Thompson House Killer question
First, let me paint a hypothetical situation:
You're playing as Leatherface on The Thompson House. 1 survivor has been killed/disconnected. One survivor is placed on the hook, and BBQ reveals the remaining two survivors are upstairs in the House, healing. There is enough time to get to the staircase, effectively blocking them upstairs.
Do you:
1) Attack the first survivor you can reach, getting a hit and allowing both to flee and one potentially unhooking the hooked survivor
2) Try to down the a survivor with your chainsaw, allowing the other to flee and potentially unhook the hooked survivor
3) Stand at the stop of the staircase with your chainsaw revved, daring the survivors to run past you to flee, knowing that their ally is on a hook waiting to be rescued.
follow-up quesiton, if you do option 3, Do you conisder that camping or just taking advantage of a choke point?
Answers
-
i'll answer the question itself and than the follow up question
I'd pick option 2, since I'd prefer to just down someone and than let the other person unhook the hooked Survivor to extend the game further and gain more BPs. I don't personally play for the 4k in-mind every game, and usually when the option if given to me, I just let the last person escape anyways.
Usually what I do is play LIKE i'm after the 4k but don't actively use choke points like that to get it or camp, than after everyone is dead and I find the last Survivor MILES away from the hatch, I play like i'm going to down and hook them. But after I down them, I just give them the hatch, so it gives me a sense of accomplishment that I could get the 4k, but I don't take it unless i'm re-ranking back to Red OR i'm after BPs desperately.
Most of the time I just down them like its a real chase, than let them escape.
as for the follow up question
Blocking the stair case with your body while revving your chainsaw to let the person die on the hook is definitely camping. It's grey area though, it's camping, but is it holding the game hostage? In that situation if you just stand there for hours and hours than of course it's holding the game hostage, but it may also be considered "exploiting", since you're using a flaw in the buildings design to guarantee a kill from the hooked Survivor, so in a sense, it's personally an exploit they're abusing to do so.
Whether it actually is or not is up for debate, but an exploit is usually something that's abused by a player to get ahead of the games design, so blocking the staircase at the top of the building with your body so nobody saves them is considered to me, an exploit.
Here's the link to the game rules that backs this up, as well as a quote below that link:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/19450/game-rules-and-report-system#latest
"Exploit bugs, errors in design, or undocumented features to gain access to what otherwise would not be available or to obtain a competitive advantage"
So personally, I consider THAT an exploit, but it's up for the support team and devs to decide if that's the case. The signs point to it being the case, but i'm not a dev nor am I affiliated with BHVR to confirm this as a 100% fact.
but besides opening up another discussion within the discussion
I consider this to be camping yes, it's definitely camping one spot to prevent a Survivor from being unhooked. Even if it's not directly hooking a Survivor, they're still camping the upstairs to prevent both Survivors from leaving.
If they stay at the spot for an unnecessary amount of time afterwards to ensure they down both those Survivors, say an hour or 30 minutes, than it's considered Holding the Game Hostage, which is also a bannable offence.
Is it exploiting though? I can't say for sure, it's personal speculation if it is or not, that doesn't mean it's a fact that it is an exploit. For the sake of argument, i'll say it isn't, but if they stay there for a long time than it's considered holding the game hostage.
But at the base of this question, yes it's camping.
Post edited by FireHazard on0 -
I think you meant to pick option 2, you said 3 which was the option you proceeded to explain as an exploit lol.
Stating standing there for hours is a ridiculous example, since no one will spend hours in a game like that just to secure a single down.
As for it being an exploit, IMO that's a ridiculous thought as it's only a problem if
1) the survivors refuse to give in and attempt to bait the attack
and
2) only a real threat to killers who can one-shot (like Leatherface in the above example). In any other situation, the survivor gets smacked once and can run away (See: Basement blocking for a hit after an unhook while the survivors are fleeing, or blocking a survivor in on a totem space or another space a killer can body-block a survivor in)
I would argue that by refusing to get hit for putting themselves in the position to where they only have ONE escape, the SURVIVORS are the ones causing the game to be held hostage. In this scenario, only one survivor is knocked into the dying state while the other is free to either be chased down or unhook the survivor.
Is it sleezy? yes. An exploit? Not at all.
0 -
Small error, sadly it happens too often for me at this point.
And yes, people actually do stand there for hours to secure a kill or to spite the Survivors... it's happened before, hence why the term "holding the game" hostage was created to be a bannable offence.
Also, I was going off of the Killer being LeatherFace, but I guess I ALSO forgot to mention that as the primary example, since you used him in your question and I followed up with it. If it was any other Killer, than they can only hit someone or if they want to break the rules... sit there for 30 minutes+ just to spite the Survivors. Which again, actually does happen from time to time.
As for the two examples "1 and 2" doubting this, I already answered 2 above, but I'll answer 1 in this. You can't bait an attack that the Killer refuses to due out of their own uncertainty that they'll hit it, unless you walk right into him to get chainsawed, than he won't use the attack, hence if he just sits there for minutes on end to an hour to just get "two easy downs", than he's holding the game hostage to do so.
as for the argument of this being a "reverse hTGH"
I disagree, The Killer is the one blocking the stairs, if they don't want to get in-trouble for something that's bannable (if they stood there for that long), than they should just chase the one Survivor and down them, rather than sit at the top of the stairs to get two downs.
In a sense, they started this, so they're deemed liable for it. The Survivors wouldn't be "holding the game hostage" because they didn't intend for this to happen NOR did they want this to happen. Why would you want to let the Killer down you because he wants "two easy kills" and if you refuse than it's "their fault", that isn't exactly fair.
regardless of all of that, here's the point
Example 3 is camping, I pick example 2, I agree that this isn't really an exploit after further thought and other examples that also happen on other maps (if the hooked Survivor is dying on the hook, it isn't holding the game hostage, if they stand there long after, than it's holding the game hostage), I disagree that it's the Survivors causing the "game to be held hostage", and I also re-instate that this can be considered holding the game hostage if the Killer just stands there and refuses to move until someone is downed OR they give up and just down someone.
0 -
I would call that the smart move, not an exploit or holding the game hostage. Unkind? Yes. Unlawful? No.
A bad design is not the same as an error. An error is, definitionally, a mistake, but it's not a mistake that those stairs are the only exit or entrance to the top floor of the Thompson House. I'm certain that the map designers knew that was the case when they made it. Exploiting an error in design would be something like a wall with no collision that survivors could walk inside and become unhittable. Something which was clearly not intended to be a feature of the map.
It's also not holding the game hostage, no matter how long they stand there, as long as they're revving their chainsaw. If the killer were just standing there and refusing to injure or down survivors even when they are in range, that would be a different story. A player is only holding the game hostage when there is no way for the other players to leave the match without disconnecting. An unworkable situation is not the same as an unwinnable situation. The survivors can't win in that situation, but they can leave the game by getting downed and dying, something which is entirely within the survivors' control, so it's completely within the rules for the killer to do that.
0 -
I personally don't agree that it's not holding the game hostage because the option to die by the chainsaw is a thing, but I don't make up the rules of course.
If they sat there for hours on end doing nothing and not hitting anyone and refusing to move, THAN it's considered holding the game hostage. The issue with certain subjects is that there are many grey areas and factors to it, if the Killer wants to down you when you give them the chance, than it's not holding the game hostage...
If you stand there and do nothing for hours, than it is. The issue I have with this is that you're still blocking an exit with your body and refusing to move until someone decides "welp, I have no choice... guess i'll just die from this unfair scenario" and that's it.
In my opinion, I don't like how that's ok, and in a sense it could be considered a "Reverse HTGH" if they don't choose either of those options... I guess? But to me, I don't agree that it is the Survivors fault for not dying to the Killer (they're LeatherFace or someone who can Insta-down), as this seems like an unwinnable situation.
0 -
I despise standing still, so i'd go for #2.
0
