How do you define winning in dbd?

If the game tells me I won, so a pip.

Obviously no one. :P

Pleasing the emblem gods and getting the PIP. I've had many 4Ks and escapes that really didn't feel rewarding. If I double PIP AKA the pip pip hooray, then I was getting busy no doubt. Mainly with some of the killers you'll sometimes pull off the objective by the hair of your chinny chin chin and the effort involved doesn't really reflect but when it does you feel like you earned it.

Right now I am grinding so I go into it for the bloodpoints. I don't care what the definition of winning is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. If I leave a match either killer or survivor with 20k bp or more, I call that a win.

For myself i tend to side with what make it fun with the Score metric just being a modifyer at the end.

Though this discussion does really also remind me I wanted to ask a similar question but with addition of what they expect of the other and how they rate them. (I will explain below)

As Survivor

my goals(in order of priority): Have fun/ Safety pip / help someone else survive/ Surviving [Please note there are exceptions such as daily ritual, or testing a specific perk or skill improvement on certain technique like flash light save]

While as survivor my expectation of killer (an what rating i would give the killer): playing to get general good emblem /score system (im assuming 20k and above) | Not excessively being to eliminate or keep game hostage (see below) / and being scary (gets extra bonus points).

1. Definition of excessive: Literally capture one person and waiting out in front of person (with no general apparent main reason - eg flashlight etc.) across several matches.
2. Literally having everyone downed an waiting out everyone death... (again across several matches)

Note: I would ONLY rate a killer so called "super/God Tier" if they can effectively do all above with the scare part.

As Killer

My goals are: Have fun | Playing to get good emblem score with the ability to let some survivor live ( the decision on determining that I will admit varies based on mood eg. good Dodges or they escape, pity etc.) | playing their part

My expectation of survivors: Playing to get good emblem scores (assuming 20k up) | Not excessively being arrogant (eg some teabags, unhooking literally in front of me without a forced situation, etc), playing to person character or to the player role based on perks set.

Note: I would ONLY rate a Survivor so called "super/God Tier" if they can effectively do all above with the playing their part.

Hopefully I was clear in my definition on my win factors and my rating system of other players as well. (please feel free to ask me to clarify any points. Sometimes i do find it hard to express myself on the first go.)

A spicy chat after the game with salty killers/survivors is always a win in my books

When I get salt messages at the end

If you do so good that the "best" dbd players trash you with hate messages.

Survivor: Making a good amount of progress, getting a lot of points.

Killer: Killing all 4 Survivors.

Escaping should be considered a "perfect", it should not be the standard for Survivors.

Escaping should be equivalent to the Killer killing all 4 Survivors without a single generator being completed in terms of difficulty.

2-3 kills usually

I will say that one of my most memorablen match was with a nurse that applied such area control and pressure that left me and the other 3 randos paranoid of each screecglh. Myself ( and judging by rest behavior) were scared to even come next to generator less we got the wrath.

[ We all died but I felt I died most heroically since I decided to finish one if last thing I do. { Admit I was near tears while doing gen}]

There's the literal definition that some people are arguing about and then there's my personal definition, which I think is what this thread is about despite the people arguing that "fun isn't winning" (yall must be real fun at parties)

Like many people have said, I consider it a win if I have fun. As killer, I could hook everyone twice and then let them all escape and still count that as a win because of all the bloodpoints (especially if BBQ is equipped)

As a survivor, me and my entire team can die but if the killer didn't camp or tunnel anyone and gave everyone a chance to play the game, again I'd consider it a win.

I go by two systems

Did i have fun? = win

Did i survive/kill two people/pip? = win

if i did either of those things i consider it a win.

though im competitive as ######### usually and only ever really want to ever double pip, or play for fun.

Actually I've almost word for word said what you said in regards to Catan. Sometimes I know I have no chance of getting to 10 points so I celebrate getting the largest Army or longest road

1 kill or 4 hooks as killer, and anyone on my team making it out.

Lol what?! This is insane entitlement. An escape being comparable to a 4K with 5 gens left? You would have 5 hour killer queues, who the hell would play survivor? This would kill the game.

That's not what winning is.

Casual or not Dead by Daylight is a competitive game.

No that's not an oxymoron. The opposite of competitive is cooperative and not casual.

Mario Party is a competitive game for example. Do you win if you have fun in Mario party? NO! You win if and only if you have the most stars.

It's the same deal here, the only difference is that instead of getting stars your goal is to either escape or murder people depending on your role. Does that mean it isn't casual? No, does a game being casual fundamentally change how win conditions work? No. Can you ignore the wincondition and do something else anyways? Sure, but do declare that something else is winning is to say that you aren't playing the same game in the first place.

Agreed. Escape would be comparable to a 4k in general and thus should have the same odds.

I'd estimate a 2.7k in most games (decimal number because it's an average) would be fair and have interesting results given equal 4k and escape odds.

That's because at that Kill rate you can have your odds of winning be equal for all surviving players no matter how many players that is. In otherwords even half way into the game when 2 players are alive your odds of escaping are STILL the same as the Killer getting the 4k, and thus surviving to be the final survivor will give you a 50/50 chance.

But in any case most games should have someone escape. 4K's should be only about 1/3ish games and thus someone should be escaping the remaining 2/3rds of the time.

Still not what a win is.

Personal Goal? Yes. But the distinction is important.

You know what DOES get to define victory to others? The game being played. And I have repeatedly shown that the game has an unambiguous win condition. At that point it isn't an opinion. It isn't "just to me", but it's an objective win condition and you must achieve before you can correctly say that you have won a round of dead by daylight.

But ok, lets humor you. You say the win condition is fun? How are the developers now supposed to balance with that in mind? How do they go about quantifying it in order to ensure that no character is overpowered or underpowered?

If winning is fun then how does a high level player go about optimizing a build with which to achieve this goal? In fact, how do you even determine a high level player at all? And how would you even begin to go about constructing a ranking system that puts the players who have the most fun at the highest rank and the players with the least fun at the lowest?

I just want BP tbh.

The one who escapes is the winner.

And a game being casual doesn't mean it isn't competitive.

Competitive just means you have at least 2 opposing player controlled sides. Which in DBD you do. And guess what! You need a win condition for that to work! Because otherwise you need to design around the possibility that players don't bother competing and thus end up with a game where the intended outcome isn't reached, at which point you don't have a competitive game but a COOPERATIVE game. This is why the ranking system needed to be changed from blood points, the Killer was working with the Survivors in order to maximize BP for everyone and it was defeating the point of the game due to people no longer playing to their win condition.

You can quantify a win in any game you where you can win. In games where you CAN'T win there simply is no state you can reach where you can correctly say you have won, which is just as important.

You can use that game as a basis for a DIFFERENT game which DOES have a win condition, but even if it uses the initial games code it still is a game in of itself that would need to be designed with separate considerations.

For example Minecraft is a game you can't win. But Survival Games is a game you can win. Survival Games is not Minecraft even though it's a game played within Minecraft.

And again, Mario Party's win condition is just as objective as league of legends is. Are you going to try and tell me that Mario Party isn't casual? Or are you saying that the victory screen in that game straight up lies to you sometimes?

I see every trial is like a horror movie, where 1 Survivor is a main character and able to live-escape any dangerous no matter what.

So for me as a Survivor, if I live, even other 3 are death, thats mean Im the main character for that trial, I win. (doesnt mean I selfish and not helping others though)

For Killer if one can get 3 kills, they win. Eventhough when I play Killer, I hook every Survivor twice but DONT KILL. I dont tunnel or camp, because I know how it feel for the Survivor players. Except there is a toxic Survivor, I will tunnel and face camp them to dead.

Source?

Also the game guide has been updated very recently.