Why are there no more killrate updates?

I would like to know from BHVR why there are no more killrate updates?

According to BHVR, these numbers are constantly monitored and should therefore be easy to share with the community.

So why are there no more updates for all killers and separated into high and low MMR?

Comments

  • @BurnedTerrormisu said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3824775#Comment_3824775

    You brought a very good point, probably the most important point of all:
    have the kill rates increased because of the "giving up" epidemic?

    That would be the point where we would need the official data. So we can only speculate what it actually looks like. However, both possibilities are frightening and would concern the players.

    The kill rates have increased due the giving up epidemic:
    First of all, it would show that there is a serious problem on the part of the survivors. The reasons for the epidemic are too diverse to discuss here and every player has different points of views how to deal with it. At least we can say measures should be taken as soon as possible. But can we tell how the real kill rates would look like? How do you filter out for example the matches where the second person got hooked give up? I think you cant without personal influence of the person who edits the data.

    The kill rates have NOT increased due the giving up epidemic:
    Then all the survivors feel wrong? the new maps with the dead zones have no positive influence on the kill rates? For killers who received a base kit change nothing has changed? On the contrary, this means that the real kill rates have actually decreased since one has to assume that certain percentages are due to giving up. In this case, how do you say what the actual kill rates are and which killers are too weak or just not fun to go against?

    For BHVR it presents a different problem. They no longer have reliable data to work with. They claim for themself they do mostly data driven changes. Now that we've established that we don't have any backed up data, it means that BHVR is making changes blind. Is that why we're seeing weird changes like the recent SM nerf? The huntress buff nobody asked for. Is that why they're trying to find out what the community thinks about the reversal of virtually all of the Trickster changes?

    For me all of that is very concerning.

    Giving up is a tricky thing to reflect with data in terms of how it affects kill rates. It's entirely possible that players are giving up more, but kill rates aren't significantly affected.

    Are players giving up in games that are already lost? Would players otherwise win games if they didn't give up? They'd have to come up with a control factor in all those games, like an expected win probability solely based on MMR, and then look at how much the outcomes are varying from the win probability in games where someone gives up. They'd have to prove that it's a causative relationship to say "kill rates moved because of X".

    Giving up is a problem, but I don't know that it would be reflected by a change in kill rates.

  • @nodforkiss said:

    are there anyone who cares about killrates at all? they have been proven wrong and inconsistent over the years, nurse having the lowest killrate and killers like freddy, sadako and skull merchant having the highest

    The values are accurate. You may mean to say they are counter-intuitive, but wrong? Certainly not.

    As for the lower killer rate for Nurse it makes perfect sense. If you don't play her, please do. It may help you understand.

  • @drsoontm said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3824946#Comment_3824946

    The values are accurate. You may mean to say they are counter-intuitive, but wrong? Certainly not.

    As for the lower killer rate for Nurse it makes perfect sense. If you don't play her, please do. It may help you understand.

    she isnt that hard as people make it out to be, obviously it takes some time to get used to her and a lot of time to master her but still doesnt explain why she has the lowest when there are many god nurse players getting 4k all the time?

  • @doobiedo said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3824455#Comment_3824455

    The thing is the kill rates have definitely changed, its statistically impossible for them to be exaclty the same, so its strange Bhvr. would say that. In my own experience the game seems way more killer sided then it did almost a year ago when those stats were released and I escape way less now then I did then, so I dunno.…I am definitely skeptical.

    I agree but if BHVR doesn't count matches where there is a DC than that's why the data could be the same. How many times have we been in matches where a DC occurs then the killer gets trumped by the bot. It happened to be yesterday, I was slugged long enough for 3 crows and not hung. The bot kept running away from anyone down because the killer was monitoring us. We also did nothing wrong. Point being I play about 3 hrs daily, and half my matches killer and survivor have a DC. Most DC for tunneling, camping, and slugging. It's time they incorporate the DC matches because more times than not there's a reason why people are. Sometimes they are just petty yes.

  • @nodforkiss said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3824962#Comment_3824962

    she isnt that hard as people make it out to be, obviously it takes some time to get used to her and a lot of time to master her but still doesnt explain why she has the lowest when there are many god nurse players getting 4k all the time?

    There is no such thing as a god Nurse. The vast majority of players will lose matches quite often. (As proven by these stats.)

    With more than 43K registered blink attacks I'm a decent Nurse. Over the years, many of my opponents have branded me "a god Nurse", which makes me smile. All they saw was a game where all my blinks and predictions were on point. What they will never see is all the other matches where I struggle an where survivors have an actual clue. In essence, it's only survivor bias, only applied to "victims".

    And please don't be naive enough to take the strike of a professional streamer going against randoms as "proof".

    It's easy to say she's not that hard. Have you tried? How far can you go before you get spanked?

    More importantly: how consistent can you be?

    And in essence it's that. Not everybody had the patience nor the skill to learn all there is to know to play an average Nurse. Let's not even speak about being a good one.

  • @zarr said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3824716#Comment_3824716

    On top of this, there is also the issue that they exclusively use survivor-reported data for killrate stats, so there is both the bias of the kind of matches survivor players are more likely to be reporting, as well as that of the kind of players that would more likely be reporting on the site to begin with, skewing significantly toward more experienced players (given that they are interested in tracking their performance, aware of the site, and go through the trouble of submitting), that would also be more likely to play SWF than just any random average player. So you have stats that depict results from survivor players on the more experienced side, with a likely correlating overrepresentation of SWF, against random killers. Far from a random sample.

    Given all that, it's honestly surprising how close they tend to get to BHVR's stats. But there are still notable differences. It's unfortunate that we can't look at nightlight's stats in much more detail either, it would be interesting to see the rates of all reports combined, to filter by killer-reported, by SWF, killer by map, killer by perk(s), killer by add-on(s), look at disconnect rates, at how many 3/4k matches had one survivor player score significantly lower than the rest of their group, and so on.

    For the larger topic of killrates, it's definitely lame that they are only releasing any once in a blue moon. While I don't think too much will have changed since last time, there are some killers that would be interesting to see after their changes. Getting "high MMR" stats again would also be neat, as well as killrates on the respective maps and most commonly used perks, also for separate MMR brackets. At least we have recently gotten one new statistical insight: Contrary to common claims, people killing themselves on hook is far from a relevant factor in the killrates, as even for Skull Merchant it barely made a difference.

    More than look at global average killrates however, I would hope BHVR at least internally actually make use of their ability to look at stats in much more detail, such as killers (and their add-ons) that are most represented in the "players with 70-80+% killrate" pool, or survivor players (and their perks) that manage comparable escape rates, to identify some of the most problematic killers/add-ons and perks stacked in SWF. It unfortunately doesn't appear they really do however, as most of their balance changes seem aimed at making killers coalesce around that 60% global average target, not really addressing blatant issues that anyone experienced at the game would be familiar with (in both directions: some killers having things that are problematically strong, others weak, despite not having concerningly low or high global average rates). They seemingly don't even put too much stock in "high MMR" stats, and that bracket is also still much too broad to see some of the most egregious, extreme issues, that enable players to dominate and win most if not all of the time. Granted, the primary issue is obviously the matchmaking that creates these much too broad player pools, but that if anything only makes it all the more compelling to address extreme outlier issues, as things are already easy enough in the vast majority of matches as a good killer player or a good survivor player in an SWF group with other good survivor players. The respective problematic killer characters/add-ons and stacked survivor perks enable these players then to have ridiculous winrates, basically never losing. Those things are simply not needed. You can win the vast majority of your killer matches as perkless Legion if you are good enough at the game - you don't need Nurse with good add-ons, she can get nerfed; and you can win the vast majority of your survivor matches if you are good enough and in a good-enough SWF - you don't need to be able to stack 4 BNP, 4 SB, 4 DS, and whatnot.

    Zarr, your post fit on my computer screen without me having to scroll, I'm worried you've taken ill :).

    I would hope BHVR at least internally actually make use of their ability to look at stats in much more detail, such as killers (and their add-ons) that are most represented in the "players with 70-80+% killrate" pool, or survivor players (and their perks) that manage comparable escape rates, to identify some of the most problematic killers/add-ons and perks stacked in SWF. It unfortunately doesn't appear they really do however, as most of their balance changes seem aimed at making killers coalesce around that 60% global average target, not really addressing blatant issues that anyone experienced at the game would be familiar with

    I think part of the issue here is that BHVR approaches balance issues in a way that seems (and potentially is) counter intuitive. I think BHVR heavily relies on the idea of MMR balancing things out. If a player wants to sweat and bring the best possible things it turns them from say a 7 out of 10 into an 8 out of 10 player, well if MMR works then its going to balance out though they'll need to keep running those things or face a harsh losing streak.

    The above could possibly even be defended on the idea that it creates gameplay variety. I know in my matches as survivor if I'm easily looping the killer, I'm expecting to see double iris at end game. If the survivors are getting slaughtered, it's usually a couple of junk addons.

    On the other hand, it doesn't feel right, and it breaks down at the edges of the spectrum.

    On top of that, the addon system was originally designed with 'rarity' as a limiting factor. So something could be broken, but this was 'balanced' by it being rare (I have always loathed this design element). I think vestiges of this idea still linger in the design philosophy

  • @BurnedTerrormisu said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3824775#Comment_3824775

    You brought a very good point, probably the most important point of all:
    have the kill rates increased because of the "giving up" epidemic?

    That would be the point where we would need the official data. So we can only speculate what it actually looks like. However, both possibilities are frightening and would concern the players.

    The kill rates have increased due the giving up epidemic:
    First of all, it would show that there is a serious problem on the part of the survivors. The reasons for the epidemic are too diverse to discuss here and every player has different points of views how to deal with it. At least we can say measures should be taken as soon as possible. But can we tell how the real kill rates would look like? How do you filter out for example the matches where the second person got hooked give up? I think you cant without personal influence of the person who edits the data.

    The kill rates have NOT increased due the giving up epidemic:
    Then all the survivors feel wrong? the new maps with the dead zones have no positive influence on the kill rates? For killers who received a base kit change nothing has changed? On the contrary, this means that the real kill rates have actually decreased since one has to assume that certain percentages are due to giving up. In this case, how do you say what the actual kill rates are and which killers are too weak or just not fun to go against?

    For BHVR it presents a different problem. They no longer have reliable data to work with. They claim for themself they do mostly data driven changes. Now that we've established that we don't have any backed up data, it means that BHVR is making changes blind. Is that why we're seeing weird changes like the recent SM nerf? The huntress buff nobody asked for. Is that why they're trying to find out what the community thinks about the reversal of virtually all of the Trickster changes?

    For me all of that is very concerning.

    I'm stating that i think even the official stats are inflated because of this.

    Either that, or one has to truly believe that Skull Merchant actually legitimately has a 70+% kill rate (prenerf at least) and is the most OP killer ever in the history of dead by daylight (not even 5 blink, yes FIVE BLINK, nurse could cross that threshold)

  • @crogers271 said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3824938#Comment_3824938

    Zarr, your post fit on my computer screen without me having to scroll, I'm worried you've taken ill :).

    I would hope BHVR at least internally actually make use of their ability to look at stats in much more detail, such as killers (and their add-ons) that are most represented in the "players with 70-80+% killrate" pool, or survivor players (and their perks) that manage comparable escape rates, to identify some of the most problematic killers/add-ons and perks stacked in SWF. It unfortunately doesn't appear they really do however, as most of their balance changes seem aimed at making killers coalesce around that 60% global average target, not really addressing blatant issues that anyone experienced at the game would be familiar with

    I think part of the issue here is that BHVR approaches balance issues in a way that seems (and potentially is) counter intuitive. I think BHVR heavily relies on the idea of MMR balancing things out. If a player wants to sweat and bring the best possible things it turns them from say a 7 out of 10 into an 8 out of 10 player, well if MMR works then its going to balance out though they'll need to keep running those things or face a harsh losing streak.

    The above could possibly even be defended on the idea that it creates gameplay variety. I know in my matches as survivor if I'm easily looping the killer, I'm expecting to see double iris at end game. If the survivors are getting slaughtered, it's usually a couple of junk addons.

    On the other hand, it doesn't feel right, and it breaks down at the edges of the spectrum.

    On top of that, the addon system was originally designed with 'rarity' as a limiting factor. So something could be broken, but this was 'balanced' by it being rare (I have always loathed this design element). I think vestiges of this idea still linger in the design philosophy

    Killrates are just such a tired topic where many of the same misconceptions regarding them are repeated most of any time they're brought up, I don't feel all too enthused to get into it. : - p BHVR sharing more detailed stats or even dumping their raw data for the community even just once would certainly re-enliven some of that enthusiasm, though!

    It definitely comes apart at the fringes, and that's the experience that is most relevant to me and likely therefore what I am most concerned with. But the issues should be hard to ignore for any developer of a popular PVP game, as the winrates and streaks and the ease with which they are achieved risk boring your experienced and skilled players and frustrating anyone they go up against. The tournament scene is full of players that grew tired and bored of what pub DbD has to offer, and there are many more players of course that instead of finding their way into that scene simply stopped playing or playing nearly as much.

    While BHVR is surely concerned with that issue to some extent (otherwise they wouldn't have worked to implement MMR to begin with, lax as they have gradually decided for it to become), I do think they see that these extremes at the upper spectrum constitute such a small percentage of the playerbase that they don't really care. Although they may neglect that precisely because it's such a relatively small portion, making things more exclusive and strict for those players and balancing for that realm wouldn't affect all that many players all that much. And they neglect that there's constantly new people entering into that range where they are barely challenged in pubs anymore, and so even though the "active" pool of such players at any time may be relatively small, there's a stream of players this affects and that as a result may play less. I for one would welcome a separate "competitive"/"ranked" queue with much stricter matchmaking and even distinct balance adjustments. Most popular PVP games have them these days. But creating more nuanced upper MMR brackets and having the matchmaker actually match people among those more exclusive pools more frequently would probably suffice, along with some general balance changes for the most egregious of offenders.

    Rarity as a balancing mechanism for add-ons might yet linger in their approach to them, and for that I would likewise say that it probably even make sense from a "global average" perspective and through most of the MMR range, but breaks down at the edge of the spectrum where you have someone like Numinous using LoPro and getting 1300+ wins in a row (although in this case, to my surprise, they did actually nerf LoPro despite it not being a popularly used add-on yet a highly problematic outlier - I suspect this might've had to do with their consultants).

  • @nodforkiss said:

    are there anyone who cares about killrates at all? they have been proven wrong and inconsistent over the years, nurse having the lowest killrate and killers like freddy, sadako and skull merchant having the highest

    Stats are fun; i guess it stems from the old childhood "my dad/brother could beat up your dad/brother!"

    Seeing killers like Freddy have a high kill rate makes for fun conversations at the water cooler

  • @zarr said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3825019#Comment_3825019

    Killrates are just such a tired topic where many of the same misconceptions regarding them are repeated most of any time they're brought up, I don't feel all too enthused to get into it. : - p BHVR sharing more detailed stats or even dumping their raw data for the community even just once would certainly re-enliven some of that enthusiasm, though!

    It definitely comes apart at the fringes, and that's the experience that is most relevant to me and likely therefore what I am most concerned with. But the issues should be hard to ignore for any developer of a popular PVP game, as the winrates and streaks and the ease with which they are achieved risk boring your experienced and skilled players and frustrating anyone they go up against. The tournament scene is full of players that grew tired and bored of what pub DbD has to offer, and there are many more players of course that instead of finding their way into that scene simply stopped playing or playing nearly as much.

    While BHVR is surely concerned with that issue to some extent (otherwise they wouldn't have worked to implement MMR to begin with, lax as they have gradually decided for it to become), I do think they see that these extremes at the upper spectrum constitute such a small percentage of the playerbase that they don't really care. Although they may neglect that precisely because it's such a relatively small portion, making things more exclusive and strict for those players and balancing for that realm wouldn't affect all that many players all that much. And they neglect that there's constantly new people entering into that range where they are barely challenged in pubs anymore, and so even though the "active" pool of such players at any time may be relatively small, there's a stream of players this affects and that as a result may play less. I for one would welcome a separate "competitive"/"ranked" queue with much stricter matchmaking and even distinct balance adjustments. Most popular PVP games have them these days. But creating more nuanced upper MMR brackets and having the matchmaker actually match people among those more exclusive pools more frequently would probably suffice, along with some general balance changes for the most egregious of offenders.

    Rarity as a balancing mechanism for add-ons might yet linger in their approach to them, and for that I would likewise say that it probably even make sense from a "global average" perspective and through most of the MMR range, but breaks down at the edge of the spectrum where you have someone like Numinous using LoPro and getting 1300+ wins in a row (although in this case, to my surprise, they did actually nerf LoPro despite it not being a popularly used add-on yet a highly problematic outlier - I suspect this might've had to do with their consultants).

    Rarity as a balancing mechanism for add-ons might yet linger in their approach to them, and for that I would likewise say that it probably even make sense from a "global average" perspective and through most of the MMR range, but breaks down at the edge of the spectrum where you have someone like Numinous using LoPro and getting 1300+ wins in a row (although in this case, to my surprise, they did actually nerf LoPro despite it not being a popularly used add-on yet a highly problematic outlier - I suspect this might've had to do with their consultants).

    This is true, but not what I was talking about. I mean like the rarity level of the addons (Iri, Purple, etc.).

    Take old BNPs. I don't believe there is anyway anyone thought they were 'balanced' to autocomplete a gen. The 'balancing' factor was that they were rare. So maybe one in five or one in ten games you have this big, massive advantage.

    I think a common misunderstanding about BHVR's approach is they don't care if every match is balanced (unlike other games), but whether a player has had a balanced experience over ten (or even a hundred) matches. Maybe some times you get the map and perk setup that gives you a huge advantages, maybe some times it swings the other way. I think they might even be okay with the unbalanced nature as it leads to more game variety.

    As a game design, parts of it I like, parts of it I loathe. But back to the addons - I think what lingers is the idea / necessity given the blood web/grind that some addons are just better. By the way BHVR has designed the game Iri addons are meant to be broken (which has become silly as people have giant stockpiles of them). So going back to your original post on the data BHVR has, I don't think if they see these addons over performing that they would actually see it as a problem unless there was a massive difference.

    Then we run into additional issues that would make it hard to spot in the data, such as MMR cleaning it up for a good portion of the player base and many players self selecting not to run overly broken builds even when it is incredibly evident how powerful they are.

  • @crogers271 said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3825151#Comment_3825151

    Rarity as a balancing mechanism for add-ons might yet linger in their approach to them, and for that I would likewise say that it probably even make sense from a "global average" perspective and through most of the MMR range, but breaks down at the edge of the spectrum where you have someone like Numinous using LoPro and getting 1300+ wins in a row (although in this case, to my surprise, they did actually nerf LoPro despite it not being a popularly used add-on yet a highly problematic outlier - I suspect this might've had to do with their consultants).

    This is true, but not what I was talking about. I mean like the rarity level of the addons (Iri, Purple, etc.).

    Take old BNPs. I don't believe there is anyway anyone thought they were 'balanced' to autocomplete a gen. The 'balancing' factor was that they were rare. So maybe one in five or one in ten games you have this big, massive advantage.

    I think a common misunderstanding about BHVR's approach is they don't care if every match is balanced (unlike other games), but whether a player has had a balanced experience over ten (or even a hundred) matches. Maybe some times you get the map and perk setup that gives you a huge advantages, maybe some times it swings the other way. I think they might even be okay with the unbalanced nature as it leads to more game variety.

    As a game design, parts of it I like, parts of it I loathe. But back to the addons - I think what lingers is the idea / necessity given the blood web/grind that some addons are just better. By the way BHVR has designed the game Iri addons are meant to be broken (which has become silly as people have giant stockpiles of them). So going back to your original post on the data BHVR has, I don't think if they see these addons over performing that they would actually see it as a problem unless there was a massive difference.

    Then we run into additional issues that would make it hard to spot in the data, such as MMR cleaning it up for a good portion of the player base and many players self selecting not to run overly broken builds even when it is incredibly evident how powerful they are.

    Oh no, I understood that you meant their rarity as per their scarcer appearance in the bloodwebs. And that that probably works for the average playerbase because they don't play enough to where they have these stockpiles of the strongest add-ons to feel comfortable using them in most matches. But then there's very dedicated players that have thousands of those add-ons, and can use them every single time, even for thousands of matches in a row. So that balancing mechanism, while it may still work for the global average playerbase to an extent, breaks at those levels.

    I'm also all too well aware of the fact that BHVR to some extent embraces the "chaos" of their game, in the matchmaking and balancing alike. And there are arguments for it, for instance as you point to the diversity of the playing experience. They have commented on this at multiple points themselves as well. Although they have throughout the years more and more embraced the competitiveness of their game, and concerned themselves with making it more "competitively" viable, sorting out some of the most outlandish pieces of game design (such as old BNPs, or Moris) and implementing MMR, aiming for much more consistent playing experiences that at least don't quite swing from heaven to hell. They have even strived to make solo survivor less "chaotic" of an experience, with the activity indicators (that are apparently also getting some further improvements in the coming months).

    There aren't that many blatantly busted add-ons left either, they have done a lot of ironing-out in that regard too, iri add-ons of new releases in fact often having been somewhat lackluster because rather than direct, significant power-ups, they seem more intended these days to mix up the gameplay of a killer.

    But yeah, again, my concern is mostly with the upper end of the skilled and experienced playerbase, as there the only thing that is consistent is how laughably imbalanced in their favour the game experience is (mostly as killer, but also in 4-SWFs), it being possible to win most matches (and pretty decisively at that) even without any perks or add-ons altogether, and an actually challenging match maybe happening one time in a hundred or thousand matches if you are on a good build. They should make the matchmaking more strict at the upper end or create a separate pool or even queue for these types of players, as well as look at which killers/perks/add-ons/etc. are problematic in that space (for SWFs I believe more than anything else it's being able to stack all of those things; without the ability to do so I think we'd already arrive at a reasonably balanced (or balanced-enough) state for SWFs even at a high level), because for players at that level many of their current matchmaking and balancing philosophies break down. And these things wouldn't affect most players much.

    Of course, while I do know players and of players that have stopped playing or would have stopped playing without the comp scene, I don't actually know just how much of a player retention/investment problem it actually poses that good players stomp all over this game. I have speculated before that given that BHVR has made the matchmaking more and more lax, they have simply concluded that even among the upper end of experience and skill, most players actually enjoy winning more than having a challenge, and that the people they stomp on don't stop playing in droves because of it either. Or at least that most players in that realm would rather have short queues and relatively boring matches, than longer queues and engaging matches. I don't know for a fact of course, my view is based on my own experience and that of the players I surround myself with. But I do believe they have enough levers to make things at least somewhat more strict and iron out at least some of the most egregious of balance concerns for that level without it posing any risks of alienating or losing players. I can't imagine doing something against players being able to go on winstreaks of hundreds and thousands of matches would have non-positive consequences in a popular PVP game.

  • @Xernoton said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3824923#Comment_3824923

    Putting words in my mouth, are we? I did not say that survivors have to accept that they will die. I simply explained why kill rates are not a good indicator for a killer's strength and that this has nothing to do with survivors giving up.

    If that was the case, then we'd have seen way more disconnects and hook suicides right after 6.1.0 because that was when killers were at their strongest, considering that killers had a realistic way to hold the game hostage.

    If you really don't want to play the game, then don't do it! Is that so hard? Don't threaten to do something but actually follow through. Don't start the game and don't queue up, if you are going to leave anyway.

    You clearly don't like the game and the rest of your team as well as the killer don't like to play a game that is over because someone decided to rage quit.

    Im just going to mention one thing you said that is completely wrong. Killers were not stronger right after 6.1.0 the they are now. The general sentiment that I'v seen is that killer is at the easiest point in the history of the game right now and the opposite is true for survivor. Maybe back then in certain cases killers could be very annoying, with the 3 gens and such, but that is not the same as stronger. And I'm not going stop playing the game because I still enjoy it a lot of the time. If killers can whine and scream on the forums for more survivor nerfs when the game is already tilted in their favor, then I have the right to complain on behalf of the weaker side that just wants a more fair game.

  • @doobiedo said:

    https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3824937#Comment_3824937

    Im just going to mention one thing you said that is completely wrong. Killers were not stronger right after 6.1.0 the they are now. The general sentiment that I'v seen is that killer is at the easiest point in the history of the game right now and the opposite is true for survivor. Maybe back then in certain cases killers could be very annoying, with the 3 gens and such, but that is not the same as stronger. And I'm not going stop playing the game because I still enjoy it a lot of the time. If killers can whine and scream on the forums for more survivor nerfs when the game is already tilted in their favor, then I have the right to complain on behalf of the weaker side that just wants a more fair game.

    Nothing is easier than holding a 3gen and kicking the crap out of them. It was nearly unbeatable, especially for solo survivors.

    That is no longer possible. The general sentiment "killer is easier than ever" doesn't disappear even when a killer gets the Freddy treatment (R.I.P. Skull Merchant) because it's a copy paste argument that always works as long as nobody puts any thought into it.

1 2 ›