Batusalen
Batusalen
About
- Username
- Batusalen
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,248
- Last Active
Comments
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDoo509XVD4&t=70s@Venusa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3557210#Comment_3557210
I literally have clips of me getting camped on PTB where bar isn't moving at all because there's a survivor near hook behind the wall. But I understand the feature itself should be tested more to make sure it's not abusable. My only request and what the discussion is about is the lack of info solos are going to have compared to SWF with AFC.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3557098#Comment_3557098
You still get this in SWF. It's not hard to say "I am half full" or "a little bit more and I can unhook" or any other state (even though it will be less precise it does not make any difference in gameplay for SWF). This is something that should be addressed just to not widen gap between SWF and soloQ again.
On the other hand - any abuse in the system should be tackled anyway independently of showing this information or not. Because any abuse still left in the system would be widely opened to SWF anyway (not providing this information just imbalances SWF vs solo and that's it).
One last thing - I am perfectly fine with actually showing the progress bar to both other survivors and killer, because for killer this basically informs him that he is camping. AFC in my opinion should work like a deterrent from face camping - in normal game it should never or almost never happen, that survivor is actually able to unhook himself. By keeping this information hidden killer can miscalculate and unhook can happen more often. I don't think this is the target of the feature. On the other hand for survivors seeing the progress bar filling up should make soloQ more efficient on gens and not get punished that bad for obvious facecamper which works just as much in the same manner - if killers see they can't camp because it basically looses them their game - then they will do it even less so in the end even less facecamping will happen.
But as you correctly hinted - if there still are situations that can be abused, then AFC can still be weaponized instead. I don't consider that goal of the feature and all these things should absolutely be addressed. Ideally I want self-unhook to happen exactly and precisely never for even average killer, because on one hand he knows he just can't facecamp and on the other hand because there's no way for survivors to force killer onto the hook enough for unhook to happen. But proxy camping is OK as that leaves room for at minimum trade.
Well, you are right. I still think the system should be tested in live to check if it is really not abusable before making any more changes, but I agree with you.
-
@Venusa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3557000#Comment_3557000
Setting my clock, measuring Killer distance to hook and doing calculations to find out the AFC meter progress!☝️🤓
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3557060#Comment_3557060
The killer isn't suffering if they aren't facecamping. I don't understand your point and dedication to make sure solo players lack this information. You are forcing people to play in SWFs to have a decent game just for you to come back to this forum to complain about how busted SWFs are. AFC probably doesn't serve you personally and you want least amount of players to benefit from it so you have a hard time emphasizing.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3557098#Comment_3557098
Did you test the PTB? I did test it. If a single survivor is close to hook and killer doesn't see them (meaning they're not even in a chase) the meter literally STOPS. Ofcourse I understand it needs to be tested more on LIVE but I don't understand why some are so scared for solos to have the tiniest bit of information compared to what SWF is going to get with this feature.
Because you are wrong, it doesn't stops, it just get slowed and there is multiple videos of the system being abused.
That's why we need to test if the changes they did are enough for the system to work as it should and only prevent what it should prevent, not punish killers that are not even camping because survivors abuse it.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3557115#Comment_3557115
I knew you'd just pull out the same dodge.
Just handwave it by saying 'but averages!', even though I explicitly explained why that cop-out doesn't work here. You have no idea what an average is, or how it works. Whenever your model comes up short, whenever there's any kind of fault in your math, you simply say 'you don't know what an average is' as if there's some missing datapoint that's magically going to drag the average over to where you want it to be.
And when I show you, explain to you a situation where that missing datapoint -cannot- exist, you just retreat back to not thinking about it and just saying 'but muh average'.
I present you with your logic, I run the math, you don't like the outcome so you just say 'average' like it's a magic spell, and bail out.
I'd respect you more if you just admitted that your calculation is wrong, instead of this thoughtless deflection.
Dude, you have being "showing" me the same thing over and over again, I explained you in detail on every way imaginable why you are wrong, and you still keep with the same arguments.
What else can I say that I didn't said already? I have being answering your questions that was somewhat "legit" even when I said I would not keep answering, but if you are going to get back to it again, then: I already answered and explained it to you. Simple as that.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3557109#Comment_3557109
Why don't killers have to use perk slots to see gens? Or a perk slot to get bloodlust? Or a hook when picking up a survivor? Or even a perk slot to move faster than survivors?
The answer is that those are elements that make the game more fun and playable. Which should always be the discussion with concepts like this, is 'insert issue' good for the game or not. If the answer is its not good for the game, the solution shouldn't be perks, it should be basekit. BHVR should never have tried to solve camping through perks (or if they did, the perks should have been so strong as to heavily punish the playstyle).
Camping is bad for the game. All efforts should be made to deal with it through base kit measures. At that point the discussion should be whether the discussed measures work without having unintended consequences.
The power difference between SWF and soloq is bad for the game. Penalizing SWFs seems to be a bridge BHVR won't even consider, so that leaves us with ways to move soloq closer. Things that SWFs can communicate 'easily' should be basekit.
I'd settle for a callout system, such as a 'I'm being camped' that becomes available when on the hook. But I also think giving survivors more basekit HUD info, such as if someone has a deliverance or can jump off the hook because of being camped, would also be worthwhile.
Because then by the time a killer would find some gens survivors would have done all of the rest, and the same with hooks. Is with Boil Over and in some maps you can have the hook in front of you and not see it, imagine not showing them at all. It's not about fun or it being "more playable", it is about it being playable at all.
Adding free Kindred to the AFC system is not making the game more fun or playable, is gaining an unasked and unnecessary advantage to survivors by making basekit yet another perk so you have another slot without losing any benefit.
What BHVR should do is add a ping system and / or in game voicechat so you all stop using SoloQ as the excuse for asking for any advantage you can come up with. It is not about "not penalizing SWF", is not buffing them because you want to compensate your and your teammates lack of common sense with in game mechanics.
I play SoloQ, and I use PT with SA. Why? Because I don't have any other form of saying "Hey, I'm on this gen if you need healing or want to help me done it faster". Do you want to say "Hey I'm being camped"? Use Kindred. Simple and easy. Without adding another general buff to survivors, that at the same time buffs SWF even more.
The best part about all of this is that it is precisely killers the ones that doesn't have any type of QoL of any kind. We can't see how many hooks survivors have, most of the killers can't even see how much of their power is applied to someone, no crosshair for ranged killers, not any kind of info in the status effects that we trigger, and not even a signal that we are still in the hook area of the new AFC system, either. Nothing. It has took years for BHVR to just say "Alright, we will add a FOV slider even if it is for accessibility reasons" and the entity knows how many more until they add it to the game.
To end this half response / half rant, Bloodlust was introduced to the game to stop survivors from abusing infinite loops and is so conditioned that most killers would forget they had it till it activates, just to lose it instantly the moment they use their power or kick a pallet.
And camping already had gameplay solutions, for the exception of a few killers that are able to camp so efficiently that there is almost no counter to it (and I say "are", because funnily enough the system don't affect to those killers at all). So, the system is a gift to the crying crowd from BHVR so the game do the work for you in another aspect of it to the sole purpose of quieting the masses. But it is amazing that BHVR didn't realized by now that you people would never have enough, and this post is the proof.
-
@Shroompy said:
I love these types of posts.
Sit back, grab a snack and a drink, and watch the people huff copium like their lives depend on it
It is not copium, in the last months there has being a rise in the number of cheaters in the game and a number of post of different people along with it saying the same. Some of them are obvious, others very subtle (or trying to be):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_K5dFUQ3eQ&t=155s https://imgur.com/a/jgNP2EJ#khIAORGAnd I had another 2 waiting to edit the video and send it as proof, one Leon that didn't get two hits and an Ash that was speed hacking and had the same speed slugged as running.
So, it is a real problem.
-
@Melinko said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3557104#Comment_3557104
No worries.
From my experience in the game and from what I've seen mostly posted on these forums, you are the minority for ending up back at a hook.
As @Krazzik said in an earlier post "much of the time it will be because they're proxy-camping and just wanna tunnel" and that is what I've seen the most. And those are the people that come on here and cry about basekit BT and being called a camper/tunneler, when they are playing that exact style.
The people who don't play that style normally aren't called out for their play and if they are, they can calmly explain why they didn't actually tunnel versus coming here to find people to take their side.
Of course! Because we all know that what a killer should do after hooking someone is get to the other side of the map and never, ever come back close to that hook again even if you see another survivor going to it!
It is known that even if a killer is just cleaning the chase by breaking a pallet or kicking a gen in the close vicinity after hooking someone, he is "camping". And if someone do the save with the killer at 10 meters before even giving him the chance to leave, it is not the fault of the savior, it is the killer's because he is "camping". And if the killer just broke chase after 30 seconds with another survivor and decide to get to the hook as there hasn't still be a save and should be one soon, it doesn't matters, because killers don't have any right to try to prevent a save, so they are "camping".
As written in the Survivor's Rulebook, the facts, the situation and what survivors do doesn't matter! If the killer is anywhere near the hook when a save is done, it must be because he is camping. And if he was not, then he was "proxy camping", as that is a buzzword with a more wide definition that covers every single other case that isn't camping.
So of course, the only conclusion for survivors getting tunneled because they use their protection to body block instead of getting the hell out of there as fast as they can is that it is not their fault for it, it was because the killer is camping. Period. It's the only truth.
In short: Stop complaining that people call you campers and tunnelers in chat when it is what you are, tunneling campers! It's all your fault!
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556942#Comment_3556942
"because a killer doesn't receive the same rewards for getting a draw (2K) than winning (3-4K) in any aspect while survivors do?"
That's not true at all! You can even score more points with some 2Ks than with some 3K+.
"And it still requires the same skill to kill survivors while getting hatch can be as easy as it spawning at your feet even if no gen was done?"
How is this an argument for hatch being a -win-, though? If anything, this would be an argument for the hatch -not- being a win. If it negates the entire match, it's not a win. You can't win if you don't play.
"And I really have to explain to you what having less than 50% kill rate would mean? Can't you just pick the percentage you want, calculate what that percentage of 4 is and see how much survivors would be killed ON AVERAGE per game?"
Alright, buddy, let's talk about this.
If a 60% killrate MUST mean that on every 100 matches, 240 survivors are killed along a '40 3Ks, 60 2Ks' distribution, thus producing an 'average winrate' of 40%...
Then your model also claims that on a 49% killrate, 196 survivors are killed along a '4 1Ks, 96 2Ks' distribution, on average.
This would, according to you, produce an average winrate of 0%.
Not 0.12% or 0.8% or anything of the sort.
0.0000%.
The ONLY way to get an average of true 0, without the inclusion of negative values (which don't apply here, no one has a negative winrate), is by never including any value higher than 0.
If ANY trial, anywhere in the dataset, were to ever produce a 3K or higher, you already could not possibly produce a winrate average of 0%.
According to Nightlight, there are -multiple- killers with a sub-50% kill rate.
And they ALL have recorded wins.
And if you've played DBD for more than a week, you'll probably have witnessed one of those wins yourself.
This proves your model to be incorrect, and your assertion that certain killrates guarantee specific winrate averages is also incorrect.
Which is what Ratcoffee explained to you from the start.
The only thing that proves is that you still doesn't understand averages, any of that data, or what I have explained a million times already.
So if you are not just trolling, my answer is still the same: I already responded and explained everything to you.
-
@brewingtea said:
re: Run Kindred
Solo Q only gets 3 perk slots instead of 4?? Incredible suggestion
>Also, SWF does not mean “on comms”. Plenty of SWF play with no voice communication.
- I would be willing to bet the VAST majority of SWFs use comms.
- Since OP was specifically talking about the value of communication, I think most people knew he meant "SWFs on comms" but thank you for clarifying. The people who would push back on the outrageous implication that "Solo Q sucks" are the exact people who would be confused by that, like you were.
Solo Q only gets 3 perk slots instead of 4?? Incredible suggestion
Like it was before the system was even a thing? Why should survivors have 4 perks slots + Free Kindred, apart of BHVR giving you an inch and you wanting to take a mile?
-
So, the system is not even out yet and there is already complains that it is not hand holdy enough! That was fast.
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556727#Comment_3556727
Giving information is not hand holding.
I played a lot online games, DbD is only one does not care about their solo players. All games i played gave me coordination tools to play better with teammates.
I am not asking " Hey BHVR, nerf these toxic killahs to ground. So we can t-bag them at gates". I am asking simple QoL changes for solo survivors. And these changes won't change anything for SWF teams because they already have better tool: Discord.
It's fine if you disagree with me tho.
But you are not asking for "coordination tools", or even a "fix". What you are asking is for the system granted for free to you to also make you don't need to use a perk that do already what you asking for. In other words, you want for the system to be another perk slot, so it is both a free Deliverance and Kindred in one.
In conclusion: You already have your "coordination tool" available, is called Kindred. Use it.
-
So you can know how much you would have to loop the killer beside the hook to get a free escape? I think we need to test how much abusable is the system even with the changes they made before allowing more abuse of it, if you don't mind.
In any case, both the killer and the survivors should get a warning that the killer is still in the area of the hook (and not even for the survivors, as they already have Kindred). But never the progress of the bar itself.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556451#Comment_3556451
Yeah, you explained that later when I pointed out that the hatch means survivor win rate isn't what you said it is.
But that's -after-:
"I mean that it is the MMR what dictates what is a win or a lost for both killers and survivors."
And you also didn't argue why this only goes for the hatch and not for a killer's 2K.
Also still curious about your killer winrate projection with <50% kill rate.
... because a killer doesn't receive the same rewards for getting a draw (2K) than winning (3-4K) in any aspect while survivors do? And it still requires the same skill to kill survivors while getting hatch can be as easy as it spawning at your feet even if no gen was done?
And I really have to explain to you what having less than 50% kill rate would mean? Can't you just pick the percentage you want, calculate what that percentage of 4 is and see how much survivors would be killed ON AVERAGE per game?
And I said it after, yes... but yet you still are complaining about it way after I explained it?...
... Are you trolling? Am I getting "Wooshed" by not getting this is all just joking around? Because seriously, at this point is the only explanation for why this conversation is still going.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556448#Comment_3556448
I would be interested in that video. Would you mind at least advertising his name so I can find him? (I am not that lazy to ask you to link the video directly here) :)
Probably he is referring to this one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJzHtMewYS0And it is only me, or you guys are treating him like he was Voldemort or something?
-
Obviously, people here haven't read and watch the threads and video evidence posted on the PTB Feedback forums showing why the system as it was implemented in the PTB is broken as hell and the only thing it does is punish killers that are not even camping while allowing the old same campers like Bubba still do what they have being doing.
@LapisInfernalis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556083#Comment_3556083
As long as any survivor is in that area it does not go up.
That's not even true, unless they implemented a patch in the PTB I'm not aware. It goes up slower, but it still go up. Also, it goes up the moment you hook someone, so if you hook and stay in range because you are cleaning the chase by kicking a pallet nearby or even in another floor, all that time the bar is going up.
In other words, survivors only need to force you to chase them around the hook for you to give them a free unhook and more of your time wasted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDoo509XVD4&t=70sFor this reason I have to say that I'm not worried about the next patch, as I think that by now they should know that the AFC can't go live in that state. But yet again, is BHVR who we are talking about, so...
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556366#Comment_3556366
You're the one who said that MMR determines what is a win or loss for both killer and survivor, right up until you realised that the hatch not being a win could drop survivor winrate under that of killers.
Then you were all "a win is whatever I feel like".
Except what I really did is explain, in detail, why a hatch escape is counted as a win even if technically is a draw MMR wise, and that's because in game terms is a win with all the rewards a normal win grants, but with 0 effort or skill involved, only luck, and it is totally optional. That's why hatch is counted as wins for survivors even under MMR terms.
I never changed what I said.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556328#Comment_3556328
Yeah man I'm gonna be honest, even ignoring everything else you've said in this thread there's one very obvious mistake you've made in this post that really does not align with anything I've ever seen done in the academic field of statistics, specifically as it relates to reporting significant figures
You know that even if I'm wrong in the "60% kill rate", by whatever metric in the game you want to use other than "a win is whatever I feel like" you are still wrong and the data on Nightlight shows that the game is not killer sided by any degree, right?
So... yeah.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556150#Comment_3556150
"There would still be players that can get more or less wins on both sides as skill is obviously another factor for this, but on average everybody would still have the same chance to win on that ideal scenario."
So what I listed at the end of my last post is correct, yes? That is your claim? That is how you believe the game to function?
I know what you are going to say next if I say "Yes", so before you say it, the table that @Maelstrom808 posted is wrong. The real average for the "AK per match" according to his data is 2.114545454545455 survivors killed per match. The best part is that those "AK per match" are not even accurate as they are individually ceiling rounded (if we take the data on the rest of the table, the real "AK per match" of Skull Merchant is 2.656 per match with a kill rate of 66.40%) and the overall kill rates is also wrong as the real average is 52.84393939393939% kill rate, making the real "Overall AK per Match" 2.113757575757576.
So, I don't know how he got that 2.25 "General AK per match" and that average kill rate but he got it wrong, as according to his table the real averages are 52.84% for kill rate and 2.11 for survivors killed per match if we round them correctly.
With this cleared, the answer to your question is "ON AVERAGE, yes, that would mean mostly 2K with rarely 3K". But I'm sure you are going to simply ignore everything that has being said about balancing, skill factor, some players doing more wins or losses than others and that number being an average yet again and ask me "then how it is possible that by the distribution of "3-4k" indicates that killers are winning 45.7% of their games, then?" or something like that proving, yet again, that you don't know what an average is and/or you just decided to ignore what has being already explained and keep going till you are "right".
So go ahead, have your false "Catch you, I win!" moment if that would make you to at least stop with your nonsense already.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3555503#Comment_3555503
"No, in that case, what I would be saying is "the average shows that between all of them, 2 arms are missing""
No, that'd be the equivalent of -only- talking about kills, but the issue is specifically about your assertions about wins.
Your problem is that you do not understand the distribution of outcomes.
Your 'explanation' is built in a system that has only 2Ks and 3Ks. You think that 'average' is a magical word that will, by itself, eliminate the weighted distribution that DbD has, even though Nightlight shows that this is not the case.
You seem to be under the misapprehension that, on average, the kill distribution will fall into a neat, even distribution of outcomes, but we already know it won't. It doesn't.
The question I asked is meant to illustrate that, but you keep dodging it. You keep saying 'I answered it!' by showing you stated again that you'd just set everything to 60% kill rate, but you didn't think this through:
If the current win rate at 53% killrate is 46%, what do you think is going to happen if you add in more kills?
If you buff killers to make their kill rate increase, do you not think that this will make them win more, too?
Let me try and illustrate it another way.
You state the following:
60% kill rate is 240 survivors killed over 100 matches. This is, on average, 40 3Ks, with the rest being 2Ks, and thus a 40% winrate for the killer.
This is what it would average out to, correct?
Now I'm going to try to run this with the current Nightlight stats:
53% kill rate is 212 survivors killed over 100 matches. This is, on average, 12 3Ks, with the rest being 2Ks, and thus a 12% winrate for the killer.
This is what it would average out to, correct?
@Maelstrom808 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3555898#Comment_3555898
To address a couple points. You CAN increase the kill rate and have the win rate drop. You can see it in the spread sheet i added above. The thing is you can only do it a few percentage points before the natural distribution of kills gets so out of wack that you simply will not see it in normal gameplay.
Look at Onryo for example. She has the closest numbers to a 60% kill rate and 2.4 avg kills, but her winrate is around 57%. You'd have to bring down the win rate around 16% without dropping her kill rate more than a percentage point and that simply isn't going to happen.
The other thing is "wins". I'm a big supporter of making up your own win conditions, but the reality is it comes down to what feels like a win to the average player in normal gameplay. For killer that's a 3k or better. Survivor is a little different depending on whether they play for the team or themselves. The game is aimed at them playing for themselves so that's the best approach to this, and what feels like a personal win to the average player is escaping via gate or hatch.
"And when you already got the 60% kill rate, you make every killer have a 2.4 average of survivors killed per match by buffing or nerfing every killer individually, as every killer has it's own powers and stats so they need individual balancing."
"There would still be players that can get more or less wins on both sides as skill is obviously another factor for this, but on average everybody would still have the same chance to win on that ideal scenario."
"Meaning, no every single survivor would just win 40% or every single killer kill 60% in reality, there would be people that do more or less than that, but ON AVERAGE there would be 2.4 survivors killed per match."
I don't know where or how you two got to assume that "even distribution" of "Ks" would be a thing in practice or when I said that when I already specified that there would be disparity and that's why we need to get to an average.
But keep going if you want, I already said everything I had to say about the topic and explained everything I had to explain.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
...Honestly we don't know why we bothered trying as this is the point where both have lost the point of the discussion.
Me neither.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3555478#Comment_3555478
"I explain, in detail, how you get to a 60% kill rate and that would be the only way that lead to an equal 40% win rate for everybody"
No, you don't. You assert it, but you don't explain it. Because you cannot explain it. You keep dodging the question, asserting that you don't need to answer it, because you know what'll happen if you try.
Let me try and make an analogy for what is happening here, and hopefully you'll get it.
There's a group of ten people. One of them has no arms. This means that, on average, the people in this group have 1.8 arms.
-I- assert that, given only the average number of arms, we -cannot- deduce what percentage of people have fewer than 2 arms. It could be one person with no arms, or two people with one arm.
-You- assert that you know, for a fact, that the 1.8 average -must- mean there are two people in the group with one arm, and that there could not possibly be one person with no arms.
Curtain rises, we see the group. Clearly, one person has no arms, while the other nine have two arms.
You -see- the line-up, and turn to me, and tell me, to my face, that you are still correct about your assertion that there -must- be two people with one arm each, and that my insistence that this group with an average arm count of 1.8 does -not- have two guys with one arm each means that I simply do not understand it.
No, in that case, what I would be saying is "the average shows that between all of them, 2 arms are missing" and you said "Aha! There was only one person without 2 arms and you are saying that 2 of them only had one arm, so you are wrong!". I never said that only two people would only have one arm, it's only in your head because you are trying to prove me wrong at all cost.
But whatever dude, I don't have anything more to say to you.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3555478#Comment_3555478
At this point, yes. Especially since we've only seen anything remotely resembling an actual answer to his question way after the fact.
This was 4 days ago:
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553074#Comment_3553074
I mean that it is the MMR what dictates what is a win or a lost for both killers and survivors. A killer only wins with a 3K.
And for your explanation, starting with Nightlight not being a reliable source, as it depends on their users uploading their data to the page and as right now it only counts 22637 matches... again: Averages. Averages and balancing.
In a game like DbD, if you want every killer to have the same chance to win between them and the other side, first you need to make sure that the mathematical equality is achieved. In other words, you first need to get the average to 60% kill rate, which would mean 2.4 survivors per match killed, and then balance individually those killers than can do more or less than that. That's why the devs wanted the kill rate to be 60%, and that's how you get a 40% for everybody. There would still be players that can get more or less wins on both sides as skill is obviously another factor for this, but on average everybody would still have the same chance to win on that ideal scenario.
But the best part of this is that you yourself have proved than in any case, according to Nightlight, the game is slightly survivor sided and not killer sided, as survivors are winning 47.3% of their games, and killers only 46.04% on average. In other words, you are still wrong.
I had being responding to his question even before he started doing it.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3555275#Comment_3555275
We recommend actually answering Firellus' question as we believe otherwise you 2 are going to keep going in circles.
See? I explain, in detail, how you get to a 60% kill rate and that would be the only way that lead to an equal 40% win rate for everybody, and his response is:
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3555392#Comment_3555392
When have I said that?
It is a consequence of what you are arguing.
You want to push for a 60% kill rate because according to you, this guarantees a 40% win rate.
The current statistics are a 53% kill rate, and a 46% win rate.
This question is intended to make you actually think about what you are saying.
How do you intend to raise the kill rate from 53% to 60%, while lowering the killer win rate from 46% to 40%?
So, 60 kill rate = 40% win rate for survivors and for killers
This is the problem. This does not follow from what you are saying. And you've been avoiding thinking about since Ratcoffee pointed out that this is not true.
That is why I am trying to get you to answer the question:
How do you intend to raise the kill rate from 53% to 60%, while lowering the killer win rate from 46% to 40%?
Because then maybe you might realise that the current statistics on Nightlight are at odds with your assertion.
Should I really need to explain it to him again? Should I make him an sketch to see if he understand it better? Or should I just assume that however I explain it to him he would still not understand for the simple reason that his bias makes him not wanting to understand and move on?
So I'm not going in circles, I'm just taking option 3. He has the answer to his question posted multiple times already in this thread, he can re-read them the times he needs. In fact, the post above his has the answer simplified.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554815#Comment_3554815
Again, i know what you are saying, but it makes no sense to me. Maybe you want to explain it futher then you and others have?
The reason why i dont understand your points is that i find You examples all irrelevant. Why?
Because if the math is (or would be, we dont know) correct and killer really need 60% killrate to reach a 50% winrate, it will automatically drop the winrate on every survivor to 40%. Which then drops the winrate for 4 individual players to 40% and for 1 single player to 50%. That is not the right approach for any kind of game.
Dead by Daylight is not a competetive 4v1 challange. Every person feels his own win or loose. This is not CS GO. Almost no survivors sits down after the game and thought about the game "well, only 1 got it, so we lost the game" if he is the one. He won. If you get out, you win, if you dont, you loose.
Sure, some see it different, but that is then just a subjective feeling about the game in general. If you dont care to get killed, then this would not bother you to much.
So in short. From your example, 1 player (the killer) benefits because he wins half of his matches on the cost of 4 other players who loose 60% of their matches individually.
Feel free to correct me.
First, it's 40%, not 50%, and as I has already explained in other post, a win for a killer is a 3K according to MMR. So, 60 kill rate = 40% win rate for survivors and for killers (even if for this to be true, every single killer need to be as close as that 60% kill rate as possible).
That's why BHVR wants the kill rate around 60%, as that is half the job to balance the game done. Maintaining that 60% they only need to balance each killer so his individual killrate is around the 60% and then every single one of them and the survivors would have a 40% win rate ON AVERAGE. Meaning, no every single survivor would just win 40% or every single killer kill 60% in reality, there would be people that do more or less than that, but ON AVERAGE there would be 2.4 survivors killed per match.
And last time I explain it.
-
@Maelstrom808 said:
Can you have a 40% win rate and a 60% kill rate? Yes, it is theoretically possible.
The problem is there is a natural inverted bell curve in the % of games that fall within the 5 outcomes for the killer. The highest amounts being 0k and 4k while the lowest is a 2k with 1k and 3k being in-between. This isn't an issue of balance, it's inherent within the current game design. There is no way that I've been able to work out to make a bell curve with 40% of the match results falling in 3k and 4k, while still maintaining a 60% kill rate.
The reality is what many have been saying forever - kill rates are a bad metric.
And with enough people doing 0K and 4K, you will get an average of 40%. Seriously, I don't think the concept of an average is so complicated to be sp hard to understand.
And if getting too much 4K or 0K is not "an issue of balance", why are survivor non-stop asking for Nurse to be nerfed or killers asking for Trapper to be buffed? Maybe because of the balance and how they work they are able to get more or less kills?
And kill rates is a bad metric, if you only stick by the number without realizing the math and logic that explain why it need to be an specific number. Something that I already explained here, but all of you still try to deny with whatever comes up to your minds to do so.
-
@Rulebreaker said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3555275#Comment_3555275
We recommend actually answering Firellus' question as we believe otherwise you 2 are going to keep going in circles.
I already answered all his real questions. The ones that I didn't answer are his mental gymnastics and tries to distort what I said. For example:
I say: We get all killers across the board to a point where that kill rate on average is achieved by either general buffs or nerfs to killers and/or survivors
His answer: Please explain to me how you intend to raise the kill rate via killer nerfs or survivor buffs. Or conversely please explain to me how you intend to lower the killer win rate via killer buffs or survivor nerfs.
When have I said that? Nowhere. But he interpret it like that, because the other way around won't fit his narrative as obviously you get kill rate average higher by buffing all killers or nerfing survivors, and vice-versa if what you want is lowering them. And when you already got the 60% kill rate, you make every killer have a 2.4 average of survivors killed per match by buffing or nerfing every killer individually, as every killer has it's own powers and stats so they need individual balancing. That's what I said, and that's what he refuses to see.
So, again, I'm not going to answer any of his fallacies and mental gymnastics because I already responded to his other questions with the logic for it and the math behind it. I'm not going in any circle, I'm sticking be the math and facts. If he still insist in not accepting it, it is on him.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554906#Comment_3554906
None of your math is relevant at all. BHVR had an official post stating that 59% to 61% killrate is ideal. That's it. That's all the evidence you need for what the ideal kill rate is. You don't need to do any math at all. You can just directly quote BHVR.
If you read the responses that specially @Firellius are making to me explaining in detail why BHVR wants that number and why it is having the game balanced a hundred times already, you would see that obviously it is not even enough to simply say that is what it should be.
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554906#Comment_3554906
My entity, you guys trying to prove math wrong is exhausting.
Not trying. Succeeding.
The mathematical average for that will be 2.4 survivors killed, meaning 40% of survivors escaped on average, and killers are only getting 3K 40% of the time on average, while the rest they would only do a 2K, meaning they are not winning.
Alright, let's try and break it down.
Your claim here, is that a 60% kill rate MUST necessarily produce a 40% winrate. Your claim is therefor that there is NO way that 240 kills can be distributed over 100 matches without producing ANY killer winrate that is NOT 40%.
Your math is as follows:
100 matches = 400 survivors
60% killrate = 240 kills
40 x 3 = 120 kills
60 x 2 = 120 kills
Therefor, with 60 2Ks and 40 3Ks, you get 60% kill rate.
This is your proof for why a 60% kill rate MUST result in a 40% winrate.
Here's mathematical proof that there are other ways to distribute a 60% kill rate that do NOT produce a 40% winrate:
100 matches = 400 survivors
60% killrate = 240 kills
80 x 3 = 240 kills
20 x 0 = 0 kills
Therefor, with 80 3Ks and 20 0Ks, you get 60% kill rate.
This is proof that a 60% kill rate CAN result in an 80% winrate.
Dispute this, because this is the cornerstone of your argumentation. Do not brush it aside again and simply repeat your own math.
Now, how we get to that in practice:
In practice, the killer winrate is too high for your projection. If you are aiming for a killer winrate of 40%, then killers will need to be nerfed or survivors will need to be buffed.
Please explain to me how you intend to raise the kill rate via killer nerfs or survivor buffs.
Or conversely
Please explain to me how you intend to lower the killer win rate via killer buffs or survivor nerfs.
And no, 'Setting their kill rate to 60%' is not an explanation, as it's already been proven that this does not necessarily facilitate a 40% win rate. You have to prove how you intend to do -both- 60% kill rate, AND 40% win rate.
Please think about this question in isolation, just try to put all the mathematics out of your head for a second and think about this question:
What buffs do you propose for killers that would bring their win rate down?
I already responded to you: I already explained everything multiple times. If you still doesn't get it, you should first learn what an average is and what it represents, second stop merging all killers in the same bag when you should see each one of them as an individual thing in terms of balancing with survivors being a whole entity as every survivor play exactly the same gameplay wise, and third keep re-reading all what I said until you get what I really said and meant.
If after all that you keep not understanding it, it's your fault and something is preventing you from seeing reality. I can't do anything more for you.
-
@Cypherius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554899#Comment_3554899
Just because they did not repeat mention of the feature does not mean they did no implement it, this would not be the first time an change is added without the patch notes mentioning it.
What logs, if you don't mind me asking? I did find an article here in the forums as well that mentions team based ratings at least.
As for your math argument: It is an inherently flawed. As you are oversimplifying the matter and assuming that a 60% kill rate is always a result of 2ks and ocasional 3ks. This is a snowball game where 0/1 kills and 4 kills are also quite common .
Your argument also fails to account for the different skill levels and the gap between Swf and Solo and how skill floors can affect kill rates. And most importantly it fails to account how bad and inefficient the average solo survivor player is.
We don't have any recent data from the devs when it comes to kill rates. The last one we got is outdated and from a very different meta. Nightlight' data may not be ideal but at least its recent. it shows a kill rate of 52% (as of writing this post) despite how bad the average solo player is. Killer is getting a 52% kill rate on average. This indicates that the role is underpowered at the higher levels of play while not being strong on the average level of play.
IMPORTANT Progress & save data information has been copied from the Live game to our PTB servers on Oct 25. Please note that players will be able to progress for the duration of the PTB, but none of that progress will make it back to the Live version of the game. FEATURES New Killer - The Knight New Perk - Nowhere to Hide Whenever you damage a generator, reveal the aura of all survivors standing within 24 meters of your position for 3/4/5 seconds. New Perk - Hex: Face the Darkness When this HexNo mention to any changes on matchmaking, or MMR, or anything team related. And the only mention on the dev logs are in this one before the patch was launched and that article you screenshot was written:
The final Developer Update of the year is here. In this series of posts, we discuss the biggest upcoming changes and provide updates on ongoing processes. This time, we’ll cover the various features and improvements coming with next month’s 6.4.0 Update. Bots in Custom Matches Kicking things off, we have a much-anticipated…
If you follow the link from this twit, that is supposed to be the same one that you found in Steam with an included explanation, you would see the link is broken as the article was deleted:
https://twitter.com/DeadbyDaylight/status/1588169144477810696There is also no dev log for November in the list, jumping from October 2022 to January 2023. So, if you have a post of that exact same article / dev log here, post it, as I wasn't able to find the original source (I didn't look at Steam as my thought was that it would has being also deleted from there).
But in conclusion, the only proof that such a system has ever being implemented is the Wiki, as they data mine things from the code of the game itself. And according to the Wiki, this system only affects survivors grouped in a SWF squad, not when you are SoloQing:
The Skill-Based Matchmaking Rating, often abbreviated as "SBMM" or "MMR", is a hidden scoring system used to match Players together for ranked Trials in Dead by Daylight. The system has been in use since 8 September 2021 and replaced the previous matchmaking system, which had matched Players based on their Grades. The Skill-Based Matchmaking Rating uses a hidden score that is influenced by the Player's performance in ranked Trials.There is no way for Players to know their specific score. The SkiAnd about my math, seriously, you guys should look what averages and percentage are and represents. It's not oversimplifying, it's pure math (60% of 4 = 2.4. 100 matches = 400 survivors, 60% of 400 = 240 survivors killed = 2.4 survivors killed per match in 100 games).
And you can't balance a game based on the skill floor of the players but the skill ceiling for multiple reasons, starting with if you balance the game based on the players with low skill that doesn't know how to play the game effectively, those who do know would crush everybody else.
And as I said, what Nightlight is showing is that even there survivors are winning more than killers on average right now for a small percentage.
-
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554815#Comment_3554815
We can't assume the number of kills follows a normal distribution. There is zero evidence it follows a normal distribution, and yes, I reviewed your math, and it's wrong.
The same problem is happening on a different thread on these forums, involving the average number of pallets on a map, where someone wrongfully assumed the number of pallets follows an even distribution, and therefore wrongfully decided the average number of pallets = (min number of pallets + max number of pallets) / 2.
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554776#Comment_3554776
Where...?
By Ratcoffee, when they constructed an 80% winrate out of a 60% killrate.
Explained it multiple times already, go and re-read it until you understand it.
You have explained what you think, but I have explained multiple times that you are incorrect.
Buff and nerfs have being proved false? Because I'm starting to think that you reaaaaly don't understand what have being explained multiple times with you.
You need to understand that right now, you are doing the equivalent of proclaiming that 1+1=3, and that me disagreeing with you is just me 'not understanding'.
You are mathematically incorrect.
That's why you should adjust the average survivor killed per game to 2.4, so that win rate stays at 40% meaning 40% win rate for survivors and every single killer. What is so hard to understand here?
That 60% killrate would be an average of 2.4 survivors killed per game. If you can win 80% of your matches with an average of 2.4 kills per game, how can you guarantee that 2.4 kills per game will result in 40% winrate?
You keep insisting that you have explained this: You have not. You have asserted it, but you have not explained it. You have not explained how 60% killrate translates to 40% winrate. You have not explained how you are going to guarantee that the 240 kills you are aiming for over a hundred matches will neatly distribute themselves to produce 40 wins, as opposed to what Nightlight is showing, where fewer kills are weighting themselves towards a higher winrate.
How do you intend to make killers that kill more than they currently do, lose more than they currently do?
Hey!!!! See? It's not so hard to understand, right? A killer needs to win 3 times in his individual match against each survivors for him to have a win. And if he manage to do 4 wins, then is an extra win, and he gains more MMR.
You may want to get off your high horse here because if THIS was the metric you wanted to go for, killers have a 53% winrate, and survivors are nowhere near that no matter how badly you're trying to spin this. Which would prove you wrong and demonstrate the game to be killer-sided.
Again, more than 3K is a win for the killer. Or, if you prefer it, 3 wins over survivors is an overall win for the killer. Ergo no, 50% kill rate in any case would means killers not losing or winning and survivors winning 50% of the time on average.
So your remark to the tune of me 'finally getting it' is immediately undone by you switching gears and going for a different metric. You are following along with what I'm saying, just trying to reframe it within your own perception.
IF the game were ruled as 1v1s, killers would have a 53% winrate.
You say that that's wrong, but what you -mean- to say is: "The game isn't ruled as 1v1s"
So we get to the 1v4s, after a little detour via MMR:
No, the devs, the code of the game, the Wiki, and everyone that have read or hear the devs talking about or explaining how the MMR system works disagree with it. You are the only one that is trying to change the fabric of reality by denying the empirical fact.
I want you to keep this one in your mind.
The MMR is -your- reason for ruling that the killer's winrate is not determined by the rate at which they kill survivors but by the rate at which they secure 3 or more kills in one trial.
We will come back to this.
No, because that's not how the system works. Each survivors it's by his own.
The system, here, being MMR. That is the 'system' in place. That is what you are referring to.
The MMR measure "skill". Having a free optional escape spawn just below your feet just because you are the last man standing that rewards you the exact same as if you completed the gens and go through the exit gates doesn't require a lot. That's why it is still considered an escape, but you don't gain MMR with it.
And this is where you -drop- the MMR, because here it becomes an inconvenience.
It is considered an escape. It is NOT considered a win. It is considered a draw.
The MMR does not refer to the hatch escape as a win. You stated that the killer's winrate isn't determined by 1v1s because the MMR says so. You stated that the survivors' winrate isn't determined by 1v4s because the MMR says so.
But when the MMR tells you that the hatch is NOT a win, you ignore it.
It's not my "arbitrary rulesets", they are the rule sets programmed in the game working at every match you do. So no effort at all using them, as it as simple as understanding them and pointing them out.
These are not rulesets programmed in the game. The game itself does not track 'wins'. It tracks Bloodpoints and MMR. It does not govern what is a win and what is not. It simply tells you the statistical outcome of the match.
The closest thing you can offer that is actually programmed in the game is the MMR system, but that system disagrees with you about the hatch.
What YOU, personally, classify as a win, is arbitrary and is not backed up by any element programmed in the game.
But balancing was not the point of this post, this post said that the data proved the game was "slightly killer sided" when it proves totally the contrary.
What do you think 'Slightly killer sided' means? It's a statement on the game's balance.
The best part of it is that you really think you can compare LoL with DbD
Reading comprehension is not your forte, is it?
@coco_shotz said:
The game shouldn't be sided to either. It should be a 50/50. Yes lorewise killers are supposed to be the power role and all but this is a game and not a show or movie so there needs to be enough balance on both sides to handle it.
My entity, you guys trying to prove math wrong is exhausting.
The problem: We need to get all killers and survivors have the same chance of winning. How we do that?
The solution: Lets start with the mathematical fact:
The mathematical average for that will be 2.4 survivors killed, meaning 40% of survivors escaped on average, and killers are only getting 3K 40% of the time on average, while the rest they would only do a 2K, meaning they are not winning. If it was 50%, that would be 2 survivors killed per game on average, meaning killers are never winning while survivors are winning 50% of their games. If it was 70%, that would be 2.8 survivors killed per match on average, which would mean survivors are winning 30% of their games, while killers are winning almost every game they play (as they would be doing 3K in most of their games).
So, the only way to get mathematical equality in win rates is by having a 60% average kill rate and every one of the 33 killers doing a 2.4K per match on average so everybody has a 40%. In other words, the closer we get to this numbers, the more balanced is the game.
Now, how we get to that in practice:
60% kill rate means 40% win rate for survivors. We get all killers across the board to a point where that kill rate on average is achieved by either general buffs or nerfs to killers and/or survivors (something that they already achieved the last time they officially announced kill rates) and done. 40% win rate for survivors side achieved, which will means that some survivors are escaping more than 40% of the time, and other are escaping less. Or in other words, skilled survivors would be winning more games, as every single one of them has the same chances of winning than everybody else.
Now, how we get so every single killer do a 2.4K per match? By buffing, or nerfing, each killer individually until they are close to that 2.4K on average. Which will have the same implications as with survivors, meaning that some people with the same killer would be able to kill more survivors than other.
With that done, as Thanos would say, "perfect balance". Everybody has the same chance to win and if you don't is either because you are not good enough or your rival outsmarted you, not because the game favors any side or specific killer. This is the sole reason of BHVR wanting to have a 60% kill rate and if I have to guess, why the MMR system works how it works in the first place.
Now, any of you either bring empirical proof of how the math or the practical method to achieve what the math says is wrong, or accept reality for good already.
-
@Cypherius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554855#Comment_3554855
Your team's performance does affect your gain/loss of mmr tough. As the dev's pointed out if you are the only one to die you barely lose mmr or you get more mmr if all escape, for example. You do in fact gain something from your team mates escaping.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/QFZRSC1U2X76/dbdmmupdate.png
This news article was posted on November 3, 2022.
https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/381210/view/3390674748247048806?l=english
That post was deleted from the developers's logs, and it's the only source of that. According to the wiki, what 6.4.0 introduced was for SWF, meaning that if you are in a SWF you would have those conditions, not on SoloQ as I already said. In fact, the patch notes for 6.4.0 don't even mention any changes to MMR at all, so either it was completely scratched and the Wiki is wrong on that point, or the Wiki got it from data mining the game's code.
-
@Raptorrotas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554803#Comment_3554803
A) DC automatically void that trial for the stats for killrates.
B) Lets do some math experiment.
You got 4 coins to toss. For every coin ther is a player associated with it, lets call those survivors. They win if the coin lands on heads. Theres a fifth person who instead wins if 3 or 4 coins land on tails, lets randomly choose to call that one camper.
Now the chances for each survivor to win is 50%, as they only need for their own coin to land on head. The camper though has a chance of 4 * 0.5³ * 0.5 + 0.5⁴ to win. It's 31.25%. Every of the 4 survivors has a 1.6times higher chance to win than the camper.
Now as for the so dreaded 60% killchance, the survivors chance to escape/win becomes 40%, which results in a chance of 47.52% (4 * 0.4³ * 0.6 + 0.6⁴). The camper chance to win is 1.188times higher than each survivors.
In the scneario with a 60% killchance, the chances to win are simply closer together, which is fairer.
Now obviously in the real game, there isnt a fixed chance for an outcome, each survivor performs differently, but people take the "average killrate" as gospel so i think my model seems useable.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554815#Comment_3554815
The provlem is that too many people dont seem to know what they want the average killers winrate (3k-4k) to be equalized with. Equalizing it with the average individual survivor escape rate ( the average escape chance or whatever) makes "team wins (0k-1k)" rather rare.
But equalising killer win and team average win chance... See my 50% escape chance example above? The team also gets the same winchance as the killer , and thus makes it on average far more likely for a survivor than a killer win.
60% maybe isnt perfect, but waaaay better than 50%.
There are no "team" escapes. There has being never team escapes in this game. You don't get or gain anything for any survivor other than you escaping. That's what people seems to not understand. You don't win or lose as a team, you either escape or get killed.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554795#Comment_3554795
I am sorry, i have not found any of those so called explanations, besides the killrate is fair because survivor DC more often then killer. If you got somethign better then that, i am willing to read it of course.
@Coffeecrashing said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554779#Comment_3554779
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554783#Comment_3554783
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/SMFNQU26IDD1/img-3425.jpeg
Yes, 60% is balanced, and above is the official BHVR post telling us that 59% to 61% is where they want the kill rate.
And the short explanation is it is the only way to get an equal 40% win rate on average for survivors and every single killer. If you want the math, why and how, again, they are in this thread.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554783#Comment_3554783
Because of what? Survivor DC? Multible posts explained how this is bs and the real kill rate is actually even higher then that. Go read them.
So, instead of reading to the pointed explanations you are going to simply ignore them and keep saying whatever you feel like. Ok.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3552251#Comment_3552251
60% is ballanced?
Adam Ries is turning upside down in his grave :(
Multiple post explaining why 60% kill rate is balanced in this thread, go read them.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554231#Comment_3554231
But it is the only way to guarantee having a mathematical average chance of winning equal for everybody, survivors and each individual killer. It's not hard to understand, much less when explained in detail multiple times.
Except it's been proven that this is not the case. This -might- work if there was only one win condition and one loss condition, but there's two loss conditions, two win conditions, and a tie condition. And these mess up your 'Kill% -> win%' pipeline.
In your explanation, you assume that the average becomes the rule, but you fail to acknowledge that the game's kill distribution is weighted towards extremes. 2Ks are the rarest outcome, as everyone and Nightlight will tell you, but you bank on it in the one time you tried to explain your reasoning.
And you are all wrong because, again, I explained how and why it is the only way to get an equal win rate for everybody by setting win rates for survivors at 40% and make every killer individually have an average kill rate of 2.4 survivors per match which translate in another 40% win rate for every single one of them.
The problem lies in this section:
and make every killer individually have an average kill rate of 2.4 survivors per match which translate in another 40% win rate for every single one of them.
This is proven to be false. The killer's winrate does not follow neatly from the kill rate. As Ratcoffee demonstrated, a killrate of 60% can swing up as high as 80% winrate.
I -know- you're going to handwave this with 'averages', but Nightlight disproves the practical application of your theory as well: It shows a lower killrate than your projection, but also a higher winrate.
And no, you are not going to be able to figure out a way to buff killers to increase their kill rate, while reducing their winrate.
There is no "team" in MMR.
Except there is.
IF the game were to be ruled as a strict series of 1v1s, then each kill the killer makes is a win. This means a 3K is 3 wins for the killer, and a 4K is 4 wins for the killer.
This would mean the kill rate = win rate, in which case any kill rate over 50% = killer-sided.
But, you disagree with this, so you instead opt for MMR to judge the killer for his performance against the team of survivors as a whole, and you count both 3Ks and 4Ks as one win.
Which is fine, except you'd need to do the same thing from the other side. Meaning that only 3Es and 4Es are survivor wins. If the killer is pitted against the team of survivors, then the team of survivors is pitted against the killer.
But you're not okay with that, so you instead opt for the MMR system again, in which survivors are judged mostly individually.
So up until now, you've ruled that MMR is the main guideline for how a win or loss is determined, but then comes the hatch. That thing unfortunately brings the kill rate down, while also cutting into the survivors' winrate by introducing a draw. This is the point where you arbitrarily choose to abandon MMR as the guideline and instead switch to 'vibes'.
But the 'vibes' also dictate that only a 0-1K 'Displeases the Entity', while a 2K is a sign of a 'Brutal Killer', essentially switching to win terminology. So should we now start counting 2Ks as wins, because it has the 'vibes' of a win?
Either stick to MMR, stick to 1v4, or stick to 1v1v1v1v1.
So in short:
1v4 -> Killers win 46% of the time. Survivors win 40% of the time.
1v1v1v1v1 -> Killers win 53% of the time. Survivors win 47% of the time.
MMR -> Killers win 46% of the time. Survivors win somewhere south of 47% of the time. Indeterminate due to hatch.
Vibes -> Killers win 59% of the time. Survivors win 47% of the time.
I also want to point out that your absolute best effort, using arbitrary rulesets for what constitutes a win, only manages to pull off a 46% killer winrate versus a 47% survivor winrate, which is a level of balancing that would make League of Legends developers moist. So with your best argument, you can place the game as being negligibly survivor-sided.
Everything else points to the game being varying degrees of killer-sided.
Except it's been proven that this is not the case.
Where...?
This -might- work if there was only one win condition and one loss condition, but there's two loss conditions, two win conditions, and a tie condition. And these mess up your 'Kill% -> win%' pipeline.
Explained it multiple times already, go and re-read it until you understand it.
This is proven to be false. The killer's winrate does not follow neatly from the kill rate.
Buff and nerfs have being proved false? Because I'm starting to think that you reaaaaly don't understand what have being explained multiple times with you.
[...] a killrate of 60% can swing up as high as 80% winrate.
That's why you should adjust the average survivor killed per game to 2.4, so that win rate stays at 40% meaning 40% win rate for survivors and every single killer. What is so hard to understand here?
but Nightlight disproves the practical application of your theory as well: It shows a lower killrate than your projection, but also a higher winrate.
Read the above point.
And no, you are not going to be able to figure out a way to buff killers to increase their kill rate, while reducing their winrate.
To be fair, what the game needs right now is more a nerf to survivor than a buff to killers. But yet again, that's why you need to get to the 60% kill rate base, so you can buff or nerf every killer individually to meet the average. I think I'm going to start counting the times that I had explained it to you already. This is at least the 4º time.
Except there is.
No, there is not. 3º time.
IF the game were to be ruled as a strict series of 1v1s, then each kill the killer makes is a win. This means a 3K is 3 wins for the killer, and a 4K is 4 wins for the killer.
Hey!!!! See? It's not so hard to understand, right? A killer needs to win 3 times in his individual match against each survivors for him to have a win. And if he manage to do 4 wins, then is an extra win, and he gains more MMR.
This would mean the kill rate = win rate, in which case any kill rate over 50% = killer-sided.
And back to it again. Was nice for a moment.
Again, more than 3K is a win for the killer. Or, if you prefer it, 3 wins over survivors is an overall win for the killer. Ergo no, 50% kill rate in any case would means killers not losing or winning and survivors winning 50% of the time on average.
But, you disagree with this, so you instead opt for MMR to judge the killer for his performance against the team of survivors as a whole, and you count both 3Ks and 4Ks as one win.
No, the devs, the code of the game, the Wiki, and everyone that have read or hear the devs talking about or explaining how the MMR system works disagree with it. You are the only one that is trying to change the fabric of reality by denying the empirical fact.
Which is fine, except you'd need to do the same thing from the other side. Meaning that only 3Es and 4Es are survivor wins. If the killer is pitted against the team of survivors, then the team of survivors is pitted against the killer.
No, because that's not how the system works. Each survivors it's by his own. A survivor win or lose depending if he escapes or not, and doesn't matter what other survivors do. I-don't-even-know-how-manyº times already explained.
[...] but then comes the hatch. That thing unfortunately brings the kill rate down, while also cutting into the survivors' winrate by introducing a draw. This is the point where you arbitrarily choose to abandon MMR as the guideline and instead switch to 'vibes'.
The MMR measure "skill". Having a free optional escape spawn just below your feet just because you are the last man standing that rewards you the exact same as if you completed the gens and go through the exit gates doesn't require a lot. That's why it is still considered an escape, but you don't gain MMR with it. It's not vibes, it's totally logical and understandable. But as it fits your narrative, you are grasping at this straw to try to make a point, not me.
Either stick to MMR, stick to 1v4, or stick to 1v1v1v1v1.
It's what I'm doing, that why I'm sticking to the 1v4 for killers and 1v1/1/1/1 for survivors as that's how it works.
1v4 -> Killers win 46% of the time. Survivors win 40% of the time.
1v1v1v1v1 -> Killers win 53% of the time. Survivors win 47% of the time.
MMR -> Killers win 46% of the time. Survivors win somewhere south of 47% of the time. Indeterminate due to hatch.
Vibes -> Killers win 59% of the time. Survivors win 47% of the time.
"Killers win 46% of the time. Survivors win somewhere south of 47% of the time" That's the only truth. Everything else it's you distorting things to accommodate your point of view and your bias.
I also want to point out that your absolute best effort, using arbitrary rulesets for what constitutes a win
It's not my "arbitrary rulesets", they are the rule sets programmed in the game working at every match you do. So no effort at all using them, as it as simple as understanding them and pointing them out.
[...] only manages to pull off a 46% killer winrate versus a 47% survivor winrate, which is a level of balancing that would make League of Legends developers moist.
But balancing was not the point of this post, this post said that the data proved the game was "slightly killer sided" when it proves totally the contrary.
The best part of it is that you really think you can compare LoL with DbD, when that only shows that you don't have any idea of what you are talking about in terms of balancing. No wonder it is so hard for you to understand simple things even if explained to you a billion times already.
So with your best argument, you can place the game as being negligibly survivor-sided.
Everything else points to the game being varying degrees of killer-sided.
"Slightly" survivor sided. And yet again, no, nothing not even in Nightlight points that the game is killer sided in any degree, but the contrary for all the reason explained to you a billion times already.
And before you make your next post, I will answer to it already: I already explained it to you. You are wrong.
-
Well, if you think that article has being "inadequately changed or vandalized" report it. Until then, the point still stands. And I could not find the streams with the own devs explaining the system, but here is Otzdarva reacting to the devs when the system was still being developed explaining pretty much the same as me in terms of the 1v1/1/1/1, even if some things changed since then (the length of the match affecting how much MMR you get or the conditions to gain or lose MMR for the killer, for example):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fsHR0siSY8So... what was you trying to point, exactly?
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554246#Comment_3554246
You don't gain any MMR. Emblems are meaningless. Draws are draws and not wins.
Purpose of hatch is to not have 1 hour long games and to give hope to last survivor(s) in otherwise meaningless match. It beats survivor hiding "forever" (as the only alternative if you remove hatch). If you have better idea to fix this, I am OK with supporting your view though
But MMR measures "skill" (because we all know that a survivor that looped the killer for 5 gens has the same skill as a survivor that hided all the game in a locker and only appeared to go through the exit gates, of course... no body is saying that the system is perfect) and I think we can agree that having the hatch spawning at your feet so you can escape for the exact sames rewards than completing all gens and going through the exit gate doesn't require a lot of it. That's the difference.
And no, I don't have any ideas that doesn't imply changing base functionality and how the game works along with it. Yet again, I'm not a game designer payed by BHVR to come up with one 🤣
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554209#Comment_3554209
Ok. That one prooves that genrush squad of 4 comp players in pub games (where soft cap exists - so those players would win all those games anyway) can reliably (with variance because 10 is statistically low number still but large enough to see reliable trend) make a game last 3 minutes 22 seconds on average. No argument there.
Let me re-read it, then... yep, my point still stands.
Ok then. Extremes are extremes and shouldn't be counted as norm. I wrote so in first post, but you are trying to reverse the point to me to proof IDK what.
I'm not counting killers draws, because a draw for a killer is not a win in any way
Agreed. But it's not a loss as well. You can't bundle wins and compare it to wins when you have draws if other side does not have draws (disregarding hatches). The only fair thing is to split difference. Yet you don't do that. So if you are this "greedy", then all I can do is make a same point but about losses - survivors loose games more then killers so killers are actually OP. Now it's word against word, but the difference is also in a fact, that even if you split difference, killers are still holding prime over survivors (because kill rate is above 50%). If kill rate was actually 50% (and presuming normal distribution of 0-1K vs 3-4K) then it's actually good measure of "split difference" on it's own.
Well, all 3 first points cleared then. Glad we got to at least a middle point.
About the last, I already explained why draws for survivors are counted as wins, and that is because in game hatch still counts as an escape in all factors and forms as an exit gate escape: BP, Emblems, retain your item, etc. So, being an optional, free and easy escape for the survivor based more on luck than skill, it is counted as a draw in MMR but it is still an escape in every other sense.
You can not agree with this, and if you ask me, what they should do is just remove the hatch and rework the EGC all together. But right now, it is what it is.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553914#Comment_3553914
You remember wrong.
The article is unsourced and also kicks your argument to the curb.
It is pretty much directly tied to kills, as is kills what determines a win, a draw or a loss.
If the final amount of kills is the ONLY determining factor for whether the killer gains or loses MMR, then that means that killers WIN more matches than they LOSE, going back to the 46% chance of a 3K+ and a 40% chance of a 1K-. So in terms of MMR, killers are still better off.
I already explained in detail why and how the kill rate should be 60% to guarantee a 40% win rate for both sides. Re-read it if you still have any doubt about it.
However, you have also been presented with factual proof that your assertion is incorrect. 60% kill rate does not, at all, -guarantee- a 40% win rate.
To quote @ratcoffee , whose point you most definitely missed:
Let's take your example of 100 matches again. Killer plays 100 matches, gets a 3k in 80 of them and a 0k in the remaining 20. This comes up to 3 * 80 = 240 survivors killed, just as in your example. However, the killer win rate (by the metric you chose) is 80%, far off from the 60% kill rate.
Explain how it is that a 60% kill rate can produce an 80% win-rate if it is, instead, supposed to -guarantee- a 40% win-rate. Because it clearly didn't, here. So please, show where the math is incorrect, because as far as I can see, Ratcoffee has drafted up a scenario where there IS a 60% kill rate, but there ISN'T a 40% winrate.
I explicitly explained how kill rates directly translate into win and loss percentages. Survivors only lose if they are killed, ergo, the kill rate need to be 60% so there is a 40% win rate in the survivor side. Then, you buff or nerf each individual killer that had an average of survivors killed per match higher or lower of 2.4 to guarantee a 40% win rate on the killer side among the 33+ killers. Easy to say than do, if even possible, but because of the asymmetrical nature of the game that's the fairest and probably the only way to do it if you want equal chances for survivors and each of the killers of the game.
And I and others have explained to you why it does not directly translate into win and loss percentages. So your entire plan for rebalancing killers for a specific kill% is proven to not necessarily facilitate a fairer win%. So if the current win% is already OVER your estimation for a fair win%, how is increasing killer power to drive kill% UP going to bring the win% DOWN?
There is no "win as team". Survivors, in MMR terms, are not a team. If you are killed and 3 of your "teammates" escape, you have still lost. And in reverse, if you are the only survivor that escaped, you won and the rest lost. Again, each survivor has it's own personal match against the killer, so even if you have 3 other survivors playing the match with you, in MMR terms is a 1v1. You either win over the killer by escaping, lose to the killer by getting killed by him, or draw by escaping through the hatch. That's why that way of working was called by the devs as a "1v1/1/1/1".
At this point, though, you are absolutely detaching yourself from the game's practice in an effort to try and create a mathematical equivalence between two sides of an asymmetrical multiplayer. They are not the same and they cannot be evaluated as the same, either.
You are technically right, but as far as I know, the hatch is still considered an escape on the stats because even if it is neutral MMR for the survivor, it is still an optional free escape survivors have that gives them all the same conditions in game as if they escaped through the exit gates. That's why it is counted inside that "40%" win rate, as technically they have still escaped.
This is where I'm going to state that you are being disingenuous in your argumentation. You've hung up your argumentation so far on the MMR system in order to facilitate the 'Actually, it's a 1v1' argument, as a way to dodge the fact that survivors lose more as a team than killers lose.
But now we get to the hatch, and the way it cuts into the projected win-rate for survivors in these specific 1v1s, and the same section on the same article that states that a 2K for the killer MUST result in 0MMR ALSO states that a hatch escape MUST result in 0MMR.
Since this is inconvenient to you, you then change the definition of a win to get OFF the MMR system and still declare the hatch a win.
You are arguing over three different subsections of stats: MMR, win% as team, and win% as individual. And whenever the stats don't agree with your assertions, you switch tracks and start arguing about a different branch.
and killers are not more likely to win according to the data in Nightlight for the reasons already explained.
And you are blatantly disregarding any stats that are shown. The data in Nightlight shows 46% to 40%. So yes, killers are winning more than survivor teams are. And they're also winning more than individual survivors by a metric that YOU brought into the discussion.
The article is unsourced and also kicks your argument to the curb.
Need any more source than that?
If the final amount of kills is the ONLY determining factor for whether the killer gains or loses MMR, then that means that killers WIN more matches than they LOSE
And? They still win less times on average than survivors.
However, you have also been presented with factual proof that your assertion is incorrect. 60% kill rate does not, at all, -guarantee- a 40% win rate.
But it is the only way to guarantee having a mathematical average chance of winning equal for everybody, survivors and each individual killer. It's not hard to understand, much less when explained in detail multiple times.
Explain how it is that a 60% kill rate can produce an 80% win-rate if it is, instead, supposed to -guarantee- a 40% win-rate.
Again, I did already, multiple times. Go and read them again.
And I and others have explained to you why it does not directly translate into win and loss percentages.
And you are all wrong because, again, I explained how and why it is the only way to get an equal win rate for everybody by setting win rates for survivors at 40% and make every killer individually have an average kill rate of 2.4 survivors per match which translate in another 40% win rate for every single one of them.
At this point, though, you are absolutely detaching yourself from the game's practice in an effort to try and create a mathematical equivalence between two sides of an asymmetrical multiplayer.
From the Official Wiki article I posted:
- In essence, each Survivor is in an individual mini-Trial with the Killer and vice versa, in which wins, losses, and draws can occur.
Also, the 60% kill rate is something that the devs want themselves. So if anybody is doing that in any case, are the devs. I'm just following the MMR rules and what they say.
This is where I'm going to state that you are being disingenuous in your argumentation. You've hung up your argumentation so far on the MMR system in order to facilitate the 'Actually, it's a 1v1' argument, as a way to dodge the fact that survivors lose more as a team than killers lose.
There is no "team" in MMR. Even in game, you don't get any more BP points or awards for more than one of you escaping. You don't get an "Survivor team wins!" anywhere. You either had escaped, or you had being killed. If you are going to ignore every fact and keep saying I'm being disingenuous, please specify where in all the game are you told that if any specific number of survivors escape then survivors have won, when it makes pretty clear, icons included, that you and only you either escaped or got killed.
Since this is inconvenient to you, you then change the definition of a win to get OFF the MMR system and still declare the hatch a win.
Because in game terms, it is an escape with all that comes with it: BP, Emblems, Experience points, retain your item. Everything. And it is a free, optional, easy way of getting an escape from the game that requires more luck than skill. It is not inconvenient, it is logical.
You are arguing over three different subsections of stats: MMR, win% as team, and win% as individual. And whenever the stats don't agree with your assertions, you switch tracks and start arguing about a different branch.
Again there is no win rates as a team because not even in game the survivors are a team, and I'm strictly guided by MMR which yes, have the exception on hatches because it is still an escape but as it is based on luck is counted as a draw in MMR terms, but an escape nonetheless. So I didn't switch tracks anywhere, it's you who is trying to make a completely new one grasping at it.
And you are blatantly disregarding any stats that are shown. The data in Nightlight shows 46% to 40%. So yes, killers are winning more than survivor teams are.
No, killers are not winning more than survivors (much less "teams", as kill rates obviously counts only survivors, not groups of 4) because survivors have right now an higher win rate on average than killers as already pointed and proved multiple times.
And they're also winning more than individual survivors by a metric that YOU brought into the discussion.
Not true, by all the things already more than explained and pointed. But whatever makes you sleep better at night.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553740#Comment_3553740
Points 1, and 2, I don't know how to explain it better to you. If I play 50 games and cherry-pick 1 to get 3min game - does it mean I can replay 50 out of 50 times 3 minute game? Or did I have to cherry-pick (because I am literally trying to cherry-pick a game where I get a world record)?
If I play 10 games straight when I define starting point without any cherry-picking and then win 9 out of 10 games - does that mean I had lucky games 9 times out of 10? Or does it mean that something I do have about (with some statistical variation for low sample size) about 90% chance to work?
Is this still really that hard concept to grasp? Is it hard to grasp that there's a good chance MM failed in 1 or 2 cases out of those 10 games, but 7 other games represent pure skill difference while playing for world record exactly tries as many games to get those 1 or 2 MM fails instead?
point 3, then you should reread my original post because you got it absolutely in reverse and didn't get a thing.
point 4, YOU ARE COUNTING killer draw the same way as killer win. You pit survivor wins against killer wins and compare those directly. That is the same as pitting BOTH survivor loss to killer loss + killer draw (saying that killer draw is exactly the same as killer loss) - and by "virtue" of this warped logic argue that killers should get more wins. That's wrong. Doing the same thing from exactly the other side - match survivor losses to killer losses (so 0-1 kills to survivor deaths) and now we see killers have the game too easy, because they loose much less then survivor - and the difference is not just 1.24% but quite some more. To be precise killers loose just 44.14% of matches instead of 47.52% making the difference 3.38% in favor of killers - clearly they need nerf instead by exactly just as warped logic as what you provided (and my number is 272% worse then yours).
Points 1, and 2, I don't know how to explain it better to you. If I play 50 games and cherry-pick 1 to get 3min game - does it mean I can replay 50 out of 50 times 3 minute game?
They played those games in a row. No cherry picking. And even him himself said at the end of the video "10 games, 3 minutes 22 seconds on averages per game". Period. I don't know what you are on about, but stop it and answer already: Are you saying than the MM failed for 10 games straight and the toppiest of the top MMR players where paired with bad killers 10 times in a row?
Is it hard to grasp that there's a good chance MM failed in 1 or 2 cases out of those 10 games
Alright, lets see each one of the times of the 10 games:
- 3:26.62
- 3:09.16
- 3:06.26
- 2:57.67
- 3:13.07
- 3:25.82
- 3:23.85
- 3:30.03
- 4:22.16
- 2:54.10
So, according to you, in what 1 or 2 of those perfectly normal and totally average day match times the MM failed and the "Top tier MMR player that plays at high level everytime and proved that you can play with any killer and win and if you don't you are just bad" get a bad killer?
then you should reread my original post because you got it absolutely in reverse and didn't get a thing.
Let me re-read it, then... yep, my point still stands.
YOU ARE COUNTING killer draw the same way as killer win. [...]
I'm not counting killers draws, because a draw for a killer is not a win in any way, while a draw for a survivor is still a win in all terms that they get as an optional free easy escape. So, again, survivors wins 47.52% matches while killers win 45.77% on average, and no amount of copium is going to change that. And I have to point out it is not the first time you try to do the same of flipping the thing and make it about losses when proved wrong, and it is as valid as the first time you tried. Come on, dude.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553674#Comment_3553674
The only thing that affects MMR apart from pure win-draw-lose scenarios is the MMR of the involved players.
I am pretty sure this is also incorrect though, as I recall the devs mentioning that there is MMR amelioration based on the current state of the game. IE: The first kill is worth more MMR than the fourth.
But also, I don't know why you're trying to argue about kill rates when you want to talk about MMR. The latter system is very opaque and not directly tied to kills. It's well possible that a killer can go up in MMR on a 2K, in which case 2Ks wouldn't all be draws but would be distributed amongst wins and losses, making the stats fail to support -any- argument.
I didn't miss his point, and he asked me to explain how a 60% kill rate could lower the win rate and I did explain how. So, I already answered you: Individual killer balance. But for you to do that, first you have to get to the base for it precisely because what you are saying, this can vary from killer to killer so you need a base to start balancing each one of them.
Increasing kill rates would not lower the win rates, though, would it?
Adding more kills into the mix of stats would increase the likelihood of 3Ks and 4Ks, thereby increasing killer winrates. If the current killer winrate is over the value you projected (40%), then increasing killrates would increase the winrate further.
You can't do that here for obvious reasons, so the only "average" in what you could base your balancing for is in kill rates (in other word, 2.4 survivors killed per match). Again, this is the reason of why BHVR wants (or wanted, who knows) a 60% kill rate on average across the board.
You have already been explained why this doesn't work though: DbD does not have a linear distribution of kills among games, which means kill rates don't directly translate into win and loss percentages. I know you want that 40% winrate to follow from the 60% killrate, but it doesn't. As proven by the Nightlight stats giving a higher win% at a lower kill%.
As I already said, this is false. The devs took their sweet time in the day while explaining MMR to make it clear that even if the killer is playing a 1v4 match, each survivors is playing their own match, so for them in reality is a 1v1/1/1/1. Even if being in a SWF squad affects the amount of MMR gained or lost, if you are the only one escaping then only you won your match against the killer, while the other 3 survivors lost theirs.
It feels like you're arguing three different things at the same time: Wins as team, wins individually, and wins by MMR.
We do not know wins by MMR, simply because the system is too opaque. So there's no argument to be had here.
We do know wins by team, and with killers scoring more 3K+ than 1K-, we know survivors aren't winning as a team.
We also know wins as solo, and with 47% survive rate, survivors are losing more than they are winning.
The only argument by which you could theoretically state that killers are at a disadvantage is that an individual survivor has a sliiightly higher chance of surviving than a killer has to get a 3K+. And I don't think anyone reasonable here is going to use this as grounds to call the game 'survivor-sided'. But, there's another problem that you yourself have now indicated:
A survivor win only by escaping through the exit gates, draws if he escape through hatch, and lose if he get killed.
And that's the hatch counting as a draw. Which means that we can no longer take the 53% kill rate to immediately translate to a 47% win rate for survivors, because a portion of that 47% will be hatch escapes.
These must necessarily come from the 3Ks. If even half of these 3Ks are hatch escapes (And I think we can safely assume that it'll be more than half), then the survive rate drops to 45%. Under the killer's winrate of 46%.
At which point the stats are telling us the following:
1: We don't know MMR.
2: Killers are more likely to win than survivors are, when survivors are counted as a team.
3: Killers are more likely to win than survivors are, when survivors are counted individually.
The stat distributions just don't support the argument that survivors are favoured.
I am pretty sure this is also incorrect though, as I recall the devs mentioning that there is MMR amelioration based on the current state of the game. IE: The first kill is worth more MMR than the fourth.
You remember wrong.
The Skill-Based Matchmaking Rating, often abbreviated as "SBMM" or "MMR", is a hidden scoring system used to match Players together for ranked Trials in Dead by Daylight. The system has been in use since 8 September 2021 and replaced the previous matchmaking system, which had matched Players based on their Grades. The Skill-Based Matchmaking Rating uses a hidden score that is influenced by the Player's performance in ranked Trials.There is no way for Players to know their specific score. The SkiI don't know why you're trying to argue about kill rates when you want to talk about MMR. The latter system is very opaque and not directly tied to kills.
It is pretty much directly tied to kills, as is kills what determines a win, a draw or a loss.
It's well possible that a killer can go up in MMR on a 2K, in which case 2Ks wouldn't all be draws but would be distributed amongst wins and losses
No, it is not. A 2K is a draw for a killer, ergo, no gain or loss of MMR.
Increasing kill rates would not lower the win rates, though, would it?
I already explained in detail why and how the kill rate should be 60% to guarantee a 40% win rate for both sides. Re-read it if you still have any doubt about it.
You have already been explained why this doesn't work though: DbD does not have a linear distribution of kills among games, which means kill rates don't directly translate into win and loss percentages.
I explicitly explained how kill rates directly translate into win and loss percentages. Survivors only lose if they are killed, ergo, the kill rate need to be 60% so there is a 40% win rate in the survivor side. Then, you buff or nerf each individual killer that had an average of survivors killed per match higher or lower than 2.4 to guarantee a 40% win rate on the killer side among the 33+ killers. Easier said than done, if even possible, but because of the asymmetrical nature of the game that's the fairest and probably the only way to do it if you want equal chances for survivors and each of the killers of the game.
It feels like you're arguing three different things at the same time: Wins as team, wins individually, and wins by MMR.
There is no "win as team". Survivors, in MMR terms, are not a team. If you are killed and 3 of your "teammates" escape, you have still lost. And in reverse, if you are the only survivor that escaped, you won and the rest lost. Again, each survivor has it's own personal match against the killer, so even if you have 3 other survivors playing the match with you, in MMR terms is a 1v1. You either win over the killer by escaping, lose to the killer by getting killed by him, or draw by escaping through the hatch. That's why that way of working was called by the devs as a "1v1/1/1/1".
And that's the hatch counting as a draw. Which means that we can no longer take the 53% kill rate to immediately translate to a 47% win rate for survivors
As I already said 3 post above:
- You are technically right, but as far as I know, the hatch is still considered an escape on the stats because even if it is neutral MMR for the survivor, it is still an optional free escape survivors have that gives them all the same conditions in game as if they escaped through the exit gates. That's why it is counted inside that "40%" win rate, as technically they have still escaped.
At which point the stats are telling us the following:
1: We don't know MMR.
And this is something that I had being asking since I started playing the game, for them to show us our MMR and if the cries of people allows it, those of our teammates and our rivals at least at the end game. For multiple reasons.
2: Killers are more likely to win than survivors are, when survivors are counted as a team.
There is no "survivors team" to compare about, and killers are not more likely to win according to the data in Nightlight for the reasons already explained.
3: Killers are more likely to win than survivors are, when survivors are counted individually.
Read previous point.
The stat distributions just don't support the argument that survivors are favoured.
Read previous point.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553655#Comment_3553655
1, hens is high MMR and gets good survivors. If MMR works. As everyone knows, you will get bad MM from time to time. If you need 1 game out of 50 to set record, you get vastly different result when you start to record next upcoming 10 (or more for those other streamers) games and record that. Or are you saying MM failed 10 (or 9) times in a row? Or will you repeat yourself that these 2 things are not different at all?
2, do you think you can get world record escape against lilith omen? Or supaalf? Or onepumpwillie? Or even Hens/Otz? Because I am pretty sure no matter your build and coordination, you just won't get close to 3 minutes against them (and these streamers are just extreme example to illustrate the point - even regular good killer will keep you in game longer then those 3 minutes).
3, how can you reverse my point by pointing the thing I hinted as stupid? Or are you saying that when I say taking speedruns is nonsense, that averaging good survivor vs bad survivor game makes some sensible point? How? I fail to see it.
4, so killer loosing a game is the same as drawing. 2k does not exists or is the same as loosing the game. Do I get your point right? Draw=loose in your world? Because survivor can't half-die. So comparing killer wins to sirvivor wins is just as fair as comparing killer loosing to survivor loosing (see - according to nightlight killer looses way less often as survivor)
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553667#Comment_3553667
You clearly watched different video then. Some video that does not exists to my knowledge. Not surprising one bit at this point.
Not to mention your magical math that counts with people on hook and people going for a rescue still progressing gens somehow.
As to your last sentence... match killer losses to survivor losses and count the rest to wins then. But your bias will never allow you to comptehend that you just can't bundle losses with draws together and pit them against wins. Draw is not a loose. I know it's hard concept to grasp on this forum, but really. Counting draw as lost game is just not fair
1.- I don't think that even you know what you are trying to say there. Specially the "MM failed 10 times in a row". I mean, are you saying that the MM have failed 10 times in a row in the world record video and they got low MMR bad killers for 10 games?...
2.- Then again, what you are saying is that those top high MMR pros that literally live out of playing the game got bad killers 10 times in a row? Are we starting the conspiracy of content creators not getting rivals based on their MMR, or it's just that in this particular case it is not convenient for you to accept this fact?
- Hens wins 9/10 games with trapper: "He was playing against the best of the best, the 'crème de la crème', the more hardcore and tryhard survivors this game could ever have spawned, because Hens has the highest MMR possible and the MM confronts him with the toppiest of the top MMR players. That's why it proves if you can't win with any killer, you are simply bad".
- Hens makes gens in 3 minutes average 9/10 games: "He was playing against bad killers. Yep, bad killers. A good killer won't allow them to do the gens so fast. Killers were low MMR tier with skill issues, without doubt".
3.- No, I pointed that the logic behind your claim was flawed by reversing it to a similar situation, but from the other side.
4.- ... wha? If you are trying to argue the 47.28% includes the survivors "draws", I remember you that a draw for a survivor is not the same that for a killer, as it is technically still an escape with all the rewards that come with it, even if it was through a free optional and easy way. And even with Nightlight data, only 33 of 400 survivors in 100 matches even had it available, so it's not the difference you think it is.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553496#Comment_3553496
22k samples is more than enough to form a decent conclusion. As you've been very insistent on talking about averages, I'm sure you're familiar with the Central Limit Theorem, which would back up using 22k matches as a representative sample size.
The survivor escape rates also include all the hatch escapes. If you insist on using the believed MMR win/loss conditions to gauge balance (which I think is flawed but that's beside the point) you have to adjust for the fact that the MMR system does not count the hatch escape as a win for the survivors but counts it as an escape in survivor stats
Looking at the Left for Dead achievement, only 8.2% of people have powered the exit gate as the sole survivor and escaped, ever. That number's going to be far less in one month. However, I'll be generous and assume that those numbers don't account for games where the gates were powered with 2 people left, but only one got to walk out. I'm willing to entertain the idea that as many as 16.4% of 3k games end that way - twice the percentage of people who have the Left for Dead achievement. Doing the math on the data we referenced earlier, it seems normalizing for hatch escapes brings the survivor winrate (according to your metric) down to around 44% (actually less than that, but I'm being generous with rounding)
22k samples is more than enough to form a decent conclusion. As you've been very insistent on talking about averages, I'm sure you're familiar with the Central Limit Theorem
Your problem here is that you have 33 different killers with different abilities and usability to measure. 2785 of those 22k matches are just for Alien. 610 of those are for Trapper. I think we can agree that not only those two killers are at least a couple of worlds apart, but that those separated numbers are not representative of the total games played with any of those killers, so the average of those numbers is also not accurate.
Also, the data of those 22K matches was the last 28 days of matches uploaded by the page users. Assuming a player would play at least 2 matches before disconnecting, with average number of players only in Steam right now being 30,248.2 players per day in the last month, and assuming those players have a perfect ratio of 4 survivors : 1 killer, would mean that you are missing at least 316,779 matches of data in those 28 days only in Steam. 22k matches is not even close enough to have a glimpse of the big picture.
The survivor escape rates also include all the hatch escapes. If you insist on using the believed MMR win/loss conditions to gauge balance [...] you have to adjust for the fact that the MMR system does not count the hatch escape as a win for the survivors but counts it as an escape in survivor stats
You are technically right, but as far as I know, the hatch is still considered an escape on the stats because even if it is neutral MMR for the survivor, it is still an optional free escape survivors have that gives them all the same conditions in game as if they escaped through the exit gates. That's why it is counted inside that "40%" win rate, as technically they have still escaped.
Looking at the Left for Dead achievement, only 8.2% of people have powered the exit gate as the sole survivor and escaped, ever.
Ever, on Steam. Unless you have more info that I could not find of all the other platforms, that is not representative of anything. Also, you have to take in count that first, 2.4 survivors killed per match on average means, again, most games ends in a 2K, and just a few in 3K, so hatch won't be as much of an occurrence on average (even calculating it with the Nightlight data, only 33 of 400 survivors in 100 matches would have the hatch available).
Second, and again, the hatch is an optional free escape. You can still go for the exit gates if you want, but most people obviously prefer to get the easy escape. If you ask me, they should get rid of the hatch and change the EGC all along, but that's just me.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553496#Comment_3553496
I mean that it is the MMR what dictates what is a win or a lost for both killers and survivors. A killer only wins with a 3K.
Is this confirmed? Because from what I recall of the devs' explanation, the MMR calculation actually also factors in who you get a kill on, and how many kills you've already had. It may actually be possible to get an MMR increase off of a 2K if it's not a flat value per kill.
In a game like DbD, if you want every killer to have the same chance to win between them and the other side, first you need to make sure that the mathematical equality is achieved. In other words, you first need to get the average to 60% kill rate, which would mean 2.4 survivors per match killed, and then balance individually those killers than can do more or less than that. That's why the devs wanted the kill rate to be 60%, and that's how you get a 40% for everybody. There would still be players that can get more or less wins on both sides as skill is obviously another factor for this, but on average everybody would still have the same chance to win on that ideal scenario.
I think you're missing @ratcoffee 's point though. Mathematical equality does not stem directly from the kill rate. 60% kill rate -could- lead to an equal 40%-40% winrate between killer and survivor (As a team), but it could also consist of a bunch of 2Ks and a few 3Ks/4Ks. In which case survivors (As a team) would have 0% winrate because they'd never get a 3E or 4E.
Your calculation of the 40% winrate only works with perfect distribution of the match outcomes, but DbD does not have that. The distribution is wonky and will vary per killer, too.
But the best part of this is that you yourself have proved than in any case, according to Nightlight, the game is slightly survivor sided and not killer sided, as survivors are winning 47.3% of their games, and killers only 46.04% on average. In other words, you are still wrong.
The problem here is that there's two metrics for survivors and you're using them interchangeably. Survivors exist both as individuals and as a team. Survivors, as a team, have an average win rate of 40.86% vs. Killer's win rate of 46.06%, while individual survivors would have a 47.3% win-rate versus Killer's 52.7% kill rate.
But if you pull it out of numbers and into practice: Do you think anyone familiar with DbD would consider a survivor to have won if they are the only person to escape, while the killer walks away with a 3K? Or would they say the survivors lost and the killer won?
At the end of the day, according to Nightlight's statistics, killers are winning more than they are losing, and they are killing more than survivors are escaping. Pitting the correct statistics against one another, there isn't really any particular metric by which survivors come out on top.
Is this confirmed? Because from what I recall of the devs' explanation, the MMR calculation actually also factors in who you get a kill on
The only thing that affects MMR apart from pure win-draw-lose scenarios is the MMR of the involved players. For example, if you escape of a killer with higher MMR than you, you would win more points that escaping from someone with your same MMR. As far as I know, draws are not affected by this (and if you have any source of it, it would be nice if you post it).
The other thing that can affect MMR according to the Wiki (as the other official sources has being deleted) is when being in a SWF, where it would reduce or increase the awarded MMR points depending on how many members of the squad dies or escape. Again, reduce or increase, it doesn't change the fact that you would still gain or lose points if you escape or get killed.
I think you're missing @ratcoffee 's point though.
I didn't miss his point, and he asked me to explain how a 60% kill rate could lower the win rate and I did explain how. So, I already answered you: Individual killer balance. But for you to do that, first you have to get to the base for it precisely because what you are saying, this can vary from killer to killer so you need a base to start balancing each one of them.
In other type of games this could be done differently, like in fighting games where they basically pick one character with averages stats (usually, the first one made for the game) and balance the other fighters against that "average". You can't do that here for obvious reasons, so the only "average" in what you could base your balancing for is in kill rates (in other word, 2.4 survivors killed per match). Again, this is the reason of why BHVR wants (or wanted, who knows) a 60% kill rate on average across the board.
The problem here is that there's two metrics for survivors and you're using them interchangeably. Survivors exist both as individuals and as a team.
As I already said, this is false. The devs took their sweet time in the day while explaining MMR to make it clear that even if the killer is playing a 1v4 match, each survivors is playing their own match, so for them in reality is a 1v1/1/1/1. Even if being in a SWF squad affects the amount of MMR gained or lost, if you are the only one escaping then only you won your match against the killer, while the other 3 survivors lost theirs.
At the end of the day, according to Nightlight's statistics, killers are winning more than they are losing
Again, false. And we don't have anything to put into practice here as again, how the MMR works marks what is a win, a draw and a lose for both survivors and killers.
A survivor win only by escaping through the exit gates, draws if he escape through hatch, and lose if he get killed. Ergo, 52.72% kill rate = 47.28% of survivors winning.
A killer only wins if he do a 3 - 4K, draws with a 2K, and lose with 0-1K. So, killers only wins 46.07% of their games, as that's the percentage of matches they are doing 3Ks or more according to Nightlight.
In conclusion, survivors are winning 5.44% more matches on average than killers, and killers are losing 53.93% of their games. Simple as that.
-
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553488#Comment_3553488
So the problem is, that the game is impossible to win? Or that you can't win every time?
Killers already have above 50% kill rate. That's more then fair share. This is multiplayer game and every time you win, someone else has to loose. You just can't ask developers to buff your side "to always win" (without looking biased/spoiled).
Also, nobody asks you to play powerless trapper that can't camp/tunnel/slug. The video shows you that you can win most of the games even under these conditions if you are that good (meaning skill matters and it's actually on you).
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553517#Comment_3553517
No. It's the same thing. Survivors trying to genrush for world record are literally THE most vulnerable survivors they can be.
Meaning they HAVE TO face bad killer - or they will not get world record. Same thing as killer can't down team eternal in under 1 minute. I fail to see the difference.
To your next point - how can 4 survivors fix 4 gens when they are actively pressured (away from static location) and downed (killer's micro and macro skill) within 30s of spawning? You just can't work on a gen if you are downed or on hook - and that's killer's agency. You can be genrushed only if you as a killer fail to pressure them. I am not talking how hard that is (as that greatly differs depending on many aspects - but average case like tinkering with generator times affects all cases and for these I will again delegate to above 50% kill rate) - but the end result is the same.
To your last paragraph - I said myself to ignore extremes as they make little sense (because 2 mins gens and 4 health state survivors is stupid) - so bringing up more extremes is just confirming what I already said. So I don't get your point
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553537#Comment_3553537
So if killers play bad for a speedrun, then it's game problem. But if survivors play bad, then it's survivor's fault? Were you not the one talking that I have a bias?
So, when it fits your narrative, Hens is such a good and pro player he is in the highest MMR possible and confronts always the best players this game can produce. When not, they get the world record on gen repair times because they went against bad killers.
To your next point: What in the fog are you talking about and what it has to do with anything I said?
And your last paragraph: It was you who employed that logic in a fallacious point. I just reversed it so you can see how absurd it is. Now you try to deflect by saying "I'm bringing up more extremes". K, dude, K...
Also, it's funny, because I'm just answering in another post about kill and win rates, and according to Nightlight the kill rate is right know at 53.7%, with killers doing more than 3K only 46.04% of the time. In other words, survivors are winning 47.28% of their games, while killers just 46.07%. Not that Nightlight it's the ultimate source of data as it depends on users manually uploading it, but there you go.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553095#Comment_3553095
I don't think they have a response to the arguments you've made, so I just wanted to say I liked the pictures.
The counter argument to what he said was made long before and after he made it. Other thing is that he decided to ignore it or you decided to keep trying to defend it.
By the way, another advantage of doing the gens faster: Less time lost per charge regressed and faster recovery. If a killer regress 10 charges from a gen, you would have lost 10 seconds if it was only one survivor on the gen. If there were 2, only 5.88 seconds of work would have being lost. And vice-versa, it would take another 10 seconds to recover that 10 charges, but with two survivors it would be recovered in 5.88 seconds. In other words, having multiple survivors in one gen is the best way to combat regression.
But keep it up. The day they change the spawns and nerf the toolboxes and perks and nothing changes we will talk again.
-
@WilliamSN said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553095#Comment_3553095
The problem is the fact that both things can happen in the same match.
Survivors split up or 1 + 2 on gens while you're chasing someone else and you lose 2-3 gens in 1 chase with absolutely no counterplay.
Then since the number of available generators effectively was decreased, survivors are more likely to pair up on a gen and crank it out in <50 seconds.
Pairing up is an eventuality because survivors will have to "meet up" for hooksaves, essentially guaranteing that no generator is "90 seconds" except for *maybe* first 1-2.
This problem is effectively compounded if survivors bring just a single commodius or "gigabox" and dump it on the first generator effectively guaranteeing that the average generator time in the entire trial is always <60 seconds.
This isn't even taking into account the multitude of survivor perks that give repair boosts.
You are stomping against a brick wall. If they don't understand by now that even in their "real scenarios" at some point of the match survivors are going to group up to do a gen, even if it is by chance, and that alone implies 37 seconds less for a killer to pressure that gen whatever by disturbing them or applying a regression perk, they are not going to understand by the simple fact they don't want to.
Let them keep saying that an specific setup with multiple survivors with "gigaboxes" and everyone in a single gen is the problem of gens flying in your average game at the same time they argue that the 2:40 was because an specific situation with specific builds and don't represents your average game.
@Gandor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3552504#Comment_3552504
https://youtu.be/vaR-9_Vjp3s?si=5tCHV3Zn97kmhKLE
You don't need to camp/tunnel/slug/use any perks/use any abilities to win if you are really good. Meaning you are definitely not forced to play blight/nurse or going for 4 slowdowns.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3552572#Comment_3552572
If 3 mins is too quick for survivor, then sure. Make gens 2 mins each. But we also have records like this
https://www.speedrun.com/dead_by_daylight/runs/yw09vl0m
so this means we also have to add 2 health states to survivor by exactly the same logic. If we consider downing only, I saw some insane bubba speedruns with double iri addons - my guess is they were in under single minute (I can be wrong, but it was super quick). Or maybe it might make sense to forget about extremes and look at the average case? Which already states killers have above 50% kill rate - so there's ABSOLUTELY no need to raise generator times any longer.
Also - you keep talking about point where survivors spawn on a gen and use their toolbox for it immediately. I had countless of games where I had 1st chase a bit clumsy (alternatively survivor was predropping everything with WoO) which results in 3 gens in first chase. But the match ended in 4K at 2 gens regardless. It's all and only about killer being able to create pressure vs survivors being able to loop for long enough without using too many resources. That's it. What does it matter if even 5 gens pop quickly if all the survivors end up dying? And again - kill rate is clearly stating killers are more advantageous.
Do you realize that like in any world record of a killer, survivors have more to do with it than the killer, right? If any of those survivors just started running instead of staying in there then there would be no record. Survivors gen times would be comparable to killers 4K if gens wasn't static things that can't do whatever is in their hands for you to not get them. I mean, come on...
And please, tell me where my point was about survivors spawn or their toolboxes, when I argue precisely that those are just symptoms of the real disease. Also, tell me where I said that there is a need to raise generator times when I'm talking about making the min floor higher without touching the 90 second max.
And following your logic, what does it matter if a killer does a 4K at 5 gens without letting survivors touch a gen if there are survivors that can do a 4 escape when the killer only had one or two hooks? Stop complaining about OP killers or how is so hard to go against them!... See? That is a flawed logic if I ever saw one.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553060#Comment_3553060
I'm not sure what you mean by "you can use the MMR metric to calculate this." MMR has literally not come up in this discussion until you mentioned it just now
in any case, i'd love you to explain how increasing kill rates from 53% to 60% would decrease killer winrates from what they are at 46% right now to just 40%
I mean that it is the MMR what dictates what is a win or a lost for both killers and survivors. A killer only wins with a 3K.
And for your explanation, starting with Nightlight not being a reliable source, as it depends on their users uploading their data to the page and as right now it only counts 22637 matches... again: Averages. Averages and balancing.
In a game like DbD, if you want every killer to have the same chance to win between them and the other side, first you need to make sure that the mathematical equality is achieved. In other words, you first need to get the average to 60% kill rate, which would mean 2.4 survivors per match killed, and then balance individually those killers than can do more or less than that. That's why the devs wanted the kill rate to be 60%, and that's how you get a 40% for everybody. There would still be players that can get more or less wins on both sides as skill is obviously another factor for this, but on average everybody would still have the same chance to win on that ideal scenario.
But the best part of this is that you yourself have proved than in any case, according to Nightlight, the game is slightly survivor sided and not killer sided, as survivors are winning 47.3% of their games, and killers only 46.04% on average. In other words, you are still wrong.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3552998#Comment_3552998
This is the problem with using flat statistical averages though, a 2k is probably the least likely outcome, although possibly a 0k is less likely.
Most of those games are going to be either a 0-1k or a 3-4k with the state of the game. So while you seem to be implying that a 53% win rate means killers never actually win a game, ever, in reality it means that about half the time you win with a 3-4k and about half the time you lose with a 0-1k.
The exact middle scenario of a 2k draw wouldn't skew the results as it would contribute the least toward a standard deviation, being an exact 50/50.
In reality, if killers actually wanted nothing but buffs, all they have to do is give hatch every single game. That alone would lower kill rates significantly, since BHVR seems to want to force a specific kill rate for the entire game.
Precisely because of what you are describing there using flat statistical averages percentages is the only way to do it. Because even if some killer players are able to do a 3-4K every game and others would only gen 0-1K every game, the average would be around 2 survivors killed per game still, so, around 50%.
That's why it is an average, and that is why it represents better how many times each side wins.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3552998#Comment_3552998
Let's take your example of 100 matches again. Killer plays 100 matches, gets a 3k in 80 of them and a 0k in the remaining 20. This comes up to 3 * 80 = 240 survivors killed, just as in your example. However, the killer win rate (by the metric you chose) is 80%, far off from the 60% kill rate.
Now, a second example of 100 matches. Killer gets a 4k in 40 matches, 3k in 10 matches and 1k in the remaining 50. In this case, the killer has again gotten 240 kills across 100 matches for a 60% kill rate, but has only a 50% win rate.
The point here is, if youre going to use a metric like "3k+ is a win, 2k is a tie, 1k- is a loss" you can't use kill rate stats to figure out how often killers manage to accomplish that. You would need to look directly at the stats for how common each result is. And what do you know, Nightlight has that stat:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/A0JNFVBNJ32G/image.png
Killers win 46% of the time and lose 40% of the time - their win% is 5 percentage points higher than their loss%. Survivor win% is 5 percentage points below their loss%.
Do you understand what an average is? It means that some killers would have higher kill rate than 60%, and other would have it lower.
That is why it is an average, and what you said don't contradicts the fact that 60% kill rate means 40% win rate for killers and 40% win rates for survivors on average. There would be also some survivors that escape and win more times than other survivors do, but those didn't fit your narrative there.
And yes, you can use the MMR metric to calculate this as it is the reason of the MMR working that way and devs wanting a 60% kill rate.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3552647#Comment_3552647
I think what you're still failing to get here is that the mathematical numbers you're referring to are what proves why you're wrong.
In fact, I think the clearest indication of why can be found in your post here, where you have to concoct a scenario where two survivors are completely uninterrupted while they repair two generators, all so they can achieve the incredible goal of doing those two generators... slower than if they'd split up.
Why would they be uninterrupted? What is the killer doing during this time? This is my point. If survivors have no super fast gen speed tools, and if they're grouping up on generators, your skill will affect how fast those generators fly, because you're right- if they're left to their own devices, it's not that hard to finish generators pretty quickly because there's no real skill component to repairing beyond not missing a pretty generous timing minigame now and again. Your job is to make sure that they aren't left to their own devices, and you do have time to do that.
You might pivot to saying that if they group up on their first generator the killer doesn't have time to interrupt it, and while I disagree with that, let's take it at face value for a moment. Okay, you lost one generator. The survivors have no other gen progression to speak of if they've grouped up (maybe a single other generator at somewhere around half if they went 2/2), so they still have four generators to repair, at default speed, while you're trying to stop them. That plus the exit gate time if it gets that far. I don't see how this is a problem for a killer that's actively trying to stop them.
I'm going to use your argumentative strategy for a second here; "They can shave 37 seconds off a gen..." It doesn't matter! How long it takes one generator to be finished isn't as important as how many generators are being repaired at once, and if they're grouped up, that means your worst case scenario is losing one generator before you've got a hook and the game begins in earnest. Even in this worst case scenario, if survivors keep trying to group up, you have so many opportunities to leverage that and generate pressure it's staggering. That's not even mentioning what happens when you do get there in time to interrupt it, because then generator repair completely grinds to a halt for a short while.
Again, I am not arguing that there is a strategy which is just better than grouping up. I am explaining why grouping up is a bad choice in most scenarios and why you as a killer should be happy to see survivors do it. I am explaining why grouping up will not lead to generators flying too fast for a killer to get a win unless that killer is AFK... or unless there's something about their build or gameplay that needs improving.
Grouping up and the progression numbers it leads to cannot be the root of all problems when it's not a good strategy to begin with. You've referred to gen speed tools working off a higher percentage, and that's true, but even in your post about an addonless toolbox (for some reason) you admit that the gen speed from one of the strongest single sources there is doesn't overcome the default inefficiency of grouping up on generators. It's when those strong tools are used on multiple generators at once that it starts to take away killer agency, and guess what; if they're nerfed, that means they'll be less useful on survivors grouping up, too.
Just like I said, the strategy you seem being the best and how you play the game has nothing to do with the mathematical fact that the base progression of two survivors in a gen is so high that is the core of all those other problems that you yourself have mention, like two survivors spawning near a gen or toolboxes and progression perks being so effective.
And even if they reduced the base progression multiplier for two survivors, it won't change that it would be better to split up for "insert reason". I don't know how it can be so hard to understand a simple and explained fact.