Also susie got a sweater. All around just positives. 😎
Sure theyre fine in stats but are they fun? Legion feels like mercy from overwatch a character who was op a whole year then she got reworked and nerf spammed and now shes "decent" but boring af to play considering all you do is aim a stick at someone. Legion all i do is smack and run smack and run which was fine when we had stbfl and other stuff but sucks now.
Thanks for the stats! Glad to see my initial reaction to the changes was wrong. I thought I'd miss being able to use DD during frenzy more but it turns out not to be a big deal.
Any chance you'll ever consider reducing the penalty in FF misses to instead reflect X power duration is lost? I noticed on console's a random dip in FPS really screws up Legion when in FF on occasion.
Look how they butchered nurse.. she has lowest kill rate even in red ranks..
I'm fine with add-ons change, but please revert her basekit change
These stats are always interesting, but everyone draws too many conclusions from them.
People overreacting in this thread about nurse numbers lol, it's likely more the fact that nobody is playing her.
Don't read too much into the nurse stats, as they include console. On ps4 facing a nurse as survivor has always been an almost guaranteed escape, unless you face one of 4 people that took the time to master her (in the EU region at least)
People on here don't know how to read stats. See: people complaining about 3 months vs 1 month for averages.
I still hope they get some tweaks but i'm glad that we can atleast say no they are not the worst killer in the game
Yes. If you look into scientific studies you need a valid comparison. Which means doing them for the same amount of time. Also the longer you do a study the more valid and realistic the data will be. One month of time is not nearly enough to figure things out.
That's uhh not how that works at all. Length of study doesn't correlate with validity of study. He could just take the data from the month before the changes and the month after and he'd probably see something similar (unless you believe that there are significant outliers in the 3 months or for this month that are skewing the data).
One month of data is plenty of time to draw conclusions. It's not like legion changed radically.
Except the stats are completely skewed by DC's..
The stats do not (or did not, for the 3 month ones) include DCs, and it has been said that they don't look any different whether they have DCs or not.
Either they count DC's or they ignore matches that had DC's (In which case, most matches wouldn't count), either way it's messing with the stats.
Legion can still kill survivors and not be fun to play. That's the issue for me, is that you can make them work if you really want to, but its just not as fun/rewarding as nearly anyone else. Getting stunned half the game without any real advantage for it just isn't good.
He needs a full reword of his power imo.
So you are just twisting things to make a point?
They didn't take a month before and compared it to a month after. They took 1 month of data and compared it to 3 months of data, that includes additional information to understand the data better, and said it shows a net buff.
You keep going into threads saying "most people don't know how to read data" but have proven that not only are you unwilling to talk about the stats directly, but have some sort of superiority complex where you act like you are more intelligent than everyone else, without providing any substantial argument, and that's the end of it.
You sound like someone who looks at percentages, says they prove whatever they say they prove, and ignore the numbers that make up the data.
Here's a semi-quick example to explain what I mean:
A pet adoption center posts the data about the kinds of cats that have had up for adoption over the last 3 months, and the number of each type that was adopted. This includes "In the last three months 38 Calico cats have been adopted. That's about 60% of the Calico cats we've had available for adoption."
Then after some changes they release new data specifically about Calico cats spanning a month saying "100% of Calico cats were adopted this month! They are getting really popular! Amazing!" And they don't mention that they only had 10 Calico cats available this month.
It means literally nothing to just look at the percentage other than that of what was available 60% were adopted over some previous 3 months while 100% were adopted over this other month. It doesn't mean, as they state, they are becoming more popular. And leaving out numbers makes it useless in comparing it to previous data because each "percentage point" may not be equal.
But because the percentage is a higher number then they can state it because people like you don't care about the actual numbers.
If you can actually explain how leaving out numbers, and not providing where you got these numbers, provides usable and acceptable data and how percentages alone are enough to conclude a definitive conclusion then that would be nice.
I guess taking people at their word is good enough for you though.
Edit: I meant to add that you mention "outliers". As if outliers in the 3 months is the only thing that could cause these not to be comparable. Wouldn't it be more likely that there are outliers skewing the data of the provided 1 month data? We have nothing to go on so we can't say either way, but to bring up outliers as only pertaining to the 3 months is, frankly, ridiculous.
Or, you know, whatever.
Shame that doesn't account for fun, you sure sucked all that part out of him. Slightly more effective at the cost of being actually enjoyable to play as...but whatever, you guys are gonna do what you are gonna do anyways, we should know that by now.
They still feel the same to me, I don't really notice it tbh. Also making someone else have to mend isn't really my idea as fun, the literally limitless potential of more fun things they could give him in it's place is literally limited only by imagination.
I agree with the latter stuff though a lot, the big problems I have are that he is always getting stunned and for so long, miss an attack, land another attack, pallet, power runs out, stun stun stun stun stun..... It's very frustrating. Especially the miss penalty, if they have Dead hard then it's just another stun on the stun pile for you, plus the dash itself you are probably not catching them again any time soon.
I feel like there's way too many variables too make a conclusion that the changes where a buff.
Did the play rate go down so people who were better at legion continuing to play him bumped the numbers? Or maybe the drastically different time frames the averages came from has something to do with it? Then there's the new rank reset and how that might effect stats.
Realistically we'd need very specific stats to draw concrete conclusions from.
Thanks for the stats Almo they are always appreciated.
I sometimes wonder if they are appreciated though as if it fits what one wants to see they are right but if it doesn't they don't mean anything and should be disregarded.
What it comes down to is trust. If you will never trust the devs no stats will ever matter.
Stats also don't reflect someones fun aftwr a change so there will always be a discussion on that point and tbh no one is right or wrong in that discussion as it will always be subjective to ones personal taste.
I feel the Nurse could do with some stats released after the change not only how well they can do but also how many play her compared to before the change. Many other factors could also be shown regarding travel time without hits, blink misses between all ranks and separated ranks along with them for each platform.
Again the Nurse stats won't show a degree of fun but less people playing may be an indication of that. We could then compare it to the most viable killers like Spirit or Billy to see if those numbers increase. Also add in Trapper since they are in the rift after all so that could account for lower number of any killer.
I think this needs the disclaimer that comes 50 times with every piece of statistics we get given;
"Conclusions should not be drawn from this data as there are many variables that can affect it."
I always appreciate stats, because they bring something to look for in the jungle of 1001 opinions, moods and standpoints.
I also think that the new Legion patch was a good one - otherwise I would have still stay away from dbd.
Still, the Legion was nerfed so much with the first Legion patch, that I think that the Legion could need 1-2 small patches.
Killer x vs Survivor Population. Where is Survivor x vs Killer Population?
Until you change the way you look at your stats, you will never have a fair and balanced game at high ranks.
Nurse being at the bottom after two major nerfs is a disgrace.
I remember there being a discussion of a Japanese CM that stated only the killer's rank was taken into account. Can you clarify that these statistics represent matches where both the killer and all 4 survivors are of red rank?
@Almo Are you related to Elmo?
So a 71.2% kill rate at red ranks is 12/17? How do killer mains continue to say the game is unbalanced? That means the top killer is likely above 75% or close to it. I understand the numbers get some inflation from weird things but damn. 1/4 chance to win as a survivor and yet we have all the advantages and the game skews towards us. 🤣
Legion is overperforming, more than 50/50. He needs another nerf.
Both sides getting nerfs *head shacking*.
Also not every killer has the 71.2% kill rate. Some have more, but the most have less. Even the Legion has less under different cirumstances, if you have the stats read completely and not just fly over it for cherry-picking.
This is getting tiring.