Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Killer tunneling survivor should work the same as survivors "tunneling" generator
When multiple survivors work on a single generator, they get a debuff in speed. This silently tells survivors, that it's good idea to split on several generators instead of everyone hopping on one.
I think we could use the same for killer's side of tunneling. If killer decides to chase survivor, that did not do any conspicuous action, he would be hit by a speed debuff (say 5%). He can still decide to chase said survivor, but by doing so, he would actually need to overcome his penalty. But there is a killer that don't rely on movement speed - for this specific reason, I would also add 50% shorter lunge hit.
There is one additional thing. It might be fair to warn killer, that this effect is in play. Once he starts a chase against such a survivor, the killer should get some cue, that he is being disadvantaged (survivors get red bar on repair progress). So killer should probably get red debuff icon about this too.
Comments
-
That's not a good idead. With old DS people were literally running in your face because they knew they were basically untouchable. This would allow the same thing. Even if the killer is going for someone else that person might come over with OTR, take a hit and then begin a chase with the killer while the other survivor, who was initially the killers target, gets away. It would be better if they'd rework OTR and make it an anti-tunnel perk. One that can't be used aggrassive. For example a survivor with OTR loses collision with the killer.
5 -
Well if survivor "asks" to be tunneled, then you just got his permission and there is 0 reason to be mad about it from survivor's side (same way as blocking with BT).
Also making killer slower by 5% does not mean he will never catch survivor - so running in killer's face is much more dangerous then running at him with old armed DS. It just makes it somewhat harder to actually abuse tunneling mechanic (but still not impossible).
Also I would pair this change with removal of 7% haste effect on survivor. After unhook killer will probably gets into chase with unhooked survivor which should be enough to get away - and if he goes for unhooker, then he should loose chase with just-unhooked survivor. If unhooker runs with unhooked survivor, then it's the unhooker's fault that killer can tunnel.
0 -
Survivor still are mad even if they bodyblocked you twice after jumping off an hook and you hook them again. How dare you to hook them again?
And how the game will recognize a survivor that "asks" to be tunneled in order to not give you the penalty?
5% slower is HUGE! You have no idea! You think 5% is little in regard to 115% but the survivors are 100, removing 5% is basically removing 33% of killer's ability to catch up when the surv holds W.
7% lasts 10-20 seconsa, you can't compare with a permanent 5%! Think about it, how many things you need to accomplish to have 5% for a short duration of time with PWYF?
4 -
I know 5% is huge. There should be huge reason why not to tunnel. Survivor with such debuf should definitely not keep it after doing some conspicuous action (and we might even add 1 additional condition that it can be active only on LAST unhooked survivor). But it's not huge enough to risk being tunneled (and playing 3v1).
As to complains - there will always be one from both sides. But there are legitimate reasons to complain (like using cheap tactics with huge benefit) and there are reasons like "I didn't win". I don't care about 2nd one and you shouldn't either.
0 -
5% is so huge that 1 tunnel will mean a game lost. Tunnel is something necessary in some games because some survs keep hiding, some other keep disturbing you and harrassing, you can't give a survivors "get out of jail for free" card. This always has proven being a bad idea.
5 -
If you loose the game because you tunnel, then that's actually desired behavior. Tunnel is cheap and going for such tactic SHOULD result in low benefit (with my suggestion it makes it not cheap but expensive, but still huge benefit).
If the survivor is hiding and not doing objective, then you already are effectively playing 3v1 (remember conspicuous action cancels the effect?) which means you are better off ignoring this survivor (and having easier game at the same time).
So why would it be bad?
0 -
Tunnel is cheap and going for such tactic SHOULD result in low benefit (with my suggestion it makes it not cheap but expensive, but still huge benefit).Actually, even tho I hate it, it's a reasonable tactic mostly because of how the game is designed.
If the killer wants to win (via kills) then getting one member out of the game is good because of how efficient survivors are.
OH ALSO
When multiple survivors work on a single generator, they get a debuff in speed. This silently tells survivors, that it's good idea to split on several generators instead of everyone hopping on one.but then we have a perk that negates this penalty. So should killers also get a perk like that?
3 -
If the killer wants to win (via kills) then getting one member out of the game is good because of how efficient survivors are.
That's why I already wrote that it's cheap tactics with huge benefit. And again - the game should not have something cheap that gives you a lot. So make tunneling expensive (hard to do) - or make it low benefit (keeping survivor alive in some way anyway - but I don't like this kind of adjustment).
but then we have a perk that negates this penalty. So should killers also get a perk like that?
it does not even fully negate it. And grouping on 1 generator has multiple negatives (like plague, legion, ...). Also killers have perk that negates this perk (discordance). But sure. Killer can get new perk that works a little like proof-thyself - equipping this perk would make you run faster by 5% when tunneling (but from the new smaller base number => so it would not be even fully negated). No problem with that. Net result is that killer still has 1 less perk to run just for tunneling (making tunneling at least a bit more expensive).
0 -
I’m not clear on the specifics of your suggestion. Survivors already get a 7% speed boost when they get unhooked to give them time to get away from the killer and punish killers who just chase them right off the hook. Are you suggesting that 7% boost should last until that survivor does a Conspicuous action?
3 -
Now that I think about it... Permanent 7% haste is functionality almost identical to killer speed nerf by 5%. So effectively I am suggesting this. Now that I think about it. It no longer looks like such a great idea :) even if that 7% boost (while in chase) would make sense against tunneling killer even without any time limit (I can't think of a way how to abuse it without being in a huge risk for survivor).
2 -
There already is a penalty. The unhooked survivor gets endurance AND a speed boost.
4 -
Monstrous shrine is kind of like a Prove thyself counterpart I suppose.
0 -
Being a down 1 gen is exactly the same position as being down 1k
-Gandor the wise
1 -
the short endurance works just as a countermeasure for unhooked survivor to be able to do anything in the match (even start being in the chase) so this part (I am not talking about exact length) is mandatory. 7% haste while endurance is active was devs way how to make killers who don't care rather go for unhooker then for the person right off the hook. But having 7% haste while in chase active until survivor gets into dying state or conspicuous action was done (and I would add getting healed by somebody else) would actually make it basekit anti-tunneling mechanics.
It would be very legitimate reason why it makes more sense to go for rescuer instead of tunnel (that 2,8m net distance between those 2 survivors is not a real reason). And I would add it would be first good reason for it.
0
