Best Of

Weird to mention sabo squads since that's not what almost everyone is complaining about with slugging. Might as well include people lurking with a flashlight in that case. Both of those are generally considered "reasonable reasons to leave someone on the ground for a short period" while you go chase the other person. Neither is a reason to leave someone intentionally slugged for 4 minutes to bleed out.

The other two, though, are self-fulfilling prophecies.

If you hard tunnel one person and leave the other 3 alone, they will do gens. Survivors respond to things the killer does or brings to the match, and do gens by default. But if I reword your complaint to "you know what, if you want to do gens I'm going to leave you alone and let you do gens" doesn't sound nearly as victimizing as you'd like.

Camping because of "swarming the hook" can also be self fulfilling. If you stand around the hook long enough you actually get both "gen rushing" and eventually someone will have to try and unhook "swarm the hook".

Their focus is entirely on new chapters, it seems. The bug reports are already too backed up to address fully and if I'm not mistaken Mandy said the ST chapter was only going to focus on itself. At least 2v8 got some changes, but where will we be once it's gone again?

lol interesting that you disregard something when it goes against your argument.

I'm disregarding it because you love bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with the topic. "Don't like getting tunneled? Well, I don't like it when survivors wear red. Guess we all have to deal with these torally equal things that absolutely align though." You constantly compare anything that exists in the game to any other random thing in the game when they're not at all equivalent or even related.

Maybe the killer is using a different account, they could have more hours than everyone but the hours shown would say only few hundred

I am a cross progression player so I understand it perfectly well. I'm taking about obvious cases, like a killer who whiffs constantly, misses their M2s, can't mind game, doesn't know what gens to patrol, but still brainlessly tunnels because some YTer told them to. You're also assuming the bad 3k hour player is playing what they main. They could be playing killer with 200 hours while the other 2.8k is in survivor.

The game is clearly designed around tunneling or it would be made reportable like griefing is, it would be hard nerfed and stopped dead

Something existing and something being part of a design aren't the same thing. If anything, the game has adjusted to tunneling because it has to, because tunneling is skewing the numbers and likely keeping low tier killers in the dumps to maintain the 60%. If everyone stopped tunneling and BHVR saw the real numbers, instead of them being obscured by cheese, they could get to the real issues.

But no, I'm sure they put all that work into those ptbs just for funsies. Let's just pretend they didn't actively try to stop tunneling but chickened out in the end. That never happened, since it doesn't fit your by-design narrative.

You only won because you had a good map" or "you only won because of your perks"

It's true though. I win a good deal of my killer matches because of these things. The game gives one side or the other stuff for free, or it's luck, with what perks you chose versus you're opponenet, or it's putting on Lightborn because you saw three flashlights in the lobby. Much of this game is chance-based amongst average players.

These are all poor excuses people come out with to justify a loss while not taking responsibility for their own actions, decisions and skill.

Yeah, taking responsibility for your actions instead of blaming teammates and opponenets is certainly a popular take in the community, present company included.

You really should stop with that argument because your made up rules have no say in what is playing properly and what isnt.

I really do love how you keep saying this as if you and I are the only people in the forum and there isn't a steady stream of posters saying the exact same things, very often to you. There's been a million arguments about this same stuff for years but no, they're my rules.

I don't think it's nearly as simple as don't like what is said but can't argue against it. I think alot of them don't see the reason to spend time arguing with someone if they don't believe that person will listen.

Part 2 because of character limits

And when you say “that’s a core design philosophy issue,” you’re actually conceding the structure of the argument — you’re just moving it to a broader category.

Have been since we've been on this topic. Literally repeated this argument in multiple posts when I've compared how the same scaling happens with other types of perks.

Also, pointing out that situational perks can be strong in SWF doesn’t counter this. Yes, coordination amplifies those too. The difference is:

• Event perks scale with event frequency.
• Repair bonuses scale with total active repair time.
• Generator completion is the win condition.

So if coordination primarily increases sustained repair uptime, then the perks that scale with uptime naturally convert coordination into objective progress more consistently.

Consistently does not equal better.

The differences you cite aren't actually math that back up your argument, they're presumptions which have no relevance without numbers.

The thing you are leaving out of your scenarios is value. Just because an event is frequent doesn't make it better if the value it actually gives is still much less than an infrequent event with a large value.

That’s the argument. Not “predictable = better.” Not “minor > major.”Scaling interaction.

You say that, but you literally just made that argument again. See consistently above. You keep having to add these words that you say don't mean better, but without them your argument falls apart.

You keep saying “show cumulative value.

That’s exactly what sustained uptime is.

Let's look at my actual quote - Rate x value x frequency = overall value compared to the same scenario for soloq.

You need a comparison for this to have relevance. If used more = better is not something anyone has ever argued against.

If coordination increases total simultaneous repair time across four survivors, then percentage bonuses applied to that time naturally generate more total progress.

Event perks scale with moments.Repair bonuses scale with uptime.

Coordination increases uptime more consistently than it increases rare trigger events. .

Consistently does not equal better. Overall value is what mattters.

Rate is part of total value.

Total value = value per second × total seconds applied.You can’t say “rate doesn’t matter” while asking about overall impact — rate directly determines accumulation over time.

Lol, this is the second time you've misquoted this same thing

Let's look at my full quote - rate doesn't matter without factoring in the overall value achieved.

Rate is ONE OF the factors that determines overall value achieved. That word "without" is incredibly important. I literally gave you an equation that I've quoted again in this response.

Just because something has a high rate has no relevance without the other factors.

Small per-second gains across four coordinated survivors for an entire match can absolutely outscale large but rare effects. That’s just how scaling works.

Just going to quote myself again to show how I've already said that:

"On the last thing you type there - "total impact can be larger even if each individual gain is smaller."

Sure, no one disagrees with that in concept.

Demonstrating it with the perks/items that exist in game, in comparison to soloq, in comparison to what else SWFs could run is the issue."

If you want to argue the magnitude is small, argue it.

I have, multiple times. You literally quote me doing one of those arguments right after this, and you haven't made a response to my requests for how much value you actually think survivors are getting out of their gen perks in a soloq in comparison to a SWF.

But dismissing rate entirely while asking for total value doesn’t make sense.

Good thing I didn't dismiss rate entirely.

You’re still comparing isolated perk value instead of team-wide uptime scaling.

Gen multipliers apply to every second of coordinated repair across multiple survivors. That compounds all match long.

DS giving +50 seconds once every five games isn’t the same type of scaling as four survivors converting coordinated uptime into objective progress every second they’re repairing.

This isn’t “consistent = better.”It’s that sustained uptime × percentage scaling accumulates continuously, not situationally.

Sustained does not equal better. That's just you putting in a new word for consistent.

More survivors doesn't equal better, it just enhances the trade off discussion. If one survivors gets an extra five seconds over equivalent soloq on a gen with Deja Vu, that's 0.3 charges. If all four survivors do this, that's 1.2 charges, but that's a trade off of all four survivors trading off for an additional perk.

If you think the cumulative gain is small, quantify it.

What do you think I've been doing every time I've laid out these scenarios? Why do you think I ask you for what you think the numbers are?

But treating single-event spikes and continuous team-wide scaling as equivalent math isn’t accurate.

Presuming just because they are a team that they don't face the same risks on trade off value of perks isn't accurate. Do they have an advantage on it do to preplanning? Sure, but that's not unique to gen perks/items.

You keep reducing it to “direct ≠ better” like that’s the whole argument.

The distinction isn’t preference — it’s accumulation.

You literally say I keep talking about cumulative value earlier and now you are agreeing its what matters. Not sure what the point of everything else you said was if you're just going to agree with me, but, great, end result.

Opportunity-based perks require events.Repair multipliers convert every second of coordinated uptime into objective progress.

Events happen.

That’s not about liking “predictable value.”It’s about sustained team-wide scaling versus conditional spikes.

Sustained does not equal better. There's a killer, he's going to do things, having counters to what he does is very important.

If you think the cumulative impact is negligible, show that.

So I love the continued demands I show something, which I've actually dived into multiple times, despite you not showing it, despite it being your argument. If you want to go back to arguing something like Full Circuit sure, but when I or @FerrousFacade tried to focus on those arguments you said that wasn't the point of the discussion

Anecdotes don’t disprove scaling.

“Yes, I’ve seen solo gens fly” just shows efficiency exists — not that coordination + uptime scaling doesn’t amplify multipliers.

“Why aren’t more SWFs running it?” isn’t a rebuttal either. Meta choice depends on trade-offs, killer pool, map, comp rules, etc. Something not being universally spammed doesn’t mean the scaling interaction doesn’t exist.

And saying “we can’t always tell who’s SWF” doesn’t negate the mechanism, it just limits perfect observation. The math of uptime × percentage bonus doesn’t stop working because group labels aren’t visible.

So this whole part here sounds great, until you actually look at what part of your post I'm replying to - "which is why their cumulative impact becomes more visible when comparing equally skilled coordinated teams to solo play"

You're making an anecdotal argument, I'm responding in kind, though I'm backing it up with both personal experience and high MMR examples.

The claim is about compounding. Repair-speed multipliers apply to the win condition every second survivors are repairing. Coordination increases how many total seconds that happens simultaneously across the team. That’s where the cumulative difference comes from.

Yes, everything scales with coordination.

Glad you're back to agreeing with me that everything scales with coordination, not sure why you spend so long posting about the scaling mechanic for something you are going to agree with.

The distinction is that some effects scale through event frequency (chases, unhooks, anti-tunnel), while repair multipliers scale through sustained uptime on the objective itself. One is conditional on specific triggers. The other compounds every second the team maintains pressure.

So I was about to say compounds does not equal better, which is true, but even better, that's not what compounds means.

Gen perks add a straight linear line of benefit. Each additional second on a gen equal the amount of extra charges from the gen perks/items being used. Compounding would be something like Deja Vu growing in value with each use.

Saying “show the numbers” is fair — but dismissing the scaling logic entirely because we haven’t attached a spreadsheet yet doesn’t make the mechanism disappear.

No one is dismissing the scaling logic that you are now falling back to. It's uniqueness to the perks/items you have chosen in addition to its relevance to the difference between SWF/soloq at the upper end is the issue.

And we don't need a spreadsheet. Roughly how much value do you think a coordinated SWF would extract from these gen perks in comparison to an equally skilled soloq? As I've said, if you start laying out actual figures, you need to lay out some truly absurd scenarios to make these perks seem significant.

If your position is that the total compounded gain from coordinated uptime + multipliers is negligible compared to other perks, then that’s the comparison to argue.

That argument has been made multiple times. It's actually more detailed than that, because your argument is specifically about SWF vs soloq.

I've posted multiple times about how the difference between gen perks on soloq and SWFs would be relatively minor, especially compared to other game perks that SWFs can far more easily extract more coordinated value from.

But reducing it to “small frequent vs big rare” misses the structural difference: one compounds directly into objective completion every second, the other doesn’t.

Consistent does not equal better. Direct does not equal better. You keep saying that's not your argument, but you keep making it.

There's a character count limit, never hit that before, this will be two posts.

We're going backwards, you keep trying to build an argument, I knock down what you bring up, and you fall back to base level mechanics as if that's the argument.

Your big issue in this post is scaling. You've fallen back to that arguing like I somehow think it doesn't exist, despite using quotes from me that actually talk about the scaling effects.

But just for frame of reference I said earlier - Everything scales with coordination.

And then you agreed! You said - Yup, everything improves with coordination, but not everything converts coordination into objective completion at the same rate.

I then went on to talk about objective completion rate relevance, which you barely touch in this post. Instead, you try to act like a mechanic is under argument that is not. We're not going in circles, you keep falling backwards out of anything that is a meaningful argument.

Anyway onto the post.

You keep treating this like the claim is “continuous = better,” when the actual point is about what coordination scales.

Coordination increases sustained repair uptime, and percentage repair bonuses convert that uptime directly into objective progress. That’s a mechanical relationship, not a vocabulary argument.

“Numbers matter” determines how big the effect is, not whether the scaling exists.

I keep treating the argument that continuous = better because that keeps being your argument.

Scaling isn't magical. It's math.

Your saying it’s not unique because “everything scales with coordination,” but that ignores what it scales into.

Repair-speed bonuses scale directly into objective completion. Most other perks scale into opportunity.

That difference is the entire point, and dismissing it as “continuous argument again” doesn’t refute it.

What refutes it, which I've said, is that its irrelevant on its own. As I'll repeat myself throughout the post, rate is only one component of overall value.

Anyway, you quote me saying 'everything scales with coordination', this is the top of your post, that's going to answer a lot of your question.

Your framing this as if repeating the mechanic means it’s unproven. It just means your counter hasn’t broken it.

No, its been pretty thoroughly destroyed, you just keep coming back to it and I keep trying.

And “we need numbers” isn’t a rebuttal, it’s just saying you don’t like the implication of the scaling relationship.

Continuing to say 'scaling relationship' without addressing the numbers means you don't actually have a response to show how this is actually advantageous. You're falling back to mechanics as if that's somehow the disagreement.

The mechanism is simple:More coordinated repair time → more seconds benefiting from percentage bonuses → more total objective progress.

If that relationship is wrong, show where it breaks. Otherwise we’re just circling.

Because you're stating a fact, not making an argument. Like I said, you might as well keep repeating 4 survivors, 1 killer as if that's an argument without discussing the entire game.

Using a perk more gets more value out of it. Everyone knows that. That's not related to SWF or soloq at all and is true for multiple perks in the game.

Calling the win condition “irrelevant” in a discussion about scaling objective completion is wild.

And sports analogies don’t replace math.The claim isn’t “simple = correct.”It’s that the scaling relationship is structurally straightforward, whether you like the implication or not..

Saying something is wild isn't proof, it's not even an argument. Survivors have to do multiple things in a match, you basically agree to them later in your post when talking about high MMR tradeoffs.

As for the analogy, if you don't have a response I've gotten used to it. I've tried math, I've tried scenarios, I thought I'd give analogies a try. Hopefully at some point you engage with something.

Correct. Direct does not automatically equal better.

But direct does mean the effect applies to the win condition immediately and continuously.

That matters when we’re discussing scaling under coordination.

You’re acting like “not inherently better” means “irrelevant.” It doesn’t.

So you say correct, then automatically try to argue the opposite.

As for "acting like" - this is why I like to quote you, in full. You say I argue adjectives, but that's because I want to give the person an actual chance to defend what they said (what they are 'acting like'). Despite your use of quote around 'irrelevant', every time I've used it I've attached it to other numbers or overall value. Having a single number in a math equation, especially one that is multiplication, is irrelevant without the other factors.

Also correct.

But extra steps introduce additional failure points and variability.

Heals, anti-tunnel, and chase perks depend on:

• Killer behavior
• Hook states
• Map position
• Timing windows

Repair speed bonuses depend on:

• Survivors being on gens

One is event-gated. The other is uptime-gated.

Again, you say correct, then try to argue the opposite.

Simple does not equal better.

Those are not structurally identical.

Not only have I never said they are structurally identical, I literally went into major vs minor benefits that you've referenced in this post. The relevant factors is the overall value and strategic implications that can be gained from perks/items in multiple matches.

Sure, if it yields a greater return.

But that’s a numerical question, not a structural one.

The structural point is this:

• Conditional perks spike in isolated moments.
• Percentage repair bonuses apply to every second of coordinated uptime.

In coordinated high-MMR environments where uptime is already maximized, continuous scaling becomes more reliable and compounding.

That doesn’t mean “always better.”It means “more sensitive to uptime increases.”

Is saying sure, then arguing against what you said the theme of this post?

My quote was - If an indirect action yields a greater return than a direct action, then its better.

"More sensitive to uptime increases" does not make it worse. All that means is that it doesn't happen as frequently. As I've said, at some point you need to provide some numbers.

Right, but you keep pretending the argument is about adjectives.

It’s not.

It’s about how value accumulates over time under coordination.

If coordination increases total simultaneous repair uptime across four survivors, percentage bonuses extract more total value from that uptime.

That’s not wordplay.That’s how scaling works.

If you want to actually argue math, give some numbers on what you think the difference is. I've brought that up on a few occassions.

If you want to argue the magnitude is small, argue magnitude.

But pretending the scaling relationship itself doesn’t matter because “direct isn’t automatically better” just sidesteps the actual point.

No one has ever argued scaling doesn't matter. You literally quote me in this post talking about the differences of minor vs major events. You proceed to do that right now:

You’re reframing this as “situational vs minor effects,” when that’s not the distinction being made.

The distinction is how value scales.

Continuous repair bonuses scale with uptime.Uptime is exactly what coordination increases.

That means coordinated teams extract more total value from the same percentage bonus than equally skilled solo teams.

That’s not about “minor vs major.” It’s about scaling mechanics.

That's still scaling mechanics, just minor vs major. In one case the team is increasing how frequently they gain a minor benefit, in the other case they are increasing how frequently they get a major benefit. You need all the numbers to discuss it.

Idk seems silly to nerf an already weak perk that doesn't see much use. It would be different if they buffed it as well. Maybe give it reduces stun duration from the pallet that triggers Spirit Fury.

Tbf that's because so many perks are bad and not worth running. Which is true on both sides but survivors do get a bit more variety at least.

I 100% Agreed. most of my matches im made to tunnel, Slug and camp because of what survivors do. Sabo Squads make me slug, Gen Rushing makes me Tunnel and when they sworm the hook im forced to camp

"Edited: I fixed my wording I just realized it Auto corrected out Agreed. My phones been doing that alot lately. Sorry for thr confusion.