I'm so happy people are finally realizing this game is so killer sided
I wonder if the narrative on the forums will ever change from killer's being oppressed. People like Otz and Scott Jund are finally admitting it because there is just so little evidence on the contrary.
EDIT: I realized that I probably made the title a bit misleading. I meant it as more "not as survivor sided as people make it out to be" than straight up killer sided.
Comments
So the game is killer sided if you're a skilled player trying to win.
Yeah if you way above the AVERAGE killer skill and have a game knowledge and instinct beyond the AVERAGE killer and use all the tactics that the AVERAGE killer doesn't use then yeah its a tad bit killer sided. It's a good thing that behavior has said that they want to balance for the AVERAGE player.
Well there's a lot of evidence that shows the average kill rate is pretty high. As high as 75% for Freddy even.
No
Idk where you got the idea that Otz or I said the game was killer sided because it is not. It's sided to whomever brings the sweatiest stuff.
So you or Otz don't think the game is generally killer sided from an average-high level standpoint? Even with emerging stats from tournaments that show it to be at least balanced?
That's for all players, including brand new babies. Not the average - high skill level.
The game isn't killer or survivor sided. It's RNG sided.
If its killer sided I want to play against you in my 4 stack. Play any killer you'd like and we'll bring the best stuff, which should he easily beaten because "killer sided".
Even if you don't play killer, should still be easy.
It's all player your right new,high level and mid thats how average works they balance out to make an average. How do you assume the average player is high skill level?
No, because there are more new players and people who have barely played the game. It skews way more towards the lower end than the higher end.
You are just taking everything out of context and didn't understand the point. The game favors the side that use every tactic they can (being scummy or not) and exploit every possible advantage they can get.
BUT imo if both the killer and the survivors decide to play like this in a match, the survivors have it easy than the killer because they are 4 and the killer its just one, and with the recent patches (validations and boons) there is a notable difference that favor survivors in a unfair and unbalanced way.
What where is this information coming from? When the old rank system was up in the white and yellow ranks it took forever to find a match because there wasn't anyone down in those ranks and unless all of a sudden something changes there's really not that many new player coming in. You have no proof that there are more new player than people that have played for a while. Your just saying stuff to try and prove your point you have no proof and any you are trying to bring up is out of context.
That was also BEFORE the massive survivor buffs/releases.
This was taken before Circle of Healing's release or the Dead Hard buff/bug(Dead Hard eating powers was confirmed to be a bug).
So the average kill rate is probably much lower atm.
This argument from authority gets worse all the time! Lol
Exactly, all players. So the game as a whole.
Otz stated, directly and multiple times, that the game favors whichever side is meanest. Jund agrees with this. They are not saying the game is Killer sided, but rather that the game isn't as hopeless as most Killer players make it out to be.
I can't tell how the point flew over your head when it was thrown directly at your face.
The game is actually pretty balanced even though that's unpopular to say on here, there are top tier killers meant to be used for facing the death squads who give you a chance at killing even the best survivors, meanwhile there are lower tier killers who stand no chance at high level but people enjoy playing them and that's where alot of complaints come from due to the fact they felt helpless trying to win against optimal survivors using wraith, legion or clown for example, but the way they matchmake is what makes the game feel unbalanced when you're a new survivor facing a killer with thousands of hours or vice versa, there are alot of people who are terrible at the game on both sides which there's nothing wrong with that but if you're one of those that aren't very good then this game can seem impossible for either side when matched with the right opponent, right now it's the best it's ever been for killers even though alot of people won't admit that, survivor has been nerfed quite a bit over the years but as long as gen speeds remain the way they are then survivors will always feel strong to those who play killers who can't physically get to gens fast enough or end chases fast enough.
It is but only for a handful of killers. If we are comparing averages, then no, survivor is objectively stronger.
It must be pretty disheartening when you/otz/anyone make videos/posts/etc about various topics only to have people completely miss the point and try to cater it towards their own internal narratives.
when does it stop being fun. killer isn't fun. thats the problem. i hate camping and im forced to bc of the way 90% of survivors play. thats my issue.
So then why do you think there are certain stats that show an advantage to killer? Is it really because most survivors are bad, cuz that doesn't seem like a very likely answer to me. It would be hard to say that most killers are decent and most survivors are just bad, there's gotta be something else.
You do realize the average is the average of ALL PLAYERS playing Killer? Not just the ones you want to count? Hence 'average'. Not 'Average of the best players'.
Probably because it's comparatively easy to secure a single kill if you're determined enough and not playing nice (and it's a lot harder to secure that last rescue), which means the effective kill rate will trend above 50%. I'd guess that hatch scenarios just aren't enough to counterbalance with 1e when it would be a 4k.
Oh, and people DCing or suiciding on hook after one down, that's going to keep inflating it a bit.
in every game ever the actual average player is heavily skewed towards the bottom. For example only 54% of all players have the achievement to level up a character to 10.
So when anybody says the "average" player they don't mean the 50% of players that have never leveled up a character to 10, they mean an average level of skill, more towards the middle. It wouldn't make much sense to include ALL players because you'd be talking about babies.
You realize that the game has had tons of free weekends, has been included in various humble bundles/fanatical deals. etc?
Anyone that logs into the game 1x contributes to these statistics.
There are literally thousands upon thousands of 'dead' accounts out there that most likely have 0-1 achievements completed - It's the same reason people say certain 'impossible' achievements are nowhere near as hard to obtain as the percentages say (I have most of them, I'm booty).
Yes, that's my point. The point is that most of the players are taken up by new players who will probably drop the game in a week, so how do you get the average player that isn't skewed towards the bottom?
Filter by active players.
Well the current stats we have aren't filtered by active players. The best stats we had were the old ones filtered by red ranks because those are players who have at least like 100 hours.
What does it really matter how that data shakes out? What does that have to do with the fact that you've been told directly by one of the people you referenced that your take is way off base?
Moving the goal post won't give you anymore validity to your argument.
No.
Killers only win at the top if they tunnel, camp and slug as much as possible. And guess who hates those playstyles the most? Survivors lol
Let's say the stats do include people who pick up the game for a single weekend, play for a few hours and then never play again.
You do realize the number of games those people will contribute to the stats will be overshadowed by the regular players who play daily. So it's pretty insignificant to focus on players who played for a few hours and quit being part of the statistics.
I dont think you can call this game "killer sided" when that role SPECIFICALLY relies on survivor mistakes to do average. Meanwhile killers make a single mistake or two and that can cost them the game.
I presume the current killrate stats we have are just number of games total.
Also, I answered the question about how you can get this statistical difference.
Because I'm asking a question. It's a discussion not an argument winning contest.
Do you understand how statistics work? That's not a dig, I'm legitimately wondering because this isn't necessarily the smoking gun you think it is.
Freddy's win rate in high ranks is higher in relation to the amount of people who play him. If not many red ranks play Fredboi his stats percentages will be higher as there isn't enough players to drag down the average with losses. Nurse and Blight by contrast have substantially lower win rates, but substantially higher pick rates. They're both considered the best killers which draws more players to them which in turn drags their stats down overall.
Why are you lying? I don't really watch most of Scott's videos anymore so I cannot comment on what he said but Otz never said the game was killer sided nor was that the conclusion of his video or anything, so, I have to either assume 1. You're lying 2. Didn't watch the whole thing.
Well, it is not fair to balance the game for high experience survivors all working together, but not expecting killers to git gud like Otz. I think this is how the game is overall killer sided now. Way more expected from survivors to win.
Well that's half true. What you said isn't incorrect but the bigger deal is that Freddy is easy to play and is overtuned but Nurse is very hard to play. Anybody can pick up Freddy and get instant value by using snares and being able to teleport to any gen he wants with a click of a button. Nurse is very micro and needs a lot of practice to get good at.
We're obviously ignoring the weird things with the stats like Nurse being last place because there are explanations for that. But the stats don't lie, in the old ranking system Freddy really did have a 75% kill rate and there's no denying that.
Oh trust me, theres a lot more to it
Well I don't think we should balance the game around swf. We should buff solo survivors and then buff killers accordingly. All I'm saying is that generally killers are more well off than survivors and there's a lot of evidence and firsthand accounts to prove it.
Hmmmmm, this post is from yesterday and reading it, it doesn't sound like he's saying it's killer sided. It just says that killers can do well if they play really really sweaty/dirty/whatever you want to call it.
Also he said in his latest video when he was talking about the game after his 3 little experiments that he thought the game was balanced. So where did you hear that he said the game was killer sided because he didn't. Or did you skip the first half of the tweet/go deaf watching his videos at the parts where he didn't say the game leans towards killers?
Well he's talking about purely from a game mechanic standpoint. In actuality the game isn't as balanced as it seems. Also most everybody on the forums believe the game is survivor sided which according to this tweet Otz himself doesn't believe.
I do admit I probably worded the title a bit badly. I meant it more as "not as survivor sided as it seems" than straight up killer sided.
Guys this man just said Freddy is overtuned
No point in arguing with someone like that
The thing I don't get about this experiment is that everyone had come to this conclusion months ago. Killers had been saying they feel forced to camp, tunnel, slug and play dirty for kills. Survivors meanwhile have made like half a dozen threads this month alone demanding things like camping, tunneling, slugging etc be removed/nerfed/banned. If we lived in a world where survivors had their way and killers had to play nice and for hooks, Otz would have been lucky to average a 1k going by everything in his video and going by others attempts at the test. Killers had already been saying this, that if they want to win they have to play dirty now.
So I don't get what the eureka moment is for the whole conversation. Everyone already knew you need to play dirty to win these days. The issue is it's not fun for either side and it's an awful gameplay design. And if survivor mains got their way, you wouldn't be able to play dirty at all and would have to just lose. It also doesn't help that if you play dirty (which the video basically says you need to for a 2k average) you'll be heavily abused, insulted etc etc by survivors for not playing in a way that is basically now proven to get you an under 1k average game.
I am glad survivors, however, have apparently finally admitted tunneling, camping, slugging etc is the correct way for killers to play and how they should indeed be playing if they want to win, and that asking them to not play that way is asking them to statistically drastically lower their chances of even getting 1 kill. Personally, I think it would be better if we had a game where the killer could average 2k or better WITHOUT having to camp, tunnel, slug, etc etc. But I rarely hear any ideas for buffs to killers so they can achieve a good kill rate without those tactics, and instead I hear demands to remove those tactics (which immediately removes Otz 2k average)
People will look at data and conclusions, completely ignore it, make up a completely nonsensical different point, and then act like the original data and conclusions support it.
Freddy can only teleport to unfinished gens, takes a dog's age to do as its a channeled ability and has a very long cooldown. His snares are decent in a chase, but still require setup as they too aren't instant they take a little time to become active. Freddy's far from overtuned.
If good killers can already deal with SWF for the most part, then killers don't even need buffed. Only survivors.
In a random match, the killer shouldn't win as easy as they do.
Well I guess I'm not even as radical as you then lol
A less clickbaity title would probably go a long way. :P