Killers should play how they want because it's impossible to please most survivors
Someone recently did an experiment where they played the most liked killer (Hillbilly) and as nice as possible, and survivors still complained about how the killer played. Also, if you played less liked killers and normally, you would get get far more complaints. Killers should just play how they want because survivors will complain as long as they die or lose.
Comments
Feel like the soloq vs SWF difference can be explained pretty easily here. If I'm on a hook and see a teammate wasting time and being unproductive... as SoloQ, I'll get annoyed at that teammate. If that teammate is on coms with you in a SWF however... can't really let em have it. Time to fall back on "we lost because the killer was sweaty". SWFs aren't very likely to blame their SWF for mistakes.
This is dubious. The player had all that ‘data’ and yet no where does he state how many players were belligerent or how many were kind—except when he points out that he reported 10/12 ‘known SWF players’ for violating TOS. There are no numbers for that; only his wins & losses (and he considered a 2K a loss so he probably broke closer to even). So his results appear skewed and like they’re presenting an agenda.
I’m fine with you just doing you, but when it’s toxic like holding a game hostage (slugging everyone and letting them bleed out while taunting) is a huge waste of time. Lemme just go to the next match.
SWFs are more likely to stay in a game after they die... since they're waiting for their team. The test was centered around the chat, not so much the win/loss rate. It was stated that he wouldn't hit an unhooked survivor, even if bodyblocked and would instantly pick up no matter what the situation. TYPICALLY people would hesitate to do that if surrounded by flashlights, lol.
The point this test showed was that no matter how much tunneling/slugging/camping is avoided... ppl will still toss insults and make those accusations.
I understood full well what he tested. My point stands.
What was your point? You brought up the winrate, which is why I explained that the test had nothing to do with wins or losses, that was just something that was noted.
You can't please everyone. No matter if it is your playstyle, your build, or even a suggestion on the Forums.
There will always be someone who dislikes it.
We can agree on the core message! play how u want. As for the data? I can appreciate the work but can't relate to it. My billy experience is pretty much the complete opposite and I don't use tactics or slow down with him either. I usually get very good vibes from survivors when playing him.
You don't already play killer the way you want?
Nothing of this makes any sense. But hey, at least you did another us vs them discussion based on some unprooved reddit post. Pretty good job so far.
Everyone should play however they want. This does not include cheating of course.
Have they taken statsitcs or at a higher level? That reddit user shows no proof of their sample size, we do not have enough data and no proof of what was said, no screenshots.
There is no details of their demographic for their base. Financial situation, location, age, mental health, current living situation, what kind of pc or console they're using, are they all playing only dbd or other games? Are they stressed? Are they playing this game to play with someone else or by choice? Etc.
Their sample size playtime hours are not shared, genders, etc. See? So many factors are missing that would affect the outcome. Their claim is unsubstantiated. It's not reporducable because I do not know the parameters of their test.
Their test could be called blind. It provides non factual information.
I cannot possibly take it seriously in good faith.
It's a good idea and nice attempt, but anyone who has statistics experience can see why this is...problematic.
Edit: I do agree through, play how you wish if it's within the rules! While I am not fond of certain tactics, if it's within the rules then I have to deal with it as I chose to play. If not, we can always do something else with our time.
"A lot"
What is 'a lot'?