http://dbd.game/killswitch
Can we make maps bigger again?
Genuinely don't know how to play vs new killer on the new tiny maps.
Comments
-
That makes killers with mobility even better and killers without mobility even worse.
11 -
"Can we make the game feel awful for all M1 and low mobility Killers and hyper-buff the mobility Killers again?"
8 -
Making the map bigger does mess with low mobility killers.
I don't see how it buffs Blight though?
I mean I might be missing something, but like Nurse on Gideon, it might not be apparent until you do it/have it done to you.
0 -
As opposed to M1 and low mobility killers legit serving no purpose because they're outclassed anyways on smaller maps?
What changes aside from survivor experience?
3 -
I think we should have balanced maps that aren't awful for any side.
3 -
It's real simple Wolfy… we want the game to be fair for every Killer. It isn't fair that M1s and low mobility Killers are "outclassed" simply due to map sizes, what about people who genuinely enjoy Legion, or Trapper, or Ghostface, or Houndmaster? How is it fair to them to have huge maps? It's not.
Every map is fair for all Survivors because Survivors are just the same gameplay with different skins. It's fair no matter what map they're on. But it's 100% not fair to expect a Trapper to have to play on a large map that Billy doesn't have an issue with, just as it's not fair to expect Huntress to perform well in an indoor map.Survivors do not get screwed over like this on maps unless they are small or have few resources, something that's altogether not that common actually - I can count maybe three bad Survivor realms. Killers often do get screwed though, handed an instant loss situation in some cases, based on what map they get - I can count many realms bad for Killers depending on the Killer, for example if I'm Ghostface I know I'm gonna suffer if the map is bright (Eyrie, Cowshed) or large (Ormond Resort, Red Forest) or both. If I'm Dredge I know the map could be a problem if there's few lockers or a bad locker spread (Ormond, Hawkins). If I'm Pinhead I know aiming my chains is harder in indoor maps (RCPD, Treatment Theatre). And then there's also a handful of maps that all Killers struggle on unless they are mobility or high A to S tier, like Garden of Joy.
The truth is, playing as Killer, you are far more impacted by a bad map than when playing as Survivor, where you are more likely to be in a group and have people who can back you up. Big maps favor Survivors, more places to hide and run to with more places to create hard to pressure zones the Killer may struggle to handle. Bigger maps promote behaviors that the Devs have been trying to get rid of - hiding for a long time, creating deadzones, causing generator clusters the Killer has no choice but to cycle between until the kick limit is reached, etc. It's just not fun for anyone when the maps are too big, and it just clearly biases the game in the Survivor side's favor, which impacts kill rates, which the Devs are trying to fix for ALL Killers instead of simply hard nerfing or buffing across the board.
And that's why the maps cannot and should not be bigger again. Because it's just not a fair playing field for everyone, and disadvantages some players more just because they picked a certain character and their luck was crappy or someone offered the right map.Post edited by LockerLurk on6 -
Big Maps mean more space for the Survivors to have to run to. Mobility Killers like Blight and Billy can exploit the fact Survivors must cross long distances in the open, which is a buff - if maps big, Survs can get lost in them and thus waste time doing, gosh, anything.
This also means low mobility Killers like Myers, despite otherwise having pretty okay and even strong powers for most situations, get the shaft on big maps - they have to cross it like Survivors and that makes patrolling gens super hard.
You really should not HAVE to have a mobility power in this game to have fun as Killer or get any results, and the Devs are trying to work to fix that. Making the maps smaller is one fix for that. If certain Killers are too strong due to smaller maps, well, then they can fix the Killers and nerf them a bit instead.
0 -
It buffs mobility killers because it means the killer can get around the map quickly whilst survivors are slow which is critical when it comes to unhooks.
4 -
So Big maps mean more space to cover, and Blight and such killers cover it better therefore they are buffed by large maps.
Meyer's has a strong power? What?
I don't know if you should or should not need mobility to enjoy the game, but I can conclude its critical to performing well.
Anyways, Its hard to argue that Blight is not faster than survivors, but honestly, I struggle to accept large maps being a buff to such killers, I'd more likely phrase it as: those killers are indifferent to map size up to a point we haven't explored yet.
3 -
The new Ormond mines map is probably my favourite new map they've made in a while and I'd love more that size with lots to play around with.
5 -
While I don't think that maps need to be bigger (with maybe two exceptions), this is a pretty narrow view.
Survivors do not get screwed over like this on maps unless they are small or have few resources,
This is simply incorrect. While having fewer resources is certainly a factor that isn't necessarily dependent on map size, smaller maps can absolutely impact survivor play.
Midwich is the smallest map in the game, and has historically always been the "most lethal" map when they post stats. Haddonfield is literally a shoebox with basically no resources.
While it is easier to find survivors on some smaller maps, survivor resources are also designed to be consumable. Once those resources are used up, the playable area gets smaller. This is mainly for pallets and gens, but large maps can also create large dead zones.
There are actually two maps that are tied for "largest map in the game", at least by area. Mother's dwelling gets complained about because of size, but the other is sheltered woods. People don't complain about shelter because it has maybe 4 loops, shack, main building, and a whole lot of dead zones.
The truth is, playing as Killer, you are far more impacted by a bad map than when playing as Survivor
Possibly, but here's the problem: take survivors completely out of the equation.
The perfect map for huntress or nurse is open. Their counter is line of sight. So ideally they spawn into an open field with no obstructions and are perfectly happy.
The perfect map for, say, ghostface or Myers is the exact opposite: they need an approach that actively blocks line of sight so they can stealth in and stalk.
So right away, the perfect map for huntress is possibly the worst map for ghostie, and the perfect map for ghostie is maybe the worst map for huntress.
Bigger maps promote behaviors that the Devs have been trying to get rid of - hiding for a long time, creating deadzones, causing generator clusters the Killer has no choice but to cycle between until the kick limit is reached, etc
This is an incredibly skewed view.
A) they're actively fixing the "hide for a long time" problem. That's a non issue.
B) dead zones are supposed to be from using up resources, and that's by design. I'm not sure how you think this is a detriment for the killer, since pallets are single use, losing them means easier chases in that area, and killers literally have no consumable resources now that hooks respawn.
Unfortunately, you have maps like haddonfield which are tiny, somehow have almost nothing to work with for resources by default, that are simply awful.
C) generators don't always to end up in a cluster, it's part of the survivor macro game to try and avoid that, although things like rpd lobby spawning 2 gens can sometimes make that impossible to avoid.
Gens are supposed to be completed. I feel like I should say that again. It limits the play field and makes every maps playable area smaller, patrol area goes down. The only reason people include this reason with regard to maps is that big maps will generally get a gen done eventually, and modern killers seem to have this mind set that gens are their objective: if the game doesn't end with 5 gens standing, the killer somehow "lost" and survivors need nerfed further.
In fact, you thinking that kicking gens until the limit is reached is a natural result of gens being completed, basically reinforces that you probably think this way, and any gens being done is not just a bad thing, it's some kind of imbalance to be corrected by the devs. It's not. Killers can still win with a full 4k after gates are powered. Survivors cannot escape together without doing all of the gens.
-3 -
I don't understand people who say we shouldn't make bigger maps because of M1 killers. These same people always say we shouldn't balance the game around weak survivors because it makes SWF too strong. Yet we should balance all of the maps around the bottom 5-6 weakest killers even if it makes high tier killers too strong?
-5 -
That would be terrible. We need to be doing the exact opposite and start shrinking the remaining larger maps. Encouraging hold w gameplay is not good.
2 -
Are many maps actually getting that smaller? I can only think of three that got shrunk in the last couple years, so maybe I'm just missing the ones that shrunk otherwise.
Of those three, as well, only really one is a problem. Mother's Dwelling got shrunk but I think we can all agree that was an unreasonable outlier to begin with, Eyrie technically got a little smaller but not by a particularly substantial amount, and Haddonfield did shrink to a noticeably detrimental size.
That's more of a Haddonfield specific issue rather than a game-wide issue, though, so am I missing other maps that got smaller?
4 -
I agree. I done really understand how it’s hard after seeing majority of Autohaven maps.
1 -
Most killers don't have mobility, we are talking about killers without mobility specifically, not just m1 killers.
1 -
For the average Survivor team, Myers is a High C to low B. He's genuinely fine and gets better on small maps. On big maps he suffers especially if he has a lack of line of sight. His power is mid, but fine, it's decent in most applications except against very strong teams or on large maps since he lacks mobility.
Truth is friend, ALL Killers have perfectly fine, fucntional powers and there are no "weak" Killers. Just Killers that are weaker by comparison to others. All Killers can streak, 4k, etc. just fine, but depending on the type of Survivors or maps they get, some struggle more than others.
It's not a strength tierlist. It's a "how hard do you want Killer to be for you?" tierlist.0 -
I'd argue that only Haddonfield is problematically small, it could become a LITTLE bigger just fine. All it needed was some loops broken up to not be so strong against M1s, the MINOREST shrink imaginable, and removal of unneeded things that serve no purpose to streamline it. Right now it's kinda pathetic and none of the original issues have even been fixed on it.
0
