Firellius
Firellius
About
- Username
- Firellius
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,210
- Last Active
Comments
-
The issue with boons is that they're very rigid in their design. They all have the exact same parameters, which works for some, and doesn't work for others.
If CoH had had its radius nerfed, it would've been a healthier nerf than what it got.
If Dark Theory were to have its radius expanded, it could be a very decent perk.
You can fiddle with set-up times, cooldowns upon a boon getting snuffed out, maybe even a timer on certain boons, there's lots of room for improvement and creativity so long as you don't stick to 'boon' as an all-encompassing term that dictates every single parameter of every single boon perk.
But I also think that it's a waste of time because it's going to get complained about. Before CoH was nerfed, boons as a whole also got complaints because 'why can't I relight my hexes then!?' or 'Totems should break when I snuff a boon!'. The 14 second set-up time happens out of sight of the killer, and for a lot of people on these forums, that means it happens out of mind, too.
So as much as I think that, reasonably, you can still do plenty with boons, I also think it's probably a waste of time because there will just be complaints again, non-stop.
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3568326#Comment_3568326
I don't camp and I have quit the game recent, but that has nothing to do with camping. I quit playing because I think the devs are making horrible design decisions around Skull Merchant and just in general the game as a whole right now. AFC was not one of those bad decisions though.
Teamwork isn't a one-way street, but again it bears pointing out that's not a mechanical issue and thus can not be solved by frontloading survivors with basekit versions of perks and stacks of new game mechanics or features. If you don't want to accept that then that's a you problem.
I have a lot of issues with the game and have for years, but I've never been so far up my own butt as to think that having bad teammates could be solved by just removing any and all difficulty by defanging my opponent or giving myself every mechanical advantage possible without needing to give something in exchange. That's not how you make an interesting pvp game.
Say what you want about killers, but in this particular case you're the only one being unreasonable. Proxy camping and generally defensive play is so hated in this game, but it's been a part of the game since day one and the devs have went out of their way to make sure it remains possible. While I currently don't like the current direction things are going, I know they aren't stupid when it comes to actually understanding what the actual problematic things are in regards to general game balance.
You're trying to dictate to people how they should play and since you know that will never work you're wanting to bend the game to your whims via taking this position. You seem like the one who dislikes playing the game rather than me.
Teamwork isn't a one-way street, but again it bears pointing out that's not a mechanical issue and thus can not be solved by frontloading survivors with basekit versions of perks and stacks of new game mechanics or features. If you don't want to accept that then that's a you problem.
But we aren't talking about teamwork.
We're talking about a killer staring at a hook.
YOU are the one making this into a chat about teamwork. I am of the opinion that camping should be addressed directly, you think it needs to be done with teamwork, even though the game is explicitly built -against- teamwork.
I have a lot of issues with the game and have for years, but I've never been so far up my own butt as to think that having bad teammates could be solved by just removing any and all difficulty by defanging my opponent or giving myself every mechanical advantage possible without needing to give something in exchange. That's not how you make an interesting pvp game.
This is incredibly rich when it's brought up in defence of CAMPING.
You know, the thing that removes any and all difficulty and defangs your opponents and gives yourself every mechanical advantage possible without needing to give anything in exchange?
It's good that you say that that's not how you make an interesting PvP game, because then you might understand why camping has been considered a problem for all these years.
Say what you want about killers, but in this particular case you're the only one being unreasonable
So you're claiming that survivors should dump a quarter of their build variety, check if the killer's camping, and then telepathically communicate with total strangers on the internet to set up a strategy for a rescue without any room for miscommunication and no tools to facilitate said communication, all within 60 seconds of the target being hooked...
To offset the killer standing still and staring at a hook.
And -I- am the unreasonable one?
You're trying to dictate to people how they should play
No, I'm dictating that they should play, period. Instead of investing their time in ensuring that no one gets to engage with the game.
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3568002#Comment_3568002
You want to act like the game doesn't have some of those things, but it does. Folks just refuse to use them.
Baseline aura reading? Bond's right there, it's a free perk that only requires anyone to play dwight or at the very least dump some bloodpoints into him. The amount of people who have the perk and yet refuse to even entertain using it is massive.
Internal communication? There's an entire hand signal emote system that was meant to be used in place of verbal communication. People never actually use it for that, but that is what it's for. Stack that on top of the player created signal language and you have a set of serviceable tools. It's not as direct and potent as VC, but the game was designed with non-verbal communication being the main way we interacted.
The game is built for teamwork, but like with any game with solo queue the players trend towards not working together. Giving you built in features will not change that because it's not a mechanical issue, it's a player issue. You solve player issues by learning to play in better ways rather than expecting everything to just be given to you. You want all this info, but the game is already given you most of what you want if you'd learn to read the HUD which has a very robust suite of indicators telling you in real time most of what you need. Combine that with Bond and you have the maximum amount of real time information necessary to make effective decisions. The HUD is something everyone has access to by default and Bond only requires one perk slot out 16 total slots spread across 4 players.
Baseline aura reading? Bond's right there, it's a free perk
Oh, did they remove the perk slot cost, then?
And did they make it possible to equip it to someone else's perk loadout too?
Internal communication? There's an entire hand signal emote system that was meant to be used in place of verbal communication.
Oh yes, because 'beckon' and 'point' are an excellent way to set up a strategy of 'I'll distract the killer and you go for the hook'. Great comms, I don't know why no one has ever thought of that one.
Stack that on top of the player created signal language
Quick question: Does hands-up on the hook mean 'killer is camping' or 'come rescue me'?
It's not as direct and potent as VC, but the game was designed with non-verbal communication being the main way we interacted.
The game is built for teamwork
These are literally mutually exclusive. And if you somehow believe that the game isn't built specifically to isolate individual survivors, I don't know what to tell you.
There is a huge gulf between 'the game has the opportunity for teamwork' and 'the game is built for teamwork'.
You want all this info, but the game is already given you most of what you want if you'd learn to read the HUD
Mindreading is not a standard skill set. When another survivor lets go of a gen, you still have no information other than that that survivor let go of a gen. Until they do something else, you have no relevant info.
And guess what? If they move to make a rescue and the killer is proxy camping, that doesn't show on the HUD.
The HUD is something everyone has access to by default and Bond only requires one perk slot out 16 total slots spread across 4 players.
No, it requires four perk slots. Teamwork is not a one-way street.
And keep in mind that all of this is to facilitate killers being able to win by doing the absolute bare minimum. For all this talk of 'Just use telepathy, 4head, skill issue', killers are deathly allergic to actually having to play the game.
Maybe, instead of camping, if you dislike actually playing the game that much, I don't know...
Quit?
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3567573#Comment_3567573
They most certainly can because what they want is free escapes and a complete inability of killers to play defensively which they aren't getting. They need to play the game as it sits and learn how to actually make proper saves against a defensive opponent. Don't misunderstand me here, being completely denied the chance to make a save was extremely problematic. That problem has now been addressed and that means the issue is no longer "Killer makes it impossible to save" but "I need to learn how to make saves under suboptimal conditions."
That requires people to learn to approach the game as a team rather than a series of 1v1v1v1v1 with some occasional teamwork if they feel like it. They are never going to learn that if the devs just keeps giving them game changing mechanics and basekit versions of perks. At some point you have to just learn how to the play the game that you have, this is the exact same concept survivors push at killers and it's true. Proxy camping is never going away as that was never the goal and the devs have been clear about this from the first moment they ever mentioned working on a solution to the strength of camping. Proxy camping pressures the survivors into making suboptimal saves, but they still can make saves while facecamping deletes most options to even try to save. Not being able to deal with facecamping is a game design issue that has now been corrected. Not being able to deal with proxy camping is a player skill issue that survivors need to overcome.
This isn't to be mean, but even in a casual game such as this players should be expected to develop skill based solutions rather than rely on the game to change at the expense of their opponent.
That requires people to learn to approach the game as a team rather than a series of 1v1v1v1v1 with some occasional teamwork if they feel like it.
Ah, yes, because that is what the game is built for, with its robust internal communication system and baseline aura reading on all other team members.
It helps facilitate well-coordinated teamwork efforts.
Because DBD is meant to be a team game. Obviously.
-
@burt0r said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3567573#Comment_3567573
Strange, the last time I remember, camping was part of the game.
Also people can only be first to be camped 25% of all time on average, except they are overly unlucky or straight up bad at hiding/gameplay, and play otherwise in 75% of the rest if their games.
Strange, the last time I remember, camping was part of the game.
So were infinites, doesn't mean it's supposed to be there or good for the game.
Also people can only be first to be camped 25% of all time on average, except they are overly unlucky or straight up bad at hiding/gameplay, and play otherwise in 75% of the rest if their games.
You forget that if one person is being camped, the other three don't have much of a game to speak of, either.
-
@ReikoMori said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3566440#Comment_3566440
That's straight up revisionist interpretation right there.
You don't have to go far to find the countless posts, videos, reddit threads, twitter threads to find complaints about face camping. Literal years of complaints about Bubba never leaving the hook, Myers standing inside the survivor to prevent unhook prompts, huntress with instadown hatchet just standing at the hook arm raised.
They begged the devs for an anti-face camping mechanic and now that they have it suddenly the goalpost gets shifted from "We need a way to deal with face camping" to "We need a way to deal with all camping". You got grabs nuked, you got basekit BT, you got a Bubba nerf, and you got AFC. It's time for survivors to stop trying to shift the goalpost and just play the game as it sits. The devs have been telling y'all the entire time FOR YEARS that their goals were never to make camping impossible just less powerful and annoying. AFC accomplishes exactly that by removing the inherent strength of being able to completely deny a save without giving survivors the slightest chance. It allows someone to get back into the game rather than spending all their time on hook.
Please stop trying y'all collective absolute best to ruin the ability of killers to remotely engage with the game in a strategic/defensive manner. Literally, have gotten most of what you've been asking for in both gameplay, balance, and accessibility while killers can't even get granular audio controls or FoV slider let alone system wide mechanical changes that tangibly affect the game for all parties involved.
just play the game as it sits
They'd love to, but they can't, because camping still hasn't been nerfed.
-
Anti-camping has always been met with 'fine, so long as it doesn't interfere with camping'.
But yeah, there'll probably be half-a-dozen replies soon, telling you off for talking about anti-camp when it's anti-FACEcamp. In other words, the system isn't made to resolve any issues people were complaining about.
-
I feel like this event might be a test drive for the code and logistics required to operate a second map alongside the main trial grounds.
Stranger Things chapter 2?
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3566150#Comment_3566150
Mandy literally answered your question.
"This is purely with regard to face-camping"
But the complaints were about camping and aggressive unhook denial, not the killer standing too close.
-
@Mandy said:
This was never meant to address camping as a whole. This is purely with regards to face-camping, so the killer within a specific range which pretty much prevented saves being made...and it seems that that side is working. If killers are standing further away, then there's opportunity for the survivors to make a save.
What complaints was this system a response to, though?
Because this seems like a complete waste of dev resources.
-
It's all well and good that people like to call it anti-facecamping, but it doesn't make a difference for this topic.
It IS useless if it doesn't obstruct camping.
When the system was being pitched to the playerbase in one of those dev showcases, it was introduced with a little spiel about how it's not fun as a survivor to just sit on hook and not be able to do anything else.
This system does not address that.
In fact, this system does not address anything. It's a complete waste of time.
-
'Skill issue? Can't get genrushed if the survivors are all dead!'
-
A lot of killer complaints on the forums are myopic, and fail to account for a lot of the game's functions and structure. CoH, 'first hook at two gens', 'pausing the hook timer when the killer camps will be exploited', etc.
-
There's a brown add-on that allows you to see barred lockers in yellow. This can be used to figure out where survivors are early, and can even, if you're lucky, result in an early grab if you can predict which locker a survivor might bar next.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3564398#Comment_3564398
Now we´re getting somewhere. A mix of everything brings fun. A killer who is constantly switching targets mid chase SHOULD therefore also be considered fun. Its not like the killer is coming back after 10 seconds, he breaks the chase, finds the gen with the progress, starts the chase until a hit or until another tinkerer triggers. Thats calm phases and chases. So in my book its whats makes a match fun.
Which is why no one has an issue with Ruin going back to being 2x as strong as it is now.
Just not with Undying going back to being 4x as strong.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3562869#Comment_3562869
Then it isn´t free. As i said, the killer would have to constantly switch targets. What does switching targets mean other than breaking the chase to go for something different?
Btw. you didn´t answer if you consider 2 survivors on a gen OP.
Then it isn´t free. As i said, the killer would have to constantly switch targets.
You kind of have to do that anyway, since while your primary target is on hook, you don't get any value out of staring them down and waiting for an unhook.
Unless you mean switching targets mid-chase, which I already pointed out is not necessary. If you have one on hook and one in chase, one of the other two survivors has to let go of their gen to go for the rescue, causing both the gen of the person you're chasing to regress, and the gen that the rescuer was working on to regress.
Btw. you didn´t answer if you consider 2 survivors on a gen OP.
Oh, I thought it was a rhetorical question, considering everyone knows 2 survivors on one gen is really inefficient due to the co-op penalty.
I didn't realise you were this unfamiliar with the game.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3562850#Comment_3562850
How is taking 2 perks free?
Thats like taking CoH, SC and BK and say "look, free infinite fast self healing!" Its not free. Its sacrificing half the build in order to slow gens down by constantly switching targets. Which isn´t effortless as you claim. Because it also meant to break chases earlier. Giving survivors more time to heal up.
Again, regressing at half the speed a single (!) survivor takes to repair isn´t strong. Because if you say that, then you also mean that 2 survivors on a single gen = OP
Free, as in, 'don't have to break chase/spend a couple of seconds to kick gen'. You didn't even need to be there. If you had someone on hook while Ruin was active and you chased a second survivor off a gen, making it regress, a third survivor letting go of their gen to go for the rescue would also start losing progress, even if the killer was nowhere near. That kind of global pressure was insanely valuable, and is why Ruin continued to be a frequent pick, up until it needlessly got axed in 6.1.
Again, regressing at half the speed a single (!) survivor takes to repair isn´t strong. Because if you say that, then you also mean that 2 survivors on a single gen = OP
Regression and progression speeds are not equivalent and should never be, otherwise you get infinite matches. The base regression rate is chosen for a reason, and flatly doubling it is -very- impactful. It's why We'll Make It is still a solid pick despite being relatively conditional. Call of Brine was a big part of the genkick meta despite it -only- contributing the +100% regression rate to kicked gens, as opposed to Ruin, which did that and more.
Ruin was incredibly powerful for how much it could slow survivors down if they didn't deal with the hex, and Undying could make it practically impossible to deal with the hex. That's why Undying had to be changed, so that it worked better with stacking perks like Devour Hope, but didn't accidentally lock down an entire match by how powerful it could be with Ruin.
Ruin was fine as a hex perk specifically because it was a hex, but Undying sometimes removed the 'hex' part and just made it a passive.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3562830#Comment_3562830
How is something that can be completely ignored from the survivor side, because it does literally nothing while you do your objective, overpowered? If it was old Ruin, where you had to hit skill checks, i would say yes. But the passive Ruin? Thats something you could completely ignore. As it had no effect when you repaired gens.
You want all the benefits of reduced camping/tunneling but no downsides.
Because any time the killer applied any pressure, it gave them free, substantial regression. Gen kick meta, but without actually having to kick gens. Ruin, prior to its nerf, was that strong. Which is fine as long as it is a hex perk, but Undying effectively made it NOT a hex perk.
Ruin was really substantial prior to 6.1, you don't seem to get that. It was legitimately really powerful. Which is GOOD, but not so long as Undying gave it up to 70 seconds of cleanse time.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3562783#Comment_3562783
MfT, DH, WoO, perk that speeds repair by 50%. Kinda looks like you can have both at the same time, while not leaving the meta we currently have.
So no, the MfT complaints wouldn´t diminish. Would you see also complaints about the repair perk? Sure! But you would see complaints about both perks.
You are also missing the point, that the Undying Ruin combo created more variety on survivor builds. Not the copy of a copy of the copy of a streamers build. I´m all for more variety in perk builds. Seeing the same 6 perks every match is kinda boring. At least for me. The Undying Ruin combo gave the chance for more varied builds, without getting weird looks from the teammates. "dude, why are you using this?!"
I´ll die on that hill defending Undying Ruin. Because i really didn´t like the Eruption meta and i sure as hell don´t like the current stacking 3-4 slowdown perks meta.
So no, the MfT complaints wouldn´t diminish.
No, they would. They absolutely would. You stop caring about lesser issues when much bigger issues present themselves.
Which was the problem with Ruin + old Undying, since it was so overpowered that it made all other issues pale by comparison. What you're spinning is basically a remastered version of the 'just make killers brutally overpowered and maybe they'll camp/tunnel a little bit less' adage.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3561457#Comment_3561457
I´m not pretending anything. But complaints about camping went down during the months of Undying Ruin. Instead we had tons of threads complaining about how impossible it is for a single survivor to cleanse 5 totems...
Did we have complaints about camping? Sure, but they were more like what we have now with people complaining about the anti-facecamp mechanic.
During that time i was very active with a totem hunter build and even remember some matches where i cleansed all 5 totems alone.
I still think that the amount of regression was a small price to pay for less camping/tunneling in the matches. And it was way healthier than what we got afterwards: the gen kick meta.
Okay, but if they'd release a perk tomorrow that increased repair speed by 50%, you'd also get fewer MFT complaints.
Doesn't mean the problem's gone or diminished.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3561353#Comment_3561353
Okay, i´m sure i said that somewhere in the past of this discussion. But i´ll say it again.
A killer who is constantly pushing survivors away from gens, is a killer who isn´t camping or tunneling. The 2 things survivors complain the most about these days. Undying Ruin was healthy, because a killer that used the combo only could benefit from said combo, by playing in a non camping/tunneling way.
Somehow i get the feeling that survivors don´t understand that the combo gave them exactly what they wanted all the time.
Also, remember its a 4vs1 game. No survivor would have had to cleanse all 5 totems alone. Thats like claiming a survivor has to repair all 5 gens alone...
Okay, i´m sure i said that somewhere in the past of this discussion. But i´ll say it again.
Undying Ruin was healthy, because a killer that used the combo only could benefit from said combo, by playing in a non camping/tunneling way.
And I've already told you that that was RUIN doing the work, not UNDYING. RUIN was healthy. UNDYING was not.
Undying just made it so that Ruin couldn't really be considered a hex anymore. And even after Undying was nerfed, Ruin + Undying was still a very commonly run combo with plenty of power in its corner. It never needed 5xUndying, 5xUndying just amped it up to a ridiculous degree.
What killed Ruin was the undeserved 50% nerf it got in 6.1. because BHVR decided to axe the meta. Same tragedy that struck Decisive Strike.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3561335#Comment_3561335
Ruin powerful? At 200% it regressed a gen at 1/2 the speed a single survivor required to repair. Whats powerful about that?
I mean, i could understand if you would complain about the old skill check Ruin. But the current passive one? Nothing is powerful about it.
Remember, Hex perks are supposed to be high risk, high reward perks. I don´t see the reward part.
The reward was that it regressed gens at double speed AND skipped the kick requirement. The moment a killer pushed a survivor off a gen, it would make that gen start losing progress and at DOUBLE speed. It doesn't matter that that's half the speed survivors can progress with: It's an asymmetrical game, after all, and these speed weigh differently across the board.
But at 200%, it was solidly powerful. If the killer got a hook in before Ruin was found, it was a majorly uphill battle for survivors. Even after Undying was nerfed, Ruin was still a very consistent pick and in my opinion, it was very healthy.
But Ruin taking up to FIVE totems to cleanse was not okay, and from what I understand, it skyrocketed killer winrates as well.
I don´t see the reward part.
The average killer in this game does not see a lot of things.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3559750#Comment_3559750
What was unhealthy about Undying? It was only used in combo with Ruin, because the stacks reset on every cleanse. So what was problematic about that?
Perhaps having a hex as powerful as ruin without the drawback of being a hex was a problem?
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3560960#Comment_3560960
So finding a teammate that heals you without running around the map aimlessly does not cost any time? The point about CoH was that not only it allowed you to relatively efficienty heal yourself, it also was a guaranteed place where you could heal, not like finding a teammate where you don't necessarily know where to go to and might even spend more time than those up to 20 seconds or whatever it is ... And 20 seconds is probably the most you will have, that's 80 m so it would have to be on the complete opposite of the map...
So finding a teammate that heals you without running around the map aimlessly does not cost any time?
Generally speaking, no. In most cases where you are injured, either you are in chase and thus cannot heal anyway, or you are being pulled off the hook by another survivor so you're right with someone.
And even then, you can hop onto a gen and hope another survivor will come for the gen you're working on, meaning the time spent finding another teammate isn't being wasted.
And 20 seconds is probably the most you will have, that's 80 m so it would have to be on the complete opposite of the map...
In order for the self-heal to be inefficient, you'd need to lose 11 seconds, not 20, because that will bring the self-heal timer to 32 seconds, which is equal to the amount of time lost on a normal altruistic heal.
11 seconds of survivor movement would be 44 meters, but that's split over the 'to' and the 'from'. If you're injured next to a gen and you need to move 20 meters to the totem to heal and then 20 meters to get back to the gen, CoH has saved you only 1 effective second, and you'd need to get SIXTEEN self-heals out of it in order to break even.
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3560637#Comment_3560637
That makes it even more efficient than I thought... Great rounding btw. 21.333 ~ 22... I would get to 21 seconds there but whatever ^^
The point stays though, circle of healing allowed for overall more efficiency with healing and doing gens, and like I said before, you already had the choice to just stay injured and heal if you wanted it ...
That 21.3 seconds does not account for time spent finding the totem and booning it, nor does it account for time spent travelling to and from the totem's radius in order to actually get the benefit of it.
That's something people still don't get: Putting CoH out of the way is not actually beneficial to the survivors since you lose out on travel time what you gain on heal time. Overall, I doubt CoH was very efficient, it's just that the cost of CoH was not in-your-face while the benefit is.
It should've had its heal speed bonus ONLY affect altruistic healing and it would've honestly fixed the entire perk, but it instead just got deleted outright.
@WilliamSN said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3560637#Comment_3560637
The problem with COH was the ability to solo heal at close to medkit speed, and without an actual limit which greatly increased survivor effeciency.
In regular gameplay a single COH could provide atleast 5-6 Self heals at 21~ seconds per.
Now, while a team heal takes 16 seconds, thats effectively 32 charges you're not putting into a gen.
Simplified math tells us that 1 self heal (21 charges not on a gen) allowed you to "gain" 11 charges of gen time compared to a team heal.
After 5 COH heals you've effectively "gained" 55 charges of gen time.
Now this is the simplified version, if you start including the fact that while you're healing, your teammate is free to pump 21 charges into the generator, it skyrockets from a +55 effeciency gain to ~ +200 effeciency just thanks to not needing a teammate to heal.
Now this is the simplified version, if you start including the fact that while you're healing, your teammate is free to pump 21 charges into the generator, it skyrockets from a +55 effeciency gain to ~ +200 effeciency just thanks to not needing a teammate to heal.
It wouldn't be 21 seconds saved, it would still be 11, you're double dipping.
It's either 2 x 16 or 1 x 21.3. That's 32 vs 21.3, so that's a difference of roughly 11 seconds. Though again, this is not counting travel time, nor is it counting boon time.
I also feel like there should be a bit of a disclaimer when it comes to discussing the value survivor perks give: It is a perk. It is meant to give a benefit, not break even.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3560476#Comment_3560476
I've heard they're half-fae and sprinkle their fairy dust over the forum, which is what we see as 'editted by'.
I've heard they play Bubba... WITHOUT camping!
-
@BubbaDredge said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3560203#Comment_3560203
You replaced the words "game mechanic" with "something." Does that mean you don't understand the difference or are pretending there is none?
Tricking the killer is fine, tricking the game is an exploit.
Who says they were tricking the game?
@Reinami 's assertion is that the survivor 'exploited' the system by approaching shack and then leaving. But look at it from the survivor's perspective:
If you approach a hooked survivor, and the killer is headed your way, do you just bumrush the hook, or do you double back and try to lead the killer away from it so someone else can get a safe unhook?
Because to me, it looks like someone chose the latter. And it's Reinami who made assumptions about the survivor's actions and intentions.
And as someone else mentioned: this is not some four, five second deal either. Reinami must've stuck around for a -long- time.
-
@WilliamSN said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3559761#Comment_3559761
"it didn't get changed in any way to how it can be used"
Ok cool, we just pretending 5.3.0 didn't happen?
This doesn't change its use, though. You use it the exact same way now as you did before 5.3.0. It has the exact same function.
-
@Xernoton said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3559642#Comment_3559642
WoO was never a bad perk. It just wasn't something most people needed or wanted to give up one of their other perks for. If you asked people back then, why they didn't use it, most would have told you something among the lines of: "I know maps, so I don't need it."
But now WoO has a different use. It's a crutch for pretty much everyone who can follow simple directions. Run from tile to tile, pre drop pallets, that you can't loop around very well and repeat. You could be a complete beginner and still get the results of someone with 2k hours more experience. Meaning, it deletes a large part of the skill expression that goes into looping.
WoO also does pretty much the opposite of what many people argue, that it should do. If you rely on WoO then you don't learn maps. After all, why would you? You have a perk that makes this obsolete. My idea was to make it a perk, that would still be useful in chase and help you learn maps but would also require you to do some things right in order to really get value out of it.
WoO was never a bad perk. It just wasn't something most people needed or wanted to give up one of their other perks for. If you asked people back then, why they didn't use it, most would have told you something among the lines of: "I know maps, so I don't need it."
That qualifies it to me as being a 'pretty bad perk'. It's the same reason why Visionary is considered F-tier. All it provides is intel, and the intel is something you already have if you're sufficiently familiar with the game.
But now WoO has a different use.
It can't have a different use because it gained no different functionality. It didn't get a new synergy, it didn't get a new function, it didn't get changed in any way to how it can be used.
What happened is that its competition died a violent death and WoO was just left over in the aftermath.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3559614#Comment_3559614
And yet, both were nerfed hard. Despite being healthy for the game.
Ruin was healthy.
Undying was not.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3559542#Comment_3559542
Its like people don´t understand what Ruin does. Ruin ONLY worked when no one was sitting on a gen. You could entirely ignore it and didn´t had to cleanse it 4 times.
Also, its a 4vs1 game. Even IF survivors had to cleanse it, it wasn´t exactly a monster task to cleanse 1 or 2 totems per match. Which still was totally voluntary, as Ruin had no effect on gens that are being worked on.
Furthermore, the 200% regression was 1/2 of what a single survivor would have taken to repair a gen.
Survivors are constantly complaining about camping and tunneling. Guess what a killer that constantly has to move beetween gens, to get survivors off the gens, isn´t doing...
Ruin can do all of that without 5 lives. People weren't protesting Ruin. They were protesting Undying.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3559315#Comment_3559315
Not a strawman. Happens all the time. My teammates prefer to finish a gen before even considering healing/getting healed. All run MfT. But when the killer dares to go for them, while they sit on a gen, then they often dc/suicide. Only to stay until after the match and complain about the toxic killer.
Of course, thats only my personal experience on my server/region/mmr. If you get teammates that heal before finishing gens and don´t dc/suicide, then good for you!
It's still a strawman. You're picking an argument that I never made to fight against.
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3559372#Comment_3559372
Preach it!
The healthiest slowdown combo we ever had, was Undying Ruin. It didn´t affect survivors that just did gens and only benefited killers that constantly switched targets. I´ll never understand how the community was so against it.
Ruin was incredibly impactful, as a hex should be, but Undying could remove the risk of a hex entirely. Ruin having to be cleansed 4 times was overpowered, so Undying got cut back.
From my experience, if someone was on the hook before Ruin was found, the game was already over and the killer had won. Imagine having to find it four times over.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3559249#Comment_3559249
Ok i´ll rephrase. Current meta is to run MfT. Which only works while injured. So many survivors stack it with Resilience and prefer to push gens while injured. Even when they don´t bring a toolbox with BNP, this is still something that could be considered gen rushing. As they don´t use the chance to heal themselves/each other, but prefer to do gens.
Now the killer comes around, maybe chasing someone who isn´t injured yet and sees the injured survivor doing gens. Smart move is to switch target and go for the injured survivor. NOW said survivor will complain after the match, that the killer is tunneling. When all he did was playing more efficiently by going for the weakest link.
The survivor can not, will not see the mistake he made. But instead complain about the killer. When both played objectively efficient and pursued their only objective.
That's a strawman, bud.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3559159#Comment_3559159
So... what other objectives would the killer have?
I think you're missing the point.
You're free to chase, down and hook survivors. You're still progressing your objective even if you're hooking Mikaela after you just hooked Nea. You don't need to drop chase to immediately go back to Nea and ignore literally everyone else just so you can kill Nea in record time.
Just like you don't need to bring stacked toolboxes, BNPs and genrush perks.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3558661#Comment_3558661
Killing is the killers only objective. Yet, when the killer does his only objective as efficient as possible, since there are no other objectives, its considered kinda toxic from the community.
Funny how that goes, isn´t it?
That's not analogous though.
Venusa is talking about survivors doing gens -at all-. You're talking about doing the only objective -as efficient as possible-.
What you're talking about is the equivalent of packing hyperfocus + Stakeout + BNPs/toolboxes and whatever else can be used to make gens go as fast as possible.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3557154#Comment_3557154
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.
Listen, dude...
You presented your model. You've explained how you -think- these statistics work.
Ratcoffee has explained that your thinking is incorrect. You have made a mistake in your calculations.
I have explained and shown that your model does not work.
At this point, it's blatantly clear your model does not match reality. It does not match its practice, or its theory.
Your response is to reassert that your model is correct, thereby claiming reality is wrong, as opposed to -you- being wrong.
At this point, you are either thoroughly dishonest or thoroughly delusional. Take your pick.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3557112#Comment_3557112
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.
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.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556579#Comment_3556579
... 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.
"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.
-
@sizzlingmario4 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556740#Comment_3556740
That, or when Ruin or Plaything deactivate on death (if you die with Plaything on you, your specific totem is extinguished since it no longer does anything).
Also when Haunted is cleansed and the second totem turns into a dull, or when the Face the Darkness survivor is healed.
Face the Darkness also has a deactivation condition, right? If someone goes into the dying state?
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556382#Comment_3556382
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.
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.
-
For killer, I think my preference goes out to Gift of Pain. As a scourge hook, it adds a little extra play, and it makes hooking people very rewarding. It feels satisfying to get a scourge hook with that, feels like it takes some of the pressure off of me.
For survivor, it'd probably be Fixated/Self-aware. A really good stealth perk that opens up play opportunities. I once had a Myers come over to the gen I was working on three times, unable to find me simply because he thought I had to be within walking distance due to the lack of scratch marks, so he never searched out to a far enough radius.
I also once lost a killer at the Game by stunning him, running up the stairs, and then walking from the top of the stairs. He lost LoS with me long enough that he had no means to track me anymore and lost the chase entirely.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556352#Comment_3556352
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.
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".
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3556193#Comment_3556193
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.
"With this cleared, the answer to your question is "ON AVERAGE, yes.""
If the math that I outlined is indeed how you calculate average winrates from killrates, think about it: What happens to your 'average winrate' projection, using your calculation of it, if the killrate is lower than 50%?
And what would this value require, unconditionally, in order to be attained?
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3555646#Comment_3555646
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3555980#Comment_3555980
"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.
"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?
-
@ProfessorDunwich said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3555475#Comment_3555475
This echo chamber seems to forget that.
How, when they are tirelessly reminded every time killers face the slightest possible inconvenience?
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3555497#Comment_3555497
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.
"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?
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3555303#Comment_3555303
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:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3555457#Comment_3555457
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.
"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.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3555303#Comment_3555303
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.
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.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554916#Comment_3554916
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.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554949#Comment_3554949
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.
I already responded to you: I already explained everything multiple times.
You did not explain anything. You keep refusing to answer. You keep refusing to consider the math.
If you still doesn't get it, you should first learn what an average is and what it represents
Do you? Because you seem to be confusing it for the median.
second stop merging all killers in the same bag
Switching tracks again. Not that it fixes anything, because whether we're talking about an individual killer or killers as a whole makes not a lick of difference for the purposes of this conversation. Which is probably why you bring it up now to begin with.
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.
I'm going to ask this question for the third time, because you keep dodging it. I know why you're dodging it, but I just want to make sure it's clear to you why you're dodging it. That you don't have any more pretence about having a proper understanding of this subject.
How do you intend to raise the kill rate, while lowering the killer win rate?
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554842#Comment_3554842
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554839#Comment_3554839
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554862#Comment_3554862
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.
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?