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
Balancing the game around 60% kill rate makes no sense
Why would someone play a multiplayer game where they're expected to lose most of their matches?
Combine it with the fact that solo queue is a massive coinflip with people disconnecting and giving up on hook.
There's just no way to enjoy the game if you play solo and actually care about winning.
Playing killer became way too easy as well unless you play non-meta killers against a decent premade
Comments
-
You're expected to win slightly less than half your matches as the survivor team in a horror asymmetrical pvp game because the other side is supposed to be able to win sometimes too. A 50% survivor win rate means that killers get to win barely any of their matches on average.
8 -
Kill rate does not equal win rate
Guy made a post while ago about reality % and 60% was around 52% win rate, which is suddenly not that much higher…
Which means 50% kill rate some players want is simply killer losing most of their games. In data Ghostface had lowest kill rate with 50.5%, which was 42.9% win rate.
It also seems logical to me that side with disadvantage (amount of players) should be the power role, otherwise it is bully simulator…
There's just no way to enjoy the game if you play solo and actually care about winning.
You should not play soloQ if you expect to win. That's like playing Trapper and try to play seriously… That's simply not how it works.
If you want to sweat, go play SWF, then you are going to win against most killers.
8 -
There's just no way to enjoy the game if you play solo and actually care about winning.
I do. All the time, in fact. And I care enough about my winrate to track it and other stats for my solo play. Solo survivors may be more chaotic but they're also perfectly capable of winning. You do have to fully pull your own weight and sometimes you have to play around some… choice decisions from them, but that's part of the challenge, and enjoying a challenge is key to any game, no?
More broadly, if you don't enjoy the game solo, just don't play solo survivor. Games are meant to be fun, after all.
2 -
a 50% kill-rate killer will 3k or 4k, 42% of the time. the killer would barely ever win.
Post edited by Devil_hit11 on8 -
Because ideally the goal is to emulate a slasher flick: Killer kills a couple people and the last one(s) alive escape. Then based on skill players being able to shift that to a degree.
Unfortunately, while a moviegoer gets to continue watching through the movie without any media shift as characters die, once a Survivor dies in DBD their engagement with the game media ceases.
Really hope they add some kind of "afterlife" mechanic to keep players playing after they die, and ultimately able to see if their efforts helped others escape from the Killer or not.
2 -
An eliminated survivor can still spectate. There should never be a mechanic that allows an eliminated survivor to affect the outcome of the match.
1 -
A 50% win rate would be a 62.5% kill rate (halfway between a 2k and a 3k), so a 60% kill rate means you're expected to win slightly under half of your matches.
3 -
Do you want to play solo against Nurse and Blight? developers don't care, the main thing is to buy skins. But you'll be a slug in a beautiful skin.
2 -
Yes, their "game" now becomes a "movie", but it is no longer a game.
I agree they shouldn't be allowed to interact with the Trial any further, but it'd be nice if somehow it was still a game.
1 -
A 50% win rate would be a 62.5% kill rate (halfway between a 2k and a 3k)
How did you get that number?
Data I talked about was based on results from nightlight. 50% win rate is not even close to 62.5% on anyone.
Issue is if you have a killer who is good at securing 1 kill at least (camping), kill rate is going to seem higher even with killer who has same win rate, but not by camping.
btw here is link to the post I talked about:1 -
im in agreement that we should have a 60% kill rate… but doesnt this kill distribution show that its a 0k/1k about 44% of the time, rounded up?
2k philosophy is a huge part of the balancing point discussion, but if you think 2k = draw then this isn't necessarily poor balance.
(again, Im in agreement with you, im of the opinion that 2k = survivor win and under that philosophy 60% KR = 50% WR.)
1 -
literally. they expect me to want to play a game where im statistically destined to lose the majority of my games? rocket league could never
2 -
You shouldn't talk about statistic, when you clearly know nothing about it…
4 -
Dying does not necessarily mean losing. A 1k is still a hard loss for the killer, and if I die to ensure that the rest of my team escapes, that's usually a win in my book.
3 -
Are we gonna ignore that the kill rate is inflated by survivors giving up on hook that drag their whole team down ?
So maybe 60% is not a bad target overall.
I would be curious to see the kill rate if we ignore the matches where this happens.
5 -
The way I'd go about this is make the BP's gained in a match a total of all 4 survivors efforts put together, so you can have an incentive to keep watching and get BPs or not feel bad when you're tunneled out when playing with friends. Or better yet, have all 5 players BP's count toward their grand total, encouraging fair gameplay for all when and stopping tunneling people out to maximise BP gain possibly.
I don't understand why so many perk abilities dont have score events either.0 -
i count 2k as losses as they break win-streaks so yeah. balancing around 50% means that every killer should be ghostface-level or lower.
every killer ability would be at best 1 perk slot, like you go undetectable. the power.
2 -
Here wo go again with people juggling with numbers they do not understand to justify the 60% kill rate.
3 -
Like it or not DBD is a casual game not designed for SWF gameplay. If they did the kill rate will increase to 90+% and many casuals who make up most of the actual player base would LEAVE. BHVR is walking a very fine tight rope not too hard for most of the player base will still trying to balance against SWFS in some ways.
0 -
The reason the Killer killrate is the way it is, is because of the Survivors, there are four and for them to lose, 3 must die.
With a 60% to 65% kill rate Killers will at completely fair mmr, they will kill 2.4 to 2.6 survivor each match.This means the game could go either way for either Killer or Survivor because its hanging on 2.5 roughly, which means the third Survivor is always contested or 50/50 for the Killer and the Survivors Sides. This is how you make a 1v4 game fair.
This is also why for Killers less than 2 is a loss, 2 Dead Survivors is a draw in MMR, they have to kill 3-4 to go up.
They have to be better than average of their MMR to progress. Survivor are different needing win via Exit Gate or die to lose to change their MMR, and Draw via Hatch.2 -
Matches with DC don't count already, but in most soloq matches, even without someone DC or gave up on hook, survivors do more for killing, than killer himself.
Hens reached 62% ESCAPE rate in soloq just with him playing slightly more team oriented. And honestly, I don't know how some players in soloq expect to escape at all with their skills, playstyle and knowledges. Majority of players with 1000h I went against know nothing except how to use Lithe as soon as they see me. Good, if they don't jump with it into my face.2 -
People being self centered is why solo queue is so miserable whether it's giving up early, playing for a pointless solo escape, or any number of things. Me running the killer for a long time and being the only death IS A WIN.
3 -
First, a definition of a win. A win is a 3k or higher.
That being said, if a killer had a 50% kill rate, that means on average he's getting only 2Ks - not enough for a win. If the killer had a 75% kill rate, then on average he's getting 3 kills (a win). Kills are essentially broken down into "chunks" of 4 which means the same thing but just a different way to view it. Every 25% is a chunk…and every "n" where n is a kill numerical value is also a chunk. In other words, a 0% kill rate is 0 kills. A 25% kill rate is 1 kill. A 50% kill rate is 2 kills. A 75% kill rate is 3 kills. A 100% kill rate is 4 kills. Those are our 4 possible chunks…you can ready it as either 0-4 or 0% - 100% in steps of 25. In order to have a "perfect" (on average) 50% win rate, then you must be halfway between a 2K and a 3K on average…meaning you need 2.5 kills on average for a 50% win rate. Over the course of several matches, that .5 will get you a win every other match. Just remember, that's just averaging across a lot of matches. While it's true killers can sometimes get 0 kills or 4 kills, we're just talking strictly averaging which would take those anomalies into account. Anyway, regarding the 2.5 kill rate, that .5 is "half" of our chunks - or another way to see it, 12.5% (half of 25% which is also one of our "chunks"). So, a 2.0 + 0.5 kill rate (ie a 50% + 12.5% kill rate) puts killers on average smack dab on a 50% win rate. Since killers are actually designed around a 60% kill rate (NOT a 62.5% kill rate), then they are designed on average over the course of multiple matches to win sliiiiiiightly under half of their matches.
Bear in mind, this is based on what the community wildly accepts is a win condition for killer (3k+). A dev awhile back posted that getting a single kill is a killer win which doesn't make sense at first, but that was just them trying to reinforce the idea that every match there are 4 "battles" of 1 v 1 going on. That means from their POV, the killer can win anywhere between 0-4 times in a single match. That's just overly complicated to try to work with, so most of the community just sticks to a 3k+ being a killer win and don't really take too much heed to the concept that every match has 4 individual and distinct 1 v 1 scenarios happening at once. While that statement is absolutely true, a killer only getting a single kill while 3 others escape doesn't really feel much like a win nor a good way to balance the game around that being a killer victory.
2 -
Because its 1v4? Why do people have such a hard time understanding this? If you can only have "fun" when you win, then you are functionally too immature to play this game.
2 -
I think its a like a glass half full situation, people see a 65% Killrate for the Power-role Killer and assume Survivors only win 40% of the time, but they forget or ignore the fact that they are 4 Survivor- role players, making it very likely someone will survive any game.
0 -
Problem: "keep watching" doesn't make it a game, it's still a "movie".
How about something like after being killed/sacrificed there's an echo ("spirit form") of themselves still stuck in the Trial until it ends?
This echo is able to see Survivors (but not the Killer) and other echos, Survivors on Hook are able to see these players.
This echo is able to interact with points on the map where an event occurred to them:
- Where they got hit by the Killer
- Where they were Healed or where they helped heal another survivor
- Where they were Hooked
- Where they were downed
- Where they repaired a generator
- Where they opened a chest
- Where they cleansed a Totem
- etc.
Interaction with these points duplicate the BP earned (getting the same amount of BP as the Killer did at base for certain events), but isn't able to overcap Trial bloodpoints. (incentivizing trying not to die too quickly, and doing stuff)
Survivors that successfully escape the Trial get 50% more bloodpoints that bypasses Trial BP caps (as they aren't able to make use of this feature, and to incentivize not just sacrificing themselves)
Echo players can also opt to exit the match via the quit match menu option without any penalty, or phase through the Exit gates.
0
