Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on this and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
Get all the details on our forums: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/436478/sign-up-now-to-receive-a-recap-of-your-2024-dead-by-daylight-stats/p1?new=1
SHUT UP ABOUT TELLING US TO SHUT UP ABOUT STATS
So, people who don't like what stats show us start threats and tell us to shut up about stats, but they don't say anything about personal biased opinions. Looks like expressing subjective opinions is ok, but countering them with facts is not?
So, when someone tells me that X is OP or weak but stats clearly show the opposite I should shut up, because it doesn't fit someone's picture of the world? What kind of obscurantism is it? Or maybe we should just stop discussions on this forum altogether, because no opinion or fact can be seen as a "final authority"?
Everyone understands, that stats don't explain "why", but it doesn't invalidate in any way what stats show us - the final result. They don't tell us what exactly contributes to Freddy (or any survivor perk/item) being so deadly and it's not their job. They show us that Freddy is very strong, and DEVs must investigate what exactly makes him so deadly and fix it. Stats are still by far much more accurate than personal opinions. So, no, choosing between an outcry of a killer/survivor main who thinks that X is OP/weak and must be generally nerfed/buffed, anyone in his right mind will always prefer stats.
DEVs, thanks for taking your time, gathering stats and showing them to us. We appreciate that you share them with us, keep it up.
Comments
-
Shut up
13 -
Shut up telling us to shut up about telling us to shut up about stats
1 -
Peanits replied to the other thread with "Amen," so...
4 -
This content has been removed.
-
Boy, the forums are meta today.
The point is that they are very general stats, they don't show you exactly why they are what they are. Is it because of mori's, a specific set of add-ons or perks, a certain playstyle? You have no way of knowing based on those stats alone.
You should use them in the sense of, "I don't know, I think this is fine. Look, it's performing well overall: Stats ". Not "Look at these stats: Stats It's OP, nerf it."
Using them to support your point is good. Making a conclusion off of very broad numbers is bad.
13 -
This is the best way to put it. Facts are stronger than words.
2 -
No. People are tired of hearing stats on this forum without context because stats without context are useless. People also only use said stats to silence killer complaints, or they use them as a bludgeon to support some nonsense argument they have about balance. Even BVHR has said countless times not to take their stats at face value, and that they don't buff/nerf purely based on them but people continue to invoke them regardless. Data. Needs. Context. This is why statisticians hate regular people. They almost never use data properly.
So I'm gonna say: "No u".
2 -
Peanits supports stats but discourages being a numbskull. What might that tell you...
2 -
No u
😐
0 -
I have many many hours in this game.
I have only been paired with teamates that are rank 20 and new to the game.
I am getting mad and it's not their fault; but with matchmaking like that it's no wonder the stats can't be trusted.
2 -
Just because they aren't completely accurate doesn't mean they don't have helpful information. Like Peanits says, the stats don't say anything by themselves but combined with a well informed opinion of an experienced individual they can be used for the right purposes. Don't reject someone's argument because they mentioned that stats support their side.
1 -
That's what I said, stats don't show "why", but are they supposed to? If a runner comes first to the finish, we don't know why exactly that happened, but unless he cheated, does it change the fact the he came first and deserves a gold medal? Or must we first investigate why it happened before acknowledging his result and agreeing that he is not a weak runner? Stats are just a measure of performance and they are perfectly doing their job.
So, my point is, if killer X is clearly underperforming/overperforming and someone asks to generally nerf/buff him, will you rather rely on a subjective opinion or stats? I think the answer is obvious, so why should we stop using stats as arguments in discussions but continue using subjective opinions? It makes no sense.
1 -
Don't use either. Use reasoned arguments instead, if something is OP you should be able to figure out what using the mechanics. And sometimes it's not that the Killer itself is OP but that something around the Killer is a problem that they can take disproportionate advantage of, and thus the solution wouldn't directly impact the Killers mechanics (but would have a large INDIRECT effect)
0 -
Shut up just shut up shut up, Shut up just shut up shut up Love that song
0 -
As a player you can't have a more reasoned argument than stats, anything else is just your personal opinion. Are stats 100% accurate? No. But in most situations they are surely more accurate than most arguments a player can come up with based solely on his personal experience.
If you think that killer X is underperforming, what reasoned arguments can you show? The fact that you lost 10 games out of 15 with him? But if stats show that most people win 80% of games with that killer on average, it trumps your subjective experience. That's why we need stats. Of course you must investigate why it happens, before applying any nerfs, because you must know what exactly to nerf, but it doesn't change the fact that the killer is overperforming and must be fixed.
0 -
I never said otherwise, and I'm not rejecting anything. Just saying they are not accurate because of larger issues, yet people would rather go "Look stats better nerf X" instead of looking at the root problems.
0 -
So as the guy who posted "SHUT UP ABOUT THE STATS", I'd first like to say I regret the combative tone of the title, I think it probably started the discussion off on the wrong foot. But I'd like to clarify what I am and am not saying.
I AM NOT saying we should ignore the stats, base things solely off of opinions or anecdotes, or flame people who use the stats.
I AM saying we should think critically about the stats, try to avoid basing things solely off of stats, not treat stats as irrefutable, and overall have civil and constructive dialogues rather than having good discussions turn into people arguing over interpretations of the stats.
As for the idea that I don't like what the stats are saying, I don't really care or even know that much about what the stats say. I gave them the once over when they came out and haven't looked at them since. I'm just tired of scrolling through pages of people throwing numbers at each other on a post asking for help getting better as The Nurse.
0 -
Sorry, I was making a statement of agreement with you.
0 -
s'all good my dude
1 -
Reasons would be just a set of statements about the mechanics (which are objective since the mechanics of the game are not opinions) that show there there is an unreasonably effective strategy either for or against whatever we are arguing about.
As an example I've used movement speed comparisons and Killer pallet break speeds to show that against Killers that don't have a gap closer looping ends up wasting an insane amount of time even without the use of God loops, thus making any Killer that does not have either a gap closer or anti-loop (such as leatherface) automatically underpowered given maps with more than a few safe pallets or windows (especially windows).
True or not the argument is founded on the games mechanics themselves, which are objective.
And in the example I gave a potential solution could be to instead of buffing the Killers directly to change the map design to include less safe loops (since the math requires the Killer to actually break the pallet or vault the window, and needing to do that or not is a product of the map design).
Hawkins Lab for example has very few safe pallets and so Killers like Legion or Leatherface should be able to preform better on those maps.
0 -
The stats are interesting but without one controlling variable like maps, or killer, or player, or many others the stats released say nothing about balance of the game, skill of players, or how well the ranking system works, or anything at all.
The only thing these stats let us do is make memes about Freddy being the best killer now.
0 -
The problem usually isn't the "stats" themselves. The problem is usually how the data is gathered for these particular stats.
For example, let's look at the "Red Rank" stats that were presented to us recently. Despite repeatedly being asked, "What types of matches constitute as being 'Red Rank' matches to be included in the data set?" none of the English-speaking community managers provided us with an answer*. It was finally in the Japanese forum, in which the Japanese Community Manager stated:
"今回の統計でのレッドランクとは、"殺人鬼がマッチ開始時にランク1～4だった"マッチングです。マッチした生存者のランクやマッチ後の昇降格は考慮していません。"
which basically translates to:
"For this particular statistical data, Red Rank is defined as 'matches that consisted of Rank 1-4 Killers at the beginning of the match.' The ranking of survivors or the rank results after the match were not given consideration."
In other words, if the Japanese Community Manager is correct, then that meant that this "Red Rank" stats consisted of matches where Rank 3 or 4 Killers could easily be matched with Survivors as low as Rank 9 or 10, and if it included SWF matches as well, then even matches with Rank 20 Survivors.
Does this really sound like "Red Rank" matches to any of you? Instead of presenting it to us as "Red Rank" Stats, why weren't they more open with us and just state, "Red Rank Killers' Kill Rates" to avoid any confusion? And then provide us with "Red Rank Survivors' Escape Rates" just to present a more fair view of both sides? Or if they wanted to simply give us "Red Ranks" data, then why didn't they just gather matches in which all five players were in red ranks?
The same holds true for Nurse's Statistical Data. Why present just PC's data? If the skill ceiling for the consoles' version of the Nurse is vastly different from PC's version, don't they think that it is an important information for the community to know definitively?
All that stated, it's not like BHVR hasn't made any improvements in gathering more accurate data. After years of explaining why disconnected games should not be included as part of Kill Rates/Survival Rates statistical data, they finally seemed to have understood the reasons, and this time around, did them correctly. So all hope isn't lost. It's just that, for some reason, BHVR seems to often push back in gathering more accurate data overall.
The point of all of this is to say that people shouldn't dismiss statistical data outright for no reason, just as they shouldn't swallow it whole without any inquiry. If people care at all about statistics that are given to us, what they should do every time, is to question it.
*To give credit, a moderator, @MandyTalk did inform us later in the Japanese forum: "I've double checked on this to be totally sure, the killer would definitely have been red ranks at the start of the match, the survivors would have been red or purple ranks." which, although very much appreciated for at least some form of answer, also raised more questions like, "Why purple rank? How about SWF?" (Which was never answered.)
0
