So if we are aiming for 60 percent kill rates:
Why are the S-tiers untouched when they are over achieving? And clearly High mobility is gamebreaking and needs brough inline with the rest of the kill rates. I'm guessing we are waiting to see how the Anti-Slug and Anti-Tunnel QoL will affect them, as I feel they are the targets for these changes mainly.
But Nurse/Spirit/Blight/Wesker and I imagine Kaneki too when his stats get released in July/August, among others need changes and soon, why are these never discussed?
It's either that or force said killers to play against the 4-man premades if that is their designed purpose, rather than forcing solo Q to deal with the one-sided matches.
Bare in mind we are also only looking at averages across the board, so lower tiers could be cancelling that number out to make it 40 percent survive rate rather than where it should be.
S-tiers need brought down, Low Tiers need brought up.
Comments
It this game would be a 1 vs 4 where every survivors does its own thing, why do you consider the killers win condiditon to be a 1vs4 scenario wher the survivors are a team and not a the aggregation of those four 1vs1 scenarios you tellin us? Talking about double standards here.
…Is there much of a difference between those two perspectives?
The game's current win condition for killer is three kills, IE, more kills than escapes. Even if you considered it an aggregate of the four 1v1 matches, though, wouldn't you still need more wins than losses overall? It'd be the same outcome either way.
The first scenario is how the game currently is. And for the killer to be considered as getting a win, he needs at least 3 kills. Getting a single kill isn't a win. It's an asymmetrical system, so a win condition for one side doesn't mean it's the same condition for the other. You cannot tell me with a straight face that you believe if 3 survivors escape and the killer kills one that you declare the killer a winner. Even the end of the match shows the message that the entity is displeased. If you ask anyone here what the win condition for the killer is, no one will say getting one kill as you're suggesting. While there are distinct 1 v 1s happening, a killer needs to win the majority of them for a match win. He can't tie in this situation because there is no one to tie with - it doesn't work at an asymmetrical level.
What would need to chsnge to make the second scenario happen is for BHVR to change the win condition for survivors where they all lose if 0-1 escapes happen, they tie with the killer if 2 escape, and they all win if they have at least 3 escapes (including a single survivor that might die, they'd still win since their team won). This would also encourage survivors to work together instead of an every man for themselves mentality. That trio will want to help ensure that solo queue survivor since helping one person is helping ensure the entire team wins. No more individual wins (and frankly, every man for themselves perks would hopefully get reworked like sole survivor that actively discourages working against working with other survivors. BHVR has even had advertisements asking if you as a survivor will go at it alone, or will you help other survivors). On the killer side, they would need to change where the killer can actually get a tie with a 2k which currently isn't a thing.
As a general reminder. MMR adjustments are separate from win conditions - it just cares about trying to balance future matches. For example, currently if a survivor hatches out, they win but their MMR is neutral to avoid unintentionally boosting their MMR for a win that was entirely due to random chance. MMR adjustments aren't "rewards". It just cares about trying to make future matches more balanced for you. Some MMR systems even might increase your MMR on a loss or lower it on a win - they are designed to be their own ranking system. Chess, for example, won't lower their ranking if a new player loses to a grand champion, and a grand champion won't go up in ranking by beating a new player.
Out of curiosity, do you have any ideas for how to change that win condition?
It's an asymmetrical game. This is just how BHVR designed it - ask them. I don't agree with it, but BHVR on multiple occasions has clarified that the survivors aren't actually a team and each have their own personal win condition and working together is optional. Only working against each other isn't allowed. They even have perks for players who go at it lone wolf and only focus on their personal win such as sole survivor.
Hey @jesterkind As always, good to see you in a discussion. The quote thing is bugged out, but this is in response to you.
Are you asking how to change the win condition for how it is now to the 2nd option where the survivors are a team that wins and loses together?
Yeah, that's the part I'm curious about. What would you change to make the win condition team-based for survivors?
Survivors would win\lose\tie together. Everyone still gets their usual performance bonuses like Boldness, Brutality, etc. 3+ escapes is a win for the survivors (get a win bp bonus). 2 escapes would tie with the killer (a tie bp bonus, less than a win but greater than a loss). 0-1 escapes would be a survivor loss. The endscreen would declare whether the killer wins, if there's a tie, or if the survivors won. Essentially, shift away from individual win conditions and instead as a team win condition. For example, if you died, but your fellow survivors managed to get a 3 man out, you still win.
As for what's the point of the last survivor if 3 survivors have been sacrificed, hatch\gate escape would at least give him a little BP incentive to stay alive and escape for a little extra BP (consider it a sole survivor BP bonus or something), but that extra BP probably only makes sense to kick in if in fact the other 3 survivors have been killed - otherwise, hatch\gate is just another avenue of escape (ie 3 survivors escape through the gate, and the hatch spawns is just effectively "another gate", but if everyone has died, and you escape through the hatch or out a gate, you'd get a sole survivor bonus). Alternatively, once 3 survivors are sacrificed, the match could just end, but I'm not so sure how I feel about that. Could have an image of 3 hooked survivors with the final survivor on their knees, head bowed, and hands overing their eyes with the killer ominously staring in the distance or something. /shrug
Long story short, survivors would need to work together for their wins, and individual win conditions would no longer be a thing. Survivors all win together or lose together.
AS FOR MMR ADJUSTMENTS, any kind of ranking structure (MMR included) by design only care about one thing - balancing future matches. This is entirely unrelated to win\loss conditions. In DBD, for example, escaping through a hatch is a survivor win, but to avoid MMR being unintentionally boosted due to a random chance escape, hatch escapes are treated as MMR neutral despite the survivor escaping. With that in mind, MMR adjustments would preferably be done at a personal performance level. If you personally did well even if the team lost, your MMR can still go up. If you were worthless and essentially AFK'ed all match and your team still won, your MMR could still go down. I believe the devs have stated that MMR adjustments are changing soon, so it wouldn't surprise me if this is already being considered. EITHER THAT, or just make it more simple by a win boosting MMR, a tie being neutral, and losing decreasing MMR - that's how pretty much every other game plays with the disadvantage that you're at the mercy of the quality of your teammates. Rainbow Six Siege, Overwatch, and so on all go the "simple" MMR adjustment route, but it can be frustrating to lose "ranking" because your team sucked. That's why I prefer personal performance MMR adjustments.
I see the ideal outcome, but I'm just not sure how you'd achieve that, I'm not sure what changes you'd make.
Would it just be the end screen being changed to outright saying "You win/lose/draw"?
And BP bonuses being divided out accordingly. It's literally THE only beneficial thing we get in the game when winning matches. Big BP boost if your team wins. A basic amount for a tie. Minimal for a loss.
Additionally, survivor escape rate expectations would need to be balanced around a 44.2% escape rate instead of 38.5% which is how it is for the current 1 v 1-1-1-1 (which currently survivors are overperforming according to recent BHVR stats). At the moment, all experienced survivors escape rates are in the 40's (between 40%-48%), so it's already roughly around a team vs team requirement of 44.2% escape rates, anyway.
Psychologically, it might help, as well. Survivors would be more encouraged to work together - that would also indirectly help the solo queue survivor by that trio wanting to help them since they all win together instead of just them sandbagging them. There's also a clear definition of a win, tie, or loss. Heck, might even reduce the amount of survivors who just waste time at the end if they are the only living survivor who just spam teabag at the exit gate or hatch if they get presented with a survivors lost or killer wins screen right after. Could even reduce the amount of trashtalk post match when all sides are on the same page of who actually won or tied. The number of times I've seen survivor SWFs going off post chat about how they stomped the killer when they only had 2 escapes isn't small. A clearly defined win/tie/loss can serve up some humble pie. Again though, all of that is Psychological, but I feel the biggest benefit is encouraging ALL survivors regardless of queue to work together as a team. Now, leaving that person to die might actively be working against your win. Would discourage trolling fellow survivors, as well.
On top of all of that, this would change the feel of time spent in the game. Instead of how it currently is where it's usually a pendulum swing of getting stomped with a 4k or stomping with a 4 escape, instead, the majority of matches (~69% of the time) would result in a positive return for both sides, either a win or a tie - both giving a good amount of bp. Long story short, both sides would have an equal chance at winning, and most matches would have a positive outcome for everyone.
While this is true, a far stronger argument could be that statistics just dont tell the whole story and you can, very easily, use numbers for fabricate whatever narrative you want. I dont pay attention to the stats BhVR publishes for that reason, things that should not be excluded are so the numbers lack any kind of specifics that would make them useful.
Ok, I see where our disconnect lies. I'm approaching this question from a more "objective" standpoint. Assume there's no endgame screen, no BP rewards, no MMR system, just a 4v1 asym that we need to balance.
In that case, I think it would be obvious that 2k per match would be the ideal balanced outcome. I think you take issue with the way BHVR currently handles the rewards and such, and I don't necessarily disagree with that, but I'm leaving that out of my argument.
On a personal level, I disagree with the Wesker idea. Yes those Tech's make him hard to go against but imo makes him fun for me. The other killers are annoying to face because they are bland, basic and do roughly the same thing. Wesker (and blight) change that up for me and make me actually think.
Fair, I'm just throwing ideas to stick at the wall in this thread due to frustrations mainly. I'm glad people have been talking about it.