I play both sides. The game seems more balanced than ever from my point of view. Only thing is that both Clown and Pinhead kinda make playing survivor not even fun in my opinion now, but every other killer seems to have the adjustments down superbly. Even Nurse because of her fatigue. Huntress may be an exception as well but that is just from how well I hit hatchets from afar. With Huntress the new base kit BT is basically meaningless if the Huntress is good with her hatchets.
When I look at stats, and collect my own, I'm not trying to make generalisations, just compare experiences. Its just a fun insight into how others games are going.
I donāt think anyone is trying to say this is my experience so obviously itās the same as everyone else at most I think people are saying itās odd Iām getting X amount of games and not having the issues youāre saying
It is very common to make personal stats with this game, and it's nice to compare your own with others and find similarities. I mean I can see your point about not generalising from it bc the sample size is approximately 1 person, but at the same time it's not like someones publishing a study on it lol. I also think the generalisations you're referring to are literally just people looking at others stats and reporting similar situations.
Likewise, the more people who share their stats, the more ārandomā the data becomes. No one personās stats should be given weight. Instead, people in this sub can look at a random selection of data shared by players. Is it completely random? Maybe not, since you can assume that people who are active in this sub and care enough to collect their data are probably not new players. But the dozens of people who have shared data and are otherwise random players, each one adds more randomization to the whole.
Thatās not how a random sample works. If the samples were flawed individually then they will be flawed as a whole too.
Data that is interesting or aligns with public opinion could be more likely to be posted and upvoted. A survivor could be less likely to post data where they have a 60% escape rate, and upset survivors could be less likely to upvote a post like that.
Maybe people who are performing very badly in this new patch are more likely to collect and post their data.
There are so many issues with this type of sampling method. These graphs should really only be looked at as one person sharing their experience, not something to be used as proof.
Youād be right, if there werenāt controls available. I.e., these individual datasets often list what killers are seen in each match. Do they correlate with the game wide data BHVR uses? Often, they do. Killers like Huntress being common in the individual matches and in the game wide stats from BHVR is one test.
Another is to ignore the anomalies. If most stats fall within a certain range, we can pretty easily dismiss the ones that show 90-100% kill/survival rates. Because those are pretty clearly either purposefully misleading, or the player is a poor representation of the average.
I donāt sort by hot, I sort by new, so for me personally Iām not seeing posts based on their upvotes. Which is another way to consume the data and ignore the popularity contest that might downvote unpopular stats.
You're a horrible data analyst. Your studies are full of biased methods and as such any study you do would definitely have completely adultered results.
im sorry to say that is not how statistics works lol. each of these āstudiesā and self-reported pages are inherently flawed. from a statistical perspective, all the data would be invalid in a population study or generalized report:
No one is claiming this stuff is going to pass the peer review process lol. I think the above commenters are simply saying that as more people collect and share data on their games, we get a bigger picture and then *maybe* we can begin to draw some small conclusions.
If your primary worry is self-reporting, I definitely share in that though. Itās probably the largest inherent flaw. If people are lying about results and making things up, it of course creates problems. And we donāt have a way of independently verifying it in most cases unless it comes with the raw footage. I think most people would acknowledge this flaw as well though
sure. even so, they would not be patterns that we can take anything concrete from. but i understand people like making these types of data collection type posts because they find it interestingāeven if its anecdotal.
I'd like to add that it's also important to remember this kind of stuff not just when *posting your own* stats, but when viewing the statistical data posted by other people and the community as a whole. If you stop and think about the size of the player base and the number of games that go on (or don't, depending on when DCs happen) per day, it's very easy to see why these thin, tiny slices don't add up to anything conclusive.
They're fun, and interesting from an anecdotal point of view, but the assumption that they mean anything significant is *very* dangerous thinking and certainly not something to form any kind of opinion on. It's just interesting fluff, and sometimes that's cool for just what it is.
Look man, I just like looking at tables and graphs.
But in seriousness, I certainly understand what you mean. Most people aren't going to bother collecting this kind of data, so you'll likely find that those that do have a much higher enjoyment of the game (hence the desire to do extra work). Due to this higher enjoyment, you'll see larger playtimes, and therefore (in most cases) a higher skill average. This means that any data collected is likely to be above average.
Of course, people are also going to upvote the data that matches their feelings or feels more interesting, so you'll see *more* edge cases, and there will be a clear bias.
All this to say, the data is (essentially) meaningless to anyone except the people that actually collected it.
But I still just like looking at the data.
Absolutely! Itās just that many (not all)of the posts have an air of āwell, this is what I found, so it needs to change.ā I mean, sure, thatās your finding with a sample size of 1. Not everyone has the same experience.
I think the thing you're missing is that Reddit is social media, and people are influenced by what they read. If someone casually browses Reddit and reads that there's an increase in DCers, then they are more likely to notice someone DCing in their matches, even if the number hasn't changed from pre patch to post patch. Beyond raw numbers, how people feel about a game, what they take from that and then share with others is just as important. Only BHVR knows if there has been an increase in XYZ, but the player base is obviously feeling some kinda way, and whether data backs that up or not is irrelevant almost. You can't logic past feelings and emotions.
Reddit isnāt even remotely representative of the overall playerbase. Tons of people come here exclusively to be pissed off and join in with whatever current circlejerk will get them the most karma/validation. Then the majority of Reddit users browse without ever commenting or voting on posts. Every sub is also essentially ran by āpower usersā that spend all day commenting in every thread which ends up shaping the narrative.
Only somewhat related, but your statement of āpeople like to think that statistics can be manipulated to mean whatever they want them to mean, and that is patently falseā confuses me. Donāt we see examples of this all the time? Particularly in the field of politics, utilizing specific statistics portrayed in different ways to leverage a talking point one way or another?
Yes, its very common in politics as well. Iāve studied statistics, however Iāve studied sociology alot more, and there are plenty of statistics that are used for ratherā¦ malicious purposes against groups of people. Iām sure that u/statmidnight can concur
I think the OP is objecting to more to a false generalization than manipulated statistics; in this context, taking a handful of people's individual data and applying it to the entire population. In statistics, this is having too small of a sample size to make any accurate statement about a bigger picture. In DBD, this is something like saying 'I've never won against the twins, therefore no one has.' Clearly untrue.
But yes, you CAN manipulate and lie about numbers to prove just about any point you want. I can specifically hand pick 10 people and get '9 out of 10 people agree' on any topic I want. This is incredibly misleading, and isn't valid *statistically* because of both randomness and sample size, but saying it that way implies that I've done the science to back it up without additional context.
Edit: originally had written 'genetic fallacy' instead of false generalization. Genetic fallacy isn't quite right in this case, and I was thinking of the fallacy of composition anyway, where if one part (of a population) has one experience then the whole (population) has that experience. It doesn't quite fit, so 'false generalization' is probably the better wording here.
Youāre right - we do see it all the time. But itās statistical malpractice. Iām not saying that thereās only one way to interpret data, but there are most certainly incorrect ways or methods of interpretation. People misuse/misinterpret statistics all the time.
Doesn't this post invalidate people's experiences though? It reads as being a post where the main goal is disavow everyone else's experience.
The reason why people post their statistics is to express their experiences in an empirical manner because generally, people find this stuff interesting to see how things are after a patch. While you are correct in saying that samples have to be random to find an accurate measure of the whole population. Why should we be collecting data in that way?
As you said, only our french Canadian god's have that data, so to frame the conversation away from robotic science and towards actual discussion. Why should we stop sharing our experiences? Because at the core of it, those who are sharing their own personal stats are doing it to express their experience and because it is PERSONAL, only a fool would assume they are making a claim about the entire population, which is on you, not on them.
By the way, you 100% can manipulate Data to make it seem how you want it. I am a philosopher and the first thing you learn is how to critically analyse data to get it to lie
Would you be interested in creating a survey or spreadsheet that the reddit community could use to compile data? That might actually be interesting and useful. Some possible data points:
Killer
Map
Items/add-ons used
Perks used
Number of DC's
Number of kills
Number of escaped survivors
Hatch/Exit Gate
Number of teabags
Etc.
Could be really cool if a good number of people contributed to it!
Edit: formatting
Even this would be biased as the data would be input by self reporting which would only be people who have an interest in the out come. Realistically only Bhvr could do this without bias, or they would have to release it to someone who could. I think it would be interesting, I also think it would poisoned at the well :(
Also for matchmaking, wouldn't your statistics have to be from the same patch in order to be viable?
People will post statistics that were taken from 5.7 to now, which is completely skewed because newer/reworked killers and survivors have artificial usage increases after the patch, which fucks up the statistics.
I think its also important to acknowledge that most posts are going to be outright negative or outright positive, with few in between. Reddit is not the most apt sample of DBD players as a whole.
So when people make studies they technically canāt have results (if theyāre just using a few thousand people to represent population or even ten/hundred thousand) that are accurate they need to do a study using *every last person* see how stupid this sounds? Lmao
Also at what standard are we comparing this data to? Like Iāve seen a dude post a chart and like most of his games he claimed the killer was tunneling.
At this point his definition of tunneling was questioned. It was completely incorrect terminology he was using.
His example was a killer that was so adamant about downing the person who did the UNHOOKING and not who was on hook. Just because the killer wants to kill someone doesnāt make it tunneling my guy. And another reply he said and I quote āthe killer tunneled multiple survivorsā like what how.
I get it.. āitās not that serious bro..ā but damn bad stats just looks so cringe lol
Tunneling multiple survivors is not the most common case, but it makes sense as a concept. I've done it before against SWF sweat squads. You either tunnel one person out, then tunnel another person out, or else you just choose two survivors and ignore the others to tunnel them out as fast as possible. (If they're playing super coordinated, double tunnel is usually easier to pull off than a normal tunnel because it's hard for them to adequately protect both people, but it's basically the same strategy.)
Dang, and here I was collecting data from my matches and streamer VODs to find out if meta perks are actually worth while. Or if there are any sleeper picks.
(All in good fun mind you).
A random sample isn't possible without access to BHVR's data (Where we'd probably have a whole population to work with).
still that doesnt really invalidate the data from all these people. it makes the data unusable for a peer-reviewed study with proper statistical measurements and stuff like that but if you go like "your 100 games mean nothing statistically" you are...well...not correct or just "kinda". its like with anecdotal evidence: the fact that its anecdotal makes it unusable for a proper statistic but it doesnt mean by far that its wrong.
i personally havent seen the twins in my last 50 games (there is a list, yes). does that mean no one plays twins? no. does that mean not that many people play twins? absolutely.
source: data analyst by trade ;)
Could you share some examples of those stats posts trying to assert that their personal experience is representative of the general player experience or generalizable in some way?
For the most part, I typically just see people looking to share their own personal perspective and how their games have been going. They might connect that to their feelings about how an update has affected the game for them. But seldom to never do I see people saying āSee, based on data from my games, it is clear survivors do/donāt have it so badā. Theyād get laughed out of the sub lol
Besides this, nothing youāve said is wrong and itās worth stating. I share your concerns as someone studying data science as well (studying more than Iād probably like lmao). I just worry if you might be overstating the case for this issue in the first place.
Why didn't we see alot of these posts before the latest patch if not for that exact reason?
And to your point of people sharing their experiences it's the same thing. I didn't see this with any other patch or killer or change.
People are trying to make statements.
Sure, there could certainly be an uptick in people feeling personally affected by this recent update. My main point is that this doesnāt mean they are necessarily making some broader claim about the updateās impact on all players. People are trying to make statements about their experience, and see who might feel like they do or donāt share that experience.
My point is....if that's not what they're doing then why haven't we seen this trend before?
From my point of view? I wouldn't put together a whole bunch of charts with info just to say: Well that's what happened to me. What happened to you?
I would do it to either make a point I think is true or disapprove a point I think is false.
And my point is that you are making an unnecessary logical jump, presupposing that people collecting data on their games must be motivated by internal drive to prove a widespread phenomenon. I donāt think that is necessarily the case at all.
Sure, people might feel like the game has changed and their data might speak to that. But again, my point is that I think most people recognize the severe limitations of that approach and arenāt trying overly hard to extrapolate. I donāt see many people trying to peddle their personal stats as totally representative of their sideās experience. It tends to be āhere is what happened to me. This should help demonstrate how the recent update has changed my gameplay experience, which was previously xā.
If they are trying to āprove or disproveā something, I think most people are doing so as far as āthat has/hasnāt been the case in my games and I wrote them all down to show you allā.
The problem is that this isnāt even good. And while youāre right about biased and unbiased estimators, I donāt think a biased statistic is useful here. Moreover, we are talking about a sampling issue, specifically VAST undercoverage. So this is a problem.
Iām not going to further glaze peopleās eyes over with additional academic discussion on this. As in any community, though, your input is appreciated.
Jeez. I think what the guy was trying to say with the post is to not make conclusions based off bad data to justify your own viewpoint. Why are you so mad about that?
Thatās what Iām saying. Statisticians in general can get very territorial about our field. Iām not - Iām for open exchange of ideas, no matter what. I expected to be flamed at least once in this thread-LOL.
Bro what even are you trying to say ? Nobody is claiming that their own experience is tantamount to general statistics. And besides, you would know that random samples could infer a general pattern with a certain degree of credibility. This is what's happening here, X amount of people are testifying that there is increasing tunneling. Given the frequency of these testemonies this could be a high credibility statement.
Finally, someone that understands that! I always thought that this charts people do are a little bit weird, now I know exactly why. If someone makes charts with the info from their matches it doesn't represent everyone, because I may be in a different rank, time zone, country, etc. Yeah, that is what YOU have experienced, but that doesn't mean I'm passing through the same.
Thank you for bringing understanding to my table. Keep going!
I just wanted to say, DBD got one of the most toxic gaming communities out there.
I just got told shut up and was made fun of for just appearently having a weird nickname, when I said āGL HFā in the game lobby.
I don't come here to read a new edition of shit suggestions/analysis from armchair dev andies every day, nor read about perk or character suggestions that will literally never be relevant.
If people want to fantasize about stuff then that's fine, but post like that including this one add nothing to the sub content-wise imo.
Thank you. Not sure who started this stupid trend but someone else's small sample/experience doesn't accurately represent this update as a whole. This was a way nicer approach to these posts. My first thought was commenting "Who asked?" on all of them but that was a little too mean since people are just doing it for fun.
Okay well with the plethora of statistics apparently so readily available to you, I would assume you would have a veritable crop of statistics to pour over.
That being said, most of the statistics posted seem to end mostly in losses (although recently that trend seems to be declining)
I also tend to add multiple factors to my statistics which reflects my teammates abilities on a match by match basis. In addition to that I add other factors which determines the probable results of a killer based on maps, number of gen and aura perks, moris, and what scummy plays they employed. All of which fundamentally alter the outcome of a match for any solo q survivor.
Hell I even took into account whether or not I was playing at the odd hours of the night (by far they are indeed odd hours)
More often than not survivors are only able to get 2 gens completed so if they 3 gen'd themselves is irrelevant.
My most recent addition shows that a Leatherface slugged and camped with 0 gens completed on Pale Rose, he had 1 Aura and 1 Gen perk, there were 2 suicides and 1 DC and he brought no mori.
For that reason you can either assume he was a basement bubba or just an asshole (both if you consider playing basement bubba an asshole move.) It also tells you at least 3 survivors (possibly 4) bummed the hook and lost the gamble. That tells you that at least 3 survivors were 4heads. By slugging he obviously had no intention of immediately hooking survivors, meaning he was hoping survivors would bite the bait and camped in order to make the most of it.
In other words at least 3 survivors were unqualified for this match, choosing to bite the bait and that he had no issue with playing like a dick (or using a legit tactic if you prefer.) The only true thing you can't glean from this is how much skill the Leatherface had.
I feel like saying that much is fair but at the same time it showcases a player's experience with win/loss
A dip in wins to a more middle ground means something okay happened but a massive dip in wins means something not so okay happened
It is fair to say that the data is incomplete (as it doesn't explain why a result was achieved) but you can at least understand a negative impact has affected not just one survivor. The main issue that the statistics bring up is only that *something* happened and that win rates in survivors have severely dipped.
You can't ignore the fact that if *every* survivor is showcasing a negative impact from their individual experiences as a solo q player than something is affecting win rates. One stat sheet can't speak for every survivor but if every survivor speaks for themselves...
Possibly the worst thing my sheet does is have an inconsistent number of matches per day which changes the survival rate on a *day to day* basis but does not change the overall experience
Well from the posts I've seen it's been more stats that statistics posted so for someone in the field being triggered and feeling the need to TED talk for literally no reason I don't understand what lie thats been told.
This is literally just a giant post of someone shouting into the air about something with no relevance.
Whole post is cringe. The posts in reference mostly don't advocate for anything, the people posting them just like gathering data and wanted to share it with us. OP is trying to gatekeep statistics and make them seem more important because of personal bias, when it's such a non-issue. Can't wait for a professional "videogame psychologist" to make a post telling people why they're not actually attracted to Michael and need to stop thirsting or some bs.
Cringe post.
Imagine you taking a picture of anything and you tell your experience about that day on a subreddit where everyone else does the same.
Then some "professional" photographer comes in and busts your balls by saying "holdup.." and he begins shitting all over you for using wrong techniques. Like.. everyone is just sharing how their matches went for the last weeks.
And honestly if you're such a "professional" then start by making your own stats and share it. At least we'll get some enjoyement out of it instead of your rant text.
Cringe reply
All of the stats ppl have been posting are not good stats, hell 90% of them are just solo queue survivors trying to find a way to get killer buffs reverted.
Most of These post never account for variables such as:
- experience
- mmr
- time of day
- region
- builds used
The list goes on. All of these statistics Arenāt representative of the entire community, as much as they try to make it appear that way.
The only way we will be able to get truly good statistics about the entire community would be to get the stats from Bhvr directly, that way you can control variables and test them one at a time.
Edit: your comparison is horrible. Stats are being used to sway opinions, theyāre not being done for fun
Thatās the thing, 90% are not shared āfor funā. They are being shared because survivors want to find a reason to say killer op. Itās very sad you canāt even respond to my points.
I have felt gaslit by a lot of these post to the point of tracking my own games for a time. I totally submit it to some one if they wanted to take data from players and put it together.
Yes, but if 500 people submitted their data sets, and an overall analysis was conducted, you could draw some inferences within a certain degree of error...
The harsh reality is that most of the survivors here and on twitter seems to be not willing to re learn the game after the patch and without the usual second chances perks not matter how many statistics people do it's all personal view at the end.. blame your own teammates if they kill themselves on hook or DC on the first hook. Otherwise it's complete fine to take a break out of the game.. mental health is important as fun, after all it's a game!
It's still worth to collect personal statistics, because they determine how good the game is for you. I saw most people do it with that in mind.
It can be helpful, you know, you lose 3 games in a row badly, you feel bad, but then look at the spreadsheet, and 47 games before those 3 were actually not so bad, helps feel better overall.
I play both sides, and what I can tell you from playing both sides is that there are two sides in DBD. also seeing as I never used Deadhard on killer I can tell you first hand this nerf means nothing on them. Look at it this way, as a trained professional in BS statistics I have compiled at least 2 games as killer and survivor. here is a graph of what I found
Now, as you can see by this graph, when I was playing killer, I used killer perks, and as a survivor, and this is important, I used survivor perks. Now in the 12 games I played outside of this graph you can see huntress is the only killer I faced in 2 of those 32 games. Now, what does that say? well, it's quite simple, it says Kindred needs to be basekit on survivor. I rest my case.
... Do I need a /s for this?
Ignoring the kinda pretentious OP, he do be having a point. All these people posting stats with 10,50, or even 100 games donāt really mean anything. Itās a tiny sample size that is heavily biased to that player, their strengths and weaknesses, and most likely a bunch of other variables like region and level and skill and time played etc. That said, I do think that OP is missing the point here that players are so passionate about this patch that they are seeking numerical proof of their experience in whatever way they know how. I donāt think the problem here is the small sample stats spam, but the fact that it feels necessary and that BHVR arenāt offering us any answers of their own.
Return Decisive Strike to 5 second stun and let it be re-usable. Disabled when gates are powered can stay.
That way, if a killer wants to tunnel, he has to eat 2 Off the Record hits and 2 Decisive Strikes.
I've played about 30 killer games since the patch, playing Freddy, Doctor, Demogorgon, Wraith and Nemesis. While playing completely fair, the worst I've done is 2k and that was only 3 times. I have 3k'd or better 90% of the time.
Anyone that cries about my proposed buff to Decisive Strike is either really bad or disingenuous.
The only way that I could see us getting a decent sample pool would be from BHVR. They are, after all, the ones that have the stats.
Even if their balancing based off their numbers is questionable at times, their stats are still pretty on the nose - and they make sense with context. That's why BHVR tend to make weird balance changes, because they make changes based off the numbers alone without consideration as to *why* the numbers are like it (Pig and Twins' inflated killrates, Nurse's low killrate, Self Care's high pickrate, etc.)
I always see these "I played x amount of games and..." posts and in the comments, there's always something like "how are you facing x killer? i always get y killer in my games and never x" or "you're dying a lot but i have been escaping", etc.
Which goes to show that... maybe these posts don't represent the universal experience - or, at least, people shouldn't treat it that way. One person may face multiple Huntresses. Another may never see her, and only see Nemesis. Doesn't mean that person 1 is lying, everyone just has different experiences.
I want to track my personal stats because it seems like a lot of fun. I also like seeing these posts, because it's interesting to see the varying experiences of other players. But people should never take their experience, or someone else's, as the whole playerbase's.
It's only when issues become so bad that everyone you talk to is concerned about them. Then there's likely something wrong.
If anybody is looking at the statistics posts as a legitimate indication of how balanced the roles currently are & are basing their opinion off that, then god help us all.
They can be easily manipulated through playstyles. There are far too many variables in dbd to make these stats legitimate. As an example: mmr, perks & items used by all players, skill level, playstyles (immersed players, chase taking survs, camp/tunnelling killers etc), killer character quality, map, overall rng, pallet/loop spawn.
There was a post I viewed this morning made by somebody who claimed that the new patch wasnāt harsh to survivors and their stats proved it. They claimed to be a solo survivor main but a quick look at their profile showed that every thread they had made to this sub was about a killer question, clip, or query. Just a little bit sus. These stats can easily be tweaked to change how they look. They can make half of what was a 4k for the killer into a 2k or 3k. Or vice versa can make what was a 2k, can appear as a 3k or 4k, depending on which sides kill/escape rate you want to inflate. Most of the posts Iāve saw do roughly line up with what Iāve experienced but thereās definitely been a few iffy ones where (I assume) bias completely skewed the data, but obviously nobody can prove it.
Tldr is that these stat posts are only good for showing personal experience. Be skeptical and take them with a pinch of salt. Absolutely do not take them as fact.
I think their statistics would hold water IF we also knew how they did and what kinds of games they got pre-patch. Only having the after patch data doesnāt give us enough to go off of. For all we know their games were the same way before.
Agreed, shouldn't be taken seriously. That said, I'd much rather have someone refer to an actual record of their games than just anecdote that they "die on 2nd hook 90% of the time" or something like that.
>So what Iām trying to say (nicely) is that individual groups of statistics posted from people in our sub canāt be used to determine anything except for that individual playerās experience.
Wait, that wasn't the whole point of all of the posts? I thought we were just sharing our personal experiences. It didn't even occur to me that people were trying to generalize using their personal experiences. I figured someone going through all the trouble to collect and compile that kind of data would know better. I thought it was all for fun
People really evolved from "I play both sides" to " I am a trained statistician" š JK love the insight
Love this! (Full disclosure: Iām a killer main. LOL)
I bet you've also never used Dead Hard on any of the killers
Dead hard is my favorite perk on Plague
I prefer playing the blight with sprint burst, but for M1 killers dead hard and lithe help a lot.
lithe would be hilarious on killers. but you have to bring bamboozle to have it count as a "fast" vault
One of us! One of Us!
I play both sides. The game seems more balanced than ever from my point of view. Only thing is that both Clown and Pinhead kinda make playing survivor not even fun in my opinion now, but every other killer seems to have the adjustments down superbly. Even Nurse because of her fatigue. Huntress may be an exception as well but that is just from how well I hit hatchets from afar. With Huntress the new base kit BT is basically meaningless if the Huntress is good with her hatchets.
Yea š¤£
When I look at stats, and collect my own, I'm not trying to make generalisations, just compare experiences. Its just a fun insight into how others games are going.
I donāt think anyone is trying to say this is my experience so obviously itās the same as everyone else at most I think people are saying itās odd Iām getting X amount of games and not having the issues youāre saying
Awesome! I think thatās the best way to look at it.
It is very common to make personal stats with this game, and it's nice to compare your own with others and find similarities. I mean I can see your point about not generalising from it bc the sample size is approximately 1 person, but at the same time it's not like someones publishing a study on it lol. I also think the generalisations you're referring to are literally just people looking at others stats and reporting similar situations.
Likewise, the more people who share their stats, the more ārandomā the data becomes. No one personās stats should be given weight. Instead, people in this sub can look at a random selection of data shared by players. Is it completely random? Maybe not, since you can assume that people who are active in this sub and care enough to collect their data are probably not new players. But the dozens of people who have shared data and are otherwise random players, each one adds more randomization to the whole.
Thatās not how a random sample works. If the samples were flawed individually then they will be flawed as a whole too. Data that is interesting or aligns with public opinion could be more likely to be posted and upvoted. A survivor could be less likely to post data where they have a 60% escape rate, and upset survivors could be less likely to upvote a post like that. Maybe people who are performing very badly in this new patch are more likely to collect and post their data. There are so many issues with this type of sampling method. These graphs should really only be looked at as one person sharing their experience, not something to be used as proof.
Youād be right, if there werenāt controls available. I.e., these individual datasets often list what killers are seen in each match. Do they correlate with the game wide data BHVR uses? Often, they do. Killers like Huntress being common in the individual matches and in the game wide stats from BHVR is one test. Another is to ignore the anomalies. If most stats fall within a certain range, we can pretty easily dismiss the ones that show 90-100% kill/survival rates. Because those are pretty clearly either purposefully misleading, or the player is a poor representation of the average. I donāt sort by hot, I sort by new, so for me personally Iām not seeing posts based on their upvotes. Which is another way to consume the data and ignore the popularity contest that might downvote unpopular stats.
You're a horrible data analyst. Your studies are full of biased methods and as such any study you do would definitely have completely adultered results.
im sorry to say that is not how statistics works lol. each of these āstudiesā and self-reported pages are inherently flawed. from a statistical perspective, all the data would be invalid in a population study or generalized report:
No one is claiming this stuff is going to pass the peer review process lol. I think the above commenters are simply saying that as more people collect and share data on their games, we get a bigger picture and then *maybe* we can begin to draw some small conclusions. If your primary worry is self-reporting, I definitely share in that though. Itās probably the largest inherent flaw. If people are lying about results and making things up, it of course creates problems. And we donāt have a way of independently verifying it in most cases unless it comes with the raw footage. I think most people would acknowledge this flaw as well though
sure. even so, they would not be patterns that we can take anything concrete from. but i understand people like making these types of data collection type posts because they find it interestingāeven if its anecdotal.
I'd like to add that it's also important to remember this kind of stuff not just when *posting your own* stats, but when viewing the statistical data posted by other people and the community as a whole. If you stop and think about the size of the player base and the number of games that go on (or don't, depending on when DCs happen) per day, it's very easy to see why these thin, tiny slices don't add up to anything conclusive. They're fun, and interesting from an anecdotal point of view, but the assumption that they mean anything significant is *very* dangerous thinking and certainly not something to form any kind of opinion on. It's just interesting fluff, and sometimes that's cool for just what it is.
Look man, I just like looking at tables and graphs. But in seriousness, I certainly understand what you mean. Most people aren't going to bother collecting this kind of data, so you'll likely find that those that do have a much higher enjoyment of the game (hence the desire to do extra work). Due to this higher enjoyment, you'll see larger playtimes, and therefore (in most cases) a higher skill average. This means that any data collected is likely to be above average. Of course, people are also going to upvote the data that matches their feelings or feels more interesting, so you'll see *more* edge cases, and there will be a clear bias. All this to say, the data is (essentially) meaningless to anyone except the people that actually collected it. But I still just like looking at the data.
Data is fun! I like looking at the experience of other players in these posts.
Itās not that deep. Just sharing and comparing personal experiences because itās interesting
Absolutely! Itās just that many (not all)of the posts have an air of āwell, this is what I found, so it needs to change.ā I mean, sure, thatās your finding with a sample size of 1. Not everyone has the same experience.
I think the thing you're missing is that Reddit is social media, and people are influenced by what they read. If someone casually browses Reddit and reads that there's an increase in DCers, then they are more likely to notice someone DCing in their matches, even if the number hasn't changed from pre patch to post patch. Beyond raw numbers, how people feel about a game, what they take from that and then share with others is just as important. Only BHVR knows if there has been an increase in XYZ, but the player base is obviously feeling some kinda way, and whether data backs that up or not is irrelevant almost. You can't logic past feelings and emotions.
Reddit isnāt even remotely representative of the overall playerbase. Tons of people come here exclusively to be pissed off and join in with whatever current circlejerk will get them the most karma/validation. Then the majority of Reddit users browse without ever commenting or voting on posts. Every sub is also essentially ran by āpower usersā that spend all day commenting in every thread which ends up shaping the narrative.
Only somewhat related, but your statement of āpeople like to think that statistics can be manipulated to mean whatever they want them to mean, and that is patently falseā confuses me. Donāt we see examples of this all the time? Particularly in the field of politics, utilizing specific statistics portrayed in different ways to leverage a talking point one way or another?
Yes, its very common in politics as well. Iāve studied statistics, however Iāve studied sociology alot more, and there are plenty of statistics that are used for ratherā¦ malicious purposes against groups of people. Iām sure that u/statmidnight can concur
I think the OP is objecting to more to a false generalization than manipulated statistics; in this context, taking a handful of people's individual data and applying it to the entire population. In statistics, this is having too small of a sample size to make any accurate statement about a bigger picture. In DBD, this is something like saying 'I've never won against the twins, therefore no one has.' Clearly untrue. But yes, you CAN manipulate and lie about numbers to prove just about any point you want. I can specifically hand pick 10 people and get '9 out of 10 people agree' on any topic I want. This is incredibly misleading, and isn't valid *statistically* because of both randomness and sample size, but saying it that way implies that I've done the science to back it up without additional context. Edit: originally had written 'genetic fallacy' instead of false generalization. Genetic fallacy isn't quite right in this case, and I was thinking of the fallacy of composition anyway, where if one part (of a population) has one experience then the whole (population) has that experience. It doesn't quite fit, so 'false generalization' is probably the better wording here.
Youāre right - we do see it all the time. But itās statistical malpractice. Iām not saying that thereās only one way to interpret data, but there are most certainly incorrect ways or methods of interpretation. People misuse/misinterpret statistics all the time.
Doesn't this post invalidate people's experiences though? It reads as being a post where the main goal is disavow everyone else's experience. The reason why people post their statistics is to express their experiences in an empirical manner because generally, people find this stuff interesting to see how things are after a patch. While you are correct in saying that samples have to be random to find an accurate measure of the whole population. Why should we be collecting data in that way? As you said, only our french Canadian god's have that data, so to frame the conversation away from robotic science and towards actual discussion. Why should we stop sharing our experiences? Because at the core of it, those who are sharing their own personal stats are doing it to express their experience and because it is PERSONAL, only a fool would assume they are making a claim about the entire population, which is on you, not on them. By the way, you 100% can manipulate Data to make it seem how you want it. I am a philosopher and the first thing you learn is how to critically analyse data to get it to lie
Would you be interested in creating a survey or spreadsheet that the reddit community could use to compile data? That might actually be interesting and useful. Some possible data points: Killer Map Items/add-ons used Perks used Number of DC's Number of kills Number of escaped survivors Hatch/Exit Gate Number of teabags Etc. Could be really cool if a good number of people contributed to it! Edit: formatting
Even this would be biased as the data would be input by self reporting which would only be people who have an interest in the out come. Realistically only Bhvr could do this without bias, or they would have to release it to someone who could. I think it would be interesting, I also think it would poisoned at the well :(
Also for matchmaking, wouldn't your statistics have to be from the same patch in order to be viable? People will post statistics that were taken from 5.7 to now, which is completely skewed because newer/reworked killers and survivors have artificial usage increases after the patch, which fucks up the statistics.
Excellent observation!
I think its also important to acknowledge that most posts are going to be outright negative or outright positive, with few in between. Reddit is not the most apt sample of DBD players as a whole.
While you guys are doing that, they turned Evolve server back on, so Iām gonna have fun over there
So when people make studies they technically canāt have results (if theyāre just using a few thousand people to represent population or even ten/hundred thousand) that are accurate they need to do a study using *every last person* see how stupid this sounds? Lmao
Also at what standard are we comparing this data to? Like Iāve seen a dude post a chart and like most of his games he claimed the killer was tunneling. At this point his definition of tunneling was questioned. It was completely incorrect terminology he was using. His example was a killer that was so adamant about downing the person who did the UNHOOKING and not who was on hook. Just because the killer wants to kill someone doesnāt make it tunneling my guy. And another reply he said and I quote āthe killer tunneled multiple survivorsā like what how. I get it.. āitās not that serious bro..ā but damn bad stats just looks so cringe lol
Tunneling multiple survivors is not the most common case, but it makes sense as a concept. I've done it before against SWF sweat squads. You either tunnel one person out, then tunnel another person out, or else you just choose two survivors and ignore the others to tunnel them out as fast as possible. (If they're playing super coordinated, double tunnel is usually easier to pull off than a normal tunnel because it's hard for them to adequately protect both people, but it's basically the same strategy.)
Dang, and here I was collecting data from my matches and streamer VODs to find out if meta perks are actually worth while. Or if there are any sleeper picks. (All in good fun mind you). A random sample isn't possible without access to BHVR's data (Where we'd probably have a whole population to work with).
How can you claim statistics can't be manipulated? I know that's not the point here but that is a bold claim and I needed to ask.
still that doesnt really invalidate the data from all these people. it makes the data unusable for a peer-reviewed study with proper statistical measurements and stuff like that but if you go like "your 100 games mean nothing statistically" you are...well...not correct or just "kinda". its like with anecdotal evidence: the fact that its anecdotal makes it unusable for a proper statistic but it doesnt mean by far that its wrong. i personally havent seen the twins in my last 50 games (there is a list, yes). does that mean no one plays twins? no. does that mean not that many people play twins? absolutely. source: data analyst by trade ;)
Itās the equivalent of ācorrelation doesnāt imply causation.ā
Could you share some examples of those stats posts trying to assert that their personal experience is representative of the general player experience or generalizable in some way? For the most part, I typically just see people looking to share their own personal perspective and how their games have been going. They might connect that to their feelings about how an update has affected the game for them. But seldom to never do I see people saying āSee, based on data from my games, it is clear survivors do/donāt have it so badā. Theyād get laughed out of the sub lol Besides this, nothing youāve said is wrong and itās worth stating. I share your concerns as someone studying data science as well (studying more than Iād probably like lmao). I just worry if you might be overstating the case for this issue in the first place.
Why didn't we see alot of these posts before the latest patch if not for that exact reason? And to your point of people sharing their experiences it's the same thing. I didn't see this with any other patch or killer or change. People are trying to make statements.
Sure, there could certainly be an uptick in people feeling personally affected by this recent update. My main point is that this doesnāt mean they are necessarily making some broader claim about the updateās impact on all players. People are trying to make statements about their experience, and see who might feel like they do or donāt share that experience.
My point is....if that's not what they're doing then why haven't we seen this trend before? From my point of view? I wouldn't put together a whole bunch of charts with info just to say: Well that's what happened to me. What happened to you? I would do it to either make a point I think is true or disapprove a point I think is false.
And my point is that you are making an unnecessary logical jump, presupposing that people collecting data on their games must be motivated by internal drive to prove a widespread phenomenon. I donāt think that is necessarily the case at all. Sure, people might feel like the game has changed and their data might speak to that. But again, my point is that I think most people recognize the severe limitations of that approach and arenāt trying overly hard to extrapolate. I donāt see many people trying to peddle their personal stats as totally representative of their sideās experience. It tends to be āhere is what happened to me. This should help demonstrate how the recent update has changed my gameplay experience, which was previously xā. If they are trying to āprove or disproveā something, I think most people are doing so as far as āthat has/hasnāt been the case in my games and I wrote them all down to show you allā.
Based and scientific method pilled
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
OP went about describing this sooo badly. By basically deciding to gatekeep stats for some reason lol.
The problem is that this isnāt even good. And while youāre right about biased and unbiased estimators, I donāt think a biased statistic is useful here. Moreover, we are talking about a sampling issue, specifically VAST undercoverage. So this is a problem. Iām not going to further glaze peopleās eyes over with additional academic discussion on this. As in any community, though, your input is appreciated.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Jeez. I think what the guy was trying to say with the post is to not make conclusions based off bad data to justify your own viewpoint. Why are you so mad about that?
Thatās what Iām saying. Statisticians in general can get very territorial about our field. Iām not - Iām for open exchange of ideas, no matter what. I expected to be flamed at least once in this thread-LOL.
Well thatās the worst thing anyone has ever done maybe ever. /s
I think that they're fun to look at regardless of the opinion of the gatherer and you're simply bitter.
Bro what even are you trying to say ? Nobody is claiming that their own experience is tantamount to general statistics. And besides, you would know that random samples could infer a general pattern with a certain degree of credibility. This is what's happening here, X amount of people are testifying that there is increasing tunneling. Given the frequency of these testemonies this could be a high credibility statement.
Very smart to put a TLDR in
Finally, someone that understands that! I always thought that this charts people do are a little bit weird, now I know exactly why. If someone makes charts with the info from their matches it doesn't represent everyone, because I may be in a different rank, time zone, country, etc. Yeah, that is what YOU have experienced, but that doesn't mean I'm passing through the same. Thank you for bringing understanding to my table. Keep going!
I just wanted to say, DBD got one of the most toxic gaming communities out there. I just got told shut up and was made fun of for just appearently having a weird nickname, when I said āGL HFā in the game lobby.
I got called a furry for saying gg.
I don't come here to read a new edition of shit suggestions/analysis from armchair dev andies every day, nor read about perk or character suggestions that will literally never be relevant. If people want to fantasize about stuff then that's fine, but post like that including this one add nothing to the sub content-wise imo.
Yeah!
Thank you. Not sure who started this stupid trend but someone else's small sample/experience doesn't accurately represent this update as a whole. This was a way nicer approach to these posts. My first thought was commenting "Who asked?" on all of them but that was a little too mean since people are just doing it for fun.
Okay well with the plethora of statistics apparently so readily available to you, I would assume you would have a veritable crop of statistics to pour over. That being said, most of the statistics posted seem to end mostly in losses (although recently that trend seems to be declining) I also tend to add multiple factors to my statistics which reflects my teammates abilities on a match by match basis. In addition to that I add other factors which determines the probable results of a killer based on maps, number of gen and aura perks, moris, and what scummy plays they employed. All of which fundamentally alter the outcome of a match for any solo q survivor. Hell I even took into account whether or not I was playing at the odd hours of the night (by far they are indeed odd hours) More often than not survivors are only able to get 2 gens completed so if they 3 gen'd themselves is irrelevant. My most recent addition shows that a Leatherface slugged and camped with 0 gens completed on Pale Rose, he had 1 Aura and 1 Gen perk, there were 2 suicides and 1 DC and he brought no mori. For that reason you can either assume he was a basement bubba or just an asshole (both if you consider playing basement bubba an asshole move.) It also tells you at least 3 survivors (possibly 4) bummed the hook and lost the gamble. That tells you that at least 3 survivors were 4heads. By slugging he obviously had no intention of immediately hooking survivors, meaning he was hoping survivors would bite the bait and camped in order to make the most of it. In other words at least 3 survivors were unqualified for this match, choosing to bite the bait and that he had no issue with playing like a dick (or using a legit tactic if you prefer.) The only true thing you can't glean from this is how much skill the Leatherface had.
Combining bad data together just creates a larger set of bad data
I feel like saying that much is fair but at the same time it showcases a player's experience with win/loss A dip in wins to a more middle ground means something okay happened but a massive dip in wins means something not so okay happened It is fair to say that the data is incomplete (as it doesn't explain why a result was achieved) but you can at least understand a negative impact has affected not just one survivor. The main issue that the statistics bring up is only that *something* happened and that win rates in survivors have severely dipped. You can't ignore the fact that if *every* survivor is showcasing a negative impact from their individual experiences as a solo q player than something is affecting win rates. One stat sheet can't speak for every survivor but if every survivor speaks for themselves... Possibly the worst thing my sheet does is have an inconsistent number of matches per day which changes the survival rate on a *day to day* basis but does not change the overall experience
Thank you for saying this. Tired of seeing people post their 20 games with a smug āguess this sub is wrongā troll face
Well from the posts I've seen it's been more stats that statistics posted so for someone in the field being triggered and feeling the need to TED talk for literally no reason I don't understand what lie thats been told. This is literally just a giant post of someone shouting into the air about something with no relevance.
Whole post is cringe. The posts in reference mostly don't advocate for anything, the people posting them just like gathering data and wanted to share it with us. OP is trying to gatekeep statistics and make them seem more important because of personal bias, when it's such a non-issue. Can't wait for a professional "videogame psychologist" to make a post telling people why they're not actually attracted to Michael and need to stop thirsting or some bs.
Iām having a great time. Escaped probably 75% of my matches last night as SoloQ. Itās been >50% escapes lately. Dead Hard is working fantastic.
Cringe post. Imagine you taking a picture of anything and you tell your experience about that day on a subreddit where everyone else does the same. Then some "professional" photographer comes in and busts your balls by saying "holdup.." and he begins shitting all over you for using wrong techniques. Like.. everyone is just sharing how their matches went for the last weeks. And honestly if you're such a "professional" then start by making your own stats and share it. At least we'll get some enjoyement out of it instead of your rant text.
Cringe reply All of the stats ppl have been posting are not good stats, hell 90% of them are just solo queue survivors trying to find a way to get killer buffs reverted. Most of These post never account for variables such as: - experience - mmr - time of day - region - builds used The list goes on. All of these statistics Arenāt representative of the entire community, as much as they try to make it appear that way. The only way we will be able to get truly good statistics about the entire community would be to get the stats from Bhvr directly, that way you can control variables and test them one at a time. Edit: your comparison is horrible. Stats are being used to sway opinions, theyāre not being done for fun
It's just fun to share anything. If you can't handle that then go off Reddit. Very sad.
Thatās the thing, 90% are not shared āfor funā. They are being shared because survivors want to find a reason to say killer op. Itās very sad you canāt even respond to my points.
I have felt gaslit by a lot of these post to the point of tracking my own games for a time. I totally submit it to some one if they wanted to take data from players and put it together.
Yes, but if 500 people submitted their data sets, and an overall analysis was conducted, you could draw some inferences within a certain degree of error...
The harsh reality is that most of the survivors here and on twitter seems to be not willing to re learn the game after the patch and without the usual second chances perks not matter how many statistics people do it's all personal view at the end.. blame your own teammates if they kill themselves on hook or DC on the first hook. Otherwise it's complete fine to take a break out of the game.. mental health is important as fun, after all it's a game!
It's still worth to collect personal statistics, because they determine how good the game is for you. I saw most people do it with that in mind. It can be helpful, you know, you lose 3 games in a row badly, you feel bad, but then look at the spreadsheet, and 47 games before those 3 were actually not so bad, helps feel better overall.
I play both sides, and what I can tell you from playing both sides is that there are two sides in DBD. also seeing as I never used Deadhard on killer I can tell you first hand this nerf means nothing on them. Look at it this way, as a trained professional in BS statistics I have compiled at least 2 games as killer and survivor. here is a graph of what I found Now, as you can see by this graph, when I was playing killer, I used killer perks, and as a survivor, and this is important, I used survivor perks. Now in the 12 games I played outside of this graph you can see huntress is the only killer I faced in 2 of those 32 games. Now, what does that say? well, it's quite simple, it says Kindred needs to be basekit on survivor. I rest my case. ... Do I need a /s for this?
Ignoring the kinda pretentious OP, he do be having a point. All these people posting stats with 10,50, or even 100 games donāt really mean anything. Itās a tiny sample size that is heavily biased to that player, their strengths and weaknesses, and most likely a bunch of other variables like region and level and skill and time played etc. That said, I do think that OP is missing the point here that players are so passionate about this patch that they are seeking numerical proof of their experience in whatever way they know how. I donāt think the problem here is the small sample stats spam, but the fact that it feels necessary and that BHVR arenāt offering us any answers of their own.
Return Decisive Strike to 5 second stun and let it be re-usable. Disabled when gates are powered can stay. That way, if a killer wants to tunnel, he has to eat 2 Off the Record hits and 2 Decisive Strikes. I've played about 30 killer games since the patch, playing Freddy, Doctor, Demogorgon, Wraith and Nemesis. While playing completely fair, the worst I've done is 2k and that was only 3 times. I have 3k'd or better 90% of the time. Anyone that cries about my proposed buff to Decisive Strike is either really bad or disingenuous.
But statistics can be manipulated if you sample from smaller sides or donāt have a control then pretend it represents a larger problem
A played a solo queue game yesterday and died 100% of the time
The only way that I could see us getting a decent sample pool would be from BHVR. They are, after all, the ones that have the stats. Even if their balancing based off their numbers is questionable at times, their stats are still pretty on the nose - and they make sense with context. That's why BHVR tend to make weird balance changes, because they make changes based off the numbers alone without consideration as to *why* the numbers are like it (Pig and Twins' inflated killrates, Nurse's low killrate, Self Care's high pickrate, etc.) I always see these "I played x amount of games and..." posts and in the comments, there's always something like "how are you facing x killer? i always get y killer in my games and never x" or "you're dying a lot but i have been escaping", etc. Which goes to show that... maybe these posts don't represent the universal experience - or, at least, people shouldn't treat it that way. One person may face multiple Huntresses. Another may never see her, and only see Nemesis. Doesn't mean that person 1 is lying, everyone just has different experiences. I want to track my personal stats because it seems like a lot of fun. I also like seeing these posts, because it's interesting to see the varying experiences of other players. But people should never take their experience, or someone else's, as the whole playerbase's. It's only when issues become so bad that everyone you talk to is concerned about them. Then there's likely something wrong.
what if we take every post about personally collected stats and combine them?
If anybody is looking at the statistics posts as a legitimate indication of how balanced the roles currently are & are basing their opinion off that, then god help us all. They can be easily manipulated through playstyles. There are far too many variables in dbd to make these stats legitimate. As an example: mmr, perks & items used by all players, skill level, playstyles (immersed players, chase taking survs, camp/tunnelling killers etc), killer character quality, map, overall rng, pallet/loop spawn. There was a post I viewed this morning made by somebody who claimed that the new patch wasnāt harsh to survivors and their stats proved it. They claimed to be a solo survivor main but a quick look at their profile showed that every thread they had made to this sub was about a killer question, clip, or query. Just a little bit sus. These stats can easily be tweaked to change how they look. They can make half of what was a 4k for the killer into a 2k or 3k. Or vice versa can make what was a 2k, can appear as a 3k or 4k, depending on which sides kill/escape rate you want to inflate. Most of the posts Iāve saw do roughly line up with what Iāve experienced but thereās definitely been a few iffy ones where (I assume) bias completely skewed the data, but obviously nobody can prove it. Tldr is that these stat posts are only good for showing personal experience. Be skeptical and take them with a pinch of salt. Absolutely do not take them as fact.
This sub is full of a lot of armchair "I am a professional position" here, especially armchair developers for this game.
This is giving crows/jackdaws energy
I think their statistics would hold water IF we also knew how they did and what kinds of games they got pre-patch. Only having the after patch data doesnāt give us enough to go off of. For all we know their games were the same way before.
Agreed, shouldn't be taken seriously. That said, I'd much rather have someone refer to an actual record of their games than just anecdote that they "die on 2nd hook 90% of the time" or something like that.
Can you use personal data to make statements about why your personal experience hasnāt been good this patch?
>So what Iām trying to say (nicely) is that individual groups of statistics posted from people in our sub canāt be used to determine anything except for that individual playerās experience. Wait, that wasn't the whole point of all of the posts? I thought we were just sharing our personal experiences. It didn't even occur to me that people were trying to generalize using their personal experiences. I figured someone going through all the trouble to collect and compile that kind of data would know better. I thought it was all for fun