Give me one tiny reason not to tunnel | Tunnel discussion
Comments
-
you mean 2% per survivor with 12% on all 4. I know. I am just saying that -action speed can incentivize killer to not tunnel because they get same reward of -100% action speed and -100% healing speed. to be more precise, you need to use 33% to get 99% to get same reward as killing one survivor off.
Pulsar is correct in saying that tunneling is best strategy but he also says that there is no change that equals removing one survivor out of the game. I am saying that there is one type of reward that equals removing survivor out. that reward is -action speed because it gives a similar reward. changes to tunnelling are difficult to talk about because it depends on what extend you are willing to go to change tunneling. are you trying to provide an alternative play-style or do you just want tunnelling play-style to not be possible?
Post edited by Devil_hit11 on0 -
There is nothing that bhvr can do that will ever match the option to remove a survivor fast. Maybe give the unhooked survivor minus gen speed for a bit, and the unhooking survivor a slight boost. This makes the unhooker a JUICY target despite two health states. The issue becomes the way it's super easy to abuse.
Post edited by EQWashu on0 -
A reason... you don't need one, even a tiny one.
Its only a game and if someone is eliminated early then they are still alive in real life and able to queue up for another game if they want.
That's the singular pragmatic truth of it.
People make all kinds of varying arguments against being eliminated early, most are just accusatory arguments about people being scummy or unfair which is BS, but really a chase is the same if it happens over the course of the game or right at the start of a game. The only real difference is the stakes are higher in the latter.
I appreciate those higher stakes because lets face it without the ever present threat of elimination playing survivor is really rather dull, its that very threat that makes the game interesting and whether it comes early or late is just part of the game.
Look at all the posts saying "we need to punish tunneling" as if being eliminated early is some kind of terrible aberrant game mechanic. Its a lil nuts.
3 -
But surviving would matter less also, in fact the entire premise of the game would matter less from chases to outcome.
What you are proposing is that survivors are basically safe until N number of hooks.
The whole point of survivor is that it's supposed to be dangerous to get in the killers face and interacting with the killer is supposed to be threatening. Player skill aside, the role being played is one of facing off against a tangible threat and trying to survive.
Remove that threat and you essentially neuter everything that makes DBD exciting to play in the first place.
People think chase is the most fun mechanic of DBD but ask yourself why is that? It's because chases are also the most threatening part of the game and therefore the most exhilarating part to play, what happens to the gameplay when that's no longer the case?
2 -
I'm not saying it's the best solution. It's just one solution to make tunneling a moot point.
That being said, I don't see anything wrong with tunneling. Most of the survivor gameplay bores me : sitting doing quick-time-events on a gen is mind-numbing. Only the chases are fun.
0 -
Other than appealing to one's emotions (empathy, concept of "fun chases" or "fairness") you can't really give a random person a good reason to tunnel in the game's current state. It's the best and easiest strategy to win and there are currently no real incentives to not do so. As Pulsar's already mentioned, to effectively "kill" tunneling without just punishing/restricting it you'd need to killers to have a strategy that is even more powerful AND just as easy / easier to do than tunneling. Without any sort of restriction on tunneling this just can't really happen in a way that would make DBD balanced.
I personally almost never tunnel unless I have a reason to get that survivor out of my game (sandbagging teammates / other toxic mannerisms) or I have a relevant tome challenge that I don't want to spend another game trying. In every other scenario I usually feel too bad doing so because I've been on the other side of it and it's usually not very fun.
0 -
thats why im here🤘
2 -
The best reason to not tunnel is the first one: it's boring. Yeah, the survivors might be jerks about it and you might lose some games, but if I'm bored playing a video game why am I playing it?
@FFirebrandd idea of ghost survivors - I feel like the amount of balancing that would need to be done to adjust for this would require a new game. Right now, for example, a 3v1 can be pretty interesting if its down to 1 gen to go, throw a ghost in there and the killer has very little chance.
I also think it changes the feel of the game. It's an elimination game where players are supposed to dread the third hook. Going to ghost form would alter what makes DbD exciting.
0 -
Tunnel in or towards end-game, at that point anything goes if you're struggling. But if your main strategy is to tunnel every single survivor out of your matches, that shows a very clear skill gap that you're going to struggle to overcome.
As a killer, I can tell you don't need to tunnel. I very rarely tunnel survivors unless they're annoying/over-confident. Tunnelling is not a mechanic that you should always rely on, just like you're told never to rely on camping/NOED/Ruin. By tunnelling, you showed no skill there. You went after one person, hooked them, and then continued to pressure them because they were in a vulnerable position. That's not an impressive feat. You can just as easily apply pressure, if not better pressure by going after each survivor one by one. Interrupt their gens. Interrupt their heals. Keep them on their toes. *Show some skill*.
As a survivor, and an experienced one, I can tell you that tunnelling guarantees one kill. Sure. But if I see someone on my team getting tunnelled, usually I will make no effort to save them from chases. They're the Chosen One now. They'll recognise that I'm not going to help them and waste your time as much as possible. Because there are so many killers in low MMR that resort to tunnelling. It's imprinted in survivor mains' brains.
0 -
It's right beneath "egregious". The definition is: "An instance of a wrong or misinterpreted perception of human behavior or motivation."
0 -
tunneling someone out is the best thing the killer can do if he want a 4k or at least 3k just like survivors pop gen as fast as they can.
0 -
I only see it in my 📺
2 -
Yes, but actually no.
1 -
I really don't understand why people try to tell others how they have to play a game. Why would anybody need "excuses" and "justify" how they played? They play how they want. Just like the other side play and use what they want. Sure, getting tunneled is not a big fun for most of the people. But killers also can tell many things what are not fun for them. But people will still do it.
Why would a killer want, or should want to make the trial harder for themself? Like... Survivors wouldn't finish gens as fast as they can to get out? How it is different?
And... Seriously get good? Killers can say the same. Get good, and you will be not on the hook, or get caught again. Just get good, and use more 2nd chance perks. I hope that you see why this is not a real argument there.
4 -
You don't genuinely think that Survivors shouldn't be hooked, do you?
1 -
You don't genuinely think they shouldn't, do you?
I am glad you grabbed half a sentence and now try to argue with that part... My point was if you say that "instead of tunneling and try to win just get good" is just the same as "get good and you will not get caught"
4 -
Where did i say "dont play like that", i only say that i would not do it and those are good reasons not to tunnel. Or would you disagree? The question was good reasons not to tunnel, i gave 2 reasons.
Not ruining the others person game/time plus actually getting good in the game is for me far more worth then playing selfish. Think what you want about that, but bottom line is, it tells a lot about personality.
And yes, before someone asks, i condemn selfish behavior. You dont care? Good, proves my point 😉
1 -
I found the rest of your argument to be fairly non-engaging. Stuff I had seen before and things I didn't care to comment on.
Asking players to not tunnel isn't the same as asking Survivors to not be hooked. It's more along the lines of asking Survivors to not run 4 OP perks, which I do see a lot of.
1 -
I feel as if one thing they could do is shift away from survivors having a personal escape objective and more over a teamwork objective.
What I mean by this is the game seems to grade most things; MMR, Pips, BP, etc on personal escape and personal skill which can be a detriment to your team and really your own escape chances. I'm not 100% sure on specifics myself, but if they made it where survivors made more points dying to protect their teammates, taking chases and bodyblocks as more of a reward for survivors already hooked/recently off the hook, keeping the killer busier than other survivors, and heck maybe go as far as pooling all the BP together and dividing it by team effort and team awareness instead of personal skill it could shift things enough for survivor to make these decisions ingame. That way dying as a survivor stings less if you used that time wisely for the entire team.
Obviously there's a lot of problems that would need to be resolved for such a drastic change, but part of me wishes it was something DBD focused on earlier.
1 -
You and I have very different views on the game apparently. I personally don't find it exciting to have to be on high alert because I'm on death hook. That just means I'm really close to not being allowed to engage in the game anymore. That's not fun, that's not exciting... it's just lame and boring. Maybe it's different for solo queue survivors because they can just go next, but if you die early and you're in a swf... well... congrats. You get to just sit there and not play the game you signed up to play.
So... in my opinion, getting rid of that would be 100% worth it. Your point of balance needing to change some if they did that is almost certainly accurate, but again... I think that we'd end up with a much better game at the end of it, so it'd be worth it.
0 -
I'll agree we have different views, to me the game is designed around the idea of each survivor on their own. While I think the idea of DBD being 1v1v1v1v1 has never been true, the idea that each survivor is on their own is a central concept of the game design. Overall play has to do with the idea that a death hook survivor will be more cautious in how they behave and that the survivors overall don't see each other as a team.
Things like ghost would go in a different direction making the survivors a clear team. It might be a better game, but it would be a very different game requiring adjustments to the concept of the game design. 7 years in that would be very hard to do.
1 -
Lol... apparently the differences in our views on this game just keep going. In my view, the game is already highly team focused. After all, a 3v1 with more than 1 maybe 2 gens left is nearly impossible.
I do very much appreciate your posts though. While I don't agree with how you view the game, I do understand it and how my suggestion would break some of the aspects of the game that you value.
I'll need to see if I can come up with some other method to encourage not tunneling that doesn't involve removing eliminating survivors.
1 -
Here is my reason (not to tunnel me):
- Im nice.
- i dont camp at the exit gate, just to drag time.
- i never tbag you.
0 -
No mate, you just choose some part of what i said, took out of context, and asked about it. What I said was that just like it was actually said that if the killer should be "get good" so don't need to tunnel then with that mentality the survivors should "get good" too, so they wouldn't get tunneled out.
I have to think that it is just some attempt to generate some unnecessary drama.
1 -
Where did you said? Oo
so why should you stop trying to reach that level? What means winning when abuse super easy tactics? "But they other side genrushs and blablabla..." does not justify that you wont try to get better and become a good killer at all. Excuses wont help either. Do or not do, there is no try. So just simply, get good.
You literally say that people should want to get better (even tho they enjoy where they are now, and/or they just casual players), get good, and they shouldn't search for excuses, and they should try to get be a better or good killer.
Meanwhile you even called aholes those, who play how they want
0 -
I must've misunderstood then, my apologies.
0
