Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
How to play exceptionally good as survivor and get banned (hopefully) in the process
Comments
-
also theres no perk in this game that renders a pickup invalid DS is 60 secs off ur hook that is not a reason to slug right off the bat
0 -
well thats the same for the perks that "prevent pickups" on survivors right?
0 -
Hey er even if you don't play him it's worth leveling up Billy or checking the shrine to get lightborn unlocked for all killer's so when you face a squad like that you can not be blinded by them and as a bubba and with a basement slug put them in the basement and stand at the stairs with your saw ready so when they run out you smack them with it sure one might get away but you get 2 maby 3 slugs and hooks out of it and you can guard them at the same time
0 -
Only that this is not what this situation is about. If OP was a brand new Survivor showcasing a video of him and his team getting slugged for over an hour (thankfully not possible) by a seriously skilled Nurse and people came in, telling him in a condescending tone "yOu nEeD tO rUn uNBrEaKablE aNd fLAshLiGhtS" I´d call that BS out, too.
0 -
What if he never downs them? Then they never bleed out.
The fact that someone doesn't have the skill to do something doesn't mean it was a hostage situation. It was unfair. He was bullied. But he wasn't held hostage. There were opportunities for him to win.
0 -
Look, @xevra and @thesuicidefox
I appreciate you have your opinions.
You can try deny the facts, but I have 40+ minutes of video footage to back up my claims of what has happened and you only have excuses made for 4 extremely toxic and vile players who really should not have any endorsement from the community as they are hurting the game and not helping anyone by playing the way they are.
I shared this story to bring attention to a very serious problem with the game through a very vile example of how toxicity can ruin matches.
I also shared it, as I genuinely believe, that watching those survivors can help players learn a thing or two about looping, they were really good at it.. I know, I was there.
I know where I am skill wise and will definitely not feel butthurt for random people on the internet telling me to git good, so hey.. if you feel like plastering this thread full of denial, go ahead, but I think your time might be better spent elsewhere.
8 -
Akaa if there gonna play scummy like they was to you don't play far either if you face a squad like them and get them in a basement hook facecamp them each time but leave enough space they try to rescue
1 -
Extremely toxic? Yes.
Bullies? Yes.
Smurfs? Yes.
Unfair to you? Yes.
Hostage? No.
Hostage is a very specific thing in this game. It means that the game literally cannot end EVEN IF the other players go AFK. If one of them purposely glitched into a spot you couldn't reach THAT is a hostage situation. You have literally nothing you could do to end the game, even if you were Otz.
This is not an opinion it is a FACT.
Also no this would not be a hostage situation for Huntress if she can still hit you.
Not being good enough to force them to leave is not a hostage situation. Sorry if that sounds harsh but that is the truth about it.
The fact you kill 1 means it is not a hostage situation. If they continued to refuse to do gens you would have killed them eventually.
1 -
Dude, seriously, please point me to a definition of hostage that says what you think it means. Unless you are the embodiment of Marriam-Webster, how about you do not try to assign new meaning to words? Hostage and captive, these are English words that have their definitions.
Hostage is not even the correct one to use here. Captive would be more appropriate.
Hostage: a person seized or held as security for the fulfilment of a condition.
Captive: a person who has been taken prisoner or an animal that has been confined.
Nowhere do these terms contain the condition that they are only applicable if you are powerless against your captors. But even if they would, I would argue that by all standards, I was at their mercy for much of the match. I managed to gain a bit when they got too cocky in the basement and I was able to get one of them, but that is about it. They ended the game mostly because they ran out of their tools, not because I really have beaten them back.
2 -
"A game designed to end at 10~20 minutes prolonged to more than AN HOUR will always be defined as a hostage."
It's actually not.
0 -
We can argue about it all day and all night. The devs will decide. I have my ticket in the system to this effect, if they think the game was okay, they will close it with no action taken. If they think there was foul play involved, they will take action.
Unlike your redefinition of the word hostage, the rules very clearly state what is and what is not a bannable offense. Those things you agree they did are non bannable. The thing you think they did not do is. So I guess the answer will be pretty clear from the result of my support ticket.
0 -
There is no need. Your whole argument is right there.
0 -
Looks like you got matched against high smurfs far above your skill level. That sucks.
0 -
I never once said I agree with how they played but toxicity is on both sides not just survivors they held u captive by not finishing gens and you not being able to kill them easily atleast and bm'd you in basement when u gave up its extremely toxic behavior but killers literally do the same ######### nothing is gonna fix it cause its the person behind the screen thats toxic not the game itself that person himself/herself is just a toxic human devs cant fix that and they cant ban people for looping or for bming while you stood still in basement as toxic as it was
0 -
For the "Was it holding the game hostage" debate it depends on a number of factors.
IIRC it HAS been confirmed if 2 survivors simply refuse to do gens and stealth around the map for like 30 minutes hoping the killer gives up and DC's is a hostage scenario.
Running the killer around for 40 minutes or so and refusing to do gens just so you can run him around isn't really hostage in itself, but when it gets to the point the killer gives up, hides in the basement, and you still refuse to touch generators just to continue to bully him I think it's a little grief-y.
I've said it many times but the killer should have an option to open an exit gate and start EGC early even if generators are left if 20 minutes pass since the last gen pop. This way if survivors ARE ignoring gens and hiding for an extended period of time, you can force the match to end. Or in a case like the video where survivor's are not hiding, but are still wasting the killer's time even when the killer is giving them a chance to do gens and leave.
Anyways hostage situation? Debatable. Wasting the killer's time unnecessarily and prolonging the match for no real reason? Definitely.
1 -
Sure they bullied you however I strongly disagree that anything should happen to them nor do I think that anything will for the simple fact you are holding the game as hostage just as much as they were. You literally were camping in basement, afk basically and were not doing anything.
All you had to do was down one and hook them and then camp so they would be forced to do gens.
0 -
It's obvious what you were doing wrong - Fell for fakes all the time, fell for ded ard's, didn't expect sprint burst, didn't face walls to avoid flashsaves, picked up mindlessly, didn't mow down the survivors in the basement with your chainsaw... didn't focus on one survivor.
Obviously you were matched with an experienced SWF and you're not at their level. Matchmaking certainly needs to be fixed because you shouldn't be matched with these players. (Actually it looks like they were smurfs or have deranked so that sucks).
If I was you in this situation (and new to the game) I would have just AFKed. Not like you did, though. Actually AFK, face a wall or lookup then go and watch YouTube or go get some tea. You gave them the attention they were craving in the basement when you stood still by continually charging your chainsaw - they knew you were still there.
I suspect after a few minutes they would've just finished the gens otherwise.
1 -
Not banned, no.
But prevented from abusing survivor matchmaking protections to roflstomp and grief lowbie killers? Absolutely.
If you want to queue with two high ranked mates, you should be facing a killer at their level. Not yours.
0 -
This is absolutely holding the game hostage. Nothing was stopping the survivors from completing the objective and leaving. This would be the same as a killer getting stuck on a glitched part of the map and the survivors just blinding him over and over again for 40 minutes. This was griefing and holding the game hostage. They didn’t try to do an objective at all. (I gave up watching at 20 min cause I got frustrated) If you wanna bully a kiler, do it and leave. Keeping someone trapped in a game because they don’t have the skill to down you is cruel. We need more killers in the game to shorten queues. And buttfaces like this make them quit and never come back. Hurts the killer, hurts the community at large, and only inflates the survivors ego (despite the fact that they have to derank to do this. Lol)
5 -
I'm just going to flat out say it. This game is ######### hell because of survivors. When ever a killer is over tuned like nurse people universally agree that they should be nerfed, people universally agree that moris and it heads are broken and should be fixed. Yes there are people that say "moris are broken but keys need a fix too" but no one says that moris are fair.
Anything on the survivors side on the other hand is a hot debate no matter the case, survivors will not make a single concession.
"You should be told be told when you are facing a SWF"
"No because then people will dodge."
"You should be told after a game when you faces a swf"
"No because then people will dodge you the next time they see you"
"You should be rewarded blood point/not depip when you face a swf"
"No because ######### you"
Yet hotly contested things like pyramid head always result in surivors getting their way.
Killers hate survivors I know. But surivivors have no regard for killers enjoyment of the game and honestly thing that just by not teabagging they are not contributing to the game being worse while taking to the forum to shoot down any small improvements to the game no whether it effects them or not.
Four in five people are surivors but there are two teams. In my opinion the voices of survivors should weight a quarter of what a killers voice does.
0 -
The fact there are people saying these people shouldn't be banned is why this games community is such #########. Seriously, BHVR shouldn't even listen to survivors, they are unbelievably biased to the point that they will shoot down killer suggestions even when they don't negativity impact them.
0 -
Can we confirm that the whole "matchmaking depends on the highest-ranked member of the SWF group" thing was intentionally removed and not a casualty of the matchmaking system in this game being total trash?
0 -
I'll have to dig up the thread, but yes - I remember it clearly.
And now, it depends on the lowest. Which is the problem.
0 -
That doesn't make sense because the reason they implemented that to begin with was to stop matchmaking based on the lowest-ranked. I'd like to see the thread in question because that sounds hard to believe.
0 -
Going to be working on the family car today, but I'll see if I can scratch it up tonight.
Yes - what you are talking about is the old protection they had for a month or two to stop smurfing.
Low ranked survivors have a protection where they will only face killers of a similar rank. Coordinated groups would abuse this, by having someone derank down to silly ranks and then queuing up with them to stomp and grief new killers.
BHVR fixed this by giving killers similar protections and making sure SWF groups were matched against killers of a similar rank to the highest ranked survivor in the SWF.
They quietly removed both killer protections.
I can easily find the one where they admitted they had removed killer matchmaking protections, if you'd like.
0 -
Hostage is a very specific thing in this game. It means that the game literally cannot end EVEN IF the other players go AFK.
That is not true. By this definition, everyone hiding instead of doing gens is not holding the game hostage because the game can eventually end if the Killer finds the Survivors who are trying to hide. But as devs have repeatedly pointed out, that is considered hostage holding. In order for a game to be considered hostage holding, one side has to actively be doing something that prevents the game from drawing to a close while the other side is actively trying to end the game (barring DCs). Arguably, refusing to do gens just to get the Killer to bait-chase you for exceedingly long times could be considered this.
1 -
I specifically want the source of a dev confirming that "SWF being matched based on the highest rank" was intentionally removed.
0 -
As a DOC and NEA main.... I have no positive words to stroke your ego with... This is how it happens... I play both sides... You're an an inexperienced killer... And they were experienced survivors... I love when Toxic killer mains come in here and talk about survivors being Toxic... I've seen both sides of it... We have Campy Slugging killers... And then you have SWF.. I'm not saying you are toxic... But there are two sides of the coin here. When you deal with toxic killers all day it jades you.. and you treat all killers as they are the toxic killer from last match. Just remember for every group of "toxic swf" out there.. there are as many if not more "toxic killers" if you get out played and rage you lose.. don't let stuff get to you.. and try being in their shoes for a day.. just try to have fun.
0 -
I'll see if I can find it. It may be from a QA or Discord.
I can certainly find people discussing it.
0 -
I was not talking about survivors being toxic. I was pointing out four particular survivors who were toxic and at the same time commended them for doing their evasion routines extremely well. (probably got plenty of practice like this) :)
Please do not project your own bias onto me. I do not have a preference in that silly war that goes on within the community between survivor fanatics and killer fanatics. I think those people do a disservice to the game regardless of the side they are on.
Toxicity exists on both sides unfortunately and it is extremely disheartening to hear that being dirty is okay, because the other side is dirtier. I mean this is a computer game and the demographic playing it is probably a lot closer to 20 than to my age, probably even from below, but come on now.. are we really in pre-school still that people believe that line of argument to be valid?
Everybody complains about toxicity, but when it is their turn, they will tbag the opponent just as fiercely and mock them, because they are just "returning it". Oh, not against the person that did them harm, but against the next person, or the one after that.. because if one of them was mean to me, then every one of them deserves me being mean to them.
That kind of eye-for-an-eye mentality leaves the world full of blind people.
1 -
My goal for this thread was threefold:
- To show fledgling survivors how killers can be evaded and to show baby killers some neat survivor tricks to be mindful of
- To show the four people in question, if they happen to see the thread (unlikely), that their actions do have consequences and to show to everyone similar to them, that every now and then they will find the one person who goes the extra mile to try and get them expelled from the community they should not be a part of
- Last, but probably most importantly, to show the community the - hopefully - worst it has to offer to players and to make people think about their own actions and how those actions might impact the other side of the game. If just a single person watching the video realized that their actions might have caused someone else some grief and changes the way they play, then posting it was already worth it. Heck it is worth it just to show, that even when faced with the worst, it should be possible to keep our heads high, to remain positive and keep on playing.
I do not hate SWFs because of that match, I still do not mind being matched with top ranked survivors and I do not care what meta builds they bring against me, as I still am having fun with the game. If I encounter similarly toxic groups, be that SWF or otherwise, I fight them as best I can and report them after to hopefully make the game a cleaner place. :)
Hope this clears up any question marks and stops people from trying to cheer me up (thank you, but I am not down at all), from telling me how I failed (thank you, but I already knew) and from telling me how there is nothing to see here apart from some mild toxicity, but it is nothing that should be banned (thank you, but we will never agree there)
2 -
babes you got looped at shack for literally 40 minutes like how is it possible to be that bad at the game... ive legit seen rank 20 killers play better than you. like its no wonder yall constantly ask for swf nerfs when you literally play like you have one braincell. this wasnt taking the game hostage either since you still have the ability to end the game b it yeah lets ban them anyways cuz they flashlight clicky
1 -
Hiding and not doing gens is WAY different from everyone running around right in front of the killer not doing gens.
The first scenario there is actually nothing happening in the game, not gens not chases not hits not kills. Therefore it is a hostage situation.
The second scenario stuff is happening, chases and hits (and he got a kill don't forget). Therefore it is NOT a hostage situation.
Also by my definition, if one side goes AFK and the OTHER side still cannot do something to end the game THAT is a hostage situation, eg. bodyblocking a survivor in a corner or a survivor glitching into an area the killer can never reach. If the survivors went AFK he could just kill them, and if he went AFK they could do gens (even though they didn't they COULD do it).
Being bad at the game isn't a hostage situation. Sorry no matter how you sugar coat it, that's what is going on here.
0 -
Holding the game hostage doesn't mean that nothing is happening in the game. Holding the game hostage means the game is not ending and is deliberately being dragged out by one party past a reasonable point, with the other person being incapable of ending the game even though they want to without having to DC.
Being bad at the game isn't a hostage situation.
This is the exact logic used by people trying to argue that Survivors hiding indefinitely and not doing gens is not a hostage situation. The counterargument (that being trapped inside a game with no way to leave except via DC should not hinge on someone being "skilled enough" to make that happen) can arguably apply here too.
2 -
No holding the game hostage means that the game literally cannot end no matter what another player does. Being less skilled than your opponent and getting bullied is NOT a hostage situation because you could in theory do something about that.
Body blocking a survivor in a corner, or a survivor getting to a spot where the killer can't get them is a hostage situation because it doesn't matter what the other side does or how good they are, the game can never end. You could be Otz or the OP it doesn't matter.
Again it sucks what happened to this guy but it's not a hostage situation. He had opportunities to end the game, he just failed at it.
ALSO HE KILLED A SURVIVOR.
Why do y'all keep ignoring this very important part?
"This is the exact logic used by people trying to argue that Survivors hiding indefinitely and not doing gens is not a hostage situation. The counterargument (that being trapped inside a game with no way to leave except via DC should not hinge on someone being "skilled enough" to make that happen) can arguably apply here too."
Except that it doesn't matter how good a killer you are, if a survivor wants to hide from you they very easily can. If the survivor is running around in your face though that's an entirely different matter. Literally all he had to do was follow one. Just follow them. No mind games. Nothing just straight follow them. Eventually they will use every pallet, eventually he will get bloodlust, and eventually he will catch them. AND HE DID CATCH ONE.
The key distinction between these two scenarios is that there are opportunities to end the game in on and not the other. Whether or not the player is good enough to capitalize on those opportunities is irrelevant to whether or not they exist.
0 -
Being less skilled than your opponent and getting bullied is NOT a hostage situation because you could in theory do something about that.
Again, this logic could apply to the situation where Survivors don't do gens and hide indefinitely. But the devs consider it hostage holding anyways. Same could apply here.
ALSO HE KILLED A SURVIVOR.
Why do y'all keep ignoring this very important part?
Same reason why it doesn't matter when a Killer does eventually find one or more Survivors who have been hiding for a super long time. Regardless of whether or not it ended, the point is that they were forced to remain in the game past a reasonable point.
2 -
"Again, this logic could apply to the situation where Survivors don't do gens and hide indefinitely. But the devs consider it hostage holding anyways. Same could apply here."
No it can't because unless the killer has Whispers they can never find you if you hide perfectly. You could run perfectly from a killer for a long time but the game is designed for them to eventually catch you. Once all the pallets are gone and he has bloodlust 3 he should be getting a hit guaranteed. You can't say the same thing about someone hiding because they aren't using resources and there is nothing giving the killer more and more of a chance to catch them over time.
"Same reason why it doesn't matter when a Killer does eventually find one or more Survivors who have been hiding for a super long time. Regardless of whether or not it ended, the point is that they were forced to remain in the game past a reasonable point."
You might not eventually find them though. If you follow a survivor eventually you WILL get a hit. 100% guaranteed, IDC how bad you are (proof by the OP video themselves, they EVENTUALLY get hits and downs, it's just they make very bad decisions once they do and lose all that pressure), just follow with no mind games and no respect to pallets. Over a long enough period you WILL get them. Over a long enough period, no you are not given the same guarantee to find a survivor.
0 -
Once all the pallets are gone and he has bloodlust 3 he should be getting a hit guaranteed.
Not necessarily. Suppose the Killer is very bad and can't maintain a chase for the life of them. Survivors are good at breaking the chase and giving the Killer the slip. If the Killer skill is not enough to allow them to catch the Survivors and the Survivors are unwilling to finish the gens, what exactly enables the Killer to end the game in a reasonable time?
You might not eventually find them though. If you follow a survivor eventually you WILL get a hit. 100% guaranteed, IDC how bad you are, just follow with no mind games and no respect to pallets. Over a long enough period you WILL get them. Over a long enough period, no you are not given the same guarantee to find a survivor.
If I give my controller to my friend who barely knows how to play, will they be able to catch a team who opts not to do gens and is able to do chases like a boss?
1 -
"Not necessarily. Suppose the Killer is very bad and can't maintain a chase for the life of them."
This is not the fault of anyone but the killer.
Imagine if the killer goes AFK but the survivor is SOOO bad at the game they don't even know what button to press to do a gen. Is the killer holding the game hostage? No.
Now imagine there is only 1 gen that can be done, and it can only be done by 1 person, but the killer stands where they need to stand to do the gen and goes AFK. THAT is a hostage situation because the inability to end the game is completely independent of the player's skill. You could literally be able to hit great skill checks with your eyes closed and no sound and you could STILL not do the gen and end the game.
THAT is the difference.
"If I give my controller to my friend who barely knows how to play, will they be able to catch a team who opts not to do gens and is able to do chases like a boss?"
If they are running around in front of him like that, yes, eventually he will catch them. It would obviously take a LONG time but it can be done.
If someone is bad at the game that doesn't make it a hostage situation.
0 -
This is not the fault of anyone but the killer.
People arguing that hiding forever is a-okay have said the exact same thing. Shouldn't apply there; shouldn't apply here.
Imagine if the killer goes AFK but the survivor is SOOO bad at the game they don't even know what button to press to do a gen. Is the killer holding the game hostage? No.
The game literally tells them what to press, so that argument goes out the window. Plus, going AFK is a reportable offense according to the game itself, so...
It would obviously take a LONG time but it can be done.
It doesn't matter if the Killer eventually finds the hiding Survivor after 30+ minutes. It's still hostage holding.
If someone is bad at the game that doesn't make it a hostage situation.
The definition of holding the game hostage does not include player skill.
1 -
You just know at least one person is gonna say "but he got a 3k, so what is he complaining about?"
1 -
"People arguing that hiding forever is a-okay have said the exact same thing. Shouldn't apply there; shouldn't apply here."
I've already pointed out how they are different and how hiding IS holding the game hostage. Stop lumping me in with those people.
"The game literally tells them what to press, so that argument goes out the window. Plus, going AFK is a reportable offense according to the game itself, so..."
Doesn't matter, being bad at the game does NOT mean you were held hostage.
"It doesn't matter if the Killer eventually finds the hiding Survivor after 30+ minutes. It's still hostage holding."
The difference is that in a chase the killer is GUARANTEED to catch you eventually. They aren't guaranteed to find you if you hide.
"The definition of holding the game hostage does not include player skill."
Just like the definition doesn't include making poor decisions that end up delaying the end of the game. Or else anytime a killer gets outplayed you could say "that's holding the game hostage".
No matter how many times you want to repeat the same thing, BEING BAD AT THE GAME DOES NOT MAKE IT A HOSTAGE SITUATION. A hostage situation is a VERY SPECIFIC thing in this game. It's a point where no matter HOW GOOD YOU ARE, you can literally not end the game. Case and point, killer body blocking survivor in a corner or a survivor getting into an area the killer cannot get them. Those are 100% hostage situations.
0 -
I've already pointed out how they are different and how hiding IS holding the game hostage. Stop lumping me in with those people.
Both still result in one side (in this case, the Killer) being kept in the game against their will and being unable to leave without DCing. So no, I will continue to equate the two as equivalent offenses.
Doesn't matter, being bad at the game does NOT mean you were held hostage.
Being bad at the game is irrelevant. If you are unable to leave without DCing and the other side refuses to finish their goal and chooses to prolong things, it is hostage holding.
The difference is that in a chase the killer is GUARANTEED to catch you eventually.
Not necessarily. Not if the Killer is bad enough.
Just like the definition doesn't include making poor decisions that end up delaying the end of the game.
It actually does, though. Choosing not to do gens and hide forever is a poor decision that ends up delaying the game.
Or else anytime a killer gets outplayed you could say "that's holding the game hostage".
That doesn't make sense. How is the game being held hostage if gens are being done?
No matter how many times you want to repeat the same thing, BEING BAD AT THE GAME DOES NOT MAKE IT A HOSTAGE SITUATION. A hostage situation is a VERY SPECIFIC thing in this game. It's a point where no matter HOW GOOD YOU ARE, you can literally not end the game. Case and point, killer body blocking survivor in a corner or a survivor getting into an area the killer cannot get them. Those are 100% hostage situations.
And that very specific situation is "Holding the game hostage means the game is not ending and is deliberately being dragged out by one party past a reasonable point, with the other person being incapable of ending the game even though they want to without having to DC." It's why indefinite body blocking is hostage holding if the hatch is still open, but not if it's closed and the EGC has started.
1 -
"So no, I will continue to equate the two as equivalent offenses."
Then you are making a false equivalency.
"Being bad at the game is irrelevant."
No it's not. If one side is not good enough that doesn't mean the other side was holding them hostage. You have it backwards. You have to remove skill from the equation. If it is literally impossible to end the game even for the absolute best player in the world, then it would be a hostage situation. Again would an AFK killer be holding the game hostage if survivors were SOOOOOOOO bad at the game they couldn't even complete a gen? Obviously not. Doesn't matter if that is unlikely, we are taking your logic to the most extreme level and it fails. Therefore, your logic is invalid. The logic I am presenting is consistent no matter what the variables are.
"Not necessarily. Not if the Killer is bad enough."
Yes even if the killer is bad enough. Just follow them, eventually you will catch up. If they drop a pallet break it. Eventually you will use every pallet. EVENTUALLY you will catch them. Just by following them.
"It actually does, though."
No it doesn't. Being bad at the game doesn't change the definition of a term or change the way the rules are applied.
"How is the game being held hostage if gens are being done?"
How is the game being held hostage if you are constantly getting chase by the killer? Your logic doesn't work when applied to similar situations.
"And that very specific situation is "Holding the game hostage means the game is not ending and is deliberately being dragged out by one party past a reasonable point, with the other person being incapable of ending the game even though they want to without having to DC." It's why indefinite body blocking is hostage holding if the hatch is still open, but not if it's closed."
Yea because when you body block someone it doesn't matter how good they are, they can't end the game if they wanted to. That little detail of "hatch is closed" changes the entire thing, just like the little detail of "killer is bad" changes everything.
You can keep repeating yourself, it won't suddenly make it a hostage situation. The mere fact he killed one disproves this idea entirely. Had they refused to do gens even more he would EVENTUALLY catch and kill them all, just like he EVENTUALLY catch the first one. It is inevitable. Finding a survivor that is hiding is NOT inevitable. Therefore those 2 situations are not at all the same.
0 -
Then you are making a false equivalency.
Disagree.
If one side is not good enough that doesn't mean the other side was holding them hostage.
Then why is the game still going on? Why has the game not ended? I believe it is you who has it backwards.
Again would an AFK killer be holding the game hostage if survivors were SOOOOOOOO bad at the game they couldn't even complete a gen?
The Killer is not preventing the Survivor from finishing the gens, so no (though again, being AFK is a reportable offense). The Survivors ARE actively working to keep the Killer from catching them (for that is the point of the chase) while ALSO deliberately choosing not to do gens.
Yes even if the killer is bad enough. Just follow them, eventually you will catch up. If they drop a pallet break it. Eventually you will use every pallet. EVENTUALLY you will catch them. Just by following them.
And if the Survivors are able to consistently give the Killer the slip because the Killer is bad?
No it doesn't. Being bad at the game doesn't change the definition of a term or change the way the rules are applied.
This I agree with. Hostage holding doesn't factor in skill; only if one party is refusing to end the game and the other party is incapable of doing so without DCing.
How is the game being held hostage if you are constantly getting chase by the killer? Your logic doesn't work when applied to similar situations.
Because the Killer wants to leave the game (without DCing) but cannot because they cannot catch the Survivors and the Survivors are not finishing the gens. If the gens are finished, it is a completely different story because the Killer can just force the gates open and force-start the EGC.
Yea because when you body block someone it doesn't matter how good they are, they can't end the game if they wanted to. That little detail of "hatch is closed" changes the entire thing, just like the little detail of "killer is bad" changes everything.
No it does not. The reason "hatch is closed" changes the entire thing is that hatch being closed means the game WILL end. Not so for the "killer is bad" bit.
1 -
Scott Jund made a video before they turned off the MMR showing him against literal rank 20 brand new players to the game. He would chase them but refused to down or hook anyone. They took 20 minutes or something to do like 2 gens. Was Scott holding the game hostage?
If he was, then that means anytime a player refuses to even do an objective they are delaying the game and holding it hostage. Obviously if you play tactically but take a minute to touch a gen you aren't holding the game hostage, but that's where that logic would go.
If he was not then any instance where a player is simply bad and the game is delayed is NOT a hostage situation.
You can sit here and say he was bullied or griefed, I would agree. But taken hostage? NO. That is a very clear and specific thing, of which the requirements were not actually met since he could have, in theory, still ended the game he just lacked the ability to execute it. But if the situation was that some survivors got out of the map and he couldn't get to them, THEN it is holding the game hostage because regardless of his skill or ability to execute the end of the game there is nothing that can be done.
0 -
He would chase them but refused to down or hook anyone. They took 20 minutes or something to do like 2 gens. Was Scott holding the game hostage?
No, because he was not preventing them from doing gens.
If he was not then any instance where a player is simply bad and the game is delayed is NOT a hostage situation.
Unless the Survivors were actively not stopping the Killer from downing them and letting the Killer down them with ease, then not true.
That is a very clear and specific thing, of which the requirements were not actually met since he could have, in theory, still ended the game he just lacked the ability to execute it.
I shall once again equate this with the situation of Survivors indefinitely hiding and the Killer "lacking the ability" to find them.
Also, I ask again: "Then why is the game still going on? Why has the game not ended?"
1 -
But they were failing at doing gens. It doesn't matter if he was preventing them or not, they lacked the skill to do them. By your logic he was holding the game hostage for the same reason these survivors held the game hostage.
And now you're saying that a survivor has to let the killer catch them or it's holding the game hostage. Because by running you are preventing the killer from doing their objective.
"Then why is the game still going on? Why has the game not ended?"
Because the killer was bad and made a lot of mistakes, which is not a hostage situation.
Look the HUGE difference between hiding and not doing gens and getting chased and not doing gens is that the second WILL END EVENTUALLY just by the very mechanics of the game. Eventually, with killers being faster than survivors, and with bloodlust, the killer will catch up and get a hit. That means EVENTUALLY they will get a down, and then a hook. Rinse repeat 3 more times. Game is now over. But when survivors hide and don't do gens there is no EVENTUALLY the killer finds them. MAYBE they find them. MAYBE is not the same as EVENTUALLY. The latter is guaranteed to happen, the former is not.
0 -
It doesn't matter if he was preventing them or not
It does matter. It is actually the key of the whole matter. One party is unwilling to bring the game to a close while preventing the other party from bringing the game to a close.
And now you're saying that a survivor has to let the killer catch them or it's holding the game hostage. Because by running you are preventing the killer from doing their objective.
Not by itself, no. It requires a combination of both actively and intentionally preventing one side from ending the game AND an unwillingness to bring the game to a close yourself. The end result is a deliberate act of dragging the game on way past a reasonable point. If the Survivor is not handing themselves to the Killer on a silver platter and the Killer is too potato to catch them, it is not hostage holding if they are doing gens and bringing the game to a close. If the Survivors are not doing gens but the Killer is not doing anything to chase them, then the game is also not hostage holding.
Because the killer was bad and made a lot of mistakes, which is not a hostage situation.
Gens were not being done because the Killer was making a lot of mistakes?
Eventually, with killers being faster than survivors, and with bloodlust, the killer will catch up and get a hit.
Very good Survivors (using Blendettes, let's say) + very bad Killer = Survivor can escape a chase and prevent Bloodlust from triggering
3 -
Look your logic doesn't work when applied equally to all situations. If what Scott was doing wasn't hostage but what these survivors were doing was that is hypocrisy. It is the exact same situation just with the roles reverse.
And he was preventing them from doing gens by chasing them. Is it now the killer's fault they were so bad that's all the pressure you need to put on them to make them not do gens?
"Gens were not being done because the Killer was making a lot of mistakes?"
No survivors were not being killer because of killer mistakes. Killers are not responsible for doing gens therefore you can't measure whether a game was hostage or not based solely on the survivor's inability or unwillingness to do a gen.
Nothing you say will convince me this was a hostage situation, especially not flawed hypocritical logic.
0
