Could anyone explain how game is survivor sided?

Because even your initial statement doesn't hold up when you actually dive into. You can just pick up a killer, slug and tunnel, and that's it? Easy game? Heck no. Every time people start the argument like that, they've lost it, because in that gameplay, in those strategies, that's half the whole story right there. You've skipped right to the third act.

I don't believe at all in that disparity between survivor and killer win streaks. Killers getting that high of win streaks are anomalies; those are flukes beyond flukes. There's no way that if they were facing competent teams back to back, that they'd ever get into the double digits, because 1 good team will just take your whole streak away. Considering there's 4 survivors, I'd say that double digits escape streaks are more than enough for 1 survivor. And on the contrary, I've heard of a survivor streak where, rather than a simple escape streaks, they didn't even give the killers a single down. It wouldn't be a high-numbered streak, but still, seriously? That's the game state we're in.

I debunked this in another post, but long story short, what killer second chance perks are there? Survivor second chance perks are you making a mistake, getting hit, and getting downed, but the perk bails you out. There's no killer perk that turns a missed hit into a down. The closest thing is NOED, which can be destroyed and reveals its own aura, and other endgame perks that buy time... to what end? Delaying the inevitable escapes.

Slugging and tunneling, I understand the complaints. But bringing add-ons? Killers aren't allowed to do that? It's hard to go a match without survivors bringing a Styptic or BNP, and some even go perkless and itemless with no hit to their team's domination of the killer.

And I don't think skilled killer play gets you more than a draw if the playing field is even. The problem with y'all's arguments is that you always frame it as the killer being strong and competent, and the survivors being unorganized and incompetent. I know that's the average match nowadays, because the devs orchestrate that matchup result through their bad MMR system. But it doesn't mean that killers are just dominant by nature. Given a good survivor team and a good killer, the survivors are set to win the match against basically any killer that isn't Blight or Nurse. The math has been done. If we give a little room for error on both sides, still killer falls say short of doing their objective before the survivors can. Your only hope is getting matched against survivors who don't know what they're doing, or aren't efficient enough. A competent 4-man SWF, or 4 competent solos beat the killer near enough every time, which is why those are the matches that this bogus MMR system is designed to prevent.

In actual high level games where everyone knows what they're doing the game is survivor sided. That however is not the reality of the match making system. And it only takes 1 or 2 bad(or clip farming) survivors to completely nullify the skill of the other ones if the killer is willing to abuse them. for the vast majority of the playerbase this game is killer sided due to the simple fact that you as the killer have full agency on the outcome of your match unlike as a solo or duo survivor

There's no way that killer streak is provable. We've never had a killer capable of that. Endlessly facing bad teams would do it, but that's my point.

If survivor played better they would win more often as someone who plays solo survivor it blows my mind how truly terrible the general survivor player base is. It 's things like not doing a gen when a killer is in chase, hovering around a chase with a flashlight for a save that will never come (some people hover around a chase to just watch, it's happened to me). Somehow getting two tapped by an m1 killer when you can hold w and a least get at least 5 seconds, getting grabbed by a a killer with a terror radius, hiding in lockers at full heath and getting grabbed out of them, Saving in front of a killers face and expecting them not to chase the guy with one less heath state, or pressing 2 to slap another survivors butt when there is a survivor on hook and another in chase.

I have never seen a more sorry group of gamers then other survivors it's as if they've never played a video game before. And to the P100s who never bothered to get better and are consistently the worst on my teams and treat the game like it's VR chat please do a gen you'll have more fun when you are winning.

I hope my post does give you something to think about. If you are interested in trying an experiment you could start with a Killer you enjoy playing who you haven't done any tunnelling with and stick fast to an alternate hook strategy where it has to be a different survivor hooked each time and see how you feel about the matches after two or three months. It might give a different perspective.

I'd prefer my oft-mentioned strengthened gen defence while all survivors are alive to strengthened repair speed as soon as survivors start to die but the suggestion above is probably far more timely and possible than waiting for changes to game mechanics unfortunately.

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

The kill rate BHVR is aiming for is 60%, which the stats show has been met. High MMR SWF groups are breaking this balance, but everyone else isn’t (Solo - Duos - Trios Escape Rate: 40% OR 60% Kill Rate for the killer, which means things are working as intended). There’s no "exponentially depleting" going on with escape rates, you’re misusing the term. The escape and kill rates are in a balanced state, aside from High MMR 4-man groups escaping more often than intended, according to official stats.

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

This is just inaccurate. Hens holds the highest escape streak with 200 consecutive 3-man escapes against some of the best killers in Europe. Killer winstreaks tend to get higher because killers can go full sweat mode solo from the start, while survivor winstreaks rely on four people playing at peak performance, including randoms who might not even care about escaping. Coordinating four people? That’s always tougher than just one.

Survivor "second chance" perks are conditined whilst killer "second chance"are mostly passive and promised value

Do you even play DBD? Both sides have second-chance perks, some conditional, some guaranteed. Even then, considering that the Killer can bring 4 perks while survivors bring a total of 16, it would make sense for Killer perks to guarantee value more often. But that's not even the case.

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

Players from both sides complain constantly, so it’s a pretty weak argument if you’re saying the game’s killer-sided based on that. You opened your post by griping about slugging and tunneling.

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

A 2k is the balance point in DBD. It keeps matches from being too easy and letting everyone escape every game. A 2k is a draw, not a win, for killers, and that target 60% kill rate is supposed to bring the average up to about 2.5 kills per match. For anyone who’s not biased or just trolling, this is actually a healthy number. If we’re going by stats like you are, then the game’s balanced at all levels, except at high MMR with survivor squads, where they’re escaping more often than intended, making it survivor-sided at that level.

If this is true, you should play competitively and stream and you could make some good money. Sorry, I'm a bit skeptical on your claim. Even the top streamers who literally play this game as their full-time job don't 4K 95% of the time.

If you're referring to the devs' stated target 60% kill rate, then yes technically by the numbers it's "killer-sided". But we all remember what happened when kill rate were lower. Nobody wanted to play killer and survivor queue times were much longer. The balance has to be based on incentivizing the most people to play on both sides and keep the ratio as close to 4:1 as possible. The devs are telling us that 60% kill rate is the sweet spot. If you play survivor and don't like it, then you will leave and others might leave too and the balance will shift and the devs will have to adjust the target kill rate accordingly. Apparently enough people are happy playing the survivor and killer roles to keep the balance as-is.

My logic is being able to play more makes it easier to get those streaks. As survivor, you'd have to schedule a time when all 4 people can be on. As killer, ANY time you want to play is sufficient. Even if I could guaranteed wins ever match as survivor, I would need a minimum of like 500 hours of back to back matches with a SWF to make an attempt at that 1947 winstreak that was mentioned. That's a whole lot easier to do when I can just work on it whenever I have some free time if I'm playing killer. More time=more attempts to reach higher winstreaks.

so because he got that streak that means that NA players are bad?

At the highest level with an experienced and coordinated SWF on comms the game is very much survivor sided, which is why survivors are so limited in perk choices in comp matches.

The game used to still be quite survivor sided at the middle level and killer sided at the low end as baby survivors are hopeless at using map resources efficiently.

But I feel that the game has gradually become quite killer sided below high level players, of course some maps and RNG can sway that a bit but much of what made the game very survivor sided has been eroded away over the years.

Even with the Devs also saying it the killer mains will always disagree.

when facing survivors of the highest skill level and with the best coordination and loadouts, even the strongest killer players struggle to keep up. a lot of people think that this is meaningful for some reason.

in reality, the balance as it relates to the top couple hundred to a couple thousand players (at best) for a game that's sold at least 60 million copies is hardly helpful. the game needs to be balanced like that for the remaining 59,997,500 or whatever players to have fair games - there are 4 potential points of failure for a survivor team, but only 1 for the killer. compound that with the fact that most survivor matches don't have communication, or if they do it's just idle chatter among friends or the kind of thing that can be seen on the survivor HUD anyway, and I hope it's obvious why it doesn't matter that the top 0.005% of the player base can almost always win using teamspeak/discord/skype

If the killer isn't doing those things, the survivors have way more of an advantage.

Yeah that's what I meant by swf. Should've made it more specific. But I meant 4man swf, sorry for being unclear.

I sometimes play duo or with 2 friends, and even one bad random can throw the match immensely. But we're usually just playing with little thought and abit of coordination, so not as efficient as we could.

Oh, I completely agree. BP alone are a great example. You could be in chase for half the game, buying your team crucial time to finish generators—arguably one of the hardest and most important contributions you can make as a survivor—and still end up with the least amount of points. Given that survivors are designed as the weaker role, (which is good) it would make sense to offer greater incentives or rewards for playing it.

Increasing rewards, like more BP or even special end-of-match bonuses for surviving a “bloodbath” could make the experience more enjoyable and rewarding and might even encourage people to stick around in matches that feel one-sided. I also think making some QOL changes would be great too. People aren’t frustrated simply because they’re losing more—they’re frustrated by how they’re losing. It’s one thing to lose in general, it’s another to lose to strategies like tunneling, slugging, or camping, which can feel unbalanced and demoralizing, especially with the need to bring perks to counter these things when they can be done completely perk less on the other side. If dying were less about being personally targeted or left incapacitated on the ground for minutes, players would be far less likely to feel that their losses were unfair. So working towards discouraging that kind of play would really help. Everyone has opinions on how to do that, I think providing a base-kit gen regression that is linked with Hooks where one hasn’t been hooked consecutively could be useful, to reward killers for spreading hooks and to help lessen the feeling of needing to bring only gen regression perks, opening up variety. And in turn, gives all survivors a chance to play the game.

What bothers me most is the narrative that frustrated survivors are somehow just “entitled” for wanting improvements. This makes no sense because when killers were frustrated with the game, their concerns were seen as valid (which they were!), which led to the huge overhaul of the game and the addition of recent changes that improved the killer experience of what we see today. Many remember when queue times for survivors stretched endlessly because killers were dropping off; they weren’t having fun, so they stopped playing and it impacted everyone. The game shifted, and I think that was a good thing—it needed to happen for killers to enjoy their role again. But both sides deserve a fun, balanced experience; if one side is consistently unhappy, it affects the health of the game overall. And right now, survivors are really struggling.

If killers were struggling to enjoy the game, it was worth making changes to keep them engaged. I’m glad the killer role improved, it really needed it! By that same token, if survivors are now struggling, their concerns should be equally valid. Balancing for one side over the other without consideration isn’t sustainable, and dismissing survivor concerns as unreasonable only creates more divide in the community. Both sides deserve a game that respects their input, fosters fun, and provides fair rewards for their efforts. After all, if one side stops playing, then nobody plays. And that doesn’t change no matter which side stops.

Sorry went on a tangent lol passion and all that. 🙈