The second iteration of 2v8 is now LIVE - find out more information here: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/480-2v8-developer-update

Why do killers think this game is survivior sided?

13567

Comments

  • DarKStaR350z
    DarKStaR350z Member Posts: 765

    People have always DC’d because things didn’t go exactly how they wanted, even when survivors were at their most powerful. Leading to the implementation of the DC penalty, and people Kobe because it’s a way to circumvent the punishment system and needs to go.
    If people have zero desire to play then they shouldn’t be queuing up when they know what they are queueing up for.

    If killers could walk out the exit gates and go next as soon as their first down got flashlight saved then there would be as many that do that as those who DC because they got found first or Kobe because they got downed first and their DC timer is already too high.

    It’s a player problem not a game problem, except the fact they still have a system in place to allow survivors to leave on a whim because they feel entitled to do so and screw over the other 4 players who just want to play the game.

  • Paternalpark
    Paternalpark Member Posts: 663

    Removing unhook won't keep people playing. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make em drink. A stick is for donkeys.

    It's a player problem? Uhhh okay not gonna touch that one.

  • UndeddJester
    UndeddJester Member Posts: 3,365
    edited September 10

    My personal take is in this game, the team that wins is the team that makes the fewest mistakes… but the side whose game it is to lose changes wildly based on the killer play, and is determined by how much of the killer is mechanics vs. mind games…

    Survivors have mostly only mind games to play with to keep alive. There is a mechanical skill requirement yes, but that's not the main decider, it's mostly all about out positioning and/or out smarting the other player. The top killers however have mechanics based abilities that if they play perfectly can make hits an m1 killer can never make… but with penalties that slow them down substantially if they do misplay/regularly miss.

    Against a basic Killer like Trapper, Pig, Sadako or Myers, if the Survivors make no mistakes, makes every read and plays perfectly, then there is little the killer can do about it to catch them, create pressure and even get a foot in the game, let alone win it…. these killers rely almost exclusively on mind games to put a survivor in a bad position; there is no mechanical skill these killers can call upon to subvert loops and level the playing field if the Survivor never makes a mistake.

    Against a mechanics Killer like Huntress, Hillbilly, Blight or Nurse however, even if a survivor makes no mistakes, a sufficiently skilled killer who aims correctly every single time levels the playing field substantially and can score/brute force hits the survivor can't avoid… conversely if these same killers make mistakes with their aim/reads, the game can easily roll away from them. Nurse is the extreme example, because an extremely high skilled Nurse that reaches her maximum potential and never makes a mistake bypasses all windows, all pallets, all mind games and more often than not simply cannot be countered or dodged most of the time…. but a low level Nurse making lots of mistakes, barely does anything, and struggles to even function as a threat.

    This is the disparity of Mind Games vs. Mechanics that I feel creates these killer/survivor sided contradicting perspectives… because the mistakes made create vastly different performances across different MMRs…

    In high MMR where very few mistakes are made, if both teams are going all out to win, then a Nurse can best even the strongest and most coordinated survivor teams through pure skill, and even the best survivors struggle not to go down fast vs. her… but no matter how skillful a Myers is, he is never gonna match the strongest and most coordinated survivor team, because in his case there is no mechanical ability he can call upon to catch up…. it's the survivors who have to make the mistakes.

    In low MMR however where there are mistakes a plenty, if you take Myers and Nurse again against an equally skilled low level team, then Nurse will be making mistakes and missing hits constantly, and as her mistakes matter more, will walk away with maybe 2 hooks (if she's lucky). Myers has a good chance of getting a 4k however, because the chance survivors make a mistake against him are much higher, and his own mistakes are far less impactful due to how much simpler he is relatively to play.

    The weak killers are typically very strong at low MMR, while the strongest killers tend to perform badly at low MMR… but in high MMR the weakest killers can't really do much at all, whereas the strongest killers can absolutely decimate. That's how I see it… and to my mind it makes a lot of these discussions of killer sided vs. survivor sided kinda pointless… The swing in performance between mechanical and mind game based killers is just too huge across MMR levels to make a strong argument for it… there is always gonna be some contradiction somewhere for both sides.

  • DarKStaR350z
    DarKStaR350z Member Posts: 765

    If you think that ruining the game for 4 other players because you can’t complete a time challenge then you are the problem.
    If DC punishments were longer and killing yourself to ‘go next’ weren’t options that saved time over just playing the damn game out then it wouldn’t be so prevalent.
    You can dislike a certain killer but when you queue up you are submitting to the chance you may vs them and it’s entitled to feel you can screw over the other players because you haven’t got exactly what you want. There are 4 other people that have wants as well and that may well include playing as or against the thing you dislike.

  • GonnaBlameTheMovies
    GonnaBlameTheMovies Member Posts: 682

    I'm newer to the forums so I'm not sure where this was ever said. Can you please dig this post up so we can all verify? I don't recall ever hearing this from any source before.

  • GonnaBlameTheMovies
    GonnaBlameTheMovies Member Posts: 682

    This is kinda true of Killer side too.

    • "I will always DC" is not really common on Killer side I find, I don't see Killers giving up based on Survivor pick.
    • "I hate this playstyle" is the equivalent of "I hate this Killer" and it's usually because the Killer is sick of dealing with it over and over again. Understandable. This usually happens if many Survivors are playing the same style, and usually early into the round when they realize it.
    • "This match is unwinnable" in my experiences most often comes from realizing your Killer can do nothing with the given map, the perks the Survs are running, or how fast gens go in relation to their own perks. It usually results more in standing in the corner or at the gate than a DC, because Killers get mocked harder for DCing and called out for malding, salting, rage quitting, or being a 'baby' when they do it. "They want the win more than me, I will stand in a corner." "I'm Ghostface on Coldwind and they want to sweat more than me, and my cosmetics make me stick out. I can't do much, so it's better to just go next." "I'm Dredge on a map with no lockers, GGs, I autolose." "I'm running a silly cat build on Blight who I am still learning, and these guys outrank me, I can't touch these guys so I can't learn, best to just give up and try again". This happens usually start to mid round, not at the end.
    • "God why did I log in to play this horrible game?" DCs are understandable too, and usually occur when the Killer is decidedly outranked by the Survivors and on a nasty loss streak. Same as with Survivors. It happens. This often happens middle of a round.
    • "I lost and my time is now wasted" doesn't seem to exist for Killers, if the Killer DCs it's usually mid or start of the round.

  • GonnaBlameTheMovies
    GonnaBlameTheMovies Member Posts: 682

    Thanks for bothering to dig this up!

    It seems clear form this then, that to keep the winrate equal, Kill rate needs to be higher doesn't it? Myabe I am tripping, but it seems like people mistake "60% Kill rate" as "60% winrate". Nightlight says Killers average somewhere between 50-60% winrate, so maybe a bit higher than expected but certainly within range.

    So why are people complaining that Killer is too easy now again? it seems like the math here is mathing. And it certainly seems for an assym, this would be the balanced ratio, right? Why should someone who is less good at the game than they seem win easily at lower levels, and someone who gets boosted win easily at higher levels? If you don't like your results in game just lose/win more respectively?

  • mizark3
    mizark3 Member Posts: 2,253

    P1 - If there was no artificial time limit associated with them, then I would agree with you. If the Battle Passes were permanent, and you could get the Battle Pass xp for the revelant historic Battle Pass, then this would be correct. Since BHVR artificially removes Battle Passes for engagement numbers, they know this is a consequence of their actions. This is a scummy tactic to force customers to feel FOMO, and this is a consequence of that artificial FOMO. If I do something really bad to someone, and they retaliate in a predictable manner, I am responsible for that retaliation. This is the case with FOMO Battle Passes, BHVR, and time limited tomes.

    P2 - Or possibly more people would ruin matches and bm mid match instead in other ways within the rules. Both are possibilities. You can't hold someone hostage and say 'play the game the way I want you to play or you can't play at all'. Everyone who went to school realizes that you never invite that kid to play games with you again, and they have to play with themselves. This is the equivalent of that same social pressure found in schools. Play so we can all have fun, or we A: don't play with you, or B: make sure you don't have fun right alongside us. Since we can't ban players to be matchmade with, people can only resort to option B, mutual spite unfun/anti-fun (some with, and most without rulebreaking).

    P3 - I'm not saying you get to do this for free, I'm saying all of these actions build up a Patience bar. Once someone's Patience bar is filled, they lose the desire to play in a fun manner for other people (but still can play according to the rules while ruining everyone else's match). These things I oppose build up that bar faster, so if we minimize the actions that fill this Patience bar, then we get greater match quality, since less people's Patience bar has filled.

  • Moonras2
    Moonras2 Member Posts: 380

    Im not sure how to see the win rate on nightlight, I don't use it much, but does it also show survivor win rate? As well as draws? Killers being 50-60 could mean many things but if survivors are way lower then that would explain things differently.

  • mizark3
    mizark3 Member Posts: 2,253

    Yeah they can happen for Killer also, but I've probably seen 10x Survivor to Killer DCs in the entire time of me playing the game.

    The worst of experiences is what I seek to address, that's why I suggest map bans for Killers alongside Killer bans for Survivors. That loading into a open map as a Stealth Killer, or lockerless map as a locker Killer, or indoor map as a Ranged Killer, is such a buzzkill. Its just Survivor has more negative extremes than Killer in general. (Exit Gate timewaste takes 2m max, Bleedout timewaste takes 4m max, the things I've already mentioned, and more.)

    I spend most of my time on the forums now worrying about these negative extremes, since I've had 2/4 IRL friends hard quit the game now because of it. The others only soft quit, as one only plays during events, if that, or the other only plays Killer now.

  • DarKStaR350z
    DarKStaR350z Member Posts: 765

    P1 - There is loads of time the rift pass is open, and a couple of 15 minute games where you don’t get to complete a challenge isn’t going to make much of a difference. It’s a weak excuse to try and give rage quitters a pass.

    P2 - BMing and sabotaging the game as you describe is a reportable offence and action would be taken that way to deter such behaviour.

    P3 - This is the reason longer penalties would be necessary to give players without the patience to play the game normally as is expected of them a time out where they don’t force themselves to queue up knowing the slightest thing that they don’t agree with will cause them to ruin the game for the other players.

  • crogers271
    crogers271 Member Posts: 1,821

    On Nightlight, go to killers, and it will display 0k, 1k, 2k, 3k, 4k. They color the different numbers and make the dividing lines clear. On the right hand side you can also sort the chart, their default is pick rate, if you're comparing kill rates you'll want to adjust to that setting.

    So if you wanted winrate you'd have to a little bit of math by adding the 3k and 4k numbers together.

    They also have survivor data, but that's escape rates of different survivors, the kill rate from the killers is the most helpful for end game outcomes.

    Myabe I am tripping, but it seems like people mistake "60% Kill rate" as "60% winrate".

    The more relevant part of the BHVR post is that they don't have a firm win rate. However, if you throw out everything else, like MMR does, kill rate and win rate are identical. So going just off that, killers win ~60% of the time, survivors ~40% (thrown off a little bit hatch)

    It seems clear form this then, that to keep the winrate equal, Kill rate needs to be higher doesn't it?

    No, though the reason depends a bit on how you define the win. A 60% killrate can lead to many possibilities for how it comes about.

  • mizark3
    mizark3 Member Posts: 2,253

    P1 - Not everyone has the same time available, nor plays this as their only game. I strongly encourage you to attempt to work 60hrs a week, help raise either your kids or your younger siblings or niece and nephews, maintain a social life, and enjoying other activities/hobbies/games. Time is the most precious commodity, and artificially limiting Battle Passes encourages this behavior. I can only grant you this point if they use unlimited Battle Passes, which respects people's time equally.

    P2 - Teabag and WSWS are considered BM by many, but aren't bannable. Bleeding out intentionally is considered BM, but not bannable. Touching gens every 9m59s and never reaching 10m of not touching gens is ratty behavior, but not bannable (last I recall 10m in a row was the limit for 'holding the game hostage'). You can be a jerk entirely within the confines of the rules. The types I was referring to (or at least meant to refer to if I wasn't specific enough) was specifically jerk behavior that is legal. For example, I can run Technician, Self-Care, and Bite the Bullet and not attempt skillchecks, and that is technically entirely legal. I could gen-tap to counter old Ruin, despite it taking ~3 times as long to finish gens. All of those ruin matches, but aren't specifically illegal.

    P3 - Again, we run into the problem of people with (near)infinite time, and people with time for 1-3 matches. Someone with only 1-3 matches in their schedule are all the more empowered to quit and act out the harsher the penalties are. You can see this all the time "If I'm getting punished, I'm gunna do something actually worthy of punishment". This would make those artificial penalties cause greater match sabotage actions. Everyone playing with (near)infinite time can just wait for the last match of the night to act out. I know of at least 1 community that jokes past midnight "we play till we win, or if its a Nurse/SM, we DC", so there is no real prevention for this type of behavior regardless. The best solution is preventing these negative extremes from ever showing their faces, not making greater punishments that would be memed around regardless.

  • DarKStaR350z
    DarKStaR350z Member Posts: 765

    P1 - This thread is about killer being OP, but by your arguement it wouldn’t matter what killer it is or how strong, if they found you first while you are trying a glyph challenge you would just ‘go next’ because you can’t complete your challenge.
    To think you are the only person in such a situation life wise is very self centred; and to suggest that because you’re too busy to put time into the game that you are entitled to get balance changed and be able to ruin other peoples time (who maybe in a similar situation to you) is a very backwards and selfish mentality.


    P2 - All of those things at least allow the game to continue somewhat normally compared to you just having a tantrum and quitting because things haven’t gone your way. You are still participating in the match and the other players can still play around your childish behaviour.
    Plus you are still wasting your own time and many would just play normally at that point even if you want to suggest many would be like you and act like a spoilt child.

    P3 - Again if you only have time for 3 games and the penalty is a long enough deterrent then one of those games would be wasting your own time by quitting or trying to ruin the match for the other players, and then another match you would waste sitting out your DC penalty. If time is so precious why would you waste it in this way instead of trying to play a normal match to the best of your ability. If you really don’t enjoy the game unless you win or complete a challenge then perhaps play something you feel you can enjoy with the short time you have to play.
    You wouldn’t put a battle royale game on but then complain if the matches you had time to play ended because you died shortly after starting, or that other players needed to be changed so you got to win because you don’t have much time in your life to play.

    Some games aren’t going to go your way, such is the nature of online PvP especially when teams are involved and you have to be grown up to be ok with that, as that is what you are signing up for when you hit that button to search for a match.

  • WaveyTrey
    WaveyTrey Member Posts: 652
    edited September 11

    My experience in DbD was far better prior to MMR.

    As survivor I end up with incompetent players because all the better ones are pairing up even more to increase their odds of escape. Since escape boosts MMR.

    As killer it’s either 4 lemmings, or 4 navy seals. So the trial ends super fast either way. I learn little to nothing these days. That’s why I stopped learning new killers.

    The best killers out there may agree that SWFs are a hit or miss. It’s because average SWFs abuse comms and perks (exploit) to reach higher brackets against average killers, but that can only take you so far.

    That’s why we see big streamers stomping so many groups. Those players they face boosted themselves to the top via exploits, but are no match for a big fish even with their boosts.

    MMR makes us obsess, and sweat over something we cannot see.

    MMR doesn’t allow people to learn. Especially new survivors, or whenever you want to learn a new killer. You sink and sink and sink.

    Essentially all MMR really does is force us to get paired up with and against players we shouldn’t be with... The exact opposite of its original intention.

    Why can’t everyone realize this?

    We all need to demand that the devs change MMR in some way...
    1.) Let us see our MMR once upon every reset.
    2.) Rework how we rank up. Pipping should still count.
    3.) Remove MMR altogether.



    Post edited by WaveyTrey on
  • GonnaBlameTheMovies
    GonnaBlameTheMovies Member Posts: 682

    It wasn't Killer-sided until very very recently. It didn't start to change until arguably, 6.1. The game has been more Survivor sided for most of its lifespan. And crucially, it was never intended to be that way, because the Devs are and have been changing that.

    8 years is not that long, it's two presidential terms in the US - or almost a decade. You can't blame people for feeling skeptical that the game really is more Killer-sided as the Devs intended it to be right now in light of the fact that it literally wasn't Killer-sided for at least 5 of the 8 years it has existed.

  • GonnaBlameTheMovies
    GonnaBlameTheMovies Member Posts: 682

    You're mostly someone I agree with here except for one thing: using perks effectively isn't exploits no matter how strong the perks are, and the game does not consider comms to be anything even approaching an exploit.

  • Halloulle
    Halloulle Member Posts: 1,344

    If someone was a little bit petty they'd say; since you only need to get one thing right as killer to win a match with most killers and builds the vast majority of times that leaves two options: the killers who do complain surv is OP can't even manage to get that one thing right — or these killers think they not just have to win the vast majority of their matches but all matches.

    But in all seriousness; while I do think the above isn't necessarily untrue (exaggerated, yes - but not untrue) I do also think it's difficult to make a statement about "killers" collectively. There are huge differences between the killers and someone who plays a killer with a non-sweaty build and finds themselves on a map that isn't good for that killer might genuinely find that survs are OP and kinda forget to mention that they mean OP on that map against that killer with that build. As a player you shouldn't always have to bring the strongest of the strongest stuff to even have a shot.

  • DarKStaR350z
    DarKStaR350z Member Posts: 765

    Your dog analogy is such a weird comparison lol. I guess your arguement would be to not punish the dog or stop it from ruining your furniture but give it treats instead without addressing it’s bad behaviour; or remove your furniture altogether and everyone has to sit on the floor. And nothing you do will make the black knights arms or legs magically grow back lol.

    If people didn’t care about the outcome of a match then they wouldn’t be ragequitting when things don’t go their way. If kobes are removed and an adequate punishment in place for DCs and griefing then the sooner those players can quit for the day and stop ruining everyone else experience that are invested in the game which would be the desired outcome. Or put all those players into their own queue so they can ruin each other’s matches without affecting everyone else and then they’ll see how their behaviour affects people when they are subjected to it from others themselves.

    The game only becomes a waste of everyone’s time when someone ruins it for the others, and if you personally find playing the game a waste of your time then you shouldn’t be queueing up to play with other people.

    People have different opinions and you’ll never please everyone, and if everyone behaved like a child and quit when they don’t get their way then no one would ever get a normal match because there would always be someone leaving.

    It’s not even really to do with it being one sided or the other as back before DC penalties when survivors were at their most powerful people still DCd rampantly for the slightest reason. As long as an easy out option is there some people will take it and the sooner it is removed and more heavily discouraged with penalties the better for everyone except the rage quitters.

  • Reinami
    Reinami Member Posts: 5,526
    edited September 11

    Counterpoint:

    • The devs constantly release kill rates and various other stats that people care about from a competitive point of view.
    • The game has MMR and matches you based on that
    • They make balance decisions from a competitive point of view (I.E. they nerfed blight hug tech, something that casual blight players never used, but was very important in competitive play)

    How many party games use MMR? Do you think mario party uses MMR, or mario Kart?

  • Seraphor
    Seraphor Member Posts: 9,420
    edited September 11

    A lot of online games use an MMR system, and most of them don't do so as a measure of competition, but in recognition that some of the players are more competitive than others. It's not that the game is either competitive or It's not, it's that it has to be either/both and serve all of those players.

    It's used to seperate the competitive players from the new/non-competitive players, which is exactly how DBD uses it and is why there's really only three distinct brackets; new, below soft cap, and above soft cap.

  • Moonras2
    Moonras2 Member Posts: 380
    edited September 11

    Ahh yes ty. I found that the survivors and killer page both have an overall section it's just placed in between the individual characters of both sides. I guess even then it's open for interpretation.

    If I look at just the killrates, it shows killers winning at 51.7 percent, Survivors winning at 35.27 percent, and draws at 13.01 percent. I think I'm figuring that correctly.

    If I look at just survivor escape rates its 42.17 percent. Though that doesn't seem to take draws into consideration.

    This is of course changing but at the time I saw the numbers

  • GonnaBlameTheMovies
    GonnaBlameTheMovies Member Posts: 682
    edited September 11

    This is the case very much so.

    I play Ghostface a lot. I'm very good at him because I am good at stealth games. I can make him look S tier on the right map. I have played this one character for 2+ almost 3 years now and I am p68. I usually win rounds with him to the point I often feel bad and let people go, because he's my Main and I know it wouldn't be a fair fight. I run his Classic robes because I love Scream a lot. I do great on any map, as long as it's not bright and open. If I am running a lot of rounds, and I end up sent to a map where my outfit makes me stick out like a sore thumb, I functionally can't use my character. The whole reason I play Ghostface goes out the window and I end up being relegated to a basic M1 Killer that can hide his Terror Radius. And as an M1, if you send me to a pallet dense map, I can't do a whole lot either - you have too many resources. If I am on the Game and not enough gens spawn in the lower half which is better for stealth, I am once again forced to play mostly Chaseface with no Terror Radius. These are map design flaws. For Ghostface, Survivors on maps like Ormond, Coldwind (even with the pallet reduction), Gideon, and Eyrie can be OP.

    Now let's try Huntress. I am a terrible Huntress, I rarely play her and am still learning. I am not good and struggle as her a lot. I suck at shooters so I suck at her. I cannot hit orbitals, I can barely hit normal hatchets. I am p1 and have the most basic perks on her, I don't do well as Huntress. I make her look F tier. Regardless I can still win if I try enough… as long as the map is open. If the map is not open, and people know how to counter me, I can't do much. I am a 110% speed Killer with a ranged attack I need to reload. If I am running a lot of rounds, and I get a closed in map like Lery's or god forbid Hawkins, I really can't do a whole lot except be a slow M1 Killer that can maybe hit you at short range unless you crouch and then you are magically immune - you have too many hiding spots. It's even worse if there's lots of clutter; I am forced to play M1 Huntress somewhere like her own Red Forest map because there simply isn't much other option. These are map design flaws. For Huntress, Survivors on maps like Hawkins and Red Forest can be OP.

    I don't believe for one second the old canard that every Killer main, heck every Killer player, believes they need to win 100% of their matches. In fact I have rarely met any Killer Mains or players like that, most seem to take losses gracefully. But then again, when I do see it? The Killer is usually brand new or under 1000 hours of playtime, and thus still conditioned to sweat now ask questions later because they don't know any better yet.

  • GonnaBlameTheMovies
    GonnaBlameTheMovies Member Posts: 682

    I'd take Nightlight stats with a grain of salt if I were you, it seems clear they are based more on team wins/Killer wins being only a 3-4k, not individual Survivor/Killer wins. The game instead sees Survivors winning as an individual and Killers winning based on number of Kills, then adjusts MMR accordingly.

    Damn but I wish we never acquired the Promethean fire of knowledge that is the existence of MMR in this game. We'd all be better off for it not knowing and being blissfully unaware, a Lovecraftian placid isle of ignorance in the midst of the Fog… it was not meant that we voyage far and learn such, but learn we did. Now look where it's left us all.

  • Moonras2
    Moonras2 Member Posts: 380

    I brought up nightlight because you brought it up. I don't personally use it for anything. I prefer the official stats but even those can be impacted by many things. Which is again why I say it seems open to interpretation. I'm not even worried about the MMR here.

    I was just making the point that just because killers are at 50-60 doesn't mean survivors aren't way lower. At that point what is fair and what isnt?

  • GonnaBlameTheMovies
    GonnaBlameTheMovies Member Posts: 682
    edited September 11

    I think it is obvious what BHVR believes fair is: a 60-40 split of Killer to Survivor wins, and they balance around keeping it not more than about 5% above or below that as a margin of error. If it's really too much BHVR can continue to balance as needed, or Survivors can continue to try and improve while Killers have some breathing room and learn to actually chill out for once.

  • mizark3
    mizark3 Member Posts: 2,253

    Yes, the dog part is saying the wrong punishment makes things worse, and the Black Knight part is saying some solutions do nothing at all.

    There are levels of 'caring about the outcome'. There is "I will do everything I can to win", there is "I'm just here to get paid (Blood Points)", and there is "Golly Gee I hope my day doesn't get ruined, I'm at my breaking point". Normally you don't really want people in the third category to play the game at all. The issue is the game itself is pushing people to that negative extreme. It would be hypocritical to shove someone into the pool then ask "why'd you go in if you can't swim".

    The waste of time issue is a flaw of the game, because you can ruin someone's experience without even attempting it. It can be an ally or enemy. Legion is an example of a commonly disliked Killer, even if they aren't necessarily considered strong. For some Survivors, they can hate Legion themself because they despise spamming M1 to mend, or hate their teammates for healing against Legion only to get Feral AOE stabbed seconds later. For the opponents exclusively, there can be exit gate teabags and Bleedout for the 4Ks. You go in expecting everyone to play the game normally, then the next thing you know 8+ minutes are being wasted from the Bleedout alone (4 for the Bledout Surv, 4 for the hiding Surv, and 4*remaining Survs waiting to see perks). This could easily be fixed by revealing perks on death (outside of SWF), and adding a 'giveup' button when either A: down to the final 2 Survivors, or B: reached max Recovery without being picked up.

    If people act like petulant children they should get punished, I agree. The problem is that it is currently rewarded for Killer all too often. Act like a jerk and you can get an extra kill or 2. They are your opponents, so there often is little to no empathy offered towards them.

    If any change is made to DCs, it should be that if a DC happens in the first 5 minutes, everyone else should be able to DC with their items+offerings and BP. If it happens after 5m, honestly that's late enough in the game to use the normal method. Also DCs are often better for Survivors than Kobes, because you at least get a bot rather than someone intentionally or passively griefing. Having less DC penalties encourages DCing instead of Kobeing, which is sadly better for the game. If there aren't sweeping changes to prevent these negative extremes from happening. Lets go back to what we originally started this. I said that the only reason people are Kobeing(/DCing) is because the match itself was so garbage and unfun, that they are actually having more fun quitting the match. That is a massive design flaw. No fun game has people going "Yippee I can't wait to DC next match I queue into!", so the problem is inherent with the game, not the players.

    Point 1: I think the stats aren't strictly from a competitive point of view and some are the Marge styled "I just think its neat!". It isn't necessarily competitive to want to know which Mario Kart goes faster, just as it isn't necessarily competitive to want to know which Killer has a higher killrate.

    Point 2: I partially agree here. I think MMR (in its implementation) has psychologically pushed people into playing more sweaty. I had far more fun on both sides back when we used Rank-Based Matchmaking. Alternatively, team-based MMR would make the game far less unfun, because people would play to grief (legally) less often. I would prefer to go back to RBMM, as it tracks all the actions leading up to escape, and tracks skill far more effectively than blind K/E.

    Point 3: The problem here was sweatlord Blights was ruining casual matches with bugtech. So that isn't making a balance decision to screw over comp, it was a balance decision to help fix normals.

    How many party games use MMR? Mario Kart itself uses MMR for its online play. There does have to be some system to split the highest and lowest skilled players, otherwise the lowest skilled players quit. That's probably more important for a kids party game like Mario Kart. (You don't want a kid showing up the next day at school saying 'Mario Kart sucks!') The idea of Mario Kart using the campaign scoring system to split the players, so that next match there is a lobby of the 1st place winners against each other, lobby of 2nd place winners against each other, all the way down, actually makes a lot of sense. DBD using blind K/E doesn't make sense, and again, I'd prefer to use the system actually designed with the unique game rules in mind (Ranks/Grades).

    Like I said (and will rephrase here) though, if they fully revamp the game such that Nurse and Myers (and everyone else, as well as perks) are perfectly equal in power, then I am 100% on board with top-down balancing. I was just saying that feels like a pipe-dream minimum 2 years out at the soonest, even if they took that dedicated effort.

  • Moonras2
    Moonras2 Member Posts: 380
    edited September 11

    Oh I agree with that. They are constantly balancing the game. They could even change the numbers they want to achieve, based on what they think is best suited for the game. Alongside the 60/40, Peanits has also stated they balance that way to support the horror theme of the game. In that sense I think they've done what they want to achieve. But in doing so, playing survivor has possibly started to feel more like a chore to some people. Rather than a good time.

  • GonnaBlameTheMovies
    GonnaBlameTheMovies Member Posts: 682

    I think that just means the game is no longer for those Survivor players. That happens, sometimes a game changes and it's not for you anymore. I don't think that is bad. The people who still care about the core horror feel of the game will stay, while everyone just interested in wins will leave and go play something else. That can really only be healthy for the game if people who don't enjoy it stop playing and ruining it for others, right?

  • DarKStaR350z
    DarKStaR350z Member Posts: 765

    With your pool analogy, no one is pushing or forcing anyone to play the game; it’s solely their choice and they have to respect that other people are enjoying it too, and that they can’t keep playing and ruining others experience because it isn’t like they want.

    I get that there are things on both sides that some don’t enjoy, but people know that there’s a chance they might go against it when the queue up and so should be prepared to stick it out if they go against it which is the grown up thing to do.
    If someone is really finding the game that frustrating to play then they should take a break until they have the patience to be mature about dealing with things that aren’t their favourite.
    A better way of dealing with and discouraging ragequitting would at least keep the people who engage in that behaviour out of the queue which you say is the desired result, for them to not play the game while they are just going to rage and ruin the match for the others.

    We’ve seen the game with no DC penalty and it was a mess. You see killers quitting more rarely because they don’t have a loophole to exploit to go next with no repercussions. If they could open the exit and walk out at any time then you would certain see a similar problem from that side when the first chase goes too long, or gens start popping before they find or down someone, or their first down gets flashlight saved or hook sabotaged, or they get head on flashbanged etc.

    Killers can’t just go next and so tend to put up with things they don’t enjoy because they have to weigh up just doing their best and playing it out or wait out an ever increasing time out.

  • Moonras2
    Moonras2 Member Posts: 380

    I don't see how people playing are ruining the game for others? It could mean they may just switch to playing the other role for a while until something changes. I play both sides and don't play to win. I just generally play the side I find fun. Ideally, I can switch back and forth.

  • doobiedo
    doobiedo Member Posts: 310

    So in an online pvp game, only one side should care about wins and the other side should just be okay with losing in the name of "Horror"? Hate to break it you but dbd hasn't been a horror game in a long time. Sometimes I feel like a lot Killer mains want the challenge of a pve game, but the ego gratification of knowing they beat a real person at the same time. This is probably the most hilarious permutation of this sentiment I have seen though. "All the survivors should stop playing unless they don't care about winning in an online pvp game."