Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
If Game Balanced Around min 75% Kill Rate...?
Comments
-
I think the biggest issue back then was, that people suicided against him. Simply because they didn´t like playing against him.
Kinda like what people do now against Nurse.
0 -
Everyone was red rank back then. The rank reset only lowered you 1 color. So after 2 days, everyone was back on red ranks.
1 -
That is objectively false. The great majority of players were not red rank.
0 -
I don't think that was enough to change it by a lot. Forever freddy was hell to play against, so it was understandable to do tho.
Nurse still has under 50%, but she is just super hard. That's why you can't have easy and good killer. That's why Freddy and Wraith got nerfed.
0 -
Not implying it does mean you lost. However, we can reasonably agree that hooks/kills are vastly increased post 5th gen with a majority of it from NOED and hook bombing. You can literally just camp secure 1k post 5th gen. I would argue that most kills/hooks post 5th gen are not related to skill, skill hooks/kills being the exception rather than the rule.
Averaging at roughly a little over 50% kill rates across the board I would go as far as to say that if you looked at hooks/kills at the 5th gen complete rather than end of the game you would see a kill/hook rate closer to below 20%...it's that significant how skewed the data is by end game..which wouldn't matter..if like I said earlier end game kills/hooks were mostly related to skill and game balance, but they're not.
0 -
sure, but I don't think hooks are good neither. Hooks are not same for all killers.
For example Oni, or Hag, I can get 4k with them while having 6 hooks total easily. By your definition it would mean they are weak.
That's why I would prefer winrate instead. It would filter most of those one kill camping and it works for all killers same.
0 -
I don't really care about escaping, as long as I'm having fun. (Same for killer btw. It's why some of my most memorable matches have been with Trapper whereas my main killer is Nurse.)
As survivor, the only escapes I was really happy about have been the ones that felt epic because of how impossible they felt right before a planetary alignment event. Otherwise, escaping gives a pretty bland feeling.
Somehow, I feel like 75% is closer to what an horror game should be. How many times is there more than one, if any, survivor in an horror movie? More emphasis should be put on interacting with the killer (including hiding). Self-sacrifice should be rewarded. I know it's a toughie but it feels right.
2 -
Absolutely agree. Noed alone probably massively increases kill rates in low MMR, where it is seen the most, as well as by worse players in general. But survivors playing overly altruistic, sometimes due to underestimating you can make 1k games where you have someone hooked in a good spot into 3 or 4k games depending on the killer and how many mistakes they make trying to get everyone out.
It makes me wonder if BHVR actually take any of this into account when nerfing killers. It feels like very few of the devs actually play the game, I'm glad they're listening to feedback, but if they tried to "get good" with a character like Pig, Clown or Freddy by playing the game, they'd experience their clunky powers first hand and be more inclined to actually change them.
0 -
Not implying hooks are the end all be all perfect balance metric, it has issues. However, they are way, way more accurate a measurement than kill rates. Kill rates are literally the worst metric.
0 -
as a data scientist this is the good point. Since measuring killer based on their kill rate is biased. to have survivor dead you need to hook them twice and to get that it is really need a hard effort. I think BHVR need to calculate the hooks that the killer get to calculate and analyzing the killer player behaviour and goals.
Post edited by playhard on1 -
I don't think they are worst. Thing is how you approach them. Kills, Hooks, winrate whatever,
Big data is just not good way to balance overall. Everything has a reason and they often failed to see it.
Nurse has low killrate because she is hard.
Twins have high killrate in high MMR because only true mains keep playing Twins.
Wraith had high kill rate in low MMR because he is easy.
etc.
if anything they should involve pickrate to balance too, but there is whole issue with free killers etc. but I really wouldn't nerf killer with less than 3% pick rate -> Twins
0 -
People that played more than 1 hour per day where all red ranks.
Of course, in the grand sheme of DbD. The grand majority wasn´t. Because those are playing dbd very casually.
0 -
I think at that point, there should just be bot survivors. I don't understand the point of playing a competitive game if it's that skewed.
In all honesty, I think this game would be much better off with bots, because it's obvious that there are players that want that type of kill rate or that type of escape rate.
1 -
Yeah its the dilemma. When they make a fun killer, everyone plays him and then everyone complains about him (see Legion in the past weeks).
When they make a strong but hard to learn killer, also everyone complains, because they had 1 match against a good nurse and got stomped.
All killers should be at least B-Tier. So people don´t instantly lose, just because they play a certain killer. On top of that, the devs shouldn´t just balance around kills and instead go for hooks.
A bubba with 4 hooks during the whole match, could turn those into a 4k. Which would be considered stronger than a Spirit who got 8 hooks but no kills.
1 -
That will never happen. There will always be S-D list with some killers in them. All you can is make it so difference between S and D is not that big.
Hooks are also not best. Some killers just are way better at slugging -> Oni
0 -
Slugging isn´t hooking. So i don´t see the issue here. Even when he slugs all 4 at the start of the match. It wouldn´t be any different from just balancing around kills.
1 -
But slugging is valid and one of the best ways to win as a killer right now. Twins and Oni are really bad without it.
They would appear to be weak if you balanced only around hooks.
I would want to see 4 stats for each killer tho. Killrate, hooks, winrate, pickrate
0 -
Well Twins are bad. Especially since the nerf.
I think the best way to balance would be to keep every killers special ability in mind. Killers like Bubba with Insta downs will have less hits than Legion. But that would be a major task to keep in mind. Just rudimentary "this is good for everyone" doesn´t apply to certain killers/playstyles.
0 -
Exactly, the grand majority of players weren't red ranks, so red rank killers did not consistently face groups of all similarly red ranked survivors. That inflates the red rank killer kill rates because they have a bunch of matches that include lower rank survivors in them. It's why those ratings are 10% or so higher across the board on that red rank chart compared to the overall averages.
There has never been a time when "most players had around 70-75%" kill rates.
0 -
Again, 68% is pretty close to those 70-75%. You get the point about what i´m trying to say. So why be so adamant about 2% on a very generous statistic?
1 -
Because you're not understanding why the red rank kill rate is 68%, it's because they face non-red rank survivors in a lot of their games which inflates that number. When red rank killers go against only red rank survivors in matches that average is much more in line with the 50-55% numbers on the overall ratings charts.
0 -
I do not care about how strong killer is. If I did, I would be playing survivor NOW.
I would be concerned about the health of the game if they balanced around a 75% killrate.
1 -
It already is. BHVR doesn't disclose killrates for higher MMR killers. The killrates are probably almost 90% if I was to guess.
0 -
Oh i´m totally aware of that. I´ve been preaching exactly what you said, that the rates are artificially inflated, because it matches red ranks with non red ranks. Just like i´m aware, that the current sbmmr is very selective. At least in my killer matches. I either totally stomp survivors with 4 gens left or get totally stomped with 3 hooks by the time the gates are powered. There is no in between. Also a way to achieve 50% kill rate...
0 -
An even more miserable SoloQ experience? No thanks.
0 -
I think we both know better than that. Dont ever change sluzzy, you are my favorite bad faith troll on these boards.
1 -
I'm torn on this statement, Twins is one of the killers I play. I think the Twins are extremely clunky because of the 2 sec Nurse-Stun that happens every time you swap between the two.
But I'm not convinced they are actually bad, because of their zoning capability.
I think the best thing the developers could do is completely get rid of the 2 sec Nurse-stun and integrate the 2 seconds into a delay in switching between the two. So if you are currently Charlotte and hit the switch button, then you continue playing as Charlotte for 2 seconds, then you immediately switch over to Victor. No stun, no dimming of vision.
It would fix the awful clunkiness they have right now. Everytime I switch, I feel like the games lagging because of the nurse-stun thing they have.
0 -
That seems excessive to me.
I also think 50/50 isn't right either, since killers should be scary and intimidating.
Somewhere around 55-60 is a good range I think.
0 -
Unless you are playing with 3 perfect friends, you know I am right. In public matches, the killer wins.
0 -
Now wait a minute. I would like to see this data.
0 -
I dont know friendo, i cant speak for your experiences. I do think the game is killer sided at low mmr. At high mmr i suspect it is very much the opposite.
1 -
I think the devs missed the oportunity to introduce coop killer gameplay with the Twins. Would have been perfect!
This would have also reduced the overall camping, which most people complain about, when facing Twins.
But yeah, the delayed switch between Victor and Charlotte after downing someone is...
0 -
Right, but you also said that "two years ago the kill rates were 75%" which isn't true. A very, very small section of players had around 70% kill rates. The great majority of the playerbase had more like 55% kill rates. The game has never been close to what the original poster is asking for which is most games to have a 75% kill rate on average.
0 -
Yeah balancing around hooks is way better than balancing around kills.
Games where there are more hooks are always more fun for both sides than those with less hooks. So having killers buffed so that they are able to secure more hooks, rather than more camp to deaths, slug to deaths, what have you, is optimal.
The key is how you balance in a way that killers would desire to hook more ( be the optimal strategy), which more than likely would mean a restructuring of the hook mechanic as a whole and adding incentives/buffs upon hooking.
0 -
The issue is more, that it doesn´t matter what kill rate the devs balance around. We won´t know whats the real number. Especially now after the sbmmr has been introduced. Billy, for example is almost as strong as Freddy on the stats. Definetly 70% kill rate. No one would have ever complained about Billys lethality. Everyone though that he was the perfectly balanced killer (with the exception of some addons).
After all, kill rate stats lack details, specifications, filters, etc. There are so many things that could impact the outcome of a match. Survivors disconnecting, suiciding, iri addons, people doing dailys, challenges, SWF, smurfing, events, afking, etc.
0 -
I am planning ask high MMR kill rates for next Q&A but i doubt about your numbers. 90% looks so high. I don't think numbers are higher than 60%
0 -
suppose a killer get 8 hooks but kills nobody every single game. are you saying that killer is winning every match despite fact that 4 survivor are escaping every single match? At what point does the survivor lose by hooks? It would be entirely subjective for how many hooks the killer needs to win. I'm pretty sure that most players would agree that a killer player that gets 2 kills on average is better than a killer player that gets 0-1 kill on average.
Unlike survivors that have a single win condition, the killers have a single win condition that can be fulfilled in 3 ways:
1) Waiting for a survivor to bleed for 4 minutes on the ground
2) Waiting 60 seconds for each individual hook state to pass for total of 120 seconds.
3) Hook a single individual survivor a total of 3 times.
NOED and hook bombing is a reflection of game balance. I'm just guessing that you disagree that camping hooks(win condition #2) as viable strategy. I think player like you that talk about this would just prefer if the game was more balanced around win condition #3 and the other two win conditions(slugging and camping) were put on the side. As seen by the statistics regarding perk usage, NOED does not have very high MMR pick-rate for killers, I'm sure perk does increase kill-rate when it is used but it is probably not as high as you would imagine in regards to overall kill-rate for killers.
-----------------------
In regards to OP post, When I first started playing survivor, the reason why I wanted to play survivor was because I thought survivor was the harder role to win with. I think survivor is harder role to play when your new at the game but it quickly becomes the much easier role to play the more experience you have with survivor and the stronger your teammates are at survivor.
The expectation you would get from playing survivor is that your suppose to face challenging and difficult killers to escape from. Similar to @drsoontm post, Escaping on survivor is more fulfilling when your opponent is stronger, otherwise I would agree with his post that escaping with survivor is pretty bland experience.
Unfortunately, the survivor player-base does not seem to like challenging killers to play against, so most of the killer are not very challenging to play against. As a result, the harder role to play in this game end up being the killer. It does not seem like the game will ever be killer-sided so a kill-rate of 75% is unlikely to occur.
0 -
Again, with those 70% numbers you keep going to those red rank charts and they are much more weakly correlated with the overall averages than the other chart because they tracked red rank killer matches that are skewed by having a much higher number of matches where the killer is high skill and the survivors included average or low skill players. The overall chart is less biased toward that scenario because it includes all matches from all killers and survivors.
0 -
Yeah I'd still play Survivor more challenge I'll will take.
1 -
Thats exactly what i meant. The charts lack additional information. It would be nice if we could access official charts. Use filter on them, to see who played against who, what skill rating, how did it perform, etc. Kinda everything.
For example, streamers used to have 50 kill streak streams. Now they are a lot harder and most stopped attempting them. There were also streamers that went for escape streaks with over 100 escapes. It would actually be nice to see how everyone is rated right now.
1 -
I asked sometime back if survivor players cared about escaping or having a fun back and forth game. Almost unanimously escaping didn't matter to them. Most people playing DbD, at least survivors care about fun not winning.
1 -
It kind of depends on how a win is defined (e.g. counting hooks instead of kills for killer)
0 -
In fact I would argue that Otz and others having a harder time getting long kill streaks is due to MMR being better at putting them against stronger survivors than the Rank system was. Streamers having to "sweat" more is evidence they're going against higher skill opponents than they used to under the old system.
I agree though that it would be nice to have a nice chart showing what the average kill rates are in matches by killer when all the players are within a narrow bracket of each other in terms of MMR. Every time they've released kills-by-rank data it's always just been like the charts you posted above where it's only pivoting on the killer's rank and ignoring their opponents which definitely skews those charts toward higher kills.
1 -
I'd play more survivor if it felt more threatening.
I play DBD because of a love of old 80's horror. DBD is the closest thing that lets you recreate that to some extent in a game setting (F13 did it too but its very dated now).
While I get the competitive balance 50/50 for PVP, personally what I'm looking for is to recreate a classic slasher flick.
Scary killer, struggle to survive, 1 person left alive at the end (the quintessential "last girl"), hard choices, hard consequences.
Now there a lots of survival horror games out there in all kinds of genres (although mostly zombie horror). What do they all have in common though? you only play the hero survivor, never the villain or rarely the villain.
I really enjoy Terminator resistance its great but it shines when you play infiltrator mode.
AVP is a great game and it captures the style and feel of both the alien and predator making all three game modes great. Predator hunting grounds might be a lil easy to kill the predator but overall it does a pretty good job too.
DBD lets you be Micheal Myers, Leatherface, and a host of great original killers but its often more Scooby Doo than Halloween. The gameplay often involves wasting the killers time rather than trying to escape the killer.
I'd relish the game to be more threatening and exciting as survivor. Balancing around 50% escape rate often feels too safe.
There are enough survival horror games where you get to be the monster stomping hero I want to play the victim in a slasher film and try to survive. So It wouldn't bother me to balance around a 75% kill rate because heck I'd find both survivor and killer more fun then.
I get why they don't do that though because its PVP.
0 -
"suppose a killer get 8 hooks but kills nobody every single game. are you saying that killer is winning every match despite fact that 4 survivor are escaping every single match?"
Absolutely. Hooks are way more reflective of how well the killer played than kills.
"At what point does the survivor lose by hooks? It would be entirely subjective for how many hooks the killer needs to win."
The game doesn't say "you won" or "you lost". That's entirely player interpretation. What the game does do is tell you how well you played through pips and category scoring. So "at what point does the survivor lose by hooks?" is actually an irrelevant question, it's how well they played.
"I'm pretty sure that most players would agree that a killer player that gets 2 kills on average is better than a killer player that gets 0-1 kill on average. "
Actually I'm pretty sure the average player would agree that the person who gets 8 hooks is better than the person that got 2 kills.
"NOED and hook bombing is a reflection of game balance."
They don't. They get you kills, but they are not a reflection of skill or how well the game is balanced. Kills is not equal to skill or game balance. Yes, that's what the devs "think", but that's not actually accurate and why their game currently has so many balance problems in the first place.
"the other two win conditions(slugging and camping) were put on the side."
Those can exist in the game. The whole reason we're disagreeing is because you're going by the devs win condition which to me is flawed and incorrect in principle.
"I'm sure perk does increase kill-rate when it is used but it is probably not as high as you would imagine in regards to overall kill-rate for killers."
Most the high end community players I know would disagree with you. The devs also tend to lump all kill rates together and don't regularly separate high from low brackets. Most the data we do have is also data that's non mmr era data which is relevant.
0 -
I think you have some good points here.
I agree completely that the escape/kill metric is bad one for win condition and worse for mmr given how inflated these two metrics can be. The old ranking at least took contribution into account with the emblem system.
Maybe contribution weighted by kill/escape would be a better metric.
While 8 hooks and no kills is probably more indicative of ‘winning’ play than 2 hooks for 2 kills, kills are far more satisfying than hooks making them the goal post in most players minds and probably rightly so just from a game experience perspective.
1 -
Shouldn't be balanced around kill rate at all. Cause perks arent the reason swfs do well. Its because they're actually coordinated and perks make it stronger but arent the key reason they can consistently 3-4 out.
1 -
This game would've been better if it actual felt like an asymmetrical 1v4 horror game, where the killer feels threatening. It should've been balanced around longer matches and the idea that escaping isn't very likely, which puts less emphasis on the desire to win and a more healthy experience overall. But that ships sailed a long time ago.
Still, always have a good chuckle when people argue balance and statistics in a 1v4 game, then boil the balance into the most basic, black and white form of "1 killer, 4 survivors, 2 escape/kill = balance" Yes, I'd choose the path that's easiest to obtain based on statistics, too. That's more fun than.. balancing for fun.
0 -
Hooks are way more reflective of how well the killer played than kills.
I do not agree. I would say that hooks are gateway to kills which reflect the outcome of the game. One of the win conditions is getting 3 hooks on an individual survivor so hooks definitely play a part in how good the killer plays. They're not only factor though.
The game doesn't say "you won" or "you lost". That's entirely player interpretation. What the game does do is tell you how well you played through pips and category scoring. So "at what point does the survivor lose by hooks?" is actually an irrelevant question, it's how well they played.
This answer dodges the question entirely. how well you played is reflective for whether you lost or won according to the game win-condition which is kills.
They don't. They get you kills, but they are not a reflection of skill or how well the game is balanced.
they influence the end result. you might disagree with how certain killers are getting such results, but killers are not breaking rules or anything.
Yes, that's what the devs "think", but that's not actually accurate and why their game currently has so many balance problems in the first place.
I'd say the game has balance problems because the dev favor the survivor's opinion over the killers leading to some very survivor-sided gameplay in terms of fun. The killers unfortunately just have to go with the flow. If you don't like it, just take mathieu advice with Civilization.
0 -
yes because i prefer the survivor gameplay. i don't actually care about the end result because the game is highly luck based as is. in fact, based on my recent experience, i'm pretty sure my survival rate in solo gameplay is below 50%.
0
