Some thoughts on swf based upon various posts and a swf idea.
Make sure to read the entire thing before doing the usual knee jerk responses although the usual posters will still do the usual.
Ok here's some thoughts based upon many threads both here and in other forums about swf.
All swf groups aren't toxic no matte what the people complaining about them say, it's a complete impossibility to have 100%. In fact most swf groups aren't toxic the same as most killers aren't toxic. But perception here matters since if you get 1 or more bad games in a row then every game feels like it's toxic. There was several studies done a few years back that back this up since people felt games were toxic because they perceived them to be based upon prior games.
Using voice isn't cheating at all it's completely different from actual cheating so stop using that as an excuse, it make your argument look cheap. Actual cheating is stuff like aimbots, wall hacks, map hacks, speed hacks etc.
Killers are at a disadvantage versus swf but some of the solutions proposed won't solve the actual underlying issues which are game play related. Some of the more foolish ones such as removing all perks etc are just whine fests because you don't like the perk in general. The survivors have 16 perks nonsense is rubbish since not all 4 survivors are going to be running 4 different perks each.
Perks are meta right now because they're too good at what they do for each side and other perks are basically useless. For killers it's bbq, thanatobia, nurse's calling, etc. For survivors it's sb (don't have an issue with the exhaustion part), sc ( I advocated for the current incoming nerf), ds ( I don't use it and dislike it), and few others people use depending on person.
The emta will obviously change because of the changes which is good because if it never changed the game would stagnate and the outcry from those that rely on crutch perks is hilarious. I'ts hilarious because those complaining the loudest are the ones complaining about the other sides crutch perks.
You could nerf one side into oblivion and it would never satisfy the extremist complainers on the other side side which proves the old axiom. You'll never please everyone every time but you'll always displease someone.
SWF is here to stay and constantly whining about it does nothing nor will it ever, it just makes you look like a whiner when you offer no actual solutions. I've suggested various buffs or bonuses to the killer based upon how many swf there are in the group while not affecting the solo person. How many of the tilted killer mains can samy the same? There's not very many most have nothing but insults and complaints.
7.I've seen killers talk about lobby times from last year skyrocketing for survivors. Which brings up this interesting tidbit they completely ignore when wanting an opt out. The lobby queue times would then skyrocket again based upon that same logic since with fewer killers longer wait times. So for a small amount of the playerbase to get what they want the larger player base has to suffer.
The devs are never going to nuke most of their player base to appease a small amount of the playerbase, it's just not happening. This is a fact those asking for swf opt out never seem to appreciate. They'd be better to just shut the game down then waste time and money on doing something that'd probably end the game quicker.
- Now as to the above there's an alternate possibility but no guarantee it'd actually happen but it's still a possibility nonetheless. In some regions there's a disparity between killers and survivors as to how many play each side. This seems to be concentrated (assuming based upon the posts I've seen) on consoles, perhaps some consoles users could confirm this.
Quite often the posters have stated that they have a hard time finding a match yet if they swap to the other side say killer they find a match instantly and vice versa. I've seen this on pc at times where I can find a match as a survivor almost instantly in solo while other times I can wait in lobby for 20 mins and nada. The same has been true of killer side 1 time I create lobby and bam 4 survivors and other times 20 mins and nothing.
Deleted hardcore part of 9 so follow up is better.
Check out the new option for #9 in follow up post.
- Which brings me to the point about the alternative possibility that if an opt out happens it might not be the end of the world. While sure lobby times will skyrocket and some will leave some survivors will swap to killers for faster lobby times. The balance might even out and both sides of the remaining players will likely switch back and forth more often. That last part would be a positive since more people would understand both sides better. That's assuming the most positive outcome happens here.
Check out the new option for #9 in follow up post.
Comments
-
I'm out!
4 -
I thought it was well thought out and expressed. I agree with everything including Killers having the right to lobby dodge. 7. is the point that few seem to understand for every 1 killer you need 4 survivors. 8. We did have region lock for awhile. I was unable to play with/or against people in Asia/Australia and Europe but that ended.9. The game would still survive but not be nearly as popular or have the player base. Long lobby times will turn off many current and future players.
0 -
It would be interesting to see just what side came out on top.
I do not see the point of making people choose for life, or get another copy. Other then you believe your side would be the winner and the people who sided against you DESERVE to be punished for having the gall to have a different point of view.
I think when some new people try the game they aren't even sure what side they want to play. If you had your way they risk making the wrong choice at the start. Which would be a bad thing, because I doubt they would be willing to purchase a second copy at that point.
0 -
I read the whole thing, but I then I got to the "solution" at the end and I feel like I got trolled.0
-
@Outland said:
It would be interesting to see just what side came out on top.I do not see the point of making people choose for life, or get another copy. Other then you believe your side would be the winner and the people who sided against you DESERVE to be punished for having the gall to have a different point of view.
I think when some new people try the game they aren't even sure what side they want to play. If you had your way they risk making the wrong choice at the start. Which would be a bad thing, because I doubt they would be willing to purchase a second copy at that point.
@Baphomett said:
I read the whole thing, but I then I got to the "solution" at the end and I feel like I got trolled.The last part wasn't meant as a troll try but as a hard core choice that the devs might actually implement as a deterrent and as a warning. That if you're going to make them put so much time and resources into something that's clearly detrimental to the larger player base it should have a high risk attached to it.
Since if it doesn't work out like the killers want they'll immediately flock back to the current system and all that time and money would be wasted. The other side of that coin is that the remaining killers would be fewer and the solo queue lobby times would skyrocket just as bad.
New idea instead of 9.
Now one possibility that might make this work however in a completely different setting is dedicated hosted servers. These would work similar to current dedicated servers like say Rust insofar as they could be set to either solo queue or all. There wouldn't be an opt out per se but you'd get your choice of what type you'd like to connect to.
So if the lobby times are bad for the solo queue only servers they could get taken down 1 by 1 until more people are on a few servers instead of many. If it doesn't work out they can be shutdown and swapped to an open group server and or a few could be kept for solo only.
This solution would be much less costly in terms of both time, money and dev resources than the opt out options. It also wouldn't nuke most of the playerbase just to benefit a small minority.
0
