http://dbd.game/killswitch
Balancing around 50% kill rate is not right
You can facecamp first survivor and get second kill from noed. Perfectly balanced game right?
You can get 2+ kills every game as Bubba i guess he's perfect killer
Edit: because of how easy it is to get 2 kills killers should be balanced around getting at least 2 kills every game. If killer is having 50% kill rate that's a terrible killer and something should be done to buff them
Comments
-
Nurse has 42% kill rate last time I checked so she deserves a massive buff like three blinks base kits.
21 -
Balancing around 50% is something you see on symmetrical games. It makes no sense to balance a game like DBD around that.
6 -
Buff nurse and nerf Pig again. Top 3 kill rate killer
3 -
Nooooo leave Amanda Panda alone she's had enough...
4 -
What about asymmetric online multiplayer pvp games?
1 -
WE NEED THAT 50% KILL RATE AMANDA. YOU'RE 110% MS KILLER NOW
4 -
Well then what do we balance around? It’s not a good option but it’s the best one I can think of
6 -
Around hooks maybe? Let's say average amount of hooks should be 8-9 (more than half)
3 -
I guess that could work but realistically this would change the stats very much barring pig and maybe bubba
1 -
They can use kill rate as secondary stat and amount oh hooks as primary
0 -
Noooooooooooooo
0 -
Did you even read what OP and me wrote?
1 -
because of how easy it is to get 2 kills killers should be balanced around getting at least 2 kills every game. If killer is having 50% kill rate that's a terrible killer and something should be done to buff them
1 -
Yeah it's pretty bad.
I would balance around 8 hooks instead.
1 -
50% kill rate doesn't mean they are balancing for a 2k. It means that their goal is half of all survivors in all games be sacrificed. There are many ways to achieve that beyond a 2k. A 2k itself is actually a pretty uncommon result, for me at least. Games are typically a 3/4k or a 3/4 escape. A 4k one game and a 4 escape the next game is still a 50% kill rate.
0 -
8 hooks on average still equal 2 sacrifices at the end of the day lol. Just be honest you want killers to get an average of 4 sacrifices each game. I mean that is what I'm getting from this.
0 -
I imagine that gets very boring after a while, and any one with a conscious will feel bad for ruining the experience of others. When word dropped of what constitutes as a win for both sides, I immediately focused on escaping. I only did gens, didn’t go for saves, hid in lockers to avoid Barbecue, never body blocked, and always opened the exit gates and escaped. That was the most boring 48 hrs i have ever played in this game. Plus i felt bad for escaping the match and not even trying to help my teammates after all gens were done. It wasn’t worth “a win” or raising my MMR. After those two days I went back to playing how I used to by doing totems, body blocking, helping teammates etc. and whenever I escaped it felt much better I had more fun.
0 -
Or fix her bugs >.>
2 -
I think it should be based on your grade.
0 -
Attempting to balance 2 kills and 2 escapes means that, by design, the game demands that all 5 gens are completed every single game.
If it's a foregone conclusion that the gens will always be completed, there is no hope that gen speeds will ever be checked.
0 -
Nah, didn’t you know that statistics only matter when they support nerfing killers?
0 -
I agree that balancing around 2 kills do not make sense however how else could they balance it?
Hook counts for killers? They must come up with something creative, IDK.
Generator progress, altruism and chase time in a way that when you increase one of them, having lower value in others should be OK.
0 -
play pinhead youll win all the time!
0 -
65-70% would be better, 3rd should be teetering between death and escape
1 -
This is actually more than 2 kills on average
0 -
That's nowhere near same.
You can get 2k from two hooks, you can get 2k from 10 hooks. Is it same?
2k is quite normal result for me. I don't think those games are balanced tho.
What he is saying that we should look at number of hooks during game, because that's better representative about how balanced it actually was.
0 -
You think game with 6 hooks and 2 kills is good result?
or even better, 2 hooks and 2 kills... balanced.
1 -
"You can facecamp first survivor and get second kill from noed. Perfectly balanced game right?"
It simply means they should nerf facecamping and noed so killer won't have easy kills anymore
1 -
and then buff killers?
1 -
So Survivors should only escape 30-35% of their matches?
1 -
yes
1 -
That sounds fair to you? From the perspective of a survivor.
0 -
Yes. Having 50/50 chance to escape in horror game is strange
1 -
just got my rank 1 Killer first time so happy, but looking at the steam achievement.
4.1% of killers have rank 1.
6.3% for survivors.
Yeah says plenty.
1 -
Yes please. I'd take 8 hooks 0kills every match over most of my matches atm. My games dont tend to last long enough for 8 chases usually
0 -
How do you expect to balance this swf vs solo?
If you expect to kill 3/4 survivors in a swf, that pretty much equals 100% kill rate vs solo q lobbies.
0 -
I'll explaint it so even a chimpanzee can understand. Assymetrical games by default have a role which is harder and requires more work to do well, in the case of DBD it's killer. It makes no sense to balance around 50/50 because this means that the easiest side is getting the same result as the hardest while putting way less effort. The role which you play alone and have to actually put more effort should by default have a higher win rate in assymetrical games. Among Us has a way bigger Imposter win rate, while Evolve had a 50/50 win rate, guess which one died and which one is still a huge success?
Survivor is already the less stressful role which also has the advantage of being able to be played with friends, if you also make it have the same results as killer, there's no real incentive to be playing killer, which is harder and can't be played with friends.
The latest stats revealed that the kill rate dropped from 68% to 53%, at the same time people start complaining even more that survivor queues have been longer during peak hours. Why do you think that's the case? Or you're one of those that believe "mMr iS jUsT bUgGeD?"
1 -
So the survivors should be balanced to have next to no chance to win, then?
2 -
Funny how you talk about "online PvP games" on your first response then when I use them you're now saying DBD can't be compared to them. Which is it?
Survivor queues are faster during the day because most people aren't even playing. Casual players go to work/college/school during the day and play at night. Guess which queues are faster at this time?
0 -
The same thing the vast majority of games balance around: Making sure neither side wins too often compared to the other.
2 -
I don't know if 50% is appropriate. But I can say with certainty that so in many of my games I pick up an extra kill or two because survivors decide to be obsessively altruistic (something which by any metric makes ZERO sense).
The idea that BHVR is looking at these games and is thinking 'Not 50%, nerf Deathslinger time.' is very concerning to me.
0 -
8 hooks is not more than 2 kills on average. That configuration can only yield 2 kills, tops. Kills cannot be rounded, because BHVR does not measure by hook states.
Yes, yes, yes, you can factor in Devour Hope and Mori's if you really want to nit pick, they are outliers.
0 -
Well, play surv if playing killer is stressful for you. Or if you want to win more, get better
1 -
It isn't like they want 4ks to be impossible and a 2k happens every match, they want people to be more ok with getting a 2k, with a 0k or a 4k being the outliers and the stomps. A killer getting a 4k every single match means they are extremely powerful, just like when people say survivors are op when they get 0k
3 -
Nah, survivors are the ones who should get better instead of having wins cattered to them.
1 -
2 kills average is really just shorthand for saying they want about a 50/50 chance of escaping more or less. I think their actual more detailed statistical goal is probably more like that the most common results includ at least one survivor escaping and one dying, i.e. the median results are in the 1-3 kill range. So 0 kills and 4 kill are intended to be outliers, 1-3 the most frequent results with somewhere around 2+ being the statistical average. (The actual average over all games is about a 55% kill rate I think?)
While you could also hypothetically balance for hooks, one downside to it is that slugging is also an intentionally allowed strategy. In fact they have some perks and killers designed explicitly around slugging survivors. A game where a Hag or Oni slugs all four survivors is a perfectly valid total victory win, even though it has a small number of hooks. Looking at that sort of game through the hook count lens makes it appear that strategy isn’t actually effective, and if you balanced through that view you’d end up looking to buff the viability of slugging killers and perks more than then needs to be buffed to increase their hook counts.
Also, note that a goal of having 1-3 kills be the most common results implies that most games end with the Exits open. So under that goal, even if the killer plays well, if the survivors also play about as well you’d expect that the Exits would probably be open most of the time. Some people who post in these forums seem to think the goal should be a 50/50 chance of the Exits opening in evenly matched games, and then claim the balance is off because that’s not the case, but that’s fundamentally not understanding the devs actual goal and how it relates to the Exits. You could make a game have that 50/50 chance of Exits opening, but the most common kill counts would be in the 2.5-4 kill range at that point. Whether or not that type of game would be fun I have no idea, but either way it’s not the game we actually have or that the devs want.
1 -
You are making a good point that Bubba, face-camping and NOED should be nerfed, because it's to easy to get 2+ kills with them.
BTW, how is having 4 players getting shafted and 1 player be given wins make any sense to anyone. In what bizarro-world of game design would it ever make sense to make one side easier and the other side being handicapped in a competitive game. There's no challenge for one side if they are just given wins. It makes the game less fun. Why do you think cheaters generally only play a game for a short while when they cheat, it's because it lacks challenge.
2 -
105% but always on stealth.
0 -
What's not an outlier, however, is a one hook death in end-game. That's incredibly common.
0 -
Not sure the point of your comment. I was pointing out flawed math and nothing else.
Edit: Nevermind, I see what you're getting at now. I disagree, when a survivor stays on the hook through several hook states, the hook counter goes up. Maybe that's being nitpicky but I don't know if the person I quoted is accounting for it or not. I am. 8 hook states = 2 kills excluding devour hope and mori.
Edit 2: Oh and Rancor
0
