are we really sure aiming for killer to have 60% kill rate is the right choice?

[Elettro46]

the devs reasoning is that just one survivor need to mess up to get everyone killed so having a 60% kill rate is for that reason but this also means they want survivors to have way less room for error while killer can make many more mistakes. are we sure this is the correct approach and not aiming for 50% kill rate

[CorvusCorax]

Originally posted by Carmina:

I don't think kill rate is the problem. The problem is, players feel unrewarded, as a survivor, if you loop the killer for 5 gens, and still die, the game tells you you are bad. As a killer if you spread hooks, you are unrewarded, you can have 8 hooks total then 0k, the game tells you you are bad. If something would honor players, even if they "lose", they would be happier. You lost, but hey, you did good, and nobody would care about kill/escape rates as much.

As for balance, perks should be an addition, not requiements. They can design cool and clever perks, slow downs and speed ups will be always superior.
But in the end of the day, DbD became something it was not planned for. Nobody expected it to be this popular and huge after 7 years.

You summed it up well!

[MadBone12]

Originally posted by Carmina:

I don't think kill rate is the problem. The problem is, players feel unrewarded, as a survivor, if you loop the killer for 5 gens, and still die, the game tells you you are bad. As a killer if you spread hooks, you are unrewarded, you can have 8 hooks total then 0k, the game tells you you are bad. If something would honor players, even if they "lose", they would be happier. You lost, but hey, you did good, and nobody would care about kill/escape rates as much.

In what way does the game tell you you are bad? One of the reasons I don't play Tombstone Myers is that you can depip even with 4k. You get more BP and a higher score for hooking survivors, getting into chases etc. so the game is not just counting kills.

What metric are using to decide if the game is rewarding you if you are not referring to scores and emblems? I wouldn't count MMR as that is not visible so I am trying to understand the point you are making.

[Scarsick]

Originally posted by Allui:

Originally posted by Scarsick:

Yes, that is the correct aproach. Survivor is supposed to be harder to play than killer

actually the game is supposed to be balanced

Wrong, at least by your definition of "balanced" in a game like this.

I can't believe we're still having this sort of discussion 8 years later. This is not CS, Dota, LoL etc. It's an asymmetrical MP game designed to be killer sided, and they at least try to balance it around the idea that if survivors are weak and killers are strong than logically the survivor hate will be lower than 50%.

[Elettro46]

Originally posted by TRYHARD DOG:

Originally posted by Elettro46:

well yes let's say we have 60% kill rate over 50 games so 200 survivors and 120 kills,
we could have even have 80% win rate if we get 40 games with 3 kills and 10 games with 0 kills if that's what you mean but the stats spread out so the win rate is between 60 and 80% but very close to 60%

Well, it's not exactly true. What if a killer 2k's 80% of games and 4k's 20% of the games? In this scenario killer will only have 20% winrate despite having 60% killrate (survivors will have 0% winrate in this case).
It's even possible that survivors win more often than killers despite 60% killrate. Let's say you have 1M games. If survivors get 3 man escape 533333 times, killers get 3k once and 4k 466666 times, you will end up with 53.3% winrate for survivors and only 46.7% winrate for killers.

be careful tho cuz on your first example you are considering a draw the same as a lost while it's not, also you messed the calculations a bit in your first example cuz you said 60% kill rate while it's 80% kill rate.

on the second example you are right i'll use my same example for your case let's say 6 games: 4 times you get 1 kill , 2 times you get 4 kills, it's a 60% killrate but with 40% winrate.
so yeah the winrate can vary between 40% and 80% with a 60% kill rate but over thousands of games the win rate becames equal to the kill rate so 60% because of distribution over thousands of games, 40% and 80% winrates are the extreme cases

[abysska]

Originally posted by Scarsick:

Originally posted by Allui:

actually the game is supposed to be balanced

Wrong, at least by your definition of "balanced" in a game like this.

I can't believe we're still having this sort of discussion 8 years later. This is not CS, Dota, LoL etc. It's an asymmetrical MP game designed to be killer sided, and they at least try to balance it around the idea that if survivors are weak and killers are strong than logically the survivor hate will be lower than 50%.

both sides should be of equal standing and the MOST SKILLED party should win.
Why would i play killer if the reason im winning is because the game is handicapping the survivors? then i wouldn't win because im good, i would win because it was made to be so.
Same logic here. Why would i play survivor, if killer side is meant to win - and by itself stronger. that means lowskill killers will win survivors who are actually good at the game. who would want to play survivor when what ever you do wont matter?

[CEO of Genrush]

Originally posted by Elettro46:

Originally posted by TRYHARD DOG:

Well, it's not exactly true. What if a killer 2k's 80% of games and 4k's 20% of the games? In this scenario killer will only have 20% winrate despite having 60% killrate (survivors will have 0% winrate in this case).
It's even possible that survivors win more often than killers despite 60% killrate. Let's say you have 1M games. If survivors get 3 man escape 533333 times, killers get 3k once and 4k 466666 times, you will end up with 53.3% winrate for survivors and only 46.7% winrate for killers.

be careful tho cuz on your first example you are considering a draw the same as a lost while it's not, also you messed the calculations a bit in your first example cuz you said 60% kill rate while it's 80% kill rate.

on the second example you are right i'll use my same example for your case let's say 6 games: 4 times you get 1 kill , 2 times you get 4 kills, it's a 60% killrate but with 40% winrate.
so yeah the winrate can vary between 40% and 80% with a 60% kill rate but over thousands of games the win rate becames equal to the kill rate so 60% because of distribution over thousands of games, 40% winrate and 80% killrate are the extremes of the specrtum of probability

I don't think I made a mistake in the first example. Let's say you have 100 games. If you 4k 20 times (80 kills) and 2k 80 times (160 kills), you have 60% killrate (240 kills in 100 games), but only 20% winrate.

[Mewsha]

Supposedly it's to make the game scary, as in there's a threat you won't survive, but in my opinion not every killer should have the same kill rate because certain killers are high skill floor high skill ceiling. They should never be buffed to the point where their average kill rate is that because it means the people that actually know how to play those killers will basically 4k the entire time. Something like Wraith is fine, but a 60% kill rate Huntress? I don't know about that.

It also doesn't really take into account pick rate, which I believe they should start doing. A killer that has a very low pick rate but a higher end kill rate shouldn't be automatically nerfed.

A larger issue for kill rates though is the MMR system. Until it rates survivors as a group instead of individually, it will never be an accurate reflection of how strong killers are because everyone knows the deadliest killer in this game is your own teammates.

[Allui]

Originally posted by Scarsick:

Originally posted by Allui:

actually the game is supposed to be balanced

Wrong, at least by your definition of "balanced" in a game like this.

I can't believe we're still having this sort of discussion 8 years later. This is not CS, Dota, LoL etc. It's an asymmetrical MP game designed to be killer sided, and they at least try to balance it around the idea that if survivors are weak and killers are strong than logically the survivor hate will be lower than 50%.

sounds like you just want low effort free wins and thats it.

[Elettro46]

Originally posted by TRYHARD DOG:

Originally posted by Elettro46:

be careful tho cuz on your first example you are considering a draw the same as a lost while it's not, also you messed the calculations a bit in your first example cuz you said 60% kill rate while it's 80% kill rate.

on the second example you are right i'll use my same example for your case let's say 6 games: 4 times you get 1 kill , 2 times you get 4 kills, it's a 60% killrate but with 40% winrate.
so yeah the winrate can vary between 40% and 80% with a 60% kill rate but over thousands of games the win rate becames equal to the kill rate so 60% because of distribution over thousands of games, 40% winrate and 80% killrate are the extremes of the specrtum of probability

I don't think I made a mistake in the first example. Let's say you have 100 games. If you 4k 20 times (80 kills) and 2k 80 times (160 kills), you have 60% killrate (240 kills in 100 games), but only 20% winrate.

yeah you are right, sorry but it's late. still you can't consider a draw the same as a lost in that example

[Elettro46]

I don't care about points and I don't care about your non arguments, bring real arguments instead of those low level tactics to discredit

[Elettro46]

Originally posted by erandomone:

Originally posted by Loathsome Dung Eater:

Thats the worst part… i think they’re genuine

I don't know, did you see the extreme reaction to the first person to disagree with them? That really screams point fishing, to me

extreme reaction what are you talking about

[Automaton-37467]

Originally posted by erandomone:

Originally posted by Loathsome Dung Eater:

Thats the worst part… i think they’re genuine

I don't know, did you see the extreme reaction to the first person to disagree with them? That really screams point fishing, to me

Yeah true that seems a bit rage baity

[Automaton-37467]

Originally posted by Elettro46:

Originally posted by erandomone:

I don't know, did you see the extreme reaction to the first person to disagree with them? That really screams point fishing, to me

extreme reaction what are you talking about

The dude was sayin that the swf should have about the same win rate as solo que survivors and you instantly got to the conclusion that he wants the game to be HEAVILY KILLER SIDED

[Elettro46]

Originally posted by Loathsome Dung Eater:

Originally posted by Elettro46:

extreme reaction what are you talking about

The dude was sayin that the swf should have about the same win rate as solo que survivors and you instantly got to the conclusion that he wants the game to be HEAVILY KILLER SIDED

I never said it and I've never seen you, you are starting to lie cuz you have no arguments

[Automaton-37467]

Originally posted by Elettro46:

Originally posted by Loathsome Dung Eater:

The dude was sayin that the swf should have about the same win rate as solo que survivors and you instantly got to the conclusion that he wants the game to be HEAVILY KILLER SIDED

I never said it and I've never seen you, you are starting to lie cuz you have no arguments

Originally posted by Elettro46:

Originally posted by Moderately_Merciless:

Yes, it's the right call.
I just wish they could make that kill-rate apply to 4-man SWFs playing competitively, because they are STILL sitting just a fraction below a 50% rate of survival.

so you want the game to be heavily killersided you mean