Do we really need an Anti Face Camp System?
With the implementation of AFCS, I am concerned that the game will become terribly boring for me because the game will become a game in which the game of playing with killers will become bland.
I am concerned that the AFCS implementation will make the game terribly boring, as playing the survivor side in this game has always been as thrilling and rewarding as the chase, or even more so, as you try to outwit the killer or trade roles to get hung, to rescue or not to rescue, and when to go if you do.
With the implementation of the AFCS, however, survivors can simply work quietly to repair generators once they know the killer is camped out. This means less opportunity for the difficult but rewarding and uplifting experience of playing with the killer.
In the past, you have nerfed a number of major perks to broaden the choices of killers, but why would you reduce the choices and narrow the scope of killers with a system? Camping is a tactic, so why take that option away? Not all killers are as highly maneuverable as Nurse, Bright, or Spirit (some killers are slow on their feet, have a wide heartbeat, and have long range attacks but short range and a hit point that is the tip of a needle, remember?) . I'm not convinced that AFCS should be implemented unless the killer can at least get more than camping, or at least as much benefit as camping, by moving away from the person he hanged.
I have been rescued and protected by good senior survivors many times in the past from killers who camped and tunneled. The really good survivors were not only good at chasing, but also at rescuing and covering their allies, and even if they were not in the party, they worked together brilliantly. Their example became my goal and motivation.
However, now that the Bolo Time is always given when rescued, there is no longer a catch when hook rescuing, and strong perks have been implemented (such as situational adaption), playing Survivor no longer feels as tense as it used to. Rescues are no longer as thrilling as they used to be, as you can usually rescue a person by yourself if you are not a cannibal.
If AFCS is implemented, the game will become even more monotonous. If you know you are camping, you can fix the generator while listening to music, and if you know you are not camping or that someone is chasing you in the UI, you can easily rescue them while humming a tune. Or one of them could pretend to go to the rescue from a safe distance, within sight of the killer, to make it harder for the killer to get off the hook, while the other two repair the generator, and the AFCS would be triggered without fail, the hanged person could escape, the generator repair would proceed, and the killer would be the only one suffering. ....and what a mess that would be.
Do those who are in favor of AFCS really think that such an easy work game, where you don't even have to improve, is really fun?
(By the way, the range of AFCS is 16 meters, but is the survivor's face 16 meters long? It doesn't look that way on the screen...)
Comments
-
Do we really need an Anti Face Camp System?
Yes
16 -
"With the implementation of the AFCS, however, survivors can simply work quietly to repair generators once they know the killer is camped out"
This is what we've always been advised to do anyway whenever a killer was facecamping. It's always been touted as the best way to counter camping. I believe the Anti-camping method was made with the hooked person in mind, because they literally have to just hang there and not participate at all.
I'm kind of reserving judgement on it anyway for the time being. I don't camp when I play killer, and I rarely see camping as a survivor, so I don't feel like I'll notice any impact in my games.
10 -
I'll admit, I too have my concerns but I will wait to see the final result.
I do however understand, that this will have an impact on the overall experience of players even when you aren't getting face camped. Removing different killer strategies or nerfing them significantly makes the game more predictable and repetitive. Something that this game already struggles with. I hope the devs will keep this in mind.
7 -
But can't you see how skillfully the killer is outplaying you in those situations?
8 -
No we don't need it.
But, they want it a lot, so like a new car at Christmas, they get one.
=)
4 -
A killer must always be perfect.
Don't blame the survivors no matter how many generator tunnels they dig.
Just because a survivor can't replace the on-hook even after removing the hook grab, don't criticize it as a bad thing.
And if anyone uses his Face Champ from Cannibal as an example, he affirms AFC.
If the survivors escape from hook in the basement, don't let them face the fact that the cannibals can use a small add-on to defeat the survivors before they can get out of the hut.
Their confidence that they are right is shattered.
Survivors are important customers, and management is God. Killers are workers and concierges, so you need to treat them as well as possible.
2 -
Facecamping makes the game boring. Basically it creates 5 AFK players. 1 that should not touch keyboard while on hook or he's throwing. 1 standing right next to hook or he's not facecamping and 3 holding M1 (or not touching M1 any more) on generator. How can you call 5 people being basically AFK "playing the game"?
FACEcamping should have never been part of this game ever. This is one of the problems from inception of the game that just didn't get addressed ever. It's already high time for this problem to go away. Forcing 5 out of 5 players to not touch any controls for optimal play is NOT a good game design. It's SUPER BORING and it should be so for all 5 players (and I presume the only reason why killers are even willing to go thru this boring "tactics" is, because it's still efficient enough).
On the other hand there's proxy camping and that one is valid killer's strategy. AFC should be tinkered so, that survivors can't fool the system into thinking killer facecamped when he only proxy-camped or when he was defending valid things. Removal of facecamp from the game should not make anyone's experience any worse. It should just tip the scale enough, that 0 brain and 0 interactivity gameplay is never optimal or even close to optimal "strategy".
In conclusion - AFC absolutely and totally IS needed. Removal of objectively boring things in a game who's sole purpose is having fun for all players should always be THE highest priority for game developers. That's why DS is now removed at end game as it created same kind of "uninteractivity" (just watch me hold going forward control and there's nothing for you or me to do but watch - without you having any agency or chance to influence anything).
Also I can't fathom how some people call ability to be afk important, otherwise the game is bland. Being AFK IS bland.
4 -
This new feature only punishes straight up face camping, especially after the tweaks announced yesterday. If you only find joy in playing killer by face camping maybe it’s time to accept this is not the game for you. We have moved past the idea of face camping as killers such as Huntress and Bubba being funny and quirky, find something more original to do.
5 -
Replace self-unhook action with teleport self to other hook action ( as long as there are gens left to do ). Something akin to Pyramid Head's cage system except it will be within survivor's control.
0 -
Sure Camping is a tactic, but Face-camping has no Counterplay and that is boring for both sides, this is why bHVR changes it.
You can still Camp, but all camping will need to be proxy camping which is less egregious than face camping.
So yes, an anti face camping system is a good idea.
7 -
Who is gifting new cars on Christmas...? Imma need you to connect me with them.
As for the OP's discussion, it's too late.
0 -
Yes i see lol
0 -
If this is to be overcome, measures should be taken to make it harder to camp only in Canibal. Are there only canibals in your match?
1 -
The system with the tweaks from PTB should really only punish killers that stand right next to the hook.
The bar charges slowly at the edges and patrolling around hook shouldn't build up the meter to the point that the hooked survivor gets the self unhook before they die.
I see nothing wrong with adding this system, because it gives the hooked survivor a reason to stay on hook and let the other 3 survivors work on gens.
0 -
Moreover, AFC is completely useless against the cannibal that is synonymous with FC. Rather, it gave him a firm position as a hero who can still continue playing FC.
There is no longer any need to argue that the countermeasures are not working, but the current situation is that everyone is wondering, "What on earth was the management doing?"
2 -
There are many measures that can be taken to prevent or discourage camping. Some people use cannibals as an example, but not all matches are relative to cannibals, and any other killer has the means to rescue someone who is hanging from a hook.
I'm speaking for myself from here, but ...... to begin with, face camping was a term used to describe when a killer is standing right in front of a survivor. If you really want to blame face camp of all killers for those who can't muster the courage to do so, I think a range of 4m at most, 8m at the widest would have been fine. Do you really need an area of effect of 16m? Maybe I just don't know, but the survivor's face is 16 meters long?
0 -
These are the only ones i have pictures of on my phone. I got videos of players facecamping with other killers
0 -
That is a semantic issue rather than critique of the system bhvr Is implementing.
0 -
I have rescued friendly survivors in similar situations many times (sometimes unsuccessfully, because I'm still not very good...), and I have seen many other good players pull off rescues in the same situations. Some of them were even able to pull off rescues even against cannibals. It's not always possible to rescue someone unharmed, but it's not impossible.
The other party is a killer, not a haunted house wannabe actor, so it's wrong to say that they can't be safely rescued unharmed, or that they shouldn't be unreasonable, isn't it? I have always thought that it is.
1
