What's the point of choosing characters and why is matchmaking like this?
As someone who's played both survivor and killer, but spent more time playing survivor with friends, I continue to not understand how certain things slide in this game. The screenshot I included was from a couple days ago, where we continuously got matched up with someone who was clearly too high of a rank for us. That alone seemed to have been an issue throughout that entire night.
The more troubling thing, to me, is what the killer had equipped. It has clearly been a long-standing issue to see people on both sides use perks from anyone but they're equipped character. I've posted about it in the subreddit without much interaction, so I thought I'd suggest it again here: I believe that in order to bring more balance and variety to this game and its characters, it would make most sense to implement a perk system in which each character is required to use at least 2-3 of their perks (or limit them to using 1 or 2 other character-specific perks). My argument for this is that implementing this would not only bring back the uniqueness to each character, but it would also allow for the devs to better balance the game. It seems that every killer/survivor I play against always uses the same 2-3 perks, basically removing any chances to plan my actions based on the one we see in the match. By locking perks to their respective characters, each role is now specialized and actually makes sense when choosing that specific person. I just want some sort of system that creates a level of skill so that playing a certain character makes sense. In the long-run, the devs would then see who's being used too much and nerf/buff accordingly. I just find that having no idea what a survivor/killer is able to do each round takes away from the purpose of picking and adapting to it. They could even take a page out of the Friday game for all I care lol
Sadly, the only people that have disagreed with me in the game so far are people who don't want to lose BBQ from their killer main, which imo means that it proves my point. And anytime we call someone out for using non-related perks, they simply embrace DbD toxicity and say we're sore losers, when we're genuinely trying to point out that there's no easy ways to combat a killer that becomes overpowered if their main abilities benefit too much from another character's perks (and that goes for survivors too - I'm looking at you, Meg).
Thoughts?
EDIT: My one comment outside of my numerous responses below - for those who make claims about perks not proving to be overused due to their unbalanced advantages when combined with certain characters, especially BBQ for many killers - I've played the last few nights and kept track of the number of killers using BBQ specifically and their wins vs losses. I played 21 games with friends as survivors against people using BBQ in our matches, we lost 20 of them (meaning a 4k). Only 1 was the Cannibal... If that doesn't show a obvious correlation, idk what else can. I generally rank between 3 and 7 when nearing the end of the month, so I'd like to think I understand how to usually make it out of a match using normal tactics, but this is only one example of a perk that breaks the game when used the way it is; outside of it's intended character. Any other points I have are made in my comment responses.
Comments
-
I see what your talking about but it will only make things more the same if you that because you will only play against Bills and Lauries then probably and you will never see another Ace again. Another idea thats been a little tossed around is that if you prestiege a character their versions on their perks will be slightly stronger like a tier 4 but also not too op on some perks. I think this would be a better idea but opinions.
1 -
Let's say we apply this system, with the expectation that people will obviously choose the most OP at the time (meaning the +$100k). The devs can then more accurately see exactly which characters (and their perks) are dominating the matches. This would then lead to the proper balancing and allow them to bring other characters' perks to the table, meaning we'll see each character and their perks gain better and more balanced "loadouts" for a more diverse experience when selecting. No more matches with the only 2 perks and characters being used each time.
1 -
I get what you mean, I just think (and hope) that implementing a system that encourages using different characters for different scenarios/challenges/maps would help the devs see what's truly OP and be able to balance characters better, thus removing the idea that only 2 will be used all of the time. It has been hard to hope for something like that, especially since most of my experience reading through these forums clearly shows that the very vocal "killer mains" of the community usually get their ideas heard more often. This is clearly a totally different rant, but relates to my issue with most responses to my idea, being that the first responses I get are almost always about the specific OP survivors, and nothing about how killers have just as bad of a tendency to use the same perks over and over. And that's not meant to be directed at you, but more to give an idea of why I struggle to be okay with the current state of the game most days.
1 -
I sorta get what your saying but that's just a system that wouldn't work for a large variety of reasons but I'll list some firstly it would be extremely limiting to characters simply meaning you'll only see a few killers and survivors only seeing the same couple of survivor's and killer's every match secondly this would deter people from playing who they want and stop them from playing their favorite character with the perks they want and third it's just not a good idea as the adverse effects would mess the game up. as for why the matchmaking is like that, that's just dbd matching.
2 -
As I understood you want more variety in builds?
But locking teachables will likely do the opposite. I can give an example for killers:
1) Many characters have terrilblle teachables. They just won't use them if they have any alternative. I play Trapper, I still won't use Unnerving presense as I find it highly unreliable and just a bad perk. So for the most part people will use common perks, but...
2) There are not that many common perks and only a few are viable. So I'd expect to see NOED and Sloppy very often, like 8 out of 10 cases often. Probably with Whispers and/or one-two character's own perks that are actually viable.
And I'm not gonna lie - I really don't want to lose my BBQ as it's a perk that doubles my BP and has a useful effect besides that. But do you really want most of those BBQ's replaced with NOED? Because that's totally gonna happen if you idea was to go through. Although BBQ will still be used almost as frequently as before, you're just gonna see Bubba a lot more often.
On survivors side it won't be much different, you'll just see a lot more DH Davids, BT/UB Bills (though UB won't be used much as it's gonna be utterly predictable and can no longer be paired with DS for a small pp build), DS Lauries (with DS/OoO toxic Lauries) and immersive Self-Care Claudettes. And a lot less of other characters.
0 -
Similarly to other responses I've given, it feels like you're assuming that people will only be using a couple characters with this system and missing my entire point. From a game dev perspective, this proposed system would aim to fix that. By seeing which perks/characters are being used most (and winning the most), a dev can then balance them and bring fresh changes to the game that encourage people to switch characters (or at least feel the punishing nerfs for the OP ones). Sure, you can switch around some of my points for how to arrange the perk restrictions and assume that the first season would be rough as they get the new character analytics, but it would ultimately provide positive game balancing down the road for the sake of longevity. DbD is one of a small few games that don't have abilities primarily tied to their original character, and I'd argue that's why we see the most unbalanced matches (and the most complaints from survivors and killers). To be honest, the argument that you wouldn't be able to play your favorite character on a visual level just seems vague enough that it shouldn't be considered and honestly wouldn't matter if this system was used to balance them and make them all uniquely powerful for different situations. Just because you like a character doesn't mean they should lose their characteristics (meaning perks) and go against their own lore background just so you can run like Meg, ya know?
0 -
Firstly, you not wanting to lose your BBQ is the exact issue that drove me to write this lol. For certain killers it just gives too much of an edge, like other perks. So the complaint that you don't want to lose it only proves my point that it gives too much power on other killers.
Secondly, I'll ask you to read the other responses I've given as I feel they cover your numbered concerns. Variety in build is not what I ask for. I ask for variety in character choice through good balancing. What needs to be understood here is that by changing the way perks are bound to characters, devs can then buff/nerf them accordingly (including the common ones that aren't tied to characters) and bring a much more balanced experience for all. With this system, you could then see your trapper perks reworked for the sake of making him better (or worse if he becomes too good). If we see BBQ being used more because the cannibal is being chosen more as a tied perk, then all of the sudden the devs can make changes to fix that. But if you're gonna sit there and act like BBQ is balanced as it is now with every killer using it, then it's clear you favor the killer role and enjoy the advantage with it.
0 -
1) I really fail to see your problem with BBQ. It's used that much because it gives double bp, otherwise it's a mediocre perk. Yes, it helps mobile killers more than others but it doesn't shift balance that much. Nurse is gonna be stronger than Clown with or without BBQ. Make that perk disappear and hardly anything will change balance-wise. I actually would benefit from that as I use BBQ on Trapper and it's really weak on him but those BPs are worth it for me. But if it's gone I'll replace it with something like Corrupt Intervention which will be much stronger.
2) To get what you want, mere balancing is not enough. Some perks ideas are just bad and you're gonna have to take these perks, throw them into a trash bin and create new ones in their place. Unnerving presense is such an example because reducing skillchecks simply doesn't work on experienced survivors. They hit DS skillcheck all the time and making a gen skillcheck less that DS skillcheck is just inadequate. I see no other option than to just delete the perk and create another one. Another example is Spirit Fury - it is a good perk, but only on M1 killers paired with Enduring (another killer's perk) And it's not useful on Spirit at all. Also Hex: Haunted Grounds will be entirely useless - who's gonna bother cleansing hex totems if the only two perk available are Haunted Grounds and Trill of the Hunt.
And there are more examples like that on both sides. You gonna have to replace like 60% of perks with new ideas entirely. That's gonna take a lot of work. And in the end Nurse is still gonna remain stronger than Clown. Because killer powers and addons affect balance much more than perks.
But if you think I only favor killers let's look at survivors. Let's take Ace. The idea behind his perks is luck. It fits his personality and backstory very well but gameplay-wise luck is unreliable garbage. You can make it less garbage but you can't make it not unreliable - that's the whole idea of luck. Some people like that but for me lack of reliability is a dealbreaker. So right now I can play Ace with other survivors peks just fine but if your idea goes through I'll probably forget he exists.
I've read your other responses. Honestly, I just think that we have very different opinions about what we see as OP/viable/useless. I can see that by the loadout on your screen. Technichian and This is not happening are among the perks I consider to be entirely useless and wouldn't take unless under a death threat but you probably think differently which is totally fine. But in my opinion too many perks are either completely useless of are vastly inferior compared to others, so introducing your system will not increase any kind of variety but on the contrary - decrease it to absolute minimum.
1 -
I hate when moved threads say they're closed because...they're not closed 😒
1 -
Again, the fact that you defend BBQ shows that you are focused on BP, but if you think about it from a gameplay perspective (meaning the effect it has on how people perform in games and win rate), it's easy to argue that it greatly gives at least half of the killers an advantage, especially the silent/fast type. To argue that it should be left alone due to the fact that it gives BP is a bad reason imo. If it only was good for BP, then I doubt everyone would be using it as much as they do.
It seems to me that you continue to assume that change is not needed in order to fix a game that is known for it's toxicity and difficulty. And the entire idea that perks would need to be changed completely is the whole point lol. Devs would see why Ace needs changes and adjust accordingly (and within the parameters of his lore). Same with every other character, like nerfing nurse for example if needed. Changing these perks and assigning them to the characters properly is literally a version of balancing... that's how game mechanics work. When you say that we have different opinions, all I see is that you are okay with the advantages you get from the current issues, rather than hope for a better gameplay experience for the sake of the game's long-term survival. I only bring this idea to the forums because it seems like the only sensible way to integrate a balancing system that works for many other games that have unique characters. Since this game only has ranked matchmaking, using an understanding of game design and proper game balancing would show that this game's current system needs bigger changes. It's okay to like your character, but it's not okay to avoid admitting its issues just because it means big change and losing the OP perks and extra BP.
The grand scheme of this proposed system would most definitely bring the variety you believe it wouldn't. For example - a competitive shooter like R6 Siege, which has unique abilities that are locked on each unique character, balances their game by nerfing and buffing them accordingly so that no character is ignored (but it's obvious there will always be slightly less-used ones). If they let their perks/abilities be used by all characters, it would break the game immediately and it's unique characters become pointless. If DbD wasn't treated like a competitive game with a challenging learning curve, this might be an entirely different discussion.
Also, please don't judge people by their profile pic... that shouldn't be a judge of character.
0 -
Okay, this may sound douche, but try playing 5 matches with any killer only using their teachable perks, you will notice on how their perks most of the time don't work with the killer you chose to play.
When I play survivor I choose based on visuals on who I want to main, because I'm free to choose with no restrictions.
The same doesn't happen with killers. A killer is based on their power, and since the power is the main point of playing the killer, imagine if their perks don't combine with their power, why would you even play them over other killers who have good perks for their powers?
Your idea would just bring meta gaming to a worst state, where you would only find the same survivors and killers in high ranks, because they have a good basekit from the get-go.
But even with your idea of balacing each killer with their perks, it would just need a full game design rework, which would not be the same experience when playing DBD. It would just end in a whole different game which would feel like Overwatch, that you know a character and know what he can do, in the end it becomes a boring gameplay with almost no real time strategy.
0 -
I wouldn't say that's douche, it's a valid argument, but I worry it's missing my points a bit. Honestly, I actively try to play using at least 2 of the character's perk on both sides (and the struggle with that is the issue). But it seems nobody is understanding the point of proper game balancing. Your argument that nobody wants to play with their character's original perks is my exact discussion point. By not binding those perks to their characters, the devs take no time to rework them for the sake of better gameplay. There's already a toxic meta with the perks being used right now, but when you take away the option to have every meta perk on your favorite character, you encourage (and even force) players to choose carefully, knowing now that who they choose has positives and negatives.
There's no way to have "real-time" strategy when every player uses the same perks that lessen the experience on both sides of the matches. It's more boring than OW when everyone uses the same thing every time with essentially different skins. I would honestly say to go look at how the Friday the 13th game works. While it is going away soon due to a lack of consistent support (and clearly had it's own buggy issue since the didn't care to focus on it much), it's big plus was that each character has their own positive and negative perks, bringing an importance to who you choose as a team. DbD just doesn't have variety right now, even if you think it does just because it's a different character with usually the same perks. This is really about fundamental in multiplayer design at this point as the game has gained it's competitive nature and needs restructuring.
It may not be the game balance everybody wants, but it's the balance we deserve lol.
0 -
Do you have any examples of a killer that's fine without BBQ but is OP with it? If we take silent + quick the killers that come to mind are Wraith and Hillbilly with certain addons. Wraith still has to decloak so I can run away and generally isn't a killer anyone's afraid of. So silent Billy is the only maybe. Can't confirm though as I never played him with silent addons, in my opinion that's totally not what Billy's about. But I use Spine Chill anyway so stealth is not something I'm afraid of at all.
Toxicity is going nowhere as it is a part of human nature. And difficulty by itself is not a bad thing at all. Also no I don't think that the game currently is in some superbroken unplayable state and needs a ton of changes. Compared to DBD 2016 it's a masterpiece of balance. The only things I consider truly OP are keys, moris and some addons like iri head. And some maps. Also DBD currently is in no jeopardy to die. The average player count is about triple of what it was in 2017 on steam alone, I'm not even counting all other platforms. But introducing that many changes and changes that definitely not everyone's gonna like is something that might hurt the game a lot and kill it in end.
And about those advantages you speak so much of. I have no advantages unavailable to others by the game mechaincs. Do you think I'm some hacker or a glitch abuser? I'm neither. I simply use the most effective options out of what's given to me besides a few that I like or don't. And that's how most people play. I see nothing wrong with that. And if we're talking about BBQ again I'm not avoiding some issue with that perk. I truly do NOT see any issues with it.
And how can locking unique perks not hurt variety? As of right now I have 83 surivvor perks and 75 killer perks to choose from. With your system I'll have less than 20 on each side. And that's not even considering that some will still be garbage because perferct balance is a utopia and there will always be things that are hardly useful.
My problem with your system is that it is a ton of changes, enough to go make Dead By Daylight 2 really, aimed to achieved a virtually unachievable goal of perfect balance that it's most likely not gonna achieve while making a ton of sacrifices in the process at least in the form of aforementioned perk choice variety. Look at Hillbilly, hardly anyone plays him now because a lot of changes went through that many people disliked. With your idea every character and the literal core of the game will go through changes that many people won't like. And the result is obvious to me - a lot less people will play it.
I didn't judge your character based on a picture or at all. All that I assumed was that if you take those particular perks your opinion on them most likely isn't nowhere near as low as mine. That and your comments about BBQ confirm that our opinions on perks are generally different. That's all that I was saying. I haven't written a single word about your character as that's not my business.
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
You realise each killer has a unique power, right?
0 -
I do, and the fact that they can pair their unique power/weapon with perks that were not intended for them (and ultimately can make certain loadouts OP) is the exact issue. Maybe if the survivors had the same thing, it'd be a different story, but I even argue that survivors shouldn't have every perk at their disposal as well.
0 -
They were intended for them. Why else would you be able to unlock them?
0 -
I think you should just admit this idea isn't good, and be done with it.
0 -
First of all, just because someone has an idea you don't agree with doesn't mean they should just leave. Secondly, thanks for the input. My friends who majored in game-design would disagree, but I'll just let them know that the idea we thought up for improving on a game we like doesn't make sense. I'm not saying that the game is an utter failure, but that it's current state of play creates a consistent amount of repetitive matches that include people over-using perks/abilities that have turned it into something sour because of the ridiculous loadouts certain people have created with certain characters. My issue with the responses I've received (and tried to provide a thought-out response to) seem to have a common theme, in that they are usually people who prefer killer more often and try to defend a few of the perks I've pointed out. The issue I've seen there is that most of the responses of "I'm not bothered by it" isn't really a point to make when trying to understand where I'm coming from. And the idea that this could lead to too many changes really isn't that true. All of these perks for individuals already exist. By simply keeping them "mostly" locked to that character, the devs could then see which ones truly need buffing/nerfing and then get it done.
As far as this idea of a system goes, I can happily admit that I live by my suggestion, always using 2-3 perks that are directly related to the characters I'm using.. Does that mean that I avoid certain characters? You betcha! But that's exactly why I argue for this system that would lead devs to improve the balancing. The current system shows that the devs aren't focusing on making each character useful in their own way as intended. By keeping perks bound to the characters they belong to, there's more individual variety for the gameplay if it was enforced. But many of the people that have responded don't seem to believe that the variety is there. This could be due to a couple things; from not having faith in the devs to put the time in and actually care about balancing; to not wanting to lose the perks they have simply because they enjoy having these biased advantages in the gameplay. At the end of the day, It's felt more like I'm getting closed down by people for the sheer lack of not wanting any change.
Also - to respond to your other comment: "They were intended for them. Why else would you be able to unlock them?" -- I'm confused by what you mean. I'm specifically arguing for them to unlock their own perks, but only use those (with the exception of being able to use at most 2 perks that are from other characters). The issue I've seen is that by letting these killers use any perk, paired with their weapon/ability, it can creates more uneven events than is intended. We once played against a HillBilly with BBQ, Hex:Ruin, and Overcharge; essentially allowing him to only tunnel one person to start and then spend the rest of the match sprinting at us, while we lose most progress on a gen and be under a constant struggle to finish even one gen. I played again with friends tonight, where we got matched with a Huntress who used BBQ to their advantage by throwing hatchets at us immediately after hooking. While that definitely isn't as OP compared to other killers using it, it clearly showed an immediate advantage for a killer that doesn't normally have that. Let's be clear, killers are expected to have an advantage as the killer, but not like that. 90% of the time people don't use the perks intended for their character, and that's the problem that I see.
At the end of the day, DbD is one of the handful of games that has a unique and diverse set of playable characters, but doesn't keep their uniqueness by letting people share those perks and combine them for scary combinations. I'm not saying "be like the other big team-based games", but simply pointing out that this current system appears to have created some toxic gameplay experiences where everyone spams the same perks and removes the variety that some people claim to see. Just because the perks are all there to choose from, doesn't mean they're used equally like a balanced experience.
I hope this helps you out with my reasoning.
Thank you for checking out my TED talk
0 -
I'll reference your concerns based the number paragraph that they should up:
1) Legion, Shape, Nurse, Ghost Face, Blight, Oni are just a handful of other killers I've seen get extreme advantages with crazy loadout combinations that may include BBQ. These loadouts can simply cater too much to their only unique thing, which leads to the issue on the killer side. Killers in the current system have their specific weapon/ability that is bound to them (which makes sense), but the fact that they can use an entire loadout of other characters has a drastic change on their abilities. It essentially means they are no longer the killer that's described. I also think that this proposed system would fix survivors too, but the added slot of a bound ability on killers can make those combinations too one-sided at times. Let's not avoid the fact that killers are meant to have a certain level of OPness to them, but that can be too much currently if we're talking about a balanced gameplay for all.
2) I never claimed that this game is a failure, but simply that it needs adjusting imo in order to improve. My entire friend group that plays it has noticed that the game leaves a sour taste in our mouth as the game has gone on, simply due to the these unbalanced matches we play. I actually have a hard time convincing other/new friends to try the game out simply because of the brief experiments they've had with crazy loadouts players. From my neck of the woods, people shy away from the game, which is a real bummer to see.
3/4/5 - they have similar talking points for me) - I never made those claims either about you being a "hacker" and having an individual advantage compared to others, but that people create specific perk-based advantages with the loadouts they can use due to them all being available. And just to be clear about the number of perks you say you have available - *abundance does not directly relate to variety*. Just because the perks are all there to choose from, doesn't mean they're used equally by those playing. I'm not saying that every perk needs to be removed or completely redone like you claim; I'm saying that they should be bound to their respective characters and adjusted for the sake of better gameplay. When everyone is using the same exact perks because it gives them unrealistic advantages, the game loses it's soul and originality.
To be clear, DbD already starts off with the system I propose. When you start the game, you're already only using character-specific perks and getting an understanding of what's working and what isn't. The idea is already there for the balancing I'm talking about. It's only when everyone has played the game enough that the game opens up the option to mix and match. I'm claiming that this "gate" should be closed (to an extent) in an effort to avoid these sweaty and overly toxic loadouts that people are using on both sides. So I would argue that my proposition isn't really flawed, but that many of us have already seen what characters are extremely weak based on their perks, but don't want to lose the OP options we've been given through levelling up. There will still be variety since each character as a whole is the variety, not the perks. My only add-on to maybe support my system would be to allow for alternate perks for these characters for the balancing efforts. I'm not saying give entirely different perks, but maybe have a "tree-like" option to let a perk have a slightly different effect or outcome, while still staying true to the characters' traits.
1 -
I've been saying this exact thing for awhile now. Not only does the vast amount of perks "you have to know" become super daunting, its especially so to new players to the game thus turning them off to continue to play. In a MP game you need some sort of readability in real time for both the survivor and the killer in order to make split second decisions to try and counter what you know they are capable of. In the current game state that is impossible.
1 -
Exactly!
0 -
I'd rather see a huge bloodpoints bonus for say a player getting their Adept done
In addition I would like to have "Nancy day" or "Plague day" where if used they grant double or triple points or whatever.
0
