My take why game is killer survivor .
Somehow, people still claim that the game is “SURVIVOR sided”which I find absolutely insane. Do we play the same game?
First, we need to understand that kill rate does not directly correlate with win rate, but there is still a correlation between the two. We all know this.
For example, lets say you're a sweaty Iri-4 Survivor swf- with the best chance of escaping that escapes with two survivors out. This situation would be considered a tie for both sides, right? A 2-man escape is a tie on both sides.
let's compare this with killers, I will use a “average” killer with a 58.5% kill rate; Here are his stats
- 53% of games result in a win for the killer.
- 33.96% of games are losses.
- 12.96% of games end in a tie.
This looks fair, right? However, when you look closely: Losing and tying are much closer in outcome data. Tying is only about 9-5% off of losing. Or as a fraction a little more than 1/4, Seems still fine? Combine this with the fact killers win up to 19% more and suddenly half of the “losses” for the killers are just ties.
so suddenly whilst surviviors may struggle to get 1-2 out on average, killers can consistently perform 2ks to tie the point, and at that point why even bother playing a game where you consistently lose, and when you do win its a tie for the killer?
Im sick of losing half of my games as survivior and then jumping on a new killer, mainly winning or tying if the survivors manage to hold out that long. The literal gap in winning is insane and shouldnt be allowed
Comments
-
I dont even understand what you think you have prooved here?
18 -
survivor struggle for escape/tie
killer gets ties with ease
survivior doesnt win as often as killer
killer often wins
games where killers dont win, they often tie and games where surviviors win are likely to be 3ks- ties
i speak creole sorry so my english may be partially broken but i dont think i used any broken english, if i did let me know
5 -
"Somehow, people still claim that the game is "killer-sided” which I find absolutely insane. Do we play the same game?"
I guess we don't, I have (compared to solo survivor) a lot easier time winning matches playing killer. When I play as killer half of my wins feel free, and when I play as survivor it feels like 90 percent of my losses feel absolutely impossible to avoid (quitters, memes, just not doing anything teammates.) So yeah I've been playing sinice 2019 with over 5k hours. I'm not saying I'm great but I'm saying I personally feel like I don't deserve how much I lose playing solo and how much I win playing killer.
11 -
Well, you kinda explained yourself why your killer games can feel free and survivor ones impossible to play. Hard to blame self when it's not your fault.
2 -
Oh I know the reason, I'm just saying it's hard to imagine anyone struggling with killer, or thinking the game isn't killer sided based on my personal experience as well as stats previously shared that show the game is killer sided at every MMR.
7 -
You just said it! It's because of bad teammates/quitters! Why would you chalk that up to the game being killer-sided?!
1 -
I don't understand it either. I'm lost. Killer these past few years has just felt tough no matter what. Even in games where you were gonna win, you couldn't have possibly known it, so you stress out the entire time, the same as you would an easily perceivable loss. The bar has just been set so low for survivor, I don't even know if it can go lower! Put up against a 4-man SWF, you just have to accept the loss, right? But now survivors have so many free handouts in terms of hook duration, base BT/speed off hook, anti-camp, pallets you're forced to break, deceptively strong windows, strong tiles everywhere and near one another, quick gen speed, and second chance perks, that even mediocre survivors can beat you! I've seen it.
You have a really crappy start as killer, because the map is huge and you didn't bring exactly Lethal, so the survivors hid while simultaneously doing the 1-2 gens you didn't check. First chase you have, you have to leave after 2-3 pallets dropped, because there's still more and the survivor isn't bad enough to beat in chase. So you started the game out at like 2-3 gens done, and only 1-2 hooks at most to show for it. By the time you actually get any momentum rolling, the game's already been lost. Every time you're in a favorable position to chase, the survivors give out free hits, waste pallets, and get downed in like 30 seconds or less, but it doesn't matter because the gens are already done. They can throw the whole game multiple times via horrible plays, whether it be at the beginning, middle, or end, and still come back to beat you, through bailout perks or just simply because the killer can't be in 4 places at once. If you're not operating at 100% comp tourney efficiency, this could be you as killer, every match. It's just luck of the draw. You get good survivors, instant loss. Mediocre survivors, probably lose anyway. Baby survivors, most likely a win, but potentially a close match.
I've watched the most die-hard DBD killer mains deteriorate in their will to play the game, because of years of this abuse. It's easy to make a game of this genre frustrating for both sides. It's hard to make it frustrating for only 1 side, all of the time, no matter how good you get. If you don't think the best survivors could beat the best killer (not using Nurse, Blight, or Spirit) 9/10 times, you're sadly mistaken. The math of this game, which has been proven again and again, legit says that survivors should win every time. The only thing that's stopping it from happening is the bad MMR system. It hides how badly the game is balanced behind forced mismatches. And at this rate, I don't think that'll ever change. I've waited years and I'm tired.
2 -
The devs themselves say the game is killer-sided and that is how they currently want it. It pretty much starts and end there.
12 -
When you said 'people still claim the game is Killer sided' did you make a mistake while typing and put in Killer instead of Survivor?
Edit: I'm genuinely asking as your post would sound more consistent if you did make a typing error in your first sentence. Right now it sounds like you're saying both Killer is hard but then escaping as a Survivor is hard but it's easy to do well as Killer.
4 -
i think im dyslexic because i literally said the prompt was the game is killer sided then descripted how its survivior sided in my introduction 😭 regard any and all statements i made
0 -
This is terrible logic for multiple reason. Who knows how many free kills the killers get from Dcs and throwing on hook, for all we know the real kill rate might be 40% if survivors couldn’t DC or throw on hook.
Don’t even get me started on perks/ individual player skill. Devs want killers to have a little over 2 kills on average and this is BEYOND fair. Friday had a 90% kill rate and that was a 1v7. It’s an asymmetrical horror game the killer is supposed to be the power role and a threat that survivors need to team up and work together to overcome.
It’s actually at a point where the killers are honestly a joke and that’s what Friday did way better. When Jason showed up you were afraid, there was no body blocking, no flashlight saves, no pallets. Just running and delaying the inevitable. And stunning Jason was always super risky not to mention after being stunned too much he went into rage mode and COULD LITERALLY WALK THROUGH WALLS AND DOORS. Not to mention ignore stuns, stopping a 60mph car dead in its tracks.
THAT was an asym horror game that maintained the majority of its horror. Winning as consoler felt great and was such a difficult feat for the most part. DBD has almost none of that because killers for the most part are a joke that you run around a rock 45 times to waste time.
1 -
Well I never played friday but its obviously a completely different game so not really relevant in this discussion. If kill rate was 90% in dbd I think most survivors would quit the game. Also dbd isn't really a horror game, it's a horror themed competitive asym pvp game now.
2 -
might i remind you why friday the 13th game got shut down? Its almost as if its not fun for surviviors to lose, almost every game, to be punished for trying to play altrustically, and punished for also trying to fight back, queue times were more miserable than 2v8, and that SAYS SOMETHING
dcs arent counted in killrates, and people who off on hook often do it only if theres 5 hooks and 5 gens, which in that situation the game was over anyways
2 -
The games really only killer then survivor when the survivors are anchored by bad teammates.
1 -
Not even close to accurate. It shut down because of a lawsuit over the very messy licensing rights to Jason. The game was well loved and the closest DBD ever had to real competition.
Almost everyone loved that game with overwhelmingly positive reviews. Nobody cared that Jason was so strong because that’s how the game was designed. The big mistake DBD made was the fact that this game was horrifically survivor sided for the first 3-6 years and was an absolute power trip for survivors.
If they never made that mistake people wouldn’t be crying so much.
1 -
He also could be that strong cause it was 1v7 so people had long stretches of doing things that wasn't running.
0 -
The point is he won almost all the time easily with very few escapes on average and it was a beloved game by all. A killer that was a real unstoppable (mostly lol) force and survivors were actual survivors doing anything they could to try and survive.
But in this game we have people incessantly crying because they can’t escape all the time. And we have killers who don’t feel like they are the power role at all because they are treated like a joke.
I don’t care that much about winning or losing but the most annoying thing is when survivors don’t respect the killer and swarm them. It makes the killer not feel like a killer at all. That was the beauty of Jason, if they swarmed you and jumped you you would get enraged and they couldn’t jump you anymore. Then they would all panic and run when you started gouging out their friends eyes and they couldn’t stop it.
0 -
I think people still say the game is survivor sided because for the first 6.5 years of this games life, it WAS survivor sided. Thats not even remotely up for debate. And after that many years, thats a hard stigma to get rid of. However, in recent years, the game has become much more balanced in recent years. Personally, I think the game is in the best state its ever been in, bugs and glitches not withstanding
5 -
The point is he won almost all the time easily with very few escapes on average and it was a beloved game by all.This isn't really backed up by the numbers. May and June 2017 the game was averaging around 5.5k players, but then it quickly begins to dip. It might have had some people who really loved it, but there don't seem to have been that many of them.
0 -
Game is definitely at the most balanced state it has been in its history, though of course it can never truly be balanced as is the nature of an asymmetrical game.
It can depend on map, RNG and builds but I feel like at least versus solo queue, the game is killer sided at the lower levels and at the highest level of play I feel it is survivor sided.
1 -
Almost sounds just lie DBD doesn’t it? Peaks with new content and plummets afterwards. They had a loyal fan base who loved it. Simple.
0 -
Except it isn't like DbD at all.
DbD first month on Steam averaged 11k players. They climbed over the first year to 17k players on average, saw a dip in their second year back down to 8.5k players at their absolute lowest, before holding steady through 2017 in the 14k range. 2018 saw growth again with the numbers around 20k. They slightly increased these numbers in 2019, before having the big jump in 2020. Since that point the numbers have been pretty consistent on the monthly average, in the 30k to 40k range with a few outliers.
Friday the 13th never had those numbers, they trended down almost immediately and once they dipped below 1k players they only had three months over the next few years that they managed to top those numbers. F13 went in one overall direction from release, down, while DbD continually grew over its first few years and then has held a steady player base size.
0 -
Again an immediate lawsuit that indefinitely paused new content never gave it the chance to spike up from new releases. If DBD got sued for some reason and couldn’t win it would’ve went out the same way. Nobody and I mean almost NOBODY stopped playing because the killer was too strong. They stopped because it got repetitive and with no new content there was nowhere to go.
So again my main point is 100% right. They shutdown because of the lawsuit and that’s it. Plain and simple. It had nothing to do with balance even remotely.
0 -
Because the devs think this is a role-playing horror game so dying most of the time is fun for survivors when actually it's a competitive pvp game.
0 -
They stopped because it got repetitive and with no new content there was nowhere to go.I don't have a position on why people stopped, but:
1: A game that is one sided is likely to get more repetitive.
2: The player counts decreased substantially from the game release. This decrease happened well before most games would be releasing new content and the numbers are in stark contrast to the progress of DbD over its first few months.
0 -
At high MMR the game is most definitely survivor sided. A strong team of survivors can throw most killers around in the dirt without breaking a sweat at most times. However the majority of DBD games don't consist of a strong 4man swf with clock callouts and good checkspots to leave the killer in the dust.
0
