hermitkermit
hermitkermit
About
- Username
- hermitkermit
- Joined
- Visits
- 4,625
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Gh0st2317 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4037651#Comment_4037651
I agree with that. I just think BHVR pays attention to influencers more sometimes due to their high influence and popularity.
At the same time, they do also listen to the community sometimes too. I only suspected that BHVR listens to influencers more because they're the high influence for their game if that makes sense. If popular influencers stopped playing the game, then BHVR would probably have a low influence.
Absolutely. There is a direct correlation to the impact these guys have on the game. One tech showcase and then the game is flooded with people attempting it. They do have the influence, so what they say matters and it can matter more to BHVR because at the end of the day they’re a business and if your top influencers, that bring in a lot of players, AKA money, aren’t happy with something, you’re going to take that seriously because it can become a threat to your business.
And that’s not to imply that BHVR is wrong for doing this, any business that has big supporters would take what they have to say seriously especially over some random person that doesn’t have the same kind of reach. A random review on yelp vs a critique by a food critic are not the same and the influence they have are not the same.
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
I love how nearly everyone (likely most if not all of them are survivor mains) act as if killer mains don't play the game ourselves. Did many of the so-called "influencers" say the same things we were seeing? Yes. Does that mean that they we were just listening to them? No. But, they have the voice we do not.
I am a P100 Pig main. Even before the first "influencer" video went up, I was against the 9.2 BS and the more videos I watched, the more I didn't hear anything I didn't already notice and think myself.I want to respond to this, because while it wasn’t directed at me, it does seem to be referencing my comment, specifically my use of the word influencers.
First, I want to explain why I use that term. An influencer is simply someone who influences others, and more specifically someone with a large social media presence who can shape opinions and promote ideas/ products. That feels quite accurate here. These creators have large platforms, sponsorships, merch, in game codes, and their own big community. Calling them influencers isn’t meant as an insult, I myself am subscribed to most of them, it’s just a description pointing to how much influence they objectively have.
I think it’s disingenuous to downplay how much influence they have on both the community and the game itself.
My point is about visibility and the. impact . If most big names strongly supported certain changes, that support would matter. Not because people are mindlessly following and obeying them, but because attaching big names to ideas has always shaped public opinion. This isn’t new nor is it tied to DBD. People trust creators/singers/actors/athletes they like, follow, and consume content from regularly, and that naturally affects how ideas spread and how they’re received. Thats why celebrities are used in ads, in the same way these creators are.
Do I think the devs blindly follow whatever big creators say? No. Do I think changes that are widely supported by the largest voices in the community are more likely to stick around longer or be taken more seriously? Yes, absolutely.
And as it happens, many of the biggest creators openly prefer one role over the other, which is totally fine and normal. Everyone has bias, even players who split their time evenly. But when most of the largest voices are aligned in one direction, I do think that absolutely has an effect on how discussions are framed and which concerns get attention when compared to a random individual.None of this is me saying killer mains don’t play the game or don’t think for themselves. Killers, much like survivors, are NOT a massive hive mind. But they are all humans, and humans can be and regularly are influenced. Influence exists. We see this all the time, all it takes is one single video from a big name and it increases the use of certain perks, strategies, techs, or even exploits almost overnight. That’s influence. That influence doesn’t suddenly disappear just because the topic is something they dislike.
So if my use of the word influencers came across as dismissive, my apologies, that wasn’t my intention. If they were more receptive or open to the changes, I do genuinely believe that the changes would’ve stayed around longer, because of the amount of influence that they have.
-
I will also echo the sentiment above , it’s because of content creators. They’re basically influencers at this point. I wish they tried at least something about anti-tunnel. Especially when it was kind of dangled for such a long period of time. It would be great if it could at least be balanced in some way like everything else in the game.
-
@Abbzy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035902#Comment_4035902
Sometimes like 50% of tunneling is due to reasons like loosing two gens before one hook, survivor bodyblocking the killer with unhook protection or saving others with flashlight,background player from him or running around with sabbo and dennying hooks these are just reasons where survivors give killer a opportunity to tunnel its like you running with flashlight and seeing killer picking up someone face towards you will you let him have that down or would you take that opportunity and get save? I bet you would go for save like 90% of survivors (counting all that would just go for it even if they would fail it). Other things like moments where someone who was hooked wasnt healed and somehow gets near killer or his chased teammate leads killer to him than killer sees injured survivor and he is chasing someone who is in better location or healty than its easy choice (same as you would you do hard work in quarry for same money or take desk job in office for same money?? humans are lazy creatures like all others so they will pick the easiest and most beneficial option thats out there unless they chase other goals).
Tunneling isnt always killers fault same with survivor its not his fault either it could be killers choice from the start or once two gens poped and you were unhooked, it could be your teammate for not healing you and then someone lead killer towards your location or killer wondered around map and found you things like this happen, or you did something like bodyblocked with antitunnel protection and killer has standart for punishing that and not doing fool from himself so someone is always in fault it depends on situation and saying its all killers fault or survivors is extream for both, it all depends on situation its set in and the circumstances.
I think I understand what you’re saying, but I feel it still doesn’t change the outcome. No matter why the situation starts, tunneling is a choice the killer makes. Flashlight saves or bodyblocks don’t force a killer to tunnel. The killer chooses to do so because often times it’s the choice that will give them more advantage.
Yes, sometimes tunneling can be a reaction to something. But claiming that most tunneling is reactive is where I disagree. Tunneling happens because it’s efficient, which is why if gens are popped too quickly, a killer will start to tunnel, because it’s more efficient than going for fresh hooks.
And if tunneling works because it’s efficient, then it doesn’t make sense to say players who tunnel wouldn’t do it when it is most efficient. Players who tunnel regularly do it at the very beginning, because that’s where they get the biggest payoff. And that has nothing to do with survivor mistakes at all.
-
@CompetitifDBD said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035898#Comment_4035898
Well I understand that survivor was kinda boring, operation health has had more buffs for them than nerfs.
Well to be honest it might all just boil down to personal opinion on how you feel the state of the game is now vs. before. And if you feel that it’s better, I’m happy for you. It’s wonderful to be able to enjoy it. But for me, I do not feel that the survivor role is in a better spot than it was before the “operation health”. I feel that most of the promised changes dedicated towards the survivor role didn’t end up happening, there were no new things brought to refresh the role as they previously admitted to it needing, and certain aspects of the role now, like the styptic changes, pallet changes, etc. are now in worse/weaker states than before.
But as I said previously, it’s great you personally feel like it’s better. Glad you’re enjoying the game :)
-
Players tunnel because it’s easy. Even in the examples you gave, which skew a bit one way but are your personal opinion, the outcome is the same: tunneling. It happens whether a survivor “causes” it or not. A player who tunnels won’t stop just because they can’t pin it on someone being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Players do it because it’s easy and effective, not because it’s the other players fault.
-
Would be nice. I haven’t played since they destroyed them. It just felt like such a slap in the face lol they admitted the survivor role was really lacking, and needed something to look forward to only to double nerf them after like 9 days or something, and never touched them again. A common theme with anything to the survivor role for “operation health”.
-
@subdl said:
There’s often criticism that “when the killer disconnects, the match ends too suddenly.” But if the gates are open, and all that’s left is for survivors to walk out, how much is actually being lost?
If we’re talking about “experience value,” then let’s talk about the killer’s. After a hard-fought match and downing all four survivors, the killer often watches them all Abandon instantly—ending the game with zero payoff.
What remains? Cleaning up after bots, or pressing the Abandon button themselves—despite a clear win. A truly fitting reward for perfect play.
If the final act of a flawless game is mopping the stage alone, the Entity must be absolutely satisfied with the performance.
Some argue Abandon was introduced to prevent bleed-out abuse. Fair enough. But now, it’s a permanent privilege granted only to survivors, while killers are given no similar option—even when the outcome is already decided. That’s a double standard, plain and simple.
“You should finish what you started.” But once the gates are powered, haven’t both sides already done that? What’s left is emotional closure—and at the moment, only one side gets to enjoy it.
In the end, the current system prioritizes survivor comfort while demanding patience from killers.
This isn’t about balance—it’s about a fundamental asymmetry in the player experience. And frankly, it may be one of the worst design failures in Dead by Daylight’s history.
If the same thing happened when survivors abandoned, meaning that the killer would be replaced by a bot, then I am absolutely all for it. But as it currently stands, the game just ends when a killer leaves. And when that happens, any achievements you may have gotten in the match won’t count. Obviously that’s not healthy. They should definitely give killers an option to abandon, but only if the same thing happens when survivors do, with a bot.
-
@100PercentBPMain said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4035579#Comment_4035579
don't get me wrong, I understand the frustrations regarding Kanekis hits, especially the first one. it's hit scan and quite forgiving, sometimes he munches on rocks etc. I'm only specifically talking about the act of Kaneki stunning himself to have a Lil snack. I feel that is the most nothingburger part about him that I genuinely don't understand.
As the Kaneki, I find myself spinning around for the entire duration out of boredom and silliness.
Ahh, I got you. Yeah idk he’s just got the munchies and he’s gotta stop to enjoy it I guess lol
-
In my opinion, im not arguing for tunneling to be removed. I’m arguing for it to be balanced in the same way every other major part of gameplay already is. There could be an activation requirement, a short cooldown, or even a brief disable period at the start of the match, similar to how anti-tunnel perks already disable in endgame, and have cool downs. The game clearly isn’t afraid of conditional mechanics.
Looping is a perfect example. It doesn’t need a perk to exist, just like tunneling doesn’t, yet looping still has built-in restrictions. Slow/medium/fast vault states, windows blocking after repeated use, bloodlust, and pallets that can be broken thus weakening the loop entirely. Looping is a natural part of gameplay just like eliminating survivors, but looping is still regulated by those built-in restrictions.
And just like some people hate being tunneled, others hate being looped. We have anti-loop killers and anti-loop perks, just like we have anti-tunnel perks. But the existence of those counter perks never removed looping’s restrictions, and tunneling isn’t held to a similar standard.
That’s the issue. Not that tunneling exists, but that it’s exempt from the balancing that’s applied everywhere else. I’d keep it in the game, I’d just put it on the same level of regulation as the other core strategies/behaviors.
And honestly, imagine if looping didn’t have its built-in counters. Imagine windows that never blocked, pallets you couldn’t break, no bloodlust, and killers expected to just deal with it because, hey, there are anti-loop perks and anti-loop killers that exist so that should be enough. That would be ridiculous, and wildly unbalanced and people would immediately push back on the idea that anti-perks alone make looping without restrictions balanced. But people do insist that anti-perks alone make tunneling without restrictions balanced.
That inconsistency is the actual issue in my opinion.
-
Lightborn I feel is a good solution to more than half of these frustrations. It’s a free perk, it has no cool down, and it even it remains active throughout the entire game. Stuns can be annoying for sure but I don’t think it’s a good idea for a killer to never be able to be stunned for some period of time for the same reason it’s not a good a idea for the survivor to never be able to be hooked for some period of time. People would abuse both in a second.
-
@100PercentBPMain said:
anyone care to explain why I'm incorrect or is this a case of "they're booing me because I'm right?"
I can explain my personal opinion on why I disagree. I disagree with the idea that it doesn’t matter if one player gets stun-locked just because the other three can still do things. I feel that logic is a slippery slope you can use to excuse almost anything, and lets you excuse any uninteractive mechanic. When something is practically guaranteed and out of your control (often like Ghoul’s first hit), it stops feeling like genuine player interaction and more so an inevitability. Writing off that frustration with that inevitability with “it’s only bad for one, not the others because can they can move, so it’s fine” (paraphrasing here on just the general vibe it feels like you were saying, sorry If I’m misunderstanding your point) just isn’t something really I agree with.
-
I completely agree with you about basic respect and the golden rule. The game and honestly the world as a whole would function much better if people lived by that thinking.
But I don’t think tunneling is comparable to being stunned or chain-blinded. If anything, the game would be healthier if tunneling worked more like those mechanics. Stuns and blinds are limited resources. pallets disappear once they’re used, flashlights burn through charges, etc.
Not enjoying getting stunned or blinded is totally understandable , and people mocking that isn’t fair. The annoyance between stuns and tunneling might be similar but they’re definitely different kinds of annoyances.
If tunneling was balanced the way stuns and blinds were, DBD would probably be in a far better place. Especially if anti-tunnel tools worked like Lightborn does for blinds.It would be no paywall, no activation conditions, no cooldown, no limited charges. Just consistent protection.
But yeah, everyone should always keep in mind that they’re playing with other people, and that should mean something. Nobody should ever mock anyone else.
-
@AbsolutGrndZer0 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4030505#Comment_4030505
Survivors able to loop a killer for 5 gens would beg to differ. But sure, there is no counterplay.
I’m sorry, but isnt that kind of standard a bit unreasonable? Your stance of “survivors being able to loop a killer for 5 gens would beg to differ” implying that because it’s possible, therefore it is balanced and can be considered to have counterplay.
Thats not realistic, I mean by that same logic, majority of people believe Clown to be weaker, but ProVengence, a player with a 400+ winstreak on Clown, according to your logic now means that you should be able to meet those same standards because someone else did. Because your standard is if it’s possible, not if it’s probable.
Using outliers like that as benchmarks of balance is not a healthy representation of the game for any player regardless of preferred role. The vast majorly of survivor players cannot run a killer for 5 gens, and the vast majority of killer players cannot get that kind of success with Clown. Using the fact that it’s possible no matter how small the percentage is, is not proof of balance.
(Edit: sorry, accidentally tagged same post twice)
-
Tin foil hat time! Honestly? I think it’s because Hens made that video about how busted it was and started that big old thing on x about it. And then QuietKills got involved too. It really feels like content creators are the ones who get to decide what happens in the game. Majority of them were vehemently against the anti-tunnel/slug changes, and twice they got the chopping block. They all hated fog vials, made videos about how busted it was and then not even 2 weeks later, extremely nerfed. I used to watch many of them, and really enjoyed their content and took their advice but then I realized it just feels like they’ve become influencers more so than relatable gamers.
Their reality is so much different than the average person and they don’t really ever seem to acknowledge that nor do they want the game to be balanced in ways that will be more impactful for the average player rather then themselves. They use their experience as the experience. And because they are the influencers and bring in a lot of views and money for BHVR even with special codes and stuff, it feels like their opinions are worth more than the average player despite being them and players like them being a very small percentage.
-
Is it fair to say your view is that once tunneling, camping, and slugging become less effective, DBD stops being horror because survivors gain some protection? And that horror only exists if survivors can never feel safe?
If that’s the core of it, I’m struggling with why those specific tactics are what define “real horror.” I get the idea that forcing a killer into targeting rules undermines the fantasy. I can even agree that dictating who the killer can chase isn’t scary. But by that same logic, there’s nothing scary about the killer tracking someone by bright neon scratch marks or hearing map wide sound notifications. DBD already bends or breaks most classic horror rules because pure horror simply doesn’t translate into a competitive game.
So if we’re talking about DBD purely as a horror experience , yes, I agree it misses the mark in plenty of places. But I don’t believe protections against tunneling, camping, or slugging are what push it off that mark. The game is full of mechanics that sacrifice realism and genre accuracy so the game is actually fun to play. Scratch marks, aura perks, entity blockers, HUD information, hooking instead of instantly killing, crows that alert your location when you hide, not being able to fight back against the killer… none of that would exist in traditional horror, but they’re necessary here for the sake of gameplay. There are limitations, rules and restrictions for almost every part of DBD and I don’t think adding more of them to these particular tactics is doing something that all other mechanics already haven’t done. I dont think these tactics should be excluded from balance just like everything else in the game is, even if it’s for the sake of an inaccurate depiction of horror.
It’s the same kind of compromise DBD has always made. Horror is the theme, but gameplay is the foundation. And the foundation already bends genre rules in every direction just to function as a game.
-
You can give your opinion without belittling others.
-
@Leon_van_Straken said:
Well I think what Scott is saying here is right and I can kinda prove it.
Since I am a Survivor main with a little bit of Killer Time (80/20) I see the exact same problem in DBD. Normally I get some opinions on my topics which I share and my opinions are not liked by all but by some so I get a tendency better upvotes than downvotes.
The only posts where the downvotes escalate are the posts where one of these two things are said.
First: There is a lot of the "The game is unwinnable as Survivor" propaganda in 1v4 for 2v8 and that the game is not worth the time to being played.
Second: If I ask the simple question. "What do Survivors want to feel that the game is fair."
I get downvoted for these two things into oblivion but I never get an answer which is strange.
If these people who say to me the game is unplayabe really have this point, why can no one answer me the question what they need?
So i just beg you before you downvote me, take your time and write an answer to my question, "what in your opinion do survivors need to feel winable for you"
Personally, I don’t think the issue is fairness. The devs have stated clearly that the two sides aren’t meant to have equal success rates. One side is intentionally designed to lose more, the other to win more. So “fairness” doesn’t even make sense as a goal when the game itself isn’t built to be fair.
Which leaves a problem/question of my own that I feel is really important when talking about survivor balance: how do you make a role that loses more by design still worth choosing? The only answer is in how that losing happens, it has to still be fun to lose. If you expect people to play the role with the lower win rate, then losing has to feel active, not passive. Survivors need to at least feel like they’re playing the game, not being dragged through it. (And yes, SWF helps make the survivor role appealing too, because if you removed it entirely, there would not be very good incentive to ever pick survivor over killer)
Historically, survivor frustration has always orbited the same three things, slugging, tunneling, and camping. Why? Because all three strip away options.
So if the devs want survivor to feel worth it, even with a higher chance of defeat, survivors need agency. They need to feel like their choices matter. As long as they get to stay active, make decisions, and actually play, the role can absorb the loss rate.
And yes, restricting those playstyles is controversial. It affects killer agency, it limits killer decisions, and almost strong-arms them into playing a certain way. But that’s literally the same problem survivor players are trying to address, because those playstyles already do limit survivor agency, limits survivor decisions, and strong-arms them into playing a certain way. Both sides care about agency. They’re just arguing over who should lose more of it.Win more with less agency.
Win more with full agency.
Lose more with agency.
Lose more with none.
Only two of those are remotely healthy for a role people have to voluntarily choose. And that’s why this debate keeps coming back no matter how often we pretend it’s settled.
-
I disagree with the concept that tunneling would cease to exist if Gens were made longer. If the game is easier to win when you tunnel then it doesn’t matter if it takes 10 minutes to do 1 gen, people will still tunnel. It is not impossible to win without tunneling, it’s just more difficult to do.
-
@MrRetsej said:
If they remove any need to play killer, that would be the tipping point for me uninstalling the game.
I bought this game to play killer. I stay in this game to play killer. If I'm instead discouraged to play the game I invested money and time in because I can be replaced with a bot, DbD gets shelved for good in my steam library.Survivor bots have been in the game for like 2 years. I personally don’t think it’s right to offer this kind of resource to one group of players, and not the other.
-
This can be prevented by not going to the gate. This can also end quickly by pushing them out the gate.
-
I think a lot of it depends on the tone of the original poster. If the language of the original poster comes across as very aggressive, it hints that the individual doesn’t actual want a back and forth, and more so just want to vent. This can lead to a lot of upvote/downvote with not a lot of actual responses, because not everyone who posts actually wants their perspective challenged or opinions to change. That doesn’t mean that if you come on with an actual genuine question that it won’t be downvoted, because people are people and it has nothing to do with DBD. But not as many conversations are had on certain posts where the OP doesn’t really seem interested in a good faith to discussion anyway.
-
I’ve always preferred the game to reward hooks over kills, so if this change is a step in that direction, I’m cautiously optimistic. That said, I fully expect killer win rates will still be considered and that’s exactly how it should be.
What I don’t understand is why some people act like discouraging tunneling will somehow destroy all M1 killers. Why would we want to keep certain killers in a state where the only way for them to be viable is by playing one specific way? That’s not healthy design.
If anti-tunneling measures actually expose which killers are too dependent on that tactic to stay competitive, that’s a good thing. It gives developers clear data on who needs buffs or reworks, rather than letting an unhealthy playstyle mask larger balance issues. Behavior has shown they’re willing to buff and adjust killers repeatedly, and that effort isn’t going to stop because anti-tunnel is implemented.
This could be the step that finally reveals who needs tunneling to function and who doesn’t.. and that’s progress, not a problem.
-
I feel it's too soon to start adding more things to these features without any idea how they are going to impact the game first. Just at first glance the idea of getting penalized after getting hooked (more so than just a natural step closer to dying and getting removed from the match) feels a bit intense, likely for the same reasons that killers felt being penalized for their plays was too intense. I think the proposed changes for the unhooked survivor is a great start, but I absolutely agree that collision shouldn't be enabled, so they can't take protection hits. The point of anti-tunnel is to give you a chance to get away, not to get right back into chase. I am aware that several things in this game are not meant to be used a certain way but players will use it that way regardless, which leads to the whole pillar of Chaos that the devs want to maintain, but I do think that bodyblocking when fresh off the hook should be reconsidered.
But, who knows, if these changes do make it out of a PTB and then into the game, if they are too strong then a penalization to the unhooked survivors is an option to weaken it. Only time will tell. -
I feel 2 things can be true at once. I feel that survivor is in a very bad state right now, and that many people that are uninstalling are doing so because of how terrible specifically the survivor experience is at this point in the game. But I also feel that the survey isn’t fairly representative to both roles, and there should be options regarding Gen speed, or SWF, to be listed for reasons for uninstalling.
Perhaps seeing these concerns will incentivize the devs to make the appropriate changes.
-
Killers tunnel because its easy to do. If it wasn’t as easy, then it wouldn’t be as popular. Players will always take the path of least resistance no matter which role.
-
I stopped playing after the fog vials were nerfed so quickly and so harshly. When the anti-tunnel/anti-slug update was announced I came back, but then it too was, you know, pulled. So I just stopped playing after that. Personally I feel that survivor is in a really bad place and I don’t think they will fix it until they are forced to because the numbers are affected. I hope to come back some day if things improve , as this
is -
Truly, the best thing to do is just walk away and stop playing. BHVR doesn’t have much of an incentive to change anything if the numbers aren’t affected.
-
congrats! 🎉🥳
-
I hope we can get some clarity 🙏
-
@UnicornMedal said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4016519#Comment_4016519
A big part of that too I think is how anecdotal the game can be. For instance, I was in the 20-percentile escape rate last 2v8 which was apparently pretty rare, but my perspective on that is very different from someone that was escaping the majority of their trials. But where we can meet in the middle is that the mode still needs some work.
Additionally, I think the psychological aspect tends to dominate the conversation too. Someone feels inadequate playing the power role against 4 people that aren't on their side only to come to the forum, get a downvote, and feel like the whole world is against them. That's not something anyone can control, but it's still a very important component to the discussion.
Yes, those psychological aspects are a very good point. It can be very stressful trying to voice your feelings or fears about any given topic when you feel as if the risk of those pushing back against it are very high. This might be a bit of a tin-foil bit on my end, but I feel as though nuance and communication has suffered deeply in our Wild West digital age. The courage people have to say things under the guise of anonymity online can result in devastating consequences or the admittance of one’s most vulnerable moments in time. I feel those that venture on the forums and actually interact have a different kind of investment in this game then probably the majority of players who are likely very casual. So it goes without saying that everyone here is very passionate about the game, and passionate about their experiences and their solutions to things that they believe to be problems. Because for the most part it’s the community who defines what is a problem or not, which means everyone is wrong and everyone is right, until BHVR steps in to give us those clear answers (something that occurs very rarely , I feel).
Anyway, sorry got a little lost there but yes, I agree with you and I can only hope that things improve in the way our community respects one another and considers the various psychological differences we, as individuals may be experiencing.
-
I’m sorry you’re not enjoying the game right now. I know you’re getting alot of heat from several replies here, but try to remember that your feelings and experiences are just as valid as theirs. Survivor is difficult, and Solo is absolutely the hardest mode to be successful at In this game, and has been proven so by every kind of statistical data we have along with the devs very own intentions of where they want the survival rates to sit.
Until things change, maybe stepping away isn’t a bad idea? I myself haven’t played since the fog vials, and it feels bad I get it, cause this used to be my favorite game, but to be as brutally honest as possible, BHVR is a business and unless the numbers are affected, changes likely won’t be made. If players continue to play the game/role in its current state, no matter how many issues with bugs, survivor pain points, killer pain points etc. then they don’t have as much of an incentive to make changes. From their perspective, why risk upsetting those that are playing the game right now in its current state. I’m not advocating for this kind of mentality but I do understand it from purely a business perspective. Why change the product if it’s still flying off the shelves? They won’t change anything until the product stops selling or risks getting pulled off the shelves.At the end of the day this is a game and it’s meant to be fun, and if you’re not having fun there’s absolutely no shame in stepping away until it becomes a source of fun again.
-
@UnicornMedal said:
I think the data only tells one story. I think it's accurate, at least via my own stats. But I also think that that doesn't mean the game is fun nor in a good place. So maybe Killers are only guilty of the exact thing they accuse Survivors of—being too caught in their feelings with the game. Maybe they still get the 3 or 4k often enough, but the path to getting there feels like they're having to fight for it and that's not fun for them.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4016439#Comment_4016439
I'm tempted by the swimsuit but it looks too much like a ken doll in a diaper 😭
This right here. I feel this is such an important aspect that isn’t talked about enough. It’s almost as if many feel that if they were to admit that killer is the stronger, more successful role, then that means that the role is fine and doesn’t need help. 2 things can absolutely be true at once. Killer can still win more then they lose but also still not enjoy the role in its current state. And in the same way, survivor can still lose more than they win and still not enjoy the role in its current state. I feel when people try to deny these actual statistical facts, because of a possible fear of their feelings of dissatisfaction being invalidated, that it’s how things turn so seemingly personal, and those get stuck in a constant cycle of denial, tribalism, and some kind of a battle of “my problems are real but yours aren’t.”
-
If the killer was replaced with a bot, the same way a survivor is replaced with a bot, then I am all for it. If the game just ends, throwing everyone into an end game screen regardless of what they were doing, or where they were, etc. then I disagree. If the same thing happened regardless of who DC's, then I think it would be great, but the same thing doesn't happen, so i don't think it's fair or accurate to say they're the same thing.
-
I stopped bringing items awhile ago when I played a lot. I typically find that if the entire survivor team has items, the killer plays much sweatier. There’s no way to tell if my toolbox is a basic or if it has a BNP, so people always assume the worst. It’s like having something in my pocket and someone thinking it’s a weapon so they attack me before I attack them, when it was a banana the whole time. So I stopped bringing stuff in my pockets.
-
Regardless of what individual opinions are about whether the current survivor quality of life is genuinely good or genuinely bad, this DC/Go Next epidemic is still ongoing and has been for months, and should be seen as a red flag for the overall health of the game. Burnout is evident, unhappiness with the role is evident, and hopefully it changes because this isn't good for either role or the game in general.
(edit: forgot a word) -
I’ve been advocating for this exact thing for a very very long time. I’ve gotten into several long discussions about it with many people, and every survey BHVR gives out I always include it in the last part, where they let you type whatever.
Unfortunately it’s been crickets about this. Truly disappointing, as I do not think it’s unreasonable for both roles to have access to the same learning tools and resources. I feel those that have an issue with this kind of implementation just… want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing. There’s no reason why this shouldn’t be in the game for survivors the same way it’s already been in the game for killers.
Honestly if they finally did add them in the game, it would bring me back. All we can do is hope.
-
@Monlyth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4008785#Comment_4008785
I'd argue that Nurse actually is pretty easy- what makes her "difficult" is that her power is so far removed from how the other Killers play that it's almost like playing a different role entirely. So you're essentially relearning the role from scratch. She also lacks the ability to use M1 as a crutch, so you will invariably lose your first several games with her.
Like, if you were to take one new player and have them start by learning Nurse, and take another new player and have them start by playing the usual noob-friendly Killers (Doctor, Wraith), I think they'd master their respective Killers at roughly the same rate.
Nurse's chase mechanics are arguably less complex than even a powerless M1 Killer. Pallets? Windows? Walls? Looping? All next to useless against Nurse. Pretty much the only thing she has to worry about is tracking Survivors, judging Blink distances and predicting Survivor movements.
Sorry, to be honest I forgot about this thread and to reply. Apologies! And if you no longer want to discuss this anymore due to how long it's been, I understand. I got a ping from another person who brought me back here and realized I never responded to your message so I wanted to apologize and offer a response, feel free to ignore or interact.
So, looking at my last message I was trying to figure out if you feel that mechanical difficulty should be the only thing that matters, so to speak, and if it's why you believe there is no skill in survivor most of the time, because of how many buttons you may press or how often you are physically moving your character. I brought Nurse as an example to show that just because she is not mechanically demanding by you requiring to press many buttons or even move around barriers etc. that it doesn't mean she is weak or that there is no skill to play her.
I guess I'm a little unclear about your stance here and how it relates back to our discussion. When you say she is easy, are you disagreeing with my point about how takes skill to play? Or when you say she is easy, are you agreeing that mechanically yes, her controls are relatively easy. -
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4008785#Comment_4008785
Nurse ranks highly on tier lists, becuse the tier lists are assuming the killers are magically playing 100% perfectly. And if someone magically plays Nurse 100% perfectly, and perfectly predicts, aims, and times all her blinks, then all her chases will end super fast. The actual issue is reality doesn’t work like that, and there are so many opportunities to mess up while playing Nurse, that she very often doesn’t actually perform that well in reality.
Admittedly, I have forgotten about this thread. Apologies!
In reply to your comment, I don't think I agree. I believe she is high on tier lists (not that tier lists are everything) because she's strong, not because she's actually really weak and only strong if you play without making mistakes. I would argue any killer would be strong if you play without making mistakes. The less mistakes you make the higher the reward, and that's not restricted to Nurse alone, in my opinion. -
@Monlyth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4008685#Comment_4008685
If you're asking me what I would consider to be a correct and flawless argument that Survivor is the harder role, that's entirely hypothetical since I don't believe Survivor is the harder role. If I believed there were a correct and flawless argument in favor of Survivor being the harder role, I would be arguing that Survivor is the harder role.
Hooking is a pretty negligible part of playing Killer, especially compared to doing gens. In a 12-hook game, the Killer will spend, at most, 192 seconds carrying Survivors to hooks. Usually far less because it usually doesn't take the entire wiggle timer for the Killer to reach the hook. Whereas a Survivor can easily spend 270 seconds or more just doing gens in a single game. Not to mention healing and opening exit gates, which is similarly monotonous.
And I disagree; anything in the game which requires you to move will almost certainly be more skillful than something that doesn't. Being able to navigate a map and its terrain efficiently and effectively is a big part of what separates decent players from great ones, not to mention being able to do so while keeping an eye out for the opposing team and keeping track of all the other pertinent information for your role.
And if we're gonna be talking about high MMR, there's an elephant in the room- 4 man SWFs. Their 48.2% escape rate is way out of line with BHVR's target of 40%. And imagine how high it might be if you factored out high-tier Killers.
As for how to measure a role's difficulty, well, why do we consider Legion, Wraith and Bubba to be easy Killers? There's no statistics that show this; at best, you can make inferences from their kill rates. But nonetheless, it is generally accepted that these Killers are easy to play. Why?
Well, generally speaking, it comes down to ease of mechanics. What all of those Killers have in common are powers that are easy to learn, easy to understand and not very difficult to master. With Legion, you just press M2, vault over anything the Survivor puts in your way, and run them down. With Wraith, you cloak when you're out of chase and decloak while in chase. With Bubba, you press M2 when the Survivor is close enough and can't vault a window in time. There's a bit more nuance to all those powers, of course, but not much. The challenge of playing them at high levels mostly comes from trying to squeeze value out of such an inherently basic and limited kit.
Survivor's tools, for the most part, are similarly basic and barebones. There's basic movement, vaulting, pallets, doing gens, healing… and that's about it. Survivor's kit is almost akin to an M1 Killer with no power in terms of its simplicity.
Thanks for going into more depth. I think this comes back to definitions, because it seems like we’re working with different understandings of what “difficulty” means. I think if we’re both on the same page with that, it will help us figure out how to move forward. From your points in our discussion, it feels like you’re defining difficulty almost entirely in terms of mechanical complexity, like how many buttons are pressed, how often you move, how much action per second is required.
If that’s your definition, then yes, I can agree that the core of survivor mechanics are simple. But then doesn’t that apply to many killers as well? And even so, do you feel that mechanically simple is all that dictates skill or difficulty? Some killers like Nurse are less mechanically complex than others. Blinking and swinging involves fewer “button presses” than, say, Vecna managing spell rotation, yet Nurse is widely considered the strongest and one of the hardest to play well. Why? Because her difficulty doesn’t come from the physical act of pressing buttons, but from knowledge, precision, and timing of when to press those buttons. Just like looping. Nurse doesn’t even have to worry about walls to move around, or crossing pallets, or windows, but just because she requires less mechanical input does not mean she is not difficult to learn, or difficult to be good at.
That’s why I don’t agree that mechanical inputs alone can define difficulty. Otherwise we’d be saying Nurse is easy because she has fewer buttons to press, or that carpentry is easy because hammering a nail is mechanically simple, or that chess is easy because moving a pawn is mechanically simple. In all those cases, the real difficulty comes from what surrounds those simple mechanics, knowledge, judgment, and application. And I feel it’s disingenuous to disregard those things in regards to survivor gameplay and the impact it has in difficulty.
So I guess the question I’d bring back to you is: if mechanical inputs alone define difficulty, then why isn’t Nurse considered one of the easiest killers in the game? And if you agree she isn’t, then doesn’t that show that mechanical simplicity doesn’t necessarily equal low difficulty? What do you define difficulty as?
-
@Monlyth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4008461#Comment_4008461
Well, to start, please do not misrepresent what I said.
I used the Cookie Clicker comparison in the context of doing gens. Of course Survivor as a role consists of more than just holding M1 at a generator, but the act of holding M1 at a generator, in and of itself, is not significantly more complex than playing Cookie Clicker.
Could I have specified that? Maybe. But given the way people have engaged with me thus far, I get the impression that people will still misunderstand or misrepresent what I've said no matter painstakingly and thoroughly I try to convey my exact meaning.
Escape rate statistics are a stronger argument, but if you'll look back through the thread, I already explained why that line of thinking is flawed; it's possible for a game to both be easy and have you lose frequently. Otherwise, we could call slot machines "difficult" games because the odds of winning are stacked against you. That seems to be part of how the conversation went off the rails, because people simply refused to concede that point.
Another stronger argument is pointing out Survivors' performance at higher skill levels, but again, I already pointed out the flaws in that line of thinking; a character with a low skill floor and low skill cap like Wraith, Legion or Bubba requires a LOT of skill to do well with at high levels- does that mean they are difficult Killers? And if they are, then what does an "easy" Killer look like? Which is another reason I feel comfortable in saying Survivor is the easier role.
Which is why I started to get the impression that people were not arguing with me in good faith. When their best arguments were put down, people began resorting to more ridiculous arguments like "Doing gens is as hard as anything Killer does".
I appreciate the clarification, and I’m sorry for the misrepresentation, it was unintentional. I think this circles back to what I asked earlier about how you may view disagreement.
You’ve said escape rates are flawed, and high level performance is flawed. I understand that’s your opinion, so you have every right to argue that, but then what would count as a fair argument for the other side?
On the slot machine analogy, I don’t think that’s a fair comparison. Slot machines are entirely RNGbased, no matter how much you practice, you cannot change the outcome. Survivor by contrast, has many skill dependent factors: looping, resource management, decision making, teamwork, and map, perk, killer knowledge. Even “doing gens” isn’t just holding M1. Which gens you work, how you respond to killer pressure, when you reset vs. push the objective, and how you adapt to perks like Pain Res or Pop are all skill expressions.
I’d agree the physical act of holding M1 isn’t difficult, in the same way that putting a survivor on a hook isn’t physically difficult. But as with hooks, it’s the choices around which gen or which hook, and how those choices impact the match, that reflect skill. It’s closer to chess, I feel. moving a piece itself is easy, there’s no skill involved in literally picking it up, but which piece and which move you choose determines the depth of play. And that is skill.
On difficulty, I think escape and kill rates are a fair metric, because difficulty is generally tied to how hard success is to achieve. BHVR has openly said they want killer to be the “power role” with a higher success rate than survivor. By definition, if killers are expected to succeed more often, then it needs be harder for survivors to succeed. I typically don’t like to describe one role as “harder,” because both roles are hard in different ways, but I will say that it is harder to achieve success in one role than the other, which is still a measure of difficulty.
High MMR adds another layer. I 100% believe it shouldn’t be the only metric people care about or used as a benchmark of balance, since it represents a small percentage of players, but it is useful for showing the ceiling of what’s possible when both roles are played optimally. At this level, randomness is minimized. both sides know maps, perks, and resource management inside and out. If killer still consistently secures more success even when survivor is playing just as optimally, that suggests survivor simply cannot achieve equal results under the best conditions. That’s a valid indicator of relative difficulty.
It’s like if two runners have the same lung capacity, training, and skill, but one starts the race three meters behind the other. Even though they’re equally skilled, the runner starting behind has to work harder to achieve the same result. That structural disadvantage is what makes their path to success more difficult. And DBD has that structural disadvantage for survivor players in order to maintain killer in the power role (a structural decision I personally agree with).
Taken together, population wide escape/kill rates show the baseline challenge, while highMMR outcomes show the ceiling of challenge. Both are necessary for a complete picture, and dismissing either or only looking at one, makes it very hard to measure difficulty in any objective way.And so I ask, if we’re not able to rely on statistical data of the highest level to gauge difficulty, nor the average across thousands of matches in all MMR, and we obviously can’t rely on personal opinions or personal experiences, then how can we measure difficulty for either role?
-
@Monlyth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4008393#Comment_4008393
You're confusing disagreement with dishonesty.
It'd be one thing if people were honestly engaging with my points, but when people make flatly ridiculous arguments like "Doing gens is just as difficult as anything Killer does", that is a red flag that they are not arguing in good faith.
And there's no room for good faith discussion with someone who isn't arguing in good faith. It takes two to tango. I can't have a reasonable discussion if I'm not talking to a reasonable person. And I can't beat someone with kindness if they don't value kindness.
So all that's left is to either leave the discussion entirely or call them out for bad behavior by accurately describing what they're doing.
I think I may understand what you’re saying, but here’s where I think the issue lies. It feels like you’re equating “arguments I think are ridiculous” with “arguments made in bad faith.” That’s not always the same thing. You may disagree strongly with other perspective, but that doesn’t mean they’re being dishonest or trolls.
To better understand your perspective, let me ask: Let’s say my position is the opposite of yours, that I genuinely believe survivor takes more skill than cookie clicker. How could I explain that view in a way you would accept as good faith? What would separate me, in your eyes, from someone you’d dismiss as dishonest or trolling?
Right now the way most of your comments come across feels like the only arguments you’ll consider “reasonable” are the ones that don’t directly conflict with your own. That kind of implication makes it feel pointless or impossible to have a productive discussion, since any perspective that challenges yours can just be written off as bad faith.
I’d really appreciate you helping me understand the best way to communicate these disagreements in a way that feels respectful, honest, and receptive for both perspectives.
-
@Monlyth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4008369#Comment_4008369
When someone's being toxic, I call it out. This forum's become bloated with trolls who argue in bad faith constantly and then get mad at you when you point it out. People have gotten way too comfortable saying things on the internet that would get them punched in the face in real life.
Polite discussion with such people normalizes them. How bad could they be if you aren't treating them as though they are behaving badly?
Genuinely, can you explain who you believe is being toxic here and why? Who are the “bad faith trolls” and what exactly has been said in this discussion that you think warrants “a punch in the face in real life” ?
Disagreeing with your opinion isn’t the same as being toxic. At the same time, you’ve said there’s no skill involved in an entire role and compared it to cookie clicker. Can you see how that kind of language could come across as dismissive or offensive? The tone you’re accusing others of using is very similar to what you’re doing yourself.
If every disagreement is framed as “I’m just stating facts and anyone who disagrees is toxic or biased,” then there’s no room for good faith discussion at all. How do you expect conversations to move forward if other players experiences or perspectives are automatically invalidated if they don’t match your own?
-
@Monlyth said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4007987#Comment_4007987
Saying "artificial difficulty is still difficulty" is twisting the definition of "difficulty" to be almost meaningless. Again, by that definition, playing a slot machine is difficult.
Survivor takes skill to win in the same sense that killers like Cannibal, Legion, and Wraith take skill to win with.
Most of Survivor's basekit abilities are easy to learn and not very difficult to master. Again, 70% of Survivor gameplay is literally just going from Point A to Point B and holding M1.
The challenge of playing Survivor (Much like playing an easy-but-weak Killer) at higher skill levels mostly comes from working around the built-in limitations in their kit and squeezing out little advantages from the few places that do allow skill expression. Doing gens and healing takes roughly the same amount of time whether you're a new player who's just learned to hit skill checks or a tournament-level Survivor. So the main difference between a good and average Survivor is the other 30%- running the Killer, doing saves, doing bodyblocks.
So which is more difficult- a role that needs to play skillfully roughly 30% of the time, or a role that needs to play skillfully roughly 80-90% of the time? Because about the only time a Killer doesn't need to be expressing their skill in some way is when they're carrying a Survivor to the hook, downing someone out in the open, or camping the hook during the endgame.
There's almost always decisions to be made- where to patrol, who to chase, how to run a loop, how to use your power, when to lunge, whether to break or leave a pallet, whether to slug or hook somebody, whether to proxy camp or commit to a new chase, whether to kick a generator or keep moving, whether to tunnel or spread hooks, whether to leave a Survivor with an injury or commit to a down, whether to hit a bodyblocker or try to path around them. And the answer to all of those questions will vary depending on the circumstances the Killer finds themself in.
A Killer easily makes hundreds of little decisions in real time throughout a match, at almost every stage of the game. Whereas a Survivor, for a significant percentage of the match, will be doing nothing but holding M1, keeping an eye out for the Killer, and keeping an eye on their HUD. There's no real decisions to be made, apart from planning your next move after your current task is done.
Saying the latter is more difficult is patently ridiculous.
Hello! 👋 I’m not the original person you replied to and I don’t believe we’ve ever conversed before. Nice to meet you.
I’m just hoping for some clarification on what you mean here, to ensure I’m not misunderstanding. Are you saying that the survivor role is only difficult 30% of the time, and that 70% there is no skill involved? -
Plenty of people wanted those changes to stay just long enough to gather data and adjust further. Tunneling and slugging have been survivors biggest pain points for 9 years , so when BHVR finally acknowledged it (and even admitted in a stream that survivors haven’t gotten much lately) players were excited. A new item, a long-requested QOL update, it was finally something fresh for the role.
But then: the fog vial item was nerfed twice in barely a week, the QOL system pulled after two days in PTB, an anti-tunnel tool nerfed, and a killer released who’s not only extremely strong but also the best tunneler in the game.
Do I think the devs are secretly plotting against survivors? No. I don’t think they genuinely want either role to suffer. But the decisions lately create the appearance of a double standard. Survivors are expected and told to “adapt” to killers like Ghoul, Clown, or Glitchtrap regardless of the unhealthy states for weeks, adapt to bugs or overtuned mechanics, but fog vials and the PTB were pulled almost instantly. Ghoul’s “kidnap tech” assumed by most to be a bug because of how strong it was, was declared intentional and left in for ages.
I feel many of the criticisms about the AFK prevention system and the anti-tunnel PTB were very similar. The original 9.0.0 AFK system was very harsh, but it made it out of PTB. Got pulled once people were getting actual penalties for things beyond their control. 9.0.1 adjustments were made and it’s back in the game. The system is still flagging some people with suspicious activity just for going down too fast, and many people are still unhappy with how lenient they feel the system to be, but at least there’s some effort being made there. The system is still in the game. It’s being monitored and tweaked and may see some continued changes. As of now, the anti-tunnel PTB has not been treated equally. Those two systems were not given the same grace, even if one was giving out actual penalties to undeserving players.
That’s the frustration: it comes across as though there are two separate standards for what each role should be expected to adapt to. And yes, many killers also need QOL, and they’ve been consistently buffed or reworked for months which is a good thing. Even if people dislike some of those changes or reworks, an effort is consistently being made. Survivors were excited to finally see that same effort, but it was cut short almost immediately.
Now people are burned out, queues are bad, and survivor frustration keeps mounting. Even if you push all this aside, it’s not too surprising people are still upset when on top of being told to just adapt they are also called incompetent and entitled for even wanting changes in the first place.
I truly hope that the system will come back soon, with the necessary changes and tweaks. But as of now it’s in “indefinite” territory, which any SM main will tell you is a truly disappointing place to be.
-
I haven’t played since the fog vials.
-
Prioritizing mental health is an absolute must! Sometimes it's easy to get so wrapped up in passion about the game that we forget to take step away from the screen. I'm sorry it's caused you some grief, I myself have experienced it in the past and also had to step away. It's totally normal.
This may seem unimportant or strange but just know there is a human reading your thoughts and experiences and I empathize with you. And that regardless of what we may disagree or agree with in this silly game, I will always empathize because I'm a person and you're a person and I never like hearing that people have been unkind.
I hope Houndmaster gets some love ASAP. Cheers! <3
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4007112#Comment_4007112
Its because a lot of the survivors have the mentality that if they dont win, the whole game was unfun (even tho it happned in the past at the point they die) but if they win, the game was fun.
I dont need to win to have fun, but if i had fun i do consider it a win, i dont care if i die.
And wow, 11 down votes for saying im having fun 😂😂😂
I don’t think people are downvoting you for saying you enjoy survivor, liking the game you’re playing is a good thing. I believe the issue is more where and how you said it.
The OP clearly titled their post about struggling with survivor and questioning if there’s even a point to playing. Dropping in with “I’m having fun” reads as dismissive, because it directly opposes their point without actually engaging with it. Its kind of like if someone vented about being frustrated with a dairy allergy, and the reply was “well I love dairy.” It doesn’t add anything constructive, it just comes across like writing off their frustration. ( I am allergic to dairy and I can't tell you how many times I say that i can't have something because of it and i'm bummed and the person follows up with: OMG i would kill myself if i couldnt eat cheese!! And I.. well what am I supposed to say to that lol it just makes me feel worse. )
Enjoying survivor isn’t the problem. I think it's that your comment didn’t contribute beyond a declaration that you don’t share their struggles. If instead you’d framed it as “here are some of the things that make survivor fun for me, maybe they could help” that would have been constructive and I doubt it would receive as much negative reactions.
In your follow-up, you leaned into a personal generalization, saying a lot of survivors only think the game is fun if they win. In the context of a post about survivor fatigue, it’s like dismissing others frustrations (including OP) as invalid because they don’t think the way you do, and assuming that the only reason they are unhappy is because they only find joy in winning, which again, is a generalization.
I’m not accusing you of intentionally invalidating like this, I know how text can be really difficult to pull tone out of, so I’m just trying to explain the way it might have come across and why it may have got the reactions it did.
It's cool you’re enjoying the role, GLIYN :)
-
@Munky said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4006382#Comment_4006382
The only thing I notice is that a majority of survivors just stopped wanting to learn how to loop. It is not just a fatigue to the system, I can tell by the way they run the loops (wrong), then they get hit and then they go afk/dc. Whether you play nurse or trapper does not matter, they will dc cause for some reason they feel wronged.
That’s kind of what I mean though. Dismissing it as “survivors just don’t loop right” is exactly the pattern I was pointing out: admit solo is bad —> immediately blame survivors for being in that bad state —> then insist the role doesn’t actually need changes. It’s like saying that trapper is weak, but it’s the killer players fault for Trapper being weak, and that he needs to stay in the state he’s in because some people can be really successful with trapper so he shouldn’t be changed.
What strikes me as odd is how the conversation often goes: “Yes, the majority of survivors are unhappy, yes DC/AFK are spiking higher than ever… BUT that doesn’t mean there are issues with the role, it just means survivors all refuse to learn and suck.”
I’m not saying every DC is justified, but writing this several month long issue as survivors being lazy or bad overlooks the broader issue. when a role feels unrewarding, burnout is inevitable.
-
It’s burnout/survivor fatigue that’s been dismissed or written off pretty consistently.
I’m not accusing you of this, but even some of the wording in your post reflects a common tone in the community, that survivors DC/AFK simply because they’re unreasonable, not as a red flag that something could be wrong.
Majority of people will always admit that yes, Solo is awful. This is how that conversation usually goes: “Yes, solo q is in the gutter… BUT survivors just suck. BUT SWF is too strong. BUT survivors are entitled.” It’s always an admission that solo Q is bad —> immediately followed by blaming survivors for it being in that bad state—> and then insisting it should stay that way. Typically using SWF as a reason for that , despite that SWF are not majority of the role. People will use that small percentage of SWF as a standard for survivor balance, while simultaneously admitting that Nurse, should NOT be a standard for killer balance, even though both Nurse and SWF are outliers.
Before the big shift, killers were rightfully unhappy with their role too. queue times were bad, the role felt unrewarding and unfair, and thankfully those concerns weren’t dismissed. They were addressed, the game changed, and the pendulum swung hard in the other direction. Now survivors are the ones burning out, but instead of acknowledging that unhappiness, it’s often dismissed as laziness or incompetence.Whatever your personal view on balance, the symptom is clear: survivor burnout/fatigue is real. You can argue whether it’s the result of game design or player mindset, but they way it’s been consistently written off ignores what’s happening to a huge portion of the community, and we’re seeing the effects of that even more then we were when this whole go-next epidemic started.