Purposefully bleeding survivors to death should be a punishable offense.

Options
2»

Comments

  • appleas
    appleas Member Posts: 1,050
    edited March 22
    Options

    Knockout exists. Infectious Fright also encourages slugging because it tells the Killer where to go for the next chase.

    As long as these perks is in the game, mass slugging as a strategy is deemed to be acceptable by the devs. If the devs wanted Killers to hook all slugged survivors after downing them, they could give basekit deerstalker to Killers to make it easier. Rather than just blaming everything on the Killer player, look at the system designed by the devs and question why some aspects that encourage Killers to act in certain ways exist?

  • Optx
    Optx Member Posts: 50
    Options
  • Optx
    Optx Member Posts: 50
    Options

    You're not engaging with this in good faith. This is not a balance discussion. I'm not complaining about slugging as a whole, but a specific scenario where killers will purposefully bleed you out, not because it's the efficient thing to do, but because they're petty.

    If you could boil down my argument to "slugging is unfun and unfair", bringing up anti-slugging perks would make sense. But you can't, because it's not.

    I don't think you understood point two.

  • Optx
    Optx Member Posts: 50
    edited March 25
    Options

    "here are some accurate numbers I pulled out of nowhere and refuse to back up with a source"

  • Unknown2765
    Unknown2765 Member Posts: 1,799
    Options

    Do you even play the game?

    Do you need a source for survivors drag time for killers when they win? It's something that every player who actually plays the game sees in most matches every day.

    But let me turn that argument around, what is your source of the killers bleeding survivors to death? i could just as well claim that it never happens.

  • Optx
    Optx Member Posts: 50
    Options

    Stop with the strawmans, Jesus Chirst. I never denied the fact that survivors teabagging by the exit gate was common. I was merely calling you out for blatantly fabricating (and doubling down on) a fictitious number in order to support your argument. "80-90% of all survivors stand and drag time for the killer", "No, your arguments are wrong, here are some accurate numbers." This is textbook bad faith.

    "But let me turn that argument around [...] I could just as well claim that it never happens." No. No you could not. For one, in an earlier comment, you mentioned that it does, in fact, happen. "Also, its really rare, that im getting bled out, its not even 1/10 games." Furthermore, you and I could just look it up and come up with plenty of examples.

    On that note, here are some actually verifiable numbers. These were pulled from Otzdarva's two most recent available vods. A grand total of 28 survivors escaped through the exit gates. 6 were teabagging and/or purposefully wasting his time (4 of which were SWFing, but that's beyond the point). So, just about 20%, a far cry from 80-90%. Now, I hear you; "cherry-picked", "small sample size", etc. This is about as much time as I'm willing to spend skimming through streams to make a point. While the actual number may fluctuate, I guarantee 20% is not far off. Want to triple down? Feel free to come up with a different number and back it up with a source.

  • fulltonon
    fulltonon Member Posts: 5,762
    Options

    Generally speaking, it's much faster and smooth to secure 4k with bleedout than letting survivors camp on hatch for 30 consecutive minutes, I won't bother finding already winning survivor.

    They MUST do something to stop last two survivors from hiding, otherwise bleedout must exist.

  • Optx
    Optx Member Posts: 50
    Options

    Couldn't you just… not go for the 4k? Unless you're going for specific challenges or achievements, I see no reason not to hook and move on. You're going to get to hatch first the overwhelming majority of the time anyways. It's not worth your time.

  • MaTtRoSiTy
    MaTtRoSiTy Member Posts: 1,734
    edited April 6
    Options

    I have had a few of these in the last week, just had a knockout killer attempting to bleed us out but failing as I think my team mates were a SWF so Knockout didn't do much.

    I will say it again as I have said many times, there needs to be a 'concede' option when everyone is slugged and there is no perk to get anyone up. This would remove a lot of the incentive for trolling for the immature kids who continue to do this, as wasting 4 minutes of their own time bleeding out bots isn't probably going to do it for them.

    Edit: I know slugging isn't reportable but some of these are doing so to intentionally grief others which I am sure is reportable.

  • opxtreme
    opxtreme Member Posts: 69
    Options

    I believe this is a punishable offense, if the killer is able to kill you but chooses not to and wastes your time (key words) which is technically holding the game hostage, therefore a reportable offense. It may not be a permanent thing like killer bodyblocking in a corner, but its still ignoring main gameplay.

  • ExcelSword
    ExcelSword Member Posts: 451
    Options

    Knockout is absolute trash and shouldn't exist. It doesnt even do anything against SWFs, so it just screws over solo survivors who are already fighting an uphill battle.

    Slugging in general, though. As long as there are ways that survivors can take advantage of a survivor being picked up, from blinds to pallet slams to sabotaging hooks, the killer should never be punished for avoiding those situations by being forced to pick up the survivor.

    I know the base kit unbreakable was scrapped, but I do see some merit in it, but not sure how to implement it without it being too strong.

  • ExcelSword
    ExcelSword Member Posts: 451
    Options

    You are incorrect. The killer slugging you will eventually kill you, so it does not count as slugging. If you want to get technical about it, the max duration of a match is 60 minutes, so overall being slugged on the ground is only 6.66% of the total match time.

    You are free to dislike it, and there are good reasons to dislike it, I absolutely hate it at times, but it is not reportable.

  • Callahan9116
    Callahan9116 Member Posts: 126
    Options

    I don't have the data but I suspect that survivors who do things like DS get slugged more.

  • Optx
    Optx Member Posts: 50
    Options
  • Blueberry
    Blueberry Member Posts: 13,249
    edited April 7
    Options

    How often does all survivors getting slugged and left to bleed out actually happen realistically? I've seen this like once in a couple hundred games..if even that. This happens so rarely that it doesn't even feel like a topic worth talking about honestly.

    I feel like it's more often used as a guise because people just don't like slugging and want it nerfed. Painting it up as unsportsmanlike game play is a tool to get that. What they really want to say is just that they think slugging is too strong and want it nerfed, but that won't convince people because it's not. Not always, but generally what I feel like I see.

  • Optx
    Optx Member Posts: 50
    Options

    I'd gladly PM my profile if you think I'm just a survivor trying to get slugging nerfed.

    That's beyond the point anyhow, seeing as I'm not asking for a nerf but a punishment for players bleeding survivors out with explicit malicious intent. Sure, it isn't particularly common.

  • Blueberry
    Blueberry Member Posts: 13,249
    edited April 7
    Options

    What would PM'ing your profile show?

    "That's beyond the point anyhow, seeing as I'm not asking for a nerf but a
    punishment for players bleeding survivors out with explicit malicious
    intent. Sure, it isn't particularly common."

    It is much more reasonable since you're not asking for a nerf to slugging, I agree. I personally wouldn't mind if they did make those scenarios against ToS myself, but they're currently not since they don't break any rules. Would be kind of hard to prove as well. What if he was just like, well I couldn't find them on the ground? It's a bit messy.

    How often are you saying you actually see this 4 man slug with being left for everyone to bleed out?

  • Neaxolotl
    Neaxolotl Member Posts: 517
    Options

    I wonder how can you even know people have explicit malicious intent

  • Blueberry
    Blueberry Member Posts: 13,249
    Options

    Yeah that's kind of my point as well. Even if they wanted to add it to the bannable offenses it would be very hard to enforce because it would be difficult to prove.

  • MaTtRoSiTy
    MaTtRoSiTy Member Posts: 1,734
    Options

    Griefing literally is one of the in game reporting options

  • kaoraku
    kaoraku Member Posts: 247
    Options
  • kaoraku
    kaoraku Member Posts: 247
    Options

    It is. Why it is matters why the killer slugged? The point is that you are on the ground for 4 minutes max. If it is because there is no hook, or he do not want to risk a hatch espace, or because he is angry, or because he hates your name… The outcome is the same. And the same things can counter it.

  • ratcoffee
    ratcoffee Member Posts: 1,092
    edited April 7
    Options

    This thread was about slugging for a bleed out, which some people were arguing constitutes hostage holding since it forces players to spend several extra minutes in a game they've already lost with no agency to leave or do anything else.

    So, if a survivor finds a way to use teabagging to force the killer to stay in a match for several minutes after the killer has already lost (in a way that parallels the way that slugging for a bleed out, while removing the killer's ability to do anything) then the survivor should be penalized, yes.

    (Edit: I want to clarify, I don't think either should be penalized, I think survivors should have a way to voluntarily end the game if they're being slugged for a bleedout. In the original post I made, I was explaining how one might detect malicious bleedouts without punishing regular slugging. This post was meant to illustrate why comparing bleed outs to teabags was not a good point of comparison)

    Post edited by ratcoffee on
  • kaoraku
    kaoraku Member Posts: 247
    Options

    My answer is to a post if you actually read it is about the move forward and backward on the slugged survivor. So i tried to show how entitled and one sided it is. Somehow everybody always want to punish the killer for doing something. So if that should be bannable, the other one should be too. And not the bleed out, that post was about something else.

    I think if survivors should bleed themself out it would be unfair. I mean many times you have to manage even the slugging, so they wouldn't get a lucky hatchescape. I understand that it can be unfunny for 4 minutes, but bullysquads and others are unfunny too, and a killer cannot even bleed himself out just disconnect or wait in a corner while they get bored.

  • ratcoffee
    ratcoffee Member Posts: 1,092
    Options

    And your attempt to demonstrate that just so happened to miss a whole lot of context, so I explained the context you missed.

    I don't understand how you argue that killer players ought to be able to keep slugs in the game, while complaining about bully squads being able to keep killers in the game. Surely either both are OK or neither are OK. In my opinion that double standard would be far more entitled than anything I said.