jesterkind
jesterkind
About
- Username
- jesterkind
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,633
- Last Active
Comments
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636922#Comment_3636922
So essentially the expectation is that by the time the survivor has gotten unhooked and back on a gen, you have already found, chased, downed, and hooked someone else and you need to keep that cycle permanently up throughout the entire game to be comparable to the same thing you would get by tunneling. As long as you got it going early enough.
Which if that's the case ok. I was already aware of that loop. But I was missing the part where your "time limit" for it to be good enough is by the time the hooked survivor gets rescued and progressing gens again. Without that it just sounded like it was expected that it would be the same even though there's an extra person running around while you're in chase with someone else. Which didn't make sense.
Eh, kinda?
Certainly, you should at least be chasing someone by the time they're back on a generator, because even if they don't stop to heal that's going to take a few seconds. I don't think you need to have 100% uptime on this loop because the amount of damage it does to survivor's efficiency overall is enough that you can afford lulls where progress actually happens-- especially if you're running slowdown perks, then you're undoing some of that progress when you start the loop back up again.
A big thing to remember when conceptualising this kind of thing is that stopping generators from progressing is a tool, not a goal. Survivors getting some generators done is a given, you can't stop them from doing it. With that in mind, your goal is to slow it down enough that you're burning through map resources and hook states, to make each successive generator even slower than it already would've been naturally, to make each chase faster, to get closer to winning...
Again, the macro matters, a lot. Things like using up map resources and shrinking the effective play area by selectively ignoring certain generators heighten your lethality as the game progresses, instead of putting you on the back foot because survivors are closer to their objective than you are to yours.
I'm being vague on purpose, by the way, because this isn't a single tactic or playstyle, it's just killer fundamentals. It's broadly applicable to a bunch of different playstyles and tactics- you can enable this by opting for stealth and punishing survivors that don't heal, or you can build to aggressively chew through resources and leave survivors nothing to work with, and so on and so forth. You don't need to perform like a god to get these things working, either, if you're in a fairly matched game (and I know that's not a given, but we should probably assume it for discussions like these) then you're gonna get a lot done just by keeping survivors occupied.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636638#Comment_3636638
That's not what I expect and you're right those things are different. However the main issue is the power/speed difference.
What else are you using that's making up the difference without faster chases?
Slowdown? Tunneling someone out is the best slowdown by far.
Macro? Having good macro but slow chases isn't a winning formula as we've seen with killers like Sadako, Pig, Dredge ect. The gens go too fast for that, especially with a 4th survivor left alive when they don't need to be.
But you still need to use these things, and use them well, and also still have good chases. But since tunneling provides the best slowdown and the fastest objective completion, you chases can't just be good, they need to be better than if you were tunneling to make up the difference; while having more work to do and more things to juggle and also preform well on. Not to mention actually playing your killers power well.
You need good slowdown, good macro, and faster chases (objective completion) together to even start to compete. But the allowed chase time even if you tunnel is already short (imo) so I was curious as to how much better at chase is the killer expected to be?
If that's not necessary then I would like to know what is believed to be making up the difference. Since it can't be slowdown and macro alone isn't enough without really fast chases. That's why killers like Nurse and Blight are at the top and exceptions, they do both very fast so they don't need to tunnel. But that's not the majority of the roster.
This is just starting to sound like the infamous "just pressure gens 4head" meme.
The thing that's making up the difference is what you're describing, it's natural slowdown and good macro play.
These aren't perk or power related things, to be clear, every killer can do them. I'm sure you've seen others lay it out before, in fact I think I might have said it elsewhere in this thread to counter the idea that tunnelling actually is 'forcing your objective', but I'll go over it again just to be sure we're on the same page: While survivors are alive, your ideal situation is one survivor on the hook, one in chase, and one peeling off to get the save, leaving only one on generators. So, macro play largely consists of keeping survivors occupied like this through whatever means are at your disposal (mostly downs and hooks, but power-specific elements and even injuries count to varying degrees), but it's also keeping a good working knowledge of where each survivor is, it's zoning survivors (the base mechanic, not a power thing), it's creating and capitalising on deadzones, and then it's also any power or perk specific stuff you might want to keep in mind like Jigsaw boxes or defending hexes or what have you.
Doing this well is comparably strong to tunnelling, it's just harder. You do need fast chases, yes, but on top of that you need to minimise your downtime and keep the pressure up across multiple survivors at once. Tunnelling allows you to ignore almost all of this save for chase speed, making it much easier on top of it being stronger, but it's not so much easier or stronger that playing the match without hardcore tunnelling is a pie-in-the-sky fantasy for anyone that isn't a top tier player controlling a top tier killer.
If there is a meme regarding "just pressure gens", the only problem with it is the last word. You don't pressure gens, you pressure survivors.
This is why I don't really see how you'd need faster chases playing normally. If anything, you'd need faster chases in order to tunnel, because you're leaving three survivors unoccupied while you're attempting it and that's a lot of generator progress. By contrast, keeping multiple survivors occupied at once gives you much more breathing room.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636638#Comment_3636638
Well, and of course, there is tunneling and there is tunneling. You can do some suplemental or tactical tunneling, that will ferret SWFs out and cause them to take protection hits, thus opening themselves up, when they would otherwise have been sticking to their gens, even if your intention never was to tunnel that player out, yet. Is this also taking a shortcut? Many players, myself included, are under the impression, that a team, that sticks to gens before friends and only goes to safes in the last second and maybe even letting someone slip into hook stage 2, are next to impossible to beat. You just can't generate enough pressure and the second you turn your back, they jump on their gen again. It feels mercilessly from the killers POV, just like tunneling feels for many survivors.
The best natural games are around killers with natural slowdown, like Pinhead, Pig or Sadako, as these games give the survivors a solid, tangible side objective besides slamming gens. Maybe every killer needs their very own objects and side objective? This would be a massive undertaking, but could be a way to go.
I do agree that the best games come from natural slowdown, but you don't need that to be part of your power. Playing killer well results in natural slowdown to begin with; teams that refuse to get off generators to go save are extremely vulnerable to someone else being chased and downed before their generator can be completed, and once you've got two people on hook you're in a winning position.
However, yes, there is a slight distinction between hardcore tunnelling and just harrying a freshly unhooked survivor to ferret out their altruistic teammates. I'd consider the second one kind of irrelevant for these conversations, though, since most anti-tunnel generally revolves around when a survivor is downed or picked up again.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636523#Comment_3636523
Because doing so makes your objective go a lot slower and that's the chase time given for tunneling to be even, not ahead. I already pointed that out. That's not the time for 1 survivor dead at 4-5 gens. 50 seconds per chase is too long for that. So if the time for non-tunnel to be even is the same, that would me there's no time difference between the two in terms of objective completion. But that goes against what you were saying before.
It's not that tunneling takes extra time. Its that tunneling allows you to spend more time in chases since after 3 you get your slowdown from killing one survivor. Which as you said, is stronger than anything the killer has at their disposal. If you don't then you don't have that until around your 8th or 9th hook, which is late game and doesn't really matter anyway since that's maybe 1 gen.
I think part of the problem here is that the conversation has become a hard binary between "Tunnelling" and "Not Tunnelling", as though the latter is a single strategy the same way that the former is. It does also seem, and I don't mean to put words in your mouth, like you're expecting "not tunnelling" to involve the same gameplay, effort, and type of value as tunnelling, which it does not.
Tunnelling is, boiling it down as bluntly as possible, taking a shortcut on overall skill expression to put all of your eggs in the "short chase times" basket. It's making a play that allows you to focus on that one skill, that one aspect of good killer gameplay, and have that be the thing that wins you games over everything else.
If you aren't making that play, though, you're going to be using all of the other skills, so expecting that the chase times must necessarily be shorter is somewhat missing the point. You don't need them to be shorter because you're using everything else at your disposal.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636264#Comment_3636264
On the contrary I think that they are very linked. Killer being so strong and gens taking longer after 6.1 forced survivors to stop dillydallying and play efficiently, meaning that they no longer do gens casually together but split up with everyone doing their own gen. They leads to 3 gens popping first chase and killers feeling that they have to tunnel at 4 gens, to even have a chance of winning.
Everything is connected in a complicated web of conditions and influences.
This falls into the trap of assuming that tunnelling happens when the killer loses gens too quickly, but it doesn't, it just happens. I've personally had matches where the killer goes hard into tunnelling someone out before a single gen is even done, and that happens much, much more frequently than any game of mine for either side where the killer has a true genrushing "everyone's split up immediately with a toolbox" start.
Addressing genrushing is reigning in uncommon but unbalanced edge cases, but addressing tunnelling would be addressing a problem the game's been struggling with pretty consistently for a long while. It's part of why my initial post here objected to the framing- the two problems just aren't comparable on nearly any level.
I'm not saying tunnelling should be addressed and then it's okay to wait years before toolboxes get nerfed, but that doesn't mean the two must necessarily happen together.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636254#Comment_3636254
Fair points. But if we make tunneling riskier and prone to failure, I also think that we should make splitting up on the three early gens less efficient. One of the main reason stated by killers why they tunnel is that they feel pressured and backed against the wall so early, ie they finish their first chase and 3 gens pop. If we could make splitting up on the first 3 gens less effective, I wouldn't mind if every tunneled survivor gets an auto 5s DS and free Unbreakable during that early game to incentivice the killer HARD to go for another target and not wasting time.
The way both sides have been forced to play most optimally has lead to the current situation and the breakneck speed we are experiencing.
I'm in favour of addressing the edge cases for early generator speeds, yes. I do think it's a bit of a false equivalence, but it's not as though the generator stuff doesn't need addressing too, so it's fair to mention it.
Personally, I'd just have every survivor spawn grouped up in groups of four or two, and nerf toolboxes. The only real problematic starts are when everyone spawns on a separate generator with a good toolbox, and those two things separately are too strong as well so they should just be addressed individually.
Now, again, I don't think those two things are linked. I think they should both happen but they don't both need to happen at the same time.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636232#Comment_3636232
Maybe its just me, but I sometimes actually do lose survivors, when they turn a corner in an unexpected way and hide behind something while I don't notice. Sticking to a survivor is not guranteed for me to catch them, but maybe thats just me being bad and everyone else has a 100% successful chase rate?
Non-the-less, I actually explained the risks of tunneling in my original reply to you pretty well: while tunneling you leave the other survivors freely at their gens, putting a hard 90s timer (or less) on the first 3 gens and another 90 (plus maybe 20 traversal/search time) on the last two. If you can't tunnel and kill the survivor in 200s, you lost, because you gave away all gen protection in favor of tunneling and no other survivor has any hooks.
If the tunnel fails and that survivor you were tunneling somehow gets away, you got nothing to show for your effort, but all the disadvantages, ie you lost 3-4 gens with the fifth probably already under way, and the escaped survivor resetting and helping the wash up, while staying low. Tunneling is an inherent risky proposition, as you hand the gens scott free to the survivors and if you can't translate the tunnel into a kill, you lose it all.
I'm not sure how you lose survivors when you're right on them and hitting them within 10-15 seconds of them being unhooked?
If they could make distance using anti-tunnel perks, yes, you'd be right, but right now they've got at most Off The Record buying them a few more seconds. With OTR, they could maybe break line of sight and pull the tricks you're describing, but only if they're in a favourable area for it, which means... their ability to even attempt to counter tunnelling is random chance re: map position, as I described.
Your description of what the risk should be is accurate. That risk just isn't there because there's only meagre protection against tunnelling in place. It made the most egregious form of tunnelling impossible, but it didn't exactly make tunnelling in general properly risky.
Imagine if, instead, the basekit protection wasn't Endurance, so it can't be used to cleanse OTR before it's elapsed. On top of that, DS is a five second stun, so you're rolling the dice on if you'll get a stun that matters after downing them, which in this scenario took three total hits because OTR couldn't be waited out or cheesed immediately. In this scenario, tunnelling is a risk- you can get that chase finished fast enough to not lose value, but it's not going to be particularly desirable in most situations. That'd address tunnelling (mostly, at least) without harming regular gameplay, which is the ideal situation.
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636107#Comment_3636107
I always consider tunneling a risky strategy, as it lets the three other survivors do as they want ... or two, while one shadows me with a flashlight/flashbang. If the tunneling fails, the survivor will get away, hide, reset, while 2 or 3 gens pop without me interfering. Thats pretty risky in my eyes.
What exactly is the risk of the tunnelling failing, though?
Anti-tunnel tools aren't that strong, so it's solely down to map resources and the skill of the survivor you're chasing. The latter is a non-starter because if they're that good you wouldn't want to chase them to begin with, so that means that - meaningfully - it's random chance if tunnelling can be countered, rather than perks or skill. Not a good place for that tactic to be, in my opinion.
If the survivor could use perks to bridge the gap and better express their skill, because the killer has to invest time into actual hit-blocking and a proper DS stun which would give them time to get to resources, it being risk/reward would be the case. Currently, it's not, so tunnelling is just the easier option in a lot of matches.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636084#Comment_3636084
I believe I said a 3v1 is a disadvantage compared to a 4v1. I didn't say it wasn't the default nor compared it to the default.
Also you didn't say it was "enough" you said "comparably strong" which would mean it's about as strong as tunneling. So that would be "very strong" in most cases. Not just "enough" in "some".
In your opinion, tunneling is doing something substantially weaker until someone is dead which is the risk correct? Because if that chase last to long you lose right?
So you want more risk than is already there. But I believe I also already said I'd be fine with implementing more to go against tunneling as well in my previous post.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but you're mainly contesting how strong tunneling actually is compared to not doing so as I outlined above. Additionally, you don't want any new incentive for the killer side or the current incentives made stronger. Just punishment and the current punishment tools to be made stronger.
I stand by it being comparably strong. Not equally strong, tunnelling is stronger, but successfully employing any number of other tactics focused on better macro strategy and game sense is in the same leagues of strength. It's just not as easy to do, which is an important distinction.
And yes, you're almost right. Tunnelling should be doing something substantially weaker while banking on being able to get someone out fast, at which point you're in a stronger position. However, right now, there's extremely little risk, so there's no real "banking on" involved, you just will be in a better spot once you've finished tunnelling someone out because anti-tunnel is too weak and thus the only "risk" is if the survivor you're chasing is substantially better than you. Which is possible, but only through matchmaking mishaps, and since those need to be fixed it's not a good idea to rely on them for balance reasons.
So, no, I don't want "more risk than is already there", because there's meaningfully no risk in a majority of scenarios. I want there to be risk, the kind that makes the average killer stop and rethink, because the average killer wouldn't even conceptualise tunnelling as a risky strategy to begin with - and why would they, when there isn't all that much risk to notice right now?
As for your last point, no, I'm contesting how strong not tunnelling is. I agree tunnelling is strong, it's the alternatives I'm saying are being undervalued. For the additional point, yep. Not tunnelling is currently in a pretty damn good spot, and tunnelling is currently in an over-inflated bad spot. I want the bad thing to be addressed and don't see much need for changing the good thing.
I would also add, considering "not tunnelling" is just... playing the whole game, normally, it's going to benefit from any changes that come in the future. BHVR have been making pretty steady changes and improvements to the killer role, and a lot of them are more meaningful to you if you're not tunnelling someone out ASAP. Those aren't going to stop, so no dedicated "don't tunnel" incentive needs to be devised to fix tunnelling- just fix it, and killers can benefit from the steady stream of buffs and tweaks already in motion.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3636000#Comment_3636000
So basically you're saying the vast majority of the player base is delusional and have this idea that not tunneling is weak when in reality you can leave the game as a 4v1 for the majority of the match and not have any significant disadvantage compared to being in a 3v1 earlier on?
In which case, wouldn't the inverse also be true? Being in a 3v1 earlier on isn't a significant disadvantage for the survivor side? Because it's "comparably strong" as if the killer left it as a 4v1?
There's a big difference between being delusional and having a misconception, to be fair, I definitely wouldn't call the players who think this delusional. They are wrong, though, because they do not need to tunnel to play well.
You've also got something of a skewed perspective on this here in the rest of your message - not being at a 3v1 early isn't a disadvantage, it's the default. Being at a 3v1 early is an advantage over the default, and being at a 4v1 late in the game is a disadvantage over the default.
If I implied that I don't think successfully tunnelling someone out early on is very strong, my apologies, that's not what I meant. What I mean is that playing the game normally is more than strong enough to win, and even has advantages over attempting to tunnel in some cases - after all, the whole value proposition of tunnelling is that you're doing something substantially weaker until someone is dead, at which point you can leverage the net efficiency loss on the survivor side into more effective slowdown.
This should be a risk, both from a basic balance perspective and because the tools to punish it already exist in the game now, but unfortunately those tools are weaker than they should be and as a result it's not exactly a risky tactic at all. If you can leverage the specific skill of downing survivors quickly, you can absolutely ignore every other element of killer gameplay and skill to tunnel without much concern, which is both unbalanced and unpleasant for the players on the receiving end of it.
If anti-tunnel were increased to the point where tunnelling became a risk/reward strategy, it'd be much more fair. As it stands, you don't have to put much effort in to circumvent the kind of results you can absolutely get playing normally.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3635942#Comment_3635942
I understand that maybe it feels worse to some or most people to get tunneled than gen slammed and I never asserted it didn't. However, that doesn't mean that the killer experience doesn't matter at all. This is not a competition of "who has it worse" it's trying to makes things better for everyone. At the end of the day, no one wants to care about someone who can't be bothered to care for them and just turns everything into "why should I care? I feel like I have it worse", and that's what's happening. Many if not most survivors don't care, and they play the victim (no pun intended) while ignoring the killer side of things.
Saying "I care about your experience so please care about mine" is going to go a lot further. Right now it's "I don't care about your experience, but you should care for mine". Not a lot of people will enjoy nor listen to that and rightfully so.
If you mean an incentive strong enough for everyone to stop tunneling sure. But I already said that. But I don't see why just because we don't have a solution to stop everyone from tunneling, we shouldn't make things better for those who don't, making not tunneling more attractive and pushing more to do it.
Just because we can't eradicate it doesn't mean we can't make it better. If you keep looking for a perfect solution you're never gong to get anywhere. I'll take a good but not perfect solution over none at all.
I don't see how that would "buff killer and nerf survivor" when it doesn't change what's happening when people sweat to win. You're just helping people who don't do better so that more play that way and everyone has a better game. Killer and survivor won't change in power since their optimal playstyles aren't changed. But more people will choose to not tunnel if it's more viable/rewarding.
Right now it has absolutely nothing going for it. Maybe not stronger than tunneling, but it needs to have something.
Like like I also already said, maybe not everyone, but the less people tunneling the better. Do you disagree with that statement?
There's two major problems with this rhetoric, though - apologies for chiming in late but this post specifically has the stuff I'd be responding to, lol.
The first problem is that it's almost impossible to find the right balance of buffing non-tunnelling killers without also buffing tunnelling killers. It'd have to be something that deactivates when someone dies, or if someone's hooked twice in a row, and that's already going to be very finnicky to balance + open to possible abuse. Adding onto that, anything you do probably isn't going to outweigh the strength of tunnelling, which leads me to my second point.
The second problem is pretty simple. When you say that not-tunnelling as a tactic should have "something going for it [...] because right now it has literally nothing going for it", that's obviously not true on its face, because not tunnelling does have something going for it: it's comparably strong and it's how you win more matches more consistently. People don't choose to tunnel because it's the only strong option, they tunnel because they perceive it to be easier. There's two layers of that perception, of course; the first is that tunnelling is obviously easier than not tunnelling, but there's also the layer that so many are under the misconception that tunnelling is necessary to perform well "at a high level", which isn't true even if those players are actually playing at a high level to begin with, which statistically I doubt.
That's why incentives alone aren't going to change anything. There are already incentives not to tunnel, both in it being comparably viable (in fact, it's stronger if you're facing survivors you can't tunnel out super quickly) and in the amount of perks that are designed around spreading pressure, and people are still doing it because it's easier to attempt and hard for survivors to punish.
Right now, the correct response if we want to do anything about tunnelling is just to increase the strength of its counters. If people did tunnel much less prior to 6.1., it's because there was a deterrent in the form of DS that killers didn't want to deal with, not because BBQ had BP incentives. There are equivalent perks now that give you actual in-match value for the exact same function of hooking each survivor for the first time, and players still choose to tunnel, because incentives not to alone just aren't enough.
(I would like to see BBQ get a stack mechanic back, though, as an aside. I miss that, it doesn't have to be for BP gain.)
I'd suggest the following, personally: Buff DS back up to five seconds, make the basekit protection not put you in Deep Wounds so it can be stacked properly with Borrowed Time and Off The Record (as well as perks that aren't anti-tunnel like Dead Hard), and potentially buff OTR a little bit to make it easier to lose chase with the killer at the cost of everything disabling on Conspicuous Action instead of just the Endurance. With these changes, tunnelling will still be possible for those who want to attempt it, but the threat of meaningful options on the survivor side to combat it with would be a deterrent making players really evaluate if it's the right call.
DS (or any other anti-tunnel) being strong isn't a lose/lose for the killer. It is, at worst, taking away a shortcut to bypass skill expression and pushing killers to consider how their macro strategy is actually functioning.
-
Isn't this just going to be a repeat of the Pain Res and DMS combo, though? With the only difference being that it's even easier to counter on the survivor side?
Like, here's how it works, to my understanding: The killer gets a hook, and walks sixteen metres away. At that point, Grim Embrace kicks in, blocking all generators for 12 seconds. If a survivor is working on a generator at this point, they're kicked off it, activating Dead Man's Switch on that generator and blocking it for... however long is left on DMS, depending on killer speed.
Surely, if you as a survivor just let go of a generator as soon as someone's hooked, that means only Grim Embrace is activating and DMS doesn't get to combo with it? It's the same as the Pain Res and DMS combo, except that you have a much more generous window to let go of the generator.
Grim Embrace may or may not be an unhealthy perk, but I am not personally concerned about pairing it with DMS. I honestly think it might not even be a worthwhile combination to begin with, considering how easily survivors could avoid it.
-
I think it's unfair to say the perks are ridiculously weak, they're just not quite as good as they could've been. Illumination is a great idea that just needed a slight boost to the information it gives, and Deadline could probably do without the injury requirement.
As an aside, designing DLC perks for new players would actually be a pretty good idea, if and when they do that. Big license DLCs, at least, bring in new players, and those new players are going to have only general perks and this DLC's perks to play with, since the DLC that brought them in is the one they're going to want to play. The best example of this would be Rookie Spirit on Leon, in my opinion.
Neither Deadline or Illumination are new-player perks, in my opinion, but the idea would be fine if they had decided to do it.
-
I liked her.
As someone else in the thread has pointed out, not every killer actually does have that obvious tell for who they are in their design, so I don't consider that a failure of the Skull Merchant's. I thought she looked cool, I was interested in seeing what vibe they were going for, and when I read her lore I liked that too - the whole 'rich person hunts others for fun and sport' is a vibe I think the game had honestly been lacking up to this point, the closest we'd come was Trickster and he was a pretty different vibe. There'd been nothing like The Most Dangerous Game in DBD, and that's basically what Skull Merchant is, just mixed with a "corporate cutthroat" situation that I think blended pretty well.
(Side note, I'm convinced people who say her lore is abysmal are just nitpicking because they already don't like her, it isn't substantially worse than most other stories in this game)
I really liked the gas mask, especially, I always love those. I'm running Trapper's neon gas mask currently, I adore gas masks as an aesthetic. Kinda wish SM's wasn't bejewelled, but it's not too bad.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634746#Comment_3634746
"If they're counting out the basekit BT or they're not there to begin with, you've got a reasonable amount of opportunity to make distance and reach a tile. It could be improved, but that is those tools working as intended."
This only works if you're under a pallet at that point, and you're still getting tunnelled. DS getting cut in half was, IMO, a big buff to tunnelling.
DS should go back to five seconds, and IMO, OTR should become total info blackout: no sound, no aura, no screams, no blood trail, no scratch marks.
That assumes that you're going down as soon as the timer is done, though. That can be the case, but you also could've just reached a loop that you're now playing and wasting the killer's time. Both of those are roughly equally likely, in my experience, so there's no reason to favour one over the other as the default assumption.
Of course you're still going to be tunnelled, though. The point of anti-tunnel is to waste the killer's time and make it not desirable, not to make tunnelling impossible. The idea of current anti-tunnel tools is that you reach a tile and play it, leading the killer to abandon chase because it's not worth it. More can and should be done for perks that you bring for anti-tunnel, but that is exactly how the basekit version of anti-tunnel should function, that part isn't a flaw.
As an aside, if you did all that to OTR, you'd need to have everything disable on Conspicuous Actions rather than just the Endurance, because 80 seconds of all that when you aren't being tunnelled would be way too much.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634724#Comment_3634724
Conversely though, it's not really fair to assume the killer will always be there within ten seconds. Nor that they won't count out the basekit BT, either.
Whatever you want to make of it, 5 sec DS was doing a ton of heavy lifting to deter and weaken tunnelling, and that stopped with 6.1.
If they're counting out the basekit BT or they're not there to begin with, you've got a reasonable amount of opportunity to make distance and reach a tile. It could be improved, but that is those tools working as intended.
The one thing I'll agree with you on here is that DS was a better deterrent, that I believe to be flat out true. Tunnelling didn't get stronger or worse in an impact sense, but it did get more frequent after 6.1, and that's more than enough reason to make more changes to address it. It's weaker, but not so much so that the increased frequency isn't annoying or damaging to the game's health.
Just to reiterate, I do support buffing the DS stun duration back to five seconds for this reason.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3634649#Comment_3634649
To my experience, BT was pretty ubiquitous. And it can affect multiple survivors, even if only one person brought it. DS also bought more time than one hit does.
The point is more that it was completely out of your control if you benefited from BT, and it wasn't guaranteed. That means you could very easily be downed as soon as your feet touched the floor. Now, that's impossible, and you don't need to rely on your teammate having decided to bring BT.
You shouldn't assume BT was in play when talking about pre-6.1, because that assumption wouldn't always bear out in a real match. The fact that now BT is always in play is part of how tunnelling was weakened in 6.1, both in the sense that you can use it to make distance and in the sense that it made the most aggressive and egregious form of tunnelling impossible.
-
I got the same loadout on all my hooks right now: Trans Pride flag, Progress flag, and the pride-coloured bird. Big fan of those ever since they were added, haven't taken them off since putting them on.
Though, shoutout to the "heart in a cage" charm from... I think Trickster's tome? That was a cool charm, I used that one before.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632240#Comment_3632240
So, BT (as perk or base kit mechanic) had always been anti camping. As you said, it does nothing if you aren't back at the hook, and 10 seconds is no deterrent to tunneling.
BT does stack with DS, but the DS nerf was a direct buff to tunneling. So before the killer had to hit BT (as a perk) then eat DS. Not it's only BT and the replacement for DS (OTR) is also disabled in that one swing.
So going from 'i hit endurance, down, then deal with the anti tunnel perk' to 'hit endurance, down, then hook' is 100% cutting out the 'anti tunnel' part in it's entirely. That sounds like a pretty big buff to tunneling when all of that happened in one patch: 6.1.
This is the mistake that everyone makes when they want to claim that tunnelling was buffed in 6.1 despite that not being true: They always assume that Borrowed Time (the perk) was actually in play when talking about the pre-6.1 examples.
It had a high pickrate, sure, but it wasn't that high. It wasn't on every survivor in every game, not even close. It's straight up disingenuous to use "hit BT, down, eat DS, down" as the example of tunnelling before, because that wasn't tunnelling before. It was "down, eat DS, down, hook", because DS was meaningfully in everyone's loadout and BT was not.
At worst, tunnelling was sidegraded because now you've swapped the one anti-tunnel source the killer would be dealing with for the other. More realistically, tunnelling was weakened, because the most egregious form of it is now completely impossible. There's something to be said about anti-tunnel being harder to stack now, and I agree that should be changed, but that doesn't translate to tunnelling having been buffed.
Also, BT is definitely anti-tunnel. It doesn't do anything to stop a killer from camping, but it does stop them from tunnelling the person you unhook, at least straight away. It's not a silver bullet that makes tunnelling completely impossible, but it is an anti-tunnel measure.
-
I've mentioned it many times, and I'll continue to do so: my pipe dream want is Worm, with Skitter/Khepri as the killer and probably no associated survivor.
She'd make for such a good killer. Narratively, aesthetically, even mechanically, she'd hit a lot of good markers.
For something a little more realistic, I'd like to see an Evil Within chapter, but I wouldn't want it if the killer is something lame like whoever the main villain was from the first game. If they have to, just going survivor-only with skins for Trapper and Hillbilly for Box Man and Chainsaw Dude respectively would be a better option than that.
-
There's a couple problems with this rhetoric that I can see.
The first is the big one, and the one some people have already pointed out: Tunnelling a survivor out of the match directly affects a human player's ability to play the game. Generators being done quickly does not stop the killer from playing, it just makes the match harder. There is something to be said about how chases and dying are part of the game, but if a survivor wants to do anything other than chase when they're being tunnelled, they're completely outta luck, so it still warrants discussion.
Genrushing is what "gen tunnelling" is, and that difference in language does actually matter for once. It makes it clear that what's happening on the survivor side is actually rushing their objective, versus the killer side targeting one player over others.
Which leads me to my second point: The killer is not at all punished for 'forcing their objective'. Even if we were to ignore that anti-tunnel tools are a little weaker than they should be, your objective is to kill all four survivors, not to focus one guy down. If you get one guy dead because you tunnelled them, and it took long enough that the gens get done and the other three escape... you haven't forced your objective, you've failed your objective. Tunnelling is not required to win, but it's also not always even a good strategy if you can't guarantee those downs are fast.
To me, forcing the objective as the killer role is spreading pressure as much as possible. It's keeping survivors occupied and harrying them away from their objective, not getting tunnel vision on one of four objectives to the detriment of others. This is another reason that tunnelling and genrushing shouldn't be compared directly; they aren't even both examples of rushing the objective.
Third, while I do think that there are some ways of making generators a little too fast (pretty much exclusively toolboxes, honestly), it's honestly kinda hard to genuinely genrush at the moment. If you don't have a very specific genrush build it's basically impossible, gen speeds are such that the killer has a lot of input over the speed of the trial... if they are playing their objective smartly and not trying to focus one person out, anyway. If they're doing that, or they're trying to camp hooks, the gens are gonna go by quite quick.
Fourth, I want to highlight that it's a little silly to complain about getting to the endgame frequently but also stalwartly refuse to use any endgame perks, and for silly reasons to boot. Terminus obviously helps against Adrenaline, it stops half of the perk's effects from working, and NOED doesn't give free kills- it's just a spike of lethality.
Finally, I want to cap off by focusing on the part where you say that "three gens are done by your first hook every other game" - quotes for reference, not to sound too aggressive, hope that's clear. I would like to ask, in good faith, how are you adjusting to try and counter that? Do you swap out any perks, or attempt any different strategies? It's definitely possible for the first few generators to fly by very quickly, I won't deny that, but it's not entirely out of your control.
-
What do you mean by "can't chase too fast", out of curiosity?
I know what you're referring to with the other two, even if they aren't problems the way you're making them out to be, but I'm not sure what that one actually refers to.
-
@Murgleïs said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633072#Comment_3633072
OK then let’s say 10 hooks because the last 2 survivors may be sacrificed with hooks stage remaing, but not less because you would be somehow tunneling depending of definitions.
Also, if by snowball you mean slugging know that it is considered a very unfun, toxic and unfair strategy by a lot of survivors.
So now, explain to me how a Pig player can win going for at least 10 hooks versus a SWF with solid looping / gens repair skills.
Also, that Pig player is unfortunately short on money IRL and kinda new to the game so she doesn’t own any DLC (no pop, no pain res, no corrupt), only being able to use free perks.
Thanks.
I don't mean slugging specifically, I mean snowballing. Sometimes that happens via light slugging, sometimes it happens because you intercept someone going for a hook save, etcetera. I also don't see how it's relevant that some players dislike slugging considering we aren't talking about what tactics are enjoyable, just whether tunnelling is necessary.
I've also already explained it...? Your goal is to occupy as many survivors at once as you can. Pig's actually pretty good at doing this once she's gotten the pressure started, because on top of what we've already laid out - one on hook, one in chase, one going for the save - that last survivor might not even be on generators if they have to run between Jigsaw boxes.
Doing this successfully is as potent as tunnelling, though you may have to change how you approach a trial. Hypothetically, you wouldn't be wanting to run four slowdown perks - that's not even a good build if you are tunnelling, honestly. You'd want to bring a good blend of chase, info, slowdown, and other forms of utility, or just a build where the perks synergise with each other.
Even your restrictive hypothetical doesn't really change any of this...? Only being able to use free perks is pretty rough, but it's not as though you need those fancy meta perks you're referring to. This hypothetical Pig might have a harder time than someone playing a better killer with better perks (albeit not necessarily slowdown), but it's hardly impossible and they hardly need to tunnel.
-
@Murgleïs said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3633063#Comment_3633063
Explain to me in details how going for 12 hooks is a « strong » strategy ?
I'm not saying it is, I'm saying spreading your pressure is a strong strategy.
People progress hook states all the time, especially if they're sacrificed in the endgame or you get a snowball. Going for 12 hook states is not the only alternative to tunnelling.
But, to be more precise... If everyone is alive, and by default (so not factoring in perks or powers yet), the best scenario you can be in is the following: One survivor on the hook, one survivor in chase, one survivor peeling off to get the save. If you're good in chase and you have good macro strategy, you can pretty reliably keep this going just by default; add in time spent healing, or any perks + powers they might have to deal with (IE, finding + cleansing Devour Hope or running between Jigsaw Boxes), and your basekit pressure is pretty considerable.
Tunnelling is, when it works, easier. It's not at all required.
-
@Murgleïs said:
It’s funny because nobody talks about counterplay. You all want this perk back in the meta by buffing it to narnia but you don’t think for a second about how the killer could avoid it while getting value.
Because right now, going for 12 hooks doesn’t give you any value. At least back in the day you had BBQ for the extra BP but that’s gone.
The counterplay is to not tunnel.
You don't need to tunnel to win, spreading pressure is already comparably strong. Tunnelling is just easier.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632948#Comment_3632948
And then, the return of the no mither/decisive/map offering builds to get to places where you can't hook, slug, pick up or do much without a SWF group punishing any choice you make.
I am pretty sure that No Mither has never, ever been a build.
It has, it's just the much less powerful version of the unhookable builds.
I don't see it often, but I do see it. People use No Mither for unhookable builds if they're under the impression unhookable builds are silly memes, from what I can gather.
-
Fully agreed on it not giving Deep Wounds. There's no real reason not to, allowing an anti-tunnel perk (or just other source of Endurance like Dead Hard) to work in tandem with the basekit system instead of being cancelled out by it would allow anti-tunnel perks to be more potent, and therefore more effective at preventing tunnelling.
The only potential concern is bodyblocking, and eh... I'm not bothered, personally. If survivors want to throw so they can be tunnelled by the killer (while occupying two survivors at once, as the person who unhooked them is still there and accounted for), that's fine by me. You'd just wait out the basekit BT and hit them, either for the down or to get through them if they have OTR. Minor annoyance at worst.
As for losing collision, I don't hate it, but I also feel like it wouldn't be necessary if we implement the above change.
-
The above comment is correct, but I'd also like to add on that the win conditions existed first and the MMR is based on them, not the other way around.
Pet peeve of mine when people act like the game didn't have a win condition until MMR.
I'd also like to highlight that one game isn't really going to swing your MMR too aggressively in any game, it's about your win/loss ratio over time. If you're facing crazy matches after a match you lost by getting a single kill, something else is going wrong with the matching portion of the MMR system.
-
@ChaosWam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632940#Comment_3632940
Survivors to this day still try to take the bodyblock trap using current DS, regardless of the conspicuous action.
But forget that for a second, I say the prior to those who want conspicuous gone, 5 seconds+ stuns, active in endgame and other really broken things without addressing the killers who aren't interested in tunneling and will eventually get the raw end of whatever buff.
Then the next issue will arise, just slugging everyone just in case. And then, the return of the no mither/decisive/map offering builds to get to places where you can't hook, slug, pick up or do much without a SWF group punishing any choice you make. I guarantee if proper changes aren't in place for a DS buff, we'll see it added to the current SWF builds already still being used to deny the killer any choice to play the match normally.
I haven't seen too many people asking for the Conspicuous Actions change to be reverted, I'd agree with you that it'd be a bad idea to do that.
Most people just want the five second stun back from what I've seen, and that won't lead to people being able to weaponise it. It's currently not possible to use DS aggressively unless the killer takes the bait, and even in most of the cases where they do make that easily avoidable mistake, you've still thrown the match getting them to do it.
No extra changes would be needed if all they do is raise the stun time again. Anything else, sure, there might be some issues, but the stun being raised to where it was before will just mean the perk is partially back to its healthiest state. Hell, even raising the stun time further wouldn't be an issue in that regard, but I do think it wouldn't be necessary to go further than five seconds.
-
@ChaosWam said:
I feel like a ton of survivors need to be reminded of why Decisive was nerfed in the first place: Killers who didn't tunnel.
You'd get survivor SWF who would take bodyblocks for their team after an unhook and try to get you to pick them up, or get their team to do a pickup tech when you try to break a pallet/grab another survivor from a locker, get stunned for 5 seconds, rinse and repeat for trying to SPREAD hooks.
Anyone asking for 5 or more seconds, endgame availability, and no downside at all are just asking to abuse it again.
That stopped being meaningfully possible (without throwing, at least) when the Conspicuous Actions nerf happened, though. There was a period of time where we had that deactivation requirement and a five second stun, and during that time, the perk was basically the healthiest it's ever been.
(During that time it did stay active in the endgame, though, which wasn't ideal. I'm not suggesting we bring that back.)
-
It's the only thing that makes Keys not completely useless, in my opinion- though shoutout to the teammate-aura reading addons, those are pretty okay too.
Definitely underrated, though, people kinda forget it exists in my opinion.
-
@AnxiousGummy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3631888#Comment_3631888
I don't think freezing the killer's power is the way to go. You'll essentially be tailoring the perk around the top 3 or so strongest killers while completely hindering the rest of the killer roster that are not as strong.
To be fair, it's only hindering them IF they tunnel, which is how this perk is supposed to work to begin with. That's not a huge downside.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632223#Comment_3632223
What xEa said, plus the nerf to DS in 6.1, and making it so that endurance doesn't stack. So base kit BT (a camping deterrent) can trigger deep wounds, which now disables both OTR and Dead Hard. And those are literally all of the anti tunneling perks you can bring at this point.
The only hope you have is a teammate stepping in to help you, and even BU+FtP is on the chopping block according to the road map.
I mean, even taking into account that the base kit BT doesn't stack with OTR, that's... still a nerf to tunnelling. Hitting someone twice before they're downed is still a nerf from before, where you would hit them once as soon as their feet touch the ground and they're down immediately unless their teammate brought BT.
I'm not saying tunnelling is in a good spot, obviously, but it also pretty unambiguously got weaker from 6.1.0. onwards. I've advocated before that the basekit anti-tunnel shouldn't trigger Deep Wounds so it can be paired with anti-tunnel perks like OTR and BT (and even perks that aren't anti-tunnel like Dead Hard), but the addition of basekit anti-tunnel definitely does not count as a tunnelling buff just because it stacks poorly with perks.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3632135#Comment_3632135
I'm more trying to be realistic. I honestly doubt that even getting 5 seconds back is a huge stretch.
Asking or expecting things like disabling killer power for a few seconds, or even working after both hook stages is asking too much. After a year and a half of doing nothing but buffing tunneling, I honestly don't think BHVR cares about anything other than the killer being in chase all game. If the killer chooses to chase the same survivor, that seems to be 100% acceptable gameplay. And I can't really blame them, when it's hard enough to get killers to stop camping hooks or gens.
When did they buff tunnelling?
-
A few small changes.
Stun timer back up to five seconds. This one's a gimme, it's pretty obviously necessary to make the perk actually do its job reliably. Sure, right now you can use current DS as effective anti-tunnel if you're skilled and get downed in a good area... but the perk should work for all players all of the time, not just for skilled players some of the time.
Make the skill check bigger. I would honestly suggest removing it altogether, but I suppose there might be some niche scenarios where you want the choice of whether to activate it, so... make it the same as the beginning of the second-hook-stage skill checks. See above, the perk should not only be usable if you can reliably hit small skill checks.
Lastly, not exactly a DS-specific change, but add saves to the list of Conspicuous Actions. By and large it's not actually possible to reliably weaponise DS anymore, not without throwing, but I do think it's a little silly that you can potentially go chase + down someone else and still might eat a DS because you down the person that got a flashlight/pallet save. Small change, won't matter most of the time, just a nice safeguard.
I'm wary of making DS too good, not because I'm sympathetic to the plight of tunnelling killers but because I don't think tunnelling should be "fixed" with a single, paid-DLC perk. More should be done alongside buffing DS, in my opinion.
-
Does Revelations 2 count as OG? Either way, I want skins from that myself.
Moira Burton and Alex Wesker especially, they're my dream gets.
-
If they can find a way to make the Laura (? think that's her name) monster the killer, the Evil Within chapter would be the best thing they've ever done. I love that spidery freak so much. Special shoutout to Box Man, who I believe is probably the Keeper but I never looked up his name and he will always be Box Man to me. He'd make a good Trapper skin, I agree.
It'd be cool to get a Nurse Tatiana skin for the survivor, too.
-
While a lack of variety can be somewhat annoying and boring, I don't think these builds you're showing are particularly problematic.
You've got two perks that you as a killer don't need to care about; Windows barely does anything for teams on comms, it's just a nice thing to have without really being all that impactful, and OTR is extremely hard to weaponise so the only real impact it'll have is fairly consistent lack of aura reading. That last part isn't nothing, but it's also not really something you have to be mindful of or react to beyond using basekit tracking.
Then you've got the two Exhaustion perks you're facing, and while I personally find Sprint Burst annoying, I don't think it needs any changes. Lithe is fine, too, and there's also the fact that there are enough Exhaustion perks for you to be facing one on every survivor even with restrictions.
Finally Adrenaline, the only perk I think is actually something worth talking about because stacking that four times can be pretty demoralising. Whether or not Adrenaline needs a nerf, though, let's take a step back and ask how many perks these survivors actually have for the majority of the game: One. They have their Exhaustion perk, and then three perks that are either safety nets against certain tactics or just not doing anything for them. At most, they have OTR's aura blocking, which only counts depending on what you're running. Windows has barely any effect beyond easing mental load, Adrenaline does nothing until the endgame, OTR does either absolutely nothing or very very little if you don't tunnel depending on if you brought aura reading.
Certainly, these aren't builds that annihilate lower tier killers and render the games unplayable. They're just kinda... generically pretty good perks smushed together with little synergy.
-
I'm curious if BHVR would consider this skin a little too far in terms of sexualisation. I think it's borderline, personally, but especially with Rebecca's other RE0 skins it's clear that RE as a franchise is more willing to put its characters in skimpy outfits than DBD is. I'd like to see it, but I'd also understand if this one didn't make the cut.
In terms of other RE skins, though, I am BEGGING for an Alex Wesker skin for the Mastermind. I'd become a Wesker main, I'd actually learn how to play him, I want it so bad. Death is her escape... but not this one.
Moira Burton would be nice to see, too. She'd fit quite well, considering her mechanics in that game.
-
Looking at this list of perks should be weakening your argument, not supporting it. If you don't want just the strongest stuff, if you like experimenting to see what has value and in what scenarios, there's been a lot in this timeframe to use. I'll go through this list again to make my point here...
Yoichi: So we have one good perk right off the bat, Parental Guidance. Decent value, decent synergy, not incredible but definitely something you can run. Then Empathetic Connection, a perk with a good effect that it can be kind of hard to notice working. Not bad in the slightest, but I see why people wouldn't want to run it. Then Dark Theory, which imo is just a bad perk. Yoichi, who you're laughing off entirely, has two perfectly serviceable perks.
Haddie: While we have one bad perk, Inner Focus, her others are fine. Residual Manifest has an interesting quirk and enables the kind of gameplay a lot of survivors like by buffing flashlight blinds, and Overzealous is a perk that gives you generator value without being a genrush perk, because it makes messing with totems worth it. So, yes, actually, Overzealous is fun, it gives you an actual side objective that'll benefit you without being broken.
Ada: I agree with you here. Wiretap is good, Low Profile is functionally serviceable but just not a design many want to use (putting it in a similar boat to Empathetic Connection, just less reliable), and Reactive Healing is too finnicky + destroyed by the status effect I hate spelling. I wouldn't go so far as to say "unusable trash", but not desirable to be sure.
Rebecca: TWO very strong perks, Reassurance and Hyperfocus. While Reassurance is a straightforward one, Hyperfocus also has the benefit of making skillchecks more challenging, which is (in my opinion) an attempt at making generator repair a little more interesting for the survivors that complain it's boring. I'd also defend the design of Better Than New, but I'll admit it's missing a little something to make it more worth running.
Vittorio: Quick Gambit is really bad, no denying that, but while Potential Energy may be a little contentious in the strength department, it at least has an interesting design and a clear use case. Fogwise, though, is just flat out a good perk, there's not much more to be said on that front.
Thalita: I don't know why everyone acts like Cut Loose isn't a good perk, it's literally just Quick & Quiet that emphasises mindgames a little more, that perk's obviously fine. It's quite good, even! Her other two, not so much, the Teamwork perks are both borderline unusable due to their ridiculous cooldowns on top of finnicky designs + Friendly Competition is a pretty mediocre effect for a pretty underwhelming action.
Renato: Background Player is good, Blood Rush is at least interesting even if it's not the strongest, and as mentioned, the Teamwork perks both suck.
Gabriel: MFT is still fine, but even if it weren't, Troubleshooter is a strong and (subjectively of course) fun perk. Scavenger... I'd consider it too inconsistent to use, but it's potentially strong.
Nic Cage: Obviously everyone agrees these perks are good and fun, so I won't repeat it beyond that.
Ripley: All good perks, to varying degrees, and with interesting designs to boot.
Alan Wake: Too early to tell, but none of his perks are flat out bad on the PTB at least. The boon could use a bit of a buff, I don't think Deadline needs the injured stipulation (+ I think the Madness-lite effect is like Hyperfocus, meant to make skill checks more interesting instead of being a flat downside), and if anything Champion of Light might need a slight nerf.
As we can see from going through the list again, every recently released survivor has at least one good and interesting perk, most have two, and only a few have anything I'd call genuinely flat-out bad. There are a few inconsistent ones like Scavenger and Low Profile, perks that you can't guarantee will activate, but not many and even those aren't necessarily bad, just harder to want to bring.
Survivor perk viability right now is the best it's ever been, between new releases that bring interesting pieces of a full build, old perks that have always just been good, and old perks that have been getting buffed or reworked. People just have to start approaching the idea of a perk build with a little more thought, instead of immediately dismissing things out of hand for not being on par with Adrenaline. A few actually bad perks doesn't mean all survivor perks recently have been bad.
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3533530#Comment_3533530
While I agree that disconnecting isn't the right move, you immediately know the match will not be fun the moment you see her drones for the first time. It doesn't matter, if she intends to defend a 3gen or only wants to showcase her lack of counterplay in chase. You're screwed either way and there is no fun to be had. Deactivating drones isn't fun. Breaking a 3gen for 20 minutes isn't fun. And a killer that presses M2 to immediately put you in a lose-lose situation with no effort isn't fun either.
I made this post about a different version of the killer, I don't think it's super constructive to try and argue against it now?
@GeneralV said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3533530#Comment_3533530
As for how to fix her, you don't need to radically overhaul her power. You just need to lean into it being versatile and strategic, while lessening its direct lethality and removing certain addons. It's already capable of doing far more than 3-genning, just not very well. So... make it better at those things with number buffs, and retool her addons to better support those playstyles, while nerfing its area-denial capability by removing Lock-On. That's my pitch.
Do you have a full concept for her?
Skull Merchant isn't a part of the Old DBD, so she is outside my area of expertise. I'm genuinely curious to know what her players wanted to do with her.
I did, actually! Here was my writeup: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/384363/fixing-the-skull-merchant#latest
Though, for the record, I'm mostly fine with the new rework. I don't think it has all the same strengths as her old design, but it maintains the strongest/most straightforward method of playing old Skull Merchant while being much much healthier. I'd have preferred to see something more along the lines of what I proposed, of course, but I don't blame BHVR for playing it safe and shifting her further away.
-
As others have pointed out, the fact that you want to see them so you can lobby dodge is a very compelling argument for hiding them. Lobby dodging is bad, largely because it makes the matchmaking system worse but at least partially because it's unfair to cycle lobbies until you get an easy game.
Don't lobby dodge. The matches you're trying to avoid usually won't even be as bad as you're dreading, honestly.
-
To be fair, is there much point in designing perks for bad items nobody uses and that need to be overhauled anyway?
-
The rhetorical strategy of looking at a rework that arguably makes a perk worse, treating that as a straight nerf, and then treating it as an intentional nerf on top of that is really annoying, not gonna lie.
It's pretty clear from the language used and the specific changes made that BHVR don't view this as a nerf to Quick Gambit, so saying "who asked for Quick Gambit nerfs" isn't really achieving anything. Nobody did, including BHVR, which is why they have not tried to nerf it.
We can talk about how to improve Quick Gambit without pretending it's being intentionally nerfed.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3624187#Comment_3624187
Name me one of those killers that can play against a team like hens and ayrun.
So, two things to say to that.
1: Assuming the killer player is comparably skilled, almost anyone on the roster. The only killers I'd say might not be good enough are Trapper in general, and Myers if he's running anything but Tombstone Piece.
2: Who cares? Hens and Ayrun and the other tournament-grade survivors are massive outliers, they are not at all a fair metric for judging whether a killer is low tier or not. "Can this killer beat the best of the best in the world for the survivor role" is a nothing question, especially when it's in a discussion about a game full of players who aren't even close to being the best of the best in the world for the killer role.
In summation: Very odd response with very little bearing on the conversation we've been having up until this point.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3624162#Comment_3624162
All of them are. At a high level only nurse and blight are viable, and maybe spirit in some cases. But one ONE of these is low tier?
- Pig
- Legion
- Demogorgon
- Deathslinger
- Pyramid Head
- Nemesis
- Knight
Pig, legion, demo, deathslinger, nemesis, knight? Arguably PH maybe is the only one there that isn't "low tier" but that is only because he can hard tunnel super effectively. If he isn't playing scummy then he is also low tier.
If this list is meant to be a list of STBFL users, it's a little off the mark. Why is Legion on here? They have almost no use for STBFL, they injure almost exclusively with special attacks and shortening the cooldown after downing a survivor is of pretty limited value as well as leading to quite slow stack gain in the first place. Let's take them off the list before we continue, they don't really make any sense to be here.
We'll also call into question Knight and to a lesser extent Pig. Now, Knight's not actually all that low tier anyway, but more important for this list is that his M2 is not easy to mitigate stack loss with due to just... everything about how it works, it's much more potent as a vehicle to engineer M1s than it is a tool for actually damaging survivors. Pig is in a similar boat, but to be fair, that's just because her M2 is straight up bad rather than designed differently, so for the sake of argument we'll keep her.
With those two taken off, let's look at these killers.
Pig: Arguably not deserving to be on this list as I mentioned, but even assuming she's here, Pig's middle of the pack and not a low tier killer.
Demogorgon: Mid tier, not low tier.
Deathslinger: Again, mid tier, and also not that great at using STBFL anyway? Sure, there's the chain breaking trick, but he still has to basic attack the Obsession eventually.
Pyramid Head: Definitely a higher tier killer. Also kind of questionable to be on this list? I don't really play him though, so maybe good PHs can freely swap between M1 and M2.
Nemesis: Higher tier killer, gets reduced use from STBFL since his tentacle is better than an M1 in almost all scenarios.
So, our list here doesn't actually contain the one good STBFL user that is low tier - Trapper - and includes a bunch of killers that are not great users of the perk, not low tier killers, or both. The killers that actually use STBFL pretty well tend to not be low tier killers - aside from Trapper, killers like Myers, Clown, Ghostface, and Freddy don't actually have any special tricks for preventing stack loss reliably. Low tier killers don't use STBFL to begin with, mid tier killers do.
Also, not the point of the post, but more than just Nurse and Blight are viable. Even if we expand to just the A tier and assume everyone else is unsuable trash, that still leaves Spirit, Wesker, Plague, and a few others.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3624021#Comment_3624021
they also reduced it from 5% to 4% per stack. So they will still feel a nerf.
Well, yes, but that's not the nerf being called attention to in the original post. I was responding to highlighting the stack loss nerf, which only a handful of killers are even in a position to notice -- and of those, only one of them is actually low tier.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3623808#Comment_3623808
I mean, it sure does. High tier killer like Nurse, Blight or Spirit wont benefit from that perk much. But others like Doctor, Pig, Trapper, Clown or Freddy and others will feel the nerf. And those named killers are not exactly high tier, arent they?
That's the thing, though, they literally won't?
Pig maybe, she does have a special attack, but the only nerf the others will notice (excepting Trapper who I acknowledged) is the slight nerf to the wipe speed. They won't notice the nerf to the stack loss that OP draws attention to, because they don't have a special attack to begin with.
-
Does it?
The only low tier killer this affects is Trapper, right? The other killers it affects are the hybrid special/basic types, so Demogorgon, Nemesis, Wesker, and Xenomorph kinda. The only one of those that isn't outright strong is Demogorgon, and he's hardly weak either.
I don't actually agree with this change, but I don't think it unfairly harms low tiers over high tiers.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3623746#Comment_3623746
So if survivors do this strategy, your advice is to just “not to defend that generator cluster”? Does that mean the killer is supposed to just give up?
How on earth do you get "just give up" from "don't waste too much time defending one generator cluster"?
Your job isn't to prevent any generators from being repaired at all. It's to kill survivors. Yes, sometimes that will involve intentionally letting certain generators be completed to better control the trial and bait survivors.
This scenario you're describing is only a problem if the killer cares (too much) about defending a 3-gen instead of progressing their objective.