SHUT UP ABOUT THE STATISTICS
I'd just like to ask everyone to stop invoking the statistics BHVR released as the final authority on everything. BHVR said to take those stats with a grain or salt, and now it seems like any time someone brings up the stats the thread devolves into an argument over how accurate the stats are and what they REALLY mean.
My proposal is: don't make stats the backbone of your argument, use it as supporting evidence. For example, don't say "the stats show Freddy is the strongest he needs to be nerfed", try making a specific suggestion or comment, like "Forever Freddy needed the nerf; it was unfun for survivors and rewarded lazy play for the killer. And this won't make Freddy unplayable, the stats suggest he's performing well enough."
Basically, don't turn a good discussion into a flame war over stats.
Comments
-
Amen.
33 -
Good point. I don't see many invoking the stats though. Many see it is obvious the stats don't "reflect the meta".
0 -
Thank you so much. Amen.
0 -
Nerf was a lazy fix.
Let's not make the add-ons stack, just nerf the penalty.
4 -
I would take any bhvr statistic above the argument "unfun".
Sry, for crashing the party, but imo is "unfun" the worst reason to nerf... Whatever. Since everything in every game is for some people fun and for some unfun.
We would need to delete the game, to make it not unfun for someone, while it would be unfun then towards the...
Argh sorry for letting me driving away in the wrong direction:|.
3 -
You're not taking this in the wrong direction at all! Your opinion that "unfun" is an invalid argument is, in my eyes, totally valid! It's okay to disagree with me (or my example, I don't actually have any strong feelings on the forever freddy changes) as long as you're respectful and constructive! I'm not saying discussions shouldn't move on to other topics as the conversation continues, I just don't like when including stats in an argument turns the thread into a shouting match about stats.
I agree that BHVR shouldn't nerf something because a few people complain about it. Fun is definitely subjective, and what one survivor finds unfun might be a nice change of pace for another or an absolute blast for the killer. But I think that if something is consistently generating anger across one group while others feel indifferent, or if it correlates with a significantly higher DC rate, it's something BHVR should look at.
2 -
I never use statistics here as argument. That's your killer mains on this forum that like to do that. For me it's personal experience. When I tell you nurse is fine even with her nerfs, that's not statistics. That's my weekly games against nurse in red ranks where she's still able to get 3-4k easily on ANY map.
1 -
If it's unfun for everyone it should be nerfed. Case closed.
2 -
The numbers don't lie, but they also don't tell the whole truth. I live in the world of statistics and you always have to use them as a part of a whole. Most of the time, statistics are a good point to start looking at potential focus areas are. Then you find the truth.
3 -
Exactly! The statistics themselves aren't wrong, but they don't have much context.
1 -
Statistics always mean SOMETHING albeit not EVERYTHING. If -just hypothetically- a killer had a 100% kill rate across all ranks something has to be looked at because that killer certainly does not perform as intended.
2 -
To me, this is fine except for the bit about killer mains. For one thing, I see statistics misused by survivors and killers. For another, the term itself promotes the division and factionalization of the community. There shouldn't be an Us vs Them mentality. Changes shouldn't be made because they're good for survivors or killers, they should be made because they're good for the game.
0 -
Tbh I don't have any issues with the games balance I think they are on point about it.
I just want more fair matchups, or some optional objective to let people risk a win for more rewards or something because right now I can only handle losing completely like 20+ games in a row before I just start getting bored of the game as a whole. I mean we often wait in queue longer than the matches actually last.
I think those are way bigger issues than anything else, and stats are never going to reflect those problems. They are hurting the game being fun, instead of a challenge we have matchups where there is literally 0 chance for some folks right from the start. Killers watching every gen be done before they so much as find one survivor, and survivors who are all dead on hook with no gens done at all.
It's these landslide matches mostly causes by bad pairups, and lack of any optional objectives that kill the game for me- when it comes to the stats and the balance I think they are actually doing a damn good job on that front. They make mistakes sure, like with Legion, but they are slowly setting things right.
I just wish the same could be said about the overall game health.
1 -
Absolutely! Sorry if I wasn't clear, but I'm not trying to say the stats are useless or shouldn't be talked about, I'm saying that stats should be discussed reasonably and in context, and should not be treated as gospel or be so contentious.
1 -
Well, I assume, I think the same as you about statistics, if I look at your answer to the Warlock.
However, its maybe just me and because I play online games already more as a decade (I assume... At some point you don't count the years anymore :(), but DCing guys are in every game for me just a form of toxic people if they not dc for valid reasons, like that they got a phone call, or that someone rings at the door and so on... Real life stuff.
And that means, in my eyes - they have no voice. As soon as someone says that he dcs, or that he supports such behavior, he can say what he want -I don't care anymore.
If someone has a problem with something, he can either try to get better in whatever via tutorials and videos, or he can write his thoughts in the official forums. That are imo the right ways to do it.
0 -
You wanna elaborate?
0 -
But it's not false. If you come here enough you'll know what I mean. Not saying that out of spite.
0 -
Yeah, if people are DCing over something that doesn't necessarily mean it should be changed, but it should be reviewed. Catering to DCers is definitely a bad idea, but if it's a lot higher than average, that indicates there are probably people who don't usually DC doing so because of that.
0 -
then they shouldn't of released it. The point of stats is too create discussions, so what's the point of releasing stats when the devs keep saying "don't talk about the stats." The stats are inaccurate and shouldn't of been released in the first place as it has only cause confusion.
0 -
That I can agree with. There's obviously variables like early-game-hook-suicides, afk survivors etc. that always have to be taken into account which is why I personally consider the game relatively balanced at this moment despite the high kill rate numbers.
1 -
I think I come here often enough, but I hope we can agree that we both have valid opinions even if we disagree :)
0 -
That was maybe true in the beginning of the multiplayer-era, but today... I have my doubts.
Today the people gather together for such things over Facebook, official communication platforms and we don't wanna miss streamers who sometimes encourage their audience either directly, or indirectly to do it.
I would take any bet that this results also in many dcs from people that are just angerd because of real life stuff, or that just hope to make the game in general easier for them and similar reason.
Imo, the people that are really upset for a comprehensible reason about xyz, are the smallest part of the dcing crowd.
There I prefer it more to see feeled 1k nerf threads as those guys.
0 -
I'm not saying the stats are bad or shouldn't be discussed, I'm saying that they should be discussed with context and in a polite manner.
0 -
Proof that statistics are often wrong right here.
2 -
Again, just because there's lots of DCs doesn't mean it needs to be changed, but it should at the very least be reviewed and scrutinized by BHVR.
0 -
Or missing context- maybe @thatguyinktown is @Peanits' ex and makes negative comments on everything Peanits says.
1 -
In a discussion about balance we can either base our arguments on our personal killer/survivor-main opinion, which is based on experience of just a single person and is very prone to cognitive biases. Or we can base it on the sum of experiences of all players gathered by an unbiased algorithm in form of stats.
Common sense suggests that stats beat any single personal opinion in accuracy hands down. I'm sure no one in his right mind will dispute it. Undoubtedly, any stats must be taken with a grain of salt just like any other information, but it's obvious that you try to downgrade their role mostly because you don't agree with the picture they show us. So, seeing biased personal opinions being represented as the "final authority" I will not shut up about the stats, because it is the most accurate and unbiased piece of information we can possible have. Period.
0 -
Not you, devs have. They've said "don't use the stats for balance discussions" but then say "use them too have discussions." And the stats themselves are pointless because they didn't take any factors into account like DC's, Perks, SWF, and they even mixed console and PC stats, making it even more pointless.
0 -
See, I was about to agree with you until you mentioned maps. Sanctum of Wrath and Hawkins have a large amount of random (huge) deadzones. They can ruin your entire trial if you come across one. They aren't the only maps with these problems either.
0 -
I'm not saying anecdotes are the final authority, I don't think there is any final authority. I'm just saying that stats aren't the final authority either and they shouldn't derail a discussion. As for my bias, I don't think there is one conclusion that can be unquestionably drawn from the stats. The title here is probably a little clickbait, but I'm not anti-stats, I just don't like stats being seen as irrefutable or hijacking a conversation.
0 -
I'm pretty sure the stats didn't include games with DCs, but as far as I know you're right about perks, SWF, and PC/console. And if the devs said to talk about stats but not for balance, then I agree that's pretty stupid. Balance is primarily why people are interested in stats, and it strikes me as irresponsible to release stats you don't trust for balancing.
1
