A reddit user did an experiment. Let's discuss the results.
As you can see, the rules were:
- Play only as Trapper
- No Add-ons
- BP offerings only
- Random perk build
I won't bother typing the results out as you can read them on the graphic, but I'm curious what other people think of this experiment and what it means.
Reddit thread for the curious: https://www.reddit.com/r/deadbydaylight/comments/1erize6/i_played_random_build_trapper_for_100_matches/
Tagged:
Mod
Comments
Personally I think these numbers show that we should nerf pig
Jokes Aside, the fact there were only 2 hatch escapes imo proves hatch is overly complained about
I would be wondering how he managed to get 100 games with legally blind survivors playing using only their elbows to be perfectly honest 😉
I love little info graphics like these. Personally I am one of the few that don’t really believe in “killer tiers”. As I believe that any killer has the potential to be very deadly if enough time is dedicated to them. And statistics support this belief which is part of the reason I have it. I don’t believe BHVR comes out with any killer and tries to make them “b tier or d tier etc.” I think different killers are good at different things and those things can be specific to individual player play styles/preferences. All that to say that this makes me smile for the trapper. <3 sorry he got some DCs though. Keep trapping on
Doesn’t this kind of match what the devs have shown? Trapper specifically is said to perform extremely well at low and mid MMR, which is why he isn’t being buffed. It’s killer mains on this forum (and on Reddit) who think he’s weak. The data does not however bear that out.
In seriousness, I would call this data sheet heavily into scrutiny without proof, because while it's certainly possible to win as Trapper, and win consistently, any semi competent survivor team against a random build Trapper should be giving him trouble. It'd be hard even if you did go all out with add-ons and perks.
If a single survivor follows you disabling your traps, you've got nothing, and a soloQ player can do that on their own. In this scenario, you only have mind games to help you as Trapper, and good survivors don't fall on your blade that often.
So yeah, without proof, it means nothing, and even with proof, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny if survivors are playing bad.
Play 100 games against the people on these forums, then I'll take it seriously.
I was hoping I wouldn't have to post this myself.
77% killrate is ridiculous.
Why play survivor role and win 2/10 times when u could win 8/10 times as killer?
Vods please
Given the solo queue team mates you usually get out there, this is not surprising at all.
I'd be mentally exhausted after 100 matches of Trapper. 77% though isn't too shabby.
As much as I'd like to say this puts a dent in killer propaganda.
This data is too inconclusive with no vods and a tiny sample size.
100 matches is very small number to make any statements or conclusions out of them. Minimum should be like 300+
Why? There has been over 1000 winstreak as killer?
This is very good data and to say it's not is disingenuous. It is just to be taken with a grain of salt as there are many variables like player gametime, mmr ect.
Because if you read the post, the person clearly stated that they "played really mean".
They didn't say how many times survivors just immediately gave up. Playing "mean" often makes survivors just ragequit and nope out of the match as fast as possible, especially since there is literally 0 penalty to doing so now that deranking is no longer a thing. In fact, from personal experience, i can say that probably half of my matches, someone just gives up as soon as they see whatever killer i'm playing and don't like it, or they get outplayed, or the first chase is "Too quick" and i think that is what is inflating kill rates to such a high level.
I plan on doing a similar experiment as well soon, and will include how many times survivors give up, as well as recording all of the games.
I wouldn't call it very good data, I wouldn't even call it good data
5 things that judge quality of data
Accuracy, there's nothing to confirm that their numbers are accurate
Completeness, this is literally only a summary, no one can look at the raw data
Reliability, no vods, no spreadsheets, no tracking, no notes, no endscreens, nothing, again just a single picture
Relevance, this one would matter more if everything else lined up but since it doesn't its
Timeliness, We don't even know when the data is from, this could very well be 4 year old data compiled and we are just eating it up
Its barely even data I wouldn't draw conclusions from this with a 10 foot pole and a grant
Forfeit is still a lose.
These arnt clinical trails. This is well presented and should be commended. 99% of the player base don't give data like this.
Only safe bets are stats released by devs and those can only be averages, not individual experiences based on luck or skill or killer choice.
The fact that you bring up the 1000 kill win steak is precisely why this is bad data.
1000 kill winsteaks exist.
1000 kill winsteaks are not a common occurrence among the playerbase as a whole, and that fact that they exist doesn't imply killers have a 100% win rate. It is the sole experience of a singler player who themselves are a statistical outlier.
Likewise, these 100 games are the experience of a single player. Their own skill level, and their experience with Trapper, is going to have a much greater effect on the data.
There's nothing here to extrapolate and infer about the game as a whole. All this data really shows is that this redditor is good at playing Trapper. Given that they managed an above average win rate while imposing a handicap upon themselves.
Thanks for expanding on my last paragraph :)
A group of comp players did the same thing except they didn't even use his power. They got a 90% kill rate if i'm remembering correctly. I'm done with people acting like it's hard to play killer in pub matches.
Good killers all have a roughly 75% kill rate and they still complain about swf.
Statistical outliers.
If your examples of comp players are getting 90% kill rates while the average sits at around 60%, then the majority of killers have less than 60% kill rates.
my boy trapper getting some love
O7
Wow you're so right I shouldn't analyze data I should accept it because it fits a narrative I want it to fit
Look at this new fresh data set I just made
Guess I should draw data from this
"look, I can lie, so that necessarily means that this other person was also lying" is a terrible argument.
I'm not saying the OP's data is a whole lot more trustworthy, I'm just saying they don't seem to have an agenda to push by making up the data like you do. If you want to discuss the data, please discuss the data instead of engaging in ridiculous charicature
I’m pretty sure Peanits said based on their data Trapper performs super well at low and mid MMR, which is why they aren’t buffing him. He’s not a weak killer at all.
In the OP they did include disconnects, but there is a big difference between a "disconnect" and "giving up"
Sure, forfeiting is technically a "loss" but its inflating the kill numbers. If you have a single survivor rage quit out of the match because they don't like the killer, its very likely going to be a 3-4k, that is massively inflating the kill numbers. Lets imagine a scenario where someone plays 100 games as lets say "Freddy Fazbear". Obviously this is a hyperbolic example as freddy does not exist (yet) and the numbers are big, but i'm illustrating why excluding forfeits is important when looking at this kind of data
This results in the killer getting 320 kills out of a possible 400, which would show that Freddy Fazbear has a kill rate of 80%. Now, in this scenario, do we think that this means that Freddy Fazbear is overpowered in some way? Or maybe underpowered?
What can we conclude? Nothing really because the data is muddied by all the survivors giving up.
What can we glean from it at least? That Freddy Fazbear has a high rate of survivors giving up, but that Freddy Fazbear is probably underpowered. In this case, it stands to reason that Freddy Fazbear is both:
So, if this person played 100 games as trapper, and in 80 of them someone immediately gave up, that doesn't mean that "Trapper is fine" or "killer is fine" because of that, all it means is that in those 100 games they killed that many players, but doesn't show any CONTEXT for those kills. Context is important here, and is precisely why survivors giving up and DCing should not be counted in these statistics when we are trying to determine if something is "fine".
Giving up a match, and dying in a match through normal gameplay are 2 different statistics that show 2 different things. Giving up frequently shows that people are just refusing to play against that killer, and dying in a regular match through normal gameplay is indicating how strong that killer actually is.
EDIT: Changed the example killer to Freddy Fazbear to make sure we aren't biasing ourselves in the discussion here.
death sentence
also jokes aside nerf hatch
jk last time
i want more things like this so please do dredge next
or pig… please we pig players need something 🥺
agreed give pigs longer snoots and maybe special cages like what executioner has but they can get out on their own if they do it right
love you guys
#pigpengang
A killer can be weak against decent players and a noob stomper at the same time.
#pigpengang
how many of these matches concluded with a basement camp? still, props.
Here's a terrible argument
Sources : None
Screenshots : None
Spreadsheets : None
Raw data : None
Time of data collection : None
Proof of data collection : None
You get the point its an image with numbers on it there are no conclusions to be drawn from it, Its as easily made up as it is disregarded because there's nothing behind it to analyze "someone else showed how easy this would be to spoof so it must be real" is not a good stance either this isn't innocent until proven guilty its bad data until supported by its sources
respect is earned and you have more than enough of mine, friend
so what I'm getting from this is that you're saying "I can lie, therefore everything else should be treated as a lie as well". lmao
The dude DM'ed me screenshots of his nightlight on reddit so I believe him. You explicitly and openly were inventing things for the sole purpose of casting doubt on some numbers you found inconvenient. I would have had so much more respect for you if you'd just said "yeah I don't see enough proof" instead of going the extra mile to ms paint a new graphic.
Even if this info is taken as true and not completelymade up... This shows that the trappers power only caught roughly 2 people per match. That doesnt even mean those traps resulted in downs. The insinuation is these survivors lost horribly to M1 strikes.
Congrats for the player being good enough at Trapper to win consistently like this, but it's hardly reflective as an average Trapper match.
Heres your reddit gold for having an argument from your point of view without providing the evidence you actually had but not sharing it for some reason????
I did say I don't see enough proof but somehow that wasn't enough for the guy I was talking too, but sure third party an argument and wonder why it isn't custom tailored to you
You are really focused on one irrational point to "win" this internet argument so i'm just going to leave you to your devices since you seem to be tunnel visioned on it no matter what my response is.
Please keep the discussion in here civil and respectful; towards others, as well as their thoughts and comments. Thank you.
Image with numbers written in it about a killer doing great without any source or explanation: Aha! This totally proves that killers are OP. Stop with the propaganda already, killer mains!
Pro player playing 50 SoloQ games live in stream and getting a 65.5% escape rate among all survivors by playing well and as a teammate: This is proof of nothing because * insert twisted logic here *…
Another day in the DbD community.
The image doesn't prove anything and the pro player is going to win more often because they are better, the statistics are too narrow and too unsupported to be applied to the masses
Even best case scenario its just interesting statistics assuming everything lines up but its nothing to balance the game around for either side of the argument in either case
First, sorry, I quoted you by mistake. Second, the escape rate was not only the escapes of the "pro player", but his whole team of randoms in those 50 SoloQ games.
Even tho, I agree with your last statement.
I didn't say escape more often I said win more often like overall as a team not just personal escapes
Wasn’t it said that even in high MMR he still performs decently though (not great, but not terribly)? And newbies make up a small percentage of the game. Most players are in mid-MMR, which wouldn’t make them newbies.
Trapper has always been on the lower end in kill rates at the higher ranks. From what I remember in a lot of the previous stats, Trapper trends around average across all ranks, but when you end up at the high ranks, he drops off fast.
In the latest official stats, he was in the bottom 10 killers by kill rate across all ranks. However, some of the killers below him got buffed since then, so he might be even lower. In Nightlight (unofficial stats), he's ranked even lower than that.
Statistically, he's not doing well at all. I know stats aren't the be all and end all, but I think he could use a few buffs honestly.
It's just a fun summary of one person's experience of 100 games as Trapper. Someone could very easily get these results, without it meaning that the Trapper is powerful, so I don't some of the complaints here.
People play far better as some Killers compared to others. For example, I get far better results as Trapper, Executioner and Oni than I do with Nurse. Does that mean those Killers are better than Nurse? Of course not! However, I'm clearly a better player of those Killers than as a Nurse.
It's not unusual for someone to get this result, so I would only be concerned if this person was using this to prove that everyone should find it this easy, which I don't believe would be accurate, but don't believe this is what this person is trying to say.
Basically, interesting facts which I can imagine to be realistic from personal experience, but everybody will have their own experiences which will differ vastly.
I'm exactly like you, I don't believe in Killer Tierlists. I believe ANY Killer can be very good, or very bad. It depends on the player.
When I say "weak Killers", I mean "Killers that do not have a ton of power in their kit, so winning consistently requires more overall skill and cleverness as well as knowing that Killer REALLY well." Myers is a weak Killer not because he's BAD, but because he requires knowing what does and does not work, being flexible, and all the little ins and outs of what he can and cannot do with various addons. Winning consistently with Myers means you need to put in a lot more effort than the average Killer player to do well.
When I say "strong Killers", I mean "Killers that have lots of stuff in their kit that can be extremely powerful when mastered." Pinhead is a strong Killer not because he's really really good, but because once he is mastered he can create situations that are very difficult for all but an experienced SWF to get out of, and doing so requires significant effort to get to that point consistently. Pinhead already has stuff in his kit that makes him good against the average Survivor, but go a bit further and you become very strong, to the point you can even become highly competitive with him and do well.
When I say "overpowered" or "underpowered", I mean those Killers that either do something that breaks the game, or fundamentally can't keep up with the game in its current state at all. Nurse is an overpowered Killer because for the effort you put in, she is much too strong and her kit is so basic is is really simple to learn, plus being good at her gives more value than the average Killer. She breaks looping, she just breaks looping. That's overpowered. She is in bad need of tweaks to be made more fair, but that doesn't mean she cannot lose. Meanwhile Freddy is an underpowered Killer in that he does many things, but none of them overly well and none of them seem to be as effective - he antiloops poorly, he teleports poorly, he stealths poorly, and he slows down the game poorly. He is in bad need of tweaks to be fully effective, but that doesn't mean he can't win.
If I had to tierlist Killers, I would do them like this, in order (left to right) of most to least need of any changes to make them more balanced:
Wesker is plagued by glitches and could stand to have some stuff made partial basekit. He needs looking at. Skull Merchant's kit is bloated and needs a change badly. Trickster's changes are not fun for Trickster Main and feel bad for Survivor Mains, he needs to be given another look. I am happy to explain anyone else on this list.
I've spoken to killer mains who post their kill rate stats around 75% and they still claim the game isn't ridiculously killer sided.
I actually really love your list. I agree with what you mean 100%. It's not that certain killers are strong or weak, it's that they each have varying levels of difficulty to master, but they are all capable of performing well and if they're under that 60% than I'm sure BHVR would step in to get them higher, as shown with the buffs to huntress, billy, singu etc. and some others on the roadmap. But yes, I'm glad you understand my point. It really drives me nuts when people refuse to accept a killer performing well simply because of the tier lists that the players themselves put them in. Same for survivor perks. There are plenty of perks that can be very strong when used correctly, like lithe, object, flashbang etc. And in the same way that a nurse may not be god tier because the person playing them isn't as skilled, powerful perks can be wasted if that survivor doesn't know when to use them.
I agree with your terms of strong and weak, because they are player dependent which is the way I think it should be. I think it's the way any game should be. No item, perk, power, add-on or character should be so strong that your skill doesn't play a factor in your achievements. And of course this goes without saying but that is for both "sides".
But yes, looking over your list I find myself agreeing with pretty much everything. Any changes I would make are just boiled down to personal preference but I am aware that it's just my personal opinion and I would agree that the majority probably do not struggle against them like I do therefore I wouldn't move them on the list because I believe I just need to improve personally (looking at you legion lol).
In any case, it's always such a delight to see your comments as you are always respectful and I appreciate it! :)