Why do the devs want the game to be so easy for killers?
Comments
-
He's probably saying two things. In other words, hatch escape and solo survivor escape. If you add them together, it will probably be more than 4k.
0 -
Here's proof this game is massively unbalanced. Otz is a top-tier player who can go on massive win streaks as killer, yet can't escape more than 40% of the time after hundreds of matches. The devs have ruined this game for survivors.
6 -
Just because the game was horribly balanced towards one side means it's okay for the game to currently be horribly balanced towards the other side?
9 -
Ultra-Mega-Hyper-Agree
5 -
The game is 1 vs many. It's not 1 team vs another team. The devs already have pointed this out numerous times. Every survivor has their own win condition. You can't draw on a 1 v 1 in this game. A survivor either escapes or they don't. It's a 1 v 1x4 game by design. A draw only occurs when neither side wins or loses which isn't possible in dbd.
The killer failing to win on average is absolutely not "balanced". You are confusing kill ratea and win rates. If on average killers only get 2k, then on average they are failing to win their matches. That's an incredibly weak position in an asymmetrical game with a power role.
I'm aware that a 2k is considered MMR neutral (or a draw if you want to use that word), but MMR adjustments are entirely separate from wins or losses. MMR only cares about trying to make future games more fair. Some games MMR will drop even if you win, or might go up even if you lose. An experienced player might not gain ranking if beating a new player, and a new player might not drop in ranking for getting beat by an experienced player. Ranking adjustments are rarely strictly tied to simply winning or losing, and that is also how it works in DBD. It uses strict kill count definitions to go up or down. A 2k isn't enough to warrant any movement on the adjustments, so it's MMR neutral even if the killer lost. MMR adjustments are not a reward for winning or a penalty for losing, they disregard the match result and only cares to adjust future matches for fairer play.
Now, BHVR has cornered themselves into a rough spot for balance with the decision to do 1 vs many instead of a team vs team environment. In a balanced situation, we would want killers to win roughly half their matches, but we also want survivors to escape gave their matches. The problem is, if each survivor has a 50% chance to escape, then that's 4 individual survivors each with a 50% escape rate. Adding them all together, and you have a pretty darn high chance at survivors getting 3+ escapes out every match which then conflicts with the killer win rate. That's why survivors get an innate lower win chance - since there are 4. This whole weirdness, I feel, could be better tackles if BHVR abandoned the whole 1 vs many system and instead turn it into a team vs team. Survivors win if 3+ escape. Killer wins if he gets a 3k+. It's a tie if 2 escape. This would also encourage survivors to work together more since they win or lose together. Now, a fair question is if 3 people have died, then your team lost...what's the point of trying. Very fair. It would give you a chance at extra bp, but ultimately, I feel balancing would make more since regardless to shift to team vs team.
Post edited by RpTheHotrod on9 -
I think Orz simply isn't blessed with good companions. If he and similar survivors had been together, the story would have been completely different. In other words, it's an MMR issue. And a flood of unskilled survivors holding him back.
10 -
The incentive is based on your relative mmr range, so it very well could be on survivor for the person you responded to almost all the time while also switching to killer for you.
Essentially their survivor mmr probably doesn’t have enough players and their killer mmr has enough people queueing at it.
3 -
The devs already have pointed this out numerous times. Every survivor has their own win condition.If you're going to focus on the devs, the devs also use the word draw to describe a 2k. The following comment is about how to treat a 2k.
Full thread link: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/2912408
Hyper focusing on the the same result between two sides for the definition of draw neglects that this is an asymmetrical game.
If you want to get technical on that point, the game has zero win conditions. There are escapes, deaths, points, pips, etc. The mere fact we are calling something a win or a loss means we are outside of what the game provides to us.
You can just as easily call a 2k a win under the logic of why it would be a loss.
Also, saying that the survivors are not a team and that's the devs stance is not correct. The devs have left such things up to the players. Being I'm going through dev posts, here's a recent example where Peanits refers to the survivors as a team
Thread here: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3625891
Basically
If you want to use MMR, 2k is a draw for the killer, or if you prefer, an even result
If you want to throw out MMR, there's no objective standard for calling anything in the game a win, loss, or draw - but the community has very broadly set guidelines for the killer role, 3+ kills a win, 1 or less kills a loss, 2 kill neither of the above (insert your preferred word)
0 -
I admire your dedication to trying to explain this.
0 -
We can’t really speak directly of people as it’s walking a line of breaking forum rules but I don’t think that shows what you think it shows. I have nearly as much hours as Otz does for reference. I track my game stats and my solo queue win rate is in the 70s%. Win rates are less important though than “why” you won or lost. For example, if you lose most your games but it was because you made lots of mistakes then that win rate wouldn’t mean as much as if you lost most games but played perfectly. This is why we judge objective balance based on good vs good, not average games. This is to say there’s a difference between balanced for average games and objective balance. Most people want the game balanced for the average game, I want it balanced for good vs good. If I wanted the game balanced the way Otz did for example I’d probably have the same opinions. We just want different things for the game and that’s okay.
5 -
Sadly, it falls on deaf ears, because one person misunderstood how the statistics work and unfortunately it lines up with a pro-killer bias, so now people just run with it.
5 -
Maybe get out of Ash 4. Killer isn't "easy" unless 3 out of 4 survivors play like they just installed the game.
5 -
You might want to reread their comments. They specifically say that's related to MMR adjustments alone. We already all know that MMR adjustments are not related to win or loss conditions. It only exists to try to make future matches more fair. That's why in many games you can go down in mmr on a win and up in mmr on a loss. It doesn't care about win or lose, it cares about adjustmenting future matches for more fair play. You'll note that the devs specifically say in regardingto MMR they treat a 2k as MMR neutral or a draw. It's not enough to move the needle for adjusting the MMR. That's entirely unrelated to a win or a loss. You literally cannot have a draw in a 1 v 1 in DBD. A survivor either escapes or they do not. There is no situation at all where neither the killer wins nor the survivor wins (unless you count the server crashing, ha). It's four distinct 1 v 1 situations. It's dumb, but that's how it's designed. They need to change it to team vs team so survivors all win or lose together, imho. If they did, then we would have draws with a 2k AND survivors would be encouraged to work together since they win or lose together instead of every man for himself. The every man for himself doesn't come from me, either. The devs have stated that's the design on multiple occasions and even on live streams. I think that's the wrong approach, though.
1 -
Killers are stronger at low level. Ofcourse at the start you will 4k often and get killed often when you play survivor. But you have to learn and get better, only when you start vsing survivors of high caliber you will start to notice how fast survivors can do their objective
7 -
Some killers, yess, like take huntress for example, she has an enormouss hitbox for years, and it got never fixed, it can be played by 5 year old. and they even buffed her can you believe that.
This is not lagg, this is hatches hitbox range
1 -
Bro what? 😂 My friend I would EASILY lose as a Killer, but I win Survivor like 88% of the time.
0 -
Yeah that how it been where (NA) I'm at too. From 5 am to the middle of the day it on survivor. Rest of the time on killer.
0 -
I'd assume BHVR looks at their stats, decides there aren't enough killer players in certain MMR brackets/regions that they care the most about, and then decide on buffs in hopes of inspiring more people to play the killer role. 80-90% of the daily rituals I get are also killer related ones, which may be a coincidence, but it seems like that may also be on purpose to convince more people to play killer.
0 -
Get your killer MMR up, have fun
4 -
1-2 survivors escaping on average keeps things nice and tense. When I play in SWF i consider getting a single survivor out via the Exit Gate a win.
Even in solo, dying ain't so bad if your team puts in elbow grease.
2 -
Its pretty easy. I go on long win streaks all the time as killer. I loved the 6.1. patch it made everything easy mode.
No one knows their mmr but I win almost 80 to 90% of my games and I play a lot maybe 6 to 8 hours a day its still easy.
4 -
Yea it is true to a degree that solo q players and even a general pub swf are either imcompetent or just playing for fun. That's typically why people like myself played alot of comp.
I don't know how you fix this other than potentially improving matchmaking somehow, adding some sort of proper ranked mode or system would be really fun but unfortunatelly there isn't the playerbase for that, which is why you'll find actual good killer players dont really play that much pubs or well handicap themselves so hard just to make the experience interesting. I can't play any S tier killers with more than bbq or it just ruins all degree of enjoyment.
1 -
This game is still survivor sided if you're team is decent and does Gens. After all it's 1vs4. Agains't average survivors it can be easy to win on killer but not agains't good teams. Even average survivors still should beat you if you restrict yourself on average killer and don't play close to optimally. Or maybe pc killers can win no matter what. Killer is really clunky on console.
But I agree tcm is better balanced survivors don't have so many chances they die instantly when you get them and it's 3vs4. I almost never lose on family if my team is decent. It's definetely more killer sided than dbd and why would not it be when killer has team instead being all alone. After playing tcm it's hard to play killer on dbd again. Family is so easy on tcm and pressure free.
I win still good amount of my games in victim too with my buddy. But ramdom victims often are worser than dbd so yeah it's good you don't have to rely on them like on dbd. But we often win because family plays unoptimally, example they play johnny and sissy instead hitch and cook.
On dbd I just escaped 3 times a row on soloQ because my teammatew knew somewhat what to do. We got sweaty killers P100 huntress for example and we destroyed her just by doing gens. Then beat even blight who tunneled.
2 -
Does it even affect mmr actually if you intentionally lose some games like for me it seems ramdon I either get good teams after good teams after losing and bad teams after winning. I just wonder does it matter much if you lose or win?
0 -
This game is still survivor sided if you're team is decent
Arbitrary "decent" and keyword in there is team. In SoloQ its just not the case when it comes to your play. Sure you are on the same team but there is hardly any teamwork. And more often than not, you have at least 1 weak link somehow, thanks MMR, in your lobby. It's not like its on purpose either, there are just ... no friggen tools to communicate/coordinate, "hey dont bring the killer here" "dont save right now just push the gens" "do this gen so we dont get 3 genned" "dont bring open-handed.. I already have it..." etc....
It also doesnt help that NONE of this is taught in the in game tutorial. Laughably, YOU SAVE THE SURVIVOR FROM THE HOOK WITH THE KILLER RIGHT THERE. It teaches you to face save.
SoloQ mishaps, whether intentional or not, happens even to people that play this as a career such as Otz, where he only had a SoloQ win rate of 39.7% across 260+ games. And that guy is higher MMR than... probably anyone that posts on the forums.
As for sided? The game is completely killer sided and it has to be, there is 1 of them and 4 survivors. The game would be unplayable if it was the other direction.
The magnitude of how sided it is though is the problem, and varies between killer(s), their addons, and maps. Most of these are just blatantly broken against SoloQ as they still are barely manageable with a 2, 3, or 4 man ie: Nurse, Billy, Blight, Scratched Mirror Lery's, Double Iri Plague, Tombstone/Piece Meyers, Trapper Midwich... etc...
Comp SWF teams who are organized that can counter even these archetypes are so rare, even for killer mains with 8k+ hours. You will see these types of matches 2 times every 10 or more games. And even then, have to hope they are at a level of comp/ get map RNG, that the killer will not just 3/4k them anyways.
Even Hens, a comp and tournament player, ques up in SoloQ and gets absolutely stomped on just like the rest of us. He gets 4 genned tunneled out by a nurse, gets outed by tricksters.. Oni's... Its not like there is some super survivor that can carry SoloQ...
TCM is a bit killer sided though in regards to ... at least family house. The rest of the maps, I think you have a good shot on the victim side of things. And as previously stated, it allows you to actually have an impact on YOUR game play based on what YOU do, rather than what everyone else is doing, like in dbd. I dont have to go int myself because some meghead wants to go down in 10 seconds and the killer is just waiting for a save. I can just work on the gates/doors and leave if I need to.
2 -
It isn't though, survivors just had it so easy before they cry now when they have a more even playing field. The game is still survivor sided but the reality is most of the player base are unskilled casuals and it is good that is the case otherwise killers would never win.
0 -
There's a lot of contradictions.
Survivor is easy if you're team is decent.
Average Survivor it's easy to win on Killer.
Average Survivors should beat you on Killer?
Kill Rates show that the game is Killer-sided, literally by design. Now, I don't think that's good design at all; but it's meant to be that way.
3 -
2000 4K's on Blight.
1.2K on Nurse.
Over 400 on ######### Clown!
At some point, the average Killer is going to have to accept that they are responsible for their own losses. The game isn't Survivor-sided. If you are good at Killer, any Killer, you will win the vast majority of your matches.
If you are good at a B+ tier Killer, and you get very good, you will beat everyone but the most skilled competitive teams.
9 -
Team play can be established between decent survivors. If you understand the contents of the game properly, when a rescued survivor is about to be exposed to a tunnel attack, they will body block at the entrance of a building etc. and receive one hit instead. When camping, one of the survivors dares to complete a gen that can attract the killer's attention and guide the killer, while the other survivors run to the hook. When attempting to complete a gen, you can guess who is in charge of which gen based on the movements of the survivors you saw at the beginning and the HUD, and then you will be in charge of the gen that will give you an advantage. During a chase, if you can guess where someone might be completing a gen, we can avoid that area and chase from killer, and downed somewhere out of the way.
1 -
It is an unfortunate fact, but survivors who commit suicide or commit DC in the face of SM cannot be called decent. If you use that as a standard, the average survivor is not a decent person.
2 -
We aren't talking about them being decent people, it's about their skill in-game.
1 -
By my standards, or rather by the standards of a ``really decent survivor,'' a survivor who abandons a match in the face of SM is definitely lacking in skill. Because she's a killer that's very very far from impossible to beat.
2 -
The fourms should be split into survivour main and killer main so killers can't committing on survivour affairs killer will always cry because their game are usually in their favour so go's forbid they not be
2 -
Blight and Nurse are broken in public lobbies with builds that those doing stupid 'win streaks' use and playing in the scummiest sweaty way possible. Also players with more than 5k hours in game if I am no mistaken, so not your average weekend Andy.
If you lose continuously as killer then something is wrong for sure as the average survivor ranges somewhat competent to completely unskilled and no functional brain. That is why the game has to always lean towards being survivor sided, even thought at present is it probably the least survivor sided it has been.
My opinion of course, I don't claim to be an authority on all things DBD
3 -
The reason they abandon the trial when they see the killer is SM is Not because they are not able to beat SM
It's because they do not enjoy playing against her, even if she's totally beatable
4 -
No? You and non decent just doesn't know how to have fun with her.
1 -
Yes that's what I said just phrased different, people do not find playing against her fun; they're not capable of finding fun in playing against her
Post edited by ratcoffee on0 -
Its more like... why aren't survivors good?
7 -
So you're just supporting my point that the average survivor isn't very decent.
3 -
Yeah no I think you have a fundamentally incorrect definition of "decent" as it relates to skill at the game
Enjoying the game is not a fundamental requirement for being good at it. I've seen videos of people 4 outing against the old, exposed-based 3 gen Merchant and talking about how much they hated the match as they did it, even though they got the 4 out.
0 -
They need to change it to team vs team so survivors all win or lose together, imho.Let's start here. I'm not discussing what the game design ought to be. I'm saying if we take your statements about what the game design is, the conclusions you reach aren't logical. It's like the argument that the kill rate should be 62.5% for a 50% win rate, its not that you've done a calculation wrong, the premise that you used to structure the equation is flawed.
It's four distinct 1 v 1 situations.For the sake of argument, I'll treat this as absolutely true. The match is 4 1 v 1s. If so, having any win condition for the match overall doesn't make sense. Saying a 2k is a win/loss/draw is irrelevant. You won twice and lost twice. 3k is not a "win", its 3 wins and a loss.
And if we do treat the game like 4 distinct 1 v 1s we know precisely what the win rate was as of the last data set: 58.5% as the overall average. Because if a kill is a win, and killers kill 58.5% of the time, that's their win rate. Meanwhile survivor win rate is 41.5%, Whether that is good game design or not is a totally different question, but if its 4 1 v 1s, that's the win rate.
You can't argue from the perspective that its four separate games for one part of the argument, and then switch and treat the match like a single game.
You might want to reread their comments. They specifically say that's related to MMR adjustments alone.Because MMR is the only metric they ever gave.
0 -
Well we allready had different game where Killer role was hard to play and it ended up being closed after few months and lobby que simulator (Horror Society). So yea...
3 -
I mean, if you want to argue that 4ks are more common for you, sure go ahead. The point I was trying to make was that the people talking about how easy Killer experience was tend to leave out a lot of details about said Killer experience. This makes me question if they've played many games of Killer to come to their opinion or they played two matches, got 4k and came to the conclusion that Killer was easy.
6 -
Let's show a one game video to someone who claims that game is eazy for killer, and see if they can explain specifically who made the mistake, how many mistakes they made, and whether it was a good decision. They probably just mention chase time and hook state numbers all the time, and just look at the 4k result and conclude that game is eazy for killer.
2 -
She's always been possible to beat.
She's tedious, unpleasant and usually played by the worst elements in the community. I don't really blame people for not putting in the effort to beat her.
10 -
So despite the fact that most Killers are winning almost all of their matches, the game is...somehow still Survivor-sided.
5 -
Yeah, no.
Finding something enjoyable doesn't mean you're good lol.
People H A T E Skull Merchant for a reason. She absolutely epitomizes the worst of DBD. She's not worth playing against for many people because she's so unpleasant; maybe try to figure out why and FIX IT
Post edited by Pulsar on8 -
They'd need more experience but generally I agree with that sentiment.
Killer is absolutely easy at the moment
4 -
It always will unless it‘s a 100% kill rate😂
3 -
Yes. 3K or 4K increase your MMR, 1K or 0K decrease it.
However: Every killer has their own MMR.
2
