"Tunneling is the only way to consistently win"

Also true, my friends, but killer's actions have a different impact if the game allows you to mitigate them.

For instance, getting tunneled in current Coldwind Farm and getting tunneled in Old Blood Lodge are vastly different experiences for survivors.

Dont bother, the community is having problems to aknowledge the existence of bad players on the killer side.

you probably seen the "killstats shows nurse needs buffs"-retort, should suffice as explanation.

Well, what is anyone supposed to do?

This is the premise that -you- set. It's already been proven that for a competent killer, you don't need to tunnel/camp/slug to win the vast majority of your matches. We're talking 90%+, probably even 99%+.

You taking an issue with the possibility of losing that last 1% of matches is so far outside the realm of balance, but you're hung up on it and you shift the premise to be all about answering questions about that last 1%. Never mind that for survivors, matches can be made -actually- unwinnable, that all is fine and should be maintained with great urgency, because killer always takes priority for you.

100% winrate for killers should be fully achievable, and survivors can be left in the dirt.

I'm not going to engage with that premise because I don't agree with it in the slightest.

ive always hated "tunneling" as survivor i feel cheated. As killer i kinda feel dirty. Even when I choose to do it because its a sweat show, I still feel like... kinda bad for the survivor, and also it's a necessary evil.

The game makes you feel like this

I get what you mean.

The anti tunnelling mentality worries me a bit, not because I think it's fun gameplay to be taken from 1st hook to 3rd at 4 gens but because it's not a completely black and white issue.

You know those times where you just hooked a guy and let's say you kick a gen right next to them and just as you're done someone's ran up and unhooked them. No patience just "lol i'm unhooking now bozo" like the optimal play is to punish that misplay. But people would call that tunnelling despite the fact it's the other SURVIVOR's fault for not giving the killer a chance to go elsewhere and commit to someone else

(^ I've been the survivor on the hook in this scenario so many times btw and I can't say I blame Killers for punishing their opponents for bad play)

You can call it "working backwards" but can you explain how my statement is actually false?

Sure. I'll start with your premise which you put at the end.

The fact that neither you or anyone else has been trying to argue that those cards are actually good is proof enough for me that you guys know that splitting hooks is a bad strategy, but you still want killers to do it.

What is a bad strategy? I've asked a couple of times for you to define what you mean and you don't and that leaves me guessing at it (which creates a secondary confusion because we don't know what BHVR will actually do). I want to say @Firellius argued this in a different thread, but you are describing something as bad in comparison to something that is way too strong.

You seem to be defining as 'bad' anything less than non-optimal strategy. Instead you should be looking at whether something is too strong to be in the game and what the viability of other options would be if it was changed (and again, we don't know what they are going to do).

The whole point of the thread is that tunneling is too strong, thus deserving to be nerfed. Once upon a time for survivors running anything but instagen completing BNPs was bad strategy. Then running anything but Dead Hard. Then for a while MFT.

Anything else was bad strategy, but they deserved to be nerfed because they were too strong (and in most cases, also boring and hurt the theme of the game).

Also to your comment about wanting 'killers to do it', I, and others, are arguing that BHVR should change it. I don't think survivors should have avoided using the above just because they were too strong, just as I don't expect killers to avoid overpowered tactics.

You can play the game however you want, but BHVR should change them.

If you're playing a card game and you've intentionally decided to only use bad cards (while your opponent can use whatever they want) and STILL win, I am going to assume your opponent is pretty bad.

So this is a good hypothetical and it shows three problems some people have approaching the game.

Problem 1: Card games, like DbD, have lots of randomness. You can handicap yourself and win, the opponents could handicap themselves and you could still lose. You would need multiple games to access the skill of the opponents (especially in DbD which has lots of guessing game elements). As the OP said, you aren't meant to win every game and so taking any loss as a failure of strategy is a bad approach.

Problem 2: You've already made up your mind on what the 'bad' strategy is. In a card game, this would be like if you believed a player should pursue an aggressive playstyle, and then you watch someone take a cautious playstyle and win. Instead of reevaluating the merits of different playstyles, you just presume the opponents they played against must have been bad.

Problem 3: Your use of bad is presuming that what currently exists is the baseline (i.e. tunneling as is). Instead you actually have a trump card that no one else has access to and you might potentially lose it, even though many people show you can still win without that card.

The devs don't give out this data. The closest thing we have is nightlight, which isn't a complete sample of the entire player base, is generally going to be English speaking contributors, and is submitted data, which could be hand selected by contributors. It's not great, but it's all we have.

Nightlight currently has the spread:

• 4k (27.87%)
• 0k (22.89%)
• 1k (18.64%)
• 3k (16.7%)
• 2k (13.9%)

Which, while the percentages aren't going to be perfect, is probably similar enough to take away that 4k and 0k are the most common outcomes, and 2k is the least common. (Which is how this data has been for a couple years now from this source).

That also aligns with how people talk here. A 2k should be "close" and could go either way.

But most people complain about getting stomped (gens fly 0k, or games just being unwinnable early for survivor is likely a 4k). "I didn't have a chance" or "I have to sweat to win" summarizes the majority of the complaints on this forum.

You can still get a 60% kill rate just from the fact that 4k is weighted a bit heavier, 0k is next but not quite the same, and the other results still contain kills in the mix. It's obviously going to vary a bit (and usually 3k is higher than 1k when I look at this data, but not today for some reason).

I also just can't get hooks on a person out of nowhere, you have to start soon or at least play for 2 people you hook consistantly at max - otherwise you won't get much but 1-2 kills even with tunneling xD

Also sure if we balance the game so that 4 survivors can be alive without completely destroying gens, it's just absolutely insane at the moment to let them live longer than needed if you intend to win in any way.

You call that a trade? That's a double-negative for Survivors. How about this...

You receive: Basekit Corrupt Intervention

We receive: Basekit Brand New Parts.

LOL EXACTLY. Terrible deal truly.

Well then is it like this. I already don't like this day very much, so I won't argue ^^

I already said i won't argue anymore. I know how tunneling works as a concept.

That comes down to personal preference. For me? No. Because as I said in my post, the game is designed to give you harder opponents the more you win. The devs themselves have said this. Realistically, against better players, I *could* tunnel or camp and confirm a win when it might have been a loss, sure. But I'm the one who loses out in the long term. So I chase, I down, I hook, I patrol, I kick if necessary, and repeat. I can win doing this. Sometimes I don't, but more often than not I do.

But the vast majority of killers are not "managing 4 coordinated players" they are rolling through 4 randoms who have never spoken to each other and never will again, they will never be on the same page, and they will always make mistakes. The myth that you play against swfs often is so blown out of proportion its insane. Less than 10% of games are against "bully squads". They are 4 people who are just trying to have fun playing their objective.

Not to mention the absolute nonsense that is the consistent winning that killers keep spouting. You don't deserve to win just for playing killer, no one deserves to win. People deserve their time to have fun in a video game, made for fun. There is no ranking system, there is no ranked mode even. There is loose mmr, that in most scenarios barely makes a difference.

So you just ignored the second half of my post. MMR barely works, even at "high mmr", the game gets rid of almost all mmr restrictions to queuing when last longer in queue. That's why there are constantly posts on every forum of "I am brand new to the game, why am I facing a 3k hour blight main", or the plethora of baby killers who get placed against the 4k hour Feng Min putting them in their bullying montage.

And DBD does give you consistent ways to win matches as killer. Its why killers can hit hundreds of wins in a row with no perks, or on awful killers, exactly because of things like tunneling. If one person is out of the match before a generator is completed your chances of 4king as killer increase drastically. You also act like the majority of "high mmr" players play this game exclusively with 3 other people, why just isn't remotely true, or you would never find games at these mmrs quickly, you are getting matched with solos in the majority of games.

tunneling increased when they buffed gen kick in 6.1, your theory is disproven by historical precident

So you can't give basic definitions of what each of those are?

Tunneling: Going after the most recently hooked survivor despite there being another equally viable target without attempting to chase another.

See how easy it is to define a version of tunneling?