Firellius
Firellius
About
- Username
- Firellius
- Joined
- Visits
- 17,210
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554282#Comment_3554282
Except it's been proven that this is not the case.
Where...?
This -might- work if there was only one win condition and one loss condition, but there's two loss conditions, two win conditions, and a tie condition. And these mess up your 'Kill% -> win%' pipeline.
Explained it multiple times already, go and re-read it until you understand it.
This is proven to be false. The killer's winrate does not follow neatly from the kill rate.
Buff and nerfs have being proved false? Because I'm starting to think that you reaaaaly don't understand what have being explained multiple times with you.
[...] a killrate of 60% can swing up as high as 80% winrate.
That's why you should adjust the average survivor killed per game to 2.4, so that win rate stays at 40% meaning 40% win rate for survivors and every single killer. What is so hard to understand here?
but Nightlight disproves the practical application of your theory as well: It shows a lower killrate than your projection, but also a higher winrate.
Read the above point.
And no, you are not going to be able to figure out a way to buff killers to increase their kill rate, while reducing their winrate.
To be fair, what the game needs right now is more a nerf to survivor than a buff to killers. But yet again, that's why you need to get to the 60% kill rate base, so you can buff or nerf every killer individually to meet the average. I think I'm going to start counting the times that I had explained it to you already. This is at least the 4º time.
Except there is.
No, there is not. 3º time.
IF the game were to be ruled as a strict series of 1v1s, then each kill the killer makes is a win. This means a 3K is 3 wins for the killer, and a 4K is 4 wins for the killer.
Hey!!!! See? It's not so hard to understand, right? A killer needs to win 3 times in his individual match against each survivors for him to have a win. And if he manage to do 4 wins, then is an extra win, and he gains more MMR.
This would mean the kill rate = win rate, in which case any kill rate over 50% = killer-sided.
And back to it again. Was nice for a moment.
Again, more than 3K is a win for the killer. Or, if you prefer it, 3 wins over survivors is an overall win for the killer. Ergo no, 50% kill rate in any case would means killers not losing or winning and survivors winning 50% of the time.
But, you disagree with this, so you instead opt for MMR to judge the killer for his performance against the team of survivors as a whole, and you count both 3Ks and 4Ks as one win.
No, the devs, the code of the game, the Wiki, and everyone that have read or hear the devs talking about or explaining how the MMR system works disagree with it. You are the only one that is trying to change the fabric of reality by denying the empirical fact.
Which is fine, except you'd need to do the same thing from the other side. Meaning that only 3Es and 4Es are survivor wins. If the killer is pitted against the team of survivors, then the team of survivors is pitted against the killer.
No, because that's not how the system works. Each survivors it's by his own. A survivor win or lose depending if he escapes or not, and doesn't matter what other survivors do. I-don't-even-know-how-manyº times already explained.
[...] but then comes the hatch. That thing unfortunately brings the kill rate down, while also cutting into the survivors' winrate by introducing a draw. This is the point where you arbitrarily choose to abandon MMR as the guideline and instead switch to 'vibes'.
The MMR measure "skill". Having a free optional escape spawn just below your feet just because you are the last man standing that rewards you the exact same as if you completed the gens and go through the exit gates doesn't require a lot. That's why it is still considered an escape, but you don't gain MMR with it. It's not vibes, it's totally logical and understandable. But as it fits your narrative, you are grasping at this straw to try to make a point, not me.
Either stick to MMR, stick to 1v4, or stick to 1v1v1v1v1.
It's what I'm doing, that why I'm sticking to the 1v4 for killers and 1v1/1/1/1 for survivors as that's how it works.
1v4 -> Killers win 46% of the time. Survivors win 40% of the time.
1v1v1v1v1 -> Killers win 53% of the time. Survivors win 47% of the time.
MMR -> Killers win 46% of the time. Survivors win somewhere south of 47% of the time. Indeterminate due to hatch.
Vibes -> Killers win 59% of the time. Survivors win 47% of the time.
"Killers win 46% of the time. Survivors win somewhere south of 47% of the time" That's the only truth. Everything else it's you distorting things to accommodate your point of view and your bias.
I also want to point out that your absolute best effort, using arbitrary rulesets for what constitutes a win
It's not my "arbitrary rulesets", they are the rule sets programmed in the game working at every match you do. So no effort at all using them, as it as simple as understanding them and pointing them out.
[...] only manages to pull off a 46% killer winrate versus a 47% survivor winrate, which is a level of balancing that would make League of Legends developers moist.
But balancing was not the point of this post, this post said that the data proved the game was "slightly killer sided" when it proves totally the contrary.
The best part of it is that you really think you can compare LoL with DbD, when that only shows that you don't have any idea of what you are talking about in terms of balancing. No wonder it is so hard for you to understand simple things even if explained to you a billion times already.
So with your best argument, you can place the game as being negligibly survivor-sided.
Everything else points to the game being varying degrees of killer-sided.
"Slightly" survivor sided. And yet again, no, nothing not even in Nightlight points that the game is killer sided in any degree, but the contrary for all the reason explained to you a billion times already.
And before you make your next post, I will answer to it already: I already explained it to you. You are wrong.
Where...?
By Ratcoffee, when they constructed an 80% winrate out of a 60% killrate.
Explained it multiple times already, go and re-read it until you understand it.
You have explained what you think, but I have explained multiple times that you are incorrect.
Buff and nerfs have being proved false? Because I'm starting to think that you reaaaaly don't understand what have being explained multiple times with you.
You need to understand that right now, you are doing the equivalent of proclaiming that 1+1=3, and that me disagreeing with you is just me 'not understanding'.
You are mathematically incorrect.
That's why you should adjust the average survivor killed per game to 2.4, so that win rate stays at 40% meaning 40% win rate for survivors and every single killer. What is so hard to understand here?
That 60% killrate would be an average of 2.4 survivors killed per game. If you can win 80% of your matches with an average of 2.4 kills per game, how can you guarantee that 2.4 kills per game will result in 40% winrate?
You keep insisting that you have explained this: You have not. You have asserted it, but you have not explained it. You have not explained how 60% killrate translates to 40% winrate. You have not explained how you are going to guarantee that the 240 kills you are aiming for over a hundred matches will neatly distribute themselves to produce 40 wins, as opposed to what Nightlight is showing, where fewer kills are weighting themselves towards a higher winrate.
How do you intend to make killers that kill more than they currently do, lose more than they currently do?
Hey!!!! See? It's not so hard to understand, right? A killer needs to win 3 times in his individual match against each survivors for him to have a win. And if he manage to do 4 wins, then is an extra win, and he gains more MMR.
You may want to get off your high horse here because if THIS was the metric you wanted to go for, killers have a 53% winrate, and survivors are nowhere near that no matter how badly you're trying to spin this. Which would prove you wrong and demonstrate the game to be killer-sided.
Again, more than 3K is a win for the killer. Or, if you prefer it, 3 wins over survivors is an overall win for the killer. Ergo no, 50% kill rate in any case would means killers not losing or winning and survivors winning 50% of the time on average.
So your remark to the tune of me 'finally getting it' is immediately undone by you switching gears and going for a different metric. You are following along with what I'm saying, just trying to reframe it within your own perception.
IF the game were ruled as 1v1s, killers would have a 53% winrate.
You say that that's wrong, but what you -mean- to say is: "The game isn't ruled as 1v1s"
So we get to the 1v4s, after a little detour via MMR:
No, the devs, the code of the game, the Wiki, and everyone that have read or hear the devs talking about or explaining how the MMR system works disagree with it. You are the only one that is trying to change the fabric of reality by denying the empirical fact.
I want you to keep this one in your mind.
The MMR is -your- reason for ruling that the killer's winrate is not determined by the rate at which they kill survivors but by the rate at which they secure 3 or more kills in one trial.
We will come back to this.
No, because that's not how the system works. Each survivors it's by his own.
The system, here, being MMR. That is the 'system' in place. That is what you are referring to.
The MMR measure "skill". Having a free optional escape spawn just below your feet just because you are the last man standing that rewards you the exact same as if you completed the gens and go through the exit gates doesn't require a lot. That's why it is still considered an escape, but you don't gain MMR with it.
And this is where you -drop- the MMR, because here it becomes an inconvenience.
It is considered an escape. It is NOT considered a win. It is considered a draw.
The MMR does not refer to the hatch escape as a win. You stated that the killer's winrate isn't determined by 1v1s because the MMR says so. You stated that the survivors' winrate isn't determined by 1v4s because the MMR says so.
But when the MMR tells you that the hatch is NOT a win, you ignore it.
It's not my "arbitrary rulesets", they are the rule sets programmed in the game working at every match you do. So no effort at all using them, as it as simple as understanding them and pointing them out.
These are not rulesets programmed in the game. The game itself does not track 'wins'. It tracks Bloodpoints and MMR. It does not govern what is a win and what is not. It simply tells you the statistical outcome of the match.
The closest thing you can offer that is actually programmed in the game is the MMR system, but that system disagrees with you about the hatch.
What YOU, personally, classify as a win, is arbitrary and is not backed up by any element programmed in the game.
But balancing was not the point of this post, this post said that the data proved the game was "slightly killer sided" when it proves totally the contrary.
What do you think 'Slightly killer sided' means? It's a statement on the game's balance.
The best part of it is that you really think you can compare LoL with DbD
Reading comprehension is not your forte, is it?
-
@Hannacia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554543#Comment_3554543
You mean the old DS that gave survivors free escape in end game? Sure it was stronger and busted. Would i buff DS back to 5 seconds.. Sure but the endgame use needs to stay gone.
SO you rather use useless perks like windows and whatever i see lately a lot (self care) not joking.. than good perks that might buy you more time and even an escape? I've gotten so much value out of OTR and bought my team time to finish the last gen or get gen done.
No ones forcing you to use perks that might help you, but you can't go saying there isn't perks for tunneling when there is plenty. You refuse to use them.
You mean the old DS that gave survivors free escape in end game?
No, I mean 5 second DS. I was asked to clarify in what way anti-tunnel was gutted and I specifically -only- mentioned the cut stun duration. I never once disparaged the EGC nerf or even mentioned it.
SO you rather use useless perks like windows and whatever i see lately a lot (self care) not joking.. than good perks that might buy you more time and even an escape? I've gotten so much value out of OTR and bought my team time to finish the last gen or get gen done.
I'd rather not sink 2+ perks into something that is ONLY useful if the killer is using a specific strategy, specifically against me. This kind of goes back to my first post about a bunch of survivor perks being really situational.
And now on top of being that situational, DS isn't even good anymore.
I've never used Windows of Opportunity. I've hardly ever used DS either, but at least back when DS was 5 seconds, it was an active, looming threat for killers that wanted to tunnel, and most didn't do it because eating a five second stun was pretty devastating. With DS getting gutted, survivors lost their primary anti-tunnel and OTR didn't replace it because it is countered by tunnelling.
-
@Hannacia said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553957#Comment_3553957
There is OTR, extremely strong perk. There is Borrowed time. People don't use it anymore since half of it is basekit. There is DS. Sure it got nerfed but i wouldn't say its useless. Sure its useless against nurse and blight but what isn't. Use it smart. Go down near good loop and DS can buy you plenty of extra time. add little sprinkle of DH with it and i'd say you have pretty damn good anti tunnel build. DH alone is now antitunnel perk. Is it hard to use and misses time to time..sure but it's absolutely better than nothing.
People rather use windows and turn their brains off and see the pretty yellows instead of using actually good perks.
There is OTR, extremely strong perk.
But not an anti-tunnel perk since it is hardcountered by tunnelling.
There is Borrowed time
Might buy you an extra hit, but you can't use it yourself.
There is DS. Sure it got nerfed but i wouldn't say its useless. Sure its useless against nurse and blight but what isn't. Use it smart. Go down near good loop and DS can buy you plenty of extra time
And if there's no good loop nearby, you're F'd because it got hard-nerfed for no particular reason.
add little sprinkle of DH with it and i'd say you have pretty damn good anti tunnel build. DH alone is now antitunnel perk. Is it hard to use and misses time to time..sure but it's absolutely better than nothing.
So you now need to use two perks for a harder to use, less reliable version of what one perk used to do by itself, consistently.
None of this changes that anti-tunnel got gutted out of the game.
-
@radiantHero23 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554497#Comment_3554497
No. I think 5 seconds is too much. Ruin souls have gotten one of the nerfs. Ds deactivating in end game is absolute fine in my opinion. It was the most unfair part about the Perk. The real problem with ds is that it punishes weaker killers more than stronger ones. Same with Made for this. Nurse and Blight don't really care about ds. Therefore I would keep 3 seconds (maybe 4) but make it that it sets Blights and Nurse's power to 0. Therefore they can't just rush you down again. Same with spirit, maybe Wesker.
Considering the perk's activation is entirely within the killer's control, 5 seconds is fine. It should be a proper deterrent, otherwise it's not worth picking.
It doesn't matter that its impact varies among different killers because none of those killers should be tunnelling into a DS.
-
Both got 50% and an excess trim. They're really not that different.
And both should have the 50% reverted.
-
@radiantHero23 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3554283#Comment_3554283
And that's gutting?
Against most of the lower end killers it's still powerfull. It also enables the otr into ds into dh combo.
It's more situational and less of a "just slap on" kind of perk.
Still good though.
Gutted is something like ruin if you ask me. I tried to make it work on a variety of killers in a variety of situations. Didn't work out.
It got halved. It got a 50% nerf. It got reduced by a proportion of 1:2.
How is that NOT 'Gutting'?
Gutted is something like ruin if you ask me.
Which, ironically, got the exact same nerf.
-
@radiantHero23 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553957#Comment_3553957
What anti tunnel is gutted?
DS lost half its effective stun duration.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553943#Comment_3553943
The article is unsourced and also kicks your argument to the curb.
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/KQ6Y5EAVYODM/image.png
Need any more source than that?
If the final amount of kills is the ONLY determining factor for whether the killer gains or loses MMR, then that means that killers WIN more matches than they LOSE
And? They still win less times on average than survivors.
However, you have also been presented with factual proof that your assertion is incorrect. 60% kill rate does not, at all, -guarantee- a 40% win rate.
But it is the only way to guarantee having a mathematical average chance of winning equal for everybody, survivors and each individual killer. It's not hard to understand, much less when explained in detail multiple times.
Explain how it is that a 60% kill rate can produce an 80% win-rate if it is, instead, supposed to -guarantee- a 40% win-rate.
Again, I did already, multiple times. Go and read them again.
And I and others have explained to you why it does not directly translate into win and loss percentages.
And you are all wrong because, again, I explained how and why it is the only way to get an equal win rate for everybody by setting win rates for survivors at 40% and make every killer individually have an average kill rate of 2.4 survivors per match which translate in another 40% win rate for every single one of them.
At this point, though, you are absolutely detaching yourself from the game's practice in an effort to try and create a mathematical equivalence between two sides of an asymmetrical multiplayer.
From the Official Wiki article I posted:
- In essence, each Survivor is in an individual mini-Trial with the Killer and vice versa, in which wins, losses, and draws can occur.
Also, the 60% kill rate is something that the devs want themselves. So if anybody is doing that in any case, are the devs. I'm just following the MMR rules and what they say.
This is where I'm going to state that you are being disingenuous in your argumentation. You've hung up your argumentation so far on the MMR system in order to facilitate the 'Actually, it's a 1v1' argument, as a way to dodge the fact that survivors lose more as a team than killers lose.
There is no "team" in MMR. Even in game, you don't get any more BP points or awards for more than one of you escaping. You don't get an "Survivor team wins!" anywhere. You either had escaped, or you had being killed. If you are going to ignore every fact and keep saying I'm being disingenuous, please specify where in all the game are you told that if any specific number of survivors escape then survivors have won, when it makes pretty clear, icons included, that you and only you either escaped or got killed.
Since this is inconvenient to you, you then change the definition of a win to get OFF the MMR system and still declare the hatch a win.
Because in game terms, it is an escape with all that comes with it: BP, Emblems, Experience points, retain your item. Everything. And it is a free, optional, easy way of getting an escape from the game that requires more luck than skill. It is not inconvenient, it is logical.
You are arguing over three different subsections of stats: MMR, win% as team, and win% as individual. And whenever the stats don't agree with your assertions, you switch tracks and start arguing about a different branch.
Again there is no win rates as a team because not even in game the survivors are a team, and I'm strictly guided by MMR which yes, have the exception on hatches because it is still an escape but as it is based on luck is counted as a draw in MMR terms, but an escape nonetheless. So I didn't switch tracks anywhere, it's you who is trying to make a completely new one grasping at it.
And you are blatantly disregarding any stats that are shown. The data in Nightlight shows 46% to 40%. So yes, killers are winning more than survivor teams are.
No, killers are not winning more than survivors (much less "teams", as kill rates obviously counts only survivors, not groups of 4) because survivors have right now an higher win rate on average than killers as already pointed and proved multiple times.
And they're also winning more than individual survivors by a metric that YOU brought into the discussion.
Not true, by all the things already more than explained and pointed. But whatever makes you sleep better at night.
But it is the only way to guarantee having a mathematical average chance of winning equal for everybody, survivors and each individual killer. It's not hard to understand, much less when explained in detail multiple times.
Except it's been proven that this is not the case. This -might- work if there was only one win condition and one loss condition, but there's two loss conditions, two win conditions, and a tie condition. And these mess up your 'Kill% -> win%' pipeline.
In your explanation, you assume that the average becomes the rule, but you fail to acknowledge that the game's kill distribution is weighted towards extremes. 2Ks are the rarest outcome, as everyone and Nightlight will tell you, but you bank on it in the one time you tried to explain your reasoning.
And you are all wrong because, again, I explained how and why it is the only way to get an equal win rate for everybody by setting win rates for survivors at 40% and make every killer individually have an average kill rate of 2.4 survivors per match which translate in another 40% win rate for every single one of them.
The problem lies in this section:
and make every killer individually have an average kill rate of 2.4 survivors per match which translate in another 40% win rate for every single one of them.
This is proven to be false. The killer's winrate does not follow neatly from the kill rate. As Ratcoffee demonstrated, a killrate of 60% can swing up as high as 80% winrate.
I -know- you're going to handwave this with 'averages', but Nightlight disproves the practical application of your theory as well: It shows a lower killrate than your projection, but also a higher winrate.
And no, you are not going to be able to figure out a way to buff killers to increase their kill rate, while reducing their winrate.
There is no "team" in MMR.
Except there is.
IF the game were to be ruled as a strict series of 1v1s, then each kill the killer makes is a win. This means a 3K is 3 wins for the killer, and a 4K is 4 wins for the killer.
This would mean the kill rate = win rate, in which case any kill rate over 50% = killer-sided.
But, you disagree with this, so you instead opt for MMR to judge the killer for his performance against the team of survivors as a whole, and you count both 3Ks and 4Ks as one win.
Which is fine, except you'd need to do the same thing from the other side. Meaning that only 3Es and 4Es are survivor wins. If the killer is pitted against the team of survivors, then the team of survivors is pitted against the killer.
But you're not okay with that, so you instead opt for the MMR system again, in which survivors are judged mostly individually.
So up until now, you've ruled that MMR is the main guideline for how a win or loss is determined, but then comes the hatch. That thing unfortunately brings the kill rate down, while also cutting into the survivors' winrate by introducing a draw. This is the point where you arbitrarily choose to abandon MMR as the guideline and instead switch to 'vibes'.
But the 'vibes' also dictate that only a 0-1K 'Displeases the Entity', while a 2K is a sign of a 'Brutal Killer', essentially switching to win terminology. So should we now start counting 2Ks as wins, because it has the 'vibes' of a win?
Either stick to MMR, stick to 1v4, or stick to 1v1v1v1v1.
So in short:
1v4 -> Killers win 46% of the time. Survivors win 40% of the time.
1v1v1v1v1 -> Killers win 53% of the time. Survivors win 47% of the time.
MMR -> Killers win 46% of the time. Survivors win somewhere south of 47% of the time. Indeterminate due to hatch.
Vibes -> Killers win 59% of the time. Survivors win 47% of the time.
I also want to point out that your absolute best effort, using arbitrary rulesets for what constitutes a win, only manages to pull off a 46% killer winrate versus a 47% survivor winrate, which is a level of balancing that would make League of Legends developers moist. So with your best argument, you can place the game as being negligibly survivor-sided.
Everything else points to the game being varying degrees of killer-sided.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553960#Comment_3553960
BT is considered useless, because it's basekit. That immediate hit just triggers the basekit version and prevents the survivor from getting instantly downed. BT would prevent killers from waiting out the 10 seconds for the down. But no one deems that necessary.
DS is DS. Whatever the devs do to it, half the community will hate it. It was predominant before its nerf and was used in ways the devs didn't anticipate. Now the devs might be cautious to buff it even the slightest.
OtR is still extremely strong for runner builds.
I don't agree on no mither. People are already ignoring heals and just spam gens while injured. Equipping no mither just sounds like the next logical step in combination with resilience and mft. I'd also add soul guard, even when no one uses hex perks anymore. Simply because it gives the endurance effect on picking yourself up from the slugged state.
BT being considered anti-camp has always been questionable, since it doesn't really disempower camping. The one making the rescue is going to go down, and certain killers will have no trouble catching up and killing the unhooked survivor even with the basekit BT. That's why the devs are now working on a new anti-camp that's meant to disempower it further: The perks aren't working.
DS is DS. Whatever the devs do to it, half the community will hate it. It was predominant before its nerf and was used in ways the devs didn't anticipate. Now the devs might be cautious to buff it even the slightest.
No, most people were fine with DS before 6.1, with one exception: The EGC. It was not being used offensively anymore, since the conspic action nerf made that impossible, it just created a lose-lose scenario for the killer in the end-game, which 6.1 rightfully fixed.
The EGC nerf was perfectly fine, but the 5 to 3 second nerf was garbage and there's no reason -not- to undo it.
OtR is still extremely strong for runner builds.
But not for anti-tunnel.
-
@Tsulan said:
The killer meta looks like gens are still perceived as the biggest threat.
Survivor meta is all about prolonging chases and finishing gens while injured. No anti camp, no anti tunnel, no healing. Almost like those aren't actually an issue.
Almost like the anti-camp is non-existent and the anti-tunnel got gutted out of the game.
-
@Zakon05 said:
I think survivor perk diversity is more important than killer perk diversity. Killers can always play a different killer if they want to spice up their gameplay, every killer is a unique experience.
Survivors are all skins of the same base chassis, the only thing they have to make things interesting is perks.
It's a shame that MFT is still so ubiquitous after how exciting and fun Nick Cage's perks were. But then again I do understand it. It's the same reason why Dead Hard was always so popular. No killer can deny it.
Dramaturgy is super fun but not only inconsistent in how much value it gives you, you may not always have it. Load in vs Plague and now it's a dead perk slot. MFT is never a dead perk slot.
That is something I hadn't even considered, but it is true that there are perks that in principle aren't very conditional and that do offer great value, but that get toggled off by the wrong killers. Stake-out is useless against Wraith and Myers, and all healing perks are effectively disabled by Plague.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553875#Comment_3553875
I am pretty sure this is also incorrect though, as I recall the devs mentioning that there is MMR amelioration based on the current state of the game. IE: The first kill is worth more MMR than the fourth.
You remember wrong.
https://deadbydaylight.fandom.com/wiki/Skill-Based_Matchmaking_Rating
I don't know why you're trying to argue about kill rates when you want to talk about MMR. The latter system is very opaque and not directly tied to kills.
It is pretty much directly tied to kills, as is kills what determines a win, a draw or a loss.
It's well possible that a killer can go up in MMR on a 2K, in which case 2Ks wouldn't all be draws but would be distributed amongst wins and losses
No, it is not. A 2K is a draw for a killer, ergo, no gain or loss of MMR.
Increasing kill rates would not lower the win rates, though, would it?
I already explained in detail why and how the kill rate should be 60% to guarantee a 40% win rate for both sides. Re-read it if you still have any doubt about it.
You have already been explained why this doesn't work though: DbD does not have a linear distribution of kills among games, which means kill rates don't directly translate into win and loss percentages.
I explicitly explained how kill rates directly translate into win and loss percentages. Survivors only lose if they are killed, ergo, the kill rate need to be 60% so there is a 40% win rate in the survivor side. Then, you buff or nerf each individual killer that had an average of survivors killed per match higher or lower than 2.4 to guarantee a 40% win rate on the killer side among the 33+ killers. Easier said than done, if even possible, but because of the asymmetrical nature of the game that's the fairest and probably the only way to do it if you want equal chances for survivors and each of the killers of the game.
It feels like you're arguing three different things at the same time: Wins as team, wins individually, and wins by MMR.
There is no "win as team". Survivors, in MMR terms, are not a team. If you are killed and 3 of your "teammates" escape, you have still lost. And in reverse, if you are the only survivor that escaped, you won and the rest lost. Again, each survivor has it's own personal match against the killer, so even if you have 3 other survivors playing the match with you, in MMR terms is a 1v1. You either win over the killer by escaping, lose to the killer by getting killed by him, or draw by escaping through the hatch. That's why that way of working was called by the devs as a "1v1/1/1/1".
And that's the hatch counting as a draw. Which means that we can no longer take the 53% kill rate to immediately translate to a 47% win rate for survivors
As I already said 3 post above:
- You are technically right, but as far as I know, the hatch is still considered an escape on the stats because even if it is neutral MMR for the survivor, it is still an optional free escape survivors have that gives them all the same conditions in game as if they escaped through the exit gates. That's why it is counted inside that "40%" win rate, as technically they have still escaped.
At which point the stats are telling us the following:
1: We don't know MMR.
And this is something that I had being asking since I started playing the game, for them to show us our MMR and if the cries of people allows it, those of our teammates and our rivals at least at the end game. For multiple reasons.
2: Killers are more likely to win than survivors are, when survivors are counted as a team.
There is no "survivors team" to compare about, and killers are not more likely to win according to the data in Nightlight for the reasons already explained.
3: Killers are more likely to win than survivors are, when survivors are counted individually.
Read previous point.
The stat distributions just don't support the argument that survivors are favoured.
Read previous point.
You remember wrong.
The article is unsourced and also kicks your argument to the curb.
It is pretty much directly tied to kills, as is kills what determines a win, a draw or a loss.
If the final amount of kills is the ONLY determining factor for whether the killer gains or loses MMR, then that means that killers WIN more matches than they LOSE, going back to the 46% chance of a 3K+ and a 40% chance of a 1K-. So in terms of MMR, killers are still better off.
I already explained in detail why and how the kill rate should be 60% to guarantee a 40% win rate for both sides. Re-read it if you still have any doubt about it.
However, you have also been presented with factual proof that your assertion is incorrect. 60% kill rate does not, at all, -guarantee- a 40% win rate.
To quote @ratcoffee , whose point you most definitely missed:
Let's take your example of 100 matches again. Killer plays 100 matches, gets a 3k in 80 of them and a 0k in the remaining 20. This comes up to 3 * 80 = 240 survivors killed, just as in your example. However, the killer win rate (by the metric you chose) is 80%, far off from the 60% kill rate.
Explain how it is that a 60% kill rate can produce an 80% win-rate if it is, instead, supposed to -guarantee- a 40% win-rate. Because it clearly didn't, here. So please, show where the math is incorrect, because as far as I can see, Ratcoffee has drafted up a scenario where there IS a 60% kill rate, but there ISN'T a 40% winrate.
I explicitly explained how kill rates directly translate into win and loss percentages. Survivors only lose if they are killed, ergo, the kill rate need to be 60% so there is a 40% win rate in the survivor side. Then, you buff or nerf each individual killer that had an average of survivors killed per match higher or lower of 2.4 to guarantee a 40% win rate on the killer side among the 33+ killers. Easy to say than do, if even possible, but because of the asymmetrical nature of the game that's the fairest and probably the only way to do it if you want equal chances for survivors and each of the killers of the game.
And I and others have explained to you why it does not directly translate into win and loss percentages. So your entire plan for rebalancing killers for a specific kill% is proven to not necessarily facilitate a fairer win%. So if the current win% is already OVER your estimation for a fair win%, how is increasing killer power to drive kill% UP going to bring the win% DOWN?
There is no "win as team". Survivors, in MMR terms, are not a team. If you are killed and 3 of your "teammates" escape, you have still lost. And in reverse, if you are the only survivor that escaped, you won and the rest lost. Again, each survivor has it's own personal match against the killer, so even if you have 3 other survivors playing the match with you, in MMR terms is a 1v1. You either win over the killer by escaping, lose to the killer by getting killed by him, or draw by escaping through the hatch. That's why that way of working was called by the devs as a "1v1/1/1/1".
At this point, though, you are absolutely detaching yourself from the game's practice in an effort to try and create a mathematical equivalence between two sides of an asymmetrical multiplayer. They are not the same and they cannot be evaluated as the same, either.
You are technically right, but as far as I know, the hatch is still considered an escape on the stats because even if it is neutral MMR for the survivor, it is still an optional free escape survivors have that gives them all the same conditions in game as if they escaped through the exit gates. That's why it is counted inside that "40%" win rate, as technically they have still escaped.
This is where I'm going to state that you are being disingenuous in your argumentation. You've hung up your argumentation so far on the MMR system in order to facilitate the 'Actually, it's a 1v1' argument, as a way to dodge the fact that survivors lose more as a team than killers lose.
But now we get to the hatch, and the way it cuts into the projected win-rate for survivors in these specific 1v1s, and the same section on the same article that states that a 2K for the killer MUST result in 0MMR ALSO states that a hatch escape MUST result in 0MMR.
Since this is inconvenient to you, you then change the definition of a win to get OFF the MMR system and still declare the hatch a win.
You are arguing over three different subsections of stats: MMR, win% as team, and win% as individual. And whenever the stats don't agree with your assertions, you switch tracks and start arguing about a different branch.
and killers are not more likely to win according to the data in Nightlight for the reasons already explained.
And you are blatantly disregarding any stats that are shown. The data in Nightlight shows 46% to 40%. So yes, killers are winning more than survivor teams are. And they're also winning more than individual survivors by a metric that YOU brought into the discussion.
-
@KaTo1337 said:
First of all, let me show you the unofficial stats from nightlight:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/S8X4PBAU4873/screenshot-20231001-102108-opera.jpg
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/S6BWZLRQFI5Y/screenshot-20231001-102124-opera.jpg
While the top5-Killer-Perks are pretty close together (5%), the top5-Survivor-Perks are pretty interesting (15% between P1 and P5).
This does NOT mean that I want WoO nerfed or anything, but its kinda interesting to see how stale especially the survivor-meta is. WoO, Made for this and Resilience are in every single lobby when I play survivor and when I play killer, while on killer side, we mostly see a bit more variety. I assume thats because we have more variety on killer-side OR IN MY WORDS more perks closer together to each other.
On Killer-Side, Im pretty sure Ultimate Weapon will rise in stats, also Rapid Brutality is a perk I see here and there.
We need more perks worth using especially for survivors, because currently, its all about Gen-Speedup and Chase-Extension.
How about buffing the team-perks heavily, so that its worth it being together with another one. How about making stealth-gameplay better, because the hide-and-seek-gameplay is currently dead.
I feel myself as a killer-main and I have to say: Im thrilled when I see someone using different stuff, because its ALWAYS Made for this, Adre/Hope, Resilience, Prove Thyself, Windows, Sprint Burst and Deja-Vu.
On killer-side, Hex-Perks are pretty weak on most maps, not because the effect is weak, but the totem-survival-chance is. Current Undying could be Basekit to any Hex for example to make it more worth OR the Face the Darkness-Effect of Hexes are capable of moving.
This does NOT mean that I want WoO nerfed or anything, but its kinda interesting to see how stale especially the survivor-meta is.
I'd say this is because the majority of survivor perks are really, really, -really- bad. Ranging from 'does nothing of significance' (Corrective Action, Diversion, Fast Track, Friendly Competition) to 'really niche and unlikely to be impactful' (Boil Over, Breakdown, Kinship, Left Behind) to 'actively detrimental' (Calm Spirit, Autodidact, Potential Energy, most boons).
There's relatively few that are consistent and valuable, which causes them to rocket to the top of the charts.
I think a while back, Otz had asked his community to tally how often they saw certain perks in their matches, and despite each match having four times as many survivors as killers, there were more survivor perks than killer perks that had a 0% pickrate.
There's just a TON of dead weight in the game with perks that just have no real reason to exist. I do think it's solvable, but it would require a colossal balancing patch.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553646#Comment_3553646
Is this confirmed? Because from what I recall of the devs' explanation, the MMR calculation actually also factors in who you get a kill on
The only thing that affects MMR apart from pure win-draw-lose scenarios is the MMR of the involved players. For example, if you escape of a killer with higher MMR than you, you would win more points that escaping from someone with your same MMR. As far as I know, draws are not affected by this (and if you have any source of it, it would be nice if you post it).
The other thing that can affect MMR according to the Wiki (as the other official sources has being deleted) is when being in a SWF, where it would reduce or increase the awarded MMR points depending on how many members of the squad dies or escape. Again, reduce or increase, it doesn't change the fact that you would still gain or lose points if you escape or get killed.
I think you're missing @ratcoffee 's point though.
I didn't miss his point, and he asked me to explain how a 60% kill rate could lower the win rate and I did explain how. So, I already answered you: Individual killer balance. But for you to do that, first you have to get to the base for it precisely because what you are saying, this can vary from killer to killer so you need a base to start balancing each one of them.
In other type of games this could be done differently, like in fighting games where they basically pick one character with averages stats (usually, the first one made for the game) and balance the other fighters against that "average". You can't do that here for obvious reasons, so the only "average" in what you could base your balancing for is in kill rates (in other word, 2.4 survivors killed per match). Again, this is the reason of why BHVR wants (or wanted, who knows) a 60% kill rate on average across the board.
The problem here is that there's two metrics for survivors and you're using them interchangeably. Survivors exist both as individuals and as a team.
As I already said, this is false. The devs took their sweet time in the day while explaining MMR to make it clear that even if the killer is playing a 1v4 match, each survivors is playing their own match, so for them in reality is a 1v1/1/1/1. Even if being in a SWF squad affects the amount of MMR gained or lost, if you are the only one escaping then only you won your match against the killer, while the other 3 survivors lost theirs.
At the end of the day, according to Nightlight's statistics, killers are winning more than they are losing
Again, false. And we don't have anything to put into practice here as again, how the MMR works marks what is a win, a draw and a lose for both survivors and killers.
A survivor win only by escaping through the exit gates, draws if he escape through hatch, and lose if he get killed. Ergo, 52.72% kill rate = 47.28% of survivors winning.
A killer only wins if he do a 3 - 4K, draws with a 2K, and lose with 0-1K. So, killers only wins 46.07% of their games, as that's the percentage of matches they are doing 3Ks or more according to Nightlight.
In conclusion, survivors are winning 5.44% more matches on average than killers, and killers are losing 53.93% of their games. Simple as that.
The only thing that affects MMR apart from pure win-draw-lose scenarios is the MMR of the involved players.
I am pretty sure this is also incorrect though, as I recall the devs mentioning that there is MMR amelioration based on the current state of the game. IE: The first kill is worth more MMR than the fourth.
But also, I don't know why you're trying to argue about kill rates when you want to talk about MMR. The latter system is very opaque and not directly tied to kills. It's well possible that a killer can go up in MMR on a 2K, in which case 2Ks wouldn't all be draws but would be distributed amongst wins and losses, making the stats fail to support -any- argument.
I didn't miss his point, and he asked me to explain how a 60% kill rate could lower the win rate and I did explain how. So, I already answered you: Individual killer balance. But for you to do that, first you have to get to the base for it precisely because what you are saying, this can vary from killer to killer so you need a base to start balancing each one of them.
Increasing kill rates would not lower the win rates, though, would it?
Adding more kills into the mix of stats would increase the likelihood of 3Ks and 4Ks, thereby increasing killer winrates. If the current killer winrate is over the value you projected (40%), then increasing killrates would increase the winrate further.
You can't do that here for obvious reasons, so the only "average" in what you could base your balancing for is in kill rates (in other word, 2.4 survivors killed per match). Again, this is the reason of why BHVR wants (or wanted, who knows) a 60% kill rate on average across the board.
You have already been explained why this doesn't work though: DbD does not have a linear distribution of kills among games, which means kill rates don't directly translate into win and loss percentages. I know you want that 40% winrate to follow from the 60% killrate, but it doesn't. As proven by the Nightlight stats giving a higher win% at a lower kill%.
As I already said, this is false. The devs took their sweet time in the day while explaining MMR to make it clear that even if the killer is playing a 1v4 match, each survivors is playing their own match, so for them in reality is a 1v1/1/1/1. Even if being in a SWF squad affects the amount of MMR gained or lost, if you are the only one escaping then only you won your match against the killer, while the other 3 survivors lost theirs.
It feels like you're arguing three different things at the same time: Wins as team, wins individually, and wins by MMR.
We do not know wins by MMR, simply because the system is too opaque. So there's no argument to be had here.
We do know wins by team, and with killers scoring more 3K+ than 1K-, we know survivors aren't winning as a team.
We also know wins as solo, and with 47% survive rate, survivors are losing more than they are winning.
The only argument by which you could theoretically state that killers are at a disadvantage is that an individual survivor has a sliiightly higher chance of surviving than a killer has to get a 3K+. And I don't think anyone reasonable here is going to use this as grounds to call the game 'survivor-sided'. But, there's another problem that you yourself have now indicated:
A survivor win only by escaping through the exit gates, draws if he escape through hatch, and lose if he get killed.
And that's the hatch counting as a draw. Which means that we can no longer take the 53% kill rate to immediately translate to a 47% win rate for survivors, because a portion of that 47% will be hatch escapes.
These must necessarily come from the 3Ks. If even half of these 3Ks are hatch escapes (And I think we can safely assume that it'll be more than half), then the survive rate drops to 45%. Under the killer's winrate of 46%.
At which point the stats are telling us the following:
1: We don't know MMR.
2: Killers are more likely to win than survivors are, when survivors are counted as a team.
3: Killers are more likely to win than survivors are, when survivors are counted individually.
The stat distributions just don't support the argument that survivors are favoured.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3553074#Comment_3553074
I mean that it is the MMR what dictates what is a win or a lost for both killers and survivors. A killer only wins with a 3K.
And for your explanation, starting with Nightlight not being a reliable source, as it depends on their users uploading their data to the page and as right now it only counts 22637 matches... again: Averages. Averages and balancing.
In a game like DbD, if you want every killer to have the same chance to win between them and the other side, first you need to make sure that the mathematical equality is achieved. In other words, you first need to get the average to 60% kill rate, which would mean 2.4 survivors per match killed, and then balance individually those killers than can do more or less than that. That's why the devs wanted the kill rate to be 60%, and that's how you get a 40% for everybody. There would still be players that can get more or less wins on both sides as skill is obviously another factor for this, but on average everybody would still have the same chance to win on that ideal scenario.
But the best part of this is that you yourself have proved than in any case, according to Nightlight, the game is slightly survivor sided and not killer sided, as survivors are winning 47.3% of their games, and killers only 46.04% on average. In other words, you are still wrong.
I mean that it is the MMR what dictates what is a win or a lost for both killers and survivors. A killer only wins with a 3K.
Is this confirmed? Because from what I recall of the devs' explanation, the MMR calculation actually also factors in who you get a kill on, and how many kills you've already had. It may actually be possible to get an MMR increase off of a 2K if it's not a flat value per kill.
In a game like DbD, if you want every killer to have the same chance to win between them and the other side, first you need to make sure that the mathematical equality is achieved. In other words, you first need to get the average to 60% kill rate, which would mean 2.4 survivors per match killed, and then balance individually those killers than can do more or less than that. That's why the devs wanted the kill rate to be 60%, and that's how you get a 40% for everybody. There would still be players that can get more or less wins on both sides as skill is obviously another factor for this, but on average everybody would still have the same chance to win on that ideal scenario.
I think you're missing @ratcoffee 's point though. Mathematical equality does not stem directly from the kill rate. 60% kill rate -could- lead to an equal 40%-40% winrate between killer and survivor (As a team), but it could also consist of a bunch of 2Ks and a few 3Ks/4Ks. In which case survivors (As a team) would have 0% winrate because they'd never get a 3E or 4E.
Your calculation of the 40% winrate only works with perfect distribution of the match outcomes, but DbD does not have that. The distribution is wonky and will vary per killer, too.
But the best part of this is that you yourself have proved than in any case, according to Nightlight, the game is slightly survivor sided and not killer sided, as survivors are winning 47.3% of their games, and killers only 46.04% on average. In other words, you are still wrong.
The problem here is that there's two metrics for survivors and you're using them interchangeably. Survivors exist both as individuals and as a team. Survivors, as a team, have an average win rate of 40.86% vs. Killer's win rate of 46.06%, while individual survivors would have a 47.3% win-rate versus Killer's 52.7% kill rate.
But if you pull it out of numbers and into practice: Do you think anyone familiar with DbD would consider a survivor to have won if they are the only person to escape, while the killer walks away with a 3K? Or would they say the survivors lost and the killer won?
At the end of the day, according to Nightlight's statistics, killers are winning more than they are losing, and they are killing more than survivors are escaping. Pitting the correct statistics against one another, there isn't really any particular metric by which survivors come out on top.
-
@Batusalen said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3552941#Comment_3552941
Let's take 100 matches.
- 100 matches = 400 survivors.
- 60% killrate = 240 survivors.
- 240 in 100 matches = 2.4 survivors killed per match.
- Or, if you want it shorter: 60% of 4 = 2.4
So, to put it simply, that would means 2K in most games with occasional 3K on average.
A 50% kill rate would means that killer always draw with survivors (2K in every game), while survivors win 50% of their games. So, no wins for killers. That's why a 53% killrate is not even close to be "killer sided", at contrary, it means that killers are losing most of their games.
In other words, in his attempt to claim how grateful he is that the game is "a little killer sided", he has proved that it is full survivor sided.
This is simplified though, and assumes draws make up an equal share. But out of those 100 matches, you can also get 60% kill rate with 40 0Ks and 60 4Ks, in which case the killer has a 60% winrate, in line with the kill rate.
We don't know how high the contribution of 2Ks is to the kill rate, so it doesn't really work as evidence of survivor-sidedness.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3552622#Comment_3552622
I´m implying that a ingame voice chat system is the only thing that could bring solos to the same information level as swf.
That is a very fair argument to make.
A Hi-Rez style quick-call system might also work.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3552240#Comment_3552240
Watched my teammate getting hooked in the basement, kindred activated and everyone could see Bubbas aura vanish in the basement. Next thing I see is Nea running straight to the basement...
Yeah that "killer is camping" call out sounds kinda like what could have made a difference here.
I hope you're not implying Swiffer comms are a problem because they counter insidious basement camping Bubba.
-
@Zenislev said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3550639#Comment_3550639
Ah yes, that situational benefit of "knowing what every other survivor is doing at any given time and thus knowing when it is or isn't safe to work on gens." Yeeeep, that sure isn't a thing that's useful for survivors to know outside of some really niche situations. Listen to yourself man. You're downplaying the buffs survivors have gotten so hard. The idea that getting basekit borrowed time and deliverance (which is actually better than deli since you don't get broken and you can use it on stage 2) is comparable to being able to see survivor auras if they do nothing for 10 minutes is absurd. You're talking as if being hooked isn't a normal and expected part of the gameplay loop, as if deciding whether to defend a hook or go pressure other survivors isn't (or rather, wasn't, considering the choice is going to be totally removed) an integral part of the killer's gameplay loop. The actual point of comparison here would be like if the devs gave killers basekit deadlock and basekit pain res on every hook as a means of preventing gen rushing, after all, gens poping is about as "niche" a situation as survivors getting hooked, and it's one that puts killers at a disadvantage, just like getting hooked does to survivors, but you certainly wouldn't be in favor of that, would you?
Considering they're completely gutting the character that made survivors whine and cry about 3-genning the most (despite being a pretty terrible killer otherwise), and functionally turning her into a powerless m1 killer, it sure seems to me like there doesn't need to be any other fixes to 3-genning. After all, the wicked witch of the gens is dead isn't she? But no, they're still going to push through a "fix" to survivors screwing themselves by not recognizing and breaking a 3-gen, because survivors can never ever ever be allowed to put themselves at a disadvantage because of a bad play.
The idea that getting basekit borrowed time and deliverance (which is actually better than deli since you don't get broken and you can use it on stage 2) is comparable to being able to see survivor auras if they do nothing for 10 minutes is absurd.
Where did I make that comparison?
You're talking as if being hooked isn't a normal and expected part of the gameplay loop
Right. In what way did hooked survivors get buffed? What powers did they get while being on the hook?
You know what? I know you're not going to get this one, so I'll clarify: Yes, survivors did get BT. But BT only does something if the killer is by the hook when the unhook happens. If the killer is not around, it does not accomplish anything. Yes, getting hooked is normal gameplay. Getting unhooked is normal gameplay. Getting unhooked under the killer's nose is not, unless the killer has already won. And at that point, BT won't fix things.
And as mentioned, getting unhooked under the killer's nose is usually a free down for the killer since they can just smack the unhooker.
as if deciding whether to defend a hook or go pressure other survivors isn't (or rather, wasn't, considering the choice is going to be totally removed) an integral part of the killer's gameplay loop
Defending hooks is not an integral part of the killer's gameplay loop. The reason it's getting pushed back so much is because killers were exploiting it. Camping has been a longstanding problem. But if you don't camp, these changes do nothing to you. That's why the survivor 'buffs' are, as I said, situational.
Considering they're completely gutting the character that made survivors whine and cry about 3-genning the most (despite being a pretty terrible killer otherwise), and functionally turning her into a powerless m1 killer, it sure seems to me like there doesn't need to be any other fixes to 3-genning.
There's actually underlying game elements that prevent survivors from exploitative game styles in both this and the previous matter. Hook stages progress to put pressure on survivors, specifically to try and circumvent 'Gens b4 Hens' types that just ignore a hooked survivor. The hook timer progress specifically puts the onus on the survivors to act, and gives the killer some pressure from a hook.
But then killers exploited it by, initially, making unhooking entirely impossible, and later by making it practically impossible. So now that exploitative style is getting patched.
Same thing actually applies to 3-genning. To prevent survivors from just hitting /ignore on objectives and just stealth around until the match closes, if the match hits the 60 minute limit, it counts as a loss for survivors, because the only way the devs could foresee a match going to 60 minutes is by survivor trolling.
And then along comes 'Chess merchant' that exploits this anti-exploit measure and shows that it has a weakness. So it needs fixing.
But no, they're still going to push through a "fix" to survivors screwing themselves by not recognizing and breaking a 3-gen, because survivors can never ever ever be allowed to put themselves at a disadvantage because of a bad play.
Except the Chess Merchant isn't the only one that took up 3-gen camping, and keeping 3-genning as a hard lock also closes off design space. You can't make ANY zoner killer so long as people still know about chess merchant.
Again, baseline, having to do 5 out of 7 gens means you eventually have to go somewhere that's riskier. It prevents survivors from only doing the safe gens that are all furthest away from one another. But then along comes another killer that goes 'How can I exploit this?' and it has to be reined in.
All of this stuff is always preceded by a killer breaking the game.
-
@Zenislev said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3550083#Comment_3550083
Nice to see that my objectively correct assessment of the game got under your skin.
That being said, yes, both survivors and killers get nerfs and buffs, but they're nowhere near on the same level. Survivors get entire perks that become basekit, and infinitely more information than the killer has access to. Killers get...to break pallets a few fractions of a second faster, I guess? And that was the one time killers got blanket buffs as opposed to the entirely new UI survivors got which let them know when it's safe to crank out gens, the anti hook mechanics they're getting next patch, and hey, let's not forget that the devs said that they're working on a "fix" for 3-genning, because, you know, survivors can never be allowed to put themselves in a bad situation ever.
The perks that survivors got basekit are situational and require situations that benefit the killer anyway. The buffs that killers got, while smaller, stack up because they come into play, guaranteed, many times over the course of standard gameplay.
Which do you think would be more impactful: if a survivor has not performed a conspic action for 10 minutes, the killer gets to see their aura
Or
Pick-up speed increased by 10%?
Situational vs consistent is a factor. Killer's buffs were less blatant but overall more impactful because they impact EVERY gameplay loop.
Survivor just get anti-camp, anti-tunnel, anti-gamebreaking strats.
3-gen, as well. What could possibly have motivated the devs to address 3-genning now when it's been in the game since its inception and no one ever complained about it?
Almost seems like some incomprehensible, 4D CHESS move, ne?
-
@appleas said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3550044#Comment_3550044
Hook state indicator per Survivor, bonus points if the UI tells me which Survivors I need to hook for hook token perks like NWO and Pain Resonance.
Allowing aura color customization for Gens and Survivors.
Mini directionable bubble for the closest hook so that Killers don’t spend time walking around carrying a survivor before realizing there was a hook behind them all along.
Different button for activating perks or powers like Coup and Myers Tier 3
Allowing for chase music volume to be adjustable.
THANK YOU!
Folks so caught up in 'us vs. them' this is the first I've seen of most of these suggestions.
-
You could maybe bring an intel perk or two? It's not like hiding is in any way effective against those.
-
Feels like 95% of the complaints are 'why don't killers get any QoL!?' and the remaining 5% mention an FoV slider.
You can't just cry about deserving something every tire the devs plug another blatant hole in survivor gameplay without bringing at least some suggestions for what it is you'd like to see.
-
@Chocolate_Cosmos said:
I think many people call it "it's too weak" when its not designed to make you immune to camping. It's designet to prevent heavy face camps where the killer just stands there next to you and does nothing. If someone proxi above the basement, you shouldn't be just allowed to free out of jail card. At that point you could remove basement alltogether since it's like dungeon, dangerous place that is designed to favor Killers. If you get down near basement, it's on you anyway.
"At that point you could remove basement alltogether since it's like dungeon"
Yes, actually, that would be a pretty good idea, since all it does nowadays is bolster tunnelling and camping.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
You will not really encounter "Bully-SWFs". Nowadays everything is classified as "bullying", even playing the game normally. And people who claim to go against those "Bully-SWFs" on a constant basis are really exaggerating.
You will be fine as Killer. But not every lost game was against a "Bully-SWF".
While they are rare, bully squads are probably the worst experience the game has to offer though, so I do sympathise with OP. It's also why I think that, if killers are to receive any kind of blanket buff/survivors are to receive any blanket nerf, it should be targeted specifically to bully squads.
-
@NerfDHalready said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3543740#Comment_3543740
it becomes my concern when one of my teammates play for it and wait for me and others to die in corners of the map.
No, it isn't. The last remaining survivor can very quickly...
majority of people including the CoMa thinks/states it is there to prevent non ending situations, you are one of the few to accept you want your pity win. if the match is lost, it's lost. i'm arguing here hatch being the only motivation to continue playing the match out is a bad thing, because everyone knows how the person will play for the rest of the match. and who decides match is lost? the haddie after the killer gets some hooks at 5 gens, refusing to touch a gen, ever?
"majority of people including the CoMa thinks/states it is there to prevent non ending situations, you are one of the few to accept you want your pity win"
And a majority of people can still be incorrect.
It's not a pity win, either. You folks are so focused on some Bill who's locker-hopping from the start of the match that you don't acknowledge the guy that's won two chases, did two gens, got a safe unhook, but got saddled with bad teammates.
"i'm arguing here hatch being the only motivation to continue playing the match out is a bad thing, because everyone knows how the person will play for the rest of the match"
Do you? Because I've only seen it once. Most folks that don't want to continue the match disconnect.
-
@NerfDHalready said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3542972#Comment_3542972
survivors have an objective to do in order to escape: do gens and then gates. a game mechanic that only exists to cover core game flaws doesn't need to award absurd amounts of bloodpoints, again, causing selfish playstyles to develop.
hatch wouldn't be an issue if it didn't give any bp, and if survivor escaped that way killer still got their score events as if they killed the last survivor, and their achievements/challenges. in other words, if hatch just and only fulfilled its purpose to exist: preventing "never ending" games.
hatch wouldn't be an issue if it didn't give any bp
Someone else's BP is of no concern to you. To argue that hatch giving BP somehow makes it a problem is very misanthropic, almost like it's motivated purely by envy.
@NerfDHalready said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3543039#Comment_3543039
putting matches to an end. this is its point.
No, it isn't. The last remaining survivor can very quickly close out the match by simply throwing themselves at a killer and letting them kill them. The hatch is not there to just end the match. It's actually the opposite: The hatch is there to keep the match going because there's still two opposing players left, in spite of the asymmetrical nature of the game making this an unwinnable situation.
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3542669#Comment_3542669
Ok that's fine.
The original question was was it fair, and no it's not since it only favors one side and killers have no equal. My main point was that and that's the stance I was defending.
That doesn't mean it needs to be changed. I think it can be improved or a better system can be put in its place, but I also don't think that necessarily needs to happen. I would prefer if it did but that's about it. I'm fine if it doesn't.
I think some of those aspects got lost in the mess.
The original question was was it fair, and no it's not since it only favors one side and killers have no equal.
The vast majority of mechanics only favour one side, that's part and parcel and even integral to an asymmetrical multiplayer. And no, killers DO have an equal, because they can still make kills at any point of the game. You can have zero kills when the doors open and still come out with a kill. (Or even more than one)
-
@Akumakaji said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3540768#Comment_3540768
Hatch is not a BIG problem, but sometimes it rubs you the wrong way, when the survivor, who BMed you all game long finds the hatch first and smugly stands on top, t-bagging you like their life depends on it. Yeah, its dumb and "just crouching omg", but if it were just a button press without any meaning, no one would waste minutes of their life just for 4s of it.
I understand why the hatch is there and why it is sorta necessary, but it can sometimes feel like an utterly undeserved and cheap escape. I am not asking for a change or anything, just venting a bit. The hatch is always there to give an escape option, no matter how well you played and how severely you outplayed the opposition. Yeah, a 3k plus hatch escape is still a full win, but I have a lot of adapt achievments get marred by the hatch. Its just the game.
But as a thought experiment, just imagine if the killer always had a 5% chance, whenever they hit someone while the exit gates are powered and all 4 survivor are alive, to instantly down and mori them. It could be called the "Entities pitty kill" mechanic thats just there, so that killers can at least sometimes walk out of a crushing defeat with a single kill. It wouldn't equate to skill or clever tactic, just a lucky throw of the dice. BTW, the kobe-mechanic is even more so like this, its a 4% chance thats always there and that turned around so many great and deserved 4Ks. I secretly suspect that there is a hidden hope mechanic that kicks in, when all survivors are downed and the killer starts hooking them all. So often one will kobe and then unhook two others :P
The problem is that killers -always- have a chance to come back. Even if you are at 0 hooks by the time five gens are done, you could still walk out with four kills.
Survivors don't have that. Killers can go from 0K to 4K in seconds, but survivors can't go from 4K back to 0K.
These things are not even. The game is asymmetrical. Things can be analogous, but that does not mean they are the same.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
Boons are garbage and failed concept.
They will be so strong like CoH or completely useless.
I hope they never make any boon perk again. I don't want another garbage perk nobody will use.
Boons are not a failed concept, far from. But they need more intelligent tuning.
There's so many stats that go into a boon, but for some reason, the only one that gets adjusted when there's a need for balance changes is the end effect. Imagine the following as buffs for Dark Theory:
Boon Time: 14s -> 7s
Boon Radius: 24m -> 36m
Now that 2% haste is much more applicable.
For Exponential, for example:
Boon Radius: 24m -> 36m
Makes it much more likely to actually be of value.
Conversely, for Circle of Healing:
Boon Radius: 24m -> 12m
Heal bonus: 100% to altruistic healing without medkit -> 50% to altruistic healing without medkit
Permits self-healing without a medkit, at 50% regular speed.
Now it's way less time effective and easier for the killer to find, while still being usable in solo.
And if you equip multiple boons, just have it set all of your boon perks to the worst stats among those equipped.
There's way more leeway in what the devs can do with boons than keeping them to a fixed radius and fixed set-up time. You can even add cooldowns that are incurred by the boon being snuffed out, or even drawbacks while the boon is snuffed out.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3540259#Comment_3540259
Ignoring the ad hominems.
Also going to preface this with If you don't want hatch improved than fine. If you just don't think or want the killer to get anything and keep it unequal and survivor biased in this aspect, then that can be your stance and on that I'm not going to change your mind. Especially not online. We can agree to disagree and move on. I want the game to be improved, and hatch is something that can be improved. Sorry you don't feel the same way and you offered no alternative improvements. Moving on.
My guy, I do realize that. That doesn't mean there aren't comparisons that can be made. There are plenty of equivalents and comparable on both sides. "it's asym" is not the shutdown you're trying to use it as.
- Kills = escapes
- Gens = hook states
- Gen time = chase time
- Pallet drop = pallet break
- Boons = hexes
- Exposed = endurance
- Dead zone = god loops/tile chains/ pallet cities/ w.e. you wanna call them
- Tunnel = gen rush (not hatch)
- Camp = focusing on a single gen (not hatch)
- ect.ect.
If you (general) think they're not comparable you don't understand the game enough to compare them or don't understand they don't need to be exact 1:1 to be "comparable". Speaking of which, some things don't have a 1:1 sure. In this case it's because it literally doesn't exist on one side which is what I've been saying. Boons didn't exist, they got added and now we have a comparable for hexes. You should really stop assuming what others think/know, so far you've gotten them all wrong. Again, "it's asym" is not the shutdown you're trying to use it as.
The entire match is the same as hatch? Hmm lets see:
- Activates when the killer already lost? No.
- 2nd chance at avoiding the worst score? No it's the only chance.
- Activates 3rd chance if the killer loses it as well? No see above.
- Separate from the normal way of completing the objective? No.
- Survivors can "turn it off" for the killer before the match is over? No.
- Voided from results? No.
No I don't think they are comparable. There's no similarities as far as I can see.
Again, if you just don't want hatch improved, think or want the killer to get anything and keep it unequal and survivor biased in this regard, then that can be your stance and on that I'm not going to change your mind. Especially not online. We can agree to disagree and move on. I want the game to be improved, and hatch is something that can be improved. Sorry you don't feel the same way and you offered no alternative improvements.
My guy, I do realize that. That doesn't mean there aren't comparisons that can be made. There are plenty of equivalents and comparable on both sides. "it's asym" is not the shutdown you're trying to use it as.
Yes it is. Play the game.
Kills = Escapes
Ignoring that this is already a fundamental misrepresentation of the game's mechanical complexities, this still doesn't work for your argument.
The killer is able to secure a kill at ANY point in the game. Even if the exit gates open, you can pluck a survivor out of there and still kill them.
If kills = escapes, then it means that the killer intrinsically does not need the hatch because of this simple fact. You can make that kill at ANY point in the game. The hatch gives the same benefit to the last survivor.
What you are asking for, what you are equating to the hatch, is being able to secure a kill at the point that the fourth survivor is leaving. That is NOT the equivalent of the hatch. That would be equal to giving the survivors another chance to secure an escape AFTER all four have already died.
Functionally, what you are looking for, the ability to kill a survivor after the gens are done, already exists. You just mistake 'analogous' for 'exactly the same'.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3540234#Comment_3540234
I don't think the tutorial explains something that doesn't exist and you haven't refuted what I said either.
If you're not able to explain your argument I'll just assume you don't have one.
My guy, you have still to figure out that this game is asymmetrical. That the killer and the survivors are playing fundamentally different games.
You say it's unfair that the killer doesn't get the hatch, or an equivalent but you are colossally failing to illustrate why this is unfair. Everyone with experience with this game, which is Dead By Daylight by the way, in case you erroneously wandered in from some other game's forums and are confused, knows that you are able to get any number of kills at any point in the game, up until the second that the survivors actually physically leave the trial.
Your hatch is the entire game up until that point.
Survivors only get it at the last second if they have already lost. Killers get it from the start, lasting the entire game.
You want the equivalent of three dead, one hatch escape? Camp. Tunnel. Get that 1E and throw the game for it. It's the exact same.
Everyone else has cottoned on to the fact that this is an asymmetrical game and thus mechanisms don't translate 1 to 1, except you.
That's why I assumed you have never played this game.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3540131#Comment_3540131
In what way?
Current hatch can only ever give a 1E where it otherwise would not have happened. It only ever benefits the survivor.
Making it equal and also have a chance to give the killer a 1K would even it out no? At the very least it would be a lot more fair than it just not benefitting one side at all.
"In what way?"
Welcome to DBD, there's a tutorial in-game.
If you can't figure this one out, then I'm convinced you've never played.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3540096#Comment_3540096
Then why'd you even bring up[ anything being free to begin with?
If hatch isn't a free escape then an equal for killer would also not be free. In the model given it would also not be free as it followed the same formula.
But it would be very heavily slanted in favour of the killer, so it'd be back to unfair again.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3539615#Comment_3539615
Being asymmetrical is part of what makes it unfair bud. Were it not, both sides would have access to and benefit from it. If you refuse to consider the game, then you can pretend it's fair.
Nowhere did I say getting the 3rd kill should make the 4th free. The last survivor can get away if the gens are done, hatch existing or not doesn't change that. You just have to actually earn the chance to escape.
However the killer doesn't get 2 last ditch base game systems to secure at least 1K if they lost the same way survivor does for a 1E.
If we're considering these mechanics as "free", getting the 3rd escape shouldn't give the killer a free kill, then getting the 3rd kill shouldn't give the survivors a free escape.
Again, if you don't want to remove hatch then give the killer a comparable system that kicks in at 3 Escapes. I don't really care which one.
Either both get an equivalent or both don't. Wanting one to have it but not the other is just entitled double standards. In this case it would be survivor entitlement/bias since they are the ones benefiting.
If we're considering these mechanics as "free", getting the 3rd escape shouldn't give the killer a free kill, then getting the 3rd kill shouldn't give the survivors a free escape
Good thing it doesn't, then.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3539539#Comment_3539539
A 4K also requires the entire rest of the killer objective done as well. You need a 3K to get a 4K obviously.
The killers objective is kills. Killer gets their objective done, survivors get 2 get out of jail cards.
The survivors objective is done? Killer gets nothing.
It's by definition unfair, you would need to have some survivor blinders on to say otherwise. That was the question askes by OP, I answered.
Cry about it? Pointless immature comment. Are you upset? Are you just an anti-killer survivor main? Maybe just being petty over not having an actual valid argument? Regardless of your reason(s), your ad hominems are unneeded and unproductive.
It's by definition unfair
It's only unfair when you refuse to consider the actual game itself. It's an asymmetrical, bud. Again, getting three kills does not mean you get to have the fourth for free.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3539514#Comment_3539514
And as a survivor the entire game you can rush gens and get at least one person out the same way you can camp and get at least 1K.
But hatch still exist regardless of that fact. So that's still unfair to the killer side.
Like I understand boo hoo camp and tunnel blah blah but that's not really relevant unless the game spawns the 4th survivor on hook and teleports the killer to them as soon as 2 escape. Not that I would want that specifically, that sounds like a bad time. But hatch isn't exactly "fun" for the killer either.
Essentially it's "oh 3 survivors died? You failed your objective? Ok its fine, you can escape anyway. Here's hatch and here's the gates just in case you lose that too".
What does the killer get when 3 survivors escape? Nothing.
Cry about it. A 4E still requires all objectives done. Just because you got a 3K doesn't mean you are freely entitled to the fourth.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3539337#Comment_3539337
IIRC basekit BT is still active during endgame.
But more importantly turning of some specific perks is nowhere near the same as "the killer won here's a 2nd and 3rd chance that skips your objective" as a basekit mechanic.
An equivalent would be something like locking the 4th survivor in and forcing them to escape through other means.
But more importantly turning of some specific perks is nowhere near the same as "the killer won here's a 2nd and 3rd chance that skips your objective" as a basekit mechanic.
That's probably because, for the killer, this is active during the entire game. You don't have to hook a survivor a second or third time when you can just camp them out.
-
@MrPenguin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3538492#Comment_3538492
You don't need the 4th kill for a win, once you hit a 3K its considered a killer win. So yeah by the point the killer has "already won", that's not an opinion that's a fact. I also never stated that the killer should get the 4th by default just because they got 3.
I just don't think the survivors should have a last second RNG robbery for them losing without the other side also having one. As that's unfair which was the original question. Either both have one or both don't.
The odds should be stacked against the final survivor, its a 1v4 game. 1 survivor should not have anywhere near the same odds as the killer, that's how we end up with C tier killers and below.
The game in its current state is over with just 2 survivors in 9/10 cases assuming its before endgame. Hatch doesn't change that, it just undermines the killers work/win as I said earlier. You're still going to get at least a 3K a.k.a. a win. If 1 survivor escapes it should be because they got down to one gen or the gates and finished while the other got chased. Not because RNG said so.
If the killer won by that large a margin they should get the 4K. If th esurvivors won by that large a margin they should get the 4E. However only one side is subject to basekit get out of jail free shenanigans.
Once there's 3 escapes the killer has already lost, they don't get a last chance mechanic to get at least a 1K the same way survivors get one for a 1E.
Like I said before, if you don't want to remove it for survivors just give an equivalent for killers. It's not about being against hatch, it's about being against unfairness.
Hatch also doesn't count for kills or escapes and kill rate, it gets voided out.
The balance of the game doesn't change with or without hatch. The result is the same, the killer won. It doesn't make the rest of the match any easier, it doesn't make the killers any stronger, it doesn't make the survivor any weaker.
"Like I said before, if you don't want to remove it for survivors just give an equivalent for killers. It's not about being against hatch, it's about being against unfairness."
They already did. It's why anti-camp/anti-tunnel is disabled in end-game.
-
@dbdthegame said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3538682#Comment_3538682
No, it's just strong overall. I see so many people claim that the Endurance is somehow weak because BT exists. To those people, I recommend learning to preserve your Endurance and not taking a hit immediately off hook.
Yes, because that's absolutely up to the player getting pulled off the hook and not to anyone else, like the unhooker or the killer.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3538186#Comment_3538186
"Hey all ,because of an issue with a perk interaction, we are going to buff up the numbers on this perk. Once we rework the other perk, we are going to reduce the time down"
That is not an excuse, that is literally what they said. Like it or not, it is the devs fulfilling on a plan and promise they made a long time ago.
It's also completely irrelevant to this discussion. It doesn't change that the nerf was one of the single worst decisions ever made in DBD balancing.
This idea of 'no, it's fine because it was promised three whole years ago' is both a myopic take and an irrelevant one.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3537837#Comment_3537837
It was literally mentioned by the devs when they buffed the duration and they said they would change it back, but never did.
Doesn't mean it is a good idea or the right thing to do. Stop clinging to that excuse.
-
@Reinami said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3537372#Comment_3537372
DS was always 3 seconds for a very long time. But it was affected by enduring. Then it was buffed to 5 seconds, with the intent that, when enduring was reworked, it would get nerfed back down to 3. But it never got nerfed to 3.
The problem isn't that it was "nerfed" the problem is that the original bargain was never completed until it was put back to 3 seconds.
This is an incredibly dumb, context-blind argument. The 3-second DS was a completely different beast to the DS that got its duration cut in half.
The only people that cling to 'it was always supposed to go back to 3 seconds!' are killer mains that just really want to be able to tunnel without any recourse for survivors.
-
Biggest design downgrade. DS had been pruned over time to be a proper tunnelling deterrent. Could not be used offensively, relatively strong in chase, hard to counter, etc.
But OTR misses all of that finesse. It can be used offensively, gets blocked by innate BT, and can be alleviated with things like STBFL.
DS should never have had its stun duration halved.
-
Maybe they're expecting P100s to run flashlight and flop around trying to get flash-saves.
-
I find it funny that killers get more aura perks, then Distortion gets buffed to properly counter it, and then the newest intel perk completely circumvents Distortion. It's like a really slow game of rock-paper-scissors.
-
@ShinobuSK said:
Small blue icon down right like Prove, Leader and We'll make it shows?
A lot of times teammates would maybe let me heal them and not ignore it when Sloppy is applied.
Yes most people can see its on just by the healing speed alone, but it would be helpful if icon was shown too.
Technically, Botany does not affect the person being healed. Yes, they get healed faster, but the only character being affected by the perk is the one doing the healing, as they get the heal speed increase.
It would be a major help to solo queue and the viability of off-the-wall perks to have more information shared between survivors about the perks they've brought.
-
I'm seeing more threads complaining about complaints about Alien than I'm seeing actual complaints about Alien. It's almost comical, it's like 4:1.
-
@grandpa_general said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3527398#Comment_3527398
There were so many players that used BP offering. The killer most likely give you escape anyway so again, answer me this, what's the point in rushing the game?
The killer most likely give you escape anyway so again, answer me this, what's the point in rushing the game?
That's not a 'most likely' scenario at all.
Killers have comeback options and most survivors will press their luck in end-game and risk the win to get an extra survivor out. Games that hit end-game are more likely to flip to the killer's favour than games with lots of hooks and little to no gen progress are likely to flip to the killer's favour.
They can't read your mind, and if you were to decide to tunnel or camp, they can't retroactively start rushing gens. Thus they have to do so from the start.
-
@mca240 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3526903#Comment_3526903
Only those games draw a completely different crowd. And in Mario Party you do not have tunneling/camping or an equivalent. Comparing apples and oranges
You're trying to argue that DBD is a competitive game because people try to win, I'm just pointing out that that is not a valid argument because it also applies to tons of non-competitive games.
-
@mca240 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3526524#Comment_3526524
Oh, but it is competitive. Not tournament style but most people play to win and thus play efficiently as possible.
Okay, but that also applies to Mario Party, or Jackbox, and I don't think those are considered competitive.