Comments

• @RekLaw said:

  First off I would like to get something straight if you are new to dbd and you need some time to get on your feet I understand. But if you are experienced and know how to play effectively then NOED is scummy to use. That being said let me say my reasoning as to why it’s unfair, number 1 it’s hidden the entire game, there is no way to know it’s coming except for to guess. (Don’t say “ just do bones” because Why would I do something that doesn’t benefit my team and wastes time especially if there is no NOED)

  Is it scummy to use a perk that is in the game: No.

  It is hidden the entire game, until is is revealed and active. This is the standard in the game, DS, BT, Dead Hard, Sprint Burst, Deliverance, Head On, Make Your Choice, Overcharge, Dragon's Grip, etc. etc. etc. etc. it is literally how pretty much every single perk works in this game, they don't project themselves.

  It is hidden the entire game till the end game, because it is literally not active and equivalent to an empty slot till that point.

  Just do bones is not a valid strategy? Well it is, but personally I would suggest: Don't do Bones, Remember where they are and do 1 bone at the end of the game unless you bring perks to do bones. There is nothing more frustrating than not being able to find that last totem that wasn't cleansed and you will antagonize people using boons.

  Additionally you can simply open the gates and leave the one person they wacked down with NOED, just because you did all 5 gens doesn't mean that survivors are all entitled to leave at that point. The game hasn't ended and the end-game is part of the game.

  Whether or not you like it, the perk is actually fair. It is strong, yet has very clear counter play and a limited time in which it is active.

  in Why NOED is unfair. (My opinion) Comment by Kalinikta January 5, 2022

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  @Kalinikta I've been meaning to ask, why do you think the developers are so pressed about the issue of face-camping, and not all forms?

  I am of course assuming that we agree I do not face-camp (as demonstrated in my video).

  I think it stands to reason that face-camping is the least effective form of camping, so why is it a problem? Are we just accepting that so many people in the community are incapable of overcoming an insignificant challenge? Or are the devs recognizing that the game is not designed to help survivors overcome this problem?

  And where does that leave my demonstration of camping? I wouldn't classify what I did as proxy-camping--it is a hybrid.

  I think my demonstration is a more concerning issue than face-camping because it presents the same quandry that we've seen in DBD and in many other online multiplayer games--success via low skill floor with big reward.

  ...but to play devil's advocate against myself for just a moment, I wanted to share a video that Otz just released. Although I don't think it instantly discredits the results I've been seeing, and their correlation to camping, he does point out that my success in this study is not a 1 to 1 causation. We touched on this topic breifly @Kalinikta, when I asked you what you'd think about matchmaking accounting for player builds.

  Edit: You also brought it up early in this thread, but I don't think the conversation at the point was ready to identify the problem, so I had put off the remarks until now--the conversation has since shifted to thinking about solutions

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acHiwnCW7eI

  The reason face-camping is considered a problem for the developers from my point of view is fairly simple, while experienced players can deal with it no problem is that it ruins the new player experience. It is to easy to adapt as a new killer and to destructive for a new survivor, they don't have the perks, tools and knowledge on how to deal with it and the killers don't learn the game, there isn't any nuance in their approach any hook will do and that will eventually cause them to feel helpless once they start facing better players. They in essence squander the training grounds with this one simple tactic and affects the retention rate of the game. The new player experience is incredibly important.

  I saw Otz video, it is kind of what I mean with the best tactics and how it balances. As he indicates play as mean and bastardly as you can and you will book results. In essence that is what you are doing, you are using the best of the best setup and playing mercilessly. You should watch the tournament he referenced, I did that a while back and it showcases what no limits DBD looks like with the best type of execution there is. That showcases that if you meet equally merciless opponents, you would have a pretty decently balanced experience (objectively speaking). As I stated before if you bring the best and face the best it is a decent match, but if you didn't while they did... you are in trouble.

  There is a reason why most tournaments place limits on what either side can bring and that is to create a more dynamic and competitively similar balanced gameplay. While killers can still camp and tunnel to their hearts desire, they are limited in their setups for it and the survivors are technically even limited in what they can bring against it. Yet due to these limitations, you see them diversifying and playing more varied and that is something I advocate for to be built into the game. It doesn't remove these tactics from the gameplay, but it isn't the only thing you see.

  Camping isn't an unhealthy side effect that some claim it is, it is something that they design around. It isn't the only game that does this either, many shooters for instance are built around holding corners, having tools to navigate around that or shift the focus point in order to encourage the positioning to need to be changed every so often.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta January 3, 2022

• @Firellius said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2725364#Comment_2725364

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2725384#Comment_2725384

  It is still an appeal to authority because you are framing the discussion within limitations set by said authority, when those very limitations could very well be wrong.

  I get what you are saying, but these forums are here for feedback on the current state of the game, and presumably, the devs' stances are informed by the feedback provided. If we stop giving our feedback because we think that the devs disagree, then the entire forums can be closed off immediately because there's no point.

  If the devs are making a mistake, these forums and these types of discussions are where this is pointed out.

  You can leave your feedback, nobody states that you shouldn't.

  My stance is to view at more realistic and achievable levels rather than ideological absolutes. My suggestions and view on where the game can head are far more based on what the game is and has been and considers where the developers have stated their game will be heading.

  You want to view it from an absolute ideology stance. I don't think that it will change the developers stance on the matter.

  You are the one claiming what I have to state has no foundation, while the logic is laid out and not that difficult to comprehend. My feedback is set far more likely in the realm of consideration of the developers as it falls far more in line with what they have stated to want within the game.

  The removal of camping is not the only way to go about it and claiming that it is the only message we should spread or what we state isn't valuable feedback is a bit hypocritical. As I am still appealing to them to make a change.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta January 2, 2022

• @Firellius said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2725302#Comment_2725302

  The argument people will not utilize other strategies if they are viable is not based in reality.

  How is it not based in reality? At every stage of this game, there's been camping. No matter the circumstances of the game and its balance, camping exists. That is the underlying problem.

  I know what you are trying to argue, but there's no proof of your argument. You're arguing that 'Blights don't camp', but we don't know if that's actually true. By your reasoning, Nurses shouldn't camp, and I've seen that one happen.

  There's no hardline, singular truth to this matter. It's not that people ONLY camp because they have no other alternative, and it's not that people will ONLY camp if that is the most effective strategy. But ultimately that matters little, because every balancing decision made will have to be considered from a perspective that includes and accounts for camping.

  It is hamstringing the game's balance. It is bad for gameplay. The mere fact that it exists is hurting DBD (And not just Survivor's side, either).

  It needs to be crippled.

  I state that it isn't going to happen, because the game is 5 years old and the developers recently stated that they have no plans of getting rid of proximity camping. They specifically are trying to address face camping, therefore a premise and solution that gets rid of it all together is not realistic. I am simply stating a more realistic approach to addressing the frequency that one comes across these tactics as a solution rather than stating either rework the fundamentals of the game out of some ideological stance.

  This is an appeal to authority. The devs are not omniscient gods of game design, and I think -everyone- here knows that. It's not a good idea to reaffirm their stance by referring to them during a discussion about whether their stance is solid or not. Their opinion is not an argument.

  My argument is that tactics are not always used and that you see other tactics used if they are viable. Having more options means you encounter different types of play and therefore diminishes the impact of one specific one. That is just how numbers work.

  Camping is part of the game and as long as the developers are not going to remove it by their accord, it will stay. Dismiss this fact as you please, but it isn't going to change the fact that they are the ones who are in control. The direction and gameplay they set out is on them and it appeals to some people whether you don't like it or not.

  I live in a reality and make arguments based in that. If you want to live in a theoretical environment where the creators statements have no meaning, it just isn't realistic.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta January 2, 2022

• @Firellius said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724822#Comment_2724822

  Yet somehow we are seeing it more and it is therefore deemed a bigger issue

  It's not a bigger issue for me. It's always been a big issue.

  And it still doesn't matter what its prevalence is. The fact that killers have a loaded gun trained on the game's head and can pull the trigger whenever they like is a fundamental problem. Every patch, if anything is changed in a way that a killer doesn't like, there'll be a topic cropping up titled 'X change happened, so now I'm just gonna camp'.

  And your argument is based on the presupposition that camping has indeed increased in frequency, which isn't proven.

  My argument is based on the idea that camping is a problem, in general.

  People mainly have an issue with things they don't like if they come across it all the time, so yes the frequency of it is important. There are many powerful things in the game that aren't constantly complained because they aren't seen very often. The other night I came across an extremely strong sabotage SWF squad and got my ass handed to me; it was incredibly powerful, it was neigh impossible to hook them and it was one of the most frustrating games of DBD I have ever experienced. Yet it isn't deemed a problem, why? Because though it was strong, powerful, frustrating and all round an unfun experience... it is extremely rare to encounter.

  Swiffers are practically constantly complained about. And I suspect sabos aren't complained about because they're far more counterplayable than camping is.

  We have more complaints about Blight add-ons than Nurse's with 3 blinks, why? Frequency of being seen.

  And the quality of skill, and again, counterplay. Nurse and Spirit actually have somewhat similar powers, but Nurse receives far fewer complaints, because outplaying a Nurse buys you a ton of time, whereas outplaying a Spirit nets you absolutely none.

  And, again, this is arguing on the assumption that camping has increased in frequency, or that complaints about camping have increased in frequency, neither of which are proven. Camping was very commonly complained about for as long as I've been on these forums.

  How powerful do these other strategies need to be? They need to be viable to a degree that they are going to be able to perform on a consistent basis to where it is entertaining to actually play. It doesn't need to win all the time, but it does have to feel like you are in control of the outcome and that you stood a chance purely based on your own gameplay. This is why the very strong killers are still played as well, they can perform based on their own input.

  I get your argument. I just disagree with the premise that killers will just swap to another, higher effort, lower reward strategy. And I also disagree with the idea that this will resolve the problem. Any changes you make will have to fit within the very narrow framework that is left by the one singular condition: It cannot buff camping in any way.

  I think it's much, MUCH healthier for the game to cripple camping and free up design space to make killers more viable in its absence.

  You are cherry picking, as it is among the options, you just flat out ignored it or didn't understand the options presented - I just don't think it is likely to happen: "You can technically nerf camping, tunneling and all the non-fun strategies yet that would mean that severe nerfs would need to be made to the survivor end most likely along side with it and I doubt the community would be up for that or severe ground breaking game rework and that isn't going to happen."

  I don't consider 'And that isn't going to happen' to be the closing statement for a legitimately presented option.

  My argument is based on the aspect that other strategies are made less effective by the introduction of aspects to the game like circle of healing, which you have not disputed at all. If you have less options, the remainder ones are more prevalent. There is logic behind what I am stating, rather than what you base your counter argument being namely your subjective opinion.

  The fact of the matter is that people play for their enjoyment, results are just part of the equation and yes there are people that will adapt a more effort, lower result strategy is it is significantly more fun to do and yield enough rewards to be worth it. It is not a 100% conversion rate and I never claimed it was, yet if more people play those styles than that means the pool has a bigger diversity you encounter and therefore you come across campers less. This is all simple math, why do you still see blights aren't camping? According to your the stronger their other skills are the more powerful camping becomes and therefore they should all camp. Yet we get complaints about Blight using the tinkerer/ruin/undying build with their best add-ons to rush across the map. It is more difficult to do that than camping. The argument people will not utilize other strategies if they are viable is not based in reality.

  I state that it isn't going to happen, because the game is 5 years old and the developers recently stated that they have no plans of getting rid of proximity camping. They specifically are trying to address face camping, therefore a premise and solution that gets rid of it all together is not realistic. I am simply stating a more realistic approach to addressing the frequency that one comes across these tactics as a solution rather than stating either rework the fundamentals of the game out of some ideological stance.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta January 2, 2022

• @Firellius said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724718#Comment_2724718

  You are missing the point, the tools given to survivors specifically decrease the efficiency of other strategies that killer used. That does directly correlate to why camping is more utilized, as the options for killers decrease they will pick from what is remaining. If you enjoyed the hit and run play style for instance, circle of healing is a direct reason to adjust your strategy to a more camping and tunneling style.

  That doesn't matter for the argument though. Camping is still far too efficient a tactic to be fixed by making other tactics just as effective. Sure, you could remove CoH entirely, it doesn't suddenly make camping not an appealing strategy.

  If you increase the variety of playstyles you come across and more to choose from the chances of face those you don't like decrease.

  And if a killer has a 10% chance to immediately kill a survivor on M1, and is then nerfed to a 5% chance, there's a decrease in the likelihood of an RNG driveby.

  But it's still going to happen and it's still going to be a problem.

  It COULD be that killers will gravitate to other playstyles. But there'll still be camping, with zero guarantee that camping will become less of a problem. And as Kay has illustrated in the post above yours: How powerful do these other strategies need to be to compete with camping?

  You cherry picked out of my entire post and ignored that what you state is one of the options I have mentioned. Yet the idea that a whole rework is the only option is simply not true.

  No, it's not among your options. Because that is the fundamental disagreement you and I are having: I believe camping must be kneecapped in order to make any progress. You believe that camping will go away if killers just get buffed enough.

  It does matter for the argument, as to point out the obvious is that camping has always been in the game and has always been powerful this isn't something that changed overnight. Yet somehow we are seeing it more and it is therefore deemed a bigger issue. It is not a question if killers will gravitate to other playstyles, because they did so previously and the problem is that those strategies are no longer viable. That caused many people to quit playing killer or adapt to the remaining options, for many that included camping. I am not claiming that every single person will not camp, but it will be less people overall in the pool and therefore the likelihood of encountering it will be significantly less if you provide other options to people. More options, mean more diversity and that means less encounters with camping killers.

  People mainly have an issue with things they don't like if they come across it all the time, so yes the frequency of it is important. There are many powerful things in the game that aren't constantly complained because they aren't seen very often. The other night I came across an extremely strong sabotage SWF squad and got my ass handed to me; it was incredibly powerful, it was neigh impossible to hook them and it was one of the most frustrating games of DBD I have ever experienced. Yet it isn't deemed a problem, why? Because though it was strong, powerful, frustrating and all round an unfun experience... it is extremely rare to encounter. We have more complaints about Blight add-ons than Nurse's with 3 blinks, why? Frequency of being seen.

  How powerful do these other strategies need to be? They need to be viable to a degree that they are going to be able to perform on a consistent basis to where it is entertaining to actually play. It doesn't need to win all the time, but it does have to feel like you are in control of the outcome and that you stood a chance purely based on your own gameplay. This is why the very strong killers are still played as well, they can perform based on their own input.

  You are cherry picking, as it is among the options, you just flat out ignored it or didn't understand the options presented - I just don't think it is likely to happen: "You can technically nerf camping, tunneling and all the non-fun strategies yet that would mean that severe nerfs would need to be made to the survivor end most likely along side with it and I doubt the community would be up for that or severe ground breaking game rework and that isn't going to happen."

  "That is why I believe the better solution would be to elevate and provide tools to killers to make those other options more attractive or at least similar in viability"

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta January 1, 2022

• @Firellius said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724464#Comment_2724464

   It is the viability of the other strategies and how these have become weaker by what has been given to survivors

  Which is predominantly nerfs. Over time, survivors have become much weaker than they used to be, but people are more convinced than ever that the game is survivor-sided. That's not to say that it isn't, but it IS to say that it isn't causally linked to why camping is now considered as much of a problem.

  The only thing that could be said for it is MMR, but I doubt that system's robust enough to actually function, considering how horribly lacking in nuance it is.

  You act like the only way is to have a full overhaul, yet there are ways to give killers tools without it being a net profit for camping. Mechanics that incentivise killers to move away from the hook, look at devour hope as an example of such a mechanic.

  Sure, we could give killers a speed boost for X seconds after hooking, like Devour Hope does. But as long as camping is a low-effort strategy with good results, that's not going to dissuade people from camping, is it?

  Look at the experiments done by @Munqaxus and... Was it @KayTwoAyy ? Averaging over a 3K. Sure, we can shoot for a balanced 2K with a non-camping playstyle, but that's still going to leave camping as the undisputed best strategy. And then we circle back around to 'let's just hope killers will be nice'.

  I'd rather kneecap camping while buffing chase and/or nerfing gen speeds.

  You are missing the point, the tools given to survivors specifically decrease the efficiency of other strategies that killer used. That does directly correlate to why camping is more utilized, as the options for killers decrease they will pick from what is remaining. If you enjoyed the hit and run play style for instance, circle of healing is a direct reason to adjust your strategy to a more camping and tunneling style.

  Camping has always been in the game, even when as you stated survivors were even more powerful. Whether the game is more survivor favored or to what degree is irrelevant. The question is why is it increasing now? It is about where the tools and gameplay of survivors and the game in general to how viable certain strategies are for killers. If you increase the variety of playstyles you come across and more to choose from the chances of face those you don't like decrease. Yet if the game decreases the options, you come across more and more the same ones and if you don't like them... you end up with this.

  MMR is not to blame, it simply means that people face each other based on different criteria. It however is causing the issues and tactics that are viable to be made more visible.

  You cherry picked out of my entire post and ignored that what options I have mentioned as possible solutions which included your own. Yet the idea that a whole rework is the only option is simply not true.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta January 1, 2022

• @Firellius said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2722981#Comment_2722981

  What does this mean though? Camping isn't fun for either side, so why is that what people gravitate towards? That statements of people not enjoying playing in a camping style might actually be true and yet instead of utilizing other strategies we are seeing people stop playing killer instead or only play Blight, Nurses and specific combinations of extremely strong elements. Those that do enjoy that style or do not mind utilizing them keep playing and therefore the survivors are more likely to encounter these select styles of play, because that is what is in the pool of killers the rest left or adapted to these styles.

  This is a 'chicken and egg' situation though, and this thread stresses how linked these two problems are.

  Camping is effective. It is not unreasonable to assume that it is the most effective strategy. It could very well be that killers are pigeonholed into this strategy due to rising performance thresholds from survivors becoming more skilled or being buffed.

  However...

  The vast majority of solutions to 'survivors OP' will likely end up making camping stronger. We could make survivors weaker in chases, but that also means that the first chase is going to be shorter, making camping more effective. We could slow gens down, or add a second objective, but that also means that survivors can't clear everything out in the time limit set by camping. You could try to hinge it on a non-camping aspect, such as making it count the number of survivors hooked, but unless it disregards the first, it'll also buff camping.

  I'm of the opinion that if survivors were nerfed in any way that empowers camping, no matter how tangentially, the problem wouldn't be resolved. Killers would continue to camp for an easier time and an easier victory. If their intent is to troll, they've been given more power.

  I firmly believe that camping is a lodestone for balancing issues. As long as it exists, it will hinder a lot of improvements to the game. My ideal is to have both sides addressed simultaneously. One big patch that weakens the strongest killer strats but buffs killers overall. The aforementioned meta perks (I usually refer to that as 'the perk tax') could probably be integrated into the basegame in some form to improve it, like innate Decisive Strike and Corrupt Intervention.

  It just feels unreasonable to assume that, if survivors get nerfed and/or killers get buffed, camping will dissipate, as this community isn't kind, and gamers will always gravitate to the path of least resistance.

  'Given enough time, players will optimise the fun out of the game'

  It isn't a chicken or eggs situation. It is the viability of the other strategies and how these have become weaker by what has been given to survivors. People want to be able to win, so either they adapt or leave. MMR system has not changed it, just makes it more visible.

  You act like the only way is to have a full overhaul, yet there are ways to give killers tools without it being a net profit for camping. Mechanics that incentivise killers to move away from the hook, look at devour hope as an example of such a mechanic.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta January 1, 2022

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2722981#Comment_2722981

  Great breakdown! Seriously, really well put.

  I have one comment, and then only one follow-up question.

  I hadn't really been convinced about the significance of the 'why' because I can probably conceive of a million different reasons why someone is playing the way they are.

  • Completing Archive Challenges -- Don't care if you escape, just if you get the archive done
  • Content Creator Influence -- Just watched a video with this build & playstyle so now I'm going to try it
  • Had a rough day -- need to take it out on someone
  • Had a great day -- want to spread the love
  • Dog pee'd on the carpet -- needed to AFK but still trying to win when you get back
  • Smoked tons of weed -- not even remotely focused on what you're doing
  • Just finished drinking all day -- barely functional
  • Conducting a Study -- Playing a predetermined course of actions
  • Listening to music -- playing without sound

  ...and on and on the reasons go.

  And in my experience, I see out-of-game incidents influence in-game decisions all the time. Therefore, I find it hard to believe that there is any trend pertaining to the WHY?

  But it sounds like you're saying there is a trend, and either some of the things I just listed are outliers or contribute to the trend.

  Very interesting.

  Okay, follow-up question.

  BHVR's ability/in-ability to do it correctly aside... what are your thoughts on the idea of players selecting their entire build before queuing, and the killer/survivors you are paired with are determined by a perk/build ranking system, as a solution to the "one side brings a nuke to a knife fight" problem?

  The why it is fun for an individual is not the question I am trying to answer. The question is more on why does the game and its function for entertainment start to lose ground. Why does the design and the function harmonize in the way it does?

  I am not advocating to remove the enjoyment these people have for any of the reasons they play that way. Those that advocate to remove these peoples source of entertainment is an egoistical standpoint in my opinion, as one is justifying that their enjoyment should come at the expense of someone else. Does this mean that you cannot look at it from a bigger perspective and figure out why the only people they meet are those that enjoy this style of play, while there should be more variety?

  You stated the following:

  Killers are being left with three options:

  • Adapt and learn the best strategy to 4k
  • Stop trying to win
  • Abandon the game entirely

  At the moment, people have been complaining about insane survivor queue times and a lot of the talk seems to attribute that to how killers are leaving the game or playing survivor because of what MMR has done to their experience.

  Stop trying to win, goes against the very nature of games as people don't play to lose as that isn't entertaining or fun. Therefore if the games design is promoting this than that will result in the actual third option, they stop playing the role of killer or the game entirely. The amount of people that will boot up a game to get guaranteed defeated each time is extremely slim and nearly neglectable (also they can always achieve this if that is truly what they desire). In essence it comes down to adapt to the situation or give up.

  Therefore the question is how are people adapting and why is there a need to adapt to begin with? Many people state here that camping isn't fun, not even for the killer and that when they play killer they would rather not camp but feel compelled to do so. Which as a result means that those people won't play killer and survivor queues will increase.

  The fact is that one must use a good or at least viable strategy in order to compete, yet the alternative ones are significantly less effective to the point that people don't stand a real chance when facing groups that no longer contain a very weak link. MMR hasn't changed the game it just groups people together in a different manner in the hopes to have them face more challenging opponents. The meta hasn't changed and yet people feel that MMR has changed their experience significantly, while all it has done is highlight aspects of the game that were already there.

  People adapted, people are camping; why? Because regardless of the team they are facing, it gives them a chance to win, even if they would prefer a different style of play for entertainment, they do not apply it. Why? Because it isn't even a close match at that point and they get massacred which results in them not enjoying it.

  The follow up question

  Would having match making consider the build you have into the pairing be a good idea? I for one think it would be an improvement on what we have now. One of the key issues with the match making system that we have now is that it is bare bones to say the least. It is one of the reasons why many people don't like it. So yeah I do think adding more variables in there to determine your rating number would be beneficial, whether ranking perk builds and add-ons/items would be the way to go... who knows, but it would be a consideration to make.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 31, 2021

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2722453#Comment_2722453

  Fun is subjective, that's true.

  But because we are playing a game that people bought to have a good time, 'how fun is this?' belongs in the discussion.

  I studied architecture in college at a school that was heavily focused on design.

  We talked a lot about the design principle 'Form Follows Function' that emerged sometime in the 19th/20th century. I don't want to butcher the idea, so I'll just share this image I found on the web. The TL;DR is at the bottom of the image.

  https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/JK6HJ18WKRFE/image.png

  Famous American Architect, Frank Lloyd Wright believed that neither form nor function should have to follow each other. Instead, he has been quoted saying "form follows function--that has been misunderstood. Form and function should be one, joined in a spiritual union."

  Now there are architects out there who believe function should follow form (most famous is Frank Gehry), and it produces some really cool looking buildings. But there is a dark side to every building designed that way. For example, the Walt Disney Concert Hall is criticized for blinding drivers in the surrounding area and raising the utility bills of nearby structures with its concave reflected heat. Not to mention, the building suffers from a number of janitorial and maintenance issues all related to its design.

  So back to DBD...

  The function of video games is entertainment.

  Whether you are an idealist like Frank Lloyd Wright or a pragmatist like Louis Sullivan, it naturally follows that the function (entertainment) of Dead by Daylight needs to be met harmoniously with it's form (how the game plays).

  BHVR could follow in Franky Gehry's shoes and say "F your entertainment, we're here to design a game that works." They might stumble into success that way, but historically it has proven to turn out inefficient and plague-driven design.

  It is not practical to design a game without the audience in mind. At the end of the day you could say "it works," but at what cost? Anyone can make something that works. A good game is defined by how enjoyable it is, regardless of how difficult a metric that is to measure.

  To address some of your points more specifically:

  • The same can definitely be said about the build I use, and a critique is definitely to be made about how DBD's meta has not changed, you are right. But the reason we can now make a comparison between Overwatch and DBD is because of MMR. Killers are being left with three options:
    • Adapt and learn the best strategy to 4k
    • Stop trying to win
    • Abandon the game entirely

  At the moment, people have been complaining about insane survivor queue times and a lot of the talk seems to attribute that to how killers are leaving the game or playing survivor because of what MMR has done to their experience.

  Is it all hearsay? Is it just people stirring the pot? Did something actually change? Have people actually quit? I don't know.

  But when I get a temperature read on the state of DBD, MMR is pulling back scabs BHVR should have healed a long time ago.

  • I think you are placing undue importance on the WHY? I know why you value causality, and I know why you believe it is so pivotal to solving the problem. I agree that it is something to be studied, but I'm not convinced we need to look at player psychology to make corrections on the game. I'll concede that I could be wrong on that front, but I don't think we are making much ground against eachother on this topic (and we have been at it for a while) so it may be best to acknowledge we disagree and put this part of the discussion to rest.
  • I don't think there is anything wrong with expecting players to play well. My critique is strictly on forcing players into a narrow peg in order for them to play really well. Epic Games has bent over backwards to make console players competitive in Fortnite. People shouldn't feel like they need to learn how to play with a Keyboard & Mouse to be successful in FPS games (or vice versa--looking at you Halo). That is my argument with DBD--players shouldn't feel like they need to run the same 4 perks to be successful in a trial.

  On the CoconutRTS video...

  It has always been BHVR's M.O. to release new perks that band-aid their game's problem--perks that try to incentivize new gameplay.

  But as you've stated, the meta hasn't shifted in the game's history. 200 perks, and the meta has never changed.

  Even if they did manage to change the meta with perks alone, it would be an unwelcomed change for the reasons I've stated above--no one wants to be told how to enjoy the game (i.e. which 4 perks they need to run).

  Design meets function

  I studied actual game design and I actually agree with your usage of Frank Lloyd Wright. You indicate that the game should be entertaining, if it misses that objective people will simply stop playing the game. While fun is subjective it is hard to grasp and quantify in that sense.

  The Meta and MMR

  The meta of DBD did actually undergo a small shift with the introduction of boon totems, making older strategies that people enjoyed to do as a killer and I assume we will agree upon were less bad to face as survivor. Strategies like hit and run and gaining partial pressure along the whole team by injuring them has been pretty much completely nullified. All this is simply highlighted and emphasized with the MMR system, as you indicated the meta hasn't changed much. These slight changes and the exposure to teams more on your level and above, less weak links, showcase that the game pushes us towards as you state: Adapt and learn the best strategies. To be honest, most games over time results in people needing to optimize their play at least to a certain amount. Meta's aren't actually something that is dictated by the developers of games, they are the result of the players choices and the boundaries that were setup by the developers.

  The results, the why and the resolutions

  Now this is where our views start to differ and this is because I emphasize the why? It is part of the basic principles when actually designing games (which is also said by the developers in their Q&A) and is how you can determine whether the form and function are harmonious, where to adapt it to make it more that way or why it isn't behaving as you want.

  Lets reiterate the three points you brought forth:

  • Killers are more often camping and tunneling, adapting and playing by the best strategies possible.
  • Killers have other options, yet are not deploying them and instead if they do not enjoy the above said practices are switching sides/stop playing. Those options as indicated by you would mean that they should give up on trying to win, which actually defeats one of the functions of a game; people don't play to lose.
  • Survivor queues go up and the pool of killers are more often using either the strongest killers and combinations or applying the above mentioned strategies. Therefore the games are less entertaining and as a result less harmony is achieved between the form and function.

  What does this mean though? Camping isn't fun for either side, so why is that what people gravitate towards? That statements of people not enjoying playing in a camping style might actually be true and yet instead of utilizing other strategies we are seeing people stop playing killer instead or only play Blight, Nurses and specific combinations of extremely strong elements. Those that do enjoy that style or do not mind utilizing them keep playing and therefore the survivors are more likely to encounter these select styles of play, because that is what is in the pool of killers the rest left or adapted to these styles.

  Now, they can nerf these strategies and make them less fun and entertaining to do, because lets face it stop trying to win and standing no chance isn't fun and why they aren't playing killer. That is why most people don't simply play 'nice' or 'fun' and just lose over and over again. You don't need to win every game, you can even lose more often than win, but a key part of the entertainment and joy of games is that you believe you stood a chance. That is part of the function.

  Lets say they nerf camping, does this solve the problem? No, it just makes it worse. As now the people that used those tactics are in the same boat as all the others. The best strategies will be reduced to play specific killers with specific load outs and tunneling, give up on trying to win or quit the game. You can try and force it on people, but the problem with that is - if they are not playing because they don't like camping and tunneling just making that worse isn't actually addressing the problem to get them back. All it does is push those that adapted to those styles a bigger reason to also stop playing killer.

  The why is important here, because just making the side that people already are abandoning less fun for those that are left... isn't creating more harmony, it is actually the polar opposite. It is why I am in the camp of incentivize and promote more desirable forms of play that people do enjoy playing. Give those killers that would prefer to not camp and tunnel viable options that can compete and be at the same level of these strategies without the need to whip out a specific killer. Will that mean that you never come across a camper again, no... people that genuinely enjoy that experience will still do so. Yet by the premise promoted by those like yourself, that isn't most people and those that don't actually enjoy doing it will gravitate towards the viable strategy they do like playing. Not only will those that adapted to use these strategies maybe diversify and use other strategies, it will most likely bring back many of those that quit because they don't like camping.

  It doesn't matter to much if this is done in the form of perks or base game changes. A meta isn't telling them how to enjoy the game it would be simply providing tools to play as they enjoy. If off meta, optimized, best strategies are to even be played the gap between the power levels needs to be something more reasonable. This is something that is currently lacking, people don't feel that they have those options to begin with. They feel that the game is pushing them to camp and tunnel to even stand a chance, that they are being told play like this or don't play at all to win. One of the major design issues that they have created themselves is that the difference between the best and even simply average setups is enormous. If one side brings the meta and you don't, good luck!

  Don't get me wrong here, I would prefer base line changes rather than perks on a personal level yet I doubt they will change the amount of impact perks have on the game, as that is the route they took long ago. You can technically nerf camping, tunneling and all the non-fun strategies yet that would mean that severe nerfs would need to be made to the survivor end most likely along side with it and I doubt the community would be up for that or severe ground breaking game rework and that isn't going to happen. That is why I believe the better solution would be to elevate and provide tools to killers to make those other options more attractive or at least similar in viability, as also indicated by Coconut in his video.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 31, 2021

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2722257#Comment_2722257

  I Completely agree with everything you said in your first three paragraphs.

  I suppose I have an issue with this style of play for a few reasons.

  1. Feeling of Victimization & Helplessness as Survivor
  2. Power Creep and the Decline of Creativity
  3. The Plethora of Better Options

  Victimization & Helplessness

  As a survivor on the hook, it is a horrible feeling being used as live bait with zero ability to influence the outcome of the rest of the game. As the individual on the hook, the only two counters to camping is to equip DS before the game starts and to not get caught in the first place.

  After that, the rest of the game is completely out of your hands. You feel helpless. And that issue is further compounded when the teammate who unhooks you doesn't have Borrowed Time. Your entire existence in the trial feels like a waste of time, and it fosters animosity towards the game and its players if it happens repeatedly.

  Power Creep and the Decline of Creativity

  Once proven effective, this style of play presents a no-win situation for survivors who want to play competitive without defaulting to BT & DS. It is an inherent flaw in the game that players would be required to bring the same two perks to maximize their enjoyment when the game presents over 100 options.

  Overwatch saw this problem when the strength of GOATS comp was popularized, and the game has been on a rapid decline ever since. What essentially happened was, winning & having fun became synonymous because choosing anything other than the winning comp meant getting steamrolled. And you can only get steamrolled so many times before you realize it would be madness to continue on that trajectory. And of course, no one wants to be told how they have to play the game, so saying "just play GOATS" is the wrong answer.

  As an aside, I think there is a lot to be learned about DBD from Overwatch. They may not be the same game, but they both evolved into a complicated game of rock-paper-scissors. BHVR would do well to note Blizzard's successes and failures in that regard.

  The Plethora of Better Options

  While fun is subjective, it seems widely accepted that playing as and against camping is among the least enjoyable ways to experience DBD. So while this isn't an argument against camping explicitly, I would call this the "common sense" argument. In so far as to say that the developers should be maximizing the amount of times players are having the most enjoyable experience in DBD.

  Disincentivizing camping was their first approach at this method, but history suggests they need to take a more aggressive approach.

  ..and of course the same should be said and analyzed about the killer's experience facing survivor. Right now, there is a certain content creator who is adamantly against the "W Key Meta" and is attempting to speak on behalf of "most people." Maybe I'm not "most people," but I disagree with their take. However, if it is widely accept that this is a problem, it should be addressed in the same manor I am trying to fight against camping.

  1. The feeling of a survivor is based on who is playing it and is not an objective measurement at all. Being on the hook is part of playing survivor, I personally have no bad feelings at all when I am hanging on it and I don't ever run DS actually as I don't like it and prefer perks that support my team and I tend to be solo so I need some information perks like Kindred.
  2. Well, the same could be said about the build that you use; 3 gen stopping perks and another to slow down the end game? It isn't like your are using random perks. Meta is Meta and perks are very influential in this game. Ever since I started playing DBD it has been extremely consistent and from what I heard the meta hasn't really changed in years. It is actually something I touched upon when I speak about using the best setups versus less optimal ones and it severely impacting the games outcome. However you put it, this is already in effect regardless of how you play and is more a general game thing than related to camping.
  3. To figure this out it is actually more important to figure out the why people do it, rather than just blanket dishing out punishments. If by your own accord the people doing it aren't a big fan of it, then why are they doing it? I am far more in the camp of creating incentives and tools to reward not camping, rather than just flat out punishing camping. The argument it is because it is effective that is why they do it, while they don't like it; indicates that there is not more enjoyable alternative to gravitate towards. That is why I press on the causality and correlations that create the nuance around camping.

  To be fair, your notion on what the content creator is doing regarding W tactics... is what you are advocating for camping. Camping for me is simply part of the game, I might not be most people I guess. I don't overuse the tactic, but I don't shy away from it as I understand that is where the flow of the game can push you to and when I get camped, I sit on the hook and try to last as long as possible.

  I rather try and take the feeling and fun arguments out of the equation as it is a pure subjective matter. This video isn't about camping specifically but one that be interesting to listen to that goes more into how the game motivates people to play certain ways:

  https://youtu.be/JzeblKQSYN4

  @Munqaxus said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2722257#Comment_2722257

  This game would look entirely different if the team the Killer was playing against was making amazing BT and DH saves. You're not seeing something amazing on the killers side, you are seeing amazing saves on the survivors side.

  This isn't fun for survivors, it's absolutely miserable. And honestly, it's not really much fun for Killers either.

  I don't get what is wrong with expecting survivors to play well. I hear all the time when I am playing killer to get good. There are tactics that aren't that hard to do as survivor that are very frustrating and difficult to counter as a killer. I never understood the concept of how learning to play better and do good plays would be seen as a negative. Learning the game is part of the fun, I am pretty average and I waste pallets quicker than required most likely. I usually am capable of getting someone off the hook and yes I do always have BT in my builds for that exact reason.

  Fun is subjective, if it isn't fun for the killer either... that is why the question: Why are they doing it is even more important? If there was a more fun alternative that felt viable and actionable don't you think people would do that instead then?

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 31, 2021

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2721567#Comment_2721567

  Compared to my general play (not strictly camping, but still playing for 4k), I'd say the bullet points you laid out apply.

  I might even shift that metric by 1 gen, so that is works out as follows:

  • 0-2 gens is where I am primarily in control
  • 3 gens is both sides
  • 4+ is survivors' game to throw

  But I wouldn't say that it is a hard and fast metric, because spawn RNG plays a huge role in how many gens get done during first chase. If all 4 survivors spawned in different corners, and 3 gens are being worked on at once while I chase the first survivor, 3 gens being completed during my first chase says less than it would if I was looped for 3-4 minutes.

  Regardless, the first chase is more important when camping, because you forfeit your ability as killer to explore other game delay options.

  I'll have to playtest with Legion, but I expect him to be the worst camper of all the killers in the game. I don't want to say that too assuredly, however, because I think he might be able to leverage an unconventional approach.

  I don't have much success with hook grabs--I think I average 2 every 10 games, so with legion I would just accept that I won't get any free grabs and lean into his Legion Pin (Broken Status Effect) and Smiley Pin (Mangled) Add-Ons. If two survivors come for unhook, and I hit the unhooked survivor and one other with the Broken Status effect, then down a third survivor relatively quickly... I can prevent survivors from being able to go for saves.

  I'm posting my gameplay with Doctor below. You'll see that survivors are able to quickly reheal (even after Madness T3) and return to hook for BT saves. This is a problem I think Legion would be able to counter--and I think a lot of players would d/c in frustration.

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbW-CkDzRf4

  I had a sharpness filter over my gameplay, which pairs horribly with video compression. So enjoy the pixel show :D

  This is one of the best teams I've faced so far. They made a few crucial mistakes (as did I), but I think this game is an all-around great demonstration of where I push the boundaries on 'camping', and how I leverage zoning and hook placement to my advantage.

  ---

  Edit: If I may add, the type of camping I demonstrate in this gameplay is the type I would like to see BHVR remove from the game. I make it pretty clear to the survivors that I will keep my body between them and the hook, and that I have no interest in patrolling gens beyond my immediate vicinity.

  I actually enjoy this style of play, against a group of survivors who make it feel like a tug-of-war. But the inverse could hardly be said by them; at least, I wouldn't be having a fun time if I was in the survivor's shoes.

  I would much prefer BHVR redefines the win conditions of DBD to hooks, and creates a system in which 1-2 hooking a survivor isn't physically possible.

  Spawn RNG is a big factor yes, it is also not that even a small mistake or a great play cannot cause a shift in balance. It is more like a fuzzy general guideline anyway and in no ways some set in stone ruleset. The first chase is important in many games actually not just camping ones, the early game is where survivors feel the least amount of pressure and actual how much pressure they can exert there is very important.

  I specifically mentioned legion, as I cannot imagine him being that good at camping. The combo you mention might actually make him better than I would think, who knows. Grabs are in general unreliable and is why you have these dances at the hook.

  About your video, you do a pretty good job on the area denial. By no means did the game seem one sided, they truly had opportunities to actually punish you if they played it just a tad bet more conservative. I don't know how you see it, but that seemed like a perfectly fine match for both sides where each side had the opportunity to pull out the W. It came down to pure execution as far as I can tell.

  You state that you would want this style of play to be removed, because you wouldn't like facing it? Yet what is fun is totally subjective, I wouldn't have mind to be on the other end of that doctor match. There are things I don't like facing as a killer and there are things I don't like facing as a survivor, yet does it mean that it is a problem? You are each others opponents, some aspects in PvP games isn't fun to go against or beaten by. In games you cannot remove everything anyone doesn't like to face, because at that point there is no game left. That is why I look at these objectively; is it fair, balanced and based on execution.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 30, 2021

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2721592#Comment_2721592

  There's really no meaningful nuance to me in determining whether camping works in pubs or not, it's as black and white to me as going into pub games, camping, and looking at average kill rates. And anyway, as I've said elsewhere, I always knew camping is extremely effective and one of the best killing strategies, the only thing I'm a bit surprised about here is that even facecamping is apparently still this effective even in the MMR environment, and even with LF. I would expect much more mixed results for facecamping, and a trend more toward an average of 2 kills, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I'll see for myself soon enough.

  I don't think the reason matters. Again, even if camping would have a simple and clear counter that worked every time and the only reason it ever paid off would literally be that people are too stupid, bored or empathetic to not employ that counter, if enough people behave in ways such that on average camping works, that is all the grounds one needs to consider changing that aspect of the game if one deems it undesirable, even if in a scenario where everybody is equally skilled, smart, experienced, win-oriented and whatnot it would be a non-issue.

  I actually said I consider various forms of camping to be worthwhile and did address that the devs have stated as much themselves, and personally don't even have a huge issue with facecamping (which the devs however do; there are forms of camping they consider to be undesirable and there are various things they've done and continually do to combat it, they just don't ever get around to actually "solving" it). There are issues, I think camping is overly effective in pubs particularly when compared against the fact that it does not yield very engaging or interactive gameplay often enough in pub scenarios where people are mediocre, make sub-optimal decisions, aren't coordinated or win-oriented enough, etc., and facecamping specifically causes people to become upset or at least bored. I think the game would be better if it were changed to make camping less effective and thereby less attractive, in turn making other strategies more effective and attractive, but I for one would not want for it to be removed entirely either.

  But it would be possible. Imagine that upon downing a survivor, they get sucked up by the entity and respawned elsewhere on the map in the injured or healthy state, and they get sacrificed on the third down. This would obviously change the game in many ways, but it could absolutely work, even without any other larger changes to the game (apart from obviously adjusting perks that rely on the hook (and slug) mechanic), and it would absolutely get rid of camping (and slugging) and make the game much more dynamic (low downtime, more action, more action for everyone) and chase-oriented. It would take out various strategic elements and types of gameplay as well, there could be arguments for and against something like that, and I would be more on the against side, but of course, there's a huge range of things that can be done to make the game less campy without literally deleting camping, and I think there's a better DbD somewhere on that spectrum. And again, even making camping itself a more engaging gameplay element with more skill-based mechanics around defending and contesting hooks would be a possibility.

  For your game balance argument, you make the common mistake of not differentiating between base game balance and "live balance", where the latter is what actually happens in the game when people play it. And that live balance part is completely affected by things such as player attitudes and everything else that "in theory" should not matter, and if those things in practice do affect the game enough and often enough such that it skews global balance, they have to be included in the balancing approach if one wants to balance for the actual game experiences actual players are actually having most of the time. I didn't even invoke balance arguments though, as I've said, camping can be deemed undesirable even if it weren't effective or at all balance-relevant - the fact that it is effective only adds to the merit of the argument that changing it would be worthwhile if it is deemed undesirable, because being effective makes it attractive for people to do, meaning undesirable gameplay happens more frequently. I don't think camping and the gameplay it yields is undesirable through-and-through, but I also don't know what your point is invoking balance. I mean, you do already agree that camping is very effective, you don't actually think it only works if survivor players are stupid, bored or feel like throwing. So yeah, why should we even argue whether the ridiculous results in this thread are indicative of a base game balance issue with camping.

  Gen-rushing actually usually includes people stacking up on gens, regularly with Prove Thyself, that is not a meaningful distinction. What I was getting at is that camping is not objectively or let alone by definition the best way to win the game, whereas repairing gens as fast as possible is. Camping is just one of various strategies, such as tunnelling, camping, slugging, 3-genning, playing for endgame kills, just chasing and hooking whoever you happen to find. Again, "camping" could literally be removed from the game without at all altering the basic functioning and premise of the game.

  Your actual point with that of course wasn't about gen-rushing itself, more so that you again wanted to highlight how the differences in "win-orientedness" would affect stats like this, but I still can't see a meaningful point in that. If players in fact aren't win-oriented enough on average to deal with these things well, and if these things yield gameplay that one deems undesirable, then that is absolutely showing a problem. So say killer players on average aren't used to 4-SWFs actually playing with breakneck efficiency pumping out gens, and so they don't usually play hard themselves, don't camp and tunnel from the get-go all the time or at all or otherwise play as efficiently as they could, and therefore they get rolled by such a team more often than not. If it can be shown that this usually does happen, then "gen-rushing" is a problem, at least if the gameplay it yields is deemed undesirable (which it often arguably is - quick games with few chases and little general player interaction). I actually do think this is a problem, even if a very win-oriented killer player is still able to compete with this, and I do think SWF nerfs are in order for that reason (and other reasons).

  My take which I consider to be fairly objective is this: Camping is a highly effective and in pubs arguably too effective strategy, and that is problematic not even necessarily just from a balance perspective, but from the perspective of anyone that considers camping to be undesirable to any extent, as its effectiveness makes it more attractive and therefore more common an occurrence. Doesn't mean I'd want to delete camping, nor that I want to nerf killers (nerfs to their camping capabilities would have to go along with buffs to other stuff), but I think it's pretty clear camping often sucks in terms of gameplay, that tons of people dislike the "camping" experience, and that there's a lot of things that could be done to make camping less effective (or more engaging) and the game less "campy".

  I was indeed not very interested in your standpoint, I pointed out that it seems mostly reasonable to me and I agreed with you that camping can be punished to extents and does have merits to be in the game. But that wasn't what I wanted to address, I originally only replied to point to the disconnect in the discussion between you and KayTwo/Munqaxus, where you were concerned with whether (face)camping can be punished and they with whether it is actually punished (again base balance vs. live balance). The thread as far as I can tell was also never outright concerned with whether camping is a balance or game experience issue, so arguing about that would be a secondary concern at most. If I didn't miss something, the people presenting stats at no point actually said the stats show that camping is absolutely OP or would be OP even against equally skilled, coordinated, win-oriented, etc. players, and is always absolutely undesirable. Attacking them on those grounds seems uncalled for. They just set out to show that it works more often than not, contrary to popular narratives. Don't think they made the distinction between it being "broken" or just "good".

  Not everything I said was directed at you specifically either, I just got into talking about the different points. It probably is for the best for the discussion to return to the actual stats. I will probably just try 10 facecamp games or so, will likely become too bored of it at that point or perhaps feel too bad for the players I'm facing. For what it's worth, in my region and at my MMR, I would be surprised if I get as high kill rates playing like that as they did so far.

  You have no interest in my stand point and in what I have to say. You claim it isn't directed at me, while you are responding by quoting me. You are white knighting for @KayTwoAyy, while frankly we were having a pretty good back and forth all together. We had some frustrations built up and handled it in an actual civil manner... sadly the same cannot be said for you, coming in out of the blue and feeling entitled to claim you know best. There are so many flaws in your piece, but you already indicated that you aren't seeking to have an actual discussion so why would I bother engaging it in. There is no need to respond, you don't want to know what I have to say. You want to only have people say YES AMEN! to your pre-conceived notions and understandings. How dare someone raise queries and discuss something on a forum.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 30, 2021

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2721460#Comment_2721460

  Regarding the premise of the thread, I really can't see that it would be about facecamping. The original post clearly talked about camping period, and while the tests were then later pointed out to be conducted in employing types of facecamping, again, if facecamping is effective it if anything has to be assumed that smarter ways of camping are only even more effective. I only ever understood the premise to be about camping in general and specifically to counter the narrative that camping in general is not effective because it doesn't usually work out in the killer's favour (and would therefore not be a problem). I for one don't think the distinction that facecamping specifically is effective and therefore problematic is very meaningful - for one thing it is stll camping, and for another it is the form of camping that should be the least effective, so if even it can be shown to be effective, I wouldn't bother to question whether those results can also be applied to camping in general (not least because it becomes increasingly difficult to define different types of camping, and because in the actual matches many different "types" are regularly utilized simultaneously). I admittedly did not follow your discussion with the thread's author very closely, it is possible it transitioned into something where the point of distinction is more valuable.

  I don't think the reasons as to why camping is so effective are necessary for the conclusion that it is problematic. If even after years of the game existing and even now with MMR in place even relatively primitive forms of camping still work out as ridiculously well as these stats would suggest, it doesn't really matter why it works so well; if and insofar camping is seen as undesirable (and many players and even the devs do see it as such), it is a problem that it is so attractive. The reasons why it is would only become relevant in an argument as to what can be done to remedy the problem.

  And even if the only reason that camping is so effective would be that survivor players in this game on average are not win-oriented enough, it would still be a problem that one might very well deem worthy or necessary of addressing, because again, you really do not have to account for any of these factors since the game itself doesn't. If you play the game (queue up into public matches) and camping works this well, it does work this well, and that is the game reality one has to balance for. Besides, as you know, even in the most win-oriented, competitive environments of tournament play, camping is still effective.

  I don't think the comparison to a gen-rushing 4-SWF is very apt. Completing generators as fast as possible is the prime objective and objectively most effective way for survivors to play by the very definition of how the game rules are laid out, whereas camping is only one of a multitude of approaches a killer can have to killing survivors. An argument about the "problem" of camping can be qualitative, in as much as one can conclude that camping could and ideally even should be removed from the game altogether. Arguments about the "problem" of gen-rushing can only be quantitative, meaning one might argue gens can go too fast if you have 4 survivors that each actually play to repair them as fast as possible (I'd agree, with different caveats), but obviously one might not argue that the ability to repair gens at all is a problem.

  I dunno, if your point really is that these results cannot be said to show with certainty that camping at large is a problem but only the specific type of camping employed to achieve the results, I do not really have a problem with that. Again, I think it'd be a fairly moot point because other types of camping should if anything be expected to be even more effective (and I personally am pretty confident in that since I see it all the time, including in tournament play), but it would be a valid point in terms of attacking the scientific rigour of the "tests" or its stated conclusions, and be it with regards to ones made in consecutive posts. If your point is that it matters why camping is so effective in determining whether camping is problematic, I disagree. Not only did the thread never set out to answer the why nor did it even say that camping is problematic, but whether camping is a "problem" is subjective anyway, and depends on how designers and players perceive and experience the gameplay that camping yields, and that would be true even regardless of how effective it is. I think it is easy to argue that camping has undesirable, "problematic" aspects, and that most people would agree. While I for one also see various desirable and "healthy" aspects to it, it's still a problem that camping is as effective as it actually is, and not even from a perspective of competitive balance (I agree with you that at the top level camping if anything is necessary to be able to compete), but from the perspective that people will more often camp if it is effective. And that's all the more true if even the arguably least desirable and most problematic type of camping is this effective and therefore attractive.

  The general narrative is extremely looking at it in a black and white looking glass and generally speaks about countering it in terms of face camping. I personally have deviated from speaking in blanket statements and pressed for nuances.

  Actually the reasons why camping is effective and/or widely used for that matter is important to determine whether it is a problem to begin with. When identifying a problem you actually need to figure out the core of why that is the case to know whether an adjustment is to be made at all.

  The developers made no such claims as you are implying here about the ability to camp, as they specially make a distinction there they want to address face camping without negatively impacting proxy camping! This shows your lack of nuance in the conversation on camping and just want a rough brush to paint everything with. The irony is that while you are trying to claim that all camping is an issue, the developers identified just face camping to need addressing in their view, but that the fix for this shouldn't negatively impact other forms of it; which you are raving about being more efficient.

  Game balance has to look at things objectively and understand the correlations. You cannot claim well one side isn't win-oriented enough we need to account for that and change the balance of the game. Killers can be less win-oriented just the same as survivors can be. That is like trying to account for the mental attitude of players in game design... it makes literally zero sense.

  Repairing gens is not a problem. Hooking a survivor and sacrificing them to the entity isn't either. A plentiful manner in which they can kill survivors, you have hooking them and a mori? You can do individual gens or stack up? Not sure what your argument is here, because by the very definition of how the game rules are laid out should imply to us an effective manner to do your task? Camping is effective so people do it and splitting up on multiple gens is effective so people do it.

  Sorry, but you seem to not be interested in an actual objective take on the matter nor in my stand point.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 30, 2021

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2721446#Comment_2721446

  Well to be frank, I’m getting a little annoyed because I’ve been very transparent and I’ve been very consistent about how I’m conducting this study.

  There was a misunderstanding over terminologies, but it was cleared up by OP. He has been very consistent as well, and he was quite transparent with how he is carrying out this study.

  I don’t know OP personally—I’ve never spoken with him before this discussion—so of course there are going to be some kinks to iron out.

  I’ve got people telling me how we should be conducting this study, I’ve got people who don’t even know what we’re studying, there are people giving their anectodal opinions on things they probably didn’t think too hard about, and then I’ve got a 7-page back and forth with you over god-knows-what at this point.

  I think I’ve made it pretty clear what I am doing here in these past 10 pages, but for some reason you’re calling me a liar because of something someone else said to you.

  I’m enjoying discussing this ######### with you, because you bring up some really great points. But its a headache needing to justify my behavior when I haven’t mislead anyone about what I’m doing.

  Edit: If your intention has been to point out that OP and I are not conducting our tests by the same exact rules, then message received.

  I don’t think I’ve tried to claim that we were—tho I can see how it would be implied by my decision to join his study.

  I never pressed him for a definition on camping before recording my own numbers. I didn’t really expect much debate on what camping is

  First off I am not calling you a liar and I do believe you are consistent in your approach. While you haven't been misleading on your results, they are being leveraged by the OP and stated to be face camping. You didn't correct the record, it was me pointing it out that the joint study is expanding its parameters.

  Camping is a very broad spectrum of plays, as you have pointed out it is far more nuanced than many believe. Therefore yes, a debate on what camping is in terms of what you are studying is actually to be expected. I don't think we think that differently on the actual topic at hand and from a personal perspective I find data and analysis of gameplay extremely interesting. I also know that it is far more complex and nuanced than how people perceive it.

  Maybe it is time that we focus more on the contents and the more interesting aspects of the discussion, before we just frustrate each other more. Lets simply take the more extended parameters that you actually test and I will leave out the joint aspect of the study - seeing you cannot account for their actions.

  May I state that your doctor results were for instance very interesting, especially your own conclusions. Making a correlation between the initial start requirements and the efficiency of play.

  SO FAR IT SEEMS THAT...

  The strength of camping is entirely dependent on how quickly I locate and down the first survivor.

  If I hook the first survivor before the first generator is finished, a 4k feels guaranteed. If I hook the first survivor after the second generator is finished, my success is entirely dependent on how many risks the survivors are willing to take. If I hook the first survivor after the third generator is finished... forget it--I'd be surprised if I even 1k.

  You seem to be identifying that camping efficiency is based on when you get the 1 hook by:

  • 0-1 gen is where you are primarily in control. (It is on you to mess up greatly for a swing to happen)
  • 2 gens is a both sides have a chance
  • 3 gens+ the control is now with the survivors.(It is on them to mess up greatly for a swing to happen)

  Doctor is a pretty good killer to camp with, so would you judge that these type of parameters would apply to all killers or are there killers such as legion for instance that would have an even smaller window or bubba that has a bit more wiggle room just based on their innate abilities to camp?

  Also, how does this compare to your general play? I personally find if I down someone and 5 gens are up, that I am in for a good match. Naturally chases afterwards can make my life miserable, but I believe that is also the risk of chasing.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 30, 2021

• @zarr said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2721396#Comment_2721396

  I won't comment on the different points you developed in your larger discussion, there's various things I'd concede or contest but overall it seemed reasonable enough.

  But there is one issue that as far as I can tell, steered the direction of the discussion past each other's talking points from the get-go: You want to argue about whether killers can be punished for camping, the thread however was about whether killers are actually punished for camping. If you go to the first post, it does not say anything as to camping having no counterplay whatsoever, as if it would work out perfectly every time against everyone. The premise was that as opposed to what many people say, on average camping works out more often than not, and is not "punished" by getting sub-50% kill rates. The argument was not that the sky is always blue, but that it is much bluer or much more often blue than people claim. The thread's author directly pointed this out in the discussion with you too if I remember correctly, saying that in theory camping might not be expected to be this effective, but in practice it provably is.

  You do seem aware of the fact that camping is still one of the most viable strategies even in high-level competition, but even if that weren't the case, the point of the thread would stand because it is concerned with the success rates of camping in the main game mode that 99.9% of players actually play. Sure, camping is less effective the better, more coordinated and more "win"-oriented the survivors are, and while it can still regularly be highly effective even then, of course players would not see as much success (as high kill rates) playing like this against top coordinated and skilled teams exclusively, as those teams can actually "punish" camping to extents, certainly if it's one of the more primitive variants like outright facecamping. But that's completely beside the point of the thread, which never asked why or when camping is effective, only if it is effective in the actual game against the actual opponents one actually gets, often enough to be something killers actually are not punished for, but indeed rewarded. And their results clearly show that it is. Surprisingly they didn't get less than 2 kills even just a single time - which is definitely something that can happen, again you are right that camping can be punished to extents - but even if they had lost a dozen times, if the average kill or win rate would be above 50%, it would still go to show that camping is not punished.

  I also don't know why the discussion switched to facecamping specifically. Again the original post did not make that distinction, and neither does the common narrative it sought to counter ("camping is a bad play, you usually won't get more than a kill, and at best two"). That they actually do employ a facecamping-type strategy for these stats might open up some basis for arguments about the definitions of types of camping and which type of camping is the most consistent, but there's really no "gotcha" there because not only was the premise never about facecamping specifically, but facecamping is the easiest type of camping, both for killers to do and for survivors to counter, and so if even that works out as often and as well as the author seeks to demonstrate, it goes to show that camping is ridiculously effective, as smarter, more skilled ways of camping can only be expected to be even more effective.

  I agree with you/the devs that camping in general is a worthwhile and even "healthy" aspect of the game that should not be removed entirely. Facecamping is at least "punished" by being boring for the killer player as well, but since that does not prevent people from doing it, I do think changes are in order to remedy it, and I would think so even if facecamping weren't also as effective a strategy as it apparently still is. In general I think that while camping has its place in the game, adjustments to incentivize killers to go for more chases and hooks and likewise making the gameplay around hooks more engaging would be a good direction. Hook grabs for instance are such a bad mechanic, they incentivize hard-camping, lead to awkward and silly dancing around the hook with survivors being scared to commit to the unhook and killers not wanting to hit them, they are subject to randomness to a significant extent not least because they are affected by latency, and they have been bugged forever since the hooked survivor cannot be unhooked for as long as the grab animation lasts. Removing that mechanic from the game would already go a long way to make hard-camping less attractive and enable survivors to contest camped hooks more reliably, and the killer would still stand to benefit a lot from survivors contesting hooks. Of course, that change and other such changes that seek to make hooks more contestable would have to go along with compensatory killer buffs in other gameplay aspects, such as chase strength or gen control.

  Read the posts by the original poster, he uses the term facecamping all over when talking about the playstyle used to collect the data, it is mentioned in his original post and ones directed at me. You and @KayTwoAyy are on a totally different wave length than the person that initiated this discussion and that is something I have been trying to point out. I have never disputed any of the results, just the premise of the tests conducted and the manner in which it is being represented.

  As you pointed out I am aware of the fact that the manner in which they are camping is one of the valid strategies even in high-level competition. The concern is about the efficiency rate of the strategy in the game, yet to determine whether that is truly worrying means that one should analyze the causality of the outcome before conclusions being drawn from it.

  You bring up win-oriented and I think there is much to that, as the people conducting the test are extremely win-oriented. As I have indicated previously if one side brings the best of the best and the other doesn't, the game starts off with a discrepancy. Is the tactic used the final determining factor or is it simply the fact that you are playing as optimal and efficient as possible to secure the win while the opponents aren't? I think we all agree that it can be punished, so why isn't it in practice? Is it the strategy or is it something else? If you want to analyze this objectively you have to be more nuanced and determine causality, rather than what people are trying to pass here as objective data. There are more aspects in play than just you are camping and there is no accounting for it.

  It is like testing gen rushing strategies with a 4 man swf, I bet they will win a vast majority of their games - is it because it isn't punished enough? Blight or Nurses or any killer really with the most powerful perks and add-ons doing their outmost best to win, how efficient are they? The manner in which the tests are being conducted as I have pointed out is very close to what type of play you see in competitive play... yet using those type of plays in the general public match is that truly showing anything other than; if you try hard to win using valid strategies and combinations of it, in many games you will actually win?

  Trying to show that something is good or broken are two different type of beasts. As the developers stated themselves, to figure out actual any problem areas, it is about the why and causality of the results seen.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 30, 2021

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2721424#Comment_2721424

  OP said facecamping once, in a day-later edit at the end of his initial post in which he generically used the word camping 5 times prior. The discussion that followed was then about camping, in the general sense--never facecamping.

  He later addressed his definition of 'facecamping' (I believe you saw that), indicating that he was never talking about true facecamping.

  Ergo, this study has never been about only facecamping.

  Below is a diagram of camping.

  In words, camping is when a killer's primary objective is to defend a hooked survivor to secure a kill or force a trade. A killer is camping when they are closer to the hook than all remaining survivors. Proxy-camping is when a killer's primary objective is to patrol & chase near a hooked or slugged survivor, so that they can challenge unhooks and rescue attempts.

  https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/FAQA1H5JB1CO/image.png

  The difference between camping and not camping is intent and proximity*.

  *Proximity is more of an evaluation of how well you are camping.

  I hadn't realized that my game capture output file was .mov by default, so the game I recorded earlier is an absurdly large file. It is in the process of uploading to Youtube, and will be posted on here sometime in the next 12hrs.

  "So far, the definitive answer is actually "Yes". Right now, no one has brought proof to the contrary. I think @KayTwoAyy and I have shown that facecamping is rewarding to the killer by giving a win condition, as defined by the developers, in the fact that the average kills is higher than a loss."

  Literally in a response to me the other day. He actually uses the word quite frequently and I for one specifically call out the terminology, while you clearly do not care to read what is actually being said. You stopped responding to the actual contents of my messages and ignore the premise being laid out by the original poster.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 30, 2021

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2721396#Comment_2721396

  You're being way too literal.

  If hitting a survivor on my hex totem 6m from the hook I'm camping means that I'm no longer camping, then your definition of camping is "playing like an idiot."

  This test has never been a study of "can I hook a survivor and win while playing with extreme negligence?"

  That may have been your understanding of the test, but that has never been what either myself or @Munqaxus have described in our recounts of matches thus far. That err is on you.

  How is it so hard for you to understand that the killer can juggle multiple objectives while camping?

  If I am not committing to any other chases, and I am staying near my hooked survivor, I am camping.

  The survivors will tell you that I camped all game, and I am telling you that I camp all game.

  There is bad camping; i.e. face-camping or not moving in front of the hook.

  And then there is good camping; i.e. actually doing something productive while I stand in front of the hook

  Both are camping.

  Once again I am not stating you are not camping! Jesus, read what I am actually writing! So, I will go and repeat myself, I hate it when discussions turns in to me having to literally quote myself to showcase someone trying to twist my words into something that I did not state (the post you quoted talks pretty much exclusively about camping, but I am somehow stating you aren't camping...).

  To highlight what you are saying here:

  How is it so hard for you to understand that the killer can juggle multiple objectives while camping?

  There is bad camping; i.e. face-camping or not moving in front of the hook.

  And then there is good camping; i.e. actually doing something productive while I stand in front of the hook

  BOTH ARE CAMPING

  That means you are no longer face camping, but have turned to what is known as proxy camping! As I have stated literally in the post you are quoting let me highlight it for you here:

  The original premise was about face camping, while you clearly are expanding it into a proximity camp situation and an area denial rather than the overall agreed upon definition of face camping when speaking about this within the community.

  You literally are now admitting you have moved the goal post or are not realizing that we are talking about two very different things and are not bothering actually reading what I am stating. The OP specifically is stating that they are collecting data using, from his post:

  "As promised, I did 10 more facecamping Bubba games."

  He even made a post to specify that he (and you for that matter) is collecting face camping data, with distances and all that jazz. You guys are either running two very different experiments or expanded the parameters of the tests conducted, while not representing this accurately in the data presented in the posts. Showing that the test results being showcased are misleading and inaccurate, as you are talking about "BOTH ARE CAMPING", while the test premise is calling out face-camping as the source of the data of unpunished behavior - while you are specifically stating: That is bad camping...

  Maybe you should view the above post and the developers talking about that exact thing; you are near-ish to the hook to be able to juggle multiple objectives while camping. They indicate that there are ways to counter it and is part of the game they want to keep in the game - while they want to punish/remove/absolve face-camping.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 30, 2021

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2720958#Comment_2720958

  Mate, you can't have your cake and eat it too.

  You can't draw a hard line in the sand over what is or isn't camping, whilst saying everything else in the game is ambiguous.

  You're making straw man arguments over here, because you just want to twist and turn the parameters of this study to whichever way will discredit us most.

  It sounds like your understanding of camping is the same as tunneling--the condition is only met when it is done at the detriment of the killer.

  Therefore, you're never going to be content with this study, because it's trending in a direction that defies your entire worldview on camping.

  Unless I am definitively the best killer in the game, I represent a portion of DBD's player base (however big or small).

  I recognize that I cannot represent ALL of DBD's killers, and I've acknowledge that fact on multiple occassions by asking others to offer their own data. I'm not trying to claim my data represents everyone. But when everyone seems to agree that camping is strong at lower ranks, its strange that suddenly its an issue I'm finding success with it in high ranks.

  I just recorded gameplay on Grim Pantry. It is going to take a while to upload, its almost 15 minutes long (longest game yet), but I'll let my gameplay speak for itself when I'm able to share it.

  No, you want to have your cake and eat it to and you are putting words into my mouth I never said.

  I stated that its efficiency is dependent of who you face and that it can be countered but in many cases isn't. Literally saying it can pay out for a multitude of reasons and the causality of the success rate is to be considered.

  You claim it is an objective test about the efficiency of face camping for all players, while you are acknowledging that you are combining multiple strategies in one and making decisions to maximize your gen pressure. The original premise was about face camping, while you clearly are expanding it into a proximity camp situation and an area denial rather than the overall agreed upon definition of face camping when speaking about this within the community.

  The fact of the matter is that the developers themselves have stated that proximity camping is very much so a valid strategy within the game and one that is supposed to work if executed well; hanging around near-ish to the hook and using the hook for other means. It can also be countered by well executed plays by the survivors. I complimented your gameplay and acknowledged that you are good that it seems similar to what is seen in competitive play; showcasing that it is not a realistic representation of what you claim to test. You are capable of creating situations which would actually mimic far closely the limit of just face camping, but you simply choose not to do so.

  I am not the one twisting the parameters here, that would be you. Expanding the parameters to include anything that will benefit a positive result for you, while claiming it is just a subset of the aspects used. When I play I use a variety of different strategies as well and it might surprise you, but I am not above camping to get a result if I deem it necessary. I even stated previously that I believe at high level play camping is a necessary tool at times to utilize when facing good survivors in order to get the win.

  If you want to come at me for my stance, don't try to twist them to suit your narrative. Both of you want to speak in obsoletes and act like your data is impeccable and in no means flawed. It is far more nuanced than that which I simply point out and there are clear data concerns if you simply look at it objectively.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 30, 2021

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2720738#Comment_2720738

  The 5 minute mark example is definitely a great demonstration of how a coordinated team can punish a camping killer.

  However, it is mathematically impossible for that scenario to ever happen in one of my games. It would probably take 4 BNPs to come close.

  One thing I'd like to note (that I've realized while carrying out this test), is that there is more nuance to camping than people might want to acknowledge. There are many strategies that I, as the killer, can implement to make camping more effective:

  • Zoning my first chase(s) towards unblocked generators; maximizing Corrupt Intervention value

  Every trial I am deliberate about how I chase survivors, and I am willing to risk extending my chase time if it means I can down survivors closer to unblocked gens. Being able to hook survivors near the first few gens being worked on allows me to regress gen progress with Ruin by proxy. There have been times where I've effectively full-restarted the trial while camping a hook because of Corrupt/Ruin.

  • Hooking survivors near Ruin, once it has been discovered

  Being able to camp a survivor and keep direct line of sight on Ruin allows me to keep a valuable perk active as long as possible. Ruin may not have much effect while I'm camping, but its value cannot be understated when I'm looking to start a new chase, or trying to find new survivors.

  • Using Deadlock to find Survivors

  If Ruin is still active, Deadlock not only buys me more time in the trial, but it also tells me where survivors are and allows me the opportunity to chase survivors off gens and increase Ruin's value.

  • Hooking near progressed gens

  Easily the most effective way to camp, hooking survivors next to generators that have tons of progress will do massive damage to the survivor's objective. This is not always in my control, but when I'm able I will always take advantage of the ability to camp a gen and a survivor at the same time.

  I feel like your assumptions about my game times and gen completions are coming from a lack of understanding what I'm able to do as killer while camping, and just how much influence I have over the progress of objectives.

  I'm not mindlessly chasing survivors and staring at them. As you have said, there is nuance.

  Perhaps I'll setup a screen capture so people can see what decisions I'm making throughout the trial, and whether or not I'm even playing as optimally as I could be.

  Nuance, skill, decision making, coordination and all that is makes it hard to make the claims you are. I already indicated that there is no one tactic suits all, as guess what you need to account for the situation that you are facing. Maybe they need to get a hook trade in there at some point and all strategies and tactics can be punished. By the sounds of it you are far beyond normal all players level of experienced and yet expect to be able to collect data to represent that?

  Every time you showcase more information about your actual gameplay the less it looks like a true objective face camping strategy and simply a proxy, area control style of play similar to what competitive players are doing and they do that for a reason. These results are a tribute to your abilities and they are impressive it isn't easy to achieve. It just isn't an objective representation of the strategy for the general player base. When most people encounter a face camper it just is more inline with what you see in those videos and not remotely close to a killer extending chases to get a better positioning on the map to defend and what other crazy mind boggling efficiencies you pull out of a hat.

  That is why I indicate that whether it is punished or not, depends on who is involved and how they play. The strategy has counters, it is just about execution at that point.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 30, 2021

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2720080#Comment_2720080

  I wasn't going to comment on this, because I watch a lot of Cru5h videos and know how good he is as both a player and a content creator.

  ...but I decided to watch, and this video does not demonstrate how to counter camping.

  Cru5h's demonstration here is pretty dependent on the basement lockers, so I'm going to address this as a basement-only scenario:

  1. If the Bubba really wanted to secure his basement kill, he should have been standing on the landing to chainsaw anyone coming down the stairs BEFORE they reached the hook. The only thing that could get past Bubba in that scenario is 3 Stacks of Mettle of Man, and even then the survivor will go down during unhook animation.
  2. Bubba should not have pulled Cru5h out of the locker while he was in Deep Wound. That is just a horrible play all-around on Bubba's part. If the Bubba played that correctly, Cru5h ends up on the ground every time and Bubba puts his teammate on the hook while he waits out Cru5h's DS.
  3. Cru5h's Dead Hard into locker was a really lucky play--either Bubba started chainsaw too late or Cru5h just has that much better internet. He should never have had the chance to Dead Hard, but even so... Bubba should have immediately pulled Cru5h out of the locker to eat the DS before Nea could use unbreakable, then hook the Nea and repeat Step 1.

  You already said that you recognize the strength of camping, so its a little futile to try and use this video to highlight possible counters when the killer in Cru5h's video made far too many mistakes.

  The point of Cru5h's is to demonstrate the validity and thought process behind countering a camp or how to approach the save. Each situation is different and it is on the adaptability, insight and understanding of the survivors to determine the best course of action in each case. There is nuance in the game each situation is slightly different and varied, which is part of the strength to the game. Where is the hook located, what is around it, where did you go down, how fast did the first down occur, etc.

  Personally my favorite example he pulls out is at around the 5 minutes mark. It showcases that if the initial survivor is able to get found at +/- 27 seconds, get downed at 1 min and change and is on the hook at 1:18 mins in. That is not a bad start from the bubba if you ask me, the initial find was decently quick, the chase was quite fast and the camp started. By 3 mins all the gens are done, it highlights the importance of doing gens.

  The main aspect of countering a camp is to know most importantly when to go for a save and secondly the ability to analyze how to approach it. Then you have nuances like when and how to trade hooks to buy more time if needed and those type of aspects. That is given that you even go for the save at all and not simply try to get the escape with 3 of the members of the team.

  Personally I think there is a far bigger core to the causality of why camping works and that has little to do with the killer and far more with the survivors seeking out interaction with the killer even at the determent of their team success or their own. It is less of an issue of whether camping can be punished, but with the resistance of people willing to execute it. Your average game times and gen completions in my opinion are clear indicators that this is the case, it is less about the escape and more about interacting with the killer.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 29, 2021

• @Munqaxus said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2720080#Comment_2720080

  • So your argument boils down to a video showing you how to counter camping that hasn't even been proven to work. You talk about confirmation bias, isn't the the height of confirmation bias. You are basically saying facecamping doesn't work because "this video". And completely ignore the fact that @KayTwoAyy and I have both proven that facecamping works flawlessly in 46 games. There's a difference between theory and practice and in practice, in practice facecamping works and rewards the killer. In theory it doesn't.

  I have laid out clear and in a civil manner how the data set being created is not accounting for causality and is setup to create a confirmation biased data set - you are dismissing data that negatively affects the numbers, but include data that heavily skewers the numbers in your favor; while hiding behind determined by the developers... while they actually exclude any data that is spoiled by DCs for instance. Instead of actually engaging with me on the subject, all you are doing is placing now demands of providing contrary proof and trying to push through your opinion simply because people are pointing out flaws of the metrics being used.

  • What are you wanting. To throw out every game that has a DC? We can do that. Our numbers will not show loses if we facecamping, while throwing out every game that is a DC. I have yet to drop below a 2 survivor kill rate, even without DC games included. @KayTwoAyy has a 4k kill rate without DCs.

  We don't have to prove anything to you, neither do you have to prove anything to us... yet you are the one wanting to conduct a test. I don't have an issue with camping, if that is how one wants to play feel free to do so and I have even stated my stance on the matter.

  • @KayTwoAyy and I don't have anything to prove to you either. You are very biased in wanting to keep facecamping, any data @KayTeeBee or I put on here, you will come up with some biased reasoning as to why it is meaningless. You are basically using what-ifs and maybes say that the sky isn't blue, while I am showing you that it is blue.
  • However, the takeaway here is that I can in practice (Not theory), take a Killer and win practically every game by facecamping.

  Let me ask you this. Did I not just play 20 games as Leatherface? Did I not get a 3.4 Kill rate with Leatherface while facecamping? Out of 20 games, facecamping as Leatherface, was there only 3 games, where I only got a draw? Out of 20 games with Leatherface, did I lose a single one?

  That video contains examples of matches in which they with their team execute it, it is even narrated by the content creator. Therefore how is it not proven to work? Guess you didn't actually watch the video and yet place judgement on it? Additionally it is not the sole video in which punishments are showcased by people; a simple search of Facecamp Karma DBD, etc can be found. Keep in mind to disprove a hypothesis a single example is enough according to a scientific approach.

  Even if you dismiss those data points you are still misrepresenting the data is it stands, even your fellow tester at least in their overview includes the fact that their kill rate is below 4. Even if you do not consider a hatch escape a negative deduction on the outcome, you did not kill them and just throwing them into the kill numbers is disingenuous.

  I am not denying that you can get results by face camping, never have. To take your the sky is blue metaphor: You are stating the sky is blue and is always blue. While I am pointing out that during the night it is black, when it is cloudy it is grey maybe with bits of blue shining through and yes at times it is also crystal clear blue. There are more factors to take into consideration and should be looked at if you want an objective take on the matter. The causality of why these results are created and how you created them and how to interpret them are actually important factors.

  Survivors can punish killers that face camp, getting a 4 man out is unlikely but a 3 man is most definitely achievable and yes a 2k is going to be a common result. That is if they are even trying to escape and punish you. Games lasting on average 9+ mins with 3 or less gens completed indicates that there is a severe lack of wanting to counter the tactic to begin with, especially if we simply trust it is being played at high level and I have no reason to doubt their account on this. The thing is that unless you are looking at competitive matches there is not a necessity to win or escape, which btw I brought up as a pretty decent source of material that indicates the strength of camping.

  Arguments of hey look I did this for X games straight, is like using the kill streak or escape streak of content creators as evidence of the actual fairness and balance of the game. It just showcases that it is possible to be done, but in no means is an actual objective measurement which you claim to be wanting to achieve.

  Who or where was it stated that I want to keep face camping? You are the actual person using this tactic to prove a point, while for me it is not my style at all. I have no issues with it when people do it, but by no means do I have an invested interest either way.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 29, 2021

• @Munqaxus said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719906#Comment_2719906

  ARE KILLERS ACTUALLY PUNISHED FOR CAMPING?

  The definitive answer is actual: "It depends". As it is based on who you face? You claim to care about all survivors, that means that against good, bad, solo's, swf, new, competitive players and whether you are punished for camping is purely reliant on the efficiency that they showcase and their teamwork.

  So far, the definitive answer is actually "Yes". Right now, no one has brought proof to the contrary. I think @KayTwoAyy and I have shown that facecamping is rewarding to the killer by giving a win condition, as defined by the developers, in the fact that the average kills is higher than a loss.

  Let's define facecamping for DBD, so everyone has the same definition.

  Facecamping /v/ Staying within about 6 meters of the hooked survivor. You can defend gens and slugged survivors in that radius. Faking leaving by going slightly outside that radius and coming right back is fine. Seeing a survivor and faking a chase by going slightly outside that radius and coming right back is fine.

  (So about slightly past that tree in the 8M photo below)

  https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/RKN9S7G6I51M/image.png

  Most times I just stand right in the survivors face and stare up at them. Recently, in the last 5 out of 20 games, I am trying to hook close to gens being worked so I have even more facecamping time by denying a gen.

  Sorry I didn't get any camping data last night, got busy doing home improvement projects.

  Here have a guide on how to counter camping and there are many more karma videos, guides, etc.

  https://youtu.be/T6EQnWbT40o

  The thing is that most teams don't actually do this - because they either don't care, don't want to play that efficient, find it boring, go for memes, are solos, new players, etc. It has been proven that a survivor team can punish killers that camp. In tournament play while they use camping it is not the only aspect they can rely on, because guess what the survivors know how to punish it. It does require the team to not give up, play around the tactic, have people stick it out, etc.

  The better the survivors are the more organized they are the more likely they are capable of punishing the strategy. You act like there isn't information out there that showcases the ability of survivors able to punish camping.

  I have laid out clear and in a civil manner how the data set being created is not accounting for causality and is setup to create a confirmation biased data set - you are dismissing data that negatively affects the numbers, but include data that heavily skewers the numbers in your favor; while hiding behind determined by the developers... while they actually exclude any data that is spoiled by DCs for instance. Instead of actually engaging with me on the subject, all you are doing is placing now demands of providing contrary proof and trying to push through your opinion simply because people are pointing out flaws of the metrics being used.

  We don't have to prove anything to you, neither do you have to prove anything to us... yet you are the one wanting to conduct a test. I don't have an issue with camping, if that is how one wants to play feel free to do so and I have even stated my stance on the matter.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 29, 2021

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719766#Comment_2719766

  All it actually shows by the data presented is that survivors are not that interested in playing that efficient or in that manner

  This statement is purely conjecture.

  You're also missing the point.

  We're not looking to see how camping performs against good survivors. We're interested in how well camping performs against ALL survivors.

  ARE KILLERS ACTUALLY PUNISHED FOR CAMPING?

  This is the title of this discussion.

  You can answer "not against good survivors," and that might be true.

  But if I only play against good survivors once every 100 games, then the answer to OP's question is definitively "no."

  That same logic is then applied to why I'm not discrediting d/c's, why I don't care about MMR, and why I don't care about the reason that camping is so effective.

  One Build vs Variable Builds

  Every killer has different needs, so it doesn't naturally follow that you can determine a playstyle by perks alone. How you camp as a killer is going to change based on which killer you are playing.

  For Example,

  • Billy, Bubba, Trickster & Pyramid Head will stand about 6-8m back and look at the hook so they can see incoming survivors and know when to activate M2
  • Huntress & Myers will stand about 2m back and look away from the hook, so they can hatchet & stalk incoming survivors
  • Deathslinger will circle anywhere with 16m so that he can always shoot survivors going for the save
  • Twins will hopefully place victor under the hook before pick-up, and then circle within a short range as Charlotte
  • Plague will circle within 10m and puke on anyone who comes near the hook

  All of these examples are camping, and they all look slightly different.

  The other issue with standardizing builds...

  A killer like Demo can leverage the benefits of Save the Best for Last, while Doctor is at the mercy of losing stacks whenever his obsession comes around. This can make or break a killer's performance, and it cannot be understated how important it is to experiment and determine the optimal camping builds on each killer.

  Thank you for using Markdown. <3

  I really appreciate the way you structured your response. It was very reader-friendly.

  Well the answer to the question:

  ARE KILLERS ACTUALLY PUNISHED FOR CAMPING?

  The definitive answer is actual: "It depends". As it is based on who you face? You claim to care about all survivors, that means that against good, bad, solo's, swf, new, competitive players and whether you are punished for camping is purely reliant on the efficiency that they showcase and their teamwork.

  MMR doesn't matter you state, but it is a pretty important metric in determining your ration to when you face survivors that can potentially punish you for camping or not. The matchmaking system is what is going to make it either 1 in 100 or 99 in 100 games, it will also be determined on time of day, region and luck on who you face.

  Metric of Camping

  Not all forms of camping are one and the same and as I stated are useful tools to use. Expanding the parameters of camping means that you are looking a far more than the typical face camper at 5 gens complaint, which is fair enough yet doesn't completely align with the initial premise portrayed of face camping.

  Optimization

  Optimization of each killer by perks, add-ons, etc. also changes the premise of the actual results. Just like anything in this game if you are dead set on going in all out with the best of the best, you most likely will be successful. This mainly has to do that there is a wide variety of what people can actually bring and the best setups usually require the other side to bring somewhat of an equivalent level else they will struggle more. You are stacking the cards in your favor, against the all player base.

  The truth of this game is that the more you go out to be as sweaty and try-hard as you can, the more likely you are going to succeed. It doesn't mean that camping isn't punished or not, as we have established; it depends on who you face.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 29, 2021

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719405#Comment_2719405

  The fact that they did not complete gens, showcases the fact that it is not the killer being rewarded, but the survivors messing up. 

  I don't care about the WHY? I'm not studying the reason why camping is so strong--just whether or not it pays out.

  This study is trying to look at X and you're upset that we aren't concerning ourselves with Y.

  I'm not playing competitive either (and neither are most of the community's players), so what works for them is largely irrelevant to this study.

  I could be playing competitive, if you're really concerned about what MMR I'm playing at. I was asked to build a comp team with R I V E N and his friends, who play/played for the Golden Wolves. If you follow comp at all those names should be familiar to you.

  Its so tedious arguing with people who tell me "that doesn't work at high MMR" when I play against DBD's "best" every single day.

  There is some perverted fantasy that people have about "high MMR" DBD that is so far off from reality.

  I include d/c's because they are a survivor saying "I give up--you win."

  Hatches are null, period. They are a coin toss. A statistical anomaly.

  They are a free pass to the last survivor standing, and say nothing about the match that happened leading up to its spawn.

  Running the same build on every killer is not the proper way to analyze each killer's camping strength.

  Perks that make one killer stronger might be useless or less effective on others.

  I can see why you'd think that is the proper way to run the study, but if you want to really analyze the strength of camping you need to give each killer the strongest loadout for camping. It is for that reason that in my first study with Bubba I needed to acknowledge that I did not use the best perks because I did not have them--I could have seen better results with better perks.

  I could see people making a case for "no perks & add-ons," but the counter-argument to that would be that no one ever does that. No Perks & Add-Ons is not "average DBD." Such a study would not be a representation of how strong camping is on average.

  The statement of people is actually that if survivors respond properly that face camping does not pay out. Therefore the full scale of data and actually determining whether the tactic is rewarding or that survivors are simply being punished for playing poorly is relevant.

  As I've said many times before, I'm not concerned about the WHY with this study.

  You can say "good survivors won't get 4k'd by camping" all you want.

  But if 10,000 games go by and I still have a 100% kill rate, either 'good survivors' don't exist, or you're just wrong. Regardless, I'd have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that camping pays out.

  Most people won't ever play that many games of DBD.

  The Why

  You cannot call it a study if you do not actually concern yourself of the causality of the outcome. In order to determine the does it pay out, you also need to analyze why that is the case.

  Looking at X, concerning about Y

  Competitive play and high MMR, it is funny that you are so upset about this as I made none of the claims you are upset about. I simply asked at which level of play are you looking for efficiency rate and actually pointed to competitive play to showcase data that shows the potential strength and effectiveness of camping. Competitive players are far beyond the high MMR bracket and they actually showcase when the use of camping is effective and should be used. They also show that the efficiency and survivors are a big impact in the outcome.

  Hatches are null, yet DC is saying I give up?

  You use the metrics of the developers and want to account for the meaning of a hatch escape. Yet you do not account for the effects of a DC on the remainder of the match, while they are statistically far more impactful to the outcome of the data. A DC is not just a I give up, but a huge momentum swing in favor of the killer and resulting in a far bigger likelihood of the remainder of the survivors perishing. For that exact same reason the developers themselves have stated to exclude this data from their results. This just showcases your double standard and confirmation biased setup.

  Running the same build on every killer

  You claim this is the wrong approach, as custom builds will maximize the potential of the killers to achieve the job that is done. Yet that is the whole counter argument against doing so, as it adds additional variables that benefit the outcome that you seek to achieve and prove. Choosing a build that would work on all killers, to answer the question whether it is effective on all killers removes this inconsistency. Same goes for add-ons as they can severely impact the strength of the killer and they aren't always going to be using that setup.

  By creating one build for all your killers you need to make choices to suit the tactic specifically instead of suiting the killer. The fact is that you aren't purely looking at the effectiveness of camping in a silo as you claim. You are actually leveraging additional tactics like proxying, 3 gens, slugging into the mix and while that indeed increases your likelihood to win it is not face camping as presented in this thread.

  Good survivors won't get 4ked by camping.

  If you want to analyze whether that is the case, you can simply look at competitive play. They are the best survivors in the world, with usually limited builds and actions. If you want pure data points and efficiency, you can even look at games where Bubba is played as those nearly always end up in a in true camp only strategy.

  My actual stands on the matter

  It seems that by me simply pointing out the flaws in your approach and the conclusions not actually showcasing the causality that you claim it does. In my point of view and my own experience, knowledge the act of camping is a valid strategy and if used properly at the right times will most definitely pay-out. This is also supported by looking at competitive players and the fact that it is considered try-harding.

  To play killer effectively at higher ranks I even believe it is somewhat of a necessity unless you completely outclass your opponents, which I do not or they have to be inefficient. I don't believe that playing nice is actually efficient or viable against better survivors, in my experience the only games you can play nice is when survivors mess up/outclasses/not playing efficient which happens frequent enough - as you point out accurately most of the community isn't that interested in being optimal.

  Though I wouldn't mind seeing an actual test to show the actual efficiency of camping for all killers, yet the premise of your test does not lend itself to that at all. All it actually shows by the data presented is that survivors are not that interested in playing that efficient or in that manner, rather than rewarding the killer it is highlighting the survivors are not playing properly against it; yet that is already a known fact, look at all the complaints about it.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 29, 2021

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719328#Comment_2719328

  1. I'll pose the same quesiton to you as I did to AngyKiller... who would you like to see put to the camp test? Because I'll happily play the "worst" camping killers--so that you can say "okay, maybe they aren't the worst camping killer, play 'so-and-so' instead."
  2. Slugging a survivor in front of a hooked survivor is absolutely still camping. There is an ebb and flow to the game, and while there are moments of ambiguity, my strategy by and large is to camp. If two survivors go down in front of a hook, because I camped that hook, I've demonstrated the strengths of camping, and will continue to do so as I stand over my slug and watch the newly hooked survivor.
  3. Yes, it is. Thank you captain obvious. It doesn't take a PHD to figure that out. Would you like to help with this study, so that we may collect more data, or just play armchair statistician in the forums? God forbid you showed up on day one of a new experiment to see that only 20 games have been played. News Flash: This is an on-going test.
  4. Again, the only data point we care about is kills. Everything else is absolutely irrelevant, because there is no formal 'control' in DBD. Every game is different, and the only way to acknowledge that fact is to test and test and test. You may want to look at other datapoints (for your own interests), but this study only cares about kills. That is what we would call a "research focus." Like it or not, survivors playing sub-optimally or disconnecting belongs in the collection of data. These players fall under the umbrella of "average players," and are representatives of the typical DBD experience. Biased data would be ignoring d/c's, bad survivors (and good survivors), because they are outliers. Likewise, only looking at d/c's, bad survivors, or good survivors is biased data because a person does not see only these players every game.
  5. Hatch counts as null. I implore you to watch this clip from the last Q&A to understand why we are counting hatch escapes against average kills, but not kill rate. https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx4qxanekkxgYO_-0O4-Qtn-eW7gq71jq8

  People are claiming that camping doesn't pay out

  That is the whole reason this forum discussions was created in the first place. People say all the time that camping is weak and it only nets you 1 kill--2 kills if the survivors are bad.

  So @Munqaxus decided to begin collecting data to show "hey, on average, a killer can actually get 3-4 kills by camping."

  Your critique of the current data is valid*.

  Your assumption that I'm presenting this data and saying "case closed" is wrong.

  *You've selectively disregarded the fact that the survivors I've faced thus far are not even completing an average of 3 gens, and that none of the 10 games I played as Nemesis saw 5 gens completed.

  The fact that they did not complete gens, showcases the fact that it is not the killer being rewarded, but the survivors messing up. There is a clear difference there as the more proficient the survivors are the less likely they are to mess up. Therefore at what skill level are you aiming to determine the efficiency of the strategy. Among new players I bet it will nearly always net a 3 to 4k, but doubt the same can be said at highest level of play looking at competitive play.

  Ignoring all stats but kills, while ignoring hatches, counting dc games and other aspects is not focus it is biased selection of data points. Hatches are null for MMR rating by the devs, yet are you trying to analyze MMR or the effectiveness of killing survivors. The developers also exclude any DC games from their stats for obvious reasons as they have indicated when sharing stats multiple times, so why don't you do the same? See the selective analysis on your end?

  As I have stated before the best way to account for killers is to run the same build on the whole roster, don't use add ons and set parameters for the definition of camping you want to test. As it currently stands it sounds like just play mean, proxy, slug, 3 gen and protect an area is what you are actually testing rather than face camping alone.

  The statement of people is actually that if survivors respond properly that face camping does not pay out. Therefore the full scale of data and actually determining whether the tactic is rewarding or that survivors are simply being punished for playing poorly is relevant.

  Want to see efficiency of camping, competitive play is actually fairly good at showing when it is effectively used and to what degree you should do it for maximum effect.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 29, 2021

• @Pulsar said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719268#Comment_2719268

  Honestly, the more I read it, the more I regret trying to use an example that hasn't happened to me.

  A more recent example would be this: A good Blight who was running Ruin, Undying and PGTW was absolutely hammering me and my friend. He had 7 hooks by the time the gens were done and 1 Kill. I was death hook, but everyone was healthy. He catches me and my friend out of position near the gate and I get downed. My friend begins running to the other gate as I get hooked. Blight catches up and manages to interrupt the gate opening by downing the girl on the gate. He gets a 4K.

  That's where I usually see NOED come into play. On good Killers in close games.

  It is a strong perk and can push a close game into an advantageous position for a killer or even turn a bad game into a closer one. Just as good perks and the meta can push it into the favor of the survivors. For your story of when NOED took away your escape, I have just as many where DS for instance allowed for a free escape in the end game or a DH that extended the chase causing an additional gen or 2 to pop. Just yesterday they were unhooked, the other 3 were body blocking me trying to prevent me from downing them after I hit them with BT and yet I managed to snipe 2 crows between them to down them near the exit gate, pushed their friends out and was able to pick up just before they left for my 1k (no NOED) and what happened: DS and that 1k turned into a 0k.

  Perks are impactful in this game and once again how is this any different than those cases of survivors? Take any of the exhaustion perks, unbreakable, DS, etc. they turn a situation that was bad into a good one. These type of perks come into play at timings where normally you would be at a disadvantage and turns them into an additional chance and/or benefit. That is just part of what makes them good perks and why people pick them.

  in Interesting comment on a NOED video... Comment by Kalinikta December 29, 2021

• @KayTwoAyy said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2718415#Comment_2718415

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2718494#Comment_2718494

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2718538#Comment_2718538

  You've all brought up some great points, but you're turning a blind-eye to what is going on here.

  ---

  @RainehDaze i'm sorry mate, but your take is just wrong. Would footage validate my study? Yes, absolutely. And I'd be more than happy to stream this to someone on Twitch or Discord, but I'm not wasting my storage space on footage I know no one is going to watch. You're just calling for more requirements because you want to play the antagonist.

  Perks, Grades, and even a guess at my MMR will not answer the question OP initially set out to answer. That information might answer "what is the best way to counter camping?", but it doesn't say anything about an average player signing on for the night and deciding to camp in every single game they play that day. Because as I said before, if I were to do this for 10,000 games my data would likely reflect every possible scenario a camping killer can run into. If my kill rate is still 100% on Nemesis after all those games (or close to it), then there is no debate as to how viable camping is in DBD.

  That data might speak more to my ability to play the game than camping in general, but no one said this has to be a one-man gig. You (and everyone else who has read this thread) are more than welcome to contribute your own data points and participate in the study. But if you don't want to, that is on you. Don't waltz in here and act like we're villains for "withholding information" as we showcase our kill counts after 10 games each night.

  Bottom line: I'm not your lab rat. I'm not going to give you "proper numbers" when they're wholely irrelevant from the task at hand. Get up off your ass and contribute to the study or watch the numbers pour in and see if I'm really being punished for camping after 100 games.

  ---

  @Kalinikta yes and no. Confirmation bias is the "interpretation of evidence as confirmation of one's existing belief." Depending on which way the numbers go, I think you could make a case that this is confirmation bias, but as it stands this is not confirmation bias. The data is objective, and it is very relevant to the topic at hand (with some additional irrelevant information such as map & trial time).

  @Munqaxus made an observation, created a hypotehesis, and is now testing that hypothesis. The only data that is relevant to this study is kills, because all other data is variable and uncontrollable to the killer (save for perks and add-ons). Therefore, if we were to carry this study out over 10,000 games--preferably with others helping reach that number--the average kill rate across all games will answer OP's question.

  Look at my data on Nemesis, and you'll see I out-performed Bubba by a large margin. I'm going to play another M1 killer tonight, and I'm confident I'll do just as well.

  ---

  @AngyKiller we're not really concerning ourself with the WHY right now. We're only looking to answer the question of "is it?"

  I'd argue that a killer great in chase is better than Bubba at camping, because they can down the first survivor faster and therefore outpace the speed at which gens can be completed.

  So while you may want to concern yourself with the reasons that camping is so effective, this study is simply aiming to acknowledge whether or not killers who camp are performing worse or better than the community believes they do.

  The point I am making it is not objective at all, as it is set out to create data to support the underlying hypothesis as it stands. One can setup the data collection to support their desired outcome to ensure that it ends up as they please and that is exactly what I have showcased. This is a form of confirmation biased, as you are allowing your pre-judgement determine the parameters of your results and extending it far beyond the actual scope of what you are testing. As a result the conclusion being made fall within the premise of confirmation biased, as you are already set out to create a data set to confirm what your hypothesis is.

  Why is your data not objective:

  1. It uses solely the best camping killers in the game to collect the data, while claiming to be true for all killers. Even the secondary killer you bring forth is specifically picked for their characteristics to be more powerful in the camping department by your own admission.
  2. The parameters on what actual camping is, is extended to consider tactics such as hooking within a 3 gen by your own admission once again: to be able to not only protect the hook but also place pressure on the gens and using more than just camping to achieve the goal of killing. To be honest I assume you also slugged when required to maximize your pressure upon the survivors. This no longer falls under the premise of face camping, but into the category of proxy camping as showcased by the fact that you are protecting the area itself and all that. Not that I believe that is wrong, they are plays to try and win the game and maximize your kills, however in terms of proving a point regarding camping it skewers the data in your favor to prove your point.
  3. The amount of data collected is miniscule and unreliable as in such a small pool the fact that such a high percentage of games contain people DCing showcases that no true conclusions can be taken from that pool.
  4. Claiming that certain aspects of the data is irrelevant while actually they are very important for interpreting the data, showcases once again the interpretation biased that you have. The fact that matches last over 9 mins on average means that survivors are not playing optimal, is that rewarding the killer or punishing the mistakes of survivors?
  5. You claim it is about kills, yet exclude data where you did not kill the survivors and count them as kills... hatch. Another case of skewering the data into your favor by interpretation of the data.

  Nobody is claiming that camping cannot pay out, everyone knows this fact based on how the game goes and how the survivors play it can net you a 4k. We also all know that certain killers are better at it than others, yet this does not mean that killers are factually objectively rewarded for face camping.

  Lets take your data, look at it objectively:

  • Average game time 9.06 mins.
  • 20% of the games contained a DC
  • 20% of the games has No Mither gamers
  • 10% had a brand new part
  • 30% had a hatch escape, meaning not a kill. (average kill rate of 3.6)
  • 10% had a kobe, though not sure why that would matter if you are face camping unless they run DS
  • Used alternative strategies such as proxy camping, 3 gens
  • Only a sample size of 10 games

  Lets look at the time frames of a game:

  • 3 Gens in 80 seconds, with a 60 second delay due to deadlock (considering horrible timing) = 140 seconds
  • 2 Gens at 80 seconds with a 30 second delay due to deadlock = 110 seconds
  • 12 seconds of delay + 12 seconds per new survivor hooked + 20 seconds to open = max 80 seconds

  Totaling a total of 5:30 of efficiency time required by the survivors, that leaves almost 4 minutes to find the gens, get to the gens and figure out your are camping and not considering the time it would take to chase 2 members of the team and down them. Additionally successful hook trades would extend the time they have significantly as well, as we are assuming you get full value from the no-way out perk as they are no even doubling up on gens, meaning after the first 3 gens they have 1 person spare to do the trade. There is no grand well coordinated escapes to reset the situation, which we know is possible and all that jazz.

  The fact of the matter is that the data you have collected isn't showcasing the solid evidence you believe it does on the blanket statement you want to make about face camping. The numbers do not line up, the data points you presented showcase clear bias, extension of the parameters, events that skewer the numbers in your favor and clear mismanagement of time by the survivors.

  Ruin should not actually come into play when using face camping tactics and RNG of the zombies is solely attributed to Nemesis and not to the tactic of face camping. Just as the ability to mow threw and secure kills on Bubba are specific attributes to that killer that doesn't translate to others.

  For the record I do not know if your hypothesis is wrong or not, nor at which level of play it is more effective or not and as I stated previously from a curiosity point of view I would be actually interested in knowing the result. I am not trying to disprove your hypothesis, as I do not have the data to back that up. However, I can view your data and objectively state that you don't have the data to prove it either. As it currently stands it is purely anecdotal evidence being presented in a manner trying to mask itself as objective factual data. From my anecdotal viewpoint face camping is a risk/reward that can pay out or not, the better surivors you come across the less likely it will and yes you can try and maximize your chances by picking specific killers and perks it is by no means as successful as you claim.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 29, 2021

• @Pulsar said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719192#Comment_2719192

  So you think if a Killer gets 0 hooks in the trial prior to 5 gens being done but gets a 2K because of NOED it's fair?

  Because that doesn't seem fair to anyone.

  Why not? If you are good enough to ensure that a killer gets 0 hooks prior to the end game, you clearly had time to do all the totem even if it extended the match to double its length or the ability to find the 1 totem that spawned NOED before they manage to get a kill. To be honest that sounds far more like an overconfidence issue on the survivors end than something to attribute to a perk; the one shot ability should have literally zero effect on final out come.

  Survivors have perks that reward failure, why should that be exclusive to that side and not have an equivalent on the killer end?

  in Interesting comment on a NOED video... Comment by Kalinikta December 28, 2021

• @Munqaxus said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2718494#Comment_2718494

  I agree this is in no way a scientific study, I'm not going to cure cancer with this data, lol. However, I think this data is important because currently, the commonly held belief is that facecamping does not reward the killer and we can see from this data that it actually greatly rewards the killer. I did choose a killer who is famous for facecamping but if you look at @KayTwoAyy data a couple of posts above this one, you will see he was able to produce the same results with a Killer not-known for camping, with a 100% kill rate in the 10 games he played.

  However, there is a reason I'm sticking with the same killer. It's because to get more accurate data, I have to get a lot of data points using the same setup. And for that, I have to play the same killer. I don't want to screw up my MMR on the killers I like to play, so I picked a Killer I'm not really fond of playing and haven't played in a long time.

  I guess I should mention that I always play with 2 brown add ons, Vegetable Oil and Spark Plug. I also only use bloodpoint offerings.

  I think the take-away here is that there is absolutely no data on facecamping up until now. Now players can see actual data on facecamping. I would be more than happy if other players tried the same thing with other killers, like @KayTwoAyy is doing, because there's just no way I can do 50ish games with each killer, facecamping the entire time. It's just too much for anyone to do.

  I think @KayTwoAyy data with Nemesis is actually more telling than mine with Leatherface, since he's able to pull out a 100% win rate, facecamping with basically a M1 Killer and no way to stop unsafe saves.

  You are sticking to 1 killer, that is super known for facecamping and claim that is to create more accurate data. Yet you claim to want to see if it rewards killers in general, but all you are testing is whether it rewards Bubba? Then take out of consideration that your MMR is lower on that killer compared to others, meaning that your notion of being outclassed seems a little disingenuous or assumes that your general killer skill would not benefit you, while also lowering the overall rating of the opponents - yet accounting for this I will give you is not really in your control and without any numbers being displayed is hard to say; Yet you have brought it up multiple times that your opponents are better than you, without any true objective manner to determine this.

  10 games on 1 different killer is once again meaningless in the grand scheme of data getting a streak has little meaning, which by the person conducting the test once again picked them specifically for their characteristics to support this strategy. Additionally they are indicating that they aren't truly face camping, but proxy camping meaning they actually create a far bigger area that they control making it far easier to go for hook trades. If you look at their results, they indicate multiple games with DC's which skewers the data greatly in the killers favor, same applies to not counting hatch escapes as a negative on their kill rate (regardless of how MMR sees it, you didn't kill them). One game they even note a proxy camp within a 3 gen area, which rewards far more than just camping - as you are pressuring 3 gens alongside with it. Therefore this data is not actually clean when it comes to analyzing the reward of face camping - as now you are pressuring gens, there is less time on hook spent by survivors as they rage quit etc. The average time it took to end the game was over 9 mins according to their data, they were able to hook trade and yet all die: does that showcase the killer being rewarded for camping or the average survivors playing badly or their area control applying pressure to gens on top of pressuring the hook being rewarded?

  This is what I actually mean with confirmation bias setup, instead of using for instance the same build on multiple killers or picking a killer that literally has nothing meaningful that contributes to using the tactic of face camping. Not distinguishing between face camping and proxying in combination with a 3 gen and using all that data to create some type of argument: All Killers are rewarded by face camping instead of punished is simply untrue.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 28, 2021

• @Munqaxus

  How you are setting this up and presenting it is what we call confirmation bias, you are seeking to confirm and support your hypothesis rather than collecting objective data. The data you are producing does not actually correlate to the topic that you are presenting.

  Simply playing only Bubba, who everyone knows is the king of camping and claiming any data gathered on him can be used to state all killers are rewarded is a false narrative; as no other killer can actually do it at the same efficiency level. A scientific approach would need far more data points, identical builds on each killer in order to even come close to a determination of the statement claimed in your subject line.

  If you are truly willing to showcase that face camping is to easy and rewarded, maybe pick a killer that is not by default good at it? That is something I personally would actually find interesting to read.

  in Are Killers Actually Punished for Camping Comment by Kalinikta December 28, 2021

• @thefallenloser said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2715319#Comment_2715319

  This isn’t even my argument LMAO. The problem is with the design and I’m not suggesting the solution be nerfs or taking away the fun of one side. I’m asking for tweaks so that both sides can have fun.

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2715666#Comment_2715666

  I feel like you skimmed over what I said instead of actually reading and understanding lol. Also kinda annoying that you’re claiming I’m angry as a sort of underhanded insult lol.

  Let me spell it out for you in a way that’s easy to understand:

  This is a discussion on how I FEEL about The Artist, NOT a rework suggestion. Otherwise, I’d put it in the feedback section (not sure why the mods moved it here, I put it in GD).

  The purpose of the suggested tweaks were what I feel would make her feel a bit less frustrating to play against. That doesn’t mean that those are exclusively what needs to happen, nor do they all need to happen. It’s simply a list of ideas. Not to mention, at least one of those suggestions (hook camping strat) is a pretty negligible change for a halfway decent killer, this should also apply to say… Hag as well.

  Again, I’m not mad at the feedback on the post, I understand, but the difference between your comments and some others is that you come off as annoying and dismissive, while some of the others at least are open to actual discussion. Maybe try giving better feedback or actually having faith in the poster, I dunno. Unless you’re actually suggesting that I post some sort of “proof” that I’ve played killers before talking about changes to be made, I think I’ve earned enough merit with my post history.

  "Here are some of my suggestions to scale back on some of these frustrating mechanics to make her a bit more healthy, while retaining as much of her strength as possible."

  I "skimmed" the message, while I responded to the main points that would impact the game in more detail than most. Yet none of them contain a resemblance of retaining any strength aspect and the notions of what is frustrating and why that is the case is purely subjective and not based on an objective view of both sides. Literally everything suggested are flat out nerfs.

  The fact is simple just gutting the killers power, making it more clunky and unreliable is not trying to make it more fun for both sides. Any decent player with a resemblance of fair play would be objective enough to consider both sides. You however don't want to view it from both sides, yet call me dismissive because I point it out.

  Calling out players skill is by the way low for someone that clearly should work on their own, free hits from range with a 9 second window to respond... any decent survivors will be able to acknowledge that it isn't free.

  You placed it in general discussion, yet the mods determined based on its contents it should be in Feedback and you can dismiss my opinion all you want. The tone is all in your mind, you placing it on me doesn't make it dismissive or annoying that is your own interpretation. You are simply not objectively aware of the artists perspective in any of your suggestions and yet claim she isn't OP... yet nerf her into the ground on what premise, a subjective view not even objectively correct; you admitted that is is purely a feeling? This is not your monologue area, make a blog or YouTube video if you don't want feedback.

  in The Artist is Unfair and Unfun, But Not OP Comment by Kalinikta December 27, 2021

• @thefallenloser said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2713111#Comment_2713111

  I said they feel like free hits, not that they are. Also these are just suggestions, not a proposed rework, like I’ve mentioned 5 times already lol.

  You claimed to have played her, yet fail to realize they are not free hits! Feeling has literally nothing to do with the reality! Being hit at range by a huntress is exactly the same, just without a 9 second warning to dodge it! The survivors objectively have way more input to avoid ranged shot than against say a huntress, there is nothing free about it and if it still feels that way for the survivor... then they should maybe notice they have crows on them? She projects the fact she is going to try and snipe you after her first shot?!

  You made suggestions and I commented on them. They are all aimed at gutting the killers power into oblivion without actual merit. There is no make it feel better, yet let's try to keep her fun to play. You opened a discussion and laid forth these nerfs up for discussion, no need to get angry that people actually respond to what you said rather than your out in the open make a different killer isn't a rework suggestion.

  in The Artist is Unfair and Unfun, But Not OP Comment by Kalinikta December 26, 2021

• @thefallenloser said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2712530#Comment_2712530

  I have played Artist— so this is an odd insinuation that I haven’t. I win with her a lot. I guess I face “good” survivors. I have the same problem playing as her as I did with Spirit. She’s too easy.

  The fact that you claim long shots are free hits I highly doubt it. All your suggestions are flat nerfs, aimed to gut her abilities and make her more clunky.

  She can place down a trap at a loop, but good survivors abuse that fact and go to the next, they simply kite you around and go back and forth between loops. Which means a chase takes long aka gens are popping. It is purely useful against people that are not that good or specific areas where you can keep them there.

  Most good survivors won't be hit by a simple trap, they also can try and bait the shot, dh through it, even if quick enough touch the bird and all that.

  She is quite strong, but has counterplay and she needs to adapt to the survivors and use her skill. Her trap style has a clear counter, move away and so if an artist is going to have any decent timed chase? They need to use more than just that.

  You find her to easy, because what she is strong? She provides information about what she is doing to survivors and they can respond. There is counterplay and adaptability for it, which I for one find incredibly fun.

  in The Artist is Unfair and Unfun, But Not OP Comment by Kalinikta December 24, 2021

• At specific spots you are trapped? Maybe that is bad positioning of the survivors or extremely good herding by the killer.

  Cross map shots free hits? Not ample time to respond? That means you are extremely predictable, don't repel crows or she went for a high risk move and you greeded.

  Hook radius is fine and the crows are easily enough avoided, it isn't even remotely as good as the Hag at this. Removal of well timed moving crows?

  Punish her more for placing down crows? Are you telling us that 2.5 seconds with her dropping below survivors speed isn't enough. It feels clunky as is...

  People, maybe go play the killer first at a decent level before they try to make nerf suggestions. She is skill based, she has counters and you state she isn't OP... which means she is actually fair? Because that is what that means.

  Facing an artist learn to repel instantly you don't lose speed doing so, move more unpredictable and bait shots and know when to leave a tile, positioning and all that. There is gameplay to be had on both sides.

  in The Artist is Unfair and Unfun, But Not OP Comment by Kalinikta December 24, 2021

• Guess you also condone camping, tunneling and slugging. The same logic applies afterall, they won't feel bad if the killer gets crushed, so use what you want?

  Sounds like a valid take.

  in I 100% understand why survivors feel the need to rush gens in every match. Comment by Kalinikta December 16, 2021

• @Canas said:

  I had great hopes for this killer but after playing several games on her I can say with certainty that she's yet another weak killer with no actual power in chase.

  The biggest gripe is how easy it is to repel her crows and how long it takes to chain two hits together just to even deal damage on her. The worst aspect however - and that's the thing which makes her borderline unplayable to me - is the fact that her power gets DISABLED whenever she's close to a hook. And this happens without a survivor even being on it.

  This is absolutely awful, all it takes to completely shut down this killer's power is to run past one of several hooks on the map. I see no reason in playing her anymore until this issue gets addressed.

  She is alright, I am having a bunch of fun playing her. It is a killer that for the most part feels like your skill, timing and that of the survivors actually matter.

  To chain 2 crow shots in a chase you must shoot them 1 by 1 unless they vault, pallet drop, etc. Then you can do a 1 followed up by 2 sometimes 3. The window to hit your second shot is short. (This is assuming you aren't using her best addons)

  Her power works near hooks and is only disabled when you placed a survivor on it. Not sure why you think that it is not the case.

  The most frustrating aspect is more the map verticality even slight elevations sometimes messes her up.

  in The Artist is a severe disappointment Comment by Kalinikta December 12, 2021

• Boons as a concept are alright, even the reblessing of them. Maybe just give them a CD? CoH could use some tweaking though. No need to power creep the other side to compensate.

  in It's funny, Boons did something good: It proved survivors DO have time to look for totems. Comment by Kalinikta December 12, 2021

• Literally useless perk idea, as people would notice it and open the gate. Why would they 99 it at that point?

  Also, there is a significant stronger version already in the game, if is called: No way out! Hook 4 people and it blocks the exits for a full min. You are not going to be able to get that type of value based on this rework.

  NOED is fine, it a decent perk and by no means as powerful as people make it out to be. It is unfun... it is just a hex that activates at the end of the match, you literally got to play the entirety of the match. People that whine about this are way to focused on their result.

  in Rework NOED as a ‘Ruin’ for exit gates Comment by Kalinikta December 12, 2021

• @dugman said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2690507#Comment_2690507

  I gave an answer, I said I didn’t know how many hooks I get on average when there are no escapes so I wasn’t going to speculate on it. Saying “I don’t know the number” is me answering the question from my perspective.

  And again, I didn’t cherry pick, I literally quoted their whole post. I don’t think the phrase “cherry pick” means what you think it means.

  And finally the subject line of the thread wasn’t the whole question, the whole question was in the original post,

  I’m not sure why you’re having such a difficult time with being told you apparently misread the post, but whatever. 🤷‍♂️

  Dude... you left out a sentence, yet claim to quote their whole post - factually a lie see below:

  @dugman said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2689309#Comment_2689309

  Just FYI here’s the original post

  (Without kills)

  I have between 3-4 hooks in most of my games and 1 if the survivors are really good.

  I wanted to ask, how many hooks do you usually have when everyone escape?

  @Anniehere said:

  (Without kills)

  I have between 3-4 hooks in most of my games and 1 if the survivors are really good.

  I wanted to ask, how many hooks do you usually have when everyone escape?

  I play as killer once in a while so I don't know if these numbers are relatively good.

  Can you spot the difference? For someone that claims I am misreading, you really have difficulty spotting the last line in a 4 line post. Which I already pointed out... clearly you misread that as well? I don't think you are in a position to make claims on the ability of someone to read.

  Unlike you I actually read the entirety of the post, from the subject line to the last sentence and gave information on their initial question the subject line and insight to whether or not their numbers are relatively good.

  The difference between us is that instead of telling the person seeking help, that I don't know... I provide them with the information I do know or at least my perspective on the matter. You however feel the need to comment on my answer, because it isn't up to your standards?

  Where is your insight? Ooh yeah, you don't know. Why are you singling me out and bashing me for my experience and perspective? I am not the only person in this post that stated numbers larger than 8, which btw isn't even the sole criteria of getting a kill... 3 hook stages can be enough. You even ignored my final point in my post; It is more about how it feels than the actual number, because I can also feel pretty good at less or bad at higher amounts simply how the game actually goes.

  For the record, when I initially talked about cherry picking it was about the games I would reflect in my answer. But you know... I have difficulty reading?

  "because if I cherry pick 4 man escapes, it isn't really accurate."

  " Therefore if I cherry pick my games and state that I get max 8 hooks, then it undermines their ability to assess the relative performance against that of others, which is also part of the topic."

  So, I gave you an explanation to why I listed the numbers that I did.

  Yet you cherry pick to respond to sections of my posts, you cherry pick the one question from their post and ignore the context.

  I don't know, but dude... you really need to learn to read yourself before you single out others to tell them they are unable to comprehend. Context is important and if you read the post of the OP, there is more to it than just that 2nd question. You are just being an entitled prick, just because I try and give someone some insight into their performance relative to my own and even indicate to not focus to much on the numbers, but the fun of it.

  in How many hooks do you have at the end of the match? Comment by Kalinikta December 11, 2021

• @dugman said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2689825#Comment_2689825

  I literally gave my answer above. If you don’t like me explaining how you misread a post that’s you’re problem, not mine,

  I gave my answer to the question stated, yet that you are incapable of answering the question and feel entitled to criticize others for theirs... showcases you have no interest in the actual conversation. You cherry pick the message he gave, as I showcased clearly. I gave them an answer to the question in the title, a reference for relativity on how good they did based on their hook states... and what has your contribution been?

  You have not given your answer as you stated yourself you don't know how to answer it.

  in How many hooks do you have at the end of the match? Comment by Kalinikta December 10, 2021

• @dugman said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2689678#Comment_2689678

  I literally quoted the entire original post, I’m not sure how you think I “cherry picked“ anything.

  And yes, I read your post, my point was you apparently just read the subject line and didn’t read the post itself and assumed they were asking asking a different question than what they actually asked. I’m not dictating anything, I’m just saying you didn’t read their post.

  And that’s my contribution to the topic, clearing up a misconception that some people like yourself have about the question that was asked. I don’t know the answer to the actual question itself so I didn’t speculate on that.

  Yet you left out conveniently their last sentence:

  "I play as killer once in a while so I don't know if these numbers are relatively good."

  To display whether those numbers are actually relatively good, you need to account for the full experience of people as killer. Especially when they indicate that they in most of their games don't get over 4 hook states. Therefore if I cherry pick my games and state that I get max 8 hooks, then it undermines their ability to assess the relative performance against that of others, which is also part of the topic.

  You are not contributing to the topic, you are actually derailing it by acting as if you know the intentions of the OP. You don't answer their question, because you don't know the answer of how many hooks you have at the end of a match? Stop trying to tell other people that are actually trying to engage with the OP on their query about how they are not answering it properly, while refusing to give your own answer to their question.

  My answer is mine to give, if you want to give yours... feel free to do so. Yet if you are unable to word your own answer... you are hypocritical to assume you can word mine.

  in How many hooks do you have at the end of the match? Comment by Kalinikta December 10, 2021

• @dugman said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2689309#Comment_2689309

  Just FYI here’s the original post

  (Without kills)

  I have between 3-4 hooks in most of my games and 1 if the survivors are really good.

  I wanted to ask, how many hooks do you usually have when everyone escape?

  Subject line:
  

  HOW MANY HOOKS DO YOU HAVE AT THE END OF THE MATCH?
  

  They also indicate in their post:

  "I have between 3-4 hooks in most of my games and 1 if the survivors are really good."

  "I play as killer once in a while so I don't know if these numbers are relatively good."

  If you read my post and those of others in the responses, we respond based on the full context of the question and not to a cherry pick only our worst games to create a false sense of belief whether or not these numbers are relatively good. I even stated exactly what type of performances based on the hooks played would be considered bad, decent, good and amazing.

  Who exactly are you to dictate how we respond to a message with a clear subject line and seeking an indication on whether their performance is relatively good or not. If they want to figure that out we have to give them a true reality figure based on our experiences and not cherry picking.

  Where exactly is your response to their question and contribution to this topic?

  in How many hooks do you have at the end of the match? Comment by Kalinikta December 10, 2021

• @KateMain86 said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2687146#Comment_2687146

  I'm not entitled for feeling like there are things in the game that are unfair for survivors. That is my opinion In solo que, there is nothing I can do but play and hope things go well. Even when I do SWF we get many matches where we literally just want it to be over. I have said and will always say that if my enjoyment of this game is always going to revolve around my ability to run the killer in a continuous skillful way then I'm just going to quit. Its not worth turning a game into a job. The rank incentive ruined this game in my opinion. It should be about the scare factor, not how well you can play mind games with the killer. Running from the killer isn't scary anymore. This game isn't scary anymore. Its the rare game where I feel like I did when I first started playing. Its frustrating and annoying most of the time now.

  You want the game to be scary, not about running the killer... but want to be ao fast that you can literally run the killer for ever and need to be less scared of them.

  If you truly wanted a scary game, you would need to increase the gap between survivors and killer. Make killers way more powerful, so you would fear them.

  Looping is a key part of the game. It isn't the only playstyle, but it is part of the game loop. You don't want to become skillful, then dying is going to help you out. You complain about the MMR, but want to escape more frequently and therefore matching you with more skillful killers.

  You are entitled, as you don't want to improve your gameplay and yet want to get free escapes. You want the game to be more scary, but want to be made more powerful. The hypocrisy of your stances is so apparent.

  in Last survivor should move as fast as killer Comment by Kalinikta December 10, 2021

• @dugman said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2688667#Comment_2688667

  FYI It’s mathematically impossible to have everyone escape and have more than 8 hooks. (The original post was specifically asking about if everybody escapes.)

  The main question above is how many hooks do you have. I also gave a break down of what I find a good performance and what a bad.

  I am reflecting my experience as a whole, because if I cherry pick 4 man escapes, it isn't really accurate. A 3 man escape can be a worse game than a 4 man escape, should I ignore that fact. The conversation is about hooks after all.

  in How many hooks do you have at the end of the match? Comment by Kalinikta December 10, 2021

• Anything between 2 and 12, it is totally dependent upon the survivors, map, my mistakes, etc. Personally I consider 1 to 4 hooks bad, 4 to 6 decent, 7 to 9 good, 9 to 12 smashed it.

  It is more about how it feels than the actual number, because I can also feel pretty good at less or bad at higher amounts simply how the game actually goes.

  in How many hooks do you have at the end of the match? Comment by Kalinikta December 10, 2021

• @KateMain86 said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2684281#Comment_2684281

  This is not true at all. My suggestion is completely fair. Killers often play in very toxic ways (camping, tunneling, slugging, etc) and yet I'm supposed to agree that they deserve a 4k if they "outplayed" my team and got 3 of us? I don't think so. This game has to fundamentally change. You say the hatch shifts the game in favor of the survivor. This is so freaking ridiculous I can't even believe you said it. If the killer finds the hatch first (which they often do) then its pretty much game over for the last survivor. Its the rare game I see a survivor escape after that. I've seen the hatch get closed literally as soon as the 3rd survivors death was over. The hatch is not fine. Perks like left behind, flip flop and unbreakable should be survivor powers and not perks. Hooks are freaking everywhere but pallets are never where you need or expect them to be. This game is nowhere near enough fair for survivors as it is for killers.

  Your inability to be objective is clearly showing here. The advantages described by me you even flat out ignored, most likely because you have no counter argument.

  The manner in which the killer outplays you is irrelevant to the fact that they managed to kill 3 of the survivors. It just shows that you do not play the role. Regardless of whether you believe there should be an fundamental change to the game as a whole doesn't actually justify the change of the hatch mechanic. Just calling the other side focusing on their objective toxic is pure entitlement.

  The fact that you don't believe the spawning and option of the hatch is in favor of the survivor, also showcases the inability to understand the mechanic. If there would be no hatch, that means the solo survivor would need to complete gens and lets be clear that would be a far bigger disadvantage to them, nearly impossible challenge. The hatch replaces that and provides a true chance of escaping. Seems pretty fair and great to me.

  The assumption that the killer will find it first is invalid, as that is based on multiple variables. If the hatch is closed, it is all about where the survivor was positioned, where the gates are and how well they play it. There are enough cases and times that survivors escape in these cases where the hatch play begins.

  Most of your other arguments have literally nothing to do with the hatch mechanics. If you want to use those perks, you can seeing they are 3 and you have 4 slots. Pallets are plentiful and how many are left is based on how many were used previously. Hooks are supposed to be able to be reached at any location to place you on it, else killers would need to rely on bleeding you out and that isn't a good development.

  I advise you to actually play killer for a decent amount of time and see how the game is truly, because you are just coming across as an entitled survivor which just wants an easy time.

  in Last survivor should move as fast as killer Comment by Kalinikta December 9, 2021

• @KateMain86 said:

  https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2684226#Comment_2684226

  How does the hatch switch in favor of the survivor if they both run at the same speed? The whole point of this suggestion is to make it balanced and fair. And no, the killer does not deserve to get 4k if 3 survivors died. You're suggesting that favor should automatically shift towards the killer. What if you had trolls on your team? D/Cs? What if they didn't really try? Does the last survivor still deserve to die? My suggestion makes it fair for both sides. The fact the killer can go across the map faster than the survivor gives them a better chance at finding it first, which is unfair. What happens next is the faster moving killer going door to door making it very hard for survivors to open them before getting caught.

  The hatch itself shifts the game in favor of the survivor, they don't have to complete the gens.

  If you run at the same speeds, it shifts it more. You vault quicker, can obstruct the way of the killer, have a better viewpoint in 3rd person and if you meet the killer, the survivor is the one running infront.

  It isn't at all fair what you are suggesting, the survivors are in a team versus the killer and so yes their fates are bound to each other. Your argument that their performance should not negatively impact you, but instead should negatively impact the killer is ludicrous. If the killer outplayed the team, they actually do deserve the 4k. The hatch is fine as it is, it should be advantagrous for the killer, as they are the ones that earned it. If you want to be the solo, the one man army... that is what the killer role is.

  in Last survivor should move as fast as killer Comment by Kalinikta December 8, 2021

• I disagree, I haven't had so much fun in the game for a while and pretty much been solely playing the Artist. You can W, but that just opens up the enjoyment of crow sniping. You can actually loop her, I met some survivors that can mind game quite efficiently, know when they can actually run into the crows or when to head to the next loop. Sure you meet survivors that just hold W or try to loop but don't know what to do once you placed the crow down.

  It is one of the few killers where I feel that as a killer, you really have a back and forth with the survivors based on meaningful input from both ends. Maybe I am not playing her in the most efficient way and frankly that would be fine, but she is for sure fun to play this way and you feel like you stood a chance to win. Maps with ton of verticality are a bit of a nightmare against survivors that understand that fact, didn't believe I could dislike haddonfield even more... but it is true, gens on 3 different elevations are you kidding me.

  in The Artist sucks. Comment by Kalinikta December 8, 2021

• The current hatch mechanics already provide a built in chance for the survivor to escape that they previously didn't have. It isn't supposed to level it out and place the killer on even or a disadvantageous position, keep in mind that survivors have 3rd person view and can pan their camera to far better spot the hatch in comparison.

  You asked if it is fair for the 4th to die, because the rest of their team did? The answer is actually yes, it is a team game you succeed or fail together. You get an extra chance, another opportunity. Be happy with what you get instead of asking for more. What free gift do killers get when they are being creamed? Shifting the balance of the hatch game more in favor of the survivor will just promote the tactic to slug for the 4k. You can counter with but people already do that, but do you want more people to do it?

  in Last survivor should move as fast as killer Comment by Kalinikta December 8, 2021