Camping killer needs fix
Comments
-
Nobody said to punish that (an endgame camp) that's fair and okay and as long as killers who do it whole match doesn't put some sense in themselves we will have this problem nothing we can do about it not anymore tho so yeah I agree in that matter with you
0 -
In my opinion camping is fair at endgame and if there's survs around the hook every other reason to camp for me is a dick move and that will remain like that we can agree to disagree because this discussion kzpt going since yesterday it's time to let it go
0 -
I'm glad you agree. I think it would be very good and no one gets frustrated, killer gets punished, I don't get punished because the killer decided to camp me
1 -
And yet he had to use sarcasm with "participation trophies so they feel better". If one got camped the whole match it is obvious that person shouldn't be punished. I guess 0 rank progression would only be fair.
0 -
The thing is, killers do get punished for camping. Take this match, for example:
Not the best screenshot out there, but that is me being camped by a Plague. Legacy Meg and Yun-Jin managed to save me, and in the end we all escaped.
If she hadn't camped me, she would've been able to win. There is punishment.
2 -
I agree, no point gained but no point lost.
0 -
There are already a number of in-game solutions to camping. No mechanical changes are necessary. Seriously, who said you are guaranteed to every get off a hook, or that rescues would be stress free? Why do you think Borrowed Time exists or the Styptic Agent? You should all know about protection hits, shoulder saves, and even taking a hook in tactical trade right? This game has been around since 2016; camping has likewise been around as a tactic since the start. Thousands upon thousands of Players have managed to deal with it; you can too. The reason Dead by Daylight is successful is it is centered on Player agency, i.e. we are not Bots but flesh and blood people who exercise choice over what we do in the game. Situations, just like life, are sometimes unfair and hard. Nobody enjoys their time on the hook, but sometimes you simply suck it up and buy as much time for your team as you can, knowing that you are going to probably die on that hook. Next time it might be someone else. Your team might even surprise you and yank you off safely right from under the nose of that Killer. It happens all the time.
Threads like this are a waste of time. If even 10% of the energy spent on whining, moaning, and groaning about Killer tactics on this forum was spent practicing solutions in game, we wouldn't even need to have this conversation.
0 -
'Thousands upon thousands of players have managed to deal with it'
But that doesn't mean they should. Bad mechanisms are bad mechanisms. Much like Warframe deleted so many aspects of its pet system because they were just grievances. Just because people dealt with it didn't mean they enjoyed it.
And if basically everyone is saying 'camping sucks', then camping is an issue from a game design perspective and should be addressed.
'Just rush gens' is nice in theory, but in execution in general play it still nets the killer 2 kills because there's not enough time in an uncoordinated team to do all five gens in two hookstates.
It should just be punished more heavily than it is. Slow down the hook while the killer is nearby and not in a chase. And before someone says 'they tried that and it got abused': The 'abuse' was forcing the killer not to camp. That's just using the system as intended; to prevent camping.
0 -
What do you not understand about "Player Agency?" Killers are Players too, just like you. They want the same options to make choices as anyone else. Artificial constraints which force them to play like the Ghosts in an old Pac Man game will simply cost us Killers. The game does not work without at least one Killer for every four Survivors. If you reduce them to having less agency than the Survivors, they simply won't play. I wouldn't blame them. The mechanics are fine. Survivors just need to step up and accept that there isn't going to be any Deus Ex Machina from the DEV to fix their problems for them. This is the game; if you don't enjoy it, you know where the door is located.
I play both Survivor and Killer in equal measure. I manage, playing SOLO I might add, to escape more often than I die on the hook. I have the same probability of running into the niche Killer tactics we are discussing as anyone else. I am, by no means, an awesome Survivor. So if I can manage and get by with a little help from my friends in the match, so can you (and everyone else). After five years, the DEV repeatedly stating those tactics are valid and aren't changing, and countless people managing to get by just fine, I think it is time to accept the obvious and tackle the problem in the ONLY productive manner. YOU are the only part of this equation you have power over. Thus, YOU are the one who will have to find solutions in the match.
0 -
Here's a question for you: Why are things getting buffed or nerfed, instead of everyone 'just dealing with it'?
Everything in the game has some margin of possible change. I mean, look at all the complaints about keys. Couldn't we just tell killers to suck it up, too, and just 'deal with it'?
You can keep pointing to the game's history, but that is meaningless. An old problem is still a problem. You can point to the devs' stance, but that, too, is meaningless. They are not infallible.
Ultimately, what matters is whether or not camping is good for the game, and pretty much everyone says it's not, even those opposed to changing it. You're the first person I've seen make an actual argument about it, and I don't think it's a particularly strong one, since there's nothing that says that this couldn't be paired with other changes that improve the overall killer experience.
Camping is legitimately the worst thing DBD has on offer, and there's no one that actually enjoys it. So it's only natural that people start to think about discouraging it more.
0 -
There is a difference between buffing, debuffing, and reworking Add-on(s) and Perks. You still have Player Agency, i.e. a CHOICE, to choose said things or leave them off. Artificial mechanics which strictly regulate how Players can function in the game remove Player Agency entirely. These are apples an oranges. If you remove agency, you lose Players; it is as simple as that. Nobody wants to be reduced to playing a glorified BOT. Without the option to choose to Camp, Tunnel, Slug, Herd, and/or Mori, Killers are nothing more than chase engines who have to run around like the four Ghosts in Pac Man. Choice, or at least an illusion of it, has to exist to keep the interest of any Player in any game. What you fail to understand is that the DEV tested all sorts of things over the years and came to the same conclusion over and over again. Not only will Survivors immediately abuse any artificial constraint placed on Killers, but Players simply opt out of playing Killer when they realize they have little in the way of choices to make. When it comes to "chase" games there are far better ones than DbD. What makes this game unique is PLAYER AGENCY and the unpredictable (and sometimes unfair) nature of it.
So let me lay it out for you again:
- There are no Bots.
- Since both roles are required for the game to work DbD must avoid loss of either role.
- Since you need at least one Killer to four Survivors, there is a smaller margin of error on losing Killers.
So unless you find an ENTIRELY NEW WAY to rebuild DbD from the ground up to provide Killers new, alternate choices besides running around like mindless Bots in chases with zero tactics to apply, these biased (dare I say tunnel-vision) constraints are DOA. Players who take on the role of Killers expect AND DESERVE exactly the same agency as those playing Survivor.
2 -
Just to be clear what are the camped survivors supposed to do while the others are doing gens.......nothing, oh how fun.
Tell you what though if your ok with saying just avoid failures then let's have the killers speeds reduced to match survivors or survivors increased to match match killers.
if you did that I'm ok with saying then just don't get caught becuase when two equally skilled players are playing against each other the survivor woukd have an actual chance to avoid the failure state.
Because as the game is currently designed the killer will win the chase in if they are both similarly skilled because the killer is faster. Funny I doubt you'd be ok with that probably some excuse about how it was intended that killers would catch survivors, then hook them, then go after another survivor, right?
0 -
You can and the devs have. Look at ds it was nerfed becuase some people were abusing it so everyone got it nerfed there's nothing wrong with that.
Sort of like speed limits yes you could safely drive faster than the speed limit but there's a few morons out there that ruin it for everyone.
0 -
Why do you people post with absolutely no understanding of the game? Did you not learn the lesson that it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt? Killers (some anyway) are faster because there are FOUR Survivors. The game expects you to get hit, downed, and put on that hook. You are expected to have to work as a team to overcome the Killer's brute force.
1 -
Just to be clear without camping slugging tunneling herding and moris the killers are Bots, man it sure is a good thing that they didn't miss one, could you imagine what would have happened if they didn't have mori in the game then no one would play killer right. Wait does that mean every match where the killer doesn't offer a mori he's suffering through being a bot? Do you ever play without a mori offering?
Man thay would be terrible, it's either that or you entire argument was bs and you just Wana camp because it's a crutch you rely on.
Unless again maybe your going to say we'll it's OK to loose one of those things and still play....but then camping was one of those things....so I guess your ok with removing camping as an option as long as the others are left in right? Or was your entire argument something you don't actually believe in and just hoping to keep camping in cause you rely on it so much?
0 -
What the people making, or agreeing with, these 'punish camping' threads fail to realize (or actively ignore) is that there's VALID REASONS TO CAMP.
Instead, they see 'Camping = bad' and 'This punishes what I hate' and stop there. That's all they care about. Some of the people here even said 'This makes the Killer stop camping, and that's all I want'.
Player agency? Nope!
Killer's tactics? Naw!
Killer's enjoyment? Hell no!
All they want is ALL CAMPING PUNISHED. It does not matter if you needed to camp to slow down generators. Or if Survivors are hiding nearby. Or if Survivors are going for an unsafe unhook.
All they want is for Killers to be forced away from the hook so they can get easy saves. They don't want to deal with knowing when to unhook or when to do gens. They want every unhook to succeed.
And to do that, they need draconian, over-the-top punishments on Killers who dare to get in the way.
2 -
Hey look at that you posted exactly as I said you would about how survovs are supposed to get caught etc.
but if that was the case then Bubba was intended to not just sit infornt of the hook waiting for thr game to end. And I guess you and other killers can't just use the well just don't get caught argument to justify camping as survivors are supposed to get caught during a match. Multiple times it seems.
Man that whole not removing all doubt by speaking up must be hard on you i take it?
0 -
No, I said it isn't anyone's place but the Killer to decide what they are going to do. If they Camp for a reason, that is their choice. If they Camp to be a jerk, that is likewise their choice. What I'm saying is that even when Perks and Add-on(s) are changed, Players still have the CHOICE to take them or not. Artificial mechanics inserted into the game take away Player agency. The are not the same thing.
2 -
Actually, Bubba was designed with exactly that in mind. That is why his chainsaw is designed to hit multiple Survivors. There is a reason Insidious exists and is in the game. There is a reason the basement has those convenient places to stand where you can't be seen. If you look at the evidence, the DEV have actually designed a lot of the options you are complaining about right into the game. Has it ever occurred to you that Hooks tend to appear in places with convenient places to hide, or on top of hills where access bottlenecks? Again, I'm pointing out that the game not only condones Players making these choices, it has been designed to make them viable options. Choice is everything.
2 -
You have my apology, I absolutely did. I don't know why I thought you were talking to me.
1 -
No I didn't say they can differentiate. I said they can punish everyone for the actions of some of the group. Like some survivors abused ds so they changed it. Some people can drive so the made everyone follow speed limits and some killers do nothing but camp all day so they can address that to.
It was in reference to your point that boiled down to I don't abuse camping so don't take it away from me
0 -
No I think you stated quite clearly that without those selected options the killers were nothing more than Bots. Did you want to change your point on that then? Admit that losing one of those options would not reduce killer to Bots. If that wasn't what you intended by your post my apologies, here is your chance to clarify...
So, do you think losing one of those options would reduce killers to little more than Bots or not?
0 -
Yup want it removed. But tobanswer you question about player agency I'm curious did you have the same response to the ds nerf?
Was thay also bad because it removed player agency? Survivor tactics? Survivor enjoyment? So how I think you don't take issue with that almost as though your argument is bs and you really just want to keep camping cause it's your crutch. But hey correct me if I'm wrong, we're you or were you not opposed to all previous Survivor nerfs including ds?
0 -
Losing any of the very few options Killers have, besides chase, would be devastating to Player agency. More to the point, if they were to remove even ONE of the big three, i.e. Camp, Tunnel, or Slug, it would not stop there. You and your ilk would just be emboldened by the success and move on to getting the next one removed too. :) That is also something we have seen over and over again. Player agency is a harsh mistress, you either have it or you don't. But let me echo a point I made earlier (as have many others besides me):
The DEV have already told you it isn't going to happen. They have gone five years now, so I think they are pretty happy with their final call. They experimented a great deal and came to the same conclusion over and over again. You act like these ideas you guys are putting forward are new and revolutionary. The are not. They are simply a rehash of tested notions repackaged and vomited back up with salt and angst. There isn't going to be any Deus Ex Machina. You can argue with me until you are blue in the face. It doesn't matter if you could change my mind or not, this Rubicon has already been crossed and there is no going back.
3 -
Hahaha OK sure everybsingle survivor used ds and abused it. And every other nerf out there was also to address an abuse that every single survivor was using and abusing. Funny how every killer must be a Saint and every survivor the worst human to ever live in your mind. I'm guessing that's not actually the case itsnjust the argument you have to make to support your position... maybe don't make it next time if you don't believe it
0 -
Sorry I'm having trouble following you now. We're the killers glorified bots if they loose one of those things or not? Or now is it only if they lose camping and tunneling and slugging. Could you make up your mind on what your claiming to believe real quick?
I say claiming because it seems like you don't really believe what you post you just really don't want to loose camping but I could be wrong so I'm looking for clarification
Edit sorry posted bits meant to type bots
0 -
Do you need me to use smaller words? I'm not sure where your failure to comprehend is taking place. I've already told you what I think, that Player Agency is paramount in this game for both Killer and Survivor. That means that mechanics which constrain what people can do in the match are a bad idea. I think losing any agency whatsoever is the wrong approach, and I am backed up by the fact that this has ALREADY been tested. I'm not stating anything new, or claiming divine wisdom. I'm stating the results of test after test after test. Killers must have agency to make their own choices once the match begins or the game doesn't work. You have to break some eggs to make an omelet, and thus you must take some bad for the greater good. That means that the two minutes we take on the hook from time to time is the price we pay for the game to work overall. Some of us understand that and pay our dues. Some of us are selfish little snots who think the world revolves around them and don't care about the big picture.
0 -
The size of your words is fine it's the consistency of them that's the problem. Before you said that killers would be nothing more than Bots if they lost one of 5 things you listed. Then you seemed tobl reduce those all import things to just three. So just make it simple do you still believe what you posted about needing those 5 things or the killers become little more than Bots like you said or not. It shouldn't be too hard to say yes that is what I believe that's why I typed it in, or no that's not what I really believe I just said that because I need camping in this game and this sounded like a better argument in my head than
Camping is good because I like camping don't get rid of it.
I await your clarification
0 -
Oh, I get it now. You want to play rhetorical games with me rather than answering any of the arguments I put forward. There are a couple of issues with your approach, not the least of which is that I am famous (or infamous if you prefer) for enjoying grinding people like you into the ground. The other issue is that I neither like nor dislike Camping. I consider it just a niche tool, and have no emotional attachment to it one way or the other. I consider removing Killer choices bad because as I stated:
- All previous attempts tested resulted in Survivors abusing the heck out of it.
- Killers quit playing when they realized they had few choices to make.
I simply play the game to win, regardless of what role I'm currently taking on. I will happily Herd, Camp, Tunnel, Slug, and use a Mori if that is the right call for a specific match. Tactics are not strategies, and attempting to use tactics as a strategy is a losing proposition. You don't know what is the best tactic to use in a match until you arrive. By in large, I find Camping inefficient because Generator pressure is a better route nine times out of ten, to preventing the gates from ever powering up before I kill everyone. That is the same reason I rarely use NOED. I don't like to build for an End Game that I never intend to reach. You are simply barking up the WRONG tree. You are making assumptions about why I am debating with you. You assume it is because I am afraid of losing my favorite toy. Your failure to comprehend is your problem, not mine. I simply understand the game, understand the history, and know the testing. You clearly do not.
0 -
Oh no I don't want rhetorical questions I want a strait answer to my question
Your post said losing one of those 5 option you listed would reduce a killer to little more than a bot. Then you seemed to change your mind on this point. So do you believe what you posted or not?
0 -
Ok, let me try to explain this in more plain terms because I'm very consistent. I suspect I'm losing you where we come to philosophical concepts of player agency, i.e. free will. I believe removing any of them does reduce Killers to being glorified Bots. If their choices are not their own, but ordained by mechanics put in to force them to act in specific ways, there is no other way of looking at it. You either believe in free will or you do not. You either have free agency or you do not. It isn't something you can half ass. For example, the DEV clearly understand this (desire it even). Consider Totems. They could make them MANDATORY, yet another hurdle that you have no choice but to complete before exiting the match. Because they understand that Survivors should have agency, they make cleansing them optional. It is one many choices Survivors can make. Killers have fewer choices by in large, and the loss of any of them will turn them into chase bots. Without the ability to camp or honeypot as an option (taken or not) they are chase bots whose only options are who to chase and whether I hook now or slug to continue chasing. That's it. So yes, the ability to ambush, particularly in and around a hook is paramount. Will Killers do it all the time? No. They don't do it all the time now; that is merely hyperbole. But what is important is they have the option to do it. Does that answer your question?
2 -
Man it's like you took great pains to write a long post ignore the really simple question. Do you believe your own post or not
You said loosing any of the 5 killer plays would effectively reduce them to bots. Do you believe this or not?
You wrote it Do you believe it or not? Either way is fine there's no wrong answer just gotta be honest.
Edit sorry to clarify I want a strait yes or no answer because you seem to change you mind when you post large things so I'm trying to make sure I don't misunderstnd you
0 -
What part of what I just wrote do you NOT understand? I said yes, it reduces them to Bots. I literally just said it in the post you answered. At this point, I have to believe you are playing dumb to avoid the debate, because there is no way you are this obtuse.
1 -
Sorry i was editing I know you posted it but I didn't want to misunderstand becuase it got lost in the rest of your post.
So to clarify losing one of those 5 effectively reduces you to a bot.
My next question is do you play a mori offering every single match?
0 -
No, and stop playing dumb. The point is not that I use a Mori in every match (I rarely use them) but that I have the OPTION to use them. I know where you want to go with these inane questions, and it is a moot direction. We are talking about CHOICE, not application. Players must have agency or they lose interest. Whether they exercise it or not, it is important that it is an option.
1 -
While i wish they would just come to understand the very nicely laid out points you presented it seems like they wont and just want to argue for the sake of it.
3 -
Right like you said it's important to have choices. The point though about the loss of one choice invalidating all other options is where I take issue. So how is it that the loss of a single choice can be so important yet notnmatter at all when you loose one?
Bear in mind that not having a mori offering means you lost that option in the match or as you put it become become little more than Bots. But if your going to respond with well it only matters if you lose the choice sometimes becuase you can always choose to play the offering and that's OK, then I'm going to have to ask if there was an offering you could burn theb would you be OK with my proposal? After all now it's not effecting player agency to the point killers become Bots right?
No I'd imagine now there's something else that's wrong , becuade let's face it at the end if the day your real problem with it is that you are a camper.
But I'll still hear it what would be the next problem?
0 -
Lmao facts right here
0 -
Another "fix camping" post here lmao
0 -
No, the only real problem is you can't debate any of the assertions I've made so you are playing rhetorical games and trying to keep the discussion about me rather than the topic. You lost that debate hours ago. You aren't fooling anyone reading these posts, and insulting our intelligence with these pathetic attempts at misdirection is almost amusing. You lost the argument, but to be honest it was DOA. There is no discussion on this matter that has any meaning because, as has been stated by many of us many times, the DEV have already told you they aren't changing it. You are a whiner that likes to blame your personal failures on other people and/or the game. All this jibber-jabber has been about lying to us but more importantly about lying to yourself. It is far easier to try and vilify some tactic in the game or other Players than it is to accept that you simply don't have the right stuff.
Rather than attempt to take stock and learn how to improve yourself, you come here (you and quite a few others) to moan and groan and try to get someone else to solve your problems. It is pathetic. It tells us everything we need to know about your personal character and ethics. Then you compound that image we have of you by playing with rhetoric rather than honestly having a discussion about the topic. What you could be doing in a thread is asking people how they deal with Campers, what solutions have they found effective, and asking what you can do to better deal with the issue. You aren't doing that; you aren't even paying lip service to pretending to do that. Even though thousands upon thousands manage to get by just fine, you (and your ilk) pretend like there are no solutions other than having the DEVs fix it for you. What a strange, small context you live inside.
0 -
Sorry your post went on for quite a while but I didn't see an answer, or I missed it becuase apparently just getting to the point is too honest for you.
So did you say it would be OK if there was an offering that would alow you to camp? becuase now it's a still a choice? I mean then it would be no different choice wise from a mori right?
Oh and to be clear I'm not avoiding your arguments about the importance of choices I'm just going to 1 go through them 1 at a time so you can't keep changing you mind part way through, and 2 making sure you actually believe the points your making because why argue a point that no one in the argument actually believes, not much different from a red hearing at that point
0 -
Even with this latest patch they buffed BT to counter just about all forms of camping and we still get people that complain about it...like when will they be happy?
0 -
Sorry, no dice. I'm not playing rhetorical games with you. I took the time to read EVERY SINGLE ONE of your posts since you started here at the Forum. It didn't take long, but it was tedious. My assessment of you is bang on the nose. Since you like the play games and talk about me, let's talk about you. I'm going to start quoting from all your posts putting them up in a wonderful little montage that showcases what you are about EXACTLY. I was going to work on a new chapter in a project I'm writing, but I've got writer's block tonight so it is YOUR lucky day. I'm already compiling the hits; I have to warn you, when they are laid out together, it doesn't show you in the best light. If you were a character on SNL you would be Debbie Downer.
0 -
They won't be happy because they aren't really looking for solutions. They just like to complain, more than playing the game I think. They like having pity parties here. They don't want to work, they just want things handed to them. To some degree I blame canned ham games like World of Warcraft; they have brought up a whole generation of so-called Gamers who are used to simply succeeding by showing up.
0 -
More like gen rush needs to be addressed.. there literally nothing a killer can do other than camp if he get 3/4 hooks per match which is the average if you play normally. The current game state is pitiful.. its not a surprise that you get instant matchs as killer, reasons are obvious.
0 -
Fair enough I think I've been pretty upfront about what I want, to stop camping and why, becuase It's incredibly boring.
And I didn't mean to imply that I didn't read you post just that when I read it I didn't see an answer to the one question it was proporting to answer, which was and is, do you still object if camping required an offering.
As the inclusion of an offering would still comply with the not taking away player choice that you have been claiming is the reason that camping shouldn't be removed, it would seem to me like you wouldn't have a problem, unless it's not really about choice you just want to keep camping in.
So yes or no to camping with an offering like moris?
0 -
Again, don't play stupid. I've read all your posts already, and you have a very specific way of evading topics and trying to turn the conversation. I haven't commented on whether or not Camping should require an offering because that is a moronic suggestion in the first place. I wish there was a nice way of saying it. We touched on Add-on(s) and Offerings earlier, talking about how they are different from tactics. What you are talking about is not only moronic it would be so cost prohibitive to try to code that it would bankrupt BEhavior even trying to attempt it. Let me cue you in on something else, since I know you SO MUCH BETTER now that I took the time to read all your comments (and the discussions you started). Camping and Tunneling are entirely SUBJECTIVE terms in regards to this game. There is no agreed upon meaning to either. How do you code something that cannot be defined? I know how you would define it, after reading all your drivel. But you are new, and apparently cursed. The sheer VOLUME of your discussions and comments regarding weird little problems and reports you make is insane. I've never seen anyone here constantly having issues with the most basic things. It is almost as if you are just making them up for attention. If all those are genuine, you must wander around with a little black cloud over your head, and it is always raining on you.
No, I don't think Killers should have to put in offerings to practice Player Agency in the game. The very notion is hair-brained. You haven't gotten any traction in ANY of your Discussions, polls, and threads because they are full of fuzzy thinking, self-serving nonsense, and all boil down to you thinking something isn't fun for YOU. I particularly like how in one you start it with, "Third time is the charm..." and go on to blame Killer mains for your failures to get any traction in your posts. You even blame others for your failures here.
1 -
Camping it's a legit strategy.
The only thing that needs to get fixed its survivors NOT LOSING a PIP.
That's f***ing it, solved.
1 -
Yeah, I can see that. This is a constructive suggestion, short and to the point. I should take a page out of your book. I agree, people who get camped out and spend the ENTIRE time on the hook (which means waiting out Stage-1 and struggling to the end of Stage-2) should at the least, not lose a Pip.
1 -
Well see now I must say I'm confused first you said that loosing camping tunneling slugging mories or herding would reduce Killers to little more than Bots.
But you made an exception for mories because even though you don't get them in every game it was not reducing killers to bots becuase they still had the choice to play the offering or not.
From a player agency perspective wouldn't that mean that having camping function in the same way would not be objectionable from a player agency perspective, which you have stated is your issue with removal of camping.
As for the definition that is so incredibly difficult to define and program I would submit thay an easy definition would be if killer is within x of hooked survivor he is camping. Seems simple Strait forwards and easy enough to code.
I'm told that there was actually code in place to stop the hook timer but that they ran into issues when they tested it becuase survivors would force chases near hooks, hence the chase exception. Not sure how they managed such a cost prohibitive bit of coding but they apparently found a way
Sorry Herding not hearing
0
