Console: My take on survivors vs killers

ReneAensland

4 unarmed minds, against one killer.
I killer main and I believe it's pretty balanced.
Although, sometimes I feel bad for the survivors, genuinely bad for solo players.

SirMurphAlot

@AlwaysInAGoodShape what mode do you play with survivor? Me i dont really play swf and dont like being on mic so i would say im a decent player because i got to rank 1 with no communication with randoms. I gave my reasons as to why this game is killer friendly if you dont agree, ok, but you arent convincing me because this so called great player isnt getting the wins he wants. Im going off my experience not anothers. If this game was survivor friendly missing 1 survivor shouldnt have that big of an impact.

@Vancold i came on here to have a dicussion disagreeing with these people is me not liking it

@Bravo0413 yeah thanathobia and all those, a killer can counter all those as well, you play stealthy, a killer has perks or powers to find you, leader you need others so the killer just need to split you from others, resilience you have to have either been hit or running no mither putting you at a disadvantage, stake out need to put yourself close enough to the killer, and a toolbox it is limited.

@GodDamn_Angela im pretty sure your the one that doesnt understand the word.

@ReneAensland thats what i am a solo player, i just prefer playing random because its easier then trying to plan swf with people considering i work nights. But with playing that way i see lots of selfish action like players stop working on gens because one person has died and they are planning for the hatch, and that is why i feel the survivor is weaker then killer because you can play a perfect game but another survivor can ruin your game.

thesuicidefox

@Dehitay said:
The original post isn't taking into account that those parts of it that are valid only mean that the killer is stronger than an individual survivor. You're up against 4 of these things. Sure, I can benchpress 100 pounds with ease. Doesn't mean that 100 pounds is so ignorable that I can benchpress 400 pounds easily.

These things? Hey buddy we aren't "things" okay. We are cockroaches. GET IT RIGHT!

AlwaysInAGoodShape

@SirMurphAlot

what mode do you play with survivor?

I only play solo.

Me i dont really play swf and dont like being on mic so i would say im a decent player because i got to rank 1 with no communication with randoms.

I already told you that rank 1 is not an achievement.
I got to rank 1 within 2 weeks with both killer and survivor. By the time I was rank 1 with both i didn't even know how many maps there were, I didn't know where most of the pallet spots were, I didn't know what the doctors ability even did or how it worked, I didn't know how the hatch-spawn mechanic worked, I didn't know that a key could reveal the aura of survivors, I didn't understand kindred when teammates had it and the killers showed up in pink;

I basically got "Rank" 1 before knowing how the game even worked.

Rank 1 means literally nothing.
Rank 1 in DBD would mean being Bronze 1 in League of Legends, but unlike DBD, League of Legends does have further representations of skill beyond the point of bronze 1.

SirMurphAlot

@AlwaysInAGoodShape If you think no one plays competative in ranks and doesnt earn rank 1 by being a good player, you are delusional. I find you not having any knowledge about how the game works, playing with randoms, and reaching rank 1 in 2 weeks very questionable unless you put in some time and if you did, you would know how the game worked.
Oh i watched the guy you were promoting and saw his no run perk videos where he beat most survivors pretty easy i also watched his videos about the experiments and its not that good of an experiment, the experiment consisted of him getting together with these people and having them all run the same perks, most people dont play that way. If your argument for survivors being stronger is you take some of the best players in the game have them all run the same perks against random killers and thats why they are stronger, thats a weak argument, it would be like taking the patriots and having them destroy a big league team from a local town and going hey i think we need to give them a huge handicap over these other teams because did ya see what the patriots did to them. Of course there gonna have an edge.

AlwaysInAGoodShape

@SirMurphAlot

If you think no one plays competative in ranks and doesnt earn rank 1 by being a good player, you are delusional.

It's as if you have no reading capacity. Earning rank 1? What are you talking about? that you earn what a real ranking system would produce or the DBD grinding system that calls itself a rank?

Since you clarify so little and hide in vaguery it's really hard to address your non-point.

I find you not having any knowledge about how the game works, playing with randoms, and reaching rank 1 in 2 weeks very questionable unless you put in some time and if you did, you would know how the game worked.

So you are in denial?
What if I record for you deliberate terrible gameplay while reaching rank 1 from rank 10 within half a week, will you abdicate that the ranking system in DBD is not a real ranking system? Since through reading and reasoning it wasn't obvious to you?

Oh i watched the guy you were promoting and saw his no run perk videos where he beat most survivors pretty easy i also watched his videos about the experiments and its not that good of an experiment, the experiment consisted of him getting together with these people and having them all run the same perks, most people dont play that way. If your argument for survivors being stronger is you take some of the best players in the game have them all run the same perks against random killers and thats why they are stronger, thats a weak argument, it would be like taking the patriots and having them destroy a big league team from a local town and going hey i think we need to give them a huge handicap over these other teams because did ya see what the patriots did to them. Of course there gonna have an edge.

He plays no perk killer against rank 1, which is again comprised of both the worst 50% and the best 0.1%. He as a killer main fully admits that survivors are the dominating force in this game, as he can get better results on survivor as a killer main than he can get on a killer main as a killer.

That literally delegitimises your entire point.
He plays in a weird manner that is "not normal"? This is called actually trying your best as a survivor.

Since it's dead clear that you belong among the lower-tier players, I doubt that you would even consider having actual strategic pressure on survivors.

AlwaysInAGoodShape

@SirMurphAlot

I came up with this example to explain Rank, since you did not understand it the first time:

Real Ranking system:
If you run 100 meters in fewer than 9.58 seconds you'll be rank 1!

DBD ranking system:
If you run 100 meters in fewer than a locked 80 seconds for over 20 times within the Rank Reset period, you'll be Rank 1!

Rune-scape:
If you cut a locked amount of 1000 million Iron ores, you'll be the highest level!

Real Ranking system:
Only 1 person is rank 1 and only x amount of people find themselves within a certain rank-domain.

DBD ranking system:
Everyone in the world can be rank 1 simultaneously!

Rune-scape:
Everyone in the world can be the highest level!

I honestly shouldn''t have needed so much explanation to get the point across.
DBD does not have a Rank system; It has a grind system that requires you to at least have the skill of running 100 meters within 80 seconds of time; a requirement everybody can fullfill.

A Ranking System:
The requirement to reach a certain rank is relative to the skill of the players and changes as players get better;
Real Ranking system

A Grind System:
In order to achieve the reward of the grind, you have to fullfill a certain non-relative coded condition a repeated amount of times.
DBD (emblem) ranking system
Rune-scape

If it is your claim that DBD has a real ranking system, then you have to show

1: how the requirements to rank up and down in DBD is a relative condition changing by the virtue of players playing better or worse, without the intervention of patches or added code.
2: How the win of another results in the loss of another: How Ranks are scarce and limited.

If you fail to do so, then you admit to the point that DBD does not have a ranking system and that DBD in fact has a Grinding (Emblems) system calling itself a ranking system.

SirMurphAlot

@AlwaysInAGoodShape So because multiple people can be rank 1 it negates the rank system, yeah its not a good bench mark but just because some are bad doesnt mean all are bad and didnt earn the rank 1 spot.
Yeah because if you were playing like you said you were, killers would have exploited you especially low ranks and you wouldnt have made rank 1. Sure make a video. So 50% are bad and 0.1% are best where do the rest fall. Im taking into account normal players, ones that dont spend countless hours to play this game, his experiment is about the top .1% of survivor players against the socalled worst 50% how is that a legit experiment. Now if he would have did random with the socalled worst 50% it would be an experiment but since he went with the best of the best he didnt confirm anything.

SirMurphAlot

@AlwaysInAGoodShape its not that i didnt understand it was the fact you devalued everyone that got to rank 1 because some that got there werent good.

AlwaysInAGoodShape

@SirPurphAlot

Let me respond to your collection of miss-phrases and fallacies;

So because multiple people can be rank 1 it negates the rank system.

Yes, it completely does, and remember Rank Domain =/= Rank.

yeah its not a good bench mark but just because some are bad doesnt mean all are bad and didnt earn the rank 1 spot.

In fact everyone who is rank 1 in dead by daylight deserve to be Rank 1. It simple has nothing to do with you actually being good at the game.
What you don't deserve is inflating Dead By Daylight's Rank 1 with a Rank 1 in real Ranking system would indicate: meaning that you belong to the best top % of players in the game, because in Dead By Daylight this is simply not the case.
Rank 1 in DBD just means you belong to a club of grinders who passed the basic non-retardation test (the constant emblem system).

Yeah because if you were playing like you said you were, killers would have exploited you especially low ranks and you wouldnt have made rank 1.

More denial, beautiful. I'll make it even more fun for you: I'll film 3 consecutive games at the rank where I'm now and I'll play 3 at rank 1 all without perks to show how irrelevant the Emblem "rank" system in DBD is.

So 50% are bad and 0.1% are best where do the rest fall.

Every player at any skill level falls everywhere based on how much you play. If you are a terrible game-thrower who dies every game, you'll still pip and climb to rank 1 if you execute even the basics of the Emblem system.

(Or in short: Just run for hook rescues and you'll still pip in nearly all of your games).

Im taking into account normal players, ones that dont spend countless hours to play this game, his experiment is about the top .1%

So you admit again that your post is nothing more than reminding us that bad killers have it easier against bad survivors, where as good killers have it very hard against good survivors?
It's as if we're going in circles here.

its not that i didnt understand it was the fact you devalued everyone that got to rank 1 because some that got there werent good.

Me: Moustaches indicate little about how fast of a sprinter you are. You can be terrible at sprinting and still have a moustache:

You: its not that i didnt understand it was the fact you devalued every sprinter that got a moustache because there are some humans alive that have a moustache and aren't good at sprinting.

Me: Bruh...
I say that your moustache is not an indicator of sprinting skills.

Final note:

At least try to quote what I said instead of your deformed paraphrases.

Do you want me to do the perkless 6 matches at my current rank after the reset and at rank 1, while playing ridiculous, making my team lose while pipping?
If I manage to, will you admit that you are wrong about the ranking system and admit that the only thing your post does is illustrate that if DBD had a real ranking system, you would be near the bottom/middle far from being a good player and have limited understanding of the game?

NoShinyPony

@SirMurphAlot said:
Im taking into account normal players, ones that dont spend countless hours to play this game

You can't balance a game for "normal players". A game always needs to be balanced around the top players.

If there are discussions about perks, killer abilities etc., one should keep the top players in mind, not "normal players".

SirMurphAlot

@AlwaysInAGoodShape you know calling out grammar mistakes in your argument shows that your losing the argument. Your argument for rank not mattering is a joke because there are legit players that can go every match and get two pips a match. No denial just how this game works and sure make your vids but you can use your perks just ll play like you have no knowledge like you said. No i want a % as to where everyone else falls. No your the one dancing around the argument how can you legit have an experiment when the majority of test subjects know there part of the experiment, experiments like this arent experiments. I dont need to quote your stuff because i dont need to and you did devalue everyone in rank 1 because i said there were legit players that got to rank 1 and you said because even bad players can get there its not really competative. No i want you to play like you said you played, go around the map aimless to where pallets and windows are, not knowing how some perks work, play against a doctor without knowing his power and how to counter, etc... And i already know the rank system isnt a legit one my point was not everyone in rank 1 doesnt belong there because there are good players

SirMurphAlot

@NoShinyPony i have the rarest blood type should an experiment just involving my bloodtype dictake how it affects you

GodDamn_Angela

@SirMurphAlot said:
@NoShinyPony i have the rarest blood type should an experiment just involving my bloodtype dictake how it affects you

What is this comparison?

Sorry you don't understand game balance.

SirMurphAlot

@GodDamn_Angela how is that not the same the smallest % is what you people are trying to go by, the .1% of dead by daylight survivors are why you are saying killers are weak.

thesuicidefox

@SirMurphAlot said:
@GodDamn_Angela how is that not the same the smallest % is what you people are trying to go by, the .1% of dead by daylight survivors are why you are saying killers are weak.

Because you can get better at the game and become that 1%. You can't change your blood type.

Also the best players play the game how it supposed to be played, in the most optimal form. Any flaws in the design are magnified at this level. Low level play is too chaotic to balance because there is no consistency.

SirMurphAlot

@thesuicidefox yeah your right there is no consistency thats why the experiment fails because of how consistent it is. Same perks and same players (besides the random killers) Why not take the .1% of killers and play against them, but no they used what @AlwaysInAGoodShape has said to be the broken rank system to do there experiment. Yes you can get better at this game just like any player survivor or killer but what i compared was the percentage of it, that was my point. You say killer is weaker because the .1% of great survivors beat the other 99.9% of players, thats a joke of a reason and why its not an experiment because you can control it.

NoShinyPony

@SirMurphAlot said:
@NoShinyPony i have the rarest blood type should an experiment just involving my bloodtype dictake how it affects you

That comparison doesn't work and @GodDamn_Angela and @thesuicidefox are totally right. Once more: People can constantly get better at a game and it needs to be balanced for the people who the play the game how it is supposed to be played.

The people that have problems simply need to practice more or they have to accept that they will continue to lose a lot of matches since they are not good enough players. That concept is not exclusive with DbD, that is how video games work! That concept is not even exclusive to video games, that is how life works!

And the problem with DbD: This game is at the moment not balanced well enough. Against a top SWF group you can only stand a chance with Nurse and few other exceptions.

SirMurphAlot

@NoShinyPony no your guys argument doesnt work because you took a small percentage and somehow twisted it in meaning that it was a huge percentage. Thats not how math works, 40% escape rate vs 60% in kills doesnt mean survivor are beating killers, having the top .1% beat the other 99.9% doesnt prove killers have it harder. Not everyone that plays wants to put in countless hours to get to that .1%. So in fps games you cant get weapons or skills that others have, sport games one team is considerly faster. Quit talking out your ass about how life works because im pretty sure someone born rich has it alittle bit easier then someone born poor. Your right it favors killers. But how the way you guys talk killers shouldnt have any chance of beating any top SWF because the gods themselves have blessed these survivors. You know what ill throw an olive branch out there, you know what will make me believe that killers are weaker, if 100 matches happen with the top .1% of killers playing against the top .1% of survivors with no perks, no add ons, no equipment and it being random with survivors no mics, until that happens take your opinion that some youtuber came up with and flush it down the toilet because like i said in my 1st post, this is what i experienced as a low tier player, more ruthless killer awards over escapes.

NoShinyPony

@SirMurphAlot said:
Quit talking out your ass

If you want to have a serious discussion, treat others with respect.

@SirMurphAlot said:
Your right it favors killers. But how the way you guys talk killers shouldnt have any chance of beating any top SWF

You misunderstood. This game favors survivors. And against the top SWF groups, a killer doesn't stand a chance unless they play nurse (and few exceptions).

@SirMurphAlot said:
no your guys argument doesnt work because you took a small percentage and somehow twisted it in meaning that it was a huge percentage. Thats not how math works

We are talking about balancing a game. Games need to balanced around top players. That's a fact and not anything that we made up.

SirMurphAlot

@NoShinyPony no dont give me this ######### about be respectful, i gave my opinion on something and was insulted by numerous people before i even was rude to anyone, heck if you go back and read why i said what i did to you, it was because you insulted me with thats how life is like i havent been through anything. I gave valid reasons as to why that experiment couldnt be taken as the end all truth of the discussion. I threw out the olive branch for people to convince me top tier killers against top tier survivors, random players, no mics, no perks, no addons 100 times, if they cant do that i wont be convinced. How does the game favor the survivor all there most powerful things are limited in some way, be it one time use, a big delay in when they can use it again, or it being consumed, the killer can use its power without much of a drawback, has its addon until end of the game and has an offering that allows them to kill a survivor. Here lets simplify no perks or equipment or offerings whats the only thing a survivor has over the killer, numbers. Killer is faster, stronger and has an ability. The thing with the survivors advantage is that it can be a double edged sword because it can screw you over, the killer can only really screw himself over.

Master

@SirMurphAlot said:
I see alot of people complain the killer is weaker then survivors, I play both survivor and killer, and playing both i see the edge a killer has over the survivor, the killer has one real goal stopping and killing survivors and he has powers and perks with no real limitation with them to achieve the goal.
Survivors have numerous goals, do gens, dodge killer, help other survivors and escape and they have perks and equipment that are limited in some way to complete that goal. Comparing there perks, powers and addons the killer is more versatile then a survivor. They are faster by a longshot even the slowest killer can catch a survivor. So how is the killer weaker, i have more ruthless killers awards then successful escapes by a longshot.
I hear decisive strike is to overpowered, how? Its a one time use that you can miss, the most it can delay you is 16 seconds. Yet some very powerful killer perks like bbq and chilli have no cooldown at all. What about killer addons that stay until the game ends while survivor addons last until the item is used up. Offerings that allow a killer to kill a survivor that was hooked once(Should be twice) or increase the hook count by three when there everywhere already.
Heres something that always bothered me, why is it a survivor can jump off something high or even a foot high and be stunned for like a second but a killer jumps off the same height carrying a survivor but there are no ramifications for that? Nothing added to the wiggle meter, no stun for a second, just i jumped off prenn asylum carrying a full grown adult and im fine. Killers are overpowered, thats my take on survivors vs killers.

One thing i will say they should allow is a killer to grab a survivor that is delaying the end of the game by butt dancing at the gates exit kinda like being pulled off a gen.

I wont even start, this is a hopeless case

SirMurphAlot

@Master then move along

NoShinyPony

@SirMurphAlot said:
@NoShinyPony no dont give me this ######### about be respectful, i gave my opinion ... because you insulted me with thats how life is like

So I "insulted" you with saying: "That concept is not exclusive with DbD, that is how video games work! That concept is not even exclusive to video games, that is how life works!"?
That is neither an insult nor a justification for being disrespectful to me. I am happy to have discussions about this game but not like this.

AlwaysInAGoodShape

@SirMurphAlot

you know calling out grammar mistakes in your argument shows that your losing the argument.

I never called out any grammar mistakes in your argument. That is why you refuse to quote what I actually say, because you deform what I say and misinterpret it. That's what I called you out for; for you having a conversation with a self-imagined me rather than the actual me.

It's so hilarious how you deform what I say that even that sentence is an outright lie.
Start quoting me and stop having fake conversations with things that were never said.

Your argument for rank not mattering is a joke because there are legit players that can go every match and get two pips a match.

We already covered why rank doesn't matter and you failed to show that it did.
We already covered why at rank killers can frequently 2 pip.

Killer vs survivor is killer favoured for inexperienced players and becomes survivor favoured when players start actually playing the game correctly.

We went over this a million times, but you keep reminding us that you're bad at the game.

No i want a % as to where everyone else falls.

Everyone; worst player and best player can be Rank 1. That is the whole point. Everyone can be Rank 1. You can be a survivor and be the reason why you lost the game while still pipping. Both the killer AND survivors can win IN THE SAME MATCH.
Everyone falls in rank 1. It just shows that you played the game frequently within this rank-reset period.
It
Is
Not
A
Ranking
System

No your the one dancing around the argument how can you legit have an experiment when the majority of test subjects know there part of the experiment, experiments like this arent experiments.

Yes they are. Because literally every experienced player in this game with 4k hours and talent have experienced the same. From TrueTalent to Ardetha to TydeTyme to Marth88 to everyone with a brain.

I dont need to quote your stuff because i dont need to

Great reasoning... except you already screwed up in the first sentenceof your response where you started talking to an imaginary person correcting your grammar. (which never happened)

The only thing that happened was (the actual me, not your imaginary version of it) pointing out that you deform the things I say, which is exactly what you did in this very SENTENCE! XD

and you did devalue everyone in rank 1 because i said there were legit players that got to rank 1 and you said because even bad players can get there its not really competative.

Since you're unable to create a distinction between the 2, clarify which one you are talking about:
1. DBD "Rank" 1.
2. Ranking Based Ranking System rank 1.

Everyone in DBD who is Rank 1 deserves to be DBD Rank 1, but that rank 1 is not telling you much.
If you are Rank 1 in DBD you do NOT deserve to claim that you are the best player in the game or that you're part of the x% of best players within a certain rank domain.

This is evidently true, and since I am repeating myself here, I really doubt your reading skills.

No i want you to play like you said you played, go around the map aimless to where pallets and windows are, not knowing how some perks work, play against a doctor without knowing his power and how to counter, etc...

I will just do some gens, run blind to unhooks and die quickly in chases while climbing to rank 1.

And i already know the rank system isnt a legit one

God, what am I even dealing with.

my point was not everyone in rank 1 doesnt belong there because there are good players

I already said everyone belongs in Rank 1 in DBD, but that doesn't mean you are the number 1 best player in the game, neither does it mean that you are in the top x% of best palyers because Rank 1 in DBD is neither a Rank nor a Rank Domain.

How can you not understand this dude?

For the last time:

Nothing in your post is anything we didn't know.

You are telling us a bicycle is faster than a plane because noobs learn how to control a bicycle faster than a plane, thus the bike wins the race in the beginning.

We keep telling you that a plane will always win against a bike when both the bicyclist and the pilot know how to use their vehicle and all you do is scream that bicycles are faster than planes.

Raccoon

O_O

SirMurphAlot

@NoShinyPony yes it is an insult, anyone that says that is condescending to that person.

@AlwaysInAGoodShape i was wrong about the grammar correction i mistook it for something else, but lets be clear i didnt missquote anything you said and all the points i made against that stupid experiment and why i feel the killer isnt weaker are legit reasons, how is that experiment legit when 4 of the 5 know about the experiment and plan for it. But lets back track i just realized something going back and looking, my original post had nothing to do with rank, rank wasnt brought up in a big way until you so that tells me you were trying to add fluff to your argument and confuse the points i was making and it did because i was irritated you were short changing everyone in rank 1, now i stand by my comments about there being players that earned rank 1 but im done with talking about rank with you because it had nothing to do with my point. Dude your frustrated your arguing that since the .1% of the top survivors beat the inferior 99.9% killers, that killers are weaker by default. I dont know about you but i dont want the lowest possible percentage being considered the norm for me because i have no desire to want to be in the .1%

AlwaysInAGoodShape

@SirMurphAlot

(You kept misquoting what I said about rank btw. I said people didn't deserve to inflate DBD's Rank 1 with a real Rank domain, while you pretended that I said that people didn't deserve their DBD rank 1 or that nobody in rank 1 could be good + Misquoting my mentioning of the 0.1% playing together with the worst 50% under the name of "Rank" 1 and pretended that I only said that 0.1% of the players are affected by the game being survivor-sided.)

The rest of your post (the original one) is you telling us that bicycles are faster than planes, because planes had all these difficult buttons that you had the press while the bicyclist only had 1 main goal; to pedal. We already covered why this is not the case and why your post is only an illustration of the learning curve of killers and survivors rather than any new statement about whether the game is killer/survivor sided.

Thus why the first reaction with the picture goes: A story as old as time.

You are simply in the learning process.

New players who played 10 hours of killers will more often win against survivors with 10 hours of experience, but (good) survivors with 1000 hours of experience will dominate (good) killers with 1000 hours of experience. (The plane example)

Your post should be about how to limit the gap between Killer-versus-Survivors at the lower percentile of players against the higher percentile of players (which is what me, and others are working on).

As for the main statement; the game remains survivor sided and you will come to that conclusion yourself if you spend enough time learning both sides.

redsopine01

The_Crusader said:

The escape rate per rank shows why survivor blows at low ranks.

I hate rank reset. You need to grind to get out of the green ranks asap.

Brown ranks are way worse then green ranks since you get stuck with noobs and you have killers you k ow you can beat recognizing you and killing you first off the bat while potatos rush the saves

Raccoon

@AlwaysInAGoodShape
You've wasted a lot of keystrokes "arguing" with a contrarian.

AlwaysInAGoodShape

@Raccoon said:
@AlwaysInAGoodShape
You've wasted a lot of keystrokes "arguing" with a contrarian.

Should have just made an original post about it and link it instead. Sigh.

Thought, at least he/she is not trolling.
He/she mentioned 2 very valid issues:

1. There is a huge gap between bad players (killer-survivor) and good players (killer-survivor) and
2. The game malfunctions around the moment 1 player is dead.

Both are very valid issues, but the only mistake OP makes is believing this is an issue of the game being Killer-sided.

1 is the problem of an unequal learning curve and 2 is the problem of Death-Efficiency

thesuicidefox

@SirMurphAlot said:
@thesuicidefox yeah your right there is no consistency thats why the experiment fails because of how consistent it is. Same perks and same players (besides the random killers) Why not take the .1% of killers and play against them, but no they used what @AlwaysInAGoodShape has said to be the broken rank system to do there experiment. Yes you can get better at this game just like any player survivor or killer but what i compared was the percentage of it, that was my point. You say killer is weaker because the .1% of great survivors beat the other 99.9% of players, thats a joke of a reason and why its not an experiment because you can control it.

You understand that in order for an experiment to be valid, it needs to show consistent results right? It would actually be less valid if they reduced the consistency.

You don't seem to understand how meta works. Meta is basically optimal play. If all players do the perfect thing for every situation, what are the results? The results would be that the survivors have the advantage. You can argue that no one plays perfectly, and you are right, but when we talk about balance & design this is how you have to look at it. If you look at it where everyone always does the wrong thing for every situation, then there is no consistency to the results. It's just a random jumble of outcomes. You can't balance around random outcomes.

If a chess game started both players with completely random set of pieces, you can't balance that because there's no consistency. You would have no idea which are the better pieces, or tactics, because it's all chance. But start everyone with the same set of pieces and no you can systematically find where the design problems are. Which pieces are too strong/weak (and by result how many each player should get) and which tactics are the superior ones (or broken in some cases).

You also keep point to this 99%/1% thing and saying that you shouldn't balance the game for all based on a few players. But if those few players are playing the game as it should be played, in it's most optimal state, that's the only thing that matters. Again because the 99% aren't playing optimally there is no consistency to balance around. They are objectively playing the game wrong, and as such outcomes don't make sense.

irejog

@SirMurphAlot said:
@Dead_by_David yeah going from survivor to killer is hard at first but once you get the basics downs, youll kill atleast 3 survivors a game

You clearly have not made it to the red ranks as a killer. Getting a 3k is rare and only really happens if the survivours try a last minute rescue once the exit gates are opened