Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping
Comments
-
Regarding the premise of the thread, I really can't see that it would be about facecamping. The original post clearly talked about camping period, and while the tests were then later pointed out to be conducted in employing types of facecamping, again, if facecamping is effective it if anything has to be assumed that smarter ways of camping are only even more effective. I only ever understood the premise to be about camping in general and specifically to counter the narrative that camping in general is not effective because it doesn't usually work out in the killer's favour (and would therefore not be a problem). I for one don't think the distinction that facecamping specifically is effective and therefore problematic is very meaningful - for one thing it is stll camping, and for another it is the form of camping that should be the least effective, so if even it can be shown to be effective, I wouldn't bother to question whether those results can also be applied to camping in general (not least because it becomes increasingly difficult to define different types of camping, and because in the actual matches many different "types" are regularly utilized simultaneously). I admittedly did not follow your discussion with the thread's author very closely, it is possible it transitioned into something where the point of distinction is more valuable.
I don't think the reasons as to why camping is so effective are necessary for the conclusion that it is problematic. If even after years of the game existing and even now with MMR in place even relatively primitive forms of camping still work out as ridiculously well as these stats would suggest, it doesn't really matter why it works so well; if and insofar camping is seen as undesirable (and many players and even the devs do see it as such), it is a problem that it is so attractive. The reasons why it is would only become relevant in an argument as to what can be done to remedy the problem.
And even if the only reason that camping is so effective would be that survivor players in this game on average are not win-oriented enough, it would still be a problem that one might very well deem worthy or necessary of addressing, because again, you really do not have to account for any of these factors since the game itself doesn't. If you play the game (queue up into public matches) and camping works this well, it does work this well, and that is the game reality one has to balance for. Besides, as you know, even in the most win-oriented, competitive environments of tournament play, camping is still effective.
I don't think the comparison to a gen-rushing 4-SWF is very apt. Completing generators as fast as possible is the prime objective and objectively most effective way for survivors to play by the very definition of how the game rules are laid out, whereas camping is only one of a multitude of approaches a killer can have to killing survivors. An argument about the "problem" of camping can be qualitative, in as much as one can conclude that camping could and ideally even should be removed from the game altogether. Arguments about the "problem" of gen-rushing can only be quantitative, meaning one might argue gens can go too fast if you have 4 survivors that each actually play to repair them as fast as possible (I'd agree, with different caveats), but obviously one might not argue that the ability to repair gens at all is a problem.
I dunno, if your point really is that these results cannot be said to show with certainty that camping at large is a problem but only the specific type of camping employed to achieve the results, I do not really have a problem with that. Again, I think it'd be a fairly moot point because other types of camping should if anything be expected to be even more effective (and I personally am pretty confident in that since I see it all the time, including in tournament play), but it would be a valid point in terms of attacking the scientific rigour of the "tests" or its stated conclusions, and be it with regards to ones made in consecutive posts. If your point is that it matters why camping is so effective in determining whether camping is problematic, I disagree. Not only did the thread never set out to answer the why nor did it even say that camping is problematic, but whether camping is a "problem" is subjective anyway, and depends on how designers and players perceive and experience the gameplay that camping yields, and that would be true even regardless of how effective it is. I think it is easy to argue that camping has undesirable, "problematic" aspects, and that most people would agree. While I for one also see various desirable and "healthy" aspects to it, it's still a problem that camping is as effective as it actually is, and not even from a perspective of competitive balance (I agree with you that at the top level camping if anything is necessary to be able to compete), but from the perspective that people will more often camp if it is effective. And that's all the more true if even the arguably least desirable and most problematic type of camping is this effective and therefore attractive.
1 -
They specifically talk about face camping, and stated they have no issue with other forms of camping. So, no, camping in general does not seem to be an issue. Just bubba 2 feet infront of you revving his chainsaw. But don't expect them to do anything about the killer circling the hook. I don't believe that is even in the discussion, nor any other form of stopping general camping, since the entire question and response is based on face camping.
1 -
The general narrative is extremely looking at it in a black and white looking glass and generally speaks about countering it in terms of face camping. I personally have deviated from speaking in blanket statements and pressed for nuances.
Actually the reasons why camping is effective and/or widely used for that matter is important to determine whether it is a problem to begin with. When identifying a problem you actually need to figure out the core of why that is the case to know whether an adjustment is to be made at all.
The developers made no such claims as you are implying here about the ability to camp, as they specially make a distinction there they want to address face camping without negatively impacting proxy camping! This shows your lack of nuance in the conversation on camping and just want a rough brush to paint everything with. The irony is that while you are trying to claim that all camping is an issue, the developers identified just face camping to need addressing in their view, but that the fix for this shouldn't negatively impact other forms of it; which you are raving about being more efficient.
Game balance has to look at things objectively and understand the correlations. You cannot claim well one side isn't win-oriented enough we need to account for that and change the balance of the game. Killers can be less win-oriented just the same as survivors can be. That is like trying to account for the mental attitude of players in game design... it makes literally zero sense.
Repairing gens is not a problem. Hooking a survivor and sacrificing them to the entity isn't either. A plentiful manner in which they can kill survivors, you have hooking them and a mori? You can do individual gens or stack up? Not sure what your argument is here, because by the very definition of how the game rules are laid out should imply to us an effective manner to do your task? Camping is effective so people do it and splitting up on multiple gens is effective so people do it.
Sorry, but you seem to not be interested in an actual objective take on the matter nor in my stand point.
1 -
@KayTwoAyy and I don't know each other and we both did two independent collections of data. I'm pretty sure @KayTwoAyy and I have been using the same tactic, I just called face-camping instead of proxy-camping. I assume what you are doing is Proxy-camping also?
I feel that both @KayTwoAyy and I have been extremely transparent on what we are doing. Sure I used the wrong term but if you've read the discussion, which is going on 11 pages, then you know what we are doing and can use whatever term you would like.
3 -
Well you know what they say, when a discussion devolves into semantics you have already won, at that point is just people refusing to yield.
0 -
I agree.
If what I'm doing is considered proxy-camping then I don't really see as proxy-camping as being any different than face-camping. I'm pretty positive I would get almost the exact same results standing 2 meters away as standing 8 meters away. Being able to take 2 to 3 steps is not going to change my strategies at all.
I think if anything, all the arguing as proven that proxy-camping is just as bad as face-camping, if not the exact same thing.
Now being between 8 meters and 16 meters may make a difference.
0 -
There's really no meaningful nuance to me in determining whether camping works in pubs or not, it's as black and white to me as going into pub games, camping, and looking at average kill rates. And anyway, as I've said elsewhere, I always knew camping is extremely effective and one of the best killing strategies, the only thing I'm a bit surprised about here is that even facecamping is apparently still this effective even in the MMR environment, and even with LF. I would expect much more mixed results for facecamping, and a trend more toward an average of 2 kills, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'll see for myself soon enough.
I don't think the reason matters. Again, even if camping would have a simple and clear counter that worked every time and the only reason it ever paid off would literally be that people are too stupid, bored or empathetic to not employ that counter, if enough people behave in ways such that on average camping works, that is all the grounds one needs to consider changing that aspect of the game if one deems it undesirable, even if in a scenario where everybody is equally skilled, smart, experienced, win-oriented and whatnot it would be a non-issue.
I actually said I consider various forms of camping to be worthwhile and did address that the devs have stated as much themselves, and personally don't even have a huge issue with facecamping (which the devs however do; there are forms of camping they consider to be undesirable and there are various things they've done and continually do to combat it, they just don't ever get around to actually "solving" it). There are issues, I think camping is overly effective in pubs particularly when compared against the fact that it does not yield very engaging or interactive gameplay often enough in pub scenarios where people are mediocre, make sub-optimal decisions, aren't coordinated or win-oriented enough, etc., and facecamping specifically causes people to become upset or at least bored. I think the game would be better if it were changed to make camping less effective and thereby less attractive, in turn making other strategies more effective and attractive, but I for one would not want for it to be removed entirely either.
But it would be possible. Imagine that upon downing a survivor, they get sucked up by the entity and respawned elsewhere on the map in the injured or healthy state, and they get sacrificed on the third down. This would obviously change the game in many ways, but it could absolutely work, even without any other larger changes to the game (apart from obviously adjusting perks that rely on the hook (and slug) mechanic), and it would absolutely get rid of camping (and slugging) and make the game much more dynamic (low downtime, more action, more action for everyone) and chase-oriented. It would take out various strategic elements and types of gameplay as well, there could be arguments for and against something like that, and I would be more on the against side, but of course, there's a huge range of things that can be done to make the game less campy without literally deleting camping, and I think there's a better DbD somewhere on that spectrum. And again, even making camping itself a more engaging gameplay element with more skill-based mechanics around defending and contesting hooks would be a possibility.
For your game balance argument, you make the common mistake of not differentiating between base game balance and "live balance", where the latter is what actually happens in the game when people play it. And that live balance part is completely affected by things such as player attitudes and everything else that "in theory" should not matter, and if those things in practice do affect the game enough and often enough such that it skews global balance, they have to be included in the balancing approach if one wants to balance for the actual game experiences actual players are actually having most of the time. I didn't even invoke balance arguments though, as I've said, camping can be deemed undesirable even if it weren't effective or at all balance-relevant - the fact that it is effective only adds to the merit of the argument that changing it would be worthwhile if it is deemed undesirable, because being effective makes it attractive for people to do, meaning undesirable gameplay happens more frequently. I don't think camping and the gameplay it yields is undesirable through-and-through, but I also don't know what your point is invoking balance. I mean, you do already agree that camping is very effective, you don't actually think it only works if survivor players are stupid, bored or feel like throwing. So yeah, why should we even argue whether the ridiculous results in this thread are indicative of a base game balance issue with camping.
Gen-rushing actually usually includes people stacking up on gens, regularly with Prove Thyself, that is not a meaningful distinction. What I was getting at is that camping is not objectively or let alone by definition the best way to win the game, whereas repairing gens as fast as possible is. Camping is just one of various strategies, such as tunnelling, camping, slugging, 3-genning, playing for endgame kills, just chasing and hooking whoever you happen to find. Again, "camping" could literally be removed from the game without at all altering the basic functioning and premise of the game.
Your actual point with that of course wasn't about gen-rushing itself, more so that you again wanted to highlight how the differences in "win-orientedness" would affect stats like this, but I still can't see a meaningful point in that. If players in fact aren't win-oriented enough on average to deal with these things well, and if these things yield gameplay that one deems undesirable, then that is absolutely showing a problem. So say killer players on average aren't used to 4-SWFs actually playing with breakneck efficiency pumping out gens, and so they don't usually play hard themselves, don't camp and tunnel from the get-go all the time or at all or otherwise play as efficiently as they could, and therefore they get rolled by such a team more often than not. If it can be shown that this usually does happen, then "gen-rushing" is a problem, at least if the gameplay it yields is deemed undesirable (which it often arguably is - quick games with few chases and little general player interaction). I actually do think this is a problem, even if a very win-oriented killer player is still able to compete with this, and I do think SWF nerfs are in order for that reason (and other reasons).
My take which I consider to be fairly objective is this: Camping is a highly effective and in pubs arguably too effective strategy, and that is problematic not even necessarily just from a balance perspective, but from the perspective of anyone that considers camping to be undesirable to any extent, as its effectiveness makes it more attractive and therefore more common an occurrence. Doesn't mean I'd want to delete camping, nor that I want to nerf killers (nerfs to their camping capabilities would have to go along with buffs to other stuff), but I think it's pretty clear camping often sucks in terms of gameplay, that tons of people dislike the "camping" experience, and that there's a lot of things that could be done to make camping less effective (or more engaging) and the game less "campy".
I was indeed not very interested in your standpoint, I pointed out that it seems mostly reasonable to me and I agreed with you that camping can be punished to extents and does have merits to be in the game. But that wasn't what I wanted to address, I originally only replied to point to the disconnect in the discussion between you and KayTwo/Munqaxus, where you were concerned with whether (face)camping can be punished and they with whether it is actually punished (again base balance vs. live balance). The thread as far as I can tell was also never outright concerned with whether camping is a balance or game experience issue, so arguing about that would be a secondary concern at most. If I didn't miss something, the people presenting stats at no point actually said the stats show that camping is absolutely OP or would be OP even against equally skilled, coordinated, win-oriented, etc. players, and is always absolutely undesirable. Attacking them on those grounds seems uncalled for. They just set out to show that it works more often than not, contrary to popular narratives. Don't think they made the distinction between it being "broken" or just "good".
Not everything I said was directed at you specifically either, I just got into talking about the different points. It probably is for the best for the discussion to return to the actual stats. I will probably just try 10 facecamp games or so, will likely become too bored of it at that point or perhaps feel too bad for the players I'm facing. For what it's worth, in my region and at my MMR, I would be surprised if I get as high kill rates playing like that as they did so far.
0 -
You have no interest in my stand point and in what I have to say. You claim it isn't directed at me, while you are responding by quoting me. You are white knighting for @KayTwoAyy, while frankly we were having a pretty good back and forth all together. We had some frustrations built up and handled it in an actual civil manner... sadly the same cannot be said for you, coming in out of the blue and feeling entitled to claim you know best. There are so many flaws in your piece, but you already indicated that you aren't seeking to have an actual discussion so why would I bother engaging it in. There is no need to respond, you don't want to know what I have to say. You want to only have people say YES AMEN! to your pre-conceived notions and understandings. How dare someone raise queries and discuss something on a forum.
0 -
What is your stand point?
0 -
Compared to my general play (not strictly camping, but still playing for 4k), I'd say the bullet points you laid out apply.
I might even shift that metric by 1 gen, so that is works out as follows:
- 0-2 gens is where I am primarily in control
- 3 gens is both sides
- 4+ is survivors' game to throw
But I wouldn't say that it is a hard and fast metric, because spawn RNG plays a huge role in how many gens get done during first chase. If all 4 survivors spawned in different corners, and 3 gens are being worked on at once while I chase the first survivor, 3 gens being completed during my first chase says less than it would if I was looped for 3-4 minutes.
Regardless, the first chase is more important when camping, because you forfeit your ability as killer to explore other game delay options.
I'll have to playtest with Legion, but I expect him to be the worst camper of all the killers in the game. I don't want to say that too assuredly, however, because I think he might be able to leverage an unconventional approach.
I don't have much success with hook grabs--I think I average 2 every 10 games, so with legion I would just accept that I won't get any free grabs and lean into his Legion Pin (Broken Status Effect) and Smiley Pin (Mangled) Add-Ons. If two survivors come for unhook, and I hit the unhooked survivor and one other with the Broken Status effect, then down a third survivor relatively quickly... I can prevent survivors from being able to go for saves.
I'm posting my gameplay with Doctor below. You'll see that survivors are able to quickly reheal (even after Madness T3) and return to hook for BT saves. This is a problem I think Legion would be able to counter--and I think a lot of players would d/c in frustration.
I had a sharpness filter over my gameplay, which pairs horribly with video compression. So enjoy the pixel show :D
This is one of the best teams I've faced so far. They made a few crucial mistakes (as did I), but I think this game is an all-around great demonstration of where I push the boundaries on 'camping', and how I leverage zoning and hook placement to my advantage.
---
Edit: If I may add, the type of camping I demonstrate in this gameplay is the type I would like to see BHVR remove from the game. I make it pretty clear to the survivors that I will keep my body between them and the hook, and that I have no interest in patrolling gens beyond my immediate vicinity.
I actually enjoy this style of play, against a group of survivors who make it feel like a tug-of-war. But the inverse could hardly be said by them; at least, I wouldn't be having a fun time if I was in the survivor's shoes.
I would much prefer BHVR redefines the win conditions of DBD to hooks, and creates a system in which 1-2 hooking a survivor isn't physically possible.
Post edited by KayTwoAyy on2 -
Spawn RNG is a big factor yes, it is also not that even a small mistake or a great play cannot cause a shift in balance. It is more like a fuzzy general guideline anyway and in no ways some set in stone ruleset. The first chase is important in many games actually not just camping ones, the early game is where survivors feel the least amount of pressure and actual how much pressure they can exert there is very important.
I specifically mentioned legion, as I cannot imagine him being that good at camping. The combo you mention might actually make him better than I would think, who knows. Grabs are in general unreliable and is why you have these dances at the hook.
About your video, you do a pretty good job on the area denial. By no means did the game seem one sided, they truly had opportunities to actually punish you if they played it just a tad bet more conservative. I don't know how you see it, but that seemed like a perfectly fine match for both sides where each side had the opportunity to pull out the W. It came down to pure execution as far as I can tell.
You state that you would want this style of play to be removed, because you wouldn't like facing it? Yet what is fun is totally subjective, I wouldn't have mind to be on the other end of that doctor match. There are things I don't like facing as a killer and there are things I don't like facing as a survivor, yet does it mean that it is a problem? You are each others opponents, some aspects in PvP games isn't fun to go against or beaten by. In games you cannot remove everything anyone doesn't like to face, because at that point there is no game left. That is why I look at these objectively; is it fair, balanced and based on execution.
1 -
Post edited by DangerScouse on0
-
I Completely agree with everything you said in your first three paragraphs.
I suppose I have an issue with this style of play for a few reasons.
- Feeling of Victimization & Helplessness as Survivor
- Power Creep and the Decline of Creativity
- The Plethora of Better Options
Victimization & Helplessness
As a survivor on the hook, it is a horrible feeling being used as live bait with zero ability to influence the outcome of the rest of the game. As the individual on the hook, the only two counters to camping is to equip DS before the game starts and to not get caught in the first place.
After that, the rest of the game is completely out of your hands. You feel helpless. And that issue is further compounded when the teammate who unhooks you doesn't have Borrowed Time. Your entire existence in the trial feels like a waste of time, and it fosters animosity towards the game and its players if it happens repeatedly.
Power Creep and the Decline of Creativity
Once proven effective, this style of play presents a no-win situation for survivors who want to play competitive without defaulting to BT & DS. It is an inherent flaw in the game that players would be required to bring the same two perks to maximize their enjoyment when the game presents over 100 options.
Overwatch saw this problem when the strength of GOATS comp was popularized, and the game has been on a rapid decline ever since. What essentially happened was, winning & having fun became synonymous because choosing anything other than the winning comp meant getting steamrolled. And you can only get steamrolled so many times before you realize it would be madness to continue on that trajectory. And of course, no one wants to be told how they have to play the game, so saying "just play GOATS" is the wrong answer.
As an aside, I think there is a lot to be learned about DBD from Overwatch. They may not be the same game, but they both evolved into a complicated game of rock-paper-scissors. BHVR would do well to note Blizzard's successes and failures in that regard.
The Plethora of Better Options
While fun is subjective, it seems widely accepted that playing as and against camping is among the least enjoyable ways to experience DBD. So while this isn't an argument against camping explicitly, I would call this the "common sense" argument. In so far as to say that the developers should be maximizing the amount of times players are having the most enjoyable experience in DBD.
Disincentivizing camping was their first approach at this method, but history suggests they need to take a more aggressive approach.
..and of course the same should be said and analyzed about the killer's experience facing survivor. Right now, there is a certain content creator who is adamantly against the "W Key Meta" and is attempting to speak on behalf of "most people." Maybe I'm not "most people," but I disagree with their take. However, if it is widely accept that this is a problem, it should be addressed in the same manor I am trying to fight against camping.
2 -
There is ZERO punishment. Pips don't matter anymore. Ranks don't matter. MMR doesn't matter. You can play however you want.
0 -
This game would look entirely different if the team the Killer was playing against was making amazing BT and DH saves. You're not seeing something amazing on the killers side, you are seeing amazing saves on the survivors side.
This isn't fun for survivors, it's absolutely miserable. And honestly, it's not really much fun for Killers either.
0 -
- The feeling of a survivor is based on who is playing it and is not an objective measurement at all. Being on the hook is part of playing survivor, I personally have no bad feelings at all when I am hanging on it and I don't ever run DS actually as I don't like it and prefer perks that support my team and I tend to be solo so I need some information perks like Kindred.
- Well, the same could be said about the build that you use; 3 gen stopping perks and another to slow down the end game? It isn't like your are using random perks. Meta is Meta and perks are very influential in this game. Ever since I started playing DBD it has been extremely consistent and from what I heard the meta hasn't really changed in years. It is actually something I touched upon when I speak about using the best setups versus less optimal ones and it severely impacting the games outcome. However you put it, this is already in effect regardless of how you play and is more a general game thing than related to camping.
- To figure this out it is actually more important to figure out the why people do it, rather than just blanket dishing out punishments. If by your own accord the people doing it aren't a big fan of it, then why are they doing it? I am far more in the camp of creating incentives and tools to reward not camping, rather than just flat out punishing camping. The argument it is because it is effective that is why they do it, while they don't like it; indicates that there is not more enjoyable alternative to gravitate towards. That is why I press on the causality and correlations that create the nuance around camping.
To be fair, your notion on what the content creator is doing regarding W tactics... is what you are advocating for camping. Camping for me is simply part of the game, I might not be most people I guess. I don't overuse the tactic, but I don't shy away from it as I understand that is where the flow of the game can push you to and when I get camped, I sit on the hook and try to last as long as possible.
I rather try and take the feeling and fun arguments out of the equation as it is a pure subjective matter. This video isn't about camping specifically but one that be interesting to listen to that goes more into how the game motivates people to play certain ways:
I don't get what is wrong with expecting survivors to play well. I hear all the time when I am playing killer to get good. There are tactics that aren't that hard to do as survivor that are very frustrating and difficult to counter as a killer. I never understood the concept of how learning to play better and do good plays would be seen as a negative. Learning the game is part of the fun, I am pretty average and I waste pallets quicker than required most likely. I usually am capable of getting someone off the hook and yes I do always have BT in my builds for that exact reason.
Fun is subjective, if it isn't fun for the killer either... that is why the question: Why are they doing it is even more important? If there was a more fun alternative that felt viable and actionable don't you think people would do that instead then?
1 -
Whether camping is punishment or benefit, it often matters on other survivors (who aren't being camped).
Going for save when killer is camping Huntress, Trickster or Leatherface?
Going for save when person's hooked in basement with proxy camp?
Smart survivors will just rush gens and don't care if that hooked survivor dies on first hook.
Nobody's chased. Pallets are not disappearing naturally. Somehow near 3 gen can be prevented.
The problem is.. probably solo que.
Because most are usually unreliable and make stupid choices even if they or hooked person have Kindred.
And might blame killer "CAMPER, TUNNELER" not reconsidering bad mistakes they shouldn't have done.
Camping never matters on good survivors.
Average SWF can usually control game with communication, decent solo que players know what to do.
But bad players will often have misconception that camping is even powerful on Trapper or Wraith.
Just having a single teammate who doesn't contribute to others' escape ruin game results, not camping does.
0 -
Fun is subjective, that's true.
But because we are playing a game that people bought to have a good time, 'how fun is this?' belongs in the discussion.
I studied architecture in college at a school that was heavily focused on design.
We talked a lot about the design principle 'Form Follows Function' that emerged sometime in the 19th/20th century. I don't want to butcher the idea, so I'll just share this image I found on the web. The TL;DR is at the bottom of the image.
Famous American Architect, Frank Lloyd Wright believed that neither form nor function should have to follow each other. Instead, he has been quoted saying "form follows function--that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union."
Now there are architects out there who believe function should follow form (most famous is Frank Gehry), and it produces some really cool looking buildings. But there is a dark side to every building designed that way. For example, the Walt Disney Concert Hall is criticized for blinding drivers in the surrounding area and raising the utility bills of nearby structures with its concave reflected heat. Not to mention, the building suffers from a number of janitorial and maintenance issues all related to its design.
So back to DBD...
The function of video games is entertainment.
Whether you are an idealist like Frank Lloyd Wright or a pragmatist like Louis Sullivan, it naturally follows that the function (entertainment) of Dead by Daylight needs to be met harmoniously with it's form (how the game plays).
BHVR could follow in Franky Gehry's shoes and say "F your entertainment, we're here to design a game that works." They might stumble into success that way, but historically it has proven to turn out inefficient and plague-driven design.
It is not practical to design a game without the audience in mind. At the end of the day you could say "it works," but at what cost? Anyone can make something that works. A good game is defined by how enjoyable it is, regardless of how difficult a metric that is to measure.
To address some of your points more specifically:
- The same can definitely be said about the build I use, and a critique is definitely to be made about how DBD's meta has not changed, you are right. But the reason we can now make a comparison between Overwatch and DBD is because of MMR. Killers are being left with three options:
- Adapt and learn the best strategy to 4k
- Stop trying to win
- Abandon the game entirely
At the moment, people have been complaining about insane survivor queue times and a lot of the talk seems to attribute that to how killers are leaving the game or playing survivor because of what MMR has done to their experience.
Is it all hearsay? Is it just people stirring the pot? Did something actually change? Have people actually quit? I don't know.
But when I get a temperature read on the state of DBD, MMR is pulling back scabs BHVR should have healed a long time ago.
- I think you are placing undue importance on the WHY? I know why you value causality, and I know why you believe it is so pivotal to solving the problem. I agree that it is something to be studied, but I'm not convinced we need to look at player psychology to make corrections on the game. I'll concede that I could be wrong on that front, but I don't think we are making much ground against eachother on this topic (and we have been at it for a while) so it may be best to acknowledge we disagree and put this part of the discussion to rest.
- I don't think there is anything wrong with expecting players to play well. My critique is strictly on forcing players into a narrow peg in order for them to play really well. Epic Games has bent over backwards to make console players competitive in Fortnite. People shouldn't feel like they need to learn how to play with a Keyboard & Mouse to be successful in FPS games (or vice versa--looking at you Halo). That is my argument with DBD--players shouldn't feel like they need to run the same 4 perks to be successful in a trial.
On the CoconutRTS video...
It has always been BHVR's M.O. to release new perks that band-aid their game's problem--perks that try to incentivize new gameplay.
But as you've stated, the meta hasn't shifted in the game's history. 200 perks, and the meta has never changed.
Even if they did manage to change the meta with perks alone, it would be an unwelcomed change for the reasons I've stated above--no one wants to be told how to enjoy the game (i.e. which 4 perks they need to run).
1 - The same can definitely be said about the build I use, and a critique is definitely to be made about how DBD's meta has not changed, you are right. But the reason we can now make a comparison between Overwatch and DBD is because of MMR. Killers are being left with three options:
-
While fun is subjective, the most objective stance on camping definitely is that it is more undesirable than desirable. Camping takes all player agency away from the survivor on the hook, they can only watch as their team leaves them to die or even dies trying to save them, is completely at the mercy of whatever happens, including whether a potential rescuer has BT. Not only that, the basic counter to camping of sticking to gens is also something that takes the play out of the game, leads to matches with as little player interaction as possible, players more so playing against timers than against each other. These are objectively bad things from a game design perspective, you want as much gameplay and interaction as possible, and for that to be as engaging as possible, for player agency levels to be as high as possible.
That BHVR knows this is clear, because they have done various things to combat different forms of camping that made rescues all but impossible, with swivel hooks, reducing collision boxes on basement stairs, removing bear traps under hooks, fixing an issue where Victor could be placed under a hook, where Doctor could grab people in Treatment mode, implementing an invincibility window for unhooked survivors, and more. And yet still "facecamping" (which now refers to various ways of camping) is something they do not like, a "thorn in their side" as game designers, because they still know it's objectively not good game design. And this can be said for camping in general to an extent, because while there are more engaging ways of camping that involve more strategy, agency, interaction, skill, they are still clearly less conducive to gameplay revolving around those things than... chases, for one major game element. So while I don't want camping to be removed entirely and do think it has a place in the game, I think addressing hard-camping and making the game less campy in general, instead incentivizing chase-heavier gameplay flows with game action being spread around more, is about as objectively beneficial as it gets. Making camping gameplay itself more engaging is also a way to go about it.
I think it's a little silly anyway to defend camping on the grounds of it perhaps being something people find fun. Not sure there's been polls on this, but it seems pretty pretty clear most people do not enjoy camping. And while again I do think camping is actually a not unimportant aspect of the game for players even if they don't always realize as much (it can create crazy and thrilling game scenarios, and the fact that it can lead to big shifts in the standing of a match at practically any given time makes the game more tense and differentiates the flow of the game more on a trial-to-trial basis), there are pretty obvious issues surrounding camping gameplay which arguing should be addressed is a no-brainer. I'm sure we can remove Leatherface's ability to completely deny unhooks/trades without it hurting the game. Same for hook grabs. It's also not great game design that perks are used to combat camping, I'm reasonably confident the game would be better off with base-game tools for players to do so. Of course stuff like that would go along with other buffs for killers in other aspects of the game.
1 -
when surviviors punished for loop, killers have to be punish for camp...
0 -
What? What does looping have to do with camping?
0 -
With the right build, yeah, you can pretty much for a 3K by camping.
It's also the least engaging style of Killer gameplay and most people don't enjoy doing it.
I think that most of us agree that camping is a very boring and unfun mechanic, but there isn't a way to fix it that doesn't punish innocent players or involve reworking the game's basic mechanics.
0 -
Want to minimise camping? Make the game less survivor sided
Post edited by DangerScouse on3 -
Sorry what was your point?
0 -
Agreed
0 -
As I've said, nerfs to camping would go along with killer buffs to other stuff like chase strength and gen control. But ship those killer buffs without nerfs to camping and people will only be even happier to camp because it will only be even easier and more effective.
I do want most killers to be decidedly more threatening in chases, for them to go for chases as much as possible and for it to net them many hooks, rather than them standing around hooks playing for downs and kills without any chasing. I do want base gen regression to be more meaningful and for games to last longer on average. So yes, I agree, make the game less favourable for survivors in the relation of chase time to gen time, such that camping can be nerfed. Killers like Nurse and Blight already are in a spot where even at high levels they do not have to camp to succeed. Get killers closer to that and camping can be done away with to a better degree.
1 -
@zarr don't waste your breath on @DangerScouse
They aren't actually here to have a discussion.
It looks like they used to be interested in discussion, but ever since November 24th their posts are just quips and one-liners trying to elicit an emotional response. Not sure what happened, but we must be having a great conversation over here because they are working really hard to tell us they don't care what we're talking about.
2 -
I think what you found is totally correct. I always found it frustrating when I would read those post from people saying to just do gens. Yes if your in a swf group on coms I can tell them that I’m being camped and just do gens or if I happen to have kindred… otherwise we’re a bunch of randoms who have no clue what’s going on and waste a ton of time to figure out that the person is being camped.
mmr has definitely made this worse since before with the emblem system a camping killer wouldn’t pip.. so as a high rank survivor you wouldn’t see this as often.. unless they were r1 and just maintaining their rank. Now with sbmm which is based on kills and escapes a camper is no longer punished… their mmr will go up because the system doesn’t care about how many hooks, chases, interruptions to survs objectives etc… it only cares about kills.
solution =get ride of mmr
1 -
Design meets function
I studied actual game design and I actually agree with your usage of Frank Lloyd Wright. You indicate that the game should be entertaining, if it misses that objective people will simply stop playing the game. While fun is subjective it is hard to grasp and quantify in that sense.
The Meta and MMR
The meta of DBD did actually undergo a small shift with the introduction of boon totems, making older strategies that people enjoyed to do as a killer and I assume we will agree upon were less bad to face as survivor. Strategies like hit and run and gaining partial pressure along the whole team by injuring them has been pretty much completely nullified. All this is simply highlighted and emphasized with the MMR system, as you indicated the meta hasn't changed much. These slight changes and the exposure to teams more on your level and above, less weak links, showcase that the game pushes us towards as you state: Adapt and learn the best strategies. To be honest, most games over time results in people needing to optimize their play at least to a certain amount. Meta's aren't actually something that is dictated by the developers of games, they are the result of the players choices and the boundaries that were setup by the developers.
The results, the why and the resolutions
Now this is where our views start to differ and this is because I emphasize the why? It is part of the basic principles when actually designing games (which is also said by the developers in their Q&A) and is how you can determine whether the form and function are harmonious, where to adapt it to make it more that way or why it isn't behaving as you want.
Lets reiterate the three points you brought forth:
- Killers are more often camping and tunneling, adapting and playing by the best strategies possible.
- Killers have other options, yet are not deploying them and instead if they do not enjoy the above said practices are switching sides/stop playing. Those options as indicated by you would mean that they should give up on trying to win, which actually defeats one of the functions of a game; people don't play to lose.
- Survivor queues go up and the pool of killers are more often using either the strongest killers and combinations or applying the above mentioned strategies. Therefore the games are less entertaining and as a result less harmony is achieved between the form and function.
What does this mean though? Camping isn't fun for either side, so why is that what people gravitate towards? That statements of people not enjoying playing in a camping style might actually be true and yet instead of utilizing other strategies we are seeing people stop playing killer instead or only play Blight, Nurses and specific combinations of extremely strong elements. Those that do enjoy that style or do not mind utilizing them keep playing and therefore the survivors are more likely to encounter these select styles of play, because that is what is in the pool of killers the rest left or adapted to these styles.
Now, they can nerf these strategies and make them less fun and entertaining to do, because lets face it stop trying to win and standing no chance isn't fun and why they aren't playing killer. That is why most people don't simply play 'nice' or 'fun' and just lose over and over again. You don't need to win every game, you can even lose more often than win, but a key part of the entertainment and joy of games is that you believe you stood a chance. That is part of the function.
Lets say they nerf camping, does this solve the problem? No, it just makes it worse. As now the people that used those tactics are in the same boat as all the others. The best strategies will be reduced to play specific killers with specific load outs and tunneling, give up on trying to win or quit the game. You can try and force it on people, but the problem with that is - if they are not playing because they don't like camping and tunneling just making that worse isn't actually addressing the problem to get them back. All it does is push those that adapted to those styles a bigger reason to also stop playing killer.
The why is important here, because just making the side that people already are abandoning less fun for those that are left... isn't creating more harmony, it is actually the polar opposite. It is why I am in the camp of incentivize and promote more desirable forms of play that people do enjoy playing. Give those killers that would prefer to not camp and tunnel viable options that can compete and be at the same level of these strategies without the need to whip out a specific killer. Will that mean that you never come across a camper again, no... people that genuinely enjoy that experience will still do so. Yet by the premise promoted by those like yourself, that isn't most people and those that don't actually enjoy doing it will gravitate towards the viable strategy they do like playing. Not only will those that adapted to use these strategies maybe diversify and use other strategies, it will most likely bring back many of those that quit because they don't like camping.
It doesn't matter to much if this is done in the form of perks or base game changes. A meta isn't telling them how to enjoy the game it would be simply providing tools to play as they enjoy. If off meta, optimized, best strategies are to even be played the gap between the power levels needs to be something more reasonable. This is something that is currently lacking, people don't feel that they have those options to begin with. They feel that the game is pushing them to camp and tunnel to even stand a chance, that they are being told play like this or don't play at all to win. One of the major design issues that they have created themselves is that the difference between the best and even simply average setups is enormous. If one side brings the meta and you don't, good luck!
Don't get me wrong here, I would prefer base line changes rather than perks on a personal level yet I doubt they will change the amount of impact perks have on the game, as that is the route they took long ago. You can technically nerf camping, tunneling and all the non-fun strategies yet that would mean that severe nerfs would need to be made to the survivor end most likely along side with it and I doubt the community would be up for that or severe ground breaking game rework and that isn't going to happen. That is why I believe the better solution would be to elevate and provide tools to killers to make those other options more attractive or at least similar in viability, as also indicated by Coconut in his video.
Post edited by Kalinikta on3 -
Great breakdown! Seriously, really well put.
I have one comment, and then only one follow-up question.
I hadn't really been convinced about the significance of the 'why' because I can probably conceive of a million different reasons why someone is playing the way they are.
- Completing Archive Challenges -- Don't care if you escape, just if you get the archive done
- Content Creator Influence -- Just watched a video with this build & playstyle so now I'm going to try it
- Had a rough day -- need to take it out on someone
- Had a great day -- want to spread the love
- Dog pee'd on the carpet -- needed to AFK but still trying to win when you get back
- Smoked tons of weed -- not even remotely focused on what you're doing
- Just finished drinking all day -- barely functional
- Conducting a Study -- Playing a predetermined course of actions
- Listening to music -- playing without sound
...and on and on the reasons go.
And in my experience, I see out-of-game incidents influence in-game decisions all the time. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that there is any trend pertaining to the WHY?
But it sounds like you're saying there is a trend, and either some of the things I just listed are outliers or contribute to the trend.
Very interesting.
Okay, follow-up question.
BHVR's ability/in-ability to do it correctly aside... what are your thoughts on the idea of players selecting their entire build before queuing, and the killer/survivors you are paired with are determined by a perk/build ranking system, as a solution to the "one side brings a nuke to a knife fight" problem?
0 -
Fair points, can't disagree.
0 -
Post edited by DangerScouse on1
-
What does this mean though? Camping isn't fun for either side, so why is that what people gravitate towards? That statements of people not enjoying playing in a camping style might actually be true and yet instead of utilizing other strategies we are seeing people stop playing killer instead or only play Blight, Nurses and specific combinations of extremely strong elements. Those that do enjoy that style or do not mind utilizing them keep playing and therefore the survivors are more likely to encounter these select styles of play, because that is what is in the pool of killers the rest left or adapted to these styles.
This is a 'chicken and egg' situation though, and this thread stresses how linked these two problems are.
Camping is effective. It is not unreasonable to assume that it is the most effective strategy. It could very well be that killers are pigeonholed into this strategy due to rising performance thresholds from survivors becoming more skilled or being buffed.
However...
The vast majority of solutions to 'survivors OP' will likely end up making camping stronger. We could make survivors weaker in chases, but that also means that the first chase is going to be shorter, making camping more effective. We could slow gens down, or add a second objective, but that also means that survivors can't clear everything out in the time limit set by camping. You could try to hinge it on a non-camping aspect, such as making it count the number of survivors hooked, but unless it disregards the first, it'll also buff camping.
I'm of the opinion that if survivors were nerfed in any way that empowers camping, no matter how tangentially, the problem wouldn't be resolved. Killers would continue to camp for an easier time and an easier victory. If their intent is to troll, they've been given more power.
I firmly believe that camping is a lodestone for balancing issues. As long as it exists, it will hinder a lot of improvements to the game. My ideal is to have both sides addressed simultaneously. One big patch that weakens the strongest killer strats but buffs killers overall. The aforementioned meta perks (I usually refer to that as 'the perk tax') could probably be integrated into the basegame in some form to improve it, like innate Decisive Strike and Corrupt Intervention.
It just feels unreasonable to assume that, if survivors get nerfed and/or killers get buffed, camping will dissipate, as this community isn't kind, and gamers will always gravitate to the path of least resistance.
'Given enough time, players will optimise the fun out of the game'
2 -
Think this is a really interesting take, and refreshing to see all relevant points. Mot sure if I fully agree work your core point. Let me explain.
For myself, I quite enjoy camping now. I only started doing it because of how survivor sided the game become. But the reason I enjoy it is because I enjoy getting kills in the game. I don't enjoy constantly being looped, getting zero kills, and being teabagged. Therefore currently camping gives me the most fun playing killer.
Would I stop camping, if for example chasing was nerfed. Or the killer experience was re balanced. 100% of course.
All things being equal camping is not the most fun way to play killer. But things are not equal, and currently I believe it is. Kills = fun.
3 -
Maybe you would. But you might also not stop camping.
You state that you are camping because the game is too survivor sided. But what is 'too survivor sided' to you? You are in charge of that definition. Maybe you have a perfectly reasonable mindset where averaging 2 kills registers fine to you.
But there's also a very good chance that you'll feel the game is survivor sided if you don't 4K at least 80% of the time. After all, the human brain is hardwired to remember bad experiences really well, and more easily disregards good experiences.
I am just not a fan of disarming survivors only in this stand-off on the vague promise that the other side will also drop their weapon at some point. I just don't trust this community to be as objective or merciful. And in all honesty, posts like yours strengthen my position in that regard: If it was truly a case of 'I only camp because the game is too unfair without it', then you'd have no objection against removing camping as long as the game is fair without it.
But the suggestion of nerfing survivors in tandem with addressing camping always nets a surprising amount of resistance. So I don't trust people to stop camping just because they don't 'need to' anymore.
3 -
Survs used infinites because they were efficient. The solution wasn’t improve surv so they don’t need them, was removing it. The same should devs do with camping
2 -
I’ll make sure to keep all my comments directed at you short and sweet! :)
0 -
I'm just giving you my experience and opinion. Zero kills in most games, fast gens, boons, loops, just a few reasons why I say the game is survivor sided.
Please don't assume to think I'd be of the opinion that 4k'ing 80% of the time would easily a survivor sided game. Quite frankly that is a ridiculous assumption to make.
What you are correct on is that yes. If the game was fairer I would stop camping. Because I never used before it wasn't.
It's not up to me to say what and who you should trust. But nerfing camping and doing nothing to survivors is ludicrous, and just further proves the survivor bias.
May I ask. What Isyour solution?
0 -
Post edited by DangerScouse on0
-
So you want to somehow remove camping? How do you do that without further tipping the game in the survivors favour, let alone trying to rebalance?
0 -
On a side note this reply did make me chuckle, fair play 😁. No hard feelings.
1 -
You said ‘goodnight’ like 4 hours ago. I was just trying to give you a bedtime read.
0 -
Better than counting sheep 😁
0 -
No camping, more espcapes... killers Silvia get buffs. Camping, more than 2 kills... killers will never get buffs
0 -
If I did understand, you are saying 2 things:
a) Camping now means more killers are getting 2+ kills than survivors escaping - I disagree with that opinion.
b) If you remove camping, you need to wait before buffing killers - again I disagree. The game already warrants a killer buff (or survivor nerf), before we continue to make mountains out of molehills.
Post edited by DangerScouse on0 -
As I mentioned in my response to Kalinikta: Both need to happen at the same time. Baked in gen-slowdown, coupled with anti-camping measures.
Something that came forward in this thread was the idea of having a survivor teleport to a safe hook if they progress to struggle from first hook. This would make camping possible, but not for an entire survivor. It would also not be abusable, because there'd be no way to get a 'free unhook', it'd always cost a hook-state.
At the same time, things like improved gen regression (For example: A regressing gen requires passing X successful skillchecks before it will no longer regress when let go of, innate Corrupt Intervention) and anti-bully squad measures (Innate lightborn for X seconds after being subjected to a flashlight save, BT removes collission for duration of Endurance) should be implemented to give killers more breathing room and protection from similarly frustrating tactics from the other side.
Basically, I'd want an overhaul that arms players against the most frustrating things they can encounter from the opposite side. Both sides, simultaneously, not one without the other, or one with a vague promise of dealing with the other later.
One big patch.
1 -
Add in something that nerfs looping and I think you have it covered. As a (former) killer main, I would not have an issue with the teleporting to safe hook idea. I'd also probably be more in favour of gen slowdown more broadly, not just the "kick and regress" aspect. However I appreciate and respect a thought our solution and I believe yours is such.
I still, respectfully, think camping is nowhere near the issue that survivors on here would have us believe. It's basically Bubba, and he has already been nerfed once to impact his ability to camp.
At the end of the day, we know what will happen. Devs will somehow negate camping and do nadda about survivors. And not a single survivor main in here will say a dickie bird.
0 -
The why it is fun for an individual is not the question I am trying to answer. The question is more on why does the game and its function for entertainment start to lose ground. Why does the design and the function harmonize in the way it does?
I am not advocating to remove the enjoyment these people have for any of the reasons they play that way. Those that advocate to remove these peoples source of entertainment is an egoistical standpoint in my opinion, as one is justifying that their enjoyment should come at the expense of someone else. Does this mean that you cannot look at it from a bigger perspective and figure out why the only people they meet are those that enjoy this style of play, while there should be more variety?
You stated the following:
Killers are being left with three options:Adapt and learn the best strategy to 4kStop trying to winAbandon the game entirely
At the moment, people have been complaining about insane survivor queue times and a lot of the talk seems to attribute that to how killers are leaving the game or playing survivor because of what MMR has done to their experience.Stop trying to win, goes against the very nature of games as people don't play to lose as that isn't entertaining or fun. Therefore if the games design is promoting this than that will result in the actual third option, they stop playing the role of killer or the game entirely. The amount of people that will boot up a game to get guaranteed defeated each time is extremely slim and nearly neglectable (also they can always achieve this if that is truly what they desire). In essence it comes down to adapt to the situation or give up.
Therefore the question is how are people adapting and why is there a need to adapt to begin with? Many people state here that camping isn't fun, not even for the killer and that when they play killer they would rather not camp but feel compelled to do so. Which as a result means that those people won't play killer and survivor queues will increase.
The fact is that one must use a good or at least viable strategy in order to compete, yet the alternative ones are significantly less effective to the point that people don't stand a real chance when facing groups that no longer contain a very weak link. MMR hasn't changed the game it just groups people together in a different manner in the hopes to have them face more challenging opponents. The meta hasn't changed and yet people feel that MMR has changed their experience significantly, while all it has done is highlight aspects of the game that were already there.
People adapted, people are camping; why? Because regardless of the team they are facing, it gives them a chance to win, even if they would prefer a different style of play for entertainment, they do not apply it. Why? Because it isn't even a close match at that point and they get massacred which results in them not enjoying it.
The follow up question
Would having match making consider the build you have into the pairing be a good idea? I for one think it would be an improvement on what we have now. One of the key issues with the match making system that we have now is that it is bare bones to say the least. It is one of the reasons why many people don't like it. So yeah I do think adding more variables in there to determine your rating number would be beneficial, whether ranking perk builds and add-ons/items would be the way to go... who knows, but it would be a consideration to make.
1 -
Are survivors actually punished for doing gens?
0 -
This discussion makes my head hurt.
1
