Killers won't tunnel / camp if they were power role
Thankfully, this proved to be wrong second time.
First was gen kick meta which was strongest ant-gen ever. Killers were getting amazing slowdown, even without hooking survivors.
And did this stopped tunnelling? Heck, no. They tunnelled even more because DS nerfed to ground and OtR was not good enough to stop tunnelling. Even adding obsession to all matches did not change anything, why would you scare of DS anymore when nerfed version was barely doing anything.
And second, Lights Out. This mode is the most killerside thing ever i saw in DBD. And i am playing this game since 2018. It's really so easy and chill to play killer in this mode. Survivors have no perks, no items. The only downside killers have is no slowdown on gens but chases are pretty fast. So you really don't need gen regression perks anyway.
So everything should be good right? Killer is power role, they can chill and have fun. But no, ofcourse not. Even in this mode, it was tunnelling & proxy camping everywhere. Except some meme'ing killers, most of games was sweat-fest.
Now this argument is so popular, if killers had fair chance to stop survivors, they would not tunnel or proxy camp. But any time we get this, it's just proving to be wrong. People are always going to tunnel and proxy camp because it's easiest way to win. Why you would bother yourself for spreading hooks when you can make game 3 v 1 and get your easy win.
This is not Us vs Them. This is just the fact i saw from my exp. You can have different opinion ofcourse and that's totally fine. But i just don't think it's good idea to make killers power role without nerfing tunnelling and proxy camp to ground and making them non-viable. And that's ofcourse won't happen because BHVR is fine with both strategies. And this brings us to this: Killers should never be buffed in general, except some weak killers most of them are just fine.
Comments
The problem is some killers will always tunnel, because it's the easy option.
However, I didnt camp and tunnel in Light's Out, and I had a much better time not tunneling than I tend to in usual play.
Some killers are tunnellers, some killers tunnel out of necessity but don't actually enjoy it. If you provide a viable alternative, you won't eliminate tunneling, but you will decrease tunneling.
They never even tried.
Yes but it also:
-Has no timer.
-Has no conspicuous modifier
Meaning it has way more flexibility than just being an anti-tunnel perk. Which also makes it one of the best anti-tunnel perks as a result.
Why would you use DS over DH as long as DS is so restrictive? I guess I'm just not seeing how buffing the stun will change anything.
I'm not complaining I'm pointing out the problem with anti-tunnel perks and how they are poor band-aids to a larger problem and largely useless due to their restrictive nature and niche applications.
Dead Hard is the only anti-tunnel perk that has any flexibility.
I don't want BHVR's solution to tunneling to be equipping perks that are useless in a majority of situations like the anti facecamp meter.
I'd much prefer something substantial.
I personally just have a dislike for perks that are too situational. Which is why I dislike anti-tunnel perks in general.
Yes tunnelling is a problem (to some.)
Yes equipping anti-tunnel perks will alleviate this to some degree. But most of the time you will be playing with three perks, which great, that means you didn't get tunneled. But why do players have to sacrifice a perk slot to fix a fundamental game issue? The cost is too steep. That's why I prefer perks to have flexibility and prefer BHVR to add basekit features.
Killers should be kept in mind too naturally.
I have to disagree.
I totally get what your saying, Dead Hard is a very versatile perk when activated and can be used for many different situations, but I do think that DS with a 5 second stun timer is a much better deterrent to tunneling than Dead Hard is. You have to respect DS with a 5 second stun as you can either wait out the minute timer, which obviously takes a minute of time (and risking unbreakable) or eat the stun and potentially lose over a minute of time to that survivor. Dead Hard on the other hand can be easily countered once the killer knows you have it (granted, you typically will get one good use out of it per game), but DS is something that you have to respect when it has an actual meaningful stun timer.
Totally situational of course, and they're both great perks when they work, but I do think in the majority of scenarios, DS pre-nerf is the preferable choice if you truly want to deter tunneling from being such a viable strategy.
Or we could just balance the perk like civilized people and not just slap big numbers on it
I wouldn't expect a group of people to change how they play on a dime.
It is an anti-tempo/tunnel perk that also allows survivors to mindlessly dive bomb hooks and have BT to body block and then DS to "punish" the killer if they go after them. I would eat DS even though I wouldn't tunnel in games because of those things or survivors playing super aggressive with trying to get saves because they had DS+UB.
Because of all of that I would say buffing the perk and having those things pop up would be worse compared to the devs trying to fix it at base. I personally find eating anti-tunnel perks when you are play nice to feel extremely bad. So it is helping one problem(most likely still a common tactic though) but creating others issues in the process.
3>5 is a big numbers change for dbd players apparently, i guess people forgot what number comes after 4, because you're here claiming 5 is a "big number" compared to 4, 4 of which being the number you claim is "fine" for the perk.
For me DS would be a great perk if it didn’t deactivate through conspicuous actions. It‘s just stupid to loose a perk by doing the objective.
That has been a topic since 2019. I also would like things to be adressed without perks, like generators being slower or some kind of secondary objective and genperks being nerfed across the board and also on anti-tunneling perks.
You are complaining about anti-tunnel perks being ineffective, thats the problem. Gameplay changes should happen to fix the issues, the anti-tunnel perks can be then reworked into different perks. Less tunneling, more variety, and less reliant on perks.
They absolutely haven't. And we had a time where tunnelling was less common, due in large part to DS having a five second stun on it. BHVR then harshly nerfed that. BHVR has put in close to zero effort to deal with most of these issues. Negative effort, even, when it comes to tunnelling.
So how did they try to fix anything? And dont come up with band-aid fixes. Thats the best proof they never tried, cause otherwise they would have looked for solutions and not band-aids. Its just fake attempts.
Thats why giving the 5 second stun back would be better.
Literally. What has bHVR done to address tunneling since buffing OtR almost two years ago? It’s a topic that’s discussed and complained about literally every single day. They are quite literally the poster child for inaction in this regard.
In a game about tagging players and putting them on a hook 3 times each tunneling will always be a thing. Perks like pain ress and grim do help incentivise spreading hooks so i hope they keep making more like it .
Correction: There is plenty that BHVR can do about it, they just won't.
The problem with your assessment?
Lights out has no perks, which means you get 0 gen slowdown. Yes, as i always say in every single one of these types of threads, this mode is rough for the AVERAGE solo queue survivor. Which i had a great time playing most of my games, playing very chill matches where i could play low tier killers like trapper and have a good time. Then what happened after i played around 5 of these fun matches? I got a SWF sweat squad on coms that destroyed me and ended a game with 2 hooks and not a single kill in a match that lasted about 3.5-4 minutes.
The problem is, and always will be SWF. Because the killer does not KNOW ahead of time, that they are playing against a team like that, they MUST start the game off super sweaty, because if they don't, and it turns out they are going against a team like that, then they are pretty much guaranteed a loss. And, if the killer starts off super sweaty, by the time they realize that the survivors are NOT a SWF sweat squad, its too late, the average solo queue survivors have already given up.
The game will never be fair, for anyone, not for killers, and not for solo queue survivors, until SWF are dealt with in some way. There are basically 3 possible ways to "fix" the problem that is SWF:
1) Completely get rid of them, make solo queue the only way to play the game.
2) Tell killers they are playing with SWF ahead of time
3) Create a separate queue for SWF. You create a ranked mode, that you MUST queue up as 4 survivors if you want to play survivor, and that mode is balanced differently than the main mode (I.E. Perk restrictions, longer gens, weaker structures, slower survivor movement speed, addon restrictions from killer [no myers instakill] etc.). Conversely, the solo queue mode is also balanced differently (DS/OTR/Kindred basekit, shorter gens, etc.)
Now, that's not to say that people would suddenly stop tunneling. The "problem" with tunneling and the reason i bring up SWF and generally "sweaty" players is simple. These people are playing to win, and tunneling is often the most effective way to win the game as a killer. Because, and you know this to be true, the game is fundamentally designed in a way that with 4 survivors in the game, they will eventually beat the killer, so, it stands to reason that the most effective way to secure a victory for the killer, is to eliminate a survivor as fast as possible.
The only way you are going to fix this problem, is by having the devs change that. Stop balancing the game around kills, and start balancing the game around hooks and chases, and make tunneling fundamentally IMPOSSIBLE in terms of game mechanics. (I.E. survivors share hook states, or some other mechanic that makes tunneling impossible.
I'll close this by showing an excerpt from a free e-book by game designer David Sirlin that i quote quite often, but think is quite relevant here the book is called Playing to Win, and you can find it at https://sirlin.net/ptw
The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things. One definition is someone (especially a game player) who is not good at something (especially a game). By this definition, we all start out as scrubs, and there is certainly no shame in that. I mean the term differently, though. A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.
Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.
The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. Let’s take a fighting game off of which I’ve made my gaming career: Street Fighter.
In Street Fighter, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone is often called cheap. A throw is a special kind of move that grabs an opponent and damages him, even when the opponent is defending against all other kinds of attacks. The entire purpose of the throw is to be able to damage an opponent who sits and blocks and doesn’t attack. As far as the game is concerned, throwing is an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there—yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while blocking. The scrub thinks of blocking as a kind of magic shield that will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.
You will not see a classic scrub throw his opponent five times in a row. But why not? What if doing so is strategically the sequence of moves that optimizes his chances of winning? Here we’ve encountered our first clash: the scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules. These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary. If you beat a scrub by throwing projectile attacks at him, keeping your distance and preventing him from getting near you—that’s cheap. If you throw him repeatedly, that’s cheap, too. We’ve covered that one. If you block for fifty seconds doing no moves, that’s cheap. Nearly anything you do that ends up making you win is a prime candidate for being called cheap. Street Fighter was just one example; I could have picked any competitive game at all.
Doing one move or sequence over and over and over is a tactic close to my heart that often elicits the call of the scrub. This goes right to the heart of the matter: why can the scrub not defeat something so obvious and telegraphed as a single move done over and over? Is he such a poor player that he can’t counter that move? And if the move is, for whatever reason, extremely difficult to counter, then wouldn’t I be a fool for not using that move? The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. That is true by definition of playing to win. The game knows no rules of “honor” or of “cheapness.” The game only knows winning and losing.
A common call of the scrub is to cry that the kind of play in which one tries to win at all costs is “boring” or “not fun.” Who knows what objective the scrub has, but we know his objective is not truly to win. Yours is. Your objective is good and right and true, and let no one tell you otherwise. You have the power to dispatch those who would tell you otherwise, anyway. Simply beat them.
TLDR: stop blaming the players for using the strategy that is most likely going to give them the win, and start blaming the devs for allowing that strategy to exist.
sorry you don't know the history but 5 was made to counter enduring (which reduced the duration by 20%) so yes 4 is fine
dbd history doesn't really change the fact that 4>5 is not a massive number change, unless you want to claim you experienced a completely different planet than i have.