Create a "council" of key streamers and players who care about the game
Every 3 months, you guys come out with a chapter. While it is fun to receive that much content, that is a very fast and can create lots of balancing, meta, and gameplay issues.
I know the developers pay attention to the stats and how certain things are performing, but I don't think players get asked how fun certain playstyles are even though they meet certain stat requirements.
My suggestion is to just bring a few select DBD players, Killers and Survivors alike, stick them on a zoom call together, and ask them to give you a list of suggestions they hope to see in the next chapter, in reworking previous characters/maps, and what they hope to see in the future.
I wouldn't hire them, or promise you will do what they suggest as you may have reasons not to, but I think you will get a lot of good feedback as you get in contact with some of the largest consumers of your content, who also happen to be in contact with the masses on a daily basis.
It could be super low profile, and I think they would say yes just because they care about the game.
Thanks for all you do BHVR, I love your your game, and I just hope future chapters can help us create a more fun state to play in.
Comments
-
They done this before in a limited capacity with fog whisperers in the past.
Considering the large amount of variance between what fog whisperers find enjoyable vs the majority of players value when they aren't apeing what a streamer's doing. It doesn't seem worth the extra hassle considering the schedule they work with.
1 -
Also there's way more killer mains for some reason between fog whisperers. To do this right (presuming it's fog whisperer's that would give feedback), they would have to balance their fog whisperer program first
0 -
The fog whisperer program is balanced considering the vast majority play both sides.
The issue is that survivors are non-unique and thus don't require that much direct attention. Survivor problems are usually related to a universal system.
1 -
I think the fog whisperers is close, but not quite what we need though. These guys don't meet together to discuss what is actually needed and come to conclusions, and it is publicly known who they are so they somewhat have to watch what they say. It can't be something public that streamers can use as a position of power.
We need some serious conversations to be had about the direction of where things are going besides just allowing them to play on the PTB. For example, the last two killers released have just created generally boring play.
BHVR needs to be talking to the fan base BEFORE they develop the new killers and it is already in programming stage.
0 -
We literally all told them here and on twitch streams and on YouTube comments that we didn’t want skull merchant to be released as designed. We keep telling them to address camping and tunneling. We keep telling them to address toxicity
the devs know exactly what the player base wants and do not acknowledge it
theres literally no point to this idea aside from good wishful thinking that won’t be fulfilled
1 -
You just need to take a look at this forum to see this is a horrible idea.
Streamers, no matter how good they are at the game are still players. Not game designers, not programmers. And there are plenty of good reason for not listening to the playerbase directly (because one thing is hearing what people says, other thing is listening and take for granted every single word they say, something I think BHVR should have learn when they nerfed Freddy).
In fact, I think BHVR should stop listening to the community all that much and dig deeper in the real problems of the game. Maybe they can learn a thing or two on how Iron Galaxy do (did) balance:
1:17:49 to 1:21:40 if the video don't start in the precise moment.
Post edited by Batusalen on1 -
Keep in mind that while we get new content every three months, they've probably been working on said content for the last 8 months or more. Adding in a focus group process not only adds in delay to the schedule, but also cost. Outside of people who are extremely passionate and decently monetized already no is going to nor should they engage in what is actual work without being paid.
Also, nothing stays secret forever and any "council" of people giving input for balance decisions will eventually be outed and harassed because as I said before, there is a big difference between what average joe and jane player want to see, what content creators and comp players want to see, and what devs tend to want to see. It's literally more trouble than it is worth for at best a minimal benefit.
0 -
Yes. Sure. Like Otz - 2-3 games at the beginning as a survivor and then whole stream as a killer. This clearly results in "balanced" ideas. Like not even mentioning huge rise of tunneling in 6.1 patch due to how DS got nerfed into uselessness...
And this is just one prominent example. Same thing can be said about most fog whisperers - technically they play both sides, but I don't even know one fog whisperer that plays more survivor then killer.
1 -
Great, then I can finally use the famous Mass Effect Quote.
The Council can kiss my Ass.
Anyway what makes you think those streamers have more viable ideas than the rest of the community? I am a large consumer, I have been with this game since 2016. I have more hours than most Streamers, Do I get invited to this 'council'?
What makes you think that bHVR isn't already in contact with "the masses" enough?
0 -
In fact, I think BHVR should stop listening to the community all that much and dig deeper in the real problems of the game.
This is a awful idea, but a well argued point, except bHVR does not do robotically what the Community asks for. They take their (sweet) time, look at the numbers and evaluate the performance. There is nothing wrong with looking at what the community thinks tho, useful things might come of it.
Like I think DH is too strong so I try to be constructive and give good critique, I know bHVR heard me, but they may have the numbers to prove me wrong so they wont use that idea, that is fine. But bHVR needs to know what we think of the game so they can make changes to fix the problem, even if what we ask for is bad and wrong.
1 -
That is why I said they need to hear the community, but not listen to the community. And even if I don't agree with the "They take their time" part and still thinks they are listening to the community a little too much right now, I agree with you.
In fact, after rewatching the video I posted it really surprise me how well the situation he described with the KI community can be applied to the current state of the "entitled" part of the DbD community as well.
2 -
Oh so you mean "listen" as in meaning to hear and do or obey? yayaya, we dont want want that from bHVR.
We are the FEEDBACK, not the directions.
1 -
You realize that there is something like 100 fog whisperers or more right? Like there are a ton of them who are long time dedicated survivor players. That doesn't even take into account former FWs who still make a ton of dbd content and the ones who make content for non English speaking audiences. There used to be a list on the forum before redesign. I have no idea where anything is now though.
0 -
I believe u that there are such people. I just don't hear about them. And don't take me wrong - I think they have some cool people in the program - like Spookyloops. But still. Those people that are a bit more known - all play just killer. And there will always be some inherent bias toward "your side".
Like in example saying it's fair in multiplayer game for one side to have 60% wins and other 40% making it THE goal.
0 -
Dude, we already talked about it. 60% killrate is 40% winrate for both sides in terms of MMR. I can't believe you still keep saying that 🤣
0 -
Killer plays 4 matches in 1 trial. 60% killrate equals 60% winrate.
In your argument it's still unfair. Survivors loose 60% while killer just 40% (btw this is bad math approximation, because combination numbers + interdependences, but so be it).
One way or another, 60% kr is just not fair
0 -
Are you really going to make me say it again? Fine:
In MMR terms, a victory for the killer is 3 kills in one match. 60% killrate means 240 survivors killed in 100 games (400 survivors total) or 2.4 survivors per trial, meaning killers wins and gain MMR in 40% of their matches.
As you said, in the case of the survivors each individual have it's own match against the killer. So, 40% escapes means 40% wins and MMR gaining for the survivors, as even if just 1 of them escapes that one won against the killer.
So, 60% killrate means 40% winrate for killers, 40% winrate for survivors. And unless they change the way the game works and start treating the 4 survivors as a team (it would be fun to see the saltiness generated by someone losing MMR because of the other survivors getting killed) it is the fairest it can mathematically be. Accept it already.
0 -
And again - considering YOUR take on it that I don't agree with (again - killer playing 4 games in 1 trial - something devs said when explaining MMR).
Even in your case I will repeat it once again. Killer looses 40% of games (because 2 kills is NOT loosing the game). Survivors loose 60% of games. Reread your own response and tell me it ain't so. And again - loosing more for one side is according to you fair? Why? Why should one side loose more and consider it fair?
1 -
Killer looses 40% of games (because 2 kills is NOT loosing the game). Survivors loose 60% of games. Reread your own response and tell me it ain't so.
Sorry but no, it ain't so because again, killers and survivors aren't playing the same kind of match. Killers are playing against an squad of 4 and needs to kill at least 3 people to get his MMR up. Survivors are playing each one an individual battle against the killer and doesn't matters how many of their partners dies, if he survives alone he won and his MMR would go up. So:
Killers = 1vs4, needs to kill 3 to win.
Survivors = 1/1/1/1vs1, needs to just escape itself to win.
That's why, again, a 60% killrate is 40% winrate for survivors, but not 60% of winrate for killers.
[...] considering YOUR take on it that I don't agree with.
This is not "MY" take, it is how the ranking system of the game works (and I know that it works this way because you told me and I looked up what the devs said). So what you are not agreeing to is to math. Stop the copium and accept the math, my friend.
0 -
Again. You are deliberately ignoring things. Killer DOES NOT loose 60% of games. Killer DOES NOT LOOSE MMR when he kills 2. So one more time. Killer looses 40% of games, while survivor 60%. Explain to me WHY THIS IS FAIR? I still haven't got 1 sensible reply ABOUT LOOSING. I am not saying WINNING. So again. Why 60% losses vs 40% losses is fair in your eyes. And how do you still not get that killer loss rate is NOT 60%? Ignore everything else and try to answer this 1 point I wrote you like million times.
0 -
Yeah fat chance that will happen. The only thing that happens to people who "care about the game" is that they get muted.
0 -
Because it is an asymmetric game where the rankings don't work equally for both sides, where the killer needs to do his job (kill at least 3) to win versus a team of 4 without exception, and even if he won he will lose their accessories. Survivors, even if one of them didn't do any single objective in all the match only need to escape himself to be considered a win for him, he will keep the items he brought or the ones that took on the map, and if it is the last survivor left he will be granted a free chance to escape.
And if all that didn't convince you, the biggest one: Because mathematically speaking it is the fairest it will ever be because the asymmetric nature of the game. If like you said they make it so killrates would be 40% it would be 160 survivors killed in 100 games, or 1.6 survivors per game, meaning killers would always lose or tie their MMR matches while survivors would have a 60% winrate.
How that sounds fairest to you than both sides winning the same on average? In fact, sorry, but only caring about loses when both sides are balanced in winnings only makes you sound extremely resentful.
0 -
win win win win win win win win win. NO. AGAIN. COMPARE LOSSES!
0 -
I already did, and I already told you why you can't have it your way and equalizing it by the amount of loses. In fact, just revert everything I said about wins so they are loses and it will stand the same.
At this point, you are either trolling or just in pure denial.
0 -
No. You are just ignoring HUGE part of equation. Losses are real. Losses feel much worse then draws. It's like. I don't even know who am I arguing with. Feels like it's impossible to explain to you that losses feel worse then draws. Wins != not loose. There is 3rd state. DRAW. The fact you are ignoring it is just so mindblowing it feels the same as saying "it feels better to loose then to win" or "0 kills is better then 4 for killer"
Also. Your math STILL doesn't check out. Because you are still thinking loose=not win. Which is just not true. For that reason - you are calculating nonsense.
0 -
Also. Matching losses is important. What do people complain about here? DH - which more often then not does literally nothing (e.g. exhausted on the ground, being in animation doing nothing). SWF (there are very few 4mans with comms so it should be just shrugged off as exception that does not matter). Then there's camping (there's a good tool against it with reassurance). CoH (ppl ignore fact that the perk can be more time waste then actual benefit).
What do these have in common? They feel very bad if they clutch the game against you - even if they don't work very reliably. But those games are just more memorable. So if people complain about it because bad = memorable, then WHY WOULD YOU ignore draws and only ever care about wins vs non-wins (yes non-win is not just loose)?
0
