So much for Anti Camp System
Look at this Bubba, trying to beat the anti camp system. LMAO. BHVR, What can you do better?
Comments
-
Anti-face-camp.
21 -
Anti-face-camp. F-A-C-E-camp.
It's not supposed to work against proxy camping.
18 -
Bubbas should be allowed to face-camp anyway.
12 -
14 -
I have only one time seen the anti-camp mechanism work in a survivor's favor. Once in months and I play nearly daily. So yeah it is pretty much just a sham to make survivors feel like they are "doing something" about trash game play.
2 -
It only stop killers from staying next to you. Adapt to it
1 -
If proxy camping is effectively 100% the same as face camping then that's an issue. A bubba can easily 'face' camp at a distance.
2 -
I'm going to post the same thing i do every time someone makes one of these threads.
The mechanic is not called "Anti Camp" It is "Anti FACE camp" It is designed specifically to stop face camping. I.E. this:
For "Proof" of this, simply read the patch notes of that patch:
Specifically THIS section here that is literally titled Anti FACE-CAMP Feature:
9 -
The funny thing is, face camping wasn't effective. Just boring. Proxy camping is basicly the killer tyring to not give a free unhook. Trying to delete this would make agency on the killer side extremely limited. There would need to be a huge radius around the hook, where the killer can't be.
Limiting the options what to do, never feels good. Having half of the map be a "you can't go there or you will be punished" - feels even worse.
Not a good idea.
FACE camping by the way is when the killer is as close to the hook, that they can smell your underwear.
It was boring but only effective in cases where the team was pretty bad. Exception being the old face camping, where the survivor was not able to unhook at all.
11 -
It's not anti camp...
I feel like a broken record...
5 -
And the killers 'agency' is more important than survivors being able to PLAY the game because? It's not fun when killers can just guarantee one person out of the game and there's nothing the survivors can do to counter it besides just not getting downed.
1 -
The ANTI-CAMP mechanism is not anti-camp? Did I read what you just wrote correctly?
0 -
Its called AFC, Anti face camping, not anti camping. Devs tend to solve only the extreme case of problem (such as hitting off hook with base BT), AFC .ect
The mechanic is really bad though, I rather not having it. It gives solo a feeling of they can make a save, but they never can. At least face camping let solo knows killer is camping and do Gen instead.
This is pretty much how you can make AFC non existence.
1 -
Face camping: Killer stands right next to the hook.
Proxy camping: Killer stays in proximity to the hook.
It doesn't matter whether or not 1 killer can get similar results either way. The anti-face-camp mechanic was implemented to stop "the most egregious cases" of face camping and that's exactly what it does.
I don't follow. There is no reality in which the AFC is bad survivors. If solo survivors make bad decisions (not that the AFC is needed for that), that's 100% on them. Even so, trading hooks at the last possible second is a thing because only about 2 killers (Billy and Bubba) are even theoretically capable of stopping the unhook. The others will get an exchange (at best).
An exchange is a lot better than someone dying / hitting second stage because it means, that they can make much more progress before someone dies.
8 -
The AFC makes hook trades easier, and allows much more room for the survivors to get way more reliable value out of perks like Desperate Measures, Reassurance, Deliverance, Camaradarie and Dead Hard, and ensure a much greater liklihood to get value out of their anti tunnel perks as like Off The Record, Decisive Strike and Borrowed Time, as opposed to being downed under hook and then tunneling down the unhooked player.
You can even bring something like Overcome to help you with trades too.
When compared to being able to sit right under the hook and making it very hard to basically impossible to use any of these perks, the AFC is creating sufficient windows for counterplay and doing its intended purpose very well.
5 -
Survivors also could do the hook trade with or without AFC (minus the hook grab).
Why survivors need AFC mechanic again?
0 -
I never said survivors needed it. But it does exactly what it's supposed to.
If the killer does stay right next to the hook, they get the ability to self-unhook. If they don't, then it's the same as before. There is nothing negative for the survivors here.
3 -
The AFC system needs to reveal its progress to other teammates, as it stands it's almost useless in solo q because of people not knowing if you're being facecamped or how much progress there is left before they come in and stop it, just another information gap in place among many that makes the game harder than it needs to be.
2 -
I always find it funny how people get hung up on the "face" part and repeat that part like a broken record - and even cite some of the relevant dev posts… just not all relevant passages.
Let me ask you this: What was the devs' reason to implement that mechanic? What is its stated purpose?
It was to deal with frustrations and feeling powerless on the survivor side; make survivors have agency in a situation where they don't have it.
Question: Does this mechanic achieve this?
Answer: No. Just being able to take an action isn't the same as having agency. - If it was all about "being able to take some action while hanging around" nothing was needed: there's 4% and there are skill checks. Between getting camped at 0.5 meters distance and at 5-12 meters distance and getting downed ten seconds after the unhook is no effective difference.
As it is now it's an anti-BM-on-hook-mechanic. Which would be perfectly fine… if they actually said that this was the intended purpose.
1 -
It's anti FACE camp.
5 -
Yes, it's boring if the killer camps. You know how to deal with it? Be a good teammate and do gens / stay as long on the hook as possible.
Camping is a strategy for killers to use when survivors become too efficient. It's a necessary evil sometimes.
As a Pig main, I sometimes have to resort to unfun strategies to keep up.
The more competetive this game becomes, the nastier the gameplay becomes.
This game is about kills and escapes. That's literally all what MMR looks at. How the killer gets these kills is up to them. If someone doesn't care about the others fun and just wants to win, they will optimize their gameplay. For survivor that's spreading and shift w. For killer it's focusing specific survivors and NOT spreading pressure to all survivors equally.
1 -
Thank god your here.
2 -
The dev's intentions? Oh, that's easy. To stop facecamping: it's both literally the name of the system and the intention that they expressed multiple times publicly. If you want certain people to stop repeating very, very, very, very, very simple explanations like a broken record, then other people need to stop telling the devs what they did or didn't intend, stop renaming their system, and stop with posts like this. The system is called Anti-Facecamp, it only activates when you facecamp and is only designed to activate when you facecamp. No amount of reading between the lines or Olympic gold medal mental gymnastics will change that.
Post edited by Raconteurminator on6 -
The intention was simple. To stop the "most egregious cases of camping" called face-camping. You are reading too much into it.
It is supposed to help a survivor when the killer does literally just standing next to the hook.
5 -
mah dawg!
3 -
There is no amount of reading between the lines needed… you just need to find the premise the devs outline and then the intention. The premise is this one:
This includes all instances of camping where the killer is "nearby". Whatever exactly "nearby" means. - But fret not, we don't just have the premise - we also have the explicitly stated intention:
Again, we don't know what exactly "egregious" or "too close" in this context means - but given how the same sentence (!) continues, we don't need to, since the intended outcome is stated clearly: survivors - remember the premise: survivors that are not the most coordinated of teams - are supposed to have an actual chance to rescue a fellow survivor. - Which is simply not the case with the mechanic as it is in place. It doesn't matter for a Bubba or a Billy or a Huntress - or any other killer who really makes it their mission to camp out that hook - if they are 1m away from the hook or 10m.
That being said: I don't think it's possible to design a mechanic that achieves what they intend it to achieve without either being very abusable by survs or fundamentally redesigning how hooking/unhooking works.Which is why I say they should just've called it "anti BM on hook"-mechanic, boot the premise and the intention and that's that.
Edit: tbh, what bugs me the most about this is not how the mechanic turned out - but how bhvr really has a knack for messing up their communication and expectation management. It happens so often that via the way the word things or the statements they make and without giving any actual details/say what exactly they mean/how exactly they define things, there's too much room for interpretation - interpretations that are not reigned in, even if they get widely popular. This makes it effectively impossible to avoid disappointing, and eventually alienating at least a chunk of the playerbase. And it is so avoidable by just thinking a lil bit longer about what you want to say. #rant end. Sorry.
Anyway, that being said: if in doubt agree to disagree. Didn't really intend to derail the topic and make it about rhetoric and semantics.0 -
You stated your point really well. I have no other choice but to agree. The wording is really vague. Due to how the mechanic got implemented, I always seen it as a means to tackle real face camping, at which the mechanic does succeed.
I also agree, that combating camping as a whole has often no real solution without being heavily abusable.
I would love to have a statement from the devs here. What was the specific intention of the mechanic. To combat FACE-camping or camping in general?
0 -
To combat the most egregious cases of facecamping where it was next to impossible to get an unhook, that's why the meter has a distance requirement to it, as unhooks can be made if the killer is camping at a distance, if killer is hitting a survivor on the hook for example, they're clearly too close and will trigger the antifacecamp meter.
I actually don't think the wording is that vague on our communications, but thank you for the feedback on it - our intention is of course to be as clear as possible and given the name of the feature includes the word facecamp in it and a distance requirement, it does appear, to me at least, to be very clear in intention.
5 -
Thank you very much.
1 -
What should they do, teleport the killer across the map after they hook someone? Eventually you all need to accept that some things you find unfun are just part of the game.
3 -
It’s not vague, the mechanic has a precise measurement of distance.
2 -
You gotta ask the question.
If proxy camping puts the player into similar unwinnable scenarios, then when is it getting addressed.
4 -
Thanks for clarifying.
I thought it was pretty clear, too, but it was nice of you to clarify as people have started using the wording of the post to mean whatever they feel it should mean instead of what it literally says verbatim.
2 -
Which is kinda exactly my point; if people can take it as "whatever they feel it should mean" and can quote it as they do so (i.e. me) then it wasn't worded clearly enough. - And at the very least in the initial dev update (that I quoted) it wasn't verbatim. I literally copy pasted the screenshot, it doesn't say "face" there. (Which again is kinda my point; take two seconds and precisely define in your explanation of the mechanic what kind of "camping" you mean - and how far "facecamping" goes.)
A distance that was, afaik, adjusted at least once. So it's not really the distance itself that makes something "facecamping" - otherwise you couldn't change it. (If it wasn't changed at all; then by all means: the absolute distance between killer and hooked person is what defines facecamping.)On the point "as unhooks can be made if the killer is camping at a distance"… I would hard disagree (e.g. Huntress, Billy, Bubba). But as I said: I didn't intend to derail the topic, so agree to disagree it is. — I do appreciate your clarification though.
0 -
Maybe I'm underestimating casuals but I don't think people such as OP know what "facecamping" means. Same way I don't think would know what a "hug tech" is or a CJ. I don't think the devs properly educated what facecamping is and what the mechanic does and that's probably why people expect this mechanic will stop all camping.
3 -
Honestly, it’s not a perfect solution, but the community could go back to Survivor waving arms on hook to mean Killer is around don’t save.
Again I know it’s not perfect and that there are many valid reasons why it won’t work. But idk, maybe it’s worth trying again and eventually it’ll catch on?
I mean, Killer’s who don’t read patch notes somehow found out how AFC works even though the Killer gets no info on the AFC either.
0 -
AFC needs to be Anti Camp
0 -
It doesn't put players into similar unwinnable scenarios, that's just a skill issue
0 -
Bubba standing at 16m is the same amount of deadly as a Bubba at 0m.
1
