knell

@ChainsawCharlie said:
I feel like the devs are regretting even releasing statistics at all (which they aren't obligated to.)
I'd be surprised if they ever do it again.

The issue isn't whether the developers decide to publicize the statistical data or not.

The issue is they are willing to use the same set of data to make balancing decisions. There have been several instances in the past in which some developers on the forum would refer back to a data that were presented to us to justify their current decisions or opinions. The issue is occasionally they decide to compile data in ways that don't show accurate information for what they are seeking to find, or interpret some results wrongly to justify their own biased experiences.

Look at the fact that for the longest time, they continued to use disconnected matches as part of the data samples - continually skewing the results for kill/survival rates. The only reason they now understand more about getting accurate statistical result is because this community has repeatedly pointed it out for them. Even then, they had continually pushed back, stating ideas like, "more data samples are always better, regardless of whether they should be considered outliers or not," or "it really doesn't make that much of a difference anyway." Fortunately, after many years, they've finally listened. They've made progress.

The fact of the matter is, they are better off sharing with the Community what they are doing, how they are doing them, and why they have done them in that way. That way, the Community can offer their own expertise and criticism for the developers.

Of course, whether they choose to learn from the criticism they are offered to do better in the future, or attempt to legitimize their past decisions and continue to make the same mistakes, that's all on them. After all, human pride is one of the worst traits that people can have.

in FYI: Stats - 'Red Ranks' weren't REALLY Red Rank Matches Comment by knell November 30, 2019

@Mandy said:
@knell your messages are showing - I can only reply to so many messages that I'm tagged in though sadly.
With regard to the stats, I believe it;s the start of the match so all players would be red ranked at that point.
I am sure that more stats will be released in the future showing various other things of interest.

Thank you, @MandyTalk ! So the criteria you used to determine a match as being 'Red Rank match' in the data is, in fact, "All 5 players MUST be in red ranks" correct? I've made a thread about this in the Japanese forum too, so I'll let all the Japanese players know of this fact. Since you are here, can you also answer my second question above about why The Nurse stat only consisted of PC players and whether it's possible to give the same stats for console players also? Again, thank you.

in Stats... Comment by knell November 28, 2019

@Mandy said:
I am sure. What the stats don't show are things like how add-ons affect the match, for example the Forever Freddy build I expect has a high kill rate - slowing the game down by that much, will always favour the killer for example.
That's why we say, there are various factors that go into any changes that the Devs make and it's not based on stats alone - it's not about stats being wrong, it's just that they don't show every little detail.

@MandyTalk would you be so kind as to answer the following (or tag a developer who can do so)?

1. Can you define what types of matches constitute as being 'Red Ranks' matches? (e.g. - a.) All 5 players started the match in Red Ranks, b.) Killer started the match in Red Rank but not necessarily survivors, c.) All 4 survivors started in Red Ranks but not necessarily the killer, d.) at least 1 player started the match in Red Rank, e.) majority of the players (3/5) started the match in Red Ranks.)

2. Why were the Nurse's kill rate statistic only given for PC? Can you provide them for the other consoles?

I've tagged you and @Peanits with these questions several times, but can't seem to get a response of any kind. I'm wondering if the tagging system is working (i know there was a bug that made certain people's posts invisible before, so I'm wondering if a similar bug is going on now. )

in Stats... Comment by knell November 28, 2019

You know, it would be a much better world if more people are willing to tell racists/bigots to stop behaving in a racist/homophobic ways than to tell the victims of racism/bigotry to stop being offended by them.

Kind of like how it's better to tell rapists to not ######### women than to tell women to stop being raped by them.

in Homophobic Slurs Allowed? Comment by knell November 28, 2019

@Peanits said:
Gotta' chime in here; #1 is not true. There are also statistics on the amount of people ranking up on each side. The percentage was significantly lower on the survivor side when the emblem system first came out. These days it's much closer to what it should be.
That would also invalidate #2, although it's pretty nebulous to say in the first place since different killers earn emblems at different rates. The Legion, for example, gets a ton of chaser score because of their fast first hits and multiple chases. Meanwhile killers like the Plague, Hillbilly, etc. only hit survivors once to down them, meaning they lose out on a lot of chaser score, making them harder to rank. If it was just a matter of emblems, a killer like the Legion would be doing much worse as some of the people playing them would rank up further than they should and drag down the kill rates.
Anyway, long story short, we actually don't balance around kill rates alone. Kill rates are just one of the many things that might show us where a problem could be, but we do our research first.

Since you already seem to have the numbers for this particular data in your hands, can you provide us with the following?:

At Rank 2-4, % of Survivors who are able to still pip up despite dying (losing).

At Rank 2-4, % of each specific types of Killers who are able to still pip up despite having only 0-1 kill (losing).

At Rank 2-4, % of Survivors who lost pip despite surviving (winning.)

At Rank 2-4, % of each types of Killers who lost pip despite having 3-4 kills (winning.)

And you also stated that "these days it's much closer to what it should be." What is that, exactly? What is it supposed to be?

in Balancing Around Kill Rate Doesn't Work Comment by knell November 28, 2019

@Peanits said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/871499#Comment_871499
They are both accurate and broad. I think they word you're looking for is precise. They are not looking a specific thing (e.g. Which is stronger, snares or fake pallets?), which is why you should not make a very specific conclusion with them.

@Peanits

1. Can you define what types of matches constituted as being 'Red Ranks' matches? (e.g. - a.) All 5 players started the match in Red Ranks, b.) Killer started the match in Red Rank but not necessarily survivors, c.) All 4 survivors started in Red Ranks but not necessarily the killer, d.) at least 1 player started the match in Red Rank, e.) majority of the players (3/5) started the match in Red Ranks.)

Just to clarify (since I've asked this several times without any answer) , what criteria did you use to determine that a match is a 'Red Rank match' to be used in the data?

2. Why were the Nurse's kill rate statistic only given for PC? Can you provide them for the other consoles?

in So the official stats for DBD came out... Comment by knell November 27, 2019

@Peanits said:
There's a graph for red ranks specifically, if that's what you're after. They're higher than the all ranks stats.

Can you answer these questions, @Peanits ?

1. Can you define what types of matches constituted as being 'Red Ranks' matches? (e.g. - a.) All 5 players started the match in Red Ranks, b.) Killer started the match in Red Rank but not necessarily survivors, c.) All 4 survivors started in Red Ranks but not necessarily the killer, d.) at least 1 player started the match in Red Rank, e.) majority of the players (3/5) started the match in Red Ranks.)

2. Why were the Nurse's kill rate statistic only given for PC? Can you provide them for the other consoles?

in The Stats don't perfectly show balance Comment by knell November 27, 2019

@Mandy said:
Stats can never show the full story because there is so many other factors at play, such as perks, playstyles etc. That's why you cannot go on stats alone, sorry for those that think we should - but it just doesn't work like that.

@MandyTalk

Were you able to read the other thread where i tagged you about some particular questions? If you don't know, can you tag someone who can answer them? Basically i asked the following:

1. Can you define what types of matches constituted as being 'Red Ranks' matches? (e.g. - a.) All 5 players started the match in Red Ranks, b.) Killer started the match in Red Rank but not necessarily survivors, c.) All 4 survivors started in Red Ranks but not necessarily the killer, d.) at least 1 player started the match in Red Rank, e.) majority of the players (3/5) started the match in Red Ranks.)

2. Why were the Nurse's kill rate statistic only given for PC? Can you provide them for the other consoles?

in The Stats don't perfectly show balance Comment by knell November 27, 2019

Thank you, @MandyTalk

This is wonderful news that the data team has been motivated to get a more accurate data sets than before. Is it possible to edit in that information in the official Statistics post so that there won't continue to be any confusion around it? I've posted a similar thread yesterday that was never answered (although I did tag @Peanits ) - if I hadn't seen this particular thread today, I would have never known.

Even for the official statistic posts in the future (if it is really going to be done monthly), it would be a good idea to add that sort of information in, so that same questions don't keep popping up.

If you can, can you also answer the following? (Or if you don't know, can you tag the person that would know the following information?)

1. Can you define what types of matches constituted as being 'Red Ranks' matches? (e.g. - a.) All 5 players started the match in Red Ranks, b.) Killer started the match in Red Rank but not necessarily survivors, c.) All 4 survivors started in Red Ranks but not necessarily the killer, d.) at least 1 player started the match in Red Rank, e.) majority of the players (3/5) started the match in Red Ranks.)

2. Why were the Nurse's kill rate statistic only given for PC? Can you provide them for the other consoles?

Thanks again @MandyTalk

in Question to devs about how data was grabbed for recent graphs Comment by knell November 27, 2019

@FriendlyGuy said:
I mean relating nurse the stats show exactly what many people say: Her power doesn't suffered heavily, but her pickrate is down the drain. She's not fun anymore, who would've expected this oh damn!

? I'm not sure what your post has to do with the questions I placed forth. Can you explain?

_________

Also, it looks like Peanits has already answered the first question.

"The whole match. If there's a DC, it's not counted." 11/25/19
"The matches with DCs are completely excluded." 11/25/19

As well as the fact that it is specifically mentioned in the Japanese version of the Stat thread. (It also seems like the Japanese version has more details and explanations than the English version. I'm curious as to the reason why.)

https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/ja/discussion/107239/統計データ公開-2019年11月

Thank you so much for taking the data in this way, which presents a much more accurate picture as a whole! Please continue to exclude any matches with disconnections in the future.

Now, is it possible to get an answer for the other two questions? How are "Red Rank matches defined?" and "Why were kill rates statistics given only for the PC for Nurse's changes, and can we have the same for the console versions?"

@Peanits

ps - and I still would encourage you to edit your original stat thread to include the information that disconnects were not included, similar to the Japanese version of the same thread. It is an important information to have considering the data.

in Stats | November 2019 Questions Comment by knell November 26, 2019

@Almo said:
Did you guys see that BIG BAD ~7% extra survival rate for 4-player SWF? So in 100 4-P SWF games, 7% of your escapes are because you were in SWF instead of solo.
SWF is not as OP as everyone thinks it is. :)

Is that truly your understanding of the data that was presented?

For example, let's say that you have two sets of data: 100 games of solo games, and 100 games of 4-SWF games (much like in your own example.)

If the results of those 100 games of solos, in which every player attempted to fulfill their goal (surviving and killing) to the best of their abilities, is 200 escapes out of 400, it would result in a 50% survival rate.

Let's continue to suppose that in the 100 games of 4-SWF, 85 of these matches contain players who are "We just want to have fun with our friends - we're not even trying to win - most of the time, we just troll each other haha" crowd that we constantly, constantly see on the forums. Basically these are the majority of players who are not even attempting their best to fulfill their goal of surviving and instead, continually choose to make blatant bad decisions (over-altruism, overconfidence, etc) due to their focus being more on socializing with each other than actually focusing on the game. Let's say they are able to have 2 survivors escape on average (170 Escapes), in which their terrible gameplay decisions are offset by the advantage of communication. The other 15 matches have players who are 4-SWF who are actually trying their best to win (just like the killers) and are able to make good use of the advantage that they have. Let's say they are all able to 4-man escape (60 Escapes).

This 4-SWF scenario results in 230 escapes out of 400 or a survival rate of 57.5%, a survival rate increase of 7.5% compared to the games of solos, which is very close to the 7% you have presented yourself.

...as a developer, does that sound fair for the killers to you? Does it sound like a balanced game from the standpoint of game design? A game in which, if SWF is actually choosing to play to the best of their abilities, they are pretty much guaranteed to dominate the killer with a 100% win, and if SWF is just "having fun" or "trolling" or "memeing," they have an EQUAL chance of winning as the killers who are, unlike the SWF, trying their hardest to the best of their abilities?

This scenario doesn't even consider the ranking differences or incidences in which SWF chooses to DC all at once.

What's most disappointing is that this trivialization of the solo/SWF difference is coming directly from a developer - as if they have not an ounce of concern for the repeated outcry to balance the game for Solos/SWFs that's been going on for years. Despite the fact that it breaks the balance of the game, and makes the "buffs" and "nerfs" of killers meaningless since we don't even know what the killers are being balanced against. Despite the fact that it has continually been labeled as "unfun" from majority of people who don't play any SWF (whether as a solo survivor or killers) since its inception - and even now on the steam forum, has one of the longest threads (if not THE longest thread) on the problem of SWF. Despite these facts, developers such as @Almo continues to ignore the problem and pretend that they hardly matter. At times like this, I feel truly bad for Dead by Daylight - the game, for having developers who just seemingly don't care much about it.

in Killer and Survivor Data Comment by knell November 24, 2019

Thanks guys. Although I would like to mention that there are many other statistical data that would be interesting to analyze. The ones I mentioned above would be the most basic, fundamental data sets that I would like to be provided (as well as something the developers should already be tracking on a very frequent basis.) It really shouldn't be taking any time from the data team.

in Statistic Requests Comment by knell November 20, 2019

Just so that there is no misunderstanding, when balancing any game, the frequency in which you face 'the best of the best' doesn't matter. What matter is understanding what 'the best of the best' is capable of (to determine the skill ceiling), and making sure it's not too powerful or too weak against other 'best of the bests.'

So at the top of the skill cap on both sides, each side should have an average of 50% win rate after many trials (for most two sided pvp games). In DBD's case, when the best players of a killer (any killer, whether it's the Nurse or the Trapper) go against the best 4-Man SWF gen-rushing groups, on average, they should end up with 2 kills.

Once the skill ceiling has been determined to be balanced on both sides, that is when the developers can start balancing from top to down. But that has more to do with at what rate players are able to reach the skill ceiling of the characters, as well as ranking and matchmaking.

Of course, over-altruistic groups and groups that are trolling each other would not count as 'the best of the best,' so should never have any effect on the game's balancing decisions. After all, why should trolling groups have an equal chance of winning as a killer who is trying their best to win?

in 4 Man Swf Comment by knell November 20, 2019

@ACEvHEARTS said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/840571#Comment_840571
They don't have a great way to track lost Legacy, unfortunately. I'm sure if they are able to figure it out someday, they will be more than willing to solve the issue. I, for one, hope that they do. I feel bad for folks who earned Legacy pieces and lost them in progress bugs. I definitely agree with you on that one.
As for you coming off as childish, you really didn't. I do apologize for jumping on the post. Yours was more reasonable than a lot of other ones. I'm just feeling so frustrated about lots of folks being ungrateful.
Peanits and not_Queen made an addendum to the Dev Update post and were around the forums answering a lot of questions and concerns today with a little more elaboration. Here's the added part from the Dev Update.
Why unlock the event cosmetics?
Unfortunately the way these event cosmetics were stored made it possible for certain players to lose them at random. They would need to be returned manually, but doing so ran the risk of causing further loss of progress.
Why are these cosmetics not in the list?
BLOODLETTING
Bloodletting was a promotion for ordering items on our first merchandise store (the old one) for a limited period of time. Since players payed for it, we do not want to unlock the Bloodletting shirt for all.
LEGACY
Unless we are able to identify every player that lost legacy, it will not come back. At the moment, we are still unable to identify the players that lost their legacy, therefore, we are not refunding or unlocking legacy.
TWITCH / KINGKONGTV / PANDATV
As per our arrangement with these partners, we cannot distribute the cosmetics to all players.
SWITCH TRAPPER
As per our arrangement with the platform, the cosmetic is to remain exclusive to the platform.
L4D
As per our arrangement with the platform, the promotion is effective on Steam only.
STREAMER COSMETICS
As per our arrangements with streamers, they will not be distributed and unlocked for every player. You can get a large number of streamer exclusives in the Charity Case.

Like you, I do wish that they can figure out a way for those particular players to retrieve their cosmetics too, but given how it seems like more than couple of years have passed, I am very much doubting that it is even possible. And given how that is the state of the matter, that's why I created this thread - to discuss the alternatives that are available in front of us now. What is the better option, given how there is no clean way to handle it?

Thanks for the not_Queen's addendum, but I had actually already read them. Because I personally felt that it didn't adequately address the Legacy issue, I thought I could try to pry some information of the actual thought process behind their current decision on that particular matter.

in Thoughts On Legacy Cosmetics Comment by knell November 15, 2019

@[Deleted User] said:
The reason why the devs says that players may not be able to get their lost Legacy cosmetics back who claim they lost them, is because they need some type of proof that you had it, like a screenshot or something but I'm not really sure.

I believe the reason why this is such a thorny issue for Behaviour is because there isn't any reliable way to demonstrate that a player has earned the Legacy cosmetics - and that's why even with 'screenshots' like you mentioned or evidence from achievements and trophies, the developers are not just giving them back. (Anyone - Please correct me if I am wrong about this.)

in Thoughts On Legacy Cosmetics Comment by knell November 15, 2019

@ACEvHEARTS said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/840513#Comment_840513
I'm sort of addressing everybody at this point, and I apologize that you ended up being the one post that just so happened to result in me typing a response.
You may have only touched on one side of the issue, but there are just so many complaints about the situation from so many various angles that it's kind of all landing in the same pool.
My primary point is that nobody in this situation is entitled to anything. Nobody is entitled to receiving an exclusive, and nobody is entitled to keeping their exclusives to themselves. It's up to the devs and they've made up their minds and addressed the individual "what about"s and "what ifs". There's just no need to keep creating dozens of threads as if one of you is going to post the one thread that will magically change their decision. They've touched on all of the angles and the subject should just be dropped.

My primary point is that nobody in this situation is entitled to anything. Nobody is entitled to receiving an exclusive, and nobody is entitled to keeping their exclusives to themselves. It's up to the devs and they've made up their minds and addressed the individual "what about"s and "what ifs". There's just no need to keep creating dozens of threads as if one of you is going to post the one thread that will magically change their decision. They've touched on all of the angles and the subject should just be dropped.

Can you explain to me why some people who worked for the Legacy cosmetics should continue to have them, and why some people who worked for them in the same exact manner shouldn't have them? And more importantly, can you point me in the direction where Behaviour has specifically addressed this issue?

The reason why I created this particular thread is because I personally felt that Behaviour's explanation about this particular cosmetic was a bit unsatisfactory in my opinion, and was hoping that they would expand on how they reached that particular decision.

It's hard to skip over when people keep crying over actual free stuff or having to share (not you, in this case.) So many people just honestly sound like a bunch of children. Devs are doing something nice and not looking for a profit. I just feel like it should be thanked, but the angry mobs are louder than the grateful voices right now.

Did my thread come of as childish or angry? (Granted, it probably doesn't sound 'grateful' either, but that's probably because I don't have much interest in cosmetics overall.) My only concerns were with players who had 'earned' the cosmetics and still have not received them after many years. To me, there is a better way for a professional company to address that particular issue.

in Thoughts On Legacy Cosmetics Comment by knell November 15, 2019

@Science_Guy said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/840513#Comment_840513
Probably not, and in fairness, many of us are sick of seeing these kinds of threads by now.

Fair enough. But personally, when I'm tired of certain types of threads, I simply skip over them.

in Thoughts On Legacy Cosmetics Comment by knell November 15, 2019

@ACEvHEARTS

Did you actually read the thread? It seems like you are ranting on about a completely different topic.

in Thoughts On Legacy Cosmetics Comment by knell November 15, 2019

@twistedmonkey said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/825372#Comment_825372
For true balance yes as if one side uses more it can skew it. Without using the counter items then the match is then unbalanced due to that.
I used NOED as an example as you need to do totems to remove it so If the game was balanced around kill or just do gens then that perk would make it unbalanced so totems must then come into a balance talk. IW also as it removes a large aspect of how the killer tracks as sound in this game can be just as important than sight for balance. Basically due to perks being part of the game it will never be truly balanced unless both sides can have the same.
Then of course
They have tried to make ranking harder on both sides. It did unfortunately mean those who reached the high ranks couldn't find matches. On paper it sounds good but each time they have tried it's had to be changed as players has to derank.
Fighting games again are completely different as it's a 1v1 for the most part and they tend to have the same basic moves with low, med and strong attacks along with special moves you can pull off and while they seem different they all generally work off the same principle hit areas which you can block or move from, along with long combos which can be anticipated or broken.
The only games you can truly compare dbd to in terms of balance is another pvp asymetrical game which allows you to pick a role and has many varying factors which give one side an advantage over the other and from what I have seen most if not all have the similar balance issues.

For true balance yes as if one side uses more it can skew it. Without using the counter items then the match is then unbalanced due to that.

I emphasized 'on average' in my earlier comment because that was important part of the comment. Game balance isn't about each individual match, but its summation. Yes, a match may be affected and become unbalanced due to items/add-ons, but overall if the opponent has just as many opportunities to use items/add-ons that are just as strong to gain an advantage, then from a balancing perspective, it shouldn't matter. That's why I'm questioning the need to remove everything.

I used NOED as an example as you need to do totems to remove it so If the game was balanced around kill or just do gens then that perk would make it unbalanced so totems must then come into a balance talk. IW also as it removes a large aspect of how the killer tracks as sound in this game can be just as important than sight for balance. Basically due to perks being part of the game it will never be truly balanced unless both sides can have the same.

I still don't understand your NOED and IW examples. You are telling me what they are and do. You haven't told me WHY they would unbalance the game. (When I'm speaking of balance, I'm strictly referring to getting around the average of 2 Kill / 2 Escape in the highest skill level gameplay setting.)

They have tried to make ranking harder on both sides. It did unfortunately mean those who reached the high ranks couldn't find matches. On paper it sounds good but each time they have tried it's had to be changed as players has to derank.

Which is why I stated that once they have a normal distribution of ranks, they need to prioritize the matchmakings for highest and lowest rankings.

Fighting games again are completely different as it's a 1v1 for the most part and they tend to have the same basic moves with low, med and strong attacks along with special moves you can pull off and while they seem different they all generally work off the same principle hit areas which you can block or move from, along with long combos which can be anticipated or broken.

The only games you can truly compare dbd to in terms of balance is another pvp asymetrical game which allows you to pick a role and has many varying factors which give one side an advantage over the other and from what I have seen most if not all have the similar balance issues.

Do you play much fighting games? Because from your comment, it almost sounds like you believe that once you learn one character well to the point of being competitive, you will do just as well competitively in all of the other characters in the game, regardless of how they may differ. It also sounds like you believe that there hasn't historically been issues with balance in fighting games since "they work off the same principle."

And why would it matter that a fighting game is (in most cases) asymmetrical 1vs1 while DBD is asymmetrical 1vs4? Why is that particular difference important to the point you are making?

in Meaning of Game Balance Comment by knell November 11, 2019

@ScottJund said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/825340#Comment_825340
What makes you think the bad player at high ranks is going to stop using strong addons to make up for their lack of skill?

I don't. They might not. Then they'll simply continue to rank up to other strong players (whether that's based on their skill, or like this particular 'bad' player, dependent on perks/add-ons.)