Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
A reddit user did an experiment. Let's discuss the results.
Comments
-
How are Wesley and Trickster in need of reworks??
1 -
He only does really well because the only players who do play him are new killers matched with new surviviors… which is always a bloodshed or a really experienced player. His whole power takes time to build compared to hag, SM and other killers who just begin with their power, just imagine a huntress who has to collect hatchets from lockers one at a time. And he has the most counters as literally just run past or disarm to negate his entire power, he has no secondary power at all.
And even if the killer plays perfectly, if one survivior tails them his whole power is negated.3 -
So…. it showed that a trapper can get average 3 kill by average caught lower than 2 time by trap?
IDK……seems like it is not about trapper but the skill gap between this killer and those who faced him.
7 -
Trickster's rework feels bad to play against and most Trickster Mains I know do not like his changes at all.
Wesker is a pile of glitches people only accept because we call them "techs", he's hands down the most "broken" (literally) Killer in the game because every other thing he does breaks something or is itself a glitchy mess. If the only reason your Killer is strong is due to abuse of glitches disguised as "techs" then maybe the Killer should be looked at. Blight got slaughtered for less.
Oh, and thank you for saying I'm delightful and respectful, @hermitkermit. Too bad Reddit and the official DBD Discord server didn't think the same of me.Post edited by VantablackPharaoh91 on1 -
It's not. Maybe you just get very strong KIller players because you are very good, or they get very weak Survivors for some reason, or they are in the upper echelons of players. You cannot judge the game being "sided" or not by the best of the best. You need to judge by the average… and the average player both sides is pretty mediocre.
Now there's nothing wrong with BEING mediocre, being up too high or too low in skill generally feels bad anyway. It's bad to be in high MMR too much because now you might have to always hardcore sweat, whereas it's bad to be in low MMR too much because now you're literally stomping babies. You want to be in the right range for you.
And as it turns out, the game is pretty balanced at 60/40 when you're at the right range for you. If you're better than this, you're pretty damn good. But very few people outside of the babiest baby pool MMR are worse than this, and that's a good thing, because that is where all Killers and all Survivor perks work best. That IS peak DBD operating at its very best, anything other than that is an outlier we shouldn't be balancing around, and I'm confused why you seem to think BHVR doesn't wanna balance around the normal average player who is mediocre.
3 -
I want to know the time of day that they played. I've found time of day is one of the most important aspects of matchmaking. Matches in the late evening and past midnight are extremely sweaty compared to matches in the middle of the day for me. If you play all your hours at times where lots of "average" players are online, getting lots of kills isn't that hard to do.
0 -
More so shows that the game is favoured by the side that plays the scummiest. The guy said he camped, tunnelled, slugged as much as possible and barely got any traps most games.
It doesn’t show Trapper is good, it shows that any one can perform well when you play as sweaty as possible.
3 -
Any time there's a woe-is-me killer story of someone being completely unable to get more than two hooks in the average match while still somehow claiming to be 'top MMR' people just go 'yeah that tracks, game is so unfair to killers'
But any time there's any data that conflicts that, people suddenly put on their thinking cap and scrutinise the crap out of it. Even BHVR's data is weighed less heavily than the anec-data from random, unidentified forum users, so long as said anec-data supports the idea that killers need buffs.
10 -
That's not exactly true. Perhaps not Tiers like we see in most videos but there are still roughly some Tiers.
D Tier is pointless because any Killer can do some good damage if mastered. But a Master Trapper will never achieve the same results as a Master Blight or Master Nurse. So there are still Tiers, just not as many as people make them out to be.
2 -
I get that my view might not be popular, but it's rooted in the stats we've seen, like pick rates versus kill rates. When I say I don't buy into the whole tier system, it's because I think there's a misconception about the killers in those tiers. Just because a killer is labeled as low-tier doesn't automatically mean they're awful. If they have decent kill rates it's always explained away as the killer not being any good but that the majority of the survivor player base are bad, which again I don't agree with. If it was a minority that struggled, sure. But the majority should not be dismissed the way it is. I don't think killers are as weak as people believe, because of the evidence that has been provided.
To clarify, I’m not saying all killers are equally strong, but I do believe they all have the potential to be deadly, even if some require more effort or skill to reach that point. A Master Trapper might not get the same results as a Master Nurse, but a Master Trapper achieves enough results to still be a successful and strong killer in the right hands. Which I think is how it should be. Skill should absolutely play an important factor in any game, in any "side". And right now, every killer has decent kill rates, which is good, but it also shows that they all can be strong. I do think some killers need some buffs and qol changes, but I’m not quick to dismiss their success just because of where they’re placed in a fan-made tier list.
1 -
While I do think it's worth pointing out these numbers can't really be verified and wouldn't be good proof of anything even if they were, I do like little anecdotes like this, they're interesting.
This also isn't that unsurprising of a result, frankly. If this player is good with Trapper and they're playing pub matches instead of coordinated and organised matches against the same opponents, they're going to be able to perform pretty well, no killer is unplayable in the current state of DBD until you start skewing the scenario towards top players and comp matches.
Though, something I find interesting here and want to bring up: I don't think "random builds" is as much of a downside as some think, here. Trapper is a versatile killer, he can make use of pretty much every perk archetype there is - he's a basic attack killer, he has a terror radius, he chases at normal speed and has to respect resources, he even has a way of protecting hexes. Whatever build this user rolled, there's a really high chance they got something Trapper was perfectly capable of making use of. There aren't that many terrible perks and their killer choice didn't make any otherwise-useful perks redundant or inoperable, so the random perks probably helped more than they hurt.
It's a neat thing to think about. I'd be tempted to do the same thing myself, honestly, though I'd probably allow myself addons for convenience lol. It'd be fun to try and make use of whatever I rolled, kinda like Chaos Shuffle in miniature.
2 -
Trapper performs well at both low and mid MMR. Most survivors are at mid MMR. They aren’t newbies. They aren’t clueless about his counterplay either.
0 -
The issiue with these statistics is, once again, do they not tell the full story. There is WAY too mutch RNG involved in order to actually measure a match closely, also dont forget the give up culture that is plagueing the game since a while now.
Every player in High MMR will guarantee trapper doesnt do #########.6 -
The average kill rate is around 65% if they also included games with a single dc. That 65% number also includes a lot killer who "go easy" on the team or let the last one escape as mercy. Even as an average player I still feel the need to often go easy when playing killer because the survivors stand no chance. So it's not inconceivable that the real average kill rate for good killers who are TRYING to win at all costs is above 70% when games with a dc are also included. The fact that so many streamers can go on these massive win streaks as killer is proof of this. Ever killer streamer has an average kill rate above 70%, and they're not prodigies or gods at gaming.
5 -
The Strange thing about this data is it shows this killers WASNT skilled with Trapper at all. The average game got less than 2 traps. This isn't downs, this is simply survivors stepping in traps. This means the results were seeing is basically "Man with Knife".
4 -
There is the possibility of survivors who veered away from traps and got hit as a result, which wouldn't show up in the "stepped in traps" stat but was still related to Trapper's power.
But also, yeah, I did clock that average trap amount after posting, and woof. That's pretty dire, but good results for Man With Machete.
4 -
As usual, this really proves survivors aren't even trying to win for most matches
2 -
I'm sorry but I don't see how a horror game being a little Killer-sided is a problem. And yeah… like it or not, BHVR do consider this a horror game.
6 -
Sounds like it means that MMR is broken, as we've all known for ages.
2 -
53% kill rates are a little killer sided.
65% means that killer is baby mode easy and survivor is a waste of time.
5 -
He didn't 4K every game. That means more killer buffs on the way.
5 -
Huh, genuinely not my experience when Survivors are good enough, but then I don't slap on four gen slowdown and play the top tiers like Blight nor do I sweat super hard.
4 -
Legion has issues but I still like zoomin'. :( To me that's what matters about Legion…
0 -
He might not have anyone really give up. No matter how mean I play I never have those survivors who give up. It's only after I have already won so giving up does not affect kill rates much at all in my experience.
1 -
Oh, hell, here we go again…
65% is what is "little killer sided". 53% is "little survivor sided". 60% is balanced.
Why? Because of how the MMR works, only a 3K or more is a win for the killer, and survivors only need to escape themselves to win. Ergo, a 60% kill rate means a 40% win rate on average (I repeat: ON AVERAGE and I can't emphasize it more) on both sides, and is the only mathematical way to be able to achieve equal win rates for killers and survivors. That's why it is the kill rate the devs aim for.
If you want more info, search in the forum one of the 100 times it has been explained.
5 -
More whataboutism to justify having the side you like be easier so endorphin release can be achieved.
Kill rate means 60% of survivors die, over all matches (that means killer is wildly easy to win with).
You lot never talk about a fair match, it's always "but a 3k means win for the killer", it's never 50% is a draw and fair for both sides. It shows your bias before you put out the magical mafematics theory.
If the survival rate was 60% you would be livid with the state of the game.
5 -
not really matching though - cause with that amount of matches alone that player would have been bumped to high MMR. - Assuming they didn't start on a fresh account and not usually playing add-on less and with randomised perks I suppose they're in high MMR already; I doubt their killrate is lower during "normal matches". So in that case Trapper wouldn't just perform extremely well at low- and mid-MMR but at top MMR as well.
That being said: as others have pointed out that infographic comes with a severe lack of contextual information, so meh.
0 -
The simple fact that I see 12 DC without any further information makes these stats unreliable.
Were those in 3 or 12 matches? At first down, first hook or 2 seconds before death hook?
Depending on such factors up 48 kills could be completely irrelevant for this statistic in terms of killer strength or balance.
2 -
I just wanted to repost these. They are a little old now and things could've changed. Maybe Peanits could clarify this again to see if there are updates on this.
Sorry I don't know how to quote between threads. This was all quoted from Peanits. The first quote was just a general response to the thread creator I think. But the second and third quotes were direct responses to other members. So I would check out the thread for full context. From this thread.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3591335#Comment_3591335
Quotes from Peanits
1st Quote
2nd Quote
3rd Quote
1 -
If the survival rate were 60%, which would mean an average of 1.6 survivors killed per match, guess what? That would mean a winrate of 0% on average for killers as again, a win for the killer is 3K. That's why it needs to be 40%, so both sides could be able to get to a 40% winrate on average, mathematically speaking.
It's not something we are just saying to "justify our bias", it is how the MMR system works ( ) and the reason why the devs want it to be 60% killrate. If you don't understand it or like it, is your problem.
3 -
If I have to guess, he is saying that in Quote 1 because the MMR win conditions don't show in-game at all, and most of the community don't want the game to become "competitive" (even if it already is by design) as they consider it a "party game". So, their go-to answer in this cases is "whatever makes you happy".
Because yes, they have never stated that "60% killrate = 50% winrate" (which is wrong) or why exactly they want the killrate to be 60% as far as I know, but what they have in fact stated in the past is that it is their target killrate. So, if we do the math, lead to an average of 2.4 survivors killed, meaning that ON AVERAGE and MATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING (as in reality, getting to an equal 40/40% winrate is more complicated than simply getting to that killrate) survivors "win" 40% of their matches on average and killers 40% of theirs (technically, as if I have to guess again, one of the reasons they don't talk about winrates is that their win conditions are, to put it lightly, flawed and don't translate to in-game rewards) per MMR win conditions. Conditions that they also disclosed in the day while explaining the MMR system, and are documented in the wiki (Skill-Based Matchmaking Rating).
But hey, if you don't agree… whatever makes you happy.
0 -
Nothing we did not already know.
0 -
per MMR win conditionsBut if you're defining win/loss only off MMR gain/loss, then the trial isn't one game, it's four matches. 2 kills and 2 escapes isn't a 'draw', its two wins and two losses.
If want to define win/loss by MMR increase/decrease, kill rate and win rate are identical.
1 -
If I'm not mistaken they've said in the past that they aim for the 60% to keep the killer more scary and inline with a horror experience. Now I could be completely wrong on that because I haven't tried to find where I saw that again. Ill see if I can find a post but it may have even been on a stream where I saw it. If I'm not just losing my mind and never saw it at all lol.
1 -
That's for the survivors, as the survivors win condition is individual, meaning that if you escape but your 3 teammates die, you have won and they have lost. Devs explained it as being "1/1/1/1v1" in the day.
However, for the killer, this is not the case. For the killer it is still a 1v4 and just as explained in the wiki, a loss is 0K or 1K, a draw is 2K, and a win is 3K or 4K.
Taking this into account, in the case you described: Two survivors won, two lost, and the killer draw in terms of MMR.
1 -
Sorry to double post, this was it.
"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."
So it's to keep matches relatively even and for the horror. Not quite what I said in the other post.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/433
1 -
True, but understand that players will automatically gravitate to the effective strat regardless of if it's fun for anyone.
There's a famous quote about game design that basically says "players will take every opportunity to optimize the fun out of the game".
Generally speaking, it's on the devs to make sure that the optimal play is also fun gameplay.
0 -
"For example, a 50% kill rate would mean they kill two Survivors per match on average. We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even"
And the matches are more even because a 50% killrate on average means Killer draw all matches while survivors win 50% of the time, so it needs to be 60% so killers win almost as much as survivors. In other words, what we have been saying by doing the math.
I never saw that post, so thanks for sharing it!
1 -
Yw. I found something I didn't know in your link. It kind of throws it all out of whack because it seems to further separate solo and swf as far as MMR goes. Instead of just basing swf and solo off how a team performs. They treat them seperate.
Team-based MMR
If Survivors queue up together with friends, playing as a group (Survive with Friends), their final MMR score is influenced by what happened to the other Survivors queueing up with them:
- For each team mate that escapes:
- Increased gains towards MMR upon escaping.
- Reduced losses towards MMR upon dying.
- For each team mate that dies:
- Reduced gains towards MMR upon escaping.
- Increased losses towards MMR upon dying.
This was implemented to counter situations in which team mates sacrificed themselves for the survival of the others and were punished for their altruism by the Skill-Based Matchmaking Rating.
0 - For each team mate that escapes:
-
That's the closest thing to a "team" mechanic the game has, and as far as I understand it, it only affects the quantity of MMR you would gain and lose. Meaning, if you die but your SWF escapes, you still lose MMR, but less. So, the normal MMR win conditions for survivors still apply.
In my opinion, it should work for all the team, not just those survivors in SWF, and with the in-game rewards as well, to promote cooperation between survivors. The more survivors that escape a match, the more BP and experience you gain. But some people argued that then you would depend on others not losing, which would lead to toxicity... so, I guess survivors will keep being a team in name only.
1 -
But you're prioritizing a community created wiki above things that the devs have actually said.
You can view a 2k as a draw. You can also view it as the equivalent of a sports team that went 2 and 2 over 4 four games. None of the results were a draw, but they have an even .500 record.
1 -
Yeah that's part of my problem with all of the balancing discussions. I want to see the game balanced around team play in some way but it just isn't there lol. Can't argue over it being a team game when a survivor can not contribute for an entire match but still win while the others lose. So then this just makes solo queue feel miserable to me at times. At the same time the randomness of solo queue can be extremely fun on occasion lol. So I don't know how to force a team game but keep that.
It wasn't perfect but I still enjoyed the emblem system. I felt like I had a balance of fun and matchmaking in my matches and everyone had to contribute in someway to gain an emblem.
Then again, I may just be burned out.
1 -
I personally experience the opposite, in probably 50-60% of my games, someone gives up immediately and kills themself on hook. This happens as both sides for me.
0 -
Ergo, a 60% kill rate means a 40% win rate
on average(I repeat:
ON AVERAGEand I can't emphasize it more)
This remains as incorrect as the last twenty-odd times you insisted on it. This is not how the killrate-winrate connection works.
I will keep correcting you so long as you keep spreading this misinformation.
If the survival rate were 60%, which would mean an average of 1.6 survivors killed per match, guess what? That would mean a winrate of 0% on average for killers as again, a win for the killer is 3K.
How did you state that 40% kill rate = 0% average winrate and still not figure out that your assumption about how these figures work is wrong?
Like… It's right there. Staring you in the face.
You are literally stating here that in a dataset with a 40% killrate, not a single match can have ended in a 3K or higher. Does that not ring a bell for you that maybe you're wrong about the relation between kill rates and win rates?
5 -
You're wrong - where you've gone wrong is that you fail to realize [the average of] [all the results] is not the same thing as [the average result]
5 -
The "community created" wiki is supported by BHVR and is a compilation of official sources and data mining the game. So, it is probably the most accurate data about DbD that you will find.
Post edited by Batusalen on2 -
You still don't know what "on average" means, obviously. Even after all the times it has been explained to you. Thankfully, BHVR does, and look at that! They say the exact same thing I had been saying all along:
I will keep correcting you so long as you keep spreading this misinformation.
And you will keep being wrong and trying to fight basic math without even understanding it.
Read above.
Post edited by Batusalen on3 -
There's literally a post from Peanits copied in this thread saying they don't talk about 'win rates' because wins are subjective. Direct dev statement outweighs community wiki.
I'm trying to avoid the math discussion because that's been done to death, but you're not underlining the portion of the sentence about maintaining the horror theme of the game.
2 -
There's literally a post from Peanits copied in this thread saying they don't talk about 'win rates' because wins are subjective. Direct dev statement outweighs community wiki.
And I already explained the reason why he said that: Because the MMR win conditions don't translate to in-game mechanics or rewards (escaping through hatch is a draw for survivors in MMR terms, but in-game it counts exactly as an exit-gate escape, with the exact same rewards).
Ergo, you can consider a win whatever you want in-game, but we were talking about the MMR system, and the MMR system has its own hard-coded win conditions, which are those described in the wiki, which are the same ones they disclosed in the day in a stream where they presented the MMR system but updated through official statements and data mining.
I'm trying to avoid the math discussion because that's been done to death, but you're not underlining the portion of the sentence about maintaining the horror theme of the game.
If you explain to me why that is relevant to the part confirming the math for the 60% killrate, I will update the picture with it included in the underline, as that is the only reason I didn't do it.
1 -
If you explain to me why that is relevant to the part confirming the math for the 60% killrate, I will update the picture with it included in the underline, as that is the only reason I didn't do it.Sure, I'm a glutton for punishment so I'll dive into the math argument. Let me go back a few posts of yours
So, if we do the math, lead to an average of 2.4 survivors killed, meaning thatON AVERAGEandMATHEMATICALLY SPEAKING(as in reality, getting to an equal 40/40% winrate is more complicated than simply getting to that killrate) survivors "win" 40% of their matches on average and killers 40% of theirsYour math is wrong because you are setting up the wrong problem. Your 'on average' argument presumes an even distribution of game outcomes, which isn't true. The game is skewed to the extremes, 4ks and 0ks, with 2ks being less common and 4ks being by far the most common result. So you can't have a presumption that you need a 60% kill rate because 20% of the games are going to be draws, its the extreme results that are more common, so to get a 60% kill rate you need more 4ks.
As has been pointed out in other threads, you can get to a 60% kill rate with radically different win rates (as high as 80% and as low as 20%. There's no 'average' that is relevant to the discussion here, we have to look at real world data for what the results of the games tend to be.
So when you say 'mathematically speaking' you don't have enough data to arrive at a mathematical conclusion.
Put a different way, the average kill rate is very different than the average game outcome.
While it varies from killer to killer based on how snowbally they are, I'd put a 60% killer rate at around 45% to 55% win rate for killers, 10 to 15% draw rate, and the rest losses.
I think you're misreading what the devs have said. They want the killers to have a higher kill rate because they want killers to feel strong and win more (correctly, in my opinion, because they value theme/fun over balance - they also have other reasons not directly related here).
6
