Shoulder the burden what happened?
Comments
-
We are thoroughly familiar with your conceptualisation of 'balance', thank you.
9 -
Funny enough, I recommended this version years ago with donated hook stages. I even thought it should be base kit, and survivors could donate their first hook state only to a shared pool that was used before individual hooks.
Spreading hooks is completely unaffected, but camping the first hook of the game would've meant standing there for 6 minutes until they die. You only need to make camping and tunneling inefficient or not a nearly guaranteed game win for them to be abandoned by the community as "strategies" you use starting in the lobby.
It would've killed early game camping and tunneling at the same time, without nearly useless mechanics like AFC to band aid the problem, and also without affecting late game.
2 -
- I hook survivor A
- Survivor B uses the perk on survivor A
- I hook survivor B
- Survivor C uses the perk on survivor B
- I hook survivor C
- Survivor D uses the perk on survivor C
In the above scenario, I haven't tunneled at all, and the survivors still used the perk 3 times to spread the hook states. This means the perk doesn't actually discourage tunneling, because tunneling and not tunneling leads to the same result.
1 -
If they lead to the same result, it means there's no benefit to tunnelling. That means its incentive is gone, in other words, it disincentivises it.
12 -
Isn't this just like, fine, though? Isn't this still just progressing your objective the same way as if you'd been spreading hooks from the start and this perk wasn't in play? You still have three hook states, you've still used up resources, you've still dragged people off generators to come save…
I don't see how this is a bad outcome for killers at all, that's the part I'm confused about. Can't speak to anyone else responding to you, but that's where I'm struggling to understand your argument.
8 -
Honest question. Do you believe that tunneling a survivor out of the game in 3 hooks, is beneficial for killers?
0 -
Obviously, yes, but that isn't what we're discussing here.
6 -
Therefore, it is harmful to killers, when a perk can require 5 or 6 hooks before a survivor is eliminated from the game, because the killer would have been better off if they could have eliminated a survivor in 3 or 4 hooks.
0 -
…But that's just the perk working, not the perk being overpowered or specifically harming killers who don't tunnel.
It's supposed to stop you from tunnelling, it's an anti-tunnel perk. If it doesn't do that, what's it supposed to do?
You're not being harmed when an unbalanced tactic is prevented, you're just being reset to neutral. You can avoid this supposed detriment by just not tunnelling to begin with and you'll be just fine.
15 -
I think @Firellius and @jesterkind already said what I was about to type.
+1
If you didnt tunnel, and they used the perk spreading hooks, which also lead to no tunnel, then you lost nothing and they gained nothing. The perk worked, yes, but in the long run it did nothing. If where able to get an insta down, it was even detrimental.
Overall, the perk punishes tunneling. Tunneling is strong but awful to play against. A game is supposed to be fun. The perk is a win in my book.
9 -
When SWFs stack this perk, tunneling and not tunneling leads to the same outcome.
Therefore, I might as well tunnel, because tunneling doesn't punish me more than not tunneling. This perk fails to actually discourage tunneling. It just results in a survivor getting hooked 5 or 6 times in the same game, which causes the survivors to get way more frustrated than if they were tunneled out at 3 hooks.
0 -
Good?
That sounds fine to me. Tunnelling and not tunnelling lead to the same outcome, which is that survivors aren't taken out of the game early. That sounds like it's working.
If individual players get annoyed, that's on them, it's not a flaw with the perk.
As an aside, you "might as well" just focus on spreading your pressure instead, since you can't get the benefit of tunnelling. If you can't take the shortcut, honing your fundamentals is a good idea. There's no real incentive to keep tunnelling, it's just what you personally prefer doing.
6 -
Honestly, if there was a survivor perk that said "If the killer hooks the same survivor twice in a row, then stun the killer for 60 seconds", I believe you would think that's fine, because the killer could have "just not tunneled" to avoid it.
0 -
I wouldn't, because there's a genuine detriment there if survivors are capable of weaponising it, which they probably could the way you're describing it.
In this scenario, there's no detriment. You just get a normal game. It's not just that you don't need to tunnel, it's also that the situation you're describing isn't actually negative for the killer.
6 -
Just chiming in to agree, and say that once again my take that "some people play with the mindset that the other team getting to use their perks/items is a lose condition regardless of it actually affecting the match" is being vindicated yet again
10 -
Some SWFs are weaponizing shoulder the burden. They'll have 1 survivor with chase perks and anti-tunnel perks, and that person will repeatedly be baiting the killer, or standing nearby with a flashlight/flashbang/toolbox if the killer tries to chase someone else, or aggressively bodyblocking if the killer tries to chase someone else.
These SWFs absolutely want the killer to tunnel the 1 survivor with all chase/anti-tunnel perks, and are actively trying to make that happen.
0 -
Still haven't made the "don't make me tap the sign" meme, but there's now two evergreen posts of mine that are relevant to this thread.
7 -
Isn't that just the same as very aggressive players without Shoulder The Burden, and wouldn't you counter it the same way as normal?
IE, you just ignore them and force them to waste time running around behind you and trying to get your attention.
I don't deny that they're kinda annoying to face and I don't deny that they'd probably bring StB as one of their perk choices here, but I don't see StB actually changing anything about this situation or its counterplay.
It also still doesn't mean the perk itself is overpowered or capable of harming killers that don't tunnel.
4 -
That is subjective. Id enjoy getting tunneled if I get 6 tries at it.
How about just not tunneling? If the result is the same, but not tunneling leads to a more fun experience, then go for it!5 -
Therefore, I might as well tunnel
But you might as well NOT tunnel, too. That's the salient distinction.
I know that if you're dead set on just always tunnelling, nothing is going to stop you from doing that, but at least this perk means your win chance isn't massively boosted when you decide to ruin the game for everyone.
Well, provided at least three survivors pick it up and they all manage to pull it off.
6 -
Others have covered issues here, but I want to lay out the details
If StB didn't exist, you'd have three hooks states spread between survivors, A, B, and C
With StB you'd have three hook states, spread between survivors B, C, and D.
Your scenario here doesn't make sense, the survivors have three wasted perk sluts to move a a hook state from A to D. Presuming you got even a single down due to the exposed, you as killer have benefited substantially.
7 -
How exactly is "If the killer hooks the same survivor twice in a row, then stun the killer for 60 seconds" weaponizable by survivors?
0 -
If StB didn't exist, I would be trying to hook the same survivor 3 times in a row. This scenario is showing that the perk doesn't really discourage tunneling, because tunneling and not tunneling leads to the same outcome.
0 -
"Not tunneling" doesn't lead to a more fun experience for me. This is a PvP game, and it's acceptable to try to win in a PvP game.
Just an FYI, none of you will ever convince me that it's more fun to not tunnel, or that I shouldn't tunnel. Let's just make that 100% clear. Saying "just don't tunnel" is an unacceptable solution for me.
0 -
I feel like you're building to some kind of point, but if there are no restrictions beyond that point, then survivors could do generators in the killer's face and the killer could do nothing about it.
That's why old DS was weaponisable but the current one isn't - there were no restrictions on its use beyond the timer, so the player effectively had sixty seconds of invincibility.
This hypothetical perk which only requires the survivor be hooked twice in a row would have the same issue with a very very unpleasant downside that could easily be hit accidentally. It's why anti-tunnel these days gets buried under a bunch of conditions and actions that disable it, so that it's basically impossible to hit it accidentally - even setting aside the "shield of invincibility" issue, if you're having a bad match and you only manage to down the one survivor you've already hooked, who is also your only hook, being stunned for trying to hook them would be pretty damn unfair.
I'm sure you want me to say that it'd be weaponisable because the survivors could play very aggressive and bodyblock, but that alone doesn't actually make something weaponisable. It'd still require the killer to take the bait, which they don't ever have to do.
Sixty seconds of stun is also just like, an extremely sloppy and ugly way of doing things, which is I'm sure why you picked it, no shade there. Hypothetically I'd object to that even with Conspicuous Actions put on it because it's just kinda lazy design and too unpleasant to experience.
Just to loop back around to the actual topic at hand, too, this obviously doesn't apply to Shoulder The Burden because there's no actual bad scenario you're being hit with. The four second stun of DS or the sixty seconds of stun from this hypothetical perk are actively bad situations for the killer to be in, and the survivors arbitrarily shuffling around hook states with StB isn't.
7 -
If you focus the survivor with all chase/anti tunnel perks in your scenario you've been outplayed on the meta level and the subsequent loss is very much deserved. Just chase someone else.
7 -
hopefully people keep believing it’s a weak perk. the perk is disgustingly strong as with reassurance and yet nobody uses them because they benefit other people and not themselves directly
1 -
If you like to do it, do it. You bought the game, you can do what you want (if you dont cheat or hack).
We here stand for improving the overall gameplay experience. Tunneling, camping, slugging, gen rushing and stacking stuff that is way too strong leads to a negative experience for most people. Therefore you will not convince us that tunneling is good or that Shoulder the burden needs to be nerfed. I personally see tunneling as a necessarey evil in SOME situations and i think most people can agree to that. If the survivors have a huge advantage in terms of objective, it is only logical for the killer to try to create some pressure. If people go into a match to tunnel, that is not the killer being in a bad spot though. They dont know if tunneling is necessary at all. They just do it regardless.Please consider this: You dont have to make sure the others have fun. However, you dont have to make their experience miserable either.
Post edited by radiantHero23 on5 -
That would actually just be a completely horrible use of the perk since they are using it on people on their first hook which is JUST doing themselves a disservice with the exposed.
8 -
Literally, this perk practically makes tunnelling useless and I seem to be the only survivor in my games that bothers to use it, and even then, my teammates always seem to rush in for unhooks before I can even try to use the perk. Seriously wish that solo players would start using perks to help their teammates like we had to pre-basekit BT.
1 -
At the moment I'm just trying to follow what your argument is. You started off in this thread talking about killers not intentionally tunneling, and now you seem to be throwing away your own example to focus on the hard tunnel.
StB is an anti-tunnel perk. It's one of many in the game. Compared to the tools that already exist, it seems pretty weak. Reassurance could just keep a survivor on the hook, babysitter allows the survivor to get away, etc. And those perks don't require the user to stay under death hook, give an exposed, or require more than one survivor to run them.
The one time StB seems to shine is a killer who absolutely commits to the hard tunnel, which is exactly what the perk is designed to counter, so I don't see the problem.
7 -
Get rid of the exposed effect and people will use it. No one in solo queue is going to use a perk that puts them in a prime position to be deleted from the game if the killer is proxy camping. Until then this is just a niche perk that only sweaty SWFs will bother with. It's not even in the top 30 most used perks despite being brand new.
1 -
If I'm purposely doing strategies for the intention of winning the game, that is 100% acceptable. I tunnel because it helps me win, and that is acceptable.
What is not fine, is when people do things with the intention of making other players miserable. Yes, there is a big difference here.
My argument is the perk isn't anti-tunnel, because when SWFs bring multiple copies of this perk, tunneling and not tunneling leads to the same outcome (the hook states being spread out). The killer isn't better off if they avoid tunneling, with the only exception of quickly throwing someone else on a hook and then immediately going right back to the tunnel.
My argument is the perk shouldn't be allowed to daisy chain, which means that if a survivor uses the perk on someone else, then they should be ineligible on having someone use the perk on them. If this change was made, then a killer would actually be better off targeting a survivor that used this perk, instead of continuing to tunnel the same survivor over and over.
Post edited by Coffeecrashing on0 -
My argument is the perk isn't anti-tunnel, because when SWFs bring multiple copies of this perk, tunneling and not tunneling leads to the same outcome (the hook states being spread out).
Interestingly enough, the fact that it causes (attempting to) tunnel to not have the advantage tunneling normally would have, is exactly what makes it anti-tunnel.
9 -
My argument is the perk isn't anti-tunnel, because when SWFs bring multiple copies of this perk, tunneling and not tunneling needs to the same outcome (the hook states being spread out).There's a lot of problems with this.
1: All anti-tunnel perks can get value whether the killer tunnels or not. Just because a perk has a primary purpose doesn't mean that needs to be the only time it comes up. Babysitter can help a survivor get away from a tunneling killer, but it can also be generally helpful.
Another example would be how Unbreakable and We're Going to Live Forever can help out against a killer who is dedicated slugging, but they can also be situationally useful.
StB is best if you have a hard tunneling killer. You still might get value out of it against a non-hard tunneling killer, but that's basically true of all perks.
You brought up earlier the idea of a perk that stuns the killer for 60 seconds if they tunnel - hypothetically that's the level of power a perk would need if it could only truly be used in one instance, but it would also be a horribly designed guessing game perk.
2: StB carries a fair amount of risk for the use it gives. If the survivor brings it and they are tunneled, no use. If the killer wasn't tunneling but is spreading hooks and gets an exposed down the perk helped the killer. Even against a hard tunneling killer, the exposed might negate the ability to body block.
3: Same outcome tunnel or not. The daisy chain argument doesn't make sense in a non-tunnel scenario, like every time you've laid out a scenario multiple people have pointed out how it doesn't make sense and I'm really trying to understand it. If you tunnel the perk counters it, which is its purpose along with a lot of other perks, and if you don't tunnel you're spreading hooks around anyway. Like as killer are you just standing at the hook downing people after they come in for the rescue, hooking them, and then just standing there?
The best I can come up with for a non-tunnel situation where you have 2 hooks, 1 hook, 1 hook, and 0 hooks, and the final survivor is the one who saves the first person, but that's not daisy chaining, still falls on the perks intended purpose, other non-tunnel perks could still be used in this scenario, and we really need to know how the final survivor changed up their playstyle to accommodate the perk.
If this change was made, then a killer would actually be better off targeting a survivor that used this perk, instead of continuing to tunnel the same survivor over and over.But why shouldn't survivors be able to fight against killers desire to tunnel? This change would basically make the one survivor the target of 'please tunnel me' in this set up.
6 -
- Survivor A is hooked
- Survivor B uses the perk on Survivor A
- Survivor B is hooked
- Survivor C uses the perk on Survivor B
The above scenario is basically saying "don't chase survivor A, but don't chase survivor B either". If survivors want to protect one survivor from being tunneled, that that is ok, but we shouldn't have a "let's simultaneously protect 2 or 3 survivors from being tunneled" situation.
Daisy chaining this perk, is basically saying that unless the killer is literally using their first 4 hooks on 4 different survivors, then they are tunneling. That is way too overboard for a definition of tunneling.
Post edited by Coffeecrashing on0 -
They're completely wrong. Shoulder is one of the weakest perks in the game, most people who run it misuse it and take expose downs for no reason. Imo it shouldn't expose the survivor, it should just take away a stage, its so useless.
3 -
ok because we're getting tired of this circular nonsense:
In that numbered example what it says to us is this: It does not matter who you hook since people are still getting hook states. Its not saying "not" to chase them its saying it "doesn't matter" who your chasing. If they're actually chaining this perk (which is a tall ask and can backfire [the rescuer is found before the save, they use it when the killer is nearby allowing a quick down]) then tunneling becomes less effective hooking 4 separate survivors only because your not pressuring anyone else. That last part: "only because your not pressuring anyone else" is whats giving StB value against tunneling (and by that we mean: "Hard focusing on one particular survivor over anything else") otherwise its the same as if you've been hooking everyone because hook states are passed around, but not removed.Thats also not even remotely near any reasonable definition of tunneling so why worry about that?
but we shouldn't have a "let's simultaneously protect 2 or 3 survivors from being tunneled" situation.
Ok now correct us if we're misinterpreting this sentence: So if you can't tunnel survivor A then you should be able to tunnel survivor B or C or D and they shouldn't be protected in this same match if everyone miraculously has this perk?
9 -
they technically are tunneling because they're not evenly spreading hooks. that is why the perk is strong because it makes worse situation for the killer the only situation. it is also why i said it's best anti-tunnel perk and anti-camp perk in the game and that is with downside that a killer can proxy camp second stage survivors and bring a 0 hook survivor to 2 hook survivor immediately. 140 second of extra time on hook or 2 additional second chances collectively is strong.
0 -
Another thing I find as someone who does reassure and then leave the survivor on the hook, oddly enough — people get upset about it, lol. I had a random a long time ago get upset that I reassured them, I did a gen, popped it, and they proceeded to kill themselves on hook.
Even if you reassure and try to do a gen nearby, random solo-queue survivors will get upset if you reassure and don't unhook immediately. ☠️
I actually like For The People for mitigating tunneling, yes it can make it so you are next on hook but at least it does something. Even when you Shoulder The Burden a person off of hook, they'll still be injured unless you have a way to heal them fast.
But again, all of these perks are best used in a SWF and that's why you don't see Reassurance, For The People, and Shoulder The Burden in regular gameplay as all of these require coordination.
1 -
I think you have to realize, that tunneling is making some people's games miserable. There are even people going out of their way to check profiles to tunnel the one with the least amount of hours. Does that help them win? More often than not it does.
Does it make it less, excuse my wording here, disgusting? No.
Again, you do what you do. But dont expect sympathy from people that you either tunneled or people here that try to tackle tunneling as a problem.
5 -
Between the point that survivor A and B is hooked, what are you as the killer doing?
How have you not started a chase with survivor C or D?
And why did survivor B use the perk to make themselves a quick down on the first unhook?
And how does the killer never manage to start a chase with any survivor other than the unhooker until the survivors have had a chance to daisy chain the perk?
Because right now it sounds like the survivors in this example are running a complex plan to counter proxy camping/tunneling instead of bringing a single Reassurance.
5 -
It's just not a solo Q perk and despite what ppl say hard tunneling doesn't happen that much. It's similar to unbreak but unlike unbreak, this perk can easily make it so you're the one who dies if you just trade places with the guy on hook.
1 -
- Survivor A is hooked
- Survivor B uses the perk on Survivor A
- Survivor B is hooked
- Survivor B is unhooked
- Survivor B is hooked and sacrificed
In the above scenario, Survivor B was only hooked twice, AND that survivor willingly used STB to take a hook state from someone else. Are you really going to count that as "bad tunneling"?
0 -
Depends on the situation. If only one gen remains (for whatever reason), then no. You tried to create pressure. Thats understandable at this point in a match.
If it was done at 5-4 gens remaining, then yes. It was totally unnecessary.
4 -
Just an FYI, none of you will ever convince me that it's more fun to not tunnel, or that I shouldn't tunnel. Let's just make that 100% clear. Saying "just don't tunnel" is an unacceptable solution for me.
Then my guy, you are literally going to be miserable playing the game (Even moreso than we all already are lol). Its as @alpha5 said!
I mean why are you even here in a forum discussion if you're dead set in your ways and dont care about opinions or facts? You're mind boggling.
Also, tunneling leading to a win and tunneling leading to the same outcome as not tunneling is the most balanced result I think BHVR has ever done in a very long time.
6 -
kind of Deliverance/Reassurance syndrome. It's a very strong perk in hands of teams that know how to play the game and actually get it's value, but very bad in hand of teams that have little to no idea of how to use it properly
0 -
I regularly run Potential because I like the perk. I run it on Alucard. I have gotten some really dumb plays and done some amazing work with it. I play mostly in SWF with it. More perks SHOULD be designed like STB, Potential, WS… and far far far less like Lithe, old MFT, etc. Perks shouldn't all just give flat perfect value every single time, but create interesting scenarios and I think some perks are far better when they create really helpful effects but also carry risk in using them. That's fun. Risk is fun. Gambling is fun, more fun than just slapping on Lithe-Info Perk-Genperk-Endurance Perk like every other Survivor I play with does, anyway.
I also just a) aggressively do not care about winning as Survivor, b) am not interested in always running things that stomp half of all Killers into the dirt or rely on the Killer sucking more than me to get value. I have no need or want to always run the best things forever and spike my MMR into the stratosphere amongst the sweat-blights and turbo Nurses. It baffles me why anyone on either side would want that. Like do you really need to win that hard and get absurd Survivor winstreaks in the hundreds just to have a good time? Do you need thousand plus 4k streaks as Killer to enjoy the game? That sounds like miserably chasing a dragon to me…
I think Potential's niche is fine, it can be strong in the correct setup, and requires effort and luck in a SWF to use well. I think that's true of any perk that has risk attached. That you think perks like these be weak, even "a Killer perk", is telling to me… and greatly betrays a rather bad case of "Gotta Win Syndrome" similar to Killers who always only ever want to 4k every single round.
0 -
Perks shouldn't all just give flat perfect value every single time, but create interesting scenarios and I think some perks are far better when they create really helpful effects but also carry risk in using them.
I'm fine with perks being risky, I'm not fine with perks being flat-out detrimental to use.
Potential reduces your repair speed by 33% -at best-, not counting ferry time. (Well, technically, at best it does nothing, since you can opt not to use it)
Weaving Spiders gives you 50 seconds of gen repairs for 60 seconds of work -at best-.
These perks are both very risky to use since Potential Energy makes you lose all progress if you get hit and Weaving Spiders has you sitting in the basement and becoming permabroken, but on top of that, they don't break even.
You don't get all of the repair value put into PE back out again. You get less repair value out of WS than you put in. It's not the 'risky' part that's the problem, it's the 'bad' part. Both of these perks actively hinder your team more than they help.
And I don't run cookie-cutter builds. I loved Autodidact before they buffed it, I'm a big fan of Fixated, and I wish the chase-breaker perks were any good to use, but the perks do need to confer a benefit, not a drawback. I -wish- Potential Energy was good because I love the animation, but I'm not taking a 33% repair speed penalty ON TOP OF an additional 66% if you get hit, just for a fancy graphic and maybe being able to challenge a trickier gen a little bit.
If PE -either- cost more than it returns -or- lost you all stacks on hit, it'd be fairer to use, but since it's buried in drawbacks, it truly does become a perk that favours the killer far more than the survivors. Risky or not, that's not acceptable. A survivor perk must benefit the survivors, otherwise I'm not picking it up and it deserves to be called 'bad'.
3
