Behaviour Not Reducing Solo/SWF Gap
Comments
-
- I'd like to make an edit to the idea of "all survivor auras are revealed to each other always:
If a survivor or multiple survivors are in the killer's terror radius their aura should not be shown even to other survivors in the terror radius. That said universal aura reads seems a little too strong, I'd prefer if Bond was made a base stat and everyone could see each other's auras within a certain range
0 -
If you and 3 other survivors can't find 5 totems before the game is over, your definition is bad needs to be re-evaluated.
NOED is a catch up mechanic that gives a lesser experienced player a fighting chance and is completely counterable by experienced players who aren't lazy. Catch up mechanics are part of game design 101 and are an accepted standard in the industry. See also the Mario Kart Blue Shell and the CoD n00b tube.
The player who truly is a problem is the one who cannot counter a simple catch up mechanic.
0 -
This game needs a SERIOUS totem revamp before totems can even be considered something that resembles a second objective.
It's just better to ignore them and hope the killer is good enough to not run NOED.
0 -
People who defend this abomination don't see it as a catchup tool.
And it's better for players to learn the damn fundamentals instead of relying on NOED. If anything, it makes bad players worse.
0 -
I see it as a catch up tool and am defending it.
What do you think I see it as?
Especially since I don't use it as I'd rather have 4 perks active at all times than 1 that is active for less than 5% of the game's time.
0 -
what idiot would ignore a totem? If someone is that stupid then I hope killer runs noed to teach them a lesson
0 -
tbh most of the anti swf stuff here is trash, however I do like the idea of a "blind" mechanic but would need work etc and kill some perks
0 -
This is exactly my point
There are 4 survivors. Why is it so hard for each of you to find at least 1 totem a game?
NOED is for newbies to have a fighting chance against experienced players. Experienced players should be good enough to counter it - but they refuse to.
Laziness - pure and simple - on the part of people who attack this perk rather than counter it and ensure that the killer played the entire game 1 perk short.
0 -
It's clear the devs have no idea how to balance this game (an exaggeration, but still relatively true).
Either that, or they are unwilling.
I really hope they start taking game balance serious in the near future.
0 -
Mainly I think it comes down to the fact that BHVR has possibly the most frustrating approach to balance that I've ever seen.
We, as players, never see anything until it's like 95% decided and set in concrete.
They talk and talk and talk about what they're thinking about, but where other games would trial those changes in patches, or make small adjustments over time, DBD doesn't change until it's a major overhaul.
End game was an issue and they talked about a tonne of potential tweaks, but none of them happened until EGC. Same with 10 different DS reworks. They identified about 5 tweaks to the dream transition that would've made Freddy bearable for the last year since they brought them up. Whether they happened internally or not, it's incredibly unsatisfying for the playerbase to sit with really ######### mechanics with no attempt to alter them until they're COMPLETELY satisfied with a rework.
It would be so much better to at least have small changes, or even test ones they aren't sure on, rather than just keep telling us "we're thinking about it."
1 -
Totems are supposed to be hidden. In the new Badham you actively need to look for them.
Actively looking for totems is nowhere near optimal.
Good players ignore it and IF the killer has NOED they either leave (and no one gets points and the killer doesn't pip anyway) or find the lit totem only.
The totem system needs to improve quite a lot before it's considered an objective, period.
3 -
Do people not realise that the devs want to buff solo survivors in order to buff killers? They are making solo players as strong as SWF so that they can balance killers around SWF groups.
0 -
This would be more believable if killers were not getting opaque re-designs where people are left guessing the purpose and all consensus is being formed purely on novelty-factor alone. That is where we are with new-Freddy right now; a character seemingly re-designed for no reason other than to get rid of old-Freddy because survivors weren't having enough fun with him.
It would be more believable if the devs didn't buy into the nonsense spouted by some streamers that survivors are balanced because 'not everyone plays optimally', but killers are nerfed on that basis whilst also being measured in terms of high-rank performance when it suits them. The double-standard has to be binned by the devs, vocally.
0 -
Could you please explain how that had anything to do with what I said?
0 -
I am only one, I do not have control over what the other 3 survivors do, since I usually play solo. If I play SWF, it is just me and a single friend anyway, the other 2 are unknown. Still, that doesn't change the fact that whoever needs NOED is just baseline bad, cheap and unskilled, there's no arguing over that. Period. Enough with you people defedning it, you are just as skilled as someone using macro on console is. Hush now, I don't want to hear a single other world coming out of you killer mains.
0 -
Any statement regarding 'what the devs want' or 'what the devs say' needs to be weighed against the facts of 'what the devs have actually done', because that is the only indicator we have of their future behaviour.
If the devs really wanted what you say(and what makes you think that it is true?), there's a whole load of things which have happened that don't make sense if it's true.
0 -
An example of that being?
0 -
I don't doubt that many people who mostly play the killer role would be uncomfortable with the idea of 'totem counter' or 'base kindred.' The fact of the matter is, eradicating the gap between solos and SWF (by providing solos with information so that everyone has the same amount of intel) means that it would be as if current killers will be forced to play against 4-Man SWF 100% of the time, which the game has never been balanced for. DBD will no longer be a 'hidden information' game, but more of a team-action game (in which it already is for SWF players.)
So yes, if the killers aren't massively buffed as solo catch up to SWF, then the game will remain heavily unbalanced, and they absolutely have the right to complain. I believe the developers already understand this.
If people don't mind, please refrain from continuing to debate about the effectiveness and use of NOED, or any other perk. It seems to lead to personal attacks, and as I've mentioned before, I would like this thread to remain on topic, which is about the direction that the developers have already chosen for balancing SWFs, and why it's seemingly taking them so long to actually take any action on it. I believe there are actually many other threads that actually discuss the merit of NOED and other perks, so please take your discussions in there.
1 -
Kindred is a bit too much really.
SWF knows that someone is going for the save. They don't know each others exact location.
That would be too much information. Maybe some kind of ping system would work so survivors can share simple messages between each other like: "I'm getting chased" or "I'm going for the save"?
Wouldn't that pretty much remove the gap between SWF and soloes?
0 -
@pandapandabear Everything should have a valid counter on the both sides otherwise one side will get bored of the [BAD WORD] and quit. :)
0 -
Actually, because the hooked person is able to see everyone's aura, currently SWF can communicate to everyone the approximate location of all other survivors.
But knowing the exact locations of survivors aren't really necessary though. The important information that SWF can share amongst each other is 1. which direction (generator or survivor) the killer is heading towards, 2a. who should go save the hooked person (usually dependent on how close they are, but also on whether they have perks that may help such as 'Borrowed Time' or 'We'll Make It') and who should stay on generators, 2b. and how many should come for the save (1, if the killer leaves, 2, if light camping, or 0 if hard camping.)
Ping system with messages would probably be fine, except in addition to yours, I would add messages such as, "I'll be bait," "Killer is going towards... [person] or [location]" "Killer is camping." as well as making sure there is a way for every player to know if certain players have perks like the ones mentioned above. I'm sure there are other helpful messages that SWF can give each other in the game's current state that I haven't thought of.
1 -
Well, everyone who was here in 2016 does know the devs said they 'never want anyone to feel absolutely safe, there should be no place on the map where that is actually the case'.
A few weeks later, they buffed pallets to make them exactly that and pallet-looping was born.
There's also the time killers lost auras for hooks with survivors on them. They just no longer appeared, so we could no longer see where we had hooked someone if we left. The devs said it was a bug they were working on fixing, until a few months later when they said it was a deliberate change they had no plans on reversing. One day the patch-notes said they had fixed the 'bug' with hook-auras. We never found out which version of these two conflicting narratives about it was true.
I can go on, but I'm still waiting to hear where the devs have expressed any clear indication at all that they are taking planning on closing the gap between solo and SWF, or if this is just yet another vague remark they may have said and then never answered any questions about or given details. It's almost as if they do this just to placate people and have no real plans beyond shovelling DLC.
3 -
Timestamp 46:17 - 47:33
It is even stated that propositions like that have been previously mentioned
0 -
Right now their attention is on dedicated servers and the archives.... we wont be seeing any bridging for awhile I think
0 -
Of course they've been previously mentioned, but they still have nothing to show for it and it's been years. They're still only 'exploring' options and barely having any dialogue with players about it at all.
If they're worried about backlash, that's even more reason to be debating with players, not avoiding it.
0 -
Why would they bring solo up to SWF? SWF breaks the game so you want solos running around getting 3-4 man escapes every round? What they should do is nerf SWF and give solo's a buff or incentive to play alone rather than to group up.
0 -
As I stated above, bringing solo survivors up to the level of SWF groups would allow the devs to buff killers accordingly. The reason that they are so hesitant to make killers strong against SWF is because solo survivors would have no chance of escape. Buffing solo players means that SWF don't have a big advantage over solos, meaning that killers could be made more powerful without ruining the game for solo players.
2 -
That makes no sense since hypothetically speaking if solos were as strong as SWF what happens when they decide to group up and run a SWF? This means that they would be much more stronger. This all could be solved by nerfing SWF and giving solos individual buffs to make the experience better.
0 -
Hey Mellow7,
I've talked about a bit about this on the second page, but I'll explain it again in a bit more simpler terms.
The main advantage of SWF is the 'information' they obtain from each other. Otherwise, they would be the same as Solo. In other words, each player is: [Solo] + [Info] = one member of [SWF].
The idea that Behaviour "said" they are going to do is to add [Info] to each of the [Solo] players. In this case, even if each of the [Solo + Info] player groups up to form a SWF, they actually won't benefit more than keeping themselves separate because they have already obtained the same [Info] that [SWF] does.
The problem with nerfing [SWF] is that their very existence promises extra [Info]. In other words, it is impossible to nerf [SWF] - [Info] to = [Solo]. So instead, the developers would have to substitute some other negative effect [E] to bring [SWF] down to the [Solo] level. In other words they have to make [Solo+Info]-[E] to create an equivalent of [Solo]. But because [Info] and [E] are different, even if the developers are able to find a suitable replacement for that particular version of the game, as new patches with new maps, killers, features, and perks are added to the game, the [E] may become too strong or too useless, in comparison to [Info].
For example, let's say the developers chose to slow down SWF's running speed where SWF' survival rate falls down to Solo's. But after a few patches, they decided to change the game where Survivors' running speed stops affecting the result of the game as much as it used to - for example, defaulting to smaller maps. If that becomes the case, SWF with their Info resumes becoming the strongest again, and therefore would need to become nerfed again. And so on and on, as the game adds new contents with each new patch.
Hopefully, that helps explain the "why." Of course, the developers actually haven't done much to balance SWF even after three+ years, so it may not even ever get to that point, and all of this talk about it is just a pointless venture.
1 -
It's not just 'information' that gives SWF an advantage. It is very important, but if you gave solos the exact same information advantage that SWF currently have, it still wouldn't make them close to 1:1 in their marginal advantages.
For example, it has been established since week 1 of this game that waving your arms on the hook means 'the killer won't leave, do the damn gens'. How often do you see survivors behaving as if they understood what it meant, even in high-ranks?
The main advantage of SWF is even if they don't speak a word, they know they can depend on each other. They will have played together often and will understand each others capabilities and habits, something which that doesn't even come across with direct communication. Because of this they are more able and willing to work for their collective benefit and enjoyment. If you could tell another random player to please let themselves finish on the hook so you can take the hatch, they're less likely to cooperate with this than someone you are in a premade with.
SWF groups form SWF habits and solos form solo habits, which diversify according to ranks but are still distinct from SWF. DbD encourages many bad-habits in solos and attempts by the devs to implement features or change perks so that they affect player behaviour has a patchy record. I'd argue that killers have high-conscienciousness, so engage with behavioural nudging even when they resent it, but survivors don't.
DS was changed to nudge killers away from going after people who have just come off a hook(the devs didn't think to adjust BT to balance this in any way) and now works repeatedly. That is what killers are doing, despite the window for survivors to use it for griefing. Then Mettle of Man had a change to influence survivor behaviour and they've simply stopped using it altogether.
The devs need to explain these decisions better. If they're going to 'nudge' us, they should ask us about how we feel about it first.
1 -
...
Post edited by Junkrat on0 -
Yeah, it's a bummer that they didn't close the gap yet. :(
2 -
Why is it that everyone assumes killers should foot the bill for solo player convenience? We already had pig lose her best playstyle..enduring got trashed , keys no longer have a reliable counter as hatch grabs no longer exist..remember me got nerfed to hell..all for the convenience of someone else..surely theres a more fair solution
1
