Why won't BHVR provide full statistics?
Comments
-
High MMR is a myth. Once you reached the MMR softcap you can vs anyone above it. So as the killer at top MMR you can literally vs survivors who just reached the MMR softcap.
Not every SWF is a comp deathsquad that is playing like their lives depend on it.
If you want to win you are always going to bring the best perks. I mean you literally stated that only a few killers are viable at your MMR so you probably play those killers because youwant to win. So it's only fair if survivors do the same. The only way to tackly a stale meta is to make more perks strong so you have more variety. If you just kill meta perks it will always be stale.
I agree on your map offerings argument. They are not healthy for the game.
0 -
Weren't you arguing the opposite in the DH thread?
That because streamers are the top 2% or w/e the data gained from their matches aren't representative of the population.
Yet here you say there is no high MMR, queue times are prioritized, and thusly these streamers can face a wide berth of skill levels. So I don't understand your point. How can it be both?
0 -
Perks and strategies only help so much. Every player is still limited by the killer they play. Some killers are so awful that even if a skilled player did use optimal perks and strats they would still be at a major disadvantage.
What is the point you are trying to make? There are bad killers? You guys are in agreement with each other.
0 -
So choosing to play one of the killers in the game means you deserve to lose now huh? I have no idea what mental gymnastics you have to do to come to that conclusion but wow is that absurd
5 -
It's the exact mentality that leads to a stale meta and seeing the same killers over and over again.
5 -
Some Killers are that bad that yes, against some teams, there's truly nothing you can do.
However, that is a RARITY. You do not find matches like that very often. If you are a good Killer player, you can win the vast majority of your matches based simply off of perks and strategies. 99% of teams will not be able to effectively counter that.
2 -
If you bring just No Mither and Object of Obsession into Solo Q and play against a Midwich offering Nurse, you deserve to lose. You are handicapping yourself and you know it. You never expected to win that game, because you weren't playing seriously.
It's the same scenario here. You are knowingly stopping yourself from using strategies or perks that would help you compete. You obviously aren't playing to win. Why the hell should you be able to beat an optimal team who IS trying to win?
Post edited by Pulsar on2 -
Anyone who has been around here long enough, who remembers the times they have given stats out in the past knows why they don't bother doing it much. Every single time, without fail, people ignore most of it and narrow in on whatever they can find to draw wild and willfully narrow conclusions that support their aggreived Survivor/Killer main agenda.
1 -
This response didn't properly address what I said. Choosing a killer isn't "handicapping" yourself. it's playing the game as the developers intended....saying otherwise is, like I said, completely absurd. You are free to play a killer without "deserving" to lose.
This response sums it up perfectly
1 -
Again, get your squad, and I'll just show you. Perform all these things you claim counters Trappy boy and I'll show you. But I won't explain my methods that I developed myself. The number of your posts tells me you probably know what you're talking about, so no disrespect: let me show you.
Also, know any good Blights? :)
0 -
My first point was in response to someone stating that Otz and TruTalent could face enough people to comprise a sufficient sample size. Otz and Truetalent are really not representative of all Killers and two streamers really cannot face enough people for a sample size sufficient for a game as large as DbD.
I also stated all skill levels should receive balancing considerations. Otz and other streamers do not encompass all Killer players. The survivors they face do not comprise all skill levels.
I don't understand why Otz and streamers not being a large enough sample to represent all Killers is hard for you to understand and I don't understand why you don't realize that the survivors past the skill cap do not represent all survivors if the game is trying to balance for all levels as the devs stated they do.
I also said I'm not interested in continuing the conversation as I don't care enough to want to repeat myself to people who can't see that they have no actual data when they literally have no data. I don't know why you don't understand that streamers don't represent 100% of the Killer base, why 35% roughly of survivors don't represent 100% of survivors, why saying that a soft cap exists doesn't mean that a group that's between 5% of the player base (rough guess on streamers) and 35% of the player base (rough guess on the survivors past the soft cap) represents 100% of the player base or that if somebody says they're not interested in continuing a discussion they're not interested in continuing the discussion but I'm not interested in repeating myself over and over. Once again, please don't ping me about this. It's not productive and I have no interest in discussing that issue with you. Learn to let things go please. This is an entirely different thread about a different topic.
1 -
@Pulsar could have phrased it less controversially but he's correct. If you are facing an optimal 4 person SWF you can lose on the character selection screen because the character chosen cannot compete against a 4 person SWF due to mechanical limitations. If you are facing an optimized team and tactics any deviation from being optimal in your choices and tactics increases your chances of losing.
I don't see him saying that's fair but @Pulsar is speaking realistically. I don't think you're going to find much argument against buffing weaker Killers but BHVR doesn't have buffing weaker Killers as their highest priority. Realistically you won't face super optimized SWFs in every match since the skill cap is too low and competitive DbD is something that is really liked and respected by a minority portion of the player base and disregarded and scoffed at by another minority portion of the playerbase with the remainder apathetic about it. I'd like all weaker Killers buffed myself but there are other issues BHVR sees as a higher priority, they have limited resources, and it's their game.
2 -
And you have repeatedly ignored me stating PERKS and STRATEGIES contribute heavily.
If you are going to play a weaker Killer, something you WILL have foreknowledge about, you will NEED to compensate for that if you are playing to win.
If you do not, you are not playing to win and therefore, you should lose against an equally skilled squad who IS playing to win.
Saying otherwise is completely ludicrous.
2 -
What sample size would you consider sufficient?
Surely, 4000 people among 500 games between the two of them - likely just in the last month - would be enough? Polling data for political elections are far less than 1%. For instance, Pew surveys 1,500 out of an adult population of 220 million. That's 0.00068% of the population.
DBD has sold 3 million copies. 4,000 is .013%. That's almost a 200x larger representative sample size.
I keep seeing you say this sample size thing yet it doesn't make sense. The population is absolutely large enough. If you have an issue with this population size, you have an issue with most polling data and most general surveys done by research institutions. It just doesn't make any sense. At all. The only reasonable issue I think you raise is representation which I think is a minor issue at most.
The difference in avg. kill rates between the top 5% MMR and everyone else is ~2%. So, is this a large difference? What would you expect to see?
There is more information to be gathered about the overall balance of the game from the top 50% then the bottom 50%. In absolute terms, it is more likely that the top 50% have passed the threshold of skill and knowledge to get the majority of use out of their perks and strategies than the bottom 50%.
Anyway, I still think the bottom 30% in terms of skill of any game should be of minimal consideration. They're still learning the game or just unwilling to perform functionally in it. So really we have a sample consisting of around the top 50% of the population worth observing
Also, this isn't an "entirely different" thread. This is a thread about stats. The conversation in the previous thread was about stats. Your post was about stats. My response was about stats.
Its about stats. I can talk about it if you want to post in here and talk about stats. If you don't want to talk about it, don't post in a thread about stats for goodness sake.
The final question I have is, generally speaking what percentage of any given population do you think needs to be surveyed to get accurate results? Is this the same or different as DbD?
0 -
I agree that a good killer player can demolish most survivors. I'd say that the DbD food chain is this
Solo < Killer < SWF
Put a good killer against 4 good solo survivors (i.e. people who actively avoid gens in progress in chase, can loop correctly, can minimize the effectiveness of the killers power) and it's a game of inches where one mistake by the killer can cost them the game or one mistake by a survivor can quickly lead to a cascading effect . This is where DbD is at its best.
Put a good killer against 4 good SWFs and the game changes entirely. Some Killers like Trapper have their power almost entirely negated. This isn't a gradual shift in balance, its immediate huge shift in the direction of survivors. Survs will always know what gens are being worked on, discover killer perks without actually seeing them, know where the killer is, know when someone is going to go down, etc...
Certainly, some things can be done to alleviate this imbalance. If we had more stats to figure things out BHvR could crowdsource the thought process. Leaving things to be done by themselves isn't producing much change. The meta shakeup was the best thing we've seen in a long time. Unfortunately it didn't do too much in the end but it was great they were actually moving the game forward. It is time to do it again, this time they can involve the community more.
1 -
I think "deserve" is the wrong word being used, I think the best word is "expect". Weak killers aren't balanced around coordinated 4man swfs, and if they were then solo players would stand 0% chance against killer in general. So playing a weak Killer, with weaker perks and add-ons, against certain survivors, I would absolutely expect the killer to lose. They may not, but I would expect it. It's just like when I play solo survivor. I don't use meta perks, and when I come across a Nurse using meta perks I don't expect to win.
1 -
Im not addressing the perks and strategies as I don't need to. I replied to your comment which separated all three into their own category. I have no obligation to address those, all I did was repeat what you said and called it absurd (which it is). Also, unless you're farming, what there reason would you play NOT to win? That's the entire goal of either side is TO win every time you load into a match no matter WHAT killer you are playing. And no, you do not NEED to compensate for ANYTHING in order to "deserve" to win. That's ridiculous. Saying not "compensating" for playing a game as intended by the developers equates to "not playing to win" is some next level, out of this world, mental gymnastics
0 -
Cause the game is crap and dying <3
0 -
Huh...so you're literally not allowed to play certain killers and that's considered balanced to you guys?...
1 -
They've since replied and said me saying deserved was indeed correct. I think survivor mains ideas of balance is crazy that "unless you play nurse or blight you deserve to lose!" And they think that's a balanced world...
2 -
Because by 'not addressing perks and strategies' you're putting yourself in a ridiculous position.
You're saying that the weakest killer, with no perks, should be able to brainlessly follow a survivor with no mind games and obtain kills at the same rate as everyone else (61% average). They don't even have to use their power, since that's a 'strategy'.
You see how luducrous that sounds, right?
2 -
Expect will also work as a substitute for deserved.
Also, are you REALLY sure that you wanna call me a Survivor main?
2 -
If they did, we likely wouldn't be having this conversation.
I didn't think my original position was too crazy. If you play a weak Killer without perks into a strong team, you can expect to lose.
3 -
That's not the point at all though
The point is if you intentionally handicap yourself (Playing with weak perks) and you go against meta slaves who know how to play, you are probably going to lose. That goes double if you pick a notoriously weak killer (The example being Trapper, but there are others)
Granted, IF you are good enough you might be able to still win - usually by tunnelling someone out megahard, slugging and so on.
0 -
I don't know why you replied to this but I quite literally didn't say any of that. That's textbook straw man fallacy.
"Without perks" who said anything about perks? You said simply if you chose to play a certain killer, you deserve to lose. That was your position. Unless your conceding now, that's an absurd and beyond terrible position. Nothing more, nothing less. Leave it at that.
1 -
Exactly. Play in sub-optimal ways and get sub-optimal results. I don’t know why some people expect a 4K when they don’t bring their very best loadout and they don’t play as sweaty as possible.
2 -
Now, correct me if I'm wrong but using perks is generally considered part of optimal gameplay, right?
But by all means, continue to show everyone how wrong I am, lol.
3 -
What is it with the straw mans? I didn't mention perks at any point? I said nothing about running or not running perks...? Point out where I mentioned anything about perks. But anyways since you wanted to deflect what I said, I'm gonna say this again and will ad nauseam as needed. Choosing to play a killer doesn't mean you deserve to lose. It's an absurd and ludicrous position to have. But by all means, continue to show everyone how wrong I am, lol. But do it without using a straw man please, if your gonna use one, please no more replies
1 -
ok bro
first of all @Pulsar did NOT say "if u pick trapper u deserve to lose" he originally said
"Uh....yeah, if you play a weak Killer into their worst-case scenario and refuse to use optimal tactics, you should lose. You are choosing to play Trapper. You are choosing not to tunnel. You are choosing not to camp."
Key word is SHOULD. The word "deserve" was only brought up when someone asked him "so they deserve to lose if they pick trapper" and his response was "If you take a weak Killer, use off-meta perks, refuse to use optimal strategies and you put that Killer against an optimal 4-man? Yes, you deserve to lose that game."
So it was brought up. Not sure if you missed it or what but yeah.
By the way pointing out the epic socrates fallacies doesn't make your point any more valid nor does it make you sound smart, just saying. I know that's probably an ad homer simpson but frankly I do not care.
1 -
If you refuse to play optimally (by bringing meta perks, tunneling, camping, 3-genning etc) after knowingly handicapping yourself by picking a weak Killer (assuming you play against a squad of equal skill to your own who ARE playing optimally), you should expect to lose.
Holding any other position is frankly, ridiculous
2 -
Why are you raging at me? Was what I said really that offensive? it's odd the things people on here get so mad at. Yes I pointed out logically fallacies. You getting angry at that is not normal. I'd suggest taking a break off here or reaching out to someone around you.
Alright so you concede that choosing a killer by itself is not enough to warrant deserving to lose. That's all. I do disagree with your new position but I don't have the time nor energy nor sheer will power it would take to go on because I'd probably have a stroke.
0 -
I believe what you just did in the socrates philosophical fallacy compendium is known as 'projection'. I do like how it's the only part of my post you fixated on though, that's a classic.
Anyway we were talking about Trapper, not Sadako. Buddy keep up.
0 -
entitled takes all around tbh, its their game and they could just give you no statistics like every other game that there is, they arent under any obligation to do anything for you all
1 -
When you're saying someone deserves to lose for playing a killer they enjoy I'd assume you're a survivor main or someone who's so extremely comp focused they forget this game doesn't even have a comp mode.
0 -
Yeah no that's still a gross take. Saying people deserve to lose just because they pick a killer they might an enjoy is a gross entitled take that's just giving excuses as to never buff killers.
0 -
You literally misread what I wrote and then doubled-down.
Very impressive. Can't say it hasn't been interesting, but I think I'd rather stop arguing with someone who is acting in bad faith.
2 -
I think thats the point of the thread. Its not so much to learn which killer to avoid playing, but to see which ones should be improved. BHVR is VERY tight lipped about these statistics because they dont want people seeing what should be improved. They want to keep releasing new chapter DLCs and new store skins. If they took the bottom tier killers (or perks) and tweaked them slightly every few months, not only would the meta and game feel fresh, but most killers would be viable.
1 -
Did you have proof of your claims? No? Then you are the one that think to be the keep per of the truth... As I said DEVS STATED THAT MMR EXISTS, so if you keep saying this, the options available are 2:
1 you are extremely biased towards one side
2 you are actually thinking that devs keep telling to us lies
0 -
Who knows at this point? Only devs can clear this thing once and for all by showing us our mmr... Until then those are all speculations (like that one that I think that streamers have a different mmr, matched on purpose with other kind of survivors... I'll let you imagine on that point)
0 -
It was an example ffs! If we want to see the pattern only good blight and nurses can do something against those people... After all there's a reason why at a certain point you'll see only those 2 killers...
0 -
I don't have to prove nothing because it's blatant... Why I need to prove logic that was already aknowledged from EVERYONE? Even from streamers... Let me make an example: trapper with decent addons (green ones), you are against a full expert premade on comm, you found one of them even before putting down a single trap, you have 2 choices:
1 ignoring that survivor and place your traps (it won't work because the one that saw you is telling to the others the position of your traps and where you are going, so literally a waste of time by putting down your traps just to see them deactivated and in the meantime generators will fly)
2 forget the traps due for the previous point and start chasing said survivor as a PURE M1 killer, without any kind of antiloop at your disposal
The Trapper is a old relic of the past days of dbd, if you want to get him BARELY decent, aside the tactic that involve trapping the basement with someone inside (how curious it involves camping uh?) he needs the Trapper bag and the red addon that allows you to have your traps automatically settled every 30 seconds, but even then, that killer should be completely reworked because it's doesn't belong to the actual dbd.
0 -
This.
0 -
Didn't misread anything, I stated what you said I told you to stop replying if you were going to keep relying on straw mans and you finally conceded. Why you replied once AGAIN is questionable. It might be because you spend a VERY unhealthy amount of time on this forum every day and want your post number to go up by one which, good for you I guess but there was literally no other reason to reply other than to be confrontational. Also I don't think you know what "Bad faith" means. Do not use words you don't know the meaning of.
0 -
"The devs have told us mmr is real"
"mmr is real, high mmr, as you mean it, is not."
How did I say anything untrue?
We do know about the soft cap. I think players start off at 1100. I THINK the soft cap is 1600, iirc. We also know that people can get matched BELOW their MMR.
For example, if the softcap is 1600, anybody over it can be matched with people in a certain radius under it. Meaning that not only is it easy to get to the soft-cap, you can also match with players who aren't at the cap yet.
This means that it is extremely inconsistent to get "high mmr" games. It functionally does not exist due to the matchmaker being set up to prioritize queue times over accuracy.
1 -
I didn't misread anything. I restated what you said then asked you to stop using straw mans and then you conceded. Why you replied AGAIN is questionable. It could be because spend a VERY unhealthy amount of time on this forum daily and wanted to see your post number go up by one, which good for you I guess but there was no other reason for another reply except to be confrontational. Also, I don't think you know what bad faith means. Don't use words you don't know the meaning of.
0 -
What would be the point in BHVR releasing more statistics? The last statistics said that NONE of the killers were overperforming overall, and NONE of the killers were overperforming at the top 5%, and yet we still had a bunch of people complain that certain killers were uncounterable and needed nerfs.
0 -
You're completely correct that we have no idea. Everybody's assumptions might be wrong. BHVR is the only one that can say for sure and, until then, everything is just speculation.
0 -
POV: Continue to double-down.
Several people have pointed out where you misread. At this point, you're just insulting me since you have no actual argument, lol. Like I said, it's been fun but I'm not really interested in meaningless debate
2 -
"Several" two people and the one had some.....issues to say the least. Also I had my argument, you conceded to it, it was over. But you keep replying to me because your mad lol. I know I said I disagreed to your new argument as well but as I've stated I don't have the energy or care enough to keep going. You can easily stop replying like you should have 3 comments ago. If you have any further questions, scroll up and reread.
0 -
Im not addressing the perks and strategies as I don't need to.
And no, you do not NEED to compensate for ANYTHING in order to "deserve" to win
You are using very extreme language to get your point across. "Deserve" makes it sound entitled, possibly even unearned. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but I can only go by the words you're using. If I went with what I think you meant, instead of what you said directly, I'd be countering a different argument (that's a straw man, btw).
I have no problem saying, for example, that "all killers should be balanced to a point that the player's skill allows them to earn a win against similarly skilled opponents." But that isn't the argument that you're presenting here, or have expressed at any point.
You're specifically saying that by picking a killer, that player *deserves* a win, and there should be "nothing" that needs to compensate for that killer's ability (your words, your quote). By your own admission, you're deliberately ignoring the perks, map, opponents, and strategy, and just flatly saying the player deserves to win. That is vastly different than saying they should have a "reasonable opportunity" to win. One takes player ability as a factor, the other doesn't.
Me taking your words to an extreme, and saying that you're sounding ridiculous isn't a straw man. It's a tactic that takes your argument to it's logical conclusion to show how ludicrous it could be *as you've written it*. It's a technique called "reductio ad absurdum", and it isn't a logical fallacy.
And I'd be open to saying that maybe, perhaps, you're expressing your thoughts in a way that you don't actually mean, but when people are pointing out the flaws in your wording, you're doubling and tripling down instead.
And this whole thing started with a logical fallacy anyway.
This response didn't properly address what I said... You are free to play a killer without "deserving" to lose.
To say that "if you don't think they deserve to win, then you think they do deserve to lose" is a logical fallacy itself called the false dilemma.
I don't believe that any player, killer or survivor, deserves to win just by picking a certain character. That does NOT mean they deserve to lose, rather they should have a decent opportunity to express their skill and possibly win, but not have a guaranteed outcome from the lobby. And part of that is the "strategy" of knowing how to play to that character's strengths, and knowing what perks complement that character for the strategy you're going for.
2
