http://dbd.game/killswitch
Stop using kill rates as evidence of anything...
Comments
-
I think it does match the community's definition to a certain extent. At least the last time I shared it here there were no disagreements.
4 -
No disagreements, on this forum?
-2 -
Rare, but it happens sometimes.
1 -
Fact: A 62.5% kill rate, ie a 2.5 kill rate, means on average across multiple matches, the killer would get a majority of the kills ~50% of the time. A 60% kill rate is slightly less, a 2.4 kill rate which still means getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the time
No. This one is flatly untrue. This has been explained to you SO MANY TIMES.
The logic you use to arrive to this conclusion also, necessarily, argues that a 50% killrate must average to a 0% 3K+ rate for killers. Which is obviously preposterous.
You have been told so many times by me, and by plenty of other people, exactly why you are incorrect on this point and you refuse to engage with any refutation of your mistakes.
At this point, this is just plain trolling. I will be reporting every post of yours that I come across that repeats this error, as by now, we can expect you to know better. I am not expecting you to admit that you are wrong, but I do expect you to stop wilfully lying to people.
7 -
The devs rejected any notion of using any kind of game design philosophies, statistics, probabilities, or anything of the sort.No one is saying that. BHVR clearly had design philosophies and general goals and we even have posts about them wanting to feel like the game is killer sided, but not impossible
Fact: There are up to 4 kills possibleFact: 40+40+40+40 = 160, so survivors have a 160% chance to win.
Fact: Washington, D.C is the capital of the United States.
Fact: The Philadelphia Eagles won this years Superbowl.
You are misunderstanding the difference between something being a fact and whether it actually applies to the discussion. The facts I'm listing are as relevant to the idea as what you are discussing.
Fact: The game is designed around 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition. Survivors do not all win, lose, or tie together.Subjective, not a fact.
The win condition you focus on here is MMR. If so, the killer win condition is clear. A kill is a win, as the devs were quoted saying earlier, if so kill rate = win rate.
Fact: Averaging takes many matches into consideration. That's why you can have a decimal average kill rate - it's not a reflection of a single match but the average across multiple matches. You claim you're a math teacher, so I assume you at least know the basics of averaging in mathematics.You should have listened to the math teacher. There is a difference between something being the average of all the results, and whether that result is actually common or not.
Example: If 6 kids take a test, there are two 100s, two 90s, and two kids didn't bother and got 0s, the average is ~63%, despite none of the kids being anywhere near a 63.
Some results in DbD are not equally represent (2ks, mainly) and you don't account for that.
Fact: A 62.5% kill rate, ie a 2.5 kill rate, means on average across multiple matches, the killer would get a majority of the kills ~50% of the time. A 60% kill rate is slightly less, a 2.4 kill rate which still means getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the timeAgain, literally, factually, untrue. You can't keep trying to force an extremely basic views off mathematics onto a complex real world.
Theories and hypothesis are great, but if the real world data disagrees, your theory is wrong (I'm paraphrasing Richard Feynman here). We have data in the form of Nightlight whose distribution shows your idea cannot be true.
I feel survivors should get a buff for the remainder of the match to re-balance the match as a 1v3.It's funny because this is an idea that would radically change the distribution of game outcomes and you are basically stating it without realizing it.
7 -
Many killer players probably see a “win” as getting 3 or more kills in a match—that is, eliminating the majority of the survivors.
If that’s the case, isn’t it reasonable to assume that the developers aim for an overall kill rate of around 60%, in order to maintain a perceived 50% win rate for killers?
-3 -
Reasonable to assume? Sure, until you see what they've actually said about it.
They've had ample opportunity to say they shoot for that kill rate to get a win rate, however, and far more importantly:
If the goals of the devs was a 50% 3k+ win rate, why would they even have a kill rate goal?
If your metric is win rates, you don't need a kill rate goal, you just need a goal for win rates.
It's a reasonable starting presumption, but not when you look at their comments, the data, and how if they wanted to balance around win rates they would never get into discussions of kill rates in the first place.
4 -
It's not unreasonable, however...
- BHVR's statements on it suggest otherwise.
- The 'math' Rpthehotrod is using to reach his conclusions is objectively and obviously incorrect.
You also have to keep in mind that a 50% winrate for one side and a 40% winrate for the other is, by definition, very poorly balanced.
6 -
Truth.
It's especially annoying when you have a game that's completely winnable with everyone alive and two gens left, but someone gives up on second hook because they had to wait 20 seconds for me to self-heal (and the other two survivors are on the last two gens) and we all end up dying with the exit gates open, or someone suicides immediately after getting an early down and later on everyone remaining gets slugged with one generator left at like 80% progress.
I'd have a different attitude if people only did it when the game was completely unwinnable. I mean, it wouldn't be great, but nobody really blames anyone when there are five gens left and two people are dead. I've just had way too many games in solo recently where the game almost certainly would have been won if one teammate hadn't immediately killed themselves on the first hook.
I've also had a couple of games recently where one survivor will DC out of frustration and their bot still makes it out of the exit gates. A lot of the games people give up on are entirely winnable, and this is easily my favorite change in recent DBD history.
-3 -
Except how do you reach balance in a game where one side is on their own and has a flat winrate of 50%, whilst the other side has 4 different people who in theory are a team but can all win or lose seperately?
I don't think it's physically possible unless I'm missing something.
0 -
Whether the game can be balanced, or should be balanced, and if so how, is a different topic. I know that some of the people here who are agreeing with me on the 'math' discussion disagree with me on some balance or game design elements.
The math that a 60% kill rate is needed because it results in a balanced experience for both sides is wrong. Not even making statements about whether its a good goal or a bad goal, its just factually wrong.
3 -
Just match the killer winrate to the escape rate as best you can. If a 55% killrate results in a 45% killer winrate, that's perfectly even between the two sides, for example.
Just don't try and aim for a 50% winrate for killers if that necessitates a much lower winrate for survivors.
That is, of course, if you want to prioritise balance, which BHVR doesn't do.
2 -
That's the issue with asymmetrical games. However, if BHVR made it 3 or 5 survivors, they could have effectively given everyone a 50% win rate. 4 just really throws it off significantly due to how majority points (in this case kills) works. For example, with 4 survivors, killer needs to kill 3 out of 4. If there were 5 survivors, the killer would still only needs 3 kills to get a majority, however, it is easier for killer to get 3 kills with 5 survivors since there are more targets, so with 5 survivors, their individual win rate can be increased to offset the killer having more opportunity to get 3 kills.
At the end of the day though, I would love a PTB where we drop the whole individual wins things make survivors actually a team who all win/tie/lose together, and have the match concludes once 9 survivors are hooked (the equivalent of a 3k). Im not sure how well this would end up, but the this would completely end individual player elimination, so perhaps killers would feel less compelled to tunnel people out considering eliminating a player via tunneling would mean hooking them 9 times, ha. The downside is survivors would absolutely need to work as a team, and a very weak survivor would be a detrimental to the whole team.
-2 -
Even the go next prevention won't make the kill rates any more accurate. As long as both sides are capable of throwing games to potentially inflate or deflate kill rates it makes no sense to use them. What the devs should do is actually test their own stuff instead of relying on their steam playerbase to do it for them like unpaid interns.
-2 -
Oops wrong post sorry
0 -
Pure example here is Skull Merchant, while she was never strong she was so insanely unfun to go against that she ended with 90 % kill rate and was top kill rate killer for quite a while.
-1 -
tournaments are not irrelevant; they are an example of what good survivors can do. its a good point to bring up rules, because while spectating those insane cracked survivors you see in the tournament, the only thing I can think is "wow, they're giving the killer a hard time. I cant imagine what this would be like if they could also bring an eyrie offering and 4 decisive strikes".
and guess what they can do in pubs? exactly that.
and before you say "you never get tournament teams, that so rare", know that I agree with you. getting a comp team is like 1 in 2000 games. but getting a team that is damn close to one isn't that rare. because comp teams are just great at looping and great at being efficient on gens. it is not rare at all to face a team like that, even if they're not an official tournament team. and guess what, they can bring you to eyrie, and they can bring their 4 decisives.0
