Do any survivors prefer a 60% kill rate more than 50%?
Comments
-
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.
This is what was stated.
You responded with
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.
By which you mean that you can absolutely win, outside of a hatch play, as a solo survivor, without any actual teammates being present in the game.
This is all in response to your claim that
It's not a team game at it's fundamental level.
Counterpoint: It absolutely and obviously is. It is designed from the ground up with the intent of having survivors work together.
9 -
By which you mean that you can absolutely win, outside of a hatch play, as a solo survivor, without any actual teammates being present in the game.
Thanks for telling me exactly what I meant, despite me never saying it. That is where you moved the goalposts.
2 -
No, it's where you weren't paying attention to what was being said.
3 -
I was pointing that you can open the exits as a sole survivor. Is this not true?
Survivors win or lose individually, not as a team.
If you queue up as a solo survivor, and you get killed. It doesn't matter if the other survivors escape. You lost.
Is this false?
If I get tunneled out at 5 gens, but the other three manage to get out. Do I have to accept that I actually "won as a team"?
4 -
Was the game fundamentally built to have the survivors not do gens, not heal one another, not unhook one another, and just fish for hatch/EGC gates?
Yes or no?
7 -
I think a kill rate of around 55% is best. Any less and it feels like killers aren't really a threat, any more and it feels like escape isn't a realistic goal
2 -
None of that has anything to do with what I said. You're creating strawman arguments.
Answer my questions first.
Survivors win or lose as individuals. Yes or no?
4 -
None of that has anything to do with what I said. You're creating strawman arguments.
To quote:
It's not a team game at it's fundamental level.
1 -
And it's not. This is like talking to a brick wall.
Survivors are four individuals, playing within the same shared environment.
They win or lose as individuals, not as a team. They can help each other out of altruism, they can further a shared objective (which is not their only option) but they are ultimately out for themselves.
Therefore it is not a team game at it's most fundamental level.
Teamwork is an emergent phenomenon, a potential stategy, not a core requisite. This is what "fundamental" means.
I cannot make this any simpler.
I did not say this is not a team game "at all". It IS a team game; if you want to optimise your chances of escape, if you want to optimise your score, if you are playing with friends and you're invested in their success. But that is not "the fundamental level", as it pertains to kill/win rates.
3 -
Learning Billy through 1v1 is a great way to get grip on and against him. He will never be my best killer by any means but he is fun nevertheless.
In other words, the 62,5% on Billy right now (NL), is indeed 50% win, 30% loss and 20% draw? I am not missreading or missinterpretating it? If that is the case, how does someone come to the conclusion, that 50% win is the optimal ballanced way? I will never get that. Killer win 50% and only loose 30%. And survivor plain and simple loose 62,5% and only win 37,5%.
Whatever, the devs want to stick with that, and i guess there are only 2 options for me. Deal with it or leave the game.
0 -
4K is the by far most common outcome on average (57% killrate). At least, if we believe that NL is doing a decent job and i am not missreading the stats.
The overall average across all played games during 1 month:
4K: 32%
3K: 18%
2K: 13%
1K: 17%
0K: 19%
5 -
That is not what I said. I tried to explain why I think you can't really balance around a winrate. Wins aren't unequivocal. Kill rates are. So it makes more sense to me to balance around that.
In the case of Billy, I think it just takes a bit more time for survivors to learn how to play against him again since they get less uninterrupted practice than killers do and they can only learn to play against what they actually face. For example, if you were to play against more mediocre Billy players, you wouldn't learn how to play against all the things that a more experienced Billy can do.
There is a third option to go on. It's to think less about escaping / winning and more about having fun. It sounds obvious and of course you could apply the same to killers (which I often do) but it's an effective way to keep enjoying the game.
Just because you lost doesn't mean the game wad bad. Maybe you had a few good chases or you found out something new. Maybe you found something that you don't know yet how to play against. I try to focus on these things above all else (apart from when I try a streak, which I've done twice so far) and it has helped me keep a more positive attitude towards the game.
0 -
Again, this is the distinction between 'fundamental' and 'possible'.
You've simply opted for one arbitrary factor that you declare to be the win condition, which is an extremely reductive position that annihilates all context.
If you ask ANYONE ELSE, they will tell you that, fundamentally, the survivors have to work together. The game simply doesn't work without that. Just because you CAN doesn't mean that it's a FUNDAMENTAL part of the game.
6 -
Please pay attention to the argument that's being made and don't try to change the meaning of words to suit your argument.
"Fundamental" pertains to the core mechanics of the game, not the perceived and subjective experiences of survivors working together because it suits them better.
If we go by what you've just said, that teamwork is how the game fundamentally has to acknowledge win rates, then you have to by definition consider it a "team win" when one survivor is killed but three escape. A 1K is a 100% win for all four survivors, because they are a team.
That is not true.
If you in particular want to consider it a win even when you die, that is your entirely subjective prerogative. But that is not in any way a viable way of determining winrates.
2 -
You really aren’t as dependent on teammates as you think. You can play for yourself and escape, you can even contribute toward other survivor’s potential escape while doing so. I do it often enough to call it a viable strategy. And it isn’t just MMR; the individuality of survivor wins (and losses) is reflected in bloodpoint distribution & emblem awards as well. But the most important signifier of survivor victory is MMR. I can’t really think of any assym games that deviate from this formula either, so it isn’t something BHVR invented.
2 -
Okay. That's still not working in favour of your argument though.
Even IF you want to consider wins only on the individual basis (And if you want to disregard MMR: There is nothing in the game that actually denotes a 'win', including surviving), your winrate is still going to absolutely tank without help from the other survivors, and/or skyrocket WITH their help.
The core mechanics of the game are built around the survivors working together. That's why the game is fundamentally a team game.
4 -
Let's remember to please keep the discussion civil and respectful. Thank you.
1 -
Clearly you have never played mario kart before
4 -
In my opinion 60 percent is fine
2 -
It means that we can cooperate even if we are selfish. Preventing your weapon from being lost is not teamwork. But it increases the overall survival rate of survivors.
Many survivors don't understand the game balance that this is completely possible and realistic. Therefore, They tries to commit suicide at the first hook progression.
I want to tell them. ``If your opponent takes a pawn, it's not checkmate.''
0 -
None of that is proof of anything.
1) There is zero proof that MMR tries to match survivors and killers to the same MMR number. For example, if BHVR wanted to tilt the kill rate to the killer's favor, they might do something like match a 1,600 MMR killer with 1,400 MMR survivors... or pick whatever imbalanced match usually averages to a 60% win rate.
2) There is zero proof that it's symmetrically easy for survivors and killers to raise or lower their MMR by X amount.
3) There isn't a problem with hatch. BHVR said their goal is 60% kill rate. That's it. We don't need to worry about how often survivors get hatch, or how that affects win rates.
0 -
1) No definitive proof since I don't work at BHVR, but strong evidence, yes. Your system could theoretically work but it is way too convoluted. We know that MMR gains are symmetric +20 / -20, that the initial MMR system from 2021 was tuned for 50% killrate, and that Peanits has NEVER mentioned something like what you're suggesting, given all these elements my explanation is way more likely than yours.
2) don't understand what you mean here, but not my job to "prove" anything. I don't work at BHVR, how exactly do you expect me to prove to you that their MMR works in X or Y way? Besides, you're making the more convoluted claim here, so it should be your task to prove this claim, not mine to prove that it's wrong.
For 3) you're wrong, because we know that a hatch escape is worth 0 MMR, that has been confirmed several times by Peanits, and that will screw your system. For example, let's pick your example with a 1600 MMR killer playing against survivors at 1400 MMR. Let's say he plays against 100 survivors, in scenario A) he kills 60 of them, and 40 escape through the doors. In scenario B) he kills 60 survs, 20 escape through the doors, 20 escape through hatch. With your suggested system you only look at the killrate (60%) so the killer should stay at the same MMR after the games in both scenarios. In reality we know that's not true, a killer will gain a lot more MMR in scenario A).
1 -
That's not exactly how MMR works.
20 MMR is the MAXIMUM amount of MMR each player can gain or lose in the trial. A survivor escaping won't lose the killer 20 MMR and a killer killing a survivor won't gain 20 MMR, the amount of MMR they will lose or gain will be determined at the end of the trial depending on how many survivors died, how long the match was, and the MMR level of the survivors.
So whether a killer gets a 3K or a 4K doesn't always matter since the killer can still get 20 MMR even if the 4th survivor gets the hatch because a 3K is still counted as a win for the killer.
4 -
To me, the game just isnt a horror game anymore. The horror for me came from playing it as a hide-and-seek game, where it was thrilling if you can hide from the killer or lose him in a chase.
However, with the number of information perks and reworked map design, thats less viable than ever, so the game devolves into mainly the chase, and that is - at least to me - not horror, its far more technical and emotional steril than hidding used to be. In my opinion you could change the chase sound to the benny-hill-theme, it wouldnt change too much.
But since the game resolves more around chases and less around horror, it should feel more fair, in my opinion. the horror does not come from the fact the odds are against you form the beginning, thats where boredom comes from.
3 -
We don't know how many MMR points every kill or escape is worth. Telling me that players can gain or lose up to Z MMR per game, doesn't help at all with telling us what percentage of Z each player is gaining or losing.
And telling me it's "way too convoluted" doesn't work. There are competitive games out there, where we get to see our MMR, and we get to see how many MMR points we gain or lose every game...... and we can clearly see we aren't gaining or losing the same amount of MMR points each game. Some games scale the MMR gain/loss points depending on how higher or lower the other players' MMR scores compared to you. And I think BHVR directly told us that DBD's MMR cares how different a player's MMR is compared to their opponents, which isn't really convoluted at all because that's how the chess ELO (chess' version of MMR) formula works.
Some games have a second "MMR" score, that tells the game "what it feels" the player should be at, and it will adjust MMR gains and losses to make it easier to reach that second "MMR" score. For example, if a player is at 1,500 MMR, and has a second "MMR" score of 1,700, then it will reduce the number of MMR points that player loses, because the player is going in "the wrong direction" in comparison to their second "MMR" score. This also means that if the player is having a bad day, and has a loss streak, their MMR score might not go down very much. It also means that if a player somehow throws a bunch of games on purpose to lower their MMR (and somehow doesn't get caught or punished), their MMR score won't go down as much.
In DBD, we also don't even know how many points the last survivor is worth. If a killer slugs for a 4k, do they actually get a lot more MMR points, than a killer that just takes a 3k and doesn't care if the 4th survivor gets hatch? If there are generators left that need to be repaired, and the killer closes hatch, and then the 4th survivor escapes through the gate, is that even worth any MMR points, or does DBD consider that as functionally being a hatch escape because the survivor team didn't repair all the generators?
0 -
I said "you gain up to 20 MMR". Not a flat +20 MMR. Assuming you misread this part of the message.
0 -
The "convoluted" part of your system is NOT that you gain different points based on your opponent's MMR. That part is obviously normal, it's how MMR works.
The convoluted part is that you want to intentionally match people with different MMRs against each other, in order to achieve a 60% killrate through unbalanced matchmaking. That theory is already convoluted, but on top of this, the problem is, as I said, that you have a problem with hatch. If all the devs cared about was the killrate, then a hatch escape should be worth the same as a door escape. But we know that hatch is worth 0, so we know your system is not what is in the game. Just try it, choose an example value for Z and you'll see it doesn't work. What if the survivors escape through hatch 10% of the time? What if they escape 50% of the time? Your Z value wil be different for both cases, so you'd have to know and track the whole playerbase's hatch escape rate to constantly adjust Z.
0 -
As a survivor i would prefer a 20% escape rate. I wanna feel scared and happy to escape. I dont want to feel that i can loop and stunt a killer
1 -
You said one kill gives up to 20 MMR which isnt correct. 3-4 kills gives up to 20 MMR. We don’t know how much 1 kill is worth.
0 -
Ok fair, but how exactly does it matter to this conversation that you gain 5, 20, or 42000 MMR per kill? The point is that the max possible MMR gain is the same for both sides.
0 -
Who cares if it’s convoluted? If BHVR wants a 60% kill rate, and MMR is averaging a 60% kill rate, then MMR is doing what BHVR wants it to do.
And the new stats shows that MMR is doing what BHVR wants it to do.
0
