We have temporarily disabled The Houndmaster (Bone Chill Event queue) and Baermar Uraz's Ugly Sweater Cosmetic (all queues) due to issues affecting gameplay.

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
The Dead by Daylight team would like your feedback in a Player Satisfaction survey.

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!

Why do killers think this game is survivior sided?

k3ijus
k3ijus Member Posts: 278
edited September 7 in General Discussions

Literally its always the same analogy

“I cant go 20 seconds without a gen popping”

Ive actually had to watch painstockingly gameplay on how they played and i will quickly jot down key points

-they get mad at 1st gen popping

-cant seem to get much value from power/perks

-to many pallets

To explain this, firstly expect the first generator to be repaired fast, the start of game is the strongest point for surviviors, it’s expected it will pop early. If you arent using a supressive killer expect it to be popped or something of equal value.

“”Cant get much value from power/perks”, if your power is skill based like spirit, practice it. If it is more reliant on surviviors input like trapper, casually pressure them towards that area, this can be accomplished by hooking in the region or chasing towards it.

“To many pallets”- this is the only way surviviors can fight against you, you do not have to break every pallet, and you arent required to chase anyone at any pallet. If its not worth it dont do it. Try to chase surviviors near other surviviors objectives to multitask. And the most basic rule is if a survivior juices you once, dont chase them again, it may seem impossible to kill them until you realize they have no protection against hook trades and having half their team dead

EDIT: Before the killer mains mention swfs, what happened to the game being balanced around the average player? And make sure to mention the official escape rate of swfs bhvr documented, will be very interesting

Post edited by k3ijus on
«134567

Comments

  • SOULWARRIOR71K
    SOULWARRIOR71K Member Posts: 462

    I’d say the game is more perk/intention sided than anything else. If you have a 4 man swf with stacked perks and addons who want to Gen rush (and have 1-2 people who can loop the killer for a least a minute at a time), the average killer will lose. If you have a killer with 3-4 slowdowns who proxy camps, tunnels, and has NOED, chances are the average survivor group gets stomped. But the reality that most people don’t want to acknowledge is that it’s way more common for 1 killer to out perk and playing to win than it is to find 4 equally perked and skilled survivors. In short, the game is generally killer sided because 4 man decked out swfs are not common.

  • TheSubstitute
    TheSubstitute Member Posts: 2,551
    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794088#Comment_3794088

    If you're saying people should not BM and it's a terrible thing to gloat at the exit gates I 100% agree. It's childish. It shouldn't happen. I have stated multiple times that BHVR should, in my opinion, issue a statement regarding good sportsmanship and how to follow good sportsmanship and teabagging, while it is viewed by many as harmless, does not change the fact that many people view it as the digital equivalent of a middle finger and that should be respected. I think a significant chunk of the us vs them discourse would disappear (not a majority but a significant chunk) if survivors stopped teabagging as a taunt.

    However, that doesn't change the fact that Killers have access to tactics that give a disproportionate advantage for the effort and have a disproportionate skill floor. They are two different issues.

    Teabagging and wasting time at the Killer's exit gate grates on me. Unfortunately, a lot of people do it and now we also have humping on the Killer side which I also find annoying and grating. However, the people doing it are specifically trying to annoy you so I just ignore them now if I see it on the Killer side. If I see a survivor doing it while playing Survivor games and the Killer did not camp or tunnel I make sure to tell the Killer gg, gl next match or something similar.

    As I don't camp or tunnel when I play I don't experience that much BM to be honest if I win or if I lose. It does happen still but not frequently. I see it a lot more in games where the Killer is tunnelling and camping. The survivors do stick around at the gates so I come over and take a few hits for BP if I'm down anyway but really I just do it to save time (another option is breaking walls). I also almost never get hateful messages in chat. I'm not saying any of these behaviours (gloating and messages in chat) is justified (it's not) but people that have had a miserable experience are more likely to vent their frustration and, unfortunately, that happens more frequently online than it would in real life.

    If you lose a game, though, it might help to keep in mind that it doesn't reflect on you one way or another in real life. You lost a video game; it's not a personal attack nor anything that you'll care about or remember in the future. Losing a video game is trivial. It is annoying and grating to deal with sore winners and your frustration at that is completely justified; sore winners suck. and they should show sportsmanship instead. But it's not a reflection on you in the slightest.

    (Also, I like the idea of activities for Killers to gain increased BP once the gates are open. It's still annoying that there are sore winners but there might be less of them if they realized that, instead of annoying the Killer, they're giving the Killer increased opportunities for more BP. Good idea).

  • Toystory3Monkey
    Toystory3Monkey Member Posts: 895
    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794123#Comment_3794123

    I watch a good deal of comp and there is a lot different. Survivors always know which killers they are going to face, both sides know the map they are going to play on, they play for hooks, not kills. They try to minimize the randomness of a game that is designed to have a lot of randomness.

    This isn't even getting into SWFs. Not only are they four person SWFs, already rare, but these are players who have come together because they are good players, not just a group of friends.

    Comp players are excellent players, no doubt, but there are so many elements of the game they don't even engage with it feels strange to argue that it can be somehow reflective of the state of the game.

    They dont engage with random elements of the game and focus to get good at actual skill dependant interactions. Again, that not only doesn't invalidate it from being evidence, but makes it work better as such.

    i dont think it's fair to consider severe lack of basic skill as a balancing factor as you suggest.

    Where does the most come from? Maybe its true, but the killer streaks I come across seem to be the standard kill 3 survivors.

    Momo7 blight streak, the one that the other guy brought up as evidence to something, is using "no exit gate escape after gens are done" wincon. I mean, we can use just 3k wincon, then survivors JUST have to get 2 kills to win. Still very much possible with all the stuff survivors have access to. Maybe not consistently against S tier killers because they offer enough agency to the killer to match survivor meta & skillful performance.

    Though again, there's nothing concrete here. The issue with streaks for survivors is that the game is incapable of defining proper win con. Its' the game that took "both sides can win simultaneously" approach which leads to the insanity.

    I'd say this is the reverse.

    Killers only need to match the survivor skill. If a survivor doesn't know how to hug a loop, neither does the killer. If the survivor doesn't have the game sense to break the 3 gen, the killer doesn't need the game sense to protect it. The killer, by design, always has the advantage in the 1 on 1, so they only have to match the survivor skill and they'll win the chase.

    Effort part, maybe.

    Skill, no. The game is pretty straightforward for killer. You see the gens, you see the hooks, you see the scratch marks. The killer has important decisions to make, that's true, but that's most of their game. The skill floor is relatively high As a I mentioned above, the burden is on the survivors to learn skills before the killers need the counters.

    Soloq survivors have to play the game with multiple mysteries hanging over their head. They have to guess at their teammates strategies and respond on the fly with extremely little information.

    Even if we go to SWFs, it adds a whole new skill category to the game, communication. That can give them an edge, but if we're just talking about skill its something that has to be practiced and developed over time.

    On the skill front, the killer has to improve their game sense and mechanics. Survivors have to improve those as well, while also learning to predict what the other survivors are doing and/or communication.

    See, that's the fundamental difference in our mindsets.

    You consider skill floor and I consider skill ceiling.

    If we talk about skill floor, game is killer sided because killer doesnt have to even think about a response to anything survivor isn't attempting to do. On contrary, when survivor has enough knowledge and skill to apply all accessible options, the killer needs to put much greater skill input to deal with that. And that starts being problematic when killer's aforementioned skill inputs are being cancelled by mechanics that exist to artificially level survivors with the killer. The game is getting survivor sided even earlier than they near the ceiling due to that factor.

    You also equal having knowledge of your surrounding with not requiring skill which isnt really true as killer's skill is in applying that information correctly which has much higher punishment to it if it's not done right.

    Someone here said something how killers are ignoring the skill and effort survivors have to put into winning and it's a bit disingenuous to say that when killer skill&effort is diminished if not more, then no less as evident by your reply in particular for instance.

    I never understand this point. Survivors seem to make one mistake and its game over. Get hooked in the 3 gen, hooked in basement, screw up a chase, caught stealthing, screw up a flashlight save, one mistake and pressure swings around immediately to the killer's side.

    The issue with your understanding is that such mistakes are usually very avoidable and killer can be easily punished for trying to punish these mistakes if they dont make a correct call based on the information they don't have access to.

    If I hook a person in a 3 gen and try to camp them, I can easily get hit by reassurance or/and deli trade and then lose the game to taking a gamble and getting outperked.

    If I hook a person in basement and try to play around it, same will happen except I'll also expose myself to losing 3-4 gen and ending up in a terrible position for 3v1.

    If I try to punish a flashlight save, I might lose a slugged person to them having a perk or just waste time and not get necessary value.

    Of course, that's usually not the case, because average survivor player will more likely throw the game by expecting the killer to be nice and let them have the unhook/save/etc which will only further worsen their position, but Im going to assume we are not considering cases of people making basic mistakes / not being successful at their one-sided skill input that they must be consistent with because in that case I'll start asking for nurse buffs.

    Despite that it's true that survivors are the role that hinges the most on not making mistakes or having them punished which is how they win. The game, especially without player imposed limitations to make it fair. And if they do make those mistakes, it's only a matter of how many of them they can cover up with perks which is pretty much what defines the skill difference in favour of killer that would still not matter. Which is what, again, should lead to a natural conclusion of the game being survivor sided.

    And god forbid survivors are ever so slightly better. Killer is not winning the game even closely because they arent getting any chases fast enough. Their best hope is cheesing kills through party game mechanics.

    As the game that still allows to win despite being worse than your opponent to a particular degree favours that side.

    Good thing most people in this game actually don't care that much about winning and just don't want the other side to act like douches when they win or lose.

  • Toystory3Monkey
    Toystory3Monkey Member Posts: 895
    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794140#Comment_3794140

    That's not even close to what I suggest. You leave out all of the points I made about the difference.

    Comp is like a game of poker where every player is guaranteed to get cards from one of ten possible combinations. It still might be a game of skill, but its not a reflection of what poker actually is.

    This doesn't even get into what comp scene we base it off, with different leagues having different rules and the Asian comp scene having different metas on what they think is actually strong in the game.

    You've failed to establish your point then. Because from what Im seeing you're essentially suggesting that we shouldnt consider top tier performance of survivors (though why do we consider top tier killers either even though they're the ones doing those ridiculous winstreaks) because these are 1) rare 2) excluding rng elements that mostly boil down to a possibility of survivors running same perks / off meta build or playing on a map that will favour survivors more than maps usually do in comp (as maps are usually picked to favour the killer or at least not make them unplayable & vulnerable to lack of mobility cheese).

    That is irrelevant to the subject because these are the factors that boil down to rng throwing the skill out of the window or survivors not being prepared to face the killer they go against due to them not having enough experience against that killer.

    Okay, so its not most, its that one.

    Oh yeah, just "that one streak" that people believing the game is killer sided run with like it's a definitive proof of god existing they brought to an atheist convention.

    Either way I've addressed most other killer streaks and their relation to survivor streaks.

    Only if you presume the game doesn't have draws as a possibility.

    Which most people think it does. If survivors and killers, both doing a win streak, hit each other, they both could lose it at the same time. It would be as easy for killers to say a 2k should be a win because they broke the survivors streak.

    I presume that this game has no definitive win, loss or draw condition and it's a wide spectrum that people randomly point finger at to determine what is a win con to them. Therefore rendering streaking entirely subjective unless your goal is 4k / 4 out which is obviously not entirely skill dependant for obvious reasons and that, however, only further makes streaks meaningless in my eyes. Not even counting poor matchmaking for both sides alongside lack of proper competitive mindset. Streaks are not indicative of the game's state on either side.

    I'm considering both. I'm just not throwing out the floor.

    You are since you dismiss the examples of the skill ceiling and base your argumentation on the cases where survivors dont have knowledge they should have, dont avoid things they should always be able to avoid due to one-sided nature of prevention of these things, dont play with a correct mindset and so on.

    How? As I talked about and gave examples killers only have to match the survivor skill on game elements. What exactly does the killer do that needs to exceed survivor gameplay?

    Which side depends on the other side's mistakes more than they rely on their own skilled plays? Killers do.

    In chases, a lot of killers (even the ones with antiloop powers) are forced to rely on survivor's mistakes and can only attempt to make plays that ultimately depend on survivor making mistake in dealing with them to result in a hit. Any hits that solely depend on killer's personal skill are not enough by themselves to let killer win the chase due to how long it would take to get an opportunity for these hits, assuming survivor is doing their one-sided part of the chase right. Again, a spectrum, but the general rule is like that. Survivors always have some kind of consistent counterplay that delays the killer from getting an opportunity to use their ability and / or they are the ones whose decision defines whether or not killer wins the chase. (And winning the chase doesnt mean simply downing the survivor, it means downing the survivor fast enough to not lose the game).

    There's very few exceptions to that and they're what bottlenecks killer balance and are universally considered overpowered and problematic by the community 👩‍⚕️.

    I had a longer response here, but later you say that survivors are punished more for making mistakes

    We're talking about different skill expressions here even though they're from the same game sense field. In one example that you brought up killers receive bigger punishment, in the other, survivors do due to having more agency in avoiding that mistake or refusing to utilize options to cover up for the mistake.

    The side that has more agency than the other is the one that receives bigger punishment for the mistake, that's how it usually goes. Survivors, naturally, have way more agency as a team than killers by themselves do, which leads to them having way more control in chases or in overall match. Which, again, is another example of the game being survivor sided.

    But survivors are having to do the same thing, except with less knowledge than the killer. Let's say the killer hooks, goes to apply Pop to a gen, and then returns to the hook. If a survivor stayed on gens and missed his window for the unhook, he lost the guessing game. On the other hand if he rushes the unhook because he thought the killer was farther away than he was, again, he lost the guessing game.

    You chalk this up to people making basic mistakes, but its only a mistake because you are giving them extra levels of knowledge that they don't have. Each side is trying to make guesses at what the other side is doing, a wrong guess can look like an idiotic play, but it is very different than a mistake.

    In this particular example killer making an incorrect call and going for riskier play means losing the game right on the spot.

    Survivor however will have the game still going regardless of whether or not they make a correct call on killer staying / not staying and pop'ing the gen.

    These are bad examples because the required play and consequences of the decisions are incomparable. One is an example of an extreme play with high risk and the other is an example of a mundane game sense decision that people are allowed to fail reasonable amount of time on both sides.

    Survivor can make a bad guess and have their 99 gen popped but that's just + roughly 20 more seconds on the gen which while painful is not something they cant recover from.

    It would be more fair to compare that to killer losing a 50/50 in chase because that's something that killer can generally allow themselves to happen multiple times throughout the game. It's not something where they have enough agency to suffer extreme consequences.

  • Toystory3Monkey
    Toystory3Monkey Member Posts: 895
    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794161#Comment_3794161

    My argument is that comp is radically different from a non-comp game, here are all the ways:

    -Survivors know the killer they are facing

    -Teams can ban killers they don't want to face

    -Both sides know the map

    -Always 4 person SWF which at the upper levels have things like try outs to make it.

    -Perk and addon bans on both sides

    -Perks limited to a single instance on the survivor (obviously) side

    -Playing for hooks and gens

    -The games are, usually, played sequentially. That means the first killer generally takes safer strategies. Hooking and camping out the first survivor means getting at least five to seven hooks is close to guaranteed. The second game killer strategies will vary wildly based on what they are trying to accomplish. If the survivors need to only do a few gens, camping and tunneling go out the window because the killer needs to spread a ton of pressure.

    -More recently, AFC ignored

    Great, you acknowledge the difference, but you don't acknowledge WHY some of these differences are a thing which is what I'm talking about.

    Why are some perks and addons banned? Why are same perks banned? Why is AFC (the most prominent example of them literally patching out a strategy) ignored?

    That's what Im talking about. The reason why survivors are not allowed to use pretty much all meta or mildly meta perks or resort to using a system specifically created to patch certain playstyles in competitive is because if survivors were allowed to play with all that, pretty much all killers would be unable to even get close to winning the game due to how many resources and second chances survivors would be allowed to use.

    You're also insisting on survivors knowing the killer / being in 4 man being a major factor in dismissing the example yet it's the factor that determines this example being valid in the first place as, as I said multiple times, that removes a huge element of skill issue in the contest, ensuring that there's no such situation where survivors simply deal with the killer they have no idea how to properly play against.

    The WHOLE balance talk must be based on the assumption that skill difference & lack of it is not in the picture. Comp dbd does that the best it possibly could be.

    The differences between asian/western comp scenes are also irrelevant to my point because both scenes feature the aforementioned qualities determining their validity as an evidence to my thesis.

    Dealing with RNG is a skill.

    Being able to adapt to situations on the fly is a key component of the game. Its also not unique to this game by any means, lots of games (both video and other) have high variability between plays and expect that players who win over time will be the ones who can best adapt to the situation they were given.

    The only reason comp needs to reduce these elements is because they play a small number of games. If comp played seasons (which would not be practical for different reasons), you could allow a lot more random elements into the game and they would balance out over time. This is another reason comp is not similar to normal gameplay.

    Not with the kind of RNG you're talking about. Comp sets essentially one of the worst RNG scenario for survivors in terms of map / killer balance, since survivors are not only not allowed to use universally strong meta perks unless it's the best killers in question, but they're also forced to play on the best or one of the best maps for the killer.

    Both sides still have to adapt to RNG - tile spawn RNG which is a huge variable on most maps played and which can affect the outcomes to a degree, even though that would be irrelevant should player imposed limitations on survivors be lifted.

    If anyone that's allowed to not have to adapt to RNG, it's the killer. Everything in comp dbd makes KILLER'S life easier and yet people still struggle on that level simply because how powerful still survivors are. Killer is given almost best case scenario map for them. For instance Singularity plays almost exclusively wreckers yard / DDS - arguably the best & strongest maps. Ghostface always plays on lery. Dredge gets midwich. I can't recall a single killer that's forced to play on their BAD map. Best case scenario for your point - killers are not given THE BEST map possible (haddonfield) and instead play on more balanced azarov/mac. Yet that still leaves 40+ maps that are going to be a detriment to the killer should they get selected.

    You say survivors have to adapt to RNG in pubs and not in comp, yet if we were to add that RNG back, it would always favour survivors. They would have access to best perks possible from the start, they would have incredibly high chance to get a map that doesn't favour the killer as much as it could be.

    So, again, competitive DbD doesn't remove any RNG that would be making a difference that disproves my thesis. It puts survivors into worst possible scenario where they have nothing to rely on but their own skill, while untying killer hands completely. Comp dbd is definitely a different game because it lacks all the second chances and emergency mechanics that exist to carry bad teams and ensure great teams are unwinnable unless they run into kill cheese.

    If you want to say that you didn't mean most that's fine. That was just an inquiry on my part.

    But being we're on the subject, I'm trying to find what portion of the game you are looking to for how its sided. Because if we take the absolute best record on both sides, the killer blows away survivors. If we take the game as a whole, the answer seems to be that survivors are bad and shouldn't be counted.

    I'm just trying to find out where the range is you think we should be looking to gauge the game off of.

    None streaks are evidence of the game being either sided due to the conditions players set and how the game itself determines win conditions and what tools it provides players to achieve it. Survivor streaks in particular are a pain because killers have access to some options to cheese kills with no effort, yet these options do not indicate the overall state of the killer side or of the normal gameplay.

    Generally agree that win is not clearly defined, though I think that is different than not being defined at all, but this argument is totally different than everything else you say. You're saying here that the question is moot. Do you believe the game is killer sided, survivor sided, neither, or the question has no possible answer? Because if its what you're saying here, I'm not sure why you are even typing all of the other paragraphs.

    MMR system defines win for killer as getting 3 kills, while the win for the survivor (a single one) would be an escape through exit gates. That, as far as my understanding goes, implies that players from both sides can win in the exact same match. Which is why I personally dismiss 3k+exit gate streaks as complete wins due to survivors being successful in completing their objectives in regards of using survivor streaks as evidence. Hatch, obviously, does not count due to it being evident as a cheap escape mechanic that ignores the main objective.

    If we go off by that definition of win con which is what I personally believe to be the only correct way of defining it: do not allow any survivors to complete their objective of escaping through the exit gates after completing five generators; then the game is survivor sided due to the fact it's less likely for the killer playing normal way (AKA not resorting to cheesy strategies like tombstone myers, rancor roulette) to accomplish that goal in more or less equal skill conditions & performing with a reasonable degree of mistakes on both sides.

    We can count hatch as either draw or loss for the survivors, depending on what criteria from MMR system we use (it's defined as a draw, yet results in MMR loss) but either way it's not related to survivors' success in completing the objective and only works as a motivation to keep playing, therefore can be dismissed in this context.

    So the range we should be looking at is the normal intended gameplay where both sides' goals is to complete their objective and / or prevent the other side from doing that which results into both sides being unable to win at the same time under any circumstances. None of the survivors win if none of them escape through exit gates, killer does not win if any of the survivors escape through exit gates.

    In that case, killers past certain point are unable to properly compete or stand a fighting chance because survivors simply possess too much agency and resources to consistently beat the killer. That by it self is fine, however the problem arises with how it's achieved or compensated for the killers. Survivors are given resources that allow to recover from the mistakes the killer is supposed to capitalize on. Even though punishing those mistakes is recognised as unhealthy and undesired gameplay, killers are unable to match survivor gen speeds without resorting to such strategies unless severely outmatching them which is simply not possible at a pretty realistic point.

    On the issue of knowledge they should have: I can say the exact same about your examples. If you hook a survivor who you or have reason to believe unhooked someone, and no one seems to be coming for the rescue, and you continue to camp, and then they use deliverance, yeah you should have known that.

    Nah, you don't get it. The thing with deli is that you have ALREADY lost by the time the trade happens. If survivor dives and trades, it doesn't matter what you do if they have deli. You either pursue the unhooked survivor (risking DS/OTR/BS) to get them to 2nd or you hook deli and leave / stay with them, it doesnt matter because at this point your otherwise correct play of defending hook in a 3 gen was completely negated by the perk simply existing. The only conceivable way this is preventable is if you play one of those problematic killers that can down the deli trader before they reach the hook.

    And it's pretty much like that for a lot of plays you've mentioned. It's not a mistake, it's a valid play for survivors.

    All examples are going to be bad because the game is asymmetrical and never going to line up perfectly. if we want to just throw out possible extreme examples we could talk about survivors trying to guess whether a Myers has tombstone or not. This is more equivalent to the camping on a deliverance player. You could make the safer play and give up some ground presuming he does (like a survivor jumping in a locker and losing chase time), or make a higher risk wager and camp on it hoping he doesn't (like a survivor taking a longer chase).

    We cant get exact examples but we can see when the difference between them is too drastic to ignore. You are comparing an extreme risk and extreme reward play/decision that is completely counterable by the other side if they play meta with something that poses no extremes due to its mostly uncounterable nature and therefore not resulting into a grand shift in match dynamic.

  • Xernoton
    Xernoton Member Posts: 5,887
    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3793993#Comment_3793993

    Right now, the game favors the killer in terms of outcome. If that is the only metric you use, then of course you'll come to the conclusion that the game is killer sided. This still doesn't discredit my point though. Survivors cried that the game was killer sided when it clearly wasn't and now killers cry that the game is survivor sided. Neither side ever has stopped or will stop. That is a clear case of "The grass is always greener on the other side." and it's the sole reason why the complaints about unbalance will never stop.

    If you win 9/10 of your killer games, that's pretty impressive. My own win rate is not too bad but nowhere near 90%. Either you're just very gifted or you play killer too little for the game to put you against adequate survivors. MMR is a very important factor in who wins. You could go into the game and lose a bunch of matches on purpose and then start a win streak. But you could do that in pretty match any game with SBMM no matter how balanced the game might be.

    4/10 wins as a survivor isn't too bad either. The game is not balanced around a win rate but a kill rate. If you win 9/10 games, you could still have a 67.5% kill rate, which is higher than what the devs aim at but it's nowhere near that 90%. And if you win 4/10 games as a survivor that could still mean that in your games there is a 55% suvival rate. And that's assuming there are no draws. Judging the game's balance by how many games you win doesn't really work that well because win does not equal win. Your team still wins if you die but everyone else escapes and 3k < 4k. That's probably why the devs don't try to balance around win rates.

    Wins are just too inconsistent and subjective. Some killers only consider a 4k a win and some survivors only consider 3-4 escapes a win if they themself make it out alive.

    Hypothetically even if i did play perfectly against a doctor in a neutral map, the doctor could obtain a 1k from internal game mechanics, and secure a 2k from camping endgame, im not discussing tunneling and camping but its so much easier to kill than escape.

    That is an unfortunate truth and it will remain the same way as long as the game is balanced around kills rather than hooks. It's simply a core issue. Someone can (in theory) die on their first hook and there is very little that can be done against it as long as the killer has an ability or perk that helps them defend that hook. The same issue comes in when the killer actually does tunnel. This is what comp killers use to win their games. They target the game's core issues just as the survivors they play against do.

    In public lobbies however, it is much easier for the killer to do so simply because it doesn't require 4 experienced players on comms but only 1. I doubt this is something that will ever change though. BHVR probably aren't all that interested to change the very core mechanics of the game and a band aid solution à la AFC probably won't work.

    The only other way to achieve a more constant balance is to make tunneling, camping and slugging the norm and balance around that. I'm very much against this and I believe most other players are too.

  • PuddleOfBludd
    PuddleOfBludd Member Posts: 156
    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3793949#Comment_3793949

    The truth is, there is never going to be a real Balance to the game. And this is primarily because it’s two different games trying to be balanced as one.

    In one version of the game, you have a team of one versus a coordinated team of four. In this version of the game, the killer needs to be buffed to be on par with a 1v4 scenario.

    In the other version of the game you have 1v1v1v1v1. In this version there is no coordination, or at the very least, it’s expected to be rare for that to happen. So a buffed killer who was buffed for version one of the game will be too powerful here.

    That’s really what it comes down to. A game with communication and a game without communication are two very different games. Creating and balancing a third party (killer) between two very different games is never going to work. The killer is always going to end up too strong for one side and two weak for the other.

    It’s like night and day.

    Like having a football team with the playbook, coaches, and a planned out strategy.

    And then you have a team of people who are just handed jerseys randomly and told to go win.

    It’s quite obvious which team is going to perform better.

  • SpitefulHateful
    SpitefulHateful Member Posts: 328

    If you're saying people should not BM and it's a terrible thing to gloat at the exit gates I 100% agree. It's childish. It shouldn't happen. I have stated multiple times that BHVR should, in my opinion, issue a statement regarding good sportsmanship and how to follow good sportsmanship and teabagging, while it is viewed by many as harmless, does not change the fact that many people view it as the digital equivalent of a middle finger and that should be respected. I think a significant chunk of the us vs them discourse would disappear (not a majority but a significant chunk) if survivors stopped teabagging as a taunt.

    The thing is, people are going to BM if they can because sportstmanship is kinda dead when it comes to multiplayer games. No amount of reminders and guidelines will suffice (Behavior has enough problems with their Fog Whisperers). The only working way to reduce BM is to incorporate it gameplay-wise by either limiting player's options to do so or to provide a way not to interact with sore winners. IMHO, removing endgame chat entirely and reducing the ECG timer would help. After all, The Journey is considered one of the most wholesome games about friendship and helping each other — but only because the developers have removed every option for players to BM and grief their partner during beta testing (when they realized that people spent more time pushing their partner down the cliff or bodyblocking them rather than working together). I think, DbD would have benefitted immensely from limited interactions.

    Teabagging and wasting time at the Killer's exit gate grates on me. Unfortunately, a lot of people do it and now we also have humping on the Killer side which I also find annoying and grating. However, the people doing it are specifically trying to annoy you so I just ignore them now if I see it on the Killer side. If I see a survivor doing it while playing Survivor games and the Killer did not camp or tunnel I make sure to tell the Killer gg, gl next match or something similar.

    As I don't camp or tunnel when I play I don't experience that much BM to be honest if I win or if I lose. It does happen still but not frequently. I see it a lot more in games where the Killer is tunnelling and camping. The survivors do stick around at the gates so I come over and take a few hits for BP if I'm down anyway but really I just do it to save time (another option is breaking walls). I also almost never get hateful messages in chat. I'm not saying any of these behaviours (gloating and messages in chat) is justified (it's not) but people that have had a miserable experience are more likely to vent their frustration and, unfortunately, that happens more frequently online than it would in real life.

    Well, people sometimes have a very wide definition of camping and tunneling. If they start swarming the hook even before the Killer leaves the area, is Killer a camper for smacking them and capitalizing on the fact that survivors refuse to leave the hook zone? If the Killer is inexperienced and/or keeps finding one and the same Survivor while steadily losing gens, is it tunneling when they are just trying to score a kill? I'm not even mentioning the Killer protecting their only Kill during the endgame collapse — they don't have other options, but they're still called a camper and BMed. So, it's very easy for survivors to rationalize that the Killer was tunneling or camping (I was called a camper for phase-walking from the hooked Survivor as Spirit, because they could see Rin's husk standing next to them) — and therefore, it's easy for them to rationalize that this Killer deserves to be bullied. Not to mention that even playing by survivor's rulebook ends with "haha ez" or "you're so bad, how did you even manage to prestige" — we have also had cases of people going as far as finding the player who lost to them on Steam and social media and harassing them there. People BM because they can — it's a cheap ego boost and they will pretend that it's their sacred duty and God given right to ruin other's people mood. Some of them would even excuse their BM as tough love and "motivating" the players to improve until they are worthy of respect.

    If you lose a game, though, it might help to keep in mind that it doesn't reflect on you one way or another in real life. You lost a video game; it's not a personal attack nor anything that you'll care about or remember in the future. Losing a video game is trivial. It is annoying and grating to deal with sore winners and your frustration at that is completely justified; sore winners suck. and they should show sportsmanship instead. But it's not a reflection on you in the slightest.

    It doesn't, but the problem is that in the game people are given tools and means to make loss humiliating and punish the player for losing by wasting their time and rubbing their helplessness in. The latter is particularly frustrating for beginner players, who don't yet have the sense of the game, but already see that the community is cruel and unforgiving to new players — so they either drop out or become hellbent on not being on the receiving end (this is one of the reasons why V/H/S didn't make it: there were too many ways to harass the Monster, so the only remaining players were absolutely merciless and played like their lives depended on it). They also learn that the only way for the player to be in control and avoid this, is to win.

    This is what I mean — despite the fact that a loss in a video game, where skills don't matter (and which should have never even leaned into "competitive gaming") shouldn't be a big deal, this is not reflected in the gameplay. Sore winners can't be taught good sportsmanship, so the only way to reduce their impact is to limit their options and provide their opponent with something else they could spend time on and actually gain value.

  • Shroompy
    Shroompy Member Posts: 6,804
    edited September 7
    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3794132#Comment_3794132

    Correction: You dont just see Nurse and Blight all the time since most tourneys (at least DbDLeague) uses preset killers. (I think at one point it was a sort of pick and ban system, but I havent been keeping tabs as of late) Meaning specific rounds were dedicated to specific killers. So you would see Clown, Wraith, Doc, Legion, etc. The higher tier killers were usually reserved for later in the tournament.

    EDIT: Here's the DbDLeague channel which shows comp matches, youll see just by the thumbnails a variety of different killers are played

    https://youtube.com/%40dbdleague?si=nj_tw1Xnh4_-6WOo

  • Seraphor
    Seraphor Member Posts: 9,429
    edited September 7
    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3793920#Comment_3793920

    In a very general sense yes, because survivor skill expression scales exponentionally when you factor in coordination.

    Survivors have the capacity to improve much more as a group than killer as a single player can.

  • GolbezGarlandGabrant
    GolbezGarlandGabrant Member Posts: 979

    It's not really either role sided but underlining issues on both sides. It seems like the easiest way to fix things is by nerfing perks but it doesn't help people get good at the game. People have no idea how good or bad they are because those stats are kept hidden. The focus is more doing whatever helps you have fun than developing skills.

  • NarkoTri1er
    NarkoTri1er Member Posts: 659
    edited September 7
    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/426196/why-do-killers-think-this-game-is-survivior-sided

    i mean, it literally is survivor sided, just not in a way average pub killer presents it.

    Why not in a way average pub killer presents it? Because it isn't really about some imaginary "genrushing", but something completely else.

    And the whole MMR system basically manages to shove the true state of the game under the carpet, but the issue is so severe that MMR system is also at the point of no return because you would need to have serious rebalancing of the game in order to make it playable at high skill levels, especially for the killer.

    Actually, the grass is greener on the other side.

    Most killer games (9/10) i always win, regardless of the fact if im using my main or just a random killer, i usually always win, contrast this with the fact i win 4/10 of my survivor matches despite running the most meta and youll see the difference

    And yes everything is rng based and i dont have a problem with that, inherently playing survivior should be a challenge and there should be some games that are pitted against surviviors, like a doctor on the game like you said. But the problem is the fact how every game seems like your destined to lose. Hypothetically even if i did play perfectly against a doctor in a neutral map, the doctor could obtain a 1k from internal game mechanics, and secure a 2k from camping endgame, im not discussing tunneling and camping but its so much easier to kill than escape.

    have you analyzed your matches and actually noticed how survivors play? I am barely having any problems winning, but i clearly notice my average opponent teams:

    • at least one player giving up extremely fast into the match or griefing their team by doing absolutely nothing during match;
    • players having close to zero chase knowledge getting two-tapped;
    • SWFs focusing on saves and never touching gens;

    etc.

    The major problem is skill issue, and due to the fact MMR system won't be tightened up anytime soon, people will still have biased views of the game, such as:

    • this game is so survivor sided because genrushing;
    • this game is so survivor sided because flashlights;
    • this game is so killer sided because tunneling and camping;
    • this game is so killer sided because i 4k very often

    etc. etc. etc.