Firellius
Firellius
About
- Username
- Firellius
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,210
- Last Active
Comments
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636511#Comment_3636511
I thought those incentives weren't strong enough to actually matter in regards to tunneling or not?
It doesn't buy you more time than you lose by not tunneling though. It's not even close.
The chase times still need to be a lot faster than if you tunnel someone out.
When tunnelling, only the first three chases need to be fast. After that, you can be very slow in your chases and still win, because survivors get way less progress. Also, when tunnelling, if you're aggressive enough, you're going to be getting half-chases for the second and third chase, since the survivor will still be injured when you pick up their trail. And if you chase them in the area where they were hooked, then they've likely already used some resources in the initial chase.
And once that survivor is dead, you can take way longer on your chases.
-
One misunderstanding that excited me about the Skull Merchant was an add-on, I think it was brown tier, where survivors would break pallets they vault over if they had a claw-trap on.
That was such an invasive mechanical change, coupled with her having a theme of a tinkerer, that I thought that was going to be the angle for her gameplay design. She has drones and claw-traps, but what they do depends on your add-ons. Almost like a 'make your own killer' kind of kit.
But alas, that add-on was the only one.
-
@Bartolomeo87 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636143#Comment_3636143
Yes exactly. On ALL levels of play. That means low levels as well where the survivors are still running around afraid of the killer afraid to do gens lol. High level is included but it’s not specifically high levels, meaning the killrate is inflated by players who play at a casual level. I just gave you proof by giving an example of what the game looks like at top level, you know where both sides actually know how to play? You’ve just chosen to completely ignore my argument and then say that you’re willing to listen, when you literally did the complete opposite of that.
The honest truth is that it doesn’t really seem like you are willing to listen. You’ve literally just done the opposite of what you said you were willing to do. I can see I’m clearly not going to get anywhere with this conversation so we can just agree to disagree.
Yes exactly. On ALL levels of play. That means low levels as well where the survivors are still running around afraid of the killer afraid to do gens lol. High level is included but it’s not specifically high levels, meaning the killrate is inflated by players who play at a casual level.
Last two times BHVR released stats, the killrates were higher if they were filtered only to higher brackets.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636087#Comment_3636087
You can't have it both ways. Either survivors chases are short so its balanced for 12 hooks or they last longer and you need to make up for it by not going for 12 hook games.
You can't say "Well your chases are short so your survivors are horrible. You need long chases but also 12 hooks".
Afaik and have seen in discussions, an average chase is somewhere around 45-60 second in a game when someone tunnels. Lets say you cut that in half to make up for going from ~5-6 hooks to 12 and having 4 survivors instead of 3. That's only 20-30 second chases. That's not very long.
Afaik and have seen in discussions, an average chase is somewhere around 45-60 second in a game when someone tunnels. Lets say you cut that in half to make up for going from ~5-6 hooks to 12 and having 4 survivors instead of 3. That's only 20-30 second chases. That's not very long.
Yeah, that's short chases, but not 'a couple of seconds' short. When you say 'a couple of seconds', you're talking around ten, max. That's survivors running into your arms.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636032#Comment_3636032
I don't think survivors need all that to be considered having the gens fly, or gen rushers or whatever. That's like saying killers can only tunnel if they're playing Nurse. I believe both sides can focus their objective to a point that its unhealthy on both sides basekit. I don't subscribe to this double standard of a killer can do it just by the way they play, but survivors need to have an entire loadout dedicated to doing it for it to count. Both playstyles can be done just by the way you play. At least imo.
"It's better to have countermeasures against tunnelling than incentives to not tunnel, yes."
That's not what I said though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you disagreed with my statement that having something to incentivize not tunneling is better than nothing. So basically you either want to punish tunneling or nothing at all.
But even with that version of DS, killers still tunneled. Because it was still better than not tunneling. Punishment alone doesn't make not tunneling stronger, it just makes tunneling weaker. If both are weak, then killer will just be weak.
For BBQ yeah, you're right, it was still better to tunnel if you wanted to play optimally for the 4K. But it still made people tunnel less because they were getting something out of it. To the point it became a win condition for players. "idc if I didn't 4K, I got my 4 stack I won". Not to mention BBQ also pointed you in the direction of other survivors away from the hook to also help you not tunnel.
I never stated I was at "high MMR" or anything like that. Just at my MMR the survivors are at a level where I can go for a 10-12 hook game and be fine. Hits and downs are a lot faster than in games where players tunnel to make up for the time differential (which also is a lot). Well, unless I get a brainlessly bad map and/or a ton of pallets. Without tunnelign/slugging/3 gen/ect. all you have to really rely on is how fast your chases end and prediction. In simplified terms at least. I don't think I could be in "top MMR" without tunneling. Even Otz and other CCs tunnel when they feel they should afaik.
I though survivors going down fast was a sign that they weren't as good as the killer. But I guess not?
Imo, the game is not balanced for a 10-12 hook matches. I'm all for pushing it in that direction, but that's not where it's at now. If you think that it is currently balanced around that, then I guess downs only taking a few seconds is balanced?
Which if that's what you believe, I respect your opinion. I mean, it's worked out for me so it's not like I can complain.
I don't think survivors need all that to be considered having the gens fly, or gen rushers or whatever. That's like saying killers can only tunnel if they're playing Nurse. I believe both sides can focus their objective to a point that its unhealthy on both sides basekit. I don't subscribe to this double standard of a killer can do it just by the way they play, but survivors need to have an entire loadout dedicated to doing it for it to count. Both playstyles can be done just by the way you play. At least imo.
But, again, at this point you're complaining about survivors doing their objective -at all-. Which brings me back to 'if you lose, the gens went too fast'.
That's not what I said though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you disagreed with my statement that having something to incentivize not tunneling is better than nothing. So basically you either want to punish tunneling or nothing at all.
Pretty much, yeah. I'm not keen on giving buffs out like candy to try and get them to tunnel less, from my experience, that doesn't work. It just mucks up the balance further.
But even with that version of DS, killers still tunneled. Because it was still better than not tunneling. Punishment alone doesn't make not tunneling stronger, it just makes tunneling weaker. If both are weak, then killer will just be weak.
But they did tunnel considerably less, because the difference between tunnelling and not tunnelling was way, way smaller.
For BBQ yeah, you're right, it was still better to tunnel if you wanted to play optimally for the 4K. But it still made people tunnel less because they were getting something out of it. To the point it became a win condition for players. "idc if I didn't 4K, I got my 4 stack I won". Not to mention BBQ also pointed you in the direction of other survivors away from the hook to also help you not tunnel.
This is the one thing I will agree with. Those alternative win conditions need to come back to both sides.
Without tunnelign/slugging/3 gen/ect. all you have to really rely on is how fast your chases end and prediction. In simplified terms at least.
That simplification is exactly the problem though. That's the distinction between a regular killer and a properly good one. The good ones know that there's a game outside of the current chase and they will keep that in mind.
Everyone knows about the micro, how to play tiles, how to chase.
The good killers also understand macro. Where to chase, which direction, who to chase, how to apply pressure.
I feel like a lot of killer complaints stem from killers who play the micro just fine but make mistakes on macro, which then leads them to come here and complain about how they simply -can't- win matches. Which ties in with my issue about the idea that 'gen slamming' or 'gen tunnelling' is a problem.
The worse you are as killer, the more 'too fast' the gens go.
I though survivors going down fast was a sign that they weren't as good as the killer. But I guess not?
No chase is supposed to last forever. If the survivors are going down at a pace that permits a 12-hook game, but gives the survivors a decent chance of getting out, congrats: That's the point of balance.
Imo, the game is not balanced for a 10-12 hook matches. I'm all for pushing it in that direction, but that's not where it's at now. If you think that it is currently balanced around that, then I guess downs only taking a few seconds is balanced?
If it's taking a couple of seconds, then you're up against survivors that barely run away at all. If that's the only type of survivor you can get a 12-hook game against, then I'm sorry, but that kind of implies that you're in, say, the bottom 5% in terms of killer skill.
Which kind of feeds into my argument.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635986#Comment_3635986
You should know what most reasonable people mean when they say the gens fly, its not just that the gens got finished. Gens getting done in 4-5 minuets is a lot different from them getting done in 12.
There is definitely a distinction.
Good thing I'm not advocating to keep tunneling in the game then. I already stated I think it should go. If not entirely then at least partially.
Well if you believe its better to have nothing to incentivize not tunneling so more people don't, than to have something so its not as many people as possible, we'll just have to disagree there.
At least we can agree the treatment should change.
I don't think DS really decreased tunneling. It just made killer as whole weaker so people just didn't play killer and we had 20+ minuet survivor ques. Tunneling was still the best tactic at the time. It was still better than not tunneling. You just tried to get around DS either by eating it and powering through or slugging. Honestly it felt worse to get tunneled and slugged than just tunneled. Especially after waiting so long to even get a game. Even if you could win against tunneling more.
I did however, notice a decrease if the killer had BBQ. I think that's what really pushed people to not tunnel. I was the win con of a sizable chunk of the smaller at the time killer community to get 4 stacks. So an incentive should come back.
The game being playable, and putting me against weak survivors so that I can not tunnel and stand a chance is different than not tunneling being a strong viable strategy against good survivors. Now if everyone started doing that would I complain? No. Survivors would probably be too strong in comparison, but we can make balance changes if that's the case.
You should know what most reasonable people mean when they say the gens fly, its not just that the gens got finished. Gens getting done in 4-5 minuets is a lot different from them getting done in 12.
But at this point, again, you're not talking about 'slamming gens' or 'tunnelling gens'. You're talking about 'genrushing', IE: Using heavy toolboxes, BNPs and perks to maximise repair speeds.
Well if you believe its better to have nothing to incentivize not tunneling so more people don't, than to have something so its not as many people as possible, we'll just have to disagree there.
It's better to have countermeasures against tunnelling than incentives to not tunnel, yes.
I don't think DS really decreased tunneling. It just made killer as whole weaker so people just didn't play killer and we had 20+ minuet survivor ques.
No, it didn't. DS, after it got the conspic action nerf, ONLY worked if the killer was tunnelling, or fell for bait. If the killer didn't tunnel, it wouldn't fire. It was in fact buffing killers that didn't tunnel, because that perk slot would effectively be empty.
I did however, notice a decrease if the killer had BBQ. I think that's what really pushed people to not tunnel. I was the win con of a sizable chunk of the smaller at the time killer community to get 4 stacks. So maybe an incentive should come back.
See, that one doesn't make any sense, because once you've got one person tunnelled out, you have more time to get the rest of your stacks. BBQ had no interaction with tunnelling at all. If it could no longer get stacks once a survivor died, maybe you'd have a point, but a tunnelling killer would have just as easy a time to get 4 stacks as a non-tunneller. (Except that DS made tunnelling inefficient, thus creating a real risk that others will get out without getting hooked)
The game being playable, and putting me against weak survivors so that I can not tunnel and stand a chance is different than not tunneling being a strong viable strategy against good survivors. Now if everyone started doing that would I complain? No. Survivors would probably be too strong in comparison, but we can make balance changes if that's the case.
Why are they 'weak' survivors?
It's a problem on these forums that a lot of killer players seem to have this idea that they are objectively very high skill. We've even had a rush of people claiming to be 'top MMR', who then go on to claim they also struggle to get more than one hook per match, somehow.
The game's complex. Loads of players can easily get the wrong idea about their own skill level. A lot of it is also quite opaque. Hearing Otz talk his viewers through his decision-making process is eye-opening. DBD has a ton of depth, and a lot of people on these forums who come here claiming to have an objective evaluation of the skill levels of themselves or others I just can't take seriously.
Similarly, I don't think you're going up against 'weak' survivors. I think you're going up against survivors matched to your skill level.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635967#Comment_3635967
I don't think the entire community on either side is out to get the other. But we also can't ignore the group dynamics of the groups we're dealing with. The majority survivor mindset, at least as far as I've seen and been expressed by others on both sides, it's that they don't really care about the killers side of the experience but ask for them to care about theirs. Often met with statements such as "gens don't have feeling". Yeah but the killers do. The killers, feeling like the survivors don't care, choose to not care about them in return. Which to me is understandable.
That's been my experience, and I've been around for a long time and it's been the same throughout. If it hasn't been your experience with survivors, then honestly? Thank god lol.
"Incentives alone don't work. You have to make it harder to tunnel if you want to see any significant reduction."
I mean, I feel like people tunneled a lot less when BBQ had its BP bonus, and that was just points not even a in game benefit. However, that said, I wouldn't be against the idea of making it harder to tunnel. I don't think it's necessary, but I'm not against it. You'd just have to make an as strong incentive to the detriment to even it out. Unless you also trying to nerf killers in general at the same time.
I mean, I feel like people tunneled a lot less when BBQ had its BP bonus
Want to highlight this on the side, by the way: BBQ lost its BP bonus in 6.1. Same patch that deleted Decisive Strike.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635975#Comment_3635975
It's not just losing. It's how you lost. It's the same as survivors in that regard. It's not just that you got sacrificed so you lost, it's that you got tunneled. It's that you got gen slammed.
Of course if you already don't tunnel you can continue to do so, the MMR is going to put you where you don't need to. I don't tunnel, I don't need to, because I'm at an MMR where I outclass the survivors enough to do so most of the time. I suppose if everyone started doing that then that would also happen to them. But there's still the preformation emotional side to things where they don't want to because of how the other side treats them.
I also don't know what that would mean for the entirety of high MMR where you need to tunnel to win. Well, unless you're Nurse maybe. I guess they'll just face more Nurse than they already do.
If they start tunneling, they'd lose the benefits from the system. Also as mentioned above, they would just end up where their new power level is evened out. For those that did tunnel before and switched over, they'd get weaker survivors and less sweaty feeling games, since as mentioned it wouldn't be as strong or stronger than tunneling, so your MMR would drop. But they'd at least feel like they have a chance and something going for them for not tunneling. Ideally they're equal strength so you can choose and be 100% fine. But again, perfect solution and all that.
Maybe an incentive and better anti-tunnel could work. But solely punishment isn't the way to go imo. Back when DS was stronger, it didn't fix tunneling. It just made killers feel like they were in a lose-lose. Tunnel and lose to DS, don't tunnel and lose because gens fly and there's nothing to help you when you don't tunnel. We can't just ignore killers and say "well it's fixed for survivors so that's all we care about".
It's not just losing. It's how you lost. It's the same as survivors in that regard. It's not just that you got sacrificed so you lost, it's that you got tunneled. It's that you got gen slammed.
No, it's losing.
That's the distinction between 'gen-rushing' and 'gen-tunnelling' or 'gen-slamming'. You say the gens are going 'too fast', but that's also relative to your own performance in the match. If you lose, that means all five gens got done. If you lose, then by definition, gens were going 'too fast'.
There is no distinction.
If it takes 5 minutes, or 8 minutes, or 12 minutes, if you lose, the gens went 'too fast'. That's how the game works.
Of course if you already don't tunnel you can continue to do so, the MMR is going to put you where you don't need to. I don't tunnel, I don't need to, because I'm at an MMR where I outclass the survivors enough to do so most of the time. I suppose if everyone started doing that then that would also happen to them. But there's still the preformation emotional side to things where they don't want to because of how the other side treats them.
And that treatment is definitely a problem. But insisting on keeping tunnelling in the game is not going to fix it. Constantly ruining the game's balance is not going to fix it.
If they start tunneling, they'd lose the benefits from the system.
But they would gain the benefit of tunnelling. Therefor, those benefits would have to be the better choice. It'd need to be more powerful and easier than tunnelling. Which in turn will increase their MMR, which in turn pits them against stronger/sweatier survivors, which in turn makes them lose again, which in turn means that gens go too fast again.
But they'd at least feel like they have a chance and something going for them for not tunneling.
You yourself state that you don't need to tunnel, if you don't tunnel.
Maybe an incentive and better anti-tunnel could work. But solely punishment isn't the way to go imo. Back when DS was stronger, it didn't fix tunneling.
It massively decreased it though, simply because it was not as effective as it is now. We know it works.
We can't just ignore killers and say "well it's fixed for survivors so that's all we care about".
And BHVR didn't. Action speeds for killers were increased, a ton of killer perks got buffed, gen speeds were nerfed, BNPs were nerfed, healing was nerfed, the whole works. And with every update, the complaints about gens going too fast get louder.
If anything, it's survivors that are ignored on this matter, with tunnelling, camping and slugging not getting addressed. At least we're getting 3-genning resolved after that perfect showcase of a zero effort Skull Merchant locking a comp team into the match for over 40 minutes, but the rest is still here after seven years because addressing it would give killers a booboo.
And in fact, you are kind of doing that yourself, too. Your suggestion is to just buff killers a bunch to fix the problem on the killer side, but disregarding what it'll mean for the survivor side, who'll be left with 'Either you get no gameplay because of tunnelling, or you lose because we had to buff killers a ton'.
Besides, you yourself state that the game is perfectly playable without tunnelling from the killer side, so how is their problem being ignored if they have no problem?
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635942#Comment_3635942
I understand that maybe it feels worse to some or most people to get tunneled than gen slammed and I never asserted it didn't. However, that doesn't mean that the killer experience doesn't matter at all. This is not a competition of "who has it worse" it's trying to makes things better for everyone. At the end of the day, no one wants to care about someone who can't be bothered to care for them and just turns everything into "why should I care? I feel like I have it worse", and that's what's happening. Many if not most survivors don't care, and they play the victim (no pun intended) while ignoring the killer side of things.
Saying "I care about your experience so please care about mine" is going to go a lot further. Right now it's "I don't care about your experience, but you should care for mine". Not a lot of people will enjoy nor listen to that and rightfully so.
If you mean an incentive strong enough for everyone to stop tunneling sure. But I already said that. But I don't see why just because we don't have a solution to stop everyone from tunneling, we shouldn't make things better for those who don't, making not tunneling more attractive and pushing more to do it.
Just because we can't eradicate it doesn't mean we can't make it better. If you keep looking for a perfect solution you're never gong to get anywhere. I'll take a good but not perfect solution over none at all.
I don't see how that would "buff killer and nerf survivor" when it doesn't change what's happening when people sweat to win. You're just helping people who don't do better so that more play that way and everyone has a better game. Killer and survivor won't change in power since their optimal playstyles aren't changed. But more people will choose to not tunnel if it's more viable/rewarding.
Right now it has absolutely nothing going for it. Maybe not stronger than tunneling, but it needs to have something.
Like like I also already said, maybe not everyone, but the less people tunneling the better. Do you disagree with that statement?
I understand that maybe it feels worse to some or most people to get tunneled than gen slammed and I never asserted it didn't. However, that doesn't mean that the killer experience doesn't matter at all. This is not a competition of "who has it worse" it's trying to makes things better for everyone. At the end of the day, no one wants to care about someone who can't be bothered to care for them and just turns everything into "why should I care? I feel like I have it worse", and that's what's happening. Many if not most survivors don't care, and they play the victim (no pun intended) while ignoring the killer side of things.
But the feel-bad situation you're talking about on the killer side is losing. You're not talking about anything survivors do specifically to alter the flow of the game in any way, just that killers lose games. The gameplay on the killer side is exactly the same whether they win or lose.
If you came to me with 'unhook denial is very frustrating to face, and 1v2 chases play like trash', I'm absolutely with you on that one. 100%. That stuff is awful to face.
But you're complaining about losing matches altogether. That's what you consider to be 'inconsiderate of killer experience'.
If you mean an incentive strong enough for everyone to stop tunneling sure. But I already said that. But I don't see why just because we don't have a solution to stop everyone from tunneling, we shouldn't make things better for those who don't, making not tunneling more attractive and pushing more to do it.
But the people who don't tunnel evidently don't need it. Otherwise they'd be tunnelling. All this change does is just muck up the balance further, making killers who don't tunnel go up against sweatier survivors. And I could honestly see that producing more tunnelling down the line.
Just because we can't eradicate it doesn't mean we can't make it better. If you keep looking for a perfect solution you're never gong to get anywhere. I'll take a good but not perfect solution over none at all.
The problem is that what you are suggesting is not a solution at all. It's been suggested so many times that if we just add enough incentives, tunnelling will totally slow down, as if necessity is the driving force behind it. But it's not.
We -had- a good solution. And then in 6.1, it got cut in half.
Pro-spread measures are not going to fix tunnelling or even alleviate it, unless those measures effectively produce an across-the-board buff of considerable impact. And with killers slightly outperforming survivors, that's going to really hurt the game's balance.
Anti-tunnel measures need to be stronger. That's how you fix tunnelling.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635707#Comment_3635707
Supposedly almost every killer tunnels, but we don't have a kill rate of 80-90% do we? As far as we have seen with the data we have available, no. If it was that high even BHVR would step in. It has to be counterable with at most medium effort for the average player otherwise kill rates would be through the roof. It's definitely not "nigh impossible" to counter. It's not such a "free win" as it's being made out to be. That or not nearly as many killers are tunneling as it's being made out to be.
For 5), the same is true in reverse though. Slamming gens is more likely to get you tunneled, tunneling will more likely get you BM'd. Hell I get BM'd regularly and I don't even tunnel or camp or play S tier killers.
We disagree on pretty much everything. You believe survivor is harder than killer and slamming gens is hard to do. I think both of those are easy. Gen speeds balance it out to me but to you not so. Presumably we're both speaking from experience.
What I believe we can agree on is as follows: tunneling is not fun for anyone involved. The game would be a lot healthier if there was something to allow or push more people to not tunneling that doesn't make the game balance or play experience worse for either side.
Do killers have feelings too?
Does it feel good for them when gens are flying by, such as having 1-2 hooks and 3-4 gens are already done?
Should both sides should respect the play experience of the other?
As a community and as players these are the things we can take into account. We can't change the game directly, but we can change how we play and treat each other. It been the same way in the community since as long as I can remember that the survivor side really does not care about the killer experience yet ask if not demand that the killer cater to theirs. It long past time they take into account how they act and treat the other side as well. Do I believe that's going to actually happen? No.
But hopefully you can at least agree to the idea that we should care about the players on the opposing side on both sides. As long as its one sided, things will not change.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635864#Comment_3635864
On the system side, I agree with you that you can't really get tunneling out the game without drastic fundamental changes, but I think we both know that's not likely happening.
However something to help those who don't tunnel is better than nothing. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you don't want to accept anything unless it gets rid of effectively all tunneling completely. I would say having something to help or incentivize more people to not tunnel is better than what we have now, which is nothing.
We might not get the sweatiest of sweats, but we can at least get some people. Maybe even the average player. The less people tunneling the better.
"Does it feel good for them when gens are flying by, such as having 1-2 hooks and 3-4 gens are already done?"
Even if you're losing the match, you at least get to play it.
That's a big difference in concern. Survivors don't like playing halved matches where they don't get to do chases, or only get to do chases. Survivors are supposed to have pretty broad gameplay.
Conversely, your concern is purely that you don't like to lose sometimes.
"However something to help those who don't tunnel is better than nothing. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you don't want to accept anything unless it gets rid of effectively all tunneling completely. I would say having something to help or incentivize more people to not tunnel is better than what we have now, which is nothing."
The only thing that would work as an incentive, however, is something that would be stronger and easier than tunnelling. To put it into perspective, someone once suggested to me to give survivors a permanent -33% repair speed penalty for their first hook, which goes away when a survivor dies.
I had to point out that that still would be weaker than tunnelling, since that can, with decent pacing, drop progress speed to 0% in three hooks, as opposed to 67% in four.
Whatever you come up with as a solution to killers using 'the optimal strategy' would have to make them even stronger.
Ultimately, you're just asking to buff killer and/or nerf survivor, while the former is already doing better.
'Or else we'll tunnel.'
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635333#Comment_3635333
You mean if you use the most optimal playstyle, or any playstyle for that matter, and then you stop to use a weaker one you will preform worse. Inconceivable.
Also that means you think tunneling is so strong that it is equivalent to starting survivors on the hook from the start of the match. At which point I don't think anyone can convince you.
Well, the core issue here is that you posit yourself as the solitary arbiter for what does and does not fall within acceptable limits. What is 'simply playing optimal' and what is 'the game playing itself for you'.
And you then assert that tunnelling and survivors doing gens at all are comparable in any way.
But let's flip it around: if you assert that 'playing optimally' is the only way to assert your skill level, then the level you play at isn't unfairly decreased if tunnelling gets ripped out, no? Why do you deserve a compensatory nerf on the opposing side if a nerf to tunnelling just made you less skilled as a player?
-
A boon, which innately requires you to find totems, with an effect that highlights totems?
That still doesn't sound good. I think it was just such a tragically worthless perk that even BHVR was like 'we can't ship it like this, we have to give it -something-, even if it is a survivor perk'.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635330#Comment_3635330
You're trying to compare playstyles to perks. Give me a playstyle comparable in power and ease to the perk you gave and we can maybe talk.
and tunneling isn't it
Oh, it isn't?
Even when it can jump your MMR to such an extent that you can't play without it anymore?
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635321#Comment_3635321
Are you trying to compare a playstyle that the game is balanced around to an outrageous extreme example of a perk that basically wins the game for you?
Yeah it's fine because the survivors have a perk that completes 5 gens and opens the gate at the start of the match. It also stuns the killer for 60 seconds.
To borrow someone else words: "Friend, this is not the best Argumentation and you know it."
It's your argumentation that playing 'optimally' puts you at that skill level. Are you now saying that there's a limit to that? That there is some kind of restriction where it goes from being 'optimal' to 'it wins the game for you'?
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635317#Comment_3635317
I'm sorry but... what are you on about?
How'd we get to starting survivors on hooks ???
What?
It's just playing optimally, so that's their true skill level then, right?
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635215#Comment_3635215
If tunneling is the way to play, which considering its the most effective tactic, it is, then they're not "past their skill level" they're at their skill level. Unless survivors slamming gens also puts them "past their skill level" and they come crying for nerfs.
Also I really don't think we should talk about difficulty to counter vs preform when the main way survivors win is essentially "hold M1 on gen, hold W across map, run in a loop, drop pallet".
So let me get this straight: if BHVR released a killer perk that starts a random survivor on the hook at the start of the match, and some absolutely terrible killer manages to get his behind whooped by a comp team, the comp team would need to be nerfed, not the perk?
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634756#Comment_3634756
That assumes that you're going down as soon as the timer is done, though. That can be the case, but you also could've just reached a loop that you're now playing and wasting the killer's time. Both of those are roughly equally likely, in my experience, so there's no reason to favour one over the other as the default assumption.
Of course you're still going to be tunnelled, though. The point of anti-tunnel is to waste the killer's time and make it not desirable, not to make tunnelling impossible. The idea of current anti-tunnel tools is that you reach a tile and play it, leading the killer to abandon chase because it's not worth it. More can and should be done for perks that you bring for anti-tunnel, but that is exactly how the basekit version of anti-tunnel should function, that part isn't a flaw.
As an aside, if you did all that to OTR, you'd need to have everything disable on Conspicuous Actions rather than just the Endurance, because 80 seconds of all that when you aren't being tunnelled would be way too much.
Well, yes, all of that would disable on conspic action. But it'd be a higher risk/higher reward anti-tunnel.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634730#Comment_3634730
If they're counting out the basekit BT or they're not there to begin with, you've got a reasonable amount of opportunity to make distance and reach a tile. It could be improved, but that is those tools working as intended.
The one thing I'll agree with you on here is that DS was a better deterrent, that I believe to be flat out true. Tunnelling didn't get stronger or worse in an impact sense, but it did get more frequent after 6.1, and that's more than enough reason to make more changes to address it. It's weaker, but not so much so that the increased frequency isn't annoying or damaging to the game's health.
Just to reiterate, I do support buffing the DS stun duration back to five seconds for this reason.
"If they're counting out the basekit BT or they're not there to begin with, you've got a reasonable amount of opportunity to make distance and reach a tile. It could be improved, but that is those tools working as intended."
This only works if you're under a pallet at that point, and you're still getting tunnelled. DS getting cut in half was, IMO, a big buff to tunnelling.
DS should go back to five seconds, and IMO, OTR should become total info blackout: no sound, no aura, no screams, no blood trail, no scratch marks.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634714#Comment_3634714
The point is more that it was completely out of your control if you benefited from BT, and it wasn't guaranteed. That means you could very easily be downed as soon as your feet touched the floor. Now, that's impossible, and you don't need to rely on your teammate having decided to bring BT.
You shouldn't assume BT was in play when talking about pre-6.1, because that assumption wouldn't always bear out in a real match. The fact that now BT is always in play is part of how tunnelling was weakened in 6.1, both in the sense that you can use it to make distance and in the sense that it made the most aggressive and egregious form of tunnelling impossible.
Conversely though, it's not really fair to assume the killer will always be there within ten seconds. Nor that they won't count out the basekit BT, either.
Whatever you want to make of it, 5 sec DS was doing a ton of heavy lifting to deter and weaken tunnelling, and that stopped with 6.1.
-
I might. Loved Control, and I've been diving into the Alan Wake universe recently. Plus, the voicework is pretty great!
Perks are duds, but they're survivor perks, it's to be expected.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634435#Comment_3634435
This is the mistake that everyone makes when they want to claim that tunnelling was buffed in 6.1 despite that not being true: They always assume that Borrowed Time (the perk) was actually in play when talking about the pre-6.1 examples.
It had a high pickrate, sure, but it wasn't that high. It wasn't on every survivor in every game, not even close. It's straight up disingenuous to use "hit BT, down, eat DS, down" as the example of tunnelling before, because that wasn't tunnelling before. It was "down, eat DS, down, hook", because DS was meaningfully in everyone's loadout and BT was not.
At worst, tunnelling was sidegraded because now you've swapped the one anti-tunnel source the killer would be dealing with for the other. More realistically, tunnelling was weakened, because the most egregious form of it is now completely impossible. There's something to be said about anti-tunnel being harder to stack now, and I agree that should be changed, but that doesn't translate to tunnelling having been buffed.
Also, BT is definitely anti-tunnel. It doesn't do anything to stop a killer from camping, but it does stop them from tunnelling the person you unhook, at least straight away. It's not a silver bullet that makes tunnelling completely impossible, but it is an anti-tunnel measure.
To my experience, BT was pretty ubiquitous. And it can affect multiple survivors, even if only one person brought it. DS also bought more time than one hit does.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634159#Comment_3634159
But killers are not the sole arbiter. Survivors are also deciding slamming gens is also "necessary to win".
If you have to tunnel to win then you have to. If you have to slam gens you need to. That doesn't mean survivors need nerf or killers need buffs, just that you should tunnel your objective.
However if you want to nerf killers by removing or hindering their tunneling abilities, then for the sake of balance you should do the same to the other side. Unless survivors are already underpowered, which is not my experience playing as or against survivors unless its like, Nurse.
Imo, it's not "inflating your MMR" to play in the most efficient way possible. That's what your MMR is for the playstyle you're using. It should put you in matches where playing your best is the same as the opposition playing their best. Is it it inflating survivors MMR by them slamming gens? No, that's just what their MMR is.
It sounds like you want a shift in the balance philosophy and/or state where tunneling is no longer the thing we balance around. Which if that's true on that I can agree. We should stop tunneling. We just need to do so in a way that doesn't bork over the entire balance.
Again, either from the game or the community.
Also yes I assumed you meant killrate since that usually what people mean. So I can take fault for that. But I also don't know where this data for winrates is coming from, so if you could share that'd be appreciated.
But killers are not the sole arbiter. Survivors are also deciding slamming gens is also "necessary to win".
No, survivors didn't. BHVR did. Doing gens is required for survivors to win.
And that is where the bar is at right now. That's why the term 'genrush' got left behind in favour of 'slamming' and 'tunnelling' gens. Because 'doing gens' doesn't build up the same antipathy. But that IS what this is about: Survivors -doing- gens. They -can't- go any slower without it qualifying for a 'helping the killer' report.
And again, when it comes to doing gens, it's BHVR that set that requirement, not the survivors.
However if you want to nerf killers by removing or hindering their tunneling abilities, then for the sake of balance you should do the same to the other side.
And we've had many nerfs to the other side and tunnelling is still kept as the holy grail. No matter what way the balance shifts, tunnelling will always be beyond the next wave of nerfs.
So no, tunnelling needs to go first this time.
Besides, as mentioned, you don't know what the balance is at, as long as tunnelling is mucking it up.
It sounds like you want a shift in the balance philosophy and/or state where tunneling is no longer the thing we balance around. Which if that's true on that I can agree. We should stop tunneling. We just need to do so in a way that doesn't bork over the entire balance.
This entire song and dance has been done like six times already.
Tunnelling can go first this time.
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634179#Comment_3634179
Who decided that was "fair"? Its not "fair" for one side to slam their objective while the other doesn't. That doesn't sound fair to me.
Yeah it would be easy for someone like me because I'm in an MMR where I already don't need to tunnel because that's how I always play. I'm getting survivors well under how well I could play because I choose not to play optimally. But if I wanted to play as well as I could, that would not be the case as I would be tunneling.
This is kind of the point though. You can have perfectly fair matches without tunnelling. So what right does it have to stay in the game when it's damaging the gameplay?
Also, tunnelling being the optimal way to play is a fair statement, but the problem is that it's not being pitted against playing optimally on the other side. You're not arguing to leverage tunnelling against BNPs, big toolboxes and Hyperfocus, but against survivors doing gens at all.
@radiantHero23 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633991#Comment_3633991
Friend, this is not the best Argumentation and you know it.
What I personally see as "gen-tunneling" is basicly finishing it with the killer standing 2 feet away from you. If someone is getting chased right next to the Gen, why not do this Gen right next to the killer to make them sweat a little harder. The killer had 2 hooks for 4 gens done? Let's just finish the 5th in their face. That's what's complained about. Is this doing the objective? Yes. Is it also basicly saying: "we don't care about your experience at all? Just want to win?" Yes.
Anything else i personally don't see as gen-tunneling but these are UNFUN strategies for the killer that happen more often that you like.
Tunneling and camping are in the game. They are in the game for now over 7 years. Why? Because as @MrPenguin said, it's designed with it in mind. "Fixing" tunneling entirely means giving the survivor literal god mode or making the killer player a bot. Both are not good. I didn't know that insta gen BNPs are still around. Seems like they broke the game and got nerfed. I'm the last guy encouraging tunneling, but it is a necessary evil that sometimes has to come into play.
That is what @MrPenguin meant as far as I see it. Both sides can do stuff that is extremely unfun for the other side. However, it's more frowned upon when the killer side does it for a good reason. Tunneling destroys a lot of interaction, the game normally provides. Everyone gets less points, less chases, less heals and in the worst case scenario less points.
When did anybody say that the game is way too fast for them? Did I miss it? For this I'm going back to my statement from earlier. If the killer has 2 hooks and 4 gens are done without them making huge mistakes, should the 5th be done in their face? No match should only last 4-5 minutes. Not initiated from the survivors or killer doing side. Currently, that's absolutely possible. Slugging Nurse against soloq / voice comms swf against casual Doctor.
If you truly want to tackle tunneling, I suggested to make a version of ds basekit with a ton of HEALTHY requirements that mean, that it ONLY works to counter tunneling and nothing else.
But maybe there should also be a mechanic to encourage killers not to tunnel. Maybe a BBQ stacking effect for BP could be a solution.
Tunneling is a problem, but not as one dimensional as you make it seem like.
What I personally see as "gen-tunneling" is basicly finishing it with the killer standing 2 feet away from you. If someone is getting chased right next to the Gen, why not do this Gen right next to the killer to make them sweat a little harder. The killer had 2 hooks for 4 gens done? Let's just finish the 5th in their face. That's what's complained about. Is this doing the objective? Yes. Is it also basicly saying: "we don't care about your experience at all? Just want to win?" Yes.
You're still just talking about survivors -doing- gens. At this point you're just holding your hand out and begging for free wins. This is not a balancing benchmark.
You have to keep in mind as well that killers can regress survivor objectives, but the other way around is not possible. Letting go of that gen can lead to a PGTW stripping off a huge chunk of progress, buying the killer potentially minutes, especially if it's the last gen. This could easily spiral into a win for the killer simply because the survivor wasn't allowed to do their objective.
Which is what this is: Survivors shouldn't be allowed to do their objective.
Keep in mind that 'game goes too fast' is also dependent on the killer's skill, so there's always going to be folks that will insist that tunnelling is 'necessary'. Because this 'necessity' is also facilitated by incompetence. A bad killer will find it 'necessary' to tunnel far more than a good killer. This whole line of argumentation about how fair or necessary tunnelling is, is therefor never going to end. It's just going to keep dropping the bar.
That's why it needs to be gone. It's being used as a beatstick.
When did anybody say that the game is way too fast for them? Did I miss it? For this I'm going back to my statement from earlier. If the killer has 2 hooks and 4 gens are done without them making huge mistakes, should the 5th be done in their face?
5th gen is not 'all survivors teleport off the hook and into the exit gate'. It's not the end of the game. You still have a ways to go and you can still win. You'll likely still nab a kill, since someone sat on gen until you were right on them, so you only have half a chase left before they go up on the hook, and then it's a clash of skill to see if they can get a rescue without trading.
Conversely, if a survivor dies with more than a gen or two left, there's effectively no way to win for the survivors, barring severe killer incompetence. The game's over then and there, with one player having only done chases and three others having held M1 on gens most of that time.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633991#Comment_3633991
I think its kinda minimizing to say its just "survivors win sometimes by doing their objective". That's like saying "survivors are just upset that the killer sometimes win by doing their objective. Their trying to say 'killers getting kills' is a problem'". Its not just winning in general that's the problem. Its doing the objective in the mot effective playstyle for either side that's not fun for the other or sometimes both parties. From the killer perspective side, especially when they expect and often demand that the killer purposefully play in a very suboptimal way that in any serious match is throwing. It's not just people saying saying "doing gens at all is a problem".
I understand what you're trying to get at but tunneling and camping are not OP and overpowered. They are needed to preform at an even level in an evenly skilled match. Things like BNP were not needed to preform equally and they were unbalanced.
So maybe its more accurate to say "the game is balanced with these things in play/mind" which cannot be said for BNPs and such.
Sure, if you outclass the survivors you can spread hooks around. If you always play by spreading hooks, like myself, you should be in an MMR where you can do that and still win reliably. But that needs matchmaking to work well and we both know it doesn't for both sides.
"The handicap you're asking for on the survivor side is literally that they just throw the game."
Yes, exactly, and you're asking killers to do so as well. If both sides throw then neither side is throwing. The problem is survivors are asking killers to throw, while they themselves play efficiently.
I understand that "well we don't want to do totems and chest, it makes winning take longer and actively detrimental". which is fine, but if that's you attitude stop asking for the killer to spread hooks, because it's the same for them.
No ones asking for only survivors to handicap themselves while the killer tunnels, just that survivors return the favor when killers don't tunnel in their own way. But instead we get this attitude that "no we can't. We NEED to ONLY do gens and do so efficiently, even if the killer is giving us slack". Which is exactly the thing in the way.
I'll give you slack if you give me slack. This people will be a lot more willing to agree to.
You need to give me slack but I won't give you any. This people will not agree to and they shouldn't.
"Killer winrates are above where they should be."
I'm not sure where you're getting this data. Killer win rate should be around 60% so accounting for discrepancies in killer strength maybe 55%-65% give or take afaik. I would like to see where it's above those numbers.
Well, I can't speak for others but I'm not asking for a nerf to survivors alone and acting like weaker survivors = less tunneling because that's not true. Just like nerfing killers won't make survivors suddenly stop slamming gens.
If its coming from the game, both sides need to be slowed down. How that's done can vary.
If its coming from the community, the mindset of survivors needs to change to consider the killers side of the equation and their fun as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like you want killers to not tunnel and purposefully make bad decisions while survivors continue to slam gens and play efficiently. To that I ask you, how is this fair to the killer player?
What I am getting at is that this line:
"I understand what you're trying to get at but tunneling and camping are not OP and overpowered. They are needed to preform at an even level in an evenly skilled match."
Is getting cemented more and more with every survivor nerf/killer buff. This idea that you -have- to tunnel is a supposition that's being leveraged to demand more survivor nerfs/killer buffs.
It really doesn't matter what the state of the game is like, as long as you, as killer, get to be the sole arbiter of what's 'necessary to win', you're always going to claim tunnelling is required.
And you're never going to find out if it's true, either. Tunnelling can inflate your MMR to a point where you're not getting 'even' matches. Matches won by tunnelling could've been winnable without. You'll never know.
That's why tunnelling needs to be ripped out. We'll never have a clear understanding of the balance as long as it exists.
"I'm not sure where you're getting this data. Killer win rate should be around 60% so accounting for discrepancies in killer strength maybe 55%-65% give or take afaik. I would like to see where it's above those numbers."
A -win- rate of 60%!? That's extremely killer sided.
I assume you mean a -kill- rate of 60%, which BHVR, a long time ago, stated was what they felt was best for the game.
But right now, we're sitting on killer winrates that are a little ways over survivor winrates. Killers are outperforming survivors. Increasing killrates would slant the game too much towards killers.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633938#Comment_3633938
I'm not sure what you mean by "we had that". We had what? Both sides playing efficient? Isn't that the supposed problem? If that's the case its not just "killers" survivors don't like it either.
"forum survivors" also reject the idea of doing anything to combat their unfun effective strategies as well. Both sides go through this.
Those things got nerfed, in most cases, because they were too strong. Things on the killer side got nerfed as well for the same reason. Both sides experience this.
You can't just sub one problem for another and then ask "but why are you complaining about the new problem?". It's still a problem and should be complained about so it can hopefully get fixed. We need improvements not replacing old problems with new sometimes worse problems.
How much something is complained about is subjective. We got gen times increased because it was complained about so much and people were legit quitting killer and survivor ques were 20+ minuets. Was that more or less than now? To me it feels about the same.
Survivors (good ones) are too strong, for the majority of killers at least, if you don't tunnel/camp/ect. That's part of the problem. I'm not sure if that's what you're saying or not but that's my opinion on the matter. They are tied to each other. Gens do fly and they do so because killers can make kills fly by as well. If you choose not to have your kills fly by, the gens don't care. They don't get longer timers and as is survivors also don't care they will still slam gens. At least one of these needs to change if you have any serious intention of making the game fun for everyone not just survivors.
Tunneling and camping aren't "breaking the game", the game is designed with them in mind. The game expect you to. Choosing not to do so is handicapping yourself. Likewise focusing gens is not "breaking the game", but you handicap yourself if you choose not do it.
So again I ask, do you want both sides to handicap themselves or not? There needs to be a general agreement for both sides to either play "to win" or "Play to win but with handicaps so it's more fun".
Killers are not going to tunnel less unless you give them a reason to the same way survivors are not going to slam gens less unless you give them a reason to. Whether that's from the game itself or the community.
There are killers who play "nice" because of the idea that they should to help others have fun. But I never see survivors holding themselves up to that ideal as well.
If killers should play "nice" why shouldn't survivors? The double standard is hurting both sides.
Do I expect it to change? No. Survivors want their handbook signed but don't want to sign the killers. That's how its always been. I'm cynical af and would love to be wrong about this. But I've seen close to if not zero progress in the entire time I've played the game.
"forum survivors" also reject the idea of doing anything to combat their unfun effective strategies as well. Both sides go through this.
Strategies like what?
Because currently, the biggest complaint coming from the killer side is that survivors sometimes win by doing their objective. That is what these complaints boil down to. That's why the term shifted from 'genrush' to 'gen-tunnelling'. Because genrushing was already acknowledged to be a problem, and killers now just want to make 'survivors doing gens' into a problem.
Tunneling and camping aren't "breaking the game", the game is designed with them in mind. The game expect you to.
This argumentation can excuse literally everything. Remember old old BNPs? Instafix a gen?
Game was designed with them in mind. Game expected you to.
Did it break the game?
So again I ask, do you want both sides to handicap themselves or not? There needs to be a general agreement for both sides to either play "to win" or "Play to win but with handicaps so it's more fun".
The handicap you're asking for on the survivor side is literally that they just throw the game. The slowest possible pace isn't slow enough for you. And guess what? It's going to continue to not be slow enough for you. You lose one match and you'll be back here.
Tunnelling is by far the most effective and fastest way to win.
Doing gens is the ONLY way to win for survivors. Asking them to stop doing that is to ask them to just lose.
Killer winrates are above where they should be. They're a good distance above survivor win rates. But it's not enough. And it's never going to be. Tunnelling is always going to make you feel like you have an argument.
It needs to be ripped out so killers can see how the game is supposed to work.
If, and only IF, this causes killer winrates to drop too low, we can talk about nerfing survivors. Because we've been through several waves of survivor nerfs and the tunnelling never stopped, and nerfs to tunnelling continue to be off-limits. I don't trust any forum killer to admit, after any survivor nerfs, that tunnelling is breaking the game, so we're not doing this whole 'nerf survivors and then we'll stop tunnelling' song and dance again.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633904#Comment_3633904
That's under the argument that its a false equivalence which I disagree with. It might be false in your view, but to others not so.
Well if survivors have to do chest and do totems then so be it. You can't have your cake and eat it too. You need to do something to give the killer extra slack since they are giving your side extra slack. If you don't want to then don't ask for extra slack.
So would you rather have both sides play relaxed or both sides play efficient? You can't have efficient for me but not for thee. Well, at least if you don't want to be a donkey. Which is exactly the reputation survivors have and this is a large reason why, double standards.
Also idk where you've been, but gens going too fast has been complained about since forever. I can only account for when I started playing the game back when clown was released, and ever since then its been complained about. It is in no way "recent" that junk is older than Plague.
So would you rather have both sides play relaxed or both sides play efficient?
My guy, we had that. Killers didn't like it. Now it's gone, and killers don't like that either.
Any talk of restricting camping/tunnelling/slugging is always going to get mired in a bunch of forum killers decrying the very idea or drowning it in drawbacks and conditions to make sure that the mechanism, even if it ever does see the light of day, does the bare minimum.
We had whole loadouts being dedicated to countering those strategies and those had to be nerfed. We had people wasting time on boons, they had to be nerfed. We had people healing, that had to be nerfed.
Also idk where you've been, but gens going too fast has been complained about since forever.
But it's never been complained about more than now. Now, when gens all take 10 seconds longer. Now, when killers work faster in a bunch of aspects.
You know what it is?
As long as tunnelling/camping/slugging are in the game, survivors will always be 'too strong'. Gens will always go 'too fast'. Because as long as you have the ability to utterly break the game, you have leverage it to make demands. All these methods are used as beatsticks in balancing discussions.
'We'll tunnel less after a round of nerfs.'
'We'll tunnel less after the next round of nerfs.'
'No, no, one more round of nerfs and we'll totally tunnel less.'
'Gosh, you survivors are so stubborn, just take your nerfs and we'll totally tunnel less.'
Kill rate could be 95%, and as long as tunnelling has not been addressed yet, the second someone complains about tunnelling, there will be complaints about 'gen-tunnelling'.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633604#Comment_3633604
Does it matter what we call it? The ideas the same.
Tunnel gens, gen rushing, tunnel kills, kill rushing.
There's plenty of IRL examples of the same thing being referred to with different names/words/phrases. I don't see why all of a sudden in a game it NEEDS to be referred to as only 1 specific word/phrase.
Everyone knows what's being referred to.
The main point is: you're focusing you're objective I'm focusing mine. It hurts your "feelings" to get killed quickly? Well maybe it bothers killers too to have gens finished quickly.
If you want killers to consider your feelings on losing too quickly you need to respect theirs as well. As long as many if not most survivor players refuse to show the killer any respect or kindness in this regard out of the flimsy defense of "ThE GeNs DoNt HaVe FeELinGs", things will remain as they are.
Sure the gens don't, but the killer player does. Why should they respect your feelings and your play, if you don't respect theirs?
It makes a difference because it draws a false equivalence.
Killers can choose not to tunnel, while still progressing.
The only way survivors can 'not gen-tunnel' is by loitering around doing nothing.
As long as many if not most survivor players refuse to show the killer any respect or kindness in this regard out of the flimsy defense of "ThE GeNs DoNt HaVe FeELinGs", things will remain as they are.
We've had YEARS upon years of killers constantly refusing to accept any measures being taken against these extremes, but now that killers have been buffed to hell and back and survivors are playing efficient to try and keep up with it, suddenly it's the survivors that are stubbornly refusing to yield?
Gens going 'too fast' is comparatively recent. Killers cutting corners and wrecking the game in the process is as old as DBD itself.
-
@awustzdn said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633370#Comment_3633370
People used DS as genrush perk back then because it made survivors functionally invincible for 60 seconds at a time.
It's had plenty of time with the conspic action restriction and it wasn't a problem.
(Outside of killers complaining that the anti-tunnel perk was making tunnelling harder.)
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633543#Comment_3633543
Tunneling gens doesn't necessarily mean one specific gen, it means putting gens before all other side objectives (hook saves, body blocks, healing, etc.) Maybe thats where we're not seeing eye to eye.
The only way your definition of tunneling a gen would apply would be if survivors were trying to get it done before it could be pop'd/PR'd/etc. I see the term used more as "gens before friends."
Tunneling gens doesn't necessarily mean one specific gen, it means putting gens before all other side objectives (hook saves, body blocks, healing, etc.) Maybe thats where we're not seeing eye to eye.
Oooh.
You mean genrushing.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633472#Comment_3633472
The killers objective is to kill, so yes, killing one player as fast as possible is doing the objective before anything else (spreading pressure, protecting gens, etc.) The presence of alternative means of death (moris, sadako condemn, PH rite, tombstone myers, etc) is further proof that the objective is to kill, while hooks are simply the means to that end 90% of the time. Your inability to accept that is the only thing that makes it a false equivalence. As for
If survivors were to 'tunnel' a gen, they'd be incredibly easy to stopThey would be, if the killer could be in four places at once. But they can't, and even the best spread pressure is generally going to have at least 1 survivor unhindered to just hold m1 and hit the occasional skill check. This isn't to say that survivors aren't supposed to work on gens when they have the time, or even that tunneling gens is inherently bad, its just to say that such thing exists, and that there are survivors who will put gen progress over other things like saving teammates (aka tunneling the gens.)
You're acting under the assumption that the term is used specifically to say its a bad thing that survivors do, since thats how you feel about killers tunneling. It's a neutral term that describes a playstyle that involves tunnelvision on an objective.
They would be, if the killer could be in four places at once.
What do you mean 'four places at once'? The killer doesn't tunnel four survivors at the same time. Actual gen tunnelling would involve survivors all ignoring all other gens bar one.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633426#Comment_3633426
Oh I don't think the elimination aspect is similar at all, but the nomenclature is correct. Trying to ascribe it specifically to only include survivors is colloquial usage at best. I also don't think killers are trying to dehumanize the impact tunneling has on a player when they use it, they're simply using it to state "my opponent is putting their objective before anything else" which is accurate in terms of its usage.
Tunnelling is not 'doing objective before anything else'. The killer is expected to constantly be on their objective. Tunnelling is where one survivor becomes the sole focus, that's why it's called 'tunnelling'. A killer that is constantly doing objective before anything else can just as easily get three hooks on different survivors as three hooks on one survivor.
'Gen tunnelling' is a new term coined specifically to draw up a false equivalence in an effort to get tunnelling off the hook. If survivors were to 'tunnel' a gen, they'd be incredibly easy to stop. Survivors can't work on a gen while the killer is on that gen, simple as.
As for the topic at hand: I do want to point out that we've had
- Boons killed off
- Healing nerfed
- Very powerful intel perks
- Plenty of complaints about survivors hiding
- No adequate solution to unhook denial
If survivors aren't allowed to heal, boon, hide, and sometimes even unhook, what are they supposed to do, other than gens?
-
@supersonic853 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633004#Comment_3633004
Thats a new term? What ya mean?
Someone stated that with the requirement of fixing 5% before regression would stop, that it would be possible to repair 4.5%, then let go for a second, and then continue working. That way, the generator will still be regressing when you stop working on it, meaning the killer can't kick it, thus immunising the gen from Pop Goes The Weasel.
-
@WhoSoup said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633249#Comment_3633249
Nightlight counts hatches as escapes. If you specify that you gave a survivor hatch, it counts as a kill.
So it distinguished between an earned hatch and a given hatch, huh? Interesting.
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632992#Comment_3632992
Do we know that hatch escapes are considered escapes when it comes to kill rates? I really am not sure how this is counted because at least in terms of MMR it counts as neither a win or loss.
Hatch is not counted for MMR, but I do think its influence is still considered when talking about kill rates. I wager Nightlight at least does not consider whether an escape was a hatch or not.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632871#Comment_3632871
You have to keep in mind that BHVR counts the killer getting a single kill as being a win...which the community has generally completely disagreed on. The community has generally come to a consensus that we count a 3K as a killer win. Those "win rates" that BHVR posts are a 1K+
BHVR never posted winrates to my knowledge. The winrates I'm referring to are the percentage of matches that result in a 3K or 4K, as presented by Nightlight, so we're talking about the same 'wins'.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633020#Comment_3633020
Me: "Yes, 2.4 kill per match on average to be exact. Which in terms of MMR means killers wins 40% of their games (3K), while survivors also win 40% of their games (Escapes in 40% of matches)."
You: "But we're not talking about the MMR system, are we?" followed by yet more mental gymnastics.
Have I to say anything more? That's how you work. Again, ignore 90% of what has being said, twist the last 10% with wrong logic until I can form an strawman fallacy to use as an argument. That's it. That's why I simply stop answering to your nonsense most of the time, because my only options are start pointing out each fallacy and faulty logic you use until you start being coherent or give up or simply ignore you and let you say whatever you want.
I'm going to just comment on one thing:
You still do not grasp that your model mandates 0 wins on any kill rate below 50%. Not as an incidental thing, but as a hard-lined rule.
It's not my model, I don't mandate anything, that's how AVERAGES WORKS. It's a mathematical fact! If a win is 3K or up and a killer does ON AVERAGE only 2K, it means that ON AVERAGE he doesn't win any game! ON AVERAGE! A simple concept yet so far from your grasp that you still says nonsense because of it. That, or you twist it on purpose so yet again, you can make some kind of strawman + ad hominem against me because "It's you who doesn't understand my twisted logic, so you are at fault here".
Either way, time to chose option 2.
It's not my model
It IS your model. It is what YOU use to come to the conclusions you do.
that's how AVERAGES WORKS
It is not. It is very clearly not. For all the reasons I have specified. You fail to grasp this.
If a win is 3K or up and a killer does ON AVERAGE only 2K, it means that ON AVERAGE he doesn't win any game! ON AVERAGE!
And this is where the problem is screaming in your face and you don't understand it.
An average of zero in an environment without any negative values MUST mean that there is NO value above zero.
If they don't win any game 'on average', that MUST mean that they win NO game, EVER. That there is NO possibility for there to be a win, at all.
I ask you again to think about this scenario and what it means for your model:
Among a dataset of a thousand matches, the killer scores 1999 kills. What do you think the probability is that in those thousand matches, not a single one resulted in anything more than a 2K? Not -one-!
-
@ChaosWam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632940#Comment_3632940
Survivors to this day still try to take the bodyblock trap using current DS, regardless of the conspicuous action.
But forget that for a second, I say the prior to those who want conspicuous gone, 5 seconds+ stuns, active in endgame and other really broken things without addressing the killers who aren't interested in tunneling and will eventually get the raw end of whatever buff.
Then the next issue will arise, just slugging everyone just in case. And then, the return of the no mither/decisive/map offering builds to get to places where you can't hook, slug, pick up or do much without a SWF group punishing any choice you make. I guarantee if proper changes aren't in place for a DS buff, we'll see it added to the current SWF builds already still being used to deny the killer any choice to play the match normally.
And then, the return of the no mither/decisive/map offering builds to get to places where you can't hook, slug, pick up or do much without a SWF group punishing any choice you make.
I am pretty sure that No Mither has never, ever been a build.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632997#Comment_3632997
A fighting game doesn't have a binary outcome, it has 3: Win, Draw, Lose.
How many outcomes the MMR system have, again? Oh yes, 3: Win, draw and lose!
That's the only outcomes that you are interested about. If you want to make mental gymnastics about the 0K to the 4K and how funnily enough the mathematical truth and fact that is "a kill rate of 40%, or 1.6 kills per match [...] resulting in an average winrate of 0%" is "an obviously extremely improbably scenario" somehow when that's exactly what an average means, just because you want to prove me wrong and you don't know how, yet again: It's on you.
Here is the abridged explanation:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632962#Comment_3632962
Everyone understood it, you are still saying things like "Killer winrate can only be taken from the percentage of 3Ks and 4Ks, NOT from the kill rate." without obviously knowing what AVERAGE means yet, even after 2 pages of a post in the day where I explained it to you in detail.
How many outcomes the MMR system have, again? Oh yes, 3: Win, draw and lose!
But we're not talking about the MMR system, are we? We're talking about the kill rate.
Again: Your model only incorporates TWO outcomes. There are FIVE. Which is why your model diverges from reality to such an extreme degree. The MMR does not distinguish between a 0K and a 1K, or a 3K and a 4K, but the killrate does. Thus, the 4K, even though to the MMR it is not a separate outcome, still influences the relationship between killrate and winrate. This is the part that you are missing. This is your blind spot. As illustrated by:
That's the only outcomes that you are interested about. If you want to make mental gymnastics about the 0K to the 4K and how funnily enough the mathematical truth and fact that is "a kill rate of 40%, or 1.6 kills per match [...] resulting in an average winrate of 0%" is "an obviously extremely improbably scenario" somehow when that's exactly what an average means, just because you want to prove me wrong and you don't know how, yet again: It's on you.
You still do not grasp that your model mandates 0 wins on any kill rate below 50%. Not as an incidental thing, but as a hard-lined rule.
Your model states that in any dataset where the killer has a killrate below 50%, there cannot be a single trial recorded with 3 or more kills.
Otherwise the average would not be 0%.
Take a dataset of 1000 matches, with a total kill count of 1999. How high do you consider the probability that in those 1000 matches, not even -one- had more than 2 kills?
-
Did they fix gen dribbling yet?
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632976#Comment_3632976
To the point where it's not applicable.
So, a model that has being used in the fighting game genre for years to balance their characters is not applicable? Damn! Call Capcom and Namco, they had being doing balancing wrong all this time.
And just with that, just because you still doesn't understand and don't know what it's being talked about but still want to prove me wrong somehow, it's how you start saying things that doesn't make any sense.
Me: *Explains how DBD killers have five possible match outcomes, and that's why a model that only considers two outcomes is not applicable*
You: "So a model used in the fighting game genre for years is not applicable?"
Also you:
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632958#Comment_3632958
No, I explain to you things in detail and then you proceed to simply ignore 90% of what I said and start twisting the other 10% with mental gymnastics and fallacies.
That's what usually happens with you, as was demonstrated in that other post (and any other were you have posted, especially the one where I pointed every single fallacy you said) were I already explained to you everything I had to explain about this topic.
But yes, bluntly, yes. A system used in fighting games with binary outcomes cannot be applied to a game with five outcomes. If you'd read what I wrote, you'd have figured that out.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632962#Comment_3632962
I think it's more nuanced than that, as you keep saying wins and losses which is an entirely personal perception.
I will agree with your larger point, although I feel the game should trend towards 50 instead of 60, as you need to account for Hatch escapes, which is hardly a win.
I think it's more nuanced than that
Just as a quick explanation:
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632877#Comment_3632877
Yes, 2.4 kill per match on average to be exact. Which in terms of MMR means killers wins 40% of their games (3K), while survivors also win 40% of their games (Escapes in 40% of matches).
The key here is that just as the game, MMR is not symmetrical. Killers need a 3K to win, survivors only need to escape themselves to win. The only exception is the "draw" condition, as even if a survivor draw with the killer (in other words, escape through the hatch) in game counts as a full escape even if their MMR doesn't move.
Some people doesn't understand that, just as what happens in fighting games (a genre DbD have a lot in common in terms of balancing, among other things) even if you get to a perfect 5/5 winrate between two characters at high skill play in terms of balancing, there is no possible way of physically guarantee that everytime those two characters play against each other they would always grant their users a 50% win rate because a lot of factors (including the skill of such users).
That's why you have to center your attention on the mathematical average, which again, in DbD is a 60% kill rate on average, which would mean a 40% winrate on average for everybody, as for the killer the MMR works as a "1v4" where you have to kill at least 3 rivals to wins, but for survivors the MMR works as a "1v1", where you only need to escape by yourself to win.
In other words, if in high MMR there is a 39% escape rate that means that yes, the game is killer sided but just by a 1% more kill rate on average than it should.
Yes, 2.4 kill per match on average to be exact. Which in terms of MMR means killers wins 40% of their games (3K), while survivors also win 40% of their games (Escapes in 40% of matches).
This calculation only works if the only possible outcomes are 2Ks and 3Ks. But killers can get five possible outcomes, which are 0K, 1K, 2K, 3K and 4K. The distribution of these outcomes isn't even or logical either, which is why you can't take a specific kill rate and calculate what the resulting winrate will be.
Using Batusalen's model would, for instance, result in an obviously extremely improbably scenario on a lot of other kill rates. For example, a kill rate of 40%, or 1.6 kills per match, would produce only 2Ks or lower, resulting in an average winrate of 0%. And the only way you can get an average of 0, barring the inclusion of negative values (And as far as I know, no killer has ever won -1 match) is by having no value other than 0.
IE: a killrate below 50% would mandate absolutely zero matches ever being won.
So yeah, Batusalen's model is lacking nuance. A ton of it. To the point where it's not applicable. Nightlight kind of proves that, with much higher winrates on lower kill rates. The only role kill rates play in determining balance is that they indirectly indicate the winrate for survivors. If killers kill 55% of survivors, then the other 45% of survivors escape.
Killer winrate can only be taken from the percentage of 3Ks and 4Ks, NOT from the kill rate. As I mentioned above, Wesker's kill rate is higher than Nurse's, but his winrate is lower. The distribution of outcomes varies from killer to killer, and there's way, way too many factors to include, many of which are simply not mathematically predictable.
Let alone by a model that only considers two of the five possible outcomes of a trial at a time.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632862#Comment_3632862
You never explained it at all.
A multi-page post where I, again, explained it to you in all ways possible says the contrary. And yet, you still doesn't know what average means.
And with that, I don't have anything more to tell you here. Yet again, go read that post where you had all the explanation you need and if you still doesn't understand it, as it was then: It's on you.
No, as usual: you state what your perception is. And then I explain why you are incorrect.
As demonstrated once again here.
-
@WishIcouldmain said:
I've never even heard or seen a singular gen kicked or damaged 8 times barring Chess Merchants and other three gen menaces.
I did it once, but that was because the survivors had brought three flans outside of an event and we were all having a chuckle with them all actually and literally tunnelling one gen and me playing keep-away with it.
Other than that, never gone to 8 regression events.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632097#Comment_3632097
A 55% kill rate means killers om average aren't even winning their matches. 55% is just a teeny bit over a 2K. A killer win for a match is a 3K.
Kill rate and win rate are not 1:1. The system is far too complex to draw any kind of simplistic calculation from one to the other.
I mean, compare Nurse and Wesker.
Nurse's Kill rate is 54.94%, and she has a winrate (3K+) of 49.21%.
Wesker's Kill rate is 55.60%, and he has a winrate (3L+) of 48.59%.
If winrate followed immediately and mathematically from killrate, the above would be impossible. Killrate should not be focused on. Win distribution should.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632852#Comment_3632852
Not going to explain to you again, in excruciating detail, in any way and form possible, why a 60% ON AVERAGE kill rate means 40% ON AVERAGE winrate for both sides.
If the kill rate is lower than 60% ON AVERAGE, the game is ON AVERAGE not killer sided. Period. You could come up with all the mental gymnastics and fallacies you want, it's an empirical mathematical fact.
And even if it wasn't and you were right, then time for survivors to stop using that number to argue that the game is killer sided without even understanding how things work and what it really represents, like the person I was talking to ("According to Nightlight, the current Kill Rate is 55%. So DBD is Killer-sided on average.") or our friend Pulsar over here:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632823#Comment_3632823
"The last official stats we have show that Survivors have a 39% escape rate at 'high mmr'" That means the game is on average 1% killer sided in high MMR, so you just proved those 2 years of "massive buffs" was needed and it's just after those buffs that the game started to be balanced / slightly killer sided on average.
So congrats BHVR, you at last somewhat balanced the game and ended the survivor supremacy.
Not going to explain to you again, in excruciating detail, in any way and form possible, why a 60% ON AVERAGE kill rate means 40% ON AVERAGE winrate for both sides.
You never explained it at all. You looked at the AVERAGE statistics as they were and outright claimed they were a mathematical impossibility. You were furiously denying observable reality.
If the kill rate is lower than 60% ON AVERAGE, the game is ON AVERAGE not killer sided. Period. You could come up with all the mental gymnastics and fallacies you want, it's an empirical mathematical fact.
There was nothing empirical about it. Your theory was entirely that: Theoretical. The empirical, IE: the stats that were shown, disagreed with your theory.
I even pointed out to you that the model you used would mandate that any killer with an average kill rate below 50% would have an average win rate of 0%, which would necessitate that they had never gotten a 3K+ in even one singular match.
If you leave your theory behind for a moment and look at what is observable in the statistics shown on Nightlight at the moment, we can see that killers, on average, are at a 48% winrate. Survivors are, on average, at a 45% winrate.
Which of those two numbers is higher?
Because right now, you are fully claiming that 45%>48%.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632097#Comment_3632097
I can't believe I have to say this yet again, but a 55% killrate in DbD is not being killer-sided on average, but the contrary.
Thanks to the assymetrical nature of the game and how the MMR system work, true mathematical balance is 60% kill rate on average (reason of why devs aim to that number). In other words, having less than that means the game is survivor sided on average.
Also, "No other perk is even close to meta"? Logical, with this powerhouses of perks being the most used ones:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/POVC1Z6E7HJ2/image.png
I mean, it's not like survivors are missing any more strong perks. Also, guess what?
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/506OS4SWJT01/image.png
It's not like killers have got any hot perk that everyone is using, either.
Killers win far more than they lose, survivors lose a bit more than they win. The game is not, in any way, survivor sided at the moment.
true mathematical balance is 60% kill rate on average
Already proven to not necessarily be true. In fact, looking at the stats at the moment, it shows an average killer winrate of a little over 48%, with survivors winning a little under 45%. That's pretty close to balanced, just slightly favouring killers.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
1) Implement AI to determine if a survivor is trying to bodyblock, and if they are, then disable DS
2) If a survivor gets healed a full health state, disable DS
3) If a survivor enters a locker, disable DS
4) DS can’t be used if exhausted
5) DS causes exhaustion
'Anti-tunnel is fine, so long as it doesn't interfere with my tunnelling'
Seriously, why is 'make it an exhaustion perk' on the list? Why are lockers on the list? A survivor runs away with sprint burst, therefor it's not tunnelling? A survivor jumps in a locker so you can't just slug them out and so you get a green light on tunnelling?
-
@Moman624 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632535#Comment_3632535
I get you, you make good points, but no matter what anyone says, a 16 vs 4 is not 100% balanced. Yeah people are going to disagree but it's true. To make the game fun with builds ect. 4 perks is pretty lame for the killer, 5 would make a huge difference, you'd be surprised.
No, it's not 100% balanced.
But the imbalance favours the killer side. The side you want to give a colossal buff to. That doesn't help things.
Sure, you might be able to make a bigger build (would it be more fun though? Are there any synergies that size currently in the game?), but that'd go for survivors too. And according to statistics, they need it more.
-
@Moman624 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632097#Comment_3632097
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632097#Comment_3632097
It's more of making a build, making bulds in 2024 just is not fun anymore because perks get nerfed.
Think of it this way though:
- You're already not struggling.
- Most killers are apparently not struggling, judging by statistics.
- And you want to give all killers a whole extra perk slot.
The only way you could balance that out, is with some very heavy compensatory nerf to the killer perks so that five perks gives roughly the same value as four.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632059#Comment_3632059
OK so you've responded to one part of my post, without actually addressing the major point I was making, so I'll make it clearer.
You are correct, you can still be tunneled, but you are only considering the tunnel scenario. The issue that I'm highlighting with DS is a survivor can still make themselves a pain by body blocking, lingering for flashlight/pallet saves and taking hits for their teammates, especially when combined with things like OTR or DH. This will usually happen to defend the person that has just made the unhook.
As much as you try to limit DS, there is always the risk of it being used as an invincibility shield to limit and bait the killer. If as killer you are forced to attack them to get them out of the way, your actual target can make a lot of distance from you. Your counter to this if you suspect DS, you down them and leave them slugged, you ensure that person cannot contribute to gens and forces a teammate to come pick them up, which you can play around to intercept or just buy time. This gives you some pressure for the cost of now having to catch up to your previous target... if you even can in a timely manner. Of course when combining DS with OTR and DH it can end up costing you even more time, as now you don't even have the DS survivor slugged either.
So if you then try to make the best of a bad situation and slug them, they can instead hop in a locker and now you've lost your target AND wasted even more time chasing this survivor. You are now in a situation where you can't even grab them out of a locker for fear of DS, and you have to count out the timer and cost yourself even more time... and all of this could well be a bait... they might not even have DS.
So that's why I say lockers should disable it. If you have other mechanisms to prevent the weaponising of DS that prevent the above scenario then great. This locker point is on the table, but I'm not wrong by highlighting this as a scenario.
If you choose to tunnel a survivor, you don't get to circumvent it. If they take that hit for the other survivor, that's a wasted heal, or they go down. Either way, they're wasting their team's time more than yours.
-
@UndeddJester said:
Used to think this was easy, but it's really not because you have to strike a balance between being good at anti-tunnelimg, but not also being good at body blocking.
Things that should be added/are needed: -
- Uniform 80s timer to be like OTR.
- Deactivates if entering a locker to prevent forced grabs instead of downs.
- 4 second stun to account for 1.3s drop time.
- 8 second power block to affect chase killers equally to m1 killers.
Things that shouldn't be added: -
- End game deactivation, otherwise it is impossible for the killer to prevent an escape.
Considerations/problems that still need solving: -
- Some mechanism to deactivate when the killer has put enough chase time into/hooked other survivors to prevent body blocking/aggressive use of DS. How should this interact when slugged? Not counting when slugged allows body blocking still, whereas counting allows slugging off hook and simply chasing long enough/hooking to bypass DS.
- Deactivate when taking a Protection Hit? How to prevent deactivation from hook exchange?
- Multiple activations, can only occur if the above issues are sorted. The fact all 4 survivors can take DS means all attempts to weaponise it must be killed at all costs.
"Deactivates if entering a locker to prevent forced grabs instead of downs."
Just because a survivor jumps in a locker doesn't mean they're not being tunnelled. Using slugging as a workaround is justifiable if the survivor is bodyblocking, but if they're in a locker, they aren't bodyblocking.
There's no reason to disable it when the survivor enters a locker.