Why are there no more killrate updates?
Comments
-
Giving up is a tricky thing to reflect with data in terms of how it affects kill rates. It's entirely possible that players are giving up more, but kill rates aren't significantly affected.
Are players giving up in games that are already lost? Would players otherwise win games if they didn't give up? They'd have to come up with a control factor in all those games, like an expected win probability solely based on MMR, and then look at how much the outcomes are varying from the win probability in games where someone gives up. They'd have to prove that it's a causative relationship to say "kill rates moved because of X".
Giving up is a problem, but I don't know that it would be reflected by a change in kill rates.
2 -
The values are accurate. You may mean to say they are counter-intuitive, but wrong? Certainly not.
As for the lower killer rate for Nurse it makes perfect sense. If you don't play her, please do. It may help you understand.
1 -
she isnt that hard as people make it out to be, obviously it takes some time to get used to her and a lot of time to master her but still doesnt explain why she has the lowest when there are many god nurse players getting 4k all the time?
0 -
I agree but if BHVR doesn't count matches where there is a DC than that's why the data could be the same. How many times have we been in matches where a DC occurs then the killer gets trumped by the bot. It happened to be yesterday, I was slugged long enough for 3 crows and not hung. The bot kept running away from anyone down because the killer was monitoring us. We also did nothing wrong. Point being I play about 3 hrs daily, and half my matches killer and survivor have a DC. Most DC for tunneling, camping, and slugging. It's time they incorporate the DC matches because more times than not there's a reason why people are. Sometimes they are just petty yes.
1 -
There is no such thing as a god Nurse. The vast majority of players will lose matches quite often. (As proven by these stats.)
With more than 43K registered blink attacks I'm a decent Nurse. Over the years, many of my opponents have branded me "a god Nurse", which makes me smile. All they saw was a game where all my blinks and predictions were on point. What they will never see is all the other matches where I struggle an where survivors have an actual clue. In essence, it's only survivor bias, only applied to "victims".
And please don't be naive enough to take the strike of a professional streamer going against randoms as "proof".
It's easy to say she's not that hard. Have you tried? How far can you go before you get spanked?
More importantly: how consistent can you be?
And in essence it's that. Not everybody had the patience nor the skill to learn all there is to know to play an average Nurse. Let's not even speak about being a good one.
2 -
Zarr, your post fit on my computer screen without me having to scroll, I'm worried you've taken ill :).
I would hope BHVR at least internally actually make use of their ability to look at stats in much more detail, such as killers (and their add-ons) that are most represented in the "players with 70-80+% killrate" pool, or survivor players (and their perks) that manage comparable escape rates, to identify some of the most problematic killers/add-ons and perks stacked in SWF. It unfortunately doesn't appear they really do however, as most of their balance changes seem aimed at making killers coalesce around that 60% global average target, not really addressing blatant issues that anyone experienced at the game would be familiar withI think part of the issue here is that BHVR approaches balance issues in a way that seems (and potentially is) counter intuitive. I think BHVR heavily relies on the idea of MMR balancing things out. If a player wants to sweat and bring the best possible things it turns them from say a 7 out of 10 into an 8 out of 10 player, well if MMR works then its going to balance out though they'll need to keep running those things or face a harsh losing streak.
The above could possibly even be defended on the idea that it creates gameplay variety. I know in my matches as survivor if I'm easily looping the killer, I'm expecting to see double iris at end game. If the survivors are getting slaughtered, it's usually a couple of junk addons.
On the other hand, it doesn't feel right, and it breaks down at the edges of the spectrum.
On top of that, the addon system was originally designed with 'rarity' as a limiting factor. So something could be broken, but this was 'balanced' by it being rare (I have always loathed this design element). I think vestiges of this idea still linger in the design philosophy
2 -
I'm stating that i think even the official stats are inflated because of this.
Either that, or one has to truly believe that Skull Merchant actually legitimately has a 70+% kill rate (prenerf at least) and is the most OP killer ever in the history of dead by daylight (not even 5 blink, yes FIVE BLINK, nurse could cross that threshold)
0 -
Killrates are just such a tired topic where many of the same misconceptions regarding them are repeated most of any time they're brought up, I don't feel all too enthused to get into it. : - p BHVR sharing more detailed stats or even dumping their raw data for the community even just once would certainly re-enliven some of that enthusiasm, though!
It definitely comes apart at the fringes, and that's the experience that is most relevant to me and likely therefore what I am most concerned with. But the issues should be hard to ignore for any developer of a popular PVP game, as the winrates and streaks and the ease with which they are achieved risk boring your experienced and skilled players and frustrating anyone they go up against. The tournament scene is full of players that grew tired and bored of what pub DbD has to offer, and there are many more players of course that instead of finding their way into that scene simply stopped playing or playing nearly as much.
While BHVR is surely concerned with that issue to some extent (otherwise they wouldn't have worked to implement MMR to begin with, lax as they have gradually decided for it to become), I do think they see that these extremes at the upper spectrum constitute such a small percentage of the playerbase that they don't really care. Although they may neglect that precisely because it's such a relatively small portion, making things more exclusive and strict for those players and balancing for that realm wouldn't affect all that many players all that much. And they neglect that there's constantly new people entering into that range where they are barely challenged in pubs anymore, and so even though the "active" pool of such players at any time may be relatively small, there's a stream of players this affects and that as a result may play less. I for one would welcome a separate "competitive"/"ranked" queue with much stricter matchmaking and even distinct balance adjustments. Most popular PVP games have them these days. But creating more nuanced upper MMR brackets and having the matchmaker actually match people among those more exclusive pools more frequently would probably suffice, along with some general balance changes for the most egregious of offenders.
Rarity as a balancing mechanism for add-ons might yet linger in their approach to them, and for that I would likewise say that it probably even make sense from a "global average" perspective and through most of the MMR range, but breaks down at the edge of the spectrum where you have someone like Numinous using LoPro and getting 1300+ wins in a row (although in this case, to my surprise, they did actually nerf LoPro despite it not being a popularly used add-on yet a highly problematic outlier - I suspect this might've had to do with their consultants).
3 -
Stats are fun; i guess it stems from the old childhood "my dad/brother could beat up your dad/brother!"
Seeing killers like Freddy have a high kill rate makes for fun conversations at the water cooler
0 -
Rarity as a balancing mechanism for add-ons might yet linger in their approach to them, and for that I would likewise say that it probably even make sense from a "global average" perspective and through most of the MMR range, but breaks down at the edge of the spectrum where you have someone like Numinous using LoPro and getting 1300+ wins in a row (although in this case, to my surprise, they did actually nerf LoPro despite it not being a popularly used add-on yet a highly problematic outlier - I suspect this might've had to do with their consultants).This is true, but not what I was talking about. I mean like the rarity level of the addons (Iri, Purple, etc.).
Take old BNPs. I don't believe there is anyway anyone thought they were 'balanced' to autocomplete a gen. The 'balancing' factor was that they were rare. So maybe one in five or one in ten games you have this big, massive advantage.
I think a common misunderstanding about BHVR's approach is they don't care if every match is balanced (unlike other games), but whether a player has had a balanced experience over ten (or even a hundred) matches. Maybe some times you get the map and perk setup that gives you a huge advantages, maybe some times it swings the other way. I think they might even be okay with the unbalanced nature as it leads to more game variety.
As a game design, parts of it I like, parts of it I loathe. But back to the addons - I think what lingers is the idea / necessity given the blood web/grind that some addons are just better. By the way BHVR has designed the game Iri addons are meant to be broken (which has become silly as people have giant stockpiles of them). So going back to your original post on the data BHVR has, I don't think if they see these addons over performing that they would actually see it as a problem unless there was a massive difference.
Then we run into additional issues that would make it hard to spot in the data, such as MMR cleaning it up for a good portion of the player base and many players self selecting not to run overly broken builds even when it is incredibly evident how powerful they are.
2 -
Oh no, I understood that you meant their rarity as per their scarcer appearance in the bloodwebs. And that that probably works for the average playerbase because they don't play enough to where they have these stockpiles of the strongest add-ons to feel comfortable using them in most matches. But then there's very dedicated players that have thousands of those add-ons, and can use them every single time, even for thousands of matches in a row. So that balancing mechanism, while it may still work for the global average playerbase to an extent, breaks at those levels.
I'm also all too well aware of the fact that BHVR to some extent embraces the "chaos" of their game, in the matchmaking and balancing alike. And there are arguments for it, for instance as you point to the diversity of the playing experience. They have commented on this at multiple points themselves as well. Although they have throughout the years more and more embraced the competitiveness of their game, and concerned themselves with making it more "competitively" viable, sorting out some of the most outlandish pieces of game design (such as old BNPs, or Moris) and implementing MMR, aiming for much more consistent playing experiences that at least don't quite swing from heaven to hell. They have even strived to make solo survivor less "chaotic" of an experience, with the activity indicators (that are apparently also getting some further improvements in the coming months).
There aren't that many blatantly busted add-ons left either, they have done a lot of ironing-out in that regard too, iri add-ons of new releases in fact often having been somewhat lackluster because rather than direct, significant power-ups, they seem more intended these days to mix up the gameplay of a killer.
But yeah, again, my concern is mostly with the upper end of the skilled and experienced playerbase, as there the only thing that is consistent is how laughably imbalanced in their favour the game experience is (mostly as killer, but also in 4-SWFs), it being possible to win most matches (and pretty decisively at that) even without any perks or add-ons altogether, and an actually challenging match maybe happening one time in a hundred or thousand matches if you are on a good build. They should make the matchmaking more strict at the upper end or create a separate pool or even queue for these types of players, as well as look at which killers/perks/add-ons/etc. are problematic in that space (for SWFs I believe more than anything else it's being able to stack all of those things; without the ability to do so I think we'd already arrive at a reasonably balanced (or balanced-enough) state for SWFs even at a high level), because for players at that level many of their current matchmaking and balancing philosophies break down. And these things wouldn't affect most players much.
Of course, while I do know players and of players that have stopped playing or would have stopped playing without the comp scene, I don't actually know just how much of a player retention/investment problem it actually poses that good players stomp all over this game. I have speculated before that given that BHVR has made the matchmaking more and more lax, they have simply concluded that even among the upper end of experience and skill, most players actually enjoy winning more than having a challenge, and that the people they stomp on don't stop playing in droves because of it either. Or at least that most players in that realm would rather have short queues and relatively boring matches, than longer queues and engaging matches. I don't know for a fact of course, my view is based on my own experience and that of the players I surround myself with. But I do believe they have enough levers to make things at least somewhat more strict and iron out at least some of the most egregious of balance concerns for that level without it posing any risks of alienating or losing players. I can't imagine doing something against players being able to go on winstreaks of hundreds and thousands of matches would have non-positive consequences in a popular PVP game.
3 -
Im just going to mention one thing you said that is completely wrong. Killers were not stronger right after 6.1.0 the they are now. The general sentiment that I'v seen is that killer is at the easiest point in the history of the game right now and the opposite is true for survivor. Maybe back then in certain cases killers could be very annoying, with the 3 gens and such, but that is not the same as stronger. And I'm not going stop playing the game because I still enjoy it a lot of the time. If killers can whine and scream on the forums for more survivor nerfs when the game is already tilted in their favor, then I have the right to complain on behalf of the weaker side that just wants a more fair game.
4 -
Nothing is easier than holding a 3gen and kicking the crap out of them. It was nearly unbeatable, especially for solo survivors.
That is no longer possible. The general sentiment "killer is easier than ever" doesn't disappear even when a killer gets the Freddy treatment (R.I.P. Skull Merchant) because it's a copy paste argument that always works as long as nobody puts any thought into it.
0
