These stats finally show that survivors have been right.
Comments
-
Legion is better than Nurse. Stats say so. "Facts are facts"
2 -
in order to do a full test, go into kyf with everyone bringing no perks, no add-ons, no offerings. and see how many escapes, deaths, etc.
0 -
We don't use God's true name so causally in dead by daylight forum.
1 -
Yeah.. sometimes you need to actually use your brain and interpret information. Why might Nurse have a lower kill rate in the last 3 months? She got nerfed. Those that play her need to adjust to her so she wont perform as optimally as she used to. Plus changes due to dedicated servers. We're also only talking like 68% for Legion and 65% for Nurse. Look at the Nurse specific numbers at the bottom of the page. Nurse performance dropped. It all fits. Adjust to the facts. Don't try to make them bend to your will.
0 -
True
0 -
Anyways, the feng seems to be sending bombs at you killer mains. If you guys dont respond you will lose the war and end up getting nerf to the ground until you end up like old Freddy.
1 -
That doesn't really bear out in the stats though. If that were the case then red rank kill rates would be lower than overall kill rate.
Define "winning," this isn't identity V where there are clear win, lose, or draw conditions. It's really up to the individual player to decide whether pipping, bloodpoints, or a certain number of kills/survivals constitutes winning. The only thing BHVR has said they balance around is an average of 2ks per match, which the game is not meeting. If the situation were reversed, and the average survival rate was at a ceiling above 75% I would be arguing the opposite right now.
I find that hard to believe, but I'll take you at your word. I think it's a mistake to just throw out statistics as meaningless, especially if the reason is that they simply don't agree with my opinion/experience. I've had games on both sides where I've destroyed or got destroyed, but I can't point at any one of them and say that it is representative of the experience of the playerbase as a whole.
Of course there is a difference between causation and correlation. Freddy has around 75% kill rate, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to 0k or 1k with him. It does mean that he 4ks consistently enough to make up for the weaker performances. I'm sorry to say that discounting that evidence just seems a bit disingenuous to me.
0 -
Right and you, as a data analyst, take the most obvious interpretation without any thoughts. Killrate is high, killers op, everyone else is wrong. Big brain time. Much analysed
0 -
Oh noes!
I never said they were meaningless.
0 -
What about this thought: In order win as survivorteam, you need 3 good survivors against a good killer. The one weak link will die quickly, but you can get over it if its just one. Ranking up is too easy, so bad players get to r1 nonetheless. Whats the chance to have 0-1 potato in your team vs having too many potatoes on your team. Not that high to get 2-3 competent teammates. What if you are a potato yourself. Pretty damn low then. How often will the killer 4k in result of potatoes? Pretty often, especially if you are a potato survivor yourself.
How are the queue times? Survivors is really slow compared to instant killers = Most people dont play killer rank 1 and those who do, are probably pretty skilled. Survivor on the other hand has a lot of potatoes, even though its 4:1 already, there are still more than 4 survivors vs 1 killer at r1. The potatoes stack up on survivorteam, especially later in the season = easy wins for killers.
What happens if you face 4 good survivors though? A balanced match so to speak. Thats where everyone who plays both sides will tell you, that survivors have the upper hand. Whats more important to you? Balance -> Survivorfavored. Matchmaking -> Killerfavored
Killers op is not the conclusion though
1 -
Oh noes indeed.
0 -
Oh lord. Okay. Firstly @Peanits did stress, repeatedly not to draw conclusions from these stats. There are a bunch of things that could be effecting the numbers. Secondly, even if they were without flaws, the average isn't that much higher then the 50% goal. So please don't make broad statements about how the stats prove this or that. They're a tool to give a broad idea of how things are. From what I can see they are pretty close to the balance they want. Also I don't think killers care about the sacrifices they are getting as much as if they are piping. When you played decently and the games ranking system says you lost that's going to cause irritation. I think they need to revisit the emblem system. The concept is good. The goals/performance required need adjustment.
3 -
survs cant be weak aslong as ds exists in its current state :)
0 -
According to the games tutorial winning is escaping or Killing everyone depending on your role.
The difference for identity V is that their wincons are team based in that all Survivors win or lose together while in DBD Survivors win individually.
From there you can conclude that for DBD any Kill rate between 2k average to 3.2k average could in theory be balanced.
Specifically at 2k everyone has a 50% winrate with either everyone escaping or everyone dying with equal probability, identity V also has this due to a team wincon which is more flexible in terms of exact outcome. And a 3.2k has a 20% winrate with 3 people always dying and the 4th Surviving 80% of the time.
Kill rates between 2 and 3 allow for more variety while maintaining balance and thus are ideal compared to the extremes. So having something be getting a 65% Kill rate with a fairly even spread of 4ks and non-4ks is pretty healthy, whereas something with a 65% Kill rate where all of those Kills lead to 4ks and the remaining 35% are 0ks is far too swingy and needs changes.
0 -
I do agree that ranking as survivor is way too easy across the board. I'm not sure if I said it in this thread or another, but I think making it harder to pip as survivor would bring the kill rates down a bit, especially in red ranks. There are too many bad survivors getting too high in rank too easily. Furthermore, perhaps SWF should incur a higher standard for pipping while maintaining the same standard for safety pipping. This would prevent people being carried beyond their appropriate rank without penalizing people for playing with friends.
I don't agree that 4k is the only win condition for killers. I've never played the tutorial, but expecting killers to judge only 4Ks as wins and creating the hatch as a mechanic seems a bit antithetical. With hatch as a mechanic winning is completely luck based as killer by that standard. I generally apply the IDV standard of win>2k=draw>lose for killer.
Post edited by StevePerryPsychOut on0 -
Yes especially later in the season, its more about playtime than skill. Maybe even higher pip requirements the higher your rank is, cause lowranks have a hard time already. For SWF, i see the problem in deranking swf squads who intentionally stay low to smurf low rank killers. Personally i'd rather have weaker swf at highranks than stronger swfs at lowranks, but i can see your point, they do have it easier.
0 -
or all the server hits are complete garbage and giving more kills than killers truly deserve.
0 -
I'm glad to hear a legitimate argument versus insults. But you're still saying the high number of boosted survivors who don't belong in high ranks are skewing the kill rates high for killer. Which means currently at high (red) ranks killers are not getting beat up so badly overall. They may get beaten up by non-boosted (legit) red rank survivor teams now and then, but the numbers show that it doesn't happen so often that it skews their kill rates down. IOW, if legit SWF teams were really a problem, and killers faced them a lot more frequently, then killer kill rates in red ranks would be lower. I dunno, maybe in the 50s to low 60s. But the fact seems to be that killers in red ranks have a good old time destroying survivors but when they face a really good team, which doesn't happen often, they can be beaten handily.
Is this that different from a team of good survivors getting destroyed by a really good killer, which seems to happen a lot more often than killers getting beat by awesome SWF teams?
I don't know... it just looks like the issue of red rank killers being owned by legit red rank SWF teams may have been blown out of proportion if these numbers are accurate. Maybe the % of times killers lose when they run into these legit teams is high but the number of times this happens is objectively fairly low. Maybe it just feels like it happens more often because they're so used to winning....
0 -
We're definetely getting on the same page here. Killers win a lot because of boosted survivors, but lose against equally skilled survivors, which happens rarer by chance. You know, the problem i see in buffing survivors at this point is, that killers aren't inherently stronger than survivors. But that the matchmaking and ranking is so bad, that you get unbalanced matches, which favors the killer.
Rarely do you play against 4 good survivors, but when you do, you would never think of buffing survivors. But on the other hand, you run into many games with a MegHead who essentially throws the game. I wouldn't blame the balance for the high killrates, but the matchmaking system. I was always the opinion, that potatoes balance the game at highranks and that the devs like to stuff more of them into highranks to solve the skillgap problem.
1 -
You do all realize that we're just accepting the idea that every killer should and will be balanced around a 50% or 2 kills per game, right? That doesn't make the game inherently imbalanced simply because it's not 45-50% across every rank. Jeez. It's amazing how people will use flat statistics and ignore the variables to justify their opinions. The game is a lot more complicated than that, yet you have this guy posting in this thread defending it with his life.
Yes. Just like all the hits were garbage without dedicated servers. Now they're all garbage with dedicated servers. Why don't we just give the survivors the p2p host so they can still be hit by unfair, garbage hits. Or maybe, just maybe, you were supposed to be :)
0 -
LMAO nice low tier bait kiddo. on p2p it was never as bad as what it is now. denying that either makes u a delusional clown or a troll. and i think i know which one u are
0 -
"these stats shows survivors are right" ~a survivor main
1 -
I’m kind of surprised nobody has speculated that the new matchmaking might be behind some of these high kill rates. Ever since the SWF started getting matched with killers corresponding with the lowest ranked survivor in the group, I’ve noticed longer queue times in survivor red ranks, and my killer games have been way easier. I think this has been an extremely unhealthy change for the game, and I hope the devs revert it soon.
0 -
“The allies have defeated the axis.” - The allies. Your point?
0 -
Survivors can die (essentially lose) and still pip. Killers can do a 3K and de-pip or 4K and get Brutal Killer. Making 2K a baseline without addressing the emblem system is setting up players for failure when they're not running top tier killers.
0 -
IDK about you but I'll believe it when I see it. Chances are all survivors regardless will get a buff and killers will be left in the dust to feed the bully simulator.
1 -
Sorry mate, but the official stats aren't accurate as peantis has said. I wouldn't even bother with it because apparently most of it is inaccurate.
0 -
If a dev has said that their official stats are inaccurate then I would think they would take them down. You know, versus making a big splash about how they have new interesting stats...
1 -
Ok survivor main
1 -
Misusing statistics 101
2 -
That's not what he said. He said there are alot of factors that could be causing the stats to land how they did. He said not to make grand conclusions from them. Not to disregard them as wholly inaccurate.
1 -
Great post and 100% true. The data doesn't lie.
That's why I find it hilarious when killers complain cause they're not winning 3/4 games.
Just think about it logically. Put 4 randoms who need coordinate at a low rank(green, etc) and pit them against a person who has faster movement speed and can kill you. While you can do nothing to them. It spells disaster.
Obviously the dynamic changes when you're premade. And again when you're premade at a high rank. The game is awesome, but also a clusterfuck of imbalance because rank 1 isnt balanced well for premades because killer are too broken at low rankings vs new players. So Behavior is basically just trying to put out high rank and low rank fires left and right and in the end nothing is actually balanced. High rank killers cry, low and mid rank survivors cry.
They need to REWORK ADDON system so it can be competitively balanced. Put it in a 10 point load out scale. OP addons using up all 10 point or mixing and matching weaker addons. Survivors should be able to choose to start with either of the 3 items(would need to be nerfed probably) and addons also based on a point system on how busted the addons are. The current RNG "who the blank knows what the killer or survivors have equipped" cannot be balanced properly. At least there can be item and build metas so both sides can predict and have full access to whatever they want.
/end rant
2 -
I bet you're one of the people making mistakes :] don't seem to bright when you talk about nerfs then in the same sentence talk about skill, funny killer performance or as you say "skill" is increasing when a bunch of new buffs to perks and the overall game such as killer touch ups, EGC, hatch closing, oblivious, ect. Guess to quote a horse raised fool "were they even skilled in the first place? Oh well" now if you could be a good lad and let the grown ups converse over actual balance of the game and the issues that would be great
0 -
How about this? Its harder to rank up as killer. Whether you want to beleive that or not its true. Therfore, more survivors of varying skills will be able to make it to red rank, and can be carried by team mates (especialyl SWF). Killers have to get really good and have no one else to rely on. While this may come across as balance to you, it is not. Killer's have to work 12 times harder, not 4 times harder then survivors. Plus the fact of the matter is, the killer should be the power role, and the survivors should have to struggle. But its the other way around. Ergo, the game is not balanced, the stats are just showing that the lackluster survivors who make it easily to red ranks are being taken advantage of by killers who are actually good at the game. The only thing it shows as even close to definite (which it still isn't), is the difference in killer power/skill cap.
0 -
Peanits has said several times not to make conclusions based on stats alone. So, end of talk. They are very broad and don't show anything.
Example:
Peanits Dev∙Community Manager › Dev, Community Manager Posts: 4,382
You'll have to forgive me since I don't have time to read through the whole thing right now, but:
I only thought I'd address this now that I finally have the PROOF that Demo is not a powerful killer. As per the stats released, at red ranks, Demo fairs very poorly, having the SECOND LOWEST kill rate in the game, just barely above The Clown.
We said it in the stats post and I'll say it again here, you should not draw conclusions from those stats. They are about as broad as they get. They don't show details and account for any amount of factors. To give an example, he's just barely below the Nurse and the Huntress, two fairly powerful killers. Are they bad too? I feel like most people would say no, they just have a learning curve and there's a lot of people who don't regularly play them will pull those numbers down.
The Demogorgon is in the same boat. His shred attack takes some practice to use well (timing, aiming) much like the Huntress. In the right hands, he can still do well.
0 -
When did I talk specifically about nerfs? I brought it up but ultimately I don't care? Apparently that affects my performance? Cute argument.
Oh yeah. Those monstrous buffs like EGC, Hatch Closing and Oblivious really affected the survivor skill. They can no longer loop efficiency and the game sense of a mashed potato and can no longer adapt. What a tragedy.
0 -
No offense, but you’re not discussing the matter at hand which is the data. I can agree that killer takes more work (though I highly doubt your dubious statistic of 12 times harder). And yeah, killer is supposed to be the “power role”. But what does that have to do with the fact that the data shows that red rank killers have 75% kill rates? We’re discussing game balance, aka whether both sides have the same opportunity to “win”. Not how hard it is to play one role or other.
i think the closest I’ve gotten to understanding this data is that killers lose a higher % of games vs legit red ranks thus they feel like survivors that are their rank are OP. But regardless, they are clearly still winning a large number of games overall.
And the closest I’ve come to understanding why this data might not be relevant to game balance is that the devs consider getting a pip / ranking up to be the equivalent of a win. Thus a killer can get 4k and the survivors still get pips and everyone “wins”. Survivor pipping is easier to make up for the fact that killers will likely kill you (75% kill rate). Thus the non equivalence at higher ranks (boosted survivors in red ranks). But there will be legit red rank survivors as well which can beat a killer but the quantity of these is overstated and killers complaints are really based on % of defeats from these legit survivors vs quantity.
0 -
The devs themselves have said the Data is useless. I showed that a moment ago.
0 -
And I disagree with your characterization of the devs view of their own official data which they released to the community.
0 -
Um, that was a direct quote from Peanits. I'm not characterizing. I'm showing you a direct quote.
0 -
Sorry but that link isn’t taking me to a quote.
0 -
Nevermind. I got the quote. And he doesn’t say it’s useless. It’s more like he’s saying it’s complicated. Here’s another example of a broad complicated statistic: Women make .78 for every dollar a man makes. (No pun intended).
Yeah, it’s hard to draw direct correlations to the reasons, but we can still get the picture of how this situation can be the reality. Would you just ignore what that statistic is telling you even though you can’t nail down the exact reasons? This isn’t that complicated. And It would be great if people would be more accurate with what they say on here and/or just not post if they have nothing of value or interest to say. Sniping that I’m misusing statistics when I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t know a z score from a z bra is just tedious.
Post edited by Mandy on1 -
We've been saying for a long time in this community that playing survivor takes a very tiny amount of skill. It more just "knowing what to do with X part of the map." and "knowing how to use the meta."
Playing killer (especially without Ruin) is considerably harder against coordinated teams of survivors. You need to plan ahead and juggle 4 players who are EACH completely capable of going 1v1 with you for a long period of time, and whenever they aren't going 1v1 with you, they are on gens.
Imo, a survivor should never be able to 1v1 a skilled and experienced killer for more than 30-45 seconds, no matter what said killer is or what they have equipped. I play both sides and it makes me feel very disillusioned when I can humiliate a good killer player.
1 -
Most of what you say is true, but let's get this straight; d-strike as it is now only exists because it's necessary, as is BT. Of course it can be used to be toxic, and often is at high rank, though. And that is an issue I sadly don't see being dealt with until the underlying problems that lead to its necessity are done with too. Which really sucks. because playing vs red rank survivor 4-mans is a horrific experience, especially with the way those perks get abused there.
1 -
I do agree that BT and DS can be almost absolutely necessary, I hate going in without BT because it means my saves could potentially have the opposite effect and get them killed. It is always refreshing to face a Killer who doesn't immediately come back to the hook when I save someone. On the other side I hate it when someone saves me without BT and I didn't bring in DS because that's death right there and it didn't have anything to do with me playing badly or even the Killer, if you make an unsafe save in the Killer's face there will consequences.
Sadly DS isn't just anti-tunnel, i've seen it get used as a weapon multiple times, by me and other Survivors. Everyone says ''well if they don't tunnel'' or ''just don't pick them up'' but it's not that simple. If you have DS and someone is on the hook you can trick the Killer into grabbing you and then use the DS and get your friend off the hook and high tail it through the gate; it lasts 60 seconds and a lot can happen in that time so it's very easy to forget who just got unhooked.
2 -
Exactly; frustrations on both sides when it comes to this meta and I'm scared one side will be nerfed without compensation on the other side alongside itl; the game already feels unbearable as it is for various reasons
1 -
Are these stats from throughout all of the ranks?
0 -
Do these stats take suicides on hook into account? How about people AFK’ing? And camping/tunneling? The Endgame Collapse? Etc, etc...
Looks to me that many people are drawing conclusions without actually asking themselves too much where these stats come from. I’m not saying they’re completely wrong, I am however saying that when looking at stats you need to consider the missed variables that may or may not have changed the outcome of those stats.
0 -
Let’s assume these stats include suicides on hook and afks and all the other things mentioned. What difference does it make? The main killers are averaging 3ks per game, regardless of the quality and variety of styles of play in those games.
0 -
Peanits Dev∙Community Manager › Dev, Community Manager Posts: 4,382
November 25 edited November 25
I feel like I really need to stress this line from that post:
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT NUMBERS ARE NOT EVERYTHING; THERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF FACTORS THAT COULD INFLUENCE THESE NUMBERS.
To use the Spirit as an example, as we've mentioned many times before, we do not balance based on stats alone. We make sure to do our research first and there's a lot of compelling arguments for why she should have been changed.
And again, there's a bunch of different factors involved. Is Freddy overpowered, or is it just a combination of perks and add-ons that make him that strong? These are all things that need to be considered.
So just to reiterate one last time, I really would not recommend drawing any conclusions from these stats. These are averages, not specific and incredibly detailed data that you should draw any conclusions from.
I'm not even gonna take into account that you felt the need to insult me. But here you go. Have a better quote. I don't know what you want other than that. A Dev is saying not to use the data for conclusions. Sorry they arn't supporting your point.
Also, a z-score is the number of standard deviations from the mean a data point is.
and you forgot the "E" in Zebra.
1
