Why do killers think this game is survivior sided?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

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. the game is SWF sided.
2. A lot of killers have cheesed their way into stronger opponents.
3. The Meta punishes survivors for doing anything else besides gens, so its "genrushing" all the time
4. MMR is not doing its job properly
5. The game is in a very snowball state, so if killer can't get one kill, they are at a disadvantaged state
6. Players who think they are more skilled than they are (TBF its symptom of online games in general)

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.

The escape rate statistics show the game is only SWF sided at high MMR.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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'.