Which do we balance around. The 1v4 or the 1v1
Comments
-
If the team collectively is more skilled than the one Killer, the results should speak for themselves, no?
1 -
You've pivoted from the chase to the game as a whole.
0 -
Because you balance around a whole game, not just one aspect. The chase is one aspect of the game, not the entire game.
1 -
The game as a whole is a collective of several chases, not a single chase.
If you lost the instant the Killer downs you then yeah your skill wouldn't matter if the Killer will win every chase.
But that's not the case, you going down in a chase doesn't mean you've lost the game or even that you've done badly, it just locks in your time for that chase.
In otherwords you skill expression doesn't come from IF you go down, but WHEN you go down.
Stalling the Killer for the entire game and escaping with unbroken is the equivalent of a 1v5 penta-Kill in a game like League of Legends. If it's something you can do with anything even close to consistency then either you are smurfing or there is a HUGE problem with the games balance.
1 -
Which is why I suggested that they would need to adjust other aspects of the game so we could have chases that were both skilled and fun.
0 -
The REAL problem I can see with balancing for 4v1 isn't about the core idea. But simply about how it has a false premise.
Specifically that the game is in fact 4 players vs 1 player.
In reality the game only STARTS as 4 players vs 1 player, and then those 4 players become 3, and then 2 and then 1.
Meaning that if the game is balanced around the gen speeds with 4 players alive then the Killer getting an early Kill throws off the games balance.
But that's more of an execution thing and has ways of being fixed.
1 -
Again this is why I suggested that we make changes to other aspects to make the chase more balanced. And to not lead into getting generators done significantly fast.
0 -
This is also another problem with the 1v4 aspect.
I agree with this, and this is why I have a general dislike for moris. (Same with keys I'm not an entitled survivor main)
The main reason for the problem is, both sides are correct in their own ways.
The chase is the only skillful interaction between the survivor and killer and is usually a 1v1
But the game as a whole is usually a 1v4
There isn't a clear way to balance except for the 2kill 2escape model. But then again, problems with that.
Devs would need to drastically change the game to balance for either the 1v1 or the 1v4
0 -
I don't know why people even debate this. You have to balance equally for both. That is the correct and only philosophy. If you balance too far for the 1v4, you begin ignoring the skill of the survivor and if you balance too far for the 1v1 you begin ignoring the skill of the killer.
4 -
You have to account for both. The 1v4 aspect is important to ensure the game is relatively balanced (meaning one side isn't too much stronger than the other).
But the 1v1 aspect needs to be considered too otherwise survivors won't have any fun, which could result in a much smaller player base. In other words, the survivors should be able to have fun as well when playing against killers. Crap like Iridescent Hatchets is not fun because you get downed so quickly lol.
2 -
Step 1: Stop dancing around the games win conditions. They are defined in the tutorial and everything, so why are they so against putting emphasis on them?
1 -
DBD is an asymmetrical game. So it is a 4v1 with the 1 killer in the power role. (In theory)
The spirit of the game is to strike a balance in cooperation and selling out when you could escape the match.
You want to do gens asap, if the killer comes, you want to be the one that's better then the other survivors so they get caught and at some point you go save them, because you need the numbers to occupy the killer from not killing you. Because 1v1 you will lose eventually.
Naturally in the end you want to save as many as possible. But if it is too risky or too late...sorry mate, better luck next time.
0 -
That's what I've been saying, I'm just seeing what people think is the best and to try to fix things so we could balance for both sides equally.
1 -
Agreed
0 -
I mean, that kinda goes without saying.
I think the simplest way to put it is like this: Saying "chases should be balanced around 1v4" does not mean "just make the Killers stronger in a chase and leave the rest as is." It means "balance the game as a whole around the aforementioned premise, chases included."
1 -
Well yes I'm not saying just make killers incredibly strong in chases, because killers that are good in chases still can lose from lack of pressure.
It's more or less, make objectives more skillful or take longer times, maybe make it so killers can apply pressure to gets from other things. Maybe make it so survivors have to do something to activate a generator. I'm not sure just yet.
But killers in chases should have a slight advantage, but if a survivor is better than them, they should win the chase.
0 -
He's saying while you're chasing the survivor the other survivors is doing something that ultimately works against your goal as the killer, the other survivors. It doesn't even have to be gens. It could be healing, cleansing your active totems, or if there's one survivor left, looking for the hatch.
0 -
so what I’ve picked up on here. Is that you want the killer to get weaker the better he does.
0 -
The 1v1 aspect is still extremely important as well. Survivors in chases need to be able to affect chases according to their skill. And that's what BHVR is taking into consideration as well. That's why it's important for killers to have both powers that help with chases and with map pressure. If the game was only balanced around 1v4, not considering the 1v1 aspect, we'd have multiple killers in this game that would be uncounterable, even though they are not op. In that case killer players would face an entirely different problem, 30 minute queue times.
I also heavily disagree that the killer's skill does not have a sufficient impact on how long chases can go, or even on the match itself. Unless you're playing one of the really bad killers, your skill matters as much as the survivors skill, both when it comes to chases and map pressure. You don't always have to hope for the survivor to mess up. Of course this depends on the map you are playing on and the loops you are chasing a survivor at, but still.
It's probably true that the majority of killers, or at least a fair amount of them, are not viable against extremely optimal survivors teams, most likely swf teams. But these overly organized swf teams are probably like 1% of the community, and a game like DBD can't balance solely around the best of the best. Even those teams can still be beaten if you get lucky, and nobody can play perfectly 100% of the time.
3 -
Perfectly worded
0 -
"Survivors in chases need to be able to affect chases according to their skill."
I never said they shouldn't. I believe they should be able to affect chases based on their skill. Their affect is prolonging the chase.
"That's why it's important for killers to have both powers that help with chases and with map pressure"
That's why the game has a lot of issues as well currently because most killers don't have both those.
'If the game was only balanced around 1v4, not considering the 1v1 aspect, we'd have multiple killers in this game that would be uncounterable, even though they are not op."
I do not believe this. What are you using as your criteria for a statement like that? This feels like hyperbole.
". Unless you're playing one of the really bad killers, your skill matters as much as the survivors skill, both when it comes to chases and map pressure."
Really bad killers equates to 3/4 the games killer roster. I'm assuming best of the best survivors against the best of the best killers at rank 1.
"You don't always have to hope for the survivor to mess up."
You do if you aren't playing one of the few best killers in the game.
"It's probably true that the majority of killers, or at least a fair amount of them, are not viable against extremely optimal survivors teams, most likely swf teams."
SWF is a clear outlier, but I would argue that even a top tier solo group of 4 still make most of the killers unviable.
"But these overly organized swf teams are probably like 1% of the community, and a game like DBD can't balance solely around the best of the best"
I look up each group in my lobby prior to games starting and it's much, much higher than 1%. That said, I am less referring to SWF which we all already know is broken and more so just top tier solo's which at rank 1 I do not think are that rare at all as I think the skill ceiling for survivors to get to that point is quite low. Survivors could be mediocre at looping and still win simply because of gen speeds if they know how to prioritize their time.
"a game like DBD can't balance solely around the best of the best."
I think every other game balances from the top down, not from the bottom up.
I also don't think this is narrowed down to a should killers be OP or UP. Killers could simply be buffed a decent amount to be able to better have a chance against the top tier survivors while still not ruining the experience for lowers.
I do still think they should change gen requirements based on rank which would solve some of these "balance for top but not hurt the low ranks" issue. That's for another topic though.
0 -
I think the Devs are balancing the game around 4v1 BUT have multiple Killers who are designed for a 1v1 and that causes issues. This isn't why the game is unbalanced though, it is imbalanced because the team behind that part are scared of doing their job so they make it difficult for everyone instead of fun.
Trapper---Theoretically he should be really strong, he can turn the map into a danger zone and create massive snowballs. He is weak though because he was never designed to be in this game from the beginning in the Beta. He has always been forced to travel around the entire map with 1 trap and in the Beta put traps down very slowly, the maps were also incredibly huge with way more windows than there are now including pallets. He was never designed or balanced from his conception for this game. That is not a 1v1 or 4v1 balancing problem, that's a design problem.
Clown is a 1v1 Killer which is amazing and I love him, chases are very entertaining and if you know what you're doing then you'll be a great Clown. He has no map pressure though, because is a 1v1 he lacks 4v1 capabilities and have to use enhanced tactics to win and spread around pressure. This is in the form of perks, if he isn't using perks to cover his weakness he might not get a lot of kills.
The difference between those two Killers is that they are designed around either 4v1 or 1v1 but Trapper has more problems than Clown because of how he was designed for this game, that's an issue with the team needing their priorities fixed and not whether they should be balancing around 1v1 or 4v1.
2 -
The only way this game could be balanced is if the whole experience was based on stealth.
Once a survivor is seen the killer would have to be able to easily walk over to them and knock the survivor instantly.
That way the survivor skill is based on stealth while the killer is based on finding the survivor.
Currently this is the killers objective but survivors dont need to stealth the game to win they have stealth, numbers, and chase getaway potential.
Only way I see this game being balanced as a 4v1 and not a 1v1 is if terror radius and red stain are removed and survivors have to actually use their senses to detect the killer instead of being giving a 32 meter warning (excluding hag and M&A) and red stain so you know where a killers looking.
1 -
Yes you can and that is the point of balancing 1v4. You are more powerful than the 1 and its the 4 together that have to do X/Y/Z to match your strength.
That is literally the reason you balance for 1v4.
1 -
I think the game should be balanced around 4v1 maybe even *5v1.
*Why 4/5v1... That was just for me a other way to say that killers should be strong enough to struck fear in the hearts of survivors.
Some people say a win should be "earned" but I am not sure if that really describes it, imo.
The survivors just should go out of a match and got their "adrenaline dose" and say to themself "that was a hell of a match" - if they survive the confrontation.
The problem is, this you will never achive with killer/s that are to weak. If a basekit of a killer is to weak, the killer becomes more of a clown where survivors can make fun of, as that they would feel the pressure to do everything necessary to leave the map, as fast as possible.
And that leads me to the opinion that many killers should be buffed (not all). Imo, they should be slightly op. Slightly, not op af, because then the fun turns into frustration for the survivors and in boredom for the killers (like it is also pretty boring when you play a killer that is weak *cough*).
0 -
until the minimum completion time of the objective for the 4 is SEVERELY increased we CANNOT balance around the 1v1 aspect. know I do agree that there should be SOME 1v1 balance, BUT the survivor should not be able to loop the killer around for an extended period of time because of a MINDLESS god loop (im looking at you iron works of BS and other loops like that). I forget where it is stated, but you the survivor is a COG in the MACHINE that is your team. you in your chases are supposed to buy time for your team to do gens, here is the problem though. there is some MANDATORY minimum time for the killer to waste that is not during the chase, these are
picking someone up
hooking them
find the next chase which could be on the other side of the map
all these little bits of time ON TOP of the chase he just completed can add up to ALOT of time wasted over 8-12 hooks. now if balance was SOLEY around the 4v1 aspect, it would not be a 4k 0 survival rate, NO. it would still be a decent survival rate FOR THE PEOPLE who believe they are part of a TEAM, not in a SOLO game.
0 -
I'm sorry but the game is not 1v1.
While the killer is chasing a survivor (the supposedly called "1v1") there are other 3 people working on gens, totems, etc. And even sometimes doing stuff to help the chased survivor like spamming the noise notification, bodyblock the killer, throw pallets, etc. Is this, for you, a fair "1v1"?
The game should be balanced around 1v4 BUT having in mind that the killer WILL go into chases, thus not making their power end them abruptly.
The whole argument of the game being 1v1 and 1v4 seems weak to me, its not like while you're chasing a survivor the other 3 are froze in place lol
0 -
The game shouldn't be balanced around a 1v1 because it isn't a 1v1, it's a 4v1 and if you only go for 1v1's then you're gonna loose. The game needs 4v1 balance since that's what it is.
If the game was balanced for only 1v1's killer would be impossible because everyone else would just gen rush since that's what it's balanced around.
1 -
It has to be 1v4. A single survivor should not be able to run a killer for the full 5 gens. Killers should not have to leave good survivors or survivors at OP loops for fear of losing all the gens. The survivor's objective while getting chased should not be to loop the killer indefinitely, it should be to waste as much time as possible for their team. If every chase between survivor and killer can easily lead to all survivors escaping, then what's the point of chasing? What's the point of playing killer?
0 -
If the killer is chasing 1 survivor, the chase is 1VS1, but the match is still 1VS4. The match will always be 1VS4, until a survivor is eliminated from the match. To balance based on one part of what makes up a match could go horribly wrong with out looking at all the other parts that make up a match.
0 -
"That literally is not what happens at all. Survivors can currently do gens vastly faster than a killer has time to complete his objective."
That's untrue because if that was the case then all killers wouldn't have an average of over 50% kill rate.
"They practice and improve at the game like any other game. You balance from the top down, not the bottom up. This is how every other successful game functions."
You said the game should be a 1 vs 4 aspect, so how can they improve when there is no 1 vs 1 skill required for them to play against a killer? So if you are saying they should improve and be capable of holding the killer for a longer time, then you are agreeing that the game should have a 1 vs 1 aspect.
Not only that but how can they improve when the killer is constantly ending chases with them quickly? They are getting little to no feedback on what they are doing wrong because a killer is always meant to win chases from what you said. So how can they improve when they know there chase time would only matter against the killer they are playing with. So when up against a rank 1 or 10 killer, they know they have no chance because a killer is capable of ending chases quickly or winning it regardless of how good the surivior is.
Also since you want killers to get buff for the 1 vs 4 aspect, then killers such as the spirit would have a quicker chase time. Not only that, but killers that are already capable of having a high win rate, would just become even stronger which would just make being a new comer to the game even worst.
So you want the game to be focus on red ranks and swf. So how would solo suriviors and new comers stand a chance when all killers of whatever ranks, when all killers can beat a rank 1 surivior team. This would just make it impossible for new comers and solo surivior team to be able to win. In that logic of players improving, then couldn't you say the same for killers on how the game currently is? Afterall, they just need to improve and get good at the game.
Dead by daylight is different and unique to every other successful game. It isn't meant to be a competitive game, which is also why there is no tournaments unlike other successful games such as fortnite, black ops and e.t.c.
"No, the devs have already stated you should NOT be drawing conclusions from this data as it is HEAVILY flawed and inaccurate. The devs have stated this over and over and over on these forums but posts like these keep coming. There are a multitude of factors this data does not take into account which is why the devs have said this."
That still doesn't ignore the kills a killer is getting from each game. Not to mention if you don't want to count that data, then I can just bring out other data the devs have released such as:
"No one is comparing a rank 20 killer to rank 1 survivor."
You understand that by you talking about focusing on a 1 vs 4 aspect, there is other things to include such as how well a rank 20 killer would do in comparison to rank 1 surivior team. Afterall, since the game is focus on a 4 vs 1 than there is little to nothing a rank 1 surivior can do because the game wouldn't have a 1 vs 1 aspect to it. So there would be no indication on how a you can tell the difference between a rank 1 surivior to a rank 20 surivior.
"No, just because the game would be balanced around a 1v4 does not mean no skill is required to win the game."
Skill required would make it have a 1 vs 1 aspect because a player would be able to go against another player to equal the playing field. Otherwise if there is a 1 vs 4 there would be little skill involve in which would make it hard to tell the difference between a rank 1 to rank 20 surivior. It's obvious you want killers to get buff, so with that being said, there would be limits to what a surivior can do before in which they can do now. From that limit, it lowers the skill required which would just make ranking pointless because any surivior would quickly pick up on it.
"That literally isn't what happens at all. We have a ranking system. Yes it is a flawed ranking system, but what you saying isn't what happens outside of a swf."
Even though you are not saying it, you are sounding like you are referring to something like that. The game becoming a 1 vs 4 aspect only would just lower skills required to suriviors which would just allow any body that hop on to beat a rank 1 player. There is no reason why they can't because killers that were already strong would just become even more stronger and unfair against suriviors.
"I have literally said that the point is to waste the killers time, I have never said to take that away. A minute? Seriously? If the chases lasted a minute ya'll have completely incinerated that killer with 0 kills unless he stands in front of you facecamping. The game was not designed for chases to last even remotely close to one minute. If you look at chase times compared to gen times this is clear. If your chases are lasting that long and ya'll aren't completely destroying the killer then you are playing at low ranks and your team is doing absolutely nothing."
You want killers to get buff, right? So it's common sense that chase time would become shorter. Also, I never said that you wanted to take it away not refer to it. I was simply saying that chases would last shorter, that's all.
Chase time can last at average against a spirit 35 seconds, so with killers getting buff. You can expect chases to last way less than that if the game changes to a 1 vs 4 aspect. This information was gathered by Scott Jund while using one if not the best surivior map against a spirit. You can see it towards the end of the video.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6Lfi9mH05hE
"It has already been said that these stats are NOT accurate and you should not be drawing conclusions from them, said by the devs. Stop trying to use these flawed stats."
Once again, the stats still shows the kill rate of what killers are getting and the devs have not said anything to disagree with what the graph said. All they did say was that conclusion was not to be drawn, they didn't say the graph isn't fact. So that excuse is still invalid. Also it doesnt matter rather or not you want to agree with it because the devs had made a previous stats during August this year in which they never said anything wrong about it. Even back then kill rates were above average against good killers.
"That is not what is being said whatsoever. Making the game balanced around a 4v1 does not make you auto lose to a rank 20 killer. That's just ridiculous."
That is what you are saying because all a surivior can do against a killer is mind game, loop and hide. You wanting killers to become stronger would just make mind game and looping less efficient than they already are from unsafe pallets. Hiding would become the new method which still won't work because there are perks killers can use to track suriviors. So you are pretty much lowering the capability a surivior can do in a game which is why I said a rank 20 killer can beat anyone. Scott Jund already confirmed spirit chase time last 35 seconds at average, so with a buff it would just be lowred even more.
"You do realize that with how short gen times are that for a killer to have a chance of winning he would have to down survivors in 20 seconds or less on every chase right? What you are saying is unreasonable is literally the requirement the killer has to have a chance of winning."
I mean if you look at the stats of how long games last at average, it doesn't seem to be as challenging or impossible as you make it seem. Also that is what you are trying to refer because killers are already making chases last that quickly or around the same time. So buffing them more would just result in lower chase time.
"Oh you mean as opposed to now with all the "fun" the killer is having getting looped for 5 gens? You act like the killer experience is fun in its current state."
So Mori isn't a thing in which can take away a user experience in less than 2 minutes of the game? Face camping and tunnelling isn't a thing? There is way more unfun stuff a killer can also do to a surivior, so I don't get your point. From how you are making it sound, you want killers to be able to ruin a surivior's experience even more, and allow the killer's experience to become more fun. Otherwise you would have spoke about the un un things killers can do because you play both side, right? So why is it that all I'm hearing is, make killers experience more fun while making suriviors experience worst.
"The game IS a 4v1, so it should be balanced around a 4v1 this is simply common sense."
The game also HAS a 1 vs 1 aspect such as perks, vaults and pallets that a surivior can use to make the game a 1 vs 1 against the killer. So what's your point here?
"Based on your opinions I do not believe you play both sides at high rank. I think if you did your opinions would change a lot."
You are saying it as if you are one to talk about playing both side. You haven't mention once the things killers can do to win games quickly against a surivior. So with things such as Mori still existing with the 4 vs 1 aspect begin pushed more forward. You are pretty much saying killers should get a free win against all noob suriviors which would just ruin the market for dead by daylight since. All you have done is talk about killer without any thoughts or regard to suriviors. I play both side and both side are pretty much as bad as each other. Killers with ultra rare add ons with Mori against a solo team. Suriviors with tool boxes and auto haven map offering against a low tier killer.
Post edited by Zoldyar on3 -
so in other words we shouldnt balance in terms of 1v1 or 1v4. we should balance whats healthy for a good game experience on both sides.
0 -
This whole thread is survivor logic 101... You know HIDING IS A PART OF THE GAME, don't blame us because the developer doesn't build metrics around it, but anyone whose played when Claudette was a really dark knows hiding is a viable part of the game. If 1v1 chase was specifically what this game was built around at any point, why doesn't the killer have a mini map and play in 3rd person?
0 -
I agree, balancing for the 1v1 or the chase before we can properly adjust certain things would be a catastrophe, adjusting things so the 1v1 or chase would be a relatively fair match up against two equally skilled players, of course the killer should come out on top if they are both equally skilled.
0 -
Correct, it will be hard, but it's the best we can do without an extreme overhaul of certain game mechanics
0 -
You should be charged with manslaughter for how well that was put together.
1 -
so what exactly is this thread about then? why come up with 1v1 and 1v4?
0 -
Exactly, there isn't a good choice, 1v1 balance? Killer loses and skill doesn't matter, 1v4 balance? Survivor's skill doesn't matter and they lose.
We should attempt to get around the 2 kill 2 survival rate, as it is the best we can get without severe overhauls in game mechanics.
0 -
The 1v1 and 1v4 are the main aspects of the game, this was mainly to see which side people were on, and how they would justify it.
The main reason I wanted to make this was to get feedback on this premise, and to see what changes we could suggest and see what is most reasonable and optimal.
And I was more for the 1v1 balancing but adjusting some things for objectives, but now I'm more for the 2kill 2survival ratio, it was another way for me to challenge my views and positions.
0 -
That's stupid because individual survivor skill BY DESIGN should not match killer aptitude. You may have been here since day one, Scottjund, but you do not know the first thing about GAME BALANCE, and almost no one does in an asymmetrical game by definition. In fact, I doubt you even have a firm grasp on math based on much of your assessment of the game, because the math matic formula dictates that a killer of equal skill to the survivor team should average 2.5 kills at least!
This game is a non-competitive online horror game. It shouldn't even be about survival half the time for "survivors' it should of be an engaging experience outside of survival alone, but the developers saw fit to go for the easiest endorphin trigger possible by commiting to the simple concept of "us vs. them" when they could have taken an approach to survivor play similar to games like dark souls or Ark where death can pretty much be expected unless you reach the Pinnacle of skill and can to a degree, outplay your teammates.
It's a competition to survive amongst comrades, not a competition against the killer... But the game design philosophy confuses that
0 -
He is not suggesting the killer's power should be the same as a single survivor. He's saying we need to find common ground where both sides' skill comes into account and where a chase is a relatively fair match up, of course the killer should have advantages, and they do. But the main problem is we can't do a 1v1 or a 1v4 model without completely ruining the game itself or the only engaging part of the game, the chase.
0 -
Regarding some killers being uncounterable if the devs wouldn't consider the 1v1, that was more a hypothetical thought. As an example I'll take Clown. Now if the devs wouldn't consider the 1v1 balance, they could just buff his chase potential to a point where there is barely any counterplay and he could almost guaranteed get a down within 30 seconds or similar, if the Clown player is good. It wouldn't make him op though since he has no map pressure. And since devs wouldn't consider the 1v1 aspect in this hypotheical scenario, he would work like that and nobody would enjoy going against him.
Regarding the rest, I personally just heavily disagree with you here. I don't think 3/4 of the killer roster is unviable even against top survivors, except maybe like the most ridiculous swf survivor teams that use the information they have to it's fullest potential. Obviously there are killers of different viability if that makes sense. A perfectly balanced killer would result in the survivor team and the killer to have a 50/50 chance to win when all are playing optimal. Of course for some of the killers it's more a 30/70, or 20/80, like Plaugue for example, but the killer still does have a chance to win even then. And then there are the really bad killers at top level play that pretty much have 0 chance against an optimal survivor team. But those aren't many.
Just out of curiosity, what killers do you consider viable?
I do feel like there are a lot of killers that don't need to rely on survivors making mistakes though. It depends on the killer though, how you use your potential counterplay, if you can counterplay in chases or use map pressure to counterplay survivors.
There are a lot of factors that have an impact on the outcome of a match though, some which you don't even have control over. And I feel like people don't realise this. Obviously map rng is a factor, but there's definitely more as well, such as pressuring the right gens when you don't have a survivor to chase, or finding stealthy survivors.
Personally I think this game is in a good spot balance wise, but one needs to acknowledge that DBD isn't a competitive game. Sure there are ranks, but they are more a way to seperate players of different skill levels. Also, the game is not balanced from the bottom up, but more around the average of the entire playerbase. You also need to keep in mind that survivors have to depend on each other, a killer doesn't.
But I do feel like BHVR has done a good job balancing this game for high ranks. The kill rate stats that were released also show me that killers can't receive any general buffs at the moment. I know these stats aren't fully representative of the game's balance, but the devs still need to consider these stats as well when balancing the game. Extending the survivors objective time would just lead to another increase of kill rates. We might end up with killers who will have an average of 80% kill rate. And at that point many people would stop playing survivor. Increasing objective time would just result in very long killer queue times.
3 -
Again, the only reason that's the only engaging part of the game is because the devs didn't create anything exciting for survivors to do besides work on gens. Even hiding is the most boring thing ever and it could be so much more engaging as evidenced by Friday the 13th (this game did get some ideas right).
But that's besides the point. Where we're at now as far as actually having a balanced game? The games pretty much balanced already, minus some of the fun of course. If you really wanted true balance in this game, not based on emotions, that would dictate a 2.5 kill rate. At least.
1 -
I can agree, the only truly skillful thing in this game is the chase, gens and hiding get extremely boring.
And I agree, we not very far from true balance, we are in an alright spot now, but issues are still here, and discussions and feedback by the community like what has happened here is what is going to fix and solve the issues of this game, if we can adjust certain things with survivors and killers, like certain Killer Powers and perks, survivor items and perks. We could have so much potential in this game and it is incredible to know we are getting closer to this.
0 -
You basically said a whole lot of absolutely nothing here.
5 -
No amount of power will cause fear for someone who has played the game for a decent amount of time. Look at the Spirit, nobody sat and said "shes strong so she scares me", all you ever heard was annoyance because of how bullshit she was.
2 -
The game has to be balanced around the 1v4 aspect because although the chases are 1v1, the result of a chase shouldn't be the killer getting looped for 5 gens, it should be the survivor bought his team time to do gens. Each survivor should be contributing to distracting the killer for a portion of time.
If you balance the game around the chase, then survivors will always have an advantage. The only "solution" they've implemented to stop looping is bloodlust, which is such a ######### mechanic to begin with because when you get pallet stunned you lose it if it is in conjunction with a long wall or a scenario where you have to break the pallet.
With the current state, a survivor must make multiple mistakes to get caught and if their team isn't doing generators, then they deserve to lose. Killers must snow ball the game into their favor early to have a chance. This results in games either taking a long time, as the killer is looped until the gens are done, or quick games where the killer gets 3/4k but doesn't rank up because he didn't play for emblems.
0 -
I like your positivity I must admit. I just lost faith in this community for the most part
1 -
Was it that difficult for you to understand, Scott?
0 -
Yes because you made no sense.
3
