jesterkind
jesterkind
About
- Username
- jesterkind
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,633
- Last Active
Comments
-
@woundcowboy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650934#Comment_3650934
Between solo and 4 stack? My reading of this is that solo q is in line with what the devs want, while 4 stacks break the balance.
Yes, solo's overall escape rate is 40.34%, and the overall escape rate of survivors in a 4-man stack is 43.09%. Give or take less than a percentage point, that's a 3% gap.
I'd say that's pretty well within margin of error, in terms of raw escape rate a survivor isn't that much better off for being in a SWF. That doesn't mean the experience of a solo queue player can't be improved, of course, but that's besides the point.
-
@woundcowboy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650098#Comment_3650098
A nearly 10% gap between 4 stack and the rest is a big problem.
It's a 3% gap.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
Clearly, this means we don’t need anymore solo q buffs, because BHVR already did a good job at bridging the gap between solo q and SWF.
Clearly, this means that is someone says “solo q is miserable”, that we can remind them solo q and SWFs have extremely similar escape rates, so solo q really isn’t bad at all.
More realistically, we can focus on the fact that it's quality of solo queue gameplay that sucks, not strength.
-
First two suggestions are great, I've seen the first one around and I really like it.
Third one... I think this sort of fundamentally misunderstands her leave-the-loop potential, because this is a pretty huge sledgehammer levelled at the least offensive of the killers that can do this. There's already a second or so delay before the drone's even up and active, let alone the delay before you actually get the bonuses from scanning survivors.
If there's any tell that SM has just called a drone with this change enabled, wouldn't the outcome be the same? The survivor - if they're smart - stays in the loop for long enough to reposition, and then leaves before the drone becomes an active threat? It's still the same situation overall, the survivor spends a brief window getting away and the loop's still shut down. It's just more annoying on the killer side, rather than actually all that beneficial on the survivor's side.
Wouldn't we get the same benefit and less annoyance from the killer if the drone just took an additional second or so to activate after being set? That's even assuming such a change would be helpful, too, I think SM's leave-a-loop potential is slightly overblown- insofar as it's not that you immediately need to leave the tile, you have time to do it smartly.
-
@I_CAME said:
They had the right idea the first item they reworked her. Then the three people who play skull merchant whined that she wouldn't be strong enough. This is why sometimes you should stick to your guns and not listen to the community. If she was still too weak then you could have incrementally buffed her. It would be far better than this monstrosity we have now. The reason her kill rate is so high is because no one has any idea how to play against her. She has easily the most confusing kit in the entire game.
She gets haste but only sometimes
She gets stealth but only sometimes
She has tracking but only sometimes
She will damage you randomly but only sometimes
She hinders you but only sometimes
There's just way too much going on for a typical survivor to keep up with. You load into an average match and it's likely that at least one person will have no idea what's going on or how any of this works. Compare her power to something like Demogorgon. He lunges and can teleport with his portals. Very clear and easy to understand regardless of your experience level. I do not buy the theory that her kill rate is so high solely because of people giving up against her.
To be fair, literally only one of those is hard for survivors to track, and it's the stealth so it's supposed to be. The rest are pretty intuitive once you've played against her more than once.
-
The problem is twofold.
One, it'd be bad if tunnelling were too strong except for if you run very specific perks. That'd be a repeat of what we had prior to 6.1.0, where survivors either sacrificed half their perk slots just to counter basekit tactics on the killer side, or suffer having no counter to those basekit tactics. That, on its face, is an imbalance.
Two, the anti-tunnel perks we have are unfortunately not that good, and have anti-synergy with each other. OTR is actually quite good at delaying the down... if the killer doesn't immediately hit you, at which point OTR is doing basically nothing. DS is too weak to be used at all outside of resetting Endurance and Exhaustion, and every other anti-tunnel perk is altruistic, so you have to rely on your teammates bringing them.
(They're also not that great, either, but they are better. Borrowed Time increases your speed boost duration even if you're hit straight away, as does Babysitter alongside making you a little stealthier.)
I'm also not sure why Dead Hard is in your title, if we're stooping to using general Exhaustion perks as anti-tunnel I think you'd get more out of either Sprint Burst or Lithe. Dead Hard works, though, it's not a bad pick especially if DS resets your health state for Endurance.
The bottom line is, anti-tunnel is both not in a very good spot and shouldn't be something you have to rely on perks for anyway. There are ways to fix this without being too punishing to killers, though, it's not all doom and gloom.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650500#Comment_3650500
It doesn't even have to be lockers. We could borrow off of Xeno for this one. Xenos tunnels act 2 fold as both the entrance/exit of tunnels, and also where survivors get flame throwers. What if SM had similar structures? Reloads drones at computers spread around the map, and survivors could interact with the computer to get rid of stacks. This would avoid the annoying locker spawn problem Huntress has.
Definitely workable. Fits her theme, allows it to be consistent for both killer and survivor, adds something interesting and unique to the game.
Could have the same interaction as hacking a drone, on the survivor side? I like that little minigame, I'd like to see it used here too.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650467#Comment_3650467
I feel like there's room for compromise with this killer, although I'm sure ppl will still instantly give up. Currently there's no way to remove stacks for example. If they introduced a way to remove stacks while out of chase similar to Wesker's vacines... it would provide both consistency in chases for the survivors and a reason to get off gens.
Also... just spit balling here but... What if they change how she gets her drones? Currently she has 6 drones which has a 10 second cooldown once placed resulting in 8 seconds of undetectable. Survivors MOSTLY don't bother disarming them since they repair themselves anyway, and the SM can just call it back to quickly replace it.
What if... recalled drones don't go to SM but instead have to be reloaded similar to Huntress hatchets? Would take care of the complaint of "she just tosses down a drone at EVERY loop" since you don't seemingly have infinite drones to work with. Could do something like remove her cooldown to compensate. This would give more incentive to disarm the drones.
I definitely like the stack-removing suggestion, that's a pretty genius idea so credit to whoever was patient zero for it catching on. Hacking drones removing stacks increases power interaction and decreases how much a killer player can autopilot into winning a war of attrition, it's a win/win for the game's health overall.
Messing with how she gets drones wouldn't be the worst idea, honestly. I don't love how quickly a lot of people jump to locker-reloads, but something along those lines could be workable for sure. Even just forcing her to go to a certain radius of the drone to recall it could increase the worth of hacking drones.
-
@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650478#Comment_3650478
I don't believe the opposition is that unified to where we would see a repeat of SM situation.
There are three benchmarks that would warrant a complete rework.
-High killrate
-Community feedback
-Already received changes from devs several times
If this cannot be applied to another killer than I don't think it warrants a rework, just changes like you suggested. Which is why no other killer is in the same position she is.
She would be a first if they reworked her entirely. But hopefully she would be the last and they would learn their lesson. If not then yes they'd have to rework that next killer too.
But hopefully it stays exceptional.
It doesn't require unified opposition. It only takes one person in a match to give up for that whole match to be a wash in the stats, considering how unlikely it is for more than one survivor to leave that trial afterwards.
If it becomes popular to give up against a killer, even if not that many people do it, the killrate will rise by the amount we're seeing with Skull Merchant. It's only a 10% increase from the "balanced" spot, and that comes purely from the fact that people will immediately give up. Even players who don't hate her that much will probably cascade into giving up after one person does, because that match isn't realistically winnable anymore.
She shouldn't even be the first. No killer should just outright be removed from the game, certainly not a killer that doesn't even have a justifiable reason to be hated anymore. Like I said, starve the fire of oxygen, wait. If this is still true a year down the line, maybe, but right now the expectation should be for these players to grow up.
-
@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650464#Comment_3650464
Sorry for quick replies. Really bored at work.
But I would say the line is drawn in the stats. People Also really hate Wesker and Nurse but neither have egregious kill rates to my knowledge and neither have gotten significant nerfs or reworks.
For SM to get several reworks, be very vocally disliked even by people who don't frequent fansites, and have a very high killrate makes her exceptional and needing of changes imo.
Sure, but why wouldn't the next target get a high killrate if it becomes the norm to give up against them the way it is against Skull Merchant?
She doesn't have a high killrate because she's actually that good. People just refuse to play against her.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650464#Comment_3650464
We would care to disagree about the birds
How so? I'll admit I don't play Artist, but it seems like static birds would still have mid-loop utility if they didn't swarm people.
The way I see it, if this change were made, placing a bird at a loop would become a positioning game more than forcing survivors to leave: You want them to approach the bird from the front, so you can launch it and injure them, and they want to approach the bird from behind, so they can run into it and dissipate it.
Artist wouldn't be mechanically restricted and she'd be given an opportunity to try something new with her power, but that new thing has more interactive gameplay than the current one so it shouldn't be as obnoxious to face.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650434#Comment_3650434
Overall, I agree with you... except for the bloodlust part. It's fairly easy to cover a decent chunk of the map in drones and then just mostly ignore them. Unlike Clown that is constantly resetting BL to apply hindred/haste, SM only has to make adjustments here and there. This means that while Clown isn't going to be able to have haste/hindred trigger at the same time as BL, it can happen pretty easily with SM.
Coming from someone who actually PLAYS this killer, tweeking BL on her wouldn't be the worst idea in the world. BL is meant to break godloops in situations where they would otherwise be uncounterable, not become a tool to cheese loops where you are insistant on not breaking a pallet. In that regard, if they made BL reset if the drone scans a survivor... I feel like that would be healthy. Potential godloops would still be countered by the power which removes the need for BL to do that.
This is a fair point, and I wouldn't mind that change either. I was more trying to highlight that the spammy, force-them-to-leave-loop playstyle is incompatible with Bloodlust, but you do raise a good point about other issues.
-
@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650451#Comment_3650451
Well I feel like you're approaching it from the perspective of objectivity being greater than community perception. But you have to realize that her reputation is so bad due to her terrible release state, nothing short of changing her drones entirely or removing them will change it.
Nobody is willing to give her drones another chance, even if in actuality it's not so bad, every difficulty or negative associated with the killer will be amplified due to the bias against her.
That's why she needs to be reworked. There will always be a killer that is overhated. But one with stats such as SM warrants placating the masses. Even if people more educated on balance don't agree. I personally don't find her to be too horrible. But I dislike anti-loop zoning killers and I hate her visual design so I wouldn't be against a bigger rework.
Artist and Clown just need to lose their ability to spam in favor of getting stronger hits when they do land. Something like Clown getting basekit sloppy when he lands the M1 in a slow bottle at the cost of having less bottles to throw over and over would be a start.
I'm far from a game dev, but I dislike the spammy nature of most zoning killers in this game.
My problem with that is, where's the line?
A lot of killers have general negative receptions depending on where you look. If we demonstrate that killers can just be removed from the game if people are whiny enough, won't that same thing be repeated for the next ones on the list that ""people"" (read: a vocal percentage it's hard to quantify) don't like?
Even if BHVR don't listen to them, it'll irrevocably harm the state of discourse and conversation in the community.
What I think is more reasonable is to make small changes that actually matter for how her kit works, and just wait. Starve the outrage fire of oxygen and it should eventually die down, even if the whiny babies make things annoying in the meantime.
(Also, Artist just needs to have static birds not swarm people and her problematic nature disappears.)
-
@WolfyWood said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650441#Comment_3650441
Artist and Clown are also poorly designed. And ideally all three should be changed.
It is true that SM is singled out due to bias. But it's better to prioritize fixing the crappy thing people are complaining about than the crappy things that people aren't complaining about.
Artist is one of the best designed killers in the game, except for her ability to force survivors away from loops repeatedly. It's not even that hard to fix for her, I just don't know how you'd buff her to counteract the nerf since I don't play her as much. Clown's... fine, but the visual sway from his power is kinda problematic. In terms of what his power does in raw effect, it's simple but reasonably effective and has clear counterplay, so there's nothing wrong with it.
Skull Merchant is singled out due to bias AND the only thing you could reasonably call a problem (which isn't always what gets complained about) isn't that big of a deal. Both sides of that are important.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650434#Comment_3650434
Clown is not forcing you leave to loop, he forces you to drop the pallet. And Clown still need to break pallet, SM does not. If you stay at loop, you will lose health state.
Simply Clown can't zone you, he can force you to drop pallet.
And Artist is also similar, she can zone you but she can't make survivor hindered or Artist won't get haste while forcing survivor leave the loop.
SM has both strategies in one kit.
I'm not sure I agree with this, the two killers have the same outcome if you stay in the loop: you get slowed down, and they get sped up.
This is especially true if you're already injured, because at that point the drone only gives Merchant a small Haste boost, and you a moderate Hindered penalty (eventually). It's still probably a good idea to leave the loop, but if you can loop Clown (which you can), you can loop Merchant long enough to drop the pallet/hit the window and leave even once you're claw trapped.
Clown and Artist also do what they do immediately. Clown slows you straight away, and you know that, so you act accordingly. Artist forces you to leave the loop immediately because otherwise you'll get swarmed and risk an injury. Knight, too, forces you to leave immediately because being put into the... Hunt? is that what his mechanic is called? Whatever, being chased by guards is almost immediate and has a much more potent risk than Artist, those things can even down you. The threat is there straight away for all these killers.
Merchant, on the other hand, has to wait. Wait for the drone to fly up into position, wait for it to activate into recon mode, wait for the survivor to trip it and activate it, wait for the looping beams to actually scan them... and that's just to get the Haste, she has to wait even longer for the injury, then wait again for any Hindered. While it's still a good idea to leave the loop, you don't have to straight away, you have time to position yourself right and maybe use the pallet.
I do sympathise with the whole "drop thing at loop, force survivor to run away" thing being boring, and SM can do it, but she's also the least objectionable version of it because of how delayed the threat actually is. It's also her only flaw right now and removing the Haste from her kit won't really fix it, that'll just screw over any Merchant trying to play her more skilfully.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650423#Comment_3650423
For me, few changes will make her fine.
First, she should not get haste. That's so stupid, especially while she can also build bloodlust.
Second, there should be way to remove stacks if SM is not chasing you. There was idea to hacking drones will remove one stack, that's not bad idea actually.
I think i will be fine with her after few changes like that. Even she is another leave the loop killer.
Why shouldn't she get Haste? At that point, she only gets any chase power if survivors are gracious enough to let themselves get scanned 4+ times, that makes her substantially weaker for no reason at all. If we were to get rid of any element of her chase power - which people wanted her to have! - wouldn't it make more sense to replace the Hindered with something else? And if we're at that level, shouldn't we ask... why is it a problem for Skull Merchant to get Haste + Hindered, but not Clown, who gets a higher number for both on top of them being much, much easier + more consistent to apply?
Worth mentioning that if she's placing down drones she's resetting Bloodlust progress, also. She only gets Bloodlust if she already has the drones up in smart locations and chases survivors towards them, but at that point... isn't that just a killer playing well and being rewarded for their skill? Also, at that point, isn't that much more counterable, since the drones have to be left alone for a bit?
I do agree with hacking drones removing Lock On stacks, that's a good idea. That's one of the changes I think would be good to implement.
-
Hopefully not much.
Considering the only problem with her now is something she shares in common with killers that aren't nearly as hated, I think it's pretty unlikely that any amount of changes would make the players who suicide against her happy. Consider the following question, and anyone who gives up against SM is encouraged to try and answer it honestly:
What version of Skull Merchant that they still don't like would be enough for them to be okay with it? What would a rework look like for the response to be "Okay, I don't like her, but she's acceptable now"?
She's received two ground-up reworks and a few more additional suites of changes. She has almost nothing in common with her original iteration or her most problematic iteration anymore. When is it enough? What is required for people to begrudgingly accept the existence of a killer they just don't like, learn the counterplay, and just play out matches like normal?
Some changes could and should be made, of course, I'm not arguing she's perfect. I'm just pointing out that the crux of the issue seems to be an irrational exaggeration of even the flaws that actually exist, intensified by leftover hate from when she was actually a problem.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650034#Comment_3650034
And even that's the reason of her kill-rate, it just proves she needs another update. Because looks like BHVR did not address her problems.
People are not giving up against even strongest killer Nurse that much.
The problem with that is that we are at a point where she has zero of her original problems, and the most problematic thing she can currently do is exactly the same as a handful of other killers people don't complain about nearly as much - specifically Artist and Knight, who get complaints but aren't in a "70% killrate because people refuse to play against them" position.
What version of Skull Merchant would these players accept that they still don't like? How many changes until the players who do this go "okay, I don't like playing against her but she's acceptable now"?
Because that's the core problem, they just don't like her. Before, they didn't like her AND she had a huge problem that was extremely detrimental to the game. They still hold that level of dislike for her, but it's overblown and irrational irrational now.
I'm not even saying changes shouldn't be made, I've seen a few good suggestions for tweaks to her power, but the reality of the situation is that the hate for her is massively overblown compared to similar killers. I don't know how to fix that, but I do know that just deleting her and starting from scratch sets an extremely bad precedent- especially since she's already gotten a ground-up rework that fundamentally changed how her drones work.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650021#Comment_3650021
I think a lot of Killers do give up and write matches off at the slightest hint of them having to really struggle.
Seems pretty obvious that Solo Q is just getting rolled and Duo and Trio isn't much better; so it wouldn't be unreasonable for a Killer to assume (and we know they do) that anything that causes them difficulty is due to 4-man SWF
Sure, but that doesn't really translate to talking about Skull Merchant. Killers writing matches off as soon as they become difficult will 100% apply to solo/duo/trio matches too, and there's no ambiguity as to what killer you're facing.
It's just a false equivalence.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3650014#Comment_3650014
Apply that same logic to the 4-man SWF then.
Maybe Killers just give up and don't know how to play against them.
...Not that I think a 4-man SWF is a huge balance problem or anything, but it's observable that people do give up and go next against Skull Merchant, and anecdotally, people on the forums here also seem to have some misconceptions about how her power works.
The same isn't observably true about killers giving up against a 4-man. Not knowing how to play against them, sure, that's probably reasonable, that part I don't disagree with.
-
@Frizouw said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3649961#Comment_3649961
ok what if we had the moment he touch a hex totem?
The current list of Conspicuous Actions does fine, I think! Just make it disable on any of those, I don't think any of them would be unfair here. That list, plus being fully healed or another survivor being hooked, would work.
-
@Seraphor said:
In the past they've used 'High MMR' to reference the top 5% of players.
I kinda remembered that, but I'd have had to go check to confirm the number even for back then, let alone know for sure it's being used here too.
Not a huge deal, just a reminder in the post itself would be nice.
-
I swap between a few.
Overzealous, Circle of Healing, Deja Vu, then a fourth perk that is either Detective's Hunch for tracking totems or, if I bring a Map, something like Kindred or Alert, is my go-to if I want gen speed.
Empathy, Botany Knowledge or Autodidact, Deja Vu, general fourth perk slot, is a good altruism build.
Yesterday I was trying to come up with a sort of general-purpose solo queue build, and decided on: Empathy, Botany Knowledge, Lithe, and Breakdown. That fourth slot would cycle out to anti-tunnel or anti-camp if I face a lot of that in a row, and I'd bring a medkit with green charges + an instaheal syringe to get two heals even with Botany. If I don't have an instaheal syringe, just charges and a lil extra speed.
That build kinda has a little bit of everything you'd strictly need. Teammate info, altruism, chase, a way to self-heal if you need it, and then whatever extra utility you'd want. Worked out okay yesterday, at least!
-
@Frizouw said:
What do you guys think about that solution against tunneling: the moment a survivor is unhook, he is immune to be down until:
- He touch a gen.
- Start healing itself (not being heal by another survivor, I think it's already punishing to have two persons on healing and they could troll each others).
- Is fully healed
- Another survivor got hook?
During the whole immunity, the survivor cannot have collision against the killer, cannot drop palettes and cannot use flashlights...
I think it'd have to be the full list of Conspicuous Actions, it wouldn't be fair for a survivor to - for example - be able to cleanse a hex totem without the killer being able to stop them. It'd also need to disable in endgame like other anti-tunnel protections.
Other than that, it's an extreme measure but I don't think it'd harm the game in any meaningful way. The only real potential abuse is a SWF using them as an info-reporter, but there's not actually anything stopping them from doing that right now and that's one survivor off gens basically permanently. A good trade, in my opinion.
-
@I_Tunnel said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3649672#Comment_3649672
The devs of this game have spent years making this game as killer-centric as possible. To the point I am starting to think it is a social experiment to see how much a survivor will take before they leave.
Hmm..
- Basekit BT if a Killer 'tunnels'. Which Survivors abuse to bodyblock, then complain when they get downed. (Free perk #1)
- Basekit Deliverance if a Killer 'camps'. (Free perk #2)
- Every Killer that does decently well being nerfed into oblivion, without fail.
- When the devs changed how Wriggling works; They threw in a bonus for Survivors to make Wriggling more effective. Yes; A QoL update came with a Survivor buff added in, because Survivors must be catered too in every update.
- Limiting '3 gen' ability by utterly gutting kicking. You know; 3 Genning; That thing Survivors inflict on themselves with poor planning, but the devs have punished Killers for!
But oh no! The devs removed single-frame gen-tapping! THE GAME IS SOOOO KILLER-SIDED!
These are a little skewed.
1: The basekit BT is for if a killer tunnels. The thing everyone leaves out of the bodyblocking examples is that it doesn't last long enough for you to not be able to just down that survivor. Who cares if they complain? They're in the wrong.
2: Why did you put the word "camp" in quotes? That system is very strict, it does only kick in if you're camping.
3: Which killers are you referring to? Genuine question, I can't think of any killer even semi-recently that's been "nerfed into oblivion", regardless of how well they performed beforehand. The top three killers haven't changed in years, so I don't know what this could be referring to.
4: To be fair, that was a test, and it was eventually changed. I believe the great skillcheck sway that replaced it is slightly more than before, but that's a pretty mild 'buff', so it's whatever.
5: They limited 3-gen capability and, separately, buffed kicks. Also, the 3-genning that this was targeted at was very much not the survivor's fault.
Not to say I agree with the person you're quoting, mind you, but this list doesn't really hold water independent of that. It also doesn't acknowledge any of the things that have improved for killer over the past year and a half or so.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
there is difference between reckless tunneling and smart-tunneling. Reckless tunneling makes both sides lose the game in many cases as the player is recklessly pursue a narrow objective without consider alternative options.
tunneling gens in my opinion is when survivor stays on the generator and purposely gives killers free downs in pursue to finish the generator in killer face. this is often used by survivor that are not on death hook in order to rush the objective.
killer criticize the gameplay because they're often criticized for "tunneling" survivors and playing efficiency when survivor is throwing themselves to rush the objective to give meaningless hooks. this has further stereotype of all 4 survivors using Adrenaline.
There is nothing worse m1 killer where 3 survivor are on a gen, you walk to the gen in attempt to use pop goes weasel, all 3 survivor sit on gen in your face. you grab one, you hit another, they stay on gen, you hit another in dying state, they finish gen in your face, adrenaline pops, all survivor are healed, you hook a survivor, they heal up teammate, rush hook, bodyblock you, unhook, run to exit gate T-bagging.
that is why i think the tunnelling gens and tunnel survivors comes from. it is suppose represent brute force killer objectives vs brute force survivor gameplay.
Regarding what you think tunnelling gens is - sure, but that's not what killer tunnelling looks like. Tunnelling for the killer is when you hard focus one of your four objectives. As I've laid out elsewhere in the thread, it's also playing very inefficiently so that you can put yourself in an advantageous spot after you've finished doing it, which is only as strong as it is because that inefficiency is very difficult to punish.
So, in order for survivors to "tunnel" generators, they would need to hard focus one of their seven objectives and play very inefficiently in the short term to gain an advantage later on. As you might be able to tell, that's not reeeeaaally a thing? It's somewhat doable, but if any survivors did it, it'd work out pretty well for the killer compared to the alternatives.
I can sorta-kinda get behind the framing of "brute force" gameplay, I think that's a little more on the money... but brute force gameplay for survivors would still just be genrushing, IE, bringing the fastest tools and being extremely aggressive in completing all the gens. As I've also laid out, the equivalent to that on the killer side isn't tunnelling - it doesn't even really exist. You could maybe say that bringing the best tools and being extremely aggressive in completing all your objectives was possible in a way that's comparable to genrushing back when, say, Nurse could equip Exposed and speedrun a victory, but even that wasn't as reliable as genrushing and isn't even possible anymore.
I think one of the big reasons for this comparison gaining traction is that a lot of people seem to honestly think that tunnelling is "just doing your objective very efficiently", when the entire point of tunnelling is that it's not even efficient to begin with at all, it's a shortcut trading on short-term inefficiency to gain strength later. IF tunnelling were just being very efficient, there'd be a direct comparison to survivors being very efficient, at least as far as survivor and killer gameplay can be compared directly. Since it's not, though, that comparison doesn't hold any water.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3649274#Comment_3649274
" it's better game decisions if it's skill expression"
Just no, Really.... no. The point of the game is to win. The point of the game isn't to "show skill expression", especially when only one side of the game is ever expected to do this.
Seriously, where is the list of "skill expressions" that survivors are supposed to show?
I think you're really very confused on what skill expression means. If it's a show of better skill, it is inherently better at winning the game, because that's the only kind of skill being measured here.
The only real exception to this that exists is tunnelling, because it requires less skill than spreading pressure but is exponentially harder to counter than it is to perform. For every other relevant avenue of skill expression in the game, doing it well increases your chances of winning, no matter which role you're playing. If it doesn't, it's an irrelevant skill to this conversation, obviously.
As for the list of skill expression that survivors are supposed to show, why would I need that? I don't have a list of skill expressions that I expect killers to show, so why would I need one for survivors? That's not a rhetorical question, I am asking you because I do want an answer.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3649186#Comment_3649186
2) No. Efficiency is measured by how much it helps win games. The end game screen is the only thing that matters, and a win is a win. If I win a game, I don't care how I got there, as long as it's within the game rules.
1 and 3) You're still having a double standard, where killers are expected to make poor game decisions, in the name of skill expression, but survivors have absolute zero expectations for making any poor game decisions, in the name of skill expression.
4) No. My position has always been that tunneling and gen rushing are both meaningless terms. And the whole reason the terms "gen rushing" and "gen tunneling" were created, was to show how meaningless the definition of killer tunneling is.
Okay I'm gonna tackle these in the order you posted them, not by the associated number, just so you don't get confused by my answers here.
1: We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one, from my perspective it's pretty clear you can win while playing inefficiently. It doesn't become efficient just because you got the desired result, that's not what efficiency means. You don't actually have to care about playing efficiently, it's totally okay to just care about the end screen and not how efficiently you got there.
2: Nope, no double standard. I am expecting nothing of either side, as I've said. I'm honestly not sure where you're getting this from at this point, I've already point blank told you that's not what I expect. I acknowledge that skill expression exists, but can be circumvented, and that's... somehow a double standard where I expect killers to "make poor game decisions in the name of skill expression" (??? it's better game decisions if it's skill expression, my friend, this is a very strange thing to say), even though I say I straight up advocate taking shortcuts instead of doing the most difficult thing all the time?
This is the exact opposite of what I'm saying, at this point I genuinely don't know how to read this in good faith.
3: Alright, so now we're back to: When there is a clear problem, why is a bad thing to have a term that describes it? Forget how others use it, people misuse words all the time. IF the term "genrushing" describes ONLY the most extreme example, as I've said is my definition multiple times, is that not a term with both meaning and a reason to exist? Similarly, IF the definition of "tunnelling" describes ONLY the extreme example I laid out in my previous post, what's the issue with using it?
-
If anything, killer is in the healthiest spot it's ever been. Not the strongest, that was Eruption meta, but the healthiest for sure.
There's the least amount of truly heinous maps, there's the least amount of overpowered perks/items, there's the most variety in viable perks, there's the most variety in viable killers... Your skill expression's effect on a match is at an all time high if you know what you're doing, barring a few edge cases like an all-out genrushing squad.
I mean, what's even gotten worse recently? Specific perk combinations, a handful of questionable nerfs here and there, and that's basically it. Certainly not close to enough to outweigh all the good that's come to the game for killers.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3649089#Comment_3649089
1) No. We can't agree on a "normal" match of DBD, because the game doesn't have an intended way of playing, beyond the "don't break the rules" thing. Why are all your rules anti-killer? Where is your list of problematic survivor behavior that should be fixed? Where is your list of things that survivors should do, for the sake of the killer side, that actively hurts the survivor side?
2) Tunneling is efficient because the end result is efficiency. And the act of tunneling is efficient, because the end goal is efficiency. It doesn't matter if tunneling isn't pressuring multiple survivors, because that's not the sole criteria of efficiency. Tunneling is long-term efficiency, which is the only thing that matters. The end game screen is the only thing that matters.
3) The concrete point is you're giving a double standard, where killers should be forced to follow this made up "skill expression" thing, but survivors don't ever need to worry about "skill expression". Where is you list of "skill expression" things that survivors should be following? Why are all your problems framed as 100% killer problems, that are 100% the responsibility of the killer to fix?
4) It's not constructive to have the killer definition of tunneling encompass the full range of tunneling, from casual/incidental tunneling, to hyper specific extreme tunneling... but then have the survivor definition of tunneling only be the very hyper specific extreme tunneling. Pick one: 1) survivor AND killer tunneling only involves hyper specific extreme scenarios, or 2) survivor AND killer tunneling encompasses a wide variety of tunneling scenarios.
1: What rules? That's not a rhetorical question. What rules are you referring to? I've mentioned what I think would be relevant to a standard, down-the-middle game of DBD for killer, sure, but those aren't rules. It's just the established norm that you can deviate from with specific tactics.
Oh, I should probably clarify this here, there's not really a better place for it: I don't expect players to change anything about their behaviour when it comes to problematic elements of the game. I expect the devs to make changes accordingly - like, for instance, ultra-fast self healing for the survivor side. I didn't expect survivor players not to use those busted tools, I expected the devs to change them, which is what ended up happening. Same for things on the killer side; I wouldn't have expected any Bubba player not to facecamp in the basement, I expected the devs to do something about it.
2: If efficiency is measured by anything, it is how much progress you're making towards your objective, right? The most progress you can achieve with minimal risk and minimal waste, that's efficiency in this game. Since tunnelling involves flat out ignoring three quarters of your objective, it is by its nature inefficient... until one survivor is dead, because then when you go chase + hook someone else, you can drag a larger percentage of the team off generators - 100% instead of 75%. You trade short term inefficiency for long term efficiency, that's tunnelling. That's why people do it, I'm not coming up with some off-the-wall alternate explanation here.
3: There is no force here. You'll note that I've not even implied I think tunnelling should be made impossible, I've only said I think it should have risk. When I talk about taking a shortcut on skill expression, that in itself is a value neutral statement. You don't have to do things the most skilful and difficult way every time, I advocate taking shortcuts in other areas; for example, information perks instead of tracking everyone through pure game sense and basekit tracking.
So, tunnelling obviously bypasses some skill expression. Obviously. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, it's just what it is. I also think it's strong enough that it deserves balancing, but that's a separate statement.
4: Is this your position, then? Because it's a different one to what you were saying a moment ago. But sure, here goes: Tunnelling is when a survivor is chased immediately after they are unhooked, typically but not exclusively repeated to make sure they die ASAP. That's tunnelling. Genrushing is when survivors bring stacked toolboxes and accompanying perk builds (or whatever the strongest tools would be, if those current options ever get nerfed) to get the gens done ASAP. That's genrushing.
Gen tunnelling would be a different thing if it existed (which is the entire point of this thread), as would "killrushing" (I guess would be the term) if it existed, but this definition of tunnelling and genrushing encompasses only the most extreme examples on both sides. You might notice this is also the definition for both I've been using this whole time, lol.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648919#Comment_3648919
1) Your definition of "default skill expression" is still something you made up. There is zero default expectations from killers, except for "don't break any rules".
2) The act of tunneling is efficient because it leads to an efficient result. It actually creates more pressure to tunnel survivors, because it gives a sense of urgency earlier. If survivors know a killer is going to just rotate hooks among the survivors, there's zero urgency for a large part of the game, because the survivors know that none of them are actually in any danger for a long time.
3) No one is circumventing avenues of skill expression, because that's still not a real thing. If you really care about skill expression, you should complain about SWFs, and how voice comms circumvent avenues of skill expression.
4 and 5) Gen rushing is a pointless term, just like how tunneling is a pointless term. That's the entire point of the comparison. And no, we shouldn't have a special term for hyper specific survivor scenarios, because we don't have a special term for hyper specific killer scenarios. Many people are fine with tunneling applying, all the way, from casual (or incidental) tunneling, to hardcore hyper specific tunneling. There's zero difference in the terms used for killers. Likewise, Gen rushing should also be a pointless term that covers all the way from casual (or incidental) tunneling, to hardcore hyper specific tunneling.
1: Correct. Are you going to argue that I was wrong to do this? When we're talking about base gameplay problems - and to pick one that has since been mostly fixed, let's say we're talking about facecamping with Bubba in the basement - we would be very well served by having some way of conceptualising a "normal" match of DBD played mostly as intended so we can contrast it against the problem. In other words, we know what we want the player not to do - Basement Bubba - so what is that we do want the player to do? What is a "standard" match of DBD that doesn't contain this problematic behaviour?
Do you contest that concept, or my suggestion for what that normal match should look like?
2: This is wrong, you haven't actually countered anything I said. You are being inefficient by leaving two to three survivors to do generators as they please, but the payoff is that you get more efficient afterwards. The actual act of attempting tunnelling is inefficient. To counter that second part, if survivors feel no urgency to save, they are in deep trouble if you start snowballing before they feel inclined to go rescue.
3: I laid out the avenues of skill expression being circumvented, and bringing up SWF is whataboutism. Do you have anything more concrete on this point? I'm not against a discussion, there's just nothing to say here.
4: You've agreed that survivors bringing stacked toolboxes with complimentary perks to do generators as quickly as possible is a problem, so why is it not appropriate to have language to describe that problem? You're also veering into whataboutism again by talking about how other people apply the terms. I could just as easily point out those on the other side claiming "genrushing" is just when survivors do generators at all, but that wouldn't be helpful or constructive. If the problems exist - and you've agreed they do on at least one side of the game - why shouldn't there be language used to refer to them? Isn't denying those terms just making the problem arbitrarily harder to talk about?
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648823#Comment_3648823
1) There’s no such thing as “default skill expression”. That’s something you made up.
2) Tunneling is efficient because the end result is that it removes a survivor from the game sooner. It is therefore an efficient strategy overall.
3) There’s zero expectations that tunneling should have a risk/reward. That’s also something you made up.
4) Gen rushing encompasses any situation where a survivor is focusing on a single generator, regardless of it’s “normal gameplay”, or if it’s some extreme situation involving specific items and specific perks.
5) Survivors using a hyper specific extreme version of gen rushing is an issue. But that doesn’t mean it’s the only “real” version of gen rushing.
1: When I say "default skill expression", I'm mostly talking about the most by-the-books, straightforward game of Dead By Daylight possible. Nothing fancy, no particular tricks or shortcuts, just good straightforward killer play and good straightforward survivor play. Considering how overwhelmingly important macro gameplay is to killer, I think it's fair to say the default expectation is to occupy multiple survivors at once.
2: Correct! I don't disagree with that. However, the act of tunnelling is extremely inefficient. The end result working so much in your favour makes it an optimal strategy because there's very little to punish you for being so inefficient with your pressure while you're trying to get that survivor out. If anti-tunnel were stronger, for example, it would no longer be optimal because the inefficiency of it would be punishable.
3: Considering the point of tunnelling is to circumvent multiple avenues of skill expression (not needing to manage a fourth survivor once it's done, not needing to find a survivor to chase, starting the chase with the survivor already injured, starting the chase with the survivor out of position, and so on), how could it possibly be balanced if it wasn't risky? Obviously it's my opinion, but I think it has very solid backing.
4: I disagree with this, because if that's how we define genrushing, it's kind of a pointless term. If a survivor literally just playing the game with no active decisionmaking beyond starting to repair a generator is considered genrushing, how is that meaningfully the same as when the team brings the best possible tools to repair all of the gens as quickly as possible? Shouldn't we have a term that distinguishes between barebones survivor gameplay and an actual tactic being consciously used?
5: Wouldn't you also say that the most egregious form of tunnelling is also an issue, then? When someone is chased immediately after unhook with no breathing room at all, twice in a row to ensure they're sacrificed ASAP, is that not equivalent to when the most extreme version of genrushing is employed? And if so, see again, why shouldn't the terms just refer to the problem and not, as you're suggesting, the whole game and also the problem? If not, why not?
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648901#Comment_3648901
Regardless of whether I agree with any of this, you'll acknowledge that this isn't a defence of your original statement, right? Your original statement is still wrong. Self healing was absurdly powerful in the final stages of Circle because it worked with the already very powerful medkits, so it wasn't just "efficient". Then you said that "healing got nerfed", which is flat out wrong, that just didn't happen.
A misnomer then. 'Healing' as in, 'trying to stay healed up'. That did get nerfed.
So, obviously Circle hasn't "been effectively removed"
It's well outside the meta now and largely unfeasible for solo play. Maybe some swiffers will still use it, but they're probably going to resort to more effective options.
that doesn't mean it was okay before, when injuries just flat out didn't matter.
Point is that they did matter. Because all that time spent on self-caring was -not- spent on gens. Which goes back to @I_Tunnel 's point: people used to heal a lot, and now they're much more likely to stay injured. Likely because, especially in solo queue, healing (As in the effort to stay healthy) did cop a hefty nerf.
In order:
- Sure, I'll accept that amendment, that's fair. Trying to stay healed up did get nerfed, and you have to rely on your teammates a little more than before if you don't want to invest time or resources into a self heal. I object to this being framed as a healing nerf in general, but it is strictly true that self-healing being nerfed makes staying healed up harder. I'll state for the record that self-healing is still extremely viable, though.
- Outside of the meta is not at all the same thing as being effectively removed, but I'll partially agree with that rundown. Hard but not impossible for solo queue to use, very good for SWF. I only say partially because honestly... what is more effective? Botany has a lower number and We'll Make It is on a timer, and both only work for the survivor that brings it. Those are side grades at best, and they're the other best tools available.
- When survivors can self-heal every injury in eight to ten seconds, no, injuries do not matter. Framing it as "self-caring" is also extremely misleading because Self Care is not what was used. Medkits and Circle were used, and they were substantially stronger. Survivors staying injured is also not bad for the killer, but that's tangential to the overall point.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648859#Comment_3648859
I remember that for years self-healing was pretty overpowered
But the second it's gone, killers are having more trouble than ever with keeping pace, somehow. Could it not be the case that people frantically self-caring in the corner instead of staying injured on a gen, ultimately ends up costing the killer more time?
Circle of Healing, in my opinion, is likely fairly emblematic of this problem. By itself, in most cases, the final state of CoH before it was effectively removed was tremendously inefficient, barring the self-heal speed. Lots of forum killers also posited that a problem with CoH was that it worked best when placed far from the action, unlike the other boons.
But the further CoH gets placed from the action, the worse its efficiency becomes. And the set-up time involved in the boon would demand at least two successful heals to break even, provided there is no travel time involved at all.
CoH was regarded as a problem for hit-and-run playstyles, but there was plenty of comments from the community saying they were seeing CoH produce net negatives for the survivors in terms of time efficiency.
But it had to be removed. So now no one is going to bother dumping 16+ seconds on a totem just to get Botany, instead opting to sink that time into gens.
These issues that are now being complained about, of survivor efficiency, are absolutely in part due to killer complaints.
Regardless of whether I agree with any of this, you'll acknowledge that this isn't a defence of your original statement, right? Your original statement is still wrong. Self healing was absurdly powerful in the final stages of Circle because it worked with the already very powerful medkits, so it wasn't just "efficient". Then you said that "healing got nerfed", which is flat out wrong, that just didn't happen.
Having laid that out, I don't mind moving on to this new stuff.
So, obviously Circle hasn't "been effectively removed", setting down a boon to get a zone of We'll Make It is still pretty powerful. It was removed as an avenue for self healing, sure, but the perk is still absolutely worth running. Beyond that, even if we were to agree that killers are struggling because survivors just aren't healing... that doesn't mean it was okay before, when injuries just flat out didn't matter.
I do think there's a degree to which complaints about current survivor efficiency aren't valid, but that comes from the fact that survivor efficiency is something killer players are meant to dismantle with smart play and spread pressure, not that the state of things is actually bad for killers because they dared to complain about ridiculous self healing speed.
-
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648859#Comment_3648859
That first line isn't misleading, it is... partially correct.
If you go through older threads on the Forums, you'll see healing was rarely ever complained about. For a long time Self-Care was a healthy perk and part of the meta: it didn't give you an insane speed but it did allow you to heal yourself. That only changed around Spirit's release, when the healing action going from 12 charges to 16 absolutely murdered the perk. After that you had to have a Med-Kit to heal yourself, which were absolutely fine by themselves.
Inner Strength isn't even worth mentioning, as there aren't complaints about that perk. No one had a problem with healing until it was allowed to reach extreme levels with the original iterations of COH, which seems to have been a perk created with Hexes in mind: a powerful effect which can be removed from the trial. But Boons cannot be permanently destroyed, so that perk was unquestionably overpowered and it had to be changed.
The Med-Kit nerf that followed was too much, I don't think it should have happened.
People definitely had problems with medkits prior to Circle of Healing, but that's why I refer to it as a sort of background irritation. Everyone generally knew medkits were busted, it's why killer players would brace whenever they saw a lobby with four medkits, but things only reached a fever pitch where the complaints were frequent after CoH exacerbated the issue.
The line I'm responding to is also still extremely misleading. Survivors couldn't just "heal efficiently", self-healing was too strong for years and got absurdly busted around CoH, and "healing got nerfed" is just flat out wrong. Healing didn't get nerfed, CoH and medkits got nerfed- and even those got better at altruism.
@C3Tooth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648859#Comment_3648859
- Self healing nerfed by 50% in general
- CoH nerf. Use Bond would be better for asking a healing. Its less efficient to leave a Gen to run to CoH range to save 8sec.
- Self care nerfed from 50% to 33% on top of 50% self healing nerf.
- Reassurance, Reactive healing against new Haemorrhage
- Botany make Medkit from chest useless
- Pharmacy change makes it useless, you dont spend a minute to find a chest, unlock it and self healing for 24sec.
- Medkit nerfed in charges (it should)
- Sloppy got a buff
Because its the best to have a teammate healing you, lead to after finish healing, 2 survivors will do the same Gens.
I will admit, my statement is more geared towards recent changes, specifically the 6.7.0 changes that nerfed Circle and medkits.
However, actually look at that list. Is that list "healing", or is it self healing? Most of it is self healing, and half of it is also indirect? Like, yeah, Sloppy/Haemorrhage (which you list twice for some reason) did make Resurgence, Reactive Healing, and also Solidarity weaker, but it would be an extreme stretch to say that's a nerf to healing. Similarly, Pharmacy wasn't ever a direct healing perk and only got super killed once the medkit you got from it was nerfed to not be OP anymore.
Hell, there's a BUFF on this list! Botany Knowledge is very strong right now, not being able to specifically use a medkit from a chest to heal yourself does not count as a nerf. Circle of Healing was also flat buffed if you play with comms, but I'll acknowledge is harder to use in solo queue.
So... yeah, healing hasn't been nerfed. Self healing was nerfed in a few ways, and all the direct nerfs were justified (indirect stuff like Resurgence and Solidarity less so). This doesn't prove the line I'm responding to here, if anything it further disproves it.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648796#Comment_3648796
Remember when survivors were able to heal efficiently and there was outcry on the forums, so healing got nerfed?
Remember how forum killers are also adamant that they should be allowed to deny unhooks?
Remember how forum killers were so upset over the concept of boon perks?
The only thing that hasn't been touched is chests, which were a waste of time no matter what.
We used to have slower games, but killers weren't happy with that either, so now everything that isn't holding M1 on gens has been nerfed down and out. With survivors being left with nothing but gens, now forum killers are upset that survivors are, in fact, doing gens.
The whole problem here is that 'gens too fast' is defined purely and exclusively by the match outcome. Did the killer get fewer than three kills? 'Gens too fast'. Any time a killer loses? 'Gens too fast'. The only thing that'll make forum killers happy is if the kill rate is at roughly 87.5%, and the only way a survivor can ever escape is via the hatch.
Actually, never mind. Hatch will cop complaints as well, then.
That first line is shockingly misleading, wow.
I don't remember when survivors were able to heal efficiently and there was outcry on the forums, no. I remember that for years self-healing was pretty overpowered, and people sort of had a sustained general irritation with that which reached a fever pitch when Circle of Healing pushed it into overdrive, is that what you're referring to? I also do not remember when healing got nerfed, but I do remember that medkits and Circle of Healing specifically were nerfed in a very specific way.
The rest of your post is kind of an exaggeration along those lines, though it's at least closer. Some people here do act like they should get to deny unhooks, and some people did complain about the concept of boons rather than just (rightfully) complaining about CoH, so I won't really call you out on those. I just wanted to correct that first part, because it's a doozy.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648800#Comment_3648800
“a recently unhooked survivor being repeatedly targeted at the expense of any others until they're dead” is part of regular gameplay. It’s just the killer playing efficiently.
It isn't, it's actually the killer playing very inefficiently so they can capitalise on a boost in power after they're done. Occupying only one survivor for as long as it takes to kill them (minus occupying a second briefly for each unhook) is extremely inefficient, but because it's very hard to punish, it still works out in the killer's favour.
Regular gameplay outside of this one specific tactic involves occupying multiple survivors at once, that's the default skill expression for the killer role and it's what efficient killer play looks like. Tunnelling occupies an annoying space as a distinct tactic that should be risk/reward but has very little risk, but that part isn't relevant- what's relevant is that tunnelling is a tactic rather than default gameplay or efficient gameplay, however you'd prefer to label it.
Though, just to be clear: You would say that a coordinated survivor team that brings stacked toolboxes with all the accompanying perks (Streetwise, Built to Last, Hyperfocus, Stake Out, etcetera) to complete gens as aggressively as possible, that's also 100% regular and fine, just efficient gameplay that doesn't need changes?
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648781#Comment_3648781
The definition for killer tunneling is “a killer focusing on one survivor at a time”. That’s it.
The definition of gen rushing is just “a survivor focusing on one generator at a time”. That’s it.
Yes, both definitions are basically just people playing the game normally.
At that point, surely neither genrushing or tunnelling are actually issues with the game?
Which means... won't we need new terms for problematic things that lay outside regular gameplay? For instance, a recently unhooked survivor being repeatedly targeted at the expense of any others until they're dead, or a survivor team bringing the strongest tools to complete the generators as quickly as possible to leave the killer with as little agency as the mechanics strictly allow?
Or are those not problems too? Genuine question.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648776#Comment_3648776
Can we create a definition for “true tunneling” for killers, that’s hyper specific, and doesn’t apply to the vast majority of games? And then when people complain about tunneling, we can say “well, that’s not TRUE tunneling, because I’m using a hyper specific definition, with a whole mess of requirements and prerequisites”?
Would that be fair? Because that’s what you are doing with your definition of “TRUE genrushing”
That is what genrushing is, though?
What else could genrushing be, that covers for doing generators as fast as possible but isn't just playing the game normally?
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
The actual double standard is that the requirement for problematic killer behavior is so very low, and killers can easy do these things, with minimal effort, in every game…….
…But the requirement for problematic survivor behavior is super hyper specific, and can only be done under extremely specific conditions that survivors can’t possibly even attempt to do in every game.
Not really what this post is about, but also... kinda?
I mean, the problematic survivor behaviour here is true genrushing, which is quite specific. You need at least most of the team to bring stacked toolboxes and specific perk builds. It's not really difficult after that point, but it is very specific. Whereas the problematic killer behaviour is just chasing someone immediately after unhook, it doesn't require specific perks or addons or anything.
I'm sure this was meant to be sarcastic in some way based on your post history but I also don't see how you could possibly argue it isn't true, lol.
-
@NerfDHalready said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648769#Comment_3648769
i always assume people that use that term just mean focusing gens/genrushing/playing optimally or whatever. if we are actually arguing the word choice, i honestly don't even know.
It's less arguing word choice, and more challenging the core assumption about what tunnelling actually is and how it would be replicated on the survivor side.
This is also all in the post.
-
@NerfDHalready said:
tunneling survivors and tunneling gens are only equivalent in the sense that they both are optimal plays, and nothing else. they are compared mostly exclusively to justify one another, but noone needs to do that. play however you need to in order to win, all power to you.
tunneling people and genrushing without healing both should be more punishing, is all i want to say. why would you not tunnel survivors if you want to win, and why would you not focus gens over healing when killers won't be able to keep up anyway and you are more than safe with current maps even while injured?
This post is about how genrushing isn't "tunnelling gens".
-
@Raptorrotas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648696#Comment_3648696
Please dont take it the wrong way because i dont know how else to explain.
It's kinda dishonest to say a it's only genrushing when the whole team is doing it. What about the abundant cases when survivors arent a team? I heard 4man swfs are rare, according to the community. If i were feeling petty i'd go as far to say it's as bullshit an argument as "A survivor is not hacking if theyre only one hacking"
A team of 4 focusing down 4 gens isnt the same as a killer being told to spread his attention on 4 targets. None of the survivor players is spreading their attention to more than 1 gen.
The community is fine with survivors focusing down a single target
As for the whole team on one gen? Thats less efficient than having each survivor going for different gens, it'd only be quicker once multiple gens are already finished. But theyre still not stopping doing a gen to swap to another.
It is only genrushing when the whole team does it, though?
One person bringing a stacked toolbox isn't genrushing, it can't be. That survivor is only going to be able to use those tools on one generator, two tops if they're really committing to bringing a whole suite of four perks to enable it.
It's only genrushing when it actually affects all five generators, which requires at least a majority of survivors to bring those tools, if not all four.
Remember that we're talking about the comparison of both sides focusing their objectives here. When survivors do that, they have to spread out, otherwise the generators go slower overall. If they were to focus ONE of their objectives, like when the killer tunnels, they would not be genrushing because they'd all be grouped up on one generator.
If that seems like a silly false equivalence, that's because it is. The thread is about how those two things aren't comparable.
-
@Venusa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648710#Comment_3648710
Except that's not a thing and it's still a flawed equation.
Am I face-camping the gen as a survivor if I stand in front of it? Yeah, that's how dumb it sounds.
That's also what this thread is about??
"Tunnelling gens" isn't a thing, because applying that logic to gens would technically be possible but would effectively throwing the game. That's the entire point being made here.
-
@Venusa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648705#Comment_3648705
The definition has always been the same for all these years. I don't think it has ever changed or became subjective at any point.
The act of a killer chasing and targeting one survivor to get them out of the game ASAP.
Sure, I agree with that, but it is possible to tunnel gens based on this definition?
It'd be the survivor team repeatedly targeting the same generator to get it fixed without paying attention to any of the others. That's... what this thread is about.
-
@Venusa said:
You cannot "tunnel" gens if we're going by the real definition of tunneling.
It's a flawed equation used by killers of this forum so they feel like they have a tangible argument meanwhile they just sound funny.
Not that I disagree, but your post does somewhat beg the question of what the "real" definition of tunnelling is?
-
@Raptorrotas said:
"It's tunneling because x killers focus x survivors out of 4".
"It's not genrush/tunnel because x survivors focus x gens out of 7."
At any given time each survivor is only targeting one generator. Theyre getting 1 out asap. (Sounds like what killers do when tunneling while twirling their evil mustaches)
If they did as they wanted to killer to, every survivor would need to jump between multiple gens and spread the progress between all 7 gens evenly.
Ignoring the other response to you because it's a little unhelpful, it is relevant that the game is asymmetrical. When it comes to tactics taken towards objectives, you have to compare the killer player's actions to the survivor team's actions.
Genrushing involves the team splitting up and spreading pressure, so if the killer team were to do that, they wouldn't be tunnelling.
Tunnelling involves concentrating pressure on one objective, so if the survivor team were to do that, they'd all be grouping up on one generator one at a time.
@Nos37 said:
To me, working on a generator from 0% to 100% without stopping (if left uninterrupted) is the equivalent of the killer hooking the survivor, picking them up off the hook manually, placing them back on the hook, and doing it a third time to sacrifice them out of the game.
The killer can kind of do this now, but it takes 120 seconds (150 if Reassurance is used, 180 if the survivor self unhooks and Reassurance is used again, and 214 seconds if they also have Camaraderie). And that's just 1 survivor; there are four. Meanwhile, a gen only takes 80 seconds and three gens can be repaired at once.
Instead of increasing the time needed to repair the gen by a few seconds every 2 or 3 years, how about adding a basekit mechanic that limits a survivor's ability to repair gens? Limit it to 50%. Then they have to run across the map, get a special item / replenish a gague / increase their token counter, and then can do 50% more worth of repairs. Just like the killer has to lose time in chases between hooks.
This is another place where the game being asymmetrical matters. A survivor working on a generator from 0% to 100% without stopping is not even close to the equivalent of a killer hard focusing down one guy, because it's not reflective of actual objective focus from the survivor side.
-
@I_Tunnel said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648560#Comment_3648560
Oh my god, you're arguing semantics.
'Anyone' IS 'Anyone in the match' because the Killers don't EXIST outside the matches. 🤦♂️
Your entire argument is 'But aksually, if we use MY definitions, then tunneling gens is fake!'
You misunderstand. Your goal is to kill ALL the survivors (or at least three, to be a little pedantic). Therefore, all four survivors are your objectives, the way all seven generators are the survivor's objectives.
The survivors need to "complete" exactly five of their seven, the killer needs to "complete" at least three of their four. So far, we've not yet gotten to my opinions or definitions, that's just how this game works.
So, my argument is, when "tunnelling" for killers is focusing one of their four objectives and ignoring the others until that one is "completed" (killed, in the killer's case), that must mean "tunnelling" for survivors is focusing only one of their objectives until it is "completed" (repaired, in this case).
When survivors "genrush", they're getting the gens done as quickly as possible so they can leave. This requires splitting up, since grouping up on generators makes them go slower overall, so therefore if the killers had an equivalent, it'd require doing all their objectives as quickly as possible. For a former real-match example, think of when Nurse used to be able to speedrun a win by using Haunted Grounds and Retribution.
Finally... I mean, do I actually need to state more than once that my argument is just my opinion based on my definitions? Is that not pretty obvious based on the fact that every single discussion about this is personal opinion and personal definitions? I'm making the case for why I believe what I believe, not making a statement of fact- overall, anyway, there are facts in this post but they're the evidence for the argument.
-
@I_Tunnel said:
Your entire argument hinges on a definition that adds caveats to it in order to be correct.
And it's not correct.
'Tunneling' is focusing on the injured Survivor to remove them as quickly as possible. It has nothing to do with 'one of four objectives to the detriment of others'. Because the Killer's objective is TO KILL. Anyone. You're adding some sort of extra definition to it so you can say 'They're wrong'.
Survivors: Want to do gens & leave to win. They focus on already-worked-on gens to do it quicker. IE: Tunneling gens.
Killer: Wants to kill to win. They focus on easier chases & weaker Survivors to do it quicker. IE: Tunneling.
Claiming Tunneling HAS 'to be to the detriment of other objectives' is your own personal definition you added to muddle the subject and say "Because of this, tunneling gens does not exist!"
The killer's objective is not to kill "anyone", it is to kill the four survivors that are in the match.
You have four objectives, and when you tunnel, you're focusing on one to the detriment of others. That's the whole idea of tunnelling- focus one guy down so the others are forced into a numerical disadvantage when the pressure rolls towards them. Tunnelling doesn't work as an idea without the reality of having those other objectives in mind-- or if it did, tunnelling would just be how you win, you'd kill that person and dust your hands off because you've killed "someone", ergo you've won.
Survivors need to escape, that's their win condition. So when they push their objective aggressively to win, they're getting FIVE generators done very quickly, not one. One generator done is almost nothing, getting it done as quickly as possible does comparatively very little for them. To effectively play their objective aggressively, they have to split up and push pressure on multiple gens at once.
That's why tunnelling generators doesn't exist, it's completely counterintuitive. If you applied the mechanics of tunnelling to generators, you'd basically be throwing the game. On the flipside, if you were to apply the mechanics of genrushing to the killer side, you'd be as far away from tunnelling as you can get because the requirement is to spread pressure, that's how genrushing works.
-
@Alice_pbg said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648283#Comment_3648283
fair enough
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648285#Comment_3648285
sorry. reality does not comply with what you're saying. try again.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3648289#Comment_3648289
nope. they weren't on gens. I would have negated healing time.
also, literal second thing I said 👇️
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3646131#Comment_3646131
you all are making this so unnecessarily hard for some reason...
They mean that those two survivors were off generators to heal- the idea being, they spend potential generator time to gain the benefit of that survivor being healthy.
You interrupted the heal, meaning the generator time wasn't spent, it was wasted. Since they were spending both survivor's potential generator time to begin with, that means 20 total seconds of potential generator time was invested without payoff. Ergo, 20 seconds wasted.
I don't fully agree with this perspective but it also isn't completely incoherent.