Balancing the game around 60% kill rate makes no sense

I dont mind being at a disadvantage but you listen to people like Trutalent who wants to base the game off the 5% and thinks being survivor is way to easy.

After having this discussion 100 times, I think one misconception that a lot of survivors have is the killer draws on a 2k... the killer hasn't drawn in this scenario.

The killers objective is to kill 4 survivors... thats is it. You achieve this most commonly by preventing gates from being powered at all. No one would deny preventing the gates being powered is a killer win.

The only reason a 3k is considered a "win" is because the 4th survivor can escape via hatch or out of gate once hatch closes, so 3k being a "win" accounts for the Survivors last ditch hope mechanics... not because the Killer was "close enough to a 4k so that's a win". If hatch didn't exist and survivors MUST power the gate via gens to escape, then 3k would also not be a win for killer, since you failed to hold the gate and prevent survivors escaping.

I think this is where a lot of this "2k is a tie" mentality comes from.... it doesn't consider the fact that the terms of the trial is simply a race to power generators and open/escape through the gate vs. killing all survivors before that happens. Failing to hold gates means you allowed legitimate escapes from the trial, thus you failed to maintain enough pressure for the killer objective.

Due to this I think the 60% killrate is fine, even though I play more survivor than killer... however since this discussiom keeps coming up, I feel like the sweet spot for most players is a 55% killrate, and my logic is:

• The gate not being opened is unequivocally a killer win.
• The gate being opened means some number of survivors got a "legitimate escape", i.e. the killer failed their objective of killing all survivors. (This is why killers don't see a 2 man escape as a draw, the killer failed their objective of preventing any escapes through gate).
• On a 50% killrate, 60% of your results are 0k, 1k, or 2k, meaning the gate must have been opened after completing 5 gens 60% of the time AT MINIMUM, thus the killer fails to hold gate 60% of the time. (The best case scenario assumes that vast majority of 1 man escapes are hatch/closed hatch into gate escapes, which is probably true)
• On a 60% killrate, only 50% of your results are 0-2k, meaning only 50% of the time the gate must have opened after completing 5 gens and the killwr fauled to hold the gate. This means the killer is succeeded at their objective of preventing any "legitimate escapes" 50% of the time. (Why I think it's fine).

As such on a 55% killrate, survivors complete opening the gate 55% of the time, but killers kill 2 or more survivors 55% of the time, therefore both are completing their respective objectives equally outside of scrambles at gate.

Given majority of the player base are casual survivor or SoloQ players, a 55% kill rate is less demanding outside of high level and SWF coordination.

However that is an admission that killer at high level will suck... so... Personally I still vote for 60% killrate.

"For me that means both roles now suck hard and i am not playing either one (not since chucky)"

You haven't played the game in over a year and still hang around the forums? And want to actively contribute to balance decisions?

Anyway, I wish there was a 60% killrate. In reality its, at above baby MMR, more like 57%. And yes, killers should have a higher than 50% killrate.

Firstly, lets talk about how much power people have over the game. Survivors have 4 offerings slots, compared to killers 1. Survivors have 4 items with 2 add ons each, compared to Killers just having 2 add ons. Survivors have 4 perks each, meaning 16, repeatable perks, Killers have 4 and they have to be 4 different. Due to Survivors having so many tools at their disposale, Survivors have way more power about the framework of a match than the killer has, and the killer has to adept. Giving the killer an advantage to make up for it makes sense.

Secondly, lets talk SWF vs Soloqueue. Soloqueue is less organised than SWF and therefore usually ends up with a lower killrate. The killrates being so close to 50% means that very likely, they are at or below 50% for smart SWFs. Recent community data shows that Eyrie of Crows is by far the most played map and has an under 50% killrate. This map being a favourite for map offering SWFs. It can still be brought by a Soloqueue Survivor or randomly happen, which would push the killrate up, but it still has a below 50% killrate. If Survivors give their all, they can easily get an average under 50% killrate. But if SWFs could constantly crush killers, this wouldn't be fun. A higher than 50% killrate is needed so that killers can actually expect to have a decent shot when going against SWFs.

Thirdly lets talk killer viability. The devs want you to be able to pick up any killer and be able to realistically win, even if going against Survivors. A higher than 50% average killrate, assuming no one killer spikes too hard above the rest, would make sure that this is possible with all killer. Cause a 50% killrate on average, keeping the current average in mind, would mean like a 44% killrate for Chucky. And nobody would want to play a character if it means losing that much.

Fourthly, lets talk about kill destribution. Because 8 hooks can mean 0 kills and 9 hook stages can mean 3 killers. A killer doesn't win by hooking, they win by killing. In addition to that, a Survivor who is dead cannot work on gens anymore. Both of these factors combined lead to games being fairly snowbally. Getting two kills often doesn't mean two kills, but usually allows a snowball into a third kill. This means the numbers will always be squed towards the extremes, and trying to balance the game by balancing these two extremes out is not healthy.

Fithly, lets talk giving up. If a Survivor decides they don't want to play the game for whatever reason, they can kill themself on hook or disconnect. This usually ends with the killer being able to win the game with 3 or 4 kills. Survivors going next is fairly common, maybe happens one in every 5 games in my experience, meaning that the killrate is artificially increased due to people just refusing to play the game.

Lastly, lets talk emotional impact. We play games to have fun after all and joy is an emotion. Survivors have more control over the match than killers, they are stronger than killers if they try hard, and there is more of them, meaning there is more of a tribalistic push against you than for you. If people are mad at each other after the game, it is 1 vs 4 arguing. Sure, I can handle being insulted, otherwise I would have stopped playing this game, but I think we can generally agree that being insulted usually doesn't feel nice. So from an emotional/community perspective, playing killer feels worse than playing Survivor. So they need to make up for that too somehow.

And Killer feels bad is a fact about this game and without changing it being 1v4, you will not be able to change that.

There is no point arguing if your just going to make up numbers out of thin air and misrepresenting my position. I'll give it one more shot , but if you continue you show you have no interest in being intellectually honest.

"killer has full power while solo survivor has tiny portion." But we cannot balance around solo survivor because then SWF would crush killers constantly. And SWF has way more power than Killer.

"Even if survivor has about 50% chance when all odds are in his favor, that doesn't mean the game is fair. For every best survivor map, you have corresponding headonfield or some other horrible map." But as I said before, Survivors have 4 offering slots compared to Killer 1. Survivors have way more influence on these things that killer.

"And as for every SWF (4 man is very rare btw) you still have nurse/blight with their multiple 1000+ streaks which is apparently fine in your eyes." You haven't played the game in over a year. I actively play it. While I cannot prove if a squad is 4 man or not, I get roughly 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 games where I get what seems like a 4 man SWF and I am far from top MMR. Also yes, the strongest killers getting long winstreaks is fine. BTW the highest Survivor Win Streak (3 people or more out as 4 man swf) is over 220 (Video by Hens: "Survivor's Secret to Success: Escaping over 200 games in a row"). And they did it without bringing constant map offerings to survivor sided maps AND while limiting their perk builds. If as many people went for SFW streaks as people went for Killer Streaks, the number would likely rise way higher. And yes, it counts as a Survivor Win, even if 1 Survivor dies.

"You can clearly see it when you compare best players taking weakest killer in public vs tryharding as soloQ. In case of killer he'll have at minimum 90% kill rate (but more like 99+%)" Stop making up numbers.

"in public matches you can get 90% kill rate or more without even using ability (as shown by e.g. Hens - and that was without camping or tunneling)." This is just absurd. I couldn't event find a single video of Hens of him showcasing play without killer.

"As for killer viability - there's exactly 0 killers that have 40% kill rate." But there likely would be if the game was balanced around 50% killrate, that was literally my point.

"It's fine if survivors loose 60% of time, but it's not fine if chucky looses 56% of time because 'noone will want to loose that much'? Well. Survivors already do." Killrate isn't win rate. If I die to get my team a 3 man out I am happy about it. Counterintuively, while kills lead to wins, dying doesn't mean losing. And yes, for the emotional reasons I outlined people are more fine with losing on survivor than as killer. That was what my last paragraph was about.

"AFAIK disconnected matches don't count" They do. If it shows up as a kill symbol on the EGC it counts as a kill for the community numbers.

"Giving up is the direct result of survivors not having chance" Nope. I have seen people give up as soon as they load into a match when going against killers like Pinhead or Skull Merchant, cause they just don't like them. Like running to the killer, letting them down them and instantly going next on hook. I have seen people try going next in a winning game, saved them and in End Game Chat they said they did their tome challenge and want out of the match now. I have also seen people give up when I hit them and revealed Franklins or when they randomly stepped in a bear trap against trapper. Survivors give up for the slightest of inconveniences.

"Survivors have less control as I already have shown (Ayrun example)." You have shown that an individual soloqueue Survivors has less control than a killer. My entire point was that a SWF has more control than the killer.

"If you are 4man on comms with 5000+hours per teammate, then you might be right. But even that's not really true vs blight and nurse" Not really. Btw, the winstreak I mentioned above, while it did lose to a Nurse, they beat 23 Blights and 23 Nurses in that streak. So its not like Nurse and Blight wipe the floor with tryhard teams, they are the only Killers that often stand a chance against these teams, outside of comp.

"Killers are bribed by free kills instead of addressing the real issue. As a result both roles suck." The issue is fundamental to the game and cannot be fixed without doing an overhaul on the way the game works and making the team be equal sizes. And in my experience both rules are fun. If you stopped enjoying DBD, maybe just do something else.