Why do killers think this game is survivior sided?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.