NuclearBurrito
NuclearBurrito
About
- Username
- NuclearBurrito
- Joined
- Visits
- 5,343
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Paddy4583 said:
NuclearBurrito said:
Paddy4583 said:@TrAiNwReCk it’s in reply to my comment.
I already said he can have that oppinion, not sure what you are getting at replying to me, they on the other hand are telling people their oppinions are wrong, because this is fundamentally a post wanting balance on a 4K win, there is no other reason to be so defensive or concerned about this condition otherwise.Actually this particular thread isn't pushing for 4k. I have made that claim on other occasions but in this particular thread I have only gotten as far as Killer is trying to sacrifice people. Which could technically be anywhere from 1-4k. I'd say it probably means 4k but I can't prove that and I'm not trying to here.
What I AM trying to prove is that in the event that you DO 4k you have definitely always won, that if you 0k you have definitely always lost. Somewhere above 0k is a threshold to get past to win which the tutorial didn't specify.
And a survivors wincon is unequivocally to escape
If 4K was the intended implied context wouldn’t it have said ALL survivors, that to me would imply 4K.
Problem is like I said you’d have to balance on 1v1 so you’d never balance on a 4K as a win.
Lets say killing and surviving was the declared win factor, the game wouldn’t as you’ve said be a 4V1 because survivors have an individual win not a team win, so then the killer is actually playing 4 1v1 games. At least that’s how I would see it if winning was live or die
I already do see it as 4 1v1's. And as I established above and showed mathematically in a different thread a 30% winrate per person is balanced for that since if you set the hatch winrate to 50% and work backwards it ends up working out to everyone's winrate being 30%
-
So was the gates. Problem?EntityDispleased said:Those "definitions" were probably made when trapper just got released. -
DBD in the situation of 50% 4k and 50% 3k is indeed unbalanced and we would want to tone down killer significantly.Delfador said:It seems to me that you are making a mistake but I am not stubborn and can change my mind. If you can give a good reason, I will admit it because you have a point right now.
In those games, everybody is on the equal grounds. Battle royales have 60 people in them and everybody has the same chance to win the game. I don't know about throne of lies but it seems to me that everybody has 33.3% chance to win.
In dbd, with this scenario, one side has much, much higher win rate than the other. Is there a game like this that is considered to be balanced but one side has significantly more winrate than the other?
Basically pick a number between 20 and 50. Set 4k rate to the number you chose. Set the average kills per game such that escape rate = 4k rate. Check to see if the numbers seem to produce interesting results. If so you're done. If not repeat with a new number.
For example a 30% Killer winrate would allow for the hatch to have a winrate of exactly 50% making it fair at all points in the game (meaning killer winrate remains the same as the winrate of living survivors as they die) that would be an average of 2.8 kills per game btw -
Actually this particular thread isn't pushing for 4k. I have made that claim on other occasions but in this particular thread I have only gotten as far as Killer is trying to sacrifice people. Which could technically be anywhere from 1-4k. I'd say it probably means 4k but I can't prove that and I'm not trying to here.Paddy4583 said:@TrAiNwReCk it’s in reply to my comment.
I already said he can have that oppinion, not sure what you are getting at replying to me, they on the other hand are telling people their oppinions are wrong, because this is fundamentally a post wanting balance on a 4K win, there is no other reason to be so defensive or concerned about this condition otherwise.
What I AM trying to prove is that in the event that you DO 4k you have definitely always won, that if you 0k you have definitely always lost. Somewhere above 0k is a threshold to get past to win which the tutorial didn't specify.
And a survivors wincon is unequivocally to escape -
Really the entirety of the social deduction genre is made up of asymetrical games with sub 50% winrates in most matches.
That or unbalanced messes cough Town of Salem cough
-
@Delfador said:
@TrAiNwReCkAny sane person would say that the balance will be achieved when each side has 50% win rate.
nonononononononono
Balance is when there is an EQUAL winrate. That does NOT mean that it is a 50/50 winrate.
Remember a balanced battle royal with 100 players and no teams has a winrate of 1% per players. (so solo que in fortnite)
In any game where you have more than 2 sides you will not be expecting a 50/50 winrate and since each survivor wins and loses separately from each other that means they are not a team and need to be counted separately.
In throne of lies for example the average winrate is 33%, this is recognized by the community and encouraged because people understand that the lower winrate makes the game more fair and interesting.
There is no particular reason why you can't have winrates below 50% when you have more than 2 win combinations (not counting draws which don't exist in this game anyways) If all survivors won and lost together then yes you would want a 50/50 winrate. However since that isn't the case you would expect a winrate of more like 30-40%ish instead with 20% being the lowest
-
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@powerbats said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
Since you can pip without sacrificing. That means you can pip without achieving your only stated goal"Patrol the area and find Survivors."
"Chase, injure, and catch Survivors before they escape."
"Carry Survivors to a sacrificial hook and hang them there for The Entity to consume."None of these listed objectives state "sacrifice survivor" or use the word "kill", nor do they state you MUST do these things. If you do everything listed here WELL ENOUGH, you pip. If you also sacrificed/killed them, it still fits within these rules because if you find>chase>injure>catch>hook them 3 times that's just the end result. In such a case where they die it means you did very well, and are awarded more for a win than usual (double pip).
You will have to learn to forgive certain forum trolls that want to be right at the expense of common sense. A wall of text "blah blah blah blah blah" x100 so most people glance over and figure they might be right.
Fact #1
- If you die in a trial - You have lost
- If you don't kill all 4 Survivors -You have lost
- If you don't die in a trial -You have won
- If you kill all 4 Survivors -You have won
Fact #2
- Pipping - Has nothing to do with winning. Had thesuicidefox any _COMMON SENSE_ pipping obviously . . . OBVIOUSLY has only to do with rank. And for everyone scratching their heads still . . . If the ranking system did not exist than pipping would not exist
P.S. It is truly sad that people who simply want to be right, will stop at nothing to try and convince everyone else and themselves that they are right. Even if it proves them to be ignorant and wrong.
Keep up the common sense postings Nuclear. There isn't much intelligent life on these forums, but maybe some of ours can rub off. . . Probably won't happen though.
This is the height of hypocrisy because you agree with them what they're saying is true and must be accepted as truth while those that disagree ar trolls.
What's really sad is you dismiss others and insult them and thus proclaim yourself as the messiah while also saying they're unintelligent for having a different opinion than you.
That's the very definition of a troll.
Truth is backed up with facts. Opinions that generate a wall of text only at an attempt to fabricate fact is an annoyance that does not lead to any type of resolve or enlightenment. And to continue to pile on with even more opinionated unsubstantiated replies is very troll like behavior.
There has not been any word written with intent to insult. If one finds the truth insulting than the problem lies within the one insulted. They should probably seek help and I hope they do.
I obviously agree with your conclusion (of the win condition) but you really sound like a conspiracy theorist and that really doesn't help
-
@Paddy4583 said:
Look the simple fact is:
You believe a win for you is a 4K
other’s believe it’s pips.Why do you care? You play to your winning conditions and they can play to theirs.
Its not really a good idea to site the in game pages that state nothing at all about 4ks being the grounds of a win, it simply lists all the realivant ways you can earn BPs and achieve the emblems which link to the pips.
Its not not hard to understand why people see this as the games mechanics of awarding players.
At at the end game survivors are clearly listed in order of points gained, not in revere order of survival.
If people want to go into the game and say I got the most BPs I won, then let them, if they take a personal win from pips, let them, and you can have your win conditions. It’s so pointless trying to make this an argument.
That breaks down the second we then go and try to balance the game. Because balance is when both sides have the same odds of winning before taking into account skill, however if we don't have a consistent definition of what a win is in the first place then balancing the game is impossible.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@Ryuhi said:
The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.The thing is the devs can only balanced for one of these metrics. Bloodpoints was the old metric, and people abused it. Kills was a metric for killer and it wasn't very balanced. Emblems so far has been the best metric we've had so far, and is the current one used by the game to determine a win.
This is why I keep saying if you want to play for whatever, fine, but don't be mad at the game when things don't go your way. The game is not meant to be balanced for that so you will have games where it doesn't work in your favor. Hatch games are part of that equation. SOMETIMES you have just accept that survivors escape. Too many killers refuse to just accept that and draw out the game (re: slugging thread) to get a 4k, just like some people will do nothing and sit and wait for hatch every game. And those are both stupid goalposts to set TBH, because it just means that you will get salty when the game doesn't go in that way. Same goes for survivors too on whatever thing they be doing.
Then at most you should be trying to prove that you should be balancing around pips instead of wins. You should not be trying to change the definition from what a win is defined as in game just to force a point.
Bloodpoints was abusable because you don't balance around things that aren't the wincon and expect it to work. Because guess what, pips are abusable too (hence why you can pip without actually accomplishing anything). Escaping and Killing however are mutually exclusive. This at the very least means that survivors and killers cannot possibly coordinate to maximize their odds of winning because the killer winning is defined as the survivors losing. Pips however only have that as a tendency without any actual guarantee.
Kills as a metric being unbalanced just means the game is unbalanced. The solution is to balance your game not to change your metric, that's just lazy.
Right now the game just doesn't work if people aren't trying to escape and Killers aren't trying to sacrafice, you can take away pips without breaking the game, you can't take away escaping and sacrificing to the same effect. (I realize that is an unfair comparison. But my point is that if every played tried their best to maximize their chances of escaping/4king then that would be perfectly fine, but if everyone got together and maximized their emblem progress then that would break the game simply because maximizing pips can be done in a way that involves both sides cooperating since everyone can 2 pip in a single game and they can do it faster than it takes to escape on average)
-
@fluffybunny said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@fluffybunny said:
@knell said:
@fluffybunny said:
DbD isn't chest.I agree, DBD is not a chest.
@fluffybunny said:
I see it more as creating the story. The more you do, the better plays you make, the better the story is. It would be considered a "win" if you do a lot 'cause you're contributing to the "finale" and you won't "win" if you don't contribute to the end. When it comes to the "pipping = winning" mentality, it's about making the plays and doing what you can in the horror story so that what you do matters and it isn't just "they hid and therefore escaped" sort of scenario, though I do think it's still considered a win if you hid for most of the match and was able to get out? I haven't tried that tactic as I prefer a more active role, but getting out without being downed would be an iridescent and stealthing does count towards a pip now. I think what the game director was saying is that there's multiple ways to win, so there isn't a clear-cut win/lose condition.That's fine. If the way you play defines your winning condition, I'm fine with that. Like I said, I'm even fine if people want to treat DBD like a point salad game and define the victory condition in that way. The problem is when people are saying, "surviving is not the winning condition; pipping is the winning condition." Who says?
And I agree with you - I prefer the playstyle of doing as much as I can as a survivor also. But that's just it; it's my personal preference. And there are times when I die as a survivor, getting ~15K points, and see that last survivor take the hatch and still has only ~10K points despite the hatch - does it annoy me? Yes. Do I try to make myself feel better by convincing myself that I won despite having been sacrificed? No, of course not. Because ultimately, the guy who hid all game took a gamble that 1. the rest of us will do a minimum of 2 generators without him, and that 2. he would be able to find the hatch before the killer. He could have died just like the rest of us - he didn't, so in my mind, he won, as much as I don't like that fact.
Hmm... well, I don't think the winning condition is so binary. For instance, I would consider what you did as a "win" as you're pushing the goal post forward, despite the odds. What the other person could constitute as a win, though it's also fair to note end game is rather tedious and typically leans towards the side willing to wait longer if both find the hatch. Still, everyone is just reset in the end, therefore death carrying less weight, and the game also measures the person's performance depending on what they do and so on. I think there's multiple ways a person could win. It isn't just strictly stuck to surviving or killing.
Winning or having fun? There is a difference. And again. If I gave you a list of games containing all of the outcomes and events of each game could you take that definition of "pushing the goal post forward, despite the odds" and use it to give the different roles a win loss ratio?
How much do you have to push the goal posts forward? What goals could you possibly be pushing if you have no win condition beyond that? Is it a win if you all escape against a ######### killer or if you 4k against potato survivors easily?
The thing is, survivor isn't supposed to have a 100% escape rate or even a high one and to make up for that, there's other ways to win, too. I think it's fair to use emblems to measure how you do. If they weren't intended for such things, they wouldn't exist. They wouldn't be present to take up space or raise someone up the ranks, regardless of if they escaped or not. They're supposed to represent a win state of sorts, there's just many ways to approach that "win" goal.
Why would they have a 100% win rate? They would have a 50% winrate max and realistically lower than that, which makes sense considering the current WR for survivors is 40%
-
@Freudentrauma said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@knell said:
@Ryuhi said:
Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.Great - then we have no problem with each other. As for the OP, I think NuclearBurrito started this thread only as a reply to someone who stated, "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME. Any other "win condition" is purely imaginary and of your own accord" in another thread. So I can definitely understand NuclearBurrito's frustration. Of course, I don't know his motive, so I could be wrong about that also.
Mostly when someone said that because pipping is the win condition defined by the game (which it isn't) that it should thus be the metric used for balance.
But yes this is a reply to someone saying that
One would have to assume that if "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME" than with the removal of the RANKING system would then remove PIPPING.
If you can't pip, by @knell description of a win . . well I guess you could not win or lose . .
Brilliant.
Actually removing the pipping already exists in KYF. By those who think pipping means "Win/Lose", it would mean that any KYF would be a match with no win/lose....
If you would shrink DbD down to the basics of the game, getting rid of all the stuff which only "adds" to the core experience, then you wouldn't have any BP or Pips. It would be only four survivors and a killer, spawning on a map with objectives to survive. For each survivor it would only matter if they live or die. For the killer it would only matter how many survivor escape/get killed. For me that's a definitiv win condition for the game.
The thing about it: The win condition of a game isn't everything. DbD has all this stuff, which "adds" to the game like BP, grind, a rank system and pipping as incentive for people to define personal goals and to cultivate a community. A community which plays and enjoys a game. Because like said. a "win" can be very cheap. In my opinion it's not healthy for the community to discuss about some kind of win condition. The question is: "How can we make the game enjoyable" And just looking at the win condition isn't the way to achieve that.
Of course. Win conditions don't inherently make the game fun. They do however act as a metric for balance, and since balance IS important for fun that means it is very important that everyone is on the same page there
-
@powerbats said:
@TrAiNwReCk said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
Since you can pip without sacrificing. That means you can pip without achieving your only stated goal"Patrol the area and find Survivors."
"Chase, injure, and catch Survivors before they escape."
"Carry Survivors to a sacrificial hook and hang them there for The Entity to consume."None of these listed objectives state "sacrifice survivor" or use the word "kill", nor do they state you MUST do these things. If you do everything listed here WELL ENOUGH, you pip. If you also sacrificed/killed them, it still fits within these rules because if you find>chase>injure>catch>hook them 3 times that's just the end result. In such a case where they die it means you did very well, and are awarded more for a win than usual (double pip).
You will have to learn to forgive certain forum trolls that want to be right at the expense of common sense. A wall of text "blah blah blah blah blah" x100 so most people glance over and figure they might be right.
Fact #1
- If you die in a trial - You have lost
- If you don't kill all 4 Survivors -You have lost
- If you don't die in a trial -You have won
- If you kill all 4 Survivors -You have won
Fact #2
- Pipping - Has nothing to do with winning. Had thesuicidefox any _COMMON SENSE_ pipping obviously . . . OBVIOUSLY has only to do with rank. And for everyone scratching their heads still . . . If the ranking system did not exist than pipping would not exist
P.S. It is truly sad that people who simply want to be right, will stop at nothing to try and convince everyone else and themselves that they are right. Even if it proves them to be ignorant and wrong.
Keep up the common sense postings Nuclear. There isn't much intelligent life on these forums, but maybe some of ours can rub off. . . Probably won't happen though.
This is the height of hypocrisy because you agree with them what they're saying is true and must be accepted as truth while those that disagree ar trolls.
What's really sad is you dismiss others and insult them and thus proclaim yourself as the messiah while also saying they're unintelligent for having a different opinion than you.
That's the very definition of a troll.
I thought a troll was a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.
Which I'm pretty sure is none of the people who have replied to this thread so far. And even if everyone else here besides me was a troll I should still have to address their arguments because anything else is adhominim fallacy
-
@fluffybunny said:
@knell said:
@fluffybunny said:
DbD isn't chest.I agree, DBD is not a chest.
@fluffybunny said:
I see it more as creating the story. The more you do, the better plays you make, the better the story is. It would be considered a "win" if you do a lot 'cause you're contributing to the "finale" and you won't "win" if you don't contribute to the end. When it comes to the "pipping = winning" mentality, it's about making the plays and doing what you can in the horror story so that what you do matters and it isn't just "they hid and therefore escaped" sort of scenario, though I do think it's still considered a win if you hid for most of the match and was able to get out? I haven't tried that tactic as I prefer a more active role, but getting out without being downed would be an iridescent and stealthing does count towards a pip now. I think what the game director was saying is that there's multiple ways to win, so there isn't a clear-cut win/lose condition.That's fine. If the way you play defines your winning condition, I'm fine with that. Like I said, I'm even fine if people want to treat DBD like a point salad game and define the victory condition in that way. The problem is when people are saying, "surviving is not the winning condition; pipping is the winning condition." Who says?
And I agree with you - I prefer the playstyle of doing as much as I can as a survivor also. But that's just it; it's my personal preference. And there are times when I die as a survivor, getting ~15K points, and see that last survivor take the hatch and still has only ~10K points despite the hatch - does it annoy me? Yes. Do I try to make myself feel better by convincing myself that I won despite having been sacrificed? No, of course not. Because ultimately, the guy who hid all game took a gamble that 1. the rest of us will do a minimum of 2 generators without him, and that 2. he would be able to find the hatch before the killer. He could have died just like the rest of us - he didn't, so in my mind, he won, as much as I don't like that fact.
Hmm... well, I don't think the winning condition is so binary. For instance, I would consider what you did as a "win" as you're pushing the goal post forward, despite the odds. What the other person could constitute as a win, though it's also fair to note end game is rather tedious and typically leans towards the side willing to wait longer if both find the hatch. Still, everyone is just reset in the end, therefore death carrying less weight, and the game also measures the person's performance depending on what they do and so on. I think there's multiple ways a person could win. It isn't just strictly stuck to surviving or killing.
Winning or having fun? There is a difference. And again. If I gave you a list of games containing all of the outcomes and events of each game could you take that definition of "pushing the goal post forward, despite the odds" and use it to give the different roles a win loss ratio?
How much do you have to push the goal posts forward? What goals could you possibly be pushing if you have no win condition beyond that? Is it a win if you all escape against a ######### killer or if you 4k against potato survivors easily?
-
@Spork said:
If I happen to do a very small amount in a game, and end up getting camped or tunneled, OR camped AND tunneled but still manage to pip or safety pip, I'm going to count it as a win.But if you were to make a win loss ratio for survivors instead of just checking if you personally enjoyed the match would you STILL count it as a win?
And if you escape but also depip would you count it as a loss?
-
@knell said:
@Ryuhi said:
Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.Great - then we have no problem with each other. As for the OP, I think NuclearBurrito started this thread only as a reply to someone who stated, "PIP IS THE WIN CONDITION AS DEFINIED BY THE GAME. Any other "win condition" is purely imaginary and of your own accord" in another thread. So I can definitely understand NuclearBurrito's frustration. Of course, I don't know his motive, so I could be wrong about that also.
Mostly when someone said that because pipping is the win condition defined by the game (which it isn't) that it should thus be the metric used for balance.
But yes this is a reply to someone saying that
-
@Ryuhi said:
@knell said:
Let's make this clear - if you have your own definition of how to win in this game, I am absolutely okay with that. You enjoy your game the way you see fit. The problem I have is when others are saying, "No, surviving isn't the winning condition; pipping is the winning condition." That not only goes against my enjoyment of the game - it also isn't what seems to be inferred from official sources - so yes, I do have a problem with that.If you don't like chess, then let's compare it to another asymmetrical game - like Werewolf or Mafia - a social deduction game. If you are the lone werewolf, it doesn't matter how well you do and how many villagers with roles (Fortune Teller/Bodyguard/etc.) you devour during the night in a row - if the villagers manage to point you out the next morning (even if randomly selected), then the game is over. Again, the performance really isn't indicative of the winning condition. But like I said earlier, as so long as you aren't saying, "Surviving isn't the winning condition in DBD," I'm fine with it. Go have fun - just make sure you let me have mine too.
First, props for the mafia comparison. Granted, thats exactly what someone who WASN'T from TOWN would do.... :chuffed:
While in terms of absolute win conditions that is true for the killer/mafia/etc in that game, it is not true of the townspeople. They can die early while paving the way for the opposing factions demise, thus losing as an individual (death) but winning as a faction. The way that a lot of gamemsaters craft their powers can lend to this reelly well and make some crazy matches
I think that also fits our shared idea of individual win conditions pretty well too. Some people would define survival as the only win condition, while others would consider the success of their faction the win condition.
yes but the town does have a single definite win condition where at the end of the game you can make an objective list of who won and who didn't.
No amount of personal satisfaction will alter this list.
And some social deduction games DON'T have survival being optional for the town, deceit is a good example due to it using nearly the same mechanics as DBD in terms of winning.
Ranking based on something performance? Check
Perks that effect balance? Check
Survivors who need to individually survive as a wincon? Check
Killers who need to eliminate the survivors as a wincon? Check
RNG with the maps? Check
Horror tone? Check
More losing than winning? Check -
@vampire_toothy said:
@NuclearBurrito2
Some things this is missing:What happens if you hit a deep wounded survivor?
Does the lowered duration and increase movement speed stick?Also not expected to be on the class card but:
Exactly how fast is FF? (I'd assume it's still 132% by default)
How fast does the stalk bar fill? Is it effected by more that once survivor being in front of you at once?
Does it start filled?Interesting points, I'll update the experimental class card to explain the stacked movement speed and duration changes and that you can't spam the feral frenzy on one survivor.
Regarding the other two parts, I avoid explaining speeds because the devs have not given numbers in the descriptions for Billy, Spirit, Wraith, Nurse, Pig's ambush or current Legion for their power descriptions, same thing with Myers - we don't get the numbers so I can't really guarantee it would be worth leaving in the description. But yes, FF is still 132% by default and 152% at maximum with the frenzy stacking.
By the time you get this notification the two posts I made should be updated, so feel free to let me know what you think. (if you don't see it give it two minutes before checking again)
I know they wouldn't be in the actual description. But the values do exist and they are important so I'd like to know what you are going for there. Obviously the numbers are flexible (so it's not like saying the wrong number will suddenly make your suggestion fundamentally #########) but it is good to know what you are going for (15 seconds of stalking is very different from 3 seconds of stalking)
-
@XavierBoah17 said:
Imagine using the tutorial as evidence to define what a win is in DBD LULWWhy wouldn't I?
-
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
Also you are forgetting that > @Ryuhi said:@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.
If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.
But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.
The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.
Would you prefer to use poker in the example?
Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else
Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.
I am specifically talking about tournament poker where you are trying to earn the MOST chips rather than just SOME chips. Or in other words if I play perfectly and call every bluff I would win and fold every time my hand is worse it is still possible for me to NOT make the most money.
Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.
Or in other words being able to win or lose randomly does not make it stop being a win condition.
Remember that you CAN win a game of rock paper scissors
Your analogy fell flat on its face the moment you assumed tournament poker is the only version of poker, when it is by far the lest common version of it. I guarantee there are more middle aged groups of friends playing poker on an average week than pro tournaments could ever possibly be organized. You did accidentally strike a pretty strong point for why the only one possible victory condition is not reasonable though:
Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.
This is a game where there is a large amount of factors beyond your control, to which your interaction can only be described on your end as "luck." It can also make you fail your survive/kill condition in a way that is beyond your control. Since it is far more common than in many other competitive situations, it causes such a black and white mentality to become obsolete to accurately track progress or performance.
Definitions do not change based on the circumstances they are applied to. So if a win condition is a win condition despite being luck based then that means something being luck based never makes it not a win condition
They actually literally do. Its why a definition can have multiple applications, aka why there is usually a numbered list of things it can mean and circumstances it can be used in. Definitions can even change over time due to the circumstances they are applied to, which is an evolution of language itself.
This conversation is actually a pretty good example of the literal, the colloquial, and the evolving.
Those are just different definitions.
Or in other words the definition of a word can change but a single definition is static because any other definition is just not the same definition.
Basically you can always substitute a word for it's definition without changing the meaning of what you said (the grammar might change however)
Do you really not understand how definitions evolve, nor how they can change based on application? You don't need a linguistics degree to understand how something as simple as slang occurs within a language, let alone actual complete revisions to existing words.
This conversation is getting pretty tiresome, so I'm just going to keep having my own win conditions and encouraging others to do the same. You're welcome to sit in your own corner wondering why other people are feeling any sense of accomplishment though.
Now you are putting words into my mouth. I never said that you had to win in order to feel accomplished
-
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@Ryuhi said:
@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.
If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.
But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.
The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.
Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.
I would like to put in a distinction real quick.
YOUR wincon is personal. Because you win when you achieve what you are trying to. However that isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about the SURVIVOR and KILLER win condition.
Or in other words if you were to be given the literal outcome and events of all games and used that to turn into a win loss ratio for each role (useful as a metric for calculating how balanced things are) then the criteria used to decide if something counts towards the number of wins vs the number of losses/draws is your win condition.
This metric while arbitrary is also objective, since it is definitially true that reguardless of what you personally are trying to accomplish, the wincon only cares about what the survivor's as a whole are supposed to accomplish. Anything else just isn't useful
Then why is there no survival rate% metric in the game? Same with sacrifices for that matter? Are they not the only objective? Why is it not even tracked?
I almost hope you say you keep an excel spreadsheet of each victory and have it set to autocompile your win ratio for you :chuffed:
Oh but wait, there IS a metric that tracks pip progress between games, and has you climb a ladder based off of it. And it doesn't even require the penultimate victory condition. thinkingface
idk why it doesn't let you track your win's properly. But this both isn't the only game with that problem (Throne of lies doesn't either despite VERY clear win conditions) and even if it was such tracking does exist and I've sited it before when talking about survivor strength vs killer strength.
Again, something not being actively tracked and shown to retroactively does not make it stop being a win condition
Of course it doesn't. But its a very clear indicator that it is not the only possible win condition if its not even important enough to be tracked, no? There would be no reason to track anything else until AFTER that is tracked properly, if it were the only possible win condition...
However the game directly stating that escaping/killing is the survivor/killer win condition is overwhelming evidence for escaping/killing being the survivor/killer win condition. Your minor circumstantial facts are not enough to negate the direct and clear word of the game
Literally every time you see something that opposes your viewpoint, you plug your ears and cite an ancient tutorial screen. If you refuse to be open minded then there isnt really much of a point to this conversation (or topic in general)
And you've been siting a bar the devs barely talk about. I cite the tutorial because nothing else talks about winning. If I saw somewhere else that stated the win conditions for the different roles I would cite that too. Maybe it exists but in game it only specifies the win conditions for the different roles in the tutorial section, so unless we are only talking about what someone is personally trying to accomplish (which is not helpful in this context) we need to stick to what is official. And since the place that is supposed to tell you what you are supposed to be doing says that your goal is to escape, that means your goal is to escape and I don't see how you can make the argument that it isn't
-
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
Also you are forgetting that > @Ryuhi said:@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.
If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.
But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.
The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.
Would you prefer to use poker in the example?
Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else
Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.
I am specifically talking about tournament poker where you are trying to earn the MOST chips rather than just SOME chips. Or in other words if I play perfectly and call every bluff I would win and fold every time my hand is worse it is still possible for me to NOT make the most money.
Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.
Or in other words being able to win or lose randomly does not make it stop being a win condition.
Remember that you CAN win a game of rock paper scissors
Your analogy fell flat on its face the moment you assumed tournament poker is the only version of poker, when it is by far the lest common version of it. I guarantee there are more middle aged groups of friends playing poker on an average week than pro tournaments could ever possibly be organized. You did accidentally strike a pretty strong point for why the only one possible victory condition is not reasonable though:
Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.
This is a game where there is a large amount of factors beyond your control, to which your interaction can only be described on your end as "luck." It can also make you fail your survive/kill condition in a way that is beyond your control. Since it is far more common than in many other competitive situations, it causes such a black and white mentality to become obsolete to accurately track progress or performance.
Definitions do not change based on the circumstances they are applied to. So if a win condition is a win condition despite being luck based then that means something being luck based never makes it not a win condition
They actually literally do. Its why a definition can have multiple applications, aka why there is usually a numbered list of things it can mean and circumstances it can be used in. Definitions can even change over time due to the circumstances they are applied to, which is an evolution of language itself.
This conversation is actually a pretty good example of the literal, the colloquial, and the evolving.
Those are just different definitions.
Or in other words the definition of a word can change but a single definition is static because any other definition is just not the same definition.
Basically you can always substitute a word for it's definition without changing the meaning of what you said (the grammar might change however)
-
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@Ryuhi said:
@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.
If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.
But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.
The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.
Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.
I would like to put in a distinction real quick.
YOUR wincon is personal. Because you win when you achieve what you are trying to. However that isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about the SURVIVOR and KILLER win condition.
Or in other words if you were to be given the literal outcome and events of all games and used that to turn into a win loss ratio for each role (useful as a metric for calculating how balanced things are) then the criteria used to decide if something counts towards the number of wins vs the number of losses/draws is your win condition.
This metric while arbitrary is also objective, since it is definitially true that reguardless of what you personally are trying to accomplish, the wincon only cares about what the survivor's as a whole are supposed to accomplish. Anything else just isn't useful
Then why is there no survival rate% metric in the game? Same with sacrifices for that matter? Are they not the only objective? Why is it not even tracked?
I almost hope you say you keep an excel spreadsheet of each victory and have it set to autocompile your win ratio for you :chuffed:
Oh but wait, there IS a metric that tracks pip progress between games, and has you climb a ladder based off of it. And it doesn't even require the penultimate victory condition. thinkingface
idk why it doesn't let you track your win's properly. But this both isn't the only game with that problem (Throne of lies doesn't either despite VERY clear win conditions) and even if it was such tracking does exist and I've sited it before when talking about survivor strength vs killer strength.
Again, something not being actively tracked and shown to retroactively does not make it stop being a win condition
Of course it doesn't. But its a very clear indicator that it is not the only possible win condition if its not even important enough to be tracked, no? There would be no reason to track anything else until AFTER that is tracked properly, if it were the only possible win condition...
However the game directly stating that escaping/killing is the survivor/killer win condition is overwhelming evidence for escaping/killing being the survivor/killer win condition. Your minor circumstantial facts are not enough to negate the direct and clear word of the game
-
Also you are forgetting that > @Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.
If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.
But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.
The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.
Would you prefer to use poker in the example?
Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else
Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.
I am specifically talking about tournament poker where you are trying to earn the MOST chips rather than just SOME chips. Or in other words if I play perfectly and call every bluff I would win and fold every time my hand is worse it is still possible for me to NOT make the most money.
Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.
Or in other words being able to win or lose randomly does not make it stop being a win condition.
Remember that you CAN win a game of rock paper scissors
Your analogy fell flat on its face the moment you assumed tournament poker is the only version of poker, when it is by far the lest common version of it. I guarantee there are more middle aged groups of friends playing poker on an average week than pro tournaments could ever possibly be organized. You did accidentally strike a pretty strong point for why the only one possible victory condition is not reasonable though:
Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.
This is a game where there is a large amount of factors beyond your control, to which your interaction can only be described on your end as "luck." It can also make you fail your survive/kill condition in a way that is beyond your control. Since it is far more common than in many other competitive situations, it causes such a black and white mentality to become obsolete to accurately track progress or performance.
Definitions do not change based on the circumstances they are applied to. So if a win condition is a win condition despite being luck based then that means something being luck based never makes it not a win condition
-
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@Ryuhi said:
@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.
If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.
But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.
The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.
Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.
I would like to put in a distinction real quick.
YOUR wincon is personal. Because you win when you achieve what you are trying to. However that isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about the SURVIVOR and KILLER win condition.
Or in other words if you were to be given the literal outcome and events of all games and used that to turn into a win loss ratio for each role (useful as a metric for calculating how balanced things are) then the criteria used to decide if something counts towards the number of wins vs the number of losses/draws is your win condition.
This metric while arbitrary is also objective, since it is definitially true that reguardless of what you personally are trying to accomplish, the wincon only cares about what the survivor's as a whole are supposed to accomplish. Anything else just isn't useful
Then why is there no survival rate% metric in the game? Same with sacrifices for that matter? Are they not the only objective? Why is it not even tracked?
I almost hope you say you keep an excel spreadsheet of each victory and have it set to autocompile your win ratio for you :chuffed:
Oh but wait, there IS a metric that tracks pip progress between games, and has you climb a ladder based off of it. And it doesn't even require the penultimate victory condition. thinkingface
idk why it doesn't let you track your win's properly. But this both isn't the only game with that problem (Throne of lies doesn't either despite VERY clear win conditions) and even if it was such tracking does exist and I've sited it before when talking about survivor strength vs killer strength.
Again, something not being actively tracked and shown to retroactively does not make it stop being a win condition
-
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.
If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.
But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.
The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.
Would you prefer to use poker in the example?
Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else
Poker uses currency so... sure! Since poker is never played just a single hand at a time, you would compare each hand to plays and their positive/negative impact on their standing within the game. Also since poker is only played to an absolute victor in tournaments specifically tailored to it, alternatively winning would be leaving with more money than you started with, and losing would be leaving with less money than you started with. Coincidentally, that pairs perfectly with pips being considered the primary objective, much like a net profit is the primary objective in poker for most individuals.
I am specifically talking about tournament poker where you are trying to earn the MOST chips rather than just SOME chips. Or in other words if I play perfectly and call every bluff I would win and fold every time my hand is worse it is still possible for me to NOT make the most money.
Even if we are just using "leave with more money" then it is still possible to lose by shear luck.
Or in other words being able to win or lose randomly does not make it stop being a win condition.
Remember that you CAN win a game of rock paper scissors
-
@Ryuhi said:
@Ryuhi said:
@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.
If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.
But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.
The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.
Also for the record, if you believe that your win condition is personal and not unconditional, then we agree entirely in that regard. I know I probably sound like I'm saying your win condition should not exist, but you're completely welcome to it. The OP shared your opinion but was the one who stated it was the ONLY one, which is why multiple posters have been arguing it with them.
I would like to put in a distinction real quick.
YOUR wincon is personal. Because you win when you achieve what you are trying to. However that isn't what this thread is about, this thread is about the SURVIVOR and KILLER win condition.
Or in other words if you were to be given the literal outcome and events of all games and used that to turn into a win loss ratio for each role (useful as a metric for calculating how balanced things are) then the criteria used to decide if something counts towards the number of wins vs the number of losses/draws is your win condition.
This metric while arbitrary is also objective, since it is definitially true that reguardless of what you personally are trying to accomplish, the wincon only cares about what the survivor's as a whole are supposed to accomplish. Anything else just isn't useful
-
@Ryuhi said:
@knell said:
When playing chess, it doesn't matter how many points I accumulate (based on the Reinfeld values) or whether I took twice as many pieces as my opponent - if the opponent places me in a checkmate in the end, I have to face the fact that I lost.When I play DBD, it doesn't matter how much points I accumulated by repairing generators, saving other survivors, or did well in a chase - if I die in the end, I lost. If I didn't, I win.
If people want to believe that this horror/survival game is actually a point salad game, that's fine - they can minimax for points all they want if that's what they have fun doing. Different people, different strokes. I just prefer just enjoying the experience of survival horror - to live or to die. But I don't see anywhere in the official tutorial or the FAQ that states that 'pipping is the winning condition' as claimed by some of you. In fact, in addition to what NuclearBurrito has already provided, the only thing about 'pip' I can find in an official capacity is that, "Emblems are a used as a system to evaluate your performance during a match and gives you pips in order to rank up." So Pip is simply an indicator of whether you were able to rank up or not (for matchmaking purposes), and not an indicator of your victory. In most games, you can perform really well, but sometimes still lose - I see DBD falling in the same category. I suspect that some of you just can't stand that.
But I'd be happy to be proven wrong - from an official source. If you can't do that, perhaps you shouldn't be so driven to force your 'pipping is winning' condition to the rest of us. Afterall, even the game director has stated that, "One of the difficulties is that the game does not have a clear-cut win/lose condition" fairly recently in a Twitchcon 2018 interview.
The official source is that the game has multiple rewards and metrics that are not tied to what you guys are equating to a finish line: Blood points, emblems (and consequently pips,) daily challenges, personal improvement, and actually having fun are all separate from your oversimplification. You are welcome to hone in on a single true false statement as the entire core of the game. Others not sharing your opinion is arguably the only reason it hasn't died like many other games. If the only win condition you can possibly have involves a heavy amount of random chance, it will produce games that are impossible to win. In a game like chess, there is no randomness to movement patterns of other rules. There are no hidden abilities or the ability to bring extra pieces to the game. You also don't need to rely on sharing turns with up to three other players, nor having to go against 4 opponents simultaneously in real time. A structured game with no random element is the antithesis of an asymmetrical one that might as well be attached to a slot machine.
Would you prefer to use poker in the example?
Or fortnight since the way wins work apply equally there as everywhere else
-
@vampire_toothy said:
@Dreamnomad said:
Here's an idea then. Why don't you write what the in game tool tip would read? Don't worry about explaining the "why's" and specifics. If your change was in the game then what would I read when I look at the power description?I have taken your feedback and updated my original post, I've still kept my indepth explanation but towards the end I've added how it would explain it to you ingame. This is what was added ;
Ingame description
Basic Information;
Movement Speed : 115% (4.6 m/s)
Terror Radius : 32Power : Feral Frenzy
The Legion has a power gauge that can be built up by briefly stalking a survivor.
Whilst in stalk mode your movement speed is slightly decreased but tremendously decreases your terror radius.
When your gauge is full you may activate your power in any mode and upon activation the legion enters a deadly rage. While the power is active:- The legion sprints faster than the base movement speed.
- The legion can vault pallets and windows.
- Missed attacks have a reduced cool-down.
- Expands your terror radius.
While Feral Frenzy is active, hitting a fresh survivor does the following:
- Inflicts them with deep wounds.
- Activates killer instinct which allows you to see other survivors in your terror radius.
- Refills power gauge.
- Slightly increases movement speed and slightly lowers duration for each fresh survivor hit.
You may end your power at any time to retain roughly the same amount of uses in your gauge for later, when you end your power by any means you go into a brief fatigue.
Survivors must mend themselves or they will go down.Some things this is missing:
What happens if you hit a deep wounded survivor?
Does the lowered duration and increase movement speed stick?Also not expected to be on the class card but:
Exactly how fast is FF? (I'd assume it's still 132% by default)
How fast does the stalk bar fill? Is it effected by more that once survivor being in front of you at once?
Does it start filled? -
So the only gray area is in if other forms of killing besides sacrifices count as killing for the purpose of winning and the exact number of sacrifices needed to win as killer
-
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
And this isn't really a team game. Each survivor has a slightly different winconNo but you would be wise to keep others alive because the more survivors there are the greater your individual chances to escape. It's in your better interest to do it to meet your other objectives.
@NuclearBurrito said:
Hell you can even get iridescent lightbringer without completing a single generatorLOL who is even saying this?
Indeed it IS wise to keep others alive. That is why the game counts it as skillful and wants people who do that to rank up. That does NOT mean it is part of the wincondition anymore than cleansing totems are. Speaking of which to your other point:
I am. I did the math and if you cleanse 4 hex totems and do 87.5% of a generator then you get iridescent lightbringer. Since it is possible for that to be all of the progress made in the entire course of the game this means you can get lightbringer without completing any generators.
You can even get gold without anyone even TOUCHING a generator
Why would you even base a scenario off of a killer having 4 hex perks, and a single player clensing all of them? Thats kinda on the far end of hypothetical, especially when pairing it with nobody else doing a single gen or even 12.5% of the one you also did.
Doesn't matter. It can theoretically happen and we could assign that situation a win/lose status. And if you won every chase but 1 and they lasted a very long time and you also got a lot of unhooks ect then you can get irridencent in everything but unbroken which you can get silver in
Grounding the theoretical into the realistically probable absolutely matters. Otherwise you could come up with some crazy scenario that has almost nothing to do with the game itself but results in your "win" as a sideffect. The entire point of trying to be realistic with possibilities is to narrow the x factor into something actually related to your average game experience.
and yes, in a game where you carried the hell out of your team and got almost every single category as iridescent, you won because you outperformed what was expected of you to a large degree. There are multiple factors that are beyond any individual's control in this game, which is why people are more accepting to the shifted nature of victory. Without that mentality, every single game would be survivors too scared to even touch gens, just hiding in corners and moving just enough to not attract crows. It would be a boring game that would die overnight.
The theoretical absolutely matters when discussing definitions. Simply because given how definitions work in order for a pip to be a win that means all examples of pipping must also be wins, and all examples of winning must also be pips.
If there is even a singe situation where this isn't the case then that means pipping is not winning. For example I cannot come up with a single situation where escaping is not a win for a survivor since the second they escape they are set into a state of victory, and on the otherside I cannot come up with a single situation where not escaping is a win because being in a situation where you can't escape causes you to instantly lose
-
@twistedmonkey said:
@thesuicidefox said:
Which you totally have the right to do. But because you set your OWN win condition, you shouldn't get mad at the games that just don't go your way. If you get a good group of survivors that loop and gen rush you won't get a lot of BP. It doesn't mean the game should change just for you and give you some kind of bonus BP even when you don't make a lot do you?
I never do
its a game why so many people get upset at others is beyond me, you win some you lose some and move onto another, no need to be salty when you get outplayed, its the best way to learn and get better.@Ryuhi said:
When it comes to The Grind(tm) I consider any progress toward making my killer roster viable a victory for now lmao. Gimme a game where i die but 5 party streamers were used and I got 4 stacks of WGLF and I will give myself a "world's most glorious loser" medal.
Exactly, those juicy bloodpoints are worth more than anything else in the game for likes of myself
, the Grind is the game as each time I get what I want I find I want more.@NuclearBurrito said:
Yeah you can still make your arguments over if 1-3k is a win. I have a good reason to think it is specifically 4k, but it isn't conclusive or anything just a line that implies it.
Personally I cant see anything that implies 4k but if you point it out I may see it differently, if not I understand as so many may come and argue over it with you
Wasn't in one of the screenshots in the OP (although 4k=win is the most intuitive conclusion given what it says). I was refering to the line at the bottom of this screenshot
Since it only implies 4k rather than outright stating it like where it says "SURVIVOR'S GOAL IS TO ESCAPE" I'm not trying to use it as conclusive evidence
-
@Ryuhi said:
I've never seen someone get this flustered over other people having a different definition of victory.When people start saying I can't balance around the in-game wincondition is when this kind of thread becomes necessary.
-
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@thesuicidefox said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
And this isn't really a team game. Each survivor has a slightly different winconNo but you would be wise to keep others alive because the more survivors there are the greater your individual chances to escape. It's in your better interest to do it to meet your other objectives.
@NuclearBurrito said:
Hell you can even get iridescent lightbringer without completing a single generatorLOL who is even saying this?
Indeed it IS wise to keep others alive. That is why the game counts it as skillful and wants people who do that to rank up. That does NOT mean it is part of the wincondition anymore than cleansing totems are. Speaking of which to your other point:
I am. I did the math and if you cleanse 4 hex totems and do 87.5% of a generator then you get iridescent lightbringer. Since it is possible for that to be all of the progress made in the entire course of the game this means you can get lightbringer without completing any generators.
You can even get gold without anyone even TOUCHING a generator
Why would you even base a scenario off of a killer having 4 hex perks, and a single player clensing all of them? Thats kinda on the far end of hypothetical, especially when pairing it with nobody else doing a single gen or even 12.5% of the one you also did.
Doesn't matter. It can theoretically happen and we could assign that situation a win/lose status. And if you won every chase but 1 and they lasted a very long time and you also got a lot of unhooks ect then you can get irridencent in everything but unbroken which you can get silver in
-
Point is. If you can (even in theory) pip without making real progress towards your stated goal then pipping obviously ISN'T your stated goal.
I wonder if you can pip without hooking, morying or bleeding anyone out.
-
@twistedmonkey said:
It says "sacrificing survivors" for the killer, so does that mean 1 or 2 is considered a win? you achieved your goal afterall as it doesnt exactly say how many you need.Gen rushing is also the biggest win for survivors.
I think the tutorial does need updated and be changed to the basics of the game as a win is subjective to each individual, for me its about a fun match and making lots of bloodpoints.
Personally escaping, killing, pips dont matter as I want those juicy bloodpoints to lvl up my chars
Yeah you can still make your arguments over if 1-3k is a win. I have a good reason to think it is specifically 4k, but it isn't conclusive or anything just a line that implies it.
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
And this isn't really a team game. Each survivor has a slightly different winconNo but you would be wise to keep others alive because the more survivors there are the greater your individual chances to escape. It's in your better interest to do it to meet your other objectives.
@NuclearBurrito said:
Hell you can even get iridescent lightbringer without completing a single generatorLOL who is even saying this?
Indeed it IS wise to keep others alive. That is why the game counts it as skillful and wants people who do that to rank up. That does NOT mean it is part of the wincondition anymore than cleansing totems are. Speaking of which to your other point:
I am. I did the math and if you cleanse 4 hex totems and do 87.5% of a generator then you get iridescent lightbringer. Since it is possible for that to be all of the progress made in the entire course of the game this means you can get lightbringer without completing any generators.
You can even get gold without anyone even TOUCHING a generator
-
It makes it very clear that your objective is to sacrifice and that the rest is just recommended in order to do that
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
Since you can pip without sacrificing. That means you can pip without achieving your only stated goal"Patrol the area and find Survivors."
"Chase, injure, and catch Survivors before they escape."
"Carry Survivors to a sacrificial hook and hang them there for The Entity to consume."None of these listed objectives state "sacrifice survivor" or use the word "kill", nor do they state you MUST do these things. If you do everything listed here WELL ENOUGH, you pip. If you also sacrificed/killed them, it still fits within these rules because if you find>chase>injure>catch>hook them 3 times that's just the end result.
Actually none of those even ARE the objectives. Read the lines above it:
"The main objective of a Killer is to sacrifice survivors to the entity. In order to achieve this objective, a Killer should do the following:"
-
Hell you can even get iridescent lightbringer without completing a single generator
-
I don't even mean "I personally didn't touch a gen"
I mean "no gens were touched by anyone"
-
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@thesuicidefox said:
Pips are the win. If you want to play to some imaginary standard, don't complain about the game not fitting YOUR model. You should adapt to the game, the game should not change just for you.And no where in there does it explicitly say you MUST KILL or MUST ESCAPE to win. It gives you a list of objectives, do those objectives and you get points for a pip. If you kill/escape it CONTRIBUTES to a win but is not the exclusive criteria for a win.
@Ryuhi said:
Pipping also works a fair bit differently now than it did when that tutorial was created, btw.Also this. But even still, the tutorial is telling you how to pip not to 4k/escape.
Point to where it says you need to heal other survivors in order to win as a survivor.
And no I don't mean to Increase your odds of winning, I mean "if you don't do this it isn't a win"
And it's also VERY clear that one way or another your end goal is too escape
You can pip while completely ignoring a single category, if you do well in the others. You won't double pip, but even gen jockeys can middle between a black pip and a single pip consistently. Same with people who get constant safe unhooks and heals but never touch a gen. Double Pipping is an "overwhelming victory" and shows that you exceeded the norm in all 4 categories.
You can get iridescent in both benevolence and and chaser while getting silver in unbroken without a single generator being done and thus 0 progress towards what is defined as a win in the tutorial
-
And this isn't really a team game. Each survivor has a slightly different wincon
My wincon is for me to escape
Your wincon is for you to escape
"you escaping != "me escaping"
thus
Your wincon != My wincon -
@Ryuhi said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
@Ryuhi said:
Well look at it this way: If you hide in a corner and do literally nothing the entire game, wait for 2 gens to get done while your 3 teammates get killed, and then you sneak into the hatch getting a whopping total of 5k survival points and no pip.... do you honestly think you won?Yes
So selling out your entire team is a victory if you contribute nothing and purposely prevent them from being able to succeed. Thats almost teamkilling level and you consider it winning. You should probably just go play battle royale games or something.
Not my fault the wincon says nothing about helping everyone ELSE escape
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
Also as legion has proved you can pip without sacraficing anyone even though that is the one thing that is very clearly stated to be required** in order to win at least to some degree**Putting survivors on a hook =/= killing them. If you 2 hook everyone, you will almost always pip because of Chaser/Malicious, 1 point Devout (for hooking everyone), and probably at least silver Gatekeeper just because the game would have had to gone on for at least 7 or 8 minutes for you to catch everyone twice.
Also the last part IS WHAT A PIP IS! ffs
And NOT what a win is. The game specifically says that the killer needs to sacrafice people. It gives a list of things that should achieve that (as opposed to thing that are themselves goals) and then states that you should also try and stop them from doing gens btw.
However the only thing that is actually described as a goal is sacrificing. And hooking != sacrificing as sacrificing is only when they actually die on the hook.
Since you can pip without sacrificing. That means you can pip without achieving your only stated goal
-
@Ryuhi said:
Well look at it this way: If you hide in a corner and do literally nothing the entire game, wait for 2 gens to get done while your 3 teammates get killed, and then you sneak into the hatch getting a whopping total of 5k survival points and no pip.... do you honestly think you won?Yes
-
Oh and in a sufficiently drawn out game you can pip without accomplishing ANY of these objectives on both sides
-
@thesuicidefox said:
Pips are the win. If you want to play to some imaginary standard, don't complain about the game not fitting YOUR model. You should adapt to the game, the game should not change just for you.And no where in there does it explicitly say you MUST KILL or MUST ESCAPE to win. It gives you a list of objectives, do those objectives and you get points for a pip. If you kill/escape it CONTRIBUTES to a win but is not the exclusive criteria for a win.
@Ryuhi said:
Pipping also works a fair bit differently now than it did when that tutorial was created, btw.Also this. But even still, the tutorial is telling you how to pip not to 4k/escape.
Point to where it says you need to heal other survivors in order to win as a survivor.
And no I don't mean to Increase your odds of winning, I mean "if you don't do this it isn't a win"
And it's also VERY clear that one way or another your end goal is too escape
-
@Paddy4583 said:
Oh so to win as a killer you need to do everything you do to pip? So pip = win.thanks for clearing that up for everyone
No. You can stay under a hook all you want without going negative on your wincon dispite that making you go negative on pipping.
Also as legion has proved you can pip without sacraficing anyone even though that is the one thing that is very clearly stated to be required in order to win at least to some degree
-
@Ryuhi said:
Why does this bother you so much? Win conditions can be defined by any player individually in pretty much any game. Its what the concept of a "moral victory" is. The reason people think pipping is a means of victory or defeat is because it is directly related to how the ranking system works in the game. Pipping also works a fair bit differently now than it did when that tutorial was created, btw.I know pipping has been changed. But since games are balanced around winconditions and people make arguments based on if something causes you to win or not ect that ends up being useless if people can't agree on what a win is in the first place.
And when the game has somewhere that explicitly defines what you are trying to accomplish, you DEFINITELY shouldn't be claiming that your wincon isn't something that is even MENTIONED in that definition
-
@thesuicidefox said:
@NuclearBurrito said:
Would you look at that. It actually DOES use the term win:These don't explicitly say "MUST KILL OR ESCAPE TO WIN". They list your objectives, which is tracked by the pip system . "Repair generators" is not escaping, tracked by Lightbringer. "Chase, injure and catch survivors" is not kill, tracked by Chaser/Malicious. Also no where in the killer tutorial is the word "kill" used. They tell you to put survivors on hooks, but never explicitly tell you they have to die.
Pip is the win condition. You keep grasping at straws to say it's not, but it is. If you play to 4k/escape then you are just setting yourself up to get upset when things don't go your way, because with all the OP stuff and RNG in this game you can never GUARANTEE these things even if you are way better than your opponent. And while winning is never guaranteed, you can be sure that skill will always be the deciding factor if you win.
The Killer tutorial says sacrafice instead of kill. Which is later defined as getting a survivor to the 3rd stage, which kills them. I do admit that this leaves a gray area for mori's and bleed outs since those are not sacrifices.
Also IT LITERALLY SAYS "The survivor's goal is to escape the trial". So according to that if I escape the trial but don't win. Then I have achieved the goal given to me by the game.
Of course the emblems would be related to your wincon, because if they weren't it wouldn't do a good job at tracking skill.
And don't say I am grasping at straws when I am literally just reading the tutorial and going with the most intuitive interpretation