General Discussions
General Discussions
Killer Mains and their idea of "Balance"
What kind of kill rate do you want so you would finally be statisfied? According to some voices here, people seem to want to 4k legit every single match. I mean do you guys realize the othr side of the same coin wants to have fun too?
A kill rate of 100% is NOT balance! Balance would be 50/50 which means killers getting a average of 2k in most matches.
Comments
-
Developers are already trying to get the golden 50/50 ratio, that's why Freddy is getting nerfed, I think he has sometihng around ~70% kill rate from the latest stats?
11 -
Kill rate is a dumb metric. If two survivors are left in a match with even one gen left, unless that gen is 75%+, those two survivors are dead to rights and only hatch can save them. If a killer kills two, they generally get 3 or 4 as a gimme.
Conversely, if there are four survivors alive with two hook states left at one gen, the Killer might as well AFK because only the survivors making huge mistakes will save the game. They still have the 4:1 ratio and the killer can only chase one at once.
The devs need an actual comprehensive analysis of how the game flows objective-wise and momentum wise. Games can flip in an instant if either side makes a mistake - DBD is volatile at almost any gamestate.
53 -
You could say the same about survivors too.
There are people on both sides that want nothing but easy games.
Nothing new
57 -
Do your realise that last time kill rates were shown, they were as high as they were because solo survivor is uncoordinated mess of potatoes ?
It's much easier for single killer to do well vs bad survivors as he relies only on his own gameplay then to rely on 4 different people who all do random terrible decisions seperately. Obviously the side with only 1 player to make all the decisions will have better results overall unless you make proper matchmaking which won't let bad players into higher ranks.
Kill rate wasn't so high because killers are too strong (we all know how much stronger top tier SWFs are) but because so many survivors are bad the game and extremely uncoordinated across all ranks.
26 -
Killers aren't one big humongous group, but to answer your question killer bad survivor good buy cosmetics
21 -
No, mostly Killers cry for easy games. And most people know that.
9 -
When I play Killer I don't need 4 kills.
I just want to feel like a feared killer and not get Survivor bullied.
29 -
Kill rates don't mean anything to me for these reasons, however they do show that some killers can overperform IF you use logic to see why. Take freddy for example he isn't hard to play and his power is good HOWEVER he has the highest kill rate by over 4% of the next highest and a above average pick rate in high ranks and that is without a way to secure kills. If you look around the top 5 pig is in there despite not having that strong of a power and the reason for that is because she is really good at securing kills with her traps to the point where a good pig can kill 2 survivors in endgame if they have active rbt's on. doctor is also in the top 5 and the reason is because he can secure 4k's the easiest out of all killers by easily finding the last survivor. Since freddy doesn't have a way to secure kills it means his kill rate is up there because he simply is winning a large amount of his matches.
Another thing 50/50 doesn't mean they get 2 kills a match it means they are either fully losing a game or winning one each game, there are only 4 survivors each contribute 25% to the kill rate per game. Most games the killer can at least get 1-2 kills on a losing game and when the killer wins it is usually with 3-4 kills, this means that the kill rate won't be at 50% it should be above that since it will get bumped up by the killer getting at least one kill oo two on lost games. if a killer has lowerer or around 50% it means that the killer is losing more than they are winning take nurse for example new players will get 1 kill if any at all.
Lastly SWF needs to be considered for balance as it makes survivors way more optimal, these kill rates have solo's mixed with it and a good killer can beat a group of solo's since they lack coordination but swf fixes just that. IMO we need separate kill rates for games with and without swf to see how it affects killers and to see what killers can reliably beat a swf in general.
1 -
First of all you don't go by kill rates as kill rate data is heavily flawed for a multitude of factors. IE a killer main hypothetically wouldn't even ask for a certain kill rate in regards to balance.
While heavily flawed as well, pips/emblems would still do much better justice in showing balance than kill rates. Pips/emblems for one example would differentiate 2 kills from a balanced match or a match where the killer just face camped 2 people all game.
4 -
Every killer should be able get a 2k/2e which should be considered a draw when two groups of equally skilled players are playing. This should be true at the lowest levels of play and the absolute highest level of play where the top .1% play each other.
I also I think an entire match should be taken into account. If those 2 kills happen during EGC while the survivors slam 5 gens. That isn't much fun. It should be a steadily paced game.
3 -
There are two main problems with killrates: the unequal distribution of kills and unfair matches.
You need only one down for 1 kill. When you play to get one kill, the survivors need to destroy you to avoid that. On the other hand only one escape is unlikely. Matches were only one survivor escapes through the exit gate are rare. So most games are 1 kill or 4 kills (3 kills when the killer dont want to slug) So it would be more interesting to see how often 0, 1, 2, 3 or 4 kills happen and not the average killrate.
Second problem are unfair matches. Even without moris there are things which can favor one side immensely. But the most important variable is skill. When a veteran plays against a hundred hour player the game is unfair. I could loop some players for the entire match, but others go down in 5 sec against the same player. This matches make the data unreliable.
3 -
It's both sides take the DS nerf it is obviously too strong and provides a safety net to do any interaction yet players will whine that they can't do gens with it anymore when gen speed as it is is already very fast. These players also complain about things that are balanced or not problematic in the 4v1 aspect like deathslinger or bbq.
For the players that want easier 4k's what comes to my mind are the people that think the last survivor escaping by hatch without doing anything even tho they already won the game is unfair. Honestly the only other example i can think of for killers wanting easier wins is wanting certain killers buffed but that is exactly why they want buffs since they can't beat a good swf and that's not the players fault swf simply can beat most killers by out pressuring them with gens.
4 -
Why is this a conversation, survivors and killers have skill caps, if the killer is good then 4k is balanced because he earned it. If the survivors are good then all 4 will escape. A balance is nothing to do with getting kills, it's skill. Get good at the game and show that your deserve an escape and deserve a 4k. Although, 50/50 is literally balanced.
1 -
ok but take the highest amount of skill on both sides and survivors win, the exception to this out of all the killers is nurse DEPENDING on the map that's not balanced.
50/50 also wont work since on losing games killers can still get 1-2 kills and winning games are 3-4 which will make the kill rate above 50% as seen with the stats provided by the devs.
0 -
While I am in no way innocent of never wishing i could 4k each game, i also understand the 2k for 2 escapes ideal. The dev's are likely attempting this, but its insanely difficult on either side to achieve this balance. An obnoxiously good killer running meta perks and addons will be more likely to 3 or 4k than a killer who is less meta focused.
What it comes down too isnt so much the idea of 'killers dont know balance' its that the concept of balance in a game where the 2 sides are vastly different and have opposing goals. Every survivor strives for a whole team escape with no deaths, and evey killer wants the dream 5 gen 4k and the 2 physically cant happen together.
Dead by daylight cant be put into a 50/50 mindset, factors just wont allow such a thing to exist at the current moment, even if alot of people in the community wish it did.
1 -
Quote: "Balance would be 50/50 which means killers getting a average of 2k in most matches."
Wrong.
Balance in any PVP game means the better player wins.
If the game is artificially designed to let me lose either by giving survivors 10000 pallets that can't be mindgamed or gens that take 1 second to repair (those are theoretical examples) then it's clearly not balanced just because I manage to kill two via NOED while they tbagged in front of the exit gate. (again, that's a theoretical example)
That would be 2 kills 2 escapes in your scenario. Doesn't sound like the match was balanced now, does it ?
Killrates are a very minor factor when it comes to balance.
There are numerous factors that one has to take into account such as:
- number of hooks
- total time of the match
- disconnects and hook-suicides leading to a 4k
- afk players leading to a 4k
- trolling survivors playing to sandbag / sabotage their teammates
- bad matchmaking (i.e. Rank 1 killer vs green rank survivors. Probably still goes into the red rank statistics because of the killer's rank)
- ETC
Simple question:
Do you think 2 hooks and 2 kills is the same as 10 hooks and 2 kills ?
Post edited by Yamaoka on14 -
Survivors have the rule of 2 for proper popping, but for killers its different. Survivors can do the rule of 2, be killed and still pip.
12 hooks won't happen especially at high ranks. I like the 4k, but will give hatch if I'm feeling nice (and the last survivor doesn't wiggle!). I'm happy with either a 2k or a fun match with even 1k. But if I got bullied all match and 1k then im more hungry for 4k the next match.
Even in movies, at least 1 survivor lives. In Scream, you had Randy, Dewey, Gale, Sidney and her dad all survived while the killer's killed 5. So it was exactly 50%. If you apply that logic to DBD then it'll be 2 survivors proportionately.
3 -
As long as killers or survivors don't lose ranks because there both playing trash.
0 -
Lmao! Ofcourse i want to win all the time against BAD players, while being a GOOD klller. But at the same time i don't want to be easily destroyed by equaly GOOD survivor teams.
2 -
I mean as a survivor as long as you do good your whole team can pip despite getting destroyed, it's why ranks imo are obsolete when talking about skill as to me it just shows you know how to play the game not necessarily that you are good at it.
0 -
Kill Rate is the wrong metric. It's like asking Survivors "how many gens do you want to get done every game?" Well, yes, the end goal would be all, but survivors mostly care about escaping, which could very well be through the hatch or a key or hiding in a locker while somebody else does all the gens for you.
The killer metric SHOULD be: How many hooks do killers get per game. I don't want a survivor to get hooked and give up right away. That's terrible, it hurts their team and it artificially inflates killer numbers. I don't think anyone wants killers standing guard at the hook till a survivor goes from full to dead, either. That's just number padding as well. This misunderstanding is clearly shared by the Dev team, as their handy "hook count" meter for killers automatically fills in the bubbles when a survivor dies, even if you only hooked them once.
At absolute worst, a killer should be able to get 5-6 hooks during a game. Sometimes that equals a 4k. Sometimes that equals a 0k. If they're getting less than that, the killer is facing survivors way out of their league (either due to bad matchmaking or due to killer weakness/genrush strength). A balanced game should probably have around 9 hooks, which usually means 1-3 survivors dead.
tl;dr - It's not the kills that count, it's the hooks. If you measure those and balance around them, you get a way better picture of the state of game balance.
5 -
A Killer that immediately downs all 4 Survivors and gets a 4k with 4 hooks isn't out of their league, and tombstone Myers only makes sense with the objective being kills > hooks.
0 -
Actually it DOES mean they're out of their league. Their skill level is wildly ABOVE that of the survivors. That's bad matchmaking. Remember that "out" means in either direction. If you down all four guys and hook them before anybody can get a save, you're playing against potatoes.
Tombstone Meyers (and all the Moris, pre-nerf) are there to either feel empowered as the killer for once, or to get a guy out of the match, because the game becomes way easier for the killer when there's only 3 people to deal with. Playing auto-kills is more for funsies than a real indication of the normal gameplay experience and should not be regarded as valuable data when calculating survivor/killer stats.
Remember: Freddy is getting 'changed' (nerfed) because his kill numbers are 'too high'. But how many of those numbers reflect petulant survivors who don't want to play against Freddy and just give up on the first hook (or just DC)? We don't know and that's crummy because that inflates the perception of strength. Freddy's way more likely to get a 4k if he only has to deal with 3 guys for 99% of the match and all it takes is one person deciding to screw over their team.
0 -
I mean,i see a TON of nerf x killer and nerf x killer perk here.
It's more or less balanced between both sides
4 -
Freddy has both the highest kill rate and pick rate. It's the combination of both that is the problem.
1 -
Not according to the ratio, it doesn't seem.
3 -
Btw to answer the OP's question, 70%. Reasoning being that this particular ratio allows for the game to remain mathematically balanced regardless of how many Survivors happen to be alive at any given moment.
0 -
Kill rate is as I mentioned above. I've run into a ton of survivors who just auto-DC the second they see the who they're playing against, which basically throws the game for everyone else. The high pick rate is partly because he was the WORST killer in the game and his rework made him actually good and fun to play. Plus, he's got two distinct power choices with Snares and Palettes, giving him a lot more replay value than most one-trick ponies.
Certainly, I'm sure the complaints about how OP he is has also driven up killers who want an easier time of it. I think everyone will agree that Nurse is the most powerful killer, but she's extremely hard to play from the get-go. Freddy doesn't have the same "feels bad to play until you're suddenly amazing" hurdle. But that hurdle also goes for all the other skill-shot killers, like Deathslinger, Huntress, or Pyramid Head. The killer is only good if you main them for a really long time.
Freddy has all the tools a killer needs (chase catch-up snares, mind game palettes, scream tracking, gen patrol teleports, and gen slowdown addons), and both feels good to play and doesn't have an absurdly high skill ceiling you need to master. I'd far prefer them to make all killers closer to Freddy and just reduce the amount of time gens take to do. If everybody is having fun, shorter games would be far preferable to slow ones where everything is a grind for survivors and killers alike.
2 -
Meanwhile the popular narrative on the forum is that killers are strong at low rank and weak at high rank, and that killers therefore need buffs to give them a fair chance at high rank (e.g. longer gen times, "early game collapse").
People talk about actual red rank.
It's very very easy to get into high ranks.It's more a matter of play time rather than actual skill.Combine that with the new rank reset and people pretty much never leave red ranks once they've reached it.
The kill rate right know is so high because most survivors you see are really really bad at the game.
I do feel they're steered the game in the right direction over the years. I haven't seen any compelling evidence to the contrary amidst the "devs bad" spam on the forum.
I agree,the balance is definetely the best it has ever been so far.However,the devs sure are a mixed bag when it comes down to balance.It's incidents like the Gearhead + Coup de Grace nerfs,Trappers state right now etc. that make people question their balance decisions.
0 -
I'd settle for matchmaking that didn't thrust my Green Rank ass into 4 red rank survivor lobbies every other game.
0 -
Unfortunately what you just said only magnifies the issue.
If a killer is good enough to at least 2k/2e against the highest team when played at an equal level, that same killer will destroy a lower level team, leading that team and others like it to see killer as OP. Now if the best of the best are in the top, let's say, 15%, and you're about even with them, that means anyone in the 85% will feel like the killer role is OP.
The other side of that coin is unfortunately for a tourney viable setting (if that's what we want to achieve) is it would kind of necessitate balancing in that way - after all, if you put in the work to get good, shouldn't you be wrecking the vast majority of players? And it isn't your fault they refuse to get better...
But the thing is,ost competitive games kill off a huge amount of their player base going competitive. There isn't a great financial incentive to make the game competitive leaning, even IF they knew by what criteria they would need to modify the game in order to achieve this goal.
Most fighting games, for instance, do not enjoy the long lifespan that say, a LoL enjoys. That's why you see expansions as quickly as you do for games that add maybe a character or two and ask you to pay at least half the admission price again (although fighters today benefit way more from the fact most gamers are always online and they can endlessly expand the roster like Tekken 7, Street fighter 5, and even Mortal Kombat 11)
Dbd COULD probably go that way if it wanted to, but as the one exclusive successful game of BHVR, I understand their reluctance to gamble. I just take the game for what it is, I've been playing.so long I win or break even on the vast majority of games and that's just fine.
1 -
remember what the devs have talked about is not a per match result, but an average. most killers do not care if they get a 4k EVERY match, but they do care when they get robbed of the 4k by the game mechanics etc. their hard work should be rewarded yes and it IS hard work. gotta remember most survivor mains expect 4 man survival each match, yet many of them don't truly expect that, but get upset when game mechanics rob them of that survival rate. this is not something you should ask only the killer mains but the group as a whole. and please remember those that post here are the vocal minority of the players of this game. So responses here may be indicative of but not be what everyone wants.
the devs did not say every match should be a 2K and 2 escape. that should be the AVERAGE. the "KILL" rate you talk about is a flawed metric and does not account disconnects, quitting and other things. so it is a bad metric to use, unfortunately they do use it.
0 -
It shouldn't be a matter of kill rate but fun rate.
i don't care if i don't get more than 2 kills as long as i don't have to sweat for it.
0 -
I keep telling survivors that just going by kill rates is actually going to bite us in the butts cuz the kill rates for all ranks is 56%. You nerf red ranks and that'll drop the average kill rate down far below 50%, which means the devs will start buffing killers to be easier to play but either harder to master or lower their skill ceilings. Imagine more Freddies or spirits...
Here's an important thing to note. Kill rates shouldn't be fully discarded. However, they should be using more than kill rates to balance the game.
0 -
Survivor mains and their idea of "Balance"
What kind of escape rate do you want so you would finally be satisfied? According to some voices here, people seem to want to escape legit every single match. I mean do you guys realize the other side of the same coin wants to have fun too?
An escape rate of 100% is NOT balance! Balance would be 50/50 which means survivors getting a average of 2 escapes in most matches.
See, I can do it too. Some people on both sides want easy games, not just killers mate.
And just a pointer, never listen to kill rates, they're incredibly skewed.
1 -
Forget kill rates. We should go by win rates.
0 -
He has a high kill rate because people suicide against the hook against him because they find him boring. I guarantee you if this didn't happen his kill rate would be quite low.
Happens at all ranks even at Rank 1 in my games - People don't like Freddy's low skill floor and they don't enjoy playing against him with all the slowdown and gen stopper builds he runs.
3 -
That would be balanced though. You're forgetting that the ideal balance is pitting equally skilled people against one another.
1 -
What are you referring to ? My NOED example with two kills after getting no hooks all game via artificial lose-design or do you mean something else?
0 -
You said at the beginning that the better player/players should win. That, that would be balanced. Which I don't disagree with. The goal however is to have equally skilled players on each side. Which would make the 2k/2e balanced.
1 -
Aaah okay gotcha, well put.
On a side note I wouldn't mind getting nothing but 2ks if I felt like the skill level was actually equal.
0 -
Few things:
If a killer is good enough to at least 2k/2e against the highest team when played at an equal level, that same killer will destroy a lower level team, leading that team and others like it to see killer as OP. Now if the best of the best are in the top, let's say, 15%, and you're about even with them, that means anyone in the 85% will feel like the killer role is OP.
It's almost like... It's almost like, that's the point.
If i am playing chess as a 1500 against a 1500, i should win 50% of the time and lose 50% of the time. If me as a 1500 plays against someone rated 2500, i should lose 99.99% of the time. That doesn't mean the game is unbalanced, it means that the person is way better than me. To bring it back to DbD. If a rank 20 killer plays against rank 20 survivors, they should on average kill 200 survivors during the course of 100 games. Same goes for the rank 1 killer against rank 1 survivors. Some games end in a 4k, some end in a 0k, some end in a draw. But on average it should even out to that 2k/2e.
The other side of that coin is unfortunately for a tourney viable setting (if that's what we want to achieve) is it would kind of necessitate balancing in that way - after all, if you put in the work to get good, shouldn't you be wrecking the vast majority of players? And it isn't your fault they refuse to get better...
This is untrue, there are ways you can balance a game around high level players while keeping lower skilled players in mind:
One example of something that is holding back lower skilled players but has 0 impact on high skilled players is skill checks. There are also things that high level players do, like loop around great loops like jungle gyms and killer shacks with perfect efficiency, that low skill survivors aren't doing.
Something that could help this is to make all of the loops mindgameable (AKA no god loops) but put more of them in a map. This would mean higher skilled survivors are going to have more opportunities to showcase that skill by winning chases through mindgames rather than through brute forcing god pallets, and lower skilled survivors are going to have more pallets to work with. The more pallets won't effect low skilled killers too negatively because those survivors aren't playing very efficiently, and it won't hurt high level players because now mindgames are more effective and able to be dealt with.
Or totems: Like high skill survivors memorizing totem placements, so Hexes aren't as good against them, but low skill survivors don't know the spawns so they can't cleanse them as fast, making hex perks much stronger against them. You can do things that make it so hexes aren't as powerful against low skilled players, but better against higher skilled players (one idea i have is that all hexs should work like thrill of the hunt and decrease in power as totems are cleansed rather than being one and done, and when a hex is in the game all totems become lit, this would mean that the perks are more effective against higher skilled players who now have to cleanse more totems, but if a low skilled survivor stumbles across a totem they can slightly weaken the perk rather than just being unlucky and finding a dull totem.)
These are just a few examples.
Most fighting games, for instance, do not enjoy the long lifespan that say, a LoL enjoys. That's why you see expansions as quickly as you do for games that add maybe a character or two and ask you to pay at least half the admission price again (although fighters today benefit way more from the fact most gamers are always online and they can endlessly expand the roster like Tekken 7, Street fighter 5, and even Mortal Kombat 11)
How is this any different then what DbD does? All of these games (even LoL) constantly add new characters to the game that spice things up or shift the balance. That's how a game works in general, if you don't add new content eventually people leave regardless. But not having a competitive scene, not having something to strive toward isn't going to help either. 2 things can be true at the same time.
Also, SF5 is going on into year 5, so is DbD. Again, i don't understand the argument here about longevity.
2 -
I don’t expect to 4k every game, but it should at least be a possibility based on my performance. There are some maps/ gen and tile setups that pretty much let me know I am going to lose unless the survivors are bad. That should never happen.
3 -
Like many others have already pointed out, I'd like to see the killrate with the following games being discounted:
- suicide on first hook because I don't like the killer / the map / their cosmetics / I was the first to go down, giving the killer an easy win
- killer gets like two hooks the whole game, hooks somebody in the end thx to NOED - at low ranks he gets a one kill because everyone is so afraid of NOED they just leave - at high ranks he gets a 4k because survivors throw their brain away while desperatly trying to save that one person
- games in which at least two potato survivors are so boosted by SWF and the broken rank system that they end up in red ranks nonetheless and doom the whole team
- people throwing because they want to finish some absurd tome challenge
2 -
There's some incredibly biased survivor mains that think all killers need to be nerfed to the ground, just Saiyan.
3 -
All of these are especially important - Especially with the Tome - You can generally see a shift in how people play each time a battlepass is involved. People will literally play specifically to finish the challenge and then suicide to be time efficient and get into the next game as survivor as soon as they can.
To me the noed thing seems like an isolated issue at worse off ranks but I'm sure BHVR wouldn't count biege rank games to their balance stats right? Right..?
2 -
No-one with any experience cares about kill rates, because they know just how badly it gets inflated.
DbD is still unbalanced and still unfair, and not because killers are OP. It's because survivors don't even have to properly engage with them. Sure, in solo que you won't see this top much, but go play killer at red ranks in the evening and you'll quickly learn just how fast gens can get done, and how much you absolutely despise second chance perks.
3 -
This.
Just this.
3 -
Dude, I don't know if you missed the point of what I was saying, but I meant that BHVR does not WANT to take the game in a strictly competitive direction. It has NOTHING to do with whether I think it should be able to or not, I'm for competitive balance.
Like I said, it's a problem because competitive games tend not to have a mass appeal.. most people don't want to get really good at games. SF 5 was pretty much in a loss for years, and yea that had somewhat to do with mechanical changes people didn't like, but remember, this was a game that even had a period of commercials between fights in order to sure up profits, and SF is a big dog in the fighting game community, so imagine all the other hyper competitive fighters that don't have nearly the profile of and SF. I defy you to go find a fighting game that isn't SF, Tekken , or MK and find an active lobby with any consistency.
TLDR; BHVR does not have a great financial incentive to make the game a competitive first game. Therefore they will likely never go in that direction over balancing for the middle.
0 -
I dont think balancing around 2k or 50/50 is a good idea only because it'll make the game easier for high ranks. What people don't seem to understand though is that kill percentage means nothing. Anything can happen in a match for example the survivor could dc, give up on hook, crash during the game, afk, or just be completely bad at looping. With the mori nerf im sure kill percentage has gone down a bit. The game should reward good loopers a bit more though.
0
