General Discussions
General Discussions
The nerf train
I’m all for balance but it’s getting a bit ridiculous at this point. There’s always a finger pointed towards the opposing side. Survivors should not evaluate the effectiveness of a killer perk and killers should not evaluate the effectiveness of a survivor perk. The statistics have shown numerous times that we suffer from confirmation bias. Ormond has been dubbed the largest map when it is, in fact, in the middle. Pig has been dubbed low tier when, in reality, she outperforms other killers. Nerfs should be performed when you have all facts at hand, not because of general dissatisfaction and frustration.
All in all, it would be be refreshing if we started talking about buffs instead of nerfs.
Comments
-
Choo choo
3 -
No
3 -
The problem with the stats are the pick rates and the matchmaking.
Pig will have always a higher kill rate, because her pick rate is low. She´s only played by her mains and since survivors rarely face her, they haven´t learned how to play against her.
Matchmaking also influences the kill stats badly, because it only shows that red rank killers have a high kill rate, but doesn´t show what survivors they faced. Right now we get rainbow matches. Where everyone is matched with and against players that have a complete different skill level.
5 -
Stats aren't a great thing to go off, especially in this game where there are so many variables.
Two examples would be that Object actually has a low escape rate, yet look at how strong it is, and Haddonfield is in the middle for kills, but if looped correctly it's the strongest survivor map in the game.
1 -
I disagree actually. You started the conversation correctly, but lost me on the last parts. Ormond feels large, but in fact as you stated isn't that big. I think haddonfield and dead dawg saloon are the largest maps, can't confirm tho. The pig needs a buff. She might outperform other killers, but the only reason she does is with her rng bear traps. She's still a weak killer.
And the priority SHOULD be nerfs, and buffs. For example, nerfing ds and OoO is a good thing, the undying nerf is also a good thing. The wglf buff is also a good thing. I believe that the priority should be #1 nerfing the annoying/rng/boring mechanics (keys, freddy, gen/pallet spawns)
#2 buff weak killers and perks (wraith, small game)
#3 release new content (chapters, skins)
1 -
And bug fixes.
0 -
Yep, I should've put em in #1 with game balancing my mistake :p
0 -
Those same statistics say that nurse needs a buff.
5 -
Noone cares about balance. You know which killer was the most played during 4.5.0 dbd patch aka the most killer sided dbd ever seen? Spirit
People could literally win with perkless trapper but they instead played spirit.
You don't balance the game through common sense and expecting that players would moderate themselves.
And as for nerfs, the stats they have show that freddy is overpowered apparently so they're not gonna nerf freddy because survivors are asking it but because they're doing what you're suggesting they should do
0 -
Haddonfield is one of the largest but isn't the largest, that crown goes to Mother's Dwelling.
Saloon is one of the smallest maps.
0 -
Glad that we agree on the most part! I can see why you feel my examples are are misleading, let me clarify how I mean: everyone is not deeming Ormond as the largest but there has been numerous discussions where people has called it the or one of the largest maps in the game. I have never seen a discussion about relativity to main building to be honest, but that may add to it. Either way, the tale of Ormond's size has been talked about extensively. Here's a post from Peanits on the subject:
"For Ormond in particular, it's not actually a very big map. I'm not sure where the stigma of it being massive comes from, but it's actually tied for the 18th biggest map in the game (of a total of 34 maps)."
Likewise, the general consensus (going from posts here on the forum and other DBD related forums) has been that pig is a weak killer. On the contrary, the kill/pick ratio shows that she is performing well in terms of successfully killing survivors in high ranks. High skill ceiling, sure, but not a weak killer according to the statistics. Numbers can be manipulated obviously, so I'm not saying statistics should be the way to go. But it's an indication that the reality is more complex than what we, as individual players, may perceive.
0 -
There are no god tier nurses anymore.
0 -
I agree that the data needs to be analyzed and contextualized. But seeing that all killers suffer from the same matchmaking, we can probably disregard that as a factor. If I remember correctly, the data was collected from all players over a period of time, so the amount of samples would have been pretty decent.
I've also heard that the argument the low pick rates inflates her number, but that's more of a hypothesis, no? It could also mean that she has a very high skill ceiling but that players who crack the code are more consistently successful, whereas spirit has lower skill ceiling but a generally lower kill rate. Especially when considering the statistics from red rank players. Again, I don't know but I think it adds some food for thought!
0 -
Totally agree that statistics only is a small part of the picture. But my point is that so is the player perception. OoO is strong in some cases but weak in other cases. Same with Haddonfield. Context is everything, but which context should be the guiding one?
0 -
Interesting. Not the best of sources but according to the dbd wiki, Dead Dawg Saloon is one of the smallest whereas Haddonfield is one of the largest. Also curious, when you say pig is a weak killer, what do you factor in?
Again, I'm not saying nerfs should be removed, they balance the game. But individual players do not have the big picture and should stop with the absolutism.
1 -
How so? To me it indicates that she has a very high skill ceiling.
0 -
What are these statistics that you are referring to?
No, I agree that you don't balance the game with common sense. Hopefully you have a vision that you try to balance the game towards. And then you look at the all the data at hand and try to understand how different tweaks will cater towards that goal. And maybe try it out in a PTB. But people still go on the forums and demand nerfs time and time again. Weird, huh?
Didn't they say they were going to look at Freddy though?
1 -
TL/DR at the bottom.
In a game like Dead by Daylight, it's hard to tell what context we should use to nerf or buff anything, if it be perks, killers, items or add ons. I think stats do play a part in some cases, for example Freddys kill rate almost being 3 kills per match. But then I think you have to look deeper into it, something stats don't show, it's why Pig isn't actually as strong as her stats suggest.
If I were to choose how we would go about it, I'd say fun would be the right way. The problem is, fun is subjective and no matter how you cut it there will be someone complaining. People were even complaining when we got a 1.5x BP bonus last year for a month because they wanted it to be 2x BP. But, I still think fun is the way we should take it, and maybe that's how the devs are taking it too. Freddys being nerfed, DS and OoO are being nerfed, maybe that's how they're taking it. We can only wait and see how they take it.
TL/DR: Fun should personally be the driving factor for balance, however many other things should influence changes.
0 -
I wholeheartedly agree with your points.
1 -
Following that logic, the Nurse needs a Buff.
0 -
Watch out. Survivors love to bully noob nurses.
0 -
Can help with this, Dead Dawg is among one of the smallest maps I believe, with the biggest maps being Hawkins (Dual floors double the size when laid together) and I think (I'll have to check wiki) The Game as well I could be wrong with game but Peanits a while back confirmed that Hawkins is massive
0 -
Pig is one of the weaker killers because she is outdated, her power doesn't fit with the current game state and it is RNG reliant
0 -
Made a mistake about what I meant, I tried to say that certain maps feel a lot larger than they usually are. Also, pig is an m1 killer than has a somewhat mediocre crouch and stun and an rng power. I remember when the data was released that many otz fans were confused that pig had so much killrate and he proved that the reason she does have such killrate is the rng nature of traps.
0 -
If you remove all the objects from the maps then yes, you're correct.
0 -
Or rather: following that logic, we can't infer anything from data without analyzing it further.
0 -
I see! Well, we agree that our perception on maps can be deceiving at times.
I think Otz is brilliant. Was this his logical reasoning or was it confirmed by the devs that her killrate is due to rng?
0 -
I don't think she is outdated but I think RNG is generally frustrating in a game where stakes are high. Maybe they should apply trapper logic to her traps as well?
0 -
Well, you claim Pig has a high skill ceiling. Higher than Nurse?
0 -
I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming that we could interpret lots of things from the data (not only that low pick rate = inflated number). Possible interpretations from the data:
- Pig's kill ratio is misleading because of expert players being overrepresented in the sample population
- Pig's kill ratio is high due to survivors being killed by traps
- Pig's high kill ratio and low pick rate is due to her skill ceiling being high
- Pig's low pick rate is due to her being regarded as 'low tier'
- Pig's low pick rate is due to her being low tier
- Other killers (spirit) kill ratio are misleading because of low skilled players being overrepresented in the sample population
- Other killers pick ratio are misleading because of being regarded as 'high tier'
- Etc.
We are getting slightly off topic here but as you pointed out, statistics alone is not enough. My point is not opinions bad, stats good. It's that we need to be aware of our confirmation bias, be nuanced and stop blaming external problems for our own shortcomings.
Lastly about nurse. I think some killers are more unique than others where you cannot capitalize from general killer skills in the same way. Nurse is extra special in that regard. Probably more so than pig (but I don't play them nearly enough to compare).
0 -
The exact points you made could be used on god nurses. Yet their stats look vastly different.
0 -
What is your point?
0 -
"All aboard the Nerf Train! Our next stop is: DS Station."
0 -
The following stations are en route:
- DS Station
- NOED Station
- Dead Hard Station
- BBQ Station
- Spine Chill Station
1 -
BBQ? Why?
0 -
That the stats we have right now are useless, because there are a million ways to interpret them differently.
0 -
Pig is definitely among the weakest killers. This isn't confirmation bias. The statistics only tell us that, on average, killers are pretty good in chase. That's why killers like Pig and Freddy (who's powers are easy to use) are near the top, while Nurse (who isn't a regular looper) is at the bottom. Pig is only as high in the stats as she is, because her power is slowdown. Put Pig against 4 good loopers, and she doesn't fare as well as other Killers because she doesn't have a good Chase Power. She's basically just an M1 Killer with a very strong power that only affects people she's actually downed (and only before the gens are done)
Stats don't tell the whole story. Yes, not every OoO escapes. That doesn't make it more fun to play against. If you're playing Trapper, OoO basically kills your power. And if someone with OoO is on comms, on Midwich... which, even if it doesn't happen often, is basically hell. It'd be like if survivors were exposed for the entire match against Legion, and Legion had an add-on that made Feral Frenzy count as a basic attack.
0 -
Go watch his pig compilation, he explained it and betted, literally, his left nut that he can prove his point
0 -
Then why are you trying to push me to interpret the data? I have said three times now that we cannot make assumptions based on the data alone.
0 -
Oh my bad. I kinda was in flow...
Nevermind then.
0 -
Because it’s the best perk in the entire game. Remove b&c and 90% of red rank killers won’t kill more than 1 surv
0 -
Well, confirmation bias is constant and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you have an opinion or a belief, you're probably engaging in confirmation bias whether you like it or not. I could have used other examples than pig and ormond and arrived at the same conclusion. We gravitate towards cementing our opinions and I think we as a community would benefit from nuancing our discussions and being more self-reflective.
The statistics doesn't tell the whole story, no. It does, however, provide some additional information that kan further nuance the discussion. Again, I'm not saying nerfs aren't needed or good for the game. I'm saying they should be strategically implemented with all facts at hand, rather than as a product of a smudging campaign.
I think Ruin, DS and OoO are great examples of good and healthy reworks.
0 -
Haha! Happens to the best of us :-)
0 -
I saw some post where a person thought it was too OP and punishing so I snatched it and added it to my station list
0 -
Because they camp that 1 survivor till he dies...
0 -
If they’re kill count is low then they’re considered weak. Not to mention the statistics also go off of all ranks...not just rank 1. Which influxes the kill count of weak killers. Bottom line the data provided for the community is utterly flawed.
0 -
You know, the Devs must really love it when people as bad at statistical analysis as they are come into the forums.
0 -
Ever tried the Steam DbD forums? That's a whole Freightliner Train of nerf posts...
The reason I came here.
0
