When will camping be unfair?
Camping is a hot-button issue for many Survivor mains, who often say it's "unfair". Well, I say it is fair, for now, but I'd like to discuss when it might become unfair.
First, let's analyze camping, from the Killer and Survivor's respective perspectives.
The Killer had to:
- Find a Survivor (won at stealth)
- Hit a Survivor
- Hit a Survivor again (won the chase)
- Pick up the Survivor
- Get hit with Decisive Strike
- Find the Survivor again (won at stealth again)
- Hit the Survivor again (won the chase again)
- Carry the Survivor to the hook while preventing flashlight rescues and bodyblocking (won at whatever you want to call this)
Now from the Survivor's perspective, the Survivor had to:
- Be found by the Killer (lost at stealth)
- Get hit by the Killer
- Get hit by the Killer again (lost the chase)
- Hit a skill check
- Be found again (lost at stealth again)
- Get hit again (lost the chase again)
Under these generic circumstances, the Killer did everything right. They found and hooked a Survivor. They succeeded every step of the way and should be rewarded for it. The Survivor's only success was hitting an easy skill check and they got their second chance for it. Camping is fair.
When would camping be unfair? Well, when the Killer did absolutely nothing right, the Survivor did absolutely nothing wrong, and yet the Survivor ends up on the hook anyway by the will of the Entity. Under this hypothetical and unfair scenario, the Survivor would be punished for doing everything right, as opposed to the current, normal scenario, where they're punished for doing everything wrong.
Comments
-
It doesn't matter how well any Survivor plays. If I want to catch someone, I will catch them. Imagine thinking catching a Survivor in 2018 is actually hard. I'm not even that great of a Killer, I am actually quite mediocre.
I don't even care about camping, I actually expect it. I am more surprised when someone actually leaves the hook completely. That's where DBD is in 2018.
18 -
@altruistic said:
It doesn't matter how well any Survivor plays. If I want to catch someone, I will catch them. Imagine thinking catching a Survivor in 2018 is actually hard. I'm not even that great of a Killer, I am actually quite mediocre.I don't even care about camping, I actually expect it. I am more surprised when someone actually leaves the hook completely. That's where DBD is in 2018.
This is not about difficulty. The Killer did everything right, the Survivor did not. The Killer succeeded multiple times, the Survivor did not. Therefore, it's fair that the Survivor gets punished and the Killer does not.
11 -
No matter how logic we bring in the table survivor tears will be stronger.
12 -
Most of the time I hear about camping being unfair is when it's from someone that doesn't have a lot of playtime. They'll learn soon enough that anything in game that isn't against the rules is fair game even if it can be unfun.
5 -
I don't know if I'd assume a DS in that algorithm. That said, I do agree with you. I'd say most people just don't find it as fun, not really as unfair.
4 -
@Blueberry said:
I don't know if I'd assume a DS in that algorithm. That said, I do agree with you. I'd say most people just don't find it as fun, not really as unfair.DS is endemic in DbD.
8 -
I just copy paste my old statement about this in here.^^
Hypothesis:
Camping is unskilled and lazy.So...let's take a look at this...
The killer found a survivor, he chased him, hit him twice and carried him to the hook.
So he was better seeking than the survivor hiding. He beat the survivor in the chase, even twice, despite the survivor having a speedburst after a hit and the killer a cooldownanimation. So there was plenty of chance to run away and hide. Maybe the survivor really hided and was found again. After he downed him, he carried him to the hook, maybe the killer picked a perk in advance to ensure that, maybe he didn't have that perks, maybe he had to overcome other survivors who try to hinder him.
So...the killer did 4 skillfull actions with according selection of perks in advance and has the victim on the hook.(And the survivor didn't do that, he could have picked DS for example to counter the much hated IG)
Now he decides to guard that catch aka camp, because he thinks he "earned" that catch.
Maybe he even use it as bait on purpose.
He either "pays" for this ensured sacrifice with his most precious ressource: time. Or he might have to fight of wannabe rescuers.Still survivors call that "unskilled and lazy".
Because they only take a snapshot of the situation and that is AFTER the killer did all the work (search,chase,carry). And obviously ignoring further work, like fighting of rescuers.
(Not even considering nearby patrol and damaging gens or setting traps or signs of survivors nearby.)They failed several chances to avoid getting caught. They failed hiding, juking, wiggling and no one rescued during the carry. No one interfered during the chase, by distracting the killer to give their teammate a chance to heal up- or maybe they did and he got caught anyway. And he still pays for camping by spending time. And remember, (almost) any "camper" can be beaten.. Anything is possible to rescue. But the team was unable to do it or not willing to take the effort and risk.
In my opinion it's a cheap way of trying to shame killer into a survivorfavorable behaviour to imply to them that their tactic is "unskilled and lazy". This form of peer pressure through stigmatisation of a functional tactic doesn't need any ingame skill.
15 -
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
I don't know if I'd assume a DS in that algorithm. That said, I do agree with you. I'd say most people just don't find it as fun, not really as unfair.DS is endemic in DbD.
That's true, but not enough for an auto assume imo. Regardless it's a nuance to the main point either way I suppose.
5 -
This might be true if a survivor and killer were equal in power, but they are not. It's a 1 vs 4. No team can just hide from the killer the entire time, and losing a killer in chase is much, much less likely then the killer eventually downing you.
I wouldn't really say camping is unfair though, it's a strategy that is sadly supported by the devs. But to me it's very clearly a design problem. A game in which some of the most viable strategies for one side are the most frustrating strategies to deal with for the opposing side is obviously flawed.
There are a lot of people hoping for a gen rush nerf, but any kind of gen rush nerf, except maybe for nerfing tool boxes, is not possible without a significant nerf to camping, or people will just quit playing survivor entirely. If people really expect a gen rush nerf yet want to keep camping as effective as it is now, well I don't know what to tell you.5 -
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
I don't know if I'd assume a DS in that algorithm. That said, I do agree with you. I'd say most people just don't find it as fun, not really as unfair.DS is endemic in DbD.
insidious on freddy is an op perk for him, please make freddy 0 movement speed
4 -
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
I don't know if I'd assume a DS in that algorithm. That said, I do agree with you. I'd say most people just don't find it as fun, not really as unfair.DS is endemic in DbD.
insidious on freddy is an op perk for him, please make freddy 0 movement speed
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
5 -
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
I don't know if I'd assume a DS in that algorithm. That said, I do agree with you. I'd say most people just don't find it as fun, not really as unfair.DS is endemic in DbD.
insidious on freddy is an op perk for him, please make freddy 0 movement speed
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
geez, just a joke, dont got to be pissy about it, ds isnt even that annoying
8 -
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
I don't know if I'd assume a DS in that algorithm. That said, I do agree with you. I'd say most people just don't find it as fun, not really as unfair.DS is endemic in DbD.
insidious on freddy is an op perk for him, please make freddy 0 movement speed
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
geez, just a joke, dont got to be pissy about it, ds isnt even that annoying
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
2 -
I believe the devs said that you'll sometimes have such unfair moments in the game, that they're a part of the game.
1 -
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
I don't know if I'd assume a DS in that algorithm. That said, I do agree with you. I'd say most people just don't find it as fun, not really as unfair.DS is endemic in DbD.
insidious on freddy is an op perk for him, please make freddy 0 movement speed
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
geez, just a joke, dont got to be pissy about it, ds isnt even that annoying
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
ugh, A. insidious is a camping perk that is ######### annoying, B.literally mention that ds isnt that annoying
5 -
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
I don't know if I'd assume a DS in that algorithm. That said, I do agree with you. I'd say most people just don't find it as fun, not really as unfair.DS is endemic in DbD.
insidious on freddy is an op perk for him, please make freddy 0 movement speed
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
geez, just a joke, dont got to be pissy about it, ds isnt even that annoying
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
ugh, A. insidious is a camping perk that is [BAD WORD] annoying, B.literally mention that ds isnt that annoying
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
4 -
@Boss said:
I believe the devs said that you'll sometimes have such unfair moments in the game, that they're a part of the game.Of course. That happens in any context. I've had the power go out in my city while I was playing. Lost that trial, lost a boatload of BP. It wasn't fair, but ######### happens.
1 -
@Orion said:
@Boss said:
I believe the devs said that you'll sometimes have such unfair moments in the game, that they're a part of the game.Of course. That happens in any context. I've had the power go out in my city while I was playing. Lost that trial, lost a boatload of BP. It wasn't fair, but ######### happens.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
0 -
Out of curiosity, are these "Camping" threads all so common because of the after game chat toxicity on PC? Because, and I'm not trying to sound cynical, but I don't get what the big deal is. I asked about these silly "rules of etiquette" on here, and the consensus was "play how you want." So, is it just because killers are tired of taking textual abuse after games? (PS4 player here, and rarely get post-game messages at all)
3 -
@MisterCremaster said:
Out of curiosity, are these "Camping" threads all so common because of the after game chat toxicity on PC? Because, and I'm not trying to sound cynical, but I don't get what the big deal is. I asked about these silly "rules of etiquette" on here, and the consensus was "play how you want." So, is it just because killers are tired of taking textual abuse after games? (PS4 player here, and rarely get post-game messages at all)Don't confuse fear with annoyance. Killers keep trying a million different ways to come together with Survivors, from explaining why camping is on the hook vultures and not on Killers, to making endless guides about counters to things that annoy Survivors (and note that this is against the Killers' best interests), but Survivors just try to whine and bully into having everything done their way.
9 -
@MisterCremaster said:
Out of curiosity, are these "Camping" threads all so common because of the after game chat toxicity on PC? Because, and I'm not trying to sound cynical, but I don't get what the big deal is. I asked about these silly "rules of etiquette" on here, and the consensus was "play how you want." So, is it just because killers are tired of taking textual abuse after games? (PS4 player here, and rarely get post-game messages at all)I'll give an example of how PC goes...
I've had my profile private for over 1000 hours of DbD playing time now, cause i got sick of the spamming of my message inbox.
I tried 2 days ago to give the community another chance.
Literally the 3rd match and i got UMFG CAMPAH on my profile.No joke: If you play this game seriously, you'll get those daily.
4 -
One of the scenarios where I could see camping as unfair would be: Players have continuous revives, and respawn at a specific designated point. This point is then camped and utilized by the killer to keep you off the field entirely. (although....now that I ponder this....you do have 3 other players hanging around....objectives could still get done.) Failed Scenario. (although, could be grounds for abuse...)
ok....so that didn't work....let's try....painting the previous scenario that orion thought out earlier:
"Well, when the Killer did absolutely nothing right, the Survivor did absolutely nothing wrong, and yet the Survivor ends up on the hook anyway by the will of the Entity....." ~Orion
-Survivors are super stealthy....but manage to take damage by the environment/non-killer specific traps/other survivors.
-Survivors may get in a chase with the killer, but manage to lose them....and then get damaged by the environment again in some way. They are downed, and easily found with a hypothetical deerstalker or good eyes.
-The survivor is then camped to secure the kill.
This scenario seems more unfair....but unsure....what do you think orion?
0 -
@Boss said:
@MisterCremaster said:
Out of curiosity, are these "Camping" threads all so common because of the after game chat toxicity on PC? Because, and I'm not trying to sound cynical, but I don't get what the big deal is. I asked about these silly "rules of etiquette" on here, and the consensus was "play how you want." So, is it just because killers are tired of taking textual abuse after games? (PS4 player here, and rarely get post-game messages at all)I'll give an example of how PC goes...
I've had my profile private for over 1000 hours of DbD playing time now, cause i got sick of the spamming of my message inbox.
I tried 2 days ago to give the community another chance.
Literally the 3rd match and i got UMFG CAMPAH on my profile.No joke: If you play this game seriously, you'll get those daily.
That sucks. I can understand how that would get exhausting. Frankly, if someone dies in this game, I put all the blame on the survivors. Killer just doing the job killer was meant to do.
2 -
@ceridwen309 said:
One of the scenarios where I could see camping as unfair would be: Players have continuous revives, and respawn at a specific designated point. This point is then camped and utilized by the killer to keep you off the field entirely. (although....now that I ponder this....you do have 3 other players hanging around....objectives could still get done.) Failed Scenario. (although, could be grounds for abuse...)ok....so that didn't work....let's try....painting the previous scenario that orion thought out earlier:
"Well, when the Killer did absolutely nothing right, the Survivor did absolutely nothing wrong, and yet the Survivor ends up on the hook anyway by the will of the Entity....." ~Orion
-Survivors are super stealthy....but manage to take damage by the environment/non-killer specific traps/other survivors.
-Survivors may get in a chase with the killer, but manage to lose them....and then get damaged by the environment again in some way. They are downed, and easily found with a hypothetical deerstalker or good eyes.
-The survivor is then camped to secure the kill.
This scenario seems more unfair....but unsure....what do you think orion?
Indeed, that would be unfair, assuming the traps and environment are unavoidable.
1 -
It would definitely be counterproductive because, if I understand your usage of "typical", they wouldn't be productive members of this discussion. Regardless, they're bound to find this thread eventually.
3 -
I mean I don't have any problem with camping but as a killer I don't see any point to camp.
It is the most boring thing to do in the entire game, worse than repairing generators. At least generators give you skill checks here and there.
I don't understand why people care so much about 4k. A good chase is all that matters for me.
7 -
@Delfador said:
I mean I don't have any problem with camping but as a killer I don't see any point to camp.It is the most boring thing to do in the entire game, worse than repairing generators. At least generators give you skill checks here and there.
I don't understand why people care so much about 4k. A good chase is all that matters for me.
Different people have different priorities. It's that simple.
3 -
@DelfadorDelfador said:I mean I don't have any problem with camping but as a killer I don't see any point to camp.
It is the most boring thing to do in the entire game, worse than repairing generators. At least generators give you skill checks here and there.
I don't understand why people care so much about 4k. A good chase is all that matters for me.
Totally agreed. Also campers who get 4K usually get about 15-20K bps while non campers get the average of 25-30K at least even with only 2 kills.
7 -
@Orion said:
Camping is a hot-button issue for many Survivor mains, who often say it's "unfair". Well, I say it is fair, for now, but I'd like to discuss when it might become unfair.First, let's analyze camping, from the Killer and Survivor's respective perspectives.
The Killer had to:- Find a Survivor (won at stealth)
- Hit a Survivor
- Hit a Survivor again (won the chase)
- Pick up the Survivor
- Get hit with Decisive Strike
- Find the Survivor again (won at stealth again)
- Hit the Survivor again (won the chase again)
- Carry the Survivor to the hook while preventing flashlight rescues and bodyblocking (won at whatever you want to call this)
Now from the Survivor's perspective, the Survivor had to:
- Be found by the Killer (lost at stealth)
- Get hit by the Killer
- Get hit by the Killer again (lost the chase)
- Hit a skill check
- Be found again (lost at stealth again)
- Get hit again (lost the chase again)
Under these generic circumstances, the Killer did everything right. They found and hooked a Survivor. They succeeded every step of the way and should be rewarded for it. The Survivor's only success was hitting an easy skill check and they got their second chance for it. Camping is fair.
When would camping be unfair? Well, when the Killer did absolutely nothing right, the Survivor did absolutely nothing wrong, and yet the Survivor ends up on the hook anyway by the will of the Entity. Under this hypothetical and unfair scenario, the Survivor would be punished for doing everything right, as opposed to the current, normal scenario, where they're punished for doing everything wrong.
Let me add to that.
As I mentioned in one of my older posts, even holding the concept of camping is ridiculous.Here's why:
The killer wants to kill survivors and for that they need to be on a hook.
Now imagine this:
Instead of what you see on the Left Hooked survivor, the Devs would split the hooking-phases into 12 phases of 10 seconds.
Would this mean that survivors "deserve" to be rescued for every hooking phase as well? (demanding 40 hooks in total for a 4k), or else you would be a camper?Of course in your mind, such a simple change wouldn't really be that radical. All it does is making survivor hanging time a more accurate representation of how long they've been hanging, without the giant cuts in time or major differences between saving someone just before or after the end of their 1st hooking phase.
The problem is, if you have the entitlement mentality of feeling that you deserve to be saved for every hooking phase, then such a simple adjustment would completely break the game.
So what would happen if we completely did away with the "phase" concept and made it so that if you're freed the first 40 seconds of your hooking time, then being hung again means that you continue exactly at that time?
For a survivor to be able to die, they must have hung a total of 120 seconds. What can survivors make of this with their current mentality? Would they see that demanding to be freed whenever the survivor pleases results in an unplayable game, where survivors rescue within 0.1 seconds while screaming that the killer should leave this hook so they can heal?
It is impossible for currents mentality to survive under such rules.So why would it be, that if a killer runs from a hook, runs back 40-50 seconds after to ensure the survivor enters the 2nd hooking phase, that such a thing could be considered camping?
Why should a killer have to accept a survivor being saved right before their 2nd phase, which for them is one of the worst possible times?
They shouldn't, because the concept of camping/patrolling/guarding is lead by a misguided view resulting from the hooking-phase mechanic in its current state.
5 -
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
I don't know if I'd assume a DS in that algorithm. That said, I do agree with you. I'd say most people just don't find it as fun, not really as unfair.DS is endemic in DbD.
insidious on freddy is an op perk for him, please make freddy 0 movement speed
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
geez, just a joke, dont got to be pissy about it, ds isnt even that annoying
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
ugh, A. insidious is a camping perk that is [BAD WORD] annoying, B.literally mention that ds isnt that annoying
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
I JUST SAID DS IS NOT ANNOYING AND TALKING ABOUT CAMPERS, I JUST SAID THINGS RELEVANT TO THE THREAD
5 -
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
I don't know if I'd assume a DS in that algorithm. That said, I do agree with you. I'd say most people just don't find it as fun, not really as unfair.DS is endemic in DbD.
insidious on freddy is an op perk for him, please make freddy 0 movement speed
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
geez, just a joke, dont got to be pissy about it, ds isnt even that annoying
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
ugh, A. insidious is a camping perk that is [BAD WORD] annoying, B.literally mention that ds isnt that annoying
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
I JUST SAID DS IS NOT ANNOYING AND TALKING ABOUT CAMPERS, I JUST SAID THINGS RELEVANT TO THE THREAD
This thread is about whether or not camping is fair. Annoyance has nothing to do with it.
3 -
Well said.altruistic said:It doesn't matter how well any Survivor plays. If I want to catch someone, I will catch them. Imagine thinking catching a Survivor in 2018 is actually hard. I'm not even that great of a Killer, I am actually quite mediocre.
I don't even care about camping, I actually expect it. I am more surprised when someone actually leaves the hook completely. That's where DBD is in 2018.
Its easier now than ever before to catch a survivor. This guy has a Nurse avatar too strangely.
I also love how he implies only the obsession gets camped. Lmao. Campers gonna camp anyone they get regardless of whether they have DS or not.8 -
@The_Crusader said:
Well said.Its easier now than ever before to catch a survivor. This guy has a Nurse avatar too strangely.
I also love how he implies only the obsession gets camped. Lmao. Campers gonna camp anyone they get regardless of whether they have DS or not.
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own. This thread is about whether or not camping is fair. The difficulty in catching a Survivor and my profile picture have nothing to do with it.
3 -
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@alivebydeadight said:
@Orion said:
@Blueberry said:
I don't know if I'd assume a DS in that algorithm. That said, I do agree with you. I'd say most people just don't find it as fun, not really as unfair.DS is endemic in DbD.
insidious on freddy is an op perk for him, please make freddy 0 movement speed
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
geez, just a joke, dont got to be pissy about it, ds isnt even that annoying
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
ugh, A. insidious is a camping perk that is [BAD WORD] annoying, B.literally mention that ds isnt that annoying
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own.
I JUST SAID DS IS NOT ANNOYING AND TALKING ABOUT CAMPERS, I JUST SAID THINGS RELEVANT TO THE THREAD
This thread is about whether or not camping is fair. Annoyance has nothing to do with it.
annoyance is a sign of it being unfair, ds is not truely unfair due to it being a single use perk while camping is used as a punishment, which to all of us is unfair
7 -
@Peanits @MandyTalk Can you guys help me out with the people veering wildly off-topic?
4 -
I think unfair is the wrong word to describe camping. It's annoying, it's mean, it's not really a skillful playstyle but in the end it's just what it is: Camping. A Killer that decides to make sure that you die.
It's funny that people here say "it's unfair because it's annoying". Do you think it's funny for Killers to get looped? According to your logic, as soon as someone starts to loop, they initiate an unfair playstyle and thus deserve to get camped. If that's the case then 99% of the Survivors deserve to get camped because they initiate unfair playstyles by looping the Killer as soon as they get in a chase.
5 -
Well your idea of them having DS makes no sense and is only used as an attempt.to justify your argument. People get camped regardless of whether they have DS or not so that part should be disregarded.Orion said:@The_Crusader said:
Well said.Its easier now than ever before to catch a survivor. This guy has a Nurse avatar too strangely.
I also love how he implies only the obsession gets camped. Lmao. Campers gonna camp anyone they get regardless of whether they have DS or not.
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own. This thread is about whether or not camping is fair. The difficulty in catching a Survivor and my profile picture have nothing to do with it.
As others have said LOL at the idea that catching a survivor is hard. You can attack. They can not. You move at 4.6m per second. They only move at 4m per second.
The entire game is made so that the killer is able to catch the survivor.
You seem dead impressed with yourself for it though. Do you want a medal?9 -
@The_Crusader said:
Well your idea of them having DS makes no sense and is only used as an attempt.to justify your argument. People get camped regardless of whether they have DS or not so that part should be disregarded.DS was put there to guarantee that the Survivor succeeded at something (namely, a skill check). The argument is the same with or without it.
@The_Crusader said:
As others have said LOL at the idea that catching a survivor is hard. You can attack. They can not. You move at 4.6m per second. They only move at 4m per second.The entire game is made so that the killer is able to catch the survivor.
You seem dead impressed with yourself for it though. Do you want a medal?
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own. This thread is about whether or not camping is fair. The difficulty in catching a Survivor has nothing to do with it.
2 -
It has EVERYTHING to do with it.Orion said:@The_Crusader said:
Well your idea of them having DS makes no sense and is only used as an attempt.to justify your argument. People get camped regardless of whether they have DS or not so that part should be disregarded.DS was put there to guarantee that the Survivor succeeded at something (namely, a skill check). The argument is the same with or without it.
@The_Crusader said:
As others have said LOL at the idea that catching a survivor is hard. You can attack. They can not. You move at 4.6m per second. They only move at 4m per second.The entire game is made so that the killer is able to catch the survivor.
You seem dead impressed with yourself for it though. Do you want a medal?
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own. This thread is about whether or not camping is fair. The difficulty in catching a Survivor has nothing to do with it.
If the killer wants to catch the survivor, they will catch them. It's only a matter of time - outside of maybe a rank 1 survivor going against a rank 15 killer.
So the game gives you the advantage to catch them, then you sit there and say "right pal, the game is over for you. You can sit there for 2 minutes until you're dead".
If they got spotted early enough then chances are they didn't even get to do anything in the game beyond touched a gen for 10 seconds.
That person is willing to play the game with you. They're allowing you to take the power role over them and in return you're turning around and screwing them over. They get no points and depip because you wouldn't give them a chance.
No it's not fair. Always seems to be the same people defending it too.6 -
@The_Crusader said:
It has EVERYTHING to do with it.If the killer wants to catch the survivor, they will cstch them. It's only a matter of time - outside of maybe a rank 1 survivor going against a rank 15 killer.
So the game gived you the advantage to catch them, then you sit there and say "right pal, the game is over for you. You can sit there for 2 minutes until you're dead".
If they got spotted early enough then chances are they didn't even get to do anything in the game beyond touched a gen for 10 seconds.
That person is willing to play the game with you. They're allowing you to take the power role over them and in return you're turning around and screwing them over. They get no points and depip because you wouldn't give them a chance.
No it's not fair. Always seems to be the same people defending it too.
If you don't have anything to say that is relevant to this thread, you can start your own. This thread is about whether or not camping is fair. The difficulty in catching a Survivor has nothing to do with it.
2 -
I play both killer and now doing survivor to get better as them and if I did but the killers given loads of chances for a rescue and doesn't camp (barring bubba because I main Jake and they just want there trophy and wraiths because well there wraiths lol) but to add more to it I get mad at the survivors for letting me die (most common with 3man teams) then the killer and sure sometimes I teabag a killer but I often get camped for it So my fault but If I'm not camped then after match i apologise for it and explain I wanted them to chase me so others could do gens or get a rescue and u try not to camp unless I'm hook rushed know I'm.being followed by a unsuccessful flash save or pallet save (man people are slow to pallet stun at times) or they have just been disrespectful jerks all game (I.e doing a cheap pallet for no reason not in chase not seen not saving others just for points because that's just being a jerk who's messing over others I don't mind teabagging at pallets as much now as I can see it's a incentive to have them chase you more but if you stand at a pallet just for flashlight blinds during or after a break then yer I'm stage 2 camping you for it)0
-
I agree with basically everything but the only time camping is just unfair is when I'm at a disadvantage. For example: A survivor DC'd and there's 5 generators remaining yet I'm getting one hooked because there's no survivors are close to the hook. That's when I think, in my opinion, camping is unfair.Orion said:Camping is a hot-button issue for many Survivor mains, who often say it's "unfair". Well, I say it is fair, for now, but I'd like to discuss when it might become unfair.
First, let's analyze camping, from the Killer and Survivor's respective perspectives.
The Killer had to:- Find a Survivor (won at stealth)
- Hit a Survivor
- Hit a Survivor again (won the chase)
- Pick up the Survivor
- Get hit with Decisive Strike
- Find the Survivor again (won at stealth again)
- Hit the Survivor again (won the chase again)
- Carry the Survivor to the hook while preventing flashlight rescues and bodyblocking (won at whatever you want to call this)
Now from the Survivor's perspective, the Survivor had to:
- Be found by the Killer (lost at stealth)
- Get hit by the Killer
- Get hit by the Killer again (lost the chase)
- Hit a skill check
- Be found again (lost at stealth again)
- Get hit again (lost the chase again)
Under these generic circumstances, the Killer did everything right. They found and hooked a Survivor. They succeeded every step of the way and should be rewarded for it. The Survivor's only success was hitting an easy skill check and they got their second chance for it. Camping is fair.
When would camping be unfair? Well, when the Killer did absolutely nothing right, the Survivor did absolutely nothing wrong, and yet the Survivor ends up on the hook anyway by the will of the Entity. Under this hypothetical and unfair scenario, the Survivor would be punished for doing everything right, as opposed to the current, normal scenario, where they're punished for doing everything wrong.
2 -
if the survivor had done nothing wrong, the entity itself would have had to come down on him and put him on the hook.
cuz lets face reality here: a survivor with no mistakes wont even be seen by the killer.a little rant about your portrait of the killers jobs though: in your description it sounds like everyone and their mother is running DS. this is (luckily) not the case, but it sounds like it, if you know what i mean...
2 -
@Mister_xD said:
if the survivor had done nothing wrong, the entity itself qould have had to come down on him and put him on the hook.
cuz lets face reality here: a survivors with no mistakes wont even be seen by the killer.a little rant about your portrait of the killers jobs though: in your description it sounds like everyone and their mother is running DS. this is (luckily) not the case, but it sounds like it, if you know what i mean...
DS is endemic in DbD. Trials without at least one Survivor running DS are rare.
2 -
@Orion said:
@Mister_xD said:
if the survivor had done nothing wrong, the entity itself qould have had to come down on him and put him on the hook.
cuz lets face reality here: a survivors with no mistakes wont even be seen by the killer.a little rant about your portrait of the killers jobs though: in your description it sounds like everyone and their mother is running DS. this is (luckily) not the case, but it sounds like it, if you know what i mean...
DS is endemic in DbD. Trials without at least one Survivor running DS are rare.
i definitely agree on that, however your post does not really make it clear that only one person runs it, but it sounds like no matter who you find, they will strike you.
just wanted to point this out to you, so there wont be any hate comments in that direction ^^0 -
@Mister_xD said:
@Orion said:
@Mister_xD said:
if the survivor had done nothing wrong, the entity itself qould have had to come down on him and put him on the hook.
cuz lets face reality here: a survivors with no mistakes wont even be seen by the killer.a little rant about your portrait of the killers jobs though: in your description it sounds like everyone and their mother is running DS. this is (luckily) not the case, but it sounds like it, if you know what i mean...
DS is endemic in DbD. Trials without at least one Survivor running DS are rare.
i definitely agree on that, however your post does not really make it clear that only one person runs it, but it sounds like no matter who you find, they will strike you.
just wanted to point this out to you, so there wont be any hate comments in that direction ^^There already were. I knew there would be when I put it there. It's how I know those people have no arguments against the idea.
3 -
Is that a trick question? I feel 14 days of game time may not be able to answer this question. I don’t even have an opinion of camping.0
-
I hate that camping is a playstyle because it's annoying, frustrating, and overall boring. I've had those games where the killer would chase me until almost all the gens were done and then I'd end up being the only one dead because I was camped to death. I hate it as survivor and I hate it as killer. But, despite that, I consider it a legitimate tactic. Because judging things as either fair or unfair based on how fun they are for the other side is a bad idea. Killers don't like being genrushed, but it's in the survivor's best interest to get the gens fixed as soon as possible. Imagine if you got messages from the killer calling you a 'genrusher.'
Is camping fun? No.
Is it frustrating? Yes.
Does that make it unfair? No.1 -
@DarkWo1f997 said:
Is that a trick question? I feel 14 days of game time may not be able to answer this question. I don’t even have an opinion of camping.If only you'd read the OP, maybe you'd understand.
1
