Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping
Comments
-
The -very first- PTB was testing out anti-camping measures. They've come out and stated, again, that they're looking for ways to get rid of camping. They are trying to get rid of it, it's not intended.
And insidious has application outside of camping, it just works worse outside of it, but you could use it to camp a half-finished gen and use that as bait instead of another survivor, for example.
And again: Killers should be punished for camping because -they're the ones doing it-.
1 -
Survivors aren't just feeding me kills. Survivors don't have enough time to do gens. Nothing they do has any effect on Facecamping. I'm up to 14 games now and the survivors have thrown everything at me. Straight doing gens. Trying for Dead Hard/Borrowed Time saves. Dual Flashlight saves (Which was probably the game that survivors were most successful).
I just facecamped 1 survivor to death, then on to the next. So far, I have yet to see anything that is effective against facecamping and the survivors are much-much more skilled than I am most times. I suck with Leatherface, I'm using a no-skill tactic and I'm going against some really skills survivors and I'm coming out ahead.
This isn't the survivors fault at all.
2 -
Face camping isn't an intended play, and is what the devs are talking about. Regular camping is intended.
Regular camping cannot be "punished out of the game." The entire hook system has to be changed. Ground up. If you actually thought camping was bad this would be your argument. However that kinda change would result in you being punished for playing poorly. So you'd rather they just change it to make it zero effort easy for you, and punishing for killer.
Either ask for the entire hook system to get removed or get better at the game as is. Demanding punishment for an intended mechanic doesn't work. It just makes it easier for you to exploit.
1 -
to be honest, i'm having more fun and kills when camping rather than when i "normally" play.
basement bubba main on the way.
2 -
From my Solo queue experience (which is the only Survivor experience I have) you can only punish a true dedicated facecamping build IF the team manages to do 2 gen worth of progress (1 gen done and 2 gens at 50% for example) before someone gets downed, if a Survivor gets downed without at least 1 gen worth of progress across the map doesnt matter if the other 3 gen rush, odds are at least 1 more person is going down in that match, especially if the basement is in the middle of the map or a small map.
1 -
Ah yes. it's not 'Survivors should stop feeding camping Killers'. It's 'Killers should be punished for not letting me unhook'/'Killers should be punished for playing in a way I disapprove of'.
9 -
The real problem is a different one. I think those 2 screenshots explain it better than 1000 words:
4 -
I love your phrasing! "insidious has application outside of camping, it just works worse outside of it, but you could use it to camp a half-finished gen"
I remember that PTB btw. Devs tested how stopping the hook progress would work when the killer is to close. Aaaaand survivors abused it by looping the killer around the hook.
You could say that they outplayed themselves.
6 -
No, thats the exact problem me and the dev refer to, it actually supports my argument.
Against a camper Solos have no clue of the camping so they have to quit the gen, get there and either figure whats happening and walking away (which gives the Killer a lot of extra time since its work not being done on a gen) or being tricked and getting downed (which essentially dooms a third Survivor since now its almost impossible to get all gens done before those 2 die), thats why devs want to tone down how rewarding it is, especially against Solos.
Im almost sure in that screenshot only 1 got out tops (and using Hatch), since 1 is almost dead on hook, 1 down and 4 gens to go against a facecamper is a 3K most of the time.
0 -
Use Kindred and you always see if the killer is camping. No need to guess anything.
1 -
Free perk slot by moving BT into basekit, and unsafe hooks would be much less unsafe on the whole as the worst you'd get would generally be the trade.
Also, same problem as every other radius-based thing: too low, you're still going to camp. Too high, just looking around or passing by will now buff the other side. And then you have hooks or hook entrances where you might have good line of sight so it doesn't matter. It's inherent to all attempts to stop camping by applying penalties, which is why they're doomed to failure.
0 -
Agreed.
5 -
The reason I don't want the hook system removed is because I actually enjoy sneaking my way around the killer and going for a safe unhook. I like that dynamic, I like having to figure out when it's safe to unhook and going for it. I -enjoy- that part of gameplay.
But you decided to immediately jump on the 'survivors bad' bandwagon, didn't you?
Camping is way more effective, even against solid survivors, than the forums will dare to admit. Read @Munqaxus ' post, for example.
Moving the goalpost, buddy. That PTB shows that the devs intended for camping to be removed, they just don't know how to do it yet. And they recently stated that they're making another attempt to get rid of it.
It's only a free perk slot if you consider BT a mandatory pick, which in and of itself just lends credence to the idea that camping needs to be addressed. And unsafe hooks would still be extremely unsafe.
Yes, a killer could still keep an eye on the hook, but if you can force the killer to keep distance to the hook if there's no reason for them to be near it, you can get a slightly unsafe unhook, but there'd still be a possibility for accomplishing -something-. As opposed to the current state, where a killer just stands on the hook and the best you can do is a trade, with a very high chance of a free extra kill.
But I appreciate that you're considering the scenario and looking at it in earnest, because the majority of forumgoers will simply say 'Something was tried once, five flipping years ago, so that means that it's impossible to fix', and refuse to consider -anything-.
4 -
I'm fairly certain that the "working on camping" statement was just empty rhetoric akin to "boosting solos to swf levels and buffing killers accordingly."
I'd almost 100% guarantee that neither will ever come to fruition.
3 -
Wouldn't be the first time the devs said they were working on something (early game system) and then not deliver anything.
0 -
Well I got ran for 5 minutes by the guy, so I am sure he won't mind 5 more minutes of company :)
Oh look, his friends showed up...
Free
2 -
Just had it in another thread, there are core game machanics that probalby can´t be changed at all.
0 -
The solution is simply. Add a new movement survs can use at hooks that means.. don’t unhook me. End of the problem.
0 -
I like how you're only argument is to ignore my entire point then insult me.
You cannot punish camping. Camping is intended. Face camping is not. You either have to lobby for the hooks removal or learn to play better at the game as is.
All punishing killer does is encourage survivors to blow gens and fast vault at the hook because the killer will get a smack if they try to defend. A fact most people are plenty aware of yet suspiciously forget when these threads go up.
But no, reduce what I said to "survivor bad." That works to.
5 -
Look at the progress bar of my gen. They didn't exactly wait 10 seconds. But wasted more than a minute, by standing there and pointing.
Survivors can spend up to 120 seconds on the hook. More than enough time to complete a gen. Unless survivors waste that time and complain about camping.
4 -
With the time that has passed since then. Do you really think they are still searching for a solution?
Like... really?
Just accept that camping is here to stay, because it was designed as a core mechanic since the beginning.
Which also means that there won't be a punishment for it.
1 -
According to a recent devstream: Yes. They are still looking for a solution. As the lead designer said: Camping is a thorn in our side.
Do you think no one can read your passive aggressive "You only want this so you can exploit it"?
1 -
Still, you have to reach the hook, notice the victim is getting camped and get back to your gen and resume work, thats roughly 20-30 seconds per Survivor just walking from one point to another if the Survivors dont have a decent lead on gen progress 120 seconds is not enough to finish all gens and open the doors.
Thats why the problem is "camping is way too rewarding against Solos", once everyone know whats happening and how to deal with it, you have around 70-80 seconds of hook time to work freely, not enough unless you have 2 gens worth of progress around the map and I suppose thats what they want to tone down, also one of the problems with camping is hardened Solo Survivors will rush the first gens asap because they know if they get a camper and have 0 progress nobody gets out so you cant afford to stop working on gens to cleanse dulls, open chests, set boons etc... lately and thanks to certain streamers, content creators and forum drama queens Killers are going bonkers with camping because "boons are countered by camping somehow" and people are adapting to it, its a vicious cycle and the result is overall worse games for everyone.
P.D. the progress bar on both hook and gen indicates around ~20 seconds elapsed.
1 -
I'm sure they'll handle it just like moris and keys.
2 -
You've hit the nail on the head, its exactly this.
Protecting a hook is often more efficient than chasing a new survivor. Most survivors play really badly around hooks. There is either a give up suicide and don't use the hook timer to its fullest, a lack of coordination resulting in extra downs and often even coordinated players get so tilted by it they make stupid plays.
If you can take a survivor to second stage on their first hook then the value of that extra pressure pays off big. Even if it costs you an extra gen to get it and more so if the survivors stop doing gens.
When not facing very experienced killers, and often even when you are, there are heaps of mechanics that let you extend chases and if the killer doesn't commit to extended chases (which is really not in their interest) there are tools to reset any pressure gained from wounds really quickly.
Just as survivors have figured out its more efficient to play aggressively than cautiously, killers are figuring out its more efficient to play defensively than aggressively. Pick a three gen and hook someone in the middle of it then just defend it. Once you're down to 3 survivors with a secure 3 gen then you are solid. At that point you can play aggressive because you've just got a huge boost in permanent pressure by removing an opponent.
As chasing becomes less efficient for killers then defensive play will win out over aggressive play more often.
I'd say the most efficient killer play is to, pick your 3 gen, get your fist down, hook them nearby and patrol only your three gen, intermittently returning to the hook. If they get unhooked focus them down dead and then stake out your three gen till you can hook the next one nearby. From that point you can switch to more aggressive play. That is the killer equivalent of survivors splitting up to pressure 4 gens at game start.
If they cook up a punishment to dissuade "camping" then they have to make chasing more efficient than it currently is. I don't see that happening so any punishment mechanic is just gonna further hand hold survivors and make the game generally crummier overall.
Just look at the forum, people get upset about camping but those same people are often getting upset about anti-loop mechanics also.
3 -
And yet it's bad Survivors whining about 'camping' on the forums when it's their own bad actions that feed campers.
They see their friend camped, camp the camping Killer, get found, and then shivel and whine and cry on the forums that 'Camping is bad!' and 'Get gud, Killers!' when it's their own bad skill that fed the Killer.
Funny how that works.
5 -
I should have made more pictures. Since they stayed almost the whole 80 seconds of the gen.
Oh and the "killers going bonkers" thing is more a direct reaction to how quickly gens go. Since it isn't exactly motivating to lose 3 gens by the time you get the first hook.
2 -
Doesnt matter, my argument about Solos having too little information to punish facecamping properly still stands, more screenshots wouldnt give a proper counter to what I say:
Solos still have to go near the hook, see the Killer there and go back to a gen wasting a lot of time, even if those 2 were to reach the hook and go back after confirming the camp you still had to finish 4 gens as 3, with those 2 having lost roughly ~25 seconds of gen work, lets say you finish yours, guy on hook dies, the other 2 are around 60-70%, Killer is free to patrol again and you still have to finish 3 gens, someone else gets downed and facecamped, now you have to finish 2 gens as 2 in those 120 seconds, perfectly doable, guy on hook dies, NOED activates and its a gamble if someone else goes down or you manage to open the gates before he finds another victim. Result of the game, best scenario is 2 kills and 2 escapes, worst is 3 kills for doing absolutely nothing with a strat that requires very little skill.
The problem is not Solos doing what you show on the screenshots, the problem is facecamping Solos leads to that situation because they lack info and in turn it makes camping much more effective (which they want to curb).
On another note we are talking about facecamping and punishment not about generator speeds, you can create another thread to discuss that, lets not derail the current one.
@Munqaxus I like your experiment.
3 -
Passive aggressive implies I'm trying to hide my intent.
I am not hiding my intent. Most arguments are clear attempts to make it easy to safe unhook while punishing the killer for defending an objective. An intended objective. Nothing passive about that statement.
Now you've ignored my point twice to focus on trivial crap. This tells me, and I tell you in no passive or aggressive way, you have nothing relevant to say in response.
I genuinely hope you have a good day, but I'm not wasting anymore time on you.
2 -
I like how it's bad killers winning with camping and tunneling and yet somehow it's not the survivors being bad allowing it to work.
4 -
Welcome to DBD: If a Survivor loses; Killers are OP. If a Survivor wins; Killers need to git gud. If a Killer's nerfed; Good riddance. If a Survivor's nerfed; Killers must have whined. 🙃
4 -
The problem with this argument is that I am bad at playing Leatherface and the survivors I'm playing against are noticeably better at playing survivor than I am at playing Leatherface.
Most of the survivors I'm going against should be winning, yet at best, they're breaking even against Facecamping of all things. Most times they're straight out losing.
2 -
You don't have a point. You never had a point. You made a broad, overall assertion with no backing arguments, then proceeded to try a poison-the-well tactic. What am I supposed to say to that?
1 -
-hex totem spawn being broken and making them almost useless since they get cleansed the first 2 minutes
-genrushing to the extreme and gen-tapping being a thing
-broken grab animation
-hit validations broken
-80% of the roster(along with 80% of killers perks) not viable and extremely underpowered
Behaviour: i sleep
i got camped after i :
"pissed off the killer the whole game/bullyied him with my friends/i rushed the hook like a noob while he was nearby"
"camping bad, plz nerf,"
behaviour: Real [BAD WORD]!!, we are on our way to fix this unbearable problem, stay strong, we will support you!
Post edited by EQWashu on4 -
Here's the full quote, so that it is not misrepresented.
1 -
There was a direct causation between the total number of kills I had in this experiment and my use of No Way Out.
How is that a weird conclusion? You realize that this is a face-camping study, right? I stared at survivors for 2 boring minutes while they died on the hook--we're talking minimal stacks of No Way Out, and I walk away claiming it handed me free kills. I am telling you, quite confidently, that I would have 1k'd or 2k'd in some of my games without No Way Out. I had 2 stacks, max. I didn't even need the stacks--just the fact that survivors couldn't immediately open the gate and leave enabled me to secure an extra kill in trials I didn't 4k.
Also, would you care to tell me what other values are relevant here?
OP posed the question, "are killers actually punished for camping?" They then clarified that the question is being posited in the context of total kills in an average trial. Therefore, the experiment aims to shed light on whether or not camping produces a low or high number of kills per trial.
The killer I play, the perks & add-ons I used, and the number of kills I ended with are the three most important points of data needed to address OP's question. However, kills is the only data point we need to look at once an ideal build has been recognized & accepted.
We're trying to collect data for the average trial. That means map, survivor perks, survivor items, & survivor SWF count are irrelevant points of data. They are uncontrollables which, over the course of say... 10,000 games, all end up in the same melting pot labeled the "average trial."
If I run this experiment 10,000 times, you cannot argue that I'm looking at the wrong data points when all I present to you is my kill average. I would have played 10,000 public games--it doesn't get any more "average" than that. I would have inevitably run into every theoritical counter-argument against the viability of camping, and those numbers would be calculated into my final average.
If you dislike how infrequently I face of survivors who can effectively "beat" camping, that is an issue with the game, not with my study.
3 -
Thank you Captain Obvious.
You know, its been about 10 years since I took AP Statistics--I forgot how reliable data works.
Hey, do me a favor.
How about you throw your hat in the ring and offer up 10 games for science and post them here in the forum?
You know... instead of scrutinizing someone else for not wanting to collect an adequate amount of data on your behalf. Its crazy what a collective can do. Imagine if everyone in this thread shared a chart from 10 games, instead of playing armchair statistician with their turned-up nose and educated opinions.
Or don't. It's about as much as I'd expect from you.
1 -
There used to be a proximity to hooked survivor penalty for pipping, but I don't know if that's still a thing with the new ranking system. It was never that much of a punishment, though. Gradual bloodpoint penalties/deductions, MMR and ranking demotions, etc. all have been thrown around but even they don't too effective.
0 -
Another way of asking this question would be, is camping an effective way to get kills? And the answer is yes. We all know it is. People wouldn't do it otherwise.
Why is it effective? Because survivors go for the save and it snowballs.
Why do they go for the save? Lots of reasons. They don't know the killer's camping, they know but they think it's not fair, they know but they think it's boring, etc.
Do we want to play this game if, every match, the person who gets caught first dies slowly while everyone else does the gens and leaves? I don't.
How do we prevent the game from turning into that? I don't know. And the reason I don't know is because, while doing the gens and leaving is theoretically a deterrent to camping, that only works if the killer is choosing between a 1K and a 2+K. If the killer is choosing between a 0K and a 1K, camping is still going to be the better choice. So, if part of the reason people are camping more is because they get rolled otherwise, that's a bigger problem with the game.
3 -
Why is it so hard to consider INCENTIVES to not camp, rather than focusing on punishing others?
2 -
Because unless the incentives royally break the game, they're not going to compare to a free 2K.
1 -
"Maybe if I try insulting random strangers who don't care about me, that will get them to stop playing in ways I dislike!!!"
Bold strategy, Cotton.
4 -
Then nothing is ever changing and it would be best to just spend your energy elsewhere, bro.
1 -
First of all I know how to read. No need for the huge letters lmao.
I could do the games and post it here. Or I could say I did them and post some random 10 results. It would be as reliable as yours to draw conclusions about game balance.
1 -
Ah yes, that 'free' 2K, where the Killer never had to find, chase, hit, chase, hit, pick up (being aware of attempted pallet or flashlight saves), and carry to a hook that may or may not be sabo'd.
Is that the 'free 2k' the one you are talking about? Because to anyone not biased; that does not look 'free'.
The way biased Survivors scream about it; a Killer just has to say 'I wanna camp' into his microphone and, magically, 2 Survivors teleport onto hooks.
'Free 2K' rofl. What tripe.
5 -
Yes, because find the first surv and hit him is so difficult. Something 4 survs escape and I didn’t see anyone. Only semigod people can do it
3 -
If you're struggling to get even a single hook, the problem is either matchmaking or you.
6 -
My point was that it's not a 'free' anything. The Killer still has to put in work.
But Survivors seem to think they can label anything as 'free' in an attempt to make it sound OP.
NoED? 'Free Kills!' Ignoring, you know, going the whole match with 3 perks, plus totems maybe being destroyed before end-game.
Camping? 'Free hooks!' ignoring the base gameplay loop of Find, Chase, hit, chase, hit. Plus perks like DH extending a loop.
The mantra seems to be 'Pretend it takes 0 skill, then scream it should be nerfed'.
7 -
Admittedly, the H2 Title font comes off a bit more aggressive than I intend.
That said, I use the various markdowns to create hierarchy in my writing so that others can quickly establish the tone or purpose of my response without reading it in entirety. I'm sure not everyone wants to read everything I have to write.
You could lie about your results. But if you're truly interested in improving the game, there is nothing to be gained by falsifying information. You'd be doing a disservice to yourself and the community.
I've got a history of creating discussions on this forum that fight for both sides of the aisle and challenge the design choices of both killer, survivor, and the game itself.
Take my data with a grain of salt, fine, but I'm only here to improve the game.
2 -
Like pretty much everything else in this game, the punishment is entirely driven by the survivors. If the survivors sit on the gens, then the killer gets punished. If the survivors attempt to be altruistic, then the killer could potentially profit.
Ultimately, the survivors are in full control as to how the game goes, particularly if the killer is camping.
5
