16 game lose spree - Survivor 40% winrate where?

On low MMR (and starting MMR), I've always thought its pretty hard to be bad at the killer role to match the level that survivors can be bad at their role. Especially with the M1 killers, if the survivors are running into walls or otherwise not looping 'properly', literally you just have to follow scratch marks and walk them down. It doesn't have as many complexities if the survivors aren't creating issues first.

I know when I was starting most my escapes where due to killers just not playing or letting everyone go.

So… what's happening here?

It's actually quite simple. For the escape rate to average 40%, there have to be people who escape more than 40% in all their games and people who escape less.

So, it's just that you're in the lower half of the average.

80% sure they absolutely counts self-sacrifice, there is no way to differentiate those who suicide and those who just bad at the game…yet

and DCs aren't something that should be counted, if anything there is higher chance that'll actually reduce kill rates as killer leaving would immediately counts as 4e

I am in a duo with my friend rigo and we have played 10 matches this evening together. We have only lost 2 so far.

Update. We did 15 matches. Lost 2.
Once against a P100 Pinhead and once against Houndmaster 🐕

However even in my own MMR, the number of players I see on Survivor who make quite frankly baffling decisions is astounding to me

I've never seen a killer throw a game so hard in a instant

I think these are good points and I've had two games recently that illustrate this.

In one, we were facing a Chucky. One survivor is hooked, he gets in a chase with another survivor, but then drops chase and switches targets (I was on a gen and had Kindred). The first survivor just kept running, every time he would come back I could see when he would hit the terror radius and retreat.

He should have been going for the save, instead he ended up eventually doing a corner gen. Did he think the Chucky was still on him? That the other survivor was going for the save? Or that I was doing a gen close to the hook? Any of those are possibilities I don't know whether the mistake was because of bad play, lack of experience, or just guessing wrong on what was happening.

Second game and on killer mistakes. Playing a Huntress who wasn't very good, missed the vast majority of her hatchets. Also played a poor game, really stuck to trying to defend a 3 gen from the start even though she didn't have a gen defense build.

But even with all of that, at one point she had a survivor on hook, and I was on a gen and she hits me with a hatchet, I retreat and run into an injured survivor who was coming toward that gen, and instead of splitting up we both ran in the same direction and ended up in the corner. If she pursues us there despite many mistakes, us sticking ourselves in the wrong area probably loses us the game.

Fortunately, she went back to protect her gens and we were able to heal up. In the end game chat she said we were a 4 person gen rushing SWF, which was absurd based both on our builds and how we played.

Perception is really a huge part of the game. It will never happen, but it would be fascinating if the replay option existed to rewatch the match from others perspectives.

OP: "Around 1000 hours on Survivor, trash at looping, I lose 15 times in a row regularly. Fix your game so I win 40% of the time, devs!"

You: "The forum is so Killer biased for saying you are just bad!"

Another day in the DbD community.

Strangely, statistics says otherwise…

Lower escape rate for both low and high MMR

The devs have said publicly and repeatedly that the direction of game balance has been a target of a 60% kill rate overall. Which means that survivors should be escaping roughly 40% of the time.

They've also said that this target 60% number is for "the feel of the game". I've also never seen a game work to be more competitive over time, while also saying that your choice of which team you play has a massive impact on your expected match outcome. We have had (and currently have) killers who win twice as many matches as the survivors they face, which happens at around the 67% kill rate mark.

So, they took the game from a roughly 50% kill rate around patch 6.1.0 three years ago, and intentionally made changes to the game to increase the kill rate. That's literally "making the game easier for killers".

Here's a post from literally a couple weeks ago where they give stats showing that their goals are being met:

https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/game-info

I have played during that time it wasn't really fun imo

Honestly, the direction of the game has caused a huge number of casual (survivor) players to quit. So the "ideal match" that a lot of players claim to want has been pushed away from the game because of this balance decision.

I used to play with a SWF 4 man who played to hang out. We messed around, drank on a weekend and played. The balance changes drove all of us away, leaving mainly competitive "sweaty" players to continue playing.

In reality 50% win rate equal is going to be 56-58% kill rate depends how killer perform on their loses.

This completely ignores that draws exist. Even if it's all we have, and limited data, overall killers are doing better than survivors.

Overall, matches are roughly 49% 3k-4k, 37% 0k-1k, and about 14% are draws at 2k. That also means that, just by playing killer and nothing else, you start with a 33% higher chance of winning. I'm a game where, as survivor, your team can win even while you still die.

Even ignoring "win", the 60% kill rate is completely arbitrary. Nearly everything about the current state of the game says that 60% is too much to be healthy: massive uptick in "go next" and hopeless matches, killers way too easily stomping teams that are at their skill level, causing them to go against opponents better than they are and making matches frustrating, driving casual players away, the devs being forced to add even more band aid fixes instead of dealing with core problems (first bots, now surrender).

It's not competitive, and it's not casual. It's just arbitrary. The only reason people defend this is because they want easier games, and the devs have been more than happy to tip the scales in their favor.

Your 0% is countered by someones 100%. It's 40% average across all players.

Just like 60% kill rate isn't saying every killer gets a 3K.

Do the Devs have a goal of the game being killer side? Yes

I don't think it's incorrect for game to be slightly killer sided. It simply makes sense to me, killer should be power role while survivors try to escape them.

It's also way more stressful role to play and where lack of players affects game faster.

Thing is if you have issue with 60-65% kill rates, then you better have issue with 50-57% kill rates. In reality it's impossible to balance all killers to be between 57-60%, because there is too many variables to it and not all of them can be changed.

You can find reasoning for both high and low kill rates, but if you want to ignore reasoning for high kill rates, then we should ignore reasoning for low kill rates too.

If you want to lower kill rates, then solution is not really nerf every over performing killer, but rather simply buff soloQ and then under performing killers if needed. SoloQ right now is main enabler of such kill rates.
We have seen high kill rates on killers that should not be even close to those, but those were simply soloQ/noob stompers.