Skill issue? Can’t be camped or tunneled without going down
For tunneling to be successful you must take at least one or sometimes 2 hits after the unhook. Where are the calls for Survivors to improve their map and knowledge, situational awareness, looping ability, and stealth skills?
Comments
I agree a late game tunnel is totally different, but that isn't the tunnel people complain about on the forums or even in a post game chat.
The only time I've ever seen anyone bad mouth a killer for tunneling is when it is the first hook and just hard core tunnel. 5 gens or 4 gens and the killer is sprinting back to that hook to get that same survivor before they can heal.
That's beyond pathetic and no one that is any good at this game does that.
2 gens left, 1 gen left, and you need to tunnel to pressure. I get that trying to turn the match around or save atleast a 1 or 2 k.
Nope I dont buy that. If it was a bot opponent maybe, but the human element means there is room for error. The down is only inevitable if you never make the attempt. Im not blaming the killer or easy downs if I choose to repair an exposed gen in a deadzone, its on me to be enviromentally aware if I have usable chase tile or need to remain stealthy. Im also not going to continue a chase if the oppurtunity to escape presents itself.
Ofcoaurse there are bad situations where the survivors reaches the end of their rope, it happens to me like anyone else. What Im saying is the responsibility of awareness and tile knowledge rests with each individual. Deadzones continue to popup throughout the match, running to one due to lack of knowledge doenst excuse the survivor of making that poor decision. Even then a pallet isnt always needed to make distance and escape. At the very least a survivor can make the attempt and if the killer counters everytime, well good for them, they outplayed the survivor.
Theres a time and situation for everything even tunneling. The tactic can be a double edge and easily backfire or it can turn the tide of a losing match.
As I stated in a previous reply.
No one calls out tunneling at late game. But the trend lately is run Lethal, find a survivor, down them, and tunnel them out at 4 or 5 gens.
That's scummy and shouldn't be allowed.
Whenever I see a tunnel at 4 or 5 gens it makes me instantly ask "how bad is this player?" It isn't hard to play the match normal, kick gens, run regression perks, get 10 to 12 hooks and win the match. But a large portion of the playerbase doesn't want to play a match, they want a shortcut to a 4k. It's damaging for the game and community as a whole.
When the survivors focus and plan out their game, they can wrap up a match in under 3 minutes.
A killer being focused at the open of the match, weather survivors are focused themselves or not is just a functional evolution of competitive play.
I don't want it to be that way, but I can't get angry at or justify denigrating the skill of a killer player who is evolving to meet the challenges the game presents.
Woah, Yikes! slain😂 this post actually sent me💀
hold up, it was the other post😄
Bro just clarify what you said in the original post, no one understands what you mean lmao. Your trying to side step again.
Yeh your probably right.
Outstanding survivors may be tracked down later. That doesn't mean he can't be defeated or defeated, just that if the "Smart killer" doesn't have to use stupid methods.
"Bad survivors" simply cannot understand this.
True getting targeted and eliminated early especially when you're new and an easy target is harsh.
But its also a reality of playing games online and games in general, I mean how much hand holding do we really need to do.
Maybe its because I'm an old school gamer from the days before every game had a 20 min tutorial that told you what each button does. The best way to learn is to lose and the harder you lose often the harder you learn, but it seems like losing now turns into being a victim of an unfair system rather than a learning experience.
I rarely get tunneled out early now because I've learned not to be found first and play more mindfully and cautiously at game start, which you would expect in a horror survival game.
It's common to see players just run everywhere and make mountains of noise and then complain they got eliminated early and its kinda silly.
Yeah there is a balance needed between the two but if the solution keeps being, "lets build in more mechanics so people don't have to play well", then as a survival horror the game gets more and more lackluster every time they do that.
I agree that getting good will help the most but DS should go back to 5 seconds you can't change my mind, current DS is pitiful, and for how weak it is that skillcheck has no reason to exist anymore, it can't be worse for an anti tunnel perk
Again we agree, but then there are things such as lethal. If the weak link keeps getting unlucky for example and chosen to die first by the big bad hunter with triple their hrs, there's little time to build up skills before they say #### it and leave. As you said there needs to be a balance (and we agree with yours) but that fact remains.
Surely you are aware that people try? Otherwise they would not criticise the SoloQ experience.
True lethal plays can play a part in something like that but it still affords you the opportunity to try and escape from chase.
You can't learn how to escape if you're never chased. Does it matter so much that a chase may start 5 mins into a game or 2 mins?
Lethal aura reading only lasts for 9 secs.
RIP Tony 😔😔
just gunna leave this here, giving Mikaela hatch because she was being cute.
You could do yourself a favour and stop taking the game so seriously, it really hasn't been that hard on either side for a long time.
Maybe we're not making our point clear (or we're missing something from yours). While true they have an opportunity to try and escape that chase, since this example has a much more experienced killer, this chase ends super fast and practically non existent. And then what of the next one if they're tunneled? They can try and improve again but its probably gona be shorter than the first depending on what happened while they were on hook. And same with that last chase under that circumstance. The amount of experience they gained (sounding like an rpg here...) is practically nil and the survivor in question probably had a short (probably frustrating) time actually playing and will say [BEEP] it and quit.
Again, we're going with survivors trying to improve their skills while being tunneled, though admittedly we're thinking of newer survivors instead of the usuals. Might be a factor
...9 seconds is MORE than enough time to pick a target at the start...especially on mobile killers...
🫡🫡🫡
In all my time playing this game up to 300 hours after the first 10 playing doctor I probably had a 60-70% kill rate. I don't think I ever hard tunneled and camping was relegated to an end game for me other than when I was securing a stage. I played Hag, nemi, ph and bubba, during prime CoH and God validation dh. Like I might main blight now but that meta was far harder to deal with than the current one. People suck at this game, genuinely be better.
Why are you always doing these super one sided posts? Ayodam was the first one to reply and they got a ton of upvotes but they are a reverse mirror of you. All they say is from a biased survivors perspective, you are the same for killer.
The only time I ever was going super try hard was like a month into blight getting 4X dh, iw, UB and filler perk. That was only because I was so fed up with seeing the same 6 perks that I refused to allow survivors to win at all.
But the example you gave requires a mismatched killer with lots of hours vs a new player.
You're not gonna get a balanced outcome from that no matter what, tunneling or not.
Preying on the weakest link is a common thing in life and in gaming. The quicker you learn not to be the weakest link the better you succeed.
If evenly matched, being "tunneled" should afford the same opportunity to practice chase and any other chase does, because it's just another chase.
The onus is on MMR to make sure the hard "I quit" factor is minimal as possible. Again I say how much hand holding do we really need?
This is so condescending. Okay.
Average and casual huh? You keep saying those words but I don't think you know what they mean.
Casual and average players don't sweat like their life is on the line when playing. Its like in FFXIV, are you going to max/min and sweat to get highest parse and world firsts, or are you going to do the story at your own pace while playing through all the content just the same?
I can kite the killer for five gens if I put in effort, do I feel like doing that each match? Notrly. Sometimes sure, most of the times I get the killer to drop chase on me without much effort, but meh.
Maybe my BF is talking to me or I'm talking to others while playing. I'm not going to dedicate that much energy to a game every single match. I'll play it out and help best I can but I'm not Hyperfocusing like that, this isn't my acting career lol. It's a GAME.
If I die, oh well. Too bad so sad. My life and time is worth more than that.
And yet theres a lot of miss match, but thats a different debate regarding mmr. Regardless that point still stands especially as "should" doesn't always translate as "does". There are also other factors to consider, such as if a teammate loops the killer near you and uses everything. And what if theyre the weakest link each time? How much practical experience will they get each time? Will it be enough to over come the quit factor? And again we say we agreed with you, but now we kinda want to go the agreement route for entertainment value.
Yes MMR is a different topic but if the example requires a failure of MMR as the core cause, it becomes very relevant. The fault lies in the poor match making system there not the players.
I agree with your point about fun but again its the role of MMR to ensure "balanced" games and can be a stretch to push the responsibility of botched MMR onto the players.
As while you can guage throughout a game if someone is less experienced than you, making that call on the basis of what could just be an experienced play with a botched first chase and then feeling obligated to attenuate your gameplay on the off chance it could be someone new trying to learn, isn't a great concept on the whole.
If this is going the direction we think then what of those who lobby shop for easier matches? The fault lies with the players? We feel it's a hard yes. MMR works for us fine so makes us wonder what is going on with everyone else.
While holding back on the off chance it is a new survivor is indeed not a great concept, it's still an option. If you're doing well enough and can afford it, why not spare them Abit of grief (not their life but not kill them off in the moment)? It is a game with no stakes. As it stands people have a distinct lack of empathy here to a degree that surprises us but that's also another topic (with a story even). The weak link keeps dying quickly each time and either learns slow and painfully or quits.
Well I think lobby shopping is a big problem.
MMR doesn't cope well with queue times and balanced games when it comes to people not committing to what their matched with. Your customers either wait longer or they get backfilled into mis-matched games. Neither is a great result and you just have to find the best medium road with which to balance the two.
Attenuating game mechanics just to account for being backfilled into tougher games or expecting players to police that themselves though is not really a solution.
In a perfect world I guess we'd all think of each others feelings but at the same time what are really trying to be empathetic about here. As you say its a game of no consequence.
Getting smashed in a computer game is hardly a life changing event. Heck getting smashed in computer games was at one time what computer games used to be.
Any kid who pumped change into an arcade machine back in the 80's learned this lesson hard, yet we still kept coming back for more because the challenge was part of the fun, the reality was it didn't matter.
If its the goal of a player to smash their opponents and enjoy the power trip that comes with that, then more power to them as that's part of the game experience as well.
Lastly can we attribute the need to be coddled and offered a heap of second chances to some modern shift in personal resilience with respect to gaming?
Is it a simplified mirror of the modern world as a whole where after generations of "everyone gets a trophy day" celebrating mediocrity has lead to a society that can no longer cope with even the irrelevant of losses? Even the harsh ones.
At what point do players take responsibility for personal improvement rather than outsource that responsibility to game design and others?
Maybe I am reading to much into it.
We believe yes, your reading way to much into this mate. And gona be honest we lost how the heck this conversation steered to this, but we're gona try to see if we get everything cause we feel partially responsible. (Apologies for the looooong reply)
"Your customers either wait longer or they get backfilled into mis-matched games. Neither is a great result and you just have to find the best medium road with which to balance the two."
And that best middle road is something that everyone can't agree on. Which is kinda where we are in our opinion.
"Attenuating game mechanics just to account for being backfilled into tougher games or expecting players to police that themselves though is not really a solution."
These are currently the only options we have on hand. Realistically speaking we only have the ability to police ourselves as we cant directly change game mechanics, only scream and shout into the fog. If you got another realistic solution we're listening intently.
"In a perfect world I guess we'd all think of each others feelings but at the same time what are really trying to be empathetic about here. As you say its a game of no consequence."
Mostly we're trying to be empathetic to the fact that we are playing against other real humans (or some lifeform that can play the game). While it is of no real consequence, we're at least willing to be nice to people until annoyed. We had a match where the killer slugged the last person and went to do event stuff until the last second. We're betting that slug had such a good time. Now we get that your in charge of your own fun and not others and mostly follow through (key word is mostly), but do people have to go out of their way to ruin other humans entertainment?
"Any kid who pumped change into an arcade machine back in the 80's learned this lesson hard, yet we still kept coming back for more because the challenge was part of the fun, the reality was it didn't matter.
If its the goal of a player to smash their opponents and enjoy the power trip that comes with that, then more power to them as that's part of the game experience as well."
We're not that old but we do know that A: not everyones the same B: theres a certain balance to challenges C: If the opponent keeps getting smashed then they either keep going or quit. Which just comes back full circle here. We're not seeing a third option here.
"Lastly can we attribute the need to be coddled and offered a heap of second chances to some modern shift in personal resilience with respect to gaming?
Is it a simplified mirror of the modern world as a whole where after generations of "everyone gets a trophy day" celebrating mediocrity has lead to a society that can no longer cope with even the irrelevant of losses? Even the harsh ones."
We do agree, but we also keep listening (not specifically doing anything, but listening to what they're saying) because sometimes the whining has merit....rarely.
"At what point do players take responsibility for personal improvement rather than outsource that responsibility to game design and others?"
Depends on the game. Here to us is anything within mostly their control is their responsibility. Is survivor A responsible for the killer's decision to tunnel or their teammates to use everything near the hook before grabbing them? No. Are they responsible for getting caught while trying to hide before that first chase? Yes. Are they responsible for the backfilling lobbies? Nope. Are they responsible for trying to get away from that tunneling killer despite everything being gone? Yep. But heres where we go back to "How much skill can improve in that short time and will it frustrate people enough to quit?".
We do not want hand holding (especially when we had to learn the hard way through old ruin and doc) but we understand some of it.
Don't apologise for a long post I'm happy to read it and this so far has been a very civil and interesting discussion.
The core point has strayed a lil but I don't think we've gone completely off topic as the topic relates to skill issues playing a role in supposed "camping" and "Tunneling", where those disparities in skill come from and how people react to them, given the topics of camping and tunneling are hot button ones at the best of times.
I don't really have much to add as I think you've answered my points well. I believe we share a similar view but come at it from different angles.
I don't have a better solution to some of the problems listed but I also don't see them as big problems either. Yeah self policing and band aid mechanics may be the solutions we have but it doesn't make them good solutions.
A: not everyone's the same: That's why self policing doesn't really work.
Keep in mind we have to accept that the player who focuses on their own fun without regard for their opponent's is just as valid as a player who does think of other player's fun, because not everyone's motivation to play is the same and the reality is the consequences are non-existent in the grand scheme, a bad game is just that a bad game nothing more.
Why is one valid play and the other not, especially given the inconsequential context? Do we have the right to force people to play how we want? The answers are, it isn't and we don't.
B: theres a certain balance to challenges: Yeah I think we've established and agree on that but often the complaints about balance are heavily one side, so its typically grain of salt all round. Its about sifting the value from the crap as it were. Not all opinions are valid as much as we may want them to be.
C: With respect to people who quit. This is where my concept of codling comes from. With anything that's been around a long time and has an experienced player base, you'd expect as a beginner to eat a lot of losses before you get the opportunity to do well. If doing so makes someone quit then that's a them problem. So how much do we handhold the quitters simply to attenuate their aversion to loss and willingness to quit when faced with hardship? I don't have a good answer for this, but its not my job its BHVR's all I can do is express what I would like from the game.
If the brutal and unique parts of the game making it a real horror experience induce some people to quit, then I have to admit I'd rather see them quit than the game be put on training wheels in the name of making it less confronting. Especially as this tends to appeal to players who really take it to seriously and are quite single minded in how they play and how they expect others to play.
I'm often reminded of that Twilight Zone episode where everyone has to think happy thoughts all the time at the whim of a small child who can punish them if they don't. That kind of Orwellian behavioural control is a bad thing. Especially if the setting is a horror experience where the goal of the killer is to violently kill you but they are forced to do that in the nicest way possible while considering your feelings. Why? because people can't separate the game world from the real world.
I'm not reading to much into the game, its only a game. But how people react to games can be very telling and it makes me ponder the overarching reasons why people collectively behave the way they do.
I've enjoyed this back and forth but I think its reached its natural endpoint, please add more if you like, I'll happily read it, but I'm not sure I have much more to add without eventually going way off topic. Good luck in the fog.
Probably is the end so we just want to throw a few personal views on the points.
A: True that self policing doesn't always work, but as before, it's the only tool we as players really have. If the option doesn't hurt us and makes the things Abit better, we'll use it more often than not. We're a surprisingly optimistic pesemist.
We agree we don't have the right to force ppl to play a certain way (though some seem hellbent to and the devs are curbing certain ways for good or ill) but there's that old saying "eye for a eye makes the world blind". If no one tries then eventually we think everyone in this fog will be blind.
B: All options are not valid, but there are some worth testing. We mostly see people dismissing things outright without wanting to try, which we feel is more of a waste of potential "what if".
C: This is an off track comment from us but we'd like to remind the fog of all the ones that quit for flimsy reasons such as they don't like the killer, they got down under 30 seconds, etc.
At the point, yes beginners are expected to loose but depending on how harsh and often (aka they were repeatedly slaughtered without knowing what or how it happened) is Abit much to us. A good chunk of the responsibility for knowing is on the players but when they can't effectively and practically practice that knowledge becomes frustrating, atleast to us.
We're going to side step the twilight zone paragraph as what we have to say about that and currently society will make us look....bad? Odder? Don't want to touch that with slinger's harpoon.
Have fun mate
I feel you’re one of the last people to call out anyone’s bias. You’re quite killer-sided, at least here in this forum. And I am no where near the inverse of Dunwich.
What do I actually say that seems to be killer sided? I am a self admited blight mains who knows he has op add-ons, I dislike people being able to leave games whenever for free(survivors), I dislike 3-gens, camping killers and think the game should tune down tunneling. The only reason I might seem killer sided is because I argue about blight with more knowledge about him than 99.5% of the people on this forum. I genuinely have played a lot more survivor than killer for the past year and a half now.
You make a one or two sentence snide remark hating on killers or expressing something heavily survivor biased. Dunwick does the same thing for killers albeit definitely more biased just with many more words.
Actually an eye for an eye leaves one person left with one eye. Who then rules the world because they are the only one left who can see.
not if the guy who starts it has only 1 eye to lose :P
...or a lucky shot from the blinded one
For what it’s worth, I don’t personally think Blight is overpowered. I do however believe survivors are weak. 🤷🏽♀️ That’s about all in your comment I feel is worth addressing. Oh, and his name is Dunwich.