tombstone hostage???
i'm just reading a tweet in literal awe, a super petty survivor hid in locker for half an hour to deny the myers his achievement. and the funny part: myers got banned for it and he didn't. such a strong decision i'm not gonna lie but the point of the post is to ask for official clarification on the matter. is it bannable? survivor can just... get out of the locker and end the game so there is no hostage situation, no?
Comments
-
I think both of them should have gotten banned, or only the survivor. He was being petty and denying the possible achievement the Myers was maybe after. He's also bragging about being petty and horrible person in twitter. He could have come out of the locker, but literally refused and then pretended to be the victim.
Behaviour you screwed up with this one.
8 -
i mean that's an agreement between the two, survivor wants to be petty and myers wants to get his achievement and they both hold the ability to end it anytime they want. neither should've gotten banned but i just want a clarification since that's not holding anyone hostage yet a player got banned.
1 -
The survivor should not be forced to exit the locker and be hit with the tombstone. The killer however had every means to end the match by grabbing the survivor from the locker and refused to do it. That is taking the game hostage. It doesn't matter if they were trying to get an achievement. The survivor is not obligated to give that to them.
The killer player is entirely in the wrong here. Lockers are the counter play to tombstone. The survivor is not obligated to give that to them no matter the reason. If nothing was done in these situations it would be common.
22 -
It's not like that survivor didn't know what they were doing. So, they were extremely petty to say the least.
In my opinion neither of them should be banned for it. Yes, neither of them followed the rules but they both created this standoff. Both of them could have ended this match at any given point but they made the conscious decision to hold the other hostage.
This is like 3 gens remaining, 1 survivor dead and the last 3 hiding with no interest in doing gens. The killer is technically holding the game hostage as long as they keep on playing because the survivors have no way to do the gens without getting found but the survivors are also holding the killer hostage because they have no way to track them down. In this case, neither party is obligated to give up.
2 -
I'm sorry but the survivor was being super entitled and petty. He could have come out of the locker and end the game. Survivor is not entitled to hide in a locker for 30 minutes. Killer and survivor BOTH were petty here and BOTH of them should have gotten few days to cool down or neather of them. Survivor can vault a window or sit on a gen too to get slugged and end the game in 4 minutes instead of being in that locker.
Shame on both of them.
6 -
If this is a matter that is worth a ban then both should be hit. The survivor absolutly can't call it hostage holding when he can just leave the locker.
Bhvr always insists that it's not holding the game hostage if it still can ens normally. And no I don't think the survivor is obligated to leave the locker and just give the meyers the achievement both where incredibly petty ans stubborn in that moment but that stuff dod not warrant a ban
5 -
I don't think it should be bannable for either survivor or killer. Lockers are pretty much the only counter to Tombstone, so stalemates like this are inevitable at times. There's no rule against being petty. If they both wanted to waste a half hour of each other's time then I say let them. BHVR should have just disregarded the report.
11 -
The achievement should just be to mori 4 survivors with tombstone just not in a single trial tho. That would eliminate those scenarios
5 -
Sitting in a locker isn't playing the game. The survivor isn't doing gens, they're not looking for the hatch, they're not opening the exit gate, they're not trying to escape. Existing on the map isn't playing the game.
The survivor and killer were in a standoff situation. Just like the old hatch standoffs. Either of them could've ended it. The survivor was going to die, whether they bleed out on the ground or go on a hook or get Tombstoned, so refusing to let the killer get the Tombstone is just petty. Survivors do realize they're hurting themselves when they do that, right? Because the killer is going to have to try again, meaning more survivors are going to have play against this add-on they apparently hate. Survivors are damning other survivors to a fate worse than being slugged to death, it seems, and they're proud of it.
The survivor is not obligated to give that to them.
The killer didn't trap the survivor in the locker, did he? The killer isn't obligated to pull a survivor out of a locker. If some player wants to sit in a locker instead of play the game, why is it on the killer to force them to play?
I have countered many Tombstone Mikeys, and I've never done it by sitting in a locker. Sitting in a locker doesn't earn points. Sitting in a locker is not playing the game.
8 -
Well, the purpose of the game is to avoid making mistakes. In this case, Michael should have relented and just hung Survivor and hoped for the next match. Neither of they was at fault, they just did what they wanted to do.
1 -
If its an achievement then any way of getting it shouldn't be bannable in any way. It is a decision on both fronts. In this scenario the survivor is dead regardless of outcome so it is more the survivor being petty and showing a complete lack of sportsmanship.
1 -
the survivor isn't obligated to leave the locker but leaving the locker would end the game and they made their choice.
4 -
exactly.
1 -
Who submitted the report? The Survivor or the Killer?
Even if the Survivor wasn't "wrong", to brag about it gives off the vibes of two children fighting at school with one getting punished and the other being smug about getting off scot-free.
4 -
Sitting in the locker is playing the game when you're doing it to avoid a tombstone mori. It is literally the counter play to it.
The killer did, in fact, trap the survivor in the locker. They were using a tombstone addon and refused to open the locker to progress the match further. The survivor had no option to continue the match beyond getting tombstoned. Nothing prevented the killer from opening the locker but the killer's own choice not to do so. They knew what they were doing. They held the game hostage on purpose for the sake of an achievement.
I don't care how entitled or petty the survivor was being. That is completely irrelevant to the situation in the match. The survivor could not come out of the locker because the killer was in front of it with tombstone active. The killer was in control of this situation and refused to play further for an achievement. The survivor had no option but to stay in the locker. At the very least the survivor had a chance to wiggle off had the killer opened the locker. The killer was in complete control over this situation but chose to waste someone's time over an achievement they probably could've gotten in their next match in the time they wasted in this one.
14 -
yes it was the survivor and yes they were bragging about it. bet they were teacher's pet in their school years, gives that exact vibe.
2 -
The survivor was NOT held hostage. The survivor decided to be petty and kept himself hostage. End of story. Killer didnt deserve a ban from this alone. It should have been both of them or neather of them.
Survivor literally did not continue to play the game and refused to die. He also kept the game hostage as well. It is bannable to hide and not continue the game from survivor side as well. This person literally did not continue the game for 30 minutes. If this would have been different game where he was locker hopping for 30 minutes and hiding from the killer it would have been bannable. In this case both killer and survivor were petty, and kept themselfs hostage.
I know you are survivor sided person so whatever i say to you i know you'll only see it from their side.
4 -
Yeah, I would also say that none of them should be banned. In the end they wasted each others time, but both players had the opportunity to end the hostage situation. Which is the key difference from actual "holding the game hostage"-situations. In those only the player doing it can hold the game hostage, the player getting held hostage has no chance of ending it unless they DC. But in this case, the Myers could have just opened the locker. Yes, no achievement. But the game ends.
And the Survivor could have just left the locker. Yes, they would have died. But the game ends.
When both players can end the game, it is not taking someone hostage.
18 -
Neither should have been banned. That’s like banning the killer for the old hatch stand off or because both players were AFK.
I think it’s time BHVR for you guys to rework these add ons. If you want to ban people for doing this then please get rid of this stupid achievement. It’s unfair to ban either of them after you made something that encourages this.
4 -
The survivor had no option to continue the match beyond getting tombstoned.
"The killer had no option to continue the match beyond not getting the achievement." The latter is actually worse because it's a lot harder to get the damn achievement than it is to escape. That survivor was dead anyway. They knew that. So the only reason they chose to stay in the locker was to spite the killer. It's not like you are punished for dying to the Tombstone instead of a hook.
They held the game hostage on purpose for the sake of an achievement.
That was a pretty bad situation for both of them. And technically the survivor did have the option to end the game at any given time. So, the killer did not take them hostage.
The survivor could not come out of the locker because the killer was in front of it with tombstone active.
That's where you're wrong. They could have left the locker at any given point in time. What was stopping them from it? The Tombstone would have killed them but let's be honest, their decision to jump into a locker was calculated. They knew they were going to die. What was the problem with just getting out of the locker and giving the Myers his achievement? If they really had such a bad time then all it would take to end the match was pressing "space" once. But they didn't. Because they knew the killer could not open the locker without letting the entire match go to waste.
The killer was in control of this situation and refused to play further for an achievement.
The killer didn't have any more control of that situation than the survivor did. Technically the survivor had more control because they could decide which way they were going to die while the killer had to live with their decision.
At the very least the survivor had a chance to wiggle off had the killer opened the locker.
Yeah and there also was a chance the Myers fell asleep, so they could have simply left and found hatch. That's such a cheep argument. We all know, why that survivor chose to enter a locker and stay in there and it wasn't because they technically could have had a chance to survive. In fact, we know that they had a guarantee that they could deny the achievement by just staying in the locker until the match shuts down.
The killer was in complete control over this situation but chose to waste someone's time over an achievement they probably could've gotten in their next match in the time they wasted in this one.
"The survivor was in complete control over this situation but chose to waste someone's time over an achievement." See how that works? Replace "killer" with "survivor" and the argument is just as strong as before. Which is not at all.
Both of them did the exact same thing here. They were holding the other in a position with no good outcome. Either we punish both of them or none. Everything else is hypocrisy.
7 -
A survivor giving themselves up is not part of the normal game loop. A killer pulling a survior out of a locker to hook them is.
8 -
I don't think they got banned. The reason was "harasment" which is NOT when you hold someone hostage or for gameplay stuff. Its for chat stuff.
0 -
3 -
If it's because of what went down in chat then yeah, that's a whole different thing. Plus if the survivor is just assuming the killer got banned because of the in-game notification, then that doesn't mean anything. I think it was Mandy who said the notification just means the report was looked at and not necessarily that someone got punished.
0 -
Killer knew where the survivor was... he could finish the game without any problems. Locker is the only counter move against tombstone. Maybe the survivor was hoping that Myers would move away for a few seconds and then have time to go to another loop.
Everyone talks about the "survivor rule book"... but in this case it seems like a "killer rule book" to me. I am not obligated to help with your "Tombstone Myers 4k"
7 -
yes thats true you are not obligated to help with the achievment but you also have no right to call it a hostage situation when you could have come out and die. from what i have seen to this point bhvr says its a hostage situation when the survivor has no own choice to do anything that ends the game. the survivor had a chance to end it.
both are supper betty and stubborn in that situation but this did not deseverd a ban. its a totally diffrent thing ofourse if its true that the ban was for harresment in chat like some people said
1 -
I kinda doubt anyone got banned for that, unless they started flaming in the chat afterwards.
Anyway, no one held anything hostage. Both players had the ability to end the match with one button press, but they hoped the player on the other side of the locker door had less time to waste, then got mad when it turned out both were "patient".
Anything about achievements is utterly irrelevant to decide if someone should be banned. Petty? Sure. Against a single rule? Nope.
0 -
A ban in either case is ridiculous. Both players are playing by the rules BHVR have set.
They made the achievement the way it is. They made the Killer have to go for standing executions only to get it, and they made the only true counter to it be to sit in lockers.
The killer is playing by the rules that BHVR have set; he can't grab out of locker because then he can't execute the survivor, or if he does he has to let the survivor wiggle off, which the survivor can just jump back into the locker.
Both players understand the terms of what is going on. If the survivor refuses to try and escape the match, then if anyone is to blame for taking the game hostage, it's the survivor, but even that's a bit of a stretch.
"Taking the game hostage" for playing by the rules of the achievement is stupid, and a case of the survivor reaping what they're sowing here. If you want to deny the achievement, fine... but you don't get to complain about being made to wait when you're the one who is refusing to play.
0 -
Surprised it could result in a ban. I thought this would fall under old SM rules that the SM doesn't have to leave her 3 gen, but survivors don't have to enter it either.
I do agree with @KateMain86 that the burden is more on the killer here. The survivor has an an incredibly small chance to advance the game by forcing the locker pick via a wiggle, there is no way the killer can advance the game without opening the locker.
5 -
I dont understand why you would sit there and waste 30 minutes of your time sitting in a locker to not get morid if you know your gonna die anyway.
4 -
I had the same situation a couple of months ago. I was the last survivor against a Myers Tombstone. I was in a locker and Myers was camping outside. when the third crow arrived, Myers walked away for a few seconds, I reached a hill (Balance landing) and we started a 30 second chase... but when I almost reached the hatch... I died! GGWP Myers
both me and the killer were happy... this is normal gameplay (for me)
0 -
I doubt he was banned specifically for that... I would have a much easier time believing he was banned for what was said in the chat after the game ended.
This achievment is a pain in the ass yeah but if I was playing killer I would have just grabbed the survivor and hook him. No point in wasting my time
4 -
It's stuff like this that's still in the game why I continually call DBD a toxic arms race. Both sides play toxic to counteract the other sides toxic stuff and some people are just too petty to be the better person. While it's nice to hope that people should be better, BHVR as the moderator and group that enforces the rules SHOULD be on top of this.
This achievement is awful and simply moring all 4 survivors REGARDLESS of method should suffice (mori offering, devour hope should count) but neither player should be banned for it because of it because both are playing the game by the rules BHVR themselves have created.
It's situations like this that are harsh reminders how blissfully unaware BHVR are of how toxic their game can get within the normal circumstances of playing it and they need to play it in public lobbies more and actually SHOW us doing it even if they are anonymous while playing. Even if they cherry picked footage, they would still see the bad enough to realise something has to give.
Tomestone in general as well as this achievement needs to go and Myers need to be reworked a bit as a killer so that his power level isn't drastically changed based on whether or not he has Tomestone and/or infinite tier 3.
Further whether someone got banned for this or stuff in chat is also besides the point and what should come as a result of this debacle. I can only hope lessons are learned by the right people.
2 -
Achievements aren't part of the base gameplay, using the argument that a match couldn't be completed or played to the end because of an achievement is silly.
I've told this plenty of times but I'll tell it again, I've given the Myers his kills before for Tombstone, and multiple times they've already had the achievement for years, so I'm absolutely going to be hopping into lockers at any point in the match if I can't make it to a pallet, I've never had an achievement given to me and I'll never try to help someone out with theirs, either.
3 -
Neither of them should be banned in this situation, since both can free themselves from the 'game-hostage'.
Was the survivor petty? Yes
Against the rules? No
If I were him, I would have jumped out of the locker and ended it, I certainly wouldn't have waited 1 hour without doing anything, but that doesn't take away from the fact that everyone does as they please.
The killer is not entitled to demand the kill, and the achievement is no justification, in fact technically since his aim is to kill survivors he should have been the one to end the game first.
1 -
They absolutely are part of the base game, things like throwing the rest of the team under the bus for Hemophobia, slugging and sweating for adepts, even things like the Tome challenges to hook all players in basement or get 4 hooks in end game collapse.
This all encourages more unfriendly and toxic styles of play to accomplish, this stuff is absolutely in the base game.
0 -
No achievement is necessary for a normal match to finish, at all.
1 -
So what you're saying is, don't care about achievements... that's a fine stance to take, but... they exist, and BHVR created the achievements with the intent for players to go for achievements. If you don't care, fair enough, but others do, and if the achievement/challenge encourages or even requires toxic play, it's not really the fault of the player...
e.g. If I have a challenge to sacrifice 4 players in basement, I have to keep trying to take that player to basement. If they keep sitting in a corner and ensuring I can't do it, and otherwise won't try to escape, isn't the survivor the one who is not engaging in normal gameplay and thus holding the game hostage?
Edit: I'd also appreciate the distinction made between a survivor where they have a Myers staring at them survivor in a locker, vs. a Myers who is carrying them as far from lockers as possible and then trying to catch them before they make it back to the same locker.
The latter is more obviously trying to play the game and get their kill, but the end result of both scenarios seems to be the result of the same problem, where it is the survivor that is not trying to reach hatch, and is the one holding up the game.
0 -
Still not a bannable reason, but i would say there are multiple instances of that kind of situations that are very bitter for both sides / have little counterplay on one and should be removed in all cases (MYERS MORI ADDONS, full slug, survivor having background player and another getting downed under a pallet, etc, etc)
OK, nice hypocrisy, but what if he was just waiting there to let the survivor pass through ?
It feels wrong right ? Both were just as petty and unrespectful, but still that situation should be prevented by the devs for the good of the community ... (I would be grumbling that myers needs love from the devs)
And stop about that rulebook argument, if you play both sides it seems pointless and useless.
I don't either ? To feel proud of having opponents bad enough for you to succeed ?
And most ppl feel like they are the survivor so that may be the issue sometimes ...
Archievement are implemented by whom ? DEVS What do devs do ? The game ! So are the archievement a part of the game ? Yes ! And thx for giving kills for free to this poor myers that needs 4 ppl to do that to succeed ...
Cauz if you are not bad at the game you litterally destroy that guy anyway (and if you are the obsession, hide !).
If i wanted to do this archievement again i would get destroyed, i played too much oni to get bad survivors ...
And it was a pain even when there was the rank system ...
YES ! Finaly someone that play dbd and doesn't only go on forums to rage at himself in ten minutes ...
Disclamer : it's possible that killer did get banned but for smth else BTW ... And it's not even impossible for him to have been a cheater at one point, to have stopped cheating but having been registered as cheating and getting banned a few minutes after at the same time as 10000 cheaters ...
Id see the point of arguing about any of the above tbh i just do that enormous post cause i have time to waste ...
Dev don't listen anyway ...
0 -
Neither should be banned but the achievement is stupid. This type of gameplay is all on BHVR not the players.
For clarification - This is the equivalent to banning someone for the old school hatch standoff. Both players have the ability to end the game but they choose not to.
3 -
the thing is there is no advancing the game at that point. it was the last survivor when the survivor leaves the locker hes dead if he gets pulled out of the locker hes dead there is no chance for the survivor to win.
now before anyone comes with like the two or three unlikely situation where the survivor has a ace up there sleeves.
if he has ds not opening the locker is the correct counterplay just like being in the locker is the correct counterplay for tombstone.
if the survivor by chance has a wiggle build and the locker is in a freaky deadzone where the killer could not reach a hook no matter what the survivor would be dead anyway cause then the correct counterplay is to drop and let them bleed out wich probably would have gotten hate too.
there is no right or wrong in that situation the survivor had all rights to stay put and dont give them the kill via tombstone and the killer had all rights to wait it out too. that was a game of wills and obviously both had a strong will and sat it out.
in the end we cant blame anyone and i really think the ban was not for "holding hostage" cause then bhvr would contradict themselfs it was more likely for being rude af in chat after this incredebly long staring contest
0 -
As Rizzo mentioned, we don't discuss the specifics of someone's ban in public, but I want to hop in and clarify a couple general things.
First, I can confirm that this is not a bannable offense and not something we would ban for. In this scenario, both players were able to move around freely and end the standoff at any point. The Survivor is not required to leave the locker and let the Killer kill them, and the Killer is not required to grab the Survivor out of the locker and hook them, but neither of them were stuck in the match by any means. Nobody commited a bannable offense, both chose to waste their own time.
Secondly, when you receive report feedback, it's simply to let you know that action was taken against a player you reported. It does not mean that your report specifically was what led to the ban. For example, if the same person had said something hateful in another match, they may have been banned for that instead, but you'd still receive the feedback popup. This way, nobody who reported that person is left in the dark just because they weren't the first to report them.
We do not act on non-reportable offenses, but the report feedback is automated and can't tell the difference. When in doubt, please consult the game rules to see if something is reportable.
15
