How do you define winning in dbd?
Comments
-
Specifically the game guide was updated at the time of the end game collapse. So the win condition would need to have been changed AFTER the EGC update for the game guide to be considered out of date in that sense.
Considering that the Emblem system was added well before the EGC and yet the game guide (which btw is the only place in the game that mentions winning) still uses the same definitions, there is no reason to think they have changed.
0 -
You don't play to win. Ok cool, just say that.
DON'T PRETEND YOU DO.
0 -
you can use many many words and paragraphs saying all kinds of things about your competitive not cooperative opinion. i ask you only one thing.. how do you explain this:
incase it's not readable after posting, its a google screenshot of me typing in "dead by daylight" and both of the official dead by daylight results immediately state the game is a "4v1" game.. so what is this you're saying about this being a competitive game and not cooperative? lul :)
0 -
Correct. All PvP games are by definition competitive.
Just because you have other players on your side doesn't mean the game as a whole is cooperative.
A cooperative game is a game where all players are on the same side. Most of these games are PvE but some of them don't even qualify for being "verses" anything at all, such as puzzle games.
Portal 2's multiplayer is an example of a cooperative game.
0 -
Wow kid, you got it rough. Tell me, would it bother you greatly to get owned in a match by someone who "does not play to win" by your standards? Just curious. You seem pretty salty over the fact that I consider fun a win in a casual video game. Rofl
1 -
@chieftaco I'm honestly not sure if @NuclearBurrito's point went totally over your head or you're just being pendantic so you can one-up them just to prove you're right about something.
No one is pretending that there isn't cooperation in DBD. But two teams competing with each other is still a competitive game, even though the teams are cooperating within themselves. League of Legends is a competitive game, not a cooperative one, because each team has a goal which is in direct conflict with the other. Thus, they are in competition. A cooperative game is not one that includes teams, but one in which all players are working towards the same goal. DBD does not fall into that category.
What a lot of people on this thread don't seem to understand is (a) there is a distinction to be made between game objectives and personal objectives, and (b) winning and having fun are not mutually exclusive, they're just not the same thing.
1 -
Uhhh the results screen in the game?
If you do nothing and run out the gate you depip. That's not a win.
If survivors all kill themselves on the first hook, you're not going to pip (at higher ranks). That's not a win.
If you pip that's a win. Anything else is just a personal goal.
Also no where in the tutorial does it say "x = win". It tells you to do gens and escape, or chase and sacrifice survivors. Those are conducive to the win but are not the win itself.
0 -
@thesuicidefox In fact, not only was the game guide as a whole updated, but that specific section OF the game guide was updated.
Here is the updated screenshot:
0 -
Nothing here says "x = win" though. It tells you what you need to do to EARN the win, but it doesn't explicitly say that killing survivors or escaping will give you a win.
1 -
What's the source that pipping is a win at all.
According to the game itself winning as a survivor is escaping. Thus when you escape and depip... you have won and depipped... and that's it because winning and pipping are 2 separate things.
0 -
First line:
"The Survivor's goal is to escape the trial"
That's about as direct and explicit as it gets.
0 -
i'm sorry i believe it's you that is misunderstanding. @NuclearBurrito is stating that between survivors the game is competitive not cooperative. the game itself includes 2 aspects, competitive and cooperative, and is intended for your team to cooperatively compete against the killer, again the stated "4v1" description..
people can choose to compete directly with their teammates if they want to, but then the game is a free for all, not cooperative, and it becomes a much different game.
hope that clears things up..
0 -
That's not equivalent to saying "survivors win by escaping".
If I wrote a guide on baseball I would say " the goal of the pitcher is to strike out the batter... the goal of the batter is to hit the ball". Neither of those are explicitly saying that's the win condition, but that's how you play the game.
2 -
notice in the screenshot you posted where it constantly says "Survivors"? In the first sentence it is followed by an apostrophe, showing possessiveness. "Survivors'", or in broken english "Survivors's", not "Survivor's" singular..
just in case you missed it..
1 -
While technically that is true, I was talking about between all 5 players.
The 4 survivors are each competing with the Killer.
While we could have a debate about if the 4 survivors are competing with each other (My stance is that they are allies but not teammates), it misses the point since they are DEFINITELY competing with the Killer
0 -
@NuclearBurrito you need to relax and take a step back. Try to read the original question and intent again. Read the dev/community mgr even defined it. The answer is different for every player. You seem to be frustrated that others are not trying as hard as you, because they just want to have fun. Makes no sense.
Personally, I work an extremely high stress job where I deal with the scum of the earth. I play video games to unwind and relax. If I want to apply myself and try for a true win, I'm playing something a bit more intense than DbD. Not sure why that is making you so salty over it all. Some people are playing the casual game causally, get used to it.
0 -
Yes? What about it? They all have that objective.
0 -
You can't rank up if you don't win, therefore whatever the condition is to rank up is a win. You don't lose and rank up.
1 -
No, but it does say that escaping is the survivors' "goal", which in the context of a competitive game is the same as the "objective of the game" or the "win condition". I should clarify, though, that the goal is only synonymous with the win condition in this context because the wincon is defined by the official rules of the game. Personal goals which deviate from this are therefore irrelevant.
Pipping is not a win condition, it is a measure of skill. You're conflating the two because typically, the more skilled you are, the more likely you are to win. But in a competitive game, especially one with teams, this isn't necessarily the case. You can play really well (in DBD, this is typically represented by a pip) and still lose (die), because your teammates played badly or your opponent simply played better. Similarly, you can play badly (depip) but still fulfill the win condition (escape), if your opponent also plays badly or your team carries you to victory. There's nothing wrong with caring more about pipping than about escaping. But to pretend that it's a game-defined win condition rather than a personal goal is simply untrue.
1 -
False. Many games use ranking systems besides winning. For example overwatch not only competitive but IS an esport yet it's ranking system isn't based on wins.
0 -
you guys keep saying this mess about "escaping" being how you "win" the round, but you never clarify why you are able to "escape" with very little bloodpoints and not enough emblem points for even a safety pip..
if the saga continues, please try explaining how that works.. how do you "win" without "winning"?
0 -
It feels like you are pointing out a contradiction. But you haven't actually said anything that needs addressing.
You can win without getting much in terms of progression, so what?
0 -
Still doesn't change the fact that the way the tutorial is written does not explicitly stated "you win by escaping/getting kills". There is no other valid measurement of a win in this game besides a pip because you can escape/get 4k and depip, or die/get 0k and pip. The sheer fact that can happen dismisses the idea of "escapes" and "kills" as a win.
Again if I'm writing a tutorial for baseball I can say "your goal is to hit the ball and run all the bases to score a point". That doesn't mean by virtue of doing this you won the game, because the game is won based on which tram had the most points.
0 -
"There is no other valid measurement of a win in this game besides a pip because you can escape/get 4k and depip, or die/get 0k and pip. The sheer fact that can happen dismisses the idea of "escapes" and "kills" as a win."
You are getting it backwards. You must FIRST establish that pips are a win condition before you can make claims like this.
Ranking systems in general do not necessarily reflect the win condition in all cases, so it is NOT a given, especially since it contradicts the game guide.
0 -
@Warlock_2020 I think the frustration is more that people are trying to pretend that having fun is, objectively, the same thing as winning. It's fine to play casually, it's fine to aim for personal goals, it's fine to just want to have fun or to not care about the win condition. But that doesn't mean there isn't one.
Honestly, I think the main point of confusion is the ambiguity around the word "you" in the OP. A lot of people seem to have interpreted it to mean what personally makes them feel like they've won, but it could also be interpreted as how does "one" define the win condition, objectively, which is the point NuclearBurrito is arguing if I'm not mistaken.
1 -
Pips are the only consistent measure of success. If you pip you have to have played well, especially at high ranks. However the same is not true when talking about escaping or getting kills.
Pips are the only valid win condition.
0 -
@chieftaco Okay, I'll try one more time, since it seems like you're asking a genuine question.
Let's assume that escaping is, in fact, how survivors "win", and I'll explain why that isn't always reflected in the bloodpoint score. While pipping may seem like an indicator of whether or not you won the game, it's actually an indicator of how well you played. It's easy to conflate "winning" and "playing well", since the former is often (but not always) the result of the latter, but they are not actually the same thing and it's important to be able to distinguish between the two.
There are two reasons that playing well is not always the same as winning in the case of Dead by Daylight. Firstly, because the survivors are competing with the killer, which means their goals are in direct conflict. The survivors want to escape, the killer wants to prevent them from escaping by killing them. Secondly, because the survivors are, to some degree, working together, which means that their odds of winning are increased if they can work together effectively.
It is possible for a survivor to play very well - loop well, evade the killer, unhook smartly, complete generators, etc. and still not meet the win condition of escape. They lose the game, but still pip because they played well - either the killer just played better, or their teammates let them down in some way. Similarly, it is possible for a survivor to play very badly - get downed a lot, not complete objectives, accidentally get teammates caught, etc. but still escape, either because the killer played badly or because they were carried by the other survivors. Thus, you can play skillfully without winning, and vice versa. And this is the case with all competitive and/or team-based games.
Another way of looking at it, if you want to link the two, is that the Unbroken emblem is your victory definer. If it's gold or iridescent, you won. If it's silver or lower, you lost.
1 -
Again, you are just making the claim without backing it up.
Where does it actually say that pipping is winning?
Don't just make the claim, DEMONSTRATE EVIDENCE for the claim.
0 -
@thesuicidefox You can play well without winning, because sometimes your opponent plays even better, or in the case of survivors, you get screwed over by your allies. Because of the way the emblem system works, fulfilling the win condition is only worth a maximum of two points as far as rank goes. That's why you can rank up and still die.
You may think that the ranking system ought to reflect fulfillment of win conditions more heavily, or argue that it's a flaw in the game design. That's fine, but it doesn't change what the win condition actually is, as defined in the game rules.
If you want to talk about how many survivors the killer needs to kill in order to "win", or whether a "win" for survivors is about personally escaping or about the whole or majority of the team escaping, I'll agree that's a bit of a grey area as far as the rules go. We can talk about that if you like. But pips still have nothing to do with it.
1 -
@NuclearBurrito He won't because there isn't one. He's conflating the two because he assumes (not unreasonably, to be fair) that playing well ought to result in a win. His mistake is in the leap of logic he's made on that basis that the measure of a player's abilities (pip system) must therefore be the win condition.
1 -
No there is no other measure of a win. If you do well, you pip, therefore you win. You can't do poorly and pip. It doesn't happen. If you do poorly you depip, which is a loss.
You can't say escaping/killing are win conditions purely because of the pip system. The fact you can die and still pip or 4k and still depip are proof of this. Not to mention, how does this work when you factor in 4v1? If 2 survivors escape, did those 2 win and the others lose? What about the killer? Did they win or lose? You can't say, you need some form of actual measurement that you won, which is what the pip is designed to be.
There is no leap in logic. Play well = pip = win. Play poorly = depip = loss.
0 -
If 2 survivors escaped and 2 survivors died then the 2 that escaped won and the other 2 lost.
The Killer also lost because he failed to Kill the 2 Survivors that escaped, thus he hasn't completed his win condition of Killing the Survivors.
It's pretty easy to measure this using the icons at the end. The door symbols represent survivors that won, the skulls and DC symbols represent survivors that lost. The Killer wins by making all 4 survivors lose so you just need to have 4 skulls in order to know you've won.
And you STILL haven't provided evidence for pips being a win. You've just SAID they are a win and then concluded that escaping isn't as a result.
Your entire argument is essentially:
- Either pips are a win or Escapes are a win, it can't be both because you can have one without the other
- Therefor pips are a win
1 -
@thesuicidefox I'm sorry... but you're just wrong. That's not what the pip is designed to be. That's not what the rules define as the win condition. You can define your personal goal as a pip, that's fine, but don't pretend that that's the win condition defined by the game.
The fact that the pip system exists does not in any way render the win conditions obsolete. The only thing that "the fact that you can die and still pip or 4k and still depip" proves is that winning the game is not directly tied to ranking up. Call it a design flaw if you will, but at worst that's all it is. Doesn't change the reality that the win condition, as defined in the rules of the game, which is the only place it can be objectively defined, is escaping or killing. (And before you start saying that that doesn't count because it doesn't say "win", a "goal" in the context of a game's rules is the same thing as a win condition. Only someone with limited English comprehension could seriously argue otherwise.)
I'll say it for the last time: your conflation of winning and pipping is, at best, a reflection of your personal goals, and at worst an assumption and a logical fallacy on your part. As you put it:
Play well = pip =/= win. Play poorly = depip =/= loss.
1 -
So killer lost because 2 escaped? SMH no, they only lost if they depipped. This is exactly the problem with using escapes/kills as measurements of a win. By this logic, the killer's win condition is near impossible at red ranks, and conflicts with the whole philosophy of balance "2 die 2 escape".
If you pip you win. It doesn't matter what else happens because there are like a millions things that can happen. What if a survivor willingly sacrifices themselves to save someone else. Did they lose because they died? No. If they pipped from doing that, then they won. If they just left and did nothing all game, then they don't deserve to win and will depip from that.
Escapes are not a win, I did not say they were, and in fact argue AGAINST that very notion. You can get a pip without escaping, and you can escape without pipping. Therefore escapes are not a valid measure of a win because there are different results.
0 -
Yes! The Killer's win condition IS near impossible at red ranks and it DOES conflict with the 2k goal (unless they want really swingy games)!
That's why so many people want most Killers to be buffed and why I've said quite often that a 2.7k average would be ideal rather than a 2k average.
0 -
@NuclearBurrito I think we should quit while we're ahead, honestly. His argument boils down to such a firm belief that pipping ought to be the win condition that he's managed to genuinely convince himself that it's the reality of the game design, to the point of ignoring the game rules themselves. It's really quite impressive, on one level. But it's also pretty clear that no amount of actual reasoning is going to make a difference.
0 -
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
0 -
It is the win condition as defined by the game. You do well you pip, you pip you win, you win you rank up.
If there was no pip system you can say anything is a win condition. It would be completely arbitrary.
The fact that some survivors can escape while others die means that you can't use kills/escapes as a measure of winning, because winning is binary. If a 4k is the only way a killer can win a game, then winning is near impossible at high ranks for killer.
0 -
Tell it to the devs, mate. They wrote the rules, not me.
@NuclearBurrito Case in point lol
0 -
Correction.
Playing for a 4k at high ranks is near impossible. But it's still not the win condition. If the game is balanced around 2 die/2 escape than you can't use that as a measure of a win because in a perfect game that will always happen. 2 survivors "win", 2 "lose" and killer will always lose.
If you want to play for a 4k and make that your top goal, go ahead. I'm not saying you can't do that. But what I am saying is that a 4k is not a win. If all the survivors just kill themselves on a hook, you will 4k and not pip at high ranks. If you run infinite tombstone Myers and kill everyone, you will depip. since these situations exist that means you can't use kill/escapes to measure a win.
0 -
i've seen lots of claims, and if i really wanted to debate further we could, but i'd rather allow you to keep thinking that you're "winning" by watching your team die needlessly, as i'm pretty sure you're just trolling at this point. try this one: some games i define winning by outliving blendettes.. why? because that's what i loaded into the game to do..
anyone can "decide" what winning means to them, and clearly you have "decided" that winning to you means escaping, even at the cost of teammates. people who play with you won't feel like they "won" because you "escaped", nor will they enjoy playing with you unless they just don't know any better, making you someone taking advantage of the uneducated & inexperienced, e.g. a leech.. "winning" something is literally defined as:
gaining, resulting in, or relating to victory in a contest or competition.
if the only way you are able to do this is "alone", that's cool.. that's the only way you can "win". by your logic survivors should be competitive with each other in a last man standing kind of fashion producing one or multiple "winner(s)", but by the world's logic 4v1 = team vs one, not every man for themselves.
this game mimics a war, per your breakdown, and no legitimate war is ever "won" because one guy was scummy enough to slip out of the back door, causing the opposing side to just lose.. in a war, that's actually called desertion, and it's not a good thing :)
0 -
That's because the game rules are inconsistent. ######### happens in this game sometimes where it's just bad luck, or silly mistakes. You can Urban from locker to locker all game, if the others do gens and you escape that's not a win. You won't pip from that.
You guys want to argue these arbitrary things are wins/losses, no the only thing that matters is at the end of the game you pip or don't pip. That's it. I've had games where I double pip, am the ONLY ONE to die because I basically gave myself to the killer to help the others escape. You're going to tell me I lost those games? Nah, I pipped. I could have easily left but I didn't I decided to get more points or save a friend or whatever the case may be. The fact I can make that choice means kills/escapes are not a measure of a win. I've also let survivors go for playing a good game, or because their teammates sandbagged them or something. You're telling me I would "lose" those games too? Again no, if I get a pip that's how the game defines wins. You can point to the tutorial all you want, but the end game screens are what's important here.
0 -
ready for a chris angel type mind-freak? what do you have if you take generators out of the game entirely? a map with 2 exits and a race to get out..
what if the "objective" of powering the generators in order to open the doors is simply a "reason" for you to be on the map for a certain amount of time, giving the killer opportunity to find you, in order for the game to actually become a game instead of a race for an exit?
objectively we need to as a "goal" power the generators to be able to open the doors... this "goal" requires a number of things.. looking out for the killer, teamwork, prevention and removal of certain hex perks, and keeping your friends alive.
if you do none of these things and everyone gets killed off, you get to race for the hatch or try to open a door without performing any of the objectives.. why? because the game is over already, you lost. you have one last chance to make it out alive to tell your story and keep your item.. by what you guys are saying, you just "won" the game lol.. congrats! you're the most awesome dbd bada$$ in existence :) ggs & i'm on to the next one..
0 -
@thesuicidefox @chieftaco See my comment above. Take it up with the devs. Seriously, I don't know why you're complaining to me about the game design. I can't do anything to change it, all I can do is tell you what's in the rules and why it matters. Which I've done, several times, so... gonna stop before this gets too out of hand. Over and out.
0 -
It doesn't matter how many kills you get you almost always de pip trying to do something fun with killer right now. Emblems are ######### garbage and don't sync with Mori's or other various types of playstyles
0 -
"Take it up with the devs" All I did was reply to the OP dude.
The devs have stated that their goal for balance is "2 die/2 escape". That's the ideal game, therefore you cannot use kills/escapes as a measure of win/loss because then the game is basically built to make it impossible for killer to ever "win".
Pips are the only thing in the game that measure success, determine how fast you rank up, and verify how well you played in a game that has 1,000,000 variables. Two games could be completely identical but in one game a survivor escapes based on luck, you can't point at that and say "killer lost". Heck you can't even say that survivor won, because they literally could have done nothing all game and just took hatch by pure luck at the end.
If you didn't pip you didn't win. End of story.
1 -
Man, this conversation got completely stupid. Like a brick wall arguing with the pavement.
1 -
A 50% escape chance seems rather unfair in context of 4 solo survivors vs killer, considering the definition of absolute wins (reaching the 100% goal; you escaped or you killed alls survivors). Its like tossing 4 coins, but the killer only wins if all emblems are heads. Each Survivor gets a win if their emblem shows the number.
While I somewhat disagree, I understand why some (or most) killers consider 3 dead a win already, especially with the hatch survival chance boost to the last survivor.
1 -
In many ways, your entire post backs up my statement. There is zero clear cut evidence of a win beyond the fact that you are given a pip for scoring high enough. Is 1k a win or do you have to get 4k? Is escaping a win, or is ensuring the other 3 escaped while you ran the killer around a win? Many developers or CMs have used the word "fun" as a win.
Why? Because this is not, and never will be, a competitive game in the sense that there are clear cut winners and losers in every match. It is a party game. Yes, there are competitive aspects and you play both with and against people, just like any multiplayer game, but it is not so easy to measure wins and losses all the time in this game.
That is why it is a bit presumptuous for someone to get belligerent over the idea that someone playing a video game is doing so to have fun and not concerned with meeting his expectations of wins and losses. The OP was looking for the varying views people have about wins and losses in the game, not the official definition, which does not truly exist.
0 -
LOL. Best description yet.
1
