A different approach to the camping problem
Summary: Often camping is something that is extremely controversial in the community because it takes away a players ability to play the game and tactically is easily countered but in practice often goes uncountered and even rewarded.
Steps have been taken to remedy this by constantly adding new ways to punish killers for doing it, mostly with additional survivor perks, killer perks that promote being away from the hooks, and penalties to emblems.
the issues that arise are many.
1) killers who don’t care about rank don’t care about the penalty to their emblem
2) the counter to punish killers for camping is to allow their friend to die, which can be an awful experience.
3) the survivor who gets camped from start to finish misses out on bloodpoints and often will even downrank, because they didn’t actually get a chance to play the game they were in. In a way, camping still punishes survivors for being caught
4) On the killers end, occasionally “camping” will arise from survivors being in the area, and the killer knows they are from scratch marks or actually chasing survivor or even because the exit gates are open and there is nowhere else for them to go. Yet they still get punished for it.
PROPOSITION:
No penalty to the killer of a survivor is within 16 meters of a hook.
For every 15 seconds a killer is within 16 meters of the hook, the hooked survivor gets 300 bloodpoints in boldness.
Being sacrificed with a killer near the hook prevents depiping, so long asthey die from struggling (if they die from their 3rd hook or if they choose to let go, they can still depip like normal)
REASONING AND PROBABLE EFFECTS:
By creating a “reward” for the survivor on the hook, you allow the rest of the team to not feel like bad teammates for letting the survivor die on the hook. Additionally, in a scenerio where a killer hard camps gromnstart to finish, the survivor will have maxed out their boldness, and at least walk away with 8k bloodpoints for the experience, as well having not lost rank because the killer prevented them from playing the game.
The boldness choice also had a few effects. It means that if a survivor does manage to get off, they are less inclined to actively seek the killer and can more
reliably play safer without losing bloodpoints. On the other side of the coin, survivors who are very good at looping the killer and clicking their flashlights and such, survivors who are “toxic” wouldn’t get as much benefit from the system in terms of Bloodpoints.
This also means that survivors can be more willing and able to do generators and punish the killer, more than they are now because as previously mentioned, it still feels bad to let your ally die.
On the killers end, they will not be punished for playing “smart” but will be punished for playing in a way that is unfun for the survivor. This simple act won’t stop players from camping, of course, whenever we get new players they will try to camp. But if there is a reward system for hooked survivors being bait and survivors are more encouraged to do generators while the survivor is on the hook, then the constant losses will encourage people to stop
CONCLUSION: if you have read this far and want to rebut something I have said, include the word ice cream in you response.
The idea of trying to encourage people to do something with carrots and sticks is great, but it’s also flawed. If a player doesn’t eat the carrot and the stick doesn’t matter to them, nothing will change. The change MUST come from giving gameplay options that prevent the things about it thag are controversial while simultaneously encouraging efficient play. Lack of playing the game, loss of rank, loss of bloodpoints are all points of contention for survivors. Loss of gameplay options for killers is theirs. I feel like this would be a step in the right direction.
Comments
-
Icecream. I feel as though this would be a good idea on paper until you take into account tbagging and flashlight clicking would be more prominent than ever for the killer and a survivor would never have to worry about being toxic bc if they get camped they don't depip ect.
1 -
I feel like that could be true. Would it not stand to reason that a survivor who is good at avoiding the killer doesn’t deserve to depip.
or on a killers behavior perspective, they would be encouraged not to camp simply to make sure the survivor doesn’t get a free Black pip.
1 -
Would it not stand to reason that looping can cause the survivor to extend the chase for an unreasonable amount of time... Then you have nurses and it causes an effect of threads saying nerf nurse. I don't have a problem with looping myself because I do play characters like nurse and spirit but I also understand that looping is a big controversy in this game some think it's fine some don't the way I look at looping is that however it is not an exploit to any extent it is however fairly easy to tell that looping is not really intended bloodlust contributes to that. Plus tunneling would just be more popular anyways with your idea which is even worse because fast killers that can traverse distances quickly like spirit, hillbilly,nurse can easily tunnel and this will just quickly kill the survivor on hook making this idea useless tbh.
0 -
How exactly would this promote tunneling?
I also don’t have a problem with looping, and this isn’t really supposed to change looping, nor do i see how it would affect looping. :o
0 -
Honestly, 16 meters is too small.
If they Killer is not in an active chase with another survivor, the hooked Survivor should continue to get Bloodpoints.
The reason why I say 16 meters is too small is because there are try-hard Nurses, Spirits, and Wraiths that hang out by the hooked Survivor, just far enough so their Terror Radius is not playing, waiting to use their corny supernatural power and down the unhooked Survivor.
1 -
They did have a poll asking everyone what they would consider a camping range.
i think most people agree that it is camping when it is 16 meters. Any farther and you start punishing killers who simply cannot get out if hook range fast enough.
0
