Is this a bannable offense?
Look at the following possible scenarios:
- Hatch game. Two survivors left, some gens remain. One survivors is downed, the other is hiding hoping for the hatch. The killer slugs for 4k. The slugged survivors is crawling to the remaining survivor, thus leading the killer to the other survivor in order to sell him out.
- Same as above, but the killer then lets the slugged survivor go as a "thank you" for selling his teammate.
- Same as above, but the formerly slugged survivor and the killer are now BMing you while you are on the hook, making it obvious they are at it together.
- Same as 2nd or 3rd, but the survivor is not crawling to you, but actively leading the killer to you while healthy or injured.
So the question is: which of these are bannable and can be reported as "working with the opposing team", if any?
Comments
1) No.
2) No.
3) Yes.
4) Yes.
How should we know? They just make this stuff up as they go along, clearly.
This is why I'm hoping a dev or a mod will reply here and explain it. I've played the game for 3 years and still not sure how this rule works exactly.
None of them.
1) If hatch player were running whole game and tried to carry as much as he can while u afk wait until he dies. I would let him go too if I manage to find u. It's not offence, it's players respect. Better one goes away.
2) Same as above.
3) I never saw survivors BM each other in game. It usually happens in after game chat. I can't imagine what u did to piss 2 players in a game.
4) Same as above. If i find out u are hiding in a locker whole game while your teammates die here and there. It's not offence to show killer a guy who is wintrading his teammates. It's not fair/fun to play 3v1.
There are many many IFS about it. U can't just say oh wait they are premade and play together.
This is kind of "opinion" I was not asking, especially not from a killer main who has never played soloQ in his life and has no idea what this thread is about.
I've stated clearly about the "hatch game": if two survivors remain with some gens left, it's nearly impossible for both of them to escape. It's either 4k or 3k with a hatch. If I happen to be the one who is not downed, of course I'll go for the hatch.
Some killers who have no idea what is happening the whole game say "i was hiding the whole game", even though I was doing gens the whole game and only was hiding when the last survivor was downed. "You were just hiding all game" is an obvious lie you tell yourself as a killer who often happens to cooperate with troll sandbaggers selling their teammates in order to justify his position. Because the rule states "working with the opposing team", so theoretically the killer can be banned for this too.
I actually believe they once stated that only survivors were punished for that. The killer would likely not be punished unless their stance changed recently.
U are [bad word] if you dismiss opinion by picking up killer, survivor main.
As i said there are multiple ifs. It's not bannable in your situations.
"As i said", as if you had authority over this and know for sure. Once again, it's just your "opinion", and quite irrelevant one. You have no basic understanding of the described situations, which is clear by what you said about "if the last survivor doesn't give himself to me - it means he was hiding the whole game doing nothing".
You want to say it's completely fine to just lead the killer to your teammate and then BM him on hook while giving high fives to each other with the killer? That's complete nonsense: there is nothing more suitable to definition of "working with the opposing team".
I thiiink the 3rd one, the others are less obvious and harder to prove
I'd argue that none of the described scenarios are bannable.
1) A survivor crawling to you is not necessarily "ratting you out." They very well could be begging for heals, so that they don't have to spend 4 minutes on the floor while you selfishly hide in a corner. And even if their intention is to "rat you out," its impossible to prove that intent without admission from the guilty party. ...also, they're a slug on the floor--they are hardly "working with the killer" in that scenario.
2) The killer's actions are indepent of the survivors in this scenario. It is not just to ban a survivor simply because a killer granted them a free escape.
3) Not bannable because of arguments 1 & 2. You cannot prove the intent of the survivor, and you cannot ban the survivor because the killer refuses to down them. The killer is free to chose whether or not they want to kill any survivors, and it is not bannable if they opt out of killing anyone at all.
4) The survivor is free to loop the killer in whichever direction they choose. They can't be banned for bringing the killer to you, even if intentionally.
...the only scenario in which I could see this being bannable is if during Scenario 4, the killer has made it apparent to Survivor A that they will not down them, and instead wants them to help find Survivor B. In this scenario, Survivor A is no longer participating in normal gameplay and is actively working with the killer to kill Survivor B.
There are a few additional niche situations in which Scenario 4 becomes bannable, but to justify it I really believe BHVR would need to see the full gameplay to get the whole story.
I've never been able to upload a clip longer than 10 seconds to BHVR's report submission form, so I have no clue how they expect to receive enough context in any video to justify banning someone. Unless its a clip of post-game chat harassment, there just isn't a way to provide damning evidence.
In the 3rd scenario I told about both survivor and the killer BMing the one on hook. When the survivor teabags or spams unhook action instead of unhooking - the intent is quite obvious.
Also, in most of these scenarios that actually happened to me the sandbagger confesses in chat he did it on purpose, just to come up with some kind of made up justification. The intent is most often not even in question.
So it's only possible to upload 10-second videos in their report form? How is it possible to report ANYTHING then with just 10 seconds of gameplay?
As frustrating as it may be to sit helplessly as a teammate teabags you, it doesn't directly corelate to "working with the killer." Sure, they're a dick for gloating because some random stranger on the internet decided to spare them today, but BHVR has made it clear that leaving a survivor to die on first hook isn't bannable. ...and thats really all this survivor is doing.
I've had the exact scenario you've described happen to me on more than one occassion, and I do file a report. ...but I'm filing that report on a whim of raging emotions. I don't actually think they'll get banned--its just too hard to prove they did something wrong (BMing aside).
But yeah, I once sent BHVR 6 individual Youtube clips in a report, demonstrating the lengths a Kate went to sandbag me against a Pig. I checked the viewcount a month later, and whoever reviewed my case didn't even watch past the 2nd video (all the clips were under 15 seconds long).
This sort of thing happens to me occasionally as a survivor but not enough for me to feel much about it. When I am playing killer and one of the survivors throws their teammate(s) under the bus to save themselves, I will act like I am playing along and then turn and kill/tunnel them out of the game, as mercilessly as I can.
1 and 2 are too fuzzy to prove.
3 is bannable because it shows teaming intent and people have been banned for it..
4 is not bannable unless there's some circumstances that prove teaming, e.g. the person gets downed, the killer lets them wiggle out and then they sell their teammate out.
The 4th scenario just happened to me again, and I still don't know the answer...
He did what he felt was right. It sucks to have happen to you, but honestly it makes the game 100X more dramatic and interesting. Kinda like SAW what are you willing to sacrifice to live?
That's DBD in a nutshell. If it happens to the devs and they don't like it, they do something about it otherwise Nadda.