Only killers should be punished for forcing their objectives?
Comments
-
In my opinion – the core of the problem is rewarding both sides, and realization of reward.
Let me explain by examples.
I go into SoloQ as survivor. Got lucky enough to have quite competent people. I have done 1.5 gen while my allies where chased and one of them finally hooked (let's say killer chased one good runner, than swapped to another guy spotted on gen). After hook save I took a chase, and after two loops I've go downed and hooked. Then got saved, but too late - so I'm on 2nd phase – but anyway. I've got saved and heal. Later in a game I managed to do some progress on another gen and finally got chased again. This time I screwed totally – so this is the end for me. My allies might run, but for me only Entity's embrace remained. I look at my points - 3rd place among others (might be even last if I'm first dead), but I've got exp and grade progress +1. I might be dead, but I got objective, altruism and maybe even boldness and survival medals. I lost my item which I have plenty in eq but after all match was good.
I play as the killer. Seeing guys in lobby I have no clue are they SoloQ enjoyers, or SwF group. Doesn't matter – for my own sanity and discipline I assume they are group. The game begins. I do the quick gen-swipe spotting first surv. It's Meg who I chase her around 40-60 seconds. I realize she's good at looping and I only managed to wound her. I let her go as she is in no position to do anything else than get heal or do gen somewhere – If I lucky, she might lead me to allies, but I not count for it. I resume my gen-sweep kicking some generators previously touched and stoping by near one highly progressed – I see scratch marks here. Meticulous check allows me to spot survivor repairing it before (was there only one? For sure not.). I start the chase and end it quite fast. Somewhere around one minute. I hook – then two gens pop – one of them was gen where are the hooked spotted – they weren't alone. As the game continue I manage to hook three survivors twice, but they power up the gates, and managed to escape. All of them. I see that the Entity hungers and is displeased. My grade progress is 0 lacking one or two bars. I got medals in hunting and deviousness, but with bronze in gatekeeper and nothing in sacrifice I lack points to progress. I wasted add-ons, offerings , time.
OK. Maybe those two examples are mildly exaggerated, but playing solo (playing with friends is always fun, even if no-heartbeat Myers wipe us all before first gen on Silent Hill map) I feel more rewarded having mediocre match as survivor than having mediocre match as a killer. Dying as survivor I'm still happy with all contribution I have in game. All the gens I did, or help do. Allies I unhooked and healed. Chases broken, or even failed, but after enough time when others might do something... Having four survivors running through the gates – it doesn't matter if they all were on last hook, and all of them barely managed to escape wounded, taking hits for the one I was about to down and hook In endgame collapse. It doesn't matter how well I kept pressure on gens, and after first 3 quick gens for barely two hooks – I kept their progress in check doing all the remaining ones, but ultimately failing to stop – being totally honest – good, organized team. All I have done stopped matter, because I failed.
Maybe this is the core problem, why killer players tend to tunnel or proxy (even proxy-camp). Maybe I'm wrong not doing it playing as a killer, letting myself lose more games because of some strange "moral code". Maybe the problem is the reward – or at least the feeling of it after the game.
5 -
Very well, let's reset.
Tunneling is a strategy that is inherently easier to perform than it is to counter. True or false?
Post edited by Pulsar on9 -
I agree, that's why we need something that will reward killers for spreading hooks, which will do nothing in tunnel situations.
Also win condition should shift on amount of hooks or something like that.
1 -
Do you intend to make it as an incentive to not tunnel or a reward for those who already don't?
0 -
Incentive to not tunnel. There should be alternative playstyle if you want to play to win.
4 -
Do you have any rough ideas?
0 -
I actually kind of agree with this.
The inherent issue is that people feel as if they are being forced out to the match too early compared to other players, especially when playing with friends since you are forced to spectate and sit in the "time out corner" as a result.
I personally think the best solution is to provide something for dead players to do to make them feel as part of the team even after dying, like being able to roam the map and handle side objectives exclusive to them (obviously they wouldnt be able to see the Killers or Survivors to prevent SWFs from calling out information).
0 -
I have some i'm not completely sure in.
Like few examples, don't take the numbers too literally, they, of course, in a theoretical situation, need to be tested. And each of ideas has a bunch of "what if", yes, I understand that, I just don't want to go too deep.
+3% to speed outside of chase and +4% to all actions for every hook if you are keeping your hooks unic. Drop to 0 if you hooked someone two times in a row. Possibly could start working from second hook. It also will help weak killers to control maps while barely will do something for strongest.
Old Grim basekit: if you hook 4 different survivors without someone being hooked twice in a row (and no one is dead), all gens will blocked for a 45 seconds. Work twice with same rules. Probably without Obsession's aura.
Light Pain Res basekit: 10% from most hot gen if you are keeping your hooks unic. Start working from 2nd hook and completely disable after survivor hooked twice or dead.
I had also idea of Gift of Pain basekit, but it will be boring to see red progress all the time and other questionable "what if" are also here.
In any case, it's game slowdown and not speed of chase increase, because i don't think this aspect of the game should be touched with any ideas of alternative playstyle.
4 -
it doesn't but that was a different point. That was about balance and changing things so they're balanced. This is about skill level. No your skill level doesn't change. You MMR will drop since you'll be weaker. Thus, the MMR numbers will represent different skill levels than before on the killer side.
Which isn't itself a problem, but the balance will be. If you change things so that they remain balanced, but you removed tunneling, then supposedly there will be no problem.
5 -
Isn't that an opinion? Well in my opinion: If you're not slamming gens yeah that's true. But if you are then no since that's also really easy to do. If you mean "counter" as in "we stopped the guy being tunneled from dying at all", well you're not supposed to be able to be so strong you can stop the killer from even getting 1 kill. If you mean "we got at least 2 out" then yeah it happens all the time.
Tunneling is allowed and intended. True or false?
Survivor is easier as a whole to play. True or false?
Slamming gens is at least as easy as tunneling, yet comparable in strength. True or false?
Tunneling is too strong with an entire team of good or equal survivors in play. True or false?
Tunneling and slamming gens are both easy playstyles that keep each other in check. True or false?
Post edited by MrPenguin on9 -
And how do you figure that as an incentive?
It's not nearly as powerful as killing someone off immediately, why would someone bother with that?
2 -
Countering tunneling is getting two out, or one out through the Gate I suppose. You understand why that's difficult for good teams and nigh impossible for the average player, right?
1) Bad argument. Not even gonna entertain that one. Saw the exact same thing in reference to old DH and Iri Head. "If it was an issue BHVR would've changed it, therefore it's fine."
2) False.
3) False.
4) Plausible. Really depends on the ideas of the players, builds, maps etc etc
5) False. They do not and that is a terrible idea to believe. They actually usually affect entirely separate people. If you keep getting tunneled, you're more likely to find a 4-man to slam gens with against Killers who didn't tunnel you. As Killer if you keep having BM at the gates, you're more likely to tunnel people who has nothing to do with it.
7 -
In highest level yeah, it will be not enough to win without tunneling. But i believe, it's enough for majority of matches in general. And making it significantly stronger than what i suggested will be too much for average players. But maybe not, it needs testing anyway.
At least it seems enough for me to start wanting to spread hooks. And if any other killer will start to spread hooks with these changes, it's win-win for both sides. If not, well, it won't change anything for both sides either.
1 -
Okay yes, but you didn't make tunneling any harder.
So it's still stronger, easier and more efficient. Why would someone use your system?
4 -
Because I wasn't going to make tunneling harder? I was going to make tunneling not only existing playstyle, if you are going to win. With making tunneling a lot harder to the point where it's almost impossible to win with it, my suggestions should be twice or thrice stronger, since spreading hooks will be the only way to play. And my suggestion is not to replace tunneling, but encourage different playstyle.
For the same reasons, because not 100% of killers tunnel every game? Hardcore tunnelers which care only about winning will stay hardcore tunnelers, but many players (including me) want to chase different survivors and don't feel like they throw the game for no reason. And imo this will be enough to not feel like this in most matches.
3 -
But, like you said, you want to win?
This isn't really a big enough incentive to dissuade people from tunneling.
1 -
Okay, if it's not enough for most people, buff numbers, what's the question? There is PTB for such things.
I feel like it will be enough on a paper for average players. If many people decide that this is not enough/too weak, go ahead and make it worthwhile.
2 -
The issue that I'm getting at is that you can't make something as an incentive to dissuade tunneling.
You've got to remove it and re-balance the game around that removal, which might include your incentive system.
Unfortunately, despite the fact that your idea is GOOD, it's so weak compared to getting someone out of the match early that it doesn't matter. It's still easier to tunnel and still more effective UNTIL you do something about that, no incentive will be enough unless it's extremely OP.
3 -
What you said is right, both side have the same skill level (lets say the skill is 5), but who brings better loadout win the match. Of course you can tunneling to even it out (or even win over it). In the end, after winning the match, MMR would give you better opponents (skill of 6) with good loadout. What are you gonna do? Use meta perks and strong addon to win? Then MMR put you with a team skill of 7. Again, what are you gonna do? Change to high tier killer?
You can always try to win, there is nothing wrong with it, and MMR is there to make you win half the time, no matter what your loadout is.
Thing is, killers can always pull tunneling,camping,slugging if survivors' loadout is better than killers. But if survivors' loadout isnt better than killers'. The only way for survivors to win is they're better than killers.
0 -
If I get tunneled, so be it, go next. On hook and survivors camping lockers, I'll suicide, go next.
Being slugged at 5 gens, forced to play the killers terrible Blood Racing Game, this is the malevolence, the true horror that killers can inflict upon us, the end game none of us want to play other than the ill mind of the villain.
1 -
The point of tunneling is to make the game 3v1 early, which its guarantee winning.
Making a mechanic that stronger than tunneling MEANS you want a mechanic to make 4 survivors as weak as 3v1 so killer not to tunnel. There are alot of ideas to encourage not tunneling, but tunneling is too far strong to ever make a mechanic stronger.
If there is such a mechanic, its nothing but "give me free win so I dont tunneling". The equivalent to survivor side is making the Gates powered by default so they will do totem and chest.
4 -
Supposedly almost every killer tunnels, but we don't have a kill rate of 75-90% do we? As far as we have seen with the data we have available, no. If it was that high even BHVR would step in. It has to currently be at least reasonably counterable for the average player otherwise kill rates would be through the roof. It's definitely not "nigh impossible" to counter. It's not such a "free win" as it's being made out to be. That or not nearly as many killers are tunneling as it's being made out to be.
For 5), the same is true in reverse though. Slamming gens is more likely to get you tunneled, tunneling will more likely get you BM'd. Hell I get BM'd regularly and I don't even tunnel or camp or play S tier killers.
We disagree on pretty much everything. You believe survivor is harder than killer and slamming gens is hard to do. I think both of those are easy. Gen speeds balance it out to me but to you not so. Presumably we're both speaking from experience.
What I believe we can agree on is as follows: tunneling is not fun for anyone involved. The game would be a lot healthier if there was something to allow or push more people to not tunneling that doesn't make the game balance or play experience worse for either side.
Do killers have feelings too?
Does it feel good for them when gens are flying by, such as having 1-2 hooks and 3-4 gens are already done?
Should both sides should respect the play experience of the other?
As a community and as players these are the things we can take into account. We can't change the game directly, but we can change how we play and treat each other. It been the same way in the community since as long as I can remember that the survivor side really does not care about the killer experience yet ask if not demand that the killer cater to theirs. It long past time they take into account how they act and treat the other side as well. Do I believe that's going to actually happen? No.
But hopefully you can at least agree to the idea that we should care about the players on the opposing side on both sides. As long as it's one sided, things will not change.
On the system side, I agree with you that you can't really get tunneling out the game without drastic fundamental changes, but I think we both know that's not likely happening.
However something to help those who don't tunnel is better than nothing. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you don't want to accept anything unless it gets rid of effectively all tunneling completely. I would say having something to help or incentivize more people to not tunnel is better than what we have now, which is nothing.
We might not get the sweatiest of sweats, but we can at least get some people. Maybe even the average player. The less people tunneling the better.
Post edited by MrPenguin on7 -
"Does it feel good for them when gens are flying by, such as having 1-2 hooks and 3-4 gens are already done?"
Even if you're losing the match, you at least get to play it.
That's a big difference in concern. Survivors don't like playing halved matches where they don't get to do chases, or only get to do chases. Survivors are supposed to have pretty broad gameplay.
Conversely, your concern is purely that you don't like to lose sometimes.
"However something to help those who don't tunnel is better than nothing. Correct me if I'm wrong but it seems like you don't want to accept anything unless it gets rid of effectively all tunneling completely. I would say having something to help or incentivize more people to not tunnel is better than what we have now, which is nothing."
The only thing that would work as an incentive, however, is something that would be stronger and easier than tunnelling. To put it into perspective, someone once suggested to me to give survivors a permanent -33% repair speed penalty for their first hook, which goes away when a survivor dies.
I had to point out that that still would be weaker than tunnelling, since that can, with decent pacing, drop progress speed to 0% in three hooks, as opposed to 67% in four.
Whatever you come up with as a solution to killers using 'the optimal strategy' would have to make them even stronger.
Ultimately, you're just asking to buff killer and/or nerf survivor, while the former is already doing better.
'Or else we'll tunnel.'
5 -
I understand that maybe it feels worse to some or most people to get tunneled than gen slammed and I never asserted it didn't. However, that doesn't mean that the killer experience doesn't matter at all. This is not a competition of "who has it worse" it's trying to makes things better for everyone. At the end of the day, no one wants to care about someone who can't be bothered to care for them and just turns everything into "why should I care? I feel like I have it worse", and that's what's happening. Many if not most survivors don't care, and they play the victim (no pun intended) while ignoring the killer side of things.
Saying "I care about your experience so please care about mine" is going to go a lot further. Right now it's "I don't care about your experience, but you should care for mine". Not a lot of people will enjoy nor listen to that and rightfully so.
If you mean an incentive strong enough for everyone to stop tunneling sure. But I already said that. But I don't see why just because we don't have a solution to stop everyone from tunneling, we shouldn't make things better for those who don't, making not tunneling more attractive and pushing more to do it.
Just because we can't eradicate it doesn't mean we can't make it better. If you keep looking for a perfect solution you're never gong to get anywhere. I'll take a good but not perfect solution over none at all.
I don't see how that would "buff killer and nerf survivor" when it doesn't change what's happening when people sweat to win. You're just helping people who don't do better so that more play that way and everyone has a better game. Killer and survivor shouldn't change in power since their optimal playstyles aren't changed. At least in concept. But more people will choose to not tunnel if it's more viable/rewarding.
Right now it has absolutely nothing going for it. Maybe not stronger than tunneling, but it needs to have something.
Like like I also already said, maybe not everyone, but the less people tunneling the better. Do you disagree with that statement?
Post edited by MrPenguin on7 -
Question is, what does "being better" mean? Be better at what exactly?
4 -
That was my entire point with 5. It's a vicious cycle.
I think Survivor skill is less straightforward than Killer, especially considering pre-requisites of having three other good Survivors around.
The game would be much better without tunneling I agree.
Really thought we had something going there for a second until you started the us vs them again. Neither side cares, at large, about the other. The idea that it's only Survivors or only Killers who are out to get the other side as a whole community is laughable.
That is correct because it has been proven that the more tools you give people, the more they tunnel. See the Eruption, CoB, Overcharge meta. Supremely OP, free value and the strongest Killer has ever been. DS and DH nerfed, gens take longer, pallets break faster, Killers recover faster and Survivors make less distance on hit. And yet, tunneling was through the roof.
Incentives alone don't work. You have to make it harder to tunnel if you want to see any significant reduction.
6 -
So the incentive was perk changes alone?
2 -
I don't think the entire community on either side is out to get the other. But we also can't ignore the group dynamics of the groups we're dealing with. The majority survivor mindset, at least as far as I've seen and been expressed by others on both sides, it's that they don't really care about the killers side of the experience but ask for them to care about theirs. Often met with statements such as "gens don't have feeling". Yeah but the killers do. The killers, feeling like the survivors don't care, choose to not care about them in return. Which to me is understandable.
That's been my experience, and I've been around for a long time and it's been the same throughout. If it hasn't been your experience with survivors, then honestly? Thank god lol.
"Incentives alone don't work. You have to make it harder to tunnel if you want to see any significant reduction."
I mean, I feel like people tunneled a lot less when BBQ had its BP bonus, and that was just points not even a in game benefit. However, that said, I wouldn't be against the idea of making it harder to tunnel. I don't think it's necessary, but I'm not against it. You'd just have to make an as strong incentive to the detriment to even it out. Unless you also trying to nerf killers in general at the same time.
Post edited by MrPenguin on7 -
I understand that maybe it feels worse to some or most people to get tunneled than gen slammed and I never asserted it didn't. However, that doesn't mean that the killer experience doesn't matter at all. This is not a competition of "who has it worse" it's trying to makes things better for everyone. At the end of the day, no one wants to care about someone who can't be bothered to care for them and just turns everything into "why should I care? I feel like I have it worse", and that's what's happening. Many if not most survivors don't care, and they play the victim (no pun intended) while ignoring the killer side of things.
But the feel-bad situation you're talking about on the killer side is losing. You're not talking about anything survivors do specifically to alter the flow of the game in any way, just that killers lose games. The gameplay on the killer side is exactly the same whether they win or lose.
If you came to me with 'unhook denial is very frustrating to face, and 1v2 chases play like trash', I'm absolutely with you on that one. 100%. That stuff is awful to face.
But you're complaining about losing matches altogether. That's what you consider to be 'inconsiderate of killer experience'.
If you mean an incentive strong enough for everyone to stop tunneling sure. But I already said that. But I don't see why just because we don't have a solution to stop everyone from tunneling, we shouldn't make things better for those who don't, making not tunneling more attractive and pushing more to do it.
But the people who don't tunnel evidently don't need it. Otherwise they'd be tunnelling. All this change does is just muck up the balance further, making killers who don't tunnel go up against sweatier survivors. And I could honestly see that producing more tunnelling down the line.
Just because we can't eradicate it doesn't mean we can't make it better. If you keep looking for a perfect solution you're never gong to get anywhere. I'll take a good but not perfect solution over none at all.
The problem is that what you are suggesting is not a solution at all. It's been suggested so many times that if we just add enough incentives, tunnelling will totally slow down, as if necessity is the driving force behind it. But it's not.
We -had- a good solution. And then in 6.1, it got cut in half.
Pro-spread measures are not going to fix tunnelling or even alleviate it, unless those measures effectively produce an across-the-board buff of considerable impact. And with killers slightly outperforming survivors, that's going to really hurt the game's balance.
Anti-tunnel measures need to be stronger. That's how you fix tunnelling.
4 -
It's not just losing. It's how you lost. It's the same as survivors in that regard. It's not just that you got sacrificed so you lost, it's that you got tunneled. It's that you got gen slammed.
Of course if you already don't tunnel you can continue to do so, the MMR is going to put you where you don't need to. I don't tunnel, I don't need to, because I'm at an MMR where I outclass the survivors enough to do so most of the time. I suppose if everyone started doing that then that would also happen to them. But there's still the preformation emotional side to things where they don't want to because of how the other side treats them.
I also don't know what that would mean for high MMR where you currently need to tunnel to win. Well, unless you're Nurse maybe. I guess they'll just face more Nurse than they already do.
If they start tunneling, they'd lose the benefits from the system. Also as mentioned above, they would just end up where their new power level is evened out. For those that did tunnel before and switched over, they'd get weaker survivors and less sweaty feeling games, since as mentioned it wouldn't be as strong or stronger than tunneling, so your MMR would drop. But they'd at least feel like they have a chance and something going for them for not tunneling. Ideally they're equal strength so you can choose and be 100% fine. But again, perfect solution and all that.
Maybe an incentive and better anti-tunnel could work. But solely punishment isn't the way to go imo. Back when DS was stronger, it didn't fix tunneling. It just made killers feel like they were in a lose-lose. Tunnel and lose to DS, don't tunnel and lose because gens fly and there's nothing to help you when you don't tunnel. We can't just ignore killers and say "well it's fixed for survivors so that's all we care about".
Post edited by MrPenguin on9 -
It's not just losing. It's how you lost. It's the same as survivors in that regard. It's not just that you got sacrificed so you lost, it's that you got tunneled. It's that you got gen slammed.
No, it's losing.
That's the distinction between 'gen-rushing' and 'gen-tunnelling' or 'gen-slamming'. You say the gens are going 'too fast', but that's also relative to your own performance in the match. If you lose, that means all five gens got done. If you lose, then by definition, gens were going 'too fast'.
There is no distinction.
If it takes 5 minutes, or 8 minutes, or 12 minutes, if you lose, the gens went 'too fast'. That's how the game works.
Of course if you already don't tunnel you can continue to do so, the MMR is going to put you where you don't need to. I don't tunnel, I don't need to, because I'm at an MMR where I outclass the survivors enough to do so most of the time. I suppose if everyone started doing that then that would also happen to them. But there's still the preformation emotional side to things where they don't want to because of how the other side treats them.
And that treatment is definitely a problem. But insisting on keeping tunnelling in the game is not going to fix it. Constantly ruining the game's balance is not going to fix it.
If they start tunneling, they'd lose the benefits from the system.
But they would gain the benefit of tunnelling. Therefor, those benefits would have to be the better choice. It'd need to be more powerful and easier than tunnelling. Which in turn will increase their MMR, which in turn pits them against stronger/sweatier survivors, which in turn makes them lose again, which in turn means that gens go too fast again.
But they'd at least feel like they have a chance and something going for them for not tunneling.
You yourself state that you don't need to tunnel, if you don't tunnel.
Maybe an incentive and better anti-tunnel could work. But solely punishment isn't the way to go imo. Back when DS was stronger, it didn't fix tunneling.
It massively decreased it though, simply because it was not as effective as it is now. We know it works.
We can't just ignore killers and say "well it's fixed for survivors so that's all we care about".
And BHVR didn't. Action speeds for killers were increased, a ton of killer perks got buffed, gen speeds were nerfed, BNPs were nerfed, healing was nerfed, the whole works. And with every update, the complaints about gens going too fast get louder.
If anything, it's survivors that are ignored on this matter, with tunnelling, camping and slugging not getting addressed. At least we're getting 3-genning resolved after that perfect showcase of a zero effort Skull Merchant locking a comp team into the match for over 40 minutes, but the rest is still here after seven years because addressing it would give killers a booboo.
And in fact, you are kind of doing that yourself, too. Your suggestion is to just buff killers a bunch to fix the problem on the killer side, but disregarding what it'll mean for the survivor side, who'll be left with 'Either you get no gameplay because of tunnelling, or you lose because we had to buff killers a ton'.
Besides, you yourself state that the game is perfectly playable without tunnelling from the killer side, so how is their problem being ignored if they have no problem?
2 -
As well as the basekit buffs to Killer, yes, the gen kick meta was the strongest Killer has ever been, ergo, we should've seen less tunneling.
4 -
The basekit buffs where not enough to discourage tunneling.
Not everyone used this specific build although a lot of people did. I didn't. As I said before. I play surge as my main and only slowdown perk for almost 4 years now.
There will always be people that tunnel. May that be out of necessity or out of bad sportsmanship. If you just punish it, people will do it the same or maybe even more in some instances. You can't change peoples minds, as much as I would like it as well. I don't like tunneling.
The only 100% solution is giving survivor god mode or making the killer a bot.
We both know that's not an option.
8 -
I mean, I feel like people tunneled a lot less when BBQ had its BP bonus
Want to highlight this on the side, by the way: BBQ lost its BP bonus in 6.1. Same patch that deleted Decisive Strike.
0 -
Of course there's a tribablistic mentality. It's an asymmetrical game, both sides have a huge hatred for the other. This constant insistence rhat one side is worth than the other is only you giving into that mentality yourself. BOTH sides are absolutely horrifically ######### to each other on a match-match basis. They SHOULD be better to each other, a little empathy goes a long way and that's why I've always made sure I play Survivor at least a bit, because it's important to me to have perspective.
BBQ's bonus also happened around MMR's introduction.
1 -
You should know what most reasonable people mean when they say the gens fly, its not just that the gens got finished. Gens getting done in 4-5 minuets is a lot different from them getting done in 12.
There is definitely a distinction.
Good thing I'm not advocating to keep tunneling in the game then. I already stated I think it should go. If not entirely then at least partially.
Well if you believe its better to have nothing to incentivize not tunneling so more people don't, than to have something so its not as many people as possible, we'll just have to disagree there.
At least we can agree the treatment should change.
I don't think DS really decreased tunneling. It just made killer as whole weaker so people just didn't play killer and we had 20+ minuet survivor ques. Tunneling was still the best tactic at the time. It was still better than not tunneling. You just tried to get around DS either by eating it and powering through or slugging. Honestly it felt worse to get tunneled and slugged than just tunneled. Especially after waiting so long to even get a game. Even if you could win against tunneling more.
I did however, notice a decrease if the killer had BBQ. I think that's what really pushed people to not tunnel. I was the win con of a sizable chunk of the smaller at the time killer community to get 4 stacks. So an incentive should come back.
The game being playable, and putting me against weak survivors so that I can not tunnel and stand a chance is different than not tunneling being a strong viable strategy against good survivors. Now if everyone started doing that would I complain? No. Survivors would probably be too strong in comparison, but we can make balance changes if that's the case.
Post edited by MrPenguin on5 -
Well, unfortunately that's been my experience and as far as I can it's been plenty others as well. If not most. The hostility, entitlement, victimhood, and BM from the survivor side has vastly outnumbered my experience from the killer side, and I play both sides pretty equally as far as I can tell.
However, whether that's the case or not, at the end of the day both sides should be better towards each other. As you said and I agree with that. Maybe one side has more work to do than the other, maybe not. But as long as we can get them both to respect each other then you know, mission accomplished or whatever.
I still don't think that's happening, but I will still advocate for it as I have done the entirety of my DBD career.
On that front, the mindsets I put forth are still problematic and should change, even if the amount might be different in your opinion. I hope you would also agree with that statement.
If so, I think that's a pretty fair middle ground on that topic.
Post edited by MrPenguin on4 -
There's two major problems with this rhetoric, though - apologies for chiming in late but this post specifically has the stuff I'd be responding to, lol.
The first problem is that it's almost impossible to find the right balance of buffing non-tunnelling killers without also buffing tunnelling killers. It'd have to be something that deactivates when someone dies, or if someone's hooked twice in a row, and that's already going to be very finnicky to balance + open to possible abuse. Adding onto that, anything you do probably isn't going to outweigh the strength of tunnelling, which leads me to my second point.
The second problem is pretty simple. When you say that not-tunnelling as a tactic should have "something going for it [...] because right now it has literally nothing going for it", that's obviously not true on its face, because not tunnelling does have something going for it: it's comparably strong and it's how you win more matches more consistently. People don't choose to tunnel because it's the only strong option, they tunnel because they perceive it to be easier. There's two layers of that perception, of course; the first is that tunnelling is obviously easier than not tunnelling, but there's also the layer that so many are under the misconception that tunnelling is necessary to perform well "at a high level", which isn't true even if those players are actually playing at a high level to begin with, which statistically I doubt.
That's why incentives alone aren't going to change anything. There are already incentives not to tunnel, both in it being comparably viable (in fact, it's stronger if you're facing survivors you can't tunnel out super quickly) and in the amount of perks that are designed around spreading pressure, and people are still doing it because it's easier to attempt and hard for survivors to punish.
Right now, the correct response if we want to do anything about tunnelling is just to increase the strength of its counters. If people did tunnel much less prior to 6.1., it's because there was a deterrent in the form of DS that killers didn't want to deal with, not because BBQ had BP incentives. There are equivalent perks now that give you actual in-match value for the exact same function of hooking each survivor for the first time, and players still choose to tunnel, because incentives not to alone just aren't enough.
(I would like to see BBQ get a stack mechanic back, though, as an aside. I miss that, it doesn't have to be for BP gain.)
I'd suggest the following, personally: Buff DS back up to five seconds, make the basekit protection not put you in Deep Wounds so it can be stacked properly with Borrowed Time and Off The Record (as well as perks that aren't anti-tunnel like Dead Hard), and potentially buff OTR a little bit to make it easier to lose chase with the killer at the cost of everything disabling on Conspicuous Action instead of just the Endurance. With these changes, tunnelling will still be possible for those who want to attempt it, but the threat of meaningful options on the survivor side to combat it with would be a deterrent making players really evaluate if it's the right call.
DS (or any other anti-tunnel) being strong isn't a lose/lose for the killer. It is, at worst, taking away a shortcut to bypass skill expression and pushing killers to consider how their macro strategy is actually functioning.
3 -
You should know what most reasonable people mean when they say the gens fly, its not just that the gens got finished. Gens getting done in 4-5 minuets is a lot different from them getting done in 12.
But at this point, again, you're not talking about 'slamming gens' or 'tunnelling gens'. You're talking about 'genrushing', IE: Using heavy toolboxes, BNPs and perks to maximise repair speeds.
Well if you believe its better to have nothing to incentivize not tunneling so more people don't, than to have something so its not as many people as possible, we'll just have to disagree there.
It's better to have countermeasures against tunnelling than incentives to not tunnel, yes.
I don't think DS really decreased tunneling. It just made killer as whole weaker so people just didn't play killer and we had 20+ minuet survivor ques.
No, it didn't. DS, after it got the conspic action nerf, ONLY worked if the killer was tunnelling, or fell for bait. If the killer didn't tunnel, it wouldn't fire. It was in fact buffing killers that didn't tunnel, because that perk slot would effectively be empty.
I did however, notice a decrease if the killer had BBQ. I think that's what really pushed people to not tunnel. I was the win con of a sizable chunk of the smaller at the time killer community to get 4 stacks. So maybe an incentive should come back.
See, that one doesn't make any sense, because once you've got one person tunnelled out, you have more time to get the rest of your stacks. BBQ had no interaction with tunnelling at all. If it could no longer get stacks once a survivor died, maybe you'd have a point, but a tunnelling killer would have just as easy a time to get 4 stacks as a non-tunneller. (Except that DS made tunnelling inefficient, thus creating a real risk that others will get out without getting hooked)
The game being playable, and putting me against weak survivors so that I can not tunnel and stand a chance is different than not tunneling being a strong viable strategy against good survivors. Now if everyone started doing that would I complain? No. Survivors would probably be too strong in comparison, but we can make balance changes if that's the case.
Why are they 'weak' survivors?
It's a problem on these forums that a lot of killer players seem to have this idea that they are objectively very high skill. We've even had a rush of people claiming to be 'top MMR', who then go on to claim they also struggle to get more than one hook per match, somehow.
The game's complex. Loads of players can easily get the wrong idea about their own skill level. A lot of it is also quite opaque. Hearing Otz talk his viewers through his decision-making process is eye-opening. DBD has a ton of depth, and a lot of people on these forums who come here claiming to have an objective evaluation of the skill levels of themselves or others I just can't take seriously.
Similarly, I don't think you're going up against 'weak' survivors. I think you're going up against survivors matched to your skill level.
1 -
I don't think survivors need all that to be considered having the gens fly, or gen rushers or whatever. That's like saying killers can only tunnel if they're playing Nurse. I believe both sides can focus their objective to a point that its unhealthy on both sides basekit. I don't subscribe to this double standard of a killer can do it just by the way they play, but survivors need to have an entire loadout dedicated to doing it for it to count. Both playstyles can be done just by the way you play. At least imo.
"It's better to have countermeasures against tunnelling than incentives to not tunnel, yes."
That's not what I said though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you disagreed with my statement that having something to incentivize not tunneling is better than nothing. So basically you either want to punish tunneling or nothing at all.
But even with that version of DS, killers still tunneled. Because it was still better than not tunneling. Punishment alone doesn't make not tunneling stronger, it just makes tunneling weaker. If both are weak, then killer will just be weak.
For BBQ yeah, you're right, it was still better to tunnel if you wanted to play optimally for the 4K. But it still made people tunnel less because they were getting something out of it. To the point it became a win condition for players. "idc if I didn't 4K, I got my 4 stack I won". Not to mention BBQ also pointed you in the direction of other survivors away from the hook to also help you not tunnel.
I never stated I was at "high MMR" or anything like that. Just at my MMR the survivors are at a level where I can go for a 10-12 hook game and be fine. Hits and downs are a lot faster than in games where players tunnel to make up for the time differential (which also is a lot). Well, unless I get a brainlessly bad map and/or a ton of pallets. Without tunnelign/slugging/3 gen/ect. all you have to really rely on is how fast your chases end and prediction. In simplified terms at least. I don't think I could be in "top MMR" without tunneling. Even Otz and other CCs tunnel when they feel they should afaik.
I though survivors going down fast was a sign that they weren't as good as the killer. But I guess not?
Imo, the game is not balanced for a 10-12 hook matches. I'm all for pushing it in that direction, but that's not where it's at now. If you think that it is currently balanced around that, then I guess downs only taking a few seconds is balanced?
Which if that's what you believe, I respect your opinion. I mean, it's worked out for me so it's not like I can complain.
Post edited by MrPenguin on6 -
So basically you're saying the vast majority of the player base is delusional and have this idea that not tunneling is weak when in reality you can leave the game as a 4v1 for the majority of the match and not have any significant disadvantage compared to being in a 3v1 earlier on?
In which case, wouldn't the inverse also be true? Being in a 3v1 earlier on isn't a significant disadvantage for the survivor side? Because it's "comparably strong" as if the killer left it as a 4v1?
4 -
"I though survivors going down fast was a sign that they weren't as good as the killer. But I guess not?"
Just like how you sometimes get a bad map or a lot of pallets, Survivors sometimes get bad maps or few pallets.
Also, couple of Killers exist that just take away most skill expression.
3 -
But that's my average experience. It's not just "sometimes they go down really fast". It's the opposite, "sometimes they don't if they got lucky".
If they got a bad setup, it's even faster.
Which if that's what you're considering balanced then, ok sure. I suppose chases should only last a couple of seconds long.
6 -
There's a big difference between being delusional and having a misconception, to be fair, I definitely wouldn't call the players who think this delusional. They are wrong, though, because they do not need to tunnel to play well.
You've also got something of a skewed perspective on this here in the rest of your message - not being at a 3v1 early isn't a disadvantage, it's the default. Being at a 3v1 early is an advantage over the default, and being at a 4v1 late in the game is a disadvantage over the default.
If I implied that I don't think successfully tunnelling someone out early on is very strong, my apologies, that's not what I meant. What I mean is that playing the game normally is more than strong enough to win, and even has advantages over attempting to tunnel in some cases - after all, the whole value proposition of tunnelling is that you're doing something substantially weaker until someone is dead, at which point you can leverage the net efficiency loss on the survivor side into more effective slowdown.
This should be a risk, both from a basic balance perspective and because the tools to punish it already exist in the game now, but unfortunately those tools are weaker than they should be and as a result it's not exactly a risky tactic at all. If you can leverage the specific skill of downing survivors quickly, you can absolutely ignore every other element of killer gameplay and skill to tunnel without much concern, which is both unbalanced and unpleasant for the players on the receiving end of it.
If anti-tunnel were increased to the point where tunnelling became a risk/reward strategy, it'd be much more fair. As it stands, you don't have to put much effort in to circumvent the kind of results you can absolutely get playing normally.
0 -
I don't think survivors need all that to be considered having the gens fly, or gen rushers or whatever. That's like saying killers can only tunnel if they're playing Nurse. I believe both sides can focus their objective to a point that its unhealthy on both sides basekit. I don't subscribe to this double standard of a killer can do it just by the way they play, but survivors need to have an entire loadout dedicated to doing it for it to count. Both playstyles can be done just by the way you play. At least imo.
But, again, at this point you're complaining about survivors doing their objective -at all-. Which brings me back to 'if you lose, the gens went too fast'.
That's not what I said though. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you disagreed with my statement that having something to incentivize not tunneling is better than nothing. So basically you either want to punish tunneling or nothing at all.
Pretty much, yeah. I'm not keen on giving buffs out like candy to try and get them to tunnel less, from my experience, that doesn't work. It just mucks up the balance further.
But even with that version of DS, killers still tunneled. Because it was still better than not tunneling. Punishment alone doesn't make not tunneling stronger, it just makes tunneling weaker. If both are weak, then killer will just be weak.
But they did tunnel considerably less, because the difference between tunnelling and not tunnelling was way, way smaller.
For BBQ yeah, you're right, it was still better to tunnel if you wanted to play optimally for the 4K. But it still made people tunnel less because they were getting something out of it. To the point it became a win condition for players. "idc if I didn't 4K, I got my 4 stack I won". Not to mention BBQ also pointed you in the direction of other survivors away from the hook to also help you not tunnel.
This is the one thing I will agree with. Those alternative win conditions need to come back to both sides.
Without tunnelign/slugging/3 gen/ect. all you have to really rely on is how fast your chases end and prediction. In simplified terms at least.
That simplification is exactly the problem though. That's the distinction between a regular killer and a properly good one. The good ones know that there's a game outside of the current chase and they will keep that in mind.
Everyone knows about the micro, how to play tiles, how to chase.
The good killers also understand macro. Where to chase, which direction, who to chase, how to apply pressure.
I feel like a lot of killer complaints stem from killers who play the micro just fine but make mistakes on macro, which then leads them to come here and complain about how they simply -can't- win matches. Which ties in with my issue about the idea that 'gen slamming' or 'gen tunnelling' is a problem.
The worse you are as killer, the more 'too fast' the gens go.
I though survivors going down fast was a sign that they weren't as good as the killer. But I guess not?
No chase is supposed to last forever. If the survivors are going down at a pace that permits a 12-hook game, but gives the survivors a decent chance of getting out, congrats: That's the point of balance.
Imo, the game is not balanced for a 10-12 hook matches. I'm all for pushing it in that direction, but that's not where it's at now. If you think that it is currently balanced around that, then I guess downs only taking a few seconds is balanced?
If it's taking a couple of seconds, then you're up against survivors that barely run away at all. If that's the only type of survivor you can get a 12-hook game against, then I'm sorry, but that kind of implies that you're in, say, the bottom 5% in terms of killer skill.
Which kind of feeds into my argument.
2 -
You can't have it both ways. Either survivors chases are short so its balanced for 12 hooks or they last longer and you need to make up for it by not going for 12 hook games.
You can't say "Well your chases are short so your survivors are horrible. You need long chases but also 12 hooks".
Afaik and have seen in discussions, an average chase is somewhere around 45-60 second in a game when someone tunnels. Lets say you cut that in half to make up for going from ~5-6 hooks to 12 and having 4 survivors instead of 3. That's only 20-30 second chases. That's not very long.
7 -
I believe I said a 3v1 is a disadvantage compared to a 4v1. I didn't say it wasn't the default nor compared it to the default.
Also you didn't say it was "enough" you said "comparably strong" which would mean it's about as strong as tunneling. So that would be "very strong" in most cases. Not just "enough" in "some".
In your opinion, tunneling is doing something substantially weaker until someone is dead which is the risk correct? Because if that chase last too long you lose right?
So you want more risk than is already there. But I believe I also already said I'd be fine with implementing more to go against tunneling as well in my previous post.
So correct me if I'm wrong, but you're mainly contesting how strong tunneling actually is compared to not doing so as I outlined above. Additionally, you don't want any new incentive for the killer side or the current incentives made stronger. Just punishment and the current punishment tools to be made stronger.
7 -
I stand by it being comparably strong. Not equally strong, tunnelling is stronger, but successfully employing any number of other tactics focused on better macro strategy and game sense is in the same leagues of strength. It's just not as easy to do, which is an important distinction.
And yes, you're almost right. Tunnelling should be doing something substantially weaker while banking on being able to get someone out fast, at which point you're in a stronger position. However, right now, there's extremely little risk, so there's no real "banking on" involved, you just will be in a better spot once you've finished tunnelling someone out because anti-tunnel is too weak and thus the only "risk" is if the survivor you're chasing is substantially better than you. Which is possible, but only through matchmaking mishaps, and since those need to be fixed it's not a good idea to rely on them for balance reasons.
So, no, I don't want "more risk than is already there", because there's meaningfully no risk in a majority of scenarios. I want there to be risk, the kind that makes the average killer stop and rethink, because the average killer wouldn't even conceptualise tunnelling as a risky strategy to begin with - and why would they, when there isn't all that much risk to notice right now?
As for your last point, no, I'm contesting how strong not tunnelling is. I agree tunnelling is strong, it's the alternatives I'm saying are being undervalued. For the additional point, yep. Not tunnelling is currently in a pretty damn good spot, and tunnelling is currently in an over-inflated bad spot. I want the bad thing to be addressed and don't see much need for changing the good thing.
I would also add, considering "not tunnelling" is just... playing the whole game, normally, it's going to benefit from any changes that come in the future. BHVR have been making pretty steady changes and improvements to the killer role, and a lot of them are more meaningful to you if you're not tunnelling someone out ASAP. Those aren't going to stop, so no dedicated "don't tunnel" incentive needs to be devised to fix tunnelling- just fix it, and killers can benefit from the steady stream of buffs and tweaks already in motion.
3 -
When I explained one game in the post game chat that I hard tunneled, because the survivors all split up and put so much pressure on my and gave me no breathing room, everywhere I went, there was a gen 75% done, I was accused of tripping and being ludicrous.
Survivors splitting up on gens was not the norm 2 years back, but 6.1 made it so, and now you can't put the genie back into the bottle. Nowadays survivors know that splitting up is THE most efficient way to tackle gens, so nearly everyone is doing it as the standard MO and killers are not allowed to question this, but have to live with the consequences.
But really, this is one of the main culprits of why matches these days go by so fast and both sides feel like they are backed against the wall and need to DO someting: both sides discovered the most efficient way to play during the 6.1 aftermath and the game has never been the same, since.
And games are so fast these days, you can't just easily switch gears when you are stomping, most of the time its too late at that point. Also, not sealing the deal at that point might still cost you the game. Survivors often complain that the killer tunneled at "4 gens left", ignoring the fact that 3 of this 4 gens were being worked at and at 50-75% done. If the killer switched targets at that point, it would be "ggeeeez", so tunneling is the only option to not loose in an embarrassing way.
The fun, kinda tense games of the past, where the killer found one survivor, chased and eventually downed them, while one gen popped, then they roamed and found another survivor, downed them, another gen popped while the survivor on hook got rescued, thats not coming back. The efficiency on both sides dictate that 2-3 gens pop by the end of the first chase, and this puts the killer already in such a bad spot that the gloves come off and the tunneling starts at one hook.
13 -
This is probably the best comment in this whole thread.
7
