http://dbd.game/killswitch
What do YOU think BHVR is going to do to address tunneling?
Comments
-
hopefully we at least get to test it on ptb
0 -
I have seen no actual evidence of this other than anecdotal player accounts.
Most likely, MMR is still taken into account when attempting to pair players for matches. But if players in a close MMR range aren't available then players in a wider MMR range are paired instead, leading to people sometimes being paired in ways that cause the myth of MMR not being real. Nevertheless, I would expect that top players are likely more often matched with top players when compared with people who just passed the soft-cap.
2 -
Here's the problem with the entire thing.
You say that after the anti-tunnel, all of the killers who "put themselves in an MMR they're not ready for" will be pushed back down to their "proper MMR," right?
Who's going to play against all of those same survivors that they "weren't ready for?" Now that there are much fewer killers in that MMR bracket, who's going to play against the really good survivors?
I'll tell you who: The same exact people who are playing against them now. Matchmaking will do its thing and after a couple of minutes will grab a former high-MMR killer and put them up against a squad they have no chance of beating. That killer will get curb stomped because all of the tactics that they used to use against those squads has been taken away, and they'll get maybe 2 hooks before getting bagged at the gates. That happens often enough, and the killer just leaves the game. I know I wouldn't play a game that regularly matches me in unwinnable games to get curb stomped and mocked.
0 -
or worse yet, we see a rise of survivors who take it upon themselves to deliberatly spend the entire match bullying the killer after the killer has allready lost. If they make it stupid easy to just pub stomp the killer then i feel that it is gonna lead to a rise in particularly awful behavior.
-2 -
tbf to slamming gens. if survivors just slammed gens even with the top killers they'd lose since killers time to down and survivors objective are very different and a killer can't really keep up since they nerfed gen regression
-3 -
There are two important considerations there.
The first is that those players who are currently overreliant on tunneling may not be as good as people who have somewhat lower killer-specific MMRs who don't tunnel. When players who rely on tunneling lose access to that, their MMRs may drop more than they would expect. That would leave players who constantly rely on and win with only their killer powers and addons to face the top survivor players. That may be enough already that this isn't a huge issue. However, I strongly suspect that top killer players will be especially numerous for just a few from the roster. That will lead to the second thing:
There should be an effort to create cross-MMR balance for more of the killer roster. I think the presence of tunneling is preventing BHVR from having to address the fact that the game is inherently unbalanced in a way that's not healthy. It's not clear how to balance more killers for play across all MMRs, but there are some viable approaches. One would simply be to apply MMR-specific buffs or nerfs to certain aspects of the game. That could be to survivor or killer abilities, or to things like map balance. Alternatively, some killer abilities could be tweaked in a way that enables enhanced use at high skill levels. Nurse and Blight are broadly already like that, where very new players don't typically have the skill, knowledge, and game sense to do well with those killers in their own MMR.
But tunneling remains a low-skill way to ruin a player's match and make them wonder why they even decided to play that day. That's something that shouldn't exist.
4 -
And the playing who are currently overreliant on extreme hiding, may not be as good as people who are good in chases. But here we are, with AFK crows that are so nerfed, that survivors can hide for over 20 minutes, if they open 1 chest.
-2 -
By overreliant on hiding, do you mean players who never take chase and whose teams suffer as a result? If so, most people doing that should probably be escaping through the gate less often than people who take chase when their teammates have hook states.
That should mean their MMR is already relatively lower than people who play in a way that's more useful for their team. That shouldn't lead to the same issue as tunneling since they should mostly be struggling to increase and maintain their MMR (as hatch escapes don't increase MMR).
1 -
But that doesn't really address my point. My point is that there's not enough "good" killers who can play against good survivors without tunneling/slugging/etc. Those survivors are still going to queue and are still going to get matches. So matchmaking is just going to keep slotting the same people into those matches as it is now, except those killers won't even have the opportunity to compete without their "handicaps."
I'd be all for this idea if matchmaking was more strict, but it's not.
-2 -
According to the amount of down votes I see there, Survivors need 18 more second chances. xD
-8 -
What I said definitely addressed your point. I'll say it again with different words:
The people tunneling "as a strategy" now just won't be able to do that anymore, and they might find that they're not actually as good at the game as people who rely on actual skill instead of cheap exploits. That means that the people facing the top survivors now might not all get to keep facing the top survivors once anti-tunneling is implemented.
And if there is actually a genuine balance issue such that nobody can compete anymore, then it's time for BHVR to actually balance their game such that more of the killer roster can compete using actual talent instead of cheap exploits that ruin the game for people. If there is 'a need to tunnel', that means BHVR has not balanced their game.
0 -
I mean the people that never learned how to properly be in chase with killers, and these survivors excessively hide, and rely on their teammates to be good in chase.
Survivors are going to be around the same escape rate, regardless of their strength and weaknesses. So if a survivor doesn't learn how to handle chases, they will eventually reach an MMR where they really can't handle chases.
0 -
I guess that what I see for those players is that in some fraction of games, they'll still get found as long as they're trying to work on gens, do heals, etc. And that means they'll still get eliminated at a slightly higher rate than players who are good in chase, which will give them a lower MMR. They won't be escaping at the same rate as their teammates.
You're right that their MMR will become higher than if they go take chase all the time when they're not good at it. But I also don't see that as a problem. It's not something that makes the game unenjoyable for the killer, and if they do gens and stuff, they're still making the match playable for everyone.
But I also think stealth should be part of the game, even more so than it is now. Personally, I think looping is one of the least fun aspects of both killer and survivor. I practiced and developed skill in it out of necessity, but it's so anti-horror that I wish the game built more tension through hide-and-seek/cat-and-mouse style gameplay. I really love Lights Out for that reason. So as survivor and as killer, I actually like when survivors hide, as long as they're not doing it to the extent they're a detriment to their team. Everyone else is on death hook? Time to take chase instead of hiding. Have a hook state to spare? Go take a hit for your death hook teammate that just got found. But as long as they're productive players, I like survivors who hide and make the game a little more tense and horror-esque :D
5 -
I was playing well above my skill level as survivor for years, simply because I always focused gens. That one simple focus led me to rank 1 every month, yet it would take me over 3 years to even learn how to loop properly. Over time the balance and kill rates of the game shifted and I would definitely agree that wouldn't be as extreme today as it was then, but… I was really bad at survivor all that time. I wouldn't even say I became great, but I would say that gen focus continues to be the primary contributor to gens actually getting done, and that not-ignoring-gens still isn't a mark of skill.
Ironically, I would argue that the more skillful survivor plays are the ones that make you more likely to get killed, either via sunk cost fallacy from the killer securing a kill, saving other survivors who leave you high and dry, strategic trades, etc. I'd argue its easier to get carried by a good teammate than it is to expect a bad teammate to carry their weight. MMR being based on escapes is anathema to being used as a metric of skilled play. Much like it is of kills vs their skill in getting them.
5 -
These topics are always interesting to watch because they only reinforce how asymmetrical horror as a genre just doesn't work.
Really the core of the argument is that one side can accept losing more often than not as long as their time is valued. Meaning that anti-tunnel wouldn't need to outright delete tunneling, it would just have to limit its potential so that individual players could have more time in the trial. While there are a handful of ways to do that that could all be successful, the immediate concern is that the other side would not win often enough. To me, that reads more as entitlement but that's neither here nor there.
Ideally, the end goal for an asymmetrical game should be equity. Both sides are very different and come into the game with different strengths and weaknesses, but ultimately they should meet somewhere in the middle. Yet every time a game strives for that, it's not good enough. Barring BHVR's own issues, could DBD realistically thrive when fairness is such a dirty word?
8 -
I definitely agree with that. Personally, I get sacrificed in a lot of games where I should just take an escape or could play greedy. But I always go for endgame saves if there's a mild chance of getting them. That likely leads to my survivor MMR being lower than it needs to be.
And in survivor games where I get unlucky early on, I'll try to be low-risk for a while and get gens done for my team. But then I also often consider the utility of sacrificing myself for my teammates if a me-or-then choice comes up. Ultimately, I try to pick the option that does the most good for all remaining survivors :D
4 -
Okay. Apparently you're not understanding, so I'll try to explain it differently.
Let's say, hypothetically, that right now, there's 1000 High MMR survivors and 250 High MMR killers. Don't focus too hard on the numbers, they're just for illustrative purposes. However, according to you, and even Mandy, a lot of those 250 High MMR killers don't deserve to be there, right? They used "cheap exploits" to boost their MMR.
So you get rid of tunneling, and now the killers that used to rely on tunneling as a strategy against good players can no longer do that. Let's say 50% of those killer players. And they lose their way into a lower MMR bracket over the course of hundreds of games (assuming they stick around that long and don't just drop the game.)
Now, you still have 1000 High MMR survivors, but you only have 125 High MMR killers. That means that at any given time, 500 of those survivors don't have a High MMR killer to match with. So, after a few minutes, matchmaking gets the next best thing: A Mid-MMR killer who's about to absolutely get his teeth kicked in. So the survivors do their thing and stunt on a killer who never really stood a chance. Maybe if he'd have been able to tunnel, he'd have caught the survivors overextending and gotten a kill or three. But without it, he just gets two hooks and bagged at the gates.
You can call it a "skill issue" all you want, but the fact of the matter is that there's not enough Lilith Omens to go around. The killer players who are good enough to go against a good survivor squad without tunneling or slugging are extremely rare. So what's actually going to happen is that matchmaking is going to continually pull mediocre killers to go against survivors far outside their MMR range for the sake of expediency, and the mediocre killer is going to get his teeth kicked in.
I have no problem with taking away tunneling, or camping, or whatever. As long as you tighten matchmaking. If that means that some cracked TTV swf squad, or even just really good solo queue, has to wait thirty minutes to get a match with yet another comp Nurse, then so be it. But don't match them with a killer who's just going to get their butt handed to them after taking away any strategy that killer would have had to actually compete with those survivors.
And you can walk around telling these killer players to "git gud" all you want… but they won't. They'll either stop playing altogether or just give up when it becomes clear that the survivors are too good for them to compete with. I know I'm not going to be anyone's dancing monkey. If three gens pop in the first chase or two, I'll just tab out and surf Reddit or something. That happens often enough, I'll just play something else. Killer players are way more likely to drop the game than survivors. It's a solitary role, so there's no social pressure to log in to slog through it.
And if enough killer players decide it's not worth it, the game will die before BHVR has a chance to course correct. They'll be too busy "watching carefully," and we all know how long it takes for them to get any changes out of the door. So this idea that we'll just "buff killers later as needed" won't really work, because those killers will have moved on to another game. Then the queue times start adding up, and survivors start leaving because they can't get matches. It's literally what has happened to pretty much every other asymmetrical pvp game so far. One side (usually the "survivor side") whines and complains about things until the devs cave, and then the "killer side" just quits the game because it's no longer fun.
BHVR needs to tread very carefully with Phase 2, or it will join everyone else in the junk pile.
0 -
Excessive hiding is an issue because it heavily encourages the killer to camp and tunnel. When a killer hooks a survivor, the expectation is the killer should patrol the map to find someone else. But if all the other survivors are hiding, and the killer can't find anyone, then the killer is heavily encouraged to just go back to the hook and camp.
And that is the biggest problem with anti-camping mechanics. If the killer is expected to leave a hooked survivor to find a new target, then there needs to be a realistic expectation the killer can find a new target.
And excessive hiding is MASSIVELY UNFUN for the killer. Leaving a hooked survivor to patrol the map, and finding zero survivors because they are all hiding far away from generators, is massively unfun. Killers should not be punished for camping, if zero survivors are repairing generators, because there's zero reason to patrol generators if zero survivors are repairing them.
-2 -
there doesn't need to be anymore hand holding for survivors regarding tunneling/slugging. Those are viable strategies confirmed by the developers. They already have all the tools to counter these strategies.
The new anti go next prevention system has proven the problem to be survivors themselves. Kill rates are down now because survivors can't give up because they had a bad chase or simply don't like vs a certain killer.
The problem has always been survivors entitlement, healing under hook? or my favorite……unhooking in the killers face/terror radius before he found a new objective/survivor and expecting him to ignore you and let you heal.
There is no need for these systems. The developers have proven survivors are their own worst enemies.-5 -
I guess whether hiding is fun for the killer just depends on the player's opinion. I find the hunt more fun than the chase given the way the game is designed. It feels tense to me in a way I think horror should feel; the killer always on the verge of finding a survivor. The chase should also feel tense, but having most of a match occupied by chases makes them feel not quite like I would personally prefer. My preference would be that chases be brief and tense, punctuating a tense search where the killerbis never farbfrom finding a survivor. But that's probably why I like Lights Out so much :)
But survivors hiding while their teammate is on hook is more an issue of survivor and killer skill. The survivors should be doing gens or preparing for a save when someone is on hook. Otherwise, time is wasted in the trial, and the killer gets closer to putting the survivors in a 1v3 with fewer gens done. They shouldn't be hiding when their teammate is on hook except when they know the killer is getting close. That means the killer should be able to just patrol gens, find one with more progress than before, and know that a survivor is likely nearby when they find gens that aren't regressing. But that type of hiding doesn't encourage camping since it's typically pretty easy to find a survivor near their gen and patrolling gens will help keep gen progress down.
So if the survivors and killer all know what they're doing, there should be little or no need to return to the hook. An obvious exception is if a survivor lacks the understanding that they need to let the killer get away from the hook far enough before unhooking. If someone is unhooked right behind the killer, I'd say it's reasonable for the killer to turn around and go back to the hook since a survivor tried to deny the killer the pressure of time on hook and told the killer right where they are just feet away.
2 -
No worries, I understood that idea long before you mentioned it here :)
The problem is that that concept is often discussed in a way that lacks a great deal of nuance. Most problems have some subtleties that make their solutions require a bit of careful planning to correctly solve for specific details.
One of those nuances here is that it's not necessarily the case that, without tunneling, the matchmaking system will just match people against massively skill-mismatched opponents. Instead, the kill rate might go down somewhat, but the experience might still be fine for the newly matched players.
That arises because while tunneling will typically lead to a player having higher MMR than someone who doesn't tunnel, given the same skill level with a given killer, that doesn't necessarily mean that there aren't sufficient non-tunneling high MMR killer players to face high MMR survivor players. It just means that those killer players will have tougher matches on average. But whether that should be the case and whether that's fun for the players in question is an important issue of killer-specific balance. That's why I mentioned cross-MMR killer-specific balance :D
-1 -
Lol. Cmon. You and I both know that very, VERY few killer players can go against a 4 man without tunneling at all. I don't think even good comp players could do it. I mean, when they go against really good survivors, there's usually rules about what perks survivors can bring and what items they have. But in pubs, you can get 4 cracked medkits with syringes and 16 meta perks. Without tunneling, Lilith Omen's Blight streak wouldn't have reached 20, much less 2000.
-1 -
The answer directly is no, asymmetrical games should never be able to thrive, and there is a good chance without the addition of Michael Myers early on the game would have gone the same way as every other of its kind. It's pretty obvious the game is riding extremely heavily on licensed content and pulling people in because their favorite character is in the game. The game has a horrendous retention problem because of how difficult it is to play with your friends, and because once you reach a certain point the game is just not fun anymore from any side if you aren't hyper competitive. But in reality games like this can never be truly competitive, the competitive scene has such a high amount of things banned that you basically can't even consider it the same game at that point.
4 -
Hence suggesting it's likely that killer powers need to be part of the discussion, or that MMR-specific tweaks or other adjustments might be needed. Honestly though, it shouldn't be possible for people to be getting massive win streaks the way some people do.
2 -
"if you aren't hyper competitive"
Nobody plays to lose. Nobody. Everyone likes to win. Winning gives us that nice little hit of dopamine.
-2 -
No actually most people play to have fun. No matter if they win or lose.
1 -
I think that this game needs to decide what it wants to be.
Is it a competitive game where both sides try to win? Then 90% of the killer roster needs massive buffs. Give blanket action speed penalties to survivors in groups to counteract the absolutely massive advantage comms give them. Either it's a competitive game that strives for balance, or it's not. But catering to and balancing around Solo Q while SWFs just keep getting stronger is not balanced to the killer, is it? So if it's a competitive game, SWF needs to be reigned in.
Is it a casual, party game where people play for fun? Then get rid of SBMM and embrace the goofier aspects and horror theme of the game. Make the killer this oppressive force that the survivors are actually afraid of and desperately trying to escape. Turn it back into Hide and Seek instead of Hide and Tag. Because right now, the game is more Tom and Jerry and less horror movie.
However, I feel like both sides keep trying to sweat, then complain when the other side doesn't play for fun. "The killer's tunneling stopped us from completing gens in four minutes and tbagging them at the gates!" "The survivors doing gens in four minutes stopped me from getting a 4k!" "I want to run fun meme builds, yet still win most of my games!"
Everyone wants to compete and win, but nobody wants to have to actually sweat for those wins.
0 -
Lol. I'm sorry, this isn't Barney and Friends. People like to win. Gamers, especially. That's why they complain when they lose.
-2 -
No, the vast majority of people do not do that. They go "that game was fun, lets play another" or they go "that game wasn't fun, I don't want to play anymore". People want to have fun, which can come from a plethora of reasons, someone does something cool, you goof off with friends, someone does something funny, etc etc etc; all of those things can happen and they can still lose, but because they HAD FUN, that is what matters. This isn't real life, you don't have to "win" every single time, have you ever heard of a good loss? Because I have. In my years of playing actual competitive games I have spoken with thousands of people who go "I might have lost, but I had fun and learned something, so I don't feel I wasted my time".
The exact same thing can be said for the other side, sometimes its just a slog and you don't enjoy it whatsoever, but you win by the games terms. That is directly what drives addiction, continuing to do something to try to grasp at the enjoyment you felt at some point, even if you hate it, even if you never actually do get to enjoy it for any reason. Any number of reasons can make a game a bad one, and can lead to a bad win that makes you feel worse. Play against a character you dislike, play on a map you dislike, play with people who are rude. etc etc etc. That's why people will say "Glad that ones over" they aren't "happy" they won, they are relieved they don't have to suffer through it anymore.
Obviously enjoyment is subjective, but if you only play a game for the endscreen you are not correctly playing a game. You should be spending nearly all of your time enjoying your time doing it, the world can suck, that's why games are an escape for a lot of people, that's why they want to have fun before anything else.0 -
Then don't play competitive multiplayer games. Or lose your way into an MMR where everyone just wants to goof off and paint rainbows.
It also doesn't help that survivors will absolutely take any and every chance they can to rub every loss in your face. So even if I'm feeling good about a loss, it all ends when I get a dance party in the exit gates and bm in the EGC. I'm sure survivors go through something similar.
-2 -
Haha! I definitely agree about it being more like Tom and Jerry than horror :)
2 -
And yet, the 60% kill rate means that this game is designed for survivors to lose more often.
Survivors have been asking for about 3 years now to make the gameplay fun, even while you're losing. This patch shared with not one, but two core mechanics that just punish you and dictate how you should play the game.
This thread, has an insane number of people defending a "strategy" that largely means survivors don't get to play the game. While playing a match they're designed to lose and basically not get rewarded for with BP or even quest completion.
So, by your own admission, either the 60% kill rate, or tunneling, or both need to be addressed meaningfully. And ideally sooner than December.
4 -
Where in that comment did I say I am not competitive? I have been playing competitive games for over half my life with video games for 80% of it. I actively play some along with dbd. DBD is not a competitive game, its a horror themed party game. The game just isn't fun, that's why we keep having posts about tunneling and how unfun the game is, on every single forum the game has, reddit, dbdrage, this forum, twitter, youtube, steam, anywhere people are talking about the game there is talks about how unfun the game is from survivors, about people quitting the game constantly with proof.
You act like every single game a survivor wins they immediately trash talk, which is just not true? The vast majority of my games have either no messages in egc, or the only thing that is said is gg. And I can contest that that is the majority of players experience, its not a common occurrence.0 -
The problem is a lot of survivors want to punish or prevent killers from camping, but also want to be able to hide far away from generators when the killer leaves a hooked survivor to patrol the map.
Survivors in a SWF want the hooked survivor to warn their teammates that the killer left the hook, so all the other survivors can pre-leave the generators to hide, and create a situation where they get a free unhook, but the killer doesn't find anyone else to chase. These survivors want to weaponize anti-camping to get free unhooks.
-1 -
The problem is a lot of survivors want to punish or prevent killers from camping, but also want to be able to hide far away from generators when the killer leaves a hooked survivor to patrol the map.
This is such a skewed take. You seem to expect survivors to just stand out in the open as easy picking for the killer. Being visible is generally a stupid move, and even in "horror genre" hiding from the killer is a thing.
Interestingly, they just put in two different mechanics this patch to hard punish hiding. Specifically because it's "not playing the game". So by your logic, the devs should have the same, consistent mindset toward camping: standing still isn't gameplay, so consistency would dictate the same penalties they rolled out for survivors.
These survivors want to weaponize anti-camping to get free unhooks.
Well, since we don't have any details you can't actually say that honestly. Especially since AFC can't be weaponized.
It's odd though that you seem to think that winning one chase means the killer deserves a kill. Because unhooking is a core part of the game.
It seems like survivors who aren't playing like brainless idiots (by hiding when necessary, not wandering into the killer intentionally, and not playing into the killers camping strategy) are giving you a hard time. Maybe there's some room for improvement on your end, perhaps.
2 -
The AFK crows were nerfed so badly, that a survivor can hide for over 20 minutes, by opening 1 chest. Yes, I think the phase 2 anti-camping mechanic should be equally useless, for the sake of equality.
Expecting killers to move very far away from a hooked survivor, to find someone else to chase, when everyone else is hiding far away from generators, is the skewed take. Why should a killer leave a hooked survivor, to patrol the generators, if none of the other survivors are repairing generators?
-2 -
Ideally what you'd be doing is leaving the hook to go to a survivor, and chase them. Patrolling generators is broadly not a good idea, in small part because it lets survivors hide.
If you're having trouble tracking survivors after a hook, bring some info perks, sincerely. They're quite good at the moment and enable a very active, always-doing-something playstyle. It's how I prefer to play, and I get good results from it.
5 -
And if the info perks don't find anyone, then what happens? What if the killer does has an info perk, but it doesn't show anyone because they are all hiding?
If the survivors are all hiding, then the killer should be allowed to proxy-camp, since it's not realistic to expect them to find someone else to chase.
-3 -
I mean, yeah, at that point you'd go patrol generators just to make sure the repair's stalled out or see if you can intercept a save.
That's pretty unlikely, though. Maybe if your only info perk is a one-survivor reveal like Alien Instinct or Friends Til The End, but that's just the risk of those perks I guess. There are other options, and you're very likely to at least have an idea of where to go.
I'm not even weighing in on whether you should be allowed to camp, I'm just pointing out you've usually got better options if you prepare a bit at the loadout screen.
5 -
Fixing Tunneling is like a Illness. You can't fix the Illness without going to the roots Cause of the issue. Lowering the Symptoms will only make the the Illness worse. If survivors get more basekit perks then that will increase Tunneling not resolve the issue. If you made it harder to tunnel it will be done more often if you give Killers there own basekit perks to make the game more balanced then Killers will begin stop Tunneling or at least make it less often.
Ur asking Killers to suffer from more restrictions. If they give Basekit DS that will make Killers stop playing. If you want to give more basekit Perks for Survivors and nothing but more TBing for Killers then you need to stop and think of the other side of the game. I swear I feel like the Killer side is just Hated
-1 -
Well you can add some punishment for direct tunneling and reward for not doing so but I fear the punishing side will be far more ipactful than the reward in Bhvr fassion, like now some antitunnel perks will hurt you more for spreading hooks than for tunneling.
1 -
That is incorrect. The killer often doesn’t have any clues of where the survivors are. They might hope the survivors will be near a generator, but proxy camping is often the only way to guarantee where a survivor actually is.
And that is why proxy camping should never be punished. If survivors are allowed to hide, then killers should be allowed to proxy-camp.
-4 -
If a killer player often doesn't have any clues of where the survivors are, that killer needs to work on their macro tracking and probably pick better perks to help them do so.
That much, 100%, is a fixable issue. It's not a game problem and it doesn't mean you have to camp.
0 -
Well think about it. If you punished People for Tunneling then that can lead to problems like the Go Next Pervention System bugged Situation where it will Ban New players or even old players who happen to accidentally Tunneled. Along side that what will you give Killers that will Prevent them from needing to Tunnel I would give them Basekit Gen Defense. The Survivors already have to many Basekit stuff and if they add more it will just Increase the Problem not Solving it.
So punishing is not the solution at all.
1 -
We will have to wait for what bhv is cooking for us to adress tunneling,slugging but Im afraid many weaker killers will be much harder than they are now because antitunnel perks doesn effect sthe stronger killers who can push trough it but the weaker ones like trapper,mayers.
-1 -
You do have clues. You see gens with progress, scratch marks, and at a bare minimum you know where you've already been and haven't seen those things to rule out potential spots where they aren't.
I can almost certainly guarantee you have room in your build for information as well, and they nerfed distortion for exactly this scenario.
There's a weird tautology of thinking here that just isn't true: you're starting with "I need to camp" and then coming up with justifications after the fact. It's trying to justify camping no matter the scenario, when you should be switching tactics in a lot of cases.
In your head you're stuck on:
- If survivors stay on gens, well, better camp to secure the kill.
- If survivors hide, well, better camp so they come to you instead
- If survivors come to the hook, well, of course I should be near the hook, my objective is here
This is basically the laziest approach to PVP I've ever seen.
4 -
I agree with almost all of this, except
You should be spending nearly all of your time enjoying your time doing it, the world can suck, that's why games are an escape for a lot of people, that's why they want to have fun before anything else.…for this type of game. That is true of games that are PvE, but with a PvP game, someone is always going to have fun at someone else's expense. Its just how competitive game structure works. You can soften the blow for the loser as much as you want, but at the end of the day you are not going to have every match have all 5 people have fun 100% of the time. With games using a competitive structure you have to be willing to take the bad with the good. The topic then becomes how tolerable the bad is and whether the good is worth the bad. And to clarify, those are important topics.
Otherwise, yes, games are supposed to be an escapist hobby where the primary point is entertainment and enjoyment. But this entire structure requires concepts like delayed gratification to be, well, palletable.
2 -
The same should apply to survivors complaining about solo q. Solo q survivors should have clues of where the other survivors are. They should work on their macro tracking, if they don't know what the other solo q survivors are doing. If survivors want more information on their teammates, they should be required to use perks to find them.
Therefore, survivors don't need more buffs to solo q, because they can just bring perks, or learn better macro tracking instead.
Expecting BHVR to heavily nerf killer strategies, instead of learning how to properly deal with them, is the laziest approach to PVP I've ever seen.
-3 -
Maybe the solution is right in front of us. Because removing playstyles is a bad idea even if it's a problem. Maybe buffing M1 Killers can give players less reason to tunnel. Maybe Giving Killers more to work with will solve the Tunneling issue. For M1 Killers maybe buffing movement speed so they suffer from large maps. I know survivors will hate but this game isn't just about 1 side it's about both being balanced to function. Plus buffing different kinds of Killers will make people play them Killers more. Increased win rates for Killers is good even if it increases it my only 5%. Most of the Survivors changes are Killer and Killer perk Nerfs and changes to make survivor experiences better while making Killer Experience miserable. I've seen this 3 chapters in a row where something is good on the killer side and ita nerfed the next patch because salty survivors who don't want to adapt. Which is why Killers have been Tunneling more and more. It's because the killer side was Gutted over and over. I even thought of quieting DBD because of this issue
2 -
I think you're aware this is bad faith whataboutism, but just in case:
While solo queue's basekit information isn't terrible these days after the HUD was added, the reason solo queue needs more of a leg up than killer does in this context is because the survivor role relies on coordination and the killer role does not. You actually can track your teammates pretty well with some practice and effort, but that isn't the thing causing problems for solo queue.
Now, don't get me wrong. Solo queue doesn't just need "buffs" in a directionless sense, they only need slightly more information to work with. Knowing what perks your teammates have and, ideally, some method of signalling who's going for a hook save would be enough on that front.
2
