For those who claim that winning is defined as pipping

GrootDude

My opinion.

Survivor: 0-1 die that’s a win, 2 die that’s a draw, and 3-4 die that’s a loss.

Killer: 0-1 die that’s a loss, 2 die that’s a draw, and if 3-4 die that’s a win.

fluffybunny

@Ryuhi said:

@fluffybunny said:

@Ryuhi said:

@fluffybunny said:
For survivor, the more you have present, the easier it is to do objectives and get out. It's ideal to help out your team. For killer, "Meanwhile, Survivors will be attempting to repair 5 generators... Killers should do everything in their power to stop them." If you do what is required to pip, you'll be doing everything in your power to stop them.

One could even say that the pip conditions are the actual objectives, and the "main objective" is merely the result of accomplishing said objectives. When you accomplish your "main objective" without progressing your emblems, it means you did little to actually get your victory and were handed it on a silver platter.

Yeah, the main objective would be the door and what you have to do to get there would be the staircase. It's fun to change the objective sometimes, though, like when you get bored and what additional difficulties lol.

I've had games where my personal objective is just to get better at looping, or to try to practice red stain mindgames at places like T/L walls. I usually won't get a 4k or survive, but I'll have improved as a player for it. And since there is no actual training mode in this game, thats about the only way to git gudder.

A couple of times while playing SWF, we played protect the president where the president was basically useless (wouldn't do anything) and any time the president would be found, we'd take aggro or use our insta heals and go down in their place. Some of the killers played into it and it was great. If the president died, it was a fail state. XD I actually lived at one point and the Huntress was gonna give me hatch, but I shook my head 'cause the guard doesn't deserve to live if they can't protect the president. I think we did it as a joke 'cause everyone else was red and one person was green. There was another time I was playing with a Bill and someone else and their mission was to protect the Dwight. It was funny.

I don't usually live either, tbh. Lately I've been practicing with DH, though that also means I have a perk I'm not super familiar with. I need to do more of that as killer, tbh. Practice mind games and not worry so much about points. I know recently I pulled a friend into KYF recently to practice DH with the perspective of like a high ranked killer. I kinda wish there was a practice mode where you could practice perks and that sort of stuff.

NuclearBurrito

@twistedmonkey said:

@thesuicidefox said:

Which you totally have the right to do. But because you set your OWN win condition, you shouldn't get mad at the games that just don't go your way. If you get a good group of survivors that loop and gen rush you won't get a lot of BP. It doesn't mean the game should change just for you and give you some kind of bonus BP even when you don't make a lot do you?

I never do its a game why so many people get upset at others is beyond me, you win some you lose some and move onto another, no need to be salty when you get outplayed, its the best way to learn and get better.

@Ryuhi said:

When it comes to The Grind(tm) I consider any progress toward making my killer roster viable a victory for now lmao. Gimme a game where i die but 5 party streamers were used and I got 4 stacks of WGLF and I will give myself a "world's most glorious loser" medal.

Exactly, those juicy bloodpoints are worth more than anything else in the game for likes of myself , the Grind is the game as each time I get what I want I find I want more.

@NuclearBurrito said:

Yeah you can still make your arguments over if 1-3k is a win. I have a good reason to think it is specifically 4k, but it isn't conclusive or anything just a line that implies it.

Personally I cant see anything that implies 4k but if you point it out I may see it differently, if not I understand as so many may come and argue over it with you

Wasn't in one of the screenshots in the OP (although 4k=win is the most intuitive conclusion given what it says). I was refering to the line at the bottom of this screenshot

Since it only implies 4k rather than outright stating it like where it says "SURVIVOR'S GOAL IS TO ESCAPE" I'm not trying to use it as conclusive evidence

Ryuhi

@fluffybunny said:

@Ryuhi said:

@fluffybunny said:

@Ryuhi said:

@fluffybunny said:
For survivor, the more you have present, the easier it is to do objectives and get out. It's ideal to help out your team. For killer, "Meanwhile, Survivors will be attempting to repair 5 generators... Killers should do everything in their power to stop them." If you do what is required to pip, you'll be doing everything in your power to stop them.

One could even say that the pip conditions are the actual objectives, and the "main objective" is merely the result of accomplishing said objectives. When you accomplish your "main objective" without progressing your emblems, it means you did little to actually get your victory and were handed it on a silver platter.

Yeah, the main objective would be the door and what you have to do to get there would be the staircase. It's fun to change the objective sometimes, though, like when you get bored and what additional difficulties lol.

I've had games where my personal objective is just to get better at looping, or to try to practice red stain mindgames at places like T/L walls. I usually won't get a 4k or survive, but I'll have improved as a player for it. And since there is no actual training mode in this game, thats about the only way to git gudder.

A couple of times while playing SWF, we played protect the president where the president was basically useless (wouldn't do anything) and any time the president would be found, we'd take aggro or use our insta heals and go down in their place. Some of the killers played into it and it was great. If the president died, it was a fail state. XD I actually lived at one point and the Huntress was gonna give me hatch, but I shook my head 'cause the guard doesn't deserve to live if they can't protect the president. I think we did it as a joke 'cause everyone else was red and one person was green. There was another time I was playing with a Bill and someone else and their mission was to protect the Dwight. It was funny.

I don't usually live either, tbh. Lately I've been practicing with DH, though that also means I have a perk I'm not super familiar with. I need to do more of that as killer, tbh. Practice mind games and not worry so much about points. I know recently I pulled a friend into KYF recently to practice DH with the perspective of like a high ranked killer. I kinda wish there was a practice mode where you could practice perks and that sort of stuff.

I know the game can't really afford to split the base for it, but man there's a lot of potential for alternate game modes like that. Also tbh don't feel too bad about not practicing new tech, the hardest part is having to deal with the gloating from the other side as a consequence so it can be more daunting than it should be.

knell

When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

NuclearBurrito

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@thesuicidefox said:

@NuclearBurrito said:
And this isn't really a team game. Each survivor has a slightly different wincon

No but you would be wise to keep others alive because the more survivors there are the greater your individual chances to escape. It's in your better interest to do it to meet your other objectives.

@NuclearBurrito said:
Hell you can even get iridescent lightbringer without completing a single generator

LOL who is even saying this?

Indeed it IS wise to keep others alive. That is why the game counts it as skillful and wants people who do that to rank up. That does NOT mean it is part of the wincondition anymore than cleansing totems are. Speaking of which to your other point:

I am. I did the math and if you cleanse 4 hex totems and do 87.5% of a generator then you get iridescent lightbringer. Since it is possible for that to be all of the progress made in the entire course of the game this means you can get lightbringer without completing any generators.

You can even get gold without anyone even TOUCHING a generator

Why would you even base a scenario off of a killer having 4 hex perks, and a single player clensing all of them? Thats kinda on the far end of hypothetical, especially when pairing it with nobody else doing a single gen or even 12.5% of the one you also did.

Doesn't matter. It can theoretically happen and we could assign that situation a win/lose status. And if you won every chase but 1 and they lasted a very long time and you also got a lot of unhooks ect then you can get irridencent in everything but unbroken which you can get silver in

Grounding the theoretical into the realistically probable absolutely matters. Otherwise you could come up with some crazy scenario that has almost nothing to do with the game itself but results in your "win" as a sideffect. The entire point of trying to be realistic with possibilities is to narrow the x factor into something actually related to your average game experience.

and yes, in a game where you carried the hell out of your team and got almost every single category as iridescent, you won because you outperformed what was expected of you to a large degree. There are multiple factors that are beyond any individual's control in this game, which is why people are more accepting to the shifted nature of victory. Without that mentality, every single game would be survivors too scared to even touch gens, just hiding in corners and moving just enough to not attract crows. It would be a boring game that would die overnight.

The theoretical absolutely matters when discussing definitions. Simply because given how definitions work in order for a pip to be a win that means all examples of pipping must also be wins, and all examples of winning must also be pips.

If there is even a singe situation where this isn't the case then that means pipping is not winning. For example I cannot come up with a single situation where escaping is not a win for a survivor since the second they escape they are set into a state of victory, and on the otherside I cannot come up with a single situation where not escaping is a win because being in a situation where you can't escape causes you to instantly lose

NuclearBurrito

So the only gray area is in if other forms of killing besides sacrifices count as killing for the purpose of winning and the exact number of sacrifices needed to win as killer

Paddy4583

NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:
Well look at it this way: If you hide in a corner and do literally nothing the entire game, wait for 2 gens to get done while your 3 teammates get killed, and then you sneak into the hatch getting a whopping total of 5k survival points and no pip.... do you honestly think you won?

Yes

So selling out your entire team is a victory if you contribute nothing and purposely prevent them from being able to succeed. Thats almost teamkilling level and you consider it winning. You should probably just go play battle royale games or something.

Not my fault the wincon says nothing about helping everyone ELSE escape

It also doesn’t say anything about a 4K sooooo...
stale mate

fluffybunny

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

DbD isn't chest. I see it more as creating the story. The more you do, the better plays you make, the better the story is. It would be considered a "win" if you do a lot 'cause you're contributing to the "finale" and you won't "win" if you don't contribute to the end. When it comes to the "pipping = winning" mentality, it's about making the plays and doing what you can in the horror story so that what you do matters and it isn't just "they hid and therefore escaped" sort of scenario, though I do think it's still considered a win if you hid for most of the match and was able to get out? I haven't tried that tactic as I prefer a more active role, but getting out without being downed would be an iridescent and stealthing does count towards a pip now. I think what the game director was saying is that there's multiple ways to win, so there isn't a clear-cut win/lose condition.

Ryuhi

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Ryuhi

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

NuclearBurrito

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Would you prefer to use poker in the example?

Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else

Ryuhi

@fluffybunny said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

DbD isn't chest. I see it more as creating the story. The more you do, the better plays you make, the better the story is. It would be considered a "win" if you do a lot 'cause you're contributing to the "finale" and you won't "win" if you don't contribute to the end. When it comes to the "pipping = winning" mentality, it's about making the plays and doing what you can in the horror story so that what you do matters and it isn't just "they hid and therefore escaped" sort of scenario, though I do think it's still considered a win if you hid for most of the match and was able to get out? I haven't tried that tactic as I prefer a more active role, but getting out without being downed would be an iridescent and stealthing does count towards a pip now. I think what the game director was saying is that there's multiple ways to win, so there isn't a clear-cut win/lose condition.

I like the story analogy: Who will be remembered in a story... the valiant martyr, or the random civilian who was just eating a loaf of bread in a nearby tavern? I mean, he lived to see the conclusion after all!

Ryuhi

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Would you prefer to use poker in the example?

Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else

Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.

NuclearBurrito

@Ryuhi said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

I would like to put in a distinction real quick.

YOUR wincon is personal. Because you win when you achieve what you are trying to. However that isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about the SURVIVOR and KILLER win condition.

Or in other words if you were to be given the literal outcome and events of all games and used that to turn into a win loss ratio for each role (useful as a metric for calculating how balanced things are) then the criteria used to decide if something counts towards the number of wins vs the number of losses/draws is your win condition.

This metric while arbitrary is also objective, since it is definitially true that reguardless of what you personally are trying to accomplish, the wincon only cares about what the survivor's as a whole are supposed to accomplish. Anything else just isn't useful

Ryuhi

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

I would like to put in a distinction real quick.

YOUR wincon is personal. Because you win when you achieve what you are trying to. However that isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about the SURVIVOR and KILLER win condition.

Or in other words if you were to be given the literal outcome and events of all games and used that to turn into a win loss ratio for each role (useful as a metric for calculating how balanced things are) then the criteria used to decide if something counts towards the number of wins vs the number of losses/draws is your win condition.

This metric while arbitrary is also objective, since it is definitially true that reguardless of what you personally are trying to accomplish, the wincon only cares about what the survivor's as a whole are supposed to accomplish. Anything else just isn't useful

Then why is there no survival rate% metric in the game? Same with sacrifices for that matter? Are they not the only objective? Why is it not even tracked?

I almost hope you say you keep an excel spreadsheet of each victory and have it set to autocompile your win ratio for you :chuffed:

Oh but wait, there IS a metric that tracks pip progress between games, and has you climb a ladder based off of it. And it doesn't even require the penultimate victory condition. thinkingface

NuclearBurrito

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Would you prefer to use poker in the example?

Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else

Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.

I am specifically talking about tournament poker where you are trying to earn the MOST chips rather than just SOME chips. Or in other words if I play perfectly and call every bluff I would win and fold every time my hand is worse it is still possible for me to NOT make the most money.

Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

Or in other words being able to win or lose randomly does not make it stop being a win condition.

Remember that you CAN win a game of rock paper scissors

NuclearBurrito

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

I would like to put in a distinction real quick.

YOUR wincon is personal. Because you win when you achieve what you are trying to. However that isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about the SURVIVOR and KILLER win condition.

Or in other words if you were to be given the literal outcome and events of all games and used that to turn into a win loss ratio for each role (useful as a metric for calculating how balanced things are) then the criteria used to decide if something counts towards the number of wins vs the number of losses/draws is your win condition.

This metric while arbitrary is also objective, since it is definitially true that reguardless of what you personally are trying to accomplish, the wincon only cares about what the survivor's as a whole are supposed to accomplish. Anything else just isn't useful

Then why is there no survival rate% metric in the game? Same with sacrifices for that matter? Are they not the only objective? Why is it not even tracked?

I almost hope you say you keep an excel spreadsheet of each victory and have it set to autocompile your win ratio for you :chuffed:

Oh but wait, there IS a metric that tracks pip progress between games, and has you climb a ladder based off of it. And it doesn't even require the penultimate victory condition. thinkingface

idk why it doesn't let you track your win's properly. But this both isn't the only game with that problem (Throne of lies doesn't either despite VERY clear win conditions) and even if it was such tracking does exist and I've sited it before when talking about survivor strength vs killer strength.

Again, something not being actively tracked and shown to retroactively does not make it stop being a win condition

Ryuhi

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Would you prefer to use poker in the example?

Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else

Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.

I am specifically talking about tournament poker where you are trying to earn the MOST chips rather than just SOME chips. Or in other words if I play perfectly and call every bluff I would win and fold every time my hand is worse it is still possible for me to NOT make the most money.

Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

Or in other words being able to win or lose randomly does not make it stop being a win condition.

Remember that you CAN win a game of rock paper scissors

Your analogy fell flat on its face the moment you assumed tournament poker is the only version of poker, when it is by far the lest common version of it. I guarantee there are more middle aged groups of friends playing poker on an average week than pro tournaments could ever possibly be organized. You did accidentally strike a pretty strong point for why the only one possible victory condition is not reasonable though:

Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

This is a game where there is a large amount of factors beyond your control, to which your interaction can only be described on your end as "luck." It can also make you fail your survive/kill condition in a way that is beyond your control. Since it is far more common than in many other competitive situations, it causes such a black and white mentality to become obsolete to accurately track progress or performance.

Ryuhi

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

I would like to put in a distinction real quick.

YOUR wincon is personal. Because you win when you achieve what you are trying to. However that isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about the SURVIVOR and KILLER win condition.

Or in other words if you were to be given the literal outcome and events of all games and used that to turn into a win loss ratio for each role (useful as a metric for calculating how balanced things are) then the criteria used to decide if something counts towards the number of wins vs the number of losses/draws is your win condition.

This metric while arbitrary is also objective, since it is definitially true that reguardless of what you personally are trying to accomplish, the wincon only cares about what the survivor's as a whole are supposed to accomplish. Anything else just isn't useful

Then why is there no survival rate% metric in the game? Same with sacrifices for that matter? Are they not the only objective? Why is it not even tracked?

I almost hope you say you keep an excel spreadsheet of each victory and have it set to autocompile your win ratio for you :chuffed:

Oh but wait, there IS a metric that tracks pip progress between games, and has you climb a ladder based off of it. And it doesn't even require the penultimate victory condition. thinkingface

idk why it doesn't let you track your win's properly. But this both isn't the only game with that problem (Throne of lies doesn't either despite VERY clear win conditions) and even if it was such tracking does exist and I've sited it before when talking about survivor strength vs killer strength.

Again, something not being actively tracked and shown to retroactively does not make it stop being a win condition

Of course it doesn't. But its a very clear indicator that it is not the only possible win condition if its not even important enough to be tracked, no? There would be no reason to track anything else until AFTER that is tracked properly, if it were the only possible win condition...

NuclearBurrito

Also you are forgetting that > @Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Would you prefer to use poker in the example?

Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else

Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.

I am specifically talking about tournament poker where you are trying to earn the MOST chips rather than just SOME chips. Or in other words if I play perfectly and call every bluff I would win and fold every time my hand is worse it is still possible for me to NOT make the most money.

Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

Or in other words being able to win or lose randomly does not make it stop being a win condition.

Remember that you CAN win a game of rock paper scissors

Your analogy fell flat on its face the moment you assumed tournament poker is the only version of poker, when it is by far the lest common version of it. I guarantee there are more middle aged groups of friends playing poker on an average week than pro tournaments could ever possibly be organized. You did accidentally strike a pretty strong point for why the only one possible victory condition is not reasonable though:

Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

This is a game where there is a large amount of factors beyond your control, to which your interaction can only be described on your end as "luck." It can also make you fail your survive/kill condition in a way that is beyond your control. Since it is far more common than in many other competitive situations, it causes such a black and white mentality to become obsolete to accurately track progress or performance.

Definitions do not change based on the circumstances they are applied to. So if a win condition is a win condition despite being luck based then that means something being luck based never makes it not a win condition

Cymer

I think the biggest divergence comes from the different values players have.

Some play for the prestige of having rank 1. 
Others avoiding ranking up, because a higher rank means longer queue times, limited viable killer-pool and much harder matches.

BP are predominantly the most valuable aspect for beginners and intermediate players, because they want to get the perks and individualize their characters. Veteran player in the contrary are less depended on BP.

And some just play to have fun. Playing a roleplay fantasy. Trying to achieve a personal goal. Trying out wierd perk builds, whatever makes you happy. (Please, just don't troll!)

In my opinion all these ways to play are viable and deserve some form of legitimacy and only because you define your wincondition different then some else's, you still have no rights to dictate others how they should have fun or that someone need to shut up and not voice their spin on a beloved game.

There don't have to be one single perfect and legitimate way to play.
DBD is fortunately a game that can be played and enjoyed on so magnanimous different ways and don't strangle your choices during the match.

I think that the devs and other players would agree with me, when I say, let's create a DBD where all these playstyles and preferences are equally viable and noone has ever be talked down for their preferred way of enjoying the game!

NuclearBurrito

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

I would like to put in a distinction real quick.

YOUR wincon is personal. Because you win when you achieve what you are trying to. However that isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about the SURVIVOR and KILLER win condition.

Or in other words if you were to be given the literal outcome and events of all games and used that to turn into a win loss ratio for each role (useful as a metric for calculating how balanced things are) then the criteria used to decide if something counts towards the number of wins vs the number of losses/draws is your win condition.

This metric while arbitrary is also objective, since it is definitially true that reguardless of what you personally are trying to accomplish, the wincon only cares about what the survivor's as a whole are supposed to accomplish. Anything else just isn't useful

Then why is there no survival rate% metric in the game? Same with sacrifices for that matter? Are they not the only objective? Why is it not even tracked?

I almost hope you say you keep an excel spreadsheet of each victory and have it set to autocompile your win ratio for you :chuffed:

Oh but wait, there IS a metric that tracks pip progress between games, and has you climb a ladder based off of it. And it doesn't even require the penultimate victory condition. thinkingface

idk why it doesn't let you track your win's properly. But this both isn't the only game with that problem (Throne of lies doesn't either despite VERY clear win conditions) and even if it was such tracking does exist and I've sited it before when talking about survivor strength vs killer strength.

Again, something not being actively tracked and shown to retroactively does not make it stop being a win condition

Of course it doesn't. But its a very clear indicator that it is not the only possible win condition if its not even important enough to be tracked, no? There would be no reason to track anything else until AFTER that is tracked properly, if it were the only possible win condition...

However the game directly stating that escaping/killing is the survivor/killer win condition is overwhelming evidence for escaping/killing being the survivor/killer win condition. Your minor circumstantial facts are not enough to negate the direct and clear word of the game

Ryuhi

@NuclearBurrito said:
Also you are forgetting that > @Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Would you prefer to use poker in the example?

Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else

Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.

I am specifically talking about tournament poker where you are trying to earn the MOST chips rather than just SOME chips. Or in other words if I play perfectly and call every bluff I would win and fold every time my hand is worse it is still possible for me to NOT make the most money.

Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

Or in other words being able to win or lose randomly does not make it stop being a win condition.

Remember that you CAN win a game of rock paper scissors

Your analogy fell flat on its face the moment you assumed tournament poker is the only version of poker, when it is by far the lest common version of it. I guarantee there are more middle aged groups of friends playing poker on an average week than pro tournaments could ever possibly be organized. You did accidentally strike a pretty strong point for why the only one possible victory condition is not reasonable though:

Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

This is a game where there is a large amount of factors beyond your control, to which your interaction can only be described on your end as "luck." It can also make you fail your survive/kill condition in a way that is beyond your control. Since it is far more common than in many other competitive situations, it causes such a black and white mentality to become obsolete to accurately track progress or performance.

Definitions do not change based on the circumstances they are applied to. So if a win condition is a win condition despite being luck based then that means something being luck based never makes it not a win condition

They actually literally do. Its why a definition can have multiple applications, aka why there is usually a numbered list of things it can mean and circumstances it can be used in. Definitions can even change over time due to the circumstances they are applied to, which is an evolution of language itself.

This conversation is actually a pretty good example of the literal, the colloquial, and the evolving.

Ryuhi

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

I would like to put in a distinction real quick.

YOUR wincon is personal. Because you win when you achieve what you are trying to. However that isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about the SURVIVOR and KILLER win condition.

Or in other words if you were to be given the literal outcome and events of all games and used that to turn into a win loss ratio for each role (useful as a metric for calculating how balanced things are) then the criteria used to decide if something counts towards the number of wins vs the number of losses/draws is your win condition.

This metric while arbitrary is also objective, since it is definitially true that reguardless of what you personally are trying to accomplish, the wincon only cares about what the survivor's as a whole are supposed to accomplish. Anything else just isn't useful

Then why is there no survival rate% metric in the game? Same with sacrifices for that matter? Are they not the only objective? Why is it not even tracked?

I almost hope you say you keep an excel spreadsheet of each victory and have it set to autocompile your win ratio for you :chuffed:

Oh but wait, there IS a metric that tracks pip progress between games, and has you climb a ladder based off of it. And it doesn't even require the penultimate victory condition. thinkingface

idk why it doesn't let you track your win's properly. But this both isn't the only game with that problem (Throne of lies doesn't either despite VERY clear win conditions) and even if it was such tracking does exist and I've sited it before when talking about survivor strength vs killer strength.

Again, something not being actively tracked and shown to retroactively does not make it stop being a win condition

Of course it doesn't. But its a very clear indicator that it is not the only possible win condition if its not even important enough to be tracked, no? There would be no reason to track anything else until AFTER that is tracked properly, if it were the only possible win condition...

However the game directly stating that escaping/killing is the survivor/killer win condition is overwhelming evidence for escaping/killing being the survivor/killer win condition. Your minor circumstantial facts are not enough to negate the direct and clear word of the game

Literally every time you see something that opposes your viewpoint, you plug your ears and cite an ancient tutorial screen. If you refuse to be open minded then there isnt really much of a point to this conversation (or topic in general)

NuclearBurrito

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:
Also you are forgetting that > @Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Would you prefer to use poker in the example?

Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else

Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.

I am specifically talking about tournament poker where you are trying to earn the MOST chips rather than just SOME chips. Or in other words if I play perfectly and call every bluff I would win and fold every time my hand is worse it is still possible for me to NOT make the most money.

Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

Or in other words being able to win or lose randomly does not make it stop being a win condition.

Remember that you CAN win a game of rock paper scissors

Your analogy fell flat on its face the moment you assumed tournament poker is the only version of poker, when it is by far the lest common version of it. I guarantee there are more middle aged groups of friends playing poker on an average week than pro tournaments could ever possibly be organized. You did accidentally strike a pretty strong point for why the only one possible victory condition is not reasonable though:

Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

This is a game where there is a large amount of factors beyond your control, to which your interaction can only be described on your end as "luck." It can also make you fail your survive/kill condition in a way that is beyond your control. Since it is far more common than in many other competitive situations, it causes such a black and white mentality to become obsolete to accurately track progress or performance.

Definitions do not change based on the circumstances they are applied to. So if a win condition is a win condition despite being luck based then that means something being luck based never makes it not a win condition

They actually literally do. Its why a definition can have multiple applications, aka why there is usually a numbered list of things it can mean and circumstances it can be used in. Definitions can even change over time due to the circumstances they are applied to, which is an evolution of language itself.

This conversation is actually a pretty good example of the literal, the colloquial, and the evolving.

Those are just different definitions.

Or in other words the definition of a word can change but a single definition is static because any other definition is just not the same definition.

Basically you can always substitute a word for it's definition without changing the meaning of what you said (the grammar might change however)

Ryuhi

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:
Also you are forgetting that > @Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Would you prefer to use poker in the example?

Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else

Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.

I am specifically talking about tournament poker where you are trying to earn the MOST chips rather than just SOME chips. Or in other words if I play perfectly and call every bluff I would win and fold every time my hand is worse it is still possible for me to NOT make the most money.

Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

Or in other words being able to win or lose randomly does not make it stop being a win condition.

Remember that you CAN win a game of rock paper scissors

Your analogy fell flat on its face the moment you assumed tournament poker is the only version of poker, when it is by far the lest common version of it. I guarantee there are more middle aged groups of friends playing poker on an average week than pro tournaments could ever possibly be organized. You did accidentally strike a pretty strong point for why the only one possible victory condition is not reasonable though:

Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

This is a game where there is a large amount of factors beyond your control, to which your interaction can only be described on your end as "luck." It can also make you fail your survive/kill condition in a way that is beyond your control. Since it is far more common than in many other competitive situations, it causes such a black and white mentality to become obsolete to accurately track progress or performance.

Definitions do not change based on the circumstances they are applied to. So if a win condition is a win condition despite being luck based then that means something being luck based never makes it not a win condition

They actually literally do. Its why a definition can have multiple applications, aka why there is usually a numbered list of things it can mean and circumstances it can be used in. Definitions can even change over time due to the circumstances they are applied to, which is an evolution of language itself.

This conversation is actually a pretty good example of the literal, the colloquial, and the evolving.

Those are just different definitions.

Or in other words the definition of a word can change but a single definition is static because any other definition is just not the same definition.

Basically you can always substitute a word for it's definition without changing the meaning of what you said (the grammar might change however)

Do you really not understand how definitions evolve, nor how they can change based on application? You don't need a linguistics degree to understand how something as simple as slang occurs within a language, let alone actual complete revisions to existing words.

This conversation is getting pretty tiresome, so I'm just going to keep having my own win conditions and encouraging others to do the same. You're welcome to sit in your own corner wondering why other people are feeling any sense of accomplishment though.

NuclearBurrito

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

I would like to put in a distinction real quick.

YOUR wincon is personal. Because you win when you achieve what you are trying to. However that isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about the SURVIVOR and KILLER win condition.

Or in other words if you were to be given the literal outcome and events of all games and used that to turn into a win loss ratio for each role (useful as a metric for calculating how balanced things are) then the criteria used to decide if something counts towards the number of wins vs the number of losses/draws is your win condition.

This metric while arbitrary is also objective, since it is definitially true that reguardless of what you personally are trying to accomplish, the wincon only cares about what the survivor's as a whole are supposed to accomplish. Anything else just isn't useful

Then why is there no survival rate% metric in the game? Same with sacrifices for that matter? Are they not the only objective? Why is it not even tracked?

I almost hope you say you keep an excel spreadsheet of each victory and have it set to autocompile your win ratio for you :chuffed:

Oh but wait, there IS a metric that tracks pip progress between games, and has you climb a ladder based off of it. And it doesn't even require the penultimate victory condition. thinkingface

idk why it doesn't let you track your win's properly. But this both isn't the only game with that problem (Throne of lies doesn't either despite VERY clear win conditions) and even if it was such tracking does exist and I've sited it before when talking about survivor strength vs killer strength.

Again, something not being actively tracked and shown to retroactively does not make it stop being a win condition

Of course it doesn't. But its a very clear indicator that it is not the only possible win condition if its not even important enough to be tracked, no? There would be no reason to track anything else until AFTER that is tracked properly, if it were the only possible win condition...

However the game directly stating that escaping/killing is the survivor/killer win condition is overwhelming evidence for escaping/killing being the survivor/killer win condition. Your minor circumstantial facts are not enough to negate the direct and clear word of the game

Literally every time you see something that opposes your viewpoint, you plug your ears and cite an ancient tutorial screen. If you refuse to be open minded then there isnt really much of a point to this conversation (or topic in general)

And you've been siting a bar the devs barely talk about. I cite the tutorial because nothing else talks about winning. If I saw somewhere else that stated the win conditions for the different roles I would cite that too. Maybe it exists but in game it only specifies the win conditions for the different roles in the tutorial section, so unless we are only talking about what someone is personally trying to accomplish (which is not helpful in this context) we need to stick to what is official. And since the place that is supposed to tell you what you are supposed to be doing says that your goal is to escape, that means your goal is to escape and I don't see how you can make the argument that it isn't

NuclearBurrito

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:
Also you are forgetting that > @Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.

When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.

If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.

But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.

The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Would you prefer to use poker in the example?

Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else

Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.

I am specifically talking about tournament poker where you are trying to earn the MOST chips rather than just SOME chips. Or in other words if I play perfectly and call every bluff I would win and fold every time my hand is worse it is still possible for me to NOT make the most money.

Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

Or in other words being able to win or lose randomly does not make it stop being a win condition.

Remember that you CAN win a game of rock paper scissors

Your analogy fell flat on its face the moment you assumed tournament poker is the only version of poker, when it is by far the lest common version of it. I guarantee there are more middle aged groups of friends playing poker on an average week than pro tournaments could ever possibly be organized. You did accidentally strike a pretty strong point for why the only one possible victory condition is not reasonable though:

Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.

This is a game where there is a large amount of factors beyond your control, to which your interaction can only be described on your end as "luck." It can also make you fail your survive/kill condition in a way that is beyond your control. Since it is far more common than in many other competitive situations, it causes such a black and white mentality to become obsolete to accurately track progress or performance.

Definitions do not change based on the circumstances they are applied to. So if a win condition is a win condition despite being luck based then that means something being luck based never makes it not a win condition

They actually literally do. Its why a definition can have multiple applications, aka why there is usually a numbered list of things it can mean and circumstances it can be used in. Definitions can even change over time due to the circumstances they are applied to, which is an evolution of language itself.

This conversation is actually a pretty good example of the literal, the colloquial, and the evolving.

Those are just different definitions.

Or in other words the definition of a word can change but a single definition is static because any other definition is just not the same definition.

Basically you can always substitute a word for it's definition without changing the meaning of what you said (the grammar might change however)

Do you really not understand how definitions evolve, nor how they can change based on application? You don't need a linguistics degree to understand how something as simple as slang occurs within a language, let alone actual complete revisions to existing words.

This conversation is getting pretty tiresome, so I'm just going to keep having my own win conditions and encouraging others to do the same. You're welcome to sit in your own corner wondering why other people are feeling any sense of accomplishment though.

Now you are putting words into my mouth. I never said that you had to win in order to feel accomplished

powerbats

@Cymer said:
I think the biggest divergence comes from the different values players have.

Some play for the prestige of having rank 1. 
Others avoiding ranking up, because a higher rank means longer queue times, limited viable killer-pool and much harder matches.

BP are predominantly the most valuable aspect for beginners and intermediate players, because they want to get the perks and individualize their characters. Veteran player in the contrary are less depended on BP.

And some just play to have fun. Playing a roleplay fantasy. Trying to achieve a personal goal. Trying out wierd perk builds, whatever makes you happy. (Please, just don't troll!)

In my opinion all these ways to play are viable and deserve some form of legitimacy and only because you define your wincondition different then some else's, you still have no rights to dictate others how they should have fun or that someone need to shut up and not voice their spin on a beloved game.

There don't have to be one single perfect and legitimate way to play.
DBD is fortunately a game that can be played and enjoyed on so magnanimous different ways and don't strangle your choices during the match.

I think that the devs and other players would agree with me, when I say, let's create a DBD where all these playstyles and preferences are equally viable and noone has ever be talked down for their preferred way of enjoying the game!

Exactly and you see some people playing Meme builds just for fun and 1 person I've met in game plays meme builds on a smurf and doesn't care if they die as long as they can meme while doing it.

"To each his or her own it must be held true."

Note: I can't remember the exact quote for that.

XavierBoah17

Imagine using the tutorial as evidence to define what a win is in DBD LULW

knell

@fluffybunny said:
DbD isn't chest.

I agree, DBD is not a chest.

@fluffybunny said:
I see it more as creating the story. The more you do, the better plays you make, the better the story is. It would be considered a "win" if you do a lot 'cause you're contributing to the "finale" and you won't "win" if you don't contribute to the end. When it comes to the "pipping = winning" mentality, it's about making the plays and doing what you can in the horror story so that what you do matters and it isn't just "they hid and therefore escaped" sort of scenario, though I do think it's still considered a win if you hid for most of the match and was able to get out? I haven't tried that tactic as I prefer a more active role, but getting out without being downed would be an iridescent and stealthing does count towards a pip now. I think what the game director was saying is that there's multiple ways to win, so there isn't a clear-cut win/lose condition.

That's fine. If the way you play defines your winning condition, I'm fine with that. Like I said, I'm even fine if people want to treat DBD like a point salad game and define the victory condition in that way. The problem is when people are saying, "surviving is not the winning condition; pipping is the winning condition." Who says?

And I agree with you - I prefer the playstyle of doing as much as I can as a survivor also. But that's just it; it's my personal preference. And there are times when I die as a survivor, getting ~15K points, and see that last survivor take the hatch and still has only ~10K points despite the hatch - does it annoy me? Yes. Do I try to make myself feel better by convincing myself that I won despite having been sacrificed? No, of course not. Because ultimately, the guy who hid all game took a gamble that 1. the rest of us will do a minimum of 2 generators without him, and that 2. he would be able to find the hatch before the killer. He could have died just like the rest of us - he didn't, so in my mind, he won, as much as I don't like that fact.

@Ryuhi said:
The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.

Let's make this clear - if you have your own definition of how to win in this game, I am absolutely okay with that. You enjoy your game the way you see fit. The problem I have is when others are saying, "No, surviving isn't the winning condition; pipping is the winning condition." That not only goes against my enjoyment of the game - it also isn't what seems to be inferred from official sources - so yes, I do have a problem with that.

If you don't like chess, then let's compare it to another asymmetrical game - like Werewolf or Mafia - a social deduction game. If you are the lone werewolf, it doesn't matter how well you do and how many villagers with roles (Fortune Teller/Bodyguard/etc.) you devour during the night in a row - if the villagers manage to point you out the next morning (even if randomly selected), then the game is over. Again, the performance really isn't indicative of the winning condition. But like I said earlier, as so long as you aren't saying, "Surviving isn't the winning condition in DBD," I'm fine with it. Go have fun - just make sure you let me have mine too.

NuclearBurrito

@XavierBoah17 said:
Imagine using the tutorial as evidence to define what a win is in DBD LULW

Why wouldn't I?

Ryuhi

@knell said:
Let's make this clear - if you have your own definition of how to win in this game, I am absolutely okay with that. You enjoy your game the way you see fit. The problem I have is when others are saying, "No, surviving isn't the winning condition; pipping is the winning condition." That not only goes against my enjoyment of the game - it also isn't what seems to be inferred from official sources - so yes, I do have a problem with that.

If you don't like chess, then let's compare it to another asymmetrical game - like Werewolf or Mafia - a social deduction game. If you are the lone werewolf, it doesn't matter how well you do and how many villagers with roles (Fortune Teller/Bodyguard/etc.) you devour during the night in a row - if the villagers manage to point you out the next morning (even if randomly selected), then the game is over. Again, the performance really isn't indicative of the winning condition. But like I said earlier, as so long as you aren't saying, "Surviving isn't the winning condition in DBD," I'm fine with it. Go have fun - just make sure you let me have mine too.

First, props for the mafia comparison. Granted, thats exactly what someone who WASN'T from TOWN would do.... :chuffed:

While in terms of absolute win conditions that is true for the killer/mafia/etc in that game, it is not true of the townspeople. They can die early while paving the way for the opposing factions demise, thus losing as an individual (death) but winning as a faction. The way that a lot of gamemsaters craft their powers can lend to this reelly well and make some crazy matches

I think that also fits our shared idea of individual win conditions pretty well too. Some people would define survival as the only win condition, while others would consider the success of their faction the win condition.

knell

@Ryuhi said:
Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

Great - then we have no problem with each other. As for the OP, I think NuclearBurrito started this thread only as a reply to someone who stated, "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME. Any other "win condition" is purely imaginary and of your own accord" in another thread. So I can definitely understand NuclearBurrito's frustration. Of course, I don't know his motive, so I could be wrong about that also.

NuclearBurrito

@Ryuhi said:

@knell said:
Let's make this clear - if you have your own definition of how to win in this game, I am absolutely okay with that. You enjoy your game the way you see fit. The problem I have is when others are saying, "No, surviving isn't the winning condition; pipping is the winning condition." That not only goes against my enjoyment of the game - it also isn't what seems to be inferred from official sources - so yes, I do have a problem with that.

If you don't like chess, then let's compare it to another asymmetrical game - like Werewolf or Mafia - a social deduction game. If you are the lone werewolf, it doesn't matter how well you do and how many villagers with roles (Fortune Teller/Bodyguard/etc.) you devour during the night in a row - if the villagers manage to point you out the next morning (even if randomly selected), then the game is over. Again, the performance really isn't indicative of the winning condition. But like I said earlier, as so long as you aren't saying, "Surviving isn't the winning condition in DBD," I'm fine with it. Go have fun - just make sure you let me have mine too.

First, props for the mafia comparison. Granted, thats exactly what someone who WASN'T from TOWN would do.... :chuffed:

While in terms of absolute win conditions that is true for the killer/mafia/etc in that game, it is not true of the townspeople. They can die early while paving the way for the opposing factions demise, thus losing as an individual (death) but winning as a faction. The way that a lot of gamemsaters craft their powers can lend to this reelly well and make some crazy matches

I think that also fits our shared idea of individual win conditions pretty well too. Some people would define survival as the only win condition, while others would consider the success of their faction the win condition.

yes but the town does have a single definite win condition where at the end of the game you can make an objective list of who won and who didn't.

No amount of personal satisfaction will alter this list.

And some social deduction games DON'T have survival being optional for the town, deceit is a good example due to it using nearly the same mechanics as DBD in terms of winning.

Ranking based on something performance? Check
Perks that effect balance? Check
Survivors who need to individually survive as a wincon? Check
Killers who need to eliminate the survivors as a wincon? Check
RNG with the maps? Check
Horror tone? Check
More losing than winning? Check

TrAiNwReCk

@thesuicidefox said:

@NuclearBurrito said:
Since you can pip without sacrificing. That means you can pip without achieving your only stated goal

"Patrol the area and find Survivors."
"Chase, injure, and catch Survivors before they escape."
"Carry Survivors to a sacrificial hook and hang them there for The Entity to consume."

None of these listed objectives state "sacrifice survivor" or use the word "kill", nor do they state you MUST do these things. If you do everything listed here WELL ENOUGH, you pip. If you also sacrificed/killed them, it still fits within these rules because if you find>chase>injure>catch>hook them 3 times that's just the end result. In such a case where they die it means you did very well, and are awarded more for a win than usual (double pip).

@NuclearBurrito

You will have to learn to forgive certain forum trolls that want to be right at the expense of common sense. A wall of text "blah blah blah blah blah" x100 so most people glance over and figure they might be right.

Fact #1

• If you die in a trial - You have lost
• If you don't kill all 4 Survivors -You have lost
• If you don't die in a trial -You have won
• If you kill all 4 Survivors -You have won

Fact #2

• Pipping - Has nothing to do with winning. Had thesuicidefox any _COMMON SENSE_ pipping obviously . . . OBVIOUSLY has only to do with rank. And for everyone scratching their heads still . . . If the ranking system did not exist than pipping would not exist

P.S. It is truly sad that people who simply want to be right, will stop at nothing to try and convince everyone else and themselves that they are right. Even if it proves them to be ignorant and wrong.

Keep up the common sense postings Nuclear. There isn't much intelligent life on these forums, but maybe some of ours can rub off. . . Probably won't happen though.

NuclearBurrito

@knell said:

@Ryuhi said:
Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

Great - then we have no problem with each other. As for the OP, I think NuclearBurrito started this thread only as a reply to someone who stated, "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME. Any other "win condition" is purely imaginary and of your own accord" in another thread. So I can definitely understand NuclearBurrito's frustration. Of course, I don't know his motive, so I could be wrong about that also.

Mostly when someone said that because pipping is the win condition defined by the game (which it isn't) that it should thus be the metric used for balance.

But yes this is a reply to someone saying that

Spork

If I happen to do a very small amount in a game, and end up getting camped or tunneled, OR camped AND tunneled but still manage to pip or safety pip, I'm going to count it as a win.

UwU

really doesnt matter lol pips only matter if you overly care about rank and caring about winning is just generally egotistical in a way

its all about having fun uwu and not getting tunnelled and breaking ur monitor

NuclearBurrito

@Spork said:
If I happen to do a very small amount in a game, and end up getting camped or tunneled, OR camped AND tunneled but still manage to pip or safety pip, I'm going to count it as a win.

But if you were to make a win loss ratio for survivors instead of just checking if you personally enjoyed the match would you STILL count it as a win?

And if you escape but also depip would you count it as a loss?

Ryuhi

@NuclearBurrito said:

@knell said:

@Ryuhi said:
Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

Great - then we have no problem with each other. As for the OP, I think NuclearBurrito started this thread only as a reply to someone who stated, "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME. Any other "win condition" is purely imaginary and of your own accord" in another thread. So I can definitely understand NuclearBurrito's frustration. Of course, I don't know his motive, so I could be wrong about that also.

Mostly when someone said that because pipping is the win condition defined by the game (which it isn't) that it should thus be the metric used for balance.

But yes this is a reply to someone saying that

Pipping is the win condition defined by the community at large, and is enforced by the metrics of the game. It is not the penultimate definition of victory any more than survival/4k is, and both are equally up to interpretation. You seem to be confusing when people think that it CAN be a winning condition vs people who have the exact opposite of your obsession that survival/4k can ONLY be the winning condition.

TrAiNwReCk

@NuclearBurrito said:

@knell said:

@Ryuhi said:
Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

Great - then we have no problem with each other. As for the OP, I think NuclearBurrito started this thread only as a reply to someone who stated, "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME. Any other "win condition" is purely imaginary and of your own accord" in another thread. So I can definitely understand NuclearBurrito's frustration. Of course, I don't know his motive, so I could be wrong about that also.

Mostly when someone said that because pipping is the win condition defined by the game (which it isn't) that it should thus be the metric used for balance.

But yes this is a reply to someone saying that

One would have to assume that if "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME" than with the removal of the RANKING system would then remove PIPPING.

If you can't pip, by @knell description of a win . . well I guess you could not win or lose . .

Brilliant.

Ryuhi

@TrAiNwReCk said:

@thesuicidefox said:

@NuclearBurrito said:
Since you can pip without sacrificing. That means you can pip without achieving your only stated goal

"Patrol the area and find Survivors."
"Chase, injure, and catch Survivors before they escape."
"Carry Survivors to a sacrificial hook and hang them there for The Entity to consume."

None of these listed objectives state "sacrifice survivor" or use the word "kill", nor do they state you MUST do these things. If you do everything listed here WELL ENOUGH, you pip. If you also sacrificed/killed them, it still fits within these rules because if you find>chase>injure>catch>hook them 3 times that's just the end result. In such a case where they die it means you did very well, and are awarded more for a win than usual (double pip).

@NuclearBurrito

You will have to learn to forgive certain forum trolls that want to be right at the expense of common sense. A wall of text "blah blah blah blah blah" x100 so most people glance over and figure they might be right.

Fact #1

• If you die in a trial - You have lost
• If you don't kill all 4 Survivors -You have lost
• If you don't die in a trial -You have won
• If you kill all 4 Survivors -You have won

Fact #2

• Pipping - Has nothing to do with winning. Had thesuicidefox any _COMMON SENSE_ pipping obviously . . . OBVIOUSLY has only to do with rank. And for everyone scratching their heads still . . . If the ranking system did not exist than pipping would not exist

P.S. It is truly sad that people who simply want to be right, will stop at nothing to try and convince everyone else and themselves that they are right. Even if it proves them to be ignorant and wrong.

Keep up the common sense postings Nuclear. There isn't much intelligent life on these forums, but maybe some of ours can rub off. . . Probably won't happen though.

Stating opinions as fact is why this topic has yielded nothing in the first place. many people could easily believe that:

• If you waste the killer's time so badly that you are his only kill - You have won
• If you are able to end every chase before getting bloodlust - You have won
• If you are able to get any kills vs a very well organized SWF - You have won
• If you are able to juke a p3 nurse and buy your team a ton of time - You have won
• If you are playing with a friend in SWF and you are able to save them at your own expense - You have won

for example. There is nothing in the game that tells them they are not allowed to believe any of that, just that they will be focusing on something other than a single metric in the game (survival/sacrifice)

knell

@TrAiNwReCk said:
One would have to assume that if "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME" than with the removal of the RANKING system would then remove PIPPING.

If you can't pip, by @knell description of a win . . well I guess you could not win or lose . .

Brilliant.

Just for clarification, that quote is not my description of a win.

For details, please visit this thread:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/325748#Comment_325748

Ryuhi

@TrAiNwReCk said:

@NuclearBurrito said:

@knell said:

@Ryuhi said:
Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.

Great - then we have no problem with each other. As for the OP, I think NuclearBurrito started this thread only as a reply to someone who stated, "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME. Any other "win condition" is purely imaginary and of your own accord" in another thread. So I can definitely understand NuclearBurrito's frustration. Of course, I don't know his motive, so I could be wrong about that also.

Mostly when someone said that because pipping is the win condition defined by the game (which it isn't) that it should thus be the metric used for balance.

But yes this is a reply to someone saying that

One would have to assume that if "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME" than with the removal of the RANKING system would then remove PIPPING.

If you can't pip, by @knell description of a win . . well I guess you could not win or lose . .

Brilliant.

I.... pipping is the metric the game uses for the ranking system so yes, without a ranking system there would be very little use for pips. That is not to say there couldn't be a similar skill rating system that is independent of survival or 4k, especially as people can even consider simply bloodpoint accumulation to be an indicator of victory or defeat. Fact of the matter is different perspectives will always have different objectives, which is what extends the lifespan of a multiplayer game. I mean, its even how alternate game modes are born most of the time, with developers acknowledging said user created objectives and embracing and facilitating them.

TAG

This whole thing could be cleared up with a "Killer Wins"/"Survivors Win" screen.

Ryuhi

@TAG said:
This whole thing could be cleared up with a "Killer Wins"/"Survivors Win" screen.

Yup. Instead all we get are the various stages of compliments the entity gives killers, and the comment confirming a survivors vital signs :chuffed:

powerbats

@TrAiNwReCk said:

@thesuicidefox said:

@NuclearBurrito said:
Since you can pip without sacrificing. That means you can pip without achieving your only stated goal

"Patrol the area and find Survivors."
"Chase, injure, and catch Survivors before they escape."
"Carry Survivors to a sacrificial hook and hang them there for The Entity to consume."

None of these listed objectives state "sacrifice survivor" or use the word "kill", nor do they state you MUST do these things. If you do everything listed here WELL ENOUGH, you pip. If you also sacrificed/killed them, it still fits within these rules because if you find>chase>injure>catch>hook them 3 times that's just the end result. In such a case where they die it means you did very well, and are awarded more for a win than usual (double pip).

@NuclearBurrito

You will have to learn to forgive certain forum trolls that want to be right at the expense of common sense. A wall of text "blah blah blah blah blah" x100 so most people glance over and figure they might be right.

Fact #1

• If you die in a trial - You have lost
• If you don't kill all 4 Survivors -You have lost
• If you don't die in a trial -You have won
• If you kill all 4 Survivors -You have won

Fact #2

• Pipping - Has nothing to do with winning. Had thesuicidefox any _COMMON SENSE_ pipping obviously . . . OBVIOUSLY has only to do with rank. And for everyone scratching their heads still . . . If the ranking system did not exist than pipping would not exist

P.S. It is truly sad that people who simply want to be right, will stop at nothing to try and convince everyone else and themselves that they are right. Even if it proves them to be ignorant and wrong.

Keep up the common sense postings Nuclear. There isn't much intelligent life on these forums, but maybe some of ours can rub off. . . Probably won't happen though.

This is the height of hypocrisy because you agree with them what they're saying is true and must be accepted as truth while those that disagree ar trolls.

What's really sad is you dismiss others and insult them and thus proclaim yourself as the messiah while also saying they're unintelligent for having a different opinion than you.

That's the very definition of a troll.

fluffybunny

@knell said:

@fluffybunny said:
DbD isn't chest.

I agree, DBD is not a chest.

@fluffybunny said:
I see it more as creating the story. The more you do, the better plays you make, the better the story is. It would be considered a "win" if you do a lot 'cause you're contributing to the "finale" and you won't "win" if you don't contribute to the end. When it comes to the "pipping = winning" mentality, it's about making the plays and doing what you can in the horror story so that what you do matters and it isn't just "they hid and therefore escaped" sort of scenario, though I do think it's still considered a win if you hid for most of the match and was able to get out? I haven't tried that tactic as I prefer a more active role, but getting out without being downed would be an iridescent and stealthing does count towards a pip now. I think what the game director was saying is that there's multiple ways to win, so there isn't a clear-cut win/lose condition.

That's fine. If the way you play defines your winning condition, I'm fine with that. Like I said, I'm even fine if people want to treat DBD like a point salad game and define the victory condition in that way. The problem is when people are saying, "surviving is not the winning condition; pipping is the winning condition." Who says?

And I agree with you - I prefer the playstyle of doing as much as I can as a survivor also. But that's just it; it's my personal preference. And there are times when I die as a survivor, getting ~15K points, and see that last survivor take the hatch and still has only ~10K points despite the hatch - does it annoy me? Yes. Do I try to make myself feel better by convincing myself that I won despite having been sacrificed? No, of course not. Because ultimately, the guy who hid all game took a gamble that 1. the rest of us will do a minimum of 2 generators without him, and that 2. he would be able to find the hatch before the killer. He could have died just like the rest of us - he didn't, so in my mind, he won, as much as I don't like that fact.

Hmm... well, I don't think the winning condition is so binary. For instance, I would consider what you did as a "win" as you're pushing the goal post forward, despite the odds. What the other person could constitute as a win, though it's also fair to note end game is rather tedious and typically leans towards the side willing to wait longer if both find the hatch. Still, everyone is just reset in the end, therefore death carrying less weight, and the game also measures the person's performance depending on what they do and so on. I think there's multiple ways a person could win. It isn't just strictly stuck to surviving or killing.