Interesting Otz Video
Comments
-
Sounds like something a group did 3 years ago.
2 -
no interesting at all, we all know that 4 man with thousands of hours in the game are way stronger than a bunch of solos, still i wont complain playing this game in solo q is a ######### nightmare.-
0 -
My beef with Otz reflects my beef with Monto. They're not people to hold up as principled, objective*, or more than moderately skilled - they're both fine entertainers, and I'm never going to say someone shouldn't enjoy them. Their cult followings leave a bitter taste in my mouth, and while I wish them success in game and as a brand, I'm simply not a fan.
*with the note that I don't think objectivity exists, the fandoms are the ones who push this about Otz. Tru3's thinking of himself as objective is another problem.
Streamers, in general, are fine as entertainment. Their use as examples are what turns me off from enjoying them or taking them seriously - but a video like this one is a stark exception, and one I'm glad to be wrong about in this case. Not hard data, but a genuine attempt to show a consistent trend is neat.
5 -
I guess I understand, but I'd maintain you don't have to put them on a pedestal. He is genuinely hysterical sometimes, and he freely admits that his opinions are just that. Opinions.
He also goes out of his way to share his knowledge all the time and probably single-handedly elevated several killers, myself included.
1 -
I mean, I guess I expect more than what I view as the bare minimum of community care from a content creator.
Not knocking anyone who finds enjoyment or insight in his videos, and I'm not saying much against him as a person - we just don't jive, and that's okay.
2 -
I don't subscribe to or watch Otz a lot, but I've seen a lot of nice things when I do catch him/someone links me to a video (like in the OP).
He's helped other users gain their own followings, raided channels doing charity/fundraising streams for various causes, hosted said channels, done 3+ hour videos on multiple topics to assist new/struggling players (ie explaining how every perk in the game works), etc.
What is your definition of adequate community care?
3 -
"Funny, communicative, uplifting" - I mean, it's what any fanbase wants, yes? Charity raids and fundraising, instructionals, they're just part of building a decent community. Otz may be considered to go 'above and beyond' for those he clicks with, that's just not me. I'm sure there's more good content, too, I'm just not invested - it's not like I hate the guy.
3 -
My off-the-cuff thoughts:
- Otz is one of the top players in the game as both survivor and killer, probably in the top 0.1% of the population in terms of skill. No rating system, no matter how good it is, can possibly match someone in the top 0.1% of the playerbase against other top 0.1% players every game. There simply aren't enough other players at Otz's level for him to actually be on equal footing with his opponents on every game, assuming the matchmaking isn't making him wait 15 or 20 minutes per match to find opponents of that caliber. That's a huge reason why his win rates for both survivors and killers are both in the 70% range, there's no way he's frequently facing opponents at his tremendous skill level.
- I think it's misleading to think that the game should be balanced around "no items or perks or add-ons" being the default. You have to think of add-ons and items and perks as your "gear loadout", much like you would go into an FPS shooter with an equipment loadout with different types of weapons. Playing the game with no items is the equivalent of playing a shooter with no weapon, yeah you can go around and try and punch people in the face but the game isn't designed for that, it's expecting you to have equipment. So it shouldn't be surprising that items and add-ons and perks significantly boost your win rate, they're supposed to do that and the game is expecting you to play with them.
- All that said there are balance issues within the various items and perks, etc. Some are clearly WAAAY better or worse than others. The difference between Monstrous Shrine's usefulness and, say, Pop Goes the Weasel is massive. Or the difference between Trapper's Padded Jaws and ... well, basically any of his actually useful add-ons. So I think what might be a slightly better experiment is, rather than assuming you're using literally no items, compare the difference between common, uncommon, rare and ultra rare items. Because while the game expects you to have an item, it doesn't assume you'll have an Ultra Rare one versus a Common one. So in cases where the Ultra-Rares are massively better than the Commons that could be a balance issue since it would mean how well you do has a lot to do with the luck of whether or not you've got those really rare pieces of equipment handy.
1 -
All this video really did was show how balanced the core game is and how either side can drastically shift that balance by bringing meta perks coms items the best add-ons or map offerings.
The game is cluster always has been always will be. It's why I love it
1 -
I think he makes a few mistakes in his conclusion based on these statistics.
He shows that using items resulted in a ~30% survival rate increase for his group, but he does not give a reason as to why items should not be that impactful. After all, as he knows and has in fact himself shown in the past, killer add-ons can also easily increase a player's kill rate by considerable amounts, there are add-ons that basically categorically change how powerful a killer is. The idea obviously being that they balance each other out to extents.
Further, he merely showed that every single survivor using an item (and the best items, at that) increased the survival rate. However, it is almost never the case that every single survivor is using an item, let alone the best items. And in solo (as well as duo) queue, it is vanishingly rare. I'm fairly confident that I have not had 4 styptics in my last... 1000 killer rounds. I can't actually remember the last time I saw it, I think it's happened a total of 2-3 times in my years of playing this game. Singular items have to retain a certain impact potential, they cannot be balanced with the idea in mind that there's 4 of them in a match, because that contradicts the gameplay reality of the vast majority of matches people are actually playing in this game - it would not be good for the so-called live balance.
And then he used the actual survival rate to argue items would be too strong, but he was playing in an SWF with 4 veterans totalling more than 20000 hours. And using voice communications. In public matchmaking, such a group actually playing to win will of course win most of the time, just like a veteran killer wins most of the time. Not only that, but skill and experience as well as voice comms will absolutely affect how effectively items are put to use. Using a toolboxes charges at the right time and right location for instance can be the difference between it enabling the survivors to finish a gen they would have otherwise had to fight hard for, or it not mattering at all because the killer can defend and regress the gen again.
The best thing BHVR could do for top-end balance has been obvious for years. It is not feasible to bring solo up to the level of SWF: not only is there the coordination of loadouts, tactics and strategies that random players will never have, but no amount of information the game could feed solo survivors would compare to voice communications. And even regardless of that, it's been years since BHVR said they want to bring solo up to an SWF-like level, but in those years basically nothing has happened in that regard, apart from them again sometimes saying they want to do that.
The solution is to nerf SWF. One of a variety of ideas for a sensible nerf would be this: Every perk can only be present in an SWF once each; every item can only be present in an SWF once each. Show survivor loadouts in the lobby to other survivors. Easy, fast, reasonable and effective way to bring SWF to a more balanced level that also addresses the specific concern of the power levels of the best items, as well as concerns with the abusability of certain perks in coordinated loadouts (e. g. stacking 4 Streetwise with 4 toolboxes, or 4 Vigil with 4 Sprint Burst). It would also lead to more loadout diversity and encourage the use of different perks and items people usually have little reason to consider.
2 -
100%
1 -
Killer mistakes are generally more costly than a single mistakes by a team of 4 people. Now if survivors make consistent errors then yes they will snowball themselves into a loss. That doesn't take Otz to point out that has been known for ages, but the flip side of that is that each mistake you make as a survivor is by far less detrimental than a killer who makes errors. You also have to consider the type of error and the consequence. An error for a killer could mean a severely extended or lost chase which instantly snowballs into wasted time for patrolling gens and pushing people off gens that are near completion. You could make a error in judgment regarding breaking a palette or wall and have it come back to haunt you later in the game in a way that can cost you crucial seconds.
You don't need to do that more than once or twice to lose multiple gens against survivors who aren't goofing around.
1 -
Addons can't be compared to items since you can find items for free and they can be used for multiple games. Addons are one and done for killer and without cheating they can't sustain them if they require iri and purple to be decent.
1 -
That doesn't say anything other than 4 experienced survivors against casual killers, some of whom may be playing dailies where you still only won 75%. Now, play random solo matches and you'll see very quickly how weak survivors are. Your survival rate will plummet to around 5-10%. Killer mains don't talk about this because they don't have the balls to play this way. They only play killer or with their 3 friends "helping them out".
I've watched Otz play a lot. Whenever he play solo he loses a hella a lot more than when he plays killer. That's terrible balance.
3 -
I don’t know if he’s trolling or legitimately believes what he says about killers being overpowered.
1 -
Killers get considerably more BP though, and survivors also have an a lot harder time getting specific items from the webs (let alone from chests) because they have every item and add-on appear on there whereas the killer obviously only has their respective add-ons. It is just as possible for a killer to regularly use their best add-ons as it is for a survivor, at least if the killer player does not switch characters too frequently. Plus survivor add-ons - which are necessary to actually make items impactful in most cases - do get consumed after every trial, and cannot be found in chests either (not without using Ace In The Hole anyway). And the strongest add-ons (Styptic, Syringe) even consume the item on use.
It's not really about how comparable to each other these things are in every aspect though. It's about the concept that you cannot look at the most stacked survivor side loadout and not consider that the balance equivalent to that is the most stacked killer loadout, even if there is a notable difference in appearance percentages between those things in global matches (however, like I said, it is vanishingly rare to actually have 4 survivors all stacked with the best items, it is much more common to see killers with the best add-ons, since they are just one person having to make that decision). I do think it is too much if you actually have all 4 survivors each using the best items and add-ons, which is part of why I suggest SWF should not be able to stack items, since they as opposed to random groups are otherwise actually able to consistently make that happen.
1 -
His theory is highly flawed imo. Since we don't have a clear indicator what a win is, this discussion leads to nowhere. But let's pretend the goal is 4k's, i think winning the game as killer with only a few hooks is not a "bad" win, it's just clever. And it's part of the game, everyone should know this by now - going for everyone evenly will make you lose, going for the one who is on death hook is smart. I know it's mean if you play like this straight from the beginning and hard-tunnel, this is why i think they should implement something like basekit DS and BT, right now it's too easy for killers if they play scummy like this.
Seeing hooks as the ultimate indicator for skill is flawed because there are many killers who often snowball (Oni, Myers, GF, Hag) and end games quickly after a slow start (often one-hooking people), those would be punished even though they played their killer cleverly. What about someone dying by Pig's traps? I mean everyone can play this game how they want and i adore people who just want to have some fun and hook some survivors, but 2-hooking everyone doesn't mean you got robbed, it means either the survivors played this very well or you played this poorly (from my point of view).
0 -
you realize there's professionals like probbz which plays solo survivor and escapes like 8/10 games and loops the kkiller for atleast 3-4 gens every game right? and that everybody can get just as good as that guy
1 -
I allways hate the conclusions he makes about stuff... He misses so many variables to make such claims.
4 -
Call me skeptical that he's not a top tier player but since there's no public database of all players for me to compare his stats against others I'll just have to leave it as an untestable hypothesis.
0 -
The issue is, it is extremely, extremely rare to see someone loop a killer 3-4 gens. Even if that happens it is debatable the killers he is versing is really not that good. On the other hand, it is common to see killers turn a match into a bloodbath. My argument is that it is way too easy to be a good killer. I don't like how much is required from a survivor to do well. It's an unfair disadvantage. You need your 3 survivors to be awesome and you need the killer to be horrible at the game.
0 -
I agree with what he says about kills because I've been saying it for years while people have argued over "BUT KILLERS HAVE NEARLY 60% KILL RATES."
It is incredibly easy to get a 1k, and much harder to actually get 0 kills because as long as you hook one person you can always keep hitting the unhooker and swap them until eventually one person dies.
It is also very easy (less so since the hatch is hidden this patch) to turn a 3k into a 4k. A 1v1 situation is significantly harder, and playing around the hatch and gates well pretty much gets you that kill.
When 0 usually gets bumped up to 1 and 3 gets bumped up to 4 just because of the dynamic of the game, not the performance, the kill rates are always going to be higher than 50% in a relatively balanced scenario.
0 -
Rreminds me of the depip squad.
0 -
Did you actually watch the Otz vid at the start of this thread?
0 -
Out of curiosity where are you getting his win rate? He's got a private Steam profile so he doesn't show up on the stat pages that I checked.
For reference the win rate he mentions in the video as survivor with items and no perks was 85% with a median result of 4 escapes.
0 -
Just a hunch but I bet part of the difference between his 85% win rate in the video with items and no perks and the roughly 68% rate you counted in the games you looked it was that in the video he said he played with a dedicated high skill SWF. Assuming a bunch of the games in that 68% were solo queue then that could easily be a large part of that difference.
1 -
I can never take Tru3’s word anymore, when he said swf is op while running a super strong build on nurse, with strong add ons and still losing because he missed so many blinks yet he blamed it on gen speeds. He’s also recently said that they killed Spirit, Spirit is still fine
0 -
He is overly dramatic about certain things, of course. And he has a bit of an ego that fetters his credibility at times. But I personally feel a lot of his opinions align much closer to reality than most of what other killer mains say.
0 -
Fair enough man thats your opinion and I respect that
0 -
was there any dead hard involved in those misses, he's no supaalf but most of the time i see him with nurse he does quite well
0 -
I can’t remember, it doesn’t really matter though, If you’re a good nurse you can bait it out.
0 -
did pretty well in his most recent one on yt, admittedly that's 3-blink nurse
which is also the counter to dead hard since people are so used to using it on 2nd blink apparently
not sure if you can really bait it if -they're- good besides rapidly 1-2 blinking onto them, but dead hard by its nature of being dead hard tends to put you outside lunge range so it still does what it's supposed to do and eats a blink chain in that circumstance
0 -
How do you bait Dead Hard as Nurse?
0
