Are Killers really underpowered?
This may be lengthy, so if you don't want to read the whole thing, skip to the TLDR;. I do recommend you read the entire thing though to hear what I have to say.
I am a Survivor/Killer player, but I mostly play Survivor. I also pay the most attention to stats, rather than feeling/thoughts. Of course, everyone's opinions matter, and of course, the devs should listen to them, but considering the kill rates of all killers, I don't see how Killers are underpowered one bit. I understand that the newest available stats are a couple of months outdated now, but according to the stats, only one killer is below a 50% kill rate, being Nurse.
From my standpoint, I believe that the game should be balanced around the 50% kill rate, 2 kills, 2 escapes. I know others may think that a 75% kill rate, or 66% kill rate is more accurate, which I can see, but a 50/50 split sounds more accurate to balanced than 66/33 or 75/25. I do understand the struggles many Killer players face when going into a game, i.e., gen rush, SWF, or natural disadvantage, but not one killer besides Nurse gets below a 50% kill rate.
You also can't argue that any killers get worse the higher you go because each killer gets an increase to their kill rate, the higher you go within the ranks. Even the Killers that are deemed the worst by the community, ie. Legion, Pig, Leather Face get above a 65% kill rate in red ranks. In all ranks, they get above a 60% kill rate.
The worst Killers in the game according to stats across all ranks would be Nurse, Demogorgon, and Clown, Nurse being an exception because of her extremely high learning curve, although Nurse being underpowered is a topic for another post. Red ranks are the same, although Nurse surpasses both Demogorgon and Clown in kill rates.
To me, it seems like the game should be balanced around a 50% kill rate, giving about a 10% wiggle room for each end, meaning a 40%-60% kill rate being balanced. Although Killer players do voice their opinion of the game being Survivor sided, it seems from stats, that each killer is either overperforming or balanced from a 50% kill rate standard. Even if you look at it from a 66% kill rate, using the same 10% wiggle room, only one killer would be considered underpowered, being Nurse. The only killer at that point that would be regarded as overpowered would be Freddy.
Whether you believe that the game should be balanced around a 50% kill rate, 66% kill rate, or even a 75% kill rate, the stats don't lie. I do agree that we, the community, should address the issues each side face and the irritations we all face. We should make the game more fun for each role, but we must avoid being too biased to one side, and consider balance as well.
For example, gen speed. Some believe that gen speed is too fast, and it should be slowed, but that must also mean that if gen speed is nerfed, survivors would need another buff to compensate. We want to make sure that Killers get the chance to kill survivors, without making the survivor board to death by holding M1, for even longer.
Another example would be boring or annoying killers, i.e., Spirit, Freddy, Legion. We should make the killers less annoying to face to promote fun for survivors, without making the Killers useless and destroying the community that loves playing them.
TLDR; The stats show that no killer is considered underpowered, depending on what your view of balanced. Opinions matter, but isn't the whole answer. The community must work together to come up with alternatives to things each side find annoying, without making one side too powerful. This is only from my own perspective, and everyone has their own. Please tell me your thoughts on things that annoy you, and try to find out how to balance it, without taking a bias to one given side.
Comments
-
They are weak.
But on good maps, they are good. It's just map design that screws a lot of people over. These killers don't have enough to get around the map. Or just strong pallets waste time. It matters.
13 -
Agreed, maps do need a change, but we also want to make sure that surveilling time isn't too short to give Survivors enough time to get gens done. I do think however that survivors need strong pallets, but not infinites/god loops.
2 -
Many killers are just terrible on large maps and have no mobility or way to end chases fast. Not to mention I've seen some really terrible red rank survivors as well.
5 -
Omfg there are still players who base arguments on these statistics. Honestly please stop. They are just not the "facts" you think they are.
10 -
How are these not stats. Sure they are a little outdated, but nothing but killer buffs has come since then, to my knowledge. I see them as facts, I'm interested to see how they aren't.
2 -
As the devs like to say (when it suits their narrative), stats aren't everything. By and large, players in the community are not good at the game- that's why kill rates seem to be so high. Unfortunately, the devs balance around people who don't know how to play the game, which has led to its current state.Good players will absolutely abuse all of the advantages that survivor has over the killer, while bad players will continue to lose.
1 -
Agreed. But some killer designs, specifically with one shots are built to be looped for long. For example, Hillbilly, Leather Face, Michael. On the travel note however, I can see adding some type of mobility to killers to give them the ability to travel the map.
0 -
Stats aren't really a good thing to base assumptions off of. Stats at "rank 1" could have any other rank due to the SWF change. So, technically, there could be 3 rank 20s and 1 rank 1 and that'd be a "rank 1 match." Plus stats don't count in skill curves (like Nurse). Honestly you just have to play killer and get the experience for yourself. If you ask me, at the current moment, I think killers are weaker solely because of the map design and the majority of maps favoring survivor, but when those are fixed there won't be much keeping survivor ahead of killers.
0 -
I see what you mean, but if kill rates are this high, getting even higher at red ranks, where the best players are supposed to be, wouldn't it take a tremendous amount of "Bad" players to bloat stats this much. After all, the lowest the kill rates drop in all ranks is 55%, meaning even a drop of 10% to ignore "Bad" players, would still be a 45% kill rate, which can be a discussion for buffs.
0 -
I agree with the map aspect, but these stats are before the matchmaking was really messed with, when killers would actually be put against survivors at their own rank. Plus, 3-4 man SWF make up a smaller percent of total matches played.
0 -
Most red rank survivors aren't good. Even when they are, the atrocious matchmaking will often pair them with a rank 15-20, which pretty much destroys any chance a competent survivor could have.
0 -
But that's not how it works. My matches from both sides before the matchmaking was messed with, which is when these stats were taken, were a vast majority of consistent ranks, 1-4 for every survivor, and 1-5 for every killer. And for your last statement, that is a very rare case of red rank games. In matter of fact, what would dictate a red rank game. A red rank Killer or Survivors. Each could argue to bloat each side.
0 -
Idk for how long you are active in the forums, but these statistics were discussed to death already. To the latest ones, even the devs said to not take any conclusions out of it. There are way too many variables hidden in these killrates.
Nothing but killerbuffs since then? Thats just not true. Just in the last patch spirit got nerfed pretty hard, legion was tweaked again. Since then there was hotfix with a nerf to freddys slow down addons and onis blood marbles and flick.
0 -
The one problem I have with this claim, is that you state that a majority of red rank survivors are bad, which would still technically mean that killers are still better than the average player, while also continuing to state that if the killer is a lower rank, the survivor is usually far better because they are red rank and are good. If most red ranks were bad, then the bad matchmaking wouldn't really be far off because red ranks play like purple/yellow ranks, which is the rank of the associated killer.
0 -
I've climbed up to red ranks after the change, and I've seen at least one person less than rank 15 in about 75% of my matches. The amount of inexperienced players in red ranks is pretty insane at the moment, since solo-queuing is generally pretty unfun so survivors queue up with anyone, despite their rank.
0 -
Hawkins/Game/Lery's/Chapel.
1 -
I dont think your logic really holds up, not in regards to a gen speeds nerf needing a buff to compensate or with the killer kill rates or with the 50 win ratio being the target
See the issue with the stats is they dont tell the whole story. Clown is weak. Clown is dumb. Clown needs a buff. I can 4k with Clown. I have adapt Clown. But I didn't get that going against a good team.
And theres the other side of the story. Survivors are overpowered, theres no question about it just look up any X amount of escapes in a row comp. BUT because survivor is so fundamentally simple in game play you dont have to really be good to win if everyone is just competent enough. Because of that a lot of survivors aren't good, even in red ranks. But if you are good, OR if you are in a 4 man SWF and just decent you can escape consistently. I escape consistently and I dont think im #########, I think im better than the average survivor.
So Clown has like a 60% kill rate but those kills dont consider WHO is getting killed. And to really drive home this point youre talking about how you only care about stats and not "Opinions or feelings" But then by that logic Nurse needs a buff. Shes under par. You say she has a high learning curve but that's your opinion, if we just go by the numbers provided shes the weakest killer, she needs a buff. And dont even get me started on the OP trapper.
But finally the one thing that really goes against everything you are talking about is the 50% kill rate being the goal. This is not a bad thing inherently, infact I might even like the idea. The problem is it completely throws skill out of the window in favor of a fun casual experience, but the game is often treated as competitive. You cant have a competitive game and then aim for everyone to win half of their games. I dont think most people even consider this when talking about the 50% win rate but unless youre talking about making DBD a more casual party game (Which is a valid want, im not knocking that) then it goes against "Balance"
On a final note, camping and tunneling will get you 2 kills. That's a perfect kill rate and a legit strat according to the devs. My little cousin
Oh and actually to answer how do you fix all of this? How do you balance a game where one side has a massive advantage but often doesn't utilize it? Fixing ranks would be a good start but youd run into the issue of red ranks being dead. So idk exactly. Theres already so much in the game that gives survivors power including a built in free win mechanic with the hatch that I dont think it would be a terrible idea to ignore the competitive aspect and make it all for fun. With this new patch specifically stating that ruin was removed because it was too hard for new players to handle, it seems like they may already have decided to go in that direction. Even if its just survivor favoritism right now they wont have much of a choice since this change will Increase killer toxicity and let me tell you, that's not gonna be much fun. Doesn't matter how much they nerf killers since anyone can slug, camp, and tunnel
1 -
I meant killer buffs for every killer, not specific. Spirit and Freddy were both performing much more than the average killer, hence their nerfs. Legion was changed due to him being annoying to play against, and considered bad by the community. And regarding the inaccuracy of the stats, they are showing which killer is over performing and which is under performing, which most people agreed upon. If these stats are completely false, then Spirit and Freddy are both fine and balanced because of the inaccuracy of the stats, along with the weak killers being average. I agree that there are many factors that affect kill rates, but this is showing the plain and simple kill rates across the board.
0 -
Don't base your opinion off those stats published a while ago. They don't respect disconnects, or 3v1 games. They don't respect people killing themselves on hook, because something doesn't go their way. They don't respect survivors purposely throwing the game to try to save teammates, or turn a 1K from NOED to a 4K, because they refuse to leave.
1 -
100% many killers are bad, but my point still stands. When both sides stink, killer usually prevails due to the nature of the game. Playing survivor requires game sense and ALOT of knowledge of maps and loops: this is where the imbalance occurs. Most survivors can't be bothered to learn everything, but those who do will dominate the killer most of the time.This is why low rank matches are even more severely favorable to the killer.
1 -
Why are you discussing killer changes with me?
Killer buffs for every killer? what? explain pls.
Oh dude... just value these statistics. I dont want to even change your mind. I would recommend going back in the forum and read the threads. It was a hot topic then.
0 -
The stats also show that ruin destroyed too many casual survivors. Ruin + casual survivors who cant hit skillchecks and cant find ruin + m1 killer = good killer? I disagree. We would need to discuss- what make a good killer? Does a power can help a killer to end chase? Thats where the truth is.
Nurse is the most painful killer to learn and play, because its a guessing game, but she is above m1 tier. If you have patience or you are a masochist and you enjoy gambling, she is not bad. She is able to 3k-4k good survivors.
0 -
The game being balanced around 2-2 is all fine and dandy, except for the fact that killer doesn't pip around that balance.
2 -
I was aiming with this post to move away from balancing, and more towards issue regarding the stats. For example, the matchmaking. If we fix that, we could have more accurate stats, since this seems to be what most people say scew data. I feel personally that solo and duo survivor is balanced, while 3-4 mans are overpowered. However, 3-4 mans only make up a minority of games. Just because they seem coordinated, doesn't just mean they are a SWF, perks like Kindred exist for that reason. I feel like worrying more about fixing the game is more important, rather than balance. And for your survive in a row statement, Scott made a video of him getting more than 40 4ks in a row on Leatherface. This does not mean leather face is OP.
0 -
I most play as survivor. If I do survive 50% of the time with the current gen rush situation, then winning will not give any pleasure at all.
And at current PTB situation, I do gen without much worry 70% of the trial, specially if the killer is busy with a survivor good at looping.
I dont care if I survive frequently at the trial because surviving without any kind of effort or difficulty means nothing.
So even if they do "balance" the game for survivors to win 50% of the time, it kills what made me love this game as a survivor player.
The killer side is more complicated. As a killer, I want faster lobbys and I want the pleasure to outwit the survivors and kill them for sadistic pleasure. But right now, at PTB the survivors does not require to fear the killer. They just 360, loop endlessly and gen rush while you are busy with 1 survivor.
Seeing pro killers at youtube struggling against the current situation and seeing how easy is to win as a survivor with gen rush most of the games, I have no doubt that the game may not be for me anymore.
Ruin worked more or less 50% of the time both as a survivor and as a killer with the luck of not getting against pro SWF survivors.
2 -
The period I'm talking about when they broke match making is the SWF change to take the highest rank and put them in the corresponding lobby. This made a lot of low ranks survivors be put in high rank lobbies. I know matchmaking was bad before this, but not not to the level it is after the change. And no matter how inaccurate the stats may be, this does show that you still kill 45-70% of survivors, depending on who you play. And even if good survivors always get out because the game is survivor sided, that still makes a minority of the community, and if you are better than the vast majority of survivors, you deserve to get out imo
0 -
Then they need to fix and change if the community agrees on a 50% kill rate. The community needs to agree what is balanced on stats, then the devs need to take an accurate stat check, and move from there. I feel that 75% kill rate is too high, and only 1 survivor escaping every round isn't healthy. I need to know what more people thing would be balanced if an accurate study was taken.
0 -
Most killers are quite weak. However much of that is because of bad map design. That bad map design covers more than 90% of the maps.
1 -
The problem I have with that, is not every survivor being looped is good, heck, a large majority of survivors I get can only loop for 10 seconds. I hate it when survivors get out because someone looped the killer that game, but the game is also not built solely around who can loop the killer the longest. That is why there are skill checks after all, to at least make the gen jockies be skilled at something to escape. There needs to be more areas for survivors to be good at, so then the more skilled survivors would escape, rather than the survivors that only know how to do gens or only know how to loop. How to fix that if beyond me, and people need to come to a conclusion together.
0 -
I agree that maps should be fixed to be more equally balanced, specially Haddonfield. But I also think that heavily favored killer maps, specifically the game or hospital should be changed as well. I know the hospital was changed on the PTB, but I think people need more time to determine if it's balanced.
0 -
Basically 25% should be depip, 50% should be black pip, 75% should be one pip, and 100% should be double pip. Throw the complicated emblem system right in the ######### trash.
2 -
here's a really simple explination: Survivors have a worse skill floor, but a much higher skill ceiling. Killers have a higher skill floor, a lower skill ceiling, and yet they still have more work they need to do to reach that ceiling.
What that means: To be good at survivor, you simply need to acknowledge your place in the game. You are one of four, and the better you do, the more you can prevent the opponent from succeeding. Sounds simple, right? It is. You work on gens, you waste the killers time if you get caught, you survive or you die. Its simple, and its very easy to say "i did/didn't do well" or even "that match didn't give me much room to work with."
When you play as killer, you need to know where 4 survivors are at all times, the progress of gens so that you can (attempt to) pressure them, how many hooks each survivor has gotten, if that person you just downed has been taken off a hook in the last 60 seconds, what exhaustion perk they've used so you can try to react to it properly, keep track of the nuances of your power, etc. Its just a lot more stressful, and the maximum payout relies heavily on the mistakes of your opponent more than your attentiveness to all those variables.
This is why people feel they are underpowered. If your goal as survivor is doing your best to help your fellow survivors and hurt your opponents progress, it is absurdly less stressful than all of that. You just work on gens and do your best to not get bodied when you get seen. If you do? you get 2+ more chances anyway. Time is on your side in almost all cases, and when its not, the hatch is.
The problem with balance from a lot of survivors standpoints is that anything less than a survival is a loss. This is what causes many of them to abhor the concept of proper balance, because they see it as 1v1 and not 1v4. This is also why many survivors feel killers aren't underpowered, because they think they're op in a 1v1 (which theyre supposed to be) while not acknowledging that they're crippled by a 1v4 scenario (the literal foundation of the game.)
1 -
100% agree! But we would need to first fix the issues with the game including matchmaking, and then figure out a system for survivors. Also try to make the killers as close to balanced as possible to people can't abuse the system.
0 -
Survivors have the potential to break the game with some combination of DH/DS/Unbreakable/Adrenaline/Prove Thyself/Sprint Burst and toolboxes plus a free perk slot without any downsides via comms. Few groups do this, but it's staggering how ridiculously powerful survivors can be. Additionally, many map tiles are completely safe if the survivor paths correctly. Again, most survivors don't do this, but killers seem laughably weak when they do. To answer the OP's question, the answer is a bit nuanced. Relative to the skill of most survivors, no, killers aren't necessarily weak. 75% of survivor players are just suboptimal (incorrect pathing, poor decision making, sending more than 1 person for rescues, etc.). The issue is that killers ARE weak when survivors play near their full potential. There is no reason to ever lose to a killer like Pig on Mt Ormond, for example. Survivors have to actively ignore generators for large stretches or be very suboptimal in chases. From my own experience, even when running Kindred, I'll still often see 3 survivors crouch walk towards me from across the map. That's the kind of thing I'm talking about.
2 -
This guy gets it.
1 -
I agree with the skill ceiling and floor situation, along with the 1v1 and 1v4 aspect, but straight buffing the killers is not the way to go, nor is straight nerfing survivors, which is what this whole post is what I was trying to get at. There are fundamentals of the game which need to change to help both sides, for example the maps. We need to change the ways both sides play, to where each side feel like they each have an equal chance at winning.
0 -
The survivor system works fine the way it is. Couple of tweaks here and there for more depips and it would be fine. The only thing I would add to survivor is a martyr emblem, so if a killer facecamps or tunnels you to death, you get at least half way towards a black pip and 5K bloodpoints.
1 -
Most unbiased people agree with that. I know it sounds like I'm asking for killer buffs, but I'm not. TBH the only thing I want for killers are accessibility options and QoL improvements to help with their flaws.
I always hear how "non-colorblind people would abuse colorblind settings," but how many survivors play on low settings so they can see red glows through walls?
3 -
Although like you said, a majority of players don't know how to path, and mind gaming them can easily end a chase if you're able to predict them well enough. Most survivors don't play at max skill level either, where they have the advantage, If a survivor is playing most optimally or near most optimally, there are still things killers can do to get them like mind gaming. I feel in my own opinion, that if a survivor is playing perfectly, the deserve the escape. In very rare cases of which both are playing equally well, I feel that killers have the advantage due just to mind gaming. It may just be me, but mind games are extremely hard to predict because the survivor has no info on which way the killer is coming from. It could be left or right, they have to gamble.
0 -
What's your reasoning for them needing to be changed?
I think you're misunderstanding as to why I think that many maps need reworks. It has nothing to do with them being survivor favored.
0 -
From my own experience from not only this post, but others, it feels like most people don't share that opinion on balance changes. I wish they did, but they don't. As long as there is a natural hatred for each side of the game, I don't think there will ever be near perfect balance for this game.
0 -
I wasn't saying that maps should be reworked because they are survivor sided. I only brought up a couple that are in dire need of changes. All maps need to be changed to help balance the map out for each side. They could be complete redesigns, or just adjustment to size or gen spawns.
0 -
you said you think the game should be balanced around 50% killrate. but thats really reallly stupid.
the game should be balanced around 50% WINRATE. the thing is. for killers to win, they need at least 75%-100% killrate. if they get less than that, they automatically lose. killrate is a really stupid stadistic. what should happen is that killers should become stronger, not easier, but just stronger.
the problem the game has right now is that the killer role has very little skillexpression since most of it is in the chases.
if you look at rank 1-4 matches, you will notice that killers have nothing they can do themselves to win a match. they rely entirely on survivors making mystakes. and the problem is, if survivors dont make mystakes they automatically win the game. wich imo shouldnt even be possible in the first place. killers need to be stronger, but more importantly HAVE SKILL EXPRESSION somehow. there are many many ways to implement such things and many ideas given by other players. but nobody seems to care.
0 -
It's mainly size and tiles that are too strong while having multiple chained together.
2 -
People that want to ignore the stats will come up with a million excuses to, even if the reasons are over-stated or just plain wrong. When a bad survivor player fails to survive it's because they're "screwed over." When a bad killer player fails to kill it's because "the game is survivor biased." The harsh truth is that it's easier to accept loss as survivor because you are the many and you can just blame your team or an overly zealous 'power-role' player for "tunneling" or "camping" you. But when you play killer, the only person you can blame for failure is yourself so people have to justify how it isn't their fault. If bad survivors or bad killers took an objective view of their own gameplay they would probably recognize their mistakes, but it's easier to blame outside factors.
1 -
To be completely honest and you can disagree or not, but I don't think this game will ever truly find a balance that is both fair to survivors and killers and the game's track record proves that. At the end of the day, BHVR needs to put its foot down and people will either take it or leave it.
0 -
How is a 50% kill rate stupid. 50% of matches should not be 3ks or 4ks imo. Killers would still complain about the 1k or 2k matches and say that 3k and 4k matches should be the norm. 50% kill rate is the closest thing people can agree upon to be balanced, without making a 3k or 4k the norm.
0 -
did you even read what i wrote?
0 -
I agree and disagree. They need to make a clear statement of what they think the ultimate balance point is, but then take feedback to help tune it to the more popular demand. We don't know what BHVR wants, and I think that's and issue.
0 -
Please, clarify what I got wrong. From what I read, twice, I still don't see what I got wrong. The only thing I can maybe change is that a 3k or 4k shouldn't be norm according to you.
0
