You don't get tunnelled frequently. You are just biased.
Scott Jund conducted an experiment and survey on tunnelling. In his experiment, he played 50 matches and recorded the number of matches where anyone on his team was tunnelled. Tunnelling occurred in 5/50 (10%) matches and in only 2 of the matches, the killer was deliberately tunnelling. In the other 3 matches, the tunnelling occurred due to survivors making stupid mistakes. Considering there are 4 survivors, the odds of a specific survivor being tunnelled out is 1/4*10% = 2.5%.
He also conducted a survey, which gathered 3103 responses. 80% of people were tunnelled less than 40% of the time. Only 7% of people were tunnelled more than 60%. The average tunnel frequency was 27% (assuming the average of each range). Though, the real values are extremely likely much lower since the survey question was "how often do you feel like you get tunnelled". It was based on feeling and their own definition of tunnelling rather than actually tracking their matches with a standardised definition. When matches were tracked, people were tunnelled (individually) 1%-3% of the time, as seen in Scott Jund's experiment and the data I discuss later.
Tunnel frequency | Percentage of responses |
|---|---|
0-20% of the time | 47% |
21-40% of the time | 33% |
41-60% of the time | 12% |
61-80% of the time | 3% |
> 80% of the time | 4% |
He also found that region and time of day had minimal impact on tunnel frequency.
It was also found that tunnel rate was correlated with escape rate, so it's possible that survivors that get "tunnelled more frequently" are not actually getting tunnelled more but are just dying more frequently due to being worse at the game.
From the data and his experiment, Scott Jund concluded that the myth of frequent tunnelling occurred due to negativity bias, which is a bias that caused people to remember and place higher weight on negative events than neutral and positive events. He also challenged anyone that thinks they get tunnelled frequently to record their gaming sessions and send them to him for proof.
The takeaway from this is to track the percentage of matches you get tunnelled. For example, someone recently posted data from 1212 matches they played (Jan-June 2024), which tracked tunnelling. Note that 18 matches were cancelled from the start, so there were 1194 matches in total. I compiled the data from it and these were the results:
- Tunnelling occurred in 49 matches (4.1%)
- In 47 of the matches, 1 person was tunnelled. In the remaining 2 matches, 2 people were tunnelled. Therefore, 51 survivors were tunnelled in total.
- There were 4776 survivors (1194*4) in total. Therefore, the odds of a specific person being tunnelled was 51/4776 (1.1%)
- In many of the matches with tunnelling, there was a DC, so tunnel rate would be lower if DCs were excluded.
Nazzzak also provided their data set of 421 matches and found that tunnelling occurred in approximately 1/12 (8.3%) of matches.
Comments
Posting anything still won't help your lack of understanding of sampling. Nor does it change that, in a competitive setting, Dbd is essentially a tunnel fest. People tunnel because tunneling is disproportionately effective for the skill and effort required.
You're completely missing the point.
First of all, you cannot infer that lower MMR people get tunneled less frequently because higher MMR people get tunneled a lot. There is no correlation whatsoever. You're drawing an inference simply because it suits your bias.
Second, the only inference that can be drawn is that tunnelling is more common in competitive settings. This suggests that, out of all available tactics, tunnelling is disproportionately effective and/or high end play requires that in order to be competitive. Unless the devs envision tunnelling as part of normal gameplay that suggests balance issues. Both Killer and Survivor needs to be looked at to determine the full story.
Third, if you feel Scott Jund's video and poll represent all games you are very sadly mistaken. Just talking to people from different regions shows people reporting wildly different experiences. There are players in regions that report very little tunnelling and players in regions that report lots of tunnelling.
The other points you're either not considering or ignoring is that
(a) The skill floor for tunneling is much lower than the skill floor to counter tunnelling. This is an issue. A now dead game, VHS, died because at it's core Monster had a much higher skill floor than Teen.
(b) Being tunneled is not fun. People who are not having fun playing games stop playing.
If, in an FPS, for example I was given a gun that did 200% more health damage than yours would I be right to say you may not face me that frequently so it's all okay or would that represent a balance issue?
As it is, you're the player arguing that op gun is all okay as long as you're the one wielding it. If there is a tactic that is much harder to counter than it is to implement then it represents a balance issue.
My biggest issue in this game has never been tunneling. It has always been other teammates.
There are certain killers that tunnel more than some cough Blight cough, but it doesnt happen in every game or even everyday
It's even better paired with ds and dh. Bigges issue with ds is though you have to go purposelly down to use it as the timer is so short. If it was 80s like otr it would be better. B
Because there is at worst 25% chance to being tunneled. But in my lobbies I see otr every game at least 2 has it. But those teammates who don't bring otr I see getting tunneled the most they go down like flyes.
Because most bring DS instead and that one is more useful?
DS at least allows you to get to somewhere safe, even if a killer hits you right after you've been unhooked. OTR doesn't do that.
I'll be streaming them on Twitch, might try to knock them all out today, unsure as of yet
I tracked 80 survivor games and was tunneled in only 2 of them. I almost always run OTR, and the value I get from it consistently is not as an anti-tunnel perk but rather as distortion/iron will for 80 seconds. I also used to run DS, but I got so little value out of it that it was crazy. It’s the most useless perk I've ever used.
As a Killer, most survivors I face who use OTR and/or DS play aggressively with it to make me eat the stun or the endurance, and then I get called a tunneler, lol. Yes, tunneling is effective, but mindless tunneling literally makes you lose more often than not. It's easy to play around unless someone on your team is really bad and the killer takes advantage of it. Personally, in my games at least, it's far more common for me to lose thanks to someone giving up than to tunneling.
Tunneling is when the Killer hooks a Survivor twice in a row.
7 games down.
4/7 had tunneling in some fashion.
Sure but people are fast to yell Tunneler nowdays no matter what. Tunneling on purpose at 5 gens when someone gets out of hook is tunneling and can be annoying sure, but tunneling when survivor gets off hook and tries to bodyblock you from going after the other survivor deserves another hook.
If you don't run away after getting unhooked and killer comes back to the hook then thats on the survivor.
Also i've had multiple games where ive literally not found anyone else and the unhooked person eather was on a gen or ran past me..yeah you bet im hooking that survivor again instead of running around aimlessly,
If killer has 2 hooks and 2 gens are remaining i would say its fair to start putting pressure back to survivors at that point no?
So yeah…nowdays survivors yell tunneler no matter what even if they werent actually "tunneled"
I play mostly survivor these days and i get hardcore tunneled out of the game maybe few times per week. Theres games where distortion Andys are causing the killer to pressure us since the killer can't find them more than actual purposeful tunneling
You completely ignored all the criticism that was mentioned on his thread. Dont know why you would even pull this out of grave again? It was all discussed beyond believe.
Whether or not tunneling is fair in X situation isn't what's being debated and imo, is entirely separate.
You really just think everything is tunneling? I personally only take the hardcore off hook tunneling with purpose of tunneling people out of the game as fast as possible as actual tunneling.
To make it as simple as possible, a Killer going after the same Survivor and hooking them twice in a row is tunneling at it's most simple.
Adding conditions make it murkier and much harder to judge without running a SWF all streaming.
Fair enough. I'll just disagree with you but i understand where you are coming from. The words tunneling,camping, gen rushing have become so murky that i can't personally take most of them seriously anymore.
It's literally at the top of the page in the OP.
/facepalm
I feel like, if we're trying to ferret out the prevalence of problematic strats, it's useful to examine at least two things:
-Was the killer pursuing other survivors before or after those two consecutive hooks? Numbering our survivors as 1, 2, 3, and 4: I think everyone who is not in denial would agree that a game where the killer hooked 2, 2, 2, 3, 1, 4 is tunneling, but there'd be a lot less consensus in a game where the killer hooked 1, 4, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3, or even 1, 1, 4, 2, 1 (unless 4 and 2 went down trying to protect 1.)
-How many gens were left when the tunnel happened? A killer tunneling a player out from the start of the game has a very different connotation than a killer tunneling out a player at 1 gen left. They're both tunneling, but the first killer's plan was forcing the 3v1 by preventing a survivor from playing the game; the second one is pulling out the stops because they're losing, but was playing differently before, and the survivor who gets tunneled did have a chance to participate in the match and earn points.
Both of these things can be tracked without comms or aura perks.
You quoted the wrong thing, just heads up.
You were talking about a different users experience
Two things
One, unfortunately I've already started my games and I can't really amend my definition as that was one of the stipulations.
Two, that wasn't really the point of the experiments. It's just to see how often tunneling occurs. Plus, I'm sure I'll already be greeted by "you suck as Survivor; you wouldn't see tunneling if you just got good" so I'm trying to limit that a bit.
You will use both
I've finished reviewing your matches. According to the definition you specified (technical tunnel), you were tunnelled in 6/7 matches. However, after reviewing your matches, tunnelling occurred in 0 of your matches (actual tunnel). I've discussed the reasons for each match in this spreadsheet. Feel free to refute them if you disagree. I believe this shows that the technical definition of tunnelling (2 hooks in a row on the same person) is an oversimplification and grossly overestimates the amount of tunnelling. Often times, the killer is just chasing the closest person or first person they find. You can usually tell if the killer is actually tunnelling based on whether they quickly finish off a survivor (3 hooks). In many of your matches with technical tunnelling, the killer hooked the same survivor twice in a row near the start of the match and never chased that person again. If they were really tunnelling, they would have actively seeked that person out to finish them off.
Link to Pulsar's VOD:
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2187365999Reupload to Youtube for archiving:
https://youtu.be/_hiWN2jCyPoIf I knew we were going to change the definition of tunneling and argue over details, I wouldn't have bothered. However, since we're here. Your definition seems to be that you can only tunnel if someone dies.
I specifically wanted to keep the definition simple. The truth is that tunneling can be instigated, it can be deserved. It doesn't make it not tunneling, but it does make it understandable. However, I can't be present and account for all of that, which is why you'll recall that I asked whether or not I was to be in a SWF or Solo Q. The only way I could account for it is by having all four members of my SWF stream.
As for the games:
Yun-Jin could have easily been hiding. The Killer did not chase her at all, nor did he chase anyone near her location, for the rest of the game. This counts as a tunnel.
Legion did tunnel, but it was a tunnel of my own making. Still a tunnel as he didn't hook anyone else between me and I stayed out of his way and made myself an uninteresting target for the rest of the game.
Unknown Match: I HATE DWIGHT SO MUCH. We could've won that and he threw so hard for no reason.
I give the Huntress the benefit of the doubt, unlike PH or Legion. She was clearly trying not to tunnel.
I really don't know what to make of David cuz Legion was literally right next to him the entire time.
First two hooks were on me. Once again, tunneling as no one was hooked between us. I actually thought my team was fine, but I was clearly not supposed to be there.
My god, are people saying "tunneling" when they didn't ends up dying quickly, that's honestly ridiculous
So by that definition you would say that if someone get unhooked, gets healed up, hops on a gen, and they happen to be the next person the killer finds after, let's say, one minute, you think that is tunneling, even if the killer wasn't going out of their way for it?
This is why people self reporting their rates of being tunneled is nearly useless. Some people have such a loose definition of tunneling that simple normal gameplay is tunneling. Unless a reasonable definition of tunneling is agreed upon by the community there really cannot be a good discussion about tunneling and its frequency.
Not to mention the fact with that definition, if killer hooked every survivors in a row while intentionally avoiding last hooks and give all of them escape, he will be accused of "ultra super duper mega tunneler" because he managed to tunnel FOUR TIMES in single match
This is ridiculous really
Yes, because tunnelling is killing someone fast to make the game a 3v1, which is the whole reason killers tunnel in the first place. You need to consider it from the perspective of the killer. Hooking someone twice in a row serves no benefit to the killer. Killers do not benefit from tunnelling until the survivor they are tunnelling dies. What is the point of hooking someone twice in a row then not killing them after? If they were truly tunnelling, they would commit to the kill. Tunnelling killers do not go into the game with the goal of 2 hooking someone. They go into the game with the goal of killing someone fast.
Also, if a survivor gets hooked twice in a row at the start of the match and gets to play the next 9 minutes normally, does it matter?
I went with your definition of tunnelling because I wanted to see whether you think you get tunnelled every match due to your perspective of tunnelling. I didn’t necessarily agree with the definition from the start.
The reason for solo queue is to make it more representative of the average player. If you play with a 4-man SWF, the results are going to be very specific to your SWF. There may also be things your SWF does unintentionally or intentionally that causes more tunnelling.
To analyse whether this was a tunnel or not, I have analysed every event from her unhook:
The strongest evidence that the killer wasn’t tunnelling was that he didn’t chase Yun-Jin when he returned to hook at 00:08:15 and 00:10:44 when he found her. He also chased several other people for long periods of time as discussed in the log. He seemed to mostly chase the first person he found.
Side note: the killer was seemingly bad considering all the failed chases, 4 man escape, and only 2 hook states.
At 00:30:44, Cheryl literally unhooked you right in front of the killer. He could have tunnelled you right there out of the game, but he completely ignored you. It seems he was actually trying to avoid tunnelling you.
Also, Legion is one of the best killers to find survivors due to his power, which shows Killer Instinct and encourages him to run around the map hitting everyone. If he wanted to find you, he could have done it. All he had to do was hit someone with his power and run around the map until he found you.
Near the end of the match, there were 3 survivors on death hook. If he wanted to tunnel, he could have committed to someone on death hook, but he didn’t.
He also had Thana, which discourages tunnelling because Thana is basically useless when a survivor is killed.
His build and gameplay does not make sense for a tunneller.
David undeniably gave up or went afk. There is very strong evidence David was afk:
Also, Legion wasn’t standing next to David the whole time. At 01:11:48, David was hooked on the hill. David was unhooked at 01:12:03. David was hit with Deep Wound at 01:12:18 (15 seconds later). After that, Legion chased Ace for half of the Deep Wound timer and only returned to David because David was afk.
You shouldn’t have been hiding next to the gen but the team definitely led the killer to you.
Your team was extremely bad. They practically lost at 5 gens and were horribly inefficient. One of your teammates was literally chasing the killer, as seen at 01:23:23. Throughout the match, the entire team came to unhook 1 survivor multiple times, which is extremely inefficient and allows the killer to secure easy hits. This would have been a 4k at 5 gens regardless of tunnel or not.
I mean most survivors hates tunneling because "it stops them from playing the game", so even from survivor perspective it's only tunneling when they die…
Yep. I'm now convinced that people think they get tunnelled every match due to thinking 2 hooks in a row = tunnelling. If that definition is followed, people are "tunnelled" every match, which was why it occurred 6/7 times in Pulsar's matches, but in reality the killer wasn't tunnelling at all.
I think this one depends on the person and how the game goes afterward. Many people are going to assume they won't get to play and will be completely tunneled out. So they will just let go on hook or dc because they were hooked twice in a row.
Or, perhaps the other survivors saw the double hook and assumed that person is being tunneled out. They may decide to just sit on gens in this case. By the time they figured out they weren't going to be tunneled for the kill, it may be too late to make a save. Now the survivor didn't get to play the game anyway.
A killer may also start out tunneling someone into 2nd state so that the moment the game doesn't go how they expected, they can just switch back to finding that person. Which means the survivor may get to play for 10 minutes after being hooked twice or it may not even last 10 seconds before the killer switches back for them.
To me, from the survivor perspective, it's always tunneling for the kill when a killer hooks me more than once in a row. I have no way of knowing otherwise until they don't.
I watch the VOD. Honestly if those are the types of games you were complaining about then I have no idea what you are expecting. Most of those games seemed pretty good and aside from 2 or 3, your teammates all played really well. Aside from the 2 throwers you had, all those games seemed pretty fun. And if you didn't have the throwers those other 2 games would've been fun as well. You also escaped 5/7 and most of those games ended in a 0K. For solo queue, those are really good games.
As for tunnelling, I didn't see any of the killers tunnelling honestly. If your definition of tunnelling is just hooking someone with no one else in between then I don't see how tunnelling is actually even an issue? Otherwise the unhooked survivor just becomes invincible until someone else is hooked.
Pyramid Head didn't tunnel. He hooked Yun-Jin, chased Dwight and then made the right play and broke chase because he couldn't catch Dwight. He then went to another gen and found Yun-Jin again. Could he have chased you? No. You were already out the door and Yun-Jin was at the pallet. He had no way of getting past her. That was not tunnelling at all. He simply chased who was closer and in the worst position. He might not have even seen you, we don't know because you didn't look back. He even actively avoided Yun-Jin when she was on death hook after that. The Pyramid Head played completely fair and was a good sport.
The first Blight didn't tunnel at all and I'm assuming they are one of the 3 you said didn't. But I do have to ask - if he downed you after you nearly sandbagged Nic, would you count that as tunnelling?
Legion I can see what makes you think this was tunnelling but I don't think they were actively trying to do so. They missed their Frenzy on you and instead of just tunnelling you there they went and chased someone else first. They then never tunnelled anyone else the entire game. If you had left the gen they never would've found you. I can see why you would call this one tunnelling, but I don't think they played unfairly and they played fair the entire game after and before that.
Unknown never tunnelled. They played 100% fairly. That would've been a good game had Dwight not given up.
Huntress didn't tunnel. She double hooked every one and the only time she hooked someone twice in succession was Mikaela who was the only survivor not on death hook and it was an entire minute after she was unhooked before the chase began. I wouldn't call that tunnelling, especially since Mikaela was on a generator.
HUNK didn't tunnel, David gave up and went AFK. You can tell because David's mend timer never paused and he went down to it directly under the hook. He played fair and never tunnelled anyone before or after that, he even went easy on you guys after that. Even after you also gave up he didn't tunnel you. Would've been a good game had David not given up.
Second Blight also didn't tunnel. The only time he hooked someone twice in a row was you because you made a gigantic misplay. It is not tunnelling if you are literally sitting right in front of him while he is chasing someone else. Had you just run off once you saw him being blinded you would've been fine. He didn't tunnel you after you were unhooked after that and didn't tunnel anyone else either. No tunnelling, he just played really well and you made a big mistake.
So overall, at most 1 killer tunnelled and even then it didn't seem like they did it on purpose. Tunnelling should absolutely be addressed, but none of these are indicative of why. They were normal games for the most part.
The thing that had the bigger impact on these games was the survivors giving up for no reason. Had that not happened I feel all 7 of those games would've been pretty fun to play. Survivors giving up is probably the biggest issue with solo queue.
DS has been around since 2016 and works once a match (no longer in endgame). In the same vein that I'm sure tunnelling is in a minority of games, I'm inclined to believe those who bring and weaponise DS are an even smaller minority than that.
The problem here is that you are assuming that your defintion is the end all be all correct one.
I'm restarting the experiment with the new knowledge presented, and once again will be taking all of the "skill issue, stop being bad" comments. I'm also going to play at my normal time, instead of like noon. This is mostly pragmatic, as I literally can't play at noon today.
I wouldn't say it's the only correct definition, but it definitely isn't a tunnel unless the killer commits hard to killing a single person. It should seem like the killer is very determined to kill one person, e.g. trying to find and kill them quickly and ignoring other survivors. I'm going to disclose now that I tunnel frequently, so I know exactly what a tunneler thinks like. This is what tunnelling looks like.
https://youtu.be/5yReLf0tYog?si=faTtwwUCC2x1m5PuYou can see that the first 2 survivors would have been hard tunnelled out of the game very quickly (if they weren't pick up saved). Note that I uploaded this video long before I made this thread, so this is just normal gameplay for me.
Just play the remaining 8 matches. I don't have time to watch another 15 matches.
At this point, I don't really care, watch them or don't.
Your definition of tunnel ignores Survivor input.
Killer hooks 1-1-3-1. 3 goes down bodyblocking for 1. Tunneling via your definition? No. Tunneling tho? Yup. There are issues with your definition.
I'm going to equip Bond as well as Open-Handed/Kindred. Might as well see what's going on.
Nothing is going to be a problem if you just define it out of existence.
If I say that 'gen rushing' is when the Pope himself flies in with a toolbox and completes all 5 generator by himself, then boom. That's never happened so clearly gen rushing isn't an issue.
There is no inconsistency at all. I said that tunnelling is the killer committing hard to killing a single person. They don't actually have to down the person to be tunnelling. For example, if the killer spends all game chasing 1 survivor and that survivor escapes, it's tunnelling. Your example also counts as tunnelling.
You could say that if I gave a wildly inaccurate definition of tunnelling, but my definition is mostly accurate. You don't think committing hard to killing a single person is tunnelling?
Realizing you either can't find the Survivor or chase them efficiently while not throwing doesn't mean you didn't tunnel earlier.
now, you're making it about intent, which is ABSURDLY difficult to decipher from an often across-the-map perspective.
Failing a tunnel-out due to circumstances or realizing you're getting cooked doesn't mean it doesn't count.
I don't think it will be difficult to determine. Just see who the killer is chasing. If they are heavily focused on chasing and killing 1 survivor, they are probably tunnelling. If they have split their chases across multiple people before the first person dies, they probably aren't tunnelling. If they skip opportunities where they could have tunnelled someone out on death hook, they probably aren't tunnelling.
You need to keep in mind that often the killer is just going for the easiest or closest person to chase, and this may cause it to look like tunnelling when they happen to find the same person twice in a row. You should check the whole match to see if they are just chasing the first person they find.
Did the devs actually come out to define what tunneling means? Everyone has committed to their own definition of tunneling so much that it's just discussions about apples and oranges at this point.
Having a definition that everyone can agree on or has to abide by would stop a lot of discussions from going off track and energy wouldn't be wasted debating on definitions which is literally only the first step to talking about the actual topics.
You may not know, but "tunneling" came from "tunnel vision", which is basically equivalent of "(nearly) ignoring other survivors until you kill one specific survivor"
So what actually "defined out of existence" here is that strange 2 hook = tunnel thing, because literally no one thought hooking twice and intentionally avoiding third hook as a "intentionally avoiding other survivors to kill one specific survivor" before, pretty sure it's quite opposite
Yep. Back when I started playing in 2019, tunnelling was generally considered as being tunnel visioned into killing a single survivor. This 2 hooks in a row definition is a large deviation from what tunnelling originally was.
People really have no rights to complain when they made up killer mind and somehow gone afk, and leaving on hooks without even checking whether killer is nearby or not is plain bad play from survivor
And no, "switch back to finding that person" pretty much never works unless you are legion or something, not to mention the fact it's 100% likely the "tunneled" survivor will be healthy by the time killer switch back, which make it non tunneling
All that extremely niche and specific situation is more like a self fulfilling prophecy than anything else, it's either one of actually getting hard tunneling (3 hooks in a row) or making up something that didn't happened and ignoring dying survivor (which is honestly just an extremely bad play on survivor side)
tunneling is only proven when someone dies, survivors killing survivor is simply a misplay and NOT tunneling, nothing of your post indicates "survivor thinks two hooks in a row as tunneling", but rather, "some survivors are too eager to give up and ends up killing their own teammates by thinking killers are going for three hooks in a row"
No I wouldn't? Why anyone waste 2 perk slots when one of them gets instantly wasted the second you get unhooked and get hot anyways? That's the most illogical thing to do.
Because it's unlikely that the perks gets "instantly wasted" nowadays, thanks to AFC feature that will absolutely helps
And this is why I say it depends on the person and their own perspectives/experiences in the game.
What you say are niche situations in your experience may be more common for someone else . I rarely see a killer double hook someone and not go for the third hook as well. That's why I am best to assume it's always a tunnel. In someone else's case they might see more of the opposite.
I also understand that going for the person they may have left can be harder, but that depends on when the killer decides to turn back on them. If they completely walked away to avoid killing that survivor then yeah, it may not be in their best interest and may not work as well, but the option to kill them, because they were tunneled for second stage, is still there. If they start to walk away, get upset that a gen gets done, then they might turn right back around 10 seconds later and continue with the same person. They just went from not tunneling to oh, better tunnel.
One of the counters that has always been given for camping/tunneling is "just do gens". So it isn't a surprise for someone not to be checked on after they are hooked twice in a row. This honestly probably happens less than tunneling these days but does still happen.
Tunneling also doesn't mean someone has to die. It can be just a focus of one survivor. If I chase the same survivor all game, I have tunnel vision. I may never catch them but above all else they got my undivided attention. I can tunnel for second stage because I know that will leave me with some pressure I can utilize later. Doesn't mean I have to tunnel them out of the game though.
All that being said I don't mean to imply that I see a lot of tunneling because I don't. ATM I can't even play the game. But the problem with tunneling is that there is no blanket definition on what it is and just the threat of it can cost the game.
I wouldn't be surprised if tunneling is more common in low mmr, tracking an injured survivor is a lot easier than tracking a healthy surv. Also newer players might not have interacted with the community enough to know that those strategies are unpopular. I'm pretty sure that camping and facecamping was more common in low mmr aswell, for similar reasons. I would guess that I'm average mmr and face camping was rare in my experience, but the Devs still felt that the anti face camp mechanic was necessary (I don't mind it, it just has no impact in most of my matches).
Others have already said it, but tunneling has no dictionary entry, it will always be subjective (just like genrushing, if you look at the recent post about it). And as someone who has been playing since late 2017, no the definition was never unanimous, people argued about it back than aswell.
Personally, I define tunneling as intentionally chasing (and hooking if possible) someone right after they have been unhooked. So I would also call it tunneling if a Killer stops "tunneling" after the second hook, but in my experience that isn't a common experience. More common is leaving a survivor after the first hook but tunneling after the second, because by then gens have popped and the Killer wants to get a kill. And that is understandable, but can still be frustrating If you're the survivor in that situation.
I find it curious that you like to tunnel but try to convince people that tunneling isn't a problem. Scared your winning strategy could be nerfed?
Maybe the devs should fix their game, instead of us needing 2 perk slots out of 4 to counter one play-style hm? And I still wouldn't waste 2 perk slots, you do you :)
I mean, from where I'm standing, they already did. I bring OTR in 90% of my survivor games, but it's not like BT where the perk was legitimately mandatory on everyone to stop the killer from being able to sit next to the hook and smack the unhooked survivor back down the microsecond their feet touched the ground.
Now that it's guaranteed to give an endurance hit no matter what, I've had a killer hit me off the hook, like… once? in the entirety of survivor games I've played during the event? And it was a Billy saw, so I don't even know if they were trying to hit me or the unhooker. Way more common that the killer waits 10 seconds, tries to hit me then, and OTR gives me value.
Tunneling is still inordinately powerful, but we're no longer at the stage where perks are mandatory to bandaid game flaws, and the basegame protections have done a fair job at making these tactics less ubiquitous.
Unfortunately I think intent, or at least an inference of it, is necessary to come up with any kind of meaningful statistic about tunneling. A survivor being hooked twice in a row doesn't really mean anything by itself. If the chases between those hooks were a minute apart, the killer was doing other things, and then happened to find that same survivor healed and doing gens, that isn't a tunnel. Even if the hooks are in quick succession, it can be a matter of bad luck or poor plays, though the situation starts looking more suspect.
But, I think you can reasonably discern intent by whether or not the killer makes an attempt to pursue that survivor 3x in a row. This was observable in most of your games. True, you don't have eyes in the sky, but if the killer isn't proxying/coming back to the hook or they're chasing someone else, it's not tunneling - or at least not a definition of tunneling many people would agree with, so not statistically useful.
I'm not saying you need the kind of perfect match replay that picks apart why the killer might have tunneled that survivor, whether it was incited, if the survivor did something stupid that made them an opportunistic target, or whether factors in the match made the tunnel 'justified.' That level of intent is too specific and defeats the point of this experiment. But I do think you need a higher standard of narrowing down 'this killer was trying to get a survivor out of the game,' because as it is, a sample of seven games turned up six false positives where your definition of tunneling was met, but the actual spirit and predominant complaint of tunneling was not.