Balancing the game around 60% kill rate makes no sense
Why would someone play a multiplayer game where they're expected to lose most of their matches?
Combine it with the fact that solo queue is a massive coinflip with people disconnecting and giving up on hook.
There's just no way to enjoy the game if you play solo and actually care about winning.
Playing killer became way too easy as well unless you play non-meta killers against a decent premade
Comments
Fair enough.
Though I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what the game is and what it should be, and thus will just have to agree to disagree.
I believe the difference of our perspectives is in regards to the games theme and objectives as defined. You perceive the 4 Survivors as a team, and the game as far as your terms are concerned, is number of survivors escaped vs. number of survivors killed determines the outcome. If that were true... yes you would be right that 50% would be balanced purely on a team vs. team scale. This means that if 3 survivors escaped, but you had to die to do it, that to your mind is you winning, which is of course the way competative DBD is played. However DBD is not a team.vs. team game... every survivor who dies actually loses; they fail their objective. Every survivor who escapes is the killer failing their objective, and this is a subtle but important difference.
A lot of people say DBD isn't a horror game any more, but I disagree. Even if it's gotten cartoonish in a number of ways, it still explores the same fundamental ideas and principles that a real horror scenario would put you in... and the reason I reject your way of looking at the game is it completely kills that theme.
To save as many of your teammates as possible is your personally defined objective... but in reality as per the rules of the game, it is not an actual objective of the game, your objective is quite simply to get out alive by any means necessary. It is just as valid to play this game with a selfish playstyle. Most people don't... but someone who does, is not wrong.
This means that first and foremost YOUR survival comes before your team. This contradicts my previous example with the 2 man right? Well no... because if I know that I'm gonna lose, the best I can get out of the game now is to help another player win. That player who escapes is winning the game. They are not losing the game because 3 other survivors died, they still win... What this means for me dying is yes, I might have lost to the killer, but the killer lost a kill in doing so, I sacrificed myself and lost so another player could succeed... thatbis different to survivors winning and losing as a team.
Now in theory this should mean I'm always leaving when given the chance right? Since my goal is to survive? Well No… because despite knowing this, I am an altruistic player. I will always TRY and save other survivors, however... I do so knowing I am compromising MY ability to win. That to me is emulating the horror experience it intends, where if this were real the equivalent question would be "could I live with myself knowing someone else sacrificed themselves for me, and I had a chance, however slim, of saving them?".
This simple scenario is a great representation of a horror experience... if survivors are a team, 3 of us can and should leave for a guaranteed win while 1 dies. By your logic, that's a Survivor win... but we all know that isn't true... because we also know that player loses. The real world scenario the game is trying to emulate is that player actually dies if we leave them, so what are we gonna do? We compromise our own chance to win to save someone else...
You might call it risking the game to win more, but to me that is a very detached and inaccurate way of looking at the game. You aren't winning more because thats not your objective as defined by the game, you are deciding to risk your chance of victory to help someone else win, similar to how the games in something like Squid Game work. It's your humanity that is being questioned, not your actual win condition.
On a personal preference note, the decision to go back and save a player, only has meaning if the threat of failure is real, and you are actively giving up your personal chances of victory to do it, and a survivors individual chance of survival in a trial has to be lower for that decision to carry any weight, excitement and meaning... As I've said before, the 50% killrate means that the gate is opened AT LEAST 60% of the time... making this decision to go back not just less meaningful, but also the status quo.
I myself find Survivor role much more thrilling because a 4 man escape is rarer. I tend to find the games where a 4 man escape occurs to be kind of boring more often than not. The games that are really exciting are where there is a desperate scramble between 2 or 3 survivors left to get out... but most 3 man escapes are typically quite easy escapes, and 4 man's are very often snooze fests... that means on a 50% killrate, 30-40% of our survivor games are actually quite uneventful and boring... I personally would like less of these games, not more.
We'll likely continue to disagree I'm sure, but the point I'm laborious getting across is I would personally find the game much more boring at a 50% kill rate, where gate scrambles occur 60% of the time and I still maintain, you can't call the killer failing to complete 50% of their objective a draw game for killer...
Now if you made the killer objective a certain number of hooks... then yeah, in that scenario a tie makes more sense... but with things as they are neither side has a concept of a tie, the objectives are binary.
That is it. There is no concept of a draw here, nor winning more as a survivor unless you personally define it.
Funny thing is no other asymmetrical game does that lmao. A game regardless at what it is should be about fun. Honestly I say for all pvp solo or team pvp game all this thing about ranking/mmr is why pvp games never last as well as pve or team pve ones. The worst games are one that shows your win/loses which is so unnecessary as imo ts a indirect disrespectful thing to do to a player.
Wrong because you ignore 2k. Even in sports statistics a tie counts as half a win, so a 50% kill rate is equivalent to a 50% win rate for killers.
That's not even a consistent rule in sports. Many sports don't do that.
I 100% agree with your assessment. Your point of view makes sense. I just don't agree with it (which is totally ok).
As you said, I see the game as team vs team and for every snooze-fest where 4 get out, there's another snooze fest where killer kills everyone at 5-3 gens (or even at 0 gens for that matter). In my eyes it's just as boring as 4-man escape. But these extremes are fundamentally more probable the more you deviate from 50% kill rate.
So yes - while I see your point and there's sound logic behind it, it's just impossible for me to adopt it. So lets agree to disagree then
Ok so let's ignore ties in the name of balance. So the killer winning 50% of the time and losing 30% of the time seems "balanced" to you?
Except 60% is not "relatively even", 60% would be considered broken in any other pvp game. That doesn't even take into account they exclude all games with a dc from the data, so the real kill rate is at least 65%.
I am not making up numbers. It's directly from Hens's video. And I was even very conservative about it, because other streamers took up the same challenge and say knightlight's stats were like 96% or something (don't remember exact number, the video is over year old now, but it's still on Hens's YT. Watch it if u don't believe me. Addonless trapper no camping, tunneling or slugging).
About the rest - most players are solo or at most 2-man. And even 4-man means little in low mmr so in fact u can't balance around 4man instead (or by the same logic delete/hard nerf all S/A tier killers, because they have unfair theoretical potential in top mmr)
Survivors have more offerings, but killers see survivors/names etc, free dodge and so on. Much stronger perks and overall waay more power. The end result is, that killers kill=win more often.
I saw it so many times - people swear 4man squads so often if they loose. It's pure cope. Understandable. We all do it sometimes. That's why u need to trust official dev stats. And it clearly shows 4-man is tiny fraction of player base (even though devs provide these stats very infrequently).
Also u compare 220 win streak to almost 2500 blight win streak or was it 500? streak on addonless nurse and say 220 is unfair while those higher numbers are fine... Like ok mate.
Again i didn't pull up the numbers. They are on hens's yt.
Dying is the definition of loosing to me in dbd as survivor. U can make up your objective however u want, but that's on you. I know a guy that considers it killer win if he has good/fun chase no matter how many survs escaped.
Again AFAIK devs stayed their stats exclude games with DC. So if they didn't change their mind, then games w DC don't count.
There are multiple reasons for DC. Skull merchant is one of those very good reasons. But excessive slugging, hots 5m away from window, wifi hatchet huntress hits (all ranged killers have it, huntress is just best example), etc... And 0 chance to win games contribute. Now think about what happened recently that got the uptick of DC's. Maybe it somehow correlates time-wise with slugging for mori and map nerfs? If so then we can have a very strong guess that it's likely because of those 2 reasons primarily. But sure enough, it could have been also for all the other reasons. It's just less likely.
If stats show that just tiny percentage is 4man and most people play soloQ, then i don't really care about swf argument that much (just to that tiny percentage). Again, check dev stats for how many survs are 4man.
Your argument is, that comp team can win against pub killer 220 times. But ignore the fact that multiple comp blights/nurses got waaay higher number in pubs. I think that even even sadako main got to the winsteak in ballpark of that number (not to mention spirit, oni, wesker, pyramidhead, ..... Etc). And the survivor winstreak ended vs "unviable" trickster of all the killers. So again. Who has more control in pubs?
Yes i play league. It's more fun rn. I used to love dbd more, but that was in 2018 where 60% killrate would be ridiculed as insane by both sides instead of being "standard". Yes, the game needed to help killers. But that doesn't mean swap sides for unfair advantage
Love how you refused to the name video to make it harder to find. I watched it. It is over a year old, Survivors have gotten countless buffs since then, and in the video they seemed often unorganised and they made stupid mistakes like running into dead ends. He obviously played against survivors far below his skill level, and even said himself that this was the case in the pinned comment. We can talk about how the matchmaking is vastly flawed, but I think the game should be balanced around people of equal skills, not crushing people far less experienced.
"About the rest - most players are solo or at most 2-man. And even 4-man means little in low mmr so in fact u can't balance around 4man instead (or by the same logic delete/hard nerf all S/A tier killers, because they have unfair theoretical potential in top mmr)" What? We should balance around both sides trying to win. For Survivors tryharding to win would always mean 4 people SWF. If I queued up with Nurse and stood in the corner all game, that doesn't mean Nurse would need a buff. If Survivors play unoptimal they can do that, but we shouldn't take that as much into account for balancing as optimal play.
"Survivors have more offerings, but killers see survivors/names etc, free dodge and so on. Much stronger perks and overall waay more power. The end result is, that killers kill=win more often." Most killers never dodge since last second switching is a thing. And the power doesn't matter for this. My whole point was that Survivors have way more power of the framework of the match.
"I saw it so many times - people swear 4man squads so often if they loose. It's pure cope. Understandable. We all do it sometimes. That's why u need to trust official dev stats. And it clearly shows 4-man is tiny fraction of player base (even though devs provide these stats very infrequently)." I looked as much as I can and could not find any stats by the devs. If you really had them, you would actually you know, cite them, instead of just alluding to them. The only stats I could find, where them saying that high MMR 4 man SWF has a 48.3% escape rate. So almost 50%. And that was over a year ago, before Survivors got a bunch of buffs (Anti tunnel perk buffs, gen regression nerfs, hook time increase, sabotage all round buff, etc…).
"Dying is the definition of loosing to me in dbd as survivor. U can make up your objective however u want, but that's on you. I know a guy that considers it killer win if he has good/fun chase no matter how many survs escaped." This is the team game. Lets imagine a simple team shooter where wins are determined by how many kills each team gets. It doesn't matter if I have a negative kill/death rate at the end of the game, as long as my team has a postive k/d overall. Same for Survivor, especially if you are playing SWF. Most Survivors escaping is a win for the Survivor team. That is how the game works. Also, what is your point? A 3 man out shouldn't be consider a Survior win. The game should be balanced around having a 50% 4 man out every second match, so Survivors only win every second game?
"Again AFAIK devs stayed their stats exclude games with DC. So if they didn't change their mind, then games w DC don't count." You are not actually reading what I say and this proves it.
"There are multiple reasons for DC. Skull merchant is one of those very good reasons." Throwing a temper tantrum over literally the worst killer in the game. Her power can be completely negated by standing still or crouching or evading one big beam of light or beating a simple mini game.
"If stats show that just tiny percentage is 4man and most people play soloQ, then i don't really care about swf argument that much (just to that tiny percentage). Again, check dev stats for how many survs are 4man." I did check stats and not find anything. If you actually had a point you would link the stats you mean.
"Your argument is, that comp team can win against pub killer 220 times. But ignore the fact that multiple comp blights/nurses got waaay higher number in pubs." You cannot be serious. First of all, SWF streaks are way more annoying and slow. Killer is just pick the killer and play the game. You have to get all 4 strong players, in the same server region, available consistently at the same time. Then yeah, a strong Nurse can definitely compete with a strong SWF, but soloqueue is more common than SWFs and most SWF do not play optimally. Facing a strong killer is way more common than a strong SWF, even if you play both sides equally.
I think that even even sadako main got to the winsteak in ballpark of that number (not to mention spirit, oni, wesker, pyramidhead, ..... Etc)" Just like with stats, I am going to ignore this since you could easily provide evidence for it but refuse to.
"And the survivor winstreak ended vs "unviable" trickster of all the killers. So again. Who has more control in pubs?" Even more proof that you didn't actually read my arguments. I mentioned the streak ended against a Nurse. I wrote out the full title of the youtube video. You could have watched it and seen it was a Nurse. But, you ignore those inconvenient truthes and rather lie.
You have proven you don't care about a genuine discussion. You have proven you don't care about the facts or intellectual honesty. I am done arguing with you. I don't care if you respond, since you do not care about the actual truth of this matter. I am not going to waste my time with someone as intellectually dishonest as you anymore.
Since I don't play this game any more, I am not that invested into all the links and stats. So I am just showing you that my sources are actually correct but don't spend time looking them up for you.
So for example - Hen's streak ended by trickster (maybe he did another one which ended by nurse. IDK. IDC) Here's your source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NDDXyQZvKAIf you really had them, you would actually you know, cite them - false. I don't have them. I remember them. I found, that there should be stats from jan 2022 where it was shown. But they are not part of official forum unfortunately. Still - you use the fact yourself to point out why huge kill streaks are fine compared to survs so either way you are shooting your own leg.
I am ignoring the rest of your post. It's clear you argue in bad faith. Say I make up numbers from thin air and when I provide sources, you still say stuff like "You have proven you don't care about a genuine discussion". Well it shows it's the other way around.
Depends on the sport.
Every win streak is lost on 2k, so I see no reason to count it as a win in any way.