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!
How to play exceptionally good as survivor and get banned (hopefully) in the process
Comments
-
Look your logic doesn't work when applied equally to all situations. If what Scott was doing wasn't hostage but what these survivors were doing was that is hypocrisy. It is the exact same situation just with the roles reverse.
If Scott was actively guarding gens and keeping them from being done but not downing + hooking anyone himself, that would be hostage holding.
And he was preventing them from doing gens by chasing them. Is it now the killer's fault they were so bad that's all the pressure you need to put on them to make them not do gens?
See above.
Killers are not responsible for doing gens therefore you can't measure whether a game was hostage or not based solely on the survivor's inability or unwillingness to do a gen.
What? That's exactly how you measure whether Survivors are holding the game hostage.
Nothing you say will convince me this was a hostage situation, especially not flawed hypocritical logic.
Red crayon is still red no matter how much you are convinced it's blue.
0 -
"If Scott was actively guarding gens and keeping them from being done but not downing + hooking anyone himself, that would be hostage holding."
So if he just walks around, hits a survivor and kicks the gen, and then never do gens because they are so bad at the game this is all it takes to stop them, he is holding the game hostage? That makes zero sense. Being bad at the game does not make it a hostage situation. Survivors can do the gens, they just lack the skill to do it. The opportunity is there. Just like the opportunity was there for the OP to catch these survivors. Him being bad doesn't change what would be the normal flow of the game into a hostage situation.
"What? That's exactly how you measure whether Survivors are holding the game hostage."
No you measure whether it is a hostage game based on the opportunities for one side to end the game. If there are zero opportunities (eg. a survivor is outside the normal map and cannot be caught) then it's a hostage situation. If the opportunity is still there then it's not a hostage situation. OP had the opportunities, which is the key distinction in whether or not it was a hostage situation.
0 -
So if he just walks around, hits a survivor and kicks the gen, and then never do gens because they are so bad at the game this is all it takes to stop them, he is holding the game hostage?
If he is actively guarding gens and preventing them from being done but not ending the game himself, then yes. If he is just arbitrarily chasing people at random and other Survivors are just being laggy in doing gens, then no. I recall reading about Killers being banned for playing "get off mah lawn" with a 3-gen situation by protecting the gens at all costs but not bothering to down anyone. So it can happen if the situation lines up properly.
No you measure whether it is a hostage game based on the opportunities for one side to end the game. If there are zero opportunities (eg. a survivor is outside the normal map and cannot be caught) then it's a hostage situation. If the opportunity is still there then it's not a hostage situation. OP had the opportunities, which is the key distinction in whether or not it was a hostage situation.
Not true. Otherwise, it can very much be argued that the Killer has an opportunity to find the Survivors that are trying to hide indefinitely and that not being able to do so is just not succeeding in doing so.
0 -
The difference with a 3 gen is that there may be no opportunities for survivors to end the game. If there are 2 survivors and all 3 gens are in line of sight, then yes it is holding the game hostage because there is no opportunity. If there are 4 survivors then there is always an opportunity to do a gen, as all you need to do is split up and force the killer to commit to something. When they don't, EVENTUALLY you will do a gen and power the door.
"Not true. Otherwise, it can very much be argued that the Killer has an opportunity to find the Survivors that are trying to hide indefinitely and that not being able to do so is just not succeeding in doing so."
You are equating opportunity with probability. There is no opportunity the killer finds a survivor, there is a probability they will. They can't act on anything to find the survivor. However, if the killer has Whispers or Spies or is a Doctor or maybe Demo or something, then there IS opportunity to find a survivor and thus hiding and not doing gens would not be holding the game hostage.
And to be clear, I'm not saying this man wasn't griefed. HE WAS. I'm saying what happened to him is not a hostage situation.
0 -
The difference with a 3 gen is that there may be no opportunities for survivors to end the game. If there are 2 survivors and all 3 gens are in line of sight, then yes it is holding the game hostage because there is no opportunity. If there are 4 survivors then there is always an opportunity to do a gen, as all you need to do is split up and force the killer to commit to something. When they don't, EVENTUALLY you will do a gen and power the door.
Here's the question: Is the Killer meaningfully preventing the Survivor from completing their objective (while also being unwilling to finish their objective)? If yes, then hostage holding. If no, then not hostage holding.
You are equating opportunity with probability. There is no opportunity the killer finds a survivor, there is a probability they will. They can't act on anything to find the survivor. However, if the killer has Whispers or Spies or is a Doctor or maybe Demo or something, then there IS opportunity to find a survivor and thus hiding and not doing gens would not be holding the game hostage.
Disagree. They can use eyesight and thorough searching to eventually find a Survivor.
0 -
That's not true. He didn't say they will be he said they can be. And we don't know if these exact survivors were punished or not.
Also he never mentions the word hostage. He just says "punished" which I think they should be punished. But for griefing NOT for holding the game hostage.
0 -
"Here's the question: Is the Killer meaningfully preventing the Survivor from completing their objective (while also being unwilling to finish their objective)? If yes, then hostage holding. If no, then not hostage holding."
But then if the survivors have full opportunity to do the gens and don't, it's not a hostage situation. Just like if the killer has full opportunity to catch them (WHICH HE CAUGHT ONE, no one has acknowledged this yet still waiting), then it's not a hostage situation.
"Disagree. They can use eyesight and thorough searching to eventually find a Survivor."
Except you can't. You physically can't, because survivors can move and because there are things to hide behind. Your statement would only be true if the map was a giant open plane with nothing to hide behind and survivors could not move if the killer was around or something.
0 -
Well if you were following the thread I did specify that this exact situation is a hostage game and I've been explaining why.
What happened to the OP is not a hostage situation. Griefing though, yes.
Question, were you Doc or did you have Whispers or anything that you could have used to find the survivors besides your own eyes/ears?
0 -
But then if the survivors have full opportunity to do the gens and don't, it's not a hostage situation. Just like if the killer has full opportunity to catch them (WHICH HE CAUGHT ONE, no one has acknowledged this yet still waiting), then it's not a hostage situation.
The difference is that doing gens only requires action from the Survivor whereas catching a Survivor requires action from both Survivor and Killer (the Killer has to catch while the Survivor has to avoid being caught). A Survivor either does the gen or does not; they don't try and fail (even if they miss EVERY skill check). A Killer either tries and succeeds in catching a Survivor, tries and fails in catching a Survivor, or simply does not try to catch the Survivor. If a Killer succeeds, obviously it is not hostage taking. The second one depends on whether the Survivors are progressing toward the end of the game, and the third one can be the Killer hostage holding depending on the circumstances. Also:
"(WHICH HE CAUGHT ONE, no one has acknowledged this yet still waiting)"
I did, with the response below:
Same reason why it doesn't matter when a Killer does eventually find one or more Survivors who have been hiding for a super long time. Regardless of whether or not it ended, the point is that they were forced to remain in the game past a reasonable point.
Except you can't. You physically can't, because survivors can move and because there are things to hide behind. Your statement would only be true if the map was a giant open plane with nothing to hide behind and survivors could not move if the killer was around or something.
Yes you can? You can fail at it because the Survivors are very good at hiding, but you can certainly attempt it.
0 -
"whereas catching a Survivor requires action from both Survivor and Killer"
No, catching a survivor requires action only from the killer. AVOIDING the killer requires action from the survivor. The opposite of that generators require actions from survivors and STOPPING gens takes action from the killer.
"Yes you can? You can fail at it because the Survivors are very good at hiding, but you can certainly attempt it."
No you can't. Because survivors can hide from your eyes and ears. They cannot hide from Whispers (though they can make it more difficult to find them, if you have Whispers you will 100% find a survivor at some point). They also cannot hide from Doc mostly but since you can get in a locker it's a bit more grey.
"Regardless of whether or not it ended, the point is that they were forced to remain in the game past a reasonable point."
No the point was that there was no way the killer could actively end the game (again a survivor outside the map). "Extended the game past a reasonable point" is very fishy and could be applied to a LOT of situations that were not actually hostage situations. Again take your 3 gen, the killer could be legitimately trying to kill a survivor but doing it in a way to position themselves to kill more than 1 survivor. If there are 4 survivors and the killer defends a 3 gen for 30 minutes but they eventually do the gen and escape, that's not a hostage situation. Unless we apply your logic.
0 -
Yea so this I agree with. You had nothing to find them and could not reasonably search the entire map such that you are GUARANTEED to find one (which someone else is saying could be done). There was literally nothing you could do, you could be Skynet programmed to play DBD and it wouldn't matter. What happened to you is a hostage situation.
If you had Whispers then I would say it wasn't a hostage situation. Could be griefing depending on how effective they were I guess, but not a hostage because you would have had some opportunity to actively find them. This is the point I'm trying to make. The availability of OPPORTUNITY to win is important. The OP had every opportunity to win, the fact they didn't doesn't mean this was a hostage game. Specifically that, nothing else.
0 -
This match was awful and I'm sorry it happened to you, OP. You're 100% right that, if they weren't in your face the whole time, they could have finished the gens and left after just a few minutes, but instead they chose to bully you rather than play the game. I also agree that this kind of thing shouldn't be tolerated.
As for whether it's a hostage situation, I think it is, personally, though I admit the definition has always been kind of vague. Everyone who watched the video knows perfectly well that the OP was not capable of killing the survivors and ending the match -- doesn't matter whether it's from lack of skill or something else. The OP didn't have the ability to make the game end, and all five people in the match knew it. The people who did have the ability to end the game refused to do it because they wanted to troll.
1 -
"No, catching a survivor requires action only from the killer. AVOIDING the killer requires action from the survivor. The opposite of that generators require actions from survivors and STOPPING gens takes action from the killer."
Fair, let me rephrase myself. The act of chasing fundamentally requires input from both players whereas the act of working a gen does not necessarily require input from the Killer (though the Killer can attempt to disrupt the process).
No you can't. Because survivors can hide from your eyes and ears. They cannot hide from Whispers (though they can make it more difficult to find them, if you have Whispers you will 100% find a survivor at some point). They also cannot hide from Doc mostly but since you can get in a locker it's a bit more grey.
That's just the Survivors being more skilled at avoiding being detected than the Killer at successfully detecting them, no? Same thing as being more skilled at prolonging the chase than the Killer at ending it.
No the point was that there was no way the killer could actively end the game (again a survivor outside the map).
The Killer cannot actively end the game if they cannot catch a Survivor without DCing. If the Killer is to straight-up surrender to the Killers, what option do they have?
"Extended the game past a reasonable point" is very fishy and could be applied to a LOT of situations that were not actually hostage situations.
That's exactly how you gauge whether Survivors are hostage holding by hiding. You have to use your best judgement to decide if the amount of time spent doing this was reasonable or not. If they attempt to do it but are found after two minutes, you can't say that they held the game hostage. It's not an exact science.
f there are 4 survivors and the killer defends a 3 gen for 30 minutes but they eventually do the gen and escape, that's not a hostage situation. Unless we apply your logic.
That EXACT logic is what is used for hiding indefinitely. If the last two Survivors hide for 30 minutes, but the Killer eventually finds and kills one, allowing the hatch to come into play, that would not be a hostage situation by your logic.
1 -
"That's just the Survivors being more skilled at avoiding being detected than the Killer at successfully detecting them, no? Same thing as being more skilled at prolonging the chase than the Killer at ending it."
No because killer will catch a survivor EVENTUALLY. There is proof in the video itself, he caught one and killed them. It took 30 minutes but he did it. You can't say the same for hiding. You can't say that on a long enough timeline the killer WILL find a survivor. They MIGHT find a survivor and that's different. If all the guy in the video did was follow one of them and broke pallets, he would have caught one eventually via bloodlust.
"Fair, let me rephrase myself. The act of chasing fundamentally requires input from both players whereas the act of working a gen does not necessarily require input from the Killer (though the Killer can attempt to disrupt the process)."
Saying a chase requires both players doesn't acknowledge the fact it is a back and forth, just like doing gens. Both have a back and forth. If there is no back, the forth can still win.
"That's exactly how you gauge whether Survivors are hostage holding by hiding. You have to use your best judgement to decide if the amount of time spent doing this was reasonable or not. If they attempt to do it but are found after two minutes, you can't say that they held the game hostage. It's not an exact science."
Again to make clear, HIDING AND CHASE ARE NOT THE SAME THING. If you hide and do nothing that is a hostage situation because the killer literally has no opportunity to do anything (unless they have Whispers or are Doc or something). If you run around in the killers face but still do nothing, well there is plenty of opportunity for the killer to catch you. Do you see the distinction now? They are not the same thing. These little details matter.
0 -
No because killer will catch a survivor EVENTUALLY. There is proof in the video itself, he caught one and killed them. It took 30 minutes but he did it. You can't say the same for hiding. You can't say that on a long enough timeline the killer WILL find a survivor. They MIGHT find a survivor and that's different. If all the guy in the video did was follow one of them and broke pallets, he would have caught one eventually via bloodlust.
Again, not necessarily. Not if the Survivors are good enough to break chases and hide while the Killer is bad enough to consistently let that happen.
Saying a chase requires both players doesn't acknowledge the fact it is a back and forth, just like doing gens. Both have a back and forth. If there is no back, the forth can still win.
The chase is fundamentally back and forth. If the Survivor is not doing anything, there is no chase. Doing a gen is not fundamentally back and forth. It CAN be, but it is not necessary for the thing to happen.
Again to make clear, HIDING AND CHASE ARE NOT THE SAME THING. If you hide and do nothing that is a hostage situation because the killer literally has no opportunity to do anything (unless they have Whispers or are Doc or something). If you run around in the killers face but still do nothing, well there is plenty of opportunity for the killer to catch you. Do you see the distinction now? They are not the same thing. These little details matter.
They are not the same thing, but the end result is the same (the Killer is unable to leave the game which is going on and on and on because the Survivors refuse to do gens). THAT is the part that matters.
0 -
"Again, not necessarily. Not if the Survivors are good enough to break chases and hide while the Killer is bad enough to consistently let that happen."
He. Caught. One. The proof that it is an eventuality is right there. So no that can't happen IF THEY ARE RUNNING AROUND IN YOUR FACE ALL THE TIME.
"They are not the same thing, but the end result is the same (the Killer is unable to leave the game which is going on and on and on because the Survivors refuse to do gens). THAT is the part that matters."
So then a game where a killer is legitimately trying to kill survivors but stalls a game 30 minutes on a 3 gen is holding the game hostage. Which is not true. This is where this lack of distinction leads, therefore that ignoring it is bad logic.
0 -
He. Caught. One. The proof that it is an eventuality is right there. So no that can't happen IF THEY ARE RUNNING AROUND IN YOUR FACE ALL THE TIME.
That's not proof that it is an eventuality. Otherwise, I could say that finding someone hiding is an eventuality because I eventually found someone after half an hour.
So then a game where a killer is legitimately trying to kill survivors but stalls a game 30 minutes on a 3 gen is holding the game hostage. Which is not true. This is where this lack of distinction leads, therefore that logic is flawed.
No, because the Killer is not refusing to complete their objective of killing Survivors.
0 -
"No, because the Killer is not refusing to complete their objective of killing Survivors."
But the end result is the same. You just said this...
Suddenly that doesn't matter? That's why your definition of a hostage situation doesn't fly.
"No, because the Killer is not refusing to complete their objective of killing Survivors."
Then they have the opportunity to do gens. Just like the killer has the opportunity to kill them when they are running around in his face.
0 -
While I actually agree with you overall and on the definition of what hostage should entail, I had a friend banned (1d) for the old Thompson House bodyblock when two people were trapped, two were free to do gens, open exit gate and do EGC - those guys opted not to do EGC for like 20 mins, eventually they did, guys in house died. Now me or people I know have done the old Thompson House thing tens of times , and that one was the only ban for it - reason being it was to a streamer with more than 100 viewers. I've also seen it done to streamers with lower viewercounts who sent in vod, support ticket etc and no bans, so from my experience regarding holding the game hostage, BHVR are possibly inconsistent and definitely don't adhere to what yourself or I would consider the correct definition.
I don't think these guys should be banned though for this, they were always doing something to progress the game individually, either being chased or aiding their teammates.
0 -
All four survivors get my vote for a ban. If bleed out timers were 45 minutes long then all killers who 4k’d with slugs then you’re banned as well but guess what bleed out timers are not 45 minutes long they are 4 if I’m not mistaken. MM has been busted for sometime now everyone in this community has gone against higher and lower skilled opponents. I’ve been a member of a four man where the killer never had a chance and we bullied him for about 8 minutes because he never quit chasing plus we wanted the 4 out. One side or the other is going to be able to end the trial in a reasonable amount of time. By the video it was clearly not the killer (btw hats off to you for hanging in there) the survivors on the other hand could’ve ended that match in about 6 minutes give or take but no their intentions were to hold another player hostage and grieve them until they DC or they are all dead. Let’s just quit with all the damn interpretations of what the game says is hostage or not. This is toxicity on a whole new level. The moment he went in basement and gave up they sought him out and refused to do gens to continue the abuse is all I’d have to see to get a ban.
0 -
"He. Caught. One. The proof that it is an eventuality is right there. So no that can't happen IF THEY ARE RUNNING AROUND IN YOUR FACE ALL THE TIME."
You completely ignore the meaning of the word captive and assign your own interpretation to it. You can be held captive while at the same time be tormented as well. Sure, the survivors were not just hiding, but saying that they were out there for me to kill is a bold faced lie. They were out there to toy with me and nothing more. That one of them slipped up and got the hook does not excuse any of their actions or changes any of their actions.
I had teams of SWFs in the past who similarly swarmed me, the difference was that all the while they were doing the generator I was chasing them around. Yes, if you do nothing, but just rush the gen and progress it for a second with 3 survivors, while the killer is not looking in your direction, you will finish it in a few minutes. Not the most efficient way, but it is fair game. So yes, 4 good survivors can actually finish a generator even with a less skilled killer actively chasing them around it.
In my game, the survivors were in control and they only left when they started to lose that control, which mainly was - along with my kill - when they ran out of their gadgets. I have actually downed them several times during the hour, but they were built to withstand that and to counter attempts at hooking them, so claiming I should have just tried harder is again, an ignorant, bold faced lie. I tried as hard as anyone could.
Let me give you this analogy: I put you against a pro boxing champ. You get to take ten swings at him (he is free to defend himself of course) for every punch he will dish out. Which on of you do you reckon will end up beaten to a pulp at the end?
Just because your opponent is in front of you and you can swing at it does not mean you actually stand a chance. All your arguments are based around the assumption that by being there in front of me, they were somehow playing the game. No they weren't. It was proven in the cellar, yet you still keep arguing that "but I could have killed them"
Also, that argument about unskilled survivors not being able to do gens is the stupidest I have heard so far. A generator does not dodge, does not evade.. you just press the button and a progress bar fills.. you getting that bar to the end only requires one thing, the ability to time a key press to a roughly .5-1 second window. While I agree that some might be incapable of doing that, you must realize you are grasping for straws here. Comparing apples and oranges like this will not take you anywhere.
A killer plays against an active opponent, the objective of the killer tries to run, hide, dodge. They have friends to help them, to block the killer, to blind him. The survivor has tools to escape even after they are downed or picked up. The generator does not. The generator is a static, inanimate object.
A killer can never take a game hostage for an extended period of time, barring one thing: somehow body blocking the last survivor or survivors into a corner of the map.
- if you slug all 4, they eventually bleed out. I would of course ban anyone who slugs 4 and does not at least try to hook them, but in all fairness, given how certain perks punish picking up, I can see scenarios where that would be excusable. Also perks can allow a survivor to get themselves up and they can scoot around, scattering, to make the killer's job harder. So all in all, slugging while not nice, is no way to really stall and is actually not a perfectly safe tactic from a killer standpoint either.
- if you camp the last 3 generators, then survivors have two options.. wait for you to slip up and start some wild goose chase or go in and try to do generators anyway. In the first case the game gets into a stalemate, and it is arguable which side is at fault, the killer guarding the objective and not chasing the survivors who are trying to drag him away from the gens, or the survivors not wanting to risk almost certain death for at least one of them and not going for the objectives with the killer near them.
- In the second case - and with 3 gens vs 2 survivors this is the usual outcome - one of the survivors die while the other finishes one of the generators and then slips away through either the door or the hatch. In some rare cases, if the survivor risking themselves is good, they both might get away.
In this particular thread, we are talking about a completely different case though. A case where 4 players never had any intention of actually playing the game. They were set up with perks, tools and min set for one thing, and that was harassment and holding the game hostage so they can enjoy themselves at the expense of another player.
Post edited by Rizzo on0 -
I am gonna be kind of harsh on this one but I hope you sort of learned something:
They have 4 flashlights but you keep looking into open giving them a huge opportunity to go for stuns and flashlight saves, you should have checked corners and waited trying to bait them into you.
You are so aggresive on the lunges and keep falling for the same baits over and over again. Relax a little and wait for the right time to strike
You went down to basement and gave up, thats sort of against the rules as well my guy.
Anyway hopefully you wont face these kind of survivors for a while and get a better games where you can take your time to learn against survivors with similar skill level
0
