Idea for casual mode
Comments
-
like f13?
0 -
Yeah but better cause is dbd0
-
Survivors claimed that a non-SWF gamemode would kill the game, so......
0 -
@venom12784 said:
Yeah but better cause is dbdThis idea is terrible and created a lot of problems for every asymmetrical game that had it. Forcing people to play a role they don't want (or, alternatively, denying them the role they do want) is absurd.
2 -
Damn your right. ok ok I got it survior battle royal0
-
Well thanks for your inputOrion said:@venom12784 said:
Yeah but better cause is dbdThis idea is terrible and created a lot of problems for every asymmetrical game that had it. Forcing people to play a role they don't want (or, alternatively, denying them the role they do want) is absurd.
0 -
@Orion said:
@venom12784 said:
Yeah but better cause is dbdThis idea is terrible and created a lot of problems for every asymmetrical game that had it. Forcing people to play a role they don't want (or, alternatively, denying them the role they do want) is absurd.
Yeah it's the reason why I lost interest in Last Year: the Nightmare faster than I would have liked to.
0 -
Dude, this is already a casual game. What're stressed out because the game simply has ranks and tries matching you with people of similar skill/experience?
0 -
Terrible idea. Survivor or killer needs to be select able. People don't want a role forced on them.
0 -
@ad19970 said:
@Orion said:
@venom12784 said:
Yeah but better cause is dbdThis idea is terrible and created a lot of problems for every asymmetrical game that had it. Forcing people to play a role they don't want (or, alternatively, denying them the role they do want) is absurd.
Yeah it's the reason why I lost interest in Last Year: the Nightmare faster than I would have liked to.
Well, if you want to play killer you can vote. I often have games where i ask if i could be the killer and everyone who voted for being killer stopped their vote. So i got killer.
Never had it anytime that they didnt wanted to change.
The community is quite amazing in that game.
0 -
@KissyKissy I'm not stressed out about anything I really like the way the game is now. I have seen some posts asking for a different game type and thought of this one.0
-
wasnt this actually a game type at launch, but they scrapped it in favor of KYF? I seem to remember it being discounted by the devs early in the game's life.
0 -
What everyone needs to keep in mind is that this is being suggested as a separate game-mode, not in replacement of the base game-mode. People would play this mode if they can’t decide between Survivor or Killer, or they just want a surprise.
I really like this idea. The four Survivors and the Killer can be completely randomized. It chooses a random character from your specific character list, and uses whatever build you have on them at the moment to play. The lobby timer could be used for everyone to set up all of their characters in case they are selected.
The characters that each player has currently selected could appear next to each other in the lobby (even a Killer next to a Survivor or another Killer), but the characters that actually get played are randomized.Post edited by Ajritoka on0 -
@Blueberry said:
Terrible idea. Survivor or killer needs to be select able. People don't want a role forced on them.Okay, just to play devil's advocate for a second, the OP didn't suggest that this should be the only game mode available. There would be no change to ranked matches. So if you prefer the current system then nothing would change for you. The idea is for players that want to be in a more casual unranked match they can have an option.
Because, let's be real here. If they had a casual mode where people choose their role then lots of players would just abuse the system and play all try hard against what they hope would be weak opponents. However, if you don't know what role you are going to be then that is a little less likely.
I think a casual mode should go a step further even. For instance, all perks used by both survivor and killer are limited to rank 1. Items and addons would be limited to common or uncommon. Those kinds of limitations would really dissuade more competitive players.
0 -
@KillerRaccoon thank for you explaing it in a way of was not able too. I like the ideas that you have for picking for surv and killer.
I in no wayeant for this to replace the current mode just a separate mode.1 -
@Dreamnomad said:
@Blueberry said:
Terrible idea. Survivor or killer needs to be select able. People don't want a role forced on them.Okay, just to play devil's advocate for a second, the OP didn't suggest that this should be the only game mode available. There would be no change to ranked matches. So if you prefer the current system then nothing would change for you. The idea is for players that want to be in a more casual unranked match they can have an option.
Because, let's be real here. If they had a casual mode where people choose their role then lots of players would just abuse the system and play all try hard against what they hope would be weak opponents. However, if you don't know what role you are going to be then that is a little less likely.
I think a casual mode should go a step further even. For instance, all perks used by both survivor and killer are limited to rank 1. Items and addons would be limited to common or uncommon. Those kinds of limitations would really dissuade more competitive players.
Splitting the player base in half first of all, is a HUGE risk. There needs to be a heavy warrant for it. This scenario of random role assigns is splitting the player base for no reason at all, much less an important one. If we are splitting the player base it should be for something like a casual/ranked to fix the SWF problem. Like others have mentioned as well, no game that has had forced role assignments in asymmetrical has ended well. It is simply an undesirable way of handling game roles to the majority of the player base.
0 -
@Wolff_Bringer said:
@ad19970 said:
@Orion said:
@venom12784 said:
Yeah but better cause is dbdThis idea is terrible and created a lot of problems for every asymmetrical game that had it. Forcing people to play a role they don't want (or, alternatively, denying them the role they do want) is absurd.
Yeah it's the reason why I lost interest in Last Year: the Nightmare faster than I would have liked to.
Well, if you want to play killer you can vote. I often have games where i ask if i could be the killer and everyone who voted for being killer stopped their vote. So i got killer.
Never had it anytime that they didnt wanted to change.
The community is quite amazing in that game.Hmm interesting. I'm still thinking of getting it when it releases on steam. My other problem is though that it seems like I'll cause my team quite the disadvantage when not using voice comms, but I really don't want to use voice comms.
0 -
@ separate game mode
What everyone needs to keep in mind is that this is being suggested as a separate game-mode, not in replacement of the base game-mode
What I like about that suggestion is that those people who are open to the idea of playing both Survivor and Killer are REWARDED for their positive and helpful attitude to keep the game alive and enjoyable.
If YOU want to insist on only playing killer or only survivor or only SWF it should be YOU who suffers the longer waiting times and not everyone else who is willing to take on both roles.
@ Playing both sides
In other games with more diverse game modes it is not even up for debate if the player is attacking or defending. Attackers or defenders are randomly selected.
The more game modes a game offers the more it becomes necessary to remove the role choice from players because it would not be possible to have separate queueable game modes for all the variations.But all those variations and the constant switch of the role is what makes those games interesting and keeps them alive. Exactly because you cannot choose the role you play each round is interesting and different.
And the most important point:
When players have to learn to play both sides the constant lobbying to just improve one side will be a thing of the past as well.
1
