http://dbd.game/killswitch
People who don't know what high level play is like, should watch this
This is a clown main with 4k hours on clown directly. And he is showing what the game can be like at the high level. Yeah, he wins the match, but as he says, just watch it.
The game is balanced around killers bringing tons of gen defense and other perks or just being a high tier killer, and survivors keep getting tons of basekit comeback mechanics.
When playing at a high level this is what the game is like when you don't bring gen defense perks and/or a high tier killer, and how making 1 or 2 tiny mistakes just loses you the game immediately with no comeback mechanics that exist for killer.
Comments
-
Is this mf Arinad? Author of the billion-page Clown guide?
Also, what is your point? Not every Killer should be balanced to compete with the .01% of Survivors. Survivors have no base-kit comeback mechanics, they have base-kit protections. Call it what it is.
Some of us enjoy playing against difficult opponents and learning. Coming back better next time.
9 -
Posted 10 minutes after, so you didn't watch the video to see what my point is then?
-7 -
Here we go again showing one match and generalize it in a way thats just not telling the whole truth.
6 -
Putting aside the streamer's personality/complaints/etc, the main thing I took away was how fast the gens got done, and how his comeback was entirely caused by overzealous plays on the survivor side. He was even content with a 2k when the snowball started. Balance discussions aside, I absolutely get the frustration aspect of what he's saying, especially knowing that a more meta perk selection (or killer) would have given him a better chance at a more meaningful match (win or lose.) His game sense was not poor, he was doing things like recognizing when gens would pop and was making decisions like hooking the one survivor when he knew the others were down and healing across the map, so I don't think his macro play is especially poor (aside from the limitations of clown and his perks ofc.)
Regarding the basekit combacks/protections, regardless of which one each of us thinks applies, I think the bigger point he was making is that there are a lot of issues on the killer side that are on the same level as BT was before it became basekit: Gen perks feel that necessary because of the speed of matches like this, and it feels as necessary at higher level as BT felt before it got made basekit. Thats part of the issue with the pandora's box that got opened with basekit mechanics/buffs like that and the timer ones: It validates a lot of whataboutism, and makes issues feel particularly ignored when not addressed in a similarly impactful way.
I couldn't even finish the video, but I made sure to watch the entire match to get why he felt the need to make the video, and his frustration is valid. He could absolutely let it not get to him, but I can't imagine this kind of game being rare when you main clown for that many hours, especially if you're willing to divert from his meta.
1 -
Thank you for summarizing it, this is generally pretty spot on. The main takeaway being that like, killers today feel like survivors used to before things like BT were basekit. And what did that lead to? Survivors getting BT basekit.
-2 -
No, I took a guess who it was because I was getting in my car.
Not safe to read Forums and drive!
7 -
I feel it's probably that a lot of survivors just provide negative feedback about facing killers when in reality survivors have all of the tools available to them to just stomp killers and it's really about learning and getting experience on utilizing those tools effectively. Regardless, a lot of survivors just don't want to make the effort, so it's negative feedback until they get buffs and basekit upgrades so that effort isn't even needed. Take DS for example, survivors would complain that they couldn't get enough distance when running away in a straight line when you're actually supposed to be using it near a loopso once you jump off, you immediately are in another loop which can extend chases for an extended period of time. It's about using tools properly, not having the game play for you. It took me a while to realize this myself, and once I did, my survivor experience has vastly improved. Learning how to loop propelled me far further than just sitting around waiting for freebie basekit buffs from the devs.
-1 -
I do not think it is a rare game.
However, I do not think there is anything wrong with that, aside from the stress factor, which is something built into the game.
Despite literally everything going wrong and all of it stacked against him, he still won the game as Clown. That isn't similar to Old BT at all. If you got farmed without old BT, that was it. You were done and you had no recourse, that's one reason DS was so popular because it was a defense against dumb teammates.
If you get dealt the worst hand possible as Killer, you can still win. It might not be easy, or "fun", but to say it isn't possible isn't accurate.
9 -
Thats not what he meant by the BT comparison, at least not how I took it. He was talking about how you were throwing if you didn't take BT at the time, which was generally considered the case. That same type of necessity has been felt with gen perks more than once in DBD's history, especially specific combos with specific killers (corrupt being the big example for setup or poor map presence killers.) He had 3 hooks by the time the gens were powered, and his win was solely from getting aura reads on how greedy the survivors were being. It wasn't his game to win, it was their game to lose, and if he didn't play it the way he did it could have easily been a 3E. There's a specific type of frustration that causes with games, and experiencing it frequently takes a massive mental toll (see: all justifications ever given regarding going next) beyond what the game "should" be. He even touched on wanting to give up and get out of the game but then he kept with it because he was forced to. That type of frustration is felt by both sides, but for some reason there never seems to be any empathy across the isle for either side.
Did I miss something regarding that possibility statement though? The fact he won a game like this is proof that there's always possibility, the point was more about the helplessness and frustration than the number of kills. RPD library whack a mole wasn't ok even though it almost always ended in a 4k.
2 -
I don't think that's exclusive to killer-side though, to the point where I don't see why additional balancing is needed (especially not another survivor nerf.) Killers just feel it more often than survivors because hitting high MMR is way easier on killer, and that's the price you pay for SBMM.
In a good MMR system, every game should be a struggle and should be tiring. You should not expect to just chain matches back to back in high MMR without breaking a sweat or it's not functioning as intended. The emotional response to playing a hard match is understandable, but I disagree that BHVR should change the game to accommodate it.
Playing at a high-level will always include sacrificing fun for efficiency which I believe is Pulsar's point. Looking at the survivor builds of the match, everything there is the equivalent to running four slowdowns. Just like killer, I'd wager > 60% of survivor perks are a throw.
The reason why there's such push-back against killers getting basekit buffs (even though I'd be fine with basekit corrupt) is because killer is the power role and is already dominant at all levels of play until it tapers off into 'sometimes you might have a really hard game but still win most of your matches' territory in high-mmr as low-above average MMR is a slaughterfest.
2 -
You are missing the point though, he didn't really "win". It was completely thrown because the survivors were overly altruistic.
-1 -
But its precisely the point that at the highest levels of play only nurse and MAYBE blight is actually consistently viable.
If you took the best killer player in the world for each killer, and pit them against the best survivor team in the world and played 10 matches. How many of those killers do you think would actually get a 50% win rate? Assuming we removed RNG by just having them all play on the same map that is statistically a 50% winrate for example?
Probably only the nurse would do that.
-3 -
Oh of course its not exclusive to the killer side, but being bound by the disconnect penalty is. While I personally think neither side should have a way to get out of matches without penalty, killers can't go next (either on purpose or by accident) so they have to play out every single game like this down to the last moment. I never see go next defenders advocating for parity in that regard, so its worth reiterating.
There's a difference between difficult games and unwinnable games. And yes, you can win an unwinnable game. In this instance I'm using unwinnable to define a game where you can do everything right and still lose, because the match is stacked beyond your favor. Both sides can and do occasionally have unwinnable games, but the biggest difference is that on survivor side it often has to do with sharing the agency of your teammates, while as killer it generally means time efficiency is very far in the survivors' favor. You can win games where either of those elements are against you, but they are not fun games win or lose. Especially knowing its not as much that you won as it was that they lost.
If you disagree that frustrations should not be a balance worthy consideration for killers, please remember that if you ever feel they're worthy of consideration for survivors. Not saying whether you do or don't, but keep it in mind as a mindfulness approach. Frustration is quite possibly the biggest catalyst of almost any balance discussion on these forums, moreso than actual balancing.
The reason why there's such push-back against killers getting basekit buffs (even though I'd be fine with basekit corrupt) is because killer is the power role and is already dominant at all levels of play until it tapers off into 'sometimes you might have a really hard game but still win most of your matches' territory in high-mmr as low-above average MMR is a slaughterfest.Why can't we make balance adjustments that help killers more at high level and help survivors more at lower level? That should always be the ideal.
1 -
Let me put it this way. Remember the games where a bubba would just facecamp a survivor to death? And how the game was really unfun for that survivor on the hook? Like, sure the other survivors would probably win the game right? Cuz they could just finish the gens, and get out probably before they could actually get a kill.
Remember how awful that was though to experience? And even though the survivors still would "win" it still was really unfun, and so the devs did what they did, and they added the AFC feature.
That is the kind of feeling i'm talking about when playing killer in games like this that should be fixed as well.
The other aspect your missing on the "fun" factor here is. Do you think this game that this clown player played and didn't have fun was also fun for the survivors? I really doubt it, i'd bet that most of the players in that game, did not have fun.
0 -
RPD sure wasn't okay, but it was a specific interaction on a specific map; not the entire game.
You'd be "throwing" if you didn't run Nurse + slowdowns by that logic. If you go into the game with a weak Killer, no gen perks, no real chase perks against good players WHY should you expect to win?
3 -
If you're referring to comp, I don't know what the dev vision is regarding competitive DBD so I can't comment on it, but there are plenty of rules that creative killer diversity, artificial or otherwise.
Referring to highest queue-able MMR, again, its not really different than being unable to use any of the multitudes of trash perks and playstyles on the survivor side, if survivors were win-streaking perkless I'd be more sympathetic, but they're not even win-streaking with off-meta builds.
And you'd still have to gather stats that show non-meta killers are loss-streaking in the cited MMR levels, if they're not, what's the problem?
The unsatisfying answer is that if a killer DC's, the entire match ends. Its an asymmetrical game at the end of the day. We are already getting go-next prevention soon-ish, so I'll reserve my thoughts on the topic for that point in time because it will most likely change a lot. I will say that adding killer bots would give them leeway to let killer's leave more often, but it'd be a lot of work and I'd imagine they'd rather just put a stop to chronic hookcide instead.
Time efficiency is survivor biased if they are a SWF and if said SWF is competitive, how often is this the case? If games against competitive SWFs can be won and are rare, is there truly an issue? If the problem is that killers are losing these games despite playing 'perfectly,' one side has to lose the immovable object vs unstoppable force situation, why should it be the survivors?
I also don't agree with the idea that you should be able to play an off-meta killer with an off-meta build and win consistently against comp-swfs running meta, as well as the fact that survivors who are inefficient with crappy builds shouldn't be able to consistently win against comp Blights/Nurses (which they don't.) The only exception to this being a massive skill-gap.
As annoying as Eruption was, survivors still had strong tools to use too and it would've been a lot better (imo) if BHVR added ways to communicate things like gen-perks or chases instead of just gutting Eruption, so I'm not opposed to preserving the strength of something frustrating by indirectly nerfing it with QoL that alleviates said frustration. A perfectly example would be adding basekit weaker corrupt without nerfing gen speeds again.
Regarding your last point, BHVR can put in said changes, but is it worth it the cost/effort? Nothing I've seen is convincing enough for me to believe killers are truly fighting tooth and nail in high-level MMR, all I've seen is evidence that high-mmr is the only place where they have to play against opponents of equal or greater skill instead, which like I said in my first response, should be expected if you're playing at that level.
4 -
It has nothing to do with comp.
If we had a pretend competition, where we took the highest MMR player on each killer, and pit them against the 4 highest MMR survivors in the game, the outcome would be that MAYBE nurse gets a 50% win rate.
And in regards to "perks" and "meme builds". In comp there is a REASON that survivor perks are HEAVILY restricted such that they CAN'T bring all the best perks. And look at what happens in comp? They still win.
-3 -
Because stacking the odds in your favor should not be required to have a chance at winning a balanced game. Something that applies to both sides for different reasons. His build wasn't bad, it just didn't have something that is essentially necessary in the current meta. My point with RPD was that it created extremely unfun games that all parties involved knew would result in the killer getting a 4k. The outcome doesn't mean anything regarding how it got there.
-1 -
His build was full of objectively bad perks. He didn't need to stack the odds in his favor, he just needed to not literally handicap himself.
If he is advocating for weak Killers with bad perks to be able to compete with top tier .001% SWFs using full-meta sweat builds….idk what to tell you.
I understand it is frustrating. I'd be frustrated too.
6 -
He got a 3K, he won.
If the Killer slugs all four people, and then they somehow manage to recover and escape, they won. The Killer misplayed, yes, but that doesn't change the end-result.
4 -
And what, precisely, do you propose to do about it that wouldn't massively screw up the balance of the game?
Because this is Clown we are talking about here. A weak Killer, and a weak Killer on a bad map with bad perks against good players with good perks on a good map.
4 -
Lets start with this.
Do you agree that its a problem? Lets not focus on the solution atm. Do you agree at least, that it is a problem?
-1 -
What exactly am I agreeing is a problem?
Let's nail it down first.
3 -
You still have yet to give a reason why you think killers should win these outcomes, but not survivors. Also you're going to have to link comp games where this takes place because in the comp matches I've watching (which is little,) the survivors are still picking relatively strong/cohesive perk setups even if they couldn't take the meta.
Killers are still winning in high-mmr and even the kill-rate in this MMR is healthy to my knowledge, just like I told the other poster, expecting BHVR to take the extremely complex balancing route to change high-level without overdoing it and without affecting the low level is wishful thinking, you've proposed your ideas in past discussions but I still maintain my disagreement with their implementation.
I feel like its far more practical for them to cut their losses and approach game balance practically, which is what they have been doing to my knowledge.
2 -
I'm not saying killers should just "win" these outcomes, i'm saying they should stand a chance. Killers only win at high mmr because they play nurse, or because they engage in stacking 4 slowdown perks and/or unfun playstyles that are not fun for the survivors to play against.
Unfun playstyles btw, that i don't think should exist. I don't think it should be expected that you just hard tunnel out the non-obsession (less likely to have DS) because the game is balanced around this unfun strategy.
-1 -
It's basically a meme at this point.
Killer is hard, now watch this video of a killer winning the game with a lower tier killer and less sweaty build to prove my point.
If at high MMR a SWF can run a sweaty build and a lower tier killer running a less sweaty build still wins, then the game is clearly killer sided.
Anyway, decided to make comments as I go through the video. Watched the whole thing, lots of comments
Running less sweaty builds as killer makes the game harder - this is true on the survivor side as well. This also has nothing to do with the MMR level. His section on 'balance feels slated towards meta builds' is a statement that applies to any game.
His talk on how many hours he has in the game sounds very weirdly entitled. It was extremely off putting.
Early game is very important for both sides and all MMR levels. Whether that is good or not or how it can be changed is a different question.
It's not a fun win if I win - then don't play this way if you don't like the challenge. But again, he won, so killers are going to complain even if they win because they didn't win easily enough I guess.
'If I didn't have to work so hard' - what do people want high MMR to be? Do you think the survivors who got here aren't working hard?
Last comment before the match 'the match played out the way that it did' - this relates to the if killer makes 1 to 2 mistakes argument, but seems to presume that the survivors play perfectly. As he says he is human and will make mistakes. Absolutely true, but so are the survivors. They'll make mistakes too, which side makes less mistakes, wins. That's how a lot of games function.
The match
He makes a mistake early on of running over to shack, not sure why.
90 seconds in he abandons a chase because of a syringe. I don't think he's destroyed any pallets, but he probably doesn't need to because of Coup and bottles
Has a couple of misses on the swings
—being I already know he is going to win I can't believe this video is being used as evidence of killer struggles at high MMR.
2:35 into the first chase he gets his first down. Only 1 gen has popped, though two pop not soon after. Seems completely reasonable.
Also gets the down because of Coup, if he had a gen regression perk in that slot would not have gotten a down.
Being extremely negative in his chat, no idea why. Complains about it not being engaging, despite the fact he's just been in multiple chases. Not sure what he wants other than an easy win.
'Where are the base kit comeback mechanics for killer' - this is actually getting silly to listen to, he's going to win. But he's been negative about the game from the start, not surprising he might not be playing his best.
What he's talking about on the survivor side aren't basekit comeback. A basekit comeback would be something like increased gen speeds like exists in 2v8. Killers have, and have always have had, the best basekit comeback, the area that the survivors can attack (the gens), shrinks, making the chases/defense easier.
Second down, gets more value from Coup.
'Can't start a chase with anyone because they pre-run' - literally has gotten hits on people because they waited to long to run.
Gets even more value out of coup by going around a body block.
We get multiple complaints about dead hard even though dead hard hasn't been successfully used.
End of match - survivors could have gotten a 2 out, they try for 3, end up only getting 1. It's kind of boring for everyone as he secures the kills, but nothing unique about it.
-
After match
'Did it really seem like I was having fun' - no, but it felt like he was negative from the absolute beginning of the match. This seemed to be someone playing DbD who hates DbD.
'Imagine if Jeff had adrenaline, or if Sable got value out of Shoulder the Burden' - he's ridiculously missing the point here. They didn't, that's part of the issue of survivor perks. Killers act like they are easy to deploy or guarantee value from, but they aren't. Yeah, if they got value they would have done better, and if he hadn't got value from Coup for three downs the survivors would have done better.
'Imagine if I chose to camp/tunnel her' - imagine if I played it wrong instead of right. Well, it wouldn't have gone as well for you. We can through every element of the match and imagine better or worse set ups on both sides.
'If I commit this chase I lose the game' - potentially, but the point is, he didn't. There's no rule that a killer has to commit to a chase and he exhibited that you don't have to. The survivor has burned through their most resource, that's valuable for the killer.
He's really harping on the strength of this item. It definitely is, survivors and killers both have sweaty builds, but if this hadn't been the first survivor targeted it wouldn't have been as huge a deal, or if it had been a different killer who could either catch up before the syringe worked, or if a killer like Plague who could just make it irrelevant. Survivors don't know the killer they are going to face, sometimes their perks / items come in clutch, sometimes they don't.
Seems to be falling into a common issue about killer mobility. Yes, its a really strong power. However, with his build he was able to get downs quickly and was able to defend the top portion of the map limiting the area survivors could work with. Having gens be completed is not a loss for the killer, a loss for the killer is the survivor escaping.
—this goes to a common theme that killers not only want to win, but want to regularly win with only 1 to 2 gens being done In an even match you should expect at a minimum, all of the gens to be complete, it should be coming down to the end game.
He goes into what would have happened if Mikaela hadn't had the syringe, which really makes it sound like 'I would have crushed the survivors'. Which makes the syringe sound absolutely fine, because survivors aren't there to just be crushed.
Couple of 'micro mistakes I made' - what mistakes did the survivors make to justify the killer getting a 3k? (we're also in contradictory territory arguing this is high MMR were survivors don't make mistakes and also saying the survivor made massive mistakes)
Talks about it not feeling good to get one or two kills and playing to win. That's fine, but there needs to be some understanding that the other side is trying to win and sometimes will. I'm sure it didn't feel good as the survivors to play a relatively solid match and still get 3ked, its completely one sided on the feeling argument.
We get to complaining about DH except he already exhibited how he countered it by having hit him early and in the match he showed how he predicted DH and waited it out. He's complaining about a perk at multiple points that got no value and he counterplayed.
We're now getting into more hypothetical scenarios, but this is so one sided. What if it had been a different killer? What if it had been a different build? What if he had made a different play as killer that had worked better. We don't have the survivor perspective where they could make the same complaints.
'One use of DH could have lost me this game' - if we go back to the beginning of the match where he misses a couple of those swings, if he hits those survivors probably never even get to this point. He only wants to discuss ways it could have gone better for survivor while ignoring the moments it could have gone in his direction.
Game being uphill when running lower tier killers and non-sweaty builds - what does he expect? Again, this is absolutely the exact same on the survivor side if people throw on a 'fun' build.
Talks about making the mistake to queue up, sounds like he's burned out. That's fine and completely normal.
Talks about wanting to run fun builds. He ran one and won, if he hadn't had such a negative attitude the whole match he probably would have actually enjoyed pulling off those Coup hits. You can't however simultaneously want to win, not want a challenge, and to run any build in the game (true for both sides)
Back to 'I'm going to make mistakes'. Again, absolutely. But his mistakes are 'micro' issues, while the survivor mistakes are 'throwing'. Presumes far easier decision making on the part of survivors than is true.
'Basekit this, basekit that' - just wrong. Presumes some kind of starting point where the game was at a perfect point and working off that.
"The sore winner mindset" - I literally laughed out loud at this. This is a 30 minute video of him being a sore winner.
-
Overall
I've never watched any of this guys video before, and I obviously have no knowledge of what he's like in person, but this video isn't the best showing for him. He's angry/swearing the whole match, negative from the beginning, and in his analysis is always imagining hypotheticals in the worst possible case scenario for him, without considering the same for the survivors. It seems to really meet the idea that killers just want survivors to start on hook.
As for it being high MMR, nothing about this match seems particularly unusual despite some killer assumptions that we're all getting radically different matches. Lots of things that get labeled 'high MMR' are actually pretty ubiquitous.
8 -
You're not wrong about the killer leaving ending the game, but if someone goes next at 5 gens, how is that any different? If anything its worse since the match has to drag out in an unbalanced and lopsided manner. As for time efficiency, SWF is not a requirement for it at all: Good players can and do silently coordinate and use deductive reasoning to fill in the blanks for information they're missing regarding their teammates, and the HUD update helped with that a lot.
If the problem is that killers are losing these games despite playing 'perfectly,' one side has to lose the immovable object vs unstoppable force situation, why should it be the survivors?This is an interesting question, because it comes down to a philosophy I feel influenced the game's design: 1 mind is more powerful than 4 minds with no coordination, while 4 minds in synchronicity are more powerful than one mind alone. I feel like DBD is supposed to be about the 4 minds trying to coordinate without the means to do so in order to overcome the one other mind. This is why there is so much missing information at all times, why even the tiles have certain rng elements to their formulas to try to keep things harder to coordinate. So in general, I feel it should fall in the middle, the survivors should win if they achieve near impossible immovability while they should lose if they fail to do so. Meanwhile the majority of matches should fall in the middle due to human error and loadouts on both sides creating a massive +/- window. Unfortunately we will never get there until the roster is balanced, let alone the roles.
I also don't agree with the idea that you should be able to play an off-meta killer with an off-meta build and win consistently against comp-swfs running meta, as well as the fact that survivors who are inefficient with crappy builds shouldn't be able to consistently win against comp Blights/Nurses (which they don't.) The only exception to this being a massive skill-gap.I don't remember claiming that, especially the consistently part. Builds are going to have different strengths, but there is a difference between "winning consistently" and viability. Viability means you actually stand a chance, as opposed to losing at character select. I also don't think the game will ever be able to account for the strength of all aspects of coordination, so consistently is a strong word indeed. Ideally, sure, but realistically those sweat squads are a very small minority (as I'm always told) so it would be unrealistic to account for their potential. Why do discussions always devolve to extremes?
Regarding your last point, BHVR can put in said changes, but is it worth it the cost/effort?That depends on how much BHVR values its fanbase. And I don't mean that in a fanservicey kind of way, I mean that in an integrity in their product way. The fact they're finally putting extra effort into the health of the game tells me they understand how important improving the experience of their user base is, so taking the balance paradigms that have been identified for most of the game's life are worth their already existing investment toward balance adjustments.
-2 -
And survivors only win in high-mmr because of the same thing, but perk-wise. Where are the survivors winning or even standing a chance while using chest-builds or perkless?
In PVP games there will never be a META that's fun for your opponents, this is seen in League/Dota/Rivals/Overwatch etc.
Because efficiency in PVP games means letting your opponent have as little a chance to act as possible.
I disagree with them removing playstyles from the game and would much rather basekit buffs to alleviate the pain of playing against meta tactics, which is exactly why I agree with basekit BT being added and am not opposed to giving killers basekit perks either.
I just don't believe now is a good time because the game seems fine for killers to me, it would probably be more appropriate once basekit tunnel protections are added as this will be a giant nerf to the meta killer stratagem.
3 -
I played against Arinad once. I was playing in a soloQ match. He ran a full meta build, camped every hook and stomped us all. I'm not sure if we got more than one generator completed before the 3K.
I bet he wasn't complaining about the game's balance then.
6 -
Ok.
30 minutes of homework before I'm qualified to comment on a forum post deserves a downvote.
The video sums up your average match with a non apex killer running non regression perks.
And that is a sad thing. We should not have to bring regression perks or decide between 1-3 killers. Its such a waste of intellectual property, perks, cool powers and so on…
2 -
But the point is that there aren't any survivor perks anymore that are "required" because of all the basekit things. They just add to on top of what they already have. Killers gen defense is complete trash without perks, for example.
-1 -
Thing is, its not even that. I was really expecting a match where multiple things didn't go the killers way or that these survivors just played an absolutely perfect match and we were cherry picking.
But its not. The survivors play fine, the killer plays fine, and its a competitive match. It potentially could have swung in the survivors direction if a few more things swung their way, and it could have been a 4k if a few more things went the killer's way. For being a 'high MMR analysis' its shockingly unremarkable.
4 -
I think the bigger point he was making is that there are a lot of issues on the killer side that are on the same level as BT was before it became basekit: Gen perks feel that necessary because of the speed of matches like this, and it feels as necessary at higher level as BT felt before it got made basekit.Gen perks are reliable, the other perks he picked are situational. This is an element on both sides of the game, some perks are incredibly strong if you get in the right situation.
In this match the survivors brought multiple anti-tunnel perks, probably because they felt they had to, and I don't think they got value out of any of them. Likewise he brought Superior Anatomy, but got a map without any key window vaults and only one of the survivors looked like they had a chase build. If either of those were different something like Superior Anatomy could have been really powerful.
He also got a fair bit of value out of Coup, if he had gen regression perks than that some of his chases last longer, potentially giving him an even worse outcome.
I couldn't even finish the video, but I made sure to watch the entire match to get why he felt the need to make the video, and his frustration is valid.I don't get what there is to be frustrated about or how this video in any way looks like evidence of a problem. He played well, they played well, it was a close match that swung on a couple of variables. That really feels like how you should want a game to play out which is why in reviewing it so many of his complaints sound like 'I want to stomp the survivors'.
5 -
I agree. This video doesn't quite illustrate obvious problems. We see mistakes getting made which could reasonably have altered the match considerably if they were played differently.
3 -
You can run all the slowdown you want and still get clowned on, but if you just had some random garbage like mad grit you could accidentally turn a 0k into a 4k. In most matches, there's a chance that some random perk would have given better value than whatever is deemed meta.
That's the random nature of this game. You can never truly be prepared against everything. Am I missing out by not running Pain Res? Sure, but I don't care to deal with the frustrations of being denied my first token. I'll take my L on this match using Enduring, because maybe next match I'd get rolled too but nobody expects Enduring tech, which can snowball. Etc. Etc.
3 -
Fr this is the same guy that every time he is about to goes AFK, blames the survivors every time he loses and never once blames himself for playing bad
0 -
The thing is if he finds the game too frustrating to play then he only has 4 options imo . 1. Play a different killer preferably an S-tier killer. 2. Take a long break from the game. 3. Quit the game entirely. 4. Play survivor
0 -
I mean yeah, but thats like saying survivors who have issues need to do one of those as well, so I don't understand your point? Just being needlessly dismissive months later? I'm one of the first ones to tell people to take a break, that wasn't the point at all.
0 -
My point was that you shouldn't play the game if it stresses you out. He should do what Coté said years ago and play CIV or play something else.
0 -
And thats literally something I tell people to do regularly, so its like telling smokey the bear not to throw a match into bushes. My point was entirely about the player experience, something people discuss on here frequently. When you're in situations like his, they feel helpless as killer, which leads to people not wanting to feel helpless and pre-emptively stacking every advantage they can in their next matches. I'm basically telling you that this is what causes people to play "unfair."
1 -
100 % agree and it's a vicious cycle that repeats.
0
