http://dbd.game/killswitch
As a Killer who doesn't tunnel/camp/use slowdown perks, I only have 56% Kill Rate
Comments
-
”Fair for survivors” basically means not doing any killer strategies that might be unfair for survivors. And it doesn’t matter if playing this way lowers kill rates.
“Fair for killers” would therefore, basically mean not doing survivor strategies that might be unfair for killers. And it doesn’t matter if playing this way lowers escape rates.
So really, just make a list of things killers complain about. It would mean never using voice comms for extra game advantages. It would mean no flashlight saves, no pallet saves, no hook sabotages, and no bodyblocking killers. It would pretty much be sabotaging your own escape rate, just so it’s “fair” for killers.
Because that is literally what is happening in this thread. 56% kill rate is really below average. It’s literally sabotaging kill rates, for the sake of survivor “fairness”.
-3 -
So… you were just being facetious.
I mean, I posted my own stats here as well. I got an-above average killrate as it turns out, and I don't tunnel either, so that last bit seems a touch dramatic.
2 -
Are you claiming your kill rate wouldn’t be higher if you had camped, tunneled, and slugged?
Because if your kill rate would be higher, then you’re sabotaging yourself with these restrictions.
0 -
What? No, the opposite. My killrate is at 73% without tunnelling. That's pretty good, I'd say.
So, if I were to tunnel, that would go even higher. For a while, at least, until my MMR has settled.
For the record, I have no objections against slugging (that isn't longer than it has to be), and camping is fair game to me in the endgame.
3 -
If your kill rate would be higher if you tunneled, then your sabotaging your kill rate by not tunneling. And it raises the question of "if killers should sabotage their kill rate for the sake of survivor fairness, then why aren't survivors expected to sabotage their escape rate for the sake of killer fairness"?
If you are claiming your kill rate would eventually settle down to where it is now, then it's basically saying that players don't need to do strategies that are unfun for their opponents, because MMR will settle it back down to the same amount. And that raises the question of "does that mean survivors don't need to flashlight save or hook sabotage, or do anything else that might be unfun for killers, because they would have the same escape rate if they played "fair" or "unfair" for killers?
1 -
It's not sabotaging the KR. He's just proving that you do not NEED to tunnel to keep a good kill rate.
"if killers should sabotage their kill rate for the sake of survivor fairness, then why aren't survivors expected to sabotage their escape rate for the sake of killer fairness".
Because escape rates are low, whereas killrates, as intended, are high. But once again, it's not sabotaging. It's simply realizing that tunneling, which is absolutely not needed to win, is just a way to make the game easier.
And there is something EVEN MORE IMPORTANT that killer-only players do not realise: feelings. It's just not fun to sit on a hook and spectate most of the game, only to get targeted once you can finally PLAY the game you PAID for. Do you think BHVR wants people to have fun or to ditch the game?0 -
Is it really sabotaging when I’m winning the majority of my games anyway?
You’re not supposed to win every game, y’know. I certainly don’t need to win every game. I get rolled sometimes, and that can be frustrating yes, but that’s life.
5 -
None of the things you listed on the survivor side are nearly as problematic or complained about as tunneling and camping. Comparing tunneling and camping to something like flashlight saves or bodyblocking is quite the stretch.
If people care about the fun of survivors, then let them. Who cares if their kill rate could be higher otherwise. If anything it just shows how problematic tunneling and camping are if you can achieve kill rates far above 60% with them.
0 -
Yes. If it's lowering your win rate, it still counts as sabotaging.
Does that mean that if a survivor can achieve escape rates far above 40%, that there is an obvious problematic survivor behavior involved?
-1 -
But then I have to ask why you care?
I have always despised pursuing ‘optimal’ play, in every game I play. I’m just here to have a good time, not sweat my balls off.
1 -
Because it shows a double standard, that people feel like killers should "play fair" for survivors, but survivors don't need to "play fair" for killers.
Because if you were really concerned with playing fair for both sides, then why aren't you also announcing that you play survivors in a way that is "fair" for killers? Why are you only concerned with announcing that you play fair for survivors?
-1 -
I'm not sure if it's a double standard, due to the assymetry of the game. Tunnelling is something any killer player can choose to do from the jump and have it determine the match outcome, whereas flashlight saves are singular occurences, and obviously require a flashlight. Pallet saves are quite rare in my experience. Bodyblocking is the best comparison, but you'd already have to be losing for a succesful bodyblock to influence the match outcome.
0 -
It's still giving the expectation that killers should sabotage their kill rates out of fairness towards survivors, but survivors aren't expected to sabotage their escape rate out of fairness for killers.
It also sends a message that killer strategies are a problem that need to be nerfed, but survivor strategies are fine and shouldn't be nerfed. It's a major problem, when people honestly think the bulk of problematic behavior is only created from one side of the game.
1 -
For the fake internet points. That's all this thread is. It's virtue signaling so that they can get head pats from the mostly survivor playerbase on the forums.
0 -
Why are you avoiding the point I made about players' satisfaction? It's literally the most important part of why tunneling has to go.
0 -
Does your point about player satisfaction involve both sides of the game? Or does it only care about survivor satisfaction?
1 -
The fact that one side has to SPECTATE (a kinda complicated word, I know) the game is the big difference that you would realise if you played both sides, my friend. But no, instead you only stick to one role and think you know everything.
0 -
I'm not interested in your point, if you think player satisfaction only matters for survivors.
The fact that one side has to spectate, isn't relevant. You either care about both sides of the game, or you don't.
-1 -
And here you are, defending only one side while stating that you either care for both or don't.
How ironic.
0 -
What do you want survivors to do, though? Should they only ever do gens?
0 -
You only have to spectate if you're running a swf. If that's the case, then that is literally the cost of running a swf. You get basically every info perk in the game for free, but sometimes you have to sit and watch your buddies finish out a match.
1 -
Unless you are going to claim that you think player satisfaction is important for both sides of the game, I'm going to continue assuming you think it's only important for survivors.
0 -
No, when on hook, you do "spectate" the game.
Yes, it is. And I would like you to point to the comment where I said it was only important for one side. People lack what we call "NUANCE" and think things are either black or white. Guess what? I play both roles! I'll defend what needs to be defended on either side.
-1 -
Wait, are survivors complaining about being on hook now? Are we not even allowed to hook anymore?
That's just… part of the game. Survivor has long periods of down time, whether that means working a gen, getting slugged for pressure, or getting hooked. That's part and parcel. If you want to always be doing something and have the ability to always see a match out to its conclusion, then there's a role that will let you do that.
-1 -
I just want people to stop having a double standard.
If someone thinks it's important for killers to play in a way that is fun for survivors, but doesn't think it's important for survivors to play in a way that is fun for killers… that is a double standard.
Whenever someone announces the fact that they play killer in a way that is fair for survivors, I also want them to announce they play survivors in a way that is fair for killers.
-2 -
That is not an answer to my question.
What does survivor gameplay look like without using any of the strats you find unfair?
3 -
No, survivors are complaining because some get tunneled and spend MOST of the game on hook, which is just uninteractive. Dbd's already full of "watching bars getting filled" hence why a lot of survs ignore gens. But if you tunnel someone? They get to experience even less gameplay.
So no, people do not complain that they get hooked. They complain that they get targeted and spend MOST of their game in spectate mode. Nuance.
Please, define a "fair" way to play survivor. Because I really can not grasp this concept. If you mean not tea-bagging, not spamming Head-On/flashbangs and blablabla, then sure, survivors should not get into a game with the sole intention of bullying the killer. But realistically, these are a tiny portion of games played, and most of the time, they're free wins because the survs aren't even touching gens.
Whereas a not so nice way to play killer doesn't give a free win to survs. Quite the opposite.2 -
Survivors could refuse to do the following, out of fairness for killers:
- No flashlight or flashbang saves
- No pallet saves
- No hook sabotages
- No bodyblocking the killer
- No using voice comms, specifically for extra game advantages
- No excessive hiding from the killer
And this isn't a list of things "I" find unfair. It's a list of things the killer role in general can find unfair. I personally don't care what strategies people do, but if people want to make a big deal out of "playing fair", then they might as well have lists of restrictions for both sides of the game.
-1 -
This is not playing fair anymore. THIS is the sabotaging you were talking about.
But let's break it down point by point:No flashlight or flashbang savesNo pallet savesNo hook sabotagesNo bodyblocking the killerNo using voice comms, specifically for extra game advantagesNo excessive hiding from the killer
1. Really a skill issue. And if you still struggle, you can slap a lightborn in your loadout. Survivors trying to save are survs not doing gens and most of the time, they even give you a free hit if you bait them out.
2. Same.
3. This one does feel unfair, I do agree. Fortunately, toolboxes have charges and most people aren't running full sabo+built to last builds. But those who do? They are a problem. Just like tunnelers.
4. That's a mechanic, you're comparing it to a "strategy". And killers can bodyblock too so… meh.
5. Voice comms are unfair too, I agree. SoloQ should have a ping/voice system to allow balancing the game out but… BHVR amirite?
6. Annoying, but not unfair in any way.-2 -
This is still not an answer to my question. You're coming at it from the angle of 'what's not allowed', whereas I'm asking you 'what's left'. But, I'll humour it anyway.
1: Annoying, sure, but unfair? Hardly. This isn't even possible basekit, either.
2: You might have an argument if you're referring to specific builds and coordinated strategies, but pallet saves in general are not what I'd call 'unfair'. Game sense is important here.
3: Again, annoying, yes, but hardly unfair. Also not possible basekit.
4: This one I might agree with on a conceptual level, but again I ask how often this influences a match to the same degree tunneling does.
5: Coming at it from a pure fairness angle, yes. But this is a video game, and people play with friends for fun. Besides, the people who use comms for an explicit advantage aren't all too relevant, since that's a different kind of player than we're talking about here.
6: That's what the AFK crows are for, heavy-handed as they are rn.
1 -
That's part of it, though. Like I said, survivor is the role that things "happen to," instead of the role that "makes things happen." Again, if you want a proactive role where you're always acting, then try out killer. It's a lot of fun.
1 -
Sure, you're supposed to be the victim. But both roles make things happen to the other side. That's why people are complaining about bully SWFs. But a player shouldn't be able to force you into spectate mode for most of the game just because it's the "easier way to win".
If you go back a bit on this thread, you'll see that I'm a Legion main with +70% KR…1 -
Then what is your solution?
0 -
Add one are very important in the results. I don't camp/tunnel either. I also allow unhooks and then pursue the unhooker. No idea what my stats are as there is some glitch I can't get past. I often let inherently bad players leave though, so moot point.
Post edited by Garboface on0 -
Incentivize hooks over kills and base the MMR system on hook numbers.
A "hook penalty" for hooking the same person twice in a row with no one else hooked yet could work. Add a repair progress speed bonus for other survivors for example.
I also strongly believe that gen time should be dependent on killers. Nurse = faster gens, Trapper = longer gens. This would probably help too, to a certain extent.1 -
Nobody cares about MMR. It's an invisible number. Tying MMR to hooks won't change anything. People care about winning. They care about earning BP. And they care about not getting bagged at the gates. That's what they care about.
2 -
If they don't care about MMR but they care about winning then just change the win condition to something like 7 hooks. Fixed.
And about tea-baggin, you can't solve it. Just like killers humping. These people are inherently toxic and nothing could stop them from being that way. It's their character.1 -
You can stop them from doing it… by killing them. If you 4k, you don't get bagged at the gates.
2 -
LMAO yeah true.
+ the dopamine hit when downing tea-bagging survs just feels so right.0 -
You honestly can't think of a list of things that survivors do, that killers might think are unfair?
-2 -
My favorite is breaking them. When you dominate them so utterly that the survivors that once bagged you are now just standing there waiting for the inevitable.
0 -
I really don't want to sound like an arse but I don't think the question I asked was that difficult. You're still coming at it from the wrong direction.
I don't need a list. I want you to tell me how you imagine survivor gameplay, if they play 'fair' according to you. 'Cause from how I understand it, 'fair gameplay' as you define it looks like a solo queue'r who's sticking to gens at all times. I'm asking you to tell me how I'm wrong here.
I'm trying to establish what the equivalent to a killer deciding not to tunnel is, in so far that actually exists.
0 -
Caring about winning in a party game is absolutely insane. Do you also care when you lose at Mario Party? Games are meant to be fun.
-1 -
Nobody likes to lose at Mario Party. Just like nobody likes to lose at anything lol.
1 -
"Nobody likes to lose" I'm sorry what, that is factually wrong. Most people care significantly more about the journey to get there than anything else. That's why people play games, that's why most games competitive scene is always significantly smaller than the casual player base, people care about having fun. People care about enjoying their time doing something no matter the outcome. Wanting to and needing to win is textbook narcissism, no one "deserves" to win anything.
-1 -
Apparently you've never seen someone lose at Monopoly lol.
-1 -
Fair to me, involves everything allowable by the game. Every allowable strategy is fair to me. I think the entire concept of restricting gameplay out of fairness, is absolute garbage.
0 -
To be fair, I wouldn't say it is a double-standard. DBD is asymmetrical, meaning the two roles are different, they have different experiences and perceive the match differently.
The killer role has three strategies (slugging, camping, and tunneling) that are frowned upon by the community, seeing as they basically prevent those who are targeted by them from playing the game. The survivor side doesn't really have an equivalent to those strategies… or, well, not anymore.
Gen-rush used to be considered the equivalent, iirc. Not the modern DBD "gen-rush", but the pre-nerf toolboxes gen-rush which, to be fair, is no longer possible to do in the exact same way it was.
1 -
"Preventing people from playing the game" isn't a requirement for unfair behavior. The definition of unfair behavior needs to include extended 3-gen situations, because survivors felt that was unfair, even though they were free to run around the map.
-1 -
To be fair, 3-gen situations only became problematic once they were allowed to reach an extreme level with the gen kick meta, and survivors have the agency to avoid those.
There is no agency against being tunneled, if the killer decides to eliminate you ASAP there is little you can do about it.
1
