Killer camping
Hi I’m fairly new to this game but I have fallen in love with it the only thing that makes me want to stop playing this game is killers that camp and stand there and watch you die I would like if you could set it to where the sacrificial process would be on halt as long as the killer is in a curtain radius around you that will stop the camping and make a much better and intense gameplay
Comments
I agree with you. I'm not arguing against camping. I found your initial comparison to be weak, so I replied.
All I am saying is that people have the right to question it, because it's not a good strategy. Then you went into "all survivors" talk, and that's a strawman, so I called it out.
Generalizations don't work, ever. They just make arguments weak.
"Ignorant" isn't an insult, i start with the principle that i'm talking to adult peoples, as this is a mature rated game.
Also i writed "Lying OR ignorant".
What he said is basically not true, this is basically misinformation, and intellectually dishonest.
I call him for it, you take it as an insult all you want, for what i care.
Prove it. Back your statements up.
Prove that it is misinformation. Prove that I am being intellectually dishonest.
Again, none of this is what I argued. I try to stay off the hook, I tend to play stealth builds, and if a killer is camping, I do gens. It doesn't affect me personally. It also doesn't mean that you get to shut down people who question it as a good tactic. Full stop.
It doesn't change the fact that your arguments are garbage, and building up strawmen like "all survivors..." is useless also, because it can be easily destroyed.
Precisely because you are talking to adults you should talk like one of them as well. No need to go "aggresive" in your first reply and maybe ask where did he get that information or simply tell your experience.
Numerous feedback since 2 years, my experiences, the dev's stat stating, one year ago ,that 70% of killer's lobby were filled with SWF teams.
But, wait....
Why should i look for all this game's archive just to make a point to someone who clearly can't see it due to his bias ?
I wonder... what would restrain me from also asking you proof to your counter statement ?
Oh yeah, i don't like toxic arguments.
I've been doing this for two years. I didn't just learn.
And just like everyone else who can't back up their arguments, you make a snide remark.
GG
the dev's stat stating, one year ago ,that 70% of killer's lobby were filled with SWF teams.
I have been waiting for one of you to bring this little factoid up again. I see killer mains constantly try to use this as an argument, but all you need to do is a quick Google search and that argument gets deflated really quick.
That comes from the 5 October 2017 dev stream, in case anyone wants to check it out for themselves.
Let's look at where that 70% came from. The devs released some stats regarding survivor group distribution. Here is what they actually stated were the groups by percentage:
So, the way the "70% myth" came to be is based on adding everything up outside of four solo players.
If we really look at the data, we can see that 64.1% of matches have, at the most, two people communicating.
In fact the only point at which it becomes possibly too much communication across the team would be at 3 friends. Include 4-man teams and that equals out to 26.4%, or between 2-3 matches out of 10.
4-man SWF teams make up less than 1 in 10 matches!
Add to that, the fact that most of those 4-man SWF groups aren't Marth88-level de-pip sweaty squads, and you're probably looking at 1 in every 100 matches or so. Which is why I said it's a very small percentage.
Stop parroting talking points and research the actual data.
Once again, I have done none of these things. Who is crying here? Your arguments were crap. I called you out, along with other people, and you got defensive.
People can question things. Why does it bother you so much?
@245_Trioxin
Who talked about 4 man SWF specificaly ?
That case is only the cream of the crop cancerous wise.
I talked about SWF in general.
So 1 year ago, there were already 70% killer's lobby filled with SWF (regardless of the number, from 2 to 4, it's only a little less cancerous with the first case)
I wonder how much this number have changed since last year, knowing the recent events.
You just moved the goalposts. SWF duos are not bad and you know it. Prove to me that those dastardly, toxic, horrifying SWF duos are just ruining all of your matches.
I dismantled your argument, and you're doubling-down on it. It's because the actual data destroys your narrative.
All you gotta do Iß to estimate the stupidity and act accordingly.
The ability to adjust your tactics on the fly is what makes you a good killer
There are moments when it's the killer's best option, and I won't try to take that from anyone. But, I also believe in open dialogue and can understand why people will complain about it or question it's viability.
It's readily available data, and it's information that should be shared. Feel free to post it in a thread.
Another day, another camping thread.
Some things never change.
Where did i mentionned 4 man SWF in this exact thread ?
You are just grasping strawman wherever you can find them.
Also by the data you bringed, 3 man SWF are the most numerous of all type of SWF just after 2-man SWF.
No need to mention the 2 teams of duo SWF.
You can nitpick things all you want, doesn't change the fact that SWF always bring an unfair advantage, that survivors in general love to abuse.
Pretty sure that there's even more than 70% of SWF players right now.
I wonder why.
And even when goofing around with your buddies, you have an unfair advantage over the killer.
It's called telepathy, and if you all can't recognize it, you're all a lost cause.
What respectable gamer would keep his unfair advantage over his opponent untouched for that long ?
Even worse, defending it at ALL COST ?
None, period.
Again, no. Nobody is saying that. Toxic players are just that. Report them and move on. If someone is being a jerk to you post-match, it's not cool, and I will not defend that type of behavior. I will 100% stand with you against it.
But stop conflating it to "all survivors" or "all killers", because it's factually inaccurate to make assumptions like that. You have to see that. Please tell me you see how dishonest that is. It doesn't help the situation, it makes it worse.
The 70% myth is false. I have already proved this, and 4-man squads are the basis for every argument I have seen against SWF. I have never seen anyone cry over a two-man squad and two solo survivors. It doesn't happen.
But now it has to, because you can't use the blanket 70%, as it's intellectually dishonest. So you're doubling-down and changing the argument.
The narrative is broken. These arguments are not going to be taken seriously anymore. SWF is not nearly the problem that it has been made out to be. Toxic players, on both sides, are the issue.
The devs will balance the rest of it out, based on the actual data, which means they'll balance around the "2-team, 2-solo" form of SWF, as that's the most commonly played. They won't balance around 4-man SWF.
Once that's done, then they'll have a much easier time balancing the killers against that type of survivor group.
You didn't, but @Mycroft did. So, the argument still stands. I'm not building a strawman. I burned down the one that many killer mains (including you) fall back on, which is the 70% myth.
> Also by the data you bringed, 3 man SWF are the most numerous of all type of SWF.
What?? You obviously don't know how to read data. 17.9% is not the highest number listed. 34.1% is, which is 2-team/2-solo.
Want to shoot yourself in the foot again? Now your argument has even less merit, because you can't even parse this information correctly.
Pretty sure that there's even more than 70% of SWF players right now.
Groan...so now that the data doesn't fit your narrative it's old and out of date. That's not a good look.
It's called telepathy, and if you all can't recognize it, you're all a lost cause.
No, it's not. It's just called communication, let's not make it supernatural now. The last time I played in an SWF duo with a friend, you know what we discussed during the match? Summerslam. Yep, the killer was bested by two guys talking about pro wrestling while holding down a button and hitting skill checks.
Did we mention things to each other regarding the killer? Yeah, from time to time, but most of the time, we were paying far less attention than had we been playing solo. I find I do better solo than in SWF. The chances of me surviving the match go up.
Are there issues with SWF? Yes. I'll admit that. But, crying about that doesn't do any good. I could go back through the Steam forums and pull up comments I made before it was introduced. I said from day one that it needed to be a separate mode that allows for bloodpoint accumulation, but is unranked. I stand by that statement over two years later.
Ranked should be reworked, not reset monthly, and have proper tiers. It should also be solo-only. SWF should be a casual mode where you can have fun, grind bloodpoints, and experiment with new builds before taking them into ranked.
But, that's not going to happen. So, we need to allow the devs time to try and balance this whole mess out. I can guarantee that, if that data is still accurate, they will balance solo and SWF based on 2-team/2-solo, and then buff killers accordingly.
Of course I can understand why entitled survivors complain about camping. I dislike being camped too
Of course camping is not viable against competitive survivors, but luckily most of the survivors have not (will never) reached that level yet, otherwise the game would be unplayable
I wouldn't use the term entitled, that's being facetious. Most of the complaints tend to be made by new survivors who don't have a full understanding of the game from both perspectives. In some cases you'll see pure survivor mains complain about it, but again, they don't fully understand the game, so they're just willfully ignorant.
In my opinion, camping is a highly situational tactic that is going to usually end in a loss for the killer. It's a good way to secure a kill in a bad match, but it's not going to help much towards score or pips.
Every once in awhile you get that one team of survivors that are like lemmings and keep throwing themselves at the killer before he even has a chance to step away from the hook. In that moment, what else do you do? I don't even consider that camping, and any survivor who does is lying to themselves.
Again, no. I just showed it's not as bad as a number of you are making it out to be. Because you're blowing it way out of proportion, and trying to use the 70% myth is disingenuous.
If we're going to discuss balance, then we need to look at it realistically, and stop trying to conflate it with our own personal experiences, because those experiences do not matter.
It's human nature to dwell on bad experiences. We'll forget the 9 good matches we had, but that 10th match that sucked? Oh, we'll remember that one. That's why we can't use personal experiences in balancing things. The only thing that can be used to create balance is data sets.
The devs have the data sets. They're working on it. Obviously it's not as important as some of you want to make it out to be, or they would rush out major changes.
They're not rushing things out, and looking at the actual statistics, instead of the fake one that has been going around for a year, we can now see why. Because it's not nearly as big of a deal as you are making it out to be.
So, yes, I admit it's not perfect and it definitely has some issues. But, not enough to cry about it, and certainly not enough to remove it.
Right...couldn't have had anything to do with facecamping being an actual exploit that they needed to fix.Directional hooks needed to happen because of prompt blocking.
Oh for the love of God, that is not tone policing . It's the only way you can balance things properly.
I'm not saying you can't have a voice. I'm saying that our biases cannot be used to create balance.
Yes, it was. Because you could block the unhook prompt. That's an exploit that was taken advantage of. How are you even arguing against that?
That's the only reason they put in directional hooks.
What exactly are you dealing with? Please, follow through on your little attempt to discredit me.
So far, you have failed spectacularly. Keep trying, though. At least you're persistent.
LOL what does that prove?
Doesn't mentioned that facecamping wasn't an exploit at that time.
It's almost like you're not supposed to get hooked. Hmmm.
So, now we're down to specifics. What is facecamping? Because I have heard from numerous killer mains on here, that facecamping no longer exists due to directional hooks, and it should now be called hardcamping.
Based on that, then facecamping, which was purposely done to block the unhook prompt, was an exploit and the reason as to why they added directional hooks.
This doesn't prove anything. All Matt is saying is that camping is not reportable. Which I, and plenty of other people agree with.
Title: Is facecamping bannable?
@Not_Queen says: Facecamping is not a banable exploit. Mentions that's its bannable if you do it too many times under the griefing guidlines.
Doesn't mentioned that it wasn't an exploit.
You have no case lol.
Didn't they just state that if you are systematically face-camping then it's considered griefing and is a bannable offense?
This makes no sense. You just posted a clip that said it could be bannable if done for specific purposes. How does this help your argument?
I forgot that saying this is not banable and this is not an exploit means the same thing.
Was every survivor banned when they used infinites, an exploit of poor map design?
Was every killer banned when you could play Myers with a chainsaw, an exploit of poor hud interface?
Was every face camper banned for exploiting the hitboxes that prevent survivors from getting points and saving each other?
Again, you have no case.
She said it wasn't a bannable exploit if it wasn't done too often.
You're the one who thinks that somehow means it wasn't an exploit.
Kinda reaching aren't ya?