hermitkermit
hermitkermit
About
- Username
- hermitkermit
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,625
- Last Active
Comments
-
It’s always interesting when one of these comes out. People get incredibly creative to explain why it’s totally fine, why it doesn’t reflect anything about the killer role or overall rates, and why it can’t be used as evidence of anything. The mental gymnastics can be pretty impressive.
-
I am all for a comm wheel. It would do nothing for SWF but plenty for Solo. Wouldn’t mind more emotes either.
-
I think map design not scaling to the individual killer is a big unhealthy issue. You can be skilled on any killer, but certain maps will still heavily hinder you regardless, and that shouldn’t happen. It should scale to mobility. Killers shouldn’t be placed in a map that actively works against their power.
Early game tunneling having no downside is also unhealthy, for obvious reasons.
And lastly survivors not having access to killer bots in customs is a huge gap. There are 40+ killers with different perks, add-ons, and counters, yet survivors have no reliable way to practice against them, it’s all trial by fire every time. Not to mention killers that get reworks, so their counters change, making returning players struggle as well. Comparatively, killers can practice freely with survivor bots using any perks for killer and against any perks for survivor and have been able to for years. The knowledge gap expected from survivors keeps growing with every new killer added, but there’s no real way to practice against any of them. Watching videos helps, but it’s not the same as playing, there is actual skill involved and muscle memory and it takes physical practice to be able to pull off what you watch. Survivors should have access to the same practice tool, and I would advocate heavily for some kind of BP bonus given to survivors to play against every different killer bot at least once as part of the getting started process, so new players are not forced to come in completely blind.
-
I’ve been running: Déjà vu, Kindred, Light foot, and resurgence. It’s been my go to solo build lately.
-
Considering how often I see people state they’re in high MMR, I’m surprised to see 18%, rather than like 30%.
Aside from that, these stats don’t surprise me too much. I think the jump from the average of regular survivors escape rates of 43% to 47% in the top 18% in comparison to averages of regular killers being 65% to top players 67% is pretty interesting. Even the average regular killers are pulling success rates that are pretty close to their highest MMR players. Well done!
-
Welcome welcome! 🤗
-
I think the issue is that it’s very map dependent. He’s at a severe disadvantage if he loads into maps with high walls or indoors, and survivors are at a severe disadvantage if loaded into a map with open spaces and short structures. But unfortunately, that’s an issue with several killers and their counters. The map can instantly push a match into a certain direction without any input from the actual players.
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066604#Comment_4066604
The problem we have with this perk is that if killers are going to tunnel and slug, they are going to tunnel and slug… but for those few of us that do not… those of us that want a fair and balanced game and to spread out the hooks, we are getting punished. Am I going to start tunneling and slugging more? No, not any more than I already do (which is usually not, unless you have Boil Over. Call it old RPD Library PTSD) but I have already noticed a few lobbies where because I didn't tunnel, gens were flying and at least one survivor had Fast Track.
I get what you’re saying, if you’re choosing not to tunnel and you feel like you’re getting punished, that’s frustrating. But where I push back is the framing. The “this perk leads to tunneling/slugging” argument isn’t new, it’s just the latest version of something people have been saying for years. The justification changes, but the behavior doesn’t.
Even in your example, the logic kind of reinforces that. Saying “because I didn’t tunnel, gens flew and I lost” naturally implies that tunneling would’ve made you win. And that’s exactly the kind of reasoning people have used long before this perk ever existed. So it’s hard for me to see this as something the perk is causing, rather than just another situation where tunneling is being framed as the optimal response, its kind of like a boogeyman that’s used as a looming threat. Tunneling before this perk would be just as successful as tunneling after it.
Even if we said that the perk just incentivizes tunneling, I feel that gets tricky, because the incentive already exists at a baseline level, regardless of perks. I said this previously but if the game had no perks in it whatsoever, tunneling would still be strong (stronger probably) and popualr, because its efficiency and impact is not dependent upon perks. So if tunneling is still going to happen before the perk, during the perk, and after the perk, then the perk itself isn’t really the root issue there. And that’s kind of my main point. If argument is just that the perk might be too strong, that’s completely fair. If it’s overtuned, it should be adjusted. But that should be based on actual impact like escape rates, usage, overall data, not tied to a behavior that’s been a constant in the game no matter what.
-
As a solo Q player, I myself had to take a very long break not long ago. It was a couple months, which may not sound like much but I used to play every day. I’m just now leaning back into the game, and while there’s still plenty of things that could be improved, I am able to enjoy it again.
You’re making the right choice stepping away if it’s affecting your mental health. FOMO is real, but it’s also toxic. Don’t let it push you into filling your valuable time with something that no longer serves you.
-
@OrangeBear said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066604#Comment_4066604
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4066606#Comment_4066606
Yes it's true fast track isn't the only thing that has this kind of effect but it's infuriating that devs are continuing to contribute to the issue by adding more stuff like this.
I'm just pointing it out now whilst it's relevant so it can hopefully nipped in the bud.
Devs don't approve of these playstyles because they know that it's why people are uninstalling they just didn't go through with the changes because it would have done more damage to the game than these issues continue to do. Might be hard to agree with but i believe that was true.
Fast track could just be reworked to only work if the killer is tunnelling. Like if a survivor gets hooked twice in a row you gain 2 tokens. The condition right now where it's just "if survivor gets hooked" is just unfair.I am all for some kind of consequence to tunneling that affects the actual pace of the game rather than just a BT. If that should come in the form of a perk, I wouldn’t be against that change. But I do feel many would feel the opposite, as any suggestion of gen progress being tied to hook states is generally not accepted by the community. The anti-tunnel update tried to do something like that and people threatened to leave in mass. And honestly, if that change went through and fast track gained tokens for tunneling, then based on what’s already happened I think people would then say you just have to slug, to deny the perk from ever getting value . And then we’re back to the cycle.
-
Not trying to invalidate how you personally are feeling but I feel as though I’ve gotten some whiplash. It wasn’t long ago when most 2nd chance perks were deemed the reason to slug, because it stopped them from ever activating. And then there was also any kind of perks that activate off of unhooks also became a reason to slug, because if you deny the hook you can deny the perk. The reason keeps changing but there is always a reason for those that want to find one.
I’m unsure whether or not the perk is in a very healthy spot right now, as I haven’t seen it really affect my games. I know this doesn’t mean that it’s not actually happening, I admit that I am limited to my experience, much like everyone else. But if a perk is overturned I feel it’s much healthier to just say it’s overturned and it should be fixed rather than attaching some kind of consequence to it, because it implies that if it was reverted the consequences would go away, and that’s simply not true. I think it’s just the new flavor of the week reason. People have been claiming that “X” is the reason for slugging/tunneling for 10 years, there will always be a reason for someone that wants one.
Again, the perk could absolutely need tweaks, I am not disagreeing with that. But I disagree with this idea that because of it, people have to tunnel/slug. They did it long before the perk existed and will continue to do so long after. I’m pretty sure even if no perks were in play at all on either role, slugging and tunneling would absolutely still happen, because it’s just the easiest and quickest way to get a survivor out of the game, majority of the time. We’ve seen it in 2v8, we’ve seen it in chaos shuffle.
-
Unfortunately the counter is dependent upon the map. Trickster is instantly at a disadvantage if given a Map with a lot of rooms or high walls, and in the same breath, survivors are instantly at a disadvantage if given a map with mostly open spaces.
-
Others have said it but I agree as well, If killers were replaced by bots then I would 100% be in favor. But only if bot could replace them.
-
@AllinForms said:
As someone who plays about 70/30 killer/survivor, this sounds like nightmare fuel.
I think a lot of survivor mains misunderstand why tunneling happens. Most killer mains don't actually enjoy tunneling. It's not about picking someone and ruining their game for the fun of it (it is for some, sure. But its very much the minority), its them trying to win and having limited options to do so. Gens are so fast these days, and survivors can heal in under 5 seconds with meta perks. Tunneling, slugging, and proxy camping become the only way for killers to generate pressure and buy themselves time.
From a killer perspective, tunneling isn't the problem, its the symptom. As long as its the most effective way to win a game, the killers who are focused on winning are going to do it.
I say this as a killer who goes out of my way to not tunnel, and i frequently lose because of it. I have more fun having a competitive, intense game than I do when I focus on winning. But I'm not the norm, the norm is killers playing to win, and if they want to win they have to tunnel.
I do agree that many may not enjoy tunneling, but even when gen regression was strongest, and there was not a reason to tunnel, it was still extremely common. It's because it's the path of least resistance. Speaking from experience, even when something isn't necessary at all, if it's still easier, then players will do it. And I say players not killers because it has nothing to do with a specific role. If you're curious about what I mean, the very first iteration of 2v8 is a perfect example, as flashlights didn't exist, no perks, and pallet saves didn't exist (because killers would just stomp and they would instant go to hook) and full 8 team slugs still happened, and it happened so often that they had to add in pallet saves, and flashlights for an anti-slug in the next iteration so that it wouldn't happen again. There was no reason to slug because saves were not possible, but it's easier to slug everyone to win rather than hook so that's what players did. OR the infinite toolbox bug, everyone ran it. Because it made the game easier. Anytime a perk, map, killer or item is bugged it shoots in popularity because many players like when things are easy. Players are going to do whatever is easiest, and tunneling has consistently been the easiest way to get a survivor out of the game since.. well since the game existed.
-
Scooby Doo! Mystery Incorporated as survivors and the killer has several skins of classic villains like The Ghost of Captain Cutler or The Space Kook, The Creature, Etc.
-
@Langweilig said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4063527#Comment_4063527
I‘ll take that as a compliment, lol
Oh, absolutely it is. Being successful with a character like Dredge or Pig is something different than being successful with a character like Ghoul or Dracula. All those characters are capable of being successful, but require different levels of skill and time requirements to meet the same results. The skill/hours required on someone to get a 10 kill streak with Ghoul vs. the skill/hours required to get a 10 kill streak with Pig are (typically) not going to be the same. Gotta respect that grind.
-
@Xray said:
Unique weather effects for certain maps. I know this is a fever dream because of the code and the game might just explode if something like this would ever be added. But if it were it would add more immersion and maybe even more challenge to the game if Ormond suffered from a massive blizzard or coldwind suffered from a brushfire causing black smoke to fill the map or something cool like that.
I love this idea. 💡
-
In my opinion, most killers are genuinely decent, some just require more dedication and understanding of their kits. In the same way we can look at survivor perks like STB and see how strong they can be depending on the skill of the player using them, the same idea applies to most of the killer roster.
I think she’s one of those killers people assume is really weak, which makes her less popular. Because of that, many of the players who do play her are very good with her cause they’ve put in the time to really learn how she works, even if it’s a small pool.
When a character is labeled OP or Strong it attracts a lot of people. When a character is labeled WEAK it does the opposite and filters out most except the specialists. The result is a “weak” character can be terrifying and successful in the hands of the people who stuck around long enough to learn every trick.
-
If the stun was longer or if it disabled abilities or something for a short period of time, I would 100% run it. Unfortunately I can count on one hand where it actually mattered in my matches and I’ve lost count on how many times it didn’t.
-
Unfortunately I dont think so. Fog vials didn’t even make the cut, so I doubt anything stronger than some fog in a glass jar ever will.
-
It isn’t a design mistake that survivors are weaker than killers. They move slower, can’t down killers, and are meant to be the vulnerable role. That’s intentional. But if one role is designed to be weaker, and to lose more often, then there has to be an incentive for players to choose it. That’s what perks and base-kit protections are for. Using perks isn’t a mistake, it’s part of how the role is made playable and enjoyable despite being weaker
If survivors had no perks and no base protections against exploitable situations, why would players ever choose it? You’re playing the weaker role with less success and less control over the match, it is a blatant and intentional disadvantage. Why would players voluntarily choose that role if there were no tools to compensate for that disadvantage?
So, genuinely, do you think it’s reasonable to expect players to choose survivor under those conditions? And do you honestly believe the role would remain populated and viable if that were the case
-
@Vtech said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4046010#Comment_4046010
Play Killer.
Don't bring ANY Gen Regression Perks.
IF you aren't perma Ash Ranks you'll see how astoundingly fast the gens fly, and the gates get open.If you’re saying kill rates would be lower without gen regression, I agree. I think there’s plenty of stuff In the game that if we took it out, would change success rates for both roles. But the current stats reflect how the game is played with perks, like regression, included, not a hypothetical version without them.
So, just trying to understand your point, do you think escape rates should only be judged in a world without gen regression? And if so, does that mean the current escape rates “don’t count” because regression exists? You also mentioned that in your opinion the escape rates are already too high even with regression in play, so what escape rate do you consider fair for survivors and killers?
-
Honestly at this point I don’t think you should ever not expect tunneling or slugging as survivor, regardless of the game mode.
-
@Vtech said:
It's too easy for Survivors to escape these days anyway.
Now if a Mid Teir at best killer like Bubba is giving you troubles then that's a skill issue, and on you, and your teammates.Can I ask why you say it’s too easy?
The last time they released stats it didn’t seem like an unreasonable escape rate that would imply it was too easy. Perhaps I’ve missed something.
-
It would be nice if tunneling was balanced the same way other things in the game are. But judging by how people reacted to the possibility of any kind of anti-tunnel changes, I wouldn’t hold your breath.
-
@Crowman said:
These topics pop up all the time and everytime the OP doesn't provide any evidence of their claim.
To be fair, anytime people do provide any evidence aiding their point, people are quick to say that they’re just in a low MMR and dismiss it. It’s not real evidence that people really want, it’s whatever fits what they’re trying to say and the minute it doesn’t it can’t be considered real evidence because “x,y,z, etc.” I mean the killrates are a great example of that.
-
You shouldn’t be required to have thousands of hours just to be able to last 30 seconds in chase because there’s no pallets to work with. Those good survivors you talk about absolutely exist, in the same way that good killers with winstreaks in the 100s do. Just because someone can get a 400+ winstreak on Clown doesn’t mean that you should be expected to do the same just because someone else can. Those expectations aren’t realistic and shouldn’t be pushed aside just because it’s about survivors looping instead of a “weak” killer killing.
-
I hear you. It’s really frustrating these days. The “us vs. them” mentality starts seeing the game as only the role they prefer. Buffs for one role aren’t seen as, ‘I wonder if this is good for the game as a whole’ but only ‘If THEY get another buff then I want one’.
It’s immaturity for sure. People stop seeing this game in its entirety and only focus on what their preferred role sees and it’s truly a shame. And while I agree with you that BHVR has no control over people’s attitude or thoughts at the end of the day, I do think they’ve kind of encouraged the whole ‘us vs. them’ mentality, just in the way they balance. It’s usually a “we’re gonna do X and to compensate we’re gonna do Y” which already feeds that “my side” “your side” instead of just the game. It makes people unable to identify or accept genuine issues because all they focus on is how it will change the role they like to play, and not how it will change the game itself. It implies that the thing they were changing in the first place needs compensation for change and not just simple needs to be changed for the sake of the game.
But I don’t think this will change, sadly.
-
I’m really sorry you’ve experienced that kind of hateful behavior. People that say awful things like that should absolutely be held accountable and receive some kind of punishment for it. I will say, you don’t need to worry about BHVR ‘catering to these people’. They do not stand for harassment, so rest assured this jerk isn’t exempt from the same rules be consequences everyone else who plays DBD has.
-
I agree a lot of bitterness seems to come from a lack of general empathy. And yes, everyone should at least try out both roles, but everyone has preferences and those preferences shouldn’t be invalidated.
I think a major issue is that people want to treat both roles as the same, and they’re not. You can’t balance for the killer role the same way you would survivor and vice versa. There are certain things you must accept depending on which role your play, and you have to acknowledge that the other role has different things they have to accept.
People are way too crazy for a tit-for-tat. It’s rampant in the forums and YouTube comments and Reddit, this whole idea that: If this role gets a buff then the other needs compensation. If this role gets a base-kit change then the other needs one too. Etc.
You can’t balance the roles the same way. And just because 1 role needs X it doesn’t mean the other role needs X too. I think people get way too caught up in tally marks rather than what those marks actually mean for the game as a whole and not just the role that they don’t enjoy as much as the other.
-
@runningguy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4041758#Comment_4041758
i agree gen speeds have been nerfed in the past but clearly not enough. some people will tunnel regardless of gen speeds regardless if they need to tunnel or not. killers like blight and nurse dont need to tunnel, they are S tier killer so dont have issues keeping up with gen speeds. lower tier killers struggle more and often do need to tunnel. simply nerf tunneling at the same nerf gen speeds. force killers to not tunnel, force survivors to take longer on gens. its the only way to balance it. Asking killers to not tunnel wont work, asking for survivors to slow down on the gens wont work. both need to be forced.
i base this on myself and my experience. i play mid tier killers and always have. starting out i did ok playing by the survivor rule book. i didnt tunnel, camp, slug…i spread hooks and played "fair". After a a while, i noticed i wasnt getting solo players any more, i was getting SWF teams that worked gens efficiently pretty often. i suddenly went from doing ok to losing match after match because i couldnt keep up. i tunneled, i started winning some matches. The reason i tunnel is directly related to the speed gens fly when people actually do them. So when people say they want tunneling nerfed…. not going to happen while gens fly like they do unless the devs want to nuke the kill rates of majority of the killer roster.
I think this response actually supports my concerns.
You agree gen speeds have been nerfed but say “not enough.” That’s exactly the issue, what counts as “enough” is subjective. For some players the current state is fine, for others it never will be. There’s no objective gen speed threshold where tunneling suddenly stops, because tunneling isn’t purely a gen speed problem.
You also acknowledge that some killers will tunnel regardless of gen speeds or whether they need to or not. That’s my point. If tunneling still happens when gen pressure isn’t the issue because they’re playing Nurse, Blight, Ghoul, etc. then slowing gens further can’t logically be the solution. Power level doesn’t prevent tunneling, player choice does. Nurses and Blights tunnel just like mid and low tier killers, even when they don’t need to. So we already see that some players tunnel when gen speeds don’t matter due to the killer they are choosing, so it doesn’t make sense to assume that if gen speeds were even longer, they would stop tunneling.
I agree that if gen speeds change, tunneling should be adjusted alongside it. But I disagree with the idea that killers tunnel because of gen speeds, or that slowing gens would make tunneling disappear. I feel we already have proof that it is not the case.
-
@runningguy said:
Thats the issue across the board on every server. Gens fly, killers struggle to keep up, killers tunnel, survivors complain.
when killers say "nerf gen speeds so we don't need to tunnel". the answer is always "no, gens are boring, we don't want to spend more time doing them"
I think there are two separate issues here. First, that gen speeds have already been nerfed. They used to be faster, and things like BNP and several gen perks used to be significantly stronger than they are now. But tunneling was just as common then as it is now, and I believe the reason why leads to my second point, that everyone’s idea of a “fair” gen time is subjective. There will always be players who feel gens are too fast, even if they took ten minutes minimum each.
Gens and tunneling should not be treated the same because they’re driven by player choice. Killers who tunnel wouldn’t stop doing so if gens took four times longer, just like survivors wouldn’t stop doing gens even if there was one left and the killer had zero hooks.
To OP: As far as Asians servers go, I know it’s very competitive in comparison to many other servers. The survivor rate is much higher there, but the kill rates are still healthy as well. I’m not sure what they could do to change that without completely impacting the balance for several other servers across other countries. But I am sorry for those that don’t want such a highly competitive scene.
-
@Chrarcq said:
The best anti-tunnel feature will always be to get good. If you get tunneled out in less than 3 minutes, blame yourself for not being better. If your teammate does then blame them for not pulling their weight.
This criticism feels kind of incomplete. There’s some truth in it, but very little nuance. “Get good” can be used to justify any imbalance in the game. Just because something is theoretically possible with enough time and skill doesn’t mean it’s reasonable or healthy expectation for the average player, which are the majority.
We don’t hold our standards with edge cases. A 400+ win streak on Clown doesn’t become the baseline just because it exists, we recognize those players as outliers. Expecting that level of performance isn’t realistic, and we accept that for killers. That logic shouldn’t disappear when the role in question is survivor. The way you phrased it gives the impression that surviving a hardcore tunnel isn’t a difficult thing to do, that it doesn’t require at least a thousand hours for an intense knowledge of looping, maps, resources, perks, and individual killer mechanics, that of which there are 40+ of.
-
The pallet density was reverted. Do you personally feel as though there are still too many? It went from a ridiculous amount of pallets, to practically no pallets, and now it’s somewhere in the middle (which feels strikingly similar to how it did before they touched pallets at all). How many pallets would be fair, in your opinion?
-
🍻 cheers!
-
@Wiccamanplays said:
The main problem with this idea is that Decisive Strike does not affect all Killers equally. You DS against a Nurse or a Blight? You gain maybe 5 seconds of time before they down you again. You DS against most M1 Killers? It's basically game over for that chase.
Add in that with the increased pace of the game recently and a Killer can get hit with a DS while having no intention of tunnelling. In the 70 whole seconds that a Survivor can be on hook (even more with Reassurance, which is stupid if you ask me), plus the 60 seconds that DS is active, think about how much can happen. The Killer could come across a fully healed Survivor on the other side of the map after having hooked a different Survivor, chased a third one off, lost as many as 2 generators and if they down the one they find and try to hook them they get punished for "tunnelling".
DS is already an extremely popular perk and has been since it released. If you want more protections from tunnelling for Survivors, you need more communication options available for solo queues and more incentives for Killers not to tunnel early (like perks disabling when a Survivor is sacrificed, more diverse slowdown options or stronger perks for spread hooks).
I made a suggestion a long time ago about how I believe maps should change depending on the type of killer. Smaller maps for m1 killers, no chance of Billy getting put on Lerrys, no chance of Ghostface getting put in Coldwind etc.
I’m curious to your thoughts on anti-tunnel perhaps adjusting based on the killer. Because as you say, and I agree, DS does totally different things depending on who it’s used on. But we can’t do a general broad change of DS or it becomes far too strong against weaker killers, and currently its scaled for weaker killers so if a Nurse or Ghoul gets hit with it, it’s a smack on the wrist. But what if it’s strength/stun/frequency etc. is scaled with the actual killer? I know that means we get into the territory of an actual ranking system of power, so to speak by BHVR, but they already classify them based on ease of use, so it’s not as if putting killers into categories is unheard of.
As it is right now you’re given the same weapon in the arena to fight the Tiger and the Coyote.
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039202#Comment_4039202
People are quick to point out how anti-tunnel could be abused, but far less willing to acknowledge that tunneling itself can also be abused.I don't mind being one of the less willing to instead agree to this. Honestly I feel a lot of people who don't advocate for such would also more silently agree with it as well. Thats why some people want both a carrot and stick simultaneously regarding the tunneling conundrum, its a complex issue both in its action and reaction to the game around it.
That difference in standards is a big part of why progress on anti-tunnel never seems to get anywhere.Exactly. Unfortunately, this also affects most disagreements on ways to address or improve aspects of the game. Too much us vs them, too little attempts to find common ground and make Plato proud.
For many players that advocate for tunneling , it isn’t seen as a problem at all, or abusive in anyway, regardless if it happens at five gens. When the strategy itself isn’t viewed as abusable, any solution is rejected regardless if it’s good or not.True, but I feel that is a focus on a vocal minority which then conflates arguments. Even with how I feel about it being unhealthy for the game, I also feel like its a symptom of bigger issues in the overall game itself. It is essentially a tool that is only as maligned as the person utilizing it, much like any meta strategy in the game's history. Thats not at all to say it doesn't need change, just that people tend to be laser focused in their approach to it regardless of the game around it. Basically, in an ideal game it wouldn't even be considered meta, but so many alternatives have been kneecapped while survivors similarly lost unreasonably strong answers to it, leaving both sides kinda unhappy with its current state.
Its part of why I commonly refer to it as a lowest common denominator strategy, commonly complained about effective strategies like camping and tunneling are the first things even new players think of, while not requiring much skill to perform well with in most cases. Thats also why I try to encourage people to fight through it, as poor players tunneling can and will crumble as their skill requirement rises. Its just a situation that most people refuse to see how much agency they still have, and instead focus on the worst possible outcome as infallable. In fighting games that is known as a scrub mentality, and I don't like pointing it out as it gets conflated with whatever flavor of skill issue/git gud/etc people want to reduce it to.
So I agree that clearer definitions matter, but I feel that standard has to apply both ways, which I think is also what you’re saying too. If we’re going to be precise about when anti-tunnel is exploitative/abusable, we also need to be precise about when tunneling is exploitative/abusable.Exactly. Finding a baseline that all reasonable parties agree upon is foundational to being able to address complex issues with opposing considerations. No matter what role or player experience level, if you can't agree on things as simple as classifications it just leads to talking past one another.
Maybe the 2nd DS is only active at certain points in the game, reflected upon gen states? If it’s early game then both DS can be active, late-end game it doesn’t activate at all. (DS is already disabled like this anyway). It ties the protection to clear game states, which could address abuse concerns without leaving tunneling completely unrestricted?In terms of hypotheticals, I like trying to focus perks made for specific utilities to center around them as closely as possible. Those are good considerations, since the idea is to focus on its application to preventing early game tunneling specifically, as that is generally considered the most reasonably understood application of using tunneling in an oppressive manner, while reducing its impact as a catch up mechanic later in a match. My only concern would be the whole aggressive use argument, which causes people to completely shut out reason when discussing unintentional applications of the perk.
Even smaller considerations like giving the perk some type of premature expiration: Maybe something like another person getting hooked while its active cuts the perk short, with a short speed burst for a second or two to reposition further away from the hook: as the killer needs to be doing the hook animation at this time, and the previously unhooked survivor has a global indication of their exact position, this would further fulfil its anti-tunnel properties while addressing things like objective denial not counting as conspicuous actions. Basically things that wouldn't affect normal play, but specifically target purpose exploitation of concepts like mental stack. Even something as simple as not have to keep multiple DS timers in the back of their mind on top of everything else could do a lot to help alleviate pushback on the killer side, especially since adding to the potential amount of DSes per match would only inflate those types of considerations.
Necessity is the mother of invention, which is why I'm always dumfounded how blanket and basic a lot of official solutions that get tested end up being. By having conditions for things like activation, disabling, prevention, and even allowing and preventing stacking, the foundation for across the isle considerations are there, even in regards to things specifically designed to aid one side vs the other. The issue always stems from the improvements to one disregarding the grievances of the other, a "wait your turn" approach to issues that leaves players feeling ignored at best, exacerbating existing issues at worst. And like we agree, a lot of it stems from finding that common ground to start with.
Sorry for the late reply, the holiday season’s been a bit hectic on my end haha. And genuinely, thank you for such a thoughtful response. I think we’re largely in agreement, Specifically on the need for clearer definitions so that solutions can even exist.
I do understand the opinion that tunneling is a symptom of other options being taken away , but I also feel it’s been popular since the game’s early years largely because it’s easier. Tunneling has always been simpler than playing for hooks, and that ease is a big reason it’s remained so prevalent, in my opinion. It’s always been the best solution for nearly every problem, and for the longest time. It’s also been a consistent source of friction for the survivor role for just as long, it’s not a new criticism, just a very persistent one. At this point, I can’t really imagine DBD without tunneling, and to be clear, I don’t think all tunneling should be removed. Late game tunneling, especially when the match has clearly shifted states, feels fair and sometimes is necessary.
Your point about having all those DS’s to keep in mind on killer side is also completely valid, and honestly under discussed. I appreciate you bringing that up because I now see that my earlier suggestion would likely create more mental overhead than it’s worth, so I’m comfortable walking back on that.
I think I ultimately fall back on my personal opinion that while anti-tunnel perks are important, they shouldn’t be the only line of defense. Just like looping has built-in guardrails alongside anti-loopperks and anti-killer powers, I think tunneling should have some form of base kit limitation or structure as well to prevent the most abusable situations. The goal, at least for me, is consistency in how core strategies/mechanics are regulated across the game. But that’s less about the specific topic of DS and more about tunneling in general so I’ll try not to jump down that rabbit hole.
Either way, I really appreciate the discussion. It’s been a while, and it’s always refreshing to talk through these topics with someone willing to engage thoughtfully and dig into the nuances. I doubt they’re really gonna change anything about DS but it’s been nice to see people’s ideas and help challenge some of my perspective to help me rethink it
-
@Ryuhi said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4039044#Comment_4039044
If it had a second use specifically when tunneled, that wouldn't be as bad as just making it have 2 uses. That said, we don't even know the third definition of tunneling apparently, unless its been clarified since. Its another case where being able to have proper (objective) detection for such a thing would open up more possibilities without opening up more exploitation in design.
I agree that BHVR could be clearer about what they consider tunneling beyond the brief examples they showed in that livestream.
I’m not opposed to adding conditions instead of giving DS a flat second use, but I am a bit hesitant. Anti-tunnel perks are already expected to meet strict conditions to avoid abuse, while tunneling itself has almost no built-in conditions. People are quick to point out how anti-tunnel could be abused, but far less willing to acknowledge that tunneling itself can also be abused. That difference in standards is a big part of why progress on anti-tunnel never seems to get anywhere.
For many players that advocate for tunneling , it isn’t seen as a problem at all, or abusive in anyway, regardless if it happens at five gens. When the strategy itself isn’t viewed as abusable, any solution is rejected regardless if it’s good or not.
So I agree that clearer definitions matter, but I feel that standard has to apply both ways, which I think is also what you’re saying too. If we’re going to be precise about when anti-tunnel is exploitative/abusable, we also need to be precise about when tunneling is exploitative/abusable.
Maybe the 2nd DS is only active at certain points in the game, reflected upon gen states? If it’s early game then both DS can be active, late-end game it doesn’t activate at all. (DS is already disabled like this anyway). It ties the protection to clear game states, which could address abuse concerns without leaving tunneling completely unrestricted?
-
Unfortunately there’s not much incentive to ever pick solo over SWF or killer, which is a shame. Would love some updated stats on party sizes. The last time they gave it to us was several years ago, though it did show that SWF was only like 4% of all games. Would be interested to know if that number has increased.
-
Sorry bud :(
-
It would be nice if it could be used more than once. DS is already much weaker than it was before, so killers aren’t really afraid of it and usually tunnel through it. But with how the community reacts to anything anti-tunnel, I wouldn’t hold your breath lol.
-
@Classic_Rando said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4038130#Comment_4038130
Unsurprisingly, not a single downvoter bothered to offer any response to why you or I are wrong about survivor role not being that bad. It’s much easier to anonymously lob bombs than to actually engage in productive discussion.
I’d be happy to explain why I disagree with your post, and can try to further explain why others may have disagreed without commenting.
The overall tone of your post comes across that disagreements on the state of survivor are unnecessary because you, personally, are doing fine. I’ll try to explain.
You’re using your personal games as a way to imply that the balance is fine, which shuts down discussion. It’s fine to have opinions because of the experiences you have but others have opinions because of their experiences too, and it’s not right to put yours above theirs or theirs above yours. It’s about how common the same kind of experiences are that paints a broader picture. A mentality of ‘it’s fine for me so it’s fine for you’ is dismissive, and it isn’t an accurate representation of the overall state of anything. There are many things in life that individuals dont experience but it doesn’t mean that other individuals dont have those experiences, and it doesn’t mean it’s not a problem that they do.
On one hand you say there’s no data proving survivors are leaving but then use your own queue times as evidence that killers are in shorter supply.
And stating that you’re fine if survivor players leave feels antagonistic and dismissive, especially in a discussion about balance. Saying you don’t really care if survivors leave comes across that your perspective isn’t in good faith, the overall tone of your post sounds like disagreements on the state of survivor are unnecessary because, the survivor role is fine because you’re fine, and that they aren’t really leaving the game because in your games your queues don’t reflect that, and that even if survivors are leaving it wouldn’t bother you.
Hope I explained why I disagree with your points and hopefully shed some light on why some people may have felt like there wasn’t really any space to engage in a productive discussion.
-
If the stun was longer I’m sure it would be more popular, and it was more popular when it was actually something to be scared of. It’s very easy to tunnel through current DS now, speaking from experience. But it’s better than nothing so, it’s good it will be free to use.
-
Thank you for this. Unfortunately I saw 2 of them against my will, I appreciate the warnings so I don’t stumble on the other two.
Photos should really be approved before posting.
-
I agree the survivor role does need some help. The devs have even said this themselves on a livestream, that survivors needed something to freshen up the role, and thats why the fog vials were born …and well… yeah they lasted like 9 days. Same story with the anti-tunnel stuff too.
I agree that survivors need some QOL improvements. But there’s a clear disconnect between the community about it. I’m sure better matchmaking would be generally considered a welcomed improvement but that’s not really specific to the survivor role, more of a general QOL update to the game as a whole. So when it comes to the survivor role specifically getting some kind of QOL..some think survivor is perfectly fine, some agree that something is needed..but the new item wasn’t okay, the base-kit protections weren’t okay, so I’m curious to know what would be okay. Just have to wait and see.
-
Cool idea! I think it would be a great perk. Pallets are already one of those things that have counter play, so the perk being dependent on pulling off a pallet stun I think is a fair trade off.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4037818#Comment_4037818
I think the frame of mind and language you’re using matters a lot here. Seeing any form of anti-tunnel as a “punishment for playing optimally” is probably why the concept feels so hard to accept.I wonder how differently everything would have gone if instead of calling it anti-tunnel they had done something like:
Survivor Buff: Upon a survivors death, they gain a 25% gen speed bonus.
Killer Buff: Getting to 6 hook states before a death will negate the survivor bonus.
That's a simplified example but as you point out I think people really latched onto something that is a pretty normal thing (weirdly I think if they just made the 25% gen speed bonus happen regardless of hook states and then focused on unique hook benefits, it would have gone over better).
That’s a really good point. I’ve never thought of that before. It’s easy to tell in causal forum discussions how language can really set the tone and expectations of both the reader and the person who makes the post. But as you suggest those effects likely still carry when they come from BHVR themselves. Both in the way something is phrased and a “title” in general.
I suppose I can even see how putting anti- in front of something already sets the tone to be somewhat negative, even though it’s an accurate description and isn’t always negative (like anti-bullying is a good thing.) But yeah, that’s a good point you make. The good old ‘ it’s not just what you say but how you say it’
-
I think the frame of mind and language you’re using matters a lot here. Seeing any form of anti-tunnel as a “punishment for playing optimally” is probably why the concept feels so hard to accept. But if we look at the game as a whole, we can see that this exact idea already exists everywhere else, and for good reason. Tunneling is held to different standards
For the sake of your argument, I’ll use that same framing “punishment for playing optimally” to explain my point.
Looping is a perfect example. It doesn’t need a perk to exist, just like tunneling doesn’t. Yet looping has built-in restrictions or “punishments for playing optimally” already. things like windows blocking after repeated use, bloodlust, and pallets that can be broken, permanently weakening a loop. If I’m vaulting a window really well and the only reason the killer hits me is because it is blocked, then in your logic that’s a punishment for playing optimally, for being too good. If I’m running a killer really well but he gets major bloodlust and gets a hit, then that’s a punishment for playing optimally, for being too good. But we need those kind of “punishments for playing optimally” in order for a much more balanced game. Looping well is playing optimally but it is still “punished” without any kind of perk required for a killer.
Though we do have them of course. We have anti-loop killers and perks, just like we have anti-tunnel perks. But the existence of counter perks/killers never replaced the “punishments” on looping. Looping isn’t left without “punishments” just because anti-loop options exist.
Tunneling, on the other hand, is.
Tunneling is a strong optimal way to play, but it’s treated differently from other strong, optimal ways to play in the game.
Imagine if looping had no built-in counters or “punishments for optimal play” at all, and windows never blocked, pallets couldn’t be broken, bloodlust didn’t exist, and killers were expected to be fine with it because anti-loop perks and anti-loop killers exist. I think people would be quick to call out the imbalance, and people would push back immediately.
The logic seems to be that anti-loop/killer options don’t replace the need for built-in limits/punishments for playing optimally when looping, but anti-tunnel options do replace the need for built-in limits/punishment for playing optimally when tunneling. That inconsistency is the issue. And it’s why I advocate for tunneling to be balanced the same way other mechanics/strats in this game already (and rightfully) are.
Balance does not mean punishment. And if you really want to look at it through that lens, then one role is already punished for the sake of balance for playing optimally.
-
@Leon_van_Straken said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4037765#Comment_4037765
Thats my point. I want a discussion with points from both sides.
I know that tunneling is a big problem and I think it should be nerfed or hard tunneling should be made completly unreliable.
But as I said one side said "Getting 6 hooks mean 2 survivors on death hook and one at one hook" Killing now with the sixth hook while 3 survivors got chased in this game isn´t really tunneling. So go down to death on 4 hooks. which means only 1 survivor got tunneld out with the "typical unhook trade which can happen"
As to nurse. Yeah nerf her. There is no reason why she should be that powerful. And as I said no the conter argument shouldn´t be "I like her that strong"
When it comes to the specific numbers or mechanics of anti-tunnel ideas, I agree they weren’t perfect. But the issue wasn’t just that the numbers or hook amounts needed adjustment. The issue was a large part of the backlash wasn’t about improving the concept, it was about rejecting the concept entirely.
There wasn’t much “let’s test this and see how it plays out” Instead, a lot of the reaction was immediate and extreme, that the changes were bad, game breaking, the end of DBD and that its a result of entitlement and not because it’s an actual issue.
I also don’t agree with the idea that “one side” had arguments and the other didn’t. You could just as easily say that when any form of anti tunnel was announced, a large portion of the community rejected it outright before even seeing how it would work. There wasn’t much patience or willingness to iterate on the idea, just an insistence that any changes to anti-tunnel are an attack on killer or that it’s punishing the killer role. If you’re looking for in depth ideas on anti-tunneling, I’m sure there are several people even on these forums, myself included, that would be more than open to having a discussion and exchange of ideas.
-
@Leon_van_Straken said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4037718#Comment_4037718
Ofcourse there are extremes which are biting and kicking before seeing anything.
And I don´t want this to be an us vs them.
You are right there are always examples in any kind of game which has pvp in it.
But I am tiered that one side brings arguments and the other doesnt
I really don’t think that’s true. People have had arguments for and against tunneling for years. I think a major factor is that many people don’t even consider certain things to be problems. If someone doesn’t consider something a problem, then it doesn’t matter what solution you have because regardless if it’s a good one or not, they don’t think it’s a problem to begin with. I think anti-tunnel is probably one of the biggest examples of this, where there are many people that don’t believe tunneling is a problem at all therefore any proposed change or solution is seen as unnecessary, and that believing it’s a problem is entitlement or stupidity and nothing more.
(This, and probably also how buggy Nurse is and has been for such a long long time, and how some people don’t want her to receive bug fixes at all due to how powerful she is.)