Why I believe Pipping Shouldn't be Considered a "Win"
Comments
-
its a pretty stupid thing to debate about why would I care if someone says I lost but I feel like i won because of my own standard. Like everyone says theirs no "defined" win condition its not as simple as sacrificing or escaping because you can still depip if you only focus exclusively on that. I agree with the "its a win if I had fun" because with all the toxic dingbats trying to ruin games for people its a treat to have a game thats a good cat & mouse game and a few ggs at the end.
1 -
Seriously. Have you ever considered how to actually apply that wincon?
How do you balance a game where the wincon is fun? Ironically the end result is less fun, since if something is too much fun it means it's overpowered and thus should be nerfed. Ironically making fun your wincon encourages us to not maximize fun.
And how much fun exactly? And how are you quantifying this? And how is the game supposed to track any of this for the purposes of analytics? Self reporting encourages lying in order to boost your winrate so that's not a viable option.
Also people are often saying Nurse is boring. So we should buff Nurse and nerf doctor for being too much fun.
You see the problem? Saying fun is your wincon SOUNDS nice, but to make that work you have to tear apart all of the properties of a wincon in the process. Why even bother calling it a wincon at that point? It clearly isn't one since it can't serve the function of one.
0 -
na I just like grinds. thou this games grind isn’t so bad. If they gave people the items and perks removed the grind I’d probably stop playing.
0 -
I always saw pips just as a participation trophy and I will always see them this way till some big changes come to ranks.
It's meaningless anyway.
1 -
Doesn't answer the question. Someone playing their first game can't have BBQ nor any BP offerings without paying real money.
If right now you went and bought a new account and played a game with the wincon you just gave me then you would lose no matter what.
0 -
as it’s a personal goal I’ve set myself and not reflective of anyone else’s goals. And..
buy leather face equip bbq hook level 20s once each =win
0 -
You should care because the idea of a wincon is more important than you are giving it credit.
In any PvP game a wincon is required in order for the players to have a thing to compete in.
A wincon is also the basis for both strategy and balance and without a wincon both of those are both meaningless and impossible.
Since Balance is inherently tied to the wincon that means you need to design everything with that wincon in mind. If you change the wincon without changing the mechanics then you will end up with vestigial mechanics that just get in the way of the experience.
So you should care and I do care because those wincons influence both how players act and how the devs make changes on a fundamental level.
0 -
...and thus does not meet the prerequisites for a wincondition
0 -
not really saying what one should be as much as just saying how I see it. there’s time for rank after all perks are unlocked on all killers / survivors
0 -
A wincon serves 3 critical functions:
- Giving a metric for the devs to evaluate balance (something is OP if and only if it is too effective at achieving the given wincon compared to everything else)
- Giving a metric for the players to evaluate a tactic/strategy/execution (something is effective if and only if it can achieve the wincon more often than if you didn't do it)
- Establishing the task for the player. This is required for PvP since a competition requires 2 or more groups having mutually exclusive goals.
Some singleplayer games or cooperative multiplayer games don't need a wincon due to not particularly needing these things (ex: Minecraft has no wincon and cannot be beaten even though it does have a credits screen). But for PvP games you absolutely need this.
3 -
Anything claiming to be a wincon thus must be able to fulfill those 3 functions.
If it can't then it isn't accurate to say it's a wincon.
0 -
Why pipping shouldn't be considered a win:
In red ranks you can 4k with 12 hooks as Plague and safety.
The end.
2 -
If we want to go that route then I'd say a better example (not that yours is a bad example) is that it's possible for all 5 players in a game to double pip.
That means there is a strategy which if everyone uses it will have a 100% winrate and is also completely cooperative, thus using the pips as a wincon breaks the game once optimized.
0 -
I think the simplest way to explain it is that a individual's personal goals and parameters they set for themself, which is perfectly valid and reasonable, isn't an excuse for the game to lack a properly defined/established wincon that players can compete over.
2 -
This. In other games wincon is usually one of the main things described. But for some reason in DBD we got BP...Pips... escapes/kills...
0 -
The problem where all falls apart is, when you are a highly efficient player, killer or survivor, you end the game to fast and risk a black pip or even a depip.
Now the entire balance of ranked is out the window and you face players on a too low skill level and not some of your own, who would know how to counter your high efficiency gameplay with their own.
So you get stuck in a rank where it is too easy for you and frustrating for your opponent.
Not health.
1 -
I feel the same when I go into a game with a spookin' time mentality. For me the game has it's set rules but I feel this game has a set of subjective win/lose conditions. Depends on the person. From what I've read a lot of people really seem torn on what qualifies as a win or loss. Maybe with this new lore coming up they can make something more concrete?
Either way I think the "Entity displeased/pleased is as accurate as I need it to be as a killer. As a survivor, from a lore perspective, I feel I'll always lose regardless. In a way as killer too. It's never ending, live or die, you come back for a new game every single time. So I might as well make the most every game!
Though.. I definitely feel the killer gets the better end of the stick lore wise. Gets to keep going 'till the end of days!
0 -
This.
0 -
"winning in an asymmetrical game involves a multitude of conditions beyond any one player's control, thus serving to create game which are impossible to achive a simple arbitrary win condition. Let's making it based off of scoring, so that the win condition is slightly more maliable to the circumstances of a game's twists and turns"
"nah pipping isn't winning only a perfect win for either side allows them to win git gud scrub"
..to be fair, the pip system is still pretty piss poor in a lot of situations at gauging a player's individual contribution. its possible for all 5 players to depip in the same game.
0 -
can't really compare this to "any" pvp game, it's had balance issues since release because of the vague line with a "wincon". I shouldn't have to care about winning because you feel its important, at the end of the day if I had fun is more important then having the highest score in "this" game. I've won super frustrating games and I've lost really fun games....guess which one I care more about. Obviously you need to be told you won because that's super important to you and some people, just like their are alot of us who it isn't important.
They've talked about balancing perks by how "fun" they are to use and have completely reworked perks.
0 -
This is supposed to be a PvP game. So I can absolutely use the properties of a PvP game in order to make claims about this game in particular.
Wincons are required for PvP as an inherent property of what PvP is. Not having a wincon makes something not PvP even if it otherwise would be, and having a wincon can make an otherwise PvE game become PvP even with identical mechanics.
Mario maker is a good example of that in action.
0 -
Wincons are not required for it to be considered "PvP" as long as their are two sides fighting that are human its player vs player. I'm saying you cant compare this to games like csgo where it literally goes "terrorist/counter terrorist win" or battlegrounds in wow where it says "alliance or horde wins". You can have wincons in PVE games (like beating the game?) I think you're implying the PVP/PVE the wrong way since wincons don't define those two categories. Take sea of thieves its a pvp game but their isnt a true win condition because you can literally respawn and go after the person who sunk you with no penalty. Nothing in that game says "you win" but its still pvp.
0 -
I didn't say the presence of a wincon always makes something PvP, just that specific wincons do and that the absence of a wincon makes something not PvP, even if it otherwise would be.
I brought up mario maker because it has a cooperative and competitive multiplayer mode which differ only in wincon outside of a few specific minor details.
As for Sea of Thieves that game is not a PvP game. It's an open world sandbox like minecraft is. And like in minecraft you can stab someone and take their things, but doing so is something you do for purely optional and internal reasons. The game didn't tell you to fight, you haven't won anything beyond accomplishing some literal set of outcomes, and the game doesn't need to design assuming that 2 players will fight, just under the assumption that they CAN fight if they happen to chose to.
In most (but not all) cases this applies to MMO's as a whole, and the most common case where it doesn't is self contained duels which DO have a wincon (Kill them first).
Regardless though, predefined or otherwise all competitions have a win condition as an inherent property of the wincon. It doesn't have to be just 1, but while there doesn't have to be a winner there will be a loser. If a set of people conclude that everyone can win and work to make that happen what you are left with isn't a competition. But ultimately the thing that makes something a competition is that 2 or more parties are working of achieving mutually exclusive goals. Thus without mutually exclusive goals it's not a competition.
0 -
This logic of "you can't compare this to other games" has never worked for me because there is a clone of Dead By Daylight on mobile (Identity V) that has a very set and straightforward wincon established.
0 -
So just make it where it says "Killer/Survivors win(s)"?
1 -
My issue is even if you played well by the games standards or your own if you don't manage to pip the game wants to make you feel terrible about it. At least as the killer anyway I can't recall the last time I depipped as a survivor even while being useless and following the killer and using Diversion as much as possible. I don't like running Ruin for example because I find it only makes survivors good at skillchecks and screws you in the long run but if I don't run perks like that my gatekeeper emblem gets wrecked even if I do well in everything else.
Regarding killer rank I honestly prefer Last Year's system where you have specific killer goals each match to complete for your rank. I'd prefer something like that in DBD personally because it would be more fun and it could be personalized for that killer.
Ex - Hit 4/6/8 survivors directly with a bottle as The Clown
I still feel like this game needs extra conditions for bonus pips on each side that are generated per trial. Almost everything else is procedurally generated so I don't see why rank requirements aren't at this point. I just hate this current system because I can't have fun and rank up at the same time unless the survivors know I'm not trying to slaughter them all.
--- Actual answers ---
At the moment for me I consider a win as killer 2 hook'ing everyone or at least black pipping. I don't try super hard anymore in ranked anymore since the emblem system. I'm also one where I don't like playing Nurse / Spirit because I don't find them fun to play. I do play a lot of Freddy though which is usually fine. tl;dr I play a lot of M1 Killers and I don't like feeling obligated to run certain perks just to be barely on even grounds with them.
As survivor I genuinely don't care because I pip every game.
1 -
I think if you spend time trying to convince others why they really haven't won, despite them considering it a win, then you're doing nothing more than wasting your own time.
It's next to meaningless whether or not you win in a video game. If the devs really cared about defining winning and losing, they would have done so by now.
1 -
Certainly not. But if your expectations are to have fun 100% of the time by winning 100% of the time then you are on a fool's errand. If you expect to win 100% of the time at *anything*....good luck
0 -
One of the reasons why it is so difficult to declare what is winning and what is losing in Dead By Daylight is based on its inherent non-competitive design, and I hope we can all agree on this - DBD is a casual game, which can be played with optimisation in mind, you can be competitive, but still that's not enough.
You win or lose a competition, but what if this competition is not fair by design?
Well, now you need to establish something else as a goal to tell yourself "I won" - that is in fact "I achieved my goal".
Subjectively, everything can be a goal: do the daily rituals, escape, never get hooked, or even... have fun - whatever it means.
This is totally fine for casual players, but as I said there are competitive players, even if the game is not. And that's where convention is needed. A tournament could have its rules (I remember a TydeTime tournament where the sum of the bloodpoints of the two teams was the win/loss condition), but since we are playing public games there are basically two conditions to meet, considering that survivors work as a team, while the killer is a slave of the entity.
Survivors - help the team survive as much as possible
Killer - please the entity as much as possible
For a survivor that wants to "simply escape", maybe by hiding, not doing generators / being chased / save fellow survivors, it's obvious this goal is not met at all, and that's why objectively to survive is not by itself enough to win.
A killer that camps hooks and even manages to 4k, but without chasing (...instilling fear in survivors) or multiple hooks, is a bad employee for the Entity. It wants more, it's a sadistic being, and that's why to simply kill survivors is not enough to win.
The pip system tries to solve the dilemma: even if your team gets annihilated, if you as a survivor did your best to help it out, you'll still gain good emblems, and pip. You did your job.
Similarly a killer that is able to hook everyone multiple times, chase them a lot and delay gen progression, will receive a pip as a gift from the magnanimous Entity, even without 3-4k.
But here's the thing, is this objectively winning?
No.
The reason being: if every survivor do well, and the killer does well too, every player in the match will pip. In other words: every player in the match should win, and this is impossible by definition - a win implies there's a loss somewhere.
Moral of the story - objectively you can't really win or lose, but you can help your teammates or make the game difficult for survivors, which are the fundamental goals of the game.
0 -
Win conditions are personal. You can say I didnt win all your life, If I did what i set out to do in the match, I won. Everyone else in the world can shout to the highest mountains about XYZ I didnt do or did wrong, but their opinion doesnt matter.
Therefore fun IS a win condition, and you can be salty and disagree and try to make the other sides time as miserable as possible, but thats their truth.
0 -
To me, the game tells me i won or lost when it tells me i won or lost, a.k.a. the message that appears after the match does the fade-out, but before the scoreboard appears.
0 -
@TAG @Mat_Sella Exactly. And until they do, I define what I personally consider a win for my personal matches.
See, in Overwatch and Paladins, which I primarily play, the game clearly states Victory or Defeat at the end of a match. So, the game clearly defines the result of a match for me. I accept that.
Here in DbD, it doesn't, so I don't. For me, I set a goal of a certain number of Bloodpoints per match. As Killer, I might even run BBQ and/or a Pudding to up my goal amount. If I achieve my BP goal, I consider it a win. I will even purposefully let Survivors complete the last gen or two simply because I don't care to sacrifice them and also pip due to it.
I really don't care to keep pipping and ranking up at this point, as I am still unlocking a lot of things to get decent build combinations available. So, my win goal is BP for the asinine grind. Sacrifices and pips are not my goal.
0 -
I have never considered pipping to be a win condition.
Escaping is the win condition.
Killing survivors is the win condition.
Period.
You can have fun in other ways or set your own personal goals, but saying you can win in any other way is like playing basketball and claiming you win even if the other team got 20 points on you, just because "I showed up, did my best and had fun."
Sorry, that is not winning the game. It's a moral victory at best, but the actual act of winning the game is something else.
0 -
this is false though.
Dbd is a 4vs1 game, survivors vs killer. If anything, you should say something along the line "a 4K is a killer win, a 0K is a survivors win, 2K a draw". Which wouldn't be that smart of a statement.
Let's use your basketball example: the goal is to score more points than your opponent. But that is as a team, if you, as a player, score 50 points, the second best player scores 25 points, but your team lost the game... did you win anyway?
That's what happens when you think "if I survive, I win", no matter what you did during the game.
0 -
I mean, I go by "3-4k is a Killer win, 0-1k is a Survivors win, 2k is a draw." Seems about as straightforward as you can get.
0 -
killer is leatherface.
Gets one, camps him - 1k.
Gets another one (maybe even with NOED, why not), camps him - 2k.
No gen pressure, no chases. Is this really a draw?
0 -
Yes.
0 -
ahah ok :)
0 -
I mean, why not? It's like saying it's not really a win if all you did was spam Hadoukens.
0 -
if you just spam haoudkens, you'll be demolished by every player that knows how to counter it.
You can't counter a leatherface camping, and two survivors downed the whole game is all that is needed for "the draw".
But then again, you can think and play however you want, if you think that it is a draw/win/loss... good for you, that's subjective.
Just know that it is obviously not objective.
0 -
And if you genrush and all make the escape, you demolished the Leatherface (by that system), no?
0 -
It's end of 2019 and people still think this is a team game?
M Cote: "It’s anti-social multiplayer where survivors have to collaborate and cooperate up to a certain point. The old saying is that you don’t need to be fast than the killer, you just need to be faster than your friends."
1 -
Devs are allowed to be wrong. ;)
0 -
Horrible analogy, considering it is more likely the person making a C will go on to become an active surgeon while the one with the A will likely become a theoretical researcher or instructor. Both are a win in your analogy.
As for wincon, I find it funny when people lose their mind over what other think is a win in a game that is at best a casual party game with a less clear "wincon" than even Mario Party. Some people only play for fun with a few friends, therefore their idea of a win is different than someone who tries to crunch the numbers and compare themselves to the competition.
Relax and do you. Stop worrying about what others consider a win, and please stop looking at a game as a measure of your skill and value. (The use of "your" is intended to be a general term for any/all, not one particular person. )
0 -
Lol sounds like you had a game with a braindead killer saying they won just because of their points/pips or something (which I find annoying). I'd say I agree with you. Some games I feel very proud as far as doing diverse tasks or just helping my team in something they need done quickly, then the endgame screen tells me I didn't do well with my pips. To me, if I saved someone at the end of the game and died or helped the team escape, then I feel like that's a win.
0 -
I go by kills and if I escaped or not. Either way, the results are often negligible so long as it was a fun game.
Secondly, no one of you is going to tell me if I won the game or not. You're not my dad!
1 -
The current ranking system tries to control playstyles too much.
The most important category for ranking up should be escapes and sacrifices. You can’t play stealthy generator mechanic anymore as survivor, you wont pip.
Killers with instadowns have a much harder time ranking up as well, you have situations where you 4K with five gens left but don’t pip. What the [BAD WORD]?
0 -
My friend, I really don't understand if you are not getting the point or pretending not to..
I assume you understand that to get just two survivors down, one time, the whole game is trivially easy. If you think otherwise, I really don't have anything else to add to our discussion, I'm not here to argue on something so basic :)
0 -
One by camping? Perhaps. Two by camping after the gens are probably done? Different story unless Survivors are bad. There is a reason Leatherface is considered a bad Killer.
Besides, worst-case scenario, we can legitimately target camping in ways beyond "Camping? Harumph! We're gonna punish you in the worst way possible: TAKING AWAY POINTS. OOOOooooOoOooOoooOOoOooOo"
0 -
why would bloodpoints / emblem points matter now? Your point is that the win/loss condition is simply survive/kill.
And why is now camping not a legitimate strategy anymore? It is in the premise of the question that the killer is camping two survivors, and you said "yes, it's a draw".
Now it's not?
0
