This is what i'm talking about when i say "Survivors OP"
Comments
-
Some cannot escape the 'us vs them' mentality. Anything against killers is the survivors fault. If you don't read the killer book, chapters 21-144, I'll throw it at you.
9 -
Bring Bamboozle. Easy fix. But to be honest, thats why nobody is taking you serious.
4 -
But the map should not be ignored. This is Sanctum of Wrath. Are there any other strong tiles in the map?
7 -
There's a pretty good Z-wall on the edge of the map :)
0 -
Read the post.
4 -
Read the post.
4 -
This post is a good example of what the 60% target kill rate has led to, killers feeling entitled to get a 3k/4k most games and any kind of challenge is seen as unfair.
14 -
Incorrect.
I play both sides, so that argument is invalid. There's a reason tournaments have heavy restrictions on survivors, because at the highest level killers simply are not strong enough to deal with them when they bring their best.
3 -
Higher tier killers are restricted as well. Most killers on the roster are. It's a common misconception that only one side is restricted in comp.
17 -
Otz and Hens hosted a tournament with no restrictions for both sides, and killers still had 60% killrate on average. So no, you're wrong again.
I give you that killers in this tournament weren't playing Legion, but they were facing tournament 4-man SWFs with 4 syringes every game, and you aren't facing that. At least, based on this video.
12 -
There are killer streamers going on win streaks of hundreds of games in a row. There's not a single survivor player in the world who can escape hundreds of games in a row, especially in solo q. Even 10 escapes in a row would be a massive achievement. Look at how much killers complained about MFT even when they were still winning most games. They don't want to survivors to have ANYTHING that makes the game challenging for them. The worst thing is that devs have listened to killer mains and ruined the game for 80% of their playerbase.
4 -
Would love to see it, but i'd guess that every match was nurse/blight/spirit etc. top tier killers. Which is not what i'm talking about when i discuss these things. I'm talking about the OTHER 30+ killers that aren't viable at that level.
Also, a single tournament does not a data set make. You would need to look at thousands of matches at this level to get any relevant data.
3 -
Yes, against the top 0.01% best players in the world, Legion is not viable, but you aren't facing these players at all, otherwise you could have at least recorded a clip where you don't 4k at 4 gens. Or even better, record a clip of YOU playing survivor and looping Legion for 5 gens.
And yes I know you can sometimes find great loopers in pub that will make this kind of setup a nightmare, that can occasionally happen, but this is what you sign up for when you play Legion and you know it. 80% of players won't be able to exploit this setup properly and if you want to ignore strong loops, you always have the option to play Nurse. Meanwhile, survivors playing against Nurse don't have any option.
Link to the No Limit tournament: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Z8lP_gBJE
7 -
I don't normally mind shack connecting to a pallet loop or maybe even two weak ones. I don't think shack should ever connect directly to a window wall though or strong jungle gym like this. The two windows create too much opportunity and the pallets can extend those windows far too much. I also don't think shack should be surrounded on all sides by loops whether they are strong or not.
I don't always agree with your opinion on the game but I'm with you on this. Shack structures like this can possibly be circumvented by stronger killers but absolutely hurt m1 killer. Changing them would just help out the weaker killers and make the game less frustrating.
1 -
We shouldn't make balance decisions around average level players, if we do, then that means that nurse needs massive buffs.
Do you think we should balance around average players or the top level?
I post this video frequently, but its definitely the highest level players. It makes sense. Here is a youtube video that describes exactly what i'm talking about, they are talking about team fortress, but the point still is extremely relevant:
In our case, we are talking about this OP structure right? So, if they made it so such a structure/setup never spawned (I.E. nerfed it) does it hurt low level survivors? No, because low level survivors aren't abusing this type of thing to begin with, it won't impact them even a little bit. But it will make a big difference in high level play.
1 -
I see your point, but at the same time, if you balance around the top level players in this game, what does that look like?
No connecting tiles? Jungle gyms reduced to 4 lanes? The terrible new pallets on maps like Farm, Macmillan and Autohaven everywhere? What does the game look like to the rest of the 99% of the playerbase that's not top level? Why would a game with no inherent competitive scene balance around competitive level players?
IMO this would just further dampen the already poor new player experience and the average player would have a harder time than they already have in the majority of their matches.
8 -
I get what you mean, and like i said before, the RNG in DBD is pretty wild. Not as crazy as it used to be, but still crazy anough to go crazy sometimes ;)
Should a setup like you encountered be the norm? No, not at all, but it should exist in my opinion. Extremly rare tho, but nevertheless a possibility. If the game would not have RNG layouts, i am pretty sure, it would not be as exciting as it is.
0 -
We see the results of BHVR balancing for high-level players -> player count at an all time low, casuals are dropping the game, and imo the game has become unfun on BOTH sides because you're constantly facing hardcore players.
9 -
I understand that you mentioned in this description that the team you were facing was bad so that's why it's 4 gens and 3k dead, so ignoring that, when it comes to maps and tile placements it's such a tricky fix. Because a terrible map for huntress is an "op" map for blight. A great map for Chucky could be a bad map for Billy. Etc. A "killer sided map" or a "survivor sided map" can be flipped depending upon survivor perks, and what killer they're going up against. Unless you're a nurse then literally no map really matters anyway lol.
Sorry for your frustration, but maps are in the rework right now, so there's hope. And just because a map may be really great for a certain set of perks or a certain killer's powers does NOT mean that said killer or survivor is "OP" just because of the opportunities that specific maps/tiles happened to provide in that instance. In my opinion. gliyn gamer
1 -
I already explained it though, you can nerf these structures because low level survivors don't know how to abuse them. And they are also going against low level killers who don't know how to do complicated mindgames that would hurt those survivors at that level without having those OP structures anyway.
Like, imagine shack, for example. Shack at a low level feels like a dangerous place for a survivor, usually it has basement, and you don't always know how to loop the structure. So often what ends up happening, is that the survivor just predrops the pallet early, "wastes" it, and moves on.
But at a high level, those survivors will do everything they can to never drop that shack pallet, and there are various check spots (many of which are not mindgamable due to random holes in the wall for some reason) that can be used to basically guarantee that the killer has to vault 3 times to block the window in order to force the pallet to be dropped.
There are mindgames that can be done to help with this, but again, really good survivors won't be fooled by them because they use the proper "check spots" where it doesn't matter what the killer does, they always are able to make the optimal decision based on what the killer is doing.
Now, imagine you nerfed shack, to perhaps be like the dead dogs one, where there is a breakable wall that significantly reduces the power of the structure. Would that hurt these low level survivors? No, because they are predropping the pallet anyway. But, it would significantly nerf the structure at a high level, and make mindgames viable on the structure again, making it so that its not just a guaranteed safe spot for the survivor.
When i talk about "nerfing survivors" this is the kind of thing i talk about, when i talk about survivors being OP, this is the kind of thing i'm talking about. Good survivors can be literally uncatchable (again, not including nurse in this discussion) at these types of structures, and nerfing them would not hurt these low MMR survivors to begin with.
1 -
That has less to do with balancing, and more to do with MMR. I am in favor of them creating a ranked mode that has these hardcore things in place that shoot for that "50% win rate for both sides" and having a more casual mode that is meant for people to chill. I would personally make it so that ranked mode is a forced SWF match, and the casual one is solo queue only (maybe a single duo is allowed) to reflect that.
1 -
MMR is bad but incompetent balancing is most of the reason why we're there. There were so many unfriendly changes for casual players in the past 2 years (eg. Self-care nerf), which competitive players did not mind but have resulted in a lot of low-MMR players leaving. And as a result, matches get sweatier for both sides. This is what a lot of players don't realize when they suggest a terrible balance change for their side, it might actually make the game more difficult for them too, because in long-term they will face better players.
This specific vault setup is ridiculous, but imo it's not what BHVR should focus on: it's a difficult problem to fix, they have already screwed up so many maps, and it's not that impactful (it rarely happens except on some specific maps, you rarely find players who can exploit it, and you can always switch to a different killer).
That said I agree with your solution to split the queues. Not sure about the exact details but I think at least splitting the queues between casual/competitive would fix a lot of problems.
1 -
I can get behind that, I think most maps would benefit from having a shack like Dead Dawg’s or just more mindgameable tiles in general.
It just worries me that we’ll end up having “The Game” but instead of having a bunch of safe pallets that aren’t really chainable, there will be 20 unsafe, unchainable, and low skill expression resources.
And in the nicest/most constructive way possible, if you framed your discussions in a more neutral tone, you’d get less name-calling towards you and more actual discussion which I know you’re trying to go for. Naming this discussion “this is why survivors are OP” instead of something along the lines of “this is what is wrong with maps” will lead to healthier discussions for you and others. Because at the end of the day, survivors have no control over map RNG like this and they’re going to take advantage of the resources they’re provided, as they should. Resources are the only thing between them and the hook after all.
3 -
I intentionally made the thread title provocative, but i get it.
1 -
They include letting go on hook in kill rates, but they exclude any matches where one person DCs. Likely because there's a high likelihood that the other 3 do not escape, which would bump up kill rates further. I'd say the killrates are actually much higher, considering we know how effective tunnelling one person out asap is at crippling the team and helping killers win. It'd be no different when one person DCs.
1 -
rng shouldn't be such a massive deciding factor. op's wording is weird, but their point is valid. those shack into gym set ups, or any good filler pallet into gym window set ups shouldn't exist at all. same with a coldwind map with all tiles being LTs and C tiles. that map is basically one big dead zone.
1 -
The most absurd thing about this video is that despite having such a powerful map generation for survivors, they left after 4 generations. And many viewers just looked at the result of that match and thought "Survivor was the OP? It promise to make me laugh."
I had no idea that people here had so little understanding of the game system and how survivor's side screwed up the match. If we were to create a balance based on these people, it would naturally be necessary to introduce base kits and protection systems to the survivors.
A survivor with a reasonable mindset would leave the generator near here and complete it elsewhere, and if in a pinch, escape here to buy time. The killer probably won't come after you until the end. Because I don't have time for that. All survivors are safe.
0 -
Honestly, until I came across this thread, I thought I was a bit too harsh on people. However, this video proves that Survivor is not taking advantage of maps that are biased in favor and disadvantage, and survivors have made enough mistakes against Region to allow the end with fourth generation on this map.
This is a nightmare. Even in the best region in the world, it is impossible to achieve a 4-generation match on this map unless all the survivors are beginners. However, there are so many people who look at this result and complain that the killer is too strong. Someone please tell me this is a joke. I don't want to believe it.
1 -
This is no joke. This is the reality.
1 -
I don't believe in God, but three words popped into my head.
We can kind of guess what happened in this match. The last survivor has fallen near this area, meaning he is being chased without taking advantage of his geographical advantage. Two generators near here are also being repaired. This is because even though the opponentfrom Region, they are crowding together and plotting to complete the generator. In this map, the survivors were required to spread out and take charge of the generators, but they completely neglected to do so. If done poorly, none of the survivors will make it to the other side.
Even from short information, even someone at my level can infer this much. People who think there's no problem because at least the killer is winning don't understand game balance at all.
1 -
And yet, I've yet to see a post from them about that.
This is about Survivors potentially beating them. They didn't, and they likely won't in the future, but they COULD and that seems to be what matters.
6 -
Sanctum is killer-sided. This is common knowledge. It has this one good loop (as you see, although this doesn’t always spawn) but the rest of the map is fairly bleak for survivors. Nevertheless, those players were obviously not great. But then again OP is probably pretty good anyway so even if they were I doubt they would have faired well.
0 -
First of all, this is common knowledge, but even though the Legion can inflict injuries, it is only as M1 killer that can deliver the finishing blow. Injured survivors can be chased anywhere for a certain amount of time by simply running to the four corners of the map. Therefore, the region allows 1 to 2 generators to complete as a survivor advantage after the opening.
From there, unless a survivor slacks off, one generator will be completed by the time one survivor is sacrificed. This can be accomplished even if the survivors aren't very good at chasing.
And as I mentioned earlier, there are clearly signs that the survivors made a huge mistake. In other words, the result of this match was the result of blunders in everything: the chase, the gen completion strategy, and the anti Region tactics.
1 -
there are a bit going on in the post and replies and idk what op is actually on about, but i don't care honestly. i just think they brought up a what i also see as a real issue and i commented on it; overall bad map design and heavy rng factor on it.
Post edited by NerfDHalready on0 -
I genuinely enjoy when survivors outplay me at tiles that fair, but busted setups like this are as brainless as killers hard tunneling and you know it.
0 -
This is what people talk about when they say players in this game can be profoundly blinded by bias, making sweeping, ignorant claims that lack a reasonable perspective.
"Survivors OP" is about the broadest, most ignorant statement one could make if their actual point is that "some structures that can spawn can be problematic". It shifts the entire narrative from "address certain procedural RNG on certain areas on certain maps" to "nerf survivors". It also ignores the fact that other structures and areas exist where survivors are essentially guaranteed to take hits and downs, that matches don't take place on one area of a map, and that the killer can strategically choose not to contest certain areas at certain times or against certain players.
Of course, your point wasn't even that some structures can be problematic, you go ahead and say "any good survivor can render this entire half of the map impossible for me to ever down them". How people can say stuff like this and not realize how unreasonable their thinking is beats me. It's downright delusional. First of all, this is one corner of the map, survivors regularly cannot make it there (let alone with enough distance not to have to use its pallets immediately) even if they're already on the same half of the map. All the less so if the killer is one of the many different ones with a chase ability. Secondly, the idea that any good survivor would be impossible to ever down is ridiculous even when they do play this structure with enough distance to abuse it. It simply is not true, a good killer player even when using a pure M1 killer without any ability or perks whatsoever would be able to down a good survivor on this without spending minutes upon minutes doing so, let alone an eternity. And finally, we are talking about Sanctum Of Wrath here, the most killer-sided outdoor map in the game. It's small and yet still littered with deadzones, often making it mindlessly easy to zone survivors into certain death, it has few pallets most of which are also unsafe or essentially guaranteed hits, it's laid out such that there's two halves that can spawn ridiculous gen clusters, separated by a main building that doesn't give survivors much of anything to play with but gives the killer an easy chokepoint and elevation to control the map, hooks and gen clusters from. But you don't mind any of that, I'm sure.
Also, most killers have abilities that help them deal with setups like this, some so much so that this poses no real problem whatsoever. Yes it is a strong setup, I agree that it is in fact unreasonably strong and making sure no gym tile ever spawns adjacent to shack is something I would sign off on. That said, for one thing you should be using Bamboozle on M1 killers to begin with. It's not great that some perks are necessary to an extent or another as bandaids for gaps in base game design, but that is simply the reality of the game (for both roles, at that). Mind you, a good player can still succeed in the majority of their matches on an M1 killer without Bamboozle, but in the rare cases where they do meet good survivor players, their lack of Bamboozle will hurt them a lot. Just like survivors would be well-advised to always bring Decisive Strike and/or Off The Record, because while if they're good players they totally can succeed in many of their matches without these perks (if they play with other good players anyway), in the matches where they do meet a good killer player their lack of anti-tunnel will hurt them a lot. And for another thing, it makes sense that maps have some areas that are more safe and others that are less so. That doesn't mean every map has to follow this concept, but I don't think it would be good map design philosophy to make it so any area of any map is roughly equally safe/unsafe. That would result in very samey, repetitive gameplay experiences. It would also do away with the strategical elements of when to contest which areas of the maps or when to try and lead chases to them, where to do gens or where to protect them. Either way, if they make some areas less safe, they have to also adjust the safety levels of other areas on the respective map.
The next thing to consider here is that you won more than decisively. As one of if not the weakest killer in the game. How often do you meet these mythical "good survivors" that make entire halves of the map impossible for you to down them on? How do you find it in you to complain about how OP survivors are when you can completely demolish a survivor group despite them having a setup that in your mind makes any good survivor invincible? Surely if any good survivor is impossible to down, even mediocre survivors should still be able to leverage such a setup at least to an extent where they don't get hopelessly destroyed at 4 gens? By Bamboozle-less Legion, no less. And if you say that these were particularly bad survivors, how often do you get them? Are you low MMR and get them frequently, or are you high MMR but still get them, because evidently even in "high MMR" getting pretty bad opponents is still pretty common an occurrence. Do you genuinely lose most of your matches, or what is it that makes you so adamant to lament the state of balance in this game? If you have a winrate anywhere above 60% you are already doing better than even pro players often are in many other competitive multiplayer games. Is winning the majority of your matches still not enough for you? Or is it that you actually think the matches which you do lose were simply impossible for anyone to ever win, that you are already at the uppermost barrier of what is possible in terms of being good and smart at this game, and so there is no room for you to ever improve, and the matches you lose are therefore evidence that the game is by design impossible to win? Surely you must think something along those lines, because otherwise you would at least get a hint of the idea that you can acknowledge that your opponents might have simply played better than you, and that a better player would have done better in your stead, that you should look to improve your own gameplay before you think about complaining to the devs and trying to get them to change the game. What do you think when confronted with evidence that good killer players win hundreds and thousands of matches in a row, and even when they are not trying to do winstreaks basically never lose? Do you think you are just as good as them and just get better opponents than them? Do you not realize that you could improve your gameplay and do better in this game as killer than most players do in most competitive games?
I just don't get it. Is it the asymmetrical format of this game that makes it so awfully common that players instead of acknowledging skill and skill differences jump to game design and blaming the game for everything? That they can't conceive of the idea of getting better at the game and think the game instead has to be changed to accomodate them? This is such an anti-gaming mentality and yet it's something I so commonly see in this game. The thing that is above all appealing and intriguing to me about games is the process of improving, practicing the game, thinking about it, talking about it, trying out and experimenting with things, seeing effects of that improvement in the game, challenging oneself, welcoming challenges, taking losses for the opportunities to learn and improve that they are. Acknowleding and appreciating good plays and good players. Or maybe it is because people struggle to think of DbD - a multiplayer PVP game where players strictly play to achieve diametrically-opposed objectives against their opponents, players literally being taken out of the match if they fail to - as a competitive game, and therefore don't think along these lines of "skill" and "practicing" and "improving" and so on?
That doesn't mean there aren't balance issues left in the game remedying which wouldn't be beneficial. And yes, some of them certainly affect (certain) killers more so than survivors. But with the matchmaking as it is, DbD is if anything uniquely positioned as a competitive multiplayer game that allows players to win the vast majority of the matches by outskilling their opponents. If they actually improve their skills, of course. And this is all the more true on the killer side, because on the survivor side it would require 4 skilled players coming together, which basically only ever happens in 4-player SWFs. If people that are actually competitively-minded and care about wins and losses and balance and how good they are and whatnot should be complaining about something in this game, it is the matchmaking that doesn't yield competitive matches with any consistency. Complaining about game balance when in 90+% of matches a good player can win even perkless on the weakest killer (or good players perkless as a 4-player SWF) is just so odd to me.
14 -
I.. don’t really know if and/or why we disagree. From your comment, it appears we believe the same thing here: Survivors made mistakes, the killer capitalized on those mistakes, the survivors died as a result. That’s what should happen. But if you’re suggesting the map was in the survivor’s favor because of that one loop I’m correcting you: that map is not a survivor-sided map. It’s killer sided, it just has one good loop. Suggesting otherwise is akin to saying midwich and dead dog saloon are survivor sided because they have a bunch of bushes survivors can hide in.
4 -
nurse flair
"survivor op"
Seems like bait? You highlighted a clearly strong 2 tiles stacked with 2 pallets and 2 back to back vaults with a gen on it. As a killer player, you know what I do when I see a crappy tile like that? Sell the gen and play somewhere else. Sooner that area becomes a dead zone for survivors the better. Any survivor tries to take a chase over there later in the game when the gens done? Drop chase and pressure elsewhere. It really isn't hard. Plus you're on Legion in this particular game, ykow the killer who can.. fast vault windows and pallets (break them in the process with Iri button)
0 -
I thought hard tunneling was a legit strategy that killers are forced into because of the gen speeds, which makes it the only way to play the game.
If that set up is the same as tunneling, then I guess survivors also need busted set ups to win the game.
Unless you are also up for devs to completely remove the ability to hard tunnel, which btw is not based on RNG and is completely up to the killer whether they want to or not. Unlike the tileset which can either spawn or not.
0 -
I did read your post, and it is way too one-sided. You’ve written it in a killer sided manner when the problem that everyone sees here (map design) is something that BOTH roles struggle with. Yes there are busted setups when RNG screws the killer over but the exact same thing can be said on the survivor side. Rancid abbitoir is almost unplayable right now for survivors because of how empty the map has become. This isn’t just a killer issue.
2 -
I don't keep it a secret that my killer main is nurse. I don't disagree that she is a problem, but i believe she's the only viable killer at the highest level.
I do end up playing most killers in the game though. Like, in a given night if i play say, 15 games, i'll play maybe 3-4 nurse games and 1-2 of various other killers.
0 -
You playing both sides does not negate your ability to be bias. You are being quite so.
I read your post, three or four times to make sure, so I understand what you're actually saying. I think the post title was too aggressive and threw people off coming in with the tone, which I don't think was your intention. You're usually pretty well spoken :)
I'd like to hear you reply to this one though, as it sums things up well. Its a lot, so skimming might work lol
4 -
nah survivors are op. Btw nerf shack.
0 -
Isn't there a forum section for maps? You would probably get better feedback there instead of people here asking why are you complaining despite winning
0 -
The devs will continue to coddle these people. Its only going to get worse for survivors.
2
