Survivors need a buff
Comments
-
A 50% killrate does not equal a 50% winrate. DBD doesnt work that way, a killer tie results in a win for 2 survivors while a survivor win could still be a loss for their dead teammate.
Since according the MMR system a 3k is counted as a win minimum for the killer, a 50% winrate would mean that a killer gets a tie the same rate that a survivor gets a win. Of course resulting in a survivor sided game where the killer winning (on average) is uncommon, while a survivor winning is a simple coin flip.
A 60% kill rate means an average of 2.4 survivors killed per match, jus about half a kill from a win. This means that while the killer still ties on average, they perform better doing it and could have won if they were a bit better. I ran the numbers into a probability calculator:
probability of a kill: 60%
flip coin 4 times
when set to at least, it said that the killer would get at least a 3k 48% of the time.2 -
that's actually wrong. 50% kr means PRECISELY 50% win rate. Killer plays 4 matches in 1 trial. So when we speak about ties/draws, we are not technically correct. Because it single trial killer can win 2x and loose 2x. It was explained in one of the dev streams (quite some time ago). It was an explenation to MMR - which is the exact thing how game considers when you win and when you loose and this is exactly the number by which you get sorted in lobby.
As for your example - it's not true. You picked survivor that won. That's very arbitrary. So arbitrary, that I can do the same thing - a killer got a "tie" with 2 kills and "I" as a survivor actually lost…
And again. Even this is not always true, because killer can win even when it's 2 out - if one of the survivors went via hatch (draw or canceled match), then he will 2x win, 1x nothing happened and 1x he lost. Overall he won.
2 -
OP wants the game to be balanced around people playing inefficiently and bad.
5 -
No, a 50% killrate would mean that a survivor wins 50% of the time and the killer ties 50% of the time. I could phrase in the inverse, "a survivor loses 50% of the time while a killer ties 50% of the time", but that kind of defeats the point in a discussion about winrates.
How isa 2k not a tie, even in technicality? If the killer one twice and lost twice as you put it, thats +2 and a -2, resulting in a net 0, non-win match for the killer. Which means, looping back around to my original point, the killer ties (more importantly, doesnt win) the same rate that a survivor will escape.
I agree my example was arbitrary and underdeveloped. However, your counterpoint doesnt change anything. Of course survivors still lose under a 50% killrate, the issue is that its less often than the killer by a sizeable margin. Under a 50% killrate, the killers chance of getting at least 3 kills is only 30%, while the survivors chance of winning (individually) is 50%. Yes, two survivors die in a tie, but that doesnt make it a killer win. Fact is that if the killrate were 50% then the game would be (and was when it used to be) outrageously survivor sided on average. A 60% killrate makes for a balanced game on both sides with a roughly 50% winrate.2 -
I don't care about specific changes
I would guess that's what actually matters, they made game easier for survivors...
60% kill rate is just way too much
In your opinion. I like their goal and I think it's reasonable.
In time when the game was balanced (around 50% kr - and it was on average 52+% kill rate if I remember right for a long time since 6.1) the game was fun.
I personally didn't enjoy queue times on survivors...
Queue times are good on both sides now, so definitely better for me.
Now it's so fun I actually uninstalled.
Oh no, anyway...
The thing is, that if he DC's, it's not counted.
In my games most survivors die on hook to dodge penalty.
If killer gives up, but doesn't DC, that is also counted.
Kinda funny, it's exactly opposite for me. It's so rare to see killer give early, usually it's when we are about to escape anyway, so doesn't matter. Otherwise it's always DC, which doesn't count.
it would mean we have serious problem with people giving up basically every like 4th game
I see quite a lot of posts to complain about this with soloQ. I would increase penalty and try to fix giving up on hook. If you don't want to play the game, then don't play at all…
but there is no survivor's record for 3+out for at least 500 games
That's not true, it was done in past. I think Otz talked about them in his video and they were supposed to do it again later. In both cases they were supposed to give up instead actually losing, because it was boring...
Hens did 200+ survivor win streak like a year ago. While they limited themselves to not have any perk more than twice.
Survivors that actually commit to genrush can reliably escape under 4 minutes. Most killers can't do anything about that. Luckily it's very boring gameplay.
2 -
Right now the game is balanced around Killers playing inefficiently and bad. We want it more balanced.
Post edited by doobiedo on3 -
Yes, this was addressed at the very top of the original response I made:
I have to acknowledge that because the developers intentionally leave win conditions ambiguous for the player to decide, any and everyone's interpretation of what constitutes a win, and therefore what the win-rates are is technically correct in their own way. As such I can't really say this viewpoint is wrong.
I am not saying they are wrong for interpreting victory conditions in this way. To quote my second response, the goal of my posts here are:
The post I made that you're responding to was primarily to challenge the logic of your ideas
So to respond to you when you ask:
What if someone considers 2 escapes win for survivors on both sides?
Exactly, so why even try to bring it into argument about balancing, when win rate is clearly highly personal thing.
They can absolutely do that - I have no problem that they do that and I cannot say they are wrong for thinking that way. The developers have intentionally made the game's win conditions subjective and vague, likely to foster inclusivity and encourage debates (like this) that keeps the community active.
But this is a forum for discussion, and the feedback section specifically is a forum for sharing ideas to improve the game. We, the players, post here in hopes of influencing other people to our ideas. We, the readers, (ideally) critically think about those post's contents, question their logic, and help filter through those ideas based on their logical flaws and merits. This is so we can evaluate others thought processes, potentially see new perspectives, and gauge whether or not those ideas relate to us, and in the majority sense, to the playerbase as a whole (which could then potentially prompt change, at the developer's discretion).
So when I see a player who makes a sudden claim that 2 survivors escaping is a survivor victory, immediately includes that result in the survivors' win rates as such to argue for a balanced game, and uses that in a feedback section in an attempt to influence the discussion, I employ that critical thinking. I am not saying they are wrong for doing so, that's their personal choice, but when they make those claims so publicly in an attempt to influence others, I want to find the flaws and levels of bias in that logic so I, and hopefully others, can make more informed decisions on whether or not to accept those ideas for themselves as well.
And so far, I have yet to see a counter-argument to the flaws I presented. All I've had in response to my criticism of the logic is a repetition of the faulty logic under question, and a third party intervention asking why I should question it in the first place. The latter of which I find a bit odd to question in a form of feedback, debate, and critical thinking.
But again, I'll end by stressing that I am not saying anyone is wrong for thinking of win conditions in a particular way - they can do what they want. I'm not even trying to convert someone else to my ideas - I'm well aware that most beliefs are tied to emotions and no amount of logic can change a person's mind in those scenarios. I was just hoping to clarify what logic they used to support their beliefs, which so far seems a bit biased and flawed.
1 -
Correct. Because the game tries really hard to be playable for killers when killers dont camp, tunnel and slug as hard as they can every game. It still isn't at some point, but it's definitely doing a decent job at it.
1 -
Well if that's true no wonder the game balance is so out of whack. They might as well buff Survivors enough to have a decent chance of winning if the killers camps and tunnels and uses every cheesy tactic since they're going to do it anyway. And that's even more reason why the 60% target is completely ridiculous.
2 -
good thing you arent in charge, the game has been pretty fun in the last years on both sides for me specifically bc of that balancing
3 -
You literally said that the game is balanced around Killers being inefficient and that's a good thing, but accused OP of wanting the game balanced around Survivors being inefficient and that's a bad thing. Do you understand why this might come off as biased? I mean I do appreciate your honesty at least.
2 -
You literally said that the game is balanced around Killers being inefficient and that's a good thing, but earlier you accused Op of wanting the game balanced around Survivors being inefficient and somehow that's a bad thing. Hmm I wonder if you main Killer or Survivor. Do you understand why this may come off as biased? I mean I do appreciate your honesty though.
0 -
killers playing inefficient = killers being nice - not camping, tunnelling, slugging, etc.
survivors playing inefficient = survivors being uncoordinated and not doing the objective at all.
big difference.
2 -
Survivor is incredibly easy to play. Is this one of the only video games that you play? I can get why you struggle if so but like… DbD isnt hard lol
2 -
So basically its up the killer if they want to win or have a fun game for Survivors and the Survivors basically have to do whatever the Killer wants? Wow I'm glad you're not in charge. I will say again though I appreciate your honesty it seems you're saying out loud what many Killer mains actually want but are savvy enough not to say.
4 -
killer is the power role. they are also the singular player for their side which means they naturally have more agency.
if multiple survivors stack together with an intent to sweat, they'll have just as much control over the match.
3 -
Your whole issue seems with considering 2 escapes win for survivors, that it should be considered tie instead, if you go simply by numbers, right?
Well, even in sports, if side that was less likely to win even ties, that result is going to be considered better compare to other team, no?
If some noname ties with last year champion, for him that result is amazing, even tho it's a tie technically.
So devs want 60% kill rate, which simply means more survivors are going to die on average than escape, which makes survivors (especially soloQ) definitely less likely to win. So the result when two survivors get out is in favor of survivors in my book (at least for soloQ).
For a change I consider 2 kills a loss, when we play full SWF unless it's Nurse, or Blight. Because I know we are the one more likely to win.
Everything depends on chances for victory to me. Basically did you perform better or worse compare to expected outcome?
So that's my reasoning behind that statement.
0 -
My whole point is Killer has been made into the "power role" a little more than is healthy for the game. I also don't know how to square your statement about survivors sweating together with what you said before about how its good for game to be balanced around it being viable for the killer to play inefficiently.
1 -
Okay, this logic I can understand.
So you're saying that you believe killers have an inherent handicap given to them by the developers putting them at an immediate advantage in every game. Because of that handicap, anything tied (2 man escapes) should be considered a win for the survivors, since they broke even despite being the underdog.
You have lowered the barrier for a survivor win and increased the barrier for a killer win in a standard game setting, because it is easier for the killer to achieve their victory condition.
There are specific exceptions for SWF, but the above is generally true for you in all games otherwise.
That line of reasoning makes sense to me, thank you.1 -
That's why I as a solo player quit playing DBD for a month already, the game is misarable for solo players and MMR is pure garbage. So you either playing full SWF and somewhat enjoying the game or playing solo and suffer because devs just doesn't care about solo players at all which was proven numerous of times cuz in DBD it's completely fine that playing solo and in swf is night and day difference.
1 -
So you're saying that you believe killers have an inherent handicap given to them by the developers putting them at an immediate advantage in every game. Because of that handicap, anything tied (2 man escapes) should be considered a win for the survivors, since they broke even despite being the underdog.
I believe handicap is the fact that result of the game is based on 4 different players, where even 1 player can cost whole game. That's why I pointed out soloQ.
What is more likely to happen with matchmaking: finding 1 good player, or 4 good players.
Which team is more likely to have a player give up?
I don't believe 4 good survivors are in disadvantage against equally skilled killer. But that's simply rare to see in soloQ, so I don't have it as expected outcome.
You have lowered the barrier for a survivor win and increased the barrier for a killer win in a standard game setting, because it is easier for the killer to achieve their victory condition.
Well, as I said. I have same standard for full SWF.
I think soloQ needs a help personally. HUD helped and didn't change balance overall that much. There are other possible features like this.
That line of reasoning makes sense to me, thank you.
No problem, it was an interesting exchange considered this is DBD forum...
3 -
I would guess that's what actually matters, they made game easier for survivors...
So if killers got buff to always have instadown, but lost their M2 + got changed their base speed to 3m/s, than that would be ok. Because by your logic devs think about killers as they clearly got buff (instadown) and it doesn't matter that the game got literally overall unplayable for them. Do I get your logic right? Or the overall big picture and the resulting state (as seen by outrageious kill rates) is more important?
If you didn't enjoy the game back then and enjoy it now, then i guess good for you. For me the game lost all it's appeal. I see it as just unfair. And when they changed hook density on most maps (by e.g. leaving the same number of hooks but skrinking most maps), the game just lost me (and no, the speed buffs and everything else after 6.1 didn't make it worth again. I didn't care to reinstall for last sabo buffs because they are fundamentally useless as killer can get to 3 hooks). Which is strange, because even at version 6.1, which was bruttal, the game was probably my the most liked game. Probably that is also the reason why I even come back here from time to time.
As for you saying 500+ is a lie... AFAIK Hens's group with about 232 escapes or something like that was the record in "modern" DBD (and ot actively ended by single comp killer). There was supposed to be really 500+ win streak, but that was very long before my time (meaning 2019 or older) - that's why i explicitly omitted that (the game back then was survivor sided and it was problem). But maybe there's a new record since I stopped playing? I seriously doubt it, but if there is, then please point it to me. I want to be corrected on this.
As for genrush under 4 mins - that 2k blight winstreaker would have 0 problem with that. Ayrun was already explaining it when he was doing his genrushes - there's no spot for 2nd chance or any defense, so if you actually get strong chase killer, genrush build falls apart really quickly.
You said it yourself. In single trial killer gets 2wins and 2 losses (actually possibly 2 wins, 1 loss and 1draw). Calling that unfair, because the only fair thing in pvp game is "me" (my side) winning more then my opponent "just because TM" is the definition of being entitled (to free wins). You can't follow MMR win condition, being happy with current state (in sense of calling it fair) and not being entitled. 1 of those 3 needs to go
2 -
So if killers got buff to always have instadown, but lost their M2 + got changed their base speed to 3m/s, than that would be ok. Because by your logic devs think about killers as they clearly got buff (instadown) and it doesn't matter that the game got literally overall unplayable for them.
Thank you for proving my point. Changes matters… Overall outcome is based on changes that were made and last year changes were better for survivors.
If you didn't enjoy the game back then and enjoy it now, then i guess good for you.
I enjoyed gameplay overall in both, but I didn't enjoy waiting 10 minutes to play survivor. I don't really have an issue playing survivors now, so why would I want to changed?
AFAIK Hens's group with about 232 escapes or something like that was the record in "modern" DBD (and ot actively ended by single comp killer). There was supposed to be really 500+ win streak, but that was very long before my time
Well, but high streak exists even lately. Over 200 streak is a lot and you said it was stopped by comp killer. It's almost like both sides filled with comp players need another comp player/s team end it… Who would have thought?
As for genrush under 4 mins - that 2k blight winstreaker would have 0 problem with that.
That's why I wrote "most killers" :)
So to deal with actual gen rushing squad, you need to be a comp player and play either Nurse, or Blight. Sure, that seems right…1 -
if a killer is bad because they use a "low effort" strategy that doesn't work on skilled survivor players, but work on you, you know what that means?
And let's not start a whole story about game literally, and i mean literally being balanced around survivors, why else would we have increased hook timers brought with Dracula patch? why have hook grabs been removed? Why was anti-facecamp mechanic implemented (and people are forcing BHVR to make it counter any kind of camping)?
How can this game possibly be balanced around bad killers when we can literally see which direction it's going towards?
0 -
I would say its probably because Bhvr. realized they went a bit too far one way and are trying to balance it out again. And I have no idea what you are talking about "low-effort strategy" are you replying to the wrong comment?
1 -
A year ago, killers didn't have 60% kill rate on average (but I will give you that year ago stated goal by devs was to get there), so overall things that were done in last year absolutely were not to help survivors (with exception to the queue times - by alienating players like me for one thing).
Concerning the streak - the difference is, that comp survivor team (or weak killer on the other side) can try and still most likely fail to end such a streak - hence 2k blight wins compared to only 200 win streak on survivors or on onrio.
As for most killers being unable to combat super heavy genrush - true if you talk about player base. Not true if you talk about best players on their main. Even insane Deathslinger would be able to do a lot about it given reasonable map (not old cowshed, but he also doesn't need Saloon), because of lack of any defense.
And of course if you take 4 brand new players and give them best genrush build, even bad legion would wipe them out without any difficulty. Otherwise kill rate would not be 60% and genrush build would be much more popular (same reason why you used to face facecamping bubba in at minimum 10% of your games in up-to mid MMR - it was boring, but you just won. So there were quite a number of killers that did it before self-unhook was added. And I can name quite a number of other examples like this if u want)
0 -
killers didn't have 60% kill rate on average
They did… We got on 60% because of healing nerf patch, which was more than a year ago.
6.7.0 was released March 2023so overall things that were done in last year absolutely were not to help survivors
They were, those changes were probably implemented to "compensate" for healing nerf, which was more than a year ago.
hence 2k blight wins compared to only 200 win streak on survivors or on onrio
Well, when you want to count only recent streaks. I find the issue that Blight streak was done before his changes. So better addons and hug tech.
Would be probably easier to stop it now for comp team.Even insane Deathslinger would be able to do a lot about it given reasonable map
Lol, talking about gen rush and you pick Deathslinger? He is not known for his map pressure, quite the opposite.
even bad legion would wipe them out without any difficulty
Again very bad example. Any good SWF is going to clean the floor with Legion and there is very little he can do about it. He is M1 killer and they are not going to give him even second hit with his power…
It's clear you never played Legion against team, where mending survivors bodyblock.Otherwise kill rate would not be 60% and genrush build would be much more popular
Those kill rates are because of soloQ and simply new players. Blight, or Nurse are not reason behind 60% kill rates.
Gen rush is not popular simply because it's boring. Most players don't have only goal to escape as fast as possible, people want to have a chase. Genrush doesn't allow it.3 -
This is exactly it and I think now that it's less the case, a lot of people who only play Survivor or majority Survivor do not like it. This is because they are used to winning more against weaker Killers who just now are getting a lot of much needed help to fix broken, clunky, or outdated kits.
Basically? To paraphrase a certain phrase often said about oppression, "To the side accustomed to easier games, needed buffs look like Dev favoritism."
2 -
Slinger example against genrushing team if slinger is actually good works really well. He has no map pressure, but he can down people like REALLY quick. And he can proxy into down almost at unhook. If the whole team takes only genrush stuff and nothing to combat camping/tunneling, then my money is on slinger (again, provided we are not talking about old red forest).
As for Legion example - you deliberatelly didn't read that I said about new team? Like I said it out right - genrush build in hands of new (even new-ish) players is worse then "normal" build and they would absolutely get wiped out by even a bad legion (for example, because they would group and give him 5th hit). And new players will 100% totally not know to bodyblock when mending. Sure - it will be very much different in skilled team - hence Legion is real bad in comp settings. But that wasn't the premise.
Gen rush is not popular simply because it's boring. Most players don't have only goal to escape as fast as possible, people want to have a chase. Genrush doesn't allow it.
You say this, but facecamping Bubba, tombstone piece meyers, camping with prepared projectile pinky finger/iri hatchet were still a thing and I would say I saw it more often then true 4-man genrush squad (not more often then single survivor taking full genrush build). And it still was quite common (not every game, not most game, but people were not surprised to see it). Some people do want to just win no matter how fun/unfun things they have to do to get it. And these things needed to be looked at (and they also were - a lot of things on both sides were looked at - like proofthyself even though I considered it noob trap (because grouping) and overall killer's advantage was nerfed because of genrush) while others are still present in game (kill addon meyers can even facecamp, camping from distance with 1-hit downs projectile killers, no revert to speed buff from dejavu, etc).
I think the healing nerf didn't put it quite at 60% yet, but you might be right and I can be wrong on this one (there were quite a few map nerfs after it as well). If so, then OK - time flies by quicker then I expected. But still - the kill rate didn't go back to when the game was enjoyable to me - it was still somehow OK when the kill rate was on average 55% (that means killers win 22% more then survivors) compared to current 60% (50% more wins then survivor) and I am still counting hatch escape as full survivor win even though I shouldn't (because of missing stats of how often it's used). This already wasn't fair state, but it was still tolerable in my eyes.
0 -
he can proxy into down almost at unhook
So free time on gens for survivors. So smart...
He has no map pressure, but he can down people like REALLY quick
Not reliable on many maps, I can just predrop pallets. Also not difficult to dodge after his nerfs...
you deliberatelly didn't read that I said about new team
So survivors struggle when they are new to the game? Damn, what a new concept...
tombstone piece meyers, camping with prepared projectile pinky finger/iri hatchet were still a thing
Didn't play against it for a long time and it's not really that boring.
facecamping Bubba
Wasn't that boring, most survivors tried to save... Also not really possible now and even worse with current patch.
But still - the kill rate didn't go back to when the game was enjoyable to me - it was still somehow OK when the kill rate was on average 55%
I personally don't ever want to go back. I enjoy playing both sides, chase is what matters for me and it's not really that worse on most maps.
I consider the game way more balanced right now than in past.
0 -
which way did they go too far exactly? Because judging by you "balanced around killers playing inefficiently and bad" is plain wrong, when average killer player actually has more willingness for self improvement than average survivor has, while average survivor player gives up for slightest inconvenience because they find it easier than to actually learn how to play the game.
1
