Is This Reportable?

Sadly it isn't. The only positive side is that if they (the exact same Killer,) do(es) it multiple times against you in a row, it can qualify as targeted repeatedly (see picture).

That is how bizarre the game rules are. You are actually better off being bledout twice in a row, because now you have a case for targeted 'harassment'.

That's still not reportable. The Blight was downing the entire team, not any particular survivor. He's not going to be punished for being matched up with those survivors again.

Even though the game still technically progresses while everyone is slugged out for 4 minutes until they bleed out, once all 4 are slugged and no one gets hooked, that should absolutely be considered as holding the game hostage.

EDIT: The game progresses in two ways - survivors complete gens and open the gate or the killer sacrifices survivors to the entity. While all 4 survivors are slugged, there is no progress on any gen and if the killer is leaving them slugged without hooking, the killer is not progressing towards their goal either. Think about it this way, you can't get a killer adept on bleed outs. It does not count towards progression of an adept, it should not count as progression towards the match which takes me back to holding the game hostage.

It is if you are streaming, because then you can claim they are stream sniping. You can phrase endgame chat in such a way it appears that their response would self-report ("did you bleed me out last match" "yes"). They are breaking the intentions of the rules (Intentional Gameplay Abuse would 100% fit this conceptually), and you can twist them into self-reporting to intentionally breaking rules they were unaware of/not intentionally breaking (specific targeting).

That's the flaw of the current ruleset. People breaking the spirit of the law are let off scott free, and people breaking the letter of the law (intentionally or not) are equally guilty. You have to twist the rules to apply an inaccurate 'letter' ban for accurate 'spirit' scenarios. They technically are still breaking the letter of the law, so it is a valid ban, but you wouldn't jump through those hoops against a normally 'guilty' party.

it's not reportable. should it be? it is refusing to participate in normal gameplay at that point but one can still argue it's a strategic decision; 4% exists. so i don't think it should be reportable especially since they can't do it indefinitely, match is still over after 4 mins.

All you need is a "yes" to the question "did you bleed me out last match" for a guaranteed ban (and you can still send the report with legitimate cause regardless). That is enough evidence for targeting the same person repeatedly, and also a clear flaw with the rules as currently written. Intentional bleedouts 100% should be bannable, especially since hooks were made to respawn to prevent that exact condition (and yet it still happens at the same rate before and after). I would love the game rules to be fixed, to prevent cheesy technical bans, while also clearly stating intentional bleedouts are also illegal.

No it is not, but it does feel like poor sportsmanship. I keep seeing a forced bleed out option as a recommendation for these situations.

That’s fine but it forces the Survivors to take on the responsibility (and burden) of the Killer’s bad sportsmanship. The Killer gets rewarded for playing… mean. Which again, I get it, we’re all adults here. Of course the Killer will play mean, it’s a game about killing etc…. But… At the end of the day it does feel like bad sportsmanship.

I’m torn because forced bleedouts seem like such a metal thing to do in a Horror game.. Until you really think about what is happening. You’re making four people wait four minutes just because they didn’t play as “good as they should”. While I do think slugging during the trials is a tactic, it’s the intentional bleed outs that feel like bad sportsmanship.

A solution that pins the responsibility of good sportsmanship on the Killer would be something like base-kit Deerstalker. That way after everyone is already on the floor there’s not many reasons not to hook since you know where everyone is at. This of course doesn’t cover the situations where players intentionally bleed out because they want to deny 4% hook escapes but it’s a start.

Maining Plague has made me intimately familer with Infectious Fright. Most people know that the perk is one of the main slugging perks, since you can get chain downs through screams. It’s not rare to slug the whole team. What is difficult sometimes is finding the last Survivor if they crawled away to hide. It can seem like bad sportsmanship if you can’t find the last Survivor which is why I think base kit Deerstalker would help.

Do I think bad sportsmanship can be completely eliminated? No. Is there a difficult line of power to maintain on Killer side? Yes. Can we come up with novel solutions that work for mostly everyone? Yes, yes I believe that we absolutely can. As long as we all work on the problems together I don’t think there’s anything this community can't do.

You bring up good points. It’s true that the bleeding out mostly happens throughout match play and counterplay. And let’s be honest, if someone feels strongly enough about their bad intentions they will find a way. And yes, there are game-winning reasons to leave everyone on the floor.

My question to you: How do you feel about basekit Deerstalker? We all know it won’t eliminate the problem. But how much do you think it would help? How many games end in a 4-man bleedout? Do you think it would create a dent?

Despite the fact that a Killer who wants to cause bleed outs will cause bleed outs. Despite the fact that the only thing that can stop it is intervention from Bhvr, the Killer themselves, or the Survivors somehow finding some way around it; Do you believe basekit Deerstalker would reduce bleed out numbers? If yes then by how much? Insignificantly? Moderately? Substantially (lol)?

Are you sure they were trying to annoy you? I'm not doubting it, because survivors do that to taunt all the time, but if you've established yourself as a meme killer, survivors will also spam vault because they want you to come over to where they are. Like, I've followed relentless spam vaults to find bartenders and survivors on top of rock loops and item shrines before. And I've also followed spam vaults to find people bail out the gates the moment I show up, or trying to bait me into a shack chase, but in a friendly game you don't know which is which until you show up.

But to OP, unfortunately gotta echo everyone else in this thread. It should be reportable, but it is not. BHVR's stance is that as long as something ends on its own, it isn't griefing, which is a blanket which a lot of unhealthy or outright malicious behavior can hide under. I wish they would address this and I'm consistently frustrated that they will not, because even with the grey area that sometimes bleedouts are necessary or at least situationally understandable, this is an area where there are very obvious bad actors whose crimes can be tracked as data, and these players bring nothing positive to the game and should be punished for the sake of game health.

There are reasons to bleed out survivors; some killers will reach low slug timers by their gameplay, some survivors have unhookable builds, and sometimes survivors crawl away when you want to hook them. Maybe it's karmic parity and you could have hooked the survivor, but they did something to deserve some extra salt on their fries. Who knows. But the thing is, for all the reasons for them to happen, bleedouts are rare in ordinary gameplay. Quad bleedouts even moreso. Even against killers like Twins, Plague, Myers, Oni, or Infectious Fright Nurse. If you have four bleedouts for five killer matches in a row, you the player are clearly doing it to make survivors miserable. And BHVR should have an incentive to stop this, because this kind of completely helpless to someone's power trip experience is horrible for retention of new players, and readily gets vets to go "screw this game, I'm playing something else."

It's annoying and I as a killer main would be completely in favor of survivors having the option to speed up bleed outs if there's no survivor up. I'd also give the killer the same points and such as if that survivor was hooked so no one can rob a killer of points by doing it while the killer is hooking their teammates.

To me, it's MOSTLY in the same realm as killers hitting survivors on hook over and over again. I'll hit 1 time to end the long screams early, but after that... it's kinda cringe. The anti-face camp feature put an end to that though. I remember when posts complaining about it came up, a solution of removing the hitbox of hooked survivors was suggested. Survivors were against that because they wouldn't be able to use their hooked teammate as a shield while most killers were FOR it because they hated someone hitting the hooked survivor and doing nothing when they were trying to hit their teammate.

My question was vague but you still thoroughly answered it 😊

I always appreciate your well thought-out answers.

This is one of the many reasons there should be a "insta-bleedout" button after being slugged under certain conditions.

If only 2 Survivors remain.

If all remaining Survivors are incapable of playing (either downed or hooked/caged).

If slugged for 2m+ (how often does anyone gets slugged for 2+ minutes unless the Killer is either slugging for the 4k, trolling, or purposefully going for a slugfest after tunnelling the first Survivor?).

Especially since the devs apparently want to encourage slugging for the 4k with their insistance on pushing the Finisher Mori system, there should be a way to go next without having to twiddle your thumbs almost every games.