http://dbd.game/killswitch
Unpopular opinion: you arent being camped or tunneled
Comments
-
- Yes. Note 'reasonable'. The commonly accepted definition of tunneling is focusing one player out of the game, exclusively.
- His post was super long and meandering, in my defense.
3 -
- No, that's not "the commonly accepted definition", it's just one of multiple definitions. I've seen plenty of people use the word "tunneling" to refer to simply ignoring bodyblockers to chase an injured person, for instance.
- Also, even using the definition you are, there's absolutely nothing wrong with focusing one player out of the game.
- I agree, that post was really long, no doubt. I'm personally not one to cast stones about that, though, I've certainly made my own fair share of long posts. ๐คทโโ๏ธ
0 -
sigh
i never said he wasnt widely played or you or anyone else didnt face a bunch of camping bubbas. So im going to ignore that as once again you bring nonsense into this discussion.
Yes, that's what tunneling is. There's no special pleading for 'it was late game'. If I camp someone out at EOGC, I'm still camping them out. Now, again, you could say 'well, it's fine to camp and tunnel if it's necessary', but again - that's not what you said. Just because you are starving, doesn't mean you aren't eating the puppy.
If you are allergic to pine trees, do you tell people you are allergic to Trees? or do you tell them you are allergic to pine trees?
Pine trees are Trees but when you are referencing a SPECIFIC type of tree you use a more precise term. This is fundamental to language.
In the case of DBD, you and I both know that not all types of tunneling is bad, but all tunneling is grouped under one label and tunneling is overwhelming viewed negatively when it should only be one particular type.
Therefore, because when we communicate you want to be clear what you are communicating we need
- tunneling to SPECIFICALLY refer to the early game forcing someone out OR we need to use a DIFFERENT term to refer to the Ok types of tunneling instead of using one single term for multiple different things. EGC "tunneling IS different that early game "tunneling".
- proxy camping isnt just called camping is it? its called proxy camping because its different from face camping. and my argument was by definition it is not camping, assuming you actually leave the hook irregardless of whether you return to the hook later.
If you are going to continue to shoehorn irrelevant things into your replies in an attempt to discredit my statements or whatever your trying to do, please dont bother replying.
0 -
As a wise man once said: "I'm a man of few words". Then he left the stage.
Yeah, going to call this here. We're going in circles.
4 -
I do hope you have a good rest of your day/night!
1 -
All tunneling and camping is fair. They're valid strategies. They are boring and frustrating, but fair and valid all the same.
Proxy camping is still camping, regardless of definition. Tunneling is still tunneling, regardless of when it happens.
You've gone out of your way to state that tunneling is not tunneling, it's just the killer making an intelligent decision. You've gone out of your way to say that proxy camping isn't camping because you're going from A to B, then back again. Because it's just playing SMART.
You can't argue that these strategies do not exist because you want to redefine them to fit your argument. You don't have to avoid using these strategies. It's entirely up to you how you want to play.
3 -
This tickles me
5 -
I have no stated that tunneling is not tunneling, please re read.
i aslo showed how proxy camping is by definition not camping even if its colloquially referred to as such.
I never said such strategies did not exist but defined them into a more accurate manner.
as i went into great deal with above, it is important when communicating to be accurate with communication. Since "tunneling" has multiple different forms and presumably the gripe with tunneling isnt with EVERY form of tunneling, but with a particular type of tunneling then its important to use SPECIFIC terms to denote what exactly you are talking about.
When someone says tunneling is bad, do they mean ALL forms of tunneling and if they mean a specific kind of it then we need to have a term that denotes that.
but as it stands people just throw terms around willy nilly instead of attempting to be more accurate with what they say.
1 -
You are the grandpa we have, but the one we donโt deserve.
Spot on. People seem to forget about the part where there are other human beings on the other end. Like I donโt think people complain because they want sympathy. They just want to play the game and not have to play the part of sacrificial lamb for a match where they have most likely waited a long time to get in. I think that is a fair complaint, regardless of how much of a โstratโ it falls under.
1 -
So...you really see nothing wrong with facecamping someone out at 5gens or slugging people and bleeding them out with knockout?
Honestly no I don't. Its just gameplay. Thematically appropriate gameplay I might add.
Now I get why other people might say they don't enjoy it because like I said its a pvp game my version of fun may not be someone elses, but I play it for the survival horror experience and when I get that I really enjoy it.
0 -
I see where you are coming from.
It could be argued that the threat of elimination is what makes the game exciting.
Imagine what DBD would be like if you just kept respawning and never died, killers just got increasing points based on how many times they killed you.
The gameplay would become very bland, there'd be no reason not to just play bold and fearless all the time. Every game would just be a farming session.
Its that threat of elimination and non participation that drives players to want to escape, to avoid the killer etc. Without it DBD loses something, it would be really mind numbing and fail to capture the visceral nature of survival horror.
I appreciate the fact that you can be taken out in some very nasty ways because that element is integral to the very theme of the game.
People may say its annoying when they get eliminated early or can't participate for the duration but escaping the threat of those things is the core motivation for playing survivor, sometimes that will be hopeless but that's ok its survival horror.
Its a problem when you compare game length to queue times but that's a player population/match making issue not really a gameplay issue.
1 -
Man, i'm gonna make a game where a killer chains you to a wall in their basement with no escape and comes down to kill you after 24 real hours so I can watch you enjoy the sheer thematically appropriate thrill.
It'll be the horror sequel to Desert Bus.
3 -
Your not being tunneled. a killer's making an intelligent decision and going for someone who is injured near you in many cases a good idea. Not always but often it is.
This is saying that tunneling is not actually tunneling.
I have often been accused of camping when i hook someone literally travel to check 1 or 2 gens and patrol back to hook, then go away do the same until the unhook.
This is proxy camping. Proxy camping is a form of camping. The definition you use for camping works for games like Call of Duty, not so much for Dead by Daylight.
Tunneling is when EVERYONE else is ignored the whole game till the killer gets you out. this is RARE. (again speaking from someone who plays in NA)
Tunneling does NOT exist when 3 gens have been done. when there are 2 gens done the killer needs to get outs.(and 3 gens are often done in the first few mins depending on a few variables)
This is tunneling, and then you expressly state that tunneling ceases to exist when 3 gens are done. They're contradictory statements.
This forum constantly whines about camping and tunneling and i have seen time and time again what people claim is tunneling and camping. And your not being either.
This argument implies that people are mistakenly calling these valid strategies tunneling and camping.
When 2 or less gens are left there is no camping or tunneling, it makes zero sense.
And once again, you are saying that tunneling and camping cease to exist at 2 gens.
There is actual camping and actual tunneling and i am 100% confident that 95% of these complaints arent either of those.
You redefined tunneling and camping to suit your argument because you disagree with 95% of those complaints.
Tunneling is very simple. If you're targeting someone who's just been unhooked, you're tunneling. Anything beyond that is irrelevant.
Camping is also very simple. I'll break it down into three types.
- If you're not moving away from the hooked survivor, then you're Face Camping.
- If you're patroling from the hooked survivor (Point A) to an area a short distance away (Point B) and back again, you're Proxy Camping.
- If you're staying close to the hooked survivor with Insidious or a killer power that grants undetectable, or you're just hanging about in general, then you're Camping.
Generally, people can't agree on what constitutes tunneling but they can agree on what isn't tunneling.
0 -
Does it really matter?
People play how they want to, everyone has the own definition of what is fun or not.
Some people find sitting on a hook un-fun were as others think standing inside the exit gate wasting everyone's time is fun.
1 -
I mean, proxy camping by definition is camping within dbd. That's why the word camping is in the term, and it isn't universally referred to as proxying. But good job
4 -
I realise itโs in jest but even as a joke it kind of demonstrates that youโve missed the point.
Hanging on hook isnโt the fun part itโs just part of the game. Itโs survival horror not torture porn.
Trying to avoid getting caught is whatโs thrilling, the more punishing the threat the more the thrill of avoiding it.
Itโs why I miss old moris, mechanically they were problematic because being eliminated in 2 mins wasnโt great but the threat of being eliminated in 2 mins made those games more intense.
You really didnโt want to get caught so you tried really hard not to be. That made the game fun and exciting.
Sometimes youโd fail and it was punishing if you did but, Survival horror is punishing itโs not โtry not to be inconvenienced horrorโ, its try and survive usually against all odds.
DBD is at its best when it emulates that. When it doesnโt itโs often a lacklustre game experience.
โyou just like campingโ is basically the gag you cooked up here but thatโs just idiotic. Nobody likes being camped but itโs the threat of something like camping that motivates you to try and escape, without it the game is a just a mechanically dull points farm.
1 -
The gag was actually "you're willing to excuse some serious chicanery for the sake of The Thematicsโข", but sure.
5 -
Well yeah. I value the theme over the pvp experience in this scenario.
Mainly because what people complain about is stuff that is kind of essential to the game.
Why are you trying to escape if the fog isnโt scary terrible place to be?
0 -
I mean, I'd rather be afraid of the killer because he's powerful and threatening instead of being afraid of the killer because the player behind it might waste my damn time for no reason so they can power trip.
6 -
You make a couple of really good points, I especially like the aspect of proxy camping, because patroling gens and the hook is not camping as it leaves a faire chance to rescue.
But what I think you didn't talk about enough, is the fact that Killers are supposed to play purposly "bad" so the survivors get the most amount of fun out of it, while Survivors are perfectly fine to play however they want. They don't care if the Killer has fun when they run shack for the billionth time or abuse the save window in the main building. Same thing with Items, which are imo overpowered (I knlw from Survivor perspective it often doesn't look like it, I play both sides, but as Killer you notice for example how much time a decent toolbox saves a Survivor).
So why have Killers follow strict rules of what they are allowed to do, because they have to respect the fun Survivors have, but Survivors can do whatever they want? That I think is the main problem. Either both sides follow stupid rules or none of them (I'd prefer the second posibility, because as another comment I saw explained quite well, that's kind of what this game is about, but you can have your own oppinion if you want).
PS: Pardon me if there are many typos, I'm writing this on my phone as I won't be home for a couple of days.
1 -
Itโs kind of like facing tombstone Myers every game. Itโs not scary just very annoying
1 -
Counterarguement: yes you are and killers need to grow the ######### up. If you want to play like an ######### you have absolutely right to do so. And the survivors have absolutely every right to call you out for out. Learn to take it not just give it.
1 -
Counterargument, DbD is a player elimination game and survivors who complain they got โtunneledโ after they got eliminated first should grow up and killers are right to call this out. Learn to take the loss and move on.
1 -
Define strong then because it sounds like strong killers are those who can catch and eliminate you but then the reply is Myers is annoying because he is strong and can eliminate you. Add to that anti loop is annoying, stacked slowdown is annoying, slugging and bleeding out is annoying, global effects and triggers like nightfall are annoying, anything that threatens players ability to progress the game as they please is apparently annoying.
Lets face it what people want is a strong killer that canโt actually prevent you from playing or eliminate you, in that scenario what makes the killer strong?
Then after all that you have to play fair because itโs not fun to be eliminated so there is one way to play which is largely detrimental to the killer objective.
So what is it about killers that people want to be strong because anything thatโs strong appears to be unfair and annoying.
So youโd rather be afraid of the killer because heโs powerful and threateningโฆ I donโt believe you.
Sounds like the โpowerfulโ killer you want is as unthreatening as they come because there is zero game consequences to being caught.
1 -
I feel like you'd get more out of a movie, dude.
2 -
EXACTLY. I mean I get if you are playing stupid, you keep running into the killer and they smack you down. I have had people attack us in a group, and consistently every single time go for me, not even being the obsession. I'm like bruh, I get it you want to win, but quit bullying, it's a game, let someone have fun. X.X
0 -
I often stream a movie while playing DBD.
I enjoy DBD but I play it like its a horror movie, that's when the game really shines.
0 -
People play it like a horror movie for the first two digit hours of playtime, since they don't understand everything and the exposure hasn't worn down their fear.
After that, it's just a multiplayer game. And that's what almost everyone plays it as. I don't know how you play it like a horror movie without either throwing or playing with new players.
3 -
To each their own. You get the horror experience by playing viciously as killer and to avoid the killer as best as you can as survivor.
Both play styles lend themselves to victory.
0 -
Okay, yeah, we both agree on that. Survivors surviving and killers killing is well and good.
But can/will you not draw any distinction between hooking all your slugs and finishing the game, and having the full ability to do so, but refusing to and letting them bleed out because you want to waste their time and they can't stop you?
0 -
Yeah Iโd agree there is a distinction to those two scenarios. One is definitely less player friendly.
That said while Iโd rather hook everyone because itโs more points, Iโd never be annoyed if someone else chose not to and let folks bleed out because hey itโs thematic.
When that happens I try to crawl away and hide as best I can. If Iโm the last one to bleed out I may get a lucky hatch spawn. It has happened before which was really gratifying.
Iโm still in play so Iโm gonna play the best I can with what I have.
0 -
Okay, then why does "I don't want to be afraid of the killer because he might waste my damn time for no reason" become a lie to cover up the fact that I want weak killers?
0 -
The game isn't built around 'not being caught'.
The problem is that the game doesn't know what it's supposed to be about. If it's about not getting caught, why do killers get aura reading perks and abilities? Those fully negate the idea of hiding from killers. Generators also can't get done if all everyone does is just hide.
So then it becomes about running the killer. But then there's killers that specifically try to counter that by making loops harder or impossible to do.
Additionally, the game was built from the ground up to give every survivor THREE chances. Slugging, camping, tunnelling all break that core concept down. It's fine if a killer can put you on the hook, but it's not fine if you then stay on that hook until you die. It's also not fine if you get off the hook and immediately get downed again and go back on it. It's also not fine if you get slugged and spend the next two minutes lying on the floor, unable to act.
It's fine if there's consequences to being caught. It's not fine if the consequence is that queue + load time < actually playable time.
1 -
The annoying part is the BP deny, playing solo Q is already punishing and if you're tunneled it's just infuriating tbh, DS doesn't help that much especially against blight, nurse, spirit...
being the main focus of the killer should be more rewarding in BP and you will see less players complain, it's not like it's hard to generate a lot of points with killer even in my worst matches with 1-2hooks I finish close to 20k, then people wonder why survivors don't use their event cakes
0 -
Most survivors do zero to prevent camping or tunneling:
- Unhooker disappears and only a loud crying injured survivor is there.
- They pop two gens before going for the unhook. Of course I will go back to guard the hook in such case.
- Unhooked survivor pops a gen in your face.
And many other...
0 -
Just because it is in the name it doesn't mean it is.
Example: I am not a donkey, even if I have donkey in my name.
0 -
DBD is an elimination game for both sides. Things would be different if the killer could pop a completed generator and make it go back to 75% progress.
Survivors generally only play and think about one side.
0 -
Usernames are, no offence, a terrible analogy.
3 -
My name is Grandpa Crack Pipe. That doesn't mean, however, that I am an actual grandpa.
Conclusion? Old people don't have grandchildren.
Checkmate.
3 -
Saying that it is camping because it is called "proxy camping" is, no offense, a terrible reasoning.
1 -
So what you are saying is not being caught doesn't help you complete your objective as survivor?
What are you doing in chases if you aren't avoiding being caught?
Even if your goal is to waste the killers time by distracting them so your team can get gens done that involves not getting caught.
The whole premise of survivors is to escape by completing gens and opening gates, participating in this means not being slugged or hooked which means not being caught by the killer.
Its pretty clear what the game is about in fact I'd say its blaringly obvious.
The only part of that makes any sense is "It's fine if there's consequences to being caught. It's not fine if the consequence is that queue + load time < actually playable time." That is a player population/match making issue not a gameplay issue.
Post edited by pseudechis on0 -
But generally semantics don't make great arguments either.
The name is arbitrary the point is how people define the in game behaviour.
0 -
I mean 'not getting caught' as in 'not being found'. Which isn't feasible in the game, most of the time.
And no, it's not a matchmaking/server population issue. Or rather, it's not just down to that. It is absolutely a gameplay issue that camping, tunnelling and slugging exist -at all-, all of those being able to cut gameplay time down tremendously. In my view, camping in particular is a lynch pin for a ton of very egregious balancing issues, and a lot of the game's more glaring problems can't be solved as long as camping exists.
0 -
I didn't say it was a lie to cover up you wanting weak killers, that implies intent to deceive which is not the goal...
What I mean by "I don't believe you" is you say you want to be afraid of strong killers but I think that's a disingenuous sentiment.
Because you, and many players, seem to be very anti the tools strong killers have, simply because those tools can be used for tactics that players might find annoying but overall are just gameplay, often very thematic gameplay.
Obnoxious play is often frowned upon and there is a lot of it I'm not a fan of either, but its still just gameplay and while its within the bounds of the rules people are free to do it if they wish.
The big problem with online gaming is people let events in the game upset them and that spills out into the real world with people abusing each other over something as silly as a game mechanic.
The bleed out timer is the solution to lying on the ground a player is under no obligation to hook you. I mean lets try and cook up a solution that isn't just an exploitable mess.
You get to stand up for free if slugged for too long?
Shorten the bleed out time so its really quick?
Maybe for each slugged survivor the bleed out timer shortens that way if you are all 4 slugged out then it ends quicker?
Let people suicide on the ground? (maybe after 1 min of bleed out? if all 4 are slugged?)
None of these options are very good.
0 -
Oh, i'm not a liar, i'm just willfully deceptive. The distinction is appreciated.
I mean, we can both apparently agree that slugging to win and slugging to bleed people out are different scenarios. And I said a couple times that I don't like the latter scenario. Because it's a completely unnecessary timewaster, you could just end the game right there, but you won't out of spite.
But that apparently means I can't be okay with the former scenario.
No, dude. If a blight slugs us to clean out the game at 5 gens and hooks us? That's fine. At least the game's, you know, over. Quick and efficient. Slugging's fine. I don't know why I can't be okay with slugging if I don't smile and say "aw, shucks!" when someone has a power trip and bleeds me out. I have a problem with people in Hearthstone waiting 74 seconds of their 75 second turn timer before hitting the "end turn" button every turn so their timer never gets reduced. Do I have a subliminal problem with people having turns?
I don't know what a perfect, non-exploitable solution to bleeding out would be (my solution is, if everyone is on the ground with no possibility of being picked up, reveal all survivor's auras and let them bleed out 10 times faster after a minute), but I would dare to say the current system is pretty damn exploitable already. Because people are merrily doing it.
0 -
So its a misunderstanding of meaning it happens. consider it resolved.
You make a fair point, I guess where we differ is I don't really see camping as that problematic sometimes its even necessary.
Chasing while the most interactive part of the game is not the be all and end all of DBD gameplay. Sometimes an intense fight around the basement is fine too.
In many games the incentive to chase just isn't there because it often doesn't pay off that's when camping becomes viable.
The devs seem to have this view of the game making hook defense a legit strategy and I kinda agree with them that front. I hope they don't change it. You're welcome to disagree.
0 -
You don't like bleeding out because you feel its a waste of time, you are allowed to feel like that, but its part of the game so you should expect it to happen from time to time.
Personally it doesn't bother me one way or the other because its just part of the game it happens. If my time is going to be 'wasted' as you put it I'd rather it be thematically wasted which bleeding out is.
Would you try your hardest to avoid being slugged and bled out if it was the only death option?
Would the insidious threat of the game ending like that make it more or less thrilling to play?
Just something to think about.
EDIT: I think we have strayed far enough from the OP's topic.
0 -
I mean. Am I allowed to feel that if me feeling that is disingenuous?
And if that was the only death option, I and the vast majority of the playerbase wouldn't be playing the game.
But yes, it has strayed.
0 -
Just to highlight its not feeling that way about bleeding out that's disingenuous but rather wanting to be afraid of strong killers rather than them wasting your time.
A lot of what makes killers strong is going to feel like its wasting your time because its designed to take you out of the game via non-participation and elimination.
So do you really want strong killers or protections from the things that make killers strong?
Now, from the discussion I'm willing to admit that I might have got it wrong because if you are cool with getting wiped out at game start because the killer crushed you with a strong power, then kudos that's some strong killer action there.
But many of the things that make killers strong can also be leveraged in ways that may waste your time. Its kinda taking the good with the bad and I'd rather make that compromise than have weaker killers overall. Is kinda my point.
Its very common to see comments that qualify a statement i.e. "I don't just want easy wins" but then use it to frame a point/argument that would result in just that, easy wins. Nothing wrong with saying hey I want this but don't try and frame it as something its not, I'd happily admit in this case you didn't do that.
This discussion has been fun. ๐๏ธ
0 -
My one and only problem is a completely won and over game being unnecessarily prolonged for as long as possible to keep us from moving on out of spite. A killer using their strengths to waste time to secure the win is completely fine. The problem starts once the win is definitively secured and one person uses their sole position of power to prevent you from getting to the next match and wasting your time if you don't want to eat a DC penalty.
That's all I have to say.
1
