Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
These stats finally show that survivors have been right.
Comments
-
It's funny how they say that DC's don't count. But in the end it's a 3 vs 1 because of the dc, which is gonna be the death of the 3 Survivors most likely.
So practically they still count the match as a 3k even if the Killer had an easy game because of the dc, which means the dc still counts passively.
Unless they completely ignore matches with at least 1 dc, which I don't think. Because then, they wouldn't have enough ressources to make stats out of them.
1 -
The devs specifically said that any matches with disconnects are disregarded.
Key word here being matches.
4 -
And they still have enough material to make stats of even if like 50 % of all matches have at least 1 dc in it. Something isn't right there but ok.
1 -
I bet you would if they said the kill rate was 40% lol
8 -
If a killer kills 3 or 4 it's because the survivors are crap.
If a killer kills 0 or 1 it's because survivors are OP and SWF is broken.
6 -
None. Peanits specified that matches with dc's were not included.
2 -
There's a ton of red tank variety on ps4 that probably skews the overall results. People complaining they only saw Nurse and Spirit never rang true for me.
1 -
I second this. I am a red rank on PS4. Play Dbd daily. Always get a decent variety of killers. Which is nice. Helps me enjoy it more.
1 -
The stats have shown the OPPOSITE lmao. 2K is a black to de-pip which is a LOST AND A DRAW. A WIN IS AT LEAST A 3K which is where a good player should always be at. The IQ levels.... OH BOY.
0 -
Survivors can make mistakes 3+ times and they still want to survive. The only mistake killer can make is to let them slip away then it's all over.
0 -
Survivor main saying Killer mains ######### too much. LMAO ok, stay delusional my dude. I bet you are among the people that think Survivors aren't the power role when the exact opposite is proven COUNTLESS times. Sorry you can't have you ez escape. Go cry in a corner.
0 -
Agreed, I play Doctor as my main killer and at rank 5 I rarely get less than 3 kills per match and Doc is supposed to be one of the weakest killers overall (dunno why).
1 -
Its harder to rank up as killer than it is survivor. You're playing against potatoes. And Solos
1 -
Its because, anytime the Killer gets a legit 2k the other two often just give up trying.. "IT TOO HARD".
Once the easy becomes a little more difficult, survivors don't want to play anymore.
1 -
This content has been removed.
-
In a good horror film there is only 1 survivor.
0 -
This isn't a horror film. There's also plenty of great films with more than one survivor.
3 -
Many of you disagreeing with me are missing the point. Some of the arguments:
- Survivors screwing around or giving up skew the results. - And what about killers screwing around? It balances out.
- Doesn't account for builds. - Doesn't matter. Bad survivor builds, Bad killer builds. Any crazy builds are the vast minority. Dollars to donuts the totality of these matches will balance out to about the same level of killer vs survivor builds. That's the beauty of large data sets.
- You depip at 2k. - Doesn't matter. Pips have nothing to do with this. If 2k is a 'draw', mostly black pip, and 3k is a win, then that basically lines up. Killers aren't supposed to 'win' all the time. A fairly balanced game is more like 50% overall.
- Amazing survivors can run circles around killers, etc. - A lot of misunderstanding here. Starting with Amazing killers get 4ks all day long which is I guess the closest equivalent. Case studies of individual players beating the odds. What is being missed is the overall picture. Everyone isn't a super survivor and everyone isn't a master killer. Assuming there are roughly the same percentages of weak, average and great players on each side and they all generally get matched up correctly, everything balances out. The point being made in the data is that the entire survivor pool gets beat up by the entire killer pool.
As for the argument that high rank survivors simply don't belong there and aren't the equivalent to high rank killers... let's call this the boosted potato argument... this would just be another major problem. Matchmaking and opponent balance are 2 sides of the same coin. If the game's built in system for generating games is creating imbalanced matches in the killer's favor that's a huge problem and a reason why survivors would complain about killers being OP. Also, this wouldn't be the survivor's fault. I know this is crazy asking killer mains to try to use their empathy bone but... imagine almost every game you played you were matched against players 6-8 ranks higher than you. It would be frustrating. If you didn't KNOW they were 6-8 ranks higher because they had your same rank you'd think the game was imbalanced wouldn't you? That survivors were OP?
And guys, to be clear, these numbers don't add up into perfect 25/50/75/100 categories because they are sums of all games. So adding up your 0k this game, 2k this game and 4k that game etc, you'll get like 97,640 kills out of 136,696 survivors. The totals for the strongest, most popular killers settle out around 3ks per game. If we're defining balanced as 2ks, that's not balanced.
--------
Maybe the best argument against myself is that the game isn't balanced around kills but around ability to make BPs and pips. And I have been in many games where i was part of a 3k or 4k but we all pipped or even double pipped and/or got loads of BPs. So maybe for game balance the stats we want to see are the pips and points? How many times do survivors pip vs spirit, freddy. billy as opposed to clown etc? I'd imagine that the results are similar... lower pip rates with those killers but it would probably appear less imbalanced than this data. I'd bet it would still show that Billy needs to be nerfed.... ; )
6 -
How many times have I've seen three survivors throw a game to save one survivor from a hook where three could of escaped.
Post edited by Mr_K on2 -
You shouldn't base balance on stas alone. In 2016 killrate was 50-60% as well, yet any decent survivor was practically invincible. If you argue with stats, we may as well buff nurse and huntress. Billy and Freddy are finally usable base killers, thats where killers should be to keep up with toptier M2 killers. Then we can balance the game around that powerlevel. Not gonna lie, those high killrates are unexpected, but cherrypicking some stats works for both sides. Buff Nurse cause stats is a stat argument, yet unreasonable. Solo vs SWF needs to be adressed, since that powergap is nurse vs clown.
0 -
I obviously do not agree.
- 50% = 2 dead.
- 74% = 2,96 dead.
These are averages. It is wrong to say that the averages must necessarily conform to the quantification of a game taken individually.
So yes, on average, overall, these meager statistics indicate that all killers are overperforming.
Otherwise, it means that the developers are not targeting for something specific (2) but a range between 2 and 3, and ignore imbalances existing inside.
I totally accept the fact that it is impossible to balance perfectly everything. But there is a difference between target 2, with a small range (between 1,8 and 2,2 for exemple), and consider that 2 = 2,999999.
Currently, in all ranks, we observe all killers, with the exception of the Nurse, on average between 2,2 and 2,8. And in red ranks, all killers between 2,4 and 3,2.
Unless there is a bias explaining why these values are all clearly above the desired average... That's the reality.
I also want to add that the red ranks do not justify higher average values. Why would only killers become better in red ranks, but not survivors?
Perhaps, the red ranks should instead show a distribution of values less focused on the target average, alleged 2. So more values to 0, but as much 4... but the average should remain the same.
Yes, survivors have been right, and Freddy must be the next. He does not need much to get back into the mass of other killers, like the Spirit.
3 -
There's more to it indeed, but not much.
Besides, these numbers are apparently not even a big factor, just A factor, noted by Peanits multiple times.
2 -
The best argument against you is that they flat-out said that there are a ton of factors that go into those stats and that we shouldn't really be drawing any conclusions from those stats:
3 -
EGC is a balance change
0 -
Dc's aren't counted as a kill, but I bet part of those stats are botched because there are many games where Survivors DC, and the remaining survivors are killed easily.
Some of those kills are matches where its either a 3vs 1, and 2vs1.
0 -
I didn’t get notified of this but now that I’m here, I’ll put my two cents in.
Stats alone aren’t much to go off of, in my experience most people can’t play against Spirit very well which leads to easy wins. The problem there isn’t the killer but people who don’t know how to play against her.
As for Freddy, his slowdown build is strong but I’ve escaped it plenty of times, he is beatable if everyone knows what to do. It never feels like a balanced game to me when I play against clown, I can keep him on my tail for awhile normally and it just feels like he is bound to lose.
3 -
Other factors: DC rate and community outcry.
3 -
why doesnt it say that the first graphic is both pc and console? i mean ofc nurse is gonna be dead last if they include the console numbers for nurse. yet we all know how lethal she is on pc.
1 -
This a data set for what? A single chapter? I wouldn't exactly say any of other this smoking gun material.
0 -
According to the first chart, killers at all ranks have at minimum a 55-60% kill rate anyway. So deranking is ultimately pointless.
0 -
gotta love the mental gymnastics some people will do to completely nullify facts shown to them...
Killers getting an avg killrate above 50% ?
it's because survivors are potatoes, it's cause the data is skewed, it's because survivors just goof off, it's ANYTHING that can help me ignore the fact that killers are, in fact, the power role I keep claiming they aren't...
because I get 6 rounds in a row that are 4k, but then I get one where they teabag and I only get a 1k so that one round clearly shows the killer is too weak and needs buffs. /s
one factor I will question is how many of those 3k's were just lucky hatch escapes? but I'm sure something like that wouldn't skew data huh.
1 -
These stats reflect most of the game. At pretty much all ranks except red ranks killers dominate. At red ranks survivors dominate.
0 -
That could be confirmation bias though. Do you believe the game should be balanced around your anecdotal evidence as opposed to stats that represent the player base as a whole?
Can I ask what your opinion would be if the survival rate was between 60% and 75%?
0 -
I play both sides and I disagree that survivors are power role . Go cry over your broken ruin main .
1 -
The logic in the OP's post is incredibly faulty and honestly it kind if reads like satire.
"We told you you were doing too good!"
1 -
I think the kill rate stats go off hooks before dying too, so since a lot of kills come from first or second hooks cause various reasons then it lowers the stats, if it was only escapes or deaths then it would be a flat 0/25/50/75/100 system so underpreform would be 0-49 and overperform would be 51-100 lol
0 -
Shouldn’t be balanced towards either, stats aren’t enough to go off of when making balance decisions. I don’t care much about the survival rate since stats aren’t enough to make balance choices.
1 -
Given that this is an Asymmetrical games with 5 different players who win and lose independently with 1 wincon being mutually exclusive with the other 4 you'd expect the winrate to be below 50%.
Note that this doesn't imply that one role is stronger than the other since the winrate is still ideally constant. It just means that it isn't necessarily 50%.
0 -
no.
yellow rank survivors and just survivors who don't understand what looping or even a PALLET IS. HEAVILY scew these numbers. I have been to yellow ranks when de ranking as killer. you could 4k 5 gen no perks clown easily against them. these survivors will not run to pallets they will pretty much do anything instead of gens, heck they will try to be a claudete the second they hear a terror radius. heck one time I even 4k 5 genned with spirit WITHOUT using her power against yellow ranks. don't punish killers because some survivors don't know how to play the game
3 -
Declaring war on killer mains. This is going to be interesting .
0 -
What if I declare war on Megs?
2 -
*points to Peanits saying that one shouldn't draw conclusions from these stats*
1 -
Not true at all. I got 3 2k matches last night and pipped in 2 of them. 9 or so hooks with plenty of chases, hits and kicked gens. Was running Trapper and had a really bad setup on cold wind. Happens.
The black pip only is pure myth. If you are pressuring gens and not staying in one chase too long, you will pip.
0 -
Not my impression sir.
0 -
50-75% is still 2 kills on average, but killers need 3 kills to pip most games. Also stats aren't everything, and tend to be padded. It also dosen't take into account having to play against SWF depip squads, of which killers have no defense.
0 -
Not in red ranks
0 -
It is hilarious seeing people act like there’s no difference between 50% and 74%, saying “2K is 2K”. Yet these same people will argue Clown or Demo has a poor kill rate. Ummm if there’s no difference between 50-74 and 2K is 2K, therefore there should be no difference between Clowns kill rate and all of the other killers below 75%. They are all the same...2K! Stop asking for buffs I guess?
Funny how it doesn’t work that way....
0 -
Then you will lose obviously. I also want to say, I ain't involve with killer mains vs suriviors mains because everyone knows meg main are the entity.
0 -
Still seeing no valid arguments. Just more anecdotal evidence about individual games. Again, not the point. Someone says killers own lower ranks, survivors own red ranks. And how exactly does that comport with this data that shows even higher kill rates in red ranks? Someone says my logic is flawed then has no follow up to counter my flawed logic. People say Peanits says don’t draw any conclusions. I‘m a data analyst. I’ll think for myself, thanks. I’ll admit there could be missing information and I’m open to having my mind changed. But in business data analytics you are presented with data and ask questions and draw conclusions. In this case these numbers fit perfectly with my experience in this game as a survivor. People say the potatos skew the kill rates. Really? In the red ranks too? But I thought survivors own the red ranks and beat up killers. Which is it? Are you saying you have lots of games in the red ranks vs easy potato squads but that the occasional killer swf squad owns you? So... you still win a lot but don’t like those times you get beat.... sorry but these stats bear out my experience that killers own this game. Facts are facts. You can’t run from them.
2 -
No Nea mains >:v
0
