dont survivors realize it difficult to play killer against strong survivors?
Comments
-
Yes most killers think this.
6 -
but that is just a draw for the killer, so killers get either a draw or lose. in other pvp games there is always a winner and a loser. draws are extremely rare, and the one that wins is the better team right, using all their knowledge and mechanical skills correct?Two things here:
1: When people say a 2k they should mean on average. You should have some 4ks, 0ks, etc. that balance out to a 2k. 2k is the rarest of the the possible results.
2: As for does the better side win? Not always, all games have elements of luck and chance, DbD had a lot of random elements built into the game.
conclusion is that if i put alot of time in the game to only get draws as the standard then the game doesnt reward the time investedEveryone else is also putting in time and getting better at the game too.
make the game direct to the player: defeat, draw, victory so we can avoid all this confusionI get the point and confusion here, and somewhat agree, but its just not what the game is. The game has zero win conditions outside MMR. You can play for BP, pips, kills/escapes (MMR), as a survivor you can care about your team or ignore them. You can put a rulebook on yourself and your playstyle, or sweat it out.
The game is asymmetrical in many more ways than just having two different sides. It doesn't even give players clear objectives and leaves that up to them. It can be frustrating, but it does lead to more variety in the game and prevents it from becoming stale.
3 -
I’m sorry to say this, but it just sounds like another killer’s MMR being way higher than their actual skill level.
Killer is for sure stressful, but in no way harder than a survivor, especially in SoloQ. Killers have a tendency to just bloat up their MMR by using scummy tactics like tunneling out survivors at 5 gens or just use perk combinations that are just way too broken in low MMR and SoloQ to do anything against it. And when they at some point hit the brick wall of the SWF squads who play this game competitively they act shocked that they can’t get anything done. And those are the majority in this forum crying out for survivor nerfs. Like be for real…
6 -
"Asymmetrical" has nothing to do with kill or win rate. It simply means uneven teams and different roles on both sides. It's perfectly possible to have an asymmetrical game that aims to balance 50/50 for both sides. This game used to be, before 6.1 the kill rate was 53% and the playerbase was growing every year. Yet I keep seeing killer mains saying the game is more balanced now than in the past. This is the only pvp game I've heard of where the devs intentionally state their desire to make it unbalanced with a 60/40 split.
1 -
It doesnt matter if its an asymmetrical design or not. Assuming that equal skill doesnt exist is ignorant on a fundamental level.
Enlighten me, then: How would you measure how good a survivor is in comparison to a good Nurse, when they don't even need to have the same game sense and knowledge as the decisions they should make and the way they should play are completely different?
Also it doesnt matter if theyre equal or not by design, cause the game itself sets them on an equal stage: The one is as powerful as the four summed up as a team.
And again, how do you measure exactly whether their "power levels" are equal? For not saying that you are wrong again, as by design, survivors have the upper hand at the start of the match. The killer is more "powerful" than one survivor, not the four combined.
That's why if the killer doesn't pressure them enough to hinder their progress survivors would escape, and the main reason for tunneling, AKA getting a survivor out of the game as soon as possible, being the most effective strategy for a killer to follow.
Survivors are not solo players.
But they are in terms of winning or losing. The match is only a "1v4" for the killer. For the survivors, each one of them has their own match with the killer, and getting killed would only mean a loss for that survivor, the same as if he escape only he would win (or, as devs said in the day, for them it is a "1v1,1,1,1).
1 -
A 53% killrate means killers almost always draw with the surivors. This is because a win for the killer is a 3K, with 2K being a draw and 1 or 0K means a loss.
That's the reason behind the 60/40. 60% killrate means 2.4 survivors killed per match on average (or, 40% winrate) at the same time that survivors escape 40% of the time, or in other words, also 40% winrate for survivors as them only need to escape themselves to win, as I already said.
There, your "equality in the inequality". That's why they want a 60% killrate and why the game was unbalanced before, not now.
5 -
Technically… each survivor is a mini-match for killer as well (at least in terms of MMR). A killer gains/loses MMR for each survivor they kill or fail to kill. This was clarified by the devs a little while ago.
0 -
"A 53% killrate means killers almost always draw with the surivors. This is because a win for the killer is a 3K, with 2K being a draw and 1 or 0K means a loss."
Absolutely and completely false. Average does not mean that number is the most likely outcome. A 50% kill rate would mean something like this (roughly)
20% chance of 0k, 1k, 2k, 3k, 4k. So a 2k would only happen about 20% of the time.
3 -
Yes and no, as for the killer it counts the total of survivors killed to gain or lose MMR, but each individual kill or escape would make the gains or losses bigger or lower depending on each survivor MMR.
That's what the wiki says, which info is compiled not just from official sources, but also from data mining the game itself.
0 -
Another person that doesn't know what an average is, apparently.
And no, a 50% killrate would mean 2 survivors killed on average per match, which also means that killers draw their games on average.
3 -
Agreed but for me it seems when I play killer I get those competent survivors too often and incompetent survivors almost always when playing soloQ... Playing agains't strong squad is so frustating because they bring bp offerings so you hope good results but they slam gens crazy fast so there is not much bp to get unless you tunnel very fast someone out and snowball.
Today I got fair amount 25K from 1K match but I hoped definetely more. I was about to get grim embrace for 40s but they just got last gen done it was so annoying. On survivor it's so easy to just win by doing gens efficiently.
0 -
I agree.
Butt...
Survs playing as a team is a high level concept that can be reached only by swfs, and not all of them, and even if, its rarely 4 escapes.
Survivors not only compete against killer to not being killed, but also against all other survivors for escape. Single survivor escape rate is around 40%, and in each match, they have to fight with eachother for them being able to be the one who escapes.
Game is 1v4 only for Beata swfs.
For most players game is 1 v (1v1v1v1)
And yes. Playing killer is difficult with managing time, choosing chases and lot more. But its also for survs who have to decide when and who they should help, and when and who they should not. See that over-altruistic survivors dies.
0 -
If a killer plays 8 games, wins 5 with a 3k, and then loses the next 3 with a 0k each time:
- What is the killer's win rate?
- What is the killer's kill rate?
- What result, on average, is the killer getting?
3 -
I know, i know!
- 62,5% winrate
- 46,875% killrate
- What?
I have another riddle: same 2 questions but with different numbers, and in 10 matches for simplicity:
- All 10 matches are draw with 2k
- 5 matches are lost with 0k and 5 are won with 4k.
And what about single survivor in both cases.
2 -
Im this example its 50% killrate and 40% winrate. I wonder, can killer with avarage of 50% killrate have more than 40% winrate? And what is winrate of every single survivor then? Because even in Your example, survivor have 50% winrate vs 40% killer winrate... Is it fair in any means? 50% killrate means that each survivor always have 50% chance of escaping thus 50% winrate, You gave example of killer having 40% winrate, and @Batusalen gave example of 0% killer winrate with same 50% killrate and with same 50% winrate for every survivor. And numbers may vary, from 0% to 40% or maybe higher winrate for killer? But to what max winrate with same 50% killrate, and what is avarage winrate for that killer?
0 -
Seeing that @Archael already answered you, I have another question: In those 8 games, the same one survivor always escaped.
1.- What is the winrate of that sole survivor on those 8 games?
2.- Counting the escapes of the other 3 survivors in the 3 0K games, what is the winrate of all the survivors in those 8 games?And another: In the same scenario of 8 games, another killer kills the same amount of survivors, but equally distributed between the 8 games.
1.- What is the maximum "nK" that the killer would have done in those 8 games?
2.- Taking in count that, what is the winrate of this killer?
3.- If only this two killer players existed in the game, what would be the average winrate of killers?When you answer, you would see why thanks to the asymmetry of win conditions and outcome possibilities you have to balance it taking in count averages, not specific made up scenarios. And if you not, I already wrote walls of text in other posts explaining it to you (and others like you), so I will not do it again.
Post edited by Batusalen on0 -
40% win is the lowest possibility, while 80% win is highest possibility. Of course in a thousand of games, you dont get exact 400 matches with 3K and 600 matches with 2K to argue about "Killers only have 40% win". But rather a mix between all 4 possibility, which is about 58% win rate in average.
What survivors have? 40%.
5 -
Sorry, I'm trying to understand what you posted, but I don't even know what this "possibilities" are about, not how you calculated that, or how it answer any of the questions I made.
It would be helpful if you explained it with more detail.
0 -
The chart with Possibility 1 shows after 5 matches (0K 0K 4K 4K 4K) with 12 kills/8 escapes (60% kill rate, with 60% win rate, 40% lose).
Goes the same for other 3 possibilities.
2 -
Then what you are not getting (among other things) is, again, that for it to be a 60% killrate on average some players need to do more, and other less. That's why it is an average.
I invite you to answer the questions I made to @ratcoffee and see it yourself.
0 -
You are right (tho possibility 3 is 40% win, 40% loose, 20% draw). But not exactly.
60% killrate does not means exactly 60% kills.
In a grand scale its much more 2k and 3k, and much less 0k and 4k, so avarage will still be closer to 40% winrate than 55% (this should be value in Your post, not 58%).
But yes, there is possibility of series of 3k making winrate around 80% in such scenario. But vast majority will be with 2k (or at least that should be from statistics) and thus much less 3k and wins. Median killrate then is 55% but avarage will be much lower.
(Imo. 3k and hatch should count as 4k for purpous of killrate count, and killrate should be balance little below 60% like 58%)
1 -
edit: the post originally had more ambiguous wording on its questions. I have left my original response, pre-edit, for posterity.
I wanna make sure I understand what you're saying here. It seems like your first question is asking "what is the winrate of the survivors in these games, if you only count the survivors who escaped." Your second point seems to be "we cannot make any assumptions based on kill rate alone, therefore we must make the assumption of the absolute minimum possible winrate". Are those the positions you are trying to take here? I'm racking my brain and cannot come up with another interpretation of what you've said - albeit, i've chosen a rather uncharitable framing of the points you make, but they are the natural conclusionsof what I feel you've said - but I find it hard to believe that's what you'd argue. Could you clarify what your actual points are?
Post edited by ratcoffee on2 -
Oh so thats mean some survivors have 30% escape rate so other can have 50% escape. But is that 30% escape rate okay for you?
3 -
Do the math homework I gave you, and then we continue the debate.
1 -
I literally just told you I do not understand what you were saying. I cannot answer those questions until you clarify what the questions were
2 -
Dude, it is a simple math problem that you, yourself, provided. I don't know what I need to clarify here.
Read the main situation you provided ("If a killer plays 8 games, wins 5 with a 3k, and then loses the next 3 with a 0k each time") and answer the questions according to the two cases I provided for that same situation.
1 -
MMR thing or SWF thing, not that surprising really
0 -
The Real answer to your set of questions is that it doesn't matter, because as I've pointed out you can have a 62.5% win rate with a less than 50% kill rate.
You're trying to catch me out with gotchas such as the theoretical 100% winrate survivor (it would actually be a 37.5% win rate, as hatch escapes are at best a draw for survivor), the overall average winrate of slightly over 50% for survivors (again falsely assuming hatches are wins, the more accurate number is again 37.5%, but even with hatches counting as escapes that's still less than the 62.5% killer win rate in my hypothetical, btw) and then constructing counter-hypotheticals where a killer can only ever get at max a 2k, can never win, and forces the winrate to just around 30%.
Your attempts at gotchas prove you incorrect. You want to talk about averages, but your specific scenario where kills are reallocated between matches to make every individual match as close to the average as possible is one of the "specific made up scenarios" you decry, as ridiculous as my own made up scenario. A kill rate of just under 50% can mean any winrate from 0% to 62.5%, we cannot meaningfully detirmine what the actual win rate is. Your reallocation of kills to construct an "average" match is an elementary misunderstanding of how averages work . You cannot meaningfully construct an average win rate from kill rate, as the latter has far lower data resolution; if you want to use "averages" to discuss win rate where a 3/4k is the win condition, ONLY statistics wherein the average rate of each of those outcomes occurs per match is sufficient to prove any point about win rate, kill rate can tell you nothing.
I see you edited the questions after I pointed out how unclear they were. Thanks for doing that. Would have preferred a clarification post separate from that, but at least we got on the same page in the end
4 -
This doesnt need a math.
The whole point killers try to make "60% kill rate doesnt mean they win more than 50%" is just attempt to make Devs aim for higher kill rate balance, there is no reason other than this.
- So I put a math that there is no way the win rate is lower than 50%
- Why killers not content with 50% win but want survivors to content with 40% win
If 60% kill rate doesnt mean 60% kills, then what does it mean…?
Killers count a survivors death as a killer, either Mori, Hook, or Entity. Counting hatch escape as kill only increase killrate and gain unnecessary MMR for harder match (which is not benefit to killers). Win or lose is made up to each players, not by the rule.
If the post game instead showing "Merciless / Brutal killer", but showing "You win" everytime killers get 8 hooks but 0K, will they play fair and spread hook?
No, the more kills, the better.
4 -
So basically a kill rates is decently healthy metrics for survivors, but not for killers I guess
0 -
So, both of you, instead of doing the math and honestly see what the numbers mean (among other things, that a 60% killrate on average doesn't mean that there won't be players that wins more than 40% of the time and others less [that's why, again, it's an average], and because the asymmetrical nature of the game and all of the outcome possibilities the only way that every player has a balanced and equal chance of winning is getting as close as possible to the mathematical equality of 40% winrate that 60% killrate provides, which is what I have explained numerous times to both of you and others in other posts already), would simply evade the question and respond with fallacies because it directly contradicts your narrative of "Killers OP, 60% killrate unfair".
I think I proved my point (again). Have a nice day.
PD — The answers:
- Case A:
1.- 100% winrate for that sole survivor, even if the killrate is 46.875%
2.- 53.125% survivor winrate, even if the winrate of the killer is 62.5%- Case B:
1.- 2K per game, at max.
2.- 0% winrate for that killer.
3.- 31.25% killer winrate on average, while survivors winrate would be way more than 50%.Post edited by Batusalen on1 -
I have said (in the very post You quoted)
"60% killrate does not means EXACTLY 60% kills"
Its because devs are okay with killers having 58% killrate, and 60% is just rounded number.
2 -
You may think you've proved your point but you think wrong; I recommend you read the post of mine you quoted to find out why, it explains your statistical misunderstanding of how averages work. I could rewrite what I already said but directing you to read what's already there is more efficient.
3 -
I already read it: A lot of twisted logic and assumptions that, in reality, it's nothing more than a big strawman argument (who said anything about the hatch?) that completely miss my real points. That's why I'm not going to even try to answer it.
And by the way, the question edit was only to add the 3º one in the second case, even before seeing your need for "clarification" of a simple math problem that you provided. You can check by seeing the unedited copy on your post and then seeing mine. But funny that you seem to try to call me out for doing a shadow edit, by doing a shadow edit.
Like I said, have a nice day.
Post edited by Batusalen on0 -
Truth be told, I don't think this is a discussion with a right answer until we see how often each killer ends a match with a certain amount of kills.
Blindly spouting off potential match result combinations doesn't really lead anywhere not just because each killer varies in kill rate, but likely how they win their matches.
For example, Pigs RBT's make it incredibly easy to secure at least one kill in endgame, I've snatched many a 3k with that and Blood Warden, a strat that won't work on like 90% of killers. Because of this, Pig likely has a higher chance to 1k than a lot of other killers, and as such less 0ks. So, this means she could potentially have a higher kill rate despite not having a higher win rate due to the nature of her kit. I'd expect the same from chase centric killers, especially a Bubba with a down in endgame, because survivors simply have a harder time challenging hooks like that with these tools in play.
Simply put, kill rate isn't win rate, so trying to extrapolate numbers we've been told don't represent the full picture is fool's folley.
1 -
Who said anything about hatch?
You didn't, and that's the problem. If a survivor escapes in a match that's a 3k, it's most likely because of a hatch. You wanted me to answer that a hypothetical survivor that played in all 8 of those games would have a 100% winrate, and I acknowledged that was the answer you were looking for, but I also pointed out that there was something you neglected to take into consideration in making your argument. In trying to accuse me of strawmanning, you further reinforce the context your math didn't consider.
I don't know why you say I "completely missed your real points." You said you needed me to do the "math homework" you assigned before the debate continued, implying that you had yet to make any points. I did that homework while adding some additional context about exactly what those numbers mean. How can I have missed your points if you hadn't made any?
A more cynical person than I might assume any number of nefarious intentions, one example of which I did speculate on ut have decided to remove from this comment as it's unbecomng this discussion. Personally I think the reality is just simpler; you're not as familiar with the math necessary to discuss win rates via 3/4k as you think you are (feel free to reread my post to try for a better understanding) and you genuinely do believe your analysis to be correct (if you haven't gotten to that unit yet in HS math, take this as a head start, if you have done stats in math class before, take this as an opportunity to sign up for a review course). Have a great day, and here's hoping you one day (re?)learn the math necessary to realize your analysis in this thread was misguided
Post edited by ratcoffee on2 -
not sure why you making things personal by being passive aggressive, you can get your point across without being butthurt someone has a different opinion than you.
Solo survivors complain about camping and tunneling because SWF’s make the game difficult for a lot of killers. So a lot of killers feel the need to camp and tunnel every match- even at 5 gens. If Killers had to only face solos, they wouldn’t need to sweat so much.
2 -
fine with me
0 -
Would think my soloQ or duo MMR is so low that I should not be facing P100 killers nurses and blights etc... But really the teammates are still worst even with bad killers we lose when they go down in under 20s and get quickly tunneled out. Im really surprice stat say SoloQ escape rate is 39%. More like 25% sounds right now. Recent killers buffs really hit hard on soloQ in my opinion I might had about 40% escape rate before them.
Playing full 4 man swf is when I sweat on survivor and we escape almost every game and we don't even communicate and we still don't get often good killers. Two friend of mine who I play in that try hard swf:s only play's in swf too so they have really high escape rate. Would think they have very high MMR. I still play more solo/duoQ so it's not affecting as much my MMR. In high MMR I would at least probably get decent teammates.
But I wonder on killer where are all the soloQ players now? Why I get so many sweaty swf:s. Im not better than those P100 killers who I still constantly face in soloQ. Even almost always I face high prestige survivors. Im probably in some sort of MMR hell I quess on both sides. I do get less sweaty survivors on killer in daytime though when the bonus is on survivor.
0 -
No match I ever play either side is the same for the most part. Some games I win, some I lose and some I tie.
Thing is, I don't care about a win or a loss. I do what I can, I play the way I want without cheating. This game is too random to think it will be fair all the time or balanced.
I accept it when I que up. Both sides have their struggles. I just choose to not care. I have fun in DBD cause of that. I know not everyone will share my outlook and opinion.
Just remember, win and lose with dignity.
1
