What is Your Ideal Survival Ratio
This is a question for killer mains. What is, in your opinion, the ideal survival/death ratio that BHVR should aim for? 50%? 60%? 75%?
Personally (survivor main), I think 70% is a pretty good kill rate to aim for.
Comments
-
Aiming for kill rates is flawed at base as they are massively skewed by a multitude of things that have nothing to do with balance.
While still flawed, hooks would be a much more accurate measure.
17 -
As a survivor main an 83% kill rate would be best
3 -
For each game, i count 0k as a loss, 1k as a tie-ish, and 2k+ as a win. I never play sweaty for kills but thats generally what i deem good gameplay, if they cant stop you from killing more than one of them youve got them beat
2 -
65% probably would be ideal from objective perspective. But killer main in me would like that 75% kill rate.
2 -
If I Kill 2/4 every match that would be worthwhile
1 -
personally for me, I would like to win 70% of my matches as killer if I have a large mastery of said killer. so for me it would be 70% win-rate which is defined as getting 3 or more kills in a trial(0-2 kills for me is losing as killer).
I am not entirely sure what dev aim for as win-rates, but I think they aim for 50/50 win-rate. For survivor, I would expect my team to get 2 escapes around 50% of the time. I do not see myself escaping as win-condition as survivor. I see it as my team escape as win-condition for survivor. If I play well as survivor and killer plays poorly, I expect to win(my team to win) 50% of the time and sometimes my team winning includes me escaping. Other times, it does not.
I am not a fan of numbers approach towards games because I think gameplay being fun(for both sides) is more important then numbers game.
0 -
83?! Don't you think that's a bit brutal for solos and the like?
8 -
I wouldn't mind a 60% survival rate. My average session is about 3 games so if I escape one of those I'll feel good and generally with killer I feel good as long as I feel like any loss was my fault or in my control. I believe the kill rate was higher than this since the last time it was shared so maybe some nerfs are needed for the stronger killer options, I believe this would generally be more impactful than buffs to weaker survivor options. The HUD change does help so maybe better to see if it settles before saying too much.
1 -
I also go for 70% kill rate.
0 -
As a Killer main, I think I should be getting 4K's every match.
100% Kill rate or bust
/s
22 -
I think 70-75% would be the sweet spot for engaging matches.
1 -
Honestly, I dont really know. BHVR has dug themselves into a hole with MMR being based on Kills instead of Hooks. Since Hooks can be much easier to balance for than Kills. I feel like the ideal scenario for Killers should be getting 6 Hooks for a tie, 8+ Hooks for a win, with a 50+% winrate.
8 -
I'm just kidding.
Realistically I think a 55-58% kill rate would be best. I think the game should lean slightly to killers
4 -
25% survival rate would be fairly accurate to the horror films that inspired DBD.
2 -
The game should be balanced at 50/50 or 40/60. It's pretty nutty for some people to think one side should win 75ish% of their matches in a PvP game. At that point, they should implement bots because I wouldn't see a reason for one side even to play the game at a 30ish% win rate.
16 -
Even a 50% survival rate would not work in this game. There is a reason why the Devs aim for a 60% kill rate. It is an asymmetrical 1v4, that relies on Killers feeling powerful and survivors working together to overcome the Killers power advantage. All m1 killers feel weak to play, and feel weak to face. You play an m1 killer and survivors know its going to be an easier match, and will play accordingly, taking more risks and memeing around. Play a Nurse or Blight, and hardly any survivor will take risks or meme around, because recovering against a Nurse or Blight is much harder then an m1 killer.
You were probably not around the when survivor queue times were longer then actual matches. Take a look at VHS, a game that lets survivors kill the Killers. The power struggle is not there and is a huge problem with how the game feels and plays out. DBD is approaching that level of dissonance in regards to what it feels like to play against M1 killers. When an equally skilled set of survivors and m1 killer face off, the entire match boils down to the minimum time to optimally run a tile set to secure a health state. Thats literally all it boils down to, for m1 killers at equal skill level, and you know who wins? Survivors, because maps design gives survivors more then enough tiles to run killers to complete gens. M1 killers success is 99% due to survivors making micro mistakes. If survivors do not make mistakes, which when you get enough hours, they don't make many mistakes, M1 killers will not win, despite how well they play.
This is compounded by map design. Certain maps, and map variations, on M1 killers is an automatic loss for M1 killers, unless a survivor makes a huge mistake early, and the other survivors are overly altruistic and the killer leverages it.
Next kill rates posting will most likely see a 3-5% drop in kill rates for all the weaker killers, probably more for the top 5% of mmr, where it is already less viable to run M1 killers.
2 -
55-60% in favor of killers, escaping should be a challenge but still reasonable to attain.
8 -
A 50% kill rate average, would kill the game. It completely destroys the entire power dynamic in an asymmetrical game. VHS, tried it and it is partially responsible for their dwindling player base and super long queue times, if you can even find a lobby.
Hooks mean nothing if all survivors escape. Its extremely hard to balance a game overall feel, with a Killer role, who wins games by not Killing the other role. If you tell me I double hooked survivors and they escape, that I won that match as a Killer, thats a straight lie to my face, and there is no tricking or making me believe that I won that match. All you are doing at that point is giving Killer cognitive dissonance, and slowly bleeding players who choose to play Killer, eventually killing the game.
Even right now, playing weaker killers who have kill rates under 58%ish feels bad. All m1 killers feel weak to play, and weak to play against, and you are telling me you want to lower their kill rate even more? Especially after survivors just got a buff that will drop kill rates 3-5% or more depending on the killer and mmr distribution. Imagine playing a weaker Sadako.
The micro increases in efficiency that Killers got during the meta shakeup killer buff, were completely wiped out by the HUD update, that increased survivors efficiency more then that of killers from their buff. Those micro seconds saved on killers actions mean absolutely nothing now, in terms of time management compared to the HUD update even for SWFs. Time it would take for a SWF to communicate what the HUD communicates is several times larger time saving then a single instance of the killers time savings, and all that communication would be repeated dozens of times over a match by different survivors. Even comp teams get a substantial buff in time efficiency for communicating call outs and clearing coms by the HUD.
The entire reason for the HUD update to buff solo queue to be closer inline with SWFs was done so it is easier to balance killers, which means buffing the weaker ones, and you all out here talking about nerfing their kill rates even further.
3 -
65-75% kill rate would be ideal
0 -
I play surv and killer roughly equally.
I'd prefer a 60-70% kill rate.
I almost always let a surv or two go when i play killer. And I'd be stoked to escape 1 in 3 of my surv games lol.
0 -
As a survivor main, 100% kill rate. :)
4 -
99.99%
0 -
Ok ngl I meant 60% kill rate, not survival rate, but I pulled what's known as being "big dyslexic" and somehow missed that typo when I checked my message sorry. I don't disagree with what you're saying about other games like VHS (although that game has a couple of other problems) and killer needing to feel powerful.
Generally, some m1 killers need some buff although I do disagree with where this line is drawn sometimes. M1 killers like Wraith, Doctor and Dredge are in fine spots IMO and killers like Freddy and Clown aren't too far off the mark, killers like Tapper and Onryo need more support.
I'd also argue maps also need help but less so in being less survivor-sided but in being less extreme generally, Dead Dawg and Sheltered Woods are too good for killers while Garden of Joy and Cow Shed are too good for survivors. I'd say for every map that's an auto-win for competent survivors there's one that's an auto-win for competent killers, just might not feel this way because killers seem to use fewer map offerings at least in my experience.
I disagree with the kill rates dropping so drastically but I could definitely see them dropping by maybe 1-2%, although that's speculation.
0 -
Im sick of arguing over kill rates.
Can we make the damn game fun to play? Survivor is, its fun to bully killers.
Killer is miserable.
1 -
I will tell you one biggest flaw of 70-75% kill rate:
Why should survivors do Gen when in the end, 3 die and 1 escape. While they can achieve the same thing with all hiding waiting for other to die so the last one can hatch escape
17 -
Balancing the game on kills was a huge mistake.
The smart thing to do would be to have a sliding scale for pips. Ideally the killer pips if they did well and no pip if they did poorly.
For survivors you get 2 players with a pip , one safety and one depip.
2 -
What blueberry said, kill rates don't really mean much until it's too far in either direction. The people saying 70+ gotta be joking though. Until suicides get removed, 60% is honestly fine. The fact that it was 53% with how killer sided low mmr is along with solo inefficiency is just wack.
3 -
The problem is not the survival/kill ratio itself, but how you get there and the snowbally nature of the game.
Ideally, a match would have lots of hooks after lots of chases and the kill numbers would average out to 50%, net of trials with DC's and suicides, per MMR bracket.
Quite the tall order.
1 -
The kill rate needs to be above 50%, else the killer can't be considered dangerous.
60% may be enough.
But, it needs to be on "same strength" matches (evaluation of same strength is another matter).
Losing matches (any side) against something too strong, then winning some against beginners to force the ratio is the worst possible solution.
1 -
This. Why do gens if you and your teammates are gonna die anyways? It would be best to hide and wait for hatch. After reading through these comments I'm glad these people don't work on the game, lol. It would be dead.
9 -
Probably because it's not the constant outcome. When playing normally, some matches get more escapes, some less
For me the survivor game has always been about the chases and the jukes (also managing to hide, when appropriate). I don't think someone who plays only to get the hatch would stay for long.
That being said, I'm pretty sure 75% is too high. That is, unless the goal switches from escaping to from having nice interactions (and an appropriate score to show for it)
1 -
2/3 kill rate seems about right to me, but I think BHVR aims to be closer to 60% to keep survivors happy because they make up a majority of the revenue base. Lower than 60% and killers start giving up and you get much longer queue times.
0 -
The outcome is not constant, means there will be guarantee 4k?
3 matches, 2K 3K 4K, average 75% kill rate. 66% of the match end up in 1 hatch escape or 4K. What make you think survivors will do Gen with 33% chance (less than of the time) of getting the 2nd survivor escape?
People dont do thing that they know it will not give them a better result. Killer stop playing and go afk if they know they cant get a kill. Survivor stop playing and DC/suicide if they know the result will be 1 escape through hatch.
That 75% kill rate make that exact psychology. Survivors dont do Gen if the result will be hatch escape. I think alot of people forget how the game become with 2 survivors knowing only 1 can escape, both hide or 1 of them give up so other can hatch escape.
7 -
Now personally I think the chance for the killer to win should be the same as for a survivor to win.
But we gotta specify a) what a win is for both sides and and how you wanna correlate the equal chance. Do we weigh 1 killer vs a single survivor or against a team? The bloodpoint scoring currently seems to point more towards the former.
- Killer win ( 3 or 4 kills) chance vs a survivor win chance ( survivor escapes) ( "5 players with the same chance to win each")
- Killer win ( 3 or 4 kills) vs survivor team win (3-4) escapes with a 2 being a draw, which unlike IdV isnt acknowledged by the game at all.
I had a forumla/equation to broadly get some number down for the 1. idea but someone shot it down as wrong so i cant really give a real number.
1 -
If someone says "then remove hatch mechanic to force survivors doing Gens", then I have nothing more to say.
4 -
0% for both.
Going off kills is a lame idea and I still dont get how the devs think it's the best idea. Like come on Patrick can say stuff like "if you did a 5 gen chase bit you died was it really a skillful play" and if that doesn't highlight the issue and the devs bad understanding I dont know what does.
I'd rather the game go for hooks and balance on skill. I dont care about dying as long as the game was fun and well matched. Id also rather the ability to get lots of hooks each game too. Any system that punishes me because I didnt meet a single requirement I couldn't control is stupid.
If the game rewarded me for skill killers should have a high kill rate, only reason I hate dying in DBD is the risk to be put on a even more potatoe team than I was just on. Majority of games I die in is due to the team not doing gens, why should i get punished for bad SBMM
3 -
Well yeah balanced hook amount per match for me would be 7-9.
1 -
If hatch escapes don't count (and BHVR has said they don't, although I don't know if that factors in kill rate), then above 50% for certain. Most 3k's are going to count as a 100% kill rate by that metric.
And 100%+100%+50%+25%+0%/5 is 55%. So, 55%, probably up to 60% or higher kill rate once you factor in suicides on hook and people giving up as soon as things start to snowball even if it could be brought back.
So, if 40% of Survivors get free, that's 1.6 escapes, any individual person should get out about 1/3 games, excluding hatch.
In the long run, that's probably a 3e or 4e about 1/3 to 1/4 games? 2e is pretty rare except as endgame stuff.
Post edited by RainehDaze on0 -
That sounds about accurate to me when we account for 2-3 hooks that are just from end game hook camping which have nothing to do with balance. So like 6-7 during mid game before gates are powered.
0 -
the kill rate can be 60% or higher if all survivors get enough bloodpoints. unfortunately it is currently the case that the first one who gets tunneld out doesn't even get a few bloodpoints as a consolation prize.
On the contrary, he will be punished even more by reducing his MMR and with it the probability of escaping the next game. But the management would rather knock out one add-on after the other than worry about such fundamental things.
4 -
60% seems best, keeps killers more fearsome but still gives survivors a reasonable chance.
1 -
I'd like if they gave a portion of bloodpoints to the hooked survivor based on the things the rest of their team was doing to encourage them to hold on and give them time. There should also be some MMR ranking based on how well the team played instead of just died or survived. So even if you ran the killer for 5 gens and died you'd still be rewarded for the team effort. Treating the team more as 4 people rather than just individual.
1 -
There is no win or lose for killer just a score of 1-4, the kill rate should be 2 kills per round on average for a healthy and fair game for both sides, but right now it's too high.
1 -
Yeah but if I'm only getting 25% survival rate because " it's accurate to the films" then I better start seeing more skin because that's just as accurate /jk
2 -
We got Vittorio!
0 -
Doesn't matter what the "official" average killrate should be, because the way BHVR records it is flawed and doesn't match what we get in game anyway.
Eg. I wouldn't mind a 60% killrate if it was truly what I would get, but right now we are supposedly at 60% and yet as survivor I escape around 20-30% at most, with some very bad days where I get 10+ losses in a row. On killer it's the total opposite, I probably have 90% killrate or more, to the point where I consider 2K a major f*ck-up and I can remember every match where I ever got 1K or less.
The game was definitely 2x more fun for me in June when the official killrates were around 50% ( - I still was far below 50% escape rate). Despite the queue times which were slightly higher back then the game didn't feel so hopeless.
But the problem is that as it turned out, too few DBD players want to play as killer. Even right now I see the BP incentives are often on killer in my region, despite the state of solo queue being so bad, yet people would still rather queue for that than killer. It's not an easy task to balance a game where one role is so unpopular.
4 -
I suggest that range cause it keeps the 2k standard while also implying that killers have pressured everyone with the 3rd being on the verge of death or escape.
If players can abuse the hatch mechanics for an escape after doing nothing for the team, then there is a problem with the hatch not the survival rate.
0 -
Think it depends hugely on the match-up.
If it's a high MMR killer against a normal MMR survivor group - they should get 3-4K, so about 75% for killrate. Especially since killer is meant to be the power-role.
If it's a high MMR killer against high MMR survivors, then it should be a flat 2k. Killer is the power role, but survivors shouldn't lose on the basis that one is 'the power role'. The survivors have also worked their way up to high MMR.
0 -
Seriously, the fact that most of these people admit to be killer mains asking for an easier game lolxd
3 -
60% kill rate or 7-8 hooks seems appropriate to me, the average game should be around a 2k (assuming the sides are relatively evenly matched and whatnot).
1
