Best Of

After getting my hit denied by the rubber banding for 1000th time I just gave up and switched to Blight. I guess it's their way of silently nerfing the Nurse without the community backlash.

I've got really mixed feelings. He's super fun to play as but I'm not great with ranged killers. I've played 17 matches as him and I've won 11 of them. It works out to a 66% KR so far. So pretty okay results, nothing amazing. I usually do better than that when I hop on a new killer.

Playing against him has been a different story.

I've played against him 28 times so far. In 8 of those I've escaped. That's a 28% ER against him. Only one was a 4e. Three were hatch, so only I escaped. One was a player who had me in the mori stance in end game and let me go, so that would have been a death if he hadn't been nice. Only 4 of those 28 matches were wins for the survivor team and in almost all of these matches I was in a party, so it wasn't just soloq confusion. The Henrys I'm going against land damn near all their hits. I've never had so many losses against a new killer so quickly. Usually there's a period of figuring out both sides go through but this has been stomp after stomp after stomp.

I don't know how much can be changed though. Nerfs might make him unplayable for mid players but in good hands he's nearly unstoppable. I'm curious to see where things are at in a few weeks with everyone figuring things out more.

Where did they say they were happy about the difference in group sizes in high elo or it fell in line with their balance?

Where did they say they weren't?

Here's the quote, bolding is in the original.

"Looking at the bigger picture, there was an average kill rate of 60% across all MMR, while that average kill rate increased to 63% for high MMR. This largely falls in line with our intended Killer balance."

They're clearly looking at overall average numbers. They even bolded it. They have ample opportunity to say something like 'we're considering ways to address the SWF disparity', but they don't, they say the numbers fall in line with their balance targets.

Unironically we USED to not have this.

But guess what happened...guess who complained and said "no"....just take a guess 🫠

The game being balanced on stacking gen proression and regression isnt great as its greatly advantages one side, the side with more people.

But one side does it way more than the other. In my survivor matches, at least half the killers bring anti-gen. In my killer matches, I pretty never bring regression and one or two people wil have Resilience, Deja Vu, or Prove Thyself, maybe. Every once in a blue moon I get a Stakeout/Hyperfocus. I've never once seen a full team of gen rushers. It's all chase and second chance, and those are way better anyway.

I used to use Streetwise with a Commodious before the rework and, according to the stat page, I have a 42.88% ER with it. I switched it for Lithe and have a 46.72% with that. A full four percent increase because I can zoom away from death. Gen perks are pretty mid compared to endless speed and Endurance.

1. It's the killer who chooses to go after the unhooked, who did nothing wrong, instead of the stupid unhooker. Killers are also capable of making choices.

2. Going after the unhooked is punishing the wrong person. No one learns something from someone else being punished. When they lose the match, they dont go "it's because I unhooked too early." The game isn't teaching them that's an issue.

3. Killers can swerve mid-chase and zoom back to the hook to tunnel even if you do everything right.

We could do something like putting slow downs on teaming up on a single objective (multiple survivors on a gen)

We could make it so the survivors have to spread out (can't just focus on one gen)

We could make it so accomplishing part of their objective makes the next stage harder (each gen completed giving the killer less gens to defend vs an elimination making the killer side easier)

We could even put unnecessary objective for the survivors, and give them strategic reasons to do them or not (say 7 gens but require 5 to be done, and make them decide whether better to spread out or focus)

Basically - we do that already. Punishing the survivors for doing their objectives, giving them pros and cons to various approaches, is already baked into the game.

Again, they're saying that it's at the intended point, but they're not saying it's balanced.