Could anyone explain how game is survivor sided?

Between the slugging ,the tunneling, and all the other playstyles that inherently make dbd so much easier for killers,how is it that that this game is survivior sided?

Did research and

-the escape rate of iri-1 -swf-4 survivors is 48%,anything below this exponentially depletes the escape rate

-the highest survivior escape streak is around 50-60, yet killer streaks with competent people get to the 3-4 digits

-survivor “second chance” perks are conditioned whilst killers “second chance” are mostly passive and promised value

Killers will complain survivors are to oppressive with flashbang, toolboxes, exc exc but they themselves will slug,tunnel and have access to addons.

Also. I know killer and survivior have two separate win conditions, but the escape rate practically provides with us at best; surviviors can tie whilst a killer is expected to get a 2k at worst, and with some skill a 3k

«1

Comments

  • Doxie
    Doxie Member Posts: 174

    Basically it's not. SWF teams are but honestly how many of them are there. Maybe a lot but most of us arent

  • Prometheus1092
    Prometheus1092 Member Posts: 362

    Pretty much this. Swf teams are crazy, they are like a hive mind lol. Taking on 4 person swf is a sweat fest. Killers need to be able to compete against them so they get buffs. Soloq suffers the worst due to having buffed killers but don't have that swf hive mind teamwork that's needed balance it out which makes it seem killer sided.

    People say nerf killers and perks but all that does is make it harder for the killers to deal with swf. Personally I think having some sort of communication in soloq would help alot. In game voice chat, sharing perk info with eachother, things that swf have but solo doesn't. This won't put soloq on par with swf due to so many solo players wanting to do challenges and adept achievements which in a way let's the whole team down if the rest are trying to escape. But not much can be done about that

  • Toystory3Monkey
    Toystory3Monkey Member Posts: 558

    It can't and won't be solved, because it would mean making the game even more competitive than it already is.

  • Toystory3Monkey
    Toystory3Monkey Member Posts: 558
    edited October 30

    killer as a whole doesnt exist. even if my premise is arguably flawed, it's at least grounded in reality.

    you are discussing spherical horses in vacuum by talking about killers in general. killers in "general" do not exist. there's no such thing as "killer in general". please forget about such concept when discussing balance, it doesn't make any sense for the reasons I explained in the comment above.

    regarding "50% killrate" - please refer to what I said about diluted and non excluding win conditions.

  • THE_Crazy_Hyena
    THE_Crazy_Hyena Member Posts: 341

    There is the MMR again. I posted a comment in another thread talking about the current flaws of MMR, and why games tend to be so skewed towards one side, especially in the highest bracket.

    Picture this: You have been on a decent win-streak, causing your MMR to just dip over into the top bracket (let's say it is the Gold bracket, where the MMR ranges from 1401 points, all the way up to the 2100 point cap). All your games up to this point has been pretty chill and feeling even, or maybe a little on the easy side (since the silver bracket ranges from 950 - 1400 points). Then all of a sudden, you get matched against a comp-level team, or a one-trick killer who knows every little detail about their character.
    Something feels very wrong, but then you realize that the Gold bracket is very wide, spanning 700 points (compared to the 450 points of the silver bracket). And since you only get matched against players within your MMR bracket (instead of a range around your own points), you have now been matched against the sweatiest team / killer you can imagine, who is sitting at the top of the bracket, just because the matchmaking wanted to save you some time. This in turn causes you to get absolutely demolished by players who likely have 10 times the amount of hours put into the game, compared to you.
    This is why it feels like there is no middleground between chill and extremely sweaty matches.

    Ergo, it is not so much the balance in the game that is wrong, but rather the matchmaking system being so loose, when it comes to MMR-brackets.

  • joybonru22
    joybonru22 Member Posts: 15

    we all know that this game is killer sided!

  • CLHL
    CLHL Member Posts: 175

    Most survivors are mediocre players, they don't even know how to loop a structure optimally. This game is in dire need of detailed tutorials to teach survivors the basics of the game. You can give them endless buffs, but as long as they don't understand the basics, they won't achieve anything. The killer role is easier to get started, and except for the complexity of some powers, they will quickly learn their basics. But that doesn't mean the game is killer sided. The only thing that keeps this game from not being absolutely broken towards the survivor side is the low level of the player base, and the proof of this is that the competitive scene has always heavily restricted one side.

  • CLHL
    CLHL Member Posts: 175

    I have already said that the killer role is easier to understand. If neither knows what they are doing, the killer is faster and will end up knocking down the survivor. Just look at all the help SoloQ has get in the last years, but instead of solving the situation it has aggravated it. You can't balance the game around pleople who refuses to learn.

  • fussy
    fussy Member Posts: 1,586
    • Half of survivors matches someone give up or don't want to play the game and people still think 40% escape rate is low even taking into account that, once again, every second game survivors literally give free win to killer without even trying. I won't even start rant about how awful most of playerbase is and barely understand what game they are playing at, ruining games which literally impossible to lose.
    • 48% is 20% more escape rate than 40%, it means that if soloq is balanced in eyes of devs and perform at 100%, SWF performs at 120%. People who claim that it's low difference should go back to school at math classes, I think. "anything below this exponentially depletes the escape rate" in a game, which expect 40% escape rate? No way, how unfair!
    • I adore how survivors claim that you can't compare survivor and killer things and instantly compare swf vs killers winstreaks. Someone really need to explain that 4 heads it's 4 times more opportunity for mistakes, misplays and wrong decision making? And don't worry, even if "streaking" is harder on survivors, it's still 99% escape rate for best teams. Lose once in 100 matches doesn't make it less impressive.

    It was ( but only after 6.1.0), it is and it probably will always be like this: Game is killer sided on low level, balanced on average and survivor sided at high level. And "average" at this game is really far from "good", it's just not catastrophic awful.

  • fussy
    fussy Member Posts: 1,586

    Yes, DCing, and not giving up on hook, which is by far more popular in matches, because players has no penalty for that.

  • fussy
    fussy Member Posts: 1,586

    I think SM is special case, I've seen way more DCs against her than give ups. People hear her TR and already know that they won't play this match.
    I judge based on my games and what I see on streams across many people, and maybe bigger picture isn't that bad, but I think majority will agree that giving up is too common, especially in last ~half-year.

  • Unequalmitten86
    Unequalmitten86 Member Posts: 227

    My theory is this. Content creators not ones that are fog whisperers create stuff with slugging, tunneling, camping and so forth. So again this comes from a bad MMR system. So as a killer starts off they start to win and they feel good but as they climb they are matched with people put of their league quite quickly and start to lose. They then turn to the videos and start the unhealthy gameplays, then turn their losses into wins, without skill. As they move up the ranks when they find a team that can outplay them they cry survivors are overpowered.

    It is a heavily killer sided and the majority of killers use the slug, tunnel, camp method because it is easy.

    As for looping, there are a lot of console players that can loop but can't really compete against PC killers because of mechanics. The Oni for example he can turn on PC but when you have a console Oni there is no turning so it's much easier to loop. Most killers don't chase and we all know the slug to win and it's pathetic.

  • fussy
    fussy Member Posts: 1,586

    >thread "game is killer sided" filled with stats
    >you can't prove "game is survivor sided" with stats, it's bias
    >talking about mental gymnastic
    Why literally every your response to me is so anecdotal? Even if I wanted to put on so many layers of hypocrisy, I couldn't.

  • Nun_So_Vile
    Nun_So_Vile Member Posts: 2,398
    edited October 30

    it's just one of many virtue signaling phrases that are thrown around by some people in the community.

  • hermitkermit
    hermitkermit Member Posts: 401
    edited October 30

    Killers are the marketing point of DBD. So it makes sense to keep them in the power role. The game is not survivor sided, nor should it be because the horror icon should be stronger. That being said, it is still a game. And if you want people to be okay with losing a game more often than winning, it needs to be fun. And solo isn’t fun right now.

  • trapners
    trapners Member Posts: 15

    so if the sales role is suppose to be the powerole,

    -survivor’s make up 80% of the trials

    -survivors have the most dlc characters

    -survivors have the most dlc cosmetics

    -survivors have the most in-game perks

    -survivor’s have the most cosmetics

    By a landslide survivor’s are the games main money-bank, should survivor’s alternative win 60-75% of their matches because of that now?

  • hermitkermit
    hermitkermit Member Posts: 401

    This may very well be simply just my opinion, but I do believe that DBD's success hinges on the appeal of its iconic killers. The ability to both play as and against horror legends from across various media is what truly sets DBD apart. If the game were purely about surviving against these killers, without the option to play as them, I doubt it would have reached the same level of popularity. Playing as Laurie, for example, is fun, but playing as Michael Myers creates an entirely different kind of fun. The focus on iconic killers is what maintains the horror identity of the game and keeps the core experience thrilling. I'm not saying survivors in horror movies can't be iconic, but people don't typically watch horror movies to watch the survivors, they do it to watch the killers. When we look at DBD marketing—trailers, events, and new chapters—the killer is almost always at the forefront. It’s clear that the killers are the selling point. Players are drawn to the opportunity to be the terrifying force they grew up watching on-screen.

    In my original reply I did not mean to suggest that the side generating more revenue should be the one made more powerful—that would be a gross oversimplification. But the game and horror in general, fundamentally relies on the killer being a force to be reckoned with. DBD operates on a 4v1 format, and if the survivors were just as powerful as the killer, it would upset the entire balance and diminish the horror aspect. The point isn’t that the survivors should be significantly weaker, but rather that the killer needs to remain the dominant force in the game for the horror element to be present. After all, the essence of horror is the fear and danger, not an even fight.

    Just for reference, I primarily play solo Q and I get the frustration. I've had losing streaks in the 20+, and some of my very old posts when I first started playing this game like 2 years ago were questioniong why killer was so much stronger than survivor because I was struggling so badly. In fact, I hold the unpopular view that the balance should be closer to 45% survivor win rate rather than 40%. It also feels unfair to require survivors to run specific perks to counter killer tactics that can be done without any perks at all. I don't agree that WoO should get a nerf, because the criticisims of WoO could apply to killers aura reading of generators at all times. Etc. So while many of my opinions and views lean toward a survivor perspective, I can still acknowledge why killers need a higher win rate to keep the role appealing.

    Ultimately, just because survivors make up the majority doesn’t mean the game should cater to them at the expense of the killer role. If survivors were balanced to win more than killer, it would undermine the horror foundation of DBD and remove the incentive to play the killer role. Part of what makes survivor role appealing is the option to play with friends, something the killer role doesn't have. So if you had to pick between the 2 roles, one you win more often and you get to play with friends and the other you lose more often and you're alone- I don't think it's unreasonable to believe not many people would play the killer role. But as it stands now, one role you can play with friends or others but you lose more often, versus the other role that you're still alone but you win more, which is an incentive to pick killer over survivor- because of the higher chance of success. The balance needs to ensure that playing as the killer remains both rewarding and intimidating, while also making victory as a survivor possible. By keeping the killer role powerful, DBD maintains its identity and ensures that the game still functions because people need reasons to play both roles and winning more is the reason to play killer, take that away and I'm not sure what they still have.

    DBD isn't "fair" but I don't think it should be. I think it makes sense for the Survivor role to lose more than win. (by how much is debatable) Losing doesn't always feel bad, it's more about how you lose that can feel bad. And that's what should change.

  • TotemsCleanser
    TotemsCleanser Member Posts: 644

    I was there when this game was survivor sided around 2020 (and before that it was even MORE survivor sided to be honest). It no longer is. I believe it is less killer sided than it used to be survivor sided, but it still is killer sided now. And to an extent I believe that's fair because the game was survivor sided for /years/ so it's fair that the scale has tilted the other side for a bit. Survivors are paying reparations right now (?).

  • ErebusSurge
    ErebusSurge Member Posts: 46

    it isn’t. Never will be, never has been. Next question.


    oh and the guy who said most survivors are mediocre, so are most killers, different is mediocre killers have an abundance of things to cover up their lack of ability. Mediocre survivors do not. In fact they are actively punished for it

  • Ayodam
    Ayodam Member Posts: 3,020
    edited October 30

    True but the survivor experience is very much trial by fire, and you simply can’t efficiently learn while PUGGING as survivor. Heck, you can’t even learn optimally in a SWF. Survivor has an enormously high skill floor and most players aren’t competent in the role until they have around a thousand hours of playtime. This says nothing about learning to handle specific killers, as they don’t all play or have the same counterplay strategies. The best way to learn generally as a survivor is via customs. That requires coordination, dedication, and time many survivor players may not have access to.

  • Autharia
    Autharia Member Posts: 217

    It's not as hard as you think it is. If it was that hard no MMORPG would exist now as you need more people in them to do high end activities then you do for DBD, and people do those activities 1 or more times a week.

  • I_Cant_Loop
    I_Cant_Loop Member Posts: 505
    edited October 30

    Unfortunately there is a large portion of the player base who prefers to stay in their own "tribe" and refuses to play one side or the other. 90% of the toxicity in the community comes from these players. It's very easy to pick them out based on their forum comments. They refuse to view things for the other side's perspective, don't acknowledge how things that might make the game more fun for them might make it less fun for someone else, and generally blame the other side for all the game's faults. It really comes down to self-centeredness.

  • I_Cant_Loop
    I_Cant_Loop Member Posts: 505

    The reason solo q isn't fun is 100% due to the non-functional matchmaking. I am a solo q player, and I have had many very fun matches but they only happen if I'm paired with competent teammates. Because of the non-functional matchmaking, I am often paired with brand new players - and I am talking literally brand new, like less than 100 hours. Almost every lobby I get thrown into has at least one <300 hour player. I have >2000 hours and consider myself a decent but not great survivor player. I have no problem escaping if put on a competent team. But the matchmaking keeps putting me into no-win scenarios.