If Game Balanced Around min 75% Kill Rate...?

I think the biggest issue back then was, that people suicided against him. Simply because they didn´t like playing against him.

Kinda like what people do now against Nurse.

That is objectively false. The great majority of players were not red rank.

Not implying it does mean you lost. However, we can reasonably agree that hooks/kills are vastly increased post 5th gen with a majority of it from NOED and hook bombing. You can literally just camp secure 1k post 5th gen. I would argue that most kills/hooks post 5th gen are not related to skill, skill hooks/kills being the exception rather than the rule.

Averaging at roughly a little over 50% kill rates across the board I would go as far as to say that if you looked at hooks/kills at the 5th gen complete rather than end of the game you would see a kill/hook rate closer to below 20%...it's that significant how skewed the data is by end game..which wouldn't matter..if like I said earlier end game kills/hooks were mostly related to skill and game balance, but they're not.

I don't really care about escaping, as long as I'm having fun. (Same for killer btw. It's why some of my most memorable matches have been with Trapper whereas my main killer is Nurse.)

As survivor, the only escapes I was really happy about have been the ones that felt epic because of how impossible they felt right before a planetary alignment event. Otherwise, escaping gives a pretty bland feeling.

Somehow, I feel like 75% is closer to what an horror game should be. How many times is there more than one, if any, survivor in an horror movie? More emphasis should be put on interacting with the killer (including hiding). Self-sacrifice should be rewarded. I know it's a toughie but it feels right.

Not implying hooks are the end all be all perfect balance metric, it has issues. However, they are way, way more accurate a measurement than kill rates. Kill rates are literally the worst metric.

I don't think they are worst. Thing is how you approach them. Kills, Hooks, winrate whatever,

Big data is just not good way to balance overall. Everything has a reason and they often failed to see it.

Nurse has low killrate because she is hard.

Twins have high killrate in high MMR because only true mains keep playing Twins.

Wraith had high kill rate in low MMR because he is easy.

etc.

if anything they should involve pickrate to balance too, but there is whole issue with free killers etc. but I really wouldn't nerf killer with less than 3% pick rate -> Twins

That will never happen. There will always be S-D list with some killers in them. All you can is make it so difference between S and D is not that big.

Hooks are also not best. Some killers just are way better at slugging -> Oni

But slugging is valid and one of the best ways to win as a killer right now. Twins and Oni are really bad without it.

They would appear to be weak if you balanced only around hooks.

I would want to see 4 stats for each killer tho. Killrate, hooks, winrate, pickrate

Exactly, the grand majority of players weren't red ranks, so red rank killers did not consistently face groups of all similarly red ranked survivors. That inflates the red rank killer kill rates because they have a bunch of matches that include lower rank survivors in them. It's why those ratings are 10% or so higher across the board on that red rank chart compared to the overall averages.

There has never been a time when "most players had around 70-75%" kill rates.

Because you're not understanding why the red rank kill rate is 68%, it's because they face non-red rank survivors in a lot of their games which inflates that number. When red rank killers go against only red rank survivors in matches that average is much more in line with the 50-55% numbers on the overall ratings charts.

An even more miserable SoloQ experience? No thanks.

I dont know friendo, i cant speak for your experiences. I do think the game is killer sided at low mmr. At high mmr i suspect it is very much the opposite.

Right, but you also said that "two years ago the kill rates were 75%" which isn't true. A very, very small section of players had around 70% kill rates. The great majority of the playerbase had more like 55% kill rates. The game has never been close to what the original poster is asking for which is most games to have a 75% kill rate on average.

The issue is more, that it doesn´t matter what kill rate the devs balance around. We won´t know whats the real number. Especially now after the sbmmr has been introduced. Billy, for example is almost as strong as Freddy on the stats. Definetly 70% kill rate. No one would have ever complained about Billys lethality. Everyone though that he was the perfectly balanced killer (with the exception of some addons).

After all, kill rate stats lack details, specifications, filters, etc. There are so many things that could impact the outcome of a match. Survivors disconnecting, suiciding, iri addons, people doing dailys, challenges, SWF, smurfing, events, afking, etc.

suppose a killer get 8 hooks but kills nobody every single game. are you saying that killer is winning every match despite fact that 4 survivor are escaping every single match? At what point does the survivor lose by hooks? It would be entirely subjective for how many hooks the killer needs to win. I'm pretty sure that most players would agree that a killer player that gets 2 kills on average is better than a killer player that gets 0-1 kill on average. 

Unlike survivors that have a single win condition, the killers have a single win condition that can be fulfilled in 3 ways:

1) Waiting for a survivor to bleed for 4 minutes on the ground

2) Waiting 60 seconds for each individual hook state to pass for total of 120 seconds.

3) Hook a single individual survivor a total of 3 times.

NOED and hook bombing is a reflection of game balance. I'm just guessing that you disagree that camping hooks(win condition #2) as viable strategy. I think player like you that talk about this would just prefer if the game was more balanced around win condition #3 and the other two win conditions(slugging and camping) were put on the side. As seen by the statistics regarding perk usage, NOED does not have very high MMR pick-rate for killers, I'm sure perk does increase kill-rate when it is used but it is probably not as high as you would imagine in regards to overall kill-rate for killers.

-----------------------

In regards to OP post, When I first started playing survivor, the reason why I wanted to play survivor was because I thought survivor was the harder role to win with. I think survivor is harder role to play when your new at the game but it quickly becomes the much easier role to play the more experience you have with survivor and the stronger your teammates are at survivor.

The expectation you would get from playing survivor is that your suppose to face challenging and difficult killers to escape from. Similar to @drsoontm post, Escaping on survivor is more fulfilling when your opponent is stronger, otherwise I would agree with his post that escaping with survivor is pretty bland experience.

Unfortunately, the survivor player-base does not seem to like challenging killers to play against, so most of the killer are not very challenging to play against. As a result, the harder role to play in this game end up being the killer. It does not seem like the game will ever be killer-sided so a kill-rate of 75% is unlikely to occur.

Yeah I'd still play Survivor more challenge I'll will take.

I asked sometime back if survivor players cared about escaping or having a fun back and forth game. Almost unanimously escaping didn't matter to them. Most people playing DbD, at least survivors care about fun not winning.

In fact I would argue that Otz and others having a harder time getting long kill streaks is due to MMR being better at putting them against stronger survivors than the Rank system was. Streamers having to "sweat" more is evidence they're going against higher skill opponents than they used to under the old system.

I agree though that it would be nice to have a nice chart showing what the average kill rates are in matches by killer when all the players are within a narrow bracket of each other in terms of MMR. Every time they've released kills-by-rank data it's always just been like the charts you posted above where it's only pivoting on the killer's rank and ignoring their opponents which definitely skews those charts toward higher kills.

"suppose a killer get 8 hooks but kills nobody every single game. are you saying that killer is winning every match despite fact that 4 survivor are escaping every single match?"

Absolutely. Hooks are way more reflective of how well the killer played than kills.

"At what point does the survivor lose by hooks? It would be entirely subjective for how many hooks the killer needs to win."

The game doesn't say "you won" or "you lost". That's entirely player interpretation. What the game does do is tell you how well you played through pips and category scoring. So "at what point does the survivor lose by hooks?" is actually an irrelevant question, it's how well they played.

"I'm pretty sure that most players would agree that a killer player that gets 2 kills on average is better than a killer player that gets 0-1 kill on average. "

Actually I'm pretty sure the average player would agree that the person who gets 8 hooks is better than the person that got 2 kills.

"NOED and hook bombing is a reflection of game balance."

They don't. They get you kills, but they are not a reflection of skill or how well the game is balanced. Kills is not equal to skill or game balance. Yes, that's what the devs "think", but that's not actually accurate and why their game currently has so many balance problems in the first place.

"the other two win conditions(slugging and camping) were put on the side."

Those can exist in the game. The whole reason we're disagreeing is because you're going by the devs win condition which to me is flawed and incorrect in principle.

"I'm sure perk does increase kill-rate when it is used but it is probably not as high as you would imagine in regards to overall kill-rate for killers."

Most the high end community players I know would disagree with you. The devs also tend to lump all kill rates together and don't regularly separate high from low brackets. Most the data we do have is also data that's non mmr era data which is relevant.

Shouldn't be balanced around kill rate at all. Cause perks arent the reason swfs do well. Its because they're actually coordinated and perks make it stronger but arent the key reason they can consistently 3-4 out.

I do not agree. I would say that hooks are gateway to kills which reflect the outcome of the game. One of the win conditions is getting 3 hooks on an individual survivor so hooks definitely play a part in how good the killer plays. They're not only factor though.

This answer dodges the question entirely. how well you played is reflective for whether you lost or won according to the game win-condition which is kills.

they influence the end result. you might disagree with how certain killers are getting such results, but killers are not breaking rules or anything.

I'd say the game has balance problems because the dev favor the survivor's opinion over the killers leading to some very survivor-sided gameplay in terms of fun. The killers unfortunately just have to go with the flow. If you don't like it, just take mathieu advice with Civilization.