Should Killer feel like the power role? Does Killer feel like the power role?

2

Comments

  • HauntedKnight
    HauntedKnight Member Posts: 388

    As the game has changed over the years, the player base, and it is more the survivor main side of the playerbase, seem to have trouble accepting how an asymmetrical game should be balanced.

    Quite simply. In a 1 vs 4, the 1 needs to be more powerful than the 4 in the 1 v 1. This is why killers move faster as the most obvious example of this. So how do the 4 win? By buying time for their teammates when in chase and by utilising good teamwork. That’s literally the crux of this game’s design.

    So what’s happened? A few things. The horror element is gone. Despite the game’s description anywhere you look calling it a horror game a large number of players don’t vibe with this. To them it’s a competitive multiplayer action game. When they 1 v 1 they want it to be on an equal footing. This is where all the gaslighting nonsense about “killer power fantasy” comes in. In a asymm game of this nature the killer literally has to be stronger than the survivors otherwise there will be no killer players. Too many people have watched clips of some baby/bad killer being looped by their favourite streamer and think that is what should be normal. And if they can’t do it it’s because killer is OP.

    Now clearly there are killer players with egos who diminish the skill and game sense playing survivor takes. They don’t understand how a survivor can be juicing them and can’t swallow their pride to drop chase. But if anyone really thinks that killers shouldn’t be the “power role” (a term I hate tbh) then thank god they’re not developers as this game would fold in weeks. Killer bots would have to be implemented.

  • crogers271
    crogers271 Member Posts: 1,785

    On the other hand this game is a Killer power fantasy so a Killer bias is absolutely to be expected.

    The game is a killer power fantasy? Maybe its a wording choice, but this seems strange. Do people really want to play the killers from horror movies?

    To me, and fundamentally because the game requires more of them, the game is about the tension and thrill of trying to escape a killer. That means the killer has to be dangerous enough that it feels meaningful to escape, but not so dangerous that it feels pointless to play the game.

    Should the Killer be a threat, but not enough of a threat to lock one or more Survivors out of a game?

    It's impossible to create a game where skill mismatches never happen or players always feel they have agency. However, it is a flawed game design that the killer can pick a survivor and that player has no agency, especially if they/the other survivors didn't guess right on the perks. I do not know if there is a realistic way to fix it at this point.

    Should the game go to a scoreboard type of game without eliminations? Wouldn’t that destroy what the game is about?

    No, and yes it would destroy the game immediately.

    What about when Survivors are the power role? It does happen; is this an allowable prejudice?

    At this point I don't know what you mean by power role. Times when the survivor are in control and clear favorite? As I said earlier, skill mismatches are inevitable.

    The Survivors if playing correctly can beat the Killer. There exists a pathway to victory. This tells me that ultimately teamwork itself is the power role.

    I'm not seeing the logic here. Switch killer and survivor there and the sentence still makes sense.

    The problem is that it is difficult to manifest the discipline required to achieve this teamwork. Impatience, selfishness, lack of awareness etc. get in the way of Survivor victory.

    That's the design of the game where it pits altruism against induvial gains, which is also a big element of horror movies.

    If escaping became easier I believe this whole game would unravel and deteriorate.

    It depends on how a much issue. If killer were 90% or 10% would the game be fun? No, pretty much everyone would agree on that. If there were 55%? 50%? 45%? 65%? It's more a line drawing question. If they were a little lower I think it would be healthy, but don't consider it a huge problem.

  • Raconteurminator
    Raconteurminator Member Posts: 618

    It's an asymmetrical multiplayer game. If one side isn't the power role, then the premise falls to pieces; a force too great to overcome individually can be defeated with teamwork and cunning. It's 4v1, the 1 needs to be a threat.

  • Xernoton
    Xernoton Member Posts: 5,817

    Of course all killers have limits but that is not quite the point. My point was that some killers limits are comparitively low. Lower than what survivors can consistently achieve, if they play well enough. Take any A-tier killer for example and put them to the test against a low tier killer. The low tier killer will be able to keep up quite well (assuming the play pretty good) until they reach a certain point. That is the point where these lower tier killers will have the issue, that they cannot create opportunities for themself in a timely manner (building up bloodlust still works but is not an effective strategy because it takes too long) and instead have to rely on the survivors making mistakes.

    What if these mistakes don't happen? Or what if these mistakes aren't grand enough for the killer to capitalise? Then the low tier killer is in a pretty spot. Our A-tier killer in comparison (let's say it's a Huntress), still has the strength to force survivors into lose-lose situations. A crazy good Huntress will find spots where the survivor gets hit no matter how good they are. She will also be able to do some things that are more unexpected than a M1 killer mind game, that the survivor has already seen a million times before.

    Of course the possibilities vary among high tier killers too but to say that all killers will achieve equal results, if you just play them well enough would imply either:

    1) All killers are significantly stronger than survivors (extremely killer sided game considering that we do consider different killers to be way stronger or weaker than others)

    or

    2) All killers are equally strong once you reach a certain level of gameplay (wrong because Nurse literally teleports through walls and hits you anywhere, where a M1 killer still has to follow the game's rules)

    Both of these implications are wrong, so we can conclude, that the initial assumption was wrong as well.

  • HerInfernalMajesty
    HerInfernalMajesty Member Posts: 1,783

    Thanks for pointing this out. I didn’t clarify it in my original post but later in a comment.

    Even if the kill rate was 10%, the Killer is still technically the power role right? But then realistically, is a 10% kill rate enough for the power role?

  • jonifire
    jonifire Member Posts: 1,437
    edited December 2023

    That‘s how my rounds are going and I‘m almost at the point of quitting survivor entirely.

    The last map reworks made clear where behavior is going and continuing this will kill the game for most people that aren‘t the top 5-10%.

    Killers should have a kill rate above 50%, but not much more.

  • xEa
    xEa Member Posts: 4,105
    edited December 2023

    They did a series of showmatches with no restriction and killer came out on top (comp players vs comp players). So i do think some killers are stronger then best survivor comp teams, mainly Nurse Spirt and Blight. But it is okay to think otherwise since we dont have much footage of that.

    Switch 4 and 5 for obvious reason and i would fully agree with your updated list.

    Sure thing, Bully squads were at a time where survivors had strong tools, more powerful perks and especially when better maps were a thing. But those Bully squads often ran in less experienced killers at that time due to more or less random matchmaking. I never saw a bully squad in 2018 "bullying" for example a good mega blink nurse. In that case, the Bully was the killer.

    That is also why i believe ballance is important. When killer are to strong, they become the bully. We see this very often now in currenct matchmaking. So i stick with that statement - ballance and solid matchmaking is actually a great way to elliminate bully squads/bullying killers.

    I am not saying, turn the tides and make survivor huge favourite, i am saying make it even. And improve the matchmaking system.

  • HerInfernalMajesty
    HerInfernalMajesty Member Posts: 1,783

    I appreciate your comment. I really do. My line of thinking is that if kill rates were to be 50% that means on average 2 Survivors escape per match. Technically this is a draw (by community standards). Because of this then half the time, the Killer draws at best? I think that’s why the 60% kill rate is the sweet spot for this since a 3K is considered a Killer win.

    But this gets into the territory of “why is a 2K considered a draw?”

  • HerInfernalMajesty
    HerInfernalMajesty Member Posts: 1,783

    In your opinion, is a 2K a win for the Killer or a draw? Is there a way of judging what winning is for a Killer apart from a 4K?

  • xEa
    xEa Member Posts: 4,105
    edited December 2023

    Speaking objectivly: 0-1K is a loss, 2k is a draw, 3-4k is a win.

    Personally i would say a great game is a win and a bad game is a loss - no matter the outcome.

    BUT if i had to decide what a win/draw/loss for me and everybody else should be, then i would be leaning towards hook stages. Because then, we most of the time always have many if not everybody winning.

    For killer 0-5 hook stages is a loss (have not happend to me a single time since i am back), 6 is a draw and above is a win. For survivor, if they personally escape, its always a win, but if they die, they can still rely on their teammates. If more then 2 gets out, its still a win for them. 😁

    Often, we have many winners!😉

  • GeneralV
    GeneralV Member Posts: 11,075

    The thing about Freddy is that you can still do well with him, it is just extremely boring to do so.

    Like, take this screenshot for example. A little bit before the event, if I recall correctly:

    That is a 4k, I've won. Technically, one could argue I had enough control of the trial to get all four survivors.

    But it doesn't feel good to play him.

    Enough control of the match or not, I've been a Freddy main since 2018 and no awful rework or nerf will ever change that. But I desperately want my favorite killer back.

  • MikaelaWantsYourBoon
    MikaelaWantsYourBoon Member Posts: 6,564

    Even weakest killers are above 50% , so i don't know. I am not saying weakest killers should not be buffed but most of killers are just doing fine. This game is not favoring survivors. Even most of SWF teams are very much defeatable.

  • HerInfernalMajesty
    HerInfernalMajesty Member Posts: 1,783

    Thank you for coming into this thread.

    Let me get this out of the way: First, I do not believe in a hyper OP Killer where Survivors have no control whatsoever. I truly want this to be a fun game for both roles (I play Survivor a ton!). My main desire is for this game to be as thrilling as possible. Because of skill disparities it will be impossible to always have this.

    When it comes to the technicalities of the power role, then yes overwhelmingly the Killer is the power role. But there are times where the Survivors are the power role when they are exceedingly better than a Killer lacking in skill or experience. Of course in this situation we would be getting into holding the game hostage territory which is already bannable. So on the front we are good.

    What is difficult for me to come around to is a 50% kill rate. I see discussion that 50/50 is fair. And in most cases I would agree! But in this game it is vague, but frankly isn’t a 2K a draw for the Killer? I think this is where the fairness comes down to. Should Killers temper their understanding of winning to include a 2K instead of only 3K and 4K?

    Also, I fully understand that personal winning looks different for everyone. To some Killers a 4E is a win just as long as there were some jump scares and tense moments (this is where I reside).

    But again, do we consider a 2K a win or a draw? If that can’t be answered then I’m afraid the argument is a stale mate.

    I personally think that a kill rate of 60% is the sweet spot. The killer is a threat but not too much. A 3K per match (a definitive Killer win) would be 75%. 60% is below that number so 50% of the time the Killer still isn’t “winning”.

    Again I appreciate your civility on this subject, it is a topic we are all passionate about. We all enjoy this game in different ways and in different degrees. I’m sure we all want it to be the best game it could be. In my opinion I just don’t think the player base will correlate a 2K average as a Killer win 50% of the time. But I am more than open to hearing any ideas about this subject. I am more than open to changing my mind about this topic.

  • alpha5
    alpha5 Member Posts: 362
    edited December 2023

    Power role is a design concept. The actual kill rate is a balance/implementation issue. This is why the distinction is important. If a killer has a 10% kill rate, he is badly balanced, but he would still be the power role because he decides who gets to sit on gens, who gets to loop and what 10% get to leave the trial early.

  • Xernoton
    Xernoton Member Posts: 5,817

    Could you point me towards that showcase? I haven't seen that and would definitely like to be educated on it. Though, it kind of leaves the question: "Why are these limitations in place to begin with?" At least against Nurses and Blights. Could be for consistency reasons but other than that, I don't know.

    I think we'll have to agree to disagree on the order of 4) and 5). The difference isn't huge but I think that the communication and consistency that a full SWF provide ultimately still give them an advantage over the killer. Of course we would assume that everyone plays well and the survivors communicate effectively (otherwise I'd consider them an example for category 6)). But I respect your opinion on that matter.

    The matchmaking in DBD is still not a perfect science (which is a good thing imo). How many content creators have you seen loop a killer for minutes? There are tons of these videos and that should not happen when the killer plays just as well as the survivors. Also, many of these bully squads focus more on making the killer miserable than actually winning, so the MMR will put them against killers below their own skill quite often.

    The problem with perfect balance (in the sense of a 50% kill rate) in my opinion is that it would make the game less fun for everyone, that doesn't play quite as serious. I personally do not like the idea of my matches all becoming super hard but somehow manageable (close to how it was shortly after MMR was introduced) because it would lead to matches becoming more predictable, any chance of variety disappearing (worse than DBD's always narrow meta) and ultimately a more stressful experience. If this is what a majority of players want (so many players, that BHVR would actually be willing to follow that route), then I'd have to deal with it but my interest in the game would lessen.

    I know this opinion is not very popular but I am fine with MMR as it is. To me, it feels similar to the old rank system and I have a lot of fun knowing that I cannot predict, if I will win or lose and how even the match will be.

  • Xernoton
    Xernoton Member Posts: 5,817

    The problem with that argument is that DBD's matchmaking is based on MMR. Meaning the top 5% Nurse MMR could be higher than the top 0.01% Freddy MMR, so their respective survivors would vary in their skill levels as well. It only shows that the matchmaking and balance in combination achieve these results. They only took the top 5% MMR on each individual killer and not the top 5% overall killer MMR after all.

  • MechWarrior3
    MechWarrior3 Member Posts: 2,367

    The roadmap doesn’t say that those killers are getting nerfs. We can’t assume that this is what’s going to happen either. Bhvr always does a give and a take.

  • HerInfernalMajesty
    HerInfernalMajesty Member Posts: 1,783

    I see where you are coming from. Everyone wins, Survivors escape, and Killers get at least 7 hooks.

    I just have a really hard time believing that the Killer player base will accept a 7 hook 4E as a win. And I honestly can’t blame them for feeling that way.

  • HerInfernalMajesty
    HerInfernalMajesty Member Posts: 1,783

    Sure. I completely agree. Thank you for keeping me sharp.

  • Xernoton
    Xernoton Member Posts: 5,817

    I agree that you can perform well (even very well) with any killer. But you will hardly achieve the same results with Freddy as a Nurse main would with Nurse against the same survivors.

    All you Freddy mains out there have my respect (I can't believe I am saying this now after I had to suffer through Forever Freddy when I started playing DBD). I play him from time to time but I always know, that I have very little power outside of my M1 killer plays and he does get boring after a bit (sadly, not even his laugh and animations can change that).

    I am with you on wishing for a comeback of old Freddy. I never got to play him and I am not sure how well he would hold up in modern day DBD (after all, the game has changed quite a bit) but I like the old design a lot more from what I've seen. Maybe he just needs the DH approach where we flood the forum with so many posts about him that the devs will deal with him out of annoyance, if nothing else.

    In which case: BRING BACK OLD FREDDY!!!!!!

  • alpha5
    alpha5 Member Posts: 362

    If he means the showcase from Hens it is not that interesting. The twist was they ramped up the limitations for Blight vs Nurse. First without any addons, then up to yellow or green, then no limits. Something like that. Only 6 games iirc. It Anyway, here you go.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcm0MqWMxKs

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Z8lP_gBJE

  • CLHL
    CLHL Member Posts: 177

    The so-called best players of this game face each other in 1v1 tournaments where chases last around two minutes on Autohaven, and that's not an extremely strong map for survivors such as Garden of Joy, where the result would be even worse. It is often said that a chase should not last more than 30 seconds, but this is the reality among really good players.

  • GeneralV
    GeneralV Member Posts: 11,075

    Yeah, while it is possible for a Freddy and a Nurse to beat the same group of survivors, a Nurse will do it far more effectively and faster. That sadly can be said for most killers when compared to Freddy, as this is the weakest he has ever been. I think only Clown is inferior, but that can be debatable.

    What Freddy has going for him is the fact that he is Freddy Krueger. The character is legendary, his visuals are cool and I love his laugh. And then he has the teleport as essentially his only power, because Snares and Dream Pallets are kinda useless. Now, I have no problem with Freddy not having anything for chases because I like the M1 playstyle, but my favorite killer had other strengths (aura reading, being invisible to awake survivors, gen slowdown at base) that current Freddy does not have.

    Thank you very much for the support, my friend, that means a lot to me. It has been a long dance since July of 2019 and I'm desperate for my favorite killer to come back to me. I'll never stop insisting on this matter, and I'm certain I will get him back one day.

    Preferably with QoL improvements, because he actually needed those and that is what most Freddy mains want. But even if he were to come back exactly as he was, I would still love him.

  • xEa
    xEa Member Posts: 4,105
    edited December 2023

    For sure, at the current state of the game, this would not feel very satisfying for killer, but i am talking about what i would like to have. In no way do i have an idea how this could be a possibility. A start would be that hook stages, especially fresh hooks count way more then they do now. Then at least you dont get the "entity hungers" while you actually hooked a fair amount of people.

    I am sorry, but i can not find it anymore. It was a series of multible sets and i believe it was on Hens stream. Not 100% sure tho.

    EDIT: Nevermind, i found this best of. Its not exactly what i was looking for, but its something. Enjoy.

    Its fine, we can disagree on that. For sure the gap is not very wide, so its nitpicking anyway.

    It depends on which killer they run into. My opinion on that matter is that this is more a matchmaking issue. Often times i run a killer for 5 gens aswell, just had a match a few hours ago where a pig (the first pig i saw in ages 😥) wanted it really to know. But they are usually not on my level - the pig for example had like 1.500 hours and was prestige 4. No idea why a player like this is in my lobby. The same is for those killers who get looped by streamers. If you ask me if this should be possible: Yes an no. Yes in terms of if a survivor is so much better then the killer and No because they should not play the same match in the first place.

    Mmh i think it would be still fun for both sides. Actually, if i am allowed to speak for myself here: I would have a ton more fun playing killer when it would be 50/50. This sounds very arrogant, but it is true that most games playing killer feel just like a slauter fest. Its to easy nowadays, more often then not. Of course you get those more sweaty games in between, but realisticly it is really not that hard. Thats a me thing probably, because i am more of a competetive type player and i dont get a kick out of destroying the "weaker" side.

    Completly fine to think the MMR is good.

    Oh and before i forget: If i remember right, you are a billy main so this is also for you. 😊


  • drsoontm
    drsoontm Member Posts: 4,898

    Yes.

    No.

  • pseudechis
    pseudechis Member Posts: 3,904

    I agree with the points you bring up here.

    I'm cautious about terms like "power role" because people have different perceptions of what the power role looks like. A clearer or at least more tangible definable concept would be "killer bias in outcome" as that's measurable.

    1. Do killers get more kills than survivors get escapes?
    2. If yes, is it ok that they do?
    3. How much bias is too much that it undermines the game experience?

    You've posed the million dollar question. Lets try and answer it.

    Its a balancing act between a team of survivors being able to outplay a killer without a solo survivor being the equivalent of a killer.

    To clarify people have different conditions on what they define as a "win" but in terms of measurable game outcome you could safely consider death/escape as a binary measure of outcome and hence "win" condition.

    With that in mind there is solo killer with one measurable outcome or "win" condition... did you kill more survivors than escaped?

    Survivor gets a lil greyer because considering death/escape as the measure for outcome, a survivor has two win conditions.

    1. Did I escape/die
    2. Did more of my team escape/die... even if I died.

    To the argument of why bias for one player over four... because we bias the four players already by providing two win conditions vs one.

    For example... if you die but the rest of the team escapes who won?

    In the most simple terms, you lost because dead, killer lost because more escape than dead, and the other 3 survivors won. I died but that loss is somewhat attenuated because my team won. So I can still win as survivor even though I lost/died.

    That's the inherent bias that survivor outcome enjoys, Its a team game I can lose but still win. Its counter matched in solo killer by the inherent bias killer has vs a survivor 1v1.

    So when survivors play as a team they can beat the killer, when they play solo they likely die.

    We see this manifest in a killer bias in overall death/escape outcome, as you'd expect even a positive survivor team outcome, or win, likely to include at least 1 death. Also not every survivor is playing as a team member. Many are playing for their own selfish success which is if I escape I've won nothing less, which we see manifest as the disparity between survival rate when comparing SWF vs solo survivor.

    Killer kills survivor 1v1, loses to survivor 4v1 and needs to be equivalent of at least 3v1 (if not 4) in power to be a tangible game threat. That's balance, but its balance that will likely measurably manifest itself in a killer bias in kill rate.

    So is a killer bias in outcome acceptable? Well if a killer is the equivalent of 3-4x survivor and as such "balanced" then we'd expect to see a killer bias in outcome. So the game is actually more balanced than people give it credit for when we consider the measured outcome. Is it acceptable, that's subjective. I'm ok with it because it adequately represents the horror survival theme that the game is built around.

    Which leads to the all important question how much killer bias is too much? I think anything that results in a median between 2D-2E and 3D-1E as outcome would be a sweet spot, given that survivor has two win conditions both team and personal vs the killer's one.

    Which is pretty well close to a 60-40 spread in kill rate. Somewhere between 50-50 and 75-25 given the asymmetry of the game design and the disparity between the 1 and 2 win/loss conditions for either side. This is mechanically sound even when ignoring the thematic aspects of the game and considering competitive outcome alone.

    So a 60-40 killer bias in D/E outcome is both competitively appropriate and thematically appropriate. Making it an acceptable average game outcome.

    Tying it back to the OP, I guess this would make killer the "power role" if one was inclined to define it in such a way.

  • Sandt1985
    Sandt1985 Member Posts: 342

    Should killer feel like the power role? Absolutely

    Does killer feel like the power role? I mean, sometimes

  • Xernoton
    Xernoton Member Posts: 5,817
  • Firellius
    Firellius Member Posts: 4,354

    Kill rate and win rate are not hard-linked like that. @ratcoffee broke it down in another thread, but you can have a kill rate as high as 50% while holding a winrate of 0%, or a kill rate as low as 45% while holding a winrate of 60%.

    They're not hard-linked because of the varied distribution of outcomes, which makes me think that kill rates really shouldn't be on the forefront. This is also compounded by the swing in hookstates: You can get a 4K off 4 hooks, or a 0K off 8. Chances are, the killer was stronger in the latter scenario and felt like more of a power role, despite losing, compared to the 4K off 4 hooks.

    I know I have a better time with 8 hooks, zero kills, than with 2 hooks, one kill, despite the latter being ostensibly better for my kill rates.

    But there are times where the Survivors are the power role when they are exceedingly better than a Killer lacking in skill or experience.

    I also want to add in here that this isn't really a change to the fundamentals of the game. I do think that bully squads have a bit too much power in their corner and I'd love to see that pruned, but it doesn't change that killers are still mechanically the power role. Additionally, a large gap in skill doesn't state anything about the inner workings or balancing of the game.

    In MOBAs, for example, having a grandmaster with a certain champion utterly demolish an iron-tier player with the same champion doesn't mean that the champion is overpowered or underpowered. So these hypothetical big imbalances aren't really relevant to the discussion, IMO.

  • xEa
    xEa Member Posts: 4,105
    edited December 2023

    Oh no, not this again😥

    Its because we have a draw outcome. And a 0k is a relevant variable. So is a draw neither a win or a loss. There we go:

    Myers is at roughly 60% killrate. This means, as we can see, the killer wins 51% and only looses 33% of the time. 0 kills is an outcome in DBD, and you have to put this into account. In fact, winrate with a 60% killer is compared to looserate actually even much higher then lossrate.

    Another example:

    60% killrate on plague translates into 54% winrate and only 34% lossrate. 0 kill is a loss, and 2k is a draw. You win significantly more games with her then you would loose.

    No discussion needed, i only wanted to show some proof.

  • xEa
    xEa Member Posts: 4,105

    Did I escape/die

    Did more of my team escape/die... even if I died.

    1. Wins can be defined in many ways: Some may think a pip is a win, some may think a lot of bloodpoints is enough to qualify for a win. And others may think winning is by escaping or 3/4king = Gaining MMR.
    2. The only two times "Did more of my team escape/die... even if I died." is a win condition is true when playingin a comp match or by making this rule for themself.

    Point 1 is ingame reality. You gained something. Pip, MMR, Bloodpoints.

    Point 2 is imaginative. You gain nothing by telling yourself you won the game because 3 of your teammates escaped.


    So besides from playing comp and own ego boosting, "Did more of my team escape/die... even if I died." is not really a true win condition. UNLESS bhvr changes MMR to a Group-MMR. Which would make a lot of sense, but so far it is not reality.

  • Raptorrotas
    Raptorrotas Member Posts: 3,246

    Well some people might argue that a draw is still a loss for the killer. I mean the killer "didnt win" afterall.

    The 2k = draw could only exist once the game actually starts treating/judging survivors as a team, which as you said, isnt the current reality of the game.

    But with the current scoring 2 survivors won the other two and the killer lost.

    ( its also funny to see an actual kill distribution for a 60% killrate compared to the average math formula i keep using lol)

  • Deathstroke
    Deathstroke Member Posts: 3,508

    It's rarely in between if killers tunnel that result 4K most of the time and sometimes 0K when they choose wrong target. More fair but smartly playing killers usually get 2-3K resulting most balanced games.

  • xEa
    xEa Member Posts: 4,105

    A draw is a draw and not a loss.

    If someone for whatever reason thinks the game is lost because of a 2k, then it's a personal thing and has nothing to do with reality how the system works. It is even clarified in the discription of MMR that a 2K is a draw outcome. It is not up for debate. Its a fact.

    The killer is in a 4v1 situation, and it is not relevant at all that the survivors are in a 1v1 situation. Not for the killer. Those are 2 completly, unconnected different things and have nothing to do with the outcome for the killer. Not even for MMR points (not relevant but i am pointing it out anyway), since every survivor looses the same amount in a game since the lobby has an average MMR.

  • RpTheHotrod
    RpTheHotrod Member Posts: 1,886
    edited December 2023

    Not sure how many times someone has to point out that drawing is only a thing if both sides neither win or lose. Considering that each player gets their own win condition, drawing is not a thing in dbd. They do count a 2k as mmr neutral, however. As mentioned countless times before, mmr adjustments aren't the same as winning or losing. You can go down in mmr in games when winning, as can you go up in mmr even if you lose. BHVR also understands this, as the same concept can apply to pipping. You can get a 3k and still depip, for example.

    I know that pesky definition of drawing requiring both sides to neither win or lose bugs you to all end, but that's literally what a draw is. A flat 62.5% kill rate means the killer on average wins half their matches, as that is 2.5 kills per match. That means one match would be under 3k (killer did not win), and the next would be a 3k (killer wins) as the .5 + .5 carries over when averaging matches for one extra kill. Anything below 62.5% would mean on average the killer is below a 50% win rate, and anything above 62.5% would mean on average the killer is above a 50% win rate. Even if you decides to throw the definition of a draw out the window, it's still the killer not winning, and if the killer got only 2 kills and would "draw" (keep in mind we are using your made up custom definition of a draw in this example), you still have that pesky fact that two of survivors (or half the survior team if you want to look at it that way) won. Not much of a draw if the killer entirely doesn't win and the survivor team half wins, now is it? Exactly. That's why there can't be a situation where neither team wins or loses. Every match, SOMEONE is winning. If someone is winning, then there isn't a draw situation.

    The game devs stated themselves that this is a 1 player vs many individual players design. It's a 1 vs (1-1-1-1) design. Not a 1 v 4. Each survivor gets their own person win condition. That means winning or losing is very binary. You win, or you don't. You 3k+/escape, or you don't. The closest thing you could argue a draw would be is if a survivor finds hatch. Maybe you could argue the killer and that survivor had a draw. The killer didn't kill, and the survivor didn't "really" escape, but that's still arguable.

    I do not see how the killer ENTIRELY not winning and half of the survivor players winning is considered a draw. Sounds entirely survivor favored, to me. Draws are supposed to be equally "no wins-no losses". In a 1 vs 1-1-1-1 of binary outcomes, draws simply don't work. As a finale reminder, this whole concept is unrelated to MMR adjustments as clarified earlier. BHVR can adjust MMR however they see fit. The purpose of MMR is to try to make the game more fair irregardless of win/loss conditions.

    This is further reinforced in the post match screen. There is no survivors win or survivors lose statement. If 3 or 4 escape, it doesn't say survivors win. If 2 escape, does not say draw game. If 0 or 1 escape, it does not say survivors lose. It's either YOU escaped or YOU were sacrificed. It also lists each individual survivor and if they met their win condition or not. That's because, once again, this isn't designed as a team vs team game. The only thing the game cares about is each individual's personal win condition.

    Post edited by RpTheHotrod on
  • ChaosWam
    ChaosWam Member Posts: 1,835

    I don't tunnel and I still get the results I explained depending on the killer I run.

    The thing is, 4 survivors doing gens is powerful and even if one dies, it slows the progress down a lot and snowballs from there unless the other 3 pick up the pace. And in my experience, it's not very often after the first death that they do.

  • crogers271
    crogers271 Member Posts: 1,785

    Not sure how many times someone has to point out that drawing is only a thing if both sides neither win or lose.

    People can point it out as many times as they want, it doesn't make it true.

    DbD is asymmetrical game. Trying to apply a symmetrical standard to the word draw doesn't make sense.

    Considering that each player gets their own win condition, drawing is not a thing in dbd. 

    DbD as a whole doesn't even have win or loss conditions. They have conditions that raise or lower MMR.

    "The player neither won nor lost the game" - I'd define that as a draw. If you'd like to use a different word, go ahead, but its pedantically silly to get caught up in whether or not draw meets that definition.

    Not much of a draw if the killer entirely doesn't win and the survivor team half wins, now is it?

    That's a draw.

    The game devs stated themselves that this is a 1 player vs many individual players design. It's a 1 vs (1-1-1-1) design. Not a 1 v 4.

    You're confusing symmetrical and asymmetrical. If you want to take the above statement as accurate (which I don't think is true, the Devs have said players can view it as a 1v1v1etc, not that they have to), that its only true for survivors. For the killer it is still 1 v 4 meaning even using MMR as the condition the killer can achieve a draw result, neither win nor loss.

  • RpTheHotrod
    RpTheHotrod Member Posts: 1,886
    edited December 2023

    @crogers271 I'm going to hope you're being sarcastic when you say one side not winning and the other side getting a partial win is even remotely considered even/draw. If not, I'd suggest you looking up the definition of a draw. You tease that considering definitions of a word in a topic about that word is silly, but if we sre going to discuss something, definitions are critical. We can't just make up words, lol. Otherwise I could just say when I say killer "wins", it means he gets 0 kills. Discussions fall apart if what we are talking about isn't defined. If we are talking about draws, then we need to be considering what draw actually means.

    What you say about asymetric is true...and that's the point I've been hammering is. Drawing simply doesn't fit in this kind of asymmetrical game where there are no actual teams and instead (per the devs own statements) it is based on a 1 vs 4 individual players game with their own win/loss condition.

    This is further reinforced in the post match screen. There is no survivors win or survivors lose statement. If 3 or 4 escape, it doesn't say survivors win. If 2 escape, does not say draw game. If 0 or 1 escape, it does not say survivors lose. It's either YOU escaped or YOU were sacrificed. It also lists each individual survivor and if they met their win condition or not. That's because, once again, this isn't designed as a team vs team game. The only thing the game cares about is each individual's personal win condition. Although MMR don't necessarily tie in historically with win conditions in gaming, even MMR in DBD only looks like each individual player. You alone can get sacrificed and the other 3 survivors all escape and you will go down in MMR. While the MMR statement is incredibly weak on my part since MMR, I am merely pointing out that everything in DBD is at an individual player basis.

    Now, if you're saying that you say is how it SHOULD be, then I entirely agree with you. I think dbd SHOULD be a standard killer vs survivor asymmetrical game. The survivors would win and lose together. If a survivor ends up getting sacrificed but the other 3 escape, then the survivors would all win together...even the person sacrificed. I feel this would make more sense, AND it would actually allow draws where the killer only got 2 kills. I feel this is how people assume the game is or at least feels that's how it should be. HOWEVER, the designers disagree with that assessment and have clearly said that it is a 1 killer vs 4 individuals game. That's just the way it is. That being said, the devs a year or two ago did mention that they want survivors who get sacrificed but their teammates get away to get some sort of bonus or something, so perhaps the designers are considering moving away from the current system and moving to a two team system. We will just have to see. I think it would ouod be a good move, as it would promote survivors to work together more instead of an every man for himself mentality.

    Post edited by RpTheHotrod on
  • crogers271
    crogers271 Member Posts: 1,785

     I'm going to hope you're being sarcastic when you say one side not winning and the other side getting a partial win is even remotely considered even/draw. If not, I'd suggest you looking up the definition of a draw. 

    The key phrase there is partial win. You switch back and forth between considering the survivors a side and saying they are each on their own.

    If you're using the stance that each survivor is on their own then a 3k is still partial win and a 1k is still a partial loss by your argument.

    If you're using the argument that the survivors are "a side" then a draw is definitely possible.

    You tease that considering definitions of a word in a topic about that word is silly, but if we sre going to discuss something, definitions are critical. We can't just make up words, lol.

    No one is making up words. You're imposing an absurdly strict interpretation.

    I'm going to say this multiple times over this post: but if you have a better word for neither won nor lost, let's hear it. Because I run it through thesaurus and dictionaries and I keep seeing draw pop up.

    You tease that considering definitions of a word in a topic about that word is silly, but if we sre going to discuss something, definitions are critical.

    Definitions are short general statements about how a word is used. There is no precise science behind what a word means, the definition is merely a simplified statement of general nature of word usage (which is why definitions change over time). Being most competitive situations are symmetrical the fact that the definition might include a word like team is not actually key to what the meaning of the word is.

    That said I see nothing in the definition of draw that excludes it from this usage.

    Drawing simply doesn't fit in this kind of asymmetrical game where there are no actual teams and instead (per the devs own statements) it is based on a 1 vs 4 individual players game with their own win/loss condition.

    Then provide a more accurate word to any of the above situations if draw doesn't fit.

    If a killer gets two wins and two losses how do you define it?

    If the killer neither won or lost how do you define it?

    There is no survivors win or survivors lose statement.

    That's because, once again, this isn't designed as a team vs team game.

    The game allows people to play it under different conditions, independently or as a team (this isn't even getting into the idea that each person can view the end results independently).

    But no matter how you view the survivors, it is the killer vs the survivors. The killer can get two and lose two. That's a draw. The survivor screen is irrelevant to the killer game, the killer screen never says win or loss in any type of result but that doesn't mean us using the words win or loss is somehow wrong.

    If two sports teams played each other four times and the results were two wins and two losses we'd call the overall result a draw even though none of the games were individually a draw.

    That being said, the devs a year or two ago did mention that they want survivors who get sacrificed but their teammates get away to get some sort of bonus or something

    That's been in the game since 6.4 -

    Key portion:

    Starting with 6.4.0, Survivors ratings will be based both on individual & team performance. Whether you gain or lose rating will still be determined by whether or not you escape, but how much your rating is adjusted will be affected by how many Survivors escape the trial.

    • For each teammate that escapes:You gain more rating if you escape.
    • You lose less rating if you die.
    • For each teammate that dies:You gain less rating if you escape.
    • You lose more rating if you die.

    For example, if you die but every other Survivor escapes, your rating will hardly drop at all. In other words, keep your team alive for best results! With this change, we aim to put a bit more emphasis on teamplay without removing the lone wolf playstyle.

  • RpTheHotrod
    RpTheHotrod Member Posts: 1,886
    edited December 2023

    Aye, that's what I was referring to. I couldn't remember if they actually implemented it or not. A solid good change.

    Back to draw, I already told you that with how dbd is, there is no draw situation. You ask me to define how a draw is in dbd, and I keep telling you there is no situation where draw would be called. A killer needs 3 kills or more to win. That's his win condition. A survivor needs to personally escape that's their win condition. There is no situation where a killer has killed a survivor and that survivor escaped, or where a killer did not kill someone and that survivor did not escape. The devs have stated on numerous occasions its not a traditional 1 person vs 1 team of # which is where I think you're getting confused. BHVR treats DBD very differently than the usual asymmetrical games. In this one, every player is their own "team". As one the designers once said, it's every man for himself. To win, you get a 3k+ or you escape. That's it. A draw between teams is those teams neither winning or losing which is literally not even possible in dbd. The only thing close to a draw would be a draw between the killer and a survivor if they hatched, but that's if you don't count hatch as a true escape.

    If you completely disregard what the designers say and make up your own rule that all the survivors are on the same team and win or lose together, then sure, your made up concept of how the game works could say 2k is a draw. You're welcome to imagine the game however you like. In the end though, the designers say it's not that way, so until they decide to change the game over to a standard asymmetrical game of 2 teams, the reality is that this game essentially is a game of 5 teams...one player per team. 4 of those teams are encouraged to work together against 1 team to increase their odds, but at the end of the day, it's every man for himself. The survivors do NOT currently win or lose together.

    Why don't the devs just make it team vs team? Why encourage everyone man for himself? I'm thinking they know how unstoppable a team purely working together is with dbd (thats also why tournaments have rules where survivors are limited in what they can use to make it more fair), so they throw in different things to encourage some selfish plays. The devs say not every swf is a seal 6 squad. They focus on the chaos factor that on average, the survivors are not entirely playing together. They get their own challenges (and some of those challenges actually work against optimal play!), and you have situations where you're frustrated with that claudette cleansing totems instead of helping with your gen. You're going to have that survivor who leaves to get their own win and leave you to die on hook. I think the devs are banking on the individual survivors not necessarily going for pure teamwork and to do their own thing. They acknowledge organized swfs can be rough, but they balance around the chaos factor of each survivor doing their own thing at the end of the day. That's why they aren't nerfing optimized SWFs, they are balancing on the expectation that this game is a 1 vs 1-1-1-1.

  • mecca
    mecca Member Posts: 313

    Why you think a killer should automatically have an advantage? Where is fairness, what to games actually being about skill? With an unbalanced game, losing or winning as survivor doesn't mean anything. And winning as killer seems unfair and undeserving.

  • RpTheHotrod
    RpTheHotrod Member Posts: 1,886
    edited December 2023

    I mean, that's the whole basis of all these horror films...survivors trying to win when the odds are not in their favor. Halloween would have never been a popular franchise if he was just some random dude with no power over the victims. Granted, Scream literally is a regular person, but that's just a fan favorite because of how silly it is.

  • mecca
    mecca Member Posts: 313

    If we really want to be real to the movies, the protagonist usually wins at the end. Speaking of Halloween, Laurie Strode didn't die no matter how much Michael Myers tried.

    But this is a game and both sides should have a fair chance at winning.

  • HerInfernalMajesty
    HerInfernalMajesty Member Posts: 1,783

    I’ve seen plenty of Horror and the protagonists don’t win as much as it would seem. Sometimes they do, but a lot of times they don’t. That’s kind of part of the horror genre, a sad ending where the bad guy wins.

  • ChaosWam
    ChaosWam Member Posts: 1,835

    And multiple people also died along the way because Michael is kinda busted in terms of strength.

    Again, 1v4 means the 1 needs to have an edge against the 4. That's how asymmetrical games should work. The real question is how powerful they should be against the 4.

  • crogers271
    crogers271 Member Posts: 1,785

    Back to draw, I already told you that with how dbd is, there is no draw situation. You ask me to define how a draw is in dbd, and I keep telling you there is no situation where draw would be called. 

    No, I'm asking you to define a condition where someone neither won or lost.

    You stress the individual survivor nature so let's throw everything else out but that. If each survivor is in a 1 on 1 vs the killer win or lose and the killer kills 2 and 2 escape, that's two wins and two losses.

    That's a draw.

    The devs have stated on numerous occasions its not a traditional 1 person vs 1 team of # which is where I think you're getting confused. BHVR treats DBD very differently than the usual asymmetrical games. In this one, every player is their own "team". As one the designers once said, it's every man for himself.

    This is where you keep changing your argument by popping back to the survivors.

    If every survivor is there own "team" and the killer kills (wins) against two and losses (escapes) against two, that's a draw.

    To win, you get a 3k+ or you escape. That's it. 

    To win you need a 3k+. Fine.

    To win you need to escape. Technically you need to escape to increase MMR, which is different than winning, but we'll go with it.

    You then conclude that a 2k is a loss. That makes no sense. A 1k is a loss.

    A draw between teams is those teams neither winning or losing which is literally not even possible in dbd.

    This is where you get pedantic. When we are defining the word draw in relation to winning and losing the general style of competition is symmetrical. The key to use of the word is neither won or lost, which is a draw. In a symmetrical competition the only way this can be achieved is via equal results. This however is an asymmetrical competition so there are varying ways to get there.

    Again back to definitions, if you neither won or lost, how would you define it? I'd use the word draw.

    The only thing close to a draw would be a draw between the killer and a survivor if they hatched, but that's if you don't count hatch as a true escape.

    Hatch escape is a null result if we're talking MMR which is related to a draw but its own kind of thing.

    If you completely disregard what the designers say and make up your own rule that all the survivors are on the same team and win or lose together, then sure, your made up concept of how the game works could say 2k is a draw.

    You are over focusing on some dev statements and ignoring others. Part of the reason devs don't have a clear win condition is they want people to play however they want.

    But let's throw all that out and just focus on mechanics. As killer you can have a match where your MMR neither increases or decreases. That's a draw.

    In the end though, the designers say it's not that way, so until they decide to change the game over to a standard asymmetrical game of 2 teams, the reality is that this game essentially is a game of 5 teams...one player per team.

    You're making a big mistake here. Outside the change in 6.4 that makes team play more valuable, the survivors are not opponents. They do not have to view each other as allies, but they are not opponents. If I die I cannot gain MMR, if I escape I cannot lose MMR.

    So you can view the survivors as four different teams from their perspective. But that is irrelevant to the killer's perspective. His MMR change is impacted by the overall performance against the four survivors.

    The killer can have a result where he neither gains or loses MMR. That's a draw.

    Why don't the devs just make it team vs team? Why encourage everyone man for himself? I'm thinking they know how unstoppable a team purely working together is with dbd (thats also why tournaments have rules where survivors are limited in what they can use to make it more fair), so they throw in different things to encourage some selfish plays.

    You're reading way too much into the idea of when devs have said survivors can be out for themselves. Devs are trying to recreate horror movies where the people who go on a selfish route usually, but not always, die because of it. They are emulating a theme.

    Also, they've avoided creating clear win conditions because the game isn't designed with a traditional competitive condition in mind. You can argue that if the word draw doesn't apply to DbD, neither does win or loss. They very much want to appeal to groups of people who want different things from the game.

  • RpTheHotrod
    RpTheHotrod Member Posts: 1,886
    edited December 2023

    At this point, I'm not sure if youre just trolling. You keep asking me to define a DBD draw, and I keep telling you there is literally no situation in dbd where no one wins or loses...hence me saying there's literally no way to draw.

    I keep going back to the survivor team as an example to show how flawed the idea is to consider them a single whole team. I'm talking about your point of view that the survivors win or lose together, so a 2k is a draw. It doesn't work.

    if the killer gets a 2k, he didnt draw because who is he drawing against? A draw requires an opposing team to also draw with. There are 5 teams hes competing against. Who did he equally neither win or lose against? When I say survivor team, im saying based on your point of view, that they are a team and in turn in or lose together. Reality check - they dont. You say half their team wins and the other half loses. I'm saying that doesn't make sense. Teams win/draw/lose together. You're saying if half their team wins, then it's a draw with the killer. However, BHVR already stated that every survivor who escapes wins. You can't have both at the same time. You can't have winners on one team and no winners on the other and claim its a draw. With a draw, NO one wins or loses. Im just pointing out how flawed the concept is that survivors are a team and can draw but still have winners.

    It's not 1 team vs another team. It's 1 team vs 4 teams. Should it be that way? I personally don't think so - I think the survivors should be considered a team and win or lose together, but BHVR disagrees. Regardless that I feel it should be 1 killer vs a survivor team, that's simply not how they designed it, so I can't just pretend that my preferred way is reality. The devs make the call on what the reality is. When all is said and done, drawing isn't possible with how BHVR sets it up.

    Again, though, MMR adjustments are entirely separate discussion. MMR adjustments typically don't care about who wins or loses - they are merely designed to try to make future matches more balanced. For example, a chess rating of 1600 might not even lose ranking if he loses to a grandmaster, and a grandmaster might not even gain ranking if he wins vs a 1600. MMR in games don't simply take wins and losses as their rating system. That's why a 2k is considered mmr neutral. It wasn't enough to go up or down in MMR regardless of the killer not winning. Mostly a flawed MMR style, but that's what we have. Some people suggest it should be based off of hook states instead of kills.