drsoontm
drsoontm
About
- Username
- drsoontm
- Joined
- Visits
- 2,627
- Last Active
Comments
-
@Linkdouken said:
Thanks for the feedback and advice everyone.
My take aways are that I need to keep at it until it becomes more natural and probably just avoid bots.
I hope one day we'll get aim marker options without them needing to be add ons
If you play for long enough, you won't need flannel. You will "feel" the blink. Or more accurately, your finger will know. (What is commonly referred as muscle memory)
-
Bots cheat. Getting them as a Nurse is pretty hard.
Nurse is hard. She was hard for me too. Yet at some point, I've decided to learn her properly.
For two weeks, I've,played with the sole objective of being able to blindly blink to small spaces from anywhere around.
Then and only then I've started to try to chase survivors.
It wasn't easy but I've kept at it and I've progressively got the hang of it.
Several years later I've done more than 61K blink attacks and, overall, I only lose against organised teams of experienced players.
Given I'm no spring chicken (to give you a ballpark : I'm gen-X), anyone younger should have enough mechanical skill to do it too.
-
I really don't mind these forums closing: I haven't come here in months or years. (I only know because a friend told me about this.)
But hearing that the Reddit echo-chamber and Discord are considered worthy of the devs' attention makes me concerned for the future of the game: even more than I already am, that is.
Reddit's voting system naturally favors whatever opinion is already popular within its community. Unpopular or minority viewpoints don't merely get disagreed with: they tend to get pushed out of sight, which makes it a pretty poor place for gauging the full range of player opinions. I expect comments arguing in favor of killers to suffer from exactly that problem.
Discord has almost the opposite problem. It's essentially an endless, fast-moving conversation: whatever you write is quickly buried under hundreds of newer messages. There's little permanence, discussions are difficult to follow after the fact, and useful arguments or feedback effectively disappear once the conversation has moved on. That's hardly a substitute for a forum where a discussion can remain visible, structured, and searchable.
Ah well. I'm already playing way less than I used to (way less killer, that is: comparatively, I'm playing survivor more than ever).
At the rate I'm losing interest in the game, this might not affect me at all.
-
AWS is broken: how is this pending and how isn't there an announce at the top of the forums page to tell players it's a known (temporary) issue?
-
@CrypticGirl said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4004536#Comment_4004536
Didn't they add the abandon option for Killers when all the Survivors become bots?
Apparently yes but it is a draw.
So you are forced to play against the bots to get your win.
-
@LordGlint said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4004561#Comment_4004561
This is while ignoring perks like plot twist too...
Is plot twist ignored by the mechanic? (I wasn't sure I remembered the name of that perk. I've never used it.)
-
@rydiafan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/4004551#Comment_4004551
Is it happening three times a game common?
Seriously, keep track for the week. Play survivor and see what percentage of your matches you get knocked down, then healed, then knocked down, then healed, then knocked down again.
Also, please note that even in the rare cases where that does happen, you don't have to abandon. Is it a situation where the killer is refusing to hook and knocking you down to be toxic, or is it a situation where it's legitimately part of the back and forth play of the game?
If hooks don't reset the count then it happens often enough (if I'm with a good team of randoms)
If hooking resets the count then that's rare.
The thing I despise the most in the game is teammates giving up. So I understand the intended purpose (anti-slugging) but I'm concerned with what it will be used for.
On another hand, it's less damaging to the game than their original "anti-slugging" plan.
You know what? You may be right. I guess we'll see in a few days if people start complaining about it. (I probably won't be able to play until next week at the earliest)
@Alicia_Tried6041 said:
I mean dcing wouldn't be an issue if BHVR didn't break killers like they have. Killer is nowhere near as hard as solo q survivor.
The problem of solo-Q is that even with all the added information (that player have asked for years) too many players are really bad at the game and do not want to learn. (They'd rather put the blame on anything than looking into the mirror.)
And when you start to lose because your teammates suck, throw the game for some achievement/daily, or abandon you find yourself in an even lower MMR with more of the same. (It happened to me so many times since my team gave up on the game years ago.)
I don't believe there is a real solution to solve that problem. Someone has hypothesized that because of the pandemic, a big amount of the player base hasn't learned how to play well with others (outside, in the real world) and have no problem behaving poorly and ruining the game for everyone else.
——I find funny to see down-votes on posts where I basically say survivor is fun except when grouped with people who give up at the drop of a hat. I guess some recognized themselves 😅.
-
@BorisDDAA said:
Yeah keep adding abandon for everything instead of making survivor more fun. Next: survivors can abandon the match if a gen hasn't popped in 120 seconds.
Survivor is fun, just not when you are grouped with bad players (the kind who abandons).
And this will make it worse.
-
@rydiafan said:
How often are you being picked up multiple times in a match? Why do you think this makes solo queue worse?
I can think of twice when I would have been able to use this, and both times the killer was slugging for the 4K and when they were away the other survivor would come stand me up and then run and hide again. The killer would come back, knock me down, and go looking for the other survivor again.
This is going to come up borderline never, and there's no reason to panic about it.
Are you kidding? Being healed while the killer is busy spreading pressure isn't rare at all.
-
@Shaddoll_Serpent said:
Yeah not a good change either I'm not gonna lie. It could work tbf as long as it's a little more strict to combat primarily killers who slug as their wincon, but this is too broad and will just be used to go next.
Yes, that was my first impression but that's a very small amount of downs.
I'd be willing to bet that perk where you down yourself can be used for that.
How much time until some streamer demonstrates an abandon without ever meeting the killer?
-
@runningguy said:
i said it before and will say again, these abandon options are getting out of hand. survivors can abandon over anything like they could go next over anything. Is the new meta for killers to down people and make them abandon so they can pick up the win v easy bots? i know what im going to be doing as killer lol
Playing against bots is boring and they cheat because they know where the killer is at all time.
No mind-games, only boring brute-force chases.
-
Hoping you finally fix the Hag issues. When even the best Hag player (Michi for the new players) only plays her twice a week and only for content, you know it's past time she's fixed.
Since you make it so easy for survivors to leave so the killer finds himself with four bots, would you make a "insta-win" button so the killer can take his win and move on? Or do you plan to force killers to play against bots when they've basically won?
-
@Throw said:
Yep don't know what devs are thinking abandon is slowly becoming the new go next
I presume its for the losers who can't be bothered to keep playing (way to encourage despicable behavior) and that they'll be replaced by bots.
But then when will playing against 4 bots be considered as an win condition? (So a killer can press a button and all survivors are considered killer and he can move on with his win.)
-
@oecrophy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3998892#Comment_3998892
Survivor macro is griefing again. Locking lockers at spawn vs. Dredge is a waste of a limited resource. Besides that: off-spawn Dredge has no target; he’ll port to a locker to force first contact. If you start slam-locking, you broadcast your position, burn tempo, and still get grabbed. Know the power.
But apart from this being a very specific situation, what failed here again was survivor macro. It isn’t even smart to use locks right at the start; it’s often just a waste of a valuable resource against this killer. Survivor macro also means knowing the killer’s ability well enough. Keep in mind: at the start Dredge has no target and will use his power to get into a chase—so what will he do? Port to a locker. Immediately running around closing lockers shows very little game sense on the survivor side. Sorry, but it doesn’t take much game sense to understand how Dredge’s early game plays out, to counter it, and to treat getting grabbed from a locker as a highly probable risk at that point. How much less smart do survivors want to play?
Let’s be real: what does Dredge do at the start? Locker TP. It takes the bare minimum of learning (and the will to learn) and game sense to look at your own play and go, ‘Okay… maybe locking off spawn isn’t the play.
Normal reaciton could be:
“Sorry team, it escalated at 5 gens vs a not-even-that-strong killer—that’s on me. Next time I’ll adjust and play smarter.”
You’d think, right? Reality: a lot of survivors’ learning curve flatlines. They repeat the same mistakes, expect the killer not to react, and then ping BHVR for more goodies so they don’t have to play thoughtfully or smart. Stop padding misplays—learn, adapt, improve.
This thread and the reactions are a perfect example of why come here rarely now.
You point to an argument, to a whole explanation video that speaks about strengths, weaknesses, balance, META: nothing helps. Doesn't fit the bias.
I know the game is supposed to be for mature audiences but I'm pretty sure we are surrounded by kids.
I'm off, I've seen enough for a while.
-
@cogsturning said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3998854#Comment_3998854
There are 160 perks. You shouldn't be forced to devote your slots to a handful of perks to combat how a portion of overly competitive people decide to play. I don't design my killer loadout around the possibility of bully squads. Why should I be forced to to do so as survivor? And the sort of builds discussed in that video are best for skilled players and coordinated teams, which is always the problem that this circles back too. People talk as though casual and average-skill players in soloq don't exist while they're probably the majority.
Who is complaining about tunnelling after a body block? If I body block, I full expect to be targeted. Just like if I'm killer, I will down someone again who does it. A survivor choosing to engage is not the problem that people want resolved. It's survivors being targeted right off hook while just trying to get away.
I like doing the objectives. I enjoy the tension of the mundane task while I've also got my head on a swivel and am trying to monitor what's happening around me. I like to crank a gen with a chase happening right next to me. I like cleansing hex totems or opening a gate while hearing the killers terror radius intensify. Running in circles isn't everyone's favorite part.
You and at least 7 other people are missing the point.
The perks are there to help beginners and bad players. Watch experienced players you'll see they barely use these perks. (Cope and Mr Tatorhead are my favorites)
So use the perks you want but don't complain being tunnelled if you don't and can't handle a chase.
Personally I don't use any of these (I've used OTR for a while) and I have no problem with tunneling. And I consider myself an average survivor at best (with almost 4000 hours but still).
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3998871#Comment_3998871
Firstly, what do you mean by even weaker? In the absolute worst case scenario, a full high mmr 4 man SWF, Killers are still killing more than losing. Let's not pretend like they are weak at High MMR.
Secondly, you shouldn't NEED to bring perks to guarantee a playable experience. Perks are bandaid fixes of the broader issue, which in this case, is that Killers can decide that one person isn't going to play the game. Not only that, but its the absolute strongest and best strategy available.
It appears I've accidentally deleted a paragraph or something. I was speaking about the weaker killers of the rosters that were made even weaker (while the stronger killers would still be able to manage)
You shouldn't indeed and you don't. Better players don't need these perks but they can loop and position. Same as killer don't need Lightborn and so on, but it helps a lot especially with the now so easy my-mother-could-use-them improved flashlights.
As for "playable", come on. Exaggeration doesn't drive an argument. Tunneling and camping may be annoying for beginners (and bad players) but the game is very playable.
My point though was if (some of) these perks help the less experienced players to hold on, it's kind of strange to keep them behind a DLC. The devs could make them "free", they could even make them base-kit (to some degrees, with appropriate rebalancing for all I care).
But no, most of the many anti-<annoying-stuff> perks are pay-walled.
-
@bleep275 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3998861#Comment_3998861
yeah im not gonna watch a 50 painfully boring and bias video. I dont watch people play video games anyway. I play the video game…why am i gonna watch some dude also play it?
but seeing how your phrase of the day is "how is it" i got one for ya
How is it that you guys cannot see past your own ego and see how harmful this is to a healthy, mutually enjoyable community?
I'll summarise: you understand little about the game, doesn't want to understand more and chalk the fact it's mostly inexperienced players who do not understand the game that have issue as "ego".
I wish you luck for your future endeavors.
-
The problem with the mechanic is that it tries to force players to do "unnatural" things and looked stupid (watch any video displaying survivors exploiting the heck out of it)
It's difficult to make the game easier for beginners (killer is always stronger in the newbie bracket) without making killer even weaker at higher MMR.
All these protection perks (DS, OTR): why not make them "public"? I mean, if the devs really care, there is a bunch of perks that help against tunneling and that could be made free.
-
In general, encouraging behavior with incentive is better than punishing.
Given what it is a bout, and I say that for the devs, making stupidly exploitable game rules with invulnerability or loss of collision and so on is unlikely to be good.
-
@MechWarrior3 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3998477#Comment_3998477
The player base at large feels like some adjustments should be made before this mechanics are thrown into a live server.
"adjustments"?
For me it's not even about the added difficulty (that makes even more killers more useless they already are).
The mechanic felt ridiculous as a whole. (And so easily exploitable.)
Honestly, given how stupid that new mechanic attempt is, I wouldn't have minded the devs to actually do it, just so they see how badly it kills the game.
Any experienced player could tell how bad it smelled.
Beside teaching the survivors to use the perks that already punish the killer for tunneling (and not tunneling as DS so often do) I'm not sure how to "fix" the problem. (Assuming it is a problem, which I'm not convinced of.)
But that idea? Oh boy.
-
@bleep275 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3998851#Comment_3998851
I loop fine. still not fun watching some other dude get tunneled at 5 gens. If your gameplay causes mass hate and anger…probably says something about that specific playstyle.
So the other dude needs to improve at looping and use the appropriate perks (and there are so many).
How is it that an average player like me has no issue with this? (Both with the tactic, the low occurrence of the tactic and the "anger" management?)
How is it that when I watch good players they get no problem with it either? (And they get tunnelled: Cope just dropped another video.)
How is it that so many players play so aggressively against the killer, body block out of the hook, only to complain about being tunnelled?
How is it every single (complaining) surviror isn't running DS, OTR, … ?
"Mass hate and anger"? in this echo chamber maybe.
It's a game about chasing and hiding, being in chases is the fun part of the game, not sitting on the gens. I wouldn't mind something to help against directly attacking someone out of the hook so there is more chance to have two health state before being downed again. But in essence, there are already several built-in mechanics and perks to do it. I wouldn't mind a huge incentive for the killer not to do it (an actual incentive).
The video I've posted earlier has very interesting points about all this.
-
@bleep275 said:
"feels too punishing for killer". Yall ever log into a match as survivor just to get tunneled out at 5 gens as punishment for playing survivor so you cant actually play the game?
I found out improving at looping and using the appropriate perks help a lot with that.
-
@terumisan said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3998675#Comment_3998675
i saw it and it's a good vid along with jcglitchmasters similar vid
Indeed.
Also, look at the vote downs you on both my post an yours: that tells you all you need to know about the mentality of a lot of the people roaming here.
-
Don't worry, they will not kill the game this time but given that post it feels they don't understand the main issue.
It's not even about the difficulty or the impossible task winning with handcuffs, ball and chain.
It's about forcing players to play in an unnatural way AND about how ridiculous it looked like in game.
Give them time, they'll tweak it, somehow will get less complain and will still hurt the game: the whole idea is wrong.
This may be interesting for whomever is interested by balance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5rduV13-GU -
@Mr_K said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3989953#Comment_3989953
That's just typical patch notes. It's being on the floor for 90 seconds and then being able to pick themselves up. What is missing is if it's 90s in one go or cumulative. The notes make it sound like it's cumulative and every time they are slugged after that they can pick themselves up after reaching max recovery. An unlimited Unbreakable.
There are less and less reasons for survivors to get off a gens. Any inconvenience solves itself.
Yes, why go fetch your teammates when you know the killer has no choice anymore.
Removing even more killer adjency, what a novel idea.
I expect a debacle but who knows? Maybe they'd done something good to compensate for the utter lack of pressure.
(Noobs will be happy though)
-
At first glance, I don’t like these changes.
But honestly, I don’t really care: I’m on a hiatus. I got fed up with the gen rushes and the constant bugs. I only know about the update because of a YouTuber.
Whenever I come back, if the crybaby role has gotten even more “second chances” (at what point do we stop calling them second?) and more rewards for playing badly, I’ll just move on for good.
I’ve got too many games on Steam anyway. I should work on that backlog.
-
The fix should be simple. (If I understand that issue that has made me stop playing Hag months ago)
Instead of turning the camera toward the trap (and thus making the survivor looking back do an instant 180 away) turn instead the body toward the trap.
That way the original (intended, as far as I know) behavior is preserved and survivors can't exploit the camera anymore.
-
.
-
@thrawn3054 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3976089#Comment_3976089
Nothing rational about tunneling someone for using an item.
"an item" : are you doing this on purpose or is the point escaping you that much?
If you're unable to understand the rationale, that's on you.
I can't help you with that. Honestly, I don't think anyone can. -
@thrawn3054 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3976018#Comment_3976018
That is honestly one of the most ridiculous things I've seen on here. Why not tunnel every flashlight user. It would make as much sense.
That’s a false equivalence a well-known fallacy. Flashlights encourage interaction and are part of the chase. The Fog Vial, on the other hand, actively undermines it.
As for calling my comment “one of the most ridiculous things” you’ve read on this forum: seriously? It was a simple, rational point about punishing the use of an item that interferes with what I love most in the game.
Given the sheer volume of truly absurd takes floating around here, I find that claim pretty ridiculous. (Unless you’ve got a top 1000 list you're updating daily.) -
@oecrophy said:
Not hard to track people and chase in the fog.. but the moment I play Spirit or Huntress, I start running into way more issues from the killer side. I’m not sure if it’s good design when an item isn’t strong on its own, but shuts down certain killer abilities. Like, that doesn’t feel healthy.
Oh, I know that name : hello ^_^. Are you « 281/282 DbD achievements » ? (Your name feels pretty unique so I'm guessing it's you.)
I wonder what has made you finally create an account here after all these years.
-
@thrawn3054 said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3975616#Comment_3975616
You would tunnel someone for using an item wth.
Hide and seek went away because looping was more effective. It was actually viable again for a while until Distortion was killed. Personally I always liked it as a survivor. The tension of hiding around a corner not knowing if the killer will spot you. I've missed that alot tbh.
Obviously. And I don't see any problem with tunneling per se. It's just that I usually try to play nice if I can. (I so rarely get to verse competitive teams.)
I enjoy chases and mind-games. I applaud skillful vanishing acts.
Dropping a cloud of smoke ninja-style to avoid a chase goes against that so discouraging it feels like the right move.
But given all the negative feedback I've seen around (not just here), by the time I launch the game again it will probably be nerfed.
-
@oecrophy said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3975624#Comment_3975624
"even when I´m playing "casually""
Maybe you’re playing too casual? As soon as people escape, you’re not meeting the MMR’s win conditions. But i know what u mean.. what I always notice about those “super baby lobbies” is that they’re typical backfill lobbies where people have already left 1 or 2 times. Then you suddenly get "just anything”
I usually kill 3. It's just that instead of killing with potentially 5 or 4 gens left, I make a point killing with 2 or less left. (It's a bit more challenging for me, less overwhelming for them, and bites me in the backside when they are actually good 😅)
-
A streamer who literally got mad (and shall remain unnamed) once proposed a hypothesis that the MMR system cycles through matches to give you in sequence: a hard match, an easy match, then a balanced match.
From my experience as a 4k hours player, I often find that the system doesn’t work as intended. I regularly face survivors who are so inexperienced they barely know what to do to escape me even when I’m playing “casually.”
Every now and then, I get a strong team that forces me to focus. After beating them, I’d expect the matches to get progressively harder, but instead I keep getting “babies” who clearly shouldn't be matched against me.
I don't know if the MMR is broken altogether but it is at the very least inconsistent.
-
I don't play much anymore but I've seen a video where that fog thing was used. I thought it was some event.
I've looked around to learn about it and it looks extremely annoying.
I don't know when I'll go back in the game (not for a while) but one thing is certain:
If I see a survivor use that stuff, I'll make a point tunneling it out (something I only do against competitive teams)
Basic positive punishment is a thing.
-
A 60% kill rate for killers means the win rate, under MMR win conditions, is about the same for killer and survivors.
Do the math if you understand statistics.
MMR win conditions, for a match:
killer: 3 or 4 kills
survivor (individually): escape
-
I don't see a way that can work without removing even more player agency.
So I only hope it will not be something that'll make me switch from playing DbD on a regular basis to finally go trough my thousand games backlog.
-
Thanks for the heads up.
If that's true I guess I'm done with that mode. (It used to be my favorite one.)
-
I don't know. I see "account linking" so I'm a bit wary of it.
-
@Crowman said:
I think your penalty is now equal to the number of times you disconnected in the last 20 games.
@Aven_Fallen said:
No. If someone DCs every two matches, they will get a DC-Point every second match.
DC Game 1 - 1 point
No DC Game 2 - 1 point
DC Game 3 - 2 points
No DC Game 4 - 2 points
And so on.
So if you DC 5 times in a row, you have 5 Penalty Points. You keep those until you play 20 matches. Then when you play the 21st match, only the last 20 matches will count and you will have 1 Penalty Point less. At Game 26 without any DCs you will have 0 Penalty points, since the first 5 games are not counted anymore.
This is how I understand it.
I understand "Disconnection penalty points decrease as you play matches without disconnecting (previously decayed at the rate of 1 point per day)." as -1 for each match you play without disconnecting.
So:
DC: +1, total 1
play: -1, total 0
DC: +1, total 1
play: -1, total 0
-
@SoGo said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3936340#Comment_3936340
This actually is included in the changes, though.
When you gain all 3 crows, you lose colision with all players. This makes it so the killer can't bodyblock forever.
Sounds exploitable.
-
I've been playing on Arch (what SteamOS is based on) for a very long time.
Sometimes you may get a EAC issue but you only have to restart the game, maybe after verifying the files, and you are back on.
-
It's more 40% escape rate and it makes perfect sense.
Following the MMR "win" rules (escape or kill at least 3 survivors), this is the number at which both sides win at almost the same rate (except against high MMR SWF of 4 players)
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3840648#Comment_3840648
A binomial distribution (which is the mathematical distribution used in your simulation) contains discrete values that conform to a normal distribution (which is also sometimes called a gaussian distribution, as you mentioned) - or, in this case, a skewed gaussian distribution. I am "pulling that gaussian" from your own post
I'm using a uniform distribution. (And I know a bit of statistics and stochastics, no need to explain that part.)
You draw values, they get distributed on an axis. If it's a bell curve, it's a binomial.
If it's a horizontal line, it's uniform.
I use an uniform one to draw escapes.
Everything else is a result of this.
-
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3836663#Comment_3836663
You've said it's irrelevant but you're incorrect. The fact that kills per game doesn't follow a normal distribution in practice is very relevant to a simulation that does conform to that distribution.
What are you even talking about. There is only one information available about the kills and it's 60%, from where are you pulling that gaussian? Try to be more explicit.
@Vishlumbra said:
I ain’t no math expert, but, the simplest way of looking at it is that each survivor has a 40% chance of escaping, there’s four of those. Killer to win the match needs to surpass the odds of a 40% escaping survivor, 3 times.
Just saying that the 60/40 is not the end of all things. There’s a bunch of factors you have to consider:
1 - Each individual survivor has a 40% chance of escaping, which means that to achieve a “win” the killer has to beat those 40% odds three times.2- Killers are vastly different in strength, survivors can be considered equal because there’s no real difference. So top meta Killers could be carrying weaker killers, which in return could be having horrible games.
Saying that survivors should have a 50% chance of escaping would make the already hard role of playing killer, way harder, because it’s not a 1vs1, it’s a 1vs4 and basically you need 3 to win.I believe you are correct. And I should never use the word "math", it makes it looks way more complicated than what it is.
@zarr said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3834717#Comment_3834717
The 40% escape rate is the result from millions of matches. That means over many matches, on average less than 2 survivors escaped. In a match where 3 survivors escape, you have an escape result of 75%. If that were to happen more often than not, the overall resulting rate would be higher than 40%… But if you want to have it in individual terms: in these captured stats, an individual survivor escaped on average 40% of their matches, less than half.
People really have trouble making sense of stats in an asymmetrical game. But it really is as easy as 50% kills/escapes = perfectly balanced. The 60/40% target was chosen deliberately to make killers perform better on average than survivors. BHVR literally said "To ensure the Killer feels like an unstoppable force to be feared, we’re making slight improvements to many aspects of Killer gameplay" when they aimed for the 60% from former 50%.
But I could employ the same mental gymnastics for a 60% escape rate (that the people arguing a 60% killrate is totally balanced and needed and if anything too low would absolutely lose their mind over): since survivor groups are 4 players, more players lose when survivors die, whereas the killer wins against any survivor they kill - so the aim should really be a 25% killrate, because in that case only 1 player loses, 3 players win, and the killer still wins against the player that lost! Win-win! But 40% killrate is alright I guess, because that's still on average less than two survivors dying.
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3836551#Comment_3836551
Note that draws are irrelevant as they are just a "meh" game for both sides.
This statement not only doesn't make any sense (we are looking at whether the game is "balanced" based on match outcomes, we obviously can't just ignore a huge chunk of outcomes because we feel like it, much less say they are "meh" results when they are what most people think of as a balanced match), but just because you think draws are "meh" or "irrelevant" still does not make them killer losses, which is what you implied multiple times.
I've been very careful speaking about killer wins and survivor escapes.
That you have been indeed. Care to enlighten us why comparing survivor escape rate to killer winrate is a meaningful balance measure? As opposed to survivor winrate versus killer winrate? Or again, how would you like if we make it about killrate versus survivor winrate? Which, again, your simulation predicts to fall around 17-20% for a 60% killrate. Survivors are losing 80+% of the time according to your simulation and your logic, yet that "makes perfect sense" from your balancing perspective.
A 60% escape rate would translate to about a 18% win rate for the killer. Nobody would play killer ever (people were already leaving in droves with a 50% escape rate)
Ah, but an 18% winrate for survivors is perfectly fine. Also: The "killers are leaving in droves" and "enjoy your infinite queue time!" bogeyman has never been real. I've played this game regularly on and off throughout most of its lifetime, and there was never a time where survivor queues were prohibitively long. The longest they've been was 5-10 minutes exclusively for SWFs back in 2017. I fail to remember even having had a >5-minute survivor queue since, though possibly with rare exceptions of course.
I do agree with BHVR that 60% killrates are probably better for the game, because the game trending killer-sided fits its theme.
Additionally, I'm assuming you understand the convergence of results for truly random sampling (of which uniform random is a decent approximation)
It isn't truly random though. The escape "rate" does not say the game is a system designed to bring about a 40% chance for any survivor in any given trial to escape. The 40% simply says: in these millions of captured real trials, 40% of survivors escaped. I think you will understand that if you were to actually look at the trials, you would find that the 40% is completely inaccurate for countless of them because the game is not a neat mathematical system where uniformly random chance exists. If two survivors have died in a trial, do the remaining two still have a 40% chance of escaping?… They can use these overall stats to steer rough balance trends within the game, but it does not accurately depict the reality of any trial, and it simply cannot reliably show things such as the winrates.
The fact alone that different survivor group sizes and different killers have different escape/killrates should be hint enough to understand that the overall 40% obviously does not describe the state of the game in any given trial as if it were a logical, consistent system.
And this is even more easily recognized again by looking at real data sets that capture game reality. NightLight shows that in reality, not only is it possible to have above-50% winrates for 60% killrates, but it happens every time, and none of the real results align with your simulated ones. Real results here consistently add up to something that completely contradicts your "model". I struggle to understand how you could be convinced that if BHVR were to actually share data on kill distributions they would be close to your predictions. Just because overall some 40% of survivors escaped does not at all mean these distributions will follow a predictable, simulatable pattern.
Do it yourself if you want, you'll get the same results.
I did, and like @Saiph I saw the "l: 17.79%" and had to chuckle. And I already pointed to this by inverting the implications of your graph. The killer lossrate/survivor winrate is below 20% for a 40% escape rate according to you but this finds no mention anywhere and is apparently perfectly reasonable and benign. Mind you, as much as I would like to take this and run with it to use your "proof" that the game is incredibly rigged against survivors succeeding, this is mindbogglingly low and just another "hint" that your simulation is completely removed from reality; I don't actually think 3/4-escapes only constitute ~17% of real games in DbD (they certainly don't in the real games captured on NightLight). But it's funny that you refuse to mention or acknowledge this result of your simulation. But based on your consistent insistence on distinguishing between individual survivors and "teams" I'm sure you will have some impressive gymnastics to perform as to why survivor group winrates don't mean anything and don't matter at all.
The reason survivors escape at 40% is utterly irrelevant.
Only if you think the game is some mathematical system. Hatch escapes are different in a gameplay sense from gate escapes, most of all of course because they can and regularly do happen in matches survivors had gotten completely decimated in. They skew the idea that "40% of survivors escaped" means that those players had games in which they did well, finished gens, and escaped through gates. Tons of the escapes captured by the "40%" will be hatch escapes in matches they lost, often decisively.
I'm also not only talking about reasons why 40% of survivors escaped in the matches their stats cover, but that the stats don't capture all matches and that it stands to be reasoned that if they did the result would be less than 40%. Or that if you looked at specific subsets of matches they would be (e. g. "high MMR" killers against non-SWFs).
Everything else is a moot point.
Not at all. Pointing out that a killer winrate of 47/37% (even if it would be true) doesn't necessitate a 53/63% killer lossrate/survivor winrate and that comparing escape rate to killer winrate (rather than escape rate to kill rate or survivor winrate to killer winrate) isn't a fair or sensible balance proposition isn't moot. It's crucial to understand the comical levels of bias at play here.
But luckily it ultimately doesn't matter whether you are actually wrong or right about the real numbers, for one thing because I don't personally have a problem with BHVR's 60% killrate target (with the caveat that SWFs should be expected to perform better than solos for obvious reasons and come closer to 50%, and that they should make sure solos don't get left behind too much as a result of only looking at overall escapes), and for another because no matter what we think the numbers are, BHVR knows for sure, and no matter what we think the right approach may be, BHVR does whatever they want anyway.
It's all about the perception of the game.
Killer wins are defined as seen above. (I'm too tired to repeat all that)
Survivors (plural) win should naturally be the opposite but in practice it isn't. The vast majority of survivors only focus on their own escape: survivor (singular) win. Hence that regular ranting about 60% kill rate. That's why I looked at the win the way they are perceived.
But one of the points is that 50% gives a very low rate of win for the killer, which may explain why a while ago when the kill rate was balance for 50% survivor queues went up: it was high-mmr even at the basic killer level.
Draws are irrelevant because they are not a win. I'm not sure in English but in French it's called a "mach nul", one meaning being "the same as if it never happened" (nul et non avenu). They dont really have an equivalent for singular survivor wins as it's kind of all of nothing on that front. Nothing really interesting to take from that.
Yes, I've seen the 17% too, which is interesting, or would be if survivors cared that much about team wins. It's all about perception. (And I realize I've not updated the web app to also draw that curve, I'll do it if I recall tomorrow.)
We keep speaking about 40% escape rate mind you but the 48% escape rate in high MMR is also intersting (and explains why that level of play can be so frustrating). I know this detail doesn't escapes you and you expect it to be like that, as do I.
I see everything as system, that aside you may have a point directly in relation with mine. Let me think …
Yes, you are right. Hatch escapes are inflating the escape rate somewhat. Win perception on the survivor side may be lower than projected because of that. I'd love to be able to discriminate them out. There is no data about this though. If you can find some BHVR stat about hatch escapes, I'd love to try to include them.
47/37 I presume you are talking about the measured win rate results of the matches. It's about perception here again. I understand not everybody sees it like that but, for me, if it's not a win, its a loss (I guess I'm extremely competitive).
I fully agree opinion may diverge about this. I've simply provided a tool to have a better idea of what these statistics mean.
If other people draw different conclusions than mine and don't see why I'm only focused on win, it's all the same to me. (Once I believe I've explained myself sufficiently, and I believe I did.)
Opinions are subjective after all. I'd not call either of them biased though.
I'm perfectly happy with my survivor escape rate (about 60%*) and killer kill rate (about … a lot, I don't dare to say how high, with my main**), neither of which are matching these stats. But as you probably know, personal observations are hardly representative.
*) and I consider myself pretty average: it's mostly luck and stealth.
**) Nurse, relatively decent at it if I say so myself.
-
@TheSubstitute said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3836551#Comment_3836551
Isn't the issue more that your program assigns a comparable weight to each survivor escaping and doesn't reflect that once a survivor dies the chance for the remaining survivors to also escape is less than 40% so the weighting is inaccurate?
I'm just asking for curiousity by the way. I'm fine with the target escape rate being 40%; I just want the game to be fun by making game mechanics favour spreading hooks so the game is more enjoyable. However, I'm not invested in what the escape rate is as long as the game is fun to play for both roles.
It's a good question.
The data from BHVR says each survivor has a 40% chance of escaping on average, no in-game condition attached.
On the web app, I draw the actual mean escape rate of the survivors (in blue). It converges close to the chosen rate.
The way I see it, the reason survivors have escaped isn't really relevant, only that they have escaped at a rate close to that specified value. And of course the main information is the deduced killer win rate for said value.
@Saiph said:
Alright.
Since OP refuses to share the draw rate, I ran the program myself. Result:
- Wins : 47.5% (3K or 4K)
- Draws : 34.7% (2K)
- Losses : 17.7% (1K or 0K)
This is literally the output of the program shared by OP, from which he claims that the game is balanced. Anyone can run it and see these numbers, just by copy pasting the code in a Python interpreter.
So let me quickly summarize.
- Killers win 47.5% of the time. Survivors win 17.7% of the time, 3 times less. The rest are draws.
- OP saw these numbers, and concluded that "Killer winrate is only 47% so the game is balanced".
- When asked to share the full numbers, especially that draw rate, which reveals the trick, OP kept refusing, even saying that draws are "irrelevant".
I've given the program so people could play with it "refuse to share the value". Conspiracy theorist much?
The draws are irrelevant as they mean that both teams have got a null.
@ratcoffee said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3836551#Comment_3836551
Your simulation is proven wrong by taking 0.1 seconds to look at nightlight and seeing that a 2k is the least common outcome, not the most common. Wax lyrical all you want, every piece of hard data taken from actual gameplay shows that survivors making it out within the same game are not independent events. thus your simulation, which treats them as if they were, can tell us nothing about the actual state of winrates.
If you disagree, feel free to go to the hundreds of people who have ever complained about people choosing to go next on first hook and tell them that actually, the phenomenon of going next should have no effect on their chances.
"proven wrong" then proceeds speaking about something I've specifically said was irrelevant.
I don't believe you understand what this is about.
-
@SharonPancakes said:
Stats are old, all you have to do is play the game to see the devs aren't right about anything honestly lol.
The stats are only used for the default value of the escape rate. (Besides, from a recent post from a dev/modo (can't recall the name: too tired), the current stats are not significantly different from these.)
You give the program an escape rate and you see how it translates in term of killer win. That's all it does.
I wrote it because of the complains about the 40% escape rate target (a.k.a 60% kill rate target)
(If you look at the top, there is a web app to toy with the numbers)
-
@hxp said:
The big issue with these statistics is that killers often grant the hatch or even let all survs escape. Track your own statistics as survivor and you will notice that the "official" numbers are bullshit.
That's not the point. The point is that there have been many discussions questioning the target escape rate.
This script (and now the app in ) shows a good reason for that choice.
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
I mean, you're making a few assumptions here to force the system to give you the information you want and declaring victory.
The most glaring is the use of random.uniform since we know for certain that isn't how the game works. The distribution isn't even close to uniform. There isn't the same chance for a 0k as there is for a 4k, for example.
Even just using the nightlight stats, 4k is the most common outcome (33.83%), then 0k (19.77%), followed by 3k (17.34%), 1k (16.49%) and finally 2k (12.58%). That's heavily weighted at the top end, not uniform.
Not to mention your results are highly off. Just defining a killer win to be a 3k or 4k pts killers winning about 51% of the time, and draws occur about 12.5%. so survivors are winning about 37% of the time. Not killers, although that appears to be the result you were trying to shoot for.
If your model doesn't even come close to the known data, then your model is wildly wrong. Which makes it seem like this was done to manufacture an outcome you liked to make a certain point.
The information is maybe interesting, but it isn't relating to DbD in any way.
What assumptions?
The chosen default escape rate is provided by BHVR a.ka the most accurate data we can have.
But more t than that, it's also the target chosen by BHVR. (40% escape rate, 60% kills).
It appears you misunderstand the use of the random uniform. A 40% escape rate means that, on average, a survivor escapes 40% of the time. So the program draws a random number between 0 and 100 (and it quite obviously need to be uniform) for each of the four survivors to determines if it has escaped or not. That's quite trivial.
As for the killer win, that's has always been defined like that: 2 kills: a draw, more a win, less a loss. But I'm not working on the survivor team wins, only the escape rate. Note that draws are irrelevant as they are just a "meh" game for both sides.
I'm convinced you don't understand what the program does and I don't know how to help you.
@Lixadonna said:
Survivor are treated 1Vs1Vs1Vs1. Survivor Winrate won't feel the same. Could have long string of bad games. If Killer has string of bad games eventually MMR throws them a bone with easy Survivors.
I'm not talking about the survivor team win rate. I've been very careful speaking about killer wins and survivor escapes.
The whole discussion that pushed for this is all these posters complaining about the 40% escape rate being too low.
The "throwing a bone" you are talking about is part of that target 40% escape rate. That's how BHVR is quite skilfully on that 40% target.
@Spare_Them_Mori_Me said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3834492#Comment_3834492
Well, curious how this plays out. I always wondered why draws were never talked about.
In this case because a draw seems quite irrelevant. Neither side has won, two survivors are sacrificed. That's a "meh" on both sides.
@PreorderBonus said:
https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/discussion/comment/3834354#Comment_3834354
You're mistaken. A Killer 'winning' doesn’t mean Survivors are 'losing.' Both the Killer and Survivors can win simultaneously in a match, so when there’s a draw, two Survivors also 'draw.' A 2K is the same as a 2E. The only scenarios where only one side wins are a 4K or 4E. So attributing all 2Ks as Killer wins and Survivor losses is inaccurate.
- 0k (or 4e): Clear survivor win.
- 1K (or 3e): Survivor-favored outcome.
- 2k (or 2e): Neither side exclusively "wins." Both could consider this an acceptable or neutral outcome.
- 3k (or 1e): Killer-favored outcome.
- 4k (or 0e): Clear killer win.
This leaves us with 2 possible win scenarios for the survivor side, 2 possible win scenarios for the killer side, and 1 scenario where both sides win equally. You're making it seem like 2k/2e is favoring the Killer when it's not.
Then you'd have to consider that the players using Nightlight are just a tiny fraction of the community and not representative of the actual stats of the game. According to the official data, Survivors escape around 43.5% of matches, aligning closely with the 40% escape rate (or 60% kill rate) that BHVR is targeting.
But ultimately, debating escape rates is pointless because many Survivors aren’t necessarily playing to escape. Plenty are focused on completing rift challenges, goofing around with friends, being overly altruistic, testing new builds, and so on. Without a dedicated "ranked" mode where everyone plays with the intent to escape, these stats are just one factor among many others, and trying to boil down the game’s balance to them alone is ignorant.
The program only shows, by simulation, why the 40% target from BHVR makes perfect sense.
Everything else is out of scope.
@BorisDDAA said:
If the stats were reversed (60% escape rate and 40% kill rate) everyone would be losing their #########. No ifs or buts arguments.
A 60% escape rate would translate to about a 18% win rate for the killer. Nobody would play killer ever (people were already leaving in droves with a 50% escape rate)
@zarr said:
The fact that your "mathematical model" (which is really just a simulation of rolling dice X times in a row, which has little to do with the game of DbD) predicts completely different outcomes from a real DbD data set (NightLight) is evidence enough that it is flawed, as with the sample size of that data set the mathematical model should at least come close. But it doesn't: With an average killrate of 57.24%, the escape rate obviously is even higher than 40% (42.76), and yet despite that, the killer winrate is still above 50% (51.17). Moreover and even more compelling mathematically, that data set does not suggest a simple, linear trend relation between killrates and winrates, showing various odd instances where killers can have a lower killrate than the average or another killer but a higher winrate, and vice versa. It also shows that all killers within ~1% around the 60% killrate target have above-50% winrates, ranging from 53.1% to 57.15%.
What is also telling is that you simply see everything as a loss that is not a killer win, ignoring tied outcomes. Killers do not necessarily lose if they don't win, there are also draws. Not only does this make statements like "killers lose two thirds of the time against high MMR 4-SWFs" be even more false and biased than the flawed simulation it is based on already does, but it completely ignores the survivor winrate. You know, the equivalent to the killer winrate if we're using winrate as a balancing measure, rather than killrate? And in comparing those, one would then see that certainly, an above-50% killrate will reliably lead to a higher winrate for killers than survivors. In the example of NightLight's overall average, that's the aforementioned 51.17% winrate for killers, versus a 36.26% winrate for survivors. And when looking at killers actually close to the 60% average killrate target it gets to be even more grim, such as with Pinhead: killrate of 60.77%; killer winrate of 57.15% versus survivor winrate of 32.78% - an almost 25% difference in winrates, due to a 10% difference in kill/escape rates.
I really am glad many people have at least stopped claiming "stats don't mean anything", where they engaged in mental gymnastics such as saying survivors give up so much that it skews the rates too much (which we know it doesn't since even for Merchant this was a negligible factor), ignoring instances of killers giving up or letting people escape, or saying they cannot possibly be accurate because Nurse for instance doesn't have the highest killrate, ignoring that that is completely to be expected for a global average given that she has a higher skill floor than any other killer and therefore will be dragged down the most by all the new, intermediate and average players (if you aren't good at using her ability you will lose most of the time, and the same is not true for any other killer where you can always fall back on standard chase dynamics). Not to mention that she is also among the killers most difficult to be played on controller - if we were to look at PC-only stats, I bet she would already be much higher up even on a global average scale.
The next step from acknowledging that the stats are real and carry meaning is to acknowledge the really very simple and obvious reality that a non-50/50 distribution of kill/escape rates is "sided", and 60/40 very simply and obviously killer-sided. As the devs have also stated as their literal intention with balancing the game for that average outcome. It's not to start the new mental olympics where a 60% killrate is somehow "balanced at best, maybe even survivor-sided!"…
The real kicker is that the 40% is not even the "real" escape rate: Matches with disconnects are excluded from the stats, which when included are likely a significant factor and it would not be surprising if they moved the rates by as much as 5%, meaning the escape rate would end up being 35%. Furthermore, hatch escapes are included in the stats, and yet they typically happen in matches survivors have lost. That's countless matches contributing with a "25%" escape rate despite having a 100% killer winrate. And for the "high MMR" stats specifically, it can also be noted that due to presumably only looking at the survivor players' MMR values, there are tons of matches captured where these high MMR survivors faced non-high MMR killers, given that the matchmaking is rather lax. So that further diminishes any such balancing arguments.
Also: How about you turn your own bias against yourself, and graph a "simulation" based on killrate vs. survivor winrate? But wait, we don't even have to do that, we can simply take the inverse from your current graph. If we take the blue curve as the killrate and red as survivor winrate, we arrive at a ~20% survivor winrate for the 60% killrate. Wow, so survivors are losing 80% of the time!
You started well understanding the way computations are made (as simply as I could so anybody could understand …)
Yet you fail to understand what the program does.
You understand that it decides if a survivor escapes by rolling a dice. Right?
So you can understand that doing that for four survivors decide if the match is a win (a.k.a more than two kills) for the killer.
Additionally, I'm assuming you understand the convergence of results for truly random sampling (of which uniform random is a decent approximation)
So if you understand all that then you have to understand the result is accurate. (I'm hoping you understand the difference between survivor escape rate and survivor team wins.)
Do it yourself if you want, you'll get the same results.
As for the arguments about players ruining matches not being counted, it's obviously the one thing to do and … it doesn't even matter.
All the program says is that a 40% escape rate gives about 47% win rate for the killer.
The reason survivors escape at 40% is utterly irrelevant.
The points remains: BHVR targets 40% and, from their own accurate measure, get these results when players aren't rage-quitting.
People have complained about that 40% target and this shows 40% is only giving a 47% win rate for a killer.
Everything else is a moot point.
-
In human language, the program does this (in a nutshell, with lots of language abuse)
do 100000 times: (
do four times: (
draw a random number between 0 and 100
if the number is below or equal to 40, the survivor has escaped )
count the escapes and if there are less than two, the killer has won )
count the wins of the killer over these 100000 matches and from it get the killer win rate
And by default, it does it for 40 escape rate per survivor
But it can be told to do it for any other rate