Map bans.
There are certain maps in the game that are quite atrocious for both killers and survivors. There's no objective gameplay reason for lower tier killers to have to sit through maps like Haddonfield or for survivors to sit through Wrecker's Yard.
A basic system like having each side pick two maps to ban before starting the match would do wonders for improving both sides' enjoyment of the match. Keeping track of map bans would also possibly help identify which maps should get reworked in the future.
Comments
-
That would lead to most killers choosing Haddonfield and most Survivors choosing Gideon's. Both are perfectly adequate to play in, and frankly balanced, but each side feels at a disadvantage in those respective maps.
Coldwind, btw, has the highest survival rate, and despite Nurse/Billy/Spirit being the top tier it's Hag who has the most frequent 4ks. What people feel about balance and what the numbers actually dictate differ, so trying to glean the latter from the former is a bad idea.
0 -
My perspective in this is that it should determine based of the killer slightly. For example say myers is really bad at Rotten Fields. Since the stalk is kinda blocked by corn. The map system adds a 'bonus' of chance to maps that are more balanced or favors myers. However, this wouldn't remove the chance at rotten fields. It just becomes less likely. That way you don't lose because you are playing X killer on Y map. Like Huntress on Yamaoka.
That or it gives no preference to any map and it is total RNG. So Haddonfield has the same chance as Rotten Fields.
1 -
Bonus Idea: allow both a normal offering and a map offering as separate slots per player.
That way more people will play map offerings they want, and they would overall be more appealing in the bloodweb.
2 -
Very nice idea @ElusivePukka Then we can have two rows on the offering screen. One for the normal offerings one for maps.
1 -
And just like that, The Game map has never been seen again...
0 -
The issue with that is; survivors outnumber the killer by 4:1. Only one survivor would have to burn an offering while the killer would have to burn one every time. As the killer, you would run out of offerings fairly quickly while survivors only need to use one in 1/4 games on average.
2 -
@Peanits weigh the killer's offering as like worth 3 survivor offerings? I mean there can be counter balance. Like if I own 20% of a company and you own 80% your word matters more. The killer is a condensed team they should be valued as such. That or say 3 of us pick game map and 2 people pick haddonfield. If we load into haddonfield the people that used the game offering doesn't lose their map offering. I mean you will eventually get the RNG in your favor.
4 -
Considering the Oak offerings, yeah. Killer offerings have precedent as being worth more - 1 Putrid Oak is worth 3.5 Petrified Oak. Plus, if conflicting offerings were truly returned, maps ought not be burned - frankly, the fact that unused map offerings are burned seems an oversight rather than deliberate game design.
0 -
In other words, survivors should have offerings that Slightly increases their chances to get sent to a certain map, while the killer gets offerings that tremendously increases their chances to get sent to a certain map. I like that idea! The killer's offerings should be a lot stronger than a single survivor using their offering! :)
0 -
Make offerings for “not this map”.
1 -
@NMCKE this is how I would do it personally.
For example: If the survivors put in 3 macmillian and 1 haddonfield offerings while the killer put in lerys.
The RNG based thing adds 3 blocks for macmillian, 1 for haddonfield, 3 for lerys, and a Another map block which will be a randomized map and location. This way the killer has potential in getting what they want the majority of offerings has a chance, even the solo haddonfield has a chance. If all else fails and they all got rekt they get a random map. This makes it not a guarantee but a better increased chance. However, if the map happened to be that RNG based one I would make it slightly less favorable for the maps that the killer is particularly weak on. As I stated above Rotten Fields for Myers.
Edit: However, this does not make it so myers would never get rotten fields just a little bit less common. Idk what system they are currently using for the map selector. However, I have had games where I played the same map 3/4 times in a row which makes me question how this would even happen.
1 -
Sadly, this would cause a bloodweb bloat issue. @rina We use to have addons that Slightly and Tremendously gave chances to go to a map. However, this made 2x/map offerings which again bloated the bloodwebs in map offerings. You would cause the same having 1 let's go to and 1 get away from map offerings.
0 -
True, but there is a way around this: Make map offerings (and perhaps all OTHER offerings as well).... Reversible. A Coldwind Farm offering increases your chance for that map... a REVERSED Coldwind Farm offering makes that map effectively banned.
Mist offerings: Why have offerings for both more and less mist for everyone, we could reduce it to one type and whether it increases or decreases the mist depending on whether it's reversed.
It doesn't have to always be the opposite, just for certain offerings. For BP offerings, for example, maybe you can go back and forth between "25% extra bloodpoints for everyone!" and "100% bloodpoints for me!"
With Moris, you can give the killer an alternate benefit, maybe a reversed red Mori gives some benefit if all the survivors are still alive at the endgame or something, IDK. Really, all kinds of options you could do, there are so many decent ideas for offerings that people have but the big reason against them is 'bloodweb bloat'... but if you make all the offerings double duty, you get the best of both worlds.
0
