Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
3 Gen'd survivors vs Doctor counts as holding the game hostage?
So my friend plays doctor and got a 24 hour ban for "holding the game hostage" because survivors 3 genned themselves. By constantly patrolling and not been baited into chases he was able to keep their gens from being completed. I watched him playing this game and he was not griefing. So Killer using strats to win is now a ban-able offence because survivors were salty and refusing to commit to gens? Seems really unfair. Is this something all killers have to worry about now, do we just let survivors win even if they 3 gen themselves?
Comments
-
So my friend had feedback on his game, which was incredibly unhelpful but it essentially confirmed that survivors 3 gen-ing themselves means you have to let them win or they report you and you get an automatic ban.
0 -
How can a killer "hold a game hostage"? The killer's objective is to defend generates and sacrifice survivors. Survivors refusing to do generators because they've three gen'd themselves is their problem.
2 -
No, if you want you can run into him and end the game. Also with the near doctor rework, devs will most likely nerf this aspect.
0 -
@YaiPa Does this mean that the doctor should sacrifice his own enjoyment of the game to make sure the surviviors have a good time? Since the definition of holding the game hostage is to detriment the surivors gameplay. I fail to see how a game is held hostage in the first place by a killer. The gens are controlled by the surviviors the Killer can only defend the ones that are left.
0 -
I would not have thought that its considered holding the game hostage, at the same time though if the survivors refused to give up (attempt gens when it’s impossible) and be killed it wouldn’t be either. Can’t force them to die. It would be a standoff. I feel like maybe there’s more to this, i don’t know.
0 -
Holding the game in hostage is when the game can't progress and the only other option is DCing. For examples if the killer body blocks in a corner, you can't move and you're forced to DC. The gens point you're bringing is right, in fact I consider hiding, doing nothing (like when you kill 2 survivor with 5 gen still) holding the game in hostage. But you know, people always say the afk crows bullshit, so you can't say anything about this.
0 -
It's a standoff but the Survivors have to get the gens done to leave. Why should the killer back down from his position, especially a weak killer like Doctor?
0 -
With this being the case, Should the killer relinquish his or her only tactic left to win the game and hope the survivors make a mistake? Are killers supposed to just go "oh sorry ou 3 genned yourself but I will let you go because the game has now reached an artifical stalemate" I use the word artifical because that situation is created by the survivors themselves.
0 -
Here's the question: What is your friend doing to progress his objective? He is keeping the Survivors from ending the game in their favor, but how is he moving the game toward a close in his favor?
2 -
Didn’t say he has to back down, just said the survivors don’t have to just give up either. You can’t force them to jump on gens and concede to death, no different than not being to force the doctor to chase and attempt to kill them. If both sides want to be stubborn, then it’s a waiting game like the old hatch standoffs. That’s why i said I’m surprised if he was actually banned for this. However, the doctor doesn’t just automatically win because he got a 3 gen. The survivors wouldn’t be in the wrong for not giving up, that’s all I’m saying. Classic case of a standoff.
0 -
A good question. To which my answer would be (as I was the killer at the time) Simply doing my objective, Not being baited into chasing the surviors for too long as they kept running to jungle gyms and further more patrolling and stoipping the gens from being completed. I cant commit to a survivor without loosing a gen so why would I give the game to the survivors with a bit of greed to get a hook.
0 -
@TAG to add some context the game ended with 2 people DCing and the last person getting the hatch, I feel the who "holding the game hostage" is subjective at best as from the killers perspective im performing my job and making the judgement calls im making. At the same time the survivors are trying to do the same but ultimately the situation lies with the survivors as they complate the Gens in whatever order they want. My friends and I actively try not to put ourselves in the same position. but if we do 3 gen ourselves we have to try and completel them while being in danger and giving the killer an advantage, which is a fundemental part of the game and why there are 7 gens in the map itself.
0 -
Patrolling gens isnt the objective of the killer. You do nothing to end the game in your favor, and survs do not have a chance to end the game by themselves other than suiciding. Thats obviously taking the game hostage.
1 -
Suiciding is a way of ending the game. It's only being held hostage if the player has no other way to end the game other than to disconnect. If the killer is refusing to let them finish the gens and also refusing to hook them, so they can't die or escape, then the survivors are being held hostage. If the killer hooks the survivors when given the opportunity, then the killer is playing the game. Patrolling gens and slowing gen progression is a very, very large part of playing killer.
2 -
No. Suiciding is forced by a killer. Its on par with a DC, cause there is no choice to end the game by doing objectives. You dont slow gens down when theres 3Gen-situation, youre just blocking the entire gameplay.
0 -
@LetsPlayTogether So youre saying in a situation where the survivors have put themselves in a 3 gen position, the killer should let them complete a gen? purely to not "hold the game hostage"
The game in that scenario is not being held hostage, the problem you have is that the surviviors are at a disadvantage and do not like this predicimen, Obviously they do not want to die but they do have to play the card they have dealt themselves. Meaning those gens can be done at a greater cost, in my situation the survivors were unwilling to be downed as was proven when id hit one they would instantly run to a jungle gym to buy time for their team mate thus baiting me into a chase and letting them complete a gen and the game. The number 1 protirity of a killer is to stop the gens being completed, this is proven by an emblem for"generator protection" as a killer we are rewarded for protecting gens.
What @TragicSolitude suggested is correct, the only way for a killer to hold the game hostage would be if i blocked a survivior in a dead end and went AFK when their only alternative is to DC at which point I agree that is detrimental to gameplay and the enjoyment for anyone playing. but if you as a survivor put yourself in a position where the killer has an advantage, Thats your problem and if you get out and survive kudos, if you die, well thats the name of the game for the killer. thats not holding a game hostage
What you also need to take into account is that i have 3 gens left, so its squeeky bum time for the killer. The hooks arent that close to the gens as one has already been used, I am not obliged to hook a survivor nor am i obliged to chase them relentlessly round loops while they complete my gens., If i know there are two people working on a gen when I down somebody and I know that in the time it take me to pick them up walk over to the hook and back they will complete that gen, I would leave that person on the floor to protect the generator. That is where they considered me griefing
Just as an FYI 60-70% of my games are as survivor so I know only too well the 3 Gen struggle, but at the end of the game the killer doesnt complete the Gens. The survivors do.
1 -
You don't get a ban just for 3 people sending feedback. Your friend often plays like a douche.
0 -
As long as the killer doesnt do anything to his objective, which would include that hes gonna chase, down and hook survivors, thats just taking the game hostage, yes. Thats a fact.
0 -
Why not turn on the End Game when 3 generators are left? If survivors dont want to do the generators, they dont get to escape. Killers the main objective is to protect the generators, right? Isnt it wahy we dont instantly kill survivors, but put them on hooks?
0 -
I had a situation like this recently and I definitely considered it holding the game hostage and I reported the killer.
The killer (Doctor) literally only patrolled. He wouldn't chase anyone more than 5ft away from the 3 gens but if he did down someone he wouldn't hook them despite having 3 hooks in the area. For 20-30 minutes...
I see a lot of people saying, "Why should he leave his objective?" or "They 3 genned themselves". No. Just no. The killer's objective is to kill survivors, not sit on gens for 20-30 minutes, preventing the game from progressing at all. And given that doctor can easily force a 3 gen, that point is also silly.
In my situation, the killer had all the power. He choose to force a 3 gen (meaning he had no pressure on the rest of the map ), 4 gens got done and he got one kill in that time (that he camped and tunneled to get---again, no pressure on the map). He then sat on the gens refusing to let the game progress. He could've easily gotten at least one kill, maybe more, but he choose not to. At that point survivors have no choice but to quit the game or run at him and lay on the ground until everyone is slugged, thus giving him very undeserved kills.
1 -
Somebody is going have to commit and do a gen no matter what accident or not about 3 gen situation it's still going to happen. No I don't think survivors should hand themselves over to the killer but it should be expected that the killer isn't going to fall for the obvious tactic so of course they wouldn't give chase. The survivors can sneak around and try do the gens or go find ruin or the hatch. There are always different options on how to do things and if there was three survivors left then two should do one and the third be on the different one and that usually work.
0 -
It's always been this way. If all you do is just protect 3 gens so close to each other that it's not possible to do a gen without being hit and never make any effort to actually chase survivors you are holding the game hostage.
0 -
I personally find it hard to consider it Taking the Game Hostage as it was the SURVIVOR'S CHOICE, to do 4 gens in other areas. The KILLER does NOT CHOOSE what gens get completed so if they let themselves get 3 gen stratted that's their choice.
On that note, it still sucks and to the survivors it does feel that way, but at the end of the day they did it to themselves. Thats why Deja Vu got reworked, if you 3 gen strat yourself too often, you need to look into the perk to see how 3 gens strats can develop
0 -
Patrolling a 3-gen isn't holding the game hostage, but preventing your opponent from completing their objective while intentionally not progressing your own objective is. That's the problem with the situation here, not the fact that the survivors 3-genned themselves.
0 -
If u deny to chase someone and "camp" the gens, you're holding the game hostage. Simple as that.
1 -
This is a difficult subject, killers like Trapper, Hag and Doctor all thrive from these setups, and survivors do tend to be at fault if they occur, it is a strategy used by smart players, but on the other hand, it creates a virtual stalemate, which is not fun for either party. Your friend should not have been banned but I think this needs to be addressed further to help prevent these stalemate situations from happening while giving both sides a fair opportunity to win
0
