Do you think the game is Bias to either Killer, Survivor, Neither, or Both? And could you explain?
I believe that the game is Survivor Bias.
Mainly because of killers usually get their perks nerfed in favor for survivor. (e.g. Hex: Ruin, Enduring)
Anyway, I would love to hear your answers and reasons. Please try not to criticize BHVR or the opposing team to prove a point: just facts, opinions (clean).
I want a clean Argument.
Comments
-
Survivor, they balance at about rank 8 survivor, if its too strong for them will probably get a nerf even though players at rank 8 are no where near as good as a real rank one player and so when it comes to being matched against those actually good players killers wont have a chance. they aim for 2kills 2escapes at purple, so red 1kill max i guess. they still havent taken into account toolboxes can reach 35% repair speed without perks but would nerf freddy`s add-ons that reach 15%, been rank 1 survivor and killer for 2+years and its sad im more of a survivor main because its more chill and relaxing
4 -
Survivor. Giant maps, BS loops and perks
Oh and, Enduring actually got buffed
4 -
They are just trying to make all of their consumers satisfied. They change whatever the playerbase has problems with.
1 -
They have made it slightly (Kinda unnoticeable) slower. Made it it only affects pallet stuns instead of all stuns. (Including DS)
0 -
But the pallet stuns are actually faster
1 -
Yea, so are you saying neither. I want to hear your opinion as well.
0 -
slightly tho. Not a real noticeable effect.
0 -
I don't know if bias is the right word.
I have seen many great killers perform exceptionally. Fungoose's 116 games 4k streak with plague with no addons comes to mind.
However I do believe they are trying to change this game to a 1k average. This will require a change in pipping for killers so we don't feel like it's a loss.
Newer killers will be conditioned with this newer emblem system to play in a way that is more fun for survivors. Older killers will have a harder time accepting this as a win.
I think they want the game to grow and be more of a party game than the competitive game it has become.
0 -
Dead by Daylight is definitely survivor-biased, especially at high ranks. As I’ve seen people say before, Killers capitalize on Survivor mistakes, not so much the other way around. With perks such as Spine Chill giving you early warnings, Sprint Burst for a head start, Dead Hard for a free dodge, Kindred for location knowledge, Iron Will making you silent while injured, etc. (not even going into SWF), Survivors should almost always win (“win” meaning at least 1 Survivor escapes), unless the map complements the Killer extremely well (e.g. Myers in Hawkins or Billy in Coldwind).
3 -
Neither. I find it funny how no one said anything when survivors were getting nerfed back to back some time ago. There was no mobs or angry howling people.
2 -
The game is about as balanced as it can be with the nature of the game and the fact that they allow you to play with friends. At the low and highest levels, killers have a pretty noticeable advantage against solo players, but a SWF team trying their hardest and playing with optimal loadouts do have a slight advantage.
1 -
Hello everybody
I think that every survivor and every killer has something to improve. I'm aware of the "unfair" arrangement of helping the survivors more than the killers. For me personally the killer has alway no matter what perks are played by the survivors the chance of a 4 Man Hook. There are for stealth survivors perks like Whispor and stridor and for looping ones Brutal Strenth Bamboozle and stuff. It's in my opinion quiet a luck based arrangement where you can get 4 or none.
Thanks for listening and I wish u a good night everybody.
kind regards
Sachura
PS: If you love to check out my stream normally I'm talking german but if there are some cool guys for english speaking countries I will logically answer them in english :) Or at least I try to :)
www.twitch.tv/Sachura
2 -
Survivor bias. Due to hatch escape being possible before gates are powered. Doctor was annoying to play against for survivors - he got nerfed, instead of them fixing other issues like sound. Survivors couldn't land great skillchecks - ruin got nerfed. Pig got nerfed - she already was one of the weaker killers. The game still has windows that can be nearly infinites vs certain killers. Most of the maps are survivor sided. Ds - killer can't hook survivor for a minute, while he's working on the gen next to him. Survivor related bugs are instantly fixed, while killer bugs just stay in the game.
2 -
Some people have claimed that mori's are too op, because you don't have to wait for the 3rd hook to kill someone. Some have even gone as far as to say its just like the keys in the game. What do you think about this?
0 -
I don't think moris and keys are fair to either side and shouldn't be a part of the game in their current state
5 -
I don't think there is a bias towards any direction. A highly skilled killer can kill all 4 survivors at red ranks the majority of the time. And a high skilled survivor Team can also survive the majority of the time. And when they clash usually around 2 die.
People who say Killers are the only one who get nerfed are delusional. Balanced Landing, Metal of Man, Insta Heal Med Kits, Brand New Parts, Healing Speeds etc all got nerfed. Also hitboxes are worse than ever, half the time when you throw down a pallet the killer hits you through it regardless of how much distance you thought you had, meaning you need to throw it down earlier than you used to. Pallets distances have been increased, while hooks have been decreased. They also nerfed the Petrified oak so it only increases the distance between hooks instead of removing hooks. Which is why no one runs it anymore.
Killers has had a bunch of random nerfs, like EGC timer change for the pig, and Legions butt load of changes. Though most are killer specific changes. Rather than universal changes. I can't think of many perks that were nerfed except Dying Light. A lot of perks were actually buffed. Most of them were small buffs, but buffs none the less. I believe Pop went from 15% regression to 25% if I'm not mistaken. I don't feel like going over all of them tbh. I could but it would take a while. The strange part is. even with all the nerfs done to the killers, their tier placement hasn't really seemed to change. Freddy, Spirit, and Nurse are still dubbed top tier, and Legion is still considered as bad as he's always been. (Minus the cheese on launch)
Actually now that I look at it, it's probably all the nerfs to survivor that is allowing killers to almost have a 3k rate across the board according to the data they released. When their goal is 2K. A previous data chart showed Killers struggling at the higher ranks before the survivors heal nerf. So it isn't completely useless data at least not to me.
Now Ruin getting nerfed is a biggy for killers. Huge Nerf really. I'm good enough at killer to play without ruin, but I know the average killer isn't. They need that to buy them some extra time. Hopefully the devs do what they said they were going to do, and monitor gen times, and adjust it in a later patch without them having to worry about the randomness that is Hex: Ruin.
1 -
BHVR has made it obvious recently that the true bias of this game is towards new players with lack of care about skilled player balance. This incidently makes it biased towards survivors since for new players, survivor is harder than killer so survivor is given more help by the devs.
3 -
The game is not biased at all. The hatch doesn't exist to give survivors a "reward", the existence of the hatch is to prevent game hostage situation where the game could go on for +40 mins. If you're a year or more older where 2 gens were a request so the hatch could spawn.
Maps are not survivor's sided or killer's sided, it's called bad design, they're not pointing to a bias, because it's even stupid to think about it. Badham's and Lery's reworks are proof of it. And they're reworking old maps as well so... stop saying it's biased. BHVR can't do a map in a day, those things recquire time.
The devs points to balance, and take actions toward what they think it will be the best choice.
0 -
they are biased towards new players and only to them xd
if you find something funny(because if you play this game hell a lot of hours you will find sth that wasnt intended) most of the time it will get patched or ruined, my beloved example: noed 2 and downing injured surv -> baiting survs into thinking you have noed 3, lvl 1 Dev hope (if survs didnt passed by hex, you had 1 free mori)
0 -
Survivor favored in my opinion.
Killer gameplay is based around taking advantage over Survivor mistakes for the most part. Killers do need to gain skill in using their powers, learning the maps, and what not when it comes to earning hooks it boils down to the Killer either brute forcing through loops or Survivors making mistakes.
In low skill gameplay that means Killer will be much stronger as Survivors will make more mistakes. But as you go higher into skilled gameplay Survivors will make fewer mistakes leaving Killers with less and less to take advantage on. That naturally puts Survivors in the favored position in the long run.
In other words. Survivors only need to get good at DbD to do well while Killers need to be better than that in order to do well. The skill requirement simply isn't equal as Killers need to be better than Survivors to only be "equals".
2 -
Definitely biased toward survivor. The bias isn't as bad as it used to be, but occasionally the Devs come out with a big killer nerf or bad balancing decisions all at once making them seem very survivor biased once again.
1 -
First off good question.. And before i answer your topic. I dont feel like keys or mori are op... Strong yes more so in right settings. But no.. With keys you have to do a number of gens before it even shows. Then u got to find it. And in the few years and ungodly hours i played. I can count on one hand someone keyed a hatch. As for mori there been times I could not find people or got to pressured to waste that 8 to 12 seconds to mori someone.... On otherside u know if some kilker is running it... And can play according... I feel that at start of game (of equal skilled players) its survior Oriented.. But longer game goes on it will go more tward killer.. As items pallets hook break wear out happen. Thanks....
0 -
I can't say if things are intentionally biased, or just turned out that way. The recent Ruin change was definitely survivor biased. The way the devs mocked killers that commented negatively on it seemed rather unprofessional, and definitely biased. Being fairly new to the forums, i don't know if that's the norm, or not.
0 -
It would be survivor and it doesn't really need any explaining. Killers are always getting nerfed or "reworked" as the devs like to call it. Survivors haven't gotten a true nerf since MoM, unless you want to count dedicated servers which is a huge but accidental nerf.
0 -
MoM has been buffed.
0 -
Judging by their bug fixing priority, the developers are heavily survivor biased.
1 -
Neigther
the game is certainly survivor sided, but there have been multiple changes to that in the past and there will be others in the future.
the devs are not balancing around only one side, as they have done in the past, they are balancing around both sides to try and make the game the best for all instead of letting one side have fun on expense of the other.
0 -
I think almost everyone in this game is x-biased, either way. In most cases it is not fun to argue as it is not about arguing rather than proving that someone is right, by whatever means.
0 -
Neither. The moment people voiced their loud misconceptions/demands on the game being balanced and fair like an e-sport, BHVR panicked and tried to appease both sides, when they just fall flat on their face sometimes instead. I still miss when DBD was a #########, but endearing, spark of passion and soul, rather than a complicated Dead Sea Scrolls mess of balance.
0 -
Both sides have their challenges that they'll face through-out each match. I think its unfair to say this game caters to one side or the other. The game will never be balanced and its still fairly buggy.
0 -
Very much in survivor favor.
Bar just a couple of the top tier killers in the roster, the best survivors against the best killer, the killer isn't winning. Other than a few of the top tier killers, the vast majority of killers rely on capitalizing on survivor mistakes. If they don't make those mistakes you lose. The few top tier killers are top tier because they don't rely on survivor mistakes.
You could also look at the meta perks as an example as well. Most the killer perks have high requirements, costs, or limitations. Most the top tier survivor perks are all game swinging effects with zero cost, skill requirement, or downside.
Survivors are given so many second chances between perks and game design that they are able to mess up many, many times and still win. One hard mess up as killer against good survivors and that's game over. There are very few "second chances" on the killer side and the mistakes are much more punishing.
Your team could be absolutely terrible at looping or mind games, and as long as your team is efficient on gens, you still win. That is just standing there holding M1...
3 -
Survivor biased.
I believe the reason is the same as any business. Money. Below is my long-winded explanation.
The sheer quantity of second-chance perks that can be stacked on top of one another is ludicrous, and everyone knows it even if it's like pulling teeth to get some players to admit it. Laurie Strode is licensed, and that means most survivor players will buy at least her rather than pray Decisive Strike (and Object of Obsession for those 4-man SWFs) shows up in the Shrine of Secrets, thereby guaranteeing a small bump in income for BHVR even when they occasionally give the base game away for free. However, that purchase is one-and-done, and then BHVR is saddled with an enormous number of players who are no longer contributing anything financially, since there is no reason for survivors to get anything beyond her for perks. Borrowed Time, Unbreakable, and Dead Hard are free with a few days' grind along with several other borderline perks, but oops, they can't start charging money for them now. So they start adding survivor cosmetics at a rapid pace, and because people are obsessed with how their pixels look, survivors will buy them. But the only people who will buy cosmetics in any game are those that are happy with the game and have an easy time and wish to continue playing. Since survivor players are the vast majority of the game's population, it stands to reason that, financially, they are the primary target and so BHVR bends over backwards pleasing them. The only time you'll see a nerf to survivors or a buff to killers is when the survivor queue times are getting so horrendous that survivors start to leave the game.
The financial milking happens to killer players as well. Similarly, some of the most viable killer perks are spread out across many killers and some builds do not function at all when just one them is missing. Killer players have to get these characters for their perks AND whichever power suits their preferred playstyle, but they will eventually get frustrated or bored and quit the game for long periods of time, perhaps permanently due to the disparity in balance and especially due to how horrible the community as a whole treats killer players. This works to the business model's advantage, as only the most exceptional killer players will derive any actual enjoyment from playing against red rank survivors, but a lot of them will leave before developing the skills needed to deal with horribly lopsided matches, leaving the majority of experienced survivors to have easy games against less experienced killers, ensuring that survivors get to have a grand, fun time bullying a low-rank killer into quitting, but since BHVR already has their money, they have no reason to care. If those killer players bought cosmetics too, then all the better for BHVR, but I doubt they're considered a priority. They rely on the revolving door of killer players.
Now you know why I believe BHVR shows a pattern of not caring about killer players. It is in their best financial interest to actively make them unhappy at a slow enough rate to retain just a small number of them, mostly newer players who cannot keep up, for survivors to get easy matches.
tl;dr 80% of players inevitably spend more money than 20% of players
1 -
Nither
It used to be survivor sided but after recent changes the game has been extremly balanced for both sides imo
0 -
MoM didn't get buffed, it got tweaked. You also have to realize that I sent that reply in late January.
0 -
If everybody has the same skill level then the game is mostly balanced, perhaps a bit leaning towards survivors but not in a real meaningful way.
I believe the rule that a low skill killer will have a solid advantage over low skill survivors but high skill survivors have a slight advantage over the killer.
Of course, survive with friends has a massive advantage over killer and I think that's where a lot of killer complaints on the game being too survivor sided come from. The survivors being able to communicate with eachother over comms is a massive advantage and given equal skill between a killer and a SWF group, the killer will lose every time. Even having two solo survivors and a pair in SWF is a sizable advantage for the survivors.
1 -
When it comes to interrupts, as Killer, I feel there is bias in the Survivors' favor.
If the Survivor was recently unhooked and has Decisive Strike, tyring to hit them on a gen never works; I always end up interrupting them somehow, even though I held the attack down beforehand.
Oh, but when the Survivor is jumping through the hatch, it's a swing and hit every time no matter how still I am standing or how quickly I tap the attack.
0 -
Assuming you're asking if we think the game is in the killers' or survivors' favor:
The game is definitely biased (not "bias", I don't know why so many people make this mistake) in the survivors' favor. I'm an above-average survivor and killer, yet I'm red ranks with survivor and purple with killer.
Post edited by Orion on0 -
Neither
Early stages of the game definitely survivor but recently they care more about Killers because they realised hoe badly they facked up after the ruin rework. Now they want that there are more Killers in the game because of the lack of Killers right now.
0 -
I think that the DEVs are trying and doing better than they have in the past to balance the game.
I also think some people talk a little to much.
0 -
It's not biased. I'm pretty sure the developers don't have the survivor vs killer mentality the playerbase has, they actually try to make everyone happy which is crazy hard considering how polarized the community is.
0 -
I think OP was asking if the game itself was in either side's favor, not the devs.
0 -
First time I've ever seen anyone ask this on the forum. I'll have to think about it and get back to you.
0 -
I think they are biased towards neither.
It could be argued that they favor killer. They said that they wanted an average of 2 escapes per match, 2 kills. However, on average, every single killer is doing better than this. Despite that, they haven't nerfed killers, and have recently made gen speeds slower and tried to fix loops. This is because very few people play killer, and they dont want even less people playing the role.
However, they also, like you said, seem to constantly favor survivor. Nerfing ruin but not DS, taking a long time to fix grabs and sound bugs.
They aren't perfect at it, but I think they just want to make the game balanced.
0 -
I had a different impression, OP mentioned how killers get more nerfs than survivors, not that they are weaker.
0 -
Gen speeds have not been touched in a very long time, what are you talking about?
Good point. I'll just edit my comment to reflect the context of my reply, then...
0 -
They nerfed toolboxes and increased the penalty for multiple suvivors working on a gen together.
0 -
Yes, but that's not the same as nerfing gen speeds. They still take 80 seconds to complete by default.
0 -
They are biased towards new players, survivors. I remember from stats that roughly like 1% of the players have reached rank 1, so they don't care that much of high rank game play. You can see this from most of the updates and actions they make. Such as nerfing ruin to be less oppressive for new players (and overall weaker) ignoring how fast gens can go already in high ranks.
Most of the perks they also nerf they usually do small nerfs to survivor meta perks (exception of MoM, Sabo). But other survivor meta perks like sprint burst, DS have received multiple nerfs while still being meta. They are usually very cautious before making big changes to survivor perks or gameplay. Often times when killer meta perks get just ONE nerf they are no longer meta perks at all; STBFL, IG, spies, toth, unrelenting, ruin..
0 -
I said gen speeds are slower, as in the generators get finished in a match slower.
0 -
6,3% have reached rank 1 as survivor and 3,9% have reached rank 1 as killer, at least on Steam.
1
