Whats your opinion on killing on hook?
Comments
-
You kinda did completely disregard the qualifying statement. If you tell someone to "tough it out" you already acknowledge that they have a miserable experience - otherwise you wouldn't tell them to tough it out, you'd tell them to not be petty about a minor thing. Demanding people that you know are having a miserable experience stick around and endure said miserable experience for your entertainment is something I believe is pretty low.
5 -
I think this is certainly a regional thing. So I play a lower MMR on one side and a mid MMR on the other. I will see a lot of hookicides for being the first down or after running they get caught. Most just DC. Sometimes it's warranted with no one doing anything, a camping killer (they walk by the hook constantly but not enough for the meter to raise up), tunneling.
0 -
I think it's the inconsistency that is the worst part. They added bots specifically so the game wouldn't be at a massive disadvantage but added a penalty to the action and made hook suicides free.
While killers get no way to leave the match without a penalty. Either they should accept both are bad and punish suicides made within the first 3 minutes (specifically struggling or failing 2 skill checks that early) or they should remove the dc penalty for both killer and Survivor so at least Survivors get a bot. And if the killer leaves the match ends anyway.
0 -
no, the 4% save me sometime so no thanks
1 -
Camping is not punished in CoD or any other games with strategies that may be considered "toxic" what are you talking about? What these games punish is griefing, like intentionally feeding, assisting the enemy team, going afk, etc.
0 -
These games do that though. Punishing AFK is easy, they literally already have AFK detection in the game in terms of crows, punishing griefing is also easy.
Its pretty easy to see if someone has 3 chases in a game that each last 3 seconds. Or if both of their hits happen in the exact same spot. And yes, someone can be bad at the game and this could also happen sure. This is why you don't punish people for a single game, you do it based on a repeated pattern of behavior.
Even the worst of the worst survivors are still going to get some progress done on a generator, and are still going to have a chase that at least lasts some number of seconds once in a while. But if you see someone for 5 or 10 games in a row, get 1k bloodpoints, with 0 progress on generators, where all of their chases last 3 seconds, and they get hit while standing in the exact same spot for 3 chases. There is obviously something going on there.
Such detection could even take into account MMR averages. For example, if you are at 500 MMR (some extremely low number) they can know that the average chase at that MMR lasts X number of seconds, and survivors tend to get X average bloodpoints and X average gen progression and so on. Then just base their detection on that, so that "bad players" aren't judged the same as top mmr for example.
0 -
I mean, that is easily accounted for with multiple factors, teammates unhooking them out of spite for raging, and the 4% mechanic.
Think of it this way. Lets say hypothetically 25% of skull merchant's kills are based on people rage quitting (We don't know if that is the case, but it doesn't really matter too much as we are dealing with percentages here.)
Lets imagine a scenario where we are looking at 100,000 kills.
- 25,000 of them are people doing a hook suicide.
- 75,000 of them are "legitimate".
Now, of those 25,000, how many of them do a "4%"? Well, its a 12% chance to do a "4%" based on 3 tries. So of those 25,000 kills, you'd see 3000 4%s. So now the stats are
- 22,000 hook suicide
- 78,000 regular kills
So if her kill rate was 71% before on 100,000 before which would be 129,000 survivors seen, and then they took out the hook suicides, which was 22,000, her kill rate would actually go up to 72%.
So even ignoring the "spite unhooks" it is easy to see how removing "1st hook deaths" doesn't show the whole scope of the problem.
There is also more to "Giving up" then just killing yourself on the hook, there is the, running to the killer, teammates unhooking you, running into the killer again, griefing teammates, etc.
0 -
Not really. To tough it out can also mean, that someone shouldn't just leave at the earliest inconvenience, which is the actual problem.
We are not talking about something like a 3gen Merchant (thank god that's gone!) but about small things that you may not like but can and will happen.
Nobody is upset about a survivor hook suiciding when the match is over anyway or when the killer is really going out of their way to be a dick. But even if that was the main cause of rage quits, you should not queue up, if you are going to rage quit anyway.
3 -
I don't think that's a counter argument at all. There are instances where a killer is being an undeniable jerk and the experience isn't fun, but there are plenty more cases of the killer just playing the game and survivors pitches a fit cause they screwed a vault, or got mind gamed, or see a perk or killer they don't like.
Where do you draw the line of what is acceptable to quit to, and what isn't? You can't, and no one can, because fun/misery is subjective. Some people happily take camping, tunneling, slugging, etc as a part of the challenge, the comp scene for example. While they are not the typical player, they are still a part of the player base, and who can you name as the arbiter to decide what is OK to quit to, and what isn't?
I think the easiest way to think about it is, think of your favourite killer to face, assuming playing fair and completely non toxic.
Now imagine every time you face that killer, one of the players hears their terror radius and immediately runs to the killer, and insists on getting downed and SoH, or othwrwise does nothimg all game but throw. That person just completely killed your game, and you never get to play a normal game against your favourite killer.
If anyone complains about that person is your response "well they are clearly having a miserable experience, and they shouldn't be forced to tough it out"? That seems a slippery slope, and the fundamental fact is by quitting you give the troll killers exactly what they want, and only punish your survivor teammates and the killers that do actually want to make a game of it.
Most players would agree, egrious trolling and nasty/boring/toxic gameplay needs working out of the game, but quitting is hardly something that can be defended or justified, except for the most extreme cases... and most quitters simply don't save it for extreme cases.... which is why it needs to be cracked down upon.
1 -
For me DBD doesn't need to be taken seriously, but that's different from saying DBD needs to be played with a certain amount of empathy. It's possible to have fun and not be a jerk. Someone taking their life on a hook is a jerk move, because it affects everyone involved.
I'm willing to make a couple of exceptions to the rule: a) someone kills themself, so that the last Survivor has a chance for Hatch, or b) the game is unplayable, due to some major bug or hefty exploits (but they have to be so big as to make the game truely unplayable). Obviously, b) does not apply to someone feeling a game is unplayable because they got hooked early or had a temper tantrum. Option b) is rare in the most extreme.
0 -
I know people say suicide on hook ruins the game for everyone else but imo that's part of soloq. It's no different than someone trying to do a challenge like look for glyphs or totems instead of doing gens as they can been seen to "ruin the match" for the survivors that are actually trying to do gens and escape. Try beating a sweaty killer when half your team is doing random stuff like looking for glyphs or dropping every pallet in sight to try get a challenge done lol it's just not going to happen. But you can't stop people from basically abandoning the match to do personal challenges or going next.
0 -
I mainly play with killers, but if I happen to down a survivor I encounter within the first minute or two of the match, he often chooses to die on his own
Sometimes, even after being rescued, they would abandon the controls and not move
I really felt sorry for the other survivors0 -
It's weak-willed, cowardly, and selfish behavior. People have said it doesn't factor into kill rates, but I reckon it does. And worse, this happens against the weakest killers. They just decide, "Wraith? Freddy? Ghost Face? Oh man. I gotta get outta here!" You know, the killers who have literally nothing once the chase starts. Survivors really don't have it that bad. I mean, they do in terms of the teammates they get in solo. Nobody likes a match where 1-2 players did really well, only to be sunk by 2 do-nothing teammates. It's a 1v4 for a reason. But to say that the majority of survivor losses are due to killers being OP is pure folly. They can only do what survivors allow them to do. The killer can't be 4 places at once, so if 1 person is on hook and none are on gens, whose fault is that?
The only time I don't tough it out no matter what, as you suggest, is when I deem the team too incompetent to go forward in MMR. For lack of a better term, I'd be doing my fellow competitive players a "public service" by causing those fools to die as well. We're talking like a 10, 15, 20 minute game vs a whatever killer, when all gens should be done in 5-7 minutes, because 1-0 people were on gens all game, and people kept healing or hiding instead of pushing them, constant walking around doing nothing. So I don't make that decision on a whim or in the heat of the moment like others do. It's more of, "If I let them escape in place of me (when we easily all 4 could've got out), will they continue to martyr me or other good players in future matches?" Now, usually I'm not so lucky with the timing of this decision. Sometimes they're down to 1-2 gens, and then as I'm dying, all of a sudden they rush gens like crazy when they haven't all game, and they manage to escape before my accelerated death could do anything. That is the type of player who shouldn't escape, because if they only play well to save their own skin, and only after their teammates have made the ultimate sacrifice for them, as they did next to nothing all game, then those people escaping constantly are all you're gonna be matched with when you try to climb out of MMR hell.
So in 99% of DC cases out there, they're just entitled and pouty. The 1% of justified DCs, like from my above-mentioned pov or from hackers stalling the game, does not justify the rest of the people DCing. By and large, it's a way to signal to the devs that something needs a nerf (usually killers), but you don't have to do the work of arguing on here for example, as an intellectual. No points are brought forward, and no real discussion is had. You just cry and get stuff done for you. That's why we detest it.
2 -
I think that, if your leaving the match will hurt your teammates, you should DC instead of letting go on hook, because at least then they get a bot.
There are exceptions to every rule, but I don't think that leaving a match in progress should be a casual thing.
2 -
nah
0 -
Giving up on hook should be encouraged every step along the way.
0