How many kills should Killers be balanced around?



  • WaveyTrey
    WaveyTrey Member Posts: 643
    edited March 25

    When using my new Mini Mori Obsession build the stress ended.

    Based on how everyone plays I may decide who I want to Mori. People think Rancor is a waste of a slot. It’s not. It gives info that can’t be negated. It’s satisfying to Mori the bully, toxic, or sweaty player at the end. You can feel their anger through the screen. It’s satisfying.

    It’s really your mentality on how you play as killer. When you use meta, and lose anyway. That’s upsetting. If you’re playing casually, or EG build. You stop getting mad. You become satisfied that your plan worked.

  • xCALLxMExJJx
    xCALLxMExJJx Member Posts: 13

    3. If they are evenly skilled baseline the survivors still have the advantage. 4 brains against 1 pair of eyes with 8 generators to monitor. The killer should gun for 3 every time, 1 can escape, totally fine with that.

  • mizark3
    mizark3 Member Posts: 1,793

    Trick Question: Killers should be balanced around hooks (actions not states). As for the balance factor, I think >8 hooks should be considered a Killer win. 2 hooks on an individual Survivor should be considered a tie if we have to use the current individualized MMR. Staying on hook can be counted as 0.51, that way a first hook kill is worth 2.02 hooks, thus a marginal win. There could be an argument for also applying this lesser hook point value for tunneling (either hooking Surv A then A again, or hooking a Survivor before they did a Conspicuous Action). Balancing around 8 hooks as the tie, means that even if all 4 Survs are 1st hook killed, the Killer (marginally) won. Arguably all Survivors dying on first hook should be seen as a big matchmaking boost, as the Survivors clearly didn't stand a chance, but shouldn't be encouraged.

    Balancing around hooks instead of Kills makes the game more enjoyable for Survivor, even if you lose, because you are at least able to participate in the match more often. As Killer, it demonstrates your skill, and the degree of the win is more clearly granulated (9/10/11/12/or decimals from first hook kills and camped kills or the optional tunneled reduced values) compared to Kills.

  • Reinami
    Reinami Member Posts: 5,130
    edited March 27

    None, kills should not be the balancing factor. Removing a survivor from the game early should not be possible (tunneling)

    • Remove the 4% mechanic
    • Survivors share the first hook state, meaning the earliest you can remove a survivor from the game is 6 hooks if you hard tunnel that person.
    • Balance the game around hooks
    • 0-4 hook states is a loss for the killer
    • 4--8 hook states is a draw for the killer
    • 8-12 hook states is a win for the killer
    • Hook states only count if they are natural (I.E. the timer goes for 60 seconds, or a new hook action) not if you slug all 4 survivors and hook them all, you only get 4 hook states (a loss)

    Survivors win and lose as a team instead of this weird thing where if i do 5 gens, and unhook every survivor teammate and run the killer for 5 minutes, and then in the endgame collapse i go for a hook save, and that survivor gets out but i don't, should not count as a loss for me. Then make escaping only matter for bloodpoints.

    This addresses many concerns survivors have:

    • Tunneling is bad, because if you tunnel someone for 6 hooks, that is 6 minutes (not including the chase time) and 3 survivors can do 5 gens in less than 6 minutes and the killer gets few hooks.
    • Camping is bad because its about hooks and not kills, and you have to camp for 6 hook states which again ,is 6 minutes, and the other 3 survivors will easily get out.
    • Slugging is bad because you want hook states, so letting people bleed out on the ground counts against you.
    • Killers feel better because in order for this world to be a reality the gens MUST be slowed down (my proposal is to nerf all gen defense perks, and massively buff the killer's basekit regression, I.E. 10-15% gen kick regression, double, or even triple passive regression after that, basekit corrupt that lasts a short time and also blocks hex totems etc. then go and halve, or even more, nerf the gen defense perks)
  • SMitchell8
    SMitchell8 Member Posts: 3,301

    Majority of my killer games are like that, with the match swinging like a pendulum. More often than not though, the balance tips in the survivors favour and it plays out 1k > 3k

  • 100PercentBPMain
    100PercentBPMain Member Posts: 489
    edited March 27

    Kills are irrelevant, imo. You can use 3 perks to basically guarantee kill 1 survivor then use 4th perk Noed to secure 2nd kill. Perfectly balanced. Yet that can be a result from just 2 hooks lol.

    I think addressing feel bad situations and ensuring both sides have a comfortably stressful match where everyone feels like they had any semblance of agency is more important.

    Killers should on average get 2.5 kills imo. Not per match, but overall.

  • UndeddJester
    UndeddJester Member Posts: 2,389
    edited March 27

    I was thinking about exactly this, and its actually my explanation for why the average is higher.

    The problem with 7-8 hooks being the average, is the absolute best a killer can score is 2 kills, and the worst is 0 kills, and will often be 1 kill if you break down the possible combos of games.

    In order for it to be truly equal, you need 9 hooks, cause that means at best killer can score 3 kills, and worst 1 kill... the obvious problem is, that it's impossible for all survivors to escape if your expected average in 9 hooks... on average, a survivor should die every game. This also means the killer can be in a situation where they only need 1 more hook to get a 4k...

    Ofc a player can die with fewer hooks, but with tne addotion of the AFC, camping out a hook stage shouldn't happen mosylt of the time. So I think this is the real reason for the 60% kill rate,a ns why BHVR seems to tend to 1 survivor dying every game...