Survivors need a buff

Yes, this was addressed at the very top of the original response I made:

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.

I am not saying they are wrong for interpreting victory conditions in this way. To quote my second response, the goal of my posts here are:

The post I made that you're responding to was primarily to challenge the logic of your ideas

So to respond to you when you ask:

What if someone considers 2 escapes win for survivors on both sides?

Exactly, so why even try to bring it into argument about balancing, when win rate is clearly highly personal thing.

They can absolutely do that - I have no problem that they do that and I cannot say they are wrong for thinking that way. The developers have intentionally made the game's win conditions subjective and vague, likely to foster inclusivity and encourage debates (like this) that keeps the community active.

But this is a forum for discussion, and the feedback section specifically is a forum for sharing ideas to improve the game. We, the players, post here in hopes of influencing other people to our ideas. We, the readers, (ideally) critically think about those post's contents, question their logic, and help filter through those ideas based on their logical flaws and merits. This is so we can evaluate others thought processes, potentially see new perspectives, and gauge whether or not those ideas relate to us, and in the majority sense, to the playerbase as a whole (which could then potentially prompt change, at the developer's discretion).

So when I see a player who makes a sudden claim that 2 survivors escaping is a survivor victory, immediately includes that result in the survivors' win rates as such to argue for a balanced game, and uses that in a feedback section in an attempt to influence the discussion, I employ that critical thinking. I am not saying they are wrong for doing so, that's their personal choice, but when they make those claims so publicly in an attempt to influence others, I want to find the flaws and levels of bias in that logic so I, and hopefully others, can make more informed decisions on whether or not to accept those ideas for themselves as well.

And so far, I have yet to see a counter-argument to the flaws I presented. All I've had in response to my criticism of the logic is a repetition of the faulty logic under question, and a third party intervention asking why I should question it in the first place. The latter of which I find a bit odd to question in a form of feedback, debate, and critical thinking.

But again, I'll end by stressing that I am not saying anyone is wrong for thinking of win conditions in a particular way - they can do what they want. I'm not even trying to convert someone else to my ideas - I'm well aware that most beliefs are tied to emotions and no amount of logic can change a person's mind in those scenarios. I was just hoping to clarify what logic they used to support their beliefs, which so far seems a bit biased and flawed.

Well if that's true no wonder the game balance is so out of whack. They might as well buff Survivors enough to have a decent chance of winning if the killers camps and tunnels and uses every cheesy tactic since they're going to do it anyway. And that's even more reason why the 60% target is completely ridiculous.

You literally said that the game is balanced around Killers being inefficient and that's a good thing, but accused OP of wanting the game balanced around Survivors being inefficient and that's a bad thing. Do you understand why this might come off as biased? I mean I do appreciate your honesty at least.

So basically its up the killer if they want to win or have a fun game for Survivors and the Survivors basically have to do whatever the Killer wants? Wow I'm glad you're not in charge. I will say again though I appreciate your honesty it seems you're saying out loud what many Killer mains actually want but are savvy enough not to say.

Okay, this logic I can understand.

So you're saying that you believe killers have an inherent handicap given to them by the developers putting them at an immediate advantage in every game. Because of that handicap, anything tied (2 man escapes) should be considered a win for the survivors, since they broke even despite being the underdog.

You have lowered the barrier for a survivor win and increased the barrier for a killer win in a standard game setting, because it is easier for the killer to achieve their victory condition.

There are specific exceptions for SWF, but the above is generally true for you in all games otherwise.
That line of reasoning makes sense to me, thank you.

I would say its probably because Bhvr. realized they went a bit too far one way and are trying to balance it out again. And I have no idea what you are talking about "low-effort strategy" are you replying to the wrong comment?

Slinger example against genrushing team if slinger is actually good works really well. He has no map pressure, but he can down people like REALLY quick. And he can proxy into down almost at unhook. If the whole team takes only genrush stuff and nothing to combat camping/tunneling, then my money is on slinger (again, provided we are not talking about old red forest).

As for Legion example - you deliberatelly didn't read that I said about new team? Like I said it out right - genrush build in hands of new (even new-ish) players is worse then "normal" build and they would absolutely get wiped out by even a bad legion (for example, because they would group and give him 5th hit). And new players will 100% totally not know to bodyblock when mending. Sure - it will be very much different in skilled team - hence Legion is real bad in comp settings. But that wasn't the premise.

Gen rush is not popular simply because it's boring. Most players don't have only goal to escape as fast as possible, people want to have a chase. Genrush doesn't allow it.

You say this, but facecamping Bubba, tombstone piece meyers, camping with prepared projectile pinky finger/iri hatchet were still a thing and I would say I saw it more often then true 4-man genrush squad (not more often then single survivor taking full genrush build). And it still was quite common (not every game, not most game, but people were not surprised to see it). Some people do want to just win no matter how fun/unfun things they have to do to get it. And these things needed to be looked at (and they also were - a lot of things on both sides were looked at - like proofthyself even though I considered it noob trap (because grouping) and overall killer's advantage was nerfed because of genrush) while others are still present in game (kill addon meyers can even facecamp, camping from distance with 1-hit downs projectile killers, no revert to speed buff from dejavu, etc).

I think the healing nerf didn't put it quite at 60% yet, but you might be right and I can be wrong on this one (there were quite a few map nerfs after it as well). If so, then OK - time flies by quicker then I expected. But still - the kill rate didn't go back to when the game was enjoyable to me - it was still somehow OK when the kill rate was on average 55% (that means killers win 22% more then survivors) compared to current 60% (50% more wins then survivor) and I am still counting hatch escape as full survivor win even though I shouldn't (because of missing stats of how often it's used). This already wasn't fair state, but it was still tolerable in my eyes.

which way did they go too far exactly? Because judging by you "balanced around killers playing inefficiently and bad" is plain wrong, when average killer player actually has more willingness for self improvement than average survivor has, while average survivor player gives up for slightest inconvenience because they find it easier than to actually learn how to play the game.