Are bad players the reason why nothing gets balanced

Options

Let's be real here most dbd players are not so good in the game. They do not see the potential abusse of some mechanics and perks. This makes for a bad solo queue experience and general kill rates to go up.

That's why most killers are above the average kill rate to be above 2 kills.

But i Know that if every survivor is decent the game would become a nightmare to play as killer. The only killers that would be played is nurse of spirit which if you din't know are not fun to counter.

So the devs wil never see the issue with the game and balance.

Comments

  • [Deleted User]
    [Deleted User] Posts: 5,229
    edited January 2021
    Options

    It's not that, because there are a ton of easy and obvious solutions to problems that take a long time. So we know that even what action needs to be taken is clear, the action itself is greatly delayed.

    So we know nothing of that sort is the problem.

    The most suspected reason is just the awful base coding of the game being such a mess that it's hard to make any changes without just...breaking everything else.

  • The_Bootie_Gorgon
    The_Bootie_Gorgon Member Posts: 2,340
    Options

    yeah, the majority of players are not going to be on the same level as scott jund or tofu or tru3 or a noob3 or a monto or the other streamers that stream dbd 24/7 and have 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 hours under their belt.

  • dspaceman20
    dspaceman20 Member Posts: 4,699
    Options

    Theoretically, if a 4 good survivors, went up against a high mmr killer what would the outcome be.

  • savevatznick
    savevatznick Member Posts: 651
    Options

    Depends on the killer, and the map. I'd say versus a majority of the roster on a good portion of the maps, the survivors would definitely be favored.

    I don't think most M1 killers would be able get enough injures and waste enough resources to carry through to the endgame versus survivors who played well.I don't even think a better killer like Huntress, given a bad map spawn, would have a chance versus optimal survivors unless she was running Iri head and hit every single shot quickly.

    The problem again is the ranking system. There's such a huge gap between a Rank 1 Survivor who plays like a green rank, and a Rank 1 survivor who is legitimately good at reading mindgames, managing their time, etc. The term "Red Rank" seems so useless when evaluating the balance of the game.

  • Axe
    Axe Member Posts: 1,060
    Options

    yep. Pretty much

  • bgbomb
    bgbomb Member Posts: 434
    Options

    correct half

    they balance top killer player with survivor who play for fun.

  • bkn
    bkn Member Posts: 228
    Options

    probably poor coding. As soon as they change something, everything else breaks down. They work on killer A, and Killer B has a bug that he cant use his power anymore, although they didnt even touch him... or survivors suddenly sees their own scratchmarks...

  • RaSavage42
    RaSavage42 Member Posts: 5,542
    Options

    Yes and no

    Balancing for all skill levels... with all of the variables is difficult

    Maps- Perks- Addons- Items- Offerings- Killer Powers

    You can't possibly balance an asymmetrical game without something being too strong or too weak

    Don't blame "bad players" for bad balancing... especially if the game itself doesn't have ways to help (casual and competitive modes, better tutorials, More KYF options, Better MM, Clearer explanations of "winning" and "losing", And yes Better coding on a newer engine

  • FellowKillerMain
    FellowKillerMain Member Posts: 858
    Options

    N00b3's whole shtick was based on Balanced Landing before the change, now that it's gone, he's gone :P So, that's one example of them balancing around top tier players. (I am kidding a bit, I'm sure n00b3 mostly left because he was bored.)

  • SkerpiTwitch
    SkerpiTwitch Member Posts: 327
    Options

    Survivor gameplay has been the same for the past 4 years, its the new playerbase they focus on

  • Covens
    Covens Member Posts: 15
    edited January 2021
    Options
    Post edited by Covens on
  • Mr_K
    Mr_K Member Posts: 9,126
    Options
  • Izy
    Izy Member Posts: 27
    Options

    I wouldn't say it's just the "bad" players. It's just that this game has a huge range of skill levels. Killers appear very strong at low to mid range play, and good survivors can dominate when all players are of high skill especially with SWF.

    At it's core, DBD is a very casual game where most people tend to gravitate to one side and dig their heels in. Many speak against the other side, either from a position of ignorance or ignoring their bias, refusing to acknowledge the pitfalls of the other side.

    Top level streamers who offer constructive criticism often come under attack more than they have people listen to them. Other streamers have given up and just tell players what they want to hear.

    Anyone on this forum can see how much infighting there is and people who are unwilling to hear what other people have to say. The state of the game is what it is because of this. There's simply too many people all asking for different things. You can blame the "bad" players but it's an oversimplification.

  • Gay_Police_Dept
    Gay_Police_Dept Member Posts: 743
    Options

    Another way to see it would be "most things don't need to be balanced because they are fine as they currently are but bad players still think it's not their fault they lost the match."

  • NightWolfsFury
    NightWolfsFury Member Posts: 215
    Options

    It would be mixed, just as the Best of the Best tournament showed, just like the games are for the average player. Killers were typically ranging anywhere from 0-4ks throughout the whole thing. Ayrun specifically TRASHED on some teams and secured quick 4ks. And these survivors are also considered the best of the best.

    This question is flawed, as even tournaments show that a Wraith can 4k on Dead Dawg against some of the best survivors as an evenly matched killer player.

  • xEa
    xEa Member Posts: 4,105
    Options

    The short answer is no, it is ballanced for the good players.

    The long answer

    The game would be much more survivor sided if they ballance for bad players. It would be also slightly more survivor sided if they ballance for average or even semi good players.

    The game at the current state is actually ballanced for the good players. Not the best, but for good.


    • Bad Killer destroy bad survivors
    • Mediocre Killer beat mediocre survivors
    • Good Killer win most of the time against good survivors
    • Best Killer loose or draws against the best survivor

    If you are honest its just like that, the statistics we also have from the dev show the same picture. Thinking the game is ballanced for bad players is completly delusional.

  • Covens
    Covens Member Posts: 15
    Options

    yeah because tournaments are real in this game. What i mean by this is that the pallet spawns and structers are randomly generated. Dead dawg saloon is mostly killer sided but that is for debate.

  • xEa
    xEa Member Posts: 4,105
    Options

    IF every survivor would become decent, we have to assume that also killer would become decent. A decent killer still wins against decent survivors most of the time.

    People tend to think killer players are so good and survivors are garbage, but that is simply not true. I see the same ammount of trash killer then trash survivor, even on R1.

  • TruffleTurtle
    TruffleTurtle Member Posts: 614
    Options

    I feel like it's more of the devs priorities. They'll change what they want and ignore what they want based on their own agenda. That's why things get changed when nobody asked for it and long time issues stay

  • Moxie
    Moxie Member Posts: 806
    Options

    The reason is the Devs are lazy. If you have ever experienced a bout of laziness, you will know that the longer you remain sedentary, the harder it is to spur yourself into action. There is no competition to the game, so they are simply required to do the bare minimum.

    It was also revealed on a Dev stream they can basically "work when they want".

    Multiple this problem by oh give or take 3 years and here we are.

  • Vetrathene
    Vetrathene Member Posts: 1,425
    Options

    Yep, they do. Which is an ass backwards approach to how to balance a competitive game. Every other competitive game out there balances around the top 5% of players. This one balances around the lowest 1%. Its just. SO. Bad.

  • EvilJoshy
    EvilJoshy Member Posts: 5,295
    Options

    I think Scouts last video said it all. If there was a real competitor this game would die over night. From browsing these forums I can tell there are a lot of people who are upset with the game and have been for awhile. If another game like this came out and it was well made+supported by whoever made it. There would be a mass exodus like when a new MMO comes out.

  • landromat
    landromat Member Posts: 2,193
    Options

    Devs are bad players, so they're balancing game around their skill level

  • RatherUncreativeName
    Options

    There are about 22 thousand discussions and 142 thousand comments in the feedback forum. Part of the reason the game doesn't get balanced is that the devs need to weigh on the opinions of, according to the last 30 days of steam charts, 35,000 players.

    What seems like an obvious issue to you might be the one thing I find fun, and a mechanic another person knows nothing about. The devs have to sift through thousands of people's opinions, all with their own biases, to get some vague idea of what the community wants. Every balance change has people who love it, hate it, and don't care. That doesn't even take into account the faceless horde of players who either don't know or don't care enough to leave feedback, which the devs still somehow have to take into consideration.

    I don't know how game devs do it, but it's not as simple as "Just read what the community says!"

  • Altarf
    Altarf Member Posts: 1,044
    Options

    That's true, but a lot of people in balancing debates share similar ideas. I'd argue a majority of the playerbase thinks Decisive Strike should be looked at, same with NOED. Surely if BHVR notice that several, several people are arguing to nerf either of these perks, they should at least be considered?

    But hey, people with DS probably don't have a high escape rate or something so it's completely fine in almo's books. Instead, let's buff Dead Hard.