Raconteurminator
Raconteurminator
About
- Username
- Raconteurminator
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,504
- Last Active
Comments
-
@MaTtRoSiTy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3696588#Comment_3696588
I am happy, I just don't want to verse the same killer back to back to back
Forcing people into matches they don't want to play isn't a solution to anything, everyone loses in that case.
As I have repeatedly said, I am more than happy to be personally penalised 5-10 minutes waiting for a lobby than to endure something like Thana Legion 3 times in a row.
Again, no-one is forcing you to do anything. You purchased and installed the game of your own volition, each match you queued up for was of your own volition, every one of your four-thousand hours was done of your own volition. You take the good with the bad, that should have been your takeaway piece of knowledge from your first 15 minutes. You keep telling people you're happy, but I'm not sure who you're trying to convince. Happy is accepting that things like this happen, happy is moving on, happy isn't brainstorming a way to kneecap the matchmaking system to avoid something that is a rare, minor nuisance at best.
You won't be personally penalised, everyone will be penalised. A modifier to the matchmaking system will affect matchmaking as a whole, even if all it does is effectively remove players from said system and place them in their own queue. You're looking at things from entirely your perspective, neglecting the fact that this option would be available for everyone to use, not just you. The Killer player wouldn't even have the option to opt out the system, and come a Tome or event that requires a specific Killer for challenges, or come the release of a new Killer, they're probably not going to get a match at all.
Games would take longer to find while this system would do nothing to curb the entitlement issues that frequently end games early. You could wait 20 minutes for a game and still have it end in essentially 30 seconds because someone got downed early and died on first hook, or they still didn't get a Killer they wanted to go against. Your system wouldn't fix that, and I understand it wouldn't be supposed to, but for the system to be baseline functional, the least it would have to do is offer something of reasonable value while not making existing issues worse.
-
All this would do is further destabilise an already unreliable matchmaking system and increase queue times by far longer than 5-10 minutes.
I am also "not set dressing" and I cant be motivated to play and enjoy a match I do not want to play. Forcing me to endure back to back mend-fests is also selfish - it goes both ways.
No-one is forcing you to endure anything, no-one is compelling you to play the game. The answer is to simply stop playing if you're not happy. The answer isn't to enact a system that makes everyone but you miserable and punishes the Killer player for simply trying to use content they enjoy and have potentially paid for. When you start paying for people's DLC, then you can consider a system that arbitrarily punishes people for using it.
-
Let the Killer catch me, then die on first hook. I'd wait until the game finished, then explain why I did that.
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3693714#Comment_3693714
No. It was a question. Did they actually say that? Sorry mis worded. I’ve never seen them say that.
I'm almost certain I've seen them mention something to that effect, yes, though I haven't been able to pin down the exact source yet.
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3693699#Comment_3693699
They said specifically “The game couldn’t handle a 3rd zombie?”
but it can handle a lobby full of bots?
So I was correct, then. The game can't handle more than two zombies.
-
Pretty sure Behaviour has gone on record as saying the game can't handle it.
-
The spaghetti code can't handle more than two zombies at once
-
I've clocked a whopping 15 or so minutes in the last month.
-
I agree. If something is broken, regardless of side, it needs to be fixed. It doesn't matter if one 'tech' is more or less impactful than others, they're all bugs and they all need fixing.
-
I don't get it.
-
@fulltonon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3690939#Comment_3690939
Actually, perks being too low on point can just get buff.
Everything should TRY to be 25point worth, but sometime it just doesn't happen so it should be fail-safe system that works automatically rather than BHVR manually adjusting everything.
I agree. That would be one of the, actually many, benefits of such a system. Perks could still be buffed or nerfed, but as you said, there'd be that little fail-safe running in the background.
-
For some reason, I disproportionally enjoy points-based skill allocation in games. Do I think it could work here? I mean, quite probably, but it would certainly require a lot of groundwork to get it to a workable state, definitely more than Behaviour would be willing to commit. It would add more variety to builds and encourage people to try something other than slapping on the four best perks available and calling it a day. It would also add a new twist to buffs and nerfs, with perks deemed too powerful simply moving up in cost rather than being beaten and left in an alley somewhere, as is usually the case.
-
@HEX_DEAD_BY_AI said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3690073#Comment_3690073
About "the game has given them", so survivors have the right to only hide somewhere, not do gen, and make the trial last for so long, right? I mean, ya, the game doesn't prevent the killers from doing that act, but it makes the game have no e-sportiness. If the unhooked survivor just shows them up again in front of the killer, ya it's their own mistake, but if the killer does tunnel with intent, it's a bad play and should be punished. The survivors who do nothing should also be punished.
The answer to your question is no. Doing nothing but hiding, refusing to do gens? That's holding the game hostage, which is against the rules. Choosing who to chase and when, in a game that is primarily about choosing who to chase and when, is not against the rules.
-
"Tunnelling" is the act of a player choosing who to chase and when. You can mitigate the effectiveness, but you can never remove it or punish a player for exercising the agency the game has given them.
-
@BlightAbuser said:
Pluto tech is when you trap/bodyblock/pinch blight on his first rush, not allowing him any collision and forcing him into fatigue.
@TieBreaker said:
Don't tell us. It won't be as cool as whatever we are imagining in our heads.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/OC8RC0Z13XJU/doge-rocket.gif
You were right.
-
No, categorically.
-
The problem with trying to enforce a code of ethics is that that leads to an ethics committee, and they tend to have none.
-
They could do it without any particular issue, they just don't want to. The version of Unreal the game runs on supports it out the box.
-
@menacing_goose said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3685871#Comment_3685871
I put crutch in quotations because that’s what everyone refers to the perks as crutch perks
You changed this into, "I SAID ENDGAME AND CRUTCH BUDDY"
Your unedited post has you admit you called endgame perks crutch perks, your edited post is just a lie. You said "endgame or 'crutch' perks," not AND crutch perks. This was as simple as you saying, "Whoops, my bad," and spending five seconds editing your post. But here you are just lying to people. You've lied twice now as to what your original post says, just call it quits and don't insult my intelligence a third time.
-
@menacing_goose said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3685867#Comment_3685867
Good thing I didn’t say endgame/crutch then I said endgame and crutch 😃
You said endgame or "crutch" perks, then exclusively listed endgame perks. It's quite clear you were calling endgame perks a crutch, otherwise crutch wouldn't have been in quotes (and you'd have also listed non-endgame crutch perks).
-
Endgame perks =/= crutch perks.
-
They downed the first Survivor and decided they were too good in chase, so they didn't tunnel them and instead went on to the next one. The next Survivor proved to be good, maybe not as good as the first but good enough, so they moved on to the next one. Repeat until the weakest link is found.
-
I'm not sure I've seen anyone argue that tunnelling is anything other than effective.
-
The sample size is insignificant to the point of being completely discountable. Even a hundred times that would barely be enough required to give anything close to a conclusive result. You're also neglecting the obvious fact: you probably have several thousand hours of playtime at this point (whether they're on Skull Merchant or not is mostly irrelevant), and with matchmaking being the way it is, it's quite possible no-one on the opposing team had close to that.
-
@HatchIsMyMercy said:
Sometimes I wonder how this perk still exists. Getting 4 kills after 5 generators are completed when you only had one, a single hook beforehand, is not healthy. Most times, it encourages toxic behavior. If you get wrecked by survivors in a game, you can learn from it, and your mmr should reflect it and put you in a match that is more fair that you can use to improve, but (sometimes) with NOED, these killers use it to win and increase their mmr, and as they move up, the perk becomes the only thing they use to win. They become dependent on it, and it isn't fun. It isn't healthy.
NOED encourages toxic gameplay in endgame because "I downed all of the survivors who gen-rushed me and looped me well." It affects matchmaking more than just the killer's side, too. Those survivors that the killer wrecked with NOED, they're going to be going against killers with lower mmr, as well as teammates with lower mmr, creating a matchmaking hell for other survivors and killers. Of course, this is mainly talking about survivors who Solo Queue, who aren't as coordinated and will have a lot more trouble dealing with a surprise NOED than a swf.
I'm going to say it once again, as it's been said many, many, many times before. NOED is a crutch, and the little nerf it received, has not fixed its issues.
NOED isn't a crutch, as some would convince themselves. You sacrifice a perk slot for 90% of the match in order to gain something in the endgame. You're shifting a portion of your pressure, a portion of your power, to a different point in the match; one where it matters considerably more. You're not gaining something undeserved, you're moving something you already had further down the road at the expense of the now. And even then, it can be nullified entirely, potentially before it even comes into play. If four people are getting downed by NOED in the endgame, I put it to you that you outplayed no-one, you wrecked no-one; you are exactly where the Killer intended you to be and you played right into it. You need to play smart for 100% of the game, not just the 90% that involves gens.
-
In all fairness, if someone is running No Mither, there's nothing else to do. Just leave them? So they can get up, go do another 20% of a generator and immediately run back to where they can't be hooked the moment they hear the terror radius? Bleeding them out isn't just a valid strategy, it's oftentimes the only strategy you can employ because they've intentionally made themselves unhookable. And standing over someone does not amount to taking the game hostage - the game can still end, and in fact will do so once the bleed timer depletes. They put themselves into that situation, those are the consequences of their actions.
-
It's supposed to work regardless of terror radius. If it isn't, then we might have a bug.
-
@DrHyk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3680138#Comment_3680138
No, reporting them isn't enough, you're the one that's wrong.
"Nuh uh!" I mean, really. Thank you for letting me know this conversation no longer has any merit.
-
@DrHyk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3680132#Comment_3680132
Reporting isn't enough. I feel like if you report them most of the time nothing gets done about it, I feel as if removing their ability to communicate and truly cripple their ability to target people based on Prestige level, who they are (streamers cop a lot of it) and frankly, there's a lot of reports that are placed just because of the killer you play. Removing the ability for anon players to communicate and see other player's names etc. nips the toxic behavior before it even starts
I get what you're saying but you need to see where I'm coming from which you don't seem to be whatsoever.
Oh, I get where you're coming from. I just think you're absolutely wrong. Reporting them is enough. If they've said something actionable and you report them, something will be done about it. If you report them for violating the rules in-game (with video proof), something will be done about it. If you keep reporting people and nothing keeps happening, then you're reporting people incorrectly.
You don't fight toxicity by punishing people that haven't done anything just because they might do something. You don't deny people the ability to interact with others for not doing anything wrong. You don't dole out collective punishment to innocent players because of the few bad apples that the current system is capable of dealing with already.
-
@DrHyk said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3680090#Comment_3680090
As I have stated being able to report anon players isn't enough. They need to be cut off from interacting all together.
Again, just report them. Anonymous mode protects you from the behaviour of others, not your own. People who haven't done anything wrong shouldn't be punished or, per your suggestion, I want to say "social exiled," because some people use it to be jerks.
You said they spoke and played disrespectfully, what you didn't say was that they violated the terms of service. Playing disrespectfully isn't inherently a punishable offence, nor is someone not giving you the respect you feel you're owed. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, and that's on me, but it seems like you want people to be punished for not violating the terms of service.
-
@Venusa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3678346#Comment_3678346
doesn't matter. 1 stack of pain res erases %25 of total progress and with pop you can keep kicking %30 current progress off and if you combine that with gen blocking perks like grim embrace and dms which is very common, it is very possible that survivors can't out-repair a tunneling killer. they might complete a gen but that doesn't mean much in the grand scheme of things since 3 survivors left with 3-4 gens left is also already a lost. not everything is survivors' fault especially if killers take advantage of certain playstyles or is an experienced player.
Not everything is the fault of the Survivors, I agree. Not getting even a single gen done absolutely is. It displays an overall lack of awareness that was never getting them the win regardless of what the Killer did. Tunnelling isn't even a factor at that point. It's not like they got 3 or 4 gens done and heroically fell at the final hurdle because someone was tunnelled out. It's more the case of they couldn't even find the hurdles to begin with, let alone know how to jump over them.
-
@C3Tooth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3678369#Comment_3678369
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3677967#Comment_3677967
If a survivor down twice before a Gen done, thats a hint that survivor's skill is lower than killer, and its not necessary for killer to tunnel to able to win.
Killers who tunnel against lower skill teams, are also those that complain about higher skill teams that finish 3-4 Gens before the first hook. You dont have empathy against weaker team, then dont ask for empathy from the stronger one.
That wasn't the point I was making, though I do agree with you. My point is simply: if you can't get a single gen done in the time it takes someone to be tunnelled out of the game, then you didn't lose because of tunnelling, you lost because you don't seem to understand how the game works.
-
@Spare_Them_Mori_Me said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3678346#Comment_3678346
We're talking public lobbies, not tournament grounds. I'm glad you agree that teams are made up of varied degrees of skill and knowledge. Sounds like some new players might have been about.
So if this scenario is common, and in my experience, it kind of is, the killer will likely tunnel still, despite the lack of any clear challenge. I dont understand the mindset or how it could in any way be enjoyable.
I wouldn't call getting a single gen done before losing tournament level play here. Neither would I call auto-piloting from pallet-to-pallet with WoO and pre-dropping tournament level play. Even if pre-dropping is popular in tournaments, it's also popular out of tournaments because it's very easy to get immediate value out of.
I have more of an issue with people trying to blame their loss on tunnelling rather than the fact that they couldn't even get a single gen done or last longer than 20 seconds in chase. Even if the Killer didn't tunnel, even if they went AFK to make a phone call, the Survivors were still losing. Tunnelling hadn't even begun to make an impact there.
-
Of course you have to run anti-meta, that's how even semi-competitive games work, for better or worse. Meta is simply the most popular selection of available resources.
- Meta: do very well against Non-Meta (least common), go neutral versus itself (most common), likely still go neutral against Anti-Meta (semi-common).
- Anti-Meta: stay at least neutral against Meta, stay neutral to itself, likely go negative against Non-Meta (but not by a great margin).
- Non-Meta: lose badly to Meta, stay neutral to itself, likely go plus against Anti-Meta.
If you want the best chance of winning, you choose Meta. If you want the best chance of neutral match-ups where skill is more of a determining factor, you choose Anti-Meta. If you want the best chance of losing, you go Non-Meta.
-
@Venusa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3677967#Comment_3677967
pain res pop has entered the room
Pain Res. triggers once if someone is being tunnelled. There are still 3 people working on gens. It's not uncommon in an average game to lose 2 or 3 gens in the first chase. If 3 people cannot do even a single gen between them at any point during those chases, that's a legitimate skill issue on their part.
If the person being chased can't buy a single gen with every pallet available to them (with pre-dropping being as effective as it is, and likely having WoO equipped), that's also a skill issue. With that level of inactivity and lack of awareness, the Killer could have stood in the corner for a minute and still gotten a 12-hook game.
-
@Magerchub said:
Yeah I've been trying to grind out the battlepass pretty hard lately and I have gotten out maybe like... 3 times in 4 days. Not only that but my whole team has finished 5 gens maybe like... 10% of the games, IF THAT. Someone is always tunneled out before 1 gen is even done. Every single game without failure. This is the most unfun I've had playing this game in a long time.
I was thinking it would be great if the killer suffered a penalty if they hit/hooked the same survivor within a certain time frame. Like the survivors get faster gen repairs for a certain amount of time orrrrr idk, something. Just spit balling here
If 3 people can't do a single gen before someone has been hooked 3 times, that's not a tunnelling issue.
-
Neither tunnelling nor camping can be removed from the game. Their effectiveness can be mitigated somewhat, but any "meaningful" change would require the removal of player agency on a significant level.
-
@fulltonon said:
I mean, we've removed bubba mask before, I'm not exactly sure if this is that different.
The mask was literally Bubba running around in blackface, which was never not going to be an issue. This is people complaining about something that isn't inherently offensive, and certainly couldn't be seen as offensive without someone being greatly uncharitable to Behaviour and interpreting it in the worst possible way.
-
If you had ten games in a row where the Killer only had three functional perks, I'd call that a win.
-
Honestly, I'd one-hundred percent pay good money for this.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3673058#Comment_3673058
One significant reason you dont get full PR value all the time is because of hooks. Adding another Scourge Hook will help solving this problem, in exchange for some (actually little) value on the other side. With this change, it wont happen less likely that you cant find a hook in time before gen pops.
Ironically enough, the 2nd part of "not full value" is that often times, max gen is not 25%, so therefore you dont loose any value nevertheless in that regard. So whats even the issue that -5% will hinder when it pops on a gen that has barely any progress?
Its a little bit strange that you highlight the problems, but my suggestion are actually dealing with those. But hey, some read -5% per hookstage and thats already enough to disagree.
Your changes are as follows: Add 1 extra scourge hook, nerf regression by 5%. One extra hook will not change anything if the RNG decides to put all the hooks on one side of the map as it often likes to do. You really think a single hook, still affected by RNG, is worth 5%? It's not.
You're looking at the perk on an individual level, on the level of a flat, one-off 25%. It's token based, with the possibility of failure that isn't the player's fault. Each charge is 25% because the perk needs the possibility of providing value if the Killer is screwed out of a token or two in the early game. Your change provides less value, still has the chance of losing tokens outside of the player's control, and overvalues the effect of a single (still RNG-prone) scourge hook.
You talk about balance, yet I'm not sure I've seen you explain why it needs balancing in the first place, outside of, "I use it, it objectively needs a change."
-
Okay, three words, hear me out here: Tall. Vampire. Lady.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3672773#Comment_3672773
It will get changed without any question. Better you hope for a change like this then making it a trash perk as Devs often pull off.
And before you start, i use PR every game. And yes, it defenitly needs those changes, objectivly speaking.
It will no doubt get changed, but it objectively doesn't need to be. Your change is bad, their change would be worse. That doesn't, however, make your suggestion good; just better by comparison, which wouldn't be hard.
Pain Res. is heavily dependent on RNG and on what Survivors are currently doing. If a gen pops before you can hook, you've just spent a token on potentially nothing. The Killer has no control over whether or not a gen pops towards the end of the chase or when they're about to hook. If the hooks all spawn in the same area (not uncommon, and an extra hook won't fix that), you either have to use them when you don't want to or treat that area as a dead zone and leave people slugged if they go down there while they're still worth a token.
Getting full value from Pain Res. isn't entirely within the player's control (and can be manipulated further by coordinated teams), which is why the maximum value is that high. Your change wouldn't fix that; all it would do is lower the maximum use value. It's not a simple and fair change, it's a categorical nerf.
-
The march to fix all the perks that don't need fixing continues inexorably.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3670896#Comment_3670896
That is nothing to do with what you originally said. I know BHVR puts that 60% out as the benchmark, but that's not what you were originally talking about.
I recall the first post you responded to was one of me talking about the kill rate. You addressed my "interpretation" of the 60% intended kill rate, went on to bring Nightlight into it, made a "something is better than nothing" argument as to why we should use those numbers, and now we're here.
My original point hasn't changed, my supplementary points are consistent. This conversation is where it is because this is where you brought it. If you're confused by this, I can't help you. Though I will say, you are welcome to discontinue it at any time.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3670736#Comment_3670736
Continuing to insist on flying blind because the Nightlight data might be inaccurate just creates the same position we've been in for years. Killer anec-data being held in the highest regard.
I would also like to remind you that while I am going off data that you declare 'unreliable', you, yourself, are advocating for going off literally -no- data. How is that supposed to give any grounds for appropriate balancing? You claim that it would be absurd to balance around less likely outcomes, but you have no data to determine what actually is the least likely outcome. So what do, then?
60% is the intended kill rate, the intended average. That, right there, is your anchor point. Behaviour says they want to balance around that number, and from that number we can see what Killers are meeting that average, exceeding that average or falling below that average. By addressing the issues that lead a particular Killer away from that lighthouse figure, the average is formed within an acceptable margin around 60%.
Realistically, we don't even need to know the numbers, because we're not balancing the game. Behaviour makes changes, we give feedback, that feedback is used to bring the game in line with their chosen balance point. We don't need the numbers, and arguing balance changes based upon a third-party website that is, yes, at times wildly inaccurate (not just my opinion here), won't help half as much as people think it will.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3670553#Comment_3670553
So you have no numbers, then, outside of a third-party app that varies, sometimes wildly, in accuracy.
Kind of annoying that this needs to be said, but...
It's something
Versus
Absolutely nothing.
You can bicker about how reliable Nightlight is, but it does compile a dataset of actual matches. Unless you have some meaningful fault to point out, you don't really have a leg to stand on, and you don't offer your own data.
Besides, go over your own experience. Does Nightlight's data in regards to the frequency of 2Ks seem all that out-of-the-ordinary?
Absolutely nothing is better than something that A) is a relatively small sample size that relies heavily on the honesty of the user and B) Has been shown to be widely inaccurate. Like I said, it's a weather vane; not something to rely on for anything other than a general sense of which way the wind is blowing.
If you think something being unreliable isn't a meaningful fault, I don't know what to tell you. Unreliable statistics are not conducive to proving a point, and they don't suddenly become reliable or worth using because of the absence of more reliable ones. "Here's some knowingly inaccurate data. I win unless you offer your own data!" I mean, really. The only data that would mean anything here is Behaviour's own data, and as you said, they don't track it. Faulty data leads to faulty conclusions, so I feel it would be better to exclude said faulty data.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3669607#Comment_3669607
They don't track winrate, so it's Nightlight or nothing.
So you have no numbers, then, outside of a third-party app that varies, sometimes wildly, in accuracy.
@sinkra said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3669503#Comment_3669503
According to the dictionary definition of the word balanced it's 50/50, not 60/40.
There are four people on the Survivor side, each worth 25%. In no single match can a Killer achieve a 60% kill rate; it's either 50% or 75%. A 60% kill rate means that the average kills, over multiple matches, will be 2, with the occasional 3 or higher. A 50% kill rate, on average, will produce less than 2 kills. 60% is balanced in this context. So again, in this context, you have no understanding of balance.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3669578#Comment_3669578
You balance around the average match because it would be asinine and counterproductive to balance around less likely outcomes.
This is where you miss the mark though: that 2K that you point out? That IS the least likely outcome. For almost all killers. I updated the post while you were quoting this one to add the statistical details, but there's only five killers for whom a 2K is NOT the least likely outcome.
The relationship between kill rate and win rate is extremely weird. At one point Nightlight was even showing a very slightly higher win rate for a very slightly lower kill rate killer.
As a quick illustration of how loosely kill and win rates are correlated: What would happen to the both of them if the hatch were to be removed?
EDIT: Double-checked again: The all-killer average pits 2K as the least likely outcome, lagging behind 1Ks by a whopping 4.1 percentage points: 17.92% vs 13.82%.
Nightlight is a weather vane at best, it gives a vague sense of which way the wind is blowing. It's useful, but it's not for arguing exact numbers, especially not fractions of a percent. What does Behaviour's own numbers say?
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3669504#Comment_3669504
but the killer shouldn't be a pushover like it was back before 6.1.0 either.
I don't think they were back then. But also, this is where the 'feel' of the game begins to meddle with balance, and why I'm sceptical about BHVR ever having said that 60% killrate was for balance purposes.
I'm sure it goes hand-in-hand with their logic, like it or not. It makes no sense to have a single survivor have an equal footing with the killer in a 1v4 game.
But we do have to consider how we want to balance the game in the end. Personally, considering escapes wins and taking 3K+ as wins seems like a good balancing metric, but we're not hitting that. Going by Nightlight's statistics, killers are 'winning' a little under 49%, whereas survivors are 'winning' a little under 45%. That's a pretty substantial difference in killers' favour.
If we were to hunt for this 60% kill rate statistic, the killer's winrate would similarly inflate, and the survivors' winrate would deflate, further increasing the gap, and thus making the game less balanced.
According to Nightlight, the two killers currently the closest to the targeted 60% killrate are Twins (61.38%) and Plague (59.34%). This means survivors have a roughly 40% chance to escape against either of them. However, the 'win' rate for these two killers are 58% and 53% respectively, versus roughly 40% for the survivors. That's not balanced.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3669503#Comment_3669503
60% kill rate = 2k on average.
This interpretation really needs to get chucked out of a window. Kill rate and win rate are very loosely and illogically related. That '2k on average' is utterly meaningless for the purposes of balance as it only considers the average match, and the average match is played by no one.
It's not an interpretation. It's basic mathematics applied to observable reality. You balance around the average match because it would be asinine and counterproductive to balance around less likely outcomes. Calling something meaningless and dismissing it doesn't make it meaningless, nor does it suddenly become untrue. It just means you lack an argument and genuinely think hand-waving it away counts as one.