http://dbd.game/killswitch
Slugging for the 4k
Helloo! :D
I just have a question and wanted to know people's opinion on this matter (please don't attack anyone for their opinion, an opinion is subjective and there is no right or wrong answer!)
Is slugging for the 4k considered holding the game hostage? I mean in the sense of: there's 2 survivors left in the trial and the killer not having any intel perks or the survivor counters BBQ (via locker, close to the hook, etc) so the killer spends minutes looking for the other survivor while the other is just slugged on the ground.
I completely understand when there's 2 survivors left in the trial and the killer knows the area of where the other survivor is and leaves the other person slugged to go kill them.
As a survivor, what do you do in that situation? Is it also considered holding the game hostage because you know the killer is looking for you, so you're not doing much so you won't reveal your location?
Comments
-
No, game is progressing as one person is slowly dying. Killers is actively attempting to find the last survivor with intent to kill them and the last survivor is evading him with intent to survive.
That's basically both sides doing their best to win. Perfectly fair and within the rules.
14 -
It is not considered holding the game hostage because the trial will end eventually, it is merely an annoying tactic that literally every killer player has done at least once.
5 -
Yeah, except the killer has already won with 3k, but he wants to be toxic and waste 4 more minutes of the survivors' time by refusing to participate in regular gameplay.
2 -
To further clarify some other things you might ask yourself:
2 -
Holding the game hostage would imply that the game quite literally can't progress. If a survivor is slugged, they eventually bleed out, which will progress the game, so no, the game is not held hostage by slugging
3 -
"Holding the game hostage" isn't an opinion thing, it's a defined reportable/bannable offense. Slugging for the 4k is not holding the game hostage, and hiding because the killer is slugging for the 4k is not holding the game hostage. Both of you have options that could bring the match to a close (he could hook the slugged person and if/when they die the hatch spawns) but are choosing to continue on.
As survivor, you can choose what to do. You can hide and try to wait for the other person to bleed out. Sometimes I do that. If I just want out, I'll make noise notifications and give myself up to the killer so I can move on to a new match.
1 -
It is not.
Hell, it's not even taking the game hostage if you're the last survivor on the ground and they just leave you there for four minutes. It's super annoying and a waste of everyone's time but the game is going to end in four minutes.
I don't like to slug the third survivor to look for the fourth (unless I specifically can see the fourth survivor and am going after them). Personally, I'd rather move to the next game rather than worry about the 4K but that's my specific call. I find it annoying and a little eye rolling when a killer slugs me to look for the fourth but I understand why they're doing it.
2 -
I'm more so asking what you think, but thanks!
1 -
Same can be said for survivor greeding for the hatch when the basically lost already so they should stop hiding and just die.
You're basically saying that killer is obliged to give up on killing one person and just let them go for free while the survivor has no obligation towards the killer and is insted entiteled to their free escape.
Double standards are strong with this one.
12 -
Theres a clear defintion of "holding the game hostage" I'm basically asking your opinion on the matter and whether you agree or disagree with that definition. Thanks tho.
0 -
Slugging for the 4k is not holding the game hostage.
The survivor bleeding on the floor is dying, aka the game is progressing. It may waste 2 or 3 minutes of someone's time but that would be it. Posted the video because the first comment is all you need to know, by Kebek.
As a survivor, what do you do in that situation?
As the one slugged? You die or you recover yourself & try to get help from the other survivor.
When ur the last one alive? You either hide the entire duration until the other guy bleeds out or you try and help the slugged guy. There's not much to it.
Depending on the person, this can be seen as scummy / tryharding / sweating / unnecessary / etc etc...
0 -
With the hatch you have a chance to escape. It's basically your life or death is being decided by you finding that hatch: you can either win with the hatch or lose dying. It's pretty important, so no wonder survivors want to get the hatch: it decides the whole game for them. For the killer, on the other hand, the game is already won. Difference between 4k and 3k is like difference between getting 32000 bp and 31500 bp
1 -
And there it is 'Be happy with the 3K', folks. Killers are toxic if they want a full win. Just cater to Survivors, put Survivor feelings first, and stop trying for a 4k, because Survivors said so!
12 -
Honestly don't care I only really do it when I'm doing an adept that's when I will do anything to get the achievement
1 -
Well, that's a slippery slope, it leads to misunderstandings.
I will say, I don't find being slugged for the 4k fun, but it's something the devs have made necessary due to how they designed their game. It would be extremely unfair to punish players for adapting to their game's mechanics. There are challenges and achievements that require killing all four survivors, so punishing killers for trying to do exactly that wouldn't make sense.
2 -
Imagine countering "be happy with 3k" with "be happy with dying".
2 -
Imagine being upset that you died. In a game where you can die.
Imagine being so entitled, you think you can shame/insult the opponent for wanting to win. Oh, you don't have too; that's what you did.
10 -
That's understandable. What are your thoughts when survivors say "Well the person slugged basically aren't allowed to play the game, they aren't getting any points slugged, etc"? :o
0 -
Imagine being upset with winning. Imagine saying that trying to survive is "insulting the opponent".
0 -
Imagine being upset that they want to kill everyone instead of letting someone go because 'muh fee-fees!'.
Imagine thinking someone deserves to get away just because...vague Survivor entitlement.
You called the OP toxic for 'going for the 4K', that's called 'being insulting'. I know it's probably shocking to you.
9 -
So you're again saying that killer's objective doesn't matter while survivor's does. Cool, that's asymetrical gameplay for you, always with the justifications why one greeding for finishing one side's objective is ok but for the other it's BM.
In the end, you beiing dead or alive is only difference of 5-7k BP and your PERSONAL definition of victory since objectively even if you escape, survivors lost so you lost too so you surviving shouldn't matter then. In the end, it's plain unjustified greed for free BP and shaming killers into giving it for free.
7 -
How is it toxic that the Killer is doing his job killing the Survivors
5 -
Now you are imagining quite a lot of things there. I didn't call OP anything, I said locking a player for 4 extra minutes in AFK-state just to annoy them is quite toxic. Try playing survivor sometimes, you'll know what I mean.
1 -
I think that's bad game design. I honestly don't know how game developers thought "Let's take players and sideline them for minutes at a time during which they're not able to do anything and not gaining points! They'll love that!" Killers have two main things in their kit to slow the game down: hooking and slugging. Both take the survivor out of the game. But killers can't just not do those things, the game is designed so that they are required to hook and slug in order to slow the game down, earn points, and get kills. Killers who never slug are playing very nice and limiting their own options to their detriment for the benefit of the survivors.
Players have no control over how the game was designed; they have to play within its boundaries. If players don't like the mechanics, they can tell the devs those mechanics aren't fun, but the issue is the game itself and not the players who use the given mechanics.
3 -
I play Survivor and Killer, though I admittedly play Killer more.
Unlike the complainers on this forum; I don't get upset when I'm tunneled, camped, or slugged, because I'm smart enough to know they are tools in the Killer's toolbelt to be used to win.
Try playing Killer sometimes; you'll stop complaining about how unfair life is when the Killer does not automatically stop at 3 kills, as per the Survivor's Handbook For Killers: Whiny Edition.
3 -
It's not taking hostage but, generally not much fun on the survivor side, especially if it's a slugfest off the bat. You spend more time lying on the ground then playing and you are getting very little BP's.
0 -
Unlike you, I play both killer and survivor almost equally. And when I get 3k, I don't slug, because I don't want to waste anyone's time (including my own) on these childish attempts to seem powerful and almighty. I'm here to play the game, not to assert myself.
0 -
Rofl. And going for a 4K is always childish and someone needing to flex their ego? What about just trying to win because people wanna win?
Oh right; Killers aren't allowed to do that. Trying for the 4K is 'toxic' and 'childish' and whatever other bullshit Survivors invent because they can't accept the loss. Just pathetic attempts at peer pressure to control how Killers play, because Survivors feel entitled to control the flow of the game.
4 -
Would would be your idea on fixing the game's bad design? Some people would suggest increasing gen times/giving a second objective (besides totems), at the beginning of each match, having a setup time for killers such as trapper and hag, etc.
I personally think another objective would be fun to do (and give survivors something new to interact with) and could potentially give a nice pace to the game where the killer doesn't feel like they were gen-rushed.
0 -
I got reported for letting someone bleed out
if it's bannable then why does infectious fright + knockout exist?
and why is deer stalker not basekit?
1 -
The survivor on the ground will die in a maximum of 4 minutes so it is not holding it hostage. However, if the killer delays this by intentionally picking up survivors and dropping them over and over to allow them to escape and then re-downing them, then it could be. This is because the survivor is being kept from dying and this could last for a very long time.
2 -
It would be really nice to have the aura of the last survivor on the ground revealed once hatch is closed and everyone else is dead or just have the entity take them automatically. I have been in that position as both killer and survivor and thought how annoying it is to wait for bleed out or end game collapse.
1 -
If the hatch has spawned why wouldn’t I slug for the 4k? My objective is to kill, i’m not gonna be like “oh I got 3 kills might as well let the 4th get a free escape” no my job isn’t finished.
4 -
I'm no game designer, so I'm not totally sure. One thing I've seen that I think I'd prefer to hooking is in other games the killer actually kills a player and then that player has to be resurrected. I'd prefer this because I think hooks are boring: kill animations would be way more fun, and usually when a player is dead and waiting they can spectate others, giving them something to do. Or maybe there's something they can do while waiting that's not necessary to win but does earn them points. With kill animations, there's no slugging, so that's one annoyance removed right there. In Haunt Chasers (a very different asymmetrical game), when a player dies they go to one of many graves and only the other chasers, not the ghost, know the name on the grave to look for. That's an interesting way to handle the death/resurrection mechanic. The killer knows the general area to which the survivor(s) will go, but the killer doesn't know which specific grave to just stand and stare at.
I think there need to be more objectives for survivors to slow the game down and also to make survivor gameplay when the killer isn't chasing them more interactive and fun. If the game is slowed down, however, then the killer's ability to camp and tunnel has to be removed. I don't mean punished but actually made more difficult and less rewarding than it'd be worth to even attempt it. Tunneling a survivor out should not be the best way to slow down the game, anyway.
Right now, the best way for a survivor to complete their win condition of escaping is to rush through gens and avoid interacting with the killer as much as possible. For killers, the best way to tilt the game in their favor is to make the match a 3v1 as fast as possible. When killers are struggling, camping a survivor on the hook can be an effective way of turning the tables and bringing the other survivors to them. What this means is, for both sides the best way to win is to stop the other side from getting to participate. In other words, the most efficient way to play is to ruin the other side's fun. That sucks.
Neither side should be able to rush through their objective and give the other no opportunity to participate. This may require more structure to achieve. All four survivors stealthing around trying not to interact with the killer shouldn't be a thing. If the game has more objectives or more structure, then maybe some objectives require stealth and others require bold interaction with the killer, giving both types of players chances to do what they find most fun while the killer doesn't feel like they're not getting to interact and earn points. This may also mean there'd need to be a shared number of lives amongst survivors rather than the individual three-strikes-you're-out system we have right now, but that might require better matchmaking so one potato doesn't equal a total loss for the other three players.
Sorry, like I said, I'm no game designer. I look at what people complain about and trying to come up with ways to solve those issues, but my ideas are general rather than specific.
Edit: An idea I forgot to propose as an option is that matches are timed, there are objectives to do, and deaths aren't permanent until maybe the very end of the match. The devs could truly make the game casual and focus on fun rather than players stressing about time management or feeling singled out. Different objectives on different maps as well as environmental kills could also spice things up.
Post edited by TragicSolitude on0 -
lol “toxic”
4 -
There is nothing wrong with slugging for the 4k.
Why wouldn't you its extra blood points and its fun to hunt that last person.
When I get slugged I try and survive by crawling as far away as possible from the point I was slugged, hopefully my team mate will get me up and we might steal a win. Otherwise the bleed out timer is 4mins and that's nothing.
If the 4mins on the ground is a waste of your time then maybe you need to stop playing video games and get whatever important thing it is that you need to get done... done, moreso if that 4 mins is so vital to your precious use of time.
(yes I'm being patronizing but that's how stupid people sound when they complain about bleeding out, your time can't be that valuable you are using it to play a computer game!)
Slugging is part of the game and folks should just play how they want to play. You wanna lets us all bleed out well then I'm gonna bleed out in style.
For all those people saying "I never do X because its not fun and I'm a benevolent gamer who always thinks of others etc etc," then all I can say is... (pause for dramatic effect)
The Mother Teresa Awards for benevolent gaming are coming up in August, you have to provide you own cross and nails to hammer yourself onto though.
4 -
I play both sides and a red rank on both sides and I don't think slugging for the 4k is toxic. I slug for the 4k. I want to get extra bp. If I'm nice and a survivor gets hatch, most of the time im greeted with "gg ez" it doesn't feel as rewarding as a 4k.
5 -
Its not a bad idea, but I think a respawn mechanic would undermine the finality of death in this game and its that finality which makes it horror.
There is no coming back so you gotta stay alive if you can.
I think it would lose something with respawns, like the horror survival element would be heavily diluted and we would have even more in your face loopy loopy rather than avoid the big scary monster gameplay. If they water down the horror this game will suffer as that's the main draw.
0 -
A resurrection system doesn't have to be a simple respawn. I'm sure there are some ways to make it a bit horrific. Horrific wounds, looking more and more like a zombie with each death, clawing your way out of a grave, a teammate pulling you screaming in pain out of the Entity's claws... If the devs get creative with it it could add to the atmosphere rather than detract.
Also, in terms of the "horror aspect"... The game is more loop and chase focused than it is horror focused. As is, the horror aspect is pretty awful in that it's barely there. Which is unfortunate, as some of my favorite things in the game are spooky Myers or the way Spirit can surprise an unsuspecting survivor. But Myers surprises a survivor who didn't see him lurking behind a tree, and then... what? He grabs them and puts them on a hook? Only Tombstone Myers can do an outright kill, but then he has a terror radius, the only surprise is the first time he uses his Tombstone mid-chase.
The survivors get so much information. A more mysterious atmosphere, killers able to actually be more like horror movie nightmares, that'd be great. But with death being so final, you can't do that otherwise it'd be really unfair on survivors. And with the way killers feel like they're racing against the clock, it can be easier to focus on and chase one survivor at a time than to spread it out. Spreading out would up the horror aspect as the killer surprises each survivor. Focusing on one survivor means you get one chance at horror with them and the rest is just chase chase chase.
In most other horror games, you get to come back and try again after you die. The difference is that those horror games have you up against an AI, which usually becomes easy to predict. The unique thing here is you go up against people, and each person plays differently and requires different tactics. Or at least, different players should each have their own personal style, but this game pushes players to all adopt the same playstyles to reach their win condition, and thus we end up with very repetitive gameplay.
0 -
good points,
If death wasn't as final you could definitely have far more oppressive killers in terms of their powers.
However people would still likely complain though as constant dying and respawning to an oppressive killer might be less fun than just getting killed and moving onto the next game.
I absolutely agree with you about strong scary and varied killers though, everytime a killer gets watered down in the name of balance the horror element of the game suffers. It definitely drives the game toward one optimal play style that is very unthematically repetitive.
1 -
However people would still likely complain though as constant dying and respawning to an oppressive killer might be less fun than just getting killed and moving onto the next game.
There'd have to be something in place to prevent that kind of griefing. Maybe killers have to "build up" to be able to kill, and each time you go after the same person it takes longer. Or the game could give the survivor the option of a permanent death. If permanent death doesn't benefit the killer and doesn't hurt the survivors so much that the match's outcome becomes a foregone conclusion (the way it does now), then it could be less detrimental than hook suicides are currently. If there's no in-game benefit to bullying someone out of the match, it's less likely to happen.
I absolutely agree with you about strong scary and varied killers though, everytime a killer gets watered down in the name of balance the horror element of the game suffers. It definitely drives the game toward one optimal play style that is very unthematically repetitive.
Thanks! Yeah. I mean, as the game is right now, I see people attempt to do meme builds and they just get stomped and have no fun, forcing them to return to the same ol' tried-and-true routine. The game has no structure in place to ensure its players have fun, to let players be creative. People want to change things up, but the game is actually so open-ended that it paradoxically removes choice and forces specific playstyles, limiting the game's touted "player agency." It's counterintuitive but true.
0 -
That’s why I never give survivors hatch cause they’ll always be toxic no matter how nice you are.
1 -
Your argument is essentially that Killers are not allowed to play in an "unfun" way in order to get a personal win.
However, Survivors should play in an unfun way in order to gain a personal victory, regardless of how the game went.
That is a double standard and you should think about that.
7 -
No need to apologize, I think you brought up amazing points and I 100% agree with them. As a person who plays Haunt Chasers and Home Sweet Home: Survive, I think the revive system would be great and actually having the killer kill you and a chance for a revive would be refreshing and bring back the horror aspect of the game as well.
As of right now, in order to "win" both sides have to do something that risks the other sides fun, and it really is unfair and as you said before, it's just bad game design, which is a shame.
I really hope they implement some of these suggestions to help with the gameplay health and to eliminate the "us vs. them" mentality and for both sides to genuinely have fun. Thank you for sharing your opinion on this matter :D
1 -
Blame the survivors who teabag at the hatch. I didn't slug for the 4K last match and had a feng make noise to say she found it so I just went afk and waited for her to jump into it and when she didn't I timed how long she would wait if I didn't come for her. She waited 30 mins!! Before eventually jumping in lol. So blame idiots like that because after that match I'm slugging for the 4K every single time now.
0 -
clearly u dont know what take the game hostage means. take the game hostage is pretty much body blocking a survivor at the start of the trial and keep in there all game thats hostage.
0 -
Clearly you don't know what giving your opinion means. Nice try though, have a nice day.
1 -
having wrongs opinions is not bad... when those doesnt lead to undesired endings like for example reporting for no reason
0 -
I don't think slugging for the 4k is holding the game hostage. It's boring and kinda desperate for killers to do, but late game if there's only a gen left, I get it. I have had two games in less than 24 hours where I am the last person left and the killer will not hook me. They just stand over me and shake their head or swing at me, over and over and over again. It's pathetic, and it's so wild that now that the DC penalty is back, killers are being toxic like that for no reason.
0
