https://dbd.game/4rHHkF5
DBD's biggest mistake:
This should have been made part of the game.
Comments
-
I'm not interested in alternative game modes. They'd see play for a month for novelty sake and die off.
8 -
As far as I know Identity V's duo hunter mode has some weird timed restriction for when its available, but its popular.
But it also gets some special modifications like 45 seconds of hooked survivors neither being rescuable or progressing sacrifice, 3 healthstates and a 30% repair speed penalty (mightve neen on all channeled actions, cant remember) on 7 needed generators of 11 max. Oh and only 2 of the biggest maps were in the map rotation.
It could work in dbd, but the killers would need to be a) more in line with nurse instead of strong killers getting nerfed and b) probably also some special rule modifications. The timeout for hooked durvivors is a good method against "1 camps, 1 hunts", for example.
1 -
You're in the minority then because a huge part of the community has wanted there to be something else.
Identity V was so dumb because the duo rule allowed you to have one person be killer in the duo while the other was not. So you could knew who was the killer if one of you was the killer.
DBD chose pretty maps instead of 2v8. DBD will be feeling this design choice when the Leatherface game comes out and it has 4 survivors vs 3 killers.
0 -
This would be nightmare to balance. Map size, number of gens and times, interaction when stacking (do we get 6-sided gens?), unintended combos (twins with legion hunting together), unintended powers (legion would be so damn strong as hitting 4 people would suddenly be so much easier), some perks help killer (say bamboozle) but some are global (say thana) which means all "global" perks just got huge buff because they help also the other killer and so on.
The mode would be very quickly very bad nightmare to balance and to make it make sense + fix all the bugs and unintended behaviors.
0 -
This would only work as a limited time mode for maybe a week. Much longer than that and a 'meta' will emerge and make it just as, if not more stale than the core game.
2v8 sounds fun for a weekend optional mode to me. After that I guarantee it would turn into blight/blight, nurse/nurse, etc. vs. 'omg now I have to hit 24 dead hards every game'.
0 -
-"The mode would be very quickly very bad nightmare to balance"
So it would be just like 4v1 in that regard. I see no problem here.
Playing Killer feels boring because you have no team and are always outplayed by those that have a team. Watching these videos makes me just want to play the other game coming out because we can play killer as a team.
"-nightmare to balance and to make it make sense + fix all the bugs and unintended behaviors."
Giving your killer partner increased move speed while you are using Agitation is a cool feature. Killer has almost no synergy with most of its perks by design (so that you don't run too many slow downs).
-"This would only work as a limited time mode for maybe a week."
I have lets say 50 people on my steam friends list who own DBD. About 90% of them are people I've met in the last year to play with.
At least 10 people on my list are killer mains who gave up on DBD because the game has shifted to make the survivor experience more fun for nearly six years straight with little variation. I think most of them would be immediately down to play 2v8 because it would be fun.
DBD does not feel like a party game when you play killer vs a SWF team on voice coms. Give the killer a partner to play on voice coms with and more people will want to play killer again.
"-After that I guarantee it would turn into blight/blight, nurse/nurse, etc."
Leatherface is probably one of the stongest killers at the start of the game but Micahel would be one of the strongest killers by the middle of the match. With two full sets of survivors to stalk from he could easily get to infinite T3 tombstone. That's actually way more powerful than Nurse/Blight plebs who need to hook people three times.
Just imagine it now - they make a game mode to make one of the most underrated/under used killers really strong. People buy that killer and bring around his resurgence.
The killers that mostly suck now would still suck in 2v8 but DBD is in its worst meta state ever. Survivors tunnel generators to break three gen setups and killers tunnel out survivors because their gens are getting rushed.
There are so many people to chase in a 2v8 that you're never going to need to camp as you have so much to do.
0 -
Imagine how many people will DC from this.
Twice as many as normal.
Don't become enchanted by your fav Streamer enjoying a hacked version of the game, it does not mean its good.
1 -
People asked for 2v8 about 6 years ago. Instead they decided to remove the fog and make everything "pretty" so consoles could handle the game.
0 -
Looks like somebody pretends to have played this game from the very beginning.
Being able to loop same 2 windows in shack without any limit or any bloodlust fast vaulting all the time (there's no other vault type) or using hell of a more pallets on the map, while only needing to hold M1 on a gen for 60s would 100% be more fun then current eruption 3-gen eternal holding & kicking meta.
0 -
-"Looks like somebody pretends to have played this game from the very beginning."
Pretends?
Before they announced Legacy I had every perk on every character. Had I prestiged my characters instead I would have had legacy 3 on every character.
I have legacy weapons for all the killers and a full set on 1 survivor/killer.
0 -
The game is nowhere designed for that to be practical. Any combo of a killer that get easy injuries with one who snowballs would make quick work of survivors. Plague with Oni would be meta. Infinite blood orbs with anti stealth.
Also, Legion with Never Sleep Pilss would have a fiele day.
1 -
The fact that everyone keeps saying : this would be meta tells me that it totally would not.
Also it would just be a chaotic fun mess.
0 -
That only means you forgot how the game played when it was new. The game was heavily survivor sided. And it got swapped. Now it's killer sided and for some weird reasons devs are happy about it
1 -
Sorry no lol. It's still survivor sided.
It's less abusive to killers if you are playing Nurse/Blight.
Pallets were a joke in 2016 and had a massively smaller hitbox requiring a skillshot that most people missed 95% of the time. They also stunned on a delay - not instantly.
1 -
60%.... In high elo more precisely 61%... The game is objectively killer sided
0 -
Stats from when/where?
What were the parameters of the test? This is important because they almost never give us good details which means an incorrect conclusion could be drawn from the data.
0 -
I made a leap to actually call best 5% of killers high MMR. I think that's not that big of a leap...
0 -
So I can look at the very best survivor player streamers and tell you that blight does not have a 5% pick rate at top MMR. Blight is closer to 50% pick rate rather than a 5% pick rate.
Look at some of the streamers who were on an escape streak inside a SWf. The games were more than 75% Blight and Nurse. Suggesting that Pig has half the frequency of Blight in high MMR is absurd. I think there is an error in their collection methods.
Imagine for example we have a pig main like CMWinters who has Pig as their highest MMR killer. Does DBD mark the fact that he is a pig main? Is there a difference between him playing Pig and another killer who is a blight main and their blight is over 1600 MMR and therefore all their killers are in the 1200 MMR bracket?
This raises the question - what is the MMR cut off for the top 5% of players?
One of the biggest problems with statistics is that if you do not understand the data you have and present it in the wrong way it can easily lead to the wrong conclusion.
What does the top 1% of data look like?
I can only assume that 1200 MMR is included in the top 5% of their stats because otherwise there is no scenario where Blight is only chosen twice as common as Pig.
If we looked at say 1800-2000 MMR you might expect to play one pig in thirty to fifty games.
Remember that for ~6 years the devs wanted a 50% kill rate. Now they seem to want a 60% kill rate and say "this is normal/balanced".
You can't look at a 60% kill rate and say the game is killer sided when that is exactly the manufacturer's desired specifications. If killers had a 70% kill rate with a 60% expectation then that would be killer sided.
Ponder for a moment why the devs want a higher kill rate across the board. Could that be to possibly "equal out" very strong SWF groups who have a super high escape rate at the 3% or higher level?
0
