Stop using kill rates as evidence of anything...

Rapid99

… while the "going next" epidemic is as common as it is. Like genuinely kill rates are such a flawed stat. 4 games in a row now (and the genuine hundreds I've had while playing dbd) where the survivors just instakill themselves on first hook.

Whether it be because they don't like the killer, they sucked at the first chase so they just give up immediately. It's insane. Yea unsurprisingly, those "instakills" count towards the killrate. Let alone the kills you get afterwards because they just left the other survivors in a 3v1 at 5 gens.

It's so common that it genuinely makes me not believe a single "kill rate" stat out there.

Edit: The amount of games in a row with "go nexters" has climbed from 4 to 7 after I wrote this… it's ridiculous dawg.

GeneralV

@Mr_K said:

https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942057#Comment_3942057

Your definition does not match the communities definition. By that I mean the part of the community that constaintly complains about it.

Tunneling by most is hooking the same survivor twice in a row. Lesser definitions include, starting a chase with an unhooked survivor, finding the survivor again randomly and going after them, and going after someone even after hooking other survivors.

While it would be nice to hook every survivor to death hook that is simply not practical. You will run into survivors on death hook that will have to be either ignore, injure, or slug. And don't you dare slug you deplorable killer main.

In the course of a normal match some survivors are going to die early. Sometimes the weakest link is just bad at not getting found while the others have enough sense to pre run or hide.

I think it does match the community's definition to a certain extent. At least the last time I shared it here there were no disagreements.

Mr_K

@GeneralV said:

https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942238#Comment_3942238

I think it does match the community's definition to a certain extent. At least the last time I shared it here there were no disagreements.

No disagreements, on this forum?

GeneralV

@Mr_K said:

https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942397#Comment_3942397

No disagreements, on this forum?

Rare, but it happens sometimes.

Firellius

@RpTheHotrod said:

Actually, tell you what, allow me to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say we go with your point of view. The devs rejected any notion of using any kind of game design philosophies, statistics, probabilities, or anything of the sort. Instead, they just got together and went, "Mannn, let's like…..just do 60%…that sounds cool enough…". Okay, Now we have them picking 60% entirely because it feels "good". Either way you go, whether they actually put game design to use to come up with 60%, or they just pulled it out of a hat "just because", it still results with them going with 60%.

However, there's some cold hard facts that cannot be argued.

Fact: There are up to 4 kills possible

Fact: a 0k is a 0% kill rate for the match

Fact: a 1k is a 25% kill rate for the match

Fact: a 2k is a 50% kill rate for the match

Fact: a 3k is a 75% kill rate for the match

Fact: a 4k is a 100% kill rate for the match

Fact: The game is designed around 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition. Survivors do not all win, lose, or tie together.

Fact: Averaging takes many matches into consideration. That's why you can have a decimal average kill rate - it's not a reflection of a single match but the average across multiple matches. You claim you're a math teacher, so I assume you at least know the basics of averaging in mathematics.

Fact: A 50% kill rate is only a 2k, not enough to have a majority.

Fact: A 75% kill rate is a 3k, enough to have a majority

Fact: A 62.5% kill rate is the middle point (ie a 2.5 average kill rate).

Fact: A 62.5% kill rate, ie a 2.5 kill rate, means on average across multiple matches, the killer would get a majority of the kills ~50% of the time. A 60% kill rate is slightly less, a 2.4 kill rate which still means getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the time

So, it doesn't matter why the devs picked a 60% kill rate, whether because of "feelings" as you say or because they actually put in some actual effort into their game design as I've pointed out, what matters is with a 60% kill rate, on average, that puts killers at getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the time - in other words, a 50% win rate.

Now sure, "wins" are subjective. You can make up whaateeever win condition you want. You win because it's a night map, hurray! That's quite the win condition you picked out for yourself. However, that doesn't change the facts as laid out above.

You can try to argue against the facts all you what, but dem be the facts. BHVR put some real effort into coming up with that 60% kill rate, and it comes out to a nicely balanced around ~50% win rate for the player who is alone who faces multiple opponents. With the facts in mind, what we need to focus on is dealing with killers over performing (over that 60%), or under performing (under that 60%). We also need to focus on what's objectively bad behavior that breaks this balance such as tunneling someone straight from the beginning of the match - that turns the match into a 1v3 for the whole match, not a 1v4, so the balance breaks. As I had suggested, if the match is effectively a 1v3 from the get-go (as in, from the beginning - NOT a 1v3 situation mid to late game), I feel survivors should get a buff for the remainder of the match to re-balance the match as a 1v3.

Fact: A 62.5% kill rate, ie a 2.5 kill rate, means on average across multiple matches, the killer would get a majority of the kills ~50% of the time. A 60% kill rate is slightly less, a 2.4 kill rate which still means getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the time

No. This one is flatly untrue. This has been explained to you SO MANY TIMES.

The logic you use to arrive to this conclusion also, necessarily, argues that a 50% killrate must average to a 0% 3K+ rate for killers. Which is obviously preposterous.

You have been told so many times by me, and by plenty of other people, exactly why you are incorrect on this point and you refuse to engage with any refutation of your mistakes.

At this point, this is just plain trolling. I will be reporting every post of yours that I come across that repeats this error, as by now, we can expect you to know better. I am not expecting you to admit that you are wrong, but I do expect you to stop wilfully lying to people.

crogers271

@RpTheHotrod said:

Actually, tell you what, allow me to give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's say we go with your point of view. The devs rejected any notion of using any kind of game design philosophies, statistics, probabilities, or anything of the sort. Instead, they just got together and went, "Mannn, let's like…..just do 60%…that sounds cool enough…". Okay, Now we have them picking 60% entirely because it feels "good". Either way you go, whether they actually put game design to use to come up with 60%, or they just pulled it out of a hat "just because", it still results with them going with 60%.

However, there's some cold hard facts that cannot be argued.

Fact: There are up to 4 kills possible

Fact: a 0k is a 0% kill rate for the match

Fact: a 1k is a 25% kill rate for the match

Fact: a 2k is a 50% kill rate for the match

Fact: a 3k is a 75% kill rate for the match

Fact: a 4k is a 100% kill rate for the match

Fact: The game is designed around 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition. Survivors do not all win, lose, or tie together.

Fact: Averaging takes many matches into consideration. That's why you can have a decimal average kill rate - it's not a reflection of a single match but the average across multiple matches. You claim you're a math teacher, so I assume you at least know the basics of averaging in mathematics.

Fact: A 50% kill rate is only a 2k, not enough to have a majority.

Fact: A 75% kill rate is a 3k, enough to have a majority

Fact: A 62.5% kill rate is the middle point (ie a 2.5 average kill rate).

Fact: A 62.5% kill rate, ie a 2.5 kill rate, means on average across multiple matches, the killer would get a majority of the kills ~50% of the time. A 60% kill rate is slightly less, a 2.4 kill rate which still means getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the time

So, it doesn't matter why the devs picked a 60% kill rate, whether because of "feelings" as you say or because they actually put in some actual effort into their game design as I've pointed out, what matters is with a 60% kill rate, on average, that puts killers at getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the time - in other words, a 50% win rate.

Now sure, "wins" are subjective. You can make up whaateeever win condition you want. You win because it's a night map, hurray! That's quite the win condition you picked out for yourself. However, that doesn't change the facts as laid out above.

You can try to argue against the facts all you what, but dem be the facts. BHVR put some real effort into coming up with that 60% kill rate, and it comes out to a nicely balanced around ~50% win rate for the player who is alone who faces multiple opponents. With the facts in mind, what we need to focus on is dealing with killers over performing (over that 60%), or under performing (under that 60%). We also need to focus on what's objectively bad behavior that breaks this balance such as tunneling someone straight from the beginning of the match - that turns the match into a 1v3 for the whole match, not a 1v4, so the balance breaks. As I had suggested, if the match is effectively a 1v3 from the get-go (as in, from the beginning - NOT a 1v3 situation mid to late game), I feel survivors should get a buff for the remainder of the match to re-balance the match as a 1v3.

The devs rejected any notion of using any kind of game design philosophies, statistics, probabilities, or anything of the sort. 

No one is saying that. BHVR clearly had design philosophies and general goals and we even have posts about them wanting to feel like the game is killer sided, but not impossible

Fact: There are up to 4 kills possible

Fact: 40+40+40+40 = 160, so survivors have a 160% chance to win.

Fact: Washington, D.C is the capital of the United States.

Fact: The Philadelphia Eagles won this years Superbowl.

You are misunderstanding the difference between something being a fact and whether it actually applies to the discussion. The facts I'm listing are as relevant to the idea as what you are discussing.

Fact: The game is designed around 4 individual survivors each with their own win condition. Survivors do not all win, lose, or tie together.

Subjective, not a fact.

The win condition you focus on here is MMR. If so, the killer win condition is clear. A kill is a win, as the devs were quoted saying earlier, if so kill rate = win rate.

Fact: Averaging takes many matches into consideration. That's why you can have a decimal average kill rate - it's not a reflection of a single match but the average across multiple matches. You claim you're a math teacher, so I assume you at least know the basics of averaging in mathematics.

You should have listened to the math teacher. There is a difference between something being the average of all the results, and whether that result is actually common or not.

Example: If 6 kids take a test, there are two 100s, two 90s, and two kids didn't bother and got 0s, the average is ~63%, despite none of the kids being anywhere near a 63.

Some results in DbD are not equally represent (2ks, mainly) and you don't account for that.

Fact: A 62.5% kill rate, ie a 2.5 kill rate, means on average across multiple matches, the killer would get a majority of the kills ~50% of the time. A 60% kill rate is slightly less, a 2.4 kill rate which still means getting a majority of the kills ~50% of the time

Again, literally, factually, untrue. You can't keep trying to force an extremely basic views off mathematics onto a complex real world.

Theories and hypothesis are great, but if the real world data disagrees, your theory is wrong (I'm paraphrasing Richard Feynman here). We have data in the form of Nightlight whose distribution shows your idea cannot be true.

I feel survivors should get a buff for the remainder of the match to re-balance the match as a 1v3.

It's funny because this is an idea that would radically change the distribution of game outcomes and you are basically stating it without realizing it.

subdl

Many killer players probably see a “win” as getting 3 or more kills in a match—that is, eliminating the majority of the survivors.

If that’s the case, isn’t it reasonable to assume that the developers aim for an overall kill rate of around 60%, in order to maintain a perceived 50% win rate for killers?

crogers271

@subdl said:

Many killer players probably see a “win” as getting 3 or more kills in a match—that is, eliminating the majority of the survivors.

If that’s the case, isn’t it reasonable to assume that the developers aim for an overall kill rate of around 60%, in order to maintain a perceived 50% win rate for killers?

Reasonable to assume? Sure, until you see what they've actually said about it.

They've had ample opportunity to say they shoot for that kill rate to get a win rate, however, and far more importantly:

If the goals of the devs was a 50% 3k+ win rate, why would they even have a kill rate goal?

If your metric is win rates, you don't need a kill rate goal, you just need a goal for win rates.

It's a reasonable starting presumption, but not when you look at their comments, the data, and how if they wanted to balance around win rates they would never get into discussions of kill rates in the first place.

Firellius

@subdl said:

Many killer players probably see a “win” as getting 3 or more kills in a match—that is, eliminating the majority of the survivors.

If that’s the case, isn’t it reasonable to assume that the developers aim for an overall kill rate of around 60%, in order to maintain a perceived 50% win rate for killers?

It's not unreasonable, however...

1. BHVR's statements on it suggest otherwise.
2. The 'math' Rpthehotrod is using to reach his conclusions is objectively and obviously incorrect.

You also have to keep in mind that a 50% winrate for one side and a 40% winrate for the other is, by definition, very poorly balanced.

hailxsatanxeveryxday

@Rapid99 said:

https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3940847#Comment_3940847

They are capable of it, but do they do it is the question? And what is there to address? You can't address that. People kill themselves from a bunch of nothin.

Have a bad first chase? Suicide.

See a killer they don't like? Suicide.

See a teammate of theirs go down quick? Run up to the killer, do the "come on" emote, and suicide.

Truth.

It's especially annoying when you have a game that's completely winnable with everyone alive and two gens left, but someone gives up on second hook because they had to wait 20 seconds for me to self-heal (and the other two survivors are on the last two gens) and we all end up dying with the exit gates open, or someone suicides immediately after getting an early down and later on everyone remaining gets slugged with one generator left at like 80% progress.

I'd have a different attitude if people only did it when the game was completely unwinnable. I mean, it wouldn't be great, but nobody really blames anyone when there are five gens left and two people are dead. I've just had way too many games in solo recently where the game almost certainly would have been won if one teammate hadn't immediately killed themselves on the first hook.

I've also had a couple of games recently where one survivor will DC out of frustration and their bot still makes it out of the exit gates. A lot of the games people give up on are entirely winnable, and this is easily my favorite change in recent DBD history.

Rapid99

@Firellius said:

https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942820#Comment_3942820

It's not unreasonable, however...

1. BHVR's statements on it suggest otherwise.
2. The 'math' Rpthehotrod is using to reach his conclusions is objectively and obviously incorrect.

You also have to keep in mind that a 50% winrate for one side and a 40% winrate for the other is, by definition, very poorly balanced.

Except how do you reach balance in a game where one side is on their own and has a flat winrate of 50%, whilst the other side has 4 different people who in theory are a team but can all win or lose seperately?

I don't think it's physically possible unless I'm missing something.

crogers271

@Rapid99 said:

https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942865#Comment_3942865

Except how do you reach balance in a game where one side is on their own and has a flat winrate of 50%, whilst the other side has 4 different people who in theory are a team but can all win or lose seperately?

I don't think it's physically possible unless I'm missing something.

Whether the game can be balanced, or should be balanced, and if so how, is a different topic. I know that some of the people here who are agreeing with me on the 'math' discussion disagree with me on some balance or game design elements.

The math that a 60% kill rate is needed because it results in a balanced experience for both sides is wrong. Not even making statements about whether its a good goal or a bad goal, its just factually wrong.

Firellius

@Rapid99 said:

https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942865#Comment_3942865

Except how do you reach balance in a game where one side is on their own and has a flat winrate of 50%, whilst the other side has 4 different people who in theory are a team but can all win or lose seperately?

I don't think it's physically possible unless I'm missing something.

Just match the killer winrate to the escape rate as best you can. If a 55% killrate results in a 45% killer winrate, that's perfectly even between the two sides, for example.

Just don't try and aim for a 50% winrate for killers if that necessitates a much lower winrate for survivors.

That is, of course, if you want to prioritise balance, which BHVR doesn't do.

RpTheHotrod

@Rapid99 said:

https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3942865#Comment_3942865

Except how do you reach balance in a game where one side is on their own and has a flat winrate of 50%, whilst the other side has 4 different people who in theory are a team but can all win or lose seperately?

I don't think it's physically possible unless I'm missing something.

That's the issue with asymmetrical games. However, if BHVR made it 3 or 5 survivors, they could have effectively given everyone a 50% win rate. 4 just really throws it off significantly due to how majority points (in this case kills) works. For example, with 4 survivors, killer needs to kill 3 out of 4. If there were 5 survivors, the killer would still only needs 3 kills to get a majority, however, it is easier for killer to get 3 kills with 5 survivors since there are more targets, so with 5 survivors, their individual win rate can be increased to offset the killer having more opportunity to get 3 kills.

At the end of the day though, I would love a PTB where we drop the whole individual wins things make survivors actually a team who all win/tie/lose together, and have the match concludes once 9 survivors are hooked (the equivalent of a 3k). Im not sure how well this would end up, but the this would completely end individual player elimination, so perhaps killers would feel less compelled to tunnel people out considering eliminating a player via tunneling would mean hooking them 9 times, ha. The downside is survivors would absolutely need to work as a team, and a very weak survivor would be a detrimental to the whole team.

Marzipan210

Even the go next prevention won't make the kill rates any more accurate. As long as both sides are capable of throwing games to potentially inflate or deflate kill rates it makes no sense to use them. What the devs should do is actually test their own stuff instead of relying on their steam playerbase to do it for them like unpaid interns.

Crythor

Oops wrong post sorry

Elan

Pure example here is Skull Merchant, while she was never strong she was so insanely unfun to go against that she ended with 90 % kill rate and was top kill rate killer for quite a while.

StalkingYou

@GeneralV said:

https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941894#Comment_3941894

Tournaments are irrelevant, my dear friend.

They are external, filled with rules that most DBD trials do not have, and experienced only by a very small minority. It is a show for entertainment and amusement, not something that matters when it comes to balancing the game.

https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3941903#Comment_3941903

Well, you said, and I quote:

 I can comfortably say that if a survivor team loses to multihooking they are bad, because I have yet to be proven otherwise.

But, as we've established, that just isn't the case. There are nine years of proof.

That said, here is where we get to consistency. Now here I'll have to make a disclaimer because if we're thinking of recent times, then yes, it is possible for it not to be consistent, but not because it isn't viable, but because of how easier it is to tunnel someone out. It is no secret that survivors lost many of the resources they had at their disposal, and without them tunneling gets way easier to do.

Which is a massive problem. Like I said earlier, tunneling wasn't a massive issue in the Old DBD because survivors had more lines of defenses against it. A killer who wanted to tunnel would have to go through many resources that survivors currently no longer have. Multihooking never stopped being viable, the alternative just got increasingly less punishing. Until now, as we thankfully seem to be moving on to a mitigation or removal of tunneling from DBD.

You denying that does not change that, that is the fact and that is what every top killer has said since the dawn of time.

Your sentence here doesn't make it a fact, either.

Just because good survivors have lost to multihooking before in a 9 year span, does not mean that it's good and viable.

And just because good survivors have won against multihooking before in a 9 year span, does not mean that it's bad and not viable.

tournaments are not irrelevant; they are an example of what good survivors can do. its a good point to bring up rules, because while spectating those insane cracked survivors you see in the tournament, the only thing I can think is "wow, they're giving the killer a hard time. I cant imagine what this would be like if they could also bring an eyrie offering and 4 decisive strikes".

and guess what they can do in pubs? exactly that.

and before you say "you never get tournament teams, that so rare", know that I agree with you. getting a comp team is like 1 in 2000 games. but getting a team that is damn close to one isn't that rare. because comp teams are just great at looping and great at being efficient on gens. it is not rare at all to face a team like that, even if they're not an official tournament team. and guess what, they can bring you to eyrie, and they can bring their 4 decisives.