Camping Contradicts BHVR's Terms of Use
I recently learned from the "Game Rules & Report System" section of the forum, that camping is listed under actions which are "not considered bannable offenses" and thus should not be reported. This is a problem.
Camping goes against BHVR's own Terms of Use (viewable here: https://www.bhvr.com/terms-of-use/) Under Section E. "Rules of Conduct", it says it is a violation of the Terms of Use to "Interfere with the ability of others to enjoy playing a BHVR Service or take actions that interfere with or materially increase the cost to provide a BHVR Service for the enjoyment of all its users."
Singling out an individual player, hooking them, and then standing there until they die on first hook is absolutely interfering with others' ability to enjoy playing the game. This should be reportable, bannable, and BHVR should take steps to steer players away from this behavior through gameplay design. It is toxic, bad for the game, and feels an awful lot like harassment (often offending killers will even stand there and taunt you/swipe at you with attacks while you can do nothing. Mocking your inability to play and enjoy the game until you die with no recourse.)
Under that same "Game Rules & Report System" post, the stated goal is "to find the players who are creating a bad game experience and punish them appropriately, making the game a better place." Camping absolutely creates a bad game experience. I see it way, way more often recently than I have before and it needs to be addressed.
Comments
-
Don’t worry, the killers will come here and rationalize their behavior and say dead hard made them do it. On top of that they will say it’s “strategy”, anything to justify their ability to kill the experience for one person. But then they will come back with it’s not my job to make it fun for survivors.
8 -
And to add on to what I said. Is it wrong for a killer to tunnel people out, under the rules they can do what they want, however I’d venture to say it’s pretty not healthy for the game as a whole for one side to be able to punish one player because of bad rules inside the game. Only ones that can fix that are the devs. And I think the only concern for them is to drop a new killer to make money. Obviously fixing the game seems to be on the back burner
3 -
Yeah, I agree. I think anything which intentionally reduces game interaction or otherwise prevents people from doing their objectives/progressing/playing the game in general, etc... should be discouraged. This includes going AFK/standing idly anywhere (both survivors and killers), camping, certain types of tunneling (though maybe not all tunneling), survivors ignoring objectives in lieu of just continuously harassing/taunting the killer, etc...
2 -
Honestly, so does tunneling. It's also the exact basic definition of "unsportsmanlike".
5 -
I can’t wait for the devs to read this one. Theyre definitely gonna have a moment like:
3 -
I agree, but that one is more complicated since in some cases it can be accidental or unavoidable (some subtle game visual indicators could help with that though)
1 -
Facecamping, yes.
chasing in the area/preventing a swf from divebombing the hook uncontested - no.
1 -
Swf bad if they make saves, it’d simply not allowed
0 -
If the killer leaves to chase someone then yeah I agree, even if they're still nearby. It gives another survivor a chance to try to unhook.
3 -
Your complaint has already been addressed and fixed by making unhooks rotational so that you can't just block a hook and prevent unhooks. True face camping from back in the day.
If your team fails to rescue you in a coordinated manner that's on them.
2 -
This is...completely unfounded. Unhooks are rotational? What are you talking about. Multiple games this week, someone in my game has been hooked, then the killer stands there and waits for them to die. If someone tries to unhook, the killer can pull them off.
2 -
no, I mean, there's no reason to leave the hook if literally the entire team is going to give you free hits.
I'm not advocating camping. very few people enjoy camping.
I'm saying, if a group of people make a stupid decision, it's not abuse of terms of service to capitalize on their lapse in judgement.
That's like saying getting a flashlight save is abuse.
2 -
I guess yeah, if the other players rush the hook before giving the killer a chance to leave, sure. Usually though it doesn't seem like that's what happens. They group up to try to combat the camping bc they don't want to just leave someone hanging until they die.
1 -
Being camped in DBD does not interfere with your ability to enjoy DBD.
You always have the option of attempting to get yourself off hook and not hitting the 2nd skillchecks to let yourself die faster so you can move onto the next game.
3 -
And if you get camped again in the next game? Or if you're not playing alone so you have to wait until a friend escapes or dies? No, it really does interfere with your ability to play the game, let alone enjoy it.
2 -
While I don't condone camping or tunneling, I'm pretty sure that line of text you're using is being taken out of context and twisted to mean something else.
If we were to take it as you are using it, then it would also be safe to say that body blocking to keep a killer from hooking, body blocking with bt, flashlight spam clicking, 360ing to deny hits, all interfere with not only the killer's fun, but also their ability to complete their objectives. Especially the flashlight spam clicking that keeps anyone with epilepsy, a serious medical condition, from even playing the game.
This doesn't even include the constant tea bagging and BMing that happens that can interfere with other player's fun...
3 -
Your ability to play DBD is not being interfered by being camped.
You may not like it, but being on a hook is simply a part of survivor gameplay.
6 -
Saying it again doesn't make it any less wrong. You have not explained how it isn't interfering with playing DBD. You literally cannot play the game if you are stuck on a hook with a killer staring at you until you die. You can try to jump off, you will probably fail, and then die faster. If you succeed, the killer is standing right there and will just hit you and hook you again. Hooking/unhooking is part of the gameplay loop, camping circumvents that loop and literally stops someone from playing the game. Sitting on a hook is not "playing". It is a necessary stage for the way the game works, yes, but if you are forcibly prevented from moving on to other parts of the game (healing, running, doing gens, etc...) and forced to stay on the hook, incapacitated ... that is obviously interfering with your ability to play. I'm not sure how you could argue otherwise, but if you can make a case for that, go for it. Just saying "no it's not" is not a valid argument.
1 -
well yeah.
if someone's camping out of spite, that's impolite.
2 -
You were not prevented from playing the game since you were capable of playing the game up until you died on hook.
You are mixing up "losing a game" with "being prevented from playing a game".
7 -
The game is designed to be hooked three times. Camping the hook is altering the features of the game so that you are hooked once and die. This is literally altering the players ability to play the game as intended.
1 -
I would have to agree. You are still technically playing the game. Whether you're running around, sitting on a gen, or sitting on a hook.
If you were hooked, and the killer left to go do whatever else, and your teammates never came and saved you because they were doing gens or healing or whatever, and you died on hook, should your teammates therefore be banned because they didn't drop everything to come save you? No that would be ridiculous right? But either way, the results are the same. The gameplay experience is still the same. You're still not having fun right? So that would mean that every other survivor should be banned along with whatever they were doing. It simply doesn't make sense.
I believe you're simply taking a single sentence out of context to justify your being upset because you lost a specific match. Especially since someone from behavior already told you in another post you made about the same thing, that you're misinterpreting the terms and rules.
0 -
If the game was designed that you had to be hooked 3 times before death, then you would never progress to 2nd hook state on your first hook.
You have 3 hook states and you can be killed in less than 3 hooks. Nothing unintended is happening.
5 -
The intent is for the other survivors to be able to try to unhook you (or you can try to unhook yourself but really that is a very slim chance) and if they fail you progress. This is not possible if the killer just stands there. The killer is also encouraged to complete other objects but they stay at the hook and watch the player progress through all three hooks. This is clearly interferes with the ability of others to enjoy playing a BHVR service.
2 -
You not being saved on hook and dying it not interfering with your ability to play.
You can always queue up and play another match.
2 -
I did not take it out of context, and I provided a link to the document. You can go read it for yourself if you want.
The things you listed do not interfere with killers' ability to play the game:
- Body blocking to keep a killer from hooking doesn't prevent them from their objective, it slows them down. They can attack the survivors in their way and knock them down. If the hooks were too far away to the point where everyone could wiggle out in time, and no one would be knocked down in the process, then sure it should be adjusted but that doesn't seem to be the case.
- Flashlight spam clicking may be annoying, but it doesn't block anyone from doing anything. If it is an epilepsy concern, maybe there is a valid reason to put a cooldown so the flicker has a maximum speed or something, however this doesn't really dispute what I said, it is just a separate issue.
- 360ing to "deny" hits is just dodging...that isn't interfering with anything. Both players are on equal footing able to continue the chase. They both have actions they can take to pursue their objectives.
Tea bagging and BMing are also separate issues irrelevant to this. Just because there are other issues that may need to be addressed, doesn't mean this one is any less valid.
3 -
If you get camped every match, you're not able to play the game. Therefore, camping interferes with your ability to play. You just may be fortunate to not have it happen every game.
2 -
I agree that banning for camping may not be the answer. The toxic behaviors of a survivor player are just as bad to both killers and survivors. The game could do a much better job at encouraging players to play with the objectives in mind. An example that the game already has is the crows that appear when you are standing in one spot for too long.
1 -
And if camping completely prevented people from saving or unhooking someone then no one would get saved ever. It simply punishes them for doing so. It does not prevent unhooking, nor does it keep you from doing objectives. And I have read it, so have other people, and we're telling you that you're misinterpreting to fit your narrative. Camping doesn't fit within it at all, but you're trying to twist it to fit as if it'll actually do anything significant. No one cares mate
1 -
You mean llike when they ruled that using comms is not cheating despite it literally being "using a 3rd party software to gain an unfair advantage"?
Yeah, nah.
1 -
No...this is an issue that has been part of this game for a long time, and recently camping has become more popular it seems. I'm not "salty" about a specific match, I'm pointing out a valid problem with a toxic playstyle. As I mentioned in my other reply to you, I did not "take a sentence out of context". That section of the EULA/TOS deals with other unacceptable behaviors related to how people use the game. It applies to both gameplay and use of BHVR services, as evidenced by the other examples in that same list regarding exploiting bugs, using macros, etc...
3 -
I 100% agree with that. Making it much more encouraging to play a certain way or "as intended", or even making camping a lot less worth it and rewarding is the way to go.
But just saying, "This should be banned because I find it unfun, here's an out of context rule I found to support my reasoning" is not the way to go lol
1 -
Saying to queue up in another game is not relevant to the match I was in that the killer camped me in. Every match is part of the game... If this was an uncommon gameplay among killers than I would say "Well the killer was a jerk" and move on to the next game. But this is very common and the game is literally forcing me to sit there while the killer "pretend" attacks me on a hook since there attacks do nothing.... In addition to that I lose pips... I don't see how moving to another match addresses the issue.
1 -
Camping, usually, is detrimental for a killer's success, but many killers aren't trying to play "optimally"... they just want to kill people. I have had multiple tell me they don't care about what gets the most points. Camping, doesn't perfectly prevent unhooks, but it nearly does, and if the team sacrifices themselves to do so ... they're really not much better off. The killer is getting "free" hits, they'll likely get to hook someone again (maybe even the same person who was already hooked) etc...
Also, none of this addresses the fact that this only matters IF the team tries to help the camped person. Often, it is suggested to just let them die because the survivors can "punish" a camping killer by rushing gens. That may be true, but it doesn't allow the camped person to play the damn game lol
1 -
Because you are taking a rule about interfering with your ability to play a match by complaining about the actions inside the match. Being camped in a match does not prevent you from playing more matches.
It being common or not does not change the fact you at no point are being prevented from playing the game.
1 -
Clicking and teabagging are toxic playstyles as well, both have been in the game since it started. Camping does not take advantage of any exploits or bugs, but is rather a playstyle around the mechanics of the game.
360ing, however, has been in the game longer than camping, since its early stages in fact. And was actually an exploit of a movement bug where survivors could turn faster than intended... So yeah. Let's ban that. As taking advantage of any bugs or exploits that could interfere with a players fun is against the rules.
1 -
If a survivor hides in a corner, and a killer runs up and just stands there blocking them in, that is another example of actions "inside the match" preventing someone from playing the game. Just because it happens in the match, doesn't mean it's not a violation of the EULA/TOS. Just like how other items in that same list prohibit exploiting bugs or using macros. Those are all in-game actions. It's not as if "anything goes" just because it is within the game.
3 -
And that kind of body blocking is actually bannable iirc.
Being camped on hook where you are engaging normal game mechanics is not bannable.
1 -
Hooking someone, and standing there staring at them, ignoring all other survivors until that person dies on first hook, is not "engaging in normal game mechanics" and it is functionally equivalent to body blocking someone into a corner until they bleed out.
2 -
It seems that you are interpreting this rule to apply only if someone has blocked a person from being able to log into the game and play... I would agree that if someone were to do that they would be violating this rule as well. But interfering with my ability to do objectives applies too. Like a mentioned before, I don't know if banning a player that camps is always the best solution. I think if a killer is standing there and pretend attacking a survivor on the hook and ignoring all other survivors who unhook them only to hook the same survivor again should be banned. Unfortunately, this gameplay is very common. I would hope that the devs will see that this is not a fun and encouraging way to keep survivors playing the game and add suggestions/nudges towards objectives to the game e.g. the crows when a player stands in one position for too long.
1 -
We are talking about a rule in the EULA for your BHVR account. Playing in a way in DBD that others do not find fun is not bannable and not covered by the EULA. You can't pick external rules and apply them to a single game of DBD.
The only reason body blocking someone in a corner and not letting them do anything is bannable is simply because I believe the devs have said it is bannable since it is related to holding the game hostage.
2 -
Forcing a player to stay on a hook, not letting the other survivors take them off the hook is the same thing as forcing them in a corner and holding the player there. I have played numerous games where the killer will ignore the other survivors (who are standing right there as they just took the player off the hook) and re-hook the same survivor. They are holding the game hostage in same way body blocking is.
0 -
It is not.
A survivor on hook will eventually die thus ending the game.
Body Blocking a survivor into the corner of the map does not allow the game to end. While EGC existence generally prevents many situations where games do not end. It's possible for the killer to body block the last survivor into the corner without EGC being active.
3 -
So, if the killer stops me from doing gens, I should be able to report them because the only thing I enjoy doing is gens? I mean, if the killer doesn't let me work on the gen, they are totally interfering with my ability to enjoy the game.
(If it's not obvious, I'm being sarcastic, because what each person "enjoys" is completely subjective and not something that can be forced upon other players.)
I know being hooked isn't fun and I've complained about that multiple times on these forums, but it is part of normal gameplay. Let me stress this: the survivor being on a hook is part of the gameplay. A killer's goal is to put survivors on hooks. A survivor being blocked in a corner unable to die or work on gens is not part of normal gameplay, because forcing a survivor to stand around for ten minutes doing nothing is nobody's objective.
No one likes being camped on the hook, but it's not bannable. No matter how you try to reinterpret the rules, it's not bannable. Can you imagine if it were? Every single match would result in a report because the killer didn't immediately walk away from the hook, and the staff at BHVR would actually have to look at each and every support ticket. It would completely clog up the report system. It's not enforceable.
Don't criticize the players who are playing within the game's rules. Criticize the game mechanics. Being stuck on a hook unable to do anything isn't fun. Being slugged unable to do anything isn't fun. And being taken out of a game within 60 seconds of loading in isn't fun. Wait, why is anyone playing survivor at all?
2 -
No, you're misunderstanding. It's not about gameplay preferences, camping is blocking someone from being able to play *at all*. There is a huge difference.
2 -
That is true and fair. The game will eventually end.
But the EULA does not only say that you can't hold a game hostage. It says you can not interfere with the ability of others to enjoy playing a BHVR service. If they wanted it be more specific then they would have said specifically said something like "prevent someone from logging into the game" but they didn't. Any gameplay that does not work towards the objectives and completely prevents a player from working towards their objectives is gameplay that interferes with that players ability to enjoy a BHVR service therefore not in line with the EULA.
0 -
Thanks Tom. Nice try tho Survivors, better luck next time.
4 -
The EULA is different from rules specific to DBD.
Interfering with someone's ability to play BHVR games is in the EULA and is about preventing someone from playing the game in the first place.
Holding the game hostage is a specific DBD rule you can report players for in DBD and this is a very specific use case that largely doesn't exist due to changes the devs have already added to the game. Since even a killer body blocking a survivor in the corner will still likely lead to the game ending, but still falls under holding the game hostage since no attempt was being made to end the game on the killer.
1 -
You may not agree with the legal verbiage in the EULA but they chose those words specifically. If someone doesn't "enjoy" the objects they need to complete in the game then they just don't enjoy the game and that game is not for them. If someone is preventing you from playing the game at all and you can not complete any objectives, whether they are your preferred objectives or not, they are interring with that players ability to enjoy the game.
1 -
That is exactly my point. Including camping on the list of "non bannable" offenses contradicts the EULA. Here is a quote from the official rules post on these forums: "In case of conflict between the EULA and this page, the EULA will prevail."
1
