Kill Switch update: We have temporarily Kill Switched the Forgotten Ruins Map due to an issue that causes players to become stuck in place. The Map will remain out of rotation until this is resolved.

http://dbd.game/killswitch

How to Truly Work the Game Towards Better Balance

AntiJelly
AntiJelly Member Posts: 1,155
edited November 2018 in General Discussions

The survivors need their own kits. The game will never be balanced until survivors have their own specific set of attributes and perks for them to use, or else there's nothing to balance off of.

EDIT: There is no way to balance anything without a base to go off of. Take TF2 for example, every character has their own base kit that is made to be a certain way. Every item the character has is then made balanced in relation to their base weapon.

Post edited by AntiJelly on

Comments

  • Blueberry
    Blueberry Member Posts: 14,460

    Then everyone will be running the same survivors and you'd have no variety. Not a good solution imo

  • AntiJelly
    AntiJelly Member Posts: 1,155

    @Blueberry said:
    Then everyone will be running the same survivors and you'd have no variety. Not a good solution imo

    How would you know?

  • Khalednazari
    Khalednazari Member Posts: 1,445
    AntiJelly said:

    How would you know?

    * hides behind 3 other Claudettes *
  • Rex_Huin
    Rex_Huin Member Posts: 1,208

    @AntiJelly said:
    The survivors need their own kits. The game will never be balanced until survivors have their own specific set of attributes and perks for them to use, or else there's nothing to balance off of.

    I don't understand...please expand.

  • Blueberry
    Blueberry Member Posts: 14,460

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:
    Then everyone will be running the same survivors and you'd have no variety. Not a good solution imo

    How would you know?

    It's quite clear. There are a few base survivor perks that are extremely more powerful than the others.

  • AntiJelly
    AntiJelly Member Posts: 1,155

    @Blueberry said:

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:
    Then everyone will be running the same survivors and you'd have no variety. Not a good solution imo

    How would you know?

    It's quite clear. There are a few base survivor perks that are extremely more powerful than the others.

    No. I'm talking a full rebalance. Change perks to reflect a character's attributes and such.

  • Malakir
    Malakir Member Posts: 799
    That's the worst way to balance it.
    The maps are the problems,the main one at least. After the maps gives a fair chance on both sides giving more mind games spots then we can talk about perks
  • Blueberry
    Blueberry Member Posts: 14,460
    edited November 2018

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:
    Then everyone will be running the same survivors and you'd have no variety. Not a good solution imo

    How would you know?

    It's quite clear. There are a few base survivor perks that are extremely more powerful than the others.

    No. I'm talking a full rebalance. Change perks to reflect a character's attributes and such.

    If you're talking a full reshuffling of perks and re balancing them all then that's just way, way too big of a project that they would not undertake. Also because there are much, much simpler solutions. This wouldn't even effect the core problems of the game.

  • AntiJelly
    AntiJelly Member Posts: 1,155

    @Malakir said:
    That's the worst way to balance it.
    The maps are the problems,the main one at least. After the maps gives a fair chance on both sides giving more mind games spots then we can talk about perks

    The maps have nothing to do with it. There could be some more consistency in maps, but that's HARDLY a problem.

  • AntiJelly
    AntiJelly Member Posts: 1,155

    @Blueberry said:

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:
    Then everyone will be running the same survivors and you'd have no variety. Not a good solution imo

    How would you know?

    It's quite clear. There are a few base survivor perks that are extremely more powerful than the others.

    No. I'm talking a full rebalance. Change perks to reflect a character's attributes and such.

    If you're talking a full reshuffling of perks and re balancing them all then that's just way, way too big of a project that they would not undertake. Also because there are much, much simpler solutions. This wouldn't even effect the core problems of the game.

    There aren't simpler solutions. DBD is in a rut because of all of the band-aids from the beginning. It needs major changes to be fun or balanced.

  • AntiJelly
    AntiJelly Member Posts: 1,155

    @Rex_Huin said:

    @AntiJelly said:
    The survivors need their own kits. The game will never be balanced until survivors have their own specific set of attributes and perks for them to use, or else there's nothing to balance off of.

    I don't understand...please expand.

    Edited main post, hope it helps?

  • Blueberry
    Blueberry Member Posts: 14,460

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:
    Then everyone will be running the same survivors and you'd have no variety. Not a good solution imo

    How would you know?

    It's quite clear. There are a few base survivor perks that are extremely more powerful than the others.

    No. I'm talking a full rebalance. Change perks to reflect a character's attributes and such.

    If you're talking a full reshuffling of perks and re balancing them all then that's just way, way too big of a project that they would not undertake. Also because there are much, much simpler solutions. This wouldn't even effect the core problems of the game.

    There aren't simpler solutions. DBD is in a rut because of all of the band-aids from the beginning. It needs major changes to be fun or balanced.

    They already looked at doing this idea of yours a couple years back idk if you were here but they decided against it.

    The core issues with the game are map design, some unbalanced perks and the imbalance of time that the two sides have to complete their objectives. Changing survivor individual perks and re balancing them only touches on one of these areas. I also think it would be even more of a nightmare trying to balance them the way you're intending. Not to mention we would lose a lot of survivor diversity with certain ones being better. People wan't to play the survivor they like, not be forced to use a certain one for its perks. Just balancing perks in general would be a lot easier than locking survivors for certain ones just because, it doesn't solve anything.

  • AntiJelly
    AntiJelly Member Posts: 1,155

    @Blueberry said:

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:
    Then everyone will be running the same survivors and you'd have no variety. Not a good solution imo

    How would you know?

    It's quite clear. There are a few base survivor perks that are extremely more powerful than the others.

    No. I'm talking a full rebalance. Change perks to reflect a character's attributes and such.

    If you're talking a full reshuffling of perks and re balancing them all then that's just way, way too big of a project that they would not undertake. Also because there are much, much simpler solutions. This wouldn't even effect the core problems of the game.

    There aren't simpler solutions. DBD is in a rut because of all of the band-aids from the beginning. It needs major changes to be fun or balanced.

    They already looked at doing this idea of yours a couple years back idk if you were here but they decided against it.

    The core issues with the game are map design, some unbalanced perks and the imbalance of time that the two sides have to complete their objectives. Changing survivor individual perks and re balancing them only touches on one of these areas. I also think it would be even more of a nightmare trying to balance them the way you're intending. Not to mention we would lose a lot of survivor diversity with certain ones being better. People wan't to play the survivor they like, not be forced to use a certain one for its perks. Just balancing perks in general would be a lot easier than locking survivors for certain ones just because, it doesn't solve anything.

    Well, I think it's a nightmare in general at this point, devs have A LOT on their plate:

    • Map Redesigns
    • Overpowered/Underpowered Perks Changes
    • Imbalance of time between killer and survivor objectives (Gen rework)
    • Killer Reworks
  • Malakir
    Malakir Member Posts: 799
    AntiJelly said:

    @Malakir said:
    That's the worst way to balance it.
    The maps are the problems,the main one at least. After the maps gives a fair chance on both sides giving more mind games spots then we can talk about perks

    The maps have nothing to do with it. There could be some more consistency in maps, but that's HARDLY a problem.

    Okay you cant see the problems then. Got it
  • AntiJelly
    AntiJelly Member Posts: 1,155

    @Malakir said:
    AntiJelly said:

    @Malakir said:

    That's the worst way to balance it.

    The maps are the problems,the main one at least. After the maps gives a fair chance on both sides giving more mind games spots then we can talk about perks

    The maps have nothing to do with it. There could be some more consistency in maps, but that's HARDLY a problem.

    Okay you cant see the problems then. Got it

    You are being very rude, if you can't handle an opposing opinion maybe don't be on the forums.

  • Blueberry
    Blueberry Member Posts: 14,460

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:

    @AntiJelly said:

    @Blueberry said:
    Then everyone will be running the same survivors and you'd have no variety. Not a good solution imo

    How would you know?

    It's quite clear. There are a few base survivor perks that are extremely more powerful than the others.

    No. I'm talking a full rebalance. Change perks to reflect a character's attributes and such.

    If you're talking a full reshuffling of perks and re balancing them all then that's just way, way too big of a project that they would not undertake. Also because there are much, much simpler solutions. This wouldn't even effect the core problems of the game.

    There aren't simpler solutions. DBD is in a rut because of all of the band-aids from the beginning. It needs major changes to be fun or balanced.

    They already looked at doing this idea of yours a couple years back idk if you were here but they decided against it.

    The core issues with the game are map design, some unbalanced perks and the imbalance of time that the two sides have to complete their objectives. Changing survivor individual perks and re balancing them only touches on one of these areas. I also think it would be even more of a nightmare trying to balance them the way you're intending. Not to mention we would lose a lot of survivor diversity with certain ones being better. People wan't to play the survivor they like, not be forced to use a certain one for its perks. Just balancing perks in general would be a lot easier than locking survivors for certain ones just because, it doesn't solve anything.

    Well, I think it's a nightmare in general at this point, devs have A LOT on their plate:

    • Map Redesigns
    • Overpowered/Underpowered Perks Changes
    • Imbalance of time between killer and survivor objectives (Gen rework)
    • Killer Reworks

    It's true, they do. They have been starting to move in the right direction at least, we'll see if it continues.

  • Malakir
    Malakir Member Posts: 799
    AntiJelly said:

    @Malakir said:
    AntiJelly said:

    @Malakir said:

    That's the worst way to balance it.

    The maps are the problems,the main one at least. After the maps gives a fair chance on both sides giving more mind games spots then we can talk about perks

    The maps have nothing to do with it. There could be some more consistency in maps, but that's HARDLY a problem.

    Okay you cant see the problems then. Got it

    You are being very rude, if you can't handle an opposing opinion maybe don't be on the forums.

    I do but why this double standard? If you dismiss my argument saying I'm wrong its fine if I do the same its not? 

    I'm just using your logic against you. How does it feel?
  • White_Owl
    White_Owl Member Posts: 3,786

    How would that help balance aside from adding an additional layer of complexity and generating an inevitable meta?