Trying to make an asymmetric game competitive sounds like some sophomore writing.
Talk about racing between Olympics and Paralympics.
Comments
-
I'm kinda agreed, but probably for different reasons. The devs are doing the best they can, but they never accounted for SWFs on Discord.
That... and there are too many elements that can sway a match. They can never truly make the game 'balanced' or 'fair', but they can keep it being fun, which is what's most important.
1 -
I assume by "competitive" you mean like, "tournament ready", since the game is already competitive.
I don't think it's that far fetched, honestly. Even this game isn't that far off, outside of some specific problem areas and certain map RNG components. Give the teams the same tile spawn variant of like, Coal Tower, and that's a tournament ready game right there. Granted, it's a tournament that's only going to see a handful of characters and builds, but that's the case in some other tournament games too to a certain degree.
1 -
Asymetrical doesnt mean unbalanced in regarda of game balance but ok
5 -
You know DBD is just THAT wack when people start seeing asymmetrical as a lost cause period. Rofl.
0 -
Idk, dude. Most comp games I've watched looked like rank 20 gameplay for the most part, because it is more beneficial in DbD to play in a way that minimizes skill input from both sides, rather than focusing on ensuring you outskill the other party. Meaning you do end up with clearly skilled, dedicated and impressive players that are reduced to face camping, tunneling and holding M1 on gens 24/7, while predropping palllets like their life depended on it. There's absolutely nothing interesting about it. And yes, you could argue that anything can be made competitive, but the bigger question is whether it should.
0 -
Thats really sad ngl
0 -
PVP =/= competitive. One side can win but it's not really competitive this is a party game at best with how much of the match is determined by chance.
The rank system has always sucked, it makes people overly competitive and 'tryhard' and this new MMR system has seemed to amplify that. The MMR system doesn't really do anything new but when people here that it's in place they care a lot and start to play to win. Ever since this system has came out I noticed that survivors tend to leave teammates behind more and killers facecamp to confirm more kills.
This game used to have such a novel idea but as it gained popularity skillful play of it became the limelight when it honestly never seemed to be the intention. Both devs and players need to remember that they ultimately gain no skill rating for being the victor just 5,000 more points. This game has gotten a lot less light hearted over the years.
1 -
That's actually exactly literally what competitive means, hence me stating the assumption that we were talking about something different. Competitive just means players are competing against one another instead of cooperating together, that's what the term means, and it's a scourge of gaming currently that it's become synonymous with esports type stuff.
That said, I agree with both statements made about DBD being more fun when it's considered more of a fun party game than an esport.
4 -
How, exactly, is this game competitive?
Who does the killer compete against? Who do the survivors compete against?
The killer competes against themselves. They do not compete against the survivors, as they do not even play the same game as the survivors. The survivors technically compete against each other, in a meaningless way, because they all perform the same actions that generate the same points, and as such their scores at the end of the trial can be compared. And that's how all competition works, "Who is the best at doing a series of particular things?" The killer's score cannot be compared to the survivors, as the actions that generated that score cannot be performed by the survivors and vice versa.
This is why this game has no actual win condition, as it is not actually competitive on any level between killers and survivors. Survivors are objects that the killer uses to boost their score, and the same can be said for the killer in the survivors' gameplay loop.
With tournaments, it's a bit different, as both teams play rounds in both roles, so it becomes killer vs. killer and survivors vs. survivors, making the total series of matches competitive. But a single trial is non-competitive between killers and survivors.
This game has always been, and will always be, a casual party game that a loud, vocal (and honestly pretty obnoxious) minority try to shoehorn "high-level play" into and force everyone else to play at that level, making the experience for the majority, who just want to grind BPs and have fun, a less fun experience.
The current MMR system is based on a lot of these facts. The devs know they can't balance around two completely different games being played simultaneously. But, they can set it up in a way where, over time, most people should average out to around a 50% kill/escape rate. They have never stated that it is there to make the game more competitive but to make matches feel fairer. At the same time, they have removed any visual representation of rank or skill (this should be a pretty big clue to what they are trying to tell the community).
There's a lot of people who need to stop seeing the game for what they want it to be, and start seeing the game for what it is. If you want competition, there are groups and private scrims for that. But leave it there, and just play pub matches for the fun of it (which is how the game is designed). Play the match, get your participation trophy (in the sense of BPs), say GG, and move on with your grind. No matter what, you win every match, as there is no win condition, and you are really only competing against yourself.
2 -
Half of that isn't really directed at me so I'll ignore that part, not trying to be nasty just that it's aimed more at the people who want DBD to be an esport tournament type game and that ain't me, I just don't think it's an impossible feat if you do want it.
You are absolutely competing against the survivors, because they're trying to evade you. The overall goal is a competing one- they want to escape and you want to stop them- and the minute-to-minute goal is a competing one, because you want to win the looping session and so do they. DBD is a competitive party game as opposed to a party game where all players are trying to reach a goal together. It's not that deep, man, competitive doesn't mean taking it seriously to achieve the win.
That's the last I'm going to say on this point, it wasn't particularly something I wanted to argue for and that's why it was a brief aside just to make sure everyone was on the same page for my initial post.
0 -
On one hand, sure.
On the other hand, broken, buggy, imbalanced games tend to have a very limited audience.
0 -
It is directed at your statement that the game is competitive. I explained how it isn't.
"The overall goal is a competing one- they want to escape and you want to stop them- and the minute-to-minute goal is a competing one, because you want to win the looping session and so do they."
This statement doesn't work. There is no competition there. The trial isn't a looping session. The trial is a goalie (killer) protecting a goal (gates) from an offensive team (survivors). This series of scored events never switches. The defense never switches to offense, which is why I mentioned tournaments, because they make that switch between the two rounds, making the series competitive.
In order for something to be competitive, it needs to be understood, compared, and judged between all parties, using a standard. So, again, you can compare the actions of the four survivors in the trial, as they perform the same actions. But, you cannot compare the killer's ability to down someone vs the survivor's ability to down someone, because survivors cannot down anybody. Likewise, the killer will fail, every time, at scoring flashlight blinds (for example), as that is not something the killer can do.
What you are calling competitive is the equivalent of one person swimming in a race against someone on a bicycle. You wouldn't dare to compare those two things, so how would one compare the actions of the killer vs the actions of a survivor? It's impossible.
This game is not competitive. The tournament scene can make it competitive though, and I am fully supportive of that scene. It's the same as Smash. Nintendo doesn't design Smash to be some huge tournament game, and all-in-all it's really casual. But the community took it to a new level of competition with community rules and the creation of a tournament scene.
2 -
I respect that you have a very different definition of "competitive" to me, but as I said, I'm not interested in arguing this point as it is neither the one I was originally making or one that's particularly relevant to OP's point.
0 -
One, you made a public statement on a forum. I responded. I don't really care if you want to interact or not. You can just not respond instead of replying to tell me you don't want to respond.
Two, everything I said 100% backs the OPs original statement. It is completely relevant.
Three, I am using the correct definition of competition. It's not an opinion, but an objective fact. Find me evidence of any competitive event where the skills of the competitors are not compared on a 1:1 ratio. If you can find one, I will accept that the current definition of competition must be changed and will start a campaign to do just that with dictionary publishers.
1
