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!
are the developers going to do something with the generators?
Comments
-
Just de facto defining a 2k to be a 'killer loss' doesn't make it true. It's genuinely a 'draw', and for at least two survivors it's still a lost game for them.
Statistical averages does not mean that a 50% or even 60% kill rate is 'almost always' a 2k result. You can't extrapolate that information from just the kill rate number. It's much more likely that 0-1k and 3-4k are the most common outcomes, depending on whether the killer can snowball in the match. With 2k being the least likely.
If I have 10 games, with 5 having 0 kills and 5 having 4 kills, I can still get a 50% kill rate because 20 out of 40 survivors died. But a 2k result never occurred, and the killer hard won half of the games as well.
0 -
As i've said above, even though a 2k is considered a tie by the community, its effectively still a killer loss because all 5 gens were popped and the survivors were on their way out.You're kind of making up your own win conditions at the moment. I could say they should shoot for a 25% kill rate because that would mean on average the survivors lost someone which means they didn't really win.
If you're shooting for an idea that gens getting finished is a killer loss, until to balance that at 50%, that would mean in most games 4 out of the 5 players didn't even have the prospect of victory. That's not really a formula for a successful game.
4 -
Tell me in what planet is a 5 gen pop + exit gate open + escapes realistically a "tie".
A 2 man escape automatically implies all 5 gens were done *hence Killer lost at his effective main goal.* when killer can bruteforce a 1-2K just by camping in endgame I'd be hard pressed to call that a Tie, its more akin to consolation kills than anything, much to the likes of a hatch escape being a consolation escape than a survivor win.
The survivors as a team made it out, they effectively won as a *team*, just because they lost 1-2 people in the process doesn't mean the team didn't effectively win.
0 -
Your win condition as a killer is to kill the survivors, not to prevent the generators from being done.
Preventing generators from being done is your goal while you're in a match, because that's what gives you the time to achieve your win condition, which is killing survivors. That's how the game is designed.
4 -
Gens. Are. Not. The. Killer's. Objective.
Survivors. Are.
4 -
1.- I don't think that even you know what you are trying to say there. Specially the "MM failed 10 times in a row". I mean, are you saying that the MM have failed 10 times in a row in the world record video and they got low MMR bad killers for 10 games?...
2.- Then again, what you are saying is that those top high MMR pros that literally live out of playing the game got bad killers 10 times in a row? Are we starting the conspiracy of content creators not getting rivals based on their MMR, or it's just that in this particular case it is not convenient for you to accept this fact?
- Hens wins 9/10 games with trapper: "He was playing against the best of the best, the 'crème de la crème', the more hardcore and tryhard survivors this game could ever have spawned, because Hens has the highest MMR possible and the MM confronts him with the toppiest of the top MMR players. That's why it proves if you can't win with any killer, you are simply bad".
- Hens makes gens in 3 minutes average 9/10 games: "He was playing against bad killers. Yep, bad killers. A good killer won't allow them to do the gens so fast. Killers were low MMR tier with skill issues, without doubt".
3.- No, I pointed that the logic behind your claim was flawed by reversing it to a similar situation, but from the other side.
4.- ... wha? If you are trying to argue the 47.28% includes the survivors "draws", I remember you that a draw for a survivor is not the same that for a killer, as it is technically still an escape with all the rewards that come with it, even if it was through a free optional and easy way. And even with Nightlight data, only 33 of 400 survivors in 100 matches even had it available, so it's not the difference you think it is.
Post edited by Batusalen on0 -
Tell me in what planet is a 5 gen pop + exit gate open + escapes realistically a "tie".A 2 man escape automatically implies all 5 gens were done *hence Killer lost at his effective main goal.*I think it goes to a statement where the game is balanced that you're effectively making a harder win condition for killers than it actually is.
As others have said a 2e is pretty rare as an event, it's usually more or less than that, just the average. However, in the case where you killed two survivors, two of the survivors don't feel like they won, two do feel like they did. That's a draw.
The game isn't built around team mechanics on the survivor side. Maybe it should be where survivors get a shared pool of points, but they don't, each is on his own.
0 -
No, im not making "harder win conditions".
3K+ is a clear win for killer anything else is just varying degrees of loss.
The survivor team still won even if in endgame the killer decides to facecamp as bubba to guarantee a kill or two.
A 2k will always imply 5 gens done with 1st kill at 1-2 gens left, because as we all know, if a killer 1Ks at 3+ gens the snowballing effect will guarantee a 3k+.
The individual survivor "feeling" doesn't really matter, you're in a team and you either win as a team or lose as a team if you manage to pop all 5 gens and 2E because someone got endgame facecamped, you still won.
0 -
@Gandor Why is it a win or a loss? Carefully read the message to which you replied. There you will read that the tools are too affordable. If all four of them take it, it accelerates the generation so much that it simply breaks the game. It looks just as absurd as if I tunneled purely one survivor on 5 generators on a nurse/spirit
1 -
You are SO DAMN MUCH BIASED. Talking from same bias argument 3 out is survivor loss and devs should adjust for 50% chance of 4 out
1 -
Points 1, and 2, I don't know how to explain it better to you. If I play 50 games and cherry-pick 1 to get 3min game - does it mean I can replay 50 out of 50 times 3 minute game? Or did I have to cherry-pick (because I am literally trying to cherry-pick a game where I get a world record)?
If I play 10 games straight when I define starting point without any cherry-picking and then win 9 out of 10 games - does that mean I had lucky games 9 times out of 10? Or does it mean that something I do have about (with some statistical variation for low sample size) about 90% chance to work?
Is this still really that hard concept to grasp? Is it hard to grasp that there's a good chance MM failed in 1 or 2 cases out of those 10 games, but 7 other games represent pure skill difference while playing for world record exactly tries as many games to get those 1 or 2 MM fails instead?
point 3, then you should reread my original post because you got it absolutely in reverse and didn't get a thing.
point 4, YOU ARE COUNTING killer draw the same way as killer win. You pit survivor wins against killer wins and compare those directly. That is the same as pitting BOTH survivor loss to killer loss + killer draw (saying that killer draw is exactly the same as killer loss) - and by "virtue" of this warped logic argue that killers should get more wins. That's wrong. Doing the same thing from exactly the other side - match survivor losses to killer losses (so 0-1 kills to survivor deaths) and now we see killers have the game too easy, because they loose much less then survivor - and the difference is not just 1.24% but quite some more. To be precise killers loose just 44.14% of matches instead of 47.52% making the difference 3.38% in favor of killers - clearly they need nerf instead by exactly just as warped logic as what you provided (and my number is 272% worse then yours).
0 -
I am defining win/loss same way as developers define MMR. Meaning each kill (no matter how you got to that point) is a win and each escape is killer loss - with specific exception of a hatch escape that counts as nullification of the match. Killer is playing "4 games" in a single trial simultaniously = 1 game with each survivor.
So for survivor if he escapes via gate, he won. If he escapes via hatch, it's the same as if he didn't play at all and if he gets sacrificed in any way he lost.
Not counting some details (like MMR difference and such) to simplify stuff - if killers get 3+kills it results in a overall killer's win. If he gets 2 kills it's a draw. If he gets 1 or less kills, he overall lost.
This was explained directly by devs when explaining how MMR works - and I directly adopted is as a win condition. Is that sufficient answer? Or should I clarify any point (no sarcasm or anything else meant in these questions - read them literally please)?
0 -
It doesnt matter what the devs classify as a win/loss/tie for MMR purposes.
Just the simple fact that an actual expert survivor can lose mmr because he died via endgame camping is enough of a counterpoint towards the accuracy of Dev definition of wins/losses.
A match where the survivors popped all gens in 4-5 minutes but the killer 1 hook camped 2 survivors in endgame to death doesnt mean it was a "draw". Nobody would call this a fair/even match , The killer was still effectively beaten by the survivor team.
If you count a 5 gen pop as a "score event" you'll still end up with survivors scoring 3 Points (5 gen pop + 2 escape) and killer 2 points (2k) , effectively a 3-2 score in survivors favour.
Again, less than 3k is a killer loss.
0 -
Points 1, and 2, I don't know how to explain it better to you. If I play 50 games and cherry-pick 1 to get 3min game - does it mean I can replay 50 out of 50 times 3 minute game?
They played those games in a row. No cherry picking. And even him himself said at the end of the video "10 games, 3 minutes 22 seconds on averages per game". Period. I don't know what you are on about, but stop it and answer already: Are you saying than the MM failed for 10 games straight and the toppiest of the top MMR players where paired with bad killers 10 times in a row?
Is it hard to grasp that there's a good chance MM failed in 1 or 2 cases out of those 10 games
Alright, lets see each one of the times of the 10 games:
- 3:26.62
- 3:09.16
- 3:06.26
- 2:57.67
- 3:13.07
- 3:25.82
- 3:23.85
- 3:30.03
- 4:22.16
- 2:54.10
So, according to you, in what 1 or 2 of those perfectly normal and totally average day match times the MM failed and the "Top tier MMR player that plays at high level everytime and proved that you can play with any killer and win and if you don't you are just bad" get a bad killer?
then you should reread my original post because you got it absolutely in reverse and didn't get a thing.
Let me re-read it, then... yep, my point still stands.
YOU ARE COUNTING killer draw the same way as killer win. [...]
I'm not counting killers draws, because a draw for a killer is not a win in any way, while a draw for a survivor is still a win in all terms that they get as an optional free easy escape. So, again, survivors wins 47.52% matches while killers win 45.77% on average, and no amount of copium is going to change that. And I have to point out it is not the first time you try to do the same of flipping the thing and make it about losses when proved wrong, and it is as valid as the first time you tried. Come on, dude.
2 -
Ah but your definition is so much better. Just because dev's version can have quirks (that actually normalize in large-enough sample size) you define 2k as a killer loose and consider it better because of ??????? That's about as reliable as saying 3 out is killer win, because no normal person would ever consider having died or having friend die in some trial a success.
2 -
Ok. That one prooves that genrush squad of 4 comp players in pub games (where soft cap exists - so those players would win all those games anyway) can reliably (with variance because 10 is statistically low number still but large enough to see reliable trend) make a game last 3 minutes 22 seconds on average. No argument there.
Let me re-read it, then... yep, my point still stands.
Ok then. Extremes are extremes and shouldn't be counted as norm. I wrote so in first post, but you are trying to reverse the point to me to proof IDK what.
I'm not counting killers draws, because a draw for a killer is not a win in any way
Agreed. But it's not a loss as well. You can't bundle wins and compare it to wins when you have draws if other side does not have draws (disregarding hatches). The only fair thing is to split difference. Yet you don't do that. So if you are this "greedy", then all I can do is make a same point but about losses - survivors loose games more then killers so killers are actually OP. Now it's word against word, but the difference is also in a fact, that even if you split difference, killers are still holding prime over survivors (because kill rate is above 50%). If kill rate was actually 50% (and presuming normal distribution of 0-1K vs 3-4K) then it's actually good measure of "split difference" on it's own.
0 -
is this trolling? There are great regression/stalling perks, then there is good old tunneling/camping. If those don’t help, then the problem is looking at you in the mirror.
0 -
This. I play with little to no slowdown and while the first few gens can go by fast,which is natural,as at that point,the Killer has 0 pressure,afterwards the gens slow down to a halt and the survivors are usually scrambling to get anything done.
1 -
It doesnt matter what you "feel" , a 5 gen pop + 3E will forever be a win. Stop trying to strawman.
Survivors are a team and either win as a team or lose as a team.
Survivors popping all gens and getting a 2E because the killer decided to facecamp 2 Survivors in endgame still means the survivor team won the game and there's no way around this.
Dbd is a 1 v 4, not a 1v1+1+1+1.
0 -
Well, all 3 first points cleared then. Glad we got to at least a middle point.
About the last, I already explained why draws for survivors are counted as wins, and that is because in game hatch still counts as an escape in all factors and forms as an exit gate escape: BP, Emblems, retain your item, etc. So, being an optional, free and easy escape for the survivor based more on luck than skill, it is counted as a draw in MMR but it is still an escape in every other sense.
You can not agree with this, and if you ask me, what they should do is just remove the hatch and rework the EGC all together. But right now, it is what it is.
0 -
It's about as logical as your argument of 2K being killer loss. Deal with it. 2K will forever be draw.
Also I would exactly argue DBD is 1 v 1+1+1+1. You don't have cumulative score or cumulative BP. You don't have anything that forces you to even play w your teammates. Heck you have perks that helps you if your teammates die
2 -
You don't gain any MMR. Emblems are meaningless. Draws are draws and not wins.
Purpose of hatch is to not have 1 hour long games and to give hope to last survivor(s) in otherwise meaningless match. It beats survivor hiding "forever" (as the only alternative if you remove hatch). If you have better idea to fix this, I am OK with supporting your view though
0 -
"Nothing that forces you to play with your teammates"
This man just forgot that a solo survivor can't pop 5 gens while being chased.
FTP+BU
Medkits
Healing in general
Protection hits
Gen cooping
Bond / empathy/ lucky star / prove / a multitude of other perks that actively encourage co-oping.
0 -
Sure he can't pop 5 gens. But he can play rat with sole survivor, left behind, lucky break and self care + key or some other variant of the same thing. It's perfectly viable build that plays for being last person in the game and taking hatch - actively playing against other teammates
2 -
Yes and guess what happens if he does that... the team loses because of the forced 3 v 1 at 5 gens and the selfish survivor gets the hatch pity escape....
Thanks for proving my point that DBD is a team game.
0 -
But MMR measures "skill" (because we all know that a survivor that looped the killer for 5 gens has the same skill as a survivor that hided all the game in a locker and only appeared to go through the exit gates, of course... no body is saying that the system is perfect) and I think we can agree that having the hatch spawning at your feet so you can escape for the exact sames rewards than completing all gens and going through the exit gate doesn't require a lot of it. That's the difference.
And no, I don't have any ideas that doesn't imply changing base functionality and how the game works along with it. Yet again, I'm not a game designer payed by BHVR to come up with one 🤣
0 -
And some players play for that (and developers support it by having those perks in game). And actually you don't have to just go out via hatch. You can sole-survivor quickly open gate right as hatch gets closed.
0 -
That is true. But that's how the game and win condition is defined.
I don't know how to fix it too. So until I see/hear any better solution then hatch for last player, I would not be OK with just removing it. Because I play killer too and boring match is the worst..
1 -
The survivor win condition is to escape, not to open the exit gates. Even if we strictly look at the survivor team as a whole and completely disregard the individual component, open exit gates and a 2E is a survivor draw, not a survivor win.
Considering it's a survivor draw, it must also necessarily be a killer draw, because that's what "draw" means.
1 -
To be fair in one respect, the MMR point gain is what determines a 'win/loss' compared to the Kill/Escape. We assume each Survivor and Killer are tied in MMR for the formula in general. Hypothetically if a Bubba facecamps and only kills the god Survivor (+20 points), and 3 Survs escape (-6 points, -6 points, -6 points), the facecamping Bubba is net positive 2 points and 'won' MMR-wise. The inverse is also possible, with a 3k (+6 Killer points each) and the 4th getting gate (-20 Killer points) being net negative 2 points and a 'loss' MMR-wise. This is the only way I can see that person's point could be considered valid, is if they believe themself so superior to all of the Survivors that their MMR is lightyears above, making the escapes -(big number) and the kills +(small number) or some other disjointed mess. If that is the point they aren't saying, but are meaning, then they are technically correct.
0 -
The MMR is based on the win condition, not the other way around.
0 -
What I'm saying is if you win (Kill/Escape), you get points, and if you lose (Escape/Kill), you lose points. The devs have stated that MMR works effectively as 4 independent 1v1s. That means you can Win/Lose/Lose/Lose, but the points gained from the win can eclipse the points lost from the losses (in theory). The +20-6-6-6 yields a positive 2, despite including 3 losses. The points gained or lost is based on the difference of you and your opponent. It is more impressive to win against Federer in Tennis, and less punishing to lose against him. Similarly it is more embarrassing to lose against your 4 yr old niece/nephew when you both are actually trying to win. The points awarded/removed are based on this difference in MMR. The devs have separately said they adjust MMR gains/losses based on the amount of kills, and IIRC they said later deaths penalize the the Survivor's MMR less as the death is more 'expected' with fewer Survs.
0 -
I'm aware, but I wasn't really talking about the MMR system, that's kind of a different topic. It is interesting that your MMR can go up despite a loss, if the difference between your opponents is pronounced enough, but it's not super relevant to the point I was making or the argument I was responding to.
0
