Why do killers think this game is survivior sided?

Oddly when people play survivor they expect to die, when they play killer they expect to win lol it wouldnt be balanced if you couldnt lose just as much as u win on either side. Some survivor rounds u just start and alredy know you arent getting out unless its through hatch, some killer rounds you alredy know you arent going to kill more than 1 person if at all because its clear they are coordinated and broadcasting it as a video to impress people. Ive had a round as demo where all i cared about was trying to get my shred hits daily and the ttv squad i was playing against was like a literal voice com swat team tacticly telling eachother my every fart and calling me stupid for using shred at times where i couldve knocked someone else down etc lol. Every round can be a win or a lose doesnt really matter. Back in earlier days survivors died so fast and noone minded theybjust went to the next round no problem no dcs or suicides or nothin. Now survivors get so many chances to keep going that someone going after you only is like a personal attack lol. The main complaint i hear is "i cant catch this person!" Then go for everyone else lol that person is much easier to catch with noone to do gens, hatch closed and no way to open doors with you on their tail.

Wow friend that sure is a whole lot of words you put into my mouth that I didn't say. Try rephrasing that and then discussing this with me again, perhaps with 95% less Us vs. Them? We really do not need that here. :)

This is in fact the lens the game conditions KIllers to see the game through. I know because I used to be a very sweaty Killer-only Main and I saw the game this way. I'm reformed and much less sweaty now able to take things in stride after more experience, but yes… this is how a lot of people see the game - a-hole Survs who came to bully them and ruin their good time, even if they started with all the good will in the world.

These were your actual words:

" 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."

Sorry but I'm not going to stop playing the game, I'm going to keep playing it and keep advocating for Bhvr to balance the game a little better. "Us vs. Them" shaming is just a ploy to manipulate someone you disagree with into shutting up.

With the pool analogy, what I'm saying is it is like a 'pool party' where everyone is actually just drinking alcohol/socializing not swimming at all, and someone not wearing a bathing suit is shoved in with their phone in their pocket. Can you end up in the water? Yes. But people aren't actually signing up for a 'pool party' expecting to enter the water, since it isn't a pool party.

Its the grown up thing to let bad actors get away unpunished? DCs are already punished, so this is only encouraging time hostage taking.

If someone doesn't like how people are destroying their game, they should let them destroy their game? That's what this sounds like. Gatekeeping is important to keep bad actors out, and in general this is a method of gatekeeping. It isn't a rules legal form, but it is a moral form. I can't (legally) advocate it, but I also can't (morally) condemn it.

If someone ragequits and DCs, it is a better outcome for everyone than ragequit and fails skillchecks/doesn't run away to give chase/any other form of legal gamethrowing that are means of losing. I would rather get a bot that will give me 30% gen progress, than a person not even trying giving 10% gen progress.

I've seen the game with no DCs and it was perfectly fine IME as both Killer and Survivor. If a Survivor quit too early as Surv, I could quit alongside them and get to actually play a match, rather than be held hostage for another 15-30m because the Killer started acting petty and both refused to kill us and refused to let us escape. As Killer, my games were never ruined by free DCs because they only quit once my victory was guaranteed (and even then they would typically stay in for their 20k+ BP). My time wasn't wasted at all, and the Survivors still enjoyed their match.

Killers 100% can just go next? What do you mean? If you quit as Killer, the match ends, and you can play the next match as soon as the penalty ends, which is always going to be faster than waiting for Survivors to finish the remaining gens and leave through the gates. Anyone on either side reaching a high enough DC penalty isn't playing anymore for that day regardless. You might wait through the 2nd DC (5m?), but no one is waiting through 15m+ (3rd DC?).

Would need to see a source here because that makes absolutely no sense. Let's say a killer is just….really bad at the game. They get a 25% kill rate EVERY match (ie a single kill). That absolutely does not mean the killer wins 1 out of 4 matches on average. With him getting only 1 kill every match (not talking on average, in my example, I mean literally 1 kill every match), then he would never win. Kill rates absolutely are not win rates.

Edit - just looked up his post. They said that "winning" is subjective - some people see pips as a win even if they didn't kill anyone, some see a 4k is minimum for a win, and so on. They also said they don't really define wins due to it being so subjective, and suggested just considering that kill rates are = to win rates just to make it easier to understand. The problem with this logic is that it's claiming that getting a single kill gets "win" credit when it comes to coming up with a win rate. In my example above, someone only ever getting 1K every match would have a 25% win rate - which is just silly to consider. I don't think any DBD player actually considers a 1K as a killer win, but if you go with kill rate = win rate, a 1K is a "win", and you can win up to 4 times in a single match. I don't think anyone would seriously accept this as a reliable balance method for numbers.

With him getting only 1 kill every match (not talking on average, in my example, I mean literally 1 kill every match), then he would never win. Kill rates absolutely are not win rates.

The thing about this example, is that the killer is out performing a hypothetical killer who get 0 kills every match. The community broadly treats 0k/1k and 3k/4k as a group, but the game doesn't, it has degrees of performance.

From the game's perspective, it doesn't matter if over 4 games you 4k once and 0k 3 times, or if you 1k 4 times, it treats it the same. If a player prefers one of the outcomes over the other, that's totally their call. As BHVR said, they don't really have a stance on what is considered a win.

I don't think any DBD player actually considers a 1K as a killer win, but if you go with kill rate = win rate, a 1K is a "win", and you can win up to 4 times in a single match. I don't think anyone would seriously accept this as a reliable balance method for numbers.

You can use the killrate as a balance metric because no player actually ever hits the hypothetical of the same result any time. If a player was underperforming as killer and say had a 40% kill rate, they'd still have a pretty good idea of how many 4ks, 3ks, etc. that usually results in.

It's also a necessity with how they run the MMR system. If they switched survivors to a full team based rating system you could have a different measure, but I don't think that will ever happen.

I can’t with these analogies anymore lol.
People know what they’re queueing up for, if not because they’re new then they do eventually and so can’t use ignorance as as excuse for ragequitting.
It doesn’t matter if you in particular don’t like Legion or Skull Merchant, they’re in the game and when you queue up you may have to play against them, and if that’s really a deal breaker for you then you shouldn’t be queuing to play and expecting to sabotage others who do want to play.

I disagree that having people ragequit, DC or otherwise sabotage the game is good in any way. No one will ever get a normal match that way and all these statistics are meaningless when player behaviour can skew it so much.
I don’t know how you can say things were better before DC penalty as people being able to quit on a whim meant no one ever got a normal game and quit for the slightest reason.
I think the best solution is to put players like this into their own queue and they can continue to ruin each other’s game while the rest of us just play the game we enjoy. Maybe they will see the frustration of their behaviour if they are on the receiving end of it themselves.
There is no use pandering to these types of players as there will always be something else they will quit over and there’s no pleasing everyone all the time.

Basekit endurance and haste is the only thing that's really impacted the game. Anti-camp is only anti-facecamp and has not helped at all, and the basekit unbreakable didn't go through.

So for the entirety of DBD's runtime, which is 8 years by now, we've had -one- meaningful change to address these issues, . That's not 'jumping to try and deal with these things', especially not since it took six (6) years to get to this point.

My actual words, that you and the other person misrepresented and spun HARD. Please stop lying for upvotes.

I'm thinking I am also done with you now as well. Please don't respond to me again.

this presumes draw = survivor loss (or draws = 50% survivor win 50% killer win), whereas clearly 60% winrate goal means that bhvr consider a draw more of a survivor win than a killer one, for balancing purposes.

and that makes sense, because to draw the survivors have to finish all gens and get at least one survivor through a gate. as far as the win cons are concerned, that's far, far closer to a survivor winning outright than a killer winning outright.

You would think that, until you look into HOW the mmr system works. It does not work the same way it does in other games.

A 2K could very well be a survivor win depending on the circumstances.

At the very least a 2K means the gates are open, which means the survivors have played well enough to acheive they main objective. If it happens that the killer has only scored a couple of hooks on different survivors up until that point, the survivors have clearly outplayed the killer. If it then turns out that the survivors make an overly altruistic play that results in two of them getting hooked and the other two escaping, while it's technically a draw, the gameplay leading up to it is anything but.

Can you understand how regarding this kind of play as a draw would be overstating the killers performance and skill? And how regarding this kind of gameplay as the ideal middle ground would be a miserable experience for killers?

I'd wager the majority of 2K games play out similar to this to varying degrees. Meanwhile killer 'wins' are more prone to snowballing into 3K and 4K results, and even when the survivors clearly win it's usually possible to seure at least 1 kill. It means kill rates are inflated relative to the experience of the players.

This is why I previously said that survivor and killer perceived win conditions are at odds (and asymmetrical in an asymmetrical game). Killers ideal balanced state, as far as how the game is currently formatted, is an average 2.5K (62.5%). While for survivors, a 2K (50%) average is the fair middle ground. Which means to keep both sides happy you need a kill rate between 50% and 62.5%, and both sides will perceive themselves to lose more than they win.

most game are either a 1k or a 4k.

But do you not see the implications of this?

Most killer losses still acheive 1 kill, most killer wins snowball to 4 kills. If you took these two games, you'd have a 50% win rate for the killer, but a 37.5% win rate for survivors and a 62.5% kill rate. If these are truly the most likely scenarios, then they have an impact on the average win/kill rates.

Combined with what I said above about most 2K games being mostly a survivor win up until one final mistake, average kill/win rates are not in sync.

This is separate from whether you consider it a draw. By any measure, a 2k is a close game.

You're specifically trying to spin it as a survivor win that slipped away, where it's easily just as valid to say the killer made a mistake and missed out on his third kill. Or survivors barely scraping by to get gens done as the second survivor dies.

There's an underlying assumption here that gens completed means survivors win, that's not even close to true, and why things like blood Warden and noed exist.

Regardless, if you could somehow match players so every game was a 2k, it would be a close game every time. What we have now is the game is balanced around literally "steamroll the opponent or lose". In DbD terms this is gen rush vs tunneling. Which is exactly why 4k is the most likely outcome, and why I say 1k or 4k are typical outcomes. Which team won the objective speed run is usually your answer. A 2k indicates both teams tied: a draw condition.

Killer can’t force survivors to leave and EGC kills aren’t counted towards kill rate. Survivors can literally bang all gens out in 6 minutes and refuse to leave even though they won just to not increase their MMR

60/40 seems fair tbh… its killers hunting people, it should be scary.

its not a highscool football game where the teams are even.

But that would mean killers never lose. 2K is a draw so if that worst result then can't deny the game is not killer sided. Likely the 60% kill rate is pretty close to same as win rate for killers. Generally you either win get 3-4K as killer or lose get 0-1K and not that many matches in between.

The game has to do with murder every single match. All of the issues I've listed are various single Killer problems. It isn't a matter of pleasing everyone, it is a matter of double dipping a single solution (Killer bans) for multiple beneficial effects. If I bring a pallet stun tome, I'm gunna ban all ranged Killers. If I bring a TR tome, I'm gunna ban stealth Killers. If I have emetophobia, I'm gunna permaban Plague. If I have tryptophobia, I'm gunna ban Singularity in case they bring a Mori.

Killer bans provides both basic QoL, like nearly every other game that allows hero/champion/unique character picks, as well as letting people use it for accessibility reasons.

My Killer ban suggestion puts us at 1 ban per 5 Killers (round down), so 39 Killers would yield 7 bans (~18%). That gives 20% bans at the max when the multiple of 5 Killer comes out. I'm not asking to adjust more than 90% of matches, or more than 75% matches, or more than half of matches, but 20% max.

I would also suggest a 'previous Killer' ban be an option. That way you can avoid playing against the same Killer 7 matches in a row (my current high score on Surv [ignoring newly released Killers]). You could even stack the option to say ban Plague, then all remaining slots are 'previous Killer'. That way with 6 bans, if you play against Legion in the first match, you won't play against them in the next 5 matches (until Legion falls out of the 'previous Killer' slots). It is so bizarre to me that we got map repeat prevention years before Killer repeat prevention.

He replaced artist as the two hit ranged killer, where she has hard restrictions for sending 1 crow or 2 and actual skill/timing on the next hit, which removes crows to do it again;

Unknown you dont have to aim and you keep your effect after a hit with ranged, and you get map traversal… because that just had to happen for some reason.

Yes its broken.