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
Comments
-
It’s only survivor sided if the survivors are good and know what they’re doing. The vast majority of the player base is casual and therefore not good enough to win often.
Matthew Cote said it best almost a decade ago.
“At the lower levels the game is killer sided and at the higher levels it’s survivor sided.”
All you have to do is look at comp to see that. If the killer isn’t Nurse or Blight they will often be destroyed completely and survivors have an insane amount of restrictions to make it more fair for the killer.
Hasn’t changed since then. It all depends on who is playing lol.
20 -
Basically it's not. SWF teams are but honestly how many of them are there. Maybe a lot but most of us arent
1 -
It really isn't.
It hasn't been for a really long time.
27 -
It isn't survivor sided at any level and any attempts to claim it is are either disingenuous or falling prey to a sample size fallacy. Even in the highest levels of MMR a 4 person SWF can't break a 50% escape rate on the average.
Attempting to say it's because 'survivors aren't that good' is being in denial of the fact the current game mechanics favour Killer.
19 -
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
2 -
It can't and won't be solved, because it would mean making the game even more competitive than it already is.
0 -
I feel it's a bit disingenuous to generalize and say the game is "killer sided" when there are 37 (or 38, i lost count) killer with varying mechanics, power levels and skill / effort requirements. You wouldn't say the game is killer sided for someone like Doctor or Demogorgon, will you? And what about Clown, Hag?
I also wouldnt operate with the statistics you've given as undeniable proof of the game being either sided. This game lacks any proper matchmaking or incentive for either side to express equal motivation to play and win in all of their matches and most of the time skill/motivation are much more impactful factors than disbalance. Look at Nurse's killrates. If we looked at that alone, I'd say she's a D tier killer in desperate need of giga buffs and games are survivor sided against
Skill / effort disparity is way more evident on the killer side where you have much more full picture of the match due to higher engagement.
It's also not very objective to talk about lack of survivor winstreaks without giving context to them. Ive seen a bunch of KL's winstreaking attempts and they all boiled down to stomping 99% of the lobbies and then getting a draw / loss when they couldn't meet their unrealistic win con against a streamsniper playing stuff like Tombstone myers. They are also often challenging themselves by self imposed restrictions. They arent running same perks, high tier items or map offerings.
Win con is another thing. The game doesnt really show you that your teammate's escapes matter (as they dont for anything other than mmr where it merely lowers your mmr gains for dying teammates) and it doesnt care much whether or not you escaped through hatch or gates. The game is very frivolous with the idea of what a true wincon is for survivors. Survivor streaks often go for unrealistic win condition that isn't supported by the base game. As far as it really goes, out of 5 people and 2 sides in the match, 3 people can lose and 2 people on the opposite sides can win.
This game isn't symmetric and win conditions are not determined symmetrically. If we start doing that and treating both teams as equal, then it boils down to the variety of options they have, which takes us back to the wide array of differently balanced killers and various options survivors have.
Another issue is the fact this game is not designed for competitive play. Matchmaking, as previously mentioned, is not accommodated for competitive play and the balance of each individual match is extremely volatile in favour of whichever side brings more ######### / gets more lucky.
5 -
Your premise has two flaws. We're discussing Killer as a whole and not specific Killers. In other words, we're discussing apples and you're discussing oranges. If you want to argue there's a large delta between the power levels of different Killers I don't think anybody will seriously dispute that.
The second is that wasn't every Killer at over 50% kill rate at top MMRs with the last data released? On Nightlight doesn't every Killer have a higher percentage of games that are 3Ks and 4Ks than games of OK and 1K?
Individual Killers may need assistance as the goal kill rate is 60%, not 50%, but with every Killer killing more than Survivors escape there's no credible argument against the game being Killer sided on the whole.
7 -
Even killer biased content creators like Otz don't say it's survivor sided anymore and will freely acknowledge that the game is at least moderately killer sided in 99% of matches. I assume it's just an ego thing for a lot of people. No one wants to freely admit that they play the "easy" role. What I do know is that my escape rate on survivor (53%) is significantly lower than my win rate on killer.
I was watching a team led by OhTofu trying to break the escape streak record and they got destroyed at 30 games by a LEGION. In another streak the best team in the world lost a streak to a trickster. If survivor is so EZ then why can no one manage to get a huge streak like killers are able to do? Why do they keep losing to "weak" killers that i've been told are not viable against good players? Are they all just bad at the game? If a bunch of 10k hour survivors can't do it then who can? Where are all of these unbeatable SWFs that people love to talk about? You'd think SWFs were escaping thousands of games in a row with the way some people talk about them. Knightlight said it best on twitter. You should never struggle to win against pubs unless you are on a bottom five killer like Freddy or Trapper. Pub matches are absolutely killer sided and there is no valid argument that says otherwise. I don't know why people even use comp as an argument when it's an entirely different game that only exists in private matches.
Post edited by I_CAME on19 -
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.
4 -
Well Survivors do have the best outfits…
1 -
Even if killers had a 75% kill rate, killers would still say it was survivor sided.
26 -
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.
1 -
the game is whoever brings the “best stuff and sweats more” sided
5 -
Pub DbD is decidedly killer-sided, and apart from the stats that prove this there's the fact that any non-4-SWF group is an essentially guaranteed win for a good killer player, and 4-SWFs make for around 5% of the public playerbase. Of those 5%, an even tinier portion are good, coordinated 4-SWFs on voice comms using good builds and trying hard to win, which are the only groups that can really challenge a good killer that is doing the same. This leads to killer winstreaks in the thousands, while survivor winstreaks even of the best teams in the world have recently struggled to hit even just 50, with the records being around 200-300. MomoSeventh (the guy with the almost-2000-match Blight winstreak) is doing survivor winstreaks with some of the best NA players currently, and they have lost one just earlier at like 6 matches in, for the 4th or so time. Against a Blight that was not tunnelling, camping, slugging or even using slowdown perks. There's just no argument, it's not even close.
But more perplexingly, people pretending that the game is survivor-sided also always lie about comp DbD. It can be used to make an argument about what happens when the best players face off consistently (with the caveat as you rightly point out that that isn't really relevant to actual DbD at all, where the matchmaking (and the fact that the best survivor teams almost never play pubs) makes sure such matches essentially never happen). But if you actually look at comp DbD, killers outperform survivors consistently, most of always have. And this holds true even in tournaments where there are no restrictions whatsoever (restrictions mind you that always go for both roles: the comp scene is aware that killers too have imbalanced things). Here's a very recent instance of a no-restrictions tournament (some games can still be found on their YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@DeadbyDaylightFrance):
In the 30 matches available on YT, the average kills came out to 2.3, with an average of 8.5 hook stages per match. What has to additionally be noted here is that the scoring system doesn't even only look at kills, but fresh hooks and stages and gens too, meaning that killers do not even always play merely for kills as hard as they could, regularly even playing to a specific win condition that doesn't require a 4k, then playing it safe for the 0/1/2/3k Xstages result that they need, or yet a wincon that requires a 4k at multiple gens left, therefore needing to adopt riskier strategies that can result in them losing when they could have much more reliably won were they free to employ other strategies, such as 3-genning to 4k at 1 gen left, or tunnelling someone out because you can regularly win in the 3v1 even if it took 4 gens to get that first survivor out… And despite that, they still come out killing more survivors than escape.
Sure you can say Nurse, Blight and Billy do the heavy lifting as far as winrates in this environment, but not only do you have to actually acknowledge that those killers are overpowered (they almost always win even against the best teams on voice comms), but it's not like the other killers here stood no chance, far from: even in the final match between Eternal and Elysium (#1 and #2 teams currently), we have 3 kills on Spirit, and 2 kills on Oni and Twins, with 8 and 9 stages respectively. We can also see 4ks on Chucky, Singularity, Twins, Plague, a 3k on Xenomorph, and various 2ks with 8+ stages, such as on Huntress and Pinhead. And that's just from this limited selection of matches. And this is with the best survivor players on comms and the best builds, using 4 BNPs and Syringes and so on as well. Something you will never encounter in pub matches, ever.
Some killers absolutely do deserve buffs, and I do think restricting SWF loadouts to one copy per perk (and item/add-on/offering) per player is sensible and even beneficial for the game, but there are also killers/killer add-ons that need nerfs, camping/tunnelling needs more balancing, and solo survivors deserve buffs too (although rebalancing camping/tunnelling would already go a long way to help).
11 -
we all know that this game is killer sided!
3 -
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.
2 -
This game stopped being survivor sided at least around 6.1.0.
13 -
If you’re honest you’ll admit the same is true for most killers; they’re also mediocre players. They also don’t know how to loop a structure optimally. What gives them an edge is bulldozing survivors via tunneling, camping, slugging, and capitalizing on inborn advantages like bloodlust, poor survivor reworks that come with map reworks, better perks, so on and so forth. To reduce this to “lulz survivors suck” is so disingenuous it’s almost a lie. It really spits in the face of the features killers can (and do) access to win their matches.
13 -
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.
2 -
The game used to be survivor-sided years ago. But since then it is honestly only parotted that it is survivor-sided. Basically, whenever a Killer Main loses a game, it is because the game is survivor-sided. You see this from Forum Killers up to the most vocal content creators (some of them and luckily a minority).
Which is kinda sad, since you clearly see that some players just adapt this instead of looking for their own mistakes. Went against a Clown a few weeks ago who said that the game is so survivor-sided. He had 300 hours in the game and from the looks of his achievements, he was not playing for a long time. I was like "Mate, you are just starting the game. It is fine to lose more than you win at this point", since 300 hours is really not that much. But what to expect if people get fed this opinion from early on?
The game basically leans more into being killersided nowadays. The Killrate is at least 60% for almost all Killers. And recent changes to the game show that the Devs are heading in the direction to make it even more killersided - Map Reworks for example. Haddonfield is the most extreme example, what was once the most survivor-sided map is now the most killer-sided map and it is honestly really hard to lose a game as Killer on Haddonfield. The changes to Coldwind-Farm also add to this. Many Maze Tiles are now super-weak, but their number remained the same. When there was previously a Jungle Gym or a Long Wall with a Pallet, it is now one of those weird new Tiles, but the number of Tiles did not change.
And very recent - there was a Bug which let Breakable Walls spawn in almost every Opening on the Asylum-Map. This got fixed, now there is no Breakable Wall anymore. Including the one next to the Window Downstairs, which now renders this Window very weak.
On top of that, if we look at the past year of Killer releases, they are all strong without any exception. Nobody can argue that Xenomorph, Chucky, Unknown, Vecna and Dracula are weak Killers, all can be considered at high B-Tier AT LEAST, most likely mid to high A for them. And even Singularity released before was not weak, just a pain to play before the Buffs/QoL-Changes.
So overall, who nowadays says that the game is survivor-sided is pretty wrong.
14 -
It's just your typical excuse that some killers use when they lose. It used to work years ago but now the killer will win most of his games in pubs.
15 -
- 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.
2 -
It’s killer sided at all levels per dev stats. And to your stats that you’re implying are manipulated by people ‘giving up’ matches with one person DCing don’t count toward the kill rate so one person could dc, three survivors remain and play normally yet it still ends in a 4K and this is thrown out.
12 -
Yes, DCing, and not giving up on hook, which is by far more popular in matches, because players has no penalty for that.
2 -
they have also said that if they took hookcides out SM went from a 71% kill rate to a 68%. 3% isn't much of a change.
10 -
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.3 -
If the survivors I face are consistently gods and everyone else faces bad survivors, that means I'm on a magical server at a magical MMR, right? It doesn't mean that the average survivor just looks like a god against me. I think it's more likely that I'm on a special server in a special region at Ultron MMR, and less likely that I'm turning average "bad" survivors into gods. Right? Right?!???!
5 -
DC's are already thrown out and not counted in kill rates to begin with.
So the 68% stat means that if you completely ignore every game with a death on first hook and ignite every game with a disconnect, the killer is still managing a 68% kill rate.
That also means that the player experience is going to be higher than even the 71% because most of those games with a disconnect (that aren't included in that number) are going to be survivors losing.
Trying to spin these stats in a thread about the "game being survivor sided" is showing an insane level of bias and mental gymnastics.
12 -
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.
3 -
>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.4 -
it's just one of many virtue signaling phrases that are thrown around by some people in the community.
2 -
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.
4 -
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?
4 -
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.
4 -
Yes, DbD has Schrodinger's Survivors in that survivors are simultaneously so bad that it's the survivors' fault that tunnelling and camping is so effective and kill rates are so high but survivors are also simultaneously so good that tunnelling and camping is absolutely necessary for the Killer to have any chance and that's why Killers can't spread hooks. Completely logically consistent positions. Definitely.
12 -
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 (?).
2 -
I'm always annoyed when ppl use various win streaks as "proof". The reason you don't see high survivor win streaks is because it's harder to organize 4 people getting on than it is 1 single person. As killer, if I feel like hopping on for a random game at 4 am... I can do that and add it to my winstreak. If I try to do a winstreak as survivor, I HAVE to plan it with 3 other people that have the same goal.
6 -
I was a killer main during that time, when survivors where at their strongest and at times I asked myself why I was subjecting myself to this selfimposed torture? DH for distance, 4 DS to eat through, easy 3-4 fast selfheals out of any medkit, sometimes even midchase on the other side of a dropped pallet — it was truely madness! And still people defended DH all the time, claiming that it was a fair and fun perk and killers were just bad and had skill issues for not anticipating it and for struggling and that "good killers can still get 12 hooks without camping or tunneling". In this regard the game was always the same.
Then 6.1 happened and pulled a GIANT rug from under the collective survivor population, exposing how many were huddling under their multi-layered safety net of second chances. The first 2 or even 3 days of post-6.1 were like the shock and awe after a big catastrophy: everyone was running around in a stupor, it felt like everyone had forgotten how to loop (because most never learned how to do so in the first place), no one touched gens (beause the +10s meant that it was pointless to even start) and the game felt like a true "all you can kill" buffet, with survivors offering basically no resistance at all and the killers abusing this mercilessly, tunneling and camping and getting 4Ks at 4 or 5 gens every game, playing with 4 regression perks and never taking them off.
I remember how bad I felt during some of this games with the game being unsalvagable even if I let the same survivor multiple times go instead of killing them off. I tried my hand at survivor myself at that time and I got killed so many times after I personally finished 3 or even 4 gens from start to finish. It was really a drunken stupor that kept survivors from even touching gens, it seemed.
But once this shock and stupor faded, most survivors got their stuff together and stroke back with a vengeance! Backed against the wall, most survivors learned "okay, I can't fool around all game like before, I need to contribute" and "working on this gen together feels nice - but I think I will leave you and work on that gen over there … no, not the next, I will skip that and work on the next after that one, as to not 3-gens ourselfes".
This time lead to the great efficiency boom on the survivor side: splitting up, being somewhat mindful of what gens you were tackling, prioritising main building gens, and at least working on gens - all of this became a staple and all of the sudden the survivors were back in action and gens started flying off the shelves as if they were on clearance.
The Eruption and Overbrine meta gave the thing a small bumb, but after that was cleared, along with timewasters such as CoH, the survivor population as a whole was as lean and mean as they get and knew that they had one objective and one objective only: slam gens! Gens before friends!
Somewhere along this times the killer population, while undoubtedly stronger then before, feld the change on the wind and 4 regression and camping and tunneling became more and more prevalent. Over the course of the following year most regression perks were nerfed more and more into being unviable, Eruption get hit so hard that I don't even know what it does anymore (just kidding, but I deam it unviable), and camping got shut down with the somewhat effective somewhat failed Anti Facecamping Feature. It does what it said on the lid, ie proper facecamping was impossible now, but real camping was still possible, if the killer was a little bit mindful of their actions.
Still, with camping being shut down and "3 gens pop first chase" killers were funneled down the only road that offered success and redemtion from the constant harressment of the survivors on all sides: Tunneling. The strengthening of OtR and later DS, helped a little bit, but the loss of Haemorraging and Mangled full power also also breed it into killers that to stand a chance, they got to turn this game 3v1 FAST and HARD!
So, this is where we are standing now: both sides experienced tremendous ups and downs and both sides tools of trade have been changed and taken away and reluctantly been given back over the last two years, that all the fat is trimmed off and both sides are as lean and as mean killing/genrepairing-surviving machines, as they have ever been - and they need to against the opposition they expect. So when MMR throws them a "casual" of either side, they just eat them for breakfast and ask for more. And thats why DBD can never be a party game anymore, it totally and irrevocably lost its playfulness and innocence and you can't convince me otherwise. There might be short glimps of its former party DNA here and there, when both sides meme around during events, but for the most, the game has been cooked down to be as efficient in its respective roles as it has ever been.
5 -
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 it2 -
Dude, you are so full of vitriol and don't give the other side even one second of consideration.
I humbly asked to to take 3min out of your life and read the long commend I typed up just above yours, which gives a pretty comprehensive look of why we arrived at the game we have now. I would be interested in your thoughts on the matter, if you took a step back and looked at the big picture.
6 -
So even when survivor players coordinate these win streak challenges they still don’t get anywhere near the numbers of literally any killer on the roster (highest for a survivor group is 230 while the lowest for a single killer is IIRC 400. The highest for a single killer was 1947 or some such). It has to be about more than coordination because even with that present, they’re not touching killer numbers.
5 -
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.
4 -
All I'm saying is even if the magical game balance fairy waved her wand and made EVERYTHING perfectly balanced... a group of 4 getting together and agreeing to play will be harder to schedule than 1 single user. Everyone who's ever played D&D knows this. I'm not arguing balance, merely stating that bringing up win streaks is pointless because of scheduling. It is not proof towards pointing out imbalance.
5 -
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.
2 -
It's not hard to get a swf together. It IS harder to schedule 4 people to get on than it is for 1 person to get on. 1 person alone doesn't have to abide by anyone else's schedules. Even the MMORPG example isn't really a good one since you arnt expected to run with the same people to get whatever loot you're after for that day. You can be "soloQ" with a team of randoms and be fine as long as you have the roles covered.
To match the killer winrates on DBD, you'd need 4 people to schedule several hundred hours of playtime together. If you wanted to match the 1947 winstreak Ayodam mentioned, you'd have to figure out when you'd be able to all get on for roughly 500 hours. This is assuming queue times are short.
Point being... killer doesn't have to schedule around a team and can just work towards their winstreak at any hour while survivors do. This should be a fairly obvious point and has nothing to do with balance.
5 -
Thanks for contributing to more "us vs them" toxicity and adding nothing constructive to the discussion
5 -
I'll give you my thoughts if you don't mind. Honestly, I disagree with what you're saying but definitely believe you when you say what you're experiencing. However, I disagree with the reason why you're experiencing what you are as I don't experience what you're describing when I'm playing Killer.
My opinion is that one of two factors are more at play here. The first is the least likely in my opinion of the two which is your MMR has been inflated by tunnelling which has put you in an MMR category you can't handle without tunnelling and you don't want to take enough losses to drop back down. That's an understandable position as it's what I've always stated is the long term detrimental effect on Killers of tunnelling. Having to take dozens of losses in a row to move your MMR down in not fun to put it mildly.
However, you have been playing for a long time and are an intelligent person so I think you probably have a good grasp on both micro and macro gameplay. What's more likely, once again my opinion, is that you're at the soft cap but not significantly above it. People underestimate how quickly your chances of success drop the higher in MMR your opponent is. DbD reportedly matches people at 200 points higher or lower than their opponents. That gives roughly a 10% chance of winning for the lower rated opponent. Move that to 300 points and that's roughly a 1% chance of winning. If the 1600 MMR soft cap threshold is true then somebody at 1600 could be placed against a 2300 or 2400 MMR opponent. At that point, the 1600 MMR player might as well make themselves some lunch as the outcome is pretty much predetermined and the 1600 MMR player is shark chum in that instance; they lost at the ready button.
That's what I believe is more likely to be the case. As I've never made a practice of tunnelling I've never run into what you're describing on anything close to a consistent basis which is also the point of MMR; if you don't tunnel the system should be matching you at a level you don't need to tunnel at.
If you are in the situation I believe you're at then I do have a lot of sympathy as it's a terrible place to be. However, BHVR also has to consider the fun of both sides and being tunnelled is a very negative gameplay experience. That's part of the reason why I bring up changing the mechanics to favour hooking. I don't have an issue when playing Survivor with losing more than I escape and neither do many other players. The issue is that if I'm going to be more likely to lose at least make it fun. With the prevalence of tunnelling right now, the Survivor role now has a higher chance of losing than escaping and the games aren't fun a lot of the time which is unhealthy for the game.
7 -
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.
3 -
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.
1