Anti face-camp will force killer buffs.
Weaker killer's kill rates will dwindle with anti-face-camp. Think about it, the amount of times a weak killer defends their hook and ends up getting a 2-3k because teammates were trying to unhook, face-camping 70% of time does not result in just 1 kill, especially if done early on it could easily cause for a 2-3k which boost kill rate stastics.
With anti-face-camp however, these statistics that BHVR loves to use in order to justify not buffing weak killers due to good kill rates for these reasons will plummet for most killers.
This is just my opinion, let me know what you think.
Comments
-
Nothing wrong with that, i am okey with healthy strategies. Killing camping is very wellcome
8 -
Ironically I find that ‘weaker’ killers camp less than the stronger ones. And the ‘weaker’ killers do fine in my matches.
Post edited by Ayodam on12 -
Hm, if the stronger killer isn't too good at the game I guess so, seen countless basement trappers , inf t3 myers camping hooks though.
0 -
When I wrote this I meant it to be as a positive thing, weaker killers may finally get attention from BHVR
0 -
Agreed. Good huntresses are the most likely people to face camp and tunnel in my games. Weaker killers in my experience usually only camp when the gates are powered which is justified.
5 -
No it won't. They said they don't want this system to affect proxy camping. All this change should be doing is punishing killers that face camp when they get a hook and the grab game early in a hook state.
https://deadbydaylight.com/news/anniversary-gameplay-updates/
0 -
The system currently affects proxy camping though. They announced the mechanic goes out to 16 meters, which isn’t face camping at all.
0 -
It's not that far off, though.
Facecamping is standing close enough to the hook to prevent a rescue, which given speeds in this game would be, what, ten to twelve metres? Add a little extra distance to dissuade killers from just standing on the very edge, and sixteen does seem like a reasonable number.
It's all speculation until we can test it, of course, but I personally feel like proxy camping involves a patrol route further than that sixteen metre radius.
3 -
What if it takes 60 seconds of the killer standing at 16m for the survivor to be able to unhook themselves? What if the system takes a few seconds for it to kick on? They can make it so proxy camping is unaffected by the mechanic and players looking to sit right next to hook the entire time are punished. It being up to 16m doesn't really mean anything without the full numbers for the mechanic.
4 -
16 meter happens to be Kindred range. When I camped for pressuring the team instead of securing a kill, I wanted them to come for rescue, so I was already aiming to be outside of that.
Not that I regularly see Kindred in trials anymore, but it's lovely that I don't have to learn a new distance to keep. :]
0 -
I'm back after taking a long break. Been playing the Texas Chainsaw game and creating content for that game. My opinion on this? GOOD! I can't count how many games this "tactic" ruined. Just wastes time for everyone! Neither side are playing as intended... I can't wrap my head around why people are against this. It's silly!
Edit: I'm not against bad killers getting buffed. That's a good thing!
2 -
Considering that facecamping used to mean "a killer standing so close to a hooked survivor that it's preventing other survivors from unhooking, because swivel hooks didn't exist back then, and facecamping literally used to 100% make it impossible to unhook"....
.... It's ok if people want to evolve the word to mean "directly next to a hooked survivor", but 16 yards is completely unreasonable.
0 -
"Directly next to" only matters if the killer can change gameplay because of it. Ergo, facecamping is standing close enough to the hook that you can interrupt a save. Add in a little extra radius to encourage actually leaving instead of standing slightly further away, and you get a larger radius than you might necessarily consider facecamping in a vacuum.
0 -
What I think is that every action causes a reaction. When this changes go live, they will have an eye how it runs until next PTB. They collect data, read feedback and will adjust stuff because of it. Some things will receive buffs some others nerfs. So pretty much like always.
0 -
No. 16 yards is not "adding a little extra radius". Also, "directly next to" and "close enough to interrupt a save" are not equivalent statements.
If BHVR wants to call this an anti-camping mechanism, then fine.... but 16 yards being considering facecamping is completely unreasonable. Why is BHVR going through all this effort to massively change the definition of facecamping? Why won't they just admit it's an anti-camping mechanism? It would be the right thing to do.
Edit: Or even better, they can make up a new term, like "close camping", so they aren't breaking the existing definitions of face camping and proxy camping.
0 -
They're not equivalent statements, no. Because "close enough to interrupt a save" is the one that matters, and "directly next to" is the one that doesn't; if you're close enough to interrupt a save, it doesn't matter exactly how close, that's the range where standing still and camping is a problem, and thus the range that any anti-facecamp methods should be looking at. Facecamp vs proxy camp has been more about whether you're patrolling or standing still for a while now, anyway.
Of course, I'll reiterate, it could be that the extra radius added is too much and it has to be shrunk. We'll have to test it to be sure.
0 -
There also needs to be testing of what the killer is supposed to do if a survivor purposely stands on the opposite side of the hook, just out of facecamping range.... and forces the killer to either run through the facecamping range, or forces the killer to awkwardly walk around the facecamping range in a giant circle. It would be even worse if two survivors were doing this (so the killer and both survivors are in a triangle shape, right outside the facecamping range), where the survivors are trying to bait the killer into entering the facecamping range. And yes, survivors would try to bait the killer into entering the facecamping range.
The survivor radius might need to be larger than the killer radius, to stop this from happening.
0 -
Maybe, that's a concern- though in that scenario you're not exactly being forced into a lose/lose, at least. That's three people occupied, that's about as much value as you should be aiming to get from any single hook.
Still, there's plenty to test on the PTB.
0 -
It has to go further out otherwise killers can just bypass the mechanic entirely. As long as it takes a long time at 16m then I don't see it being a problem for proxy camping. They also have 6 months to refine the system.
0 -
That's fine. If the kill rates drop then BHVR will make changes to bring them back up. I don't see the issue with that. I only see a camper maybe once every 12 or so games so I don't anticipate much change in my survivor games.
0 -
negative.
BVHR barely changes any killer powers. just to give an example, they announced Twin rework a long time ago and the change is still not in the game. in general they take long time to change anything about a killer and often what they change is irrelevant sometimes. Artist got some add-on changes but no one is going to use in a serious build because they are not good functionally. whenever they do change anything major about a killer that is relevant, there is always some push-back on the change immediantly which does not help. Pyramid head change was pretty decent buff to him but push-back regresses any change. DBD stays in a status quo.
0 -
That's the entire concept of game balancing. Nerfing or removing unhealthy or one-sided interactions that hold back proper balancing of characters, then adjusting accordingly.
Everytime someone screams "But that's the only way I have to win!!" is being shortsighted, because they could be trading an unfun interaction (Staying still for several minutes to get a kill or two) for some buffs or QoL changes that could position them back to 55% win rate by doing something interesting.
3 -
If the anti-facecamping measures result in lower kill rates, that's good. It means many killers were being boosted by facecamping and artificially inflating kill rates, which means non-facecampers were indirectly handicapped. Any resulting buffs because of this will be welcome.
0 -
I think for some they don't care about trading for buffs or QOL, they care about easy. It comes down to 'what is the best way to win with the least amount of effort?'
The path of least resistance always wins
1
