Why people are acting like this game survivor-sided while killers wins majority of games?

The short answer is "the average player is not that good at the game". Matchmaking is very loose, so what happens is that the top 1% of players (who have played a lot and/or are very good) commonly get matched against players who are not of the same caliber. If you look at any killer winstreak, you will commonly see games where the player doesn't even have to try, because the survivors make so many mistakes that the game is easy. For example, Tofu's recent Freddy 50 wins, etc. And on the other side, average killers get paired against good solos or good SWFs and get destroyed. Back in the day Marth's SWF did a no perk escape streak, and Hens and Knightlight have done high 3out escape streaks, iirc up to 200+.

Most winstreaks that end will end from a snipe, because realistically good players will only lose versus other good players. Especially if the winstreak is using the strongest stuff available, 4 average players in a SWF on Eyrie with BNPs is not enough. If there was a "winstreak" done where the person/people was only matched against comp players trying their hardest, I would be surprised to see more than 20 wins.

To more concisely make my point, I'd argue the people you're hearing say "current DBD is survivor sided" are either average/below average players or are playing in scenarios where they aren't playing their hardest to win. People who like to play lower tiers with chill builds and 12 hook are correct that in that scenario survivors have a LOT of second chances and opportunities to win, but that's unfortunately not the way the game is primarily played or balanced around.

Gross generalization is your opinion, which you are entitled to.

It's not tu quoque. Go through your debate 101 flashcards again.

If it's easy to demonstrate how often survivors DC'd prior to patch 6.1.0, why not post some data yourself instead of asking everyone to google search it themselves?

I don't see your point because you aren't trying to make one. You're just saying the same thing over and over and hoping people will eventually fold to your ad nauseam. I'm sorry but people don't DC or give up just because they can, they do it for a reason and that reason is the game is not fun for survivors because killer is too strong.

You are stereotyping tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of players as whiny and entitled because of some nonspecific 'a lot of' big bad killer mains.

In regards to 'survivors only quit because the game is imbalanced' I put up my own experiences combined with an easily confirmable and common sense observation that any longtime DbD player would be able to confirm. You responded by going 'well if you don't have to give a source for that I don't have to give a source either'.

Nobody asked for data here, just specificity. In a rhetorical way. Because I'm pointing out that you're setting up an Emmanuel Goldstein rather than actually refuting any actual argument.

But yeah. We now have a strawman inside an adhom inside a tu quoque inside a bit of sealioning.

It's the bad argument equivalent of a turducken.

I'm not a fan of using killer winstreaks as a metric for…anything, because unless it's someone like Otz who has built up a LOT of community trust, I'll always remember that insane Demogorgon winstreak that turned out to be caused by deliberately losing dozens of games between streams.

That said, the longest Clown streak I can find with a quick Google is Otz's 50.

We basically need to convince the project managers of DBD that the game is currently in a very killer sided state and not enjoyable as surv at all. But how to do that?

I'm going to try to be as fair as possible (4khr blight/jeff main)

Historically speaking, survivors have absolutely held the power role in DBD. DBD's early history is full of nerfs targeting survivors because, frankly, their toolkit was absurd. Self-Care mid-chase, sprint burst mid-chase, BNP instantly completing gens, pallet vacuum etc. It took BHVR a very long time to even admit these things were a problem, much less fix them.

This isn't to say that killers haven't had their fair share of OP nonsense. Old Mori's were incredibly broken, Ruin/Undying/Tinkerer wasn't necessarily game breaking, but it was obnoxious to play against(hence the reason why I never used it myself), and Gen-kick meta nearly broke the keyboards of survivors all over.

The reason why I bring these up is because the killer issues (Moris etc) were seemingly addressed much faster than survivor ones. How long did the gen kick meta last compared to the reign of old DH for example? The notion that dev's are making the game "killer-sided" is the result of them kicking the can regarding unbalanced survivor perks/interactions (see old DH, gen speed, unfair maps i.e. Haddonfield). They aren't trying to make survivors miserable, they are fixing mistakes that should have been corrected long ago.

As far as "killers win the majority of games", that boils down to two things. First the amount of skill it takes to play top-tier killers consistently well (nurse, blight, spirit, billy etc) is not to be ignored. It takes not just mechanical skill, but things like map knowledge, perk knowledge, and game sense. It also doesn't help that streamers make said killers look easy to play, when in truth they had to spend hundreds of hours to get there in the first place. Second, is that during a game, it isn't the killer that is your worst enemy, its your own teammates. How many times have we seen survivors hide in basement instead of unhooking, healing under hook against someone who comes back to hook each time or any number of stupid decisions?

Seeing as you have no idea what any of the terms you're throwing around actually mean, I'm just going to settle in agreeing to disagree with you as to not waste any more of my time lol.

The game is supposed to be killer-sided. The devs have very clearly stated that the target kill rate is 60%. Fewer people played killer back when kill rates were lower. Back then, my survivor queue times during peak evening hours would sometimes be 15 minutes or longer. Killer players were extremely rare. Now my survivor queue times are 5 minutes tops, indicating a healthier killer:survivor ratio.

A lot of people seem to be conflating "the game is killer-sided" and "playing killer is easy". I play about 50/50 survivor/killer, and I can tell you that in a majority of my matches I go up against survivors who know what they are doing and it is not easy. The only thing that needs a balance adjustment is the unfair advantage that SWF teams get from using comms.

To those in this thread claiming that the killer role is too easy or that kill rates need to be reduced, please post some of your gameplay so I can learn what I'm doing wrong. I have a feeling that none of you will take me up on that.

You always complain about killers being too powerful, so I guess by your logic that makes you a bad survivor player

It's just a mish mash of everything now. So many perks, so many killers, so many maps. It's at the point where you can't balance everything. Something changed will do nothing on one map or killer, but on another killer or with a certain perk it's completely gamechanging.

Just one little change, however small can do so much. Just look at Thrill recently where on certain killers with certain add ons and perks totems were unclensable.

“The only thing that needs a balance adjustment is the unfair advantage that SWF teams get from using comms.”

Ok and how do you do that?

A few minor things to correct: this is a 1v1v1v1 v 1 game, survivors are not obligated to ‘play as a team’ and BHVR tries to balance them as individual players and players who can perform cooperatively, comp survivors are not stomping comp killers (in fact the win/loss in comp is about even with killers having a slight edge and mind you most of the comp killer players actually also play survivor), and BHVR has themself called the game killer sided.

I don't want to name the player, but a Clown player got to 400ish within the last year or so. Don't remember the exact number off the top of my head.

"On top of that slugging is still being a thing, as well as camping and tunneling"

So whats so wrong with these? Cause these are far from problematic and if anything they would cause even more problems if "fixed" as in completely impossible to do as per a lot of community ideas I have seen.

Why is it when comes to balancing, we always have to consider killers in the hands of the very top players who have tens of thousands of hours and win streaks hundreds of games long, but for survivors it’s “no one cares about comp” and “most SWFs aren’t that good” and so on?

If you think tunneling and slugging. 2 things that nullify any single player from having any semblance of control over their own gameplay. Then idk.

They are massive problems and have not been addressed or fixed. And its more of a compounding problem that you have to deal with ON TOP OF everything else.

Load up a killer, pick a survivor and say you're it shouldn't be a thing.

Keeping people on the ground, shouldnt be a thing.

There have been lots of solutions proposed to handicap SWF teams. Limiting multiple uses of the same perk/items/add-ons, certain perk combos, adjusting gen speeds, etc. But whenever those are proposed, people cry that you're "punishing them for playing with friends", so they'll get to keep their unfair advantage forever.

EDIT: Disregard. Let me go take a look.

EDIT 2: Okay, so. I'm not finding the stream referenced here, but this seems to be coming second hand from someone who watched a stream. I cannot find any mentions of this. It also appears to be a poster with a bit of a…let's say a chip on their shoulder and even she was a bit iffy on that number - and as this isn't referenced anywhere else from what I can find, and as, looking at the comments it seems to contradict people's own experiences tremendously on all killer (and my own, which last time I took note, in a sample size of maybe 400 games on both sides the suicide rate wasn't far off 5x that number - even being amazingly generous).

Regardless, spent like 30 minutes looking around and this appears to be the only source for this statistic. I've reached out to them personally and will see if they have a link. Because this seems fishy.

So you are going to tell me that when skull merchants kill rate was what it was, that you TRULY BELIEVE that she was by far the best killer in the game, and that nurse is one of the worst killers in the game?

I agree with almost all of this except the winstreak potential differentiation. If there is ever a point where any killer's max winstreak is lower than a survivor one, that would be a pretty big indicator that particular killer would be massively underpowered. The 1 should always have a higher potential than any of the 4, let alone all 4. Even the best players need communication and coordination, especially when compared to a single person working independently. I like your target range of 50, but if that is the case, then survivor ones should still be lower than that just on a principle of 4 minds in tandem vs 1 in focus. If it were higher (or even,) then that would imply that the 4 are inherently stronger than the 1 due to that difference alone. This is all strictly concerning potential and not average performance, of course.

Your comments about unknowns and the things that contribute to the statistics is spot on though. Even skill expression is only a factor toward final outcomes, and can often be nullified entirely by other factors. Unfortunately there is a lot of ego in this community, so thats likely a big part of why people try to bend things to their own perspective rather than use other perspectives to learn from.