Should Killer feel like the power role? Does Killer feel like the power role?

On the other hand this game is a Killer power fantasy so a Killer bias is absolutely to be expected.

The game is a killer power fantasy? Maybe its a wording choice, but this seems strange. Do people really want to play the killers from horror movies?

To me, and fundamentally because the game requires more of them, the game is about the tension and thrill of trying to escape a killer. That means the killer has to be dangerous enough that it feels meaningful to escape, but not so dangerous that it feels pointless to play the game.

Should the Killer be a threat, but not enough of a threat to lock one or more Survivors out of a game?

It's impossible to create a game where skill mismatches never happen or players always feel they have agency. However, it is a flawed game design that the killer can pick a survivor and that player has no agency, especially if they/the other survivors didn't guess right on the perks. I do not know if there is a realistic way to fix it at this point.

Should the game go to a scoreboard type of game without eliminations? Wouldn’t that destroy what the game is about?

No, and yes it would destroy the game immediately.

What about when Survivors are the power role? It does happen; is this an allowable prejudice?

At this point I don't know what you mean by power role. Times when the survivor are in control and clear favorite? As I said earlier, skill mismatches are inevitable.

The Survivors if playing correctly can beat the Killer. There exists a pathway to victory. This tells me that ultimately teamwork itself is the power role.

I'm not seeing the logic here. Switch killer and survivor there and the sentence still makes sense.

The problem is that it is difficult to manifest the discipline required to achieve this teamwork. Impatience, selfishness, lack of awareness etc. get in the way of Survivor victory.

That's the design of the game where it pits altruism against induvial gains, which is also a big element of horror movies.

If escaping became easier I believe this whole game would unravel and deteriorate.

It depends on how a much issue. If killer were 90% or 10% would the game be fun? No, pretty much everyone would agree on that. If there were 55%? 50%? 45%? 65%? It's more a line drawing question. If they were a little lower I think it would be healthy, but don't consider it a huge problem.

Of course all killers have limits but that is not quite the point. My point was that some killers limits are comparitively low. Lower than what survivors can consistently achieve, if they play well enough. Take any A-tier killer for example and put them to the test against a low tier killer. The low tier killer will be able to keep up quite well (assuming the play pretty good) until they reach a certain point. That is the point where these lower tier killers will have the issue, that they cannot create opportunities for themself in a timely manner (building up bloodlust still works but is not an effective strategy because it takes too long) and instead have to rely on the survivors making mistakes.

What if these mistakes don't happen? Or what if these mistakes aren't grand enough for the killer to capitalise? Then the low tier killer is in a pretty spot. Our A-tier killer in comparison (let's say it's a Huntress), still has the strength to force survivors into lose-lose situations. A crazy good Huntress will find spots where the survivor gets hit no matter how good they are. She will also be able to do some things that are more unexpected than a M1 killer mind game, that the survivor has already seen a million times before.

Of course the possibilities vary among high tier killers too but to say that all killers will achieve equal results, if you just play them well enough would imply either:

1) All killers are significantly stronger than survivors (extremely killer sided game considering that we do consider different killers to be way stronger or weaker than others)

or

2) All killers are equally strong once you reach a certain level of gameplay (wrong because Nurse literally teleports through walls and hits you anywhere, where a M1 killer still has to follow the game's rules)

Both of these implications are wrong, so we can conclude, that the initial assumption was wrong as well.

The thing about Freddy is that you can still do well with him, it is just extremely boring to do so.

Like, take this screenshot for example. A little bit before the event, if I recall correctly:

That is a 4k, I've won. Technically, one could argue I had enough control of the trial to get all four survivors.

But it doesn't feel good to play him.

Enough control of the match or not, I've been a Freddy main since 2018 and no awful rework or nerf will ever change that. But I desperately want my favorite killer back.

Could you point me towards that showcase? I haven't seen that and would definitely like to be educated on it. Though, it kind of leaves the question: "Why are these limitations in place to begin with?" At least against Nurses and Blights. Could be for consistency reasons but other than that, I don't know.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the order of 4) and 5). The difference isn't huge but I think that the communication and consistency that a full SWF provide ultimately still give them an advantage over the killer. Of course we would assume that everyone plays well and the survivors communicate effectively (otherwise I'd consider them an example for category 6)). But I respect your opinion on that matter.

The matchmaking in DBD is still not a perfect science (which is a good thing imo). How many content creators have you seen loop a killer for minutes? There are tons of these videos and that should not happen when the killer plays just as well as the survivors. Also, many of these bully squads focus more on making the killer miserable than actually winning, so the MMR will put them against killers below their own skill quite often.

The problem with perfect balance (in the sense of a 50% kill rate) in my opinion is that it would make the game less fun for everyone, that doesn't play quite as serious. I personally do not like the idea of my matches all becoming super hard but somehow manageable (close to how it was shortly after MMR was introduced) because it would lead to matches becoming more predictable, any chance of variety disappearing (worse than DBD's always narrow meta) and ultimately a more stressful experience. If this is what a majority of players want (so many players, that BHVR would actually be willing to follow that route), then I'd have to deal with it but my interest in the game would lessen.

I know this opinion is not very popular but I am fine with MMR as it is. To me, it feels similar to the old rank system and I have a lot of fun knowing that I cannot predict, if I will win or lose and how even the match will be.

The roadmap doesn’t say that those killers are getting nerfs. We can’t assume that this is what’s going to happen either. Bhvr always does a give and a take.

If he means the showcase from Hens it is not that interesting. The twist was they ramped up the limitations for Blight vs Nurse. First without any addons, then up to yellow or green, then no limits. Something like that. Only 6 games iirc. It Anyway, here you go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcm0MqWMxKs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Z8lP_gBJE

The so-called best players of this game face each other in 1v1 tournaments where chases last around two minutes on Autohaven, and that's not an extremely strong map for survivors such as Garden of Joy, where the result would be even worse. It is often said that a chase should not last more than 30 seconds, but this is the reality among really good players.

Thank you for both the answer and the artwork. 😊

Kill rate and win rate are not hard-linked like that. @ratcoffee broke it down in another thread, but you can have a kill rate as high as 50% while holding a winrate of 0%, or a kill rate as low as 45% while holding a winrate of 60%.

They're not hard-linked because of the varied distribution of outcomes, which makes me think that kill rates really shouldn't be on the forefront. This is also compounded by the swing in hookstates: You can get a 4K off 4 hooks, or a 0K off 8. Chances are, the killer was stronger in the latter scenario and felt like more of a power role, despite losing, compared to the 4K off 4 hooks.

I know I have a better time with 8 hooks, zero kills, than with 2 hooks, one kill, despite the latter being ostensibly better for my kill rates.

I also want to add in here that this isn't really a change to the fundamentals of the game. I do think that bully squads have a bit too much power in their corner and I'd love to see that pruned, but it doesn't change that killers are still mechanically the power role. Additionally, a large gap in skill doesn't state anything about the inner workings or balancing of the game.

In MOBAs, for example, having a grandmaster with a certain champion utterly demolish an iron-tier player with the same champion doesn't mean that the champion is overpowered or underpowered. So these hypothetical big imbalances aren't really relevant to the discussion, IMO.

It's rarely in between if killers tunnel that result 4K most of the time and sometimes 0K when they choose wrong target. More fair but smartly playing killers usually get 2-3K resulting most balanced games.

Not sure how many times someone has to point out that drawing is only a thing if both sides neither win or lose. Considering that each player gets their own win condition, drawing is not a thing in dbd. They do count a 2k as mmr neutral, however. As mentioned countless times before, mmr adjustments aren't the same as winning or losing. You can go down in mmr in games when winning, as can you go up in mmr even if you lose. BHVR also understands this, as the same concept can apply to pipping. You can get a 3k and still depip, for example.

I know that pesky definition of drawing requiring both sides to neither win or lose bugs you to all end, but that's literally what a draw is. A flat 62.5% kill rate means the killer on average wins half their matches, as that is 2.5 kills per match. That means one match would be under 3k (killer did not win), and the next would be a 3k (killer wins) as the .5 + .5 carries over when averaging matches for one extra kill. Anything below 62.5% would mean on average the killer is below a 50% win rate, and anything above 62.5% would mean on average the killer is above a 50% win rate. Even if you decides to throw the definition of a draw out the window, it's still the killer not winning, and if the killer got only 2 kills and would "draw" (keep in mind we are using your made up custom definition of a draw in this example), you still have that pesky fact that two of survivors (or half the survior team if you want to look at it that way) won. Not much of a draw if the killer entirely doesn't win and the survivor team half wins, now is it? Exactly. That's why there can't be a situation where neither team wins or loses. Every match, SOMEONE is winning. If someone is winning, then there isn't a draw situation.

The game devs stated themselves that this is a 1 player vs many individual players design. It's a 1 vs (1-1-1-1) design. Not a 1 v 4. Each survivor gets their own person win condition. That means winning or losing is very binary. You win, or you don't. You 3k+/escape, or you don't. The closest thing you could argue a draw would be is if a survivor finds hatch. Maybe you could argue the killer and that survivor had a draw. The killer didn't kill, and the survivor didn't "really" escape, but that's still arguable.

I do not see how the killer ENTIRELY not winning and half of the survivor players winning is considered a draw. Sounds entirely survivor favored, to me. Draws are supposed to be equally "no wins-no losses". In a 1 vs 1-1-1-1 of binary outcomes, draws simply don't work. As a finale reminder, this whole concept is unrelated to MMR adjustments as clarified earlier. BHVR can adjust MMR however they see fit. The purpose of MMR is to try to make the game more fair irregardless of win/loss conditions.

This is further reinforced in the post match screen. There is no survivors win or survivors lose statement. If 3 or 4 escape, it doesn't say survivors win. If 2 escape, does not say draw game. If 0 or 1 escape, it does not say survivors lose. It's either YOU escaped or YOU were sacrificed. It also lists each individual survivor and if they met their win condition or not. That's because, once again, this isn't designed as a team vs team game. The only thing the game cares about is each individual's personal win condition.

Not sure how many times someone has to point out that drawing is only a thing if both sides neither win or lose.

People can point it out as many times as they want, it doesn't make it true.

DbD is asymmetrical game. Trying to apply a symmetrical standard to the word draw doesn't make sense.

Considering that each player gets their own win condition, drawing is not a thing in dbd. 

DbD as a whole doesn't even have win or loss conditions. They have conditions that raise or lower MMR.

"The player neither won nor lost the game" - I'd define that as a draw. If you'd like to use a different word, go ahead, but its pedantically silly to get caught up in whether or not draw meets that definition.

Not much of a draw if the killer entirely doesn't win and the survivor team half wins, now is it?

That's a draw.

The game devs stated themselves that this is a 1 player vs many individual players design. It's a 1 vs (1-1-1-1) design. Not a 1 v 4.

You're confusing symmetrical and asymmetrical. If you want to take the above statement as accurate (which I don't think is true, the Devs have said players can view it as a 1v1v1etc, not that they have to), that its only true for survivors. For the killer it is still 1 v 4 meaning even using MMR as the condition the killer can achieve a draw result, neither win nor loss.

 I'm going to hope you're being sarcastic when you say one side not winning and the other side getting a partial win is even remotely considered even/draw. If not, I'd suggest you looking up the definition of a draw. 

The key phrase there is partial win. You switch back and forth between considering the survivors a side and saying they are each on their own.

If you're using the stance that each survivor is on their own then a 3k is still partial win and a 1k is still a partial loss by your argument.

If you're using the argument that the survivors are "a side" then a draw is definitely possible.

You tease that considering definitions of a word in a topic about that word is silly, but if we sre going to discuss something, definitions are critical. We can't just make up words, lol.

No one is making up words. You're imposing an absurdly strict interpretation.

I'm going to say this multiple times over this post: but if you have a better word for neither won nor lost, let's hear it. Because I run it through thesaurus and dictionaries and I keep seeing draw pop up.

You tease that considering definitions of a word in a topic about that word is silly, but if we sre going to discuss something, definitions are critical.

Definitions are short general statements about how a word is used. There is no precise science behind what a word means, the definition is merely a simplified statement of general nature of word usage (which is why definitions change over time). Being most competitive situations are symmetrical the fact that the definition might include a word like team is not actually key to what the meaning of the word is.

That said I see nothing in the definition of draw that excludes it from this usage.

Drawing simply doesn't fit in this kind of asymmetrical game where there are no actual teams and instead (per the devs own statements) it is based on a 1 vs 4 individual players game with their own win/loss condition.

Then provide a more accurate word to any of the above situations if draw doesn't fit.

If a killer gets two wins and two losses how do you define it?

If the killer neither won or lost how do you define it?

There is no survivors win or survivors lose statement.

That's because, once again, this isn't designed as a team vs team game.

The game allows people to play it under different conditions, independently or as a team (this isn't even getting into the idea that each person can view the end results independently).

But no matter how you view the survivors, it is the killer vs the survivors. The killer can get two and lose two. That's a draw. The survivor screen is irrelevant to the killer game, the killer screen never says win or loss in any type of result but that doesn't mean us using the words win or loss is somehow wrong.

If two sports teams played each other four times and the results were two wins and two losses we'd call the overall result a draw even though none of the games were individually a draw.

That being said, the devs a year or two ago did mention that they want survivors who get sacrificed but their teammates get away to get some sort of bonus or something

That's been in the game since 6.4 -

Key portion:

Starting with 6.4.0, Survivors ratings will be based both on individual & team performance. Whether you gain or lose rating will still be determined by whether or not you escape, but how much your rating is adjusted will be affected by how many Survivors escape the trial.

• For each teammate that escapes:You gain more rating if you escape.
• You lose less rating if you die.
• For each teammate that dies:You gain less rating if you escape.
• You lose more rating if you die.

For example, if you die but every other Survivor escapes, your rating will hardly drop at all. In other words, keep your team alive for best results! With this change, we aim to put a bit more emphasis on teamplay without removing the lone wolf playstyle.

Why you think a killer should automatically have an advantage? Where is fairness, what to games actually being about skill? With an unbalanced game, losing or winning as survivor doesn't mean anything. And winning as killer seems unfair and undeserving.

If we really want to be real to the movies, the protagonist usually wins at the end. Speaking of Halloween, Laurie Strode didn't die no matter how much Michael Myers tried.

But this is a game and both sides should have a fair chance at winning.

And multiple people also died along the way because Michael is kinda busted in terms of strength.

Again, 1v4 means the 1 needs to have an edge against the 4. That's how asymmetrical games should work. The real question is how powerful they should be against the 4.

At this point, I'm not sure if youre just trolling. You keep asking me to define a DBD draw, and I keep telling you there is literally no situation in dbd where no one wins or loses...hence me saying there's literally no way to draw.

I keep going back to the survivor team as an example to show how flawed the idea is to consider them a single whole team. I'm talking about your point of view that the survivors win or lose together, so a 2k is a draw. It doesn't work.

if the killer gets a 2k, he didnt draw because who is he drawing against? A draw requires an opposing team to also draw with. There are 5 teams hes competing against. Who did he equally neither win or lose against? When I say survivor team, im saying based on your point of view, that they are a team and in turn in or lose together. Reality check - they dont. You say half their team wins and the other half loses. I'm saying that doesn't make sense. Teams win/draw/lose together. You're saying if half their team wins, then it's a draw with the killer. However, BHVR already stated that every survivor who escapes wins. You can't have both at the same time. You can't have winners on one team and no winners on the other and claim its a draw. With a draw, NO one wins or loses. Im just pointing out how flawed the concept is that survivors are a team and can draw but still have winners.

It's not 1 team vs another team. It's 1 team vs 4 teams. Should it be that way? I personally don't think so - I think the survivors should be considered a team and win or lose together, but BHVR disagrees. Regardless that I feel it should be 1 killer vs a survivor team, that's simply not how they designed it, so I can't just pretend that my preferred way is reality. The devs make the call on what the reality is. When all is said and done, drawing isn't possible with how BHVR sets it up.

Again, though, MMR adjustments are entirely separate discussion. MMR adjustments typically don't care about who wins or loses - they are merely designed to try to make future matches more balanced. For example, a chess rating of 1600 might not even lose ranking if he loses to a grandmaster, and a grandmaster might not even gain ranking if he wins vs a 1600. MMR in games don't simply take wins and losses as their rating system. That's why a 2k is considered mmr neutral. It wasn't enough to go up or down in MMR regardless of the killer not winning. Mostly a flawed MMR style, but that's what we have. Some people suggest it should be based off of hook states instead of kills.