Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping
Comments
-
The Killer confirming his kills (IE: His objective to win) is not 'abuse'. 🤡
3 -
I mean, it's pretty different, because you've done the same thing that implicitly makes gens so problematic: the safest way to play becomes the most efficient way to play at the same time. For example, splitting up on gens means you can't all be pressured off them at once, but this is also the fastest way to complete them.
Currently, the most efficient way to unhook someone is the most dangerous--you have to get close to the Killer and avoid being detected until they've left the area. If you want a safe unhook then that might be even more waiting. If you change it so that Survivors are teleported to the other end of the map, the safest thing to do--get the hell away from the Killer--also becomes the most efficient way to get the unhook.
To try and take away one thing Killers can do, you make the game way easier for the Survivors and take away any defensive measures they have. The most likely outcome is persistent slugging, tbh.
4 -
I think this will benefit survivors a little too much though. But I think there's a possible adjustment to make that makes it work much more fairly...
If a survivor progresses to the struggle phase from first hook, they are teleported to a random hook, away from the killer. You get facecamped on first hook? Halfway through, you are transported across the map for a safe and easy pick-up.
Abusable by survivors? Nope. Because it still costs a hook state to use. It just makes facecamping to death a near impossibility.
Loop around the hook? Still costs a hook state.
Stand-off? Still costs a hook state.
Facecamping? You're not getting more than one hook state, and at what cost?
EDIT: Detail I'm on the fence about: Maybe the killer shouldn't get aura reading on the hooked survivor once they get teleported.
EDIT: Other detail I'm not on the fence about: Mechanism should be disabled once fifth gen is done.
3 -
This, I like. Even for a 3-gen scenario; the Killer is not getting more than a hookstate out of it.
Question: What if the hook is putting the Survivor in State #2? IE: They were already hooked once before. Do they teleport? Or do they stay, since it's not moving INTO a new hookstate?
I can see arguments for both:
- They Don't Teleport: They are already in a hookstate, just from being hooked. No Different from 1st hook; the state is just different. The Survivors should not get an easy unhook just because it's the Struggle Phase on hook.
- They Should Teleport. The Survivor is most likely dead, if the Killer camps. Or has a 3-gen. No different from camping for the kill. Survivors should have the chance to save them.
0 -
I'm leaning to having them not teleport. At the very least to start with. If it's not doing enough, the state of the game can be re-evaluated, but having it activate on second hook by default would swing the game way harder than only having it activate when going into struggle from first hook, so it's safer to just start off with 'If a survivor goes into struggle phase from first hook, they get whisked off to a safe hook'.
2 -
Fair.
Heck, if BHVR wanted to shake up the meta; they could make 'Teleport on second hooking' a Survivor perk. Maybe make it reduce the time to die by <x> amount? So they're preventing being camped, but have to be saved sooner.
1 -
There is a huge difference between -choosing- to use a cage and being forced to use a cage. Go ahead and cage every survivor as Pyramid head, I guarantee you will have a bad time. Teleporting the survivor across the map is a very strategic choice to make that more often than not has downsides. Being able to pressure an area and know for a fact a survivor is going to have to get off a gen to come save is massive and a large part of killer macro play.
Giving survivors free unhooks out of the box is ridiculous, if you made it so there was no carry animation/no pickup mechanic and survivors just tpd onto a random hook across the map when they go down? Maybe? It's still weighted heavily in the survivor teams favor.
2 -
Never said some don't I just know survivors will
0 -
I wish the handful of survivor mains who have fantasies of mass punishment for killers for daring to play effectively will someday get it's not going to change without an entire revamp of the games mechanics, to the point making a DBD2 would be less work.
4 -
You've all brought up some great points, but you're turning a blind-eye to what is going on here.
---
@RainehDaze i'm sorry mate, but your take is just wrong. Would footage validate my study? Yes, absolutely. And I'd be more than happy to stream this to someone on Twitch or Discord, but I'm not wasting my storage space on footage I know no one is going to watch. You're just calling for more requirements because you want to play the antagonist.
Perks, Grades, and even a guess at my MMR will not answer the question OP initially set out to answer. That information might answer "what is the best way to counter camping?", but it doesn't say anything about an average player signing on for the night and deciding to camp in every single game they play that day. Because as I said before, if I were to do this for 10,000 games my data would likely reflect every possible scenario a camping killer can run into. If my kill rate is still 100% on Nemesis after all those games (or close to it), then there is no debate as to how viable camping is in DBD.
That data might speak more to my ability to play the game than camping in general, but no one said this has to be a one-man gig. You (and everyone else who has read this thread) are more than welcome to contribute your own data points and participate in the study. But if you don't want to, that is on you. Don't waltz in here and act like we're villains for "withholding information" as we showcase our kill counts after 10 games each night.
Bottom line: I'm not your lab rat. I'm not going to give you "proper numbers" when they're wholely irrelevant from the task at hand. Get up off your ass and contribute to the study or watch the numbers pour in and see if I'm really being punished for camping after 100 games.
---
@Kalinikta yes and no. Confirmation bias is the "interpretation of evidence as confirmation of one's existing belief." Depending on which way the numbers go, I think you could make a case that this is confirmation bias, but as it stands this is not confirmation bias. The data is objective, and it is very relevant to the topic at hand (with some additional irrelevant information such as map & trial time).
@Munqaxus made an observation, created a hypotehesis, and is now testing that hypothesis. The only data that is relevant to this study is kills, because all other data is variable and uncontrollable to the killer (save for perks and add-ons). Therefore, if we were to carry this study out over 10,000 games--preferably with others helping reach that number--the average kill rate across all games will answer OP's question.
Look at my data on Nemesis, and you'll see I out-performed Bubba by a large margin. I'm going to play another M1 killer tonight, and I'm confident I'll do just as well.
---
@AngyKiller we're not really concerning ourself with the WHY right now. We're only looking to answer the question of "is it?"
I'd argue that a killer great in chase is better than Bubba at camping, because they can down the first survivor faster and therefore outpace the speed at which gens can be completed.
So while you may want to concern yourself with the reasons that camping is so effective, this study is simply aiming to acknowledge whether or not killers who camp are performing worse or better than the community believes they do.
2 -
But you're not PROVING that by using a strong camper to prove camping is too strong.
It's like me saying 'I'm going to prove lima beans suck!' and then polling only people who hate lima beans: I'm making my experiment match my already-decided result. I've skewed it towards the result I want.
Proving camping is strong with a strong camper is fixing the test to give you your decided result. It's not a valid test.
If you take the WORST camping Killer and show they can get 3-4 kills on average, and then you've proven camping is strong.
4 -
The point I am making it is not objective at all, as it is set out to create data to support the underlying hypothesis as it stands. One can setup the data collection to support their desired outcome to ensure that it ends up as they please and that is exactly what I have showcased. This is a form of confirmation biased, as you are allowing your pre-judgement determine the parameters of your results and extending it far beyond the actual scope of what you are testing. As a result the conclusion being made fall within the premise of confirmation biased, as you are already set out to create a data set to confirm what your hypothesis is.
Why is your data not objective:
- It uses solely the best camping killers in the game to collect the data, while claiming to be true for all killers. Even the secondary killer you bring forth is specifically picked for their characteristics to be more powerful in the camping department by your own admission.
- The parameters on what actual camping is, is extended to consider tactics such as hooking within a 3 gen by your own admission once again: to be able to not only protect the hook but also place pressure on the gens and using more than just camping to achieve the goal of killing. To be honest I assume you also slugged when required to maximize your pressure upon the survivors. This no longer falls under the premise of face camping, but into the category of proxy camping as showcased by the fact that you are protecting the area itself and all that. Not that I believe that is wrong, they are plays to try and win the game and maximize your kills, however in terms of proving a point regarding camping it skewers the data in your favor to prove your point.
- The amount of data collected is miniscule and unreliable as in such a small pool the fact that such a high percentage of games contain people DCing showcases that no true conclusions can be taken from that pool.
- Claiming that certain aspects of the data is irrelevant while actually they are very important for interpreting the data, showcases once again the interpretation biased that you have. The fact that matches last over 9 mins on average means that survivors are not playing optimal, is that rewarding the killer or punishing the mistakes of survivors?
- You claim it is about kills, yet exclude data where you did not kill the survivors and count them as kills... hatch. Another case of skewering the data into your favor by interpretation of the data.
Nobody is claiming that camping cannot pay out, everyone knows this fact based on how the game goes and how the survivors play it can net you a 4k. We also all know that certain killers are better at it than others, yet this does not mean that killers are factually objectively rewarded for face camping.
Lets take your data, look at it objectively:
- Average game time 9.06 mins.
- 20% of the games contained a DC
- 20% of the games has No Mither gamers
- 10% had a brand new part
- 30% had a hatch escape, meaning not a kill. (average kill rate of 3.6)
- 10% had a kobe, though not sure why that would matter if you are face camping unless they run DS
- Used alternative strategies such as proxy camping, 3 gens
- Only a sample size of 10 games
Lets look at the time frames of a game:
- 3 Gens in 80 seconds, with a 60 second delay due to deadlock (considering horrible timing) = 140 seconds
- 2 Gens at 80 seconds with a 30 second delay due to deadlock = 110 seconds
- 12 seconds of delay + 12 seconds per new survivor hooked + 20 seconds to open = max 80 seconds
Totaling a total of 5:30 of efficiency time required by the survivors, that leaves almost 4 minutes to find the gens, get to the gens and figure out your are camping and not considering the time it would take to chase 2 members of the team and down them. Additionally successful hook trades would extend the time they have significantly as well, as we are assuming you get full value from the no-way out perk as they are no even doubling up on gens, meaning after the first 3 gens they have 1 person spare to do the trade. There is no grand well coordinated escapes to reset the situation, which we know is possible and all that jazz.
The fact of the matter is that the data you have collected isn't showcasing the solid evidence you believe it does on the blanket statement you want to make about face camping. The numbers do not line up, the data points you presented showcase clear bias, extension of the parameters, events that skewer the numbers in your favor and clear mismanagement of time by the survivors.
Ruin should not actually come into play when using face camping tactics and RNG of the zombies is solely attributed to Nemesis and not to the tactic of face camping. Just as the ability to mow threw and secure kills on Bubba are specific attributes to that killer that doesn't translate to others.
For the record I do not know if your hypothesis is wrong or not, nor at which level of play it is more effective or not and as I stated previously from a curiosity point of view I would be actually interested in knowing the result. I am not trying to disprove your hypothesis, as I do not have the data to back that up. However, I can view your data and objectively state that you don't have the data to prove it either. As it currently stands it is purely anecdotal evidence being presented in a manner trying to mask itself as objective factual data. From my anecdotal viewpoint face camping is a risk/reward that can pay out or not, the better surivors you come across the less likely it will and yes you can try and maximize your chances by picking specific killers and perks it is by no means as successful as you claim.
4 -
Okay, who would you say is a weak camper? I'll play them.
Neither Bubba nor Nemesis have been designed ot camp. We only recognize thair propensity to camp, and acknowledge that certain features about them make them ideal candidates for that play style.
Despite that, it still proves that camping is a problem because they are among a cast of other killers who can all camp very well. I'd argue half the killers (maybe more) have something in their kit that makes them great at camping, which in my eyes renders your argument irrelevant. Its not just Bubba who can do it to some degree of success. Everyone can.
But again, who do you need to see put to the test?
1 -
- I'll pose the same quesiton to you as I did to AngyKiller... who would you like to see put to the camp test? Because I'll happily play the "worst" camping killers--so that you can say "okay, maybe they aren't the worst camping killer, play 'so-and-so' instead."
- Slugging a survivor in front of a hooked survivor is absolutely still camping. There is an ebb and flow to the game, and while there are moments of ambiguity, my strategy by and large is to camp. If two survivors go down in front of a hook, because I camped that hook, I've demonstrated the strengths of camping, and will continue to do so as I stand over my slug and watch the newly hooked survivor.
- Yes, it is. Thank you captain obvious. It doesn't take a PHD to figure that out. Would you like to help with this study, so that we may collect more data, or just play armchair statistician in the forums? God forbid you showed up on day one of a new experiment to see that only 20 games have been played. News Flash: This is an on-going test.
- Again, the only data point we care about is kills. Everything else is absolutely irrelevant, because there is no formal 'control' in DBD. Every game is different, and the only way to acknowledge that fact is to test and test and test. You may want to look at other datapoints (for your own interests), but this study only cares about kills. That is what we would call a "research focus." Like it or not, survivors playing sub-optimally or disconnecting belongs in the collection of data. These players fall under the umbrella of "average players," and are representatives of the typical DBD experience. Biased data would be ignoring d/c's, bad survivors (and good survivors), because they are outliers. Likewise, only looking at d/c's, bad survivors, or good survivors is biased data because a person does not see only these players every game.
- Hatch counts as null. I implore you to watch this clip from the last Q&A to understand why we are counting hatch escapes against average kills, but not kill rate. https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx4qxanekkxgYO_-0O4-Qtn-eW7gq71jq8
People are claiming that camping doesn't pay out
That is the whole reason this forum discussions was created in the first place. People say all the time that camping is weak and it only nets you 1 kill--2 kills if the survivors are bad.
So @Munqaxus decided to begin collecting data to show "hey, on average, a killer can actually get 3-4 kills by camping."
Your critique of the current data is valid*.
Your assumption that I'm presenting this data and saying "case closed" is wrong.
*You've selectively disregarded the fact that the survivors I've faced thus far are not even completing an average of 3 gens, and that none of the 10 games I played as Nemesis saw 5 gens completed.
3 -
My opinion of the statistics fight is If you don't have at least a bachelor's in statistics, then I don't really care that much about your laymen understanding of the field. And that goes to the devs trying to justify bad balance with "THE STATS." You don't have business interpreting statistics without some actual education and knowledge of the field. More harm than good has been caused by inexperienced people reading statistics without understanding the in's and outs, and jumping to rash conclusions as a result.
0 -
The fact that they did not complete gens, showcases the fact that it is not the killer being rewarded, but the survivors messing up. There is a clear difference there as the more proficient the survivors are the less likely they are to mess up. Therefore at what skill level are you aiming to determine the efficiency of the strategy. Among new players I bet it will nearly always net a 3 to 4k, but doubt the same can be said at highest level of play looking at competitive play.
Ignoring all stats but kills, while ignoring hatches, counting dc games and other aspects is not focus it is biased selection of data points. Hatches are null for MMR rating by the devs, yet are you trying to analyze MMR or the effectiveness of killing survivors. The developers also exclude any DC games from their stats for obvious reasons as they have indicated when sharing stats multiple times, so why don't you do the same? See the selective analysis on your end?
As I have stated before the best way to account for killers is to run the same build on the whole roster, don't use add ons and set parameters for the definition of camping you want to test. As it currently stands it sounds like just play mean, proxy, slug, 3 gen and protect an area is what you are actually testing rather than face camping alone.
The statement of people is actually that if survivors respond properly that face camping does not pay out. Therefore the full scale of data and actually determining whether the tactic is rewarding or that survivors are simply being punished for playing poorly is relevant.
Want to see efficiency of camping, competitive play is actually fairly good at showing when it is effectively used and to what degree you should do it for maximum effect.
2 -
I don't think you need an entire degree in statistics in order to have some understanding of the field, or we'd have to discount basically all science because most scientists got degrees in other fields. Though a lot of people still have bad understanding of stats anyway.
But I'd settle for good experimental design/data collection if we're going to try and examine effectiveness.
2 -
I assume most scientific groups have people who have at least taken cursory courses in statistics at some point during their education, or can actually reference to a statistician they know/on the team especially if it's actually been peer reviewed. No one is peer reviewing the forums or the dev team though. And most would tell you to take non-peer reviewed science with a grain of salt. If they are just GIVING statistics without coming to a conclusion and asking you to come to your own conclusion, sure. This is more aimed at the devs who want to develop based off flawed statistics which we have seen non-stop.
0 -
The fact that they did not complete gens, showcases the fact that it is not the killer being rewarded, but the survivors messing up.
I don't care about the WHY? I'm not studying the reason why camping is so strong--just whether or not it pays out.
This study is trying to look at X and you're upset that we aren't concerning ourselves with Y.
I'm not playing competitive either (and neither are most of the community's players), so what works for them is largely irrelevant to this study.
I could be playing competitive, if you're really concerned about what MMR I'm playing at. I was asked to build a comp team with R I V E N and his friends, who play/played for the Golden Wolves. If you follow comp at all those names should be familiar to you.
Its so tedious arguing with people who tell me "that doesn't work at high MMR" when I play against DBD's "best" every single day.
There is some perverted fantasy that people have about "high MMR" DBD that is so far off from reality.
I include d/c's because they are a survivor saying "I give up--you win."
Hatches are null, period. They are a coin toss. A statistical anomaly.
They are a free pass to the last survivor standing, and say nothing about the match that happened leading up to its spawn.
Running the same build on every killer is not the proper way to analyze each killer's camping strength.
Perks that make one killer stronger might be useless or less effective on others.
I can see why you'd think that is the proper way to run the study, but if you want to really analyze the strength of camping you need to give each killer the strongest loadout for camping. It is for that reason that in my first study with Bubba I needed to acknowledge that I did not use the best perks because I did not have them--I could have seen better results with better perks.
I could see people making a case for "no perks & add-ons," but the counter-argument to that would be that no one ever does that. No Perks & Add-Ons is not "average DBD." Such a study would not be a representation of how strong camping is on average.
The statement of people is actually that if survivors respond properly that face camping does not pay out. Therefore the full scale of data and actually determining whether the tactic is rewarding or that survivors are simply being punished for playing poorly is relevant.
As I've said many times before, I'm not concerned about the WHY with this study.
You can say "good survivors won't get 4k'd by camping" all you want.
But if 10,000 games go by and I still have a 100% kill rate, either 'good survivors' don't exist, or you're just wrong. Regardless, I'd have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that camping pays out.
Most people won't ever play that many games of DBD.
3 -
'I can see why you'd think that is the proper way to run the study, but if you want to really analyze the strength of camping you need to give each killer the strongest loadout for camping.'
Wrong. If you want to look at the power of camping and ONLY camping across every Killer, you do proper scientific method; You remove or normalize all variables possible.
Survivors: Short of finding a crew to do all this in KYF; not possible to normalize.
Maps: Again, short of KYF; not possible to normalize.
Powers: Change per Killer.
Perks: You pick the same perks on the same Killers. In this way, you're removing the PERKS as a variable towards your study.
Since you're studying how well CAMPING works, and ONLY CAMPING; you use the same perks per Killer. Anything else is contaminating your study.
It stops being 'How strong is Camping?' and becomes 'How powerful is <Killer> at Camping with the best possible perks?'. Which is a different test all together.
3 -
This is a study of CAMPING in the AVERAGE GAME.
If we try to control the survivors we are playing against, the map we are on, and the perks the survivors are using, WE ARE NO LONGER PLAYING AN AVERAGE GAME.
FURTHERMORE...
If every killer needs to run the same 4 perks, WE ARE NO LONGER STUDYING CAMPING IN THE AVERAGE GAME.
Instead, we would be studying the PERFORMANCE OF 4 SPECIFIC PERKS WHILST CAMPING.
'How powerful is <Killer> at Camping with the best possible perks?'
Yes, this could be an alternate (tho needlessly wordy) title for this study. But we're not particularly concerned right now with WHO is the best--though exploring that fact is an inevitable byproduct of running this test--so a better title would be "How powerful is camping with the best possible perks?".
Why on earth would anyone set out to camp for a 4k, and not set themselves up for the best chance of success? Or rather, why would I study the strength of camping and not do everything in my power to make camping as strong as possible?
Ask yourself that, then you'll realize how redundant '...with the best possible perks?' is in your title. Its not needed. Throw out the wasted words and your title simply becomes "how powerful is camping?"
This is the last time I will say this, then I'm done discussing it with you:
You have completely missed the boat on what this study is about, and your attempt to correct us comes from a complete misunderstanding of what is going on. It would behoove you to understand a discussion before attempting to criticize it in the future.
1 -
Not quite - you only would need to control for variables to that degree if you are attempting to look at very specific questions. I.E. "Is basement Bubba more effective on x map or y map", "which survivor load out can combat camping if [Killer] is running [these perks]". What these two are looking at is "is camping as weak as people say". The only variable that might need some control at that point is: is the Killer pool represented over a breadth of games. By Killer pool, I mean powers and possibly speed. There's probably little reason to test both Hag and Trapper for example. Their powers are very similar and would probably be applied in a similar manner for camping. (Hi basement!) And even that's iffy because any Killer can be used to camp, certain perk loadouts will be better for certain Killers, and survivor load outs can range from all over the place to pure meta builds.
None of that really matters at this point because the argument for camping isn't [on this map], [with these perks], and/or [against this Killer] camping is weak. It's that camping in general, even against Bubba, is weak if survivors play "efficiently". So, testing Bubba is completely valid.
Ideally, 50 players would come together, split up all the killers, record their results on K/E and gens with possibly some other easily recorded data - Killer perks and maps. At that point, trends (if any exist) can then be seen and tested. But I doubt anyone wants to dive that deep.
1 -
You'd also want to record Survivor perks, is the thing.
And have an agreed-upon procedure for camping. Are we facecamping? Proxy camping? Try and fake people into thinking you've left the hook? Or are you just standing there being Bubba, waiting?
1 -
Mmm, I disagree about survivor perks for one reason. BT is the strongest surv perk against camping and it's a hugely run perk, especially in SWFs. The rest are probably Killer dependent as far as effectiveness goes which gets way too granular for a "is camping weak" question. Because again the arguement isn't "is camping weak if survivors are against [killer perks]" or "is camping weak against [Killer] if survs run [these perks].
Camping advice across the internet is NOT that granular. No one is telling survs to run any perk aside from maybe BT. In fact most of it is "if you aren't in a SWF coordination a save against anyone but Bubba, let them die." It's very general to survivors "just be 'efficient' on gen and you will get a 3E". No perks. No map. No other variable. Therefore, other variables don't need to be tested at this point.
And I think it's pretty apparent from our two testers that they are face camping. However, that is an interesting question because some Killers will excel at face camping while others excel at what would probably be called proxy camping. Example, my friend gets downed by a Huntress and hooked. Huntress goes so far away that I can't hear her lullaby. I go to get my friend and get sniped by Iri head. (She later admitted in post game that was her strat.) I couldn't even be mad, because to make that shot, she had to have a practiced a bit.
BUT even that said. This is a "is camping weak" test which can encompass any type of camping at this point.
The questions you're asking are relevant, but they are relevant later down the line. If it's established that camping is actually pretty strong, then you start to dig into the specifics, but you need a general baseline first before you can dig into the specifics of this [Killer], those [perks], [etc] become relevant.
1 -
I disagree with your disagreeing. If you don't record the Survivor perks, you're not going to have a starting point for asking any further questions, because you've laser-focused on trying to prove a point. And in the process, you've eliminated a lot of information that might be useful for eliminating games that were pointless in general--e.g. a team full of people who don't even have a full set of perks, in which case we can predict that basically anything would have been strong. Not recording information because it might not be useful yet is not a good habit.
And if you don't actually establish what you mean by camping, both your testing and results are meaningless for communication. If you can't even agree what you're talking about, you can't answer the question. And if you mean "camping in general" but you only test facecamping Bubba, what we've proved is that Bubba can facecamp well--but not why, especially if you ran an optimal build for that. "Is a build designed to do one thing on the Killer best suited to it good at that thing" is a very different question from "is facecamping an effective strategy in general" is a very different one from "are all forms of camping effective", and in the last case you'd need to make a case for why this is even worth asking--you have, after all, ruled out literally half of the ways a Killer can locate Survivors at that point.
1 -
Incorrect. You will only be "laser like focused on trying..." if you're biased. You're assumption is that the people doing this are automatically biased which, from this thread, you don't know. They're playing games and seeing what happens "out in the wild" which is valid for the assumptions presented. You can, from a general set of data, start to ID trends, if the trends are actually there. Both people have offered to have you and others provide your own data set, which, from what I can see, you have declined to do. Why is that?
And no, it isn't useless, because the advice to dealing with camping doesn't change. No one delinates between [x camping] and [y camping] except during ECG. Therefore, the question is interesting but not valid for the purposes of this test.
You are kind of putting the cart waaaaay before the horse. But I respect your disagreement! I would suggest if you care about this topic to get enough people together to test it to your satisfaction.
1 -
If your intent is to prove a general camping point, doing so with specific builds and Killers is inherently a biased starting point. I don't see how that can even be in question: intentionally or not, you've skewed your data and heavily limited its scope. I wouldn't even say it's that useful as a test case to check your methodology, beyond "yes you can still camp".
Literally every conversation regarding camping on this forum, attempts to fix facecamping, and developer commentary have delineated between facecamping and more general proxy camping (and all sorts of grey areas in between). The advice to deal with it is always regarding facecamping--because, by definition, facecamping precludes looking around and patrolling nearby gens or going for anyone else. And then there's the trap-setting Killers. Which I think proves my point about why we need to define what we're talking about when we bring up camping.
1 -
I mean do you honestly expect two people to encompass the scope you think is valid? This is the point where you throw your hat into the ring to help. And no, I think this is the point you maybe hung up on. How to handle camping is not SPECIFIC. Not specific to Killer. No specific to Map. Not specific to what the Killer perks. Not specific to survs perks. You do not need to test for those variable when those variable ARE NOT IN QUESTION.
You're moving the goalposts a bit here. You want them to test under the scenerio you think is relevant despite their stated goals. You're trying to defend EOC camping when CLEARLY these tests are not about EOG. And are not about the things you're talking about. At all.
And no, trap setting doesn't 'prove your point' because you haven't actually laid out a point there. And lms, as someone who predominately plays Trapper, I own teams that I don't have to camp. It's pretty damn easy until higher levels. Get one person down and lay some traps. I can go freely pressure other gens and literally wait for someone to step into a trap. This is knowing that against good teams, I'll probably get creamed. Yet despite that, I let people out because I don't like shitting on other people. And that's what camping does and it's very lucrative. I get 3K's easy. Sometimes because of surv mistakes, but alot of it? Just how easy camping is.
0 -
The Why
You cannot call it a study if you do not actually concern yourself of the causality of the outcome. In order to determine the does it pay out, you also need to analyze why that is the case.
Looking at X, concerning about Y
Competitive play and high MMR, it is funny that you are so upset about this as I made none of the claims you are upset about. I simply asked at which level of play are you looking for efficiency rate and actually pointed to competitive play to showcase data that shows the potential strength and effectiveness of camping. Competitive players are far beyond the high MMR bracket and they actually showcase when the use of camping is effective and should be used. They also show that the efficiency and survivors are a big impact in the outcome.
Hatches are null, yet DC is saying I give up?
You use the metrics of the developers and want to account for the meaning of a hatch escape. Yet you do not account for the effects of a DC on the remainder of the match, while they are statistically far more impactful to the outcome of the data. A DC is not just a I give up, but a huge momentum swing in favor of the killer and resulting in a far bigger likelihood of the remainder of the survivors perishing. For that exact same reason the developers themselves have stated to exclude this data from their results. This just showcases your double standard and confirmation biased setup.
Running the same build on every killer
You claim this is the wrong approach, as custom builds will maximize the potential of the killers to achieve the job that is done. Yet that is the whole counter argument against doing so, as it adds additional variables that benefit the outcome that you seek to achieve and prove. Choosing a build that would work on all killers, to answer the question whether it is effective on all killers removes this inconsistency. Same goes for add-ons as they can severely impact the strength of the killer and they aren't always going to be using that setup.
By creating one build for all your killers you need to make choices to suit the tactic specifically instead of suiting the killer. The fact is that you aren't purely looking at the effectiveness of camping in a silo as you claim. You are actually leveraging additional tactics like proxying, 3 gens, slugging into the mix and while that indeed increases your likelihood to win it is not face camping as presented in this thread.
Good survivors won't get 4ked by camping.
If you want to analyze whether that is the case, you can simply look at competitive play. They are the best survivors in the world, with usually limited builds and actions. If you want pure data points and efficiency, you can even look at games where Bubba is played as those nearly always end up in a in true camp only strategy.
My actual stands on the matter
It seems that by me simply pointing out the flaws in your approach and the conclusions not actually showcasing the causality that you claim it does. In my point of view and my own experience, knowledge the act of camping is a valid strategy and if used properly at the right times will most definitely pay-out. This is also supported by looking at competitive players and the fact that it is considered try-harding.
To play killer effectively at higher ranks I even believe it is somewhat of a necessity unless you completely outclass your opponents, which I do not or they have to be inefficient. I don't believe that playing nice is actually efficient or viable against better survivors, in my experience the only games you can play nice is when survivors mess up/outclasses/not playing efficient which happens frequent enough - as you point out accurately most of the community isn't that interested in being optimal.
Though I wouldn't mind seeing an actual test to show the actual efficiency of camping for all killers, yet the premise of your test does not lend itself to that at all. All it actually shows by the data presented is that survivors are not that interested in playing that efficient or in that manner, rather than rewarding the killer it is highlighting the survivors are not playing properly against it; yet that is already a known fact, look at all the complaints about it.
Post edited by Kalinikta on2 -
DOCTOR CAMP TEST
KILL RATE: 100% | AVG KILLS: 4 | Hatch escapes: 0 | AVG GENS: 3 | TOTAL D/C'S: 1 | AVG TRIAL TIME: 9 minutes 6 seconds
10 games a night is a little too many, so I'm going to cut it to 5 and just update this post the next night I'm able to fit 5 games in.
Doctor seems to be just as proficient as Nemesis.
He is a little weaker in chase, which put me on the back foot at the start of games 4 & 5, but his base-kit abilities were surprisingly helpful for camping.
So far it seems that...
The strength of camping is entirely dependent on how quickly I locate and down the first survivor.
If I hook the first survivor before the first generator is finished, a 4k feels guaranteed. If I hook the first survivor after the second generator is finished, my success is entirely dependent on how many risks the survivors are willing to take. If I hook the first survivor after the third generator is finished... forget it--I'd be surprised if I even 1k.
Games 4 & 5 got off to very shaky starts, as I didn't hook the first survivor until after the first and second gens, respectively. I'm very surprised to be walking away from the first 5 doc trials with 20 kills.
0 -
What when the game is almost over, you hook a survivor and he teleports to the other end of the map, next to the gate that is about to be openend?
You would take any strategic value of hooks away.
3 -
Short answer? No.
Normal answer, they should get punished by adding some kind of mechanic kinda like what Scott suggested with kindred, do 15% faster everything if killer is camping.
At this point with all the facecampers I'm down for it.
1 -
All it actually shows by the data presented is that survivors are not that interested in playing that efficient or in that manner
This statement is purely conjecture.
You're also missing the point.
We're not looking to see how camping performs against good survivors. We're interested in how well camping performs against ALL survivors.
ARE KILLERS ACTUALLY PUNISHED FOR CAMPING?
This is the title of this discussion.
You can answer "not against good survivors," and that might be true.
But if I only play against good survivors once every 100 games, then the answer to OP's question is definitively "no."
That same logic is then applied to why I'm not discrediting d/c's, why I don't care about MMR, and why I don't care about the reason that camping is so effective.
One Build vs Variable Builds
Every killer has different needs, so it doesn't naturally follow that you can determine a playstyle by perks alone. How you camp as a killer is going to change based on which killer you are playing.
For Example,
- Billy, Bubba, Trickster & Pyramid Head will stand about 6-8m back and look at the hook so they can see incoming survivors and know when to activate M2
- Huntress & Myers will stand about 2m back and look away from the hook, so they can hatchet & stalk incoming survivors
- Deathslinger will circle anywhere with 16m so that he can always shoot survivors going for the save
- Twins will hopefully place victor under the hook before pick-up, and then circle within a short range as Charlotte
- Plague will circle within 10m and puke on anyone who comes near the hook
All of these examples are camping, and they all look slightly different.
The other issue with standardizing builds...
A killer like Demo can leverage the benefits of Save the Best for Last, while Doctor is at the mercy of losing stacks whenever his obsession comes around. This can make or break a killer's performance, and it cannot be understated how important it is to experiment and determine the optimal camping builds on each killer.
Thank you for using Markdown. <3
I really appreciate the way you structured your response. It was very reader-friendly.
1 -
Well the answer to the question:
ARE KILLERS ACTUALLY PUNISHED FOR CAMPING?
The definitive answer is actual: "It depends". As it is based on who you face? You claim to care about all survivors, that means that against good, bad, solo's, swf, new, competitive players and whether you are punished for camping is purely reliant on the efficiency that they showcase and their teamwork.
MMR doesn't matter you state, but it is a pretty important metric in determining your ration to when you face survivors that can potentially punish you for camping or not. The matchmaking system is what is going to make it either 1 in 100 or 99 in 100 games, it will also be determined on time of day, region and luck on who you face.
Metric of Camping
Not all forms of camping are one and the same and as I stated are useful tools to use. Expanding the parameters of camping means that you are looking a far more than the typical face camper at 5 gens complaint, which is fair enough yet doesn't completely align with the initial premise portrayed of face camping.
Optimization
Optimization of each killer by perks, add-ons, etc. also changes the premise of the actual results. Just like anything in this game if you are dead set on going in all out with the best of the best, you most likely will be successful. This mainly has to do that there is a wide variety of what people can actually bring and the best setups usually require the other side to bring somewhat of an equivalent level else they will struggle more. You are stacking the cards in your favor, against the all player base.
The truth of this game is that the more you go out to be as sweaty and try-hard as you can, the more likely you are going to succeed. It doesn't mean that camping isn't punished or not, as we have established; it depends on who you face.
2 -
Wait, you are counting disconnects as kills as well?
Also your notes say you "left a survivor you thought was on death hook" if you are running a face camping test, i.e. hunting down a survivor, hooking them and staring into their retenas, then how did you leave any survivor?
The more you push past the numerous questions on your testing methodology, the shadier this all looks, tbh.
Your notes indicate you faced 2 swf groups. What evidence do you have for either group being swf? Are you interviewing subjects post test, or just assuming based on gameplay?
0 -
People have problem with camping?
0 -
ARE KILLERS ACTUALLY PUNISHED FOR CAMPING?
The definitive answer is actual: "It depends". As it is based on who you face? You claim to care about all survivors, that means that against good, bad, solo's, swf, new, competitive players and whether you are punished for camping is purely reliant on the efficiency that they showcase and their teamwork.
So far, the definitive answer is actually "Yes". Right now, no one has brought proof to the contrary. I think @KayTwoAyy and I have shown that facecamping is rewarding to the killer by giving a win condition, as defined by the developers, in the fact that the average kills is higher than a loss.
Let's define facecamping for DBD, so everyone has the same definition.
Facecamping /v/ Staying within about 6 meters of the hooked survivor. You can defend gens and slugged survivors in that radius. Faking leaving by going slightly outside that radius and coming right back is fine. Seeing a survivor and faking a chase by going slightly outside that radius and coming right back is fine.
(So about slightly past that tree in the 8M photo below)
Most times I just stand right in the survivors face and stare up at them. Recently, in the last 5 out of 20 games, I am trying to hook close to gens being worked so I have even more facecamping time by denying a gen.
Sorry I didn't get any camping data last night, got busy doing home improvement projects.
0 -
And now we've come to the real issue.
You are going by some made up version of facecamping that I've never even heard of. The face part of facecamping isnt just a word that's thrown in for fun. It refers to the killer standing Face to Face with the hooked survivor. You aren't doing that from 6 meters away. What you are doing is the specific type of gameplay the devs have stated they Don't want to mess up with any changes intended to fix actual facecamping.
0 -
Everyone calls "Suicides" on hook. I don't think you can count a "Suicide" as a lose, especially when you consider one of the major reasons people facecamp is to troll. And what better way to troll than to make someone so mad they suicide.
However, if you remove "Suicides" as null. He still has a 100% kill rate.
I love how pro-facecamping forum posters are moving the goal posts to try and defend facecamping. Actually, I can't believe anyone is defending facecamping.
1 -
Was it a suicide on hook? That information isn't there, seems you are just making that up (like you are your arbitrary definition of what facecamping is) all the "data" says is it was a DC. A DC isn't a kill. Simple as that. This isn't moving the goalposts, this is plainly stating that if you kick the ball outside of them, it's not a field goal.
0 -
LOL, you are literally 2 to 3 steps away from the survivor at that point. If you are calling that proxy-camping, then you are actually facecamping. That is facecamping.
1 -
6 meters is 18 feet.
That's 3 times the recommended "personal space" defined by the CDC and others to keep airborne particulate from spreading. That's not 2-3 steps. (unless you take 6-9 ft long steps, which would mean you are literally 12 feet tall)
The average prison cell is 6ft by 8ft. Meaning that you could fit 3 cells side by side in the amount of space you claim to be able to cross in 2-3 steps.
0 -
No. Then one Survivor will run the Killer around the hook, which will give 2 friends the ability to do healing/repairing 15% faster, each.
1 -
This is about 6 meters. Basically if have hooked anyone in the basement, then anything inside the 4 walls of the basement is facecamping.
I think the funny thing is, you are worried that I'm using a "weaker" strategy. Trust me, I'm "facecamping" because if I was moving away from the hook and someone gets an unhook, then I'm screwed. Proxy-camping, where you move just slightly outside of 32 meters is much weaker than sitting in front of the survivor. My kill-rate would actually go down if I was not "facecamping". The survivors I'm going against are really good and I definitely don't deserve the kills I'm getting.
In fact, if I was using anything other than facecamping, I wouldn't be getting these kills.
1 -
1. That's like 12 feet
2. No, that's basement camping. But hey, at least now I know I can completely disregard your "data".
Honestly it's a bit of a shame. I don't like actual facecamping, but we're not going to get anywhere when people just make up their own definitions for what it is and expect everyone to follow along.
Both you and your partner have repeatedly ignored any concerns about your methodology, and now it seems you aren't using any commonly understood definition of the action you are attempting to base experiments on. Does your partner subscribe to the same 6 meter rule for what is and isn't facecamping?
4 -
"I think the funny thing is, you are worried that I'm using a "weaker" strategy."
Nope, never said anything close to that, not sure where you are pulling that. My concern is that you don't actually understand what facecamping is.
1 -
This is honestly really off topic but how is 1 survivor running around a Killer so the other 2 survivors can do generators at 230% speed not worse than 3 survivors doing generators a 300% speed.
I swear, I don't think people even think about suggestions and instead make knee-jerk replies.
1 -
How are 3 survivors going to do gens while one is being chased by the killer?
1 -
Here have a guide on how to counter camping and there are many more karma videos, guides, etc.
The thing is that most teams don't actually do this - because they either don't care, don't want to play that efficient, find it boring, go for memes, are solos, new players, etc. It has been proven that a survivor team can punish killers that camp. In tournament play while they use camping it is not the only aspect they can rely on, because guess what the survivors know how to punish it. It does require the team to not give up, play around the tactic, have people stick it out, etc.
The better the survivors are the more organized they are the more likely they are capable of punishing the strategy. You act like there isn't information out there that showcases the ability of survivors able to punish camping.
I have laid out clear and in a civil manner how the data set being created is not accounting for causality and is setup to create a confirmation biased data set - you are dismissing data that negatively affects the numbers, but include data that heavily skewers the numbers in your favor; while hiding behind determined by the developers... while they actually exclude any data that is spoiled by DCs for instance. Instead of actually engaging with me on the subject, all you are doing is placing now demands of providing contrary proof and trying to push through your opinion simply because people are pointing out flaws of the metrics being used.
We don't have to prove anything to you, neither do you have to prove anything to us... yet you are the one wanting to conduct a test. I don't have an issue with camping, if that is how one wants to play feel free to do so and I have even stated my stance on the matter.
2 -
- So your argument boils down to a video showing you how to counter camping that hasn't even been proven to work. You talk about confirmation bias, isn't the the height of confirmation bias. You are basically saying facecamping doesn't work because "this video". And completely ignore the fact that @KayTwoAyy and I have both proven that facecamping works flawlessly in 46 games. There's a difference between theory and practice and in practice, in practice facecamping works and rewards the killer. In theory it doesn't.
I have laid out clear and in a civil manner how the data set being created is not accounting for causality and is setup to create a confirmation biased data set - you are dismissing data that negatively affects the numbers, but include data that heavily skewers the numbers in your favor; while hiding behind determined by the developers... while they actually exclude any data that is spoiled by DCs for instance. Instead of actually engaging with me on the subject, all you are doing is placing now demands of providing contrary proof and trying to push through your opinion simply because people are pointing out flaws of the metrics being used.
- What are you wanting. To throw out every game that has a DC? We can do that. Our numbers will not show loses if we facecamping, while throwing out every game that is a DC. I have yet to drop below a 2 survivor kill rate, even without DC games included. @KayTwoAyy has a 4k kill rate without DCs.
We don't have to prove anything to you, neither do you have to prove anything to us... yet you are the one wanting to conduct a test. I don't have an issue with camping, if that is how one wants to play feel free to do so and I have even stated my stance on the matter.
- @KayTwoAyy and I don't have anything to prove to you either. You are very biased in wanting to keep facecamping, any data @KayTeeBee or I put on here, you will come up with some biased reasoning as to why it is meaningless. You are basically using what-ifs and maybes say that the sky isn't blue, while I am showing you that it is blue.
- However, the takeaway here is that I can in practice (Not theory), take a Killer and win practically every game by facecamping.
Let me ask you this. Did I not just play 20 games as Leatherface? Did I not get a 3.4 Kill rate with Leatherface while facecamping? Out of 20 games, facecamping as Leatherface, was there only 3 games, where I only got a draw? Out of 20 games with Leatherface, did I lose a single one?
1
