How much more help do survivors need?
Comments
-
Food for thought, as perhaps Freddy should see a reverse-rework in the future with the goal of going back to his original design.
I like this article you've shared.
Not sure if 60% is too high, but I disagree with the methods used to get there. Far too many things that were absolutely fine were changed, which isn't good for the game.
4 -
This is not true. Why do so many people pretend they understand statistics. Dunning krueger effect?
8 -
Killers are the power role, they should win not because of that
1 -
Somehow I had posted same thing twice before and I guess there is no way to delete posts on here. Or is there I am not seeing?
0 -
This was actually in the last survey in form as "what do you think kill rates should be?"
When taking in kill rates you also have to take in pick rates as well. Given one killer may have a lower kill rate but their pick rate is high and vice versa. Higher killer pick rates are a combination of throwing games by the way of farming and so on. They also don't count the games where someone DC'S and that also effects kill rates because in the end the bots tend to survive unless no one bothers getting them off the hook.
This all being said not everyone plays at the same level and there are vastness in playstyles and abilities. If they are giving basekit to survivors it's because of playstyles of majority of killers, not necessarily the way you play but how they were shown to play.
Anti facecamp is useless, they still proxy camp, place a slugged survivor next to the hook or guard you when someone tries to unhook you so the meter does fill. I have been face camped just to give the killer a mori and it was recently shown on multiple streams how to do this.
0 -
It's the forums. You can basically assume anything with a percentage symbol is for dramatic effect, unless that number comes from the dev official stats, or is directly from a perk description.
"Forums math" always points in whatever direction means buffs in your favor. If you work backwards from the unshakeable assumption that "killer(s) need to be buffed and never nerfed" then you can't conclude the killer has more than a 50% win rate... Clearly they need buffed, that's the assumption here, so the game must therefore be, at best, 50% win rate.
5 -
At this point we need a Dev comment or mod intervention, it's the same people spreading the same misinformation then getting debunked again and again.
6 -
Well... People here complain about everything to be honest...
0 -
I just don't understand how killer players can complain so much. The game is tilted in their favor, they have anti-loop, wallhacks, teleportation Most maps don't even have anything to loop anymore anyway. Usually if the killer decides to chase you they will just get a down and there is nothing you can do. The statistics also show the kill rates are actually higher than 60% Yet in spite of all this they still complain the game is tilted in the survivors favor. Like I just don't get it. Is it just the bottom percentile of killer players that post on here and reddit that can't win even with everything in their favor?
2 -
Killer is the power role in that 1 killer needs to be as strong as 4 survivors. This doesn't justify the killer winning more often than survivors, though. I would argue that any multiplayer game is going to be healthiest when everyone has the same chance to win.
4 -
I get that but it has gone way too far. They need to dial back the kill rate at least a few percentage points and give survivors some new basekit abilities or something
0 -
The devs have addressed the 60% KR = 50% WR. They said that has not come from them and for their metric (a win equals one kill) it’s 60=60.
0 -
Well that doesn't really make sense either. Even if you were counting 3 kills as needed for a "win" 60% killrate would not equal 50% win rate. In fact you can't even say what it would equal unless you knew exactly how the kills were distributed amongst all the games.
0 -
Read my comment again - I generally agree with you. I think kill rates are higher than they should be.
0 -
I’m just pointing out that they said the kill rate and win rate are equivalent in their eyes. Any other interpretation is unofficial and not how they currently perceive game balance.
0 -
I know that I wasn't trying to argue with you. I was arguing with just a general certain flavor of comment that is very common on these forums.
1 -
The 50% WR is just using basic logic. A 60% kill rate means on average, matches are teetering between a 2K and a 3K. Most of the community sees a 2K as a draw and a 3K+ as a win, so if every other match is a 2K and a 3K, roughly half the matches are draws and the other half wins. That's where the whole 50% win rate comes from. (It's actually 62.5% to be a literal 50%, so a 60% kill rate means winning sliiiiightly lower than half your matches).
The devs did indeed state that kill rate is win rate, but just using a gradeschool's worth of math shows the fallacy of this claim. According to that statement, someone with a 25% kill rate is winning 25% of the time. Let's say for example a killer literally only ever gets 1 kill every match. That means they have a literal and true 25% kill rate. According to that dev's statement, that killer is expected to win 1 out of every 4 games despite only ever getting a single kill. I'd say the majority of the community (if not all of the community) would not see a killer getting a single kill as a killer win. That whole statement that KR = Win Rate is entirely based on the claim that the killer wins by getting a single kill. Heck, you even go DOWN in MMR if only getting a single kill. Granted, MMR doesn't have anything to do with win conditions in reality, but you get the point.
2 -
That still doesn't mean 50% win rate though. I mean I guess it could but its impossible to know without knowing exactly how they are distributed. Does anyone have statistics for how many 0k's, 1k's 2k's there are etc. Without knowing that saying it's 50% winrate is just speculation. And also even if it was a 50% win rate the killer side still has the advantage because they are probably getting 2k's, i.e. draw so often. So even if they were only winning 50% of the time a lot of the rest of the time they are getting a draw, so how often do they actually lose. Much less than the survivors. Whatever way you look at it they have the advantage. And I get that they want killer to be the "power role" but they still would be at say 58% kill rate. Just a few percentage points difference could make a big difference in the outcomes of games and how oppressive they feel for survivors.
2 -
Kill rates and escape rates are just the laziest way to balance. Sure it says this many survivors escape or not but doesnt explain how they escape or die. And not going at the how is just averting the issue.
3 -
Its because giving up on first hook after first chase is taken into the stats. Sure DCs might not count but the games free DC does. All kill rate and escape rate does is document how much they die/escape and not how. Which any person that has semblence of how to balance a game realizes that using those stats to balance just never works.
1 -
I remember that.
A second clarification and mod warning to cease dishonest conversation would do wonders to curb these discussions of what is effectively spam imo.
1 -
Almost every time a survivor gives up on hook the game was unwinnable anyway. Its usually pretty easy to tell that early on; if no one is doing gens, etc.
2 -
Fair point to bring up on the draw. I was just explaining where people get the 50% win rate. That being said, there is no actual draws in DBD in reality considering the devs have stated that the survivors aren't an actual team, and instead it's 4 individual 1 v 1 situations happening simultaneously in a match (but survivors are more likely to win working together, obviously). That's why if 3 survivors escape, it doesn't say "Survivors Win". Survivors either escape individually, or do not escape individually. A draw requires neither side winning or losing which isn't possible if it's 1 v 1 in 4 forms OR even if you see the survivors as a team (you can't have a killer entirely lose and half the survivor team winning - that's not a draw - a draw would have no one having an edge over the other).
That's why the developer was saying kill rate is a win rate, because in their eyes, you can win up to 4 times in a single match. A single kill is a "win". If a killer had a 25% kill rate and only ever got 1 kill a match, the devs still see that as a win. However, the math still doesn't add up on their statement at first glance, because if a killer always got a single kill (25% kill rate), and getting a kill is a win, it would be a 100% win rate. What the devs are actually saying with the kill rate = win rate is how MUCH of a win the killer got. Getting a single kill is a 1 win out of 4 wins for the match, so it's considered a 25% win in that case (but still a win). It's a very odd and weird way to see it, but that's just how they see it. Now, if we take the community agreement that a 3k+ is a win, then the dev's statement entirely falls apart, as a killer with a 25% kill rate clearly would not be winning 1 out of 4 matches. What's going on here is a very distinct disagreement on what a win is between the community and the devs. The community generally sees it as a 3k+. The devs see it as a single kill is a win, you can win up to 4 times in a match, and how many kills you get shows just how much of a win you got.
1 -
What it comes down to is that the interpretation that matters here—the developers of DBD—is antithetical to what many forum goers believe is the “true” X (win or kill) rate. I am certain the devs have people who understand statistics in their employ, and don’t need armchair/keyboard mathematicians to explain how stats work. They know, and they’ve said what they’ve said. 60% = 60%.
2 -
So you believe that a 25% kill rate means a 25% win rate (ie winning 1 out of 4 matches if you only ever get 1 kill every match).
See my comment just above yours. I posted it just as you posted, so you will miss it otherwise. I posted an explanation as to what the devs 60=60 means.
0 -
The 50% WR is just using basic logic. A 60% kill rate means on average, matches are teetering between a 2K and a 3K. Most of the community sees a 2K as a draw and a 3K+ as a winBut basic logic doesn't actually answer the question. That's why @doobiedo was right to bring up the Dunning-Krueger effect, it assuming a simplistic explanation when its more complex. It could just as easily, without knowing more about the game, be 6 out of 10 games a 4k, and 4 out of 10 games a 0k.
The devs did indeed state that kill rate is win rateThis is something I think a lot of people get wrong.
The devs have stated that kill rate = win rate for the purposes of MMR. They seem to also be pretty clear though that they don't have really any official definition of what a win is and that it is up to the player.
Does anyone have statistics for how many 0k's, 1k's 2k's there are etc.To the best of my knowledge, BHVR has never released anything like that, and I don't think they will because I don't think they want to feed into the idea of there actually being a certain win condition.
Nightlight would be the next best source and when BHVR has released data the kill rates between Nightlight and BHVR have been very close with a few notable exceptions. However given their sample size is smaller, self submitted, and overwhelmingly from Western sources, it does have the possibility of inaccuracies. But going off that, if the presumption was that a killer should 3k+ 50% of the time, you'd probably be shooting for a global kill rate in the 55% to 57% range.
2 -
According to @I_CAME, the devs said on a recent stream that Skull Merchant (70% kill rate) would still have a 68% kill rate in matches without a hook suicide. If the forum is to be trusted, though, people kill themselves on hook more against Skull Merchant than against other killers. It's pretty clear to me, then, that this isn't going to bias the kill rates much, especially when there are other factors like the ones I mentioned that artificially lower the kill rate. So, I think we can take the stats more or less at face value and conclude that killers are winning more often than survivors overall, and even in high MMR matches.
5 -
Survivors will bypass the DC penalty by kobeing to ‘go next’ over any slightest thing, so although DCs don’t count, these types of ragequit do and the other survivors are in a 3v1 and will likely die as well.
Kill rate tells nothing of what happened in the game and the devs themselves have always said to take the statistics with a grain of salt, but people keep waving them around on here as if they actually mean something and have done for years.A team can flashlight Head On bully the killer for 20 mins without touching a gen and it will count as a 3/4K if they refuse to leave, it doesn’t mean killers are too strong. A killer can skew stats with NoeD it doesn’t mean they didn’t get cheap pity kills after being dominated and all gens done in 6 minutes.
There needs to be way more discussion about the content of matches, not just an arbitrary statistic that means nothing without more context.0 -
Look who's at it again, and calling it 'basic logic' when the slightest application of any logic shows how tremendously incorrect the '60% KR = 50% WR' spiel is.
Just gonna drop this copy-paste here to correct you, again.
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.
2 -
If you even could grasp how less impactful those things are on games, you wouldnt make such a useless thread.
1 -
I believe (MMR +) means win while (MMR -) means loss, and BHVR’s 60=60 is reflective of this belief. BHVR devs sometimes doublespeak about what a “win” is in this game but in almost every PvP game a win reward is ranking up in matchmaking. I think BHVR believes this too (which is why they balance around 60/40=60/40) but wishes to avoid controversy and thus states individual players can determine what a win is for themselves. The caveat here is that BHVR doesn’t balance their game around what individual players consider a win; they balance around how players rank up or down in MMR.
0 -
I just wanted to post these here. They are all from 2 different forums post and one of the statistics post.
"We don't make decisions solely based on kill rates. Kill rates only show us where a problem might be, they don't tell us whether or not there is a problem or what that problem is. We spend a lot of time gathering feedback and watching gameplay before committing to changing something."
-- Peanits
"I can clarify a bit. I'm not sure where the 60% kill rate = 50% win rate bit comes from, but I don't recall it being said by us. We don't tend to talk about "win rates" because a win is still somewhat subjective. Some people count a pip as a win, others if they get 3 kills, some even consider only 4 kills as a win. If we're talking about solely kills, kill rate and win rate are equal. The kill rate is an average, not a guarantee. You might kill 4 survivors one match and 0 the next, but that'll still average out to 50%. (When you average out thousands of matches, that killer's actual kill rate becomes much more accurate.)"
-- Peanits
"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 support the horror theme of the game, where the Killer is a force to be reckoned with and the survival is not guaranteed."
-- Peanits
1 -
I think people are confused about why killers are upset. Killer mains likely appreciated the heavy nerfs to healing and Spine Chill, especially since these changes were followed by the release of very powerful killers and perk buffs. If the developers try to revert these changes, killers will likely be upset. I believe that restoring the healing and Spine Chill perks to their previous states would make many survivors happy, even if killers retain their 25% and 30% values.
Post edited by joeyspeehole on0 -
How is he lying. He's just admitting they make killer the stronger role on purpose
0 -
Well, the problem with that theory is BHVR believes kill rate = win rate. That doesn't hold any water. Just for an example sake, let's say a killer plays 800 matches, and every single one of those matches, he gets a single kill. That puts him at a 25% kill rate. According to BHVR, that also means a 25% win rate, so that means 200 out of those 800 games were somehow "wins". On top of that, all 800 of those matches would be MMR Negative. The whole kill rate = win rate just simply doesn't hold any water no matter how you look at it unless you view ANY kill as a win, and how many kills in a match determines how "much" you won (essentially believing that you can win 1-4 times within a match). Even if you do subscribe to that belief, it goes against what you said about MMR positive defining a win, as winning "once" in a match would be MMR negative.
Post edited by RpTheHotrod on2 -
You've already lost me by complaining about basekit BT. If you play survivor at all you would know why that's near a necessity.
The language you're using gives me the impression this post is to antagonise survivors, not offer a chance for genuine discussion, so I won't bother responding in depth.
0 -
I'm a killer main. I am honestly shocked that BT wasn't always basekit. Thinking about it not being basekit is honestly just really bizarre. Hard to believe there WAS a time without it being basekit.
1 -
That's not unreasonable. In the other thread, you yourself even flirted with this idea when you were trying to construct 2Ks as losses instead of draws for the killer. If you view the game from a 4x 1v1 pespective, KR = WR is correct.
It's certainly no less unreasonable than thinking 50% KR means a 0% average WR, thus requiring it to be physically impossible to win.
0 -
Also the devs should bring back release legion.
Never again. No one wants to deal with that again.
It was miserable.
1 -
You really dont need a degree to understand this. Throw the numbers into any probability calculator. With a 60% kill rate, the killer has a 47.52% chance of getting 3 or more kills. Of course, dbd has far too many variables to accurately calculate the precise chance of a win per match, but judging by kill rates, a 60% is completely fair.
However if the chance of getting a kill is lowered to 50%, over 4 survivors that results in a ludicrous 30% win rate. In what world is that fair?0 -
60% is literally 50% win rate, it is simple probability. Please explain how you debunk math.
0 -
Yes, these are the comments I’m referencing.
0 -
It truly shows you haven't been playing the game long or you just don't play survivor at all
0 -
Survivors will never stop complaining until BHVR starts permabanning people who use these "toxic" strategies.
Most of the community genuinely thinks that when the killer "tunnels" it means they are bad. Trying to play efficiently means you are bad at the game as killer and that's just been accepted.
Due to this mentality, survivors propose all sorts of dumb changes in order to "fix" tunneling, camping, and slugging. And, according to them, if you disagree with any of them than you're just a bad killer, because why are you doing those strategies in the first place?
So to answer your question: Survivors will continue to get basekit meta perks because the community is mainly comprised of Survivor mains, and killers who are severely suffering from the Dunning Krueger effect who think that these changes are fine because they "don't tunnel or do anything like that and still win" because they go against terrible survivors every game.
Anyways, I hope you have fun going against a SWF team who sent you to Azarovs while you're not playing Nurse or Blight and have to deal with 70 Sec stages, Basekit BT, Anti-Camp, Anti-3 Gen, and having all your decent killer perks nerfed. But don't complain, or you're just bad.
0
