Can somebody please explain me why 60% killrate is ballanced?
Comments
-
That's the thing, survivors don't have a 'draw' condition, for survivors it's just win or lose. The 2K=Draw thing is what throws it off, and if there were a way to have an objectively defined win condition for the killer, it probably should be 0-2K = lose, 3-4K = win.
It's an asymmetrical game, there isn't actually a way to divide the results down the middle 50/50. There aren't an even number of players, there are FIVE players per game, and FIVE different results.
For example, a 3K game has 2 winners and 3 losers, one winner on each side, so that's technically a 40% win rate among both roles. But it's a 75% kill rate. This is why Kill rate does not equate to Win rate.
It can be difficult to see this because the even number of survivors gives the illusion of symmetry, but it's easier to explain if you use a thought experiment where there's an uneven number of survivors. If each game had 3 survivors v 1 killer, what would be the draw condition? Technically a 1K would result in a 50% win rate, so would a 1K be a draw? 1 out of 3 survivors killed doesn't seem like a success for the killer. Meanwhile a 2K would also be a 50% win rate, one killer and one survivor, one win each, so draw? but 2/3 survivors killed doesn't seem like a success for the survivor team.
A 2K is 50% of the killers main objective, but it also means they've failed their other objective which is to prevent the opening of the exit gates, for which survivors have completed their objective, they have to to get more than one escape. So there is no way you can objectively say that a 2K is a 'draw', it just 'sounds right' because 2 is half of 4.
All of this is why there is no correct way to determine what a balanced kill rate should be. At most you can say it should be somewhere between 50% and 75%, and then pushing that closer to the 50% makes it 'sound fair', but doesn't necessarily translate to a healthy place for the game to be in if you want both sides to feel like the have both a challenge and a fair chance. Somewhere around 60% seems to be where that place is.
2 -
Survivors are handled different, indeed. See my comment above. The game is designed around expecting 1 survivor to win every match, and every other match, 2 survivors win. Killers don't have that luxury and are expected to win half their matches with an occasional extra loss on top of that since they are 2.5% lower than they'd need to be to actually be at a pure 50% rate. A 62.5% kill rate would mean killers would win (3k+) about half their matches.
0 -
With some here, i cant tell if joking or not.
0 -
You’re forgetting that survivors win or lose individually, not as a team/group. And the killer is technically playing four individual matches in one game, as each survivor death counts as an individual win for that micro game between the killer & survivor.
5 -
Asymmetrical multiplayer video game, I don't think I need to say more.
1 -
I think Peanits highlighted it really well and it comes down to "mechanical balance" vs "thematic balance."
In simplest terms, mechanically when calculating kill rate you could argue that 50/50 was the ideal measure for a balanced experience as both teams have the same relative outcome chance of die/live.
When accounting for the theme of DBD though a perfect mechanical outcome starts making less sense.
Given its horror film theme, you'd expect a slight killer bias in outcome, after all weak antagonists make for weak stories. Something modern story telling is really guilty of lately.
If DBD is trying to emulate a horror film experience, in this case the 80's slasher craze, then it is entirely acceptable for the killer to have a favorable kill rate bias.
How much this should be favored is up for debate but I don't think a 10% swing on the average is so game breaking that it undermines the game mechanics.
In fact I'd say that 60% is a relatively conservative kill estimate that balances well between a 50% "true mechanical balance" vs the more probable 80-90% you'd find in a good slasher flick scenario.
2 -
I'd love to see a game mode like "last man standing" or some such.
A survivor can't escape till they are the last one alive.
Think of the extra dynamic at play, we are a team against the killer till endgame then its everyone for themselves. So gritty.
1 -
While you have a valid opinion I'd say that it only really holds true if you value game outcome over game play.
The whole killer power fantasy is part of the draw for playing killer in the first place. Without it DBD loses an integral part of what it means to take on the role of the antagonist.
Why isn't it just red team vs blue team? One side has to fix the gens while one side has to stop them being fixed?
Because there is an overlay called theme and a big part of that theme for DBD is playing as the monster. Its not a stretch by any sense that playing as the monster should feel appropriately monstrous.
0 -
As a survivor, I would probably not play the game if it was literally equally balanced. I want escaping to be a bigger deal - almost like a bragging right. I went face to face with the killer and actually escaped. It wouldn't be really scary or fun if it was a perfectly even match going against Myers himself, for example. Going up against a famous killer should be dealing with a serious and challenging threat that is NOT in our favor.
I'm not all that interested in a red vs blue match.
Fair is fair...I originally started as a survivor main, but since most of my friends no longer play dbd, I have moved into a killer main role. However, so do sign up for solo queue often - just not the majority of the time.
2 -
This is exactly my point.
Many of the game elements people decry as unfun or even boring, if those elements were to be removed, would then make the game become truly unfun and boring.
That killer bias in outcome is an essential part of the thematic game experience as survivor.
5 -
Ok, but what about survivor fantasy? This argument seems always viewed from one side. This is a video game, not like a thematic simulator where the killer is supposed to automatically win. It doesn't feel good to play as survivor and knowing the killer is less skilled but winning because of cheese mechanics, etc. Right now the game is like that with huge killrates.
2 -
People are acting as if the killers in the picture have a killrate of 80 or 90%. Most of them are at around 50% in the picture with only skull merchant having around 65%. So most of the killers appear pretty balanced at least to me.
And lets be real: how many survs kill themselves on first hook when they see a sm cause they dont wanna be taken hostage. That paired with her low pickrate and therefor less available data probably inflates her kill rate this much.
5 -
And bear in mind a 50% kill rate in a match is a loss for the killer.
0 -
Oh boy, here we go again. We went over this pretty extensively not too long ago.
The thing is, most of the stats are meaningless unless they get too ridiculous mostly because BHVR doesn't want to define winning and the community can't agree on a single standard for it. Until that happens, kill rate is effectively useless, or it isn't, depending on what winning is to you.
To be clear, I hate this. I am all about setting your own goals and wincons, but there should be a universal, easily definable default standard as well to balance around.
*IF* you go by the most widely accepted standards of:
Killer: 0k-1k = loss, 2k = draw, 3k-4k = win
Individual Survivor: Death = loss, Escape = win
Survivor team: Opposite of Killer
Then a 60% kill rate really doesn’t work too well.
The most important thing to look at for balance in my opinion is the distribution curve of 0k-1k-2k-3k-4k. To me, the closest you can get to perfect balance is an equal chance of 20% for any of the given outcomes. This is highly unrealistic given the nature of the game, but it should be the goal. It would give the survivor team and the killer both a 40% winrate. This also creates a 50% killrate.
It has flaws, but to me, it is the simplest way to look at how to balance the game.
1 -
Then don't play, it's a 1v4 so it's going to be "unbalanced" for a reason. go play apex if you want fair 1v1s.
6 -
Just because it is 1v4 doesn't mean the 1 has to have such an advantage that the skill of the 4 means nothing.
2 -
Never said that, but to too many people this game should be 1v1 which obviously it's not supposed to be.
0 -
It would need to be a 62.5% to be as close to "even" as possible, but I don't even think it should be even. The killer should be a force to be reckoned with. Escaping should be some bragging rights - going face to face with Myers himself and living. I don't think it should be a simple red team vs blue team with a 50% chance for both sides. That, however, is merely my opinion (except the 62.5% part - that's just mathematically accurate).
1 -
Cool story bro.
You trying to convince us or yourself?
Either way, I’m not buying it.
Do you think survivors log on just to fulfill some weird “ power” fantasy killer mains have?
4 -
Do you seriously think that a draw is a loss for killer? What makes you think that way?
1 -
In fighting games, a 6/4 matchup (aka 60% vs 40% winrate) is considered completely normal, and their skill doesn't suddenly "mean nothing." There is no point in being hyperbolic about a minor statistical advantage.
3 -
I can only hope you're joking. Just in case you aren't, the killer drawing means:
1. They did not win
2. Half of the survivor team won (ie survivors had 2 winning players). This means the killer is the only player in the match that their side didn't get a win. If the other side side has winners, and yours did not, you lost, lol.
In the end, there is no real draw conditions in this game since survivors win or lose at an individual basis per BHVR's statement. It comes down to if you win or not as killer or survivor. If the killer only gets 2 people, he did not win the match. That's effectively a loss.
1 -
The devs fully explained that, so i was curious how someone can have that idea. Whats the background behind that.
What you mentioned not correct. Let me explain.
2 kills are a draw for the killer. He can have 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. possible outcomes. Whats the middle of 0,1,2,3,4? Its 2. 0,1 kill is a loss, 2 kills is a draw 3,4 kills is a win.
Also from a survior standpoint it is a draw. 4 survivor 2 kills, 2 escapes. A draw.
"Half of the survivor team won" ... yea right and half lost. No way this could be a draw. Sorry i dont want to sound condicending but the way you added "you're joking" on such a simple thing cracked me up a little bit.
Anyway, if you believe 2 kills is a loss for the killer, then it is your personal idea of that.
6 -
You're incorrect. The devs stated the survivors have an individual win condition. The survivors dont get a draw. You either win or lose at a survivor level. You can win but other 3 lose. You can lose but the other 3 win. Etc...
That means 2 kills means the survivors had two winners and the killer did not win, as he needs 3 kills for a win.
Draws only happens if both sides can draw. You can argue with the designers of the game if you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that the killer either wins or loses. There is no actual draw condition since it's impossible for the survivor team to draw since survivor wins are at an individual basis.
That's not my opinion, that's the devs' opinion. Considering they make the game, I'd argue that is the reality of it. I personally don't agree with their opinion, I think it should be team based (ie 2 kills should be a draw for both sides), but they do not agree with that opinion. They make they rules, so what they say stands.
2 -
Now that you mentioned pipping being personal win condition for many please remove depips... They cause lot of stress for players and make the game sweaty and depip is for many salt to the wound when losing. As grades don't affect matchmaking anymore, they're not needed to be so competive and if it's then too easy to reach red ranks just double the pip amount required to get there then grades really indicate just playing time.
0 -
I made this example of course from the killers perspective.
If you have any doubt on what i posted, feel free to read it for yourself:
I quote:
- Killing 0 or 1 Survivor(s) is considered a loss towards MMR.
- Killing 2 Survivors is considered a draw.
- Killing 3 or 4 Survivors is considered a win towards MMR.
2 -
It's not minor. 15-20% inherent advantage is broken.
Besides, killers that know how to play can actually win over a thousand matches non-stop. Imagine that happening in ANY other video game. That community would be completely distraught. Something seriously needs fixing with the balance of DBD to make it fair. Survivor is nowhere close to having fair chances.
2 -
That's for MMR matchmaking. You're in the wrong thread for that discussion. That's why they also used the word considered. For the purposes of MMR, they consider those events as such despite that not being the reality. We are talking about actual win rates and why 60% is the standard. We aren't talking about MMR adjustments. Again, you can argue with the devs all day, that's fine. Not sure why you're all up in my case here, if you're trying to change things, direct it to the devs. I personally agree with you that they SHOULD do win loss rates on a loss draw win scale, but they don't. Telling me your opinion that that's wrong constantly isn't doing much. It's them you have to convince, not me lol.
A draw is when neither side wins. Survivors literally can never draw, as survivors do NOT utilize the entire team as a win or loss condition. Each survivor gets their own win or loss condition. This means that an actual draw is not possible in DBD, as both sides cannot simultaneously not have any winners. However, doing MMR like that would be hell, so for the purposes of MMR, they consider 2 kills as a draw for the killer. We are all aware of how flawed their MMR system is, but they are doing their best.
0 -
feel free to keep your defeatist perspective, other people will continue playing their best and winning a decent amount.
because, you know, even 40% is more than 0%.
4 -
That is the best strawman i have ever read. Declaring a strawman for the purpuse of creating one :D
You think there are no draws in this game. I showed you that there are. You said you need a 62,5% killrate so you get a 50% winrate as killer, which is completly wrong. I said the only way you can have the 62,5% to make sense is that a killer can only have wins or loose, AND NO DRAWS. You argued that there are no draws. I showed you that there are.
Wanna spin in that circle again?
0 -
Now you're just making things up. Where did I ever say there are no losses in the game?
Maybe you're just trolling or you honestly don't understand the basic concept of what a draw is.
A draw is when neither side wins. Survivors literally can never draw, as survivors do NOT utilize the entire team as a win or loss condition. Each survivor gets their own win or loss condition. This means that an actual draw is not possible in DBD, as both sides cannot simultaneously not have any winners. However, doing MMR like that would be hell, so for the purposes of MMR, they consider 2 kills as a draw for the killer. We are all aware of how flawed their MMR system is, but they are doing their best.
And yes, 62.5% kill rate (2.5 kills per match on average) would be considered balance (at least on paper). This means that every 2 matches, a killer would get one win with a 3k+. For survivors, this means every match would have an expected result of one survivor winning (killer got a 3k), and every other match, the survivors would get 2 wins (and of course the killer doesn't win). If the killer got a 50% kill rate (2k) He would not win in every match. If he had a 75% kill rate (3k), he would win every match. If you take that difference between 50 and 75. You get 25. Find the halfway mark, and you get 12.5%. So for a killer to settle in the middle where he doesn't always lose and doesn't always win, you give him a +12.5% kill rate. Now half his matches he wins, and half of his matches he does not.
Since drawing is actually not possible since drawing requires BOTH sides to not have any winners, then the reality is that the killer did not win, he lost.
So what we know from this is that the killer is designed to win half of his matches, but since he is below the halfway mark with only 60%, every so often, he's also designed to have an extra loss from time to time.
Why is this so messy? Ask the devs. They designed it this way. We all know someone escaping shouldn't necessarily mean they should go up in mmr. What if they just hid all match then ran out the gate at the end leaving teammates to die? Their mmr system is flawed. It instead should be based on the entire team for survivors. However, they do not agree with this idea.
0 -
the real question is why should killers (aka a powerful being in the realm) be on the same level as survivors.
1 -
One last time and the I give up after this. Believe in what you want to believe and lets agree with disagree. Please reread my post.
The killer can have wins, draws and losses. If a survivor can have a draw or not (they can, hatch by the way) is completly irrelevant for the winrate of the killer.
Here is as i already mentioned in the orginal post, lets look at the Clown. He has 50% killrate
43% winrate (3 or 4K)
15% drawrate (2K)
41% lossrate (1K or 0K)
So i said, and once and for all to make myself 100% clear. Your 62,5% killrate would ONLY MAKE SENSE FOR A 50% WINRATE WHEN THE KILLER COULD NOT HAVE A DRAW OR YOU, FOR SOME REASON CONSIDERE A 2K ALSO A LOSS FOR THE KILLER, WHICH CLEARLY IS NOT THE CASE. Even in the graphic is say DRAW!
If we have a killer that comes close to the 62,5% KILLRATE (lets look at Skull Merchant) it looks like this:
Skull Merchant (67% killrate)
64% winrate (3 or 4K)
10% drawrate (2K)
25% lossrate (1K or 0K)
I hope this is clear now.
0 -
As long as you are OK with only winning against potato killers then it doesn't sound like much of an accomplishment to win. For me, nope.
0 -
Don't know what to tell you. The devs disagree with you. Heck, they disagree with us both. Survivors should not have an individual win condition, it should be 0-1 kills is a killer loss and survivor team win, 2 kills is a draw both sides, and 3+ kills is a killer win and survivor team loss. However, the devs DISAGREE with that assessment. If you're honestly that upset about it to keep posting here, then direct it to the right people, the devs. Post it under feedback. I literally can do nothing to change how the devs make their game, so you constantly saying you disagree with them to me doesn't accomplish much, especially considering I agree that they should have it be based at a team level for both sides. Until they change that, survivors are designed to on average have 1-2 winners, and the killer is designed on average to slightly be under winning half of their games.
Maybe this is where you are missing the devs' point of view. This game is designed as a 1 player vs 4 individual players. That's why each of those 4 individual players get their own win condition. You cannot have a draw in such a situation. A draw is where neither side wins or loses. This is not team a vs team b. This is one player vs 4 individual players. There is no situation where all 5 players would neither win or lose. The survivors csn choose to work together to increase their odds, but at the end of the day, it's every man for himself. One survivor can abandon the other 3 where they win and the other 3 lose.
Don't like it? Post about it under feedback. That's how the devs designed it. I personally think it SHOULD be balanced around team vs team, but they wholeheartedly disagree with that opinion.
0 -
A 'draw' is when neither side wins or loses. It's a condition that requires symmetry and does not apply to an asymmetrical game. As I said before, the idea that a 2K = Draw is a fallacy, an illusion induced by the fact that there's an even number of survivors. If this game was set up at 3 survivors against 1 killer, you couldn't define a 'draw'.
The killer isn't 'drawing' with a 2K, the killer is merely completing half of their objective. Meanwhile 2 survivors win and 2 survivors lose. Completely different paradigm.
Considering the game doesn't have a defined win condition for the killer outside of a 4K, the question is 'does completing half of your objective feel the same as drawing?' Which is just as subjective as 'does completing 75% of your objective feel like winning?'
And personally, no. A 2K is only possible when the survivors complete their objective and open the exit gates. That doesn't feel like a win in most cases, particularly when the remaining 2 survivors are teabagging at the exit gate.
Does it feel like winning for survivors when you repair 4/5 gens? Does it feel like a 'draw' when you repair 2.5 gens but still die? That's half your objective.
2 -
Because it is a PvP video game. Shocking revelation, I know. And unlike most other asymms your only goal as survivor is to escape rather than to take down the said powerful being.
5 -
Killer has to be made slightly attractive or there would be no games.
During the few months prior to 6.1.0, barely anyone was playing Killer. If the game ever falls back into that state again, then all the effort from 6.1.0 a year ago till now would have been a waste.
4 -
its not balanced at all, survivor is a nightmare nowadays.
3 -
Given that my post was in reply to someone agreeing with that very idea then I'd say there are players much like myself who enjoy having to flee from a scary powerful killer when playing survivor.
Part of the fun of playing survivor is the fact that its supposed to be scary and challenging.
You didn't really read much of the topic before posting did you?
3 -
The killer isn't automatically winning and thinking so is grossly overblowing the 10% skew. As I always say if you need an extreme example to make your point then you have a weak point.
So what is the survivor fantasy? From a thematic perspective its about trying to survivor a nightmare realm and escape from the killer against all the odds.
So the fantasy role for survivor is to survive against the odds. Which is both a fun challenge and thematically appropriate.
If you are logging in to a game as survivor expecting to be some hero that's gonna go toe to toe with the killer and come out on top then you have kinda missed the point of DBD and horror survival in general.
What I see most games has nothing to do with cheese mechanics, just people who think they are better than they are blaming cheese mechanics for their losses.
A case in point is the series of back and forth that lead to this post quoted.
I'd say from this kind of mindset that it's a good probability that you just aren't very good at the game or at least not as good as you want to be (That's ok by the way many players aren't).
Where things differ is my failures are my fault, while your failures are the game's fault, see the difference there. These two different lines of thinking often separate those who improve and do well from those who flatline and stagnate.
5 -
Talking about the survivor "fantasy": Playing for example Laurie Strode, who always (Resurrection is not cannon! 😅) survives is the same argument as the killer fantasy. The survivor should never be caught. Those arguments are just silly, its a video game and should be fun for everyone. The better player wins. Designing the game so one side is much more powerful does not work in the long run. I can not imagine having fun loosing all the time, no matter if killer of survivor. It gets even more frustrating when one side is clearly less skilled and still has the upper hand because playing "the power role". No thanks to that.
4 -
Someone please send this video for bhvr devs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOliDIQxQlE&ab_channel=DonutBoy
0 -
And this is exactly what I was saying. We can't even agree on what a win or a loss is or what is balance within the context of the game.
2 -
its a 1v4 asymmetrical. the one has to be above the other 4 (not too high) because from a game design standpoint thats ONE vs FOUR. and from dbds standpoint one is a KILLER the others are survivors. I hate to break it to you man but if its 50/50% that ironically is not balanced in this case. thats just showing how powerful the survivor role is compared to killer
1 -
Killers can
A. Stay AFK and not play, at any moment of the match
B. Farm with survivors and let them escape
C. Play normally but decide to let some survivors escape
6 -
We don't have to argue what is a win or loss. The devs stated a non hatch escape is a win for individual survivors (there is no survivor team win or loss condition, its 1 killer vs 4 individuals). 3K+ is a killer win.
The only thing close to an argument is if a 2k is a loss or a draw for the killer, but draws require two sides to neither win or lose, and it's impossible for a 1 vs 4 individuals to ever have that situation, so a 2k is a killer loss. For the purposes of mmr adjustments, they do treat a 2k as a neutral result (you don't go up or down).
1 -
At no point did I say that killer should always win or survivor always lose. Absolute arguments are exactly as you put it, just plain silly.
In a survival horror setting what makes the experience exciting and hence fun is the tension. Tension only exists if there is a genuine threat from the antagonist. There must be the ever present threat of being caught otherwise what's the point?
Your question was how is 60% kill rate balanced? the answer is, it’s not entirely balanced but that’s ok in this setting.
As to have the kind of tension that should exist in a survival horror there needs to be a slight killer bias in outcome otherwise you aren’t fighting against the odds as survivor. This bias is then attenuated by survivor teamwork hence why its 4v1.
Its asymmetric and that asymmetry will create some fluctuating bias in outcome and as I said a slight killer bias in kill rate is not out of place given the games setting. In fact you'd expect it if things were balancing well, because 1v1 survivors should be at a disadvantage vs the killer mechanically.
A better question would be… How much killer bias is too much that it skews the game beyond what is reasonable? I don’t think a 10% swing in outcome is so large that it undermines the survivor player experience.
That intrinsic threat enhances the survivor experience before you even begin to assess perceptions of player skill.
5 -
To put this simple: 10% is a lot. It does not sound much, but in any semi-competetive game, 10% more winrate is considered broken.
So your argument, that the killer should have this advantage might make sense because it is a horror game, killer should be a threat) ect ect but it does not. The game is so extremly unballanced between solo and SWF, that it is pointless to even aim for anything higher then a 50/50, and this can only be realisticly achieved by giving solo players a tremendous buff.
2 -
I legitimately agree. I think the game is more fun as a surv when I go into matches feeling like death is the most likely outcome; success is always more rewarding when the odds are against you, at least as bit.
In a game ostensibly based on horror tropes, it only seems right. Horror movies wouldn't be as enjoyable if most of the cast didn't die.
2
