Carnib9
Carnib9
About
- Username
- Carnib9
- Joined
- Visits
- 6
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Firellius said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4096792#Comment_4096792
If the tournament structure is built to allow anyone to enter on days one and two, but only the winners from those days progress to the finals, wouldn't it show the exact opposite?
Because the finals would the logically be higher end play, and those skewed heavily towards killers.
Only top teams were invited. Saying "anyone" could enter is heavily understating their skill. Even the worst-placing players in this tournament were still some of the best players in DBD. For example, momoseventh, who had a 2k win streak on Blight, placed last.
The finals only had 12 games played, which was a tiny sample size. Tiny sample sizes can lead to erratic results, which was also seen in Day 2 where killers heavily underperformed. Due to the small sample sizes, not much can be drawn from the individual Day 2 and Finals results without combining them.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4096775#Comment_4096775
Even if I were to take this tiny sample and analysis with its own rules and very specific players as gospel, what's the point then? That in 90% of matches the game is killer sided? Ok?
I already mentioned the point, which was that the closer you get to the top level, the more survivor-sided the game becomes. The average game is killer-sided in pubs because survivors are playing casually, often not trying to win (due to doing challenges and trolling), matchmaking is terrible, and etc, but if the survivors are high skilled and actually trying to win, the game is in their favour. I wouldn't call 90% of matches killer-sided, considering the kill rate is ~60% and that is heavily inflated by the aforementioned factors.
-
Reading these comments, it seemed like more data was needed from another tournament, so I collected more data. There was actually another minimal rules tournament hosted on 9 Jan 2026 (3 months earlier). The 2 main differences with this tournament were that the teams were lower level (no top level teams) and killer variety was much larger. The average killer played was A/B tier, which was lower than the other tournament where it was mainly top tier killers. As expected, killers performed far worse, with an overall kill rate of 37.5% and win rate of 16.7%, which was 50% less than survivors. I doubt that in the current meta, A/B tier killers will ever achieve >50% kill rate in no restriction tournaments. For A+/S tier killers, I can see 40-60% kill rate being achieved depending on the skill level of survivors (with higher skill resulting in lower kill rates). Though, note that these tournaments primarily feature maps that are roughly even and almost never feature maps that are very survivor sided.
Tournament stage
Games played
Average Kills
Kill rate
Win rate
Draw rate
Lose rate
WR-LR
Overall
30
1.50
37.5%
16.7%
16.7%
66.7%
-50.0%
Map
Games played
%total
Average Kills
Kill rate
Win rate
Draw rate
Lose rate
WR-LR
Nightlight map kill rate
Nightlight map ranking
Suffocation Pit
6
20.0%
1.17
29.2%
0.0%
16.7%
83.3%
-83.3%
48.8%
25
The Temple of Purgation
6
20.0%
1.67
41.7%
16.7%
16.7%
66.7%
-50.0%
49.2%
23
Ormond Lake Mine
3
10.0%
0.33
8.3%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
-100.0%
48.2%
30
Coal Tower
3
10.0%
2.00
50.0%
33.3%
33.3%
33.3%
0.0%
51.0%
18
Father Campbell's Chapel
2
6.7%
1.00
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
-100.0%
48.2%
29
Fractured Cowshed
2
6.7%
2.50
62.5%
50.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
41.2%
44
Dead Dawg Saloon
2
6.7%
0.50
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
-100.0%
54.5%
4
Blood Lodge
2
6.7%
3.50
87.5%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
48.7%
26
Wretched Shop
2
6.7%
1.50
37.5%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
-50.0%
44.6%
39
Wreckers' Yard
2
6.7%
1.50
37.5%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
-50.0%
48.4%
28
Average
3
10.0%
1.57
39.2%
20.0%
16.7%
63.3%
-43.3%
48.3%
26.6
Average (weighted by match count)
48.6%
25.7
Killer
Games played
%total
Average kills
Kill rate
Win rate
Draw rate
Lose rate
WR-LR
Cannibal
6
20.0%
1.67
41.7%
16.7%
16.7%
66.7%
-50.0%
Nightmare
2
6.7%
1.00
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
-100.0%
Artist
2
6.7%
1.00
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
-100.0%
Huntress
2
6.7%
0.50
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
-100.0%
Hillbilly
2
6.7%
2.50
62.5%
50.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
Unknown
2
6.7%
0.50
12.5%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
-100.0%
Blight
2
6.7%
3.50
87.5%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
Clown
2
6.7%
1.50
37.5%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
-50.0%
Ghoul
2
6.7%
1.50
37.5%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
-50.0%
Dark Lord
2
6.7%
3.00
75.0%
50.0%
50.0%
0.0%
50.0%
Doctor
2
6.7%
1.50
37.5%
0.0%
50.0%
50.0%
-50.0%
Mastermind
2
6.7%
1.00
25.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
-100.0%
Animatronic
1
3.3%
0.00
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
-100.0%
Wraith
1
3.3%
0.00
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
-100.0%
Average
2
7.1%
1.37
34.2%
15.5%
15.5%
69.0%
-53.6%
Data:
Tournament: https://youtu.be/24efHBYOwYU?si=_whtSgzU4bNMvCQd
@Xendritch said:
This is such a low sample size that I wouldn't take too much from it other than Krasue isn't as bad as people think, she's clunky yes but she's still A tier.
Otherwise they'd have to do this every weekend for at least 3-4 months before we start having data we can really pull from. Also I know what conclusion you're trying to get at with this and do this tournament with no comms allowed and see what happens.
For Hen's tournament, the variance was drastically lower than normal due to:
- Only a very limited number of killers being played (the top tiers)
- Killers were primarily only played on a 1-2 unique maps (typically their best maps)
Killers also had a massive advantage knowing the map in advance and the average map was killer-sided.
As previously mentioned, I doubt we will ever see it being killer-sided in no/minimal restriction tournaments. I think the sample size was sufficient for roughly accurate overall results. Day 1 and Day 2 + Finals had extremely similar overall results despite very different sample sizes. The 2nd tournament I posted also showed it was heavily survivor-sided. Though, when the data is broken down into by killer, map, and player, the sample size is much smaller, so those stats likely need more data.
I don't see the point of prohibiting comms since swfs in pubs have comms.
@FerrousFacade said:
This tournament also saw extensive use of Fast Track before its most recent change and it clearly had a large impact on the tournament with almost every survivor running it plus a BNP in the finals. If you re-ran the tournament today would we see the same results? Probably not. Its kind of the way it is for live service games, the results of a specific event are only relevant until changes are made. You can look at longer running stats for general trends but patch to patch could see very different results.
Comp matches going for hooks are also just incredibly different from normal matches (as you noted). Sometimes a killer will camp a single player to death because three hooks with only one fresh is their win condition. The only thing they have to care about is securing that single kill and if every other survivor escapes it doesn't matter, they weren't playing for a win in the pub match sense.
The 2nd tournament I posted was played 3 months earlier, had no Fast Track and saw similar results.
Playing for hooks is probably 70-80% the same as playing for kills since kills result in hooks. As you may know, successfully tunnelling a survivor out is highly favourable for killers. The priority is getting kills and hooks mainly only take priority when you know a kill is unlikely.
@esarraf said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4096564#Comment_4096564
Hey now, it's not somewhat useless, it's entirely useless.
@cogsturning said:
I really wish we would stop using 10k hour noteworthy players as examples of things. Why don't we assemble a group of normal players and do this exact same thing and see how it goes? I'd be in, and then maybe you'll have some more realistic information.
And if they were playing for hook states why aren't those what we're going off of? If I was playing for hook states I wouldn't be trying for kills at all.
It is true that these results aren't applicable to most pubs, but it does address whether the game is killer or survivor sided at the top level and shows that the game becomes more survivor-sided the closer you get to the top. DBD is killer-sided in most pubs since survivors are playing casually, often not trying to win (due to doing challenges and trolling), matchmaking is terrible, and etc., but when you get 3/4 competent survivors trying to win, it's a different story.
-
@Rokku_Rorru said:
Now do it again with casual players, I never want to see this game balanced around the comp scene personally.
I want to see the stats there, also it's not really "lawless" if we are banning killers and preventing repeat killers, is it. Not to mention map rng and the like can vastly impact a match for survivor, it's very different if it is predetermined.
It's somewhat useless data as it doesn't apply to you average DBD match at all, most of the playerbase is way more casual.We already have stats for pubs and in general, which indicate it's killer-sided. The stats I posted just show that the closer you get to the top level, the more survivor sided the game becomes. Basically, DBD is balanced around players playing casually, as you say, but breaks at the top level.
it's not really "lawless" if we are banning killers and preventing repeat killers, is it.
Without bans, it's just going to be the same killer every match. As shown in the data, the top 5 strongest killers are already being played in almost every match.
Not to mention map rng and the like can vastly impact a match for survivor, it's very different if it is predetermined.
I think having the maps pre-determined reduces RNG, and the maps played were already killer-sided on average.