Why are we not doing anything about these Gens Speeds?

Chicken and Egg. Both issues cause and are caused by each other.

I give up. You guys deserve the game you get.

I feel like its a combo of this and power creep from newer killers pushing survivors to be more efficient.

When survivors feel like a lot of there matches are ghoul, they are going to get more efficient on gens.

That leads to the situation where survivors prepare for that and be hyper efficient even when they are not being matched with that.

People can have bias and see past it, as long as they allow themselves to. Its a type of personal growth that people need to have internally, and there is a lot that can be (and often is) learned from opposing perspectives. After years this nonsense is groundhog day when they refuse to, but its still worth at least trying to hear them out, assuming they remotely offer the same courtesy.

Funny, My posts are the ones getting vote bombed and responded to and not OPs, who I don't even defend or directly agree with. All I've done is try to present both sides as being able to reconcile over approaching a common solution and trying to clarify away from the pointless arguing being thrown at those statements. People just want to have internet fights over the nonsense instead of actually reach solutions.

I'd love to have meaningful discussions about to what degree gen speeds are actually a problem or how we can meaningfully buff trapper without just adding dash slop.

I've tried to even salvage their idea about fresh hooks to instead focus their approach toward addressing the issues of killers on an individual basis in relation to their weaknessess in macro play, as that is the thing that varies the most between them. You don't have to give Trapper a dash, nor do you want to do something like a gen kick bonus to everyone because of disproportionate value, but instead apply a different buff on either a per-killer or per-category (stealth/ranged/"pallet eaters"/whatever groupings would work best) that specifically address killers macro play considerations in a way that would incentivize their temporal strength in ways that would be proportional to reducing that of survivors strength in the way 4 surivovrs have over 3. Some examples would be something like Wraith getting an extremely short BBQ aura (maybe 1-2 seconds) to find their next target, Huntress might get a free partial reload, Slinger could get a temporarily reduced TR, ideas focused on improving their efficiency in getting into their next chase or addressing resource time waste, things like that. They could even scale up with chained fresh hooks to incentivise not straying from that behavior. Likewise, you then punish tunneling strong enough to disincentivize it by comparison like the proposed "kill before x hooks" idea but with a more reasonable threshold, testing out a starting point of 4 (instead of 6) and adjusting from there.

Both carrot and stick, both of which are focused specifically on the aspects of the conundrum that causes both sides to feed into the loop. The main aspect that needs to be focused on is that the survivors start strong, killer gets stronger, and the snowballs in regards to early gen progress and killer momentum. I don't claim it to be a perfect example, but my point is more that many times the ideas that get attempted can be salvaged if applied to reasonable reasoning that actually takes both sides of the issue in mind, instead of the constant back and forth micro scale considerations that even BHVR themselves fell victim to and wasted most of the health chapter initiative on.

Unfortunately, historically what the loudest voices want is the first part (nerf gen speeds), and absolutely will not allow BHVR to address the second part (tunneling)

This is why this stuff will never get solved. Even if you didn't intend it to, this statement creates a biased stance on how we got here. Again, its never about which came first, because most of the stuff that can go back to isn't even in the game anymore. Its no more valid to complain about something like overbrine than it is to go back to instant BNPs, omega blink nurse, perma saboed hooks, etc. Thats why you don't focus on that type of eye for an eye consideration because it focuses on the chicken or the egg and losees the perspective on the cycle itself.

That doesn't feel like you're looking for a solution, it feels like you're joining the loud group that we see a lot here that claim "gens speeds need fixed, but if you expect any tunneling changes I'm out, forget it".

These types of projections are why I'm out. I've had to spell this out multiple times, but I want tunneling to be addressed more than most of the people who complain about it. I just want it to be done correctly so that it actually takes, doesn't get rolled back, doesn't cause further problems with its implementation, and avoids this back and forth approach people seem to be unable to get past. The fact that this type of assumption is how neutrality gets assigned by default just shows how deeply the us vs them mindsets prevent people from engaging with any idea that isn't blind agreement. I can't control how people misinterpret posts based on preconceptions and bias, but that doesn't mean I have to be happy about it when it happens, especially when clarification is provided. Most of why people refuse to listen to people they disagree with is because everyone keeps giving each other reasons not to like this.

But that's likely why you're getting downvoted here.

Don't kid yourself. For every time that happens, other times posts that are designed to make people think about something other than getting what they want get downvoted. Its a validation feedback loop and its easier to see the number you "agree with" go up than to actually engage with posts that are longer than the character limit for twitter.

The forums have devolved into pure whataboutism.

FYI you guys caused this decline in the first place since last april. We didnt ask for any of this, YOU did.

The insane crashout over fog-vials and the anti-changes (resulting then to be killed off 2 weeks in)

But defending the most aggrecious killer design in 10 months with no killswitch while the killer was bugged harder and more eggreciously than streetwise ever was.

Is the reason why survivors only tool of defense is : doing gens optimally, switching to killer or playing something else.

Its not just a "survivor mains control the game" last year 90% of the changes we got was mostly killer feedback.

Thats simply the consequence of listening to one side and ignoring the other.

apply a different buff on either a per-killer or per-category (stealth/ranged/"pallet eaters"/whatever groupings would work best)

I'm not necessarily opposed to this idea. There are, of course, details (containing devils) for which groups and how much, but I don't see it being completely impossible.

The biggest sticking point could be that BHVR themselves stated at one point that they didn't want to go the route of changing things like gen speeds or number of pallets on a per killer basis. That was years ago, so maybe they've changed their mind or would consider revisiting it, but it's also been rare for them to outright say no.

This is why this stuff will never get solved. Even if you didn't intend it to, this statement creates a biased stance on how we got here.

I disagree. I have no problem with the idea that people believe the root causes are different, and I also believe that a much smaller part is that they are intertwined problems.

But if we ignore that and just looking at solutions, these are vastly different.

Gen speeds are almost trivial easy to address. Add extra gen time, base kit corrupt, pain res on every hook, increased base regression, just to name a few. These aren't difficult answers.

Let's take it to an extreme, and completely solve gen speeds in a hypothetical: do all of it. Gens take 3 minutes each, are blocked for the first 5 minutes of the match, every single hook takes 30% of total gen progress. This would kill the game, but as a thought experiment, set that aside.

The immediate consequence is that tunneling one person out is insanely buffed here. Napkin math puts a hard tunnel at 5 gens you'd have something like 8-10 minutes to get someone out of the game and still have at least 2 gens left standing. So tunneling literally becomes an instant win button.

But fixing tunneling isn't as easy as slapping down extra timers. This is harder answer. And if these are going to be interlinked and solved simultaneously, we need to have ideas and discussion about what that looks like.

Unfortunately, this is where you stop discussion again. Right when we get to the hard part:

These types of projections are why I'm out.

Then what would you change about, let's say the tunneling PTB in particular that would be acceptable?

That was at least a solution, if an imperfect one. But the loudest voices here and elsewhere didn't want to try and fix the problems or iterate on the idea, but said simply "no". And BHVR listened.

And instead of productive conversation about "let's fix elusive to not allow pallets or flashlights" we got "do nothing".

Instead of tweaking numbers, we got "do nothing".

And currently in this conversation, you again try to bow out the instant it gets to the tricky part of solving the difficult part of the issue. This isn't a "fix gen speed and we'll deal with tunneling later", we've been doing that for almost 4 years now.

You yourself admit we should address these together, but if no one wants to talk about the hard part to fix that, and many didn't even want to go as far as acknowledging.

That's the main reason why I push back on this issue. Not that I don't want change, I personally think the PTB was salvageable with tweaks and adjustments. But if we keep having the "fix the gen rush problem" and never have the "fix tunneling" conversation, then issues will continue to get worse and the goal post will continue to move.

The biggest sticking point could be that BHVR themselves stated at one point that they didn't want to go the route of changing things like gen speeds or number of pallets on a per killer basis. That was years ago, so maybe they've changed their mind or would consider revisiting it, but it's also been rare for them to outright say no.

Thats because those things revolve around concepts like map resources, which is part of why I avoided them in my examples. I'm more focused on the concepts of how to address the issues rather than the specifics, teaching a man to fish rather than giving him one. If approaches and concepts can be agreed upon by people who normally disagree, it opens avenues for refinement from opposing viewpoints. Thats why getting caught up on details or looking for ways to disqualify ideas with opposition to specifics prevents actually reaching reasonable solutions.

I disagree. I have no problem with the idea that people believe the root causes are different, and I also believe that a much smaller part is that they are intertwined problems.

Its why we have so much back and forth, why everything needs to be tit for tat and compensation is always the primary source of complaint. Being too zoomed in is foundational to whataboutism, as many of the issues with the game have always been dependent on opposing ones. If an unhealthy mechanic is an answer to another unhealthy mechanic, removing one and ignoring the other creates a vacuum that has disproportionate affect on one side vs the other. Even if you do these in "stages" and go back and forth, you create avenues for new issues to pop up in their stead, especially as behaviors adapt to that vacuum. Its the foundation of "removing x leads to y" arguments which both sides have validly applied to situations ranging from character and perk choices to item and addon proliferation. It doesn't fix metas, it just keeps shifting them based on whichever side is getting preferential treatment at the time.

Gen speeds are almost trivial easy to address. Add extra gen time, base kit corrupt, pain res on every hook, increased base regression, just to name a few. These aren't difficult answers.

They are difficult answers, because they give disproportionate value when done in blanket approaches, as we saw before. Part of why DBD tiers are the way they are is because the best killers "Play DBD" better than the lower tiers, so these types of adjustments will almost always favor the strongest killers more than the weakest, furthering the divide and removing reason to play anything other than the top. Its the type of reasoning that led to backpack builds on nurse, necessitating her blink attack to be changed to special just to stop perk synergy after the fact.

The reason for the nuance is to have the mechanic focus on softening weaknesses in macro play while minimizing oppression in the ones that need it least, for them you would want to focus on aspects that would give them unique considerations instead of efficiency focused adjustments. That way their punishment would be more proportionate than their reward, as they need the help less and would require the strongest deterrent from ignoring the adjustments altogether. The reason I chose to try to salvage the minimum hooks before kill idea is because its not inherently flawed in addressing getting one out before reaping the benefits elsewhere, the threshold was just way too high at 6 hooks since that could literally be 3 survivors on death hook before reaching it. Preventing the tunneling of one out is just as important as the rest to the formula.

Unfortunately, this is where you stop discussion again. Right when we get to the hard part:

I'm engaging in your discussion because you're actually having one, me being out is more in regards to the fact that even while we're having this conversation, you're continuing to use loaded statements even when I'm trying to work with you from the same side. I don't appreciate catching strays when I'm essentially mediating. I was trying to illustrate that comments like that are why I'm sick of this projection nonsense, and another poster did a great job of giving another example in between our conversation.

Then what would you change about, let's say the tunneling PTB in particular that would be acceptable?

The changes I suggested, as they were based on salvaging the ideas they tried to present. i agree that they weren't a perfect solution, and the reason the "loudest voices" said what they did was because they felt ignored and/or under considered in how the system was proposed. Even when they did a panic round 2 adjustment and changed the fresh hook considerations, they half assed it in a way that made it do absolutely nothing for a large portion of the roster who actually neeeded it with the bloodlust clause. My point continues to be that if you design these mechanics in ways that "the reasonable voices" would be able to overpower "the loudest ones," you come up with systems that can actually be agreed upon and embraced. You don't focus on the people who accept nothing regardless of side, you focus on the ones who are willing to compromise and collaborate. Its a foundational aspect of mediation to acknowledge that there will always be people on both sides of an argument who will refuse to cooperate, so you focus on the considerations of the ones who will and arriving at a solution that is satisfactory to both sides to the best of your ability. Anything less devolves into favoritism and further destabilization, which is why I refer to it as Jenga style balancing.

And currently in this conversation, you again try to bow out the instant it gets to the tricky part of solving the difficult part of the issue. This isn't a "fix gen speed and well deal with tunneling later", we've been doing that for almost 4 years now.

You misunderstand why I'm leaving. Its not the conversation I'm leaving, as this is the most engagement I've actually gotten on finding solutions like this than I've gotten in most of the attempts I've given when trying to stop people from preventing themselves from being able to agree across the isle. I'm leaving the game entirely because I'm sick of even the most productive conversations still having loaded language and trying to wedge in biased perspectives, regardless of whether intentional or not, because BHVR continuously prioritizing that type of linear thinking having wasted a massive amount of time and manpower that could have easily been effectively incorporated or at least salvaged if approached from a more unbiased perspective. I honestly don't think people are able to separate their personal feelings from their perspectives on what is actually best for the game anymore, internally or externally, and I'm tired of ice skating up hill about it. I'm going to ignore the way some of the individual statements are worded on the premise you misunderstood what I meant by leaving, because again, I'll take this type of actual engagement vs having to defensively repeat myself every single topic against a myriad of projections and strawmen, but this isn't the type of engagement that the forums do anymore. We obviously agree on a lot of things, which is what happens when things are actually discussed instead of going into one sided attacks against unproposed ideas or stances like most of the responses have been.

If the argument is "I tunnel because of gen speeds" and you want nerfs to gen times, perks, or toolboxes, then you also would have to be okay with something like the anti-tunnel from the ptb rolling out to live. Because, so far, the honor system just doesn't seem to be working. Killers get something and they keep complaining for more, and the cheese countinues. As it is, I see much more hard tunneling in my survivor matches than I see gen builds in my killer ones.