Why do killers think this game is survivior sided?
Comments
-
48,30% is a lot, considering that it is killers chasing you, its not a rival football team in high-school, so teams are not ment to be even.
2 -
Gotta love how quotes suddenly isn't working, lmao.
1 -
Homie that's on the killer choosing to stay in chase for that long. That's not the game being 'survivor sided', that's a killer being a bad killer.
One of the most important things about killer is knowing when to drop chase.
3 -
The thing is, at least from my experience, these days surviving isn't hard because a killer is good, but because the killer is using the cheapest, most boring play styles.
Before taking a break, because I was no longer having fun and people should do that when such a thing happened (something the players of this game seem to not understand, but that's off topic) my friends and I were getting slugged. Immediately. Multiple games in a row.
And then left to bleed out.
No hooking. No chasing. No gens. Just left there for multiple minutes. And after reaching out to other friends to ask around, this seems to be the newest trend in killers.
And when stuff like this happens so often it seems to be a known trend and Behavior does diddly all and then salty killers have the gall to call the game survivor sided, it's...laughable. Add to the fact we now have statistics saying otherwise, and...yeah.
5 -
Because you brought up plague, I also think that Behavior should implement a killer blacklist.
I do have a friend who DCs whenever she gets a Plague, because she's very squeamish to vomit. She handles other killers fine, but get her in a match with Plague and she genuinely cannot deal with it. I think implementing a blacklist for killers (limited though) would actually deal with a decent amount of DCs.
2 -
i am changing the subject because i said that even 60% killrate is overinflated because goal is to balance the game revolving around the current barely existing MMR system with maths saying flat 60% KR = 50% WR? I guess it wouldn't be relevant to balance e.g. League of Legends around 50% WR per champ because every match can be RNG based due to champ pick order lol.
1 -
That I think is the consequence of us having way too many chase oriented killers in the game. It was fine in the past, but now if we look at it there are a lot of characters focused in the "1v1" aspect of the game, and few who are focused in the "1v4".
Killers like Old Freddy, Singularity, Old Doctor and even Myers are extremely important for the game because they teach you things like when to drop chase, when to go for each survivor and how to control the map. I think some killer players these days are hesitant to drop chases because they are used to characters whose only power is ending chases quickly.
That doesn't mean killers who played the characters I mentioned would never commit to a chase, it only means they are more likely to know when to drop it.
5 -
That's not relevant to the point I made though. 60% kill rate =/= 50% winrate.
3 -
Yeah, I don't agree with the whole one survivor dead to allow a survivor to do the whole surrender mechanic. If anything, it would probably be best to do that in situations where a killer actively chooses to bleed out all survivors — this is what most people complain about and being left on the ground for four straight minutes. With your change, if a survivor dies early on due to a tunnel (common for my games), you'll have another survivor left on the ground as the killer knows of this strategy... This would allow again, unsavory tactics as now the person that's on the ground would feel the game is a complete loss and give up rather quickly. In my game against the Artist the other day (the one minute and 42 second chase I had) my Sable teammate proceeded to kill herself on hook. We had three gens left, my chase allowed two gens to pop causing one single gen left over. People will kobe regardless of the outcome and implementing a change that further gives the killer more power to do these tactics only rewards the killer more.
So, in your proposed NOED change — survivors would then have to go around cleansing dull totems to actively avoid it being procced? So, waste even more time to hunt down five totems to prevent a basekit NOED? You can further expand on the idea, but in my games -- I have more killers tunneling out my teammates at 4-5 gens than I have where a killer simply gets 0 kills at the end game. Rewarding killers simply for going to the end game with zero kills would be giving out pity kills, in my opinion. This situation is beyond niche and causing even more downtime where solo-queue survivors already have less downtime would shift the balance towards killer in the end game stage.
On the whole banning killers issue, banning based off a number that high would definitely impact killer queues. Even on the situation, players can actively avoid a Nurse, Blight, Hillbilly, or any killer that can potentially create a snowball. This only impacts the killer queue times for these specific characters that thrive on snowball potential and their high mobility. I don't think allowing survivors to handpick their opponents is the way to go and the survivor in question would never actively improve when going against the killers that they choose to ban.
3 -
Hell, I don't even think I could think of a number of killers that I would choose to ban if I had the option to.
I don't like going against Wesker (buggy hits) or Huntress (her ability to hold her hatchet and prevent hook stages) but I still wouldn't choose to ban these killers. I've had great chases with both of these people and even though I don't care to go against them, I still attempt to learn counterplay for them. Even with Skull Merchant, I don't even mind going against her even though I genuinely hate her stealth mechanic. I truly believe that survivors need to learn counterplay for specific characters that they hate going against rather than some complete shut-off ban towards all these killers.
I went against a slugging Twins the other day and even though, again I don't care for this playstyle... It was a neck and neck game throughout. With your proposed changes, it would make survivor skill-level be a net negative as people would avoid specific killers rather than learning how to actually deal with them.
2 -
We are supposed to be talking about the best killers against the best survivors in an equal scenario and the result is that the killer is at a disadvantage. Those same killers also achieve endless winstreaks against pubs, but that would be like matching Messi against a team formed by preschool kids.
0 -
No.
You (killer players) always talk about hypotheticals where the best players face off against each other to claim the game is survivor sided, while the reality is that for the overwhelming majority of players, including high-mmr players, killers win most of their games.
This is true is low to high mmr, and solo to swf survivor teams.
14 -
The "reality" is a game where DC at the first chase is rampant, and despite that kill-rates are still under the desired 60%. A game where you are versing a totally new player and on your next match you can perfectly have two team Eternal members on the lobby. More than a "reality", that is an absolute "joke".
6 -
In any game that allows it, players will tbag. It's funny to them. It's not something to get mad about. It's annoying, sure, but at the end of the day it's ultimately meaningless and not worth getting triggered over.
Ignoring the behavior of people who do their best to channel their insults and disrespect to other people because it lifts their mood means encouraging their behavior. Telling players who just want to play the game and not be a punching bag if they lose to endure the humiliation will only result in a game steadily losing player base.
Imagine you play a board game with a group of friends, but one person is always super toxic. They get upset when they lose, and make excuses for their loss. When they win, they gloat and insult the rest of the group. What do you think happens? The group decides that, from now on, they're not going to include that person anymore. This actively discourages that sort of behavior.
I still don't understand why would they not tolerate such people IRL? Can't they just ignore them and smile to themselves?
By not forcing them out, you're only encouraging their behaviour. The more of your time they waste, the more they enjoy it.
How does coming to watch them mock you doesn't encourage them? There is nothing such people like than to spit in the face one final time.
All the changes in the world won't stop poor sportsmanship.
IMHO, it's the opposite. The less options players have to interact with each other outside the gameplay, the less negative experience with toxicity there will be. Removing chat and reducing the opportunities to waste time will remove the ways for toxicity, leaving sore winners no other choice than to move on to the next game. There will never be any semblance of good sportsmanship in online games anyways, so I see no point even bringing it up.
3 -
One thing I love from this community is how survivors are simultaneously too strong and too weak. Complain about solo games and killer mains will tell you it's because of bad team mates. Killers complain about survivors and fellow killer mains will assure them the game is survivor sided.
16 -
- Ignoring behaviour that isn't a reportable offence discourages it. That's how it works. Report what is reportable, ignore that which isn't. You're not being a punching bag. If getting mad at them worked, they wouldn't do it to begin with.
- Again, you're not understanding how online anonymity emboldens people to behave in ways they otherwise wouldn't. These people behave the way they do because of online anonymity. They wouldn't do it IRL because there are very real consequences. Consequences that range from social ostracism to physical violence.
- You're not coming to watch them mock you. You're actively sending a message. Even if you wait out the full timer, they'll wait until the last possible moment to leave just to waste your time. Forcing them out tells them you're not going to play their silly game. If every killer did this instead of complaining about survs tbagging in the exit gates, they'd stop doing it.
- You can't really remove the opportunity to waste time. You can limit it, but at the end of the day this is an asymmetrical 1v4 pvp game. A win for the team is not necessarily a win for all.
- You see no point in bringing up sportsmanship but that's what this behavior is. If you are humble in victory, and graceful in defeat, that's good sportsmanship. If you're the opposite, that's poor sportsmanship.
I once suggested removing chat, and people were opposed to the idea.
1 -
Matches with a disconnect are not counted in official statistics.
Also, the desired 60% kill rate is killer sided, too, so being under it is not an argument against the game being killer-sided.
8 -
48.3% is a lot compared to 10%, it isn't a lot compared to losing 1/2 of all matches in comparison to 3/5ths of all matches.
2 -
The problem is we have to choose some scenario, or we get the current horrible state of the game. I think a kill is enough for the remaining Survivors to know if they want to continue the match or not. I mean, who is going to use this at 1 gen remaining? They would only use it at 5 gens remaining or similar 0-hope scenarios. Like your example, the game saboteurs will Kobe on hook in winnable games anyways, so what does it matter if they surrender as a bleedout after someone is already dead? At least waiting for someone to die (before allowing surrenders) is less abusable than the current climate.
The Survivors have the choice of pre-cleansing (aka effectively doing a 6th gen) if they are that far ahead. By that time, the Killer would have time to get enough hooks to feel like they actually played the game. Otherwise you can risk it assuming a random will die before (or to the NOED), in which case it is mostly a punishment for greed. I gave the basekit babyNOED as an example of a negative Killer extreme I also wish addressed, but most Survivor negative extremes are far more common and worse IMO. I think removing the anti-facecamp and anti-tunnel perks in endgame is also granting Killers free 'pity-kills' so I don't see anything different being introduced with a basekit babyNOED.
The sweatiest of Survivors want to face those Nurses and Blights though (to showcase their skill/game mastery), so I would see them more often banning simplistic or boring M1 Killers. Also, again, half the playerbase doesn't even use optional features, so the queue times would be minimally impacted. I feel the problem is largely self-correcting overall. If a Killer is literally banned by all skill levels and regions, then clearly the Killer itself is the problem with the game. Leaving it to fester and corrupt the player's enjoyment is far more detrimental for the game health than allowing people to become frustrated and sabotage matches or ragequit as a pure consequence of that Killer.
1 -
Aye thanks. I edited in a response. To say that quote is flawed is an understatement. See my edited response.
0 -
The devs have clarified that the game is 4 individual 1 on 1 situations happening at once and the survivors are not a team (but naturally are more likely to succeed if they work together). Just do some googling on it. You shouldn't have any difficulty finding a post as they've brought this up on numerous occasions.
1 -
What horrible state is the game already in? I've been in a game where I was in a 2-3 minute chase with a Hillbilly where my teammates "gen-rushed" and I got hooked in the three gen as my teammates continued to crank out gens on the same side of the map. It's normal to have a couple gens pop during your first chase as survivors are strong as the game starts and their strength dissipates as the game continues forward as killer has LESS gens to monitor. In the same game of the Artist, the Sable died at 4 gens. She proceeded to kill herself on hook for absolutely no reason at all... I started my chase off where I popped the gen in front of the Artist's face injured while Sprint Bursting to a nearby jungle gym, while my teammates did two gens during my chase as a whole. If your changes were implemented, the Artist would dead ass keep me slugged and continually down me over and over again until I eventually bled out. 💀 Instead my chase, ALONG with my other teammates allowed 2 people to escape instead of the 4k that it could have been had my chase not have lasted that long. Killer would absolutely have zero incentive to pick up the second survivor they downed with your surrender ideas and instead buff killer as a whole.
Basekit NOED would be even worse as it would involve survivors (solo-queue as most people play this section of the game) having to generally waste time on dulls while strengthening the idea of a tunneled out survivor. Even if a survivor isn't tunneled out, imagine a killer bringing Hex: Pentimento??? That's 10 totems in general that a survivor would have to cleanse not only to avoid basekit NOED, 6+ gens, and Pentimento stacks. I hope you're prepared to see the death of Hex builds given that undoubtably Counterforce and Small Game would be perks that survivors run to combat this oppressive build that would ultimately result from your ideas.
I go against high tier killers, sure. You might consider me a sweaty survivor if you saw my chase gameplay, but my dedication to improve came from LEARNING counterplay to the killers that I go against. Each killer has similar counterplay to one another, so allowing survivors to outright ban killers like Nurse, Blight, and Hillbilly (all who have the same counterplay of simply breaking line of sight and not finding themselves zoned out) or banning Huntress, Trickster, and Deathslinger who share the same sentiment of crouching and avoiding being hit by their powers. If survivors cannot adapt to the killers that they face, their MMR will be adjusted accordingly just like my MMR is adjusted rightfully so as I typically can hold my own in a chase.
Your ideas would fundamentally and outright destroy Dead By Daylight in the simplest terms. Not only are you advocating for an easier way for survivors to give up (easier 4k), more gen regression when generators already have ten seconds more added to them, and outright gutting top tier killers because some people want to use this option to earn easier games — the removal of skill expression, people LEARNING, and making Dead By Daylight even more of a generator simulator for survivor as is.
1 -
- the game is SWF sided.
- A lot of killers have cheesed their way into stronger opponents.
- The Meta punishes survivors for doing anything else besides gens, so its "genrushing" all the time
- MMR is not doing its job properly
- The game is in a very snowball state, so if killer can't get one kill, they are at a disadvantaged state
- Players who think they are more skilled than they are (TBF its symptom of online games in general)
5 -
Yall are thinking way to much into this. BHVR butchered SM based on complaints not data.
2 -
I don't understand the first section. I currently do nothing and get bledout often by powertripping Killers, so that wouldn't be new, it is the current normal, hence my claim 'horrible state of the game'. I played a match with an AFK from the start, and the Killer bled all 3 playing Survivors out just because they could. A BMing Killer would have to hover over the body of your hypothetical, giving free gen progress. If the Killer is giving free gen progress, then the Survivor has no reason to surrender. Even then, the surrender would turn the Survivor into a bot, and simply not yield a DC penalty and give you earned BP up to that point. So the BMing Killer would still have to camp the slugged bot, it just wouldn't penalize someone for an ended match being drawn out artificially.
The Basekit NOED suggestion assumes players have a brain being used. To be fair, that is the greatest flaw about it. They wouldn't cleanse at 5 gens to prevent it, because of the high probability of Killers getting a kill regardless. Thus Penti wouldn't be a threat unless you had griefing teammates, and we already have griefing teammates single-handedly losing the game from their comical stupidity. It may add a new avenue for trolls, but not a greater chance of people being trolls IMO.
Yeah sure, people's MMR adjusts. But the thing is, if I have MMR from across all types of Killers, then Spirit is an instaloss for me due to my hearing damage, MMR isn't properly tracking placements. This would provide a soft mechanism to more accurately track Survivor's MMR against each Killer (by the ban list influencing their groupings), in addition to each player's unique Killer MMR. It would provide greater match quality over time. If I had bans, Nurse/Spirit/Plague/Oni would be my (near) permabans, and the others would be 'previous Killer' bans, or if I played against too many X Killer recently then I'd ban X with my remaining slots. That partly is my point, is that people have different preferences, and when their preferences are met more, they have a better time. It isn't high enough that someone can choose to say, only go against Stealth Killers with anti-stealth perks, or only go against Ranged Killers with map offerings against them, so they still are 'fed their vegetables' with the hypothetical 40 roster of 32 possible Killers and 8 banned ones.
An easier way for Survivors to give up isn't forcing more deaths, its allowing the human to escape 4 minute bleedouts. I gave multiple scenarios, and we could require 2/3 of those conditions to come true before allowing it (or come up with new ones), but for whatever reason you are falsely assuming only 1 condition could ever be used, without giving any thought to the other ones (or alternative ones). There isn't more gen regression, except totem slowdown when stomping a babyKiller (which would be the only time you would/should cleanse). It wouldn't gut the power of the highest strength Killers, as other games don't simply delete the banned characters, they adjust them to be fun if unfun, or fair if unfair. Plus if a Killer was gutted because of this, that is so obvious that they were a problem to begin with (given that they had a likely 95%+ ban rate across all groups), that the point against bans becomes nullified. Anyone playing a match against a would be 'gutted' Killer is being ragequit anyways. Plus, once again, half or more than half of players don't even use optional systems like a ban list. Skill expression isn't removed, learning is still required for 80% of the roster minimum, and nothing about this forces more gens.
1 -
I also have went against killers, especially ones who utilize Knock Out (I can recall a Skull Merchant game off the top of my head who used the perk). Like I mentioned prior, I wouldn't be opposed to a surrender feature if all four survivors were slugged on the ground. However, I disagree with the notion that because a tunneled survivor has been killed that we can implement a surrender button for the second survivor that's downed. You would be surprised on the levels that a survivor would surrender and this type of surrender, quite frankly, sounds like an easy way to avoid the DC penalty. Again, I reiterate it's fine to implement when the killer is causing a 4 man bleed-out slug, but there are always ways to come back as I've mentioned in my Artist game. Additionally, like I said - the Artist would not have needed to hook me in that situation. It gives more power to the killer to decide to leave survivors on the floor to force a survivor to surrender. We have people who literally load into a match and DC because it's a Skull Merchant... Giving survivors the option to simply tab out of a game because of their first down after a tunnel would result in people choosing to leave out of frustration and cause a bot to take their place as you put it. I don't want to play with bots just because the Claudette didn't want to wait on the ground for me to go pick her up, at that rate I'd rather just go SWF because at least the team would be competent enough to NOT surrender.
How is it considered griefing to cleanse the totems if there's basekit NOED and a potential synergy with Pentimento? Like you said - doing these totems would be a priority that survivors need to think about when loading into a match. Totems are considered an optional objective unless absolutely necessary to cleanse them, such as a Devour Hope or even Face The Darkness (if against an Onyro or Pig). Requiring solo-queue survivors to go hunt down that pesky basekit NOED is a waste of time and if you want NOED, run NOED — it's that simple. Like you mentioned, this compacted slowdown would equal up to a sixth gen and this is not even touching the surface of how absolutely broken this would be on killers for them to be given pity kills in order to secure some tangible kill that could compound into even more kills, especially against a less coordinated solo-queue team.
I can understand accessibility issues regarding Spirit, sure. But as I've mentioned, this would directly affect killer queue times. We already see that quite evidentally on the forums that people complain about killer queue times, yet you want to put in another feature that can quite drastically affect queue times and cause people to actively give up playing their main to play a less Meta driven killer that they've invested thousands of hours into playing. You mentioned earlier that these killers who have less playtime could reflect how broken these killers are, but I completely disagree and it's moreso the onus on the survivor to learn to adapt against the killer that they were matched with. Even when I have terrible games, I still look at these games as a learning experience and see the positives of what's happening in the game. I have never in my life of this game dced because of me spawning in and seeing a killer or actively chosen to kill myself on hook just because I was found first. I simply play out the game and if for some reason I get into a situation where there's three gens up and myself and a rando are the only people alive, I will actively give myself up and allow the random a hatch chance and go next unlike other survivors who feel obligated to pick and choose who they want to avoid.
I genuinely don't understand the problem with Nurse unless you're actively going against a full aura reading Nurse, lol. I've had my fair share of matches against a Nurse and it's quite simple, at least from my experience to learn counterplay and for a person to be like — nope, not going against that indicates a lack of wanting to learn how to play against her, rather than the killer itself. I've went against speedrunning Nurses, if I die, I die - I still learned valuable information from playing against a highly skilled Nurse.
1 -
The escape rate statistics show the game is only SWF sided at high MMR.
1 -
Even there, the escape rate doesn't reach 50%, so it's not even killer-sided, statistically.
EDIT: Meant to say it's not survivor-sided.
Post edited by Firellius on8 -
We are talking about 1.7% difference in favor of the side that are dangerous killers chasing you, not a rival football team in high-school, so teams are not ment to be even. It should be scary
1 -
You're going to have to help me out, because I see nothing.
0 -
I’ve been playing since 2017, Thank you. What a very weird and desperate way to try to negate something. For every buff that you talk about came multiple nerfs. I remember the outcry about eruption, Pop, Surge, and pretty much every Jen regression park ever. All of them got nerfed into the ground. So sure you can list whatever buffs that you want but be sure to list the subsequent nerfs.
1 -
If a Killer could have won by slugging, they would, and do it now. This wouldn't add a new avenue. Non-issue.
Soloq isn't required to cleanse any totems, because someone is dying anyways. Non-issue.
Killer queue times aren't meaningfully going to be affected. When you say this, it makes it sound like 1m queues will take 5m instead, but with some math and the ban limit I suggested, it would be 20% of Killers, so 1m/(1-0.2 for 0.8), and yield 1m queues being pushed to 1m15s for the worse average increase. Non-issue if it is only moving the needle by 15s. The only time this actually could be an issue is when the game is near dead, or on isolated servers, where only 20 people are playing at the same time (4 matches, 4 Killers, 16 Survivors). If one person really wants to play the 'Survivors would rather tear their eyes out than play against me' Killer, and it is currently banned by all 16 Survivor players (because the Killer is such a bad experience that even the 50% who normally don't use optional features end up banning that specific Killer), then yeah they probably shouldn't get a match, or Survivors get an option to play against a banned Killer for 100% BP incentive. If the Killer player played any of the incentive'd Killers, then they know they can get a match though.
Personal preference. I don't understand people who like strawberry ice cream over say cookie dough/cookies and cream. I like going against Ghosty and Legion, but people seem to hate being instadowned (because they weren't paying attention) or Mending (which you only need to do after 15/20s to ensure no chain stabs). To each their own.
We are talking about aggregate, where people working together should be praised, not punished. We are also talking about High MMR having even higher kill rates than the normal population once you adjust for the frequency of SWFs in matches ( only~5% of matches are 4xSWF in the first place). We are also talking about a killrate, not a winrate, as a 60% killrate yields an average ~69K/~31S winrate once draws are thrown out. That still yields a ~60% Killer winrate at 52% killrate if they scale in a linear fashion with the 15% bonus win from kill rate established (although to be fair, it probably isn't linear, and likely is quadratic IIRC the correct term).
Also it could still be scary with 100% escape rates if done right. Look at how many people play single-player horror games, and those are designed around a 100% 'win' rate.
0 -
They do have the highest survival rate of all the categories, but thats not enough?
Do you just want killer to be a laughing stock vs. swfs?
( only~5% of matches are 4xSWF in the first place )
Source? Because that is not my experience.
~60% Killer winrate at 52% killrate
I dont unerstand this, can you explain to me why 2 kills are not 2 wins?
If one team had 100% winrate, the game would die, VHS is a good example.
1 -
This whole idea of having a "ban list" is just a fantasy. It could never actually work for obvious reasons.
0 -
How do you prove your opponents are SWF? Do you assume "I lost, must be a SWF"? The evidence is quite revealing if you think it is so common. Unskilled Killers are the laughing stock of Survivors regardless, just as unskilled Survivors are the laughing stock of Killers. Anyways, here is the official DBD infographic for SWF sizes.
~55% Solo, ~30% duo, ~10% trio, ~5% full 4-SWF.
'Can you explain winrate vs killrate' - Sure, when either side gets 3 (or more) results for them, their side 'wins' the match itself. 3K+ is a Killer win. 3E+ is a Survivor win. 2K+2E is a draw for the match. When you do the math with sets of 5 matches (with 12 kills and 8 escapes for the 60% killrate), you get a bunch of permutations/match results. On average, you get 22% Survivor winrate, 28% Draw rate, and 50% Killer win rate. If you split the draws evenly (even though it probably would be 40%S 60%K), you get +14% for each, or 36% Surv winrate, and 64% Killer winrate (so even doing the math in favor of the Killer's side still shows too high of winrate). If you discard draws, and only count times where one side clearly won the match, you get ~31% Survivor winrate, ~69% Killer winrate.
That math however is built upon every possible permutation being the same likelihood. If you take the most common real match result, (IME) mostly 3Ks, then you get 20% Survivor winrate, and 80% Killer winrate (with 1 4E, then 4 3Ks in a set of 5 matches). You can also use the most uncommon result being the most common, or 2K+2E (IME). If you use that subset, you get 4 draws and 1 4K for 0% Survivor winrate, 80% draw rate, and 20% Killer winrate. That's why I use the middle number of all possible permutations but skipping draws, since they nearly never happen (at least in my matches on both sides).
Technically Hatch escapes count as a null match, and I did a little bit of match accounting for Hatch later in the linked thread or post. I don't think it is relevant though, because it the Killer winrate is still far too high in comparison, and I've already made my point.
If the game had 100% winrate the game would die - Exactly, that's why Killer's shouldn't have such padded winrates. When one side, Survivor or Killer, has too much of a chance to win, the other side has no reason to play. I either get frustrated while playing impossible Survivor, or get frustrated because I win too easily with 0 gen regression as Killer. At this point, I think the game should be balanced around a 60% Killer winrate (discarding draws), not a 60% killrate. That would mean the killrate should be anywhere from 51-59%, but I'm not sure exactly where. SWF killrates is still within this safe margin, and soloq isn't.
Basekit BT was just a fantasy, but they slowly improve the game over time. Hopefully one day they make this improvement among many others.
2 -
Did you mean the game isn’t survivor-sided at high MMR?
3 -
The thing is basekit bt was very simple to implement. A ban list would cause so many problems with the matchmaking and such. And thats not even getting into the psychological effects. For example, if almost everyone bans a speciific killer then the people who bought that killer will get angry they cannot play as them. And that is just one very small example of the chaos it could cause.
0 -
I did, yes, I messed that up!
2 -
Nearly every hero/champion/legend game has a ban function; it isn't too complicated, nor would it destroy people's ability to play their favorite character. Plus optional features aren't even used more often than a coinflip (50%). That means even if hypothetically there was a 100% banrate Killer, it would be a 50% banrate in reality at the worst. Hypothetically, if a Killer is so awful that someone who normally wouldn't use an optional feature starts using it against this specific Killer, that is obvious they would have ragequit any match with the Killer either by DCing or Kobes with no intention of winning.
0 -
I have to say as someone who has zero (to the power of a large number lol) mathematical ability, I find it fascinating to see the game broken down in such ways - I haven’t the foggiest idea how these are calculated but much respect to everyone who does!
I feel like I’m watching an episode of PBS science when they get to the complex mathematics part lol but on a serious note, it is very interesting and gives a different viewpoint for the average layperson such as myself (extra lay in my case)
@mizark3 et al
4 -
I play plenty of killer and I don't think that the game is necessarily survivor-sided. I think it's more accurate to say that it is survivor-sided high MMR end of play with coordinated SWF and it can be definitely killer-sided on the low-MMR/solo queue end. As killer, there's really not much you can do against a good coordinated 4-man SWF team. It's just mathematically impossible unless you are on a very killer-sided map with few good loops/pallets. Maybe you get one kill if you focus on tunneling someone out and maybe 2 kills if you do that and then also get lucky catching someone at the exit gates.
On the other end of the spectrum, I also play a lot of solo q so I know how frustrating it is having a non-functioning SBMM system that puts you with brand-new and/or terrible players who hide all game, get downed 10 seconds after chase starts, or will prioritize self-healing over finishing a gen that's almost done.
It feels like the only time the game is well-balanced is in solo queue or 2-man SWF teams when you have killers and survivors of similar skill level matched against each other. Unfortunately these kind of matches seem to be rare.
2 -
I guess considering all the trouble the game already has with matchmaking I cant imagine that adding a new system that makes it way more complicated wouldn't cause problems.
0 -
As I stated in a previous post, if queues take 1 minute, and you have 20% bans, the worst it would do to the average is bump it to 1m15s. If this prevents a DC/ragequit, this saves 5-10m of a wasted match, or 20-40 matches alone breaks even. Not to mention the psychological benefits of never facing 'this Killer breaks your brain and makes you hate life'.
0 -
The crazy thing is that the below-50% escape rate for high-MMR full-SWF survivors excludes matches with disconnects and includes hatch escapes, so the number that would be more closely resembling the played reality is even lower. What additionally has to be considered is that for these stats, they look at the survivor players' MMR value, which means there are tons of matches in there where these high-MMR full-SWF survivors met non-high-MMR killers, because we all know the matchmaking isn't all that strict at all. And despite all of that, they still didn't get 2 out on average.
For the larger topic, well, it's an eternal "conflict" that will never be put to rest, it's the lifeblood of the forums and of the game in some respects. And these discussions are always tinged with a lot of anecdotes, emotions, personal opinions and experiences. With a lot of people I assume even unloading their frustrations from a match they had literally just gotten out of, their entire view blinded by that one experience and their emotions in that moment.
Most of the casual opinions that the game is totally survivor-sided are based on (or rather: uninformedly parroted from) a distant past when survivors legitimately had comically broken nonsense. Now mind you, killers also had hilariously broken stuff back then, but survivors had more, many of the killers we have now didn't exist and maps are a shadow of what they used to be for survivors. Thing is, even apart from the fact that all of that has changed drastically throughout the years of course, even back then competent killer players won more than they didn't, good killer players still basically always winning. For which there are various reasons. To begin with, the fact that survivors don't always use the strongest stuff, and in fact, it basically never happens that you actually get a group stacked with the strongest stuff times 4. When have you last seen even just 4 Syringes/Styptics or 4 BNPs in a match? And that's just add-ons, that everybody knows are the most impactful choices among them, and they don't even cost a perk slot. And yet you almost never see it. Killers using the strongest stuff in every slot however is much more common, because it is only 1 player having to make that decision. Next thing is that survivors are almost never full SWFs, let alone on voice comms. And believe it or not, the game is notably killer-favoured if the survivors have no communication and coordination, don't even know each other's builds and play patterns and such. And another major reason is the matchmaking that fails to give good players adequate opposition, let alone 4 adequate survivors. A good killer player will maybe face 1 adequate group of survivors every hundred matches? If that. Facing a really good 4-SWF on comms trying hard to win stacking the strongest stuff is a one-in-a-million occurrence.
The mythical "balance" of the game whatever it may be does not matter if you can win 99-100% of the matches that the game actually gives you, and it has been proven time and time again that you factually can (as killer anyway, or in a 4-player SWF on voice comms), with countless winstreaks of hundreds (and thousands) of matches in a row on just about any killer.
But yes, even the supposed base balance is a world removed from what people casually or ignorantly or deliberately falsely make it out to be. Killers win more in tournaments too, so the assumption that killers don't stand a chance if everybody is highly skilled and experienced is provably wrong, always has been. Of course tournaments employ perk and item/add-on restrictions, but they go for both roles and they also don't change the base game, so at most arguments would shift to say the game is loadout-sided, that it is only ever (potentially) survivor-sided if every survivor is using the strongest stuff in every slot. But not even that seems to hold true, given that in tournaments where everything was allowed, killers still outperformed survivors. Of course, there are different killers and some are clearly more lethal than others so balancing between those killers seems called-for, and there are things to be said about whether the game couldn't be balanced better for the idea of getting more hook stages rather than relying on camping and tunnelling to succeed. But all of that stops being relevant in public matches anyway, where we can see even perkless winstreaks on even the weakest of killers, even winstreaks where the players will actively refrain from camping and tunnelling.
The realization everyone should be glad to come away with if they look at the environment that actually matters for most of everyone (public matchmaking) is that high winrates and winstreaks prove that it is skill-sided, and as such, you can succeed (and even dominate) in the vast majority of your matches if you practice, improve and get good enough. Now, I suspect this precisely is a realization many are in denial of, because it means if they are struggling they would have to face the fact that they simply aren't good enough, that another player in their place would have done better, that it wasn't the game that made them lose, that they would have to put in more time, effort, work, thought. But for everyone that actually plays competitive multiplayer games to practice and improve their skills and for the competition, to put in that time, effort, work, thought, this realization should if anything be exhilarating, as few other multiplayer PVP games allow you to win as consistently and decisively as DbD does purely by leveraging one's skills. And this is all the more so true on the killer side, where your skill constitutes 100% of your side's skill and you aren't at the mercy of the matchmaking system, which more often than not throws together blatantly mismatched players. The skill-sidedness of DbD in its main mode (public matchmaking) favours killers, which is obvious both from global stats as well as from the way larger number of killer winstreaks, that have also achieved way higher records.
In fact, if I have a problem with the game in terms of its competitive viability, its "balance design" so to say, it's if anything that it's too easy to win as killer and in a full SWF team. I believe balance-wise the primary and major and for now really the only thing anybody that is even halfway decent at the game and not looking to constantly win more or less effortlessly (i. e. looking for an actual engaging and challenging multiplayer gaming experience) should be complaining about and annoyed by is the poor state of the matchmaking system, that allows one to win 80+% of the time handedly once above a certain skill/experience threshold, rarely getting a real challenge or competition, much of the time beating up on clearly subpar players. A higher MMR cap (or even its removal) and a more strict matchmaking algorithm are the first things people should be advocating for. If in that new environment actual balance grievances then arise, those can then be talked about. But until then, people bickering about the game's supposed balance when you have players out there winning 1000-2000 matches in a row is pretty asinine and futile and ridiculous. Even many of the players that constantly complain about how survivor-sided the game supposedly is win their killer matches most of the time, seemingly not wanting a challenge or engaging competitive gaming experience and to improve and grow as a player, but wanting to just win the remaining 5-10% of matches that they are currently not winning too.
11 -
Can this post be pinned? I really couldn't have said it better myself. The only thing I would add is that while DbD is more or less skill-sided, it's also effort sided. As you alluded to, a killer is only one person who has to make the decision to run their strongest build and try as hard as they can for a 4k. There is so much randomness in solo queue that this becomes unrealistic, as you said.
4 -
This multiplayer stomp as Killer is so accurate. Back before engagement based matchmaking styled MMR was frequently used by every game, you could play social slayer on Halo and stomp newbies. Most the times you would only do that if you were playing with weaker friends though. Now, since the game is leveraged for Killer to have a greater win chance, if you sweat and your opponents sweat, they needed to pre-sweat more than you, in order to have a chance of winning, to bypass the default 60-40 killrate odds stacked against them.
That's probably why so many main-brained Killer players complain so much about SWF, it is the only people who have a 'fair' chance against them with 48% escape rates. It is almost a coinflip where the side with more skill exclusively prevails. They queued up for their free win, they didn't want to have to actually try to earn their win.
The rest of this post perfectly describes nearly every facet, but I just wanted to add on to the old vs new multiplayer differences on top of that.
6 -
One of my friends once said "They're winning 90% of their games and think the other 10% is a balance issue", which I thought was a pretty apt description of that mindset.
8 -
I had several games when I played as weaker killers that ended with 0 kills, with toxic survivors bming the entire game. Then I switched to Nurse and got told to kms in end game chat after a 4k. There is a gross disparity
2 -
I think BHVR has fostered this mindset, in a way, with their ‘power role’ stuff.
6 -
Exactly, the randomness or "chaos" favours the killer in the matchmaked asymmetrical format in multiple ways, from the loadout stage, to their skill and sweat levels, the amount of impact their decisions have on a match, how well their gameplan translates into the match, and more, simply because the survivors are 4 random players without any coordination or cohesion, whereas the 1 player is obviously as cohesive a "unit" as it gets. I expanded on that concept in various posts, some of which in this thread: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/405382/new-stats-feb-15th-2024. Specifically:
Skill and sweat is much more impactful on the killer side. This is simply because on the survivor side you have 4 players, which have varying levels of skill and of trying to win, with weak links of subpar players that can doom an entire match even if the other 3 players are better than the killer player, and with people not playing in earnest (i. e. not trying to win, but to do funny or stupid things, or tome challenges, or at least not trying hard to win, or just playing for hatch). On the killer side, there is 1 player, their skill level therefore obviously determines 100% of their skill-based performance potential, their degree of "trying to win" 100% of how sweaty their side will be. Any survivor on the other hand can only determine 25% of their side's skill and sweat levels. There is the disparity in strategical game approach as well - again, with 4 players things can be very disconcerted and downright chaotic, whereas on the killer side, even if their approach to the game may not necessarily be good, at least their approach is as concerted as can be, the decisions they make translate into the game as well as the gameplay design allows for them to. The asymmetric nature of this game favours the killer player's skill, tryhardiness and decision-making to have a more notable impact on the outcome of matches. And this of course starts before the match has even begun, at the loadout screen (it is infinitely more common to have a killer that has the best thing equipped in every slot than an entire group of survivors doing the same, again simply because they are 4 players - when have you last seen even just 4 BNPs in a match?)
And:
Absolutely, and this is implicitly included in what I meant with the greater degree of disconcertedness among survivor groups as compared to the killer, for the simple and obvious reason that there will be much more randomness in the loadouts, mentalities, intentions, decisions, skills and so on of a random group of 4 players than in the 1 player. As long as the killer player doesn't have 4 personalities or is in 4 different minds about what and how to play, they will on average be about 4 times as concerted as the survivors, ha.
This sounds obvious at best and silly at worst, but to highlight in simple terms what this means using something you also brought up in the example of loadouts: just think of the fact that the killer's loadout consisting of the killer character, 4 perks, 2 add-ons, and an offering is the equivalent to the survivor group's loadout of 16 perks, 4 items, 8 add-ons and 4 offerings. How often will the killer player have a (more or less) perfectly concerted, synergistic loadout, where the character, perks, add-ons and offerings each and all make sense together, are well-rounded and can even serve very precise strategic intentions (e. g. Mirror Myers with a Lery's offering), and how often will the same be the case for the survivors' loadout? For killers, most matches. For survivors, outside of 4-player SWFs, basically never. As you said, some perks can be overrepresented, others underrepresented or not represented at all, all of which detrimentally so, there can be multiple conflicting offerings, and in any case, it will essentially never happen that all perks, items, add-ons and offerings will be perfectly synergistic and fine-tuned, let alone serving a preconceived strategy. In my SWFs we will sometimes use 4 luck offerings alongside 4 Up The Antes and 4 Slippery Meats. This allows us to unhook ourselves on the first hook every time. It's an incredibly strong loadout. How often do we think random groups have used this build in the history of this game, among billions of solo queue matches? 0 times, in all likeliness. Even having something like 4 BNPs in a solo group is vanishingly rare, and that despite the fact that everybody knows how good BNPs are, and they cost nothing to bring and are merely an add-on for an item. It's easy to understand from this that killer loadouts will most of the time be enormously more optimized than survivor loadouts, and from there the jump to understanding in what other ways killers benefit from their concerted approach, efforts and decisions as compared to the more disconcerted survivor groups is easier.
The consistency with which killers can win in DbD is unheard of in any comparably popular multiplayer PVP game, and being able to win thousands of times in a row flies in the face of anything that is a remotely competitively balanced game. It's simply insane and would be scandalous in most other games. Apart from the lax matchmaking, one of the major reasons for this absolutely is the asymmetrical, 1v4 format itself: the only constant in all of those matches is the 1 killer player; as survivor, unless you are playing in the same 4-SWF every single time, you can never have that consistency, in fact you will be a universe away from that consistency, every single match is a crapshoot.
I do think that contrary to common belief, the game is actually sort of well-balanced for the 4-player SWF team format, certainly well-balanced enough for the expression of that idea in the matchmaking gameplay reality where these SWFs aren't tournament-level teams (as the stats obviously also support). Of course, killers, maps and loadouts at play will always affect things greatly and there certainly are still things to be balanced out in those regards, but generally, through the skill range spectrum, the game is much closer to being competitively viable for the idea of a premade survivor team on comms than people assume. And average killer players on average having 2 survivors escape in those matches seems completely reasonable, unless of course they don't actually want a competitively well-balanced experience where their opponents can outplay and outperform them and instead want to win most of the time no matter what. And I do think a lot of players do adopt this mentality when they play killer, that they think they should be able to win every single match, and the game reinforces that idea because you actually can win most killer matches even if you aren't an outstanding player. Which leads to them then taking any loss (and especially if it's a decisive loss) as an affront and are quick to invoke game design as the reason for their loss, and this obviously is more likely to happen against the rare full SWF teams.
What people rarely consider when they think about "solo queue" and how bad it is, is that it is killer-favoured at a basic level. It's not merely that solo queue has people trolling, throwing, giving up, being bad, stupid, or whatnot, that causes it to be so rough, it's also simply that the game appears to be killer-favoured if the 4 survivor players are strangers with no cohesion, coordination and communication, knowledge about each other's builds and playstyles, gameplans, and so on. That is to say, even if every single one of those 4 players is equally as skilled and experienced as the killer player and trying equally as hard to win, from loadout to gameplan and gameplay, I'm still convinced that the killer has the base advantage in that scenario generally (again, it does depend on the killer, maps and specific loadouts at play too, but generally I guarantee this holds true). With most (around 80-90%) survivors being a mix of solo and duo players, average-and-above killer players are simply used to winning and being at an advantage, they are conditioned to expect to do well, and so whenever they don't they quickly feel like something is wrong with the game, that their opponents beat them "unfairly", and so on. The asymmetrical format also seems to make it really difficult for people to accept that skill and effort just like in other PVP games play a huge part in the outcome of matches, to conceive of the idea that a better player would have performed better in their stead, that the opponent can play better and outperform them. And that despite being a good player, not winning all the time is actually normal in balanced games because you are supposed to be facing other good players on an even playing field. That I can see really rather mediocrely skilled streamers lament day in and out, year after year, the oh-so survivor-sided terrible state of balance in this game despite winning some 80+% of their killer matches when literal world champion deities in other, much more competitive games such as Starcraft are barely hitting 70%, I feel like DbD is some insular kindergarten community where people expect things to go their way by design, and don't want to challenge themselves and others and work for their successes. I've been in a few competitive gaming communities, but this phenomenon is unique to DbD.
6