Why i play skull merchant

The op never said they rub it in the face of survivors. They could very well be polite and kind in post chat, we have no way of knowing that. Asking them to not play Skull Merchant and if they do not play them the way you like ever is a bit entitled. I understand disliking this killer and their playstyle. I also dislike Nurses and Blights who sweat even one peron DC'd or killed themselves on hook and make fun of them.

But it's a stretch to try and put a moral spin to a post like this and talk about community (which community again? We don't even know what server OP plays in).

And if you wanna make comparison asking people to self-regulate cause the company is untrustworthy or something is like saying we can solve environmental pollution by using paper straws and cups etc. and accept it as individual responsibility and refuse to address the ones who produce the most pollutants because you're pessimistic. It won't solve the problem, just put a cover over it. You shame OP out of playing Skull Merchant but you can't get to every Skull Merchant main out there who feels the exact same way or people who play her in comp etc.

For a long while I thought survivor's rulebook was an exaggerrated story killers read to each other before going to bed, but in some of the posts I've read today I'm starting to doubt my assumption so far.

Which is allowed and facilitated by the creators themselves.

3-genning is a strategy available for every killer in the game granted they bring specific perks and it has been meta in the past and can still be. Skull Merchant simply takes that strategy and specializes in it the same way Sadako specializes in slugging (or at least used to more) and Bubba in camping. Those killers have a clear identity and concept in them, just cause they're adding anti-facecamping mechanic doesn't suddenly mean Bubba's camping ability got nerfed, it didn't. He can still camp just fine, he'll just be a bit more far away. I don't think Bubba (face)camping will be solved with this change.

Should we punish people who play him and shame them when they go for this intended style, despite BHVR attempting to address this part of the game but not touching the worst offender of all? It's the same argument for Skull Merchant, I don't think they wanna remove this part of her gameplay they just want to probably tune her. She'll still be a boring killer to face because that will most likely remain her core identity/playstyle. Isn't it funny how after Hens made a video about an hour long Knight game back in the Eruption meta BHVR saw that and created a killer who's ability is just that? It's not an accident, even when she's addressed she'll still be here to stay. Maybe they intend her to be on the same level as Blight and Nurse strength wise but with a low skill floor for whatever reason. That's basically someone updating the ruleset, it's an official source. You cannot arbitrarily claim she's not intended by game design, it's exactly the argument many killers make about SWF and discord. Maybe she was not intended a year ago, but BHRV added her and now she's intended. And again, you can see that from her prototype Knight. It wasn't a lab freak accident, it was a pretty calculated design. They're just trying to ironing her wrinkles. When they completely rework her and she's not a 3-genner anymore I'll be able to accept your point more easily.

There's just no point in going into the thread and trying to make an argument that a person who plays Skull Merchant is immoral. First of all reacting in such a manner over a game is too dramatic and second they're basically not breaking any rules, nor has BHVR ever made a statement regarding players who main SM are exploiting her and should be ashamed or something.

I get the point, thanks for the mansplaining there.

My point is the overaction to it is just laughable.

Essentially what is being said is "my fun is ruined because I had to play more DBD"

If the strategy continues to result in extended highly one sided games I'm sure it will be looked at, in the meantime people can try and play it out and move on or they can keep attacking each other about it as some kind of moralistic affront to gameplay out to ruin people's enjoyment. I know which strategy I'm taking and its far more pleasant.

Well the OP has tried to explain they are not out to ruin other people's fun and don't harbor any malicious intent to do so.

So this idea is already null.

I'm sorry but tactics that you don't like aren't game ruining and the intent of players who use them is often not because they are out to maliciously ruin your fun.

If you paint every scenario you don't like with that brush its very easy to get into a cycle of blaming other players for your lack of enjoyment and that's just self destructive when it comes to your own fun.

Something you don't like by all means say I don't like this and here's why, but to say people who do what I don't like should only play against bots is something entirely different.

That's a game design flaw for the devs to look at.

You can still progress the game but at the moment its often too difficult to do so without dying so it needs changing

Its not really holding the game hostage as players can still attempt to progress the objective. (If BHVR has a different opinion on this they are welcome to correct me).

So rather than sit in game for 1 hour and moan about it, try and break the 3 gen and die trying if it comes to that.

If you are annoyed by the duration then bleeding out in 4 mins is shorter than hiding for 60.

Measurable in game outcome that is skewed will lead to change quicker than going around saying "such and such ruined my fun!" If you do say hey this doesn't work then you gotta frame it as "Hey this doesn't work" not "if some does this they are a jerk" these are the two different things which is my point.

One is an objective measure the other is a subjective opinion.

Until then much like other broken tactics that don't break any game rules you might face it in game. How you choose to react to that fact is often what dictates how legitimate your opinion is when it comes to game design.

Stop assuming the worst as people's motivation.

Its just as bad a habit and as I have said to you before clouds your objectivity.

Ah you are also resting on your assumptions.

I've never said its not a bad design and I've never had a go at anyone who had a logical take on "this is bad and why"

But its a legit game strategy and people are going to play it if they can. So until it gets patched out we should expect to face it and try and find ways to beat it.

Now does that make the people who play it terrible people in reality? No it doesn't.

But folks like you are hell bent on labeling the motivation of such players as purely malicious and out to ruin the fun.

Taking this moralistic stance and then using it to justify attacking each other online over something as trivial as a game.

That's incredibly unpleasant and breeds the kind of player toxicity that DBD is known for.

Stop assuming a player's motivation is some form of purposeful malicious attack on your fun. Such assumptions are clouding your judgement and likely making you more reactionary over a game.

If you don't agree with this assessment of your post, then lets highlight the fact that you've assumed my motivation here, that I'm complacent about bad design, I'm not but I know the difference between attacking game design and attacking other players for no good reason.

Ask yourself which are you doing?

Is that genuinely the case because I've been eventually downed and bled out or hooked by every one of them that I've faced. Which only equates to about 4 times online.

So I see it very rarely and when trying to break the 3 gen I died each time and moved on.

Now if you are stuck in game with someone whom doesn't even swing at you and just walks around in circles kicking gens report that person they are stalling the game.

Doesn't sound to me like that is the motivation of the OP though.

So are we going to just assume all players who try 3-gen SM are out to stall the game and maliciously ruin your fun?

Or do you just assume that at game start and then quit having never really verified if they are by trying to play it out?

The topic I'm discussing is players making assumptions and how they act in game and treat each other outside game on the basis of those assumptions, the catalyst for this could be anything it just happens to be 3-gen SM in this circumstance.

It's relevant because the OP made a whole thread explaining why they enjoy playing 3-gen SM and I don't really see any malicious intent in their explanation, but that didn't stop the drooling masses from getting all riled up about it.

Typical to just go for the "they are a toxic person ignore them" rather than engage with the topic.

The topic is does your assumptions about other players motivation affect your ability to interact with them in a civil manner?

Nothing in this game is so bad, even completely broken mechanics, that players can justify being so critical, to the point of abusive in some cases, of each other outside of game. Leading to players feeling the need to post justifications for way they may play.

Ask yourselves how often does my preconceived notion of "good play" influence my opinions and assumptions about other players and lead to me having a negative attitude toward them as a person outside game?

That's the foundation of player toxicity, before we even get to mechanics.

Hypotheticals can be fun but when using them as examples of motivation in choice tests for social isolation, context matters. Trust me I do that for a living.

In DBD loss of agency is part of the game, it should expected.

The fact that loss of agency is built into the game means that taking advantage of loss of agency is part of the game. So if a player doesn't find loss of agency fun then DBD may not be the game for them because loss of agency is the very goal of one side.

Slug, hook, dead all represent loss of agency.

Killers don't tend to lose agency so again if loss of agency is the problem then killer is the role that should be played.

Capitalizing on the mechanic of loss of agency as the game expects is not inherently being a jerk.

This is where your child example falls apart because it requires the child to have complete understanding of the social construct of the scenario and children often lacking that will make the decision that best benefits them in the moment.

So Jimmy will take the ice cream and win but that doesn't make him a jerk, because he was offered a loaded choice to begin with. This why I don't do hypotheticals with real world contexts for in game events, the rationale for the answer doesn't stack up outside of the most rudimentary desire to make a point. Making it a weak way to illustrate the point.

Can player's leverage the lack of agency that DBD provides to achieve victory? In the context of DBD yes they can.

Should they? sure if they want to, because the mechanics of the game and achievements are built around that concept.

"If I was playing a board game with people and I intentionally slowed it down, I'd be a jerk", Really even if the goal of one side was to stall the game, is every killer who runs a gen slow down build a jerk? Healing slowdown build are jerks?

The whole process of the killer game is stalling for time, guess that means anyone who plays killer is just a jerk by your given example. Again CONTEXT.

So back to the topic there is a strong way to stall the game right now, and it's too strong. Using it is a very good idea if you want to stall things and have as much time as possible to achieve your goals.

It is not inherently malicious, but if you immediately classify anyone who tries it as a jerk out to ruin your fun, because in a different real world context it would be seen as jerk behaviour, then basically everyone is a jerk and your conclusion is as flawed as your assumptions.