Seems like @NuclearBurrito and @Fibijean get it.
The pipping system simply determines how well you did in a match, which in turn, then is suppose to match you with people in a similar skill level. It has nothing to do with the winning conditions.
The idea that you have to "play well" to win in a game should be debunked. There are plenty of games where active players' skills don't determine the outcome of the game.
For example, let's say you are playing Tetris against your friend. You are hitting 4-line Tetrises and multiple T-Spins. Your friend is clearing out few lines at a time, simply making sure he isn't topping out. Because you were building up the columns for a bigger multi-clear and your friend hit a small combo at the right time at the end, you top out. Who won? You, who displayed more skills, made more complicated moves, have tens of thousands more score points overall? Or your friend who only understands the basics, and have much less points, but who made you top over most likely due to luck? The game is very clear on this.
Let's also take a game of Werewolf, for example. A complete-newbie Werewolf who stays silent all game could still win, whether it is due to the other more experienced Werewolf bluffing his butt off, or simply due to luck and never being picked by the Villagers.
So how can a Survivor survive and still depip? It simply means that you fulfilled the winning condition without having to display any type of skill, or if you did, it was very minimal. Of course, this (not having done much in the match) also means that you probably shouldn't be placed in that skill level setting, so if the matchmaking is functioning correctly, you should be placed with your less skilled peers by the pipping system. The opposite (Survivor dying and yet still pipping) holds true, in a similar manner where you failed to fulfill the winning condition, but displayed enough skill to be pushed into a setting with others will higher skill level to have a more even match. That's all it is.
Ultimately, even without the pipping system, Dead by Daylight will still be Dead by Daylight. I wouldn't even notice a difference in the gameplay if it were made invisible. Without Escaping or Sacrifices though, this game wouldn't be Dead by Daylight.
The winners and losers are determined by points:
Most points on scoreboard = 1st place
Least points = LAST loser.
If im in the top 3 scorers, I consider it a win
Please don't incite this. Too many newer players ultimately decide that surviving is winning opposed to actually being useful during the match thus pipping. And I severely disagree with the notion that the game would still be the same if the pipping system wasn't a thing. That's simply not true, if it didn't exist then everyone would be too immersed and caught up in the notion of escaping opposed to actually doing well in a match because objectively there would be no incentive or point. The only thing to prioritize would be escaping.
Winning SHOULD be pipping. The game validates this by having you move on to playing with and against better players. The classic idea of "you passed this level, so move onto the next, harder level." It does no one any good to be too caught up in surviving to only fall short of pipping points. You survive, okay ,but you didn't pip so in a sense you're stuck on the same level and not progressing. Which is generally considered a loss or neutral. Anything but a win.
Even though the winning condition (escaping) does not require players to play skillfully, they're also not mutually exclusive conditions. If a player want to win (escape) without any skills, that means that they have to rely either on 'luck' or 'skills of other players' - basically whether they win or lose is completely out of their hands. So if they want to win *consistently* then even without the pipping system, players will eventually have to take it upon themselves to learn how to play the game well. So yes, even without the 'pipping system' there certainly is a point to raising your skill level. Being skillful will help you win in a more consistent manner - it's just not necessary to win a match.
That's simply a matter of perspective. If I were to escape but did not 'pip', I don't consider it as "loss or neutral." I simply take it that I won due to luck or other players' participation and that I need to practice more. If I were to die despite pipping, I simply take it that I lost, but I did perform well enough where I need to be playing with better players. What I don't do is delude myself into thinking that I 'won' despite not fulfilling the winning objective just because I did well in a game.
Play against killers without mori which don't camper/tunnel
Edit: Today 3 games: 2 campers an 1 tunneler. Not more games for these weekend, I'm done
At red ranks, good players prioritize pipping and doing well. At brown/green ranks players just wanna live and escape. Then when they die to billy or flipping Myers or can't hit ruin skillchecks, they are the first to scream nerf. That in itself should speak volumes. I'm not gonna go back and forth about what the game says, but that mentality of "I survived therefore I won." Isn't a healthy one and never does anything positive for the team that I notice new or bad players typically have, putting the cart before the horse so to speak and this thread in a sense is validating that.
It's just common sense, not a dilusion or perspective. If you are in a bad spot in life or in a game (lowest points, not pipping constantly despite surviving.) and what you're doing isn't helping you progress then you are clearly doing something wrong or nothing at all. Usually the two ideas coincide, you do something right then you usually progress unless you're already in a great spot or there's no need.
There are so many brown and green ranks in this game that wanna get more bp a game, pip, etc but they don't understand that surviving shouldn't be the most important aspect or "winning" yet most of them have that mentality that they must live, even if it means doing little to nothing and hiding in a locker which eventually frustrates themselves and ultimately their teammates. Nobody likes that person.
I don't promote the idea, no matter how literate or how "correct" it may be in a sense because it's unhealthy overall and stifles new/bad survivors. Players that have a true understanding of how the game works see it very differently than most bad/new players for a good reason because they know what a win truly is and the game validates it by giving more bp, pipping points, etc. They get rewarded which you normally do for a win. That's just my two cents though, hope newer players just get it eventually.
i like how you guys keep talking about this "winning condition" thing that is literally something you guys pulled out of your butts..
there isn't a "winning condition", period. the "goal" or "objective" to escape doesn't ever state or dictate or declare you a "winner".. it declares you "survived" at the end of the event, and that's all.
you guys are applying the term "winning" to it in a very weird way and there's only a very few bad players that are ever going to agree with you..
there is no argument that can be used for you to convince players that actually play and understand the game that what you are describing is "winning" anything..
what you are doing is being frightened and afraid and greedy and boring and who knows what other descriptive terms, and all of that is perfectly okay for you, but one thing we all do know for a fact is that "winning" or "winner" is not a descriptive term that fits you guys :)
lol.. someone flagged my post for pointing out that you have completely made up the word "winning" to describe declaring you as "survived" at the completion of a game?
lets see if we can type this again in a manner that they surely can't flag for any reason whatsoever.
nobody has ever stated that "surviving" a trial is "winning" anything other than the few of you guys trying to argue it. you say that since you "survived" you "won" by completing a "winning condition" that doesn't exist except that you seem to think it does.
what you are describing could be and is actually an "ending condition" that ends the match. once all survivors have been dealt with, whether sacrificed or escaped, the "ending condition" has been met.
we are then presented with the scoreboard to see how everyone did. this lets you know that the game is in fact over.
never were you declared a "winner" of any kind for any reason, other than you felt like you were a "winner" because you happened to "survive" the trial that has now "ended".
there is not an argument that can be made that would convince anyone who actually plays and understands the game that what you did was "win" anything by completing some fabled "winning condition".
I've already given you some examples of games when 'winning' and 'playing well' don't coincide. I could continue to give you plenty of other examples if you like. You've also brought up 'real life.' Even in real life, even if you believe you've done everything correctly during your time in primary education, there are times when you are not selected for certain colleges or universities. Even if you have an outstanding resume, you may not be selected for a job/higher position you wanted. Sometimes you are just unlucky and they are currently looking for someone with a prior experiences or different skill sets, or even different sex that are more suited for the task - other times there are just better candidates who excel at the same things you do, but even moreso.
Life doesn't automatically just hand you a "win" just because you think you *deserve* something because you've done well. That is life. Games are an excellent way of teaching you that.
I don't promote the idea, no matter how literate or how "correct" it may be in a sense because it's unhealthy overall and stifles new/bad survivors.
And herein lies the problem. You don't care how "correct" the point is because you believe it's "unhealthy" for the game. So you have chosen to prioritize what you believe and *want* over what is "correct." At that point, there is no further reason to discuss this, given that you have shut your eyes and closed off your ears to what is correct.
what you are describing could be and is actually an "ending condition" that ends the match. once all survivors have been dealt with, whether sacrificed or escaped, the "ending condition" has been met.
There are no mention of any "ending condition" in that screenshot of the tutorial that @NuclearBurrito has posted earlier. It states that "The Survivors' goal is to escape the trial."
If a goal of a game is to get the most victory points, then you win if you have the most victory points.
If a goal of a game is to get to location X before any other players, then you win if you get to that location before any other players.
If a goal of a game is to capture your opponent's piece X, then you win when you captured your opponent's piece X.
If a goal of a game is to be the last player standing, then you win if you are the last player standing.
If the goal is to escape the trial... hmmm.
For Survivor, escaping, though it is better if more than just me escapes.
For Killer: 3 kills, preferably if the last guy escapes via the hatch.
you know what's funny? you're trying to argue this point now about "goals" being "winning", when "goals" are actually just "milestones to complete".
first let's consult google for the definition of goal so we can make sure we're all on the same page:
the object of a person's ambition or effort; an aim or desired result."going to law school has become the most important goal in his life"
synonyms:aim, objective, object, grail, holy grail, end, target, design, desire, desired result, intention, intent, plan, purpose, idea, point, object of the exercise;
in the example sentence, someone decided going to law school was the most important goal in his life. if that guy finishes law school, he has obtained his "goal", but that doesn't make him a "winner". he still needs to now utilize what he learned there to make something out of himself.
if i set a goal to stop smoking and achieve it, that doesn't make me a "winner", it makes me someone who accomplished a "goal".
if i am a sports player who scores a "goal", that is only one tiny piece of an entire game. both sides are able to achieve the "goal" numerous times, and ultimately one of them will become a "winner", but not because they reached a "goal".
if you see a trainer or a doctor or someone of any professional sort who advises you to make a goal and work towards achieving it, once you achieve it you are not declared a "winner", you are given another "goal".
the fact of the matter is, we can all walk around as much as we want declaring ourselves "winners" for whatever reason we decide to, but, it takes other people to actually declare you a "winner".
please stop trying to use a general "goal" as a valid definition of "winning".
The definition you just provided still has Goal be synonymous with win condition.
In otherwords asking what the goal of a trial in DBD is the same as asking what the win condition in a trial in DBD is.
Both are to escape.
You can also describe the goal of specific steps, but that isn't the goal of a trial, it's the goal of something within a trial. Just like how you can have a mini-game which has a win condition in of itself without that being the win condition of the main game.
For example you can win a chase as a survivor by escaping the chase and you lose the chase by getting hit.
That chase has a win condition separate from the win condition of the game as a whole. It's just a matter of scale.
In this case the scale was established to be the game as a whole with respect to the survivors. The next paragraph then establishes the goal of the game as a whole for the Killer.
In real life this is the idea behind the phrase "winning the battle but not the war"
And if I get a Blackpip, I feel it is a Win when:
I get 3K as Killer (I killed more Survivors than escaped)
3 or more Survivors escaped (regardless if I die or not) as Survivor
In games, there is a "beginning," and an "end," as well as "winners" and (usually) "losers."
None of your examples of "goals" provide any of these conditions that are always included in games. So let's change them all into games.
If the goal of a law school game is to successfully graduate from the school, then you win when you graduate from the school.
If the goal of a non-smoking game is to successfully stop smoking, then you win when you've successfully stop smoking.
If the goal of a sports game is to successfully score the first goal, then you win when you score the first goal.
So is DBD a game? Yes. Does it have a "beginning," "end," "winners," and "losers?" Yes. So perhaps you should be making your point through examples of games instead of other worldly experiences to fit your strange narrative.
i feel like you are the one who keeps choosing to swap out the word "goal" with your term "win condition".
we have established dead by daylight as a casual game. they have not specifically stated a "win condition", hence the OP.
casual games don't always have "win conditions".
again to nutshell: no official leaderboard, no official advanced stats, no official competitions, no way to keep people from cheating, etc.
just because a bunch of people decide to make up "win conditions" to suit their own likings, doesn't make them actual or official "win conditions".
it feels like i've been putting a lot of effort in to make sure newer players that happen upon this post get enough information to not necessarily take your opinions as factual and i feel i have done a more than sufficient job of that. at this point i'm done on this topic.
Although most would consider surviving a wan, or getting a 4 man. But even if you do escape or kill every survivor its still possible to depip. Winning in my opinion is where you get a pip
At everyone who says pipping means winning. Who won the match if nobody pipped? 🤔
Surviving as survivor, killing at least 3 as killer.
Also is Billy OP, UP or Balanced?
The title ask the question “What do you define as a win?” Not what is actually a win.
there isn't always a winner of everything.. there can also be a draw, a shut-out, a false start, etc.
as for billy @NuclearBurrito , as with literally every other killer in the game, it totally depends on the skills and actions of the survivors in the game. it depends on who gets caught in dead zones, what addons the killer played, if teammates let other teammates die, etc.
billy is a stronger killer in terms of map presence because he can close distance quickly and within seconds be on the opposite side of the map, and this makes him good, but not OP or UP or Balanced.. he is simply a strong killer due to speed at traversing the maps and also his ability to 1-hit down. he is also pretty fast just walking so it's easy to play him as an m1 killer if you are unskilled and still easily 3k or 4k, hence his easy rating.
perhaps "easy" would be the best term to describe billy, even tho he has a few aspects that require a more advanced mastery. that said, without the proper addons and situations, he can be fairly easy to avoid, especially if he's insisting on getting chainsaw hits for a daily or something.
i just play for fun. if i have fun i win.
so basically if nobody camps, nobody tunnels, nobody uses toxic flashlight clicking or teabagging AND if you have a game that lasts longer than 4 minutes it is usually fun. doesnt matter if i die or not or if i get kills or not
This reminds me of NFL, American football. A winning season is 9-7 or better, but mostly people won’t consider it a good season if you don’t win the super bowl or at least make playoffs.
The point in bringing up billy is that he will often not pip because of how the chainsaw works. Your chaser and malicious is cut in half due to using instant downs. This will often cause him to not pip.
Also, how would you go about winning if the Survivors are AFK? You can't get Chaser because they won't run thus preventing a chase from starting. You can't get much devout because you won't unhook. And you can't get much malicious because they won't get then off the hook still.
In otherwords, maximizing the skill gap prevents you from pipping.
You're not quite getting it and your analogy is off. The idea of telling survivors "you survive then you win." Even if they did bad is like saying, in a real life scenario "If you graduate then you win" But they had all D's and nearly flunked. Like sure, the person graduated or survived but what on earth is the point if you nearly failed in the process or did poorly? You will find very little if any progress.
Sure, life will never hand you a win but that isn't the point. The people who do well or contribute a great deal will always be far more likely to do better and progress accordingly in a game or life which is ultimately the point. The guy who just "survived" is barely making ends meet and will find little progress meanwhile the other guy who does well is far more likely to progress and proceed.
NOTHING is promised in life but the people who do better and work harder are far more likely to succeed or progress opposed to those who do bare minimum or "just survive." which you aren't getting. The mentality you have going into something plays a big role and thinking "as long as I survive even if I do bad is okay." "Graduating is all that matters even if I literally have all D's." Is very unhealthy and will ultimately get you no where. Hell, with that mentality you likely won't have the opportunity to get into Harvard or any great school to begin with. You're half assing in a sense and when is that ever good? Once again, this is common sense and adds up but whatever you say, to each their own. Just wanted to clarify.
pip = win
depip = lose
Then it's a draw lol. The game literally has a "win, draw, loss." With it's pipping system.
The game has a pipping system for a reason, people are way too concerned with the endgoal without any concern as to how they did along the way which is never ideal anywhere. Even if you 3K, if you camped and one hooked all of them the game will ultimately see it as either a loss via depip or black pip, draw thus no progress. Do not be fooled.