NERFS AND BUFFS: The complete list of Killers and Surv reworks since the launch of DbD
I had some time and I did this thing that I wanted to do since long time.
Very quickly: I went through ALL THE PATCHNOTES since the launch of DbD.
I assigned a +1 to the buffs and a -1 to the nerfs that for both Killers and Survivors.
Here you can find the complete table of the things I took into consideration with the date of the corresponding patch - so if you don't trust me you can double check.
----> TABLE ----> https://image.ibb.co/jksWLA/table.jpg
Then I just summed the plus1 and the minus1 to see what happened, and the trend of the graph is pretty obvious.
----> CHART ----> https://image.ibb.co/fT2LDV/GRAPH.jpg
I leave to you guys any comment and consideration.
Comments
-
First of, good effort!
But as every statistic is has it's flaws, since not every nerf or buff should get weighted the same. Especially buffs to specific killer aren't worth a +1 when a survivor buff is worth -1.
Survivor are just skins and a survivor buff affects everyone, while a buff for a specific killer is only affecting that ONE killer.On the other hand, the chart shows that the game is taking a good direction balancewise right now.
Survivor had been way to powerful for 2 years and despite all the nerfs and buffs, they still are very strong.13 -
Basically what @Wolf74 said. You give a plus one for ONE killer buff when the others might sink in the dust.
I know making this dishonest charts and stats by just giving +1 or -1 for any buff or Nerf makes fit your narrative pretty well but isn't how balance works.
For fainting you should even put how strong were maps and game mechanics for each side and each killer, since playing with and playing nurse are 2 different charges and gameplay
Many "nerfs" were done for broken mechanics (vacuum, infinities etc) while killer buffs were for one specific killer. True, Nerf survivors helps killers overall but also maps were more ######### up than now
I want to have better maps balances than anything related than perks and mechanic, because guess what, if I mind game a killer I feel good and same in the other way around. The problems with this is devs are blind and want to prevent a RNG based maps instead a design behind. That makes it impossible
If you really wanna show how needs etc worked (knowing you, you might just want to make it fit your narrative but I could be wrong for once) you should show the difference between the two sides since the launch. Vacuums, Instagram flashlights, infinities etc etc and think how to calculate all these things in numbers.
Not a blant +1 or -1 that means nothing since some more than nerds are fixes and may or may not affect the entire size or not. Every survivor is the same, every killer is different and give a +1 to answer entire side for one killer buff its just dishonest7 -
Thoroughly dishonest representation. Like every single post from @Radiant, just another excuse for whining.
The work that was put in it is impressive and the list of changes is useful, but the +/- points are way off.
Game is more enjoyable now than ever. We actually have to make an effort when playing survivor.9 -
We could go over all the details and would find a lot more that needs to be reviewed in this stats.
Like already mentioned, fixes should not be included and any specific killer buff should only be worth 1/4 of a point and same it true for single map changes.0 -
I am happy to update the table and the graph if anybody feels like I left something out.
This of course a quantitative representation, and not a qualitative one.
Some of the nerf\buff can ofc have more weight than others on both sides but I wanted just to represent objectively the number of interventions without any subjective "rating" to each one.
So we have the raw data of what happened.
There are still some trends and consideration we can make and questions we can ask, like:
- Are killers usually too weak when they are first released? Given the amount of improvements needed - look how many time the wraith have been buffed in 2 years - it looks like something is wrong with that.
- Was the game generically too unbalanced towards survs 2 years ago?
- while the surv nerf\buff is "gently" leaning downward (currently around-15) the killer nerf\buff ratio looks like growing exponentially: what does that mean?
- Is the surv playerbase getting better faster than the killer playerbase so a constant nerf to surv capabilities is and will always be needed?
- In this framework, it appears like it will never be possible to touch some big issues like: hitbox, lag, vacuums and so; since those are generically killer advantages they would heavily impact the game with the inevitable following need for many more survivors nerfs to balance back.
1 -
@Radiant said:
I am happy to update the table and the graph if anybody feels like I left something out.This of course a quantitative representation, and not a qualitative one.
Some of the nerf\buff can ofc have more weight than others on both sides but I wanted just to represent objectively the number of interventions without any subjective "rating" to each one.
So we have the raw data of what happened.
There are still some trends and consideration we can make and questions we can ask, like:
Are killers usually too weak when they are first released? Given the amount of improvements needed - look how many time the wraith have been buffed in 2 years - it looks like something is wrong with that.
Was the game generically too unbalanced towards survs 2 years ago?
while the surv nerf\buff is "gently" leaning downward (currently around-15) the killer nerf\buff ratio looks like growing exponentially: what does that mean?
Is the surv playerbase getting better faster than the killer playerbase so a constant nerf to surv capabilities is and will always be needed?
In this framework, it appears like it will never be possible to touch some big issues like: hitbox, lag, vacuums and so; since those are generically killer advantages they would heavily impact the game with the inevitable following need for many more survivors nerfs to balance back.
what you need to do is
1 remove the bias from your data
2 make the graph relative
survivors are still stronger than killers, so you need to put the survivor line well above the killer line on the graph
3 every single post you make on both here and the steam forums is pure whining8 -
i will repeat what i wrote on the steam forums: the only thing that these data prove, supposing they are accurate, is that killer got more buffs. So?
If you are trying to prove that killers are overpowered you should adjust the starting point from 0, because i dont think there was perfect balance at release1 -
@Radiant said:
There are still some trends and consideration we can make and questions we can ask, like:
1- Are killers usually too weak when they are first released? Given the amount of improvements needed - look how many time the wraith have been buffed in 2 years - it looks like something is wrong with that.
2- Was the game generically too unbalanced towards survs 2 years ago?
3- while the surv nerf\buff is "gently" leaning downward (currently around-15) the killer nerf\buff ratio looks like growing exponentially: what does that mean?
4- Is the surv playerbase getting better faster than the killer playerbase so a constant nerf to surv capabilities is and will always be needed?
5- In this framework, it appears like it will never be possible to touch some big issues like: hitbox, lag, vacuums and so; since those are generically killer advantages they would heavily impact the game with the inevitable following need for many more survivors nerfs to balance back.
- Simple said, yes.
- Again, yes and it still is.
- That means, Devs start to acknowledge the unbalance and work on it.
- No, because the survivor playerbase does not "get better faster" it s just a gamedesign flaw that makes survivor just easier to play with less skill. When the player are on the same skilllevel, the survivor will win with the killer getting 1K max.
- Since when are problems with hitboxes, vacuum and lag favoring the killer?? Hitboxes are in favor of the survivor, vaccum was fixed and lag always goes both ways.
0 -
Why don't you just ignore that biased Survivor main troll? The list is useless as quantitative changes are utterly meaningless.
Self-Care received several nerfs, considering direct and indirect ones, yet it is still the go-to meta Perk for Survivors.
Save The Best For Last got gutted in a single nerf and went from a meta to an unused Perk for well over a year until its recent buff made it valuable again.
According to OP's logic, Self-Care was nerfed harder as it received more nerfs, yet as we all know, that is not the case at all. It has been a meta Perk for 2.5 years now.4 -
I think we could go over the whole list in details and rip it apart.
Example: "Noed improved" , when it is a true quantitative view that would count as "0", because the lower tiers got the exposed effect, but lost speed improvement.0 -
Save yourself the trouble, OP will simplyWolf74 said:I think we could go over the whole list in details and rip it apart.
Example: "Noed improved" , when it is a true quantitative view that would count as "0", because the lower tiers got the exposed effect, but lost speed improvement.
ignore any picking apart albeit stating so otherwise, just as they do in the same thread on the Steam Forums.1 -
@DocOctober I know, I just keep talking about this for other people to read. Sometimes you have to argue with biased stubborn survivor mains, just for others to read, so that their crap doesn't go uncommented and other read take it for truth.
4 -
Fair enough, fair enoughWolf74 said:@DocOctober I know, I just keep talking about this for other people to read. Sometimes you have to argue with biased stubborn survivor mains, just for others to read, so that their crap doesn't go uncommented and other read take it for truth.
2 -
This is very much an incorrect way to make a comparison.
For example...
No WAY can you count removing infinites as just 1 point, those are gamebreaking asf.
Or how about that Self Care never got close to having a proper nerf, making room for variation in the "meta".If you only count the amount of nerfs, you could easily screw up your chart by, for example, removing 1% from each Exhaustion Perk each nerf, up to 5% each Perk, totaling over 25 nerfs.
But all Perks would still make you sprint at 145% and Dead Hard at 245%, so you won't miss much speed at all.No one should care how many buffs and/or nerfs one side gets, as long as they are proper buffs and/or nerfs.
0 -
@Wolf74 said:
@Radiant said:
There are still some trends and consideration we can make and questions we can ask, like:
1- Are killers usually too weak when they are first released? Given the amount of improvements needed - look how many time the wraith have been buffed in 2 years - it looks like something is wrong with that.
2- Was the game generically too unbalanced towards survs 2 years ago?
3- while the surv nerf\buff is "gently" leaning downward (currently around-15) the killer nerf\buff ratio looks like growing exponentially: what does that mean?
4- Is the surv playerbase getting better faster than the killer playerbase so a constant nerf to surv capabilities is and will always be needed?
5- In this framework, it appears like it will never be possible to touch some big issues like: hitbox, lag, vacuums and so; since those are generically killer advantages they would heavily impact the game with the inevitable following need for many more survivors nerfs to balance back.
- Simple said, yes.
- Again, yes and it still is.
- That means, Devs start to acknowledge the unbalance and work on it.
- No, because the survivor playerbase does not "get better faster" it s just a gamedesign flaw that makes survivor just easier to play with less skill. When the player are on the same skilllevel, the survivor will win with the killer getting 1K max.
- Since when are problems with hitboxes, vacuum and lag favoring the killer?? Hitboxes are in favor of the survivor, vaccum was fixed and lag always goes both ways.
Lag does tend to favor killer a little, since he is the host, but there's little to nothing the dev team can do aobut it.
I agree about the rest of the points.I think there is an ages long misunderstanding between people who mostly play survivor and others who prefer killer. Many survivors tend to think they "lose" if they don't escape, while killers (not always, but usually) consider either a 3K or even a 2K with lots of hooks, won chases, successful use of abilities, etc a win. Now I'm somewhat killer biased, but even so I firmly believe that dying in a game is NOT a loss for a survivor at all, provided he/she did enough gens, saves, cleansing, or bought enough time for others in chases. The emblem system actually represents the performance of survivors quite well. Simply put, I'm on the opinion that pips show you whether you "won" or "lost", not BP or an escape.
My own experience is that I kept ranking up when I played survivor and even now I never get below rank 2, even though I'm not a great survivor (suck at looping). Whereas for killers it's a much steeper climb. Maybe others have different experiences, I'm not sure. But the point is, it's a horror game: if you're a survivor, dying is not an issue. You're supposed to die, that's your job. Just do it with style.
0 -
I like how fixes are included.
Clown was unintentionally nerfed during the vault changes but you let that out for your convenience, but then added the FIX as a buff to your list to skew data even further, if anything it was a temporary +1 for survivors.
You did the same with the Huntress cancel, it was broken after Pigs release but you added it as a buff.
And thats just the first thing i noticed
3 -
@ChesterTheMolester said:
I like how fixes are included.
Clown was unintentionally nerfed during the vault changes but you let that out for your convenience, but then added the FIX as a buff to your list to skew data even further, if anything it was a temporary +1 for survivors.You did the same with the Huntress cancel, it was broken after Pigs release but you added it as a buff.
And thats just the first thing i noticed
This happens literally every single time Survivors try to claim that they got more nerfs than Killers. Those Survivor mains are dishonest, deceiving pitiful human beings, as the only way to get a list that fits their agenda is by editing the facts with a ######### ton of bias, as facts state that they are wrong with their premise from the very start.
As it stands, Killers got more nerfs both in quality and in quantity, if the list is done properly and without bias, something Survivor mains like Radiant can't do.
4 -
DocOctober said:
@ChesterTheMolester said:
I like how fixes are included.
Clown was unintentionally nerfed during the vault changes but you let that out for your convenience, but then added the FIX as a buff to your list to skew data even further, if anything it was a temporary +1 for survivors.You did the same with the Huntress cancel, it was broken after Pigs release but you added it as a buff.
And thats just the first thing i noticed
This happens literally every single time Survivors try to claim that they got more nerfs than Killers. Those Survivor mains are dishonest, deceiving pitiful human beings, as the only way to get a list that fits their agenda is by editing the facts with a ######### ton of bias, as facts state that they are wrong with their premise from the very start.
As it stands, Killers got more nerfs both in quality and in quantity, if the list is done properly and without bias, something Survivor mains like Radiant can't do.
Indeed, quality was not considered and even then he felt the need to change the data towards survivors favor to deceive people. Going so far as to include Freddys infamous November nerfs as buffs.
Im not going to bother further with that list. I'm not sure if such a list would even bring something meaningful to the table as it wouldn't consider the current state of the game.
Its a cute attempt though.
2 -
Finally, a totally non-biased survivor revealing the dark truth about the super secret Freddy stealth buffs (read as - they have no idea what these notes even mean and are trying to compile data to suit their agenda
) 0 -
Lol you guys are so dramatic. "Dishonest and pitiful beings", this cracked me up.
I do believe these types are the loud minority. Plus, there definitely is a number of crybabies among killer mains too. Not that it makes the above graph any more credible.2 -
Its not undeserved. The fact that there are whiny Killers does not justify it. He blatantly misrepresents the balancing changes, so desperatly he even included nerfs and bugfixes as buffs, thats dishonest and pitiful.George_Soros said:Lol you guys are so dramatic. "Dishonest and pitiful beings", this cracked me up.
I do believe these types are the loud minority. Plus, there definitely is a number of crybabies among killer mains too. Not that it makes the above graph any more credible.0 -
@ChesterTheMolester said:
George_Soros said:Lol you guys are so dramatic. "Dishonest and pitiful beings", this cracked me up.
I do believe these types are the loud minority. Plus, there definitely is a number of crybabies among killer mains too. Not that it makes the above graph any more credible.
Its not undeserved. The fact that there are whiny Killers does not justify it. He blatantly misrepresents the balancing changes, so desperatly he even included nerfs and bugfixes as buffs, thats dishonest and pitiful.
He is known for that.
Just ignore him and dont give him attention. He is a hopeless case anyway0 -
@Radiant your sheets have nothing to do with balance nor the very idea of it. Just to have the concept straight, I would advise you to check the basics again. Take an old school balance with two plates and weights. Put something in one plate and the empty one will rise ... Until you put some weight there to balance things up. To reach a perfect balance, you may hit the scale with only one weight, or you could put multiple little one on the plates .
It does not matter how many weights you add to the scale, all it matter at the end is to have both plates on the same level.
Same goes for game design and balance. It doesn't matter how many buff you add, because as long as the balance isn't right, you NEED to keep adding them.
0 -
And that what i tryed to say in my newest post but just give up, baby killers have control of this forum and game. Find a new game because devs dont care about it.
1 -
I know right... Reading his posts for long enough. Just voicing my amusement about the HATRED BEING REAL.Master said:He is known for that.
Just ignore him and dont give him attention. He is a hopeless case anyway
I love this game so much!0 -
Such a list tells the past but not the current state of the game, so don't bother and enjoy your weekend.Peasant said:@Radiant, Why? Why did you have to make such a skewed and biased graph? Now I'm going to have to make my own graph that is actually accurate just to disprove your false narrative. It's not like I wanted to enjoy this Friday or anything.
0 -
i dont know why they did but it does need to be rectified
0 -
Already done with my 1.0.1 section. So far, the only notable changes were adjustments to Meg's Hair physics and the increased difficulty of Saboteur skillchecks. I marked these events as a +1 and a -1 so right now there's balance. I'm ignoring anything that says "Fixed" as the mechanic was unintended and therefore not official.
0 -
@Peasant said:
Already done with my 1.0.1 section. So far, the only notable changes were adjustments to Meg's Hair physics and the increased difficulty of Saboteur skillchecks. I marked these events as a +1 and a -1 so right now there's balance. I'm ignoring anything that says "Fixed" as the mechanic was unintended and therefore not official.
just wait until you get to Freddys nerf
1 -
@friendlykillermain said:
@Peasant said:
Already done with my 1.0.1 section. So far, the only notable changes were adjustments to Meg's Hair physics and the increased difficulty of Saboteur skillchecks. I marked these events as a +1 and a -1 so right now there's balance. I'm ignoring anything that says "Fixed" as the mechanic was unintended and therefore not official.
just wait until you get to Freddys nerf
Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
0 -
Alright, just finished 1.0.3, not much changed. Survivors got +1 for the creation of ('The Dreaded") Survive With Friends. Totals are now -2:+2
1 -
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.2 -
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
0 -
Okay, my progress report for 1.0.1 to 1.0.6 is:
Survivors have a score of -4 (From mostly perk nerfs and a few window tweaks.)
Killers have a score of +1 (Perk buffs.)For those who are concerned in checking my work, rest assured that unlike @Radiant who only used dates in their table, I am using the exact patch changes so you can clearly see my reasoning.
0 -
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
0 -
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
0 -
As others said, buff/nerfs are not equal among survivors and killers. A single survivors buff affects all survivors, while a buff to the Wraith affects him and only him.
To make a more accurate representation, I'd assign a +1 for any character affected by a change at that time.
Also changes to a single killer's power should not be considered as "multiple buffs", especially when many addons are changed, because that would be a way to inflate the numbers while the result would be to buff a singular aspect of the killer side of the game.
For example a buff to one killer nowadays would give a +1, a buff to all killers would give +12, while one to survivors would give +14*. Changes to pallets etc that affects both in opposite ways should be counted only one side though because otherwise you would artificially inflate the number and a single change would result as double.0 -
@Peasant said:
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
There's nothing to do actually, the whole discussion was started under the false idea that X number of buffs mean something in terms of balance.
Any balance related question is about HOW MUCH and not how many.
I guess the only way to measure it is the number of escaping survivor per match compared to the date of each patch release.
0 -
@Utna said:
@Peasant said:
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
There's nothing to do actually, the whole discussion was started under the false idea that X number of buffs mean something in terms of balance.
Any balance related question is about HOW MUCH and not how many.
I guess the only way to measure it is the number of escaping survivor per match compared to the date of each patch release.
Wait a second . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiA0 -
@Peasant said:
@Utna said:
@Peasant said:
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
There's nothing to do actually, the whole discussion was started under the false idea that X number of buffs mean something in terms of balance.
Any balance related question is about HOW MUCH and not how many.
I guess the only way to measure it is the number of escaping survivor per match compared to the date of each patch release.
Wait a second . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiAyeah exactly obviously those results wouldn't favor us and would ultimately be biased
0 -
@White_Owl said:
As others said, buff/nerfs are not equal among survivors and killers. A single survivors buff affects all survivors, while a buff to the Wraith affects him and only him.
To make a more accurate representation, I'd assign a +1 for any character affected by a change at that time.
Also changes to a single killer's power should not be considered as "multiple buffs", especially when many addons are changed, because that would be a way to inflate the numbers while the result would be to buff a singular aspect of the killer side of the game.
For example a buff to one killer nowadays would give a +1, a buff to all killers would give +12, while one to survivors would give +14*. Changes to pallets etc that affects both in opposite ways should be counted only one side though because otherwise you would artificially inflate the number and a single change would result as double.While these thoughts are interesting they are still wrong. We can't judge a balance by the number of weights put in a plate, but only by HOW MUCH they weigth.
To sum it up: 10 x 1 Kg isn't greater than 1 x 10Kg
0 -
@friendlykillermain said:
@Peasant said:
@Utna said:
@Peasant said:
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
There's nothing to do actually, the whole discussion was started under the false idea that X number of buffs mean something in terms of balance.
Any balance related question is about HOW MUCH and not how many.
I guess the only way to measure it is the number of escaping survivor per match compared to the date of each patch release.
Wait a second . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiAyeah exactly obviously those results wouldn't favor us and would ultimately be biased
If you did a qualitative analysis the results would be different. A number of my +'s for killers were buffs to "Spies of the Shadows". Who even uses SITS?!
0 -
@Peasant said:
@friendlykillermain said:
@Peasant said:
@Utna said:
@Peasant said:
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
There's nothing to do actually, the whole discussion was started under the false idea that X number of buffs mean something in terms of balance.
Any balance related question is about HOW MUCH and not how many.
I guess the only way to measure it is the number of escaping survivor per match compared to the date of each patch release.
Wait a second . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiAyeah exactly obviously those results wouldn't favor us and would ultimately be biased
If you did a qualitative analysis the results would be different. A number of my +'s for killers were buffs to "Spies of the Shadows". Who even uses SITS?!
people who dont understand whispers
0 -
@friendlykillermain said:
@Peasant said:
@Utna said:
@Peasant said:
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
There's nothing to do actually, the whole discussion was started under the false idea that X number of buffs mean something in terms of balance.
Any balance related question is about HOW MUCH and not how many.
I guess the only way to measure it is the number of escaping survivor per match compared to the date of each patch release.
Wait a second . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiAyeah exactly obviously those results wouldn't favor us and would ultimately be biased
Who is us ... do I know you ? And why such results would be biased ... results are results, just like facts are facts ... the only way to add subjectiveness to results is to keep some information to yourself.
0 -
@Utna said:
@friendlykillermain said:
@Peasant said:
@Utna said:
@Peasant said:
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
There's nothing to do actually, the whole discussion was started under the false idea that X number of buffs mean something in terms of balance.
Any balance related question is about HOW MUCH and not how many.
I guess the only way to measure it is the number of escaping survivor per match compared to the date of each patch release.
Wait a second . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiAyeah exactly obviously those results wouldn't favor us and would ultimately be biased
Who is us ... do I know you ? And why such results would be biased ... results are results, just like facts are facts ... the only way to add subjectiveness to results is to keep some information to yourself.
What @friendlykillermain is suggesting is that while the number of killer buffs compared to survivor buffs is greater, many of these buffs are insignificant things, like the 2 Spies in the Shadows buffs.
0 -
@Peasant said:
@Utna said:
@friendlykillermain said:
@Peasant said:
@Utna said:
@Peasant said:
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
There's nothing to do actually, the whole discussion was started under the false idea that X number of buffs mean something in terms of balance.
Any balance related question is about HOW MUCH and not how many.
I guess the only way to measure it is the number of escaping survivor per match compared to the date of each patch release.
Wait a second . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiAyeah exactly obviously those results wouldn't favor us and would ultimately be biased
Who is us ... do I know you ? And why such results would be biased ... results are results, just like facts are facts ... the only way to add subjectiveness to results is to keep some information to yourself.
What @friendlykillermain is suggesting is that while the number of killer buffs compared to survivor buffs is greater, many of these buffs are insignificant things, like the 2 Spies in the Shadows buffs.
Of course we agree, but are we still discussing the number of buffs / debuffs ? I thought we where past that point. Thought the average number of escaping survivors per game between each patches would be much more representative of the game balance.
What do you think ?
0 -
@Peasant said:
@friendlykillermain said:
@Peasant said:
@Utna said:
@Peasant said:
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
There's nothing to do actually, the whole discussion was started under the false idea that X number of buffs mean something in terms of balance.
Any balance related question is about HOW MUCH and not how many.
I guess the only way to measure it is the number of escaping survivor per match compared to the date of each patch release.
Wait a second . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiAyeah exactly obviously those results wouldn't favor us and would ultimately be biased
If you did a qualitative analysis the results would be different. A number of my +'s for killers were buffs to "Spies of the Shadows". Who even uses SITS?!
Before the perk got gutted, it was a very powerful perk and I used it a lot.
Btw... +/- things… if something affects survivor in general it should be worth "1", while any change to specific killer should only the worth "1/4".
That would get closer results.
Also minor nerfs/buffs should also be just "1/2".
And bugs and fixes should never count anything. Even the removal of infinites should not count.0 -
@Wolf74 said:
@Peasant said:
@friendlykillermain said:
@Peasant said:
@Utna said:
@Peasant said:
@DocOctober said:
@Peasant said:
@George_Soros said:
Peasant said:Just finished 1.0.2, I have -3 for survivors and +2 for killers. Survivors got: (Botany and healing nerf, sprint burst nerf, We'll make it nerf.) Killers got: (Stillness crows added, Spies in the Shadows buff.)
Not to be a downer, but whatever the final numbers are, they should be interpreted with keeping original state of balance in mind.
That said, please go on. Properly done Excel sheets are incredibly sexy.Yeah, I'm currently on Patch 1.0.5 and it's a slew of killer perk buffs and nerfs, can't wait to calculate this out!
Sounds like you're doing the exact same thing as OP: valuing quantity over quality, which is not how you go about these things. Please correct me if I'm wrong with that sentiment.
Also, I suggest that you don't go purely by Patch Notes. Patch Notes have left out multiple shadow changes, even a QA dev admitted that they are usually incomplete as they can't remember everything they change.
Damn, I suppose you're right. Unfortunately, I don't really know how else to really "measure" the balance of the game. I suppose I could make a Powerpoint of the changes, but then again, won't that just be quantity based? What to do?
There's nothing to do actually, the whole discussion was started under the false idea that X number of buffs mean something in terms of balance.
Any balance related question is about HOW MUCH and not how many.
I guess the only way to measure it is the number of escaping survivor per match compared to the date of each patch release.
Wait a second . . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4F4qzPbcFiAyeah exactly obviously those results wouldn't favor us and would ultimately be biased
If you did a qualitative analysis the results would be different. A number of my +'s for killers were buffs to "Spies of the Shadows". Who even uses SITS?!
Before the perk got gutted, it was a very powerful perk and I used it a lot.
Btw... +/- things… if something affects survivor in general it should be worth "1", while any change to specific killer should only the worth "1/4".
That would get closer results.
Also minor nerfs/buffs should also be just "1/2".
And bugs and fixes should never count anything. Even the removal of infinites should not count.Well, I honestly abandoned the project after Doc's post. This thread was a trap from the start.
0
