Camping Contradicts BHVR's Terms of Use
Comments
-
You are incredibly off base. I'm not "just mad" or something lmao. This is pure logic. The EULA is clear, the specific type of camping I highlighted is clear. They contradict, that's it. I think the EULA's language is the right thing to uphold here. Everyone should have the ability to enjoy playing the game. All killers, all survivors, no exceptions. If they don't like the game, that's fine, but that's not what this is about. No one gets guaranteed fun, obviously. We're only talking about their ability to play. Stubbornly facecamping someone to death on 1st hook removes a player's ability to play. It is simple. I understand it all perfectly fine.
1 -
They already get these reports.
And they talk much on the streams - we will see when it comes out.
I think they already try with the new perks that are more rewarding if you try to do other stuff than camping.
But the main problem is that for some killers it is really hard to catch good loopers - chases take too long. The gens fly by and you are screwed. That is still a big reason for camping.
0 -
I didn't know that, but that is very encouraging. That should help a lot, depending on their approach. However, regardless of any systems to discourage it, the 1 specific type of camping I mentioned should be reportable. Camping someone to death on 1st hook at the beginning of a match is toxic behavior that is bad for the game and violates the EULA. Other examples might be debatable because of the circumstance, I don't dispute that, but that one example is a clear cut violation.
1 -
I didn't know that and thank you for sharing. Every time I have seen camping brought up I see people saying it's just part of the game. I don't think the best solution is banning. I'd much rather see the game discourage it and push the killers to their objectives. There is some hard camping behavior that I think if reported, and reports proven to be accurate, should be potentially banned. Especially if they are multiple offenders. But for the most part it seems that a lot of killers just think camping is how the game is played. I'm very glad to hear that the devs are working on this.
Also, maybe the BHVR staff here could say the devs are working on it when camping is brought up. All I see is that its not reportable....
1 -
All fine. I am old enough, for me it is just a game.
But i have never took the EULA of any game to tell what is or should not be allowed.
But maybe i am too lucky. I don´t remembver when i was facecamped the last time. I got camped here and there and there are a lot of proxy campers.
I sometimes die on first hook - I don´t like that also.
But i take it as a compliment when the killer is angry at me because i looped him too long.
And as i play killer too i can fully understand that.
Got a Boil Over Jake at Eeries today. He escaped twice - after i got him - was near the end i fully camped as i wanted him to die as i was super annoyed by that.
0 -
No, being on a hook doesn't at all make you "unable to play". You're playing the game, it's just that part of the game happens to have a really boring aspect to it where you're stuck on a hook sometimes. Part of the game being dull though doesn't mean players are violating a legal document when it happens.
What the EULA is referring to is primarily exploits and hacks and actual literal harassment in chat. In fact the bullet point you're referring 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.
Is entirely within the context of other points that are dealing with people actually either cheating, hacking, harassing others in chat, and so on. This bullet point isn't talking about "camping a hook", it's talking about things like DDOS'ing the Service (note the word service in that bullet point) so that players can't access it.
1 -
I am not talking about "being on a hook," that's a strawman. Read any of my other posts more closely to see the specific thing I'm talking about.
1 -
Also, where can I see the devs talk about this? I'd like to watch the stream please.
0 -
I am not sure if it was in the last Q&A or the 5th anniversary stream.
You find a lot of videos on Youtube. Maybe someone knows better if this is here as well.
0 -
Yeah, I know they get these reports, which is why they keep stressing it's not bannable and tell people not to submit those reports, but can you imagine the ridiculous number they'd get if they came out and said it is bannable? Every survivor who has a bad game would submit a report. I've been accused of stuff I never did during the match because the survivor's view of what the killer is doing is both limited and biased.
It feels toxic, but it's rarely personal. It's a tactic. Not a good one, not a fun one, but a tactic nonetheless. Almost every time someone comes on these forums asking what they're supposed to do to slow down gens, multiple responses will tell them to tunnel one survivor out as fast as possible. That's the truth, going from a 4v1 to a 3v1 is unfortunately the best way to slow down gens. So, a killer who struggles with chases and struggles with gen pressure catches one survivor, puts them on a hook, and then tries to get them to die as fast as possible. Some hit survivors on the hook to say "hurry up and die." Some hit survivors on the hook because they (no joke) think it speeds up the sacrifice process.
(I'm not saying camping is never done to be malicious, only that it's rarer than most people think. Just like a lot of teabagging is tactical rather than toxic, trying to get a killer to chase you instead of someone who's dead on hook.)
I hate when I'm camped first thing, most people hate when it happens to them. But it's bad game design. It's human nature to take the easiest path, and the easiest paths are 1. 3v1, and 2. camping. So that's what players will do, they'll do the easiest things that provide the best results.
How I or you or any other player interprets the EULA is irrelevant. How BHVR meant it, what they interpret it to mean, is the only deciding factor in the end. You can argue it for the rest of your life, but the best outcome you could hope for is to see the EULA changed to remove the word "enjoy." If that's your end goal, then okay, cool.
The devs rarely comment on the forums about what they're up to anymore because it usually bites them in the ass. Devs actually used to be somewhat active here, but I think the community's attitude kind of chased them off. They occasionally have dev streams on Twitch where they might mention what they're working on, but they keep "things in progress" to a minimum because once you say you're working on it then people expect to see it and see it soon. There are things the devs mentioned working on years ago that got scrapped, but people act like those were promised and still bring them up to this day.
So, the devs aren't going to comment on it, and I don't think the staff/mods are allowed to comment on ongoing projects.
I wasn't trying to say that we'll see results in the near future, only that the devs do care and are working on it.
First off, here's a link to DbD's Twitch, where they do their dev streams: https://www.twitch.tv/deadbydaylight/
Here's a link with some other details about how the devs view camping (and why they refrain from banning people for doing it): https://deadbydaylight.fandom.com/wiki/Developer_Q%26A%27s#Are_there_any_plans_to_punish_facecampers.3F
And here's the link you actually asked for: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIocxDbQ-9g&t=2740s
0 -
Thank you for the links!!
1 -
I don't have to "read all your other posts" since what you're talking about is already in your original post
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.
And then you go on to incorrectly claim that this is against that bullet point in the EULA which is isn't. Because as I just mentioned above, that bullet point is in the context of interfering with access to the service, not with this nebulous idea you seem to have that if something "feels unfair" it's against the agreement.
You're conflating something being "dull" with "interfering with enjoyment", and confusing "imbalanced design" with "cheating".
Which, by the way, that bullet point you pointed to doesn't even mention "cheating". In fact the word "cheat" only appears once in the EULA and it's only in the phrase "“cheat utility” software program or applications." So if there's any strawmen here it's your declaring your own personal weird definition of "cheating" and then claiming that the EULA, which doesn't even reference cheating in the first place, somehow makes what you defined as "cheating" to be against the document.
So TLDR:
- Your definition of "cheating" is both bogus and materially irrelevant to the EULA.
- Your definition of "interfering with the ability of others to enjoy playing on a Behavior service" isn't the one the company is using for purposes of this document. They're referring to interfering with people's ability to access the service, e.g. DDOS or somehow forcing the game into a state that it literally can't end, etc.
4 -
I appreciate the links, and that you put a lot into this post, but one main thing I want to clear up is: it doesn't matter if it is personal or not, and the specific type of camping I am focusing on is objectively toxic. I'm not talking about "all stuff any survivor would claim counts as camping". I am talking about camping someone to death on first hook, refusing to chase anyone else, etc... until they are dead. I have specified it many, many times in this thread.
If a killer hooks the first survivor they find, and then stands there watching them until they die (i.e. they don't even attempt to do anything else, if another survivor shows up, they don't chase them, etc...). That is 100% toxic. You are ignoring normal gameplay, other opportunities, etc and forcibly removing a player's ability to play the game. Full stop. That goes against the legal language in the EULA. The killer has many other things they could be doing, they are actively choosing not to do them *even when other survivors show up and give them a perfect opportunity to go win a chase and hook someone else.*
That means, in this specific scenario, it is not "a tactic", it is forcing someone not to play for dubious reasons. It could be for an easy kill, it could be because they enjoy controlling someone like that, it could be because they just hate the character that person is playing...etc. The reason doesn't really matter, because in the end it is forcing someone to not play. This specific example is always wrong, always toxic for the game, and should be reportable and bannable. No one should be banned just because they got reported "for camping", it should only be punished if someone is continuously doing this specific thing, i.e. stopping other players from playing the game.
1 -
It's horrible. I once had a game where a Killer downed me and refused to pick me up so I just died on the floor. He just followed me until I died, was the longest, most boring game ever. Wish I DC'd, but wanted to help my team mates get out by distracting him.
3 -
And this is where the thread is going in circles, because a lot of people disagree that it's toxic, which means it's subjective, not objective.
I specifically used in my example the exact thing you're talking about, camping out the first person they catch. It is a tactic, because it gets the game down to a 3v1, which is the best way to slow down gen repair if the survivors don't punish it (which they should, because if survivors punish a killer for camping by slamming out gens, killers will learn that facecamping the first person they catch is a bad tactic).
it should only be punished if someone is continuously doing this specific thing, i.e. stopping other players from playing the game
And this is why I keep saying it's bad game design, because the killer's objective is to basically stop survivors from playing the game. The survivor's job is to do gens, and the killer's job in part is to stop survivors from doing gens. Back before Nurse was nerfed, the best Nurses could practically stop a gen from ever being touched. They'd load in, quickly down all four survivors, then put each one on a hook. That was the end of a match. No one got to make a hook save or repair a gen. That is the killer doing their BHVR-given job. Was it fun? No, and that's why Nurse was nerfed, because god Nurses were ridiculously OP and gave survivors no chance to play the game. But that's how the game was designed, so no one was banned for it.
There are ways for the other survivors to punish camping and the devs are working on creating an in-game way to discourage facecamping. I've seen survivors who were being facecamped get away. DS, BT, and teamwork can all lead to a 0k, I've seen it happen and I've helped make it happen. The devs value those sorts of plays. Yeah, it's kind of strange, and I think they put too much value on player agency sometimes, but it's the statement they've made in the past as seen here: https://deadbydaylight.fandom.com/wiki/Developer_Q%26A%27s#Are_there_any_plans_to_punish_facecampers.3F
2 -
The effects on the "team" of survivors isn't what I'm focused on here. Yes, the other 3 survivors could rush gens and all get out thus "punishing" the camping.... that does nothing to enable the camped player to get a chance to play the game. That's what I'm focused on. I guess technically it is some kind of tactic, but it is a toxic tactic because they are knowingly sacrificing a human being's ability to play the game so that they can turn it into a 1v3 instead of 1v4. That is toxic. It's incredibly selfish to say "nah you don't get to play this one because I want to give myself an advantage".
1 -
I mean, yeah, it sucks to be camped on the hook with nothing to do but dangle there.
It's incredibly selfish
It comes down to priorities and empathy. Some people would see empathy in this situation as a weakness. I remember coming across a writeup where someone said that empathizing with your opponent is a weakness, winners do whatever is necessary. Only losers play nice. yadda yadda yadda.
Personally, I have a huge problem playing killer because I don't like taking people out of the match, which means I often don't enjoy killing, which makes me kind of crap at the role because I don't put in the effort to win, I just kind of screw around. I absolutely hate playing to reach Iri 1 because I can't give second chances, I can't play nice, no matter how bad the team seems to be doing I have to tunnel someone out if I am given the opportunity. I learned that very quickly when I was trying to pip up, and it made me miserable.
So, again, it's all very subjective. To some people, "selfish" doesn't enter into the equation, it's just about winning. At the other extreme, there are people like me. And then you have a million shades of grey in between.
I try not to judge people for playing to win when I don't like their tactics. I don't feel that overpowering drive to win, and that's a me thing.
0 -
Not true, You might aswell argue the killer should get points for generators being done.
0 -
Playing killer doesn't require a lack of empathy. I know a lot of very nice people who enjoy playing killer...and they "play to win" without facecamping anyone...ever lol. Why are you legitimizing this? It isn't normal gameplay, it isn't normal behavior. It isn't about it "sucking" to be on a hook. It isn't even about being on the hook, like I keep saying. Hooks are a normal part of the game. However, this is hooking someone with zero opportunity for an unhook (at least not a successful unhook). This is removing someone's ability to play entirely, not putting them on a hook temporarily. That is not a normal part of the game.
If someone found out that if a killer hooks someone and then hits them in the back twice, it causes a bug where they cannot be unhooked so long as the killer stands within 4 meters of that hook, and people exploited that bug for kills...it'd be bannable, reportable, and everyone would universally agree that it isn't okay for someone to do that. However, the outcome is functionally identical to the type of camping I am talking about. It doesn't make sense to me for one of them to be "okay" but the other is not when they have the same result. I think of this type of face camping to be exploiting the freedom of gameplay to block someone from playing the game. Similar to how blocking someone in a corner and not letting them move is also exploiting the freedom of gameplay to stop someone from being able to play.
2 -
I 100% agree with the OP. Don't forget slugging! Killers that leave survivors on the ground when there is no other survivor in sight is literally interfering with that survivor being slugged to enjoy the game in my opinion.
2 -
some ways to play (unhealthy game strategies) were born due to grotesque game design mistakes by the devs.
- from killers:
1. Face-camp: It was born due to a very notable mistake ideia to have fixed points on the map (called hooks), where the survivor are temporarily banned from the match. If the devs really want to resolve the issue in the right way, there could be other mechanics other than hook, like survivors being respawned on the map.
Ps: Currently managed through band-aids with perks like Borrowed Time or strategizing through groups with communication. Terrible for SoloQ to have to deal with it (especially if it's someone with Insidious)
2. Slug: born due being the counterplay to prevent hook sabotage, but it only made sense at the time that hooks took 2 minutes to return to normal. Currently with hooks taking seconds to respawn, it only makes sense on specific maps and with specific survivor builds (like boil-over).It's also a horrible game-design , as the devs may have put other mechanics into the game, like survivors in the dying state automatically being grabbed by the entity and placed somewhere else on the map.
Ps: Currently managed through band-aids again with perks like Unbreakable, No Mither, etc, or strategizing through groups with communication where a one survivors must have at last one of those perks. Terrible for SoloQ to have to deal with, as some killers have enormous power and potential to play this way like Nurse, Oni, Blight, etc.
- from survivors:
1. Direct communication between survivors: It was something that the devs could easily predict because with no doubt in an asymmetrical comms create a big gap between squads and Solo Survivors. and could be fixed from beginning of the game with a useful and functional ping system for SoloQ and balance from there.
2. Infinite loops: They were already much more in the game, and little by little fixed through band-aids like the blood-lust system and the breakable doors. But the point is, those band-aids wouldn't be necessary if the maps were really balanced.
Addressing what's behind the game design mistakes that allow those unhealthy strategies, the game would improve a lot, especially for SoloQ and create more attractive to play as killer.
The problem is the game already very old and it is necessary courage from devs to change such ingrained mechanics to see people's feed-back
Post edited by randonly on1 -
I didn't say playing killer requires a lack of empathy. My apologies if my wording was unclear and implied that, but I don't think that at all. My post was only talking about the subjective nature of what some people see as toxic vs what some people see as playing to win, and how everyone is different.
I also am specifically talking about being facecamped on the hook when I talk about not enjoying being on the hook, but you are arguing with me like I'm not. I don't understand why.
You say people can't make successful saves when the killer facecamps, but that's not true. DS, BT, and teamwork can make it happen, even with a group of four randoms. That's also the difference between normal facecamping and exploiting a bug to completely prevent unhooking. There are ways to save someone being facecamped, and the devs are working on new ways to discourage facecamping.
Anyway, I think I'm done. When you make statements like, "This is removing someone's ability to play entirely, not putting them on a hook temporarily." as if I've somehow missed that point, then I can only interpret that as either you're constantly misinterpreting what I say, which means me continuing this discussion is pointless, or you're repeating yourself because you're stuck in a loop, which also means any further posts from me would be pointless. Anything else I say would probably be me repeating myself as I try to clarify whatever got misunderstood somewhere in there, but I probably should've signed off a few posts ago. I was only trying to help you understand why the devs aren't going to ban for facecamping so you could direct your efforts towards something that might actually happen. I'm bored of talking in circles, and you're probably bored with it, too.
Good luck with your crusade.
0 -
This was a fun read ngl. The post was doomed from the start due to the thought that being in the Hook isn't "playing the game" (which it is), but the constant going in circles was funny
7 -
You are still playing the game you just lost the first chase. You can be rescued and there are perks to help you escape if targeted again.
Your team mates should be taking threat from you and body blocking. The killer may continue to target you as burning out a survivor early is typically the best way to apply continuous pressure, also not a breach of the TOS.
If you don't want to be the person potentially camped, then play smart not bold at the beginning. Because you may get camped if caught first. There are some great builds for escaping chases, try them out.
Hook rescues don't assume a SWF they are just easier with one. Survivor is a team game you won't expect a PUG to do as well as a team, try the group finder on the forums.
Ultimately though its an elimination game and sometimes you will be eliminated early, its the nature of the game.
The caveat of online PVP is sometimes it won't play out exactly as you want it to, you may spawn in a pvp battle royal and be shot straight away, it happens its not a breach of the TOS its the nature of online gaming. I've never seen anyone on the MWO forums have a meltdown about being shot up in the first 2 mins, it happens sometimes.
If you want the same experience consistently then there are plenty of single player games that you can guarantee a consistent game experience. I wish DBD had a solo play mode against bots too because online PVP can be exhausting sometimes. More so with the DBD community and how full of ######### it is about expected gameplay.
I'm starting to wonder if a childhood of "everyone gets a trophy day" doesn't produce a lot of entitled little snots, whom now all play DBD.
1 -
Then ban everyone doing camping, game will be dead and that's for good I guess.
0 -
Then ask for killers to get a buffed. Killers need a reason not to camp, give them a large speed boost after hooking a survivor to help them get into the next chase (ends at the start of a new chase), make some sort of gen regression basekit on each hook so you have more time to breathe, something like that is what killers need.
1 -
Why is this still being discussed? An official BHVR employee directly told you in your second thread about the exact same topic that you are misinterpreting all of this and that camping isn't violating anything.
Edit. The link to said post: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/317261/please-do-not-report-camping-contradicts-the-dbd-bhvr-terms-of-use#latest
1 -
LOL
0 -
Doing gens fast also kills killer experience lmfao
2 -
killer bad if they don't give free save, it's simply not allowed
people playing only one role being clowns as usual
2 -
People enjoy basking in the disconnect from reality/cringe, assuming you're looking for a real answer.
0 -
I don't think they will ever ban someone for the crime of not losing to make you happy.
0 -
It's pretty amusing that a topic posted by someone that didn't understand what they were reading has reached 5 pages @_@
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Very amusing indeed
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
