Killers, STOP Expecting a 4K!

Nine times out of ten they don't...... Even a half brain dead monkey can kill bad survivors. Otz, Dowsey, Scott etc. All these guys prove how GOOD killers can be. As a killer, if you play well you are almost GUARANTEED to win. BTW a "win" is at LEAST 2 kills. Getting a 4k EVERY SINGLE GAME is absurd. There isn't a survivor who goes into EVERY game and escapes through the gate. ESPECIALLY with the stupid ass end game collapse (The dumbest thing added to the game for solo Q survivors.) As a solo survivor in red ranks you survive MAYBE 2 out of 10 times and that's usually when the killer if ######### around or playing a meme build. This game is BY FAR balanced towards the killer. Again to be capable of killing a 4 man SWF, (which happens SOOOOO OFTEN) is CRAZY that anyone complains in favor of killer.

Sad thing is I'M A KILLER MAIN!!!!! I have at LEAST 5k hours in game and 3k on killer. As this game gets more and more patches i play LESS and LESS survivor because it's damn near IMPOSSIBLE. Killer is SOOOO much less rage inducing it's the only side i can comfortably play without wanting to ram my controller through my face. I have been playing since release on console and have been red rank since. I am seriously astounded with the killer complaints.

I can smell the salt a mile away. Horror games are built off the low chances of survival. Dbd is a horror game, not generator repair simulator

Yes, I do. Most of the time, my team completed 4 gens before the 4th hook.

I agree with the general premise, killers definitely shouldn't always expect 4ks.

But this post reeks of survivor main. Those killers you mentioned are difficult to beat but definitely not impossible.

You're seriously only getting 20 percent escape percentage with a swf? How, are you playing with literal children? I play with noobs frequently and I'm not the best survivor either and we escape far more than that, at least half the games.

The game is undeniably balanced towards survivors in a swf on comms. Though about solo queue, sure I understand the complaint. The fact you and your squad make it out so little says way more about all your skill than balance.

Also yeah of course your friend who has never played killer can hop on a get kills, he's presumably a rank 20 and facing people who have no idea what they're doing.

Queue times are so long for survivor and for reason, because it's easier and way less stressful than killer.

2 kills = a killer win. The devs themselves have said this themselves.

Except the Emblem system wants us to be as close as possible to 4k to rank up.

Also, the game work on the basis that survivors are stronger early and get weaker as they get killed. So saying '' you should expect a 2k most game'' is saying we should balance the game around the fact Survivors will always start at their best, But killer shouldn't be able to reach their best (3k) unless something goes wrongs.

going by the 2k rules, you just promoting a game where the normal state of a thing is that killer need to go full sweaty hard mode to get that first kill so they can start to relax a bit VS survivor who will rarely be on a point where half their teams are dead and they need to go sweaty mode to get the missing gens done. It just is way more fun to win as the two last survivors than it is to win, but you only killed half the survivors.

We already got the hatch that acts as a free key for the last survivors. Just imagine if the game went ''oh all 5 gens are complete, here base kit old green mori+ base kit NoeD so you can get a free kill if you manage to down someone''

No killer with half of a brain expects to 4k every match. It's not the fact of wanting to 4k every game it's having the tools to be able to not every killer has that, unless the Survivors are bad, this "oh stop expecting 4ks every game" is a dumb strawman made up by Survivor mains. Once again it's having the ability if you're good enough to be able to, I mean you can outplay Survivors at every loop, however, if they're efficient on gens there's nothing you can do and I don't think that's fair, no matter how much people say "just pressure gens" it doesn't take away the fact that if Survivors are efficient there's not much you can do, no matter how much you pressure, I mean ruin&undying helps a lot but efficient Survivors will cleanse that and then you've got 2 perks for the rest of the game with default gen regression which, well let's face it you might aswell not even bother wasting time kicking.

Lmao acting like most killers want always 4ks. Such an over exaggeration. It's the same amount of survivors who want killers to have to deal with god loops and god pallets.

Both sides have morons stop acting like one side is ruining the game more then the other.

I think people forget the fact that killers are... you know killers. You as a survivor should not expect to win alot you are not supposed to survive, killers are supposed to be getting 4k most of the time

But the game could work vice versa, survivors should stop expectinh to escape, you argument is invalid, try again

Killer is harder and attract better gamers than survivor. But there has to be a limit to how much survivor sided the game is, or there will be problems getting enough killers to play.

That said solo survivor can be pretty hard since even if I'm really good at the game, my teammates are almost always worse. Most red rank survivors are still worse players than green rank killers.

Completely false.

Even if all Survivors are Solo, if they actually understand the game, they can and will win most of their games.

A 60% Kill Rate is still a 2K. Most 2K's will cause the Killer to de-pip or maybe Brutal.

The bigger issue is that those stats (other than the pick rates) are totally unusable. Way too many variables to account for: what ranks were the Survivors? How many hooks did the Killer get? What map did they get? How was the RNG? ect ect.

Just because most Survivors in Red Ranks are boosted doesn't mean that actual Red Ranked Survivors aren't capable of beating the ######### out of Killers.

I think you are biased.

4 Solo Survivors can absolutely meme on a Killer if they understand how the game works. SWF makes it easier, but it isn't impossible to do Solo.

Do you not know how the Devout Emblem works? A 2K usually means the Killer got destroyed in the match and got two lucky kills in the Endgame. It almost never means two Survivors barely escaped, it usually means that the Killer barely got two kills.

It is much more difficult to reach Red Ranks as Killer. Honestly, this entire paragraph kinda shows the bias I mentioned earlier. It is NOT hard to pip as a Solo Survivor. I am an awful Survivor and I am consistently at Rank 1, when I should really be at Rank 9-ish. Do a gen with a friend, rescue and heal someone, don't go down instantly in a chase. That's it. A gross simplification, but that's all you really need to do in order to pip. Plus, SWF makes that exceedingly easy to do. I play on Console, where there are way more SWF groups, but it still exists on PC as well.

When playing Killer, you have very little to boost you. You need to hook Survivors 9 times, pressure gens, chase Survivors (win those chases) and hit Survivors.

Also, it is literally HARDER to pip at Red Ranks with Killer. You need one extra point in order to pip.

Doubtful, I've been stuck at Rank 1 for 2 years now. I'd like a consistent challenge as Survivor.

Hpw will one feel like a merciless, bloodthirsty killer if they dont go for 4ks. In my mind I dont see a 8ft tall battle hardened ogre or Interdemensional monster that wants nothing more than to kill losing to 4 strangers who may or may not be clever or hardy

In a 4 vs 1 game the 1 needs to be way stronger than the 4 meaning that someone with slightly lesser skill should still be able to have a chance. If there equal or better than they should always win. No killer expects 4 k to be the balance but my experience is as killer I average close to 3 depends on killer. As a survivor I survive 70 percent of the time as a solo queue on average at least 2 get out. Now as survivor the vast majority of our deaths are during end game. To me as a survivor it should feel like a accomplishment to survive as my perspective is I'm not supposed to and maybe that's were the problem is we all want the game to be something it's not. But no the game is incredibly survivor bias if you don't see that your just a bad player I could explain why but survivor and killer mains only want to hear there point. Problem is for every killer there is 4 survivors crying the game designer will always cater to majority.

but playing killer is so s t r e s s f u l ( :) ) they deserve their 4ks for slugging

i dont agree why favor killer ? if you think you should always 4 k then you dont understand the game at all and also why favor Survivor ?

The answer is balance the game around 50/50 without swf (swf should separated)

This is pretty much the forum echo chamber summed up into one post. Lots of strong assertions about killer and survivor strength at different ranks, but with no rigorous underpinning. If Marth and his SWF still repeatedly stomp the best killers in the game once SBM is mature and functioning well, I will be the first to ask for balance changes for high-skill play. As is, though, matchmaking is almost certainly more relevant to the outcomes of matches than game balance. Skilled players on both sides will thoroughly dominate their competition because they're almost always being matched against weaker players.

In a year on the forum I have yet to see a single convincing argument for why high-skill matches are survivor-sided. The common talking points are personal experience (far too narrow), "streamer X or Y dominates" (streamers on the other side do too; matchmaking is so critical that you can't draw conclusions about balance), tournaments (How do you evaluate the skill of the participants without a functional MMR system? Win conditions also aren't the same as in the actual game, and many tactics, maps, loadout items, etc. are typically banned. It no longer reflects the balance of public matches.), and "everyone says so" (fallacious argument). I am not saying that it absolutely is not the case that an optimal SWF wouldn't consistently perform well against an optimal killer, mind you. I'm just saying I have yet to see a compelling argument for it, and also that it's irrelevant for most players because high-rank killers do perform extremely well on the aggregate.

Data from the devs shows that kill rate goes up substantially at high rank. It's irrelevant whether or not this is due to boosted survivors. In the actual game, survivors at red rank tend to get stomped. This impacts above average and below average survivors alike, because even above average players will tend to be dragged down by weaker teammates. The only way you could potentially avoid this is in a four-man squad in which everyone is skilled, but this is necessarily either rare or not that much stronger than average at red rank. If it weren't, kill rate would not rocket up at red rank. SBM will likely change some things once it's mature, but people have been making these complaints for years even with rank-based matchmaking. That tells me, again, that most people just aren't as good as they think they are and would rather blame SWF and game balance than working on their game.

More food for thought - if baby survivors are carried en masse to higher ranks than they deserve by more skilled teammates, shouldn't killers also have an easier road to rank 1 because their competition the whole way up would boosted?

you want hag to be nerfed?

she's barely played. she takes quite a bit of skill. honestly get good, learn her counters.

"they cater so much to killers"

umm what. this game was survivor sided for most of it's life. remember instablinds? wanna talk about that? wanna talk about the old infinites on macmillan/autohaven? the current haddonfield and game map? (aka pallet city)

If the killer isn't finding and downing a survivor in the first ~90 seconds they frankly deserve to lose. The vast majority of killers have some sort of anti-loop in their kit, so it's not just waiting for survivors to make a mistake. Killers have plenty of input.

Regardless of the length of the first chase, though, it's not useful to focus on the gen progress after that chase and project it out over the course of the match. The first chase is massively important to the outcome of the game because survivors complete their objective fastest at the start of the game when the killer has no pressure. Here's how the typical loop of the game will go:

Game starts. Survivors, if playing optimally, will all get on gens. Sometimes that'll take a second and sometimes it'll take substantially longer; just depends on where survivors spawn and whether they're being diligent about splitting up and repairing key gens first. The killer should locate the first survivor relatively quickly and start a chase. At this point in time, three survivors are doing gens and one is in a chase. Our optimal survivor will stay away from their teammates, so the killer can only pressure one survivor of the four.

Once the killer gets their first hook and get into the typical BBQ/Thrilling, chase, hook loop, only one survivor will be doing gens much of the time. One is hooked, one is saving (and then healing if the situation calls for it), one is getting chased, and one is doing gens. If the killer chases poorly, three survivors will be back on gens until they get their next hook. On the other hand, if they chase exceptionally quickly, or they find an opportunity to head off a would-be rescuer or slug to start snowballing a bit, they will force all survivors off gens.

Once the first survivor is removed from the game, which should be after a low amount of hooks if the killer is playing optimally, this math changes. Now much of the time you have one hooked, one in a chase, one saving, and no one doing gens. Especially when coupled with perks like Ruin and Pop, the killer can seriously limit gen progress just by chasing well.

Three optimal survivors on gens will complete all gens in roughly 2:40 + travel/stealth/secondary objective/regression time.

One optimal survivor on gens will complete all gens in 6:40 + travel/stealth/secondary objective/regression time.

Zero optimal survivors on gens is obviously a W for the killer.

If you just focus on the beginning of the game, you miss the bigger picture of how killers are ultimately able to slow down gens. Notice that your line of argumentation will always find survivor OP regardless of the actual game balance because survivors simply make the most gen progress at the start of the game before the killer has had any chance to generate pressure.

So, as I said above, if you can't get a down for 90 seconds as a killer, you deserve an L. Same goes for survivors that go down in 15 seconds or get grabbed off a gen at the start of the game. That first chase is absolutely pivotal in determining the outcome of the match. Every second of delay is three seconds of gen repairs. If you're chasing reasonably well, that's the only chase in the game for which this is likely to be true. Biting on one Dead Hard could be the difference between a 20-30 second chase and a solid start and a 45-60 second chase and a likely L. On the survivor side, one failed mindgame, or one frame drop when mangled was applied that caused you to run into a tree, or one second of looking in the wrong direction against a grabby Ghost Face is enough to give your team a likely L as well.

Of course, in the real world, even the best teams and best killers will make mistakes or lose the coin toss on some mind games. "Optimal players" don't exist, but if you play cleaner than your opponents you're likely to win regardless of which side you're on.

-----

That said, I 100% agree that a functional MMR system would go a long way towards sorting out balance. The devs will be able to see much more clearly if one side is over or underperforming at a given skill level and make changes if necessary. Like I said in my last comment, I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that I haven't seen any compelling evidence in support of your position. Once MMR is mature and functioning well, evidence to support or deny your claim will finally exist (although whether BHVR will share it with the community is a different story).

For the moment, though, we know that killers stomp at high rank on the aggregate (kill rate has been ~70% for the past few years), so even if there are a few unicorn unstoppable god SWFs out there the average red rank killer should find a great deal of success. Lower rank killers mostly aren't close to their skill ceiling yet and also probably aren't facing many great SWFs unless matchmaking is really horrible, so any anecdotal complaints about balance are probably off base; matchmaking is simply too much of a factor in match outcomes for game balance to be apparent. Skilled killers who haven't played in a while obviously have nothing to complain about on this front either because their matches should be too easy. Yet, there are still many people on the forum complaining about SWF and general survivor-sidedness. Even if balance issues are revealed with MMR, the core issue at this point is clearly matchmaking, not balance. I wish people would take this to heart instead of making endless threads about "SWF OP".

Survivor mains obviously make endless counterproductive threads too and it's just as annoying btw. More people need to play both sides.