Tired of all the complaining against killers

You lost all credibility the second you implied that the existence of UNBREAKABLE means the game is survivor sided

You are entitled to your opinion, as is everyone. Survivors are the weaker role, not stronger. Every kind of evidence supports this. That being said, it is not a bad thing. With this asymmetrical style of game and the horror elements within it, along with needing incentive to play the Killer role over since it doesn't have a kill with friends option, the game should be leaned more towards killers, which it currently is. The problem is that if you want people to be okay with losing more often than they win, they need to be having fun while doing it. While fun is subjective, the opinions expresed by the majoirty can help give an insight into what the best course of action is. Like when majoity agreed that old MFT was too strong. Or how the majoirty agreed that old DS was too strong. Just like how majority of survivors have usually and still currently voice concerns over tunneling, camping, and slugging. These strategies are effective because they exploit specific weaknesses in survivor mechanics, which are frustrating precisely because survivors often lack reliable ways to counter them. There are perks that can help, but none are currently strong enough to deterr these tactics from being common (hence why more mechanics and perks trying to deterr these tactics are being implemented), and being forced to equip something to counter something base-kit for the other "side" can be frustrating and feel both limiting and unfair.

I think survivors losing more often is a good thing, because killers should be stronger. But it's how survivors lose that can be improved. It's okay to want improvements. Killers not long ago also wanted improvements because they were struggling and not having fun with the game, they weren't enjoying their role and their concerns were thankfully listened to and the game was heavily adjusted and is now in their favor, which is a good thing. It's good that they can enjoy the role gain. And in the same way, it's okay for survivors to also want improvements too.

Surprised Dead Hard, Resilience and WoO didn't make the post.

People have a right to complain about anything they want, especially playstyles held by the other side. Same with complaints about SWF, altruism, voice call, gen rushing, etc. They paid for it, this is a forum to discuss it, if they don't enjoy something why should they not talk about it just because it triggers you?

If you allow yourself a moment to consider reality, many of these complaints (99%) come from players who are not playing in 4 competitive survivors vs 1 killer match. Sure, these strategies are needed in competitive, but that's not what we are discussing, and the survivors complaining are not signing up for competitive games. That is the complaint. You can feel free to disagree or mention balance, but you cannot tell them what to complain about or enjoy. These complaints are coming from average players tired of being stomped because their opponents are playing nasty and they don't have a chance.

….Wait why would the best killer need to camp till second stage instead of actually hindering the rest of the survivors? What the heck kinda play is that?

I think the feedback loop of tryhards on both sides attempting to one up each other is killing the enjoyment of the game for the majority of players in what is probably a fairly casual player base. No, it's not supposed to be easy to Survive, but it's also not supposed to be impossible either (and the latter is how my Survivor games have been feeling recently).

So sure, camp, tunnel, slug, bring the strongest builds for the strongest Killers you can think of to every trial. Just realise that 95% of your opponents will fold like a deck chair and have a real miserable time facing you. I honestly don't think this game is designed around ultra competitive play.

You're basically saying that, played correctly, you can win as killer.

In these competitive tournaments, killers are still winning about 60% of the time.

And before we even touch on "but comp has limits", there are absolutely tournaments that have no restrictions, and killers are still on top. The numbers here do not support this narrative you're pushing that killer is the weakest role somehow.

Killers win streaks are also insanely high. "Weak, M1 killers" like trapper or clown have win streaks around 280 for trapper, and clown was about 800 iirc. Blight has the record of almost 2000 games. You know what the win streak is for survivor? Maybe 200 iirc. That's a full, 4-man, comp team SWF trying to win every game with every tool available to them.

Survivor SWF isn't some unbeatable, impossible challenge for killers. This post reads like it's 2020 (seriously, keys? They removed that like 2 years ago).

If you really think that survivor is impossible to lose, go play it. Post your vod of your win streak where you can't ever lose a match.

I won't wait.

• With this post I feel like I'm back in 2020. Really anyone complaining about keys? in 2024???

A few years ago, there were players who believed the game “felt ok” when killers were at their weakest. Does that mean we should revert back to that state? I don’t think so, and I suspect you would agree. The problem is, every reliable source of evidence we have contradicts what you’re saying. So, if we ignore statistics gathered from thousands of matches worldwide, what would you suggest we use as the benchmark for balance?

If the standard is purely personal experience, then we have to consider everyone’s personal experiences—not just yours. When we do that, we see how certain tactics, perks, and killers are problematic for many players. But you seem to dismiss these as non-issues and suggest that complaints should be ignored. So, if we’re discarding both statistics and the majority’s feedback, then what’s left? If the answer is ‘nothing,’ that’s not a solution—it’s a way to destroy the game. Freddy would never get needed buffs, bugs and exploits would stay unfixed, and PTBs might as well not exist. Without a basis for adjustments, we simply won’t have a game for long.

Yes, it’s possible to win as a survivor if everyone is trying, just as it’s possible to lose if everyone is trying. It’s possible for the best player in the match to die. It’s possible to be the better killer and still lose. But there’s a difference between possible and probable. A 5% chance is technically a chance, but is that worth playing for or enjoyable? Would you gamble on those odds? Luckily it’s a bigger chance, a 40%, but that means that people need to play a role that they are inherently designed to lose more than they win. Even at top MMR—the top 5% of players worldwide full 4-man SWFs survive less than half their matches. Saying that any chance should be good enough isn’t realistic, and you could make that same argument for killers as well.

So I’d genuinely like to know: if we can’t use statistics for balance, and we can’t use majority feedback, what should we listen to?

That’s the idea of the game. It’s supposed to be hard to survive, that’s the thrill of the game.

The game is incredibly survivor sided.

You cannot have those two statements back to back. You either believe the game's supposed to be hard to survive, and therefore believe the game is killer sided, or believe the game is incredibly survivor sided, and therefore that it's not supposed to be that hard to survive.

Have you seen competitive games? Every single game the killer has to slug, tunnel and camp hook and most of the times he gets a 2k, with all gens completed in 5 minutes.

I'm begging people to understand that the game they play when they sit in front of their computer after coming back from studying, working or having a hard day of pleasuring themselves after being unemployed for 6 years is not the same in any way, shape or form to a group of trained people specifically on the intricacies of this game.

You, Dude McDuderson, the couple of hours you decide to sit down and play the game, are facing on the daily:

• Luwucie-chan, who's blasting Barbie Girl on her cat headphones while she streams the game and plays Smash or Pass with the killers she faces.
• Captain Shityourpants, who's having a blast playing Seagull Steve.
• Hex: Cuse Me, who is just playing Feng because the bunny ears' physics are hilarious to them.
• xX.BlackDeath.Xx, who's probably younger than the minimum age requirement to play this game, and is having an aneurysm everytime they see the other 3 do literally anything that's not a gen and will most likely sell out any of them to the killer if they so much as catch a glimpse of one of them hiding in a locker, even if it costs them the entire match.

And sometimes, just sometimes, you're facing a premade of 4 that follows you around with Head On and flashbang just to ruin your day, whether they win or not.

You are not, under any circumstances, facing tournament-level players every single match, because you yourself are not a tournament-trained player. Sometimes you just lose matches, either because you misplayed or because someone else outplayed you, and because 70% kill rate just doesn't equal 100% win rate, as much as you'd like that to be the case.

In my opinion, comp DBD is meaningless.

It is external, not experienced by the vast majority of people who play this game and it has several restrictions that a regular match does not have.

I believe it shouldn't even be mentioned, let alone considered, when discussing the actual balance of the game.

In those games, where survivors are trying to win, they had to implement a rule where camping is allowed, otherwise the killer would never win.

When people say this I feel like they don't actually realize what is happening in comp.

The killer never wins in comp. The survivors never win in comp. All killers could be perkless M1 Freddy and comp would still be balanced because both sides get a turn as killer. The game is decided by comparing the two matches. A team wins the match, not the killer or survivor.

Comp rules are designed to play the game that the comp players consider the most skillful (taking out a lot of the RNG elements).

Not to mention they aren't even playing for kills, they are playing for hooks. An 8 hook game with no kills is a better result than two kills via six hooks.

Somebody mentioned competitve where killers tend to win more and thats not the case, the most common result is a draw

If you have a stat for that I'd love to see it. Even with the different win conditions, I don't think a 2k is the most common result.

I think that most killers mains would agree that a lot of times facing a group of good survivors is not even fun, is just stressful.

I do try to resist labeling people who prefer the killer role, but statements like this make it seem like killer mains just want the easy win.

When you have the best Killer players in the planet HAVING to use such strategies to win, that might tell you something about the state of the game. (Which imo, is fine as it is).

But this is against the best survivors on the planet. We've seen what happens when comp killers (or even non-comp killers) employ these strategies in high MMR pubs (massive win streaks).

As others have mentioned, high MMR is not the same as comp. Even as a high MMR killer you might never face a comp squad as they tend to practice amongst themselves. Hitting a 4 man SWF that is not only in nonstop communication about the game but also has selected themselves based not on social arrangements but for their skill at the game is incredibly rare.

On top of that, you're ignoring the advantages survivors have in comp, namely that they know the killer they are going to face.