What is a "win" to you?
Comments
-
The problem with using the screen shots from the game is people play for different reasons. Some people think the only way to win is escape or 4k. Which is fine. Others consider it a win if they set a particular goal for a game and achieve it. So long as it's not something that breaks the rules, or deliberately ruins somebody else's game, there is no right or wrong answer to what is a win in a game like this.
1 -
Just because someone isn't trying to win doesn't mean that they have won when they succeed. At best you could say that they won at some other game that is not dead by daylight despite having identical mechanics. Since the wincon is so integral to how a game plays out, making up a new wincon and playing with that new one in mind is effectively the same as just playing a different game entirely.
That's why in a game like Throne of lies, 2 different roles with comparable ability's but different win conditions require entirely different balance standards, strategies, counter play, specific interaction outcomes, ect. even despite being mechanically identical to each other in terms of their core ability.
The point is that the question of "What is the win condition for dead by daylight" is NOT a subjective question.
Even when the game has no stated win condition like minecraft for example the question is still objective. In fact I already said the answer: None.
For minecraft the answer is "you can't win"
For League of legands the answer is "Destroy the enemy base
For Counter Strike it's "eliminate the enemy team or detonate/disarm the bomb/run out the time"
For magic the gathering it's "reduce your opponents life total to 0"
No matter what you personally are trying to accomplish when you play these games, your win condition remains constant. You might succeed at a goal, but that doesn't mean you succeeded at THE Goal.
You might be able to argue that the wincon is ambiguous or even non-existent. But it still ISN'T subjective. Because that's just not how win conditions work, and trying to apply any line of reasoning that says otherwise to any game which is more clear about it shows this.
If my own personal objective in a game of overwatch is to eliminate the most roadsigns in a payload match while I'm on defence and I do so, but then the payload gets to the end, then did I win the payload match? No of course not. I may have won at the "roadsign hunting contest" but that's just irrelevant, no one else was competing for it and it would be ridiculous to try and make changes to the game because someone was far better than someone else at it.
So if I'm a survivor and I'm trying to win in a trial of dead by daylight, that means I must escape. If I do not escape then whatever it is I won at was NOT dead by daylight.
1 -
Short Answer
- Survivor: Escape
- Killer: 4 kills
Long Answer
Survivor: The objective is to escape. Failing to complete the objective is a loss.
Killer: There are 4 survivors and the objective is to kill all of them, not some. Failing to complete the objective is a loss.
Any self designated "goals" or "win conditions" are not applicable since they are not the intent or main objective of the game. Anything other than or short of completing the main objective of the role you are playing is a loss by definition.
1 -
4 BBQ stacks with 20k+ bloodpoints
1 -
I love hilarious matches, or intense matches
0 -
@NuclearBurrito I think you are not gauging the core of this game and the player base very well. This is a casual "party" game. It is not a pro-style hardcore competitive game. It is too imbalance in several aspects to be that.
Most who play are doing so just to have fun. Casual games are not always defined by winning and losing. They are measured by how much fun they are. Which is why the player base has been so stagnant. The game is pushing players away in droves.
1 -
As long as my opponents have suffered miserably. I feel like a lot of you are like that, including me sometimes
1 -
Calm down it's a joke
0 -
@NuclearBurrito In a strict sense you are correct. Escape or kill is the basic goal of the game. But with so many different playstyles and side goals the question of a win is more open. Especially when the OP was asking for people's personal opinions of a win. If you set a goal for a game and succeed how is it not a win?
1 -
Just because the game isn't hardcore doesn't mean it isn't competitive.
My line of reasoning applies to Mario kart and Wii tennis too. Both of those games still have just as much of a fixed win condition as football does.
Or tag, or Hearts, or solitaire ect.
1 -
I used to play to the game conditions (PIP = win), but the emblem system is so screwed up right now I can't do that anymore.
So now I kick it old school and go for the kill by any means (2 is the minimum, but I won't hestitate to wipe a team out at 4k if the opportunity presents itself) . For survivors, as long as I break 12k I'm happy.
0 -
Unfortunately, you can point out what an official win is (and yes you are correct) until you are blue in the face, You cannot however, force people to care.
There is no 'correct' answer to a question that is purely subjective, no matter how many times you may wish to make it so.
We get it. A 'real' win is what we get when we meet the parameters displayed. However, people will always set their own goals in a game and thus we have what makes it a 'win' (perhaps a secondary win if that makes you feel any better) for THEM, not the game.
0 -
Those of you pointing out that "4k is objectively the wincon" should probably also rethink that, because that is not meant to be the case.
0 -
Yeah its 4 sacrifices specifically.
Moris, bleedouts ect don't count.
0 -
Not even remotely true, and the fact that some killers consider less than 4 sacrifices to outright be a loss is a very eye opening fact.
0 -
@NuclearBurrito you still miss the point. The question is what each person considers a win. Those who play casual don't care about escaping or 4ks. Most who play are casual.
You are clearly someone who needs to have a clear victory and competition in order to put value to the experience. Most play games just for fun. Play....games...
Seriously, you put victory at Mario kart as the goal for playing? You should get out more. I don't know anyone who really cares about winning over just having fun in most of those games.
0 -
I'm more concerned why it bothers you so badly that somebodies view of what a win is differs from yours so much.
Why should it matter?
0 -
I'm just surprised that many people are conflating 'personal achievements' with 'winning the game.' Sure, go ahead and set personal objectives for yourself that are completely separate from the game's actual winning conditions. If you accomplish them, great, be proud of yourself. Nothing is stopping you (nor should it.) But I simply don't see how that's any relevant to the question of whether you won at the actual game.
Same goes for whether you had fun in the game. I've had plenty of experiences of losing in games, but having lots of fun. I've also had experiences of winning in games, but not enjoying the victories very much. The results of whether I won/lost have never been dependent on whether I was having fun or not, but instead of whether I had fulfilled the winning conditions provided by the game.
I can sort of understand the statement, "I won, therefore I had fun" if you are that type of human being (although I personally feel like that person is probably missing out on a lot of whatever that game is offering.) But "I had fun, therefore I won the game," doesn't make any sense to me. It would take a lot of mental gymnastics to even convince myself that this is true. Perhaps it's the generation gap, in which the younger generations are forced to always feel like they have to be winners. Or perhaps it's cultural differences in which 'losing' is associated so much with 'being weak' that it isn't tolerated in that part of the world. But people's attachment to 'winning' here seems, to me, obsessive to an unhealthy degree, and hopefully one day they realize that there is nothing wrong with losing. Ultimately, you don't even really have to care about winning or losing - if you want to play for fun - then just play for fun. But also realize that it has nothing to do with the winning condition.
3 -
I win when:
A survivor disconnects. It just proves that I’m the better person and I would never be so petty.
I get moried. I love it when a mori is on the table, but unfortunately I hardly ever get moried because it’s like the killer senses I love them and they hook me. If I am to die, take me out in style! I will let you rancor me! Don’t leave me hanging!
I get my challenge done. Ha! Jokes on you teabaggers, I got my challenge done, or I at least made progress on a killer challenge I do poorly with.
I get at least 2 stacks of bbq, preferably 4. I love blood points.
Basically did I get more than 9,000 as a survivor or more than 15,000 as a killer is a win for me.
1 -
@FrenziedRoach I think they're worried the game will be balanced around "unofficial win conditions" like having a good game, getting 4 BBQ stacks or whatever instead of what the game itself presents as wins (be it 4k/escape or pip, either makes sense in that regard as a true win condition depending on how you look at it)
I mean I get where they're coming from considering the "controversy" with killers designed to be interesting instead of viable but it's not like this thread is an official feedback thread, it's just people saying what makes them personally feel satisfied with a match.
0 -
That statement seems too positive and friendly coming from someone named " @Darkskies " :-P
Post edited by RoKrueger on0
