A Question On Anti-Tunnel Rewards

It seems like the consensus has been that, though skill levels vary, survivor is a single role and could maybe have a (tweaked) universal change, but killers (not just players) are all drastically different and blanket incentives aren't ideal. But those incentives were probably chosen over individually reworking each killer because that's going to be very difficult.

I suppose the plan was to help survivors first and make the experience less infuriating then adjust killers accordingly, based on whatever results that produced. But people don't have the patience for that. Just the mere idea caused outrage.

I wouldn't mind discussing it a bit. Create categories for buffs for the system, then apply a few of them at a rate based on the killer. You could approach it by either starting with one buff and then adding more with each subsequent unique hook, or by having multiple and having their potency increase with each unique hook.

For example, lets say we go with the first approach, where the first hook might be a gen regression effect. Then when there is a second unique hook, it would have the same gen regression effect but then add a detection one, while a third might some type of survivor debuff, and so on. The idea would be to have the first effects be less impactful than the later ones, and their potencies/effects would be designed on the killer specifically to work around their strengths and weaknesses regarding macro play in their kit. This would help address the fact that no matter what bonuses they get, different killers will get different mileage out of them.

With the second approach, you would similarly center each effect combination to be tailored to each killer's kit, but they would start with underwhelming values which then scale into much more impactful ones. It doesn't even have to be direct number scaling, effects could also have milestones that affect their application. Take the gen kick bonus as an example, it could start at something like 10% of current, then go to 20% and 30%, then drop back to 10% but make it based off the total instead of current value, then scale it up to 20 and 30 from there. Then you just apply that logic to whatever effects are used, with the core idea to have them start weak but ramp up to be very strong at high counts.

Edit: Realized I forgot to clarify, but by "categories" I meant that they would vary based on the killer. While one killer's gen regression event might be a buff to their next kick, another might get something like a localized effect with lower relative potency (think surge) or even a much lower potency global effect. You would tailor each aspect to suit the killer specifically.

It would be hard to come up with something that directly matches unchecked LCD strats, but if removing them, the most important thing to address is how they interacted with the core power dynamic of the game via attrition. The idea is that if a killer is going to be punished for macro efficiency if they take shortcuts, they need much more motivation to go to the opposite extreme. Basically even if the end result ends up being less impactful than removing a player outright, you want your motivations to be centered around providing a comeback factor in exchange for sacrificing that potential.

Yep. What works for Twins is going to be different for what works for Nurse, especially since the penalties similarly effect every killer differently. These types of changes have far reaching ripple effects, so universal applications only further destabilize balancing. Conversely, these types of restructures make a very good opportunity for normalizing power creep within the roster, and even maintaining balance with further additions.

That would depend on how much effort they'd be willing to put into it. Dividing killers into categories would certainly be in the right direction, but having each factor be on a per-killer basis would allow them much more control on how underwhelming or oppressive things would be in their extremes. Too many killers blur too many lines in regards to categorization at this point, so I feel like it would be a bit of a wasted opportunity to leave it there.

Exactly. Just measures that are as objective as possible toward their mechanical strengths and weaknesses.

A lot of people already find gens boring. A penalty like that might be too hard to trudge through, especially with additional regression perks.

Also, rewarding killers for their actions sounds a lot better than penalizing survivors for killers' actions. I don't mind bonuses for playing the way I always play anyway, but I don't want penalties for my opponents for my actions (or non-actions).

If you go through WHY tunneling is so prevalent, it simply is because removing one Player is the most effective way to play killer.

Removing one out of 4 survivors immediately Strips the opposing team of 25% of their "man power". 25% less gen progress, 25% less healing, 25% less perks to Worry about, 25% less items, etc.

So to give killers an even remotely comparable effect to that, welche have to talk about something like -25% repair speed upon all survivors after 3 Individual hooks. Test it and see where it goes from there. Maybe add in some tweeks like -50% if survivors are clumped together, dimnishing the further survivors move away. Ofc with a visual indicator and excluding survivors in chase.

An ongoing PTB with weekly number tweaks could be really helpful here.

The point is in removing the "unfun" part for survivors in making one Person unable to play after a few Minutes while not forcing the killer to play in a way that is hindering him just because it gets more and more punished.

Most killers are not tunneling bcs they Inherently want to. They tunnel bcs by the time you spread hooks onto 4 different survs, 3-4 gens are done and your game is practically over if survs dont do major fuckups. Which Most of them they are Protected of doing by all the basekit stuff they got.

Bonusses like haste or gen kick are not going to cut it. Its like taking away 2 wheels of a race car but "here you have a second Steering wheel and a 3rd Mirror on the outside, youll be fine!"

You also said they should go through even if the survivor changes don't. I don't want one without the other.

And do these struggling players have numbers way below the 60% despite regular playing and practice? I haven't heard too much in that regard.

Remember that "killer players" aren't one person. The thing with a change this core in the game's mechanics is that it affects far more than the intended cases in relation to virtually necessary aspects of the game (hooking and downing survivors will happen in nearly every single game, theoretically) regardless of the condition of the game around them.

You can't use the intent of those who refuse to change as punishment for those who honestly want more healthy alternatives to be viable. Punishing [someone who avoids tunneling like crazy but ends up in a situation where it is the only reasonable play at that state in the game] the same as if they were [a blight hard tunneling from the word go with a lethal pursuer build] is why people don't see eye to eye on these types of balance considerations. Thats why us vs them rhetoric causes discordance in these types of discussions. A lot of times LCD strats can be reactionary as the power dynamic starts in favor of survivors, while shifting to killer over the course of the match. If survivor resources remain (hook states, pallets, viable "safe" gens, etc) the onus on the killer to catch up and start building momentum goes up the longer they are less efficient than the survivors. Thats why I like the idea of a reward for subsequent unique hooks, it addresses the fact the killer has been purposely operating at an efficiency deficit, and can easily be used as a means of preventing tunneling from becoming a fall back strategy when the survivors have a strong start. This then also goes well with measures to discourage and even punish the LCD strategies, as their reasonable application becomes obsolete.

Nobody needs to tunnel all the time, but there are absolutely situations where actively avoiding tunneling is directly putting yourself at a significant disadvantage. We have no way of knowing how many people will voluntarily adjust without being forced, but we do know that a combination of reasonable incentives and disincentives absolutely adjusts behavior on average.

I understand what your saying. But honestly I do think of the game had less pressure on killer in regards to gens, tunneling will have a higher likelyhood of lowering. I might be optimistic with this thought process tho.