Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Breaking down the facts: Killers are massively overpowered and the grim numbers aren't even telling
Comments
-
The 60% kill rate is what the developers intend. I think the kill rate has to favour Killers a bit because there are multiple survivors who drop out and then sometimes the remaining 3 survivors get a 3E. There are 4K games as well where, if the survivor who left had stayed, there would have been at least some escapes. If the developers didn't take that into account then it would lead to a situation where the game had better odds for the Survivors than the Killer if all players stuck around (of which sticking around is more commonly the case as MMR rises). I'm fine with that as DbD is a horror game. 60% might be a bit too much for some so maybe 55% would suit them better and get the same effect. I don't know myself and I'm fine with 60% when the game is played as intended.
Honestly though I think a lot of this would disappear if tunnelling was just properly nerfed and spreading hooks properly incentivized. I don't care about losing and a closely fought lost game, in my opinion, is far more fun than a roflstomp. What isn't fun is not being able to play the game as intended which is what happens to the survivor who is tunneled. If tunneling were removed I think a lot of the intensity of complaints about kill rates would diminish as the enjoyability of play would increase (not disappear but come on its the Internet; complaining about something will never disappear entirely on the Internet).
2 -
If kill rate = win rate as you claim that would be exactly what happens in that situation. I'm taking the logic and applying it to see if it holds up and it doesn't.
DBD is not sports, or are you going to say it's like Hokey? "Half a win" is not a thing here, we're not using sports statistics. That doesn't help either in the 1K scenario.
Let's take it the other way with a 3K, ok now you have a 75% kill rate but an 100% win rate.
Lets take an random assortment: 1K, 3K, 4K, 1K, 2K, 2K, 1K, 4K, 3K, 2K. Kill rate: ~57% Win rate: 40%
Kill rate =/= win rate.
Post edited by MrPenguin on11 -
reads topic
I feel like I'm in a time loop.
5 -
I have been a survivor main for years and now I'm killer main so I have experienced both sides, and even when I was survivor I was in support of killers should be OP. It's a horror game where naturally the killer is the one to be feared and holds the power. Survivors are the underdogs so this "balance" nonsense doesn't make sense. Why not give survivors the means to fight and hook the killer if you want balance? Make it so the killer and survivors are exactly the same and make it 4 v 4? It's a 4 v 1 game, there is your balance... Survivors have numbers on their side, team work. Killers don't. If I'm a survivor I don't want to be on par with the killer, I want to struggle against all odds to survive and escape. It's already become a case that killers are pretty much scared of pallets because they know it's going to be a futile merry go round until eventually forced to smash it (only when the survivor has been looped enough and bloodlust is up which forces them to drop the thing) it's crazy how many people want survivors on par with killers. Think they should play an FPS game where the average Joe can use a gun and shoot the enemy.
6 -
Ah yes survivors dcing skewing match data to make the game less balanced around them aren't the culprits its the people who play the other side, those naughty killers making those survivors skew data
8 -
Anecdotally when my friends and I (3 man SWF) played after a couple matches we joked "we can quit when we get 3 out" (with or without the random, just 3 or more total Survs), then I started tracking our stats. We played 10 more matches, and we had 6 escapes total… 6/40. Two of the escapes were hatch, and one was an earned exit gate (not a hatch close), the final was a 3-out (2 of us and the random). We actually had more matches where the Killer refused to let someone play the game (8/40 Survs had sub 10k BP) than we had escapes.
We had 10% Survivor winrate, 5% Hatch Tie, 75% Killer winrate, and 20% Killer 'bully' rate.
I swapped to Killer and found it much too easy (3 matches in a row with 4k/3k+hatch at 3+ gens before I got bored and quit).
Something is off right now, and I don't think it is just the event.
6 -
So many things in this post are wrong. The Developers WANT the killers to have a 60% kill rate and they have almost achieved it so this game is balanced how they want it. 50% kill rates would not be healthy for the game at all, quite frankly the killer is the power role and should therefore be powerful. Jason from Friday had a 80-90% kill rate and almost no one complained about it ever.
If all 4 survivors DC and the killer kills all of the bots, that does in fact count as a real 4k. They don’t count the survivors as escaping when the killer DCs which further pushes the stats to being more accurate.
In fact I would say the real kill rates are lower than they are on the stat sheets because survivors give up on hook so much which does count as a kill. That’s why merchant is at 70% when in reality she is not that strong.
10 -
Each match is 4 1v1 matches. This has been confirmed multiple times by the devs in regards to how they balance the game and how mmr is scored. A 2k is 2 wins and 2 losses for the killer. Otherwise you're saying a 2k is a win for 2 survivors, a loss for 2 survivors, and a draw for the killer. You can keep copypasta'ing this every day but it doesn't make it true.
4 -
what do you propose a killer should do if a survivor is deliberately trying to get the killer to chase them because they are the strong looper on the team? It's a common tactic that 1 or 2 people loop the killer as long as possible while the others do gens in peace. I see 2 options, follow through and try take that person out (tunnel) or if they are just too good at looping, ignore that looper and go for the weaker members of the team. But in doing that a killer is ignoring other looping survivors to concentrate on the weaker one...(Tunnel)
I'm curious how the game was intended to be played tbh because it's generally unacceptable to tunnel which is essentially keeping chase and killing the survivor as fast as possible before gens get completed. But it's acceptable to loop around a tile endlessly and goad the killer into a chase
0 -
Leaving D/C matches out of kill/escape rate statistics doesn't imply that the matches are disregarded in some trash bin as a whole. The devs are very well aware of the common reasons players quit before the match ends and have stated so. However, a D/C match is an outlier compared to a regular game where no one quits because it's a wildly different situation where most players play completely differently or they don't play at. A 4v1 is now a 3v1 or the survivor automatically won by default because the killer left. It's an entirely seperate thing as a whole which is how it should stay so something can be learned from it, but if it's mixed in with everything else, then not only does it dilute data with outliers, but it then becomes more easy to go unnoticed which can lead to wild conclusions that aren't accurate to what's actually happening.
2 -
How do we know these games are outliers, though? For all we know, games that include a DC are almost as common as the ones that don't. Some Survivors will DC just before their third hook or a Killer will DC just before the Survivors get a likely 4E. So these were more or less still "regular" games from start to finish, yet such games won't make it into the statistics and nothing will be learned from them.
These things happen often enough in my games that I think it would be silly to ignore them. This is why I hope BHVR take a more nuanced look at the stats than it sometimes appears to us and will take into account all games played when making balancing decisions.
4 -
You realize matches where killers DC, which results in an instant 4-man escape, are also excluded? Killers generally DC when they are losing, getting bullied or looped too hard. Survivor DCs are offset by killer DCs.
Suicide on hook is also included, which inflates the kill rate.
2 -
Before we even continue this conversation, we need to answer a simple question: What constitutes a win in DBD?
For a killer, is it when you get a 4k? A 3k? A 3k and a hatch escape?
For s survivor, is it based off when many survivors escape, or is it everyone for themselves? If one survivor escapes but three die, is that one win and 3 losses?
Until this is decided upon by a majority of the community, I don't see the point in having this conversation?
5 -
This is so tired. The devs don't want a perfectly balanced game. This isn't assumption or interpretation, they've said as much. 60/40 is the goal.
The game never meant to be balanced, and it never will be. It is comprehensively asymmetrical by design.
And I don't want it fully balanced, either. Even as a surv I like the imbalance. I want to go into every match feeling like death is the likely outcome, it's totally in line with the ethos of the game.
Even the killers are wildly imbalanced against each other; it's imbalanced at the genetic level. Trying to balance it completely would not only break the game, but would rob it of its charm.
This game has lots of issues, but getting mad at it for not being finely balanced is like raging at water for being wet: utterly pointless.
11 -
High level bait.
5 -
Right, and that's only part of it. Skill isn't really necessary and almost impossible to quantify, "win" conditions are totally subjective to the player (which makes SBMM almost useless), killers have wildly different strength levels (even survs do to a small extent - model size, loudness, etc.), maps are incredibly imbalanced in comparison with one another, virtually everything is RNG dependent, etc., etc.
Even if the devs were inclined to balance the game like Thanos (which they aren't), it couldn't be done at this point. The game is imbalanced down the marrow of its bones.
People who are really bothered by the imbalances have two options:
- DEAL WITH IT. Practice acceptance, don't take the results too seriously, and enjoy it for the mess that it is.
- Move on to one of the hundreds of other games that are relatively balanced.
The rest is just pissing into the wind.
5 -
And many killers complain about their 10% kill rates, your point is not about game balance, but personal experience of not exactly good survivors
Basekit BT, basekit AFC, basekit icons, much less obnoxious slowdowns, multiple killer nerfs against top tier killers, I don't know what to say if you can't accept the fact it's the best time solo q ever has been
"slightly out of the way" is exactly most of the survivors want to, too
2 -
We want an equal challenge within reason, as in, "Wow, those guys played well and I played sloppy, so I deserve to lose." unlike how it usually is which is, "Hmm. Outplayed them at every chase, had full meta, detached and committed exactly when necessary, memorized all hook states and played accordingly. But they still got 3-4 out and I didn't even get DS'd or Dead Hard'd. Guess I still deserved to lose." When you hop off Nurse, Spirit, and Blight, that's how killer goes, when everyone's on the same skill level. So we're not saying, "Killer's so underpowered I don't ever win." We win plenty. It's just that when we lose, we'd at least like to be out-skilled, not out-advantaged, which is what gen speed, second chance perks, and god loops create.
3 -
This is pretty true, though going afk is as close as they can get, and I've seen it more than a few times. They still lose, of course, but so do survivors who unalive themselves on hooks, technically.
2 -
Yeah. Even I give up as survivor sometimes. But I don't get on here an say, "These killahs are so OP!" I blame the team, because it's seriously so easy as survivor when everyone does things that make sense. But because a majority of the playerbase, which is what the devs balance around, don't make sense, we get this. Killers are weaker, compared to survivors, than ever before and yet survivors are dying and DC'ing en masse. You can't balance around nonsense, never-try players.
3 -
Yeah, because if you do the math, which Tru3 has done, you'd come to the realization that you can draw like 80% of your matches, and that's technically 60% kill rate. Ideal results, not.
2 -
They have, and so I don't fully trust that they don't still do. Look at Freddy, Spirit, Wraith, and Skull Merchant's nerfs. 100% DC rates were considered, because everyone was doing it, and sure enough after the nerf, mysteriously people stopped. And these weren't all strong killers either. "Freddy OP because teleport and slowdown perks! Wraith OP because fast, invisible, AND long lunge!" The only exception is Skull Merchant, because people are so ignorant to balance changes (or to putting in a minutiae of effort, idk) that they still DC against her.
1 -
The kill rate percentage is such a deceptive, crowd-pleaser argument. And it still doesn't work for what they're trying to say, and in fact it destroys their own argument. We're playing a game where the killer is trying to kill*, and the survivors are trying to escape*. Why would a 60% kill rate be ideal, even for people who were killer biased? It still means that on average, half the survivors escape, which is a draw not and not an imaginary subjective 'win' condition "because it's about fun" or some mumbo jumbo. If you cut out the matches where the survivors completely threw, it was a complete mismatch, or someone gave up, kill rate would be like 40%, and that's being generous. The things that survivors have to do to win, and the skill they have to employ, is so much lower than what the killer has to do, and that shouldn't even be up for debate.
But yeah, the devs do what they want to do, even to the detriment of the game, and against the advice of the game's most experienced players. Somehow, the community has deemed them killer mains and survivor mains simultaneously. I think we know it's the latter, since (heck) is there actually a killer on the roster who hasn't been nerfed at some point? I'm really struggling to think of one. The devs are gonna continue to balance for, not survivor in general, but the lowest caliber of survivor possible, as in teams which fall apart the moment someone gets hooked or the killer uses a gen regression perk 1 time. If they balanced for high skill survivors, I'd have no issue, or at least less of an issue. But as I said, beginner survivor players, who still treat the game like a horror game, are their target audience, and the balance reflects that.
1 -
Which is why the exits should be openable by them at any time.
3 -
But they do. You didn't even try reading what wrote. It's a seprate thing altogether that isn't part of the main data. Being seprate allows it to be looked at more closely to see why players DC and if it's for a legitimate reason like 45 minute Skull Merchant games or 20 minutes slugged or, was it because someone got tilted at the slightest thing?
0 -
BhVR deciding 60% killrate nearly what 4 years into their game is
absurd. Choosing to make one side inherently stronger to chase a horror
theme is shortsighted.This is a hilarious thing to say about a game that's been going strong for 8 years in spite of all its flaws, passionately supported by thousands upon thousands of dedicated horror fans.
4 -
1: Is anyone saying that they are drawing 80% of their matches? You can also get a hypothetical win rate of 80% off a 60% kill rate.
2: Even if you had an 80% draw rate, that means the other 20% would all be 4ks. So in this scenario the killer has a 0% loss rate.
5 -
In prime god validation dh, ub, ds, iw and CoH with alot of maps that were better and or more interactive for survivors, the kill rate was still 53%. Do you know why? Because there are so many incentives for survivors to not play the game. Rift, suicide, fun build, trying to interact with the killer more than not and challenges just to name some off the top of my head.
Do you know how many survivor games I have lost just because one person never intended to be even some-what efficient? At least 30-50% of my loses with a moderate guess. You can never have that 50% that should make sense because the player base and the game actively work against it.
Your just using data that doesn't work because people aren't really trying often enough for them to be accurate.
Let me be clear I haven't mained killer since 6.1.0 and I don't find a ton of killers fun or interactive to play against.
3 -
WWhy are we treating the game as if survivors could draw in the match. They die (lose) or escape (win). It's currently not possible for them to draw against anyone.
As for killers, after lots of gaslighting and conditioning in the f irst 3 years of the game,survivors made killers accept a 3k being a win too (despite there being no "win-reward" for doing so). For a killer win to occur, they need 3 or 4 kills. Anything less is a loss.
AAnd now comes the disingenious part.
PPeople see x % rate and demand 50:50...
SSurvivor: 50% escape, 50% die
Killer : 50% lose, draw%, (50-draw)win%
PPeople wanna judge survs individually but force nonexistant team judgement onto killers.
3 -
Wasn't that in regards to why survivor is not judged as a team, not the killers MMR or win condition?
Afaik It's exactly as you listed it, a win for two survivors, a loss for two, and a draw for the killer.
Because the game is asymm, so both sides are judged differently. Survivor only cares if you individually escape for a win or loss while killer cares about total escapes for a win or loss.So for the survivors it's 4 1v1's. But for the killer it's 1v4. Again, because the game is asymm.
To my understanding from the collective of everything I've seen the devs say. But if there was a more comprehensive concrete breakdown all in one spot I haven't seen I would like to see it.
The best thing I found was this from the wiki:
So as far as information I've found and have access too at this time, my original idea is correct.
Post edited by MrPenguin on1 -
I did read what you said. You missed my argument that games with a DC are probably not "outliers". They are regular games in so much as they are regular occurrences. But since they don't share the data on DC games or all games played, it gives the impression (fair or otherwise) that they don't take these games into account when making changes to the game (maybe it's just perception on my part). But there must be a data set at BHVR giving an accurate and full account of the escape and Kill rates for all games played. It's not enough to say Survivors escape 40% of the time (but only if we ignore x% of games). Because we as players experience the games that are missing in the reported data and can see that it doesn't match up to our own experiences.
If players DC a lot, that would suggest problems with the game that go way beyond players just getting "tilted at the slightest thing" (I'd look to the match making system and a lack of reward for team play as the likeliest probable causes). I think things that lead up to a DC are cumulative in nature, which is why I don't get too annoyed when they happen because I know that player's probably had 3 or more very bad trials in a row.
1 -
massive overpowered? Does that mean survivor gets massive buffs? Maybe we decrease base-kit healing time from 16→12 seconds and increase pallet stuns from 2 second →3.5 second.
4 -
Or you could just not take the bait and not chase the strong looper around the strong tile. There is a meta strategy to the game as well. If you let yourself get goaded into chases that aren't wise to take and around strong tiles then that's on you.
3 -
DC rate doesn't tell anything beside that one game with higher DC rates having simply bad community, nothing more
Everything else is a mental gymnastics to bend the fact in favor of someone's own narrative
2 -
Your assertion assumes that there are more games where a survivor quits as a result of the game being lost, over survivors quitting being the cause of losing the game.
In my experience there are far more games lost as a result of players quitting early over players quitting because the game is lost.
This tracks, because a quitter forgoes their points, and thus a quit is far more common early on in the match when a survivors isn't really losing anything in regards to points earned.
When a game is lost, vast majority of players hide and try to get hatch to get more points, this is usually a result of them being there later on in the game where they actually have some points to lose.
If we really want to argue about what inflates stats, the number of games survivors lose as a result of people suiciding on hooks (or even just attempting to suicide on hook) artificially inflates the kill rates for killers, because those ARE included in the stats. We have evidence of this already in regards to Skull Merchant, as her killrate is massively inflated as a result of SoH.
So.... your fundamental argument is ignoring quite a lot of considerations that means your point has an unstable foundation at best, and is just plain biased propaganda at worst.
3 -
Honestly… this is mostly a skill issue on the survivor side. Survivor main myself btw
4 -
So you agree that the solution would be ignore the looper and concentrate on the weaker ones... That would be called tunneling, deliberately ignoring other survivors to take down a particular survivor. Doesn't matter what way you look at it, survivors loop killers tunnel.
1 -
A 50% kill rate means 2 survivors won, the killer tied (so, the killer didnt win) and 2 survivors lost.
In order for the killer to win some, lose some, the killer rate has to be over 50%.
60% is quite healthy. The killer win some. He also lose some, sure, but remember that a killer that gets 2 kills, do not win the game or increase their MMR.
3 -
You're basing all these arguments on the kill rate statistics the devs put out. Top 10 killers according to these statistics:
70% Skullmerchant - 67% Onryo - (Unknown 64% after release) - (Billy 63% after buff) - 63% Pinhead - 63% Freddy - 62% Plague - 61% Pig - 61% Dredge - 61% Spirit - 61% Myers - 60% Wesker.
Where are Nurse and Blight? Aren't they always considered best and second best? Also, why is Spirit number 10???? Isn't she always considered 3rd best? Or 4th if you rate Billy higher?
Also, these are 'stats' across all mmr. I have over 15.000 (15k) hours on DBD. One time I made a fresh account and went on a 4k streak across all killers for months; I used agi, bbq, lethal and brutal on every killer just to get the games going faster. No gen defence, nothing. Survivors at low/mid level are extremely bad and you could say killers are 'overpowered' at that level. Keep in mind these chill players are also inflating the stats massively, that's why Nurse is not there, Blight is not there, Spirit is 10th.
7 -
A draw is not equal to 0 win, it is equal to half a win. Also, strictly speaking, 1K/3K are not full wins/losses, they are 75% of a win/loss - that part doesn't make a big difference, but that's how MMR treats it: if you get a 4K you get more MMR than just a 3K.
If you properly take this into account, then your example magically becomes:
Kill rate=57.5%
Winrate=57.5%
Kill rate and winrate are the same. People who say the opposite are just trying to make killer winrate appear lower by counting 2K for killers the same as if they were losses, when in reality it should be counted as neither a win or a loss. They know very well that they are wrong, they know it's not how MMR works, I have explained it to them several times, but they keep spreading lies to divert debates. The worst part is that they are double wrong, because even if you assume this flawed logic the stats still show that the game is massively killer-sided (It's true that if you count draws as losses then killers win only ~50% of the time but then survivors win only ~30% of the time, so it's still a ~60% ratio in favor of killer).
2 -
A draw is not a loss but it's not a win either. It's a draw, it's a "nothing" so to speak as it basically gets cancelled out. But "not a win" and "a loss" are the same if we're talking about "how often do you win" a.k.a. win rate. It's a "no I didn't".
Afaik and as far as I've seen the devs and the general population talk about it:
Win: MMR went up
Loss: MMR went down
Draw: MMR did not change.So while yes you are correct in the sense that a 1K will lower your MMR less, it still went down so that is a loss. Likewise a 3-4K raises it, so that's a win. A draw doesn't change it so it's neither a win nor a loss.
Similar to other PVP games the win/loss it all determined based of the skill ranking system and what makes you move up or down, which in DBD is only MMR.
It might be a lesser loss but a loss is still a loss. There's no such thing as a "partial win". You either win, lose, or draw. Up, down, or stationary.
You're using a different definition of what a win/loss/draw is. At least afaik. While under your definition that checks out, that's not the definition being used by the game and most of it's community.
As for the last part about ratios yeah that's true. But "balanced" for survivor and killer are fundamentally different when only counting kills and escapes so I don't think there's a way to really make both 50% without some mechanic forcing it. Besides that the devs also want the kill rate to favor killers a bit so unless you change their mind that's just how it is.
Imo balancing around hooks instead of kills would be better in that regard (amongst others) as you could balance around a certain hook count which is more flexible, but that's not the system we're in unfortunately.
Post edited by MrPenguin on1 -
I'm not going to write an essay again.
Survivors die 60% of the time.
If you seriously believe that you can conclude from that number, that the game is balanced, or that killers win only ~50% of the time, this is not math, but dishonesty.
3 -
The game is asymm it's not that simple.
Besides that no I personally wouldn't consider that balanced, but I'm not the one making the rules and neither are you. I wouldn't even balance off kills, I would balance off hooks.
Under the goals and vision the devs want, 60% is balanced. Theirs is the mind you have to change. I'm just working under the system we're in.
1 -
The devs have not said that 60% is balanced, they said that they target 60%, which is different. By definition, 60% is not balanced, it is in killer's favor, and I'm pretty sure the devs have said exactly that somewhere (that they intentionally want the game to be in killer's favor).
I'm not arguing whether that 60% target is right or wrong. What I'm saying, is stop massacring math to pretend killers somehow have 50% winrate or other nonsense.
4 -
Survivors DC on a frequent basis, so this will have a huge impact on survival rates. But why do they DC? Survivors primarily DC because they will most likely lose the match, because the killer is winning, because killer is so overpowered. Most players, including survivors, will finish a match if there is a good chance of winning. This is just human nature.
So by this logic any time someone leaves a game it is because of the opposing side being "overpowered," and not the fact that some players just generally have a hissy-fit over small things.
Let me break this down for you.
There are 4 Survivors and 1 Killer within a match of DBD; and DBD tries to keep this 4 to 1 ratio with Queue Incentives. The probability of a Survivors disconnecting or giving up within a given match is statistically higher solely from the fact that there are more Survivors within a given match.
For reference, when Infinite Loops and Insta-Blinds were a thing, Survivors would still rage quit; likewise pub-stomping perks like Eruption (P. 6.1.0) were a thing, Killers would still rage quit. To put it bluntly as possible, the inherent strength a role has does not matter, some people are just man-children and will DC over the drop of a feather.
So what this means is that the game devs are leaving out a massive number of legitimate survivor losses from the statistics, which is actually inflating survival rates dramatically and deflating kill rates immensely. This means kill rates are actually much higher than the public stats above indicate. Of course the devs don't want you to figure this out, because it would spark outrage and protests from the survivor main player base. Of course, I see right through their ploy.
Disconnects are left out for a reason.
Before Disconnect Bots were added, a lot of people would DC against Killers they did not like as soon as they heard the Terror Radius, because instead of learning the counterplay or sticking out the match, they would much rather move to the next match and have fun playing against a different Killer. This isnt even a "Killer is overpowered, gotta go next" type of thing either, people just have preferences and would rather lobby-shop to get their preferred Killer.
So imagine having a game where your teammate instantly DCs from a match, and it is a 3v1… You are going to lose. And it is not an accurate representation of how strong or weak a character is.
In example, Legion is generally regarded as being a "weak" Killer; but people dont hate Legion because he is strong, people hate Legion because he is annoying to play against. Legion is more likely to have a Survivor DC since they dont want to spend the entire game mending, but that is not representative of that Killer's strength.
And even with Disconnect Bots, the AI is bad, and can easily be abused. DC Bots not designed to be this amazing thing that can just outright replace a player to the perfect degree, and because of that, their presences should be excluded from statistics, since they are not an accurate representation of your average player.
Why won't they admit it? Well, killer mains want to win, so they very naturally welcome balance changes in their favor. They also want to feel good about winning, so they will post hoc rationalize that their win is not because killer role is OP, but because they are just so good at DBD and the survivor mains are just so bad. This is called motivated reasoning, which prevents most killer mains from objectively assessing the actual fairness of the gameplay since it favors their preferred role. This is of course not their fault, it is just human nature.
So Im guessing by disagreeing with some of the points made I am a "Killer main"?
Despite the fact that I play both sides?
Despite the fact that I have advocated for changes for both sides.
Despite the fact that I have been an advocate for accessibility for both sides?
I think this post is more of an "US vs THEM" kind of post. "You either agree with me or you are against me, no other options than that" type of deal.
And here is the thing as well, I do think SoloQ needs buffs, stuff like basekit Kindred and/or Bond, nothing too insane but something small to start out. The issue is that it would not matter if I mentioned this since by the logic presented, me disagreeing with the points you made automatically labels me as a "Killer main" which inherently weakens a lot of points you make.
10 -
Fair enough. It's more accurate to say they want a 60% kill rate and balance around that.
My main argument is kill rate is not win rate as the designers and game have defined it. Not by some "sports logic", alternate personal definitions, or something else.
The definition of "win rate" is pretty important to determining what's considered "massacring" the numbers to change it. I would argue changing the definition to count losses and draws as "partial wins" when they're not does the amount of damage you're accusing. As you're inflating the win rate by a significant amount.
Idk if killers have a 50% win rate, afaik the kill distribution and win rate was never released. We just know that kill rate averages out to roughly 60%.
Under the 3K+ is a win logic the kill rate needs to be over 50% for the killer to win (not draw or lose) roughly half the time. Under this logic you can't really have both sides be at 50%. The "draw" condition on killer and both sides having different win conditions skews the numbers.
If the logic was different then sure. Under your theoretical system sure. But that's not the system we're in nor the logic this game uses.
1 -
Are you of the impression there are only 2 survivors in a trial? That's the only way your comment would make sense. Also, do you think it's wise gameplay to just leave survivors on gens untouched and not disrupt them?
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Lich is still a new killer, it will settle. Every killer starts their release with massive kill rates.
Also, lmao, you're sad. Survivors leave games that feel like losses? Sounds like a whole bunch of womp womp to be fair. Imagine if killers did the same anywhere near as much as survivors did. "Oh, these guys brought BNPs and did 2 gens during my first 1-2 chases, time to DC."
You literally admitted to the fact that survivors are whiny and selfish, as they will leave the moment they feel unwell about the course of the game.
You said, and I quote:
Survivors DC on a frequent basis, so this will have a huge impact on survival rates. But why do they DC? Survivors
primarilyDC because they will most likely lose the match, because the killer is winning, because killer is so overpowered. Most players, including survivors, will finish a match if there is a good chance of winning. This is just human nature.So, literally, you're implying that survivors will tend to not finish matches they don't think they can win.
And you're bold enough to make a suggestion so the game is shifted in your favor, even though you've shown yourself to be whiny?
3 -
The stun time would suck, but I want old heals back (old medkits, old COH,12s heal).
I hate to lock at bars filling up for ages.
2
