Survivors need a buff
Literally every game ive played my team has just been decimated. Whether it be tunneling, slugging or camping or running whole anti gen builds(or a combination of all 4) it feels so miserable. Its got to the point ive negated having any fun at all to just counter gamestyles(and i dont even have enough perk slots to counter ALL gamestyles) to have a chance of winning. And lets not even talk about my teammates giving up or dcing because of the fact the killer has 7 hooks at 5-4 gens, which isnt the killers fault for doing the objective but it is extremely demoralizing to play a hopeless match as survivior. so i dont even blame my teammates for giving up.
“Just play as a swf”
This is literally all ive been told, and its so ironic because what happened to the game being balanced for the average player? Most people arent 4-man swfs p100’s with the best perks unlocked.
i also want to stress i dont think its toxic for killers to slug tunnel or camp, as their objective is to kill. But literally why is slugging, tunneling or camping is arguably the strongest way to play the game
Comments
-
I will keep repeating myself until it sinks in.... This game is catered to killers. Period. SWF teams... Can survive and this game caters to good killers matching them...not average joe or even your casual teams. Want more proof?
As a survivor, I can hide and evade, if I only do gens... I get punished score wise. If I evade, I get punished... BHVR and killers want you in the open. Gens get added time, Hooks now respawn. Basically as a survivor all you can do is gen rush....which is why we have added time because..... Killer cries about swf teams...not average survivors ...SWF gen rushing teams.
As a killer they keep updating, as a survivor it's the same ole game play, doesn't matter who you are…same game play.
I truly hope they bring back 2v8. It was a much more fun game....as a survivor.
11 -
I’d just like to point out this game has one of the highest escape rates for survivors besides TCM.
Jason had a 80%+ kill rate in Friday.
It’s Dead by Daylight, NOT Alive by Daylight.
14 -
More maps will be made smaller, more survivor perks will be made useless, more killers will get reworks (buffs), more items will be nerfed.
If you think the game will get better for survivors you would be nieve. You got the HUD update, that should keep survivors happy for the next decade.
Have to keep that 60%+ killrate for killers going strong.
6 -
So? Both of those games failed so why would you use them as an example? The fact is the game has gotten too Killer sided. Just because its not quite as imbalanced as other dead games means literally nothing.
12 -
When enough Survivors stop playing the game and que times go up enough Bhvr will eventually do something about it.
7 -
So? Who cares if some dead failed games were even more unbalanced.
9 -
Addiction doesn't work that way.
Besides, you don't understand. 39% escape rate is essentially 50/50 win rate. Some would even say it's even 60/40 favouring survivors. It'S jUsT pUrE mAtH. ThE gAmE nEeDs SuRvIvOrS tO hAvE 30% eScApE rAtE oR nO oNe WiLl WaNt To PlAy KiLlEr.
2 -
The devs have stated time and time again, and I think they are exhausted with saying it, but they don't favor one side.
4 -
Exactly my point . The game is killer driven. However I do wonder if that's why survivor Bo is is more heavy even at night when it was killer... I'm guessing nobody wants to play survivor. That will be a fun game with long killer waits and probably you will get is swf teams…that should be fun for you
1 -
I will say, I feel like they went too far with map updates. There are numerous maps (updated Coldwind, Haddonfield, etc) where I genuinely don't know what I'm supposed to be looping. Half the map is a hill and a pallet that only works if you stun the killer (hint: no good killer is going to get stunned at it). It seems like the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing with map balance. Some realms are fine, like Autohaven. Others make me wonder how it passed a playtest, like Haddonfield.
10 -
“Just play as a swf” This is literally all ive been told
Here's a new one: Play as killer.
Pick a killer, and play long enough to get those survivors that when you don't tunnel, slug, camp, or use 4 regression / slowdown perks finish all gens by your 6 hook.
Maybe then you will understand the true state of the game right now and why it is important to play both sides to get the full picture.
10 -
but it is near 50% win-rate. according nightlight which records a total of 13,434 games so far, out of these games, survivor get 4 man escape, 3 man escape and 2 man escape 48.32% of their games. Killer get 3 kill or 4 kill in 51.68% of the games. This is within 2% margin.
13.434 is not like a crazy sample size but it is a sample size to give an idea for what win-rate margins are to some vague degree.
9 -
Yes they do, they literally say they are favoring Killer shooting for 60% kill rate.
6 -
That is just a lie.
6 -
What needs to happen first and foremost is a matchmaking improvement. I just played two games, one where I literally ran some poor baby killer for 5 gens to a 4 escape. My very next game was a cracked Nurse who wiped the floor with us at 5 gens. They're currently taking the step of addressing lobby dodging by hiding prestige, and I'm hopeful we might see a slight improvement when less people are bypassing and messing up the matchmaking system. I think we wait and see how that goes and if it makes games feel better.
5 -
At this point I hope we get more midwitch like maps, because there you have at least something to work with.
0 -
False. 60% Kill rate is intended. The killer is suppose to have the advantage. Its a 4v1. They are working ALONE. They dont have comms. Also the game is called Dead By Daylight. Not Survive By Daylight….
8 -
What is false? I said the 60% kill rate is intended. And I understand the point about the killer needs to be scary blah blah…
I'm not even against the Killer being more powerful, its just that Bhvr. pushed it a little too far and made the game almost impossible for new players. And the point about coms is a non-sequitur, I don't see the relevance.
9 -
You're twisting your words now. That wasn't all you said. The developers never said word for word that "We favor killers." They said "We don't favor one side or the other" You're saying oh they said but didnt say it but said it because oh!!! thats right!! They want 60% killrate.
Not even close. Its not impossible at all. New players are doing just fine. New killers don't know the maps, don't know the basics, they don't know how to loop with survivors. Thats part of the experience…..
4 -
Well even if they said that you can prove by simple arithmetic that they favor Killer. Like I said I'm not even against that idea necessarily I just think they overdid it a bit. And of course "impossible" is an exaggeration but it is way harder as Survivor that's just a fact. Yes new Killers don't know a lot of things either but the way the game mechanics are now its just way easier to wing it as Killer starting out.
4 -
I main trapper and huntress and trust me its so easy, most games i win by m1ing and i only ever switch to huntress when im iri 1. Most of the games i “lose” is when i get 8 hooks and just let the surviviors go because nobody likes being utterly crushed
3 -
I dont have a problem with the killers having a advantage, but what i do mind is me literally having no counter to it.
So many playstyles just ultimately negate any chance of me escaping, or more importantly having fun and theres nothing i can do about it. And most killer powers just reward free downs or injuries without any skill on their end.
5 -
You're just blowing smoke at this point.
4 -
Two doritos later:
Tell me you don't play killer without telling me you don't play killer. At minimum, again, you haven't played enough.
10 -
The reason of why the 60% average kill rate is needed and balanced, abridged version: As in DbD…
- The win conditions for both sides are completely asymmetrical. (MMR win condition to be exact)
- You can't directly compare skill levels of both sides, as they require completely different sets of skills and game sense.
- One side is a team of 4 players that can have different skill levels.
- That side is not even considered a team per win conditions, and each individual player in it will win or lose individually.
- You have 5 possible match outcomes, which define the wins or losses of 5 different players.
You can't balance the game as you would in most other similar videogames. That's why then we look at our win conditions, we notice that the common denominator is "kills", so we use an average kill rate as the target balancing point. And look at that, if you do the math it even provides a "sweet spot" that allows us to guarantee an equal chance of winning for both sides (60%, 2.4 survivors killed per match on average, 40% win rate on average) without even having to worry about skill levels, side, character used, or anything else.
And that's about it. For more info, there are multiple threads filled with discussions about this.
7 -
What are you talking about?
Hook stage durations have been lengthened. Survivor perks get buffed every major patch. The last item update was a toolbox buff. Both sides are getting constant buffs.
5 -
A load of killers are well UNDER that 60% kill rate, on top of that. People need to keep in mind that's KILL rate, not win rate. 50% is only 2K. 75% is only a 3K. a 62.5% kill rate would be a balanced 50/50 between a 2K and a 3K. Essentially, anything under a 62.5% kill rate is a killer failing to secure a 3K+ for half their games.
7 -
50% kill rate would be an average of 2 kills per game which is considered a draw. Saying 2.4 kills is preferable is just arbitrary. Plus you can't even know the actual "win" rate (whatever you consider a win for killer) just from the average amount of kills because you don't know how those kills are distributed in individual games. On the point about how the 2 sides cannot be directly compared, I agree. That's why the only way you can tell how "balanced" the game is by examining how players perform in actual games, not by making up fantasy scenarios like everyone likes to do. And its a fact right now that in most, possibly all mmr's the game has become too Killer sided and it is affecting the game in a negative way. Hook suicides and dc's are probably the most visible symptom. I believe if this trend is not reversed and the balance is not shifted back at least slightly it will eventually lead to less survivors playing and increased que times.
6 -
I understand why you associated 3-4 dead being a killer win, since that's the majority of the opposing side disposed of. I would also agree that constitutes as a win for the killer.
However, what is the logic in associating a 2 man escape with a survivor victory? Given the above majority-wins concept applied in classifying a killer victory, I would assume a similar logic would be employed for survivor, meaning 3-4 escaping would constitute a win for them. In that case, I'd also expect a 2-man escape to be classified as a draw since there's no definitive winner.
Referring to Nightlight's data on number of escapes:
0 escapes - 33.18%
1 escape = 18.5%
2 escapes = 12.91%
3 escapes = 16.6%
4 escapes = 18.81%Killers win with 3-4 kills 51.68% of the time. (33.18 + 18.5)
Survivors win with 3-4 escapes 35.41% of the time. (16.6 + 18.1)
A draw with 2 escaping/killed occurs 12.91% of the time.In that case, killer has a win rate that is ~46% higher than survivor's win rate.
Not that I'm saying killer needs a nerf. While I cannot say by how much, I do think their win rate should naturally be higher.
I just am not sure 2 man escapes should be classified as a survivor win, and wanted to point out the win rate discrepancy when the concept of a draw is applied.5 -
As was explained a long time ago by devs. Killer plays 4 matches at once (it can end up as if he was playing 3 matches though, if one survivor escapes via hatch).
Meaning 60% kill rate is the same as if on average killer wins 50% more often then survivor (40% escape rate of survivor +50% out of those 40% is 60% kill rate for killer).
But in fact it's worse. Because for these stats survivor being lucky and finding a hatch is counted as survivor escape - when in fact the real outcome is, that the "match didn't happen" - you can think of it as if there were only 3 survivors in a match (kill-rate-wise).
Devs deciding to give killers 60% kill rate + HATCH not being survivor win is very clear indicator of who in fact is preferred in this game. And it makes perfect sense why some killer mains say "devs don't favor any side".
The game is heavily killer-sided and as my favorite killers got broken (like pinheads camera when using power), I abandoned the game on 18th november last year already. If devs decide that making the game heavily killer-sided is actually not a best idea under the sun, I will probably return. But right now, I enjoy actually fair games instead.
3 -
Actions speak louder than words.
8 -
i have explained this multiple times…. the other side not considered winning means your side winning. what survivor really want is their side to have 3-4 escapes 60% of the time, 12% 2 kills and killer winning less then 30% of the time. For many years, this used to work like this especially at high MMR.
1 -
There's a concept of "nobody won" - like taking hatch as survivor or getting 2 kills as killer (if no survivor escaped via hatch - otherwise killer still won as he got 2 wins and 1 loss and 1 canceled match in that single trial).
You automatically add both of these cases to survivor which explains your entitlement to wins. The fact is, that it's a draw. Not a survivor win (or killer win for that matter).
The fact that devs balance the game as if it was true is the testament to which side gets preferential treatment. So long as killers get 50% more kills = wins then survivor, I will leave other players play this unfair game.
4 -
Nobody won means that game did not end. it also means that neither side completes its objective. The only way you can not complete your objective in dbd is
→ 2 survivors hide entire match for 60 minutes → Server closes down.
→Killer 3 generators for 60 minutes, Survivors are unable to complete generator objective → Server close down.
In every other case which is 99.9% of dbd games, the killer either acquired 3 kill or 4 kill which vast majority of killer will agree that they won the match or they did not get 3 or 4 kill and lost. 0 kill is worse loss possible. 1 kill is bad loss and 2 kill is close loss.
As i said in my previous post, i don't think survivor want close games. they want game to be super easy where you don't need think at all where you escape like 60% of the time, the killer almost never 3k or 4k and vast majority of games are 2 kill.
5 -
You're right…By looking at the patch notes you would see that. Survivors are not forgotten about by any means…
5 -
50% kill rate would be an average of 2 kills per game which is considered a draw.
Exactly! That's why devs want it to be a 60% to "keep matches relatively even", so killers can win as much as survivors:
Saying 2.4 kills is preferable is just arbitrary.
No, it's math. Try to find any other kill rate on average that grants the same chances of winning to both sides according to the MMR.
Plus you can't even know the actual "win" rate (whatever you consider a win for killer) just from the average amount of kills because you don't know how those kills are distributed in individual games.
First, it is not "whatever you consider a win for killer" as there is already a system that have the win conditions established even if the game itself don't: The MMR.
Second, kill distribution could indicate that an individual killer need to be balanced (either because he is overperforming and doing a lot of 3/4K, or underperforming as he is only doing 0/1/2K). But how do you know the exact kill distribution to consider a killer "balanced" and how you guarantee it across all skill levels of all players? Simply, you can't. That's why the average kill rate is needed, just as explained.
And its a fact right now that in most, possibly all mmr's the game has become too Killer sided and it is affecting the game in a negative way. Hook suicides and dc's are probably the most visible symptom.
You said it yourself, "symptom". And if you played killer enough to get the full picture, you probably figured out what the disease is.
3 -
People have been saying this for years and yet there's still a healthy amount of survivor players to keep the queue times stable.
8 -
Survivors? No
SoloQ? Sure
There are possible features to improve soloQ without affecting SWF, or killers in major way.
3 -
Their actions fit the statement...
There were buffs and nerfs for both sides.
6 -
I played Friday from start to finish and the game was very fun as Jason and camper(survivor) and you could fight back against Jason and with good coordination you could kill Jason. The game even had proxy chat(between campers and Jason) due to the size of maps. I don't think Friday was killer sided at all , and for the record the game didn't "die" it was shutdown due to copyright.
0 -
I have to acknowledge that because the developers intentionally leave win conditions ambiguous for the player to decide, any and everyone's interpretation of what constitutes a win, and therefore what the win-rates are is technically correct in their own way. As such I can't really say this viewpoint is wrong.
That said, I personally find the logic flawed in a couple of ways.
First, you're associating draws solely with terminated matches simply because of a singular relationship where neither has a winner. That's a bit iffy though, because a draw is defined as a match between two sides that ends in a tie. You cannot really have a tie in a terminated match because the match never reaches a conclusion, so the final results of each side can never be known.
Second, what if a match is terminated when only one survivor remains for whatever reason? While unlikely, that's technically possible. In that case, by your logic, it would be a draw since the game closed down. But a draw means a tie occurred. But a tie cannot occur if the killers typical win condition is fulfilled. But you cannot state the killer has won because you have associated canceled matches specifically with draws. At this point it becomes a type of paradox where you need to appoint new rules to have this niche scenario make sense. But the fact you need a separate set of rules to address this situation implies the initial logic used was flawed. This argument also works if a game terminates with 3-4 survivors alive for whatever reason, since that's clearly a killer loss in a normal game, but it has to be called a draw given you associate canceled matches with draws, so special rules would be needed here too.
This why sports have the concept of draws that apply when opposing teams have the same score, and a canceled match is labeled as simply canceled and rescheduled rather than calling it a draw. Granted there's usually special rules for overtime to reduce the amount of draws/ties that occur since they're less exciting, but most still have the ability to draw in the event overtime ties as well.
—
I also disagree with the logic that if the killer did not win, that means the opposing side automatically won. It's an argument that solely looks at one perspective (the killer's side) without consideration for the other, and comes off as a bit biased because of that.i have explained this multiple times…. the other side not considered winning means your side winning.
I could use this same logic in reverse, focusing on the survivor's perspective.
I, when I play survivor, do not consider my 'team' as winning when only 2 escape. Therefore, the killer automatically wins when 2 or less escape using this logic with the survivor's perspective. Given that the killer now wins when 2+ escape, that means the killer has a 64.59% win rate according to Nightlight, whereas survivors only win 35.41% of the time. Killers therefore win almost twice as many games as survivor and clearly overpowered beyond belief and deserve rapid and brutal nerfs.
That's an extremely survivor-biased outlook isn't it? But it's using the exact same logic you use, but with the survivor's perspective.
You could argue we should only focus on the killer's perspective when using this logic, but then you're creating new rules to fill gaps in your original rule. The necessity for those additional rules shows that the logic is flawed, as good logic does not have gaps that need special treatment to make sense.
3 -
Of course survivors need buffs. In my opinion, survivors need basekit buffs, namely Kindred basekit (very good for Soloq) and OTR basekit (tunnel).
I'm sure if the developer improves the matchmaking system, map design and adds the basekit that I mentioned above the quality of the survivor gameplay will improve and reduce the suicide rate on the hook, but the problem is the rampage of the main killer they will post their whining on this forum that survivor needs nerf, survivor is too strong, removed basekit because it is too broken.
I know I'm screaming at the wall, I play both sides (70% survivor - 30% killer) which I play soloq more often and I know what the problem is with soloq.
4 -
there is just no killer that believes that 2k is winning for one unless your super egotistical or something. in fact, there are some killer that are not happy with 3k and will even slug 3 to get 4th as they only deem 4k as a win. Over-time though, when you play enough killer games, you just bored of doing a slug at the end because the time and effort to get 4k isn't really worth it in most cases over just playing more dbd matches. It is not really worth it to prologue game for like 3-4 minutes for what might just end up as slug kill when you could those 3-4 minutes on another match. like if you play 4 matches of 3-4 minute of slugging, those 3-4 minutes could been spent to play 5th match but like i said, some people get their joy from that. i personally think its poor designed end game that forces rng into conclusions of the matches which is why i don't really put much difference been 3k and 4k's.
This why sports have the concept of draws that apply when opposing teams have the same score
They also have special rules to eliminate said problem. Sometimes they're not enforced and they're just as number of scoreboard with the idea that the goal of tournament to score most # of points. if point are equal, they play tie-breaker match.
Killers therefore win almost twice as many games as survivor and clearly overpowered beyond belief and deserve rapid and brutal nerfs.
In just over half the games, half of the team is escaping every trial. I believe dev have once said they balance around 2 survivors escaping and 2 people dying every match, so at least according to raw stats, they're pretty much on mark. For me, what matters is my fun in playing survivor and killer. The perk updates for survivor do keep survivor interesting enough for me to have some fun with it. If we ask the question whether i have fun with killers? For a lot of them. Not really. Every now and again, you get this unavoidable loss as killer with majority of the cast. The win-rate stats in my opinion are carried by stronger killers who win too much while the lower end of the killer cast drag win-rates down. If you were to remove like top 12-14 killers with positive win-rates, i imagine that the killer's win ratio is much more negative especially if it the list only included like bottom 12 killers and their associated win-rate vs like… 1% of survivors if there even any statistics on that consider that i imagine that lots of the worse killer might not face the very top of survivor unless the matchmaker is lax.
0 -
I agree for a change with most of what you wrote, but this part is incorrect:
The win-rate stats in my opinion are carried by stronger killers who win too much while the lower end of the killer cast drag win-rates down.
Stronger killers are often more difficult than average, so their kill rate is not that high in reality.
I think it's more likely kill rates are carried by soloQ and noob stomping killers…
Also cowards don't help, when survivor gives up, everyone else usually die for it too.
Nightlight might suggest otherwise, but not official stats we got from devs.
Issue is new/casual players simply don't care about Nightlight, or probably even know about it. They are definitely affecting kill rates.
4 -
The post I made that you're responding to was primarily to challenge the logic of your ideas, but you're just regurgitating the ideas again without addressing the criticism towards them.
The first paragraph in your response is repeating the concept that wins and losses should be based solely from the perspective of the killer (i.e. if the killer does not win, the survivor must be the winner). But this logic is faulty because if you change the perspective to the survivor with this train of thought, then the killer is the winner with 2 escaping. As a result, from the survivor's perspective, it artificially inflates the killer's win-rate to the point they become grossly overpowered and in need of immediate and harsh nerfs. Likewise, when you do it from the killer's perspective, it artificially inflates the survivor's win rate.
The last paragraph takes my quote out of context (it was a hypothetical scenario if the perspective changed to benefit the survivor) and repeats the same concept that the determination of who wins should be entirely based on the killer's perspective. But until addressed, that logic is still faulty since perspectives change depending on which side you're on, and focusing on only one leads to significant bias in the results.
They also have special rules to eliminate said problem. Sometimes they're not enforced and they're just as number of scoreboard with the idea that the goal of tournament to score most # of points. if point are equal, they play tie-breaker match.
Yes, I specifically mentioned that sports include special rules or situations (like overtime) to reduce the frequency of ties/draws.
Despite those rules existing though, it is still possible to get a tie in many sports, such as, but not limited to, the following:- American Football
- European Football (AKA soccer)
- Baseball
- Basketball
- Ice hockey
Source:
Draws, while actively discouraged and reduced through additional rules, are still a natural part of many sports competitions to signify that neither team was able to get a significant advantage over the other. The term draw is also rarely ever utilized in games that are prematurely terminated, since the definition of a draw means a tie occurred, but you cannot claim a tie occurs if a match does not conclude.
That said, it still not address the logical flaws I highlighted in the idea that if a game terminates in DBD, it must be a draw. That leads to paradoxical situations requiring additional rules, which in itself proves the logic is faulty.
1 -
But this logic is faulty because if you change the perspective to the survivor with this train of thought, then the killer is the winner with 2 escaping
What if someone considers 2 escapes win for survivors on both sides?
But for most players, it's personal result. Even hatch can be considered "win" for that single survivor.
For many players it seems escape = win.
So for 2K, you simply have two survivors that won, and two survivors who lost.
Basically when approach changes is for SWF, where they are more likely consider the result of the game as a team.
I have it even easier, I couldn't care less, if I escape or die. I consider it a win, if I got a good chase. Except when we play SWF...
2 -
So in a chess when one player can't make move, then it means match is in progress until forever? Because "draw doesn't exist"?
You realize how absurd you sound? Draw means no side won. In DBD that happens when survivor escapes via hatch, server closes down or killer gets 2 kills (on average - there are small factors that influence the stuff a little where killing brand new player is different then killing 20K hours top mmr comp player - but we can ignore that for now).
The fact that you say 2 out is survivor win is just insane. Totally insane to me. It's like saying in chess that white wins when there's no move to be made by any player.
Also you saying "you escape like 60% of the time" is exactly and precisely the same problem but on survivor side (that would be catering to survivors). But this is not the case. Survivors have 40% "desired" escape rate. Which is by insane 50% less winning then killer. No side should win 50% times more then the other. It's just unfair. And so long as devs desires to handhold and give freebies to ANY side, the game is just not for me.
And this argument is just arguing at entitlement. What would you say if 4-man SWF would say it's a win ONLY IF all 4 of them escape? Because that's the only true good game where nobody had to sacrifice anything = win? Like would you ever call it a win if you went with a group to some party and somebody died there? Or would you consider it successful escape only if all of you got out?
See? The other side can do the same thing. But that doesn't mean it's fair.
0 -
1, what if you have someone who considers 2 escapes killers win on both sides? It makes no difference.
2, I agree that the balance from survivor side is 2 escapes and 2 kills. It's the exact middle ground which is statistically best represented by 50% kill rate. But that's not what DBD is actually aiming for. They want to on average to have 1 or 2 escapes and 2 to 3 kills (because 60% kill rate). Hence the game is killer-sided and favors killers.
And if you have 60% kill rate, it means you will more often then not NOT get an escape as survivor. Because killers "deserve" 50% more kills then survivor escapes in devs eyes
1 -
what if you have someone who considers 2 escapes killers win on both sides? It makes no difference.
Exactly, so why even try to bring it into argument about balancing, when win rate is clearly highly personal thing.
It's the exact middle ground which is statistically best represented by 50% kill rate
No, it's not. Because you have quite a high chance one of survivors is either simply bad, or just give up.
If survivor gives up, whole team is most likely die, which is 3/4k, right?
So if you get average kill rate on 50%, it means groups without cowards are going to have an easy time. We had those kill rates in past and I really don't think it was better.
Hence the game is killer-sided and favors killers.
Not really, they just count with examples I mentioned above.
Most basekit features in last year or so were in favor of survivors, which doesn't support your claim.
Because killers "deserve" 50% more kills then survivor escapes in devs eyes
They don't deserve anything, there simply should be higher kill rates for this game to work.
it means you will more often then not NOT get an escape as survivor
Depends,
If you don't get to escape regularly as SWF it's skill issue.
In soloQ you can have dead weights for sure, but if it happens regularly, you may be the dead weight.
But I think they should help soloQ, there are possible features to help without screwing balance.
1 -
Most basekit features in last year or so were in favor of survivors, which doesn't support your claim.I don't care about specific changes. The overall goal which they clearly are going for/change stuff up to uphold is 60% kill rate. The specific changes mentioned by either side serves no other purpose then to get away from the main point of discussion. 60% kill rate is just way too much. It's literally 50% more kills then escapes. That's just WRONG.
In time when the game was balanced (around 50% kr - and it was on average 52+% kill rate if I remember right for a long time since 6.1) the game was fun. Now it's so fun I actually uninstalled.
One thing I give you though is the situation where someone gives up. Yes, this is actually good point. The thing is, that if he DC's, it's not counted. If killer gives up, but doesn't DC, that is also counted. Sure, this can happen more on survivor side. But not that much, that it's fair for killers to get 50% more wins then survivor. Otherwise it would mean we have serious problem with people giving up basically every like 4th game (I didn't do math, so if it's every 5th game, so be it) and devs should really do something about it - but that's not the case AFAIK (at least not THAT often).
Also survivor escaping thru hatch is fully counted in statistics as survivor escape - even though it's tie. So it should be discarded in this regards.
If you don't get to escape regularly as SWF it's skill issue.Sure. Even with 99% kill rate if you are literal god and play against newbies, you will win every game. The difference is, that the game is so balanced, that 2K "wins" (3+kills) are done on killer's side, but there is no survivor's record for 3+out for at least 500 games (at least not since the very early stages of the game). This argument is similar to going for a running race, but "you can win even with severly injured leg - it's possible and if you can't compete against other competitors that get free backwind from fan that will follow them whole track, then that's skill issue". Meaning you can overcome malus, but that doesn't make it fair.
1
