We really going to pretend like killers DC anywhere near as much as survivors?
What's 'anywhere near'?
I see more survivors DC than killers, but I still see killers DC.
I also escape alongside bots quite a bit, they're usually better than the petulant children who spawned them.
In fact I played a killer game today where the first survI downed instantly DCd. I was going to go easy on the other three, but they turned out to be super sweaty and despite me turning back into high gear they escaped.
Either way players tend to DC when they're already losing, difference is survivors can DC but then go on to win.
These stats can never perfect. Do they take into account hackers who win? Killers who farm and let everyone go? Killer DCs that give survivors an "escape"
Yeah. most people think SWFS are some tournament gamers who know clock calls and have mastered check spots. But most just don't feel like Solo Q or are just trolling, which is quite enjoyable in my opinion and easier to beat.
Yeah. most people think SWFS are some tournament gamers who know clock calls and have mastered check spots. But most just don't feel like Solo Q or are just trolling, which is quite enjoyable in my opinion and easier to beat.
3% is still a pretty massive difference tbh because it combines data from both chill, regular SWFs who are just playing DBD to socialize with each other, to these comp sweat squads with hyper knowledge on callouts and where everybody is on the map all at once. But I do agree, SWF has the funny rep of being this big scary evil monster when it's something we've all unknowingly stomped with the same effort as stomping a solo queue team.
Doubling down on the 60% kill rate to keep the horror theme of the game is concerning when no one even plays this like a horror game in Lights Out mode.
You can’t have an MMR system if it’s forced and not an even chance of winning every game.
A 60% kill rate means the majority of the matches are only a 2k which isn't a win. It would require 62.5% for killers to win roughly half their matches. (Halfway between a 2k and a 3k). It's not a 60% win rate, it's a 60% kill rate.
A 60% kill rate means the majority of the matches are only a 2k which isn't a win. It would require 62.5% for killers to win roughly half their matches. (Halfway between a 2k and a 3k). It's not a 60% win rate, it's a 60% kill rate.
And Devs dont balance on "win rate". Then matches that survivors have 2 or less escape should count as lost, which is 40%. I can say to make survivors have 50% win rate (with 3 escapes in 50% of the time) but Im sure killers dont like that.
3% is still a pretty massive difference tbh because it combines data from both chill, regular SWFs who are just playing DBD to socialize with each other, to these comp sweat squads with hyper knowledge on callouts and where everybody is on the map all at once. But I do agree, SWF has the funny rep of being this big scary evil monster when it's something we've all unknowingly stomped with the same effort as stomping a solo queue team.
3% is not a clear number. Given in 10 matches of 30 survivors from Trio. 42.5% means about 13 out of 30 escape. And you dont know if the 10 Solo in those match are escape or not. Say Solo escape 40%. Mean you have this chart, Green for escape and Red for death
Trio have 42.5% doesnt mean killers lose 2.5% killer rate against them. That 42.5% is only applied on 75% of total survivors.
This is called moving the goal posts. Killers can DC too.
I don't know how we figure anything out based on the data we got. Matches where a survivor disconnects could be anything from hearing a blink from Nurse at the start if the match, all the way to players disconnecting before they get hooked a final time.
Killers could be stomping and have the data from that match scrubbed due a late game disconnect. I wish the data we got was less vague so we didn't have to engage in so much guess work to figure it out.
Considering that's pretty much what the devs want (40%), yes it is.
No? It's an arbitrary metric they decided for themselves. Doesn't make it a good one. Killers winning most of their games because they clicked the button worked in 2016 when the game was still a horror game. People don't approach it that way anymore. This is an increasingly competitive PVP game where one role just loses more because they queued for the wrong role, regardless of personal performance. It's about player agency at a certain point. They're still talking about an imposing killer and power role in these stats. It's hopeless. This is not a horror game after 300 hours, let alone thousands. I'm of the opinion that the target should be closer to 50/50
A 60% kill rate means the majority of the matches are only a 2k which isn't a win. It would require 62.5% for killers to win roughly half their matches. (Halfway between a 2k and a 3k). It's not a 60% win rate, it's a 60% kill rate.
That means, on average, a single Survivor is escaping with an occasional second.
That's not balanced. You shouldn't lose just because you queued for the wrong role.
No? It's an arbitrary metric they decided for themselves. Doesn't make it a good one. Killers winning most of their games because they clicked the button worked in 2016 when the game was still a horror game. People don't approach it that way anymore. This is an increasingly competitive PVP game where one role just loses more because they queued for the wrong role, regardless of personal performance. It's about player agency at a certain point. They're still talking about an imposing killer and power role in these stats. It's hopeless. This is not a horror game after 300 hours, let alone thousands. I'm of the opinion that the target should be closer to 50/50
Well that's great for your opinion but that's not what balanced is in this game according to the people in charge. Goes with the asym nature, the killer is supposed to be a bit stronger. Also idk whose "people"; there's still constant debate over whether the game is a party game or a competitive one and which it should be balanced for afaik.
I'm not personally against a 50/50. That would be a 2K on average iirc. That sounds fine on paper. If you have a good SWF it pretty much is that with 48%. I'm also not against the current 60/40 as it makes sense with the asym nature, as said earlier. I'm not the one you need to convince, the devs are.
I will say though, if we get solo to a 50% survival rate I'm concerned about how OP SWF would become due to those changes.
No? It's an arbitrary metric they decided for themselves. Doesn't make it a good one. Killers winning most of their games because they clicked the button worked in 2016 when the game was still a horror game. People don't approach it that way anymore. This is an increasingly competitive PVP game where one role just loses more because they queued for the wrong role, regardless of personal performance. It's about player agency at a certain point. They're still talking about an imposing killer and power role in these stats. It's hopeless. This is not a horror game after 300 hours, let alone thousands. I'm of the opinion that the target should be closer to 50/50
Couldn’t have put it any better myself. What’s the point of having an MMR system if you don’t actually allow it to naturally work?
My sentiments exactly. The devs set the bar, and they achieved it. I have no idea how solo survivor is 40% escape rate, but I guess it proves that solo que issue is a mindset issue.
This doesn't prove any one side is better than the other, and its a shame that delusional people try to twist it to say "SEEEEE X IS TOO GOOD OR BAD, MUH STATS SHOWS IT" whenever we get these stats
"This doesn't prove any one side is better than the other"
I mean... it very obviously does. There's no other way to slice it, really.
All that can be argued about now is whether the game should be balanced or sacrifice balance for 'horror game'.
That means, on average, a single Survivor is escaping with an occasional second.
That's not balanced. You shouldn't lose just because you queued for the wrong role.
I'm merely posting the numbers if we had killers winning roughly half their matches. Right now, the majority of killers are not winning half their matches (anything below 62.5% kill rate) and are instead losing over half on average based on their stats (or tying if you prefer to think of the game as a team vs team game as opposed to BHVR's idea that it's a 1 vs 4 individuals game). However, I feel this is kind of a misnomer, as we really should split the stats into low MMR, mid MMR, and high MMR. It's easy for the numbers to get skewed.
Doubling down on the 60% kill rate to keep the horror theme of the game is concerning when no one even plays this like a horror game in Lights Out mode.
You can’t have an MMR system if it’s forced and not an even chance of winning every game.
You can't have an asymmetrical game and think that flat 50% = balance.
There is almost never a game with 0 kills, because having ONE person hooked endgame makes it exceptionally likely SOMEONE will die.
Also, it's far easier to secure the final kill than it is to kill any other survivor.
Those two factors are going to mean that even in a perfectly fair game, the numbers will always show higher than 50% kills, because the outcomes don't neatly distribute at 20/20/20/20/20% for the outcomes. It would be more like 10/30/20/10/30, which will naturally push the numbers higher.
I think a lot of Killers do give up and write matches off at the slightest hint of them having to really struggle.
Seems pretty obvious that Solo Q is just getting rolled and Duo and Trio isn't much better; so it wouldn't be unreasonable for a Killer to assume (and we know they do) that anything that causes them difficulty is due to 4-man SWF
Wasn't 40% what BHVR wanted? Isn't 60% KR the intended ratio?
Am I missing something or why are you all so upset about the stats?
From what I see, all is going as planned.
I honestly wasn't surprised by anything, not even selfcare being in top 10 survivor perks.
No character can simply be deleted. You know that as well as I do.
Best we could do, is provide constructive feedback on how to change her. Same as some dedicated people did with Sadako.
Maybe we should all overcome our bias and go to the feedback section and create a lengthy post on how to change this killer to be in a more healthy spot, rather than constantly fueling the hate train.
And Devs dont balance on "win rate". Then matches that survivors have 2 or less escape should not count as lost, which is 40%. I can say to make survivors have 50% win rate (with 3 escapes in 50% of the time) but Im sure killers dont like that.
3% is not a clear number. Given in 10 matches of 30 survivors from Trio. 42.5% means about 13 out of 30 escape. And you dont know if the 10 Solo in those match are escape or not. Say Solo escape 40%. Mean you have this chart, Green for escape and Red for death
Trio have 42.5% doesnt mean killers lose 2.5% killer rate against them. That 42.5% is only applied on 75% of total survivors.
Seeing it like this really shows that the game is pretty balanced right now. You escape just a little under half your games which I think is pretty good.
Oh wow. It's almost as if (this is not me yelling but more of a neon billboard for all to see)
PEOPLE PLAY "SWF" TO HAVE FUN WITH THEIR FRIENDS
The argument that people have been running for years that people only play with friends for a competitive advantage of some kind has always been wild (and wrong) especially since people make more silly plays in a SWF than they usually would for a random.
Does information get shared? Sure it does. But that information means very little when
-We're talking about celebrity crushes
-I have 4k hours and they have 400 maybe
-my friend is in a locker waiting for a head on stun so we can both laugh about something in this game that people take way too seriously
I think it is worth noting that 2 swf has a lower survival rate than solo q and has identical survival rates at average and high mmr. Also noteworthy is that 2 player swf is the most commonly played version of swf. It is only at high mmr 4 player swf that the survival rate is substantially higher (and even then below 50%). The only logical conclusion is that SWF is not the problem that the forums would have you believe.
Most duo SWFs are in the thick together and die or live together, will go to great risks to safe each other or often give up when the other dies.
Yeah I would imagine games where a survivor DCs is very likely a 3k for most
Probably right, but I also stand by my own obversation: that some bots are way better players then the player that they replace. Also, Chucky has the highest problem versing bots, as he can't mind game them and his poor stats don't allow him to easily brute force the bots behaviour, unless its an utter trash loop. Bots against Chucky are brutal, I tell ya!
Seeing it like this really shows that the game is pretty balanced right now. You escape just a little under half your games which I think is pretty good.
It’s an assumption you could make for SWF. As Tooth stated you don’t really know how many, if any, of those survivors who escaped 13/30 matches were solo queue players. Going by the data provided initially it would seem most of them were not.
It’s an assumption you could make for SWF. As Tooth stated you don’t really know how many, if any, of those survivors who escaped 13/30 matches were solo queue players. Going by the data provided initially it would seem most of them were not.
The image is out of 10 matches not 30. The 30 is the amount of survivors in a trio in those 10 games.
Out of those 30, 13 escape and 17 die.
Out of the 10 solo survivors in those games, 4 escape and 6 die. (Assuming the ~40% escape rate for solo).
Yeah you can’t exactly assume they escape that much, and given that trios are likely to abandon the solo they most likely die more often. However, that would mean that solo survivors have a higher than 40% escape rate when playing in a team of pure solos or with a single duo (to balance the <40 escape when with trios).
"these statistics don't change the fact that solo survivor is still overall unfun!" (an overall reasonable take because these statistics don't dictate how everyone's games go)
and you're here like
"it's NOT that deep, the STATISTICS say clearly solo survivors escape 40% of the time so that must also apply to you! i am a reasonable human being and am definitely not abusing statistics to make an unfair claim about a legitimate criticism because i would never do that, no no. all survivors have the same experience because the escape rate is 40% therefore everyone ever must also be escaping more than they claim! because that's how statistics over hundreds of thousands of players works, everyone ever must be having the same experience. these people complaining must be LYING!!!!" ... lol?
(had to repost because my comment got flagged for me editing it too quickly. mods never put comments up within a reasonable time so it's literally faster to just write it again. god forbid a woman edits her posts for clarity on this forum!!! they better not delete it again when i'm editing this now!!! i beg... i'm so tired of rewriting because of this dumb system...)
That is not what I said.
There have been many, many, many posts over the last months that stated solo queue was so horrible and that they pretty much never escape. This clearly shows, that this is wrong. Does that mean that every solo queue game is super fun? No.
But if you're not having fun in a majority of your games, then why do you still play?
I have honestly never heard someone say that I "abused" statistics (is that even a thing?) before. You do know that we have SBMM in this game, right? Now consider again what you just said. If you were to die significantly more than 60% of the time, your MMR would drop in response and put you against players that are more your skill. Meaning, your games would become easier and your escape rate would balance out again. The same would happen, if you were to escape significantly more. The only regions where it would make sense for this not to work are the very extremes.
Highest high MMR and lowest low MMR can have some players with different escape rates because they can't go anywhere from there. If you're at the very bottom, then you literally can't decrease your MMR anymore. I didn't think it was necessary to explain this. But SBMM does not allow for the very extremes to happen for most players.
This of course does not mean that out of 10 games you will definitely escape 4. This is not how statistics work. But with a large sample size, the average escape rate in your games will come close to 40%.
I can only speak for myself but most solo queue games are fine. It's more the ones with me solo and 3 people in a SWF that go south quickly (though that is probably just unlucky). You'll win some and you lose some but you can still have fun. Most complaints about solo queue come down to: "Killer too strong, we all die every time." But this data clearly shows that this is not the case (at least not for the vast majority of players). That's what I said before. This is not abusing statistics but looking at the actual numbers and considering the large sample size as well as the influence of matchmaking.
Yeah. most people think SWFS are some tournament gamers who know clock calls and have mastered check spots. But most just don't feel like Solo Q or are just trolling, which is quite enjoyable in my opinion and easier to beat.
If you're looking at escape rates in a vacuum, sure... but those trolling games that result in 4 dead are typically the most obnoxious games. You have those teams that come in with 4 flashlights and head on to make chases basically impossible. Sure, the killer is going to win EVENTUALLY because no one is on gens, but it's going to be a miserable experience getting chain stunned the entire time.
Why feel bad? Just because your solo doesn't mean you are the weak link. Often I find it's the trio that lets the solo down.
SWF typically tend to be more altruistic, which can lead to snowballs from the killer. Better hit those great skillchecks SoloQ teammate, because you're the only one on gens.
Yeah. most people think SWFS are some tournament gamers who know clock calls and have mastered check spots. But most just don't feel like Solo Q or are just trolling, which is quite enjoyable in my opinion and easier to beat.
I don't know where your seeing people say that swf's are doing clock callouts or mastering check spots, but I mainly only see people complain because they have comms and are usually good.
Why feel bad? Just because your solo doesn't mean you are the weak link. Often I find it's the trio that lets the solo down.
Oh yeah, I'm just joking around. In reality it can usually go either way with 3-man swfs - either they're super serious and expect you to fall in line, or they're just having fun and don't care all that much. Those two extremes probably balance each other out. I played with a trio today who were messing around so much that at one point the killer and I just stopped, looked at each other, then looked back at them like wth.
I don't know where your seeing people say that swf's are doing clock callouts or mastering check spots, but I mainly only see people complain because they have comms and are usually good.
When you hear many people complain about SWFS they talk about them being that extreme sometimes.
My fav trios have always been the ones that goof around. The serious ones I always expect them to throw me under the bus. That been said I've played with a number of trios that have treated me just like I was part of their SWF.
The latter is always nice. I had a game once where the killer was not having much luck so I tried to give him a kill but the 3man swf wouldn't allow it. There was sabo'ing, flashbangs, body blocking. In the end I decided to just leave with them because I think I was just making the poor killer's day even worse lol
When you hear many people complain about SWFS they talk about them being that extreme sometimes.
To add on to this, many people assume outright that SWFs are inherently better due to communication (which is an advantage, there’s no denying that) but communication does not magically make a player better in chase.
What really makes a good team is not having a weak link in chase so that the killer cannot easily tunnel someone out. It could be 4 solos (but matchmaking rarely ever makes this the case).
I play with my buddy quite often, but me talking to him doesn’t magically make him a better player other than the often situational awareness nudge (hey, you should go save you’re at 1 hook everyone else is 2, etc.)
These stats can never perfect. Do they take into account hackers who win? Killers who farm and let everyone go? Killer DCs that give survivors an "escape"
There should be a margin of error like in a poll.
DC's aren't counted in these stats, regardless of who does it.
And the rest is going to be a negligible amount, save for maybe the absolute bottom with afk bots.
No, i'm just pointing out that the official stats should basically be ignored because they are useless. I will however continue to use them to point out the obvious logical fallacy they create for people who believe that the game should be balanced around average players when i point out how ridiculously OP survivors are at the highest level such that tournaments need to restrict their perk loadouts significantly more than killers (where they just remove ones like myers tomestone) due to how broken they can be.
Then people say: "but we shouldn't balance around those players, only around average level players" To which i now get to point to these official stats and ask where my nurse buffs are, because official stats around the "Average level" players show that nurse is one of the worst killers in the game.
And Devs dont balance on "win rate". Then matches that survivors have 2 or less escape should not count as lost, which is 40%. I can say to make survivors have 50% win rate (with 3 escapes in 50% of the time) but Im sure killers dont like that.
3% is not a clear number. Given in 10 matches of 30 survivors from Trio. 42.5% means about 13 out of 30 escape. And you dont know if the 10 Solo in those match are escape or not. Say Solo escape 40%. Mean you have this chart, Green for escape and Red for death
Trio have 42.5% doesnt mean killers lose 2.5% killer rate against them. That 42.5% is only applied on 75% of total survivors.
They balance around kill rate, and due to the nature of the game a 60% kill rate makes sense because statistically speaking if you kill 1 survivor, the probability that you will a second one is significantly increased, and so on. This creates a situation where 60% kill rate ends up being about a 50% win rate/loss rate/draw.
However, if you want to complain about that, you are complaining to the wrong people, and need to complain to the devs. Start a thread talking about this very topic.
Also looking at that stats on kill rates by killer i figure that the situation is far more dire than a "60% kill rate" shows. Because the only reason skull merchant can possibly be that high, is that they are counting hook suicides in their data. Which stands to reason is they count hook suicides in their data for a 60% kill rate. So your matches against high mmr survivors are counterbalanced by the matches where someone immediately kills themself on the first hook because they got outplayed, or they don't like the killer, or they didn't like there cereal that morning. This also shows that high mmr survivors probably give up just as often as low mmr ones.
Unless they release the data sans people killing themselves on hook, this means things are really really dire right now for killers.
No, i'm just pointing out that the official stats should basically be ignored because they are useless. I will however continue to use them to point out the obvious logical fallacy they create for people who believe that the game should be balanced around average players when i point out how ridiculously OP survivors are at the highest level such that tournaments need to restrict their perk loadouts significantly more than killers (where they just remove ones like myers tomestone) due to how broken they can be.
Then people say: "but we shouldn't balance around those players, only around average level players" To which i now get to point to these official stats and ask where my nurse buffs are, because official stats around the "Average level" players show that nurse is one of the worst killers in the game.
”stats should be ignored” yeah because they dont fit your narrative. If it showed that killers were barley killing anyone you would back up the stats
So you believe that skull merchant is the best killer in the game and that nurse is one of the worst?
No one believes that. But i believe the game isn’t massively survivor sided like you do (since you always complain about it). If the stats showed 80 percent escape rate you would be backing up those stats.
Well, I apologize to the SWF players, for believing that they are ridiculously over powered and are making Solo Q games suffer. And I apologize for my own ignorance in regards to exclusively playing Solo Q, in thinking that Solo was in a really bad state right now when clearly it's not. Really puts things into perspective. I avoided playing in SWFs for a long time because I felt that it was a huge disadvantage to the other side and felt guilty for it and now it seems that it was silly of me as I am most certainly not in the top 5% of players and even if I was there's only a very small advantage that still doesn't even get me to 50% chance of survival. My chances are around 40% regardless if I'm laughing alongside friends or not. I feel stupid lol.
No, i'm just pointing out that the official stats should basically be ignored because they are useless. I will however continue to use them to point out the obvious logical fallacy they create for people who believe that the game should be balanced around average players when i point out how ridiculously OP survivors are at the highest level such that tournaments need to restrict their perk loadouts significantly more than killers (where they just remove ones like myers tomestone) due to how broken they can be.
Then people say: "but we shouldn't balance around those players, only around average level players" To which i now get to point to these official stats and ask where my nurse buffs are, because official stats around the "Average level" players show that nurse is one of the worst killers in the game.
This is an extremely contrived argument.
...official stats should basically be ignored because they are useless. I will however continue to use them to point out the obvious logical fallacy they create for people who believe that the game should be balanced around average players when i point out how ridiculously OP survivors are at the highest level such that tournaments..."
Yes, survivors at the literal highest level of the game (literally like .1% of the games population) are better than killers at the highest level. What even is this argument? How many people that play this game actually care about competitive DbD? Hint, the answers very, very little. This games not designed to be played like how competitive players do and it rightfully shouldn't be, competitive games are an absolute bore to watch and look even worse to play.
"To which i now get to point to these official stats and ask where my nurse buffs are, because official stats around the "Average level" players show that nurse is one of the worst killers in the game."
Okay, lets do exactly that. What would their process be for buffing nurse's kill rate? Butchering her skill ceiling so the average player can pick her up and win with her. Is that what you'd want? Because that's how you bring killers with high skill ceilings up in kill rates.
No one believes that. But i believe the game isn’t massively survivor sided like you do (since you always complain about it). If the stats showed 80 percent escape rate you would be backing up those stats.
The stats will never show 80% escape rate because looking at stats that way aren't ever going to show the problem.
Escape and kill rate is a horrible metric to look at because there are too many variables to look at:
Was it a SWF
Did the kills all happen at the end because the killer had NOED and they played altruisticly? I could give you examples of games where i get 1-2 hooks and the game goes horrible, but i get a 4k because they didn't expect the NOED. I wouldn't exactly consider that a "balanced match"
Did both sides play their hardest to win
Did anyone give up and hook suicide
Did the map generate a survivor sided map with 87 pallets for some reason.
The other problem is that the amount of survivors that play this game that are CAPABLE of playing at that level are extremely small. So for every match i get against a team that is literally impossible to beat unless i'm playing nurse, i'll get 10 matches with megheads that predrop shack pallet the wrong direction so i hit them anyway.
This is why looking at those types of metrics isn't really useful. This is also why i'm recording many matches right now, and doing several experiments to actually SHOW people what they aren't seeing, because data only goes so far if you can't actually see it. It's just taking a while because i don't have as much time to play DBD at the various times of day i need to get the proper stats. I should later this year though when i have some time off work.
No, i'm just pointing out that the official stats should basically be ignored because they are useless. I will however continue to use them to point out the obvious logical fallacy they create for people who believe that the game should be balanced around average players when i point out how ridiculously OP survivors are at the highest level such that tournaments need to restrict their perk loadouts significantly more than killers (where they just remove ones like myers tomestone) due to how broken they can be.
Then people say: "but we shouldn't balance around those players, only around average level players" To which i now get to point to these official stats and ask where my nurse buffs are, because official stats around the "Average level" players show that nurse is one of the worst killers in the game.
That's the problem with taking these stats face value. We'd need MMR brackets for each killer's kill rate, how many times they were ran in a trial, and even then will it factor in self-hook kills when survivors give up on hooks?
Biggest flaw with the data is Freddy in my eyes. Regarded as one of the worst killers, low pick rate, yet he's got that high of a kill rate?
Her kill rate is accurate and most people know that already given the amount of dcs that factor into her kill rate and the mass amount of people who purposively lull themselves on hook.🪝
No, i'm just pointing out that the official stats should basically be ignored because they are useless. I will however continue to use them to point out the obvious logical fallacy they create for people who believe that the game should be balanced around average players when i point out how ridiculously OP survivors are at the highest level such that tournaments need to restrict their perk loadouts significantly more than killers (where they just remove ones like myers tomestone) due to how broken they can be.
Then people say: "but we shouldn't balance around those players, only around average level players" To which i now get to point to these official stats and ask where my nurse buffs are, because official stats around the "Average level" players show that nurse is one of the worst killers in the game.
You can absolutely use these stats. They are the most accurate stats we have. And from what i see, the devs have the game in a pretty good spot. The ratio is just where it should be from their point of view. If we want to disagree with that and want the ratio to be somethinbg else, then thats a totally different discussion, that is very much worth taking.
We all know why the stats are the way they are. The ultra comp swf squad like Eternal doesnt even appear in public matches that often, because they mostly play in private matches.
The only thing that suprised me was Freddy being in top 5 kill rate. Guess @GeneralV was right and he is truly as strong as he says. I have to admit defeat there.
Tldr: This is an archived version of the DBD forum, it has all posts, comments and media. The archived data will be published at the end of October. This site is not in any way affiliated with or endorsed by Behaviour Interactive.
Comments
What's 'anywhere near'?
I see more survivors DC than killers, but I still see killers DC.
I also escape alongside bots quite a bit, they're usually better than the petulant children who spawned them.
In fact I played a killer game today where the first survI downed instantly DCd. I was going to go easy on the other three, but they turned out to be super sweaty and despite me turning back into high gear they escaped.
Either way players tend to DC when they're already losing, difference is survivors can DC but then go on to win.
Considering that's pretty much what the devs want (40%), yes it is.
These stats can never perfect. Do they take into account hackers who win? Killers who farm and let everyone go? Killer DCs that give survivors an "escape"
There should be a margin of error like in a poll.
Yeah. most people think SWFS are some tournament gamers who know clock calls and have mastered check spots. But most just don't feel like Solo Q or are just trolling, which is quite enjoyable in my opinion and easier to beat.
3% is still a pretty massive difference tbh because it combines data from both chill, regular SWFs who are just playing DBD to socialize with each other, to these comp sweat squads with hyper knowledge on callouts and where everybody is on the map all at once. But I do agree, SWF has the funny rep of being this big scary evil monster when it's something we've all unknowingly stomped with the same effort as stomping a solo queue team.
A 60% kill rate means the majority of the matches are only a 2k which isn't a win. It would require 62.5% for killers to win roughly half their matches. (Halfway between a 2k and a 3k). It's not a 60% win rate, it's a 60% kill rate.
And Devs dont balance on "win rate". Then matches that survivors have 2 or less escape should count as lost, which is 40%. I can say to make survivors have 50% win rate (with 3 escapes in 50% of the time) but Im sure killers dont like that.
3% is not a clear number. Given in 10 matches of 30 survivors from Trio. 42.5% means about 13 out of 30 escape. And you dont know if the 10 Solo in those match are escape or not. Say Solo escape 40%. Mean you have this chart, Green for escape and Red for death
Trio have 42.5% doesnt mean killers lose 2.5% killer rate against them. That 42.5% is only applied on 75% of total survivors.
I don't know how we figure anything out based on the data we got. Matches where a survivor disconnects could be anything from hearing a blink from Nurse at the start if the match, all the way to players disconnecting before they get hooked a final time.
Killers could be stomping and have the data from that match scrubbed due a late game disconnect. I wish the data we got was less vague so we didn't have to engage in so much guess work to figure it out.
No? It's an arbitrary metric they decided for themselves. Doesn't make it a good one. Killers winning most of their games because they clicked the button worked in 2016 when the game was still a horror game. People don't approach it that way anymore. This is an increasingly competitive PVP game where one role just loses more because they queued for the wrong role, regardless of personal performance. It's about player agency at a certain point. They're still talking about an imposing killer and power role in these stats. It's hopeless. This is not a horror game after 300 hours, let alone thousands. I'm of the opinion that the target should be closer to 50/50
That means, on average, a single Survivor is escaping with an occasional second.
That's not balanced. You shouldn't lose just because you queued for the wrong role.
It's far less common, but include that also. If they're not including DC/bot matches they're not representing what players actually experience.
Well that's great for your opinion but that's not what balanced is in this game according to the people in charge. Goes with the asym nature, the killer is supposed to be a bit stronger. Also idk whose "people"; there's still constant debate over whether the game is a party game or a competitive one and which it should be balanced for afaik.
I'm not personally against a 50/50. That would be a 2K on average iirc. That sounds fine on paper. If you have a good SWF it pretty much is that with 48%. I'm also not against the current 60/40 as it makes sense with the asym nature, as said earlier. I'm not the one you need to convince, the devs are.
I will say though, if we get solo to a 50% survival rate I'm concerned about how OP SWF would become due to those changes.
Couldn’t have put it any better myself. What’s the point of having an MMR system if you don’t actually allow it to naturally work?
"This doesn't prove any one side is better than the other"
I mean... it very obviously does. There's no other way to slice it, really.
All that can be argued about now is whether the game should be balanced or sacrifice balance for 'horror game'.
I'm merely posting the numbers if we had killers winning roughly half their matches. Right now, the majority of killers are not winning half their matches (anything below 62.5% kill rate) and are instead losing over half on average based on their stats (or tying if you prefer to think of the game as a team vs team game as opposed to BHVR's idea that it's a 1 vs 4 individuals game). However, I feel this is kind of a misnomer, as we really should split the stats into low MMR, mid MMR, and high MMR. It's easy for the numbers to get skewed.
You can't have an asymmetrical game and think that flat 50% = balance.
There is almost never a game with 0 kills, because having ONE person hooked endgame makes it exceptionally likely SOMEONE will die.
Also, it's far easier to secure the final kill than it is to kill any other survivor.
Those two factors are going to mean that even in a perfectly fair game, the numbers will always show higher than 50% kills, because the outcomes don't neatly distribute at 20/20/20/20/20% for the outcomes. It would be more like 10/30/20/10/30, which will naturally push the numbers higher.
I’ve been in matches where the bots perform better than the original person I was lobbied with.
Wasn't 40% what BHVR wanted? Isn't 60% KR the intended ratio?
Am I missing something or why are you all so upset about the stats?
From what I see, all is going as planned.
I honestly wasn't surprised by anything, not even selfcare being in top 10 survivor perks.
No character can simply be deleted. You know that as well as I do.
Best we could do, is provide constructive feedback on how to change her. Same as some dedicated people did with Sadako.
Maybe we should all overcome our bias and go to the feedback section and create a lengthy post on how to change this killer to be in a more healthy spot, rather than constantly fueling the hate train.
Suprised?
Seeing it like this really shows that the game is pretty balanced right now. You escape just a little under half your games which I think is pretty good.
Oh wow. It's almost as if (this is not me yelling but more of a neon billboard for all to see)
PEOPLE PLAY "SWF" TO HAVE FUN WITH THEIR FRIENDS
The argument that people have been running for years that people only play with friends for a competitive advantage of some kind has always been wild (and wrong) especially since people make more silly plays in a SWF than they usually would for a random.
Does information get shared? Sure it does. But that information means very little when
-We're talking about celebrity crushes
-I have 4k hours and they have 400 maybe
-my friend is in a locker waiting for a head on stun so we can both laugh about something in this game that people take way too seriously
Most duo SWFs are in the thick together and die or live together, will go to great risks to safe each other or often give up when the other dies.
Probably right, but I also stand by my own obversation: that some bots are way better players then the player that they replace. Also, Chucky has the highest problem versing bots, as he can't mind game them and his poor stats don't allow him to easily brute force the bots behaviour, unless its an utter trash loop. Bots against Chucky are brutal, I tell ya!
It’s an assumption you could make for SWF. As Tooth stated you don’t really know how many, if any, of those survivors who escaped 13/30 matches were solo queue players. Going by the data provided initially it would seem most of them were not.
The image is out of 10 matches not 30. The 30 is the amount of survivors in a trio in those 10 games.
Out of those 30, 13 escape and 17 die.
Out of the 10 solo survivors in those games, 4 escape and 6 die. (Assuming the ~40% escape rate for solo).
Yeah you can’t exactly assume they escape that much, and given that trios are likely to abandon the solo they most likely die more often. However, that would mean that solo survivors have a higher than 40% escape rate when playing in a team of pure solos or with a single duo (to balance the <40 escape when with trios).
Thats pretty decent honestly.
That is not what I said.
There have been many, many, many posts over the last months that stated solo queue was so horrible and that they pretty much never escape. This clearly shows, that this is wrong. Does that mean that every solo queue game is super fun? No.
But if you're not having fun in a majority of your games, then why do you still play?
I have honestly never heard someone say that I "abused" statistics (is that even a thing?) before. You do know that we have SBMM in this game, right? Now consider again what you just said. If you were to die significantly more than 60% of the time, your MMR would drop in response and put you against players that are more your skill. Meaning, your games would become easier and your escape rate would balance out again. The same would happen, if you were to escape significantly more. The only regions where it would make sense for this not to work are the very extremes.
Highest high MMR and lowest low MMR can have some players with different escape rates because they can't go anywhere from there. If you're at the very bottom, then you literally can't decrease your MMR anymore. I didn't think it was necessary to explain this. But SBMM does not allow for the very extremes to happen for most players.
This of course does not mean that out of 10 games you will definitely escape 4. This is not how statistics work. But with a large sample size, the average escape rate in your games will come close to 40%.
I can only speak for myself but most solo queue games are fine. It's more the ones with me solo and 3 people in a SWF that go south quickly (though that is probably just unlucky). You'll win some and you lose some but you can still have fun. Most complaints about solo queue come down to: "Killer too strong, we all die every time." But this data clearly shows that this is not the case (at least not for the vast majority of players). That's what I said before. This is not abusing statistics but looking at the actual numbers and considering the large sample size as well as the influence of matchmaking.
If you're looking at escape rates in a vacuum, sure... but those trolling games that result in 4 dead are typically the most obnoxious games. You have those teams that come in with 4 flashlights and head on to make chases basically impossible. Sure, the killer is going to win EVENTUALLY because no one is on gens, but it's going to be a miserable experience getting chain stunned the entire time.
SWF typically tend to be more altruistic, which can lead to snowballs from the killer. Better hit those great skillchecks SoloQ teammate, because you're the only one on gens.
I don't know where your seeing people say that swf's are doing clock callouts or mastering check spots, but I mainly only see people complain because they have comms and are usually good.
Oh yeah, I'm just joking around. In reality it can usually go either way with 3-man swfs - either they're super serious and expect you to fall in line, or they're just having fun and don't care all that much. Those two extremes probably balance each other out. I played with a trio today who were messing around so much that at one point the killer and I just stopped, looked at each other, then looked back at them like wth.
When you hear many people complain about SWFS they talk about them being that extreme sometimes.
The latter is always nice. I had a game once where the killer was not having much luck so I tried to give him a kill but the 3man swf wouldn't allow it. There was sabo'ing, flashbangs, body blocking. In the end I decided to just leave with them because I think I was just making the poor killer's day even worse lol
To add on to this, many people assume outright that SWFs are inherently better due to communication (which is an advantage, there’s no denying that) but communication does not magically make a player better in chase.
What really makes a good team is not having a weak link in chase so that the killer cannot easily tunnel someone out. It could be 4 solos (but matchmaking rarely ever makes this the case).
I play with my buddy quite often, but me talking to him doesn’t magically make him a better player other than the often situational awareness nudge (hey, you should go save you’re at 1 hook everyone else is 2, etc.)
The problem with this game is not the kill/escape rate, its the binary outcome of the matches.
In most matches, either the killer is played hard by survivors, and all escape (maybe one save-face kill), or the killer gets a 4k.
While you can easily set matches then to get any kill/escape ratio you want, the matches itself are a problem, because they are unbalanced and boring.
DC's aren't counted in these stats, regardless of who does it.
And the rest is going to be a negligible amount, save for maybe the absolute bottom with afk bots.
Because the game has become much less fun since they started doing that.
You shouldn't lose because you queued for Survivor. That's literally just 2017 Killer.
60% KR is a horrible idea. Having an average of one Survivor escape per game feels awful.
I think they should be counted in a separate sheet.
We'd get an idea of how big the DC issue is and we'd see the true state of matches.
No, i'm just pointing out that the official stats should basically be ignored because they are useless. I will however continue to use them to point out the obvious logical fallacy they create for people who believe that the game should be balanced around average players when i point out how ridiculously OP survivors are at the highest level such that tournaments need to restrict their perk loadouts significantly more than killers (where they just remove ones like myers tomestone) due to how broken they can be.
Then people say: "but we shouldn't balance around those players, only around average level players" To which i now get to point to these official stats and ask where my nurse buffs are, because official stats around the "Average level" players show that nurse is one of the worst killers in the game.
They balance around kill rate, and due to the nature of the game a 60% kill rate makes sense because statistically speaking if you kill 1 survivor, the probability that you will a second one is significantly increased, and so on. This creates a situation where 60% kill rate ends up being about a 50% win rate/loss rate/draw.
However, if you want to complain about that, you are complaining to the wrong people, and need to complain to the devs. Start a thread talking about this very topic.
Also looking at that stats on kill rates by killer i figure that the situation is far more dire than a "60% kill rate" shows. Because the only reason skull merchant can possibly be that high, is that they are counting hook suicides in their data. Which stands to reason is they count hook suicides in their data for a 60% kill rate. So your matches against high mmr survivors are counterbalanced by the matches where someone immediately kills themself on the first hook because they got outplayed, or they don't like the killer, or they didn't like there cereal that morning. This also shows that high mmr survivors probably give up just as often as low mmr ones.
Unless they release the data sans people killing themselves on hook, this means things are really really dire right now for killers.
”stats should be ignored” yeah because they dont fit your narrative. If it showed that killers were barley killing anyone you would back up the stats
So you believe that skull merchant is the best killer in the game and that nurse is one of the worst?
No one believes that. But i believe the game isn’t massively survivor sided like you do (since you always complain about it). If the stats showed 80 percent escape rate you would be backing up those stats.
Well, I apologize to the SWF players, for believing that they are ridiculously over powered and are making Solo Q games suffer. And I apologize for my own ignorance in regards to exclusively playing Solo Q, in thinking that Solo was in a really bad state right now when clearly it's not. Really puts things into perspective. I avoided playing in SWFs for a long time because I felt that it was a huge disadvantage to the other side and felt guilty for it and now it seems that it was silly of me as I am most certainly not in the top 5% of players and even if I was there's only a very small advantage that still doesn't even get me to 50% chance of survival. My chances are around 40% regardless if I'm laughing alongside friends or not. I feel stupid lol.
This is an extremely contrived argument.
...official stats should basically be ignored because they are useless. I will however continue to use them to point out the obvious logical fallacy they create for people who believe that the game should be balanced around average players when i point out how ridiculously OP survivors are at the highest level such that tournaments..."
Yes, survivors at the literal highest level of the game (literally like .1% of the games population) are better than killers at the highest level. What even is this argument? How many people that play this game actually care about competitive DbD? Hint, the answers very, very little. This games not designed to be played like how competitive players do and it rightfully shouldn't be, competitive games are an absolute bore to watch and look even worse to play.
"To which i now get to point to these official stats and ask where my nurse buffs are, because official stats around the "Average level" players show that nurse is one of the worst killers in the game."
Okay, lets do exactly that. What would their process be for buffing nurse's kill rate? Butchering her skill ceiling so the average player can pick her up and win with her. Is that what you'd want? Because that's how you bring killers with high skill ceilings up in kill rates.
The stats will never show 80% escape rate because looking at stats that way aren't ever going to show the problem.
Escape and kill rate is a horrible metric to look at because there are too many variables to look at:
The other problem is that the amount of survivors that play this game that are CAPABLE of playing at that level are extremely small. So for every match i get against a team that is literally impossible to beat unless i'm playing nurse, i'll get 10 matches with megheads that predrop shack pallet the wrong direction so i hit them anyway.
This is why looking at those types of metrics isn't really useful. This is also why i'm recording many matches right now, and doing several experiments to actually SHOW people what they aren't seeing, because data only goes so far if you can't actually see it. It's just taking a while because i don't have as much time to play DBD at the various times of day i need to get the proper stats. I should later this year though when i have some time off work.
That's the problem with taking these stats face value. We'd need MMR brackets for each killer's kill rate, how many times they were ran in a trial, and even then will it factor in self-hook kills when survivors give up on hooks?
Biggest flaw with the data is Freddy in my eyes. Regarded as one of the worst killers, low pick rate, yet he's got that high of a kill rate?
But thats besides the point, is it not? You can disagree with the 60% goal, but if thats what the devs want, they are in a really good spot right now.
Her kill rate is accurate and most people know that already given the amount of dcs that factor into her kill rate and the mass amount of people who purposively lull themselves on hook.🪝
You can absolutely use these stats. They are the most accurate stats we have. And from what i see, the devs have the game in a pretty good spot. The ratio is just where it should be from their point of view. If we want to disagree with that and want the ratio to be somethinbg else, then thats a totally different discussion, that is very much worth taking.
We all know why the stats are the way they are. The ultra comp swf squad like Eternal doesnt even appear in public matches that often, because they mostly play in private matches.
The only thing that suprised me was Freddy being in top 5 kill rate. Guess @GeneralV was right and he is truly as strong as he says. I have to admit defeat there.