http://dbd.game/killswitch
This needs to be reportable
So this has been my DBD experience for the past few days, too bad the anti-slug only works if everyone is down. This is generally my experience with most huntresses and is why I absolutely loath going against them.
This huntress slugged me and sat on me until i bled out. She slugged me earlier in the match too because i took the down for the person they were hard tunneling. By that i mean this huntress had eyes and intent only for the hooked and unhooked people.
of course they were console so i couldn't ask why. My best guess is that I kept saving and taking hits for the people they were HARDCORE tunneling and camping juuuust far enough away to bypass the face camp meter.
But this is the definition of toxic. There is no reasonable excuse for this behavior when i had done nothing toxic or BM, i did two gens and some saves. No t-bagging. no flashlight clicks. I did nothing to get their attention. Just minded my business.
What are yalls opinion on a killer watching a survivor bleed out for the full 4 minutes? should it be reportable and eventually lead to a temp ban? Is it griefing?
Note: Why do I have the names and perks blocked? (i know this will be brought up)
- To protect the identity of the other survivors.
- I know if I have my perks visible and they see ANY perk they dislike, even if its something like "corrective action", the conversation will devolve into "we can be toxic cuz perks".
- But your skin!!!! I think its funny and i like to do goofy stuff like shine my flashlight on the hands of survivors repairing generators so they can see. Or use my flashlight to light my way through dredges darkness. This outfit is a pretty clear indicator of "this guy is goofy". I plan to pair it with the speedo on release.
Comments
-
Slugging isn’t reportable, but it can be toxic depending on the situation. I’ve slugged survivors and let them bleed out, but only in response to displays of toxicity on their side like constantly t-bagging every time they drop a pallet or vault a window. Aside from situations like that, I agree that the killer is at fault for being overly toxic to let survivor bleed out like that.
This is why BHVR needs to allow survivors to abandon if they are slugged as one of the last two remaining. At that point, the match is effectively over. People on these forums have pointed this out to the devs/mods repeatedly, but nothing has been done yet. It would be nice if they didn’t take so long to make what should be a very simple, straightforward and logical change.3 -
I get slugging for those reasons. But this person slugged me for no reason, then sat on my body to watch me bleed out. didnt even attempt to find the other for the 4k, just wanted me on the ground and bleed me out. Crawled around all over the map, recovered…and they inched along on top of me the entire time.
Devs def need to widen teh abandon feature for situations like this or at least punish this level of toxicity somehow.
6 -
So, every Huntress just downs you and stares?
And its just Huntress?
-9 -
I know it's not reportable, and not sure if it should be, but I do agree that one should be able to abandon in that situation. Preferably without leaving a bot so that the last person can try for hatch.
2 -
People have been asking them to "address slugging for the 4k" since they changed hatch, and their most recent responses to this have been:
Ignore it, by the abandon feature that doesn't do anything when one survivor is still standing.
Or incentivized the killer to do it, both by expanding the base kit Mori in this situation, and by buffing afk crows so that the last survivor standing is all but guaranteed to give their position away (3 minutes) before bleed out (4 minutes).
8 -
Comment removed because I feel my reply was misunderstood.
Hope you have some better games.Post edited by PleaseRewind on-3 -
Not sure if it needs to be reportable, but you should be able to abandon by this point. Ideally without leaving a bot behind, to give your teammate a chance to find hatch.
11 -
How long should they be on the floor before the killer gets a botless DC? The moment they hit the floor or after two minutes bleeding out?
Seeing how some survivors purposely run into the killer just to get the abandon button to appear, I like to know where the threshold lies.
-1 -
We'd vote if 1/4th the bleed out bar is gone. Doesn't need to be consecutive.
0 -
Playing the game is not toxic, if you don't like what a player is doing, you need to blame the developers for allowing it, rather than the player doing it.
-11 -
I agree with @Rulebreaker here, 1/4th of the bleed out bar gone and you can leave.
5 -
You don't see how that would be a poor standard?
-6 -
So you have to leave someone on the floor during the match due to pallet save risk or flashlight and they end up being the 2nd to last. Its completely fine they pop out of existence the moment they hit the floor?
No, I disagree.
-3 -
Good point, my friend.
How much time do you think would be enough?
1 -
if there is to be a timer then it needs to start at down with the condition that two survivors are left.
I'm not certain what that time should be because of legit reasons to the survivor being left on the floor.
In the OP example we could say the proxy of the killer could be used but that wouldn't work if the killer backs away or goes hunting for the 4th.
How about the situations where the 4th survivor is in view. This is where my criticism comes in for the original suggestion. Should the killer be forced to pick up the 3rd and allow the 4th to go hide?
If there is to be any option for the 3rd to leave forcing the hatch race then it needs to be fair in the course of a normal game and not an edge BM scenario.
-5 -
To be fair, my friend, if only survivors 3 and 4 are left, and you down survivor 3, there is really no reason to leave them on the ground unless you see survivor 4 right away.
If the timer starts as soon as you down survivor 3, there should still be enough time to down survivor 4 if you see them. And, if you don't see them, you can't just keep slugging for the 4k until survivor 3 dies.
That seems reasonable, I would say, but we would still need to determine the specifics of the timer.
7 -
Yes, we would need to agree on a reasonable timer.
0 -
There's no reason a Killer player should have so much wiggle room that they get to pause the entire game for everyone else to secure a victory. While I get that it's stressful, the overseer/power role should be (as long as it's still fun of course).
6 -
Well not really, just because you can do something pathetic/toxic, doesn't mean you have to, that choice is made by the pathetic/toxic player.
7 -
I disagree. No matter how many controls the devs put in place to prevent toxicity, there will always be something that players find that they can do that is completely unnecessary and they only do it to be toxic. It would be impossible for the devs to engineer out every possible toxic action.
6 -
The way we see it, nope. Case A: Malicious slugging, Case B: survivors have a bunch of torches or the slug is under a pallet with others around, Case C: you've lost a slug. Only case B is one we're we see it setting a bad example.That said, we're open to a different amount as long as it sounds reasonable so as you said to the general, everyone just need to agree on what a reasonable time is.
4 -
Playing a game is not toxic, full stop. You can't tell other people how to play the game that they pay for. If you don't like it, you need to be complaining to the developers, not the players.
-11 -
I don’t think anyone anticipating getting a pallet save is about to hit abandon if their teammate is going for it. If someone is on the ground you can see where everyone else is.
1 -
What are yalls opinion on a killer watching a survivor bleed out for the full 4 minutes? should it be reportable and eventually lead to a temp ban? Is it griefing?Griefing? Yes, absolutely.
A ban? No. I think bans or penalties of any kind should only be given for things like hacking or intentionally, repeatedly, and substantially sabotaging the team as a survivor.
Everything else is on BHVR to fix how the game works. A couple of others have mentioned, there is no reason the survivor shouldn't be able to abandon in this scenario. The killer won, great, let's all move on. The only issue really should be in determining the exact metrics for when it appears.
5 -
A reasonable time is “never”, because when killers asked for an abandon button when the exits gates were open, the vast majority of people told killers “the game wasn’t over yet”, so killers shouldn’t get the abandon button.
The exact same situation happens here. If killers can be forced to sit through the entire ECG when survivors purposely hide in random parts of the map, then the slugged survivors should be forced to sit through their entire slug bar.
-8 -
I personally over the last day have turned multiple games from a 1k to a 3k in just EGC alone. The fact killers just want to give up during it then shows how little the mental capabilities seem to be from those players. Survivor players have already accepted they are the victims in this game, queue times prove it, and survivor players are constantly saying how awful the game feels. If someone is sitting on the ground for long enough they are already mentally checked out of the game, killers are never mentally checked out because they control the game is, a survivor sitting on the ground being griefed deserves to be able to leave with abandon if only to fix the awful queue times by putting more survivors into the pool, if they even decide to queue up again that is (I know I wouldn't if I was just forced to lick the floor for x number of minutes because someone wanted to have a power fantasy over my specifically).
4 -
There is no way you're actually defending the Huntress here. That was absolutely toxic and the player deserves to be called out for it. Just because trash behavior is possible doesn't make it any less trash.
7 -
the vast majority of people told killers “the game wasn’t over yet”, so killers shouldn’t get the abandon button.That's because its true. People provided examples and reasons on how the EGC situation was very different both in terms of agency that exists as well as probability that one side can still achieve its objective (escape or kill).
If killers can be forced to sit through the entire ECG when survivors purposely hide in random parts of the mapSo we've gone from abandon at end game chaos to a specific condition that can occur during EGC. This is pretty similar to the discussion going on where you draw the line. So far BHVR has decided to only focus on a situation where the chance of a comeback is extremely slim (all survivors dead, hooked, or downed) and they are struggling to implement a system that draws the line between detecting survivors who are intentionally hiding to draw out the game and those who are engaging in normal gameplay for a game that involves and encourages hiding.
3 -
The game is over when Survivors are slugged. The game is not over when exit gates are powered. Slugged Survivors cannot do anything; the Killer has all the freedom to do whatever they want when exit gates are powered. This has been explained multiple times. How you can think that these two scenarios are comparable in any way is beyond me.
7 -
This forum thread is talking about a scenario where there is a still survivor that can walk around the map (isn’t in the dying or hooked state). So “the game isn’t over yet”, because one of the survivors can still walk around the map.
-2 -
Case A: How do you know if it's malicious if you don't give the killer the chance to pick up? Reminder we are talking about giving the 2nd to last survivor the ability to abandon and leave no AI Bot behind.
Case C: Same as Case A in my opinion. You are basically saying a 4K is impossible even if both survivors are within striking distance of eachother.
0 -
The example was earily on in the match that scenario would drain the bleedout bar past the 3/4 mark. Later in the match that survivor is one of two remaining and is down by the killer. Because the bleedout bar was already 1/4 drained they would be able to instant abandon without a bot.
1 -
Case A is the obviously malicious as in, they were slugging since the start. The killer had chances to pickup before that survivor got to the point where they can leave. If they didn't have chances to pick up it falls under case B, which isn't malicious.
In a similar vein to A, you've left the slug for long enough already that they could surrender. If the freshly downed survivor hasn't been slugged, your free to go get that 4k when the survivor is in font of you. Your just on a timer.
2 -
The scenario in question is two survivors remaining and give the down 3rd survivor the ability to abandon without a bot. There wasn't a suggestion of a timer or condition other than being in the dying state. So Case A cannot validate if the killer will pickup or not because it doesn't provide that opportunity to them. The survivor can instant abandon without leaving a bot removing the ability for the killer to hook and hunt down the 4th before the hatch can spawn.
0 -
Welp that's your version of it. We disagree.
4 -
The timer in question is the bleed out timer. We voted 1/4 the timer before you can abandon remember? Is the scenario changed to immediately being able to abandon?
0 -
Correct but the caveat was nonconsecutive. Only the 3/4 bar was required. I've already gave my thoughts on this in earlier posts.
0 -
Playing the game is not toxic.
-5 -
[Something happened to our first reply so we're trying this again]
Our main confusion is HOW did the survivor get bled out for a minute. If the survivors were harassing the killer, then it falls under case B. If the killer chased others while leaving a slug, that's then on the killer for leaving them that long and if the slug crawled away that's case C. In both those the killer had ample opportunities to hook. Sabo squads fall under case B to us (we forgot about them the first time). In other cases it practically just letting them bleed. So how did they get to that point?
[There was probably more we've forgotten and worded pretty from the first but ya know, we forgot]
1 -
How would you detect that early instance of slugging to be malice to grant the abandon later? That's my issue. I believe the solution would be better if the timer started after being slugged at the 1v2 regardless if the previous slugging was legit or malice.
0 -
You're calling "standing there and watching someone bleed out" as "playing the game?" It's not. It's just... Standing there. Doing nothing. I wonder if you'd say the same for a Survivor who was just standing there watching someone bleed out. They're just "playing the game," so it's perfectly fine.
8 -
Playing the video game is not toxic.
-5 -
To be frank, wouldn't know what else to call it as if it doesn't fall under B or C there's not really any slugging that we'd know thats NOT "malicious intent" to us that would have survivors bleeding for a minute. Regardless of that, legit or malicious to us is irrelevant as this is more or less idea exploring.
We wouldn't particularly care if the timer starts at the first down in a 2v1 as long as it can't reset in any way.
0 -
4 man slugging til bleedout isn't toxic apparently.
8 -
Neither is teabagging at the exit gate. They're just playing a video game. Playing the video game is not toxic.
Post edited by Rizzo on0 -
[Before the 1v2]
Survivor falls under a pallet and one or more survivors are within view.
Survivor falls in the open and one or more survivors with flashlights are within view.
A known flashlight survivor is not seen but known to be going for saves so the killer checks around before picking up. Cumulative this adds up over multiple downs if saves were made.
These are real scenarios where the killer does not have agency to just pickup the survivor right away or before they are pick up by others.
0 -
Let me put it this way.
If i'm playing say, street fighter, and playing against my opponent, and i find out that my opponent is really bad at dealing with throws. And so i throw them 10 times in a row. Some might call that "cheap" some might say its "unfair" some might say i'm "spamming" or "being toxic". But is it really? The point is, what if slugging all 4 survivors, what if throwing 10 times in a row, what if throwing 100 fireballs in a row is strategically the thing that optimizes my chances for winning?
What if, as a killer, i see that my opponents are really bad at dealing with being slugged. Maybe i realize they didn't bring perks to counter it, maybe i realized that they just don't know how to counter the strategy. Why would i not do that thing? Why would i play a game that is about winning and losing in a way that makes it so i have less of a chance of winning, if winning is what my goal is?
Now maybe someone might have a goal that is different from winning or losing, sure, that is entirely possible. But someone might have that goal. If they do, who are you to say how they should work toward achieveing that victory?
Thinking that person is toxic, is a "Scrub" mindset. Not the word "scrub" as an insult, but as a description. I suggest reading the free e-book by game designer David Sirlin, Playing to Win:
Here is an excerpt from that book:
The derogatory term “scrub” means several different things. One definition is someone (especially a game player) who is not good at something (especially a game). By this definition, we all start out as scrubs, and there is certainly no shame in that. I mean the term differently, though. A scrub is a player who is handicapped by self-imposed rules that the game knows nothing about. A scrub does not play to win.
Now, everyone begins as a poor player—it takes time to learn a game to get to a point where you know what you’re doing. There is the mistaken notion, though, that by merely continuing to play or “learn” the game, one can become a top player. In reality, the “scrub” has many more mental obstacles to overcome than anything actually going on during the game. The scrub has lost the game even before it starts. He’s lost the game even before deciding which game to play. His problem? He does not play to win.
The scrub would take great issue with this statement for he usually believes that he is playing to win, but he is bound up by an intricate construct of fictitious rules that prevents him from ever truly competing. These made-up rules vary from game to game, of course, but their character remains constant. Let’s take a fighting game off of which I’ve made my gaming career: Street Fighter.
In Street Fighter, the scrub labels a wide variety of tactics and situations “cheap.” This “cheapness” is truly the mantra of the scrub. Performing a throw on someone is often called cheap. A throw is a special kind of move that grabs an opponent and damages him, even when the opponent is defending against all other kinds of attacks. The entire purpose of the throw is to be able to damage an opponent who sits and blocks and doesn’t attack. As far as the game is concerned, throwing is an integral part of the design—it’s meant to be there—yet the scrub has constructed his own set of principles in his mind that state he should be totally impervious to all attacks while blocking. The scrub thinks of blocking as a kind of magic shield that will protect him indefinitely. Why? Exploring the reasoning is futile since the notion is ridiculous from the start.
You will not see a classic scrub throw his opponent five times in a row. But why not? What if doing so is strategically the sequence of moves that optimizes his chances of winning? Here we’ve encountered our first clash: the scrub is only willing to play to win within his own made-up mental set of rules. These rules can be staggeringly arbitrary. If you beat a scrub by throwing projectile attacks at him, keeping your distance and preventing him from getting near you—that’s cheap. If you throw him repeatedly, that’s cheap, too. We’ve covered that one. If you block for fifty seconds doing no moves, that’s cheap. Nearly anything you do that ends up making you win is a prime candidate for being called cheap. Street Fighter was just one example; I could have picked any competitive game at all.
Doing one move or sequence over and over and over is a tactic close to my heart that often elicits the call of the scrub. This goes right to the heart of the matter: why can the scrub not defeat something so obvious and telegraphed as a single move done over and over? Is he such a poor player that he can’t counter that move? And if the move is, for whatever reason, extremely difficult to counter, then wouldn’t I be a fool for not using that move? The first step in becoming a top player is the realization that playing to win means doing whatever most increases your chances of winning. That is true by definition of playing to win. The game knows no rules of “honor” or of “cheapness.” The game only knows winning and losing.
A common call of the scrub is to cry that the kind of play in which one tries to win at all costs is “boring” or “not fun.” Who knows what objective the scrub has, but we know his objective is not truly to win. Yours is. Your objective is good and right and true, and let no one tell you otherwise. You have the power to dispatch those who would tell you otherwise, anyway. Simply beat them.
-6 -
Everything you just said can also be applied to "gen rushing". Maybe killers are just bad at applying pressure.
I'm guessing there's some special circumstance in your mind where that doesn't apply.
This is just the hockey analogy all over again, btw. Even if I agreed here, which I don't, taking a symmetric game and trying to apply those ideas to an asymmetric doesn't hold up.
There's no "power role" in street fighter. There's no default game mode where only one player can take damage and the other is immune.
Even in symmetric games, it's generally considered at least poor sportsmanship to take advantage of power imbalance, even when that balance isn't just handed out by the devs like it is in DbD. Smurfing in any game is generally considered BM (or in DbD terms "toxic"). Shoot, even DbD has had issues in the past with people deranking to stomp new players.
There's basically nothing to support you here. Not even past DbD, which is where your arguments fall the hardest. And I genuinely doubt that you'd be ok with reverting, say, dead hard for distance, balanced landing, mettle of man, and circle of healing, just as a few examples, and just chalk it up to "skill issue" if people can't handle it. Please.
5 -
Sounds like an awful lot of defense of a poor position.
But hey, you've shown excellently who the reasonable party is. We have Side A, which believes there is no toxicity in Ba Sing Se and Side B, who acknowledges said toxicity and tries, if misguidedly, to do something about it.
6 -
I don't understand why you all keep thinking you are gonna "get me" because of "gen rushing" or "teabagging at the gates"
I don't think those things are good at the game, but i don't blame survivors for doing them.
Also, no its not, in Street Fighter again, if i know my opponent mains Zangief, and i know that Sagat has an amazingly good matchup against him (a 7-3 usually) i might counterpick him by playing Sagat. This is all part of the game. It doesn't make me toxic for counter picking them because i know they only play Zangief.
-6
