Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on this and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
Get all the details on our forums: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/436478/sign-up-now-to-receive-a-recap-of-your-2024-dead-by-daylight-stats/p1?new=1
What I don't get about defending tunnelling
So I just recently posted a thread about how many people think tunnelling is necessary in public matches. Posting a thread, of course, isn't scientific or anything like that but the majority of people (and by a significant margin) who responded said tunnelling was unnecessary overall.
I disagree with the position that tunnelling is necessary due to my personal experience but I at least understand their viewpoint. The people who feel it's necessary feel it's a necessary component of gameplay.
What I don't understand is why, whenever a suggestion is brought into place that combats tunnelling or someone complains about tunnelling, if somebody doesn't feel tunnelling is necessary why would somebody would defend tunnelling? Desire for easy wins, fear of the unknown?
It's kind of baffling to me that if the majority consensus is that tunnelling is not necessary then why is there so much pushback when getting rid of tunnelling or how unpleasant it is to be tunnelled is discussed.
Comments
-
Tunneling is kind of baked into the core gameplay loop. A lot of "remove tunneling" suggestions just brute force in a way that would punish killers for playing fair, because it gives the survivors something to weaponize.
If you want to remove tunneling completely you would need to completely change the core gameplay loop. The problem is that the game is doing fine now and such a drastic change could kill the game as much as it could improve the game.
14 -
The problem with arguing about "public matches" vs "comp play" for example, is comp players often play in public matches. Hell look at all the youtube content creators and streamers, Hens plays in public matches, Ayrun plays in public matches.
The problem with that is, you can't know what kind of team you are going against until it is too late. If you "play nice" at first, and it turns out its a team that is playing at that level, it is now too late, and you lose. You need to be starting the match from the beginning with this mindset, and then back off once you realize what kind of match it is. The problem there is most survivors "go next" before you have a chance to back off, or of course there are people who don't want to do that "back off" part.
11 -
It's more that tunneling, as much as we don't like to hear that, is a legitimate play style, that in some situations is necessary or logical (survivor with BT bodyblocking for the unhooker) and people don't want survivors to be protected when they play reckless.
To anyone who has played this game long enough to remember when BT was only a perk, how did survivors usually go about unhooking back then and how has that changed? In my experience survivors used to be a lot more careful with unhooks and tried to do it whenever the killer wasn't around. Now I see so many people rushing the hook the instant the killer begins the hooking animation. It's not smart. Not at all. But it seems that survivors overall have become more reckless because of base kit BT. That feels extremely stupid when you play killer and it can end up costing you the match when your teammates do that when you play survivor as well.
DS used to be something similar. Many would use it to basically become meat shields for their team mates and while we will never agree on whether this is smart or not (that discussion has been had a million times already), it is undoubtedly not the way the devs intended this version (or the prior version) of DS to be used.
This is really my grime with anti tunneling measures. I think it is fair, that tunneling exists as a niche play style that can work when survivors play careless and it could be more situational than it is now (way more). However, I do not like the idea of granting survivors more protection, if it ends up being misused and affects killers that aren't tunneling.
7 -
The issue I have with saying tunnelling is a legitimate play style is that, when I did my comparison on how much tunnelling has increased between a series of solo queue games over different years, is that tunnelling gave a 90% win rate against solo queue. While of course DbD is more problematic to balance because of it's asymmetrical nature you can't ask people to log into a game and have a single digit chance to win. At that point they're essentially points piñatas for the other players. If this were an FPS and you logged in but your opponents had guns that did 10 times as much damage as yours would you consider that a legitimate situation?
It's a play style that, in my opinion, is just as bad as the old DH for distance. This was changed as it gave an unfair advantage to the survivors employing it. I'm not begrudging anyone who used it as it was the developers' fault for allowing it and I'm quite happy it was changed as it made playing Killer miserable.
However, the same is now happening with tunnelling as the incidence of tunnelling has increased significantly (an over five fold increase over the time period for my personal experience). I don't consider tunnelling anymore legitimate than the old pre 6.1 DH for distance myself.
What I would personally like to see, as I've said ad nauseum on these forums, is gen repair speed being tied to the number of survivors alive so the survivors are weaker in the early game so the Killer has a chance to establish a foothold (by nerfing gen repair speed if all survivors are alive) and the Killer has less of a chance to snowball for the 4K once a survivor goes down (by buffing gen repair speed as each survivor dies). I think that would actually benefit non tunnelling Killers overall as the chance of a 4K decreases but the chance of significantly stomped for a 4E decreases substantially as well.
I don't know if that'll ever happen as BHVR is good at pulling in new players with the licenses which helps mask the number of players who quit but I don't know how their long term retention numbers are. My opinion is that playing solo queue is more miserable right now than when I was playing Clown when Mikaela was released. The main reason for that has been the significant increase in tunnelling Killers.
5 -
but Killers only tunnelled because they had to counter dead hard… that was nerfed ages ago so tunnelling shouldn’t be happening now.
Except it is because it’s the easiest way to play the game and there is a subset of killers out there who can’t be bothered to try. They’ll come up with any excuse to justify it as we have seen with the above scenario.
10 -
If you are already nearby - its just easier and logical.
4 -
"it's the easiest way to play the game" is a weird way of saying "it's the most efficient way to win games", there's a reason they do it in comp dbd. If you play to win you'll use the strategy that makes most logical sense, not play by some imaginary survivor rule book, which survivor mains get really salty about if you don't play by their "rules" lol
8 -
I mean, it would be nice if survivors actually got to play the game. The entire game heavily incentivizes not just escaping, which tunneling is pretty much guarantees won't happen for that player, but also survivor gameplay is supposed to be well rounded.
Do some gens, rescue and recovery, chase and being hooked are all a part of the gameplay loop. So when the killer decides you're just going to do exactly one of those things, and get at most 5k BP for the match, it feels kinda crappy.
It'd be nice if the devs even acknowledged this was an issue at all. I get that there's situational tunneling, but there's gotta be something to prevent excessive tunneling at the start as well. They couldn't even make DS 5 seconds again, which is a pretty big indicator that they don't care.
But this is, imo, the biggest reason for the current "quitter epidemic". Why stick around if being found first means you don't get to play the game? All of the anti tunnel in the game is at best a polite suggestion to the killer, and is easily ignored or powered through. Heck, most of it is endurance based and is incompatible with all the other endurance.
8 -
Theres nothing to defend.
The game has become so massively unfair for anything other than competitive grouping, so you can coordinate. That playing like that is just a guaranteed win.And killer matches against a competetive group is about 1 match every 10-12 matches for people that play this game as a living. So the people here defending it REALLY dont have a reason as 99% of their games are against soloQ.
7 -
Behaviour nerfed gen regression perks time and time again, now tunneling and slugging is the by far the best way to guarantee you can keep up with all the gens being done (hence why it's the only strategy used in the comp scene). I know it sucks getting tunneled but it also sucks getting gen rushed, and you don't know how "sweaty" the survivors are until it's too late.
2 -
The problem is, the game fundamentally rewards winning at all costs, because the only way a win counts is if YOU escape (not even the team) or if the Killer 3-4ks. The Killer is, literally, rewarded for playing super ruthless and tunnelling and pushing for a 3-4k every time. Because that is what the game says a "win" is. It's also what the community says a "win" is. This holds true for Survivors as well, genrush happens because the game says a Survivor win is ONLY when you escape through the gates.
Is this in the spirit of the game? I don't think it is. I think it's time for a broader win condition definition, as well as a much easier way to earn emblems so it doesn't feel like you have to dominate to get anything done or anything of value. Everyone likes to win; if BHVR wants this game to be casual it needs to be more accepting of casual wincon definitions like 8-hooking, doing all the totems, going for flashlight blinds, etc.
Ironically, I felt a lot more like I was still encouraged to try again when we had that bug a few years ago where the defeat sound was the same as the win sound.
3 -
It absolutely is in the spirit of the game.
Not only was it intended, but also thematically it's a slasher movie simulator. What slasher movie villain would try to space out their victims to make sure everyone has an equal opportunity for them to chase them? It's only because that happens to be the least frustrating thing to play against that people insist on that.
If casuals pick up the game, they're going to want to kill the survivors, most likely while playing whichever licensed character brought them into the game. The idea of spacing out hooks is unintuitive and doesn't make any sense with what this game is trying to achieve. It's only people who are fully invested in the game who care about spacing out hooks.
0 -
That's all fair, and I'm not saying change that. But my point is, wouldn't it be more accessible and feel a lot more casual if ANY amount of Kills felt more like a win, and escaping through hatch by the skin of your teeth felt more… rewarding? Being the Final Girl should be as celebrated as having even just one Kill, because you can still have a decent horror film even if a lot of people survive the Slasher or the Slasher kills nearly everyone. We don't say Sidney Prescott is less of a Final Girl in Scream 2 where almost all her friends die, so why is that the case here? And we don't say Ghostface is less of a Killer because his kill count in Scream 6 is lower than in all the other Scream movies, so why is only 1 Kill even considered a loss here? If we're talking about the game's spirit, then low kill and escape counts should also matter as those can still make a good Slasher horror experience just fine.
Every amount of Kill or Escape should, theoretically, be therefore considered winning. I don't see why that's not the case. And lorewise, it just makes sense for a lot of hooks to be a similar wincon, because the intent of the hooks is to create misery for the Entity to feed on, and also you can literally pip up by 8hooking and letting people go anyway even if you win the round. I have Killer Main friends who do that all the time just to vibe because they are casual.
Why are these alternative wincons not considered if the Devs truly want this game to be casual? It doesn't harm anyone who wants their wincon to be a 3-4k or a 3-4 escape doing this. All it does is help people who don't want to play that way, feel more included. Shouldn't we want more inclusion and more people to play?
4 -
Loud minority. People who want all the advantages for their side and none for the other.
1 -
The game kinda already does what you're suggesting for killers.
If you get anything better than 0 kills, you get a Brutal Killer message and the jingle that plays when you had a successful game.
The MMR is just an invisible number running in the background, and realistically all it's there to do is to protect babies and super casuals from players who would absolutely destroy them. You would have to actually do external research to figure out what happens when you get a kill.
People don't settle for 1 kill because it feels bad to only get one kill. I've gotten 8 hook 0 kill games and they don't feel like I did well in them despite the fact getting 8 hooks without killing anyone is hard to do against good survivors.
I mean the game (and most reasonable people) consider the killer to have definitively won the match at 3 kills, but you still have people who drag games out slugging for the 4k while complaining about hatch as being a free win for the survivors, because those players don't think the killer wins unless all of the survivors are dead, regardless of what the MMR says.
Edit: By the way, to clarify, I'm not "defending" tunneling in this post, so much as I view it as a necessary evil since sometimes killers have to do it, and I think people who advocate for trying to rework the game around spreading hooks are lost in the sauce and have lost perspective on the fact this game is about ruthless slasher villains.1 -
People don't settle for 1 Kill because it feels bad to only get 1 Kill.
That's what I am saying the problem is. The game tells us that a 1k is still victory, but it doesn't put its money where its mouth is in that regard because no matter what, 1k feels like you lost because it is rarely enough to pip you or give you many points. That feels bad, that feels like a punishment for failure. That's why a 1k does not feel like winning. The game needs to not make it feel so bad to only get one Kill by simply making trying be rewarding enough if you really tried your best and just got shat on by a really good team. It needs to do more to make it still feel like you accomplished something for playing well, even if you just get 8 hooks or one kill, which the game currently does not do. That is, it doesn't reward you for merely trying your best against a really rough team, and it also rewards people who needlessly push for a 4k when you really do not need that for the game to be a Killer win.
1 -
Now I see so many people rushing the hook the instant the killer begins the hooking animation. It's not smart.
I wanted to just touch on this as it stuck out. I honestly believe the amount of hookicides and such have contributed to how survivors rescue now. The idea they might kill themselves or go 2nd is mind crushingly brutal to deal with as you're just sitting on a gen, hoping the game doesn't suddenly go down the toilet.
0 -
comp players are also perfectly capable of telling when they're in a public match, though, and I've often seen Knightlight and Zaka get their first kill after 7, 8, even 9 hooks with multiple gens left. they recognize the social contract they signed when playing comp matches does not apply to pubs
7 -
It's a cheese; much easier to execute than to defend against; often relying on a gimmick. Except in DBD there is no gimmick. It's straight up the best strategy almost every time. Other games have cheeses too and that's okay. These strategies keep gamers honest. But if a single cheese dominates a game this hard it might be reasonable to think about it. The same is true if it was the only viable strategy. Use it all you want but don't play it off like its dislike is unwarranted considering how rigged that setup is.
1 -
The survivors certainly don't. Most of them use it to make "content" of them bullying killers and laughing when they make them DC.
1 -
Most? Who and where? If it's them outplaying bad players, it's no different than the killer content creators posting incessant 'gimmick build destroys survivor team' videos. I hardly ever see mean spirited videos from either side.
5 -
I can't name because that would be naming and shaming, but its pretty easy to know which ones.
0 -
The double standard is so blatant. Killers have an OBLIGATION to play inefficiently and bad to ensure that survivors have a fun time (which is the sole responsibility of killers for some reason), but survivors have no such obligation the other way. Tunneling is UNFAIR and TOXIC and OVERPOWERED but survivors genrushing to leave in four minutes is just them doing their objective.
Ridiculous.
6 -
Convenient. Given I don't know any of them and follow most of the popular content creators for both sides, I'm going to say no, it isn't easy to know which ones. And given we can't give examples, this is all meaningless and I could just say the same thing about killer content creators without having to present any modicum of proof.
But I think reasonable people know "most" don't do this so this is moot anyway.
3 -
Nowhere in the OP does "Unfair" "Toxic" or "Overpowered" come up.
The equivalent of this is survivors bringing busted items and there's frequent complaining of that too, often with screenshots of quad-syringe groups and toolbox monsters.
There isn't a double standard, people cry no matter the side when they perceive there to be an injustice or that actively hinders their enjoyment. Whether rational or not.
1 -
Well, tunneling can be needed in order to win the game. You kinda have to kill a survivor with 1-2 gens left, if you want to win, which is often done by tunneling someone...
Same as slugging, it becomes an issue only if players go into the game with plan to do this from start, but both (slugging,tunneling) have a place in DBD overall and most killers wouldn't work, if you removed it completely.
There are ways to make tunneling and slugging more difficult to do, but it should work only in early game, so it's also harder to weaponize by survivors.
1 -
Its literally a forum rule, and you aren't going to bait me into breaking it.
1 -
I already play this way. As killer, I view any match with a 3k or 4k as a match where I did well, and I see a 1k or 2k as being alright. 0k makes me a little sad, but I can't currently remember the last time I had a 0k.
Likewise, I view any escape for my survivor as a good outcome, whether it's through the gate or the hatch. Basically, I still use the game as a bit of hopefully harmless escapism that lets me participate in a survival horror experience (however non-horrifying the game may be).
Honestly, I don't think the game should have any kind of 'win' condition at all, and BHVR should openly qnd strongly emphasize the lack of 'win' or 'loss' outcomes. Instead, they should encourage the experience the game is meant to provide. Currently, the community has latched onto the MMR conditions to define wins and losses, where the same thing that provides an MMR boost (3k or 4k) is what the community considers a win. Same with ties and losses. It may be that BHVR should make the MMR system more opaque to combat this, simply stating that they may be making updates to the system, but not revealing the way the system works at any time.
I see a lot of arguments that killers need a certain number of kills to have a good game, and it might be better if people felt less pressure to perform, and just wanted to have fun :)
0 -
It's the difference between an emotional and logical arguments.
Most that talk against tunneling make emotional arguments. It's not fun to go against.
Most that say tunneling is needed are making logical arguments. A 3v1 is easier than a 4v1.
If you want someone to stop tunneling then make a logical argument against it.
2 -
Yeah man IDK what comp matches you've been watching but I've never seen one that looks like that
3 -
That you're not acknowledging the logical arguments against tunnelling doesn't mean they don't exist. As a quick, non-inclusive summary
- Tunnelling provides as much as a crutch that pre 6.1 DH does. If the win rate by using a tactic that only one side has access to increases win rates by a significant amount (my sample gave close to double the win rate by tunnelling versus not tunnelling) then that constitutes an imbalance in game design.
- If the win rate by one group (solo survivors in the matches I recorded and posted) drops to less than 10% by using a tactic that one side can access and the other cannot that constitutes an unfair advantage.
- DbD is a video game that is played for entertainment. Anyone taking it more seriously than that has issues with perspective (with the caveat that streamers, etc whose income is derived from DbD have a much greater stake). Nobody can reasonably say that expecting one side to have less than a 10% win rate is an enjoyable experience.
- A videogame that does not provide an enjoyable experience will eventually suffer and may cease to function (eg the Teens in VHS killed VHS by blocking any improvements to the miserable Monster experience. I see a lot of parallels to how the Teens in VHS acted to how some of the Killers in DbD are).
- The same criteria should apply to all roles by the developers. If something is nerfed because it gives a statistically significant win rate increase that is unfair to the other side (ie pre 6.1 DH) then the same should apply to both sides (tunnelling in this case).
If you're fine with tunnelling but don't believe it's an essential game mechanic or to you essential implies a greater than 60% kill rate you're acting the same as and just as logical as the people who said 'just bait it out' with pre 6.1 DH.
1 -
- Is an emotional argument. You are using shame to stop someone from tunneling.
- It can be argued that many factors lead to that 60% number. One being the high rate in which survivors give up over the smallest inconvenience. Leaving teammates with the aftermath.
- Emotional argument. Sure, games are played for entertainment. But how someone enjoys the game is subjective. A 10% win rate. For every win streak there's a lose streak to balance the numbers. Note every killer wins 60% of their matches. It's an average where the center of the bell curve is 60%.
- Do you know what game you are playing? The very existance of DBD being around this long is the counter to this argument. You think any of this is new? It's the same regurgitated complaints year after year. Even when bhvr tries and does something, it's never enough, doesn't go far enough, and is now worst than it ever has been.
- There's no slider for balance. A 4v1 is inherently nearly impossible to perfectly balance. Tweaks to one killer only affects that killer. Tweaks to survivors affect every killer. What is too strong or weak varies by player region, time of day, and skill level of the players.
If you may, give a logical argument why someone shouldn't tunnel someone out in a match from a killer's point of view. Provide an alternative strategy that provides better results in a match.
4 -
Way back when, one of my roommates genunely asked the question "what is the reason to not just take advantage of people and not care about their feelings? Don't you just maximize your own pleasure by acting like a paychopath?" I want to emphasize that it was his choice of words, not mine, to emphasize the idea of psychopathy as a good idea and relate it to acting in your own self interests.
Anyway funny story, he got kicked out of our substance-free apartments for vaping, decided to break into a city work van instead of sleep at the shelter, got arrested for trespassing, then a couple months later was picked up with a parole violation after he was found with a gun in his new apartment, and last I heard he started selling hard drugs when he got out of prison. Not sure why I remembered this story other than what you said about not caring about other people's experience in a video game reminded me of what this guy said and what happened to him
4 -
Those aren't emotional arguments unless you're incapable of seeing a point of view outside of me at this moment in time. As an example, I said Tunnelling is as much of a crutch as pre 6.1 DH. Pre 6.1 DH gave a statistically significant advantage that no other perk can achieve. Tunnelling gives a statistically significant advantage that no other strategy or perk can achieve. Pre 6.1 DH was used the higher up the MMR curve just as tunnelling is used. Pre 6.1 DH was extraordinarily difficult for a new Killer to overcome. Tunnelling is extraordinarily difficult for new Survivors to overcome. Because of pre 6.1 DH Survivors could hit MMR levels that they couldn't without. Because of tunnelling Killers can hit MMR levels they couldn't without.
Those are facts. If you're saying repeating facts is an "emotional" argument than perhaps the one who is emotionally reacting is you.
Your comment about number two is non-sensical considering what I said. Tunnelling, in the experiment I did with solo queue with 175 games at time intervals that were a year apart, gave less than a 10% win rate (for survivors, over 90% win rate for Killers) when applied against solo queue. The 60% kill rate mention you made makes me doubt you even considered your argument and just went straight to a stock answer. From the data I examined the win rate without tunnelling was actually a bit behind what BHVR wants. The win rate with tunnelling was over 90% and tunnelling made it look like Killers were over performing if amassed together. That wasn't true; tunnelling was making Killers look as if they perform better than they actually do.
The third argument is as non-sensical as your second as you didn't actually address my point but deflected with an irrelevant point (the 60% kill rate). I'm not discussing that; I'm discussing how tunnelling substantially increases the win rate by statistically significant levels.
Your fourth argument is an emotional response to a business fact. If businesses cannot keep their customers happy they will suffer and may cease to function. Your argument is essentially the same as the people who say 'look, it snowed today in this one area and therefore climate change doesn't exist' except applied to business. That DbD has customers now doesn't preclude that customers also left due to being unhappy nor does it preclude that the best move BHVR could make is keeping all of its players happy for as long as possible.
Your fifth argument could have been used to argue against nerfing pre 6.1 DH. There is nothing you stated that wouldn't have supported keeping pre 6.1 DH.
If you wish to say one side is being emotional and the other logical than you probably shouldn't use double standards. As it is, your arguments sound like the Killer equivalent of the 'just bait it out' arguments that were used to argue against nerfing pre 6.1 DH.
As a side note, if you're unfamiliar with the data set I'm referring to here's a link
1 -
I think talking about tunneling gets complicated fast because there are different types of tunneling that can be done at different times. Some survivors feel like if you hook them once, go chase somebody else and find them again later, that you're tunneling them. My own definition of tunneling is a true 1vs1, where you solely go after that one person, ignoring everybody else to get that one person out. I've literally seen streamers, who play this game for a living, not last long in a 1vs1. And I don't think anybody should feel bad they didn't last long in a game where the killer just solely went after them every second they were in the match.
But in my mind there's a stark difference between tunneling at two gens left, when you need the map pressure and what kills you're gonna get, and choosing to tunnel one person out at 5 gens. Some killers don't go into the game to play a 1v4, they want to have a more chill game of 1v3. My concern is that that playstyle creates a situation in survivor's minds where if they are the first person hooked, they figure they're gonna get tunneled and chased right out of the game, and that makes them more likely to give up on hook.
Survivors go into a match to do gens, take a chase here and there, altruism and challenges, not run from the killer in a 1v1 the ENTIRE time they are in the match.
2 -
Once upon a time, genrushing meant kitting yourself out with stacking gen speed bonuses, but these days it seems to refer more to just doing a gen.
The difference is that survivors just ask for the opportunity to play the game. Killers are asking for free wins.
6 -
The only time tunnelling is necessary is in a comp situation but when I play killer I NEVER tunnel unless they BM excessively and maybe at end game in certain scenarios.
Most survivors are casual players with very low skill, so you don't need to tunnel, it is just some people have zero empathy for the other side and will do anything for an easy win.
While I am a survivor main, I have played thousands of hours on both sides and I guess I have empathy as when I see a killer struggling I will actually choose to NOT flashbang/flashlight save or hold off hitting them with Head On etc and most certainly will not bag them at the exit.
The problem is you always have to account for the scummiest 1% and I am all for anti tunnelling measures being introduced even more so than what is available already.
1 -
The only time tunnelling is necessary is in a comp situation but when I play killer I NEVER tunnel unless they BM excessively and maybe at end game in certain scenarios.
tunneling is a big 50/50, you either have to get a really quick first hook in order to make it work or you'd need to have stars aligned in your favor for that survivor to not reset nor be able to waste more of your time in any way. It's not simply a "comp" strategy, it's just the most optimal way to play in pubs where most people last short in chases.
Most survivors are casual players with very low skill, so you don't need to tunnel, it is just some people have zero empathy for the other side and will do anything for an easy win.
if my opponent burns a map offering, i will sweat ofc, because map offerings are literally calling for a sweaty match.
While I am a survivor main, I have played thousands of hours on both sides and I guess I have empathy as when I see a killer struggling I will actually choose to NOT flashbang/flashlight save or hold off hitting them with Head On etc and most certainly will not bag them at the exit.
why tho? Flashbang/flashlight saves are not toxic at all, no matter if killer is struggling or not.
The problem is you always have to account for the scummiest 1% and I am all for anti tunnelling measures being introduced even more so than what is available already.
it's not a 1%, quite big portion of this community is going for optimal play, i mean it's a PvP game afterall.
1 -
Tunelling can be necessary at certain times. Killers have the right to win as well, and sometimes this is the only option they have. I do not defend tunelling on 5 gens, but wouldn't mind it if it were in a situation with 3 gens left and 4 survivors still alive, because sometimes one dead survivor gives you the fair amount of pressure you just need.
0 -
On the killer side, I'd like to say that
the "survivors" stick to the "generators" that are about to be "fixed", right?
Few would go to a different "generator" that has never been "repaired" because they were "driven away", right?
You can apply each side's term to the separated word places.
So, when you get right down to it, both are essentially doing the same thing.
So I will continue to work hard on tunnel construction!
2 -
The double standard is that “problematic killer behavior” could be done by any killer, in any game….. but “problematic survivor behavior” requires very hyper-specific requirements like quad syringes.
0 -
Tunneling is a very complicated issue, because there are many kinds of tunneling. A Nurse that gets a down within 20 seconds of the match on the player with the least hours (they checked), semi-proxies the hook but makes sure to pressure survivors off gens, waits for an unhook and immediately blinks back and to instantly straight for the unhooked player, , all while running quad slowdown, that's one form of tunneling.
But what about a different scenario? There are 2 gens left, and the killer has 3 hooks, one person is death hook, and they were also the most recently hooked survivor. The killer finds this person who is on death hook healing someone injured. Instead of committing to the injured person, they choose to try and down and sacrifice the death hook survivor, because if they don't they'll probably lose. That's also tunneling.
But these two scenarios are very, very different. If you add strict and oppressive punishments to tunneling, this may help create a more balanced match in the first case, but it could very well take away any chance of winning from the killer in the second case.
Like someone mentioned, tunneling is a part of the core game. Penalizing or punishing tunneling too harshly could feel unfair to killers that tunnel opportunistically when the time is right, or the survivors make a big mistake that makes tunneling them out easy. Also, depending on the punishments for tunneling, survivors could weaponize the anti-tunnel measures. The best case is that tunneling is no more and everyone adapts and games are more fun for everyone. The worst case is that Blights and Nurses continue to hardtunnel at 5 gens and power through the anti tunnel measures, while weaker killers are completely destroyed by it. Or maybe people just begin slugging everyone to death instead since hooking has too many downsides.
I'd rather they nerf the most powerful perks, killers, items and addons a bit on each side if they want to make games more balanced than to attempt any huge change like that. Though I'll admit that relying on survivors bringing licensed perks like Decisive Strike, or perks you need to buy a character to get like Off the Record to counter tunneling is pretty lame for new players. At least add some solid anti tunnel as a general perk or something.
1 -
I've had gens regress from 90% to 0% in games I've played. I've never had a survivor regress from 2 hooks to 0 hooks based on ignoring them. If there was some mechanism that prevented gens regressing past a certain point I would absolutely spread pressure across gens.
5 -
Ah yes, we wouldn't want those players playing the "generator" to miss out on playing the actual game because they got "fixed" first.
This is the stupidest comparison I've ever seen and it needs to never come up again.
5 -
But what survivor behaviour is 'problematic' other than sitting on gens? There isn't a way that's particularly unfun for the killer unless they bring items to cheese this. I don't think survivors have the ability to make the game unfun for the killer unless there is a massive mismatch in skill or some sort of exploit. There isn't really an equivalent to tunnelling and camping, which is why it feels like a double standard.
1 -
Why bring up this inflammatory remark about one side when evidence of it is against the rules?
The answer: So you can accuse others of baiting you when they ask for you to back up your nonsense.
All you've done is rag on the side you clearly don't like without any evidence because you cannot provide any. You're actively hurting any semblance of a cause you may stand for.
Also, it's baseless.
0 -
You can't end tunneling without getting rid of the basic incentive structure of: 4 survivors are more efficient on gens than 3. That is just how it is and any attempt at simply nerfing tunneling is a direct nerf to killer since it is a required strategy.
Gen speed has to be reformulated so that when 4 survivors are alive, the gen speed is much slower than it is now, but when one dies, it increases to a bigger speed compared to today, and progress it further for 2 man and 1 man left. Only then tunneling can become an obsolete strategy. Other than that, it is simply trying to dry an ocean.
2 -
Because you can literally just go to youtube and type in "making killers dc" and see the videos.
4 -
Why is it the killer’s responsibility that the survivor has “the opportunity to play the game”? Sure sounds like survivors want free escapes.
4 -
Okay, most of them are not toxic or mean spirited and end up being just mismatches in skill.
I typed the same for making survivors dc and got quite a few videos too. Same idea, most were not mean spirited.
The truly virulent ones from both sides are from jaded literally who's with a few hundred views. Hardly worthy of 'most'.
0
