SWFS are only 3% more likely to win than SoloQ (OFFICIAL STATS)

There are plenty of things the data is showing that show it is flawed, but there are some interesting things it shows.

First the flawed things:

• Skull merchant being the best killer in the game
• Nurse being one of the worst in the game.
• Pig, sadako,freddy, dredge, myers being so high
• Huntress, Twins, Chucky, Blight being so low
• Doctor being so low despite being mid tier
• Survival rates solo vs groups being way off (you can't tell me the thread topic is truly accurate)
• Self-care still being one of the most popular survivor perks

Now, interesting things it shows? I have though about this for a while but look at the survivor perks that are at the top. The biggest outlier there is windows of opportunity and lithe, but what about the rest? Every other perk there is a perk that you get for free, either through one of the free survivors you start the game with, neutral perks everyone has access to, or from david who you get for doing the tutorial.

Now look at the killer perks, they are simply just using some of the best slowdown perks in the game all non-free ones.

This shows to me, that survivor players as a whole are probably more "average" players whereas killer players are more veterans because they are using the better perks while survivors are using the free perks. This actually makes sense to me, given that there are more survivors to killer players. So it stands to reason that there are more "average" survivor players than there are killer players. Leading to the stats to be skewed so heavily this way.

That does make a lot of sense. Newer players would probably be too intimidated to commit to killer, I know I was when I started but I persevered because Sadako was just released at the time.

Speaking of, from my experience I kinda understand her killrate during the month of January. It was still 2.0 Sadako, and survivors (assuming they're average MMR based on your conclusions) didn't understand TVs and tapes too well, or didn't like her and gave up on hook. I'm not sure of my MMR on Sadako, but I know I got more 3k-4ks than not with escapes being kinda rare and days between sessions. Funny thing is, when I'd play survivor with friends I could explain her on the fly and get my group to all escape once they understood the tapes. (Granted I also don't know our group MMR either.) I shouldn't base it on my own experience though, but at the same time I can't help but feel like I can understand her killrate. In fact, a lot of killers with an early mori mechanic make a bit of sense if we're taking data from every match all over, maybe not perfect sense since we don't know player #'s for each MMR bracket.

@GeneralV, I guess I need accept that I lost. You've convinced me. Freddy is not the weakest killer in the game. I guess he's still too strong. Or the 2 living Freddy mains are just too good. I choose to believe the second option.

Tier lists are always based off skill ceilings, doesn’t mean people care about actual competitive dbd

:)

At no point in Freddy's history was he weak enough to be considered the worst killer in the game. Even right now, the weakest he has ever been, you can use him effectively.

The problem with Freddy is how boring he is, how the most unique killer in the game became this uninteresting mess. It is third lowest pick rate in the game, and there is a reason for that.

What ratio would you propose?

Sooooo.....

All 3 over Blight and Nurse? How many Xenos do you see? I'm genuinely curious?

What changes would you propose for Skull merchant and Xeno?

I think having some pure anti-loop Killers is fine, but having the bloat that we have isn't. You could play against Knight, SM, Alien, Chucky, Nemesis, (most) Artist, etc etc and all have the same gameplay loop. If they get there power on a loop, you die or hold W.

I think the vast majority of Survivor perks aren't worth running and need changes; that's also true for the Killer side.

Prestige should be hidden, nobody really seems to disagree.

I do think that there should be an objective after gens but before gates; after we get rid of tunneling. I do think it absolutely sucks to repair 7 or 8 gens worth of progress and it also sucks having them fly without gen regression.

Proxy'ing and tunneling are issues, one much larger than the other.

The disconnects are already calculated in the 70% according to the developers.

Where?

Did they not say it was WITHOUT DC's?

It is.

I just don't think the frequency is the same. I don't think it's a stretch to say a Survivor gets out during a one man EGC more than a Killer manages a Kill.

Could be due to bad Gate spawns, lucky Hatch spawn etc etc

More realistically, we can focus on the fact that it's quality of solo queue gameplay that sucks, not strength.

There is no difference between solo-q and swf on low mmr. That is why you got those numbers.

Yes, solo's overall escape rate is 40.34%, and the overall escape rate of survivors in a 4-man stack is 43.09%. Give or take less than a percentage point, that's a 3% gap.

I'd say that's pretty well within margin of error, in terms of raw escape rate a survivor isn't that much better off for being in a SWF. That doesn't mean the experience of a solo queue player can't be improved, of course, but that's besides the point.

40% is exactly what the devs want. So it's completely balanced in that regard. You're trying to shift the goal post here.

Survivors are not meant to survive a majority of games. Think about it: This would imply an escape rate >50%. Which means a kill rate of <50%. So then killers would lose a majority of their games. Which would bring us back to your argument with the roles reversed.

The reason why a 50% kill rate (what some people consider optimal) is too low is fairly simple. The devs want killers to be the power role. It is supposed to be an uphill battle for survivors. You can critizise that all you like but it's a simple fact. One that actually makes sense for multiple reasons.

On one hand, killer is the more stressful role (you're constantly in action with little to no down time) as opposed to survivors, who can relax as long as they are outside of chase. So it needs to feel rewarding for a killer to play. Otherwise, why would you play killer at all? On the other hand, it's a 4v1 game. A 50-50 is not only hard to achieve but arguably unhealthy. As long as the killer doesn't feel significantly stronger to the survivors as well, then nothing will stop them from going out of their way to bully the killer. This is amplified further by the survivors experiencing strength in numbers. I could list a few more reasons but really it doesn't matter. Because at the end of the day, the devs decide whether or not the game is 'balanced'. We can complain all we like but it doesn't change that fact.

I judge solo queue under consideration of the escape rate. If we consider 40% as balanced, then solo queue is fine in that regard. Apart from that my solo queue games mostly don't feel as bad as some people claim. And they claim this for solo queue in general. Is solo queue always great? Of course not. There are things outside your control that heavily determine your chances to survive. You could be the best player in the world and still lose to a beginner killer. Because at the end of the day, a survivor cannot win a 1v1 against the killer (which is necessary). If your team mates are terrible and all die immediately, then you won't be able to do much either. But for the most part all 4 survivors in the game are somewhere around the same skill level. So solo queue is fine even that regard. Again, as bad as the MMR may be, it still prevents the worst from happening (apart from lobby dodging).

I don't think saying that solo queue is not as bad as some people want us to believe is a "personal narrative". Considering that many claim, that the game is completely unbalanced for solo queue and that they always lose with no chance, the escape rates did in fact confirm my claim. That was what I said before in case you still don't understand.

That last part is a completely wrong assumption. I said before that you cannot take a small sample size and expect a 40% escape rate. That is not how statistics work indeed. But the law of large numbers says that with a high sample size (sample size -> infinity) your results will come close to the expected values. You can have a streak of bad games of course. This streak could even be "long" (it depends on your definition of long). But overall your results will balance out. MMR only makes this happen sooner.

I suggest you read thoroughly before you make these accusations. You also misinterpreted (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt her) what I said about having fun. If you are not having fun in the majority of your games (not just 5 in a row or whatever arbitrary low number you wish to place here), then the best thing you can do is not play. At least for a while. Sometimes we all think we would like to play some games of DBD but then none of them feel fun. When something like that occurs, it's best to stop playing for a while. Until you can enjoy the game again.

I'll do us both a favor and stop this conversation here. We can agree to disagree but let me make myself clear, I know exactly how statistics work and I suggest you stop making baseless claims here. Especially when it's clear, that you ignored parts of what I said for your own "personal narrative".

The difference between the absolute most used killer and the rarest, least used one is 6%.

The difference between the absolute highest kill rate and the lowest kill rate killer is 15%, and the only thing below that is Doctor with a 19% difference because he's plagued with AFK bots.

10% is a lot. It means in 1000 matches, roughly 100 more people escape if they are full SWFs than if they are solos. (It's not quite that cut and dried, but that is the general idea)

EDIT: 400 more people. Don't do maths before bed, kids. There's a point you don't even remember what you're calculating anymore.