Should the devs balance for 2 kills, 2 escapes each match?
That way everyone can participate and get a chance to enjoy the game? Right now I know most matches are killers getting 4K games, especially outside red ranks. How can devs balance the game more for casual players (those with jobs and families), while still making the hand fun for all? 2 kills and 2 escapes was what the devs stated was their goal but I’m not seeing that in games current state. Any fun ideas?
Comments
-
Well that all depends of team or killer and who will win both sides have chance to win not just killers it's not like they 4k each match unless u play solo queue than it's understandable
0 -
Honeslty killers feel weak at 50% kill rate. Should be at least 60% to not make them look silly
5 -
Balancing the game that way is expecting players to fail in 50% of their objective, that's hardly fair or Balanced.
2 -
50% kill rates are weak. Why i have to show effort for this?
2 -
But data now shows most games are a 4K for killer. Logically that would show survivors are not able to compete. You can say some are just bad but surely not all are. If they are, why is that?
1 -
It’s 70% for most. Outside red ranks it’s majority 4K killer sided games. Why should we all suffer because someone living in their moms basement plays 12 hours a day to stay at rank 1. Who has the time? Games should be fun.
2 -
Solo is bad but so is swf outside red ranks. Should a game be balanced around a small percentage of players while the majority suffers?
1 -
I think 2 kills 2 escape is the perfect balance.
HOWEVER....
The problem is that Survivors are either solo or SWF and the informational difference is too huge. So any Killers that can deal with good SWF groups, and you need Killers who can do this or no-one will want to play Killer, will absolutely annihilate all but God-tier solo survivors. Something has to be done to buff solo survivors informational awareness else this imbalance will continue.
Technically, a working MMR would sort this issue out, but i will believe it when I see it...
2 -
it worked better than current ranking. I actually got put with people who are more or less my skill rather than the ######### teammates im getting rn
1 -
Devs are balancing their game on big data, which is not the most efficient way to balance the game
2 -
They are trying to follow the horror tropes so shouldn't it be 3 kills with a final girl/guy escaping?
0 -
Most survivors are pure casuals. The only reason a good survivor dies is if they are trying to save the bad ones. If all Survivors are good then killers getting 2k is already a massive effort, this is what MMR showed.
0 -
But this is a job the server's still go so when you come home theirs people to play with and against.
0 -
Quite sure they said that's what they want. But that isn't truly feasible with how many games go with teammates, maps, perks, and so many variables. So games will keep varying from 0ks - 4ks. Please respond.
2 -
That only shows that most survivors are bad.
0 -
And many killers too, but they can camp, tunnel or use noed. Bad survs can’t do anything
0 -
You seem a bit upset that there are good players on the other side.
3 -
they already are
1 -
Weather you make money from doing it is up to you
0 -
No. Balance should be on hooks not kills. Seriously kills show nothing that happened in the match.
1 -
The game should be balanced around 2 escapes/deaths, I am both red rank 1 survivor and killer and on average I do a 4k most of my matches and only 3k if the last survivor has a key or finds hatch before I do.
Most players are so used to the idea that because the game was ''extremely survivor sided'' some time ago then the game should be survivor sided now...but the game has slowly evolved past that, the game has slowly changed over time from infinite loops and ultra safe pallets (most were removed over time, 4 years of tweaks) to mostly dead zones and unsafe loops.
0 -
Balance should be based on winners and losers. You know, like how most games are balanced.
1 -
So it’s always the survivors fault with zero emphasis on killer? Then why all the complaints about survivor maps and perks of survivors are just “bad”?
0 -
Just like if majority of survivors escaped it isn't a skill problem for killers, but issues with anything else other than that players skill.
0 -
The 2K/2E is not for each match no.
A 0K, 4K, 1K, and 3K is also an avarage of 2K/2E while none of the matches were actually 2K/2E
1 -
This is also true.
EDIT: I reread this and nevermind. This is true to an extent.
0 -
Wins are subjective in asymmetric games. For me as a survivor a win is doing well, Escaping just isn't possible if my team has no idea how to play, no matter how hard I try. But hooks is better than kills, 2 kills could be 2-10 hooks which is a big difference.
2 -
Because survivors simply have more OP things. Every map is either balanced or survivor sided. There are no killer sided maps. And then you have perks like SB, DH, and previously, DS.
2 -
"Wins are subjective in asymmetric games."
No they're not. How do you think Mario Party games decide which side wins coins after a 1v3 mini-game?
1 -
Don't be egocentric, survivors are not there for you to have fun, they want to have fun too, that's the purpose of the game. Which role you play doesn't matter.
1 -
This game was meant for killers to get 4ks! The whole idea was your this weaker being trying to defy all odds and survive! Survivor was meant to be challenging and killer was meant to be a good way of getting some workig out some anger. So NO just cause a bunch of survivors started grouping up an getting all sweaty treating this like an e-sports bc there to pussy to actually play a real e-sports game dose not mean we should ruin the experience.
The game should be in a way that the killer has to make mistakes in order to loose but rn its the other way around. The killer could do everything perfect and still loose..
Avrage Joe > mystical beings w super powers.
0 -
Don't throw that on me im playing both sides
3 -
Sounds like something good matchmaking would solve
0 -
I understand games should be fun but doesn't that just sound like undermining the effort of killers who put time into being good enough to 4k consistently and undermining the effort of survivors who practiced really hard to be good by just tearing wins out of the hands of one and handing it to the other
1 -
If wins wasnt subjective why are we even discussing this post? And there was no reply to kills being 2-10 hooks. Does that mean someone with 2 hooks did as good at 10 hooks? Because I think not.
2 -
It does not work like that ... what does 2 kills mean? is it 10 out of 12 hooks or is it 2 hooks (facecamps).
The goal should be to change the "CORE GAMEPLAY"* so going for the unhooked person is not the most efficient way of playing (many killers dont do it cuz they are nice it still hurts their gameplay).
*(not some perks acting as bandaids cuz new survivors wont have these perks).
I think i posted it often enough that repairing should be charged based (slower at the start but way faster once you interacted with the killer unhooked teammates, cleansed totems).
This charge based system would allow to transfer charges from a unhooked person to the unhooker i.e the unhooked person repairs 50% slower while the unhooker repairs 50% faster forcing the killer to go for the unhooker.
If the Killer Face-Camps the charges of the victim can be collected so the remaining 3 survivor can repair faster.
0 -
Because the devs have done an inadequate job actually establishing the win condition of this game, forcing players to decide for themselves. That doesn't mean that wins in asymmetrical games are necessarily/inherently subjective. Among Us, for example, has no problem declaring a winner/loser. Heck, IDENTITY V, A GAME MODELED DIRECTLY AFTER DBD, has no problem with this.
0 -
This reminds me of another game I played years ago: Dirty Bomb
One day a content creator asked them: "Hey, your matchmaking is bad. In half of my games my team is totally stomping the opposite team. The other half of my games, my team gets totally stomped. This is silly!"
Their answer: "So, you are winning half of your games and loose the other half. That's exactly what we want, a 50% winrate for everybody."
Nowadays, the game is officially dead, only a few custom player-run servers are left and only a bunch of hardcore fans remain.
3 -
No. They should balance around providing players the tools to let their skill show, be it their mechanical skill, their planning skill, their game sense, or their ability to capitalize on the other side's mistakes. This is regardless of how many times players win or lose or how many people escape or don't.
Getting to the point where 2 people escape means the gens get done and you're in a terribly precarious situation as a killer here you have to sweat your ass off to try and scrape something. Which would be fine, if it weren't for the fact that for the survivors that's a way more chill position to be in.
2 -
No. Other players do not exist to be punching bags for you or anyone else to "work out some anger."
3 -
No. Killers have a high killrate because there are a lot of baby survivors that ragequit after 1 hook.
The devs said that you should not use their datas to prove a point. Like if you look at the kill rate you can conclude nurse need to be buffed and pig to be nerfed.
But i assume you an insanely bias survivor player dont want a buff to nurse 😏
0 -
Matchmaking can't balance things. I honestly don't think Survivors would be annoyed if bloodpoints were as generous as they are for killer or at least approaching it. You can play against a very cheesy killer and come out with nothing while he facecamped and tunnelled and got a decent amount.
Balancing for SWF is a disaster for the solo queue/casual player
0 -
Are you seriously using among us as an example jeez. Well if you think 1 hook is a win just because the devs state it is then that's stupid. And 2 kills still means 2-10 hooks, once again that's a clear difference. You cant have 2 hooks be a win as well as 10. That's why hooks is better as it shows more of what happened.
0 -
They should just make 4 man escapes just as hard as 4 kills.
0 -
I personally believe it should be 3 kills and 1 escape the escape should be a bit of luck and how long the surivor can run from the killer
And by luck I mean it's one of 2 things either the chase sequence or the hide or die sequence
Chase is like ooo every 30s your aura is revealed to each other you have to run the killer long enough for the gates to auto open
Hide or die part is your afflicted with exposed and the iron will effect the killer is granted the whispers effect every 10s you have to hide from them long enough for the gates to auto open
I would scrap the hatch idea and have this automatic happen when thre is 1 surivor left in the trial
0 -
Which is precisely why you dont balance around results
0 -
Kill rates are a terrible way to balance of even judge the balance in this game.
The pip condition for survivors is achievable even without escaping. The pip system for killers is not achievable without killing survivors.
Escaping is just a bonus while kills are mandatory.
I have had so many games as killer or survivor where survivors do all gens with everyone alive and then throw it all away to save one guy instead of leaving.
1 -
What's wrong with using Among Us as an example?
Also, I never said that I believed one hook was a win.
0 -
Seems to me like the scoring system as far as pips is fairly screwed up, then. :P
0 -
No, 2 kills 2 escapes for either side is hardly rewarding in bloodpoints.
Now if they increased the bloodpoint multiplier then balanced around that then that could be something.
0
