Why do killers think this game is survivior sided?
Comments
-
Yea I mean the direction this game has gone, and has continued to go, is requiring survivor players to make way too much a commitment to this game to really have any chance in a match of escaping. Skill expression requirement is just going up with each patch.
Join a committted and competetive team on discord or be a killer punching bag. Which I personally dont enjoy either on killer, you just win way too easily now. You legit have to run int perks or setups to actually have a challenge.
Contrast with killers; you are losing skill expression and getting rewarded with it every patch with buffs they dont need:
Billy, Knight, Huntress, Trickster, Dredge, Nemesis, Clown…
Or introduction of blatantly broken killers with traversal they shouldnt have:Dracula, Vecna, Unknown
So for anyone who plays killer; it really comes down to some honesty as I haven't seen anyone on this forum be critical of their own killer. Its always " I WANT BUFFS, NERF SURVIVORS ".
For me:
Legion, fine the way it is. Dont change it to be more braindead BHVRPlague, fine the way she is. Yeet black incense's effect from the game and replace it though, perma aura read is broken.
8 -
I don’t know why you say killer mains, most players play both sides and many of us like the game because it’s horror themed and supposed to feel tense when playing survivor.
I just enjoy playing the game and don’t need to escape to have fun. Some of my favourite matches are against jumpscare builds as it truly feels like a horror game again.5 -
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.
2 -
And I think that's the healthiest way! But my point was more that people who play salty play more nasty, and people playing nasty ruin the game for others. They DC, bully, BM, etc. It's not fun for anyone. For everyone's sake they need to go play something else.
2 -
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. :)
2 -
I'm not going to bother with them after my first response, they just seem to be saying a load of hot air trying to spin my words into things I didn't say. They 100% just want to bait an argument and the mature thing, which people like you and I do, is ignore them. :)
1 -
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.
2 -
Yeah I get you on that. Many people just need to take a break as well. I've been on a several month hiatus, not so much by choice, but I'm honestly excited to try playing again lol. The excitement might fade quickly but it should be fun for at least a day or two
1 -
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.
The escape rate is just the escape rate. The killer data and the survivor data is basically the same.
To walk through the numbers to demonstrate this:
First start with the percentages: 17.92% 0k, 17.41% 1k, 13.06 2k, 18.57% 3k, 33.04% 4k.
If we then take those percents against a 1000 games that would be (slight rounding involved): 179 0k, 174 1k, 130 2k, 186 3k, 330 4k
If we wrote that into how many survivors escaped per result: 716, 522, 260, 186, 0
So a possible of 1684 survivors escaped out of 4,000 survivors who played. Or put into a percentage: 42.1%
That's a long way of saying the survivor escape rate counts the draws and the killer wins when they are a 3k.
I don't personally use it for anything. I prefer the official stats but even those can be impacted by many things.
I used to not put much weight into the Nightlight stats, but every time BHVR releases data, the numbers are really close with only some rare exceptions that have pretty clear reasons. This is why I think Nightlight is a great source for looking at what the division of games is (winrate). Because if BHVR says a certain killer has a killrate of 60%, and Nightlight has the same killer at 60%, the chance that they reached the same outcome of a percentage, but did so via a different break down of the game results, I find to be extremely unlikely.
6 -
”Why do killers think the game is survivor sided?”
Because it is. You can eliminate every single persons argument in the fact that whatever survivors want to happen to the game does happen. If they complain that they are not being able to do generators without interruption, the game is changed to make it more so. Survivors ridiculously ask for the game to be tailored to the killer not doing anything that is favorable to the killer, but to play as favorably to the survivor as possible, and the game is changed in order to reflect that. That is why the game is survivor sided.1 -
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.
2 -
The target kill rate is 60% but the game is Survivor sided? explain
6 -
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?).
1 -
Game is map sided. Let's say with singularity I feel invincible in Haddonfield, map is open, biopods covers pretty much the whole map.
Badham I already go in into thinking "if I get 1k it would be nice".
And every other map is in-between. If you playing non-mobile m1 killer you pretty much dependeded on a map lottery to do well.
0 -
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.
2 -
Tunnelling, Camping and Slugging have been the number one complaint from survivors for years and none of them have been properly addressed yet, in -years-.
Do tell me how survivors get everything they want, because the patch history aint showin' that.
8 -
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.
0 -
Borrowed Time and haste from unhook basekit, anti camp guarenteed self unhook, PTB basekit Unbreakable test.
You can argue that these haven’t solved the problem for you but you can’t say they don’t jump to try and deal with these things that have been complained about.
3 -
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.2 -
PTB basekit Unbreakable test.
You can argue that these haven’t solved the problem for you but you can’t say they don’t jump to try and deal with these things that have been complained about.
I guess if survivors aren't making use of that PTB unbreakable, that's on them.
As for jumping to do what survivors ask for? Infinites, BNP auto finishing a gen, being able to destroy all the hooks, increasing the time to do gens, and bloodlust are all things that got taken care of for the killer way before BHVR looked at what you mentioned.
I get why those things were taken care of, but when it comes to the survivor concerns, BHVR usually just throws a perk towards survivors with incredible limitations. It's a pretty recent change in the gamespan's life that they've done some basekit things, and even those have been incredibly cautious.
2 -
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.
4 -
Oh yes, I apologize for my wording. When I said it doesn't seem to take the draws into account, I meant that as if it was considering it as a win. As far as the escape rate I know that escapes can happen all the way up to a 3k. For the survivor/s, that escaped, it may be considered a win to them. If 2 or more lost, I would consider it a loss as a whole or cancelled out as a draw. Otherwise it seems like the survivors may be closer in terms of win rate, but the loss rate would also be higher.
Ive just never had much experience with nightlight. I see some people say it's pretty accurate with official stats. I would almost assume it may be more accurate in some ways. People taking the time to track their stats are probably not the ones dcing or throwing games.
1 -
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.
1 -
51.5% win percentage
so… balanced??
1 -
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.
0 -
(with 13% draws)
51.5% killer win percentage vs 35.5% survivor win percentage is not balanced lol
5 -
This is true, they balance for a 60% kill rate, the problem though? Is that their kill rates show that "everything is fine guys"
But i have a "conspiracy theory" around kill rates.
Kill rates are massively inflated due to survivors giving up so quickly. If i play 10 games in a day, half of them someone is going to give up in the first chase and kill themselves on hook, or just be afk. Then the other 5 matches might play out as normal.
Lets say that the true kill rate when survivors play out the game is actually 25% (i have no proof this is what it is, just using this as an example to show the math)
So those 5 matches where the survivors gave up immediately, led to an obvious 4k each game, and in the other 5 matches, the killer only killed 1 person in each game. What would the data show?
Out of a possible 40 kills, the killer got 25 kills, which would be a 62.5% kill rate. So i guess the game is balanced then right?
Their data is including when survivors kill themselves on hook, and it is massively inflating kill rates. I feel this probably is less impactful at lower ranks, but at the highest MMRs, i suspect the kill rate is SIGNIFICANTLY lower than reported due to this.
5 -
SWF ≥ killer > > > Soloq
i'd say
1 -
People know what they are queuing up for - They actually don't? I don't know who the Killer is. I don't know if they Killer is going to turbo tunnel at 5 gens. I don't know if the Killer is going to spite bleedout everyone. I know those things can happen, but all should happen at <1% and those instead are happening at >10%. If I could lobby dodge Plagues when running a heal build, this wouldn't happen, however, it is better to still not know the Killer, so Killer bans is an even better system than that. If a Killer is turbo tunneling at 5 gens, they chose to get a free win (in soloq), so all a DC does is accelerate their win. If a Killer is bleeding people out - see prior answer.
A Killer shows up so you HAVE to play against them - Exactly this is a flaw that needs correcting! What happened to people with Photosensitivity against Trickster? They could die. What happened against Clown for people who get nauseous or a Plague for people with emetophobia? They puke their guts out on their keyboard. What happens with people playing against Skull Merchant? Taking off their fingernails seems like a logical alternative to playing out the match. Get rid of negative extremes, just put in Killer bans.
I disagree that having people ragequit, DC or otherwise sabotage the game is good in any way - The problem here is you are ignoring the natural alternative. With DCs as they are right now, we get a bad game. With less DCs, we get more game saboteurs, since they can't easily leave the match, and if they are gunna get punished, they will 'earn the ban' and do something worse. With more DCs, you can easily leave the match and get a reasonable match the second the opposition is acting unreasonable. If we don't have these basekit QOL features, DC is the only remaining alternative that people will take.
I can easily say things were far far far better with 0 DC penalties because I don't play like a jerk. People were never DCing in my matches as Killer (unless they were skipping the final hook for time or the like), because I wasn't making them hate their life for logging in to play a video game. I saw no DCs against Killers who were playing in a similar manner as I was, not being a jerk but still winning. So I don't know if that is a self-report on your end, or a massive cultural difference from where we play. I play on West Coast US, and there were no (game altering) DCs when Killers don't play like jerks.
The problem with a 'jerk' queue is Survivors are quarantined, but Killers aren't. Killers are far far far more often the ones being jerks, bleeding out for 4Ks without an adept to justify it. If you could adjust the report system to add a 5th option that players can report Killers into this 'jerk' queue as well, then I'm on board, but at its face, every Survivor would eventually end up in 'jerk' queue (because of server crashes counting as DCs, as well as DCing after 2 other DCs) and nothing would change.
At this point idr if I said it in this thread or another, so I'll restate. There are "I will always" DCs, "I will quit when there is no reason to continue" DCs, and there are "I will afk instead of" DCs. The middle category is the majority of the playerbase, and the first and last are exceedingly rare. The group you are talking about 'never being pleased' is the first group. I am only talking about QoL to help the 2nd and 3rd groups. As long as you falsely conflate all groups as the first one, you will remain black and white on this issue.
This presumes a draw is a draw, not a draw is a Survivor win. It isn't clearly a Survivor win, because BHVR has never claimed 2E is a win for Survivor. They only claim win and loss for a 1v1. With the information we have been given, a win and a loss and a win and a loss is a draw for both sides (made up of a 2 wins and 2 losses for each side).
Now technically, to learn the actual win/loss metrics, we would need to see the MMR adjustments after a match. If net Killer MMR goes up, it was a Killer win (even if it was only a 1K). If net Killer MMR goes down, it was a Killer loss (even if it was only a 1E). Without that information, or BHVR outright saying 2E is a Killer loss, this (3K+ Killer win, 3E+ Survivor win, 2K+2E draw) is the most reasonable standard we have access to. If we were to use your method, we would have to split draws (2E+2K) 60-40 favoring Survivor. Going back to 22S/28D/50K, this yields 22+.6*28 and 50+28*.4 for 38.8S/61.2K, which is still overweighted towards Killer win rates with 60% killrates.
5 -
Kill rates are massively inflated due to survivors giving up so quickly.
Kill rates in high MMR are higher than kill rates in overall MMR, and I would assume that high MMR has more dedicated players that won't suicide that much, therefor it would stand to reason that this kill rate inflation is not that impactful.
and it is massively inflating kill rates
That is an assumption on your part and one you don't have any data for. Keep in mind as well, and I feel like this is something a lot of people overlook with regards to this subject: Not every match with a survivor that gives up would've been a survivor win if that survivor hadn't quit on hook. I wager that, in most cases, if they give up on hook, there's a good chance that if they hadn't, it still would've been a 3K+ anyway, meaning it didn't affect the kill rates at all.
You also have to remember that this is a two-way street, and there's killers that throw matches too, deflating the kill rate.
14 -
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.
2 -
When I said it doesn't seem to take the draws into account, I meant that as if it was considering it as a win. As far as the escape rate I know that escapes can happen all the way up to a 3k. For the survivor/s, that escaped, it may be considered a win to them.
It's just a data set. it's not meant be more or less than that, the survivor data is literally just 'how frequently does this survivor escape'. If you want overall win/loss perceptions, that's what the killer data is for.
0 -
if nurse is unfair for fast pressure and ignoring pallets and windows.. what about huntress? i use to play cod with just a pistol and still took first. i only loose when i get gen rushed X10 and have a horrible map or if they just cheat
0 -
its blatant that bhvr considers 2k a survivor win. bc if they didnt theyd buff survivor.
i dont know whats not clicking there
1 -
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.
1 -
There's a reason you completely base MMR off of the results of one match.
In your "2k" example, sure, maybe the survivors soundly beat the killer and the killer managed to get 2 at the exit gates or something. Killer got lucky once. (Also possible the 3rd survivor dies to complete final gen, and the survivors barely escaped at all. I've done that personally) But over time, as more matches get played, that same result isn't going to happen every time.
If you have similar MMR survivor teams, and the killer is consistently getting a 2k, even if you don't want to call it a draw (for some reason), you have to admit that the game was close. Again, this isn't a one off "got lucky" match, those happen as well, but if this is happening consistently, then the matches could easily go one way or the other and the killer and survivors are, at minimum, well matched.
A 2k is usually the least likely result of the 5, and most game are either a 1k or a 4k.
2 -
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.
0 -
You are pretty new to this game, aren't you? Because killers got so many buffs in the last 4 years that this narrative doesn't really hold up. I can list you a whole lot of things that got requested by killers and then implemented/ fixed by BHVR.
4 -
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.
4 -
"A Killer shows up so you HAVE to play against them - Exactly this is a flaw that needs correcting! What happened to people with Photosensitivity against Trickster? They could die. What happened against Clown for people who get nauseous or a Plague for people with emetophobia? They puke their guts out on their keyboard. What happens with people playing against Skull Merchant? Taking off their fingernails seems like a logical alternative to playing out the match. Get rid of negative extremes, just put in Killer bans."
Sorry to specifically picking out this bit but this mindset is flawed.
What about traumatized people who had real life experience with murder (of a relative or close friend) or torture? What about people who are very sensitive to violence? They will never be able to enjoy this game in it's current nature, should BHVR now change the game to something completely different? What i'm trying to say is, it's impossible to please everyone.Yes, improving accessibility and reduce barriers is good and important, but only to the point where the character of the game isn't changed.
I'm afraid of heights and don't like the adrenaline pumping situations of a rollercoaster ride or similar amusement rides. That doesn't mean i'm asking the owner of the park to change the rollercoaster into going slower and remove the high loopings and stuff. It's just not for me, i have to accept that (or overcome my fears, if possible).2 -
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
0 -
Likewise, killers can get everyone on two hooks with extra downs with two gens left and then just AFK or farm to reach a 4E and not go up in MMR.
I don't know why so many people think this stuff is all one-way territory.
4 -
60/40 seems fair tbh… its killers hunting people, it should be scary.
its not a highscool football game where the teams are even.
1 -
What's not clicking is this: I've seen BHVR reps say they don't have one set of rules that they consider as a win with regards kills/game. I personally can't wrap my head around a world where they "blatantly" consider a 2k a survivor win but also openly don't have one standard for how many kills per game is a win.
However, BHVR have also said they want around a 60% kill rate because they want killers to feel like they're a force to be reconed with. To me this implies they want the game to slightly favor killer players on average - something I agree with. Even if they did consider kills/game in their definition of a win for balance purposes (which they don't), there's a very good reason why they would keep things the way they are - it fits their vision for the game's balance.
When I argue a 2k is a draw, it is because that's the most logical thing to call it. Two survivors got sacrificed, two escaped. An exactly even outcome is a draw.
When I argue the game favors killers, I don't think that's a bad thing. It is a horror game and the game favoring the killer makes sense. I say it only because I think it's important to be honest about the state of the game
5 -
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.
1 -
Kill rate has always been above 50%. Lowest was probably around 53% before 6.1 update. So I don't think target ever been 50/50 and that would be too easy for survivors. As shown even 53% was clearly too low and most killers were struggling. But now we also know 60% is too high given how terrible soloQ is now and many maps are just nuked. So something like 55-58% kill rate should be the goal.
0 -
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.
1 -
The unknown broken? Have you actually tried playing them before coming to this conclusion?
2 -
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.0 -
I don't think killer bans is healthy for the game though. Trust me, I have my fair share of not enjoying going against killers (I personally do not like Wesker due to how buggy his hits are) but if given the option I would not toggle to not vs him. Even though I don't particularly like him, I still find him fun in some ways when I pull off nice loops against him as he does in fact have counterplay. Not to mention, adding killer bans will make queue times go up higher and then you'll have people who (rightfully so) complain that they can't find a match because of the killer that they're playing. Many people hate Twins for example, I couldn't imagine what a load time for them would be if we allowed killer bans.
The reason you see more survivor DCs over killer DCs is due to the fact that yes, survivors do find the gameplay dynamic not as fun as they used to. You also have more people who play survivor - it's four survivors in one game versus killer. I've had my fair share of having a killer DC for a play that I've made whether it's a a loop that went on too long or popping a gen in the face of the killer. Killers do in fact DC but when there's a lot of pressure in the beginning of the game, you oftentimes see survivors DC out of frustration and wanting to "go next".
2