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!
If the devs listened to the community what do you think would be the result?
Comments
-
Minecraft is a single player game were any given change isn't opposed. Nobody said "God, Screw minecraft i hate these lava boats"
DbD is a multiplayer game where every chance has an impact for the opposing side. Making it easier for one side usually make it harder for another. You can't make any meaningfull change without someone being against.
I also find some of the decisions questonable but I can't deny the game has only improved over the years so what do I know?
1 -
Chaos, absolute chaos. The community doesn't agree with each other about anything and is in a constant battle over entitlement. If they "listened" to the community they would be making constant changes, most of which are mutually exclusive of one another.
1 -
My opinion is that the devs DO listen to the community. Freddy and Legion rework are solely based on community feedback for example, they don't just go like "let's shake things up a bit". Perk reworks are more like reactions to stats, but even these are sometimes caused by community feedback.
I actually took OP like "what if they listen MORE to community". If OP is expecting devs to not listen at all, I can simply say it is not true
0 -
Depends on how much they took the community into account.
If they listened too much, the game would likely be awful. But if they listened to select individuals who know the game well, as well as taking community opinion that is agreed upon, I believe the game could be healthier.
Again, it all depends on how much they listen to the community. A healthy balance of community opinion and internal decision is needed.
3 -
That is irrelevant if its single player or not, his point is pretty clear.
Also the second thing is wrong, objectively there are going to be changes that help the game.
Sure some people with subjectively think worse about changes, however typically its not something to mind, someone tried to say cross platform hurts the game for example. No one will all decide on one thing, however that is why it is the majority over the minority.
0 -
It is very relevant that it's single player. It easy to listen to the community when they all agree on something.
What I'm saying that most the community has zero clue about what changes help the game.
Ofcourse there are changes they make the game better. I would say that almost every change the devs made made the game better. Even if i don't agree with them.
I wouldn't want to play any version of the game but the latest one
1 -
A game no one would play lol killers want everything on their side, survivors want the same for them.
You got the new people that want everything easy, you got the high rank players that want everything easy....
lol hence why the devs dont listen entirely to the community
0 -
It would vary from really good to really bad
Some players have a good sense on the game while others make rash decisions based on a match they had
1 -
and then they reach into the survivors wallet and loot it
0 -
As long as devs take actually justified suggestions and not random ######### like "pig op I just got killed bruh", then the game could get better.
0 -
If they would've listened to the playerbase, this game would be unplayable. The vast majority of complains are blatant uproars for unjustified nerfs. Although some pieces of advise sound legit, noed, DS, yet another ruin (and etc.) nerfs are simply hilarious to consider. No, let THEM do THEIR work.
0 -
Honestly a unbalanced mess of a game.
1 -
A broken unbalanced mess.
1 -
No it isn't, we aren't comparing gameplay.
Its simple, he said the devs added something that was similar to what people wanted in another game, and it went well.
That's all you were to take from this, its NOT about Minecraft, where only if it was would that argument of Minecraft being mentioned actually hold, no.
Its clear he said it to make the point "If devs took community ideas and refurbished them, I think it would be best.
Also literally no community with a massive fan base all agree on something.
1 -
I'm specifically talking about the multiplayer aspect of Minecraft, and that even though it's not asymmetric, PvP is an incredibly tender subject.
I didn't mention this in my original post, but I was specifically thinking of the 1.9 combat update, which introduced weapon cooldowns and critical attacks into the game in order to combat spam clicking as a low skill tactic. The players who were incredibly used to the combat previously were among many who hated the changes, and this was in large part because of the PvP community (I acknowledge that solo play was a factor, too). There were other good changes at the time that made combat more involved and interactive, and that served to lessen the dislike of the feature, but most still thought it was a bad change, and Mojang listened. Even though nothing's in the full releases of the game yet to change what was done, the devs have made numerous statements that the reason they're taking so long to touch combat again is because they want to "get it right". The most important thing the devs have been doing now is releasing test builds for combat features and often radically changing what's been included between builds, reverting, scrapping, and constantly changing from both Jeb's design ideas and direct community feedback. The DbD PTB, which should be used like this, is nothing more than a marketing stunt for new killers and reworks now, which is extremely disappointing seeing as basically no player feedback that wasn't thought of by the devs themselves has been considered, and many changes are not included in the PTB but are included in the live build (Discordance, etc.).
The DbD devs love saying that they don't want to be more transparent because they're afraid we're going to be sad some features don't make it in the game and that that's a good reason. It's not. I hold that position to be hot garbage, especially seeing what Jeb is doing in terms of combat testing over at Mojang.
Even just logically, the feeling of "oh, that would have been really cool to have" compared to "everything sucks right now and you never asked me" is far better. But perhaps the devs feel like none of the changes they're thinking of are what the community wants at all and realize that if people knew how little good balance was coming down the pipeline, they would dislike the game more, and so in light of that fear, the devs have decided to just stop listening, which is why I take the position that if the devs listened, they would be able to actually give the community something that satisfies all of the frustrations and qualms and complaints and headaches that we all have.
P.S. people would say, "God, screw Minecraft for not listening to the playerbase about combat", which is why Mojang is being so diligent to try many things out first with the community before settling.
1 -
Really? I was under the impression that Legion was doing too well downing survivors, the stats showed that, and probably some DbD dev had a bad experience in a Legion game, so they decided to change him.
Same for Freddy: people didn't like him, but the reason the devs changed him were because of their own "gut feelings" and stats showing how he overperformed in certain areas (like slugging at first).
The devs certainly don't decide to just shake things up (except for A Lullaby for the Dark, which had things like No Mither and The Huntress, which were wacky), and that's shown in how they treat survivors' looping ability and how they constantly decline to address issues like universal lack of survivor objectives (optional for assisting in survival or non-optional). The only reasons they change things (and this is from their Q&A stream) are
- something
- something else lol
- their own gut feelings
And that last point is really a problem because since they don't play the game in the way many players do, their feelings are often not aligned with the community's. Ethan is a great example of a man who constantly surprises us with how out of touch he is (no offense if you're reading this, Ethan).
0 -
The dev's are consistently listening to the community. Literally most of their changes and fixes are from community feedback/suggestions.
2 -
I think they do listen, but I also think a lot of people who are active in the community feel like they're not being heard. So, I'm curious to know what people think: if you don't feel like you're being heard right now, what could the devs do to change that? Like, other than implementing the exact suggestions we make. If they decided not to do your suggestion, is there still something they could do to make you feel like they listened?
0 -
just one word
disaster
0 -
Hey it's true
Take a person with 3000 hours experience. As of writing there are about 39000 people playing on steam. That means about 7800 hours worth of experience go by in an hour. In 24 minutes they already surpassed the experience of the 3000 hour player. On pc alone might i add
Second, people only experience their own thing. Their personal skill level, their region, their specs. It all makes a difference. People like Otz would have a very difficult time picturing how it feels to be a survivor who plays twice a week for fun.
In my personal 1000 hour experience i hardly had any bugs. Does that mean dbd doesn't have bugs?
As an individual your experience means next to nothing on it's own. You need to listen to those with experience ofcourse. But don't take everything they say as the truth. If you want to be a designer you need to be able to look at the big picture.
Ofcourse developers should listen to what the 3000 hour experience people say cause they themself don't have time for that amount of experience. But as far as letting the 3000 experience person balance the game itself would most likely end in disaster for every person that doesn't want to spend 3000 hours in the game
0 -
Stop pretending you are a game designer, or/and that you are giving good advice.
0 -
It isn't really all that backwards. Sure some of the biggest DbD players have given great suggestions that would absolutely be good changes, but only the very minor ones like Wraith should move faster while cloaked or Trapper should be able to carry up to 2 traps by default. If we let the player base dictate the game as a whole....yeaaaah-no. survivor would become absolutely unplayable, because the majority of complaints are from the killer end. Probably for good reason, but a lot of killers would rather see the survivor side run into the ground than make DbD a balanced experience (and for the average round of DbD, it is pretty balanced for the most part. Generally the side who plays better wins. Only at low-level and high-level play is the game widely unbalanced. At low level it's killer sided and at high level it's survivor sided.)
0 -
Sorry, but your logic is flawed. Would you let prison inmates make the rules for prisons, because they have more experience with prisons than most other people? Would you let big coprorations make laws about illigal buisness practices, because they are involed in most of them?
Well, the grandmother of my wife is over 100 years old, should she rule our country then? i mean, she had spend way more time living than most other people, so she know about life, politics, economics and everything, right?
Doing something from a single point of view doesnt make you an expert on the whole subject.
2 -
I'm not pretending anything just stating my opinion.
Just discussing on a discussing forum.
So no, I won't stop. Especially not for a random internet person that doesn't know anything about me
0 -
No. The problem was that survivors simply had no fun as it was hard to escape chases, while Legion just frenzied over and over again, countering every pallet and window until the survivor is down. But old Legion was horrible in performance, because it took him ages to down survivors, meaning that others simply had plenty of time to do gens, while Legion HAD to commit to a chase to not waste the time put into that chase. Old Legion HAD to Frenzy 4 times on every survivor to down them, because without his power he was only a powerless 110% killer. And you know how long you can loop a hatchetless Huntress.
Which stats do you mean? I'm pretty sure that old Legion had a pretty bad killrate, also the quotes on Freddy were basically the unfun things like having to wait 7 seconds before you can hit someone. Old Freddy was regarded as being one onf the weakest killers. I can remember when people said Clown is new Freddy
And your bullet points are... wow... great summary. Very objective
1 -
I'm just saying that I don't know of the other circumstances around the changes to Freddy and Legion other than what the community was doing was not what the devs wanted (eg. Legion moonwalking to cause Deep Wounds to tick down). There aren't stats, but from "personal gut feelings" (see how unnaturally powerful these are?), those were my experiences. The Legion was basically unable to be stopped from downing a survivor once they set their eyes on a target, and Freddy had mechanics that allowed him to be a great slugger that weren't the slugging powers given to all killers universally
Also about the list: I went back and have quoted below what was on the summary of the stream posted to the forums by GoodBoyKaru
"
- Stats
- Community Feedback
- Personal Gut Feelings
"
My point was that personal gut feelings play an unusually large role in terms of balance, so I'm really not sure why "[not] very objective" comes into play here. There's no need for me to represent more than just the last point because the other bullet points are already being represented by other people in this thread and other threads. Additionally, your characterization as a "summary" is misrepresenting what I wrote.
All in all, it feels like you took the last part of my post and ignored it because you felt like I needed to not have my goal be what it was: pointing out how gut feelings are disproportionately impactful because even their acknowledgement as a major factor of balance significantly affects the reception of the other two.
0 -
"Second, people only experience their own thing. Their personal skill level, their region, their specs. It all makes a difference. People like Otz would have a very difficult time picturing how it feels to be a survivor who plays twice a week for fun."
*Then goes on to say*
"As an individual your experience means next to nothing on it's own. You need to listen to those with experience ofcourse. But don't take everything they say as the truth. If you want to be a designer you need to be able to look at the big picture."
Whatever you wanna say buddy. LMAO XD
0 -
Firstly, the premise of "feeling" im removing from the topic. As you can argue with "feelings" but its fallacious and pointless because it goes nowhere as you can argue ANYTHING, truth or not truth with feelings.
Freddy is not a "great" slugger by any means, he is a M1 killer other then his ability put down stares really. If Freddy is "great" at slugging, then almost every killer is "great" at slugging.
Now I will demonstrate how "Gut feeling" is just as much a waste of time to bring up in argument as "feelings".
Firstly its not something you can prove, and its not something that has an argument therefore its unfalsifiable and every claim that can not be false for that reason is not creditable.
Secondly, it is not asking anything and is an assertion.
Lastly, your adversary can make the same argument that goes against your argument based on the same thing (feelings, gut feeling) and you would have to agree with it just as much as your own statement.
For example, you said "There aren't stats, but from "personal gut feelings", those were my experiences.". Its the same as I could say from my "personal gut feelings" those were NOT my experiences. In doing this the two making these point got absolutely nowhere, and are now both right as there is no way to falsify the others claim.
I really don't think being legion and being able to down a survivor via exploit of Deep Wounds was patched because it was OP, but more so because it was not fun to go vs and not only that but also that it didn't really promote gameplay.
0 -
well, my main point was that I totally disagree with the devs not listening to the community. And Freddy and Legion are a major example for that. Not gonna repeat more as I think this should be clear now
0 -
People would complain 10x more than they already do because X thing was only well done and not made 100% perfect
0 -
It'd be hilariously ADHD riddled gameplay.
One day your character does things just fine. The next they're going 300% vault speed. The next the killer is going 400% sprint speed to compensate. The next you're 50% and they're 200%. Then they introduce banana peels to slow gameplay down a little bit.
Oh but I've lived through this already. REsistance is already a dead game and they listened to community feedback. Shotguns are op, but they responded by making zombies invincible so it's ok.
0 -
I'm talking about OG Freddy, where a dying survivor had to be woken up before being healed. I haven't even talked about anything regarding new Freddy.
About "gut feelings": that's not what I said, it's what the devs said drive their decisions, and I think that's an incredibly stupid principal reason.
"There aren't stats, but from "personal gut feelings", those were my experiences." was said to show how stupid that statement of listing extremely subjective gut feelings as a valid reason for major balance changes is.
About Deep Wounds; I only meant to say that it didn't fit with the developers' vision of the killer as a "partial health state" (hope I quoted that correctly :/) killer and wasn't trying to say anything about it being OP or not.
So, I think my post caused some confusion?
0 -
...we're getting nowhere with these replies back and forth. I've laid out my reasoning (and sarcasm) already, and I, too, think we should stop.
0 -
Yep, im confused.
You can have your cake back... just don't eat it too.
0 -
Otz did a pretty good job with his changes to make the game better. If the community is able to come up with such good ideas the game would be in a very good place. Eventhough I would say it is completely impossible to make an asymmetrical game perfectly balanced, it would at least be kinda near it.
Reworking keys and moris would be a very good start. Also nerfing DS and making it the anti tunnel perk that it should be without giving survivors god mode for 60 seconds.
Small changes alone could make a drastic and pleasant change without interfering too much with the actual gameplay.
1 -
Uhm, I'm sorry what?
First of all repeating what I say and then saying "whatever you say" isn't exactly a compelling argument. If anything you convinced me I'm right more as you clearly don't have any counterpoints
Second those statement don't contradict eachother... not even slightly.
If you think I'm wrong i would happilly be proven false. I have showed on these forums that I'm willing to change my mind if people can convince me.
But you're going to have to do better then "Whatever you say eksdee"
0 -
Nerfs to both sides until we have a 'picnic-in-slightly-spooky-surroundings'-simulator. Which sounds kinda nice tbh.
Nah, I am joking. As someone who works in game paedagogy and has written rules for board games (not quite comparable video games, I know) I know how important it is to listen to your player's feedback but to NOT make them into co-designers.
This community is especially vocal and...passionate about things and honestly I sometimes have the feeling that a tiny minority even just makes suggestions to spite the other side.
It would be like giving decisions to that one coworker who loves to shout and believes that the people from the other departments are all #########. And putting him in a team with someone, who thinks the same thing about his department.
0 -
A game prioritizing the survivor playerbase and their thoughts on how the game should work.
0 -
shirthless to every character or even... a nude DLC
nerf the hatch spawn (not keys) and moris
maybe a gamemode where gens repair itself very very slowy (30 min) but with a tremendously big map where they can play without thinking about genrush
maybe change swf to sw1f
demogorgon can jump with shred (and make stairs don't act like a magnet if you want hit someone in the other side on a second floor)
players getting 500 bloodpoints for every minute without find a match
filling empty espaces in the rift with bloodpoints/shards
the entity only spawn on perks when you buy another perk, not because he want to steal one when having more bloodweeb spawns to spawn
0 -
Erm how would we even nerf the hatch?
If demogorgon could jump... what about all the loops that are elevated? If the jump is not that high, or not easy to control would there even be a point of adding this?
0 -
haha, my whole post was about how the devs said they largely use their gut feelings (1/3 of a of 3) when balancing and how that's not so great of an idea.
I just bring in Freddy and Legion just to remind people what happened and how the community's desires just happened to align with the devs'. I didn't say this explicitly, but I was trying to get at: the devs (for the most part) only take community feedback when they have already thought of the same thing. The only solid evidence given to us otherwise was with the STBFL rework, which was credited to a poster on reddit (?), and that's only one example in a long line of dissatisfied community criticisms.
0 -
Ah, yhea I would agree with that. Matheu (idk how to spell his name) only brought light to some certain issues after he got bullied by a swf as I recall.
0 -
May be DbD will be a tossing coin game, and will be a perfect statistically balanced 50% kill rate game.
0 -
*Eyes at you eerily*
0 -
everyone happy, bigger playerbase
0 -
it depends on what parts of the community you're specifying.
going off on a hunch and assuming you're talking about the highly passionate side of the community who genuinely wants things fixed? i'd say that the game would be slightly better! there's been a lot of genius features and ideas i've seen over the years, so i'd be nice if some of those could be implemented in some form or fashion. however, i can see why they haven't been added.
now, if you're referring you all of the community? i think this game would be a bit more of a mess, unfortunately. there's a lot of clashing ideas that people have, and some ideas and features that have been brought up were solely because of bias or because a small chunk of people didn't like something/can't compete with it. so i think it's just a matter of picking the right options. ;w;
0 -
It would result in horrible things.
I mean, just look at dedicated servers.
People wanted them, devs explained that it would require a total overhaul of the gamecode as the game was designed around p2p, but in the end they gave in and spend a ton of money and work on dedicated servers.
The result = everyone hates the servers.
0 -
I love sharing this video, and I'm so glad you gave me a chance to do so, even though it seems like you've seen it already.
2 -
Yhea thats what I was talking about. XD
0 -
I had have never seen it until now, thank you so much for sharing. How is the video not under a sticky thread already?
0
