Killer is not the same role anymore

You get to grade 1 easier because it's easier to rank up as killer due to the emblem system for killer being easier than survivors.

Except the Lead Game Designer patrick said in the most recent Q&A stream that a win is killing a survivor, and a loss is dying as a survivor. I know that 2k used to be the metric for win/loss, but I don't know the last time they referred to that as a win/loss, but it wasn't an incredibly long time ago.

And what about the rest for the player base with out 2-5k hours and play the game for a job?

Rank means absolutely nothing though. As killer it's going to be easier to rank up simply because you get more points for doing objectives due to the fact that you're a one man team. You're doing all of the objectives so you're going to get all of the points. As someone who has switched to almost solely playing survivor because of how unfun and unfair playing killer can be, my Solo queue matches have been far easier than my killer matches. And I'm a higher rank on survivor (Silver 3) thank Killer (Bronze 4), both of which I started from ash rank.

Exactly. Most people I watch also 4k the majority of the time.

People who come on these forums to vent have a hard time grasping that maybe they just aren't as good at the game as they think they are. It's okay to be casual and get avarage results.

The game is survivor sided, you have to be pretty oblivious to not see that. You have to be equally oblivious to think killer is so disadvantaged it becomes impossible.

And for the people who are going to say not everyone plays this game for a living or has 1000 of hours

Why are you expecting expert results from casual players?

70% is 2.8 kills on average, so I 2k much more often than I 4k. That's just from my recent ~50 games, overall I'm probably more around ~65% killrate; I 2k most of the time with a tendency to 3k, but I regularly give the last survivor hatch, so that pushes my killrate down too. I have 5k hours total, around 2k of which I'd say I spent on killer. My point was just that I don't usually really try hard to "win" (kill 3+ survivors), and still have fun playing killer despite usually not "winning". The type of players I talked about are the extreme end that almost always win, and do so decisively, and I used them to showcase that it is provably possible to become good enough to do so, but of course that is not required to have a successful and enjoyable time playing killer, even a 60% killrate for example is already good and should usually make for a good experience. Also keep in mind that in a balanced outcome, all generators are supposed to get finished, and regularly at least 3 survivors should also still be alive at that point since securing at least 1 kill in the endgame is all but guaranteed. So don't feel like you got demolished just because gens got finished and people escaped, that's not actually as big a loss as it might feel like.

The base game balance does lean toward favouring survivors to escape, but it's really not nearly as far off as people like to make it out to be - if you have a group of solo survivor players against a killer player all five of which are equally experienced and skilled at the game, a 2k outcome is actually completely reasonable and within expectation. Of course there are balance-relevant aspects such as killer character, map, perks, items, add-ons, offerings, some of which are still problematic, but that goes for both sides. SWF with voice comms is definitely a blatant balance issue though, I would like for SWF to see perk and item limitations.

Live balance however is actually favouring killers and always has, as both official stats and stats like those that I provided have gone to show time and time again. That global and per-rank kill rates have always been around 60-70% is not a coincidence, not least because 4ks are much more common than 0ks (securing at least 1 kill is almost certain, whereas 2 and 3 kills often snowball into 4). I would definitely like to see rates for the different MMR brackets, but I would not at all be surprised to see them still well above 50% even at the highest bracket.

500 hours over 4 years is really not a lot at all, maybe you should change your outlook on the game and don't expect to win most of your games decisively (i. e. end games before gens are done). If you change your expectation to killing on average between 2-3 survivors, 1-2 of which in the endgame, I think you'll be less bummed out about your results.

Killers are the same. Nothing major changed. M1 slow killers suck, others have better results.

My kill rate is still somewhere around 60% on my last 30 games. Yeah games results look inconsistent like 4k/4k/0k/3k etc... But overall it all depends on map choice and if there is good swf or not.

What actually bothers me is kills are more important than hooks so a lot of killers don't play to learn and just camp to secure 1k and then complain.

...Yeah, because 59.86% is so far away from 60%. And the 40-something is only for Nurse, for whom it is obvious why the rate is that low. Everyone else is above 50%, as is the global average. And in all of the the past stats (the stats I was more so referring to, hence "rank"), they were actually between 60 and 70% every time.

That the kill range is more 1-4 rather than 0-4 also isn't somehow not a balance argument. Why would it be "boosting" stats if it is much more likely for killers to get at least 1 kill? That the game favours killers to often at least 1k even in bad games is affecting stats in a completely valid way.

That high MMR stats will be way lower is pure speculation. I think they will be significantly higher, and in the case of Nurse for instance it's obvious that they would be. Red rank stats in the past were also always even higher than the already above-50% global average. And I mean, all the players I talk about that almost always 3-4k are obviously high MMR.

I don't want to go into another discussion about stats though. My original post was more to counter the narrative popular around these forums that killer is hopelessly impossible and getting kills is an exception. Which is just not reality. For the best players getting escapes is an exception.

Again, I was talking about past stats with the 60-70%. But even now in MMR some killers still average around 60% even globally.

Nurse is the only one below 50%, and it's because the average player is not good at playing her, she has a higher skill floor than any other killer. Well, Trickster was the only other killer below 50%, though I think that was prior to the recent buffs.

I don't care to have an argument about the specifics of stats, it suffices anyway to say they too show that the game is killer-sided in its live balance, with the average result being at least 2 survivors dying.

As for the bad player good player argument, again, the players I talk about and highlight who 3-4k all the time are at the top of MMR. If they are not regularly getting good opponents, nobody is.

You will own nothing... and you will be happy.

The problem is that isn't the case in how the game functionally scores after a trial. If two is a "winning" threshold then the devs need to rebalance the scoring matrix to count that as a win then.

Again, I never did nor now do ignore the potential strength of survivors. I already said I think the base game balance does favour survivors (with the caveats mentioned), despite live balance favouring killers.

We agree on the second statement. I also suspect that since any singular survivor player's skills and performance can in theory only have partial ("25%") impact on a given round, while a killer player's skills and performance constitute 100% of their potential impact on the same round, on average the game will favour killers. But that live balance is what actually matters, since it tells the story of the actual matches actual players are actually having, rather than speculative base game scenarios where everyone is equally skilled and experienced and whatnot. To quote an old argument of mine in this regard: "I will go as far as to say core game balance with the competitive premise in mind that both sides should be equally skilled practically *has to* be tilted in survivor favour for the game to yield a balanced live experience given the fact that it takes 4 survivors to each match the skill of only 1 killer. The killer side will much more often have the "skill advantage", so to say, and this has to be accounted for in live balance."

Either way, I'll concede that my 60-70% average kill rate statement is not accurate in MMR anymore and I did not communicate that clearly in my original post.

You are right and that is ok for this type of game, it would be like saying survivor sucks now because you aren't getting a 4 man escape every game. People need to stop acting like they are owed a win every match, it is an online game and you are meant to lose sometimes, that is how a game is made.

You're not hearing me. I don't need a 4k every time. But a lot of matches, I literally couldn't have got a 4k no matter how well I played. That's what I want to get rid of, those unwinnable killer matches.