Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
denying tombstone and sportsmanship
seen some back and forth about this over the years and i'm curious what everyone's take is on it
is it bad sportsmanship to intentionally deny the tombstone achivement when you will die either way? i don't think many people would argue that using lockers to avoid dying is bad if you will still be able to continue the game, but for example as the last survivor standing is it fair game to sit in a locker indefinitely for the sole purpose of stopping myers getting their achievement?
personally i can see both sides of this one, i think it's kind of a dick move if i'm being honest but also the survivor isn't really doing anything 'wrong'
Comments
-
I'm letting killer have that achievement because of this :)
1 -
I think up to a certain point in a match its fine to hop in lockers and force slugs / hooks but sitting in a locker for 10 minutes as the last one or hopping in a locker after he drops you is a goober play
1 -
It's not bad sportsmanship. If you're lucky enough to get it thats great. Hence why it's an achievement.
You can't expect your opponents to just hand it to you.
17 -
No, it’s not bad sportsmanship. It’s on the Devs for how frustrating it could be for the Killer to achieve it, not the Survivor. Bad sportsmanship is more along the lines of bleeding out people when you can easily hook them or body blocking a teammate while they’re being chased.
Though, if they weren’t toxic (I don’t consider equipping Tombstone toxic), and you know it’s a lost game and you don’t have any challenges you need to complete, you could be nice and let them have it.
5 -
- It's petty AF
- I will locker myself most of the time anyway, lol
But seriously, jumping in a locker to avoid the tombstone mori makes sense early in the game, but if the match is all but decided, especially if you're the last surv up and he's mori-ed everyone else, it really is just a petty, pointless thing to do.
Particularly after the latest rework, and the achievement is harder to get than ever.
3 -
This debate even happing speaks more to a problem with that Achievement/Trophy than anything else. This is one of those instances where I wish it wasn't so very very difficult to change achievements, much like the one for Huntress longshots.
2 -
0
-
As a Myers main (pre update) I had that achievement long ago but still people assume if it's tombstone then it's for achievement. A few times I had people in a locker trying to deny me an achievement I already got... Out of principle I waited until server timer was up lol. A few times that's happened, last guy was gloating saying "no achievement for you" 🤣 I just told him "p100 Myers, had it years ago"
1 -
I feel like the crux of it comes down to how obvious the achievement is. TYPICALLY no one bothers running those 2 addons unless it's for the achievement. You don't get that same response to other achievements. If a survivor is trying to get the RPD gate opening achievement, you don't see killer players quickly opening the exit gates to deny it...they just play normal.
2 -
This.
1 -
If there's a chance you can still win the match (others alive) or he can't get the achievement anymore (person escaped/died) then it's not bad sportsmanship. If the killer is wsws-ing you on the ground or BMing and you retaliate like that, technically bad sportsmanship but justified. If the killer hasn't done anything to warrant it and you're the last one left with the other 3 mori'd and you still choose to hide in a locker just to prevent them from getting the achievement then that's bad sportsmanship and a dick move, no ways around it.
0 -
Deleted.
0 -
I never hop in lockers to avoid a mori. Whether a killer gets a mori or not doesn't upset me much because I don't take it personally. I usually just drink some coffee while the mori animation goes on. It's called DEAD by daylight, not survive by daylight.
1 -
i’ll usually jump lockers a couple of times but then come out and let them do it as I generally assume it’s for a challenge
1 -
Is this topic even relevant anymore since any killer can freely mori the last remaining survivor?
2 -
lol, yeah, yeah it is. Welcome to the game! If you have any questions for want some duo, lemme know :)
0 -
Yes. It is.
The achievement just got even harder because of the update. It's really poor sportsmanship, if you see someone going for a really hard achievement, to not help them get it. You can always stomp some other round.
In fact I believe strongly, in light of these changes, that Myers should be able to mori you out of a Locker. That, or the cheevo should happen on ANY Mori item or offering or perk that kills all four people, as long as you tiered up to Evil Within III first.
You simply shouldn't be able to deny someone an achievement like this.
1 -
Achievements are utterly pointless, so I don't really care to be honest.
1 -
I have no responsibility or obligation for your achievement. That's basically the only healthy option.
Otherwise, people would just run these add-ons and expect people to give them a free kill or two.
Would we expect this of survivors? If I play Ada and name myself outbreakbreakout should I expect to be given a free escape? That sounds ridiculous.
9 -
I think it's fine though it's certainly a bit spiteful if you're the last one alive. It's also one of the only stalemates left in the game which I find to be a bit fun actually.
If people want they can still do the backpack strat on Gideon to not worry about lockers anyway. That said, the achievement has gotten a lot harder because of the stalk needed.
0 -
Not everyone is you, some people like cheevos hunting. And for them, this got a lot harder
So glad I got this one before the update.
0 -
As much as I think it would be nice if we could all be good sports to each other in this video game, the fact of the matter is that killers and survivors don't owe each other a thing.
1 -
I do understand survivors not wanting to be taken out of the game via Tombstone, it is an unfun addon and as someone who played a lot of Myers I disapprove of it.
That being said, I had a hell of a time with the achievement and while I do understand survivors going into lockers etc, what I found really scummy was that I had survivors literally DC to deny me the achievement. This was long before bots were a thing too, so it just meant I failed instantly after that as I could not just mori a bot instead.
It was actually a Twitch streamer who was kind enough to realise what I was doing and as last survivor he let me have the kill (I watched his VOD back) but boy that achievement was rough.
0 -
What you're implying is that it's ok to sit in a locker for 60 minutes until server closes because....the killer isn't entitled to an achievement?
You sure showed those Myers they should have tried switching out that chainsaw for a Dredge kit
1 -
The topic isn't asking for survivors to give free kills to help the killer. The topic is asking if it's bad sportsmanship to sit in a locker for an hour when you're the last survivor and Mikey's right there so you're dead either way. OP was pretty specific on that point. Staying in the locker until the server ends the match is still a death, the survivor is wasting their own time to be petty, and it means they're damning other survivors to more future matches as that Mikey who was denied the achievement continues to play with those add-ons. To hurt one killer player, the survivor is hurting at least four times as many other survivor players.
2 -
It's fun to deny tombstone, there should be an achievement for denying it. Really it shouldn't be in the game at all.
4 -
If you're the last survivor, Mikey sees you and has you dead to rights, and you sit in that locker, we consider that bad sportsman ship.
We don't advocate giving him kills or at the end just handing it to him without a fight. At the start go ahead and jump in the coffins to save yourself if there's a legitimate chance of getting work done and at the end try for hatch or door. Hell try to die to the endgame timer if you want so you both have some chance of getting what you want. But the locker sitting? No.
1 -
The tombstone addons shouldn't exist the way they currently do, but no one is a bad sport for not wanting to give their opponent free kills.
6 -
It's more so spite on the survivors part. 99% of the time when this happens, the survivor is dead to rights, and the game is already over. All you're doing is being a child.
Yet survivors expect killers to give them free chances by not tunneling etc.
1 -
I'm aware many survivors do. I personally don't think killers should be expected a certain way either.
2 -
So, these responses always give an insight into how people think. Let me explain what I feel should happen in the "classic tombstone achievement standoff".
So, in this scenario, we have a double iri tombstone Myers, three survivors are already dead to the add-on and the last survivor is in a locker. Myers is standing outside and knows the last survivor is in the locker.
In this situation, the killer has said "I know where you are and would like to kill you by my own hand and get my achievement". The survivor said "yes, but I know the counter play to this". And now we get to the very important part that people seem to not understand:
The next move in this situation is the killer's.
Now, in an ideal world the killer would actually try to counter the locker counter play and grab, drag the survivor to a dead zone, and still have earned the achievement.
Maybe the survivor can still make it to a locker instead. This is called PVP.
So let's say this has happened, the killer has tried all of this and can't get the survivor to a dead zone. Or maybe they haven't tried anything other than standing there, menacingly. It doesn't change that that next move is the killer's.
With mature players, the killer will understand that the survivor is effectively playing to counter, and they won't get the achievement. So the only real course is to hook the survivor and go next.
I can't say this loudly enough, but if the match lasts for longer than a few minutes in this state, it's the killer who is showing poor sportsmanship.
Maybe the killer will hope that the survivor will gift them the achievement. But if it's been more than a couple minutes, that's obviously not going to happen. Once it gets beyond a couple minutes, the only options are that the killer has a sunk cost fallacy and doesn't realize he should cut his losses and try again, or (most likely) the killer feels entitled to the kill… and the killer is wasting the survivors time by not ending the match gracefully with a hook.
I can't say this enough: in this exact situation, the survivor is doing the only thing they can to survive, and the killer is refusing to kill. Anyone saying the survivor is in the wrong is way, way off base.
Post edited by AmpersandUnderscore on5 -
"Maybe the survivor can still make it to a locker instead. This is called PVP."
I don't know why this makes me laugh.
2 -
I think the entire situation is silly, but the thing to keep in mind is that the killer has all the power to kill and end the match quickly. Nobody is entitled to free achievements.
5 -
It's the killer's move. He has the opportunity and ability to kill the survivor at any time and is choosing not to. He can end the game at any moment by completing his primary objective, and the only reason he isn't killing this survivor is to hope the survivor either makes a mistake or gifts the achievement to them.
If that goes on for longer than a few minutes, then either the killer doesn't realize the achievement isn't going to happen (unlikely), or feels entitled to the achievement.
The optimal, "good sport" move is to do their job, hook the survivor, and say "ggwp" and try again next game.
Survivors should never be expected to stop "surviving" and throw themselves on the killer's blade. You're expecting the survivor to throw away their primary objective (surviving) to end the game. That is completely unreasonable when the killer just has to do their job.
4 -
Speaking of insights, how did you feel about hatch standoffs? They were generally considered the survivor's fault for refusing to take the chance on getting grabbed, and we basically forgot about this scenario when addressing them. Now the killer is apparently expected to continuously grab and carry the survivor in the hopes of landing in enough of a deadzone (no other lockers nearby, of course) as many times as it takes to secure their win they already got. The match is over in this stalemate, the survivor's outcome is nearly always death. You're stretching the hell out of that <1% chance of them surviving somehow when they're firmly placed between the killer taking a single action to finish them vs dying to the server shutdown anyway.
The only way that anyone can ever survive that is if the killer lets them. And thats kinda the point many people have regarding the situation, the killer is expected to give them more free chances to escape the stalemate. Yet it's the killer showing bad sportsmanship for wanting the achievement, while the survivor afking and watching youtube videos is the victim? Prolonging the match (which they will not survive) until the 1 hour shutoff is not a "counter" any more than people DCing before bots to deny it was. It is just refusing to accept defeat and being spiteful about it. The irony is, as has been mentioned, preventing their achievement just subjects other survivors to the same playstyle, so the cycle continues until it ends with a non-spiteful survivor who happens to lose last
1 -
how did you feel about hatch standoffs?
Hatch standoff was already gone before I started playing the game. But I don't feel like that's comparable here since that was a poor design choice by the devs. Interactions or locker use are the intended counter play to tombstone.
Now the killer is apparently expected to continuously grab and carry the survivor
Not continuously. There's a finite amount of space on a map, and it should be pretty clear after a short time that it is or isn't possible to give a dead zone. The survivor is likely going to go to the same locker they know is safe in a small number of turns.
Looking for a dead zone and trying to catch the survivor is literally player vs player interaction. It's literally gameplay. And if the killer manages to be successful, they've earned the achievement.
Every single response is completely backwards in this thinking. This has nothing to do with a win, if it did then why not hook? Be done with it! You even admit the game is over, so the killer needs to do their job and kill the survivor!
The survivor isn't prolonging anything, the game is over when the killer decides or realizes he can't get his achievement. That's it, that's the secret reality that no one wants to admit.
The killer isn't doing his job of killing the survivor, when they have the opportunity and ability to do so. In any other context it's an open and shut case that that's where the problem lies.
The only reason for this conversation is that people want a difficult achievement to be made easier and are blaming the survivor for not gifting it to them. That's entitlement.
4 -
I'm not sure what "fantasy scenario" you're taking about, since I very specifically describe the situation that is generally considered "the tombstone achievement dilemma".
The killer has opportunity and ability to kill a survivor and isn't doing it (specifically in hopes of being gifted the achievement). That's where the problem is.
The sportsmanlike reaction to this should be "well, darn. I was close but looks like this isn't in the cards this match. I'm going to hook you and try again next, gg!"
So why isn't the killer doing that?
2 -
Even if the survivor steps out of the locker, the game still isn't over. The killer still has to kill the survivor.
The only way the survivor can end the game is if they find the hatch or complete the rest of the gens and leave through the exit gates.
0 -
Prolly the best way to handle this scenario would be to have the locker eject the surv once they have three crows, putting them in the dying state. It then leaves the killer with the option to pick them up or not, so the trial ends with the hook or in the four bleed out minutes, but not when the server finally closes.
Still not getting the achievement, but still not taking an hour either.
0 -
I can't say this enough: in this exact situation, the survivor is doing the only thing they can to
survive, and the killer is refusing tokill.The survivor's objective is not to remain on the map indefinitely, it's to escape. If the survivor is not working to escape, all they're doing is wasting time. If a survivor hugs a gen and refuses to let go as a counterplay to Tombstone, I respect that. Working on gens is part of their objective and they're earning points doing it. Sitting in a locker doesn't earn points, it doesn't get them closer to their objective. In fact, sitting in the locker doing nothing gets the survivor closer and closer to death, they're just dong it via the ridiculously long route.
Again, the survivor's objective is to survive by escaping. That's survival. That's very different from sitting on the map doing nothing prolonging death.
in an ideal world the killer would actually try to counter the locker counter play and grab, drag the survivor to a dead zone, and still have
earnedthe achievement.Some maps have nowhere to drag the survivor that's far enough away from a locker. Getting a map where that's not the case isn't "earning", it's getting lucky. Back before I had the achievement, one of the maps the game put me on was Red Forest. That sucked. I tried over and over again, but there was nowhere far enough. It was in the days before bots, and once the survivor realized I was persistent, they disconnected to deny the Tombstone.
This has always been about spite rather than surviving or countering. Now that there are bots, the survivors can't disconnect to deny the achievement anymore, but back when they could they would. Constantly.
the killer is wasting the survivors time by not ending the match gracefully with a hook.
Or the survivor could end the match gracefully by letting the killer have the Tombstone. The killer isn't obligated to kill the survivor a certain way as much as the survivor isn't obligated to let the killer kill them a certain way. The survivor is wasting their own time if they keep running back to a locker. And if the survivor is so determined to refuse to be Tombstoned, then the killer can also refuse to drop them and mori them, and the two can let the entity handle it, in which case the survivor dies when time runs out. Both players are being stubborn but neither are breaking the rules. In my opinion, the survivor is the one being more ridiculous, because dying quickly by Tombstone seems a lot better than waiting for 50 minutes to die by the server closing. It's not like the survivor gets an achievement or more points or anything for dying by mori or the server closing instead of being Tombstoned.
The sportsmanlike reaction to this should be "well, darn. I was close but looks like this isn't in the cards this match. I'm going to hook you and try again next, gg!"
So why isn't the killer doing that?
There's nothing "ggwp" about lockers existing. The survivor outwitting the killer in a chase and getting the hatch or using stealth to get the door, actively doing something, that's "ggwp." Prolonging the game while not actively doing anything just in the hopes they'll force the killer to mori them instead of Tombstone, that's not good gameplay, that's petty.
And it's unlikely to be a choice between getting hooked or getting Tombstoned. Mori'ing the final survivor is base kit. With Myers, the only difference is that the survivor is choosing to go lying down (mori) instead of standing up (Tombstone).
1 -
What is the killer waiting for in your world?
Simply by standing outside the locker, the killer is already asking "would you like to gift me the achievement?" And by staying in the locker, the survivors answer is "no".
At that point the conversation is done, and that should take, at most a couple minutes. The killer, by not pulling from the locker, is saying "fine, I'm not going to do my job of killing you at all, you can stay in that locker until you change your mind or the server shuts down".
That's it, that's the entire conversation.
The mental gymnastics here are insane. You're going out of your way to try and say things like "the survivor should only survive so long", or the "survivor should just give up" when the answer is "the killer should just kill the survivor and accept that their achievement isn't possible that match".
This conversation never happens for literally any other achievement in the entire game. If I name my character "going for adept" an I suddenly entitled to an escape? That the killer is somehow in the wrong for me not getting it?
Absolutely not. That's completely unreasonable, and it's not up to the other team to grant our gift that to me under any circumstance.
No one ever says, no matter how entitled, that is somehow on the killer to make sure their adept achievement gets done. Yet here we are, an entire thread of people so backwards that it's somehow the survivors fault for not giving up the achievement.
Get over yourselves, it's a hard achievement, go earn it.
6 -
I did earn it. A long time ago. With survivors DCing to deny it. It was a horribly designed achievement then and it's still a horribly designed achievement now.
If I name my character "going for adept" an I suddenly entitled to an escape? That the
killeris somehow in the wrong for me not getting it?If the killer disconnects to deny you the achievement, then that is wrong, yes. Killers who disconnect to deny survivors the RPD escape achievement are in the wrong as well. The killer lost, but they see something they can deny their opposition, and they do it even to their own detriment.
Again, no one's talking about free kills or free escapes. The comparison is wrong.
I've seen killers open an RPD gate and then go and stand in front of the other to deny any survivor opening it. I consider that bad sportsmanship as well. Again, not "unsportsmanlike" as in breaking the rules, just bad sportsmanship in that they're being a jerk in the way they're conceding. "I lost, but you don't get what you want. Ha ha."
The hiding in a locker nonsense to force a mori instead of being Tombstoned shouldn't be possible, it's poor game design. If the final remaining survivor could be Tombstoned in the dying state, or if the final survivor mori counted as a Tombstone, then this wouldn't even be a conversation. Instead, the devs designed an achievement that can be completely denied by the existence of lockers.
Like I said, back before bots, survivors disconnected to deny the achievement. They did it as they were about to be Tombstoned, they did it when I kept dragging them out looking for a dead zone, and they did it when I stared at the locker to see if they'd get so bored they'd just step out. The only reason they sit in lockers now instead of disconnecting is because they get replaced by a bot.
Edit: The reason I mention disconnects to deny the achievement is about mindset. It's two different ways of players getting the same outcome. I wasn't entitled when I was frustrated at being denied the achievement because survivors kept disconnecting. It's not entitlement to be frustrated that this achievement is so poorly designed and lockers can deny it even when the killer has otherwise won, either.
Post edited by TragicSolitude on2 -
If you know for a fact they're trying to do the achievement, then yeah it's pretty petty. But refusing to just pick up and mori on the floor or hook them is also a bit entitled because you're deviating from regular gameplay just to get an achievement when you could end the game. It's just a poorly designed achievement in the first place, glad I got it before the iris got nerfed.
They really should make it so if you kill 3 players with tombstone and use finisher mori on the last you still get the achievement. Or just make it so the requirement is "kill 4 survivors by your hand while using these two addons". Then you could even do it with an ebony mori offering.
0 -
The hiding in a locker nonsense to force a mori instead of being Tombstoned shouldn't be possible, it's poor game design
At this point, you're just literally saying there should be no counter to this combo. Survivors should just die, and more importantly, that it's now somehow on the devs to give out the achievement for free. Or at least make it uncounterably easy. That's just an indefensible position, and blames literally anyone except the killer for their own actions (or refusal to do their literal job).
back before bots, survivors disconnected to deny the achievement.
Lockers weren't and aren't that hard to find and use for this purpose. You're trying to be outraged by the fact that survivors aren't somehow allowing the "power role" whatever the killer wants.
I don't deny that some people can be petty, but extending that to the entire player base is way off. Again, the killer in this scenario is refusing to end the game because the survivor isn't just giving them the achievement that they've only partially earned. Why should the survivor be stuck in a locker for an hour because the killer can't accept that 75% of an achievement isn't 100%?
I don't really care how much the killer wants it, or feels they deserve it. Be a good sport and put me on hook so we can both move on gracefully. Since that's what this thread was initially about.
I can accept that, as the survivor, I've lost the game, but the killer didn't earn their achievement. Those are two very different things. And that's the part that causes the conflict and dragging out the game: the killer can't accept that they got close, but not quite. Which is now why you're saying that "counter play should not exist". Yikes.
The biggest indicator for me that this is killer pettiness is the posts. This is the only achievement in the entire game that people regularly post about, usually because they didn't get it themselves, and are actively angry and blaming their opponent for not giving it to them.
If you're defending that, you're simply wrong. I've illustrated why that's the case in at least 3 different ways, so if it isn't sticking at this point it never will with you.
It's ego, it's entitlement, flat out. And this is literally the definition of special pleading fallacy of you are saying this is the only achievement in the game that isn't up to the player to earn, no, it's somehow on the opponent to gift it to them.
So I'm out of this discussion with you. But, since I can easily prove this is an ego thing too: you won't help yourself but have the last word in this conversation, but I also leave you with one final word of my own: ratio.
2 -
No I am playing SURVIVOR and amma do everything I can to SURVIVE. That is like me asking and hoping the killer will allow me to get the achievement that I need to be the last one alive and repair the last gen and escape. That is not bad sportsmans ship nore is it burger king, cant always have it your way.
3
