http://dbd.game/killswitch
The killer camping and face-camping situation should be sorted out already.
Comments
-
Because you should not be able to force the killer to do anything, much less in a way that allows you to do it without any pressure as you can stop the hook timer and put him in a lose/lose situation. It had being explained many times by now.
Only if you are one of those survivors that try the unhook 3 meters away of the killer and believes the only right thing for the killer to do is just ignore it and go away. If I have the intention to not camping but you come to the rescue not a second after I hook, why I should leave and let you do the save for free? Because your survivor's morals guidebook?
What if I didn't camp but the hook timer is just seconds away to be completed and I see two of you are going to rescue, should I just start chasing one and let the other unhook because that was your plan and killer should make survivor feel good and don't play to win? Should the game stop the timer in that moment so you are guaranteed to do the save without harm or pressure even if you didn't come to do it earlier?
Seriously, both of you sound at this point like you want to have the right to do the save or be saved with the killer being unable to do something to stop it, because I think @Stabby_Widdershins explained pretty well that this was what happened when they implemented that mechanic and survivors abused it.
2 -
Don't forget that a "hang time" penalty for Killers was largely esoteric and wouldn't address the simple fact that a Hooked Survivor is the easiest source of interaction for the Killer bar none.
If a Survivor gets killed too early, the Killer can steamroll. Even them, survivors are conditioned to rescue their teamates if escape isn't readily available.
Hell, Reassurance is the literal perk equivalence of that mechanic, and you're only really only going to see it it high level play cause joe schmoe aint gonna care about it.
0 -
As boring as it is killers should be able to play however they want,,,Just do ur gens and dip when it happens ,,maybe throw a reassurance or kinship to buy some time
1 -
If the Gen-Tunnel-Situation is done, we can discuss this. Nerf the Toolboxes, BNP and extra-Unit-Item/Addons + Prove Thyself and we can talk.
1 -
If killer hooked survivor, its already a pressure, 3 hooks means death, i would love to see a mechanic that automatically teleport survivor far from killer the moment they are hooked. Its not fun to hang on a hook for 2 ministra straight the moment You started the game. Someday people frustration will met the end, and there will be no survivor to play with.
Especially that unhooked survivor is still one hook more, and one hook less to kill. If someone cant handle chases its their fault.
And no "let people play how they want". Why we disaprove cheaters? They play as they want?
Answer is: because this is ruining anyone else game.
Same goes for camping and tunneling.
And yes, those are mechanics of current game, and means of killer to secure the kill. And yes, Killers should get something in exchange, but so unfun mechanic, that ruins the game for anyone should be removed and changed.
0 -
Window blockers were added to prevent certain loops from being literal infinites. Camping is a strategy with an inherent downside of not pressuring any other survivor or generator.
Also, when will people realize the reason BHVR doesn’t do stupid mechanics like pausing or slowing the timer is because they’re exceedingly abusable, which is already why BHVR has considered and scrapped said ideas?
Post edited by Rizzo on0 -
Its not only about the team - do your gens, and 3 escapes. Its also about single survivor. Being hooked for 2 minutes is not fun at all, its not interactive, and contribute nothing even if all other survivors manage to escape. Its bad mechanic.
0 -
Dude, you are talking like you started the match hooked already. The funny thing is you don't realize your logic can be used in reverse: "If someone can't handle being hooked to death it's their fault". It's your fault for letting the killer get you downed, more so taking in count survivors have a lot of tools in their hand to avoid this, alone or with help of others.
And it pains me to address that fallacy you used as poor attempt of having a point, but we disapprove cheaters for the same reason we disapprove the "Stop hook timer" mechanic: They give the chance to abuse game mechanics in a way that wasn't the real intention giving the user an unfair advantage that doesn't have any downsides. And before you say it yes, camping has a lot of downsides as not only me, but multiple people told you by now.
1 -
In other words, as there is people like you that don't like to lose they need to add (more) abusable mechanics to the game so you can have the "fun" do you deserve at all costs. Sorry, but at this point of the conversation is how you sound right now.
And being hooked for 2 minutes (something that can happen with or without camping, but whatever) is not fun as being body blocked when you are trying to hook someone is not fun, or getting gen-rushed is not fun, or survivors going to zones with no hooks close the moment they got hit once is not fun, and a lot of other things that survivors abuse in a per game basis that unlike camping has little to no downside and create lose/lose situations for the killer.
So, seeing you don't want to understand it after all the explanation has being given to you I will just proceed to apply to you the survivor main answer-to-go: If you can't avoid to getting hooked and your friends can't save you from a camping killer is a skill issue, git good.
0 -
If you remove camping, it will be not an intention of the game to camp anymore xD this is not an argument. This is not why cheaters are disaprove.
And yes. Ignoring all factors, yes, this is my fault i got hooked in the first place. but i have 3 hook stages for some reason, i have 60 seconds on each stage for some reason. Camping is also abusing those two mechanics AND is ruining the game for one person. If you love to hang on hook, then good for you.
And i dont mind for loosing. I dont care about loosing. But i care about playing the game, and being hooked 2 mins is neither fun, nor playing the game.
Yes, gen rushing and bodybloking is not fun either, but why you are talking about this? This is not an argument against camping, its not even related to this.
And no. Im frustrated, because im not survivor main. I play surv only with friends or if there is daily/challange to be done, and iritates me that for 3/5 games i hang on hook being camped, 1/5 games killer is afk, and only 1/5 games is actual playing the game.
And i can see a bigger picture. Playing survivors its just unfun, and anti-game. Its non interactive, non fun, to hang on a hook for 2 mins, this is difference if my team is unwilling to unhook me, or the killer camp. From killer perspective, its easy way to secure 1k, its nobrain, and also non interactive.
1 -
Why you can't remove camping and why camping is not such a problem as it has a lot of downsides has being explained to you multiple times, you are just choosing to ignore all those facts because you have the false sense that you have the right to "have fun" at any cost, without taking in consideration the way you are playing the game (because again, most of the time the killer get a 4k camping is because survivors doing in that situation) or if it cost the fun of your opponents.
You have 3 hooks stages because you can also heal from damage and be saved, if you didn't have them one survivor could stay in the game at infinitum as every-time he got saved and healed would undo all the time the killer has spent to hook. In fact, removing the insta sacrifice at 3º hook would only encourage camping as now is more important than ever for that hook to complete. Camping is not abusing any mechanic, you are securing one kill at exchange of letting survivors do their objectives without your intervention.
And I didn't pretend to do an argument against camping mentioning that as there is no more argument to be made after all what had being said (funny that then you started to complain about things totally unrelated to camping just after saying that, tho) but that people would do "unfun" things for the sake of winning, both survivors and killers. Should survivors stop doing all that to win so killers can have their "fun"? If your answer is no, then apply the same to camping.
1 -
"Why you can't remove camping and why camping is not such a problem as it has a lot of downsides has being explained to you multiple times, you are just choosing to ignore all those facts because you have the false sense that you have the right to "have fun" at any cost, without taking in consideration the way you are playing the game (because again, most of the time the killer get a 4k camping is because survivors doing in that situation) or if it cost the fun of your opponents."
Im not ignoring it, and i was reffering to those arguments in my posts. The problem is that those arguments just makes no sense, what i also explained, and it is You who choose to ignore something.
"You have 3 hooks stages because you can also heal from damage and be saved, if you didn't have them one survivor could stay in the game at infinitum as every-time he got saved and healed would undo all the time the killer has spent to hook. In fact, removing the insta sacrifice at 3º hook would only encourage camping as now is more important than ever for that hook to complete. Camping is not abusing any mechanic, you are securing one kill at exchange of letting survivors do their objectives without your intervention"
I nreally dont know what are you talking about here... what infinite time on hook? What has 3 stages to the fact that im camped and stay all stages at once in one hook?
"And I didn't pretend to do an argument against camping mentioning that as there is no more argument to be made after all what had being said (funny that then you started to complain about things totally unrelated to camping just after saying that, tho) but that people would do "unfun" things for the sake of winning, both survivors and killers. Should survivors stop doing all that to win so killers can have their "fun"? If your answer is no, then apply the same to camping."
But this topic is litteraly about camping, not gen rushing etc. We can talk about it in another thread and i also think that gen rush is unhealthy to the game, but its not a point to this topic. This topic is about camping - and camping is unhealthy mechanic. Yes, it has downsides, survs still can easly get 3 escpaes, and securing 1 kill is nothing compared to good killer who can get 4k without camping. But this does not change the fact, that camped surv have all their fun removed from the game, which can leads to either abandoning the game (and who would you play with, if all surv players would stop getting fun from the game? Bots?) or unhealthy behaviour from that survivor in the next trial which will move this wheel.
Camping is a bad mechanic, unhealthy to the game, and has to be stopped before people reach their frustration level and abandon the game.
I can remember times of "hot-seat" and playing on one computer with friends. And "other enjoyment is not my responsibility" is and always been a false statement. If I used OP class, move, faction etc and win the game without fun of my friends, noone wanted to play with me anymore. dbd has much more players than i had in times of hot-seats, but this number can also drastically changed if something will not be done, and even if not all surv players would leave, their number can drop so much, that killer que will last for 30min... I dont expect players to stop camping. I expect devs to realize potential consequeces of this mechanic, and remove it, while at the same time other things would be done, to prevent gen rushing, and make much more healthy environment for all the players - casual, and competetive.
0 -
The problem is in the design, because players want to have fun. If countering camping requires you to do the most boring action, then the game simply isn't fun.
People want an interaction with the killer (aka actually play the game). Some people enjoy outwitting a killer by hiding, some by a hearty chase, some by using their perks, but all involve interacting with the killer. By forcing non-interaction with the killer to be the best action, survs WILL throw in order to have fun, and camping killers will continue to be rewarded until the broken design is fixed. Rewards should be tied to the risks and desired actions involved (in good design), and the only risk in camping in quickplay/soloq/anywhere outside of sweat squads will always skew heavily in favor of the killer if nothing is changed for the better. That being said, I do think there is nothing wrong with endgame camping, as the Killer has no more goals, and the greed/reward for unhooking is fair on both ends (barring maybe hook grabs, but that is another topic).
I think a Pyramid Head styled hook teleport/swap (hidden to killer) would help on the 'punish killer greed'/'help survivor' end, and slow down gens progress when no one is off gens and someone is hooked to 'help killer'/'punish survivor greed'. The second portion could also apply when someone is in chase and all remaining survivors are on gens to further the desired behaviors of unhook surv and prevent 'genrush' or more accurately here, genb4fren.
0 -
Those both rely on your team being close though, and Reassurance does not apply to yourself either so it's useless if you're the one being camped
It'd be nice if they had a perk that slowed down the sacrifice process by 50% if the killer is close to them and not in a chase (28 meters) but accelerated it by 25% if they are not (29+ meters) or one that allowed you to remain on hook indefinitely in struggle once it reaches 0% if you keep hitting skillchecks that get more difficult, and when you miss one, you are sacrificed
0 -
But the problem is fun is subjective and relative and we have two points of view here. What about the killer fun? If my fun is to hook all survivors and make sure they are fully hooked, should I sacrifice "my fun" so you can have yours? What if my fun is winning all games possible? Should I stop playing in the most efficient way for the sake of survivors fun?
What about survivors who do unfun things for the killers? Having a survivor with Boiled Up getting to a place where he knows I can't hook him is unfun. Should survivors stop using Boiled Up so killers have their fun? Or what about the survivors that brings 3 flashlights and makes impossible to grab someone to hook in peace, should they stop doing it to stop taking away killer's fun?
Again, you can't balance or take away something just for the sake of fun (much less when taking in count only the fun of one side) and you can't expect for people to not play competitively in a competitive game for the sake of your fun. And people don't want an "interaction with the killer", they want an "interaction with the killer and win it", because getting hooked is an interaction with the killer that you have lost and being camped is maybe not having a second chance to win the next.
And your suggestion, in paper, sounds good. But I can see how SWF would start to have only two survivors doing gens when someone is chased or hooked, and two survivors with PT is still 46.04 seconds per gen, while still punishing the killer by not being able to defend his kill. If you made your debuff to take place even if someone is repairing, you would just be punishing both sides.
1 -
@Batusalen "But the problem is fun is subjective and relative and we have two points of view here. What about the killer fun? If my fun is to hook all survivors and make sure they are fully hooked, should I sacrifice "my fun" so you can have yours? What if my fun is winning all games possible? Should I stop playing in the most efficient way for the sake of survivors fun?"
Removing camping will not prevent this. Unless Your fun is to make others not having fun... then yes... but this means noone should care about you if you dont care about anyone.
@Batusalen "What about survivors who do unfun things for the killers? Having a survivor with Boiled Up getting to a place where he knows I can't hook him is unfun. Should survivors stop using Boiled Up so killers have their fun? Or what about the survivors that brings 3 flashlights and makes impossible to grab someone to hook in peace, should they stop doing it to stop taking away killer's fun?"
Yes, those are problems too, also should be adressed, but its not the topic for that, just focus on the point.
@Batusalen "Again, you can't balance or take away something just for the sake of fun (much less when taking in count only the fun of one side) and you can't expect for people to not play competitively in a competitive game for the sake of your fun. And people don't want an "interaction with the killer", they want an "interaction with the killer and win it", because getting hooked is an interaction with the killer that you have lost and being camped is maybe not having a second chance to win the next."
But dbd is not a competetive game... and even if this would be - Removing camping will not prevent anyone from playing competetively, people can do that while not camping. And still, being camped is neither "interaction with the killer and win it" nor even "interaction with the killer" this whole paragraph has nothing to the discussion.
@Batusalen "And your suggestion, in paper, sounds good. But I can see how SWF would start to have only two survivors doing gens when someone is chased or hooked, and two survivors with PT is still 46.04 seconds per gen, while still punishing the killer by not being able to defend his kill. If you made your debuff to take place even if someone is repairing, you would just be punishing both sides."
This means that survivor side should also be tweaked in this or that way. This is never one-sided, but this topic is only about camping.
0 -
I always see 'DBD is not a competitive game!'
Yes, yes it is. Each side is COMPETING AGAINST THE OTHER to win. Since both sides cannot win, it is competitive.
I think most people mean DBD is not an e-sport level game. Which is different all together.
0 -
Survivor can win by escaping, okay. But there are no win condition to the killer. Even those 3k is unofficial win condition. But even if i give you that, one survivor escaped, so three was killed, so killer won... and survivor won... so yes, both can win. Also, only one surv died, then surv lost, and killer lost... so no side won? No, dbd is not competetive game even with this logic.
But even if it was, Being competetive does not means it cant be fun and interactive.
0 -
I wasn't even respond to you because again, you are ignoring the facts already given to you and keep saying "stay on point" even when what have being said is on point but it's not good for you to address it (again, if your answer to "Survivors should stop doing X for the sake of the killer's fun?" is no, then your answer for "Killer shouldn't be able to do something because is not fun for survivors" is also NO), until I got the "DbD is not competitive" part...
How do you got to that conclusion? Really, how? How when every game that puts people playing against each other is competitive by nature. Every-single-one. Even games that are supposed to be played "to have fun" are competitive! Think Mario Party. Yes, the game is a casual game with low-skill, high-luck requirement that you play to have fun with your friends, but even then you are still competing against them for winning.
DbD is not only competitive, is high competitive as the game requires high skill with low luck to be good at it! And people would go to play in the most efficient, competitive way possible to be the best.
And if the argument is never one-sided, stop saying it is "just about camping" when there are other things that affect or would be affected by camping or its removal. Saying things like that is what makes you look like you simply want to be right so they should remove camping because the sake of your fun.
0 -
Except 1 kill is 'Entity Displeased' indicating that the Killer did, indeed, NOT win.
It baffles me how people act like the Killer 'has no win condition'. If the Killer gets 1 or 2 kills; he lost. If he gets 3 or 4; he won.
And again; the sides compete against each other to win, so it is competitive, no matter what verbal acrobatics you use to change definitions to fit your narrative. Or are you seriously telling me Survivors don't compete against the Killer to win?
By definition, it's competitive, like EVERY PvP game.
1 -
Dude, you said it yourself. Survivors can win by escaping, so if they don't escape, the lost and so the killer wins. And those 3k in terms of MMR are official, as like I just said, is how MMR works and if you want to get better, you need to do it.
1 -
@Batusalen "I wasn't even respond to you because again, you are ignoring the facts already given to you and keep saying "stay on point" even when what have being said is on point but it's not good for you to address it (again, if your answer to "Survivors should stop doing X for the sake of the killer's fun?" is no, then your answer for "Killer shouldn't be able to do something because is not fun for survivors" is also NO), until I got the "DbD is not competitive" part..."
No, my answer is "yes", survs should stop doing certain things, and this also should be included in game design, not only forced by players, and i was saying this from the beggining, but someone just chosed to ignore some of my sentences. But this is meaningless since this topic is not about overall balance, but about killer camping side, which also is bad for overall game enjoymnemt.
@Batusalen "Dude, you said it yourself. Survivors can win by escaping, so if they don't escape, the lost and so the killer wins. And those 3k in terms of MMR are official, as like I just said, is how MMR works and if you want to get better, you need to do it."
Dude. You said it by yourself "game is competetive because two teams cant win at the same time" i showed you example of that they can, and you ignored it even that this was in the post you quoted.
0 -
Definition of competetive game is "Competitive games are those in which players play against one another and where one player winning means another player loses"
If killer "won" by killing 3 survivors, that means one of them escaped and thus "won", then both sides won - killer, and survivor, and this by itself means that dbd is not competetive game.
Also, "entity displeased" does not mean "lose", you can still pip up... did you won or lost then? there is not enough condition to even tell if killer won or lost, and this also is against argument that dbd is competetive game since Killer cannot "win" for sure. More, surv escape and de-pip at the same time means they done nothing in the trial... are those really victorious? Game never said "survivors won", so how we know? Win condition in dbd are contractual, not established. Dbd by definition is NOT competetive game.
0 -
So it's not competitive because there's differing grades of Killer winning? Since 1 Survivor can win alongside the Killer, it's not competitive? Keep reaching.
The Killer's GOAL is to kill EVERYONE. The Survivors GOAL is to NOT BE KILLED & escape.
Therefore; they are competing against each other. Your verbal gymnastics are useless and incorrect.
2 -
No xD
The goal of the killer is to hook and sacrifice. Noone never and nowhere said its to kill everyone. Show me part of the game where it is said. And. Why everyone is saying that killer wins when performing 3 kills? you have just said taht killer have to kill all of the survivors. Does it means the killer fail if sacrificed less than all?
Survivor goal is to escape either via hatch or exit gates, yes.
0 -
Killer need 3k to win because how the MMR works. The killer is awarded MMR for each kill he gets and lose MMR for each escape a survivor did. Taking in count that all survivors granted the same amount of MMR, doing a 1k would mean he lost MMR, doing 2k means no gain, 3k means MMR gained and 4k means the maximum amount of it. So, a minimum of 3k for consider it winning, 4k for maximum performance.
Also, the killer lose his addons whatever he kill somebody or not, so to maximize their use he needs to kill as most survivors as possible, as if he do a 0 or 1k is just wasted addons.
And even if all of this wasn't true, said by BHVR itself, the game for survivors is a 1v1/1/1/1, so each survivor is having a competitive match against the killer, while the killer is basically having a 1v4 competitive match against the survivors.
I don't know why deny the evident. Even Fall Guys, a casual game without a ranked system meant to be played for fun is a competitive game. Every game of zero-sum is a competitive game. It's not hard to understand.
0 -
So... you CAN'T say which conditions are killer winning conditions? You cant show where game itself stated killer wining conditions, and you, by yourself cant pick one condition? This was the only thing i wanted, and you failed. Can you admit already that game has no winning condition for the killer or you are going to try some more arguments? I hope this time you will find something.
Definition of competetive game stated that it has to have established and clear winning conditions, one side wins, and one side loses. Survivors may have 4 competetive games towards one killer, and every escape is killer lost for survivors, BUT even if this one victorious survivor consider killer lost, the killer itself can kill other 3 survivors, and all 4 of them consider killer victorious... so which side won and which loses in this scenario? Did killer won? Not for this one survivor? Did survivors won? As a team no, but individually? One of the did, yet killer do not see it this way. One survivor won over 3 other survivors, 3 survivors can win over 1 survivor, every escaped survivor won over killed ones. This game is competetive but only between survivors. If you add killer to the equation, or consider survivors as a team vs killer, then there is no competetive gameplay according to definition.
BUT
Vocabulary, definitions and descriptions does not matter in this subject, this was only out of topic, one sentence that was not bringing anything to the discussion and i dont understand why anyone started whole different offtop thread about this.
Even if dbd was competetive game, and for the sake of the subject, lets assume it is. Being competetive game does not mean it have to be frustrated and onesided. Game mechanics can be adjusted and designed in a way where noone is feeling bad and bored which is the case of camping and tunneling. I agree that this is one of best strategies to counter swf squads and genrush, but other things could be adjusted at the same time. Devs should not only encourage killers to do chases by increasing gen repair times. They should mechanically removed camping and tunneling WITH adjustments to gen repair times at the same time. Even if dbd was competetive game played only by tryhards, does not means taht some players have to play most boring game ever - hanging from the hook for 2 - 3 (with kinship and reassurance) minutes before end the game.
Did anyone of you, campers and camping defenders played the game that started against lethal pursuer blight, catching you in 20s and then hanging for 3 minutes from the hook while rest of your team escaped? I bet you was so satisfied with the game... Its always so satisfing when you have litterally nothing to do for few minutes and then lose the game... great times. i dont care if 1, 2, or even all other survivors escaped. I lost the game after 3 minutes of not doing anything. i wanted to play the game, i dont care if i lost, i care if i was playing the game. I try to play all roles, but prefer killer, but due to campers i play survivors less and less often even if i have daily - i try to rereoll it to killer daily just because camping. And more such people and there will be no survivors to play against for everyone, not only you, campers, but also me. This is also a reason why camping should be removed from the game, and other means of preventing doing gens should be available rather than removing one survivor as soon as possible. I already have long time in killer que, and i blame you - campers for this, and behaviour for allowing for such things.
0 -
Dude... the mental gymnastics man. 11/10.
I literally gave to you the win condition, how it is the win condition, why it is the win condition, and what both sides needs to do to win. I gave you the reason of why it is a zero-sum game for everybody and how it is a competitive game. But instead of even try to understanding you twist all of it because you have to be right.
Not only that, but again you come back to "I have the right to have fun in a competitive game at the cost of people not playing competitively"... dude, stop already, stop saying the same thing over and over after people give you enough proof that you are wrong, and stop trying to discard arguments you don't like with "it's off topic" when it is not.
Stop it. Get some help...
1 -
I recomend You to start reading and understanding what you are reading. Im not going to repeat myself.
0
