Home Discussions General Discussions

Does BHVR have a survivor bias, in your opinion?

2»

Comments

  • FredKruegerFredKrueger Member Posts: 265

    Just check the patches everytime they come out. Seems like survivors get a lil stronger, while killers get weaker. The facts don't lie.

  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Member Posts: 636

    Because whilst you make a list you think is important, someone with the opposing view can make another list which they think is important. What reason would there be to claim your list would be more significant than theirs?

    Back in 2017, someone started a thread on the Steam forum listing 'all nerfs to survivor since release' and it was ridiculed for the very-loose definition of 'nerf' that had to be implied to include many of the things on it. In response, another thread was started listing 'all nerfs to killer since release' and a point was made of using the exact same standards established by the original thread. The killer list though dwarfed the survivor one and survivors gave up maintaining their list not long after. The creator of the killer nerf list still updates it.

    Depending on your standards, that is quantative and qualitative proof that the game is very much not better for killers. Changes to the game do not happen in a vaccum; a list cherry-picking changes which nominally benefit killers ignore changes that are inconvenient and maybe cancel-out other changes.

  • LancerCainLancerCain Member Posts: 41

    I don't fully blame devs on this. From a lot I've seen on reddit, even supposed killer mains like the things the way they are.

    I gave a suggestion on how to stop looping (A perk where the killer smashes the pallet after passsing next to it for a second time on a chase), and it was too OP according to everybody, since when looping passed from being a braindead uncounterable exploit that Devs actually said they wanted to fix to being the only way survivors could survive?

    Making killers whose ability is to make survivors lose time, even with the pig, the only killer that actually makes survivors lose time, it is a mediocre ability at best, no killer based on making survivors lose time has been good But then again the community said things are good the way they are, they love making survivors lose 8 seconds of time. Old Freddy? Crap, old doctor? Crap, Pig? She actually gains some time, but still not enough, Legion? Crap (the mending mechanic)

    And let's face it, even there they don't want to go further, Pigs traps would be hell better if they actually posed a threat, let's say they only lasted 40 seconds you'd force survivors to stop completing gens unless they wanted their numbers to be reduced stupidly fast.

    In a 4 vs 1 game, the 4 players are supposed to be a team if they want to survive , which leads me to:

    In a 4 vs 1 game if you want to make it balanced the 4 players should be forced to play as a team if they want to stand a chance against the lone killer. But they don't want to depend on anyone for that, so what if a trap could kill you if you are playing with an [BAD WORD]? most of the time it won't happen, because it would most likely screw them over as well.

    But no, survivors want to be in control of everything, which makes the killer powerless against a team that makes no mistakes. they don't want RNG or bad teammates to affect them. but on the other hand as a killer you'll be victim of it a lot of times.

    Also they want things to be balanced in a 1 vs 1 scenario. Just look at how many people wanted we are going to live forever the same as BBQ and chilli, or how many survivors perks we got that counter a killer's or even their powers. when in reality the fact that you have 16 perks as survivors should mean that they are the weak ones. But if they had a perk that for example gave survivors the exhausted status, they would cry OP even when the exhaustion perks are quite OP.


    They give them tools that are just plain overkill. Toolboxes? Prove thyself? Leader? as if gen repair speed wasn't stupidly fast enough already.


    In short they are afraid of making survivors actually be weaker than the killer so they have to rely on each other "We have to work as a team, I need you to survive so that I can survive!" Sorry Dwight, everyone wants to be on their own, unless they team up to be actually OP.

  • VampyVampy Member Posts: 67

    so many really good points in this thread.. I'm glad I'm not the only one who notices some of this stuff.. as a lot more experienced longer term players are better able to vocalize what I was trying to say.

    I still very much enjoy this game, and since I've started back have dropped a couple hundred dollars to BHVR in hopes that they do have the future in mind...

    Ill probably try survivor when we get dedicated servers, DCs suck for everybody and I'd rather wait until them i suppose

  • Mister_HoldoutMister_Holdout Member Posts: 2,617

    Yes.

  • feechimafeechima Member Posts: 573

    You completely missed my point. I'm not saying that the game is Killer-sided. The OP is saying its survivor-sided. I'm pointing out at list of my own to counter his list of changes that have been made that dramatically increased the quality of gameplay for killers. I'm saying that they are attempting to balance the game which means nerfs and buffs on both sides. And many killer mains from when the game first came out have said that it is much easier than it once was. The game will 'NEVER' be balanced because it is only balanced in the personal opinions of the players which will not all agree.

  • katoptriskatoptris Member Posts: 1,262

    Nah doubt it considering they Nerf both MOM and DS. Haven't seen those two in awhile. Even then they made Claudette more noticeable with cosmetics. Killers need to stop having gauges for their power.

  • HazeHoundHazeHound Member Posts: 813

    Game was, is and always will be unbalanced in favour of survivors. There are 2 reasons for this:

    In team of 4 its common thing to find at least potato. Good killers can easly steamroll by abusing weakest link.

    We need more survivors than killers.

    Game is in the closest to balanced state it ever was and for this i'm grateful. Its swf that breaks the game (you get info you would only get by sacrificing perk slots, huge factor in game about deciding to go for save or rush gens). I think killers should see swf, so they can grab stronger gear. In the same time dodging should result in longer and longer queue times (this would solve both sniping and dodging).

  • ArecBalrinArecBalrin Member Posts: 636

    Well I didn't say you said the game was killer-sided; you missed MY point, which was that people making lists of things, whatever they think, does not mean anything. I should have probably done more though to distinguish that point from my disagreement with your suggestion that the game has got better for killers along the lines of the list you made.

  • Captain_DoomsdayCaptain_Doomsday Member Posts: 175

    That's painful, but accurate. Though I would argue that Survivor mains so toxic they only play to win and only consider it a win when they survive are a burden on the game, the counter-arguement would be money, with this $20 game selling DLC like it's on mobile. And also coming to mobile.

    Whether it's a direct disdain for the Killer role or just trying to appease an entitled playerbase, though, there is DEFINITELY a Survivor bias in the game.

  • DathroDathro Member Posts: 29
    edited July 2019

    Killers get nerfed constantly, and survivors just kinda.. slowly become the gods they are...

    This just isn't true at all. Go look at the entire game's history of patch notes and say that. Survs started super overpowered, like actually one of the silliest balances you can imagine in an asymmetrical game, and gradually over the past... I'd say 1 year, they've been nerfed quite a bit more than Killers.

    If you think Survs started out weaker and have gradually become as strong as they are now, you probably weren't playing since launch.

    The Heal nerf in particular was really big.

    We have seen a Killer or two ascend from being a trash Killer to in a much better place. I would argue this happened with Spirit, Hag, and to a much lesser extent, Trapper & Wraith (even Ghostface compared to his PTB). With the exception of Freddy, we have never seen a truly great Killer be nerfed into oblivion (most of them started there).

    Yes Pig, Legion, Doctor, Clown have been nerfed for no good reason. But the truth is they weren't exactly very good Killers to start with, these changes didn't destroy them, just made them even slightly less relevant.

    Broadly speaking, I don't want to have a discussion with anyone who does not first agree that balance has improved since launch. Those people just don't grasp the facts. It's not worth talking to them.

    But to answer your question, I think it's less about bias and more about a lack of understanding their own game. Consider that the devs are actually pretty casual. You can watch them stream, you know. They do things that demonstrate they lack critical knowledge of how to play the game.

    Now ask yourself, how does the game balance look at 1) the lowest level of play, 2) the middle level of play, and 3) the high level of play?

    1) Killer favored 2) highly unpredictable and 3) Surv favored, in that order.

    That's the answer to your question. Where they're standing, Killers look rather strong. They don't know what it's like at high levels. They hear about it, but they don't know first-hand. They don't know the specific reasons.

    It's also that they have no interest in balancing around high level play. They know where their bread is buttered. If you want to give them no benefit of the doubt, there's a vested interest in being Surv-biased since there's a 4:1 ratio in any game. If there will be a bias for selfish reasons, it'd be due to that.

Sign In or Register to comment.