Survivors rush gens? Rush the hook.

Life_Sux

Lately, the dominant survivor strategy is clear: split early, ignore interaction, and finish generators as fast as possible. It’s efficient, low-risk, and rewards minimal engagement with the killer. If that’s the meta survivors choose, then killers adapting shouldn’t be controversial.

Rushing hooks, tunneling early pressure, and prioritizing fast downs are logical responses to gen rush. A killer who spreads hooks and plays “fair” while three gens pop in four minutes is simply playing suboptimally. The game already incentivizes speed; expecting killers to slow themselves down out of courtesy makes no sense.

This isn’t about being toxic. It’s about acknowledging cause and effect. If survivors optimize for generator completion above all else, killers will optimize for removing players from the match as quickly as possible. Faster hooks create slowdown. Slower hooks lose games.

If people want longer, more interactive matches, that discussion should start with survivor strategy, not end with blaming killers for adapting.

crogers271

@runningguy said:

https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049708#Comment_4049708

yes it was the suggestion, the concept of giving a meaningless reward that does not actually benefit the killer and does not stop survivors rushing gens has always been the suggestion why the anti tunnel failed. This backed up by the amount of killers saying gen fly too fast.

Weakening the incentives to tunnel will never work. Thats not a theory or speculation, thats based on fact that as long as tunneling remains a viable option i myself will not stop tunneling so it makes sense that other killers might feel the same. The PTB punished killers for tunneling and essentially did remove it as a viable strat…it was no longer a winning strat. Result is what we have seen, failed PTB and killers saying they will quit.

People didnt say basekit bbq could be easily countered with lockers, they said it was pointless with low tier killers. Great we know the survivors location is on the other side of the map….how do we get there when killers like trapper have such little mobility where killers like blight can zoom over to them in an instant? It made S tiers stronger and made low tiers weaker by giving them a meaningless "buff". There is a reason why low tier low mobility killers dont use the perk bbq often compared to killers like blight and billy. This was tested and proven and people voiced their own individual experience playing the PTB…but you would argue "pft thats anecdotal and personal experience, no need to take that into account".

As far as enjoyment goes, people bring it on themselves to not enjoy the game. They refuse to use anti tunnel perks, they refuse to learn any other way of playing, they refuse to help themselves then say its unfun because the killer tunneled. killers could do that too…refuse to tunnel, refuse to bring chase perks, refuse to use S tier killers, refuse to help themselves then say "the game is unfun because survivors loop and pre run". No, people need to take reasonability and ownership of their own fun and stop expecting others to make the game fun for them. i enjoy the game as killer and survivor, that clearly shows the game can be enjoyable for both sides.

In no world is 4 v 1 better for the killer compared to 3 v 1, thats simple math and no amount number adjustment would change that because if there are 3 strong loopers and 1 weak looper then that 1 weak looper will go out fast. Anything that meant it punishes the killer for eliminating a player which is the goal of the killer and you get killer revolt as we saw. Survivors were open to discussion to what benefits the killer received and only seemed ok with anything that didnt mean they would suffer any sort of meaningful nerf. Not only that but the survivors were never open to the concept of nerfing gen speeds which is my point. It makes no sense for survivors to try and bargain when they have nothing to bargain with which is exactly what happened.

Survivor - "we want you to stop tunneling"

killer - "ok make it profitable to not take out someone asap"

survivor - "we will give you these pointless buffs that makes no difference whatsoever and you can be punished for tunneling"

killer - "not a chance"

survivor - "just stop tunneling, its not fun"

killer - "ok, nerf gens speeds so we can spread hooks"

survivor - Not a chance, gens are boring"

killer - "fair enough get tunneled"

See how survivors are not the ones in a position to be bargaining when killers have openly said what it will take for survivors to get what they want?

in no world is 4 v 1 better for the killer compared to 3 v 1, thats simple math and no amount number adjustment would change that because if there are 3 strong loopers and 1 weak looper then that 1 weak looper will go out fast.

This is what I mean about you continually going to strawman arguments.

Here's what I actually said

"The issue was always tunneling being a possibility, except the 3v1 being made stronger if it happened, in return for unique hook benefits that made the 4v1 easier for the killer"

You just made up a different argument that was easier for you to respond to. Yes, eliminating a survivor will always be strong. The goal was to make it so that it was not so overwhelmingly strong that all other killer tactics were relatively foolish in comparison and that the game was not so completely one sided if a tunnel did occur.

runningguy

@crogers271 said:

https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4049725#Comment_4049725

in no world is 4 v 1 better for the killer compared to 3 v 1, thats simple math and no amount number adjustment would change that because if there are 3 strong loopers and 1 weak looper then that 1 weak looper will go out fast.

This is what I mean about you continually going to strawman arguments.

Here's what I actually said

"The issue was always tunneling being a possibility, except the 3v1 being made stronger if it happened, in return for unique hook benefits that made the 4v1 easier for the killer"

You just made up a different argument that was easier for you to respond to. Yes, eliminating a survivor will always be strong. The goal was to make it so that it was not so overwhelmingly strong that all other killer tactics were relatively foolish in comparison and that the game was not so completely one sided if a tunnel did occur.

And as i have already said, its simple math. its an elimination game and sooner 1 gets eliminated the better. Making it so 3 v 1 is effectively stronger than it is now which would encourage killers to not tunnel is punishing killers for doing their job which is kill. Another complaint that killers voiced during the PTB. No different to killers getting permanent haste increase whenever a gen is done, it would punish survivors for doing their objective.

The game is not 1 sided if the killer tunnels, its only 1 sided if the killer tunnels a weak looper because the will get eliminated fast. But a strong looper that hold chase long enough for multiple gens to be completed is actually a benefit to the survivors. It also doesnt mean all other killer tactics are foolish by comparison, we see various tactics such as slugging, hit and run, camping, stealth. Not everyone tunnels and not everyone wins when they do tunnel. If survivors learnt to counter as i have then they would understand its not an issue….therefore its not the tactic thats the issue, its the survivors.

crogers271

@runningguy said:

https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4050265#Comment_4050265

And as i have already said, its simple math. its an elimination game and sooner 1 gets eliminated the better. Making it so 3 v 1 is effectively stronger than it is now which would encourage killers to not tunnel is punishing killers for doing their job which is kill. Another complaint that killers voiced during the PTB. No different to killers getting permanent haste increase whenever a gen is done, it would punish survivors for doing their objective.

The game is not 1 sided if the killer tunnels, its only 1 sided if the killer tunnels a weak looper because the will get eliminated fast. But a strong looper that hold chase long enough for multiple gens to be completed is actually a benefit to the survivors. It also doesnt mean all other killer tactics are foolish by comparison, we see various tactics such as slugging, hit and run, camping, stealth. Not everyone tunnels and not everyone wins when they do tunnel. If survivors learnt to counter as i have then they would understand its not an issue….therefore its not the tactic thats the issue, its the survivors.

And as i have already said, its simple math. 

Not even close. You might as well argue because the killer moves faster they will never lose. You're just stripping away every variable or element from the discussion.

Making it so 3 v 1 is effectively stronger than it is now which would encourage killers to not tunnel is punishing killers for doing their job which is kill.

I see we're straying into a new argument here - the whole 'don't punish killers for doing their jobs' nonsense.

Okay, remove things like the teaming up on gen penalty. In fact, let survivors just do the same gen repeatedly. Why are we punishing survivors for doing their job?

That would be stupid. The survivors and killers both have an objective and creating pros and cons to differing strategies is very normal game design.

It does show though that, despite your earlier claims, a good example of how some killers were never even willing to consider compromise on this. At least most of them though were more upfront about not wanting it all and not doing this whole 'survivors won't compromise'.

The game is not 1 sided if the killer tunnels, its only 1 sided if the killer tunnels a weak looper because the will get eliminated fast.

As you like to say, this proves my point.

It's bad game design for both the survivors and killer if a 4v1 game is so heavily decided by a single one of the players, especially when those decisions are so heavily impacted by chance on who the killer runs into first and what perks the survivor brought into the match.

It also doesnt mean all other killer tactics are foolish by comparison, we see various tactics such as slugging, hit and run, camping, stealth.

Again, proves the point of the what the anti-tunnel was setting out to do and goes back on your own argument (we've gone from simple math to plenty of viable strategies).

Getting a survivor out of the game is the best thing that can happen to the killer. You have to start adding on conditions and circumstances to make it less viable. Which is what the anti-tunnel did.