Uncomfortable truths of DBD
Camping and Tunneling Are Necessary for Killers to Win
High-level survivors complete generators so efficiently that killers often resort to camping or tunneling to regain control of the game. While criticized as "unfun" tactics, these strategies are sometimes the only way killers can compete against well-coordinated teams.
Balance Favors SWF Teams Over Solo Players
Solo queue survivors frequently struggle compared to coordinated SWFs, who can share information, strategize, and counter killer tactics effectively. Meanwhile, killers have no equivalent teamwork mechanic, leaving them at a significant disadvantage in SWF-heavy matches.
The Game Balances Killers at Their Peak and Survivors at Their Weakest
Balancing is often based on killers performing at their maximum potential and survivors playing solo or with minimal coordination. This makes killers seem disproportionately strong in theory but doesn’t account for real-world factors like survivor coordination in SWF (Survive With Friends) groups, which greatly tips the balance against killers in practice.
The 40% Escape Rate doesn’t mean a 60% Killer Win Rate
Behavior Interactive has stated that survivors escape 40% of the time, but this doesn’t translate to killers winning 60% of matches. For killers, a "win" typically means defeating at least 3 survivors out of 4, which is more challenging than the flat percentage suggests. This discrepancy often leads to misinterpretations about the balance between roles.
Killers bear the responsibility for Game Pacing
Unlike survivors, who can focus on a single objective (generators), killers must simultaneously manage multiple objectives: chasing, hooking, preventing rescues, and patrolling gens. This disparity makes playing killer far more stressful and demanding.
Updates feel reactionary
Many updates are driven by community outcry rather than long-term strategy. Some changes address vocal complaints but lead to new issues or unbalanced mechanics.
To the developers:
Balance should strive to reflect the realities of the game, not merely the desires of those who want an easier survival experience. Making the game easier for survivors risks removing the core challenges and sense of accomplishment that make Dead by Daylight rewarding. A game without tension, stakes, or the potential for failure loses its heart.
Survivors often feel powerless because they are dependent on three teammates whose skill levels or willingness to engage may vary wildly. This isn’t a flaw of killer strength—it’s a natural consequence of teamwork mechanics. On the other side, not all killers are equally powerful or capable of handling high-level survivor play, which further complicates balancing efforts.
Instead of balancing based on extremes—killers at their peak performance or survivors at their lowest—consider practical solutions that acknowledge these nuances. Encourage fair play without over-penalizing strategies like tunneling or slugging, which are often necessary responses to coordinated survivor efficiency. Design changes should reflect what’s feasible and fun for all players while maintaining the core asymmetrical challenge that makes DBD unique.
The goal should be a fair, engaging experience for killers and survivors alike, where skill matters, but the game remains unpredictable and thrilling.
Comments
Killers relying on tunnelling and camping are self-fulfilling prophecies. Every win with those tactics gets chalked up to that without exploring what the killer could've done without it. And as others have mentioned, crutching your way up above your MMR without expanding your skillset to match that new MMR is going to make the game feel slanted against you.
But as usual, this entire wall of text just comes down to 'feeling'.
'I feel like the game is unbalanced, therefor it is'.
There is nothing to back any of that up. Kill rates are higher in high MMR than low, and even with 4-man swiffers at the highest ranks, the escape rate doesn't touch 50%. All of these notions of how unbalanced the game is all stem from a few killer players feeling overwhelmed, even if they are still perfectly capable of pulling off a win. Heck, that right there is probably the reason for the trend of 'Look how overpowered X survivor thing is!' + Screenshot of a 4K. There's plenty of killers out there that consider the match lost by the time the third gen pops, with no regard for diminished resources on the survivor side, or the gradually constricting playfield.
There's a lot of fingerpointing to competitive level play, of which the balance continues to be unproven, but then there's silence about average play where certain streamers have shown more than once that killers can perform outrageously well, even with a bunch of extra restrictions. But despite that, a couple of killer players that feel that the game's unfair will demand more buffs for killers.
You can have your subjective opinion, and that's fine, but it's really tiring that the subjective opinions of survivors keep getting bowled over by those of killers, while the stats back up the survivors.
There's an uphill battle for ya.
It also feels like killers aren't really moving to address anything swiffers do, just pulling out the 'swiffer is the power role somehow despite still not hitting 50% winrate at high MMR' card whenever there's a discussion on balance. I'm pretty sure I'm the only one that's ever suggested basekitting some kind of defense against rampant unhook denial. Everyone else mostly keeps their mouth shut until it's time to defend tunnelling and camping.
And if we're going to talk about how the game feels, it genuinely feels like killers have been in charge of balance practically since 6.1. So if these issues are still flapping around, maybe there's a problem with the killer community's ability to read the game.
"my failure for picking a completely random number that is also close to killer movement speeds"
ah yes, because it's so common for killers to casually move at 146% while holding their ranged powers, indeed, that's such an honest mistake from you and totally not you just not taking a second to think about it and instantly jumping to writing a "gotcha" comment.
yikes. im not going to read or reply the rest of your comment, dont think i have anything to discuss with you here.
The uncomfortable truth is this: the fairness of strategies like tunneling, camping, or slugging depends on game balance. Survivors feel these tactics are oppressive because they face them universally, while killers often feel forced into these tactics due to the game's pressure mechanics. Balancing must address the why behind these strategies instead of punishing their use outright. Without viable alternatives, the game risks alienating both survivor and killer players, leading to a less engaging experience for everyone.
Games need to account for the upper limits of player potential because that's where game-breaking disparities emerge. Balancing for casual play (e.g., the occasional SWF playing without synergy) creates massive issues when facing highly efficient teams, as killers lack the tools to compete with their coordination. Designing a balance around what's possible ensures fairness across the board while leaving room for players to improve without punishing killers unfairly.
Balancing Dead by Daylight shouldn’t cater to the weakest common denominator, like a spouse who rarely plays, or ignore extreme cases like competitive SWF teams. Instead, it should focus on ensuring both sides have the tools to deal with the potential best-case scenario for the opposition. Ignoring SWF’s inherent advantage risks creating a frustrating and one-sided experience for killers, especially those playing mid-to-low-tier characters who can't rely on raw power. This is why killers often resort to tunneling or camping—these strategies are their only counter against high-pressure SWF games.
The kill rate reflects the overall outcomes of matches but does not account for the vast differences between killers, survivor skill levels, or match scenarios. A 60% kill rate might seem like an indicator of balance, but it’s not a universal standard. For example:
This makes kill rates a generalized metric rather than a precise reflection of balance across all killers or skill levels.
Your argument assumes that kill rate is the ultimate reflection of balance, but it’s more of a broad trend than a definitive measurement. A better approach to balance would involve looking at:
By balancing the game based on these nuanced factors—not just a raw kill rate—developers can create a fairer environment where killers of all tiers have a chance to succeed, and survivors feel like their skill determines their fate, rather than facing overwhelming odds.
Survivors can specialize: one person focuses on loops, another on healing, and so on. Even their decision-making (heal, unhook, or finish a gen) revolves around a binary "yes or no" choice about taking action in a specific moment.
On the other hand, killers’ objectives (kill survivors) require them to manage multiple simultaneous factors:
Unlike survivors, who divide these responsibilities, killers must juggle them alone. A single lapse—spending too much time on one survivor or ignoring a gen—can snowball into failure.
Balance should reflect the potential of each role. Survivors’ tasks are shared, consistent, and designed to reward cooperative play, while killers must manage every aspect of the game on their own. Claiming that survivor decisions (heal or not, save or not) mirror the killer’s complexity overlooks the killer’s greater workload and the variance in killer viability.
Balancing solely around statistics like kill rate fails to address these fundamental differences in gameplay pressure and variability between roles. Developers should focus on making weaker killers viable and ensuring that the workload disparity is accounted for when tuning game mechanics.
While it's true that DbD thrives on its ever-changing meta, this approach should not come at the cost of coherent balancing. Balancing doesn't require a static, "perfect" game; instead, it’s about ensuring that changes are thoughtful, tested, and fair across all roles and levels of play.
The idea that "constant change" is intentional shouldn't justify reactionary design choices. For example:
If BHVR wants an evolving meta, they must balance shifts within a framework that prioritizes fairness and engagement for both sides.
Claiming that DbD doesn’t have a "perfect end goal" risks devaluing the experience of competitive players who invest in mastering the game. Even if the intention isn’t to reach a static “final balance,” there should be a clear philosophy guiding balance decisions:
By dismissing long-term strategy as unnecessary, BHVR risks alienating players who value consistency and mastery.
Ultimately, DbD is about challenge and accomplishment. Balancing to what is possible—not just to what players demand—ensures that players feel rewarded for their skill and strategy without relying on overpowered tools or broken mechanics.
It seems that no matter how much evidence or logic is presented, the core issue remains unchanged: a portion of the survivor community appears to advocate for a version of Dead by Daylight where killers are essentially props—meant to entertain survivors but never pose a genuine threat. Competitive players, streamers, and even BHVR's own changes demonstrate the necessity of rebalancing survivor mechanics to give killers a fair chance, yet the insistence on making survival even easier persists.
I’m stepping away from these discussions because they often devolve into a utopian fantasy where killers shouldn't kill, survivors should always escape, and any genuine challenge is dismissed as unfair. At this point, it feels less like a debate about balance and more like an entitlement to never lose. For the health of the game, both sides need challenge and a fair shot—not a one-sided playground.
How can you consider anything you are involved in as a normal conversation when you are nothing but dismissive? Again, I say I am so happy you do not encounter slugging like so many other people do, that is great for you however for those of us that do, its ridiculous. But yet I see you are the first person to comment on any post about slugging talking about it not being a problem but if you have to comment on that many posts about slugging, then clearly there is a problem somewhere whether you want to see it or not.
So, again, just because it doesnt happen to you does not mean it does not happen.
It is forced. It's the end result of being as efficient as possible as killer, in response to survivors being as efficient as possible. When you're playing in the best way as killer, and you're still losing, that's not on you. Going down in MMR for those killers is just giving them a break from opponents of equal skill. Suddenly they'll start beating teams like nothing, even without strategy, because the survivors are bad. Then they go back to their correct MMR, which you disagree on, and get beat effortlessly by opponents of equal skill again. Good killers want to beat good players, not bad ones, but when we go against them, the game is rigged to lose. You can't out-skill the system of "chases takes X time" and "gens take X time," when the time spent chasing is always greater than the time it takes to do gens. There's nowhere for that skill to go, because you've already hit the limit of what you can do. Survivors can do a heck of a lot better in chase, but they don't have to because they're already winning via fast gens.
How is it “so many posts” and “always first to comment” when it has literally only been 2 posts on sluggin as well as me not even close to first to comment on either? This is a misrepresentation and not accurate at all. Also, how does me commenting on two slugging posts prove it’s an issue? That makes no sense.
You keep repeating this “it doesn’t happen to me so it doesn’t happen”, which is another mischaracterization of what I’ve said. What I said was it does not happen a statistically relevant amount of times to matter. Those are different statements.
Might as well just agree to disagree. This is going no where.
The thing is there are two types of people in this game.
One who thinks fun > win, the other who doesn't give a thing about fun and cares about winning.
Fun is important factor in game but it doesn't make how players play.
People who play for win just want to win and winning includes fun to them.
Discrepancy in this community happens because of this.
You have a choice. It is not forced.
No. I think you're arguing in bad faith. You're critiquing allegedly "feelings"-based thoughts, and say stats matter over everything, but then argue that killers' subjective (feeling-based) arguments are worth less or none at all compared to survivors' subjective arguments. And you're making the same mistake as the devs by looking just at the stats. The devs need experience-based input as well, to figure out what's wrong with the game.
Killers have not had control of this game at all, because the gameplay loop and meta that survivors engage in has not changed. Virtually all benefits granted to killers in that "game ruining" 6.1.0 patch have been done away with or cancelled out. There are loops where, if the survivor knows how to run it, a killer has to waste a guaranteed amount of time to catch up to them, with no chance of mindgame shortcuts. When time is what the killers are fighting against, because the gen speed is too fast for them to physically stop, and they can't be in 4 places at once, a single chase like that can be game-losing. I could go on, but the point is that stuff like this isn't subjective; it's a matter of fact. I'll start questioning the average killer player's skill or game sense as soon as a somewhat even playing field has been established, but we have yet to see that in this game, because the math says gens are faster than the combined chases. Despite the handful of gifted killer players who manage to defy the odds, and win very consistently, it doesn't dispute that math.
What choice? To lose? I've already explained this:
Whether you're talking about high level players, or even average players at this point, if it's not a mismatch (one side knows what they're doing while the other doesn't), then the survivors should win by default. The math says that killers need to be hooking someone every 30 seconds or so, to kill them before they do the gens and get out. You can only come close to that time efficiency by tunneling and camping, meaning that just chasing without tunneling and camping, mathematically, should be an automatic loss. I can't explain it simpler than that.
What maths are you referring to there? That's a pretty extraordinary claim, I apologise if you put the numbers higher up and I missed it but I'd very much like to see how you reached that conclusion.
Okay, that is absolutely not true for players with average skill levels.
Also, if you don't camp or tunnel, your MMR will adjust to put you against opponents who are at a skill level where you lose sometimes and you 'win' sometimes. You can choose not to do those things and still 'win' matches. You aren't forced.
That's not what I said at all. My observation is that the opposite is true in the attitude some forum killers have on here. Their subjective opinion is decided to be the objective truth or consensus, and anyone that speaks against it must be acting in bad faith, or must be bad.
That's also why these are often couched in pressuring language. "Everyone knows that…" "If you're not lead-tier MMR…" "Even you should agree…"
If that was the case, we'd see a return to pre-6.1 figures, and we didn't. The reality is that, no, they haven't been done away with or cancelled out, people just forgot a bunch of the buffs that got included in 6.1. And honestly, that happened within like two months of the patch dropping.
And one survivor being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time can swing a 0K to a 4K. This isn't a hardship that's unique to killers.
Oh, we'll get to these 'facts'.
If killers can consistently win under any variety of restrictions and conditions, what would it take for you to declare a playing field 'even'?
Because right now, you're positioning yourself as the sole, subjective arbiter of when a playing field is 'even', and anything that doesn't fit your judgement is disregarded.
And this is where we get to the 'facts' that you prop up.
How do you math this out? How do you account for a survivor circling a different way around an obstacle to stay out of killer sight? How do you account for a survivor not doing this because the killer went a different way? How do you account for a skillcheck popping up when a survivor lets go of a gen? How do you account for the killer happening upon the person going for the rescue? How do you account for the time it takes for two survivors to find one another so they can heal? How do you account for the time it takes the survivors to find the right hex totem? How do you account for a chase being brought into the area where gens are done?
You -cannot- math out DBD. It's not a game of maths. It is WAY too complicated to be reduced to something as simplistic as 5 x 90 > 12 x 30.
This isn't 'facts'. This is desperate guesswork.
The uncomfortable truth is that many players here only really play one side and then consider themselves a seasoned professional.
I've read a lot of posts here now and no joke, it's always clear in the first 3 lines which side this player is fighting for in the rest of his post.
Well, let’s get that out of the way. What it boils down to is that players always play the game with their own motivation. A fun social evening with friends, Tomb quests & achievements, blood points, streaks, comp play, etc.
I'll avoid writing a wall of text now because it comes to the following summary:
The fact is that with the advantage of coordination in SWF, players have an advantage over solo players. BVHR has already improved a few things here. The long-term goal should be to supplement differences (missing information compared to SWF, kindred basekit, global anitcamp measurement, etc..) for the solo player. Afterwards, killers (AND PERKS) should be strengthened so that it is fair for both sides again.
Many good points have already been made for both sides, but these are things that can follow.
I'm actually surprised at the number of players who appear to play predominantly one side here. Most of my comments likely come off survivor-sided, but I play killer in about 30% of my matches.
I kind of suspect that while there are some people here who play almost exclusively one role, a lot of us just see certain things as more egregious than other things. For me, I stopped getting annoyed at teabags a while ago, so there's not much survivors can do to annoy me other than selling out their teammates. But killers can do things that I find make the survivor experience just ridiculous.
Totally agreed about swf though. I swf without comms occasionally and that on its own is enough to make matches better (though I often play and enjoy solo queue). Swf with comms, especialy if the players use communication effectively, is kinda op.
You 146% definitely read it and knew you didn’t have any valid points to make lmao 😂
the lengths people go to avoid admitting an honest mistake and thus discrediting their whole opinion, lmao.
keeping denying :)
An uncomfortable DBD truth: Tierlists are incredibly stupid for an assym game, and tell you next to nothing about how good a Killer is. They're meaningless weapon-measuring contests and shouldn't be used for balance. The only people who need DBD Tierlists are people who play comp DBD, everyone else can do just fine without knowing how weak Legion is or how strong Spirit is.
I never once said I didn’t make a mistake, I definitely read it wrong but you also made a strange mistake. 146% is a very strange thing to say as people almost always say “That 100% didn’t need to happen”
We’re talking about a scenario where a character was much faster than normal when doing a certain action and people even claimed she was faster than survivors. Not to mention perk combinations that actually can put her around the 145% speed mark while holding a hatchet which I have done for a video.
And then you strawman me into an irrelevant argument about me accidentally thinking you meant she moved at 146%. All because you have no valid response to the real discussion I was trying to have. That’s all that happened.
There stupid in any game honestly, sometimes even the so call low tier joke character turns out to be dangerous in the right hands.
Look nurse as s for example I tend to do well even against a good one yet something like a bubba I may go down to faster than a nurse cause juking that saw aint no easy task specially when they have bambi.
How is Wraith a complex killer?