Upcoming Krasue Nerf
Since the last official stat drop revealing that Krasue has a 67.1% kill rate, what is the timeline the community should be expecting her nerf? This killer is extremely oppressive at high mmr, especially with her Chicken Head addon which causes all survivors to start infected coupled with dissolution.
In addition to her auto-locking projectile and the fact that eating a mushroom does not remove her infection instantly, this killer has way too much and very little counterplay in chase.
Considering the dev team has stated that the kill rate target is 60%, this killer is an entire 11.8% above the intended target. That is to say, a nerf for this killer is not only expected, but promised based on the dev's own ideology for kill rates.
I am tired of lower MMR keeping oppressive killers like this in a broken state because they can't be bothered in figuring out how to play the killer correctly. I'm tired of the people who dwell too much on raw numbers in a spreadsheet keeping unhealthy killers unhealthy (even though the spreadsheet should be indicating a nerf right now).
But back to the original question, when should we be expecting this nerf? Thanks!
Comments
Your whole reply is riddled with objective incorrect analysis, more than I want to waste my time addressing on a Sunday afternoon. Again, you are intentionally misinterpreting my messages.
Again, please have an understanding of standard deviations and variance before trying to talk statistics, thank you for your cooperation.
Nah, you made inconsistent claims with refusal to elaborate and currently hide beyond math concepts you don't intend to flesh out because you can't explain your way around an entire sixth of your data being skewed.
You spent half your posts claiming I was wrong with no reasoning, and now that you've talked yourself into a corner by claiming her performance is affected by changes after saying it was the exact opposite case earlier, you still even now won't mention it after being pressed openly on it.
Enjoy your Sunday afternoon man, I'm getting a kick out of mine.
What inconsistent claims have I made? I am using the data the devs have given me. There is nothing to flesh out because the data is right there for us to use.
All of your posts are "nuh uh," and when I correctly call you out for erroneously applying math, you double down.
I'm having a great Sunday, I just hope more people would take data analysis more seriously.
Bruh.
Here's you saying two different things.
Here's the part of both posts where it was pointed out to you and you still ignored it up until now.
"Erroneously applying math" is funny when you still haven't elaborated at all on how Standard Derivation cancels an entire sixth of your data set being skewed, much less accounted for it within your claim.
You insult my numbers, but you quite literally haven't done any math beyond name concepts. You haven't even provided a basis beyond "the devs gave stats to me" whilst ignoring that the devs said "this includes her statistics from September" which colors the results.
You've got completely circular logic.
On this account our experience is shared my friend :3
These are not contradictory statements. 67.1% kill rate is her aggregate kill rate with the entire dataset from September 2025 through February 2026. This has likely decreased since her release because of her small nerfs and number adjustments, but it has ended at 67.1%, which is through February 2026. This idea that they are contradictory statements was the first clue in understanding that your knowledge on data and statistics is incomplete.
It is not my job to explain what standard deviations or variance are to you, but these are the concepts that are causing your erroneous reasoning when talking about the current kill rate.
Yeah, let's not do this saccharine kindness routine. I'm just here to discuss the topic at hand.
You are currently contradicting yourself again, as before you claimed explicitly that there was no visible change at all and the exact killrate was accurate. Quite literally changed your stance to be closer to mine by accepting the skew exists :D
Translation: "I can't explain Standard Derivation at all because I was just using buzzwords."
Look man, we're on the second page of this argument. I thought it was pretty clear from context in this internet scrap that l was being sarcastic. If you didn't or don't want to participate, please don't feel compelled to respond about how good or bad your Sunday is. That said...
How's your Monday?
I was also using the hyperbolic approach since that seems to be the only language that you accept. Obviously 2 weeks of data is going to adjust results, but the amount in which it will change is extremely minuscule compared to this "massive" drop of 15-20% that your language is suggesting.
My stance has literally not changed lol
Again, I'm not going to define and explain terms to you when you ostensibly have an internet connection and access to Google.
Oh! So you are admitting to playing devil's advocate this entire time and that you actually agree with me? Okay phew, that makes a lot more sense, thanks for clearing that up! I had a hunch, but I'm glad that's what's going on here. 🙋
It's the language I've been telling you is wholly made up and in your own head this whole time, pretending like you've been forced into responding that way when you chose to make those false claims is one way to avoid taking accountability for false claims
You just admitted to changing it for the sake of hyperbole.
*4 weeks and it's the time when her pickrate would be highest, something else you quite literally have not touched on beyond "I see her 1/5 games"
Over 17% of your data is corrupted, a number that's supposed be around 60% becoming 67.1% isn't mind shattering. Your bad faith only continues.
"I'm not going to explain myself because I said two words and that's enough." How about you substantiate the claim you make with evidence?
And finally,
I say, "I was being sarcastic with the Sunday comments, don't feel the need to engage if you don't want to" and this was your takeaway?
What are you talking about?
Wrong.
Wrong again.
The only information we have on her high MMR pickrate is first-hand accounts, since she is not in the top 5 that was posted in the stat reveals. Keep in mind that springtrap (the 5th most popular killer) is sitting at 4.1% pick rate. For a perfect popularity balance, each killer would have a 2.381% pick rate, as there are 42 killers in the game. The difference between top 5 popular and average popularity is literally 1.72%. So you're telling me that one person's "I've seen 2 Krasue in the past 3 months" (most likely because they play killer 95% of the time) is taken as gospel but my "I see Krasue 1 in every 5 games" is thrown out because you disagree with it? See how disingenuousness will get your argument nowhere? If Krasue's pick rate is anywhere between 2.381% and 4.1%, she has an above average pickrate, enough to get requisite data that would aggregate out the initial 2 weeks where her nerfs were not applied.
Definitions are not evidence. If you used even 16% of the time you've wasted with this point alone, you'd already have enough of an idea to recognize the erroneous math you keep applying. Alas.
I just figured I'd try my hand at cherry picking words from your post completely out of the context in which they were written. You seem to be having a fun time doing so! 😀
Rules for me but not for thee? Starting to feel like you're projecting.
And common knowledge that a killer is more popular in their launch period, especially when they are overbuffed.
And if her current pickrate is 2.3% (your average), this would almost double the potential metrics during her launch window given she was more popular then, but let me guess it still somehow evens out because of the magic of the unexplained Standard Derivation?
No, they're both useless because anecdotal evidence has no place in informed debate, the fact you haven't put that together yet really says a lot dude. The point is that if you want to substantiate a claim, you have to say more than “I saw it” because then you could have an entire horde of people showing up to say “Well I didn't." Huh, that sounds kinda familiar...
The statements you take issue with are all literally built off the faultiness of your original claims. You are arguing with your own logic being used against you.
Quips aren't evidence, but they are fun! "Seven minutes is what I wish I’d spared to play with you." Ah damn, yours is better. Perchance.
Rules for me, but not for thee.
I am not going to repeat things I've already explained. If you would like the explanations, read my previous posts again.
Let's say there were 1000 matches total played of killer in that 2 week span. Let's also assume Krasue's pick rate was 5% during this time frame. She would be the 4th most popular character. The reason I chose 5% is because not everyone has access to the killer and not everybody wants to play the killer. That means Krasue had 50 games played aka 50 data points for kill rate. Let's now assume that her pick rate took a nose dive and dropped to 2.3% which is the ideal average. Assuming 1000 matches every 2 weeks for the next 5 months means that there were 10,000 matches played to follow our example. Using basic algebra, we can conclude that for this example, 230 additional data points were collected for kill rate. This means that over the course of these 10 weeks, there was a 460% increase in data for post nerf Krasue data over pre nerf data. Even if we were to assume Krasue's pick rate was 20% FOR THE ENTIRE DURATION OF 2 WEEKS, this is still 30 data points shy of being 50/50 for pre-nerf and post-nerf data.
This is what I mean by the averages help cancel out the pre-nerf data outliers to arrive at the aggregate kill rate. The fact that her kill rate is STILL 67.1% when practically 85% of the data points collected are post nerf means that her kill rate is still well above the intended target of 60%. For reference, ghoul is sitting at 65.3% and he is one of the most controversial killers in this game with his kill rate.
Yet you are assuming that Krasue is not played anywhere near "popular" because she got very, very minor nerfs because… "vibes?"
"Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery." -Oscar Wilde
This is like the 5th time you said “I’m not gonna repeat myself.” Funniest thing is that this is the first time you shouldn't have felt the need to since you actually tried interpreting the data instead of just claiming it says what you want.
5 week span, the hotfix that nerfed her hit live on October 7th. You are already double off the mark, as well as assuming her at a 5% pickrate even though launch killers are usually higher.
Nightlight puts it at 1.44%
How perfectly clean and easy for you after assuming all the key variables involved. Thought you were just using the stats given to you?
No. In modern DBD every killer falls off fast because there are now over 40 of them and they all lose considerable interest after not being the hot thing anymore or meta. Bad faith yet again.
Leeched removal on hook was very very minor? Extremely bad faith.
“Nah actually I never said that and when I did it's because I was pretending to be you."
What was all that about being genuine for the sake of your argument?
Please see previous "I'm not going to repeat myself" posts for the same message.
She went live September 24th… that's two weeks between release and nerf. Thanks for playing! Better luck next time!
The vast majority of people that genuinely use nightlight are nurse, blight, ghoul, and spirit players; and that's not even mentioning the fact that less than 1% of the entire playerbase uploads data to it. If you want to talk about skewed data, look no further than your own example lol.
Also
Casually ignoring:
And let's not pretend that pick rates for new killers, especially original chapter killers who don't have the license hype, don't fall of within 2 days of the killer releasing anyway.
Considering she can turn back into human form, use the auto-locking regurgitate, and then transform back to head form in less than 10 seconds, yes this is her strongest nerf but it is still very weak. "Bad Faith" lol.
You might even, repeat yourself? Funny how easy it was for you to claim “you're wrong” with no reasoning, but and then pivot to repeating this like it adds anything.
Umm, I never said anything to the contrary? I was using hyperbole and actually trying to act like you :3 (he’s onto me fellas)
“Let's generously assume she went down to 2%” “umm noooo actually that data is skewed”
Didn't you know standard derivation cancels out the nightlight skew? Duh. Rules for thee, not for me.
The skew isn't 50/50? Clearly the data is 100% accurate! This is actually the worst logic yet lol
oh so she did have a higher pickrate, just now it's unmeasurably small?
“Umm actually your stats don't exist and when they do they're too small to notice” how many of these kinds of stats are we going to talk about?
Lmao if Deathslinger misses he can also reload and shoot at you again in less than 10 secs, is that also literally imperceptible to the data?
Anything about your completely invalid use of anecdotal evidence, or are you still clinging to that too?
Please see previous comments.
Receipts, they're the darndest aren't they?
Definition of irony.
Tell me you willfully misinterpreted the actual exaggerated data portion of my message without telling me.
Welcome to the conversation, nobody has argued otherwise.
😆
Holy strawman Batman!
Considering you ignored my entire proof about the data, that being being 85% of it is gathered post nerf and the kill rate is still 67.1%, I take it you have no genuine rebuttal and have conceded your point on the topic.
Don't understand, could you repeat?
That...was the point yeah.
Definition of irony.
Except for all the times you did.
Wrong. (I gave up after you admitted started making up bits)
Guess not.
Must be a very uneventful Monday for you lol likewise!
When?
Again I must reiterate: "Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery."
Very uneventful Monday trust me, I'm glad for the break! At least we didn't waste our Sunday's on this, huh?
Scroll up
Your meaning escapes me, could you repeat that?