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!
Ridiculous Unwritten Rules of DBD
I know this was discussed 100 times before and it really won't make any difference, i am sick of this crap in this community so i am going to write this anyway. I will try to make my point AS SIMPLE AS i can so our lovely entitled friends would get it.
I mainly play killer but i am also a rank 1 survivor. And toxicty levels are MUCH higher on the survivor side so i will make my point from a killers perspective.
- DON'T CAMP
- DON'T TUNNEL
Now i will define these rules and talk about general arguments against them.
- CAMPING
2 different categories.
- Face Camping - You hook a survivor and stare at him from a 1m distance.
- Proxy Camping - You hook a survivor and patrol around the area.
Now let's talk about the situations in which a killer face camps;
- All 5 Gens are done and you only have one hooked survivor, you want to hook trade and secure at least one kill.
- A survivor somehow tilted you quite hard so you want them dead.
- You know survivors are overly alturistic so its a strat.
- You just want to taste some salt in the endgame chat.
- In situation 1 you have absolutely nothing else to do in the map and you go for the only way for a potential victory or at least a draw. You CANNOT be blamed for being a toxic killer. (Always happens that way though.)
- In situation 2 and 4 you left the default gameplay route of a killer and just want to satisfy your own emotional needs. Which is how you should play any video game because an arbitrary ranking system isn't what is affecting your real life. I don't know about you but if there is no fun factor in a game for me i simply won't play it. That is the reason why games are made in the first place. And if you having fun in a game makes you bad and immoral its either bad game design or people are just butthurt. Latter is more likely and mostly the case in DBD. Regardless, you WILL be blamed for being toxic -and most likely learn some new [BAD WORDS]-.In the DBD community, reasons for why said actions are toxic are the below;
- You effectively ruin a survivors game experience thus you are being toxic : As a player you can't be held responsible for that. This is a game, someone will win and someone will lose. DEVS are responsible for all players game experience and they REPEATEDLY said that face camping is VALID. So it is not in the game design :) They said its valid but that doesn't mean that you aren't going to be penalized. You WILL lose the game if survivors are not morons and change their gameplay according to yours. But if they don't do that and situation 3 comes in to play, then its survivors fault that they didn't adapt, you CANNOT be held responsible for their actions. Every player gets to play however they want as long as it is allowed in the game. (quick note: As survivors you are NOT entitled to get unhooks since its a high-risk high-reward action. Killers ARE NOT supposed to go pressure elsewhere at your convenience.)
Let's get to the Proxy Camping, this post will be long but i don't really care anymore.
- You know someone is in the area coming for rescue so you look around in order to find them but be close enough to get a hit if they actually come in for a rescue.
- Or it is just an extended version of face camping. (Reasons for why it is valid and not toxic are the same with face camping.)
- In situation 1 since you don't have wallhack you naturally don't want to go patrol gens across the map which may or may not have survivors nearby. But you definetly know that someone is going to come for a rescue so you can maybe get a down or two and snowball the game from there. This is a strat and you ARE NOT being toxic. This doesn't apply when its just the start of the game but if that is the case you CANNOT be held responsible from any BM for the same reasons i gave regarding face camping.
Strat or not survivor mains don't really care so your entire family line will be slaughtered in the endgame chat by very, VERY creative means.
- TUNNELING
- A situation in which killer doesn't give a damn about anything in the game except eliminating one survivor from the game at their own loss. ( Players are free in any action they take as long as the game allows it. Same with the reasons why face camping is valid, and is not toxic.)
- A situation in which killer successfully determines weak and strong survivors and focuses on the weak ones in order to cripple the survivors and win the game. (This is a sound strategy which i myself often use. There is no difference between this and looping. You waste killers time with looping and killer wastes your time by repeatedly forcing you to go for rescues and he takes 1 player out of the game in the process and takes usually 1 or 2 survivors away from objectives. If you don't want to get tunneled this way then learn how to loop.A good survivor can easily buy 1 gen time for their team. If killer knows how to play and wants to win the game he would know that he can't chase you more in order to win the game so he will maybe get a hit and break chase to pressure generators. If you can't do that, you don't get to play.I am sorry but you are just mispositioning and playing the game badly. It is your responsibility to learn and get better, stop blaming other people for your mistakes.)
And again regardless of which option above you go for you WILL get your future children and grandchildren [BAD WORD] in a myriad of ways that you can't even begin to imagine. I don't know who actually brought up this stupid set of rules but what is more shocking is that %95 percent of the community abides to it like some holy commandment. It is an actual social phenomenon that makes DBD the game that has the most toxic community from the other multiplayer games i played BY FAR. Conclusion: DON'T LET ANYONE change the way you want to play the game because all these unwritten rules are nothing but BS. DONT abide them playing SURVIVOR or KILLER and DON'T let yourself get sucked into those mindsets. And stop taking it so goddamn seriously.You will realize how much more fun the game gets afterwards.
PS : As i said at the start of this text, what i said here applies for both killers and the survivors. I wrote this from a killers perspective because survivors (at least in my experience playing the game for 2 years, watching videos,being part of the community) are way WAY more toxic in the endgame chat comapred to the killers. EVERYONE playing the game are free to choose any perk,addon,strategy they want to use if it is in the game. OP or not. It is not your job to balance the game. If anyone curses at you for using them, tell them "Go cry some more to the devs and leave me alone shithead." then press continue.
Comments
-
I love this post.
Thank you for this.
6 -
Oh but I bet you're against survivors using DS and unbreakable, right?
4 -
What does that have to do with any of this?
10 -
@ilovedbd123 of course if its used as a strat its stupid because you are going to lose most of the games with it. People who face camp usually do it for pleasure and that is completely okay.
1 -
This should be bullet-pointed and put up as official. I laugh at the hate I get from camping the end game lol.... Like I should go patrol the finished gens or something.
9 -
Ive only just started playing the game and caught wind of these strange rules recently. Bizarre that you get criticised for playing your role as intended by people who love to run around teabagging lol. I’ve already been accused of camping on a few occasions even though all I did was patrol the hook area and the two closest generators because I could see all three survivors running to the hook to rescue. But I’m a camper because I don’t just run to the other side of the map and allow them to unhook. Amusing. I don’t let it bother me and will continue to play killer, not babysitter.
3 -
Every all the toxic try hard nonsense I see from so many people, the only thing that annoys me really is being slugged until I bleed out. Killers that just go for slugging strat I feel are something I 100% DC in the middle of game when it happens.
0 -
"Look, there are rules" - Jigsaw
14 -
@carnage4u its fine to get annoyed. I get annoyed when its the first hook of the game and killer face camps. But I don't go after killers family in the endgame chat like he is not supposed to use any strategy, addon or perk that is good that game allows him to use, i know that he doesn't have to play the game the way i want him to play. That is the fine line between being a lifeless trash and being human.
1 -
I am sorry, 20 METERS? you know how far that is?
4 -
I agree with the patrol camping I find it stupid how people complain and call toxic when that killer is patrolling the gens near the hook like we want to make sure no one is doing gens around there while also being close enough to spot other survivors that may or not be going for the save some of us don't run bbq and chili
2 -
I feel I should commet on the camping aspect of this post. I don't mind tunneling and see that as a strategy. The reason why survivor don't like camping,( or at least in my opinion) is that it doesn't feel earned at all. Its why killers don't like second chance perks like Dead Hard, DS and Borrowed Time, because the strong pressure they give doesn't feel like the survivors earned it, and camping is in the same boat. Like seriously why should the killer get a free hook state or a free kill because they just stood their with nothing the survivors could do. Its even worse with top tier high mobility killers. Killers like hillbilly, Spirit, Blight, and nurse makes even easier to proxy camping.
The fact of the matter is that camping the person on the hook to get a free kill shows you did not do a lot to deserve that kill and therefore feels unfair. Now I know their are certain situations in which camping is good to help you win which I agree, but this is just an overall reason for the negative reaction for camping.
2 -
@dspaceman20 I didn't make any judgements about camping being fair or not. If you look up in the comment section, i wrote a reply about it. Negative reactions should be limited and people just need to go to the next game. Because it really doesn't happen that often. I agree it can feel frustrating but if you are just attacking other side like a wild beast in the endgame chat then you are the actual toxic player in that trial. Camping is almost never a good strategy if the survivors don't let it be that way. If you really enjoyed playing killer face camping someone and listening them crying in the endgame chat wouldn't you do it regardless of it being fair or unfair? That wouldn't make you a bad person or toxic in anyway if you were to do it. No need for moral codes in video games while the world is still a crappy place with ######### ton of them.
1 -
I would also like to bring up another thing you said, in which you make a point to say that camping and tunneling is not toxic.
I would agree with you the strategy of camping and tunneling is not inherently toxic, but the intent behind doing it can be toxic. As I said above I can agree with you that sometimes camping and tunneling is needed in order to help you win, but that doesn't mean it's automatically not toxic. I have been camped and tunneled because I was playing a certain character: claudette. I have even seen posts on this very forum saying that if a person is wearing a certain cosmetic they are going to tunnel them. There is also situations in which a person is tunneled for no reason. Its even entire possible to tunnel and camp someone because of some horrendous reasons because the player is homophobic or racist. The strategy is not inherently toxic but the intent behind it is, and sometimes you can feel intent from the player.
This is toxic no matter how you slice it. I feel there is real dangers behind saying that tunneling and camping has nothing to do with toxicity. It is masquerading toxicity as a strategy.
2 -
I agree to an extent, but you have to also understand that it's unreasonable for survivors to expect a killer to get 12 hooks a game. Would that be considered "deserving"?
The game goes by way too fast, especially in red ranks you will not and cannot play killer thinking "I have to 3 hook every survivor". You will lose.
1 -
@dspaceman20 Those reasons are beyond the scope of what i was talking here and i agree with you there. But in that case its not about the game mechanic itself its about their worldview and their intentions. Thats whole another discussion about what is good and what is bad.
2 -
I think I can agree with what your saying. It is unreasonable to think you would get 12 hooks. Which is why I say in some cases its fair to camp and tunnel. But i think it depends largely on the situation. I was playing a game with my friends yesterday and he was camped for the full time he was on the hook. Once he died the killer caught my other friend and camped him till he died. and was that deserved? He didn't do anything except stand in one place knowing we could not save and got two killers. Now obviously this isn't every case but in this case the camp was not deserved.
0 -
I agree somewhat of what your saying but thats a topic for a different day.
Ok Fair enough.
0 -
Regarding your definition and assumptions:
I share your definitions of camping, but not of tunneling. As can be distinguished between proxy and face camping, different types of tunneling can also be distinguished. Personally, I distinguish between two forms, which I define as follows:
Tunneling: The killer player follows one or more survivor players immediately after they have been rescued.
Hard-core tunneling: The killer player chases a single survivor regardless of whether others are injured or down.
Strictly speaking, there are also mixed types of tunnelling and of camping.
If camping or tunneling begins in the end game (all or almost all generators are finished), I personally rate it as less objectionable.
If any of this behaviour is shown in the beginning of the game without an objective (tbagging, pointing constantly) provocation, then I rate it as a deliberate and deviant violation of morals and values.
0 -
But it’s wrong for survivors to use keys and flashlights along with perks like ds or unbreakable right? I personally don’t use any of those. But the amount of killers tunneling and face camping is going to make me become toxic as well. Can’t beat them joint them right?
The only thing I agree with is face camping or tunneling a survivor who is toxic or if it’s the end game and the killer hasn’t got a kill yet then yes that is tactical...... But if killers do it starting in the beginning of the match targeting a specific survivor until their dead for no reason is toxic and ruins their gaming experience. No one wants to be camped or tunneled for no reason at the beginning of the match.
move had matched where I got put on the hook then someone came and saved me and right as I got off the hook he put me back on it. That’s not right the other survivor was right there you could have hit them instead...
0 -
In relation to your comments and complaints (which are often found here): In your text I only read "I, I, I". Not in the literal sense, but figuratively. Your "criticism" sounds like a hurt, angry child who rebels against social norms because they limit their personal freedom, goals and needs. Apparently you see norms only as moral behavior determined by others and you lack the understanding of the need to adhere to them. In our society and in social groups, values are a prerequisite for living together harmoniously. Therefore, following norms is closely linked to reward and punishment. Obviously you have behaved or acted in a (norm-) deviating or provocatively deviant manner and have been punished for it. Social sanctions, such as contempt, reprimand, disapproval, social ostracism / exclusion or antipathy, have a social integration function and are intended to regulate socially undesirable and norm-violating behavior. Although an unpopular norm (like here: fair play) in differing interest groups (like here: killer vs. survivor) can, according to general understanding, only be achieved through a system of sanctions, I still hope that it is also possible through education. Even if I have to admit that the number of people who, from a selfish perspective, consider it advantageous not to adhere to this norm is quite high at DBD. It may help you (and others) realize that, despite the fact that you consider your individual freedom to be very important, it does not take precedence over other values in society. As I said, compliance with social norms is subject to social control. Therefore, if your behavior or actions are criticized (after your anger and being injured have disappeared) you should deal critically with the situation. Then you can ask yourself which norms were important from both perspectives (killer side and survivor side) and then try to objectively identify the one that stands higher in the value hierarchy.
It works more simply for one's own behavior (which we can only judge objectively with difficulty) with the golden rule: “What you don't want someone to do to you, don't do it to anyone else”. Caution, some act (depending on their current role) in such a way that it can be described as double standards.
Since I have the impression that some terms are possibly not familiar, I explain them:
Morality: totality of all current (social) norms, values and virtues.
Values / moral concepts: ethical and moral objectives of properties, actions etc. that are considered worth striving for/desirable or morally good, etc. Social norms can be derived from values.
Social norms: Are concrete rules for social action. Instructions for social action that relate to social behavior and define/prescribe possible forms of action in certain social situations.
Moral evaluation: subjective expression of approval (morally good, e.g. applause) or rejection (morally bad, e.g. boos) when assessing actions.
So what does that mean specifically in your case? What did you (apparently) do wrong?
The value is fairness
The moral / value concept is "Morally good people behave in the game according to the rules of fair play"
Social norm: "Treat others fairly" "Follow the rules of fair play"
Moral evaluation of unfair actions / behavior leads to messages or statements about your behavior or generalized statements about your person (characterization based on the behavior shown): "You behave unfairly" "You are selfish" "You behave immorally / not like a (morally) good person "
The moral evaluation aims to point out your moral error, your provocatively deviant action and to bring about a change from undesired / intolerable to desirable behavior.
Small addition for those interested: There is a document (The Universal Declaration of Human Duties) from the 50th anniversary of the United Nations (1997), which describes 19 articles on the duties of all people. Include among others: To behave in a peaceful, friendly, understanding and helpful manner (there is also the golden rule!). Each individual is subject to their conscience and is responsible for their own actions. It prohibits violence, but does not preclude self-defense in the event of an attack. Demand for just and fair behavior!
And depending on the discipline (criminology, sociology, psychology, neurobiology, etc.) there are different explanations for deviant behavior. It is also interesting that the antisocial personality disorder manifests itself through constant disregard for social norms, violation of the rights of others and the ruthless pursuit of one's own goals.
1 -
removed
Post edited by Crunc2h on0 -
@tennmio You seem to be confused about what is real and what is virtual. None of the things you said applies in a virtual enviroment where there is no real human-human interaction. And when i say real i don't mean the endgame chat i mean the actions that took place in the trial. You don't get to decide what is moral or what is not from a universal standpoint, you are not an absolute being. And you certainly can't empose onto other people. Majority of people deeming an action deviant and morally wrong doesn't necessarily make it so, especially not in a ######### video game. You don't have access to any higher truth compared to anyone else. I can face camp you all day long and have the best ######### moral compass in the world. Get some help and a life while you are at it.
4 -
@tennmio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_i40WBXJpZM did you write that? I want to know because i want to get a signature for mine.
0 -
Are we having a goddamn Phoenix Wright court battle in here?
3 -
So using a perk is Toxic? Nice...
0 -
That's the typical kind of response from people who can't debate a point objectively or effectively.
It has nothing to do with the topic being raised by the original post.
3 -
No, I haven't even seen that video yet.
0 -
Tunneling is totally fine honestly.
Proxy camping is also totally fine and makes sense to do.
Face camping im more conflicted about. I do think there should be an in-game penalty that impacts the hooked survivor. Sure the killer could likely not perform as well because 9f facecamping but the hooked survivor doesn't remotely care. I've personally been facecamped on first hook as first survivor down multiple times without being toxic. Its super frustrating having that happen after waiting 20 minutes for a game to have it essentially end in the first couple minutes. Im in the camp that the survivor on hook should somehow benefit sticking around longer on hook because they don't have any real reason to struggle if they know no one is going to save them (besides earning negligible points). I think that really ought to change especially early game but I don't know how exactly. Now, for facecamping after 5 gens done that I can totally understand and even though its frustrating, it does make sense.
0 -
I also love when a teammate was downed or on hook post-game demands you should have saved them and are a bad player because you didn't save them despite noed existing
1 -
The major fallacy of your argument is that you claim you aren't responsible for ruining someone else's game, the devs are. What a cop out that is. There are plenty of unfair and scummy things you can do in the real world that aren't technically illegal too, like if you go around with road rage making everyone else in the road miserable. Unless you cross a line it isn't illegal, so by your argument it's okay. It's not okay. Playing like a douche as a killer is also not okay. Killer only players love to act like anything they do is okay. It's not, just like anything survivors do isn't necessarily okay. If everyone played both sides and knew how ######### the other side can make you feel, maybe all this toxic crap would stop.
2 -
I feel like some of these things read like
If you kill people in the game = you kill people in real life.
It's a video game, I dont know why some of us are looking too deep into something that doesn't really mean anything.
1 -
@WeenieDog Exactly dude, i wouldn't even go out of my way to write in depth explanation over something that must be common sense. But I am really tired of people that hate mail after a game. It would be okay if they were to just say "trash" or "baby killer" or "######### camper" but i get ######### people threatening to kill me and my family or wanting my address like every 10 games. It is just insane.
1 -
@jester20k The point of all the things i wrote is that you people are taking this way more seriously than it is necessary. So you got t-bagged? A killer tunneled you and killed you? Oh poor, poor you, your day must be ruined. How dare those people trolled you like that? They have no right man absolutely no ######### right to do that. They must be ######### hanged for their offenses.You people amaze me really. If some action taken by a complete stranger in a video game makes you rage and ruins your day you got some deeper problems you gotta take care of. Laugh it off and go to the next game. Or if you just can't stand anyone "tunneling" you don't play the game. Simple as that. Stop being so ######### thin-skinned. Stop giving people reactions because that is why they are trolling you. Because it is fun to watch people like you crying so hard over a ######### video game.
Post edited by Crunc2h on2 -
I don't cry I don't give a ######### but I'm a 41 year old dude, there are a lot of younger people or emotionally unstable people that other players interact with that won't be able to handle it. You frankly sound like a jerk and a bully who cares more about your own ego than other people being able to chill out and have a good time. There are people on the other side of that character, not like you care obviously.
1 -
@jester20k Look, i am also a rank 1 survivor. There were a lot of times where i got face camped first hook or i got tunneled entire game 4 times in a row. And it was indeed quite frustrating. But never once i typed any hate mail after the game. Never. I just went to the next game.Because i understand what other side is trying to do. Nobody deserves to hear the ######### i hear when playing killer almost every game over what i did in the trial. People can be emotionally unstable but that doesn't give them the right to attack the other side because they didn't play the way they wanted them to. Which is the reason why i wrote this post. Nothing done in the game is actually toxic it is the people that make it a big deal. And that is a problem they need to face. There is nothing i can do about that. You can be a nice killer farming with the survivors and that is just fine. But you can't tell me i am a jerk and a bully because i played the game the way that is most fun to me while not caring much about the feelings of total strangers. This is a game in which someone wins and someone loses. And there is no real consequences. That is all there is to it and if someone can't understand that as i said there is nothing i can do about that other than feeling sorry for them.
1 -
That may be your wish, which is naturally explained by the denial of responsibility, cognitive dissonance theory and party through a self-serving bias. Still, you're wrong. In the game DBD itself there are two groups (killer players and survivor players) who are in conflict with each other regarding their goals. Both groups belong to the superordinate group of online multiplayer. Those who interact online in social groups with other individuals within a game. In social interactions and groups there are always norms and values (I have already explained both) that are based on morality. Morality usually refers to the factual patterns, conventions, rules or principles of specific individuals, groups or cultures and thus the totality of currently applicable values, norms and virtues. The group distinguishes its members from non-members who are attributed to the environment through togetherness. Membership becomes perceptible through recurring interrelationships, but it persists beyond pure interaction. Norms are formed through participation in group interaction (here: DBD playing together). However, these norms are often only "visible" or expressed for everyone in the event of a conflict. For example, those who do not explicitly contradict the behavior of the other group members during an interaction commit themselves to a self-presentation that they will accept the behavior - also for the future - without being able to legitimately protest against it. That is why we find ourselves in the forum in a discussion about the norms and values of our group. If your reasoning were correct, we would have no discussion, no conflicts and you would not have had any experience of social sanction due to your misconduct in the game. You assert, without any evidence or argument, that morality is situational. This is wrong. In virtual space, the same rules apply to groups if it doesn't suit you and some of the others. Incidentally, the correctness of all my statements and arguments can be confirmed by the simplest research (specialist literature) (e.g. Wikipedia, dictionaries). People with damage in areas of the brain that control emotional assessments also usually have great problems with moralizing actions. Researchers like the Bielefeld neuropsychologist Hans Joachim Markowitsch suspect such defects also in psychopaths (see GuG 7-8 / 2009, p. 28).
Paul Rozin of the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia has been researching the power of disgust since the 1980s. As he and his colleagues have shown, immorality literally arouses physical disgust in us. Disgust, explains Rozin, not only has a biological protective function and already saved our ancestors from ingesting potentially toxic food. The "useful aversion" has been carried over to the rules of the community in the course of evolution. Injustice, fraud and murder have disgusted us ever since - and due to the common neural equipment, it probably feels the same for everyone. Prof. Paul Bloom received the Klaus J. Jacobs Research Prize 2017 for his research on the origins and development of moral thinking and behavior in children. He (like others) was able to prove that we are born with an elementary sense of justice and fairness. Paul Bloom concludes from a whole series of experiments: Babies as early as three months old can distinguish between good and bad behavior. They have a sense of morality and they show compassion; they cry when others cry. Even toddlers distribute sweets fairly and they expect wrongdoers to be punished. You assert, without any evidence or argument, that morality is situational. This is wrong. In virtual space, the same rules apply to groups if it doesn't suit you and some of the others. Moral ideas are not always and completely reflected in behavior (apparently applicable to you). All too often it can even be observed that people consciously or unconsciously deny or reject their moral responsibility. People have a fundamental need to maintain a stable, positive self-image and to be socially accepted. For example, acting immorally or making wrong decisions can lead to discomfort that goes against our typically positive self-perception (cognitive dissonance). Following the theory of cognitive dissonance, people strive for consistency between what they think and how they act (Festinger, 1957). Dissonances that arise due to the discrepancy between what we believe and our actual behavior are perceived as a threat to our self-image. In response to this threat, people try to reduce it through various strategies. This can either be done by changing behavior to align with dissonant cognition, changing dissonant cognition to justify our behavior, or adding more cognitions to justify our behavior. The processes of dissonant reduction run essentially unconsciously and are therefore not only rational, but rather rationalizing. People who are largely concerned with dissonant reduction, i.e. who want to convince themselves that they have acted correctly, often tend to behave irrationally and inappropriately. Wills (1997) and Kanning (2000) described cognitive and behavioral self-enhancement strategies, and Tajfel and Turner (1986) individual and collective self-enhancement strategies. In the course of cognitive strategies, people can tend to change their "view of things", for example to see themselves more positively or to question the critics' ability to judge. (https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-06175-3_45-1 )
0 -
@tennmio Okay my friend, i am apparently a sociopath and morally bankrupt for trying to have some fun. Regardless i don't have any time or energy to maintain this shitshow. Since we don't really understand each others perspective regarding this issue, let's leave it here. That is your opinion, i don't agree with it and that is fine.
4 -
Is any of what the author posted official or is he/she just posting things they would desire?
0 -
@jaredlxxiii its just my take on some things. Nothing official.
1 -
The problem with this game is that the devs aren’t taking any responsibility or control over the game and they are basically leaving in the killers hand to choose whether or not to ruin the game completely for a survivor.Now this is entirely the fault of the devs, if they give this kind of choice to killers to freely camp/tunnel then of course it’s going to happen.
Now despite it being the devs/games fault that this can happen and someone’s fun can be ruined by another, it’s still a choice made by the killer. If a killer chooses to be a dick in game and ruin someone’s fun, then don’t be too surprised that you get messages and stuff thrown at you. Again I don’t condone it but I’m just saying don’t be surprised when either happens because the game allows it all.
0 -
you cannot tunnel more than one person.
tunneling is called that, because you don't diverge from your route. this route being "kill X guy"
if you chase anyone else at any point, how can it be tunneling? you're just playing the game
4 -
Now this is a very good discussion, however I have to disagree with some statements you made.
"And toxicty levels are MUCH higher on the survivor side " - Now this is just wrong, killers are equally as toxic, but since you have 4 survivors, it is statistically more likely to meet a toxic player than a killer.
Now with the made up rules, I agree some take them to the next level and you shouldn't expect player to follow those so called "unwritten rules", i'll get to this point later, i'll react to your next statement first.
"In situation 2 and 4 you left the default gameplay route of a killer and just want to satisfy your own emotional needs" - DBD is unfortunately the type of game, where one side has the power to ruin experience and fun of the other side. Now that doesn't mean it should be abused, because toxic behavior is more likely to attract even more toxicity in the end, but also keep in mind you're playing with other humans, without them there's no game. Playing for the sake of ruining someone's fun is just ill will and shouldn't be tolerated, regardless whether it's video game, sport or pretty much anything.
Unwritten rules are some kind of middle ground for both sides that was made back when the game came out. it was made by group of like minded players that used to play together on specific regions. The whole purpose of these rules was to create respect and fun for both sides. For instance: Survivors wouldn't abuse infinites and in return killers wouldn't camp. As the time passed people outside the "groups" would notice and try to apply it to their matches, but other teammates or opponents weren't either aware or just wouldn't care. This where the cycle of "I expect you to follow the unwritten rules" began and it still lasts to this day. However people decided to abuse this and try to insult or mock you when the match doesn't go their way. What most of the DBD players lack nowadays is empathy and fail to see the main point of those unwritten rules. In the end don't be a dick and treat others the way you want to be treated.
2 -
You don't need all that to explain your point. I can explain it much more simply with one simple statement.
I and I alone am responsible for MY fun and nobody else's. If somebody else is doing something that annoys me, it falls to me as a player to get good enough to put a stop to it by my ability to play better.
There is no ands, ifs, or buts about this. If you aren't good enough to stop somebody in the game from doing something you dislike, you just aren't good enough. If this makes the game unfun for you, you need to stop and ask yourself if you like the game enough to get better, can grow a thicker skin in order to stop the thing from annoying you, or if maybe it's time for you to find something more worth your freetime.
2 -
@FrenziedRoach i know i just wanted to answer general arguments made against camping and tunneling. Doesn't really matter though because i know no one gives a ######### about it and community won't change at all. Wanted my opinions to be out there.
0 -
I agree with alot of what your saying but I feel what your saying can't be applied to every situation. As I said before people can tunnel and camp to be toxic,and some people find being toxic to another player fun, but that doesn't excuse the toxic behavior. If a person bully someone else for fun does that automatically excuse the bullying?
If a killer is tunneling and camping a survivor with the intention of being toxic because its fun for them, they are a bully.
2 -
If you’re a killer and you don’t let all 4 survivors escape unfettered, you’re an absolute monster.
0 -
@JFF I still get hate mails more than 4 times over when playing killer compared to playing survivor. We all know basic statistics don't worry, it is just more than the numbers expected. If you are denying that, you never played killer or you are insanely lucky.
Regarding other points please read @FrenziedRoach 's comment.
1 -
The core point is that most survivors want an NPC to beat and if not they want a human to bully as they please. It's a bit sociopathic in a way and I get disturbed by my fellow survivors all too often in their behaviour and desire to bully. Does the game sometimes go sideways? Yes, I just got killed fast as a survivor earlier. Now, it ain't fun, but sometimes the dice just rolls that way and I lose out. That is in no way an excuse to bully killers.
I think the best solution to avoid this sort of toxicity is to turn the game into a 4v4 where both players have the capacity to kill each other. I mean, we usually just call those games PvP games and shooters, but asymmetrical games will always engender more toxicity due to the asymmetrical nature of it.
Actually, now that I think of it, it might be better to introduce two killers to a match against 5 survivors to see if it changes behaviour somewhat. Because ultimately the 4v1 format is a failed format when it comes to toxicity.
0
