What should the power dynamic be between killers and survivors?
A lot of people complain about various balancing stuff so i was just wondering what your thoughts on the dynamic between killers and survivors should be?
In a match where the 4 survivors and killer are equal in skill do you think the killer should always win, the survivors should always win or some kind of tie where some survivors die and some live.
If you believe some should survive but not all how many would be ideal? 3k? 2k? 1k?
What should the power dynamic be between killers and survivors? 51 votes
4 votes
46 votes
1 vote
Comments
-
Some survivors should die but not all
If this is means a 2:2. Thats the perfect balance. None side should be entitled to have a perfect game by default.
2 -
I don't think you can boil it down to those three options. Even if you could consider a killer and survivors as equal skills level there's still factors like the map, what killer, the perks etc.
Ideally it'd be a 2 or 3k and a 4k definitely within possibility but even if the survivors aren't SWF then right now I'd say they all have a good chance of escaping if they don't screw up
1 -
The killer should always 4k
Escaping should be considered the equivilant of the Killer killing all 4 Survivors with all 5 gens remaining, a "perfect".
Something actually challenging and rewarding, not something you can do consistently.
Make escaping way harder, but make it like a guarenteed +5 pips and give a massive load of bonus BP.
1 -
I'm gonna go with none, if everyone was as good as eachother than sure option 2 but there are always players that just aren't that good and don't deserve to have any escape against a better playing killer and vice versa there shouldn't be any guaranteed 4k's if the killer played awful unless the other team threw.
0 -
Some survivors should die but not all
2.7k average ideally with exactly 1/3 of games actually being 4k's. I disagree with the 2:2 idea due to it requiring an insane amount of snowball in order to both hold true and be balanced at the same time.
The possible kill rates that even CAN be balanced are anything between 2 and 3.2 btw. Numbers outside of those parameter's are mathematically guaranteed to be imbalanced, while any numbers within that range can be such that all players have the same winrate and thus are balanced.
1 -
Some survivors should die but not all
It sounds unintuitive, but if you manage to perfectly balance the game with a 2k average then the game you eventually end up with will never actually result in a 2k.
0 -
Some survivors should die but not all
Game balance wise, it should be a 2k average (yet if a killer gets a 2k they'll almost certainly depip but if a survivor dies they can still pip? Doesn't seem right to me).
Thematically, it should be a 3k so it's like a movie where the last survivor gets away but their friends all die.
0 -
Some survivors should die but not all
That's a bit silly.
Escaping should just be equivalent to a Killer 4k as they are each the objective for each side. Thus they must both have equal odds in order to meet the definition of balance.
The equivalent to a 5 gen 4k for Survivors is iridecent unbroken or in otherwords a 0 hook escape.
If a 50/50 escape odds is too high that's fine, you can make lower odds work but the range is 50% to 20% with the lower odds causing the game to approach usually being a 3k.
Specifically at 20% escape rate 80% of games would be 3k's and 20% 4k's. Any lower and balance is impossible since no combination of kills will result in equal win rates.
50% would mean only 0k's and 4k's at 50/50 odds.
The reason why I like 33% (which is about 2.7k) is because with those odds you can have the game be balanced even after Survivors start dying. That doesn't mean you WILL have balance like that, but it mean's it is possible. That is to say if you start with a 1v1 being 50/50 and working backwards you end up with a 4v1 being 33%.
Any lower than 33% and the snowball effect starts to reverse and thus it becomes optimal to sacrifice each other as Survivors. (for example with a 20% escape rate you should have an 80% 1v1 success rate, since the Killer wins are the remaining 20%)
If you don't think a 1v1 (counting situations where the gates are already open ect. Not just the EGC) should be 50/50 given a 3k then other numbers can work. 40% is also pretty good with a 2.4k average (which isn't too large compared to 33%) but still not close enough to 2k that you have insane snowball.
1 -
Some survivors should die but not all
That's an angle I'd never considered
Interesting perspective, but the one critique I have is things don't tend to be so flat. Mathematically that makes sense but the entire distribution is important as well. Things like the shape and and standard deviations of these rates should be considered. I think thinking backwards makes this easier. By asking, ideally, what do we want the distribution of kill rate to look like? Do we want the upper and lower 15% of games to be 0k/4k respectively? 10%, 20%? Do we even want them to be even? I have no idea what these numbers should be but thinking backwards rather than from the top down makes a little more sense here I think.
Edit: Side note, a very small minority of people will choose an option in this poll that isn't the middle one. Not only is the middle option extremely vague and could mean many many different things, but the other two options are so ridiculous that very few people are likely to pick them.
1 -
Some survivors should die but not all
I know, that's exactly how I concluded that a 2.7k average is better than a 2k average or 3.2k average.
2k and 3.2k mean fixed kill distributions of either only 0k and 4k or only 3k and 4k.
I calculated 2.7k by first setting 3k = 4k and working backwards from there. So I did just this.
But regardless of what other factors you want you do need a fixed winrate which applies to all players equally in order for the game to be balanced by definition.
0
