Can somebody please explain me why 60% killrate is ballanced?
I have not caught up on that topic so i hope, someone can explain that to me. Without emotions if that is possible.
The reason why i am asking is that i have serious doubts, at least from the perspective i understand it. That does not mean i am right. Like i said, convince me.
60% killrate is suposed to be 50% winrate. I heared thats the reason. Maybe i am wrong with that either.
That can not be true at all, at least when you look at the statistics. I know this is not 100% accurate, but very close to reality.
When we look at any random killer (lets take the Clown for example since he is at 50% killrate) he should have a winrate of less the 40% so it makes sense. But he does not. He is in fact completly ballanced, even slightly ahead of winrate.
50% killrate means:
43% winrate (3 or 4K)
15% drawrate (2K)
41% lossrate (1K or 0K)
Am i missing something here?
To top it all off, i strongly argue that those killrates are actually much higher due to some reasons. On paper Clown might have 50% killrate, but if we considere the following points, he probably might be above 60%. Just a guess to be fair.
- Killer give free hatch or free escapes. They could have had the 4K, but decided to let 1 person go. Not uncommon.
- Killer farm. Without farming killer, the killrate would be much higher.
- Many killer dont care about the 50/50 gategame and go afk.
- Hatch in general is actually a 4K but luck for the survivor give them almost a 50% chance to make it a 3K.
- When a killer DC's, the survivor escape. When a survivor DC's, they get a bot, which makes the game still winable. Bots do gens, unhooks and are actually decent at looping the killer.
So like i said, if someone can explan that rationally, i would be more then happy. I did went through some of those threads, but there was never a clear answer to that.
Kind regards
Comments
-
There was a very long topic about this a while back, but basically:
No, 60% killrate does not translate to a 50% winrate. It also doesn't translate to a 40% winrate. The way killrates convert to winrates is very wonky due to the large variety of trial outcomes muddying the waters. Even the distinction between a 3K and a 4K, even though they're both wins, complicates the math. And the distribution of outcomes is not exactly predictable, so 60% killrate doesn't really directly indicate anything about winrate.
But I'm also not sure the devs ever stated anything about a targeted winrate. I think they said they wanted a 60% killrate because that suits their goals for the game.
8 -
I can clarify a bit. I'm not sure where the 60% kill rate = 50% win rate bit comes from, but I don't recall it being said by us. We don't tend to talk about "win rates" because a win is still somewhat subjective. Some people count a pip as a win, others if they get 3 kills, some even consider only 4 kills as a win. If we're talking about solely kills, kill rate and win rate are equal. The kill rate is an average, not a guarantee. You might kill 4 survivors one match and 0 the next, but that'll still average out to 50%. (When you average out thousands of matches, that killer's actual kill rate becomes much more accurate.)
Certain things may influence it, like you've mentioned, but it's a bit too nebulous to speculate on. There are also things that survivors may do to inflate that kill rate, like giving the killer a pity kill after a rough match, giving up when the hatch is closed, and so on. They would cancel each other out to some degree, but exactly how much influence each has is impossible to identify. These would have to be incredibly common to have a significant influence on the total kill rates.
35 -
Thank you for your reply. We have at least the hot topic we already had often (50% killrate is not 50% winrate) out of the way.
The question, why 60% killrate is ballanced still stays.
Why is 60% killrate supposed to be ballanced then?
2 -
Ask players who give up on first hook every third game giving free 4k to killer. I wonder how it is not 70% with this playerbase mentality.
26 -
Because this doesn't happen as often as you think it does (globally, for the player base).
If you truly, genuinely think this is affecting BHVR's global statistics, then you should be giving the last survivor hatch in every game.
7 -
I recently watched a streamer the whole evening because i am ill right now and therefore have nothing better to do, and i can not remember a single person suiced. He gave a couple of times hatch tho and let them go for the gate.
The chance of people suiciding more then killer DC, give hatch or any thing i pointed out above is close to 0. So no, that is for sure not the reason.
1 -
This is the part that there is no simple answer to. People will disagree about what the ideal kill rate should be until the end of time. Some feel like 50/50 is the most fair, others will feel like killers in a horror game like this should be a little bit stronger to maintain that power fantasy. Ultimately, it comes down to preference.
15 -
Peanits already covered the killrate/winrate.
You mentioned reasons that killers might give free escapes, Peanits mentioned one thing that goes the other way (free kills - which I think almost never happens), but there is one other thing to consider:
If one survivor gives up / plays well below their ability / plays a very silly game - it will tank the survivors. The most obvious example of this is a hook suicide because they don't like the map and/or killer, but someone playing No Mither or perkless or doing a ridiculous archive also apply
Now the killer could do this as well, but it is more likely to happen on the survivor side because it only has to occur one out of the four. So you are far more likely to have games that should be 'void' that are still counted by the system on the survivor side than the killer.
In my opinion, I think BHVR underestimates how many escapes happen because of killer mercy, but the above is an issue.
If we're talking wins, which BHVR doesn't define, I think 1ks are more common than 1es (not including hatch). So if the killer wins, they are more likely to get all of the survivors, but if the survivors win losing one survivor at the end game is pretty common. That's just perception though based on how my games go.
When a killer DC's, the survivor escape. When a survivor DC's, they get a bot, which makes the game still winable. Bots do gens, unhooks and are actually decent at looping the killer.Unless they've changed something because of the bots, an early game DC throws the entire game out of their records.
3 -
Not convinced you'll get a concrete answer on this one, but my personal rationale on this issue is to think about 2 kills being a tie, and then relating that to hook stages.
For a 2k on a killer you need a minimum of 6 hooks, and a maximum of 10 hooks. As we have this 6-10 split, we can logically assume that your "average" tie DBD game should expect 8 hooks, giving us our 2 kills.
However there is a problem with this... 8 hooks can ONLY ever give the killer 2 kills maximum... but it can also give you 0 kills (2 hooks stages each). So this cannot be your average, as this means that your "tie game" for killer can be 0-2 kills. As such you need the killer to get more hooks for your tie... and the best number is 9/12 hooks, as 10 hooks is a guaranteed 2k... obviously not a tie.
The problem with this being your tie game is 9 hooks is a guaranteed 1k, but in the same breathe, this has a maximum of 3k, so it is balanced... but as such the killer needs to have a higher percentage of kills than 50% for the game to be considered a tie, as they should in a tie game have at least 1 guaranteed kill.
That's how I figure it, the exact maths of 60%, I hate stats, but I'm sure someone could figure it out.
2 -
I've seen it happen a crap ton, lol. Often times if someone sees they got a killer they don't like, they don't even bother running. My Skull Merchant is only P1, but the amount of players who run up to me at the start of the game so they can hurry up and die is staggering. Between THAT, and the amount of ppl who get scanned 50 times when not even being chased because they aren't use to new SM, I kinda take her killrate with a grain of salt.
5 -
I judge by what I see myself. I played 5 solo games yesterday and in 2 of them people gave up on the first hook. Then I went to do some work with streams in background and people also gave up almost every second game. I see it every day. Sometimes it's not so often, sometimes it's impossible to watch/play because of people like this. I remember the day in september, when i watched the stream and out of 12 played games, people gave up something like in 8-9.
People on this forum are constantly asking to do something about hook suicide as well, so if you think it doesn't really affect statistics, maybe we are playing different games.
5 -
So the preference of BHVR is that killer is supposed to be stronger then survivor?!
0 -
I dont know, from my experience it is totally different. And if it would effect the game that much, we can still debate on what i mentioned in the original post. They will even it out.
Anyway, we actually have an answer to that topic, and the answer has nothing to do with that.
0 -
As is should be. Why wouldn’t it be?
11 -
For the sake of a ballanced experience? So 5 people have fun and not only just 1? There are many reasons why this should not be the case and i can only think of one weak reason it actually should.
Or was this bait? If it was, you have to tell me! I gonna cry if i dont know.
8 -
"The kill rate is an average, not a guarantee. You might kill 4 survivors one match and 0 the next, but that'll still average out to 50%"
And that is the root of all the problems balancing wise.
If 1000 matches are played and 500 are 4k while 500 are 4 escapes, BHVR will pat themselves on the back for a matchmaking well done, despite the fact that there wasn't a single even remotely balanced game in there after all.
5 -
Might I ask, what is BHVR as a whole aiming for when looking at the Killrates? 50%? 60%? Does it vary from Killer to Killer? Where do things start to become too much of a %?
Im just extremely curious, so I hope you dont mind me asking.
1 -
So in other word, having 50% kill rate on Clown is good? 🤔.
Maybe buffing Bleach back to 5% might increase it by 5 to 10% but that just me.
0 -
When it says "60% kill rate" does that mean each individual survivor has a 60% likelihood of dying? Of course the actual match itself determines the results, but a 10% slant towards Killer is an interesting number to be satisfied with.
0 -
I hope i understand you corretly here. In the graphic in the original post you can see that the "its either 4k or its 0k" argument gets countered by numbers. About 60% of the time its either 1,2 or 3K. That this is not perfectly ballanced is true, but far from the claim by many players that it is either the one extreme or the other. At least not on average.
EDIT: Actually it is somewhat perfectly ballanced.😅
0 -
Because this game is asymmetric. Which means that the combination of individual 0k, 1k and 2k are defeats/draws for the killer, while one escape is a win for one survivor. Taking that same graph as an example, you will see that if you combine those three bars, the result is around 50%... except for extreme DC cases like Skull Merchant.
2 -
Please don't assume things, this is completely untrue. Kill rate is not a metric that we use to judge matchmaking. We're more concerned with things like rating differences, match data (was it one sided, or was it a close game), and most importantly, how people actually feel about their matches. If anything, it would be the complete opposite; if we saw a large number of 4 kill and 0 kill matches and nothing in between, it would tell us that something is seriously wrong.
16 -
This game is supposed to be asymmetrical. It's not complicated. Deal with it.
2 -
I’d say the game is in a pretty balanced spot right now for being an asymmetrical game. Seems most people are still having fun to me… why else do we all continue to play?
First, define what you mean when you say “survivor”. Are you referring to micro play or macro?
No, I am not baiting. Killer should be the power role.
7 -
60%? I'm pretty sure the kill rate is edging 70% right now
4 -
Killers tend to 4k when they win, so a 60% kill rate is more like a 50% win rate. I made a thread about this long ago. https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/348478/bhvr-can-you-post-and-balance-around-win-draw-and-loss-rates-instead-of-kill-rates/p1
2 -
Peanits never said that. Read his post again. I think we can reasonably judge what they think for ourselves, but he was clearly referring to player perspective in his post.
3 -
That is untrue, by fact and proof. Why not just look at the data and see for yourself?
0 -
How about you look at the photo you posted? The 4k rate is roughly double of the 3k rate.
1 -
The 3K and 4K (win) is 50% on PH. Not relevant if the 4K rate is higher then the 3K. Its a win.
Or that Clown is perfectly ballanced with a 50% killrate regardless on win/draw/loose?
The devs basically already confirmed that this is irrelevant.
0 -
I am not so sure about that. The MMR get a change for both sides. I think it will stay the way it is, more or less. Better survivors will face better killer. If that has a super big influence on MMR? We will have to wait and see.
0 -
Its not 60% for the whole team, its 60% per person.
I suck at math, but I believe that's a 13% chance for a 4k?
0 -
You can't be the final girl if no one else dies.
Every game should be a 3K for thematic consistency.
Post edited by Rizzo on11 -
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. A 4k results in a higher kill rate compared to a 3k but not a higher win rate. Killers are more likely to 4k than 3k, which is why a kill rate higher than 50% is needed to achieve 50% win rate. The thread I made explains this very well https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/348478/bhvr-can-you-post-and-balance-around-win-draw-and-loss-rates-instead-of-kill-rates/p1
2 -
I think you found wrong game then.
4 -
I think 60% makes sense when you consider how many survivors don’t take winning too seriously. For a lot of people playing it doesn’t really matter whether they win or lose, just that they can have a fun time playing a horror game with their friends. If all survivors were playing hyper sweaty and focused on optimizing their time, and the kill rate still remained at 60%, then I think there would be a problem.
2 -
It's not balanced, but it's not what many think.
A 25% kill rate is 1 kill. A 50% kill rate is a 2k. 75% kill rate is a 3k. A 100% kill rate is a 4k. With that in mind, we need to define what a win is.
BHVR never stated what a killer win is, but the community has widely accepted that for killers, a 3k or 4k is a win. A 0k or 1k is a loss. A 2k is a wash (ie a tie). For survivors, BHVaR said before that wins are at an individual level, so a non hatch escape is a win for that particular survivor.
With a 60% kill rate, that means on average, 1.5 survivors win the match. In other words, for every match, the game is designed around one survivor winning, and every OTHER match, two survivors winning. However. Since 2Ks are a killer loss (tie), the game is balanced around the expectation that the killer on average should only win every other match with a 2.5 out of 4 kill rate.
Long story short, a 60% kill rate means that every match, a survivor should win along with the killer, but every other match, at least 2 survivors win and the killer loses.
Them going with 60% kill rate means the killer is expected to perform in the middle ground between losing via a tie and winning with a 3k+, as 60% is roughly halfway between 50% (2K) and 75% (3K) (ie a 2.5 kill rate). In the end, a survivor is expected to always win and half the time 2+ winning. A killer is expected to always lose half of their matches (failing to secure a 3k).
TLDR; Survivors are generally designed to have a built in win every match. Killers are designed to win half their matches
FINAL NOTE, the reality is that killers require a 62.5% win rate for this to be entirely accurate (62.5 being halfway between a 2k and a 3k), so they technically would be shy a 2.5% kill rate to actually kill 2.5 survivors on average in a map. This means they should actually be expected to win one out of three matches but juuust barely. This means killers, by design, are designed to lose the majority of the time requiring 3 matches to end up with a 3k+. However, the 2.5% is such a small difference, it's better to say they are designed to win half their matches but favoring the side off an extra loss occasionally.
Post edited by RpTheHotrod on2 -
I thought I remember the devs a while back saying they want to balance around a 60% kill rate because they want the killer to be more 'feared' than they were back then. They wanted killers to be the 'power role' while still giving the survivors a decent chance to escape.
An asymmetric game doesn't have to have a 50% win rate for both sides.
3 -
i do not think that draws in dbd exist. draw means that nobody won. The only way for nobody to win is for survivors to not power all 5 generator for 60 minutes. The only time I have ever seen that is with overcharge/cob/eruption meta other than that, draw do not happen. you get either win or lose as killer. I consider 0-2k as losses for killer because the survivor did power exit gate and escape.
When you get 3k and 4k's, the survivor was not successful in powering exit gate. In order for the match to reach conclusion, there is exists hatch mechanic and exit gates to conclude the game. it is not meaningful for survivor escape this way but it is ionic in movie horrors for final girl or final guy to "survive".
50% win-rate killer are downright terrible killers. For example, Nightlight stats of clown showcases that if you add his loss rate 20.8%+20.8%+15.33%. survivors at complete 5 generators a whopping 57.33% of the time. that is not a 50/50 win-rate. Granted these stats are not that accurate because Clown only has 588 games played on site but using sample size of 50% win-rate, that is terrible win-rate for killer. He only wins 43% of the time. So average player playing clown is not breaking even and in fact loses more than they win. Very few players will want to play a killer with that kind of track record. Granted those stats do not have enough games.
When BVHR showcase stats in September 2022, BVHR showcase that top clown 5% players had kill-rate of 58%. Having high kill-rate may not mean that killer is in a good spot. For example if you use Wraith's sample kill-rate, he wins 53% with 3k and 4k but loses 47% of the time. While kill-rate is proxy to killer doing well, it is not win-rate of the killer.
1 -
Alright.
Lets just look at the stats we have. According to you, if i understand you right, we need to achieve a ballanced winrate more %kills for that goal.
Lets look at some of those stats.
Skull Merchant:
Killrate 68%
Wins/Loss (3+4K)/(0-1K) 65% - 25%
Clown:
Killrate: 51%
Win/Loss 43% - 41%
Spirt:
Killrate: 56%
Win/Loss 50% - 37%
Doctor:
Killrate: 55%
Win/Loss 47% - 40%
The only killer which achieves a ballanced 50/50 win-loss rate is the clown, with 51% killrate. All the other killers with higher winrate are unballanced.
The only way your arguement might make any sense is when we count a draw (2K) also as a loss for the killer.
0 -
You can have numbers thrown at you all night and it wont make sense man. This game isn't supposed to be balanced per say: it's a horror game. It was initially a party game not to be taken seriously. But with it popularity, people like yourself demand answers.
There are none. Just play the game and enjoy it, or dont. Achieving balance isn't what this is all about as a game like this can't be balanced. Perks and loadouts affect this, killer powers affect this, and the player affects this. Can't balance around all that. You just can't.
0 -
For more experienced killers, 2k is generally considered a loss. If BHVR balanced the game so that killers achieve a 60% kill rate, getting a 2k is technically losing.
Though, there are other reasons for a 60% kill rate. Firstly, swf. The kill rate is inflated from playing against solos. For matches to be balanced against swfs, the kill rate needs to be higher. Secondly, poor matchmaking. The skill level of survivors often varies. A killer can tunnel out one weak survivor to win. If matchmaking was better and gave 4 equally skilled survivors, the kill rate would be lower.
0 -
I fully agree with you. The game might be more "ballanced" as it used to be years ago, but it is much less fun.
1 -
But its 'fun enough', right? You're gonna keep playing, right? I found that eventually... in this game, you have to make your own fun. I do it with my current name. Love when the killer brings that Mori and chases me til I die or the team gets out. Then I'll stay and die lol. Its great fun.
0 -
Its absolutly not, most of the time it is aweful.
I tried to bring back in 2 friends (both veterans) the last couple of months and they all left again after a few hours of gaming - with little to no chance ever coming back. The games we had together were all (and i mean ALL) tunneling and ahole killers in general. Absolutly horrible 0/10 experience. One of them, being usually really chill even ragequit and uninstalled a second later.
My old team left the game, nobody wants to play survivor anymore. The current team i play with when i SWF is very chill and dont have any sort of competetive motivation and still even they are close to the edge of leaving this game. They dont care about if they escape or not, just for fun. But the way those killers play and how oppressive they are towards them is completly uninteresting for the,.
Last but not least, no, absolutly not, i wont stay if they wont fix things. I left this game years ago for over 2 years and came back to give it another shot. Things got much worse since then. I am usually very patient and tolerant and i admit that i have a love hate relationship with DBD, but that does not guarantee that i stay much longer.
3 -
A lot of people are there. But BHVR has no incentive to make the game better for all, just like BHVR won't give killers incentives. Valid strat yes, but still lacking much brain power and quite negative to the players in general.
I'd leave personally. Join your friends in another game thats fun! If running these fools in circles wasn't so fun for me, I'd leave too.
0 -
because survivors can;
A. Give Up working on gens
B. Suicide on hook
C. Screw other survivors over in the hopes that they survive
D. Wait for everyone else to die so they can get the hatch
for these reasons, you cant balance around 50% because that metric would mean that every survivor in every game is trying their hardest to win, which very clearly is not the case. We're looking at you...Meg.
4 -
It isn’t. That’s the point.
The Killer needs to be an actual threat, and a slight bias in the killer’s favour is perfectly justified when you consider it’s supposed to be the power role.
This is not a matter of “balance”, this is a thematic matter.
2 -
Its not balanced or fair. Games are supposed to be about skill. And fun.
The power role fantasy killer mains have about killer is an excuse to minimize skill in a video game for the purpose of feeding own ego.
It's not fun losing by default as one of a game.
5 -
A draw is still a loss. They didn't win.
0
