nurse has lowest kill rate
Comments
-
Excellent, we agree then. Sounds like we need to nerf survivors then. Since in the hands of a SWF kill squad, survivors are too strong.
0 -
Correct, just as the kill rate is an excuse for bad survivors. We should nerf survivors because in the hands of the highest level SWF kill squads survivors are obviously far too powerful.
0 -
Honestly man, with how good aura reading perks feel on her i would hate to take them off. But i mean something like 10 kill streak with no perks or add ons isnt really that hard unless you get a ######### map for her.
And i do think there are ######### maps for her that while not impossible to play in makes things a lot harder, like treatment theatre that loves eating your blinks in half of the map.
0 -
So then both are fine, and we shouldn't nerf them?
0 -
The issue right now is that there is such great disparity between what the average player can do, and what the upper echelon of players are capable of. You don't want to alienate any part of the playerbase when creating an update, but that is not always possible.
From a business standpoint, the end goal of each balance update is to retain players (and hopefully even bring in a new audience).
What will make most players happy? Answer: Balancing the game around most players.
If BHVR's business model put heavy importance on entering and establishing the competitive scene, then yes... they absolutely should balance around the best players. But seeing as this game is only competitive to those who wish to make it so, BHVR should continue to focus on balancing the game around its largest population of players.
Her killrate doesn't prove it.
Go read How to Lie With Statistics, i'm sure you'll find it fascinating and informative. Maybe even a little eye-opening.
0 -
Nurse has the highest skill floor of all the killers for two main reasons
- Her ability requires fairly precise timing and has no easy feedback as you use it, you just have to learn to feel it out over time.
- She is the only killer that can't chase survivors at all normally. Every other killer has the option to, if you are having trouble using their special ability, at least chase survivors on foot with basic attacks. Even Huntress and other 110% killers can get downs on foot if they have to. Nurse though moves slower than survivors so has to get virtually all of her hits using her blinks. So until you actually build up the muscle memory to get those blink hits reliably you can't do well with her at all.
The above is why Nurse has such a low kill rate when viewed across all matches over all MMR but has a fairly high kill rate among above average players. It takes time to get to the point you can hit consistently with blinks and you have no other options until that happens.
0 -
Nurse has one of the highest pickrates, but the lowest killrate. Why do you think that is?
Because she comes free with the game, and is played most frequently by new players with little-to-no experience with her (or the game).
If Nurse's player count/play time graph looks like this, it explains why her killrate is so low despite her lethality. Her stats have been tanked by the fact that she is played most frequently by players who don't know how to use her kit.
You are assuming there are an equal number of good nurses as there are bad nurses, and that is simply not true. There are significantly more bad nurses than good (or even average) nurses.
This doesn't mean that an average nurse is bad, it means that the average nurse is bad.
There is a distinction (mastery v. prevalence), and that is why she needs to be nerfed.
0 -
If her killrate is indeed still negative, neither the mastery nor the prevalence exists in the frequency that Nurse haters claim. That's the point.
Show where the statistics lie, instead of referring people to a book about statistics. If 1 God-Tier Nurse player exists, as a hypothetical, and he wins every damn game he plays, as Nurse haters claim, and he plays 1000 games, that means there is more than 1000 games where every Nurse lost in order to yield that negative kill rate.
Just how many games do you think new Nurse players are trying, losing, and still trying before giving up completely to make your scenario a reality?
We all know what the reality is when looking at this. Nurse isn't a monolith, just like every other killer, and her winrate exists on a bell curve where the grand majority of the Nurse players avg to 2k.
0 -
Neither the mastery nor the prevalence exists in the frequency that Nurse haters claim
We have not been presented the data to support this claim.
I know you just walked into this conversation, but I've already addressed how and why the statistics are misleading. The comment you've replied to even contains one possible theory about how Papi is misrepresenting the data.
If [a nurse 4k's] ... [in] 1,000 games, that means there is more than 1,000 games where every nurse lost in order to yield that negative kill rate.
Earlier this year, DBD boasted a record 50 million total players.
If all 50 million players played nurse at least once, and nurse's kill rate was 12.5% after those 50 million games, it would take just under 40 million 4k's to bring nurse's kill rate above 50%.
So yes, it is entirely possible that Nurse has accrued a massive kill rate deficit from unskilled players.
1,000 4k's would still leave the nurse with a 12.5% kill rate in this scenario.
0 -
I said lower cooldown not no cooldown... regardless you could certainly buff it, same with im all ears etc. Point being the team have to be incredibly careful about future perk designs simply because of this killer
0 -
It's hit or miss with nurse, they're even super good vets or really bad. Let me go deeper into this.
1. It's 50/50 if you go up against a nurse and they are good or bad. If they are bad that's an insta escape but if they are good then you would probably get booty clapped, especially if you're jane. But the fact that veteran players that don't play nurse much, try out nurse and are not good with her is a huge factor why she is fine. A good killer main can go from myers to Pyramid head and be good with both, but if someone transfered to nurse it would take alot of time to get good and people arnt that dedicated especially newer players.
2. You don't really go against nurses even in high MMR. Don't say you go against a nurse every match cause you really don't. Console players don't play nurse (or atleast good at her), and PC pro nurse mains get tired of her too. Now Nintendo switch nurse mains are bangers. I give all my respect to them. I maybe go against a nurse 1/15 matches and I'm Fairley high on mmr (atleast I think).
3. Nurse is a good fall back for killers, especially people that want to rank up to iri. You get destroyed by a bully squad? Go to nurse and beat some ass. But again this is rare because people don't know how to player her.
0 -
I know I'm all ears is fine on nurse rn, I mean it could be buffed a decent bit but rn if it was nurse limits it. Starstruck on a lower cooldown would be fine, when does it ever see play on anyone except nurse? Again perk design is limited because of her and thats a fact, bypassing pallets and windows does indeed limit perk design.
0 -
If u dont provide evidence ur point is invalid.
0 -
But both sides in tournaments have restrictions. I think Nurse is a powerhouse if you can play whatever perks and addons drip with bloodsweat.
0 -
Unless a game is so luck-driven that it doesn't matter, there's always going to be a big disparaty in what high-skill players are capable of and what low-skill players are capable of. Dead By Daylight is not unique at all in this regard. Many games opt to balance for the skilled player, not the less skilled players because game devs don't want the game to be too easily broken in half balance-wise by people who know what they're doing.
0 -
- That's a weird way of saying "The people who claim nurse is too prevalent/easy to get good at" don't need to provide additional proof, but those who use the kill-rate statistics actually provided do.
- My examples make use of commonly understood norms, especially when considering competitive play. Your example erroneously assumes everyone plays Nurse once, and immediately loses and doesn't do anything with it again. We have; Dailies, people who enjoy Nurse casually, people who enjoy Nurse competitively - but don't sweat, people who only play Nurse, and people who only play her once. You've created an unrealistic scenario to support your point. Hell, some of those one game only Nurses will actually get a kill or two (Edit: Gasp, they may even win!) because they'll be playing on fresh Nurse MMR against potatoes.
So, no, Nurse isn't being piggybacked by the entire population playing and losing on her, allowing the 'good' nurses to run rampant. Good nurses are losing all the time, too. To good or better survivors.
0 -
Im on console and do fine with her 3-4K every game so far but she is easier on pc ofcourse like every killer is. But blight, hillbilly or oni are harder on console as there is certain techs you can't do on console and their turning rate is also higher on pc. I think nurse works actually very well on console and I don't know if there is anything you can't do that pc nurses can do but you just have to be more skilled. Even killer like hag is limited on console you can't teleport fast enough from traps compared to pc.
0 -
I don't hang around the RTS scene, so I can't speak on how games like Starcraft are balanced between Pubs and Comp, but I can say with certainty that Dead by Daylight's skill-gap disparity is very unique with respect to every popular competitive FPS and Moba on the market.
In competitive sports there are the 3 pillars of mastery:
- Mechanical Skill/Ability to Execute
- Game Sense/Strategy
- Coordination/Team Work
A player's overall skill level is derived from how proficient they are in each of these skills.
Players who lack in coordination or game sense can make up for their performance with great mechanical skill, and vice versa.
In DBD, the mechanical skill ceiling is so low that it has virtually no impact on the outcome of an average game. This means that a player with poor coordination and game sense cannot depend on their mechanical skill to pull enough weight. They either know how to play the game, or they don't.
This creates a scenario in which players plateau until they learn how to play the game, at which point they see dramatic gains in performance. Players in DBD don't improve inch-by-inch--they either improve in leaps and bounds, or they don't improve at all.
This creates a far greater skill-gap disparity than you'll find in other sports.
This wouldn't be problematic if DBD was a symmetrical game. The Killer being the defacto power role means that if the game is balanced around people who know how to play everything optimally, players who lack that knowledge will be unable to influence the outcome of their match until they learn how to play optimally.
In its current state, balancing DBD around "skilled play" means every game is the Killer's game to lose, and survivors can all but hope they stumble into the right strategy every time.
---
For the record, I for the longest time have wanted the game to be balanced around skilled play. Even right now, I believe the game is incredibly survivor-sided. I'm constantly left dumbfounded by players inability to grasp basic concepts, like seriously... how hard is it to recognize that looping the killer back to, or around, a hooked survivor is a terrible idea? ffs.
Unless BHVR found a way to raise the skill ceiling in DBD, I don't believe it is in the best interest of the game to balance around the top players.
0 -
It's not a "DbD vs. other competitive games" thing. That's just the nature of games in general. The gap between skilled players and non-skilled players will always be pretty wide if the game doesn't have anything that actively mitigates how much skill factors in. Players who aren't skilled will not be able to meaningfully do anything about it in most games if they are paired up vs players who actually are skilled.
1 -
That is a weird way of saying...
I initially typed up 2 paragraphs explaining why you can't make that comment. I find it insulting that you'd take the opportunity to make a snide remark, because I chose brevity over patronizing.
Your example erroneously assumes...
My example exists only to show you how infinitesimal 1,000 4k's are, with respect to a killer's global kill rate.
You don't need to come at me with an attitude, just because I can poke holes in your declarations.
0 -
Oh, I agree. I'm not sure if that is what you meant with your initial comment about disparity, as that is not how I read it--it sounded like you meant between tiers of players, not match-ups between individuals of varying skill.
0 -
It's both. My point is that the idea of "the gap between low skilled and high skilled players is huge" is just a thing across video games and not just a DBD thing, so the idea that DBD shouldn't be balanced around high skilled players because of that doesn't make sense to me because that's not how other games do it when in a similar position.
0 -
Right, so that is what I tried to explain with my response.
It largely boils down to the lack of mechanical skill in DBD. It creates a disparity in which players are either good or they are not, and a player who is not can't do much about that during the game. And by nature of the game a not skilled killer is at less of a disadvantage than a not skilled survivor.
0 -
Players who are weak are generally not able to do much vs. players who are strong in games overall anyway. As for the Killer vs. Survivor thing, that is mainly due to Survivors requiring better team coordination to win. Bad Survivors can sink a team.
0 -
Players who are weak are generally not able to do much vs. players who are strong in games overall
...but they can. Games other than DBD provide players with an opportunity to perform above and below their skill-level over the course of a match, because of the mechanical skill involved.
Anyway... i'm not sure how best to explain myself at the moment, so I'll drop the conversation for now. Perhaps I'll follow-up if I can find the right words to convey my thoughts
0 -
"Games other than DBD provide players with an opportunity to perform above and below their skill-level over the course of a match, because of the mechanical skill involved."
What does that even mean?
0 -
In any shooting game, a person's accuracy will constantly fluctuate above and below their average accuracy.
For example, a player who averages 40% accuracy may end their first game of the day shooting 20% accuracy, while their fifth game of the day might see them shooting 70% accuracy.
This in turn enables players to see variable success even when competing at their proper skill level.
---
In the context of our conversation, it is relevant because the human inability to constantly perform at peak physicality has bigger implications with respect to game balance.
0 -
since devs look only at the statistics... she needs a buff. Oh, that and the pig needs to be nerfed...
0 -
Isn't that just gaming? Sometimes you do better than average and sometimes you do worse?
0 -
The nuance that I'm talking about is not present in DBD.
At its core, high level DBD is just a bunch of human computers executing a series of 'if-then' command sequences.
Have you ever seen the movie War Games?
Balancing DBD (in its current state) around the highest levels of play would turn it into tic-tac-toe. Every game would end in a draw at the highest levels, because there is simply not enough mechanical skill involved for players to actually influence the outcome of their game.
0 -
Not saying that I think DBD is the pinnacle of mechanical execution, but I'm not sure I agree with your stance.
0
