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!
So what should the killrates be and why?
Like a month ago, killrates from all over MMR as well as top 5% were shared by BHVR as you may all know.
The reaction from both sides was interesting. So I am asking, what should they have been in your opinion and why? And under what circumstances?
Comments
-
I like a 60/40 balance in favor of killers, honestly. I feel like thematically (I am a huge horror fan in general) the game feels better when you feel like death is the more likely outcome as a survivor. I want the odds against me, it makes escape feel like an accomplishment.
In horror movies, how often does half the main cast of protags make it out alive? Essentially never. An imbalanced kill rate just feels more appropriate to me.
Objectively, the game is fundamentally asymmetrical and unbalanced. Shooting for a 50/50 is trying to lay a symmetrical game balance ideal on a game that is inherently imbalanced, and likely unbalanceable.
30 -
By horror convention, shouldn't 1 survivor always have more than 50% chance of escaping then? Perhaps even higher. Considering the final girl trope.
14 -
some where in-between 2K and a 3K.
This gives us two good things:
- Survivors felt they escaped a Killer that could have had them.
- a Killer who feel like they managed to do something in the match.
Its an overall satisfying match for reasonable people, everyone had fun. So bHVR is smart for looking at 60% ish Kill rates.
4 -
I've always felt like surviving shouldn't be an expected outcome. 3k 1e should be the balance, kinda like in horror movies. A 4e should be almost impossible to get.
It's always more fun when you have to fear/respect the killer. Being able to do things like pop a gen in their face, go on 2+ gen chases, and bodyblock hooks all without fear of serious consequences makes the game feel silly.
11 -
Does that mean 4k should also almost be impossible to get?
5 -
Yeah I think so. Whether the survivor gets out through hatch or gates. There should definitely be some sore of mechanic in place that makes it easier to escape based on how many gens were completed.
1 -
It should probably be a 3k. That can mean either that the killer did good and 1 person got a free hatch escape, or the survivors fought well and barely got 1-2 people out. Just make the killer feel like an active threat to survival, at least.
3 -
This is already the top answer. I wanted to write something similar, but checked the couple of first replies, and well, there you already wrote your piece :)
3 -
In theory, sure, but there's no way to translate that to a 4v1 and make it remotely fair. I don't think one surv being blessed above the others each game wouldn't go over very well.
I like the team aspect, and I think we've all been in that situation where we know another surv has a better chance of getting out (due to hook/health states, etc.), and essentially gave ourselves up so they could carry on. And I feel vicarious success if that surv ends up making it out.
Like the "final girl(s)" is a product of circumstance and gameplay rather than having been designated ahead of time.
If everything was a statistical coinflip it just wouldn't feel as compelling to me.
Of course this all just my feeling on the subject.
2 -
I'd prefer a 50/50 chance of escaping or dying, for fairness reasons, but neither BHVR decisions nor the matchmaking seem to be in agreement with that sentiment.
I just don't like the idea of a multiplayer game where one side is officially given more chances of winning, just because.
However, I understand the thought behind it, and won't fight anyone over this opinion.
9 -
Yep, 0k and 4k should be extreme occurrences.
1 survivor should be pretty much guaranteed to be killed, and "slugging for the 4k" shouldn't be a thing.
5 -
This content has been removed.
-
They already do. The last survivor always has a chance at the hatch. That's a privilege none of the other 3 survivors got.
2 -
50|50 shouldn't be a things, sure when you look at it from the killers perspective then it should be, but 50|50 means that a Killer getting a draw has 2 survivors win.
60|40 means that 1 Killer winning should result in 1~2 survivors escaping. As BHVR has made it clear that this isn't a team game where if 2-3 people escape then your team wins, it's if YOU escape then YOU win and YOU have your MMR increased, regardless of performance.
I could even see them aiming for a 65|35, meaning statically a 3K is more common than a 2K. But due to hatch, I see this being more unlikely.
2 -
If the killer slugs though, that chance drops down significantly. And killer is faster anyway, so he finds it faster no?
4 -
But BHVR has plans to add team MMR. So basically 2 survivors escaping isn't a team win. It's a draw.
4 -
A 50% kill rate doesn't mean you have a 50% chance of escaping.
Your own personal success rate is not something that should reflect the average rates, or you are a perfectly average player. Your success should not be wholly contingent on RNG factors outside of your control, they should be reliant on your skill as a survivor.
Fact is even with a 60% kill rate, there are SWF teams who escape far more often than 60% of the time, and killers who "nearly always" lose, that's just how averages work out.
Then there's the fact that the game is asymmetrical. A 3K game has precisely two winners and three losers. So 2/5ths (40%) or have won a game, but the figures show a 3/4 (75%) kill rate. That doesn't add up.
Meanwhile a 2K game has two winners (both survivors) and one draw for the killer. The killer hasn't won, two survivors have won, so the 'win rate' is 40%, but the kill rate is a balanced 50%? That doesn't add up either.
This is to illustrate that 'kill rate' != 'win rate'. The kill rate will always be higher than the win rate on average, and so a 60% kill rate is actually reflective of a more or less balanced win rate when you factor in the fact that there are five players per game, each playing their own personal game, with win conditions that are not contingent on the outcome for the other four players in that game (one survivor can win while another survivor loses, regardless of whether or not the killer has won).
This isn't something that's very intuitive, and I think it might be better understood if there weren't an even number of survivors in a game. If it was a 3v1 or 5v1 by design, it would be much easier to tell that kill rates != win rates.
Post edited by Seraphor on6 -
Around 60% makes sense to me. That basically means a killer would generally get 2-3 kills a match, with 0ks and 4ks being uncommon outliers.
0 -
This.. 60/40… the extra 20% difference in killer winning would be your solos and lower MMR.. teams that play together (not SWF) should have a higher if not equal chance to escape as the killer winning, given they don’t make mistakes.
killers should have the upper hand in matches, survivors build on their chances by teamwork, perks and such
1 -
Anyone tell you that you explain stuff really well ? =)
1 -
It's not team MMR. It's a multiplier that factors in the overall teams success, so that the degree of your win/loss is reflective of your presumed contribution to the team.
Even in a 2K scenario, there will be two survivors who gain MMR, and two survivors who lose MMR.
2 -
Yes definitely, my point is that last survivor still has a much bigger chance at surviving than the others. The chance can definitely decrease rapidly lol, or be improved with perks (which is a waste of perks imo)
1 -
Sole Survivor is actually a pretty solid perk.
Most games will usually see at least one survivor sacrificed, which means you nearly always benefit from range-based Distortion towards the end of the game (not just at EGC). Then the added bonus towards unlocking speed as the last survivor is a solid insurance policy.
0 -
Yeah, but slugging for the 4k is a thing that counters it, so you'd have to prove that slugging for the 4k isn't that good at denying 1e through hatch. Can you prove that? And maybe slugging when 2 are left should be nerfed so the game follows horror conventions better, wouldn't you say?
0 -
Hatch isn’t a good “final girl moment” for survivors. Killers generally find it first, survivors need to play very specifically for a chance to use it, and it isn’t treated as a win for that one survivor but a null. Final girls always live. Not “maybe” but definitely. 🤷♀️
1 -
Yeah I agree, if we were to follow horror movie tradition, 90% of the games would have at least 1 escape and I agree that hatch is sort of a consolation prize. If anything, sole survivor should have been basekit if they wished to honor that trope.
I left a 10% cause sometimes final girl is killed in the sequels (only for another final girl to get her place, but you get the idea).
0 -
Aim should be closer to 2e/2k where survivors/killer have good back and forth with 3e/3k being a tough match where one side just managed to outplay the other.
Every match should have at minimum 1 escape and 1 kill.
4e/4k should be incredibly rare. These should only happen when one side completely screws up or matchmaking was ridiculously off - or killer/survivors gave the other side the 4e/4k.
Ultimately though I'd rather it not just be flat out kills but kills and hooks. A 2 hook 2 kill game tends to have little interaction while a 10 hook 2 kill game has a bunch of interaction.
2 -
You have discovered the reason behind hatch.
0 -
I think the current 60/40 is fine. I think if kill rates went higher they would have a hard time retaining new survivors, and killer would probably become boring real quick. Games should always be challenging.
1 -
wow there are a lot of killer mains on this forum lmao
8 -
it is not about kill-rate for killer's. it is about the gameplay satisfaction in playing said killer.
0 -
1 escape and sometimes 2 escape yes. The thing is survivors always have to finish 5 Gens to achieve 2 escape. Which is, the game is balanced with 5 Gens complete at least 70% every match.
2 -
The current 60% kill rate includes SWF. I’d bet it’s even higher vs. solos. That’s not what I’d call balanced.
6 -
Also doesn't include any match where a player DCs.
4 -
Feels bad for the devs that there are so many players who aren't interested in a balanced game for both sides. The first page of posts in this thread are...grim.
2 -
It should be balanced around a 2k at the mid level. This is a game that should be fun for both sides, not a horror movie or a power trip fantasy for either side.
5 -
There really isn't a "should" and "shouldn't" when it comes to statistics, only an "is" and "isn't." Looking at the end result in a purely mathematical sense and then trying to engineer a desired result by manipulating things behinds the scenes generally ends in disaster when the thing you're trying to manipulate is the product of human behaviour.
That being said, players should be able to realistically believe that they have a solid chance at winning. 60/40 is pretty good in that regard. Killers get a 2k or 3k most games, and survivors have a very reasonable chance to escape if they aren't bumbling around.
0 -
50% chance at escape are unrealistic if you're trying to go for a "fair" 50/50"concept of giving killers and survivors zhe "same" chance to win. An individual escape is a win for that survivor but a killer needs 3 or 4 kills to win, depending on if you think that not doing all objectives is reaching the goal . Remember survivors are still not judged as a team in the game.
With 50% escape chance would mean 6.25% for a true killer win.
Escapechance: X per survivor
"4k is a win"Killerwinchance (1-X)^4
Ofc you can modify it with giving the last survivor a modified chance with hatch. Set h=0,c=0 if you think the last kill doeant matter because 3k is a win already;
killer win chance: (1-X)^3 * (1-(X*h+c))
Post edited by Raptorrotas on1 -
definitely but to be fair either side will justify anything lol.
The game is pretty balance outside match making to me. I would prefer a 50%/ 50% tho ( simply cause i wanna win as much as possible)
2 -
Let me say it this way: Escaping should be an exception, something special, something to be proud about and NOT common - even if it's just the hatch. So yes, killrates should be always higher than escape rates. And i think they're fine in solo queue since the latest, big balance update.
1 -
that's why hatch exists, it gives survivor essentially 2 50/50 chances to escape.
0 -
Which is why the game lost a massive 12% of its Steam playerbase in November. Also why there are so many rage dcs and suicides compared to in the past. Solo queue is a nightmare. You can't make the game unfun for that much of your playerbase.
7 -
No, it shouldnt. Its a pvp game. In Souls-like games its ok, if i die 99 times and then win. But i dont want to be the boss/killer who kills you 99 out of 100 times bc i have the advantage. Thats so boring. I want to be challenged as killer.
3 -
Considering that a killer is generally faster than a survivor, and that's not including killers that have speed/travel as their power, it's not a privilege, especially when hatch doesn't count towards a win but a draw.
1 -
60% is fair right now, bc its so easy to always get one kill.
Without it 50/50 would be the best.
But i guess it makes sense to get one kill easier similar to the hatch. With this little chance of success players are more likely to not give up.
0 -
If you don't feel playing killer is challening, you're MMR is just too low. Or you're a nurse main.
0 -
Does one survivor get hatch 90% of the time or more?
3 -
50% chance is different than the guaranteed survival final girl has in the movies.
2 -
I didnt say killer is not challenging right now. I said your changes would make it boring.
3 -
a decent amount of the time u don't even get a chance at the hatch cause they slugging for the 4k. I hate the hatch as a survivor anyway. Just make people give up and play cowardly near the end.
0
