Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping
Comments
-
Did I not just play 20 games as Leatherface? Yes
Did I not get a 3.4 Kill rate with Leatherface while facecamping?
No
0 -
So? Another survivor needs to come in or trade, meaning punishing camping, the game detects if the killer/survivor are on a chase it can work with that.
0 -
Guess what? The old punishment for camping (Hooked Survivor dies slower) detected if the Killer was in a chase; It failed. Know why?
Because 2 Survivors would stand too far away to be chased, in opposite directions. If the Killer chased #1, #2 would move in. If he chased #2, #1 would move in. If he camped the hook, the punishment was that the Struggle Meter was slowed.
This gave Survivor #4 almost unlimited time to do gens unopposed while #3 (on the hook) could safely read a book.
The Killer had to either camp, and be punished, or commit to a chase and know he was allowing an unhook.
It was quickly removed for being abused to hell.
1 -
That video contains examples of matches in which they with their team execute it, it is even narrated by the content creator. Therefore how is it not proven to work? Guess you didn't actually watch the video and yet place judgement on it? Additionally it is not the sole video in which punishments are showcased by people; a simple search of Facecamp Karma DBD, etc can be found. Keep in mind to disprove a hypothesis a single example is enough according to a scientific approach.
Even if you dismiss those data points you are still misrepresenting the data is it stands, even your fellow tester at least in their overview includes the fact that their kill rate is below 4. Even if you do not consider a hatch escape a negative deduction on the outcome, you did not kill them and just throwing them into the kill numbers is disingenuous.
I am not denying that you can get results by face camping, never have. To take your the sky is blue metaphor: You are stating the sky is blue and is always blue. While I am pointing out that during the night it is black, when it is cloudy it is grey maybe with bits of blue shining through and yes at times it is also crystal clear blue. There are more factors to take into consideration and should be looked at if you want an objective take on the matter. The causality of why these results are created and how you created them and how to interpret them are actually important factors.
Survivors can punish killers that face camp, getting a 4 man out is unlikely but a 3 man is most definitely achievable and yes a 2k is going to be a common result. That is if they are even trying to escape and punish you. Games lasting on average 9+ mins with 3 or less gens completed indicates that there is a severe lack of wanting to counter the tactic to begin with, especially if we simply trust it is being played at high level and I have no reason to doubt their account on this. The thing is that unless you are looking at competitive matches there is not a necessity to win or escape, which btw I brought up as a pretty decent source of material that indicates the strength of camping.
Arguments of hey look I did this for X games straight, is like using the kill streak or escape streak of content creators as evidence of the actual fairness and balance of the game. It just showcases that it is possible to be done, but in no means is an actual objective measurement which you claim to be wanting to achieve.
Who or where was it stated that I want to keep face camping? You are the actual person using this tactic to prove a point, while for me it is not my style at all. I have no issues with it when people do it, but by no means do I have an invested interest either way.
1 -
No data will ever mean anything unless it shows the game to be hopelessly survivor-sided. Because that is obviously the truth that everyone just naturally knows (unless they are a stupid survivor main) and which does not require any evidence whatsoever to support it. At least, that's what I've gathered from most "forum killer mains" engaging with stats in this game. Global kill rates always having been comfortably above 50%, even at rank 1 in the past, even for the "weakest" killer on the "strongest" survivor map, even when excluding DCs? Doesn't mean anything. Tournaments having kill rates above 50%, even when everything is allowed? Meaningless. Killer streamers winning 90% of their matches decisively day in and day out, year after year, and even now with MMR in place? No. Meaning. Survivors OP.
It really is funny what kind of "scientific" standards people are demanding when looking at stats like this. Look, it's not rocket science, you queue as killer, you camp, and you record how well you do in terms of kills. You do not have to control for a single thing because neither is anyone that plays this game, they just queue up. If camping works often enough, it works, there's no great mystery here, to merely say it works we do not have to figure out why it works. Sure maybe a large part of why it works is that most players are too bored or stupid or feel too bad for the hooked survivor not to play into it - but if enough players are like that such that camping works out more often than not... it works. Sure if we go into KYF and play against tournament teams drilled to counter camping it won't work as well. Who cares? Talking about this game, we have to talk about its actual reality. And in 99.9% of cases, that reality is people simply queueing up in pubs. It may be interesting to do tests on how well camping works in other environments (it's still a bread and butter play in tournaments so we know it scales well into the top levels of skill and coordination), but that is wholly irrelevant when asking whether killers actually benefit from camping in this game, because this game has one relevant mode, and that is public matchmaking. There is no better or more accurate way to conduct tests than... queueing up and logging results. We can make distinctions about which killers and loadouts are particularly conducive to being successful at camping, but not only is that another thing to look at, but since it is possible to play the same killer with the same build every single time, even just showing that camping works in that scenario is meaningful.
I will say that I would much prefer having actual video evidence, not least because it would help with people that apparently want to move goalposts to now argue about the centimeter specifics of what facecamping is (which is even sillier given that the topic at hand is simply camping). Also, I'm actually surprised just how well you guys are doing with outright facecamps, and LF facecamps at that. I mean, I know even the most primitive ways of camping work out more often than not in pubs, and that's especially true if you get an early down. But at least some people should be smart enough not to contest an LF facecamp, so much so that I would even expect other killers to get more value out of outright facecamping because survivors will more regularly contest and go for clown fiestas around the hook. Either way, even just showing that you average anywhere above 2 kills would have of course gone to show that camping is not "punished" in terms of kill rates, I'm surprised you are averaging 3+. Would be "interesting" to see. Then again, I have seen years worth of video evidence that goes to show that camping is super effective, from streamers and tournaments, as well as just from my own gameplay. I for one don't need any tests to convince me of this fact.
I think next week I will join you guys and go for facecamp streaks for a while. I don't enjoy that gameplay, but I'm curious now whether even the most primitive camping is actually that effective in pubs still, with MMR and whatnot. I have been doing perkless Legion 4ks for a while now, and while I mostly use tunnelling to get there, camping is of course integral part of it, so going from that to facecamping won't be too grating of a transition.
1 -
I'm not sure that it's helpful to argue about whether this thread is a scientific study. We can all see really easily that camping often leads to kills, just based on having played. The issue is, what does that mean for the health of the game?
2 -
So while 1 survivor was facecamped, he died slower. It was exploited by 2 other survivors facecamping the killer while 1 survivor did gens.
How fraking slow is the facecamped survivor dying for 1 survivor to be able to do 5 gens. Are you saying that the facecamped survivor stayed alive for 7 minutes? I'm sorry, but if that's the only reason it wasn't implemented, then that's just kind of ridiculous. If you are in a game where 1 Killer facecamps 1 survivor for 7 minute, then that Killer deserves to lose. Especially if 2 survivors are willing to wait outside of chase range and just stare at the Killer for 7 minutes, while one works a gen. The crazy coordination on the survivors side. lol
0 -
So, basically, you're saying 'The Killer deserved to lose for not giving up a free unhook because Survivors were super smart and deserved to exploit this effect'? Something easily done in an SWF on voice comms?
No bias there. 🙄
0 -
Survivors are in control of how much time is wasted trying to save a camped survivor.
Yes, if camping is getting kills, the killers are punished with a higher mmr.
1 -
I just think it's funny. I would love this to be implemented just for the amusement factor that now survivors can facecamp killers.
However, I think you are misremembering an old feedback thread where someone suggested that exact fix for camping, then someone else presented the hypothetical scenario that 2 survivors would do that. I remember being in that thread and someone suggesting that 2 survivors could exploit it in just the way you said.
To my knowledge, that was never tested by BHVR. However, again, it's funny as heck.
---
There has only been 1 fix for camping that BHVR actually put on PTB and it was if a Killer was in so many feet of a survivor, then progress on the death time would pause. It failed because survivors would run the Killer around the survivor.
0 -
I'm pretty sure it was tested, where the Struggle Meter would slow down if the Killer was within <x> meters of a hooked Survivor.
Survivors did exactly what I described, and it was quickly removed.
I could be off base, but I'm almost 90% sure it was tried for a small amount of time.
2 -
There was a test on the PTB where if a Killer was within so many meters of the hooked survivor, the death time would be paused. It was exploited by survivors running the Killer around the survivor. It was the only anti-facecamping test to make it to PTB, of my knowledge.
0 -
That must be what I'm remembering.
1 -
Great points.
You may be right about the influence of MMR, when it comes to the question of "how often will I face a good squad?"
I'm fairly confident I'm already at the higher ends of MMR, but even if I am not... this test should theoretically take me there at the rate of success I'm currently seeing. Therefore, at a certain point my data will reflect how effective camping is at high MMR and the results I see from then on will answer OP's initial question one way or another.
At the end of the day, it just comes down to collecting more data points.
If a survivor is on death hook, I'm not going to camp them as the entity takes their body up to the sky.
In the instance of "left a survivor I thought was on death hook," I had already killed one survivor and believed the Mikaela I was throwing on hook was dead. I instinctively left hook and immediately picked up chase with a Claudette. It wasn't until I was half way across the map with Claud that I realized the Mikaela was only on second hook.
Therefore, I've included the note to clarify that I erred in this trial, and it wasn't a 100% camping match (I only camped 91.67% of hooks).
Honestly, a bit weird that you're trying to paint me in a bad light when I'm the one who reported that I made a mistake.
Also, this isn't a face-camping study. Its camping. I'm not staring into the souls of every survivor, because that isn't optimal camping.
Edit: I see OP using the word 'face-camping.' It's possible we disagree on what 'face-camping' is exactly, but it sounds like him and I are both camping survivors the same way. The semantics don't really matter too much, as long as people are understanding that the camping in this experiment is close, but not "i'm staring into your soul."
As for SWF, I play on PC and can check people's friends lists. Also, I have asked people "hey are you a swf?"
So far, I've only noted SWFs when I've known beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I'm not going to waste my time belaboring the reasons for counting disconnects as kills, as I've hammered the point multiple times in the previous 6 pages of this discussion.
0 -
Extremely well said, both of you!
0 -
Camping shouldn’t be punished.
2 -
I wasn't going to comment on this, because I watch a lot of Cru5h videos and know how good he is as both a player and a content creator.
...but I decided to watch, and this video does not demonstrate how to counter camping.
Cru5h's demonstration here is pretty dependent on the basement lockers, so I'm going to address this as a basement-only scenario:
- If the Bubba really wanted to secure his basement kill, he should have been standing on the landing to chainsaw anyone coming down the stairs BEFORE they reached the hook. The only thing that could get past Bubba in that scenario is 3 Stacks of Mettle of Man, and even then the survivor will go down during unhook animation.
- Bubba should not have pulled Cru5h out of the locker while he was in Deep Wound. That is just a horrible play all-around on Bubba's part. If the Bubba played that correctly, Cru5h ends up on the ground every time and Bubba puts his teammate on the hook while he waits out Cru5h's DS.
- Cru5h's Dead Hard into locker was a really lucky play--either Bubba started chainsaw too late or Cru5h just has that much better internet. He should never have had the chance to Dead Hard, but even so... Bubba should have immediately pulled Cru5h out of the locker to eat the DS before Nea could use unbreakable, then hook the Nea and repeat Step 1.
You already said that you recognize the strength of camping, so its a little futile to try and use this video to highlight possible counters when the killer in Cru5h's video made far too many mistakes.
0 -
1. I'm not trying to paint you in any light. I'm asking questions and pointing out what I see as flaws in your methodology.
2. Good to know on swf. Considering how often people claim they faced one, it is important to verify.
3. The reason I kept bringing up facecamping specifically, is because that's what the OP claimed to be testing. That's why the idea of you walking away from a survivor didn't make any sense to me, that would, in my eyes, invalidate the round. To be fair that's because I tend to favor pristine test/data sets for any sort of long term study.
4. That does directly show just how much transparency these "studies" have. It took 10 pages to work out whether you were testing face or proxy camping (which have different strategies on the survivor end, as I'm sure you are aware, and are seen as distinct types of play by BHVR)
5. Again, I'm not trying to paint you in any light, I don't know you. What I am critical of is the data being presented, as I don't feel it's complete, and now it seems it wasn't even testing the scenario mentioned in the OP (tbf, neither was the OP)
6. Quick note, I've seen your justification and I disagree. A DC isn't a kill. It doesn't take the same time and shouldn't count the same, in my view. A DC is a DC.
1 -
3. The reason I kept bringing up facecamping specifically, is because that's what the OP claimed to be testing. That's why the idea of you walking away from a survivor didn't make any sense to me, that would, in my eyes, invalidate the round. To be fair that's because I tend to favor pristine test/data sets for any sort of long term study.
I think definitions are important and I see where you are coming from. Face-camping originally was defined as standing in front of the survivor to prevent other survivors from unhooking them. Now days that doesn't exist, so I've always understood the term Face-camping to have changed to being within close proximity of the hooked survivor.
Proxy-camping, I've always understood to be a Killer that goes in and out of terror radius, or 32 meters of the survivor or stays slightly outside 32 meters until someone comes to unhook them.
Camping to me, is either a general term to describe both proxy-camping and face-camping.
I think maybe we should get some definitions down to understand what we are talking about.
What I'm talking about, would best be described as I had before. If you think about the killer shack basement, then what I'm doing is basically staying within range of the perimeter of the basement walls as compared to the hook in the center. I would say it's about a 6 meter perimeter to the hook. I'm fine with calling that whatever term you want. I wouldn't say it's camping because camping has always been a generalized term for all forms of camping.
2 -
Thank you for understanding.
I think if you are going to try and run tests, it would be better to make sure that everyone, both running and observing, is aware of the exact thing you are attempting to test.
Facecamping, especially with bubba still happens (had a match earlier today where I got to spend quite a bit of time appreciating the work that went into bubba's mask design, actually) so I thought that's what you meant. What you are describing I have always had defined by myself, friends who play and conversations here, as proxy camping, which the devs want to keep in, or more specifically, basement camping, which I believe they want to keep, but don't have first hand evidence for that, and am really just going by perk and hook design.
1 -
I wish the developers would come out and say what they mean with "proxy-camping" and "face-camping", because like I said before, "face-camping" doesn't exist, after survivors are able to unhook survivors from the side.
The one thing that makes me believe "face-camping" is staying within a 6 meter radius is that the only test on the PTB to prevent "face-camping" failed because survivors would run around the survivor, preventing the death timer from progressing. Which to me, indicates that "face-camping" is staying within a pretty tight area around a hooked survivor instead of just staring at the hooked survivor.
2 -
Yeah, pure facecamping, where the killer could hook you and go make a sandwich as long as he was stood in the gith spot was (thankfully) fixed long ago.
I think they went with the space around the hook (I think it may have actually been about 3m) because they just couldn't think of a better way to do it. There's no point of contact to code the game to look for, so unless they were going to put an invisible wall right in front of the hook that only affected killers, (which would also be broken and ensure free unhooks) they just don't have a ton of tools available for the issue.
With basement camping I would actually be more eager to see how the data works out with trapper. Bubba is a great defensive killer, which is why he's so proficient with all camping, but I really think Trapper is the uncrowned king of the basement, especially with the last changes they made a few weeks/months/time is a blur ago allowing him to start with his traps.
0 -
I REALLY enjoyed your post! Very well done!! Thank you!
In my humble opinion, I believe that camping players is very rewarding. especially with Bubba. The killer does 2 things. Hooks players and the option to MORI players with special hexes or offerings. So Yes, it is very rewarding to play this way.
Especially since Hatch no longer appears (in this patch) to spawn until 1 player remains. If the killer has BBQ and Chili (which the other player can only ASSUME, since there is no status effect notice). As well as stock up on Agitation, Iron grasp, BBQ and lightborn, plus a pledged offering of relocating the hatch. It could really be rewarding.
Another way is to sub out the BBQ and go with Whispers and swap that around with Iron grasp, if need be.
Right now, the most toxic thing to do is down a survivor is; Slug them, and then hover over them until their friends mount a rescue, and then leave everyone slugged until their timers run out. Which is an eternity.
1 -
If you are camping hooks with bbq equipped, you are doing it wrong. The aura reading is completely useless if you aren't going anywhere after getting the hook.
0 -
You can't punish camping when camping is the only thing that works for 99% of the killers. Roster not players...
3 -
The point of Cru5h's is to demonstrate the validity and thought process behind countering a camp or how to approach the save. Each situation is different and it is on the adaptability, insight and understanding of the survivors to determine the best course of action in each case. There is nuance in the game each situation is slightly different and varied, which is part of the strength to the game. Where is the hook located, what is around it, where did you go down, how fast did the first down occur, etc.
Personally my favorite example he pulls out is at around the 5 minutes mark. It showcases that if the initial survivor is able to get found at +/- 27 seconds, get downed at 1 min and change and is on the hook at 1:18 mins in. That is not a bad start from the bubba if you ask me, the initial find was decently quick, the chase was quite fast and the camp started. By 3 mins all the gens are done, it highlights the importance of doing gens.
The main aspect of countering a camp is to know most importantly when to go for a save and secondly the ability to analyze how to approach it. Then you have nuances like when and how to trade hooks to buy more time if needed and those type of aspects. That is given that you even go for the save at all and not simply try to get the escape with 3 of the members of the team.
Personally I think there is a far bigger core to the causality of why camping works and that has little to do with the killer and far more with the survivors seeking out interaction with the killer even at the determent of their team success or their own. It is less of an issue of whether camping can be punished, but with the resistance of people willing to execute it. Your average game times and gen completions in my opinion are clear indicators that this is the case, it is less about the escape and more about interacting with the killer.
2 -
This is interesting. Since it became impossible to literally block an unhook, I always thought of face-camping as "standing close enough to look the survivor in the face while you camp them" especially literally standing still and staring at them.
I always thought of proxy camping as camping by proxy -- meaning, you don't stay by the hook, but you leave something else there to camp the hook for you and let you know if someone tries to save. Ex: Hag leaving a trap; Twins leaving a twin.
0 -
You have activated my Trap Card™, this video is way more recent (October 2021) than yours and lead game designer does say they dont want to get rid of camping but they notice is way too profitable for such a little investment, especially against Solos and they consider camping a thorn in their side but they dont know exactly what to do yet.
3 -
Ain't no trap card been activated.
They don't have any particularly viable ideas to solve the camping issue and people have complained about it for 5 years. In 2020 they flat out said they have no plans to address. 2021 They still have no plans to address it and explain they don't know how to address it. There is no gotcha moment here. There is nothing that can be done about it without altering things in a substantial manner which quite frankly, hasn't been their style when it comes to universal mechanics directly involving objectives.
3 -
The 5 minute mark example is definitely a great demonstration of how a coordinated team can punish a camping killer.
However, it is mathematically impossible for that scenario to ever happen in one of my games. It would probably take 4 BNPs to come close.
One thing I'd like to note (that I've realized while carrying out this test), is that there is more nuance to camping than people might want to acknowledge. There are many strategies that I, as the killer, can implement to make camping more effective:
- Zoning my first chase(s) towards unblocked generators; maximizing Corrupt Intervention value
Every trial I am deliberate about how I chase survivors, and I am willing to risk extending my chase time if it means I can down survivors closer to unblocked gens. Being able to hook survivors near the first few gens being worked on allows me to regress gen progress with Ruin by proxy. There have been times where I've effectively full-restarted the trial while camping a hook because of Corrupt/Ruin.
- Hooking survivors near Ruin, once it has been discovered
Being able to camp a survivor and keep direct line of sight on Ruin allows me to keep a valuable perk active as long as possible. Ruin may not have much effect while I'm camping, but its value cannot be understated when I'm looking to start a new chase, or trying to find new survivors.
- Using Deadlock to find Survivors
If Ruin is still active, Deadlock not only buys me more time in the trial, but it also tells me where survivors are and allows me the opportunity to chase survivors off gens and increase Ruin's value.
- Hooking near progressed gens
Easily the most effective way to camp, hooking survivors next to generators that have tons of progress will do massive damage to the survivor's objective. This is not always in my control, but when I'm able I will always take advantage of the ability to camp a gen and a survivor at the same time.
I feel like your assumptions about my game times and gen completions are coming from a lack of understanding what I'm able to do as killer while camping, and just how much influence I have over the progress of objectives.
I'm not mindlessly chasing survivors and staring at them. As you have said, there is nuance.
Perhaps I'll setup a screen capture so people can see what decisions I'm making throughout the trial, and whether or not I'm even playing as optimally as I could be.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Nuance, skill, decision making, coordination and all that is makes it hard to make the claims you are. I already indicated that there is no one tactic suits all, as guess what you need to account for the situation that you are facing. Maybe they need to get a hook trade in there at some point and all strategies and tactics can be punished. By the sounds of it you are far beyond normal all players level of experienced and yet expect to be able to collect data to represent that?
Every time you showcase more information about your actual gameplay the less it looks like a true objective face camping strategy and simply a proxy, area control style of play similar to what competitive players are doing and they do that for a reason. These results are a tribute to your abilities and they are impressive it isn't easy to achieve. It just isn't an objective representation of the strategy for the general player base. When most people encounter a face camper it just is more inline with what you see in those videos and not remotely close to a killer extending chases to get a better positioning on the map to defend and what other crazy mind boggling efficiencies you pull out of a hat.
That is why I indicate that whether it is punished or not, depends on who is involved and how they play. The strategy has counters, it is just about execution at that point.
1 -
I totally agree with you @KayTwoAyy there are a lot of things I learned to make camping even more effective.
Deadlock and Ruin combo
- These are must have perks. I heard from someone that they used Deadlock for camping. I always wondered why until I started using it. It cannot be overstated on how powerful the perk is for pretty much countering the only thing survivors can do against camping, which is separating and working gens individually. It pretty much adds 3 gens extra, that the survivors need to do.
Hooking near progressed Gens
- Again, the more ways you can passively regress gens, the better. Hooking a survivor by a gen with progress forces the survivor working that gen to waste time finding another gen and allows you to passively regress that gen while you camp.
noed
- You need this as a fail-safe. If you go against a good team, then you need this to fall back on to pick up an extra kill or two.
Leave the hook early
- You don't need to wait for the entity to take the survivor you are camping. You can shave a couple seconds off by leaving right before they die. No survivor is going to be close enough to rescue them at that point and it gives you precious seconds.
4th Perk slot
- I am still experimenting with the 4th slot. There's a couple of perks that work well with a camping build. One is Corrupt Intervention. However, another one I'm liking is Bitter Murmur. Being able to see remaining survivors for 10 second usually nets me a NOED kill or two. I can also see Lethal Pursuer being a possibility since it starts you off in a chase, but I haven't unlocked thie one to test it yet.
2 -
I want to thank you for helping spread awareness so that both new and seasoned killers can improve their camping skills, it's desperately needed in these dark times.
3 -
Mate, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
You can't draw a hard line in the sand over what is or isn't camping, whilst saying everything else in the game is ambiguous.
You're making straw man arguments over here, because you just want to twist and turn the parameters of this study to whichever way will discredit us most.
It sounds like your understanding of camping is the same as tunneling--the condition is only met when it is done at the detriment of the killer.
Therefore, you're never going to be content with this study, because it's trending in a direction that defies your entire worldview on camping.
Unless I am definitively the best killer in the game, I represent a portion of DBD's player base (however big or small).
I recognize that I cannot represent ALL of DBD's killers, and I've acknowledge that fact on multiple occassions by asking others to offer their own data. I'm not trying to claim my data represents everyone. But when everyone seems to agree that camping is strong at lower ranks, its strange that suddenly its an issue I'm finding success with it in high ranks.
I just recorded gameplay on Grim Pantry. It is going to take a while to upload, its almost 15 minutes long (longest game yet), but I'll let my gameplay speak for itself when I'm able to share it.
1 -
"Plans to make being facecamped less punishing (for the survivor)?, do we have anything in the works for that?" "We do, we are actually getting very excited on a meeting before..." and then he goes on a monologue about the problem being hard to counter and how it takes too much time to learn whats happening and react accordingly.
Thats the gotcha, you dismissed the whole thing with "they dont plan to change a thing because these 2 old videos say so" and you are wrong, the video I posted completely counters yours and mine being newer means its their mindset right now, they do have plans now because its starting to become a problem, they are just working on it. Opinions change and stuff thats not seen as troublesome may become it if people abuse it enough or it becomes an obstacle if it blocks other changes (for example you cant change gen timers if you dont fix camping first), happened with flashlights, they were fine, they werent a problem, in Q&As they dismissed them etc etc etc then flashlights got nerfed because it was shown they were actually a problem but it was a hidden one as not many people used them, once the cat was out of the bag they nerfed them harshly.
It wasnt their style to change things in a substantial way but that also is starting to change, first with the breakable walls, then with MMR and now with Boons its clear they are not as afraid as they were when trying to shake the game mechanics.
@Munqaxus About the 4th perk, try Lethal Pursuer once you unlock it as it eliminates the trouble of finding the first victim to get facecamped, it also lets you decide which one is going down according to where the basement may be if you wish to send someone there. The thing that counters facecamping the most right now is the Killer not being able to find someone fast for gens will have a big headstart before you down someone.
0 -
No, I do not blame survivors for giving me free kills when I camp. I am glad such skilled players can carry me to lots of bloodpoints while I do nothing. Ez.
2 -
Will this be before or after the early game collapse they said they'd do? And will it come before or after the "new report" feature they talked about? The devs make lots of claims and never follow through and just pretend it never happened. People are dismissing this idea of them fixing camping because they tried and it failed badly, and other times they talked about it, nothing came of it. I genuinely believe you're setting yourself up for massive disappointment.
Also a generator speed fix would need to be in the exact same patch as any camping fix. Not after, not "in the future" exact same patch, or enjoy every killer leaving. "We're gonna take away your tools but I promise one day will do something for you, just like with keys and mori's!" lol it either happens at the same time or never at all. Like seriously bro, you think ANY KILLER HERE is going to trust the devs if they removed camping and then said "we'll fix gens soon, promise" after the debacle of basically removing mori's and then taking a FULL YEAR to nerf key's? This dev team doesn't have the good will to ask me to believe in a promise of fixing killer issues AFTER nerfing them. I know this game's playerbase and dev's are very cocky, but I'd be a little careful about ensuring every remaining killer quits your game a few months before multiple competitors come out, during a time where we have actual data the game has been losing players every month for months now and we're down a good 30% since August on steam. Tens of thousands of people have stopped playing on steam and I have to assume on console, too, though we cannot see those numbers. It's time to stop thinking the devs can do anything at all and it won't cause irrepairable harm to their game. It's a 5 year old game with a pretty negative rep among a lot of people. It's not getting younger and there isn't an infinite playerbase of untapped people looking to play a 5 and a half year old bully sim.
2 -
No, you want to have your cake and eat it to and you are putting words into my mouth I never said.
I stated that its efficiency is dependent of who you face and that it can be countered but in many cases isn't. Literally saying it can pay out for a multitude of reasons and the causality of the success rate is to be considered.
You claim it is an objective test about the efficiency of face camping for all players, while you are acknowledging that you are combining multiple strategies in one and making decisions to maximize your gen pressure. The original premise was about face camping, while you clearly are expanding it into a proximity camp situation and an area denial rather than the overall agreed upon definition of face camping when speaking about this within the community.
The fact of the matter is that the developers themselves have stated that proximity camping is very much so a valid strategy within the game and one that is supposed to work if executed well; hanging around near-ish to the hook and using the hook for other means. It can also be countered by well executed plays by the survivors. I complimented your gameplay and acknowledged that you are good that it seems similar to what is seen in competitive play; showcasing that it is not a realistic representation of what you claim to test. You are capable of creating situations which would actually mimic far closely the limit of just face camping, but you simply choose not to do so.
I am not the one twisting the parameters here, that would be you. Expanding the parameters to include anything that will benefit a positive result for you, while claiming it is just a subset of the aspects used. When I play I use a variety of different strategies as well and it might surprise you, but I am not above camping to get a result if I deem it necessary. I even stated previously that I believe at high level play camping is a necessary tool at times to utilize when facing good survivors in order to get the win.
If you want to come at me for my stance, don't try to twist them to suit your narrative. Both of you want to speak in obsoletes and act like your data is impeccable and in no means flawed. It is far more nuanced than that which I simply point out and there are clear data concerns if you simply look at it objectively.
Post edited by Kalinikta on0 -
You're being way too literal.
If hitting a survivor on my hex totem 6m from the hook I'm camping means that I'm no longer camping, then your definition of camping is "playing like an idiot."
This test has never been a study of "can I hook a survivor and win while playing with extreme negligence?"
That may have been your understanding of the test, but that has never been what either myself or @Munqaxus have described in our recounts of matches thus far. That err is on you.
How is it so hard for you to understand that the killer can juggle multiple objectives while camping?
If I am not committing to any other chases, and I am staying near my hooked survivor, I am camping.
The survivors will tell you that I camped all game, and I am telling you that I camp all game.
There is bad camping; i.e. face-camping or not moving in front of the hook.
And then there is good camping; i.e. actually doing something productive while I stand in front of the hook
Both are camping.
0 -
Once again I am not stating you are not camping! Jesus, read what I am actually writing! So, I will go and repeat myself, I hate it when discussions turns in to me having to literally quote myself to showcase someone trying to twist my words into something that I did not state (the post you quoted talks pretty much exclusively about camping, but I am somehow stating you aren't camping...).
To highlight what you are saying here:
How is it so hard for you to understand that the killer can juggle multiple objectives while camping?There is bad camping; i.e. face-camping or not moving in front of the hook.And then there is good camping; i.e. actually doing something productive while I stand in front of the hookBOTH ARE CAMPINGThat means you are no longer face camping, but have turned to what is known as proxy camping! As I have stated literally in the post you are quoting let me highlight it for you here:
The original premise was about face camping, while you clearly are expanding it into a proximity camp situation and an area denial rather than the overall agreed upon definition of face camping when speaking about this within the community.You literally are now admitting you have moved the goal post or are not realizing that we are talking about two very different things and are not bothering actually reading what I am stating. The OP specifically is stating that they are collecting data using, from his post:
"As promised, I did 10 more facecamping Bubba games."He even made a post to specify that he (and you for that matter) is collecting face camping data, with distances and all that jazz. You guys are either running two very different experiments or expanded the parameters of the tests conducted, while not representing this accurately in the data presented in the posts. Showing that the test results being showcased are misleading and inaccurate, as you are talking about "BOTH ARE CAMPING", while the test premise is calling out face-camping as the source of the data of unpunished behavior - while you are specifically stating: That is bad camping...
Maybe you should view the above post and the developers talking about that exact thing; you are near-ish to the hook to be able to juggle multiple objectives while camping. They indicate that there are ways to counter it and is part of the game they want to keep in the game - while they want to punish/remove/absolve face-camping.
Post edited by Kalinikta on2 -
OP said facecamping once, in a day-later edit at the end of his initial post in which he generically used the word camping 5 times prior. The discussion that followed was then about camping, in the general sense--never facecamping.
He later addressed his definition of 'facecamping' (I believe you saw that), indicating that he was never talking about true facecamping.
Ergo, this study has never been about only facecamping.
Below is a diagram of camping.
In words, camping is when a killer's primary objective is to defend a hooked survivor to secure a kill or force a trade. A killer is camping when they are closer to the hook than all remaining survivors. Proxy-camping is when a killer's primary objective is to patrol & chase near a hooked or slugged survivor, so that they can challenge unhooks and rescue attempts.
The difference between camping and not camping is intent and proximity*.
*Proximity is more of an evaluation of how well you are camping.
I hadn't realized that my game capture output file was .mov by default, so the game I recorded earlier is an absurdly large file. It is in the process of uploading to Youtube, and will be posted on here sometime in the next 12hrs.
1 -
I won't comment on the different points you developed in your larger discussion, there's various things I'd concede or contest but overall it seemed reasonable enough.
But there is one issue that as far as I can tell, steered the direction of the discussion past each other's talking points from the get-go: You want to argue about whether killers can be punished for camping, the thread however was about whether killers are actually punished for camping. If you go to the first post, it does not say anything as to camping having no counterplay whatsoever, as if it would work out perfectly every time against everyone. The premise was that as opposed to what many people say, on average camping works out more often than not, and is not "punished" by getting sub-50% kill rates. The argument was not that the sky is always blue, but that it is much bluer or much more often blue than people claim. The thread's author directly pointed this out in the discussion with you too if I remember correctly, saying that in theory camping might not be expected to be this effective, but in practice it provably is.
You do seem aware of the fact that camping is still one of the most viable strategies even in high-level competition, but even if that weren't the case, the point of the thread would stand because it is concerned with the success rates of camping in the main game mode that 99.9% of players actually play. Sure, camping is less effective the better, more coordinated and more "win"-oriented the survivors are, and while it can still regularly be highly effective even then, of course players would not see as much success (as high kill rates) playing like this against top coordinated and skilled teams exclusively, as those teams can actually "punish" camping to extents, certainly if it's one of the more primitive variants like outright facecamping. But that's completely beside the point of the thread, which never asked why or when camping is effective, only if it is effective in the actual game against the actual opponents one actually gets, often enough to be something killers actually are not punished for, but indeed rewarded. And their results clearly show that it is. Surprisingly they didn't get less than 2 kills even just a single time - which is definitely something that can happen, again you are right that camping can be punished to extents - but even if they had lost a dozen times, if the average kill or win rate would be above 50%, it would still go to show that camping is not punished.
I also don't know why the discussion switched to facecamping specifically. Again the original post did not make that distinction, and neither does the common narrative it sought to counter ("camping is a bad play, you usually won't get more than a kill, and at best two"). That they actually do employ a facecamping-type strategy for these stats might open up some basis for arguments about the definitions of types of camping and which type of camping is the most consistent, but there's really no "gotcha" there because not only was the premise never about facecamping specifically, but facecamping is the easiest type of camping, both for killers to do and for survivors to counter, and so if even that works out as often and as well as the author seeks to demonstrate, it goes to show that camping is ridiculously effective, as smarter, more skilled ways of camping can only be expected to be even more effective.
I agree with you/the devs that camping in general is a worthwhile and even "healthy" aspect of the game that should not be removed entirely. Facecamping is at least "punished" by being boring for the killer player as well, but since that does not prevent people from doing it, I do think changes are in order to remedy it, and I would think so even if facecamping weren't also as effective a strategy as it apparently still is. In general I think that while camping has its place in the game, adjustments to incentivize killers to go for more chases and hooks and likewise making the gameplay around hooks more engaging would be a good direction. Hook grabs for instance are such a bad mechanic, they incentivize hard-camping, lead to awkward and silly dancing around the hook with survivors being scared to commit to the unhook and killers not wanting to hit them, they are subject to randomness to a significant extent not least because they are affected by latency, and they have been bugged forever since the hooked survivor cannot be unhooked for as long as the grab animation lasts. Removing that mechanic from the game would already go a long way to make hard-camping less attractive and enable survivors to contest camped hooks more reliably, and the killer would still stand to benefit a lot from survivors contesting hooks. Of course, that change and other such changes that seek to make hooks more contestable would have to go along with compensatory killer buffs in other gameplay aspects, such as chase strength or gen control.
2 -
"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."Literally in a response to me the other day. He actually uses the word quite frequently and I for one specifically call out the terminology, while you clearly do not care to read what is actually being said. You stopped responding to the actual contents of my messages and ignore the premise being laid out by the original poster.
1 -
Read the posts by the original poster, he uses the term facecamping all over when talking about the playstyle used to collect the data, it is mentioned in his original post and ones directed at me. You and @KayTwoAyy are on a totally different wave length than the person that initiated this discussion and that is something I have been trying to point out. I have never disputed any of the results, just the premise of the tests conducted and the manner in which it is being represented.
As you pointed out I am aware of the fact that the manner in which they are camping is one of the valid strategies even in high-level competition. The concern is about the efficiency rate of the strategy in the game, yet to determine whether that is truly worrying means that one should analyze the causality of the outcome before conclusions being drawn from it.
You bring up win-oriented and I think there is much to that, as the people conducting the test are extremely win-oriented. As I have indicated previously if one side brings the best of the best and the other doesn't, the game starts off with a discrepancy. Is the tactic used the final determining factor or is it simply the fact that you are playing as optimal and efficient as possible to secure the win while the opponents aren't? I think we all agree that it can be punished, so why isn't it in practice? Is it the strategy or is it something else? If you want to analyze this objectively you have to be more nuanced and determine causality, rather than what people are trying to pass here as objective data. There are more aspects in play than just you are camping and there is no accounting for it.
It is like testing gen rushing strategies with a 4 man swf, I bet they will win a vast majority of their games - is it because it isn't punished enough? Blight or Nurses or any killer really with the most powerful perks and add-ons doing their outmost best to win, how efficient are they? The manner in which the tests are being conducted as I have pointed out is very close to what type of play you see in competitive play... yet using those type of plays in the general public match is that truly showing anything other than; if you try hard to win using valid strategies and combinations of it, in many games you will actually win?
Trying to show that something is good or broken are two different type of beasts. As the developers stated themselves, to figure out actual any problem areas, it is about the why and causality of the results seen.
2 -
Yeah, early game slowdown was in the talks and they canned it, they already said it was canned after a year, once they say "we dont have anything against facecamping" Ill consider the idea canned too but as it is now, camping is on the radar. Thats why I explicitly said "opinions change", same as they didnt consider camping a problem in 2017 and now they consider it, in 2022 they may change their mind again, in any case, right now they consider camping too rewarding so my point still stands and my video overrides the other older videos posted as proof that "camping is not considered as a problem by devs".
On your second point, Ill say the same I said before to Tsulan, this thread is to discuss OP experiment, camping and its consequences, lets not derail it with aboutthism, open a gen speed thread and Ill write my views there.
0 -
Well to be frank, I’m getting a little annoyed because I’ve been very transparent and I’ve been very consistent about how I’m conducting this study.
There was a misunderstanding over terminologies, but it was cleared up by OP. He has been very consistent as well, and he was quite transparent with how he is carrying out this study.
I don’t know OP personally—I’ve never spoken with him before this discussion—so of course there are going to be some kinks to iron out.
I’ve got people telling me how we should be conducting this study, I’ve got people who don’t even know what we’re studying, there are people giving their anectodal opinions on things they probably didn’t think too hard about, and then I’ve got a 7-page back and forth with you over god-knows-what at this point.
I think I’ve made it pretty clear what I am doing here in these past 10 pages, but for some reason you’re calling me a liar because of something someone else said to you.
I’m enjoying discussing this topic with you, because you bring up some really great points. But its a headache needing to justify my behavior when I haven’t mislead anyone about what I’m doing.
Edit: If your intention has been to point out that OP and I are not conducting our tests by the same exact rules, then message received.
I don’t think I’ve tried to claim that we were—tho I can see how it would be implied by my decision to join his study.
I never pressed him for a definition on camping before recording my own numbers. I didn’t really expect much debate on what camping is
Post edited by KayTwoAyy on2 -
There is nothing that can be done about it without altering things in a substantial manner
I hate this attitude.
DBD is a game of a million moving parts. It is the single most complex PvP game due to how many components there are to each game. To claim that 'there is nothing that can be done' at this stage is an attitude that is either so unbelievably pessimistic that you're just as likely to assume that you're going to drown in a light shower, or belies the intent to never see this problem addressed at all.
There was one, ONE singular test, FIVE YEARS AGO, and a LOT of people are taking that one, ONE singular test from FIVE YEARS AGO as stone-cold evidence that nothing can ever be done in any way.
I think it's in this very thread were an idea was put forward, and @AngyKiller opened up a thread to get some discussion going about a new possible angle to deal with it, and no one is responding.
It's not that it's not possible to fix this problem. It's that 'forum killers' just openly don't want to fix this problem.
1 -
Yes, I see so many people dcing after they opened the doors and not escape. And I see a lot standing at the hatch and dc
0 -
First off I am not calling you a liar and I do believe you are consistent in your approach. While you haven't been misleading on your results, they are being leveraged by the OP and stated to be face camping. You didn't correct the record, it was me pointing it out that the joint study is expanding its parameters.
Camping is a very broad spectrum of plays, as you have pointed out it is far more nuanced than many believe. Therefore yes, a debate on what camping is in terms of what you are studying is actually to be expected. I don't think we think that differently on the actual topic at hand and from a personal perspective I find data and analysis of gameplay extremely interesting. I also know that it is far more complex and nuanced than how people perceive it.
Maybe it is time that we focus more on the contents and the more interesting aspects of the discussion, before we just frustrate each other more. Lets simply take the more extended parameters that you actually test and I will leave out the joint aspect of the study - seeing you cannot account for their actions.
May I state that your doctor results were for instance very interesting, especially your own conclusions. Making a correlation between the initial start requirements and the efficiency of play.
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.You seem to be identifying that camping efficiency is based on when you get the 1 hook by:
- 0-1 gen is where you are primarily in control. (It is on you to mess up greatly for a swing to happen)
- 2 gens is a both sides have a chance
- 3 gens+ the control is now with the survivors.(It is on them to mess up greatly for a swing to happen)
Doctor is a pretty good killer to camp with, so would you judge that these type of parameters would apply to all killers or are there killers such as legion for instance that would have an even smaller window or bubba that has a bit more wiggle room just based on their innate abilities to camp?
Also, how does this compare to your general play? I personally find if I down someone and 5 gens are up, that I am in for a good match. Naturally chases afterwards can make my life miserable, but I believe that is also the risk of chasing.
2
