Killer winstreaks
Otz just released a new video on some impressive winstreaks on killer. Beside Scotts Bubba speed limiter streak and Fungoose Plague streak, they are relative recent and some still ongoing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5PKg4HPjnEWhen i see that a mediocre killer like Wraith is capable of winning over 40 times in a row (1st and only try!) without loosing more then 2 gens or a Blight that wins 1600+ times in a row, or a Nurse winning 500+ times and ongoing without even using addons or perks - this begs the question:
Should this be a thing? And where did the ballance go? Keep in mind, survivors are currently at 38 wins in a row solo and 200 wins in a row as SWF, done by one if not the best team in the world.
Opinions?
Comments
Don’t really think you can compare a game like siege to dbd. They are in totally different realms of balancing and play style.
They both use an MMR system to attempt to accurately guage skill.
One does so, vaguely successfully and the other, clearly, does not.
This all harkens back to DBD not choosing one way or another and pissing everyone off. They need to commit, are they a casual funny party game or a serious competitive game.
This is sorta like saying chess isn't fair because Magnus Carlsen keeps winning. If we balance the game a around momo and otz they will be the only ones who play anymore. They are the 1% and they will always do better than me. I wouldn't expect them to nerf survivor until I have a fair chance against team eternal...and they shouldn't.
Wouldn't call it competitive MMR, nothin competitive about it. Regardless of that thought, between all the factors (people dodging lobbies, trying to keep wait times short, perks and maps carrying ppl, etc) the MMR can't really do its job, or at least properly to a majority's satisfaction. Regardless of THAT thought, lets say for argument's sake that the killer genuinely was better than everyone they got matched with in a working MMR system, would they be "allowed" to get a win streak of 1000+?
Few ppl set those streaks on their first try.
It would be possible, but your still assuming alot. No matter the balance, you still have stuff like ppl who kill themselves 1st hook because the killer wore green... Dependence on others is why it's easier to organize and do stuff like this as killer than survivor.
If they were genuinely better, it's hard to say because of RNG.
You can be genuinely better than your opponents and lose because of RNG.
We've previously covered that survivor streaks are harder. Can you please clarify what you mean from us assuming?
True but that RNG goes both ways though. Both killer and survivor can be screwed due to it, so lets say that they're good enough to overcome the RNG enough to win against their opponent (aka actually be better despite the odds every now and again).
I would find it extremely unlikely that they'd manage 2000 wins, whilst overcoming RNG, and their opponents without playing an overpowered character.
That's the only way a functional MMR system could excuse a 2K winstreak
I would find it extremely unlikely that they'd manage 2000 wins, whilst overcoming RNG, and their opponents without playing an overpowered character.
That's the only way a functional MMR system could excuse a 2K winstreak
I was referring to the attitude of survivor teammates. Unless you're consistently with the same 4 man, you run the risk of getting a random who doesn't care nearly as much. You're trying to slam gens, and they might be memeing around with snowballs or they could give up ASAP. Compared to killer streaks that you are I'm full control of your side... survivor streaks have to get a team together and can only work on the streak when everyone is available.
Ok apologies but we're lost now. We've covered that in: "between all the factors (people dodging lobbies, trying to keep wait times short, perks and maps carrying ppl, etc)" and "For a survivor win streak (not SWF, just 1) they need to be able to rely on the team, the team needs to be better than the killer, and the survivor in question has be better than the killer (depending on rules in question) while also having an objective they can almost never do alone (ties into relying on team) in areas the killer knows you have to go. The killer needs to only really be better than the weakest link, have some intelligence, and relies solely on themselves to fill an objective with any method they can employ (of which there's a few). One side getting a win streak is much easier than the other." earlier that describes how the survivors would have a harder time with a win streak. We can't see anything else related that makes sense.
Unlikely does not mean impossible. At this point were going to assume that they're allowed unless you explicitly say no.
lol every team that not a good 4man on comm is mid level mmr to these guys.
To get win streak, means starting a new match they have to guarantee its a win. Tunneling is to ensure the winning. So they can count on their winstreak.
For myself, using Myers without Gen slowdown and Green addon, even hindered myself to one hook everyone before 2nd hook others (and do the same with last hook). And I had 68% kill rate with 72%
I really dont think killers is that hard. If many other able to make 200 winstreaks and I can not (by using the same build and play style), its me who is not good enough.
That pretty impressive for a non TS Myers honestly. "i really don't think killers is that hard" The hardest thing about killer is playing a round of solo q survivor and seeing how camping/tunneling destroy them......then going right back to killer using these tactics. 😀
This game isn't for the faint of heart
It's quite amazing that, statistically:
1) Killers average an above 50% killrate
2) Killers win more than they lose, on average
3) Killers perform better in high MMR than low MMR
4) Killers are able to string up wins in streaks in the hundreds
And not only do people still complain that killer is not strong enough, but there's even people saying the game is 'very survivor-sided'.
The question is in what skill range is the game killer or survivor sided? I think if for example in comp there were no perk or item regulations the game would most likely be rather survivor sided (maybe unless going against Blight with his most busted addons), besides like 5-10 killers in comp the rest is not really able to perform somewhat well against the survivor side and is basically expected to get like 3-6 hooks or something like that... I think you could call it rather survivor sided in this setting because 2/3 of the killers are not viable in this setting.
I think the lower you go the stronger killer becomes in comparison, because it becomes easier to tunnel and camp as the survivor don't necessarily know what to do against it... And if they do know and are beyond a certain point in skill, give you are of equal skill, less and less killers become viable from that point onwards... But in matchmaking, since it is what it is all killers are somewhat viable.
I do not assume your prefered role, but the statement stays. It is what killer mains use to justify numbers these days, because its the only thing left. The game shifted towards killer, and it is hard to debate for killer mains outside the killer fantasy argument.
I am always for ballanced experience, said by someone who is, believe it or not, playing more killer then survivor. Especially now, i would even call myself more a killer main then a 50/50 as i used to be. So that we have this out of the way as you did aswell, lets get back on track for a moment.
The horror is gone for most people, thats the nature of how we work. Watching a horror movie as a child is a completly different experience then rewathing it the 5th time or so as an adult. If you call them "those" people, this is your point of few. In my years of playing, survivors only complained about oppressive killer. And they quit because of that, not because it was to boring or to less horror. Most survivors, from my experience, dont give a poop about anything else then gameplay. And on the other side, i also dont know any killer beside like a handful of people that even care about being scary, or getting the next big license. In fact for example Cucky became the main of a friend recently, and horror is the last thing that comes to mind why the person plays that character.
EDIT: I want to add another thing to your horror argument. The Dredge: Dredge is without a doubt the most horror we ever hadin this game. The nightphase is scary (?) as hell, jumping out of lockers the ultimate jumpscare next to Mirror Myers, the appearence of this killer could be right out of a nightmare. Overall, the ultimate horror formular. And still, where does The Dredge stand? Not played much, not liked by survivors. Reason? Gamelay.
Now to the most important part of your post: The imbalance makes DBD playable.
Then why not go back to 2019, 2020 or 2021 where survivors had more the upper hand but the game was at least more ballanced then it is now? We also had crazy stuff for both sides, so there was always some strange inballanced of gameplay. I can back up that argument relativly easy by just pointing to Steam Charts. Compare playerbase then and now. Even tho we just had the most popular license DBD ever had (Alien), it does not look like the players are super happy with the game overall. Isnt it likely that ballance experience is more important for fun then unballanced horror fantasy? The numbers would match with that.
Hello zarr
I never felt the need to write a comment under all your posts, because there is nothing to debate about. I think you are with most of what you say completly spot on. Just wanted to mention that. Thank you.
I think the lower you go the stronger killer becomes in comparison
And you would be incorrect, see point 3.
That was my answer.
No, it should not be possible unless they are playing an extremely powerful character. Eventually, you should get beaten or draw.
Give reason then? Because at the lowest level killer tends to win usually. And I gave you an explanation as to why I think that... All you gave is a statement without explanation.
They actually tried out (hens if i am not mistaken) no restriction on several killers. Killer performed very well with positive results. On some killer even crushing.
It is not really true that besides a handful of killer they all perform bad. In fact watch DBD league, you might be in for a suprise. I did some simple math, and on average, killers had ~2.4 kills. But it is debateable of course, because of restrictions for both sides.
From a statistic standpoint, high MMR killers have same or higher killrate then on mid or low. They win on every skilllevel. On average of course.
Except that killers can string up wins into the thousands. I think the Blight streak is almost to 2 thousand!
And the killer win rates is way higher than 50% actually.
I only every heard of a tournament years back where they did that, and the results were not much different than with restrictions, because both sides had super busted stuff, but that was with omega-blink-nurse and what not.
What you might be reffering to is a showcase Otz and Hens did a while back, but I think that was a comp Nurse against non comp but really good players?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wemWwE-0TLIAre you referring to this? Because I think the surivors were streamer with many many hours, but no comp player. If it is not that I would appreciate a source.
5-12 killers is more than a handfull ^^ But still only like 1/3 of the killer roster...
What statistic are you reffering to here? Because BHVR didn't really give us one for complete beginners or something like that?
It is hard to have an argument when I cannot check the data you are reffering to ^^
There was a series of matches they had with that format. Unfortunatly, all i found was a "best of"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Z8lP_gBJEThere are also PoVs from killer and survivor side.
My math is done by myself. Simply counting kills and deviding by player during a period of time. Time peroid was ~1,5 seasons.
Killer winrates range from 40-50% I think, mostly. Barring a few exceptions like chess merchant.
But just flatly going by 'winrate' is a bit of a misleading stat, since DBD also has what can be classified as 'draws' eating into the pie. Most important to know is whether killers are winning more or losing more, and across the board, they're almost all winning more than they're losing. I checked Nightlight the other day, and I found only three killers that lose more than they win: Nemesis (4.3 percentage points more losses than wins), Hillbilly (2.7 percentage points) and Singularity (1.1 percentage points).
The rest all won more than they lost.
The explanation is that every time BHVR has shown stats and then separated out the higher MMR regions (Be it Iri rank or just 'high MMR'), the killrates at higher MMR have been higher. Which logically means that at lower MMR, killers get fewer kills and are performing less adequately than they are in higher MMR.
I can't give you a reason because there's not that many stats to go off. I can speculate as to the reason, as I think killer has a higher skill floor but also a higher skill ceiling leading to low MMR killers underperforming but high MMR killers doing comparatively much better.
But all I can tell you is that killers are statistically stronger in high MMR.
https://nightlight.gg/killers/viewer
This is a good indicator. Real killrate are usually about 5% higher then on Nightlight. So the average would be slightly above 60%. Winrate is, as you already mentioned at about 40-50%. The funniest thing someone can come across are people who claim 2K is actually a loss, so they argue winrate is "only" 40-50%. Which would completly ignore the 0K or draw outcome.
Nightlight is a bad statistic to follow because it is biased. Only people upload matches they want included in the stats.
The only real stats we have is devs and it was like 60% but they admitted they don't count dcs or suicides. Many survivors suicide when the match is already lost or against busted killers with broken add-ons or when they abusing a mechanic. This means the stats are incredibly higher than that.
If you watch twitch, killer mains are always winning and survivors are usually losing. Most people experiences say survivors lose a lot and killers usually win.
We should stop thinking killers are only winning 50-60%. It's waaaay higher than that.
Yeah right, I remember that one, I watched V1's game on Lerys, and I think the map made him struggle more than the survivors, if I remember correctly. I agree that the results of this are basically similar to what would have happened with restrictions, however I don't think 5 matches on different killers are really a representative amount to decide whether or not one side gets restricted more than the other side. Besides the point where we even lifted map restrictions.
The problem with that argument is that you cannot really differ between the different stages of skill/mmr... My point was specifically among new players killer performs better. All we however have is all MMR and top 5% MMR. And the difference in killrates is only 2.2 % (59.1 % all mmr and 61.3% top 5% mmr). My statement could still easily be true, if we assume that on mid mmr killer underperforms, like around average or what not, but overperforms at the bottom and the top, because of mmr working the way it does.
That is the problem with the whole thing, you cannot just state that I am wrong based on such an unspecific statistic. However I agree that the lower 95% of mmr must underperform compared to the top 5% but by like really not much...
Assuming the top 5% means 5% of players then the 2 % difference gets easily evened out, since we have way more players in the rest of the group.
Doubt it. 🤣 people will play regardless. They have over 65 million players. The devs will do what they feel is best
Then why not go back to 2019, 2020 or 2021
That is what I have been saying for a long time.
Reversions can fix 99% of problems people have with the current state of the game. I guarantee you that I, if given power, could do it.
Well, that is certainly true and you already mentioned it: We dont know how high actual killrates are if we would include DC's. If it would be 60% or much more is speculation.
I doubt they would not count suicides tho. How would they be able to filter that?
Personally i dont have to watch killer streams because i play killer on my own, and i can confirm that loosing is very rare, especially compared to survivor. So yes, there is no room for dabate that killer win more then survivor, nobody with a sane mind would question that - especially with all the data we have.
Where did you get this ridiculouly high player count for DBD? xD I cannot immagine more than 100k players for DBD on all platforms combined.
I remember reading that somewhere they didn't. I think it's always been an attempt to keep killrates a secret.
They've been clear in the past that they have no way of filtering out hookicides. And since one early hookicide can doom the rest of the team, it actually inflates the kill rates by an indeterminable amount. Trust me, I wish they would get thrown out like DCs do.
Fungoose would specifically dodge surv's he knew would break his streak.
If a match was already doomed (win for the killer), there is no reason to not count that other than to hide something.
Trying to refute my point by associating it with "biased killer mains" doesn't address the point it just tries to undermine it associating it with potentially biased players. That's called a strawman and its a weak position to have. (I know the phrase strawman gets used a lot as a I win buzzword but here we have a great example of one so I feel its warranted). It only holds true if I am a killer main and I'm not as I said don't assume my playstyle and I won't assume anything about you, that includes maintaining an argument that needs to assume it to have basis, which is what you've done.
Now for the topic at hand. I never said fear you don't have to be scared of the game in fact most people aren't. We aren't talking about fear we are talking about tension. What makes a chase so intense in a game of DBD? The consequences, and the consequences can be high if you fail to do well and that creates Tension also known as excitement. When the horror is gone the excitement is what remains.
What you are proposing is to dumb down the excitement in the name of mechanical balance. My counterpoint is that's a crap idea because mechanically DBD is pretty bland and I really don't want DBD to become a bland mechanical experience that lacks tension. There are enough games out there like that.
There is a lot of stuff from old DBD that I would like to see back again not all change is good change. Its generally improved but its definitely lost some of its more threatening and exciting mechanics. Old Moris for instance. I understand why they were changed but I miss the atmosphere they used to create and the threat they used to represent, I hope they never dumb them down further and actually bring in that proposed special mori ending that would be really crap.
Steam charts are actually pretty stable across the long term charts and making assumptions about why players quit is just as bad as making assumptions about why players play or have the opinions they do. Circle back to the first point about assuming things.
I'm not refuting that killer wins more than survivor you would expect that given the need for teamwork on the survivor side, the point I've always made is that's not necessarily a bad thing when you consider the theme of the game. (Before any schmuck quips back with "people won't want to play a game where they always lose," I'm not saying they should but a killer bias is to be expected and its what we see in outcome and its completely appropriate if people want a thrilling game as survivor).
An early hookicide is the same thing as a DC, which they currently throw out DC's because it skews the numbers. Its not about hiding something, its about assuming every match's outcome is based on the sum of its parts (how everyone played) moreso than near-impossible situations (3v1 at 5 gens.) They used to allow games to load with less than 4 survivors and just took away from the total gens required (which was similarly both unfair and bad for stats gathering, especially regarding balancing.)
There is a lot of stuff from old DBD that I would like to see back again not all change is good change.
I wish more people shared this line of thought.
Concerning whether such a feat of a win streak should even be possible, we need to know how many players are even capable of accomplishing something like that and how often it happens as well.
Now, I can’t confirm but I do suspect that the game is balanced around the average player’s skill, as such the people that play the game professionally would obviously be able to take advantage of the game’s mechanics and outperform the sea of mediocrity that they likely encounter whenever they play the game. I say mediocrity with endearment btw.
If the community reaches a consensus and thinks that such feats should not be achievable by even the highest skilled among us, then the next phase of this conversation would be whether the game should be balanced for the average player, as it may be now, or whether the game should be balanced for the mlg pro 420 no scope ur mum veterans.
Now, I remember years ago that the forum was being bombarded with passionate posts about whether the game should be balanced for the average player or for the pros, so I am wondering whether we will be seeing a resurgence of said posts given that people like to use outliers of great skill/ gameplay performance to form the basis of their arguments concerning game balance.
My memory is a bit hazy, but I think that the developers had already taken the position of balancing the game with the average player’s skill in mind. This was a while ago, so perhaps their stance on the matter has changed.
Tension: Call it horror, call it tension - or maybe a mix between both. A god nurse is according to your argument supposed to be high tension then? Much higher then Trapper for example? Somehow its the opposite. Your argument, powerful killer create tension is not valid at all. But they cause a lot of frustration, thats for sure. If frustration is important for the game might actually be a decent topic tho.
Steam chart: Please dont twist my words for the sake of your argument. You said i may mark your words, that ballanced gameplay is overall bad for the game. I disagree because we had a time where it was more ballanced and at that time the playerbase was at an all time high. So clearly no, people would not run away or get bored by the game if it would be more ballanced, the opposite is the case.
I mean... When you get chased by a killer that A. knows what he is doing and B. is able to get hits at the current tile if you are not super carefull that for sure creates tension, but if you are playing against the most basic m1 killer where both of this points don't really exist, why would there be tension? There is nothing this guy can do to you unless you mess up big time? (If you are experienced in the game.)
We aren't talking about fear we are talking about tension. What makes a chase so intense in a game of DBD? The consequences, and the consequences can be high if you fail to do well and that creates Tension also known as excitement.
Let me add in a bit of a counterpoint here: Tension requires investment from the players, and there's a lot of ways in which this investment can be undermined. Frustration is a very big threat to investment, and probably the main reason why camping/tunnelling/slugging are such problems to the survivor playerbase. I know the game loses all tension to me if the killer engages with one of those.
But similarly, someone slapping on Blight with busted add-ons makes me lose interest as well. I already know the outcome of the game, roughly, so it's not worth getting invested into anymore.
You need good balance to keep the tension alive and prevent it from getting swallowed up by frustration.
No a game against Trapper can be just as intense as a game against Nurse, this is an over simplification of the point but to validate my so called invalid point, to your nurse example...
Strong nurse is one of the most difficult and exciting things to play against. She can't be looped in the same way as most other killers, requires guesswork and prediction for when to juke her blinks. Best of all... the most bland of plays, AKA loop around the same rock 4 times doesn't work well against her, neither does hold W to a great extent.
If players don't enjoy loop simulator and hold W, which according to these forums many don't, then Nurse is one of the best designed killers in the game because she counters both.
As I've said when people say "balance" they usually struggle to define what they mean. Often what they are asking for is simplification. "I want it to be easier to do the same thing against all killers"..." er that doesn't sound like balance to me. The rationale for this "its annoying if I can't". None of this invalidates my point about game tension. Your, or rather "their", annoyance is part of that tension.
Does it feel good to outplay a good nurse? Yeah... Why do you think that is? Think about it.
As for twisting your words on steam charts, lets quote them instead...
"Then why not go back to 2019, 2020 or 2021 where survivors had more the upper hand but the game was at least more ballanced then it is now? We also had crazy stuff for both sides, so there was always some strange inballanced of gameplay. I can back up that argument relativly easy by just pointing to Steam Charts. Compare playerbase then and now. Even tho we just had the most popular license DBD ever had (Alien), it does not look like the players are super happy with the game overall. Isnt it likely that ballance experience is more important for fun then unballanced horror fantasy? The numbers would match with that."
What does this paragraph actually say? Its a lil disjointed.
You point to steam charts as a back up to a point about the old game style being unbalanced and new killer's being un-liked? Compare the player base now and then? Sure the numbers a pretty stable with peaks and troughs around new content releases as you'd expect.
You tie this point together by assuming that players are only leaving due to lack of balance? A complete assumption that just happens to conveniently fit your own opinion. I love it when imagined facts just magically align with our opinions don't you?
If we are talking invalid points then its hard validate a claim of "twisting someone's words" when said person isn't making a clear point in the first place. Twist your words... you don't need any help from me sir you are doing just fine on your own.
Oh and don't twist my words... I never said "ballanced gameplay is overall bad for the game.", remember people aren't really asking for "balance" they are asking for simplicity, which is bad. My point with respect to balance is still as its always been... that a killer bias in outcome is anticipated and not entirely unacceptable given the game's horror survival theme.
Remember the topic is killer win streaks and why?
I think we could both agree, that Carlson could probably hit say a 100 win streak, but there is simply not enough world comp chess tournaments for him to reach that. If carlson played against random people at bars for example (which is basically dbd pubs) then he could easily hit say 100 or 1000 wins. Thought I doubt he would have the sanity
I do not think it is fair to compare comp wins in a board game vs pub wins in a video game. Comp and pubs are so different from each other.
I thought he only dodged those he knew, because he was aware that it is not really fun to play against and didn't want his buddies to endure that? Or something like that?