What do you guys think about the three gen situation
I get the idea of making survs pay attention and punishing us for not being careful, but to me it seems like it just holds the game hostage for way longer than normal and is really boring. Survs are three genned and the killer is camping the gens, what to do? No one is going to do a gen, especially if it’s end game and someone’s died, or at least in solo que. It’s really hard to do a gen in solo que in this situation. On the killers side, why would they leave the gens knowing the survs can’t escape? It’s boring but valid to win. And if it’s a fat risk for a surv to try and do a gen (like if they’re mostly in dead zones, there’s not enough survs left in the lobby to pressure well, etc) why would they go for the gens? it’s also boring, but if you want to win, waiting for the killer to get bored first and leave the area is your only real option too. On high mobility killers such as billy, spirit, and so on, there’s not much counter to it after it happens besides this long stalemate. (Obviously the best counter is not getting three gen-ed in the first place, but this can be hard to do in solo que. Sometimes you have to just do whatever gen you can depending on where your teammate is looping, hooked, or whatever.)
I think three genning at solo que is def still a surv’s fault but the game being hostage is still really lame. I don’t see a point to try and risk my life so easily to do a gen that’s being camped, and I also see why a killer would camp it.
But what are y’all’s thoughts on it? I think in a swf it’s manageable because of call outs and being able to split up efficiently, but in solo que it really holds the game hostage from my pov.
Comments
It says it in the rest of that paragraph,
If they are making no attempt to down anyone and purely stalling the game by keeping everyone in madness 3, only downing and slugging them if they refuse to move, that would be considered holding the game hostage. We would need to see that they are doing this for a long time, though, not just a couple minutes. The 3 gen strat on its own is not bannable, it only become an issue when it's being used to grief instead of win
He’s not talking about guarding a 3 gen, he’s talking about specifically doing non-damaging actions which prevent the gens from being worked on at all simply for the sole purpose of dragging things out as long as possible.
Now you are the one leaving out context by intentionally using only parts of sentences to form something else other than what was said. The last sentence in full explicitly is about guarding a 3-gen.
How am I leaving anything out context? He explicitly says guarding a 3 gen is only bannable “when it’s used to grief”, and his specific example is a Doctor who is going out of their way to never injure people? I’m not cherry picking anything he said. I’m going out of my way to include the entire context of that post.
Again, nobody has been or ever would be banned just for guarding a 3 gen if the survivors are too scared to do the gens. It’s never happened.
P.S. On a tangent, I do think DbD should have a timer in the background where if neither side manages to score any bloodpoints at all for, say, five to ten minutes then the game automatically goes into sudden death endgame collapse or something similar. This would avoid annoying stalemates like the one being described as well as things like two survivors both just hiding and hoping the other is found first or a killer bodyblocking the last survivor to prevent them from getting to an open hatch, etc.
If you are not leaving the gens unless a Survivor is approaching the gens and then furthermore pushing Survivors away when they try to get close to the gens, you are explictly going out of your way to not bring the game to a close and you are explicitly dragging the game on, which is explicitly the definition of holding the game hostage.
No, it’s not “holding the game hostage” because the survivors have the ability to try and split up and work the gen you’re not next to. There’s literally no hostage taking involved, the way out of that situation is in the survivor’s hands.
That very much depends on the 3-gen, Killer in question, and number of Survivors. It is absolutely possible to be in a position where you can reliably guard all three gens without Survivors being able to approach if you don't allow it.
there are survivors who honestly believe an attrition defense is holding the game hostage now? 9/10 with a 3 gen the killer is looking for the survivors to make a mistake and outposition bad enough to get the down before they can escape. Thats still doing their objective just fine, saying they should be forced to overcommit and lose for it is the same as saying survivors should be forced to overcommit to a gen and get downed rather than running away to heal. Neither side is holding the game hostage unless its something specific like that Peanits post was talking about (shock spamming to prevent being able to interact with gens, with zero attempt to follow up with hits or downs)
The point of a 3 gen defense as killer is to catch survivors getting sloppy, and punish them for it. You're literally looking for an opening to shift the dynamic.
Being in a potentially winning position unless the survivors take risks isn’t bannable.
The three gen strategy has won me many games on the large maps like Red Forest, Ormond, Cowshed etc.
Unless you're playing a mobile killer like Blight, Billy etc then it's very hard to maintain control of the gens across the map. So defending a specific area of gens is the way to go in my experience and it predominantly works.
If you are not committing to gens unless a killer leaves it than furthermore drawing the killer away from another gen that is being worked on by another survivor, you are explicitly going out of your way to not bring the game to a close and you are explicitly dragging the game on. which is explicitly the definition of holding the game hostage.
...see how silly that sounds?
I never said that it was. I said that not trying to down Survivors while also not allowing them to do gens is reportable.
You don't have to be committing; you only have to be showing that you are making an effort to do the gens, even if the Killer is not letting you. If the Killer is leaving you be after you run away, they are the ones who are not committing.
That didn't always work. I forced a few situations like that and it didn't end well for the Survivors. Yea they had CoH but eventually they will get cocky and or greedy and eventually will die on the hook. A good 3 Gen is hard to break, especially if you use Hag, Artist, or anyone that can easily keep a eye on multiple Gens at once....heck you want a game that stalls out Get a 3 Gen and play Vommy Mommy. Nothing will pregress.....the best 45 mins of my life.
Even if survivors won't let killers to down them, they are trying to kill you by injuring you and defending you, thus not be considered holding game hostage.
And I said you’re wrong in that nobody has ever been banned or would be banned if they’re playing zone defense. You get banned for doing things to harrass and annoy like the Doctor situation, not for waiting for a mistake by the opponent.
The Doctor situation isn't reportable because it's harassing and annoying. It's reportable because it holds the game hostage.
That is very much not necessarily true if the Killer is letting you go consistently to stand guard at the 3-gen.
The difference between doctor situation and usual 3gen is capability, if they are constantly harassed by doctor for eternity and kept madness 3, they can't do gen, and since doctor won't try to kill them, they can't die, results in holding the game hostage.
usual 3genning is much different, killers will kill them if they don't get farther, and survivors can finish gen if they don't scare dying.
This is true because, if survivor gave up and just stops moving, killers will kill them, results in end of the game.
Whether through winning or losing, game will end.
As others stated Killers defending a Gen is not holding the game hostage....just because they stop a chase and don't want to be led away from the last gens is not a banable offense. Survivors REFUSING to do Gens because they could get downed or don't like they let themselves get 3 Gen IS holding the game hostage.
Even in the Peanits post you quoted he explicitly said it would be bannable because it was being done to grief, not to win.
Losing on purpose is a reportable offense, so no. :p
I agree that it tends to be boring, but I'll be honest, I usually actually don't mind three gens.
The only exception to this rule is three gens on Chapel or those crazy gen spawns in Lerys. The gen RNG for those maps can be straight up awful, and if a Killer notices it early enough, they can capitalize and put pressure on it for an easy game.
Besides those though, it's whatever. Three gens usually have potential to be broken as long as the team splits a bit or there's enough people to pressure it. I'd rather take a 3 gen then old Forever Freddy, Forever Legion, Forever Doctor on Old Game, or old Hatch Stand Offs/Infinite Exit Gate BM. Now those felt like the game lasting for ten generations and being boring as sin. They make an occasional 3 gen a walk in the park by comparison.
"If they are making no attempt to down anyone and purely stalling the game by keeping everyone in madness 3, only downing and slugging them if they refuse to move, that would be considered holding the game hostage."
It straight-up says that the Doctor is holding the game hostage.
You don't have to be committing, you only have to be showing that you are making an effort to hit survivors, even if they are not letting you. If the survivors are leaving the gens after you run toward them, they are the ones who are not committing.
again, you're just completely ignoring the hypocrisy in your own argument. An attrition battle in a 3 gen scenario is neither side's fault as long as they're actually trying.
You have to show that you are making an effort to DOWN Survivors. If they are hitting them once, letting them go, then going back, they are not committing. No hypocrisy here. :P
Thats the same as saying survivors need to make an effort to PROGRESS gens and not just stopping them from regressing.
hit = gen tap
down = progress
kill = gen done
This isn't difficult to grasp.
Oh wait, so killers can't commit to chase because that's pretty much "losing on purpose"? hmmm strange.
Using nuance in your logic? we don't do that here, unfortunately.
Yes, that actually is true. If they just tap and go back to hiding (especially to avoid AFK crows), that is hostage holding.
I mean, the BHVR quote I posted said that Killer is fault if they are only bothering to down Survivor if they stand still, so...
You do realize that what you said is actually true is exactly how survivors are supposed to (and do) counterplay 3 gen scenarios, right? they tap the gens and work on them only until the killer starts going their way, then run away before the killer can get a hit (therefore forcing them to either commit and give up the other gens, or deny the chase and go back to kicking/patroling.) Gen kicks take much longer than gen taps, regression is slower than base progress, and the 1 is trying to match distance with the up-to-4 who are only marginally slower movement speed wise. Gen tapping and getting small increments done continuously is how survivors win 3 gen setups, even with as little as just 2 survivors.
Of course you went to the extreme with your "example," but the strategy is still the same.
I didn't say "tap and work on them until the Killer finds them." I said "tap and go back into hiding."
You're ignoring nuanced arguments in favor of hyperbolic assumptions, just like that doctor shock post.
That quote is specifically about doctor, which disable survivor's ability to do gens.
I'm really not. "Tap and hide indefinitely" is the Survivor equivalent of "injure Survivor and go back to gen indefinitely."
Yes, but it can broadly apply to being able to stop Survivors from doing gens overall. Another example: Standing in an optimal spot where you can shoot anyone who approaches as the Deathslinger (something that I can absolutely say was possible through experience).
no, its the equivalent of "shock indefinitely so that survivors can't touch gens."
(Survivors tapping and slowly progressing gens, running away and healing if hit) is the equivalent of (injuring survivors and going back to gens immediately.)
Those two are definitely not equivalents unless the Killer is going back because they see someone else approaching gens.
It can't be broadly apply to being able to stop survivors from doing gens overall.
"taking the game hostage" is the situation where only option is leaving the game, doesn't matter what exact situation is... if this is the case, that is hostage situation, if this is not the case, that is not hostage situation.
In 3 genning situation, killers can overcommit survivors and lose the game, or survivors can gave up and try to do gens in face of killers and die, so this will not be considered hostage situation.
"survivors can gave up and try to do gens in face of killers and die, so this will not be considered hostage situation."
The quote I gave literally said that the Doctor is holding hostage if he is only downing a Survivor if they stand still.
You don't need to physically see the other person on the other gen to know when its being worked on, and sometimes you don't even have line of sight between multiple gens. I honestly can't tell if you're using every logical fallacy you can think of, or you've just never actually been in this situation successfully.
But to play along, thats like saying the survivors using spine chill to run away before the killer can reach them are the same as the ones tapping and hiding in lockers.
Again, please, for the love of all things sacred, try to consider anything short of extreme examples.
But in most 3 genning situation killers will down a survivor as long as they are close, not the case.
alright, they went back to the doctor shock example as their baseline. I'm done with this topic.
Anyone who wants to actually consider the arguments has more than enough info to make their decision.
That's...not true? Not unless the gen explodes or you have a way to detect that it's being worked on.
Lemme make it simple: If you are going back once or twice because you are worried it's being worked on, that's fine. If the game is going on forever because ALL YOU'RE DOING is hitting, letting them go, and running back to stand guard, you are holding the game hostage.
If the Killer is actively going to down Survivors as they approach, then the Killer is doing nothing wrong. The issue is when they are NOT doing that deliberately.
If you scare survivors off a gen, but don't score a hit and they hover in the area, where exactly do you think they're going to go the moment you leave? Do you really need a gen notification to figure that out?
The person in question said that Survivors can just stand still to let the Killer down them. I am showing from the example I posted that BHVR EXPLICTLY does not use that as a valid excuse to justify hostage holding.
That's just extremely fringe case of very specific situation, and doctor's treatment mode doesn't even exists for now anyway.
And if you are continuously finding them there, that's fine. Even if you don't every time, that's fine. The problem arises when you keep going back, keep not finding someone there, and rather than deciding "okay, they're not there; I'm gonna start looking for them and swing back later," you decide "okay, they're not there; better wait until they come back" over and over and over.
"patrolling the generator is good way to find survivors"
from dbd tips.
Patrolling gens =/= stand at gens indefinitely and don't try to down Survivors