Why was the Camping Experiment Thread Closed!!!
That was the best thread on these boards! What gives why was it closed?!
Comments
-
Why ask when you already know the answer
1 -
Can't reveal the overpowered nature of standing still, now, can we?
Maybe it was the comments displayed in the pictures, highlighting the well deserved verbal abuse one can get from simply playing the game and saying "GG."
Maybe it exposes several design, playstyle, and moderation flaws?
The real reason, though, is that Leatherface is so O/P that any thread with more than 6 pictures of him is automatically marked for moderation.4 -
Well, I appreciate all the effort and the many laughs I had keeping up with it yesterday. They really should encourage it since it's moved me to buy Leatherface. Go ask the Devs for your cut of the commission!
3 -
I'm sure all the abusive people will be swiftly punished, seeing as how the pics and topic were too sensitive for the forum.
(J/K, they'll be in the next game telling people to kill themselves/get cancer after once again getting wrecked, because playing to win is akin to deserving death IRL).2 -
Anything that promotes griefing and unfair gameplay should not be promoted. I don't think anyone had a problem with camping, but the way it was being projected by the person who started that thread and the others who posted in it, as a way of harrassment and with the intent to mock others, it looked 'uncool'. I'm really glad that a mod decided to close it. Good decision. 👍Post edited by Khalednazari on12
-
Downing survivors who rush for an unsafe save and get downed by Leatherface is now "unfair". Good lord survivors really do want a game where they have power armor and never see a killer outside of a safe loop.
4 -
@Khalednazari said:
Anything that promotes griefing and unfair gameplay should not be promoted. I don't think anyone had the problem with camping, but the way it was being projected by the person who started that thread and the others who posted in it, as a way of harrassment and with the intent to mock others, it looked 'uncool'. I'm really glad that a mod decided to close it. Good decision. 👍There was no harassment at all in the thread
5 -
I was making a general statement. If you read my post completely, I also said that it was the kind of behaviour you guys projected outside the game. Threads aren't locked for ingame actions, but for things you do on the forums. In my opinion, that exercise was unhealthy and uncool. Cheers to the mods again.AgentTalon said:Downing survivors who rush for an unsafe save and get downed by Leatherface is now "unfair". Good lord survivors really do want a game where they have power armor and never see a killer outside of a safe loop.
9 -
I'll admit, I can understand the toxicity created by simply saying GG (screenshot taken), and showing the emblem penalty so people can see the degradation (second screenshot).
I also told someone in that thread that calling survivors stupid regardless of outcome is not cool, further spreading my venom.
It's very unfortunate that you're apparently responsible for whatever garbage people post in the end game chat when you're trying to share information on a strategy and its validity.
I shouldn't have to be responsible for policing and censoring anyone in the post game chat, especially since there's no filter implemented, let alone be expected to do so for multiple games in a row.5 -
Link to that?0
-
-
The developers must hate the scientific method!
1 -
@Attackfrog said:
The developers must hate the scientific method!One of my threads where I did sth similar about afk deranking and how long it takes until survivors stop bullying the afk killer didnt even make it through the filter. A pitty that I didnt copy the wall of text, I never bothered doign an experiment after taht again
1 -
It's almost like the devs don't want everyone to see how toxic their survivors really can be or something?
7 -
That one I will agree with. If the names are hidden the thread should stay open. If devs don't want nasty post game chat, remove it or harshly censor language.
1 -
@Peanits said:
It's literally a thread made with the intent of being toxic and posting people's reactions.I really shouldn't have to say more.
I don't know. I get those responses on games where I don't do anything wrong.
In fact the sheer amount of hate you get for circling back to catch the unhooker is amazing. I didn't stand there, i walked away and turned back once the hook was half way through their life.
Also, your new rule makes it seem like it's a horrible thing to camp under any reason. But most high ranked players admit that not camping once the gates are powered is just giving up a kill for free. Unless you have certain perks.
Perks that survivors complain about an call no skill (but are needed because of perks like adrenaline rush, borrowed time, DS ect)
4 -
@Peanits said:
It's literally a thread made with the intent of being toxic and posting people's reactions.I really shouldn't have to say more.
So being your represent the game and devs are you saying your new stance is that camping is toxic?
1 -
@Peanits said:
It's literally a thread made with the intent of being toxic and posting people's reactions.I really shouldn't have to say more.
First of all, if there is a good discussion going as a result of it, then there is no need to close it.
Second, how can you be so sure of the intent? Unless the poster litterally have said so, otherwise that is an opinion based on pure assumption and speculation. Furthermore, it is quite possible to get biased due to several things, one being the majority calling it out to be so, even when it might with a sincere and honest intent, another being due to having seen a lot of toxic posts, and there are many more of those. It's sort of the same deal when people start assuming that people are bad players just because they're suggesting things they don't agree with, etc. So like I said, unless you actually can prove somehow that it's with a toxic or malicious intent, then you might actually be doing the posters an injustice when you delete their posts/thread based on assumption and speculation in regards to their intent.2 -
@AgentTalon said:
@Peanits said:
It's literally a thread made with the intent of being toxic and posting people's reactions.I really shouldn't have to say more.
So being your represent the game and devs are you saying your new stance is that camping is toxic?
Camping isnt toxic but the way he did it was put that way ofc. You think gg
should get a gg in return? Lol. play survivor and see how it feels to see someone say that when it obv wasnt a gg. then to post the chats here and say it's an experiment and bringing out comments asking for more salt. the game is already toxic as it is and u want more? pretty good job so far toxic posters. I think its good this post was made bc now we can refer to it when we talk about toxic people.5 -
Rather make sense than wild statements.AgentTalon said:So being your represent the game and devs are you saying your new stance is that camping is toxic?
0 -
Saying GG after every game (even when it's a blow up against me) confirmed toxic.
It's really hard to keep up with all these new rules.
If someone has any ideas on how to detoxify GG, please let me know.
2 -
@Raccoon said:
Saying GG after every game (even when it's a blow up against me) confirmed toxic. It's really hard to keep up with all these new rules.
If someone has any ideas on how to detoxify GG
, please let me know.it's like killers get looped 5 gens in 4 min and survs say gg
. its not a gg and it's a mock. it feels like ######### to get camped and it feels like ######### to get looped when you dont know how to play the loop so to say gg when it wasn't is bad sport.2 -
@benzos said:
@Raccoon said:
Saying GG after every game (even when it's a blow up against me) confirmed toxic. It's really hard to keep up with all these new rules.
If someone has any ideas on how to detoxify GG
, please let me know.it's like killers get looped 5 gens in 4 min and survs say gg
. its not a gg and it's a mock. it feels like ######### to get camped and it feels like ######### to get looped when you dont know how to play the loop so to say gg when it wasn't is bad sport.You can't say that for certain for everyone, granted that for some it definitely is used in a toxic way, but you can't know that for certain just from looking at the "GG" you need more info, and I'm not saying more match info, but info in regards to what they write. However if they put in "EZ" or something else that could give the indication that the GG was meant in derogatory and toxic way, then you can say it was, but not really until then, certainly not in a broad sense. Many just write GG because thats perceived "common courtesy" in online games.
2 -
I say GG after every game.
My performance is irrelevant.
GG is a courtesy that means "Thanks for playing / Providing a game."
I've been blown up by and also decimated many people on fgc streams, and still handshake with a GG because that's what sensible, unconceited people do.2 -
@Incarnate said:
@benzos said:
@Raccoon said:
Saying GG after every game (even when it's a blow up against me) confirmed toxic. It's really hard to keep up with all these new rules.
If someone has any ideas on how to detoxify GG
, please let me know.it's like killers get looped 5 gens in 4 min and survs say gg
. its not a gg and it's a mock. it feels like ######### to get camped and it feels like ######### to get looped when you dont know how to play the loop so to say gg when it wasn't is bad sport.You can't say that for certain for everyone, granted that for some it definitely is used in a toxic way, but you can't know that for certain just from looking at the "GG" you need more info, and I'm not saying more match info, but info in regards to what they write. However if they put in "EZ" or something else that could give the indication that the GG was meant in derogatory and toxic way, then you can say it was, but not really until then, certainly not in a broad sense. Many just write GG because thats perceived "common courtesy" in online games.
ofc it's not 100% everyone. i'm not talking about that. here it is so im responding to him. not those others. this camping post was for the salt.
2 -
@Raccoon said:
Saying GG after every game (even when it's a blow up against me) confirmed toxic. It's really hard to keep up with all these new rules.
If someone has any ideas on how to detoxify GG
, please let me know.I know its weird.
Not calling gg is considered toxic too? Sometimes.....
1 -
Feel free to continue joining whatever mod that was in putting words/ideas in my mouth, but with the rank, pip, bloodpoints, emblem progression, and emblem degradation being displayed after each game, coupled with all the topics debating whether camping is viable or a free escape, you're both just being paranoid.benzos said:@Incarnate said:
@benzos said:
@Raccoon said:
Saying GG after every game (even when it's a blow up against me) confirmed toxic. It's really hard to keep up with all these new rules.
If someone has any ideas on how to detoxify GG
, please let me know.it's like killers get looped 5 gens in 4 min and survs say gg
. its not a gg and it's a mock. it feels like ######### to get camped and it feels like ######### to get looped when you dont know how to play the loop so to say gg when it wasn't is bad sport.You can't say that for certain for everyone, granted that for some it definitely is used in a toxic way, but you can't know that for certain just from looking at the "GG" you need more info, and I'm not saying more match info, but info in regards to what they write. However if they put in "EZ" or something else that could give the indication that the GG was meant in derogatory and toxic way, then you can say it was, but not really until then, certainly not in a broad sense. Many just write GG because thats perceived "common courtesy" in online games.
ofc it's not 100% everyone. i'm not talking about that. here it is so im responding to him. not those others. this camping post was for the salt.
The major difference is that you can't do anything about it, fortunately.1 -
@Raccoon said:
I've been blown up by and also decimated many people on fgc streams, and still handshake with a GG because that's what sensible, unconceited people do.
unconceited people post screenshots of the salt they produce? then say they will post more if people want it. hmm? why post it at all if you did not want the attention?
0 -
No. Making a thread saying you're going to do something to get a rise out of people and post their reactions is. Especially when those people aren't censored.AgentTalon said:@Peanits said:
It's literally a thread made with the intent of being toxic and posting people's reactions.I really shouldn't have to say more.
So being your represent the game and devs are you saying your new stance is that camping is toxic?
2 -
@Peanits said:
It's literally a thread made with the intent of being toxic and posting people's reactions.I really shouldn't have to say more.
From what I have seen of the comments of @Raccoon I think I can tell that they were doing this as an actual experiment. Raccoon's main intent was not that of being toxic and posting reactions, but using a different-than-usual playstyle and posting the results of the game. The reason it was a good thing for the thread to be closed was the harassment of the players who enjoy the toxic behavior. Sure, most of them can't see what was going on in that thread, but that's no reason to say stuff such as when a cancer outbreak happens, they will be the ones to get it. Honestly, I hate the way toxic people act, but I'm a kind person, so I don't wish anything bad towards them, only towards their accounts. Please take this message into consideration and possibly find a way to ban specific people from threads if it is obvious that they are the source of the problem.
0 -
@Peanits said:
AgentTalon said:@Peanits said:
It's literally a thread made with the intent of being toxic and posting people's reactions.
I really shouldn't have to say more.
So being your represent the game and devs are you saying your new stance is that camping is toxic?
No. Making a thread saying you're going to do something to get a rise out of people and post their reactions is. Especially when those people aren't censored.
I do agree about the censoring of names. However, I still find it sad that we are more concerned about a thread that shows how toxic the community is than the actual toxicity that allows the thread to exist.
On PC where you control bans if you tell a person to get cancer in the post game chat and it's reported is that an insta ban? This is an actual question, what are the ban rules for something like that? Want a better community, insta ban anyone who is in a screenshot saying anything like that..boom done and you're welcome.
1 -
"Hello!Peanits said:
No. Making a thread saying you're going to do something to get a rise out of people and post their reactions is. Especially when those people aren't censored.AgentTalon said:@Peanits said:
It's literally a thread made with the intent of being toxic and posting people's reactions.I really shouldn't have to say more.
So being your represent the game and devs are you saying your new stance is that camping is toxic?
For each person that posts, I will run one game with a Camperface build and post the resulting score/screenshot in this thread.
Aside from whoever posts first, counted posts will be limited to the first person that posts after a screenshot.
Basically, as long as there's interest, I'll play some games and post the data here to see if Camping, in actuality, is unfair/broken/worthless/easy/free escape, etc.
"Seems like I was really out to get a rise out of people.
3 -
@Raccoon said:
Feel free to continue joining whatever mod that was in putting words/ideas in my mouth, but with the rank, pip, bloodpoints, emblem progression, and emblem degradation being displayed after each game, coupled with all the topics debating whether camping is viable or a free escape, you're both just being paranoid.The major difference is that you can't do anything about it, fortunately.
do about what? it was obv what you were doing for your audience. so they saw for themselves. i don't want to do anything about it. im glad you made the post.
0 -
@Raccoon said:
Peanits said:
AgentTalon said:@Peanits said:
It's literally a thread made with the intent of being toxic and posting people's reactions.
I really shouldn't have to say more.
So being your represent the game and devs are you saying your new stance is that camping is toxic?
No. Making a thread saying you're going to do something to get a rise out of people and post their reactions is. Especially when those people aren't censored.
"Hello!For each person that posts, I will run one game with a Camperface build and post the resulting score/screenshot in this thread.
Aside from whoever posts first, counted posts will be limited to the first person that posts after a screenshot.
Basically, as long as there's interest, I'll play some games and post the data here to see if Camping, in actuality, is unfair/broken/worthless/easy/free escape, etc.
"
Seems like I was really out to get a rise out of people.
Weeeeird it almost seems like you did it to showcase how viable the strategy was. Which surprise, surprise turned out several 3k and 4k rounds and lots of survivor hate.
My takeaway is that when a survivor dies in the game they feel empowered to harass the killer in postgame chat because they have no fear of any serious ban. Seems like the issue is simply that toxic chat should be insta bans.
Buuuuut that means less players to buy DLC, hell almost no one would be left since 50% of games as a killer result in toxic chat.
1 -
@AgentTalon said:
Weeeeird it almost seems like you did it to showcase how viable the strategy was. Which surprise, surprise turned out several 3k and 4k rounds and lots of survivor hate.My takeaway is that when a survivor dies in the game they feel empowered to harass the killer in postgame chat because they have no fear of any serious ban. Seems like the issue is simply that toxic chat should be insta bans.
Buuuuut that means less players to buy DLC, hell almost no one would be left since 50% of games as a killer result in toxic chat.
Okay, Raccoon implemented the word "Experiment" in the title for a reason: He was testing how viable camping was. Sure, he got his own results, but he can't just say he got a 4k, can he? He's got to give evidence. The way that I feel about camping is that, although it is a viable strategy, it ruins the fun of the game for whoever has the misfortune to get camped. Also, on the topic of the toxic chat, two ideas popped into my head:
- "Why not just report people for communications abuse and they get in-game com banned?"
- "Who the hell cares?"
Lastly, the killer has nothing to do with the problem of camping as a whole. I hate camping as both survivor and killer, so when I play Leatherface, I do so without camping (Yes, Leatherfaces that don't camp actually do exist). As a matter of fact, I get camped by the Doctor the most out of any killer, so Leatherface himself is not the issue, and therefore sales should not go down hardly as much as you'd expect.
That's about it for my rant.
2 -
@AgentTalon said:
@Peanits said:
It's literally a thread made with the intent of being toxic and posting people's reactions.I really shouldn't have to say more.
So being your represent the game and devs are you saying your new stance is that camping is toxic?
How old are you? Seriously...
1 -
@BigBubs said:
@AgentTalon said:
@Peanits said:
It's literally a thread made with the intent of being toxic and posting people's reactions.I really shouldn't have to say more.
So being your represent the game and devs are you saying your new stance is that camping is toxic?
How old are you? Seriously...
It's a legit question to ask. Seriously why is trying to get a clear answer from the Development and game team on what their stance is on something not a serious and valid question?
0 -
I'd also like to note that the reason 2 pics / match were being posted is that after a few games of just the score screen, people wanted (requested) to see how camping dampened Emblem progression in a real game scenario.
1 -
While i agree with the censoring of names i have to defend @Raccoon here, if you saw the first two pages of general discussions and the deleted ones there was definitely some discussions on how effective camping is.Peanits said:
No. Making a thread saying you're going to do something to get a rise out of people and post their reactions is. Especially when those people aren't censored.AgentTalon said:@Peanits said:
It's literally a thread made with the intent of being toxic and posting people's reactions.I really shouldn't have to say more.
So being your represent the game and devs are you saying your new stance is that camping is toxic?
While definitely unfun the big argument is that many think its sn unfair and overpowered strategy that gets huge results and the other site arguing its a bad strat that only works when survivors fall for it.
While this experiment was clearly flawed it wasn't meant to rile up people, neither ingame or the forum. The ones who did on this forum might fear the results or frankly should find some trucks, steelchains and lube to get their sticks out of their asses and not take a test as a personal attack.2 -
Can someone link to the closed thread?0
-
@Well_Placed_HexTotem said:
Can someone link to the closed thread?https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/29976/camping-experiment-1-post-1-game-of-camping/p1
1 -
Camping hooks is a sensitive topic and it was gathering a undesirable crowd.0
-
Yeah.
Camping is a taboo subject!
0
