A Thorough, Comprehensive Set Of Tunnelling Changes

"Power Struggle:

Rework: When a survivor is unhooked, Power Struggle activates until a Conspicuous Action is performed. While Power Struggle is active, any pallet can be dropped while carried by the killer.

Decisive Strike:

Stun duration raised to 5 seconds (Was 4 seconds)
Now activates after both unhooks (Was once per trial)
"

OK, but here are the options for killers, noed is no longer a totem, active from the beginning of the game and immediately allows you to memento survivors
considering your variation of Power Struggle, which simply allows you to fall under a palette at the end of the game and is guaranteed to escape, the Noed buff doesn't seem so crazy anymore

You do understand that in addition to the 0.1% of the strongest nurses, there are killers like GF, trapper, etc., and for them these changes will be destructive ?

Forgive me, but I'm not sure where the disincentivisation of tunnelling is? It seems to me like tunnelling would be a bit stronger, because no endurance means Killers can immediately hit people who get unhooked again. They get 10% Haste instead, but a lot of killer powers can deal with that. By "no collision" do you only mean Survivors walking through Killers, or do you mean complete intangibility against all Killer attacks as well?

One thing I will say that I don't think I need much clarification on: That Power Struggle buff is way overboard, even being generous and assuming by "when a survivor is unhooked" you meant "when you are unhooked". (if that wasn't a typo, this being able to activate on the whole survivor team at once is horrifying lol) It'd mean unhooked Survivors would just walk up to pallets and sit under them knowing they're invincible. I see the logic in trying to make it like a Decisive Strike sidegrade, but no timer & infinite uses is not an appropriate buff. TBH I don't think it needs a special bonus if this is the direction you want to take it, the ability to put a pallet between you and the killer when you break free is already a decent sidegrade bonus in exchange for consuming the pallet.

So I'm down for something like this, honestly I'd go even further than you did, the problem is you only addressed the survivor side, which is why people are probably down voting it a lot. This stuff is not an isolated change. You needed to add massive killer improvements simultaneously to go with this, but there was..nothing.

I'd like tunneling removed, but you need to also address why killers tunnel at the same time. You're essentially accomplishing the same mistake the devs are doing with a lot of their deterrents to tunneling/camping/slugging ect, which is addressing the symptoms instead of the core problem itself.

Killers need incentive to play the way you want them to, not just punishing them when they don't. They aren't going to play in a way that loses them the game. They need to make playing "fair" the most efficient play style or at least competitive. Give killers a reason to spread hooks around.

Less stick, more carrot.

"The incentives and buffs that you're looking for there have been coming to the game steadily over the past few years and don't show any particular signs of stopping, so that's why I didn't include them in this post."

I don't agree with this premise. Very little has been done and what has been done has come along with simultaneous other nerfs counteracting most of the positive.

"At this point, tunnelling does frankly only happen because it's the easiest shortcut to value in the game."

As long as you have this mindset the problem will never be solved. There will always be exceptions, but the majority does not do it for that reason. Most killers would rather play in the more "fair" way just going for hooks and whatever chase they run into but they don't, and it's not because it isn't the easiest.

"There truly doesn't need to be dedicated killer buffs that are linked to this change because every single killer basekit and perk buff that happens is the equivalent carrot you're talking about. "

We've seen very, very little of any of this.

"In short, I am addressing the reason why killers tunnel. I'm just not acknowledging the reason some players say is why they tunnel, because I don't think it's particularly reasonable or compelling."

You're addressing a "why" that isn't the reason why.

The vast majority of all the specific killer improvements have left those killers still very bad. Like for just one example, did Myers get a rework/buff? Yeah he did. Did it realistically buff him much at all? No, it didn't. He moved a little higher up the F tier. You can repeat this for "most" of the killer specific changes, unless you have some counter examples to provide.

If you're referencing more general killer improvements they have all come with counter balancing negatives. Like for almost every single general killer improvement you could mention I could mention a nerf they received around the same time if not the same patch to offset that. I'm not going to be disingenuous to say that things haven't overall improved, they have, but I feel like you make it seem as if they've improved way, way more than they actually have. We're talking a small, small number here.

"Similarly, I'd point to the perks that get buffed. Sure, the egregious slowdown gets nerfed (and also some of the not egregious ones, tbf), but recently we had buffs to Alien Instinct, a perk that is very much designed to improve the killer's ability to spread their pressure. Perk buffs like that are what you'd see to encourage the killer towards playing fair, and we do see those relatively frequently too- same question as before, is there something else you'd be looking for there?"

Provide more examples then because I completely disagree with this. Alien Instinct is still barely ran by anyone because it's not that great. Literally I think the ONLY example I can think of off the top of my head that fits this over the last few years would be Grim Embrace and even that got nerfed recently. I'd even go further in the opposite direction with examples. They've nerfed perks that were primarily only used on m1 weaker killers, which are the hardest hit by these types of changes. Sloppy and STBFL being two prime examples that should've never been touched.

"If it's not improving the killer's baseline ability to engage with the game or a killer player's selection of viable perks for spreading pressure, what is it that we'd be seeing? Losing tunnelling wouldn't justify in particular really oppressive slowdown perks, and that's the only example I can think of for anything broadly getting weaker on the killer side."

You add base kit regression bonuses for spreading hooks and then nerf regression perks simultaneously to compensate. This also has the added bonus of diversifying the meta.

As a killer main..... This isn't that bad. Could use some fine tweaks but I'm interested in this discussion

It wasn't a misspeak, you misunderstood. You can quote me if you'd like and we can dissect my wording. I even looked back in case I had, I did not. You interpreted my wording as number of changes even though you could infer quality just as much as number. I think it's weird to interpret number anyway though as no ones measuring balance that way.

"which is that we see very little general improvements for killer and every improvement we see is matched with a nerf."

As I pointed out, this does not reference the number of changes but the quality. Tic for tac wording does not directly imply number.

"As for what else you're saying, it sounds like you're holding things to odd standards. Killers don't need to move up a tier (for as much as that's actually arguable, considering how subjective tiers are) for their ability to engage with the game to be improved. Did Leatherface suddenly become S tier because of his buffs to tantrum and collision numbers? No, but it sure helped him a lot. Hell, those buffs arguably removed some counterplay from Leatherface, that's usually a pretty big deal in a vacuum."

This is more arguing semantics. Yes tiers are subjective, but the general point is did their power level change substantially. We could argue tiers but the vast majority of people would in general agree that no they are not "substantially stronger". Most all those killers in anyone tier lists are still give or take within the same range.

"Same for, say, Myers, or Nemesis. Some would argue Nemesis did jump up a tier (though I'd argue he's always been underrated and a solid A tier candidate), but both of those killers just got noticeable, welcome improvements to their early game in particular and their ability to engage with the game in general. That's not a failure, that's a pretty noticeable positive."

The vast majority of people would not put Nemesis above B tier and I don't think I've seen a single tier list ever put Myers at even B. Anything in DBD B tier and below is in need of buffs and is weak. Below B needs substantial improvements. Even B tier killers are generally not competitive and require substantial mistakes from the survivors to win regardless of how well you play.

"Similarly, whether or not a perk breaks into the meta is an insanely high and also weirdly skewed metric to use. There's plenty of good perks people don't use, for a whole variety of reasons; pickrate is far too affected by far too many things to be your sole metric for how good a buff was."

That's why I put even just decently popular, not just meta. I'd argue most the perks they buffed didn't even make it to just "good" status. I'm not using pick rate as a sole metric. I'm also measuring actual value you gain by running them. Most are very little.

"Perks like Machine Learning, Trail Of Torment, and Furtive Chase are legitimately pretty solid right now regardless of how many people actually run them, and that's sort of what I mean when I say there's a lot going on for players who engage with the game outside of unbalanced cheese strats like tunnelling. The breadth of what's viable to tinker with right now, from killers to perks to addons (depending on the killer, admittedly), is wider in scope than it's ever been. You just have to be willing to let go of multi-slowdown tunnelling setups to start experimenting with it, and accept that your gameplay's probably gonna have to improve as you adjust."

Those perks aren't as good as you act like. I don't personally tunnel at all, but many killers are so weak they are forced to tunnel in certain matches. Like a Pig or Myers is absolutely getting wrecked against a good 4 stack unless they tunnel. Those types of killers are too slow to properly pressure the map without stacking slow downs either. I would not blame killers like those for tunneling me in a squad, they aren't winning otherwise.

"I'm not one to cite stats, typically, but I do want to at least float the notion that maybe killers are doing pretty well overall and performing about where BHVR wants them for the most part. I truly don't think it's a particularly reasonable position to say that killers aren't doing well right now without at least some examples of what you're even referring to."

Then I'll provide examples. Citing Nightlight since it's realistically all we have right now 3/4 of the killer roster are underperforming per BHVR's kill rate goals. This isn't just recently either, these numbers have been consistently below expectations for years.

"None of those killers raised in power so tremendously it shook up the whole power rankings"

That's part of my point. They're so bad they needed to have their power rankings shook up.

"they all (for the most part) got either stronger or smoother and more enjoyable to play when it comes to engaging with the game on a fundamental level. "

Better and smoother is good, but if they're still bad the goal still isn't accomplished. Making tunneling near impossible means bad killers need to be "good", not just better or smoother. Better or smoother can make a killer less bad, but still bad.

"See Leatherface again. It doesn't make him an S tier that he doesn't bump onto things as much and that his tantrum is so short you can't even reliably use lockers against him anymore, but it undeniably helps and makes him considerably better at engaging with the match. Same for Nemesis; his early game being dramatically improved and his already potent Tentacle Strike being bolstered, alongside reworking some of his addons to be genuinely powerful, really solidified his positioning and helped him engage with the game. They struggled before, the both of them, in ways they now do not."

I'm not asking for anything to be S tier. I'd even nerf the S tier killers personally. Bubba is still bad and could use buffs. I'm surprised you're using Nemesis addons as an example as basically all Nemesis mains will tell you that his addons are very bad and he is in desperate need of a huge addon overhaul. He has like 4 decent options with the rest being bad. Nemesis still needs buffs imo, just not around his tentacle. They both struggle less, but they still struggle. The goal isn't struggling less, it's not struggling. There's also a ton more killers I'd be more focusing on than these two though. Like half the roster is lower than them and needing help more so.

"Beyond that, all I feel inclined to say on the matter is that nightlight has proven to be quite wrong about killrate stats in particular, since recently we got the real stats and they were noticeably different. Per real stats, and also just by taking a step back and looking at how much has improved in what ways over the past few years, it's pretty obvious that killers are doing pretty damn well lately. "

The most recent stats we have for the lower performing killers from the devs generally supports this as well. I generally think kill rates are a bad metric for balance tbh, but just since it's what we're referencing. Seeing as the devs so rarely give us this data Nightlight seems the best we have to go on anyway though.

"We're just going to have to agree to disagree, it seems. "

I agree, we're not going to agree on this topic.

Well of course since we're talking tier lists it's all subjective for everyone's list. My own personal tier list is based on how well that killer can compete if both them and survivors are all equally skilled and very good. IE if both sides are making very little, if any mistakes, what happens.

Essentially anything B tier and below relies on lots of mistakes from the survivors to win. Meaning if it's a B tier killer or below and both sides play perfectly, the killer loses basically every time. B tier relies on multiple mistakes from the survivors and as we trickle down the tier list C, D, F the amount of bad plays you need to see from the survivors to win increases. B tier and below represents a lack of agency in the game. You can be on your peak game and still lose.

To compare it to the polar opposite of this we can look at S tier killers. These killers do not rely on survivor mistakes. If both sides play perfectly the killer generally wins almost every time. They have agency. If I play well, I win. They can make plays happen whether the survivors mess up or not. Note that I would personally give some nerfs to S tier killers atm. In the same sense that killers B and below lack agency, survivors in this case lack agency, and that's not good for the same reason as the low tier killers.

The prime goal is A tier to me. A tier killers still do require some mistakes from the survivors, but it's slight. If you play perfectly as killer you still have a good chance of winning, as opposed to B tier. However you playing perfectly as an A tier isn't just an, "I didn't make a mistake? I win", like S tier generally is. A tier is a fair chance of winning still for the other side even if you're on your peak game but you still have some solid agency. It's the slight tilt we see in how the devs want a slight tilt of 60% kill rate as opposed to say 50%.

The key takeaway is how much agency the player has over the outcome, be that survivor or killer.

I hope this answers your question. I can elaborate more if there's somewhere I was a bit vague.

It should be, but it's not.

If it makes it look better we can start our top tier at S+ instead of S.

S+-

S-

A-

B-

C-

Now it looks more in the middle lol

We can do it that way if you want, but what that ends up being is just semantics. If I made that B as C, as you're requesting it also confuses a lot of people looking at the list since people tend to use their metrics a bit different.

IE current B for most people is middle of the road, but they're usually basing their middle of the road off different criteria than I am. So I'm generally using B in a way that confuses them less. If I was posting a tier list I'd place my metrics at the beginning for a reference point.

If I adjusted my levels in the way you want people would see a ton of killers in C or D and be very confused as those killers aren't generally considered C or D tier because of peoples different metrics.

It's kind of like using a word by its incorrect definition, but you use it that way because that incorrect way is how most people interpret and use the word. Using it "technically" correct, would cause most people to be more confused when you use it that way, even if it's technically correct.

I mean while that premise is true, it's essentially just arguing for me to have the list shifted down once so that the top is now S+ as I demonstrated in my example. What does this accomplish? Basically nothing. Its only purpose is to support that "The letter rank in the middle of the tier list is middle of the road"

However if my criteria placed at the beginning states that it's not, then "My point is, isn't the B tier supposed to be the middle, not the start of the bad?" is an unnecessary criteria to meet.

Like if I state that B is the start of bad in my criteria, does it matter that B is the start of bad rather than C?

I'm just not seeing why it matters I guess. I just see the tier list as more a trickle down of bad rather than a top, middle, bottom.

I mean that's true. It's just that when I say a killer is B, I'm saying B because I agree with their criteria for why they're B, which is usually they can perform decently well in most matches. So by making it clear to them that I don't think B is well balanced as you're saying, they'd think I don't believe B tier killers can win most their matches, which isn't what I think.

If I stated C, to communicate clearly, I'd be having to be giving my criteria every single time to make what I'm saying make sense.

Essentially you're wanting me to use my letter grades by my criteria in every day speech which is technically accurate for my balance view, but would cause more confusion in every day speech by doing that. I think what I instead do, which is say B is weak and give my reasons why, is less confusing in conversation than just saying C tier. Since when I say C they are going to immediately assume a lot of other things that I don't believe.

Sometimes speaking the way people understand is better than what is technically the correct speech in other words since the end goal is being understood more, not just being right.

All this confusion just stems from people judging their tier lists by different criteria though. That's the core of the problem.