New Mechanic Idea: Entity Favoritism
What if every perk, every item, every add-on in the game somehow influenced the game to favor one side or the other as a way to offset stupid OP stuff for more fair games?
Basically the mechanic would work like this: everything in the game has a rating of -10 to 10. The higher the rating the better because it increases your favoritism. Favoritism influences the RNG to favor survivor, favor killer, or act neutral. The stronger the item, the lower it's rating. DS, for example, would have a favoritism of say -3. If 1 person has it, and everything else is 0 (neutral) then some RNG elements will favor the killer. Not a lot, just maybe a window here or pallet there that's not safe, or maybe a gen is placed in a weird spot for survivors. BUT if 4 people run it, now the total is -12, so there will be more RNG elements that favor the killer. Fair considering that having 4 DS will really hurt a killer. Mori would be another example. Killer brings a pink mori that would be -8. "BUT WHY SO HIGH!? DS is only -3" yes but there are also 4 survivors. So if the killer brings a pink mori and everything else is 0, the game will moderately favor survivors more and give good window placements and the like.
Now if the killer brings a mori and NOED (which would also have a negative favoritism) while survivors bring a few DS and insta heals.... well the net result should be around 0 meaning no favoritism, since both side have somewhat equal amounts of BS.
The ultimate goal of this mechanic is to make the game more fair for players that play fair and don't use all the most powerful stuff all the time, as well as punish you for trying to stack the game in your favor too much against players that aren't equipped for it. It would also mean less getting screwed by RNG in games where everyone came in to play fair, because it's lame when you COULD have had a really nice game but RNG screwed you over.
Comments
-
Imagine the nightmare balancing such a mechanic would be. I'm not against your intended point to make the game seem more "fair" but I imagine this would bring about its own slew of complaints about balance.
9 -
Changes the core mechanics too much imo. Really the only thing that needs reworked is things that don't have counterplay.
0 -
@MegaWaffle said:
Imagine the nightmare balancing such a mechanic would be. I'm not against your intended point to make the game seem more "fair" but I imagine this would bring about its own slew of complaints about balance.I don't think so, you just go through everything in the game and give it a rating based on how powerful it is. The most powerful stuff should be around -5 while the least powerful should be around +5. If you use these items individually it shouldn't impact the game too hard, it's when they stack that you would start to see effects.
As far as what the mechanic actually does, well we kind of already have it except that it's complete RNG. If favoritism was a thing, there would be some influence to the RNG to make it more/less fair depending on the circumstances of the game. So where now killer might randomly get The Game map, even in a fair game, with favoritism RNG would pick a more neutral map.
0 -
I can understand the desire behind this, but it feels like a mistake. This game will not, nor should it, ever be perfectly balanced. It's impossible anyway. And while it might seem like a step toward balance, players are nothing if not crafty. This would actually give players more levers to pull on to unbalance the game. No matter how you value the perks, items, and so on players would find a way to abuse it.
The values themselves would be subject to endless debate and whining. Plus it makes the game needlessly complicated. There is already a decent learning curve to new players. Something like this would be a nightmare to explain.
0 -
@Dreamnomad said:
I can understand the desire behind this, but it feels like a mistake. This game will not, nor should it, ever be perfectly balanced. It's impossible anyway. And while it might seem like a step toward balance, players are nothing if not crafty. This would actually give players more levers to pull on to unbalance the game. No matter how you value the perks, items, and so on players would find a way to abuse it.The values themselves would be subject to endless debate and whining. Plus it makes the game needlessly complicated. There is already a decent learning curve to new players. Something like this would be a nightmare to explain.
I'm not exactly disagreeing with you, and the details of the mechanics need fleshed out, but I think you are missing the point of it. The point is to put in a sort of auto-balance mechanic that says abusing OP stuff will get you punished. If you are in an SWF group then yea you want to maximize your favoritism but you have to sacrifice all the good stuff to do it. So you are nerfing yourself hard to get what would be considered a minimal advantage. It's better to just use the OP stuff and accept playing RNG that would favor the killer.
As far as new players go, it doesn't matter if they get good windows or bad ones. They aren't to that point in the game yet. This would only affect the top tier players and only when the odds are stacked against the other side.
To be fair the system might be better hidden (so you could account for your own favoritism via the numbers but not what if the game favors you or them). This could also be a tell that someone it using something super powerful. As survivor that might mean NOED, as killer that might mean multiple DS's. Or maybe like 2 BNP's.
0 -
ahhh yes, a mechanic intended to solely screw over solo survivors, sounds fun and exciting and entirely fair.
1 -
@SenzuDuck said:
ahhh yes, a mechanic intended to solely screw over solo survivors, sounds fun and exciting and entirely fair.Well no if you come into the game with DS doesn't mean everyone has DS. And the game wouldn't punish a single DS that hard, you'd get like 1 bad window or pallet where you normally could have got a good one. It'd mean that if you want to stack things in your favor then you need to be able to play with bad RNG.
0 -
I lik eteh idea but i dont like punishing people for using strong perks that negate the stupid mechanics of this game.
0 -
It's an interesting idea, but not everything is this black and white. Because say certain things that normally would be considered a bad pallet or obstacle placement for the survivor, might not necessarily be so for every survivor depending on their skill and playstyle. Your idea has merit, because I definitely think that would be a good way to balance the game in regards to bringing the best of the best - that it comes at a sacrifice, in this case a sacrifice to have worse RNG.
1 -
An algorithm that weighed the equipment of each player to direct the RNG to one faction or the other would be the supreme justice that comes down from the realm of the Entity to that of the poor mortals, but probably a very difficult challenge for developers (there is an inevitably subjective, arbitrary component in attributing a given weight to each item, add-on, offering or perk in an algorithm). I certainly agree, if they accept the task.
1 -
@Incarnate said:
It's an interesting idea, but not everything is this black and white. Because say certain things that normally would be considered a bad pallet or obstacle placement for the survivor, might not necessarily be so for every survivor depending on their skill and playstyle. Your idea has merit, because I definitely think that would be a good way to balance the game in regards to bringing the best of the best - that it comes at a sacrifice, in this case a sacrifice to have worse RNG.This might be true in some context, but there are generally agreed upon "good" and "bad" placement of objects. For example, if you are playing killer and use a lot of stuff that lowers your favoritism then your totem might spawn in a bad spot or near a survivor. If you have stuff to increase your favoritism or a lot of survivors have lot favoritism then your totem would spawn in an objectively "good" spot so that it's harder for survivors to find. This sort of thing is complete RNG at the moment.
Perhaps there could be an option on killer's end to turn it off, and survivors can see if it is off or on. Survivors and killers that want fair games would then be able to match with each other more.
0 -
I think a lot of things in DbD would benefit from LESS RNG.
0 -
@thesuicidefox said:
DS, for example, would have a favoritism of say -3.The fact that Decisive Strike doesn't have a value of -9 or -10 in your example tells me that you're a Survivor playing favoritism. If the most obnoxious Survivor perk in the game only has a rating of -3, what in Fog's name would warrant a -10 rating? 3 purple flashlights duct-taped together?
With that said, however, I do like the overall idea because I get frustrated when I don't run the meta (I almost never equip Self Care, Decisive Strike, Sprint Burst, or Dead Hard; especially not altogether), yet I don't get brownie points for it, and I'm tunneled and camped just as hard as toxic meta Survivors. (Though, I suppose it's for the same reason: you wouldn't throw a tough fish back in the water after spending forever reeling it in, just like you wouldn't throw a rare fish back in the water if you were lucky to have found and caught it in the first place.)
About the Decisive Strike rating, it wouldn't be so bad if it counted toward the whole team's rating (since there are 4x more Survivors than Killers), but this isn't fair to individual Survivors. If I queue solo with average perks and get matched with a toxic meta squad then I get less opportunities to escape during a chase (or whatever favoritism would affect) because of it?
The rating should be per indiviual, and that is why I argue over the rating in your example, because a single Survivor only getting a rating of -3 for that perk would be ridiculous. The things is, what would favoritism affect if it cannot affect the group as a whole and must affect Survivors individually? Would a pallet appear for one Survivor, but not the other? I don't know...
0 -
@Nos37 said:
@thesuicidefox said:
DS, for example, would have a favoritism of say -3.The fact that Decisive Strike doesn't have a value of -9 or -10 in your example tells me that you're a Survivor playing favoritism. If the most obnoxious Survivor perk in the game only has a rating of -3, what in Fog's name would warrant a -10 rating? 3 purple flashlights duct-taped together?
With that said, however, I do like the overall idea because I get frustrated when I don't run the meta (I almost never equip Self Care, Decisive Strike, Sprint Burst, or Dead Hard; especially not altogether), yet I don't get brownie points for it, and I'm tunneled and camped just as hard as toxic meta Survivors.
I play killer at rank 1. Nurse, Spirit, Huntress, Freddy and Hag. Currently playing Nurse at rank 3, and in only 3 days with no Exposed or aura perks, I have been able to body most groups I come across. On console, and yes there are good survivors I play rank 1 surv also. I have 1500 hours in the game.
A single DS, from the obsession, is not really a big deal. It potentially can be in the right moment, but most of the time you can play around a single DS. It's when more than 1 survivor has it that it becomes a problem. Similarly, a single player with a good toolbox isn't a concern, but 3 of them means you will get gen rushed. Someone above said it would screw over solo survivors, which is why individual numbers should be so low to prevent that. It only punishes ABUSE. For killer that might mean Ruin, NOED, pink mori and pink add-ons. Against any team not wielding a lot of good stuff you will body them really hard and it's lame. Don't sit there and tell me you NEED that stuff either, because in the context of favoritism against 4 solo normie survivors with no items equipped that stuff becomes really OP. Against the 4 man SWF with 3 DS, 2 toolboxes, and a FL, yes go ham, but against the innocents you should be dissuaded from abusing your most powerful stuff.
0 -
All that for just 1-2 (un)safe pallets or windows?
What's the point of this?
The players will carry such game-changing Perks and whatnot, yet you don't want to add balancing changes around them, only making 1 tile more/less safe.All 4 Survivors will carry 4 DS: Now this pallet and that window won't be safe.
Weeeeeeeeeee0 -
@Boss said:
All that for just 1-2 (un)safe pallets or windows?
What's the point of this?
The players will carry such game-changing Perks and whatnot, yet you don't want to add balancing changes around them, only making 1 tile more/less safe.All 4 Survivors will carry 4 DS: Now this pallet and that window won't be safe.
WeeeeeeeeeeeIt makes a difference at the highest level, where players know the game very well and can take those minor advantages.
I play Gears of War. We have something called "right hand advantage" which means exactly what it says. The game is in 3rd person but all the characters hold weapons in their right hand. Due to the nature of shooting mechanics in the game (either camera shot or barrel shot depending on which game you reference), the shots come from the right side of the character model and thus when engaging an enemy you always want them on your right. If you are both on a piece of cover, whoever comes the right will basically be able to shoot around corners. This is IMPOSSIBLE from left hand, unless you do left hand glitch but then you need to be aimed which slows your movement. 1v1's around cover tend to be counter-clockwise circles. It's a very simple thing that, for most of the player base, actually makes no difference. But for the BEST players in the game, it is the ONLY difference that matters a lot of the time. These guys are so good and know the game so well that the only way another of their caliber can beat them is if they have this inherent advantage from the game. Granted they can beat each other from left hand, but right hand is the significantly safer option especially in Gnasher fights.
Basically I want for DBD something that only affects the upper echelon of players, or at least those players attempting to play at that level. If you bring a lot of OP stuff into the game then it's only fair when the killer brings a lot of OP stuff too (NOED, mori). So to slightly nerf these things in terms of RNG such that, if you play fair you are less likely to be totally screwed by RNG (or perhaps worse, you play unfair and get all the best RNG) would be an acceptable to balance these things and those that abuse it will be beaten by players than can use those advantages. Thus to avoid giving such advantages players would reconsider what they bring into a trial.
0 -
@thesuicidefox said:
@Boss said:
All that for just 1-2 (un)safe pallets or windows?
What's the point of this?
The players will carry such game-changing Perks and whatnot, yet you don't want to add balancing changes around them, only making 1 tile more/less safe.All 4 Survivors will carry 4 DS: Now this pallet and that window won't be safe.
WeeeeeeeeeeeIt makes a difference at the highest level, where players know the game very well and can take those minor advantages.
I play Gears of War. We have something called "right hand advantage" which means exactly what it says. The game is in 3rd person but all the characters hold weapons in their right hand. Due to the nature of shooting mechanics in the game (either camera shot or barrel shot depending on which game you reference), the shots come from the right side of the character model and thus when engaging an enemy you always want them on your right. If you are both on a piece of cover, whoever comes the right will basically be able to shoot around corners. This is IMPOSSIBLE from left hand, unless you do left hand glitch but then you need to be aimed which slows your movement. 1v1's around cover tend to be counter-clockwise circles. It's a very simple thing that, for most of the player base, actually makes no difference. But for the BEST players in the game, it is the ONLY difference that matters a lot of the time. These guys are so good and know the game so well that the only way another of their caliber can beat them is if they have this inherent advantage from the game. Granted they can beat each other from left hand, but right hand is the significantly safer option especially in Gnasher fights.
Basically I want for DBD something that only affects the upper echelon of players, or at least those players attempting to play at that level. If you bring a lot of OP stuff into the game then it's only fair when the killer brings a lot of OP stuff too (NOED, mori). So to slightly nerf these things in terms of RNG such that, if you play fair you are less likely to be totally screwed by RNG (or perhaps worse, you play unfair and get all the best RNG) would be an acceptable to balance these things and those that abuse it will be beaten by players than can use those advantages. Thus to avoid giving such advantages players would reconsider what they bring into a trial.
So 90% of the playerbase won't even feel an effect.
The premise of my comment has changed, but the result is kinda the same.
What's the point? We both know devs appeal to the majority of the players.0 -
Ducking all these walls of text, a stealthy Claudette would like to place his valued opinion. A new mechanic that is not independent, i.e. It's based on the current mechanics, influencing them in either a positive or negative way, conclusively, will NOT resolve the existing issues, instead adds more to more weight to bring them down.
But then, that's Claudette's own opinion and probably an unpopular one.
* moves back to my natural habitat *2 -
@Thesu@thesuicidefoxBoss said:@thesuicidefox said:
@Boss said:
All that for just 1-2 (un)safe pallets or windows?
What's the point of this?
The players will carry such game-changing Perks and whatnot, yet you don't want to add balancing changes around them, only making 1 tile more/less safe.All 4 Survivors will carry 4 DS: Now this pallet and that window won't be safe.
WeeeeeeeeeeeIt makes a difference at the highest level, where players know the game very well and can take those minor advantages.
I play Gears of War. We have something called "right hand advantage" which means exactly what it says. The game is in 3rd person but all the characters hold weapons in their right hand. Due to the nature of shooting mechanics in the game (either camera shot or barrel shot depending on which game you reference), the shots come from the right side of the character model and thus when engaging an enemy you always want them on your right. If you are both on a piece of cover, whoever comes the right will basically be able to shoot around corners. This is IMPOSSIBLE from left hand, unless you do left hand glitch but then you need to be aimed which slows your movement. 1v1's around cover tend to be counter-clockwise circles. It's a very simple thing that, for most of the player base, actually makes no difference. But for the BEST players in the game, it is the ONLY difference that matters a lot of the time. These guys are so good and know the game so well that the only way another of their caliber can beat them is if they have this inherent advantage from the game. Granted they can beat each other from left hand, but right hand is the significantly safer option especially in Gnasher fights.
Basically I want for DBD something that only affects the upper echelon of players, or at least those players attempting to play at that level. If you bring a lot of OP stuff into the game then it's only fair when the killer brings a lot of OP stuff too (NOED, mori). So to slightly nerf these things in terms of RNG such that, if you play fair you are less likely to be totally screwed by RNG (or perhaps worse, you play unfair and get all the best RNG) would be an acceptable to balance these things and those that abuse it will be beaten by players than can use those advantages. Thus to avoid giving such advantages players would reconsider what they bring into a trial.
So 90% of the playerbase won't even feel an effect.
The premise of my comment has changed, but the result is kinda the same.
What's the point? We both know devs appeal to the majority of the players.
Thats all well and good, but two things.
1- GOW isnt asymetrical, and both sides have the (relatively) same chances and opportunities in game.
2- That sounds more like high tier USE of an in game engine/mechanic, not something added to affect high tier play. I see that more like 360s, body blocking, crouching after vaulting to double back under a killers nose.
0
