Your opinion on dribbling.

In the pursuit of becoming a master nba killer i will dribble the distance out of a smug satisfaction that your ds will not be used. 

It is not an exploit, a tactic or strat, I dont use it due to how it is situational

I was dribbled as a survivor for the first time recently. It made me feel just as ######### as decisive strike did the first time I experienced it as the killer.

Do I support it? I won't pick up the obsession if a hook is too far away. I'll leave to let them crawl around a while, and hopefully when I come back they've moved closer to a hook so the dribbling can commence.

I dribble if it's the last survivor because I'm not risking a DS sprint race to the hatch or exit. Or if I'm like 4 meters from a hook.

I don't like doing it as killer but sometimes I just have to because I need the hook and can't have four players running around free to do gens.

A killer should walk right into a DS when it's avoidable? Really?

I love hearing about how killers shouldn't avoid damage/stuns, while there's no one saying survivors, when seeing a trap, should walk straight into it instead of around it or disarming it.

How dare survivors crouch past Hag traps! How dare they run away when I want to hit them? How dare they throw down pallets to avoid a hit! Whaaa! In fact, why should survivors be able to disarm my traps when I can't disarm their decisive strike?!

Okay, here's some basic logic:

1) Survivors do everything they can to counter killer abilities and perks. From bringing Med Kits to improve healing time, to exhaustion perks, to addon's to increase skill-check success zones, to getting notifications when there's a totem or trap around, to running pallet and window loops. That's their job: to survive.

2) Killers do everything they can to counter survivor abilities and perks. This includes Ruin, Unnerving Presence, Sloppy Butcher, A Nurse's Calling, setting traps to end chases, and dribbling a DS user. That's the killer's job: to kill as efficiently as possible.

The alternative to countering a DS without dribbling is to slug everyone. And, if I start running into a majority of games where there are 2-3 DS users in most matches, watching survivors bleed out is exactly what I'm going to do. Then you'll be back on the forums complaining that it's "toxic" to run a slug build, and should be removed from the game. Womp womp.

To the guy who says "just take the hit and get DS out of the way," okay, that's an option sometimes. If the DS user is one of the first I find early in the match, I'll take the hit and get it out of the way before putting him on the hook. If I down him next to an open gate or hatch, I'm going to dribble him, if possible. And then I'll eat up all that yummy, yummy salt in the post-game chat.

Survivors who run DS are as stupid as killers who face camp throughout a match. DS might give you the chance to prolong a chase that you lost, but only once. Likewise, face-campers might ensure a single kill by standing on the hook, but both are able to be countered, and even if they aren't, the player employing those tactics gives up a lot for that maybe/maybe not proposition. With face-campers, they give up the possibility of additional kills, while with DS players, they give up an exhaustion perk, or healing perk, or repair speed perk, or stealth perk, or bloodpoint perk... With only 4 perk slots, you can't bring everything to every match, and giving up something that is of utility throughout the entire match for the chance that you might not be dribbled or slugged is stupid. Particularly so when, most of the time, the killer knows you have the perk from the start of the match (the exception being when a killer runs an obsession perk of their own, then they don't know for certain).

If they bring DS, they deserve whatever counter to it the killer chooses to employ. Simple as that. Don't like it? Don't bring DS. Don't like survivors using borrowed time/hook rushing, don't face-camp.

Use a bullshit perk i use a bullshit exploit to counter it. Simple.

I do it when I know they saved it for the end of the game, but I usually use Enduring. So I don't do it most of the time.

@Wahara said:
I don't think it's an exploit, but I really don't like this "Because the devs said so" card people play.

Like, it is possible for the developers to be completely full of ######### in regards to their own game, just saying.

The devs are the ones who set the rules of the game, and thus decide what is and isn't an exploit. Saying that your opinion is better or even equal to the devs' is like going up to an author and "explaining" that they're wrong about what they say they wrote.

Depends on the situation for me. If I spot a hook fairly close but the survivor could potentially get a d-strike off I'll dribble once, maybe twice. Otherwise though I just try and position myself for the survivor to fall a decent distance and recover from the landing after using d-strike. My favorite point being at the top of the double stairs in the main building of the Grim Pantry.

Completely fair, killer requires a close hook for it to even work. Ds user can simply avoid hooks to prevent the dribble.

@Wahara said:
An exploit is when you take advantage of a game design flaw or something that wasn't intended by the developers to be included in the game to get a leg up. The developers can offer their opinion on whether something is an exploit or not, but they're not automatically right or wrong because they're the developers. Your analogy would fit if we were talking about the lore or something, like say, if I were arguing that Huntress isn't actually old, or that the spirit isn't vengeful. In that context an appeal to authority is acceptable, not here.

So you admit an exploit is taking advantage of a game design flaw or something that wasn't intended by the developers. The developers say it's intended (and thus isn't a flaw). How does this contradict what I said?

@Wahara said:
I swear to God, I don't know why you quote me when you don't read what I say. I already said I don't think dribbling is an exploit. I'm just saying the argument you're using is bad, because video game developers can say lots of stupid things to save face. If you could glitch through walls and they said that was intended all a long, would you believe them?

I don't know why you post responses to me when you don't read what you're writing. Let's go through this point by point. My argument:

• Exploiting is taking advantage of something that wasn't intended to be in the game.
• Developers make the game.
• By virtue of making the game, developers determine what is and isn't intended to be in the game.
• Ergo, developers have the first, final, and only say in what is and isn't an exploit.

Now here's your argument:

• Exploiting is taking advantage of something that wasn't intended to be in the game.
• Developers make the game.
• By virtue of making the game, developers determine what is and isn't intended to be in the game.
• Ergo, the developers can't say what is and isn't an exploit, and their "opinions" about what they intended to be in the game are equivalent to any random player's.

Can you see the non-sequitur? Because I sure can.

EDIT: I'm ignoring your claim that the developers are lying because that's just you grasping at straws to justify your own arrogant belief that you have any say in what constitutes an exploit.

@Wahara said:
I didn't say the developers were lying. You cannot even talk to me without muddying what I'm saying. What I am saying is the argument that "the devs said so" is bad because there can be evidence that something wasn't intended even if they say it was. Whether or not something is or isn't an exploit shouldn't be evaluated on the sole basis that the developers say it was an intended feature but the credible likelihood that it was.

Truth doesn't become fiction just because people find it unbelievable. You didn't directly say they were lying, but you did say that your opinion of the credibility of their word is objective evidence that their word is true or false.

@Orion @Wahara Have either of you ever heard of Authorial Intent vs. Death of the Author? It's a literary thing but can be applied to any kind of work from books to paintings to video games. Basically, the way it works is this:

If you believe in Authorial Intent, as Orion does, you believe that the author (in this case, the developer/s) has supreme authority over how their work is interpreted by virtue of being its creator. (A literary example might be if there was a character of indescriminate race whose descriptions may have suggested but didn't explicitly mention that they were black. The author insists that the character is white because that's what they intended, therefore the character is white, end of discussion.) Here, Orion is arguing that because the devs designed the game mechanics, they get to determine what is and isn't an exploit based on their own feelings and intentions, and whether or not something appears to be an exploit is irrelevant if the devs say it isn't so.

If you believe in Death of the Author, on the other hand, which is what Wahara seems to be arguing in favour of, you believe that the author more or less relinquishes creative control the moment they release their work to public scrutiny. It now belongs as much to their fans as it does to them, if not more so. Therefore, the author can still have opinions and they can still say what their intentions were, but the fans are free to draw conclusions about the work based on what's actually there. (To expand on the example above, some fans in that scenario might have read the character as black because the author's descriptions, intentional or not, seemed to suggest that that was the case. These fans can therefore reasonably argue that the character could actually have been black, regardless of what the author says, because that's a conclusion that can be drawn from the work itself.) Wahara is arguing that the developers may have their own ideas about what is and isn't an exploit, but the word of the devs is not infallible gospel, and the players can still draw their own conclusions based on their observations of game mechanics, and those conclusions are equally valid.

Apologies and please correct me if I've represented either of your viewpoints inaccurately. I'm just trying to point out that your discussion isn't going anywhere and won't any time soon because you're both working from fundamentally different bases and at the same time thinking the other person is unreasonable because you assume that they must reasonably believe the same as you do with regards to the above. As long as you're both just stating what you believe, you're never going to convince each other of anything, but hopefully this will help to clear up where the discrepencies are.

@Fibijean said:
@Orion @Wahara Have either of you ever heard of Authorial Intent vs. Death of the Author? It's a literary thing but can be applied to any kind of work from books to paintings to video games. Basically, the way it works is this:

If you believe in Authorial Intent, as Orion does, you believe that the author (in this case, the developer/s) has supreme authority over how their work is interpreted by virtue of being its creator. (A literary example might be if there was a character of indescriminate race whose descriptions may have suggested but didn't explicitly mention that they were black. The author insists that the character is white because that's what they intended, therefore the character is white, end of discussion.) Here, Orion is arguing that because the devs designed the game mechanics, they get to determine what is and isn't an exploit based on their own feelings and intentions, and whether or not something appears to be an exploit is irrelevant if the devs say it isn't so.

If you believe in Death of the Author, on the other hand, which is what Wahara seems to be arguing in favour of, you believe that the author more or less relinquishes creative control the moment they release their work to public scrutiny. It now belongs as much to their fans as it does to them, if not more so. Therefore, the author can still have opinions and they can still say what their intentions were, but the fans are free to draw conclusions about the work based on what's actually there. (To expand on the example above, some fans in that scenario might have read the character as black because the author's descriptions, intentional or not, seemed to suggest that that was the case. These fans can therefore reasonably argue that the character could actually have been black, regardless of what the author says, because that's a conclusion that can be drawn from the work itself.) Wahara is arguing that the developers may have their own ideas about what is and isn't an exploit, but the word of the devs is not infallible gospel, and the players can still draw their own conclusions based on their observations of game mechanics, and those conclusions are equally valid.

Apologies and please correct me if I've represented either of your viewpoints inaccurately. I'm just trying to point out that your discussion isn't going anywhere and won't any time soon because you're both working from fundamentally different bases and at the same time thinking the other person is unreasonable because you assume that they must reasonably believe the same as you do with regards to the above. As long as you're both just stating what you believe, you're never going to convince each other of anything, but hopefully this will help to clear up where the discrepencies are.

Yes, I have, and "Death of the Author" is an absurd concept. The person who designed/wrote it knows what they intend and what they don't. They know what is true and what isn't. To argue that your opinion of an author's work trumps the author's own would be like arguing with reality that gravity should work backwards. It's not your work; it's not your decision.

@Wahara In other words, the fact that the devs say something is so is less important than one's interpretation based on the evidence present in the work itself. I would encourage @Orion to consider the possibility that whether or not the author intended to do or say something, what matters is what emerges in their work because that's what they actually did or said. If someone wrote a book where they said "the cat was black" and then afterwards they told everyone "actually, I intended for the cat to be brown all along", well... that's what the author said, sure, but fans could be forgiven for holding the author's actions, that is, what they actually wrote about the cat, in higher regard than whatever they claimed after the fact.

But as I said, as long as the bases are so firmly divided, there's not much point in taking the discussion much further other than just agreeing to disagree.

@Fibijean said:
@Wahara In other words, the fact that the devs say something is so is less important than one's interpretation based on the evidence present in the work itself. I would encourage @Orion to consider the possibility that whether or not the author intended to do or say something, what matters is what emerges in their work because that's what they actually did or said. If someone wrote a book where they said "the cat was black" and then afterwards they told everyone "actually, I intended for the cat to be brown all along", well... that's what the author said, sure, but fans could be forgiven for holding the author's actions, that is, what they actually wrote about the cat, in higher regard than whatever they claimed after the fact.

Except we're not talking about a writer not expressing himself properly (god knows I've made plenty of mistakes there); we're talking about whether something that can be done in a game was intended or not; i.e.: whether or not it's an exploit. There is no "they just didn't explain it properly"; there's just intended mechanics and bugs.