriously, it is the most under-complained-about problem in the game, IMO.

Once again, though: Viability does involve personal competence. Just because JohnDoeMcForumkiller can't make something work doesn't mean it's not viable. Killer competence is never considered in discussions about viability.

Viability means that a killer has a reasonable chance at winning against survivors of similar skill level.

But that does require actual competence from the person playing it, too. Someone turbo-tunnelling their way into high MMR and being unable to keep up when other, more competent killer players can, does not make a killer 'non-viable'.

While I agree on your take viability requires some competency, others can use said claim on several issues

Not that i completely agree on this but an example

"Three gens, is a lack of awareness on survivors side"

But if we use competency as a reason for certain things not being able to be changed, they will use exactly that for future changes which may be healthy for the game.

At its core, DbD is an elimination game. Nothing will really change the fact that killing survivors will always be some component of the win condition (or all of it).

But because of this, the shortest path to victory will generally be to eliminate at least one survivor as soon as possible. Even if hooks are considered a "win condition" in some sense, the best way to maximize that will be to eliminate one, then spread hooks however you choose in a 3v1. (Which is kind of how it works now).

So if you want to change gameplay, to make people want to spread hooks from the start of the match, there needs to be several changes to make that happen. The biggest ones being:

1. Hooks would have to be a prerequisite to eliminations. (In this context, more than just 3 hooks or nothing changes).
2. Overall rebalance so that the pace of the game is more consistent. Basically, slowing down the part of the game until the first elimination for the killer. Depending on how this is done, possibly slowing down the part of the game after the first elimination for the survivors.
3. MMR reset so players aren't experiencing massive losing streaks during adjustment.

Ideally, hooking survivors should be the most efficient use of the killers time. So, like things were before 6.1, the killer should feel pressure to always be in chase, always pursue that next hook, and things like kicking gens, camping, or waiting around for someone to unhook should be generally regarded as a waste of time in most cases. This drives gameplay, engages all players, and focuses on the macro and micro of PVP instead of PvE objective control.

I've said this before, but my general proposal for this is a "hook donation" system. Essentially, every survivor can choose to donate their first hook state to a "shared hook pool" and "second hook" and "death hook" remain individual.

Survivors can only donate during the first, say, 4* minutes of the match or until 350%* total gen progress is completed (whichever is first), or can choose to keep their hook state in case a bad actor decides to just feed the killer for any reason.

Similarly, reduce gen speed by a lot, like 50%, until the 4* minute mark or the gen progress mark(*) are hit.

Once gens are completed (or, better yet, 500% total gen progress across the map), we can choose to refund the shared hooks (in order of donation), or simply delete them.

Eliminating a survivor is still the primary goal, but how to do it changes: instead of wasting time, killers will want to burn through hook states as fast as possible. That basically means always being in chase. You could simply chase the first survivor you see and hook then 6 times, but you're likely to lose that game doing so because you spent so much time doing nothing.

Numbers are up for debate and can be changed. But likely this system will never actually be implemented, since it involves making camping and tunneling less efficient.