This is what i'm talking about when i say "Survivors OP"

Otz and Hens hosted a tournament with no restrictions for both sides, and killers still had 60% killrate on average. So no, you're wrong again.

I give you that killers in this tournament weren't playing Legion, but they were facing tournament 4-man SWFs with 4 syringes every game, and you aren't facing that. At least, based on this video.

I see your point, but at the same time, if you balance around the top level players in this game, what does that look like?

No connecting tiles? Jungle gyms reduced to 4 lanes? The terrible new pallets on maps like Farm, Macmillan and Autohaven everywhere? What does the game look like to the rest of the 99% of the playerbase that's not top level? Why would a game with no inherent competitive scene balance around competitive level players?

IMO this would just further dampen the already poor new player experience and the average player would have a harder time than they already have in the majority of their matches.

We see the results of BHVR balancing for high-level players -> player count at an all time low, casuals are dropping the game, and imo the game has become unfun on BOTH sides because you're constantly facing hardcore players.

This is what people talk about when they say players in this game can be profoundly blinded by bias, making sweeping, ignorant claims that lack a reasonable perspective.

"Survivors OP" is about the broadest, most ignorant statement one could make if their actual point is that "some structures that can spawn can be problematic". It shifts the entire narrative from "address certain procedural RNG on certain areas on certain maps" to "nerf survivors". It also ignores the fact that other structures and areas exist where survivors are essentially guaranteed to take hits and downs, that matches don't take place on one area of a map, and that the killer can strategically choose not to contest certain areas at certain times or against certain players.

Of course, your point wasn't even that some structures can be problematic, you go ahead and say "any good survivor can render this entire half of the map impossible for me to ever down them". How people can say stuff like this and not realize how unreasonable their thinking is beats me. It's downright delusional. First of all, this is one corner of the map, survivors regularly cannot make it there (let alone with enough distance not to have to use its pallets immediately) even if they're already on the same half of the map. All the less so if the killer is one of the many different ones with a chase ability. Secondly, the idea that any good survivor would be impossible to ever down is ridiculous even when they do play this structure with enough distance to abuse it. It simply is not true, a good killer player even when using a pure M1 killer without any ability or perks whatsoever would be able to down a good survivor on this without spending minutes upon minutes doing so, let alone an eternity. And finally, we are talking about Sanctum Of Wrath here, the most killer-sided outdoor map in the game. It's small and yet still littered with deadzones, often making it mindlessly easy to zone survivors into certain death, it has few pallets most of which are also unsafe or essentially guaranteed hits, it's laid out such that there's two halves that can spawn ridiculous gen clusters, separated by a main building that doesn't give survivors much of anything to play with but gives the killer an easy chokepoint and elevation to control the map, hooks and gen clusters from. But you don't mind any of that, I'm sure.

Also, most killers have abilities that help them deal with setups like this, some so much so that this poses no real problem whatsoever. Yes it is a strong setup, I agree that it is in fact unreasonably strong and making sure no gym tile ever spawns adjacent to shack is something I would sign off on. That said, for one thing you should be using Bamboozle on M1 killers to begin with. It's not great that some perks are necessary to an extent or another as bandaids for gaps in base game design, but that is simply the reality of the game (for both roles, at that). Mind you, a good player can still succeed in the majority of their matches on an M1 killer without Bamboozle, but in the rare cases where they do meet good survivor players, their lack of Bamboozle will hurt them a lot. Just like survivors would be well-advised to always bring Decisive Strike and/or Off The Record, because while if they're good players they totally can succeed in many of their matches without these perks (if they play with other good players anyway), in the matches where they do meet a good killer player their lack of anti-tunnel will hurt them a lot. And for another thing, it makes sense that maps have some areas that are more safe and others that are less so. That doesn't mean every map has to follow this concept, but I don't think it would be good map design philosophy to make it so any area of any map is roughly equally safe/unsafe. That would result in very samey, repetitive gameplay experiences. It would also do away with the strategical elements of when to contest which areas of the maps or when to try and lead chases to them, where to do gens or where to protect them. Either way, if they make some areas less safe, they have to also adjust the safety levels of other areas on the respective map.

The next thing to consider here is that you won more than decisively. As one of if not the weakest killer in the game. How often do you meet these mythical "good survivors" that make entire halves of the map impossible for you to down them on? How do you find it in you to complain about how OP survivors are when you can completely demolish a survivor group despite them having a setup that in your mind makes any good survivor invincible? Surely if any good survivor is impossible to down, even mediocre survivors should still be able to leverage such a setup at least to an extent where they don't get hopelessly destroyed at 4 gens? By Bamboozle-less Legion, no less. And if you say that these were particularly bad survivors, how often do you get them? Are you low MMR and get them frequently, or are you high MMR but still get them, because evidently even in "high MMR" getting pretty bad opponents is still pretty common an occurrence. Do you genuinely lose most of your matches, or what is it that makes you so adamant to lament the state of balance in this game? If you have a winrate anywhere above 60% you are already doing better than even pro players often are in many other competitive multiplayer games. Is winning the majority of your matches still not enough for you? Or is it that you actually think the matches which you do lose were simply impossible for anyone to ever win, that you are already at the uppermost barrier of what is possible in terms of being good and smart at this game, and so there is no room for you to ever improve, and the matches you lose are therefore evidence that the game is by design impossible to win? Surely you must think something along those lines, because otherwise you would at least get a hint of the idea that you can acknowledge that your opponents might have simply played better than you, and that a better player would have done better in your stead, that you should look to improve your own gameplay before you think about complaining to the devs and trying to get them to change the game. What do you think when confronted with evidence that good killer players win hundreds and thousands of matches in a row, and even when they are not trying to do winstreaks basically never lose? Do you think you are just as good as them and just get better opponents than them? Do you not realize that you could improve your gameplay and do better in this game as killer than most players do in most competitive games?

I just don't get it. Is it the asymmetrical format of this game that makes it so awfully common that players instead of acknowledging skill and skill differences jump to game design and blaming the game for everything? That they can't conceive of the idea of getting better at the game and think the game instead has to be changed to accomodate them? This is such an anti-gaming mentality and yet it's something I so commonly see in this game. The thing that is above all appealing and intriguing to me about games is the process of improving, practicing the game, thinking about it, talking about it, trying out and experimenting with things, seeing effects of that improvement in the game, challenging oneself, welcoming challenges, taking losses for the opportunities to learn and improve that they are. Acknowleding and appreciating good plays and good players. Or maybe it is because people struggle to think of DbD - a multiplayer PVP game where players strictly play to achieve diametrically-opposed objectives against their opponents, players literally being taken out of the match if they fail to - as a competitive game, and therefore don't think along these lines of "skill" and "practicing" and "improving" and so on?

That doesn't mean there aren't balance issues left in the game remedying which wouldn't be beneficial. And yes, some of them certainly affect (certain) killers more so than survivors. But with the matchmaking as it is, DbD is if anything uniquely positioned as a competitive multiplayer game that allows players to win the vast majority of the matches by outskilling their opponents. If they actually improve their skills, of course. And this is all the more true on the killer side, because on the survivor side it would require 4 skilled players coming together, which basically only ever happens in 4-player SWFs. If people that are actually competitively-minded and care about wins and losses and balance and how good they are and whatnot should be complaining about something in this game, it is the matchmaking that doesn't yield competitive matches with any consistency. Complaining about game balance when in 90+% of matches a good player can win even perkless on the weakest killer (or good players perkless as a 4-player SWF) is just so odd to me.