Camping Fix
I've come up with this idea for a way to nerf camping and i'd like to know what people think as well as ways to improve it and weather it would work. I know this game is unfair to killers so this post seems ridiculous but this idea is if the game was balanced, what the perfect fix to camping would be.
The longer and the closer a killer is near a hooked survivor, the slower the survivors death progression on hook would be and the slower the killers movement speed would become. The affects caused by the killer standing close to the hook would persist at a strength corresponding to how close and for how much time the killer was standing by the hook even after the killer had left the area, and would only end when the survivor is killed or rescued. If the killer continued to stay near that hooked survivor, the affects would continue to increase up to a maximum strength. These would be around 60% as the minimum movement speed a killer can be slowed to and 30% the normal speed a survivor dies on a hook. These limits however would take a while of close range camping to reach, Eg: 60 seconds of standing within a 8 meter range or 120 seconds of standing in a 16 meter range. You may say that after 100 seconds you would be dead anyway however the affect wouldn't suddenly start, it would gradually increase the longer and close the killer is to the hook. After a survivor is rescued, the affect would persist for another 10 seconds corresponding to whatever strength it was up to when the survivor was saved. All these statistics could be affected by new perks for both killer and survivor, speeding up and slowing down the rate at which the affects increase in strength. By the way none of the statistics i used earlier would be used, they were just examples to show how the affects would increase in strength. Feel free to tell me what you think and make improvements.
CAN EVERYONE PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU GET ANNOYED AT ME: IM TALKING ABOUT WHAT A GOOD NERF TO CAMPING WOULD BE IF THE GAME WAS BALANCED IN CASE IT IS IN THE FUTURE,. IM DEFINATLY NOT SUGGESTING THIS SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE GAME NOW, YOU MIGHT AS WELL KILL THE GAME ONCE AND FOR ALL. ALSO I DO THINK I SHOULD HAVE ALSO ADDED A REWARD FOR THE KILLERS LEAVING THE HOOK, RATHER THAN JUST A PUNISHMENT FOR THOSE WHO DONT. LASTLY, IM NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT KILLERS CAMPING WHEN ITS BECAUSE THE GATES ARE OPEN, OR THEY'RE HAVING A TERRIBLE GAME, OR BECAUSE ALL THE SURVIVORS ARE STANDING IN THE AREA, IM COMPLAINING ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO LITTERALLY HARD/FACE CAMP THE FIRST PERSON THEY CATCH AND IN THE CHAT AFTERWARDS SAY THEY CAN PLAY HOW THEY WANT AND BLAH BLAH BLAH BECAUSE THATS THE PROBLEM, THEY CAN PLAY HOW THEY WANT.
Comments
-
It's always punishment instead of reward. Why not make it, that if a survivor is unhooked outside of the killer's terror radius, the survivor is dead upon next hook, skipping the summoning phase. There, fixed camping.
13 -
@Mercury said:
It's always punishment instead of reward. Why not make it, that if a survivor is unhooked outside of the killer's terror radius, the survivor is dead upon next hook, skipping the summoning phase. There, fixed camping.That would buff camping on Billy, Nurse, Wraith, Hag (maybe even Huntress; she just have to aim with a hatchet towards the hook) and Insidious. Also this would make Devour Hope and Make your Choice complete useless.
5 -
@Mercury said:
It's always punishment instead of reward. Why not make it, that if a survivor is unhooked outside of the killer's terror radius, the survivor is dead upon next hook, skipping the summoning phase. There, fixed camping.that definitely wouldn't work as it would encourage farming, overly nerf survivors (Ik they need it but not that much), and it would buff all killers with small terror radii
2 -
@Lord_Technopapst said:
@Mercury said:
It's always punishment instead of reward. Why not make it, that if a survivor is unhooked outside of the killer's terror radius, the survivor is dead upon next hook, skipping the summoning phase. There, fixed camping.That would buff camping on Billy, Nurse, Wraith, Hag (maybe even Huntress; she just have to aim with a hatchet towards the hook) and Insidious. Also this would make Devour Hope and Make your Choice complete useless.
How would it buff those killers and wouldn't it improve make your choice and devour hope?
0 -
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Lord_Technopapst said:
@Mercury said:
It's always punishment instead of reward. Why not make it, that if a survivor is unhooked outside of the killer's terror radius, the survivor is dead upon next hook, skipping the summoning phase. There, fixed camping.That would buff camping on Billy, Nurse, Wraith, Hag (maybe even Huntress; she just have to aim with a hatchet towards the hook) and Insidious. Also this would make Devour Hope and Make your Choice complete useless.
How would it buff those killers and wouldn't it improve make your choice and devour hope?
The killer can easy go back to the hook after a rescue and just kill the survivor pretty easy. Devour Hope would kick in after 3 survivors are already dead because after every token you get you can kill someone. And why should you chase someone (even if he is exposed by make your choice) if you can kill the other one instead. You don't get anything from make your choice than.
0 -
@Lord_Technopapst said:
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Lord_Technopapst said:
@Mercury said:
It's always punishment instead of reward. Why not make it, that if a survivor is unhooked outside of the killer's terror radius, the survivor is dead upon next hook, skipping the summoning phase. There, fixed camping.That would buff camping on Billy, Nurse, Wraith, Hag (maybe even Huntress; she just have to aim with a hatchet towards the hook) and Insidious. Also this would make Devour Hope and Make your Choice complete useless.
How would it buff those killers and wouldn't it improve make your choice and devour hope?
The killer can easy go back to the hook after a rescue and just kill the survivor pretty easy. Devour Hope would kick in after 3 survivors are already dead because after every token you get you can kill someone. And why should you chase someone (even if he is exposed by make your choice) if you can kill the other one instead. You don't get anything from make your choice than.
The devour hope thing makes no sense. Why would you get a kill for every token? The killers can obviously go back to the hook, this is fixing camping not tunnelling and of course fast killers will be better at that, they could already go back faster, that's not changed. As for the make your choice thing, the killer always can choose between the wounded survivor and the saviour, how does my idea change that. That's why make your choice is such a bad perk.
0 -
i stopped rading after "I've come up with this idea for a way to nerf camping and i'd like to know what people think as well as ways to improve it and weather it would work.". Honestly, as soon as you said the word "nerf", this post died for me. Killers dont need more nerfs! They had more than enough already! just give them a little bonus for not camping.
for example: i heard a lot of people telling the devs, that survivors should simply not loose life on the hook, when they are in the killers terrorradius (thats obviously a nerf), but why dont they make it, so hooked survivors outside the terrorradius loose their life twice as fast than normal (same idea, but instead of punishing the killer for staying close, you reward them for going away) and maybe give them some negative effects (like -5% speed for healing, sabotaging and rapairing) for each time they got hooked (so its actually bad that you already got hooked, since it makes you less effective. right now there is no difference between a survivor who already got hooked and a survivor who never got hooked)
long story short: stop trying to f*cking nerf the killers. IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA! otherwise the killers will quit and the game will die.EDIT: fixed some grammar issues (:
3 -
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Lord_Technopapst said:
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Lord_Technopapst said:
@Mercury said:
It's always punishment instead of reward. Why not make it, that if a survivor is unhooked outside of the killer's terror radius, the survivor is dead upon next hook, skipping the summoning phase. There, fixed camping.That would buff camping on Billy, Nurse, Wraith, Hag (maybe even Huntress; she just have to aim with a hatchet towards the hook) and Insidious. Also this would make Devour Hope and Make your Choice complete useless.
How would it buff those killers and wouldn't it improve make your choice and devour hope?
The killer can easy go back to the hook after a rescue and just kill the survivor pretty easy. Devour Hope would kick in after 3 survivors are already dead because after every token you get you can kill someone. And why should you chase someone (even if he is exposed by make your choice) if you can kill the other one instead. You don't get anything from make your choice than.
The devour hope thing makes no sense. Why would you get a kill for every token? The killers can obviously go back to the hook, this is fixing camping not tunnelling and of course fast killers will be better at that, they could already go back faster, that's not changed. As for the make your choice thing, the killer always can choose between the wounded survivor and the saviour, how does my idea change that. That's why make your choice is such a bad perk.
You get a token if the person is unhooked and than you just go back and tunnel them to get the kill. So if you play efficent you get only one token and than you go killing the survivor.
Buffing fast killers like Billy and Nurse makes them way too strong and that would damage the experience for all survivors because they just come to a point where nearly every player plays them and than they get killed really fast.
Hag maybe needs some buffs, but that would make her broken and really a pain in the ass to play against.
Other Killers like Freddy are than again less viable so you would overall more devide the killer into viable and not viable. That's also not a good idea.
(Just realised that the Pig and Myers would also get a buff from this. But this buff would not make the game better for survivors.)
The idea of make your choice is that you only need one hit to down the survivors. You are right, that won't change. But if you have the choice between downing the rescueer with one hit and hook them or downing the rescued survivor and kill them there is no choice to be made. You always go for the survivor which you can kill instead of hooking the other survivor for the first time.
Make your choice would only be viable if the rescueer was already hooked but you lost him. The perk is already a situational perk; you have to leave the hook and than it only helps you if you find the rescueer first. So decresing the window where it is useful would make him worse.And fixing camping but than on the other hand buff tunneling really hard does not make the game better.
---edit---
@No_Cluie_Louis I think we are talking past each other. Everything I wrote so far was about the idea from Mercury. You earlier wrote "how would my idea change that" (or something like that) and I just want to make clear, that I haven't talked about your idea so far.
I just gave you an upvote because I like every idea that punishes camping without any downside for survivors like yours.0 -
Of course I know the idea is flawed. But can people finally grasp the concept that general camping is part of the game and devs have told us many times it's supposed to be in the game?
If you want to stop camping make it rewarding for the killer to leave the hook. If you pressure us into leaving by 'nerfing' it like this, I don't see myself going away. I'd just play even closer and safer to the hook. Have a nice little chat with you as we hang around.
2 -
### hell with the people who keep posting for camping to be fixed or nerfed...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS3DvvOQI04
And they always post the exact same stupid idea as the last one which the devs tried and was abused during ptb so devs decided that camping will never be punished.1 -
They ought to require survivors to complete a complicated skill check to get someone off of a hook.
Or rather than the OP's suggestion, why not radically speed up the time it takes to be sacrificed for each additional survivor within a certain distance. Might encourage survivors to get the **** away.
How many times have you hooked a survivor knowing that there are 2 others sneaking around, waiting for you to turn your back for 2 seconds. They just sit there, waiting by the.....wait, wait.....do....do survivors camp?0 -
A similar idea have been tested in the previous PTBs.
And it has been so heavily abused that devs instantly removed it.Camping is already fine and fair : you're not supposed to get unhooked everytime. If you would, it would make getting hooked rather trivial, especially for a 1v4 game.
1 -
@Lord_Technopapst said:
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Lord_Technopapst said:
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Lord_Technopapst said:
@Mercury said:
It's always punishment instead of reward. Why not make it, that if a survivor is unhooked outside of the killer's terror radius, the survivor is dead upon next hook, skipping the summoning phase. There, fixed camping.That would buff camping on Billy, Nurse, Wraith, Hag (maybe even Huntress; she just have to aim with a hatchet towards the hook) and Insidious. Also this would make Devour Hope and Make your Choice complete useless.
How would it buff those killers and wouldn't it improve make your choice and devour hope?
The killer can easy go back to the hook after a rescue and just kill the survivor pretty easy. Devour Hope would kick in after 3 survivors are already dead because after every token you get you can kill someone. And why should you chase someone (even if he is exposed by make your choice) if you can kill the other one instead. You don't get anything from make your choice than.
The devour hope thing makes no sense. Why would you get a kill for every token? The killers can obviously go back to the hook, this is fixing camping not tunnelling and of course fast killers will be better at that, they could already go back faster, that's not changed. As for the make your choice thing, the killer always can choose between the wounded survivor and the saviour, how does my idea change that. That's why make your choice is such a bad perk.
You get a token if the person is unhooked and than you just go back and tunnel them to get the kill. So if you play efficent you get only one token and than you go killing the survivor.
Buffing fast killers like Billy and Nurse makes them way too strong and that would damage the experience for all survivors because they just come to a point where nearly every player plays them and than they get killed really fast.
Hag maybe needs some buffs, but that would make her broken and really a pain in the ass to play against.
Other Killers like Freddy are than again less viable so you would overall more devide the killer into viable and not viable. That's also not a good idea.
(Just realised that the Pig and Myers would also get a buff from this. But this buff would not make the game better for survivors.)
The idea of make your choice is that you only need one hit to down the survivors. You are right, that won't change. But if you have the choice between downing the rescueer with one hit and hook them or downing the rescued survivor and kill them there is no choice to be made. You always go for the survivor which you can kill instead of hooking the other survivor for the first time.
Make your choice would only be viable if the rescueer was already hooked but you lost him. The perk is already a situational perk; you have to leave the hook and than it only helps you if you find the rescueer first. So decresing the window where it is useful would make him worse.And fixing camping but than on the other hand buff tunneling really hard does not make the game better.
---edit---
@No_Cluie_Louis I think we are talking past each other. Everything I wrote so far was about the idea from Mercury. You earlier wrote "how would my idea change that" (or something like that) and I just want to make clear, that I haven't talked about your idea so far.
I just gave you an upvote because I like every idea that punishes camping without any downside for survivors like yours.oooooh i get you now, i thought you were talking about my idea not mercury's so i didnt understand any of your points. Yeh i totally agree with you.
1 -
This was tried in the first year this game was out. I believe it was a PTB around October or November of 2016.
It didn't actually fix anything.
So now they're doing what myself and other old-school killers have been saying forever - incentive or reward the killer for leaving the hook. And they have done so firstly by rewarding more bloodpoints for the hook and less for progressing the sacirifice. They've done so by adding at least 3 perks I can think of off the top of my head that rewards the killer for immediately leaving the hook.
Let this idea go please. It's so simple, so surely it was already tried. Hell, just google it and I'm sure you'll see the hundreds of times we've already seen this idea brought up and shot down.
1 -
You shouldnt punish a killer for having someone on a hook. You should reward him for chasing another person instead. Why is it always punishment instead of rewarding. Killer objective: Hook a person. BUUUUUT!!!!!!! you can't stay close, or else you will be punished!
2 -
@Mercury said:
It's always punishment instead of reward. Why not make it, that if a survivor is unhooked outside of the killer's terror radius, the survivor is dead upon next hook, skipping the summoning phase. There, fixed camping.Not bad
0 -
The current meta especially high rank forced all killers to camp. You just have to camp
If you play the style of going after another person not caring for the person on the hook, you're guranteed to lose, at most with 1 kill or no sacrifice
Your suggestion on survivors health not dropping has been done in the past. it didn't work well and the devs removed it. though the suggestion for your unhook outside of killer terror radious is good.
Survivors getting 3 lives on high rank posed too much of an issue. Forces all killers to tunnel, you just have to tunnel. if you don't the other guy can get off 3 times more wasting you alot of time rather than you focusing on one person and killing him.
As much as i love to go around survivors instead of camping, on higher ranks its simply not possible. gens are done way too fast, you lose so much time chasing survivors instead of focusing on killing one survivor
1 -
I’d would like to see how a ptb would play out with a perk that killers can use that grants 10% reduction to speed of gens for survivors each time the killer hooks someone effects last idk 30-60 seconds? It would give an incentive for killers to chase as well as slow down gen rushing.
The survivors could get a 5-15 second speed increase to running while a survivor is hooked perk.
It encourages killers to chase ,and survivors to be chased.
Just thoughts I really don’t care. I think the game is fine for the most part. I think there should be buffs on both sides instead of nerfs. If you don’t like the way things go change your playstyle or use perk builds to support your playstyle.
1 -
Why not just make the sacrifice go slower if the killer is nearby and has not been in a chase for x seconds? So if survivors are camping nearby the hook and you know about that you just have so see them to be in a chase and the sacrifice would go on normally.
So if a killer knows that survivors ale also camping by the hook he has to just find then and turn back -> so survivors have to leave the hook so that the sacrifice goes slower and start gens -> that would force the killer to search/chase them
Seems like a good idea to me. What do you think?And yes, I know that this would cause heavy problems for high ranks killers like @Someissues said. I don't think that there is a way to fix camping etc. without making another problem. But maybe, if you also think about the problems which are coming from that and try to fix them as well, it will work out at the end without making DBD a complete different game.
2 -
The dev's could always put a way into the game to stun the killer briefly, just long enough to unhook a survivor and start running. Similar to the stun with firecrackers in F13. It would give survivor's an option to get around camping without punishing the killer too severely. As a killer main, I would be ok with this sort of addition to the game. I suppose the issue with this is the use of the stun outside of countering camping. It would be an issue with chases.
Or, maybe if a killer swings and hits the hook post, they get stuck briefly while they pull free (enough time to unhook etc). This way it wouldn't allow a perk or item to cause frustration outside of anti-camping but would also reward those survivors who can bait and juke when near the hook. Rewards bold play for survivors with a healthy BP chunk to boldness (which i find the hardest criteria to fill when playing survivor) and provides a counter to camping killers.
1 -
Camping is fine as it is right now. The problem is Survivors feeding the campfire and even providing some marshmallows for it. Most matches, even after the usual signals and a quick scout reveal a hard patrol or legitimate camper, people still go for the unhook right in the Killer's face. The Altruism points, even if someone is rehooked immediately, are ridiculous. If they actually manage a good save, horribly rare, they can post it on their YouTube account and polish their ego.
Once Survivors start playing smarter and quit feeding the Camper, it's use will become much more situational instead of how it is right now. There is absolutely no reason for people to play how they do now against a Camper, but it's their game so they can play how they want even if it screws up the rest of the match.
1 -
I had rare match today and landed 4/4, which was virtually handed to me. Got the first survivor on the hook and had 2 other survivors on my ass trying to get the one down, and they did, which resulted in the virtual instant death of that first one being hooked 3 times in quick succession. I never left the hook because the survivors would not leave. Their altruism got them killed, and pretty quickly. I got called a "camping #########" after the match.
I sometimes can't wrap my head around the level of entitlement I see from some survivors.2 -
@Runiver said:
A similar idea have been tested in the previous PTBs.
And it has been so heavily abused that devs instantly removed it.Camping is already fine and fair : you're not supposed to get unhooked everytime. If you would, it would make getting hooked rather trivial, especially for a 1v4 game.
camping isn't fine and fair, the game may be easier for survivors but it's controlled by the killer. at the moement> @DasMurich said:
I had rare match today and landed 4/4, which was virtually handed to me. Got the first survivor on the hook and had 2 other survivors on my ass trying to get the one down, and they did, which resulted in the virtual instant death of that first one being hooked 3 times in quick succession. I never left the hook because the survivors would not leave. Their altruism got them killed, and pretty quickly. I got called a "camping #########" after the match.
I sometimes can't wrap my head around the level of entitlement I see from some survivors.
Fully understand where your're coming from as i actually play more killer than survivor and the same thing happens to me all the time. But even you can see as i can see form the way you said it that their over altruistic behaviour lead to their downfall, when really it should have just made the game slightly harder. If the nerf i suggested was in place, you would have got 2 kills but the other 2 could have time to get away and go back to generators. I think too many people think i'm a toxic survivor main and aren't thinking about the potential to this idea.
0 -
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Runiver said:
A similar idea have been tested in the previous PTBs.
And it has been so heavily abused that devs instantly removed it.Camping is already fine and fair : you're not supposed to get unhooked everytime. If you would, it would make getting hooked rather trivial, especially for a 1v4 game.
camping isn't fine and fair, the game may be easier for survivors but it's controlled by the killer. at the moement> @DasMurich said:
I had rare match today and landed 4/4, which was virtually handed to me. Got the first survivor on the hook and had 2 other survivors on my ass trying to get the one down, and they did, which resulted in the virtual instant death of that first one being hooked 3 times in quick succession. I never left the hook because the survivors would not leave. Their altruism got them killed, and pretty quickly. I got called a "camping #########" after the match.
I sometimes can't wrap my head around the level of entitlement I see from some survivors.
Fully understand where your're coming from as i actually play more killer than survivor and the same thing happens to me all the time. But even you can see as i can see form the way you said it that their over altruistic behaviour lead to their downfall, when really it should have just made the game slightly harder. If the nerf i suggested was in place, you would have got 2 kills but the other 2 could have time to get away and go back to generators. I think too many people think i'm a toxic survivor main and aren't thinking about the potential to this idea.
The game is totally in control of the survivors.
One of them may get caught and camped, eventually, which is "out of his control, once he get caught", but other than that, if survivors do play accordingly, the killrate of most killers won't exceed 0,6 out of 4.
Just watch Marth's Experiment.0 -
@Mringasa said:
Camping is fine as it is right now. The problem is Survivors feeding the campfire and even providing some marshmallows for it. Most matches, even after the usual signals and a quick scout reveal a hard patrol or legitimate camper, people still go for the unhook right in the Killer's face. The Altruism points, even if someone is rehooked immediately, are ridiculous. If they actually manage a good save, horribly rare, they can post it on their YouTube account and polish their ego.Once Survivors start playing smarter and quit feeding the Camper, it's use will become much more situational instead of how it is right now. There is absolutely no reason for people to play how they do now against a Camper, but it's their game so they can play how they want even if it screws up the rest of the match.
But that idea works both ways, as survivors get used to killers camping, so just assume they always have to go in for the save even if the killer in nearby. It's not just the survivors feeding the camper, the camper is also feeding the survivors. Just because survivors are OP right now doesn't mean people should look at this idea only from a killers perspective. Camping is stupid as its the killer essentially taking the game hostage just because he's salty. At the moment that salt is justified, but i'm talking about a future where the 2 roles are balanced
0 -
@Runiver said:
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Runiver said:
A similar idea have been tested in the previous PTBs.
And it has been so heavily abused that devs instantly removed it.Camping is already fine and fair : you're not supposed to get unhooked everytime. If you would, it would make getting hooked rather trivial, especially for a 1v4 game.
camping isn't fine and fair, the game may be easier for survivors but it's controlled by the killer. at the moement> @DasMurich said:
I had rare match today and landed 4/4, which was virtually handed to me. Got the first survivor on the hook and had 2 other survivors on my ass trying to get the one down, and they did, which resulted in the virtual instant death of that first one being hooked 3 times in quick succession. I never left the hook because the survivors would not leave. Their altruism got them killed, and pretty quickly. I got called a "camping #########" after the match.
I sometimes can't wrap my head around the level of entitlement I see from some survivors.
Fully understand where your're coming from as i actually play more killer than survivor and the same thing happens to me all the time. But even you can see as i can see form the way you said it that their over altruistic behaviour lead to their downfall, when really it should have just made the game slightly harder. If the nerf i suggested was in place, you would have got 2 kills but the other 2 could have time to get away and go back to generators. I think too many people think i'm a toxic survivor main and aren't thinking about the potential to this idea.
The game is totally in control of the survivors.
One of them may get caught and camped, eventually, which is "out of his control, once he get caught", but other than that, if survivors do play accordingly, the killrate of most killers won't exceed 0,6 out of 4.
Just watch Marth's Experiment.I don't think people read where i said this nerf would be ideal in a future where the roles of survivors and killers are balanced, and not in the game in its current state.
0 -
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Runiver said:
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Runiver said:
A similar idea have been tested in the previous PTBs.
And it has been so heavily abused that devs instantly removed it.Camping is already fine and fair : you're not supposed to get unhooked everytime. If you would, it would make getting hooked rather trivial, especially for a 1v4 game.
camping isn't fine and fair, the game may be easier for survivors but it's controlled by the killer. at the moement> @DasMurich said:
I had rare match today and landed 4/4, which was virtually handed to me. Got the first survivor on the hook and had 2 other survivors on my ass trying to get the one down, and they did, which resulted in the virtual instant death of that first one being hooked 3 times in quick succession. I never left the hook because the survivors would not leave. Their altruism got them killed, and pretty quickly. I got called a "camping #########" after the match.
I sometimes can't wrap my head around the level of entitlement I see from some survivors.
Fully understand where your're coming from as i actually play more killer than survivor and the same thing happens to me all the time. But even you can see as i can see form the way you said it that their over altruistic behaviour lead to their downfall, when really it should have just made the game slightly harder. If the nerf i suggested was in place, you would have got 2 kills but the other 2 could have time to get away and go back to generators. I think too many people think i'm a toxic survivor main and aren't thinking about the potential to this idea.
The game is totally in control of the survivors.
One of them may get caught and camped, eventually, which is "out of his control, once he get caught", but other than that, if survivors do play accordingly, the killrate of most killers won't exceed 0,6 out of 4.
Just watch Marth's Experiment.I don't think people read where i said this nerf would be ideal in a future where the roles of survivors and killers are balanced, and not in the game in its current state.
That ideal future isn't happening before 2-3 years of patches, when the game will very likely be deserted.
I mean, just to implement a very few changes to DS, it's gonna take a whole 1 year and 9 months~
I doubt making plans for the "future" is a great thing in this game, unless you plan a long term relationship.0 -
@Lord_Technopapst said:
Why not just make the sacrifice go slower if the killer is nearby and has not been in a chase for x seconds? So if survivors are camping nearby the hook and you know about that you just have so see them to be in a chase and the sacrifice would go on normally.
So if a killer knows that survivors ale also camping by the hook he has to just find then and turn back -> so survivors have to leave the hook so that the sacrifice goes slower and start gens -> that would force the killer to search/chase them
Seems like a good idea to me. What do you think?And yes, I know that this would cause heavy problems for high ranks killers like @Someissues said. I don't think that there is a way to fix camping etc. without making another problem. But maybe, if you also think about the problems which are coming from that and try to fix them as well, it will work out at the end without making DBD a complete different game.
I thought about taking in to account if survivors are nearby at first, but then i realised when someone is face camping purely due to salt, the survivors have to gather round to try and make a group effort at saving. When this happens the killer usually runs at them for a second to scare them off so the idea wouldn't work.
0 -
@Someissues said:
The current meta especially high rank forced all killers to camp. You just have to campIf you play the style of going after another person not caring for the person on the hook, you're guranteed to lose, at most with 1 kill or no sacrifice
Your suggestion on survivors health not dropping has been done in the past. it didn't work well and the devs removed it. though the suggestion for your unhook outside of killer terror radious is good.
Survivors getting 3 lives on high rank posed too much of an issue. Forces all killers to tunnel, you just have to tunnel. if you don't the other guy can get off 3 times more wasting you alot of time rather than you focusing on one person and killing him.
As much as i love to go around survivors instead of camping, on higher ranks its simply not possible. gens are done way too fast, you lose so much time chasing survivors instead of focusing on killing one survivor
I'm having to keep saying this but i was suggesting this idea in an ideal future where the 2 roles of killers and survivors are balanced, which isn't the game in its current state.
0 -
@Nick said:
You shouldnt punish a killer for having someone on a hook. You should reward him for chasing another person instead. Why is it always punishment instead of rewarding. Killer objective: Hook a person. BUUUUUT!!!!!!! you can't stay close, or else you will be punished!I get where you're coming from, but the worst campers who will not leave the hook for anything are camping off of salt. No incentive will stop them from getting their revenge, but you can still make it hard for them to get said revenge. Maybe what i should of done is suggested a punishment and reward system in this idea.
0 -
@Mercury said:
Of course I know the idea is flawed. But can people finally grasp the concept that general camping is part of the game and devs have told us many times it's supposed to be in the game?If you want to stop camping make it rewarding for the killer to leave the hook. If you pressure us into leaving by 'nerfing' it like this, I don't see myself going away. I'd just play even closer and safer to the hook. Have a nice little chat with you as we hang around.
I said further to a comment like this: "I get where you're coming from, but the worst campers who will not leave the hook for anything are camping off of salt. No incentive will stop them from getting their revenge, but you can still make it hard for them to get said revenge. Maybe what i should of done is suggested a punishment and reward system in this idea."
0 -
@AlexAnarchy said:
[BAD WORD] hell with the people who keep posting for camping to be fixed or nerfed...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS3DvvOQI04
And they always post the exact same stupid idea as the last one which the devs tried and was abused during ptb so devs decided that camping will never be punished.I don't know how many times i'm gonna say these 2 things, but i should have added a punishment for staying AND a reward for leaving, also this idea was for an ideal future where the roles of survivor and killer are balanced, which isn't the case in the games current state.
0 -
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Nick said:
You shouldnt punish a killer for having someone on a hook. You should reward him for chasing another person instead. Why is it always punishment instead of rewarding. Killer objective: Hook a person. BUUUUUT!!!!!!! you can't stay close, or else you will be punished!I get where you're coming from, but the worst campers who will not leave the hook for anything are camping off of salt. No incentive will stop them from getting their revenge, but you can still make it hard for them to get said revenge. Maybe what i should of done is suggested a punishment and reward system in this idea.
Its not getting better if you fight salt with salt. Punishing is never the answer
0 -
See, this is what I cannot understand given the premise of the game.No_Cluie_Louis said:@DasMurich said:
I had rare match today and landed 4/4, which was virtually handed to me. Got the first survivor on the hook and had 2 other survivors on my ass trying to get the one down, and they did, which resulted in the virtual instant death of that first one being hooked 3 times in quick succession. I never left the hook because the survivors would not leave. Their altruism got them killed, and pretty quickly. I got called a "camping #########" after the match.
I sometimes can't wrap my head around the level of entitlement I see from some survivors.
Fully understand where your're coming from as i actually play more killer than survivor and the same thing happens to me all the time. But even you can see as i can see form the way you said it that their over altruistic behaviour lead to their downfall, when really it should have just made the game slightly harder. If the nerf i suggested was in place, you would have got 2 kills but the other 2 could have time to get away and go back to generators. I think too many people think i'm a toxic survivor main and aren't thinking about the potential to this idea.
Why should I have only gotten 2 kills when survivors will not get out of my face? Why should any of these killers be neutered even further to compensate for a player's stupidity? Why? There is literally no reason for this!
This is blue ribbons for everyone. This participation trophies. Holy ****.
If a survivor, or victim, carelessly and arrogantly walks up to a supernaturally powered psychopathic butcher of humans then that person should die! Plain and simple!
I could possibly be coming off as a bit of an ass but I seriously can't wrap my head around it.0 -
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Lord_Technopapst said:
Why not just make the sacrifice go slower if the killer is nearby and has not been in a chase for x seconds? So if survivors are camping nearby the hook and you know about that you just have so see them to be in a chase and the sacrifice would go on normally.
So if a killer knows that survivors ale also camping by the hook he has to just find then and turn back -> so survivors have to leave the hook so that the sacrifice goes slower and start gens -> that would force the killer to search/chase them
Seems like a good idea to me. What do you think?And yes, I know that this would cause heavy problems for high ranks killers like @Someissues said. I don't think that there is a way to fix camping etc. without making another problem. But maybe, if you also think about the problems which are coming from that and try to fix them as well, it will work out at the end without making DBD a complete different game.
I thought about taking in to account if survivors are nearby at first, but then i realised when someone is face camping purely due to salt, the survivors have to gather round to try and make a group effort at saving. When this happens the killer usually runs at them for a second to scare them off so the idea wouldn't work.
But that's a situation where it would work. If someone is salty and facecamps the others have more than enought time to do the gens and open the exit. And if they are fast enough they can still save the other person and escape.
To "fix camping" does not mean that nobody is doing it. That will never happen. It's about making it really useless like giving the others enough time to easily escape the match.0 -
And once again - people seem to completely miss the true core of the camping issue.
CAMPING IS CAUSED BY THE SURVIVORS
Some of you need to watch Marth's group from time to time. If somebody is getting camped, they just gen rush to counter. It hurts the killer's score every time.
Most of us who aren't newbies as killers KNOW that it's better to chase somebody else because we feel the generator pressure without prompting and chasing somebody instead of camping effectively pulls 3 people off gens. HOWEVER....
If somebody does a save before I walk 10 steps away - you just guaranteed a tunnel. You just robbed me of time I need people off generators by rescuing them that quickly so I need that guy dead. I also hate being rescued when the killer is nearby, so you bet your ass I'm going to try to hurt your Benevolance score with a quick knock down.
If you make yourself obvious bait, I'm not going to take it as being obvious like that insults my intelligence. I'm not a chump that's easily baited. I suspect somebody else is nearby in that case... so I've gotten the 3 people I want off gens off the gens. Why should I leave at that point? At the most, I might fake a quick run just to bait your teammate out. Now who's the chump?
If you are being chased and you run around the hook, you've more or less forced the killer to be in the area.
Yes, some killers are always going to camp. That can't be helped. But if you want to them to stop, you have to stop encouraging the behavior by engaging in survivor behavior that doesn't force the camp.
1 -
@Nick said:
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Nick said:
You shouldnt punish a killer for having someone on a hook. You should reward him for chasing another person instead. Why is it always punishment instead of rewarding. Killer objective: Hook a person. BUUUUUT!!!!!!! you can't stay close, or else you will be punished!I get where you're coming from, but the worst campers who will not leave the hook for anything are camping off of salt. No incentive will stop them from getting their revenge, but you can still make it hard for them to get said revenge. Maybe what i should of done is suggested a punishment and reward system in this idea.
Its not getting better if you fight salt with salt. Punishing is never the answer
Well you need something to convince the killers not to secure that one kill, and the only thing that's gonna convince such a thick-skulled moron is an automatic 4 kill for leaving the hook.
0 -
@SaltyKiller said:
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
I've come up with this idea for a way to nerf camping and i'd like to know what people think as well as ways to improve it and weather it would work. I know this game is unfair to killers so this post seems ridiculous but this idea is if the game was balanced, what the perfect fix to camping would be.The longer and the closer a killer is near a hooked survivor, the slower the survivors death progression on hook would be and the slower the killers movement speed would become. The affects caused by the killer standing close to the hook would persist at a strength corresponding to how close and for how much time the killer was standing by the hook even after the killer had left the area, and would only end when the survivor is killed or rescued. If the killer continued to stay near that hooked survivor, the affects would continue to increase up to a maximum strength. These would be around 60% as the minimum movement speed a killer can be slowed to and 30% the normal speed a survivor dies on a hook. These limits however would take a while of close range camping to reach, Eg: 60 seconds of standing within a 8 meter range or 120 seconds of standing in a 16 meter range. You may say that after 100 seconds you would be dead anyway however the affect wouldn't suddenly start, it would gradually increase the longer and close the killer is to the hook. After a survivor is rescued, the affect would persist for another 10 seconds corresponding to whatever strength it was up to when the survivor was saved. All these statistics could be affected by new perks for both killer and survivor, speeding up and slowing down the rate at which the affects increase in strength. By the way none of the statistics i used earlier would be used, they were just examples to show how the affects would increase in strength. Feel free to tell me what you think and make improvements.
I just wanted to let you know that after the Tinkerer re-work goes through I'll stick Insidious on my P3 Leatherface just for you, breh.
Firstly whats that got to do with the tinkerer re work (which sounds amazing by the way) and second ))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))): why???
-1 -
@FrenziedRoach said:
And once again - people seem to completely miss the true core of the camping issue.CAMPING IS CAUSED BY THE SURVIVORS
Some of you need to watch Marth's group from time to time. If somebody is getting camped, they just gen rush to counter. It hurts the killer's score every time.
Most of us who aren't newbies as killers KNOW that it's better to chase somebody else because we feel the generator pressure without prompting and chasing somebody instead of camping effectively pulls 3 people off gens. HOWEVER....
If somebody does a save before I walk 10 steps away - you just guaranteed a tunnel. You just robbed me of time I need people off generators by rescuing them that quickly so I need that guy dead. I also hate being rescued when the killer is nearby, so you bet your ass I'm going to try to hurt your Benevolance score with a quick knock down.
If you make yourself obvious bait, I'm not going to take it as being obvious like that insults my intelligence. I'm not a chump that's easily baited. I suspect somebody else is nearby in that case... so I've gotten the 3 people I want off gens off the gens. Why should I leave at that point? At the most, I might fake a quick run just to bait your teammate out. Now who's the chump?
If you are being chased and you run around the hook, you've more or less forced the killer to be in the area.
Yes, some killers are always going to camp. That can't be helped. But if you want to them to stop, you have to stop encouraging the behavior by engaging in survivor behavior that doesn't force the camp.
i'm not talking about that kind of camping as it's fully justified, i'm talking about when a salty killer doesn't like that he was outplayed, or even worse he's just a complete arse and he decides to camp with no real reason. As a killer main i totally agree that its their fault if they stand around the hook because they're too cocky.
-1 -
@Lord_Technopapst said:
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
@Lord_Technopapst said:
Why not just make the sacrifice go slower if the killer is nearby and has not been in a chase for x seconds? So if survivors are camping nearby the hook and you know about that you just have so see them to be in a chase and the sacrifice would go on normally.
So if a killer knows that survivors ale also camping by the hook he has to just find then and turn back -> so survivors have to leave the hook so that the sacrifice goes slower and start gens -> that would force the killer to search/chase them
Seems like a good idea to me. What do you think?And yes, I know that this would cause heavy problems for high ranks killers like @Someissues said. I don't think that there is a way to fix camping etc. without making another problem. But maybe, if you also think about the problems which are coming from that and try to fix them as well, it will work out at the end without making DBD a complete different game.
I thought about taking in to account if survivors are nearby at first, but then i realised when someone is face camping purely due to salt, the survivors have to gather round to try and make a group effort at saving. When this happens the killer usually runs at them for a second to scare them off so the idea wouldn't work.
But that's a situation where it would work. If someone is salty and facecamps the others have more than enought time to do the gens and open the exit. And if they are fast enough they can still save the other person and escape.
To "fix camping" does not mean that nobody is doing it. That will never happen. It's about making it really useless like giving the others enough time to easily escape the match.That's actually a really good point, i kinda forgot i said they would die slower as well. Thanks for the idea.
-1 -
@Lord_Technopapst said:
Why not just make the sacrifice go slower if the killer is nearby and has not been in a chase for x seconds? So if survivors are camping nearby the hook and you know about that you just have so see them to be in a chase and the sacrifice would go on normally.
So if a killer knows that survivors ale also camping by the hook he has to just find then and turn back -> so survivors have to leave the hook so that the sacrifice goes slower and start gens -> that would force the killer to search/chase them
Seems like a good idea to me. What do you think?And yes, I know that this would cause heavy problems for high ranks killers like @Someissues said. I don't think that there is a way to fix camping etc. without making another problem. But maybe, if you also think about the problems which are coming from that and try to fix them as well, it will work out at the end without making DBD a complete different game.
I just reread this comment and i understand you now. I think how it could work then is if the killer gets in a chase, the strength of the affect starts going back down again at a faster rate to what it rises at, the moment he ends the chase, it would start rising again. I still believe the slowed moment speed is necessary as if the killer does decide to keep face camping despite the survivors going and doing all the gens, the survivor will keep dying just much slower and will eventually need rescuing. If the killer has decided to face camp, their needs to be a chance of that happening. Soon i'm gonna make a second version of this thread with the updated version of the idea.
0 -
I wish I got a euro every time someone made this suggestion, I'd be so rich by now
0 -
@SaltyKiller said:
I'm really sick of people who don't know what what editing means.?
0 -
@salty_jim said:
I wish I got a euro every time someone made this suggestion, I'd be so rich by nowMaybe people should stop denying the idea straight away, and instead work together to improve it so it actually works. Also ik it wouldnt work in the game in its current state.
-1 -
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
i'm not talking about that kind of camping as it's fully justified, i'm talking about when a salty killer doesn't like that he was outplayed, or even worse he's just a complete arse and he decides to camp with no real reason. As a killer main i totally agree that its their fault if they stand around the hook because they're too cocky.
Your mistake is assuming he doesn't have a right to do so. Hell, I used to camp certain Nea's because their zebra pants offended my eyes. Gotta problem with that? Too bad, it's on the survivor to prevent me from catching them.
The behavior itself is discouraged, but not banned by the devs. To call something that is well-within the rules of the game "Toxic" is silly.
By the way, this part where you said "a salty killer doesn't like that he was outplayed" - it's a tactically sound idea to take a difficult target permanently out of play. It's not toxic just because you disagree with the strategy.
0 -
@FrenziedRoach said:
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
i'm not talking about that kind of camping as it's fully justified, i'm talking about when a salty killer doesn't like that he was outplayed, or even worse he's just a complete arse and he decides to camp with no real reason. As a killer main i totally agree that its their fault if they stand around the hook because they're too cocky.
Your mistake is assuming he doesn't have a right to do so. Hell, I used to camp certain Nea's because their zebra pants offended my eyes. Gotta problem with that? Too bad, it's on the survivor to prevent me from catching them.
The behavior itself is discouraged, but not banned by the devs. To call something that is well-within the rules of the game "Toxic" is silly.
By the way, this part where you said "a salty killer doesn't like that he was outplayed" - it's a tactically sound idea to take a difficult target permanently out of play. It's not toxic just because you disagree with the strategy.
The reason i called the thread camping fix is because i think it's broken. Yes it does work at getting a survivor out of play and it isn't against the 'rules' , but it shouldn't do and it shouldn't be. It's people who think its a good strat that ruin the game. Any game can be played in a toxic way, even board games. Its called cheating and its the easiest thing in the world. You can easily not get caught and it makes the game easier, but it's no fun for you or the other people playing. I play both roles in DBD but mostly killer and I've never been able to understand why anyone would want to play like that, and think the way you seem to think.
0 -
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
The reason i called the thread camping fix is because i think it's broken. Yes it does work at getting a survivor out of play and it isn't against the 'rules' , but it shouldn't do and it shouldn't be. It's people who think its a good strat that ruin the game. Any game can be played in a toxic way, even board games. Its called cheating and its the easiest thing in the world. You can easily not get caught and it makes the game easier, but it's no fun for you or the other people playing. I play both roles in DBD but mostly killer and I've never been able to understand why anyone would want to play like that, and think the way you seem to think.
Alright: How to fix camping - Fix Looping.
If you fixed Looping there no longer would be a profound reason to camp someone to death. Right now if I let that person who just looped me for three minutes go, that work was in vain. I will no longer feel inclined to camp, if you fix that problem.How about survivors drastically slow down, when they run through the same two pallets or windows over and over again? And their pallet throw down animation only happens at 30% speed once 60 seconds have passed.
0 -
@No_Cluie_Louis said:
The reason i called the thread camping fix is because i think it's broken. Yes it does work at getting a survivor out of play and it isn't against the 'rules' , but it shouldn't do and it shouldn't be. It's people who think its a good strat that ruin the game. Any game can be played in a toxic way, even board games. Its called cheating and its the easiest thing in the world. You can easily not get caught and it makes the game easier, but it's no fun for you or the other people playing. I play both roles in DBD but mostly killer and I've never been able to understand why anyone would want to play like that, and think the way you seem to think.
First off, suggesting a way to fix camping - there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I'm open to suggestions that haven't already been tried and turned out to have failed.
Secondly, I also play both roles. I have 800 hours in this game spread over almost 2 years now. I prefer killer mostly because I can't stand dumbass teammates - not because I hate the survivor role.
What I take issue with is people acting like players who play within the rules as Toxic because they don't fit their "model" of how a game should be played.
I play by the letter of the rule, not the "spirit" of the rule. And the devs have stated time and time again that camping is allowed. So doing so is within the rules. To say it's cheating when it's clearly not is childish and not the rulebook I'm playing out of.
Players can make all the rules about the "proper way" to play all they want, but it doesn't change the simple FACT that their rules are completely made up and not the canon.
Just because I choose to keep things uncomplicated and not navigate the perplexing maze of made-up rules that players put and play well within what the game allows me to do does not make me Toxic.
I understand that this game was built from the ground up to be PvP. This means I should never expect any player who is my opponant to pull any punches with me - therefore I should not pull any punches with them. Why should I stop running ruin when people run DS? Why should I not tunnel or camp when people loop difficult loops? No quarter asked, none give is what I should expect from every game. When I'm survivor, I will loop. When I'm killer, I will tunnel or camp if the situation warrants it. Ultimately, I'm looking to win by any tool available to me in game. And to call me Toxic for using those tools is silly.
Look, if you want to lamblast the design of the game, then be my guest. But don't put labels on players who wish to play the game their way within the boundries set upon them by the game. Don't call somebody a cheater or toxic because they don't play in a manner you disagree with that. Make that distinction, and we'll get along just fine.
0
