4k being easy is because the survivors do ######### up a lot.
4k being impossible is due to very low ######### ups.

In any case : the game outcome is mostly due to the number of survivor's ######### ups.
As long as they play accordingly, you feel like the round is "almost impossible" for you, which proves the balance isn't yet to be achieved.

The game is possibly too hard to play for newcomers and bad survivors, but sure is too easy for experienced survivors as well, because even if you can make some mistakes to happen from the survivor's side with decent play as killer, you're still very limited in term of opportunities due to the 3rd person vision of survivors.

So I disagree : the balance is far from achieved.
Both ranks are still getting destroyed by killers, and high ranks are still dominated by survivors.
As you stated, you play around rank 10, where it's mostly "average matches", maybe where the "balance" lands, balance due to the average play of players in the round.

@FSB75 said:
I believe people are becoming too focused on outcomes.

This is the real takeaway. Honestly, seeing killers complain after consistently getting 4ks (I'm looking at you, tru3), it's clear that it's less of a "impossible to win" sort of deal, and more of a perception issue.

As a survivor, I could not care less if I die. It's about having fun. Being chased is fun, doing jukes is fun, narrowly dodging is fun, and blowing up gennies to ######### with friends is fun. And I die/lose pretty ######### often.

But the ultimate problem is that being killer is not fun for many people. I think the devs need to look at veteran player style of play (once they fix ranking distribution and true performance checks), and find out how to make it more thrilling and fun. I can list off complaints, but I think we are all aware of the main glaring issues in gameplay.

@SovererignKing said:
For all his faults, Tru3 is right though. Once a team of Survivors hits a certain level, you can’t win unless they screw up many, many times. It gets to the point your Skill as Killer is irrelevant. Just like him, I can 4K. However it has nothing to do with how well I play, or any Killer plays. If the Survivors don’t screw up, and don’t screw around you will lose 95% of the time (Marth Depip Squad shows this). 

I can't tell if you've formed that own conclusion or are just parroting streamer's opinions. If you watched any of his games, you can see that he has incredible mechanical and technical skill that he uses to outsmart survivors. He also sacrifices many opportunities by making bad decisions in periods of his gameplay.

Constantly, he whines about being "optimal", at the same time making terrible strategic choices, trying to outsmart perks that they don't have, missing blinks, hatchets, losing survivors, allowing a pallet to be used multiple times etc.

Thinking that Marth's depip squad justifies externalizing the killer's role in the game is a joke and an excuse to make people feel better. There is massive disparity in Rank 1s, and there's a bigger ego and perception issue. Again, I think you should watch his stream. The fact that he takes people down consistently should let you know that you cannot base your conclusions off of his spiels.

Anyone can see that Marth's experiment is far from representational. At most, it is food for thought, and at worst, it is entertainment. It is not your proof that the game is unbalanced, and not your shield against responsibility in games you lose or do not enjoy.

@SovererignKing said:
Your total disregard of the Marth Experiment, as well as your excuse of “disparity among the high ranks”, let’s me know you believe the game should be balanced for casual play and “screwing around” on the Survivors behalf. Which is folly. In any PvP you always balance for the top level play. The best of what’s possible. If one side is not up to par, they lose. Simple as, in layman’s term “Git Gud”. If you do not, once they do “Git Gud”, the potential to abuse game mechanics that are meant to be forgiving to those who are not skilled enough is astronomical. 

You seem to think the “whataboutism” of the casual player base justifies broken high rank gameplay. “Who cares if high ranks can abuse the balance intended for casual play.” You are using the casual player base as a shield to protect and justify broken/overpowered game mechanics that are easily abused by high ranks. 

Um, actually no, I wasn't saying anything about the casual players. I am referring to players ignoring the fact that Marth and Tru3 play at a level higher than normal players that they queue versus. A random queue against random players does not allow for players of equal skill vs equal skill to be demonstrated. Unfortunately, I did not see Marth tracking Killer Rank and hours played by killers and survivors in the data. This does not tell us the balance at high level of play. This tells us the performance of a high level team versus 100 random players. This isn't gameplay at the peak of skill. This is gameplay at, presumably, mostly Rank 1, which suffers from obvious skill disparities.

I find that it is ridiculous that people come to the conclusion that even top tier killers like Tru3 have no impact on the result of the match. We have yet to seen him doing his own cute perkless experiment, and I am sure, due to his skill, we may find similar results with him versus 100 random survivor games. As it stands, the devs indicate that they do track stats, and to compare oneself to a killer that was considered one of the top Nurse/killer players in the game and it is ridiculous to conclude that a) his skill has no bearing on the result of a match and b) his experience is representative of those who share that opinion. Realistically, if he were to actually track his kill ratio while he's tryharding, it would put a clearer lens on his perspective on balance.

And I had no comment on overpowered game mechanics. The ultimatum made was by players who proclaim that survivors hold all of the chips to a game, which is easily wrong.

You dont do that in PvP titles. You don’t balance for one side’s casual player base, and let the hard cores run amok nearly unchallenged and unbeatable. You ALWAYS balance from the hard cores. If you’re not good enough, you lose. Plain and simple. You don’t give one side the option to just say “Screw it, lets absue the casual balance of the game, and just faceroll the opponent.” 

And we don't know what "tip of the top" looks like without an accurate performance and rating scale. As it stands, high level killers and survivors are all across the board. Even at the highest rank, you have people between 50 hours and 2000 hours. There is no further metric beyond pips and many of them hardly care about them. Heck, metrics are even more skewed due to playstyle (as some people participate in letting survivors go or letting killers get free kills at the end.)

Similarly, people always mention that because we're an asymmetrical game, the killer should always be feared. That is also wrong. Why should a group of survivors with over 500 hours be fearful of a killer that has played for less than 2 months? If you suck in comparison to your enemy, you will be decimated. That is balance. Skill plays a part, and people on the losing side refuse to see it. The issue is how hard it is to get good at each role, which no one can deny is easier for survivor than killer, at a certain point.

It is my proof the game is unbalanced. McLean literally admitted that Marth’s experiment proved the game is unbalanced. They know it’s unbalanced. Stop sticking your head in the sand and using the casual player base as a shield to justify unbalanced and broken gameplay at hardcore level. 

I fully disagree with him, because of the reasons above. Whether he believes that a strong survivor group absolutely needs perks to stomp random killers, that's up to him. I am uninterested in showboat content. I am interested in hard data, which the developers possess. Marth's experiment is not reliable and it lacks the validity to proclaim anything outside of its set parameters.

The issue is based on perspective, more than if not equal to balance..

If you want a real conclusion, based off of an actual experiment, based off of an actual level of play, here's what needs to happen:

The SWF group that has the highest survival rate in the game versus the Killer who has the highest kill ratio against SWF groups. SWF group plays to depip the killer, Killer works to pip.

• Ideally all players with minimum required number of hours, and all players have a similar number of hours.
• Conditions of: x games with SWF no perks, x games with killer no perks, x games both no perks, x games with both full perks.
• Track pips and depips.
• Perks should be meta/have the highest winrates.

Although I'm not saying that players need to accomplish this sort of unrealistic experiment to have a point. The problem is that people are using Marth's games to reach conclusions that are not possible with that his set up, e.g. the state of balance at the "highest" level, and then use these erroneous conclusions to fuel their frustration.

powerbats said:

I don't want to derail this anymore than it already is but why not make 2 queues, one for hardcore ranked players and 1 for casuals? That would probably have to wait until after they rewrite the code but balancing would be a lot simpler. Although that'd probably bring the WOW arena issue into the game where the highly skilled and geared killers/survivors go wreak havoc in the normal game modes.

@SovererignKing said:
You literally just talked in giant circle. Marth and Tru3 play at a higher level, therefore they represent the higher level of skill. Again, your argument is nothing more that a “whataboutism” based upon players not having equal skill.

"Whataboutism" has nothing to do with the argument. Pointing outs in conclusions drawn by Marth's games is not "whataboutism". Marth and Tru3 play at a higher level of skill, and because they are outliers, they will consistently outperform those who are delivered to them by matchmaking. Calling a match between the cream of the crop vs random Rank 1 players representative of the highest level of skill is willful ignorance. It's the equivalent watching an adult slapping around children at a playground. Bravo.

Drawing any conclusion aside from "top tier survivors in SWF without perks will consistently depip/beat random Rank 1 killers" is unsupported. Marths games do not speak for the balance of the game beyond that.

Here is a snip of your original post:

However it has nothing to do with how well I play, or any Killer plays. If the Survivors don’t screw up, and don’t screw around you will lose 95% of the time

The assertion that a killer's skill has no part in the outcome is unsupported by Marth's games.

However, the game mechanics Survivors have at thier disposal allows for even Casuals to stand on a balanced footing with a Harcore Killer. Swap out those Casual Survivors with Hardcore Killers, they run the show.

This is an opinion and unsupported, and easily testable.

Your proclamation about the disparity of Skill of the Killer was rendered invalid anyway. If you watched the Marth Experiment you would know they faced the best of the best. Including King Dime, Blinky Bill, ect. Even thier Skill as Killers was rendered paltry in the face of the De-pip Squad. Skill absolutely does have an impact, however that’s not the argument being made. 

I'm not watching a hundred games just to see how often a name pops up. Random is random, and will select players who are exceptional, I am sure. Great, now take that and make that into an experiment. Then you'll have something more useful to say. Please read above for your own words.

The argument being made is that the Skill cap for Killers and the Skill cap for Survivors is massively disproportionate

If you read above, I also said this. Furthermore, that wasn't the argument being made, but feel free to back track. I don't mind.

Once a Killer hits the cap, it’s STILL only effective vs. casual Survivor play. Once Survivors reach the cap, the Skill cap of the Killer is null and void as game mechanics prevent any sort of Skill based counter play.

Opinion, but I'll leave you to it.

Do not try to “beat around the bush” and dodge the issue of game mechanics. Skill is tied HIGHLY to how well you use game mechanics to your advantage. You do not get to cite Skill and ignore the largest factor of skill, using game mechanics to your advantage, because it doesn’t support your argument. 

Love, you've barely mentioned game mechanics yourself. I've been addressing Marth's games because I take issue with the conclusions drawn from it. I have as many concerns regarding the mechanics as anyone else does. Skill means nothing without a metric tied to it, and considering the asymmetrical nature of the game, it's natural to try to compare results of "skill". I am not mentioning mastery over mechanics because what matters is the product: survival/depipping the killer.

Though I can already tell I’m talking to someone who will ignore anything that doesn’t support thier argument at this point. You see only half the equation as you see fit. It doesn’t matter what parameters you set forth in your own experiment, you’ll find something to nit pick if it doesn’t conform to your argument. You blatantly ignore variables such a game mechanics in your thought process because it hinders your argument. 

The issue is not perspective. The issue is what basic game mechanics allow and disallow for. Continue to ignore this and I will no longer further discuss this with you. I will not try to discuss game balance with someone who believes game mechanics have nothing to do with Skill.

It's cute that you misrepresent arguments, backtrack, and then use attacks on character as a substitute for a rational response. If you can't handle someone poking holes in your post, then maybe you shouldn't be posting. Go ahead, don't respond. You aren't gracing me with anything special. I don't need to follow you while you move the goal posts.

As a way to prove a point, I choose the biggest survivor ( which I thought to be david king. pretty sure I am correct.) choose the cosmetic I thought would stand out most (doesn't matter too much.. but still) and rocked no perks and never qued with a single person (as in solo que).. I went from rank 20, to rank 1 with NO problem what so ever... Game is not balanced. Also rank 1 killer.

This game isnt balanced. SWF is way to hard to play against. The problem is not just one thing. its multiple things that compound on each other.
1. devs cater to survivors too much
2. pallet vaccum (FINALL FIXED ON NEXT UPDATE)
3. freddys map still has too much pallets.
4. pallet looping is a serious problem and devs are clueless on how to fix it
5. Gen rush is a problem and there is very little a killer can do to stop it. (survivors control the flow of the game)
6. DS needs a nerf (but again, devs are clueless on how to balance this {they prolly just dont care} )
7. hatch standoff is a problem

In a nutshell: I would rather see fixes than new content. thats why I am not spending another dime on this game

FIXES

1. change the requirements to pip up
2. give survivors other means to avoid killers other than pallets
3. DS should have a lower stun time and make it so it takes 75% (or something) of struggle instead of 35% to escape or something along those lines
4. Make generator fix progression slower and certain generator parts as objectives that surivvors need to collect to repair the gen
5. Make it so there is an "entity field" that forces the killer away from hook so they cant camp while the entity begins to devour the survivor. (the field will get bigger the long the killer stays in the area).

In a nutshell. The game goes by too fast. make the game longer and fun factor will increase. More pallet breaks. more survivor tension. more jukes. More "oh #########" moments. Less camping with entity field and more terror and fun all around.

Its like the devs dont even play their own game. I got so many ways to easily balance this game but all they care about is more money and pallets.

Jack11803 said:

You know... in every game there is the top player or team, that regardless of balance, steamrolls everyone because they are basically the best... what if Marths team is that status, what if they simply can’t be best easy, because they are just really good at the game, and the killers they went against weren’t as good. Some killers beat em, that means it’s not completely controlled by the survivors. Not saying the game is balanced, but just food for thought.

Jack11803 said:

@weirdkid5

Trust me I’m well aware, just throwing a theoretically at there, just to see it hits the wall, y’know?