More evidence that this game is extremely Killer biased
Comments
-
Nothing evident about it. Only reasons killers are popping now because survivor skills are at an all time low. Incompetent mistakes after incompetent mistakes in red ranks, It's unbelievable. There's a reason why SWF are the only thing killers complain about because the actual good survivors who has Match sense and knows how to loop properly without using pallets is banding together because Random queue is that horrid of an experience.
I could play a single match with Bond on Solo queue Red ranks and point out multiple stuff that just makes it harder for the whole team.
0 -
Here we go with the "so called"data again... This has gotta be bait. Hook, line, and sinker! 🎣
1 -
Bruh none of the killers for all ranks go over 75% and Red Ranks have 3 killers go over 75%
0 -
i don't think this game is biased from certain faction since nurse or crazy loops and pallets nerfed and what.. bt(i don't think legit) wraith freddy etc got buffed
anything can be buff or nerf why you think this game bias certain faction?
0 -
Is your personal experience as a survivor matching this data?
Are you dying 3 out if 4 games? Is matching against a wraith or a trapper an instant loss as they have over 90% win rate?
0 -
If you look at the breakdown of otz's games he had kills ranging from 2 to 4. With all his hours and experience, he couldn't 4k every game.
Tru3, well lets just say the build he used absolutely works and is annoying to play against. Just got out of a match against it. The wraiths rediculous speed while cloaked combined with the perks is crazy.
Ultimately, it boils down to skill of the player. Yes some killers are better suited to getting multiple 4ks, but Wraith is considered one of the weakest killers and yet the skill of the person controlling him makes all the difference.
Not to mention, theres a huge disparity between skill levels of rank 1 survivor and rank 1 killer. I made it to red ranks as a solo survivor despite the fact that i cant run or loop to save my life. I did by staying hidden and doing gens.
1 -
I think this will be my last response on the thread since it does seem futile. I said my piece. I stand by it.
My personal experience, from the last time I actually tracked my games, was about 60% escapes over 50 games. Very often this was as the final survivor. So I was that 1 out of 4 that made it out. I was also part of plenty 4ks and 3ks.
Within large amounts of data like the kill rates there is room for above average survivors doing better than average and below average survivors doing worse. Some killers will have 90% kill rates and higher, others will be closer to 50%. But the overall average, the majority, is 75%.
The killers in the 50 games I tracked had a kill rate of 60%. They also averaged about 2 ranks lower than the team average.
it’s reasonable to expect that above average survivors skew things toward better than average outcomes. Just like the below average survivors screw the team and create below average outcomes.
1 -
So you escaped more times than you died basically as a survivor.
And your killer kill rate is only 60% which isn't far off the target. This isn't what I'd call "extremely biased". And this is just going on the data that you provided which may or may not be accurate.
My experiences as a survivor is similar, I generally escape 2 out of 3 games around rank 3. As a killer my games vary alot from winning easily to getting destroyed depending on the survivors.
1 -
A friend of mine also had a very good point about the kill (4k) percentage stats at red ranks, a fair chunk of the survivors that are surviving are probably the last person getting hatch because the killer decided to be nice. Which means that the killers actual kill (4k) percentage probably should be 5-6 percent higher than it is for each killer.
So the highest one is 76 percent to get a 4k at red ranks, right? So add on another 5-6% and that puts that killer at 81 / 82 percent chance to have a 4k.
0 -
They LIERALLY nerfed 5 killers in the past 3 months, and about to nerf doctor (they call it buff but from the leaks they seem like their buffing the killer for survivors)
What did they do for survivors? Gave them a OP map and the ability to pick up pallets (yes, they got rid of insta-heals but THAT was truly OP, being able to deny killers almost 1 minute of time.) Also survivors have like 8 second chance perks, while killers only have, maybe 2.
The statistics are also very vague too, As they don't count for suicides and DCs.
Maybe the game is not that is't killer sided, but more that you need to get better at the game instead of saying "every killer op plz nerf".
survivors don't have to win every game.
0 -
The game is not killer sided, it has always been and still is heavily in favour of survivors.
The statistics mean little as most people in this game are not very good or coordinated, thereby killers win not because they are the stronger role, but because survivors are not playing optimally, Also as a sidenote, anything under 75% is a 2k and most killers do sit at under 75%, so even taking the statistics into account, killers are largely only killing 2 survivors.
0 -
Omg good players with 90% win rates? Who would've thought?
It's almost as if they put time and dedication into playing the game, learning the loops, learning the mindgames, etc. to do good. But no, it's definitely the killers they're playing that made it happen. So in conclusion, nerf Wraith and Trapper because some of the best players in the game are good at playing as them.
1 -
0 -
Sorry but, a few rebuffs to above:
1) My personal results are ONE survivor. Not indicative of the entire population. So it doesn't refute the killer bias.
2) This post:
"The statistics mean little as most people in this game are not very good or coordinated, thereby killers win not because they are the stronger role, but because survivors are not playing optimally, Also as a sidenote, anything under 75% is a 2k and most killers do sit at under 75%, so even taking the statistics into account, killers are largely only killing 2 survivors."
shows a complete lack of understanding of statistics and data. The point about players not being good or coordinated is irrelevant and wrong. And the point about anything under 75% being 2k is just misunderstanding how math works.We're not just talking 1 round with 4 survivors so that the numbers are discrete: 2 = 50% 3 = 75% etc. We're adding up all kills divided by the total survivors. e.g. 34,872 kills out of 40,000
3) This post:
"Omg good players with 90% win rates? Who would've thought? It's almost as if they put time and dedication into playing the game..."
Assumes Survivors don't put time and dedication into the game. Let's be clear, game balance assumes 1 killer is EQUAL to 4 survivors together. So most games SHOULD be 1 killer versus 4 survivors of roughly EQUAL ABILITY. Your post makes sense if you're talking about why a red rank killer beats brown rank survivors, NOT equally matched games.
I'm done. I'll take another break from the forums....
0 -
I think we need to adjust the ranking system. There aren't that many real red rank Survivors, it is way to easy to rank up even if you get destroyed. Plus, its way more difficult to rank up as Killer, making sure a lot of the red rank Killers deserve to be there.
Until they fix the ranks, all of this is semantics.
0 -
-
Thx so god.... one people with IQ...
0 -
Stats are misleading. Imagine how many survivors throw the game at the end. How many suicide because they hate killer x. Gens are done too fast. And finally a new killer that was viable and 'fun' was already ruined within a week. It's hardly killer biased, it's quite the opposite.
0 -
Some days I feel like the game is balanced one way, while some days the complete opposite. It's way too inconsistent to really draw conclusions. yesterday I played like 15 survivor matches solo and survived about 70% of them. The recent killer matches have been similar honestly, but I'm quite a skilled killer, and that's pretty much the main deciding factor - skill.
0 -
Nope, good survivors still run the show.
1 -
The data is not worthless but its not worth taking conclusions out of it. Tru3 and otz are R1 killers and @Peanits stated in another post that R1 have higher killrates. Also I dont think that every red rank killer isnequally skilled like a streamer who does literally nothing but playing DbD. Basing an argument on that is not really logical to me.
Right, 4 man meta lazer focus swf is also not that common. Would be the same mistake to build an argument on that.
Its right that the game has balance issues with solo, swf, killer on different ranks. That being said, it wont help to seperate killers from survivors and say one side is OP.
I also dont share the opinion about losing and winning a game. It is very subjective. Some only want to have a fun time and dont even care.
I agree that the killers pipping conditions are not perfect. You have to at least 3k and not only that to pip at higher ranks. Compared to survivors its pretty difficult. Id also like to see some changes here to lower the "win cons" and also to a more acurate matchmaking.
Survivor and killer can be sometimes really frustrating. I see the main problem why they didnt already change something regarding the conditions, in balancing around the whole players base / the whole ranking system. I wouldnt even know where to start implementing changes so that it keeps fair for everyone.
0 -
The stats don't count DCs, but what about hook suicides? Those happen a lot during my matches. They basically guarantee a 3k or 4k for the killer. During the Rift especially survivors will suicide because they completed the challenge and want to move on. Or they see a killer/map they don't like and suicide first thing. I play Pig and have survivors suicide just because I put a trap on their head. Suicide. Against Pig. Or suiciding against Bubba because they don't wanna wait ten seconds to find out I don't camp the hook.
Personally, as survivor, I don't even try to survive usually. I do suicidal things constantly during matches to have fun. I can't possibly be the only player doing that. Survivors have lots of things they can do during a match, with gen repair and being chased and sabo'ing and playing Santa, but killers only have one thing they can do: chase and hook survivors. So if killers have only one thing they can do while survivors have many... well, we'd have to find out what a survivor's goal was during the match before we can know whether or not they achieved it. If their goal wasn't to survive, then they don't really count for this data.
And how many killers get a 3k or 4k because they camped their first hook and then survivors all suicided trying to make that save? That has nothing to do with a killer's ability and everything to do with survivors not playing smart. For the most part, a killer's power and perks don't even come into play in that situation.
Now, any one of those above things might not matter when the population is large, but all those things together add up and may be large enough to screw up the data.
And the Red Rank data is all messed up, because it possibly only cared if the killer was red rank, not survivors. Also, it's easier to rank up as survivor because they don't need to survive to pip, but killers have to kill to pip, so red rank killers are going to be good at killing whereas red rank survivors might not be good at surviving. If survivors had to survive to pip, and if the data only included red rank killer vs 4 red rank survivors, then the data would probably be different.
Devs need to decide if a survivor's goal should be to escape or to do all that emblem crap to pip, because their 2k survival rate goal doesn't complement their emblem system. A survivor can die and pip and they can survive and depip. A killer has to do a lot of extra stuff to pip, but killing survivors is a part of that requirement in higher ranks. The devs don't reward killers for 2ks or even 3ks; their goal of 2k per match conflicts with the killer's emblem system which usually requires a 4k to pip.
tldr; the Rift and the different goals of survivor players mean there are a lot of survivors out there not even trying to survive, making the overall data meaningless. And the totally messed up pipping/emblem system, as well as the data including red rank killers vs a rainbow of survivors, makes the red rank data meaningless.
The data may show that during a 3-month period many killers were more likely to get a 3k than a 2k, but it doesn't show why, and that matters.
0 -
Killers win more than survivors, even in red ranks. Those are the facts, no one should deny it. BUT that doesn't really mean killers are overpowered. It's because the average survivor is really bad. Even in rank 1, most survivors are complete potatoes.
If the ranking system actually made sense and only good survivors were placed in red ranks then these stats would mean a lot more.
0 -
Even the devs said to take that with a grain of salt because there's so much more to it than just "killers are winning at red ranks". So, no, it's hardly "facts".
It's theoretical analysis at best.
0 -
I mean, the stats don't lie. The reality is that some killers have around 70% kill rates. They just can't be used for balancing purposes. That's the part where we take it with a grain of salt in my opinion.
1 -
Your entire rhetoric is thrown out the window when the people who compiled the stats said to, in a few words, not take them seriously. Thus, making them completely inconclusive to real world stats.
0 -
Yeah, I agree. We don't even know if they pip or not.
0 -
Didn't DCs also get counted as kills too?
0 -
How are they inconclusive to real world stats? That would mean the stats were calculated wrong. No matter how many bad survivors there are or how many people kill themselves on hook etc. some killers have high kill rates.
Yes, there is much more to it than that but those are the stats. If they say 70% kill rates, then that's the truth. Like I said, that doesn't really mean much and can't be used for balancing purposes since there are a lot more things that needs to be taken into consideration, but those are the numbers.
0 -
They are inconclusive because of all the different scenarios and things they don't take into account. The choices both sides make every match, whether or not they are meming, whether or not DC's occur, or people suicide on hook, whether a mori or key was used etc.
Even the devs themselves, in previous posts on this very forum, have said not to take them seriously.
0 -
That's what I'm saying as well but at the end, those are the end results. The numbers are correct, even though it doesn't mean much.
0 -
"it doesn't mean much" - thank you.
Therefore, they are not facts. Facts mean everything.
It's a FACT that they compiled some very general and inconclusive statistics. It is not a fact that they hold any credibility due to the missing variables.
0 -
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. The numbers are true but you can't draw any conclusions from it. It's a fact that some killers have 70% kill rates but that doesn't mean anything.
We are basically saying the same things so let's not continue this any longer lmao.
0 -
This.
0 -
"First there was the devs own data that showed 75-80% kill rates."
I knew OP's post was going to be dumpster fire and I could ignore it but I didn't think their first point would be this blatantly manipulative and ignorant.
👏👏👏
Good job @Sleephartha you subverted my expectations and invalidated your own argument faster than I thought possible.
edit: changed "incorrect" to "manipulative" because there are technically some Killers with 75% kill rate, so they are technically correct, but there is only 3 so they are attempting to use outliers to define the norm.
0 -
Are you saying all killers are smarter and alwats better than survivors? Killers never stand there doing nothing, hide as wraith, or just sit in the basement so they can depip too? I'm sure that has never happened.
0 -
I'm not saying that but from my experience it's survivors that suck in most games. Very rarely I find a killer that is a total potatoe that even a banana such as I can (unintentionally) bully. Fruitful.
0 -
Evidence means nothing when people get stomped by a really good team like 5 out of every 100 matches and use that as their anecdotal evidence that survivors are too strong XD
0 -
I would edit that to say solo survivor matches are killer sided and SWF matches (particularly 3-4 man) are survivor sided.
0 -
I just had a game where 3 gens popped, when the first chase was over (~2 minutes).
The next gen was lit when i started the 2nd chase.
After the unhook the last gen popped, adrenalin kicked in while i was still in 2nd chase.
I got two kills, cuz the survs were braindead.
This game would be consider "balanced" in the devs stats.
0
