Is body blocking a fair technique?

It's an unpopular opinion but I don't think there should be any bodyblocking in DBD.

It's not fun when Survivors do it to the killer at the end of a game to deny pressure.

It's not fun when a Trapper blocks you and puts a trap at your feet or a LF revs a chainsaw while you cant move.

Remove body blocking and EVERYONE will have more "clean" fun.

This is not an issue with bodyblocking but with rpd, they should make doorwaysway larger.

It would fix the issue with a killer camping but also it would make playing some killers less frustrating, like as blight in the room with the big glass window and a vault you need 4 bumps just to move by 2 meters

Was it the only entrance to the room? If so do a bug report. In the past when a killer can block survivors from getting to hooked survivor - like standing on only staircase to second floor or blocking only doorway - the devs have made adjustments so the stairs/doorway is larger so killer couldn't block survivors from getting to the hook.

I have no idea what you mean by this. If you block off one doorway, there's almost always another doorway in. You cannot bodyblock the stairs unless you're the Twins, and they lose collision after a little bit.

The issue OP has is rare hooks that have only ONE way to get to them and are completely blocked by the killer just standing there. There was a similar issue in RPD's Library that happened very consistently. It was patched.

When it comes to map design, it does suck and killers have it bad a little more than survive. I will agree to this. But heavily favours? You can very easily three gen in most maps and win. I wouldn't call this heavily favouring.

Killers being 2nd fiddle to the devs has no basis in reality. It's actually ludicrous to say that a game that has 60% kill rate for one side is heavily favouring the losing side of that statistic. Sure, stats aren't all, but beyond that is your opinion. And it consists of you being fine with the maps screwing over survivors but are distressed that they do so to killer.

Basement in the main building of Eyrie of Crows, it only has one entrance so if the killer is camping it you're forced to take a hit or go down

One of the RPD maps has the upstairs room the sometimes spawns with the gen. Sometimes a hook can spawn in there, and survivors only have 1 way in, but multiple ways out.

This room right here, it only spawns that way if that side of the map is the closed off part:

I'm sure there are others, but is the first one that comes to mind.

Then you'd get situations where survivors dodge the killer by running directly at them to phase through them, which from the killer's limited FOV would be confusing as hell. Killer could never block a window or a pallet to prevent survivors from running through them. Protection hits would cease to matter. Imagine chasing a 4-man SWF where they all run around with coordination to be a merged survivor blob.

There is not a singular hook where you can prevent survivors to get to it by blocking 1 way. So your made up scenario is totally fair

There’s also one on rpd in the corner next to the art storage room where killer can stand and block any unhook attempts

Pretty much, agreed.

Its not 'griefing' in the same way survivors doing it to ensure their teammates make it out. If they do it, killers shouldn't be blamed for it either. And honestly, if you're going for a last second save before they hit 2nd stage or die on hook and you get punished for it, then thats entirely on you and not the killer. Hell, the killer was probably staying in the area/camping the survivor on hook while you decided to sit on the gen and crank out some more progress.

I have absolutely no problem with a killer doing this. Yea it can be annoying but so is 3 survivors bodyblocking for their 4th teammate to make sure they escape. Gotta look at it from both sides and not just the side you like playing.

I don't get how its not fun to have to be mindful of your surroundings so you don't get blocked in. Its a big part of the game, I'd liken it to friendly fire in shooting games, without it you can just spray bullets like a fool no thought needed.

Having collision on characters makes for all kinds of interesting plays and obstructions that can vary game outcome.

It also adds an element of realism to the physics of the game world and that realism makes up a large part of the game experience, it would be lacking without it.

RPG and Mid both can force survivors to go half way around a map for an unhook.

Do you know the room on Mid that has a ramp with a guaranteed totem? There's one way in that room downstairs. There's one way into that room from upstairs (you can stand on the ramp). This room can have a hook but it is not a guarantee.

The strategy is to stand in the doorway and not swing. This forces someone to go to the opposite corner to get upstairs and then go all the way back around. And when they do that you can just stand on the ramp and wait for them.

On RPD you can hook someone in multiple locations that have a similar effect. For east wing you can hook a survivor by the junction to the library from the main room (right next to the vault). It's literally impossible for someone to sneak past you.

If survivors are ok with body blocking then they need to be ok with hook camping in such a way to force hook states or even death.

Instead of making everyone a ghost, make body-blocking a killer an instant-hit without any time penalty for the killer and call it a day.

-"The definition of fair play is equal respect for the rules from both sides."

I don't agree with your definition; I think the one I gave is a much better fit.

The definition of fair play is when you use an ability and it's fun to be the user as well as having that ability used on you.

Imagine a fps shooter where you get a crazy ability for making a kill streak that allows you to kill more people and get even better killstreaks and better rewards. Would it be fun in a Call of Duty match if someone got 30 kills in a row so they could deploy a tactial nuke that deleted anyone in a 50m circle of a painted target? The answer is no.

It needs to be fun to play as Nurse but it needs to be fun when you play against Nurse. Assuming you have a good understanding of DBD this is true for the most part. But for the majority of DBD's lifetime there has been great consideration about what is fun to play as survivor without any consideration for how it feels to the killer.

No killer main ever said : I sure to love how DH made the game less fun for the killer and made chases longer for no reason.

I saw a discussion recently about the game Among Us and what constitutes fair play. It is possible to prove your innocence by performing certain tasks to other crew members. If you do this with 3-4 crew members then you can be certain that those players are not the imposter. If those players always stick together it becomes impossible for them to lose.

This creates an unfun scenario where you have no chance to win as the imposter when crew members can without a doubt identify other players who have a 0% chance of being the imposter.

If everyone plays this game in this manner then it becomes a pointless endeavor to play the game at all. If you are the imposter then you will lose so the game is not even worth playing.

The problem with this is that new players would get really frustrated because they already suck in chase. Good players would have no issue with collision.

If touching the killer knocked you over and stopped you then it would 100% stop bodyblocking. The killer could knock you over and then swing at the injured player and then turn around to hit you as you stand up. it would be high risk/high reward to try and block a killer from hitting your friend.

"If touching the killer knocked you over and stopped you then it would 100% stop bodyblocking. The killer could knock you over and then swing at the injured player and then turn around to hit you as you stand up. it would be high risk/high reward to try and block a killer from hitting your friend."

Wait, what is the high reward? Sounds like the killer got a down and a health state.

I'm afraid your points are not as strong as you think and neither is your definition of fair play.

Fun doesn't mean fair and vice versa in fact most games a designed to be challenges that are stacked against the player. DBD is asymmetric which creates scenarios that can favor one side over the other this lopsided nature is part of the game design.

Asymmetric games often have lopsided or unfair elements that's what makes them asymmetric and that's actually part of the fun.

Play guaranteeing fun does not mean its fair, in fact the most fun scenarios are often when it falls in your favour rather than being the fair outcome, because fun is so subjective it often blurs what's truly fair.

"imagine a fps shooter where you get a crazy ability for making a kill streak that allows you to kill more people and get even better killstreaks and better rewards. Would it be fun in a Call of Duty match if someone got 30 kills in a row so they could deploy a tactial nuke that deleted anyone in a 50m circle of a painted target? The answer is no." _ Of course no, but you've crafted an example so extreme that the only logical conclusion could be no, this is called "appealing to extremes or reductio absurdum" and is a great fallacy people often commit when trying to legitimize their point if not done properly.

If you have to propose such an extreme example to make your point then your point doesn't stand on its own validity, this is a very common mistake people make when debating.

With that said lets delve into your wider point...

"It needs to be fun to play as Nurse but it needs to be fun when you play against Nurse. Assuming you have a good understanding of DBD this is true for the most part. But for the majority of DBD's lifetime there has been great consideration about what is fun to play as survivor without any consideration for how it feels to the killer." Really? I sincerely doubt that there has been no consideration of killer's fun or how it feels to play killer when making survivor changes, this is another extreme that makes little point.

The DH example is a good one and while changes took a long time, they have been made and DH is in a pretty good spot, its still over-represented though which is why more changes are coming. It doesn't make chases longer for no reason, that's what DH is for to extend chases, that's its purpose.

As for the among us example, coordination between the survivors of any asymmetric survival game always makes it harder for the killer, but it rarely makes it impossible. Among us has some flaws but they can be fixed by improving the subtlety of killing as the imposter. Overcoming coordinated teams in among us is really tough and requires some serious lateral thinking and deception, skills that honestly most people lack. A few extra tools I'd like to see in among us is the ability to force a teams to separate by being able to spread more chaos from greater distance.

"This creates an unfun scenario where you have no chance to win as the imposter when crew members can without a doubt identify other players who have a 0% chance of being the imposter.

"If everyone plays this game in this manner then it becomes a pointless endeavor to play the game at all. If you are the imposter then you will lose so the game is not even worth playing." We've now come full circle to my first point. Among us is still a fun game even when you get the more dull coordinated teams that make it harder to win and to ruin the game entirely it requires everyone to play like this which often isn't the case. Just as not every group of survivors is a coordinated SWF. Remember my point about extremes.

So if you define fair as being tools that are fun for the opponent and define fun as being the ability to win. Then any tool that limits your ability to win could be deemed as unfun and when used in a coordinated fashion deemed unfair. This is just blatantly untrue, and body blocking is a great example. (bringing it back on topic)

Having collision in game opens up all kinds of plays to use it as a tool, which is creative and fun. Both sides can use this tool which is fair, and scenarios where it can be exploited need to be identified and patched out, such as the OP's example of only one door to a hook which can be blocked.

So the OP's question "is body blocking a fair technique?" well not in the specific example they give, but they are asking the wrong question, its not body blocking that's the problem here its the bad map design that allows body blocking to become exploitable.

-"Among us is still a fun game even when you get the more dull coordinated teams that make it harder to win and to ruin the game entirely it requires everyone to play like this which often isn't the case."

So you admit it ruins the game - interesting. But when we consider DBD it's 4 people who usually have each other on their friends list are in a voice call together. That's really easy to coordinate. In other words : it's easily to play survivor in a very scummy way that forces the killer to react in an unfun way. This is basically the last year of DBD content.

-"So if you define fair as being tools that are fun for the opponent and define fun as being the ability to win"

No I'm not accepting this definition either. The one I am using is from a game design article I saw more than 10 years ago. It's not mine and is literally the best definition of fair play I have ever heard.

Is killer fundamentally fun enough? It's probably not when we look at a raw statistics metric considering that most people do not play killer for a significant period of time. Most of the day is 100% killer bonus because not enough people are playing the role. Why on earth do you think that is?

-"If you have to propose such an extreme example to make your point then your point doesn't stand on its own validity, this is a very common mistake people make when debating."

Don't be a parrot.

It's also not as extreme as you think because such a system has existed (in a lesser form) in games and you know what - people hated it. If you make the example of something that already happened easier to explain so that I don't have to give you 3-5 paragraphs about another game then that in my eyes is a smaller crime. But I am fully aware of what you think you are calling me out for.

-"Having collision in game opens up all kinds of plays to use it as a tool, which is creative and fun."

It depends on how the tool is used. Let's look at another game with collisions : Mechwarrior Online. If I'm in an Atlas (100 ton mech) moving at max speed and you're in a Jenner also moving at max speed (35 ton mech) and we have a collision then one of is is getting knocked down. By the way it's not going to be the Atlas.

The collision system in this game was *mostly* fair. If you were moving too fast and hit something you usually fell over leaving you completely vulnerable for enemies to shoot.

One of the gripes everyone had about MWO is that they did not have a kick or punch system. That big Atlas in table top would have gotten a punch as soon as the Jenner got close. The Jenner would not like that any more than you would like to get hit by Mike Tyson. Why was the lack of kicking and punching a problem?

To easily relate this - in DBD you can crouch behind a killer and stop them from moving that way while carrying someone. Were you playing this game when it was possible to block basement stairs while crouching and prevent survivors from being able to be hit or carried to the basement? That was most definitely not "fair play". The survivors could do something that the killer had no way to counter. In a similar note do you remember the old MM map where a killer could just stand above the basement and there was no way to move past him? That was also unfair.

The lack of kicking and punching made getting close to an Atlas have no consequence. In the tabletop you would get mauled by a close combat attack. Since there was no penalty for it people often ran right next to big mechs and prevented them from moving or just moved behind them with impunity. A kick/punch system would have been lore appropriate AND it would have prevented abuse.

Since this game was basically pulled from an existing tabletop game it should have had a kick/punch system. If they had wanted to get really fancy they could have made some grab/throw animations and done some street fighter style cinematics. Did you ever play Street Fighter 2? Essentially the rule was this: if you moved your character to touch the opposing character you should expect to get thrown.

To make a very long sidestory short - If touching a killer knocked you down and stopped all motion for 1 second that would be a stiff punishment. You could still prevent a hit possibly but it would come at a cost. The problem with body blocking right now is that there is literally no cost for it.

A more severe penalty might be : touching the killer or moving through his space makes you exposed for 10 seconds (note this is different than the killer touching you).

See how long we needed to get to an example with no extremes? The extremes are a shortcut to make the point cleanly and quickly.

What's the counter play to body blocking survivors? You needed to "get good" and bring infinite MM with t3, Nurse, Blight or a chainsaw. That's a very dangerous road to go down where some killers stop bodyblocking and others do not.

Most people hate playing against Nurse but I rather enjoy it. I understand her limits so I know how to move to "mess her up". What is the counterplay to a Leatherface who backrevs with the chainsaw when the pallet is used and there is no nearby vault? The limitation on leatherface is that in theory you can't run one green addon and one purple addon every game. Except you can just choose to not play LF until you have more of those addons - it's quite stupid.

-"So the OP's question "is body blocking a fair technique?" well not in the specific example they give, but they are asking the wrong question, its not body blocking that's the problem here its the bad map design that allows body blocking to become exploitable."

You are also asking the wrong question. What game design elements make Blocking unfun/unfair?

I find it hilarious that the only time it's not ok to body block is when you hold someone hostage by pinning them in place.

"So you admit it ruins the game - interesting." um no, you made the point that if everyone played as you described it would ruin the game, not everyone plays as you describe and if it requires everyone to play that way then its not as bad as you think because most people don't play that coordinated, which is my point. Similar to SWF in DBD not every game is against highly coordinated SWF teams but you'd swear it was the way people go on about it. I'm sorry you missed the point here.

You can't reject that definition its your definition not mine.

"Body blocking is not fun for the killer when the survivors do it to the killer. Nor is body blocking fun for the survivor when they do it to a survivor and get a free instant down as a result.

The definition of fair play is when you use an ability and it's fun to be the user as well as having that ability used on you."

You then give examples of how its not worth playing if its unfair and not winnable so to reiterate, your point hangs on the fact that "you define fair as being tools that are fun for the opponent and define fun as being the ability to win" This isn't my definition this is the basis for the points you've made in your examples and why you feel they are unfair or unfun. So if you reject this premise I'm not sure what your point is then because your point kinda requires this to be the case for its coherency.

I don't really have an answer beyond that if you re-read what you've written it all falls apart if you reject the aforementioned statement. Its kinda hard to make a counter point to someone who's already countering their own point. So I'll leave that one.

As for MWO, its a little apple and oranges. A 100 ton Atlas crunching into a 20-35 ton scout mech will knock it down and its great, but the scout mech has a maneuverability that should make it really hard to get that knockdown. That's the trade off, its not fair to match an assault mech against a scout mech but the scout mech has tools to deal with that making it a very effective hunter of assault mechs.

In the right hands that scout mech mech can kill that Atlas via a death of 1000 cuts making this incredibly one sided and unfair match up on paper a much more interesting and varied experience in reality. The simple key is to move quick enough to not get knocked down which the scout mech can realistically do.

The differences in survivor/killer maneuvering in DBD aren't really equivalent to the differences in light/assault mech example. For the example to be valid it requires them to be equivalent that's why it doesn't work.

Its not hard to bump into a survivor even mid chase so the ability to knock a survivor down would need a big increase in survivor maneuverability to counter this very easy to achieve chase ending bump. What's interesting is you attribute a mechanic like that as fun but then dislike collision as unfun without any real basis for the distinction.

"You are also asking the wrong question. What game design elements make Blocking unfun/unfair?

I find it hilarious that the only time it's not ok to body block is when you hold someone hostage by pinning them in place."

I never said the only time its not ok is when pinning people in place, but its what makes the OP's example not ok and that's all they have given as basis for their question, that one example.

So lets, as you suggest, expand on the OP's narrow scenario beyond the singular example given where the problem is clearly map design not body blocking.

You claim there is no cost for body blocking, it costs a health state, as killer you have this big weapon in your hand which you can use to swing at body blocking survivors. If this scenario is stopping you from hooking people then you need to plan your hooks better. You don't need to bring anything more than that to counter body blocking.

There are perks to make it easier to counter but they aren't needed with a bit of game sense. Your basement stairs example, I wouldn't have picked up a survivor with a bunch of others around to block, and I probably wouldn't try for the basement with a crew of survivors that were lining up to block me. But I'd in close so that my chances of getting into the basement were better the next down and direct my gameplay toward the basement rather than away from it if that was my plan.

"To make a very long sidestory short (way to late for that but lets soldier on) - If touching a killer knocked you down and stopped all motion for 1 second that would be a stiff punishment. You could still prevent a hit possibly but it would come at a cost." Explain to me the mechanics of not getting hit if stuck on the ground for 1 second? This makes no sense whatsoever. How is this not more extreme than the body blocking we have now?

A more severe penalty might be : touching the killer or moving through his space makes you exposed for 10 seconds (note this is different than the killer touching you). This is even more extreme for something as simple as collision and is pretty unbalanced and unfair within the context of DBD.

You can't rail against things you think unfair but then offer up just as unbalanced mechanics as counters or alternatives.

See how long we needed to get to an example with no extremes? The extremes are a shortcut to make the point cleanly and quickly."

No they didn't because you are still proposing really lopsided mechanics as equivalent to body blocking. You could have proposed these prior to your first "extreme" example of nuking your opponents in an FPS, (which makes no sense and clearly is a terrible idea that doesn't serve any purpose for your point or mine but lets not go back to it).

Even after all this exchange it still appears that you point is... it seems your dislike of body blocking isn't about fairness its about annoyance that you can't counter it well and feel its unfair. I've said this before and haven't changed that opinion based on what you've countered with.

"A lot of this is unsubstantiated opinion being touted as fact"

Did you play in 2016? It was a complete joke. Look at the old killer vs survivor vault times and infinite windows. The only way we killed people reliably was NOED and the fact that ~15-20% of players tried to escape the hook in stage one so they immediately went to stage two (Where do these numbers come from this is what I mean by unsubstantiated opinion, you say we but I think you mean you, if you needed noed to get kills then great use noed then it's allowed).

Killer didn't get better really until bloodlust was added much much later. And then it was nerfed and DH got added.

DS HD Unbreakable and BT reigned supreme for like 3 years.

You do accept that things have more recently been changed to the positive of the killer player which kinda blows away your "they never consider how it feels to play killer" comment.

"Things got better and things got worse" - I didn't say it was all better but it is generally better than it was.

"Killer is fine - if you're playing the S tier killer at the time with meta perks. - I play trapper and Myers and have a great time, they are hardly "S tier" as people put it.

If I put you up against 10 comp squads in an "anything goes" format where I pick a weak killer for you to play you will be miserable." I probably won't win but yet again this is an unrealistic example because most players won't ever go against 10 comp squads in a row and it shouldn't take that kind of extreme experience to make your point, you say stop being a parrot but you keep continuing to make the same mistake every post.

Polly wants a cracker. I'm sure if you tied your hands behind your back and tried to play with your forehead it wouldn't be much fun either, but it doesn't make a very relevant point.

You said it was 1 step away from miserable which sounds pretty miserable, did you say it was miserable? well yeah you did, you also use miserable play experience as the main example point right above the bit where you ask did I say it was miserable. Its right there just look a paragraph up, I bolded it for you.

Your opinion of the game seems to be that the killer experience is pretty miserable.

Otz can play however he wants to play to maintain his streak its not an indicator of poor game health, and trutalent moans about swf all the time I don't think he's as objective about the game as you make him out to be. He strikes me as a bit of a sore loser.

"No how about we look at the factual evidence. Killer Moris do nothing and BNP's are still wickedly powerful. That's the status quo for DBD balance where killer gets obliterated and survivor gets a slap on the wrist." Why do BNP's and moris have to match each other in power?

Killer Moris do nothing, not a really a fact but they do do less than what they did

BNP's are still wickedly powerful. again an opinion, facts tend to be quantifiable, opinions tend to be vague wicked powerful as measure is an opinion. They definitely don't autocomplete a gen like they used to.

Patch 6.1 was a pretty big buff and QOL change for killers, which skewed the data back in the right direction reducing overall escapes. I liked most of it and don't think things were over tuned but like everything it tends to swing back and forth.

But to claim that survivors get it all and killers get nothing really isn't that accurate.

I agree there shouldn't be rooms that only have one way in.