Should Killer feel like the power role? Does Killer feel like the power role?
Comments
-
I too have seen a lot of horror and I disagree with you. More often than not a final person remains because 1.) most audience members root for the protagonist at the end of the day; 2.) cinema / story-based media is immersive; 3.) cinema / story-based media with a doomed outcome often performs poorly when compared against the opposite (which is why the final girl trope even exists while there is no everybody dies trope); and 4.) it sets up the potential for a sequel.
Not saying you’re doing this, but I am saying it is disingenuous to pretend that somehow everybody dying is at all anything but anomalous. That person you’re replying to is correct. If DBD should mirror horror in cinema and other content one survivor should almost always—9/10 times—live. That is the formula.
1 -
Maybe I just watch different horror. Most of the horror I watch ends with the bad guy winning. Not always, but often.
0 -
horror films. We are playing a video game mate. The typical expectation is to have fun in a video game, not one persone, but all of them. Most wont considere being the Lamp to the slaughter exactly a lot of fun.
But lets talk about horror films. A great example is Halloween 1978, one of the best Slasher movies of all time:
Victims:
- Judith Myers
- Mechanic
- Annie
- Bob
- Lynda
Survivors:
- Dr. Loomis
- Laurie
- Sheriff Bracket
- Nurse Chambers
- Lindsay Wallece
- Tommy Doyle
Do you see where this is going?
0 -
You're just proving my point.
0 -
And we are playing video games based off of those horror films. Most of the horror film baddies do kill off their targets, but a very few amount against all odds claim victory over the killer. The same works with dbd. It's the uncommon situation but still very viable that targets actually live to see another day. That's the fun of playing survivor. We aren't playing counterstrike, we went up against Myers himself and actually survived against all odds. We survived Pyramid Head. Wouldn't be very interesting if it was just another call of duty match.
3 -
That's not a counter-argument for what I explained?
If I don't tunnel or camp, the results of the match differ drastically depending on the way the match goes and rarely becomes a 2-3k with an escape if we don't count hatch considering it's even MMR for the escapee, we're talking gens done and gates opened.
The only times I've gotten otherwise is when survivors do extremely well to the point where I'm forced to make the decision to get someone out quick at the last gen or endgame and even then, it depends on how the survivors play and don't mess up the rescues.
The normal gameflow doesn't always guarantee half the survivors escape if the killer is as competent as the survivors at their tasks.
0 -
A very few amount of people survive against all the odds? Do you simply ignore the fact i posted and come up with a random thought?
In many horror movies, a very decent amount of people survivor the killer. The Halloween example is just one. Go look up other horror movies. Its not always the "final girl" as some claim to be. When i fe. think about one of my favourites, Scream, the majority of targets actually survive.
On top of that, they not only survive, but even take out the killer, temporary (Freddy for example) or permanetly (Scream for example).
Those killer fantasy arguments are not only a little bit grinch, but flat out wrong.
4 -
Why should killer be some fantasy horror god? This isn't a horror game, the licenses dbd holds doesn't mean anything.
0 -
I defined "win" condition for the point I made and already largely stated that a win is highly subjective that's why death/escape is the measurable outcome.
If you are a player who chooses to play selfishly and focus solely on own wins over team wins sure play that way that's fine but it doesn't change my point. I've seen plenty of players tout a 3 escape as a win even when they die. So it's not an invalid way to measure a "win."
Measuring outcome i.e. Death/Escape is better than "win/loss" due to that intangible subjectivity. The median for those raw numbers sits between 50-50 and 75-25 so about 60-40. So again I think its an OK place to balance around and it looks like BHVR is trying to do just that, which is good.
2 -
"Wins" yes, if by that you mean typically everyone else is dead and the hero/heroine alone survives, not always but more commonly thought about. (Hence the term last girl).
What makes a good movie (at least a good horror movie) is a compelling and threatening antagonist, regardless of whether the protagonists win or not.
So while in a game setting there is a need to balance outcome, we are still trying to emulate the horror genre and to do that in any compelling way there has to be a tangible threat to survival. So a killer bias in outcome is acceptable in this case even if it means a reduced survivor "win" rate.
The balance comes from ensuring that killer bias isn't so large as to undermine survivor outcome entirely, there must always be a realistic chance of surviving.
The goal is to find the sweet spot between thematic appeal and mechanical fairness, I'd argue the sweet spot exists around the targeted 60-40 survival outcome.
5 -
Yes, killer is currently the power role. Killer is in a really really good spot lately, if they buff killer anymore the survivor role will be even more miserable than it already is.
0 -
I don't think killer is the power role, but it should be. I think killer should be strong enough or at least be able to kill the survivors most games.
3 -
Not really proof as you put it because you are conflating the two measures. (Be very careful using the term proof with respect to vague data).
Kill rate is inflated because it incorporates measure from 4 categories not just the wins - Every measure from 1 kill to 4 kills, which means so called losses are in the kill rate total along with draws and wins.
So you are drawing what could be interpreted as causal conclusions from only correlative results. So be very careful here its a very common mistake.
The 60% kill rate is probably not the main driving cause of the high 3-4K "win" rate. So if you are making arguments on that basis alone I'm afraid these numbers don't actually prove your point. All they show is what we already know that there is a killer bias in outcome.
They don't show that balancing around a 60% kill rate is the cause of inflated 4k outcomes.
2 -
You can always equip NOED or a Rancor roulette and "steal" some kills at the end of the game to achieve an easy draw or even a victory... But that's not a prove of balance. Those stats are inflated from similar cases, suicides on hook, ragequitting and those who literaly gave up.
0 -
What do you mean by that?
Please correct me if i am wrong. In 31,93% of his games, Myers had a 4K (4 Kills). In 20,39% Myers had a 3K. So in total, Myers won about 52% of his games. He had a draw in about 15% and in 33% Myers lost. At least this is what i read off this statistic.
1 -
That's what it says yes, but that's not how you used it... is it.
You used it as a proof to counter a point about kill rate %.
"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.
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."
Proof of what exactly? That there is a killer bias in kill rate and game outcome, yes we know that. But to use that same data to say kill rate drives game outcome and is responsible for bias in the number of "wins". Well you don't have the data to say that here. What you have is a rough correlation but not Proof of a causal effect.
I'd say its a safe assumption that killers with high win rates have expected high kill rates but that's all we can see, what drives the result is not reported or measured here.
To make the claim that the data proves some point and thus invalidates any discussion about how to balance kill rates is a gross overstep in interpreting what we actually have here in data form.
What do I mean by that? I mean to caution against over interpreting simple stats. A common misstep people make when reading stats. Particularly egregious when used to shut down discussion.
3 -
the power role to me means the side that influences the match the most. this changes dynamically. at the beginning the survivors are at their strongest and the power role. around 1-2 gens left when the killer has successfully made a 3-gen zone and is camping a survivor within that 3-gen, they become the power role especially with higher tier killers. they force the survivors to break through their defense. at the end-game when all generators are done it depends on whether the survivors want to leave or rescue anybody still hooked. it's not a matter of which side has the strongest win-rate. that information is related to the topic but hard to make good conclusions of due to the nature of statistics in this game.
0 -
Since i am not missreading the stats, why are we even discussing?
That there is a killer bias in kill rate and game outcome, yes we know that.
No, the person i was talking to is completly denying exactly that, in multiple threads. Even arguing a draw is a loss. Why you join the conversation when you dont know whats going on? That was a bit random and went in a completly different direction, that nobody asked for. Sorry.
I'd say its a safe assumption that killers with high win rates have expected high kill rates but that's all we can see, what drives the result is not reported or measured here.
I never said anything like that and it is not even a discussion point.
To make the claim that the data proves some point and thus invalidates any discussion about how to balance kill rates is a gross overstep in interpreting what we actually have here in data form.
Quote me on where i discussed about how and why to balance kill rates please.
What do I mean by that? I mean to caution against over interpreting simple stats. A common misstep people make when reading stats. Particularly egregious when used to shut down discussion.
Same here.
All in all your argument (?) felt like a politican saying "Just because we know most of our people are poor and poverty is an issue, it does not have to mean anything. It could simly also mean that we dont have many millionairs. Dont missinterpretate those stats."
Post edited by xEa on0 -
Well you may have read them out correctly but what you used them for here implies that you misinterpreted what they mean, those are two different things.
You posted them in reply to this
"A 50% kill rate would be pretty terrible. That would mean on average, killers aren't ever winning considering they need a 3K+ to win (75%+ in the match).
Bear in mind 60% is a target kill rate. A 60% kill rate is roughly 2.2 kills per match on average. Considering killers need 3K+ to win, this means that over a period of time, killers with a 60% kill rate should win "roughly" have of their matches (slightly under 50%). 60% kill rate is often misunderstood as a 60% win rate. There's definitely a difference. A 75% kill rate in a match is a win, but we clearly don't want a 75% kill rate in general since that'd just be killers on average always winning. For a true 50% win rate for killers, the kill rate would need to be 62.5%. If we really want a 60% win rate, then the kill rate would probably need to be more like the upper 60's."
While there is discussion about whether a draw is a loss or not its wasn't part of this chain of discussion, I read the whole thread. So again using these stats in the way you did wasn't great.
I know you never said anything about how kill and win rate interact but if you want to use the quoted data to counter the point here then its an essential part of it and needs to be discussed, I pointed it out precisely because it wasn't adequately addressed.
I'm not politicking anything, I saw data being misused and cautioned against that misuse. Because what is being said here is a fairly numerically sound way of balancing the game and the stats you posted to counter that actually in no way counter that point, even though you used them for that very purpose and claimed it as proof of your point. Such proof that, in your words, no further discussion was needed.
(Kinda funny because it generated a discussion about the misuse data in order to shut down discussion hehe Irony makes me chuckle). At any rate I can see this devolving into a tit-for-tat kind of scenario so just think about what I said.
1 -
I hate to bump threads when I've been away for a couple days, but I saw the word trolling and needed to address it.
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.Let me clear about this: I have never asked you this question. I take the suggestion of trolling seriously and went back and reread my posts to see if I mistyped something: I never asked this.
I have asked you repeatedly how you define a condition that is neither a win or a loss.
You get pedantic that a draw has to be true for both sides, e.g. requires teams. I disagree. The essence of draw is neither win or loss, not that it has to be true for both sides (because in most games the only way for a draw to occur is if its true for both sides, however this game is asymmetrical).
That is why I've stressed if you have a better word for neither won nor lost we can go to it.
if the killer gets a 2k, he didnt draw because who is he drawing against?Then did he win? Did he lose? If so, why?
It sounds like he won twice and lost twice, which sounds like a draw.
0 -
Going by DbD youtube videos, you'd never know killer is suppose to be in the power role.
Most killer videos are usually "going against bully squads" or some title like that. And you'd usually see them sweat to clutch it in the end.
Whereas Survivor videos are usually "watch me dunk on this killer/loop killer forever", with wacky sound effect and poking fun at how clumsy the killers are, while having alot of fun with it.
2
