I need to say this... Gens are not the problem...
It's not gen's speed...
Maps, pipping and specific killers and perks that need buffs are the problem.
Highest kill ratio maps: Hawkins and The Game, what do you think will happen to this ratio if gen speed gets nerfed for survivors?
VS
Lowest kill ratio maps: They'd become an average kill ratio
IT'S NOT THE GEN'S SPEED, IT'S THE MAPS.
Pipping: if gens get done fast enough in the early game even with a 3k+ you can black pip or de-pip
My opinion: If you could 3k+ and pip up/get more BP regardless of how many gens were done in the early game, would we have an argument about gen's speed? I can freaking get 4 gens done in a match and 3k+
IT'S NOT THE GEN'S SPEED, IT'S PIPPING REQUIREMENTS
If Clown (just to mention a killer that needs a buff or rework) was more fun to play as and buffed his kill ratio regardless of the map he's in, would we be talking about gen's speed?
SUMMARY: If you rework pipping without being affected by early game gens done, reworked maps for killers that have the lowest and out of average kill ratio to have a chance, and even better, rework or buff those killers, we wouldn't be talking about gen's speed...
Comments
-
Despite maps are the biggest problem atm in DbD, you shouldn't take care of the statistics, those numbers they threw at us are completely worthless, lacking and also badly acquired. Those numbers caused more damage than other.
17 -
I agree. Gen times are related to hook times. If you increase gen times you would also have to increase hook times and each change would make the game 5x as boring as you would expect. The real problems are chase and patrol times, which like you said, can be fixed by changing maps and individual killers. Pipping system is ruining matchmaking and also needs to be fixed. Great post.
7 -
8 -
I agree map layout/tiles are the real time killer and make up a large portion of why you cannot pressure gens, however I won't rule out gen times still needing to be addressed. I just don't think gen speed needs the attention as much as maps however unless we see these maps being addressed quickly gen speed may need to be a quick band-aid fix until such time as most maps can get this face lift.
I hate band-aid fixes but a temporary solution beats a long period of broken BS.
EDIT: Sorry I tagged the wrong post, but its still a post of yours ^.^
2 -
Agreed, maps need a serious rework.
14 -
Its obvious when you play any M1 killer on Red forest.
“Ok I’m chasing a survivor here, the 3 other survivors are on gens 100 miles away, all I have is a basic attack....how do I get the others off gens?“
Some maps have too much distance between the gens.
Azarovs resting place is a pain. You need to camp one side on that map as most killers bar Hillbilly or Demogorgan can pressure both sides. You definitely need to camp one side if you’re Huntress.
Guess what happens when you hold a 3 gen strat? Survivors don’t have fun and complain post game.
Now funny you mention The Game. Small area as its dual layered, easy to pressure multiple survivors since you’re near them more. Never really needed to have a 3 gens strat on that map. Bit crap for finding gens or stairs but the size isn’t an issue.
9 -
I think you missread, I mentioned the game and Hawkins as a high kill ratio average, in which you'd obliterate survivors even more if gen's speed got nerfed. The Game is a perfect example of a good map for killers, where even though it's huge, you can pressure correctly
2 -
I thought you were saying gen speeds are fine currently but its the maps that needs fixing?
If thats the case then I agree. I’m saying some maps are too big at the moment for weaker killers to effectively pressure them.
2 -
YES! Gen's speed is fine, maps, specific killers and pipping need a rework. Using a band aid is gonna create more trouble
2 -
5 -
Opinion of a biased main vs stats collected by an unbiased algorithm, I wonder what has more value /s
Collecting and correctly interpreting the stats is the only way to balance the game because of all the cognitive humans biases: confirmation bias, frequency illusion, Dunning-Krueger effect, just to name a few. So, stats are fine, regardless of whether they fit your subjective reality or not, you'll just have to accept it.
Concerting gen times. Gen times are fine and it's mainly not the maps. It's the gap in looping skills (=chase times) that makes it hard to balance the game. 1 good looper can change the outcome of a game. Throw in 2 or 3 and Killer will DC. What DEVs can do is buffing bloodlust to cut out extremely long chases or re-work the way pallet towns are placed on maps, so that survivors can't safely run from one pallet town to another one. Survivors will need a buff in return.
2 -
I'm sorry, but I can't defend your argument nor most of their graphs, there was no comunication about what info they used to generate them, so we don't actually know (except for some obviously clear ones) how they made them.
But talking about maps, they did say they didn't count matchs with DCs in them, and counting kills per match per map is not something that complex, they took all kind of kills in this specific data, regardless of mori or sacrifice, but taking away from the data games with even 1 DC. That's good info for me in this specific subject...
@_VTK_ What do you think?
1 -
Look at this video:
This Plague got 5 hooks in 5:37 minutes, that's almost one hook per minute which is pretty decent in my opinion and yet all gens were still done in less than 6 minutes on a small map.
I don't think the issue are just maps.
3 -
I don't see problems with pipping outside of the (current) Gatekeeper being dumb, and killers like Billy not getting full Chaser/Malicious for using their power.
Maps are the real problem. Too many are really big or spread out such that it's impossible to really get around efficiently as killer. I feel like every time I play Huntress it's the map design that hurts me the most.
Coal Tower is a good example of good map design. Enough pallets/windows for survivors to run, but small enough for the killer to patrol gens pretty much regardless of how far away they are. The only problem area on that map is the main structure, which could be fixed with a few tweaks. In fact most Macmil maps fall into this category.
Autohaven maps are also generally good for killer, the only exception being Blood Lodge and that's mostly due to the size of the map.
Simply put, maps like red forest and Rotten Fields need to be WAY smaller to be fair. Family Residence too. Strangely Sanctum is mostly fair in terms of size but is unfair because it's so dark.
0 -
That killer got a 2k in 5:37 seconds and those survivors got 2 escapes in 5:37 seconds... Was that a bad game for you? It was pretty balanced for both sides, the problem here was the outcome for the killer in terms of BP and pips, how much the game lasted has nothing to do with it being a bad game.
You might be basing your argument on the "Entity Displeased" post game; as I said in one of my arguments, pipping down or black pipping cause gens were made has to be reworked. A 4k can be a de-pip if done in the early game, as in this case, a 2k, well played by both sides was a de pip Entity Displeased
BTW, "I don't think the issue are just maps.".
Where did I say "just maps"? Maps + Specific needed Killer Buffs or reworks + Pipping requirements
3 -
Calculating an average is just building a sum and dividing it by number of games that DEVs took into account. It's 5 lines of code for the algorithm itself.
DEVs said what time period they used for stats, they said they ignored games with DCs. Many players have posted their personal stats over many games and they correlate to what DEVs showed us. Stats can be off by 1-2% depending on misc factors like rounding, but all in all the bigger picture that the latest stats show us is correct and there are 0 reasons not to trust them. You just have to correctly interpret them.
1 -
I also don't think gen speed should just slowdown
Survivors should be able to punish a camping killer by burning through the gens before the 2 minute hooktime is over
1 -
The only survivor who dropped a pallet (and failed the stun because he went down) was one, the other two went down relatively fast without dropping a single pallet and didn't seem to be very good at looping.
I'd say you've got a gen speed problem when even a team of survivors who don't seem to be very good at keeping the killer busy are able to finish the gens in less than 6 minutes.
0 -
Do they take out the games were a rank 10 killer plays against rank 2 and 3 survivors? Do they take out the games were rank 1 killers play against rank 10 survivors?
That's why @YaiPa says, and rightfully so, that the data from statistics is badly acquired.
Before matchmaking gets fixed, they can't fix piping system because they will always use data from very unballanced matches, and before they can balance the game (maps, perks, killer habilities) they have to fix ranking system first so... it all comes down to fixing the source of all the problems first: Matchmaking.
1 -
An unbiased algorithm, ha. They present crude statistics without additional information and do not provide any raw data or any means to draw your own conclusions. This is how easy it is to trick people into believing something using statistics. As Mark Twain once said, "There are lies. There are damned lies. And there are statistics."
0 -
So, the killer went against two newbies (we can't even see the killer and survivors rank in the vid...) and two coordinated players of which we don't know what ranks, items, addons and offerings they took into the game. This is one case out of how many? And it's not even well argumented cause of the lack of proved variables.
I'm just gonna ask 2 questions:
- If a killer 4k's early in a match regardless of how many gens are done, are the gens not fast enough? Even if the gens were done in less than 6 minutes, if the killer 4k in early game, are the gens not fast enough?
- If you got a 2k this way and the match ended in less than 6 minutes and at the end you'd have gotten "Ruthless killer" what would you have thought about the match?
0 -
THIS RIGHT HERE! We can't say it's not objective to say that the stats were badly done, as it is not objective to say the stats were done correctly, LACK OF INFO.
0 -
There we go! This is what we need:
- Matchmaking
- Pipping sistem
- Maps
- Specific Killers
No gen fixing
0 -
Short chases and hooks sadly sometimes aren’t enough. You need more pressure i.e slugging.
If you increased gen times for low tiers killers then you would need to nerf high tier killers that can snowball easily like Billy.
I think that is another issue - the gulf between killers. Have do you have a maps that are balanced for both Hillbilly and Cannibal for example? Both have a similar ability, except one will be able to instadown more often and can cross any map in seconds.
1 -
I fully agree. Gen times would be totally fine if all maps were more balanced and the weaker killers weren't as weak. That's why I always found old Ruin to be a bit too good on Hawkins, for example. And probably Lerys as well, though that map still had a fairly big size and some good window loops so Ruin was less of a problem on that map.
2 -
Yes. The bad map design is responsible for this. If big maps like Rotten Fields or Red Forest were small then certainly killers could have a chance.
1 -
You don't get raw data in scientific articles with stats, yet science somehow manages to create new technologies that work. You can question them too, if you want. Asking DEVs for raw data for the stats... that's interesting. And then you will question the raw data and ask for game replays. At the end it boils down to whether you decide to believe something or not. Usually people don't believe because stats don't fit their own experience, because people forget that stats show AVERAGE numbers.
What you said is only theoretically relevant for Red Ranks killrate stats. But we all know ranks mean nothing in this game, they get reset and even a potato can get to rank 1, provided he plays enough during a month. So, people with different skills are mixed up in red ranks games anyway.
All other stats are unaffected by what you wrote, I hope I don't have to explain why? Those are averages across ALL ranks.
0 -
That video is indeed sad; An average plague (ok killer) agaisn't below average survivors, not only got rekt but also probably a depip, because pipping up as Plague is not really a thing.
I honestly don't know myself how all that can be fixed, maybe adding more mechanics to gen repairing and a little more time to it would be more entertaining, or a primary quick objective to unlock gens, like maybe making all survivors grab a wrench before they can repair, or a few small 5s gens across the map to unlock other gens, idk, it a complicated matter.
But I do think that survivors are too strong, all my survivor matches so far today were a tbag at gate kind-of-matches, killers look like goofies near a decent team.
2 -
??? Are you kidding? You just confirmed my point in a way that seemed that you were trying to disaprove it! That's exactly what we are trying to get at! Ranking system is meaningless so why have it in the first place if they are not taking advantage of it to balance the game?
1 -
The first thing they teach you at whatever statistic class is not to jump on instant conclusion with the data you gained. For example, Hawkins is the map with the highest kill ratio, is it the strongest map for killers? No, simply it was the last released, hence not many people knew the survival basics of the map such as pallet spawn and correct pallet looping at the time data was taken.
Also, as already said, their data was taken incorrectly: for example, what is a red rank match? A match "hosted" by a red rank killer, but what about the survivors? They didn't tell us.
for such reason, these kind of datas shouldn't be taken seriously, unless with much more data.
2 -
1) Scientific articles are held to a much higher standard. Have you heard of peer review. It is a false equivalent* comparing scientific articles to the DEVs report.
2) The raw data would be excellent and game replays are not needed. Assuming we'd ask for that is a hasty generalization* and wrong. I want to know how the stats break down by rank and number of hours in the game. I want to know how often skill checks are missed, how long totems stay up on average, and how often perks are used - yet none of those are available.
For a while, I played the MOBA, Heroes of the Storm by Blizzard (before it went to heck). They offered post game text files that contained relevant information about the game and users created a site called HotsLogs that allowed users to upload their game data text files and create a massive database. It was incredible interesting and helpful.
The DEVs don't want to do that because it would prove that they are not interested in balancing the game but making the most money, but that's fine. I mean DBD can only survive if it makes money.
3) Stats do show crude averages, but raw data doesn't lie. Raw data could answer so many more questions via stratification.
This forum is full of opinions with limited anecdotal evidence. I wish the community had access to the unbiased, raw data so that we could argue compellingly rather than talk in circles on here.
*Logical Fallacies
0 -
Oh my god... Ok, where do we start...
First of all the most obvious part. As I said, all stats except for "Red ranks killrate" don't depend on ranks or skill, because it's an average for ALL games. So, whether DEVs filtered out rank 1 vs rank 10 games doesn't matter AT ALL.
Next. Ranking is meaningless and I never said it was, it was you who tried to invalidate stats with "rank 1 vs rank 10 games were not filtered out" argument.
If you assign different ranks to players, it will not change the overall stats in any way, just the "red ranks killrate". So, you argumentation is wrong whether ranks are meaningless or not.
My opinion on ranks is, DEVs must split ranks into "season rank" and "skill-based rank". But it's a totally different topic.
0 -
Stats for Hawking show what they show: the killrate. There is no reason to question the stats. Interpreting stats is a different thing and I said it many times already. Even if stats for Hawkins are slightly skewed (although you have a weak argument, since both killers and survivors are new to it, not just survivors), it doesn't really affect the other stats.
Saying that stats are worthless, because you don't WANT to believe in them and nitpick at details is just laughable.
0 -
I don't think you fully understood what is being discussed here in terms of statistical data and that is confirmed by your last phrase because that's exactly what we are discussing here. The topic is about balancing the game and you can't balance a game based on statistical data provided by unbalanced matches. And thye kill rate is one of the most important data provided by statistics to help balancing the game (individual killers kill rate, maps where there are more kills, etc...) so on your second paraghraph...
"First of all the most obvious part. As I said, all stats except for "Red ranks killrate" don't depend on ranks or skill, because it's an average for ALL games."
...you just proved my point... that's what we are discussing...
And we are not just talking about statistics they provived, we are talking about any statisc that is taken in consideration to balance the game. With the amount of unbalanced games those statistics come from, makes those statistics useless for it.
0 -
Raw data can be easily falsified by an error in the code. Peer reviewes make mistakes. As I said, you can question ANYTHING if you don't want to agree with stats. Totems, skill checks stats would be interesting to know, but they don't affect the stats that DEVs released.
I worked as a DEV and balanced a game, fans of the game were not agree to what the DEV team was doing with the balance, although balance changes were needed. And guess what, showing stats, showing raw data didn't change anything about their opinion. People will always find excuses not to believe in something they don't want to believe, they will think of 1000 silly excuses: "no raw data", stats are "lacking", "badly acquired" etc. I'm not surprised at all.
Stats are fine.
0 -
I think you are the one who doesn't understand. I keep saying that you have to be careful when interpreting the stats, they are just averages. But even those averages can tell a lot. Sometimes it is enough to draw a general conclusion. You can see what maps are killer or survivor sided, which side wins more games.
What really baffles me is when people say that stats are worthless in general or try to question the way they were acquired to try to invalidate them.
0 -
I guess I'll believe nurse is the weakest killer then :/
0 -
I don't think the ranking system is relevant to the point I'm trying to make; in my opinion it shouldn't be possible that a team of average players at best, who are bad at looping the killer, are still able to finish gens in less than 6 minutes.
And as someone who thinks there's an issue with genspeed (or maybe with perks that buff repairs, I don't know); if a killer gets a 4k in 6 minutes or less, then that's most likely due to survivors makig mistakes, because there are resources and strategies to avoid that from happenning. On the other hand, judging by that video, it doesn't matter if the killer is playing decent and the survivors are playing badly going down relatively fast; gens can still get done in less than 6 minutes and it seems there's very little a killer can do to avoid it even when the killer is clearly outplaying the survivors at chases.
0 -
LOL, no, it's more complex than that, sorry to get in the argument between you @YaiPa and @_VTK_
The real problem here is the correct interpretation of data and results, the low kill rate of Nurse might be caused by players who try to use her, not by Nurse mains, example: how many GOOD Nurses have you played against? I'm talking about players who 4k every game not even giving you a chance. Compare that with the amount of times you've played against a Nurse who's learning or just trying to do a challenge. Now, numbers:
Good nurses I've faced on XBOX red ranks: 3 (I actually have their GTs) with an average of 3k+
Wannabe Nurses I've faced on XBOX red ranks: 20+ with an average of 1k+
WE KNOW A GOOD NURSE IS THE BEST KILLER IN THE GAME BUT LETS SEE THIS EXAMPLE...
*This are random, NOT REAL NOR ACTUAL DATA, simulation intended. You can see an actual kill ratio can be modified drastically by the outcome of learning or not Nurse main players who want or have to use the killer. WE KNOW NURSE HAS THE TOUGHEST LEARNING COURVE and in this simulation you can see there are more players randomly or occasionally playing nurse than Nurse mains, which could be what's messing with the average.
You need to know there's more complex thinking in interpreting stats and where they came from. Killers specifically have WAY TOO MANY variables missing in their released stats, those specific charts have to be carefully interpreted.
0 -
"Raw data can be easily falsified by an error in the code." It's called transparency. If the data is available then analysis can easily be checked and verified.
There are people will always have opinions and do not update their beliefs with evidence, thats just a distraction from the main, a whataboutish (ignoratio elechi)*. However, there is a large portion of this community that want the game to succeed, be fair, be fun, and are theorists/analyst. This is especially true for this sub community.
Hiding the raw data is just a power play by the DEVs. Honestly, if I was a better programmer, I would try to create a video algorithm that could automatically analyze twitch and youtube videos (watching for the points indicators at the top of the screen) to generate some data for the community.
0 -
It absolutely is the gen speeds. 3 gens get done after the first chase. Making maps smaller wont change that. Yea maybe reducing chase times would work but then the game would be boring and the only thing survivors have is the gens.
0 -
that was my the point. They are superficially using miscellaneous and badly taken data to balance the game.
0 -
I agree 100%
1 -
The reason these stats are flawed, at least for judging this game's balancing, is the pipping system and matchmaking. Survivors are dependent on each other, even just one bad survivor can screw over a team with three other good survivors. A match that ended in a 4k, which involved 3 good survivors and 1 bad survivor, could have ended in a 2k or 1k if that last survivor was also good.
That's why people argue that these stats aren't a representation of this game's balance. Even the average kill rate of all ranks could be inaccurate because of that, because the matches themselves are affected.
0 -
The Plague also seems to be rather inexperienced. She spent a lot of time just doing random things. She hooked the David and kinda just patrolled around him for 15 seconds instead of heading across the map where the survivors obviously were doing a gen. She also let the survivors lead her on a chase to the carousel twice when the generator was completed, with Bill and Dwight. They were both infected, so if they go over there, there's nothing for them to do. Best choice there is to leave them and pressure the objectives. She applied pretty much no pressure whatsoever the entire game, so yeah they're gonna fly through gens
0 -
There isn't a single thing you can do to balance the game until Ranks mean something. You have potato Survivors at high ranks who got there with SWF, the extreme ease of pipping as a Survivor, and the new reset rules. The reverse is also true. You have Rank 20 Survivors with meta T3 Perk loadouts who play 4-man + comms to bully new Killers and have their "fun". Unless you can come up with a way to Rank people that is actually useful, Rank means nothing and is useless in ANY data.
Once you can separate the good from the bad, then you can look at the data from those matches and determine where the problem lies. This will never happen though because the emblem system doesn't work properly (poor OHKO Killers getting jacked out of points because they used their actual in-game power), Gatekeeper is a hot mess (you get screwed on the emblem because 3 Survivors spawned in and all 3 finished a generator separate while you chased the 4th even if you allow no more gens to get completed), and I've had frequent issues with Chaser not registering a Chase beginning before I got a hit and/or down on someone (this actually caused me to depip instead of safety once because I got a number of surprise hits in before the Survivor started running).
There are so many variables regarding matches right now, that any stats the devs throw out there are going to be worthless from the start. Unless you go on a match by match basis, Rank each person in the match based on actual skill, figure out some sort of metric to judge how much they did in each match (did they only gen jockey? did they run the Killer for 5 minutes? etc), and then adjust for 2-man, 3-man, 4-man SWF and then 2/3/4 with comms, you will never be able to get any sort of reasonably accurate data from the game. It's just numbers vomited forth that show "Hey a bunch of people played this game. They are of skill level from newbie to elite. They did these things." and that's it. Nothing more, nothing less.
About the only data that seems even close to legit is the Perk percentages, and that is even skewed to a certain extent because we have a meta that has been stale for months, if not years.
0 -
100% agree. The data from current matchmaking is actual fuel for my garbage fires.
1 -
I disagree. I don't consider using PGTW on the gen next to the hook after hooking a survivor "patrolling" and the map isn't big, both Dwight and Bill were always chased and downed near three gens.
Post edited by Xerge on0 -
I mean, even without the statistics I seen everyone grown as the indoor maps being extremely killer favored. The stats just backed that up now.
0 -
Large maps (Ormond and Asylum) can be a major problem; however, killers with great map pressure can still do well in the maps (Billy, Nurse, Spirit, Freddy, and maybe Demogorgon and Legion; Trapper and Hag can fare well if you know how to position traps).
Coldwind isn't much of a problem compared to Ormond or Asylum; as there are killers able to fare well with the corn (Billy, Nurse, Spirit, Huntress, Ghostface, Wraith, and maybe Myers).
Haddonfield can be easily be in the killer's favor if you're Hag, Trapper, Clown, and Nurse.
The "survivor-sided" maps still allow killers to be successful, while "killer-sided" maps (Indoor maps specifically (Hawkins, Lery's, and the Game), especially Hawkins) don't allow much for survivors to fare well in.
0
