ShrimpTwiggs
ShrimpTwiggs
About
- Username
- ShrimpTwiggs
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,030
- Last Active
Comments
-
Most survivors who wait at the gate stand right at the edge of the exit, so even if you hit them they still escape.
-
I don't think I would touch the game files if I were you, but if you want a sure answer, you can tag a mod, like @Peanits.
-
This thread is so out of control, it's ridiculous. @Peanits can you close this please?
-
@Salty_Pearl said:
I don't know why but a lot of Claudettes wear the green shirt and p2 pants. Why do they do this?To look like Luigi.
-
I really loved the Christmas theme. Those bells were the best.
-
@Hellbilly said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@Hellbilly said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@Hellbilly said:
@Tazare said:
The idea is simple, after a gen is complete, no other gens can be complete until 30 seconds are over but the gens can still be worked on until almost full but 30 seconds needs to pass by before another can be fully repaired.My reasons for this idea: The time it takes to hook 1 person could be more than enough time for 3 gens to be completed at the same time, this is one of the reasons survivors feel overwhelming on the killer and make the killer feel powerless at times
Killers cant hook 3 survivors at the same time so why should they be able to complete 3 gens at once? and it takes 12 hooks to get a 4 man, but only 5 gens for an escape so its quite unbalanced, i believe that this idea will be a step in the right direction if implemented as the current state of the balance in this game isnt as enjoyable as it could be, its a simple idea and could give the killer a bit more control as they seem to get bullied quite a bit sometimes xD
It's a good idea but the devs are (for whatever reason) adamant about not adding more time to complete gens or open the gate. Even though in doing so would be a pretty simple fix to the problem of gens getting done too quickly.
Instead, the devs want to add secondary objectives.
Because simply adding time to gens is very boring gameplay wise. It's not fun sitting their and holding one button for eighty seconds and pressing another one now and then. Adding secondary objectives is a more creative and far more interesting approach to the genrush problem. It also allows for new approaches to perks and items.
I know, bud, it's soooooo immensely difficult to hold your mouse button for an extra 20-30 seconds. Poor baby, I know that feeling, that is so insanely difficult to do. Not everyone can do that, you need special training in order to do something like that, right?
I never said it was difficult, my friend. I said it was boring. Big difference between the two.
I know little baby, it's okay. I know holding down Mouse 1 for an extra 20-30 seconds is just too demanding for you in your very busy and productive life.
Demanding and boring are still very different. Sorry that I want the game to be fun instead of sitting at a gen holding one button for 100 seconds. And Insulting me isn't going to make you look any better. I don't know why you're being so abrasive in an otherwise civilized argument, but I suggest you tone yourself down a bit. You look like a child.
-
@Hellbilly said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@Hellbilly said:
@Tazare said:
The idea is simple, after a gen is complete, no other gens can be complete until 30 seconds are over but the gens can still be worked on until almost full but 30 seconds needs to pass by before another can be fully repaired.My reasons for this idea: The time it takes to hook 1 person could be more than enough time for 3 gens to be completed at the same time, this is one of the reasons survivors feel overwhelming on the killer and make the killer feel powerless at times
Killers cant hook 3 survivors at the same time so why should they be able to complete 3 gens at once? and it takes 12 hooks to get a 4 man, but only 5 gens for an escape so its quite unbalanced, i believe that this idea will be a step in the right direction if implemented as the current state of the balance in this game isnt as enjoyable as it could be, its a simple idea and could give the killer a bit more control as they seem to get bullied quite a bit sometimes xD
It's a good idea but the devs are (for whatever reason) adamant about not adding more time to complete gens or open the gate. Even though in doing so would be a pretty simple fix to the problem of gens getting done too quickly.
Instead, the devs want to add secondary objectives.
Because simply adding time to gens is very boring gameplay wise. It's not fun sitting their and holding one button for eighty seconds and pressing another one now and then. Adding secondary objectives is a more creative and far more interesting approach to the genrush problem. It also allows for new approaches to perks and items.
I know, bud, it's soooooo immensely difficult to hold your mouse button for an extra 20-30 seconds. Poor baby, I know that feeling, that is so insanely difficult to do. Not everyone can do that, you need special training in order to do something like that, right?
I never said it was difficult, my friend. I said it was boring. Big difference between the two.
-
@Hellbilly said:
@Tazare said:
The idea is simple, after a gen is complete, no other gens can be complete until 30 seconds are over but the gens can still be worked on until almost full but 30 seconds needs to pass by before another can be fully repaired.My reasons for this idea: The time it takes to hook 1 person could be more than enough time for 3 gens to be completed at the same time, this is one of the reasons survivors feel overwhelming on the killer and make the killer feel powerless at times
Killers cant hook 3 survivors at the same time so why should they be able to complete 3 gens at once? and it takes 12 hooks to get a 4 man, but only 5 gens for an escape so its quite unbalanced, i believe that this idea will be a step in the right direction if implemented as the current state of the balance in this game isnt as enjoyable as it could be, its a simple idea and could give the killer a bit more control as they seem to get bullied quite a bit sometimes xD
It's a good idea but the devs are (for whatever reason) adamant about not adding more time to complete gens or open the gate. Even though in doing so would be a pretty simple fix to the problem of gens getting done too quickly.
Instead, the devs want to add secondary objectives.
Because simply adding time to gens is very boring gameplay wise. It's not fun sitting their and holding one button for eighty seconds and pressing another one now and then. Adding secondary objectives is a more creative and far more interesting approach to the genrush problem. It also allows for new approaches to perks and items.
-
This idea has been suggested before and I don't think it's a good way to approach the problem. For one thing, it punishes the survivor for doing their main objective by preventing them from completing it. It would also feel very clunky and frustrating for the game to be brought to a screeching halt, or to be almost done with a gen and someone else completing one right before you finish. Another thing is that it leaves things stagnant in the game. I think a better way to approach the issue of genrush would be secondary objectives, like finding gas cans to fill up the gens or parts. Not only would this slow the game down, but it would flow better, feel less punishing, and it would open new doors into how certain perks and items could work.
-
@scerckan said:
weak? leatherface has a permanent downer. he doesn't need totems or stalk to get survivors on exposed mode. if he needs something is to be nerfedLeatherface is one of the weakest killers in the game. He can be looped and genrushed very easily and he's bright yellow. If you let him get close enough to you to the point where he can one-shot you at the start of the chase, than, no offence, you need to improve your game play.
-
-Iron Will
-Urban Evasion
-Premonition
-Self CareThis is the build I use when I want to be a stealth boi.
-
@Wolf74 said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@Wolf74 said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@Wolf74 said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
My idea to change it is a little out there. I would have the survivor running self-care start off with a certain amount of times they can use it, depending on the level of the perk, and they can "recharge" it by performing altruistic actions like unhooks or healing others. There are probably better ways to nerf it, but I thought I'd throw in my thoughts.Charges are a good idea… but why should survivor be able to REcharge them?
Serious… compare it to any other perk that will "heal" you… like Unbreakable.I wanted the perk to encourage a more altruistic play style. That way, you benefit the other survivors as well as yourself. Just a thought though.
Why should a perk that you pick to be self sufficient encourage any altruistic play style?
Because helping others gives you the ability to continue being self-sufficient once you heal yourself a certain amount of times. That's why I included charges originally. You can heal yourself a certain number of times, but if you wish to keep using it, you have to earn it. Kind of like Deliverance. That perk is used to help sustain yourself, but in order to balance it out, you have to do something first. It rewards helping others as well as gives you the ability to help yourself. Being self-sufficient doesn't mean that the perk shouldn't reward you for helping others.
Just give it a limited number of heals, done.
Why should survivor get more extra chances on top of all their extra chances?
If someone is able to heal himself 3 times per match, he should be running out of luck.Fair point.
-
@Wolf74 said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
@Wolf74 said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
My idea to change it is a little out there. I would have the survivor running self-care start off with a certain amount of times they can use it, depending on the level of the perk, and they can "recharge" it by performing altruistic actions like unhooks or healing others. There are probably better ways to nerf it, but I thought I'd throw in my thoughts.Charges are a good idea… but why should survivor be able to REcharge them?
Serious… compare it to any other perk that will "heal" you… like Unbreakable.I wanted the perk to encourage a more altruistic play style. That way, you benefit the other survivors as well as yourself. Just a thought though.
Why should a perk that you pick to be self sufficient encourage any altruistic play style?
Because helping others gives you the ability to continue being self-sufficient once you heal yourself a certain amount of times. That's why I included charges originally. You can heal yourself a certain number of times, but if you wish to keep using it, you have to earn it. Kind of like Deliverance. That perk is used to help sustain yourself, but in order to balance it out, you have to do something first. It rewards helping others as well as gives you the ability to help yourself. Being self-sufficient doesn't mean that the perk shouldn't reward you for helping others.
-
@Wolf74 said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
My idea to change it is a little out there. I would have the survivor running self-care start off with a certain amount of times they can use it, depending on the level of the perk, and they can "recharge" it by performing altruistic actions like unhooks or healing others. There are probably better ways to nerf it, but I thought I'd throw in my thoughts.Charges are a good idea… but why should survivor be able to REcharge them?
Serious… compare it to any other perk that will "heal" you… like Unbreakable.I wanted the perk to encourage a more altruistic play style. That way, you benefit the other survivors as well as yourself. Just a thought though.
-
My idea to change it is a little out there. I would have the survivor running self-care start off with a certain amount of times they can use it, depending on the level of the perk, and they can "recharge" it by performing altruistic actions like unhooks or healing others. There are probably better ways to nerf it, but I thought I'd throw in my thoughts.
-
I think this is where people go overboard. T-bagging is annoying, but it's definitely not worth a forced DC or a ban. It's on the same level as the killer whacking you when you're on the hook. It's annoying bit it's not that big a deal.
-
The Hillbilly is arguably one of the most balanced of the killers. Instead of demanding that his ability be nerfed, how about you try to learn to play against him?
-
Of all the killers, Freddy is in the most need of a buff. There aren't any killers that are seriously OP, in my opinion, but a nurse with five-blink add-ons is a bit much, I think. If I were to nerf anything, it would probably be that.
-
Geez, this thread is a mess.
-
I'd honestly love secondary objectives to slow the game down. It adds a bit more game play and opens new doors into how certain items and perks can be tweaked.
-
i had a similar idea. I considered that it would be a pink offering. When a hatchet landed it would stick in and prevent the survivor from being healed until they remove it. Tearing it out would make the survivor scream, giving an auditory cue of their location. And maybe equipping Iron Will would keep the survivor from screaming. I don't know if it's a good idea, but I like it more then insta-down hatchets.
-
Trapper-Trappy Boi
Wraith- Bing Bong Boi, Wafer
Hillbilly- Billy Boi, Billy
Myers- M&M, Stabby Boi
Huntress- Big Stronk Russian Woman
Nurse- Nurse (name pending)
Leatherface- Leatherdaddy
Hag- Grandma
Doctor- Dakta
Pig- Peppa Pig
Freddy- Froody -
I play both sides and survivor has definitely been less stressful.
-
First, I love this gif, and two, I completely agree. Killers need survivors and survivors need killers. Our goal should be to make sure that both sides are having fun, not turn the community into a war zone.
-
@FinLadd said:
ShrimpTwiggs said:A lot of people playing this game enjoy playing it with friends. If you implement this idea, then queue times for SWF will go through the roof. They could go solo, but what's more likely to happen is that they'll leave DBD and play a different game to hang out with friends. Punishing people for playing in a group could end up causing a large chunk of players to leave, essentially killing this game. I'm all for balancing the game, but I don't think that this is the best way to go.
Point was that killers should have A choice to have A fair game
I know that, but most killers won't choose to play SWF groups. This would cause a massive spike in queue times for a large chunk of the player base and possibly drive them away, which would increase queue time for killers and solo survivors as well. A lot people play this game with their friends, so excluding them could hurt the game. Again, I agree that SWF is too strong and should be balanced, but this option could end up killing DBD.
-
@trendyfartknocker said:
What I'm seeing:/cry
Then I can't play with my friends unless I want to wait for someone who wants to play with us!
/cry
The voice chat outside of the game is unfair. The ignorance on display here suggesting that that unfairness is perfectly fine is pathetically astounding.
If all you're seeing is crying, then I'm afraid you're blind. I've given my reasoning as to why your idea wouldn't be good for the game and so have others. If you choose to ignore it and chalk it up as crying, then so be it. And I never said that SWF is fair the way it is now. I've already stated that I believe that it needs to be balanced. But your idea would hurt DBD.
-
@trendyfartknocker said:
No, they won't. the vocal minority will, but these are the same vocal minority that take pride in being toxic idiots. The people that truly enjoy the game will keep playing.
One of the biggest draws to online games is being able to play with friends. Not everyone who plays with friends is doing so because they want to be toxic. Some just want to hang out. If people end up with ridiculous queue times, they'll play a different game to hang out with others. If one of the reasons people enjoy playing this game is to hang out with others and this game is suddenly unable to sustain that, they'll play a different one.
It's not punishment. It's giving both sides a choice. Right now, one side has a choice, the other does not. How many potential long term players do you think have left because of the current state of things? I guarantee you just as many would-be killers have left the game because of the way it is now as you suggest would leave if things were more fair. You're ignoring one entire half of the equation to fit a bias.
SWF would still be possible, but both sides would have to consent. If mutual consent doesn't fit with your idea of fair play, then I would suggest you're part of the larger problem plaguing this game.
It's a punishment in a sense that most people wouldn't want to face SWF so this would increase queue time and possibly end up driving away a lot of players. The most recent statistic from the devs, in their October 5th livestream I believe, showed that a significant amount of people playing this game play SWF so this would end up affecting everybody. The only reason SWF was ever added to the game was because so many people wanted it. I agree that it's imbalanced in its current state, but your idea could essentially lead to killing the game. Your claim that I'm ignoring half of the equation is also false, since I stated that I agreed that SWF was too strong and should be balanced. Ironically, I've only ever played this game solo. I never said that mutual consent didn't fit my idea of fair but, from a business standpoint, your idea could end up hurting the game far more then helping it. The devs know this, so I seriously doubt that they'll ever implement this. The best thing to do is balance around it, not exclude large amounts of players with massive queue times.
-
@xMystic1 said:
ShrimpTwiggs said:@xMystic1 said:
im yelling on the fourms because half of the people commenting are idiots who cant read a thread its like they still live in MySpace
Insulting people isn't going to help you out much either. It sucks that they DCed on you, but there'll be another time to get the achievement. You just gotta keep working at it.
Getting the addons to get the achievement is hard as it is, and then attempting to do it in high ranks is even harder because 9 attempts and i always have to hook the last because they are trolling scum. except i finally get it to lose it to the [BAD WORD] dcing at the start of the animation on purpose.
I understand that, but yelling on the forums and insulting people won't fix that. The best thing to do would be to try again when you have the chance. Maybe wait until the next rank reset to use these add-ons.
-
A lot of people playing this game enjoy playing it with friends. If you implement this idea, then queue times for SWF will go through the roof. They could go solo, but what's more likely to happen is that they'll leave DBD and play a different game to hang out with friends. Punishing people for playing in a group could end up causing a large chunk of players to leave, essentially killing this game. I'm all for balancing the game, but I don't think that this is the best way to go.
-
@xMystic1 said:
im yelling on the fourms because half of the people commenting are idiots who cant read a thread its like they still live in MySpaceInsulting people isn't going to help you out much either. It sucks that they DCed on you, but there'll be another time to get the achievement. You just gotta keep working at it.
-
You need to chill, man. I get that you're mad but yelling on the forums isn't gonna do much for you.
-
Totem placements have been ridiculous for a while now. The Groaning Storehouse could have three totems spawn in it at one time. I think that one of the biggest issues with totems is that a lot of survivors have memorized the usual spawn points. There needs to be more variety in where they spawn and maybe tweak it so they don't appear on top of hills. I think that would fix a lot of the issues with placements.
-
I'm not amazing at the Wraith but I'll tell you my build. If you're a risky player, Enduring's nice. Ruin is almost a necessity. If you want, you can run Thrill of the Hunt to protect your Ruin, but I hate having too many hex perks so I'd recommend Whispers instead. It's not as precise, but it won't be destroyed and end up being an empty perk slot for the rest of the game. Most of the meta perks work well on him, especially BBQ since they'll have no idea if you're coming. Bamboozle also helps with some ridiculous loops, like the cow tree. As for the new add-ons, I think the best combo is the coxcomb clapper and purple All Seeing. I'm no professional, but I thought I'd give you some ideas.
-
I would love a snowy map. It would add a very unique feel to the game.
-
Trailers with that much detail take a lot of time and money to make and there's enough on the dev's plate right now.
-
This thread is a war zone.
-
@powerbats said:
@Mycroft said:
@powerbats said:
@Mycroft said:
@Token_420 said:
Hi I’m fairly new to this gameExactly.
That's the problem with this game. Survivor mains act like killers are there to shine your shoes and be amusement park rides. "Killers are trying to kill me" Wow, what a novel concept. Do you complain when you get shot in Fortnite?
You mean like some killer mains that whine about anything and everything because gasp the survivors are only doing what they're supposed to do. Which is to ESCAPE !!!!!!
They dropped a pallet on me, complain.
They shined a flashlight in my eyes, complain.
They unhooked someone, complain.
They dared to escape, complain.
They even dared gasp to do gens as quickly as possible to escape, complain.Now if you're like some on here let me be really clear.
MOST OF THIS POST IS COMPLETELY SARCASTIC while also being factually true.
Don't let me get in the way of the 99 strawmen you just beat up.
"Killers complain about survivors trying to do what we're supposed to do."
No. You are supposed to try to survive. I'm supposed to try to stop that. You see the survivors can't drive in their lane with this game. Not only are they not doing their job, they fail miserably then try to dictate to the opposition what they are supposed to do. Funny how that works.
Like I said earlier, crying about camping is like crying about a:
Basketball/hockey player scoring a goal.
A football player scoring a touchdown.
A baseball player scoring a run.
A killer has the right to play defense. Full stop. End of discussion.
Speaking about Straw Men which is exactly what you did here and also ignored the intense sarcasm warning because it didn't fit your narrative and in fact countered it.
The survivors are supposed to try and escape, that means if they have to loop which is a legitimate strategy they can and will do it. You're just upset that players new to the game are getting wrecked by experienced killers and acting like they're good. The newer players to the game need help and be taught how to play the game properly and with respect.
You know like no0t to sit there and tea bagt the killer at pallets and or exit gates. To be respectful post game to the killer if they played fairly and won. But to you it's hey lets be an asshat because that how killers are supposed to act. When playing killer you're supposed to kill the survivors, not be an asshat during the game and post game.
Your posts show us which type of killer you are and why there's so many toxic survivors bullying killer in game. So everytime a survivor bullies you all you have to do is look in the mirror to see why they're toxic.
Honestly, it's a constant cycle. A killer may get bullied by flashlights and decisive strike so they camp the next match. The survivors they camp get tilted so next game they bring decisive and flashlights. I don't think one side specifically started any toxicity. Some people are just toxic players.
-
Hey, guys.
I wanted to throw out an idea about how to handle players that disconnect and hear what you think. How about a time ban that grows every time you DC? For example, if you DC you get a five minute ban, then ten, then fifteen, until eventually a ban until the rank reset. I really like this idea because it would discourage disconnecting while not being too hard on someone who's internet might've cut out. Would this be too harsh?
Thanks for reading. -
@Vietfox said:
1 - remove the hatch2 - nerf ds, sc
3 - nerf looping
4 - make other killers as powerful as (or close to) the nurse.
5 - make gens to take longer to repair (or gather pieces to repair them)
6 - remove SWF
Don't you see a big flaw if all of these ideas became real?
I personally find it funny when someone asks for all this and yet makes fun of survivors by saying they want ez matches.
PS: feel free to add more of these suggestions if you think they have been proposed often.
Disclaimer: i've already said that swf needs a especial treatment and some small tweaks would be needed in the game.
As someone who plays mostly survivor, I advocate for a lot of these changes.
1.) I don't think the hatch should be removed, but it should be tweaked. It's far too survivor-sided at the moment.
2.) I'm all for nerfing DS.
3.) Looping is too easy to do. A lot of that is because of poor map design.
4.) They don't have to be as powerful as the Nurse, but they should be stronger than they are now.
5.) I think gens get done way too fast. I don't like the idea of longer gen time, because that would be boring but I'd love other objectives.
6.) No, this shouldn't be removed. It should be tweaked because it's way too strong, but removing it could kill DBD.
-
S is for Survivor
T is for Tapp
U is for Unnerving Presence -
B
C
D
E
F
G -
Hello,
I think The Game map should be banned in this game because
The Game map destroy the game. -
Myers doesn't really need much change. His perks could be looked at but he's in a pretty nice place, I believe.
-
Here are a couple of my unpopular opinions.
1.) SWF has extended the life of the game and it shouldn't be removed. I'm all for balancing it, but removing it is a bad idea.2.) The pink mori is too powerful. It can eliminate eight total hooks since each survivor only needs to be hooked once. If the game were more balanced this would be far too game-changing.
3.) I'm all for buffing the killer role, but that doesn't mean that every complaint from the survivor side comes from a place of entitlement.
-
I'm not big on cosmetics. I might get a few with shards but I'm not going to spend money on them.
-
@Utna said:
@ShrimpTwiggs said:
If you don't like it, you can leave but don't try to impose your way of playing on anybody else.What ways ? I didn't complain about anything related to the game here. I just reacted to Sirlins' quotes which are in my opinion filled with perillous ideas. Look closely at what Roach is writting ... he already sounds like an extremist of some kind. But again, I'm not telling him what he must do ... just letting him know my concern that's all.
I was more making that last statement generally to anyone who would read it. And I read the quotes. I actually see a good amount of truth in them. People who say 'that way to play is cheap' or 'where's your honor' are usually the ones who don't want to improve in order to win, so they try to belittle others for playing as the game is intended.
-
@Utna said:
@FrenziedRoach said:
First off, let's not invoke Nazi Germany as we're not talking about war - we're talking about a video game. That is a false equivalency that has no business even being brought up in the discussion. Not only is bringing up such a bad example speak badly of you, it cheapens the lives that were lost fighting that evil empire. Frankly, you should be ashamed of yourself.Dude you didn't quite understand what I did. What I said wasn't about war or its victims at all. This was all about the totalitarian way of thinking which is not something we might encounter only in geopolitics situation ; in fact there are some kind of ideas (like yours actually) which eventually, leads to totalitarism. I do not believe you are a war criminal, however, I believe you have a fascist way to see the DBD environment. Read Hannah Arendt for more information.
All I can see by your words, and the horrible quotes you keep sending here, is you are prone to divide the gamers in two categories :
Those who play to win : seems like you believe they are an elite wich are above any kind of social rules when it come to play a game. For example, the game of go have many social rules to follow, and one are not obliged to follow them. Playing according to those rules is the honorable way of playing.
The scrubs : who hide their weakness behind arbitrary social rules. Those might be losers, and their poor results might be because of their beliefs, but for some obscure reason YOU can't just take your win against them, instead ; you also want to believe they deserved to lose. As if there were an universal order, where elite players was naturally and moraly better than the "scrubs" of the gaming society ... does that ring a bell to you now ?
@FrenziedRoach said:
If you want to play be certain gentleman agreements - that's your choice. Go gather like-minded people like yourself and load up a KYF game - I wish you well. But you can't reasonably expect a bunch of random strangers on the internet to follow all these stupid rules that make no sense to anybody who's seeking to test themselves to their limits.Here's the final blow. Since you cannot stand the scrub's mediocrity (again, why can't you ?), you are willing to segregate them and cast them out of your society of elite players.
DO I REALLY NEED TO GO ON ?
This is the most convoluted and unnecessary argument I've ever seen in the forums. It's a video game with certain ways to play. If you don't like how the game is played, then don't play it. If you don't like games that involve camping and tunneling then don't play them. It's not real life. You can leave a video game and play a different one. And there's a difference between mediocre players and scrubs. Scrubs are usually the ones making these bogus rules because they don't want to get better. They don't accept that they lost because the killer beat them. Instead they try to make stupid rules to make the killer play THEIR way so they can win without improving. That's what the quotes are talking about, not just people who don't play to win. There are times where camping and tunneling are the smartest options. And the devs are the ones making the rules, not the community, and the devs have acknowledged camping as legit. This isn't real life. The only rules we have to follow are the ones the devs put in place. If you don't like it, you can leave but don't try to impose your way of playing on anybody else.
-
I think this would be fun but SWF would crush it.
-
@Bethany said:
"It's a strategy" "It's a game mechanic" I did know that some people would come with this arguments. Doesn't mean it isn't toxic or unfair or whatever. At lot depends on why people do this.For example: If I camp someone just because he/she stunned me with a palette to save someone while I was carrying the survivor to the hook it would be unfair. It was my fault to take that way through the palette so why should I blame someone else? I'm the one who has to live with the consequence and it would be an b****y move to camp that person just because he/she did something right. That's what I think is toxic/unfair. Well, maybe I should have defined in a better way what I mean xD
What I mean is: most of these things ensures that someones getting mad. But it seems that some people forget that a game is meant to be fun. And not for getting mad. People play because they want to have a nice time and forget about a stressful day at work or else. And that doesn't work if people just get mad because of some guys who thinks they're cool with an unfair style to play.
And like I said at the point about bodyblocking: It's less points for the killer(because then a killer gets no points for a chase) and no fun for the others. Same about camping, if the others can escape while a killer camps one of four possible victims. So why use a strategy that ensures getting less points? That isn't the goal of this game. Goal is either escaping or killing your opponents(and getting as many points as possible), depending on which side you play. Of course if there are some guys who ignore that and make faults while they try to rescue so the killer can get them - that's ok, strategy worked out, goal achieved, end of the story, next match please xD
@Zanfer Yes it is really subjective, I agree with you about that. What exactly do you think is toxic? I would be interested in your opinion about that. :chuffed:
@Incarnate I like your way of thinking :chuffed: You seem to understand what I mean. :chuffed:
All because you use a legit way to play in a toxic way doesn't meant that that playstyle is toxic. Like sticking around after the exit gates are open. Doing so isn't inherently toxic, since you could be looking for the hatch or trying to help someone off a hook. But when you stick around just to hold the game hostage, that's toxic. Camping in itself is a legit playstyle. As for why some people would camp, there are certain situations that require you to stay near the hook. You could say to go out and find the others, but what if the others are hiding around the hook waiting for me to leave? And you made a point yourself. The killer could use the survivor as bait to lure others at the risk of giving them time to do gens. Bodyblocking is the same. As someone who plays Wraith, I like to find someone on a gen and bodyblock them against the wall so they can't run away when I uncloak and I can get an early hit. All because some people are toxic and trap someone in a basement until they DC doesn't mean that bodyblocking is inherently toxic.