Unpopular opinion time...
I honestly think the game is pretty balanced right now.
That's simply my perspective. Killer main, for every 4 times I play a killer, I play as a survivor. Never played SWF or with coms. Never ranked past 10.
My experience is vastly different from other members that post on these forums. My success as a killer and a survivor is all over the place.
I believe a small amount of players (but very vocal) are the ones who feel there are problems with the game. And it may very well be true above rank 10.
Speaking plainly.....as a killer, I've gotten 4ks and 0ks. Sometimes it's easy, other times it's almost impossible. To me, this tells me balance is almost achieved. What are my expectations? To me, killers that consistently get's 2ks per trial is right about where I would expect balance.
I believe people are becoming too focused on outcomes.
The experience is now lost on the results. Some of the most fun I've had, only resulted in 1 or 2ks. Survivors were smart and resourceful. I was outmatched and it didn't mean the game was broken. It means I made difficult decisions. bad decisions. I lost sight of my objective. And it was completely worth it to facecamp the player with the "twitch" name afflicted with weak thighs, causing them to spasm with every pallet toss.
Comments
-
The game "feels" balanced around Rank 10 because people are more chill and don't super tryhard at those ranks. Most players will tell you that that is the best experience in the game, myself included. Once you get to Rank 8 and above, you start seeing the problems. I implore you if you are a Killer main to get to the high ranks.
The problem is, most Survivors still do not care about getting killed at the end of the day. As long as you made enough to pip, death does not matter. Kills are an inaccurate way of gauging the balance simply because Survival and Death means absolutely nothing. Sure, it might mean more NOW for Ranking, but that is matchmaking, not balance.
I'm a Survivor main, so I can see the problems with my own eyes. Sure, most Survivor mains are not gods. But a user I disagreed with on here said the exact way I feel: the game needs to be balanced around what both sides are capable of.
Currently, Survivors are capable of getting all 5 gens done in just about 3 minutes. That's not an exaggeration, that is simple math. 80 seconds for a gen, 3 people will get 3 gens done in a minute and twenty seconds. Most Killers at high rank will not get a hook that quickly because of how powerful pallets remain in the game. This is exactly why so many Killers run ruin, but Totems are weak as they are because you can literally spawn right next to one. Not to mention you can run with a group of friends and relay the Killers position, in a game that is balanced around solo survivors. McLean, a game dev, even outright stated the game was not balanced. You cannot reasonably say the game is objectively balanced when even the devs acknowledge it isn't.
You experience is vastly different because you are not a high rank Killer. Until I get to about Rank 8, I 4k nearly every single game. That isn't because I'm a god or because the Killers I play are overpowered, it's because Survivors will run to save their buddy and not care about their death, which gets everyone killed. It's because Survivors do stupid things like get mori'd by a tombstone Myers right at the gate instead of leaving like a smart person. It's because they consider DC's currently in their Kill statistics which they use for balancing.
As a Survivor main, I purposefully downplay my abilities because of how unfair I believe the game to be in my favor. It's honestly ridiculous the lengths I have to go to in order to get a challenge. I can play all the way to red ranks using 0 perks whatsoever with relative ease, this is how easy Survivor is. I almost never have to actually try in order to pip or Survive.
I 100% disagree as a Survivor main. The game is completely unbalanced. Just because most survivors are potatoes doesn't meant the game is balanced. It needs to be balanced around potentials.
9 -
You are correct. The vocal ones are those who have played past Rank 10. We’re mostly competitive by nature. The fact is, for us, the outcomes are what matters to players like us. (Myself included)
The problem lies in balancing the game for the causal players and the competitive hard cores like myself. Though in any game, PvP most of all, you always balance for the top. You make sure that victory is achievable no matter the opponent, as long as you are skilled. You always balance the game on what the maximum potential.
Right now, the issue is that the developers are balancing the game too much for casual play. Of that, it’s the Survivors playing casual simply because they are the majority player base. This leaves the game for hard core Survivors far too easy. It’s a run away game most of the time if you get a SWF team of hard core players. This leaves hard core Killers with near on unbeatable odds. The only execption being Nurse. Her odds are better, but not by a massive amount.
The experience means little to hard core players when all the experience and time invested in getting good at the game means nothing. It’s like working really hard at your job, but you get passed up for a promotion because the owners son wants the position, even though he only started last week and has no clue what he’s doing. As Killer, the better you get, the more you are punished. It gets to the point where the only way you win is by the Survivors making many, many mistakes. It’s not a very fun experience when your skill is irrelevant in the face of overpowered game mechanics.3 -
4k being easy is because the survivors do ######### up a lot.
4k being impossible is due to very low ######### ups.In any case : the game outcome is mostly due to the number of survivor's ######### ups.
As long as they play accordingly, you feel like the round is "almost impossible" for you, which proves the balance isn't yet to be achieved.The game is possibly too hard to play for newcomers and bad survivors, but sure is too easy for experienced survivors as well, because even if you can make some mistakes to happen from the survivor's side with decent play as killer, you're still very limited in term of opportunities due to the 3rd person vision of survivors.
So I disagree : the balance is far from achieved.
Both ranks are still getting destroyed by killers, and high ranks are still dominated by survivors.
As you stated, you play around rank 10, where it's mostly "average matches", maybe where the "balance" lands, balance due to the average play of players in the round.3 -
No matter the rank honestly, in the end it depends on the mistakes of the survivor. If they play smart, they typically survive. If they make stupid mistakes, they die. I was extremely competitive when I first started, constantly within the top 5 ranks each month. Then the grind of the lack of balance started to get to me. I went to a more casual game style (also my wife killer does not help out my pips). I think in the last 3 months, the highest rank I hit was 9. The balance was killing my desire to be competitive, now I just play and enjoy. That is honestly rather sad.
0 -
@FSB75 said:
I believe people are becoming too focused on outcomes.This is the real takeaway. Honestly, seeing killers complain after consistently getting 4ks (I'm looking at you, tru3), it's clear that it's less of a "impossible to win" sort of deal, and more of a perception issue.
As a survivor, I could not care less if I die. It's about having fun. Being chased is fun, doing jukes is fun, narrowly dodging is fun, and blowing up gennies to ######### with friends is fun. And I die/lose pretty ######### often.
But the ultimate problem is that being killer is not fun for many people. I think the devs need to look at veteran player style of play (once they fix ranking distribution and true performance checks), and find out how to make it more thrilling and fun. I can list off complaints, but I think we are all aware of the main glaring issues in gameplay.
2 -
@Visionmaker
For all his faults, Tru3 is right though. Once a team of Survivors hits a certain level, you can’t win unless they screw up many, many times. It gets to the point your Skill as Killer is irrelevant. Just like him, I can 4K. However it has nothing to do with how well I play, or any Killer plays. If the Survivors don’t screw up, and don’t screw around you will lose 95% of the time (Marth Depip Squad shows this).
In no PvP game should one side have the power to just say “Screw having fun guys, lets just decimate and win.” Having the power to do that. You become totally at the mercy of the Survivors making mistakes, or dicking around like a bunch of baffons.1 -
@SovererignKing said:
For all his faults, Tru3 is right though. Once a team of Survivors hits a certain level, you can’t win unless they screw up many, many times. It gets to the point your Skill as Killer is irrelevant. Just like him, I can 4K. However it has nothing to do with how well I play, or any Killer plays. If the Survivors don’t screw up, and don’t screw around you will lose 95% of the time (Marth Depip Squad shows this).I can't tell if you've formed that own conclusion or are just parroting streamer's opinions. If you watched any of his games, you can see that he has incredible mechanical and technical skill that he uses to outsmart survivors. He also sacrifices many opportunities by making bad decisions in periods of his gameplay.
Constantly, he whines about being "optimal", at the same time making terrible strategic choices, trying to outsmart perks that they don't have, missing blinks, hatchets, losing survivors, allowing a pallet to be used multiple times etc.
Thinking that Marth's depip squad justifies externalizing the killer's role in the game is a joke and an excuse to make people feel better. There is massive disparity in Rank 1s, and there's a bigger ego and perception issue. Again, I think you should watch his stream. The fact that he takes people down consistently should let you know that you cannot base your conclusions off of his spiels.
Anyone can see that Marth's experiment is far from representational. At most, it is food for thought, and at worst, it is entertainment. It is not your proof that the game is unbalanced, and not your shield against responsibility in games you lose or do not enjoy.
3 -
@FSB75 said:
I honestly think the game is pretty balanced right now.That's simply my perspective. Killer main, for every 4 times I play a killer, I play as a survivor. Never played SWF or with coms. Never ranked past 10.
My experience is vastly different from other members that post on these forums. My success as a killer and a survivor is all over the place.
I believe a small amount of players (but very vocal) are the ones who feel there are problems with the game. And it may very well be true above rank 10.
Speaking plainly.....as a killer, I've gotten 4ks and 0ks. Sometimes it's easy, other times it's almost impossible. To me, this tells me balance is almost achieved. What are my expectations? To me, killers that consistently get's 2ks per trial is right about where I would expect balance.
I believe people are becoming too focused on outcomes.
The experience is now lost on the results. Some of the most fun I've had, only resulted in 1 or 2ks. Survivors were smart and resourceful. I was outmatched and it didn't mean the game was broken. It means I made difficult decisions. bad decisions. I lost sight of my objective. And it was completely worth it to facecamp the player with the "twitch" name afflicted with weak thighs, causing them to spasm with every pallet toss.
I'll try to address my opinion on most of your points but might skip a few we'll see:
Game is Balanced + Your Rank:
You are simply contradicting yourself in this part you're saying the game is balanced but you're not even rank 1 which is what the game should be balanced around now into if it actually is balanced or not we'll get into in a bit.
Your Success is All Over the Place + People Having Problems May be the Ones Above Rank 10:
Yes they are above rank 10 that's why they're complaining..... the games chance a lot different from rank 10 to 1 but the point is the game should be balanced around the players who have been playing for a while AKA rank 1's balancing the game around new players is just the dumbest thing ever when you first start playing a game you should be getting completely obliterated until you learn how to play. And yes you are going to get easier wins at rank 10 as for losses you have to be playing a weak killer to lose at rank 10 unless you're playing against a good SWF which is an extremely rare thing to happen normally not all 4 players are extremely good. By weak killer I mean any killer besides Nurse, Billy, and Huntress sure some of the others aren't "weak" but they'll still lose against a decent team of survivors.
Some of the Most Fun You Had was 1-2k Games:
This is simply an opinion some people who like to win are going to be more frustrated in the games they do bad in whether it's from unbalance or being simply outplayed some people like to win a lot others have fun just playing the game it depends on who you are.
Killers Getting Consistently Getting 2ks Per Trial is Balance and People Are Too Focused On Outcomes:
A Killer in a Game is Supposed to be the Power Role they're supposed to decide how the game is going to go down meaning if they make mistakes they won't get their 4k but if they make none they should get it I'm not saying every killer ever should be getting 4ks no if you make absolutely no mistakes you do deserve to have it the killer is supposed to be the power role in a game like this but that is not the case BUT some killers do have power which I'll mention later. Also someone cannot be "too focused on outcomes" it depends on who you are.... are you playing to get a 4k? Maybe even a 2 or 3k but if you do worse than that those players will be upset which they have a right to do because the game should be balanced around the killers they play. Notice I say the killers they play I'm not saying all killers are weak which what I said I'll get into later.
Balance:
The game is balanced if you're playing certain killers but still for one of these 3 killers you'll need a certain perk BUT every other killer that I am not going to be mentioning are too weak and will not win against average to great survivors which is not how the game should be all killers should be strong enough to win if they play correctly.
Nurse:
Does NOT require any specific perks can blink and completely avoid pallets/windows if you play this killer AND get good with her you will win most of your games if you slug correctly though even I as a killer main will say this killer is to strong especially with certain perks + add ons
Billy:
Does NOT require any specific perks BUT BBQ will make him much stronger. He quickly downs survivors with his chainsaw as long as the survivor is not near pallets and doesn't have Sprint Burst and with Billy keeping your chainsaw rev'd at 1% when survivor runs through pallet can potentially give you a free backrev depending on the size of the loop or if you have add ons but he does not really need add ons
Huntress:
DOES require Ruin if you want to 4k though she is still really strong and can potentially 4k a lot of games without it but if the survivors are good enough you will still lose without it.
Now to address overall balance yeah it's in no way balanced any other killer can get owned by good teams yet you're supposed to be the power role and if you make no mistakes you should be winning.Face Camped Twitch Streamer:
I will not tell you to not face camp but if you have to resort to that because of unbalance or you simply getting outplayed it's well..... it shouldn't happen it's just boring to do and it's extremely unfun for survivors and I'm saying this as a killer main but go ahead and keep doing it if you want I'm not trying to stop you but having to resort to that sucks to be honest.
2 -
The main issue about "4ks" is that they do not feel satisfying as killer.
You do not feel like you truly outplayed the survivors in most cases. They just ######### up a lot, and you punished it, which leaves a weird taste (not semen or salt tho, just bittersweet).Sometimes, you do have great games, you pull out great moves, players were great, and you barely managed to 4k and it felt good. Some games where you didn't even kill anyone, or only killed one person, can actually feel pretty good. The number of kills is rather irrelevant (even if not entirely), a lot of killers just complain about how lacking the game is about their own control of the outcome in most situations.
It's just really hard if not impossible to pressure multiple GOOD survivors at once, which can prove to be very frustrating if experienced repeatedly.
And most games, for both sides, are rather poor overall, which makes the taste even worst at times.I'm not saying I want easier 4k, but I just want less frustrating games overall, with more fun, even if it means less kills.
5 -
@Visionmaker
After 1100 hours in game, that is my own conclusion. Tru3 and Marth’s plays just reinforce my conclusions.
Im well aware of Tru3’s faults of gameplay. He constantly forgets which Pallets we mind-games possible, which are not, and often waste loads of time trying to mind game a Pallet he must break. I’m also well aware of Marth’s short comings.
Your total disregard of the Marth Experiment, as well as your excuse of “disparity among the high ranks”, let’s me know you believe the game should be balanced for casual play and “screwing around” on the Survivors behalf. Which is folly. In any PvP you always balance for the top level play. The best of what’s possible. If one side is not up to par, they lose. Simple as, in layman’s term “Git Gud”. If you do not, once they do “Git Gud”, the potential to abuse game mechanics that are meant to be forgiving to those who are not skilled enough is astronomical.
You seem to think the “whataboutism” of the casual player base justifies broken high rank gameplay. “Who cares if high ranks can abuse the balance intended for casual play.” You are using the casual player base as a shield to protect and justify broken/overpowered game mechanics that are easily abused by high ranks.
You dont do that in PvP titles. You don’t balance for one side’s casual player base, and let the hard cores run amok nearly unchallenged and unbeatable. You ALWAYS balance from the hard cores. If you’re not good enough, you lose. Plain and simple. You don’t give one side the option to just say “Screw it, lets absue the casual balance of the game, and just faceroll the opponent.”
It is my proof the game is unbalanced. McLean literally admitted that Marth’s experiment proved the game is unbalanced. They know it’s unbalanced. Stop sticking your head in the sand and using the casual player base as a shield to justify unbalanced and broken gameplay at hardcore level.1 -
@weirdkid5 said:
@Runiver
> (not semen)I'm taking this as you knowing what man juice tastes like
I do kiss girls after they gave nice head, because I'm a grown up and not a sissy about fluids anymore, but that's kinda out of topic!
Kek.EDIT : This is supposed to be a 18+ game, so I suppose I can say things like that. It will stop here tho. Back on topic guys!
5 -
1
-
@SovererignKing said:
Your total disregard of the Marth Experiment, as well as your excuse of “disparity among the high ranks”, let’s me know you believe the game should be balanced for casual play and “screwing around” on the Survivors behalf. Which is folly. In any PvP you always balance for the top level play. The best of what’s possible. If one side is not up to par, they lose. Simple as, in layman’s term “Git Gud”. If you do not, once they do “Git Gud”, the potential to abuse game mechanics that are meant to be forgiving to those who are not skilled enough is astronomical.You seem to think the “whataboutism” of the casual player base justifies broken high rank gameplay. “Who cares if high ranks can abuse the balance intended for casual play.” You are using the casual player base as a shield to protect and justify broken/overpowered game mechanics that are easily abused by high ranks.
Um, actually no, I wasn't saying anything about the casual players. I am referring to players ignoring the fact that Marth and Tru3 play at a level higher than normal players that they queue versus. A random queue against random players does not allow for players of equal skill vs equal skill to be demonstrated. Unfortunately, I did not see Marth tracking Killer Rank and hours played by killers and survivors in the data. This does not tell us the balance at high level of play. This tells us the performance of a high level team versus 100 random players. This isn't gameplay at the peak of skill. This is gameplay at, presumably, mostly Rank 1, which suffers from obvious skill disparities.
I find that it is ridiculous that people come to the conclusion that even top tier killers like Tru3 have no impact on the result of the match. We have yet to seen him doing his own cute perkless experiment, and I am sure, due to his skill, we may find similar results with him versus 100 random survivor games. As it stands, the devs indicate that they do track stats, and to compare oneself to a killer that was considered one of the top Nurse/killer players in the game and it is ridiculous to conclude that a) his skill has no bearing on the result of a match and b) his experience is representative of those who share that opinion. Realistically, if he were to actually track his kill ratio while he's tryharding, it would put a clearer lens on his perspective on balance.
And I had no comment on overpowered game mechanics. The ultimatum made was by players who proclaim that survivors hold all of the chips to a game, which is easily wrong.
You dont do that in PvP titles. You don’t balance for one side’s casual player base, and let the hard cores run amok nearly unchallenged and unbeatable. You ALWAYS balance from the hard cores. If you’re not good enough, you lose. Plain and simple. You don’t give one side the option to just say “Screw it, lets absue the casual balance of the game, and just faceroll the opponent.”
And we don't know what "tip of the top" looks like without an accurate performance and rating scale. As it stands, high level killers and survivors are all across the board. Even at the highest rank, you have people between 50 hours and 2000 hours. There is no further metric beyond pips and many of them hardly care about them. Heck, metrics are even more skewed due to playstyle (as some people participate in letting survivors go or letting killers get free kills at the end.)
Similarly, people always mention that because we're an asymmetrical game, the killer should always be feared. That is also wrong. Why should a group of survivors with over 500 hours be fearful of a killer that has played for less than 2 months? If you suck in comparison to your enemy, you will be decimated. That is balance. Skill plays a part, and people on the losing side refuse to see it. The issue is how hard it is to get good at each role, which no one can deny is easier for survivor than killer, at a certain point.
It is my proof the game is unbalanced. McLean literally admitted that Marth’s experiment proved the game is unbalanced. They know it’s unbalanced. Stop sticking your head in the sand and using the casual player base as a shield to justify unbalanced and broken gameplay at hardcore level.
I fully disagree with him, because of the reasons above. Whether he believes that a strong survivor group absolutely needs perks to stomp random killers, that's up to him. I am uninterested in showboat content. I am interested in hard data, which the developers possess. Marth's experiment is not reliable and it lacks the validity to proclaim anything outside of its set parameters.
The issue is based on perspective, more than if not equal to balance..
If you want a real conclusion, based off of an actual experiment, based off of an actual level of play, here's what needs to happen:
The SWF group that has the highest survival rate in the game versus the Killer who has the highest kill ratio against SWF groups. SWF group plays to depip the killer, Killer works to pip.
- Ideally all players with minimum required number of hours, and all players have a similar number of hours.
- Conditions of: x games with SWF no perks, x games with killer no perks, x games both no perks, x games with both full perks.
- Track pips and depips.
- Perks should be meta/have the highest winrates.
Although I'm not saying that players need to accomplish this sort of unrealistic experiment to have a point. The problem is that people are using Marth's games to reach conclusions that are not possible with that his set up, e.g. the state of balance at the "highest" level, and then use these erroneous conclusions to fuel their frustration.
Post edited by Visionmaker on1 -
I don't want to derail this anymore than it already is but why not make 2 queues, one for hardcore ranked players and 1 for casuals? That would probably have to wait until after they rewrite the code but balancing would be a lot simpler. Although that'd probably bring the WOW arena issue into the game where the highly skilled and geared killers/survivors go wreak havoc in the normal game modes.
0 -
Dude you arent the first to have this idea lol I made a petition suggesting this same exact thing on Steam forums that garnered nearly 4k comments. It is single handedly the largest DbD thread that exists.powerbats said:I don't want to derail this anymore than it already is but why not make 2 queues, one for hardcore ranked players and 1 for casuals? That would probably have to wait until after they rewrite the code but balancing would be a lot simpler. Although that'd probably bring the WOW arena issue into the game where the highly skilled and geared killers/survivors go wreak havoc in the normal game modes.
The devs know of its existence and I have spoken with @not_Queen personally about two queues.
As much as I think it would solve the problem, they don't seem to actually be interested in doing this despite a good number of players supporting it.2 -
@Visionmaker
You literally just talked in giant circle. Marth and Tru3 play at a higher level, therefore they represent the higher level of skill. Again, your argument is nothing more that a “whataboutism” based upon players not having equal skill.
IE : Hardcore vs. Casual.
If you play Casual you should expect to get stomped by a Harcore. That’s the way of it. However, the game mechanics Survivors have at thier disposal allows for even Casuals to stand on a balanced footing with a Harcore Killer. Swap out those Casual Survivors with Hardcore Survivors, they run the show. The game mechanics are balanced for Casual play from Survivors, which makes them highly abusable and overpowered for Harcore Survivors.
Your proclamation about the disparity of Skill of the Killer was rendered invalid anyway. If you watched the Marth Experiment you would know they faced the best of the best. Including King Dime, Blinky Bill, ect. Even thier Skill as Killers was rendered paltry in the face of the De-pip Squad. Skill absolutely does have an impact, however that’s not the argument being made.
The argument being made is that the Skill cap for Killers and the Skill cap for Survivors is massively disproportionate. Once a Killer hits the cap, it’s STILL only effective vs. casual Survivor play. Once Survivors reach the cap, the Skill cap of the Killer is null and void as game mechanics prevent any sort of Skill based counter play. The only Killer that holds even a modicum power over this issue is Nurse, as she removes Looping from play. The Survivors greatest, and most overpowered game mechanic that renders Killer skill irrelevant.
Do not try to “beat around the bush” and dodge the issue of game mechanics. Skill is tied HIGHLY to how well you use game mechanics to your advantage. You do not get to cite Skill and ignore the largest factor of skill, using game mechanics to your advantage, because it doesn’t support your argument.
Though I can already tell I’m talking to someone who will ignore anything that doesn’t support thier argument at this point. You see only half the equation as you see fit. It doesn’t matter what parameters you set forth in your own experiment, you’ll find something to nit pick if it doesn’t conform to your argument. You blatantly ignore variables such a game mechanics in your thought process because it hinders your argument.
The issue is not perspective. The issue is what basic game mechanics allow and disallow for. Continue to ignore this and I will no longer further discuss this with you. I will not try to discuss game balance with someone who believes game mechanics have nothing to do with Skill.Post edited by SovererignKing on1 -
@SovererignKing said:
You literally just talked in giant circle. Marth and Tru3 play at a higher level, therefore they represent the higher level of skill. Again, your argument is nothing more that a “whataboutism” based upon players not having equal skill."Whataboutism" has nothing to do with the argument. Pointing outs in conclusions drawn by Marth's games is not "whataboutism". Marth and Tru3 play at a higher level of skill, and because they are outliers, they will consistently outperform those who are delivered to them by matchmaking. Calling a match between the cream of the crop vs random Rank 1 players representative of the highest level of skill is willful ignorance. It's the equivalent watching an adult slapping around children at a playground. Bravo.
Drawing any conclusion aside from "top tier survivors in SWF without perks will consistently depip/beat random Rank 1 killers" is unsupported. Marths games do not speak for the balance of the game beyond that.
Here is a snip of your original post:
However it has nothing to do with how well I play, or any Killer plays. If the Survivors don’t screw up, and don’t screw around you will lose 95% of the time
The assertion that a killer's skill has no part in the outcome is unsupported by Marth's games.
However, the game mechanics Survivors have at thier disposal allows for even Casuals to stand on a balanced footing with a Harcore Killer. Swap out those Casual Survivors with Hardcore Killers, they run the show.
This is an opinion and unsupported, and easily testable.
Your proclamation about the disparity of Skill of the Killer was rendered invalid anyway. If you watched the Marth Experiment you would know they faced the best of the best. Including King Dime, Blinky Bill, ect. Even thier Skill as Killers was rendered paltry in the face of the De-pip Squad. Skill absolutely does have an impact, however that’s not the argument being made.
I'm not watching a hundred games just to see how often a name pops up. Random is random, and will select players who are exceptional, I am sure. Great, now take that and make that into an experiment. Then you'll have something more useful to say. Please read above for your own words.
The argument being made is that the Skill cap for Killers and the Skill cap for Survivors is massively disproportionate
If you read above, I also said this. Furthermore, that wasn't the argument being made, but feel free to back track. I don't mind.
Once a Killer hits the cap, it’s STILL only effective vs. casual Survivor play. Once Survivors reach the cap, the Skill cap of the Killer is null and void as game mechanics prevent any sort of Skill based counter play.
Opinion, but I'll leave you to it.
Do not try to “beat around the bush” and dodge the issue of game mechanics. Skill is tied HIGHLY to how well you use game mechanics to your advantage. You do not get to cite Skill and ignore the largest factor of skill, using game mechanics to your advantage, because it doesn’t support your argument.
Love, you've barely mentioned game mechanics yourself. I've been addressing Marth's games because I take issue with the conclusions drawn from it. I have as many concerns regarding the mechanics as anyone else does. Skill means nothing without a metric tied to it, and considering the asymmetrical nature of the game, it's natural to try to compare results of "skill". I am not mentioning mastery over mechanics because what matters is the product: survival/depipping the killer.
Though I can already tell I’m talking to someone who will ignore anything that doesn’t support thier argument at this point. You see only half the equation as you see fit. It doesn’t matter what parameters you set forth in your own experiment, you’ll find something to nit pick if it doesn’t conform to your argument. You blatantly ignore variables such a game mechanics in your thought process because it hinders your argument.
The issue is not perspective. The issue is what basic game mechanics allow and disallow for. Continue to ignore this and I will no longer further discuss this with you. I will not try to discuss game balance with someone who believes game mechanics have nothing to do with Skill.
It's cute that you misrepresent arguments, backtrack, and then use attacks on character as a substitute for a rational response. If you can't handle someone poking holes in your post, then maybe you shouldn't be posting. Go ahead, don't respond. You aren't gracing me with anything special. I don't need to follow you while you move the goal posts.
2 -
@Visionmaker
Exactly my point. You won’t watch the videos, just assume your correct. How cute, ignoring anything that may discredit you. You call Tru3 and Marth outliers, then what do you call Blinky Bill and King Dime? Marth’s squad still soundly beat them as well. Is that not representative of the top “cream of the crop” to you? Or are you just going to write them off as well? You consistently ignore anything that contradicts your argument. Bravo to you as well.
Also, if you think Marth Squad is “top tier Survivors” your wholly mistaken. They aren’t even top tier, the entire squad has said as much. All they did was focus the gens and let the mechanics of Looping do most of the work for them.
In the face of overpowered mechanics the Killer’s Skill is rendered null and void. You can not bypass game mechanics. Only the Nurse has the ability to bypass one game mechanic, and that’s Looping via her teleports as it removes the key factor of hit box abuse.
Unsupported? Please, it’s literally every game. Just hop on YouTube and find any video of some Survivor Looping a Killer. Watch as some Survivor with 100 hours Loops a Killer that has 1000’s of Hours with little effort.
Again, your little “Random” is you going “whataboutism”. You think that just because you don’t know every Killer, they all suck? You think out of 90+ Killers they were all bad? That none of them were top tier, they just don’t have thier names up in lights, so they are irrelevant? If it’s not Blinky Bill, Entity’s Left Hand, King Dime, every single match, that Killer is suddenly trash and worthless?
Calling Tru3 and Marth “outliers” exactly is “Whataboutism”. You’re literally saying “They are special, so they don’t count. What about the rest of the players who are casual?”
Barely mentioned game mechanics myself? Game mechanics and Skill are one in the same. Again, Skill is highly dependent on how well you use game mechanics to your advantage. You’re the one who insist on separating the two. The “product” you speak of is exactly that. You don’t get to sit there and berate the result without taking into consideration the means to which that result was achieved. This whole discussion you’ve done nothing but try to discredit the result without even so much as considering the means to which the result was achieved.
Again, the assertion that the Killers skill is irrelevant in the face of game mechanics being too easy for Survivors is the ENTIRE point of Marth’s experiment. Too easy to Loop for extended periods of time, Gens being too quick and easy to repair, you name it.
You're so fully focused on the result that you don’t agree with, you’re completely ignorant of how that result was achieved and just want to throw the whole thing out.
You’re not poking any holes at all, your just ignoring whatever you don’t agree with and calling it a “hole”. Personal attack? You’re literally being willfully ignorant of factors to support your argument. If you’re going to post at all, perhaps you should learn to take an objective view of things, instead of seeing what you want to see, ignoring what you want to ignore, for your own self support. There is no substitute, I’m literally just telling you how your acting. If you can’t handle being told you’re acting childish and ignorant, maybe you shouldn’t be posting.
Hell, you don’t even realize the whole damn point of Marth’s experiment was literally showing how overpowered game mechanics makes playing Survivor too easy. The results are a byproduct of showing that. The goal of the experiment was to depip Killers by showing how easily abusable the game mechanics are. Do you even know what the experiment was about at all? Or are you just blathering on about the results without even knowing why the experiment was performed in the first place?Post edited by SovererignKing on1 -
As a way to prove a point, I choose the biggest survivor ( which I thought to be david king. pretty sure I am correct.) choose the cosmetic I thought would stand out most (doesn't matter too much.. but still) and rocked no perks and never qued with a single person (as in solo que).. I went from rank 20, to rank 1 with NO problem what so ever... Game is not balanced. Also rank 1 killer.
0 -
The game is technically balanced outcome wise. The kill escape ratio approaches the 50% that they want. The real problem with this statistic is that games tend to "snowball" one way or another. Basically AFAIK and as far as my experience goes, the two most common outcomes are 0k's and 4k's, which can be the most frustrating outcomes for one side of the other.
The other thing this fails to take into account is the levels of seriousness that people take this game at. If I had a dollar for every SWF members I've had DC or suicide or just play stupid because they could, I probably would be able to afford some of the cosmetics for the upcoming shop. *bad dum tss*. In all seriousness though, sometimes the deaths of careless or point farming survivors are factored into the the total, which waters down the actual statistics.
And then there's also the plain and simple fact that winning does not always equate to a fun experience. Just because you barely managed to pull everything together by the skin of your teeth at the last second and get a 3k/4k does not mean it was a fun, or balanced experience.
Yeah, there is an argument to be made with outcomes, but they vary so much that it's a poor sign of the balance of the game. Even with the kill ratios in a supposedly fair area, I'd the experience remains as miserable as it can be now, it's never going to be balanced.1 -
This game isnt balanced. SWF is way to hard to play against. The problem is not just one thing. its multiple things that compound on each other.
1. devs cater to survivors too much
2. pallet vaccum (FINALL FIXED ON NEXT UPDATE)
3. freddys map still has too much pallets.
4. pallet looping is a serious problem and devs are clueless on how to fix it
5. Gen rush is a problem and there is very little a killer can do to stop it. (survivors control the flow of the game)
6. DS needs a nerf (but again, devs are clueless on how to balance this {they prolly just dont care} )
7. hatch standoff is a problemIn a nutshell: I would rather see fixes than new content. thats why I am not spending another dime on this game
FIXES
- change the requirements to pip up
- give survivors other means to avoid killers other than pallets
- DS should have a lower stun time and make it so it takes 75% (or something) of struggle instead of 35% to escape or something along those lines
- Make generator fix progression slower and certain generator parts as objectives that surivvors need to collect to repair the gen
- Make it so there is an "entity field" that forces the killer away from hook so they cant camp while the entity begins to devour the survivor. (the field will get bigger the long the killer stays in the area).
In a nutshell. The game goes by too fast. make the game longer and fun factor will increase. More pallet breaks. more survivor tension. more jukes. More "oh #########" moments. Less camping with entity field and more terror and fun all around.
Its like the devs dont even play their own game. I got so many ways to easily balance this game but all they care about is more money and pallets.
1 -
@SovererignKingI made my judgment on the data they tracked. The onus is on the 'experimenter' to report relevant data, and I literally pointed out that it would have been useful to track any measure of skill (or experience). Again, I suggest that they face people like Blinky Bill and King Dime 100 times rather than rely on a random queue that can spit out killers of subpar ability.Exactly my point. You won’t watch the videos, just assume your correct. How cute, ignoring anything that may discredit you. You call Tru3 and Marth outliers, then what do you call Blinky Bill and King Dime? Marth’s squad still soundly beat them as well. Is that not representative of the top “cream of the crop” to you? Or are you just going to write them off as well? You consistently ignore anything that contradicts your argument. Bravo to you as well.Again, this was not tracked...Also, if you think Marth Squad is “top tier Survivors” your wholly mistaken. They aren’t even top tier, the entire squad has said as much. All they did was focus the gens and let the mechanics of Looping do most of the work for them.Please, it’s literally every game. Just hop on YouTube and find any video of some Survivor Looping a Killer. Watch as some Survivor with 100 hours Loops a Killer that has 1000’s of Hours with little effort.Again, I never disagreed that the survivor skill cap is easier and faster to reach than a Killer's skill cap.Again, your little “Random” is you going “whataboutism”. You think that just because you don’t know very Killer they all suck?No... I just know how easy it is to pip and reach Rank 1 and know that most Rank 1s do not share the same level of skill players like Marth and Tru3 do. I don't think whataboutism is what you think it is.
Here's an example of whataboutism:
A: Survivors are so toxic.B: Well Killers face camp!This is done to insinuate the other person is a hypocrite. Which.. I am not doing. If you would like further reading, then you can look at this forum that discusses "whataboutism": https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/qa/Bo/LogicalFallacies/9AbfTGBm/Official_term_for_whataboutism
Again, no... I did not say that unnamed Rank 1s are bad. You can stop putting words in my mouth now. I am pointing out that the flaws of matchmaking and the performance scale, as it is will not be able to give us an accurate representation of equal skill vs skill.
That's.. Not whataboutism. Also not the argument I'm making. I'll say it for you one more time, since you clearly cannot grasp it: Making conclusions about how ANY killers will lose versus (YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE) based off of Marth's experiment is absurd. It is a set of showboat games. It is food for thought at best, entertainment at worst. I did not say it had no value, I said it did not support the conclusions drawn.Calling Tru3 and Marth “outliers” exactly is “Whataboutism”. You’re literally saying “They are special, so they don’t count. What about the rest of the players who are casual?”
No.. They're not the same... They're related, they're not the same, as you point out yourself. I don't think you know what "result" means... When speaking about an experiment, result is the data you collect through the trials you conduct. The results, in this case, would be pipping/depipping, which, the game already decides is a measurement of performance. What you think I am criticizing is what is called the implications and conclusions. You can refer to what I've already written to see why I have take issue, since I think you spent quite a lot of time responding to a misunderstanding. Actually, my entire criticism hinges on the method of which the experiment was conducted, and the fact that the conclusion drawn is not supported.Barely mentioned game mechanics myself? Game mechanics and Skill are one in the same. Again, Skill is highly dependent on how well you use game mechanics to your advantage. You’re the one who insist on separating the two. The “product” you speak of is exactly that. You don’t get to sit there and berate the result without taking into consideration the means to which that result was achieved. This whole discussion you’ve done nothing but try to discredit the result without even so much as considering the means to which the result was achievedIf you can’t handle being told you’re acting childish and ignorant, maybe you shouldn’t be posting.Let me just stop you because you are confusing yourself as to what I am referring to. You are apparently getting a large amount of information from a few misinterpreted sentences of mine, and I find it very pathetic that you're spending more time describing what you think I am saying and how I am 'acting' rather than addressing the points I am making.The goal of the experiment was to depip Killers by showing how easily abusable the game mechanics are. Do you even know what the experiment was about at all? Or are you just blathering on about the results without even knowing why the experiment was performed in the first place?"Abusable"... That's a real stretch... You can go ahead and ######### and moan about the mechanics of the game and how the level of skill necessary for the received results are unequal. I have never disagreed with that. I am challenging the notion Marth's experiment proves that the killer's skill is an irrelevant factor in the outcome of a game versus SWF. Simply put, I think Marth's method does not speak for killer's at the highest skills because the reliance on the game's matchmaking skews the results.Can Marth's experiment support the idea that the game's stripped down mechanics need work? Sure. Can it support your snipped sentence here:Too easy to Loop for extended periods of time, Gens being too quick and easy to repair, you name it.Sure. Is it evidence that a killer, no matter how good they are, plays no role in the outcome of the match? I don't think that is valid. Again, you may refer to above as to why I believe that is, instead of attempting to dismiss it by labeling it as "whataboutism" (which, quite frankly, you cannot even recognize to begin with.)That is literally the one and only thing I have been commenting on, and it is dreadfully sad that you have go so far as to attack your perception of my behavior, move goal posts, change the topic, claim a moral highground, gatekeep on who gets to criticize an "experiment", and spend so much time ranting about positions that you clearly do not understand.Maybe you should start quoting so that you can actually respond to what I've written, rather than the going off on image of me that you're creating in your head.3 -
You know... in every game there is the top player or team, that regardless of balance, steamrolls everyone because they are basically the best... what if Marths team is that status, what if they simply can’t be best easy, because they are just really good at the game, and the killers they went against weren’t as good. Some killers beat em, that means it’s not completely controlled by the survivors. Not saying the game is balanced, but just food for thought.
1 -
in regards to second post-rank 10 is not "chill". it is there you will find the inundation of swf garbos and the dread campasaurus.0
-
Marths Squad isnt the beat. That's the issue. I'm objectively better at Survivor than Marth is.Jack11803 said:You know... in every game there is the top player or team, that regardless of balance, steamrolls everyone because they are basically the best... what if Marths team is that status, what if they simply can’t be best easy, because they are just really good at the game, and the killers they went against weren’t as good. Some killers beat em, that means it’s not completely controlled by the survivors. Not saying the game is balanced, but just food for thought.
That's the point, and one of their main points. They ARENT the best, yet they can steamroll nearly EVERY killer.
By your logic, the best killers shoulda have been able to steamroll them regardless. First of all, no Killer outright "steamrolled" them, and secondly, if the best should defeat those they are better than, then what does that say for when you have people with equal skill? In a game like DbD where the balance is entirely up to Survivor mistakes, there is no balance.
Just because a couple of the top Killers beat them doesnt suddenly mean that "oh they were just a great squad of survivors." No, they arent. They just hold M1 and run in circles.
Really skillful play here.0 -
Trust me I’m well aware, just throwing a theoretically at there, just to see it hits the wall, y’know?
0 -
Sorry but all it did was Quantum Tunnel its way through lmaoJack11803 said:Trust me I’m well aware, just throwing a theoretically at there, just to see it hits the wall, y’know?
1 -
Well I still maintain the game is pretty balanced (again, up to rank 10). How do I know? Neither Killers nor survivors seem to be happy.
0 -
@Visionmaker
I’m avoiding quotes because post are already long enough as is. It has nothing to do with me going off of my “mental picture” of you. I can scroll up and read your post and respond accordingly. I don’t need to quote you to refute your points.
Truthfully, I believe this whole argument is a misunderstanding from the get go. You believe the goal of the Depip Squad was to Depip Killers? That is incorrect. The goal of the Depip Squad was to showcase how broken the game mechanics are in the Survivor’s favor. Depiping Killers is merely a side effect of that agenda.
This is why I’ve been saying you’re being ignorant. You’re moving the goal post from “showcasing broken mechanics” (Looping and Gens done too quickly), to “Depip the Killer”. I’ve told you this, twice now. However you seem to be ignoring this.
You can sit there and justify broken mechanics all you want, doesn’t mean they aren’t broken. You keep citing Skill as a factor, however, you clearly ignore that Skill is dependent on how you use game mechanics to your favour. You have no skill if you don’t know how to use game mechanics. Simple as. Your perception of Skill is completely flawed. “Related” is an asinine word to use, they are the same thing. I never separated the two. Where you got that from, I can only speculate. You seem to have misinterpreted my meaning by taking the word “Largly”, and thinking there is another factor in play that determines your Skill.
I’ve stated Skill plays a factor, however at a certain point, Skill becomes a non-factor in the face of overpowered game mechanics. That’s called the Skill Cap. You can’t do any better, the game mechanics disallow for Skill to overcome a problem. This is what makes a mechanic abusable in the first place. Your notion of Skill is highly misinformed. There are points in the game that no matter how Skilled the Killer, game mechanics being too in favour of the Survivors makes the ability to use game mechanics in you favour as a Killer impossible, simply because the mechanics in play favor the Survivor too much.
This is is why I called your points “Whataboutism”. You’re hypocritical in the sense that your criticism hinges on the fact that a Skilled Killer can do something about these easily abused mechanics. When they, in fact, cannot.
You can not change the hit box sizes. You can not change that the Generators have a base repair time of 80 seconds. All you can do as Killer is pray the Survivors make a large about of mistakes when using these mechanics against you.
Your “Whataboutism” is this :
”These game mechanics are easily abused by high rank skilled Survivors”
”There are skilled Killers though!”
Full stop, right there. There being outlier Killers like Tru3, Marth, Entity’s Left Hand, King Dime, ect. Has absolutely NO bearing on the fact these mechanics can be abused. The Skill Cap is a cap for a reason. The only thing you can do is play Nurse. She removes the Skill cap on Pallet play and vault play by removing her hit box as a factor via teleporting. This is in exchange for her Skill Floor being much higher than any other Killer. However she also has no bearing on the fact Generators take a base time of 80 seconds to complete. That mechanic is totally on the Survivors. Even if you bring Ruin, if they hit Great Skill checks, it’s 80 seconds. You bring Dying Light, you are wholly dependent on your Obsession dieing quickly. Again, you are banking on your Obsession making a large amount of mistakes in order to Kill them quickly.
You rely on SURVIVORS MAKING MISTAKES, not your Skill as Killer. The Skill Cap prevents you from doing any better. Unless the Survivors SCREW UP using game mechanics that are heavily in thier favor against you, you CAN NOT win. You can actually play the game perfectly, use everything the game mechanics allow for, and you can STILL LOSE. That is for the simple fact the Killers Skill Cap is far too inferior to deal with the Survivors mechanics that put thier Skill Floor so low, that even mediocre Survivors can deal with a Killer.
Your entire criticism is one giant “Whataboutism” because it is hypocritical to cite Skill, when the Skill doesn’t matter once the caps are reached. Hell, the cap doesn’t even HAVE to be reached by Survivors in order the null and void the Killers Skill. Simply because the game mechanics are balanced to give even mediocre Survivors a fighting chance against even the best Killers. This gives Survivors who have passed the mediocre level easily abusable mechanics that make Killers a joke to deal with. Mechanics that make the Killers Skill IRRELEVANT.
In your own words you said “the mechanics need work”. Yes, they do. They need work in order to give Killers who have reached the Skill Cap counter play. To make thier Skill NOT irrelevant. Even the developers are realizing this. Take the recent Pallet changes to make the debris around Pallets taller to allow for mind games where the Killer can’t be seen. This is an effort to increase the Skill Cap of Killers, and decrease the Skill Cap of Survivors. Simply by not giving the Survivors full view of the Killer. They can not abuse being able to see the Killer at all times. However, this is still going to be very much nullified by the Red Stain mechanic.
Your entire critism falls apart because you have a flawed perception on what “Skill” is. Your criticism is “Whataboutism” because you believe Skill always plays a factor in the outcome of matches. It doesn’t. If the Killer Skill Cap has been reached, and the Survivors have passed the necessary Skill requirements to make he Killer’s Skill Cap insufficient, there is nothing the Killer can do to stop them. The cap can not be bypassed.
Now that I have informed you on how your perception of “Skill” is flawed, it shows that you are being ignorant and hypocritical of the experiment. Not only that, but I have informed you on what the intended reason behind the Marth Experiment was. It was not “Depip’ing Killers” it was a showcase of easily abused game mechanics. I have detailed why your criticism is “Whataboutism”. The conclusion that the game mechanics are too easily abusable, by even mediocre Survivors, to make the Killers Skill irrelevant is definitely supported by the Marth Experiment. Once the Killer has hit the Skill cap, it’s up to the Survivors to be insufficient at abusing the highly abusable game mechanics to nullify any counter play (RE : Skill) the Killer may have. The results of Depip to the Killer, again, are nothing more than a byproduct.
Now, please, I implore you. Stop being ignorant of what the Marth Experiment was about. Please, stop being ignorant that once the Skill Cap of a Killer has been reached, the game mechanics Survivors have can easily be abused to make the Killer’s Skill Irrelevant in the outcome of a match. Stop using “Whataboutism” based on your flawed perspective of Skill and how it plays a part in the game. It plays no part once the Cap has been reached, and the Survivors are sufficient at abusing the game mechanics to the point it’s irrelevant that the Killer has reached the cap.0
