This whole thing just reminds me of when Noob3 did his 50 escapes challenge and someone on reddit put a $100 bounty on him, saying he embodied “everything wrong about the game.”
@@justalyx7952 he tried to save the friend who joined him whenever he could and almost lost the streak because of it, and from what I remember he rarely used hatch, let alone brought a key
@@Kyle-cv9bj Yes but actually no. If you ever listen to/watch his streams, tru3 actually addresses DCs and hook suicides and counts them as a 3 hook. Granted it's how he would rework the game's win/point system, not how it currently is.
@@onemuststand7353 there is still an issue that sometimes survivors just don't go for saves, even if killer doesn't do anything to stop them. That's the problem I have with 12 hooks being considered as a win - you need survivors to unhook so you can hook again. If they don't unhook, does that mean you lose?
What do you mean “”only” 9 hooks? That’s a lot of hooks lol, minimum 2 hooks 3 people and 3 hook one surv or killin 3 survs with 3 hooks. 9 hooks for IRI is fair IMO. Gatekeeper and chaser are the broken ones, also survivors killing theirselfs on hooks or DC messing up the hook emblem is bad
@@viniciusreno8516 not only do u need 9 hooks minimum you need to kill em off as well In most cases you probably will (cus u got 9 hooks or more lmao) I had a game where i was just going for hooks and i did get 9 (for the iridescent devout challenge) but 2 of them managed to escape at the end and i got a gold for devout Pip system still confuses me to this day
@@viniciusreno8516 Poor wording on my part, ofc 9 hooks is a lot. Honestly, I find the entire emblem system broken. I was just pointing this out because 9 hooks is the minimum required for the "best" performance in the system, and getting 12 hooks isn't really necessary to win in the game's eyes.
I'm not sure this is even correct. I've had 2 notable games where I got 10 and 11 hooks with the last survivor escaping through the hatch, but it only gives a gold emblem. I know the emblem doesn't mention 4k as a requirement, only 9 hooks, but it seems to be a part of it
@@8Kazuja8 Ya slugging is very valuable. But the biggest reason I do it personally is purely so I can have more chases and down more people. Having several people on the ground almost immediately after one another is a great feeling. Its also a lot of fun.
Here are my 2 grains regarding this issue, which may be buried and not be read by anybody, but here it goes. Dead by Daylight is asymmetric, not only on the number of players, POV of each side or gameplay elements. but their main goal mainly. The killer´s side objective says "Kill or Sacrifice Survivors" And you have gameplay elements that help you to get to that goal, those are hooks, memento moris, killer specific powers and add ons. You have those tools, wether you use them all or not, that is on you, you just have to accomplish the objective. The survivor side is more interesting, It says "Escape and survive", it doesn´t tell you to complete all generators, nor finding and opening the hatch, those are your tools to accomplish your goal. But most importantly, it doesn´t say "Escape and Survive with all other survivors". Meaning that the survivor team may work together, or not. Of course it is better to work as a team, but the victory is not shared among all team members, if you escape and survive, you win, it doesn´t matter all 3 others were killed, you got out, you won. So, if 3 survivors escape and 1 dies means that the survivors won? Nope, it just means that 3 survivors won and 1 lost. Now from the killers perspective, you can have 3 points of view on how to achieve victory: Either you kill all 4, you kill more people than those that get away, or you just get 1 killed....or maybe there is another way to measure victory... You see, at the end screen results, the survivors can have 3 messages, Escaped, Died, Survived. Only the former is a clear victory for them, the other are losses. But the killer´s result screen can have 4 different messages: Merciless Killer, Ruthless Killer, Brutal Killer, and Entity Displeased. And getting them is the result of how you performed at the trial, being merciless killer the highest honor, and Entity displeased being a clear bad result. Using this metric we can also think that even the victory conditions are different for each side, on the survivors being a "yes or no" state, and on the killer side being a gradient that scores your performance. For example, you have 2 students, one is happy and the other is sad. The happy one is celebrating cause he passed the test, he got a C+, a low, but passing grade. The sad one also passed the test, with a B+, but his victory condition was to get full marks and achieve perfection, and he lost, he couldn´t achieve his goal. Dead by Daylight brings us this paradigma, a clear victory condition for the survivors, and a murky one for the killers. This means also that both sides can achieve victory at the same time, if the killer, say, kills 2 people and lets go 2 survivors, then he could declare he won, as he achieved 2 kills, and 2 survivors could claim that they individually won, as they lived. But also at the same time they all can lose. If the survivors bleed out on the ground it doesnt count as a kill, nor a sacrifice. All 4 players are dead, the killer didn´t kill anyone and the entity is displeased (potentially). The main take away of this comment is that, a victory is subjective, you can have your own victory conditions, play as you like, let others play and have fun.
The disagreement is irrelevant, honestly. The real issue is how True addresses it. He throws shade at Otz and implies that what he does actively harms the game, plays innocent, and then attacks all of Otz's fanbase because his stream got raided by an extremely small portion of it. You don't get much more inoffensive and sweet as Otz. True would've gotten less blowback if he didn't behave like an ahole.
@@Kezsora Yep! That's it right there. I've watched him when he played For Honor and I always got that vibe from him. I got that same vibe from Otz at one point, but I've grown extremely fondly of him now.
I've always kind of seen DBD as having a "Team Win" and an "Personal Win" system. If anyone has ever played the board game Dead of Winter, thats roughly what i mean. Survivors have the team objective to do all five generators, then have all four people get out through the gate. Each individual survivor also has the objective to personally make it out of the trial alive, max out blood points, and to try to get enough emblem points to pip. The part that makes the game interesting, from this perspective, is that while there are obvious overlaps in what the team and the individual wants, there are also times when survivors need to weigh their individual objective against the teams objectives. Saving people before doing generators, killing yourself on hook to give hatch, leaving the trial without saving someone... all examples of decisions you can make in game to favor either the Team Win, or the Personal Win. The killer side, while only being one player, kind of has the same set of conflicting goals. The killer 'team' wants to 4K, and the killer player wants to pip and earn blood points. So the killer is tasked with striking a balance when those two objectives are in conflict. So when you choose to slug to secure a 4K or hook to try to get 12 hooks, you are in effect trying to balance the Team Win and the Personal Win. Same with tunneling someone out of the match vs letting them go to get more emblem points, or camping hooks to get a kill while letting gens get finished. Its a bit more obscure for the killer because there is only one player, that player IS the team, but I would compare it to playing Escape from Tarkov by yourself. You are dropped in a trial, you are given your goal (the team win, 4K), but you have discression to do other personal objectives along the way that benefit yourself (getting blood points and pips).
Completely agree and like the Dead of Winter reference. I definitely find that the battlepass objectives pigeonhole me into a specific playstyle to optimally advance my battlepass or complete my daily objectives, and this often results in selfish gameplay where I'm trying to achieve personal objectives with no regard for whether I win or not (e.g. I might spend majority of the game opening crates or interacting with totems, which is not ideal for the team but I require for an out-of-game objective). There's definitely a huge difference between a personal win (or progression) and a team win (escaping as a group). But as you said, there's typically overlap, as you do maximize your blood point earnings by contributing to gens, helping others and escaping.
Yeah this was my exact takeaway. I like the idea of 12 slugs being the ideal win condition, it is absolutely the most fun way for the game to be, but the developers simply did not design the game for fun. They designed it as a horror game where you spend 80 seconds staring at a generator waiting to be jumpscared, and they've just been 12 steps behind the community trying to keep up with the meta as it rockets away from that original design for years. I think the fact that they didn't know what they were designing is the cause of so many of the game's problems, and that's not really a dig at the devs. They had an idea, but their end product ended up evolving into something totally different, and since horror is so hard to pull off it was never going to go back to that original idea. This game is like chess though. You win by punishing and capitalizing on your opponent's mistakes (second chance perks notwithstanding, killers with no counterplay notwithstanding). Having to destroy all of your opponent's pawns before you can win would be silly. If you manage to do it without losing most of your own then maybe that's impressive, but ending a game in 7 moves is just as valid a win.
At one point in Otz' video he says that a 12 hook game is a just as easy as a 4k. While I generally agree that arguing only 12 hook (or just high hook) games count as a "win" is a bit impractical, I think it's wrong to claim achieving a 12 hook is just as easy as a 4k.
it is funny hearing all these discussions about win cons reminds me of something i heard once "if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree a fish is useless, likewise if you judge a monkey by its ability to hold its breath it to is useless"
Thank God someone who finally mentioned the fact that there is *no* set win condition in this game. The entire reason I don't see this game as competitive or tournament ready is due to the fact that there's no real, set in-stone win condition. I just don't think it's fair to say 'Everyone should play like this is a competitive game' when everybody has a different idea as a win.
This video is a well considered evaluation of win-conditions in an other-wise nebulously parametered game that has more obstacles in its way of balance than anything I think I have ever seen. You, Mr. Jund, have given an off-the-cusp and level headed response to an other-wise extremely contentious and deep-running issue that has plagued this game for almost 5 years. I applaud you for your patience, I admire your dedication, and I look forward to your future insight. I hope that you continue to add to this constructive conversation to this game that we all love, and I bid to you a lovely evening.
I think tru’s way of doing things is a very ideal scenario, like there’s way too many things out of the killers control to justify going into a match with that mindset, it may work for tru sure cus as mentioned above he plays this game for a living, but at the same time I don’t agree that vids like otz’s win streaks hurt or miscommunicate anything like tru said, as going for 4ks is still what killers aim for, the objective in I think lots of killers eyes is to kill survivors before they do gens and escape and while multiple hooks is sort of another goal to that or like an ideal goal whether or not that can happen more or less seems out of the killers hands in a lot of scenarios. Tru can do what he wants, but I don’t really think win streak videos hurt the game in any way or miscommunicate anything, especially since pips and rank are kinda irrelevant at this point.
The only things that can end the game (outside of disconnections) is for: - Survivors power exit gates. From here, they escape or are consumed in end game collapse - Killer kills survivors Everything inbetween determines the difference between a Win or a Draw for either side, though these concepts are subjective until devs clean up the pip system (Killer kills 2/4 = Draw, Hatch escape over 2+ = Draw etc) but I'm confident that this discussion will clearly not go away with this re-evaluation when it comes. Pips can only influence behaviour during the match, it's like playing by a rulebook or having in game etiquette. People want to impact the game in a way that brings it to a conclusion, simple... is what I'd love to say if it were as black and white as that. Here's why I think DBD is a game where points don't matter though: If you were to consider Pips as points, as things like FPS tend to rely on to determine who won, leaderboard ranking etc then that's fine, except that works primarily well in "Timed" modes, where the game is set to end by xx:xx time. You care about your kill count and points when it's a team death match, you don't when it's capture the flag because it doesn't contribute at all to the objective, to the objective which ends the game. It's pretty obvious what DBD is representitive of in this analogy. Food for thought after this, I think something which may need addressing in this conversation is - How can survivors as a Solo/Team and Killer prove to be better than the other in contributing to their respective goals? What is "Skillful Play" for each side? So, here's a fun situation that occurs all the time and is brought up in these conversations: Killer gets two people in the basement, one's in second stage, both survivors remaining are injured (or even just one), 5 gens remaining. The most efficient way to bring the game to a close faster and prevent the survivors from fulfilling their objectives, is for the killer is to camp, end of story if you're not fussed about pipping. Here's some things to consider in addressing this situation: - Devs remove the basement, 4 hooks in one place is ridiculous and unbalanced just at a glance. - Should 2 survivors be able to alleviate the pressure of 1 killer? If so, they get countermeasures for the situation in the form of perks (Borrowed/DS) but becomes unbalanced in situations outside of this (Hooked survivor near an exit gate becomes a free escape with borrowed/DS) and means that the strength of each individual survivor basically becomes on par with the killer. - Is equal skill required, i.e. the killer can just stand at the staircase, the survivors need to first heal to address the situation, then both rush the basement to save at least one person with a high likelyhood of trading anyways. So the answer to this could be, the killer has already outplayed the survivors at this point, so it's only fair the killer should have advantage in this situation. OR, the game should be changed in form of map/perk changes so that survivors can play on an even playing field (when it comes to specific situations, ignoring how it impacts the entirety of the game). Point being of this is that the choice right now is we have to decide what we value, points or ending the game efficiently. Something which changes from the perspective of the survivor is, they have the ability to choose whether they play Self or Team oritentated. I enjoy this aspect of the game, a loose idea to promote this is to have points which attribute to different emblems depending on how you play and maybe gets represented to others in a ranking system which acts similar to a personality test (for the lack of better terms). You play altruistic? You get the Medic Emblem. you often sneak around the killer and outlast your survivor friends, or you escape while someone is hooked? You get the Lone Wolf Emblem. As you do more of X actions in the same category, your rank goes up in that Emblem. Anyways I'm rambling at this point, but these are some of the thoughts I thought might be worth sharing. Hope I don't come off as arrogant in any of these opinions, very open to feedback on it!
This game is quite simple, so much so that it is borderline a minigame. If 2 people escape its a tie no matter what happens, 3 escapes or more is a survivor win and 1 escape or less is a killer win. What makes this game so great is that there really is nothing wrong with it. There are aspects of each role that will make the game HORRIFIC for the opposing role, which to me in respect to the games actual genre is quite fitting and perfect.
Putting the ranking system aside. I think most killers would consider a win either as a 4k or a 3k, with one getting out through hatch. I understand the skill aspect that Tru3 is trying to bring awareness too. Which I definitely respect. I think he wants both killers and survivors to play to their best ability and find that competitive drive to master the individual skills associated with each role. However I personally believe that there is a difference between wanting to reach a certain skill ceiling and wanting to win. Coming from other games, I've always enjoyed the approach of attempting to master a certain character or certain role. I love that competitive aspect when you're limit testing and caring about improving your overall skills instead of being solely focused on winning. However if someone's looking to just win, then I think setting up predetermined rules for yourself just leads to frustration a lot of the time. I love playing both sides, but DBD is so much about adapting to each individual match in my opinion. Sure there are games where you can get 12 hooks and it feels great, but that's rarely realistic. There's so much RNG to map layouts, which specific killer you're playing, and especially how efficient the other side is being. When it comes to wanting to win, I think you should be ruthless and do everything in your power within the games mechanics to achieve victory. That's not necessarily considered fun for many, which is totally okay. I personally find games where there's not many hooks, but is super high intense and fast paced to be the most memorable ones for me. That's a whole other topic though. What I'm mainly saying is, you might put restrictions on yourself when you're training your skills and working on becoming better at whatever you do, but I don't think many people would place handicaps on themselves when it comes to an actual match on the line. Obviously it's not like queuing up is the same as entering a tournament, but I think the same principle applies. This is all just my opinion at least. I totally agree with Scott that a win con in DBD is totally up to the individual's interpretation. I also totally respect Tru3 and Otz as well for creating the discussion. I think these discussions are always very interesting and get the community involved.
1. The goal of video games is to challenge yourself and have fun. 2. The killers objective is to kill, survivor objective is to escape. Hooks and gens are just a path to doing so, but not required ie slugging, bleeding out on the ground, using a mori and hatch escapes being an alternate way to achieve your objective.
My personal definition of a win for killer is that a majority of survivors have to be *removed* from the match and by removed I mean either mori-ed, sacrificed, or disconnected from the match and the only exception being that if the majority of survivors escape with a key, the killer wins since the survivors weren’t able to or refused to leave through the exit gates or leave through hatch without a key
"There is no defined win condition." Yeah, I like how the killer tutorials in the game even contradict one another. "As a Killer, your main objective is to attack, down, and hook as many Survivors as possible." - From the playable killer tutorial. And: "The main objective of a Killer is to sacrifice Survivors to The Entity." - From the text tutorial, "Killer: How To Win"
Not sure you understand the word contradict. Hooking and sacrificing survivors are one in the same. It's not like the tutorial is saying hook survivors. And the other tutorial is saying let them live.
@@cotybaker3830 But they aren't the same, in one example getting four hooks would be considered a win, in the other, it's not describing getting sacrifices, just getting as many hooks as possible, which does align with how the emblem system will allow you to pip without getting a single kill in a match.
@@EnragedlimeYou're literally still saying the same thing. "Get as many hooks as possible". If getting 4 hooks is the total amount possible. Then it's 4, and you've sacrificed as many people as possible for how you've played the match
@@cotybaker3830 You could debate the meaning of the term "as possible" to mean multiple things, but it doesn't change the fact that it literally does not say "sacrifice any amount survivors". It just says "Get hooks". The second case just says, "sacrifice the survivors." According to the text as written, sacrifices are irrelevant in the first win condition. You could get no hooks, four hooks, eight hooks, or twelve hooks, it doesn't matter.
To me, a 3k and hatch escape is a win, a 4K is a win, a pip or 2 is a win, activating MoM one or multiple times is a win, or even going into a game with a simple goal of like resetting 2 good pallets is a win. Depends on what you’re playing for and that’s why I love DBD. Just my perspective! :)
I personally think it can be little moments, I’ve felt more satisfying trying to get a 1K against a good team then a 3-4K in a team with a disconnect or someone trolling and ruining the chances for everyone else.
Kills are honestly the way to win, sure you can consider whatever you want to be a win, but it logically kills are the way you get wins in this game. 0-1 kills is a loss 2 kills is a draw (which makes it even funnier when survivors teabag you on the exit gate, like it was a draw why teabag? 3-4 kills is ultimately a win, because more than half of the players are gone. Literally it's just logical, any game whether it's a boardgame, splitscreen games or anything that involves points (which in this case would be kills) ultimately defines a win as getting more than the other side, therefore - 2-2 is a draw, 1-3 is a win/loss depending on which side has that score.
So we had a DBD RU-vidr talk about a DBD RU-vid... saw that DBD youtubers response, and now we’re watching a DBD youtuber respond to the DBD youtuber respond to the DBD youtuber...
I agree more with Tru3ta1ent on this issue but the only real way to put this to bed would be for the devs to come out and clarify what a win is for both sides and then fix their emblem system so it revolves around that win mechanic. The reason Tru3 idea works for killer is bc get multiple hooks generally means you are pressuring gens and getting into chases with different survivors (which works for current emblem system) instead of camping, tunneling, and slugging all game.
Honestly its a tough argument in general. Balancing around the highest level in a non competitive high RNG based game has great points on both sides. The layers of solo que, duo que, coms vs no coms, different perk variance and bad maps. I think its a matter of Tru3 wants the game to be competitive under the idea of tunneling and slugging not ever being needed. The problem is you cant really make certain changes without buffing the concept of tunneling or slugging unless you start going down the rabbit hole of giving hook immunities or stuff like that. Like you said its redesigning a whole concept in a game with so many different possible outcomes.
The game does not specify what is a win during a match. The game has a deeper meaning. Survivors are in a limbo - purgatory. after being in a match you escape just to queue in again in another match.for the killer after killing all the survivor in a match, killer just queue in again just to find another survivor to kill again. That's the dark beauty of this game
Obviously, you only win via Mori's- since the Lore has made both the killer and survivors pitted against each other~ a Mori denies the entity and thus the only way to break the cycle.XD But on a serious note good vid~ really glad you and Otz added some stuff about the whole '12' hook thing~ As a Killer main I mostly 12 hook almost unintentionally as people smartly avoid me, or I generally go for the rescuer of a unhook. But not always do things work out that way, some people rage and kill themselves, some SWF will bodyblock and get downed~ before the rework you'd have people with obsession, borrowed time, and DS meddling of manning you so you HAVE to get rid of em. The survivors have huge variables to mess with spreading out hooks maybe more than the killers themselves do~ since it's for people to account for and not just one
well, scott its talking about otz who its talking about true. now we need another famous dbd player to talk about scott talking about otz talking about true about the hooks.
That commentary about how the player is the major influence in this question is perfect, the only problem is that many viewers and white knights, and even some streamers don't seem to compreend the difference there is between them playing and their viewers or the average player of DBD, they just don't. I've seen many times streamers say this is not difficult, that is easy, or 99% of survivors are bad, which they forget to take into account their own experience in the game. That is the reason ppl use 50 wins and 100 wins to say this and that, they have this idea they play in the same level or that everyone is able to play in that same level, not doing so it's because you are a baby killer or baby survivor.
I personally gauge wins differently per induvidual player in a given match.... for the 1 lone killer his victory is defined by utilizing whatever gameplay oriented resource or strategy he can in order to slow the games progression, and ultimately kill half-all survivors. Half being a 50/50 where the killer wins, and the 2 escapees also win respectively in their "victory objective" that's clearly defined by the game itself... killer is easy enough however things like face camping with insidious, or exploiting gameplay mean the killer is no longer trying to win based off the normal parameters and instead attempting to win over 1 particular survivor. And if this is the players goal and he achieves it, that isn't a game defined win but not a loss to the player either. Survivor is a bit different technically their objective is to progress the game efficiently, and escape. However this objective also means things like sacking, or hook stalling for the sake of 1 or multiple other survivors escape... is also an objective. For example, a narrowly won game results in 3 survivors escaping but this was all hinged on 1 survivor who managed to outplay the killer well enough to allow the escape but as a result this survivor cannot be saved and dies.... for the 3 survivors that escaped this is neither a win nor loss as they themselves weren't escape responsible for escaping and the sacrificed survivor being technically responsible for the escape of 3 others has achieved the overall objective of each induvidual survivor. Expending a smaller resource to the killer (weather its a pallet, a cool down perk, unbreakable, a DS, or a survivors life) in order to gain more game progression in return... for example If 3 survivors die but as a result they are responsible for 1 survivors escape through the gates.... they failed the survivor objective and technically lose.... if 2 survivors save 2 then it's a perfect tie game.... but the goal for survivors induvidually and as a group is to spend a resource to gain a more valuable game progress in return... a ds to stall 75 seconds is spending a resource that has finite value but getting more worth in return... Killers its simple, prevent survivors from gaining progression value and sacrifice as many as possible simultaneously. And these have to be done in conjunction or else you spend separate time on each and lose as a result ( 2 minutes in a game of a killer getting downs, hooks pressure while also maintaining solid gen presence, and slowing survivor momentum gain. Basically all at once is more efficient than a killer patrolling gens, for 2 minutes of gen presence, and then spending 2 minutes chasing, downing, and hooking survivors. You have to micro manage your objectives and multitask between them)
I think getting 12 hooks is much more difficult win because a lot of killers will slug or camp and force someone into struggle phase which is a lot more difficult than committing to essentially 12 separate chases and maintaining constant map pressure.
My personal win condition is tied to bloodpoints. And if i play a killer that struggles with bloodpoints like mikey then im more leniant on myself than with doctor or legion who are bp powerhouses. To me thats the only true measure of a win because it actually is a measure of what you did through the game. The only problems with it is the 8k limit per category, e.g. getting chased all game then escaping only nets you 14k points. But ive come to terms with that and understand why theres a limit. The second problem is that some action scores are a little askew e.g. mikeys t3 hit is worth the same points as a normal hit. Love your videos Scott
The main issue is the ranking system, it isn't wide enough to cover all skill sets. There are 20... Look at Rocket League (another game I play), there are 12 levels per tier, which equates to a lot! (128 I think plus Pro). This makes the game so much more accessible if you aren't pro. Where as I am always around rank 2-4 and am no where near as good as some top gamers.
I think those win streaks are based on several factors (the skill level of the killer and the survivors, plus the items/addons of both sides and the map of course). So it would only be partially true to say that someone is simply better than another based on kills alone. It also depends on who you're actually playing against. Killer A and Killer B play against two swf groups: Group A is average players who are just trying to play casually and Group B is Seal Team 6, Killer A wins and Killer B loses. Who is truly better? So I don't think it's fair to say someone is able to do something (including a win streak) means that they're objectively better than someone else. Obviously it does take a degree of skill to do something like that, but there are way too many factors that play a role in this argument to say "this is the truth and that's that". Edit: Still a great video btw, I like the discussion.
My thought process behind it has always been an unpopular one, but it makes the most sense to me. and its even called out in this video as a bad method ironically enough, but i legit think the in game pip system is what determines if you won or not. Hear me out on this before you gouge my eyes out. The whole lore of the game, the idea, the core concept behind it all, is the entity. The entity has pulled all these characters from all their various home dimensions, into its own with the sole intention of toying with you all, even the killers. It pulls everyone in and forces them to play its sick games, all for its own entertainment and whatever pleasure an eldritch being can get from them all, and as such, it has things that it enjoys seeing, and things it doesnt. This is why you can get an entity displeased and depip despite 4king as oni or billy, you just ran up and instadowned everyone in 30 seconds and the game was over. There was no enjoyment for the entity there, the being you are here for the sole purpose of serving. The entity likes a more drawn out match where the survivor actually gets the hope of escape only to have it ripped away last seconds as theyre thrown on their last hook as the gate was opening. Its what the game itself tells you to do, and looking at it this way also makes it so the game is more fair for everyone by disincentivising "bad" behavior and also explains a lot of the point penalties you get. Like scott said, you lose points if someone kills themselves first hook, which yes isnt your fault, but it does make the match less interesting for the entity, and its your job to make it entertaining for it, and so youre penalized whenever the match gets boring, your fault or not. I realize this isnt the perfect system for what a win is, and i also know ill likely always be in the minority on this opinion, but its the one that makes sense to me, and if you took the time to read this all, thanks, ik it was a lot, thanks for comin to the TEDtalk, ill now accept polite, respectable feedback. :)
In my opinion, as killer, getting a tie is 2 survivors escaping, losing is more than two escaping and winning is only one survivor escaping but then again I haven’t played dbd in a while due to the well, “hitboxes” which you had explained as just desync but I also do like the goal of a 4K is a win and if the survivor escapes through hatch it’s still a win too. These are all purely opinions though therefore it isn’t really much to argue about unless you want to discuss why this is a bad way of doing this because of so and so which I can understand but honestly, as long as you’re having fun in the game which is what a game should be for, to enjoy and have fun then it doesn’t matter too much.
Basing the win condition in getting double pip isn't a good idea at all. I mean, one day, I played trying to get the adept at rank 1, and the game said that I don't deserved, even though I played flawless (12hooks,4kills). The game bugged I did not registraded all the hooks, they keeped stopping at 9 hooks.
I tend to agree more with Tru3 because dbd it's a points-based game so a win should be the thing that makes you get the most points because if we base it on pure kills, you could technically just mori everyone but to the (as you said broken) point system, that's a loss or a tie at best even tho you got a 4k.
After getting to 550 hours on dbd I realized I had to change my view on winning as killer. Before I used to think if I didn't get 4k I didn't really win and it would just get me stressed while playing the killer and sweat more instead of learning. When I realized this I decided to start using most tournaments rule where if I get 2k it's still a win. I think that definitely helped me with my mentality when going into matches as killer. I don't think that saying challenges like Otzs is bad for the game. That's just saying if you are good at said game you should start letting people go and give them chance every single time survivor screws up (which is a lot) and at the same time taking the fun out of the game for the guy who is good at the game. Especially when you get called toxic/tunneler/camper every time you punish survivors for their mistakes and don't give them second chance (even if they are running only meta perks).
I think it's particularly difficult to gauge what a "Win" is for a survivor; because just surviving is sometimes really easy because your team carries your ass, and sometimes you die even though you are the entire reason that anyone on your team lives.
Someone in Otz’s comments said it perfectly. Saying Otz’s doing 50k win streak makes DbD look easy is like saying Dark Souls 2 hitless run must be easy too
Personally a win for me as a killer is getting a 4k, I count 3ks as a good game, 2ks as a tie, 1ks as a loss, and 0ks just me playing really bad. As a survivor i never solo queue so a win for me is escaping with my friends or letting my friends escape by exchanging a borrowed time hook at the end of the match.
Tru3 isn't arguing that the only way to get a win is by doing everything you can, he is arguing that since there is a point system there is an intended way to play the game that makes it more fun for everyone involved. Of course tru3 understands that a 4k constitutes a win, you're strawmanning his position by saying hes making up win conditions which he isn't. He is simply arguing that the game is intended to be played a certain way, which isn't debatable, of course a game that has a points system where you can get more or less points after a win has an intended way to play, it logically follows that the less points you get, the less you played the game the way it was intended to be played.
Uh I'd very much argue that fact is debatable considering the developers themselves don't think their "points system" is even functional and are trying to fix it. Saying that isn't debatable is asinine. The creators of the game disagree with you.
@@ScottJund Lol that's a good one man props. I think that tru3 talents gameplay on every killer speaks for itself man, he is able to rack up points and allow survivors to have a fun time in the process, I can understand if you think the points system is annoying and you have a strong point about the devs themselves questioning its implementation, but I don't think it's debatable that the points system is what the gameplay is based upon and whether its agreeable or not, the intention the developers had when creating it was to give players some parameters so to speak on what to aim for game in and game out. Like if I was a survivor and all I did was wait for my teammates to get smoked so I could use the hatch like sure I would win but would I be contributing to a fun experience? Would that be the way the devs intended for me to play? The only concrete thing we can go by when were talking about what the devs intended is the points system, everything else is just subjective.
There's something I'd like to correc tin this video. Nothing major or even related, but when Scott said debate isn't an argument, he's wrong. You can't have a debate without an argumen.t However, that doesn't mean an argument is a bad thing, an argument is just when two people disagree about something and then go to argue their viewpoint.
A win should be 4ks 8 hooks or a pip for killer- kills priorities then hooks and emblems . A win for survivor is piping escaping or stalling enough for your team as survivor is a team win 3/4 pip/escape=survivor win
I remember seeing a game true played as nurse on midwitch. Got no kills, got brutal killer and called it a draw. Like how the fuck do you even think that's a draw?
I kind of like to think that BHVR considered a Tie at 2 kills. We know they like to use "Big Data" and stuff like that, and if you look at the stats, each killer has an average kill rate of 56% So because of that, they would try to balance the game around that right because we know that's how they make a lot of their decisions at the time. "Because of the stats, Object isn't too terribly effective of a perk." So because of all this I like to think that a killer win is >2 kills, a tie is 2 kills, and a loss is 2 kills.
I think that the idea behind points has more merit when you consider “ideal” games. Take the scenario of getting 2 kills (both 1 hooks) vs getting 0 kills (4-6 hooks). Which is considered a win? Which is a better display of the killer’s skill? In the 2 kill scenario, if you down a survivor early enough with say Billy or Leatherface, you can camp them to death and still find 1 more survivor to do the same to before the last gen is done. Is that really a win though?
