http://dbd.game/killswitch
People Really Think This Game Is Survivor Sided?
Optimal killer versus optimal swf the winner is not always survivor. The outcome of a match is determined entirely based on killer and map at that point. Sure most killers are weak and most maps are strong for survivors but that doesn't mean the game is survivor sided. This mindset is unfounded and outdated. I don't think killer will ever be stronger tbh. 2 escapes for survivors is not a win despite how bad the pipping system is.
Comments
-
It isn't unfounded or outdated. Most people who actually have a decent amount of hours into the game and play both sides at rank 1 understand this.
46 -
I have yet to see an optimal swf beat 100 optimal killers in a row. Link and I'll follow the herd.
4 -
You say all this with no evidence of your claim. Nothing but smack talk. The ONLY REASON WHY A SWF will ever lose is if they let themselves to. If they are optimal swf they will b optimal as #########. Therefore the swf can win against a killer.
19 -
Just link already
0 -
People really can't see it is survivior sided? Killer capitalizes on survivors mistakes, if a survivor is optimal then he can loop as long as possible without making mistakes, and the other 3 just doing gens, while hitting the great skillchecks. No optimal killer can be at 4 places at the same time.
43 -
And it is very rare I even get a full red rank lobby as survivor with the matchmaking these days. A full lobby of rank 1 survivors on a good map will usually stomp any killer, but that's almost never the case.
Half my games as survivor, or killer even, include some rank 15's that completely ruin the game by getting slaughtered and feeding snowball perks to the killer.
Not to mention the suboptimal pallet usage by poor players. You can be as good of a survivor as you want, but if you are caught in a dead zone, you are going down.
0 -
The numbers disagree..this isnt salty rhetoric..its blatantly most killers arnt strong enough to do what the game requires to have an even match on equal skill levels..hence why only about 3-4 killers meet the needs
11 -
Literally every single killer at red ranks has above a 50% kill ratio. What do the numbers say again?
4 -
Let that soak in for a while.
3 -
Even the devs say those numbers are wrong..sooooo
20 -
You should soak in even the devs admit the stats are not accurate AT all
23 -
Even if they are wrong by 10%, that's still above a 50% kill on everybody. I can say that, playing as a solo survivor, I can see why these numbers exist.
You literally have to be running DS / BT to have a chance against any tryhard killer, because once the facecamping starts, there is literally no other option to try and save your team.
If you are not running them? Sorry, watch your team die and do generators. That's the state of DBD currently.
3 -
Just read the last patch notes published.
1 -
Well if you think about it the optimal killer would be not to let himself get looped by one person by having tunnel vision. that's were the mindset should be.. I'm not saying juggle. But going for one person can cause the game. And it would be the killer's fault.
0 -
Marth88 and the depip squad, look it up my d00d
16 -
They DC'd when I played tombstone myers against them. I wonder if they actually counted that in their statistics or just glossed over it to make themselves look better?
0 -
let it also soak in that
- THE DEVS SAID THIS INFORMATION IS USELESS AND NOT TO DRAW ANY FACTS OR CONCLUSIONS FROM IT
- this includes hex: first to down, instantly DC, potato red rank survivors, WHICH due to the new rank reset system, everyone and their mother is in red ranks as survivor now
16 -
Why wouldn't they think so, survivors control pacing of the game and killer just reacts to them. Thus survivors are stronger since they have more control over the outcome of the match if they play extremely optimally.
8 -
This experiment was actually already conducted by Marth and his depip squad. You can scroll down his videos to see all the games. He also streams.
10 -
The game is definitely tilted in the killer's favour if the killer is good, but if a team of survivors plays optimally and makes no mistakes, they'll win.
How is that a problem? Killers still win the majority of their games. The game is pretty much balanced as well as it can be considering how different each role is and the vast skill differences between the player base.
0 -
all you need to do to win in a decent swf with friends in a map, for example, like coldwind, is having two hands.
4 -
Has he made a new experiment or is that still the old one from way back then? Because killers have received many buffs since then.
0 -
Too many potatos outside their rank man..and even then,..yeah you cant look from one side. Because you'll never get it right that way
1 -
"Most maps are survivor sided and most killers are weak" that's two of several advantages survivors have over killer. That's definition of "sided". You literally contradicted yourself in your own post.
Recognize the double standard.
8 -
I would argue that matches are both affected by the killer, the survivors and the map as well as rng. It's just on most maps, a team of optimal survivors will most likely have a better chance at winning than an optimal killer. However I don't think an optimal killer player has no chance, just less than an optimal survivor team.
Of course that's killer dependent though, and yes there are some matches were you really feel like you had absolutely no chance at winning as killer, if you get unlucky with map design and rng and are not playing one of the top tier killers. Personally I don't find that so bad though, I just move on to the next game. It's just a game in the end. But of course improvements to that are welcome.
0 -
Survivors who know what they're doing and bring the appropriate perks and items (metapocalypse and keys / toolboxes) can put themselves very quickly in a position where they control the game in its entirety. If they lose at that point, they are not optimally playing. The fact that one side can put themselves, consistently, in a position where they are guaranteed to win is the definition of unbalanced and "sided"
4 -
Same one.
Which buffs since then do you consider significant enough to have meaningfully changed any of these results?
1 -
Oh yeah, why wouldn't be? Survivor has big maps on their side with strong jungle gyns connect to each other, gens who can be done instantly and the best perk that no one killer will have one day: communication. Not trying to be rude, but surprises me why this is still a question.
6 -
This data was a joke at best. The numbers were not taken from the pools they needed to be taken from. Not to mention they did not account for suicides, SWF, chase time to gen time, rank of killer, rank of survivors (all survivors since matchmaking is broken), the actual skill of the killer (playing with Noed or SF/E inflates your rank where it shouldn't be), the actual skill of the survivor (survivor rank is a joke even my 6 year old brother can reach rank 1), the builds being run, the perks used, the add-ons used, the playstyle of the killer, the perks being used by the survivors, the add-ons being used by the survivors, the playstyle of the survivors, sandbagging from survivors, cheating on killer side, cheating on survivor side... The list goes on and on and on.
Recognize the double standard.
7 -
Read my post to immortalls. The statistics shown are a joke at best. They in no way show flawless evidence, and I wouldn't be surprised if the devs inflated numbers or fudged them in some way because these devs are more biased than any company I've ever, ever, ever, seen.
Recognize the double standard.
6 -
No, I would say they are accurate for solo Q. There are so many games where people just suicide on first hook for no reason, completely handing the killer a 3-4k.
I know DC's are not counted, but they should be, because there's tons of games where my team just DC's and leaves me with 1 other survivor to try and knock out 5 gens, because they are mad they got downed quickly.
0 -
Not survivor-sided, but SWF-sided.
Most red rank survivor teams are SWF from what I've seen, and there is such a power gap between potato survivors and SWF that it is hard to balance the game around it. They should compensate solo survivors and killers with a bp multiplier so that it encourages people to go into those game modes, rather than just be playing against people that abuse comms.
5 -
If you think the game is in any way balanced you can't be playing higher than green ranks.
5 -
You seem to miss out that a small portion of the game is actually a full stack SWF.
3 -
"Many buffs" lmao they've basically only recieved nerfs with a few select "buffs" with heavy nerfs to "balance" them because god forbid a killer recieves a straight buff without making them weaker in the process.
6 -
Of course they aren't going to win 100 in a row, but they will definitely win at a much higher percentage. That is what most people are talking about when they say that the game is survivor sided.
I believe that the low ranks are killer sided, high ranks are survivor sided. That is why it is hard for BHVR to balance the game. And then you throw swf/solo in the mix and it is nearly impossible.
3 -
Given you can play killer at rank 10 and get only red rank SWF groups and lose like 20 times in a row, then swap over to survivor and win some and lose some. It's definitely not win some lose some as killer.
2 -
We should not be balancing around the weak players. That will be the downfall of the game, and I can show you with evidence from hundreds of other games. You need to balance around high tier gameplay in order to let it trickle down into the lower ranks.
9 -
I already stated my reasoning for this before, balancing around the highest ranking players doesn't make enough money.
DBD is a casual game at heart. Red rank solo Q survivor is more like a battle royal than anything.
What does that have to do with anything? Even if that was 2-3% of the matches, that would not skew the data enough to justify 65% win rates on most killers.
1 -
Because of the large margin differences. If 2-3% of games are against SWF, it can change the ratios from what you shown. Also, these are just purely red rank based, There are still a large portion of the game that's in green and purple ranks. And I'll be honest, red ranks don't show much since almost anyone can be red ranks now. All you need to do is grind. I've reached red ranks playing survivor (I'm not even that good at it.) I see a lot of survivors that honestly should not even be in the red ranks.
3 -
Youre wrong, actually. Veteran players who are encouraged to stay longer will recruit more friends to play as they get bored, buy more cosmetics more consistently to show their experience and to keep up with what's "popular".
Balancing for low ranks will actually lose money for the company. As players reach high ranks, they will realize the imbalance and share their disgust, thus turning other new players away, and convincing their friends who joined solely for them to quit playing with them. This leads to a smaller playerbase and less income from cosmetics. New players are also significantly less likely to purchase cosmetics because they want to play the game for a set amount of time before committing more money. The rate at which they drop is going to be lower than the rate that stay and purchase these cosmetics, bringing money to the company.
Even if it did make them money, balancing for higher ranks makes more players happy as those in low ranks are content with being "new and bad" and as they get better they enjoy better balanced gameplay. Balancing around low ranks means they expect all matches to be like those, and get frustrated and disheartened as they find out it isn't like that.
5 -
SWF means almost nothing. Most SWF is an advantage as a killer, because it means the rank 1-5's will be carrying along a rank 15 or close with them, who is a super easy target. It is very rare you actually hit a full stack of 4 rank 1 survivors.
1 -
yikes. Imagine being so ignorant to how wrong you are
5 -
More biased than any company you've ever seen? Are you 12?
Literally every competitive game ever has people whining and threatening to quit after every balance patch. Not even to mention real non-video game companies.
0 -
Wrong. While you may be in your prime now, you will realize that as you get older, your gameplay skills may decline. But older people typically have more time and money than younger people.
Deathgarden was balanced for a 4-5 man on comms originally, and it completely died, because the killer was so powerful they absolutely stomped on the solo Qs.
1 -
Yes more biased than any other video game company I've seen. I challenge you to find one.
2 -
The younger generation are the ones playing most often, and the ones most often asking parents or relatives for money for the game. Families with children are more likely to spend money on their children in this way, and thus flow money into the game in general.
2 -
Just because someone plays often, does not necessarily mean they are good at the game. That applies everything, not only DBD.
It is all about money with a large company, and appealing to the widest audience.
0 -
Playing often almost always literally does mean playing better. Same as someone who plays basketball every day. Or codes every day. Or does math every day. You get better naturally
1 -
From what I know of Death garden's demise: The devs did try to rebalance the game solely for new players....It killed the game even faster then if they had done nothing!
Also just from a statistical point of view going only for a new audience(Not trying to get new ones while keeping the old ones content) is strictly a financial gamble for any product that rarely work as your forsaking current income for potentially higher new income which for an obvious reason rarely pans out.
I like history so i look these things up but most companies that try this end up worse if not going completely under if they completely forsake the old customers.
4
