Do You Think "Tunneling" Was More Acceptable In The Past Compared To Now?
A long time ago, I saw a lot of people saying that "tunneling is acceptable since Survivors are incredibly strong" but Ive seen this sentiment change a lot over time as people think it has become less necessary and thus less acceptable.
Ive always been a firm believer that either side can play how they want since it's literally a game, though I do not support stuff like harassment and post-game chat toxicity of course. Perks, playstyles, etc, are in the game for a reason and people can do with it whatever they want.
Of course, that's just my opinion, and not everyone is going to agree, I like to hear different perspectives. So is tunneling "necessary" or "acceptable" like it was before?
Comments
-
It never was necessary, it never will be.
16 -
Necessary? No, it is not.
Acceptable? So long as you can take what you dish out. So far as I'm concerned, tunneling is playing to win knowing you're gonna give, likely two, people an absolutely horrible experience. If you want to play like an ass to win, best be able to handle the consequences of that. Not condoning it, just saying be prepared.
I think it was more accepted because it was generally understood to be necessary. Ruin was the only good regression perk for a long while. Plus, there was a lot more you could do to discourage or stop tunneling without needing to rely on extreme coordination, which made people feel like they had more agency. Compared to now, there's not much you can do if a Killer decides they want you out in the first two minutes
11 -
I don't think it was ever necessary, to be honest. Of course, no one will ever blame a killer for tunneling someone who ran directly towards them or something like that, but you can win without ever using the strategy.
As for acceptable, I think @Pulsar has a good point here. It was generally considered to be more acceptable because there was more you could do against it. The maps didn't have as much deadzones as they do today and after patch 2.6.0 there was Decisive Strike, which was a direct counter to tunneling.
However, with the way things currently are, there is far less you can do if the killer decides they want you out of the game as soon as possible.
5 -
I dont mind getting tunneled tbh, since I know that killer isn't improving at the game. Eventually I run into killers who are good at the game and still get 3-4ks for playing the game instead of not. They usually like snowball fights too. :)
3 -
I think it was more acceptable, at least to me, because it was easier to punish. Old BNPs existed (I often ran them but never used them unless someone was being camped/tunneled). Old DS and DH were much stronger deterrents or chase extenders. Gens took less time while every killer action took more time. Double pallets, vacuum pallets, etc...
All of these things made tunneling weaker while at the same time making camping feel more necessary at the time. Which was also hard punished with DS and old Borrowed Time.
All of these things could also be used in ways that made the game feel hopeless as well though. They weren't limited in anyway to just anti tunneling and I don't know how they could've been either. It made many games feel unfair or unfun
Today pretty much all of this has changed and I don't really ever feel the need to tunnel or camp either. There are rare occasions I'm sure but nothing I can remember. I also don't really find the game unfair anymore outside of matchmaking. But I do still often find it unfun.
1 -
Dead on the money.
The big issue that keeps coming up is all of the tools to combat tunneling can and will also be used to punish non-tunneling killers too.
You can't give someone the option of taking a gun to a knife fight and ask them to only use it if the other side doesn't fight fair. That is almost never how it'll go down.
A lot of people bash BHVR stating 'bad design' and 'don't play their own game', but one thing that continues to surprise me in these forums is the almost ingenious ways both Killers and Survivors can find to twist any suggested change into an unintended side effect.
DBD is a very delicate ecosystem... any changes, no matter how benign, can seem like they'll work, then when you see it in practise it can easily add more problems than it solves...
1 -
I agree. I can't say they're design is bad just sometimes you can't really test things out until the player base gets hold of it. From what I've seen, giving incentives only works for a few. The outcome would almost have to be too strong to be in the game. Otherwise many people will not take the incentive anyway. Punishing something also doesn't work as there are always unintended side effects that come with it.
Old DS was a good example of punishment for tunneling but also just for playing normally. Older DS was even worse, no tunneling was needed at all. BBQ was a good example of reward for hooking multiple people but with a side effect also. Often times, if killers couldn't see just one person after hooking someone, it would become an excuse to camp.
There are in betweens and extremes with both methods but in general it's what it feels like to me. The devs can only keep trying to find happy mediums but something is always going to be unfun and need tweaked.
As far as when people say they don't play their own game, I never liked that statement. If I spent all my work time working on/creating the game, I wouldn't want to spend all my off time with it. I'm not saying they shouldn't try it out but I don't blame them if they don't want to play it either.
1 -
It was never acceptable. For a simple reaons:
- unfun
- cheap effortless win
- works only on weak\average survivors
1 -
No, as @UndeddJester stated, "almost ingenious ways both Killers and Survivors can find to twist any suggested change into an unintended side effect." Killers will tunnel whoever they hook first. Anyway!
If it works on the average survivor, it will definitely be used. Think of a good average survivor. Now note that everyone else who is average or less than, becomes tunnel fodder. That's more than 2/3's the playerbase imo.
Primarily "A lot of people bash BHVR stating 'bad design' and 'don't play their own game', but one thing that continues to surprise me in these forums is the almost ingenious ways both Killers and Survivors can find to twist any suggested change into an unintended side effect.
DBD is a very delicate ecosystem... any changes, no matter how benign, can seem like they'll work, then when you see it in practise it can easily add more problems than it solves..."
As a company, they know players will find the holes and such. PTBs are kind of made for that, but its not til it actually goes live that we see what happens. Also as a company, they should understand that those unintended side effects are what they are paid for. They need to see these things happen, and then do something about it.
So we have tunneling and gen rushing as the two big no no's, as both 'sides' have stated. So how do they fix that? More objectives that are WORTH doing is a damn good start. Easier to do for survivors than killers, but its not nearly impossible to find other things the killer could do.
Still, would this stop the issues? On lower/mid ranks, maybe. Probably not the top 5% since thats just what dbd is up there. But it shouldnt be everywhere. They're literally not growing new players due to this crap.
1 -
tunnel is and will always be acceptable, there is no point in complaining about it, and it´s not necessary most of the times
1st if the killer tunnels he is risking the entire game, because the tunnel depends on the survivor, if the survivor has off the record, dead hard, decisive strike you simply won't be able to win the game with this strategy (also, there is no difference between chase a healed survivor and an injured survivor with BT)
2nd chasing is fun, I want to be tunneled because i like chases (if my teammates try to do the generators)
6 -
Tunnelling is within the rules currently set and therefore has always been acceptable. This doesn't make it popular, but anything within the rules is always permissable.
Tunnelling as a necessity is ... well, it depends on who you ask and how desperate they are to win. Personally, I don't believe it is. Some of those who tunnel repeatedly to get results don't take the time to get better and end up grossly outmatched, losing a multitude of Trials, then become dejected and frustrated. In the past, it may have had a little more purchase but still didn't work towards improving skill.
Learning to succeed without tunnelling and treating Trials as learning experiences is a far more enjoyable way of playing.
1 -
No clue, but I think tunneling today would be much more necessary today than in the past.
2 -
I think killers who try to justify tunneling, camping, etc just suck at the game and need to either get better so they don't have to resort to tunneling every single match or just find a new game to play. There are literally millions of games, why be the annoyance that everyone hates?
And before you guys jump me, I've been a killer main since this game came out and I have never NEEDED to tunnel to eliminate a survivor from a match. It baffles me every single time I hear about someone tunneling survivors.
Sadly, it's becoming more prevalent with killers who can't prioritize targets and protect gens at the same time. It's just going to get worse.
3 -
Good for you if you don’t tunnel? You can play for 8 hook games before eliminating someone and I’ll play for 3 hooks and eliminate someone when the need arises.
You have your own DBD experience since the game came out, that’s cool. No need to insult others who don’t play the game your way if they’re not breaking any rules.
3 -
I think “tunelling” has become somewhat of a distorted term in recent times. The thing is, say you’re a survivor who was last unhooked, sometimes the killer just comes across you first even if they’ve not camped or gone straight back to the hook. Sure, it’s nice when a killer leaves you as they acknowledge you were the last one to be hooked, but equally, ignoring a vulnerable survivor puts the killer at a huge disadvantage. Why start chase with a healthy survivor when there’s an injured survivor in close proximity? From a competitive perspective, it makes no sense.
I don’t play killer often but the other day I got accused of tunelling when a Feng came to take an OTR endurance hit for her friend; naturally I switched target to her as she was injured and her teammate wasn’t. As a result, I got a heap of abuse in the EGC. If, as a survivor, you decide to play aggressively and bait the killer - don’t be surprised when the killer returns the same energy. Simple.
For me, tunelling is when a killer targets one survivor for an extended period of time (chases them straight off hook, ignores other survivors, etc) and generally makes it their sole ambition to get that specific survivor out of the game. As with my above comments, I don’t condone tunelling (especially boring, sweaty killers who want an easy 3v1 at 3 or 4 gens). Equally though, people cry “tunelling” a lot of the time when it actually isn’t.
1 -
It was never 'acceptable' but it's always been valid.
The difference over time is that both sides have been granted a lot of QoL improvements and fixes for game breaking issues, many of which make extreme measures such as tunneling much less necessary. Less necessary means less acceptable.
1 -
You don't tunnel the good player out, you tunnel the weak link out. Tunnelling a good player means you lose.
1 -
I mean, "acceptable" is subjective, but it's leagues more common than it used to be. In part due to people realising DS was never that good of a deterrent to begin with.
0 -
I have like 15k kills in this game, i don't need to improve. Might sound arrogant, idc.
Tunneling 1 or 2 survs is the way to go if you want to win the majority of your games with any killer. If you start to tunnel to late, the game might be over just cuz the potential of multiple Adrenalines. And why shouldn't you, the survs are trying to tunnel their objective and don't care about your fun aswell. It's not toxic, it's how the game works now. DBD isn't about hooks anymore, it's about KILLS. Ofc you don't need to tunnel bad/average or solos. But how do you know before the game starts? Also i love how tunneling is seen as a "skill issue". Do you ever watched comp DBD (which i'm not a big fan of)? Guess these killers need to get good cuz they tunnel 24/7.
0 -
For me personally, I do not tunnel whenever I play Killer since I can play however I want and I find that tunneling makes my Killer matches too boring since the pacing gets thrown off too much when a Survivor is dead early into the match, but I try to avoid imposing the idea that "people must play X way" or "do Y instead of Z".
Though I do think tunneling should still be a choice, it can still be decentivized with certain game design elements, i.e. tweaking Killer powers or perks to reduce their effectiveness at tunneling. You can also try incentivizing spreading hooks as well, like rewarding more Bloodpoints for hooking a unique Survivor each time or buffing perks that reward spreading hooks (Grim Embrace).
0 -
But the need never arises. Killers are so overpowered compared to survivors that it's honestly stupid that any killer (barring the completely new ones who have no idea what's going on) feels the need to tunnel out one survivor just because "the need arises."
It's just sad to see that killers will prioritize someone who's fresh off hook vs. the person who just pulled them off who is just as easy as a target.
I wouldn't call it insulting. Telling someone they suck if they feel the need to tunnel survivors after 1000+ hours in the game is completely justified in my opinion. DBD doesn't have these complex mechanics where you should ever feel the need to tunnel. Honestly, on the killer side, it requires a lot less if any thought unless you're going against a 4 stack. And that can be said for any game. If you need to result to cheap tactics to ensure results vs. just relying on yourself and your skill, then you probably should just give the game a break.
Sure, it's not against the rules, but I believe it should be heavily disincentivized solely because if you're good enough at mindgaming, even the most seasoned survivors can't stand a chance in a chase. Defending tunneling as a way to play the game is just a weird cope.
1 -
I think you are treading a fine line with this one, forum users look to DEVs and Mods as the representatives of BHVR's view on things.
To state in totality that it has "never been accepted" is bold. There are plenty of players, myself included, who accept that tunneling is just part of the game and simply a result of killer having license over whom they choose to chase and eliminate.
I don't think you meant its never been accepted by BHVR, because it is accepted as part of the game given its not against any game rules to chase the same target twice. More that Its always been complained about and thus not fully accepted, correct me if I'm wrong.
I'd say complained about largely because players don't like getting eliminated early and the impact that has on the team. Early elimination results very commonly from camping and tunneling and is often at the core of complaints about it.
But objectively speaking early elimination i.e. "being tunneled out" is part of DBD and queuing up comes with the acceptance of that fact, regardless of whether players like or dislike it.
If we are talking the singular targeting and harassing of a player then that is absolutely unacceptable, but how do we tease that specific motivation apart from just the simple gameplay option of I can choose to chase any survivor?
Do we just assume a malicious intent and label all tunneling as problematic and all players who do it as toxic?
Do we remove that option essentially guaranteeing the safety of survivors for a large portion of the game?
Having tools and perks to help counter being chased in succession and thus eliminated early is a better option as least it doesn't undermine player choice or overall game concept, but should those tools be built in or not?
What effect do people think that will have on the excitement level of gameplay?
I think "tunneling" is just as acceptable now as it was in the past because the ability to choose who to chase hasn't really changed. That's all "tunneling" is and they haven't removed that yet.
6 -
This is just an objective answer to the original question. It has never been truly accepted by players. No matter how far back you go, as long as tunneling as a concept has existed, there have been people who were unhappy with it. There was never a time where it was unanimously liked and there's a long line of discussions documenting it.
This is not an opinion of myself or the team - in fact I do my best to avoid saying anything opinionated because frankly that's not why I'm here
(and the fewer people I can have at my throat the better). My role here is to take feedback, read discussions, and clarify where I can. You're right that people look to us as representatives, but I would hate to see us avoid any difficult topics because of it. I would much rather see the forums as a place where developers and players can discuss things openly.There is always a chance that someone will read something we say and interpret it to mean something different, but we can't let that keep us from talking to y'all. To be perfectly clear, we do not speak in riddles. There is no hidden message between the lines. When we acknowledge that something has always been contentious, that's all there is to the message. That does not say whether or not we like it, whether or not it's here to stay, or whether or not we agree with it - it's simply acknowledging that disagreements about it have always existed.
8 -
I think it's just a misunderstanding of the OP. When they ask was it more acceptable back then, they didn't mean if the community accepted it unanimously. They just meant did more people back then view it as part of normal play that didnt need changing vs now.
1 -
Fair enough I was just curious overall about that one.
It wasn't my intention to appear at anyone's throat or to imply difficult topics were to be avoided (the fact that the mods and devs chime in even on the less popular topics is one of the strengths of the DBD forums).
Just curious about context in this specific case. As you put it, an acknowledgement of the contentiousness of the topic rather than any real subjective take on it's acceptability.
The rest of my post poses questions more generally to the topic at hand not specifically as a reply to your point. Cheers.
(Edited for spelling mistakes as I can't type to save myself).
0 -
I've played for 3 years and been part of DBD communities for as long, and it has always been complained about. Along with camping, it's the most complained about thing I've seen in this game.
0 -
You are actually right. Before exhaustion and bloodlust there really wasn’t a need to complain about tunneling. Running the killer until Sprint Burst was available again (40 seconds I think), meant that when killer caught you again, they deserved it. Because it wasn’t easy and tunneling was a sure loss for killers back then.
Camping was horrible back then, though.
0 -
I think the issue is whether or not you are willing to make a similar statement if the roles were reversed.
For example, if someone asks whether or not voice comms were more acceptable in the past compared to now, would you make a reply, reminding everyone that voice comms were never truly accepted by players?
1 -
No, because it's always been a vast minority of people who have absolutely railed against people playing with friends.
Almost every reasonable person understands that the game needs that to survive.
A better example would be about MMR, tbh.
1 -
1) “Playing with friends” and “using voice comms for extra game advantages” are completely different things
2) People can be supportive of “playing with friends”, but still dislike the extra game advantages that voice comms can give.
3) It’s possible to dislike voice comms being used for game advantages, and not be “absolutely railed” against people playing with friends.
1 -
"You can play with friends but don't you dare talk to them"
You can't even regulate it, and people who hate it are ridiculous, so once again the better example would be MMR
1 -
In other words you can't fix it. If you can't, which I'm fine with it, I can deal with it as a survivor main. Then it's just part of the games core. It's most likely a design flaw at the end maybe Dead by Daylight 2 will fix that.
0 -
The whole point of the thought experiment was to ask if BHVR would make a similar “it was never fully accepted” reply, if the topic exclusively benefitted survivors. So MMR would be a poor example.
Post edited by EQWashu on0 -
If anything tunneling was less accepted back then but more necessary since killer was genuinely weak. Killers now are at their easiest, tunneling isn't necessary anymore.
1 -
being good at chase will not save your match, you need good macro, know who needs to go back to the lobby, know how many gens are about to get done, if the team know how to be optimally altruistic, most of the time you need to tunnel someone out against full stack or actually good teams if you want to get the 3k or 4k orr guarantee your 1k or 2k
killers are not overpowered, the objective of the survivors is not kill the killer, the game is currently more balanced than ever (survivors still have badham, haddonfield, the game, garden of joy, gen speed perks etc, nurse, blight and spirit still tier S killers since realize but anyway)
it´s like saying ´´survivors using pallets? you can fix generators oh my god dude imagine needing to waste killer time like that, it´s so sad to see it´´
1
