I'm so happy people are finally realizing this game is so killer sided
Comments
-
Has there been evidence showing the game is survivor sided?
0 -
yeah he playing against to noobs..
4 -
instead i think its just the survivors being not teamplayers
first hook btw and if u wanna know
yes i died on first hook
this is my game right after the other game down below she dc for unknown reasons as all 4 of us were at the exit gates
yes defenitely killer sided
if they just changed mm this ######### wouldnt happen the person didnt even hook anyone he only hit 3 people once
after that we all escaped,full hunting points
killers are in no advantage or disadvantage. i am iridescent 1 killer i get mm with people who are gold 4 or even bronze or lower so its easy 4k for me that just shows how fked up this is
Post edited by CEO on0 -
Well at least something good came from it
0 -
They should look at face camping. Doesn't matter who is doing it. I can understand why killers do it (myself included) when the gens are done, or the last gen is about to pop. But it's ridiculous that killers can (and often do) camp right at the beginning of the game with 5 gens left. It's not that easy, especially in soloq. Most of the time you'll just trade hooks with the other person.
0 -
this is only a little bit but https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4oiwK5-TW0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1eMK1LvFI8&t=1126s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2PyBtGHjLY
Not to mention it's almost widely agreed upon that high MMR is survivor-sided because most of the time its SWF groups however Since there's not really anymore high MMR killers (for one reason or another) the matchmaking is borked and causes long time players to get paired up with people who can't even compete as well deterring any newcomers from continuing to play this game.
Also, take a look and I mean really take a look at the tool kits for each side and tell me why is it that while survivors will complain about NOED they have 2-3 meta perks that can tank hits/save them from error/reward them for ######### up.
Not to mention the fact that many flat out said that in order to even stand a chance at high rankings you have to camp and tunnel which leads to this game's best past time of dealing with toxic salty bullshit even more so if you one of the two viable options for high MMR the fact that you have to do a certain playstyle just to even keep up should be evidence enough to say it's survivor sided.
3 -
When you play for fun and fair you will lose 9/10 times. When you make the experience miserable you only win because survivors let you and don't sit on gens while you camp.
That sums up the experiment.
7 -
So killer sided that after 4k hrs of killer i have to retire. Bro stop with those bs bait posts.
1 -
This is kind of what my point was. Your first video is purely theoretical and from the perspective of a killer who's definitely making mistakes.
The second video is timestamped at a discussion about hex totems and how survivors can clear totems without any risk. First off: That's incorrect. You're moving around a ton as survivor to find and get rid of the totem, and you're exposing your location once you're done, AND you're spending time that you should be putting into gens. Secondly: it doesn't prove that the current balance is survivor-sided at all, in fact, it barely has anything to do with it. If it's meant to be some indication of survivor-sided bias on the devs, it does a pretty poor job for the aforementioned reasons, and additionally: Why should survivors be put into a complete lose/lose scenario for the simple fact that someone picked a hex?
The third video is pretty funny, to be honest. 'Survivor's so easy', but all he's showing is loops. If you keep an eye out for the things that actually matter for this discussion, you'll notice that in game one, there's one survivor dead at three gens left. In game two, where he's massively outplaying a pig that's really not doing a good job, it shows one gen left to be done, two dead, the other two injured (One even down at one point) and both remaining survivors having RBTs on them, meaning there's a zero percent chance that that match is any less than a 3K. The last match is him running down a hallway while the killer is in chase with someone else.
Not to mention it's almost widely agreed upon that high MMR is survivor-sided
But that's not evidence. And least of all, it's evidence when going by these forums, because anyone that says anything to the contrary is likely to get lambasted by about half the community here.
I am a stubborn jackass, so I'll dig my heels in and stick to what I believe, but I wouldn't be surprised if a LOT of survivor players show up on these forums, voice reasonable complaints, and then get so much crap from the forums that they quit.
How did this conclusion come to be? Because in all this time, I haven't seen evidence. I even began to accept it as truth because it got repeated so many times, but since Otz tossed out his experiment that showed he could get over a 2K while playing -perkless- and with a 30 second AFK timer, I'm getting doubtful.
Not to mention the fact that many flat out said that in order to even stand a chance at high rankings you have to camp and tunnel which leads to this game's best past time of dealing with toxic salty bullshit even more so if you one of the two viable options for high MMR the fact that you have to do a certain playstyle just to even keep up should be evidence enough to say it's survivor sided.
No, it isn't. That's three tactics you can use to push things in the killer's favour, and apparently quite overwhelmingly so. The fact that those tactics are bad for gameplay health has no bearing on balance; They are there, and they are part of the game. They are encouraged by a lot of members of this community, they are vigorously defended by a lot of the members of this community too, so that is the balance as intended by the community and it's what has to be considered.
And the truth is that a competent killer can have a blank loadout and AFK for 30 seconds and still have an option to win consistently. How is that survivor-sided?
It's as Otz says: The game balances by pitching really unfun tactics against one another. That's not survivor-sided, that's just ######### design.
And it's not gonna budge as long as people keep saying 'the game's survivor sided', in spite of the kill rates being well over 50% and in spite of Otz and several others showing that killers can consistently win matches even while stripped of perks and add-ons.
'But Otz plays this game a ton!'
And if a survivor complains on the forums, they'll be told they need to 'git gud'. When anyone does well, they're just 'low MMR' and should shut up because their balance input doesn't matter. But as soon as Otz shows that killers can play better, the clamouring for balancing to only consider high MMR suddenly stops.
This community is an absolute nightmare, and honestly I can imagine it's a primary reason the game feels bad to play for many people. It's impossible to go any direction with this meta because the forums want to preserve it.
1 -
There is a lot of killers that don't even play because there is not much challenge to it.
0 -
There are more examples but I figured maybe videos that go into it rather than showing more recent stuff of people who are killer mains quitting this game and going to something else like VHS.
As for the arguments for both survivors having reasonable arguments and the killer average first off its not way over 50% the most recent killer average that we got has the highest at 59% (cenobite) which by now thanks to COH is probably lowered and for the survivor arguments yes, some have reasonable complaints but how is it that those aren't really shown but ones that complain about camping and tunneling, noed and for a while lightborne are the ones consistently seen and the only worthwhile thing they use as an arguing point is that it's not fun to play against that. Meanwhile, you look at both tool kits and see that survivors have more broken perks than killer ATM.
You mention otz saying it's more around bad game design I agree on that however, who gets more out of it? Unless you are a killer with map pressure or have certain perks you're kinda screwed which like I said before not many do now the only killers still on top are nurse and blight and most other killers took a hit ot two or more with cases such as twins to the point where they are data that could be removed and no one would care.
Also wanted to add, for as much as you want to say killers are oppressing survivors take a little look around and you will see the exact opposite around the forums here.
The game is fubared at the moment but no matter who tries to say otherwise until something gets done it is survivor biased and even the way the devs go about their QnAs and hearing about multiple issues with this game, they usually are shown to be biased to one side especially with this new update.
0 -
Also here's the image of the killer %
Also seeing this again reminds me including COH look at who got nerfed in the mid patch then come back here and try to explain why on earth would they do this.
0 -
Bruh this has been sent so many times, these are for ALL ranks, even new baby players that just started (which is the majority of players in this game).
1 -
Devs don't like posting stats because they know morons are going to take it out of context in one direction or another.
4 -
It's the most recent one either way until we get a new one from BHVR this is all we got officially also not every has all perks or plays this as their job why should all skill brackets not be factored in that's why we have a perk pile with 2-3 perks that tank hits.
0 -
I hear this all the time, "taking stats out of context". How is that relevant to this at all? Because literally the point is that killers win more often than not. Unless you're saying the stats are faked it pretty much proves that killers win more and that's all I care about. Stop making stuff up that discredits the stats.
1 -
They've literally said their target killrate was 60% average. Which every single killer fell below average-wise when counting the entire playerbase, which is what actually matters to them. They don't want to balance around just specifically one group because that leaves the others in the dust lmao. Maybe actually pay attention.
2 -
Because when you take a step back and look at the kill rate of players who are somewhat experienced (red ranks), it becomes a lot more devastating.
0 -
Where did they say that? They've always said they aim for 50%.
0 -
Well, those babies are dying more so kill rate is higher thanks to them... It didn't really matter with ranks anyway, but maybe we will get MMR specific kill rates in future. Otherwise you can't really prove anything.
Otz proved only that who wins is highly based on what resources you are using to win and camping / tunneling is best way to win. Nothing new. That doesn't prove survivor / killer sided.
7 -
And that would be? ( % wise)
0 -
It's old but only by about a year. There's been a ton of really strong killer stuff added so I would think it's around the same now.
0 -
LOL, what strong killer stuff?
First of all, red ranks were RNG anyway, it doesn't mean high skill.
Freddy got nerfed to oblivion. CoH is meta, validation is here, SBMM is a thing. It would be way lower now.
8 -
Well Twins, Trickster, Pinhead, and Artist all got released.
Perks like Starstruck, Deadlock, Plaything, Lethal Pursuer, Grim Embrace, and Pentimento came out.
CoH is overrated. It's strong but not OP by any means
SBMM also apparently doesn't ever work and a lot of people cry out that the old system was even better, so that's a rough argument.
0 -
In streams? Also they've very specifically said they aim for ~50% escape rate, but not 50% kill rate as killer because that is not how the calculations work. As well as also saying before they aim for 2 kills and a few more hooks.
1 -
No it would be lower to some like Kruger, deathslinger,Nemesis,twins for nerfs to basekit and add-ons and COH exist while some may star the same some took a noticeable hit.
0 -
Twins got nerfed a lot and they suck against boons.
Trickster is supposed to make kill rates high?
Pinhead is also not really high tier, but he is super good against soloQ, that is main reason why he had high kill rates, but he got nerfed too.
Artist is decent.
Starstruck is not used much and there is only few killers that are good with it.
Deadlock and Pursuer are good.
Plaything is good only for few killers and with pentimento but boons are annoying against it.
Grim Embrace is bad.
Some of those perks are decent, but none of them is actually meta perk unlike CoH.
CoH is not overrated, it's broken, but I am too lazy to argue about that again.
5 -
You know, that's not really the argument you think it is.
1. Of course it's all, that's how you get an average. Whatever arbitrary cutoff point where you think someone is "good enough" at the game for their stats to count doesn't matter, it's just gatekeeping. The entire point of game balance is to balance it for all players, not just red ranks (that don't even exist anymore)
2. At beginner levels this game is completely killer sided for 1 simple reason. Skill checks. They fail them, they get caught, they get downed because they can't loop or don't know what a specific killer even does. So if we removed those newbies, like you suggest the kill rate would drop across the board, literally proving the opposite of your point.
9 -
As for the arguments for both survivors having reasonable arguments and the killer average first off its not way over 50% the most recent killer average that we got has the highest at 59% (cenobite) which by now thanks to COH is probably lowered
Things have likely gotten better, yes, but the argument that the game was leaning too much in the survivor's favour was around even when the devs released stats that stated that the average kill rate at red ranks was at a whopping 68%.
But even the current stats strongly suggest that the balance is leaning in the killer's favour, with the exception of the Trickster and Nurse. I mean, in most MOBAs, a 59% winrate would probably net you a hotfix nerf.
for the survivor arguments yes, some have reasonable complaints but how is it that those aren't really shown but ones that complain about camping and tunneling, noed (...)
You're missing part of the argument if you're referring to camping and tunnelling complaints as 'not reasonable'. When Otz showed that a killer with a blank load-out and a 30 second late start can consistently win matches, people were quick to point the finger at the fact that he was camping and tunnelling. This, in essence, is a tacit admission that these tactics are unreasonably powerful, to be able to more than make up for such a massive handicap. @Munqaxus and @KayTwoAyy ran their own experiments in regards to camping and they found it to be a very effective strategy.
The fact that you call complaints about camping and tunnelling unreasonable in light of mounting evidence that these tactics are, on average, too strong does highlight a little bit the reason why I think these forums are part of the problem.
NOED tangentially ties into that with how it interacts with camping/tunnelling, but it also highlights how stubbornly the forums refuse to take the survivor side seriously. I think it's either @Pulsar or @GoodBoyKaru who's commonly arguing against the tired old meme of 'do bones' and explaining why exactly 'doing bones' is an ineffective strategy, and yet there's still loads of people on these forums who are genuinely convinced that it's a good idea to pre-emptively do five totems to counter NOED.
and for a while lightborne
Which I think was one killer saying the last survivors they fought complained about it and then pretty much the entire forums agreeing that those survivors were stupid.
And it's not like the killer side doesn't have its own share of dumb complaints, like that time someone was getting salty over the healing speed boost on WGLF.
You mention otz saying it's more around bad game design I agree on that however, who gets more out of it?
On average, the killer. Because the killer can do this without consuming add-ons or offerings, and without having to coordinate a team. It's way harder to set up and run a bully squad than it is to plop your behind under a hook and stare down the survivor as you wait for NOED to pop. Kind of evidenced by the fact that in his three experiments, Otz only encountered one genrush squad.
Also wanted to add, for as much as you want to say killers are oppressing survivors take a little look around and you will see the exact opposite around the forums here.
That's a pretty vague handwave and I think it's not accurate at all.
The game is fubared at the moment but no matter who tries to say otherwise until something gets done it is survivor biased and even the way the devs go about their QnAs and hearing about multiple issues with this game, they usually are shown to be biased to one side especially with this new update.
Or, as I've been saying, the devs aren't survivor biased, the forums are just killer biased. Because if the average kill rate is still over 50% and killers can consistently win with a blank loadout and 30 second late start, we might be wrong about our perception of balance and the devs might have some insights we don't.
5 -
You're correct that I do that far too much for my own wellbeing.
3 -
Bravo. This is genuinely the best post I've seen in a very long time on the forums.
0 -
Because kill stats take everything into account. Suicides, face camping, afk, memeing, etc. How can you accurately judge the health of a game when it's all lumped together, instead of pulled apart to be examined?
7 -
This kind of scrutiny doesn't really show itself when there's another 'survivors OP' claim.
Though it doesn't matter. Hook suicides, facecamping, afks, they're all part of the game as a whole and are factors in the overall game balance, to an extent.
2 -
The game is Survivor sided. Not sure why that is such a big pill to swallow.
5 -
I mean you also have to consider dcs affect kill rates
Those hackers that play pig and everyone spawns in with traps on their heads that insta pop affect kill rates
People that purposely troll after their team mates farm them affect kill rates
Killers that let the last one go after two dcs affect kill rates
Challenges for both killers and survivors affect kill rates
Again I'm restating what the other guy said that we can't take kill rates at face value
Deathslinger definitely didn't have a high kill rate yet for some reason was nerfed regardless
5 -
But then Otz would have got 1k?
1 -
Oh we all know that they don't care
Look at true talents scores and numbers those are the numbers you get when you play fair
That's what survivors what the game to be balanced like
Shits just sad
4 -
I am just confused by people coming in to say the game is balanced or fair or somehow killer sided, but also admit you have to play dirty to achieve kills. And then...they want those dirty tactics removed. But if we removed them then the experiment basically shows you average a 1k, tops? Basically arguing for removing camping or tunneling is arguing to massively buff survivor and make it so killers can't average a 1k.
5 -
I find this funny, especially when I see games where Otz plays against survivors, struggles to get a kill, sees all the DH, DS, BT, and boons, and says how balanced it is (sarcastically) - but no, we’ll then only cherry pick certain scenarios where he plays well and it seems balanced. Because he does main killer, and is efficient on killer, mainly - but a LOT of the time, if he isn’t tunnelling or camping he doesn’t get more than a 2K. And that’s the inherent issue. The game is not balanced when you have to run certain perks on a killer and have to adapt your play style to get kills, which he’s done since SBMM has come into play.
someone who has 8k hours, is a full time streamer and plays this game for a living, struggling to play his main role? Yeah, killers are definitely the more powerful role. And Scott? Not playing killer as much because? Because he’s miserable and frustrated that he isn’t as good now it’s full of sweat squads with SBMM and the win rates aren’t as high and dirty tactics have to come into play. Same as most streamers. You watch enough of them, there’s been a definite shift in attitude and enjoyment. Frustration, anger, streaming because they have to, not because they’re enjoying it so much. People switching to survivor because it’s easier and more fun than killer. But no, killer is definitely more balanced than originally thought…. Lol.
Post edited by SammehStormborn on6 -
Ok so you will take the red rank percentage from a year a go and say things got better tell that to any deathslinger or Freddy main and a different tune will show those two got nerfed pretty bad and specifically in slingers case was both a lower % percentage killer a year ago and now can easily be considered one of the worst killers now, along with the fact that if we went off of the red rank list then nurse needs more buff since her average is under 50% even though she's always on the highest rank bracket however that's neither here nor there the statistics are flawed anyways cause many factors were not put into consideration along with boons being a major problem now both due to how the mechanic works and COH existing.
For the lightborne argument the fact that someone decided to make a video about it being non effective and a different website posting an article about it shows it wasn't a one time complaint yes the does suck but people equipped it for situational stuff.
Onto the camping and tunneling argument I never said it wasn't effective however the arguments against it usually are shown in one of two lights "camping and tunneling are not fun to deal with" and some form "camping and tunneling= no skill" I most likely am missing something in the middle but it's usually those two and like you have shown many CC in red rank and people on these forms admitted that at times they needed to camp and tunnel especially now due to how the perk meta is which yes is again more of a balancing issue along with the survivor perks being easily exploited such as bt being used as a barrier instead of an anti tunnel perk , DH's hit validation and COH atacking healing rates to the point where on xbox people can have 2 sec healing times but for the most part I never really see someone saying "let's remove camping and tunneling but include x or y to compensate it" it's usually just the first part which is why people including myself at times say it's unreasonable it's an argument where it's either "remove it or keep it" with nothing in between.
Now onto NOED and honestly survivors have no excuse now thanks to boons and how bad totem spawns can be , most hex perks are actually not that good as before (yes that is more balancing issues but it goes to show if a even noed and ruin which both are dethroned now because of perks like rancor and pop so unless you have a hex perk build you are basically handicapping yourself otherwise also for NOED specifically I have seen people try to say .
I will admit I haven't had much time with artist new perks however since boons never really go away and can only be delayed it might not matter.
As for complaints right now to be honest it's actually both for many reasons and it's not vague handwaving like you suggest it's the fact that due to how this game goes about the mentality of the community now both side do it one forum could just be people complaining, one can be legit back and forth ,some can do the second one but get over taken by trolls and so on, evidence for both can easily be picked up you can't say one side does it more than the other and even the responses I've seen that you say survivors get for trying to be reasonable can easily have the roles reversed on anything dbd related.
Also let's put one thing to bed even though I do respect otz and can agree that certain killers can be with out perks and addons and have the delay and still win I have to take the results with a grain of salt due to the rng centric nature of dbd and the fact he tweeted about there being a gap in certain killer tiers meaning some killers can't be viable thanks to bad basekits.
For your response for the question I asked about which side benefits more due to the bugs you only brought up bully squads but I was including perks and the map itself which right now most are survivor sided due to placement of pallets ,buildings and debris.
1 -
The entire point of Otz's experiment was showing that killer's have to play "dirty" in order to win, and its all up to who wants to pay more dirrty: the killer or the survivors. But of course, the killer plaing dirty to win just results in death threats and slurs from four different poeple
6 -
Oh, sure, but they're the only stats we have. And people claim the exact opposite of what the stats say without any kind of evidence to back it up, and that is taken in without any kind of scrutiny.
The only statistics we have suggest that killers are at an advantage.
Ok so you will take the red rank percentage from a year a go and say things got better tell that to any deathslinger or Freddy main
Well, they did. Both of them got closer to 50% in their kill rates. Deathslinger might be under that line now, but it's especially funny that you mention Freddy since you, yourself, linked an image stating him to have the second highest kill rate at 59%.
Onto the camping and tunneling argument I never said it wasn't effective however the arguments against it usually are shown in one of two lights "camping and tunneling are not fun to deal with" and some form "camping and tunneling= no skill" I most likely am missing something in the middle but it's usually those two and like you have shown many CC in red rank and people on these forms admitted that at times they needed to camp and tunnel especially now due to how the perk meta is which yes is again more of a balancing issue along with the survivor perks being easily exploited such as bt being used as a barrier instead of an anti tunnel perk , DH's hit validation and COH atacking healing rates to the point where on xbox people can have 2 sec healing times but for the most part I never really see someone saying "let's remove camping and tunneling but include x or y to compensate it" it's usually just the first part which is why people including myself at times say it's unreasonable it's an argument where it's either "remove it or keep it" with nothing in between.
I have been saying for about as long as I've been on these forums that camping (I've been hesitant about tunnelling, but now feel fairly confident in saying that that applies too) is the lodestone of the game's balancing issues.
Here's the problem: You say that killers are forced to tunnel and camp in light of exploitative plays from survivors. But if you can still win perfectly fine by doing exactly that, then the game is balanced. It's not fun, but it's balanced. That was Otz's point: It's balanced in such a way that both sides have extremely un-fun strategies they can employ that are considerably more powerful than playing the game normally.
The issue that I'm trying to point out here is that there's a killer bias on the forums that makes it impossible to address this problem. Because while everyone's on board with removing BT collision, with nerfing CoH, with fixing DH's false positives (Which are supposedly getting fixed this PTB), with nerfing genrush and bully squads, try and suggest nerfing camping, tunnelling and slugging.
You will get so much backlash.
That's what I mean with that these forums want to maintain the current meta. Because without nerfing the OP, unfun strategies from killers, you can't reasonably remove the OP, unfun strategies from survivors.
Now onto NOED and honestly survivors have no excuse now thanks to boons and how bad totem spawns can be
Objectively: 'Doing bones' is the worst counter to NOED, unless you are in a 4 man swiffer, and even then it's highly questionable.
For your response for the question I asked about which side benefits more due to the bugs you only brought up bully squads but I was including perks and the map itself which right now most are survivor sided due to placement of pallets ,buildings and debris.
'It's survivor sided'
As evidenced by nothing.
You state they're survivor sided, but it's just as possible that they're neutral, and everything that isn't considered 'survivor sided' is actually killer sided.
Basically, there's four balance states...
1: Clean survivor - 50/50 - Clean killer
2: Dirty survivor - 80/20 - Clean killer
3: Clean survivor - 0/100 - Dirty killer
4 Dirty survivor - 50/50 - Dirty killer
What Otz said basically boils down to 'the game favours dirty play'.
But on these forums? Situation 2 is the absolute abomination that makes DbD borderline unplayable to killers.
Situation 3 is fine.
People just cling to the possibility that the game is survivor sided. Even though Otz can handicap himself with a blank loadout and wait 30 seconds to start, even though other streamers joined him on the experiment and mostly reproduced his results, even though there were camping experiments that showed excessively high kill rate returns, people still insist on stating that the game is survivor sided.
'But the game's only killer sided when we camp/tunnel/slug'
Then as long as those tactics exist and are available, the game is killer sided. You choosing to play sub-optimal has no bearing on the balance, right?
That's why people think it's a reasonable rebuttal to say 'bring small game, 4head' in response to NOED complaints.
I have been advocating for ages now for a mutual nerf: Slower gens, weakened genrushing, but in exchange, camping, tunnelling and slugging MUST be kneecapped. The game needs to forcibly steer towards a meta that makes the most optimal strategy NOT the most unfun one.
No bully squads (Innate lightborn after a flashlight save, maybe change sabotage as well, removal of map offerings)
No genrush (Slower solo speed with compensatory increased co-op speed so fastest gen speed =/= safest gen progress, better gen regression, removal of BNP)
No camping (Survivors teleport to distant hook when progressing to struggle state from first hook)
No tunnelling (Innate DS, disabled post gen 5)
No slugging (Survivors can crawl to a generator and once there, pick themselves up after fully recovering and performing a 15+ second standing-up animation)
As long as killers don't want to give up their OP strategies, you can't make survivors give up their own.
1 -
That's a lot of words to ignore that tournaments need massive amounts of restrictions and bans on what survivors can bring just to try and equalize it out remotely, as well as playing on preselected maps that lean in the killer's favor anywhere from moderately to heavily.
Also ignoring that BHVR themselves is aiming for 60% kill rate.
Otz is not a good example. He has nearly 8000 hours and is extremely good compared to the average, and we all know how unreliable MMR is.
3 -
Apart of some maps, game is balanced enough for me.
1 -
Re-read your own post.
In the exact same post, you're pointing at tournament level, top level plays, to imply the game's survivor sided, AND you discredit Otz's results because 'he's too high level'.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.
3 -
Streamer says something, must be true!
2 -
I believe you can (mostly) take kill rates at face value because that's what the game is. It is objectively true that in (old) red ranks Freddy had a 75% kill rate be it for DCs, legit kills, farms, trolling survivors, whatever. If going against Freddy made survivors DC well that's a problem, me being a survivor in red ranks meant that I only had a 25% chance of actually escaping and that's a huge problem.
Furthermore, it's a video game and people compete to win, there is an incentive to actually play the game as dirty as you can so I don't see trolling and farming as a good excuse to discredit or disregard the kill rate. If there was a 1v1 fighting game where one character had a 75% win rate that would be a huge issue and nobody would say "well the stats don't take into account trolls and DCs so we shouldn't rely on it". It doesn't matter, the stats are legitimate averages of results and it's unbalanced.
0 -
Where is the proof? All the data is showing the opposite.
I think people have repeated "the game is survivor sided" enough, that people just believe it without questioning it.
Look at what we are seeing...
- The developers latest release of data is showing killers, on average, getting over 50% kills
- One of the most well respected streamers, Otz, who probably has the most knowledge of the game, just from the shear amount he plays, saying that Killer is fine.
- Several forum posters, including me and @KayTwoAyy, keeping independent track of games and seeing a Kill rate above 2 per match on average. (We did it while camping but camping is suppose to be weaker than playing the game normally). There's been other posters who have kept data and are showing about the same kill rate that @KayTwoAyy and I have seen.
- Tournaments, as mentioned by @ScottJund in his videos, showing that Killers were getting over a 2.0 kill rate.
I'm not saying this is definitive data but there is a lot of different sources all showing that the game is Killer sided. In fact, I'm not really seeing data saying the opposite. Just people saying, "The game is survivor sided".
2 -
I am pretty sure this is a bait thread. They literally balance the game around Killers being as good as Otz, and Survivors as bad as first time playing the game.
4 -
They are paid to play the game - thus leading them to having MORE time to play the game, and flesh out their perspective on each patch, thus allowing them to collect more statistics from their own matches to back up their views and opinions - this is wrong, because??????
0
