http://dbd.game/killswitch
Operation health? What about operation balance?
The devs postponed contents to improve QoL and most of it is good, but the balance/state of this game is still left in the dust including the latest patch. (The fog vial, braindead clown, the night and day of perk changes, TWD DLC, tons of new bugs, etc)
New content every 3 months is good to stay regular people to play the game, but more content means more grinds (Difficult for fresh new players to play the game due to the insane grind), more features to balance but can't do it all in once due to providing content every 3 months. As a matter of fact, there are many things that needs to be refine, but put off for months/years despite of many people giving feedbacks. Other games have made a decision to take more time/season to provide better quality content and focusing on the existing game mechanics. I'm sure the people will understand focusing on refining the game into a better state.
I don't know how much the consultants has influence on the patches, but its a joke of having them by looking back the updates.
Also, BHVR needs to stop rushing content that feels unfinished or filled with bugs. Even games with enormous player base has bugs. But at least it'll be fixed, unable to use until fixed, or some measures and not left without any statement.
Comments
-
i love how 60%killrate=killer OP adepts dont realize that 60% killrate means slightly less than 50% winrate for the killer if we go by the only metric devs have for the win - MMR system and win being 3/4k.
meanwhile according to this very system survivors win anytime they escape in exit gates and draw if they get hatch. there are multipliers, but win is a win for that system regardless.
it's not "1v1v1v1v1" like you'd like to claim, it's 1v4 for killer where they only win if they kill 3/4+ survivors and 1v1 for the survivor.
so yeah, killrates do need to be 60%, even slightly above to average into proper winrate for killer.
on a side note, here's the only available big sample of data on kill count distribution. ~45% killer winrate. I think real average stats would be closer to 48-52% at best, hardly more.
how many of these 3ks the survivor made it in exit gates? I think a decent amount, but Im not going to make any conclusions, just some food for thought.
survs win way more than they'd like to claim.
Post edited by BoxGhost on-1 -
Nightlight kill rates are unreliable and not official data. Anyone can submit whatever numbers they want. Kill rates in official data are very likely underestimated since DC matches are excluded, and many, many steamroll 4K matches involve a player or two DCing out of frustration.
The game is balanced around kill and escape rates. Your personal definition of "win" is unnecessary and obfuscates the fact that killers are succeeding at their primary objective (killing) more than survivors succeed at theirs (escaping).
-11 -
Nerfing the entire killer roster and leaving survivor untouched? Sure I can handle the top 5-7 killers being hit but you would need to change so many things on the survivor end. And even then this really isn't the worst spot survivor has been in balance wise. This could be post 6.1.0 where all survivors really had was nerfed DS and OTR while Eruption and Overbrine was in its peak. As it is now the best slowdowns is probably Pain Res. Grim Embrace and DMS. All of which are earned meanwhile the multitude of survivor perks in the meta that require next to nothing to earn.
Post edited by BoxGhost on0 -
it doesnt matter, the sample is big enough to extrapolate general tendency.
"my personal definition of win" is an official definition of the win in the only system that directly specifies a win, loss and a draw while everything else is using the most sterile and PC language possible just to avoid making people feel bad that they lost.
-2 -
yes, all you do with such people is call out their lies and bull #########
-3 -
It is disingenuous to balance around this definition because a killer doesn't need a 3K "win" for the game balance to favor killer role. If a killer plays 4 matches, and the results are 2K, 1K, 3K, and 4K, he has sacrificed the majority of survivors that he has played against (10/16, 63%). That is objectively balanced in favor of killer role. But your definition would entail he only "wins" half/50% of his matches, and therefore would erroneously conclude that the game is perfectly balanced for both sides, when in actuality it is significantly easier for killer. Expand the sample size to include all matches from the entire player base and the same obfuscation applies.
-8 -
Nightlight stats have been way, way off since at least the abandon feature was implemented. Mandy even confirmed that on these forums.
Nightlight in particular has been counting the abandons as escapes and artificially lowers the kill rate on that site as a result.
The stats for about 3 years before "abandon" were consistently about 35% 0-1k, 50% 3-4k, and about 15% 2k.
Which, honestly having killers "win" about 50% more often than survivors is also about what you'd expect from a base goal of having survivors die 50% more than escaping. Which is exactly what a 60% kill rate, and this 40% escape rate is.
Everything about DbD is slanted toward killers currently, kills, wins, and balance in general. And the devs have outright said that's the design goal. Not balance, deliberately for a "horror feel" and because they picked an arbitrary number to chase.
1 -
almost as if sacrificing a person =/= win, you need to sacrifice multiple.
almost as if this game is assymetric and has harder wincon for killer which therefore means that getting through steps to it should be easier than the entire wincon for the survivor.
you'd make a shred of sense if survivors only won if they got 3-4 out. this is evidently not the case unless the only actual definition of the wincon changes to indicate that. everything else is your fantasies.
-1 -
your "win" condition is your abstract standard of an outcome you are personally happy with. it is not an objective measure of how easy/hard it is for a killer to kill a survivor or the skill it takes for one role to counter the other. this is why BHVR published kill and escape rates, not "win" rates.
-6 -
im not surprised you only picked on the nightlight and didnt look at the only official definition of the wincondition (skill-based matchmaking) that my whole point is based on and proceeded to make a point that survivors not 3 outing or more is a loss to them somehow.
not only that, but you've literally proven me right by bringing up more data prior to lots of killer nerfs that showcases the killer winrate being around 50%.
devs surely said they want killers to be a threat and kill more than they let escape, however this has nothing to do with the reality of how the target killrate correlates with winrates.
Post edited by BoxGhost on-3 -
you are tiring to talk to because you are being given definitive proof of your being wrong which you proceed to blatantly deny. I think I'd have more fun discussing science with a flatearther, at least those show fantasy with their denial.
Read this for once, specifically the "general ratings" tab.
1 -
Hasn't this math been disproven multiple times, or is that some other math I'm thinking of?
3 -
you'd need to elaborate on this.
i dont recall anyone else bring up the difference between kills and wins or 60% killrate ~ 50% winrate being disproven in context of MMR system counting 3ks as a win.
you can also see the numbers yourself and the other guy was kind enough to give me more evidence by bringing up other official 0-4k distribution %s which amounted to similar results.
-3 -
Operation balance lol i bet you blight and nurse wouldnt BE nerfed
2 -
Think it's been brought up multiple times. Just can't remember who typed an essay showing the math
0 -
There will never be an operational health patch because the devs refuse to balance out the overpowered killers that they've left in the game for years. In any other balanced PvP game, Blight and Nurse would not exist.
2 -
Have you ever once made a post without some kind of toxic, divisive reference to “killer mains”? This “us vs them” garbage is getting so old. You are entitled to your opinion that the 60% kill rate target is too high, but blaming people who prefer to play killer for BHVR’s balance decisions and saying that they don’t want fair matches is exactly why it’s so difficult to have actual grown-up discussions about balance in this forum. We can never seem to have one without someone saying “blah blah blah killer/survivor mains are bad/entitled/whatever”.
1 -
gotta love the balancing around "thermonuclear bomb-nurse vs 4 coughing solo q babies" match up so fair and killer sided
-3 -
it doesnt matter, the sample is big enough to extrapolate general tendency.If a sample is drawn from a non-representative source, the size of the sample is irrelevant.
is anofficialdefinition of the win in the only system that directly specifies a win, loss and a drawIf you want to say MMR is your standard for wins than kill rate = win rate.
If you play ten trials and kill 24 survivors (60%), it doesn't matter whether that was six 4ks and four 0ks, eight 3ks and two 0ks, or three 4ks, three 2ks, or four 1ks - you get the same MMR.
Here's a dev talking about it with my highlighting
"I can clarify a bit. I'm not sure where the 60% kill rate = 50% win rate bit comes from, but I don't recall it being said by us. We don't tend to talk about "win rates" because a win is still somewhat subjective. Some people count a pip as a win, others if they get 3 kills, some even consider only 4 kills as a win. If we're talking about solely kills, kill rate and win rate are equal.
Thread here:
Well, its generalizing probabilities without taking game design into account which is a combination of a logic error and a math error.
The extremes are relatively easy to draw. Let's say a killer played a 100 matches and faced 400 survivors. For a 60% kill rate they need to kill 240 survivors. For the sake of simplicity I'll go with the nomenclature of a 3k+ being a 'win'.
The high end of the spectrum: 80% win rate via 80 3ks and 20 0ks.
The low end of the spectrum: 20% win rate via 20 4ks and 80 2ks.
Both of those result in the same kill rate with vastly different win rates.
Obviously, those are extremes and not what actually happens in game. So what does happen in game? Where does the game actually fall within those ranges? No one knows for certain and believing it can be concluded decisively via math is huge mistake. To actually derive a win rate from the kill rate you'd need more data on how common the different outcomes are. For example, from logic and data its reasonable to conclude that 2ks are a pretty rare result, to make up that offset 3ks and 4ks have to be increased, but how much is uncertain.
Nightlight has a lot of problems, as I mentioned in this post already, but they are one of our few sources of data. Going off their historical data win rate tends to be 5 to 8 points lower than the kill rate (it varies by killer).
And on top of all the mistakes that get made, even the most general assumptions on the killer side, it frequently gets limited to comparing win rates, while the killer would have a far lower loss rate than survivors because within this framework the killer has the unique possibility of a draw.
6 -
After my all experience and time spend in dbd Im starting to believe balance was never option, only broken survivor combos and s-tier/high tier killers are ment to be played.
-1 -
It's not toxic, it's factually accurate. Most killer mains I've talked to or read their complaints on this forum but also on social media as a whole, hold the opinion that the inflated 60%+ kill rates are "fair" game balance and that the "weak" killers ought to be buffed since they're not as strong as the S tiers, despite already having kill rates well over 50%. Of course not every killer main believes this but the ones who don't are a minority which should be quite obvious with the constant influx of doomsday posts about how hard the game is for killers. A large proportion of killer mains even believe the strongest killers in the game deserve more buffs and that DBD in 2025 is still "survivor-sided".
Make a post on just about any popular DBD discussion site arguing that the average kill rates should be 50% to be fair for both sides, no matter how politely stated, and you will be quickly inundated with mass downvotes and a choir of killer mains claiming that objectively fair balance is "unfair" for killers and would "ruin the game" and make killer role "unplayable". You yourself have previously claimed killer role would die if the game was fairly balanced.
So I've been routinely gas lit by killer mains claiming that an imbalanced game is "fairly balanced" despite this being objectively false. There is definitely a strong sentiment of entitlement to killers being the power role (which in plain English, means having an unfair advantage in a PvP game), since this is what the devs have aimed for balance-wise for quite some time. Many survivors mains and hybrid players also hold this same opinion simply because a few popular content creators preach it. I will continue to counter this narrative so long as it remains popular, which is the case, especially since newer players often just assume this narrative is factually accurate and continue to repeat it ad nauseum.
-2 -
So what would make you happy? 50% average escape rate? If so, that’s fine - you’re entitled to that opinion - but nobody would want to play killer if survivors were buffed that much. Unfortunately that is impossible to prove - I’ll say killers wouldn’t want to play, and you’ll say they’ll play anyway, and we won’t get anywhere.
The only thing I can point to is when kill rates were lower I remember survivor queues being horrendously long during peak evening hours. The queue times during peak hours are much more tolerable now. There has to be some incentive for people to choose the more stressful and more complicated killer role where the whole game rides on your own actions and you don’t get bailed out by teammates for mistakes.
The final thing I’ll say is that regardless of our differences in opinions, your approach is still incredibly divisive and toxic IMO. I’m willing to bet a lot of the people you refer to as “killer mains” are actually people like myself who play both sides pretty evenly and don’t want to see the killer experience nuked into the ground because of a few people who think that escaping 40% in a horror game is unfair. When you generalize about how “killer mains” feel about balance, all you do is feed the “us vs them” toxicity that is such a big problem in this game and on this forum.2 -
Well the game still had many killers playing in 2016 when most people agreed it was survivor-sided, so I doubt that is necessary. 50% would just balance out queue times naturally instead of heavily relying on BP incentives. Survivors are still being bribed to play their role with Blood Points even right after a release that focused exclusively on survivor content.
If it is indeed true that "nobody" would play killer if matches were fairly balanced, that only confirms that most killer mains feel entitled to an unfair advantage. I don't buy the idea that the power role is more "stressful" and "complicated". If that were the case, survivors would have much higher escape rates as the "chill" and "simple" survivor role would be a breeze to outplay killers.
-2 -
Right so off the bat I just want to set some ground work when it comes to balance.
Killers off the bat are at a disadvantage at the start no going into perks yet each gen if done by just one surv is 90 seconds/charges(1 charge at base efficiency is equal to one second) and giving about 20 secs to get to the other gen (which could be shorter but for the sake of argument I will assume a medium time) so if just one surv is doing gens all game it takes about 9min 10secs (9:10) which means you need to win each chase in about 45seconds every time in order to keep up the pressure assuming the surv is of an avarge skill level and there is not a ton of pallets in one area (Like the Game map).
Even then there are 4 survs if you are chasing one the other three going to be doing something and most of the time if its not unhooking and healing its going to be doing gens meaning if the killer loses pressure even just once it can end in a loss for them this is the real reason why perks like decisive are have been so hated as just being hit with it once can mean a loss as it stuns the killer at the most critical moment removing all pressure(This is just an easy example of how lost pressure means everything).
DBD at is core is very heavily snowball like with the main tempo of each game being who can keep up the pressure for the most of it.
And assuming that the killer is in constant chase as there are a lot of things that can take up time just hooking a surv takes about 10-15 which means if you took the time of every (usable) hook state 8x15= 120secs just spent taking someone to hook giving free time to do gens or reset.
Worse even is the spawn logic that can place survs in horrible positions for the killer with them in the middle of the map and the survs being put right next to a gen giving what can be 20-60 seconds of free progress on gens giving the survs a massive head start when they are already at their strongest.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now I want to go on to perks.
Most perks on the killer side requires them to be winning in order to get full value or it is a one time use, then its off for the rest of the game. For example the most META perk Pain Resonance has 4 token that each take off 20c on the most progressed gen that 20c= 20secs (25 if you want to be 100% specific due to screaming) remember it can take up to 15 secs just hooking and PR requires a scourge hook that usually spawn in bad spots and cant always be taken advantage off and if you say that the time it takes to hook is not a big deal your wrong there is a reason that people who know they will die go out of their way to die in far out spots (Comp corner anyone?). Remember the killer has to win their chase to get this and deal with hook times.
Then on the other hand surv perk desing philosophy is bad real BAD most of the strongest perks do not require anything to activate or activate when LOSING. In current terms take vigil a perk that makes it so exhaustion perks (most of which are activated for doing nothing as well) are up more often despite being the most powerful surv perks already and on top of that is kills any de-buff build that the killer may want to bring going from 30-20 seconds of exposed to around 18-12 seconds in no time at all to try and get value and then their is windows of opportunity a perk that allows you to take all RNG out the game by knowing before hand if a pallet is there or not as well as plan your looping for FREE if we want to talk about balance in a game why should these perks give so much for nothing no down side at all?
And that is not even the worst of it as a lot of the strongest perks in the game reward you for losing take unbreakable or Boon: Exponential perks that allow you a second chance after the killer out played you and probably invested time into getting you down so why should you be able to wave that away for free? This is just one example but there are a lot of perks that do this. And if your response to this is "But what about hubris?" to an extent I do agree (Like a token system for either hooking or winning chases by dowing) but the power equivalency is just not there as it is not easy to pull of against a competent surv unless you have a pallet shred build to try and get the full value out of it while unbreakable just requires you to lose and be on the ground for a bit and can ruin killer pressure.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Now for the surv items/killer add-on most of the worst add-ons for killer have been nurfed to the ground and are a far cry from what they used to be (mostly just instadown stuff) now they are stuff related to gimmicks that are niche or insta down with heavy nurf with them (huntress having only one hatchet or clown having one bottle).
Meanwhile for surv items have far more power in most situations. Medkits allowing for a selfheal or two means only one person needs to do the healing action while the other can do gens reducing pressure on the survs and increasing pressure on gens. Then toolboxes can save so much time for example a commodious tool box (blue) on its own no add-ons results in a 35.5% faster completion rate cutting about 35 seconds of time and remember survs can bring 4 of these things and on top of that bring gen progression perks to make it even faster which can lead to games that go as fast as 3-5 mins.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Oh and about kill rates I know the devs state that 60% is the intended goal but I just want to say that using only data without asking why is worse than no data at all as most people know that killers like onryo and nurse have kill rate that do not reflect actual performance. Nurse has one of if not the lowest kill rates in the game but does that mean she is bad? Not at all as she is actually the strongest but take Onryo has one of the highest kill rates but if you play the game to a competent mid level you would know she is one of the weaker killers in the game? So why the bloated/deflated numbers then, player learning curve people who play nurse have to adapt to he weird play style like no other killer while with onryo survs have to adapt to her instakill power and newer players who probably don't even know the fundamentals of looping yet as the tutorial is bad now have to deal with a power mechanic they have never seen before massively inflating her kill rate beyond what it would be if it was only competent survs going against her.
Also while on the topic the kill rates for each SWF number solo/duo/trio/squad has the same apply, people play in swf more than you think but are not all doing clock call outs to there team most of the time its people who just want to have fun with their friends so it being below 50% is not what you think it is.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
So at the end of it all its lead to a meta where people can do a gen solo in about 45 seconds heal in about 6, just say no to death with second chance perks and last way longer than naturally with chase perks that have no downsides. All this has lead to the killers only really having two options play the most powerful killers or camp and tunnel harder and harder which then causes survs to complain about it with the devs responding with base kit buffs to survs that only further make the problem worse.
And we have seen how this road end with people leaving the game, killers left on mass due to second chance perks being too obnoxious and MFT making M1 killers miserable to play until the devs caved and did the 6.1 patch and the same seems to be coming back again and may lead to the same situation.
With the main reason people quit is the lack of agency on the killer side, hit someone they heal 6 secs later, down someone they just get up on their own, you regress a gen and its still fixed 30 seconds later it can just feel like a lose/lose situation where no matter what it means nothing which when all pressure is on you alone can feel worse and if the game is not fulfilling why play? I have seen people who play killer say that even before playing they feel anxious before playing and I don't blame them the feeling of anxiety is just not felt or no where near as bad on surv as the pressure is split between 4 people.
(TLDR no, read it all of it.)
(Oh and if your wondering why this is so long its so I can just link it in future)
-1 -
If you play ten trials and kill 24 survivors (60%), it doesn't matter whether that was six 4ks and four 0ks, eight 3ks and two 0ks, or three 4ks, three 2ks, or four 1ks - you get the same MMR.
this is more a showcase of how valueable are 4ks and how devastating are 0ks compared to 3ks and 1ks because you lose/gain way more mmr for (in)complete kill/out counts. its -4/-2/0/+2/+4 when each kill is either a plus or minus point.
that just means winning and losing isnt binary.
my bad for dumbing it down but the general point still stands. gain towards mmr = win, loss towards mmr = loss, no progress = draw.
"I can clarify a bit. I'm not sure where the 60% kill rate = 50% win rate bit comes from, but I don't recall it being said by us. We don't tend to talk about "win rates" because a win is still somewhat subjective. Some people count a pip as a win, others if they get 3 kills, some even consider only 4 kills as a win.
If we're talking about solely kills, kill rate and win rate are equal."
great quote. firstly they do say they never themselves said that killrate equates to winrate in this proportion, that's true, they never claimed that, that's just something you derive from using existing data including the official one.
secondly, they say "win is still somewhat subjective". pay attention to this, they're saying in a very polite manner that they are not going to officially define a win con. Same rationale as to why they are not going to reveal MMR altogether despite them using it as their way of balancing matches and determining player's final performance.
obviously you can cling on this with all your might and go in full denial that if they never said it outloud then it doesnt count and win can be anything up to my sinister's 4 injury wincon and that killers are entitled for acting like this wincon is not enough. but let's be real, if this particular metric (mmr system's definition of win) did not matter or mattered as much as others, then it either wouldnt be used for matchmaking or matchmaking wouldve been done based on stages, bloodpoints, emblems or whatever other metric devs imply people should care about.
i think it's pretty apparent that devs are very afraid of making killer and survivor players upset about losing. they change the language inside the game from "entity's displeased" to "entity hungers" (i wonder why this change was so warranted, did killers lose this much at that point?), they avoid showing MMR at all costs and so on. So just because they're afraid of saying something outloud in order not to upset the community or give bullies ammo, doesnt mean it's not the case.
finally look at the way they worded it. "If we are talking solely about kills". We arent and we shouldnt. Even by your own examples, killer is not losing MMR because killer loses less than he wins.
also, draw is not a unique possibility, yet survivors also have it - hatch escape. they can lose the match from game design standpoint - fail main objective and still avoid losing MMR by getting through hatch. the stats dont showcase hatch escape % but lets just assume its about 1/3rds of the recorded 3ks.
in most killer games at least one survivor is going to win or at least draw.
-2 -
that just means winning and losing isnt binary.But the moment we agree its not binary, and the moment we see that kills are the same as MMR increases, then the 3k+/win rate goes out the window as a topic of discussion based on the game's metrics or conclude what the percentage of 3k+ games might be.
firstly they do say they never themselvessaidthat killrate equates to winrate in this proportion, that's true, they never claimed that, that's just something you derive from using existing data including the official one.No, they are saying that if you want to use MMR, its kill rate to win rate. If you don't, and they are absolutely fine with you not, then things are up in the air. For the purposes of MMR they needed a 'win' and a 'loss' stat, they went with kills on a 1 to 1 basis with some modifications thrown in for SWF (I don't think anyone knows the exact percentages), then it gets into all the normal MMR stuff.
they're saying in a very polite manner that they are not going to officially define a win con. Same rationale as to why they are not going to reveal MMR altogether despite them using it as their way of balancing matches and determining player's final performance.if this particular metric (mmr system's definition of win) did not matter or mattered as much as others, then it either wouldnt be used for matchmaking or matchmaking wouldve been done based on stages, bloodpoints, emblems or whatever other metric devs imply people should care about1: They used to matchmake off of emblems and quite a few people would like them to go back to it. Back then everyone was able to 'win' within the trial at the same time. This didn't stop people from coming up with their own standards of win or loss.
2: BHVR has a history of pursuing vague win conditions as part of their design philosophy. If you did not play Deathgarden, it was even less clear on what the win con was.
3: I don't know what you mean by 'player's final performance'. BHVR has been clear that MMR is meant to roughly match people up of equal skill. Its not there to give precise definitions of win and loss. Single trials have little impact on your overall MMR score, its a long term matchmaking tool.
4: If you take this as you're only standard to use, a whole segment of the game breaks down when survivors have the gates powered and could just leave, but they go back for a rescue. If MMR was the only thing defining a win or a loss this whole stage of the game makes no sense.
they change the language inside the game from "entity's displeased" to "entity hungers" (i wonder why this change was so warranted, did killers lose this much at that point?)To my understanding its because lots of people ran the BBQ bloodpoint meta and didn't like the idea that they got 6-8 hooks and spread them out, which is what they were going for, but then got a negative message. Playing for blood points and emblems was a much more significant part of the game.
also, draw is not a unique possibility, yet survivors also have it - hatch escape.So I usually don't bring this up because we don't have concrete numbers on hatch escapes and it makes the killer position that 60% KR is somehow balanced even more absurd.
Because if we want to talk hatches, the 40% escape is not 40% survivor wins and killer loses, some of those are draws. So we know the killer is increasing MMR against 60% of the survivors he faces, but of the remaining 40% not all of those are even losses. If a killer is frequently giving hatch instead of pursuing the 4k, its probably their kill rate could double escapes that count as MMR losses.
1 -
Balance should be a part of health. A lot of what been released with the latest patch is bugged, thus leading to the game being highly unbalanced.
I'm just surprised that the player base hasn't quit playing until things are ironed out. You'd think if it was this bad (which it is), people would stop playing.
I'm just wondering how much worse should it get before that actually happens.
0 -
lot of things that can take up time just hooking a surv takes about 10-15 which means if you took the time of every (usable) hook state 8x15= 120secs just spent taking someone to hook giving free time to do gens or reset.It takes 16 seconds to wiggle off, if you're presuming that the killer is averaging 15 seconds a hook that's absurd.
Usually when math likes this gets brought up, it presumes the most possible efficiency for one side, and the worst possible circumstance for the other.
Yes, if the survivors play very efficiently, and the killer plays very inefficiently, the survivors are likely to win. The fact that if one side plays better than the other, or just has more random chance on their side, they are more likely to win is true for every game and tells us nothing about balance in DbD.
Now I want to go on to perks.Killers have powers, which survivors don't. Perks are meant to do radically different things for both sides. Perks are what survivors use to build their 'character', the killer has 40 options for starting builds before modifying them with perks and addons.
Most perks on the killer side requires them to be winning in order to get full value or it is a one time useThe game does have win harder perks, that's true. However, looking at the top ten killer perks on Nightlight, Lethal Pursuer, Corrupt Intervention, Nowhere to Hide, and Bamboozle either have no or very simple requirement.
As for the hooking perks, the killer is going to get hooks unless its an absolute, massive stomp. It would be like saying Finesse is a perk survivors can only use when 'winning' because they are winning if they managed to make it to a vault.
As for one time use, Dead Hard and Decisive Strike have the same, if not more extreme limitations. Survivors also have perks like resilience that require them to play in a more dangerous style to get the reward.
And that is not even the worst of it as a lot of the strongest perks in the game reward you for losing take unbreakable or Boon: Exponential perks that allow you a second chance after the killer out played you and probably invested time into getting you down so why should you be able to wave that away for free?Because you brought the perk to do just that. It's not free. Survivors, just like the killer, get a few choices that allow them to circumvent the normal rules. If well deployed, on either side, they can make a big difference.
It's also not losing to make effective use of what you have. A killer who doesn't tunnel, but has Devour Hope, isn't losing by spreading out the hooks. A survivor who baits a killer into chase because they know they have anti-tunnel isn't losing, they are deploying what they have effectively.
This would be like arguing that its unfair a Huntress can still throw a hatchet at a survivor after the survivor out looped them. No, that's the killer power, it has to be taken into consideration before deciding if one side outplayed the other or not. If the survivors set up an exponential away from the gens, and they manage to draw the killer over there, the survivors didn't lose, they executed a strategy.
So at the end of it all its lead to a meta where people can do a gen solo in about 45 seconds heal in about 6, just say no to death with second chance perks and last way longer than naturally with chase perks that have no downsidesExcept they can't do all this at the same time. Take a fast heal build, hit a plague or an insta down killer, or you are the one tunneled, you've got a useless build. Take an anti-tunnel or chase build, well what if the killer goes after the healer and now the survivor has nothing to help them?
As I said at the beginning, if you imagine everything goes right for one side and wrong for the other, its very easy to make your case. However, its not reflective of the actual game and thus doesn't actually tell us anything.
1 -
I’m one of those people too.
Look, the game has to be unbalanced. The killer needs that “unfair” edge.
It’s PvP, yipp — but asymmetric PvP.
One killer vs. four survivors. That’s the core.
If both sides were equally strong, the four survivors would just coordinate and crush the killer every time.
No way around it. Survivors have numbers and task division on their side.
So the killer gets tools that feel unfair. That’s how balance works here.
Without those tools, the killer gets steamrolled — and we’ve seen that era before.Why should the killer be a threat?
Because one survivor’s mistake means instant punishment.
Survivor errors cost more because they weaken the whole team.
For killers, a slip-up just means reposition and try again.
But survivors? One wrong move, and they’re hooked, downed, or sometimes out early.
The killerrole need this.
Because mathematically, one killer alone can only handle so much pressure.
If survivors didn’t make costlier mistakes, their 4-to-1 advantage would always overwhelm the killer.
So the killer’s power has to be stronger to balance the equation — making sure one strong player can still contest four coordinated ones...but..
That’s why so many survivor groups lose.
It only takes one person not doing their “job” to throw everything off.
Mathematically, losing one player in a four-man team cuts your overall effectiveness by at least 25%, while the killer still operates at full strength.
That’s why so many teams fall apart — because even one weak link can break the whole balance.(You really shouldn’t balance this game around the “-25% team value” scenario — which happens way too often (especially in solo queue) when one survivor basically drops out or stops being useful.
That’s why I also agree that many killers still need buffsAnd um, .. idk: the current kill rate is honestly a bad indicator for balance right now — because MMR is so unreliable that in many (if not most) matches you end up with that -25% or even -50% team value situation, where 1 or 2 survivors just drag the whole team down.
That’s why, in my opinion, we desperately need a proper, functional MMR system first — before we even think about doing something like “Operation Health.”Post edited by oecrophy on0 -
But the moment we agree its not binary, and the moment we see that kills are the same as MMR increases, then the 3k+/win rate goes out the window as a topic of discussion based on the game's metrics or conclude what the percentage of 3k+ games might be.
No, because there's still a clear distinction and ratio between wins/losses, the quality criteria that distinguishes the 0-1ks and 3-4ks doesnt take away from either being killer loss/win/draw. getting 0k/4k is hard because the game is made in such ways that make getting a pity kill / pity escape way easier, therefore the quality of such wins/losses is higher.
if you tend to win more and better, your mmr will be higher than if you tend to draw/lose as much as you win. same goes for quality of the wins/losses. yeah it's unnecessarily complex but it doesnt take away from the general tendency.
1: They used to matchmake off of emblems and quite a few people would like them to go back to it. Back then everyone was able to 'win' within the trial at the same time. This didn't stop people from coming up with their own standards of win or loss.
yeah, thanks, I know, MMR system does the same thing - survivors can still win at the same time as killer.
3: I don't know what you mean by 'player's final performance'. BHVR has been clear that MMR is meant to roughly match people up of equal skill. Its not there to give precise definitions of win and loss. Single trials have little impact on your overall MMR score, its a long term matchmaking tool.
just like any other similar MMR system? your skill level is derived from a big sample of matches, the more, the better.
4: If you take this as you're only standard to use, a whole segment of the game breaks down when survivors have the gates powered and could just leave, but they go back for a rescue. If MMR was the only thing defining a win or a loss this whole stage of the game makes no sense.
To my understanding its because lots of people ran the BBQ bloodpoint meta and didn't like the idea that they got 6-8 hooks and spread them out, which is what they were going for, but then got a negative message. Playing for blood points and emblems was a much more significant part of the game.
because the game is self contradictory in many ways this one included. objectively, there's no reason to play for rescue, people just do that because it's fun and rewarding.
that's an overarching issue with the game's core design - the game really struggles with making a win condition clear with its own reward systems and the way the game works and devs refuse to communicate that clearly as well, opting to settle for a flawed metric of killer success - killrate.
as you examplified before, 60% killrate can mean killer decently winning 8/10 games and miserably losing 2/10 or having a bunch of 4ks with more draws and losses.
So I usually don't bring this up because we don't have concrete numbers on hatch escapes and it makes the killer position that 60% KR is somehow balanced even more absurd.
in this context it doesnt matter because killer wins regardless of the hatch. it's just an example of how "wins" dont and shouldnt correlate with "kills" as killers can choose to settle on 3ks and get twice as less MMR than they normally would.
that's another general issue - skill disparity between players in the matchmaking, often due to counterproductive playstyles - killers choosing to let survivors escape through hatch cuz they dont feel like sweating for it, survivors throwing the game by trying to help the teammate get an out when they by all means should just leave and win.
-1 -
its a bit simpler than that - killer is a solo role with more agency for a single player than the team role, therefore killer should statistically be more successful by whichever metric devs choose to use. they choose killrate, therefore killers need to kill more than they let escape.
generally, massive amounts of issues with counterproductive and unclear wincondition, soloq/swf gaps should be addressed not by blanket buffs, but by reworking the way the game fundamentally works in terms of the power balance in 1v4/1v3/1v2/1v1.
right now the game is still functioning as mainly team game with survivors being incredibly strong while in 1v4 and exponentially weaker the more of them die.
the desired curve of escalating player agency can be organically accomplished if killer camps, tunnels and slugs while survivors are chase&gen efficient enough to get a good setup (f/e be at 1-2 gens with some prog) by the time killer claims the first kill.
however this is not really possible organically in normal gameplay for various reasons (mainly massive skillgaps, perks&mechanics specifically made to force killer into counterproductive playstyle, as well as players simply refusing to play against that / like that)
so devs really need to look forward to different ways to make the game feel more fair, rather than keep balancing around the idea survivors are consistently bad at the game they're not allowed to play properly.
-2 -
yeah, thanks, I know, MMR system does the same thing - survivors can still win at the same time as killer.Not the same thing. I said "everyone". Every survivor and the killer used to be able to "win" in a trial going off their matchmaking system at the time. In the current 1v1 MMR system, that's not possible.
It just goes to show BHVR's history of not wanting firm win conditions.
just like any other similar MMR system? your skill level is derived from a big sample of matches, the more, the better.Except most MMR systems are a more clear binary than DbD is.
objectively, there's no reason to play for rescue, people just do that because it's fun and rewarding.How dare people do something that is fun and rewarding.
There's an MMR system. BHVR says people don't have to treat it as the win system if they don't want. People who play the game don't treat it like its the win system. It would be silly to say there is a singular standard of wins when neither the devs or the player base act like there is.
0 -
The average kill rate is spread between all mmrs, meaning everyone who ever pressed "play as killer", a lot of adpets every patch and on top of that the friendly killers, giving up survivors etc. Kill rates can't trully identify whether the game is balanced or not. To do that you would need 100 % of players to try their hardest to win and gather infos from that, which is impossible.
0 -
that's the criteria devs use to determine skill. good or not it's what we have.
-2 -
First when I was talking about the gen math that was under the assumption that they were being inefficient it does not always take 20 sec to run to a gen sometimes it can take a little as 5 but you only have a problem with this math when it calculated for killer hooks?
I was taking equal inefficiently on both sides into account realistically a lot of survs carry a gen perk and don't take more than 10 sec to get to the next gen especially if they are more competent. (Also love how you leave out the gen math)
Killers have powers because they are alone its a 4v1 the killer needs powers in order to have a leg up if the killers didn't have powers all you would need to do is run loops tightly and always win, if killer was just trapper with no traps no one would play, killer would be awful and surv would be boring.
And if you are going to talk about killer power balance the only real problems are Nurse, blight, ghoul and even then against a strong team sometimes they are the only ones who can compete at a high level there is a reason the comp player like blight the most as he requires skill to use at high level and can compete with high level teams.
Also the reason you barely see weaker killers as the meta changes it forces killers to adapt and chose what is best to deal with it naturally selecting out weaker killers. Like what about ghostface, trapper, skullmerchant, trickster the list goes on. Weaker killers don't really have a place in the current meta and its unfair to say "just play ghoul" if you want balance you would think about their place in the game as well.
People are running Corrupt and lethal as a patch to the bad spawn logic (Again going un mentioned). Your comparison to finesse is so dishonest how the hell is dedication time to downing someone comparable to running to a vault and pressing a button? Dead hard and decisive only need to be one time use as the effects of both are game changing with dead hard massively increasing chase times and therefor more time for the rest to do gens and decisive can just end the game for the killer on the spot by destroying all pressure.
Perks like resilience are a good example but are few and far between.
Devour hope and unbreakable are not comparable DH requires the killer to be winning and going out of their way to not tunnel for best effect and if the totem is found early its a perk gone for the rest of the game high risk high reward but what is the risk of going down then having a free second chance? The killer out played them so why should that be waved away and it is losing the perk gives you a powerful effect for losing or are you going to say the killer downing you in chase not losing?
And the hole point of the perk rant was that power should not be given for free so readily without trade off if the effects are that powerful. Also if you get hit with a hatchet you didn't out loop them did you? You cant be serious with that example if you go against huntress you need to expect a throw if you try and hold W they are not an M1 killer? Your example made no sense.
But the logic of "If you just imagine if everything goes right/wrong for one side" What if the killer bring perks that end up being useless because they figured it out quick, totem being destroyed in 10 sec of the game starting, pre-dropping to avoid SP/Enduring, hiding in a locker after a hook to avoid a bbq read? It goes both ways and wow one killer in the entire 40 killer roster. Oh and to use you plague example what if the plague goes gainst a toolbox team all running an injured build? Using RNG as an example for balance is not great as yes RNG is a factor but is uncontrollable without drastic change and even then a little RNG is good it prevents the game going stale and predictable.
1 -
First when I was talking about the gen math that was under the assumption that they were being inefficient it does not always take 20 sec to run to a gen sometimes it can take a little as 5 but you only have a problem with this math when it calculated for killer hooks?Both sides can argue lopsided scenarios, but looking at this one:
20 seconds isn't out there. Survivors should be splitting up. Just going from one gen to the next immediate gen is an easy way to give a killer a favorable end game. Likewise there are things that can reasonably slow down survivors getting to gens: such as having to find them or waiting for the killer/the chase to move away from the gen.
On the other hand, the 8x15 is the absolute worst case scenario, far more of a hypothetical than anything that would actually happen.
I was taking equal inefficiently on both sides into account realistically a lot of survs carry a gen perk and don't take more than 10 sec to get to the next gen especially if they are more competent.This links to what you posted at the end of what your earlier post: yes, survivors can narrow down the time to get to gens, but what do they give up for it? Healing others, self-heal, anti-tunnel, chase, anti-tunnel for a teammate, anti-slug, info perks? They can't be everything.
(Also love how you leave out the gen math)There are so many variables that are unaccounted for that I'll barely be able to scratch the surface, but here goes.
Killers off the bat are at a disadvantage at the start no going into perks yet each gen if done by just one surv is 90 seconds/charges(1 charge at base efficiency is equal to one second) and giving about 20 secs to get to the other gen (which could be shorter but for the sake of argument I will assume a medium time) so if just one surv is doing gens all game it takes about 9min 10secs (9:10) which means you need to win each chase in about 45seconds every time in order to keep up the pressure assuming the surv is of an avarge skill level and there is not a ton of pallets in one area (Like the Game map).This presumes:
Killer doesn't tunnel. Killer not just doesn't tunnel, but 8 hooks and still lets survivors keep pressure on gens. Killer never catches survivors in a situation where he can damage multiple in close succession. Killer never creates a scenario where all survivors have to be off gens (example: injuring a survivor going in for the unhook and then camping, second example: survivor hook in a 3 gen). Killer doesn't slug. Killer never gets any regression on gens (we seem to be leaving out perks of the discussion on both sides, but this means the killer doesn't even kick a gen). Survivors never have to switch a gen (i.e. the survivor just completes 5 gens and the others never need to be touched).
45 chase time can also be cut down by killers with insta down, anti-loop, ability to sneak up, etc. Sure, there are circumstances where that average time can be lengthened, but also lots of circumstances where it could be much shorter.
Killers have powers because they are alone its a 4v1 the killer needs powers in order to have a leg up if the killers didn't have powers all you would need to do is run loops tightly and always win, if killer was just trapper with no traps no one would play, killer would be awful and surv would be boring.I never said killers shouldn't have powers. But perks are all survivors have to give themselves any type of uniqueness. You can't compare survivor and killer perks because they are meant to do radically different things.
People are running Corrupt and lethal as a patch to the bad spawn logic (Again going un mentioned).In the current game, I've literally spawned right next to survivors. If we want to talk about the current issues with spawn logic the brokenness goes both ways.
Also bad spawn logic is subjective. It would be like saying survivors are running deja only because of bad map design that makes breaking three gens absolutely critical. Are we discussing the game, or a hypothetical of what we want the game to be? Because in the game right now two of the most common killer perks give value for free and provide quite a bit of benefit, which goes against your earlier argument.
Your comparison to finesse is so dishonest how thehell is dedication time to downing someone comparable to running to a vault and pressing a button?Because both are normal gameplay.
The killer will get downs in anything but a massive mismatch. Between faster speed, powers, window blocks, limited pallets, and blood lust, there are many advantages that make certain it will happen. Survivors will rarely escape a good killer, the goal is to make the chase take a good amount of time (you use the phrase outplay, a down isn't outplaying a survivor, who outplayed who is a question of a number of variables but the most pertinent one being the time taken).
You will get hooks, so its crazy to compare it to winning, just like saying getting to a vault location for Finesse is winning.
Dead hard and decisive only need to be one time use as the effects of both are game changing with dead hard massively increasing chase timesSo we agree that the one time use thing is not unique.
DH can also be baited, decisive can be played around in multiple ways (or literally just powered through if tunneling). In anything but an absolute stomp the killer will get downs and the hook perks will come into play.
Perks like resilience are a good example but are few and far between.Are we talking meta perks, or all perks? Because if we're on all perks we can talk about things like No Mither or the Invocations which are basically penalties to the survivors. Killers have weak perks, but I can't think of one that actually makes the game harder for them.
Devour hope and unbreakable are not comparable DH requires the killer to be winningIt requires 2 unhooks to get an effect, 3 unhooks to get a really strong effect. 3 hooks is not winning in most DbD trials, especially if those hooks were spread out, which is usually how devour players play it. All indications can make it look like survivors are winning a trial and suddenly DH turns it around.
The killer out played them so why should that be waved away and it is losing the perk gives you a powerful effect for losing or are you going to say the killer downing you in chase not losingIf the killer downed the survivor in a place where it either would take too much time to pick them up or they are baited away by another survivor, then the killer didn't outplay them.
Perks are resources. You might as well say a killer outplayed a survivor, except the survivor had a pallet to drop. The killer is faster than the survivors and has a power, survivors have resources (pallets, perks) to fight back.
that power should not be given for free so readily without trade off if the effects are that powerfulThat's true, and DbD has been a balance war its entire existence.
Also if you get hit with a hatchet you didn't out loop them did you? You cant be serious with that example if you go against huntress you need to expect a throw if you try and hold W they are not an M1 killer? Your example made no sense.And when you go against survivors you need to expect that they can do things as well, just like survivors can't expect that all killers are only M1. If you downed the survivor but let them get back up, you didn't outplay them, did you? They are the ones who got what they wanted.
Unbreakable doesn't give anything for free. After all, the killer can just pick them up. The survivor(s) have to put the killer in a situation where picking up doesn't make sense. They need to earn it. Nothing is free about it.
What if the killer bring perks that end up being useless because they figured it out quick, totem being destroyed in 10 sec of the game starting, pre-dropping to avoid SP/Enduring, hiding in a locker after a hook to avoid a bbq read? It goes both ways and wow one killer in the entire 40 killer roster. Oh and to use you plague example what if the plague goes gainst a toolbox team all running an injured build?Sure, that's all true. Though there are more examples than Plague when we expand it out, Plague has the benefit of just being the clearest example.
Using RNG as an example for balance is not great as yes RNG is a factor but is uncontrollable without drastic change and even then a little RNG is good it prevents the game going stale and predictable.RNG is a huge part of the game and it needs to be discussed with balance. Both sides, though I'd say it is little more on survivors, have perks that can be incredibly effective against some situations, useless in others, and they have no way to know until they enter the match. That's a core part of DbD's design.
0 -
20 seconds is the longest time for a surv to make it to a gen in a mid level match with competent survs most will find the next in about 10 second due to predictable spawn locations. But hey lets redo the math then with more favourable times in mind then. so just -50 secs off the total for 5 gen runs bring s the time down to 8:20 m/sec meaning you would need to down in 40 secs instead. As for killer hooking 10x8=80secs still a lot of time wasted.
The whole point of that argument was to point out that the killer wastes a lot of time on things they have to do while only one guy on a gen the whole game leads to a short match that's why killer often have to tunnel slug and camp in order to increase the pressure on the survs.
There are four survs in the trial all should be doing something healing, unhooking or doing gens in a normal match there should always be one guy on a gen if not then that team is doing horrible and the killer is doing really well.
Ok assuming that spawning next to the survs as killer is common (Its not) how is the killer going to know that? The most likely thing to happen is the killer is going to check farther areas expecting normal spawns while the real spawn was not too far away that is why killers run lethal to prevent that RNG at the start then its main effect is off for the rest of the game.
No they are not comparable a window vault is not comparable to a down. The killer has to invest a chunk of time into getting that down. Yes a down is an outplay?! What are you talking about? The killer made a correct decision at a loop and got a hit, twice that is an outplay. Also yes getting hooks is winning? It advances your objective of killing the survs like how lasting long in chase is also winning vaulting a window is nothing lasting longer is the goal. And yes the killer has to be stronger in the 1v1 as if they are on a similar level there would be no killer players left and bloodlust exists due to bad loop design giving a lot of time for very little effort.
Dead Hard when used correctly is used when the killer has to swing to guarantee the effect which you got for losing to give a 3rd health state and people who use decisive to its full extent try to use it aggressively (despite it not being its intended purpose) as a DS strike can gut all killer pressure.
Resilience like perks e.g. "This is not happening" are fine but resilience itself is meta for just having a more powerful effect.
Devour hope is countered by paying attention to totem if you just ignore totems then you get punished for it, the most common outcome for the totem is get one with the exposed everyone drops what there doing to go get (assuming soloq otherwise SWF would just have one guy) the totem clensed and now the killer has no perk for the rest off the game is a high risk high reward perk meanwhile inbreakable just requires you to lose and the killer has no way to tell if you have it, not equal at all.
The part talking about after huntress is confusing and looks like an AI made it as it goes back to unbreakable when that part was talking about some killers require the surv to take more into account like larry and his cams or wesker and his sprays, you cant just hold W against a ranged killer in exchange they have no mobility so are easier to loop.
So you think that is the surv goes down in a bad spot for the killer then the surv just gets to run away? That seriously does not sound like an unfair situation? Chase someone for a minute they go down on a pallet and because one dingus is hovering around and you need to chase them away the downed surv just gets up for free!? And you honestly think that's healthy?
Ok then if RNG is a factor you take into a account then dramaturgy is not fine as you can get a commodious with a BNP for doing nothing even tho you can also get exposed for it but at the same time be given another speed boost on top of it this is RNG but the fact you are more likely to get a massive positive for pressing E. Then Hex's you can have someone spawn next to it and now you have no perk for the rest of the game, fair? Do you see how mainly balancing around the part you cant control much if at all is a problem.
Anyway the main balance points I want to get across is that right now killer agency is at its worst as it is too easy to heal (6 sec heals) and too easy to do gens (can be done in half the time solo) and lasing long in a chase has neve been easier due to perks which makes killer feel unrewarding (I mean look at the reaction to fog vials). These days it feels like as killer your going against just perks not people.
1 -
But hey lets redo the math then with more favourable times in mind thenIn the last post you said I wasn't addressing the gen math. I then gave you a list of variables that I could think of that you are not taking into account that makes your math an issue. You just avoid those.
that the killer wastes a lot of time on things they have to doLots of things in the game have to be done. You're just calling some of those things a 'waste'.
Yes a down is an outplay?! What are you talking about? The killer made a correct decision at a loop and got a hit, twice that is an outplay.If a survivor lures the killer to shack, makes three uses of the window, and then draws the killer to the corner and is downed, having eaten up a lot of time, the survivor outplayed the killer.
Killers have numerous advantages in chase. Downs are expected, not outplays. You need to consider multiple variables to consider who got the better of a chase.
To make a comparison to sports, take American football. The offense is going gain yards. It would be silly to say a 2 yard rush was an outplay by the offense even though their goal is moving the ball down the field and the defenses goal is to stop them. What they've done isn't an outplay, its expected. To see who is getting the better of every play you'd need to take into account the state of the game (like multiple factors have to be weighed in DbD).
And yes the killer has to be stronger in the 1v1 as if they are on a similar levelOf course the killer needs to be stronger.
The game is an asym, each sides has its own sets of advantages. I could complain that killers get to see all of the gens as a basekit bonus while the survivors need to find them. Except the game wouldn't work if killers didn't have these basekit advantages. Each side has their own things that benefit them, its just silly to call out one side.
Ok assuming that spawning next to the survs as killer is common (Its not) how is the killer going to know that?Are you arguing that killers should just know survivor spawn locations by default? Like they shouldn't have to run lethal pursuer because this should just be something they get (to use your words, for 'free')?
meanwhile inbreakable just requires you to lose and the killer has no way to tell if you have it, not equal at all.Why didn't the killer just pick up the unbreakable survivor when they downed them?
Dead Hard when used correctly is used when the killer has to swing to guarantee the effect which you got for losing to give a 3rd health state and people who use decisive to its full extent try to use it aggressively (despite it not being its intended purpose) as a DS strike can gut all killer pressure.You're earlier claim was about how limited use perks only exist on the killer side. Now you're just talking about general things related to the perks.
The part talking about after huntress is confusing and looks like an AI made it as it goes back to unbreakable when that part was talking about some killers require the surv to take more into accountLet's focus on 'take more into account'.
Of course survivors have to take more into account. You have the killers power, along with perks (you mention hubris but also coup, window vaulting perks, perks that give the killer more haste, aura read perks, etc.) that survivors have to think about during the loop.
Its the same for killers. Unbreakable is a possibility that killers have to consider,
So you think that is the surv goes down in a bad spot for the killer then the surv just gets to run away? That seriously does not sound like an unfair situation? Chase someone for a minute they go down on a pallet and because one dingus is hovering around and you need to chase them away the downed surv just gets up for free!? And you honestly think that's healthy?Absolutely. Its no more unfair then the killer who gets a survivor in the center of a 3 gen.
First the chase time. If the survivor had a minute of chase they already did quite well, but more broadly it goes to how you structure your examples. Maybe the chase lasted a minute, maybe it lasted 10 seconds. Unbreakable is a possibility and either and we can't just go to one extreme or the other.
The 'dingus' other survivor. What did this survivor give up to get in position? They aren't on gens or doing anything else. They risk having gotten caught while the killer was chasing, being too far from the pallet, or the survivor not falling on the pallet (its easy to fall on a pallet, less easy to maximize chase time and get downed on the pallet). They risked quite a bit and still have to 'outplay' (I dislike that word on either side, but we're using it a lot) the killer.
The survivors get to work together. Like its a key part of their skill expression in the game. Showing how they have to set this up makes it clear that its not free.
Perk being free. As mentioned, no perk is free, we have to consider what else the survivor might have had. Yes, this effect can be massively powerful, but it can also be an unused perk slot if the survivor is never the one in position to get value out of it. Both sides have situational perks that are very strong but might not come up, and then they have perks with practically guaranteed value but don't do as much.
Ok then if RNG is a factor you take into a account then dramaturgy is not fine as you can get a commodious with a BNP for doing nothing even tho you can also get exposed for it but at the same time be given another speed boost on top of it this is RNG but the fact you are more likely to get a massive positive for pressing E. Then Hex's you can have someone spawn next to it and now you have no perk for the rest of the game, fair?Yes, you have to take all of that into account. This is really what I've been saying the whole time, you are narrowing the game down way to much. When evaluating the strength of perks (and other game elements) you have to consider the value they can achieve across multiple plays, different killers/survivors, different strategies, different maps, RNG inherent within the perk, etc.
It gets even more complex than that but I'm trying to keep this somewhat focused.
Do you see how mainly balancing around the part you cant control much if at all is a problem.No, its not.
DbD is guessing game where both sides are faced with uncertainties about what the other side has. Weighing probabilities of what the other side might be attempting is a key component of the game's skill curve.
0 -
we need operation bug squash before operation balance lol
1
