Let's talk about nerfing camping
It’s been discussed time and time again on these forums. Maybe the most discussed topic. But there’s a reason for that. And I am surprised there are still so many people that think it’s fine the way it is.
Let’s get this clear though. Camping is not a balance issue. In fact, it’s not very effective against high ranks, since they know how to counter camping. Yes I get that argument. No point in bringing it up. But that’s not the point. The point is, it’s simply a serious flaw in the game’s design. And I just don’t get why anyone wouldn’t want the game to become better designed, even if it only benefits one side. Nerfing camping would only nerf an awful strategy, it wouldn’t nerf skilled killers in any way. So it really shouldn’t be a problem.
Obviously, camping can’t be removed. It’s part of the core design of the game since it involves having to hook a survivor and have them bleed out until they die.
But it should be made way more ineffective than it is right now. It’s the best the devs could do. Simple as that. It is without a doubt for me one of the biggest sources of frustration for survivor players, and I think we can’t ignore it anymore, seeing how within at least the last half a year killer queue times have generally been longer than survivor queue times. Which probably means there are too many killers and not enough survivors.
What really worries me is that now, with the huge wave of new players that will probably try this game thanks to Stranger Things, many of the new survivor players might just end up quitting the game after a few days because of being camped to often. And you can’t blame them, being forced by the killer to not be able to play the game is just awful, and I wouldn’t want to play a game that has this happening often.
Now it can’t be removed, but it can be made way less effective than it is now. At lower ranks, it’s probably really good most of the time, because low rank survivors don’t know how to counter it, and we simply can’t ignore the low rank players. It’s less effective at high ranks, but slap on Hex: Ruin and NOED and you still got a chance to 4k, despite the low skill it requires to pull that off.
So, the devs can do something about it, or just ignore it. But at this point it feels like ignoring camping is also ignoring the longer killer queue times. And at least I don't want to ignore this. I am a killer main, and I don't want killer queue times to increase.
I know the argument is that they tried punishments for camping, and it didn’t work. But give me a break, I really doubt they tried everything possible to nerf camping. Bleedout speed should be decreased by 60% or so after the survivor has been hooked for 20 seconds if the killer is still within a 28 meter radius of the hooked survivor and on the same floor. At the very least have the killer’s aura shown to survivors when staying near the hook for a certain amount of time, but I’m pretty sure that wouldn’t be enough. If a survivor is within that radius, or even an increased radius of 32 meters, the penalty disappears, same goes for when the killer is in a chase or the exit gates are powered. So it can’t be abused like the camping punishment that was tried on the ptb already. Unless I’m missing something, then feel free to tell me how survivors could abuse it.
A different way to nerf camping is to give survivors a counter to it. Make sabotaging hooks reduce the Bleed out Speed of survivors that get hooked on those hooks by 50%. This way sabotaging hooks might be viable, and not just make killers slug instead of hooking survivors. The only thing I fear with this idea is that it won’t be used by inexperienced survivors enough to help them against camping killers.
People say killers should just be rewarded for not camping, and I don’t mind that. I’ve seen the suggestion that survivors that are unhooked suffer a generator repair speed penalty of 10 or 15 % for like 60 seconds, which I think is a great idea. But keeping camping as effective as it is now will still lead to many relying on camping, no matter how much you reward them for not camping. Why stop camping if it still can work as well as it does now? It would still need to be nerfed.
Comments
@UlvenDagoth agreed. not sure why @NuclearBurrito followed the drama into this post, but i think i really upset him in another post. now just trying to discourage his habit.
i really don't want a nuclearburrito following me around everywhere negating the things i say just because it wants to.
I don't know who you are, nor do I know where I supposedly followed you from.
I just meant the topic in general.
Last Year has/had? this. “Dead” survivors respawned in a room and had to be rescued by the others. I don’t know how it’s work for DbD tho.
Seriously. People like you, that is hyper altruistic people, are the reason why Killers camp in the first place.
Someone like you goes in for a save on a camping Killer, they down you because you just ran straight into the Killer's face for at best a hook trade and far more likely a grab with the other person still on the hook, and then the Killer gets another hook and probably another Kill, and now someone else needs to save both of you and suddenly no one is doing gens because you have 2-3 people on a hook because someone tried to play Hero when that was exactly what the Killer was wanting you to do.
You know how often I get free hooks because someone chases me to a Survivor at a hook and then is downed because of it? Far too many.
So if you want to talk about fun? Rush gens and depip the campers out of your game so you can face some actually good Killers in the future.
You want to talk about winning? Rush gens and get out.
You want to talk about saving the guy on the hook? Rush gens thus forcing the Killer to abandon the failing strategy.
You want to talk about how to avoid toxicity? Rush gens instead of rising to the Killer's obvious bait.
You want to talk about pips? Rush gens and get free Gate keeper and Unbroken.
Always rush gens. The Killer doesn't have time to be standing around if you do, so a good Killer won't so you get your precious interaction and a bad Killer will depip until you never see them again.
Respawning is not a part of DBD. You get one life, and this should never, ever change.
Last Year had a time limit; the Killer(s) had to just slow down the survivors until time ran out. DBD doe snot have a time limit, so this would not work.
Plus, imagine having 2 or 3 lives PLUS every second chance perk. It's just not what DBD is built for.
How are those screenshots relevant? It only shows you like to farm points (and other survivors according to your “break camp” strat and WGLF) but couldn’t progress much rank wise. And you use instaheals (?
Totally forgot about Last Year, this could work in DBD with lockers lol
So lets say Trapper downs you and Moris you, bam Entity pulls you into the ground and then you respawn in a locker miles away from the Killer. If no one saves you within the same time it takes to get from Stage 1 to Stage 2 you can hop out.
DBD is not Last Year. A life system would not work in DBD.
Anything can be made to work
Who is you in this post?
It's sadly the truth.
Not without destroying the game.
This is like saying 'Mario has gold coins! Let's put gold coins in DBD!' The games are not the same.
The reasons why respawning works in Last Year is because the round ends when time runs out, and the Killer wins.
In DBD; there is no time limit (barring EGC). If every Survivor had 2 lives only; that's EIGHT LIVES in a match, at 3 hooks per life. That's 24 hookings the Killer needs to do before 5 generators are done.
The Killer would never get a single sacrifice, nevermind trying to win at all.
So I say again; a life system would not work in DBD without completely destroying or altering the game. At that point, the devs would be better off making DBD2 to do this.
these scenarios only happen in your mind, friend. this may be because you've witnessed people do it, but that doesn't mean they knew what they were doing. also, its a challenge, it's not supposed to work 100% of the time. what it is supposed to do is make for a better game 100% of the time, which it does.
all of these things you're complaining about are normal aspects of game play that i expect to experience as often as possible in game. again, your method of "winning" is totally made up and is just an excuse for a bad player to use as a defense for being identified as a bad player..
you seriously have a lot to learn about dbd and i feel bad that you are making your opinions so prevalent towards newer players with questions.
3 Hooks per life? I was going to make it simple, 3 downs you're out just like it is right now, 3 hooks you're out.
Killer finds you and downs you, hooks you, get saved, hooked again, get saved, hooked and killed.
Life Version---Killer finds you and downs you, respawn, downed again, respawn, downed and killed.
The numbers and scenario is exactly the same and this is also the same system BHVR's other game Deathgarden uses. Different team of course but they had the same system that DBD had but instead of hooks they had these orbs that people could save their friends from. When they relaucnhed the game they scrapped that idea because they knew it was flawed and changed it to this new system of respawn, same numbers same difficulty but without the hooks that make the game more difficult for Killer and Survivor.
You're still basically changing the base of the game too much.
Unless a game is outright crashing, you NEVER want to change the base mechanics drastically, or you lose your current player base.
And changing the core gameplay elements just because a few people dislike camping? That would be a BAD move, from a monetary standpoint, for BHVR. It would chase away longtime fans & sales would tank for awhile as everyone left bad reviews.
At that point, investors would say 'Stop working on DBD; it's losing us money' and the game would be dead.
You were saying it would be game breaking and I was just showing that it can be done without completely breaking it and making it unfair.
I do agree that yes, it would change the game completely and maybe that is a bad thing. It wouldn't be the same game it would feel and be different. It would also mean hook perks would need to be changed, Altruism would take a hit, it would take a lot of work that really isn't necessary and maybe not possible.
But it can be done ;)
It probably could be done, but since this game has been already out for 3 years, I doubt the devs would want to change their game so heavily.
Well the odds to beat is 75%. So even if you succeed half the time you still shouldn't do it.
Technically all win conditions are made up. The difference is that mine is the one that the game made up rather than one a player made up, aka: The official win condition that you need to achieve in order to correctly state you win a match.
If you think that's wrong then what win condition do you think is the correct one and why, and why is suicidal hyper-altruistm more effective at achieving it than the alternative?
If you think it's pips then you should rush gens.
If you think escapes then you should rush gens.
If you think it's BP then you should still rush gens. The points for an unhook aren't as much as the points for completing a gen or 2 and escaping.
If you think it's fun then all of strategy goes out the window and you have no method of determining if a player is good or bad even if you claim you do, nor is there any reliable way to balance literally anything in the game, nor would it even mean anything to say you won, nor would it even be a competitive game in the first place.
first off, we've covered all of this.. at this point it's just BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH coming out of your profile.
second, you've assigned some term "hyper altruism" to whatever the hell you're talking about. there's a big difference between making sure someone comes off of a hook before they switch stages 100% of the time, and whatever you're trying to describe as "hyper altruism". IF YOU KEEP YOUR TEAMMATES ALIVE, YOU HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF GETTING STUFF DONE. it's just common sense. if you can't understand this then maybe you should find something else to do with your time than keep asking me to explain it.
RUSHING OBJECTIVES AND ENDING THE GAME PREMATURELY IS LAME. i don't know how else to say it. watching people die so you can rush objectives and escape without them is also lame. if you are doing this, you are lame. squatting somewhere while repairing a generator or not and watching people die for no reason
read your own last paragraph.. i've been telling you this for days. it's a game, not a "challenge to see what squatter is the last man standing".. it's not EENIE MEENIE MINEY MO.. if it is for you, that's fine, but don't try to define the game that way for other people because it's lame.
please don't @ me or ask me anything further @NuclearBurrito .. you are either trolling or incapable of understanding.
Also nerf genrushing
This can be fixed easly : just add a second objective.
Gens are still done too fast. WE NEED A SECOND OBJECTIVE. Some killers resort to camping beacose in 2 minutes 4 gens were done and they caught 1 survivor. Try playing Leather Face on rank 1.You would want to #########. Camping doesn't benefit you so if someone wants to get out of yellow ranks they won't camp.
They gave the survivors 2 new anti camping perks and reworked Dieing light so this is in a preety OK spot
Or if you clicked your flashlight and teabaged right?
How dare he punish me for being toxic after all I signed up to a bully simulator
(sarcasm)
The solution would be to add a better tutorial to teach players that camping is Bad not only for the survivors but for you too.
This would go a loooooooooooooong way to teaching players how to play effectively.
THEN SUGEST A NERF THAT CAN'T BE ABUSED FFS
O I forgot you just want fixes without knowing how hard it is to balance a 4v1.
Just improveing the tutorials would do the job as many new players don't know better than camping
Infinite loops still are in the game xD
U never play killer?
Camping is sometimes a very viable strategy. Its just learning when to do it is the key. Same can be said for slugging.
However i do think the guy on the hook should get some compensation for being face camped first thing
I dont see a reason to nerf killers camping as they are already losing if they do it wrong.
I hate it when people make this point. I'm sure survivors would like to play in a way that meant they aren't camped, or they can vacuum pallets. Wanting it doesn't make it fair
I did in my original post. Made even two suggestions. Unless you can tell me how those can be abused, I'll gladly listen and admit those suggestions won't work then. But I personally don't see how these ideas could be abused.
Camping isn't the problem, its how people are addressing it in game that is causing issues. I don't get why its the killers fault for using a strategy to secure the kill, but survivors are faultless even if they refuse to attempt the save. Killer wants you on the hook and its the team that is suppose to free you. A bad camping experience is the result of being forsaken in favor of gens.
The only concern I have is about the new status effect for killer beeing able to stealth camp(I hope this dosen't hit kindred..)
Yeah you're right. I mean stealth killers were already quite good at camping. But kindred really should be immune against Undetectable, showing the killers aura regardless.