RpTheHotrod
RpTheHotrod
About
- Username
- RpTheHotrod
- Joined
- Visits
- 3,824
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3599657#Comment_3599657
While it is true that Survivors can force themselves into a 3-gen, I've found that generally, Killers will identify and hold them from the beginning of the game.
This could be addressed in spawn logic, but with maps seemingly getting smaller every update, the room for gen spread decreases.
A killer protecting a 3 gen from the beginning and not leaving it is a recipie for a loss for the killer. Having 4 survivors alive all without any hooks and one gen left to do, if the killer actually wins that, he deserves the win, lol.
-
Interesting idea, but frankly, if the survivors made super bad decisions in their gen planning to set themselves up with a 3 gen situation and are unable to break it, then they should have to deal with their failure. I'd say have the egc timer start, and they only have a limited time to get those generators done, lol. Either that, or 2 v 1 with no significant progress in gens would end up spawning the hatch. First one who escapes gets out and the entity takes the other - every man for himself. If the killer finds hatch first, then the entity takes both survivors.
-
They need to simply make people who get unhooked get shrouded by the entity so it has more time to play with them. During this time, the survivor is invisible to all players, cannot interact with anything, doesn't leave blood, has no player collision, and doesn't make noise. It would last about 5 seconds. Gives them plenty of time to vacate the area and lose the killer's track.
Naturally this would disable once all gens are completed.
-
@Grigerbest said:
Thats weird.
Because after MMR "hiccup" I'm getting 9 out of 10 games against total tryhards with usually 3 or 4 ppl in a party.
Well at least my games become really engaging and fun.=) I don't need to "restrict" or hinder myself against such good players, I can finally let loose and play as sweaty as they do.
Before MMR changes, when I was getting more casual players (or not expirienced), I was just like you btw.=) When I saw that survivors can't deal with a pressure I'm making, and they are about to lose at 5, 4, 3 gens, I was purposely handicapping myself by:
- Letting them safely unhook and only then start a chase.
- Completely ignoring the unhooked survivors. (Even if they purposely "dancing" in front of me)
- Just injuring \ downing dead on hook survivor and letting them run away \ leave on the ground for like 1 or 2 times.
- Picking up downed survivor, instead of chasing down injured survivor near by.
- Even letting them complete couple of gens before killing them.
- Always letting 1 survivor escape through hatch.
I know it's not ok, but I do care about survivor's fun in the matches. DBD might be the only game where I do care about other side. And it kinda saddens me when they DC right after first down or even injure.
And I can't do something about it, unless I see that I'm playing against a really strong survivors stack.
I'm exactly the same way. Unless their cheating, I usually start backing off if they are getting stomped. I almost always let last hatch out, and if 2 survivors are left and there's still 3 gens to do or more, I sometimes just let them repair them all and go after a heal party. I'm not out to make the match experience miserable for anyone.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3599216#Comment_3599216
I didn't miss it, I simply agree with the MMR system's way of classifying what is a win, draw, or loss because it makes the most sense, and your "it isn't a draw in reality" just seems fairly ridiculous. "Yes, it makes sense for someone who defeated exactly half their opponents and was defeated by the other half to have a neutral result, and yes the in game ranking system considers that to be the case, but actually that's wrong, just trust"
I will make the caveat that for gameplay statistics it only makes sense to compare escape rate to kill rate stats on an individual level or to analyze total number of escapes vs kills within a match on a team level, so MMR isn't the exact perfect way of determining game balance, but you won't convince me that a 2 out isn't a draw for killer, no matter how much you appeal to "the industry" (what industry???)
What industry?
You keep ignoring the basic fact that dismantles your entire argument. What is the definition of a draw? Now compare that to DBD where it's one player vs 4 individual players, and each individual player gets their own win or loss condition? NOBODY wins or loses in a draw. Can keep conveniently ignore that fact as long as you like, but it's still there. Someone ALWAYS wins in a match of dbd. You keep bringing up that half the survivors dying and the other have escapes means the game was a draw, but if it's a draw, then why do 2 of the survivors go down in mmr and get a loss and 2 of the survivors go up in mmr and get a win? That's not a draw, silly. A draw means no one wins or loses, period. You can't have one person drawing while all other opponents either wins or loses. That's not how draws work.
Now personally, I think the whole individual win condition for survivors is silly. I think it should be team based. That helps stop situations where you have one survivor just hiding all game and then gets to escape at the end while everyone else dies. They should not get a win. The survivor team should win or lose as a team as a whole. BHVR disagrees though. It does make more sense for the survor team to act together in one win lose or draw condition, but BHVR doesn't feel that way, and they make the call. I'm not defending BHVR'a decision here, I'm merely pointing out what their decision is. You don't have to change my mind about it, you have to change THEIR mind to make it a team vs team game instead of a every man for themselves system where each get their own individual win or loss condition.
Every survivor will have a greater chance at winning if they work together, but at the end of the day, it's 4 separate people dropped into a match each with their own win condition pitted against a killer.
As for the industry, basic game design 101 involving multiple people on sides rarely has mmr adjusted solely on a win loss or draw. For example in call of duty, you can be on the winning side with 1 kill and 50 deaths, but you'll be taken down a notch in mmr. On the other hand, you can be on the losing side but go 50 kills and no deaths and go up in mmr. MMR adjustments are entirely separate from a simple win or loss. BHVR takes the same idea, while each individual player gets their own win or loss condition, MMR is treated entirely separate for the killer on determining how their mmr should be adjusted. This has no bearing on if the killer won or lost but is simply based on the amount of kills they get. 0-1 it goes down, 2 it stays neutral, and 3+ it goes up. That's why BHVR goes out of their way to say for MMR adjustments, it considers 2 kills a draw. It considers it a draw for MMR adjustments only. It would be more accurate to say 2 kills keeps it neutral. It has to consider it a draw because they recognize its not actually a draw since you cant have a draw in a 1 vs 4 individuals with their own win conditions game. Despite MMR remaining neutral, the killer still lost.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3598958#Comment_3598958
Thanks for this post, I've been meaning to work on an intro to stats video based on this exact argument and seeing yet another person make it gave me some motivation to get work done on it
edit: also, with regards to your claim that "there is no actual draw in DBD" that's just plain incorrect:
I already stated that those comments about win loss draw is in regards to MMR adjustments only, not actual win or loss rates. They even highlight the fact its only referring to MMR adjustments. They even made it in big bold letters - I'm surprised you missed that. MMR adjustments are entirely separate from a win or a loss. Some games even reduce your MMR level even if you win - depending on how you won. For a DBD example, a survivor might afk the entire match, then come back at the last moment and get out the door. Should they go up in MMR? That kind of example, the devs could consider someone with extremely low points despite escaping be reduced (or neutral) in MMR regardless if they won. Not saying they do, but im pointing out MMR adjustments does not equal a win rate in the industry.
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3598958#Comment_3598958
If the killer is at 62,5% killrate, the killer wins on average a 50% of the games, draws like 20% and looses 30%. It is definitly extremly unballanced.
Trapper is at 50% killrate and is at 42% wins 15% draws 43% loss. Thats ballanced.
I dont know what else is there to say. You can look it up all here: https://nightlight.gg/
And yes, there is a draw. When the killer gets 2 kills, it is a draw. Everything else, whatever the survivors are doing, is totally irrelevant for the killer. Very simple concept.
But, for the last time:
0+1 Kill = Loss
2 Kill (the middle) = Draw
3+4 kill = Win
Sorry, i cant do this anymore and i dont know what is so hard to understand. Anyway. Lets leave it to that please.
BHVR is the ones themselves that stated survivors do not win/lose/draw as a team. They said each individual survivors gets their own win or loss condition. A draw requires both sides to neither win nor lose, and there is never a situation where the killer and each individual survivor never wins or loses. It is impossible to actually draw a match of dbd (unless the server goes down, ha). However, they need to still do MMR adjustments. It would be better worded that they say the MMR increases, stays neutral, or decreases.
I'm not sure why you don't understand this concept. A draw requires ALL players neither win or lose, and that is fundamentally impossible unless the server crashes. It's 1 killer vs 4 individual survivors, and each survivor per BHVR's own words get their own individual win or loss condition. The survivors side will always either have at least one winner or all losers (and the killer wins obviously). Those are the only two outcomes. Neither outcome do all players neither win nor lose.
The only actual draw is a server crash. MMR adjustments are separate from wins or losses. BHVR could keep someone with 0 points by AFKing the whole match and then escaping at the same MMR or lower it if they wanted. They have to do SOMETHING to adjust fir MMR, and the easiest way is to do 3k+ goes up, 2k stays the same, and 0-1 goes down. It's ineffective, as proper MMR adjustments are far more complicated than that, but that's what they go with.
Let's try this logically. Killer got a 2k, and 2 survivors escapes. The killer gets a draw, and those two survivors won. Two survivors lost. No survivors draw. Now it sounds silly to call it a draw, no? Exactly. This isn't a killer team vs survivor team situation. If a survivor escapes, they don't all go up in mmr. If 3 survivors escape, they don't all go up in mmr. It's 1 vs 4 individuals with their own separate win conditions.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3591708#Comment_3591708
53% kill rate translates to 46%/13%/41% win/draw/loss rate so I suspect winrate at 60% kill rate may be well higher than 50% (7% increase in kills will translate to probably more than 4% increase in wins)
That's also before accounting for draws
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/XJDURX5ZLDF7/screenshot-20231201-085311-chrome.jpg
A 62.5% kill rate would be the killers getting a 3k or 4k in roughly half their matches. In other words. Killers with a 50% win rate would need a 62.5% kill rate.
If it was a 50% kill rate on average every match would result in only 2 kills (not a win). Considering a killer needs 3k+ to win, in order for a killer to win every match, they'd need a 75% kill rate (which we obviously don't want). So to get an even ground of losing every match (50%) and winning every match (75%), you'd take the middle ground of 62.5%. This would put them at winning half their matches on average. Since the desired kill rate per BHVR is only 60%, this means that killers should be winning roughly half their matches but with an occasional extra loss on top of that since they are 2.5% short of it being a 50% win rate.
As for draws, there is no actual draw in dbd, as BHVR stated that survivors win or lose at an individual basis. It's a 1 killer vs 4 individuals game, not a killer team vs survivor team. If 1 survivor escapes and 3 survivors die, then the survivors had 1 winner and 3 losers. Draw requires both sides to neither win or lose which isn't possible with a 1 vs 4 individuals system. You either win or you lose. However, for MMR, BHVR does treat a 2 kill as neutral for MMR adjustments even though it's not actually a draw in reality.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3594620#Comment_3594620
Quote Peanits: "If we're talking about solely kills, kill rate and win rate are equal."
And solely kills don't compare to a win. Not even sure why they brought it up. If that were the case, killing a single survivor would be a killer win which obviously isn't the case.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3594534#Comment_3594534
To put this simple: 10% is a lot. It does not sound much, but in any semi-competetive game, 10% more winrate is considered broken.
So your argument, that the killer should have this advantage might make sense because it is a horror game, killer should be a threat) ect ect but it does not. The game is so extremly unballanced between solo and SWF, that it is pointless to even aim for anything higher then a 50/50, and this can only be realisticly achieved by giving solo players a tremendous buff.
Just making sure you're aware that it's a 60% kill rate, not a win rate. 75% kill rate would be a win in a match.
-
The whole aspect that spinning in circles somehow makes them miss you was always silly. Seriously try that in a fight.
-
Killer main here.
Some things should not be touched. Long term movement speed from both sides and hit recovery from killers should always be standardized. The maps are balanced around the expectation of movement speeds and recovery speeds being the same. Changing those fundamentally breaks the balance of the game. We need those recovery speeds and consistent longterm movement speeds to be set in stone. Otherwise, everything falls apart like a house of cards. I feel pre-nerf MFT and STBFL were almost equal in regards to being broken. STBFL is less broken, however, as there is at least survivor counterplay by the obsession being on the front line.
Just my opinion.
-
I'm not a fan that poor decision making from the survivors creating a 3 gen situation has to be "fixed" by punishing killers. 3 gens are entirely avoidable. Heck, there is even a perk that literally points out which 3 gens those are AND makes you complete them faster.
-
Survivors are just getting used to being spoonfed buffs and basekit additions. They just genuinely don't want to bother to make any effort for wins. This is just how they protest so BHVR makes things even easier for them. I mean heck, BHVR is "fixing" 3 gens next year, you know, that thing that happens when survivors just randomly do gens without any strategy or thought of how it'll affect their endgame? Yes, a problem that the survivors create apparently requires punishing killers to fix. There is nothing to fix...survivors just need to play better.
Even with my fellow survivors, I see it all the time. The killer has PR, so I find a gen that is furthest from the other gens (meaning it's a safe gen to work with since the killer has to go far out of their way to get to it). I'll get it to 99 so it eats the PR hits and the important generators are left safe from PR....but no...here comes Sally Survivor seeing a 99'd gen in the far corner of the map and doesn't even consider that there might be a reason we have left it at 99 and it's not regressing. They'll top it off for what...50 bp? and suddenly the priority generators in the middle of the map are getting nailed left and right from PR.
Why should the killer be punished for that situation? The fact is, survivors are just wanting to not have to make any effort or any thinking and wants to just blindly stroll through each match like a warm summers breeze is about. Gen? MUST COMPLETE 3 GEN POTENTIAL BE DAMNED. Survivor on ground? RUSH IN NO RISK WITH FTP AND BU. Killer near hooked survivor? RUSH IN AND DISREGARD KILLER WITH FREE BORROWED TIME AND NO POSSIBILE HOOK GRAB.
It's just getting silly. As a killer, you have to balance so many things simultaneously. As a survivor, press w or press m1.
-
A large amount of killers cannot traverse the map quickly. 3 gen defense is practically mandatory for them. They can't afford to go chasing off gens miles away.
-
@Pink_Ronin said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3594058#Comment_3594058
I understand they can be used to evade aura reading, I'm saying I rarely use them for that reason. Maybe if I'm in a dead zone, injured working on a gen and have a locker right next to me I'll do it, or if I'm the last one alive and I want to look for hatch without getting immediately chased.
If you're dropping whatever you're doing to go find a locker in order to avoid BBQ, then you're not a very good survivor.
You said you can't think of a single scenario where you'd use a locker, but then you mention a few examples of when you'd use a locker. So yeah, lockers have their place. Hiding in them for the whole match obviously is silly. We aren't talking about that.
-
Yes, but video evidence is required.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3594033#Comment_3594033
Provide some proof
Playing the game at higher mmr is all that would be required. Unless you're playing nurse or blight, wins are pretty much handed to you there, lol.
-
@Nos37 said:
Another reason for lockers:
- I lost a Distortion token when a survivor was hooked. (BBQ & Chili)
- Someone wrecklessly traded and got hooked soon after. I now have 1 token left.
- Another survivor was downed before I could get close enough to the killer to replenish my tokens.
- I hop into a locker for 7-10 seconds to save my last token and wait out BBQ...
But no... Kate saw me go in. Guess the first place she ran to when she was found and chased. My gen.
And why was she found? Because she didn't use the forbidden locker to hide her aura from the killer.
I literally had this same issue 2 days ago with a Kate. Did they have blonde in their name?
@Pink_Ronin said:
I've got thousands of survivor hours and I rarely touch a locker except to dodge a hit or remove crows. It sounds like you're afraid of taking damage or hooks, which is necessary in helping to support your team. I can't think of a scenario I would be in a locker instead of getting chased or doing a gen.
I can only hope you're being sarcastic here. There are several perks that revolve around utilizing a locker, and lockers counter some killer perks such as BBQ.
Not to mention they can be useful in chases.
-
@OnryosTapeRentals said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3593873#Comment_3593873
there is certainly legitimate concern over changing games for the sake of accessibility.
Not really.
For example, what about blind players? We'll need to add in the game constantly announcing verbally the exact position and from what direction the killer is any time the killer is in line of sight
In terms of disability access, accommodations are generally made on the principle of “reasonable adjustments”. Your example here goes way beyond what most would consider reasonable.
BHVR has failed to do so, as the visual TR appears before people can actually hear the terror radius
That’s not the Terror Radius indicator in the video — that’s the icon for a Lullaby.
And it's only supposed to show up if you can hear the lullaby. It's the same concept. A lullaby is practically a terror radius.
-
@UndeddJester said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3593400#Comment_3593400
In fairness it's not an invalid statement, however it is a case of which you see as the lesser of 2 evils.
- Remove options for players who have legit accessibility issues from having the ability to play.
- Enable players without accessibility issues to use said feature for an unfair advantage over players that don't want to/can't use it
Personally I see the 1st as the unacceptable option, but that doesn't invalidate the frustrations of the 2nd... or disprove the elephant in the room that the 2nd is significantly more prevalent.
Fair enough, but there is certainly legitimate concern over changing games for the sake of accessibility. For example, what about blind players? We'll need to add in the game constantly announcing verbally the exact position and from what direction the killer is any time the killer is in line of sight. What about those who have issues with their hands? We'll need to remove precise timing\movement skills and just treadmill all movement. Eventually, everything would be made to the point where no one would actually play the game anymore. I know that's taking it to an extreme, but the point is, there absolutely is some element where accessibility can hurt the health of a game if it is not handled properly. Accessibility needs to only be added if it doesn't actually give any non-natural advantage over standard gameplay. Right now, BHVR has failed to do so, as the visual TR appears before people can actually hear the terror radius giving him a couple of seconds head start in reaction time.
Example...this shouldn't be a thing.
https://youtu.be/-j65wVBMqNs -
@Maelstrom808 said:
And this is exactly what I was saying. We can't even agree on what a win or a loss is or what is balance within the context of the game.
We don't have to argue what is a win or loss. The devs stated a non hatch escape is a win for individual survivors (there is no survivor team win or loss condition, its 1 killer vs 4 individuals). 3K+ is a killer win.
The only thing close to an argument is if a 2k is a loss or a draw for the killer, but draws require two sides to neither win or lose, and it's impossible for a 1 vs 4 individuals to ever have that situation, so a 2k is a killer loss. For the purposes of mmr adjustments, they do treat a 2k as a neutral result (you don't go up or down).
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3593707#Comment_3593707
Devs did not change him at all. And he is not dying as well. His pickrate is pretty good.
They fixed bug and reverted his one buff to PTB version. And that's because he did not lose distance or speed whenever he missed hits. Killers just m1'ed after they missed tail attack because they did not lose distance. It was not healthy for game.
Except that, Xeno is still same killer we got. He is still chase monster. If you are good to use his power, you will not miss which means you won't be punished.
And i am getting Xenos quiet enough. We have +30 killers, at this point you won't see any of them so much. Maybe exception of Blight and Wesker.
He did get nerfed. They did a bug fix (which isn't a nerf), but they also tacked on an actual nerf on top of that change.
-
@okaayletsgoo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3593729#Comment_3593729
No they don't? Name another killer that can drag a long range ability or any ability for that matter? All m1 killers either hit or miss and all range killers hit or miss. The only 2 with the "drag" effect is xeno and nemesis.
I do it all the time on ghostie. Useful for people who try to spin to dodge attacks. Bear in mind, xeno doesn't have any long range attacks. His melee is just a further reach on his m2, but it's still just a melee attack.
-
@[Deleted User] said:
It's not so much the issue with you but the recent mmr change. I consider myself a solid killer player myself and since this change winning games as killer is very difficult. I used to win some matches here and there but survivors are just blowing thru these trials like no tomorrow.
Only game I won was with myself (Singularity) maybe having mobility helped? But as a standard M1 killer I get looped into oblivion.
Also notice Killer 100% BP bonus quite often. Others may have a completely different take but this is how its been for me as of recent. Maybe it'll get better.
On the bright side, maybe bhvr will finally realize just how much survivors have power over killers once killer success rates start plummeting.
-
@mustdogen said:
https://us.v-cdn.net/6030815/uploads/02XCBZP8H8GZ/1700973549655.jpg
Of course, it should not even went out from ptb like it was.
All of my friends including me decide not return the game before MFT getting changed.
It is way tooo Op that even old MOM can't compair with it.
I essentially stopped playing when I was a daily player before. I'll be returning once the MFT changes goes live.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3591923#Comment_3591923
Nah this one is. It's training perk. It does not give you any value except showing loop areas. If you know them by yourself, you can use better chase perks.
It has no cons ofcourse when you use it but it's not amazing anyway.
Still helpful to see what is currently available to you as the match progresses. Might not know if others have used up a pallet.
-
@I_Cant_Loop said:
The visual terror radius was a huge buff for survivors, even for those without any hearing disabilities. There's a reason that literally everyone uses it, myself included. It gives survivors a big lead leaving a gen to get to safety that they didn't have before the buff.
When the visual terror radius alert for survivors came out, I saw a lot of killer players asked for similar "accessibility" buffs but as far as I know, these requests were ignored. Why does one side get accessibility features and not the other?
Because it was never about accessibility for players. If it was, they would have added this feature for both sides, not only buff one side. Killers should get a visual notification for generator sounds\repairs at the very least, and footsteps\breathing should be considered....though that starts devling into the problem...sometimes accessibility ends up harming the balance of the game. The visual TR should not start the moment the audio plays, because the audio at that level can't actually be heard. The visual TR needs a delay before it kicks in to mimic how people wouldn't hear a sound until it got a bit louder vs the other sounds in the game drowning it out. Easy example is the Onryo...you seriously wouldn't hear her coming when her lullaby starts to play over the background music or other sounds such as generators and such. Only when she got closer would you start ACTUALLY hearing it. THAT is when the visual TR should appear...after a delay...since human wouldn't really pick up on the sound at .01%-10% volume (guesstimating).
See my example I posted above:
@RpTheHotrod said:
My problem is that the visual TR thing gives more information than it should. It glows before you can actually hear the TR/Lullaby. This makes it required at a competitive level. You can see here that I couldn't even hear the lullaby or know the killer was near, but thanks to the visual TR/Lullaby indicator, I was given an early warning. Needs a balance pass.
You cannot hear the lullaby AT ALL....but anyone with the accessibility feature enabled would get an early heads up.
-
Absolutely was a problem for m1 killers with no chase power (killers who are ALREADY weak). Definitely needed a nerf. We shouldn't be gutting weak killers.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3593243#Comment_3593243
One last time and the I give up after this. Believe in what you want to believe and lets agree with disagree. Please reread my post.
The killer can have wins, draws and losses. If a survivor can have a draw or not (they can, hatch by the way) is completly irrelevant for the winrate of the killer.
Here is as i already mentioned in the orginal post, lets look at the Clown. He has 50% killrate
43% winrate (3 or 4K)
15% drawrate (2K)
41% lossrate (1K or 0K)
So i said, and once and for all to make myself 100% clear. Your 62,5% killrate would ONLY MAKE SENSE FOR A 50% WINRATE WHEN THE KILLER COULD NOT HAVE A DRAW OR YOU, FOR SOME REASON CONSIDERE A 2K ALSO A LOSS FOR THE KILLER, WHICH CLEARLY IS NOT THE CASE. Even in the graphic is say DRAW!
If we have a killer that comes close to the 62,5% KILLRATE (lets look at Skull Merchant) it looks like this:
Skull Merchant (67% killrate)
64% winrate (3 or 4K)
10% drawrate (2K)
25% lossrate (1K or 0K)
I hope this is clear now.
Don't know what to tell you. The devs disagree with you. Heck, they disagree with us both. Survivors should not have an individual win condition, it should be 0-1 kills is a killer loss and survivor team win, 2 kills is a draw both sides, and 3+ kills is a killer win and survivor team loss. However, the devs DISAGREE with that assessment. If you're honestly that upset about it to keep posting here, then direct it to the right people, the devs. Post it under feedback. I literally can do nothing to change how the devs make their game, so you constantly saying you disagree with them to me doesn't accomplish much, especially considering I agree that they should have it be based at a team level for both sides. Until they change that, survivors are designed to on average have 1-2 winners, and the killer is designed on average to slightly be under winning half of their games.
Maybe this is where you are missing the devs' point of view. This game is designed as a 1 player vs 4 individual players. That's why each of those 4 individual players get their own win condition. You cannot have a draw in such a situation. A draw is where neither side wins or loses. This is not team a vs team b. This is one player vs 4 individual players. There is no situation where all 5 players would neither win or lose. The survivors csn choose to work together to increase their odds, but at the end of the day, it's every man for himself. One survivor can abandon the other 3 where they win and the other 3 lose.
Don't like it? Post about it under feedback. That's how the devs designed it. I personally think it SHOULD be balanced around team vs team, but they wholeheartedly disagree with that opinion.
-
Now you're just making things up. Where did I ever say there are no losses in the game?
Maybe you're just trolling or you honestly don't understand the basic concept of what a draw is.
A draw is when neither side wins. Survivors literally can never draw, as survivors do NOT utilize the entire team as a win or loss condition. Each survivor gets their own win or loss condition. This means that an actual draw is not possible in DBD, as both sides cannot simultaneously not have any winners. However, doing MMR like that would be hell, so for the purposes of MMR, they consider 2 kills as a draw for the killer. We are all aware of how flawed their MMR system is, but they are doing their best.
And yes, 62.5% kill rate (2.5 kills per match on average) would be considered balance (at least on paper). This means that every 2 matches, a killer would get one win with a 3k+. For survivors, this means every match would have an expected result of one survivor winning (killer got a 3k), and every other match, the survivors would get 2 wins (and of course the killer doesn't win). If the killer got a 50% kill rate (2k) He would not win in every match. If he had a 75% kill rate (3k), he would win every match. If you take that difference between 50 and 75. You get 25. Find the halfway mark, and you get 12.5%. So for a killer to settle in the middle where he doesn't always lose and doesn't always win, you give him a +12.5% kill rate. Now half his matches he wins, and half of his matches he does not.
Since drawing is actually not possible since drawing requires BOTH sides to not have any winners, then the reality is that the killer did not win, he lost.
So what we know from this is that the killer is designed to win half of his matches, but since he is below the halfway mark with only 60%, every so often, he's also designed to have an extra loss from time to time.
Why is this so messy? Ask the devs. They designed it this way. We all know someone escaping shouldn't necessarily mean they should go up in mmr. What if they just hid all match then ran out the gate at the end leaving teammates to die? Their mmr system is flawed. It instead should be based on the entire team for survivors. However, they do not agree with this idea.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3593183#Comment_3593183
I made this example of course from the killers perspective.
If you have any doubt on what i posted, feel free to read it for yourself:
https://deadbydaylight.fandom.com/wiki/Skill-Based_Matchmaking_Rating
I quote:
- Killing 0 or 1 Survivor(s) is considered a loss towards MMR.
- Killing 2 Survivors is considered a draw.
- Killing 3 or 4 Survivors is considered a win towards MMR.
That's for MMR matchmaking. You're in the wrong thread for that discussion. That's why they also used the word considered. For the purposes of MMR, they consider those events as such despite that not being the reality. We are talking about actual win rates and why 60% is the standard. We aren't talking about MMR adjustments. Again, you can argue with the devs all day, that's fine. Not sure why you're all up in my case here, if you're trying to change things, direct it to the devs. I personally agree with you that they SHOULD do win loss rates on a loss draw win scale, but they don't. Telling me your opinion that that's wrong constantly isn't doing much. It's them you have to convince, not me lol.
A draw is when neither side wins. Survivors literally can never draw, as survivors do NOT utilize the entire team as a win or loss condition. Each survivor gets their own win or loss condition. This means that an actual draw is not possible in DBD, as both sides cannot simultaneously not have any winners. However, doing MMR like that would be hell, so for the purposes of MMR, they consider 2 kills as a draw for the killer. We are all aware of how flawed their MMR system is, but they are doing their best.
-
My problem is that the visual TR thing gives more information than it should. It glows before you can actually hear the TR/Lullaby. This makes it required at a competitive level. You can see here that I couldn't even hear the lullaby or know the killer was near, but thanks to the visual TR/Lullaby indicator, I was given an early warning. Needs a balance pass.
https://youtu.be/-j65wVBMqNs?si=Bsjf9cu1TMXADRMp -
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3593149#Comment_3593149
The devs fully explained that, so i was curious how someone can have that idea. Whats the background behind that.
What you mentioned not correct. Let me explain.
2 kills are a draw for the killer. He can have 0, 1, 2, 3, 4. possible outcomes. Whats the middle of 0,1,2,3,4? Its 2. 0,1 kill is a loss, 2 kills is a draw 3,4 kills is a win.
Also from a survior standpoint it is a draw. 4 survivor 2 kills, 2 escapes. A draw.
"Half of the survivor team won" ... yea right and half lost. No way this could be a draw. Sorry i dont want to sound condicending but the way you added "you're joking" on such a simple thing cracked me up a little bit.
Anyway, if you believe 2 kills is a loss for the killer, then it is your personal idea of that.
You're incorrect. The devs stated the survivors have an individual win condition. The survivors dont get a draw. You either win or lose at a survivor level. You can win but other 3 lose. You can lose but the other 3 win. Etc...
That means 2 kills means the survivors had two winners and the killer did not win, as he needs 3 kills for a win.
Draws only happens if both sides can draw. You can argue with the designers of the game if you wish, but it doesn't change the fact that the killer either wins or loses. There is no actual draw condition since it's impossible for the survivor team to draw since survivor wins are at an individual basis.
That's not my opinion, that's the devs' opinion. Considering they make the game, I'd argue that is the reality of it. I personally don't agree with their opinion, I think it should be team based (ie 2 kills should be a draw for both sides), but they do not agree with that opinion. They make they rules, so what they say stands.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3592695#Comment_3592695
Do you seriously think that a draw is a loss for killer? What makes you think that way?
I can only hope you're joking. Just in case you aren't, the killer drawing means:
1. They did not win
2. Half of the survivor team won (ie survivors had 2 winning players). This means the killer is the only player in the match that their side didn't get a win. If the other side side has winners, and yours did not, you lost, lol.
In the end, there is no real draw conditions in this game since survivors win or lose at an individual basis per BHVR's statement. It comes down to if you win or not as killer or survivor. If the killer only gets 2 people, he did not win the match. That's effectively a loss.
-
I used to play several times a day. After MFT was added, I felt like the devs have completely lost the entire concept of game balance. Playing as an M1 killer main absolutely turned into an awful playing experience. I pretty much stepped away from DBD limiting myself to maybe 2 or 3 rounds a week (from at least 5 matches a day). I'll be returning once the nerf goes into play, but I'm very much putting DBD on thin ice at this point moving forward. They absolutely wrecked the game for half a year...and that was after LOADS of feedback on the forum on the MFT PTB warned how broken it was.....and it went live without a single change.
-
@MikaelaWantsYourBoon said:
The Thing.
People are saying he would not work because of SWFs.
But people said Pinhead and Sadako would not work too since they both don't use any weapons.
People also said Chucky would not work too but here we are.
So i want to get the Thing. He would bring pretty unique and fun power.
The Thing would work if it had the power to convert survivors to the killer side. Those survivors would want to keep pretending they are on their buddies' side. Imagine being at the exit gate only to find out your other teammates were infected and you're entirely alone.
-
Then you have The Ghost Face that has a perk that lets him become undetectable.......when he can go undetectable on demand anyway. XD
-
@Maelstrom808 said:
Oh boy, here we go again. We went over this pretty extensively not too long ago.
The thing is, most of the stats are meaningless unless they get too ridiculous mostly because BHVR doesn't want to define winning and the community can't agree on a single standard for it. Until that happens, kill rate is effectively useless, or it isn't, depending on what winning is to you.
To be clear, I hate this. I am all about setting your own goals and wincons, but there should be a universal, easily definable default standard as well to balance around.
*IF* you go by the most widely accepted standards of:
Killer: 0k-1k = loss, 2k = draw, 3k-4k = win
Individual Survivor: Death = loss, Escape = win
Survivor team: Opposite of Killer
Then a 60% kill rate really doesn’t work too well.
The most important thing to look at for balance in my opinion is the distribution curve of 0k-1k-2k-3k-4k. To me, the closest you can get to perfect balance is an equal chance of 20% for any of the given outcomes. This is highly unrealistic given the nature of the game, but it should be the goal. It would give the survivor team and the killer both a 40% winrate. This also creates a 50% killrate.
It has flaws, but to me, it is the simplest way to look at how to balance the game.
It would need to be a 62.5% to be as close to "even" as possible, but I don't even think it should be even. The killer should be a force to be reckoned with. Escaping should be some bragging rights - going face to face with Myers himself and living. I don't think it should be a simple red team vs blue team with a 50% chance for both sides. That, however, is merely my opinion (except the 62.5% part - that's just mathematically accurate).
-
Honestly, I'd absolutely love a Jake outfit 50% off - preferably the top half.
-
If you don't tunnel at higher MMR, you tend to lose. That's generally a problem with the game design as a whole. Tunneling is just so strongly incentivized - especially since many killers don't have much of a choice. It's either stacking as much gen regression as you can, or don't and tunnel. Survivors just have so many second changes and tools available to them to the point where in this game people can literally bully the power role.
-
@SweetbutaPsycho said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3592561#Comment_3592561
People are acting as if the killers in the picture have a killrate of 80 or 90%. Most of them are at around 50% in the picture with only skull merchant having around 65%. So most of the killers appear pretty balanced at least to me.
And lets be real: how many survs kill themselves on first hook when they see a sm cause they dont wanna be taken hostage. That paired with her low pickrate and therefor less available data probably inflates her kill rate this much.
And bear in mind a 50% kill rate in a match is a loss for the killer.
-
@WilliamSN said:
The simplest solution would be to force a skillcheck the moment you interact with a regressing gen similar to overcharge, but instead of a "difficult" its just a normal skillcheck.
Its ridiculous for a killer to need to put 2 seconds into a kick to start regression, just for that regression to be stopped with a 0.1s m1 tap mid chase.
This is why I never saw cob and oc as an issue. They could be countered in an instant, and oc was only actually beneficial to the killer if it regressed for at least 14 seconds since it starts with a regression penalty that's worse than standard regression.
The problem was some killers (SM) could keep people off gens too easily. That was a situation where those killers needed a change, not the perks.
-
I almost always let the last person hatch out unless they were toxic or cheating. The match is clearly over, do why not let them get extra bp? If I ended up stomping their team, I usually let the last TWO finish the gens, get some heal bp, then allow them to both escape. I'm not out to make the game a miserable experience for the other side. I'm a p100 ghostie, so I'm not in dire need of bp.
The exception is if I'm farming towards maxing iri 1 for the month.
-
@pseudechis said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3592233#Comment_3592233
While you have a valid opinion I'd say that it only really holds true if you value game outcome over game play.
The whole killer power fantasy is part of the draw for playing killer in the first place. Without it DBD loses an integral part of what it means to take on the role of the antagonist.
Why isn't it just red team vs blue team? One side has to fix the gens while one side has to stop them being fixed?
Because there is an overlay called theme and a big part of that theme for DBD is playing as the monster. Its not a stretch by any sense that playing as the monster should feel appropriately monstrous.
As a survivor, I would probably not play the game if it was literally equally balanced. I want escaping to be a bigger deal - almost like a bragging right. I went face to face with the killer and actually escaped. It wouldn't be really scary or fun if it was a perfectly even match going against Myers himself, for example. Going up against a famous killer should be dealing with a serious and challenging threat that is NOT in our favor.
I'm not all that interested in a red vs blue match.
Fair is fair...I originally started as a survivor main, but since most of my friends no longer play dbd, I have moved into a killer main role. However, so do sign up for solo queue often - just not the majority of the time.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3592246#Comment_3592246
That's the thing, survivors don't have a 'draw' condition, for survivors it's just win or lose. The 2K=Draw thing is what throws it off, and if there were a way to have an objectively defined win condition for the killer, it probably should be 0-2K = lose, 3-4K = win.
It's an asymmetrical game, there isn't actually a way to divide the results down the middle 50/50. There aren't an even number of players, there are FIVE players per game, and FIVE different results.
For example, a 3K game has 2 winners and 3 losers, one winner on each side, so that's technically a 40% win rate among both roles. But it's a 75% kill rate. This is why Kill rate does not equate to Win rate.
It can be difficult to see this because the even number of survivors gives the illusion of symmetry, but it's easier to explain if you use a thought experiment where there's an uneven number of survivors. If each game had 3 survivors v 1 killer, what would be the draw condition? Technically a 1K would result in a 50% win rate, so would a 1K be a draw? 1 out of 3 survivors killed doesn't seem like a success for the killer. Meanwhile a 2K would also be a 50% win rate, one killer and one survivor, one win each, so draw? but 2/3 survivors killed doesn't seem like a success for the survivor team.
A 2K is 50% of the killers main objective, but it also means they've failed their other objective which is to prevent the opening of the exit gates, for which survivors have completed their objective, they have to to get more than one escape. So there is no way you can objectively say that a 2K is a 'draw', it just 'sounds right' because 2 is half of 4.
All of this is why there is no correct way to determine what a balanced kill rate should be. At most you can say it should be somewhere between 50% and 75%, and then pushing that closer to the 50% makes it 'sound fair', but doesn't necessarily translate to a healthy place for the game to be in if you want both sides to feel like the have both a challenge and a fair chance. Somewhere around 60% seems to be where that place is.
Survivors are handled different, indeed. See my comment above. The game is designed around expecting 1 survivor to win every match, and every other match, 2 survivors win. Killers don't have that luxury and are expected to win half their matches with an occasional extra loss on top of that since they are 2.5% lower than they'd need to be to actually be at a pure 50% rate. A 62.5% kill rate would mean killers would win (3k+) about half their matches.
-
@xEa said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3591761#Comment_3591761
Alright.
Lets just look at the stats we have. According to you, if i understand you right, we need to achieve a ballanced winrate more %kills for that goal.
Lets look at some of those stats.
Skull Merchant:
Killrate 68%
Wins/Loss (3+4K)/(0-1K) 65% - 25%
Clown:
Killrate: 51%
Win/Loss 43% - 41%
Spirt:
Killrate: 56%
Win/Loss 50% - 37%
Doctor:
Killrate: 55%
Win/Loss 47% - 40%
The only killer which achieves a ballanced 50/50 win-loss rate is the clown, with 51% killrate. All the other killers with higher winrate are unballanced.
The only way your arguement might make any sense is when we count a draw (2K) also as a loss for the killer.
A draw is still a loss. They didn't win.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3591460#Comment_3591460
I agree, haste stacking sucks. Haste stacking itself should be addressed rather than limiting individual perks or addons. It doesn't make sense to nerf individual perks/addons on the basis that OTHER sources of haste that might not even be in play exist.
This has been my attitude for just about ANY stacking. I thought it dumb that various gen slowdown perks were nerfed due to the possibility of stacking.
As a killer main, I still don't think long term haste effects should be a thing at all. Haste breaks map balance. Killers shouldn't get it. Survivors shouldn't get it.
-
It's not balanced, but it's not what many think.
A 25% kill rate is 1 kill. A 50% kill rate is a 2k. 75% kill rate is a 3k. A 100% kill rate is a 4k. With that in mind, we need to define what a win is.
BHVR never stated what a killer win is, but the community has widely accepted that for killers, a 3k or 4k is a win. A 0k or 1k is a loss. A 2k is a wash (ie a tie). For survivors, BHVaR said before that wins are at an individual level, so a non hatch escape is a win for that particular survivor.
With a 60% kill rate, that means on average, 1.5 survivors win the match. In other words, for every match, the game is designed around one survivor winning, and every OTHER match, two survivors winning. However. Since 2Ks are a killer loss (tie), the game is balanced around the expectation that the killer on average should only win every other match with a 2.5 out of 4 kill rate.
Long story short, a 60% kill rate means that every match, a survivor should win along with the killer, but every other match, at least 2 survivors win and the killer loses.
Them going with 60% kill rate means the killer is expected to perform in the middle ground between losing via a tie and winning with a 3k+, as 60% is roughly halfway between 50% (2K) and 75% (3K) (ie a 2.5 kill rate). In the end, a survivor is expected to always win and half the time 2+ winning. A killer is expected to always lose half of their matches (failing to secure a 3k).
TLDR; Survivors are generally designed to have a built in win every match. Killers are designed to win half their matches
FINAL NOTE, the reality is that killers require a 62.5% win rate for this to be entirely accurate (62.5 being halfway between a 2k and a 3k), so they technically would be shy a 2.5% kill rate to actually kill 2.5 survivors on average in a map. This means they should actually be expected to win one out of three matches but juuust barely. This means killers, by design, are designed to lose the majority of the time requiring 3 matches to end up with a 3k+. However, the 2.5% is such a small difference, it's better to say they are designed to win half their matches but favoring the side off an extra loss occasionally.
-
Not sure why they keep adding killer perks that are designed to be so bad, no one would ever use them. Why even design them to begin with? I get they don't want 3 strong perks added, but if they sre just going to add a decent perk and 2 useless ones, why not cut to the chase and just add a single perk per side per chapter?
-
@saintjimmy456 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3589600#Comment_3589600
"Having an on demand -40 seconds on a generator is absolutely huge."
How does Brand New Part save 40 seconds on a generator? Do you mean if every survivor brings it and uses it on one generator? Has that ever happened?
Yes, happens every so often, and it's entirely up to the survivors if they want to be able to do that. The amount of 4 toolboxes, BNP, and +charges I've seen is pretty ridiculous lol. The killer has absolutely no way to prevent squads from doing that unless those survivors delay its use and the killer has Franklin's, but usually they just run to one of the 3 gen spots and unload it all right off the bat.
Even if only one survivor brings bnp, permanent 10 seconds off is still stronger than the original form. Originally, killers could recover that generator.