Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Meaning of Game Balance
There are several misunderstandings of game balance that often gets repeated in the forums, and I would like to address some of them.
1. "That developers need to play against Rank 1 players to gain perspectives on balance." This is plainly false. Developers' personal experiences in their actual gameplay reveal absolutely nothing about the balance of the game - it's as informative as Rank 20s going up against Rank 1s. What's the point? Whenever something like this is proposed, all I can sense is bitterness of the players - they simply want the developers to suffer through the same frustrations that they had. It's understandable, but has nothing to do with balance.
That said, I do believe that developers should, at least to some degree, play their own games on their own time. This is less to do with balance, but to keep in constant touch with which version of the game is currently live to the public. I've seen on several occasions where developers make mistakes because they didn't know that mechanics had been scrapped, delayed, changed, or was already out.
2. "X killer has a tougher skill ceiling, so they deserve to win more." Again, false. A difficult learning curve has nothing to do with balancing the game correctly. For example, let's say a new killer requires twice as much time and skill to learn how to use it effectively as the rest of the killers/survivors. Then what happens to the goal of having "2 Kills, 2 Escape" on average? Should it be changed to "4 Kills, 0 Escape" on average for that specific killer? If that's the case, then there's no point in playing any other killers, or even survivors. The only thing every player should focus on is taking the time to maximize their skills to reach the cap for that character so that a win can be guaranteed. At that point, it stops being a game.
3. "Fun." Fun has nothing to do with balance. Balance is strictly about the game's goal of fulfilling the win condition for certain percentage of the players. In DBD's example, it happens to be "2 Kills, 2 Escape" on average. That's not to say that a game shouldn't be changed to make it more "fun." But this change would not be "buffs" or "nerfs" to destabilize the balance, but an actual changes to mechanics or designs. The "2 Kill, 2 Escape" average should not be altered in any way because of them. In addition, developers need to be fully aware that 'fun' is very subjective, and means different things to different people, no matter whether they're television shows/movies, music, board games and videogames, or hobbies. People have different tastes. Recently a community manager stated, "guessing is not fun for most people." Personally, I felt that is absurd. 'Guessing' is not only an element in many, many games, but often plays central role in them. Whether they're bluffing games, risk taking games, social deduction games, hidden information/movement games, or push-your-luck games, many games contain a 'guessing' aspect in their mechanics. Even in DBD, there're not much bigger reactions than a randomly-guessed hatchet hitting a survivor, or running into a Trapper's trap in the most unlikely of places. In that sense, developers should be careful about whether the community actually doesn't like something, or they're simply using that 'something' as an excuse to attempt to buff/nerf the game.
What a game balance is:
Ultimately, pvp balance comes down to one thing - potentiality of both sides. What is X killer capable of? What is survivors capable of? -Which is the reason why looking at high-ranked game play is so important and necessary - to find out if the game is balanced (as defined by BHVR) at their maximum potential (on both sides). Imagine a beaker that represents the character's skill ceiling. No matter how much time is invested into a character, the pouring of liquid (one's personal skill) cannot ever be more than the size of the beaker. So in order to maintain balance, developers should make sure that the beaker size is the same for each character, so that when players' skills finally reach the skill ceiling on both sides, it's still a 50/50 chance of winning/losing. And to determine that for an asymmetrical game, Behaviour should always be taking good data. Ideally, a good data should look like the following.
A. Collection of trials from appropriate players: In their current state, both killers and survivors are too easy to rank up into the red ranks, which means that casual players who are not that good (such as myself) are often thrown into the Red Ranks. Again, if the point is to gauge the maximum potential of the characters, the data collection should only be taken from the best of the best. Ideally, it should be much more strict on both sides. Additionally, in order to figure out the potential of both sides, every player in the data trials should be trying their best to fulfill the winning condition (killing the maximum number of survivors vs surviving.) This means that when players are more focused on 'pipping', 'fun', or 'memeing' (or anything other than 'killing' or 'surviving') the statistics become skewed towards other variables, and wouldn't represent what the ideal "2 Kill/2 Escape" goal should look like. Moreover, on the survivors' side, the balance should always be represented by 4-Man SWF groups (most likely gen-rushing 4-Man SWFs), because again, BHVR should be trying to determine what the best possible result would be for that 'character', and for survivors, that would be them. (which is why solo/SWF balance is so, so important.)
B. Collection of trials from appropriate matches: This shouldn't even need to be stated, but matches with DCs should never be counted in the data collection, especially in an asymmetrical game such as this, where an early DC can completely ruin the rest of the game for everyone else, and skews the stats. After all, this is the reason why 3-survivor matches aren't a thing anymore. Again, finding balance means figuring out the skill ceiling on both sides at their best condition so that we can determine that they ultimately have an equal chance of winning. Non'4vs1' games already deviates from that possibility so should never be used as part of the data. It doesn't matter what the reason for the DCs are - whether they are for deranking, simply being vindictive, suffering involuntary disconnects, or just following their SWF friends - not only should each individual DCs not be counted, any match with DCs should be disregarded completely to find the best potentiality on both sides.
That's my personal thoughts on the matter.
ps - One thing I also noticed about game balance is that some people often bring up the problem of 'casual players' or 'majority'. But again, being a casual player or being part of the majority has nothing to do with game balance. Rather, that problem has more to do with the system of Ranking and Matchmaking. Even when games are balanced at the top, it should not have much effect on the rest of the 'non-top' players, because ideally, they should be going against other 'non-top' players of equal skill level. That's what Ranking and Matchmakings are for. For pretty much any game, if you are a casual player who find yourself losing over and over again, it wouldn't be because the game is not balanced for you - it's much more likely because you are facing unsuitable opponents at a different skill level. That's a problem with how the games rank you and how they matchmake you - not the balance of the game.
Comments
-
Disagree on "fun shouldnt be taken into consideration when talking about balance".
This is not a competitive game and will never be. (I dont understand all those people getting upset when they lose)
This is a casual game,this doesnt mean we should ONLY balance around fun ,but it should be definetely taken into consideration.
Furthermore, you play a game for FUN,not for "winning" (and if you do,you chose the wrong game,buddy)
Fun is indeed subjective for the most part,but there are some things we can all agree on.
Getting moried 3 games in a row is not fun for ANYONE ,for example.
4 -
Define 'Casual game.'
Define 'Fun' that the game should account for when balancing the game (for 2 Kill, 2 Escape).
1 -
Its a game in which there no competitive tournaments, or even a format where a fair tournament could happen. DBD would, at the very least, need a Seed generator for maps in KYF to even begin to be considered competitive.
"Fun" is simply having all players involved having a sense that the actions they are taking are meaningful in some way that positively reflects on themselves. For some people, they only get a positive response if they kill everyone. For others, they have fun if they 360 the killer, even if they die. Its completely different for everyone, but most of it boils down to "This player had a chance to do something they found fulfillment in"
1 -
The problem I see with this thought process is Fun =/= Casual. Even in Casual games, whether it be DbD or some other game out there, there is a chance you will not have fun. Fun comes in MANY forms. I stopped playing the game Overwatch because most of the people on that game, their idea of fun was nothing but winning. You HAD to win or else they'd hate their team for life. That seems to be how DbD is turning out though, everyone wants to win to have fun. Everyone wants to farm to have fun. Etc.
Even if people don't want that to have fun, that's surely what it seems like sometimes. You can't expect the game to always go your way.
1 -
That's fine, then just look to my original paragraph about the game being casual, unrelated to fun.
0 -
You will never be able to balance around 2 kill,2 escapes.
Not even close.
0 -
Just to make sure, by that definition, does that mean that if there ARE competitive tournaments for that particular game at some point somewhere, then it can't be a casual game?
So what does your definition of "fun" has to do with the balance of the game?
1 -
Why not?
0 -
If there are officially sanctioned tournaments endorsed by the game's creators, and the only way to enter those tournaments is through proof of skill (Like other major tournaments for other games), then yes, the game becomes competitive because now you have a large pool of proven excellent players going against each other, and you can balance off of that.
Is that a good idea for this game? I don't think so at all.
Games like CS and Dota balance solely off of high-level tournament level play. There isn't any of that for this game, so the only thing to do is to just try to make the game as fun as possible.
Even if there WERE tournaments, this game is so asymmetric they could never, ever get it right.
0 -
Because there's no way to accurately match up players of equal skill for that outcome since the ranking system doesn't measure skill.
There are also way too many factors that impact the match to balance in this way. Gen rush and 3v1 situations make this kind of balance impossible.
2 -
I think my question was about the definition of 'casual game' and not 'what would constitute game as being competitive?'
So unless the tournaments can be officially sanctioned by the game creators of said game, it must be casual? (For example, do you believe chess or go tournaments require sanctioning by game creators to be not considered a casual game? If you believe that they are competitive, why do you think so, and can they be played as a 'casual game?'
0 -
To me, that sounds like a problem with the ranking system and the matchmaking, not the balance of the game.
How does 'gen rushing' and '3v1' situations (disregarding DCs) make it impossible?
0 -
The two are not mutually exclusive. The ranking is so screwed up because the balance of the game is impossible to perfect. You can have a terrible player just use Prayer Beads Spirit and win every game, and you can have the best killer in the world play a perkless Wraith and get stomped.
0 -
To completely balance this game it would become a shell of what it actually is meant to be.
Removal of all offerings, items and add-ons which give an advantage to one sides objective.
Rework or remove all perks so the maps and in game mechanics aren't as affected by them. There is no point allowing the likes of NOED when the balance is around doing gens and getting out likewise there is no point in allowing you to remove your sound with IW.
Rework the entire rank system and remove resets so new players can never be matched with vets. This itself could mean new players may not even get a game.
There are many more but I think you can see where I am going. The game pits all skill levels verus each other and many factors can and do affect the games whole balance.
While your idea is sound when it's a game of equal players say 5v5 when both sides can have exactly the same tools it doesn't translate as well in an assymetrical game as you need to also balance it in such a way that people want to play each side over all ranks.
There is a reason this game has done better than any assymetrical game which has tried to compete with it. I beleive its because people play and have fun and don't feel they like they have to just do or use X or y. It's so varied and different with each match even if the concept is so simple.
Post edited by twistedmonkey on0 -
If Prayer Beads Spirit is winning every game, then ideally, that player should be ranking up until he/she is matched up against similarly strong players (whether they are actually skilled or dependent on add-ons/perks as well.) If that same player stops using Prayer Beads Spirit, then that person should be ranking down until they are matched up against similarly weak players. Same goes for perkless Wraith. These individuals really don't have much to do with how the game should be balanced, given how the game should be balanced to 2 Kill/2 Survivors on average from hundreds/thousands of games at the very top. The exception would be if the strongest Prayer Beads Spirits end up getting much more/less than 2 Kill/2 Escape on average against 4-Man Gen-rushing troops, at which point it would indicate a problem with the balance.
0 -
What makes you think the bad player at high ranks is going to stop using strong addons to make up for their lack of skill?
0 -
Is removing offerings, items, add-ons necessary if the other side's offerings/add-ons also gives out an advantage to their objective in much the same manner, on average, so that it ends up equating to about 2 Kill/2 Escape (again, on average)?
I don't understand the NOED and IW examples. NOED helps the killers to kill and IW helps survivors to survive. But yeah, reworking of perks are needed. Which is what the developers have been doing for years. I'm sure I missed the point you made here.
I do think that the ranking system (and matchmaking) needs to be reworked. In my opinion, it should be much more difficult to rank up (or even pip.) And when ranking presents a more normal distribution, then the matchmaking should be changed to prioritize Rank 1-4s and Rank 16-20s.
Although most fighting games don't have the all-vs-one aspect of DBD, they tend to be asymmetrical, and are often able to match similarly skilled players against each other, as well as be able to balance different characters. Why do you think that is?
0 -
I don't. They might not. Then they'll simply continue to rank up to other strong players (whether that's based on their skill, or like this particular 'bad' player, dependent on perks/add-ons.)
0 -
For true balance yes as if one side uses more it can skew it. Without using the counter items then the match is then unbalanced due to that.
I used NOED as an example as you need to do totems to remove it so If the game was balanced around kill or just do gens then that perk would make it unbalanced so totems must then come into a balance talk. IW also as it removes a large aspect of how the killer tracks as sound in this game can be just as important than sight for balance. Basically due to perks being part of the game it will never be truly balanced unless both sides can have the same.
Then of course
They have tried to make ranking harder on both sides. It did unfortunately mean those who reached the high ranks couldn't find matches. On paper it sounds good but each time they have tried it's had to be changed as players has to derank.
Fighting games again are completely different as it's a 1v1 for the most part and they tend to have the same basic moves with low, med and strong attacks along with special moves you can pull off and while they seem different they all generally work off the same principle hit areas which you can block or move from, along with long combos which can be anticipated or broken.
The only games you can truly compare dbd to in terms of balance is another pvp asymetrical game which allows you to pick a role and has many varying factors which give one side an advantage over the other and from what I have seen most if not all have the similar balance issues.
0 -
For true balance yes as if one side uses more it can skew it. Without using the counter items then the match is then unbalanced due to that.
I emphasized 'on average' in my earlier comment because that was important part of the comment. Game balance isn't about each individual match, but its summation. Yes, a match may be affected and become unbalanced due to items/add-ons, but overall if the opponent has just as many opportunities to use items/add-ons that are just as strong to gain an advantage, then from a balancing perspective, it shouldn't matter. That's why I'm questioning the need to remove everything.
I used NOED as an example as you need to do totems to remove it so If the game was balanced around kill or just do gens then that perk would make it unbalanced so totems must then come into a balance talk. IW also as it removes a large aspect of how the killer tracks as sound in this game can be just as important than sight for balance. Basically due to perks being part of the game it will never be truly balanced unless both sides can have the same.
I still don't understand your NOED and IW examples. You are telling me what they are and do. You haven't told me WHY they would unbalance the game. (When I'm speaking of balance, I'm strictly referring to getting around the average of 2 Kill / 2 Escape in the highest skill level gameplay setting.)
They have tried to make ranking harder on both sides. It did unfortunately mean those who reached the high ranks couldn't find matches. On paper it sounds good but each time they have tried it's had to be changed as players has to derank.
Which is why I stated that once they have a normal distribution of ranks, they need to prioritize the matchmakings for highest and lowest rankings.
Fighting games again are completely different as it's a 1v1 for the most part and they tend to have the same basic moves with low, med and strong attacks along with special moves you can pull off and while they seem different they all generally work off the same principle hit areas which you can block or move from, along with long combos which can be anticipated or broken.
The only games you can truly compare dbd to in terms of balance is another pvp asymetrical game which allows you to pick a role and has many varying factors which give one side an advantage over the other and from what I have seen most if not all have the similar balance issues.
Do you play much fighting games? Because from your comment, it almost sounds like you believe that once you learn one character well to the point of being competitive, you will do just as well competitively in all of the other characters in the game, regardless of how they may differ. It also sounds like you believe that there hasn't historically been issues with balance in fighting games since "they work off the same principle."
And why would it matter that a fighting game is (in most cases) asymmetrical 1vs1 while DBD is asymmetrical 1vs4? Why is that particular difference important to the point you are making?
0 -
*Rank Exists*
0 -
Rank doesnt make the game competitive.
There are gonna be players that are better than others ;its natural, and rank is there to state how good or bad a player is.
0
