The anti-camp mechanic is the best thing they have put in this game
Comments
-
Except it doesn't, does it? Because the killer just moves a short distance away and AFC disables. Which brings us back to square one.
It was an exploit, because survivors could literally force the killer to either grant the save or stick by the hook wasting time at infinitum
Or until bloodlust kicks in, at which point two survivors will be on the hook right next to each other, putting the survivors into a very dire spot.
6 -
Except it doesn't, does it? Because the killer just moves a short distance away and AFC disables. Which brings us back to square one.
Starting to move the goalpost already? I was wondering why the number of fallacies in your post was suspiciously low.
The AFC never was meant to prevent the killer to defend the hook, it was to prevent Facecamping as it's name implies, and as has already become clear it does it function as intended (when you let it do it). This is also the reason of why it deactivates in the end game.
Or until bloodlust kicks in, at which point two survivors will be on the hook right next to each other, putting the survivors into a very dire spot.
That if the survivor doesn't have any endurance like DH (more so in the day), there is no pallets around the hook, there is only one survivor and not two doing it as they did in the day, and a long list of variables that makes your statement wrong.
Anyway, that doesn't change the fact that survivors abused the hell out of that mechanic to gain an advantage (ergo, exploit). That's why it didn't come out of the PTB and nowdays we have the fairer version of it instead.
7 -
I think at this point BHVR should just show the bar filling up to everyone, team mates and killer included. We all need to know how this mechanic works and what it does. As the killer, I am always sorta afraid to return to the hook, because I don't want to let a survivor unhook themselves, while I also have had situations in which I purposefully facecamped a survivor to let them unhook when I knew that the other survivor went into hiding. Killing themselves purposefully on hook at this point is one thing, but I want to know if they could. And with survivors its even more frustrating, not seeing whats going on and if you are doing something wrong.
4 -
The AFC never was meant to prevent the killer to defend the hook, it was to prevent Facecamping as it's name implies
Except facecamping was removed years ago with the introduction of swivel hooks, if we want to get finnicky about terminology.
The problem with facecamping, as was outlined in the dev showcase where it was introduced, is that a survivor is kept on the hook with minimal to no chance of being rescued. And now you're here saying that under the current system, survivors should give up on rescuing a hooked survivor.
Ergo, system is a failure.
That if the survivor doesn't have any endurance like DH (more so in the day), there is no pallets around the hook, there is only one survivor and not two doing it as they did in the day, and a long list of variables that makes your statement wrong.
Literally no chase lasts forever, bud. You were the one who said 'ad infinitum'.
Anyway, that doesn't change the fact that survivors abused the hell out of that mechanic to gain an advantage (ergo, exploit). That's why it didn't come out of the PTB and nowdays we have the fairer version of it instead.
Doesn't change that it's still getting called a survivor exploit in situations where it blatantly benefits the killer.
4 -
Did you watch the clip..?
1 -
And now you're here saying that under the current system, survivors should give up on rescuing a hooked survivor.
Maybe because there is no need of saving him as he can unhook himself? Just saying.
Literally no chase lasts forever, bud. You were the one who said 'ad infinitum'.
They doesn't have to last forever, just enough for the gens to be done or the killer giving up and granting the unhook. And they used builds and strategies for that to happen.
Doesn't change that it's still getting called a survivor exploit in situations where it blatantly benefits the killer.
Says you. Facts says that was the exact reason the old anti camping mechanic didn't got out of the PTB, survivors exploiting the mechanic to gain an advantage. But we know that you don't deal with the reality everybody else live on, so you do you.
3 -
most of the time inside the range = on the bottom floor
1 -
Meg was downstairs as well
1 -
At 16 meters of the hook, yes, inside the range.
1 -
Lmao
3 -
And when the killer is on the bottom floor the timer stops
0 -
It doesn't stop. If that Deathslinger walk to the bottom floor and stand there enough time without another survivor in range, the bar would fill up and grant a free Deliverance without reason.
1 -
It was like that in the PTB, not anymore
Verticality
When this feature was tested on the PTB, it treated both horizontal and vertical distances equally. However, this had a side effect of detecting Killers on different floors as camping even if the shortest path to the hooked Survivor was rather long. This was especially noticeable on indoor maps such as The Game.
In a later update, the meter will be weighted more heavily toward horizontal distance than vertical. This will make the meter a little more forgiving if the Killer passes by on another floor.
2 -
This was changed from PTB to live. If the killer is below the hook on another floor, the meter will not fill up. It is supposed to fill up slowly if they’re below or above hook but it doesn’t appear to fill up at all. Could be a bug, but it’s a thing regardless.
1 -
Maybe because there is no need of saving him as he can unhook himself? Just saying.
How's he gonna unhook himself if the killer doesn't cooperate though?
They doesn't have to last forever, just enough for the gens to be done or the killer giving up and granting the unhook. And they used builds and strategies for that to happen.
Which it's not going to when you have no space to move in.
Says you. Facts says that was the exact reason the old anti camping mechanic didn't got out of the PTB, survivors exploiting the mechanic to gain an advantage. But we know that you don't deal with the reality everybody else live on, so you do you.
We're not talking about the old anti-camp. I'm talking about the suggestion that got floated every month or so in the interim that always got that remark as well, when nothing of what you said applies. No infinites, and no self-unhook. Just feeding the killer extra kills.
2 -
There are many maps with multiple floors like midwich for example, where a survivor can be above you, but it can physically take the killer 20+ seconds to walk all the way o the stairs and walk all the way to the survivor on the hook. By definition there, the killer is not camping.
5 -
The term "exploit" is overloaded and people think about it as a bug. I see the term as "exploiting something to its fullest potential". So for example, a survivor "abusing/exploiting killer shack" is not performing a bug, but they are exploiting the power of the structure.
0 -
The anti-facecamp mechanic doesn't change much of anything about the game balance surrounding camping. I'm not sure whether it was intended to, but it functionally only serves as a "game experience" quality-of-life adjustment, preventing killers from standing right up against the hook for prolonged periods of time, hitting the survivor on hook and the like. It's seemingly merely meant to combat "bad-mannered" behaviour, it is not good at doing much against the benefits of camping. The killer can still camp from a safe distance that allows them to contest unhook attempts, and if such an attempt happens, they can also start camping right up next to the hook again as the timer essentially stops with other survivors there.
Personally, I think the removal of hook grabs has generally "solved" the balance issue of camping. Of course there are exceptions, certain hooks (basements, hills and second floors for instance) are difficult or outright impossible to contest, certain killer abilities can also render rescue attempts futile, certain perks and add-ons can make it much more difficult. And it also doesn't mean that camping isn't viable anymore now, either. Survivors still regularly have to trade for unhooks, they can still mess up around the hook, they can be injured to begin with making unhooks risky or impossible, the killer can still camp and patrol the proximity of the hook to pressure survivors around and zone them from the hook. Camping in a 3v1 is still a rather reliable way to a win. Particularly solo survivors without any communication or coordination can still struggle against camping.
While camping is an integral component to DbD's balancing and gameplay experience (for better and worse) that I don't think should be removed altogether as such an element, one change that would go a fairly long way to make the anti-facecamp mechanic be a much more worthwhile implementation is to show the self-unhook progress bar of the respective hooked survivor to all other survivors. This would not only prevent instances like this where you don't know whether you are too close to the hook and whether the hooked survivor has any chance of getting their self-unhook to begin with, it would also serve as a "basekit Kindred lite", informing survivors of some of the potential goings-on around the hook.
Another change that could be nice is to make it so that the timer slowdown for nearby survivors scales with just how nearby they are, not slowing down to a crawl no matter where within the radius someone is. And survivors in the dying state should be disregarded for the purposes of the mechanic, I'm not sure why they also slow down the timer.
0 -
This was always meant to be a BHVR brand band-aid, and even then it still doesn't work against killers like basement Bubba. The only way to kill camping once and for all is AI killers.
0 -
Choy recently did a video on how the Anti-Camp Mechanic has made things WORSE not better. Give it a watch.
Seriously, if you are a survivor, watch this for how to make sure killers don't trick you and get an easy 4K.
Seriously, if you are a killer, watch this for how to trick survivors and get a easy 4K.
2 -
jesus crist
look at trapper standing like 5 feet from the hook, but the bar doesnt fill up because, well, he is on the staircase down below
WHAT A JOKE
6 -
Solid 8m away yep thats not face-camping, its just regular camping at that distance but its an anti-face camp system so
4 -
Yep, so it made camping WORSE.
1 -
As explained by Mandy in another post, if I recall correctly:
Before, the detection range was a circle, now it is an ellipse that even if it allows you to not be in the range as much in other floors, it still detects both killers and survivors in it.
It even says it there: "This would make the meter more forgiving", not make it not detect you on upper or bottom floors. So I don't know why you are insisting in claiming the contrary or accept that either you didn't let the bar fill up, or your teammate didn't even tried to make use of the free Deliverance.
Well, simple to discern as the range is exactly the same for both killers and survivors. So, if survivors stops the bar in other floors but the killer doesn't fill it up, it is a bug. If it doesn't work for both of them, they changed again the vertical range since the last time I played survivor (I took a break from the game since recently) because when they changed it, the bar still filled up when the killer was bellow or above me.
3 -
We're not talking about the old anti-camp.
But we are, the same one that didn't made out of the PTB because survivors abused it to gain an advantage and don't letting the killer sacrifice anyone. This are facts, but here you are denying reality itself again.
2 -
What is happening with the trapper in that video:
As the range is distance based, obviously, not all maps have the same height between floors. If anything, this proves that effectively the system detect survivors and killers in floors bellow if the height between floors is small enough (RPD, Midwich, etc.).
About that video:
- All survivor problems he mention would be solved by showing the bar in the HUD for the rest of survivor, something that people have being asking for since the PTB but BHVR have decided to just ignore, and even if not it would take years for them to add it, apparently.
- Nice he also mention at least some of the problems killers faces with this system, something that most people don't seems to see or care.
- Making it so the survivor dies slower like in the failed old mechanic, even with the rules it has now, would make impossible for the killer to defend the hook in any way. With this system, if you see that the survivor is about to enter second phase or be sacrificed, at least you can be inside the area for those last seconds to secure the kill.
- I don't see how anything said in that video could lead to an "easy 4K".
3 -
My guy, the same system has been suggested multiple times over the course of DBD's entire lifespan. Even leading up to 6.1 it was a common point of discussion and every time it was brought up, people argued against it as if infinites were still in the game.
But thanks for stating the facts about what I am referring to, to me. Not at all presumptuous or anything.
1 -
I would ask what anything of what you just said had to do with the old system being abused by survivors and that being the reason of why it wasn't implemented, but yet again, we know how you roll so whatever you say dude.
1 -
That's a question for YOU to answer, since YOU took the conversation there, not me.
3 -
First post by @Tsulan that started this conversation branch:
My further post, answering both of you about the topic, which was about the old camping mechanic and why it was discarded:
It was always about the old anti camping mechanic. So, you either are aware of this but yet again you are lying in an attempt to claim I was derailing the conversation (which would be funny, as that's your thing) or for some reason you are not able to follow the flow of what is being talked in a conversation and respond accordingly. In any case, again, whatever you say dude.
3 -
And why are you quoting me what Tsulan said if you're trying to determine what I am talking about? Do you think he and I are alts of the same person?
The post you're quoting also isn't the post I responded to. Looks like you got confused.
3 -
You can't reason with killer mains. I wouldn't even bother.
After all, they think killers should have default 100% wins all the time. Power Role.
3 -
Oh, no, this particular brand of weirdness is not a thing killer mains share. Just this one.
2 -
That's cute coming from the guy that only debate in fallacies when I had reached middle ground with the more hardcore followers of the survivor's rulebook this game could have spawned many times in this forum.
Like I said before, never change 🤣
2 -
Doesn't change that whatever you've got going on is definitely a 'you' thing, and not something shared by the community, does it?
2 -
Being unreasonable? Nah dude, I'm pretty sure that there is pretty unreasonable people everywhere, it is not a "me" thing.
Or are you going to argue now that being unreasonable is not the point of the conversation and that it is I who doesn't know what is being talked here? Because I can see you do it even if this started with someone saying "You can't reason with killer mains" referring to me, not going to lie...
2 -
You know full well that what you're doing is a bit more than just being unreasonable.
And I never claimed that Mecca was referring to anything other than you. Mecca was just saying that the whole killer main playerbase is like you, and they're not. Whatever you've got going on is not something I'm seeing from others on the forums.
0 -
- The question: "Are you going to argue now that being unreasonable is not the point of the conversation and that it is I who doesn't know what is being talked here?"
- Your answer: "I never claimed that Mecca was referring to anything other than you"
Your logic and whole way of argumentation in a nutshell. But I am the one with "something going on" and a "particular brand of weirdness".
I'm going to be left wondering in what moment I had accused you of claiming such thing as Mecca not referring to me or how you got to that conclusion, but whatever dude, not in the mood for any more strawmans or any other type of fallacies today. For the rest of your post: I'm not the one being unreasonable, that was a joke, and thanks man, you know how to make someone feel unique!
Have a nice day.
1 -
I'm not sure what you think I am saying, because to my eyes, you seem to be in weirdly violent agreement with me.
EDIT: Or are you simply taking issue with Mecca and I calling you unreasonable?
Well let me put it to you this way, dude: You stomped in here and took a haughty and aggressive tone with me, and accused me of getting the conversation wrong. However, the post that you point out as the conversation starter is Tsulan's SECOND post in this thread. The post I replied to was Tsulan's FIRST post in this thread. And that one did not mention the old anti-camp at all.
Again, you made a mistake and got confused. Which is not a problem, but you could stand to not take the tone you do.
0 -
Well, it seems that you are definitely not seeing the same reality the rest of us sees. What a surprise...
Again, have a nice day.
1 -
Well, when you word it the way you do, anyone would get confused. But I edited to address what I'm guessing is the point you're trying to make.
0
