What to Solve Blatant Camping? Here's How:
Comments
-
Instead of talking about why killers shouldn't be camping and what the devs can do against it we should rather ask ourselves this question: Why are killers camping? (toxic reasons are excluded from this)
The increased camping and tunneling has only one reason: gen speed.
I will guarantee you that if the devs will make the game more balanced and killers can actually go for the 12 hooks, there will be less campers in the game.
So instead of implemeting a punishment to a side that already is punished and needs to use everything what it has to win, the game should finially get a good rework.
Just a litte reminder at this point: one gen done is equal to 20% completion of the survivors objective while one hook is only 8% of the killers objective. Sure you might argue that one gen takes around 80 seconds but 80 seconds is nothing. One good chase from the survivor side is worth over half a gen (and this doesn't include taking the person to a hook and traveling time to stop a gen that can be extremely far away because of the RNG). And this isn't a 1 vs 1. While one survivor is being chased three others are free to do gens and the killer can't do anything about it. THIS needs to change and if it will change the campers will vanish. Not all of them ofc, because toxic people will always exist but most of the camping killers you see aren't toxic. They are just as frustrated of the game as you are in your post right now.
2 -
"Unlike many, I want camping to be in the game. However, I want it to be in the form of Bait & Ambush, not blatantly sitting there waiting for a survivor to die."
"I don't know about you, but when I play survivor, I play for the action and pressure, not to hold M1 for 3 minutes while I play walking simulator. So a camping killer does in fact harm more than just the hooked survivor, it's also lessening the overall game for the rest of the survivors..."
As I've repeated, I am not talking about generic camping, I'm talking about a specific, toxic form of it. This thread does not pertain to a fake roam, doubling back to catch someone. It's not about someone doing a close patrol, quickly running here and there to catch someone out of position. It's not about anything other than a killer blatantly camping, just sitting there, doing nothing, waiting for someone to approach.
Whatever issue you think generator repair speed is causing, it doesn't have anything to do with this specific kind of camping. Even if you rework how the game works on a base level, leaving in the ability to gain anything of substance from this form of camping just leads to toxic, unfun games. Killers need to be active or they need to be deceptive, being stationary and obvious is counter to their role.
Some of you responding seem to be laboring under this idea I want killers nerfed and it's so unfair to be a survivor. I play Survivor/Killer roughly 50/50. I want the toxic forms of both mitigated and mediated so that Survivors don't feel the need to bring every single get-out-of-jail option they can, while killers don't feel the need to bring several ways to expose survivors, moris and camp. The only way you do that is taking each issue and coming up with a workable solution: in this case, an anti-camping mechanism targeted at blatant camping.
Maybe generator repair speeds are too fast, maybe repair rates need to be nerfed for two and three survivor repairs, while four man repairs get buffed. Maybe allowing just some time for a killer to breathe would take the edge off and allow killers to actually impact the game without having to optimize every single action. That's a discussion completely separate to this, where one side has the power to remove.exe someone and potentially ruin their experience and the other three survivors.
0 -
Nonsense. That was a whole lot of hot air so you could vent a spleen. I never attempted to justify anything one way or another. I don't have to do so. Whatever a Survivor or a Killer decides to do in the game (that isn't hacking or lag spikes) is automatically justified. Legal choices are valid choices, and none of my business. I could care less about your "feelings" on the matter. When I entered this thread I made a suggestion of how to achieve the goal that seems important to you, i.e. how to encourage Killers to camp less (any kind of camping). I pointed out that you have to make it worth the Killer's while so that they make the choice. I pointed out that punishments never have, and never will work.
Do no put words in my mouth, nor should you assume too much about my motives. I'm completely transparent about my bias and intentions. I feel communication in this type of venue is easier that way. I'm going to repeat a simple truth since you seem to miss it over and over again. Killers are not Bots; they are Players just like you and I. Their agency (free will) in the game is just as important to them as it is to anyone else. Their fun is likewise just as important to them as it would be to anyone else. The symmetry of the game has no bearing on that whatsoever. If you wish to encourage people to engage in a behavior, you make such behaviors more valuable than the alternative.
1 -
"Some of you responding seem to be laboring under this idea I want killers nerfed and it's so unfair to be a survivor. I play Survivor/Killer roughly 50/50. I want the toxic forms of both mitigated and mediated.."
The fact is you did try to justify camping, you even go on to explicitly justify it two sentences after saying you weren't. Your argument shifted from the "Players are agents who determine what is and isn't fun" to "If it's part of the game, it's fair game." That's not how game design or balancing works. That logic just leads to never patching gameplay again.
This nonsensical repetition of killer's being people is just dumb, to be frank with you. You're saying the Killer's fun and agency is just as important as the Survivors fun and agency, ok. Now what? Does that mean at no time Killers can't be buffed, because it affects the fun and agency of Survivors? You're not saying anything useful with that statement, only trying to equivocate that Killers and Survivors are the same. They're two sides within an asymmetrical game, there are going to be times when one side needs direct intervention to stop certain habits that only pertain to that specific side. I would bet money that if I looked through every patch note to date and the dev notes for them, I'd find changes specifically targeted at Killers or Survivors because the activities they were engaging in were directly detrimental to the opposing side (even if one side found it fun and "legal").
I pointed out to you that carrots require sticks, that means even if you nudge players in one direction with incentives, that's not enough to make them go down that path. The specific form of camping, Blatant Camping, that this discussion is about also happens to be one of the least Bloodpoint generating methods of playing killer. Adding in additional Bloodpoints to incentivize activity, when clearly the killer isn't directly concerned with their Bloodpoint earnings doesn't solve the issue (you'd earn far more BP a game chasing, hitting and using your powers).On top of that, there's nothing stopping a killer from Blatantly Camping after maxing out the Bloodpoints earned from your suggestion. That's why you need a stick to go with it, so that there is a clear, obvious, optimized and profitable choice and a clear, obvious, waste of time.
Lastly, this idea that punishments don't work is absurd. Damn near every online game has a form of punishment for unwanted activity, specifically because punishments do work (how often do you see Survivors permanently hide, knowing crows exist?). If you punished camping by giving survivors a random unhook + sprint burst + invulnerability, you bet you'd never see a killer camp after having it happen a few times. Obviously that ruins the entire balance of the game, which means you need something that works on the margins of behavior: I.E. a clear detriment to doing X. If you wanted to add in a clear benefit to avoiding X as well, then that expands those margins and strengthens the notion that doing X is detrimental. Nothing stops your suggestion being implemented alongside the one I put forth, but your suggestion cannot achieve anything on it's own.
0 -
I'm not adverse to the long post myself, but there has to be a point. You seems to think more words automatically add weight; they do not. You seem intent on arguing for punishments. Can you show us on the doll where the bad camper touched you? :) Look, the DEV have stated over and over again that camping (all kinds of camping) are valid choices. This means you aren't going to get the crack of the whip you want because the thing you want punished isn't a crime. Accept it; you will be happier in the long run.
What you argue for is both unreasonable and ultimately doesn't work anyway. The only way to ENCOURAGE Killers to stay away from the hook is to educate them on why it is generally in their best interest most of the time, or to weight things clearly with enticements so they make the choice you are hoping they will make. It has to remain a CHOICE. Rewards work. I often suggest that Killers who move away from the hook earn progress (sort of a Killer Bold) not unlike the Bold Survivors earn for staying in a Killer radius while not in chase. Both actions require a leap of faith and taking a risk of losing something valuable.
I'm not going to rehash that in depth now, because it isn't necessary. What is important is getting you to understand that you are trying to build a castle on a foundation of sand. Your very premise is wrong, and unsustainable. This is because you are operating with an entirely different perspective than the DEV and a lot of us. I play Killer and Survivor. I think camping is fine. It is just part of the game. I don't think it needs fixing at all. However, I was willing to engage in this discussion with you and make suggestions on how to achieve your goal (less camping) in a way that doesn't go contrary to established fact. The Dev have already placed a penalty in the game which hits people (to a degree) for staying close to the hook. Be grateful you got that much. Now it is time to add the carrot.
1 -
I understand what you mean but I honestly see it as a non issue. There are things people can do in this game that is unfun. But the game itself is interesting because everyone is free to decide how they want to play. I can't really see a way to prevent face camping. And it doesn't really happen that often that it is an issue in my eyes.
There are things that needs to be changed and things that only needs a change of mindset. I think this case is easily solved if we all be more chill about this game and the outcome of our games. Not every game will be brilliant but we won't face a camping bubba or an ebony nurse every single time we press "Ready".
0 -
Because of how the game is formatted, it is an issue. As long as survivors die at the same rate regardless of the proximity to the killer, there are going to be a decent percentage of games where that survivor gets camped. That camping, plus the frustrating perk/offering/add-on combinations is going to lead people to DC/Leave the game all together.
Understand that this isn't about just "camping," it's aimed at trying to disincentivize but one of many toxic activities that cause people to DC or leave. Mindsets aren't going to change on it, "Given the opportunity, player's will optimize the fun out of a game." Even though camping isn't optimal to "winning," the fact is that we have dailies, rifts and achievements. Maybe Camping won't net you that 4k 32,000 Bloodpoint bonus, but camping that last survivor to ensure your 50,000 BP rift is done, will. Some players just want to camp, because they know it's easier or because they enjoy the feeling of schadenfreude. Because Dead by Daylight is performance based, not objective based, 'losing' because you didn't do the typical thing doesn't really have a sting. However, for the guy being camped, who now can't "perform," the experience is agonizing.
Truthfully, as I stated earlier in this thread, hooked survivors being camped/ignored need to earn Altruism and Objective points (Altruism for time-on-hook, objective points for generator completion), so at the very least they feel as if their time isn't being completely wasted. That would mitigate the DCing for some, but the experience would still be unenjoyable and unproductive for the community. In order to change player behavior, certain behaviors have to be made clearly beneficial while others detrimental.
0 -
This condescending tone thing, you can drop it.
If you have a problem with verbose posts, fine, lets be succinct: as long as toxic methods of play are on par with non-toxic ones, players will choose that method that benefits/is least detrimental/risky to them. It's that simple. I'm arguing for a stick, sticks are necessary, provably so. If you think a small hit to end-game emblems is a "stick," then I don't know what to tell you other than, you're wrong.
If the Devs want to go the way of MTG's R&D, by all means, go for it. Developers don't have to address the concerns and frustrations of the community (of which, this is a reoccurring one), though if past attempts of that methodology are anything to rely on, it doesn't turnout well for the game or it's playerbase. You can keep cracking snarky remarks if you wish, but my concern is game/community health, not "wah, I'm having a bad time, fix it."
0 -
You don't understand; I've been going easy on you. You say you are concerned about the health of the game. I doubt your concerns are greater than the people whose jobs depend on it. In short, you sound very entitled and very self-important. I tend to give the DEV the benefit of the doubt that they do know what they are doing. The game appears to be doing just fine, and they are steering a decent course through a storm of variables and adversity. What exactly are your credentials? You and I might have opinions, but that doesn't make us qualified. So, you will have to forgive me if I distrust your motives and tend to lean on the DEV more than your less than insightful screeds.
But you can prove you are not a hypocrite or just full of hot air. Vote with your wallet, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. If you think things are as bad as you seem to infer, you should be moving along. Do you follow? You make it sound like Armageddon is upon them and only taking your advice will save them. What do I think? I said it before in regards to your ideas, and I'm sure I'll say it again. Nonsense.
1 -
Alternative answer: if a killer stays by a hook too long, the survivor instantly dies so that there's no more reason to camp the hook and the survivor can't complain about the killer spending the entire match in his/her face.
It's also a bad solution.
I'm of the opinion that there doesn't have to be a "solution" and that instead, the game should be made to have everything feel better. Changing all of these specific mechanics without addressing underlying problems has been the strategy of the devs ever since perks like Ruin were introduced and kept as meta. And now, we're in a place where none of that feels any less frustrating.
--
Kind_Lemon
An advocate of place-able totems, a priming-pallet interaction, and the removal of Exposed from tier 1 Devour Hope.
Also supports changes to how many survivors need to be present to start repairs on a generator.
#revertNurseaddons #reverttieroneDevour #reverttieroneBL #nofreechaseresources #placeabletotems #revertBillysounds #workwiththemusicyouhave
0 -
The underlying problem is always going to be that the game is asymmetrical and there are always going to be imbalances between the objectives/playstyles of both sides. The game will never be in a perfect state, but the game's most toxic/unfun aspects can be mitigated and that ought to be the overall objective.
0
