For the love of God BHVR, can you please clarify what holding the game hostage is?!
Mandy - An action that puts a player in a situation where they cannot do anything to progress the game is against game rules...
Peanits - body blocking a player or a situation where 2 survivors no longer do gens and hide.
Do y'all not realize these two statements contradict eachother when you're talking about 2 survivors hiding and not doing gens? The killer isn't in a situation where they can not do anything to progress the game. The killer can absolutely go look for the survivors, find them, and kill them, literally nothing is stopping the killer from doing that.
And even then, if it's a 3 gen situation, and a killer refuses to leave said 3 gen, how is this now a bannable offense on the survivor side for not approaching gens until its safe to do so?!...peanit's statement basically says he will ban your account if you don't throw the match and die in this situation...how does this make any sense at all?!
I really feel like the both of you need to be on the same page and be clear with what you communicate to the community, especially if it's a rule that could result in a ban...if people are still, after all this time, still debating it here and on other social media, then I'd say that's a pretty big reg flag that what you two have said so far wasn't clear enough.
Comments
-
But they are both on the same page. 2 survivors hiding and not doing anything is a situation where the killer can´t progress the game.
Do you know how many lockers exist on a map? The survivors could constantly switch lockers and even if the killer checks every single locker, the survivors could just hide in one he already checked. Thats keeping the game hostage and is bannable.
3 genning isn´t holding the game hostage. As both the survivors and the killer can progress the match one way or another.
16 -
its been stated clearly that when all remaining survivors hide and don’t progress the objective anymore for a prolonged time that counts as holding the game hostage.
Mandy never stated this to be untrue as far as I have seen. And it doesn’t contradict the statement from you above..
2 -
"Mandy - An action that puts a player in a situation where they cannot do anything to progress the game is against game rules..."
This is quite clear to be honest. The thing is, people (not Devs!) used to say that this is only the thing during Endgame with 1 Survivor left (and EGC not started) because at this point, nobody can do Gens and end the game. And the same people said it was fine to do it while other Survivors are alive, because they can do Gens, start the End Game Collapse and the Survivor would be out of it.
But the statement just says that all players need to have a chance to actually play the game. So if a Survivor is blocked by the Killer or another Survivor, this Survivor cannot play, therefore they are being held hostage and the player doing it would be violating the rules.
"Peanits - body blocking a player or a situation where 2 survivors no longer do gens and hide."
Number 1 is exactly what Mandy said as well. Number 2 means that Survivors are not progressing the game anymore. The thing is, yes, the Killer can look for the Survivors, but we are not talking about Survivors here who hide to lure the Killer away and then try to do the Gens, we are talking about Survivors who outright refuse to do Gens. And at this point, the game cannot end, because you will be able to hide for a long time if you dont show yourself (e.g. by doing progress).
"And even then, if it's a 3 gen situation, and a killer refuses to leave said 3 gen, how is this now a bannable offense on the survivor side for not approaching gens until its safe to do so?!...peanit's statement basically says he will ban your account if you don't throw the match and die in this situation...how does this make any sense at all?!"
The thing is, this goes both ways. At some point, both sides need to try to progress the game. For the Survivors, this means that they have to try to repair the Gens, even in a 3-Gen Situation. Because otherwise they are holding the game hostage. However, this also means that at some point the Killer has to try to down the Survivors. The Killer cannot just stay in the 3-Gen and never even try to down or even kill anyone, because then the Killer is holding the game hostage. Both sides can lose when they try to progress the game (the Survivors might die, the Killer might lose the 3-Gen), but at some point it has to happen that both sides play the game, even if it means that they might be losing because of it.
6 -
Slow progress is indeed still progress.
1 -
Except they've never once said that a killer standing by a 3 gen is "holding the game hostage". In fact I'm pretty sure they said the opposite of that. Why weren't all those 3 gen skull merchants banned then when it was going on?
This is why thier comments make zero sense.
So a killer can do nothing but stand there preventing the game from progressing all they want with zero risk of being banned, but a survivor who chooses to play smart and not just throw themselves on the ground to be killed can be banned....wow that makes so much sense! 🙄
5 -
If the killer is just standing there, then the survivors can get a gen done and escape though?
also, we will get a new mechanic in the January PTB to address 3 gen setups because the devs agree it’s a flaw in their system
2 -
Because when a killer is guarding a 3-gen, they're still trying to kill the survivors, but they won't commit to long chases because they'll lose the last gen. This means they'll be looking for easy hits and downs, but if the survivors are playing really safe and run early, the killer isn't going to get any easy hits. It basically falls to the survivors to mess up and allow the killer the hit/down.
The killer still -wants- to kill the survivors, but is very picky on when they'll actually commit to short chases if they can get a hit. If the opportunity falls into their lap they'll take it.
Survivors who wont even attempt to do gens though, that stops the game progressing completely.
3 -
They said it in the past. I would have to search for it tho.
Yeaaah... At some point the Killer also has to risk losing the game. Same as Survivors, who also have to risk to die when they want to repair Gens.
1 -
Because when a killer is guarding a 3-gen, they're still trying to repair the gens, but they won't commit to repairing gens because they'll be garunteed to be hit/killed. This means they'll be looking for easy repairs, but if the killer is playing really safe and doesnt allow it, the survivor isn't going to get any easy repairs. It basically falls to the killer to mess up and allow the survivors the repair.
The survivor still -wants- to repair the gens, but is very picky on when they'll actually commit to repair gens if they can get a hit. If the opportunity falls into their lap they'll take it.
Killers who wont even attempt to chase survivors though, that stops the game proegressing completely.
Weird how I can flip your argument completely upsidedown and it says the same thing but for the other side instead of the killer being innocent....
4 -
….
and your point being?
that’s exactly what is okay from survivor side? Trying to do gens is trying to progress the objective.
killers not even attempting chases will just lose gens because they will not chase the survivors away from gens.. it doesn’t stop the games progression.
the system isn’t perfect and I think even the devs agree. But as of now, it’s very clearly stated what counts as holding the game hostage and what doesn’t. And if you are uncertain - make a clip, make a report and let support decide. You won’t get a punishment for a report when it’s an edge case like the ones you describe even if they won’t agree
1 -
I agree it's a crappy situation. Depending on how many survivors are left, it can be impossible for the survivors to realistically pressure the gens and even doing gens becomes a deathwish, or if all 4 survivors are still up, actually starting a chase is basically admitting defeat as the killer. It's no surprise neither side wants to basically throw the game, but sadly NOT throwing the game just stops anything happening.
0 -
This isn't one side preventing the other from progressing. This is both sides refusing to take risks. The killer is refusing to leave gens unguarded, while the survivors are refusing to open themselves up to potential injury. Both sides are attempting to progress their objective, but only in the safest way possible. It's not holding the game hostage, it's a stalemate, until one side makes a mistake.
Stalemates shouldn't exist, which is why they're working on a solution to 3 gens, but it's not bannable because no one is acting maliciously.
When it comes to survivors hiding indefinitely, unless the killer has a useful detection perk/power, it can be virtually impossible to find the survivors if they aren’t progressing their objective and just rotating lockers when the killer is out of range. So the killer can be doing everything in their power to progress the game, but the survivors refusal to progress is what is holding the game hostage. The survivors can attempt to repair gens in this time, which is the only way the game can progress. Indefinite hiding is just wasting everyone's time.
2 -
Exactly.
And this is why Survivors need to try to repair Gens at some point and the Killer needs to try killing Survivors at some point. Hiding or holding a 3-Gen until the Server closes the match is just holding the game hostage.
0 -
Here you go:
And they said it again more recently with skull merchant as well.
Basically if the killer is holding a 3 gen and not downing or hooking survivors for an extended period of time is a hostage situation and could be bannable.
So any killer who just injures the survivor(s) and then goes back to gen kicking/patrolling for a long time (like SM typically does) is against game rules. Straight from the devs.
Edit: replied to the wrong person initially, oops.
2 -
The sad thing is the rules are too lax in dealing with people breaking the intention of the rule, but not the letter of it. As Killer, I can purposely bleed people out to ensure I waste as much of their time as possible, or even bleed them for 3m59s then hook them to rub salt in the wound. As Survivor, as long as I tap a gen once every 9m59s then I technically haven't broken the rules, and similarly can waste the Killer's time. Both are clearly being jerks for the sake of being a jerk, yet neither are punished.
1 -
i think both statements and the violations are quite clear. the only "loophole" here is, hiding for hatch and no longer progressing the game is completely fine, selfish play is endorsed but it somehow becomes an issue when 2 people decide to do it.
1 -
Most 3 gen situations can be boiled down to who is more stubborn.
5 -
Yes, both sides can make the game as terrible as possible. Where as they don´t do things that are punishable with a ban. But are certainly ruining the game for everyone else.
In an ideal setup, the aftermatch screen that allows for thumps ups and rate the match on the 5 point scale of "did you have fun". Those 2 things would actually do something. Like benefiting players for playing nice and slowly root out the toxic players among us.
But since our community is so hell bent on considering things toxic that arent toxic, instead of just condemning the bad stuff. There is little we can do right now.
1 -
It takes a lot for a killer to hold a game hostage, something like that Cenobite hex build where they just guard the box with face the darkness so survivors can't do gens because of constant chains and screaming.
Survivors can do it easily though just by refusing to do the objective. I hate it so much in soloQ when there's two of us with one gen left and the other person just hides. I honestly find it's better to just try and find them and out their location to the killer to move things along and hope I can find hatch. It's one thing if it's 2-3 gens but one gen chases are very doable and I hate that people stop trying in those situations.
0 -
I'll preface this by saying I hate 3-gen by design strat. Going into a match (or every match) with the intent of immediately finding and 3-gen and defending it is a miserable, pathetic way to play the game.
But if an impossible 3 gen forms by circumstance (usually survs just blindly working on gens as they come to them), and the killer chooses to then lock it down, they have won. It's just that simple. If the killer then refuses to leave the 3 gen to engage in a chase across the map that is clearly nothing but a distraction, that isn't holding the game hostage, imo. The survs made a bed they don't want to lie in, that's all.
I think a lot of people conflate "being able to progress the game" with having a plausible path to victory. Everyone should be entitled to the former, but not the latter. Sometimes your path to progress the game is to lose/die, and you just need to accept it. I'd much rather die in a vain attempt to break a three gen than sit there being pig headed about my impossible situation.
Now hopefully the 3 gen fix is fair and renders this all moot, but to me calling a killer defending a 3 gen "holding the game hostage" has always rung hollow. Is it fun or sporting? No, but your path out of the game is clear.
Trying to find two survs who are only trying not to be found is much worse because one side cannot get out the match, win or lose, without letting the 60 minutes lapse or disconnecting. If the two survs have two brain cells between them, keeping hidden is almost assured if that is their sole intent.
In such a scenario, only Ultimate Weapon gives you even a decent shot at finding one or both of them.
2 -
They aren't contradicting each other.
If a killer/survivor body blocks someone for an extended period; that's holding the person hostage.
If 2+ survivors stealth around and refuse to do gens for an extended period; that's holding the game hostage.
3-Gens are considered to be holding the game hostage when used to grief instead of win.
They've been pretty clear an open about hostage holding multiple times.
0 -
First of all, i am against holding the game hostage or playing in a way that increases the length of a match unnecessary.
But are your examples, objectivly speaking of course called holding hostage if one of those scenarios is holding hostage and the other is not?
You can argue that defending gens is a valid strategy but it is not going for the objective - which would be killing the survivors.
On the other hand, hiding in a locker is the exact same for the other side. They are not going for the objective either. What is the difference?
I always thought, holding the game hostage is for example bodyblocking a survivor in a corner and just waiting. Or the infamous hole bug, where killer droped on a survivor and could not move anymore.
0 -
The game really needs a faster timer to kill the survivors wasting time just hiding and not doing anything. And it's almost always the distortion players who don't do jack for their team or objectives.
They should charge the timer to like 35-45 mintures. Match rarely goes over 25 minutes anyways.
This isn't a problem in every bracket or every killer, but not every killer is gonna be a doctor who can find you with madness or blight/nurse who can zoom/blink around fast enough to increase the chances of running into you.
There's too many ways to cheese the crows from spawning and giving your position away.
1 -
I'd take Mandy's explanation over Peanits's. Mandy's explanation fits a lot better IMO.
W/ Peanits's explanation, its pretty open-ended & just plain wrong IMO. 2 survivors at end-game hiding, is NOT holding the game hostage. It might feel like that to a killer, but getting on a generator in that situation is guaranteed death for the survivor & a free kill for the killer. I'm sorry but I will go hide. B/c at the very least, I might have a chance for hatch or possibly an exit gate if I time it right/got good gate RNG. I'm never going to just roll over and give a killer a kill. I might die regardless hiding, but I'll take my chances since at least I have a CHANCE.
What Peanits's is saying to do, is give myself 0 chance of living and give the killer his 3/4k w/o any real effort. The game is not being taken hostage, you can go search for anyone hiding & people still have to move around to avoid crows. Same exact thing more or less happens at the start of a match anyways - people don't always immediately jump on gens, they wait for the killer to patrol and pass them, then they hop on the gens. Hiding is part of the match. Finding survivors is part of the match/killer role.
Length of time doing something like this matters too. If its only been a few minutes of hiding + not touching a gen, IDC. I'll go look for y'all since thats part of my role.
0 -
In that example, the survivors that are hiding in a locker and have no intention of progressing the match. Are holding the game hostage. Because the killer has no way to find them.
Meanwhile in the 3 gen situation, both sides can still progress the match. Despite slowly, it still is progress.
For example, i´ve seen a streamer SWF make a 50+ minute video of a match where they complained the killer held them hostage. Was against a Doctor. Who hit them where they could, but they alway ran away to the same safe tile. Knowing full well, that the killer would waste enough time in a down, that the others could finish the gen. If they would have ran to a different, not so safe tile. The killer would have probably followed them. But it was always the same safe tile. Means both sides held each other "hostage" = no hostage situation.
They eventually completed the last gen and now they suddenly had no intention of leaving (this was before EGC). Spending another 20 minutes of just hiding in lockers, in order to punish the killer. Now this was holding the game hostage from their side. But they didn´t realized it. Otherwise, they wouldn´t have made a video about it.
1 -
Easy solution: If a surv didn't got ANY points for 5 minutes, Killer Instinct progs on them and shows the the survs location to the killer. Tell me one reason why this shouldn't be in the next patch.
0 -
3-gens are a weakness in the game design because it's often a situation where the survivors have lost but the match can't end until they voluntarily concede the loss. I agree that making a rule that says, "Well, you have to concede at some point or else you're taking the game hostage," isn't a great solution.
It would be better if the killer had some way to force the match to end if the survivors are absent from the generators for too long.
0 -
Because it wouldn't work for its intended purpose?
Survivor get points for touching a chest, being in the killers terror radius or step foot into the basement for example. None of those give the killer any indication where the survivor are, unlike a even slightly progressed gen.
The only point would be that survivor would risk revealing themselves outside of a locker but that is already the case when they have to switch to another to avoid crows.
0 -
This. If one player does it, he is playing clever. if 2 people do it, it is holding the game hostage. Its not a clear or consequent issue at all.
If one of the player always taps the gen for a short repair, and the other doesnt, how is determined which one hold the game hostage?
1 -
There is only one solid counter to the infinite locker strat ...whispers. Doesn't care about distortion or calm spirit or any counter at all....Whispers is so much stronger Then people think. Back and forth to check doors? Not anymore.
0 -
If I am left with one other survivor and there are too many gens to complete I just go run out and get killed. I just want to go to my next game because 99% of the time the other survivor will wait out your death for hatch so doing a gen or attempting to won't do you any good. There have been cases where I pressured gens and the other survivor hid and waited till I completed them all. The killer let me live and hung the other for hiding the whole time when they were finally found.
0
