Do any survivors prefer a 60% kill rate more than 50%?

I care more about how the matches feel than the escape rate. Survivor just feels like a low impact role most of the time. That's usually due to a combination of bad matchmaking and mismatched playstyles. It often feels like the outcome would be the same if you tried vs not participating at all. It doesn't feel like your gameplay impacts the end results very much on survivor. Games feel won and lost from the lobby. That's not a good thing in a PVP game.

Asking survivor mains if they'd like to win more, jeez wonder what the answer will be.

Disagree.

50% CoH was still an issue. Infinite free heals for the entire team is a bad idea.

Original Dead Hard was awful for killers. Adding more anti-exhaustion perks to counter a perk with 70%+ pick rate would have just forced killers to play with 3 perks and made every other exhaustion perk except Dead Hard nearly obsolete. If you are forced to run a perk just to counter another perk then the perk is an issue.

Trust me, the current Pain Res/Grim Embrace/DMS is NO WHERE near as bad as Overcharge/Eruption/CoB. Survivor was hell. Especially Eruption basically taking you out of the game for a whole 16 seconds. (GE/DMS should still be changed though don't get me wrong)

No perk should ever be at the level of CoH, Dead Hard, or Eruption no matter how fun they are. If a perk has to be overpowered for it to be fun, then the perk isn't fun you just like easier games.

Giving killers like Demo and Doctor small number changes is not anywhere near the same level as bringing any of those perks back.

I'd much prefer they just nerf the high tier killer perks in line with the rest of them rather than make more overpowered perks for survivors that completely shift the entire game around them.

Not objectively. Subjectively.

It's always been subjectively. Objectively, the game's currently not balanced or even close to it. The absolute top best survivors stacked in a 4-man hit a 48% winrate versus killers averaging to 50% winrate. The rest of the survivors lag behind killers by a full 10 percentage points. (Even more at high MMR)

This is incorrect, and people need to stop parroting this misunderstanding. You're talking about the outcome of the average game, NOT the average win-rate. Killrates and winrates are not related in that way, as proven by Nightlight and trying to make a prediction for the average winrate on any killrate below 50%.

Winrates for killers have been considerably higher than this model predicts.

The 60% figure was, AFAIK, never chosen for balance, but for thematic purposes.

if kill rate was 50% across the board, that would mean that, no matter the killer, at least the 2 best survivors would always escape on average, and killers would rarely get a 3-4k. Basically what I'm saying is that survivor becomes too easy since you will almost be guaranteed to escape half the time you play, and killer becomes too frustrating since you rarely, if ever, feel like you've done your job with that percentage.

60% Kill rate on the other hand doesn't guarantee 2 escapes, but also doesn't guarantee 3 kills on average either. It's a nice number that is more flexible, keeps survivors on their toes as the killers are more of a threat, while also not ensuring that killers will always steamroll survivors either.

When I play survivor, I like that the odds are against me, but not so much that escaping feels impossible, and as killer I also like that the survivors will collectively provide a decent challenge to me, and while I feel I have the advantage, I can never underestimate them.

60%, yeah that's a good target range for kills as it doesn't make things too easy for survivors, but also ensures that the killer is the threat they should be. I'm perfectly comfortable with that rating, because if it was a 50% kill rate, or lower... who would even want to play killer? This is a 4 v 1 afterall, and if the 1 doesn't feel strong enough to threaten more than half of the 4, then where's the fun?

I don't really care about the kill rate or win rate, as long as the core gameplay is fun.

It's rather have a 65% kill rate or higher with fun gameplay than the 'balanced', sweaty slog the game is right now.

Sacrificing 'fun' for balance has been a flaw in the game recently.

1. It's not a team game at it's fundamental level. Survivor's end goal is binary, you escape or you don't. The average between two binary options is 50%.

2. A 2K is not a draw. People keep saying this because on the surface it appears to make sense that 2 of one thing and 2 of the other must be even therefore 'a draw', and I get why this seems like it should be the case, but that's not what a draw is.

A draw is where neither side wins or loses.

For survivors, 2 have won and 2 have lost, so the survivors haven't "neither won nor lost" they have most certainly either won or lost depending on the survivor.

For killers, they have not 'neither won nor lost', they have completed half of their objective. It's a very different thing.

If the average game was a 2K, and we presumed that the most balanced possible state would be that 'every game is a 2K always', then every game killers would be achieving half of their objective.

The equivalent for survivors would be only powering 3/5 generators every game, which is quite clearly a loss. For survivors to win, they have to complete their entire objective.

A 2K is not only half of the killers objective, it also necessitates that survivors have completed all of their objective and powered the exit gatesn which means killers have not only missed half of their main objective, but also failed in their secondary objective (preventing repairs).

This is why a 2K is a loss for the killer, in order for it to occur, the killer must fail in the majority of their goals, and why this asymmetrical format does not allow for the existence of a 'draw' in the truest sense. This is why, even though you call a 2K a draw, it will never feel like a draw for killers, and it feels like gaslighting.

MMR and win conditions aren't the same thing, and I've been saying since it's introduction that people shouldn't be using MMR calculations to discern a win from a loss. MMR exists to help ensure survivors are matched with killers in a way that acheives the fairest match of survivors 'ability to escape' with killers 'ability to kill'.

It's not skill based matchmaking, it's kill based matchmaking.

Win conditions are not easily defined for killers.

Even survivors which are technically easily defined as binary at the most fundamental level, are muddied by the existence of 'teams'. Plus ypu then have challenges on top of that.

But for killers, most of the actual win metrics (emblems, BP score, challenges, etc.) are all contingent on acheiving objectives, and are mostly impossible to acheive without a certain number of hooks and/or kills.

Even the most extreme 'win', a 4K, can be a 4K in 4 hooks with no gen progress, or it can be a 4K at endgame with 12 hooks. Two vastly different scenarios with different implications gor the success of each side.

Even what I said before is an over simplification. But "2K is a draw" is not only just an even greate over simplification, but it also negates all of the subjective elements of DBDs ill-defined win conditions and simply chooses one of several options, that many don't agree with.

And it's not a team game, by the devs own admission. The ability to play solo is not only possible but encouraged. You absolutely can escape without relying on your team mates, you just have to be prepared to play selfishly. Teamwork exists as an option, not a requirement.

This is all part of what makes it an asymmetrical game, and all these efforts to create symmetry where is doesn't exist by enforcing teamwork, defining equal win conditions, etc. flies in the face of the fundamental nature of the game's format.

Balancing around 50% kill rate doesn't mean the majority of matches would be a 2k. Because of the way matches usually snowball in the first couple minutes, it would mean slightly fewer 4k stomps and probably more 1k results. 0k is rare because of how easy it is to facecamp for a pity kill during end game.

You can rationalize it any way you want, but 60% average is unfair as long as the game is intended to be a mmr competitive multiplayer game.

You can open the exits after the hatch is closed. Or you can leave your teammates to die after the gens are done, by them. You can hide in a corner and never help them out, and escape through an exit.

There are even perks to help this play style specifically.

They still exist yes, we're talking about teamwork. Four individual survivors playing selfishly and not as a team can, per survivor, still escape. You can use the other survivors in the match as tools, as fodder, to ensure your own survival. That's not teamwork.

Don't move the goalposts.

Read back again. Is teamwork essential, or is it an option? Each individual survivor is playing for their own escape, with the option to work together to potentially improve those odds. That is the fundamental level. You don't receive a team score, you receive an individual ecore.

You moved the goalposts when you tried to imply I was claiming that the game as a single 1v1 was an even match.