I never said that it was. I said that not trying to down Survivors while also not allowing them to do gens is reportable.
You don't have to be committing; you only have to be showing that you are making an effort to do the gens, even if the Killer is not letting you. If the Killer is leaving you be after you run away, they are the ones who are not committing.
That didn't always work. I forced a few situations like that and it didn't end well for the Survivors. Yea they had CoH but eventually they will get cocky and or greedy and eventually will die on the hook. A good 3 Gen is hard to break, especially if you use Hag, Artist, or anyone that can easily keep a eye on multiple Gens at once....heck you want a game that stalls out Get a 3 Gen and play Vommy Mommy. Nothing will pregress.....the best 45 mins of my life.
Even if survivors won't let killers to down them, they are trying to kill you by injuring you and defending you, thus not be considered holding game hostage.
And I said you’re wrong in that nobody has ever been banned or would be banned if they’re playing zone defense. You get banned for doing things to harrass and annoy like the Doctor situation, not for waiting for a mistake by the opponent.
The Doctor situation isn't reportable because it's harassing and annoying. It's reportable because it holds the game hostage.
That is very much not necessarily true if the Killer is letting you go consistently to stand guard at the 3-gen.
The difference between doctor situation and usual 3gen is capability, if they are constantly harassed by doctor for eternity and kept madness 3, they can't do gen, and since doctor won't try to kill them, they can't die, results in holding the game hostage.
usual 3genning is much different, killers will kill them if they don't get farther, and survivors can finish gen if they don't scare dying.
This is true because, if survivor gave up and just stops moving, killers will kill them, results in end of the game.
Whether through winning or losing, game will end.
As others stated Killers defending a Gen is not holding the game hostage....just because they stop a chase and don't want to be led away from the last gens is not a banable offense. Survivors REFUSING to do Gens because they could get downed or don't like they let themselves get 3 Gen IS holding the game hostage.
Even in the Peanits post you quoted he explicitly said it would be bannable because it was being done to grief, not to win.
Losing on purpose is a reportable offense, so no. :p
I agree that it tends to be boring, but I'll be honest, I usually actually don't mind three gens.
The only exception to this rule is three gens on Chapel or those crazy gen spawns in Lerys. The gen RNG for those maps can be straight up awful, and if a Killer notices it early enough, they can capitalize and put pressure on it for an easy game.
Besides those though, it's whatever. Three gens usually have potential to be broken as long as the team splits a bit or there's enough people to pressure it. I'd rather take a 3 gen then old Forever Freddy, Forever Legion, Forever Doctor on Old Game, or old Hatch Stand Offs/Infinite Exit Gate BM. Now those felt like the game lasting for ten generations and being boring as sin. They make an occasional 3 gen a walk in the park by comparison.
"If they are making no attempt to down anyone and purely stalling the game by keeping everyone in madness 3, only downing and slugging them if they refuse to move, that would be considered holding the game hostage."
It straight-up says that the Doctor is holding the game hostage.
You don't have to be committing, you only have to be showing that you are making an effort to hit survivors, even if they are not letting you. If the survivors are leaving the gens after you run toward them, they are the ones who are not committing.
again, you're just completely ignoring the hypocrisy in your own argument. An attrition battle in a 3 gen scenario is neither side's fault as long as they're actually trying.
You have to show that you are making an effort to DOWN Survivors. If they are hitting them once, letting them go, then going back, they are not committing. No hypocrisy here. :P
Thats the same as saying survivors need to make an effort to PROGRESS gens and not just stopping them from regressing.
hit = gen tap
down = progress
kill = gen done
This isn't difficult to grasp.
Oh wait, so killers can't commit to chase because that's pretty much "losing on purpose"? hmmm strange.
Using nuance in your logic? we don't do that here, unfortunately.
Yes, that actually is true. If they just tap and go back to hiding (especially to avoid AFK crows), that is hostage holding.
I mean, the BHVR quote I posted said that Killer is fault if they are only bothering to down Survivor if they stand still, so...
You do realize that what you said is actually true is exactly how survivors are supposed to (and do) counterplay 3 gen scenarios, right? they tap the gens and work on them only until the killer starts going their way, then run away before the killer can get a hit (therefore forcing them to either commit and give up the other gens, or deny the chase and go back to kicking/patroling.) Gen kicks take much longer than gen taps, regression is slower than base progress, and the 1 is trying to match distance with the up-to-4 who are only marginally slower movement speed wise. Gen tapping and getting small increments done continuously is how survivors win 3 gen setups, even with as little as just 2 survivors.
Of course you went to the extreme with your "example," but the strategy is still the same.
I didn't say "tap and work on them until the Killer finds them." I said "tap and go back into hiding."
You're ignoring nuanced arguments in favor of hyperbolic assumptions, just like that doctor shock post.
That quote is specifically about doctor, which disable survivor's ability to do gens.
I'm really not. "Tap and hide indefinitely" is the Survivor equivalent of "injure Survivor and go back to gen indefinitely."
Yes, but it can broadly apply to being able to stop Survivors from doing gens overall. Another example: Standing in an optimal spot where you can shoot anyone who approaches as the Deathslinger (something that I can absolutely say was possible through experience).
no, its the equivalent of "shock indefinitely so that survivors can't touch gens."
(Survivors tapping and slowly progressing gens, running away and healing if hit) is the equivalent of (injuring survivors and going back to gens immediately.)
Those two are definitely not equivalents unless the Killer is going back because they see someone else approaching gens.
It can't be broadly apply to being able to stop survivors from doing gens overall.
"taking the game hostage" is the situation where only option is leaving the game, doesn't matter what exact situation is... if this is the case, that is hostage situation, if this is not the case, that is not hostage situation.
In 3 genning situation, killers can overcommit survivors and lose the game, or survivors can gave up and try to do gens in face of killers and die, so this will not be considered hostage situation.
"survivors can gave up and try to do gens in face of killers and die, so this will not be considered hostage situation."
The quote I gave literally said that the Doctor is holding hostage if he is only downing a Survivor if they stand still.
You don't need to physically see the other person on the other gen to know when its being worked on, and sometimes you don't even have line of sight between multiple gens. I honestly can't tell if you're using every logical fallacy you can think of, or you've just never actually been in this situation successfully.
But to play along, thats like saying the survivors using spine chill to run away before the killer can reach them are the same as the ones tapping and hiding in lockers.
Again, please, for the love of all things sacred, try to consider anything short of extreme examples.