Hiding Survivors Names Till End
Upon loading into a lobby, other survivors in the lobby and the killer hosting the lobby should not be able to see usernames. Although, they SHOULD still be able to see players ping in case they want to dodge it.
Why?
Most often, especially on smaller platforms like console, once you reach red ranks you play all the same killers. This results in them dodging you when they see your name in the lobby if they dislike you and or bringing a mori or playing a certain way against you i.e. camping your hook or tunneling you. Also to say, other survivors dodge each other too so that’s why even survivors shouldn’t be able to see each other’s names.
Current Issue?
With it’s current status you get barely any games and endless dodges. And like mentioned above, if they don’t dodge then they just tunnel you specifically or bring a mori just for you.
Benefits Of Hiding Names Till End?
This will result in more games being played in general and more fair gameplay from both sides. By them not being able to see the names it will eliminate any judgements they have just because they know you from past games or whatever the case is. And by hiding names from other survivors in the lobby it allows for no special gameplay against each other either i.e. sand bagging, body blocking or dodging each other etc.
Thoughts?
Comments
Yes, actually, because it's not feasible to do otherwise.
It's not feasible to individualize which rules and laws every single human being on the planet must follow depending on their past and present behavior, and personality.
It's not feasible to make sure every single one of the tens - maybe hundreds - of thousands of players have legitimate reasons for dodging or DCing.
It's not feasible because we do not live in a perfect world with unlimited resources at our disposal to do all that. The best you can hope for is that you minimize the probability of something going wrong, and that is exactly how justice works.
If you don't like that, then by all means, propose a feasible way to individualize which players can have access to which information. Or just admit that the devs can't monitor tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands of people across millions of trials to figure out which ones should have the information and which ones shouldn't, not to mention the absurd programming effort to create an infrastructure to allow that level of individualization.
I agree, you bring up good points. I can see a lot of different variations of this idea working.
Dear @Skarkio, two logical fallacies in a single post: the injustices committed by some survivors against you do not justify those of some killers against other survivors (tu quoque); I've never talked about bannable offences, but to ruin the adversary's game experience (straw man). On the rest, I reply to you and to Wolf74 together: read below, please.
Dear @Wolf74, the question is not to die or die first: two results that I accept as part of the game, unpleasant, but physiological. What I find horrible is the facecamping (now punished more severely by the developers) and the tunneling (the new DS puts a patch), because essentially prevent the survivor not to win, but to play: the survivor must make gens, go looking for totems, searching chests, use or exchange items, heal, hide from the killer, deceive or evade him... If this happens, I enjoy it, because I'm using the potential that the game offers, if, instead, my game becomes the simulation of a salami hanging from a butchery hook, with the eventual struggling to block some legs of the Entity, and nothing else, or I come down ten seconds after the unhook, I'm not playing: I'm literally wasting my time. You talk about the killer's efficient strategy, you say he needs to get some survivors out of the way as soon as possible. I ask you a sincere question: do you apply the same criteria when the survivors do eternal loops or gen rushes? The survivors' purpose is to come out alive: to keep the killer busy for five minutes of unsuccessful pursuit and to quickly repair all the gens are exactly two excellent strategies to maximize the chances of victory. Curiously, the forum is full of killer mains who complain about these strategies. And you're the first to complain about the hatch, or am I wrong?
Your description of the psychopathic serial killer is very inspired and I greatly appreciate it, but one detail escapes you: nobody would choose to face such a threat in real life; as for the game, no one would choose to face such a threat if he did not have the fair chance to have fun. If a survivor complains of facecamping or tunneling, or a killer complains about eternal loops or gen rushes, responding that they are excellent strategies is short-sighted: the frustrated player will change role, with lengthening matchmaking times, or will change videogame. If you like to be a killer, you have to convince four other people to play survivors: telling them that they will have to spend the whole game hanging on the hook without doing anything is not a convincing argument, it does not excite the interest a little. Would you accept to be a killer if they told you that you would have to spin like a top, without killing anyone, while the gens light up in a flash? Not even for a dream, be honest.
No, @Orion I'm not asking anything so complicated: I ask players to be anonymous until the trial ends, to have no revenges, no toxic behaviours against specific people, and more fun for all.
Only survivors were abusing the information to the point that it had to be taken away from them. By your own logic, this is punishing killers for something survivors did.
@Orion I don't want to punish anybody: I simply want information outside of the game does not affect anyone's style of play. If the survivors equip flashlights and the killer responds with Franklin, I feel great and is consistent with his role. If the killer sees Brian among the survivors and rages against him because he dared to escape via the hatch a moment before to be downed, it is an undeserving revenge. I wish the game is not polluted by disagreements, quarrels and latent rancor amongst the various players: does it seem an ideal so harmful to the health of the game?
Yeah.... I don’t think he’s saying anyone should be punished. It’s just obvious that the idea of seeing people’s names does affect play quite often, whether you notice it or not.
A good example could be.... Let’s say I’m going against a good red rank killer, that I and many others know. This killer also knows you and has played you before. Just because they can simply see your name in their lobby they can already guess what perks you might be running, knows that you try to 360 so they respect it, doesn’t respect pallets specifically against you because they know you keep running etc.
I think transitioning the game in this direction of “RNG” in a sense would make it more enjoyable and eliminate some toxicity by keeping it anonymous, hopefully.
"By your own logic, this is punishing killers for something survivors did."
That's the usual survivorlogic.
Survivor do unsafe unhooks? Punish the killer.
Give them free exhaustion relief, invu frames, BT, DS... everything to cover up that it is the survivor who made a bad play.
It's always punish the killer for things suvivor did.
Just so we can stay close to the topic..... You’re both saying that you disagree with taking away survivors names from the killers view? And your reason being is that survivors are toxic and by doing this it is punishing the killers, correct? Or am I misunderstanding what exactly your point is?
@Telli_Fury
Why do you want the killer player being punished for things the survivor player did?
I think you need to stop assuming what everyone’s intentions are. I asked you to confirm your stance on the topic, that’s it.
Nice message and well said! I agree with some points. Just to clarify this post wasn’t intended to punish anyone and obviously my idea isn’t final, it can still be adjusted and tweaked to be polished into a fair state. The examples I gave were nothing more than examples I don’t wish them to be banned or punished. I only suggested this as a “possible” solution to what some people, like console, encounter on the daily and at red ranks. :)
@Skarkio @Wolf74 A few hours ago I played against the Hag, I found in a few seconds her Ruin and cleansed it before she arrived to trap it, then I was downed, hooked and almost facecamped: I understood her choice and, after the trial, I wrote them to comment the totem system improvement which is going to arrive with the 2.6.0 patch, in a friendly atmosphere. Fine! If the killer wants to facecamp me or tunnel me because of tactical choices, I accept it. I don't accept killers who, because they know who I am, decide to facecamp or tunnel me because the last week I cleansed their Ruin or I found the hatch and they got upset. Am I clear? Do you want to camp or tunnel me for ingame reasons? Do it! Do you want to camp or tunnel me to get a revenge, without any tactical reason? No, it's an unjust fury that I do not accept, and which does not benefit the health of the game: the anonymity should prevent these examples of toxicity. @Telli_Fury also explained very good points: why should a killer, by reading your nickname, know your perks in advance?
@Telli_Fury
So please spell it out. Are you ok with punishing killer player for mistakes of the survivor player?
@Entità
Seriously… I do not believe that people will remember your name and "take revenge" on you, just for finding Ruin or taking the hatch… you have to play like a douche to make them remember you.
Removing the survivors name from the killers view, let’s say maybe just in the lobby but can see it in game, is not a punishment. As this change isn’t unwarranted, there is actually issues between killer and survivor toxicity. This is just a small idea to help smooth it out. Like I said, nothing about this idea is finalized. I’ll let you and @Entità dish it out. I’ll just sit back and watch.
How many times you gonna ask the same thing? You are clearly against the idea, we get it. What else is there to say? Clearly by the upvotes on my post, others agree. I’m not discounting your opinion but stop forcing yours onto me.
I'm disgusted by these people trying to argue facecamping is a valid strategy or ebony mori-spamming is a valid strategy, you realize nobody would play this game if every game was just a bubba facecamping right? Camping is as strategic as headbutting in a boxing match or trying to break someones ankles in a soccer match stop justifying it just because it's "strategic" on some level or it's not bannable.
With that said hiding names only stops targeted facecamping and mori-usage which honestly if you have a problem with that and your best arguments are "well maybe you deserve it" then I think I know why you have a problem with such a change.
@Telli_Fury
I am not forcing anything on you. Please stay true to the facts. I just asked a simple question that you seem to keep dodging.
And of course you will get upvotes on your post, because there is a huge amount of survivor players that abused this feature themselves and are now mad that it was stripped from them and only THEM, and they want "revenge". Those people got their favorite tool to force their playstyle on others removed and if they can't get it back, they at least want that no one else can have it, because they expect them to abuse it the same way they did.
That's your precious upvotes. ;)
Well said! I think this change will make the game simply more about the game. Keeping it hidden but still available at the end screen will keep the in-game experience mutual.