Do any survivors prefer a 60% kill rate more than 50%?
Something I find interesting about this whole debate is I've seen many killer mains justify the 60% kill rate and say it's good, but not a single survivor main who says it's good. BHVR's reason in their own words is this
We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even and support the horror theme of the game, where the Killer is a force to be reckoned with and the survival is not guaranteed.
Presumably their intention is to make the game enjoyable for most survivors, because It doesn't make sense that they'd want to make the game fun for killers only who are just 20% of the playerbase at the expense of survivors. So that must mean they believe it's more enjoyable for survivor players to die in most matches "to support the horror theme of the game", and that most survivor players do not want a 50% kill rate.
I want to ask, are there any survivor players here who agree with BHVR that a 60% kill rate makes the game more enjoyable for them than 50%?
Comments
-
They aim for 60% because people hook suicide so 60% means in fair games with no suicides the kill rate is around 50%. So 60% is fair for both sides.
14 -
So that must mean they believe it's more enjoyable for survivor players to die in most matches "to support the horror theme of the game", and that most survivor players do not want a 50% kill rate.The kill rate being 60% does not mean you as a survivor are guaranteed to lose 3/5 of your matches. It just means that the average of all survivors comes out to that number. You can easily perform better or worse.
13 -
I think they should aim for a bit more than 55%, but not much higher. Killer is already easy enough, besides some of the weaker ones.
I don‘t like that survivors get mostly bad perks, because of the kill rate. I want some of the old perks back like coh, DH, ruin, iron wil etc for both sides. Strong perks are far more enjoyable than having only weak ones.
15 -
Are you a killer main?
3 -
I'm curious and I don't know if this has even been brought up before, what does a kill rate mean for killer? Is the 60 percent based on a single survivor that has died or is it 60 percent where a killer won the round? I assume and have always read it as 60% single kills. I think 60 percent is more than fair - because isn't it considered that if you get 3 or more kills you won? If that's the case then I would love to see a percent rate of rounds won for killers and for survivors. I'm assuming 2 kills and 2 escapes is a tie and anything else in the other direction determines which team won.
Also, a little off topic I know, but if survivors are part of one team - I think they should share some blood points. Like once the round ends if there were so many saves and exits then there should be bonus points given to you. Even if you leave the game after dying on hook. It would make getting tunneled out and only getting 5K BP feel less annoying if your team "avenged" you and got you some more BPs because they did really well in the rest of the game.
6 -
I agree with the bp for the fallen. They even could incorporate if your earned bp was low, you got tunneled, or if you were eliminated under a certain time you could get condolence bp. It wouldn’t make you happy about the early leave but wouldn’t make you hate that you brought the bloody party streamers.
0 -
I do, because I like that challenge.
When there's 4 survivors against 1 killer, I'd say the 40/60 split is the right call. The only problem is other survivors not pulling their weight and actively giving up/sandbagging their team for any number of reasons.
And if we lose after actually trying? Well, sometimes the other team is just better/brought better stuff/had better situations. Aside the obviously broken things like Nurse ignoring loops and whatnot (completely debatable btw) you can't win every match and that's OK.
7 -
Something I find interesting about this whole debate is I've seen many killer mains justify the 60% kill rate and say it's good, but not a single survivor main who says it's good.
Have you tried asking people who play both roles and aren't so biased?
The idea that 50/50 would be balanced is a fallacy. This is an asymmetrical game, with an odd number of players in each game, with different win conditions for each side.
50% is the ideal kill rate for survivors, but the ideal kill rate for killers is about 62.5% (halfway between a 2K and a 3K on average). This is partly why neither side is ever happy with the state of the game. There is a 12.5% overlap where neither side is content. The fairest middle ground, a kill rate at any point between 50% and 62.5%, is less than the ideal spot for each respective role.
It's also why survivor mains and killer mains disagree on where the kill rate should be. Survivors want 50%, killers want more than 60%.
16 -
i dont care much about the kill and lose rates.
I care that we are losing to nonstop to stacking gen regression on a top 5 killers on a daily basis
I care about the non-stop tunneling that is happening
I dont care if we(survivors) win/lose as long as we are having fun, it is that we are losing to the 2 things listed on top that are making matches unfun
killers are the sole reason i(soloq) cant have fun and must run meta perks.
:insert killer: oh but that 1 group out of 15 (really good)games really hurt my feelings because i couldnt 4k them.
4 -
The game was more fun for me when the KR was closer to 50%
23 -
Statistics are a load of nonsense anyway and trying to understand this game through them is a waste of time.
1 -
60% seems ok i guess. But what i hate the most is that they just ignore some of the concerns from survivor players when, some not all, killers take advantage of their role by playing dirty such as hard tunnel at 5. End of the day, its just a game. But when anyone in the match plays dirty just to win a casual game, its pretty tragic. The quality experience should be focused on both sides imo
2 -
No they dont. Stop spreading missinformation!!
17 -
I think playing survivor is more fun and escaping is more rewarding when I feel like losing is more probable. I play a pretty even surv/killer split, and I definitely feel like W/L should not be a 50/50 split.
I also feel like it being likely you're going to die as a surv is more appropriate to the premise of the game.
When I want a nicely balanced experience, I sure as hell am not coming to DbD for it. There are other games for that.
6 -
How do you come to that number?
When we look at Hillbilly, who is roughly at 62,5% on NL, he is loosing less then 30% and winning close to 50% of his games.
Am i getting something wrong with the stats?
4 -
why do you want the killer to kill at least 1 survivor in only 50% of the matches? Not 4, but at least one.
Kill rate is not win rate. Escape rate is also not the overall win rate of survivors, it means that 40% of the time at least 1 survivor escapes (for some, it turned out the percentage was higher).
In fact, we don’t know exactly how many killers usually kill survivors or, conversely, how many survivors escape. We essentially have extremely useless, meaningless statistics on which you also base your conclusions on this. On the survivor side, some killers are too dependent on RNG to draw any conclusions
. Not to mention the game is extremely unfriendly to beginners (there is not even proper training)
2 -
Not a comment on game balance itself but just a reminder that BHVR's justification for the 60% killrate makes absolutely no sense in a game with MMR.
MMR's job is to keep the killrate at 50% regardless of game balance. You could make killers move at 2x speed, the overall killrate would still be at 50%, the system will simply match experienced survivors against total beginners to achieve it. Actually, the kilrate should mathematically be more around ~40%, because hatch escape does not even count as a full escape for MMR.
So, the fact that the killrate is 60%, does not just mean the game is killer-sided. What it means above all, is that MMR is not doing its job.
I don't think anyone has a clue on what the killrate means, including BHVR. The stats they shared have always been pointless and full of contradictions, and even more after they explain them.
Like, look at this:
High MMR survivors, escape less than regular survivors? I'm sorry but what the #########? So the higher MMR you go, the more you lose? It's the single game on the planet that works like that.
21 -
It's a tough balance to find where you try to make both sides as happy as possible. I can say for sure in my personal experience that survivor was way more enjoyable before they benchmarked a 60% kill rate, but killer was definitely less enjoyable for me.
I don't know if they'll ever find a spot in this game where both sides actually feel satisfied in this regard. Some people want to escape every game and some people want to 4k every game, they can't ever make everyone happy.
I'm the type of person that enjoys winning and being competitive, it's not an end all be all for me but I definitely play to win in the majority of my games and playing survivor feels like a chore in that regard sometimes. I don't really agree with the others in here saying they like the lower escape rates because it feels more challenging and rewarding when you do escape. In my experience it feels less like a challenge and more hopeless than anything. A lot of survivor games I'm wondering if there was literally anything I could have done to have gotten myself or teammates out, and half the time I truly don't think there was. The game was just lost from either matchmaking or terrible map spawns and layouts.
1 -
It's not really hook suicides.
The devs made a lot of intentional changes to make it easier for a killer to secure in the end game. When a killer earning at least a 1K is meant to be more common than a killer scoring a 0K, the kill rate is bound to be higher than 50%.
The other thing is kill rate and win rate are separate things. A killer "winning" a match is widely considered to be at least a 3K. On the other side, 3 survivors escaping is considered a lost for the killer.
However, this doesn't always translate well to survivors especially ones who play solo. An individual survivor can die and see that as a loss even if the rest of their teammates managed to escape afterwards.
At the end of the day, a 60% kill rate likely translates closer to an overall 50% win rate due to the asymm nature of the teams than a 50% kill rate would.
2 -
This is what I've been preaching for a while. I've never in my life seen or heard of an actual MMR system that doesn't shoot for 50/50, because at that point it's quite literally not an MMR system. You can't artificially set benchmarks in a system that is supposed to give both sides a 50/50 shot to win if they're at the same level.
On top of that, skill is arbitrary in this system as kills and escapes in no way equate to skill. The killer that got 10 hooks and 2 kills is apparently at the same skill level as the killer that got 2 kills by proxy camping and tunneling the first person out, and ended up killing another in a 3v1... Or the survivor that hid all game is apparently more skilled than his teammate that took agro the whole game and ended up dying so they could get out.
10 -
Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's a contradiction.
You conveniently cut off the part that shows a higher escape rate for SWF at high MMR. More survivors at high MMR play as SWF, this offsets the kill rates and is why the lower proprtion of solo survivors have a lower average escape rate.
Moreover your 'contradiction' makes no sense if your point is that 'high MMR should have a higher win rate'. What about the killers win rate? If survivors had a higher escape rate at high MMR, that suggests killers would have a lower kill rate the higher their MMR.
Also, MMR can just as easily be tailored to acheive a 60/40 split as it can a 50/50 split depending on how each role's MMR is calculated. Most other game's MMR doesn't do this because most other games with MMR are symmetrical and don't have two distinct sides.
4 -
If you want to win all the time, go play Mario Kart.
60% is already VERY generous taking into account the suicides.
3 -
There wont by any surv that thinks being unfavored is a good idea. And there is absolutely no reasoning to have any average besides 50:50.
1 -
Its entirely possible to have a 60% kill rate but a 50% win rate. Its what happens when you have 5 possible outcomes split into 3 different brackets, with a 40/20/40 L/D/W split. As long as their kill target is between 51 and 74 it is technically between a 2K and 3K average, it being 60 instead of 62.5 means that they want it closer to the 2K than the 3K (but still higher than a 2K average.)
The entire system is thrown off by the existance of draws for both sides causing the outcomes to become odd numbers. Not only that, but due to the lack of team outcome for survivors, it is not inherently a zero sum game. You can lose because you die but the killer can also lose because you were their only kill.
7 -
That’s not how MMR works. It tries to create matches of roughly equally skilled people. Look at fighting games: top players mop the floor with almost everyone in ranked mode. That doesn’t mean the player should be handicapped or the character nerfed. The best players will win the majority of their games. That’s how it should be. This 50/50 nonsense is lazy thinking that seems rational because it’s in the middle.
5 -
This one I can get fully behind. Having no restriction to perks and builds has been a core of DBD since its introduction of perks, but by now it weights and holds the game back more then it gives players "ultimate build freedom".
Why not do a new perk class "regression perks" and "gen repair perks" and give a cap of 2. Easy as pie. The problem with the top 5 killers is a bit more complicated, though. Basically every single time BHVR buffed a weak killer, there was a big outcry and uproar about it, the buffs got reversed and nothing really changed. Like yeah, the full suit of Trickster buffs at that PTB some time ago was a bit much and way overtuned, no one denied that, but what we got out of the other side was barely worth the effort and did nothing to make Trickster any more fun to play, unless you were already really into him.
Maybe its time to give everyone 10 build points and factor perk colors into the mix, something like purple = 4pts, green = 2pts, yellow = 1pt. Super strong combos like Grim Embrace + DMS or Buckle Up/FTP could be penalized with +1pt cost and/or certain meta perks could also get a point increase. THis would lead to much more build variety then people just running whats meta at the moment.
Lastly, just plainly restrict certain perks for certain killer. When Awakened Awareness came out it got hard nerfed, because Nurse was so disgustingly busted by it. Same with Star Struck which lead to the standing term Star Struck Nurse. Just don't let Nurse pick this two perks and you suddenly got a whole new dimension that this perks could be puffed or played around with. Or when Thanatophobia got completely gutted because of two killers and now this two killers are the only ones worth running it on, because its worthless on everyone else.
And then we got some utterly tone deaf decisions like nerfing Freddy of all killers, and taking away his only real clever play he got, IE placing pools of blood over walls. I know that he is next in line for a rework, but dayum, this was a resounding slap in the face for everything Freddy.
Tunneling. Well, I personally have written whole books about tunneling and how and why its in the game and theories on how to fix it. I belive that my solutions could work, but really, there are literally a thousand others on the pages of this forum, BHVR just needs to cherry pick and polish the idea. Tunneling is really not fun for the receiving end, but the alternative would be a big, phat debuff for the player on death hook, because right now the killer gains nothing for keeping a survivor on death hook alive, but can easily get burned by their ability to just hold M1 on a gen as good as everyone else.
Also, MMR is keeping things way too strict. Once you win a couple of games, you are in the sweat mines, either sweat or be rediculed to the max, there is no in between, and once you chose sweat, there is hardly any way back.
Lastly, do away with de-pipping entirely. I know for a fact that a lot of my personal sweatting comes from de-pipping. When I am at 4 pips of five and a cute survivor gives up, I might not actually give them hatch, because I got burned so bad in the past by the pipping system. Do away with de-pipping and let everyone play anyway they like for the whole 30 days, not just the last week.
1 -
The fact is that the current kill-rate is much higher than 60%, since the system does not detect matches in which there is a disconnection, which inevitably results in a total loss for the survivors.
If you then add to this the fact that there is a random mechanic such as the hatch that further decreases this percentage, you realise that the whole system does not hold up.
5 -
I'm fine with Killers having a 60% kill rate (I play both roles, but I do tend to play more Survivor than Killer). When I load into a Survivor match I fully expect not to escape. I just want to be able to play out a match and not feel like I'm wasting my time for booting up the game.
It feels like there are more frustrations to Survivor compared to what I experienced when I first started playing about a year ago. Be that inconsistent (or totally absent) match making, tedious but common perk combos like Pain Res + Pop + Grim Embrace, teammates tapping out without the courtesy of giving us a bot to play with, Killer perks I wish BHVR would hurry up and nerf / rework, some Killers being over buffed. It all adds up to a game that feels less fun to me right now. Most of my Survivor matches are sweaty at the moment, while Killer feels like it's on easy mode.
I don't know, maybe I'm just starting to get a little burned out by it all. Anyway, it's not the dying in most trials that bothers me, it's other aspects of the game.
0 -
I believe the 60% kill rate has turned the game into a hardcore sweatfest for survivor players with no room for error. It's now a hardcore game (for survivors). The game is no longer accessible for casual players unless they play killer.
3 -
I'm glad someone is here to provide a theoretical, hypothetical and completely unprovable explanation for the statistics: the thread was really lacking those. Furthermore, explaining statistics after they have been published is a notoriously hard thing to do as we all know. I'm sorry that you don't like my use of the word "contradictory", next time I'll rather say "contradictory for anyone but Seraphor", seeing that you would have definitely predicted this sort of outcome beforehand.
Regarding me "conveniently cutting the picture", what are you trying to imply, exactly? Do you think I'm an angry survivor main cutting the picture to hide the truth that the game is secretly survivor-sided at high MMR? Because here's the full picture:
So the top 4-man SWFs have only 48% escape rate, we're talking about the highest MMR and only at 4-man, but I thought the game was survivor-sided at high MMR as I have read many times on this forum, that sounds 'contradictory' again. Can you please provide us another theoretical explanation?
12 -
"The best players will win the majority of their games. That's how it should be"
In DBD, the AVERAGE killer wins the majority of their games. Not the best, the AVERAGE. In contrary, the best survivors don't win the majority of their games, unless they're top 1% in 4-man SWFs, that's what the charts say. Have you seen them?
8 -
People still mixing up killrates with winrates... happens everytime we get new stats, even people with thousands of posts
11 -
Even if the survivor players are top MMR they’re still escaping less than 50% of the time, let alone winning the majority of their games. I was kind of surprised by this. High MMR survivors aren’t even breaking even with killers when it comes to winning.
1 -
I'm still asking how can 50/50 be considered unbalanced?
0 -
There are several posts in this topic alone explaining why.
50/50 is not what balance looks like for an asymmetrical game with an odd number of players. See Ryuhi's post.
It is more complicated than 50/50, but if you're coming from the position of "50/50 must be fair because it's equal" then anyone trying to explain the nuances to you is going to sound like a "killer main making excuses".
So there's really no point in trying to educate people, and I'm exhausted by this.
5 -
Is that all you got?
I've never mained a side, I don't buy a game to just play one half of it.
7 -
When both sides are weak or average, the game favors killer. When both sides are strong, killer is at a big disadvantage. If you tried nerfing killer more to help the average players, they would be unplayable against good survivors.
3 -
If you see my first post in this topic, you'll see that yes, survivors aren't making their ideal win rate (50% escape rate), but neither are killers making their ideal win rate either (62.5% kill rate/37.5% escape rate).
The discrepancy is because a survivors win rate is identical to their escape rate, but a killers win rate is not the same as their kill rate. A 50% win rate for killers is a 62.5% kill rate.
So many grievances with this game are down to it's asymmetrical format, yet the complaints seem to completely ignore it as a factor.
3 -
I think it can’t work in a game like this because survivors aren’t actually a team; they’re four individual players graded distinctly on their performance activities (emblems, MMR, bloodpoint distribution).
Think of it this way: the game is like [Meg vs David vs Claudette vs Vittorio] vs Huntress. The survivors can contribute toward a common goal they share (escape) but at the end of the day they are rewarded or punished for their own individual escape.
Huntress is rewarded for each individual survivor she kills (MMR increases, blood points, emblems). She’s not punished for killing all four survivors (as a team because they technically aren’t) because she’s essentially playing a 4-in-1 match. So to create an aggregate win rate of 50/50 would mean each individual survivor has a 50/50 chance of escaping the match against her. This would factor out to an aggregate kill rate (total amount of 2.5-3Ks she averages) of around 60%.
3 -
I actually touched on that in a subsequent comment. You’re right.
3 -
The actual solution would be for BHVR to release the WIN RATE stats for killers, so we can actually see how close the win rates are between survivors and killers.
0 -
Why is the survivors target mark not also 62.5%? 2 kills 2 escapes is considered a draw for both sides. Why would the killers target mark be 2.5 kills per game average, aka a win on average, while the survivors target mark would be 2 escapes on average, otherwise a draw on average? I get the game is assym and you need to account for that but this just doesn’t make any sense to me.
Not saying I think it should be this way or is even possible, but I’m just not following your logic.
3 -
1 -
You think some slight buff to survivor would make the game unplayable for killers? The game is practically unplayable right now for survivors. It's only possible to escape if the killer is really bad, afk, messing around, hatch, or if they let you go on purpose.
2 -
"i fully expect not to excape" Truly sad that some solo q players have even gotta to this state of thinking.
4 -
I am a survivor main though I have played a lot of killer (nearly 4k hours in DBD total) and I think the current rate is good.
The game was far too survivor sided and it was this way for years so I think the game is in a good state as far as the killer vs survivor balance goes
7 -
Winrate is practically the same as killrate, over a large amount of matches.
This winrate vs. killrate nonsense is just a forum thing to artificially make the statistic look lower, by counting 2K as a draw for the survivors but still a loss for the killer, then they say the killer winrate is lower than 60%. But this is flawed, a 2K should just be considered a draw for both sides.
6 -
For me roughly every game is the same now due to all the changes made. It's just boring.
Before each match was different, now it's just the saaaaaame stuff. Same perks, same killer play style. No variation whatsoever. Every match starts off with generators locked off by entity, then they use that perk where when you finish a gen, entity blocks one, then when someone is hook, gen blocked again. It's so boring lol
Oh and it's always the same where it's down to two generators and then we all get sacrificed, rinse repeat woohoo
3 -
Just out of curiosity, why do you think BHVR wants the kill rate to be 60%?
2
