Survivors need a buff

Addiction doesn't work that way.

Besides, you don't understand. 39% escape rate is essentially 50/50 win rate. Some would even say it's even 60/40 favouring survivors. It'S jUsT pUrE mAtH. ThE gAmE nEeDs SuRvIvOrS tO hAvE 30% eScApE rAtE oR nO oNe WiLl WaNt To PlAy KiLlEr.

Exactly my point . The game is killer driven. However I do wonder if that's why survivor Bo is is more heavy even at night when it was killer... I'm guessing nobody wants to play survivor. That will be a fun game with long killer waits and probably you will get is swf teams…that should be fun for you

You're twisting your words now. That wasn't all you said. The developers never said word for word that "We favor killers." They said "We don't favor one side or the other" You're saying oh they said but didnt say it but said it because oh!!! thats right!! They want 60% killrate.

Not even close. Its not impossible at all. New players are doing just fine. New killers don't know the maps, don't know the basics, they don't know how to loop with survivors. Thats part of the experience…..

You're just blowing smoke at this point.

There's a concept of "nobody won" - like taking hatch as survivor or getting 2 kills as killer (if no survivor escaped via hatch - otherwise killer still won as he got 2 wins and 1 loss and 1 canceled match in that single trial).

You automatically add both of these cases to survivor which explains your entitlement to wins. The fact is, that it's a draw. Not a survivor win (or killer win for that matter).

The fact that devs balance the game as if it was true is the testament to which side gets preferential treatment. So long as killers get 50% more kills = wins then survivor, I will leave other players play this unfair game.

I have to acknowledge that because the developers intentionally leave win conditions ambiguous for the player to decide, any and everyone's interpretation of what constitutes a win, and therefore what the win-rates are is technically correct in their own way. As such I can't really say this viewpoint is wrong.

That said, I personally find the logic flawed in a couple of ways.

First, you're associating draws solely with terminated matches simply because of a singular relationship where neither has a winner. That's a bit iffy though, because a draw is defined as a match between two sides that ends in a tie. You cannot really have a tie in a terminated match because the match never reaches a conclusion, so the final results of each side can never be known.

Second, what if a match is terminated when only one survivor remains for whatever reason? While unlikely, that's technically possible. In that case, by your logic, it would be a draw since the game closed down. But a draw means a tie occurred. But a tie cannot occur if the killers typical win condition is fulfilled. But you cannot state the killer has won because you have associated canceled matches specifically with draws. At this point it becomes a type of paradox where you need to appoint new rules to have this niche scenario make sense. But the fact you need a separate set of rules to address this situation implies the initial logic used was flawed. This argument also works if a game terminates with 3-4 survivors alive for whatever reason, since that's clearly a killer loss in a normal game, but it has to be called a draw given you associate canceled matches with draws, so special rules would be needed here too.

This why sports have the concept of draws that apply when opposing teams have the same score, and a canceled match is labeled as simply canceled and rescheduled rather than calling it a draw. Granted there's usually special rules for overtime to reduce the amount of draws/ties that occur since they're less exciting, but most still have the ability to draw in the event overtime ties as well.

—

i have explained this multiple times…. the other side not considered winning means your side winning.

I also disagree with the logic that if the killer did not win, that means the opposing side automatically won. It's an argument that solely looks at one perspective (the killer's side) without consideration for the other, and comes off as a bit biased because of that.

I could use this same logic in reverse, focusing on the survivor's perspective.

I, when I play survivor, do not consider my 'team' as winning when only 2 escape. Therefore, the killer automatically wins when 2 or less escape using this logic with the survivor's perspective. Given that the killer now wins when 2+ escape, that means the killer has a 64.59% win rate according to Nightlight, whereas survivors only win 35.41% of the time. Killers therefore win almost twice as many games as survivor and clearly overpowered beyond belief and deserve rapid and brutal nerfs.

That's an extremely survivor-biased outlook isn't it? But it's using the exact same logic you use, but with the survivor's perspective.

You could argue we should only focus on the killer's perspective when using this logic, but then you're creating new rules to fill gaps in your original rule. The necessity for those additional rules shows that the logic is flawed, as good logic does not have gaps that need special treatment to make sense.

there is just no killer that believes that 2k is winning for one unless your super egotistical or something. in fact, there are some killer that are not happy with 3k and will even slug 3 to get 4th as they only deem 4k as a win. Over-time though, when you play enough killer games, you just bored of doing a slug at the end because the time and effort to get 4k isn't really worth it in most cases over just playing more dbd matches. It is not really worth it to prologue game for like 3-4 minutes for what might just end up as slug kill when you could those 3-4 minutes on another match. like if you play 4 matches of 3-4 minute of slugging, those 3-4 minutes could been spent to play 5th match but like i said, some people get their joy from that. i personally think its poor designed end game that forces rng into conclusions of the matches which is why i don't really put much difference been 3k and 4k's.

This why sports have the concept of draws that apply when opposing teams have the same score

They also have special rules to eliminate said problem. Sometimes they're not enforced and they're just as number of scoreboard with the idea that the goal of tournament to score most # of points. if point are equal, they play tie-breaker match.

Killers therefore win almost twice as many games as survivor and clearly overpowered beyond belief and deserve rapid and brutal nerfs.

In just over half the games, half of the team is escaping every trial. I believe dev have once said they balance around 2 survivors escaping and 2 people dying every match, so at least according to raw stats, they're pretty much on mark. For me, what matters is my fun in playing survivor and killer. The perk updates for survivor do keep survivor interesting enough for me to have some fun with it. If we ask the question whether i have fun with killers? For a lot of them. Not really. Every now and again, you get this unavoidable loss as killer with majority of the cast. The win-rate stats in my opinion are carried by stronger killers who win too much while the lower end of the killer cast drag win-rates down. If you were to remove like top 12-14 killers with positive win-rates, i imagine that the killer's win ratio is much more negative especially if it the list only included like bottom 12 killers and their associated win-rate vs like… 1% of survivors if there even any statistics on that consider that i imagine that lots of the worse killer might not face the very top of survivor unless the matchmaker is lax.

The post I made that you're responding to was primarily to challenge the logic of your ideas, but you're just regurgitating the ideas again without addressing the criticism towards them.

The first paragraph in your response is repeating the concept that wins and losses should be based solely from the perspective of the killer (i.e. if the killer does not win, the survivor must be the winner). But this logic is faulty because if you change the perspective to the survivor with this train of thought, then the killer is the winner with 2 escaping. As a result, from the survivor's perspective, it artificially inflates the killer's win-rate to the point they become grossly overpowered and in need of immediate and harsh nerfs. Likewise, when you do it from the killer's perspective, it artificially inflates the survivor's win rate.

The last paragraph takes my quote out of context (it was a hypothetical scenario if the perspective changed to benefit the survivor) and repeats the same concept that the determination of who wins should be entirely based on the killer's perspective. But until addressed, that logic is still faulty since perspectives change depending on which side you're on, and focusing on only one leads to significant bias in the results.

They also have special rules to eliminate said problem. Sometimes they're not enforced and they're just as number of scoreboard with the idea that the goal of tournament to score most # of points. if point are equal, they play tie-breaker match.

Yes, I specifically mentioned that sports include special rules or situations (like overtime) to reduce the frequency of ties/draws.
Despite those rules existing though, it is still possible to get a tie in many sports, such as, but not limited to, the following:

• American Football
• European Football (AKA soccer)
• Baseball
• Basketball
• Ice hockey

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tie_%28draw%29#Examples_of_multi-player_games

Draws, while actively discouraged and reduced through additional rules, are still a natural part of many sports competitions to signify that neither team was able to get a significant advantage over the other. The term draw is also rarely ever utilized in games that are prematurely terminated, since the definition of a draw means a tie occurred, but you cannot claim a tie occurs if a match does not conclude.

That said, it still not address the logical flaws I highlighted in the idea that if a game terminates in DBD, it must be a draw. That leads to paradoxical situations requiring additional rules, which in itself proves the logic is faulty.

So in a chess when one player can't make move, then it means match is in progress until forever? Because "draw doesn't exist"?

You realize how absurd you sound? Draw means no side won. In DBD that happens when survivor escapes via hatch, server closes down or killer gets 2 kills (on average - there are small factors that influence the stuff a little where killing brand new player is different then killing 20K hours top mmr comp player - but we can ignore that for now).

The fact that you say 2 out is survivor win is just insane. Totally insane to me. It's like saying in chess that white wins when there's no move to be made by any player.

Also you saying "you escape like 60% of the time" is exactly and precisely the same problem but on survivor side (that would be catering to survivors). But this is not the case. Survivors have 40% "desired" escape rate. Which is by insane 50% less winning then killer. No side should win 50% times more then the other. It's just unfair. And so long as devs desires to handhold and give freebies to ANY side, the game is just not for me.

And this argument is just arguing at entitlement. What would you say if 4-man SWF would say it's a win ONLY IF all 4 of them escape? Because that's the only true good game where nobody had to sacrifice anything = win? Like would you ever call it a win if you went with a group to some party and somebody died there? Or would you consider it successful escape only if all of you got out?

See? The other side can do the same thing. But that doesn't mean it's fair.