Survivors actually get punished for being tunneled out

You cant be banned for no reason, did you happen to say something in the egc when you were angry about being tunneled? Or did you dc both games?

Edit: I did not know there was a time based go next protection system. Even with that though you have to be going down so fast. I get tunneled all the time and Ive never seen a penalty for it.

While tunneling and camping continues to be rampant with killers and now even capstone worst ever with The First addition, it's pretty easy to NOT get a ban or penalty if you get tunneled or even just want to get yourself out of the match early. You can still die pretty fast while staying within the rules.
Same as the killers game the rules of the camping mechanics in game by diving in and out of camp radius just long enough to still camp and hammer any survivors coming in for a rescue. The current anti-camping mechanics do basically 'nothing at all' to stop killers from camping and camping continues, as it always has.

I play both killer and survivor a lot and my take is that the game heavily punishes survivors for just about anything, while favoring even the most toxic behavior from killers. Killers get no repercussions for anything they do, that I have ever seen, even playing as killer. Killers can be as toxic as can be, with no reprisals whatsoever, and if the survivor just says, 'Nah, I'm out on this joker.' ← bam, penalty time. You get punished for leaving a toxic game where killers hold the game hostage, down a player and then 'sex pump' them repeatedly on the ground, smack them on hook, down and what I call, 'aoe camp' a downed survivor so they cannot be rescued for the entire game, even if that means the other survivors get out, but yep, killers do this all the time, just to harass a survivor that looped them hard, because they're angry now.

We need more slap down on toxic killers, but yeah, I also know that is 'HARD' for the game mechs itself to detect toxic movements versus legit game play, and that's exactly why toxic players get to 'game' the system rules and get around it while acting horribly and ruining the experience for everyone.

I also play as survivor against killers who are fun and an absolute pleasure to be in the match with, and they add great game value and a challenging match without being a jerk. (Thank you to all you killers in this category!) The toxic ones.. meh… Please go play Hello Kitty Island or something, and chill.

All that said, it's NOT that hard to get out of the game if you want out, without a ban or penalty. Just stay within the game's rules, same as the killers are doing with the anti-camp stuff.

KytLuna, you aren't wrong about 'survivor teams'… that is strong with survivors and a good team will run those perks in coordination, like in comp or swf's…

Now, say that again, only, when playing PUB matches with uncoordinated survivors, not speaking to each other… >:D

Really what is needed there is a different game balance between SWF and PUB… because literally, they are just different games at that point.

Why are you turning this into an “us vs them” thing.

Because we know there's no real argument to actually be put forth most of the time so people have to resort to that to try and validate their opinions.

I'd say give those a try at first, and see if it helps.
At least it is nothing like the punishments proposed in the 9.2.0 PTB.

And I am going to refer to this comment that I made in another thread:

Don't you think that changing some of the hook-based killer perks to favor hook spreading would reduce tunneling?
I also suggested changing toolboxes, so that the effectiveness of perks like Hyperfocus and Stake Out gets reduced.

Ahh, I see. I completely misread your comment then.
I would personally say that if one side gets base-kit changes, the other side has to get some compensation for it too. I'd definitely suggest something like a mini base-kit (say 10% or so) current version of Pain Res, so that it gets easier to spread pressure by hooking.

Pain rez is a good approach, as its both designed to spread hooks and carries the stipulation of only working on certain hooks, but would that not lead to complaints from survivors about gens popping without the need of the perk? The idea was originally to boost the next kick, which showed uneven affect across the roster, and even pain res would have a similar issue: Instead of solely redirecting behavior and giving more bonus to weaker killers and less to stronger ones, it becomes a blanket buff that helps killers like Nurse and Blight just as much as killers like Ghostface and Hag.

Survivors would only be happy with something like that if the amount on the basekit PR was inconsequentially low. If its too low, it would literally feel like wasting a gen regression event to the killer, so they might even actively avoid it in that case. I actually like using fresh hooks as a way to incentivize killers to spread them (including beyond first hooks) but the only way both sides would agree on what that entails would be if it was designed in a way that normalizes killers instead of blanket buffs: Anything less would just further the divide in tiers and lead to more frustration for whichever side gets the worse deal (and even possibly the other, if its both uneven and lacks meaningful impact.)

Carrot and stick combined approaches need to be measured in order to have the most effect on player mindset. If you're nerfing something, you need to make the value people got from it be attainable through more healthy means. If killers are tunneling to minimize survivor snowballing and securing their own, you need to find a way that addresses the two adequately to make the easier choice less desirable. The first thought might be "but people will always do it" or "how do you match something as strong as getting someone out quickly?" but the approach should be "how do we make that decision more healthy" and "If I take away X, how do I solve the reason people feel the need to rely on it."

The survivor HUD is a great example of those kind of ideas done well, as it helps solo queue much more than SWFs due to redundancy, but does so in a way that requires adequate understanding and game sense to get the most out of (while still having moderate value without that understanding to boot.) Something that was essentially a net nerf to killers was a healthy change for the game due to how it was implemented, and the considerations its design included. It addresses those types of hypotheticals evenly, having its value require a form of skill to bridge the gap between comms and a lack thereof, without requiring additional resources (perk slots,) and having impact that varies based on the aforementioned skill. It simply exists as a tool that players get as much or as little from as they are able to do so, within a respectable degree so as to not make related perks redundant nor necessary. Even though killers didn't get a direct compensatory buff to go with it, I would consider the addition of hook counters after the fact to fit that bill. Either way, the consequences of such a system upon the game loop itself were addressed in its design, both regarding potential and average application. With how rare it happens, I sometimes wonder if it was an accidental success.

My point is that considering both sides in a change you intend for one side isn't supposed to be a tit for tat kind of concession. The idea is that if you want to make changes to core gameplay mechanics as influential as the "power play" that centers around survivors outnumbering the killer at the start of the match, you need to focus on how it affects both roles evenly. Same with the opposite, which is part of why "knowledge check" killers tend to outperform at lower MMR while being pushovers at higher ones. If something affects balance in terms of a core mechanic, afterthoughts can be more harmful than helpful, so its important to really think about how a change intended to benefit one side would benefit both in regards to game health more than just adjusting personal outcomes.

It’s not rare. Most of my games survivors bring so many second chance perks. I certain games I tunnel bc I know my gens are going to fly so I want to stay ahead of them pressure wise.

I've been wondering about this auto go-next detection system and what triggers it. I got tunneled out by a p100 Blight recently like 2 mins into the match and I wasn't penalized. It must have to be cumulative or something, or it pairs with DCs and recognizes the specific players history.

The thing is that it mainly hinges on the skill level of the survivor, and the skill requirements for that role are so high.You can't say that survivor is the strongest role when only the absolute best survivors can take control of a game. If you have a full swf team of super sweaty players then yes killer will have a tough time. But if the killer is good then they can still win. But if you cater only for those players, the experience is skewed for everyone below that skill level. Balance can't just be for the top 1% of players who play tournaments or stream the game 8 hours a day. Games need a casual and hardcore playerbase. At the moment the casual survivor playerbase just gets repeatedly rinsed.

I consider myself a mediocre survivor at best, and an effective killer player. It's not too common that I get a killer game that I can't win. I come up against a lot of very good survivor teams, and more often than not i get control of the game from them without too much difficulty. To the point where I honestly get bored with 4ks so most games now I actually let at least 1, sometimes two survivors go. Unless they are being particularly obnoxious in which case I'll play for the 4k.

Whereas my survivor experience is on the whole pretty abysmal. I usually play with at least one team mate, rarely solo q anymore unless I have a challenge to do, because I'm not a fan of the feeling of banging my head against a brick wall. I'm lucky to survive 1 in every 4 survivor games, and that's on a GOOD day. On a bad day I'll easily go 10 games in a row with no escapes and no 5 gen completions.

Many of the old weaker killers have been buffed to be more effective, pig, sadako, freddie have all had reworks and are much more effective now. While we have all sorts of new killers with busted basekits that have no real counterplay. cough ghoul cough vecna. Game can't be survivor sided when like 80% of the survivor playerbase gets repeatedly killed in most of their games.

And yeah totally agree the mmr is busted, as killer i play against super weak teams of evidently new players i should not be matched against. So usually i cut them slack and do the odd farming game or at least let 2 of them go. While as survivor, despite my atrocious escape rate i end up matched against p100 killers way more often than I should.

And yeah it is fun to debate, hence why we are all on this forum. People probably get confrontational because that's the nature of people but also the nature of the game. Losing games on dbd is a very punishing experience, for killer and survivor. Tends to trigger people so they come on here, vent and tend to be very one sided on their opinions. I play both roles equally and try to stay objective. With any luck conversations on this forum can help improve the game for the better. And improving the experience for new and lower skilled survivors can only help the game. Because it's very hard to get new players to start or old players to return to dbd after a long gap. Dbd needs it, I'd like to see player retention stats, I'd put money down that new players don't stick around long.