Uncomfortable truths of DBD

The uncomfortable truth here is that everyone has a different definition of what camping, tunneling (and slugging) are and when they are fair. Lots of disparate disagreements and suggestions get lumped together making discussion difficult and strawman easy.

The uncomfortable truth is this: the fairness of strategies like tunneling, camping, or slugging depends on game balance. Survivors feel these tactics are oppressive because they face them universally, while killers often feel forced into these tactics due to the game's pressure mechanics. Balancing must address the why behind these strategies instead of punishing their use outright. Without viable alternatives, the game risks alienating both survivor and killer players, leading to a less engaging experience for everyone.

Conceptually, I don't think anyone disagrees with the idea that a SWF can and generally are stronger, but it depends on the SWF. Are we talking 4 person comp team (exceedingly rare), a group of friends, or someone playing with their spouse who touches the game every couple of months?

Games need to account for the upper limits of player potential because that's where game-breaking disparities emerge. Balancing for casual play (e.g., the occasional SWF playing without synergy) creates massive issues when facing highly efficient teams, as killers lack the tools to compete with their coordination. Designing a balance around what's possible ensures fairness across the board while leaving room for players to improve without punishing killers unfairly.

Balancing Dead by Daylight shouldn’t cater to the weakest common denominator, like a spouse who rarely plays, or ignore extreme cases like competitive SWF teams. Instead, it should focus on ensuring both sides have the tools to deal with the potential best-case scenario for the opposition. Ignoring SWF’s inherent advantage risks creating a frustrating and one-sided experience for killers, especially those playing mid-to-low-tier characters who can't rely on raw power. This is why killers often resort to tunneling or camping—these strategies are their only counter against high-pressure SWF games.

The uncomfortable truth here though is that the kill rate is a better long term reflection of what the game is actually balancing around.

The kill rate reflects the overall outcomes of matches but does not account for the vast differences between killers, survivor skill levels, or match scenarios. A 60% kill rate might seem like an indicator of balance, but it’s not a universal standard. For example:

• Some killers may disproportionately contribute to the kill rate because they perform exceptionally well at higher MMRs.
• Survivors in solo queue have a fundamentally different experience from those in SWF, yet their statistics are merged into the same "escape rate" pool.

This makes kill rates a generalized metric rather than a precise reflection of balance across all killers or skill levels.

Your argument assumes that kill rate is the ultimate reflection of balance, but it’s more of a broad trend than a definitive measurement. A better approach to balance would involve looking at:

• Per-killer performance data: How does each killer fare against the average survivor?
• SWF vs. solo statistics: What is the disparity in escape rates between these groups?
• Match outcomes beyond kills: What are the rates of 2Ks, 3Ks, and 4Ks compared to 1K or zero kills?

By balancing the game based on these nuanced factors—not just a raw kill rate—developers can create a fairer environment where killers of all tiers have a chance to succeed, and survivors feel like their skill determines their fate, rather than facing overwhelming odds.

So this is one of those things I've come to realize the community is just going to always disagree on. When I first started this game and being involved in the community I couldn't believe people found playing killer stressful, while it can feel like I'm having a heart attack playing survivor. At first I thought people played killer because they didn't like the intensity of survivor.

I find the idea that survivors have a single objective particularly striking in light of your examples. Likewise killers only objective is to kill. All of your examples are things the survivors have to worry about as well. Do I focus on the gen or go for the rescue? Is it worth it to heal? Where should I take the killer on the chase?

Both sides have a single objective (well, survivors also have the gates), and a number of other things that they may or may not do during the game to increase their chance of completing their objective.

For me, win or lose, killer is chill. The meta-gameplay seems pretty obvious. As survivor, you have to do the same thing, while either also communicating (SWF) or, more commonly, having uncertain information about what is going on (soloq).

Survivors can specialize: one person focuses on loops, another on healing, and so on. Even their decision-making (heal, unhook, or finish a gen) revolves around a binary "yes or no" choice about taking action in a specific moment.

On the other hand, killers’ objectives (kill survivors) require them to manage multiple simultaneous factors:

• Patrol generators and protect the ones closest to being repaired.
• Chase survivors efficiently, ensuring they apply enough pressure to slow progress without wasting time on fruitless pursuits.
• Optimize hook placement to maximize map control and minimize rescue opportunities.
• Deny secondary objectives like boons, healing, or tool usage (e.g., flashlights or medkits).

Unlike survivors, who divide these responsibilities, killers must juggle them alone. A single lapse—spending too much time on one survivor or ignoring a gen—can snowball into failure.

Balance should reflect the potential of each role. Survivors’ tasks are shared, consistent, and designed to reward cooperative play, while killers must manage every aspect of the game on their own. Claiming that survivor decisions (heal or not, save or not) mirror the killer’s complexity overlooks the killer’s greater workload and the variance in killer viability.

Balancing solely around statistics like kill rate fails to address these fundamental differences in gameplay pressure and variability between roles. Developers should focus on making weaker killers viable and ensuring that the workload disparity is accounted for when tuning game mechanics.

The uncomfortable truth here is two fold:

1: Balance is only one of BHVR's decision makers on game design.

2: They want the game to constantly be changing, for metas to come and go. There isn't some long-term perfect goal for DbD. To say they lack long-term strategy makes the mistake of thinking there is an end goal for DbD.

While it's true that DbD thrives on its ever-changing meta, this approach should not come at the cost of coherent balancing. Balancing doesn't require a static, "perfect" game; instead, it’s about ensuring that changes are thoughtful, tested, and fair across all roles and levels of play.

The idea that "constant change" is intentional shouldn't justify reactionary design choices. For example:

• Community-driven nerfs and buffs: Changes like the decisive overhaul of certain perks (Dead Hard, Circle of Healing) often felt like knee-jerk responses to player outcry rather than well-planned steps toward a balanced game.
• Neglected killers: Long-term issues with certain underperforming killers (e.g., Trapper, Clown) show that some parts of the game stagnate even as the meta evolves.

If BHVR wants an evolving meta, they must balance shifts within a framework that prioritizes fairness and engagement for both sides.

Claiming that DbD doesn’t have a "perfect end goal" risks devaluing the experience of competitive players who invest in mastering the game. Even if the intention isn’t to reach a static “final balance,” there should be a clear philosophy guiding balance decisions:

• What constitutes "fairness" for killers versus survivors?
• Should the game favor casual players over competitive ones?
• Are weaker killers being actively reworked to keep pace with meta shifts?

By dismissing long-term strategy as unnecessary, BHVR risks alienating players who value consistency and mastery.

Ultimately, DbD is about challenge and accomplishment. Balancing to what is possible—not just to what players demand—ensures that players feel rewarded for their skill and strategy without relying on overpowered tools or broken mechanics.

It seems that no matter how much evidence or logic is presented, the core issue remains unchanged: a portion of the survivor community appears to advocate for a version of Dead by Daylight where killers are essentially props—meant to entertain survivors but never pose a genuine threat. Competitive players, streamers, and even BHVR's own changes demonstrate the necessity of rebalancing survivor mechanics to give killers a fair chance, yet the insistence on making survival even easier persists.

I’m stepping away from these discussions because they often devolve into a utopian fantasy where killers shouldn't kill, survivors should always escape, and any genuine challenge is dismissed as unfair. At this point, it feels less like a debate about balance and more like an entitlement to never lose. For the health of the game, both sides need challenge and a fair shot—not a one-sided playground.