Slugging is rampant because there are too few advantages to using hooks
Comments
-
I think it's the only way to play Singularity. The fact that you lose infection from EMPs AND hooking is just a joke. Better to force an infection when they pick up the slug, and then idk. But he's far from the only killer who has like nothing going for them when they decide to hook.
0 -
You're right about slugging. It's not that good, and hasn't gotten better over the years. It's just the least weak thing you can do now.
"Mindlessly" hook? How many arbitrary layers of skill do we need to tack on to that simple interaction? Are you parroting that "just because a killer got a down doesn't mean he deserves a hook"? How hard does it need to be?
And you're objectively wrong on that last comment. Call it an echo chamber, but what are we killer mains doing when we get together to talk? Devising strategies on how to not get sucky results, complaining about survivor meta perks and base game mechanics, and reassuring each other "it's not you, it's the game." It's pathetic. We're playing sweatier than we ever have, using the few tools available to us, and we're still aiming for draws at best. Believe me, there was a time (4-8 months ago) where putting on a chase build with Rancor would get me at least a draw, because I played well and the survivors didn't, not because I had "crutch perks." Now I can't even get that a lot of the time. A lot of of these survivors don't even know how to loop, and could be far more efficient on gens, but the bar is low and so they pass. I can't seem to recall ANY game-winning plays the survivors did in my lost matches, yet I did multiple and the result was the same. So you tell me, what are we doing wrong?
3 -
Because survivors call anything and everything tunneling. I know because I've had friends, haven't even been hooked yet cry, "he's tunneling me." But because the devs take all of these alleged reports of tunneling seriously, there's anti-tunnel out the wazoo in the game, and it hurts killers who aren't even tunneling. It's an absolute power fantasy for the survivors, even though they'll claim the opposite.
9 -
True.
Most players don't seem to know the meaning of camping, tunneling or even hostage.
And what to say about the handful of players who are so detached from reality it's best to ignore their posts?
At least Sluzzy (if I recall the name correctly) was imaginative while trolling for the survivors. (And was also a pretty good Nurse, or so it is said.)
I'm not entirely convinced the devs are trusting the posts though. They have statistics about everything.
4 -
60% is the intended kill rate. It would take a 62.5% kill rate for killers to get a 3k+ in half their matches (so they are intended to be balanced around getting a 3k+ slightly under half the time). Anything under 60%, and the killers are underperforming. The higher the MMR, the worst the kill rates get. A 52% kill rate essentially means the killer is only getting a 2K every match which is pretty terrible.
6 -
Heck, one of the most experienced survivors in the world did a video series of him playing ONLY solo queue and had a 60% win rate (win = 3 survivors escaping).So there's a factual mistake here that I've seen a few people make: by win rate he means how many survivors escaped each match. So it's a 60% escape rate of survivors in the match(actually 65.5% at the end of his 50 games), not 60% 3+. You can go to 24:58 in the video (The Ultimate Soloq Experiment) for an example of how he's doing the math.
Two other things about that video:
1: He's excluding games where a survivor quits early. BHVR's 60% rate is built in with the presumption that sometimes survivors rage quit early. He doesn't seem to have any similar rule if killers don't play / let survivors go,. I don't know the extent of this because I can't find the original videos.
2: This all ignores the much larger sample size from Otzdarva, which Hens referenced earlier, of having a rate of ~40% across 262 matches.
2 -
60% is the intended kill rate.
Yes, but not for balancing reasons.
It would take a 62.5% kill rate for killers to get a 3k+ in half their matches
That is incorrect. Winrates and killrates are not that tightly confined because there's more than two outcomes. You can get a 50% winrate off a killrate as low as 37.5%. You don't need 62.5% kill rate for 50% KR at all, as is proven by the current Nightlight statistics.
The higher the MMR, the worst the kill rates get.
No, higher MMR has higher kill rates. Why do you keep insisting this when BHVR's official stats have disproven this?
A 52% kill rate essentially means the killer is only getting a 2K every match which is pretty terrible.
I see you've been to the Batusalen school of 'how not to calculate averages'.
Current lowest killrate according to Nightlight is Clown at 52.8%. He gets a 2K 11% of the time. He gets a 3K+ on 46.95% of his matches.
Y'all need to drop this dummy kill rate argument because it's just flat out wrong in all regards.
4 -
True, the really good killers in comp have someonoe dead at 3 hooks. All the times.
Can we stop saying: if you do x strategy that I dont like, your bad at the game?
4 -
Base kit BBQ is controversial, I get that. But no aura reading perks at all? Ridiculous. Do you really expect a killer to run around and hope to find survivors by pure luck every time? As a survivor you don't need to see your objective because it's static, locked in place. But as a killer you have 4 targets that can move around the map freely and with how quick gens can be finished, the killer really doesn't have time to look for survivors. Otherwise they don't have the time to finish a chase.
I mean, just think about it. Let's say it takes 10 seconds for a killer to get near a survivor after every hook and another 15 seconds before they find them. Now they begin the chase and get a down after 45 seconds (which is pretty quick for most killers). Then they go and hook that survivor which takes about 8-15 seconds (depends on how far you need to walk to a hook), so let's assume it's 10 seconds on average (which is faster than in reality). That's 80 seconds in total for a single hook stage. The survivors can finish 3 gens in that time if they bring anything to increase gen speed. Good luck coming back after that. That math ain't mathin'.
Your second point is hardcore tunneling, which most of us agree shouldn't be the standard. So saying that that's better than slugging is a pretty weak argument. Not only that but you misunderstand the point. The point about slugging isn't to get that survivor to bleed out (unless they can't be hooked) but to take a calculated risk for the chance of another quick hit or down. Also, just because you don't like it doesn't mean people are bad at the game for using certain things. I don't really like getting blinded while I pick up a survivor. Does that make that survivor bad at the game? Probably not.
The third point is because you are not supposed to wiggle out by default. It's supposed to be a possibility, if your team is on point. That and it limits how far the killer can carry you, so that they don't get a basement hook each and every time.
Unbreakable, Exponential, We're Gonna Live Forever, Medkits, Buckle Up, For The People, Flip-Flop, Tenacity… Yeah, sure. All these things don't exist. There is no way at all to do something against a slugging killer. It's not like slugging is a risk on its own because if it doesn't work out, the killer is in a pretty bad spot.
2 -
Yes, but not for balancing reasons.
it literally is because of balancing reasons, not because "devs favor other side and hate mine!!!"
That is incorrect. Winrates and killrates are not that tightly confined because there's more than two outcomes. You can get a 50% winrate off a killrate as low as 37.5%. You don't need 62.5% kill rate for 50% KR at all, as is proven by the current Nightlight statistics.
they are not tightly confined, but the rest of statement is completely incorrect. Victory for killer in terms of MMR is only when you have 3+ kills. Now, there are also various community made conditions which we won't count in at the moment.
No, higher MMR has higher kill rates. Why do you keep insisting this when BHVR's official stats have disproven this?
higher MMR DOESN'T exist, it stopped existing the very day when BHVR decided to prioritize shorter queues over accurate matchmaking. Only pub (DbD matchmaking server) and comp (scrims, tourneys, DbDLeague etc., custom lobbies matches) communities exist.
Official stats have also proven that worst killers are having highest killrates and that average chase time per one hook stage is 20s (1m30s on average in case of good survivors). What does it mean? It means stats are literally extremely polluted with player related factors, such as skill and people who grief.
I see you've been to the Batusalen school of 'how not to calculate averages'.
Current lowest killrate according to Nightlight is Clown at 52.8%. He gets a 2K 11% of the time. He gets a 3K+ on 46.95% of his matches.
Y'all need to drop this dummy kill rate argument because it's just flat out wrong in all regards.
"i will use my understanding of killrates because it fits my narrative" type of post
3 -
This is 100% true, people legitimately dont understand what they are moaning about.
2 -
it literally is because of balancing reasons, not because "devs favor other side and hate mine!!!"
No, the devs stated that this 60% was to keep the horror vibe, not because of balancing reasons.
they are not tightly confined, but the rest of statement is completely incorrect. Victory for killer in terms of MMR is only when you have 3+ kills. Now, there are also various community made conditions which we won't count in at the moment.
10 matches
40 survivors
50% winrate = 5 matches with 3K+ = minimum of 15 survivors killed.
15/40 = 0.375 = 37.5%
You can get a 50% winrate as killer off a killrate as low as 37.5%. Yes, that's unrealistic because the statistics are way more volatile, but my point wasn't that we should aim for that anyway, it's that claiming that a 62.5% killrate is needed for a 50% winrate is effectively based on nothing.
DBD's stats don't work that way. Nothing I said was incorrect.
Official stats have also proven that worst killers are having highest killrates and that average chase time per one hook stage is 20s (1m30s on average in case of good survivors). What does it mean? It means stats are literally extremely polluted with player related factors, such as skill and people who grief.
Of course, this only ever works in a one-way street where it is used to discredit any issues survivors may have, because any purely anecdotal woe-is-me story from a killer main is 100% fact.
But hey, it doesn't matter whether you trust the stats or not, because Hotrod was talking about those stats anyway, making claims that they pointed out the exact opposite of what they actually say.
'High MMR has lower kill rates!'
'Stats say they don't'
'Official stats do!'
'No they don't'
'Well, the stats aren't accurate!'
It's just moving goalposts faster than Dredge can teleport between lockers.
"i will use my understanding of killrates because it fits my narrative" type of post
On Hotrod's part, yes.
The line of thinking he's employing comes from one forum user that has been explained, over and over again, why that line of thinking is flat-out incorrect. In all regards. It doesn't make sense from practical or theoretical points, it's even mathematically unsound.
Hotrod brings it up again because it agrees with his biases. You don't need a 62.5% killrate to get a 50% winrate.
Check Nightlight. Artist has 50% 3K+ rate on a 55% killrate. The closest killers to the 62.5% killrate are Hillbilly (61.73%) and Onryo (63.31%), featuring winrates of 55.8% and 60.7% (!!!) respectively.
The 'logic' that Hotrod is trying to pass here does not work theoretically, practically, or mathematically. Making it incredibly ironic that you're defending it by accusing -me- of using a different understanding of killrates to suit my narrative.
3 -
Another reminder that the perks most used all revolve around hooking, so this is all just head cannon.
3 -
A couple easy things could be added to make slugging much less of a powerful strategy:
1. make bleed out times invisible to the killer
2. make bleed out take longer (5 minutes instead of 4 for example) and add a method to bleed yourself out faster if the entire team is incapacitated (hooked, bleeding out, or dead)
3. make it possible to put your recovery progress to 99% without Unbreakable instead of maxxing at 95%
1 -
No, the devs stated that this 60% was to keep the horror vibe, not because of balancing reasons.
please point me out to an announcement and when it was posted because i'm very well aware they didn't say it any time after game has actually stopped to be hide and seek.
10 matches
40 survivors
50% winrate = 5 matches with 3K+ = minimum of 15 survivors killed.
15/40 = 0.375 = 37.5%
You can get a 50% winrate as killer off a killrate as low as 37.5%. Yes, that's unrealistic because the statistics are way more volatile, but my point wasn't that we should aim for that anyway, it's that claiming that a 62.5% killrate is needed for a 50% winrate is effectively based on nothing.
DBD's stats don't work that way. Nothing I said was incorrect.
killrates are based on average MMR and "top MMR", where average MMR would be supposed to have higher killrates because killer is easier role to win with on lower skill levels, while survivor is easier role to win with on higher skill levels. Basically average of 70% killrate on average MMR + 50% killrate on top MMR / 2 = 60% killrate, and that's why devs are aiming for it. Problem comes at the part where this is heavily corrupted because guess why, player induced factors.
Of course, this only ever works in a one-way street where it is used to discredit any issues survivors may have, because any purely anecdotal woe-is-me story from a killer main is 100% fact.
But hey, it doesn't matter whether you trust the stats or not, because Hotrod was talking about those stats anyway, making claims that they pointed out the exact opposite of what they actually say.
'High MMR has lower kill rates!'
'Stats say they don't'
'Official stats do!'
'No they don't'
'Well, the stats aren't accurate!'
It's just moving goalposts faster than Dredge can teleport between lockers.
alright, let's go here.
High MMR has similar killrates to average MMR because high MMR literally doesn't exist for quite a while, after quicker queues became priority over accurate ones (because players wanted it that way), and literally all players from 1600 (soft MMR cap) to 2200 (hard MMR cap) are literally considered as the same skill level even if they are not and it's extremely easy to reach soft MMR cap.
Now let's see all the player related factors that are severely affecting killrates, making killrates highly unreliable as something to balance the game around:
- hook suicides (completely player related and
- challenges (people not going for actual objectives, but griefing in order to finish a challenge (fault of the game on both sides)
- SWFs playing just in a way to be annoying and frustrate killer rather than win (do 0 objectives, focus on saves/saboing)
- other kinds of griefing survivors
etc.
And why has BHVR been focused all this time on completely wrong stuff as rebalancing perks around killrates, rather than addressing player related factors that impacted killrates?
2 -
please point me out to an announcement and when it was posted because i'm very well aware they didn't say it any time after game has actually stopped to be hide and seek.
I don't know how to search the forums for that specific post, but I believe it got quoted recently in another topic where killrates were also being discussed. I believe it was a post made by Peanits in which they stated that 60% was the goal, they never mentioned balance, they did mention the horror vibe.
killrates are based on average MMR and "top MMR", where average MMR would be supposed to have higher killrates because killer is easier role to win with on lower skill levels, while survivor is easier role to win with on higher skill levels. Basically average of 70% killrate on average MMR + 50% killrate on top MMR / 2 = 60% killrate, and that's why devs are aiming for it. Problem comes at the part where this is heavily corrupted because guess why, player induced factors.
Again, though: High MMR killrates are higher than average MMR killrates. Also, average MMR makes up a far bigger proportion of the playerbase, so that calculation is off by a mile. Top MMR would be such a tiny fraction that you couldn't move the needle with it if you weighted it appropriately.
None of what you are saying has any foundation.
High MMR has similar killrates to average MMR
Except the stats disprove this.
Now let's see all the player related factors that are severely affecting killrates, making killrates highly unreliable as something to balance the game around
Alright, so we're not going by killrates.
So then 60% is NOT a good benchmark, your earlier spiel about why they picked 60% is based on nothing.
But also, you're moving the goalpost again, because now you're arguing that the 60% killrate is entirely insignificant when this little tangent came as a response to me arguing back against Hotrod claiming that it WAS significant.
Now also omitting my rebuttal to your accusation of bias on my part, you gotta admit: This is not a good look for you in that regard.
2 -
I didn't say anything about a win rate. I said it would take a 62.5% kill rate for killers to get a 3k in half their matches. You're not understanding the basics here, so I'll explain the basics. a 1k is a 25% kill rate in a match. A 2k is a 50% kill rate. A 3k is a 75% kill rate. a 4k is a 100% kill rate. The exact halfway point (on average across several matches) between a 2K (50%) and a 3K (75%) is 12.5% (50% + 25% is 75%, so splitting the 25% down the middle is 12.5%). That means the halfway point in kills between a 2K and a 3K is 62.5%. With a 62.5%, you're kill rate is in the middle of the road between a 2K and a 3K on average. Now, "winning" is completely subjective in DBD (which is why BHVR refuses to define it), but the majority of the community accepts that a 3K+ is considered a killer win. In reality, each match is 4 different 1 v 1 situations and there is no survivor team (weird, I know, but that's the design). If on average you're only getting a 1K (your 37.5% number) every match + the additional 12.5% average carry overs, then you're clearly not winning half the matches like your saying unless you're defining a single kill as a killer "win" (which TECHINCALLY is true, since the killer wins 1 out of 4 for the match and the game is made into 4 different "games" per match). However, while I see that's what you're claiming here (and technically you're correct), most of the community doesn't see killers getting 1 or 2 kills as being a win.
Long story short, your "side of the argument" comes down to the grounds that a single kill is considered a killer "win" (and a killer can win 4 times in a single match with a 4k) - but that reasoning is very convoluted and easily confuses the greater balance of things. A killer that can only get 1K every match shouldn't be considered as having a 100% win rate when you consider the whole picture of there actually being 4 survivors he's facing. It's better we all accept the more common view that a 3K+ is a win.
0 -
I would not bother with this person, daniel. I think they must truly only play Survivor.
Everyone who plays this game should be required to play both sides so we all understand the real issues in the game.
0 -
True, I genuinely do not know what sandbagging and "farming off hook" are and at this point I am afraid to ask,
0 -
No honey, you're making a critical error where you only consider average outcomes.
Just because half your matches are 3Ks doesn't mean the other half have to be 2Ks, which is what your 62.5% figure is dependent on. Think about it for a second: You're only considering the killrate for a pair of matches where one match is a 2K, and the other is a 3K.
But if one match is a 0K, and the other is a 3K, that's still half the matches being a 3K, is it not?
And 3/8 survivors killed is nowhere near 62.5%. So no, that's not required for a 50% winrate. Your math is only considering the outcomes closest to the average, but DBD doesn't work like that. In fact, it works quite the opposite: 2Ks are, by far, the least likely outcome.
You are choosing literally the second highest killrate configuration for the 3K+ rate, which is incredibly unfair, just like the aforementioned 37.5% would be, as that is the lowest possible killrate configuration.
Long story short, your "side of the argument" comes down to the grounds that a single kill is considered a killer "win" (and a killer can win 4 times in a single match with a 4k)
I have never once mentioned 1Ks as a win. That is a complete fabrication. Go back over the math I showed and try to find where I counted 1Ks as wins.
1 -
We're talking about averages. If you have a million matches, and you get 5 4Ks in a row, you can't run around and claim you have a 100% win rate. That's not how averaging works. The greater the sample, the greater the accuracy. Having two matches which is what your example is based off doesn't remotely have enough of a sample. That being said, your example would put you at a 1.5 average kill rate (0k and a 3k). I'm not going to go into depth on what averaging means - I'd suggest you google it.
Perhaps you have issues with percentages, so let's make it easier. a 62.5% kill rate translates to a 2.5 kill rate. That means on average, you're getting 2.5 kills. Over the period of several matches, that essentially translates to you winning roughly have your matches (where winning means a 3k+). While you can have a 0K match and even some 4K matches, on AVERAGE across multiple matches, you'd essentially be alternating evenly between a 2K and a 3K.
I also see you're confused on the topic, but we're talking about standard gameplay, not new gamemodes with 8 survivors - that whole thing throws gameplay balance out the window for the sake of chaotic fun. The balance was so broken, MMR didn't get adjusted - which makes sense.
I'm not "choosing" the 2nd highest kill rate, I'm just saying that generally the community sees a 3-4k as a win, a 2K as a tie (though there's actually no tie in the game due to reasons I won't bother going into), and a 0-1 being a loss. It's a pretty good system. 0-1 is loss, 2 is "tie" (though actually still a loss since you can't tie 4 individual 1 v 1 scenarios), and 3-4 is a win.
As you counting 1k as a win, that's the only logical outcome that it's what you believe if you genuinely believe that someone with an average of 1.5 kills (37.5% kill rate) per match can get a 50% win rate. Let's make this easy on you. Let's actually increase that to a 50% kill rate. That means on average across all matches played, that player is only getting 2Ks. With a 3-4K being a win, on average, he's never winning. CAN he win? Certainly! Just over multiple matches, on average, he is not. With your number, it's even worse. With your 1.5, that means on average, he's teetering between 1-2 kills on average. Again, there's literally no way someone who only gets on average 1-2 kills is having a 50% win rate UNLESS you subscribe to the belief that each kill is considered a win and that a killer can win up to 4 times in a single match.
I hope that clarifies it for you. If you're still not getting it, I don't know what to tell you.
0 -
If you have a million matches, and you get 5 4Ks in a row, you can't run around and claim you have a 100% win rate. That's not how averaging works.
It's quite ironic that you say that, but we'll get into that.
Having two matches which is what your example is based off doesn't remotely have enough of a sample.
That's because it's not a sample, but an example. It's to show you that your ruling isn't necessarily correct, and that datasets can exist that do not abide by what you claim.
Perhaps you have issues with percentages, so let's make it easier. a 62.5% kill rate translates to a 2.5 kill rate. That means on average, you're getting 2.5 kills. Over the period of several matches, that essentially translates to you winning roughly have your matches (where winning means a 3k+). While you can have a 0K match and even some 4K matches, on AVERAGE across multiple matches, you'd essentially be alternating evenly between a 2K and a 3K.
No, that's not true. You don't 'essentially alternate between a 2K and a 3K'. There's five possible outcomes in DBD and their distribution isn't linearly even, so the data doesn't neatly compress to this point.
Consider the overall average of all matches recorded over the past month on Nightlight. This is a dataset containing 19.361 games. The average killrate here is 57.68%, or roughly 2.3 kills on average. According to you, that'd mean that you'd on average, across multiple matches, essentially be alternating between a 2K and a 3K, with considerably more 2Ks than 3Ks.
That is your logic, correct?
However, within this dataset, Nightlight also tracks the outcomes of the matches.
And only 13% were 2Ks. Only 18.7% were 3Ks.
Neither of the outcomes that, according to you, would be the average outcome were the most common outcome. The actual most common outcome was a 4K, at roughly 32.9%.
Your logic is dependent on the averaging resulting in a very neat and even distribution of all outcomes, and DBD does not do that. There are five outcomes with very complex and shifting relations among each other.
Consider the following:
Wraith vs. Bubba. Bubba is, of course, really good at guarding hooks. This makes him very qualified to secure at least a single kill, as a down at the end of the match will more likely turn into a kill with Bubba than it does with Wraith. This means 0Ks are less likely to occur for Bubba than they are for Wraith. Assuming the same rate of getting 3K or higher on both killers, it would thus stand to reason that Bubba's kill rate would be higher, due to the lower occurrence rate of 0Ks.
Do you understand this?
Another example.
Blight vs. Clown. Blight is, of course, a high mobility killer. So in the even of three survivors dying before the generators are done, Blight can zip around the map, looking for the hatch at a much higher pace than Clown can. This means Blight is much more likely to turn a 3K into a 4K. Assuming the same rate of getting 3K or higher on both killers, it would thus stand to reason that Blight's kill rate would be higher, due to the higher occurrence rate of 4Ks.
Do you understand this?
So keeping in mind that outcomes aren't evenly distributed, consider the way DBD works in general. How often, in your games, do matches close out with 2 kills and 2 escapes?
Because judging by Nightlight's statistics, across the board, 2Ks are the -least- likely outcome. So this 'essentially alternating between 2Ks and 3Ks' of yours is a massive corruption of the dataset. The reality is closer to alternating between 4Ks and 1Ks. 2Ks are, by a substantial margin, the least likely outcome. So your assertion that you can glean the winrate by averaging out the killrates and then pulling those killrates to the absolute average-point is antithetical to how DBD -actually- works.
You don't 'essentially alternate between 2Ks and 3Ks', because 2Ks are rare. So your assertion that a 2.5 killrate is, on average, comprised for one half of 2Ks and for the other half of 3Ks is just flatly incorrect.
I'm not "choosing" the 2nd highest kill rate
And in that regard, you are 'choosing' the 2nd highest killrate, because your assertion omits all outcomes that don't suit it. The only way that you could get a higher killrate out of a 50% winrate is if you use only 2Ks and 4Ks instead of 3Ks, at which point you'd be looking at a 75% killrate.
Let's actually increase that to a 50% kill rate. That means on average across all matches played, that player is only getting 2Ks. With a 3-4K being a win, on average, he's never winning. CAN he win? Certainly! Just over multiple matches, on average, he is not.
Here, though, you show a critical misunderstanding of averages.
'On average, he is never winning' and 'Can he win? Certainly' are fully mutually exclusive.
In any dataset that does not contain negative values, the only way to average to 0 is to have no value above 0. This means that if the average winrate is 0%, there cannot be a single win anywhere in the dataset.
You cannot claim that he is on average never winning, while also claiming that he can get wins. Those are mutually exclusive on a mathematical level. If you want to hold to that, then you are NOT talking about averages.
With your number, it's even worse. With your 1.5, that means on average, he's teetering between 1-2 kills on average. Again, there's literally no way someone who only gets on average 1-2 kills is having a 50% win rate UNLESS you subscribe to the belief that each kill is considered a win and that a killer can win up to 4 times in a single match.
No, you misunderstand the purpose of the 37.5% figure. It is entirely unrealistic to expect a killer to hit a 50% winrate off of that, I fully agree with that. But the extreme outlier dataset that produces a 37.5% killrate to a 50% winrate is the exact same type of statistical anomaly that your 62.5% killrate to 50% winrate is.
THAT is the point of the 37.5% killrate figure. No dataset with any relevant sample is going to produce only 0Ks and 3Ks, but neither is one going to average out to half the matches being 2Ks because that's not how DBD works.
Your error, same as the guy I'm assuming you learned this erroneous way of thinking from, is that you are confusing the outcome of the average match for the average winrate.
But the average match is never played.
2 -
I keep these in my bookmarks lol.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/433-developer-update-stats
"We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even and support the horror theme of the game, where the Killer is a force to be reckoned with and the survival is not guaranteed."
— Peanits
1 -
@Firellius gets into this in more detail, but we just did math thread a few weeks ago and I'm going to try a simpler approach than him.
You're not understanding the basics here, so I'll explain the basicsThe problem is, you're too basic. Of the five possible results, not all of them have an equal probability of occurring given game design. 2k is the rarest outcome (roughly 1 in 10 instead of 1 in 5) because they require a less common set of circumstances.
This isn't like rolling a die where given enough time everything has an equal chance of occurring, game design has to be considered. So if you look at all the possible permutations that could give you a sixty percent kill rate, you can't just pick the one in the middle as the outcome. Each permutation has an equal chance of being true until you look at how the game actually plays out.
1 -
This game is a miserable experience for survivor (mainly soloq which is huge majority) and too easy and boring as killer now.
This game reminds me a lot of World of Warcraft. Like WoW, DbD has been around a long time and has a ton of content that new competitors in the genre cant compete with, so instead the only thing that will kill DbD will be DbD, just like how blizzard has pretty much killed WoW with terrible design decisions and slowly ruining the game, only listening to a tiny minority of players (harcore raiders etc) I see so many similarities to BHVR and Dbd.
The Devs seem to be too arrogant to fix the design flaws of the game so I foresee it will continue to get worse and worse, such a shame. A good example of this is the fundamental design flaw that is the hook mechanic. We finally had proof of that with the 2 vs 8 mode, where the hook mechanic was entirely changed, and people actually were having fun again, imagine that.
0
