2lazE
2lazE
About
- Username
- 2lazE
- Joined
- Visits
- 4
- Last Active
Comments
-
@MegHasCuteFeet said:
80% userate in red ranks. Yes it was good.
Deceisive Strike, Borrowed Time, Dead hard are also good and have roughly a bit less userate i assume.
So, you are you saying that because Ruin was used 80 % of red rank games means it is a good perk?
If so, that assumption is false.
The number 80 % does not tell you anything about how good Ruin was.
It merely displays how popular(!) it was as the number only indicates the usage of the perk not how it actually influenced the game.
Now, if we could look at how Ruin actually changed the outcome/duration of the game when it was used - Did the killer win on average while using Ruin? Were there on average less gens done when using Ruin? - then we could draw some conclusions how good it actually was.
Additionally the popularity of the perk could also simply be based on false assumptions people made, for example that Ruin was a good perk or that it is used oftentimes for that reason when this may actually not be true.
-
@MegHasCuteFeet said:
80% userate in red ranks. Yes it was good.
Deceisive Strike, Borrowed Time, Dead hard are also good and have roughly a bit less userate i assume.
So you say because Ruin was used 80 % in red rank games means it is good?
If so this is a false assumption.
That number does not say anything about how good Ruin was. It merely states how popular(!) it was as this number only indicates the usage and not how it actually influenced the game itself.
Now, if we could look at how Ruin actually changed the game when used - Did killer win on average while using Ruin? Were there less gens done on average while using Ruin? - then we would have an answer of how good Ruin actually was.
The 80 % you mentioned, however, simply display that Ruin was a popular perk, not necessarily a good one.
Popularity could simply be based on wrong assumptions people made, ie that Ruin is a good perk without actually knowing it for a fact.