I think Truetalent is wrong about game balance being this game isn't 1v1 or 5v5
Comments
-
To me, any advantage that breaks the overall balance of the game would be considered "unfair," regardless of whether some people think it's only 'slight' or not.
Like I said earlier, you can always manipulate the proper 4-1 ratio by rewarding the less played roles with some thing (BP, etc), and increasing the reward depending on how much the role is needed. Or even by giving extra challenges in the less played role. All of this can be done without messing with the overall balance of the game.
0 -
The fact that some people hate Tru3 on here because he has a different opinion is kinda hilarious.
Its obvious survivors have a bigger competitive role. If you don't see that, then. Dang.
5 -
I am not for or against any advantage. I am for not being ignorant of the importance of keeping match making times sustainable. It would seem to me that the only way to do that in a game with lopsided teams would be to make the side that needs more players be more appealing. How else you gonna balance it?
0 -
I have only ever really watched Truetalent as far as DbD goes. I think he's a great player.
That being said, I prefer it when he just plays the game and enjoys himself without ranting about game balance or toxicity. I am finding his constant ranting in game to be hard to listen to, and hope that this thread is perhaps food for thought as to why this game is inherently difficult to balance due to the need to keep match times somewhat sane
0 -
Never ever start do develope games. You know nothing about it.
3 -
Do you know how little I am interested in hearing what people think about what OTHER people think on these Forums? :) Even if the source of your idea is a Streamer, can't any of you formulate your own thoughts, put it into your own words and apply critical thinking skills? The Streamers are just people, and ones with their own biases and ulterior motives to boot.
0 -
Neither side should be just passively stronger, having bigger chance to win matches overall. Better players should win more often, that's how it should be for both sides. Large portion of that is also map balance, if maps aren't balanced favoring one side too much, that isn't fine either.
Besides, survivors generally aren't stronger in average red ranks match, they lose more often (as you can see in the kill rates) which is caused by matchmaking, putting at least 1 bad survivors into almost every game, allowing killer to snowball the match. Here killers is usually favored to win unless he makes too many bad decision or if all 4 survivors know how to play their role which is somewhat rare.
Ideally, both sides should have about the same chance to win, making the skill and decision making of both sides the deciding factor in who's going to win.
0 -
?
Is my post not showing up in its entirety? I've already mentioned other ways to keep matchmaking times sustainable without breaking the balance of the game.
0 -
Even 2 strong survivors(solo or swf,doesnt make a difference)can win the game by themselves. At red ranks survivors are way more powerful than it needs to be.
0 -
Mathematically, Killers have a 60%+ kill rate, as shown by the Developers.
Where is your "math" coming from?
0 -
If survivors are stronger in the "4v1" scenario
They shouldnt be able to be stronger then the killer in the 1v1
Yet a very good survivor will be stronger then most killer characters in a 1v1
A very good survivor team can win in the 1v1 and 4v1 games
Yes the game is not easy to balance, but you shouldnt make the killer feel worthless for chasing 1 survivor and loosing 2-3 gens or more cause the survivor could win the 1v1 thanks to the loop rng
The survivor shouldnt feel worthless cause they took 4 hooks before 1 or 2 gens popped because the map rng allowed for the killer to get an easy catch
Tbh killer shouldnt even feel like sweating half as much as what you do in high ranks because of the lack of sevoundary objectives to give the killers time in the current meta
Survivors shouldnt have to put on the most tryhard perks to win cause the killer is sweating to play thanks to the meta
In the end what you do on one side, affects directly the other, the more one side is sweaty/toxic the more the other become the same
Oh and the game shouldnt be balanced around slowdown perks for killer neither, thats a bad choice and may block some people to try to have fun with weird build
1 -
He says some funny things on balance and I love him for it. But a lot of it is damn true.
The game is really unbalanced and just an untimed mess.
5 -
Well, I agree with you about all that. Really I do. You're talking in-game balance, and I don't contest that perhaps the state of in-game balance is done poorly.
This thread isn't about the short comings of in-game balance, though, really.
It's about how when I hear Truetalent talk about in-game balance, he fails to point out how the lopsided nature of match making might affect how the developers have to balance out the two different aspects of the game to keep match making healthy.
People tend to rant about the shortcomings of killer or the OP'dness of survivor without ever considering that for every game 4 people are needed on one side, and that may require that the side requiring more players be more appealing to play.
0 -
There's a reason nobody uses those stats.
We know so little about how they were gathered that they are completely unusable in any argument.
2 -
That's a poor way to get more people to play survivor. Devs shouldn't make one side unhappier than the other as their way to populate a 1v4.
Survivor gameplay is a different experience than killer and will thus appeal to different people.
Survivor can be a social experience whereas killer is exclusively solo. Many people play survivor just so they can play with friends. This alone has the possibility of keeping the survivor role over-populated, as long as survivor never becomes so miserable that it forces friends to try other games. Unfortunately, BHVR isn't great at the "fun" aspect on either side, so both killers and survivors are unhappy, and the reasons go beyond balance.
0 -
Here's the problem with this logic: You need both sides in order to play the game. It doesn't matter that there are four Survivors for every one Killer because if either side decides that they don't want to play, then you have long wait times that's going to upset the side that DOES want to play. If you make too many Killers leave, you end up with too many Survivors stuck in long queue times. The same applies vice versa. You need to keep things as balanced as possible for BOTH sides so that as few people as possible from either side stops playing out of frustration.
1 -
Up until the RE patch came out I did several killer runs almost daily, doing my very unskilled part. But since then the increased lag and countless missed hits on top of the regular performance issues have made playing as a console killer just the drizzlin shyts.
So the little I would contribute to the killer pool is gone now, and I doubt I'm the only one in the same boat right now.
0 -
4 times as many survivor players need to be found per game. If there are 1000 games starting at once, you'd need 4k survivors and 1k killers at that particular moment. If both sides were as easy/fair to play as one another, wouldn't there be an unmeetable demand for survivors?
0 -
No?
2 -
If even 3 out of every 5 people preferred/mained survivor, match making would quickly break. The only solution I see is to make killer weaker so people are guided to playing survivor. If you have some alternate logic that explains how to fill this deficit, by all means
0 -
Tru3 is often wrong/delusional about a lot of things. People actually used his reference video of him facing off against Oracle as justification for it being 'survivor sided'. When you actually watch the video, you realize he gives up chases left/right, he avoids going for someone just because they sprint bursted off in his face. When confronted, he retorts sarcastically 'yea im sure you could have done better, mate'.
He makes a ton of mistakes in public matches and he gives certain people too much respect 'just because theyre one of the best in the world'.
I wouldn't hold Tru3's opinion highly, and I like the dude.
Also; he edits his videos and includes segments where it proves HIS point but not the other side's. He's done this numerous times. Which is why a lot of other streamers don't think highly of him. Its pretty disingenuous.
1 -
The game being balanced does not inherently mean that there won't be enough Survivor players. It just means that the people going for their their preferred roles won't be as likely to leave.
You fill the deficit by providing bonus rewards to whichever side is lacking in players. Not enough Killers? Play more Killer to get extra bonus rewards. Not enough Survivors? Play more Survivor to get extra bonus rewards.
4 -
I'd like to point out how this thread has managed to stay up eventhough people are naming and shaming. I thought we didn't do that here? 🙄
0 -
That's a good point. Thanks for sharing.
0 -
I'm a fan of Truetalent and watch him daily. The point of MY thread wasn't to shame anyone. If one or two people said something, just ignore them. The majority of the thread is constructive.
0 -
Agreed - this is also obviously how the game was designed to be played. There's a reason for randomized tiles/pallets/gens and absolutely no way of communicating within the game except for hand signs.
Yes, I know, the Devs have SWF channels on their discord but that's beside the point and doesn't change the fact that the game was designed for solo play. If the devs really intended survivors to communicate they'd have implemented a voice chat or at least a text chat within the game.
The discord channels are just there because they realized how popular SWF is afterwards and it's generating mucho cash for them.
0
