NERFS AND BUFFS: The complete list of Killers and Surv reworks since the launch of DbD

@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=4F4qzPbcFiA

yeah 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.

Closer results indeed, but still wrong as long as your base data is the number of buffs. Even with quarters and double buffs, your appreciation of those values will end up being based on your personal opinion (wich I personally agree with but that isn't the point). I mean, we can't go around and give each patch a grade based on our personal experience with the game ... See how you liked SITS and how Peasant doesn't ... your rate for a modification on this perk would be different I suppose.

There it is, we cannot use patch information as a data to understand the game balance ... unless we include to these information their objective effect to the game. What I mean by effect to the game is "numberr of escaped survivors", "number of disconnection", "number of survivors being hit".