What is Your Ideal Survival Ratio
Comments
-
Ideal is to at least play a little. Survive to 1-2 gens left. Not getting camped on hook or tunneled and 5 gens (or sitting with m1 while teammate camped or tunneled)
3 -
As killer, the games where I get 9-10 hooks, kill one survivor during the gen phase, and one as they are trying to get out of the gates, had good hunts, and everyone had decent manners about it are my favorite. If that was my average match, I'd be thrilled.
As solo survivor it feels like I get out about 40-50% of the time (but that's counting hatches). It feels alright to me, but those streaks where you die 5-6 games in a row are rough.
2 -
The kill rate should be around 60% imo.
The killer needs to be strong enough to actually be a real threat, but survivors also need to have an adequate opportunity to escape. But 0ks should be less common than 4ks.
70% is too high.
3 -
lol a win for Killer has been defined as a 3k or 4k by the devs, and that is how the mmr works. The game is already hemorrhaging Killer mains again since the HUD update, and you are out here saying its too high as is. You wont have killers to play against if the devs don't get off their asses. We are right back where we were when survivor queues were longer then the average match.
90% of the killer roster is not currently viable. Hit and Run playstyle is all but completely removed from the game. 6 second heals completely negate any pressure from a 4 stack being injured. Average locker reload (not including standing right by one when needing a reload), takes longer then a brown medkit heal. Hooking players takes half a gen worth time in this meta at minimum, and new HUD makes slugging less viable at the same time, diminishing pressure via downing players. Maps suck ass, and continue to be reworked into sucking more ass. Killers still remained bugged for several patches.
Devs have until the next Chapter release to flip it around, or its going to be back-to-back flops on releases. If next Chapter flops, the games population will dip hard until the Anniversary Chapter release.
0 -
HARD AGREE!! it implies that all the gens probably got done which is incentive for survivors but the killer was able to maintain pressure. It also gives the survivors incentive to try because more than one can survive.
Post edited by AnnaEliza365 on0 -
I wonder why you think that killer is miserable. Ah I see because then you will be the victim of bullying.
I don't get it how bullying can be fun. Not in real world nor in a game. I just don't have that low selfconfidence to bully someone to feel better.
Back to topic, I think 60 to 70 percent. But the main objective are hooks, not kills for the killer. Death of a survivor is just the outcome of hooking "too often" , so to say.
1 -
The "verge of death" in this game isnt someone survive with their 1% health point, survivor can litterally die in a single hit with Expose/Instant down then camped on hook.
The kill rate 75% litterally mean 2nd survivor have 0% chance to escape...where is the incentive?
60% kill rate means 2nd survivor have 60% chance to escape.
Again, you dont do something that the chance to get better result is less than 50%.
Post edited by C3Tooth on3 -
Hatch doesnt count win/lose point for Killer, but I dont know if Hatch escape count as escape in stat, it should though.
Admit that there are many suicide/DC that mess up the kill rate. No, I dont tell the suicide DC where survivors make big mistake that there is no other result than a hatch escape, those makes no difference. I tell the suicide DC where they're litterally on first hook with 2 Gens left.
Without those suicide DC, the kill rate would be slightly less than currently, maximum 5% less I think, but enough to have Killers get further buff.
2K 2K 3K match for Killers, I understand the kill rate in those match feels like its not a win for them but tie, for the average kill rate per match should be higher than 50% to feel like winning
The game should be 5v1, the 60% kill rate would make 3 die out of 5 survivors every match, that would make playing killers more satisfied
1 -
I find myself getting a 2k on average however, this 2k is typically obtained in an extremely scummy way that doesn't make me feel proud of myself. If they can make this 2k happen naturally more and less scummy to obtain I wouldn't mind that.
0 -
Doesn't that only stick for, like, Jason? Everyone else it's more like making them go away for a while (and then he got in on the not-dying thing too).
0 -
For all intent and purpose let's pretend we are taking about a "fair" ideal "fun" match for both sides and May the entity be praised to see that dream.
"Killer is doing well enough that spreading attention was possible and no hooks were consecutive. Survivors have done well enough that gens kept moving despite losing multiple chases."
In this situation, as the last gens are nearly complete, at least one survivor would be on edge as escape is within reach but death a mistake away. The verge of death is the chance of running into the killer before reaching an exit.
But ofcourse that's all completely based in the dream scenario with balance to match.
0 -
@C3Tooth I said I wanted a 70% kill rate, which means the 2nd survivor DOES have a chance of surviving.
1 -
20% chance to escape? Its not enough to try. Do you play a match against a team knowing you have 20% to win? Or skip lobby?
Survivor can run for 5 Gens and still die to Noed.
The core game design is a huge flaw. 60% kill rate is the perfect number, where 2nd survivor have 60% chance to escape (saying 15%/25% for a survivor).
The chance must be more than 50% to encourage someone to try.
Suicide,DC is what mess up the kill rate, it should be lower than 60% but not too far, though would be enough to give killers further buff. No, I dont tell the suicide DC where survivors make big mistake that there is no other result than a hatch escape, those makes no difference in kill rate. I tell the suicide DC where they're litterally on first hook with 2 Gens left, where 3-4 escape possibly match suddenly lead to 3-4k
1 -
Where are you deriving that 60% number from? That isn't how averages work. That a 40% survival rate means 1.6 Survivors escape on average does not mean the expected result is one guaranteed Survival and someone with a better-than-average chance of getting out. <_>
0 -
You still know the chance to get 2nd survivor escape is still higher than death. Which is enough for survivors try playing, is the point.
1 -
I go for about 35 percent. No pressure. No ######### given. Slow ride. Take it easy.
0 -
I don't care about kill rates. Not one bit.
I care about the delta between 'this match was fair and I could have won that/lost that' and 'this match was silly, and I can't think of a way I could have won/lost that' stomps.
Stop survivors from quitting out of any match that isn't going well, incentivize them to stick it out with better scoring/BP returns on losing games.
Why would it be dead?
It didn't die when killers were horrible.
2 -
KS don't mean anything, it can't be used for anything, look at the nurse and the pig, the nurse has KS 30% the pig has 60%
if we focus on KS, then we have to strengthen the nurse by 2 times, so KS is bad and does not affect
even if we take a coin and flip it 100 times, then we can have a ratio of 75/25, 40/60
so you need to look at how it works in the game, and not at some random numbers
by the way, this statistic is already 4 months old and it was collected when the survivors had not yet learned how to use dh
but if suddenly we find ourselves in the world of fantasy where KS is assembled in real time and means something,
i would like it to be 65-70% HOWEVER it should be pure percentage
no suicides, no camping, no tunnel, no beginner players
(sui, camping, tunneling and novice players are around 30% of total kills these days)
good killer vs. good swf 65-70%
Post edited by sanees on0 -
The game does have a wide range between safety and death, but thats fine as every survivor should be safeguarding their health and hook states anyway ( never assume or bank on additional chances).
Lower rates also mean the killer was only able to give attention to 50% on average which also inflates the idea of every killer tunneling. Low interaction matches are just boring on both sides.
Again (as the current version is not there yet) in an ideal outcome of spread attention, a higher rate would indicate more interactions. Balancing toward more chases and time to do so without stripping away the chance to escape for survivors that matched the killer in playing well.
I'd like to see survivor escapes as something infrequent for the whole team but also not just a given because 2 teammates received all the attention.
0 -
A 69% kill rate would be nice.
Seriously, kill rate should be a metric at best, not a design goal.
Theoretically, you could give one side a massive buff, forcing the other side to adept a more "try hard" playstyle and have the kill rate remain constant while everyones experience suffers.
A 50 or 70% kill rate environment which allows for builds and playstyles which are fun for the user and fair for the opponent would be better for the game than reaching 60% through a meta which encourages a playstyle that ruins the fun for the other side, like we have right now.
1 -
I don't know why it wouldn't be 50%.
1 -
Guaranteed 0K too ...
It just means there is a bit more 4K and 3K than 1K and 0K, that's all. As for the draw, it should be around that percentage.
It feels like you are taking that 75% too literally. (As I said that I'm against a number that high, but that's not the point.)
About going for the hatch, assuming there are even people thinking it's worth playing, the chance of survival are probably pretty low because it means to guarantee 3 deaths and then, maybe, have a save. That's way way worse than 75% kill rate.
I'm guessing it would probably be closer to a 87%. kill rate. (50% chance to find the hatch or play the doors after 3 dead)
1 -
a perfect game is 4 kills, 4 hooks, 8 attacks, 5 unfinished generators.
absolute defeat is when 4 survivors escape without ever being downed.
anything in between where all 4 survivors die is a normal win.
a normal loss is when any survivor escapes
(aiming for a kill rate is pointless, but assuming everything is balanced then a killer should be 66% successful. otherwise the game would be boring)
1 -
i don't think we should think about the game in terms of KILL RATE.
Nurse has one of the lowest kill rates in the game and yet is the strongest killer.
i want to think of the game in terms of - if I play well as a killer what are my chances of securing more than 2 kills? obviously playing well as a trapper doesn't mean anything because the power is so weak. yet shouldn't good play result in kills? this is why people play nurse and blight because skill level has a direct relationship with kill rate.
1 -
This.
I don't want any kills after the first survivor DC'd. They've already lost their value.
There's nothing worse than getting into a match and knowing in the first 60 seconds that it's either:
A) I'm going to lose no matter how hard I try
B) I'm going to win no matter how little I try
1 -
The fact that people would hide and wait for others to die is WHY the kill rate is high in the first place. If sucky ass people existed like this and the kill rate is still balanced for 50%, killers are weak as hell.
3 -
Kill rate is such a simple but odd way of looking at who wins in this game. As a killer, killing 3 people makes sense as a goal, but as a survivor it feels like it doesn't matter if 3 of your team mates escape if you're the only one who dies unless you died to save someone else.
Survivors' POV messes the whole balancing, because it doesn't matter 3 people died, as long as I am out I feel like I won. Rather than a 4 vs 1 it feels like a 4 (1, 1, 1, 1) vs 1.
It doesn't matter to me that my team mates all escaped if I got tunneled out the first minute of the game. I count that as a loss, as I generally won't stand around long enough to see the end game regardless of the result.
This is also the reason I almost never give hatch when I'm playing killer. When I'm the 3rd to die only for the last survivor to throw a party with the killer to get a pity hatch, it kinda feels disrespectful to everyone else's efforts to win throughout the match.
This is why I don't like to see this as a competitive game and I'd rather see it as a party game. As long as I'm getting a lot of BP and I'm not getting "Strategically supressed", I'm okay with anything.
2 -
75% means 75/100. Equal to 3/4. 3 of 4 death every match.
The chance for 4K is 300% higher than 0K. What do you think the rate make survivors want to do Gen?
1 -
Not every match.
The probability for 4K is only 3 times the probability for 0K if there is no 1K, 2K and 3K. (Btw, I understand 300% higher as 4 times, I'm assuming you didn't mean to say "higher")
There are, however, matches with 1K, 2K and 3K. With the (insane) 75% kill rate value, the majority of matches would be in the 2 to 4 kills range. Matches with 0 and 1 kills would be pretty rare in comparison.
That's still better than only playing for hatch.
And, I know I've said it, but I consider 75% too high. 60% seems to be a sweet spot.
0 -
"Survivors' POV messes the whole balancing, because it doesn't matter 3 people died, as long as I am out I feel like I won. Rather than a 4 vs 1 it feels like a 4 (1, 1, 1, 1) vs 1."
This is exactly why the game has the balance problems that it does. It is a 4v1 and should be balanced as a 4v1 in order to be in fact balanced, but it's currently "balanced" as a 4v1,1,1,1. As you mentioned, balancing this way generally speaking makes everyone feel like a winner, but completely throws balance out the window as you're making 1 of the 4 be able to stand toe to toe with the killer unreasonably for their experience to be more enjoyable.
This is the difficulty of balancing an asymmetrical game. The balancing required to have actual good balance hinders the enjoyment of the individuals in the 4.
0 -
+ add in suicides inflating that number as well
+ the extra kills you get from survivors dive bombing the hook at end game as they refuse to let that one guy die
+ the killer just face camps/tunnels someone so everyone basically kills themselves to them in order to move on
+ whoever gets hooked as the last gen gets done even if it's their first hook is basically dead as the killer isn't leaving then
Think of our average matches and compare how many kills the killer has right as the last gen is done, vs how many he has after the game finishes. So generally the all the extra kills he's getting from end game hook bombing scenarios.
My main point is basically the same one you were making as well, there are a ton of things artificially raising the kill rates to look higher than they are. Now someone may say, "well why does it matter, a kill is a kill?". Well it matters because we are balancing for skill and objective balance. All those things I listed have nothing to do with balance or skill. They are just people raging or people making tons of bad plays and not reflective of anything but are being added into our data for balance.
So if we're looking at kill rates from skill and actual game balance to see how balanced the game or killer is, the numbers we see for kill rates reflective of those said things are realistically much lower than the numbers the data is giving us. So if the data shows an average kill rate of 65% for example, the actual kill percentage for skill and balance is more like 55%, as an example to get my point across.
So while we shouldn't use kills honestly for how flawed it is, whatever percentage we realistically want to achieve, we should be aiming for a number slightly higher. So if we wanted 65%, you'd need the flawed data to show like 75% for all the extra stuff it's adding in that shouldn't be added in.
0 -
"I care about the delta between 'this match was fair and I could have won that/lost that' and 'this match was silly, and I can't think of a way I could have won/lost that' stomps."
This 100%, I feel most of my frustrations come from games were someone quits right away and that frustration bleeds into my other matches.
0 -
Ideally? 50%. You win half of your games and lose half of them. Approximately. But I'll take any increase from the current abysmal SoloQ escape rate, I dislike the idea of having to play a game for 4-6 hours to get a single victory.
4 -
it's worth keeping in mind, anything above a 75% winrate is going to have a majority of the matches end by means of hatch. if your kill rate is in that range, you're not balancing around gens, you're not balancing Dead by Daylight. You're balancing hide and go seek tag.
5 -
This thread just reinforces my theory that killers on this forum won't be happy until survivors spawn directly on hooks from the onset.
Also: Should be renamed to "Victim" instead of Survivor.
6 -
Between 60 to 70% would be good for me. Games too random to think I will win everytime. Killer should be the power role, but survivors should always have a decent chance of escape.
I also think hooks should be the measure not kills. If i get 1k its a loss, 2k a tie, 3 a win. I don't care for a 4k. If I get one cool, if not I still won in my head.
1 -
Honestly?
I'd rather face down the most dangerous SWF comp squad in the world than a team with a DC on the first down.
0 -
it feels like a 1,1,1,1,4 because that's what it was originally.
long time players know that. the only people who believe it to be a team based game are the players that jumped onboard after swf was added.
and to be fair - that's probably a majority of the current player base.
survivors were never meant to be forced into working together. the original concept of the game was to do what felt natural in order to survive. and there are selfish people.
but i guess since the game has gone a different route since its inception it probably feels like s team game now. it's really not. that's why there aren't any specific rewards for ensuring your whole team survives. it's all about your own personal survival.
you're rewarded for: altruism, boldness, objectives, and survival. that's how bloodpoints are classified for survivors. emblems - which determine skill - are rewarded for generator progression, avoiding injuries, rescuing others from hooks, and winning chases.
nothing about that says you have to ensure everyone escapes.
2 -
Personally i feel the current balance should be:
Chance to 3k or 4k = chance for survivor to escape
Afterall currently soli is the default and sef plus thirdparty comms is ez mode. Its swf that distorts the survivor pov.
Once the game is tweaked to treat survivors as a team and actively scores them so (easist example escape bonus score depending on survivor esxapes instead of just your own., etc)
Chance to 3k or 4k = chance for 3 or 4 escapes.
0 -
If it were truly a team game, you would get a victory screen if you died but 2 other teammate got out.
But nope, solo mindset is rewarded greatly
1 -
ITT we see why the average killer player whines about the game at any given possibility
65-75% kill rate "ideal"? LMFAO you guys are hilarious
4
