Killer have a big disadvantage regarding maps!
Map plays a big role in determining the outcome of a match. It doesn't matter how much better a killer is than survivor if the survivor is at least competent or on equal ability then the killer will lose.
Right now killer loses 80-90% of the maps and this is not my opinion this is fact! Goodness forbid of I have a weak killer like Pig or Knight, it's very bad!
Comments
Maps influence the match strongly no argument there. But saying you simply lose because it's a bad map is a bit over the top. Sure, some killers have a big disadvantage when going to the wrong maps like Trapper on Eyrie, Billy on Lery's (I swear I lose a part of my soul every time that happens) and Myers on pretty much every Coldwind map but it doesn't mean that you can't win. It means you'll have a much harder time and might even be forced play in 'unpleasent' ways to make up for it.
Maps should be much fairer, agreed, but they don't decide the outcome of a match by themselves.
Agreed that maps could be better but i don't think you know what the word fact means
Yeah not by itself that's what I'm saying as well but it definitely is a factor and for me personally a major one. I play 13 or 14 killers and they all lose to the same maps more or less. Hag and Pig are perfect examples of this!
I'm saying from my own experiences it plays a major role. Obviously there are other factors!
The map...it's bad!
Most people don't know that the devs implemented something that makes the map rng likely to go to a survivor sided map and this is for maybe a few reasons!
They can be a deciding factor though. Eve if you have a chance to win every game doesn't mean you will if you try hard enough. Sometimes maps just allow survivors to clutch it out even if it was a close match. If you have a good rng and all players are good that can lead to a loss even the killer was good himself. Sure you can try to stack gen perks and hold a 3 gen but certain survivors deveoped strategys against that.
If maps were all close in balance then the game will be much easier to balance by extension.
Ok. It just sounded to me like you were trying to break down most problems the game has to map issues. That's why I said that maps don't decide the outcome of a match by themselves. I agree though, that maps are a big problem. I said it before but most maps we got over the last 2 years are visually great with some real beauties like Eyrie (Seriously, have you ever taken the time to just admire the main building? I have some Spacebilly screenshots from the top of main building and my god it's stunning.) and Garden of Depression. The problem is that some things clearly weren't thought through. From a gameplay perspective they both have huge flaws and it's pretty much case of "Well, I'm screwed.", if you play the wrong killer on these maps.
Ohh trust me, I know. I've been in the unfortunate position to play map dependent killers like Hillbilly, Doctor, Clown, Nemesis, Demogorgon, Myers on every map in the game (without strong builds to back me up). I've seen first hand how bad it can be to get sent to Garden of Depression, Eyrie of Pain and even Ormond (I like Ormond regardless because it looks nice and it's somewhat consistent). If the killer is barely compatible with the map you need to do everything right, meaning you need to take risks and they need to pay off. Playing it safe (M1 killer barely ever using power) is just too weak, which is ok in most cases. Looking at Cowshed you can really see all the things wrong with map design in DBD. It often feels like it doesn't even matter how you as a killer play because you can't do anything but run after the survivor, occasionally breaking a pallet anyway. But even a Trapper on Eyrie (which is probably one of the worst pairings for map and killer) can potentially get a 4k at 5 gens without addons or perks against good survivors. It's not likely, it probably won't happen in 10000+ games but it is possible none the less. Maps are only one of many factors that influence the game and I think sometimes people take a bad map as a guaranteed loss, which is not the case.
Boy I wish that rng helped me out. I've had a few matches in wreck for example where there are just dead areas with no pallets for what it feels like miles
Interesting "fact" and a pretty extreme statistic pulled out of the air with nothing to back it up.
killers average winrate is 20% so yes killers lose 80% of games
... Didn't know that can you link where you get that info from?
After getting Adept Plague on old Haddonfield, I believe I can win any map as Killer. The hardest for me are the Badham maps unless I'm playing a teleporting/mobile killer, but still not unwinnable.
It's not true in the slightest. While I'm sure he can find some third party site that claims certain statistics, we actually have data from BHVR on this that includes 100% of all DBD players:
Latest report was October 2022, average kill rate is 61%. This is kill rates, not 'wins'. If we define a killer 'loss' with 0-1k, and 'win' at 3-4k, calling a 2k a tie game, the win rate is roughly 50/50.
Even using a different definition of 'win' doesn't change the fact that killers are averaging better than a 2k using global numbers.
That's what I thought, it was really low from the games I've seen
I went against a Trapper on Eyrie recently and I felt so bad for them; I don't think a survivor got caught even once by his bear traps. The devs really overlooked older killers when they designed that map.
Likewise, for a Billy on Lery's; these two examples demonstrate where a map actually renders a specific killer's 'special ability' fundamentally useless.
And where did you get that stat come from exactly. In the games I play killers win way more than 1 in 5 games.
Patently false. Where did you get this statistic from?