http://dbd.game/killswitch
So if we are aiming for 60 percent kill rates:
Comments
-
Killrates do not necessarily mean a killer is overperforming. There are countless factors to how a match can go wrong in the killer's favor. Freddy is a good example, being the deadliest killer and having a trash power, only because of high mmr players who for the most part don't rely on a power to win, instead just their raw skill and game sense, but also because people often fumble against freddy's new kit, since they dk how to counter it yet
1 -
100% true. Either argue about team vs team or 1vs1vs….
3 -
I don‘t see the difference to be honest. If a killer has a too high kill rate, it needs nerfs. That‘s what balance is after all. I think it is good to give players a bit of time to let them adjust, but 70% (69) is too much. We don’t know what Freddy currently has, maybe it dropped, but if it is still 70% he deserves nerf.
Edit: I think I‘ve understood your point now, but why doesn‘t trapper overarchieve in the same way (if it is just about m1 skill)?
2 -
The irony. People can hate facts and math all they like - it doesn't change reality.
If you don't understand these basics, then I don't know what to tell you. I tried explaining them as simply as I can. If you don't grasp it at this point, well, it is what it is.
Let me try dumbing it down for you further:
If you view it as 4 different 1 v 1, a tie is impossible for each 1 v 1 due to the nature of 1 v 1. If you view it as a team, then both sides must both equally neither win nor lose. Killer wins with a 3k+. You cant have a killer get absolutely no win and the survivor "team" get some winning (2 winners on their team). That by definition has survivors winning more than the killer and in turn is not a tie - the survivors would have made out better than the killer IF you viewed it as a team game.
-4 -
What is the point of your argument now? Killer should win even more ? What do you want to prove?
At the moment killers win 60% of the time when you use the 1vs1vs1… logic and in the team vs team logic it is, separated the draws and the rest needs to be equally divided, because a draw is in that case not a win for survivors.
1 -
One thing most comments in this post are forgetting is the difference between mmr ranks. As the game director has stated, killers are favored in low mmr, and survs in high mmr. This is true for 95% of the killers, and the reason some are so popular. For the low tiers, they are only usable at all in low mmr, try using ghostface or demogorgon in high ranks. Even mastering the killer, it’s difficult to compete against swfs unless said killer is strong. Killers like blight and hillbilly need to exist ( they are also coincidentally very fun, nerfing them would spoil that)
2 -
This is something to definitely consider. While lower MMR does exist, I feel that we should balance the game on the MMR where people actually have good experience in the game. A killer that may seem unstoppable as a new player could actually be the weakest killers in the game once you know how to face them. It's better to balance around experienced play than balancing around newcomers to make the weakest killer even weaker than they are.
That being said, lower mmr naturally gives killers an unfair advantage due to a lack of survivor experience (many new players will hide rather than loop which creates a lot less gen progress). Due to this, I would propose that low MMR survivors get a boost to gen speed. This low mmr boost would be eliminated once they leave the low mmr bracket. This would give newcomer survivors a better playing experience. As for newcomers killers...well…killers already have the advantage at low mmr...they can deal with having survivors having some borrowed power for a bit.
-1 -
Thank you for the question.
No, my point is we should aim for killers to win 50% of their matches (which is 62.5% kill rate, but 60% is close enough). This means nerfing killers like blight and buffing killers like myers (and NOT bring back that darn tombstone).
All I'm doing is explaining that kill rate does not equal win rate - it's a common misunderstanding and I was merely clearing it up. A 60% kill rate is roughly a 50% win rate for killers and is a fine kill rate to strive for that BHVR has set up. We have some people demanding a 50% kill rate thinking that translates to killers winning half the time, but all that means is them on average never winning and only getting a 2k. I also saw people demanding that survivors have a 50% escape rate, but that would be awful for the killer considering that there would be 4 players each with a 50% chance to escape which would result in killers having a 32% chance to ever get a 3k+.
-1 -
Idk trapper's killrate. Though hes weak, people find his kit really boring to play against. Whenever i see him and play as him, people just give up on hook or dc when a basement camp happens. He needs a rework, but i wouldn't be suprised if his killrate was around 50-60% cus of this stat inflation
-2 -
Why should killers win 50% of their matches when survivors aren‘t. Both sides should be relatively close to having the same win rate. At the moment killers win 20% more than survivors, that‘s nowhere near being competitive or fair.
The target I would find the fairest is a 55-60% kill rate. Currently we have 60-65%, which the devs stated themself.
1 -
This is a great idea! However the ideal would be an in game guide of how to play survivor and how to face specific killers, something similar to the loading screen but giving tips mid match or something. But as a stopgap measure boosting gen speeds in low mmr is a good idea as long as balanced correctly and with caution to not make new killer experiences miserable.
A guide like that could also be implemented for killer side one day, but new survs definitely struggle more.-1 -
They don’t need nerfs, they need to be made more difficult. Freddy is c tier and has an overly high kill rate, not because of his strength but because he is easy.
-4 -
The devs target for being too strong is more than 65% and he is 4% above that.
Making him more difficult to play would also be some form of nerf.
1 -
Not necessarily, for example the ghoul reduction of auto aim helps the higher level ghouls.
A good change would be making snares faster for example. A buff, but you would have to start doing more prediction skillful shots rather than zoning. He would be stronger and more dígito use. (Just an example, maybe not the optimal change)Or increasing the cooldown but also increasing the hindered strength.
0 -
I don‘t think that is a nerf-buff. It’s just a flat buff and he performs perfectly fine according to the current kill rate in high MMR, so he definitely needs no buff there.
1 -
That was supposed to be an example. Take the ghoul auto aim reduction instead. That was a nerf that buffed him in high mmr.
0 -
I don‘t think Freddy has something like that.
0 -
Wins or in this case pipping, isn't based on either of those, its based on stages. Competitively as well, wins are based on your kill equivalent, not in game sacrifices. Blood point score events and emblem gains are more about even progress across all 4 survivors
-2 -
Because its 4 v 1.
If every survivor had a 50% chance to escape, then the killer would rarely ever win (32% chance, in fact). If this was a 1 v 1, then sure, 50/50 is great. However, it's not. The killer is going up against 4 players...not 1. The killer is entirely alone in his goal. The survivors have 4 people.
Think of it this way. If you have a coin, you have a 50/50 chance roughly to get heads. Now imagine you have 4 coins. How often do you think you'd end up with at least 3 heads after flipping all 4 coins? Not very often.
If you have 4 survivors going against the killer, each survivor has to have a lower win rate. The more the survivors, the less each needs to have a win chance.
Let's put it into perspective. Let's say there were 4 million survivors and they each have a 50% chance to win vs 1 killer. How often do you think the killer would win if 4 million of them each had a 50% win rate? Pretty much winning would be numerically impossible except after a few thousand years. It's a crazy example, but the point is - the more survivors the killer has to face, each of their escape rates would have to be reduced to make it fair for the killer player.
It's an asymetric game where the killer is outnumbered. That means the killers chance at winning naturally has to be higher than an individuals survivors chance at winning.
Now, let's say hey, that's a good point. Why don't we view it at a survivor group level (and ignore the fact the gsme isn't designed that way). We would then need to define what a survivor teams win is. Considering a killer wins by a 3k, let's say survivors win with a 3 escape. In order to have a perfectly balanced 50% chance for both the killer team and the survivor team, then the escape rate for each individual survivor would need to be 38.5%. That puts both teams at a 50% win rate. Now that being said, that's not how the game is designed (survivors being on a team and winning or losing together), but if that's how it did work, that's how the numbers would fall in line.
-1 -
This links back to the game using the glicko (1v1 game) rating system rather than elo (team game). DBD should be two teams vsing eachother, not a 1v1v1v1v1
1 -
10000000000% agreed and an upvote from me. It's a terrible way to balance the game, but thats how the devs have balanced and designed the game. I think the game would be MUCH better if it was killer team vs survivor team, and the survivors all win or lose together (AND it would promote more teamwork!).
Again, I'm not saying how it should be - im saying how it is currently designed and balanced around. I'm just clarifying for people who think survivors should each have a 50% chance to win would be some great idea - it would not. They misunderstand that a 50% win for one survivor doesn't just apply globally for all players - that's not now asymmetrical games work.
Edit - for transparency, I play both killer and survivor. Over the past 6 months I have mostly just played solo queue, though I typically prefer killer. If I'm actively playing both, my split is usually 60 killer and 40 survivor. I nearly have my first p100 survivor (had a p70 claudette but dropped her for my boi Alan Wake who is at about p80), as well as a p100 ghostie and a few p30 killers (mostly slinger/myers/pig/dredge/unknown/xeno). Despite my unhappiness with how Survivors are balanced, I'm not letting that affect my view on the reality of how the numbers are balanced by BHVR.
0 -
Continuing to repeat the same flawed argument doesn't make you correct. A 2k isn't "no win" for the killer. Its 2 wins and 2 losses. 50% win rate. 50% kill rate. Almost sounds…balanced!
Or if you view it as a team, then a 2k is a DRAW. TIE. STALEMATE. STAND OFF. DEAD HEAT. TOSS-UP. Not a draw "but survivors win some" Not a draw "but the killer lost".
0 -
Look man, you are welcome to ignore the math and ignore how the game has been designed by the devs. If you're not willing to have a discussion, I'm just not going to bother responding to you further. In the end though, and I know it may trouble you, but the reality remains and the math is sound. Demanding that all survivors get a 50% escape rate would not work out how you think it would.
-1 -
First of all I‘m not advocating for a 50% escape rate for survivors, I‘m for 55-60% kill rate (40-45% escape rate). I get that for the game to make sense the chance for dying needs to be higher than escaping, but there shouldn‘t be a 20% difference between dying and escaping. Giving the killer a 10% higher chance at doing so is enough.
Can you please before we continue decide which type of thing we are arguing with team vs team or 1vs1vs….? So I can respond without you being able to switch to the other side.
I also don‘t get how you come up with the numbers, but please don‘t write a super long text for that again. Let me respond first.
-1 -
Forum ban speedrun
-5 -
My apologies - I had the claim of wanting the survivors to have a 50% escape rate confused with someone else.
The numbers are just some basic math regarding averages when splitting multiple numbers (4 survivors) and comparing against once number (the killer). It's easy to do in your head if it was just 1 killer and 1 survivor (obviously both would be 50% and 50%), but once you start adding more people on a "side" (ie the survivors), that 50% begins to get reduced to maintain balance\equality. The more survivors, the lower their escape rate is, though I assume you're already aware of that. If you really want the math breakdown, I'll put it together when I have some time - I already tossed my notes. XD
EDIT: Okay here is the math
EDIT UPDATE- this is for a 50% killer win, but that does not equate to a 50% survivor team win since there is no survivor team currently how the game is designed. For a killer to get a 50% win rate while facing 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition, each survivor would need a 38.5% escape rate. IF we pretended survivors were all on a team that win\lose\tie together and require a 3+ escape for their "team" to win, survivors would need a 44.2% escape rate for the killer team and survivor team to have equal chances of winning (which allows for ties, too).
Random, but okay. People are allowed to provide feedback about the game both negative and positive. There's a lot of people here who do not like the whole 1 v (1 1 1 1) aspect and would prefer it just be two teams. There's also a lot of people who would prefer the devs balance around hook counts instead of kills (ie a killer with 9 hooks would win, but that would still leave room for 3 survivors to also win). It's a bit silly to claim all of these people deserve forum bans.
Post edited by RpTheHotrod on2 -
Wait i quoted the wrong post mb
1 -
That makes more sense - I was very confused, ha! All good, buddy.
2 -
Brother he said the exact same thing. Are you even reading what he said? He keeps pointing out that its a 1v1v1v1v1, using the glicko rating system. Also outing in general has nothing to do with winning, dbd doesn't do "winrates" they do killrates and escape rates. A win is determined mostly by your bp gain, which is heavily impacted by spreades pressure across all 4 survivors. To put it simply, wins are determined by hook stages and the bp gained for playing the game as intended
-3 -
How many more strong killers do we need to nerf before survivors finally stop complaining?
Instead of studying assassins and their weaknesses, people keep saying they are having a hard time.
Strong killers win because most of the survivors can't and don't want to learn anything.
-1 -
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!!!!
Survivors keep complaining about every killer instead of even trying to play against them and learn their counterplay! They go next on hook and complain! The worst part is that they actually got some killers DESTROYED! Chucky, Skull merchant and almost xenomorph! The devs NEED to stop catering to the WRONG PEOPLE!
0 -
The funny thing is I know Freddy is most likely just because he is new, the others have been around for a long time and do need dealt with, they have more consistent data.
You're just outright wrong, people only complain about S-Tiers, which we've had a lot of recently. They have the data and they must have been performing really well so they took action. Said killers have more interaction (Bar skully who is the only one I'd agree is not in a great place anymore), if a killer is performing super well across the board, they are S-Tier by stats and facts, not by your favourite content creators opinion:
-Dracula is still strong and is in a much healthier place, my secondary killer
-Chucky doesn't win at pallets anymore by default, as it should be, only punishes greed/bad positioning, before he just got hits for free
-Wesker is still strong and fun to use (but needs QoL for controller and needs his techs removed)
-Nurse is flat out broken and needs dealt with
-Blight is flat out broken and needs dealt with
-Xeno's tail tech needed dealt with, and they are still fine to play, even strong on some loops, people were once again getting free hits with their tail drag. People like me who played them casually havn't been effected by the change.
-Ghoul is still flat our broken and needs dealt with so he has interactivity because they have been designed boring.
-Clowns haste stacking has been dealt with, zero interaction.
-Houndmaster is getting more bug fixes and works just fine, I play her all the time.
-Unknown is in a good place, they are my main they have tons of interaction
-Freddy's rework was successful, fun to use and effective too.
Killers acting like the killers are nerfed into being useless, you just don't have unfair techs to grant you instant wins at loops. Saying we have to learn to play? Survivor gameplan has barely changed for 8 years and you still don't know how to chase them with anti-loop powers? I think that says more about the killers crying about survivors complaining than it does about survivors who have to deal with NEW POWERS every chapter.
Skully mains are the only ones who have a right to complain tbh, and there rework is on the way so…. /shrug2 -
No you are just simply wrong and biased towards survivors. lol you are saying chucky and skull merchant were s tier, no, they got obliterated for survivors complaining (they want every killer trash tier like this) while survs get OVERPOWERED perks like shoulder the burden or duty of care every patch which killers need to adapt to. So don’t start with the survivor victim complex here.
Blight is FINE. He doesn’t need to be dealt with, the terror radius change already gives survivors a greater warning. It’s ok for him to be strong, he doesn’t break the game like nurse. Maybe make him recharge ONE token after manually breaking a pallet.
Clown DIDNT NEED the indirect nerf, it just made a very weak killer even worse.
Ghoul is FINE, he only needs his range back to 16 meters and instead nerf the pallet vault speed.
Wesker techs are some of the most fun parts of his kit, and need to be KEPT. HE IS FINE.
You are asking for killers to be butchered when they DONT NEED CHANGES out of nothing but spite when that would destroy them. Only nurse needs to be changed.
Post edited by lord_of_dogs on-1 -
The Nurse's blinks is already broken on a huge number of maps.
0 -
Thats what I said… she needs changes.
-1 -
I am going to run the math later today as well. But I think that outliers are ok. Id point to how R6 does their pick rate and win rate info graphs for operators and say we should get that for DBD
0 -
Always happy to see more people mathing it out, but keep in mind, their statistics show that at high MMR (where people have good experience in the game to know how to properly play) that people in a 4 man squad have their individual escape rates at 48% all the way down to solo queue being in the low 40's%. That's not outliers, that's the average across the playerbase. Just keep that in mind.
-1 -
I wish we had stats for the Asian servers, since their meta is so unique. I would love to see the difference
2 -
Honestly even 100% kill rate is irrelevant if that killer has 0.00001% pickrates, that's pretty much those high tier killers
-2 -
Heya, so by request, I've included another math situation.
There are two situations that DBD could be designed around:
- The game is 1 killer vs 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition. In order for the killer to win 50% of the time, each survivor would need a 38.5% escape rate. This is currently how the game is designed.
- The game is 1 killer vs 4 survivors who win\lose\tie together. While the game is not designed this way, I know MANY (myself included) would prefer the game to be this way. If it WAS this way, then ties MUST be considered. This ends up mathing out to survivors needing a 44.2% escape rate in order for both the killer team and survivor team to have an equal chance at winning (while also respecting ties).
Current BHVR released stats shows the following for experienced players:
Solo - 40.4% escape rate
Duo - 40.0% escape rate
Trio - 42.3% escape rate
Quad - 48.2% escape rate
For currently how the game is designed (#1 above), we're doing pretty well for survivors, as each are above the 38.5% escape rate. Solo\Duo overperforms by ~2%, Trio overperforms by ~4%, but Quads clearly overperforms with a large ~10%.
However, if we were to pretend that survivors are all a team that win\lose\tie together (which is NOT how the game currently is but imho should be), then solo\Duo underperforms at ~4%, Trio underperforms at ~2%, and Quads over perform ~4%
So is the game balanced? If we take the game at face value that BHVR has presented to us, yes, it's generally balanced but in the survivors favor - but it becomes problematic in balance in quad squads. If we reject BHVR's definition of how the game is designed and instead consider survivors as a team that requires 3+ escapes for any of them to win, then survivors are slightly underpowered with their "ace in the sleeve" as being in a full 4 man squad which is still problematic but does help offset the 1-3 squads underperforming.
Post edited by RpTheHotrod on2 -
Very good math
1 -
According to this. These killers could use slight buffs. Its not 100% accurate but close enough. Do I think nurse and blight need a buff? No lol.
2 -
I wish they'd give us the full roster stats more often. They do it so rarely that we're forced to use Nightlight as our only real data source. Like I'm not sure their reasoning behind only showing us top performers that are overperforming as based on previous data and Nightlight pretty consistently shows that the majority of the killer roster is underperforming. It just seems weird to show like the 10% that are too good, when 90% are doing bad. Doesn't seem like where the focus should be.
Some of them are like really underperforming, not just a few %.
0 -
While the game is not designed this way, I know MANY (myself included) would prefer the game to be this way
What are you suggesting they change in order to make it "this way"? Are we talking about the MMR system?
If so, then why? Any discussion of "fairness" should be independent of the matchmaking system because it's meant to be a sanity test AGAINST the matchmaking system.
I thought we were just looking at numbers and deciding whether they are "fair." What else are you including? I'm confused.
0 -
I totally get where you are coming from!
1 -
If the killer does this:
4k, 0k, 0k, 0k, repeat
then they could have a 25% win rate, yes. If this happens:
1k, repeat
the their win rate would be 0%.
So, like I've done here, show us a series of matches where the kill rate is exactly 50% but the killer's win rate is not. You can spread out the kills/escapes however you want.
0 -
I'm…not sure if you're being serious here or not, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say the killer plays 1,000 matches, and in every one of those matches, he only gets 2 kills. That's a 50% kill rate with a 0% win rate.
As for your example, a 4k, 0k, 0k. 0k, 1k, 0k, 0k, 0k does not equal a 0% win rate. Pretty darn low, though.
0 -
I'm being serious. Go back to my previous question: Why can't we consider this a series of ties and a perfectly balanced game? I mean, are you saying the survivors (despite half their team dying per match) are winning 100% of the time?
I'm honestly confused about what is so bad about this scenario.
0 -
Ah, do you mean in regard to how the game IS currently, or how I'd prefer the game be (survivor team vs killer)?
How the game is currently, it's 1 killer vs 4 individual survivors each doing their own thing along with each having their own win condition. If the killer kills 2 survivors, he failed to secure a win (killer needs 3k to be considered a win), 2 survivors lost, and 2 survivors won. The win conditions are not equal because it's an asymmetrical game. The killer has a total of 4 opponents to defeat, while survivors only have 1 opponent. There's no tie in this type of situation, as a killer and a survivor cannot neither win or lose (unless you count the server crashing, ha).
If you're talking about how I'd like the game to be, where survivors all win\lose together, then ties are possible, as the survivors have a win condition that would in theory be at least 3 survivors escaping to mirror the killer's win condition of needing 3 kills. In this case, a tie is naturally possible. It's possible to have both teams have a equal chance at winning if survivors had a 44.2% chance to escape. Each team would have a 31.25% chance to win, and a 37.5% chance to tie - I feel it would be acceptable. Killer got some kills, and survivors had some escapes. If we count a win as major positive, and a tie as minor positive (got some decent points for the match being a draw - gj for both sides), then that means the majority of matches would have at least some sort of positive outcome. That means 68.75% of the time on average, matches would be a positive outcome in some way for all players (A 31.25% chance for your team to win and a 37.5% chance for your team to tie). Let's just round it up and say that all matches would have a 69% chance for the outcome of the match to be positive in some way for their team (nice).
IF we went with the second option (team vs team) - Win percentages would shift significantly to make room for ties, but I think in general it would be better for the game. Both sides would have equal chances at winning, with ties being slightly more common as the outcome. This would also include balancing survivors around having a 44.2% chance to escape (that maths out to both sides having an even chance at winning). This would also push 4Ks and 4 escapes to be less common and more like outlier wins which are generally overkill and isn't ever really fun for the losing side. Bear in mind, there are balance issues at an individual perk or individual killer level - some killers are just too powerful as are some killer\survivor perks and would need to be brought back in line. This also means a lot of weaker killers would need to be buffed to also be brought back in line (mostly m1 killers with no mobility).
Post edited by RpTheHotrod on1 -
Right, so what would have to change to make the game the second (preferable?) option?
In the first option, the killer has FOUR wins they can get. In a 2k, they won 2 out of 4, for a 50% win rate. Two of the survivors won and two lost, for an average win rate (on the survivor side) of 50%. No ties. Perfectly balanced.
Edit: Also, you didn't answer my question: What would be so bad about the 2k scenario? Setting math aside, what are you trying to prevent here?
0
