Why some people try to unhook themselves only in front of others ?
Sometimes, I see people trying to unhook themselves only in front of other survivors. Why do they do that ?
I choose each time to let them go to 2nd hook phase (if no one else's here to save them they will), because I assume that if you want to troll, well, either 4% and it works or 96% and prepare for consequences, and that if you do unhook yourself, that means I came to the hook for nothing. But really, why do some people try this ?
Comments
I never pay attention to blood points so the idea that players were doing it for BP never crossed my mind.
I always presumed it was because if they see me coming for an unhook, know that they have enough meter for an attempt, and they successfully self unhook, we save a couple of seconds not having to do the unhook animation and start the heal right away.
If I walk up to a hooked survivor, and they make an unhook attempt in front of me, is it within the game rules for me to just walk away from the hook, and refuse to unhook that survivor?
Game Rules - BHVR There are a LOT of circumstances and context missing. Are you doing this to the same person over and over? Are you harassing players, or targeting users to ruin their gameplay experience? You do you in the solo queue, my friend, but you're asking me to confirm or deny that a behavior is okay. Loaded question when griefing is not okay, but we also cannot make you go unhook people.
Forum Rules - BHVR I do want to note that it is against the forum rules to encourage negative gameplay behaviors such as griefing.
Bro was asked to cook a simple grilled cheese and decided to make a full course meal instead 🔥🔥
On a serious note, I really dont understand why people take it so seriously.
Same like BP is so easy to get right now, why is 1500 BP so important that you throw the entire game!?
If a survivor unhooks themselves while you wasted time running to them, just assume they can rescue themselves the next time.
Again, I think most people are smart enough to realize that you're not really losing anything if the surv 4%'s right when you get there.
BUT...
It feels so disrespectful of your time, especially if it's successful. I left my gen to run across the map just so you can kobe in my face? I recognize nothing was lost (probably), but it really fills me with angry energy. It's not a super serious or even rational thing, it just rubs people the wrong way.
Plus, what if the killer is proxy camping and/or stealth and gets a hit on me before I get to you? Now I have to accept a hook trade because you blew part of your hook timer trying to be cute for 1500 BP? Don't assume that because your potential rescuer is almost there that nothing is going to go sideways.
Mitigate the risk, just let them unhook you.
it IS griefing, like huh? if you are that petty and decide to let me go 2nd, i'll not only go 2nd but also go next, no problem.
i said they have the perks OR might have them; also it's not that big of a deal so even, yes, a suspicion is more than enough of a reason for me to attempt. ofc that suspicion isn't "they might have one of the 384573845 killer perks in the game" but more if they play like they have it (believe it or not but it's very easy to call devour or floods) or i've been notified of undying and didn't see any other hex perk yet.
i have enough experience to tell how much distance allows what so i'll decide on that. if the killer is too close, attempting would make the rescuer panic and trade even when unnecessary. attempting and succeeding when the killer isn't that close but coming would save the rescuer a hit they would otherwise take because unhooking animation takes forever. i'll also be fine jumping off that hook with the killer nearby because someone is getting in chase and a hit regardless and that better be me with bt.
spite? I'm just playing the game.
unless you can read minds for some reason, it's just regular gameplay.
also, who said die?
no, it ain't. like said above. simply refusing a heal or an unhook isn't by itself an issue. context is king, as people say.
many times in regular gameplay people have gone 2nd stage because time and/or killer and/or had to do a thing and/or other stuff including the controller literaly dieing on me. these happen.
how can you tell why? unless they tell you of course.
and I think might is not enough of a reason. because you could be denying advantages to your teammate. including a guaranteed self unhook. they are there already, let them save you.
bt runs out. and if you fail, which you likely will, there's an animation delay that might screw everything up for the unhook. also you were on the hook already, better someone fresh go on hook than you again.
there were multiple people in this thread explicitly saying they would refuse to unhook anyone who attempted to 4%, specifically to punish the attempt at a 4%, and that they would point-blank refuse to rescue the person on second hook. the first of those meets the definition of "spite" and the second fits the definition of "letting a teammate die".
i may not be able to read your mind, but i can certainly read the posts of other people in this thread and i'm willing to trust people are telling the truth about their motivations - unless you're willing to break the forum rules by accusing those other users of lying and trolling?
The forum is irrelevant. You can't report people in-game for this behavior unless they explicitly say so in-game, because it would be the only proof you can show.
I think you'll find that the forum is actually extremely relevant to the concept of "people admitting to greifing their teammates on the BHVR forums," which is what my initial post was about
did I say that?
or do you think I am other people?
Do you think my initial post, which I made before you even weighed in, was in response to you?
I pointed out that other users were admitting to those behaviors and called them greifing, you objected to my use of that word, I explained why I thought the term applied to those other users. I'm very sorry it turns out I wasn't time traveling to talk about you.
why am I the only one time travelling?
and I said, not saving someone on hook is not griefing. because it isn't. it takes more than not saving you once to reach that.
the reason matters, the frequency matters, general context of the game matters.
until you get me a mod or someone to say that it is griefing, it is just your opinion that it should be.
It depends on the reason, you say? Wouldn't it be very hecking interesting if I was very explicitly and clearly responding to some people that had stated the reason of spite?
I think I figured out the problem here.
You think the subtext in my original post was "failing to unhook a teammate in any context is greifing and should be punishable by a ban"
It wasn't. I was saying "the specific hypothetical scenario that a few people have presented here, wherein they intend to rescue someone, see that they've done a 4% attempt, and then change their mind and intentionally go out of their way to not rescue that person, meets the social definition of the term 'greifing,' regardless of the specific in-game rules regarding behavior and logistical challenges inherent in detecting such gameplay choices."
since the response when directly asked was
I think it's safe to say it can't be griefing as defined by the rules since the answer wasn't "yes". or something like "yes if no extra context matters".
it falls into a gray area of "you don't like it and think it should be consider griefing 100%". but it doesn't sound like that is what is happening.
Personally, I see the answer as "I don't see any rules being broken but I don't wanna answer it's ok". which is a fair stance to take.
after all harassing players and targetting users to ruin their experience are by themselves against the rules. whichever method is chosen to do it is equally bad in my eyes, it's not like it changes the answer if you change the method.
Do people genuinely just not read people's posts before responding? I could not have possibly been more unambiguous in explaining I wasn't talking about in game rules here
by the game rules, as explained, with no context given beyond "they did X so I decided not to unhook them", it wasn't called out as griefing.
the things people are saying here, fall under that.
The fact that you continue to refuse to read what I said is so intensely disrespectful to not just me but this entire community
did you read what I said? it addresses what you said entirely.
the things you are replying to. fall under what jocelyn replied to. it is not griefing, because it wasn't called that.
I did read what you said. The first 4 words were "by the game rules," thus proving your statement "it addresses what you said" incorrect, because I could not have more unambiguously specified I was not talking about the game rules but rather the social contract of playing games in general
... you know we are talking about a game right?
and that griefing is only described and punishable by breaking the game rules right?
and that "social contract" is not objective by any standard, right?
right?
wikipedia seems to think a griefer is someone who deliberately irritates someone in a video game but doesn't seem to think breaking in-game rules is part of the definition. maybe you should go edit wikipedia to specify that they have to be breaking the game rules to be considered one
unless you're willing to acknowledge there are multiple contexts where the word is applicable, "breaking the anti-griefing rules" is not the only commonly accepted definition of griefing.
I still see it more often than I should but idc anymore nor hold a grudge. I either unhook them if they fail or just heal/protect them if they manage to kobe.
If they play the game normally besides that why should I be petty. Idc about bps that much anyway.
It does suck if people run unhook perks like wmi but I run botany so...