Do people actually think Survivor has no big issues?

I don't think it's always, most of time sure

I've started lots of different discussions posts and I do see what you mean. Mostly about things that feel very hypocritical. I'm happy to say most of the time the conversations are very civil, though you will of course always run into some, "skill issue, git gud" comments on either side. But in my experience from posting quite a few discussions, there are more biased opinions leaning more towards one way. I don't think that means that there are necessarily more, as with the shift in the game in making killer the power role and making survival a 40%, more and more survivors have stopped playing so I don't think you see them on the forums as much.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I do think the killer should be in the power role. I wouldn't mind maybe a small percentage more of a possible chance of survival, as right now I feel the game is very punishing for the survivor role, you're expected to play without making mistakes and there's so many different killers to learn with different counters without any kind of tutorial or advice given. But I have to admit it feels good to play killer right now, much more than it used to. Idk I have a super hot take in my head but I don't think it's the time or place to share it, especially cause I don't want to offend anyone.

But yeah, I get what you mean.

Yeah Steam is the worst. You need a hazmat suit to shift through that much toxicity.

Haven't been here as long, but I've read and learned a lot in these forums, and one consistent issue I see is when a "Main" talks about an issue, there is a tendency to not acknowledge or account for the other sides perspective. One of the other things I like about this forum is there is much less tolerance for us vs. them argumentation.

Whether the point is valid or not, the lack of a balanced perspective puts immediate holes in an argument, and what I like about this forum is people check you often. If you can't provide a balanced perspective, that's when the argument gets shut down.

I've a few times argued a point myself, and those checks have often fed me new information that has meant I need to revise my perspective, or in some cases completely change it.

A valid issue I see with exploring issues for survivor, is a lot of survivor discussions look at the worst case scenario for survivor against the strongest killers, without looking at the ripple effect it has on weaker killers...but vice versa, the issue of weaker killers do hold back improvements for Survivor.

The Ultimate Weapon and MFT debates were for their respective sides, and are great examples where defenders of those perks would not acknowledge the gulf in effect where stronger killers got stronger and weaker killers got weaker. The DS buff is another great example, 5s is kinda needed on Nurse/Blight/Wesker/Spirit... but is far too oppressive for the likes of Trapper, Pig or Myers where it can be used to body block and bully them.

With this in mind, I don't think a post on survivor issues needs to be "Killer sanitizised", there is just a general demand here for stronger argumentation, and a greater consideration for the effects on the game as a whole, rather than hyper focusing on specific scenarios. This has happened for both sides in my time being here... and most people I talk to a generally reasonably receptive to opposing perspectives, even if the conclusion is we disagree.

There's still stuff like hard slugging. Killers can have a rough idea of what the survivors are gonna play like just checking their items, but survivors have no clue what they're gonna face until the killer's plan is already in motion.

The fact that you won't have the tools to counter a hard slug scenario if you don't bring a full anti-slug build to every single match in the off-chance that you face that one-match-every-4-days that has a killer dedicated to end the game by not hooking anyone and just bleeding them to death is ridiculous.

You won't know it's happening until the second slug, and by that point resetting would be a miracle. If one of the two remaining survivors gets into a chase, forget about the game progressing. You're gonna be playing catch up until the entire team inevitably bleeds out to death.

There's also NOED spawning next to hooks, making it impossible to make an end game save. Which sounds fair when there's still 4 players, but is kinda awful when there's only 2 or 3 remaining.

Oh yeah the game is balanced around tunneling at the moment for sure. That's the thing, people just want tunneling removed, the end. What they don't realize is if it was removed completely it would come with significant killer buffs which I doubt any of them would be cool with.

It's not about just removing tunneling; BHVR has demonstrated fully they're balancing off of Kill rates and the current goal favours Killer. I have no issue with that; it's about having fun while playing. Being in a game with tunneling doesn't make many players want to play DbD; it makes them want to play something else. It should be a given that if Killer rates drop below BHVR's goal Killers will get buffs. That's a good thing. What's not a good thing, however, is the gameplay being miserable enough for one side that it makes people play something else.

It's why I missed a week of the anniversary event. Tunneling was prevalent enough that I didn't want to play Survivor and, when playing Killer, I didn't have the heart to kill anyone since the survivors I faced probably experienced the same as me. So I didn't like Survivor play at all and couldn't bring myself to play Killer as intended so I just played Stellaris instead. That's not a good sign for a game.

If I recall correctly you liked my suggestion about how to deal with tunneling which was a general gen slowdown while all Survivors are alive and a substantial repair buff when a Survivor dies so the ideal strategy would be to get all Survivors on death hook first so tunneling gets disincentivized and Killers also don't see 2 or 3 gens pop by the end of the first chase as often. That wouldn't need substantial general buffs to any side as addressing the core game systems would eliminate the need. I'm sure BHVR could come up with something that addresses game mechanics as well.

And also by fixing tunneling, camping and slugging

The point is, BHVR is obviously never seeing tunneling as a "miserable" or anything, and the chances are they aren't even thinking it is that common, results in literally no fix coming

The boringnes of tunneling has been stated repeatedly, even from killers too, but BHVR literally has no interest in ACTUALLY "fixing" this problem

I think BHVR has tried to address it with incentives and doesn't want tunneling around. Friends Till the End, BBQ, etc give very little value unless you take advantage of the information and target someone else. Most aura reading perks (with the notable exception of A Nurse's Calling from many years ago) don't help you unless you target someone else. The Emblem system had BP and pip rewards that were diminished by tunneling and camping and the monthly rewards continue that incentive.

I think the main issue is that it's hard and requires resources. For example, with my suggestion it's bare bones. How much should gens slow down or speed up by? There's no way to guess without extensive play testing and in the meantime BHVR is still a corporation and needs to allocate resources to guarantee it's profitability in order to survive. I don't think it has anything to do with frequency as tunneling is far more common than 4 person slugging for the win and BHVR attempted to address that, albeit unsuccessfully, with its Last One Standing idea which never made it off the ground (no pun intended). If 4 person slugging, which is much less common than tunneling, is obviously on BHVR's radar then tunneling, which is far more common and more complained about, probably is as well.

The issue is how. No amount of gen slowdowns or perk rewards will stop tunneling from being more prevalent the higher up the MMR ladder someone goes. The optimal tactic in any team based pvp game has always been to remove a player from the other side while keeping yours. Here, only one side can lose players so what's the correct amount of incentives and disincentives ? That needs resources to determine and that becomes a matter of priorities. Player loss due to tactics such as tunneling is hard to measure but I'm of the opinion that BHVR does know that getting rid of tunneling would improve player retention but they're just unsure how to deal with it.