New content & balancing - Which do you prefer?

Brokenbones

Hello!

So with the PTB of Sadako I've noticed a lot of back/forth on the subject of a killers strength on the PTB, in general and whether or not it's okay to have 'mid tier killers' or 'weaker' killers added to the game.

It got me thinking, when it comes to new content being added in general - not just powers but anything what do you think the best approach is?

Do you think new content should be strong and then adjusted to be weaker if it's too much or should new content be weaker/safer at first and then buffed afterwards?

I've noticed a small pattern where the developers have been making content 'safer' for a while to see how they go and then buff them later. Power struggle, Any Means Necessary - etc.

Elcopollo

Alternative viewpoint

I actually don't have any problem with killers being on more of a "mediocre" side when PTB rolls out. The thing is - I believe that devs shouldn't be afraid of making them strong, so if this killer is generally found by community and prominent content creators to be either weak or mediocre, devs need to buff them for the release date. And only if those buffs show to be too overbearing and inadequate on live servers - BHVR should reconsider and nerf killer to an acceptable extent, but not to the point where they become worse than during PTB or just as bad.

As for perks - it really depends on its effects. Some perks are meme material and are made just for the fun of it, so there's usually no need for nerfing or buffing them, giving quality of life changes at most. And some perks might become overly strong or simply unhealthy (like Boil Over, for example) in case they're buffed, so you kinda need to be a bit more careful with the decisions there. Then again, with perks it's usually not even about how strong they are, but rather how fun they are. Basic survivor meta always stays the same (DS - BT - DH - IW - Unbreakable) either way for, I'd assume, sheer reason of players being used to those perks. Even Boons didn't change it that much - I see DS, BT and DH waaay more often than even Circle of Healing. So with perks, I guess, BHVR's current approach is fine as is - release, look at performance, act accordingly. The only thing I'd wish is that they act accordingly faster.

Marc_123

Alternative viewpoint

Only few people play ptb and often don´t get the potential.

You have to wait till she is out and see what people are doing and which strats come up.

I still think it won´t take long before people complain about her in some way.

Aurelle

Alternative viewpoint

The power should be relatively balanced and players should have time to learn the killer's power before any adjustments are made.

Aven_Fallen

Weak at first, buff later

Buffing weak things is easier than nerfing strong things.

It also is better for the community. If a Killer who is way too strong is released and nerfed, Killer players would complain a lot. If a Killer who is too weak is released and buffed, the responses are more positive.

Same goes with Survivor Perks, bringing a OP-Perk like MoM and nerf it has a very sour taste. But if a weaker Perk is buffed, this is positive.

Seiko300

Alternative viewpoint

The real problem isn't with what they do or how they do it, it's more that they take so LONG to make changes that I have an issue with.

The changes made from PTB -> Live are probably the quickest they get anything done, but besides this it can take months or even years for a killer to get more changes after. Leaving them in a sad or otherwise sorry state until that happens, even worse if the changes they get are bad like Clown for instance who really got nothing of substance to make him better.

I think Scott probably said something similar or along the lines in a video awhile ago, but if they would just pump out some really minor changes a lot more frequently, balance would be in a lot better of a state than it is right now. It'd also go a long way in keeping veterans interested as well I think, things that can be rolled out on their own that don't need to wait for the next big update, value changes, changes to a single add-on or perk, bug fixes, etc.

It might reduce how much is in the bigger updates, but tbh I'd rather have a bunch of small updates with little interesting tidbits than wait months on months for a bigger update.

In a schedule sense it could go: Chapter Release -> QOL changes -> Mid Chapter Patch -> QOL changes -> (PTB) Chapter Release

But the odds of them actually doing this are pretty low unfortunately.

dugman

Weak at first, buff later

If you have to err when balancing a new character or perk I'd err on making it too weak. That way the worst that happens is it doesn't get used much. If you err on the side of making things too powerful, though, then you instead run the risk of making something that is game breaking and which lots of people abuse over and over.

So ideally you want things not to be too weak or too strong obviously, but if you're not sure where something lands it's better to have it be a little weak and not see much use then buff it later than to make something too strong and have potentially months of broken games as a consequence.

Valik

Alternative viewpoint

Get it right the first time.

How about you be competent at your job and don't screw things up? Is that so hard?

People get fired every day for failing to provide quality, I cannot for the life of me understand how an entire team of well-paid developers cannot wrap their minds around numbers and concepts that can be juggled in stride by your average D&D Dungeon Master.