Insane Conspiracy Theory about the "Kill Rate" Data
So as we all know back on November 22nd BHVR graced us with kill rate stats at all ranks and red ranks, plus Nurse info about before and after her nerfchanges.
(For those who haven't seen it here's the link: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/106566/stats-november-2019 Don't say I never do anything for you.)
Anyway, BHVR/Peanits has stated that these stats are not the only info they use to nerf/buff Killers, they use this plus other data. What data? Iunno. But this hasn't stopped many, MANY players from taking this and showing it off as some statement of "all killers are fine", that the game is "still killer sided", and that "x killer needs nerfs. LoOk At ThAt KiLl RaTe!"
We asked for stats but all the release of these stats has done has sow chaos and upset players across the board. Mainly because no one really understands what the data means. They say it shows usage and kill rate but does it take into account players who kill themselves on first hook? Does it spike when people throw the end game? Was farming considered? When are the kills gained most often? Moris? Is this actually a representation of kill rate?
Now on to my conspiracy theory:
The data we were given was accurate, but manipulated. I don;t know exactly what data BHVR has access too but let's assume they have the data I am theorizing they have access to.
I put forward that it is a representation of number of hooks, not direct kills.
What I mean is:
3 hooks = 1 death
1 death = 3 hooks
This would, in my view, help explain how weaker killer have over 50% "kill rate" even though many of us know that besides people who main these Killers completely it is a struggle to do well with them. There is a reason you only really see a few Killers at high ranks, with the rest sprinkled in lightly breaking up the monotony of facing another Spirit. Again.
To further explain what I mean:
If you get 8 hooks, of the 12 total, any way in the match like two hooks on each survivor, 2 kills and two hook on another and anything else across the board this would be equal too 2 kills and two-thirds of another or 8/12 = 66%
If someone kills themselves on first hook, or is not unhooked on second, this would immediately equal 3 hooks because it is a kill.
What would this mean though?
It would mean 2 things really.
- BHVR provided us with info but twisted it to support a narrative. Companies do this ALL THE TIME with data so I wouldn't put it passed them. They aren't lying to us, they are just being disingenuous.
- Would explain how Killers who many agree or argue are hard to secure kills with have such a "high" percentage.
Am I probably wrong and is this just crazy speculation? Of course. But its fun to wonder. There is a lot that we don't know and I keep looking at the data wondering where they got these percentages exactly.
TL;DR: Kill Rate data is actually manipulated Hook Rate data.
But anyway, what do you all think? How crazy am I? Please provided your insightful, insulting, toxic and/or offtopic replies and arguments below.
Comments
-
This has to be a bad joke mocking killer mains.
Killer mains: "the game is survivor sided."
Developers: "our data shows even 4 man SWF does not have a 50% escape rate."
Killer mains: "LIES!"
17 -
Your theory has ground.
But there's a specific "sacrifice" scoring event and they could've used that to get there data.
So as cool as itd be to have that be hook ratio and how much sense it'd make. That ain't the case I don't think. Shame too
4 -
Its not though. I mean, not really. Its obviously insane.
Its me trying to figure out the data with what little information we actually have. Taking it at face value is fine, but I have issues with that and overthink things.
1 -
Honestly, he is onto something but it comes down to pipping versus killing everyone in the trial.
Sure, you can kill four people, but they can all be one-hooked and you de-pip.
2 -
There are way, way too many factors in the data that artificially make killers look stronger than they actually are by giving kills that aren't indicative of balance.
Honestly the best approach to get around a lot of this and see more accurate data would be to see pip rates by rank and system.
By going with pips instead of kills for seeing how strong killers are you get around things like a 4k from NOED but it's a black pip.
The only issue with that is killers that get artificially penalized on their pipping like 1 shot killers for example, but that's more a design issue since the devs still haven't fixed that problem.
6 -
You're probably right.
But Its fun to speculate and think about. 🤷
1 -
I agree.
Pipping info would give us a lot to work with in understanding Killer strength, overall.
I just wish their piping system wasn't such a mess for half the Killers.
1 -
That is quite the conspiracy, but to clarify a few things:
- We don't use just that data + other data to balance, we also take a look at feedback and watch/play the game ourselves.
- The data does not show hooks, only the state of the survivors at the end of the match (dead, or alive).
For what it's worth, though, this is why we tend not to do stats very often.
33 -
What about neat stats that won't be controversial in any way? Like average amount of teabags per character? 😅
4 -
At least that issue is fixable, even though they haven't yet.
There would still be a couple flaws doing it this way, but it would still be much more accurate than what we are currently seeing.
2 -
There is only 1 way to get reliable and workable data from any game that does not freely provide it.
Collect your own data.
Over 10 games gather up kill counts, hook totals, perks used for both K/S, Killer played, map RNGed, items brought/found by Survivors, add-ons used by Killer, game length, and offerings burnt (outside of BP boosts) all need to be accounted for. Your personal data by itself is FAR too limited though so you also need to gather the same data from at least 10 players in total.
Once you have those 100 games spread across multiple players, it still isn't enough thanks to how many total Killers there are in the game diluting the data between them all and how rank effects player skill during those games with low ranks being tilted one way and high ranks another. But it is a start.
Anyone willing to help record their data and post it? Screen cap the end game scoreboard for 10 or so games and that should be a start. The more details you can give with your data the better, but scoreboards should be effective in gathering the basics. If we get enough people in total to give enough data then the community could, maybe, form an opinion that isn't tainted by purely off of personal gameplay or rehashed opinions from someone popular.
2 -
Ghostface takes the trophy, with claud following in second place if you count crouching in bushes 😁
1 -
Vincent ive seen you post this 4 man SWF stat so many times already. This stat has so many issues its not even funny and the fact you use it is even worse.
One example, is you can have a 4 man SWF group of rank 1, 2, 2, 3 that escape 75% (3 out of 4 escape) of the time and a 4 man SWF group of 10, 12, 13, 10 that escape 25% (1 out of 4 escape) of the time. Combine them and you got a 50% escape rate.
Another example which leads to main issue of this stat is you can have a 4 man SWF group of ranks 1, 2, 10, 20. Now out of 100 games the rank 1, 2 escape 75% of the time and the rank 10, 20 escape 25% of the time. Their group total at the end of the match normally would be is 2 alive (the Red Ranks) and 2 dead (the Higher Ranks), so 50%.
Also, if you want to blindy throw out stats maybe you should include at Rank 1 on PC there is a 80% survival rate. So, i am going to bet Red Rank survivors in 4 man SWF groups are escaping way more than 50%.
3 -
You make a good point about people jumping to conclusions over stats but this theory is whack. I like the theory that survivors throw the game if they mess up even a little bit. (Even though this still technically means the kills the killer got were deserved)
1 -
Thank you for posting Peanits!
Please forgive me that I can not take everything you say at face value as you are an agent of BHVR.
Nah, but seriously thanks, and I totally understand why you guys don't release data a lot. Wild speculations notwithstanding you also have to deal with how players interpret, though most likely misinterpret, the data you provide. There is also the inherent mistrust and paranoia
somepeople have for companies and their dealings.1 -
You're blindly throwing out stats mate.
1 -
Of course it is.
That's what makes it fun.
1 -
That's 80% of rank 1 escape rate given some time back was bad data. It didn't account for deranking. So going into a at rank 1 and getting killed could not count if you also deranked back to rank 2. This HIGHLY inflated the rank 1 escape rates as it never counted the majority of the times a rank 1 Survivor died as they wasn't rank 1 anymore after death.
The devs aren't exactly great about giving data. It is often too little to be of use or simply wrong far too often to be of any real worth.
2 -
Where did i throw out stats mate? I used numbers in a example. There is a difference. If you like you can google the definition of a statistic. My numbers werent based off of any testing, they were used as an example to show the issue with using the 50% 4 man SWF stat.
As for the 80% of rank 1 escape rate... "The devs aren't exactly great about giving data. It is often too little to be of use or simply wrong far too often to be of any real worth." ... is exactly the point i was making about taking one stat from a report and coming to a conclusion. If you are going to do that which is silly in the first place, you might as well just use them all.
0 -
I never suggested that was okay to do. I agree with you the 50% 4 man swf escape rate is nothing to draw conclusions from. But I do want to point out that the statistics aren't useless.
0 -
Here is why your conspiracy theory is complete crap. There are players like me that actively go out of their to not rank up. How do I do that? By allowing survivors that would otherwise die get a free escape. None of your theories seem to account for survivors that should have died not dying. The reality is that the kill rate should be higher.
2 -
I do the same. I guess you're right that the kill right could both be higher and lower and right now it is at a pretty accurate average (well technically it shows exactly how many survivors die)
0 -
I think this has shown that it would be better if you didn't post stats again going forward, people apparently can't be trusted with that information lol.
2 -
What's the downside of posting stats? It's easier for the player base to tell who is on a rant and who is actually discussing a needed fix to the game.
0 -
Arguable, this is probably balanced out by survivors giving up on first hook or sabotaging their team in other ways.
I will say it's pretty sad to see the mental hoops some killer partisans have jumped through in order to discount the stats that came out last month. From the beginning the devs said that the stats don't represent the whole picture because there are a number of factors that weren't revealed by those graphs. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be enough for some that don't want to accept the stats for what they are.
I've seen people:
-Claim that the stats are inaccurate, which they aren't. They're true, but they only show what they show, nothing more, nothing less.
-Invent Conjecture on outside influences, which is fair, but ultimately completely based on unfounded theory and anecdotal evidence.
-Create conspiracy theories like this one with seemingly no basis in reality.
I suppose this mostly stems from a few things, pushing for certain killer buffs, being unwilling to accept they may play worse than the average killer, or straight up victim complex. This isn't exclusive to killer partisans, I've seen plenty of survivor partisans exhibit these attitudes as well. It just seems that recent killer changes have really stirred up some bad feelings in killer partisans.
4 -
Good point.
0 -
Its a good thing this isn't really serious and is just a talking point and something fun I thought up to post about.
The data they released also doesn't say anything other than "this is the popularity of killers and their kill rate" which is really uninformative and ripe for conjecture in and of itself.
I don't play Killer but I like discussing data, putting it under scrutiny and asking questions, theorize where it might come from and if there is anything that we can gleam from it.
"I suppose this mostly stems from a few things, pushing for certain killer buffs, being unwilling to accept they may play worse than the average killer, or straight up victim complex."
But I'm glad to see you aren't judging me prematurely or anything.🤷♀️
0 -
They said multiple times it's based off of end game screen though.
0 -
What if they got hooked twice and then died? Would that count as 3 hooks or just 1 based upon how many times they were hooked previously?
0 -
They'll never be able to fix it correctly, because there counting people who suicide 1st hook as 3 hook kills. Just think of how many salty people suicide on hook because A. They don't like the killer. B. They don't like the map. C. They suck and are getting their ass handed to them. D. Killer has Mori. The data means nothing. It should be thrown in the trash because that's all it pretty much is. Buffing solo to SWF and then balancing killer around THAT at purple rank is the only way to really go. Most players are around purple to green rank anyway.
0 -
There is a much more simple explanation for the recent data that should be more concerning overall.
(I do need to correct something in that thread though - given the recent matchmaking algorithm of plus/minus 6 ranks, if all players are solo, the worst matchmaking scenario for the data set is to have Red Rank 3 and 4 Killers facing off against Green Rank 9 and 10 Survivors - not Brown and Grey Ranks as indicated in my original thread. Of course, if SWF was included in these 'Red Rank' matches, Red Killer matches against Grey and Brown Survivors could still have been part of the data set also.)
0 -
It also doesn't show killers that farm and just need dailies which is very common so if the killers actually tried, the kill rates would be much higher.
0 -
I agree with this to a certain extent, but then it gets into 3 big issues in my opinion. First of all, no matter what you do, you're always going to have a higher skill level with certain killers versus others you don't play as much, like if you look at otzdarva, he plays all killers all the time but he easily has the most hours in trapper (atleast based on what I know), so he'll most likely have a higher kill rate than on the killer he plays the least. Another issue is skill level since everyone is different, we can't look at hours since if you are a killer main with 2000 hours and you only play every other weekend, you probably aren't as good as a 1000 hour killer who plays everyday since they're more consistent, we also can't look at rank since most people who really try can get rank 1 fairly easily. Finally, the third and most important one imo, skill level of other players. As I said in the last point, anyone can get to higher ranks, there's no real way of making sure that you get same skill level players in each game, meaning there's no way to get even statistics. I've personally in 1 day gone from 4k 5 Gen Bubba to 2 kills on Freddy, and Freddy is one of my more often played killers. I think no matter what you do the data is going to be skewed somehow, it's something you can easily tell from BHVR's data purely based on the fact nurse is the worst killer on there but people DC when they play against her since they know there's little to no chance to win against her at even green ranks. I don't think any data can be truly accurate other than to yourself, and honestly you probably know who you play best if you play killer or atleast have a general idea of who you're good at. I guess it might be a cool experiment but other than that it's not really anything that can help the issue.
0 -
That's completely wrong, what about survivor suicides? They're far more common than killers letting randoms go, so before you insult someones idea and be a jerk about it, think about what you say because I garuntee the 1 survivor you let go doesn't come close to the 20 who kill themselves on hook.
0 -
Just shut up. Stop it please.
0 -
question, do you you guys count people who died due to hook suicides as kills ?
0 -
Just in case Peanits doesn't get a chance to answer - I'm pretty sure they've said that the stats were based off the survivors' status at the end of the game - disconnected, sacrificed, escaped, etc. So yes, most likely they do include survivors who killed themselves on first hook.
1
