Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on this and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
Get all the details on our forums: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/436478/sign-up-now-to-receive-a-recap-of-your-2024-dead-by-daylight-stats/p1?new=1
Kill Rate is not Win Rate
The devs' current targeted kill rate is 60%. HOWEVER, this does not automatically mean killers have a 60% win rate!
Imagine a killer plays 10 games. A 60% kill rate means 24 survivors die, and 16 escape. A win for the killer is a 3k or 4k.
Here's one set of games: 4k, 4k, 2k, 2k, 2k, 2k, 2k, 2k, 2k, 2k
The killer has a 60% kill rate, but only a 20% win rate (with an 80% draw rate).
Here's another set of games: 3k, 3k, 3k, 3k, 3k, 3k, 3k, 3k, 0k, 0k
The killer has a 60% kill rate, with an 80% win rate (and a 20% loss rate).
My point here is not to argue the appropriateness of a 60% kill rate or if this is a good balancing decision. It is merely to point out that a 60% kill rate can mean wildly different win rates in different conditions.
Kill rate is not win rate, please stop conflating them, thank you.
Comments
-
Not to mention the fact that BHVR has never clarified what the official terms of "win" are.
But yeah, you're absolutely right on the nose about how people tend to mix kill rate and win rate, when they are two completely different subjects
6 -
^older data, but OP there showed stats from nighlight killrate vs winrate
Quite interesting imo1 -
Something interesting about this topic to me is how extremely low the loss rate tends to be. As killer, the number of matches I expect to see with a 1k or 0k is very low. And 0k honestly almost never happens to me.
That tends to make me feel like killer is by far the more relaxed and easy role. Even against teams with all strong loopers who split up on gens, I'll almost always get at least a 1k. And more often than not, my matches end with 3k or 4k. Though I do admittedly often give hatch or the gate.
15 -
You're correct that they aren't the same thing, and that BHVR hasn't defined a "win" condition. However, usually people are trying to somehow use this information to say that the game isn't leaning in the killer's favor currently.
Nightlight isn't a full picture, but since the devs don't give us the breakdown of how many kills per game, it's all we have currently. As of right now the breakdown is:
- 0k: 20.2%
- 1k: 16.6%
- 2k: 12.9%
- 3k: 17.2%
- 4k: 33%
So, if we use the common definition that 0k and 1k are survivor "wins", a 2k is a draw, and 3k and 4k are kill "wins", then you still have killers winning about 50% of the time, about 13% of the games are a draw, and about 37% of the games are survivor wins.
Whether it's the 60% kill rate, or the more nebulous win rate, the game is currently favoring killers in both metrics.
21 -
I mean a 60% killrate means that there tend to be more 2ks than 3ks. But we really should stop talking about kills and rather about hook stages. A 1k9 is more impressive than a 2k6.
5 -
A survivor win is that individual survivor escaping, though.
3k and 4k are wins for the killer, and I'd personally call a 2k a draw even if there's not as much to suggest that in the game, but I don't think it's necessarily a fair interpretation to say that because of that only a 0k or 1k count as survivor wins because that's not really how this game works.
I'm not good enough with numbers to draw any other conclusions, I'll be the first to admit that, but I do think it misses a lot to define "survivor win" only as the killer losing, when the game is set up asymmetrically.
5 -
This belies a more individualist and selfish interpretation of the survivor role. Yes, being killed is considered a loss for the purposes of MMR, but it does not have to be how the player defines a loss.
When playing survivor I consider a 3-out a win even if I'm the one that died. I hardly think I'm alone in this.
8 -
You're conflating two different things. OP and I are talking specifically about "team" wins, even though DBD has one team with only a single player.
You might be able to look at an individual escape as "that player wins" maybe, but the entire conversation breaks down doing that. You even say yourself that a 3k is a killer win… so if we go that route we end up saying the nonsensical "well, the killer won the game, but so did the one survivor who escaped, even though they're on opposing teams". (This problem, btw, is exactly why the devs haven't defined a "win" condition and generally only look at kills).
3 -
To be sure, I'm not trying to say every player must follow the game's win condition and mustn't ever replace it with their own, you can approach the game however you like.
I do it as well, I don't tend to hang my own fun or personal "win condition" on whether I strictly won the match. I'm just pointing out that the game does actually have a win condition.
See above - that's absolutely possible. The game's win conditions may not be literally laid out in text, but everything in the game is geared to support one outcome for each side, that's pretty obviously the win condition.
The conversation breaking down at that point is kinda the argument I'm making. This isn't a way of looking at the game or its balance accurately because it relies on an assumption that I would argue isn't really supported by the game's mechanics.
Not that the conversation can't be had at all, but it's a lot trickier than it seems because the two teams don't have mutually exclusive win conditions, that's not how the game's laid out. You could absolutely argue that's a flaw with the game (I wouldn't myself, though) but it is how the game currently is.
2 -
The only problem i have with defining it the way you did is that it's completely irrelevant to the discussion.
OP is saying that a 60% kill rate isn't necessarily a 60% win rate. He's right, but it's not like that changes the discussion in the sense that killers are suddenly struggling, since killers are still winning more than losing (or even drawing and losing combined).
You saying that "an escape is an individual survivor win" is exactly the opposite: every kill is a killer win, and by your definition a 60% kill rate is exactly a 60% win rate.
10 -
That assumes, again, that the win conditions are mutually exclusive in that way, but they're not.
A killer has to reach one goal: At least three kills (arguably, for the sake of this conversation it's actually relevant that the game's one piece of ambiguity that does exist is whether 3 kills counts or it has to be 4)
A survivor has to reach one goal: Escaping
Those goals are in conflict but they aren't so strictly mutually exclusive that it's impossible for a player on both "sides" to win. The game just isn't laid out like that, it's not a symmetrical game in its win conditions or its literal player makeup.
To be clear though, because the wider context of the conversation does matter - I'm not saying killers are struggling. They're not, the game's doing pretty good for killers at the moment. I just take issue with the way the game's win conditions are framed so consistently.
0 -
Look, I've been as explicit as I can on this topic, and I'm starting to think you're deliberately conflating these two to confuse things intentionally.
If you define a 0k and 1k as survivor team wins, a 2k draw, and 3k and 4k as killer win, then there's no confusion. That's the definition. That definition results in about a 50% killer win rate and a 37% survivor kill rate with about 13% draws.
You're saying that "escape is an individual survivor win", so even using that definition, a 60% kill rate is a 60% win rate for the killer. That's it. The only way you're getting confused is trying to somehow imply that a survivor escaping means that the killer isn't winning, but you're explicitly defining a 1v1 here, so that's not possible.
I can't be more specific than this, so at this point if you're still confused I'm going to bow out. The only reason I can think of that this isn't clear is because you're trying to spin this as some kind of "2+2 = 5 so killers need additional buffs" or something. None of these interpretations say anything except that the devs have been successful in making the game killer sided, as they've explicitly stated has been their goal for a while now.
12 -
Honestly, all these things are true. The game is simultaneously 1v4 and four 1v1 games. A survivor escape is very reasonably a win for the survivor in question, and a team escape could be taken by some as a win for the team.
But BHVR doesn't define that explicitly and I think it's for a reason - they want each of us to enjoy the game as much as possible on our own terms.
In terms of the discussion of killer win-rate, I think what I mentioned above is true: killers generally win more than lose by design. And the win condition is a little more clear-cut for killers, but not completely so. When I play killer, I see a 1k as a fine outcome for myself, though 1k is quite rare for me and means the survivors did a great job. But most of the community takes a 3k or 4k as a win, 2k as a tie and 0k or 1k as a loss (because that's how DBD's MMR handles matches).
In the end, I think op is making a good point when viewed from the perspective of many killers: the discussion can be vague because the win condition isn't well defined. Personally, I think we should all just take the win condition that we find good for us while playing in a way that doesn't make the game insufferable for the other side. I think I saw someone else here recently say that as killer, when they stopped pushing for only wins in the sense of a 3k or 4k, they had more fun and started developing more skill since they were able to relax and think during the match, getting better at mind gaming and strategy rather than raw mechanics. I find that to be true also. I've had a few times when I just pushed hard for win streaks, and I don't think I develop a lot of my skill while I'm forced into nonstop gen-defense. But I've gotten opportunities to try new tactics and learn interesting new instincts that I might not have if I were always just chasing a certain way on certain killers.
I guess all that is to say that while win conditions are something to talk about, discussions about wins can and perhaps should also include discussions about playstyles. And that's especially true in the sense that since there is no true official win condition, our primary concern should be how we all enjoy playing the game. And we can kind of choose our win conditions to ensure that we're all enjoying the game, ourselves and our opponents :)
1 -
Alright, I'll take another crack at explaining myself and if we can't see eye to eye, I'm amenable to bowing out- though to be clear, I just said that killers are doing fine.
This game is asymmetrical, and its win conditions reflect that. One survivor escaping is that one survivor winning, but if the other three survivors die, the killer won too.
There is no "team" win condition for survivor. There's also no "team" win condition for killer, it just seems that way because the killer "team" is one player.
It's definitely fair to want a team win condition for survivor because it'd make a few things quite a bit easier to talk about and potentially even to balance, but there's no framework to support that in the game that we currently have. The game only has feedback for individual win conditions, because that's how it was initially built, that's how its basic systems have operated since day one.
I do think it's relevant to this conversation because it should affect how we interpret things like the kill rate and the overall survivor escape rate, but like I said, I'm nowhere near good enough with numbers to figure out what that says about the game's overall balance numerically.
0 -
Anyone can check in Nightlight that the matches are usually one-sided, the most common results are 4k and 0k. The game is in such a deplorable state that the outcome of the matches is practically decided in the first chase. I never liked the 50% win rate matchmaking that is applied in almost all popular games, the asymmetric nature of DBD makes this even more annoying.
2 -
There is no "team" win condition for survivor. There's also no "team" win condition for killer, it just seems that way because the killer "team" is one player.There's no win condition at all. There are outcomes that increase or decrease your MMR, but if we're narrowing it down to that, kill rate = win rate.
Most games (whether video or traditional sports) have a win / loss / draw mechanic. Whether you win a game of basketball by 1 or 30, you still won. And most leagues treat that win as the most important thing, with degree of victory being just a tie breaker.
DbD is different, the totality of the outcome is important. A 3k/3k/3k/2k/0k and a 4k/4k/1k/1k/1k are basically the same. Both outcomes have a 55% kill rate (we're presuming no hatch here for simplicity). Now a play might prefer outcome 1 because they feel like they won 3 and only lost once, while the second they won twice and lost three times, but that's just a feeling.
Which is the same on the survivor side, feelings of winning or losing. Personally, I'll take a 3e where I die over a 1e where its just me, though the ultimate goal is to both escape and help others to escape.
Basically: if we want to make it just MMR, then its the same for both sides and kill rate equal win rate / loss rate. If we want something broader than that, then we need to talk about perceptions on both sides.
6 -
The winrate formula is NOT
(wins / games). This formula is valid ONLY for games without draw.In games where draws are a possible result, the winrate formula becomes:
(wins + 0.5 × draws) / gamesIf we apply the correct formula to Nightlight's data, we get a 56.7% winrate, for a 56.6% killrate.
i.e. ALMOST NO DIFFERENCE.
This whole "killrate is not winrate" argument is a forum nonsense to try to artificially fit killer narratives. When you do your math correctly, winrate actually shows the game to be even more killer-sided than killrate, because hatch escapes lower the killrates.
11 -
I'm not basing my position on win condition on the MMR system, that's backwards. The MMR system was implemented in line with the game's already existing win conditions.
I find it interesting (and, admittedly, mildly annoying) that people presume there's no win condition for this game, because to me it seems obvious that there is. They're online matches that end when one side meets their goal, and everything in the game is geared towards those sides meeting their goals. I don't see how you could interpret that any way but those goals being the win condition.
I'd be tempted to say it's because the game doesn't say "You Win" or "You Lose" when those goals are met/not met, but that seems pretty arbitrary, I don't want to assume that's the opposing position, it feels bad faith somehow.
This game does have the potential for degrees of victory in line with its win conditions, too - your bloodpoints, emblem scores, and exact kills on killer can make the difference between a narrow victory and a crushing one, if you're inclined to interpret it that way. The game does have win conditions, though, it's impossible for it to not.
0 -
I hadn’t heard of that formula for games where draws are possible, but it seems like a commonly agreed on way to calculate win rates with draws. Thank you for adding that, I think that’s a good contribution!
1 -
Also, to go a step further, if you look at kill rate in terms of hook states (because 60% of 4 people doesn't split evenly), it comes out to 7.2 hook states. Since you can't have .2 of a hook state in a match, you have to round up to reach at least 60%, so 8 hook states.
This means either:
- Everyone is on death hook but they all escape
- Two people died, one person is death hook, one person has 0 hooks
- Two people died, two survivors have been hooked onceAnd this is their AVERAGE target. That means 50% of games will have a higher hook counter than this, and due to the snowball nature of this game, it usually means 2 kills goes to 4 (depending on if the killer cares about slugging for hatch, slugging until everyone is downed, etc.). So not only does a survivor have a 50% chance of being one of the unlucky 2 survivors that die just by the nature of the killer existing, BUT there's another 50% chance that the killer gets another 1 or 2 kills on top of that.
The fact that spawning in as any killer practically guarantees you two kills and on your way to a third with almost no effort because that's the goal of the 60% kill rate target is why survivor feels so horrible to play.
5 -
That's a good point, and it's something I've thought needs to be addressed for a long time. I think there's often a pretty big disconnect with how the developers view the survivor role and how the community views the role. The community seems to view it as more of a team-based PVP game, whereas the developers seem to view it as a survival horror individual experience where you may or may not work with others. It leads to some seemingly bizarre design decisions.
0 -
Survivor MMR needs to be largely individual based instead of team based, so the entire hatch mechanic doesn't fall apart.
If survivor MMR was primarily team based, and a game was a 1k, it would basically say the last survivor lost the game, regardless of they were sacrificed, or if they escaped through the hatch, or if they escaped through a gate.
0 -
If you define a 0k and 1k as survivor team wins, a 2k draw, and 3k and 4k as killer win, then there's no confusion. That's the definition.
Sorry, but that's not how the only win conditions the game has (even if hidden to the player) work:
You're saying that "escape is an individual survivor win", so even using that definition, a 60% kill rate is a 60% win rate for the killer.
No, because killers and survivors don't have the same win conditions, and a win for the killer is a 3K. That's why a 60% kill rate is not a 60% win rate, and OP is right. After all the times that this has been explained, it's about time people stop claiming otherwise.
2 -
It's sometimes hard to think of DbD as a 1v4 team-based PVP when you're going in solo queue. Although I do risk my matches to get endgame saves and keep death-hook survivors around, I still see it as an individual survivor-based game whenever I'm not in a swf.
That might be the result of having a group of complete random survivors whose trustwothiness you can't know. I've even had some duo teammates tell me I should just escape instead while I go for ridiculous endgame saves, but then I go for the save anyway.
As a fun anecdote, one teammate I was in a duo with got eliminated along with one other, and the third was on a hook, but I had opened a gate while the person on hook had looped our Oni around prior to getting hooked. The Oni was camping the hook and my duo teammate told me I should just leave. But instead I baited Oni's power out and got the unhook. I still went down in the end, but my teammate got out, and we nearly got two out :)
But that means even my swf teammates and I are on different pages with regard to our solo teammates. I'm not sure how the community as a whole sees it.
0 -
I feel like that's more about how unlikely saves can be during endgame. If I'm playing Bubba for example, I can have a HORRIBLE game but goodluck getting the save if someone is hooked at endgame.
2 -
That's very true. I play Pig more than any other killer, and if a team has four gens done, a Pig hat might go on some unfortunate soul. There's essentially no way to escape that if the Pig just follows you around once the last generator pops :(
I will also say that's very rare as well. I'll usually have secured at least one kill before all the gens pop. And I don't like camping a bear-trapped survivor… feels rude :/
0 -
The only reason I can think of that this isn't clear is because you're trying to spin this as some kind of "2+2 = 5 so killers need additional buffs" or something.
No matter what, though, that's not going to work.
If it's 1v1 only, it's 60% vs 40% winrate, meaning survivors are underpowered.
If it's 1v4 only, it's what, 50% to 37%? Survivors still underpowered.
If it's a mix-and-match, it's 50% to 40%, which, guess what? Still means survivors are underpowered.
It's just a matter of how badly they're getting screwed, is all.
9 -
Here's one set of games: 4k, 4k, 2k, 2k, 2k, 2k, 2k, 2k, 2k, 2k
The killer has a 60% kill rate, but only a 20% win rate (with an 80% draw rate).Here's another set of games: 3k, 3k, 3k, 3k, 3k, 3k, 3k, 3k, 0k, 0k
The killer has a 60% kill rate, with an 80% win rate (and a 20% loss rate).Have you noticed that if you take both of your scenarios into account survivors only win twice in comparison to the killer's 10 wins?
Your horrible, terrible, atrocious killer win rate of 20% with a 60% kill rate lands 0 wins to survivors for a wooping 0% win rate.
9 -
I do want to point out to you that, in fact, individual kills ARE wins for the killer according to what you posted, as it states that every survivor killed grants MMR.
It's just that if you kill fewer than half the survivors, your MMR decreases, but that's to be expected if you win one and lose three matches.
6 -
If helps any, the way I look at it is team vs team. But if we look at each survivor individually then you can't just look at the win rate. As the loss rate becomes extremely high. Each 3-4k becomes 3 to 4 losses per match. Since there seems to be more 4ks than any other outcome this would be a lot of losses. It also throws out draws for the survivor side when they are accounted for individually.
2 -
Even if everyone suddenly agreed on this… why does it matter? Genuinely asking. Seems there's more pointless arguing and dribble around here lately and Im wondering whats causing it.
0 -
Tracking my own games, the number of games I win as killer due to people giving up probably makes up the difference between survivor and killer win rate there.
0 -
How many of those killer wins are due to survivors giving up though? I track stats and survivors give up in 13% of my matches (playing killer and 2 man swf).
0 -
A survivor giving up does not mean it's a 4K where otherwise it would've been a 4E. It might just be a 4K earlier than normal, too. I don't put much stock in the way 'giving up' impacts the stats.
Besides, killrates have historically been higher on higher MMR/rank, and I think it's a fair assumption that people give up less in those regions.
4 -
I find it interesting (and, admittedly, mildly annoying) that people presume there's no win condition for this game, because to me it seems obvious that there is. They're online matches that end when one side meets their goal, and everything in the game is geared towards those sides meeting their goals. I don't see how you could interpret that any way but those goals being the win condition.The game has goals, that's a little different than a win condition. A win condition is an singular overall outcome, win, lose, or draw. Multiple factors might determine that, but its either true, not true, or a draw.
If the gates are open and a survivor is on hook and you are at the gate, if escaping was the sole win condition, than going back to save the survivor would be a bad play. However, both things in the game are goals that a survivor in that situation weighs risking one against the other.
0 -
So, should we add "asymmetrical win conditions" to the list of concepts you don't
want tounderstand, just besides "averages"?Post edited by Batusalen on0 -
I don't see how it's a reasonable interpretation for the game to have specific single goals for each side, and positive or negative feedback based on whether each player reached that goal, but then conclude that goal isn't the win condition. It just seems a little arbitrary to me.
If you escape, you reached your goal, you get the positive message, you get more points, things like Adept challenges use that as their goal so it counts for that, the MMR system designed to track wins and losses counts it as a win, and generally speaking you successfully leveraged or avoided every system and mechanic in the game that is designed to aid or hamper your ability to reach that goal.
How's that not winning? The entire framework the game has for providing any kind of feedback is designed to support this outcome, as is every mechanic designed to favour your side. By contrast, there's absolutely zero framework in the game at all to support the notion of a team win condition or a team win/loss outcome.
I think people tend to conflate the game's strict mechanical win condition with player incentives and goals, but the two don't necessarily have to be the same thing and can even conflict sometimes. Take your example of someone hooked when the gates are open- what are you risking when you go to save them? You're risking losing, because you might get sacrificed too. If you just want to secure your own win for whatever reason, it would be a bad play to go back and save that other survivor… but a lot of players find it more fun to risk that win to gain a better score or meet a more satisfying condition than just seeing the victory screen.
Things do get a bit messier with killer- survivors have a hard binary, win or lose, escape or die, but killers do have some grey area. Logically it's obvious that the killer's win condition is related to killing, for the same reasons that apply to survivors, but exactly how many kills you need in order to win is murkier and not something the game has as much feedback for. The general community consensus there is one I agree with, but there is more need for a community consensus there compared to survivors.
Still, though, we can see another instance where a player's incentive and individual goals may not line up when looking at the killer role, too. I know I've had a lot of matches where I feel satisfied with just one kill even though it's pretty obviously a loss, because it was a hard fought match with plenty of close plays and interaction. I lost, by most reasonable interpretations of the game's structures and feedback, but I don't mind that I lost. That doesn't mean the game's win condition is unclear because I was satisfied, though.
0 -
First set survivor wins per win conditions: 0, 0, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 | 40% winrate
Second set: 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 4 ! 40% winrate
Again, per MMR win conditions, survivors are not a team. Each survivor can win or lose individually.
If you want to personally define a "survivor win" only as a 3 or 4 escape, you do you. But if we are going to use the kill / win rates as a point to argue against the balance of the game, we should stick to the win conditions the game uses, and those are what the MMR system defines.
3 -
My boy, you posted this:
It literally says that killers gain points towards their MMR for killing survivors. And it has been explained in the past that you DO actually gain MMR for individual kills. The MMR system does operate on a 1v1 basis and nothing else.
The bullet-point list underneath is a simplification to explain to people that if they lose the majority of their match-ups, their MMR will decrease. That is how the MMR system works, it counts every individual kill and escape. It literally does treat it as 1v1s, even from the killer's side.
7 -
The bullet-point list underneath is a simplification to explain to people that if they lose the majority of their match-ups, their MMR will decrease.
No, the bullet points are literally the win conditions for killers, which are different from those for survivors, making the match for the killer a 1v4 and for each individual survivor a 1v1 against the killer. Meaning, a survivor can win a match even if the killer has also won, as the win conditions are completely asymmetrical.
And it literally says it there: The MMR decreases if a killer does less than a 1K because he lost, and he gains MMR if he does a 3K or more because he won. So no, you DON'T actually gain MMR for individual kills nowadays.
1 -
No, the bullet points are literally the win conditions for killers
No, they aren't. The line above it explains the exact function of the MMR system for killers.
If you kill a survivor, your MMR goes up.
If a survivor escapes, your MMR goes down.
And you can tell this is the case because a 0K drops your MMR more than a 1K, which wouldn't be the case if it ONLY cared about whether or not you beat the opposing team. Similarly, a 3K and a 4K would not differ in MMR gain if the ONLY thing that mattered was whether you beat the team.
The individual kills are what are counted, NOT the team outcome. The fact that you gain MMR if you kill a majority of the survivors is a consequence of winning the majority of your match-ups.
5 -
So, your point is that even if you do a 1K in a match (which, per win conditions, means you have lost and your MMR will decrease), you have still won just because you lose "more" by not killing anybody than by killing 1 survivor? Is that it?
Because if it is not, I don't know how what you said supports your claim that "individual kills ARE wins for the killer", even when they have literally lost according to the game win conditions and will be penalized for it. And if it is, saying that you win even when losing sounds logical to you?
1 -
I think he's saying that your MMR will decrease based on the 3 escapes. But you actually gain MMR from the 1k. So the overall decrease is not as significant as say a 4 escape. You essentially won one but lost 3.
2 -
Yep, each match of killer is four 1v1 matchups for the purpose of MMR. So a 3k is 3 wins and 1 loss. In other words, kill rate = win rate.
1 -
No, it is not, because a win for the killer is a 3K, so a 2K doesn't means 2 wins for the killer, and a 3K is 1 win.
But you didn't win anything, because for the killer, the match is not a 1v1 with each survivor, it is a 1v4.
What you are saying is like being second to last in a competition and claiming that you won just because you weren't the last one, so it could be worst. Dude, you have still lost.
1 -
No what I'm saying is it's closer to a competition with different game modes. A series of mini events or mini games. You may lose the overall competition but still win some of the games
3 -
But you lost the overall competition and will be punished for it by losing MMR, because guess what? For the killer, is not a series of "mini events", it is a full 1v4 match even if for each of the survivors it is a 1v1 against the killer.
So, if the killer does a 1K, the killer lost, 3 survivors won, and another one also lost. That's it. It is not that hard to understand.
3 -
The killer did win against that survivor though. They not only won, they gained MMR for it. The loss of MMR had nothing to do with that win but with the loss from the 3 others. It's one way to look at it.
Personally I still look at it as team vs team but to eachh their own
3 -
Thank you!
0 -
Alright, let's use your logic here: You are playing a match where you need to complete 4 minigames. If you don't complete any minigame, you have to pay 20 dollars. If you only complete 1 minigame, you have to pay 10. If you complete 2 minigames, you don't have to pay anything but don't earn anything either. If you complete 3 minigames, you earn 10 dollars, and completing all minigames, you earn 20 dollars.
You play the match and only complete 1 minigame. Now, have you won the match? Did you "gain 10 dollars" by completing that single minigame, or have you lost and now have to pay 10 dollars? Which of course is better than having to pay 20, but still, you have to pay.
And again, you can look at it however you want. Won't change the previously stated facts.
2
