Killrates dont mean anything...
except how much the killers in question are played.
just had a trapper game against someone who picked him up new, in end game chat they were like "man trapper is sure a bad killer" <- something along the lines. I stated that he is outdated indeed and then someone else was ofc all smug like "well he has a 57% killrate, he isnt that bad."
Sadako currently has a higher killrate than nurse.. So we all agree nurse aint the strongest killer in the game anymore i guess. From now on i wanna see sadako complaint threads instead of nurse.
Comments
The average DBD player isn't that good.
Also, Sadako has one extremely lethal playstyle that even comp-level teams struggle to counter.
That one playstyle does kinda need ALOT of dedication and practice, also map awareness, shutting down loops fast etc.. nothing i would try with her, when playing sadako i like simply the no TR and teleport, simmilar to freddy.
but the argument was because trapper had a 57% killrate he is not that bad, so if we go by that logic sadako beats nurse i guess XD
yeah I just had another nurse round who 3 man slugged at 5 gens and one guy DC'ed, at least saduko rounds are fun and tolerable with a chance of escape even with their lethal play style. Saduko round anyday.
And my argument is that the average DBD player isn't that good.
Trapper may not be super good at high ranks but he's going to be fine for 90% of players.
we just completely destroyed him in soloQ, 2 of us kept running into the same traps, one isnt a good looper (me).
You said in your first post the Trapper just picked up the killer.
I'm surprised instead of Trapper you didn't mention Nurse. You're not supposed to pick up a killer and do well with him (or are you?) especially if what he plays normally has nothing to do with Trapper's playstyle. If anything simple killers can shed light to a players weaknesses because they cannot bypass game mechanics such as looping or decision making regarding checking a gen or going back to hooked survivors etc, since for killers without a teleport those actions take longer.
Simple killers are all about the basics of the game and less the mechanics, you need to have good understanding of the game to make those work well. And this is true for many games, because usually a character that cannot do crazy things mechanically has to make up for it in macro. Skill intensive characters usually can reach higher highs (as in completely stomping) but also lower lows (completely sucking).
Kills have almost no relation to the flow of a match. A 2k (devs ideal balance) can be almost anything:
2k=2hooks: 1 chase each and camped to death
2k=10hooks: full # of chases
Just seems like there is a massive amount of wiggle room for this intended result while also ignoring the context through which it is reached.
You have a great point about the pick rates though. If a killer is selected by a smaller group of better players, then the results will have higher averages then those used by a greater majority.
If they've just started playing him then I'm not sure what other result was expected. Maybe I'm in the minority, but a new killer probably isn't going to do well until they've had a bit of practice.
Well if I could magically become part of that 90%, I guess all my problems with him would be solved.
They really don't. The 63% win rate for killers or whatever it is could mean getting a draw on like 80% of those matches. "Wow, that's way too high performance for killers!" sounds a lot less hip when you take that into account.
Don't we all.
so you dont think trapper is outdated and you agree sadako is stronger than nurse? I assume they just picked up trapper, but saying because he has 57% killrate he is a 'strong' killer aint true at all. I just try to figure out what people actually think. Either we go by killrates and so nurse is not the strongest killer or we dont and then we can take a look at the killers individually and measure how strong they are.
exactly, i think people that play trapper regularly main him. Im not saying he cant do ish, any killer can get kills, there is human factor too. But acting like he is super strong because of 57% aint true at all.
so you also think because his killrate is currently 57% he is strong? Not outdated at all yeah?
if you answer yes im going to ask you if you think sadako is stronger than nurse.
It's more nuanced than that.
Nurse is not a strong Killer...for most of the playerbase. I'd estimate there's about 200K players on DBD on any given day across all platforms. If 10% (high estimate) of those players are "high mmr", that's only 20,000 players.
The vast majority of this playerbase is casual. Every Killer is viable at a casual level, some are even considered OP. That's why they're called noobstompers and have had historically high kill rates. Pig comes to mind.
yes. From farming matches, too draws, to last second camps all of it doesnt really get respected in those numbers. BHVR just makes it easy for themselves by saying "escapes and sacrifices are the only skillful play" i also would be surprised if a killer has less than 50% killrates, because that would either mean he is REALLY bad or i dont know what else.
pig is op? you litteraly just said pig is op did you XD
But yes, it IS more nuanced than that. So just going off numbers isnt the way to go, thats what im saying. Either go by simply numbers and sadako, pinhead and i forgot who the third is, are top 1 killers and freddy is second best or we dont and then we all agree there is more to it than just the numbers.
the example i provided was someone talking smug about how trapper has whopping 57%.
I gave an explanation of why Pig has historically had high kill rates despite being considered weak on the Forums.
It's because she's a noob stomper and is very good against the average DBD player. To them, she's OP. To us? Not so much.
And they are completely correct. Trapper does have a 57% Kill Rate. He averages a 2K.
Sadako and Nurse have about the same winrate in high MMR.
Sadako is much better than people give her credit for but she has a way of making a lot of distance with her TV's which is really important for killer (see also Dredge).
Nurse swaps most game mechanics other killers have to deal with with being a bit more skill intensive that's why she can have higher highs (Nurse slugging everyone within 5 mins or less) and the lowest lows (52% winrate for all MMRs).
Killers are all viable because they have over 55% killrate. Of course some are better than others, no one is debating that, but a person who is used to playing a killer that can bypass game mechanics survivors have (like say looping) or has no way to making distance because he has to walk everywhere is of course gonna be dumbfounded when trying to play Trapper. Trapper has no passive slowdown to his abilities unlike say Pinhead and Pig. So you cannot make up for time being lost on him, you really need to understand the fundamentals of the game to be effective and relying more on game knowledge because mechanically he has nothing to offer. Even Trapper can be snowbally if he gets an early basement hook, good luck saving that guy if killer has trapped the basement.
This is usually again true for most games. There are characters who are there to be an easy introduction to the game and make you learn the fundamentals. Usually they're middle of the road as far as their power is concerned. If you cannot play the fundamentals well of course you're gonna underperform with them or if you're used to playing someone who can bypass core mechanics.
Your example is like me saying, I got 4k as Trapper, how does he have any problems? It's really silly.
If I managed to run a Nurse for 3 minutes does that mean the killer is trash or that the player playing them was outplayed?
I just got 3E against a Blight on Dead Dog saloon with compound 33 and adept perks. Regardless, that map was in his favor cause it's tiny and we still did all gens and could have saved the teammate who died if we weren't solo. Is that enough proof that Blight is bad because the guy playing him isn't running the most optimal build or even know how to play him?
I mean you said it yourself, the guy had never played Trapper. Are we now gonna take that into account when talking about killrates? Trapper is performing worse than most killers, but at the same time he is performing way better than before. Could he get some tuning to make him better? Yeah probably. And I say this because of the stats BHVR provided for us. Your example is an anecdote.
so that makes trapper a strong killer? The player that played him called trapper trash, this was the response. 57% killrate. So that player was just bad?
also who is the average dbd player? i see myself as a casual too. What are those numbers based off? just sacrifices?
yeah i can play freddy also 10 times better than nurse. but these killrates still dont mean anything, you just provided so many scenarios that are not taken into account when we talk about killers killrates. I see it more as a "how many people play that killer"-rate than "this killer is that strong"-rate.
Well if i think about it it doesnt even show how many people play the killer. Cause freddy would be the second most played then, which he is definitly not. So i dont know what good information this numbers should provide us other than "look, killers now generally have higher rates, we got what we wanted."
Most likely, yes, he wasn't quite up to par. It's not unusual for someone to play a new Killer and be outmatched.
If you're on the Forums and have more than 50 posts, that's WAY more than the average player.
How are they not taken into account? Those players influence the killrates. They appear in the all MMR killrates, what are you saying? The only matches they don't take into account is the ones with the DC, which depending on the time the teammate DCed is not the same. Someone DCing after their first down is different than someone DCing when they're about to get hooked for the third time. In the first case they've doomed their team unjustly so of course the following match won't be representative of how the game would have continued if he played normally, in the second case that persons has already been useful. If the person in the second case DC's that match won't count although it's not much different from playing it out and him dying, he was going to die anyway, but now this match is not counted in the killrates despite the DC in this case not making any difference.
In the first case though it has a bigger impact for the team.
the amount of my posts say nothing about how good or bad i am as a killer player. It could even be i never touched killer, only playing survivor and just act as if. You'd have no way to know.
Same can be said about killers claiming they're having fun in solo and it's in a good state.
The average DBD player doesn't boot up the Forums. They don't engage that way.
They load into a couple of matches every few days and it never goes further than that. It's a casual fun party game, it doesn't necessarily need to go any further.
I'm pretty mediocre at Survivor too. And you're right, I have no way of knowing, so I choose to trust people and assume they are acting in good faith until proven otherwise.
a trapper game where he played basement and got a 4k and a trapper game where he played him the conservative way but got also 1 or 2 k are not the same, yet they both add towards the killrate. Now, aside of maining him or low mmr lobbys, trapper is a struggle against good survivors, i think there is no denying in that. So if you have a ton of 0k games but also some couple of 4ks by the amount of players this game has, mains and players that just picked him up counted together, their kilrrate doesnt say anything.
its like those statistics that measure how rich a country is, taking the millionaires and poor people ALL into account and calculating the incomes of each famillys together. So with a couple of rich people, it still can be deicisive how wealthy the average locals are.
Trapper does have the lowest killrate in high MMR so I think you could argue that in this case Trapper's killrate does tell you, that he is not the best compared to the other killers.
What do you mean with "how much the Killer is played"? Do you think that killers who are played a lot have a high killrate?
nice try, but i alredy said in one of my posts how i might care a little less for soloQ than killer, cause my overall expectations are lower. Just show me a post where i said soloQ is in a good state though.
well that might be true, but i still can be a potato while still invested and addicted to dbd.
kind of, as there is more players playing them. but its hard to tell since i have no clue what they base those numbers off.
If you are not good at a killer and the survivors are better than you, then you should not be 3-4k that game, on ANY killer. But that doesn't happen because mistakes are weighed differently on different stages of the game.
What does conservatively playing Trapper even mean?
You said that, doesn't mean there aren't other killers claiming solo is fine.
ok? bet there are survivors claiming to be killer mains too
guess im above average then, i still have my 0k rounds though.
And it means playing him how we all played killer originally, without knowing all the tactics and knowing how to traverse te map right. Running around, from edge to edge, trying to down and hook people. placing the traps on some vaults maybe but not particularly closing off a 3-gen or playing basement trapper.
Again, camped sacrifices and 'conservative' hooks, like not camping and just down -> hook -> repeat does both add to killrates.
Killrates in this game don't mean much in my opinion but in the case of nurse and Onryo that comes down to Onryo being easier to play than nurse, the same could be argued for blight that his should be higher, I think we'll see some changes with the bots being in the game and those killrates will be a little more accurate due to not as many people hopping right into pubs with the first time playing a killer, as for trapper his setup time has always been his weak point but he is a killer intended for beginners just due to easy pick up and play, he's a basic m1 killer that his power needs no time to master because it's setting a trap, you're really just mastering your m1 chase knowledge and tile knowledge to play him
Wesker has a high kill rate and a high pick rate, but Huntress has a high pick rate aswell but her kill rate is on the lower side, Freddy has a lower pick rate but a higher kill rate, so while there are examples that support that theory there are also examples that go against it.
I had to take a statistics course for Uni, so I tried to use that to analyse the kill rates. Disclaimer though: I'm far from being an expert, so maybe I did total bullshit.
I put the numbers (only for Top 5% MMR) from this chart in a statistics programm and analysed for correlation.
When you include Wesker there is a big correlation between pick rate and kill rate which is statistically significant (not sure how acurate the test for significance is with an n=29, but anyway) but if you exclude Wesker, because he has very high pickrate and outliners can distort the results of correlation analysis, the correlation is only small and not statistically significant.
Again, I can't guarantee that anything of what I did is correct, but I'm not convinced that pick rates are the main explanation for the kill rates.
Killrates do something but a lot of people are focused on what's strong or what's weak
Saddako having a higher kill rate does show she's better then people give her credit for overall
Saddako being higher then nurse does not mean she is stronger, just more accesible then nurse