Am I toxic for slugging survivors and never hooking?

After having a losing streak as killer and seeing many survivors with BT/DS/Deliverance etc, I realized that these are all perks that revolve around the hooking mechanic. Knowing this, I decided to never hook survivors until everyone is slugged and/or have the survivors die from bleeding out, because those perks would never work unless I hook them. I started to see more success in my games, but after matches, survivors would start to call me toxic for not hooking them and keeping them slugged the entire match, and it was my "responsibility" to make the game fun.

Although I've been winning more matches for not hooking all survivors until they are all slugged, am I a toxic killer for doing this strategy? Is this a bannable/keeping the game hostage?

Perks I run:

  • Hex Undying
  • Hex Ruin
  • Hex Haunted Ground / Deathbound
  • Deerstalker


Tagged: Trusted

Comments

  • @ChesterKornflakes said:

    After having a losing streak as killer and seeing many survivors with BT/DS/Deliverance etc, I realized that these are all perks that revolve around the hooking mechanic. Knowing this, I decided to never hook survivors until everyone is slugged and/or have the survivors die from bleeding out, because those perks would never work unless I hook them. I started to see more success in my games, but after matches, survivors would start to call me toxic for not hooking them and keeping them slugged the entire match, and it was my "responsibility" to make the game fun.

    Although I've been winning more matches for not hooking all survivors until they are all slugged, am I a toxic killer for doing this strategy? Is this a bannable/keeping the game hostage?

    Perks I run:

    • Hex Undying
    • Hex Ruin
    • Hex Haunted Ground / Deathbound
    • Deerstalker

    Yes. Lol

  • @BigTimeGamer said:

    You must be fun at parties

    Or maybe he just wants to win

  • If you do whatever it takes to win with no regard for the feelings or enjoyment of the other team, you must be incredibly boring at parties.

  • @ChesterKornflakes said:

    After having a losing streak as killer and seeing many survivors with BT/DS/Deliverance etc, I realized that these are all perks that revolve around the hooking mechanic. Knowing this, I decided to never hook survivors until everyone is slugged and/or have the survivors die from bleeding out, because those perks would never work unless I hook them. I started to see more success in my games, but after matches, survivors would start to call me toxic for not hooking them and keeping them slugged the entire match, and it was my "responsibility" to make the game fun.

    Although I've been winning more matches for not hooking all survivors until they are all slugged, am I a toxic killer for doing this strategy? Is this a bannable/keeping the game hostage?

    Perks I run:

    • Hex Undying
    • Hex Ruin
    • Hex Haunted Ground / Deathbound
    • Deerstalker

    I think you are denying yourself a more fun, interesting, and interactive match everytime you slug everyone until they're all down (plus, the Survivors will not want to cross paths with you again after the match). No one wants to play a game of crawling on the ground because a Killer is too scared of the perks that someone may or may not have. Plus, Killers can easily play around the perks easily (besides the DS Unbreakable combo).

  • I'm sorry but that is pretty funny. If you enjoy playing this way go for it. If the survivor's don't want to go heal someone, how's that your fault. I say slug away!!!!

  • @Waffleyumboy said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671592#Comment_1671592

    How is toxicity a matter of opinion? Doesn't that make it a moot point and distort its definition into "something I personally dislike"?

    Use this post as a prime example, some think it is some think it isn’t. Simple as that

  • @ChesterKornflakes said:

    After having a losing streak as killer and seeing many survivors with BT/DS/Deliverance etc, I realized that these are all perks that revolve around the hooking mechanic. Knowing this, I decided to never hook survivors until everyone is slugged and/or have the survivors die from bleeding out, because those perks would never work unless I hook them. I started to see more success in my games, but after matches, survivors would start to call me toxic for not hooking them and keeping them slugged the entire match, and it was my "responsibility" to make the game fun.

    Although I've been winning more matches for not hooking all survivors until they are all slugged, am I a toxic killer for doing this strategy? Is this a bannable/keeping the game hostage?

    Perks I run:

    • Hex Undying
    • Hex Ruin
    • Hex Haunted Ground / Deathbound
    • Deerstalker

    You're good my dude. As long as you're not holding the game hostage (which you're not) and you're not bm'ing, you're fine. Slugging is necessary sometimes. Survivors get mad if the game is made unfun for them, same as killers get mad if survivors make them game unfun. Both sides will always have a problem with the other.


    You'll get to a point when you stop slugging in favor of different tactics though. My question to you is, are these survivors not actively picking one another up?

  • Very scummy, and miserable for the survivors. Do you think they want to spend the entire match crawling around on the ground. NO..... don't be an ass. Just hook them. Killers focus so much on " winning " that they'll play any kind of way to get it. Most players I know would just dc, and move on rather than have their fun ruined, and time wasted. That being said, I know survivors can be a pain in the ass as well, but they don't ruin a match near as bad as killers do.

  • Except, its not an equivalent. Survivors hiding all game and not doing Gens will cause the game to go on indefinitely, because there's no time limit. A Killer who is actively downing Survivors, even if said Killer isn't hooking, will eventually lead to the game ending.


    Those 2 aren't the same, at all.


    Edit: One is holding the game hostage, the other is an inefficient way of completing your primary objective.

  • @ABannedCat said:

    I dont understand survivors. How is hanging on the hook less boring than laying on the floor? Atleast on the floor you can still move around.

    Plus the killer gets into a chase quicker, which is the only exciting part for survivors - the chase.

    Not entirely true. Survivors like myself don't particularly like, or want to be chased unless we have to be. Gens, totems, chests, unhook, and heals I'll do all day long. Chases I try to avoid.

  • yes slugging is toxic and boring but if u not sure about it , go play survivor and meet slugging killer and lay on ground whole match then bleed out and get 1000 points and -1 rank and comeback

  • If you are worried about those perks just play pyramid head. His cage of atonement cancels out all hook related perks

  • Technically it isn't bannable because contrary to what some people are claiming it isn't equal to holding the game hostage. There is a bleed out function which actually prevents that. Yes, it takes a lot of time but eventually the survivors willl die. The only way to hold someone in the game is to block them in a corner until they are forced to DC. That's bannable.

    Is it toxic? Maybe. I would rather call it unfun. But in the end everyone is free to play how they want to. If that's something that is fun to you then do it. Won't really get you very far though considering the game is punishing you for one hooking people.

    Maybe it would help you if you change your perspective about winning and not caring so much if you kill someone or not. I will guarantee you that your matches will be better (and most importanly more fun) if you see DBD from a more relaxed side. You can't win every game and you shouldn't attempt to do it. A win can also be a very intense and very well played match from both sides where everyone escapesi in the end. Seeing winning only as black and white isn't a very healthy mindset and will lead to a lot of frustration which is showing itself in your playstyle.

  • You also lose a lot of BP by letting them bleed out. DS only comes into play once you've hooked them once, so get the first hook for sure. If you down someone after unhook just wait 60 seconds (aka 1/4 of their bleed out bar) before hooking. You run the risk of unbreakable, but that's life. Don't let them all bleed out though, that's boring for them AND you're missing out on BP

  • @Rougual said:

    I do it on Pig with Knockout as my main perk, Facemask traps cause even more confusion because nobody can see any auras. I usually let them do gens unimpeded so the traps activate and it makes reslugging super easy.

    Deathbound is also interesting if you plan on leaving your slugs far from you, once you get good at memorizing the speed and movments of aimless slugged survivors you'll never need Deerstalker again usually when they see no auras they panic and stay still, its super easy to find them again.

    It doesn't make you toxic it just hurts your pips, if you dont care about rank then do whatever you want as long as its not cheating.

    No that’s why the make in breakable- I would rather that

  • Yes it's toxic. But good on you, because until the devs encourage hooking rather than slugging (cough Pop nerf cough) it's only natural for killers to do this.

  • @ChesterKornflakes said:

    After having a losing streak as killer and seeing many survivors with BT/DS/Deliverance etc, I realized that these are all perks that revolve around the hooking mechanic. Knowing this, I decided to never hook survivors until everyone is slugged and/or have the survivors die from bleeding out, because those perks would never work unless I hook them. I started to see more success in my games, but after matches, survivors would start to call me toxic for not hooking them and keeping them slugged the entire match, and it was my "responsibility" to make the game fun.

    Although I've been winning more matches for not hooking all survivors until they are all slugged, am I a toxic killer for doing this strategy? Is this a bannable/keeping the game hostage?

    Perks I run:

    • Hex Undying
    • Hex Ruin
    • Hex Haunted Ground / Deathbound
    • Deerstalker

    No it's not, it's a strategy and don't let anybody shame you out of it, if you have fun that's all that matters.

  • @dugman said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1670100#Comment_1670100

    Not hooking people isn't reportable. It won't score you as many points as hooking survivors, and it is kind of boring if you're on the ground that long, but slugging and never hooking is definitely not bannable provided it's not preventing the game from ever ending.

    (For example, if a killer is intentionally leaving survivors on the ground and picking them up and dropping them over and over and over just to extend the game well beyond the normal bleed out times that would be reportable. But simply leaving survivors to bleed out is legal.)

    The developers said, "holding the game hostage" to avoid being too specific, and several circumstances fall within "will the game end at some point in the future even if a player takes this action?" that are would be considered taking the game hostage.

    In a scenario where a killer slugs all four survivors and lets them bleed out, none of the survivors (save Unbreakable, which is meant to give survivors more tools against killers slugging for hooks and was not made to prevent this situation) have any course of action other than to wait out the (noticeably lengthy) timer, meaning survivors have no way of completing their objective and the killer is refusing to do his/hers, which is clearly kill the survivors through sacrifice (save a mori). Hatch arguments are out of the question if the killer simply follows the least bled out survivor on the ground to prevent him/her from finding hatch.

    Not hooking anyone creates a situation where four other players cannot complete their objective while the killer chooses not to complete his/hers, and that's holding the game hostage, i.e. preventing the game from progressing and/or ending in any kind of timely manner.

    No one slugs survivors to death without attempting to hook them with the reason, "there, I've done my goal!" No, that person is simply out to abuse the game mechanics that prevent players from ending the game in a loss or progressing the game toward a win while giving others an unpleasant time. Survivors could also do this kind of hostage situation before the EGC was introduced and just hang around indefinitely. That was also considered holding the game hostage even though probably at some point the killer could find them.

    In short: yes, it is reportable (much like jaywalking but with ill-intent). Is it the devs top concern? No. Will you get banned for it? Probably not if you don't do it often enough. But don't make the mistake of thinking it's fine and dandy rain or shine.

  • @Waffleyumboy said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671802#Comment_1671802

    Check the definition of headcanon you've misspelled it here. I agree slugging is not toxic but over slugging is. Just like a couple taunts or notifications from a survivor is playful but spamming them is toxic. Funny how you think I'm being aggressive when all that's happening is I'm clearly stating my intentions and logic. Sorry if that offends you bud.

    I'm not offended I just offered some messaging advice. The spelling doesn't concern me either, headcanon is the creation of self styalized fiction as it relates to the story in a fictional world, a subject that is completely irrelevent here and nothing to do with what this particular post in the foum is talking about.

    "Sorry if that offends you bud" <- that's called passive aggression. Again I'm not offended but you may have less escalating posts if you refrain from using it. Just a suggestion I'm not here to police your behaviour do or don't it doesn't really matter to me.

    I'm glad we are in agreement on slugging not being toxic, I'm not sure what "over slugging" is, I guess you mean repeatedly downing the same person again and again for no reason, or slugging everyone and waiting for the bleed timer to run out rather than just hooking folks once all are down, then yeah this is an example of abusing a mechanic for more obnoxious ends. If the intention is to ruin someone elses game in doing so then that is toxic. But slugging has its place and is a totally viable strategy if used well.

  • @Kind_Lemon said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1670162#Comment_1670162

    The developers said, "holding the game hostage" to avoid being too specific, and several circumstances fall within "will the game end at some point in the future even if a player takes this action?" that are would be considered taking the game hostage.

    In a scenario where a killer slugs all four survivors and lets them bleed out, none of the survivors (save Unbreakable, which is meant to give survivors more tools against killers slugging for hooks and was not made to prevent this situation) have any course of action other than to wait out the (noticeably lengthy) timer, meaning survivors have no way of completing their objective and the killer is refusing to do his/hers, which is clearly kill the survivors through sacrifice (save a mori). Hatch arguments are out of the question if the killer simply follows the least bled out survivor on the ground to prevent him/her from finding hatch.

    Not hooking anyone creates a situation where four other players cannot complete their objective while the killer chooses not to complete his/hers, and that's holding the game hostage, i.e. preventing the game from progressing and/or ending in any kind of timely manner.

    No one slugs survivors to death without attempting to hook them with the reason, "there, I've done my goal!" No, that person is simply out to abuse the game mechanics that prevent players from ending the game in a loss or progressing the game toward a win while giving others an unpleasant time. Survivors could also do this kind of hostage situation before the EGC was introduced and just hang around indefinitely. That was also considered holding the game hostage even though probably at some point the killer could find them.

    In short: yes, it is reportable (much like jaywalking but with ill-intent). Is it the devs top concern? No. Will you get banned for it? Probably not if you don't do it often enough. But don't make the mistake of thinking it's fine and dandy rain or shine.

    You are not using the correct definition of “holding the game hostage”. Holding the game hostage refers to preventing the game from being able to end. As in for example the killer somehow blocking survivors in such a way that the endgame timer can’t start. Simply slugging survivors and letting them bleed out is allowed though because the game will end naturally when that happens.

    But feel free to search around and verify what I’m saying is correct, no reason you have to take my word for it.

  • You're just as toxic as survivors who refuse to leave when the gates exit, click their flashlights, tea bag, etc etc

  • @ClickyClicky said:

    If you have to ask if something is toxic then chances are it is toxic. Also in what world do you live where Deliverance is more common than Unbreakable??

    Why is slugging allowed then? Should the devs implement all survivors back into injured state after 10sec bc anything after that would be slugging. You need to pick that body up STRAIGHT away or toxic


  • @pseudechis said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671104#Comment_1671104

    I get the point you are making its a game its meant to be fun. But there is no agreement between parties that the game is friendly. Unless you are playing with you friends in a KYF custom then sadly you are playing with random people on the internet. Some of these people will be the kind of folk no-one would play with at anytime, we all know at least one person you don't want at game night. Those people are in abundance online. That said...

    Some people might play to win, some might play to muck about, some might not care, some might care more than others. Any real pre-game agreement between parties is imagined. You place importance on everyone having a good time, that's great but its a competitive game some people play to win it.

    Yes there are behaviours that are more obnoxious than others, but if the play is within the confines of the game rules (without abusing flawed mechanics) then its fair game.

    The takeaway point here is that you can play the game anyway you like within the confines of the rules and you should expect people to play the game any way they like, because it's highly unlikely that everyone will play the game in the same manner that you choose to.

    Getting upset at the game and crying toxic because of slugging is just silly, same as if you got flashlight blinded multiple times, or tunneled, or camped, or seriously looped, or 'Gen rushed', or body blocked on your way to the hook, or keyed out or 1 hook mori'd. All these things are in the game and you should expect them to happen.

    I'm not saying people should do them but neither am I telling people that they shouldn't, I play in a way that I enjoy and hopefully isn't too obnoxious for the other players, but I'm not overly concerned about whether or not they find it "fun" because their definition of fun may be completely different from mine.

    The main goal is if you understand how this game can be played and have realistic expectation of what can and might happen, then often you are more pleasantly surprised than annoyed at how things play out, at least I generally am.

    Hence my statement that you are not responsible for anyone's fun and neither are they responsible for yours.

    I agree with you that it's much harder to eject people from online communities, and that those practical difficulties enable toxic behaviour. But I don't think the answer is that we all have to resign ourselves to expecting the worst of people every time we load into a match. I also think that, in almost every situation, the list of behaviours that are socially appropriate to do is necessarily shorter than the list of behaviours that technically no one can stop you from doing.

    I agree that reasonable people can have different ideas of what's socially appropriate and what's not. But I don't agree that, because there's no objective standard of how people should behave, that means no one's actions should ever be criticized. In order for DBD to even load, four strangers have to agree to play a video game with you -- how fun and cool and generous of them! Having no regard for their feelings at all seems callous to me.

    @TheClownIsKing said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671346#Comment_1671346

    A strong team might not give a killer a choice.

    Theoretical scenario: killer only manages their very first down after 3 gens have already been repaired, and is really feeling the pressure. They notice new scratchmarks and immediately investigate. It’s someone hoping to flashlight save. Killer downs them. Returns to first slug but catches someone else trying to revive them. Killer reaches them before the dying survivor can get on their feet, chases the survivor attempting to heal, downs them. Killer again tries to return to the first downed survivor but then notices the fourth survivor doing a desperate run to the survivor downed with the flashlight. Again killer chases to intervene, because the last thing the killer wants is the flashlight holder revived with other slugs to hook. Killer managed to successfully down 4th survivor before they’ve managed to help anyone up.

    Sometimes the killer is not being in anyway toxic. Sometimes the game plays out in such a way where new chase opportunities present themselves in quick succession to a killer sensibly paying attention to environmental queues. Opportunities that would be foolish to ignore.

    I agree. I think there are very few actions in DBD that are always toxic. In almost every case, it depends on the overall context of the match. That's part of the reason that BHVR can't ever apply a patch that's going to stop toxic behaviour -- the toxicity comes from the social element, and not the raw game mechanics. It's totally possible to slug in a way that's legitimate within the context of the match and not at all rude. It's also totally possible to do it in a hostile, anti-social way. And there's no piece of software I'm aware of that would be able to detect the difference.

    @NekoGamerX said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671104#Comment_1671104

    being a 4v1 game it never friendly game survivor go out of they way bully the killer.

    so yea no one agree to play a friendly game together(maybe the 4 survivors who are swf) make sure they have fun but most survivor don't care if the killer has fun,so why should the killer care if the survivors have fun?

    I care whether the people I play with have fun, no matter which side I'm playing. It hurts my feelings sometimes when it becomes clear that that care isn't returned, but I don't think the answer is that we should all act like psychopaths just because some people do. Every match we play is an interaction with new individuals, and I don't think it's right to punish the entire group because some of its members behaved poorly. If you see someone you recognize, and that person was mean to you, I'm not going to cry any tears over you being mean to them, too, but I don't think the general policy should be to assume that everyone's going to be mean.

  • @martin27 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671829#Comment_1671829

    So you're accusing someone of doing something banable which they are not but admitting to DCing which is actually banable.

    Holding the game hostage on purpose is in fact banable and dc-ing is no, its punishable which is why the penalty is there but its not banable my guy

  • @JephKaplan said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671841#Comment_1671841

    Holding the game hostage on purpose is in fact banable and dc-ing is no, its punishable which is why the penalty is there but its not banable my guy

    If you DC enough it is banable, also he would have to be taking the game hostage for him to be banned for it. So once again you are still in the wrong.

  • that play style is extremely toxic, you're basically playing to waste other players time by making it take at LEAST 5 minutes for them to die. it doesn't matter how well you usually do that play style is just toxic. Even slug focused builds hook survivors because actually slugging everyone isn't their goal their goal is to snow ball with multiple downs and if the opportunity presents itself they slug everyone.

    there are times you should slug and times you shouldn't. making it so slug time is all the time is just annoying for anyone. Your also making playing that match WAY less rewarding since unhooking survivors provides a lot of blood points and emblem score.

  • @Hex_Llama said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671319#Comment_1671319

    I agree with you that it's much harder to eject people from online communities, and that those practical difficulties enable toxic behaviour. But I don't think the answer is that we all have to resign ourselves to expecting the worst of people every time we load into a match. I also think that, in almost every situation, the list of behaviours that are socially appropriate to do is necessarily shorter than the list of behaviours that technically no one can stop you from doing.

    I agree that reasonable people can have different ideas of what's socially appropriate and what's not. But I don't agree that, because there's no objective standard of how people should behave, that means no one's actions should ever be criticized. In order for DBD to even load, four strangers have to agree to play a video game with you -- how fun and cool and generous of them! Having no regard for their feelings at all seems callous to me.

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671406#Comment_1671406

    I agree. I think there are very few actions in DBD that are always toxic. In almost every case, it depends on the overall context of the match. That's part of the reason that BHVR can't ever apply a patch that's going to stop toxic behaviour -- the toxicity comes from the social element, and not the raw game mechanics. It's totally possible to slug in a way that's legitimate within the context of the match and not at all rude. It's also totally possible to do it in a hostile, anti-social way. And there's no piece of software I'm aware of that would be able to detect the difference.

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671495#Comment_1671495

    I care whether the people I play with have fun, no matter which side I'm playing. It hurts my feelings sometimes when it becomes clear that that care isn't returned, but I don't think the answer is that we should all act like psychopaths just because some people do. Every match we play is an interaction with new individuals, and I don't think it's right to punish the entire group because some of its members behaved poorly. If you see someone you recognize, and that person was mean to you, I'm not going to cry any tears over you being mean to them, too, but I don't think the general policy should be to assume that everyone's going to be mean.

    I know they not all like that but big part of them are I play both sides when I play survivor I try not to BM in anyway.

  • Nope, not at all.

  • They won't like it, but it's not "toxic." Toxic is when you have the intent of being an ######### to someone in a personal way, not whenever you do something they don't consider fun. I dunno when "toxic" became a catch-all term for playing video games a certain way, but generally outside of really specific scenarios (holding the game hostage, sabotaging your own team, trying to annoy someone as hard as you can) it's really just whatever you find most effective.

    You're definitely not making this game fun for those survivors, but think about all the times they try real hard to make the game fun for you.

  • @dugman said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1672546#Comment_1672546

    You are not using the correct definition of “holding the game hostage”. Holding the game hostage refers to preventing the game from being able to end. As in for example the killer somehow blocking survivors in such a way that the endgame timer can’t start. Simply slugging survivors and letting them bleed out is allowed though because the game will end naturally when that happens.

    But feel free to search around and verify what I’m saying is correct, no reason you have to take my word for it.

    This isn't important enough for me to go do more research than I already have. "Correct definition" is incredibly subjective, mainly because the wording is vague enough on purpose to allow the devs liberty in what they consider bannable. If you define it so narrowly, you defeat the purpose of the wording. Think of it like the US constitution, if that helps.

    but w/e cya

  • @Kind_Lemon said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1672649#Comment_1672649

    This isn't important enough for me to go do more research than I already have. "Correct definition" is incredibly subjective, mainly because the wording is vague enough on purpose to allow the devs liberty in what they consider bannable. If you define it so narrowly, you defeat the purpose of the wording. Think of it like the US constitution, if that helps.

    but w/e cya

    What research have you done other than just read the rules page? I’m saying I believe you should look into it more because based on other threads on this same topic I believe you are misinterpreting what they mean.

    But hey, I’m just a random dude on the internet, if a mod or someone with an official link feels like showing me I’m wrong here I welcome the correction.

  • @martin27 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1673376#Comment_1673376

    If you DC enough it is banable, also he would have to be taking the game hostage for him to be banned for it. So once again you are still in the wrong.

    Learn to read

  • @Hex_Llama said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671319#Comment_1671319

    I agree with you that it's much harder to eject people from online communities, and that those practical difficulties enable toxic behaviour. But I don't think the answer is that we all have to resign ourselves to expecting the worst of people every time we load into a match. I also think that, in almost every situation, the list of behaviours that are socially appropriate to do is necessarily shorter than the list of behaviours that technically no one can stop you from doing.

    I agree that reasonable people can have different ideas of what's socially appropriate and what's not. But I don't agree that, because there's no objective standard of how people should behave, that means no one's actions should ever be criticized. In order for DBD to even load, four strangers have to agree to play a video game with you -- how fun and cool and generous of them! Having no regard for their feelings at all seems callous to me.

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671406#Comment_1671406

    I agree. I think there are very few actions in DBD that are always toxic. In almost every case, it depends on the overall context of the match. That's part of the reason that BHVR can't ever apply a patch that's going to stop toxic behaviour -- the toxicity comes from the social element, and not the raw game mechanics. It's totally possible to slug in a way that's legitimate within the context of the match and not at all rude. It's also totally possible to do it in a hostile, anti-social way. And there's no piece of software I'm aware of that would be able to detect the difference.

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/1671495#Comment_1671495

    I care whether the people I play with have fun, no matter which side I'm playing. It hurts my feelings sometimes when it becomes clear that that care isn't returned, but I don't think the answer is that we should all act like psychopaths just because some people do. Every match we play is an interaction with new individuals, and I don't think it's right to punish the entire group because some of its members behaved poorly. If you see someone you recognize, and that person was mean to you, I'm not going to cry any tears over you being mean to them, too, but I don't think the general policy should be to assume that everyone's going to be mean.

    If slugging were a toxic, unintended game mechanic, then we wouldn’t have perks encouraging it, and the game would be designed so that when a downing hit occurs, the killer is animation locked into automatically picking survivors up.

    The only thing toxic is intentionally not picking up survivors when you know where they are, it is perfectly safe to do so (like when everyone is slugged), and they’re not in a hook dead zone where bleed out is the killers only choice.

    Survivors don’t have a right to complain about not being hooked if they intentionally crawl to a corner where they can’t be hooked.

  • Yeah is toxic, it's boring they don't score points and neither do you I prefer that the 4 escape and score several points and hang up that win in that way in which I do not make points and look bad in front of the other

1 2 3 ›