Serious question about 2 kills and 2 escapes
I'm sorry to bring up something way too talked about but something has been bothering me and if I am mistaken please correct me. As I understand devs are shooting for 2 kills 2 escapes that's the definition of a balanced match for dbd. Again if this is wrong please tell me but that's my understanding. In that case who wins? it's kind of weird calling it a killer win because survivors escaped when their goal is to kill them all or at least 3 of them. And does that mean only half the survivors lost? that's kind of weird since survivors escaped. So does everybody lose? It's been really puzzling me honestly
Comments
-
Well you see... its kinda like hockey...
19 -
Get gud
7 -
As I understand devs are shooting for 2 kills 2 escapes that's the definition of a balanced match for dbd.
On average, i.e. you might get a game with 4k, and another with 4e. They're looking at the overall average results because individual games can go either way based off of just one thing happening.
They're not looking for each game to end with 2k/2e
In that case who wins
Who ever you want. The game doesn't care about wins. It only cares about whether you should go against stronger killer/survivors (where strength is measured as the ability to successfully complete the primary objective) or weaker opponents.
The entire notion of "Oh, my MMR needs to go up, etc" is just vanity on the part of the people making such claims. There are no benefits or downfalls to your MMR changing levels, other than being matched with similarly levelled players.
And does that mean only half the survivors lost
If a survivor died, they failed to achieve their objective, and generally speaking their ranking will fall. But since it only makes any real difference over a series of matches, you won't notice any changes immediately, and a one-off loss won't change anything if you're generally escaping.
I wrote an entire post on how the whole thing works here: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/306573/how-the-mmr-works-and-why-what-patrick-said-makes-absolute-sense-from-a-dev-pov/p1
5 -
always I get two surv escaped and other two ded I always will think that its a tie
0 -
If you let 2 survivors escape as killer you got dunked on, not only did you fail to stop them repairing all gens but you also let two of them out the exit gates, you failed as a killer, thats a w for survivors.
0 -
The game is designed around 1-3 survivors escaping being the most common outcome. The gens are supposed to be completed most games when both sides play equally well. This notion that there's supposed to be a 50/50 chance of the gens being done is mistaken.
1 -
They mean the average. They don't want every game to be 2 kills and 2 escapes.
0 -
It's a win for survivors if even 1 survivor escapes.
0 -
I take it as a draw. And if I get a 3K and last gets hatched I still consider it a win.
1 -
Winning/losing isnt very black and white in DBD. No kills is still a major loss even if you get 8 hooks. One kill is still a loss but not a total failure. Two kills is more average, a bit of a draw. Not really a win or loss. Three kills is leaning on a win, but not a grand victory. Four kills is you completely outplaying the survivors and having the glory all for you.
0 -
Its very simple actually:
Hatch = Kill.
1 Escape = Lose.
4 Kills = Win.
Someone escaped using the gates or a key after you closed the hatch = Draw.
Survivors win if any of them mannages to leave by the gate after completing 5 gens, a Draw means both sides lose and u always lose if u don't get 4 kills, but hatch counts as a kill too.
0 -
The game isn't based around 1-3 survivors escaping, but it should. It's now some esport version of a horror game that is 1v1v1v1v1 instead of being 1v4. The game is just horribly unbalanced anymore.
0 -
It's not that they expect every match to end that way, it's just an average they use when observing whether a killer needs to be buffed or nerfed. If stats show one particular killer averages 3k 1e overall then they will look at ways to nerf them a bit. If another killer averages 1k 3e overall then that killer needs a buff. That's just a very basic summary though.
0 -
The balance goal is an average of about 2 kills and the most common results being 1-3 kills. They want 0 kills and 4 kills to be the outliers.
I do agree though that the game should have been designed as the survivors actually winning or losing as a team with a clear win/loss objective for the group. Designing it to be semi-cooperative is a flaw, that sort of game design rarely works well. Unfortunately it is what it is, there’s no changing that at this point.
1 -
I never said its a 50/50 chance, the role who plays better determines the outcome, if the survivors manage to not only repair all gens but to escape no matter how many survs, you as a killer are objectively a failure.
0 -
1v1 me cowshed
0 -
I'm seeing a lot of the game is 1v1v1v1v1 vs 1v4 talk. So lets talk about some sbmm maths. if the game is 1v1v1v1v1 that assumes a few thing. 1. the game is not a team based game its a free for all. 2. you kind of want your "teammates" to die as you will gain more mmr or at least lose less because you will be ranked higher in this imaginary free for all scoreboard. and 3. this also implies the killer always wins with at least 1 kill. A killer killing a survivor eliminates them from the 1v1v1v1v1 this means the killer won the survivor lost. Mathematically this isn't good because it means all killers will slowly go up in mmr and the system will no longer be accurate.
Now in a 1v4 scenario there's the opposite problem the game is now 2 teams and not a free for all. if 2 live and 2 die the killer only half won? This could be interpreted as a win but that would also mean half the other team won and now you count that as a win and now everyone is winning and thats going to be some weird math so instead we must assume the killer has lost. Now the killer is always losing unless they 4k but the game isn't being balanced for 4ks so now killers are always losing which means slowly mmr will drop and be inaccurate.
so now we're back to my original question. if the average for balance is 2 kills and 2 escapes who is winning? From a player perspective its fine and dandy to say define your own win but from an sbmm perspective no one is winning in either of these scenarios as the system will eventually have no meaning and hey suddenly we don't have sbmm anymore.
0 -
I never get 2 and 2
Its always 4k, 1k or 0k when I play killer. Litterally goes 0/1 , 0/1 , 4 4 , 0/1 , 0/1 , 4 4 😅
0 -
Class wins as
All escape = Loss
3 escapes = Loss
2 escapes = Draw
1 escape = Win
0 escapes = Total win
0 -
You literally are saying above that “the side that plays better determines if the exits open” but that immediately implies you think if both sides play equally well it should be a 50/50 chance the gates open. Which conflicts with the design goal that most games be in the 1-3 kill range.
0 -
DUEL BY DAYLIGHT!
0 -
On the contrary, I think its completely imposible both sides play equally well, one will undoubtely best the other, so yes I do believe the 50/50 is imposible because both sides being equally skilled is imposible.
0 -
If you don't shoot for goals you'll never score.
0 -
Tunnel the first person and then kill another one with noed at the end, boom! Balanced.
0 -
There’s no literally purely objective way to tell precisely that one side play x% better than the other obviously, but generally speaking I think it’s reasonable to talk in broad terms that if all the players in a match have roughly the same experience and practice in the game and appear to not be making disproportionate numbers of unforced errors then they are likely playing roughly equally well. And statistically the balance goals are set so that hopefully if all the players are on the same skill level then the results will tend to be 1-3 kills most games versus being wild swings between 0 kills and 4 kills.
So really there’s two main metrics they’re looking at: average kills per match and the variance or swinginess of kills per match. They want the average to be about 2, since that is roughly where most people would expect close games to average, and they also don’t want the variance to be too high in that 0 and 4 kills are the exceptions and most games are in the 1-3 ballpark.
0 -
this is the dbd way
0 -
You pretty much answered it yourself. 2 Kills is a draw for Killer. 2 Escapes is a draw for the team of survivors. Escape or die, doesn't actually matter on the Survivor side. Even the emblem system supports you dying. You can still double pip being sacrificed as survivor if you are in the game long enough and other factors.
0 -
I agree with that and its pretty obvious thats their balancing goal, so we can agree on that, however a 2k is still a lose for killer as I said before if you let 2 people escape you played badly.
0 -
We’ll have to agree to disagree. I think the way the game is designed it’s perfectly possible to play well as killer but if the survivors play just as well as you then the result is 1-3 kills. That doesn’t mean that you as killer “played badly”, it just means the survivors didn’t play badly.
Another way to say it might be that if you play well as killer you can reduce the chances you get no kills or only 1 kill but it’s difficult to force the survivors to all die if they’re also playing really well too.
0 -
Do bones
Etcetera, etcetera
0 -
I think one of the problems, for what I have been able to see is that the whole "when all players have similar skill, you get a draw" it's a bit of a lie.
When I have been stacked with 4 survivors that seem to have roughly the same skill as me (I outplay them, they outplay me, I can reliably catch them within reasonable time frames) I get 1k or 0k. That's definitely a lose for me. This is because the survivors have enough tools to individually outmaneuver the killer. It would seem that the only way for a killer to reliably get 3 or 4 kills is to have less skilled survivors mixed up
0 -
Bait it out!
1 -
It's 1v1v1v1v1 because the devs said it was, meaning they took out teamwork, which is calculated into a players rank and BP at the end of the game, making it a free for all.
So they are balancing everything based on 1v1v1v1v1, meaning 1 survivor is the equivalent of 1 killer perk. Then, when you have a SWF, that 1 survivor perk that is as strong as 1 killer perk, is now double, triple or quadruple the strength. This is where a lot of the unbalanced comments are coming in from. The game is unbalanced because the killer is as strong as one survivor. 4 survivors working together is as strong as 4 killers, which is not possible.
This is the problem with the games balance. It should never be about 2 kills and 2 escapes as the overall metric for balance. It should be the balance of 1 survivor, multiplied by 4 equals one killer. Teamwork should always be encouraged, if not required.
Hopefully they address this when they fix the issue with solo queue not meeting par with SWF, because when they do improve solo queue, killer will be almost difficult and they'd have to rebalance all killers again. Or just leave it as is and all killers quit the game.
0
