Handholding comments, from the community stream

That was just an example but even if that data can be obtained somewhere else, redundancy in data is still very good

Sure, but you also face the issue that people (probably) aren't going to stick around for too long for a game they are uninstalling and trying to get too much just might cause them to close the survey, making it a bad time to ensure redundancy.

 I'd be better asking 'How many people uninstalled because of experiences from either role' because a survivor main could theoretically uninstall because of a bad killer experience and vice versa.

I think the one issue here is that you create the possibility of 'pushing' answers onto the survey. If you have a survivor section, a killer section, and a general, potentially people are now answering there biggest problem with each. Which is definitely data, but its not 'why did you uninstall this game' and more of a general opinion survey.

I'm going to kick back to something you said to jesterkind

About the other data BHVR might have, I cannot respond to this because I have no idea what they have. 

That's the thing, none of us do. It's certainly possible BHVR's surveys are missing valuable answers for them in any number of directions. It's also possible that they already have the answers on the specific roles and/or they've found that these are the general issues that people have and they're focusing in on them.

That's why I have an issue with some people's insistence that the surveys have to include certain topics. None of us know where in the point of BHVR's data collection this survey falls or if those things would actually be meaningful data for BHVR.

Hard to explain form people that didnt played hard match where realy one m1 hit ot two or hatchets,uvx,nemesis whip can cost you a lot and drasticaly change the outcome of the whole match.

Yesterday I had match with mayers on larrys and team was good, they were nicely aware of my position so stalker mode wasnt that usefull as I expected but the match was just 2k and all because they managed to get one flashlight safe on girl that wasnt dead but if I hooked her pain res would kick in and my 18 seconds of time plus another chase while other survivor was dead on hook and i knew where she was would give me highly 3k, so even one sabbo or save, missing kilers power or m1 attack can change the outcome of the game but hard to explain this to fully dedicated survivor mains that didnt get into these situations.

Its like you got one kill and now they are near opened gate and all you have is one shot or dash that must hit or you wont get another kill thats how sometimes just one miss or dennyed hook stage can be so important in decinding the outcome of the match.

Sorry but they're not exactly "changing" this is more like a band aid-patch over the own mess it is his game-loop mechanic

there's millions of ideas they could test with the community but they need to allow more ways win the game as killer since hook splitting is currently the weakest way to win a game and the only one that doesn't make survivors cry

There are no survivor comebacks as massive and common as killer ones. A killer can get 0 hooks and still get a 3k or 4k in end game and it's not even rare. Happens to me in both roles. Tell me the survivor equivalent of that. Everyone on death hook at 5 gens yet they somehow get them all done and win?

Yeah, I find it strange if anyone has the survivor as the comeback role. I think this might be lumping what get dubbed second chance perks with comebacks.

The ability to potentially snowball, or to grind the game down by protecting the last gens, is pretty unique to the killer side. A short string of fortunate events for the killer can upend everything that has happened before that.

I don't think handhold-ey necessarily means just strengthening the role in this context. Basekit bbq and pop would just make playing killer feel like seeing tutorial tips during killer gameplay, which I completely agree with.

The issue is, this IS the direction they are aiming so this statement contradicts with what they want to do with the game. They clearly don't want killers to play however they like; they are prioritizing survivors' fun over killer's agency over their gameplay.

I guess they need to find a better way to incentivize spreading hooks without basically giving directions to the killer player and I have no idea how they could achieve that considering even Blight can't control gen pressure in an 7-8 hook game against survivors with functioning M1 buttons.

I agree with that.

However, what people often miss when making this argument is that these players respond with tunnelling because tunnelling is unbalanced- it's the most value you can get for the least effort, and effective counterplay tends to be locked behind specific perks and a fairly high skill floor.

There are other responses too, they're just not as effective as tunnelling, because tunnelling is unbalanced.

Yeah?

Yes, toolboxes are unbalanced too, that doesn't change that tunnelling is also unbalanced.

The two are interconnected, which is the issue. Killer strategies that focus on reducing survivor potential efficiency and survivor efficiency being able to reduce killer's ability to manage time are two sides of the same coin, which is why they need to be addressed simultaneously. Instead seemingly unrelated changes like the anti-slug system and longer hook states actually help survivor efficiency instead of hindering it, which then leads to killers feeling more need to address the power dynamic shift much faster to minimize that damage. The same obviously goes in the opposite direction, as things like hard tunneling mean that survivors need to maximize their efficiency to have a chance when someone gets taken out early. This is why addressing these issues like a jenga tower doesn't really work, it just becomes constant compensation adjustments both mechanically and in player mindsets. They have to be addressed simultaneously, otherwise addressing either one directly hinders the counterplay of the other.

Tunnelling is a mismatch against pretty much all the potential efficiency you can actually expect to see from the games you're playing.

Disagree, as Tunneling isn't infallible. In fact, it relies on the survivors inability to combat it, much like there are many scenarios where the survivor must rely on misplays from the killer. Which the off hook protections are designed to directly help with, despite their exploitation potentials.

For the general spread of popular meta perks, for the usual sort of SWF, and definitely for solo queue teams, the killer has a much wider variety of tools and tricks to combat efficiency than just tunnelling

I get what you mean, but thats assuming they get a chance. Gens can be extremely fast, to the point that there is not always time for reactionary adjustments. You have no way of knowing if they're running meta general builds or gen rush builds until its too late, so players who want to counter that potential will always have to assume its in play or accept they could lose with very few mistakes. The only compensation potential after that starts to rely on more and more survivor misplays, which makes the killer feel like they have less agency. Thus, preemptive tunneling becomes pragmatic.

Even with toolboxes in the match, if it's one or two and it's not a full stacked build for either player, the match is harder but you don't need to tunnel someone out, you've got other options too.

Being able to adjust that balance isn't the issue, as you mentioned there are ways to compensate in normal play. The problem are the extremes that are possible, much like tunneling. Light tunneling, be it securing just a final hook on someone that was unhooked recently when there is one gen left, is not an issue compared to getting someone out in the 1-2 minutes of the game. We might not have OG BNP in the game anymore, but that was an example of something that was an extreme that needed to be hemmed in due to its massive shift in that balance.

 The only time you could even remotely consider tunnelling necessary is if you're playing against the absolute top tier possible of survivor players, and they're all bringing their strongest heat, and you're not playing one of the top half-ish of the killer roster.

There are plenty of scenarios that can necessitate tunneling that aren't that extreme, but thats part of where the definitions of these things becomes important. Tunneling can in itself be a compensatory tactic, and most people generally don't have an issue with it in situations where the killer is actively on the backfoot. The game's design centers around survivors starting stronger and the killer needing to catch up as their resources dwindle, so there will absolutely be times where the survivor lead is large enough that it becomes one of the few forms of agency as a catch up mechanic. Most agree that preemptive tunneling is bad for the game, but likewise it can sometimes be the only remaining strategy that will be able to prevent relying on survivor misplays to regain momentum.

It's much, much, much narrower than the scenarios where tunnelling is a problem, is the point.

I feel this relies heavily on other factors like matchmaking, communication, opponent skill, and so on. But again, the only way to avoid having to deal with those things and hope that you retain the chance to be able to do it in time is to assume the worst, which is why so many killers feel forced to do it as the game continues to reward the potential for gen efficiency on the other side rather than regulate it. If we were specifically talking about low level players and game altering variables weren't a factor, sure. But this is why I feel the most direct connection is between gen speed potential and tunneling potential, especially since they directly counter each other.

I would argue that things like gen rushing are more focused on preparation than actual skill, aside from chaining hyperfocus (which can have its skill requirement mitigated somewhat.) On the inverse, tunneling is centered around matchups of skill and opportunity more, with the loadout portion being a shift in said skill requirement. The better the loadout/killer's kit is for tunneling, the less skill they will need and the more the survivor will need. Same for survivors in regards to perks/items that assist them in chase. But in the end in any reasonable scenario, both sides are required to exhibit more skill than following a checklist, hitting some skill checks, and listening for a terror radius. Its still PvP and not PvE. Low skill scenarios (escpecially when focusing on non-interaction) should not lead to excessively high rewards for either side, another commonality it has with extreme (have to emphasize) tunneling. And again, this isn't to say one is more directly important than the other, but more that the two are more interconnected more strongly than people really seem to give credit. Its much easier to downplay one and focus on the other than to address the impact they have on each other and use that to find better solutions.

There is a connection between toolboxes being unbalanced and tunnelling being unbalanced, but those two things have connections to dozens of other parts of the game too. You can't fix everything at once, you have to pace the changes somehow.

Agreed on the last part, but you absolutely can zoom out your approach and fix interconnected issues simultaneously. In mediation they call it "collaboration" rather than "compromise" and its generally considered the most effective way of keeping everyone happy. Thats why i compare it to jenga in regards to balancing, as that is about making individual, more focused approaches that disregard the effect that said changes have on the stability of the tower (game) itself. Jenga balancing basically just becomes a series of compromises, often in a tug of war fashion, until people see the tower toppling over and give up on it. Since things like burnout, plastifixes, and a lack of trust in the devs have always been an on and off situation with the game, it can be much less healthy for the player base compared to fixes that improve the foundation itself.

And just to reiterate, its not that I don't think extreme tunneling is an issue, just that people tend to focus on either it or extreme gen rushing as individual problems, when the real problem is that both have ripple effects on balancing while directly combating each other both in terms of preemptive application and reactionary necessity. Thats why addressing their extremes specifically is the best way to strengthen the foundation of the game and avoid back and forth short term solutions.

I didn't watch the whole stream but, just from that clip, it sounds like he's using the word "hand-holding" to mean the game was holding your hand as a tutorial would by telling you what it thought you should do next. I think he meant to say it was overly-prescriptive or intrusive — not that it was giving you an advantage.