Stat inflation Prevention system
Devs don't count matches that involve a DC So Devs need to track and not count when a Survivor goes next on a hook and the stats will be massively deflated.
Comments
-
They said that Skull Merchant had a 71% kill rate, and 68% when they took away people who died on first hook. So I doubt it will deflate that much.
5 -
On SM maybe but on other killers could be a surprise
0 -
Is that ditching every survivor who died on first hook, or is that ditching every match where a survivor died on first hook? I'm curious - I thought a big part of the problem was that BHVR didn't really have good ways of tracking when survivors were actually ragequitting.
Even then, I'm not sure how accurate that could be - a Quit Merchant game was scuffed if it was the second survivor who killed themselves on hook rather than the first one, or if that survivor tried to kill themselves on hook, got rescued, and then refused to play and got hooked again. Suiciding survivors are rescued more often than not in my experience, but it's rare that they stop trying to die. And if it's just removing people who died on first hook, rather than discarding games, the rest of the team is still doomed in a 3v1 even if they try to play it out and get multiple hooks on them.
1 -
people dont always can go next on first hook.
sometimes they let go on 2nd stage, sometimes they get unhooked.
0 -
I’m pretty sure they already do internally. They just don’t share those stats in the Fun Stats Posts we see every month.
0 -
But what kind of excuse do you want to bring if they do that and it turns out that Killrates are indeed THAT high?
The Devs are not stupid, if they decide to nerf a Killer it is not because Survivors suicide in a few games against that Killer, but because this Killer is indeed overtuned. (Even tho, changing a Killer because Survivors constantly give up is a absolutely valid thing to do)
The stats without Hook Suicides will be really close to the ones with Hook Suicides.
5 -
They would also have to track when the killer lets everyone go or gives someone hatch as well
2 -
Oh yeah because its very easy for the game to understand that
-The killer snowballed the match and the survivors got downed fast back to back
-The survivor on hook is trying to kobe to "save" the match
-They just died because the match is already over
2 -
How could it be a surprise if on the killer with most selfkills, the rate has just a difference of a merely 3%?
1 -
Every time one person ragequits, they essentially doom their teammates. That means for every 1 hookicide or DC, the other 3 survivors have a tremendously lower escape potential. While I wouldn't go so far as to say that one "go next" always creates 3 additional losses, but it certainly creates a distinct anomaly in the data (since those matches are being treated as 1v4 statistically, even though they're basically 1v3 and near unwinnable.)
So it could very well be that close, since there is a quite large variable not being accounted for. The point of discarding DCs from the stats is because they create those 1v3 scenarios which the survivors are pretty much supposed to lose: The data is no longer regarding 1v4, its 1v3. Same with people going next early in the match (which they claimed they weren't able to track when discussions about removing hookicides come up, but apparently they can isolate for SM?)
There is a lot of +/- variation to most of the data they provide (especially without context.) Both sides are right when they talk about the stats being skewed in either direction, its just important that we recognize when it works against our arguments just as much as when it works with them.
Edit: This is important because the data is supposed to represent current balance, which can and often will differ from player experiences.
1
