Woe is the poor killer.

That doesn't change the fact the killer won. Maybe if you stop running ruin they will commit die less. But that's just ridiculous because Ruin is "essential".

The stats don't mean anything because most survivors aren't that good at the game. Even red rank survivors struggle because the ranking system is flawed.

If the ranking system wasn't flawed, and you had the best survivor vs the best killers than you would see the game is much more survivor based.

The data is not conclusive as it has many factors which we cant see which can heavily skew it.

Never take the kill data as the be and end all of game balance as it only proves what the end result was but it cant show what happened in the match to make it this way.

For example if survivor players decided to just let themselves be killed each and every game then every killer would then be shown to be strong and in need of a nerf.

Think outside the box as to why it could be this way, killing oneself on the hook as you dont like the map or killer, going for risky saves, not needing to survive to pip, wanting to be chased instead of doing gens, challenges changing the game along with the event of late etc.

This is weird game design to me. Kills shouldn't influence the ranking system so heavily and I'm sure I remember the devs saying they ideally wanted killers to get at least 2 kills per game. Ranking system bad as usual for dbd :/

Rank?

Oh look this comment again.

Usually when comments like this happen they make broad generalizations about the player posting instead of looking at what they're trying to say or starting a counter argument.

You don't know "what it really means" until you stop stereotyping and insulting people.

Just saying.

Logic suggests that when you see a graph without detailed info, just a generalized graph based on a very limited statistic, without additional info, that It should be taken with a grain of salt.

Without details, without the full context of those graphs, it just gives you an idea. It doesn't pain the whole picture.

So, if that all is true. Then it stands to reason, It would not matter which side of that fence we stood at, the same principle would apply.

So, no, no logical person would flip flop in that way.

People tend to look at the feel of the game, how it plays, etc... Anyone that plays at high ranks, knows, it literally depends on many other factors.

What's ironic though, is, we are talking about a "Kill Rate" in a game that doesn't have a CLEAR definition of winning for either side of the coin. I mean, shouldn't that tell you all you need to know?

Ok. I guess I should've listened to the little voice in my head saying I shouldn't try to start a reasonable discussion with this guy because he's just going to attack me and not bring up any good points. Whatever.

Like I said, continuing to attack for no good reason other than "I don't like that you disagreed with me". I don't get why you're being so aggressive when you could just as easily talk things out.

You may not think you're attacking me but you forget all dbd players are snowflakes.

Lately I find killer to be more stress free. It's not that hard, you just have to learn to accept that sometimes you won't get a 4k.

I agree. Survivor is more stressful than killer right now. I don't think you read my post correctly.

This depends on what you see as victory, 4k=automatic victory is flawed because anyone can stoop low enough and play cancerous builds like insidious, mad grit, Ruin, Noed bubba and face camp someone to death from the start and get an easy win especially if people sacrifice themselves for the save. Ranking how good a killer via the ranking system is more effective specifically the emblems "how good did they do in chase", "how well were they able to slow the game down/prevent gen progress", and the hooking emblem will be abysmal if they just camped people to death for freebies. It kinda keeps track in how the game went, a 4k is meaningless if the survivors turbo threw, that's not victory but you can't tell if that happened or not just by judging kills per game but if a rank 1 killer gets a 1-2k consistantly sweating his nuts off there's obviously something wrong with it seeing as a killer can't get carried to rank one by 3 other people while a survivor can.

Lmk where you disagree and we can talk that out.

What's also amusing is how many survivors will throw down a pallet if you just stand there staring at them for a bit. They then immediately leave the pallet. It's a great way to start a mind game. Do the above for 1 to 2 pallets then hit through the 3rd.

On a side note people have been dcing against Oni after getting downed from his power. Then complain that he's OP. Especially if I hit them as they vault or before they throw a pallet down.

That doesn’t even make sense lmao. Neither are killers? So killers are trying their best? And they still have like 70% kill rates and they still aren’t trying their best? So with their “best” you’re saying they can get like 80% - 90%? Maybe even 95%? Wow we need to nerf killers, NOW.

Ohh lol that makes more sense. That’s true, you’re right

You know how many times people I know have left their killer afk to farm bps and xp?

how many times I’ve seen a killer let a survivor live and give him hatch? (Literally carry a survivor and drop him at the hatch or door)

farm with survivors and let them leave?

the stats aren’t that far off bud. Could even be a higher % and not lower

That is the shittiest excuse Ive ever heard to dismiss stats