Fixing the current Survivor sided game

If the game were made harder for Survivors, but then nothing was done about tunneling and camping in exchange, the game would become very Killer sided, as it's both hard for Survivors to get their objective done, and easy to get tunneled and camped.

I can tell from your response you stopped reading at "Otzdarva" and didn't actually WATCH the video. Please go watch the video. He did a fantastic experiment from playing with a sweaty build and "playing like a scumbag' as you say down to playing w/o even any perks. He also addresses most of the complaints you have about his methodology.

I'll just put his results here:

Here's the thing - if you, a killer, define a 'win' as a 4k - you're going to be horribly disappointed with a lot of your matches. If you get a long term average of 3k or at least 2.5k avg kills per game, your MMR is going to go up. That's a win in my book. Some players take the killer role far too seriously and want to just insta-M1 4k every game. That's not fun for either side and it's really kinda boring, if you think about it. Gotta have some challenge and apply some skill to any game. Even if you're a casual player.

DbD is, by its current design philosophy, Survivor sided.

if you have two teams of players with each member having the same skilllevel as the others go up against each other, Survivors win (given they dont throw the game at some point - for example like they did when Otz did the no Perks, no Add Ons + 30 sec AFK at the beginning Hag game).

The only thing Otzes video proves is, that either he is a lot better than most of his opponents, allowing him to still beat them, or that most Survivors dont want to play in an optimal way (so playing DbD casually for fun), due to it being quite boring, giving the Killer once again the ability to beat them (but only if the Killer plays to win).

but if you wanna talk balance, you gotta look at a balanced setup - so both sides have players of the same skill level and both sides play the game to win.

but why am i saying that?

here's the short version:

DbD can be boiled down into two seperate mini games - the "macro game" and the "micro game" as i call them.

Macro game refers to the overall trial, micro game to chases.

balance is achieved by both sides being absolute powerhouses in one of those cathegories and racing the other side to complete theirs first.

however, the Devs decided that it would be boring for Survivors if they only got to do gens (macro game), so they decided to make chases (micro game) "fair and balanced for both sides".

the result of that balance philosophy is, that Killers can not compete with Survivors doing gens (as they, by design, shouldnt be able to), but also cant race gens, because they are not oppressive in chases and they therefore take too long (as they should be).

Survivors on the other hand still get to be oppressive on gens, meaning the Killer simply put doesnt have the time to actually be a threat to them.

thats why 4 gen slowdowns and tunneling someone out asap are the current meta, because Killers need to somehow buy themselves enough time to end chases and hook players before the game is over.

of course there are a bunch of different killers and this applies to some more than others, but given the current balance history, the Devs are a lot more keen at bringing killers that actually achieve a decent level of balance down to "be more in line with the others / allow for fair counterplay (referring to chases)", rather than buffing other Killers up to be on their level.

i totally get and understand the reason why they decided to do that, but it leaves this game in a pretty unbalanced state.

which makes other decisions they made, such as introducing an MMR system, look significantly worse - because why would we want a system that puts players of a similar skill level together on both sides, when that just translates out to the Killer losing the match?

When people say "comms with friends" they mean a SWF group over discord.. not a survivor talking to the killer..

That would require such a waste of time to get lobbies together, leaving and searching for a new lobby to get matched up together that your argument doesn't have any justification. I play a lot at the same time as other people I know and never got matched with/vs them.

Only people I recall matching against twice are two Twitch streamers I used to follow, and the two matches vs each of them were months apart in both cases. They were both playing regularly at the same time I usually play, and I never saw them other than that.. so if people want to cheat the system by forcing the game to put them in the same match, its their time wasted, I know I wouldn't want to bother with that just to ######### around with other survivors.

Maybe other games have "better" (or different) matchmaking that allow you to pick the lobby or who you play against, and yes, you could do that.. but unless there's a way to consistently match vs the people you want, then yeah..

It really depends on the map as to how survivor sided it is, as generators have fixed times to complete that doesn't scale with map size. This means that any killers put into a large map need to have either a strong ranged option or a high mobility option, if they don't they lose a lot of time for free on survivors, as each second the killer has to spend going to a gen is four seconds that the survivors get. Doubly so if it's a large map with little cover, you can see the killer from a mile away and move to hide or move to a safe tile with plenty of warning in advance. This might cause issues with high mobility killers like Blight and Nurse, but they already dominate the meta as is, but that might be a necessary sacrifice to make other killers viable for large maps.