Why statistics for kill/survival at red/all ranks should be taken with the smallest grain of salt.
It's no secret that we're heading down a series of nerfs for some of the most powerful killers. Nurse, while not complete garbage, has received a drastic basekit nerf making her less effective in multiple areas such as map pressure and chase. Depending on the map, you straight up aren't going to have a chance (looking at you Hawkins). Now with the developers stating that the Spirit is "overperforming" we are bound to be seeing some kind of "slight change" to her as well.
My main issue is where they derive their statistics from.
Firstly, rank by no means is correlated with skill beyond a certain point. Good and great players are not distinguished by the ranking system. Some examples are rushing generators as survivor so fast and escaping can lead to a black pip even if your entire team or 3/4 of your team escapes. You completed your objective as efficiently as possible and escaped, you should be rewarded accordingly. Another strong example is with Plague players.
It is a fact that the ultimate goal of playing killer is to sacrifice as many survivors as possible. Since the ranking system wants you to have plentiful chases and many hooks. Plague fails to gain chaser at a good rate due to her power removing half of her chances to achieve score events in chaser (aka hitting a survivor who's healthy then hitting them again). Instead of grading the results of the player, they grade what they do in the match.
Given sacrificing as many players as possible is the main goal as killer (which actually was made to be the killer's goal in a previous ranking system called the victory cube, where you were awarded by how many survivors you sacrificed.) who is the better killer? (Given variables such as map generation, killer played, and survivor's skill is the same.}
A: A killer who 4k's with comparatively more hooks than killer B.
B: A killer who 4k's with comparatively less hooks than killer A.
Killer B of course! He did his job more efficiently than killer A. This should be rewarded! Not only did he do his job by sacrificing all survivors, he did it efficiently! That could be an idea for what constitutes a double pip.
You see, when you have a ranking system that doesn't award you for doing your objective in the best and most efficient way possible, you end up with people with little skill mixed in with the people with great skill. This is why a killer like Wraith without addons can secure a 4k at R1. It's because the players were bad. Ordinarily, a Wraith would stand no chance of getting more than 1 sacrifice on a regular map (Macmillan, Autohaven, Coldwind) due to survivor's being able to delay being downed for so long that he simply doesn't have enough time to deal with all four of them. This is why statistics even at red ranks just don't represent actual real-world results. You get people who gain the highest rank in the game believe they are on the top of the food chain, when in fact their gap in skill between others in their rank is vast. Some believe that since they achieved the top rank, they don't have to change anything about their playstyle because it's what brought them to the highest rank in the game. This leads to obvious problems where people refuse to adapt to new mechanics or alternate strategies they were not actively trying to counter and just simply stay stagnant.
Until a ranking system that gives a clear objective for both sides arises (Sacrificing survivors for killers, making as many people escape as possible for the survivors because you are a team, and the team either wins or loses) then these statistics should be looked at with a grain of salt.
P.S. This is not a discussion about balance, this is a discussion about the ranking system. If the ranking system was changed, of course balancing for that system would have to be put in place. Let's try to keep the topic on why the ranking system is bad , as well as why statistics don't make a difference even at R1.
TLDR: Ranking does not indicate skill beyond bad to mediocre. Statistics derived from red ranks shouldn't be held as evidence for balance changes.
Comments
-
Killer A is the better killer.
Everyone can proxycamp for easy kills. Its what every noob do, what your instincts are, when you know nothing about the game. Applying map pressure and patrolling gens while still 4k'ing takes experience and bravery to leave the hook.
3 -
Just because he said fewer hooks, doesnt mean he ment camping. Heres a screenshot I took where I 4ked and ended a game in roughly 2 minutes as OG Freddy. As you can see from the Chaser points, I didnt camp (it wouldve shown up in red text if I was too close to the hook). I had a real nice snowball right away, and ended the game with a total of 5 hooks (no mori).
0 -
They don't the look over the whole userbase and the argument you presented is saying that's the right thing to do 😉.
The devs have the means to break down many stats but it's not just about one a killer doesn't overperform just with kills or the Nurse would gave been changed a long time ago.
Kills over all players.
Length of chases.
How often players lose her.
Hits when using a power.
Gen speed versus her.
How these all change with certain perks.
To name but a few stats.
0 -
That's an argument. Sometimes survivors mess up so bad, you don't get to hook everyone 3 times. I didn't look at it this way.
0 -
The Rank doesn’t equal skill meme is just so stupid. If you really think you’re going to consistently 4K Rank 1 survivors with no perks Wraith because they’re potatoes, you’re delusional. It’s a stupid, hyperbolic example. Yeah, some Rank 1 players potato every once in a while. Most, though, are actually the best players in the game. I don’t know why that’s so hard for everyone to admit.
That said, you’re not wrong about Rank 1 stats being all that matter. When was this ever even implied? I would imagine the devs look at performance across the entire player base when they’re considering balance changes.
4 -
I never said that you will consistently 4k with wraith with no addons (and I said addons, not no perks) but the fact you can says a lot. The reason I bring up rank being considered as what's most considered is because it's the only official metric they have to judge player "skill." That's the whole point. To get ranking to show actual player skill, not a subset of actions that have nothing to do with your actual objective.
1 -
So why do something that is more risky to get the same result? BP of course, but if we completely disregard that, why are you putting yourself in a handicap? A killer who does everything in their power bar hacking/exploiting to do their objective, which is sacrificing as many people as possible, is better than someone who takes the long way to reach the same goal.
Would you rather mow your lawn with a hedge trimmer or an actual mower?
0 -
The statistics are also skewed by people DCing or killing themselves on hook, it’s no wonder some seem to be ‘overperforming’ when players aren’t even trying to survive.
0 -
That's completely understandable, and what I'm trying to get at is that we need a ranking system that represents a players actual objective. Balancing around that would lead to more of a clear idea on what exactly needs to be done about x issue. That's my opinion of course, but as it is now you're punished for doing your objective too efficiently.
0 -
Why should it be balanced for Red Rank Survivors (like many say), but not for Red Rank Killers?
0 -
Sorry I misunderstood the Wraith example.
I see survivors getting 3-4 escapes with no items regularly. By the same logic, doesn’t that mean that all the Rank 1 killers are actually potatoes? I disagree that performance without add ons or items actually has much relevance.
Rank does correlate to skill. It’s a dumb DBD community meme to say it doesn’t. There are regular posts here about how ‘unfun’ it is to play a red ranks. You know why that is? Both sides play more efficiently. Killers know how to leverage their powers. Survivors know their loops and pallet spawns. The higher ranks are home to the better players.
0 -
Balance and rank really shouldn't be put in the same sentence with how the current emblem system works. The thing is that people want to balance for "casual play." This in itself is a faulty way of going about balancing a game, because you'll have to pick and choose what is bad and what is good based on people's feelings, not skill. If we made the ranking system actually count for the objective, that means we can balance between the highest skilled players, which are players that do their objective as efficiently as possible. There's more steps to it, but that's the general idea I want to get across.
0 -
Again you're misunderstanding me. I never said that rank doesn't at all correlate to skill. What I am saying is that rank only correlates to skill to a certain point. Beyond simply "good at the game" the ranking system has no means to differentiate between the very skilled and the simply good. That's my issue. Red ranks are crowded with players that aren't the most skilled in the game. That's why I bring up the possibility to 4k with Wraith against red rank players, it shows that Rank doesn't correlate to skill beyond a certain point.
1 -
Sorry for misunderstanding again and thanks for clarifying.
What bearing does very skilled vs competent vs average vs casual have on balancing the game? Nobody is saying the game is or needs to be balanced around red rank game play. I actually think the consensus is that the game is mostly balanced around purple-green ranks, where the majority of the player base is.
0 -
What I believe is that balance should be coming from the top, and the players should be adapting and learning from other skilled players. If I may bring up an example, R6 Siege balances around their competitive scene, their top players to a very good degree of success. For overall longevity and health, balancing around the top tends to give the game a longer life. Eventually, DBD will die down in popularity, and all that will be left is the hardcore fanbase, which are the people who've put serious time and effort into becoming very skilled.
With a game balanced around a median of players, you relinquish the right to have actual fair play. Balance inconsistencies will arise simply due to better players utilizing unbalanced mechanics that might have a higher barrier to entry than the average player cares to get to. Instead of making the process of getting good rewarding and fair, you'd be trying to cheese the most unbalanced mechanics to your favor. OoO is an excellent example of this.
It's remained unchanged since it's release for the most part. It's a perfect information perk that neuters over half the roster. There's maybe two killers that you'd be in an actual disadvantage if you were to use the perk. Even now, it kills Trapper to the point of him being a simple M1 killer and in a coordinated SWF, neuters Hag to an outstanding degree.
I say this from experience, as I have participated in many tournaments ranging from low profile to very high profile. My team, Instant Dodge, have won TydeTyme's 750$ tournament and several of Space Esports' weekly ritual tournaments that went for 150$ for first place. Of course after Marth started helping them out, they've gotten a lot better since the anniversary tournament. But this is just to state my credibility.
This also brings up the issue of SWF. If I'm going to be honest, it'd be dumb to nerf it directly or remove it. Instead, I personally believe that the game should implement voice chat for solos so they have the opportunity to not get left out if a nerf meant for swf ends up hurting solos far worse. Given there needs to be an option to mute certain players and mute it entirely for obvious reasons.
From that I can finally see the playerbase agreeing to balance the game towards the top players, SWF in particular.
That would of course mean major killer overhauls, but for the health of the game I think this is a necessary step in order to reach true balance. That's my perspective.
2 -
I dont care about BP or pips.
I prefer to take the route, that benefits me in the long term. You can take the easy way and get easy wins, but you will also get less experience this way and end up worse than someone with the same amount of hours.
Proxycamping and tunneling is incredibly strong if applied right, but it also means much less chases and opportunities to improve at them. Less experience patrolling gens, finding survivors, checking survivors habits and developing game sense. I dont mind losing or making mistakes, if i improve at the game faster.
If you only care about winning, you can always go back to tunnelcamping with best addons and mori. Doesnt make you better at the game in the long run though.
tl;dr: Riskier plays in return for faster learning.
Its similar to weightlifting irl. You sweat and suffer, but overtime you end up stronger than the guy chilling at home.
0 -
I honestly think that if we just simply played the objective as efficiently as possible, for the killer or survivors, then the game would largely become boring. I enjoy the longer, and to a greater extent, more difficult matches. I don't want to be put against someone of lesser skill; I want equal or greater skill levels. This way I can learn to improve in the areas that I'm weakest in.
I'm sure most people don't agree with me, but I don't whine about nerfs or buffs. I prefer to adapt and formulate new strategies. That's what makes the game entertaining for me. It's always pushing me to change the way I play, therefore keeping most matches enjoyable and fresh. Mostly. The game obviously has it's weaknesses, but it's still a lot of fun for me.
Edit: Spelling. I've had a few drinks tonight. Lol.
0 -
They are working on a new ranking system at the minute but it could take some times to come out.
I agree the current system isn't reflective of skill but more about playing around and prolonging the game. If you kill to fast you depip and if you escape too fast you depip.
I can understand what they were going for to try and entice more people from just focusing on the most viable strat but in the end good players get punished and end up in a rank where they dominate newer players.
I'm not a fan of depipping for not wanting to save due to someone camping and rewarding it or depipping for killing a team to fast as you were clearly better than them.
0 -
I can respect the experience you have and where your opinions are coming from. There are several big issue with balancing around the top great players.
In your opinion we don’t actually know who the best players are because the ranking system is too lenient. I don’t know how it would be reworked to reflect true player skill.
There isn’t enough mechanical skill involved in DBD to actually separate the very good players from the great players. It’s not like R6, CSGO, LOL, OW. You can’t actually rely on or express mechanical skill the same way as those games allow. DBD is more about game sense, awareness, and general knowledge. What is the criteria that separates very good players from great players?
If the ranking system were more strict and less players were rank 1, there would be far fewer matches between rank 1 players because of how the match making works. Rank 1 players would either have unfavorable queue times or be matched with lesser ranked players. Could you actual collect the data you need to balance around the top players I’d they’re playing less games against each other?
Thank for the interesting perspective and discussion!
Post edited by hiC on0 -
Good PoV, this is how it should be. In regards to competitiveness, this game is way off beeing competitive, if there imaginary rules for the players. When players have to learn unwritten rules like "no looping infinites" or "no tunnelcamping" etc, then competitive games boil down to abusing those unbalances for the win.
If the game could be played without feeling bad and dirty, if you can do whatever you want and its commonly agreed upon beeing alright, then the game would be balanced for competitive play.
0
