Plummeting player count

Not to mention those who play via EGS and Microsoft GamePass. If you count the approximate playerbase along all platforms, the player count might be somewhere 100k concurrent players

Exactly

Yes, but this is a case of raw statistics being misleading. I think Otz explained this in detail, but from how I understood it, the way the game is built creates an inflated kill rate when you factor in that 4o is way rarer than 1k, the game is really snowbally and there is an incredibly high rate of quitting on one side but not the other.

Just blueskying, but I'd guess a 55% kill rate against high MMR SWFs translates to something very close to 50%, factoring in the prevalence of 25% kill rate even in losing games (1k).

As a solo and average survivor (1000 hours), I stopped due to the tunneling and slugging.
I get so frustrated from most games. All usefull perks are nerfed because of SWF abuse.

People keep asking to nerf SWF but they don't realise that most nerfs impacts solo survivors experience and new players.

The current poll* asked if you would recommand the game to friends.
I would discourage them to play.

Sure, which is why the kill rate is a bit lower. Watching some top level streamers though, it definitely isn't uncommon, and altruism can also backfire hard.

I don't think there has ever been a time in DbD's history when there were more useful perks on either side. There just aren't as many flat out broken ones like CoH and DH were.

I will say that SC should never have been nerfed as this was hugely punishing to solos, and I think most people seem to agree.

nothing will kill this game. If the eruption meta that lasted 6 months didnt kill it, or the healing boon + dh meta, nothing will

It's funny how some parts of the community care so much about the gaming dying. Weird how a game can be dying for years and still hold a 30-40K players on steamcharts.

You are a really good addition to the forums. I always like reading a new comment of yours :)

I've thought about this exact problem before - as it's SO annoying to have 4 kindreds for instance. The issue is that A. good luck ever playing stuff off meta, like No Mither and B. lobby dodging would go through the roof which in turn completely breaks matchmaking. My guess is that BHVR considered this and rejected it for that reason.

Right? With most likely 150k+ altogether actively playing across all platforms, most other games wish they were dying this well! 😂

Bear in mind that stat is still at a per survivor basis. If 3 of the 4 survivors escape, one of them on the stats still show as a failed escape despite the survivors "winning". The game stats are built at a per survivor basis and don't count them as a team, so if it's, 48% per survivor with SWFs (IIRC), their overall rate of escaping is actually decently high.

If you have 4 "things", and each "thing" has a 48% chance of being positive, then you actually end up with a pretty high chance of it being in your favor. It's a 68% chance that half of the survivor team escapes. That's two survivor winners and a killer loser. (survivors win are entirely separate per survivor - they either win or lose. Killers need 3 kills for a win).

You have only a few possible outcomes

0 survivor winners, 4 survivor losers, 1 killer winner

1 survivor winner, 3 survivor losers, 1 killer winner

2 survivor winners, 2 survivor losers, 1 killer loser

3 survivor winners, 1 survivor loser, 1 killer loser

4 survivor winners, 0 survivor losers, 1 killer loser

It's certainly variable. The numbers are just averaging across a multitude of matches. You could win 10 in a row (a 100% win rate!) then suddenly lose 50 in a row (so much for that 100% win rate, lulz). I edited my post to include mathz.

Absolutely. I recall seeing a solo queue survivor having a 60% TEAM win rate (as in 3+ had to escape to count it as a win). That's pretty nuts, but certainly not the norm. Survivor potential is practically unlimited. Perfect survivor plays guarantee wins. Perfect killer plays can still have a loss. The game just comes down to how many mistakes the survivors make and how the killer can capitalize on them. So while the survivors have ALL the tools available to them to make them unbeatable, not many players can take advantage of all of those consistently.

I was told once by someone on the forums when I had a question about my own “win rate” that the 40% is distributed between all survivors as a whole, not individual. Survivors as a whole have a 40% winrate, not a 40% winrate individually. Again this is just what was said to me, so I’m not necessarily saying it’s right or wrong. I haven’t been able to find any proof or clarification on the 40% being all survivors claim or the claim that the 40% is for individuals through the Devs, so if you have some I’d really appreciate it! As it’s a question I’ve asked before and gotten a different response to. Thank you for taking the time!

It's a fair question. The devs have made it pretty clear that the game is 4 individual survivors up against the killer, and each survivor gets their own specific win condition. The survivors don't actually win as a team or lose as a team. A survivor wins if they escape, and lose if they do not. This is also reinforced in the endgame screen. It never says survivors win or survivors lose. It is simply if you personally escaped or not. They dont keep tabs on "survivor team wins" because they don't win together. Otherwise, they would have to define what a win is for each side which they wholeheartedly avoid doing. The community has defined what they consider a win since the devs won't acknowledge what a win would be. For example, most of us say 3+ kills is a killer win, but the devs won't state this and instead refer to the match as the killer getting 3 kills.

Now you may ask why they avoid defining team wins. That's because it would get really weird. Since the match is 4 individual 1 v 1 scenarios happening simultaneously, then a killer killing a single person would win that 1 v 1. That means a killer could get anywhere between 0 and 4 wins in a single match. Due to this, the devs abandoned the notion of trying to define what makes a team "win" and literally account for everything being the common denominator of whether or not a survivor escapes or not for the survivor, and whether there is a kill for the killer. That's why we get kill rates, not killer win rates. As for survivors, and escape is interchangeable with a win, but it's strictly at a per survivor basis. Otherwise, they would need to define what a survivor team win is. That's also why you don't see ties being reported in their stats, because it's impossible for 1 v 1 situations to have a tie. One side always wins, and one side always loses. If the survivors DID win as a team, then ties would be relevant and reported. Alas, they are not.

Now, why did someone tell you otherwise? The community members sometimes have the view that the game IS a team vs team game, and that survivors all win or lose together, but the devs have clarified multiple times that this isn't the case. Regardless, some feel the designers are "wrong" and declare it is a team game. Regardless of those community member feelings, the designers of the game do their stats at an individual level.

What do you think started the “slug meta”? Idk what started it

I don't get this comparison. Is there some necessity that they play that character? Because in DbD the players have to be split between two sides.

When you play a fighting game competitively, you generally focus on mains. People tend to have "pocket" characters to deal with bad matchups, but it is not uncommon for even grand finals matches to have a 6/4 or worse matchup. The winner of the most recent SF3 Evo used a low tier character and stomped in matches that were heavily against him statistically. This also happens in many other games where people win finals with off-meta or straight up terrible matchups.

The point is that seeing a 60/40 doesn't mean you already lost, or that you will lose 60% of your matches. It means that statistically you are at a relative disadvantage, but it gets blown out of proportion constantly in this community that anything less than 50/50 = "there is no chance might as well go next" defeatist mentality. Which of course also dooms the other survivors who do continue to try, and ironically often alters their chances to be a lot lower than 40%

Are you bonkers?

Kindred is incredibly common in SWFs. Very strong perk due to killer aura reading.

BHVR are not going to balance SWF and solos differently. They've said this repeatedly.

Killer doesn't actually win more. Regardless of your sarcasm, it's a logical fact. That stat is, out of context, misleading.

Solos don't need buffs. What solos do need is an easier way to find groups.

Why do you keep saying "balance swf and solos differently" when thats not what I suggested. Are you confused? Well you must be to say that killers dont win more which is an objective fact. Solo's very much do need buffs because it is impossible to nerf swf. If swf also gets a small advantage from one of these buffs oh well, if swf and solo are in a closer place at the end then that is still better than before. Like I said, if you're so worried about too many buffs I said killer can then be buffed to compensate after we get swf and solo as close as possible.

If you're so worried about the kinded thing make it so this version of kindred only shows the survivors and not the killer or something. There is definitely a way to make solo survivor closer to swf but the problem is killer mains on these forums melt down because "survivor buffs!!" They want their easy wins against uncoordinated solo squads. If those like you and others on these forums refuse to even let there be a discussion about buffing solo survivor then just get used to more dc's and survivors going next on hook, it is the inevitable comsequence.

The general issue is that survivors on comms have an advanatge and more and more the game is being balanced to assume that advantage exists. Therefore it gets tiring to play solo que and lose over and over again, especially if the killer uses something like "hex-third seal" which is basically only even useful against solo's. It is tiring to lose games again that you know you would have won if you had comms and it directly leads to dc's and hook suicides.

Stopping hook suicides will do the opposite. It will just make survivors stop playing or purposely throw the game. In my games most of the time when someone goes next on hook it is a game where there was literally no chance to win anyway, it is often easy to tell. There is no chance that stopping hook suicides will do anything about kill rates if anything it would potentially lead to a massive exodus of the games player base.

( now if you are talking about removing this AFTER the game is balanced better, that could be a different story.)

swfs don't escape much more than solo queue. solo queue players don't need more information outside of showing the anti-camp bar to the rest of the team. I don't need to be told my teammate with WoO is wasting the 3 somewhat useful pallets on <insert empty 2024 map>. Reverse the direction of map design so survivors actually have some agency in chases. you're overstating the strength of swfs to avoid that by every available metric, killers are overly advantaged.

If the game is balanced differently with better maps then you could be right, but the way the balance in the game has been going right now solo que does need to be buffed. And whatever you want to say about swf not always escaping even a 10% difference in escape rate is massive.