KayTwoAyy
KayTwoAyy
About
- Username
- KayTwoAyy
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@iThe1One playing to win as Killer and playing to have fun are rarely, if ever, synonymous.
I just recently did a study on camping, and the early results were very quickly revealing that camping (the most boring thing you can do as killer) is far more effective at winning than not camping.
As you've acknowledged, you are leveraging a tactic that is effective.
Your issue is that this tactic is boring.
Unfortunately, that is the reality of DBD.
If you want to have fun while winning, you will need to play killers with higher skill floors.
Essentially, you want to trick you brain into focusing on learning how to master the killer's ability, and have fun with that activity, rather than draw all your satisfcation from the 4k.
Killers with higher skill floors:
Billy, Nurse¹, Huntress², Oni, Deathslinger², Executioner¹, Blight, and Cenobite
¹ Personally, I find both of these killers easier to learn than the rest of the community, and find them extremely boring once mastered
² If you're coming from thousands of hours in FPS games, these killers offer you little in the way of "skills to master"
Also, if you're considering playing a stealth killer other than Wraith, I suggest Ghost Face. Myers' novelty is short-lived, and Pig is laughably weak. Ghost Face is a great cross between the two, that offers a rewarding experience when learning his power.
Edit: idk if it was said above, but doctor has a relatively low skill ceiling, which contributes to the issues you are running into. He pub stomps at lower ranks, but veteran survivors do all the laughing against him. So while you may continue to struggle against him as survivor (maybe not as much now that you're playing him), his power is not as strong as your random teammates will lead you to believe.
-
@dezzmont said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724202#Comment_2724202
The gains and losses don't need to be exclusively killer/survivor to seriously affect queue times, because one killer player has the same 'lobby weight' as 4 survivor players.
BDB has a small enough player base that even slightly lopsided gains or exits can seriously affect queue times. We already have pretty good info that we have had a killer shortage for a pretty damn long time (killer queues were always shorter), which means further shocks to the killer playerbase can have even worse outcomes.
The June-July patches where we see the huge spike of incoming players was related to the RE chapter, which brought a massive amount of attention from survival horror players far more likely to play survivor. The player dieoff from that was an unusually high seasonal spike about a month after boons were introduced, which means it probably wasn't just RE players leaving (after all we saw most of the dropoff there in August, though only about half the influx left then before a spike of people trying the new survivor), but a reaction to that patch.
In the period of a month 10% of the userbase bailed on the game. If even half of those were killers, that would be VERY bad for queue times, as even assuming we HAD a 1:4 ratio of killer to survivors (meaning we had 10,000 killers and 40,000 survivors, which is very unlikely to be honest) that would result in a dieoff of about 25% of the killer population while only 5% of the survivor population left.
And, again, it is extremely unlikely we had a 1:5 ratio. In fact, that would be undesirable for queue math (this is a very mathy engineering thing but basically you don't want 1 killer for every 5 survivors because survivors are more monetizable and you don't actually improve wait times that much compared to say... 1 killer to 8, because of how rolling exits from the game work, having half as many killers as you need doesn't lead to double wait times as long as your close), but it matters a lot for sudden shocks because that results in things that resemble service disruptions (which is why you can get up to 1000% increases in wait times despite the population overall not dropping that severely most likely).
And this is before you also factor in the fact that it is likely a specific SEGMENT of the population that left those months, of killers facing survivors utilizing degenerate strategies that place them at high MMR getting burnt out, which makes the population even smaller and thus even more vulnerable to sudden shocks.
We don't know the EXACT numbers here, but there is a lot of evidence that, in fact, killers ARE leaving the game in noticeable numbers.
You bring up some good notes. However, neither of us have any hard data to present so I think it would be a waste of both our times to try and continue presenting any counter points.
I do want to note:
- Queue times for Survivor were fantastic at the start of 2021, and we are up 8-10,000 players on Steam alone since then. June, July & August is largely irrelevant for studying what is going on here, as the average player count is still contuining its current trajectory
- DBD is no longer the "small game" that people keep claiming it is. Small was back in 2017 when the average player count was around 22k. We've more than doubled that number on Steam alone, and the introduction of cross-play has allowed DBD a larger player pool to queue from. The cumulative player count is now enough to overshadow PC-only multiplayer games.
-
@IamFran said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724634#Comment_2724634
#########. What a bunch of excuses.
"unless the disconnect has inconvenienced you in any way, a survivor is probably not disconnecting to spite you."
Ok, so, even a DC just before the last hook is inconvent for me, because you remove the satisfaction of my well achieved kill in a last hook. If you are that butthurt just stop playing the game, no excuses.
I've been tilted sometimes and DCd (specially when I had less than 200 hours), but I never did just before the last hook and never tried to justify such things, omg.
@Laluzi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724826#Comment_2724826
Mental health issues aren't a free pass to behave however you like.
A disproportionate number of the people you'll encounter online are ND. I'm one of them. That doesn't suddenly make whatever I do untouchable because oh no you're attacking an autistic person, and by the way, you can't argue with me because I have anxiety and denigrating my motives like this could be damaging to my health. You should have thought of every possible reason the person behind the screen may be doing what they're doing before saying anything to me, much less judging me like this.
...Or maybe that's a really unfair take? Maybe it's better to judge me for the actions and opinions I present without having to consider every indecipherable thing that goes on in my head? Maybe labels shouldn't be a shield to act with impunity when I'm the one choosing to engage in group activities on the same footing as everyone else?
There are rules. I expect people to play by them and not screw over the people around them, and people who have trouble doing that should work on moderation in whatever ways they can (whether that's practice, treatment, or removing themselves from scenarios that tend to cause flare-ups), or not be surprised when they get ostracized for antisocial behavior or even kicked out for failing to comply with said rules. They should not get a free pass to do things that are not allowed and unpleasant for the people around them because it's something they struggle with.
This concept is basically universal in society. "I have a disorder" can be an explanation, but it's not an excuse if someone intends to continue their misbehavior or doesn't see it as misbehavior at all.
Like, I recognize we're talking about disconnecting when the game's over. And realistically, when somebody's pulling the plug for the sake of removing themselves from a situation they're not dealing with, right before the game is over - if I don't have an achievement on the line, I genuinely do not care. However, I have encountered way too many people who do it with deliberate malice to assume better motives or self-care when I encounter it - especially not when I've had people hang around to abuse me in endgame chat. It's also been a recurring problem when I went for adept killer achievements, and something that robbed me several times in games I otherwise would have pulled it off. Additionally... there's a really thin line between DCing right before death and DCing whenever anything happens that you don't like, and I find that most people who do one tend to do the other - the latter of which very definitively ruins the game for other people and I refuse to take excuses short of 'a real life situation came up' or 'the other players were griefing/cheating/sandbagging' for.
And yeah, you actually do need to have a valid reason from walking away from a situation you don't want to partake in when walking away from that situation is against the rules of the game and potentially screws over other players. If ordinary gameplay is commonly unendurable to you, you shouldn't be partaking in the first place. That in and of itself is the proper thing to do for the sake of caring for your mental health.
Okay, lets rewind for just a second...
- OP recounts an (negative?) experience they had in game
- OP poses the question "what the hell's wrong with you people?"
- @Laluzi poses further questions, such as "what do you even accomplish?" and "[you] forfeit all of your bloodpoints for [...] the hope your opponent was going for a challenge...?"
- I, as someone who has personal experience on the matter, and have played along-side players to which you all pose the question, provide a response in the form of 3 reasons (4 should you assume apathy & indignance as part of my first point). May I add, that I did preface the response with "...what might be going on..."; an indication that I did not attempting to speak from a place of omniscience.
- OP mocks my reasons, to which I reply quite snappy that OP is being rather close-minded.
- Laluzi re-enters the conversation, unsatisfied with my response, and SUDDENLY a master on the topic at hand. How is it that a moment ago they were as baffled as the OP, and now know better than someone speaking from experience? How are they suddenly the arbiter of "valid responses" and a mind-reader of those who have "spited" them in the past?
- Elusive enters the narrative, apparently omniscient to the fact that ALL survivors who d/c are having a tantrum. They then double down on the notion that this is all "childish behavior."
- I reply, reminding all that no one owes you anything, and that there may be EVEN MORE going on behind the scenes than I had to share from first-hand knowledge. And hey, maybe we should acknowledge that some people struggle with certain behaviors more than others.
- Laluzi goes off on a tirade, apparently still a know-it all regarding the topic that had them scratching their head about 5 minutes prior. During said rant, you (@IamFran) come at me for "making excuses," when I wasn't making excuses at all--I was answering OP's question, unlike everyone else in this thread. Not before which, @Laluzi assumed my ethical ideologies and decided to use those false assumptions to launch an entire rant that is talking at me, and not to me.
I hope that rant was a weight off all your shoulders, because these clearly aren't responses meant for me.
You know... it's kind of ironic. Here I am proclaiming that we should be more thoughtful about the fact that there are real people playing with & against us, and consider that they may be dealing with some real baggage. Does it suck when they off-load that baggage onto us, by disconnecting from a trial? Absolutely. But they are human, and we should recognize that.
Meanwhile, you're all throwing me in a little box alongside whatever other socio-political agendas you disagree with and you decide its a good idea to start teaching me a lesson about literally anything but the point I was making.
Edit: Edited to clarify my response
-
@AsherFrost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724826#Comment_2724826
Are you a member of the Fantastic Four? With the ability to reach like that, you'd put Mr. Fantastic out of a job.
Hardly a reach.
That was 30 seconds of googling.
I mentioned one mental disorder. There are more than 200 classified mental illnesses, and a handful of other reasons why someone might be "acting childish," not least of which are people who play video games under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
If people stopped dehumanizing the players they come across in video games, we might all be a little more understanding of why certain behaviors are so prevalent.
-
It sucks. Especially if I'm running Kindred.
But it's not as bad as the feeling I get watching a teammate voluntarily sending themself to the grave.
I'll take a teammate with poor decision-making* any day of the week over a teammate who deliberately throws my games.
*sometimes teammates just don't have enough information to act on, so they make a judgement call, and occassionally that is going to be the wrong call
-
@Laluzi said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724750#Comment_2724750
"I have better things to do with my time" doesn't apply when your game would be over in ten seconds max.
Similarly, if you're going to stop playing the game because you've had too much DBD or your last few matches have been frustrating as hell, you don't need a DC penalty to lock you out - you can just get off the game.
The only valid reason you listed was not wanting pity a hatch, which, fair, and that's your prerogative. I can understand that and it's not a childish mindset. But a lot of the rest of this... either speaks to a lack of emotional control that the person should make an attempt to correct instead of constantly indulging, or doesn't really feel accurate to the situations in which I see DCs and I'm going to have to press X to doubt on it not usually being an act of spite to the killer and a response to the way they played the game (or the way they were perceived.) Denying a hook-based perk - sure, if you consider abusing an unintentional mechanic to weaken the killer's game fair play, then I can't stop you. But that's not as far as it goes. I've played in-stream games with people who would deliberately ragequit if they thought the killer was going after a certain achievement, specifically tombstone Myers or all four killed in the basement. I've also spoken with players on the forums who expressed the same opinion, saying that killers didn't deserve to get their achievements if the game wasn't fun and that they would DC to make things harder for them. I find it hard to believe that none of the randoms who have DCed on death hook for me weren't trying to do the same thing, whether they succeeded or not.
I judge here because there's an important distinction to be made. You generally can't stop yourself from getting upset about something that bothers you, regardless of what people on the internet like to say about toughening up. But you can stop yourself from overreacting to the things that make you upset - getting into a fight, disconnecting, harassing someone on their profile, etc. Impulse control is something that people are expected to learn and practice as social animals and I don't have that much sympathy for those who don't think they have to.
@ElusivePukka said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724750#Comment_2724750
Yeah, no. That's not how "childishness" works: throwing a tantrum is intrinsically more childish than acknowledging the silly and immature way certain people react to stress under certain circumstances. However, there's no real need for either to be "more" of anything - each reason you gave is inherently and individually childish, including the pity hatch one, regardless of how others treat them.
No one needs to give you a valid reason for walking away from a situation they don't want to partake.
It is sad that you're passing judgement on the emotional and/or intellectual maturity of strangers in a video game.
How often do you encounter this? Less than 1% of your games, I'd imagine. I sure never see it.
Lets do a quick google search...
Oh look, a news release from the U.S. Department of Health & Human services reports that Intermitten Explosive Disorder (IED) affects as many as 7.3% of adults.
wow.
So statistically speaking, it's possible that all these "childish" people you're mocking are dealing with a disorder.
Real mature, guys.
-
@BubbaDredge said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724634#Comment_2724634
Sure, but all those reasons are childish. I get the not wanting pity part, but that's still not a reason to be spiteful. If he didn't want pity, he shouldn't have given up. I pity people who are so emotionally weak they can't play five more seconds. Maybe they shouldn't play at all. I feel like acting like a baby is more pitiful than taking a hatch.
When I started playing I assumed survivors would be tough as nails, the type of people that VOLUNTEER to be chased by killers would be the types to accept any challenge, fight to the death, eager for a chance to outplay me or outsmart me. This didn't turn out to be accurate.
In the least aggressive way possible, I want you to know that their behavior is less childish than you calling them babies for handling emotions in a way in which you are unfamiliar or distant to.
You're chosing to be short-sighted and accept the reality of "they're childish," instead of acknowledging that there is a complex process of thoughts & emotions happening on the other side of your monitor.
No one is beholden to you or the game they are playing. We all volunteer our own time to play DBD, and a person can decide at any moment that it is not worth their time to keep playing.
You're on the forums mocking strangers for deciding they have better things to do with their time.
I don't know mate, maybe you should take a page out of their book.
-
@AngyKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724711#Comment_2724711
I'd say you could allow an insta-win if, and only if, Survivors could pick themselves back up. To prevent mass slugging & waiting for the Killer to kill you.
I mean, granted; a Survivor will probably respawn if the Killer has to carry people one at a time to designated sacrifice areas, then kill them one at a time, but we don't want to encourage slugging too much.
Maybe Survivors have to fill the bar, then hit 3 hard skillchecks when near walls or objects to pick themselves up? Every hit makes them stand up a little more, but a miss lowers them back 1 stage with a noise notification.
There can even be perks to make getting up faster a thing.
This is purely speculation, but I think slugging is only detested because it isn't prominent enough for survivors to feel like they can aptly prepare against it.
I say that to mean that if slugging became a popular tactic, survivors would feel validated for bringing No Mither, Tenacity, Flip Flop, Boil Over, Soul Guard, Unbreakable, Power Struggle, We're Gonna Live Forever, Buckle Up, & Boon: Exponential.
These are all great perks as is. But they're great against a situation you see once every one hundred games. It's not practical to bring this build, so people don't use these perks. But then that one hundredth game rolls around, and people get frustrated because they can't do anything about it. ...and they're justified for not being prepared.
But create a meta shift towards slugging, and now survivors can say "we have 10 perks that can reliably help us overcome this problem. bring it on."
-
@AngyKiller said:
How to fix camping (And I may have posted this already):
- Remove hooks
- Make the Killer have to bring Survivors to special areas where they can drop them and perform a Mori. This allows for Flashlight & Pallet saves. Plus perks like DStrike still work, and so does wriggling free & body blocking to allow said wriggling free.
- Change 'self unhook' perks to 'escape the mori animation' perks.
- Make sure the kill animations take, on average, the same time, so there's no 'kill animation meta'.
- Allow Survivors to run around as a ghost. They do not see traps, killers, pallets, generators, or living Survivors. So no death-spectating.
- When a timer has ended (Say, oh, 60 seconds), the Survivor can now respawn where he/she is standing. But this is a choice; they can put it off and move elsewhere. They just have to wait 60 seconds before they CAN spawn.
- Survivors have 3 'deaths', same as 3 hooks.
This also fixes tunneling off the hook, since the Killer has no idea where or when a Survivor respawned. it also makes Moris more impactful, because they are used as the way to kill, not hooks.
So less tunneling, and 0 camping.
Hell, if you really wanted to go wild; add interactive shrines, where living Survivors can channel for a few seconds to cut down on dead Survivor's respawn timers. Basically; giving up gen time to bring back a friend & try to make it up in gen stacking.
Boom; Killers are a literal threat, camping can not exist, and tunneling is down. 😁
Basement mori counts as 2 kills, for the purposes of a Survivor's life pool?
I'm not completely sold on your thematic vision, but mechanically the respawn timer sounds worthwile.
Maybe even set it up so if all survivors are dead at the same time the Killer wins instantly. I know people are not in love with Slugging, but it suddenly makes slugging a viable strategy for winning quickly, rather than waiting for everyone's 4 minute bleedout timer to expire. And then perks revolving around anti-slug can circle into more use.
-
@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.
I had a 100% kill rate in my last 17 games of camping, and the survivors averaged 2.8 gens completed.
The skill floor for replicating my success is relatively low; have the right perks, know which add-ons are best for each killer, then just hope your first chase is under 2 minutes.
So here is my fear: If they provide a better alternative to camping, instead of just nerfing it/rendering it obsolete, what does that look like?
I'm already at a 100% kill rate. Soooo... what? The survivors only complete 1.8 gens on average?
That starts to sound miserable for the survivors. I mean, just imagining what that looks like as a killer is terrifying. That is so oppressive.
-
I've done this achievement multiple times over.
My advice is to run Judith's Tombstone with J. Myers Memorial.
Monitor & Abuse, Enduring, Whispers, and Corrupt Intervention
You're going to be tempted to run Tuft of Hair, but the infinite is not worth the time it takes to reach T3. Plus, once you insta-kill one survivor, everyone else is just going to jump in lockers around you.
Being in T2 has several advantages.
- Smaller Terror Radius -- You will have a much easier time getting the drop on survivors
- False Sense of Security -- Survivors won't jump in lockers the second you come around because you're not in T3
Whispers is used for finding the 4th survivor before or after you have a chance to close hatch--RNG is the biggest killer with this achievement. All it takes is a survivor to find hatch and its GG. Therefore, you can down the second to last survivor then insta-kill the last after letting him wiggle off.
Enduring makes a map with many strong pallets a little more tolerable. Plus, there is the added benefit of getting a bit more stalk off after being stunned.
As far as approach goes, you absolutely CANNOT kill anyone you haven't stalked. Ideally, you kill whoever has the most stalk, so that you can make it to the 4k.
Good luck! :)
-
As someone who has d/c'd right before being thrown on death hook, perhaps I can pull back the curtain just little bit and offer some insight into what might be going on behind the scenes.
First and foremost,
People who disconnect do not care about (or are not motivated to play because of) bloodpoints.
That may seem like a no-brainer, but the most common question I see in response to this is always "why did you throw away your bloodpoints?"
Second,
The player is looking for a reason to stop playing. Someone who disconnects right as they are about to be out of the match is probably tilted. They are fed up with the game, and are looking for an excuse to go do something else.
The matchmaking lock is a great opportunity for someone who is tilted to gather their emotions and refocus, or decide its time to move onto something more enjoyable.
In either case, they welcome the matchmaking penalty with open arms because its a respite from whatever rage-enducing scenario(s) led them to that moment.
Sometimes, it may also just be this person's last game of the day, and the disconnect penalty will not effect them in any way.
Third,
Pride. Some people just don't want your pitty. They want to take defeat on the chin and will voluntarily create a lose condition if you're trying to display any form of empathy.
Finally,
In the case of death hook specifically, a survivor may disconnect as a last form of vengeance to prevent the killer from activating BBQ, Pop, or Pain Resonance.
TL;DR unless the disconnect has inconvenienced you in any way, a survivor is probably not disconnecting to spite you.
-
@Maliken said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2724143#Comment_2724143
A lot of them did in fact move on to play something else or play survivor. It’s why the queue for survivors has increased and the active player base (on Steam at least) has been declining the last few months.
DBD's average player count and peak player count (on Steam) are both higher than the beginning of the year. So unless the console base has dropped off significantly (which I doubt), I don't think the issue is people leaving. I'd be hard pressed to believe the -5,202 Gain from October into November is exclusively Killer mains.
As for the topic...
Camping works. I 4k more frequently whilst camping than I do while "playing nice." I'm sure the people playing killer in OP's games want to win more than they want to provide an enjoyable experience for all involved.
-
Focus on the journey, not the destination.
Commit her blink range to muscle memory, while noting survivor decision making.
Once you feel comfortable with her power, try using it to anticipate survivor movement, and expect that you're going to get it wrong.
The biggest challenge with Nurse is staying on the metaphorical horse and being persistent about improvement.
She is not as hard to learn as this community tends to claim. She just plays a completely different game than everyone else, so in some ways learning Nurse is like playing DBD for the first time.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2723060#Comment_2723060
On a side note this reply did make me chuckle, fair play 😁. No hard feelings.
You said ‘goodnight’ like 4 hours ago. I was just trying to give you a bedtime read.
-
@DangerScouse said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2722960#Comment_2722960
Actually @zarr made some really good points that I agree with. You sir, did not. You don't need long boring essays, that mean nothing. You're welcome
I’ll make sure to keep all my comments directed at you short and sweet! :)
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2722745#Comment_2722745
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. Yet here is where we differ as I do indeed look very much at the Why, as in my studies and also stated by the developers it is the primal query to adapt the form to meet its function to create the harmony that one wants to create.
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.
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?
-
@zarr don't waste your breath on @DangerScouse
They aren't actually here to have a discussion.
It looks like they used to be interested in discussion, but ever since November 24th their posts are just quips and one-liners trying to elicit an emotional response. Not sure what happened, but we must be having a great conversation over here because they are working really hard to tell us they don't care what we're talking about.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2722315#Comment_2722315
- 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.
- 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.
- 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://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2722342#Comment_2722342
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?
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.
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).
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2722096#Comment_2722096
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.
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.
- Feeling of Victimization & Helplessness as Survivor
- Power Creep and the Decline of Creativity
- 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.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2721473#Comment_2721473
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.
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-CkDzRf4I 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.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2721440#Comment_2721440
"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.
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 topic 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
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2721409#Comment_2721409
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.
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 hookBOTH ARE CAMPINGThat 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 are 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 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 facecamping as the source of the data of unpunished behavior.
Maybe you should view the above post and the developers talking about that exact thing; young 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.
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.
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.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2721015#Comment_2721015
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.
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. 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 competitive play.
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 ultilize 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.
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.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2720915#Comment_2720915
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.
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.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2720554#Comment_2720554
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.
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.
-
@AngyKiller said:
NoED is just a Killer planning for the end game.
Remember: The Killer has not 'lost' just because all 5 gens pop. So NoED is not 'rewarding losing', because the Killer has not lost until the match ends.
Survivors are not safe until they leave the trial.
Survivors have not won until they are out of the trial.
Until the last Survivor leave the trial; the Killer can still kill them. Ergo: NoED is not 'rewarding losing' like I've had some idiots in-game scream at me.
I agree with Angy's take here.
The killer can create the perception that they are "losing" by focusing on a seperate objective than the survivor's anticipate.
In this case, SpookNJukes could have valued creating dead zones over hooking survivors, knowing full well that he would reap the benefits of this once NOED was active.
I would argue that this is in fact balanced, because the survivors failed to efficiently use all of their resources, and paid the price as a result.
This isn't the case with all killers who use NOED, but you can definitely play for the end game. SupaAlf does it all the time in his Insidious Nurse videos.
The perception that a survivor has "won" because they did all 5 gens without being hooked is inherently flawed.
-
I like the look--I'm a fan of the bright maps, tho I much prefer witching hour or overcast settings for horror. I think this map should have a night and day time variant. Even better would be a realtime day cycle, where this map starts bright and goes to night as each survivor is hooked.
Regarding balance. This map missed the mark by a mile.
Maybe they have some major changes planned for killer in the future, and this map was designed with those in mind, but as it stands this map is a killer's nightmare.
Every survivor who enters chase on this map should run towards main or towards shack, then back and forth between the two. The tiles between main building and shack are so incredibly easy to chain together and all of them are incredibly safe to play around.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719991#Comment_2719991
Here have a guide on how to counter camping and there are many more karma videos, guides, etc.
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.
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
-
Lightborn
Until you've learned to play around the flashlight.
-
@zarr said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2720115#Comment_2720115
No data will ever mean anything unless it shows the game to be hopelessly survivor-sided. Because that is obviously the truth that everyone just naturally knows (unless they are a stupid survivor main) and which does not require any evidence whatsoever to support it. At least, that's what I've gathered from most "forum killer mains" engaging with stats in this game. Global kill rates always having been comfortably above 50%, even at rank 1 in the past, even for the "weakest" killer on the "strongest" survivor map, even when excluding DCs? Doesn't mean anything. Tournaments having kill rates above 50%, even when everything is allowed? Meaningless. Killer streamers winning 90% of their matches decisively day in and day out, year after year, and even now with MMR in place? No. Meaning. Survivors OP.
It really is funny what kind of "scientific" standards people are demanding when looking at stats like this. Look, it's not rocket science, you queue as killer, you camp, and you record how well you do in terms of kills. You do not have to control for a single thing because neither is anyone that plays this game, they just queue up. If camping works often enough, it works, there's no great mystery here, to merely say it works we do not have to figure out why it works. Sure maybe a large part of why it works is that most players are too bored or stupid or feel too bad for the hooked survivor not to play into it - but if enough players are like that such that camping works out more often than not... it works. Sure if we go into KYF and play against tournament teams drilled to counter camping it won't work as well. Who cares? Talking about this game, we have to talk about its actual reality. And in 99.9% of cases, that reality is people simply queueing up in pubs. It may be interesting to do tests on how well camping works in other environments (it's still a bread and butter play in tournaments so we know it scales well into the top levels of skill and coordination), but that is wholly irrelevant when asking whether killers actually benefit from camping in this game, because this game has one relevant mode, and that is public matchmaking. There is no better or more accurate way to conduct tests than... queueing up and logging results. We can make distinctions about which killers and loadouts are particularly conducive to being successful at camping, but not only is that another thing to look at, but since it is possible to play the same killer with the same build every single time, even just showing that camping works in that scenario is meaningful.
I will say that I would much prefer having actual video evidence, not least because it would help with people that apparently want to move goalposts to now argue about the centimeter specifics of what facecamping is (which is even sillier given that the topic at hand is simply camping). Also, I'm actually surprised just how well you guys are doing with outright facecamps, and LF facecamps at that. I mean, I know even the most primitive ways of camping work out more often than not in pubs, and that's especially true if you get an early down. But at least some people should be smart enough not to contest an LF facecamp, so much so that I would even expect other killers to get more value out of outright facecamping because survivors will more regularly contest and go for clown fiestas around the hook. Either way, even just showing that you average anywhere above 2 kills would have of course gone to show that camping is not "punished" in terms of kill rates, I'm surprised you are averaging 3+. Would be "interesting" to see. Then again, I have seen years worth of video evidence that goes to show that camping is super effective, from streamers and tournaments, as well as just from my own gameplay. I for one don't need any tests to convince me of this fact.
I think next week I will join you guys and go for facecamp streaks for a while. I don't enjoy that gameplay, but I'm curious now whether even the most primitive camping is actually that effective in pubs still, with MMR and whatnot. I have been doing perkless Legion 4ks for a while now, and while I mostly use tunnelling to get there, camping is of course integral part of it, so going from that to facecamping won't be too grating of a transition.
@Hex_Llama said:
I'm not sure that it's helpful to argue about whether this thread is a scientific study. We can all see really easily that camping often leads to kills, just based on having played. The issue is, what does that mean for the health of the game?
Extremely well said, both of you!
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719811#Comment_2719811
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.
Great points.
You may be right about the influence of MMR, when it comes to the question of "how often will I face a good squad?"
I'm fairly confident I'm already at the higher ends of MMR, but even if I am not... this test should theoretically take me there at the rate of success I'm currently seeing. Therefore, at a certain point my data will reflect how effective camping is at high MMR and the results I see from then on will answer OP's initial question one way or another.
At the end of the day, it just comes down to collecting more data points.
@AsherFrost said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719780#Comment_2719780
Wait, you are counting disconnects as kills as well?
Also your notes say you "left a survivor you thought was on death hook" if you are running a face camping test, i.e. hunting down a survivor, hooking them and staring into their retenas, then how did you leave any survivor?
The more you push past the numerous questions on your testing methodology, the shadier this all looks, tbh.
Your notes indicate you faced 2 swf groups. What evidence do you have for either group being swf? Are you interviewing subjects post test, or just assuming based on gameplay?
If a survivor is on death hook, I'm not going to camp them as the entity takes their body up to the sky.
In the instance of "left a survivor I thought was on death hook," I had already killed one survivor and believed the Mikaela I was throwing on hook was dead. I instinctively left hook and immediately picked up chase with a Claudette. It wasn't until I was half way across the map with Claud that I realized the Mikaela was only on second hook.
Therefore, I've included the note to clarify that I erred in this trial, and it wasn't a 100% camping match (I only camped 91.67% of hooks).
Honestly, a bit weird that you're trying to paint me in a bad light when I'm the one who reported that I made a mistake.
Also, this isn't a face-camping study. Its camping. I'm not staring into the souls of every survivor, because that isn't optimal camping.
Edit: I see OP using the word 'face-camping.' It's possible we disagree on what 'face-camping' is exactly, but it sounds like him and I are both camping survivors the same way. The semantics don't really matter too much, as long as people are understanding that the camping in this experiment is close, but not "i'm staring into your soul."
As for SWF, I play on PC and can check people's friends lists. Also, I have asked people "hey are you a swf?"
So far, I've only noted SWFs when I've known beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I'm not going to waste my time belaboring the reasons for counting disconnects as kills, as I've hammered the point multiple times in the previous 6 pages of this discussion.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719440#Comment_2719440
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. 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.
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.
-
DOCTOR CAMP TEST
KILL RATE: 100% | AVG KILLS: 4 | Hatch escapes: 0 | AVG GENS: 3 | TOTAL D/C'S: 1 | AVG TRIAL TIME: 9 minutes 6 seconds
10 games a night is a little too many, so I'm going to cut it to 5 and just update this post the next night I'm able to fit 5 games in.
Doctor seems to be just as proficient as Nemesis.
He is a little weaker in chase, which put me on the back foot at the start of games 4 & 5, but his base-kit abilities were surprisingly helpful for camping.
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.
Games 4 & 5 got off to very shaky starts, as I didn't hook the first survivor until after the first and second gens, respectively. I'm very surprised to be walking away from the first 5 doc trials with 20 kills.
-
@AngyKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719440#Comment_2719440
'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.'
Wrong. If you want to look at the power of camping and ONLY camping across every Killer, you do proper scientific method; You remove or normalize all variables possible.
Survivors: Short of finding a crew to do all this in KYF; not possible to normalize.
Maps: Again, short of KYF; not possible to normalize.
Powers: Change per Killer.
Perks: You pick the same perks on the same Killers. In this way, you're removing the PERKS as a variable towards your study.
Since you're studying how well CAMPING works, and ONLY CAMPING; you use the same perks per Killer. Anything else is contaminating your study.
It stops being 'How strong is Camping?' and becomes 'How powerful is <Killer> at Camping with the best possible perks?'. Which is a different test all together.
This is a study of CAMPING in the AVERAGE GAME.
If we try to control the survivors we are playing against, the map we are on, and the perks the survivors are using, WE ARE NO LONGER PLAYING AN AVERAGE GAME.
FURTHERMORE...
If every killer needs to run the same 4 perks, WE ARE NO LONGER STUDYING CAMPING IN THE AVERAGE GAME.
Instead, we would be studying the PERFORMANCE OF 4 SPECIFIC PERKS WHILST CAMPING.
'How powerful is <Killer> at Camping with the best possible perks?'
Yes, this could be an alternate (tho needlessly wordy) title for this study. But we're not particularly concerned right now with WHO is the best--though exploring that fact is an inevitable byproduct of running this test--so a better title would be "How powerful is camping with the best possible perks?".
Why on earth would anyone set out to camp for a 4k, and not set themselves up for the best chance of success? Or rather, why would I study the strength of camping and not do everything in my power to make camping as strong as possible?
Ask yourself that, then you'll realize how redundant '...with the best possible perks?' is in your title. Its not needed. Throw out the wasted words and your title simply becomes "how powerful is camping?"
This is the last time I will say this, then I'm done discussing it with you:
You have completely missed the boat on what this study is about, and your attempt to correct us comes from a complete misunderstanding of what is going on. It would behoove you to understand a discussion before attempting to criticize it in the future.
-
I guess this post isn't targeted at me, because I never use Dead Hard.
...but if Dead Hard is nerfed, survivors will just adapt and you'll be left wishing we could all go back to the time when they depended on a crutch so easily countered.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719388#Comment_2719388
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.
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.
-
@Kalinikta said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719235#Comment_2719235
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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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?
- 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.
- 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."
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
-
@AngyKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2719235#Comment_2719235
But you're not PROVING that by using a strong camper to prove camping is too strong.
It's like me saying 'I'm going to prove lima beans suck!' and then polling only people who hate lima beans: I'm making my experiment match my already-decided result. I've skewed it towards the result I want.
Proving camping is strong with a strong camper is fixing the test to give you your decided result. It's not a valid test.
If you take the WORST camping Killer and show they can get 3-4 kills on average, and then you've proven camping is strong.
Okay, who would you say is a weak camper? I'll play them.
Neither Bubba nor Nemesis have been designed ot camp. We only recognize thair propensity to camp, and acknowledge that certain features about them make them ideal candidates for that play style.
Despite that, it still proves that camping is a problem because they are among a cast of other killers who can all camp very well. I'd argue half the killers (maybe more) have something in their kit that makes them great at camping, which in my eyes renders your argument irrelevant. Its not just Bubba who can do it to some degree of success. Everyone can.
But again, who do you need to see put to the test?
-
@RainehDaze said:
Your numbers are still useless because you're withholding or not recording information (enemy perks; grades--as irrelevant as they are, we could probably draw conclusions throughout a month on those; queue times; your grades; actual gameplay footage). This pseudo-scientific approach where you're setting out to prove a point and choosing what information you record is inherently aggravating. It's no better than anecdotes!
Ideally, if we want to be scientific, we need multiple players as some sort of vaguely representative sample, not self-selecting and with variable perk loadouts, who record their entire gameplay from start to finish (not necessarily at HD, but hopefully enough perks can be identified) and discarded if there's any cuts. Then we can actually use proper analysis rather than just "look at the trends in the numbers I've written down". Not-science masquerading as science is simply distasteful.
@Kalinikta said:
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.
@AngyKiller said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2718530#Comment_2718530
You are ignoring that facecamping itself does not reward the Killer, the skill of the Survivors does.
Seriously. I don't get this BS narrative that facecamping somehow magically gives the Killer more kills, as if it forces Survivors onto hooks. The numbers don't lie:
Facecamping for 2 hook states takes 120 seconds. Add onto that around 50 seconds for a chase (Not counting insta-down Killers), probably more, but this gives us a round number. That's 3 minutes.
In 3 minutes; 3 Survivors soloing gens can pop all 3, with 100 seconds left over. IE: 1 minute, 40 Seconds left over. That means the Survivor on the hook is not even dead yet.
That's also enough time to find and complete THREE MORE GENS solo, each. But since you only need 2 more; you will have Survivors group up on one, lowering it from 80 seconds to 47 seconds. Meaning that, unless it took you 60 seconds to FIND the gen, you are completing it before the Survivor dies.
That's, at minimum, without skillchecks or toolkits, 4 gens done in 1 chase.
But sure 'Facecamping rewards (magically) the Killer'.
And you're going to stick with a Killer that ignores the chases and is great at facecamping in order to prove that facecamping is OP?
That just shows your method is flawed and your data is useless. 'I'm going to prove <thing we don't like> is broken by using one of two Killers made to do <thing we don't like> and ignore literally the other 90% of the roster that can't do it as well!'
Great science there.
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.
-
Nemesis Camp Test
KILL RATE: 100% | AvG KIlls: 3.6 | HATCH ESCAPES: 4 | AVG Gens: 2.4 | Total D/c's: 2 | AvG Trial Time: 9 minutes 6 Seconds
Just wrapped up playing 10 games as Nemesis, who I've been saying for some time is one of the best campers in the game. His zombies are able to pressure gens while you proxy hook, and if Ruin is active (as it was through-out most of 6 games in this test) they will even help regress gen progress for you.
I finished this experiment with a 100% kill rate--up 21.5% from my camp test with Bubba.
According to lead game designer, Patrick, hatch escapes count as a null; therefore, kill rate is treated as if the hatch escapee never even existed in the trial. @Munqaxus I would advise adjusting your numbers to recognize that hatch escapes are a null, rather than an escape--because the game does not recognize it as an escape. So while this should negatively effect your average kills per trial, your kill rate is completely unchanged.
I would dare to say d/c's should be negated from average kills for this same reason, but the numbers might become very misleading if we go down that path--especially if the d/c happens on the hook.
Who was most effective at applying pressure?
Survivors who worked on generators, then coordinated an unhook right before second stage were most effective at challenging me. Unhooking the survivor before they reached stage two bought survivors valuable seconds, and allowed them to extend the game beyond the 10 minute mark.
While Bubba handled unsafe unhooks like a champ, M1 killers are at the mercy of hook trading and hook grab standoffs.
I haven't been keeping track of how many times I hook survivors in these experiments, but I can say with certainty that the number of hooks per trial went up with Nemesis. I wasn't able to prevent unsafe unhooks, so ultimately I needed to hook survivors multiple times--an issue I did not have with Bubba.
Which perk offered the least value?
No Way Out went from incredibly valuable on Bubba to virtually useless.
No Way Out is still an effective perk, but seeing as survivors never finished 5 gens in my 10 trials I had zero need for the perk in the first place.
Ruin's value surprised me, and it was sorely missed when survivors broke Ruin before my first hook. For that reason, I would consider replacing No Way Out with Undying (or possibly even Haunted Ground).
If not Undying, I would consider bringing Save the Best for Last to help against hook trading.
-
Distortion.
It's always been just a tad underwhelming, because its only 3 stacks, but Shadow Step has now made it irrelevant. I think it makes for a fun "I don't want to be chased first" Object of Obsession build, tho.
On killer, Furtive Chase. I love trying to make my terror radius as small as possible.
-
@Labrac said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2717794#Comment_2717794
First of all I know how to read. No need for the huge letters lmao.
I could do the games and post it here. Or I could say I did them and post some random 10 results. It would be as reliable as yours to draw conclusions about game balance.
Admittedly, the H2 Title font comes off a bit more aggressive than I intend.
That said, I use the various markdowns to create hierarchy in my writing so that others can quickly establish the tone or purpose of my response without reading it in entirety. I'm sure not everyone wants to read everything I have to write.
You could lie about your results. But if you're truly interested in improving the game, there is nothing to be gained by falsifying information. You'd be doing a disservice to yourself and the community.
I've got a history of creating discussions on this forum that fight for both sides of the aisle and challenge the design choices of both killer, survivor, and the game itself.
Take my data with a grain of salt, fine, but I'm only here to improve the game.
-
@Labrac said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2716808#Comment_2716808
Just a small tip for you: 10 games is not "scientific method". As a wannabe research irl it pains me reading this.
For a game with over 50k players daily only on Steam, 10 games is laughable as data. And as mentioned above you didn't even show the other variables, and there are some you can't even control like MMR. Your games.
Your comment and the OP's post is just as anecdotal evidence as anyone's else.
Thank you Captain Obvious.
You know, its been about 10 years since I took AP Statistics--I forgot how reliable data works.
Hey, do me a favor.
How about you throw your hat in the ring and offer up 10 games for science and post them here in the forum?
You know... instead of scrutinizing someone else for not wanting to collect an adequate amount of data on your behalf. Its crazy what a collective can do. Imagine if everyone in this thread shared a chart from 10 games, instead of playing armchair statistician with their turned-up nose and educated opinions.
Or don't. It's about as much as I'd expect from you.
-
@RainehDaze said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2716808#Comment_2716808
Weird conclusion to say that No Way Out hands out free kills. By definition, the cost of those kills is No Way Out and having the hooks to lock the doors for the time needed.
And not to get too pedantic, but collecting only the values you think are relevant is also a pretty poor example of the scientific method. Or even data collection as a whole. Plus personal variables (and many things we can't control for like MMR). Let's not cast stones about data quality when there's not much better. Maybe if we could arrange some sort of multiperson approach to data gathering and not explicitly set out only gathering seemingly relevant data... xD
And its Monstrous. Monstrous Shrine.
There was a direct causation between the total number of kills I had in this experiment and my use of No Way Out.
How is that a weird conclusion? You realize that this is a face-camping study, right? I stared at survivors for 2 boring minutes while they died on the hook--we're talking minimal stacks of No Way Out, and I walk away claiming it handed me free kills. I am telling you, quite confidently, that I would have 1k'd or 2k'd in some of my games without No Way Out. I had 2 stacks, max. I didn't even need the stacks--just the fact that survivors couldn't immediately open the gate and leave enabled me to secure an extra kill in trials I didn't 4k.
Also, would you care to tell me what other values are relevant here?
OP posed the question, "are killers actually punished for camping?" They then clarified that the question is being posited in the context of total kills in an average trial. Therefore, the experiment aims to shed light on whether or not camping produces a low or high number of kills per trial.
The killer I play, the perks & add-ons I used, and the number of kills I ended with are the three most important points of data needed to address OP's question. However, kills is the only data point we need to look at once an ideal build has been recognized & accepted.
We're trying to collect data for the average trial. That means map, survivor perks, survivor items, & survivor SWF count are irrelevant points of data. They are uncontrollables which, over the course of say... 10,000 games, all end up in the same melting pot labeled the "average trial."
If I run this experiment 10,000 times, you cannot argue that I'm looking at the wrong data points when all I present to you is my kill average. I would have played 10,000 public games--it doesn't get any more "average" than that. I would have inevitably run into every theoritical counter-argument against the viability of camping, and those numbers would be calculated into my final average.
If you dislike how infrequently I face of survivors who can effectively "beat" camping, that is an issue with the game, not with my study.
-
@Munqaxus lays out the scientific method step-by-step to shed some light on a hot topic in the community. How on earth do any of you take yourself seriously whilst responding with nothing but anecdotal evidence?
Anyway, here are my own numbers--I added Trial Time in my stats as I figured it'd be pretty telling of what went down.
I just prestiged Bubba, so I didn't have all the perks I wanted. I definitely could have performed better with the right perks.
Takeaways:
- Monsterous Shrine does not work and/or is effectively useless. 4 of 6 survivors who tried to unhooked themselves in the basement succeeded, despite the fact that Monstrous Shrine is supposed to increase the difficulty of escape attempts by 15% (mathematically thats either a .6% or .006% debuff, depending on how its calculated). No luck offerings were burned. Survivors also still had 3 unhook attempts, even after waiting a few seconds to try escaping, despite the 9% increased penalty on escape fails.
- Insidious is unreliable on Bubba. I think it just comes with the turf, but only 1 out of 40 survivors fell into my Insidious trap. People weren't running Kindred, so I'm lead to believe people play it safe when they hear a chainsaw then no terror radius after first hook.
- People hand you free wins. I had a d/c very early in each of my first 2 games, then 3 survivors d/c'd in near unison after I camped first hook on Torment Creek. Multiple games I had survivors kill themself on first hook immediately.
- No Way Out hands you free kills. All of my 2ks and my 3k would have come up 1 kill short had I not run No Way Out. The exit gate delay bought me just enough time to watch the 2nd survivor die on hook then find a final survivor to chase.
- Camping is unsatisfying. Regardless of its viability, face-camping for 10 straight games is a dull affair. I don't recommend it.
Perks That Would Have Increased My Kill Count (Instead of monsterous Shrine, Insidious & Iron Maiden)
- Brutal Strength, Enduring & Spirit Fury Game 6 & 7 were my weakest performances, because both first chases were drawn out a little too long for camping to apply any real pressure.
- Corrupt Intervetion, Deadlock, & Scourge Hook: Pain Resonance Slowing the speed at which gens were able to be completed would have undoubtedly netted me an extra kill in game 4, 7, & 9.
- Agitation, Iron Grasp, & Starstruck Game 4 & 6 both saw survivors successfully unhooked in my face with BT, followed by effective hook bombing & body blocking. A survivor wiggled off my shoulder in trial 4 & 7 as well, due to misjudgement of the distance of basement.
In Conclusion,
At least 25% of survivors will give up and kill themself on hook or disconnect from the trial. Survivors take an average of 8m 54s to finish all 5 gens against a face-camping killer; therefore, you need to catch your first survivor within 2 minutes to secure a 2k. Camping is boring but it works.
-
Don't let this distract you from the fact that DBD is a flawed game.
-
@GoodBoyKaru said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2713536#Comment_2713536
As for your BBQ point, it's worth noting that the aura reading... really isn't the great part of the perk. It's a nifty benefit to have, but if you really wanted information then Thrilling Tremous would be your go-to. The main reason for using the perk is the bonus points- since currently we can prevent BBQ through using Distortion, Lockers, Shadowstep, Off The Record, Sole Survivor, being within 40m of the hook, hiding behind the gen aura, etc. BBQ is only so commonly used because it has bonus points with a nifty extra bit of aura reading to encourage anti-camping playstyles.
To your point tho, BBQ is commonly used. More people are likely to run BBQ than Thrilling (as many find it redundant to use both). Therefore, Shadow Step is countering a perk survivors are more likely to see, making it a better perk by proxy.
Addtionally, I still find BBQ to be a more valuable information perk than Thrilling Tremors.
I'm the only person I know who runs Distortion. No one runs Sole Survivor, and Off the Record hasn't been used since the OoO rework. Lockers can counter BBQ, sure, but a survivor is not always right next to one AND I'm more than happy to know a survivor sat in a locker for 20s just to avoid an aura reading.
Meanwhile, all a survivor needs to do to counter Thrilling is stop doing the gen the second a survivor goes down. Wait out 16 seconds of a blocked gen and the killer has no idea where you are. Thats marginally less time than I see survivors waste hiding in lockers without Quick & Quiet, and the cooldown on Thrilling makes it even less effective.
An example that comes up quite frequently for me is this:
I see 2 survivors across the map and 1 survivor halfway between them. I always go for the closer survivor. The way I see it, increasing the likelihood of a survivor going down 2 stages in one hook without camping is better than stopping/regressing gens. Chasing the ideal candidate for unhook forces the other survivors to choose between generator progress or a survivor's health pool. I'd say more than half the time this scenario nets me the opportunity to snowball and 4k.
But if any of those survivors are within Shadow Step, I can't be certain about how events will unfold and which decisions are best to make immediately after hooking a survivor.
Killers also have a fair amount of other popular aura reading perks and add-ons that contribute to my long list of reasons on why Shadow Step's aura-hiding is its strongest feature.
-
I don't know if I ever really saw her all that often. I'd occassionally get back to back games against a Spirit, but otherwise the only thing making me believe I "saw her too much" was my utter disdain for playing against her.
I love playing against Spirit now, because hearing her phase past me after I mindgame scratch marks or choose a specific pathing is validating. I don't think she is any weaker than she used to be, I as a survivor am just now informed when I made a good or bad decision before she leaves phase.
I probably see Spirit every 1 in 40 games now.
-
@TheMadCat said:
I like to play the tutorial if I wanna try something, like seeing if I like my new key binding. Last time, I was trying new key binding.
I opened the settings to change a key and I didn't hear The_Trapper was behind me. He downed me, he hooked me, right at the moment the bots finished the last generator.
Pretty accurate as they left as soon as they opened the Exit Gates. I died. To The_Trapper.
He's the Entity itself.
Okay, follow-up question...
What are you possibly rebinding?
Survivor has 2 inputs aside from W, A, S, D, Spacebar, Ctrl & Shift; all of which are standard PC gaming controls.