Otzdarva is proving you that the game is not Survivor sided
Comments
-
They can do fine at high MMR when they get potato survivors. Because all you have to do is escape as survivor, you get potatoes even at high MMR. But when you don't get them, you get absolutely obliterated because the gen speed will trump everything you do. Otz's streaks before and after MMR might as well be thrown out, because there's no way he went against high level teams that many times in a row and still won. To put it simply, if you had an easy game as killer, it wasn't high level.
1 -
It's that these players Otz is playing against aren't high MMR survivors. He runs into these higher mmr teams every now and then that absolutely destroy him.
He himself even says if he faces the high level teams every game, those win streak games would be impossible.
As it stands, matchmaking is ######### and you can tell yourself that many of these survivors he plays are aboslute ######### at the game.
6 -
That's strange, because with NWO/rancor and bubba, you can secure 3k almost always.
"average of 2k" means nothing when facecamp/tunneling exists, did you seen what kind of strat they were using?
0 -
Anyone who played killer would know "high MMR" doesn't even exists right now anyway, thanks to excessive amount of survivors SBMM isn't even working.
2 -
He is playing at nightime eu if I am not mistaken.
Would he get the same results during the day when you encounter more sweaty teams?
0 -
Otz has said the hours he plays at has weaker survivors in general.
3 -
On the flip side you can say you can do fine as survivor as long as you get a potato killer. You act like it is easy for survivors to escape but dismissing that a good killer won't let that happen as in Otz is a good example here. When he obliterates 99% of the survivors he faces, it proves that killers are stronger than survivors.
He's never had a lose streak that I'm aware.
2 -
It is easy because survivors can take unintended advantage by using voice comms, which has a worth of dozen perks.
1 -
Otz has lost 5 or 10 straight what are you talking about sluzzy?
Also is everyone just gonna forget about that survivor player that had like a 150+ escape streak or that just didn't happen cause you want to imagine it didn't?
4 -
Only 5?
It's not impossible to win 150 straight survivor matches unless the killer is letting them win.
0 -
Otz's matches, especially on his streaks, don't reflect high level gameplay. He can beat high level survivors sometimes, but that's usually not on him. It's on the survivors. Survivors are literally running into him when they hear his terror radius. Instead, they could be holding forward, using meta perks, being a SWF, being efficient on gens, using boons well, lasting at least 30 seconds in chase, etc. But because they don't do any of that they get owned, and Otz looks godlike when he's not really playing crazy that match.
4 -
I can link you a stream rn where a guy escaped 300 times in a row live on stream
1 -
Well… Otz is basically a professional dbd player 🤣
I don’t know.. I mean when I play killer sometimes I get 4K and other times I struggle to get one hook. When I play as survivor I rarely escape but manage to get a pip so I’m happy with that
but I don’t think it has a side anymore.
DBD is just weird now with who we get matched with.
it just depends on the player and their skill. maps, perks etc.
some people have bad games say it’s survivor sided then the same with killer.
0 -
There was like a 500+ escape streak too
2 -
That's all well and good, but when taking the averages, the game still doesn't show itself as survivor-sided. Kill rates are all still above 50%. Definitely lower than what they used to be, like the 68% kill rate in red ranks before SBMM, but there's nothing to show the game is survivor sided.
0 -
Because data is literally worthless when killers can secure one or two kills no matter what and majority of players are "bad".
0 -
Also well and good, but then how do you support the claim the game is survivor-sided? Data can't be used, and you can't refer to high skill players, so then what?
0 -
Why can't refer to high skill players?
0 -
So pretty much you're going off personal experience instead of data you don't like?
Because I've yet to see a solid argument for why the game is supposedly survivor sided.
I've seen plenty of good arguments for why it's at best neutral, and at worst killer sided.
But every argument for why the game is survivor sided pretty much boils down to "I can't handle the gen speeds or catch survivors quick enough to apply pressure" and that's a skill issue more than a game issue
0 -
It's just a math thing, pressuring maps/catching survivors quickly is literally not possible in this game for most killers.
0 -
Yea no, that's a fallacy right there. You can't set up an argument by saying "well if this happens, it's only because of this".
I don't remember if that's called a strawman or whatever it is, but that's not how arguments worse. You literally have nothing to backup that claim.
Strong teams are capable of getting destroyed as well
0 -
For most killers at their skill level should be the correction here. You slap lethal pursuer on any killer to get early game data and maybe you can't get there as fast as a Blight, Billy, Nurse, Spiriit, etc but you know where to go so you don't waste time.
From there, it's all skill based. Also currently all the math (whether yall like the stats or not) show that in the current state of the game, killers are doing just fine and in some cases more than fine
0 -
Because when Otz shows he can consistently win without perks, and spending the first 30 seconds AFK, -that- gets disregarded under the argument of 'He breathes DBD, he's too high skill to be used as an example'.
0 -
It's not, utilizing shift+w/dead hard and using safe loops is already enough to finish 5 generators and escape.
0 -
It's not about otz though, it's about survivors.
0 -
What does that matter? High skill is high skill.
0 -
Otzdarva proved that a pro skilled player with good perks and addons can win with a high probability using the current matchmaking system.
If you are not a top player or don't use top perks and add-ons the situation is completely different.
1 -
Average DBD player logic:
- streamer x did 4k with perk y ---> perk y OP ---> PLZ nerf!
- streamer x did 50 4k win streak on killer y ---> killer y OP ---> PLZ nerf!
- streamer x did 50 escapes in a row with Meg ---> Meg OP ---> PLZ nerf!
- streamer x told some crazy stuff ---> come to the dbd forums ---> share the streamer's truth with the community
- player x starts to play dbd and to gain own experiences ---> error occured ---> Pig OP ---> PLZ nerf!!!!!!111eleven
4 -
It does matter because he loses against good survivors.
0 -
So because he lost one match, the other 74 matches are discredited?
1 -
Wish I could upvote this more than once.
Seriously people have to stop using entertainers as a way to avoid thinking for themselves.
1 -
Yes? especially when they are noticeably bad survivors.
2 -
Oh, so we're back on the 'survivors just bad lol' train.
Killers are never bad, they're just UP tho.
1 -
I mean, some of those teams literally weren't running full builds (2-3 green perks, no/brown items with brown addons) it's difficult to imagine they are at the same skill level as a guy who literally plays because it's his job, and who specifically brought in the best full loadout he could get for each killer.
2 -
No, it's just that both shift+w and safe palette (which consists 80% of chasing) is uncounterable for normal M1 killers beside using time by breaking palettes/holding W, and those things will make enough time to finish generators.
So, yes, killers are never bad, because anything they do doesn't affect outcome... aka chase time.
0 -
He also ran perkless with a 30 second delay. And even then, those are matches the average killer can get as well.
So then why does Otz consistently win his matches, when according to the forums, the average killer barely struggles to average 1 to 2 hooks? Unless the forums are, for some reason, consistently matched against higher survivors than a killer player who is apparently too good to be compared to, but I think that would be indicative of a very different problem.
2 -
You know, I DO consistently win my matches, too.
winning match against randos is pretty much nothing... I can count their mistakes every time, and I know I had no chance when they didn't make one.
even if killers plays "perfectly", there is no chance to win when survivors plays same.
Even though you can secure kills by cheesy camp tactic, that's not emblem efficient nor BP efficient, which is meant to be a guide to "how you play this game".
There is some actually decent killers who can do good against those people though.
0 -
Even though you can secure kills by cheesy camp tactic or using actually decent killers, that's not emblem efficient nor BP efficient, which is meant to be a guide to "how you play this game".
Really? Because whenever someone complains about facecamping, there's about a dozen people on this forum who'll come out of the woodwork to say it's a viable, valid tactic that is entirely intentional by BHVR and should never be addressed.
Can't have your cake and eat it too.
1 -
Because Otz, unlike a number of people on this forum (including some of those you're arguing with), actually invested time in getting better at killer and generally have a solid understanding of macro level gameplay. Sure, killers have issues with map sizes and the boon meta isn't helping, but the problems are widely overblown on here. When you analyse some of the gameplay footage it's always the same story - massive over commitment, no attempt to secure a 3/4 gen on the map, not knowing when to break chase, never attempting to bait out DH. No real understanding of when to slug, tunnel, camp etc.
Otz and any other capable killer could go on a 1000+ win streak and there would always be people making every excuse under the sun as to why it doesn't count. If the majority of survivors are bad and someone is such a god tier killer, then you'd think they'd actually be capable of getting to "high mmr" in the first instance. They also like to conveniently overlook the fact that Otz's loses often come from him running unconventional builds, not taking the strongest addons and by his own admission not playing anywhere near as scummy as he could.
If people want to balance for the absolute top survivors (fine), then they don't get to whine when the game also has to be balanced for the top killers. That's not to say the game isn't survivor sided at the absolute top levels (outside of nurse and blight), but the problem is greatly exaggerated by players who will never play at that level in the first place.
3 -
It's viable and valid tactic, but at the same time BHVR added a punishment (which doesn't really change anything because you can "counter" it) and bunch of counter perks (which doesn't work against facecamp king, the cannibal), they are still trying to stop it too, they just don't know how to actually stop it without breaking game.
You know, "game is not survivor sided because you can facecamp a survivor to death" is pretty weird, especially when BHVR is more or less trying to fight that very tactic.
0 -
1. How much is consistently? From the videos I've seen he posts about 2 wins to each loss, which, if every one of his matches are shown (which we know they aren't) he's at about a 66% win rate. That's certainly good, but hardly amazing, and these are (ostensibly) against randoms teams picked by the mmr to face what should be one of the highest ranked killers (if again, we assume all the gameplay we've seen is both legit and complete)
2. Because the mmr system is hot garbage.
3 -
The thing is, there is no such things as "high MMR", game chosen que speed over balanced games, so there is pretty much no situation where killers match with balanced survivors.
2 -
And where have I said the game is survivor-sided?
5 -
He's decided we all feel that way, whether we say it or not.
2 -
Ah, I see. That is unfortunate.
So much for a regular discussion, I suppose.
3 -
No disrespect, but this is exactly why people need to stop taking everything Scott Jund says as gospel. We have no quantifiable data on the frequencies of mismatches or quite frankly anything you've just claimed. The only thing that's semi correct is that as time goes on the system increases the variation in MMR in order to find games, but it will always try to pick players that will predict a 50/50 outcome. What we do know from the QA, leaks and Peanits comments on here is:
- There is no upper limit on MMR
- There is a variation of about +/- 400
- SWF takes average MMR of the party for the purposes of calculation (which can throw things off)
- The system has a soft cap (around 1900) which is defaults to if it cannot find people at the respective MMR (we have no idea on how long before the system changes its variation after matchmaking begins)
- Backfilling is an issue (no idea on how widespread the problem is, what region, time of day etc. as that wasn't disclosed)
- The system only tracks kills, escapes, time of game and order of death
- There are plans to include a team calculation (but no details yet)
Regardless of this, people who are downplaying what Otz manages to achieve simply because they don't want to entertain the notion of having to get better themselves need to get a grip. Whatever changes this game needs, there's always a damn sight more players can change that no amount of nerfing / buffing will fix.
1 -
Actually, I believe BHVR have gone on record to say that camping, slugging and tunnelling are valid strategies. The only thing they've stated is that they want to remove -face-camping, not regular camping.
But in disregard of the devs' stance, it is the current state of the game that camping is a very powerful tactic. As are tunnelling and slugging. You can complain about having to use those tactics to win, and I'd be sympathetic. But you're also in the minority on these forums as evidenced by how many times complaints about camping, tunnelling and slugging get brought up by survivors and subsequently discredited.
I'd be all for a big balancing overhaul where those three tactics are kneecapped and survivors are toned down to compensate. But that requires a strong enough consensus from the community to convince the devs to do that for the sake of game health. And as it stands, people just want to nerf the opposite side without losing what they have themselves.
Out of a string of 75 matches, he lost one. That's pretty good consistency in my book. Even by the metric you post, a 66% win rate is pretty damn high and it shows that a competent killer can easily win much more than lose.
Matchmaking being wonk is a fair counterargument, but that also throws a spanner into the idea of the game being survivor-sided, since we clearly don't have a way to actually assess what the average game is -supposed- to look like due to matchmaking errors.
1 -
And again I would remind you that I've never claimed the game is survivor sided, so I don't care if they argument is invalidated, as it isn't mine.
And again, 75 wins and 1 loss of the matches he showed. It's up to you if you believe that's every match he had, obviously I feel differently.
0 -
I hate this strawman argument so damn much.
DBD is not bias towards one side or the other despite what either side may claim or think, least not anymore.
Now of this was DBD back when instant heals, infinite loops, instant blinds, old BNP, old DS/ MoM, old exhaustion recovery, etc, yeah then it was pretty survivor sided.
Similarly, killer has had it's fair shake of straight up busted perks/ add-ons (and some that are, thankfully, being reworked or (hopefully) removed)
DBD is in it's best state balance wise.
1 -
By this same logic depip squad proves the game is survivor sided. I think they lost a handful of games playing completely perkless. Even people like scottjund or ryanpez didn't 4k vs them.
The only thing kill rates and otz's vids prove is that good players are going to win the majority of their matches because survivors on average play like clowns. I'm not really concerned about being able to beat teams like the ones in most of otz's vids I want to have a chance to win when the survivors are actually trying.
3
