PLEASEEE BHVR BUFF SOLO QUEUE
Im sick.
Im tired.
My god, i just hate that bhvr its just stick with the 60% winrate of EVERY SINGLE KILLER.
How about a 50%/50% instead.
AND ofc making the game more casual with its focus on the solo queue, survivors DESERVE more buffs instead of just a bunch of goffy perks that do nothing except making you laugh.
Idc about any killer buff or whatever, i just want ALL the old perks for survivors, and MORE VAULT SPEED FOR THEM.
An update for the validation hits.
More buffs for survivors in chase, but nerfing all the generator perks/items.
Just MAKE THE GAME MORE CASUAL with more interaction btw both roles instead of just getting hit or sabo the other role, IM SICK of these killers having literally no personality, like they're just a bunch of bots having fun just bcs you're not having fun. For example, "HAHAHA you couldn't sabo that bxtch", "HAHAH i have a better gaming chair".
And finally, im just letting out all i have bcs i just got into my ONLY TWO MATCHES OF THE DAY, and it was first A PAIN RES POP USER, and later a LEGION WITH TRAIL OF TORMENT COULROPHOBIA THANATOPHOBIA that was sluggin me JUST BCS HE WANTED TO JUMPSCARED ANOTHER SURVIVOR.
Comments
-
Oh i forgor to put that im not a english speaker so upsi <3
1 -
I'm pretty sure BHVR wants to balance it more towards teamwork (SWF) vs. Killer than SoloQ. I know that's hard to accept. But they just can't really balance for SoloQ without buffing SWF to the point it's very unfun as Killer.
At this point, I would give up on SoloQ entirely. Find some friends, maybe here or on Discord or Reddit or something, and start SWFing up. It's more fun in voice chat on Discord anyway.
9 -
The last kill rate update had a 52% kill rate at high MMR against 4-man squads in games with no DC. They're not hitting 50/50 in any bracket and are not even trying, as they've stated they're shooting for 60/40 now.
They absolutely can buff solo queue and even survivor in general without making it a bad experience to play killer. There is kill rate headroom, for one, and bringing solo queue as close as possible to SWF is important for ensuring everyone has a good experience, even if it ultimately necessitates balance changes to survivor/killer overall.
Some examples of things that would help solo queue without doing much for SWF:
- More buff icons. Perks like Solidarity and Deliverance should show icons on the HUD so you know at a glance they're in play.
- Allow survivors to see their teammates' perks in the lobby and on the pause screen.
- More emotes beyond beckon and point to allow for more precise communication.
- Base kit Kindred.
20 -
52% is still within the threshold of error for a 50/50 balance rate.
Please try again, because that isn't how stats work.
3 -
The only way you could ever get old dh back is by giving killers old moris back, otherwise forget it. DH came straight up from hell, this perk should never return under any circumstances xD
5 -
Confidently incorrect 😔 They took data for a month, ostensibly from all matches in which there was no DC. If so, there is no "error" here; the numbers are describing exactly what happened over the full set of matches. If they took data from a small sample of matches during this time period, that would introduce some level of error depending on their sample size, but unless you know how large the sample was you can say nothing about the margin of error.
Now, please justify why killers are struggling so badly that buffs like the ones I suggested, which disproportionately benefit solo queue, should not be implemented.
Post edited by notstarboard on10 -
You are the one who is confidently incorrect. Killers are not struggling badly and the sheer statistical fact of how data works proves it. I also never claimed Killers are struggling at all, literally nowhere in this thread or anywhere else on these forums have I ever said Killers struggle. In fact the opposite, I have said many times the game is Killer-sided… because it is, on purpose. I don't even need to know the sample size for one month's worth of games used by BHVR as a typical representative, but surely it is a large one because how many games are played in a month? Hundreds if not thousands. The sample size is likely quite large, so there wouldn't be that much error. Any error there is, however, would easily be accounted for by standard deviation, or left out as too much of an outlier because its that screwy.
Again, just go look up what a standard deviation is. If it's within 1 standard deviation of the mean, in this case 40-60%, then it's fine. Anything within that range would be considered balanced, as a result.
Assuming the data has a normal distribution - and there is no reason it wouldn't since in a game with limited results and with a big enough distribution, most data tends towards normality - technically a Killer's winrate being 65% or 45% is also within standard deviation of normal… so OK according to the balance team. Now, the data is skewed, sure, towards Killer bias. On purpose. So in reality the standard deviation from the normal is more like, 50%-70% because the game favors Killer side to preserve the horror theming. On purpose, as it should. That doesn't mean it's not in balance though, it means the data has a long tail… which is also a type of normal distribution.
Now you could take several months and ANOVA them if you're really skeptical, but I doubt you'd need to - the data would be the same and the results would still be within the margin of error. That being one standard deviation from the grand Mean. No matter what you do here, the game's data and BHVR's results will not support your claim. Your conclusion is not correct.
The game is in fact balanced at 60/40 and that isn't ever going to change. The Devs are not going to change it to make it easier for Survivors like in the past six years, or for SoloQ - they have done enough, it's up to SoloQ players to make it work now because anything they add to SoloQ will unfairly buff SWF too much and skew the balance AGAIN. Therefore, a 68% Killrate is fine, it's still in the margin of error - and as seen with Billy and Skurchent, BHVR DOES think of Survivors and DOES balance overperforming Killers down, in this case in the form of Skurchent's eventual rework (and sad overnerf), and Billy's coming nerfs should both make it through the patch intact (there will likely be changes but it's likely both will still be nerfed). No other Killers even come CLOSE in kill rates right now, except maybe rare ones like Freddy and Pinhead who can be explained by the confounding variable of these Killers being rare picks few know how to accurately play against OR play very well.
You are like many on these forums trying to present minor little 1%s of percentiles that statistically are not significant as if they are, then trying to slam me as being "incorrect" because I disagree with you when the data actually backs me up. We have no reason to suspect BHVR's data is false, though I really would like to see what statistical methodology they use. And if there's still an issue, then the Devs will address it. Now please stop pretending your error is a fact; the human brain is notoriously bad at stats because it tends to cherrypick based on patterns it sees to draw conclusions. This is a nice trait when we're deciding what berries are safe to eat on a bush, but a terrible one when trying to discuss game balance. You can skew this argument any way you like, but the actual statistical methodology doesn't lie - you aren't winning an argument about statistical fact when the statistical facts disprove you right out of the gate.
What you and many others have done is fallen into a common logical trap, one that our brains are kinda preprogrammed to see. It's understandable but painting a target around loose anecdotal data doesn't mean your data is correct, it means your experience is one of many that actually happens - and the common variable is not "every Killer is too strong", it's YOUR performance. That's what you can control, your performance. If the Killers you get are too strong for you, maybe reevaluate what's going wrong, or check other variables like the randoms in your round before concluding Killers overall are too strong. Doing otherwise ignores a lot of evidence to the contrary of your hypothesis that you just… passed by, all to prove a biased point that you think Survivors need more. They do not, and adding more will not help balance the game the way you think.
BHVR did not lie about or miscalculate their stats. They just so happen to actually disprove you, and you don't seem to like that. Are you lying about, or perhaps miscalculating, YOUR stats?
Post edited by GonnaBlameTheMovies on4 -
…are you trying to say that kill rates of 45% and 65% are within the "margin of error" because 40 and 60 on the unlabeled x-axis of some generic normal distribution you found online are within one standard deviation of the mean? And therefore I don't understand statistics? Tell me, how did you calculate the standard deviation for this data set?
You seem to want to treat the game's overall kill rate as a normal distribution and treat each time the devs report statistics as a single point in that distribution. The kill rate is going to change more over time due to legitimate balance changes than because a month's worth of matches was actually not enough to reveal the game's kill rate. In other words, the standard deviation for this distribution would be insignificant as the average kill rate after millions of matches should only very slightly deviate from the "true" mean kill rate (i.e. if infinite matches were played simultaneously). It's not even worth considering error with sample sizes of matches that large. Just take the number as is.
8 -
The problem with a 50% kill rate is that we had this before and it didn't work very well. Yes, playing survivor overall felt better but playing killer felt a lot worse. There was a point in time when queue times as a survivor would easily exceed the 10 minutes mark. That is too long.
So they would need to find a way to keep the killer role overall enjoyable while lowering the kill rates. You don't achieve that by simply buffing solo queue. There would need to be a lot of small quality of life improvements for killers. Otherwise you just go back to the way it was before. That's not an easy task and it would probably result in a very different game from what we have now.
Right now, BHVR try to keep killer the power role and bring enjoyment through that while at the same time fixing quality of life issues for survivors. It's not perfect but it works somewhat better than before.
To be honest, I don't even know where they could start if they wanted to bring the kill rates down a little without messing up the queue times again. Killer is simply the more stressful role (not saying it's necessarily harder, that's an entirely different argument), so achieving that balance where you would ideally have close to a 4:1 ratio is pretty hard.
10 -
Yes. Because it's balanced and in the margin of error. Because the data are normal.
The truth is until we can all do actual analysis on the raw data BHVR has, given out of the gate to us by them freely, we don't know. But we do know a few things that prove that the data are normal if skewed Killer:
- The sample size must be larger than 100, because that's the threshold for a normal distribution. There's no reason to assume otherwise, why wouldn't binary data results (win or loss for Killer and Survivor) be normal?
- It's probable the game is skewed Killer because the Devs have stated this is the ideal balance they want, so the data probably arrange in a normal, skewed distro that centers around a slightly higher kill rate of 60% - but because it's assym this would actually mean a winrate of 50%. Which is what we see on representative aggregate sites like Nightlight. No reason to suggest either dataset is wrong there, either.
- The data is known to occur across all MMR ranges. This isn't a case of Ghostface performing well at mid to low MMR but awful at high MMR. He's actually fine across all MMRs, and the argument therefore that some Killers are "just weaker than others at high MMR" does not hold water, period.
- The data controls for some confounding variables and thus throws out outliers like giving up on hook or DCs, and thus only counts actual results. That 70% Skurchent killrate? Is real deaths, not DCs or hook suicides. Therefore, Skurchent is overperforming and needs a nerf.
But again, I want to see the raw data released so we can do our OWN statistical analysis, and I want to see what methodology the devs use. It could be ANOVA, it could be a standard student T test, it could be Z score, or it could be a Chi test for some weird reason because the data isn't normal and I am entirely wrong. But as someone with a stats background and even a minor in statistics, I do not think I am.
Please find better arguments. I am done arguing with someone who doesn't understand basic statistical tools like a margin of error, dawg…
Post edited by GonnaBlameTheMovies on0 -
I'm with you, but "reducing the killrate" to 50% isn't the answer because Killers aren't the problem.
The problem is SWFs. Don't punish the wrong players.
10 -
Idk about their stats. They said low mmr chases are average 1 min while high mmr is 70 seconds.
HOW?
3 -
I mean, people value anectdotal evidence over statistical one.
People their perceived value of the quality of their games over statistics
2 -
I don't think it has that much to do with fun; nowadays there is just a bloodpoint incentive for the lesser-played role, which smoothes things out a lot, and Crossplay provides more matches for those in regions that don't have as many players. The long survivor queue times before were typically during the evenings when friends had time to meet up and play together. At other times killer queue times were usually longer.
I don't think queue times would noticeably change if survivor was buffed a bit, especially if the buffs are more geared at solo queue as this post is requesting.
0 -
If the BP incentive did smooth things out to that degree, then you wouldn't have noticeably longer queue times on whatever side doesn't have the incentive. Sure, it can mitigate the disparity slightly but if one side isn't fun, then (almost) nobody will play it.
Just think back to the 2v8 mode. They increased the survivor incentive to a ridiculous amount and it wasn't enough to keep killer queue times short. Because most survivors simply didn't enjoy that game mode.
The average killer doesn't care that a change is targeted to assist solo survivors, if it means they perform worse. Which would be a logical consquence. So the effect doesn't change just because it's targeted towards solo queue.
0 -
I was going to jump in to back you up on the standard deviation discussion, but being that seems to be over I'll look at your suggestions.
I should say, I like soloq. I think I preferred the game before the HUD update even, I like the idea of not knowing what the other survivors are doing. However, I understand that isn't feasible with the need to balance between soloq and SWF.
More buff icons. Perks like Solidarity and Deliverance should show icons on the HUD so you know at a glance they're in play.
A gazillion times yes on this. This is one of those changes that really frustrates me because it doesn't seem to have any drawbacks (beyond balance) and could be implemented immediately. If the survivor has the ability to get off the hook (Deliverance, Wicked, AFC triggered), show their aura in a different color.
Allow survivors to see their teammates' perks in the lobby and on the pause screen.
BHVR's response to this is it might lead to more lobby dodging and toxicity. I'm not sure, I'd definitely at least like to test this to see if it does. But they could also just penalize lobby dodging.
More emotes beyond beckon and point to allow for more precise communication.
Yeah, I'd like signals like 'I'll heal you first', 'do this gen', 'killer nearby'.
Base kit Kindred.
I think this one goes too far. I'd add the ability for the survivor on the hook to give emotes that are more clear about whether the killer is nearby or not, instead of trying to guess what the survivor means by hand flailing.
5 -
That has been my exact experience, though; my queue times are consistently better than before, regardless of whether I'm playing the side with the BP bonus. Not sure how others feel.
I agree with you for specific game modes, like 2v8 and lights out, but people clearly do enjoy the base game.
The average killer seems to complain vociferously about SWF despite the statistics showing even high-MMR SWF can't manage a 50% escape rate. I don't think solo queue buffs would be unpopular at all. And regardless, what matters is how it feels to play killer, not whether killer mains will support survivor buffs (spoiler: many won't on principle). Buffing solo queue should increase parity between survivor opponents, which should make the quality of the teams you're facing feel more consistent. That is fundamentally a good thing, even if the devs feel they went too far and decide to buff killer overall to compensate.
3 -
Appreciate the comment! Some good expansions in there. How would you feel about base kit Kindred, but without the killer aura read portion? That was really my intention, as you can easily lose the game by having two, or zero, survivors go for the save.
An alternative to base kit Kindred might be to also add your most recent emote to the HUD. That, combined with adding new emotes, would let solo queue survivors better handle tasks that requires coordination.
2 -
That has been my exact experience, though; my queue times are consistently better than before, regardless of whether I'm playing the side with the BP bonus.
Interesting. I can't say I share that experience though.
The average killer seems to complain vociferously about SWF despite the statistics showing even high-MMR SWF can't manage a 50% escape rate.
The average killer is just as much of a crybaby as the average survivor. Some killers just get upset whenever they lose and cope with it being a SWF. A good portion of players cannot even check Steam profiles to confirm their suspicion and others don't bother or don't want to because they might be proven wrong, so most of this probably comes from confirmation bias. You think that a SWF will perform better, so you see displays of communication, teamplay, loadouts etc. that "prove" that the survivors are in a SWF.
That is fundamentally a good thing, even if the devs feel they went too far and decide to buff killer overall to compensate.
I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. The simple truth is that winning feels good. Especially after a stressful game. So if you win less overall, that will feel less good. There is just as much stress (if not more) for less of a reward. That doesn't work very well. Especially not once people have experienced more enjoyable games overall.
3 -
You need not win less overall, though. My point is basically this:
Let's say half of DBD matches are with 4 randoms with a kill rate of 60% and the other half of DBD matches are with SWFs and have a kill rate of 50%. The overall kill rate is of course 55%.
Let's say you buff solo queue so thoroughly that now all matches have a 50% kill rate, as solos and SWFs are just as strong, and then the devs buff killer / nerf survivor overall such that the overall kill rate once again settles to 55%.
This is a good thing, as now the quality of opponents you're facing is much more consistent. No longer will killers feel like "I'm facing a SWF so I'm at a disadvantage" or "I'm facing solo queue so it's an easy win". They would feel like they're facing teams of roughly their skill most of the time, which is exactly what you want. Of course, in practice SWF is not as big of an advantage as people make it out to be, so buffs to solo queue wouldn't change the killer experience nearly as much as in this example.
Still, there's a lot of attention on the experience of killers. What about the experience of survivors? If anything it stands to reason that the survivor experience should be more of a focus given that there are 4x as many players, and while the solo queue experience has improved relative to SWF over time with the new HUD changes, basekit BT, etc., it has long been a tough experience.
At the end of the day the game will be at its healthiest when both sides feel like they're not losing all the time. Nowadays, I only get that feeling while playing
survivorkiller, and the numbers bear that out. So, again, there's plenty of kill rate overhead that buffing solo queue should not be a concern.3 -
Ahhh. It seems misread that part, sorry. I didn't understand that you wanted to rebalance the game to achieve similar kill rates after that. I am completely fine with that. In fact that is something that I have mentioned multiple times as the ideal way to achieve balance. Punishing people for playing with their friends simply isn't a good idea, so that shouldn't be the way to achieve it. You will hear no complaints from me on this suggestion.
Though I'm not quite sure how you'd do that. I have suggested a chat wheel before but even that wouldn't bridge the gap between solo queue and SWFs completely. You'd basically have to give all survivors info on the killer's position when one of them has a line of sight. That is probably not a good idea though. Also, you'd have to remove blindness and give all survivors map wide base kit Bond, which I also think is a little much. On top of that all survivors would need to see the anti face camp meter for a hooked survivor, though that honestly wouldn't be an issue.
So there will always be some disparity between solo queue and SWF and tackling that issue isn't exactly an easy task. That's also why I don't believe that the infamous high MMR SWF argument will ever truly disappear.
Overall, we're on the same page about this though.
4 -
Base Kit Kindred, no killer aura read: Like a lot a of ideas, I feel like it would need to be tested to be more certain, but here's my thoughts on how I think it would go:
Balance: It would be a huge gain to low and mid MMR, still somewhat helpful to soloq high MMR, and basically irrelevant to high MMR SWFs. So if you're only concern is balance, it seems like an obvious step.
—A interesting point on this, the people who should be pushing the most for base kit kindred are high MMR killer mains, because it would lower the overall kill rate in the lower MMR brackets, justifying more across the board killer buffs.
Theming: I have no idea how the overall community feels about this, but I suspect BHVR has data on it. If the game had always been this way, I doubt people would have a hard time imagining it otherwise. Right now, it would be pretty disconcerting to me to just have so much of the map where I know exactly where the other survivors are. I suspect I'd adjust overtime, but I think BHVR worries this would harm the theme too much.
Emotes: If both emotes and base kit kindred were on the table, I'd start with emotes and see how that worked out. If it didn't really fix things, then we revisit basekit kindred.
1 -
This is just not true. I play SoloQ and SWF, 2-man, 3-man and 4-man.
100% on 3 and 4 man we have a significant advantage. Depending on what killer we get, we know which one of us is best at running them, we have constant communication, and I definitely get more escapes with SWF than SoloQ.
Communication is an advantage, and it’s a very significant one. So to claim that SWF doesn’t have as much of an advantage as people make out is just ignorant. I would say that not every single SWF has the same advantage. A 2 man are going to be coordinated amongst themselves, but they are still dealing with two random players. A 3 man has more advantage than the two men and the 4 man has the most advantage. There are also situations where you can get two separate two mans but that’s just going into a whole Nother thing.
Fact is, outside of adding a voice chat to SoloQ, nothing will ever bring it to be comparable with SWF.
5 -
Swf are PEOPLE.
Nt everyone does callouts.
Nt everyone is good at looping.
Fun is subjective.
4 people chatting while playing dbd is different to clockwork call out squads.
Tbh the most fun I've had in swf was with people who were having fun not sweating.
8 -
All good points there. I agree they won't be able to truly achieve parity between SWF and solo queue for a lot of the reasons you state. However, they can still get a lot closer without going overboard. Even basic stuff like letting them somehow communicate who is going for save and what their key perks are (e.g. slugged w/ Unbreakable, hooked with Deliverance, downed with DS, unhooking with We'll Make It, healing with Solidarity) would be a huge improvement, and totally reasonable in my eyes. Certain killers, like Pinhead, make this sort of coordination really essential, and I'd guess they disproportionately wreck solos as a result.
With some buffs like these, I wouldn't be surprised if solo queue can pull close to SWF in terms of escape rate. SWF does have one key drawback, which is that players are more likely to play suboptimally precisely because their friends are with them; they're probably more likely to try to show off and go for reckless altruistic plays, for example. So, I'd expect that solos would perform better than SWFs if they had access to exactly the same information, and there's therefore reason to hope that solos can get close even with some level of information deficit. The closer they get, the better for balance!
5 -
SWF teams only win about 3% more than solo players, and even at high MMR where we’re talking the top 5% of players- they only win 8% more than solo. Even the best players still escape less than half the time. Personally, I believe the killer should remain the power role in the game, but there are ways to maintain decent kill rates while making the survivor role feel less helpless. Not that I think balance should be considered "punishing" anyone, as we should all want the game to be balanced/fair for all players.
1 -
yeah but not everyone plays like that or aims for complete optimization as a swf
I play with 2 guys sometimes and we're just playing for fun. We call out shack drop or if one of us happens to communicate we're taking killer to X tile and another guy knows he dropped that pallet, he'll call it out. Nothing crazy to the level of 'killer at 4 !!!!!!', 'pallet at 9 down!!'
do I escape more with them than alone in solo q? absolutely, but it's more of a result of knowing I have 2 guys I have confidence in their understanding of the game, they won't be healing in the corner with self care or will let me go 2nd stage. Do we also sometimes call it quits after having a string of games where we don't get out? yeah
point is, swf has an advantage but between average players it's not this balance breaking advantage where we're running circles around the killer, it's just a couple of friends gaming with random callouts but mostly game unrelated comms
2 -
Wow, I never thought I would randomly stumble across a persuasive statistics essay on dead by daylight. Great work btw lol
1 -
SoloQ is rough.
But i think kill rates will go up even further with all this new aura reading stuff.
3 -
I believe killers should maintain the power role, but adjustments to how kills are achieved could make the high kill rate feel less frustrating for survivors. While everyone has personal opinions on fairness, most agree that certain tactics like tunneling, slugging, and proxy camping- can feel miserable and even helpless to face, especially when they’re used by specific killers. These strategies often lead to quick, unchallenged kills, and while there are perks survivors can bring to counter them, killers have access to these tactics baseline. (which I feel is quite slanted especially when you consider most of these counters are on paid characters)
BHVR has taken steps to discourage some of these playstyles, but they remain common because they’re still the most efficient ways to win. It’s not just on players choosing these tactics, but on the devs for allowing them to be so effective. If these strategies were made less rewarding, so they were no longer the optimal way to win, I think survivors would be more accepting of higher kill rates.
This is just my personal opinion, but from what I’ve observed in forums and player spaces, the frustration seems to come more from dying to these particular tactics than from dying in general. These strategies make it much harder for survivors and much easier for killers, which creates an imbalance. While this could mean a nerf for some killers who rely on these tactics, I’d gladly trade buffing all killers or killer perks across the board (aside from Nurse, maybe?) in exchange for healthier gameplay overall.
3 -
I agree about the base kit Kindred and I also think Woo should be basekit (with ability to turn it off if it annoys you.) I might not think this if Bhvr wasn't ruining every map to make it so there's almost nothing left to use to loop anyway. And for those saying "that takes skill out of the game" being a neet and having time to play 10000 hours so you can memorize every permutation of every map is not skill.
0 -
With these kind of comments just talking and talking about how the game is based of stats, comp gameplay, etc. It's making me feel hopeless on ANYTHING about this game, yesterday i was feeling so bad just bcs of these ONLY TWO matches. Yes, i won't be touching the game anymore but that shouldn't be the answer, i just want to play with my fav character, feel like I'm in a slasher movie, feel like i have the power in chase bcs im "surviving" the killer, and feel like im in a casual game, where it doesn't matter if im not in a gen for x sec, where i can just walk around the map, feeling the atmosphere of a horror game with nostalgic maps like midwich or rpd. And listen, these should be also the focus of all killers, whats the point of me having a casual match if you aren't having a casual match, make both roles casual and appealing to a slasher movie, thats the whole point of the game.
3 -
Just add in game voice chat among survivors to bring solo q more up to swf and that's it. Up to bhvr if they wanna add voice chat between survivors and killer in the end game results. But I assume that's where most of the trash talking will happen. But they could always make it an option or something to opt in or out of in game voice chat. Having options is good and everyone wins by picking their preferences.
2 -
Horror as a genre inherently is about losing power and control, that makes it horrifying.
You are not supposed to "have power" as Survivor at any point, let alone in chase. You have fundamentally misunderstood Horror, the game, and the entire point of Survivor.
If you really cared about being casual you would be leaning into the "I am a victim in a horror movie, and I need to do my absolute best to survive as long as possible, because I am not in control here" aspect of Survivor. Not talking about "having power" in chase.
Really funny you used a photo of Feng-Min by the way, because oddly enough that's exactly the type of person I would expect to say that Survivors should "have power" over anything in the game especially chase.
3 -
60/40 is a good metric for Killer and Survivor, but the problem is killrate is targeted, not winrate. When you ignore draws, a 60/40 killrate yields a ~70/30 winrate (with Draws is 50K/28D/22S). 60/40 should be the targeted winrates, not killrates. As a quick guess, 55/45 killrates would yield closer to 60/40 winrates, so 55/45 killrates (or whatever the actual number is) should be the goal in the future.
1 -
Funny thing is 60% killrates isnt even a 3k on average, 60% would be 2k's most the time (Killer Draw) with the very rare off chance they get a 3k and thats across ALL levels of play. Going for a 50/50 sounds boring to me as that means you are wanting Killer (even though they already do) to draw majority of their games but this also means every game at least 2 survivors escaping (2 Survivors Winning) meaning every match you are wanting 5 gens completed. This doesn't sound like balance to me at all.
9 -
they will lose a majority of there playerbase swf are a minority in this game they can't ignore it
0 -
Too bad, BHVR doesn't see it that way. I guess the SoloQers really better SWF up, then… shrugs
0 -
Because it isn't balance. It's asking for Devs to guarantee at least two Survivors always win. That's a draw for Killer but a win for two people. The game considers one Survivor escaping a win for that Survivor, but it also considers the number of escaped Survivors for Killer. And if Killer gets any less than a 3k, it's considered a loss for Killer by MMR, not a win. In a situation with a 50/50, that means the Killer almost always draws… and thus never wins.
Don't be fooled, whenever someone is saying killrates/winrates should be 50/50, they're actually JUST asking for free Survivor wins - and the Killer to never ever in any way win again regardless of skill, perks, addons, or time invested in play. That's not balance. Not one little bit. That's just asking for freebies.
So here's my question to everyone who says they want anything other than a 60/40 split and who TRULY BELIEVES the game would be fair if killrates or winrates for Killer were 50% when there is one KIller and FOUR OTHER SURVIVORS: Why do you all believe that Killers do not ever deserve to win while also believing that at least two Survivors should always and forever be handed wins without any effort or skill on their part at all?
5 -
Unfortunately any data on killrates are GOING to be off due to the massive amount of survivors killing themselves on hook super early on. There's no way for the devs to sort those games out like they do for games that had a DC, and it's the main reason why I avoid soloQ survivor. I had a game the other night where the first survivor downed by a Wraith killed themselves. In a 3v1, we managed to get 4 gens done with the last gen at about 75%. A game that COULD'VE been a 4 man escape turned into a 1 man escape due to hatch.
5 -
WoO should not be basekit, you don't need WoO to loop. Please use other perks, get off the crutch.
I almost, almost want WoO hard nerfed with a cooldown JUST to shut up the people who insist they "OMG NEEEEED IT" for soloQ. You don't. I have won in SoloQ without it plenty of times. You don't need this much info to loop properly. Ever.
3 -
Yes I don't "need" it and I run builds without it too, however it helps to narrow the gap between swf and solo que. Also why is it just accepted that killers get to see aura' s of all generators but the idea of windows being basekit is beyond the pale. As they nerf maps more and more I will just insist to the same degree that windows should be basekit so players can actually see the few windows.and pallets that are even left on the maps. I am even more conviced i am right about this as they nerf distortion and keep giving killers more and more wallhacks. If they are going to try and make it so killers know all the time where ths survivors are then the survivors should be entitled to know if a pallet has been dropped already. Its not such a big deal. Do you seriously think if they did make it basekit kill rate would go massively down or something?
1 -
It's asking for Devs toguaranteeat least two Survivorsalwayswin.This isn't true. A 50/50 kill rate would likely increase the number of 0ks over the current setup and increase survivor win rate, but there is no reason to presume that 2ks would somehow become common.
The average results over many matches (mean) is very different than what the average result of a match is (mode). Given the way the game is designed 2ks are, and likely always will be, the least common of the five possible game results.
And if Killer getsany less than a 3k, it's considered a loss for Killer by MMR, not a win.That's not true. If you're going strictly off of MMR, in a 2k you'd need to know which two survivors escaped and which two died. Depending their MMRs, you killer could either gain, lose, or stay even in the MMR.
Why do you all believe that Killers do not ever deserve to win whilealsobelieving that at least two Survivors should always and forever be handed wins without any effort or skill on their part at all?I'm fine with the current kill rate goal, I'd probably bump it down a few percent, but nothing major. However, this setup just isn't true. We can easily turn it around and ask (if we presume that we are using MMR as our defining win condition): why is it okay for survivors to lose 60% of the time while the killer should expect not only a win rate that exceeds 50%, but a win rate that exceeds both their loss rate and draw rate combined?
4 -
Why do we use win:loss for survivor but win:draw:loss for killers?
A 50% winrate for killers means a 50% loss rate for them.
A draw only happens when neither involved team reaches their goal. DBD is not "have more kills than escapes, thus a 2/2is a draw", because survivors arent scored as team (you still lose when 3 others escape).
DBD is killer wins on 3+ kills and each escaped survivor wins....
3 -
why is it okay for survivors to lose 60% of the time while the killer should expect not only a win rate that exceeds 50%, but a win rate that exceeds both their loss rate and draw rate combined?
It’s because I don’t see the game as a competitive faceoff between the two sides. I see it as a “climb the mountain” kind of game for Survivors. How high can they get before making too many mistakes, can they work together?
In this situation I see the Killer as just the minotaur in the maze. A bouncer/skill check. The better the Killer the more strict they are on Survivor’s mistakes. Easier Killers allow more Survivor mistakes. So the Killer’s mmr is pretty much the match difficulty.
Maybe at one point it was reversed and the Survivors were the security guard testing the Killer’s performance where every game was the Killer’s to lose. I’m glad it is reversed. I think it's better for a horror atmosphere that every game belongs to the Survivors and the Killer is the golem that tests their teamwork.
1 -
A 50% winrate for killers means a 50% loss rate for them.If you want to define it that way, that's fine. But's that's not how the person I was replying to was defining it. If kill rate and win rate are the same thing, then a 50% kill rate would be an inherently balanced game.
A draw only happens when neither involved team reaches their goal.If you want to view a draw as impossible, again that's fine, but you need to also discard the terms 'win' and 'lose' as the end result of the match, because there is no singular opponent to win or lose the match against, you either went 4-0, 3-1, 2-2, 1-3, or 0-4 (excluding hatch). If you don't want to adjust your definitions that are based on symmetrical games to asymmetrical games you need to be consistent.
In my opinion, this seems overly pedantic. If a sports team played four games, won 2, and lost 2, how would we refer to them? They aren't winning, they aren't losing, we'd call them even or 500. I think if someone said 'so far the season has been a draw' that would make sense to pretty much everyone even though not a single game has been a draw.
It’s because I don’t see the game as a competitive faceoff between the two sides. I see it as a “climb the mountain” kind of game for Survivors. How high can they get before making too many mistakes, can they work together?I'm absolutely okay with this. As I mentioned, I don't really have a problem with the kill rate. Theming or a belief that survivors voiding the trial occur more frequently than the killer equivalent are absolutely valid reasons to believe in a higher kill rate.
It's just not a mathematical necessity for balance purposes for many reasons.
4 -
As a solo Q survivor main, I can feel it.
The following solo Q buffs feel necessary :
- Make the survivor aura (not the killer one) from Kindred a basekit feature.
- Show loadouts icons in the "Escape" menu in game.
- For the anti-camp mechanic, show the filling bar to all survivors.
- Add HUD when Deliverance, Reassurance, Wicked are active and when Camaraderie can be activated, with a timer icon. Those clutch perks feel useless in solo Q because no one can coordinate around it.
- Remove the 4% unhook mechanic basekit to tone down impulsive griefing/rage quit scenarios, allow unhook with luck associated perks, offerings… and add a self kill prompt on hook when there are 2 survivors left (for the hatch game).
That's the most important part I can think about for now.
6 -
People have been constantly asserting this, but hook suicides seem to be a drop in the bucket. @I_CAME posted the following in another thread:
…the devs literally said in the recent stream that Skull Merchants kill rate is still 68% when they throw out games where someone gives up on the first hook. I think the number they gave was 2.5% of games against skull merchant have someone dropping on the hook.
If the impact is this small against Skull Merchant, you can be confident that pretty much every killer is not going to have their kill rates skewed much by hook suicides. And there are factors in the other direction as well that aren't being considered. DCs probably happen more often in matches that survivors are going to lose badly, for example, so removing them from the stats effectively lowers the kill rate compared to a world where everyone tries the whole match. Killers also sometimes just want to farm or turn friendly during the match for various reasons (e.g. survivors were cute, one survivor sandbags another).
So, while imperfect, I think the stats we've been given are close enough to their "everyone is trying all the time" equivalents to draw some conclusions about game balance from.
4 -
Win:loss for survivor and win:draw:loss are only for MMR purposes. MMR does not evaluate survivors as a team because that would add complexity and isn't necessary to do a decent job ranking people.
In practice, though, many people would agree that a 2k is a draw for both sides. It is very clearly a team game. Would anyone here feel like they "won" if they were the only escape in a 3k?
1 -
How would the devs be able to tell what games included survivors refusing to play? Do you really think hook suicides only occurred in like 2% of games against SM? I guess I'm getting ALL of them when I try solo Qing, because it typically occurs at least afew times a night no matter who the killer is.
5
