The 2v1 situation hypocrisy is really getting on my nerves

terrortil

@PiiFree said:
It simply represents the spupidity or incompetence of the players.

We just had this discussion a few days ago. And your ignorance annoys me. This is not a case of spupidity or incompetence. It's a gamble. High risk, high profit. We (altruistic players) know the odds when we do such things.

The problem is that the devs use such stats to measure the balance. Which is why I try to avoid providing inaccurate / not representative match results.

Again I see no prove that's the case. This is an statement without any basis on which you want to dictate to others how to play.

PiiFree

@fluffybunny said:
While I could venture and say farming and suiciding may not be against the rules (I know they do have farming in the rules, but I believe that is regards to screwing over your team), DCing is clearly against the rules. Still farming and suiciding can indicate skill or lack there of in a situation that shouldn't have happened organically. That happens out of boredom or ill will. A survivor messing up is organic gameplay, though, and therefore someone feeding the killer kills due to lack of information or an over assumption of their own skill isn't misleading to the game's stats. EDIT: @PiiFree I thought I quoted you, but guess not.

DCing per se is not against the rules, it's a matter of how often you DC. The moment the ban hammer hits is the moment the devs consider the frequency of DCs to be a problem. IIRC, it's at around 40-50% at the moment? That's the DC tolerance the devs allow until they consider it to be "against the rules" and therefore punish players for doing so.

I surely agree that a survivor messing up is normal and part of the game, just like Killers messing up is normal. I think I made it clear enough that typical mistakes are not part of the problem but pointlessly feeding kills (or letting survivors escape) can have a negative impact regarding balance.

Maybe that's the difference between competitive players (or tryhards) and casuals. It would be interesting to see how the game would evolve if escaping was of greater value. It's not a big part with the current emblem system, which is why I'm confused why they use escape ratios to represent balance. It's not something Survivors desperately try to achieve, but the devs use those stats it as if it was all about escaping. Maybe those stats were more accurate if getting killed = depip and escape = pip, but that's not the case.

@terrortil said:

@PiiFree said:
It simply represents the spupidity or incompetence of the players.

We just had this discussion a few days ago. And your ignorance annoys me. This is not a case of spupidity or incompetence. It's a gamble. High risk, high profit. We (altruistic players) know the odds when we do such things.

The problem is that the devs use such stats to measure the balance. Which is why I try to avoid providing inaccurate / not representative match results.

Again I see no prove that's the case. This is an statement without any basis on which you want to dictate to others how to play.

Feeding unnecessary kills is always a case of stupidity or incompetence. Whenever you approach a hook for an unhook attempt, you can easily evaluate how high your chances of success are. BT? NOED? Oneshot-killer? Exit gate open? Exit gate nearby? Next hook = dead?

Many factors come in place in that situation and if you're smart, you can clearly see how your rescue act (most likely) will end up like.

If you mindlessly run into a facecamping Leatherface (and that happens) it has nothing to do with "a high risk / high reward gamble", it's simply stupid and nothing else. It's like going to a gunfight with only a knife when you could've simply avoided it. There's a difference between altruism and blatant stupidity, you still gotta stay realistic.

As for the proof for that "balance around kills / escapes", just shows me that you never watch the dev streams. Just watch some of the streams right after they released a new Killer and you'll find out they'll use "escape and death statistics" to evaluate if a Killer is broken or fine.

Just look at freddy for example, they figured he had a high kill rate in rank 20 upon release so they nerfed him because obviously people had trouble against him. Ignoring the fact that people DC'd left and right as soon as they realized it's a freddy, which lead to those escape rates. We're in the internet, in case of doubt you can always do a quick google search for the dev streams and spend some time watching them.

terrortil

@PiiFree said:

Feeding unnecessary kills is always a case of stupidity or incompetence. Whenever you approach a hook for an unhook attempt, you can easily evaluate how high your chances of success are. BT? NOED? Oneshot-killer? Exit gate open? Exit gate nearby? Next hook = dead?

Many factors come in place in that situation and if you're smart, you can clearly see how your rescue act (most likely) will end up like.

Yes of course I look at the factors in advance (like the above) and I will not always run straight to the hook without consideration of many things.

If you mindlessly run into a facecamping Leatherface (and that happens) it has nothing to do with "a high risk / high reward gamble", it's simply stupid and nothing else.

Of course you will take that one example. Yeah, a facecamping Leatherface is dead situation, I agree. But what if you can provoke him. This will not work if you stand a mile away and point at him. But get close in a range he could get you and maby he will let his guard down for a moment. I've seen a lot of rescues like this and yes I have seen it fail also. Killer will also make mistakes from time to time. Even the best do not always play perfect.

Or maby he is close patroling or maby it isn't a LF or or or .... as you stated there are dozens of factors when, how and why I go for a risky rescue and when not. But just bc it is risky and could end in a "unnecessary" dead is not a reason.

As for the proof for that "balance around kills / escapes", just shows me that you never watch the dev streams. Just watch some of the streams right after they released a new Killer and you'll find out they'll use "escape and death statistics" to evaluate if a Killer is broken or fine.
Just look at freddy for example, they figured he had a high kill rate in rank 20 upon release so they nerfed him because obviously people had trouble against him. Ignoring the fact that people DC'd left and right as soon as they realized it's a freddy, which lead to those escape rates.

I saw all streams since I play this game. And when you look back on the dev stream for the freddy nerf (as I do right now) you will see that:

high DC rates are mentioned
different opinion about his power level are mentioned
ppl dont have fun against him is mentioned
devs listening to feedback is mentioned

Now, of course, you can say that she did not take it all into account for the nerf but just because it was retrospectively wrong is no proof.

PiiFree

@terrortil said:

@PiiFree said:

Feeding unnecessary kills is always a case of stupidity or incompetence. Whenever you approach a hook for an unhook attempt, you can easily evaluate how high your chances of success are. BT? NOED? Oneshot-killer? Exit gate open? Exit gate nearby? Next hook = dead?

Many factors come in place in that situation and if you're smart, you can clearly see how your rescue act (most likely) will end up like.

Yes of course I look at the factors in advance (like the above) and I will not always run straight to the hook without consideration of many things.

If you mindlessly run into a facecamping Leatherface (and that happens) it has nothing to do with "a high risk / high reward gamble", it's simply stupid and nothing else.

Of course you will take that one example. Yeah, a facecamping Leatherface is dead situation, I agree. But what if you can provoke him. This will not work if you stand a mile away and point at him. But get close in a range he could get you and maby he will let his guard down for a moment. I've seen a lot of rescues like this and yes I have seen it fail also. Killer will also make mistakes from time to time. Even the best do not always play perfect.

Or maby he is close patroling or maby it isn't a LF or or or .... as you stated there are dozens of factors when, how and why I go for a risky rescue and when not. But just bc it is risky and could end in a "unnecessary" dead is not reason.

As for the proof for that "balance around kills / escapes", just shows me that you never watch the dev streams. Just watch some of the streams right after they released a new Killer and you'll find out they'll use "escape and death statistics" to evaluate if a Killer is broken or fine.
Just look at freddy for example, they figured he had a high kill rate in rank 20 upon release so they nerfed him because obviously people had trouble against him. Ignoring the fact that people DC'd left and right as soon as they realized it's a freddy, which lead to those escape rates.

I saw all streams since I play this game. And when you look back on the dev stream for the freddy nerf (as I do right now) you will see that:

high DC rates are mentioned
different opinion about his power level are mentioned
ppl dont have fun against him is mentioned
devs listening to feedback is mentioned

Now, of course, you can say that she did not take it all into account for the nerf but just because it was retrospectively wrong is no proof.

It's a rather pointless discussion because an "unnecessary death" or a "stupid action" is a matter of opinion. As you said, sometimes it can work out and sometimes it ends up in a disaster, that's part of the game, but very often it's just stupid imo. I see it on a daily base, I'm sure most of the hooks that happen in the endgame happen because of "stupid" actions of Survivors.

As I said, I try to get the match result that represents the overall performance of the players. I'm also willing to purposely lose a hatch standoff if I think the Killer deserves the 4k.

As for the dev stream part, I think if you watched all of them you would've noticed that they balance the game around 2 kills and 2 escapes. If this result is achieved, they consider the match to be balanced. I'm surprised that this is news to you, as they often (if not exlcusively) provide those stats in relation to balance.

I'm sure I could find McLeans statement in regards to the depip squads experiment, where he excused the success of the depip squad quite literally with "we never said the game was balanced", implying that anything apart from 2 kills // 2 escapes is the result of imbalance.

Or we could look at the old victory cube, which was clearly designed around 2 kills / 2 escape balance.

Another irrelevant question: Since when do you play this game?

terrortil

@PiiFree said:
I see it on a daily base, I'm sure most of the hooks that happen in the endgame happen because of "stupid" actions of Survivors.

Again assumptions not facts. Please handle it like that. Your experiences are not statistical proof.

As for the dev stream part, I think if you watched all of them you would've noticed that they balance the game around 2 kills and 2 escapes. If this result is achieved, they consider the match to be balanced. I'm surprised that this is news to you, as they often (if not exlcusively) provide those stats in relation to balance.

Yeah they stated 2 kills and 2 escapes is the center of balance. BUT they have said about a dozen times that they design and balance the game also around fun for and against a killer, gameplay reasons, different player groups etc.

Is that true? How knows. You just do not know what's really going on. You know exactly what the developers want to tell you, everything else is guesswork. (That includes me. Therefore I do not claim to know how it is.)

I'm pretty sure if you ask them right now if they balance the game only according to the kill/escape statistics, they will say no. And then? Are you going to give up your position?

Another irrelevant question: Since when do you play this game?

First contact beta, but I really started between Doctor and Freddy, so mid 2017.

PiiFree

@terrortil said:

@PiiFree said:
I see it on a daily base, I'm sure most of the hooks that happen in the endgame happen because of "stupid" actions of Survivors.

Again assumptions not facts. Please handle it like that. Your experiences are not statistical proof.

Listen, I know it's a popular phrase to come up with but if someone starts the sentence literally with "I see it on a daily base" it's obvious that the following part is based on the experience they see on a daily base and not meant a fact at all...

You're an incredibly annoying person to deal with and I'm at a point where I believe that even if I took the time to provide video evidence of such a quote regarding balance, you'd probably be like "That was waaay back in [random time zone] and is no longer the case anymore!!11".

No, if you don't believe it, inform yourself. I'm not here to teach you.

terrortil

@PiiFree said:

Listen, I know it's a popular phrase to come up with but if someone starts the sentence literally with "I see it on a daily base" it's obvious that the following part is based on the experience they see on a daily base and not meant a fact at all...

So, it is not an fact. How do you know then how much it affects the kill/escape ratio? And if you don't know. On what basis are you trying to tell people here that their style of play is harmful to the game?

You're an incredibly annoying person to deal with

I'm sorry. The only reason i put time in this is that I think to tell people that risky alturistic gameplay is stupid or incompetent hurts the game more than the other way around.

No, if you don't believe it, inform yourself. I'm not here to teach you.

I have informed myself and I am still of the opinion that we both don't know what information the developers use and which not.

(And if you realized that most killings are due to stupidity, why shouldn't the developers know? After all, you have written it several times in their forum.)

fluffybunny

@PiiFree said:

@fluffybunny said:
While I could venture and say farming and suiciding may not be against the rules (I know they do have farming in the rules, but I believe that is regards to screwing over your team), DCing is clearly against the rules. Still farming and suiciding can indicate skill or lack there of in a situation that shouldn't have happened organically. That happens out of boredom or ill will. A survivor messing up is organic gameplay, though, and therefore someone feeding the killer kills due to lack of information or an over assumption of their own skill isn't misleading to the game's stats. EDIT: @PiiFree I thought I quoted you, but guess not.

DCing per se is not against the rules, it's a matter of how often you DC. The moment the ban hammer hits is the moment the devs consider the frequency of DCs to be a problem. IIRC, it's at around 40-50% at the moment? That's the DC tolerance the devs allow until they consider it to be "against the rules" and therefore punish players for doing so.

I surely agree that a survivor messing up is normal and part of the game, just like Killers messing up is normal. I think I made it clear enough that typical mistakes are not part of the problem but pointlessly feeding kills (or letting survivors escape) can have a negative impact regarding balance.

Maybe that's the difference between competitive players (or tryhards) and casuals. It would be interesting to see how the game would evolve if escaping was of greater value. It's not a big part with the current emblem system, which is why I'm confused why they use escape ratios to represent balance. It's not something Survivors desperately try to achieve, but the devs use those stats it as if it was all about escaping. Maybe those stats were more accurate if getting killed = depip and escape = pip, but that's not the case.

Accidental DC isn't against the rules, but it IS under unsportsmanlike conduct. They should do more to punish it imo. It completely ruins the game for everyone else left in the match. Other games have wait times to discourage DCing, I'm pretty sure. I've heard about that from elsewhere. Otherwise just resetting the lobby and keeping your offerings would also be a nice fix if someone DCs at the very start or can't connect due to the loading screen freezing, etc.

I still play competitively, I just also play for fun and I just don't consider it a "win" if only one person leaves and does so through the hatch. The hatch is a boring mechanic and often a free win for survivor and most of the time the best player doesn't even get the hatch. It's the person who's afking next to it and hiding when things look bleak that does. That's just my opinion.

I honestly don't think it'd be a good idea to make being killed = depipping, either. I don't think it'd make for fun games. Skill isn't really something easily measured in games like this. There's so many things to account for, such as the skills of allies, what others are doing, etc. If they HAD to live to get pips, they'd be more likely to play SWF and bring in the OP perks (hi, DS) and the really good items. It'd probably make for more selfish players, too. And anyone who plays survivor would cry about their survival rate as it actually would account for more than leaving with an item, doing a daily, and getting gold/silver/iridescent.

PiiFree

@fluffybunny said:
Accidental DC isn't against the rules, but it IS under unsportsmanlike conduct. They should do more to punish it imo. It completely ruins the game for everyone else left in the match. Other games have wait times to discourage DCing, I'm pretty sure. I've heard about that from elsewhere. Otherwise just resetting the lobby and keeping your offerings would also be a nice fix if someone DCs at the very start or can't connect due to the loading screen freezing, etc.

That doesn't really matter, my point is simple: You are allowed to DC for somewhat 40% and only then the devs consider it worthy to punish. That's their tolerance, it's a simple fact. You are allowed to DC for roughly 40% of the matches and you won't get any punishment because the devs think that's fine.

@fluffybunny said:
I still play competitively, I just also play for fun and I just don't consider it a "win" if only one person leaves and does so through the hatch. The hatch is a boring mechanic and often a free win for survivor and most of the time the best player doesn't even get the hatch. It's the person who's afking next to it and hiding when things look bleak that does. That's just my opinion.

I honestly don't think it'd be a good idea to make being killed = depipping, either. I don't think it'd make for fun games. Skill isn't really something easily measured in games like this. There's so many things to account for, such as the skills of allies, what others are doing, etc. If they HAD to live to get pips, they'd be more likely to play SWF and bring in the OP perks (hi, DS) and the really good items. It'd probably make for more selfish players, too. And anyone who plays survivor would cry about their survival rate as it actually would account for more than leaving with an item, doing a daily, and getting gold/silver/iridescent.

Survivors would avoid feeding unnecessary kills if escaping was of higher priority, that's my point in that regard. Escaping shouldn't be a requirement for you if you play for fun, because escaping (running through the exit gate) is not fun in any way or form. It's just a few seconds of running straight forward.

One of the biggest problems in DbD is that both sides can win at the same time. There is no real competition against each other, objectively seen, which is why pip progression and match results should never be used as representation for balance.

A match can result in a 4k but all Survivors pipped. A match can result in a 0k but even the Killer pipped. Especially towards the end of the match, Survivors that are still alive most likely pipped anyway, so they're a lot more likely to throw the match by going for stupid rescue actions. Stuff like that wouldn't happen if escape was more important or even a requirement to "win".

terrortil

@PiiFree said:
That doesn't really matter, my point is simple: You are allowed to DC for somewhat 40% and only then the devs consider it worthy to punish. That's their tolerance, it's a simple fact. You are allowed to DC for roughly 40% of the matches and you won't get any punishment because the devs think that's fine.

I'm really sorry. I really wanted to avoid you because our discussions never progress. But @Peanits stated a few days ago: "I'm not sure where the 40% number is coming from but it's not true. I've seen it mentioned a couple times now and that's not the case."

PiiFree

@terrortil said:

@PiiFree said:
That doesn't really matter, my point is simple: You are allowed to DC for somewhat 40% and only then the devs consider it worthy to punish. That's their tolerance, it's a simple fact. You are allowed to DC for roughly 40% of the matches and you won't get any punishment because the devs think that's fine.

I'm really sorry. I really wanted to avoid you because our discussions never progress. But @Peanits stated a few days ago: "I'm not sure where the 40% number is coming from but it's not true. I've seen it mentioned a couple times now and that's not the case."

Thanks for that!

Did they provide any additional information in that regard? A bit more specific? Because saying "It's not 40%" might aswell mean that it's actually 50%. Or 41%. or 39%. Just saying, you get the point. You should not take that number too precisely, the actual value is not relevant. They are way too tolerant when it comes to DCs, that's what it's about and that's a simple fact.

The mods and devs chose their words very carefully when it comes to such things, in the end they leave it up to everyones interpretation of a statement.

In other words, it would be nice if we could get actual numbers!

fluffybunny

@PiiFree said:

@fluffybunny said:
Accidental DC isn't against the rules, but it IS under unsportsmanlike conduct. They should do more to punish it imo. It completely ruins the game for everyone else left in the match. Other games have wait times to discourage DCing, I'm pretty sure. I've heard about that from elsewhere. Otherwise just resetting the lobby and keeping your offerings would also be a nice fix if someone DCs at the very start or can't connect due to the loading screen freezing, etc.

That doesn't really matter, my point is simple: You are allowed to DC for somewhat 40% and only then the devs consider it worthy to punish. That's their tolerance, it's a simple fact. You are allowed to DC for roughly 40% of the matches and you won't get any punishment because the devs think that's fine.

@fluffybunny said:
I still play competitively, I just also play for fun and I just don't consider it a "win" if only one person leaves and does so through the hatch. The hatch is a boring mechanic and often a free win for survivor and most of the time the best player doesn't even get the hatch. It's the person who's afking next to it and hiding when things look bleak that does. That's just my opinion.

I honestly don't think it'd be a good idea to make being killed = depipping, either. I don't think it'd make for fun games. Skill isn't really something easily measured in games like this. There's so many things to account for, such as the skills of allies, what others are doing, etc. If they HAD to live to get pips, they'd be more likely to play SWF and bring in the OP perks (hi, DS) and the really good items. It'd probably make for more selfish players, too. And anyone who plays survivor would cry about their survival rate as it actually would account for more than leaving with an item, doing a daily, and getting gold/silver/iridescent.

Survivors would avoid feeding unnecessary kills if escaping was of higher priority, that's my point in that regard. Escaping shouldn't be a requirement for you if you play for fun, because escaping (running through the exit gate) is not fun in any way or form. It's just a few seconds of running straight forward.

One of the biggest problems in DbD is that both sides can win at the same time. There is no real competition against each other, objectively seen, which is why pip progression and match results should never be used as representation for balance.

A match can result in a 4k but all Survivors pipped. A match can result in a 0k but even the Killer pipped. Especially towards the end of the match, Survivors that are still alive most likely pipped anyway, so they're a lot more likely to throw the match by going for stupid rescue actions. Stuff like that wouldn't happen if escape was more important or even a requirement to "win".

I personally find it preferable that both sides can technically win, even if one side doesn't actually escape or stop the escaping. While escaping can be fun especially after a very tense chase, I don't think it necessarily measures skill, either. I had a game where everyone got downed with NOED and the DS user made it out without even trying to get a single person off the hook. Pretty sure there was at least two people if not three and one of the hooks was bound to be safe. The player didn't play well, but was gloating about being the only one to get out. There's more to a "win" than just escaping is my point.

I do get that using survival and death rates can be a bit strange considering you don't necessarily have to escape/kill everyone to pip. What would you suggest them measure instead when measuring for balance? I know what the community says regarding possible issues, but maybe there's too many voices for them to hear out everyone. Whether you pip or not doesn't always mean anything, either. I don't believe I've every lost a pip as killer and when I lose one as survivor, it's usually thanks to survivors farming you, which I don't think is intended.

PiiFree

@fluffybunny said:
What would you suggest them measure instead when measuring for balance? I know what the community says regarding possible issues, but maybe there's too many voices for them to hear out everyone. Whether you pip or not doesn't always mean anything, either. I don't believe I've every lost a pip as killer and when I lose one as survivor, it's usually thanks to survivors farming you, which I don't think is intended.

My suggestion for BHVR:

Implement a ranked mode with a way harder and more punishing ranking system, obviously without SWF because that would ruin the whole balance aspects again.

Adjust the emblem system. Many Emblems are all bound to some sort of grinding, they're not exactly skill related.

If you have such a system in place, the skill brackets would be a lot more accurate, leading to more balanced matches (skill / experience-wise) which would inevitably lead to better representation of balance.

On top of that, certain key factors need to be considered. How long did it take for the gens to be done? How long did it take to get the hooks? That's ultimately what defines efficiency for each role.

Right now, all that matters is the quantity: How many hooks? How many hits? How many gens? How many unhooks? The efficiency respectively the quality of the performance that lead to that result is irrelevant.

There are many things you can consider when looking for a measurement of skill or balance but the most important part would be to provide an even playground. In my opinion, right now it's mostly "one side stomping the other side" because there is such a massive variety of skill brackets even in the highest rank. It may look balanced OVERALL, but in fact most matches are already over before they even started. You win some, you lose some but you rarely get really tense matches where players of equal skill participate.

A more detailed answer would break the topic here but I think you get the point.

Master

@fluffybunny said:

@PiiFree said:

@fluffybunny said:
Accidental DC isn't against the rules, but it IS under unsportsmanlike conduct. They should do more to punish it imo. It completely ruins the game for everyone else left in the match. Other games have wait times to discourage DCing, I'm pretty sure. I've heard about that from elsewhere. Otherwise just resetting the lobby and keeping your offerings would also be a nice fix if someone DCs at the very start or can't connect due to the loading screen freezing, etc.

That doesn't really matter, my point is simple: You are allowed to DC for somewhat 40% and only then the devs consider it worthy to punish. That's their tolerance, it's a simple fact. You are allowed to DC for roughly 40% of the matches and you won't get any punishment because the devs think that's fine.

@fluffybunny said:
I still play competitively, I just also play for fun and I just don't consider it a "win" if only one person leaves and does so through the hatch. The hatch is a boring mechanic and often a free win for survivor and most of the time the best player doesn't even get the hatch. It's the person who's afking next to it and hiding when things look bleak that does. That's just my opinion.

I honestly don't think it'd be a good idea to make being killed = depipping, either. I don't think it'd make for fun games. Skill isn't really something easily measured in games like this. There's so many things to account for, such as the skills of allies, what others are doing, etc. If they HAD to live to get pips, they'd be more likely to play SWF and bring in the OP perks (hi, DS) and the really good items. It'd probably make for more selfish players, too. And anyone who plays survivor would cry about their survival rate as it actually would account for more than leaving with an item, doing a daily, and getting gold/silver/iridescent.

Survivors would avoid feeding unnecessary kills if escaping was of higher priority, that's my point in that regard. Escaping shouldn't be a requirement for you if you play for fun, because escaping (running through the exit gate) is not fun in any way or form. It's just a few seconds of running straight forward.

One of the biggest problems in DbD is that both sides can win at the same time. There is no real competition against each other, objectively seen, which is why pip progression and match results should never be used as representation for balance.

A match can result in a 4k but all Survivors pipped. A match can result in a 0k but even the Killer pipped. Especially towards the end of the match, Survivors that are still alive most likely pipped anyway, so they're a lot more likely to throw the match by going for stupid rescue actions. Stuff like that wouldn't happen if escape was more important or even a requirement to "win".

I personally find it preferable that both sides can technically win, even if one side doesn't actually escape or stop the escaping. While escaping can be fun especially after a very tense chase, I don't think it necessarily measures skill, either. I had a game where everyone got downed with NOED and the DS user made it out without even trying to get a single person off the hook. Pretty sure there was at least two people if not three and one of the hooks was bound to be safe. The player didn't play well, but was gloating about being the only one to get out. There's more to a "win" than just escaping is my point.

I do get that using survival and death rates can be a bit strange considering you don't necessarily have to escape/kill everyone to pip. What would you suggest them measure instead when measuring for balance? I know what the community says regarding possible issues, but maybe there's too many voices for them to hear out everyone. Whether you pip or not doesn't always mean anything, either. I don't believe I've every lost a pip as killer and when I lose one as survivor, it's usually thanks to survivors farming you, which I don't think is intended.

The fact that both sides can "win" (or pip) in the same game is one of the biggest flaws of the ranking system.

Milkymalk

@White_Owl said:
Don't act as if he's special, maybe he's the antimate, the one that crouched around and did nothing all the time (just like it happened in the match that made me write this).

Exactly this. I had to witness a killer endgame farming with the guy who did nothing all game except trying to troll me, smear the killer on me during a chase while I was working on a Hex and bodyblock me when I was carrying a lantern, finally getting me killed when he quickjumped a window next to me to alert the killer. Sure the killer meant well because it was a 3v1, but that guy did not deserve any mercy at all.