So the official stats for DBD came out...
Comments
-
Why? What reason would PC or console be separate? They aren't 2 separate games. I continue to ask this of people who declare that PC stats should be separate from console stats and I have yet to get a valid answer. The only difference between the two is framerate, which effects next to nothing in a game like this. Literally no difference.
1 -
Because they control in completely different ways. best example is Nurse. On PC Old Nurse was the best in the game, but on Console she's the worst. Combining her stats together completely ruins any valuable data that could be gathered since it's too different variables.
0 -
Can you please gather the data for 4-swf at rank 1? That is probably the most accurate representation of "balance" we can gather from stats.
We have 4-swf at all ranks, which is irrelevant just as nurses killrate at all ranks or all platforms. And killrates at rank 1 for all group sizes. But most killers see the problem specifically in 4-swf at rank 1. Lets clear this up
0 -
So every killer is getting nerfed then.
That's the takeaway a lot of people are getting from this.
No one is calling them inaccurate they are saying with this and no other information provided it's creating more confusion than it's helping.
0 -
Why not simply give us stats that we CAN draw conclusions from? Why must the stats be so vague and inaccurate for when you make them public? When can we see stats that we can use for balance suggestions? When are we getting stats that are accurate and have all factors accounted for? Where are the survivor stats?
Also, if you're aiming for 50%, all killers are actually around 60%, but the stats posted have killers at 70%, there is still a massive problem.
0 -
I have never claimed that they are "actually around 60%". I've only stated that they are all at least 60%- which is true. Even the Clown, who is the lowest on those graphs, is over 60%.
Stats alone are not enough to make decisions on. Even we do not make decisions purely based on stats. We could go into very specific details, but there's always going to be a "what if". What if you counted this as well? What if you exclude that? What if you only look at matches with this perk?
Point being, the stats are there for fun and to spark conversation, not make conclusions.
2 -
"Nope, the target we aim for is 50%. The numbers they're actually pulling in are all over 60% right now. I can confirm that they are accurate."
This is a direct quote from you earlier in the thread, you literally say they are all over 60%, which is confirming that killers all are around 60% or higher, so if you are aiming for 50% and the lowest a killer is is 60%, with the highest being around 70% in the stats, then they aren't accurate.
Also, how can we start conversations when every time someone does a dev comes in and says "We said it in the stats post and I'll say it again here, you should not draw conclusions from those stats. They are about as broad as they get. They don't show details and account for any amount of factors."? What's the point of giving stats when it doesn't mean anything in the end and people can't use them for conversations? Will we ever get stats that are actually based for balancing so people can have conversations about them?
0 -
Who said I was confused? Also, why aren't you talking about the entire post, and only picking the one part where I said the win rate is over 60%?
Should I assume it's a No too ever getting stats that are accurate and can be used for discussions? Is it also a no too ever getting survivor based stats?
0 -
The previous data the devs release gave out all the information you need. For example:
0 -
If the kill rate is over 60% then the survival rate is under 40%. Not that hard. Survivors are just skins so specific survivor info is pretty useless. Perks and items used would help, but if the survival rate is under 40% the games where 2 or more survive will likely be with BNPs and keys.
0 -
Pretty sure the devs said that info was fake, didn't they? And even if that is from the devs, it doesn't tell you anything but game length. It doesn't say which killer is the best per console, what's the must used/least used perks, how long does gen 1 take, how long does gen 2 take, etc. That's the info that could be useful and fun too discuss for balance reasons, but the stats posted are so inaccurate you can't use them for anything.
0 -
They never said that information was fake because they were the ones who launch it. I don't get where you got that from.
It did tell you what killers were popular each console.
A gen takes 80 seconds to do, you can research it or test it out yourself.
Just watch the video or look for the forum page yourself.
0 -
Thought it was fake because there was a time where someone "leaked" the stats of dbd when they were completely wrong.
And I know a gen takes 80 seconds, you're missing my point. The point is how long does a gen take between killers, IE. Does the first gen pop faster on Nurse or Freddy? etc. And the video is based on the stats that BVHR provided, which means it's not accurate since it doesn't take out any factors that could change the data like perks, gen times, addons/items, etc.
0 -
The stats include how well every surivior does in each rank, including perks and e.t.c
At average killers have been shown to be more superior to suriviors,especially if it is a good killer. Unless it is an swf and you are using a weak killer with no add ons.
The statistics tells you that at average, even in rank 1 games. It takes more than 10 minutes for it to finish. So it doesnt matter how quick a surivior can do gens if a killer is capable of appltubf constant pressure on them.
0
![[Deleted User]](https://forums.bhvr.com/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
