Why do killers think this game is survivior sided?
Comments
-
Because it is. Just watch any 1v1 tournament and see how they can hold the killer in chase for a minute and a half on average. And no, it's not because they predrop every pallet on the map, you'll be surprised by how long they can loop combining a few structures.
9 -
The only time i see the game being killer sided at the "highest" level of play is nurse. Every one else is just survivor because 4 people bringing meta is way stronger than 1 blight or spirit bringing meta. You can't claim "highest level of play" on BHVRs stats when the game is literally soft capped for MMR.
4 -
I'm going go a little out of order in my response because I think some of the things said later are more important.
So, killers had 10 games and lost 5 of them by our definitions and you argue killers aren't struggling? Are you sure you have provided the data you wanted to?12 games, though I only put in 11 of the game results, that's on me, left out one 4k because I missed it when the video wasn't lined up right.
Want to start here because I think this gives a lot of insight into how skewed your perception is. The killer won more than the survivors. How in the world can the killer be struggling? Struggle implies a great challenge, a disadvantage, like killers are lucky to even get a few hooks. But they're doing fine and winning more than the survivors. Like how much does the killer have to smash survivors into the ground to not be struggling?
So let me get this straight. In a game where it's super easy for the whole team to throw, where survivors are so lost they dont know even basic counterplay to half of the killers they encounter given they're more rare than not, where they have no comms, cant be bothered to run proper meta half of the time, get bad rng half of the time, etc,etc killers only score 57% average killrate (according to nightlight) and you actually think the game is killer sided?Yeah, as like a factually obvious metric. The killers kill, 3k+ more than 1k or less, they 4k more than 0k, etc. All of that shows the game is killer sided.
Counter to some of your points:
-Killers can also throw
-Killers frequently don't run proper meta, and if they don't its more impactful
-Bad RNG half the time? That means they get good RNG half the time. Seems like it balances out.
-If a killer is that rare that survivors barely see them, its going to have minimal statistical impact.
you cant unironically say the game is not survivor sided with these stats given. all that while devs claim to balance for 60% killrate (which still would mean the game being survivor sided at any high level, but nonetheless).The devs target kill rate is an example of the game being killer sided. It's a design decision and a different discussion.
Also, when BHVR has given us the top level MMR data, it doesn't show killers falling off in high MMR in any noticeable degree. Even the 4 person SWF at the top level still leans killer.
Back to going in order:
Killer bans are aimed at crutch perks or cheesy perks. A lot of aura reading, perks like PWYF that outright allow to remove skill from chases by rushing down ppl with 15% haste.Why are killer perks crutch perks and the banned survivor perks aren't cheese perks?
And of course, aforementioned kill cheese mechanics that dont necessarily allow to get good results, but almost guarantee you'll get a kill or two.Except they have these. NOED and Rancor allowed on some killers, not to mention just standing in front of the hook.
DbD isnt poker and poker isnt DbD.None of the RNG factors we are considering are the major contributors to the balance due to them not tilting the scales to the other side in any meaningful away apart from the aforementioned cheesing kills example.What's your point in any of this? Earlier you were saying that when we look at comp we need to look at what they remove as evidence of the game's balance, now those bans are just cheese and silly things.
Also, way underestimating the adaptability for DbD. What's the map, where are the gens, what should I focus on, which killer am I facing, trying to figure out the perks in play. All of those are things comp either cuts out completely or substantially removes.
And, as I've said, if you think that killers should have to play like that to always stand a chance at winning, you're very wrong.It just shows that you have to remove things from the game to make your argument. We are evaluating whether the game is killer sided or not. Not the game that you want killers to be playing.
You say that comp makes it so survivors know what the killer is or that they can choose which one to face. So survivors in pubs dont know / cant ban the killer? Are you trying to argue that the fact that survivor can be ignorant to how to deal with a certain killer makes the game killer sided? Is that your argument here?Well unless I missed something big in the options page, they can't ban killers as a factual matter.
The argument is simple: in the normal game survivors don't know which killer they are going to face. It's not that they don't need to know how but:
A: earlier talking about which side needs more skill, the survivors need to be prepared for 37 different killers. That seems like a pretty big skill accomplishment.
B: the survivors have to build their perks not knowing what they are going to face. They need to prepare for 37 possibilities, in comp they only need to prepare for one.
So deep into the conversation and you don't know the answer? Deli, unbreakable, decisive, babysitter, camaradiery, otr, meta reset perks, sub meta reset perks, exhaustion perks for lower tiers (oh yeah, they do count, especially when we're talking about killer like ghostface), the list goes and on and on and varies slightly depending on the ruleset and particular killer.Because I don't understand what makes these perks unique. This is in response to you saying:
Survivors are given resources that allow to recover from the mistakes the killer is supposed to capitalize on.Your argument makes it sound like you want the killer to have simple, easy to play, always right moves. I hooked the survivor in the 3 gen, I win. I'm going for the tunnel out, I win. What you're calling mistakes are things that survivors have resources and elements to fight back against. The killer needs to counter those. Both sides need to make their decisions based on a lack of information.
We could basically throw everything the killer can do in here as an example as well. Like at the extreme end I could be like why does the killer have perks to reduce gen progress, he messed up by letting the survivor work on it. Then you have the more obvious things, end game perks, Devour Hope, spirit fury+hubris, etc.
But having those perks and playing into them isn't a mistake, they are choices on how to play the game, and then the survivors have to respond, just like killers have to respond to what survivors do.
Honestly, I dont think I want to continue this conversation. I'm getting a progressively growing impression you are arguing for the sake of arguing since you misinterpret what I'm saying, ignore previously established or agreed upon points and generally make it move in circles and that's very tiring. Was fun while it lasted, I dont consider it worth the effort anymore.Fair enough, I think basically the same of what you've done with a lot of goal post moving and trying to evade the points instead of responding to them. I'll point out I went and found evidence, said when I agreed with you, and tried to keep it on the subject of which part of the game is killer sided (though the last one strayed at points).
9 -
12 games, though I only put in 11 of the game results, that's on me, left out one 4k because I missed it when the video wasn't lined up right.
Want to start here because I think this gives a lot of insight into how skewed your perception is. The killer won more than the survivors. How in the world can the killer be struggling? Struggle implies a great challenge, a disadvantage, like killers are lucky to even get a few hooks. But they're doing fine and winning more than the survivors. Like how much does the killer have to smash survivors into the ground to not be struggling?
did you take a deeper look at what made you win and what made survivors lose or you just went by plain "i won, they lost" logic? If the latter is the case, i can already see your experience rather not worth of consideration.
Yeah, as like a factually obvious metric. The killers kill, 3k+ more than 1k or less, they 4k more than 0k, etc. All of that shows the game is killer sided.
Counter to some of your points:
-Killers can also throw
-Killers frequently don't run proper meta, and if they don't its more impactful
-Bad RNG half the time? That means they get good RNG half the time. Seems like it balances out.
-If a killer is that rare that survivors barely see them, its going to have minimal statistical impact.
ohh, so yeah, result of pubs with matchmaking being basically nonexistent mean game is killer sided, what an absolutely fantastic logic! If just every killer that does a 4k actually analyzes their game instead of just looking over how the match ended, it would be fantastic.
The devs target kill rate is an example of the game being killer sided. It's a design decision and a different discussion.
Also, when BHVR has given us the top level MMR data, it doesn't show killers falling off in high MMR in any noticeable degree. Even the 4 person SWF at the top level still leans killer.
Back to going in order:
high MMR? The one where players at 1600 MMR points aka. soft cap can be matched with players at 2200 (hard cap) because yeah, they are all treated as if they have same skill level? High MMR is something that dies the very moment it was decided to prioritize faster lobbies instead of accurate ones.
Why are killer perks crutch perks and the banned survivor perks aren't cheese perks?
you also have "crutch" perks on survivor side, while majority of banned survivor perks are relate to removing killer agency and leading killer into lose-lose situations where whatever they do, it leads them into losing.
Except they have these. NOED and Rancor allowed on some killers, not to mention just standing in front of the hook.
because both of those are literally just a source of endgame pressure meant to secure 1k at most :)
And endgame camping is literally legit everywhere.
What's your point in any of this? Earlier you were saying that when we look at comp we need to look at what they remove as evidence of the game's balance, now those bans are just cheese and silly things.
Also, way underestimating the adaptability for DbD. What's the map, where are the gens, what should I focus on, which killer am I facing, trying to figure out the perks in play. All of those are things comp either cuts out completely or substantially removes.
seems like you are (intentionally) missing the point of actual RNG aspect in the game. Best example: kobes (which are banned in comp DbD btw)
Well unless I missed something big in the options page, they can't ban killers as a factual matter.
The argument is simple: in the normal game survivors don't know which killer they are going to face. It's not that they don't need to know how but:
A: earlier talking about which side needs more skill, the survivors need to be prepared for 37 different killers. That seems like a pretty big skill accomplishment.
B: the survivors have to build their perks not knowing what they are going to face. They need to prepare for 37 possibilities, in comp they only need to prepare for one.
out of those 37 killers, roughly 90% have a simple kind of counter, it's really not nuclear physics. Only few of them have more complex and unique kind of counters (Nurse: cutting LoS, playing in unpredictable ways, Oni: denying first hit, forcing him out of power etc.)
Your argument makes it sound like you want the killer to have simple, easy to play, always right moves. I hooked the survivor in the 3 gen, I win. I'm going for the tunnel out, I win. What you're calling mistakes are things that survivors have resources and elements to fight back against. The killer needs to counter those. Both sides need to make their decisions based on a lack of information.
We could basically throw everything the killer can do in here as an example as well. Like at the extreme end I could be like why does the killer have perks to reduce gen progress, he messed up by letting the survivor work on it. Then you have the more obvious things, end game perks, Devour Hope, spirit fury+hubris, etc.
But having those perks and playing into them isn't a mistake, they are choices on how to play the game, and then the survivors have to respond, just like killers have to respond to what survivors do.
no, killers shouldn't "have it easier", but we also shouldn't have a decently balanced game achievable only in comp tournaments.
Gen regression perks are literally main source of pressure, aside of specific killers' powers. But there are also perks on killer side that are such a cheese that they just shouldn't exist (Deadlock, Endfury etc.)
2 -
That became their ideal after their numbers were at 60%. I guess they figured it would be easy to just shoot for a 60/40 split instead of nerfing killers down to a 50/50. Their target last year was a 50/50 split.
3 -
if players are supposed to lose when playing bad lets talk about the Free pity hatch escapes survs can get always claiming they "win" tbagging at hatch. Scrap the Hatch mechanic
4 -
did you take a deeper look at what made you win and what made survivors lose or you just went by plain "i won, they lost" logic? If the latter is the case, i can already see your experience rather not worth of consideration.You're jumping into the middle of a conversation and starting off with an easily disproved assumption. These aren't my games, these are the finals of the comp Spring Invitational.
ohh, so yeah, result of pubs with matchmaking being basically nonexistent mean game is killer sided, what an absolutely fantastic logic!Don't have any idea what this has to do with what I'm posting there.
BHVR has said that excluding off hours, the MMR matches people up of the same level pretty reliably. If you're going to approach the discussion with the idea of 'BHVR's just making it up', I don't know what we have to go off of.
It also goes against what a lot of 'high MMR killer mains' post in this forum about hitting cracked survivors one after the other.
you also have "crutch" perks on survivor side, while majority of banned survivor perks are relate to removing killer agency and leading killer into lose-lose situations where whatever they do, it leads them into losing.Except that's not true. Survivors can run many of the perks that killers say are lose-lose situations. Forcing something like a decisive strike via a locker grab is a whole part of comp strategy.
And again you're not paying attention to what else was said in the thread. I'm comparing the so called survivor crutch perks with what the killer has and wondering why we're just calling ones sides perks crutches.
On the lose-lose: this is called tradeoffs. Both sides have to weigh the risk / reward of what to do in the game and make an educated guess on what they think will yield the best outcome. As I said in an earlier post, the argument seems to be that killer's should have straightforward right and wrong decisions, but that's not what the game is for either side.
seems like you are (intentionally) missing the point of actual RNG aspect in the game. Best example: kobes (which are banned in comp DbD btw)I understand why comp makes the changes they do. I've watched a ton of it. It's not reflective of the game that other people play because of all the changes they make.
out of those 37 killers, roughly 90% have a simple kind of counter, it's really not nuclear physics. Only few of them have more complex and unique kind of counters (Nurse: cutting LoS, playing in unpredictable ways, Oni: denying first hit, forcing him out of power etc.)If you want to argue that, go ahead. The other person I was responding to was saying that the rarer killers are a reason that the killer win rate is inflated.
But being we're on the subject, even if that's not difficult, it's harder than the killer who only have to worry about survivor perks, never killer powers.
1 -
1v1s are a completely different thing than a 4v1 public match. Unless you're typically given time to scout the map, meet the killer at an agreed upon location, start the chase on a signal, have the killer put their power on cooldown, and never run into any teammates in a typical match. I don't understand this community's knee-jerk tendency to re-frame DbD into a specific scenario to justify a balance take.
12 -
You're jumping into the middle of a conversation and starting off with an easily disproved assumption.
These aren't my games, these are the finals of the comp Spring Invitational.
how aren't u familiar with how Eternal stomps tournaments in general both killer/survivor wise?
Don't have any idea what this has to do with what I'm posting there.
BHVR has said that excluding off hours, the MMR matches people up of the same level pretty reliably. If you're going to approach the discussion with the idea of 'BHVR's just making it up', I don't know what we have to go off of.
It also goes against what a lot of 'high MMR killer mains' post in this forum about hitting cracked survivors one after the other.
please tell me what exactly is reliable in matches when people massively get matched with complete newbies or people way above their skill level? How is it possible that i get consistently 4k in my matches, yet i get matched against at least 1 surv in enemy team that doesn't know how to hug objects in chase for example?
Except that's not true. Survivors can run many of the perks that killers say are lose-lose situations. Forcing something like a decisive strike via a locker grab is a whole part of comp strategy.
And again you're not paying attention to what else was said in the thread. I'm comparing the so called survivor crutch perks with what the killer has and wondering why we're just calling ones sides perks crutches.
On the lose-lose: this is called tradeoffs. Both sides have to weigh the risk / reward of what to do in the game and make an educated guess on what they think will yield the best outcome. As I said in an earlier post, the argument seems to be that killer's should have straightforward right and wrong decisions, but that's not what the game is for either side.
crutches on both sides turn matches into easy wins at low skill levels, while getting exponentionally more difficult to win using those at high skill levels.
Regarding tradeoffs, no, you can't call it that way. Please tell me how is e.g. slugging a Plot Twist + DS survivor any more beneficial than eating up the DS?
0 -
Yeah which completely demolishes the idea of the game being 'Survivor sided' when they are designed to lose 60% of the time. Even when we falsely use Apex Fallacy for 4-man SWF at High MMR from these alone, we still see the game is Killer sided since they still win more often than Survivors.
20 -
Why do survivors think this game is killer sided?
It's just a way to excuse their own lack of skill, which is the defining factor in more games than "sidedness" ever has been.4 -
Math. Balancing around 60% killrate definitionally makes it Killer sided. Not that I disagree with the intended 60% killrate mind you, it just makes the game Killer sided from the onset.
14 -
not really if you checked the last stats release high mmr soloq/duo was actually lower in the escape rate then mid to low mmr soloq /duo queue where the stats differs in high mmr is swf of 3 to 4 in a party but there a caviate to this tough is really dependent on maps/killers vs the 4 man high mmr swf high mmr swf like to bring map offering to win more than average that being Saied this population of high mmr swf 3 to 4 man are verry low and might not be a good measuring factor because of a small simple size compare to the rest i don't think that high mmr is survivor sided per say but that some maps aspect of high mmr 3/4 man swf uses specific advantage that makes them win with maps offering way more that on average they would not get away with if map offering didn't exist
1 -
u gonna give specific counterarguments to survivor ideasof what about killer is overpowered, the same way the OP of the thread did? or are u just gonna say "uh survivors need to get good" without substance? because rn you aren't presenting any meaningful critique. i'd love you to present evidence first of all of survivor player ideas of why the game favors killers, and second of all why those ideas are wrong, if you have any examples
8 -
game balanced for 60% kr means that survivors almost always being uncoordinated bots can still get gens&exits.
60% kr isnt 60% winrate, it means that killer gets less than 3 kills on AVERAGE.
please learn to interpret that data in the context it's provided instead of looking at number and say "it's bigger than half, means game is killer sided".
7 -
how aren't u familiar with how Eternal stomps tournaments in general both killer/survivor wise?This is going to be a difficult discussion if you don't check basic facts. Let me run through the assumptions you've gotten wrong.
First, you assumed they were my games. They weren't, which was explicitly stated.
Second, you now say Eternal stomps tournaments. Eternal didn't make the grand finals. The finals was X9 vs Elysium.
Third, the grand finals weren't a stomp, but its showing that matches of the best of the best, which the prior person insisted causes killers to struggle, is not true.
How is it possible that i get consistently 4k in my matches, yet i get matched against at least 1 surv in enemy team that doesn't know how to hug objects in chase for example?Because the game is killer sided. That's the whole thread.
Also really depends on time of day that you play and region.
Regarding tradeoffs, no, you can't call it that way. Please tell me how is e.g. slugging a Plot Twist + DS survivor any more beneficial than eating up the DS?That's actually a great example of killers not wanting to make choices and how they view everything from just their perspective.
You can take the 4 second stun, but then chase that survivor, you can just let him pick himself back up, giving you more time to pressure gens / get another survivor, or depending on the time you can potentially wait out the DS timer.
What's the right call depends on numerous factors. If the survivors don't have a lot of gens done, take the DS, if they do, probably pressure gens, but it's a decision that you have to make on the spot and there are lot of variables that factor into it.
It's worth pointing out the survivor also had to make a trade off. He gave up being on gens and/or getting healed to preserve his plot twist and potentially risks being tunneled out of the game.
Post edited by crogers271 on8 -
You['re mixing up 60% kill rate and 60% win rate. A 60% kill rate isn't a 60% win rate. A 60% kill rate is very slightly higher than getting a 2K on average per match (which would be 50%). A 62.5% kill rate would be 2.5 kills on average. Essentially, a 60% kill rate means roughly 2.4% kills per match when averaged over several matches. This ends up meaning, on average, killers get a 2K vs a 3K every other match which generally gives them slightly under a 50% win rate if you define a 3k+ as a win.
6 -
Peanits said the kill rate and win rate are the same not long ago.
7 -
Only if you consider each game to be 4 1v1s and each survivor kill/escape a discrete result.
This might be how the game has to function behind the scenes, but players don't think this way. Survivors, even solo, still strive to rescue team mates, and don't generally consider it a "win" if they escape solo while their 3 teammates die. And killers don't look at a 2K and think "I won 50%", a 2K means the gates are open, which is a failure to secure your secondary objective, which is a loss. Killers don't count their wins by the number of survivors they kill in an evening, they count their wins by the number of games that result in a win. Games are treated as wholes, not a group of individual 1v1s.
The format of the game is built around an all-or-nothing goal. You can't win by just repairing some of the gens, you need to repair all 5 to escape, there are no half measures. So you can't peicemeal it into 4 1v1s when it comes to player experience and win perception.
The asymmetrical nature of the game also extends to the win condition of the game. The win condition is asymmetrical. For this reason an average win:loss for killer would actually be 62.5% (or 2.5K average), while for survivors it IS 50% (2 out average). This inconguence is one of the reasons why balance is so difficult and why the community can never come to any agreements, and why everyone feels the game is 'sided' against them. There's a 12.5% overlap in the middle where both sides perceive themselves to 'lose'. And this is also why the game becomes insufferable when it's too tightly balanced (strict MMR), because more people are squeezed into the middle where nobody is happy.
5 -
The game currently has a problems revolving around survivors excessively hiding for hatch, because those survivors believe it counts as a win. And survivor MMR is purposely weighted towards individual performance, because at the end of the day, most survivors really care about whether or not they personally escaped.
If most survivors really cared about team escapes, as much as you claim, then BHVR would have made survivor MMR to be mostly team based, and they would just flat out tell survivors that a hatch escape is still an MMR loss if the other 3 survivors lost the game.
And that's the actual problem. If you want matchmaking to be a team effort for survivors, then most hatch escapes need to count as a loss, which means hatch would be mostly useless.
1 -
TBH it’s inconsequential what players feel. The people who program the game have identified it as such.
3 -
When we're talking about why players feel a certain way, I think what players feel is probably relevant.
Its probably also relevant to the people who want their consumer base to enjoy their product.
2 -
Sure. So what do survivors feel? These are the people who make up the lion’s share of consumers, no?
4 -
That a 50% escape rate is fair. I just said that.
And no, survivors don't make up the lions share of consumers, unless you're assuming all players only play one role.
7 -
Ehh, low mmr whose killsrate is higher
How about mid mmr? Whose killrate is higher
Lets talk about high mmr? How about that?
All mmr is higher for the killer.
But lets talk abt swf tho!
Does 2-man swf escape more than lose at any mmr?
How about 3-man swf at any mmr?
How about 4 man swf at any mmr?
All instances favor the killer, with the 4 man swf at highest mmr rank being the closest to escape more than lose.(48%) which still favors the killer and most likely every match for 4 man sefs are ties/3ks
7 -
Every single word.
This won't ever change until there's a completely new dev team that can understand both sides rather pushing the Power Role narrative.
4 -
Yeah, when the Killer is more of an uncoordinated bot the Survivors can also be uncoordinated bots and escape. When it is an even match, it should average out to 60/40.
Also the below section also applies to you.
60% Kill rate isn't 60% winrate, but it is the argument most favorable to a generic Killer facing position. I did the math, and the average numbers are much worse for Survivor (as a team). Survivor winrate is 22%, Draw rate is 28%, and Killer winrate is 50%. Now if you are generous and hand out Draws 50-50, each get a 14% boost for 36% Surv, 64% Killer, still worse than 40/60 respectively. If you instead discard Draws, you get ~30% Surv ~70% Killer*. So that means Survivor winrate is significantly worse than 40%.
That's why I use the generous estimate of 60% killrate = 60% winrate, because the truth is far more dire for Survivors.
* Its closer to 31/69, but I prefer to avoid 'nice' comments.
7 -
because killer see the whole game and each survivor only see 1/4 of the game
1 -
Everyone here has said what I want to better than I can. The game is Killer sided, on purpose, because Survs are supposed to be the underdogs.
However, that doesn't mean certain mechanics in the game really are unfun to go against, or that either side doesn't have any sort of annoying things they can do. Those should probably be looked at for the sake of game enjoyment.
I think @hermitkermit is most correct - this game is like a Hollow Knight, Dark Souls, or Elden Ring in one very important way: surviving is supposed to be HARD.
4 -
me when i manipulate math to fit my victim narrative:
1 -
Survivor characters sell more cosmetics than killer characters. This is my point. People don’t buy survivor cosmetics as collector’s items; they buy them to see, enjoy, and show them off. It doesn’t really matter if they play one or both roles in this regard; survivor characters make up the lion’s share of BHVR’s profit. If people are unhappy with the survivor experience and thereby do not wish to play survivor, they’re unlikely to continue buying survivor-based cosmetics. That is my point.
3 -
I did the math, and the average numbers are much worse for Survivor(as a team).I think you're reaching the right conclusion, I'm just not sure I understand how your math gets there.
So the things that have been covered that we I'm pretty sure we agree on: a 60% kill range can be anywhere from a 3k/4k (win) rate of anywhere between 20% and 80% because there are many permutations on how you get there.
Were I think you are making a mistake, though I might be misreading it, is you can't just average out the permutations to get there. That creates the same flaw as just taking the 2.4 kills per match and trying to base common results on an overall average/mean. Some permutations are more likely than others.
As I said a few times in the thread you linked, by itself a 60% kill rate doesn't give us enough data to determine what the win rate is. We'd need to look at an actual data set, the best we have is Nightlight which usually gives a 60% kill rate at a 50 to 55% win rate (usually higher end), 30 to 35% survivor win rate (more lower end) and 10 to 15% draw rate (usually lower end).
2 -
The game is now, I would say, balanced.
Killers win more on low ranks, and lose more on high ranks.
Survivors lose more games on lower ranks and win more on higher ones
0 -
Then do the math yourself to show me how I'm wrong. Otherwise you are admitting I am objectively correct! Thanks for your endorsement!
Yes, this is the most correct assessment I've seen. I combined all possible sets of 5 matches with 60% killrates, and the sum total was the 22S/28D/50K. Some sets must be more common than others, but that varies from person to person.
Theoretically, the set with 4 draws and a 4K could happen at the most frequent rate, leaving Killer winrate at 20%, Survivor winrate at 0%, and draw rate at 80%. IME most matches end in 3Ks, and the least amount of matches end in 2K+2E (playing both sides). The problem there is if I use the set with the most 3Ks (and least 2K+2E), we get 4 matches of 3Ks, and 1 match of a 4E, leaving a 20S/80K, far below the 40S/60K we would expect.
Overall my point is that statistically it is likely that the Survivor winrate could never reasonably exceed 40% when taken in aggregate. That's why when I argue against Killer-sided main-brain comments, I use the most favorable (, yet plausible) numbers for their argument, being the 60/40 split. It likely is less than that, but I have to use the numbers most favorable for their point.
5 -
I did the math above in the thread and it fell on deaf ears because people are too busy making a victim of themselves instead of admitting the truth lmao.
let me repeat the takeaway again very short: 60% killrate in conditions where one side is represented by a single player having full agency and capability of learning for their side while the other side consists of mostly random people incapable of fully expressing skill due to lack of an ability to optimize themselves and depending on each other's performance INHERENTLY means the game is survivor sided because the killrate is closer to 50% than it is to 75%+.
If the game was killer sided, the survivors would barely EVER get even a single person through gates, let alone more than 2 and killrates would be above 75% since most games would naturally result into 3k+hatch. That's not the case though, survivors are able to get 2 outs or move often enough to make killrates lean closer to 50% than 75%.
to put it another way: if survivors werent victims (actual ones) of poor matchmaking and lack of communications that deny them the ability to learn working as a team and drag each other down whenever there's a weak link, they'd be winning most of their games as long as they aren't severely outskilled / throwing. the game is balanced around the assumption survivors are always underpeforming so when they are not underperforming and actually put the roughly equal skill & effort input as the killer, the game is severely in their favour.
but you can keep making up more elaborate mental gymnastics instead of admitting the game is ultimately survivor sided and that's okay for it to be like that to a certain extent because survivors players are handicapped in terms of skill expression by this game's poor matchmaking. but folks here rather deny the obvious and make fools out of themself.
0 -
You never did math, you just asserted Nightlight is a good source, as if sweatlords self-reporting being the only ones to contribute, and people not contributing their losses at the same rate of their wins could ever be a decent source. Then you dismissed BHVR's stats out of hand for no discernible reason from my reading. If you are talking about a specific comment, I suggest you link it.
If the game is as Survivor sided as you claim, all I ask is 10 matches in a row as soloq. Show me you get more than 50% of Survivors out. That's the problem, is that reality shows that too many Survivors single-handedly lose the game for their team. The last time I played with friends, the best we got was a 2-out among 10+ matches. The last time I played soloq, with 10+ matches, I only remember 1 or 2 matches with 3+ out. As Killer, I have 0 difficulty winning matches at roughly the same rates. If I play both sides, and Killer is ez mode in both, then either my brain is hard-wired to never lose as Killer while always losing as Survivor, or the game is extremely Killer-sided.
I still can't comprehend your point, Killer being designed to win more than lose make it Survivor sided? 60% Killer win in the Kill/Escape matchup makes Survivor more likely to win? And you accuse me of manipulating numbers? Like just using basic logic, a 100% kill rate is a full Killer win, a 100% escape rate is a full Survivor win, and a 50-50 is a tie/draw for both sides (although it is made up of 2 wins for Killer and 2 wins for Survivor).
The matchmaking is part of the game, just as the mechanics are. The game similarly balanced around 60% killrates back when we used Rank/Grade based matchmaking, and it didn't make the game any less Killer sided. If you want to talk about customs, then you can have that conversation elsewhere, because everyone here is only talking about the game you experience when you hit play to find a match. If Survivors are losing because of bad matchmaking, they still experience all those bad matches. Those experiences aren't automatically discarded because they are inconvenient to your argument. Also if the whole reason Survivors lose is they have a bad team(mate) in comparison to their opposition, then wouldn't it track that the whole reason a Killer loses is because they have a bad team(mate) in comparison to their opposition?
9 -
"The game favors survivors because killer not winning is an actual possibility, only when thekiller wins every game would it be killer sided " do you hear yourself
7 -
i asserted? lmao, i was only running off the sources the other guy provided.
but it doesnt matter which big data source i use, the logic applies everywhere.
and, again, your whole argument is based on including players refusal to play the game to win and lack of skill to do so. yeah, it's harder to survivors to get 4 people to sweat and get good, but guess ######### what happens when they do that.
by your own logic nurse is a weak killer because she has notoriously low killrates, while freddy krueger, pinhead or whatever need to be nerfed into the ground.
3 -
"killers get slightly more kills than survivors escape on average therefore the game is killer sided" do you even hear yourself?
btw, nurse needs buffs, she has poor killrates. and they need to nerf freddy, i heard he is one of the top % killers. stats are everything, right?
4 -
In the MLB, the home team scores 4.6 runs per game on average to the away team's 4.1. The home team has a win rate of 53% to the away team's 47%.
Following your logic, the game of baseball favors the away team, because the results are slightly better for the home team.
6 -
Man, I was about to do a dive into Premier League soccer to compare goal averages vs results and you saved me the trouble.
4 -
Why is everyone treating survivors as a monolith capable of having a draw?
Nothing in the game treats them as a full fledged team, the sole escapee doesnt lose because 3 die and the sole dead guy doesnt win when the other 3 escape.
A 2k isnt a draw, its 2 survivors winning and the other 3 players in the trial losing.
IIdentity V atleast gives % bonus points for 3+ escapes as something to mark its survivors as a team.
3 -
Why is everyone treating survivors as a monolith capable of having a draw?Because its generally how people play the game. Otherwise when gates where open people would just leave, instead survivors generally go for rescues.
Nothing in the game treats them as a full fledged team, the sole escapee doesnt lose because 3 die and the sole dead guy doesnt win when the other 3 escape.Something doesn't have to be a 'full fledged' team to still have team elements. DbD is a game not just of winning and losing, but degrees of victory.
A 2k isnt a draw, its 2 survivors winning and the other 3 players in the trial losing.Even if you treat it as 4 1v1s, that 2 survivors winning, 2 survivors losing, and one killer who won twice and lost twice.
9 -
It's a draw for the killer. They bested two survivors and were bested by the other two
9 -
At some point, this take needs to be a bannable offense, because you keep spreading this and people keep explaining to you why this is dead wrong.
You and the guy you learned this from need to stop doing this, because at this point, you are wilfully misleading people.
For anyone who is actually interested in knowing why this is wrong:
The method of calculation this person uses to calculate win-rate from kill rate does not consider the variance of outcomes outside of the two closest to the average kill count. In this case, since 2.4 is between 2 and 3, they assume that all outcomes will fall in those two categories in order to arrive to their winrate assertion. However, DBD is a complicated mess, and in the overall, snowbally nature of the game, 2Ks are by far the rarest outcome across the board. This complicates matters.
0-1K are both losses, but weigh differently in kill rate.
3-4K are both wins, but weigh differently in kill rate.
The method Hotrod uses dismisses all of this nuance and tries to compile an average winrate from things that aren't winrates. Which is mathematically incorrect.
As a practical example of how wrong this model is: Assuming a 50% kill rate across any number of matches, this method would point to an average winrate of 0%. The only way you can get an average of 0 is if there's either negative values in the dataset, or no value above 0, otherwise you can't get an average of 0. So according to the method used by Hotrod, a killer with a 50% kill rate physically can not ever win any match. According to them, it is impossible for a killer to get a 1K match and a 3K match back to back.
16 -
Actually do the math, though. 60% kill rate distributes out to a 50% win rate. 20% winrate absolute lowest, 80% winrate absolute highest.
0 -
I didn't say "uh survivors need to get good".
Both sides of this game think the game is sided in a way that disproporationately disadvantages them when it doesn't. Most games are won by the side playing harder to win, through skill mindset or loadout.
Saying the game is sided, then, is just a way to excuse your own poor play, regardless of which side you're on.
2 -
60% kill rate = 50% winrate. Genuinely, go look at how a 60% kill rate spread across just 10 games could play out and you'll see that at best killer won 80% of their matches just barely and at worst they won only 20% of them, with all other scenarios distributed along a bell curve that peaks at 50%.
2 -
DBD VAR maybe?? lol
1 -
I tend to escape probably around 60% of my matches. However, I am able to understand how stats work, and when I look at the stats on nightlight that show killers having a 57.8% kill rate, and 51.5% win percentage (with 13% draws) it is hard for me to see the game as anything other than favoring killers.
5
