Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Some data on Legion's performance since the Oni update
Hi!
We've got enough data since the Oni release to make some comments on Legion's performance after the speed update.
For all platforms, all maps and all ranks, from Nov 2 2019 to Dec 2 2019, the Legion's average killrate was 61.99%, ranking him 12/17 in killrate. For reference, Nurse is at the bottom with 43.9% and The Nightmare is at the top with 70.83%.
In the same period but just looking at ranks 1-4, Legion is ranked 13/17 for kill rate. It's still Nurse at the bottom and Nightmare at the top.
If I switch to all platforms, all maps and all ranks from Dec 3 to Dec 19 (The Oni released on Dec 3), Legion's killrate is 62.5%, but that ranks them at 10/18 for killrate.
Just looking at ranks 1-4, the killrate is 71.2%, ranked at 12/18.
These are not massive changes, but they are noticable in a statistical sense given the sample size in terms of number of games played. We can conclude that the Deep Wound change (running stops the timer instead of TR) combined with the speed change (restored vault speeds and 5.0 m/s -> 5.2 m/s Frenzy run speed) were a net buff to Legion, both in terms of raw kill efficiency and in relation to the other Killers.
EDIT: Typo. It's out of 17 Killers the first month, then out of 18 after the Oni release. Apologies.
Comments
-
sigh I'm really hoping the cooldown gets looked at its the number 1 thing that kills legion for me
56 -
Rip nurse
44 -
I thought the data would show something like that. They are still not that good, but a bit better than before.
7 -
Can we have the same data update for Oni, Spirit and Nurse please? They all got changed aswell recently and some data would be quite interesting :)
12 -
sad to see nurse went from highest kill rate killer to lowest kill rate killer , no plans for her changes??
23 -
I typically do ok with Legion at red ranks. You have to be really solid in the fundamentals though because Legion has very little to help with actually downing people. But they give decent stall and very good map awareness due to killer instinct in Feral Frenzy.
2 -
Can even be balanced for you. But is very boring to play against and as in terms of efficency and map control
3 -
Good to see Legion’s in a better place than we thought.
...what about Nurse though? Her rework was out in November, surely there’s enough stats to show if she was impacted as severely as many Nurse players have said. Specifically I’m extremely interested in her pick rate before and after rework...if I’m not wrong, I’m expecting her pick rate to have dropped significantly.
5 -
Pretty sure she was always at the bottom, given that these statistics are for all platforms, including console.
14 -
Of course they're good
0 -
still she is the most unfun killer to play as
6 -
Not the point I was making.
6 -
Stop misleading people. Your obsession with insisting Legion is good is just defying logic at this point. The stats say they are 10/16. That is in the bottom 50%. That isn't good.
I also think this is inflated from the rank reset.
17 -
Rank 1-4... you would imagine not a lot of console players would pick her at that rank unless they were good. I don't even remember that last time I saw her... :p
1 -
This doesn't excuse the fact there still bad
8 -
Return the nurse. The adjustment was a failure.
11 -
Would I imagine that? That seems like an assumption to me. :P
0 -
Without other numbers we can't really come to the conclusion you provide us with: that it was a net buff.
Taking a month and comparing it to half a year of data and saying they are completely comparable is questionable, at best.
Not only that but you didn't provide the "popularity" numbers. So you gave us half the stats, but state that it is enough to conclude it was a net buff? I'm not so sure about that.
Maybe I'm too cynical. 🤷
17 -
I wasn't saying you in particular...just more of a common sense type of deal.
0 -
I hope this doesn't mean that the Legion will never get buffed. We can't base everything from the stats, right?
8 -
Is it common sense, though? Again, assumption.
1 -
I don't like to be the guy that is like "The data is wrong" but I think it is possible that when you only had a month maybe less of data that it isn't able to come to an actual conclusion if Legion was buffed.
8 -
Imo, it is not only the question of viability that matters, it is also the question if something makes sense and if it "feels good".
If I think on frenzy in movies - it supports often the picture of a "unstoppable force".
You see this "effect" by many hero, or villan characters, before they going rampage.
And I would like to have the same picture again by the Legion.
While frenzy itself deals no damage is it itself just a very fundamental ability to feel "unstoppable" as the guys from the movies and as such, some of the restrictions on it need to go.
Frenzy need not just be fast, frenzy need also to give the player the feeling that he is "free" and if we look at the moment at frenzy, you don't feel free.
There are still some restrictions on frenzy that should be go. Imo, that would also not cause real balance issuses. Sure, the Legion would be a bit stronger with more changes by the frenzy ability, but after all - frenzy is a non-damage-dealing-abilitiy.
So the impact of taking more frenzy penaltys away would be little for survivors, while it in return would rise the fun for Legion players on a big level, imo.
That is just my opinion to it.
But thanks for the information @Almo . Personally I hope for 1-2 more small Legion patches that contain at least this.
12 -
I think it is...I could be wrong.🤷♂️
0 -
3k is required. To maintain the red rank. Not a buff. Inevitably.
1 -
Comparing one month of data to 3 months of data is not a good comparison.
1 -
Huh?
1 -
The last stats they used where 3 months of data. This one is only one month of data. It is not equal, therefore it is not truly comparative.
5 -
Being worse than other killers doesnt make them bad,lol.
But go on, keep crying, I'll keep playin Legion because ,you know, I actually know how to play them.
1 -
Ow nurse how the mighty have fallen
These stats say he's in the bottom half of killers so maybe a slight buff? :3
2 -
Also susie got a sweater. All around just positives. 😎
0 -
Sure theyre fine in stats but are they fun? Legion feels like mercy from overwatch a character who was op a whole year then she got reworked and nerf spammed and now shes "decent" but boring af to play considering all you do is aim a stick at someone. Legion all i do is smack and run smack and run which was fine when we had stbfl and other stuff but sucks now.
0 -
Thanks for the stats! Glad to see my initial reaction to the changes was wrong. I thought I'd miss being able to use DD during frenzy more but it turns out not to be a big deal.
1 -
Any chance you'll ever consider reducing the penalty in FF misses to instead reflect X power duration is lost? I noticed on console's a random dip in FPS really screws up Legion when in FF on occasion.
3 -
Look how they butchered nurse.. she has lowest kill rate even in red ranks..
I'm fine with add-ons change, but please revert her basekit change
7 -
These stats are always interesting, but everyone draws too many conclusions from them.
2 -
People overreacting in this thread about nurse numbers lol, it's likely more the fact that nobody is playing her.
5 -
Don't read too much into the nurse stats, as they include console. On ps4 facing a nurse as survivor has always been an almost guaranteed escape, unless you face one of 4 people that took the time to master her (in the EU region at least)
1 -
People on here don't know how to read stats. See: people complaining about 3 months vs 1 month for averages.
4 -
I still hope they get some tweaks but i'm glad that we can atleast say no they are not the worst killer in the game
1 -
Yes. If you look into scientific studies you need a valid comparison. Which means doing them for the same amount of time. Also the longer you do a study the more valid and realistic the data will be. One month of time is not nearly enough to figure things out.
1 -
That's uhh not how that works at all. Length of study doesn't correlate with validity of study. He could just take the data from the month before the changes and the month after and he'd probably see something similar (unless you believe that there are significant outliers in the 3 months or for this month that are skewing the data).
One month of data is plenty of time to draw conclusions. It's not like legion changed radically.
3 -
Except the stats are completely skewed by DC's..
0 -
The stats do not (or did not, for the 3 month ones) include DCs, and it has been said that they don't look any different whether they have DCs or not.
1 -
Either they count DC's or they ignore matches that had DC's (In which case, most matches wouldn't count), either way it's messing with the stats.
0 -
Legion can still kill survivors and not be fun to play. That's the issue for me, is that you can make them work if you really want to, but its just not as fun/rewarding as nearly anyone else. Getting stunned half the game without any real advantage for it just isn't good.
He needs a full reword of his power imo.
4 -
So you are just twisting things to make a point?
They didn't take a month before and compared it to a month after. They took 1 month of data and compared it to 3 months of data, that includes additional information to understand the data better, and said it shows a net buff.
You keep going into threads saying "most people don't know how to read data" but have proven that not only are you unwilling to talk about the stats directly, but have some sort of superiority complex where you act like you are more intelligent than everyone else, without providing any substantial argument, and that's the end of it.
You sound like someone who looks at percentages, says they prove whatever they say they prove, and ignore the numbers that make up the data.
Here's a semi-quick example to explain what I mean:
A pet adoption center posts the data about the kinds of cats that have had up for adoption over the last 3 months, and the number of each type that was adopted. This includes "In the last three months 38 Calico cats have been adopted. That's about 60% of the Calico cats we've had available for adoption."
Then after some changes they release new data specifically about Calico cats spanning a month saying "100% of Calico cats were adopted this month! They are getting really popular! Amazing!" And they don't mention that they only had 10 Calico cats available this month.
It means literally nothing to just look at the percentage other than that of what was available 60% were adopted over some previous 3 months while 100% were adopted over this other month. It doesn't mean, as they state, they are becoming more popular. And leaving out numbers makes it useless in comparing it to previous data because each "percentage point" may not be equal.
But because the percentage is a higher number then they can state it because people like you don't care about the actual numbers.
If you can actually explain how leaving out numbers, and not providing where you got these numbers, provides usable and acceptable data and how percentages alone are enough to conclude a definitive conclusion then that would be nice.
I guess taking people at their word is good enough for you though.Edit: I meant to add that you mention "outliers". As if outliers in the 3 months is the only thing that could cause these not to be comparable. Wouldn't it be more likely that there are outliers skewing the data of the provided 1 month data? We have nothing to go on so we can't say either way, but to bring up outliers as only pertaining to the 3 months is, frankly, ridiculous.
Or, you know, whatever.
Post edited by GodDamn_Angela on7 -
Shame that doesn't account for fun, you sure sucked all that part out of him. Slightly more effective at the cost of being actually enjoyable to play as...but whatever, you guys are gonna do what you are gonna do anyways, we should know that by now.
2 -
They still feel the same to me, I don't really notice it tbh. Also making someone else have to mend isn't really my idea as fun, the literally limitless potential of more fun things they could give him in it's place is literally limited only by imagination.
I agree with the latter stuff though a lot, the big problems I have are that he is always getting stunned and for so long, miss an attack, land another attack, pallet, power runs out, stun stun stun stun stun..... It's very frustrating. Especially the miss penalty, if they have Dead hard then it's just another stun on the stun pile for you, plus the dash itself you are probably not catching them again any time soon.
2 -
I feel like there's way too many variables too make a conclusion that the changes where a buff.
Did the play rate go down so people who were better at legion continuing to play him bumped the numbers? Or maybe the drastically different time frames the averages came from has something to do with it? Then there's the new rank reset and how that might effect stats.
Realistically we'd need very specific stats to draw concrete conclusions from.
7
![[Deleted User]](https://forums.bhvr.com/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)