Map offerings should have been removed years ago..
... and I don't know why they are still a thing.
They add NOTHING positive to the game whatsoever. Survivors use them to send themselves to maps that are objectively survior-sided. Killers use them in order to pull off some rancid cheese strats that are 0 fun to play against.
Disable map offerings or go back to brown map offerings only, which slightly increased the chance to get sent to a certain map
Comments
-
alternatively, just make map offerings ban certain maps.
9 -
How about balancing the maps to be neither sided?
Or making the sacrifical wards be a brown and reimburse-able if no survivor brings in a map offering.
2 -
OP is this an issue with maps or map OFFERINGS?
If it's the maps then the focus is the maps. Not map offerings. Removing them will ultimately fix nothing.
0 -
It would equal less garbage in the bloodwebs. So it would help with that at least.
0 -
i like the idea for offerings to exchange the map rng. like pallets, windows, random stuff on the ground, day or night and light.
0 -
They take too long and when they do what you mentioned we got Gideons, Haddonfield, Badham 1-5, RPD, etc.
They suck at improving the maps.
0 -
Both are issues honestly.
Even if they rework every map there will always be one map that is stronger than the others, and people will still use offerings to give themselves and advantage.
And given how their most recent map reworks have gone... I think removing map offerings would be more beneficial than anymore reworks...
2 -
Suddenly all those Garden of Pain, Eyrie of Crows, Gideon Meat Plant, Badham, Shattered Square, Haddonfield, Ormond, Midwich and RCPD offerings will finally see some usage from me.
1 -
I 100% agree with removing the map offerings.
DBD undoubtebly has a map balance problem. But it also has almost 40 maps, and realistically making all of them balanced is pretty much impossible. Some will favor killer, some will favor survivor, that will always be a thing.
Having the ability to slap on offering and go to an exact map that favors one side is also a problem, but unlike the former it's very easy to fix.
1 -
People put far too much weight on map offerings. When they face a SWF who send them to a survivor sided map, was it a bad game because you got sent to a survivor sided map? Or did you lose because you faced a coordinated SWF who outplayed you?
Sure going to a map in your favour is a bonus, but so are offerings such as Petrified Oaks and Murky Reagents, the purpose of your one offering slot is to use it to give you a slight advantage. And that's all map offerings are, a slight advantage, the rest comes down to your ability to play your given role. It's entirely possible to win as killer or survivor on any given map, and the difference is more likely due to the skill level of your opponent.
If map offerings are the problem, that suggests that ending up on a given map without the use of an offering is not a problem.
If you end up on Haddonfield naturally, is it better than ending up on Haddonfield via a map offering?
- If no, then the problem is the maps themselves, not the offerings.
- [Solution: balance maps better, however if they were truly so imbalanced, this would be reflected in kill rates]
- If yes, then the issue is perception, and you'd be just fine not knowing if there was a map offering in play.
- [Solution: make map offerings hidden]
Losing map offerings removes a gameplay mechanic for all of the casual players who aren't fussed about meta or optimisation, who simply want to experience a given map, or play a niche build like Mirror Myers.
Removing gameplay options is a trend towards a boring, generic game where every match ends up being the same meta builds.
0 - If no, then the problem is the maps themselves, not the offerings.
-
Definitely remove them. I had 2 RPD offerings in a row. Fabulous when playing huntress :(
2
