Firellius
Firellius
About
- Username
- Firellius
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,210
- Last Active
Comments
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3791898#Comment_3791898
Yes, but not for balancing reasons.
it literally is because of balancing reasons, not because "devs favor other side and hate mine!!!"
That is incorrect. Winrates and killrates are not that tightly confined because there's more than two outcomes. You can get a 50% winrate off a killrate as low as 37.5%. You don't need 62.5% kill rate for 50% KR at all, as is proven by the current Nightlight statistics.
they are not tightly confined, but the rest of statement is completely incorrect. Victory for killer in terms of MMR is only when you have 3+ kills. Now, there are also various community made conditions which we won't count in at the moment.
No, higher MMR has higher kill rates. Why do you keep insisting this when BHVR's official stats have disproven this?
higher MMR DOESN'T exist, it stopped existing the very day when BHVR decided to prioritize shorter queues over accurate matchmaking. Only pub (DbD matchmaking server) and comp (scrims, tourneys, DbDLeague etc., custom lobbies matches) communities exist.
Official stats have also proven that worst killers are having highest killrates and that average chase time per one hook stage is 20s (1m30s on average in case of good survivors). What does it mean? It means stats are literally extremely polluted with player related factors, such as skill and people who grief.
I see you've been to the Batusalen school of 'how not to calculate averages'.
Current lowest killrate according to Nightlight is Clown at 52.8%. He gets a 2K 11% of the time. He gets a 3K+ on 46.95% of his matches.
Y'all need to drop this dummy kill rate argument because it's just flat out wrong in all regards.
"i will use my understanding of killrates because it fits my narrative" type of post
it literally is because of balancing reasons, not because "devs favor other side and hate mine!!!"
No, the devs stated that this 60% was to keep the horror vibe, not because of balancing reasons.
they are not tightly confined, but the rest of statement is completely incorrect. Victory for killer in terms of MMR is only when you have 3+ kills. Now, there are also various community made conditions which we won't count in at the moment.
10 matches
40 survivors
50% winrate = 5 matches with 3K+ = minimum of 15 survivors killed.
15/40 = 0.375 = 37.5%
You can get a 50% winrate as killer off a killrate as low as 37.5%. Yes, that's unrealistic because the statistics are way more volatile, but my point wasn't that we should aim for that anyway, it's that claiming that a 62.5% killrate is needed for a 50% winrate is effectively based on nothing.
DBD's stats don't work that way. Nothing I said was incorrect.
Official stats have also proven that worst killers are having highest killrates and that average chase time per one hook stage is 20s (1m30s on average in case of good survivors). What does it mean? It means stats are literally extremely polluted with player related factors, such as skill and people who grief.
Of course, this only ever works in a one-way street where it is used to discredit any issues survivors may have, because any purely anecdotal woe-is-me story from a killer main is 100% fact.
But hey, it doesn't matter whether you trust the stats or not, because Hotrod was talking about those stats anyway, making claims that they pointed out the exact opposite of what they actually say.
'High MMR has lower kill rates!'
'Stats say they don't'
'Official stats do!'
'No they don't'
'Well, the stats aren't accurate!'
It's just moving goalposts faster than Dredge can teleport between lockers.
"i will use my understanding of killrates because it fits my narrative" type of post
On Hotrod's part, yes.
The line of thinking he's employing comes from one forum user that has been explained, over and over again, why that line of thinking is flat-out incorrect. In all regards. It doesn't make sense from practical or theoretical points, it's even mathematically unsound.
Hotrod brings it up again because it agrees with his biases. You don't need a 62.5% killrate to get a 50% winrate.
Check Nightlight. Artist has 50% 3K+ rate on a 55% killrate. The closest killers to the 62.5% killrate are Hillbilly (61.73%) and Onryo (63.31%), featuring winrates of 55.8% and 60.7% (!!!) respectively.
The 'logic' that Hotrod is trying to pass here does not work theoretically, practically, or mathematically. Making it incredibly ironic that you're defending it by accusing -me- of using a different understanding of killrates to suit my narrative.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3791684#Comment_3791684
This did not get nerfed at all. 10 extra seconds on hook does not change this in any way, shape, or form.
tell me you've never truly experienced gameplay at high skill level without telling me so.
Mostly achieved through a method called 'camping', which this change aims to address.
camping is extremely situational and useless if survivors actually have at least a bit of game knowledge.
And that's tunnelling.
and that's called unhooking a survivor too early, giving killer the full value of tunneling or just trading.
If you have one survivor on hook and 3 on gens, you, as the killer, are wasting your own time. Survivors aren't doing anything to you, you are wasting your own time.
again, i have idea where to look for other survivors, and that puts me at 50/50 chance of actually finding other survivor reliably enough and getting another hook, next.
Did you? Or did you just jump to a wild conclusion that fits your bias and then ran with it, while now trying to brush off any further examination of your statement by calling it an easy conclusion?
Again, if being on the hook is such a power move for survivors, why would they equip a perk that gets them off the hook?
Deli is the most powerful tool when used in anti-tunneling builds, where you greed your hook stage to the last 1-2s, completely nullifying killer's hook pressure, after which you unhook yourself and either force killer's attention for another 2+ mins if you are good at chases and DS positioning or try to act as a mere waste of killer's time while again, 2 of your teammates spend time on gens completely reliably knowing killer is having full attention on something that isn't gen they are repairing.
tell me you've never truly experienced gameplay at high skill level without telling me so.
Returning to the 'I am not going to explain my point, just gonna call you bad if you don't agree with it' argumentation. This does not help your case.
camping is extremely situational and useless if survivors actually have at least a bit of game knowledge.
So is defending the hook something that's really important on high MMR, or is it something that survivors can easily counter on high MMR? Pick something.
and that's called unhooking a survivor too early, giving killer the full value of tunneling or just trading.
It's still tunnelling.
again, i have idea where to look for other survivors, and that puts me at 50/50 chance of actually finding other survivor reliably enough and getting another hook, next.
Now you're telling me you have never experienced gameplay at high skill level. You should watch Otz sometimes and see how his game sense kicks in. It's not a 50/50 when he plays, because he makes deductions about where survivors would reasonably go.
Plus, you have a plethora of aura-reading perks at your disposal.
Deli is the most powerful tool when used in anti-tunneling builds, where you greed your hook stage to the last 1-2s, completely nullifying killer's hook pressure, after which you unhook yourself and either force killer's attention for another 2+ mins if you are good at chases and DS positioning or try to act as a mere waste of killer's time while again, 2 of your teammates spend time on gens completely reliably knowing killer is having full attention on something that isn't gen they are repairing.
Again, this is not showing, in any way, how survivors use hooks to pressure the killer, at all. You're getting OFF the hook here. Those extra 10 seconds don't help your team here, UNLESS the killer is camping the hook.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3791315#Comment_3791315
60% is the intended kill rate. It would take a 62.5% kill rate for killers to get a 3k+ in half their matches (so they are intended to be balanced around getting a 3k+ slightly under half the time). Anything under 60%, and the killers are underperforming. The higher the MMR, the worst the kill rates get. A 52% kill rate essentially means the killer is only getting a 2K every match which is pretty terrible.
60% is the intended kill rate.
Yes, but not for balancing reasons.
It would take a 62.5% kill rate for killers to get a 3k+ in half their matches
That is incorrect. Winrates and killrates are not that tightly confined because there's more than two outcomes. You can get a 50% winrate off a killrate as low as 37.5%. You don't need 62.5% kill rate for 50% KR at all, as is proven by the current Nightlight statistics.
The higher the MMR, the worst the kill rates get.
No, higher MMR has higher kill rates. Why do you keep insisting this when BHVR's official stats have disproven this?
A 52% kill rate essentially means the killer is only getting a 2K every match which is pretty terrible.
I see you've been to the Batusalen school of 'how not to calculate averages'.
Current lowest killrate according to Nightlight is Clown at 52.8%. He gets a 2K 11% of the time. He gets a 3K+ on 46.95% of his matches.
Y'all need to drop this dummy kill rate argument because it's just flat out wrong in all regards.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3791571#Comment_3791571
How does an incapacitated survivor generate 'pressure'? What is this incapacitated survivor going to do? Do they do gens? Do they bodyblock? Do they grant speed boosts, or heal their fellow survivors?
killer is supposed to not just put a survivor on a random hook they find. They are actually supposed to hook them in a strategical position when they can actually pressure multiple gens and be aware of situations around them. Also, good hook pressure from killer also consists of successfully forcing a beneficial trade, or another survivor unhooking this one so that unhooked one becomes an easy target.
Greeding a survivor on hook means killer can't expect any of these scenarios to happen, even if they strategize around hooks, leaving minimum of other 2-3 survivors doing gens and additional time being wasted. Time is the most important resource for the killer and traversal of the map to crucial points isn't instant, even for high mobility killers.
The hooked survivor is being extremelty useful IF they don't attempt to kobe without Deli or intentionally fail skillchecks on hook.
Or are you so caught up in hook-denial strategies that you feel a nervousness at the idea of survivors being able to unhook their ally without it costing an extra hookstate, and you misidentify that as 'pressure'?
i haven't mentioned hook denial strategies anywhere, they have never be meant to win the match, just to annoy the killer, whilst being quite unhealthy due to forcing an unhealthy playstyle (bleeding out)
If it was better to leave survivors on the hook, then Deliverance, a perk whose only effect is that it gets a survivor -off- the hook, would not be the best perk, would it?
did you like stop and started thinking for at least a moment? Can you solve a literal 2+2 to see why Deli is the best possible perk for these cases?
killer is supposed to not just put a survivor on a random hook they find. They are actually supposed to hook them in a strategical position when they can actually pressure multiple gens and be aware of situations around them.
This did not get nerfed at all. 10 extra seconds on hook does not change this in any way, shape, or form.
Also, good hook pressure from killer also consists of successfully forcing a beneficial trade
Mostly achieved through a method called 'camping', which this change aims to address.
or another survivor unhooking this one so that unhooked one becomes an easy target.
And that's tunnelling.
You're not beating the 'obsessed with defending the hook' allegations here.
leaving minimum of other 2-3 survivors doing gens and additional time being wasted
If you have one survivor on hook and 3 on gens, you, as the killer, are wasting your own time. Survivors aren't doing anything to you, you are wasting your own time.
i haven't mentioned hook denial strategies anywhere, they have never be meant to win the match, just to annoy the killer, whilst being quite unhealthy due to forcing an unhealthy playstyle (bleeding out)
Sorry, I meant unhook denial strategies.
did you like stop and started thinking for at least a moment? Can you solve a literal 2+2 to see why Deli is the best possible perk for these cases?
Did you? Or did you just jump to a wild conclusion that fits your bias and then ran with it, while now trying to brush off any further examination of your statement by calling it an easy conclusion?
Again, if being on the hook is such a power move for survivors, why would they equip a perk that gets them off the hook?
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3791431#Comment_3791431
there is literally a huge difference between 3v1 that is actually considered as the best possible thing for the killer to do (but is NOT always achievable) where one survivor is on hook and 3v1 when a survivor is actually dead. Dead survivor can't generate pressure on killer, while hooked survivor actually can be a tool for generating pressure on the killer. Even better if that survivor has Deli ready, because they can absolutely nullify every killer's attempt of generating hook pressure, at least 2 teammates can peacefully do gens while nobody needs to go for unhook.
Think about why Deli is the best survivor perk in the game a bit.
while hooked survivor actually can be a tool for generating pressure on the killer.
How?
How does an incapacitated survivor generate 'pressure'? What is this incapacitated survivor going to do? Do they do gens? Do they bodyblock? Do they grant speed boosts, or heal their fellow survivors?Or are you so caught up in hook-denial strategies that you feel a nervousness at the idea of survivors being able to unhook their ally without it costing an extra hookstate, and you misidentify that as 'pressure'?
Think about why Deli is the best survivor perk in the game a bit.
If it was better to leave survivors on the hook, then Deliverance, a perk whose only effect is that it gets a survivor -off- the hook, would not be the best perk, would it?
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3791185#Comment_3791185
Otz said this literally before all of the most severe hook changes happened.
It's not ideal for survivors to leave team mates on hook because they contribute literally nothing to the team on there. And if the survivor in chase goes down while someone is hooked, then it's recipe for a snowball.
it's not ideal? It's literally optimal to greed your teammate on hook as much as possible for a hook stage and that's literally nullifying map pressure killer is trying to create by having a survivor hooked.
They need to be unhooked and back on a gen asap. Using Reassurance on a survivor when you can just unhook them is bad decision making.
completely wrong. First, hopping to a gen asap after being unhooked is literally putting yourself as a survivor into a most vulnerable possible spot and peak of bad decision making. Telling Reassurance is bad and only actually useful against camping killers is a sign of complete unawareness of what hook pressure is.
Because in that situation, it's one survivor on hook and 3 survivors on gens. No one is in chase, no one is having to unhook and heal. No pressure.
ahh, the same old black & white definition of map pressure. Map pressure NOT just about amount of survivors doing gens. You can have 2, and even 3 survivors off gens and still create roughly as much pressure as if only one survivor is off gens.
it's not ideal? It's literally optimal to greed your teammate on hook as much as possible for a hook stage and that's literally nullifying map pressure killer is trying to create by having a survivor hooked.
How is it 'literally optimal'? Because leaving that survivor on hook is 'literally' turning the game into a 1v3, which we've been told over and over again is by far the best thing for the killer to do.
So why is it both optimal for the killer to make it a 1v3 as fast as possible, while also being optimal for the survivors to make it a 1v3 as fast as possible?
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3791061#Comment_3791061
Not according to official stats, and you forgot to mention that even if kill rates were higher, that's with the caveat that you must play a select few killers. The higher the MMR, the less killers are viable to play. That's why in tournaments, you usually only see 3 or 4 killers being selected, and those killers tend to be the ones that are genuinely broken (nurse\blight) where they are deadly even at higher MMR due to their overtuned design.
Long story short, at higher MMR, most kills are on a select few killers because the other killers get selected less and less. That reinforces the idea that killers are weak at high MMR except for a small handful which are overtuned and frankly DO need some nerfs. Making up numbers here to make it easy to understand - If you had 95% of the killers being incapable of reliably getting kills where high MMR leads to only 5% of the killers getting picked, and those 5% get nearly ALL of the recorded kills, then yeah, you're going to have high kill rates, but that's due to those 5% picked killers being powerhouses. Doesn't mean "killers are overpowered" if 95% of the killers aren't even playable at high MMR. That just means those 5% killers are powerhouses themselves.
Not according to official stats, and you forgot to mention that even if kill rates were higher, that's with the caveat that you must play a select few killers.
No, that is exactly according to official stats and that's not only counting the top few. In the details from September 2022, the lowest killrate in overall MMR was 52% for the Nurse. The lowest killrate in high MMR was 56% for the Trapper. A couple of killers lost around 1% in killrate, a bunch of killers gained much more than that in killrate, moving from overall to high MMR.
-
@RpTheHotrod said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3790838#Comment_3790838
- Killers are only overpowered with very inexperienced survivors - ie low MMR. They start becoming a joke the higher the MMR is to the point where at high MMR, you can only realistically play a handful of killers. Heck, one of the most experienced survivors in the world did a video series of him playing ONLY solo queue and had a 60% win rate (win = 3 survivors escaping).
- I'm assuming you're just trying to bait a response on this one, so I'm not going to bother answering. Good know you think the top competitive killers at the tournament levels in the game are "bad killers" because they'll also slug when needed.
- Wiggling isn't useless. People wiggle out all the time - it's designed for other survivors assisting in that process via perks (ie breakout), by taking hits, or sabo'ing a nearby hook so the killer can't make it to another hook. It's NOT designed as a guaranteed get out of jail free card if there's no survivors nearby to assist. Long story short, it's not for YOU, it's for other survivors to take advantage of it. Considering you think killers are overpowered, that would likely put you into the lower MMR bracket, so I suppose the wiggling concept hasn't been made apparent to you yet. Get some more experience playing and you'll start to understand the value of wiggling.
- See point 2.
Killers are only overpowered with very inexperienced survivors - ie low MMR. They start becoming a joke the higher the MMR is to the point where at high MMR, you can only realistically play a handful of killers. Heck, one of the most experienced survivors in the world did a video series of him playing ONLY solo queue and had a 60% win rate (win = 3 survivors escaping).
High MMR has historically had higher kill rates than low MMR.
-
If all other survivors are working on gens, the hook timer ticks up, instead of down. This allows the most suggested counter (just do gens) to work better as a counter, while being very easy for the killer to cancel out.
-
@GroßusSchmiedus said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3789834#Comment_3789834
Its amazing how many in this community cant do basic math, 3% faster means roughly 20% more time to catch up for 115% Killers and 33% for 110% Killers. Everytime there is a haste perk gets released it gets sad and hilarious.
Besides, i do believe boons should be reworked, they should be destroyed instead of just snuffed similar to Hex Perks, that allows us to buff them. It was kinda stupid that back then there were boons more powerful than many Hex Perks that you could just throw down again unlike Hex perks which were lost permanently.
We can pick our poison, im not sure which one i like more:
- Boons totems get destroyed but can be reapplied, this would mean they can be buffed only slightly.
- Boons perks get permanently deactivated when the totem is destroyed, they can no longer be reapplied but the effect of the boon can be buffed severely.
Besides, i do believe boons should be reworked, they should be destroyed instead of just snuffed similar to Hex Perks, that allows us to buff them.
Yeah, no. High stakes, high reward survivor perks will be complained about until they're high stakes, low reward perks.
Boons should just have individual parameters to better control the drawbacks on the boons. There's no reason something like Dark Theory should have the same set-up time and radius as Circle of Healing.
-
@nam said:
This play style is rised in Asia servers. The Key perks are Knock Out and The Third Seal. You don't hock cuz the sacrifice bar is increased to 70s, which makes hocking make no benefit, instead, you hit one down, let him bleed to die, and go to find the next. Knock out and the Third seal will make survivors take much time to rescue others. The advantage of this play style is when you hit one down, and you are chasing the next one, another survivor has to run around the map to rescue which takes much more time than rescue from hook, while only one survivor can do the gens.
You don't hock cuz the sacrifice bar is increased to 70s, which makes hocking make no benefit
It's the year 2028. DBD killer queues are over 10 minutes long, and survivor teams have to be filled out with an extra bot to keep queue times from going too high. In an effort to bring the kill rate down a little bit from the 93.6% it's held fast at for the past four months, devs make gens progress 2% faster if the killer stays near a hooked survivor for 30 seconds. "This is unplayable!" forum killers complain. "I'm just going to slug now. There's just no point to putting survivors on hooks anymore, we've lost all pressure!"
-
@まうっす said:
The real thrill of competitive games is doing things your opponent hates.If you want to care about your opponent, shouldn't you play another game?
The real thrill of competitive games is competing. What you are talking about is griefing.
-
@Ayodam said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3789594#Comment_3789594
It’s 1% less than peak MFT. People lost their minds over 3%. If the 2% haste buff boon is in a good area, maybe DT could provide decent value.
It's 1% in flat numbers, but it's effectively 33% weaker, so it's not a small difference.
-
I think the bug OP is complaining about is that they didn't get an iridescent emblem when they stomped the survivors.
In which case, this 'bug' is such a low priority one that it's silly to hold it up as 'discriminatory against killers'.
-
Well, let's just take the numbers as being placeholders, because 90 seconds is too long, and 10 minutes is -far- too long.
But the overall concept runs into a bit of a snag, which is the variety of hex perks in the game. With how varying their potentials are, they can't all be treated with the same parameters. This is something I wished BHVR realised with Boons, too. You can't really balance hex perks in general around, say, Hex: Crowd Control while ignoring the impact it has on Devour Hope.
There's also the issue that simply blocking the hex totem for a set amount of time doesn't do that much to protect it. It can still be found, and then dismantled as soon as the timer is up. It does give the killer more time to move in and protect it, but that's assuming that it would be in the killer's best interest to do so. They have other objectives to defend as well, after all.
Personally, I think Hex: Two Can Play was on to something when they made the hex reignitable. I think some of the weaker hex perks should be given conditions that will re-ignite the hex on a random dull totem when met.
-
@Leachy_Jr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3787998#Comment_3787998
Because that wasnt the area of camping they wanted to nerf. They adjusted the AC system on its PTB to fine tune its balance. Now that 70s hook stages exist, the AC is stronger than they intended.
If they wanted killers to "chew through pallets faster" by reducing pallet break time by 20%, but forgot about brutal strength so you could guarantee easy zoning with that perk, would that be fine? This is the same situation.
Because that wasnt the area of camping they wanted to nerf. They adjusted the AC system on its PTB to fine tune its balance. Now that 70s hook stages exist, the AC is stronger than they intended.
How do you know? How do you know they didn't take the anti-camp into account when they made this change?
-
@Leachy_Jr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3787914#Comment_3787914
If the basekit break speed was buffed by 20%, and then brutal strength was left unchanged, would that be okay? Personally I think changing something and indirectly buffing 5 other things is a bad idea.
If the intent of these changes is to nerf camping, why would they then buff camping to compensate?
-
BHVR: *Releases change to weaken camping
Forum killer: "Wait, why aren't you nerfing anti-camp to compensate?"
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3785482#Comment_3785482
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3785492#Comment_3785492
I agree a 3K is a win for the Killer. My question, though, is if a win for the survivors is defined as a 3E or 4E what percentage of the time do you think survivors win? All responses are appreciated.
According to Nightlight, the overall average of 0Ks and 1Ks is roughly 35.5%. These would necessarily be 3Es or 4Es, so that's the 'winrate' you'd be looking for, I think.
By contrast, the killer winrate in the same stat block is roughly 51.5%. (That's 3Ks and 4Ks)
-
@Ohyakno said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3785228#Comment_3785228
What are you talking about? I don't care about the ten second thing. It's fine. My issue is with you claiming that wraith player just playing the game is somehow playing in an unintended fashion. That's flat out wrong. It seems like you just want killers to not have options or play how you want. They're just playing hit and run. It's hardly a bug or glitch or whatever. It's a play style that's been in the game for six years or whatever. If it were unintended they would have somehow made injuring different survivors impossible. Which is ridiculous.
Except camping for the extra hookstate is part of the strategy he was talking about, and that's getting nerfed now, so clearly it's not intended to be this strong. And if it becomes completely unviable, then it's evidently not intended at all.
-
@Ohyakno said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3785022#Comment_3785022
The person you're talking to is playing the game as intended. If it weren't intended, it would be impossible.
This always gets trotted out whenever a change is made people don't like.
But did it occur to you that perhaps this change is also intended?
EDIT: Also, 'if it weren't intended, it would be impossible' is a really dumb take in general, on account of emergent gameplay, bugs and glitches. Especially in DBD.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3785092#Comment_3785092
average killer actually looks for way to adapt, while all i see from average surv when they lose miserably is DC/hook suicide and then go for a -rep on killer's profile.
So tell me which side is the pettier one then
Looking for ways to adapt?
Because I don't see adapting in this thread.
@Devil_hit11 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3785129#Comment_3785129
Yes it is. remember entire excuse for why survivor are getting 10 second hook time is generator taking 10 second longer. Deja vu makes generator take less time for no downside.
Deja Vu shaves off 5 seconds, and only on marked generators. So you do get an extra downside, and you don't get the entire time loss back.
But if you wanna play it that way, why not bring in Monstrous Shrine and make hook timers take 58 seconds?
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3784379#Comment_3784379
with this logic, three remaining survivors trying to save that one hooked survivor during endgame are also egoing
And that is actually punishable and can result in more kills. Slugging for the 4K is never going to cost the killer a kill.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3785029#Comment_3785029
"killers chase power is too OP because i don't wanna learn how to loop them" kind of analogy :D
Oh, so survivors are bad for not wanting to have to pull off all kinds of extra stunts to counteract a killer going AFK at hook, but it's fine for killers to throw a tantrum when they don't want to adapt to their free kills coming in 20 seconds later.
-
@NarkoTri1er said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3785019#Comment_3785019
let's not use "camping" as an excuse when yall would just try to kobe in front of the killer just in order to go next anyways, making this change barely noticeable, this change will literally be noticeable the most in high skill matches even with no camping since a survivor with actual skill knows what hook pressure actually means.
And anyone presenting this change as anything about camping definitely has very bad understanding of the game.
'This tactic is so broken that it makes people quit the game. Imma complain about measures taken to counteract it.'
Forum killers, man.
-
@itsHammyyy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3785019#Comment_3785019
the issue with “haha camping is le bad so your entire argument is actually also le bad” is that camping, when used correctly, is a valid strategy.
example, i play wraith, one of the best strats you can do is hook someone, leave the hook and injure multiple people hopefully the entire team, and come back to force 2nd stage, since nobody can trade if everybody is injured. increased hook stages will hard nerf this strat because survivors will have even more time to reset and prevent you from pushing 2nd. i’m arguing that this strat does not need a nerf, it already has counterplay as any decent player already knows.
the issue with “haha camping is le bad so your entire argument is actually also le bad” is that camping, when used correctly, is a valid strategy
We've heard this for so many years and it's still broken AF and awful for gameplay.
Camping got a hard buff back in 6.1, now it's getting reined back in a bit.
example, i play wraith, one of the best strats you can do is hook someone, leave the hook and injure multiple people hopefully the entire team, and come back to force 2nd stage, since nobody can trade if everybody is injured. increased hook stages will hard nerf this strat because survivors will have even more time to reset and prevent you from pushing 2nd. i’m arguing that this strat does not need a nerf, it already has counterplay as any decent player already knows.
This specific tactic also got buffed a while ago with the medkit nerfs, so you're still way better off than you were. Also, I wouldn't call ten seconds a hard nerf. But hey, if you really can't deal with this strat anymore after this change, maybe play the game as intended, eh?
-
@itsHammyyy said:
title. the reasoning used in the dev notes to defend the change was because it’s supposedly needed to counteract the fact that camping was made easier due to the added +10 seconds to gens (a change that was made an INCREDIBLY long time ago, by the way. it has been over 2 years). but this reasoning doesn’t factor in the fact that gen regression has been nerfed heavily since they added time to gens.
70s hook states will give survivors more time to work gens, more time to reset and move in to trade, more time to apply reassurance. this overall makes killer pressure worse, which simply just does not need to happen in the game’s current state.
Gen regression doesn't factor into camping.
70s hook states will give survivors more time to work gens, more time to reset and move in to trade, more time to apply reassurance.
If the killer camps, yeah. That's the point. An anti-camp change is not supposed to spare camping tactics.
this overall makes killer pressure worse
Not if you don't camp.
-
@emetSdidnothingwrong said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3784379#Comment_3784379
The last survivor hiding is literally the same thing. It's just ego, you already lost, even if you get hatch it's a tie for your MMR. Stop hiding and wasting everyone's time, give the killer the 4k they clearly won.
It's just ego, you already lost, even if you get hatch it's a tie
So you haven't lost, then.
-
@Toystory3Monkey said:
I would really like that before that change is implemented, we get a solution for DS being used offensively.
Survivors with DS still bodyblock and pull aggro knowing they're safe and "can just be slugged" meaning you dont chase down the other person while they get picked up as the safety timer on DS is decently long.
It's not fun.
It's free pressure though, so I don't see how it's an issue.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783542#Comment_3783542
No, we're outside of math and just talking about how words are used in English.
The guy doesn't even know what a rule of 3 is, and even when having the dictionary definition written on top of an example still doesn't understand what an average means. Keep pretending to fight basic math while making language-ambiguity fallacies.
I will only say this:
and refusal to even engage on the concept data sets
Me two doritos earlier explaining to you how data sets are crucial for individual killer balancing, but not before having an average balance target because of the asymmetrical nature of DbD:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783421#Comment_3783421
So, even if "uneven data sets" can help identify if an individual killer needs balancing, it doesn't work in terms of overall balancing and will not help balance killers against survivors.
[…]
When we reach that point, now we can use the kill distribution of each killer to balance those that are overperforming or underperforming until we get a balanced average […] But we can only do that once we have reached that target 60% killrate, and that is just what BHVR did.
So like I said dude, whatever makes you happy.
The guy doesn't even know what a rule of 3 is, and even when having the dictionary definition written on top of an example still doesn't understand what an average means. Keep pretending to fight basic math while making language-ambiguity fallacies.
You've consistently been avoiding talking about this, though, Bats.
The way you try to calculate the 'winrate on average' is not how you calculate an average. What you have been talking about is not the average winrate, or the 'winrate on average', it's just the outcome of the average match.
These are not 'language-ambiguity fallacies'. No one is being ambiguous with their language.
You are getting your terminology and calculations confused.
Again, I urge you to think about the distinction between the following two things:
- The outcome of the average match
- The average winrate
Because I feel that that distinction is tripping you up.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783273#Comment_3783273
In your most recent post you are using the phrase 'on average' to mean the most common result […] The concept of a winrate calls for a percentage, not a general statement
No, I'm using 'on average' because we are talking about averages. Averages that can be translated to other kind of averages, like a percentage win rate:
- 60% killrate on average = 2.4 survivors killed per match on average.
- A killer win is 3K, so 2.4 survivors killed per match on average = killers win 40% of the time approx on average.
Or:
- 50% killrate on average = 2 survivors killed per match on average.
- A killer doing a 2K is a draw, so 2 survivors killed per match on average = killers draw 100% of their game on average, or in other words, wins 0% of their games on average.
This is why saying things like 0% winrate are so non-sensical
It makes sense, but you either, again, don't understand what an average means, or you are simply refusing to accept what basic math and logic say. Simple as that.
Beyond that, a 60% killrate is not needed to ensure parity. That's still wrong. Technically speaking, you could have a kill rate below 50% and still have a winrate above 50% based on game design
The next phrase…
(that's not true of DbD, but I'm back to pointing out the importance of uneven data sets).
Now, let's forget you contradicted yourself for a moment, and please explain to me how you pretend to balance a game like DbD while granting everyone an equal chance of winning with just "uneven data sets" (which I'm going to guess are "kills distribution" in this case) when:
- The win conditions for both sides are completely asymmetrical.
- You can't directly compare skill levels of both sides, as they require completely different sets of skills and game sense.
- One side is a team of 4 players that can have different skill levels.
- That side is not even considered a team per win conditions, and each individual player in it will win or lose individually.
- You have 5 possible match outcomes, which define the wins or losses of 5 different players.
The answer is simple: You don't, you can't. Starting with not even having a reference to what would be a "balanced point". Because yes, if a killer is doing a lot of 3/4Ks we could assume he is "overperforming", but what would be the point it should be then? What combination of "Ks" in the kill distribution will make him "balanced"? How would you even guarantee that among all the players that use that killer the kill distribution will be even? Etc.
So, even if "uneven data sets" can help identify if an individual killer needs balancing, it doesn't work in terms of overall balancing and will not help balance killers against survivors. That's why then we look at our win conditions, we notice that the common denominator is "kills", so we use an average kill rate as the target balancing point. And look at that, it even provides a "sweet spot" that allows us to guarantee an equal chance of winning for both sides (60%, 2.4 survivors killed per match on average, 40% win rate on average) without even having to worry about skill levels, side, character used, or anything else.
When we reach that point, now we can use the kill distribution of each killer to balance those that are overperforming or underperforming until we get a balanced average (as again, multiple players with different skill levels will play the same characters, so part of the playerbase will get less than 60% kill rate, while the other will get more, or some will make more 3/4Ks, while others will make less. That's what an average means, by the way).
So, there you go. At this point, if you don't understand it, it's on you.
A killer doing a 1K is a loss, so 1 survivors killed per match on average = killers lose 100% of their games on average, or in other words,
win 0% of their games on average(no negative winrate, mate).You're not thinking about what you're writing here.
For any group to win 0% of their games on average, they would need to ALL win 0%, because, as you agree, there is no such thing as a negative winrate.
If you have five killers with the following winrates
1 - 50%
2 - 20%
3 - 10%
4 - 0%
5 - 25%
Then the average winrate would be (50 + 20 + 10 + 0 + 25)/5 = 21%.That is how you calculate an average.
Now, let's see a set of five killers that have a 0% winrate on average:
1 - 0%
2 - 0%
3 - 0%
4 - 0%
5 - 0%
Then the average winrate would be (0 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0)/5 = 0%.Let's do the absolute minimum to deviate from that set to see what that does to the average winrate!
1 - 1%
2 - 0%
3 - 0%
4 - 0%
5 - 0%Now the average winrate would be (1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 0)/5 = 0.2% =/= 0%.
So when you claim that on a 50% KR, the killers would win, on average, 0% of their matches, you do indeed claim, with absolute certainty, that NO killer in the game has managed to win a singular match.
Because if they had won a single match, their winrate would not be 0%, and as a result, the average winrate could not be 0% either.
Conclusion: Yes, we have a winrate of 50%, a loss rate of 50%, and a draw rate of 0%. Which, still,
means a draw rate of 100% on average.Legitimately, dude, you are getting confused. You're talking about the outcome of the average match, NOT average draws here. If someone has a draw rate of 0%, you CAN'T have 100% draw rate on average.
Just please think about the distinction between these two things:
The outcome of the average match
vs.
The average of all win rates/draw rates
-
Yeah, I do this too, in case of accidental tunnelling. If I can't find anyone but a recently unhooked target, I slug them and go on to search for others. Fairer to leave them in the game and give them a chance at more BP, and a slugged target produces about as much pressure as a hooked one, anyway.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783122#Comment_3783122
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783154#Comment_3783154
Well, I thought you were all trolling, but apparently you were totally serious…
Like, how hard is it to understand that if the average killrate is 2K, and as 2K is a draw, then on average killers will never win, as they draw? I mean, seriously. You guys are seriously not getting that...
Fascinating.
We're getting it. But you're making a mistake here.
You're describing the outcome of the average match, not the average winrate.
Your claim is that 60% KR is the only way to balance it, because that produces a 40% average winrate. Now, due to the volatility of DBD, a 60% killrate can theoretically get as high as 80% winrate, if all outcomes are distributed only across 0Ks and 3Ks.
Your argument here is that 'some people will get a higher winrate, some people will get a lower winrate, and the average winrate will thus become 40%'. And it's true that 60% KR can go lower. If you distribute it between only 2Ks and 4Ks, the winrate can go as low as 20%, I believe.
But this is where the 50% KR example comes in to show why the assumption that things will average out to your projected ideal is an incorrect one.
With a 50% KR, the outcome of the average match is a draw, not a win. So you say that, on average, killers will win 0% of their matches.
Some will get higher than 0% winrate. That is most certainly true, but here is the problem:
No one can get lower than 0% winrate.
Which means that you don't have the counterweight to pull the average back down to 0% in case someone scores higher. No one is sub-0% in winrate, as that is an impossibility. You can't win -5% of your matches. You can't win negative three matches.
So the only way to get that 0% average winrate, is to have 0% winrate across the board.
Which means there can't be a single win. On a 50% KR.
Now, I think you and I both know that that is preposterous.
Which by extension means that your projection is also preposterous.
This is why what you're talking about is not the average winrate, but merely the outcome of the average match.
And the average match is one that no one plays.
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783052#Comment_3783052
They haven't tried because it's pretty obvious. What options do you have to stop the killer from camping? Only 2. 1) Replace the killer by a bot. 2) Punish them flat out for being within a certain proximity of a hooked survivor and punish them hard. It's pretty obvious that option 1) is not desirable. So we have option 2) left.
In order to stop the killer from camping you either have to remove the entire unhooking mechanic completely, teleport the survivor to a different location whenever the killer comes anywhere near them (which could also backfire for survivors), punish the killer by increasing repair speed drastically or remove the unhook timer altogether. None of these are good and all of them have a big effect on the overall game.
- Teleporting a survivor to a different location immediately removes the entire point of strategically beneficial hooks, so we dumb down the game. Not great but not enough for it to backfire completely. A survivor would need to be teleported away immediately when the killer comes close or we just get the same issue we have now. Increasing the overall range by much would only lead to them teleporting around the entire map constantly, especially on smaller maps and it could also be used so that survivors can't unhook their team mate.
- Increasing the overall gen speed is another horrible idea because it would need to have a pretty wide range or we'd have the same effect we have now. You can't punish a killer for simply existing on the same map as a hooked survivor. Technically you can but you get the point. Do that and you punish them for the very act of hooking.
- The unhook timer is the only way for a killer to put survivors under time pressure. Removing that means, they will either stealth for prolonged periods of time until the killer is away and then unhook or rush gens and ignore their team mate (doesn't matter who wins in this case because I'm pretty sure nobody would appreciate being left on the hook minutes).
If you have any ideas how to tackle this issue without it being excruciating on killers overall or simply exploitable, then I'd be happy to hear it. But so far any idea I've seen was exploitable or ridiculously unbalanced. As soon as an anti "X thing" mechanic punishes a player even when they don't do "X thing" it becomes a problem overall. Just think about the psychological effect. "Oh, you got a hook? Good job buddy. Now we punish you because you might actually try to camp that hook."
2) Punish them flat out for being within a certain proximity of a hooked survivor and punish them hard.
Or 3) Tackle other aspects of camping, such as the lack of engagement with other players.
The unhook timer is the only way for a killer to put survivors under time pressure. Removing that means, they will either stealth for prolonged periods of time until the killer is away and then unhook or rush gens and ignore their team mate
Well, survivors playing stealth until the killer leaves is not a problem, but a solution.
As for the genrush: They'll be less efficient than if they go for the save, so it's hardly a punishment for the killer. Plus, if they leave them on the hook, and the killer gets a second down, he's two downs away from a 4K.
The solution, aside from punishing camping, should also be punishable by an active killer. In my opinion, the hook timer should just extend based on the number of survivors on gens. If the killer's on the move and keeps pushing survivors off, they won't get punished. If they sit under hook and let survivors just work on gens, they're going to see that hook timer stretch. Survivors could gamble on it, but if the killer gets a down before the survivor is rescued, the survivors will be on the back foot.
There's a lot of wiggle room in a system like this too, making it possible to finetune it. There's plenty of potential for a good camping solution in this that's never been attempted. Closest thing is Reassurance and Camaraderie, but both of those also sink survivor's time, defeating their point.
People often say that the only real counter to camping is to slam gens, and the problem with camping is that passivity and lack of interaction, so hinge the countermeasure on both of those and you get a much more tailored solution.
-
@crogers271 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783112#Comment_3783112
I think the point of miscommunication here miiiight be something like, when they say "average winrate of 0%" what they mean is that the averageoutcomeisn't a win?It's possible that he's saying average to refer to the 'median' (the mid point of a group of numbers) instead of the 'mean' (the average of the number). Except I don't know why the median would be relevant to the discussion.
Median wouldn't work either, because if there's any winrate above 0%, the median could not be 0%. Runs into the same issue, effectively.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783093#Comment_3783093
Now "an average" is "super tortured logic" and trolling. My entity…
A 2K on average means that killers have a 0% win rate on average because there will be people that do more than that 2K and people that do less. That's why it is AN AVERAGE. It is pure, simple, basic math.
And yes, anything more than a 2K would be a win, as the MMR win conditions state that a 3K is a win, but no, anything less won't be a survivor win because survivors have their own win conditions, and that's why BHVR doesn't deal with win rates or pure kill distributions, because then it will be impossible to balance the game between killers and survivors thanks to the total and complete asymmetrical nature of it.
And no, a "2.4K" on average won't mean a 100% winrate because you have the ".4" part, and if you do the math, it means that killers get a 3K about 40% of the time on average, and that's why a 60% kill rate / 2.4 survivors killed per match on average means a 40% win rate for both sides on average.
Seriously, I'd pay to see how some people's brains work.
Dude, a 2K
on averagemeans that killers have a 0% win rate
on averagebecause there will be people that do more than that 2K and people that do less.
Can you get a negative winrate?
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3783046#Comment_3783046
Except the average of 50% killrate is 2 survivors killed per match. And, because a win is 3K or more, that means a 0% winrate on average. In other words, that 0% is not the result of doing the average of kill rates, as you are saying.
That you are trying to give anyone lessons when you have proved again and again that you don't understand even the most basic math is outstanding.
Is anything I wrote incorrect?
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782034#Comment_3782034
That's not quite true. Because the complaints were mostly about face camping. An argument could be made that many of the people that complained about face camping confused it with regular camping but that was the part that was most complained about.
BHVR have no intention to remove camping completely and I think that's probably for the better. Any system that would punish the very concept of camping would be exploitable and feel absolutely horrible. It would be like a worse version of a base kit Deadlock, which already isn't exactly fun to play against. But at least it comes as a perk and not a base kit feature.
They could probably tweak the AFC a bit more but removing camping in general would end in disaster.
Any system that would punish the very concept of camping would be exploitable and feel absolutely horrible
I disagree with this, especially considering practically nothing has been tried to accomplish it. There was one attempt in year one of DBD's lifespan, it was a haphazard attempt, and now everyone just throws their hands in the air with an 'oh well, we tried' and that's that. Nothing since. I just think that's quitter talk.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782894#Comment_3782894
I've seen his posts before and he understands how to calculate an average, the problem is he doesn't understand why using an average for data that is not normally distributes is statistically speaking a mistake
I don't think he does understand, because the way he responded shows he really does not.
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782857#Comment_3782857
So when you say 'mathematically speaking' you don't have enough data to arrive at a mathematical conclusion.
And what more data do you need to calculate that a 60% killrate on average means 2.4 survivors killed per match on average? Because the only thing you are proving here is that you also don't know what an average means.
The funny thing for me is that you are, again, trying to fight math with "how to get equal win rates in reality" without realizing first that any other killrate would make it mathematically impossible to achieve equality because of how MMR win conditions work (more than 60% killrate, survivors would always lose more on average, less than that, and killers would lose more on average). Second, that you have precisely pointed out the part where I said:
[…] as in reality, getting to an equal 40/40% winrate is more complicated than simply getting to that killrate
But again, keep trying to fight basic math, it will never get old!
I think you're misreading what the devs have said. They want the killers to have a higher kill rate because they want killers to feel strong and win more
Then explain to me, again, how having a 60% killrate would "keep matches relatively even" in comparison with a 50% killrate, according to the devs own words? Because I think it is pretty clear taking in count the phrasing:
"[…] a 50% kill rate would mean they kill two Survivors per match on average" ⇒ "We try to keep Killers near a 60% kill rate on average to keep matches relatively even"
Ergo, a 60% means more survivors killed per match on average (2.4 to be exact), which means killers now win as much as survivors, which makes "matches relatively even". It's not rocket science, it's basic math.
Either way, you didn't explain why that second part is relevant to the 60% killrate and the math behind it, so I'm going to keep it out of the underline.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782867#Comment_3782867
So the first part that you underlined is to say 'hey it needs to be close', and the second part is saying 'but it does need to be favored for Killer'.
But that's the thing, if you do the math and see what they are saying, 60% killrate it is not only pretty close, it is in fact the only killrate that allows for an equal winrate mathematically speaking (as again, getting to an equal 40/40% winrate is more complicated than simply having the killrate at 60%, but it can't be achieved without it being 60%).
But hey, if you want to focus on that second part that they probably said because they would never talk about MMR or win conditions directly, I will apply to you the BHVR go-to answer: Whatever makes you happy.
And what more data do you need to calculate that a 60% killrate
on averagemeans 2.4 survivors killed per match
on average? Because the only thing you are proving here is that you also don't know what an average means.
You keep dodging this!
Imma just spell it out, all the way through for you.
The way YOU, specifically, calculate winrates from killrates here also mandates a 0% average winrate from any killrate under 50%. You have admitted as much yourself.
Now, you calculate an average by taking all the numbers in a data-set and adding them together, then dividing them by the count of numbers in that data-set.
In order for an average to be zero, one of the following two MUST be true:
- The dataset contains negative values.
- There is no value other than zero to be counted in the dataset.
Since we're talking about winrates here, and it is obviously impossible for winrates to be -negative-, the second rule MUST be true if you want to reach an average of 0.
So when you claim that, by the method you use, a kill-rate of 40% would result in a 0% average winrate, you are, by mathematical definition, claiming that within that dataset, there is not a single winrate above 0%, which would require that not a single match ended in a 3K or higher.
So for example: 1000 matches at 40% killrate, meaning 1600 survivors killed, according to your model, can not possibly include ANY match where 3 or 4 survivors were killed.
Because if there's even ONE match with a 3 or 4K, SOMEONE in that dataset has a winrate above zero, which means that the average winrate can no longer be zero.
Do you understand this?
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782776#Comment_3782776
You still don't know what "on average" means, obviously. Even after all the times it has been explained to you. Thankfully, BHVR does, and look at that! They say the exact same thing I had been saying all along:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/A0DK0QCF5TCB/mathdontlie.jpg
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/433
I will keep correcting you so long as you keep spreading this misinformation.
And you will keep being wrong and trying to fight math without even understanding it.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782778#Comment_3782778
Read above.
Batusalen: how do you calculate an average?
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782396#Comment_3782396
Oh, hell, here we go again…
65% is what is "little killer sided". 53% is "little survivor sided". 60% is balanced.
Why? Because of how the MMR works, only a 3K or more is a win for the killer, and survivors only need to escape themselves to win. Ergo, a 60% kill rate means a 40% win rate on average (I repeat: ON AVERAGE and I can't emphasize it more) on both sides, and is the only mathematical way to be able to achieve equal win rates for killers and survivors. That's why it is the kill rate the devs aim for.
If you want more info, search in the forum one of the 100 times it has been explained.
Ergo, a 60% kill rate means a 40% win rate
on average(I repeat:
ON AVERAGEand I can't emphasize it more)
This remains as incorrect as the last twenty-odd times you insisted on it. This is not how the killrate-winrate connection works.
I will keep correcting you so long as you keep spreading this misinformation.
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782531#Comment_3782531
If the survival rate were 60%, which would mean an average of 1.6 survivors killed per match, guess what? That would mean a winrate of 0% on average for killers as again, a win for the killer is 3K. That's why it needs to be 40%, so both sides could be able to get to a 40% winrate on average, mathematically speaking.
It's not something we are just saying to "justify our bias", it is how the MMR system works (
https://deadbydaylight.fandom.com/wiki/Skill-Based_Matchmaking_Rating#General_Ratings
) and the reason why the devs want it to be 60% killrate. If you don't understand it or like it, is your problem.If the survival rate were 60%, which would mean an average of 1.6 survivors killed per match, guess what? That would mean a winrate of 0% on average for killers as again, a win for the killer is 3K.
How did you state that 40% kill rate = 0% average winrate and still not figure out that your assumption about how these figures work is wrong?
Like… It's right there. Staring you in the face.
You are literally stating here that in a dataset with a 40% killrate, not a single match can have ended in a 3K or higher. Does that not ring a bell for you that maybe you're wrong about the relation between kill rates and win rates?
-
@VantablackPharaoh91 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3782492#Comment_3782492
All an aura is, is a highlight of something in the round. It is different colors based on what the thing is - objective, blocked object, player, etc. A perk that does this is an aura read perk. WoO is an aura read perk. The aura reading is just on pallets and vaults. Deja vu is also classed as aura read. It's aura reading on gens.
Aura perks aren't restricted to the narrow definition of "shows the other player(s)". If it highlights things for you, it's an Aura perk. It shows auras of something.
Nobody is out here "having an aneurysm" about WoO, do you see anyone here that upset about it? No. What IS here, is frustration with the perk. And the frustration with WoO comes because of its use on pallet-dense maps that create unfair looping scenarios for some Killers and make chases really, really unfun and boring because they are predictable. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with "Entitled Killer rage" and saying so is really, really disingenuous and biased. Saying stuff like that only increases us vs. them, and it really makes you sound very much like an entitled Survivor-only player, and I beg you to reconsider if that's not the case and you actually have played Killer.
If you have not played Killer, I don't know if you're really qualified to comment on what is or is not too much information for Killers. Because I promise you - as someone who plays both sides, I can and do often outplay even full aura read builds on Killers. Without Distortion. All it requires is a little gamesense to know the Killer is playing with aura read, and you can play into that by knowing that you need to play more carefully. In fact I was running Kitsune Yui (a very obvious skin) tonight and managed to handle two different full Aura Huntresses just fine, and escape. It's really not hard to counter even full on aura read.
Aura reading isn't get out of jail free, all it does is keep chase going and prevent ratting from Survivors. I'm not even trying to be mean here - if you really can't handle Killer aura reading as Survivor to the point you "don't get a chance to make plays", it really is just a skill issue at that point and I genuinely don't know what to say.
All an aura is, is a highlight of something in the round. It is different colors based on what the thing is - objective, blocked object, player, etc. A perk that does this is an aura read perk. WoO is an aura read perk. The aura reading is just on pallets and vaults. Deja vu is also classed as aura read. It's aura reading on gens.
I don't know what the purpose of this is, unless you're trying to use this as an argument against the differentiation between WoO and most killer aura reading, in which case your underlining of their most basic similarities does not change that these are fundamentally different in function.
Nobody is out here "having an aneurysm" about WoO
I said that about Distortion, not WoO.
And the frustration with WoO comes because of its use on pallet-dense maps that create unfair looping scenarios for some Killers
Except that's not something WoO does, is it? The exact same scenario can play out the exact same way regardless of whether WoO is or is not in play. Because WoO does not add pallets or change the locations of vaults or puts TL walls next to the shack, or what have you.
Everything that you might complain about WoO doing, can be done without it. The only thing WoO cuts out is RNG and lack of communication. The only thing that changes with the introduction of WoO is that the survivor doesn't accidentally run into a dead zone. That is the loss that is being lamented with WoO.
and make chases really, really unfun and boring because they are predictable.
As opposed to the really fun bit where there is no chase at all because the survivor ran for a pallet that didn't spawn in.
It has absolutely nothing at all to do with "Entitled Killer rage" and saying so is really, really disingenuous and biased.
But killers being entitled to survivors getting shafted by RNG or lack of communication is the only argument being levelled against WoO here, though. Unless you want to count 'gets used a lot', but I don't think anyone wants to go for that one.
If you have not played Killer, I don't know if you're really qualified to comment on what is or is not too much information for Killers. Because I promise you - as someone who plays both sides, I can and do often outplay even full aura read builds on Killers.
Oh, sure, you can, but there's a whole aspect of gameplay that gets a bullet to the head from the excesses of aura reading that have been dumped on killers. Something that WoO doesn't do.
and prevent ratting from Survivors
And that's the problem. Ratting is a legitimate strategy. Playing cautious and stealthy is part of the game. Aura reading out the wazoo annihilates that. You can be as tricky as you like, using Deception and the legendary pebble, but it's gonna do squat when you're lit up like a christmas tree every 5 seconds.
Which is why the powercreep on killer aura reading is way more invasive than WoO.
-
@VantablackPharaoh91 said:
I'm chiming in to say this: If Killers are not allowed to have permanent aura read on anything because "it's too easy, go develop a gamesense", why should Survivors be allowed it? Why on earth do you ACTUALLY need to know exactly where and when to go and what pallets got used/dropped where? You really ARE NOT intended to always know where the Baby Meg used a pallet, not even SWFs know or get that information. Why are we giving SoloQ and newbies a perk that inherently makes them stronger at map knowledge than a SWF instead of asking newer players to simply. Learn. To pay. Attention?
I 100% believe that part of the reason for Map pallet and vault reduction is because of the overall large use of WoO. We saw in Chaos Shuffle and Lights Out how many people RELY on this perk, and are lost without it. If you are so reliant on a perk you HAVE TO run it, that itself is an issue. It simply is not okay or fair to say that one side can have free info on something with no activation request necessary but not the other.
Give WoO a range reduction or mild cooldown, or ONLY activate it outside of chase, so that Survivors must learn to plan their routes ahead of time instead of getting a free GPS to every single resource in the game for chase. If it's a learning tool, make it a learning tool. This change will not impact good Survivors or SWF at all, and WILL help newer Survivors better learn to plan ahead.
Or why not have WoO ONLY show vaults permanently and make another perk for pallets only? That way someone who wants that much free info would have to pick, OR dedicate two slots to it. You know, kind of like Killers have to for their info perks? It really is only fair. No side should have any amount of free, effortless, forever aura read on anything that isn't an objective. Period.
Like, it's far from the most offensive perk, and I guess it's fine, but it really can be slightly problematic when every other game is somene literally relying on it. I have legit had people DC because I countered WoO with a perk or simple mindgames - not just once, MULTIPLE times. Against an M1 Killer, which WoO is classically thought of as stronger against. It's an issue.
I'm chiming in to say this: If Killers are not allowed to have permanent aura read on anything because "it's too easy, go develop a gamesense", why should Survivors be allowed it?
Killers have been allowed this. Aura reading got a massive powercreep on the killer side, which is why forum killers are also having an aneurism about Distortion.
But also, killer aura reading and WoO are drastically different. WoO is survivor vs. other survivors and RNG. Killer aura reading is vs. survivors, as it specifically undoes skillful play by survivors.
The rage against WoO is mostly killers feeling entitled to the game's RNG winning things for them. The problem with killer aura reading is that survivors don't get a chance to make plays.
-
@Neaxolotl said:
If hatch did not exist, targeted kill rates will be 75% instead of 60%, this is not a "game balance problem" because there is no way it's an oversight at this point
You underestimate BHVR's incompetence, my friend!
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3781979#Comment_3781979
That's exactly what I'm arguing, your perception of their intent is off.
It was never meant to be an anti-camp mechanic, but specifically an anti-face-camp mechanic. And it is working as intended since the killer can't just stand in their face and camp now.
So nothing is circumvented.
But my point is that nobody asked for the 'face' part of camping to be removed. People want camping out, not 'the killer is not respecting social distancing'.
So this whole 'anti-face-camp' mechanism has been a complete waste of effort, since it solved a problem no one had. It's just empty fluff.
-
@Neaxolotl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3781860#Comment_3781860
That's just you did not tried to read the opinion of someone else, then
No, legitimately, no one's complaint was 'the killer is standing too close'. It was always unhook denial.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3780128#Comment_3780128
The anti-facecamp is working as intended. It's meant to do exactly what it does, - stop facecamping, not proxy camping. The devs have confirmed this multiple times
Nobody was complaining about the 'face' part of camping, though.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3781329#Comment_3781329
How's that a buff to tunnelling?
Surely if a survivor's being tunnelled, they didn't have time to heal anyway?
I think this'd probably be a harmless change, it's certainly worth testing. Maybe have Mangled and Haemorrhage pause as well? It could get out of hand, but I think it has enough legs to test.
It blocks all alternative healing methods. No syringe, no For The People, no Second Wind, nothing. It'd all get blocked.
-
@Reinami said:
I have noticed in many of my games as survivor, if the killer starts camping and/or tunneling, most of the time the survivor just immediately gives up, leading to the match basically being a 4k for the killer. This has happened in probably the last 3 or so of my matches as survivor now in a row.
These strategies aren't inflating kill rates because they are effective, but because they are boring. The survivors just immediately give up on hook or throw themselves at the killer to end the game as fast as possible so that they can queue up and get a killer that doesn't do them.
I suspect that these are actually heavily inflating kill rates for killers.
They're not mutually exclusive. Both tunnelling and camping are incredibly difficult to deal with in unorganised play, or in general, even. They can be inflating winrate by both being OP, and by being so awful to play against that they make people quit.
-
@jesterkind said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3780322#Comment_3780322
Wouldn't it be better suited the other way around? I feel like killers want to avoid certain maps way more frequently than survivors do. Billy wanting to avoid Lery's, Trapper wanting to avoid Eyrie, I feel like that happens more frequently than a survivor not wanting a specific map.
—
To the wider question, I think either would be appropriate, but I do like the common idea here of grouping more maps under the same offering. That way you're burning an offering for an increased chance, not a guarantee. Lowering the % chance down from 99 to something substantially lower would also be a good way of handling this.
Also, fully agreed with anyone asking to change the rarity. I don't know how to fix this in a way that doesn't just shift the problem over to the other rarities, but it's so hard to find other green offerings… maybe give map offerings their own rarity instead? idk.
Wouldn't it be better suited the other way around? I feel like killers want to avoid certain maps way more frequently than survivors do. Billy wanting to avoid Lery's, Trapper wanting to avoid Eyrie, I feel like that happens more frequently than a survivor not wanting a specific map.
It's more based on certain killers wanting specific maps for specific set-ups, like Scratched Mirror Myers wanting indoor maps.