Why do killers think this game is survivior sided?

Because it is. Just watch any 1v1 tournament and see how they can hold the killer in chase for a minute and a half on average. And no, it's not because they predrop every pallet on the map, you'll be surprised by how long they can loop combining a few structures.

I'm going go a little out of order in my response because I think some of the things said later are more important.

So, killers had 10 games and lost 5 of them by our definitions and you argue killers aren't struggling? Are you sure you have provided the data you wanted to?

12 games, though I only put in 11 of the game results, that's on me, left out one 4k because I missed it when the video wasn't lined up right.

Want to start here because I think this gives a lot of insight into how skewed your perception is. The killer won more than the survivors. How in the world can the killer be struggling? Struggle implies a great challenge, a disadvantage, like killers are lucky to even get a few hooks. But they're doing fine and winning more than the survivors. Like how much does the killer have to smash survivors into the ground to not be struggling?

So let me get this straight. In a game where it's super easy for the whole team to throw, where survivors are so lost they dont know even basic counterplay to half of the killers they encounter given they're more rare than not, where they have no comms, cant be bothered to run proper meta half of the time, get bad rng half of the time, etc,etc killers only score 57% average killrate (according to nightlight) and you actually think the game is killer sided?

Yeah, as like a factually obvious metric. The killers kill, 3k+ more than 1k or less, they 4k more than 0k, etc. All of that shows the game is killer sided.

Counter to some of your points:

-Killers can also throw

-Killers frequently don't run proper meta, and if they don't its more impactful

-Bad RNG half the time? That means they get good RNG half the time. Seems like it balances out.

-If a killer is that rare that survivors barely see them, its going to have minimal statistical impact.

you cant unironically say the game is not survivor sided with these stats given. all that while devs claim to balance for 60% killrate (which still would mean the game being survivor sided at any high level, but nonetheless).

The devs target kill rate is an example of the game being killer sided. It's a design decision and a different discussion.

Also, when BHVR has given us the top level MMR data, it doesn't show killers falling off in high MMR in any noticeable degree. Even the 4 person SWF at the top level still leans killer.

Back to going in order:

Killer bans are aimed at crutch perks or cheesy perks. A lot of aura reading, perks like PWYF that outright allow to remove skill from chases by rushing down ppl with 15% haste.

Why are killer perks crutch perks and the banned survivor perks aren't cheese perks?

And of course, aforementioned kill cheese mechanics that dont necessarily allow to get good results, but almost guarantee you'll get a kill or two.

Except they have these. NOED and Rancor allowed on some killers, not to mention just standing in front of the hook.

DbD isnt poker and poker isnt DbD.

None of the RNG factors we are considering are the major contributors to the balance due to them not tilting the scales to the other side in any meaningful away apart from the aforementioned cheesing kills example.

What's your point in any of this? Earlier you were saying that when we look at comp we need to look at what they remove as evidence of the game's balance, now those bans are just cheese and silly things.

Also, way underestimating the adaptability for DbD. What's the map, where are the gens, what should I focus on, which killer am I facing, trying to figure out the perks in play. All of those are things comp either cuts out completely or substantially removes.

And, as I've said, if you think that killers should have to play like that to always stand a chance at winning, you're very wrong.

It just shows that you have to remove things from the game to make your argument. We are evaluating whether the game is killer sided or not. Not the game that you want killers to be playing.

You say that comp makes it so survivors know what the killer is or that they can choose which one to face. So survivors in pubs dont know / cant ban the killer? Are you trying to argue that the fact that survivor can be ignorant to how to deal with a certain killer makes the game killer sided? Is that your argument here?

Well unless I missed something big in the options page, they can't ban killers as a factual matter.

The argument is simple: in the normal game survivors don't know which killer they are going to face. It's not that they don't need to know how but:

A: earlier talking about which side needs more skill, the survivors need to be prepared for 37 different killers. That seems like a pretty big skill accomplishment.

B: the survivors have to build their perks not knowing what they are going to face. They need to prepare for 37 possibilities, in comp they only need to prepare for one.

So deep into the conversation and you don't know the answer? Deli, unbreakable, decisive, babysitter, camaradiery, otr, meta reset perks, sub meta reset perks, exhaustion perks for lower tiers (oh yeah, they do count, especially when we're talking about killer like ghostface), the list goes and on and on and varies slightly depending on the ruleset and particular killer.

Because I don't understand what makes these perks unique. This is in response to you saying: Survivors are given resources that allow to recover from the mistakes the killer is supposed to capitalize on.

Your argument makes it sound like you want the killer to have simple, easy to play, always right moves. I hooked the survivor in the 3 gen, I win. I'm going for the tunnel out, I win. What you're calling mistakes are things that survivors have resources and elements to fight back against. The killer needs to counter those. Both sides need to make their decisions based on a lack of information.

We could basically throw everything the killer can do in here as an example as well. Like at the extreme end I could be like why does the killer have perks to reduce gen progress, he messed up by letting the survivor work on it. Then you have the more obvious things, end game perks, Devour Hope, spirit fury+hubris, etc.

But having those perks and playing into them isn't a mistake, they are choices on how to play the game, and then the survivors have to respond, just like killers have to respond to what survivors do.

Honestly, I dont think I want to continue this conversation. I'm getting a progressively growing impression you are arguing for the sake of arguing since you misinterpret what I'm saying, ignore previously established or agreed upon points and generally make it move in circles and that's very tiring. Was fun while it lasted, I dont consider it worth the effort anymore.

Fair enough, I think basically the same of what you've done with a lot of goal post moving and trying to evade the points instead of responding to them. I'll point out I went and found evidence, said when I agreed with you, and tried to keep it on the subject of which part of the game is killer sided (though the last one strayed at points).

You['re mixing up 60% kill rate and 60% win rate. A 60% kill rate isn't a 60% win rate. A 60% kill rate is very slightly higher than getting a 2K on average per match (which would be 50%). A 62.5% kill rate would be 2.5 kills on average. Essentially, a 60% kill rate means roughly 2.4% kills per match when averaged over several matches. This ends up meaning, on average, killers get a 2K vs a 3K every other match which generally gives them slightly under a 50% win rate if you define a 3k+ as a win.

Only if you consider each game to be 4 1v1s and each survivor kill/escape a discrete result.

This might be how the game has to function behind the scenes, but players don't think this way. Survivors, even solo, still strive to rescue team mates, and don't generally consider it a "win" if they escape solo while their 3 teammates die. And killers don't look at a 2K and think "I won 50%", a 2K means the gates are open, which is a failure to secure your secondary objective, which is a loss. Killers don't count their wins by the number of survivors they kill in an evening, they count their wins by the number of games that result in a win. Games are treated as wholes, not a group of individual 1v1s.

The format of the game is built around an all-or-nothing goal. You can't win by just repairing some of the gens, you need to repair all 5 to escape, there are no half measures. So you can't peicemeal it into 4 1v1s when it comes to player experience and win perception.

The asymmetrical nature of the game also extends to the win condition of the game. The win condition is asymmetrical. For this reason an average win:loss for killer would actually be 62.5% (or 2.5K average), while for survivors it IS 50% (2 out average). This inconguence is one of the reasons why balance is so difficult and why the community can never come to any agreements, and why everyone feels the game is 'sided' against them. There's a 12.5% overlap in the middle where both sides perceive themselves to 'lose'. And this is also why the game becomes insufferable when it's too tightly balanced (strict MMR), because more people are squeezed into the middle where nobody is happy.

Yeah, when the Killer is more of an uncoordinated bot the Survivors can also be uncoordinated bots and escape. When it is an even match, it should average out to 60/40.

Also the below section also applies to you.

60% Kill rate isn't 60% winrate, but it is the argument most favorable to a generic Killer facing position. I did the math, and the average numbers are much worse for Survivor (as a team). Survivor winrate is 22%, Draw rate is 28%, and Killer winrate is 50%. Now if you are generous and hand out Draws 50-50, each get a 14% boost for 36% Surv, 64% Killer, still worse than 40/60 respectively. If you instead discard Draws, you get ~30% Surv ~70% Killer*. So that means Survivor winrate is significantly worse than 40%.

That's why I use the generous estimate of 60% killrate = 60% winrate, because the truth is far more dire for Survivors.

* Its closer to 31/69, but I prefer to avoid 'nice' comments.

"The game favors survivors because killer not winning is an actual possibility, only when thekiller wins every game would it be killer sided " do you hear yourself

Why is everyone treating survivors as a monolith capable of having a draw?

Because its generally how people play the game. Otherwise when gates where open people would just leave, instead survivors generally go for rescues.

Nothing in the game treats them as a full fledged team, the sole escapee doesnt lose because 3 die and the sole dead guy doesnt win when the other 3 escape.

Something doesn't have to be a 'full fledged' team to still have team elements. DbD is a game not just of winning and losing, but degrees of victory.

A 2k isnt a draw, its 2 survivors winning and the other 3 players in the trial losing.

Even if you treat it as 4 1v1s, that 2 survivors winning, 2 survivors losing, and one killer who won twice and lost twice.

At some point, this take needs to be a bannable offense, because you keep spreading this and people keep explaining to you why this is dead wrong.

You and the guy you learned this from need to stop doing this, because at this point, you are wilfully misleading people.

For anyone who is actually interested in knowing why this is wrong:

The method of calculation this person uses to calculate win-rate from kill rate does not consider the variance of outcomes outside of the two closest to the average kill count. In this case, since 2.4 is between 2 and 3, they assume that all outcomes will fall in those two categories in order to arrive to their winrate assertion. However, DBD is a complicated mess, and in the overall, snowbally nature of the game, 2Ks are by far the rarest outcome across the board. This complicates matters.

0-1K are both losses, but weigh differently in kill rate.

3-4K are both wins, but weigh differently in kill rate.

The method Hotrod uses dismisses all of this nuance and tries to compile an average winrate from things that aren't winrates. Which is mathematically incorrect.

As a practical example of how wrong this model is: Assuming a 50% kill rate across any number of matches, this method would point to an average winrate of 0%. The only way you can get an average of 0 is if there's either negative values in the dataset, or no value above 0, otherwise you can't get an average of 0. So according to the method used by Hotrod, a killer with a 50% kill rate physically can not ever win any match. According to them, it is impossible for a killer to get a 1K match and a 3K match back to back.