MrPenguin
MrPenguin
About
- Username
- MrPenguin
- Joined
- Visits
- 1,543
- Last Active
Comments
-
@aerie said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648055#Comment_3648055
the hatch mechanic doesn't force you to slug for a 4k. if you came to this conclusion after 4k hours, you're literally just incorrect. you can get 4ks without slugging. if you have to slug to get 4ks, you're just not as good as you think you are. sorry. very rarely in the forums do you see objectively incorrect things because it's a bunch of subjectivity in here, but what you've said is literally objectively incorrect. if you're only getting 3ks because you feel the only way to 4k is through slugging for hatch gameplay, it is a skill issue on your part, pal.
You're not wrong in saying its not forced upon the killer, you can get a 4K with hatch in play.
But saying it's a "skill issue" is silly imo. You have to get lucky with hatch and then get lucky with gates. Neither of those are skillful. Either you get lucky or you don't. Only certain killers are able to increase their odds with the gates.
Slugging for the 4K is also up to luck. You have to hope to find the last survivor in whatever random location they decided to hide in or that they run in for the pickup and you catch them doing it. It just maximizes your odds compared to the alternatives. It's the best gamble. There's no reason not to take it unless you personally don't like it or don't want to.
None of these situations feel great imo. On either side. Dying or losing a kill just because you got bad gate/hatch RNG sucks, having this super long drawn out endgame because the survivor(s) are excessively hiding also sucks.
Having a survivor reveal mechanic in some form in these situations would at least help with the latter.
-
@Quizzy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3647955#Comment_3647955
Not with these high kill rates sweetie. It don't matter.
Where are you getting killrate info?
-
First off: guys they never said remove hatch. If you want to leave hatch in and fix some of the problems (like the 2 survivor stand-off) then that'd be a step in the right direction.
Saying "it's good enough for me" crossing your arms and brushing the problems under the rug is one reason why a lot of the issues in the game don't get fixed.
The reveal/instinct/crow mechanic after 2 survivors are left and haven't progressed the objective sound like a good step imo. Just make sure there's a minimum gen% requirement because otherwise survivors will just tap a gen for 0.2 seconds and get off to reset their timer.
-
@Vanishlord said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3646740#Comment_3646740
So you think that if someone had bad teamates and did their objectives and were altruistic they should be punished? You may belive in punishing people for no reason but I don't. DBD doesn't have an automatic 2x modifier if it is the last 1-2 players left like some other games.
None of that is required for hatch so it's not really a reward for any of that. That's not really an answer to the question.
Hatch doesn't reward anything besides maybe being the last alive. How you got there doesn't matter.
-
@TieBreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3645997#Comment_3645997
Sounds a bit too ambitious for BHVR. I'm still expecting the 17 year long Twins rework to be a few number changes and some bugs fixes. Obviously with a side of new bugs.
Sad but it does feel that way.
-
@TieBreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3645988#Comment_3645988
So how do you fix that without kicking everyone else in the teeth?
The most common solution I see brought up is secondary objectives for survivors.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/404868/can-we-fix-gen-rushing
The devs unfortunately nerf killer perks that were perfect
Name them. They recently buffed Grim Embrace, which is arguably the most ridiculous overpowered slowdown perk since the existance of the term slow down.
and the generator update is basically a nerf to killer
It is a buff for killer. You never reach 8 regression stats anyway, but killer got +2,5% extra on top of the already existing 2,5% kick. And they removed Gen taping. If you reach 8 regression stats as a killer on a single gen, you probably have already won the game.
it's not even about being good anymore, games are like 8, minutes sometimes, and then loops are every 8 meters at this point
Pallets have a spawn logic. It depends on the map but they spawn at least 14-20 meters apart from each other. Said that, most maps are full of deadzones. Many maps come with 8-10 pallets. The overall average is somewhere between 12 and 13 pallets. Most pallets these days are super weak. Jungle Gyms are super weak compared to how they used to be.
"anymore"
What do you mean anymore? For survivors, kinda. The game is the by far most killer sided it ever was.
Unless they massively overhauled spawn logic in the last ~half a year, no, maps don't have "8-10 pallets" and "12 on average" the lowest I've seen on a small test I did was 12 (only one map) and many maps had 15+ pallets with some over 20. The average was 17.
That was from august and the numbers are from randomly picked maps. Funnily enough it was in response to someone else who also used "8-10 pallets", although as an average in that case.
to quote that old post:
"On average there's 17 pallets on a map. Saying "8-10" is some strong survivor copium/bias. It's roughly double that. That's not even including maps like Cowshed, The Game, RPD, Garden of Pain, or Borgo."
14-20 meters also isn't much. That's 3-5 seconds apart.
Original post here with numbers if you care to check (friendly reminder not to necro):
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3522399#Comment_3522399
-
@C3Tooth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3638125#Comment_3638125
It happens. But how many times in a 100 matches the average GF play against 4 toolbox and BNP.
And how many times in a 100 matches an average solo play against 4 slowdown and tunneling Blight/Wesker.
Answer that.
4 slowdowns and the best add-ons and tunneling and playing Blight/Nurse/Wesker? Not often afaik.
As you said, "it happens" but not very frequently. 4 slowdowns alone is a lot to ask and many consider that overkill and use some tracking or chase perks. Otherwise the build is considered too narrowly focused and you're lacking in other areas.
Maybe in high MMR, but that's not "the average player".
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3638142#Comment_3638142
OTR only became an anti-tunnel perk when DS got nerfed though, and as mentioned before, OTR doesn't work if the killer tunnels hard enough.
Wdym it doesn't work?
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3638082#Comment_3638082
DS had a super high pickrate back when it was actually good though...
That's 1 perk, and there were still people complaining about "needing to take it" for the same reason. More anti-tunnel exist besides DS. Like OTR.
-
@C3Tooth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3637751#Comment_3637751
Its 4v1 Means 4 = 1. Not 4 < 1.
If killers want the Devs balance the game like a 4v1. Dont play it like its 3v1.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3637747#Comment_3637747
Yes, its never been. We all know the result of a match between an average Blight stacking 4 slowdown, strong addon and tunneling against an average teams.
Or an average Ghostface against an average survivor team with 16 meta perks, 4 toolboxes and 4 BNPs.
The average Blight also isn't very good, nor is he popular for the average player because he's hard to play basekit. Afaik at least.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3637690#Comment_3637690
See, people did bring anti-tunnel perks. But then it got nerfed because the pickrate was too high.
Now it's bad enough that even if you do get tunnelled and the killer faceplants into it, it doesn't do enough to really offset it, or in the case of OTR, it doesn't work at all if the killer tunnels hard enough.
If you nerf anti-tunnel badly enough, the new anti-tunnel just becomes genrush. Instead of DS/OTR, just bring Hyperfocus/Stakeout, toolboxes, BNPs, etc, and pray you're not the first one to be spotted.
I understand "they're too weak". It's understandable to not want to run a perk you think is weak.
Like I said, it's the "but I don't want to run them, because what if they don't tunnel?". When supposedly it's super frequent. That's been said even when people think the perks are strong at what they do.
-
@SoGo said:
My opinion is:
If the survivors intend to be toxic and deny you to do anything, you have the right to tunnel, camp and slug.
But if the survivors are just playing normally, play normally as well.
What if that is what they consider playing "normally"? Rush on one side tunnel on the other?
Also as others have pointed out, by the time you sus out how they're playing it can be too late to swap and have it matter.
-
@Verlaeufer said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3637266#Comment_3637266
That is correct, but the survivors do not adapt either.
If you tunnel because that's the only way the killers can win, but I or a lot of people want to survive, I have to adapt my perks. Whining about not using certain perks like "Of the record" because I might not get tunneled and then you only play with 3 perks.
I never understood that mindset.
"Killers are tunneling basically every match!"
"Run anti-tunnel then."
"But what if they don't tunnel?"
Like are they doing it almost every game or not lol. You can't have a perfect build for literally every single scenario.
-
@appleas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3637562#Comment_3637562
Tunneling is used so loosely these days half the time people are arguing about different stuff.
I was in a Lobby where a Blight hooked Survivor A and went after Survivor B who was lurking near the hook. I unhooked A and A proceeded to run to the other corner of the map without healing (I had empathy).
The Blight downs and hooks B quickly, sees A at the other side of the map thanks to bbq and goes after him (I was hiding near hooked B to get the save and Survivor D had distortion). A ends up dead and accuses the Blight of tunneling in the endgame chat.
From A’s perspective, they got unhooked, ran to the other side of the map and the Blight comes after them before they even finished healing so they would feel like they were tunneled, however from my perspective, the Blight had downed and hooked someone and just went for the next target they saw on the map.
At this point, people probably have their own specific idea of what tunneling is and will call foul when someone doesn’t play by their definition of tunneling. I’ve had to re-down a freshly unhooked Survivor lurking about for a pallet save and get accused of being a sweaty tunneler because I have eyes and know what they were planning.
I don't really disagree with any of this. I just want to say, it's not just "these days" it's always been like that since I started playing years ago. So in your example it'd be like:
"You tunneled!"
"What? I hooked a whole other survivor before I chased you again."
"Yeah, but I just got unhooked so that's tunneling. You had 2 other survivors you could have looked for, but you came for me."
"You were the only survivor I could find."
"Still a tunneler. You should have kept looking for the others."
I've seen that conversation play out so many times for so long... and now I feel old lol.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3637562#Comment_3637562
Not sure if you disagree with that or not.Play how you like. I have my own rule set as killer, but its just to keep the game interesting.
I think tunneling is too powerful and ruins the experience, but that burden for change should be on BHVR and not players. I just think people are talking about two different subjects, the difference between an elimination at 3 hooks, 5 hooks, and the 9th hook are so radically different that if you don't verify that the person you are responding to is using the same terminology as you you are talking past each other (this kind of happened with you and Pulsar).
Whenever I hear tunneling I think it refers more to a specific playstyle than any actual hook number. I've run into trolls who will throw tunneling out no matter the circumstance, but that's a person being a troll, not an actual argument.
Play how you like is an understandable perspective. There's too many differing opinions to really say who should play like what. As long as its not purposefully BM and such of course.
But under that philosophy you can't really say anything when a player plays in a way you don't personally agree with. A lot of players also don't like that so they don't want to subscribe to that idea.
You can still discuss it of course, and talk about why you feel a certain way. Like we are here.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3637564#Comment_3637564
I listen to reasonable requests to play for fun. Reasonably, you don't need to tunnel (in my opinion, I guess) in 99% of games.
Obviously, there will be people who accuse you of camping or tunneling or whatever no matter what. It's like a Killer accusing me of using speed hacks as Survivor. Some people just don't deal with losing well and they aren't to be taken seriously. But reasonable people asking reasonably to have a fun match? I'm cool with it.
I agree, but who decides what's reasonable?
The players asking for more or less hook spread do think they're being reasonable (usually). If we say players should go by their own definition of reasonable then we're back to square 1 of "tunneling to win is reasonable" and "no it's not". Regardless of which version they mean, 3 hooks in a row or otherwise.
We can't say general sentiment, because that's all over the place. Me and you might agree on this speed of elimination, but others won't. To them, we'd be unreasonable, it'd be too slow or too fast.
I don't think there's really a realistic solution for that. Many have just taken the attitude of "play however you want" for this reason, amongst others. As long as it's not intentional BM, I understand that perspective as well.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3637074#Comment_3637074
Well, it's not tunneling. Nobody gets hooked twice in a row and everybody gets to play the match. I don't really care what people say, some will complain over anything.
This will still get you 10-12 hooks, your just not hooking everyone sequentially
Saying "I don't care what people say" and the idea to "play for the fun of the other/both sides" are kinda contradictory unless I'm missing something.
Essentially "their opinion on tunneling doesn't matter". So it sounds like we've drawn a line and their are some survivors whose fun and opinions matters, and some who it doesn't. Presumably because they're being wild with their idea of "tunneling". At least, in our current opinions.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636467#Comment_3636467
If you need to tunnel to stand a chance you don't deserve that MMR and you're boosted. The game is balanced to the point you can go for 10-12 hooks every match with players on your skill level.Incentives don't work, only punishments.Not my words, just what has been expressed to me in the thread.Who is saying you need to get everyone on death hook or else its tunneling? Its a long thread and maybe I missed it, but you seem to have a very extreme definition of tunneling.
This is the problem with threads like this where people talk about tunneling without clarifying what they mean. People who favor the killer side seem to think the survivor side is asking that everyone be hooked twice before anyone is killed. Survivors meanwhile are usually saying that its a problem if the killer just hooks the same player 3 times in a row and ignores everyone else.
"Who is saying you need to get everyone on death hook or else its tunneling? Its a long thread and maybe I missed it, but you seem to have a very extreme definition of tunneling."
Survivors have. The ones on my team, the ones when I play killer, the ones I've talked to over voice, the ones online. Everywhere I've been I've seen these type of complaints, and they're not a small amount, it's common enough. Again, in my experience. It's not explicitly "get everyone to death hook", but its close enough.
I don't care if the killer tunnels when I play survivor. So I'm going off what others define as "the tunneling problem", since I'm not the one with the issue.
As for the 10-12 hooks thing, that has been asserted as something the killer can and should aim to do in every match in this thread. Not sure if you disagree with that or not.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3637066#Comment_3637066
Eh, kinda?
Certainly, you should at least be chasing someone by the time they're back on a generator, because even if they don't stop to heal that's going to take a few seconds. I don't think you need to have 100% uptime on this loop because the amount of damage it does to survivor's efficiency overall is enough that you can afford lulls where progress actually happens-- especially if you're running slowdown perks, then you're undoing some of that progress when you start the loop back up again.
A big thing to remember when conceptualising this kind of thing is that stopping generators from progressing is a tool, not a goal. Survivors getting some generators done is a given, you can't stop them from doing it. With that in mind, your goal is to slow it down enough that you're burning through map resources and hook states, to make each successive generator even slower than it already would've been naturally, to make each chase faster, to get closer to winning...
Again, the macro matters, a lot. Things like using up map resources and shrinking the effective play area by selectively ignoring certain generators heighten your lethality as the game progresses, instead of putting you on the back foot because survivors are closer to their objective than you are to yours.
I'm being vague on purpose, by the way, because this isn't a single tactic or playstyle, it's just killer fundamentals. It's broadly applicable to a bunch of different playstyles and tactics- you can enable this by opting for stealth and punishing survivors that don't heal, or you can build to aggressively chew through resources and leave survivors nothing to work with, and so on and so forth. You don't need to perform like a god to get these things working, either, if you're in a fairly matched game (and I know that's not a given, but we should probably assume it for discussions like these) then you're gonna get a lot done just by keeping survivors occupied.
Permanent uptime is just the amount you're aiming for if you were theoretically playing perfectly. Close enough should be well, close enough since both sides aren't going to be perfect.
To be more clear, I didn't mean before they progress gens at all as an entire team, I meant the particular survivor that was hooked and the one who went for the save are back on gens. As you said, there will always be at least one person on a gen so they will always be progressing.
I agree macro matters a lot, and never disagreed with that statement. It just didn't sound like enough to make up for an extra pair of free hands while you're in chase. But we already addressed that as far as I can tell. That's shouldn't be the case too often or for too long.
Being vague is perfectly understandable. Things like this can't really be given a super amount of detail without writing a collage dissertation on the game lol. Which almost no one wants to do. That's why even if I was asking for chase times, I wanted a rough general average estimate, not 1 exact number; and I got that answer. Even if it was in a different way then expected.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636590#Comment_3636590
Bruh. We've been arguing about completely different things holy ######### I'm so dumb.
I go 1-2-1-2-3-1-4-3-2-3-4 as a starter. That can be adjusted as the game goes on. It's not 1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4-1-2-3-4 nor is it 1-1-1
Ok first off to make sure we're talking about the same thing, the numbers I used were referring to the number of hooks on each person, so 2-2-2-2 would be everyone on death hook. As the 3rd hook is death hook.
It seems like you're putting it in as which survivor you hook, so survivor 1 then survivor 2 1 again ect. and the order you go in.
That said, the version you gave here is a lot more reasonable, but in my experience that still gets you labeled as a tunneler fairly often because supposedly "you tunneled 2 people at the same time (#1 and #2)" or "I got death hook before you even hooked #4 once, so you tunneled me". Which to me sounds silly, and given your playstyle I would assume you agree.
Which if we're taking those player into account, in order to "not tunnel" what was given was not a good enough hook spread. If we agree that that's an unreasonable ask, then we can go with your version. Which to me sound reasonable enough. Tunneling is still stronger, but that playstyle should be good enough for most matches.
Right now I do take those players into account because of how many I bump into, in and off the game. So when I said and heard "no tunnel, 10-12 hooks", it was going for max hook spread or close to it. Since that's what's been expressed to me as what that means (not by you just to be clear). Which is also why I also said the survivors have to be... not great to do so. Again, at least if we agree that idea is unreasonable. If so, I'm adjusting my playstyle lol.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636905#Comment_3636905
The thing that's making up the difference is what you're describing, it's natural slowdown and good macro play.
These aren't perk or power related things, to be clear, every killer can do them. I'm sure you've seen others lay it out before, in fact I think I might have said it elsewhere in this thread to counter the idea that tunnelling actually is 'forcing your objective', but I'll go over it again just to be sure we're on the same page: While survivors are alive, your ideal situation is one survivor on the hook, one in chase, and one peeling off to get the save, leaving only one on generators. So, macro play largely consists of keeping survivors occupied like this through whatever means are at your disposal (mostly downs and hooks, but power-specific elements and even injuries count to varying degrees), but it's also keeping a good working knowledge of where each survivor is, it's zoning survivors (the base mechanic, not a power thing), it's creating and capitalising on deadzones, and then it's also any power or perk specific stuff you might want to keep in mind like Jigsaw boxes or defending hexes or what have you.
Doing this well is comparably strong to tunnelling, it's just harder. You do need fast chases, yes, but on top of that you need to minimise your downtime and keep the pressure up across multiple survivors at once. Tunnelling allows you to ignore almost all of this save for chase speed, making it much easier on top of it being stronger, but it's not so much easier or stronger that playing the match without hardcore tunnelling is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy for anyone that isn't a top tier player controlling a top tier killer.
If there is a meme regarding "just pressure gens", the only problem with it is the last word. You don't pressure gens, you pressure survivors.
This is why I don't really see how you'd need faster chases playing normally. If anything, you'd need faster chases in order to tunnel, because you're leaving three survivors unoccupied while you're attempting it and that's a lot of generator progress. By contrast, keeping multiple survivors occupied at once gives you much more breathing room.
So essentially the expectation is that by the time the survivor has gotten unhooked and back on a gen, you have already found, chased, downed, and hooked someone else and you need to keep that cycle permanently up throughout the entire game to be comparable to the same thing you would get by tunneling. As long as you got it going early enough.
Which if that's the case ok. I was already aware of that loop. But I was missing the part where your "time limit" for it to be good enough is by the time the hooked survivor gets rescued and progressing gens again. Without that it just sounded like it was expected that it would be the same even though there's an extra person running around while you're in chase with someone else. Which didn't make sense.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636531#Comment_3636531
I think part of the problem here is that the conversation has become a hard binary between "Tunnelling" and "Not Tunnelling", as though the latter is a single strategy the same way that the former is. It does also seem, and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, like you're expecting "not tunnelling" to involve the same gameplay, effort, and type of value as tunnelling, which it does not.
Tunnelling is, boiling it down as bluntly as possible, taking a shortcut on overall skill expression to put all of your eggs in the "short chase times" basket. It's making a play that allows you to focus on that one skill, that one aspect of good killer gameplay, and have that be the thing that wins you games over everything else.
If you aren't making that play, though, you're going to be using all of the other skills, so expecting that the chase times must necessarily be shorter is somewhat missing the point. You don't need them to be shorter because you're using everything else at your disposal.
That's not what I expect and you're right those things are different. However the main issue is the power/speed difference.
What else are you using that's making up the difference without faster chases?
Slowdown? Tunneling someone out is the best slowdown by far.
Macro? Having good macro but slow chases isn't a winning formula as we've seen with killers like Sadako, Pig, Dredge ect. The gens go too fast for that, especially with a 4th survivor left alive when they don't need to be.
But you still need to use these things, and use them well, and also still have good chases. But since tunneling provides the best slowdown and the fastest objective completion, your chases can't just be good, they need to be better than if you were tunneling to make up the difference; while having more work to do and more things to juggle and also preform well on. Not to mention actually playing your killers power well.
You need good slowdown, good macro, and faster chases (objective completion) together to even start to compete. But the allowed chase time even if you tunnel is already short (imo) so I was curious as to how much better at chase is the killer expected to be?
If that's not necessary then I would like to know what is believed to be making up the difference. Since it can't be slowdown and macro alone isn't enough without really fast chases. That's why killers like Nurse and Blight are at the top and exceptions, they can do both very fast so they don't need to tunnel and can make up the difference. But that's not the majority of the roster.
This is just starting to sound like the infamous "just pressure gens 4head" meme.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636531#Comment_3636531
Why would you be killing someone only at your 9th hook???
Because you're spreading hooks? If you're intentionally not tunneling anybody, ping ponging between survivors, and going for 10-12 hook games you'll end up with a hook spread such as 2-2-2-2, 2-2-2-1, or 2-2-1-1.
That's around your 8th hook before someone dies.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636467#Comment_3636467
What would insinuate that MMR is working most of the time, which he have established time and again, it is not. I like winning, so I sweat a lot; when MMR is working this puts me up against a lot very, very good survivors, and against those I doubt that anyone could go for 10-12 hooks, in this cases you NEED to play dirty or to perish and get rediculed "OMG. 2500h and you still lost and got not one kill. Baby killer.", stuff like this always makes me wonder whats wrong with this people, do they always perform at top level without ever having a bad game? But I digress ... when MMR is not working, well then everything goes and the strangest stuff can happen. I usually let one survivor go in that case, if I can idenfity a newby usually them, but until one is dead, even a newby can pressure gens just like everyone else.
I get the feeling that punishments never work, they only harden the sentiments on both sides and make some people extra stubborn. I really think that old school BBQ BP bonus as basekit would help a lot, with the added twist that the multiplier only increases as long as all 4 survivors live, ie once the killer kills off one survivor they are stuck with whatever bonus they got at that point. Just try that out BHVR, its not like you would be losing much, but could gain a lot.
Yeah afaik no one really disagrees that MMR and matchmaking are a mess frequently. The divide there seems more to be "improve it or erase it?" But that's a different conversation as far as I can see.
That's why I specified that it was evenly skilled matches being discussed as well. I'm not sure how much of the thread you read so apologies if I'm going over what you already did. Supposedly the level where you can go for those 10-12 hook games is where you skill level is. If you need to tunnel to win it's because the survivors are better than you so you needed to resort to the "nigh impossible to counter" playstyle of tunneling. Which for context, "counter" was getting at least 2 out.
As for the incentive vs punishment thing, yeah I would also like an incentive. But the opposition on that was essentially that without an incentive stronger than tunneling there's basically no point since if you want to win you'll still tunnel. We can't do that because tunneling is already way too strong. If it doesn't stop basically all tunneling why even consider it? Also that BBQ had little if not no effect on dissuading people and it was really the fear of DS that did that.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636526#Comment_3636526
I'm telling you because 'this is how fast chases need to be' isn't a good way to show the difference between tunnelling and non-tunnelling.
Ok so what values can you tell me that are? If its not how fast the objective gets done compared to your opposition?
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636512#Comment_3636512
Why? Why do they need to be so significantly shorter when you aren't tunneling? The game isn't balanced around someone being dead at 4 or 5 gens.
There does seem to be an incorrect assumption. Tunneling doesn't take extra time. The game is, for all intents and purposes, over when someone dies before 3 gens are done unless the Killer hard throws. You are also not going to be getting a full chase when you're tunneling. They are already injured in a disadvantageous position, it should be a 20 second chase, if that.
When you aren't tunneling, you are getting PR and Pop every down for four downs. That's 55% regression, but let's say it's only 50%. That's at least 45 seconds every down, not accounting for time saved via interruption, healing, rotating, travel time etc etc.
Pop and PR aren't going to STOP people from tunneling, but that's not the argument you're making right now. Pop and PR buy you massive amounts of time, especially when you are NOT tunneling.
Because doing so makes your objective go a lot slower and that's the chase time given for tunneling to be even, not ahead. I already pointed that out. That's not the time for 1 survivor dead at 4-5 gens. 50 seconds per chase is too long for that. So if the time for non-tunnel to be even is the same, that would me there's no time difference between the two in terms of objective completion. But that goes against what you were saying before.
It's not that tunneling takes extra time. Its that tunneling allows you to spend more time in chases since after 3 you get your slowdown from killing one survivor. Which as you said, is stronger than anything the killer has at their disposal. If you don't then you don't have that until around your 8th or 9th hook, which is late game and doesn't really matter anyway since that's maybe 1 gen.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636512#Comment_3636512
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.
ok but why are you telling me the benefits to tunneling? Isn't that my point?
Those are all the reasons why your non-tunneling chases need to all be even faster.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636475#Comment_3636475
You are also, presumably, applying pressure on other Survivors. You are using Pop, PR, etc etc since you're not tunneling one person out.
Your mere existence as a Killer allows you to buy time. By not tunneling someone out, you make it clear you're a threat to everyone and they cannot just sit on gens while you kill their friend. This, once again, allows you to proc PR and Pop.
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.
-
@Moonras2 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636467#Comment_3636467
It's because not everyone's experience is the same. However, just because our experiences are different, that doesn't mean either one of them should be invalid. In my experience, the day I stopped camping or tunneling was when I started finding it less and less necessary. I very rarely do either one now and never feel like it's needed. For others, they may have the opposite effect. Maybe they like playing different killers than I do or enjoy different play styles.
All that aside, and this is my opinion, there can be no "true" balancing of this game. MMR would have to be so incredibly tight that everyone is matched against, and with, people of similar skill only. Regardless of queue time. The only outliers being people who are partied up, when one is lower MMR than another.
Then after that and several months of play, they might have an idea of what/who is stronger at every MMR range. They could make basekit changes to either side to try and balance it out. Killers would have to be done on a case by case basis most of the time, which could take a long while.
There was a time when I thought incentives could work in this game. They always just end up with a loophole though.
I think @Ryuhi might have mentioned comeback mechanics before. As it stands tunneling/camping can be used at the start of the game or as a comeback mechanic. I think it should be hard punished as is. Then both sides given some sort of basekit mechanic that might help turn the match around. Gen speeds based on hook count, maybe a moment of slower movement speed if a chase takes a certain time, quicker hook timers, etc... Those aren't great ideas just throwing something out there.
I know it might sometimes feel punishing to the player/s doing well but at least it would provide hope to the losing side. Might help prevent some DC's, and make it a little more fun, if the match doesn't feel like a loss at the start. Then again, without a lot of trial it would also have some loopholes
I understand they have different experiences. I didn't say they were necessarily wrong there nor was that my intention, just that they pretty much have a completely opposite view.
I see points to both sides of the argument. The main thing in contention is what can we mostly agree on as some middle ground.
I don't know if that's going to happen, but that's one reason why the forums exist. To discuss things like this.
So far we at least got that both sides really need to treat each other better. Which is better than most of these conversation I've seen in the past on this subject.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636277#Comment_3636277
Thank you.
On average, probably 45 seconds. Again, I don't think this is a good way to measure it, as it's normal for your first few chases to be longer due to abundant resources, then your middle chases to be short due to dwindling resources and an attempt at management, followed by a longer chase near the end due to despration.
Tunneling time average: ~50 seconds
Me: "It can't be the same length."
Given non-tunnel time average: ~50 seconds
That doesn't add up. It needs to be faster then that. You have to make up for a 4th survivor where there wasn't one doing gens healing, saving, ect. for most of the match, extra time finding more survivors, and going from ~5/6 hooks to ~11 and the number of chases to get those hooks.
If it takes the same chase time, it's the same speed to complete your objective between the two or very close. Wouldn't that also throw the whole foundation of your argument of "tunneling is nigh impossible to counter and way too strong, but not tunneling isn't" out the window? Both would either be fine or both would be "too fast/strong". Isn't that untrue?
I'm sorry you don't personally think it's a good way to measure but it's important to have an expectation of how fast a killer should be completing their objective to be balanced with survivors speeds, especially in this context. So imo you're gonna have to give a better one or explain the one you gave.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633902#Comment_3633902
When I explained one game in the post game chat that I hard tunneled, because the survivors all split up and put so much pressure on my and gave me no breathing room, everywhere I went, there was a gen 75% done, I was accused of tripping and being ludicrous.
Survivors splitting up on gens was not the norm 2 years back, but 6.1 made it so, and now you can't put the genie back into the bottle. Nowadays survivors know that splitting up is THE most efficient way to tackle gens, so nearly everyone is doing it as the standard MO and killers are not allowed to question this, but have to live with the consequences.
But really, this is one of the main culprits of why matches these days go by so fast and both sides feel like they are backed against the wall and need to DO someting: both sides discovered the most efficient way to play during the 6.1 aftermath and the game has never been the same, since.
And games are so fast these days, you can't just easily switch gears when you are stomping, most of the time its too late at that point. Also, not sealing the deal at that point might still cost you the game. Survivors often complain that the killer tunneled at "4 gens left", ignoring the fact that 3 of this 4 gens were being worked at and at 50-75% done. If the killer switched targets at that point, it would be "ggeeeez", so tunneling is the only option to not loose in an embarrassing way.
The fun, kinda tense games of the past, where the killer found one survivor, chased and eventually downed them, while one gen popped, then they roamed and found another survivor, downed them, another gen popped while the survivor on hook got rescued, thats not coming back. The efficiency on both sides dictate that 2-3 gens pop by the end of the first chase, and this puts the killer already in such a bad spot that the gloves come off and the tunneling starts at one hook.
That makes sense to me but others don't see it that way apparently.
If you need to tunnel to stand a chance you don't deserve that MMR and you're boosted. The game is balanced to the point you can go for 10-12 hooks every match with players on your skill level.
Incentives don't work, only punishments.
Not my words, just what has been expressed to me in the thread.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636251#Comment_3636251
Could you re-state that?
What is the average chase time for a match to be considered balance while going for a 10-12 hook game.
45-60 is widely considered too long to not tunnel, so how quick should a killer be downing to make up the time differential between a 4v1 vs a 3v1.
Again, on average.
Hopefully that's better
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636201#Comment_3636201
Hmmmm. Not nuanced enough.
Early-game? A 45 second chase is good, really anything under a minute or so. Mid-game should be shorter. End-Game can be longer.
Ok but on average.
The average chase time is 45-60 seconds in tunnel games to be even as I stated here:
@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.
So it can't be the same length. You need to make up for having a 4th survivor in the game doing gens, healing, saving, distracting the killer and ect which as we both know is a big difference; as well as hook count going from 5-6 to 10-12. As well as additional travel time between each chase to go to different targets.
How much time on average?
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636070#Comment_3636070
Chases shouldn't last a couple of seconds, but like I said, bad maps and strong Killers change things lol.
You get Rotten Fields against Trickster, you just kinda die since the map is 90% open.
Conversely, Freddy on Asylum isn't particularly fair for him and that's quite the understatement.
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636100#Comment_3636100
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.
I mean, 20 seconds is "a few/couple seconds" to me but ok. I can be more specific.
So just to reiterate and clarify, a chase lasting 20-30 seconds, or "short" chases on average what should be the norm. If the chase last any longer you're in a match where either the survivors are better/stronger than the killer or the RNG gave you the finger.
Chases longer than that in your average match mean you're not in the MMR you should be.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636060#Comment_3636060
There's a big difference between being delusional and having a misconception, to be fair, I definitely wouldn't call the players who think this delusional. They are wrong, though, because they do not need to tunnel to play well.
You've also got something of a skewed perspective on this here in the rest of your message - not being at a 3v1 early isn't a disadvantage, it's the default. Being at a 3v1 early is an advantage over the default, and being at a 4v1 late in the game is a disadvantage over the default.
If I implied that I don't think successfully tunnelling someone out early on is very strong, my apologies, that's not what I meant. What I mean is that playing the game normally is more than strong enough to win, and even has advantages over attempting to tunnel in some cases - after all, the whole value proposition of tunnelling is that you're doing something substantially weaker until someone is dead, at which point you can leverage the net efficiency loss on the survivor side into more effective slowdown.
This should be a risk, both from a basic balance perspective and because the tools to punish it already exist in the game now, but unfortunately those tools are weaker than they should be and as a result it's not exactly a risky tactic at all. If you can leverage the specific skill of downing survivors quickly, you can absolutely ignore every other element of killer gameplay and skill to tunnel without much concern, which is both unbalanced and unpleasant for the players on the receiving end of it.
If anti-tunnel were increased to the point where tunnelling became a risk/reward strategy, it'd be much more fair. As it stands, you don't have to put much effort in to circumvent the kind of results you can absolutely get playing normally.
I believe I said a 3v1 is a disadvantage compared to a 4v1. I didn't say it wasn't the default nor compared it to the default.
Also you didn't say it was "enough" you said "comparably strong" which would mean it's about as strong as tunneling. So that would be "very strong" in most cases. Not just "enough" in "some".
In your opinion, tunneling is doing something substantially weaker until someone is dead which is the risk correct? Because if that chase last too long you lose right?
So you want more risk than is already there. But I believe I also already said I'd be fine with implementing more to go against tunneling as well in my previous post.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but you're mainly contesting how strong tunneling actually is compared to not doing so as I outlined above. Additionally, you don't want any new incentive for the killer side or the current incentives made stronger. Just punishment and the current punishment tools to be made stronger.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636047#Comment_3636047
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.
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.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636047#Comment_3636047
"I though survivors going down fast was a sign that they weren't as good as the killer. But I guess not?"
Just like how you sometimes get a bad map or a lot of pallets, Survivors sometimes get bad maps or few pallets.
Also, couple of Killers exist that just take away most skill expression.
But that's my average experience. It's not just "sometimes they go down really fast". It's the opposite, "sometimes they don't if they got lucky".
If they got a bad setup, it's even faster.
Which if that's what you're considering balanced then, ok sure. I suppose chases should only last a couple of seconds long.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635951#Comment_3635951
There's two major problems with this rhetoric, though - apologies for chiming in late but this post specifically has the stuff I'd be responding to, lol.
The first problem is that it's almost impossible to find the right balance of buffing non-tunnelling killers without also buffing tunnelling killers. It'd have to be something that deactivates when someone dies, or if someone's hooked twice in a row, and that's already going to be very finnicky to balance + open to possible abuse. Adding onto that, anything you do probably isn't going to outweigh the strength of tunnelling, which leads me to my second point.
The second problem is pretty simple. When you say that not-tunnelling as a tactic should have "something going for it [...] because right now it has literally nothing going for it", that's obviously not true on its face, because not tunnelling does have something going for it: it's comparably strong and it's how you win more matches more consistently. People don't choose to tunnel because it's the only strong option, they tunnel because they perceive it to be easier. There's two layers of that perception, of course; the first is that tunnelling is obviously easier than not tunnelling, but there's also the layer that so many are under the misconception that tunnelling is necessary to perform well "at a high level", which isn't true even if those players are actually playing at a high level to begin with, which statistically I doubt.
That's why incentives alone aren't going to change anything. There are already incentives not to tunnel, both in it being comparably viable (in fact, it's stronger if you're facing survivors you can't tunnel out super quickly) and in the amount of perks that are designed around spreading pressure, and people are still doing it because it's easier to attempt and hard for survivors to punish.
Right now, the correct response if we want to do anything about tunnelling is just to increase the strength of its counters. If people did tunnel much less prior to 6.1., it's because there was a deterrent in the form of DS that killers didn't want to deal with, not because BBQ had BP incentives. There are equivalent perks now that give you actual in-match value for the exact same function of hooking each survivor for the first time, and players still choose to tunnel, because incentives not to alone just aren't enough.
(I would like to see BBQ get a stack mechanic back, though, as an aside. I miss that, it doesn't have to be for BP gain.)
I'd suggest the following, personally: Buff DS back up to five seconds, make the basekit protection not put you in Deep Wounds so it can be stacked properly with Borrowed Time and Off The Record (as well as perks that aren't anti-tunnel like Dead Hard), and potentially buff OTR a little bit to make it easier to lose chase with the killer at the cost of everything disabling on Conspicuous Action instead of just the Endurance. With these changes, tunnelling will still be possible for those who want to attempt it, but the threat of meaningful options on the survivor side to combat it with would be a deterrent making players really evaluate if it's the right call.
DS (or any other anti-tunnel) being strong isn't a lose/lose for the killer. It is, at worst, taking away a shortcut to bypass skill expression and pushing killers to consider how their macro strategy is actually functioning.
So basically you're saying the vast majority of the player base is delusional and have this idea that not tunneling is weak when in reality you can leave the game as a 4v1 for the majority of the match and not have any significant disadvantage compared to being in a 3v1 earlier on?
In which case, wouldn't the inverse also be true? Being in a 3v1 earlier on isn't a significant disadvantage for the survivor side? Because it's "comparably strong" as if the killer left it as a 4v1?
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635996#Comment_3635996
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.
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.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635974#Comment_3635974
Of course there's a tribablistic mentality. It's an asymmetrical game, both sides have a huge hatred for the other. This constant insistence rhat one side is worth than the other is only you giving into that mentality yourself. BOTH sides are absolutely horrifically ######### to each other on a match-match basis. They SHOULD be better to each other, a little empathy goes a long way and that's why I've always made sure I play Survivor at least a bit, because it's important to me to have perspective.
BBQ's bonus also happened around MMR's introduction.
Well, unfortunately that's been my experience and as far as I can it's been plenty others as well. If not most. The hostility, entitlement, victimhood, and BM from the survivor side has vastly outnumbered my experience from the killer side, and I play both sides pretty equally as far as I can tell.
However, whether that's the case or not, at the end of the day both sides should be better towards each other. As you said and I agree with that. Maybe one side has more work to do than the other, maybe not. But as long as we can get them both to respect each other then you know, mission accomplished or whatever.
I still don't think that's happening, but I will still advocate for it as I have done the entirety of my DBD career.
On that front, the mindsets I put forth are still problematic and should change, even if the amount might be different in your opinion. I hope you would also agree with that statement.
If so, I think that's a pretty fair middle ground on that topic.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635980#Comment_3635980
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?
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.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635951#Comment_3635951
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.
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 high MMR where you currently 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".
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635935#Comment_3635935
That was my entire point with 5. It's a vicious cycle.
I think Survivor skill is less straightforward than Killer, especially considering pre-requisites of having three other good Survivors around.
The game would be much better without tunneling I agree.
Really thought we had something going there for a second until you started the us vs them again. Neither side cares, at large, about the other. The idea that it's only Survivors or only Killers who are out to get the other side as a whole community is laughable.
That is correct because it has been proven that the more tools you give people, the more they tunnel. See the Eruption, CoB, Overcharge meta. Supremely OP, free value and the strongest Killer has ever been. DS and DH nerfed, gens take longer, pallets break faster, Killers recover faster and Survivors make less distance on hit. And yet, tunneling was through the roof.
Incentives alone don't work. You have to make it harder to tunnel if you want to see any significant reduction.
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.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635935#Comment_3635935
"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.'
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 shouldn't change in power since their optimal playstyles aren't changed. At least in concept. 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?
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635678#Comment_3635678
Countering tunneling is getting two out, or one out through the Gate I suppose. You understand why that's difficult for good teams and nigh impossible for the average player, right?
1) Bad argument. Not even gonna entertain that one. Saw the exact same thing in reference to old DH and Iri Head. "If it was an issue BHVR would've changed it, therefore it's fine."
2) False.
3) False.
4) Plausible. Really depends on the ideas of the players, builds, maps etc etc
5) False. They do not and that is a terrible idea to believe. They actually usually affect entirely separate people. If you keep getting tunneled, you're more likely to find a 4-man to slam gens with against Killers who didn't tunnel you. As Killer if you keep having BM at the gates, you're more likely to tunnel people who has nothing to do with it.
Supposedly almost every killer tunnels, but we don't have a kill rate of 75-90% 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 currently be at least reasonably counterable 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 it's one sided, things will not change.
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635851#Comment_3635851
The issue that I'm getting at is that you can't make something as an incentive to dissuade tunneling.
You've got to remove it and re-balance the game around that removal, which might include your incentive system.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that your idea is GOOD, it's so weak compared to getting someone out of the match early that it doesn't matter. It's still easier to tunnel and still more effective UNTIL you do something about that, no incentive will be enough unless it's extremely OP.
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.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635343#Comment_3635343
Very well, let's reset.
Tunneling is a strategy that is inherently easier to perform than it is to counter. True or false?
Isn't that an opinion? Well in my opinion: If you're not slamming gens yeah that's true. But if you are then no since that's also really easy to do. If you mean "counter" as in "we stopped the guy being tunneled from dying at all", well you're not supposed to be able to be so strong you can stop the killer from even getting 1 kill. If you mean "we got at least 2 out" then yeah it happens all the time.
Tunneling is allowed and intended. True or false?
Survivor is easier as a whole to play. True or false?
Slamming gens is at least as easy as tunneling, yet comparable in strength. True or false?
Tunneling is too strong with an entire team of good or equal survivors in play. True or false?
Tunneling and slamming gens are both easy playstyles that keep each other in check. True or false?
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635336#Comment_3635336
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?
it doesn't but that was a different point. That was about balance and changing things so they're balanced. This is about skill level. No your skill level doesn't change. You MMR will drop since you'll be weaker. Thus, the MMR numbers will represent different skill levels than before on the killer side.
Which isn't itself a problem, but the balance will be. If you change things so that they remain balanced, but you removed tunneling, then supposedly there will be no problem.
-
@YukariTheAlpaca said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635239#Comment_3635239
Survivor is inherently easier to learn than killer because it is a more basic role with less mechanics. "Each killer has their own and unique power" as the loading tip says.
There really are not many ways to make killers feel strong without them just completely invalidating some of the game mechanics. A lot of survivors hate the more modern anti-loop killer designs because they have little counterplay against competent killer players who know the ins-and-outs of the them.
Look at Xenomorph for instance; you can just invalidate looping due to the ability to just tail whip survivors on reaction. Even with the ability to shut down loops, survivors can just hold W away from Xeno for a long time (and use turrets), resulting in a lot of time still wasted for the killer in chases.
Chucky basically gets a confirmed hit every 20 seconds with nearly no counterplay on the survivor's end. The problem is that it is 1 hit every 20 seconds and you are a 110% killer with no power until then (which can also result in a HUGE time waste if Chucky misses an attack).
The reason Blight and Nurse are strong is they have tools to invalidate game mechanics and mindgame potential in chases, strong mobility for both catching up to survivors and patrolling, and have little downsides for actually messing up when using their power.
I don't disagree with anything you said, and all this info I already knew (no offense intended). But I'm not sure what point you're trying to make in response to what I said. Unless you were just adding extra info/context?
The reason(s) why survivor is easier doesn't change that it is. It's why I que up as survivor when I'm not feeling the killer brain and mechanics tax.
Its not fundamentally bad or good, well at least not to me. It just is what it is.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635340#Comment_3635340
How so? I feel I've represented it quite fairly. You were the one who initiated a whataboutism as a defense tactic. Now, seemingly further defensive, you've simply begun attempting to copy me.
Because your perks and playstyle CAN carry you to a certain point beyond your true skill level. If a Killer ran Eruption, CoB, Overcharge and something else during that meta; they would have been carried due to the nature of those perks. Same with Survivor, although more difficult because you need three other people.
Well lets reset because now you're just being overly aggressive and trying to label bias as a defense tactic. As far as I see.
Perks, sure I can give you that, but this isn't about perks is it? I don't know why this is the second time I have to remind someone of that. That's just a strawman.
But I don't know how you can come to the conclusion, that someone choosing to play in a certain way that the game fully allows and intends, somehow boost them above their skill level. They still need to execute their strategy and outplay their opponents. In this case they still need to find, chase, down, hook, and kill survivors. Meanwhile the survivors are doing their intended allowed playstyle of slamming gens and stalling the killers progress.
How well they can do these things is their skill level. Not how well they can be "nice".