Do any survivors prefer a 60% kill rate more than 50%?
Comments
-
I care more about how the matches feel than the escape rate. Survivor just feels like a low impact role most of the time. That's usually due to a combination of bad matchmaking and mismatched playstyles. It often feels like the outcome would be the same if you tried vs not participating at all. It doesn't feel like your gameplay impacts the end results very much on survivor. Games feel won and lost from the lobby. That's not a good thing in a PVP game.
18 -
Winrate doesnt matter.
0 -
Asking survivor mains if they'd like to win more, jeez wonder what the answer will be.
9 -
I remember someone tried to convince me that 2K is a lost for killer, but match that survivor have 1 escape should count as "1 win" in that match.
5 -
Many killers consider anything less than a 4k a loss.
0 -
For now, 2k is a draw for both killers and survivors. If we don't use that as a standard, the discussion won't move forward.
6 -
2k would be a draw if the game was balanced for a 50% kill rate. With a 60% kill rate a draw is statistically a loss for the killer. That means if the MMR system is set to account for a 60% kill rate, a 2k game lowers the hidden MMR of the killer even if it's not technically called a loss.
1 -
🤣🤣🤣🤣
3 -
no. It is a concept that only works if all players have the same abilities, skills, and knowledge.
In reality, the player who plays the killer need to do a lot of parallel processing work and has to learn more than the serial processing survivor. There is a difference in experience, but due to the severe effects of MMR, expert killers and casual survivors often meet face to face. Even if this is not the case, bad survivors will be mixed in with good killers and good survivors. I believe that taking these into account will result in a 60% kill rate.
2 -
I think BHVR's intent is exactly what they said: to make the game feel like a horror game, while still keeping it relatively even. Sounds good in theory.
The problem is that in practice, I suspect it's not at all what happens in game. Possibly they accidentally broke MMR, as it still tries to achieve an illusory 50% killrate that is no longer possible due to game balance; I don't know exactly what's wrong, but having a 60% killrate while MMR still aims at 50% basically guarantees that something is wrong. It's like pushing both the pedal and brake at the same time and expecting the car to go at 50% speed. Maybe what happens, is that MMR works for some people and not for others, that would explain why some people claim to win all their games easily while others have to sweat to reach even 50%.
Additionally, killrate itself is a very questionable metric. It turns out that EVERY TIME that BHVR has shared stats about killrates in the past years, there was always at least one very ridiculous, counter-intuitive number. Just in this patch, we discovered that Sadako and Freddy have some of the best killrates, SWFs have almost the same escape rate as solos, and that lowering your MMR improves your chances of winning. Of course there are always ten logical explanations for why the chart is like it is, but there are also ten logical explanation for why it shouldn't be like that. In the end, if everybody has to interpret the chart their own way, you might as well ditch the chart.
Imagine going to the doctor to for an arm injury, and the only thing they do is monitor your temperature, then they tell you that your temperature is normal so you must be healthy: you probably would switch to a different doctor. Imagine that they attempt to fix your arm by giving you drugs that can only increase or decrease your temperature. This is what happens in DBD. People keep arguing whether the killrate should be 50% or 60% without realizing the massive elephant in the room, that almost nobody gets this killrate in practice. I don't play DBD nowadays, but I still watch streamers, and their match outcomes are always MUCH higher or MUCH lower than 60%, never close to 60%. Frequently what happens is that one day they win all their games, then the next day they go on losing streaks of 10+. Me, when I played killer back then, I would win almost every game, while I struggled to reach 30% on surv. Contrast this with almost every other game on the market, in Overwatch for example I played 1002 games and won 501, that's exactly 50% winrate, and the best players in the world have around ~62% winrate.
6 -
I don't mind it as a survivor. Escaping as a survivor feels great, far better than a win in any other multiplayer game. I doubt that feeling would be the same if the escapes were easier.
On the other hand, I generally hate it as a killer. When I win, well I was supposed to.
If it was 50/50 would those feelings balance out? No idea.
2 -
In the end, if everybody has to interpret the chart their own way, you might as well ditch the chart.I mean, that's just kind of the way a lot of stats work. Comparing it to sports, stats can be difficult to attribute to the player, coaching, injuries, team elements, etc. Stats do frequently need to be discussed on how the number was achieved, but there is just too much data for any of the stats to be just random.
1 -
When did BHVR ever say that DBD's MMR tries to achieve a 50% killrate?
If BHVR has a goal of 60% kill rate, they can just adjust the MMR formulas to aim for a 60% kill rate.
1 -
The issue is that broken perks like those are absolutely miserable when you play against them.
No one thought CoH, Dead Hard, Eruption, Overcharge/CoB were fun to play against. And the only reason people found these perks fun to use was because they just won games for you.
If a perk has to be either overpowered or weak, then I would personally choose for it to be weak.
6 -
I prefer 50% because teammates in solo que add 25% more, making you feel like you’re on the wrong side of the 4 v 1.
0 -
CoH with 50% self heal was fine. DH dash-version was cool and they only needed to make some good anti exhaustion perks. Overcharge/Eruption/CoB I didn‘t play in that time or I didn‘t encounter them.
The thing is that strong perks win games for you hasn‘t changed. Now those perks are only for killers (pop/pain res/Grim embrace+dms).
I hope they return some of the old perks as soon as they helped some of the weaker killers to be in a good spot.
2 -
A 50% killrate will typically lead to the path of least resistance.
Given that tunneling is the path of least resistance at the moment, do you want the game balanced around 4 Hook games where only 1 Survivor is targeted and the rest are relegated to gen duty?
0 -
Thematics. "Final Girl".
They're (we're) just cucked atm where the killed survivors do literally nothing and cant "cheer on" the "final girl" when dead.
1 -
Disagree.
50% CoH was still an issue. Infinite free heals for the entire team is a bad idea.
Original Dead Hard was awful for killers. Adding more anti-exhaustion perks to counter a perk with 70%+ pick rate would have just forced killers to play with 3 perks and made every other exhaustion perk except Dead Hard nearly obsolete. If you are forced to run a perk just to counter another perk then the perk is an issue.
Trust me, the current Pain Res/Grim Embrace/DMS is NO WHERE near as bad as Overcharge/Eruption/CoB. Survivor was hell. Especially Eruption basically taking you out of the game for a whole 16 seconds. (GE/DMS should still be changed though don't get me wrong)
No perk should ever be at the level of CoH, Dead Hard, or Eruption no matter how fun they are. If a perk has to be overpowered for it to be fun, then the perk isn't fun you just like easier games.
Giving killers like Demo and Doctor small number changes is not anywhere near the same level as bringing any of those perks back.
I'd much prefer they just nerf the high tier killer perks in line with the rest of them rather than make more overpowered perks for survivors that completely shift the entire game around them.
7 -
Demo is not weak and the doctor changes are good. I wished they buffed doctors illusions to move or that they work like mirages clones in apex legends.
It‘s just sad that there isn‘t one new survivor perk under the top 10 most used perks. All of them are very very old.
2 -
objectively less-balanced state
Not objectively. Subjectively.
It's always been subjectively. Objectively, the game's currently not balanced or even close to it. The absolute top best survivors stacked in a 4-man hit a 48% winrate versus killers averaging to 50% winrate. The rest of the survivors lag behind killers by a full 10 percentage points. (Even more at high MMR)
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 incorrect, and people need to stop parroting this misunderstanding. You're talking about the outcome of the average game, NOT the average win-rate. Killrates and winrates are not related in that way, as proven by Nightlight and trying to make a prediction for the average winrate on any killrate below 50%.
Winrates for killers have been considerably higher than this model predicts.
The 60% figure was, AFAIK, never chosen for balance, but for thematic purposes.
5 -
I was using the Demo and Doctor changes as an example of the killer buffs. They are not that big and in no way comparable to bringing back Dead Hard or CoH.
I do agree that survivors haven't gotten a lot of great perks recently though but they haven't received none. Dramaturgy, Plot Twist, and Troubleshooter are all good perks, they just can't compete with how good the most used perks are. Deja Vu also only reached top ten because of a recent buff.
Same with killer. The most recent killer perk in the top ten is from 2021. New perks such as Ultimate Weapon and Friends Til the End are also really good yet they also aren't in the top ten simply because, despite being good, the others still just outshine them.
Rather than make more powerful perks, they should nerf all the top tier ones and then buff the weaker perks or add new perks that are around the same level as the new nerfed top tiers. I mean this for both sides, not just survivor. Regression and slowdown perks are the biggest offenders of stopping perk variety.
1 -
if kill rate was 50% across the board, that would mean that, no matter the killer, at least the 2 best survivors would always escape on average, and killers would rarely get a 3-4k. Basically what I'm saying is that survivor becomes too easy since you will almost be guaranteed to escape half the time you play, and killer becomes too frustrating since you rarely, if ever, feel like you've done your job with that percentage.
60% Kill rate on the other hand doesn't guarantee 2 escapes, but also doesn't guarantee 3 kills on average either. It's a nice number that is more flexible, keeps survivors on their toes as the killers are more of a threat, while also not ensuring that killers will always steamroll survivors either.
When I play survivor, I like that the odds are against me, but not so much that escaping feels impossible, and as killer I also like that the survivors will collectively provide a decent challenge to me, and while I feel I have the advantage, I can never underestimate them.
60%, yeah that's a good target range for kills as it doesn't make things too easy for survivors, but also ensures that the killer is the threat they should be. I'm perfectly comfortable with that rating, because if it was a 50% kill rate, or lower... who would even want to play killer? This is a 4 v 1 afterall, and if the 1 doesn't feel strong enough to threaten more than half of the 4, then where's the fun?
6 -
The problem with most of the perks you mentioned, is that you have to spend money for them (licensed). Friends till the end and Ultimate Weapon are really strong, but I don‘t like to open a locker for it. The nick cage perks are more fun perks, which is cool, besides of plot twist they aren‘t really useful.
COH: I would make it go out after a number of heals or that boons, which get distroyed have to be repaired and cleansed afterwards again. That sounds fair for me.
DH: I don‘t know whether you were immune while dashing, but if you were I would remove that and make the exhaustion timer longer.
I have the complete opposite opinion on the last part, but if they want to go that route, they should finally nerf pop and pain res. On the survivor side isn‘t really anything I could complain about and I play mostly killer. (I want to play survivor, but it‘s everytime a bad experience, so I play killer)
My problem with the nerf everything philosophy, is that this will never end. It will continue until everything is useless and even then that one perk, which isn‘t, will get nerfed and it continues.
0 -
As killer I preferred 50%. But maybe that was went mmr was better. I'm tired of downing one survivor then the rest give up because I've played well from the start. Killer snowball/pressure is too strong right now.
2 -
Yes you are right that being behind a paywall would make it less common, but couldn't that also then be why no new perks are in the top ten in the first place?
CoH is fine as it is in my opinion, it just can't compete with the other good perks. Your idea wouldn't be a bad change though and limiting the amount of uses is how I always thought they should nerf it. There are other perks way more in need of buffs though that I think CoH should stay as it is for the time being.
The dash was the problematic part of Dead Hard though. It made every loop safe and allowed you to play more greedy and be rewarded for it every time. Removing the invincibility would just make it useless against Nurse and Blight but still overpowered against every other killer.
I agree that killer slowdown should be toned down. It heavily limits perk variety for killers and in order to compete with them any non-slowdown perk needs to be really powerful. And it's just not fun to play against at all.
As for survivors, there are a few perks I can think of that are a bit problematic. Even then though the issue is that while the most used perks are, for the most part, not overpowered - any perk that wants to compete with them HAS to be overpowered.
Take Gabriel's perks for example - Troubleshooter is a great perk, but its pick rate is low. Now look at how common MFT was. Despite Troubleshooter being good, it gets no usage because the most used perks are just too good or feel like you need to use them just to compete with the opponent. Why use Troubleshooter over Sprint Burst or Adrenaline? And then there are perks like Kindred which solo players kind of are encouraged to run. Without them they are at a disadvantage, so their perk choices are limited. Same with exhaustion - not using one puts you at a huge disadvantage so again you are limited in what you can use. And then WoO which just makes the game easier and better for new players to learn. If the perk is overpowered though, you can afford to take it off these perks but if it's just "good", then why bother?
Maybe just straight up nerfing all of them isn't the best idea either, but it's better then releasing more overpowered stuff. The best way to fix it though would be to figure out why everyone runs the same perks, address those issues, and THEN nerf them and release more good and fun perks that don't have to worry about power creeping the rest of them just to be used.
0 -
i dont think think its the general pressure that is to strong i think its the mmr.
if you are a good killer and you are quick and make a good play survivor who are much lower in mmr then you ofcourse get intimidated and lose there will to fight. every one i know and every streamer i watch says that the matchmaking just sucks atm. i hoenstly believe if the matchmaking would work better the overall player expirience would feel better.
i see it myself. sometimes i have survs where it really feels like we are even and we have a fun close game but most of the time i either face survs that run around like headless chicken after a good play from me or survs that are just so much better then me that i could just stay in the basement and hope that they dont want to torture me for to long
1 -
I'm pretty sure his kill rate will drop a bit over the coming months. He got so many changes that he's basically become a new killer altogether and survivors need a bit more time to adjust.
I still see people treat me like old Billy, knowing full well I am in Overdrive. It doesn't work like that. You now actually have to play the mind game and watch out around certain loops. Once that happens, his kill rate will adjust.
2 -
I don't really care about the kill rate or win rate, as long as the core gameplay is fun.
It's rather have a 65% kill rate or higher with fun gameplay than the 'balanced', sweaty slog the game is right now.
Sacrificing 'fun' for balance has been a flaw in the game recently.
6 -
I mean, it is the underdog role of the game after all.
Add to that a long list of reasons why the match isn't going to go your way (mismatched MMR, bad RNG, good map for the Killer, I played poorly, brought the wrong perks, teammates throwing, Killer camps / tunnels etc). Most of these things are not within my control to do anything about.
If I played more selfishly and less altruistic, I could probably get hatch and gate escapes more often.
0 -
It’s not actually a draw for both sides. Two survivors win, two lose, and Huntress wins two micro-matches but loses two (so she may obtain some emblems but not all, she’ll likely break even with MMR b/c killers gain and lose MMR by each survivor they kill or fail to kill, respectively).
0 -
I honestly feel with all the killer buffs recently all of 6.1.0's base chase changes should be reverted with the current stats and buff the killers who are struggling.
Also why did they not show High mmr and low mmr for individual killer kill rates. It's actually like they are trying to gaslight us regarding Nurse.
3 -
Maybe he will drop, people will learn (or relearn) to play against this killer - on the other side, Billy players will get better. We will have to wait and see. I still love him, on both sides, even tho i think he is a bit overtuned.
But my point was not Hillbilly specifically, rather his Winrate on NL as an example. And my question was serious: Am i getting those numbers somehow wrong? Because, like i said, with 62,5% killrate, he sits on 50% winrate and only 30% lossrate. And the crowman claims this is straight up ballanced. Not in a "killer has to have a higher winrate because he should be terrifying" or anything like that - just ballanced. For me, ballanced would look like 40/20/40 or something similar and not 50/20/30.
2 -
They can do it, but they haven't done it. It has been datamined that one kill gives you up to +20 MMR, one escape -20 MMR, and hatch 0 MMR. Since the numbers are symmetric, it's pretty clear that MMR aims at a 50% winrate.
Besides, I doubt it's as easy as you think. First there is a problem with hatch: a hatch escape counts as half a win for MMR but as 0 for killrate, then to achieve a 60% killrate, the target winrate for MMR should not be 60%, but more around 65-70%, and this starts to become very unbalanced. Touching MMR algorithm is also a pretty dangerous thing to do, since any wrong change to the formula might break balance for the whole playerbase. Maybe I'm underestimating them, but I think they just kept the previous MMR from 2021, noticed the killrate became 60% after balance changes, and decided that this was a good result so let's not touch anything.
3 -
I get what you’re saying but by the very definition the devs gave us, 2 out 2 dead is a draw for both sides. Yes, the 2 survivors that got out “win” in MMR but the overall match outcome for survivor is a draw.
At the end of the day survivors live or die by their teammates actions, the games still a 4v1, not a 1v1v1v1v1 regardless of how MMR treats it. You can run the killer for 10 minutes straight but you’re not getting out unless your teammates help you. So why would the survivors target mark for escape percentage not be 62.5%, 2.5 escapes on average per game?
0 -
Learning to adapt to a killer after a rework is always easier when you play them yourself. You get to practice 10 games in a row. For survivors it's not quite that easy. You may see a few more than usual but there will still be other killers you face, so it takes a lot longer.
Considering that the devs cannot possibly balance around a win rate, I think that a 60% kill rate is mostly alright. Think of it like this: I could have a 60% win rate (all 3ks) and 40% losses (all 4 escapes). That would still leave me with a 45% kill rate.
On the other hand I could have 60% 4ks and 40% 1ks, which would leave me at a 70% kill rate. It's too inconsistent to use it for balancing.
The win rate matters less than the escape rate. You could die as a survivor but technically still win. So it makes sense that they'd try to balance around a kill rate instead.
1 -
1. It's not a team game at it's fundamental level. Survivor's end goal is binary, you escape or you don't. The average between two binary options is 50%.
2. A 2K is not a draw. People keep saying this because on the surface it appears to make sense that 2 of one thing and 2 of the other must be even therefore 'a draw', and I get why this seems like it should be the case, but that's not what a draw is.
A draw is where neither side wins or loses.
For survivors, 2 have won and 2 have lost, so the survivors haven't "neither won nor lost" they have most certainly either won or lost depending on the survivor.
For killers, they have not 'neither won nor lost', they have completed half of their objective. It's a very different thing.
If the average game was a 2K, and we presumed that the most balanced possible state would be that 'every game is a 2K always', then every game killers would be achieving half of their objective.
The equivalent for survivors would be only powering 3/5 generators every game, which is quite clearly a loss. For survivors to win, they have to complete their entire objective.
A 2K is not only half of the killers objective, it also necessitates that survivors have completed all of their objective and powered the exit gatesn which means killers have not only missed half of their main objective, but also failed in their secondary objective (preventing repairs).
This is why a 2K is a loss for the killer, in order for it to occur, the killer must fail in the majority of their goals, and why this asymmetrical format does not allow for the existence of a 'draw' in the truest sense. This is why, even though you call a 2K a draw, it will never feel like a draw for killers, and it feels like gaslighting.
5 -
Is 2 out, 2 dead not considered a draw for both sides by the devs own admission? Am I remembering this incorrectly?
In an MMR perspective the survivors objective is to escape, not finish gens. The games still a 4v1. You’re fully reliant on your teammates to escape, if this game was more like TCM where an individual can actually escape all on their own I’d agree with this. You can be the best player in the game but if your teammates don’t support you, you’re not getting out. It’s a team game no matter how you spin it.
2 -
MMR and win conditions aren't the same thing, and I've been saying since it's introduction that people shouldn't be using MMR calculations to discern a win from a loss. MMR exists to help ensure survivors are matched with killers in a way that acheives the fairest match of survivors 'ability to escape' with killers 'ability to kill'.
It's not skill based matchmaking, it's kill based matchmaking.
Win conditions are not easily defined for killers.
Even survivors which are technically easily defined as binary at the most fundamental level, are muddied by the existence of 'teams'. Plus ypu then have challenges on top of that.
But for killers, most of the actual win metrics (emblems, BP score, challenges, etc.) are all contingent on acheiving objectives, and are mostly impossible to acheive without a certain number of hooks and/or kills.
Even the most extreme 'win', a 4K, can be a 4K in 4 hooks with no gen progress, or it can be a 4K at endgame with 12 hooks. Two vastly different scenarios with different implications gor the success of each side.
Even what I said before is an over simplification. But "2K is a draw" is not only just an even greate over simplification, but it also negates all of the subjective elements of DBDs ill-defined win conditions and simply chooses one of several options, that many don't agree with.
And it's not a team game, by the devs own admission. The ability to play solo is not only possible but encouraged. You absolutely can escape without relying on your team mates, you just have to be prepared to play selfishly. Teamwork exists as an option, not a requirement.
This is all part of what makes it an asymmetrical game, and all these efforts to create symmetry where is doesn't exist by enforcing teamwork, defining equal win conditions, etc. flies in the face of the fundamental nature of the game's format.
5 -
I prefer 60% kill rate but im 50/50 player now and play less and less survivor. M1 killers are still weak and need more buffs so I think getting it up to even 65% is fine. Survivors have more fun games if not always facing best killers with OP powers they should be nerfed bit.
0 -
Balancing around 50% kill rate doesn't mean the majority of matches would be a 2k. Because of the way matches usually snowball in the first couple minutes, it would mean slightly fewer 4k stomps and probably more 1k results. 0k is rare because of how easy it is to facecamp for a pity kill during end game.
You can rationalize it any way you want, but 60% average is unfair as long as the game is intended to be a mmr competitive multiplayer game.
6 -
MMR and win conditions aren't the same thing, and I've been saying since it's introduction that people shouldn't be using MMR calculations to discern a win from a loss.
This is exactly how MMR works. MMR defines win conditions and adjusts accordingly. The win conditions are clear cut. Escape or die, nothing else matters besides how many escape or die.
And yes, it is a team game. You can’t escape without the help of your teammates no matter how well or selfishly you play. You are reliant on your teammates to either do gens or take agro, if they fail to do either, you will quite literally never “win” by MMRs definition. Sure, you can get hatch but that’s a draw according to MMR, you’ll never win in this regard by yourself.
Once again, this games not like TCM where it truly doesn’t require the help of your teammates to escape, you are fully reliant on your teammates to hit the win condition defined by MMR. There’s no way around that.
Win cons are also easily defined by MMR for killer. 3k and 4k is a win, 2k is a draw, 1k and 0k is a loss. There’s absolutely nuance outside of this but according to the games system, it’s cut and dry.
3 -
MMR defines win conditions and adjusts accordingly.
Not it does not. This is the reason why MMR is hidden. It is not a win condition and was never intended to be. The results screen is your win condition, your emblems, your pips, your score, your entities judgement. MMR has been a plague of misinformation since it's inception and has warped player preconceptions.
You can’t escape without the help of your teammates no matter how well or selfishly you play.
You absolutely can. You can easily open the exits and escape without your teammates. If you can't imagine how this is possible you can't be a very experienced survivor.
Thanks for bringing this up. This is yet another of the myriad of factors that makes the win condition detached from the kill rate.
1Ks and 4Ks are the most common results for nearly every killer. Yet a 1K is still definitively a loss for the killer.
If you take two games, one 1K, one 4K, you have an even 50% win rate for the killer. Yet you have a 62.5% kill rate. 5 in 8 survivors have been killed.
With 1Ks being more common than 0Ks, and 4Ks being more common than 3Ks, and all are more common than 2Ks, even with a definitively 50% win rate, if you had 1000 definitive losses with 1000 definitive wins, even if you count a 2K as a draw, you still have a kill rate higher than 50%, because the more common 1Ks and 4Ks skew the kill rates towards that 62.5%.
I know it seems simple to think that "fair" must mean 50/50, that it's even, so it must be right. I used to think this too. But it is Not. That. Simple. It is a fallacy. The game is asymmetric and there are far too many nuances and variances that prevent attempts at equalising the two sides of that asymmetry.
4 -
You absolutely can. You can easily open the exits and escape without your teammates. If you can't imagine how this is possible you can't be a very experienced survivor.
You are not legitimately suggesting that if you loaded into a trial, on your own, you could do all five generators and leave through the gates.
Alone.
9 -
You can open the exits after the hatch is closed. Or you can leave your teammates to die after the gens are done, by them. You can hide in a corner and never help them out, and escape through an exit.
There are even perks to help this play style specifically.
6 -
Or you can leave your teammates to die after the gens are done, by them
In other words: When they help you.
10 -
They still exist yes, we're talking about teamwork. Four individual survivors playing selfishly and not as a team can, per survivor, still escape. You can use the other survivors in the match as tools, as fodder, to ensure your own survival. That's not teamwork.
Don't move the goalposts.
5 -
I don't think I'm the one moving the goalposts, because you went from 'fundamental level' to 'it is technically possible'.
11 -
Read back again. Is teamwork essential, or is it an option? Each individual survivor is playing for their own escape, with the option to work together to potentially improve those odds. That is the fundamental level. You don't receive a team score, you receive an individual ecore.
You moved the goalposts when you tried to imply I was claiming that the game as a single 1v1 was an even match.
5 -
There’s no way you thought that was what I was actually talking about. Yes, if your team gets stomped and the killer closes hatch with 4 gens left, you can open the gates and get out if you get lucky with gate spawns. Talking about moving goalposts lol.
3
