jaawn

Man...I feel this. I'm sorry you started playing just before the changes. You sound so discouraged and that sucks! I've played this game off and on for years and to be honest I feel pretty much the same way about all of it. It just isn't fun now and I haven't been playing because of that. I hope they fix things,…

lmao...I am literally not playing until stuff gets better. I tried to give the changes a chance, and it is just awful. It's not overreacting, it's just not fun. You can say people are being dumb all you want but if it kills queue times or ultimately hurts the health of the game... you (or at least BHVR) should probably…

There are currently like 113 survivor perks, of which players can use 4. How does BT (a single perk) lasting longer constitute a "free escape"??? If you take that perk it means you can't take some other perk...

100% agree with this. More (and clearer info) and some kind of quick communication feature (e.g. "I'm on my way to the hook" or "they found me!" or "heal here" etc... with reasonable cooldowns/anti-spam measures). It needs to be easy to use, encouraged, and obvious. That would help way more than voice chat without the…

😐...

That kill distribution is flipped from what would be healthy. That shows the problem right there and is exactly the shape I would have predicted. It's inverted (most matches are either 0 kills or 4 kills). That is the opposite of how it should be. The highest % should be 2 kills, then slightly lower for 1 kill and 3 kill,…

This is exactly the wrong mentality. These games should not be seen as 2 sides competing for fun. If the developers are trying to make one "side" more fun at the expense of the other "side", they've already failed. The game design & mechanics should be fun for both "sides" in concert. A killer ability should be fun to use…

Aggregate stats can be very misleading. If you do a case study of 100 players, and look at their experience across 10 matches, and 50 of the players have all 10 matches be 4-kill matches, while the other 50 players have all 10 be 0-kill matches, the average will be 2 kills per match...but there is still a massive problem.…

I'm glad to see it isn't just me. Hopefully there is enough pushback to shake BHVR out of the weird mindset they're in right now. The game isn't about taking fun away from one "side" and giving it to the other until things are "equal". Everything should be fun for everyone. Obviously that can't be 100% true, but that…

There is a difference between a "meta" and not being able to play/have fun/be successful unless you use certain builds. "Meta" is about what is optimal (or popular) right now, not what is viable. Everything should be viable.

Maybe that build is decent right now, but you shouldn't need a "go-to" build to be successful. That means there is a problem. Ideally, everything should be viable. Choices should be based on preferences and what playstyle is fun for you. I am not interested in doing a detailed analysis of all the perk stats on the wiki and…

The TOS and EULA say it is a violation to "Interfere with the ability of others to enjoy playing a BHVR Service...". These statements conflict with the language on the rules page which asks players not to report "camping", because of the specific type of camping where a survivor is hooked at the start of a match and then…

Playing killer doesn't require a lack of empathy. I know a lot of very nice people who enjoy playing killer...and they "play to win" without facecamping anyone...ever lol. Why are you legitimizing this? It isn't normal gameplay, it isn't normal behavior. It isn't about it "sucking" to be on a hook. It isn't even about…

The effects on the "team" of survivors isn't what I'm focused on here. Yes, the other 3 survivors could rush gens and all get out thus "punishing" the camping.... that does nothing to enable the camped player to get a chance to play the game. That's what I'm focused on. I guess technically it is some kind of tactic, but it…

I appreciate the links, and that you put a lot into this post, but one main thing I want to clear up is: it doesn't matter if it is personal or not, and the specific type of camping I am focusing on is objectively toxic. I'm not talking about "all stuff any survivor would claim counts as camping". I am talking about…

I am not talking about "being on a hook," that's a strawman. Read any of my other posts more closely to see the specific thing I'm talking about.

I didn't know that, but that is very encouraging. That should help a lot, depending on their approach. However, regardless of any systems to discourage it, the 1 specific type of camping I mentioned should be reportable. Camping someone to death on 1st hook at the beginning of a match is toxic behavior that is bad for the…

You are incredibly off base. I'm not "just mad" or something lmao. This is pure logic. The EULA is clear, the specific type of camping I highlighted is clear. They contradict, that's it. I think the EULA's language is the right thing to uphold here. Everyone should have the ability to enjoy playing the game. All killers,…

No, a EULA is a legal document. Whether or not something is violating it is not solely up to BHVR. They are free to change the EULA if they want, but facecamping someone to death on their 1st hook and refusing to chase any other survivors that come by, etc... is objectively violating the current EULA. Maybe BHVR wants to…

"The nature of the game is to make you feel angry and mad" -- this is absolutely untrue. What? I have never, ever heard anyone make that argument. The nature of the game is... to be fun. Just like any other game. Sometimes, in the process of that fun, there are challenges and frustrations that make it even more fun when…

Neither of those actions prevent anyone from playing the game. It's not about people being upset, it's about them not even being able to *play the game*. It has nothing to do with whether they live/die or whatever, it is just about them not even having a chance.

Being camped is "playing" DBD in the same way that being in a penalty box is "playing" hockey...i.e. it isn't playing at all. If someone throws a hockey player over the wall into the penalty box in the first few minutes of a match, and then stands there and physically blocks them from leaving the box, the player in the box…

That is a "counter" in a team sense, like if you are assuming a 4-person SWF who thinks of themselves as a team, but "smashing out gens" does nothing to help the one person being camped to death on first hook. They lose pips, lose out on bloodpoints, can't complete challenges, and ultimately just can't play the game. That…

I have played killer on and off some, but I mainly play survivor and I want everyone to be having fun. That's actually why I think hard camping is a problem. Some killers may find it "fun" (though, I don't know why since it is so low interaction), but either way the "fun" tradeoff is just way too lopsided for hard camping.…

It's a bit different with the survivors because they aren't standing there forcing you to stay on the hook, but I do think survivors refusing to help the team is a separate issue. I don't know that it would be "bannable" because they didn't put the person on the hook and they aren't keeping them on the hook. I don't think…

Then they are absolutely violating the same rule. Survivors are not immune to this either and should be held to the same standard, I 100% agree with that, but it is separate from the specific issue of camping that I highlighted.

Using flashlights or dead hard, etc... is not preventing someone's ability from playing or enjoying the challenge of playing. Camping someone to death on first hook doesn't allow them to even play. They can't progress, they have no good options. They don't get another chance. It is different from all of those other…

Not enjoying the game is different from being prevented from playing the game. If someone doesn't like hooks at all, they just don't like the game. Someone being camped to death on first hook is not even able to play. It's very different.

Being on hook is part of the game, being camped on 1st hook so you cannot play the game is not. I'm not complaining about hooks in general, that is part of the game. There is a gameplay loop that involves being hooked sometimes. That is fine. What's not fine is a killer forcing that loop to a halt for one player and not…

Then they need to change their EULA to allow for preventing people to enjoy the game, because that is what this is. This is my whole point. The devs saying camping is "acceptable" violates their own EULA.

Cite some reference for why the EULA doesn't apply to actions inside the game. Other parts of the SAME list of items I referenced specifically talk about actions which would be use within the game, as I've already mentioned. The EULA and TOS are documents which govern player behavior and code of conduct...while playing the…

You can't play the game, let alone enjoy it, if you are stuck on first hook until you die. If that happens because a killer is standing there camping you, they are actively preventing you from even participating in the match.

If they wanted those parts of the EULA, which is a legal contract, to be limited to preventing someone's ability to launch the game, or access the game, etc... they would have said that. Instead they used the language "enjoy playing BHVR services". That language is more broad and absolutely includes in-game behaviors that…

That is exactly my point. Including camping on the list of "non bannable" offenses contradicts the EULA. Here is a quote from the official rules post on these forums: "In case of conflict between the EULA and this page, the EULA will prevail."

No, you're misunderstanding. It's not about gameplay preferences, camping is blocking someone from being able to play *at all*. There is a huge difference.

Hooking someone, and standing there staring at them, ignoring all other survivors until that person dies on first hook, is not "engaging in normal game mechanics" and it is functionally equivalent to body blocking someone into a corner until they bleed out.

If a survivor hides in a corner, and a killer runs up and just stands there blocking them in, that is another example of actions "inside the match" preventing someone from playing the game. Just because it happens in the match, doesn't mean it's not a violation of the EULA/TOS. Just like how other items in that same list…

Camping, usually, is detrimental for a killer's success, but many killers aren't trying to play "optimally"... they just want to kill people. I have had multiple tell me they don't care about what gets the most points. Camping, doesn't perfectly prevent unhooks, but it nearly does, and if the team sacrifices themselves to…

No...this is an issue that has been part of this game for a long time, and recently camping has become more popular it seems. I'm not "salty" about a specific match, I'm pointing out a valid problem with a toxic playstyle. As I mentioned in my other reply to you, I did not "take a sentence out of context". That section of…

If you get camped every match, you're not able to play the game. Therefore, camping interferes with your ability to play. You just may be fortunate to not have it happen every game.

I did not take it out of context, and I provided a link to the document. You can go read it for yourself if you want. The things you listed do not interfere with killers' ability to play the game: Body blocking to keep a killer from hooking doesn't prevent them from their objective, it slows them down. They can attack the…

Saying it again doesn't make it any less wrong. You have not explained how it isn't interfering with playing DBD. You literally cannot play the game if you are stuck on a hook with a killer staring at you until you die. You can try to jump off, you will probably fail, and then die faster. If you succeed, the killer is…

And if you get camped again in the next game? Or if you're not playing alone so you have to wait until a friend escapes or dies? No, it really does interfere with your ability to play the game, let alone enjoy it.

I guess yeah, if the other players rush the hook before giving the killer a chance to leave, sure. Usually though it doesn't seem like that's what happens. They group up to try to combat the camping bc they don't want to just leave someone hanging until they die.

This is...completely unfounded. Unhooks are rotational? What are you talking about. Multiple games this week, someone in my game has been hooked, then the killer stands there and waits for them to die. If someone tries to unhook, the killer can pull them off.

In the official "Game Rules & Report System" post on this forum, it says "In case of conflict between the EULA and this page, the EULA will prevail."

If the killer leaves to chase someone then yeah I agree, even if they're still nearby. It gives another survivor a chance to try to unhook.

I agree, but that one is more complicated since in some cases it can be accidental or unavoidable (some subtle game visual indicators could help with that though)

Yeah, I agree. I think anything which intentionally reduces game interaction or otherwise prevents people from doing their objectives/progressing/playing the game in general, etc... should be discouraged. This includes going AFK/standing idly anywhere (both survivors and killers), camping, certain types of tunneling…

Maybe, but it is an unacceptable answer and the game will die if camping/tunneling stays popular like this. It is objectively less fun when killers primarily camp and tunnel, thus it is bad for the game. No one wants to play something where many of their matches end before they get a chance to do anything. BT and the other…