http://dbd.game/killswitch
Stop using kill rates as evidence of anything...
Comments
-
Hooking… multiple survivors?
I mean I'm talking like your first kill isn't until your 6th - 8th hook. Forget even 12 hooking.
Dawg I'm telling you, unless the survivors are going down in literally like 15 seconds, one even decent length chase and you're down 2 gens IF they are competent.
-5 -
What’s truly baffling is that survivors not only claim “multihooking is a viable strategy,” but go so far as to frame it as some kind of ethically superior, morally “correct” playstyle.
As if a killer who doesn’t multihook is somehow dishonest or unfair — when in reality, they’re simply making the most optimal decisions to win.Are they trying to collar killers with guilt, restricting their strategic options through moral pressure?
Or do they simply have no real understanding of the killer’s mental load and decision-making — whether due to lack of experience, or a complete failure of imagination?One thing is certain: multihooking is not some noble ideal. It’s a luxury — one you can afford only when you’re far ahead — and in most cases, it’s an inefficient strategy.
-5 -
I wonder if you'd keep the same tune if Kill Rates and Escape Rates were flipped. I imagine you'd have quite a different opinion if Killers had a 40% KR.
People will always find a way to rationalize their way out of data that doesn't fit their narrative. Survivor hasn't been the power role in half a decade. Any issues on the front lie with individual players, not the balancing of the game.
10 -
Look, some people may define multi-hooking as making sure each survivor has been hooked once before hooking anyone twice. I am not one of those people. That's why I had to be sure of how you defined it.
We're just going in circles here. I'm going to go on about how your goal isn't to try to keep the survivors from doing any gens. You're going to insist that multi-hooking isn't viable. I'm going to insist that it is. Best to agree to disagree on this one.
3 -
I'm talking about individual survivors. If every survivor had a 1% chance to dodge, but the killer had 2%, the survivor total would be 4% and the killer would be 2%. That is still a higher rate than any individual survivor.
1 -
Nail on the head. People refuse to acknowledge why people think the match is hopeless against certain killers, and going next isn't even anywhere near as big of an issue as they'd have you believe. But personally I think bEHAVIOUR should focus on making the game more unbearable for survivors, because that will definitely keep the game alive when they are the majority of the playerbase by a wide margin.
6 -
YOU guys are the ones that keep comparing it to tunneling and camping. My judgement of multihooking has entirely been on its own.
No, it hasn't been.
And yes, I do have a leg to stand on. Obviously killer skill matters to an extent, my POINT is that if both sides are of equal skill or if the survivor side is better, multihooking immediately becomes a detriment to do.
No, it doesn't become a detriment. A detriment would have to actively hinder the killer from completing their objective. Hooking a survivor will ALWAYS progress a killer's objective, regardless of whether the survivor was hooked before or not.
The reason you consider it a detriment is because it negatively deviates from what you now hold as the standard, which is tunnelling.
In other words, you declare it a detriment because you are comparing it to tunnelling.
You are calling it bad because it's not as strong as tunnelling.
That's not judging the method on its own merits. That's judging it compared to a standard set by a different tactic.
That is not arguable. That is not debatable. Whatever word you wanna use, it isn't. It's objectively bad, to leave 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time.
You know what else is 'objectively bad'?
Not cheating.
Does that mean that if you aren't cheating, you are playing badly? Or would you not even consider it because the option of cheating is simply not on the table?
Now imagine how you'd feel about four survivors being alive for an extended period of time if there was no option to rush 'em out. Imagine if survivors just had 12 hookstates between the lot of them and you couldn't kill one before hook #9. Would you still care that multihooking doesn't kill a survivor in three hooks?
The only reason you are able to consider this a drawback is because you have tunnelling to compare it to!
Tunnelling has warped your vision and is the standard by which you judge multihooking. You're not judging multihooking by how well it performs against survivors, you're judging it by how well it performs compared to tunnelling.
No, me saying to make multihooking better whilst also making tunneling, camping and slugging worse is NOT me skewing it further to one side.
But the only way this would work is if multihooking is as powerful as, or more powerful than, tunnelling/camping/slugging. Otherwise you'd wind up right back here to complain more.
Nowhere did I say I lose too much, often, or anything of the sort.
I was referring to losing too much when you multihook.
13 -
However, I regularly have to play against players who ARE. I regularly go against survivors who crank gens in under 5 minutes and juke me out of my shoes regularly.
And this:
My only hope, when I'm faced with these players, is to force a tunnel and maybe scum out a draw if they get too cocky and altruistic. That's it.
Is you maintaining that exact problem. You are able to admit that they are outplaying you, but then you pull out tunnelling as a means of securing a draw or better, at which point, the MMR has no indication that these survivors were above your skill level.
You are messing up your own MMR by using these tactics to force wins that you, skill-wise, shouldn't be getting. As a result, you get stronger opponents, and thus become -more- dependent on tunnelling.
However, if you take away even that small sliver of hope for a draw or win, what am I left with?
Your own actual skill. Your macro, your micro, your game sense, your intuition, your twitch reflexes.
And yes, after getting boosted by these tactics to a higher MMR bracket, losing that support will likely cause you to take a tumble down the ladder, but eventually the MMR should settle you in a bracket where you can comfortably and confidently face off against survivors that you can beat with multi-hooking.
But it does require that you do not tunnel/camp/slug to get kills outside your skill bracket.
However, what's not fair is to throw me to the wolves, then take away any strategies I have of actually fighting them off.
You tunnelled, camped and slugged your way into the wolves' den. If you're not ready to play with the wolves, don't do that.
10 -
What's actually foolish is thinking 4% should stay is good for game health
-12 -
Okay, we are talking about to different things because I misinterpreted your original statement. Fair enough.
Disregarding my previous replies, I still think the statement is incorrect mainly due to this:
Killers are allowed to "go next" for free, without penalty, all because they don't like the map.
It is my understanding, if DCing during the offering screen, a penalty is still issued. Because in order to pull this off you either have to pull your Internet connection or force close the game. As anyone who has to deal with DBD over the years knows, you get a disconnect penalty even if the game crashes while loading.
-5 -
You do not get a disconnect penalty if you disconnect on the loading screen. Most killers who are insecure about their skills against competent survivors force close the game if they see a map offering. I see this at least 3 times a day from the killer side. They are free to relaunch the game and queue right back up. The only thing you lose is the offering you burnt, and any addons you might have had. A very small penalty, especially considering the relative ease in which killers get their best add ons.
6 -
Removing it does nothing except shift things. Just like adding the DC penalty just shifted people to suiciding instead of DC'ing.
9 -
You can scream 4v1 is massively survivor sided all you want, that doesn't make it true. The game is balanced around 4 survivors, and then completely falls killer sided after that.
But let's pretend it is survivor sided for the sake of this argument. You're saying it's not fair that survivors have a 25% chance to win. Because it's easy to tunnel one out, making it 3v1 and the killer wins. Then 2v1, killer wins. And lastly 1v1, killer wins. Killer has a 75% chance to win in these scenarios.
If you actually wanted the game yo be better for everyone then 3v1 should lean toward a survivor win.
I truly hope BHVR is paying attention. Survivors are not having fun and we all know it started with 6.1 and just went down hill from there. But are killers happy with this power imbalance? No, they aren't. They still want more. They apparently won't be happy unless they are playing against baby bots to guarantee their win. BHVR need to save the survivor role before it's too late.
I still follow DBD content since I have been playing this game since Meyers was introduced, but like Pulsar, I too, rarely play anymore. I play games for fun, DBD survivor is not that.
10 -
Bingo. People forget it's a video game.
It gives a very bad outlook that we are literally punishing people for not wanting to play rather than encouraging them to play.
8 -
When people keep quitting repeatedly, it makes us not want to play because we can't play a full "fair" match…
-8 -
Well, people are quitting because the game is too snow bally and unbalanced. Do you really think you can win if a Blight has hooked 3 or more people before a gen is even finished? It's easy to see how unbalanced the game is with no winning opportunity for the survivor.
8 -
First it's always been snowbally. One critical mistake costs games. That's been here since atleast 2017, yet this epidemic is "relatively" recent.
Second, how are you so sure that the majority are quitting at the start of the match due to that? We've seen people quit at the first sign of a plague or, heavens forbid, that dastardly trickster...whom are so unbalanced. The fact is, there are SO many reasons people quit that it's practically impossible to tell the reason.
Third, once had someone go down to a blight in about 30 seconds on midwitch and start swinging. The rest of the team played it out and we got 4 gens done... think we woulda had a shot at escape that time. The point of this story is that YOU DON'T KNOW UNLESS YOU TRY. When people quit in the trial any semblance of a chance then relies on the killer's mercy. Think that's balanced?
Fourth it's very hard to tell balance when people keep throwing matches cause those become unbalanced.
-4 -
Correct, you don't get a penalty but not sure why you are framing it as a killer sided issue. I've seen survivor do it too when they don't like a map offering. I've seen a few do it too when a killer brings survivor pudding - very odd behavior.
-2 -
No, it hasn't been.
Yes… it has been. Y'all are the ones that keep comparing it to tunneling and camping.
No, it doesn't become a detriment. A detriment would have to actively hinder the killer from completing their objective. Hooking a survivor will ALWAYS progress a killer's objective, regardless of whether the survivor was hooked before or not.
The killer's objective is to win… multihooking handicaps them and makes it harder to win. That is a detriment. I'm not calling it a detriment compared to tunneling.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I have been speaking on multihooking as its own thing the entire time. Multihooking, is garbage.
Tunnelling has warped your vision and is the standard by which you judge multihooking. You're not judging multihooking by how well it performs against survivors, you're judging it by how well it performs compared to tunnelling.
Ok so your entire response is based around me comparing multihooking to tunneling which I haven't done because I've been speaking on multihooking as its own thing.
No, multihooking is bad as its own thing. It's garbage. Leaving 4 survivors alive for an extended period of time is objectively bad and is just actively handicapping yourself as a killer, because the game is survivor sided in the 4v1 and killer sided below that.
But the only way this would work is if multihooking is as powerful as, or more powerful than, tunnelling/camping/slugging. Otherwise you'd wind up right back here to complain more.
You did see the part where I said… make tunneling, camping and slugging worse correct? I mean it was in the thing you quoted yourself.
Again with the dwellers of this website loving to twist my words.
I'm not saying anything about it being fair or not with survivors having 25% of a game to win compared to killer's 75%. I am speaking SPECIFICALLY in the multihooking playstyle, you are actively keeping yourself IN the survivor's 25%.
That is literally the whole point. I am talking about MULTIHOOKING. The game is 100% survivor sided in the 4v1. My point is multihooking is objectively bad because you are keeping yourself, in the survivor sided situation. You are handicapping yourself. The obj of killer is to get kills, if you are doing a playstyle where you actively delay yourself from getting kills, that is a HANDICAP. The game becomes killer sided after getting down to 3v1 and below, it's why tunneling has become essentially the main way to play. Because the actual fun way to play, isn't viable to win consistently with… because you're handicapping yourself.
It's so funny that you guys are so desperate to argue against an objective fact. It's so weird. You can literally see gameplay from top killers. If the survivor team is competent, they have to tunnel to win. If the survivor team is going down in 15 - 20 seconds, then they can multihook all they want. Multihooking relies on survivors giving you quick chases because again… one semi long chase and you are down 2 gens right then and there, IF they are competent. Killer players have been saying multihooking is garbage since forever, you're acting like this is some brand new hot take I'm spewing here.
-6 -
Again, that is not the case. Every killer can win with multihooking and they have been winning with multihooking for almost nine years. Or are we to assume that every single survivor who died to a killer multihooking in 9 years of DBD was a bad player? No, definitely not.
As for the supposed "pro" play, it does not matter. High MMR cannot be the focus of balance because most players aren't there, it is restricted to a very small pool (and MMR shouldn't even exist to begin with, but that is a discussion for another time). Less relevant yet is Comp DBD, which is made for entertainment, nothing more.
BHVR has been shifting the balance towards killers since this whole process of "60% kill rates goal" first started. There is very little being stacked against killers right now. And killers still tunnel, simply because it was allowed to reach a point where you, as a survivor, has almost no lines of defense against it.
6 -
It's a killer sided issue because killers buy into the "bad map, instalose" fallacy more than survivors. Survivors MIGHT DC if they see Midwich or any other indoor map because that signals a boring stealth killer hit and run game. I don't condone that behavior, but the fact is those are two different situations. One is for playstyle, the other is for not having the map stacked in your favor.
3 -
If that be the case then I would want that to change. My argument has always been, once you hit that Ready button or waitout the 60s to back out, you have commited to the match. To leave or refuse to play is ruining the experience of the other players who also agreed to play that match. It doesn't matter which side it is.
If killers are DCing during loading, punish them. It's all the same to me. But what I and many other players experience nearly every day we play is someone with a chip on their shoulder refusing to play the match they agreed to play.
-1 -
And you claim you aren't biased…
-2 -
Yet since survivors do it too (it's not a maybe, it has and does happen), doesn't that make it a both sides issue?
0 -
The Blight more than likely barely played and still won. Blight is a killer that does not lose when played to win.
Since 6.1, survivors have to play perfectly against a killer making a ton of mistakes and playing suboptimally for survivors to win which most people know this because the win objectives feel very out of reach for survivors. Pushing that under the rug is a detriment to the game.
7 -
Pretty sure blighty tried his damnedest to kill us, but ya know, you were obviously there so you must know he wasn't playing to win.
Since 6.1, survivors have to play perfectly against a killer making a ton of mistakes and playing suboptimally for survivors to win
Objectively false. If the killer is making more mistakes or impactful mistakes, survivors are much more likely to win.
As we said the first time, when a survivor simply quits at the start of the trial, that's what makes us not want to play, cause it becomes a unfair match and any sense of victory (whether "winning" is escape or just having fun) is out of reach. Due. To. That.
-10 -
You also have no idea if he tried or not. Be honest, good Blights don't lose. They literally have winstreaks in the thousands. It can't be a secret any longer that the game is kinda broken at a fundamental level and it's certainly not for survivors.
8 -
The killer's objective is to win… multihooking handicaps them and makes it harder to win.
Harder compared to what?
Stop putting words in my mouth.I am not putting words in your mouth. I am using your words to explain something that you don't even realise you are doing. Even now, as you accuse me of putting words in your mouth, you don't even seem to be aware that you slipped in that multihooking 'makes it harder to win', which is obviously in comparison to its alternatives.
This is the problem. You are so stuck in considering tunnelling as the baseline that you don't even register that you're doing it. You're not judging multihooking on its own merits because in every argument, you refer to the alternative. You're not making any assertion on how effective multihooking is, except in comparison to its alternatives.
Think of it this way:
If Multihooking gets you a 55% KR and tunnelling gets you a 70% KR, then Multihooking isn't bad. But you are asserting that it is, because 55% < 70%.
That is your argument when you call it a detriment, handicap, or say that it makes it 'harder to win'. Even if you, yourself, aren't clocking on to it, that IS what you are doing.
No, multihooking is bad as its own thing. It's garbage.
You did see the part where I said… make tunneling, camping and slugging worse correct? I mean it was in the thing you quoted yourself.
That still doesn't fix it if you believe that the game is only balanced with tunnelling, because it means you'd just need to swap the two out, which would leave multihooking in the same problematic spot.
9 -
They wouldn't be flipped unless killers started hard throwing games consistently, which just isn't gonna happen.
-10 -
Welp, since he was trying every usual trick blights do, we'll happy to assume yes he was. We also got the benefits of actually being there.
Being honest, it depends on the skills of both sides. Good blights can lose. Good nurses can lose. Good [insert whoever] can infact lose if the survivors are good enough. But what do we see? "Ohh it's this thing, I'ma bail." When someone bails at the start THEN you can say they can't be beat.
-7 -
High MMR cannot be the focus of balance because most players aren't there, it is restricted to a very small pool (and MMR shouldn't even exist to begin with, but that is a discussion for another time). Less relevant yet is Comp DBD, which is made for entertainment, nothing more.
So again, the logic is "screw good killer players who have to play against good survivor players".
I understand it now. And yes, I can comfortably say that if a survivor team loses to multihooking they are bad, because I have yet to be proven otherwise. Anytime I see a killer go against good survivors, you know what they have to do to win? I'll let you ponder.
Multihooking relies on QUICK CHASES. Good survivors don't just go down QUICK.
-9 -
Harder compared to what?Harder in general, that's what a handicap does.
Again, don't dodge the point because you can't argue against it. Face it head on and say "I'm wrong". Multihooking delays the killers objective of KILLING PEOPLE.
Do not play dense. You understand the words on the screen.
That is your argument when you call it a detriment, handicap, or say that it makes it 'harder to win'. Even if you, yourself, aren't clocking on to it, that IS what you are doing.
No, I say it's a detriment and a handicap because you are actively delaying yourself from completing the killer's objective… of killing things.
It's so funny you linked this video and literally IN the comment section he pinned a comment of his that says:
"Many of you have rightfully pointed out that I am way more experienced than the survivors that I play against in these 10 games and you are totally right.Dead by Daylights matchmaking has a very low softcap on the MMR, the entire point of this is that if you are good enough you can win almost any game because you outskill your opponents.I'm not saying Tunneling Camping or Slugging are bad or that you shouldn't do them at all costs, there are games where you will have to to win, BUT in the majority of games that you play you can win if you are just good enough at playing Killer."
The fact you don't realize that your "evidence" is just evidence for me. The video creator himself states that multihooking REQUIRES the survivor players to be much worse than you. It's literally matchmaking RNG, if you get survivors who are bad and go down quick you can multihook. If you don't, you can't.
That's literally what I've been saying the whole time, holy christ.
That still doesn't fix it if you believe that the game is only balanced with tunnelling, because it means you'd just need to swap the two out, which would leave multihooking in the same problematic spot.
If multihooking is "problematic" then that means survivors literally just don't want to play dbd. To which I say, goodbye. Go play something else dawg, it's clear you aren't happy here.
No, you don't need to make multihooking up to the level of tunneling in terms of strength. Because if you reduce tunneling's strength, that means it's no longer at that initial baseline that multihooking would have to pass. It's now much lower.
-8 -
You're ignoring the fact that the killer has 4 opponents. The survivors have a single opponent. Of course each individual survivors had to have a lower personal win rate - they literally outnumber the killer 4 to 1. If each survivor had a 50% chance to escape, the killer would have a ~30% chance to get at least a 3k. Try it with a coin. Flip a coin 4 times. You only win if it hits tails at least 3 times. You'll be flipping for a while.
-11 -
Don’t worry, they’ll keep playing dumb until the game is so skewed in their favour that they load into a match with an instant 4K. I think the us vs. them narrative is unhelpful, but pretending there isn’t a visceral problem with the current meta of the game and the even more questionable direction it’s heading in is now impossible.It won’t be long before the queues are dead and they have nobody to play against, because investing thousands of hours into playing survivor for negligible pay-off against killers with a fraction of your experience is a ridiculous prospect.
Or, we can all just keep lying and smiling while the extremely obnoxious and self-centred players that are currently supporting BVHR’s ludicrous decisions continue to dictate the pervasive narrative that the game is heavily survivor sided. That seems very helpful for the longevity of the game to me!
3 -
They CAN lose, nobody said they can’t. However, I’d be willing to bet that one side is significantly more likely to win, and you’d be bullshitting yourself and the rest of us if you claim it’s not the Nurse or the Blight.
6 -
And yet you've been haggling over THAT instead of the main point, the people quitting for various reasons and wrecking matches, so what were we to say? People can do it, people have done yet you've made it sound like it's impossible less the killer lets them. We're following your lead in this dance.
-5 -
If everyone is High MMR like they think they are then who is queuing with the low and middle Survivors?
9 -
I agree. There should be no reason that disconnecting on the loading screen shouldn't invoke a matchmaking penalty.
0 -
What?
Both sides can be at fault, but when one side does it more often and for more "entitled" reasons, then it tips towards it being a that side problem. Like I said, if the killer doesn't like their odds on the map that is being burnt, they will disconnect. Survivors don't like stealth, hit and run playstyles, especially when solo queueing, which is what indoor map offerings imply 99 out of 100 times.
If you want to talk about offsetting this, killers can bring Franklin's/lightborn/more slowdown to counter every type of item. If a killer sees 4 toolboxes, that's a gen rush playstyle. If a killer sees 4 flashlights, that's a flashlight blind playstyle. Killers have this knowledge and can even lobby dodge. That is the equivalent of a survivor DCing against a map offering.
This means killers have another set of information to decide whether or not they want to play the match, that being the offering screen. That is how this is a killer issue. They have two instances where they can essentially back out of a match for free if it isn't in their favor.
5 -
Holy entity with the math. Just stop.
It's not a coin flip for ######### sake. Tunneling one person it makes the rest of them easier.
So it's more like, toss a coin. If that coin lands soon enough, then not only did heads or tails not matter, but you win because the rest of the flips are trivial (when gens still remain).
Please. Just stop trying to use math. The real fact here is that you are starting with the assumption that "the game is survivor sided" and absolutely desperate to distort a 60% kill rate into anything that you can misinterpret to support your pre-determined conclusion.
8 -
You're telling me if it came out tomorrow, that Killers had a 40% KR, you wouldh't be screaming "survivor op" from the rooftops?
8 -
Harder in general, that's what a handicap does.
Again, don't dodge the point because you can't argue against it. Face it head on and say "I'm wrong". Multihooking delays the killers objective of KILLING PEOPLE.
How are you going to accuse me of 'dodging' when you handwave the 'harder' remark as 'In general'?
That's YOU dodging. Because you KNOW what you mean by 'in general', and that's when you tunnel. That is your 'general' gameplay.
Again, deciding to not use cheats or hacks also makes it 'harder in general', but no one talks like that because the option of cheats or hacks isn't on the table to compare to.
The only reason you think it's 'harder in general' is because you have that one alternative, stuck in the back of your head. THAT is why you call it 'harder'.
No, I say it's a detriment and a handicap because you are actively delaying yourself from completing the killer's objective… of killing things.
No, you aren't. Hooking people progresses your objective. That's not a detriment. The only reason you consider it a detriment is because it is slower than tunnelling. Again, it's purely based on the comparative.
The video creator himself states that multihooking
REQUIRESthe survivor players to be much worse than you.He doesn't say that at all. He stresses that in the vast majority of matches, you do not need to tunnel, and multihooking will work absolutely fine. On some occasions, you will need to tunnel if you want to win, but if you are a sufficiently competent player, you will do absolutely fine with multihooking.
Keep in mind that this challenge was run without ANY killer powers, on top of multihooking.
So if killers, with one arm tied behind their back, can still consistently win with multihooking, where do you get off calling it 'bad'?
If multihooking is "problematic" then that means survivors literally just don't want to play dbd. To which I say, goodbye. Go play something else dawg, it's clear you aren't happy here.
That's also what I can say to you when you come on these forums and demand consistent victories while adamantly refusing to play better. Survivors have been toughing out a game that is intentionally balanced against them, but they're losing patience. Do not keep buffing killers, because it's just gonna keep making things worse.
No, you don't need to make multihooking up to the level of tunneling in terms of strength. Because if you reduce tunneling's strength, that means it's no longer at that initial baseline that multihooking would have to pass. It's now much lower.
Why would the power level of tunnelling matter if the reason multihooking is bad is not based on comparisons to tunnelling?
10 -
You can't just ignore math and game balance. Clear and coherent evidence, and "Nooo, ignore the evidence!" just isn't going to cut it.
There's a reason BHVR shoots for a 60% kill rate, and…now I hope you're sitting down for this, it's because of math. :O
Theirs is slightly off of an exact hit of 62.5% to make room for various variables which imho is acceptable. I'd say +-3% is a good range.
Anyway, here is the statistics of balance. The team with single player is what we shoot for on a 50% win rate when they have to face multiple opponents. In other words, a 50% win rate for a killer would be balanced, a 50% win rate for each member of the team with multiple opponents would effectively crush the single player. That's why in game design, you balance around the lowest common denominator - in this case, the killer. Here comes the scary math, look out!
Here is the baseline statistics ranging from if the Survivors had a single member all the way up to 10, just for fun. You'll notice something quite interesting.
It might be hard to spot, so here it is in another form (the number on top of each dot shows how many kills are required to kill the majority of the survivors):
This is for the killer to have a 50% chance to win. The Per-Point win % for killer is kill rate. The survivor Per-Point is escape rate.
You'll notice that the more survivors there are, the closer to a 50% win rate the survivors should get. This seems backwards, and I made the same incorrect assumption that it seems backwards previously before diving in deeper. The key here is, the number of survivors changes the required amount of kills that is needed to get a majority. For example, in our 1 v 4, the killers needs a 75%+ kill rate (a 3K+) to win. However, let's say it was 1 v 1,000. The killer would only need to kill 501 survivors to get a majority for a win. This leaves roughly 50% of the survivors who lost, but 50% of the survivors who won! That's because the more survivors there are (with one exception I'm about to cover), the EASIER the killer can earn a majority. You'll notice a lot of up and down on the chart, but that's because of the number of kills required to win. For example, with 4 survivors, the killer needs 3 kills…but with 5 survivors, he still only needs 3 kills - but he has more people to go after which means him getting victory is easier - this means that with 5 survivors, with it being easier for the killer, the survivors would need their chance to win to go up. This is a repeating pattern. The more survivors there are, the target majority requirement changes. On the first case where the kill count needed has less survivors in the game, survivors need a lower chance, but on the second case where the same kill count is needed but survivors are in a larger number, they need a higher chance to win since the killer will have an easier time getting that required kill count.
Now to clarify, this is all around balancing the killer around a kill rate giving them a ~50% chance to win (which is what the 60% kill rate roughly achieves, though 62.5% would be a perfect 50%). Essentially, the devs got to the 62.5% number, but reduced it down to 60% to give survivors some breathing room. Let's just stick to BHVR's 60%. The problem is when killers have a kill rate above that 60%, it becomes very problematic for survivors. These cases absolutely should be addressed. On the flipside, when the killer has under a 60% kill rate, then it's very problematic for the killer which also should be addressed.
At the end of the day, BHVR pretty much nailed their 60% kill requirement if we're giving survivors wiggle room. The problem about just boosting survivor escape rates individually is that it will drop 60% kill rate killers below the 50% win rate balance. Inherently, in an asymmetric game, the individual player who has multiple "allies" must have a lower personal win rate than the player who is completely alone and facing off against multiple opponents all against him. That's the nature of asymmetric games. Buffing those individual win rates of people with allies would make it unfair for the player who is entirely alone. If you're on the side who have allies, you have the numbers, and in turn, you'd need to deal with a lower personal win chance than the player who is entirely alone with no allies who have multiple opponents.
Now, all that being said, this is a top level look at this. One could say, once a killer eliminates a survivor, his per point chance to kill a survivor should change since now he has less opponents. That's a fair statement! However, in order to accomplish this, the match would need to dynamically change once a player is eliminated. BHVR actually attempted this in the recent 2v8 mode where generator repair speeds would increase or decrease dynamically depending on how well or poor the killers were doing. That's a completely different discussion, but I'd be fascinated with that discussion. It makes me wonder if BHVR is testing the possibility of dynamically changing repair speeds depending on how well the killer is performing on standard matches…perhaps a response to tunneling? One counter-argument one might say is that it is punishing a player for doing their objective, or doing it too well. Also a valid argument, but nonetheless, BHVR clearly has this on their mind.
Interestingly enough, all players would have an individual similar win chance if BHVR went with an odd number of survivors.
Edit - clarified the chart titles.
Post edited by RpTheHotrod on-11 -
and there should be no reason for the first hooked survivor to immediately kill themselves on hook.
0 -
How can nine years of gameplay not be proof of anything?
I say it again: nine years of gameplay where countless killer games were won by killers who multihooked. Nine years, covering every single DBD meta, matchmaking system, powers and perks.
And, in nine years and thousands of players, every single survivor who, at one point or another, lost to a killer who was multihooking was a bad survivor?
Sorry, but that just isn't true.
12 -
I'm going to assume that English is a second language for you and stop responding since you obviously didn't understand the meaning of the post. All the best!
1 -
Really comes down to MMR. Multitasking is VERY viable at lower MMR. It's less viable, but still possible, at higher MMR. At peak performance, it's practically impossible. You'll notice a lot of tournaments, the killer player decides a specific person that must be eliminated above all others.
-7 -
You seem so sure that killers are doing it more…
Regardless of that line of thought, we could point out how we see more survivors bail, but the fact that we saw a post that literally states they will bail as trapper when they see a map offering means any else will be mute or somehow someone will come make a similar post as that one.
Everyone wants to play that game, by all means, floors yours.
-2 -
What do you use then ? solo queue escape rate is around 40% but if you take into account all the DCs your escape chance is less than 40% right off the bat, then if you play against top 5 killers they tend to be around 65-70% killrates so it's even less
5 -
Then tell us ohh wise one, what is the point?
Also, don't think we ever responded to you.
Edit: ahh we found it. We mistook you for the other guy
-8
