http://dbd.game/killswitch
Commonly cited killer main myth debunked.
I keep seeing the same argument from killer mains on here… "survivors are losing because the average survivor sucks".
Now I explain why this is blatantly false.
People who choose to play killer aren't magically better at the game than your average survivor. There are just as many mediocre killers as there are mediocre survivors, after controlling for the 1:4 ratio, obviously. Most players are average because they aren't professionals and shouldn't be expected to be professionals to have a rewarding gameplay experience. So if the escape rate is less than 50%, which it is by quite a large margin, this indicates that the game design itself favors killers, which it obviously does.
To turn around and then say the escape rate is low because most survivors are bad, completely ignores that most killers are just as bad, on average. But the OP game mechanics killers have at their disposal makes it far easier for mediocre killers to win against mediocre survivors. In other words, an intermediate survivor loses against an intermediate killer, most of the time. You need an expert survivor to consistently beat an intermediate killer in DBD. An expert killer will beat expert survivors most of the time, too. It is only a minority of elite survivors that can actually prosper against expert killers, and killers don't even face these teams very often because elite players are a tiny percentile of the player base. The balance differential is clearly evident in the absurdly long kill streaks that some killer mains have achieved, which is unheard of on survivor side, and unheard of in other popular PvP games that are sensibly balanced. The margin only gets smaller as you approach the very top of MMR, and even then, 4 man SWFs still escape less than killers.
So the complaints from survivors about the low cheese skill tactics used by killers, like tunneling, slugging, camping, etc, are perfectly valid. A game that doesn't reward skill expression for one side is poorly designed. In fact, neither side is rewarded for skill expression when the game is imbalanced, because even the killers are forced to win more by design, which renders their input as meaningless as it is for the losing side. For every 4K you get as killer, you know it could well have been a 2K or a 0K if BHVR hadn't given you an advantage from the outset. This removes the satisfaction of playing both killer and survivor.
The fundamental principle of game theory is that you have a balance of challenge and reward, which produces a flow state, and that is called "fun". But if survivors aren't rewarded for skillful input, because low skill cheese tactics are so effective, then the game ceases to be fun, and they rage quit (i.e. go next). This is not a skill issue on the players part, it is a critical game design issue whereby a large percentage of the player base doesn't even consider a match worth playing until the end, because the mechanics are inherently unfun. In fact I have never seen such a high percentage of quitters in any other popular PvP game, compared to DBD.
Likewise, if the killer is just handed one 3-4K after another on a silver platter, their input becomes meaningless, and the game becomes remarkably boring. At that point the only incentive for killers to continue playing is for the power trip fantasy, which is why so many killers hate that survivors are able to abandon. Many of them gain satisfaction that they are ruining the survivors gameplay experience, instead of being satisfied for playing killer role skillfully.
To make this concept clear, imagine a game where the outcome was determined at the very beginning. That is, the game told you at the beginning of the match, which survivors will escape and which ones will die. Obviously that would be a terrible game that few people would enjoy. Now obviously, this is an exaggeration. Dead by Daylight doesn't take it to that extreme. But it does do this to an extent, because the odds of survival are forcibly reduced through game design, instead of leaving it up to the players themselves, both killers and survivors, to determine the outcome.
If you're a really good killer main, you don't need BHVR to hold your hand to help you kill survivors. Your skill as killer will make you an intimidating presence all by itself. If the survivors aren't intimidated by you, then you're just not good at killer role. And if survivors don't consider the game worth playing, then the devs need to address their game design instead of blaming the survivors for "not working together".
Comments
-
People who choose to play killer aren't magically better at the game than your average survivor. There are just as many mediocre killers as there are mediocre survivors, after controlling for the 1:4 ratio, obviously. Most players are average because they aren't professionals and shouldn't be expected to be professionals to have a rewarding gameplay experience. So if the escape rate is less than 50%, which it is by quite a large margin, this indicates that the game design itself favors killers, which it obviously does.
killrate 60% = winrate 50% (2k on average). With the current matchmaking, this basically means the game is balanced (even though with improved matchmaking killrates would surely drop by significant margin).
Escape rate of 50% would mean 50% killrate, which further means killer winrate going somewhere around 40-45%.
With this fact, average killer wins 50% of the time.
To turn around and then say the escape rate is low because most survivors are bad, completely ignores that most killers are just as bad, on average. But the OP game mechanics killers have at their disposal makes it far easier for mediocre killers to win against mediocre survivors. In other words, an intermediate survivor loses against an intermediate killer, most of the time. You need an expert survivor to consistently beat an intermediate killer in DBD. An expert killer will beat expert survivors most of the time, too. It is only a minority of elite survivors that can actually prosper against expert killers, and killers don't even face these teams very often because elite players are a tiny percentile of the player base. The balance differential is clearly evident in the absurdly long kill streaks that some killer mains have achieved, which is unheard of on survivor side, and unheard of in other popular PvP games that are sensibly balanced. The margin only gets smaller as you approach the very top of MMR, and even then, 4 man SWFs still escape less than killers.
game mechanics make it easier for mediocre killers to win against mediocre SOLOQ survivors.
Regarding expert survivors vs. expert killers, you are plain wrong, expert survivors will wipe the floor with majority of killer roster most of the time.
And please let's not talk about MMR where soft cap is so low that you can easily reqch it quickly, not to mention how matchmaking functions thanks to oversaturated soft cap level.
Regarding killer winstreaks, you literally have top <1% players winstreaking because their overall game knowledge is significantly higher than game knowledge of their average opponent (ohh yeah, the well known MMR again where person that is amongst best killer/survivor players in the world goes in lobby with people who don't have nearly as much skill). Same goes for both sides. .
The fundamental principle of game theory is that you have a balance of challenge and reward, which produces a flow state, and that is called "fun". But if survivors aren't rewarded for skillful input, because low skill cheese tactics are so effective, then the game ceases to be fun, and they rage quit (i.e. go next). This is not a skill issue on the players part, it is a critical game design issue whereby a large percentage of the player base doesn't even consider a match worth playing until the end, because the mechanics are inherently unfun. In fact I have never seen such a high percentage of quitters in any other popular PvP game, compared to DBD.
you literally...already have skill input in terms of macro and micro knowledge of the game. This has nothing to do with game design, it has to do with people usually looking at the game from one perspective only (thinking long chases are almost everything that matters etc.)
The very harsh fact about this game is that it has a VERY STEEP LEARNING CURVE similar to games like CS2.
And the main problem with the "go next" epidemic is that dbd players usually don't play any other game, suffer from burnout but don't wanna uninstall because they don't know how to fill the void left by taking a break from dbd. Not to mentiok that dbd has one of the most petty and entitled communities i have ever seen in any video game.
If you're a really good killer main, you don't need BHVR to hold your hand to help you kill survivors. Your skill as killer will make you an intimidating presence all by itself. If the survivors aren't intimidated by you, then you're just not good at killer role. And if survivors don't consider the game worth playing, then the devs need to address their game design instead of blaming the survivors for "not working together".
this literally goes for the survivor side too lol, yet you see new handholding mechanics arriving to "help newer players" while they end up being abused by veterans. You are again looking at the very situation from rose tinted glasses and are acting like survivors are leaving the game and are doing so because "game is killer sided" which is factually wrong.
-4 -
killrate 60% = winrate 50% (2k on average). With the current matchmaking, this basically means the game is balanced (even though with improved matchmaking killrates would surely drop by significant margin).Escape rate of 50% would mean 50% killrate, which further means killer winrate going somewhere around 40-45%.With this fact, average killer wins 50% of the time.It's probably closer to ~54%, but that's not the major issue and someone else can do the math discussion.
You aren't discussing draws. If the killer wins 5, loses 4, and draws 1, and the equivalent survivors win 4, lose 5, and draw 1, that's not balanced, that's in the killer's favor.
Whether you want to just do a 60% to 40% comparison (the way BHVR does it), or a 3k or more / 2k / 1k or less (the way a lot of people in the community do it), either leads to the killer having a win rate higher than the loss rate.
Regarding expert survivors vs. expert killers, you are plain wrong, expert survivors will wipe the floor with majority of killer roster most of the time.Two things here as well
First, you're missing OPs next sentence about elites
Secondly, and again more importantly, you're not comparing alike things. An expert killer choosing to play a D tier killer would be like a group of expert survivors choosing to run No Mither. If you want to limit it to the extreme end of the survivor side, you need to limit it to the extreme end of the killer side (i.e. only S tier killers). If you want to discuss all killers, then you need to discuss the full range of survivor possibilities, sweaty, soloq, fun builds, etc.
The very harsh fact about this game is that it has a VERY STEEP LEARNING CURVE similar to games like CS2.The issue of the learning curve is that unlike other games, its not equal on both sides. It's an asym so its probably inevitable, but, in my opinion, picking up the killer role is considerably easier.
And the main problem with the "go next" epidemic is that dbd players usually don't play any other game,What? I don't think I've ever seen any evidence to suggest that the DbD community is somehow more unfamiliar with other video games in comparison to other communities.
16 -
They'll claim every survivor is bad at the game until they lose. Then suddenly every survivor is part of Seal Team 6
32 -
I mean, killers don't really benefit from "hand holding" features like survivors have been granted these past months. In the coming patches, they will receive even more to counter camping, slugging and tunneling. Honesty, giving survivors tools to help them work together more would be better direction to take than give them blanket buffs to handle popular killer strategies by themselves.
-17 -
killrate 60% = winrate 50% (2k on average). With the current matchmaking, this basically means the game is balanced.
That's not correct. You can't have balance when one side wins 50% and the other wins 40%, that's clearly disadvantaging the 40% side.
15 -
What? I don't think I've ever seen any evidence to suggest that the DbD community is somehow more unfamiliar with other video games in comparison to other communities.
it's like with other games, big part of League players barely plays anything else, big part of CS2 players barely plays anything else too. But dbd has even bigger problem due to general community mindset.
you can, because winrate in dbd as an asym game is calculated completely different and thus killrates are the priority to look upon because they are more accurate way to determine overal average percentage of wins per side. Survivor escape rate is based on INDIVIDUAL escape/die outcome (not team where 3+ men escape counts as a win), while killer outcome is based on...how many survivors are killed. It's really not nuclear physics, with MMR system like this determining balance based on individual survivor escape rates is completely wrong thing to do :)
-13 -
the average survivor does suck actually if you put on bond or aftercare or just look at the hud usually survivors stop doing gens if the survivors aren't rushing gens the game snowballs into the killers favor you could be the entities gift to looping and loop for 5 minutes straight but it doesn't mean anything if the others don't do gens
-11 -
it's like with other games, big part of League players barely plays anything else, big part of CS2 players barely plays anything else too. But dbd has even bigger problem due to general community mindset.If its just like other communities, why would it have an impact on our community behaving differently?
you can, because winrate in dbd as an asym game is calculated completely different and thus killrates are the priority to look upon because they are more accurate way to determine overal average percentage of wins per side. Survivor escape rate is based on INDIVIDUAL escape/die outcome (not team where 3+ men escape counts as a win), while killer outcome is based on...how many survivors are killed. It's really not nuclear physicsIt's not nuclear physics, but people who are arguing that its somehow balanced are trying to find a math that justifies their bad math
All possibilities give a lopsided killer advantage over survivors even if we take your win rate percentage as what happens:
1: Kill rate vs escape (BHVR's), 60 to 40
2: 50% win rate, killers win 10 to 15% more than they lose
3: Use killer win rate and survivor escape rate. Even then, even if we cherry pick two unalike things, its still killers. That's killers having a winning experience of 50%, drawing 10 to 15%, and losing the remainder, while survivors have a win rate of 40%. Even if you count all the draws as losses, that's still killer winning 10% than survivors.
The game isn't balanced. It's not designed to be balanced, that's fine, its balanced in the killer's favor.
10 -
If the game not being balanced is "fine" they wouldn't need to create multiple systems to try to force survivors to continue playing matches that are over in the first two minutes.
12 -
It's either a sweaty "4 man SWF", or equally likely "this loss just proves that the game is survivor sided and anything that provides them benefit needs to be nerfed into oblivion".
16 -
Survival rates are low so it's a skill issue. UNLESS you try to use that math to claim the game is killer-sided. Then survival rates are fine and there's magically no skill issue.
Also, the game is symmetrical when we need killer win rates to be 50%, but it's ASYMMETRICAL when it turns out the rates don't add up to 100%. So why did we present "50%" as if it was "balanced" in the first place?
Don't worry because it's more like 55%, so even the gaslight math doesn't work.
5 -
Well said, my friend.
I think it is pretty funny how easily the argument that "the average survivor is bad at the game" changes to "every 4 man SWF is a depip squad". And that is with a DBD that hasn't been even remotely survivor sided in years.
What players need to understand, imho, is that DBD is more than the individual skill of a player. Every match has several factors deciding its outcome, you're not going to win every single time and that is okay. That is just how the game is.
14 -
you can, because winrate in dbd as an asym game is calculated completely different and thus killrates are the priority to look upon because they are more accurate way to determine overal average percentage of wins per side. Survivor escape rate is based on INDIVIDUAL escape/die outcome (not team where 3+ men escape counts as a win), while killer outcome is based on...how many survivors are killed.
That's exactly the numbers that are being put together though. You say 60% kill rate = 50% winrate for killers. Well, a 60% kill rate must necessarily mean a 40% winrate for survivors.
40% =/= 50%, therefor, it's clearly not balanced. Killers are winning 10 percentage points more than survivors are.
Doesn't even need to be a loss, really, we've seen plenty of 'look how OP this survivor thing is' with screenshots of a 4K attached…
13 -
This content has been removed.
-
I guess killer players also had a skill issue in old DBD.
9 -
Eh, more the point that its fine to argue that the game doesn't have to be balanced. Lots of people do, people don't have to pretend that their desired kill rate numbers are somehow necessary.
Personally I think a kill rate target of ~55% would be healthier for the game but having it be a little harder for survivors is okay. I think the bigger issue for getting survivors is lack of variety in comparison to killers and the ability of killers to engage in playstyles that make the game miserable are bigger impediments than the kill rate number.
Escaping 1 more match every ten wouldn't change the games of killers tunneling someone out early, camping, being stuck on the ground, lack of interaction, etc.
-4 -
Doesn't even need to be a loss, really, we've seen plenty of 'look how OP this survivor thing is' with screenshots of a 4K attached
My personal favorite recently was a thread right as they giga buffed thrill there for a couple weeks. It was a video of: 4k, 5 gens remaining, and the survivors' only accomplishment was finally breaking the thrill totem.
There were people in that thread trying to claim that "since they broke the totem, survivors are clearly too powerful and need to be nerfed" and "this shows that Thrill is balanced".
As though the rest of the match was anything other than a rock solid, slam dunk, not-even-close win for the killer.
16 -
One of the most annoying things to me is that people will say "if Survivors lose, then it's because of a lack of skill and they should improve" but in the same breath "If I lose, then it's because of handholding, the Survivors were too sweaty, and there was nothing I could have done".
It's just the opposite of the usual "you only won because of tunneling, camping, etc." but flipped around to other role, and it lacks a lot of self awareness. To me, at least, it's just kind of lame.
16 -
This content has been removed.
-
Dead by daylight is balanced around being a 1v4 game, which is why bad Survivors matter more.
Let's say each player has a certain chance of being a "bad player" (I know it's more complicated than that, but I'm simplifying for arguments sake). Let's just assume 10%. Could be 1%, could be 50%, the math works out similarly.
Mathematically this means the killer will be a bad player 10% of games, there is a 90% chance of the killer being good. However, if each Survivor has a 10% chance there is a roughly 65% chance that all Survivors are good. The remaining 35% at least 1 Survivor is bad. This means that, even with an equal amount of bad players, the Killer side suffers from bad players way less than the Survivor side.
Now dead by daylight is balanced around being a 1v4. You need to rely on your teammates a lot. And one bad teammate can really drag your team down. Sometimes a 1v3 is preferable to a bad teammate.
So yeah, even with an equal amount of bad players on each side, Survivors being bad is a good explanation for high kill rates. High MMR 4 man have an almost 50% escape rate for a reason.
-12 -
This content has been removed.
-
People who want it to be 50:50 are bad at math. It's a 1v(1+1+1+)
-8 -
Kill rate is 60%. That does not mean a 60% 4k rate, it's 60% of all survivors playing. That averages to one or two surviving each match.
What is killing survivors a lot more today is not the killer. Well yes, the killer is the one killing them but what I mean is other survivors are throwing far too often. In turn, dooming their teammates to a hatch game or death. This is mostly plaguing solo queue thus one of the reasons escaping is easier in a SWF.
-6 -
The last stat update did show a much better escape rate as a SWF.
-5 -
IIRC, the last data showed a 4 man swf had a 48% Escape Rate.
-2 -
And low MMR is? You do know a new killer vs new survivors the killer is going to win far more than 60% of the time. So lets talk high MMR. This is where every player is playing sweaty to win and the escape rate is higher than lower MMR? How are they doing that when the killer is so OP and unbeatable. Where the killer can simply camp and tunnel to victory.
-10 -
It reminds me of the discussions about the 8 gen regressions: If I kick a gen and apply eruption, and I have surge, and then I down three survivors right away, I've used up over half of the regressions!
Yeah, and the survivors are dead.
13 -
Killers aren’t handed 3-4K every game. The escape rate is 40%, right where the devs want it to be, except for 4-man SWF which has a higher escape rate because of their unfair advantage of comms.
What is the point of your post other than your usual “us vs them” trolling?
-15 -
Let us imagine how the OP would respond to a post like this:
”If you're a really good survivor main, you don't need BHVR to hold your hand to help you escape. Your skill as survivor will make you an intimidating presence all by itself. If the killers aren't intimidated by you, then you're just not good at survivor role.”
See, I can make troll bait post too.
-13 -
Exactly. The only way I can picture anyone hitting the regression limit "accidentally" is using surge/jolt on a two story map. And by then you've gotten 8 downs (minimum) and have likely won the match so the gens don't matter.
9 -
is this comment meant to be some kind of flex? I have no problem with people playing with friends on comms. I use comms when I play with friends too. I’m simply noting that it’s an unfair advantage compared to not having comms.
-8 -
Killeate is 60% on high mmr were 10% of players are.
On average mmr the killrate is Higher.
And on low mmr should BE lower.
3 -
The average survivor does sucks, becoming a competent survivor requires more effort than many are willing to invest. As a survivor you have to improve in aspects that can be avoided during a match, you can accumulate hours of gameplay without having learned absolutely nothing. That's why there is such a difference between those who practice 1v1 and the average survivor, you are not learning the basics in normal matches.
0 -
altough this is untrue at 60% killrate the win ration for killers is high way higher than 50% the thing you forgot to mentions is at 2 kills it's a draw it's not hard to draw at all the winrate of killers in general at 60% killrate is really high witch mean that survivors in general lose way that much more than they win they don't even come close to winning 50% of the time here a example closer to what you're talking about but don't take into account
lets say the kill distrubation goes something like this over a sample size of 10k games
0kill 18.93%
1kill 16.76%
2kills 12.14%
3kills17.39
4kills 34.78&
total killrate 58.08%
ok here the thing at 2 kills no one wins no one loses so if you take that into account it does something like this
surv wins 35.69% of the games
draws 12.14% of the game
killer win 52.17% of the games
as you can see it's not remotely close to 50/50 in winrate on both sides most ppl skips that part of the game and the fact that the game is incentivize individual escapes over teamplay shows a huge game flaw that will always make surv in general the underdog outside of maybe the really small% of really exceptional swf and even then
you can play killer and go al the way down to 55% killrate you will still win more on average by a huge margin overtime i've had aseason where i was sitting at 54% killrate over 1000 games and was still wining more games in general then losing because on how draw work and it's not hard to acheive so im gonna disagree on the 60% killrate point you made
13 -
I mean they game is that thrown into the killer favour last 2 years maps are trash reworks new map giant dead lone on spawn overtuned killer as well as the cooldow for any missile attack m1 or m2 is way too short it dont even hinder the killer or give any sort of meaning full distance but when a survivour make a mistake they are just DONE THAT IS NO RECOVERING most killer player till think BURGO IS STRONG ALONG WITH HADDONFIELD what a joke most of these killer complaint 8s just because they have to actually try
9 -
Well said General.
That statement stands true for pretty much every team-based game.
I have noticed this especially when I have been going for killer adepts. Survivors who work together has a much better chance of getting someone out, instead of when they just play for themselves.2 -
People who choose to play killer aren't magically better at the game than your average survivor
They don't have to be, because you improve faster on killer than you do on survivor, and you don't have any factors you don't control present in the game.
For every 4K you get as killer, you know it could well have been a 2K or a 0K if BHVR hadn't given you an advantage from the outset
No killer in the game has an advantage against a competent team at a high level. Not even Nurse or Blight.
The balance differential is clearly evident in the absurdly long kill streaks that some killer mains have achieved, which is unheard of on survivor side, and unheard of in other popular PvP games that are sensibly balanced.
Terrible argument. This game doesn't have a matchmaking system. Past 5000 hours it becomes very unlikely for you to lose on either role without something out of your control making it happen. The only reason you don't see escape streaks like that is because you can't control solo queue teammates to force wins.
Your skill as killer will make you an intimidating presence all by itself.
The only killers that are intimidating by nature are Nurse and Blight, and in VERY specific scenarios, Hag. No other killer can beat efficient survivors. They don't have the ability to manage time effectively because every chase is gonna be longer than 30 seconds against a good team. At least 33% of a gen, multiplied by every survivor doing gens. Unless the survivors mess up and get snowballed, or the killer is able to focus someone out within minutes to forcefully slow gens (which isn't particularly likely) they will lose. As much as y'all want to deny it, it's just objectively true.
-8 -
This reminds me of a game I played yesterday as a solo survivor. My team and I were working together closely, unhooking, saving each other, and healing. The killer thought he had lost to a "strong SWF". When I told him we weren’t a coordinated group, he called me a liar. This is a pretty common thing in my games.
Edit: Sorry for the massive image! lol
11 -
Fun fact, if we look at the game as 1 player vs 4 individual players who each have their own win condition and only have one shared opponent, the match comes out for it to be fair for the single player with 4 opponents, it's a 38.5% escape rate. If the game was instead 1 vs 4 players who all win/tie/lose together with no individual win conditions, then each survivor would need a 44.2% escape rate, but thats simply not how the game is designed. Considering BHVR released stats for experienced players shows experienced players have a solo/duo/trio escape rate in the low 40's%, and 4 man squads have their survivors at a 48% escape rate (ALL of them above the 38.5% escape rate), at experienced levels of play, the game is objectively survivor favored.
-8 -
It's always a close call on these forums wether reading comprehension, or math, is the worst I've ever seen in my life. Every time I think I have a solid answer, we get a post like this.
I'll just say I need to see your "work" on where this "38.5%" number is coming from.
Because any the this comes up, people consider it like "the toss of a coin" or "the roll of a die", which are independent events. Survivor kills are not independent, because the entire point of things like hard tunneling is to kill one survivor early because "early enough" can make the rest of the kills almost trivial.
So here are the real facts: 41% overall escape rate.
So if you consider it as a 1v1v1v1v1, then survivors are losing more than the killer. Flat out. In every group size, category, and MMR.
If you consider it as a 1v4, with the standard 3k+ killer win, 2k draw, and 0-1k survivor win, then it's currently about 45.7% killer wins, 13.5% draws, and 40.8% survivor wins. So killer is still winning more.
By the actual data here, "the game is survivor sided" isn't holding any water. If anything, it supports exactly the opposite.
14 -
I already posted the math in a previous comment in a recent thread in the feedback section about kill rates. You're welcome to look it up. I already backed mine with the math breakdown. I know you have a deep distain of math, but math indeed exists. For 1 vs 4 individual players who all only have one shared opponent, for it to be fair (50% chance to win) for the solo killer who has to face 4 opponents while the other 4 only have to face one, each individual survivors player needs a 38.5% chance to win. If it was 1 v 1, both need 50%, if it was 1 v 2, then obviously the 2 players need a reduced chance. 4 brings it to 38.5%. There is obviously no ties in this situation, as who exactly is the killer tying against? He has 4 individual opponents, and those opponents are not a team - it's 4 distinct 1 v 1s per BHVR's statements. Survivors CAN work together, but they dont have to. Thats also why there are solo only perks. However, if you utterly reject BHVRs game design and make up your own rules and play make believe that this is instead a team game where survivors all win/tie/lose together as a team regardless of individual player outcome, then ties MUST be considered in the balance for both sides. This comes out to survivors needing a 44.2% escape rate for both the killer and survivor team to having equal chances at winning (while still respecting ties, of course).
I know you don't like math, but if you want it, just search my comment history. Im not going to keep reposting it.
As for your 1 v 1 v 1 v 1 v 1 comment where killer "obviously" wins more than survivors, you may have forgotten this is an asymmetrical game. The killer has to win at least 3 of those 1 v 1s for a win. A survivor merely needs to escape. Both types of players have entirely different win conditions. Otherwise, you're claiming killers can win up to 4 times a match which, come on, you can't take yourself seriously making that claim. The killer gets a 3k+ for his win. He doesn't win 4 times a match. Killer win condition is very different from survivors, so making such a claim makes me doubt if you're actually taking this discussion seriously.
-3 -
In that previous thread, you also admitted that the only reason we don't consider 2Ks to be "fair" and a 50/50 balanced scenario is because you don't want to. There was literally nothing stopping us (that you mentioned after I asked multiple times) from just… calling that "fair" and being done with it.
8 -
Sorry, can you rephrase? I'm not sure what you're referring to (genuinely). A survivor needing only escape for their win condition to be favorable. A killer needs at least a 3k for their win condition to be favorable. Not sure where you're coming from on a 2K. A 2K means two players won and 3 players lost. If you play make believe and believe survivors all win/lose/tie together and there are no survivor individual win conditions, then it's a draw between the two teams. This would be the most common optimal outcome if we pretended survivors are a team and set their escape rate to 44.2%.
I believe the game should be killer team vs survivor team, and that all survivors should win/tie/lose together. I also believe each team should have an equal chance at winning. However, BHVR disagrees and holds strong with balancing around 1 killer vs 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition. This naturally means that each survivor individually for themselves will win less often due to the fact that the killer has to deal with 4 opponents while a survivor only has to deal with 1. While you can't compare apples to apples for survivor wins and killer wins due to the asymmetrical nature of the game, as an individual survivor, it just feels crappier that you personally see less wins because the killer has 3 additional opponents they have to face against. When 1 player has multiple opponents, the other players with a single share opponent naturally has to have a lower win chance to make it fair. I feel that's lame, hence why I wish BHVR would change the game to killer team vs survivor team where all survivors have to work together and win/lose/tie together despite personal escapes. This would rebalance the game around bumping survivors up to a 44.2% escape rate which feels MUCH better than the 38.5% we need for fair balance when each survivor has their own win condition.
-1 -
A 2K does not mean that 3 players lost. A draw is not a loss for the killer.
2 survivors escaped, 2 survivors were killed. So if we combine the 4 1v1's, killer wins twice and loses twice within a single match by sacrificing the survivors, which altogether balances itself as a draw for the killer.
Even if the survivors win, lose, and tie as a whole team, a balanced game would result in a 50% escape rate. For example, the killer can play 5 matches in a row and get a 0K, a 1K, a 2K, a 3K and a 4K. That's 2 losses, 1 draw, and 2 wins for the killer. The wins and losses therefore cancel themselves out which leaves a draw overall. An average result of a draw is as balanced as the game can get for both sides.
7 -
You're following the misconception of how the game is designed. A 2k isn't a draw. The game is designed around 1 killer having 4 opponents. Those 4 opponents are individual players each withbl their own win condition. Now before you cry foul, this is per the devs themselves that they have clarified multiple times over the years. The survivors are NOT a team. Each survivor wins by escaping or loses by dying. If 3 survivors escape, then 3 survivors won and 1 survivor lost. You never see "survivors win!" at the end because there is no actual survivor team. Survivors can increase their chances at winning by working together, but it isn't required. Thats also why there are perks designed for survivors who play on their own such as sole survivor. Thats also why some DBD advertisements say things along the lines of will you work together or go at it alone. Essentially, there are 4 distinct 1 v 1s happening every match. It's an asymmetrical game, so each type of player has their own win condition. A killer needs at least 3 kills, and a survivor need only escape. Try to argue this all you want, the devs have clarified this (1 vs 4 individual opponents - not a team) on multiple occasions. So tell me, if 2 survivors lost by dying and 2 survivors won by escaping who exactly did the killer tie with? Thats right, there are literally no ties in DBD - there are no scenarios in a 1 v 1 where neither the killer nor the survivor wins or loses outside of a server crash
Now, many of us, dare I say all of us, wishes the game WAS team vs team. Survivors would win/lose/tie together. For example if 3 survivors escape, then all survivors win since they would be a team. This would also allow for ties with a 2K. However, per BHVR's own clarification, that is NOT how the game is currently. Its every man for himself on the survivor side, but working together increases your odds of survival.
As for your last paragraph, that's not how numbers work. If every survivor had a 50% escape rate, the killer would hardly every win. For example, if it was 1 v 1, then obviously both players should get a 50% win rate. However, if it was 1 v 2, then OBVIOUSLY the killer's opponents need to have a lower win chance because he has 2 opponents to deal with while the survivors still only have 1 opponent. The more survivors there are, the less their escape rate should be. This is basic mathematics, so I'll assume you get this, now. I really dont want to break it down again, but if you need it, search fora previous comment of mine in my comment history. If you still dont get it, try this. Flip a coin. You win if it lands on tails. You have 50% odds. Now flip a coin 4 times. To win, you need 3 or 4 to land tails. You'll be flipping quite a few times and won't remotely "win" 50% of the time before. Its more like you'd win in the 30 percentile. The more survivors there are, their escape rate must go down to maintain fairness for the player with multiple opponents. If every survivor had a 50% escape rate, killers would hardly every win. Thats flipping 4 coins and needing a majority of it tails...clearly that destroys the killers chances at winning half the time.
Just popped it into my calculator here. Your "give survivors a 50% chance to escape!" just gave killers a 31.25% win rate.
Post edited by RpTheHotrod on-6 -
People who look at just kill rates are quite frankly… ignorant.
There's things that affect kill rates, things like… survivors going next! Which happens an unfathomable amount of times because survivors seemingly can't handle that the killer they ran into, is a killer they don't quite like, or the fact that they went down quickly first. Hell, I just had 3 games in a row where at least one person went next immediately.
Looking at kill rates is dumb. It means nothing. Sadako has a high kill rate while being an objectively weaker killer, it means nothing.
-3 -
Kill rates can be misrepresented pretty easily. I wish they would change it to hook states instead. Killer wins if he gets 9 hook states, for example. Thats the equivalent of a 3k without the need to actually eliminate 3 survivors. For example, he could 2 hook 3 survivors and eliminate 1 for a win. Perhaps tunneling would feel less "needed" by some killers. Perhaps not.
-3 -
That's not a myth. The opening line is true. McLean (a former dev) used to literally say - they expect more from killers. They expect killers to be able to do and handle more. Survivor is balanced, inherently, around a lower skill floor than killer. They may deny it all they want now but that much is evident, and anyone who doesn't know DBD would see that from the outside looking in.
It's not a myth. Your average survivor is mid at best and is the sum of their perks. Nothing more. Why do you think they crumble so fast without their exhaustion/Windows of Opportunity and resort to the most low skilled plays like pre-running and predropping? Because they aren't good in chase, and they know it.
-6 -
The win condition for the game is still gonna go down to the individual player. Goodluck convincing ppl that in match where the majority (or all) of the team escapes...it's still a win for the killer.
0 -
Oh I agree, there, but it's already like that. If the killer kills 3 survivors, and 1 escapes, that escaping survivor won, but so did the killer.
That being said, maybe they should consider dropping the whole "everyone has their own win condition" like how it is now and turn it into a killer vs survivor team that all win/lose/tie together. If the killer gets 9 hooks, the killer wins and the match concludes?
-1
