yay guys, more anti-killer changes coming soon
first of all, YES the anti-slug surrender option is fine and cool. not gonna talk about that.
the roadmap has another segment in phase two which talks about "anti tunneling and anti camping"
and I wonder, when will the devs get the message that killers are doing these things because the whole "play nice go for multiple people" idea has been probably the most bullshit thing in the history of this game?
killer literally does not have the ability to do that against any competent team because KEEPING THE GAME A 1V4 MAKES THE GENS FLY. has nothing to do with skill, despite what many community members will tell you.
also yeah, keep nerfing tunnel/camp because we haven't been doing that every update. survivors get new meta perks to use against it nearly every chapter along with basekit features to counter it, guess it is still not enough.
we've nerfed nearly every slowdown perk the killer has and the expectation is for them to play even NICER.
its also only seen as a problem when the killers go for their objective quickly, not the survivors of course. where's my "anti-genrush"? oh wait "genrush" is fine because that's just the survivors doing their objective right, but when the killer does the same without bending their back over to make the match "fun" for everyone else then they're an evil toxic tunneler and deserve to be punished with EVEN MORE.
I see nothing on this roadmap hinting at buffs for play styles that are "healthy" such as spreading hooks around and going for multiple chases. If that's the way they want people to play the game then BUFF THOSE STRATEGIES, stop NERFING the other strats that people use because the first one is terrible.
killers try to play nice, every gen slowdown which allowed this to an extent is nerfed. killers tunnel/slug because the "playing nice" strategy sucks, we introduce 70 things which impede them from doing that. killers dont wanna even hook anymore because it enables like 20 different survivor meta perks? yeah, lets nerf that too. if you want us to behave in a certain way then maybe start giving the carrot instead of relentless beatings with the stick.
Comments
You can literally barely move for up to four minutes. You can hardly get -less- agency in the game.
When have they -ever- done that? Is it impossible to tunnel through DS/OTR? Can you not camp anymore?
Or are you demanding that you can choose whatever strat you want and then not deal with the consequences of that decision?
So pick your gosh darn teammates up you fool.
Take unbreakable. Take chase perks to help you.
As for when have they ever done that? Oh I dont know, how about the gen kick limit that should have been removed when they gutted SM. How about the removal of hook grabs? Or the anti camp mechanic.
I dont camp, it was somthing I never enjoyed so i just didnt do it. That is a very real example of BHVR swooping in and thanosing an option from existence though. The gen kick limit too. Now, survivors dont get punished for 3 genning themselves which I will add is a survivor mistake.
Why are you yelling at me? I was politely disagreeing with you, and you came in quite hot.
The only reason you aren't calling to remove unbreakable is because it's a very mid perk. You can get up once, but here's the thing, killers can slug you more than once. Boon unbreakable is very easily countered by killers, and can't be set up while slugged. Once those 2 options are gone survivor agency is gone.
It's not like camping the hook causes the entity to hold you in place for a minute at a time. Or tunneling someone sends you to a different realm. Killer agency is alive and well. If you want to camp, tunnel, and slug then do it. The option is still there.
Forcing survivors to stay in a match and crawl around on their belly because the Killer hasn't downed everyone yet is a bad move on BHVRs part.
The devs have given so much to killers that they think they are high mmr gods, and every survivor is low mmr. The game is about to crash hard because everyone is unhappy.
I apologize if I came off that way, I was not yelling at you. I did use bold font to emphasize a point but i did not mean for it to come across as me yelling at you.
I am growing rather frustrated with Firellius though because i feel he is being obtuse and we are going in circles as a result.
I do not call for the removal of perks. Buffs and nerfs are one thing, but removal? That is somthing else entirely, and I do not advocate for over buffing or over nerfing of perks as well. In fact I am a very big critic of it, and call it out, for both sides, when it happens in other forums for discussion.
I agree, spending huge amounts of time unable to interact meaningfully with the match is not fun, but that is a teammate problem first, not a problem with the act of leaving someone on the ground. This is happening because people hyper fixate on rushing gens rather than helping their team. There are a number of things survivors can do that is effective against slugging but rather than adapting, people are trying to get BHVR to ctrl alt delete it from the game. People would rather point the finger at killers and slugging than accept that they messed up by leaving their team on the ground and tunnel visioning gens all game.
Gen kick limit was the last resort that finally killed off the 3 gen meta, and it was necessary because the nerfs to Eruption, CoB, Overcharge, and even skull merchant weren't enough to prevent people from holding the game hostage for an hour and calling it skill.
No. Survivors being 3 genned by themselves or the killer isn't an automatic loss of the entire match. Survivors 3 genning themselves is, was, and always has been "punished", as you say, because having the smallest possible playable area is a huge benefit to the killer.
A 3 gen situation is currently (and should have always been) an opportunity for the killer. It's a pretty big advantage to have a tiny area to patrol and find survivors (you know, the killers objective). It should never have gotten to a point where people considered a 3 gen by itself a win condition in the first place.
If you're hitting the gen regression limit right now, then you really need to understand that gens aren't the killers objective, survivors are.
Can't do that when I'm on the ground, can I?
What was that about agency, again?
That's funny, because neither have stopped camping. And if you made a topic complaining that anti-camp doesn't work against camping, you will get plenty of very annoyed responses clarifying that it's anti-FACE-camp, not anti-camp, and it's not supposed to do anything against camping.
You think SM was the only one doing this?
This sounds like you only consider it an effective strategy if you can run the clock for the full 60 minutes and force a server-sided closure. You aren't legitimately advocating for that to come back, are you?
YOU may not play specifically to make survivor's lives miserable but there are many that do.
A killer slugging at 5 gens is playing to win any way they can not caring that they are making survivors games miserable.
People keep saying killer perks were "nerfed to the ground" yet all I see in my games are pop/pain res/grim even after the nerf because those perks are still strong. They may not be as strong as they were but guess what, there are survivor perks that have been "nerfed to the ground" in the same respects.
Personally, I do not care what perks a killer runs, I care how they play and unfortunately most of them play like total turds. I played three matches of 1v4 last night and all three were a 4 man slug. Keep in mind, I solely play solo q.
Says who? You? Killers can play however the heck they want. No one should ever even entertain this "rules for thee but not for me" argument.
Says who? You? Killers can play however the heck they want. No one should ever even entertain this "rules for thee but not for me" argument.
Where did this agency term come from. I keep seeing it in every post lately
Agency basically means options and freedom. The hard removal of player agency is dangerous and extremely harmful for the game. By hard removal I mean developer intervention where they swoop in and break strategies from working. Hard removal does not mean a standard nerf to perks or survivors getting perks to deal with something. Hard removal isnt caused by a shift in the meta by itself.
Lack of player agency, particularly within the power role has very, very strong correlation with the downturn and eventual death of many Asyms.
How many asymmetricals have actually lasted longer than a year to warrant this armchair developer analysis?
Many. We have seen enough asyms over the past few years that it is very simply to analyze what went wrong with them and look for common themes. This is why I said "correlation". One of the most consistent problems with the asyms that have failed was lack of agency in the power role. Now, there can be a lot of reasons this can happen, and from a developer standpoint I will cut a break and admit that it is not a super easy thing to deal with.
In games where you have a power role trying to hunt down a larger group of players (for simplicity sake lets call this the survivor role since thats what we are all familiar with), usually the monster, killer, or whatever constitutes as the power role are played by less casual players on average, while the survivor role tends to lean more towards the casual side. This is going to mean that the number of survivor players are more numerous than the power role players. This by itself is actually a good thing otherwise it would take much longer to get into a match when queuing up as the power role.
The problem is, the developers are going to usually want to favor the casual playerbase (survivors). The power role will try to adapt as much as they can but eventually, the lack of player agency either caused by hard removal or just not having much to begin with will create a situation where playing the power role isnt fun and people will stop. At the end of the day, you can only adapt so much before you just need more tools. You can actually see this happening with TCM.
Again there are reasons the developers for a game may want to prioritize the survivor role over the power role but it is a trap. Balance in these kinds of games is never easy, but very often these developers are making a conscious decision to weaken the power role to the point where it is frustrating and not fun to play for the benefit of the masses. Its not an accident, and by the time the developers realize that what they have done was a mistake, it's too late. You have a dramatic drop off in the number of players willing to play one side which increases the queue times for the other, ultimately leading to the survivor players leaving because they cant get into a match either.
The game will then linger on in a state where you have bad balance issues and a near non existent playerbase, no matter what the developers try to do, the damage has been done. Though it may take some time, eventually once the game reaches this stage, the developers will give up and pull the plug.
I can think of only one example of a game where the opposite might have been true happened and the power role had more power than the survivor role did beyond the earlier stages of a match (which was by design if im not mistaken). Evolve. Yes, it died too but it reached the end stage of decline with extremely low player counts quickly and it was almost exclusively due to other reasons (Monetization was the biggest issue. It was a different time and if the game had released today, it would not have had issues in that department, in fact I suspect people would be happy with it considering it was non gacha DLC style MTX). It actually lasted quite a long time before it was shut down. Even though the official servers are long gone, there are still a lot of people who like the game.
One of the biggest reasons DBD has lasted longer than any other Asym in this genre is because BHVR have historically embraced player agency, and allowed players to play a match out mostly in whatever way they desire. There are some restrictions, like you cant intentionally hold a match hostage, cheat, or abuse exploits, espically when they cause someone to not be able to play the game at all (survivors used to be able to abuse an exploit that allowed them to trap the killer forever with nothing they could do to escape. Often this was pared with the other survivors deliberatly holding the match hostage, forcing the killer to FF the match and DC). Instead BhVR gives players tools to either create new strategies, bolster existing ones, or provide tools with which to use against different strategies and perks from the opposing side. Now, we can talk about the balance of these perks and tools all day because there are certainly some problems to be talked, but the underlying design direction with this strategy is undeniably a healthy one, and that is backed up by how long DBD has been around for.
So you've mentioned two games, one of which kinda goes against your point, and the other one is TCM. I've played TCM, and what you're describing does not match my experience of it at all.
idk but I like this dislike button lol
So, just to give a comparison, right now it takes 3 oak offerings to compensate 1 killer oak offering, and then they still have 1 slot left to get 99.999% chance to go to the map they want. Where if a killer picks a map and survivors only need 1 map offering and can then give 3 hook offerings, then the killer has 50/50 on his map and 3 meters increased in hook. That doesnt make sense, why does in 1 case survivors get a guaranteed map, but no hook distance, but the other time, its 50/50 and massive hook distance? Its either 3 map offerings to combat the killer map offering, or killer hook offerings need to be massively buffed. I rather have the map offering rework. And no one said anything about the killer getting the map over a survivor offering, just that the killer map should simply be 3x or 3.5x as strong as the survivor equivalent of any offering. Survivors get 20% for a map offering? killers get 60-70% for the exact same offering. Simple as that. Doesnt guarantee a thing, just makes sure that if 1 survivor and 1 killer bring a map, that 3/4 times, the killer map will be chosen.
And no, not biased at all. I play both roles, about 2.5k hours on each side. I know the annoyances of both sides. And these arent nerfs for survivors AT ALL. The only I can kiiiiinda agree on is spawning togethers, but that's practically been basekit anyway. You almost always start with another survivor, quite often all 4 being in the general area. There are some times when survivors all spawn spread out, but those are rare and removing them literally wouldnt impact your overall gameplay.
Yeah im not going to give you a comprehensive list otherwise i'd be here forever typing up somthing no one will bother reading.
Unfortunately I have learned over the years that people do not have the patience to listen to a complex discussion. Anything nuanced has to be dumbed down or people will look at you as though you are the idiot. Making that post any longer than it allready is would be a waste of my time.
if you are getting tunneled and are dead at 5 gens, that is not the killers problem.
any survivor who's good in chase and has OTR can make the infamous "5 gen tunnel" turn into a 1k for the killer.
I'm not sure. Sometimes dowvotes can be heavily abused by trolls. I've seen it before. I've also seen on places like reddit the voting system and burying of comments creates an echo chamber and thats not good for anyone. Right and wrong are not a popularity contest.
after a day or two of leaving this thread to bake I come back and see youre still trying to argue with this person and I advise you not to.
ha I just realized ive talked to them before about this and they've done the exact same thing - just endless gaslighting.
many people in this whole thread are beyond saving, I think. they cant think outside the box at all, because the second you say something to even remotely defend tunneling youre deemed and seen as a skilless killer.
no matter how many times you tell them that the whole "spread pressure and spread hooks" strategy doesn't work against any good survivor team they will just continue to gaslight you and say things like "you just aren't good enough and haven't practiced" or "you shouldn't win every game" they never actually address the issue - spreading hooks is too weak so tunneling is rampant. if you nerf tunneling without buffing the spreading hooks play style, then that's a problem and people will complain.
or, alternatively, you'll get someone who "plays killer alot and NEVER has to tunnel" and its like sure ok good for you, thanks for telling me that you never go against good teams ever in your life because no matter how godlike you are at this game if you are sent to eyrie as a b tier killer against cracked survivors and you willingly choose to play inefficiently then you will lose.
but oh well, I guess I should just take games like those up the ass after the only chance to win them is beaten further into the ground because im "not supposed to win every game"
You are definitely right. They have their own opinion and im never going to convince them of what im saying in a million years reguardless of how much logic I put out there or how well i explain my position. I did call them out for gaslighting me but ultimately removed it because i felt the accusation was perhaps a bit abrasive. If they want to learn about what i was talking about the information is definitely out there if they look.
I think I was more continuing the discussion just on the off chance someone else was paying attention to what I was saying who was willing to be a little bit more receptive.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it puts two requirements on the survivor player that aren't reflected in any requirements for the killer player.
In order to beat tunnelling, a survivor both has to be disproportionately skilled in chase and only bringing three perks of their own actual choice, since one slot has to be reserved for OTR.
By contrast, the killer player needs no dedicated perks to attempt to tunnel, and it requires disproportionately less skill in chase to do considering that the survivor starts the chase out of position and down a health state.
Doesn't that sound unbalanced to you?
Tunneling is just a natural part of the game. On a team of survivors not all survivors are going to be of exactly the same skill level. Someone might be having a really good day, someone might be having a really bad one. A killer is going to find the weakest person on a team and down them, and then because they are the weakest player on the team they are more likely to make more mistakes and be downed more. Its not a malicious thing. If you were playing killer and you had at least 1 and probably more gens pop by the time you hooked your first survivor are you going to pick the strongest person on the other team to commit to or are you going to pick some of the weaker players?
Gens go by way way way too fast for killers to just hook random survivors if the team they are playing against is good and they are being efficient on gens. There is just no way to do it. As frustrating as being tunneled out can be, it is often just necessesary for killers to keep up against good survivors unless you want every match to devolve into playing against Nurse and Blight only.
If people want for a meta to exist where killers dont tunnel as much survivors must be willing to accept certain concessions to keep the game fair. Either gens need to have far, far more ticks to completion or the slowdown that killers have needs to be a lot stronger, and or the killer needs to be able to use a 3 gen to slow the game down to a point where they can catch up.
Every single time I have ever brought this up, people just gaslight me and tell me i'm wrong or try to shift the discussion away from that point.
You don't have to tunnel to avoid letting the strongest survivor dictate your chase. Hell, you don't even need to tunnel to capitalise on the weakest link, necessarily- you can go chase and hook other people then choose the weaker player at crucial moments without actually chasing them as soon as they're unhooked.
Beyond that, I have an issue with how the entire breadth of the game encompassed by simply not tunnelling is reduced down to playing directionlessly or "randomly", as you say here.
It's not a lack of skill or a lack of strategy to actually be engaging with the macro skill expression of this game, and in fact the rewards you get for doing it effectively are pretty solid if you're in any game other than the worst case scenario of survivors that are better than you and using stacked, unfair tools.
What we should be moving forward to is a state of the game where any killer who wants good results should be expected not to use shortcuts that minimise their opponent's ability to respond, and to instead actually outplay their opponents fully. In a few small ways that will include killer buffs (or more accurately a few specific survivor nerfs), but nothing nearly as widespread as making generators take longer by default.
There's complex discussion and then there's a whole lot of talk without anything to back it up. You set out a lot of conjecture in your post, but fail to point to any concrete, practical examples. The only ones you mention are TCM, which handles its killer agency in a very different way, and Evolve, which by your own admission goes against your theory.
That just doesn't leave much to go on for this 'very, very strong corelation'.
What the hell do you want from me, to write an entire thesis in response to you, which we both know you will just nitpack one random little thing and then use that to gaslight me?
The response I gave you was already almost 1k words. Thats almost 2 pages.
I am reasonably sure, and this goes for @Nomade as well, that I could return to DBD after an 8 month hiatus and still win most of my matches as Killer.
From what you are saying, that should be impossible, tunneling or no.
What would you say about the Eruption Overbrine meta?
Surely that meta was strong enough to warrant a significant decrease in tunneling?
I mean that's how it works lol. In the past I used one pain res or one pop and 3 non-gen perks.
Now I feel more and more like efficient teams can easily work through that. Nerfing gen regression, without addressing the need for gen regression, leads to people stacking more gen regression.
It did significantly reduce the need to do it, yes. I absolutly agree with you on this point. However there is a second thing to consider. Tunneling is also an efficient way to win just like gen rushing is generally an efficient way for survivor to win. There were 2 ways BhVR could have gone about that situation, give survivors more tools or nerf the gen regression perks. They chose the latter.
Survivors have more second chance perks now than were avalible then too so I have no doubt that if survivors have the tools they do now, back in that meta, it would have been less hated. Still not well liked probably, as the survivor playerbase will gripe about allmost anything the killer does but, it would have absolutely been less hated.
Of course all of this is just what if's and dont really matter since the past is the past.
That's how the game is designed though. The better you do, the harder your opponents get. So while you could once get great results with just one gen regression perk, you now need more as you're going against more difficult opponents but you still want the same results. If you want to go back to a level where you only needed one gen perk, then copping the losses with said perk would have been your best bet.
If you're happy to compete at the level you are at, then yeah, you'll need to bring the strongest stuff. Just like your opponents do.
A concrete example.
Generally, when people assert that there's a corelation between two things, they give examples, or figures, or anything of the sort. You've mentioned two games, with one going against your thesis, and the other one, honestly, also going against your thesis.
That shows to me that your 'thesis' is little more than wishful conjecture. To you, there is a 'very, very strong corelation' because you want there to be, when objectively, no such corelation has been shown.
You made an assertion, I challenged you on it, you set out a reasoning for that assertion, but never provided any examples that actually support it. It's pure theory and conjecture.
It's guess-work, tainted by a goal-driven bias.
You already know that my, and many others' view on this will be different. I can lay it out for you, but I doubt it'll do you any good.
Yes. You need gen regressions to win consistently. Complaining that nerfing gen regression is not a big deal because people still use it is a bad argument.
I doubt it'll happen in extreme cases, as they said that when it came to the 8 regression limit. Regardless of their claim, it still happens in legitimate matches where 3 gen camping isn't remotely occurring. The whole "it won't affect anyone unless there's a problem" speech simply doesn't add up in reality. As a survivor, I can force the 8 regression limit on vital gens (such as RPD lobby) within the first 5 minutes of the game easily. As a killer, I've seen survivors weaponizing it just the same.
You're right. They should revert the gen stacking nerf and buff Prove Thyself so survivors stop spreading out and doing multiple gens at a time.
Finally a killer-only player take that I can get behind.
Smart survivors also simply get a far corner gen 99'd to eat up all PR charges so they never affect any vital gens.
Yeah, sure. And we were told that the anti gen tap would cause people to hold 4 seconds and let go to keep regression going and deny further kicks.
Neither of those things actually happen in regular matches. Survivors aren't sitting on so much gen progress that having one 99'd is a thing. Most games, by a huge margin, are either 3k or 4k where survivors aren't finishing 5 gens, let alone a decoy 6th.
This is like saying killers will just not defend central gens because that way the regression is going to target those more and thus be more impactful.
I mean that's mmr dependant. That's the usual go-to technique in my matches. PR in use? Go to a gen not often patrolled and 99 it. PR becomes a nonthreat. I did premise with the caveat that it's smart survivors who do it. If something is problematic, don't just throw yourself at a wall - counter it.
Phase 2 will kill this game then everyone who advocated these changes comes back here to cry about the lack of playerbase and long queue times.
I mean, we agree that it's apparently MMR dependent, but I mean it in a different context than you implied you do.
Cause to me, that's some "wood tier" level of strategy.
So, if the killer isn't running PR, and you leave a gen 99'd, you're just playing into regression. That gen can be hit by surge, pop, or even a dry kick and you're giving up progress for literally no reason.
Even if they are running the perk, are you planning to finish that 99'd gen?
Because finishing it means that not only are you still having to repair the regression from PR, but you're giving up maximum value. Instead of "at most 20% progress", you're choosing to give up that maximum 20% progress. Not to mention you can simply stop regression if it hits the gen you're working on, as opposed to extra regression value of a 99'd gen in a corner somewhere.
Not finishing the 99'd gen is the worst possible scenario: congratulations, you did 99% extra gen repair to play around a maximum of 80% extra gen repair. Mind blowing value.
TLDR: there's no scenario where 99'ing the gen is better than simply finishing it.
It's true. They shouldn't be surprised if they plan to annihilate these strategies it will drastically increase the queue times.
Why? Cause killers cant have easy wins by circumventing gameplay without the need of learning killer powers and having common gamesense?
The 99 thing is specifically a counter to PR. It prevents it from ever hitting vital gens that will be battled over. For example, the snow retreat map has a gen in the center. It's a real fight to knock that out since it is patrolled so often and easily. If it's completed, survivor success goes up much higher since it means the remaining gens are further spread out - it's much harder to patrol if gens are far from each other. By having a gen way over in a corner far away, the gen will naturally be less often checked since vital gens are more towards the center. Now no matter what the killer does, he's in a lose lose situation. If he PR hooks, the gen that gets hit is the gen that's far in the corner. This leaves any progress made to center gens maintained. Pushing that middle gen can be difficult, but if that thing gets dumped 25% every pop, it'll be nigh impossible by the time bodies start dropping. If he actually goes over to the 99'd gen, that's precious time the killer has blown with zero pressure on more vital gens - more importantly, that's an uncontested center gen. The most optimal place the survivors would want the killer to be is far away from vital gens. Once all PR tokens are used up, then the fen can be completed. Doing a 25% repair on a low priority gen miles away from the killer patrolis far more viable than trying to do extra 25% per hit repairs rightwhere the killer will be on a regular basis.
As for no PR, 99% a gen usually isn't worth it unless you are trying to avoid a 3 gen, but the moment the killer spots the 99 gen, the gig is up and he'll likely not bother checking that gen anymore, so might as well complete.
Long story short, if PR is hitting, you want it hitting on a low priority gen (usually the gens the killers give up since they arent worth protecting). Survivors have complete control over exactly which gen PR affects.
Since I can't make the point any clearer, best of luck to you in your matches.
Bruh as killer I literally can't even choose who I run into 99% of the time. Most of my "tunnelling" kills are just morons unhooking while I'm still in the area of the hook, and in that case why wouldn't I go after the person who already has a hook state? Slugging changes are whatever but "anti-tunnel" will kill the game.
Well, with anti-tunnel, you will have a reason.
Why should survs always get a 100% safe unhook?
Why should Killers get a free down?
Killers should be incentivized to go for other people, but that hasn't worked, so they are finally doing something.