So you want to TRULY SOLVE Camping? Slaying DBD's oldest Monsters.
Comments
-
With unlimited amount of hook time and removal of slugging, the killer loses ways to put the survivors under pressure. I still don't see how you'd like to make up for that.
Don't get me wrong, it's great when members of the community take so much time to think about how this game could be improved but I don't see it working.
0 -
Instead of the player re-spawning in a random location, the player would respawn on a random hook.
I'm not totally against that. In fact;
The Pressure hook.
When hooking a survivor on a Pressure hook, the survivor will slowly become wrapped in the entity's matter like the reverse birth of a butterfly. Meanwhile a progress bar instead of the normal hook bar appears, slowly filling. The aura of all hooks are revealed.
When the progress bar is full, the hook that the survivor is looking at will quickly wrap up in a human-shaped cocoon and the survivor teleports to that hook, which breaks and allows the survivor to escape. The previous hook's cocoon slowly disappears.
Is very similar
One could see it as you pull the hook instead of saving the person. The moment when that'd happen, the hooked survivor would move to another hook.
Moving survivors to a different location is tackling:
"-Hooking Phases
-Phase time
-Guaranteed survivor location information"the third variable, which is also a valid approach. The question is, how do you conceptually validate such a thing?
0 -
You really can't "Solve" camping.
Some people will camp regardless of any incentives not to do so.
You simply can't stop it regardless of mechanics introduced, negative effects on the killer, bonus bloodpoints.
The majority of people camp to ruin someones experience and they're already doing that and losing out on bloodpoints during the match to do so.
0 -
@NoShinyPony said:
With unlimited amount of hook time and removal of slugging, the killer loses ways to put the survivors under pressure. I still don't see how you'd like to make up for that.Don't get me wrong, it's great when members of the community take so much time to think about how this game could be improved but I don't see it working.
See the Death-Efficiency link. We use that to simultaneously balance the better hook-play-style experience.
In short; the killers have more time to kill, (which they'll now need), but the survivors are less hurt by the death of a teammate.
0 -
@SenzuDuck said:
You really can't "Solve" camping.Some people will camp regardless of any incentives not to do so.
You simply can't stop it regardless of mechanics introduced, negative effects on the killer, bonus bloodpoints.
The majority of people camp to ruin someones experience and they're already doing that and losing out on bloodpoints during the match to do so.
It's actually pretty easy to solve camping.
Without: (the 2 highlighted)
-Hooking Phases
-Phase time
-Guaranteed survivor location informationyou literally cannot camp in any shape or form.
0 -
Summary
Together with @Funbag5 's . suggestion having:
-No hooking timer.
-Everyone dies when all living survivors are hooked at the same time. (or within 10 seconds of it).
-Survivors move to the next hooking-stage when hooked while a new survivor gets hooked.With those 3, we would've (I think) perfectly covered the concept of camping, even with guaranteed survivor location information still in-tact.
@BlackReaper 's suggestion is also very handy and a cool alternative. It makes tunnelling useless as it costs so much time to wait out a death if someone else manages to rescue them. You will however still be forced to go to a hook even when the killer is standing right next, but if you succeed, you've pretty much won for your team.
If a fully functional mechanic revolving the 3rd variable; "Guaranteed survivor location information", then that would indeed need re-spawning/teleportation, or something of the sorts.
But it's indeed the 3rd variable that is the only way to prevent camp bullying.
When speaking of Solving Camping, we're talking here about using the strategy of camping to get anymore than the kill you camp.Solving the third variable would even prevent the killer from getting his hooked. Thought that may either be a good thing or a bad thing.
0 -
That's a pretty huge Survivor buff, not putting that time pressure on them anymore.
0 -
@Boss said:
That's a pretty huge Survivor buff, not putting that time pressure on them anymore.Right!
Check:
WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN RESPONSE TO SOLVING CAMPING.
Compensation for the otherwise killer-nerf
To get an idea what our appropriate response should be to such a change (:
0 -
Hi. I deleted two pages. Please have civil discussions.
4 -
@Gay Myers (Luzi) said:
Hi. I deleted two pages. Please have civil discussions.I was being civil now my posts are gone 😥
Main points: This has been done before and didn't work. Incentivize killers to leave a hook by rewarding them, not punishing them.
That is all.
4 -
@thesuicidefox said:
@Gay Myers (Luzi) said:
Hi. I deleted two pages. Please have civil discussions.I was being civil now my posts are gone 😥
Main points: This has been done before and didn't work. Incentivize killers to leave a hook by rewarding them, not punishing them.
That is all.
It hasn't been done. It functions and I can prove it.
I can prove why the timer is inherently a bad mechanic.
How the solution is a location based hooking mechanic and how everyone silently agrees.Some people, (luckily on earlier pages) have done great thinking work at applying pressure through location-based mechanics in a way, way healthier than anything that can result in camping does.
1 -
@thesuicidefox said:
@Gay Myers (Luzi) said:
Hi. I deleted two pages. Please have civil discussions.I was being civil now my posts are gone 😥
Main points: This has been done before and didn't work. Incentivize killers to leave a hook by rewarding them, not punishing them.
That is all.
Sorry </3 I had to do the wipe.
2 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
It hasn't been done. It functions and I can prove it.I can prove why the timer is inherently a bad mechanic.
How the solution is a location based hooking mechanic and how everyone silently agrees.Dude I've told you elsewhere, an idea can sound great on paper but can still fail in practice. The game is not all about math. It has been done before, it didn't work. Literally nothing you say will prove otherwise. And people agreeing with you doesn't prove it either, just that they are as gullible as you in believing this is a solution, despite it not having worked in the past.
4 -
@thesuicidefox said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
It hasn't been done. It functions and I can prove it.I can prove why the timer is inherently a bad mechanic.
How the solution is a location based hooking mechanic and how everyone silently agrees.Dude I've told you elsewhere, an idea can sound great on paper but can still fail in practice. The game is not all about math. It has been done before, it didn't work. Literally nothing you say will prove otherwise.
Well, if I can't convince you through arguments, then all I can do is show it through some sort of test build, or possibly through an organised game in which people try to simulate the effects somehow. Sadly I don't have an swf avaiable,
0 -
If it worked it would be in the game...AlwaysInAGoodShape said:@thesuicidefox said:
@Gay Myers (Luzi) said:
Hi. I deleted two pages. Please have civil discussions.I was being civil now my posts are gone 😥
Main points: This has been done before and didn't work. Incentivize killers to leave a hook by rewarding them, not punishing them.
That is all.
It hasn't been done. It functions and I can prove it.
I can prove why the timer is inherently a bad mechanic.
How the solution is a location based hooking mechanic and how everyone silently agrees.Some people, (luckily on earlier pages) have done great thinking work at applying pressure through location-based mechanics in a way, way healthier than anything that can result in camping does.
2 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
It hasn't been done. It functions and I can prove it.I can prove why the timer is inherently a bad mechanic.
How the solution is a location based hooking mechanic and how everyone silently agrees.Dude I've told you elsewhere, an idea can sound great on paper but can still fail in practice. The game is not all about math. It has been done before, it didn't work. Literally nothing you say will prove otherwise.
Well, if I can't convince you through arguments, then all I can do is show it through some sort of test build, or possibly through an organised game in which people try to simulate the effects somehow. Sadly I don't have an swf avaiable,
Still would not prove anything. People find loopholes in game design ALL THE TIME. That's why game design is about testing and iteration and not ideas on paper or pure calculations. I've been involved in this process before and trust me it's not as easy as you make it out to be. People will find things you didn't even think of that completely destroy your perfectly balanced house of cards, now you have to go back to the drawing board.
2 -
If it worked it would be in the game...
I don't believe that.
We know what a functional ranking system would look like examplified by very succesful games, yet we have a pseudo-competitive grinding system.Lack of time, perspective, resources. There are a lot of variables that may prevent something from being more optimal then it could.
Nobody should be afraid of evidence. If you believe there to be a loophole the responsibility would be on you to point it out.
0 -
My first suggestion can be tested fairly easily, even in KYF, and would produce much better results, since it's actually different from what has been tried.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
Nobody should be afraid of evidence. If you believe there to be a loophole the responsibility would be on you to point it out.I can point to the previous attempts at this idea as proof it doesn't work. Now what?
If you could prove it does work, you would need to do MANY tests before I would accept it. But I highly doubt you would be able to do that considering the idea was tested before and didn't work.
Not to mention, the burden of proof should be on you to prove your idea works, not on me to prove it doesn't. That's like a Christian saying that atheists have to prove God does NOT exist. Can't prove a negative.
2 -
@thesuicidefox said:
@Gay Myers (Luzi) said:
Hi. I deleted two pages. Please have civil discussions.I was being civil now my posts are gone 😥
Main points: This has been done before and didn't work. Incentivize killers to leave a hook by rewarding them, not punishing them.
That is all.
+1
1 -
@Orion said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Orion said:
My first suggestion can be tested fairly easily, even in KYF, and would produce much better results, since it's actually different from what has been tried.Emblem system; people just don't care.
What about the emblem system? My suggestion has nothing to do with it.
EDIT: Right, I forgot you haven't actually read either one of my suggestions. Let me know when you do.There was a feature introduced in which they tried to make you get lower emblem points when being in proximity of the hook.
Of course, great try, but the structure that enables toxic camping is still in place, thus camping complaints remain as usually.You try to increase the timer of the hooking phase. Well, what will that achieve?
After all, didn't we cover the issue? The issue wasn't that the timer was too short in the first place.The problem is that the timer actually progresses hooking phases AT ALL.
So someone at a lower rank gets camped:
In vanilla: after 120 seconds (slightly less) of the others crouching up in the killer, they lose their teammate and complain.
In your version: after (as a result of your mechanic) still 120 seconds of others crouching: their teammates die and people continue to have a negative experience.Your solution doesn't solve anything. It just prays on the hope that killers will be so kind to abdicate on such an opportunity.
The reason for this remains simple: You kept the timer.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
You try to increase the timer of the hooking phase.Nope. Neither of my suggestions involve increasing the hook timer. Read what I actually wrote.
0 -
We should keep in mind that the idea is not just limited to the non-progressive hooks.
Other mechanics would come in place to make up for the lack of pressure of hooks.
Being able to put a Survivor into the next hook stage by hooking another Survivor doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. It would pressure survivors to unhook quickly to prevent this from happening.
The only problem I see is that certain Killers like Nurse, Billy, Spirit*, Huntress would profit from such a solution while others, already weak ones, would suffer (looking at Leatherface, Wraith, Trapper...).
0 -
@Orion said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
You try to increase the timer of the hooking phase.Nope. Read what I actually wrote.
Oops, misspoke due to the lengty talk, but the example got it right anyways;
In vanilla: after 120 seconds (slightly less) of the others crouching up in the killer, they lose their teammate and complain.
In your version: after (as a result of your mechanic) still 120 seconds of others crouching: their teammates die and people continue to have a negative experience.Can't deny that I understand this simple (and heavily flawed) suggestion.
It doesn't address camping. Camping works just as great as always, since you mentioned that relative balance would be unaffected.
We should keep in mind that the idea is not just limited to the non-progressive hooks.
Other mechanics would come in place to make up for the lack of pressure of hooks.
You're getting it!
We simply replace the timer with location-based mechanics that alter hooking stages.The most objective one is the one suggested in the OP, which ensures that survivors aren't in god-mode on hooks when not saved.
Someone else reminded that once the exit gates are open, we need an alteration as previously Gen-Pressure was the pure response to camping.
Another person suggested on how to get hook pressure going the moment the 2nd person gets caught.We get closer and closer to simulating the original pressure, but this time without the toxic time-variable.
I'm happy that you see it.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@Orion said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
You try to increase the timer of the hooking phase.Nope. Read what I actually wrote.
Oops, misspoke due to the lengty talk, but the example got it right anyways;
In vanilla: after 120 seconds (slightly less) of the others crouching up in the killer, they lose their teammate and complain.
In your version: after (as a result of your mechanic) still 120 seconds of others crouching: their teammates die and people continue to have a negative experience.Can't deny that I understand this simple (and heavily flawed) suggestion.
It doesn't address camping. Camping works just as great as always, since you mentioned that relative balance would be unaffected.
The example is still wrong because it hinges on the assumption that survivors would be hook rushing anyway. However, with such a heavy penalty for unsafe unhooks (dying state+endless Broken), they would instead repair generators, just as the Entity intended. Right now there is no penalty for unsafe unhooks except for the guy who was unhooked, which is absurd.
1 -
@PiiFree said:
We should keep in mind that the idea is not just limited to the non-progressive hooks.Other mechanics would come in place to make up for the lack of pressure of hooks.
Being able to put a Survivor into the next hook stage by hooking another Survivor doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. It would pressure survivors to unhook quickly to prevent this from happening.
The only problem I see is that certain Killers like Nurse, Billy, Spirit*, Huntress would profit from such a solution while others, already weak ones, would suffer (looking at Leatherface, Wraith, Trapper...).
If having two survivors hooked simultaneously would make both their timers decrease by 50% of the maximum (the equivalent of one full hook stage), without any other modifications, I would support this, but it still wouldn't help camping. Any half-decent survivor can run from the killer for the <2 seconds it takes to unhook another survivor. This would only affect newbies, who'd be driven away from the game.
0 -
The example is still wrong because it hinges on the assumption that survivors would be hook rushing anyway.
Yours hinges on the assumption that they don't. And in your suggestion, there is actually more reason to rush for hooks since you increase the PRESSURE on unhooking.
Edit: When I screw up 1 tiny word but the reasoning remains constant with the right analysis of your suggestion, why don't you respond to that analysis instead?
High mobility killers can quickly increase the timer and abuse this mechanic.
It creates a weird situation in which you do properly incentivise the killer to leave the hook (when nobody is nearby), but simultaneously, by making hooks go faster, you also Do incentivise for faster unhooks, which promotes camping.
Your suggestion both helps Tru3Ta1ent like players and manages to help campers at the same time.
It's quite weird when you think about it.Right now there is no penalty for unsafe unhooks except for the guy who was unhooked, which is absurd.
I agree but it's somewhat (not completely) of a separate issue, but I think this would be the 3rd variable mentioned in the OP.
If a survivor would unhook a survivor just for that survivor to be transported to another place, then that would make the un-hooker victim of their own doings.I don't say we should, but it's definitely funning thinking about it.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
And in your suggestion, there is actually more reason to rush for hooks since you increase the timer.Let me know when you've actually read my suggestion.
0 -
@Orion said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
And in your suggestion, there is actually more reason to rush for hooks since you increase the timer.Let me know when you've actually read my suggestion.
Red Text. I meant to use the word Pressure, but that is obvious in that context as the word timer there would've been contrary with the point.
0 -
People are very objective in their complains; We see a systematic issue over appearing everywhere, that haunts lower-ranks, provides a negative experience and is pushed forward as one of the biggest issues with the game.
Then we analyse it;
We realise that the issue is a learning curve issue and not a balance issue at higher ranks, however we do see it as very problematic as it will always reappear very frequently: Learning how to deal with camping doesn't solve BEING CAMPED, as when you are the one being camped, others are responsible for knowing and thus knowledge the 500+ complaints attributed to this subject, instead of forming ideologies and justifications on why we should ignore this, we actually tackle the issue, preventing an infinite amount of years of complaints surrounding the same topic.Stop crying so much.
HEADLINES: "Complaints and negative experiences surrounding camping drop to 0".
^ this is not a reality.
Sounds as if your approach doesn't come with much positive results, does it?0 -
TL;NGTR
This is another stupid idea that would just break the game more than it already does. BTW, don’t post a million links to other threads, if you want anyone to take you seriously. I can absolutely guarantee you with 100% certainty, that if this was done, the game would be forever broken. Baby steps padawan.
1 -
BTW, don’t post a million links to other threads, if you want anyone to take you seriously.
That is how you actually do reporting. It's closer to scientific consensus. It should do the opposite of making people take it less serious. And if people take it less serious for that reason, the fault is on them.
I can absolutely guarantee you with 100% certainty, that if this was done, the game would be forever broken.
Outright false. May sound convincing if you believe that if someone is not a Christian, they will start "killing everybody on the streets".
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
Outright false. May sound convincing if you believe that if someone is not a Christian, they will start "killing everybody on the streets".Ummm...dude.....what are you smoking? I read enough of your post to know that you know nothing about balance, as others have also stated. You don’t consider any of the counterpoints, just like BHVR doesn’t in most cases. Unless it’s sitting right in front of their face, or your face in this instance, you aren’t seeing how broken this is. If you think I’m going to waste a couple hours to counter every single one of your statements, you are sorely mistaken. Have fun, you’re going to need it.
3 -
Unless it’s sitting right in front of their face, or your face in this instance, you aren’t seeing how broken this is. If you think I’m going to waste a couple hours to counter every single one of your statements, you are sorely mistaken. Have fun, you’re going to need it.
How would you know what the "balance is", if balance is relative and that we stated that this change was intertwined with solving Death-Efficiency?
What calculations do you have? If you want to know if X is more than Y, you first need to know both X and Y, otherwise saying that X is more or less is an objectively false claim.
as others have also stated
Credibility is key. A thousand people can state something and be completely wrong about it.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape time for you to move on. If you don’t understand what “Baby steps padawan” means, then I can’t help you. Your holier than thou attitude, with an over abundance of useless unproven information, doesn’t work here.
GL
2 -
I don't state that things are true. I've showed in the first headlines (Under "Here is an analysis") in which I show how:
A. The survivors are not immune as a result because of the removal of a timer (through location based hook progression mechanics)
B. Why survivors still have a reason to unhook people. (They will all die similar to a 4 slug)
C. Why saving someone as early as possible is the META strategy.
D. How people that build on top of this principle: The principle of replacing the guilty variable Location-Based-Hooking-Phase mechanics. (See comments below OP) achieve a closer to perfect result through the use of this principle.You are the one with the "Your holier than thou attitude" stating it was wrong without feeling the need to prove it.
I proved it. And anyone understanding what location based hooking mechanics achieve understand that this is indeed inherent to solving the problem > has a million ways of going about this > and is for such flexibility impossible to be Unbalanced.And after all; balance is relative: You need to know both X and Y before you know something is more than the other.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionThe example is still wrong because it hinges on the assumption that survivors would be hook rushing anyway.
Yours hinges on the assumption that they don't. And in your suggestion, there is actually more reason to rush for hooks since you increase the PRESSURE on unhooking.
Edit: When I screw up 1 tiny word but the reasoning remains constant with the right analysis of your suggestion, why don't you respond to that analysis instead?
High mobility killers can quickly increase the timer and abuse this mechanic.
It creates a weird situation in which you do properly incentivise the killer to leave the hook (when nobody is nearby), but simultaneously, by making hooks go faster, you also Do incentivise for faster unhooks, which promotes camping.
Your suggestion both helps Tru3Ta1ent like players and manages to help campers at the same time.
It's quite weird when you think about it.Right now there is no penalty for unsafe unhooks except for the guy who was unhooked, which is absurd.
I agree but it's somewhat (not completely) of a separate issue, but I think this would be the 3rd variable mentioned in the OP.
If a survivor would unhook a survivor just for that survivor to be transported to another place, then that would make the un-hooker victim of their own doings.I don't say we should, but it's definitely funning thinking about it.
When you demonstrate you haven't actually read what I said, I don't respond because you're not responding either. To respond presupposes that you've actually read what is being said to you and are addressing it. If you show me you haven't done either, I see no reason why I should put in more effort than you.
For example, note how you're addressing my second suggestion, even though I explicitly said that only my first could be tested easily (even in KYF). I'm left to conclude that either you don't know the difference between "first" and "second", which is absurd, or you're not really concerned with what I've said and just want an echo chamber.1 -
Option 1:
People who perform unsafe unhooks are put in the Dying state and become afflicted with the Broken status effect for the remainder of the trial. Unsafe unhooks are redefined to "An unhook where the person who was unhooked is hit by the Killer after less than 10 seconds".Survivors will go back to working on generators like they're supposed to, and camping will be punished by the Survivors, just like it's supposed to be.
This makes camping worse. Out of respect I ignored this one as a solution to "solve camping" and read it as an attempt to stop unsafe unhooking.
You avoided my comment again. Read it with the red text. The explanation and reasoning shows that I misspoke because saying you would have increased the timer would've made camping less prevalent.
I'm not sure why you are so attached to pretending that I don't "understand" an elementary idea of making something go faster the further you are away.
0 -
@AlwaysInAGoodShape said:
@OrionOption 1:
People who perform unsafe unhooks are put in the Dying state and become afflicted with the Broken status effect for the remainder of the trial. Unsafe unhooks are redefined to "An unhook where the person who was unhooked is hit by the Killer after less than 10 seconds".Survivors will go back to working on generators like they're supposed to, and camping will be punished by the Survivors, just like it's supposed to be.
This makes camping worse. Out of respect I ignored this one as a solution to "solve camping" and read it as an attempt to stop unsafe unhooking.
You avoided my comment again. Read it with the red text. The explanation and reasoning shows that I misspoke because saying you would have increased the timer would've made camping less prevalent.
I'm not sure why you are so attached to pretending that I don't "understand" an elementary idea of making something go faster the further you are away.
Camping emerged as an issue primarily in response to unsafe unhooks. In other words, the primary cause of camping is unsafe unhooks. The two are connected. Stopping unsafe unhooks would make camping less worthwhile for the killer by default (in the long run), since it would push survivors to rush gens like they're supposed to when the killer is camping.
If you don't even know what causes camping, how do you expect to know how to fix it?Yes, I ignored your comment again because, as I've explained, I was speaking only of my first suggestion. That's three times now I've had to explain to you that I'm speaking of my first suggestion while you address the second.
I'm not attached to anything. It's a demonstrable fact that you don't understand it. You've said multiple times that I want to increase or slow down the hook timer, which simply isn't true. Nowhere is that on either suggestion. And yet you keep bringing it up, time and time again.
0 -
I'm not attached to anything. It's a demonstrable fact that you don't understand it. You've said multiple times that I want to increase or slow down the hook timer, which simply isn't true. Nowhere is that on either suggestion. And yet you keep bringing it up, time and time again.
You don't like long posts, but if certain concepts need explanation:
The basic principle of balance
There are 2 types of posts really: There are posts that try to balance over-all balance, and there are posts that are not related to over-all balance and therefore assume balance to be relative;
For example: When I write a post about new hooks for killers to target "The killer is purely reactive and lacks choice" problem, that we are not covering over-all balance. When I come up with a suggestion like that, it's ridiculous that I have people commenting: "But that would be OP"! We take balance as relative.
The same goes when I'm trying to address concerns regarding survivors to be more than just skins. Again; this is not about faction-balance; balance is relative.
It would of course be ridiculous when covering such a subject that I'd have to throw in a random unrelated "other-faction-buff", because again, they are not meant to target over-all balance; we assume something else but for the opposing faction to be picked and placed alongside of an otherwise 1 sided buff. People can freely choose!
Only when the post is about the balance state between survivors and killers, is faction-balance CRUCIAL and there it needs addressing.
So:
Faction-Balance: Over-all balance is not relative.
Inherent issue solving: Targets inherent gameplay issues regarding topics related to fun. Faction balance is assumed and does not require mandated mentioning.Now this is a post about the inherent problem caused by camping. To this issue, it is irrelevant that the killer is weak or strong; A killer can camp because of the inherent design flaw; the timer.
So you understand that I assume that you don't want to create faction buffs/nerfs; you simply want to solve an inherent issue because you, related to this subject, do not believe either faction to be too weak.
Thus your 2nd suggestion creates this balance effect, if we assume balance to be relative:
A is the vanilla game.
B is your version in which progression goes faster if you are further away, meaning it goes up in strength.
As a result, you move up the relative balance of the game. This is why I say: You are artificially NERFING camping unnaturally while keeping the toxic variables.Now, despite me already having covered why nerfing the speed at which the bar regresses or buffing it when you walk away, I'll explain it again:
Buffing progression speed results in graph B. Nerfing progression when camping ALSO results in B. There is literally no difference between the 2 in a relative environment and so I don't distinct between the 2.Instead I assumed you understood the basics of balance and that you didn't want to randomly buff killers. I after all believed we were discussing camping and not faction balance.
Instead of understanding this, you still pretend that I don't know what "something going faster if you go further away means".
I'd argue that you don't understand how buffing and nerfing things in a relative environment works, in which over-all/faction-based balance should not be affected and is not related to the issue at hand.I covered it before and now I covered it again; with pictures. I think that if you misunderstand my point regarding calling your 2nd suggestion essentially a camping nerf, then the blame really is no longer on me.
If you don't want long posts, then you need to understand basic design principles regarding balance.
Regarding the rest:
Camping emerged as an issue primarily in response to unsafe unhooks. In other words, the primary cause of camping is unsafe unhooks. The two are connected. Stopping unsafe unhooks would make camping less worthwhile for the killer by default
I think you miss the point here: The reasons why they HAVE to go for the unsafe unhook is because THE TIMER (god forbid) COMPELS them to! You want the game to punish them for that? For going for the legitimate play of unsafely unhooking someone when they are about the enter the second phase?
The main point after all of this remains the same: The timer is the guilty variable and the solution is location based hooking-phase progression. Funny enough in your second suggestion the first thing you introduce as a solution is location based hooking-phase progression, showing that you, when coming up with an idea to solve or at least address camping, you agree with my premise that the timer is the guilty variable, which is why the first thing you do is take away influence the timer has and replace it partly with location based mechanics.
I don't understand why you don't acknowledge that part. Basically you saw a hole in a ship, realised that water was pouring in and thought "we should use wood to cover some of the gap", where as I say; You are partly right and heading into the right direction; We should use the wood to cover the WHOLE gap.
The gap being the timer. The wood being location based mechanics that manage hooking-phases.
Why, if you are able to realise the gap is the problem and wood is the solution, do you have the mentality of wanting to keep part of the gap inside of the ship? And when I point that half-measure out, you back-peddle from your own idea!
1 -
Honestly if they just made a survivor perk that would freeze your progress bar if the killer is within x% amount distance from the hook that would solve a lot. It would dissuade killers from hard camping. That plus bt would be perfect. Bc it’s ######### killers can capitalize on hook chasing and hard camping. I’d like to say it’s just new killers but it’s through mid ranks too. Always going trying for a snowball then screaming gen rush. Honestly if it could be eliminated that’s okay with me.
Then if killers are getting below 2k on average buff those killers.
If it’s across the board increase gen time.0 -
You want to stop camping ... increase generator repair speed when a killer is in proximity to the hook and not engaged ina chase. Problem solved.0
-
Way to necro a thread from a month ago.
0 -
TBH, there is nothing to solve. Camping is a legitmate strategy when used correctly. Survivors hate it, because they don’t know how to counter to it, especially at the lower ranks. As survivros learn to play better, they learn that there is even counter play to a LF camping the hook.
BHVR dissuades those who use camping in a way that isn’t fun, but they admit that it is required in some situations. If you don’t like camping, learn how counter it. FYI, when people say do gens, they truly mean do objectives, which includes cleansing totems. If you have a killer who is camping early game, there is an exteemely good chance that he’s running NOED.
1 -
Maybe it could be a new game mode.
0 -
Fighting losing battle bud. You ain't ever gonna slay camping because it can't be slayed. No talent killers are always gonna be in the game no matter what.
0
