LMAO nice low tier bait kiddo. on p2p it was never as bad as what it is now. denying that either makes u a delusional clown or a troll. and i think i know which one u are
"these stats shows survivors are right" ~a survivor main
I’m kind of surprised nobody has speculated that the new matchmaking might be behind some of these high kill rates. Ever since the SWF started getting matched with killers corresponding with the lowest ranked survivor in the group, I’ve noticed longer queue times in survivor red ranks, and my killer games have been way easier. I think this has been an extremely unhealthy change for the game, and I hope the devs revert it soon.
“The allies have defeated the axis.” - The allies. Your point?
Survivors can die (essentially lose) and still pip. Killers can do a 3K and de-pip or 4K and get Brutal Killer. Making 2K a baseline without addressing the emblem system is setting up players for failure when they're not running top tier killers.
IDK about you but I'll believe it when I see it. Chances are all survivors regardless will get a buff and killers will be left in the dust to feed the bully simulator.
Sorry mate, but the official stats aren't accurate as peantis has said. I wouldn't even bother with it because apparently most of it is inaccurate.
If a dev has said that their official stats are inaccurate then I would think they would take them down. You know, versus making a big splash about how they have new interesting stats...
Ok survivor main
Misusing statistics 101
That's not what he said. He said there are alot of factors that could be causing the stats to land how they did. He said not to make grand conclusions from them. Not to disregard them as wholly inaccurate.
Great post and 100% true. The data doesn't lie.
That's why I find it hilarious when killers complain cause they're not winning 3/4 games.
Just think about it logically. Put 4 randoms who need coordinate at a low rank(green, etc) and pit them against a person who has faster movement speed and can kill you. While you can do nothing to them. It spells disaster.
Obviously the dynamic changes when you're premade. And again when you're premade at a high rank. The game is awesome, but also a clusterfuck of imbalance because rank 1 isnt balanced well for premades because killer are too broken at low rankings vs new players. So Behavior is basically just trying to put out high rank and low rank fires left and right and in the end nothing is actually balanced. High rank killers cry, low and mid rank survivors cry.
They need to REWORK ADDON system so it can be competitively balanced. Put it in a 10 point load out scale. OP addons using up all 10 point or mixing and matching weaker addons. Survivors should be able to choose to start with either of the 3 items(would need to be nerfed probably) and addons also based on a point system on how busted the addons are. The current RNG "who the blank knows what the killer or survivors have equipped" cannot be balanced properly. At least there can be item and build metas so both sides can predict and have full access to whatever they want.
I bet you're one of the people making mistakes :] don't seem to bright when you talk about nerfs then in the same sentence talk about skill, funny killer performance or as you say "skill" is increasing when a bunch of new buffs to perks and the overall game such as killer touch ups, EGC, hatch closing, oblivious, ect. Guess to quote a horse raised fool "were they even skilled in the first place? Oh well" now if you could be a good lad and let the grown ups converse over actual balance of the game and the issues that would be great
How about this? Its harder to rank up as killer. Whether you want to beleive that or not its true. Therfore, more survivors of varying skills will be able to make it to red rank, and can be carried by team mates (especialyl SWF). Killers have to get really good and have no one else to rely on. While this may come across as balance to you, it is not. Killer's have to work 12 times harder, not 4 times harder then survivors. Plus the fact of the matter is, the killer should be the power role, and the survivors should have to struggle. But its the other way around. Ergo, the game is not balanced, the stats are just showing that the lackluster survivors who make it easily to red ranks are being taken advantage of by killers who are actually good at the game. The only thing it shows as even close to definite (which it still isn't), is the difference in killer power/skill cap.
Peanits has said several times not to make conclusions based on stats alone. So, end of talk. They are very broad and don't show anything.
Peanits Dev∙Community Manager › Dev, Community Manager Posts: 4,382
You'll have to forgive me since I don't have time to read through the whole thing right now, but:
I only thought I'd address this now that I finally have the PROOF that Demo is not a powerful killer. As per the stats released, at red ranks, Demo fairs very poorly, having the SECOND LOWEST kill rate in the game, just barely above The Clown.
We said it in the stats post and I'll say it again here, you should not draw conclusions from those stats. They are about as broad as they get. They don't show details and account for any amount of factors. To give an example, he's just barely below the Nurse and the Huntress, two fairly powerful killers. Are they bad too? I feel like most people would say no, they just have a learning curve and there's a lot of people who don't regularly play them will pull those numbers down.
The Demogorgon is in the same boat. His shred attack takes some practice to use well (timing, aiming) much like the Huntress. In the right hands, he can still do well.
When did I talk specifically about nerfs? I brought it up but ultimately I don't care? Apparently that affects my performance? Cute argument.
Oh yeah. Those monstrous buffs like EGC, Hatch Closing and Oblivious really affected the survivor skill. They can no longer loop efficiency and the game sense of a mashed potato and can no longer adapt. What a tragedy.
No offense, but you’re not discussing the matter at hand which is the data. I can agree that killer takes more work (though I highly doubt your dubious statistic of 12 times harder). And yeah, killer is supposed to be the “power role”. But what does that have to do with the fact that the data shows that red rank killers have 75% kill rates? We’re discussing game balance, aka whether both sides have the same opportunity to “win”. Not how hard it is to play one role or other.
i think the closest I’ve gotten to understanding this data is that killers lose a higher % of games vs legit red ranks thus they feel like survivors that are their rank are OP. But regardless, they are clearly still winning a large number of games overall.
And the closest I’ve come to understanding why this data might not be relevant to game balance is that the devs consider getting a pip / ranking up to be the equivalent of a win. Thus a killer can get 4k and the survivors still get pips and everyone “wins”. Survivor pipping is easier to make up for the fact that killers will likely kill you (75% kill rate). Thus the non equivalence at higher ranks (boosted survivors in red ranks). But there will be legit red rank survivors as well which can beat a killer but the quantity of these is overstated and killers complaints are really based on % of defeats from these legit survivors vs quantity.
The devs themselves have said the Data is useless. I showed that a moment ago.
And I disagree with your characterization of the devs view of their own official data which they released to the community.
Um, that was a direct quote from Peanits. I'm not characterizing. I'm showing you a direct quote.
Sorry but that link isn’t taking me to a quote.
Nevermind. I got the quote. And he doesn’t say it’s useless. It’s more like he’s saying it’s complicated. Here’s another example of a broad complicated statistic: Women make .78 for every dollar a man makes. (No pun intended).
Yeah, it’s hard to draw direct correlations to the reasons, but we can still get the picture of how this situation can be the reality. Would you just ignore what that statistic is telling you even though you can’t nail down the exact reasons? This isn’t that complicated. And It would be great if people would be more accurate with what they say on here and/or just not post if they have nothing of value or interest to say. Sniping that I’m misusing statistics when I’m pretty sure you wouldn’t know a z score from a z bra is just tedious.
We've been saying for a long time in this community that playing survivor takes a very tiny amount of skill. It more just "knowing what to do with X part of the map." and "knowing how to use the meta."
Playing killer (especially without Ruin) is considerably harder against coordinated teams of survivors. You need to plan ahead and juggle 4 players who are EACH completely capable of going 1v1 with you for a long period of time, and whenever they aren't going 1v1 with you, they are on gens.
Imo, a survivor should never be able to 1v1 a skilled and experienced killer for more than 30-45 seconds, no matter what said killer is or what they have equipped. I play both sides and it makes me feel very disillusioned when I can humiliate a good killer player.
Most of what you say is true, but let's get this straight; d-strike as it is now only exists because it's necessary, as is BT. Of course it can be used to be toxic, and often is at high rank, though. And that is an issue I sadly don't see being dealt with until the underlying problems that lead to its necessity are done with too. Which really sucks. because playing vs red rank survivor 4-mans is a horrific experience, especially with the way those perks get abused there.
I do agree that BT and DS can be almost absolutely necessary, I hate going in without BT because it means my saves could potentially have the opposite effect and get them killed. It is always refreshing to face a Killer who doesn't immediately come back to the hook when I save someone. On the other side I hate it when someone saves me without BT and I didn't bring in DS because that's death right there and it didn't have anything to do with me playing badly or even the Killer, if you make an unsafe save in the Killer's face there will consequences.
Sadly DS isn't just anti-tunnel, i've seen it get used as a weapon multiple times, by me and other Survivors. Everyone says ''well if they don't tunnel'' or ''just don't pick them up'' but it's not that simple. If you have DS and someone is on the hook you can trick the Killer into grabbing you and then use the DS and get your friend off the hook and high tail it through the gate; it lasts 60 seconds and a lot can happen in that time so it's very easy to forget who just got unhooked.
Exactly; frustrations on both sides when it comes to this meta and I'm scared one side will be nerfed without compensation on the other side alongside itl; the game already feels unbearable as it is for various reasons
Are these stats from throughout all of the ranks?
Do these stats take suicides on hook into account? How about people AFK’ing? And camping/tunneling? The Endgame Collapse? Etc, etc...
Looks to me that many people are drawing conclusions without actually asking themselves too much where these stats come from. I’m not saying they’re completely wrong, I am however saying that when looking at stats you need to consider the missed variables that may or may not have changed the outcome of those stats.
Let’s assume these stats include suicides on hook and afks and all the other things mentioned. What difference does it make? The main killers are averaging 3ks per game, regardless of the quality and variety of styles of play in those games.
November 25 edited November 25
I feel like I really need to stress this line from that post:
To use the Spirit as an example, as we've mentioned many times before, we do not balance based on stats alone. We make sure to do our research first and there's a lot of compelling arguments for why she should have been changed.
And again, there's a bunch of different factors involved. Is Freddy overpowered, or is it just a combination of perks and add-ons that make him that strong? These are all things that need to be considered.
So just to reiterate one last time, I really would not recommend drawing any conclusions from these stats. These are averages, not specific and incredibly detailed data that you should draw any conclusions from.
I'm not even gonna take into account that you felt the need to insult me. But here you go. Have a better quote. I don't know what you want other than that. A Dev is saying not to use the data for conclusions. Sorry they arn't supporting your point.
Also, a z-score is the number of standard deviations from the mean a data point is.
and you forgot the "E" in Zebra.