http://dbd.game/killswitch
What do killers feel like average kills should be?
So the devs aim for games to be average 2 survivors escape and 2 die. And judging from the public stats, it looks like that is pretty close to actual results. Like on console the worst killer has 40% kill rate and that is the worst
But killer mains are frequently asking for adrenaline nerf or gen nerf or saying the survivors are OP. Killer mains, do you feel like the game should be balanced for an average 3 or 4 kills per game? Not what is, should it be balanced for average 3k or 4k?
Do you think enough people will play survivor for games to happen if you get your wish?
Comments
-
Ok, this is just my opinion, I really believe, as this is a HORROR game, the game should base it's performance on the killers having a higher average than survivors, I play both sides, and do good on both, but yes, it feels like survivors ain't afraid of KILLERS, and that's contrary of what a surviving game should feel like.
I want to feel the wrath of being a killer, and I want to be afraid of being in a chase when being a survivor, but I'm afraid that, right now, the game makes me feel like a bully when I'm a survivor (quite fun though) and as a cat hunting a mouse (Tom and Jerry reference) when I'm killer (even when I usually get 4/4, t-baggers are the proof that a killer ain't someone to be afraid of)
9 -
I base it on hooks not kills, if I hook all the survivors twice it’s a win for me, so much so that after that I just let them all go and grab as many points as possible
5 -
Should be based on pips not kills averages imo.
You can kill all 4 and not pip.
So gens going slow/winning 20+ chases etc. For killer
Balance shouldn't be competitive DbD is a horror.
0 -
Getting a 2K is often a de-pip. Hell, 4K's can be a brutal at red ranks if you use someone like Billy. It should be based off of something else other than kills.
3 -
In my opinion it’s really not horror. You are never going to be afraid of a killer in DBD like you might be afraid of a killer in a game like Outlast or Resident Evil though. That feeling will never exist. You are playing against another player, you aren’t going to fear them. You play this game with more of a competitive mindset, where you just want to beat that opposing player controlling the killer. It doesn’t matter how strong you make killers, that fear factor you are looking for will still not exist. If survivors keep losing, they’ll just switch to killer so they can win. That’s why I do agree with the devs on the balance of 2k. That’s how you keep players on both sides. I mean seriously, if killers were 3-4K at a high rate..who the hell would play survivor?
Thats my take, as someone who has never felt fear playing this game but craps their pants in single player horror games. Just a completely different mindset. To me DBD is more like, I don’t know, action/strategy? It’s hard to label it but I don’t consider it horror.
7 -
2.
Because this game's averages are based out of extremes. The games where you kill exactly 2 people are rare. The more common scenarios I feel are either 1k or 3k, and stomps from either side are common too.
I feel like the amount of extreme experiences should be kinda the same, bringing the average to 2k.
Also this isn't a horror game, this is an action game with horror elements. We ain't playing in a horror movie.
Edit: the changes to hatch pushed a lot of 3ks to be 4ks, but I'm kinda fine with that, as long as the average doesn't get much bigger than 60% kill rate.
2 -
This game just isn't scary after a certain point. I don't feel like any amount of power the killers have will change that.
3 -
As long as you pip or get a 2k
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
Exactly 2.8k average would be ideal.
1 -
Kill rating shouldnt be a balancing tool..it should be based on performance not knee capping one side just so the other side FEELS like they deserved the win..that's why killers like nurse and spirit are important..they are good because they reward you based on YOUR plays..not through luck breaking through your handicaps
0 -
3 should be average
0 -
I don't think so. 3 most of the time implies you killed everyone before the gens were done and one person got hatch. I don't think stomp+hatch should be a standard for anything.
0 -
Even if you did well, but got a 2K, you probably aren't going to pip at red ranks. Which means you didn't win. It should be based of off pips, not kills.
0 -
Ever played Resident Evil? First time i played Resident Evil 4 it was terrifying. 8Th playthough, not so much.
Why would survivor players who have played 50 hours of this game really be afraid anymore?
1 -
Here's the thing.
If a survivor player has a 75% chance that if all sides play equally well, he will lose and see his character die, how long do you think survivors will keep playing? People play games to feel good. Not feel like they lost. What happens when a mere 40% of dbd players are survivor mains? Trapper vs ghostface deathmatch?
0 -
Lol no one will want to play survivor if the average is 4K. What would be the point if you’re not guaranteed to escape?
1 -
2 kills 2 escapes. Anyone who wants more is biased.
4 -
You're not wrong, this whole notion of killers being the "power" role is absurd and I hate seeing it.
I've told people time and time again, this isn't a killer simulator, it's a survivor and killer simulator, you aren't just supposed to come in and 4K every match because you have a special ability.
Why would the entity create a game for the killer if he expected them to win every time?
2 -
The average outcome should be a draw, not a win. 2 kills generally turn out to be safety pips, and that's fine.
You shouldn't be pipping on average unless you're truly above the rank you're currently at.
1 -
Because all those next level gamers can't stand the idea of, gasp, someone playing better than them and escaping.
0 -
It's like that "I'm leaving" thread that's floating around lately, a "seasoned" killer can't get any kills against rank 12s - 15s.
Sorry, but maybe you're just bad? It has nothing to do with balance.
2 -
Somewhere around 2, this was one thing the old ranking system for killers worked for as 2 kills + 1 hook = 1 pip. Lets be real, the game might have a clear horror aesthetic but outside of how new players experience the game it's just not how it's played by players with hundreds or thousands of hours on record, or designed towards for that matter.
But it's impossible to actually balance the game in a way that makes it consistent or even truly visible in the first place. It's an assymetrical game so any state of balance will lead to different results depending on skill level, skill differential (both killer vs survivor and differences between the skill of the 4 survivors), power modifiers like perks, items, add-ons and offerings (moris, map offerings that give player(s) an advantage and so on).
0 -
I don't think it should be an average number. I think the number should reflect performance relative to the opposition. A killer shouldn't be able to completely outplay survivors in every chase but lose to the loadout screen (instaheals, etc) and vice versa.
0 -
@SenzuDuck Why have killer if entity lets escape every time?
🤷♀️
Its easy to brush off the other sides issues/complaints the same way you do.
You don't want killer buff? You want survivors to have easy time.
You want killer buffs? You want ez 4ks.
You just blame instead of explaining your side detailed reasons why killers are supposedly ok and we just suck.
Easier to blame the other side by insulting saying its all skill reliant its their problem instead of addressing games balance issues.
Maps/gen times due to maps are a huge issue for most killers especially saying they need buffs isn't wanting easy 4ks. They can buff killer/nerf survivors faster than they can rework every map.
1 -
I think it SHOULD be balanced on average number of kills and the pipping system should reflect that.
Also, every killer's balance should be designed around an average of around 2 kills per game.
You have to think about how everyone feels playing the game, and if you enter a game knowing you have a 75% chance of dying it's just kinda #########. Same thing about entering a game knowing you'll most likely just kill one person. Balance should work for both sides.
0 -
Assuming the conditions are relatively fair, 2-3 kills.
0 -
But seriously though people who have those fantasies of power with the killer role and play it because it's the "power role" and get mad when people suggest otherwise scare me on a psychological level.
Like, maybe there's something wrong with you on some level?
2 -
@gantes So you don't think its fun to have ad advantage and win because you're playing a strong spooky character?
Did you ever try F13 the game before the lawsuits killed it? Jason was a great example of a power role it was rare and rewarding to escape because he could basically do the equivalent of a spirit phase walk into an insta myers tombstone mori.
You got an adrenaline rush getting close to escape because he was a scary auto kill machine.
0 -
Your fun isn't the only important thing pal
4 -
You clearly didn't read everything i had to say if you think only the killer would have fun.
It would be a challenge to overcome and more rewarding because escape wouldn't be easy. It'd be that omg that was so fun i did it like in dark souls or F13.
All would have more fun
1 -
I can't feel something between 2 and 3 being -ok- simply because PERSONALLY I feel it's more fun to play well and still die as survivor than to get roflstomped as killer. But that's something that people who play more survivor than killer should also get a say in.
0 -
Sorry sweetheart but as much as you want to nitpick saying 2Ks should common and 3/4K should be uncommon is not saying "let everyone escape every time" it's literally the exact opposite.
The fact is the matter is, both sides are supposed to be able to win, while still leaving room for the other side to dominate, I'm sorry that you want to dominate every time but not even the best killers in this game 4K 100% of the time, it's just how it is.
2 -
An average of 2 kills doesn't mean escaping is easy. It just means there's an equal chance of escaping or dying. Which should be the case.
This isn't a horror movie. This is an action game with a few horror aspects. People still want a fair chance to survive. Surviving is still challenging when there's a 50% escape rate.
EDIT: besides, why should anyone but killer have a challenging experience?
0 -
The best killers not 4k ing every match is an issue. If you're that good you shouldn't lose. Like Zubat/Scott you should never EVER see someone escape.
0 -
Smells like teen bias.
Are you unaware that there are also good survivors? I guess that doesn't matter because you want your 4Ks while not being on the same level as Scott & Zubat. I'm pretty sure they'd agree that there would be larger issues with the game if we got to a point where every killer could 4K regardless of survivor skill.
3 -
If it was challenging the teabagging/flashlight clicking wouldn't be a thing 🤷♀️
People are too comfortable around killers at the moment i think. Shows there is plenty of time to waste and its a casual stomp on their side.
0 -
LOL because it's so BAD and EVIL when someone mashes a button against you.
Dude, clearly it's impossible to discuss this seriously with you after this post.
0 -
Survivor individual skill should matter too. I'm not sure if you're just a troll or simply that wrong.
Even on stream you see Scott acknowledging it when he goes against good survivors. "This is a good team, it's gonna be hard" right on the lobby. Because he knows he shouldn't win for free just because he's good.
0 -
While they are amazing killers there is nothing to say that some aren't as equally or more skilled at survivor role so they will and do lose now and again. That isn't even taking into account mistakes being made. The best of the best not 4king every match isn't an issue rather it should be expected when you meet other great players.
I think the main argument most forget when it comes to multiplayer games is your own skill depends on the outcome yes but so does the other players you are versing in a match.
1 -
There is no such thing as a good survivor imo. :)
Its just running from pallet to pallet, gym to gym and mirroring killer movement if they don't break pallets.
While hoping the other 3 are on gens.
Survivor is super easy as Marth proved with depip squad.
0 -
When he says good he means they don't run in a straight line and know how to play tiles. Does that mean they're actually good though? Its not hard to mirror a killer and drop a pallet when they get close...
0 -
When someone's good as killer it means they know where to be and how to play tiles too.
There's a lot more nuance than that, but I can spin anything to be as simplistic and innacurate as you make survivor gameplay to be. Happy?
1 -
OK, you're a troll, we're done here.
0 -
Gawd I wish i remembered stochastics from school.
So if you get a chance to escape and 4 survivors, wouldnt it look somewhat like this?
X= individual escape rate
(1-X)⁴ = chance for 4 kills
X×(1-X)³ = chance for 3 kills
X²×(1-X)² = chance for 2 kills
X³×(1-X) = chance for 1 kill
X⁴ = chance for 4 escapes
Well i could be totally wrong though. Im pretty sure im missing something
0 -
"You're a troll"
That's rude. I disagree with everything you're saying as well but i don't just call you a name. 🤷♀️
There are better ways to say you're exiting a discussion.
Kind of silly to call me just a troll i'm a regular here like you i share my opinion on all sorts of topics and this one we happen to disagree on. Name calling isn't the way to go.
1 -
I play survivor and killer equally and I usually want 3 kills, if I only get 2 that's fine, I don't really care about the last person.
0 -
There are absolutely skill ranges to survivor. Its extremely obvious when going against a good survivor vs even just an above average one. The thing that separates very good survivors from just decent ones are how efficiently they use pallets. In fact, that's pretty much the entire skill ceiling of survivor: how long you can go without using pallets.
A good survivor and a very good survivor might run the killer for the exact same amount of time, but the very good survivor used half as many pallets and chained together tiles/windows/baited at pallets/waited at corners to prevent moonwalking and various other things to preserve the resources of the game longer.
If I go against a team of 4 equally experienced players, I should expect to kill exactly half of them.
1 -
Still 2.8.
If the Kill rate is exactly 2 then that means that for the game to be balanced a 1k needs to turn into a 4K every single game with 50% of games being 0K.
Assuming you don't want something like that, increasing the number of survivors (with 1 survivor being expected to have a 50/50 escape rate in a balanced game) will always decrease the expected escape rate of each individual survivor.
Or in otherwords, since the increased number of survivors increases the total number of losing outcomes more than the number of possible winning outcomes, that means both sides should have a winrate of under 50%
0 -
I got 2.8 by working backwards from a 50/50 winrate in a 1v1.
Those numbers don't take into account the state of the 1v1 so the 50% would be the sum of both hatch plays and endgame situations where the last 2 people power the final gen and then 1 dies ect.
0
