Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Be honest do you guys really want balance for the game?
If I being honest I can't take most people seriously on this forum when they suggest things for balance. I'm sorry to be rude but some ideas are just so terrible that I glad the devs don't listen to the community when it comes to feedback sometimes. It just seems like the majority of people on here don't want the game to be balanced they just want to make one side completely terrible and the game uneven.
Maybe I'm just being ridiculous myself but do people here even want balance for both sides?
Comments
-
They probably would care more about the game as a whole if they were actually playing both sides.
24 -
No, I want it to be fun first and foremost. Balance is irrelevant
5 -
Buy doesn't fun come with when the game is balanced?
6 -
I do want to balance both sides as for some reason alot of the things releasing in dbd are hardstuck meta, completely useless, or are inbetween but don't get used because the meta exists, but don't worry lets keep using the same formula after it has failed for a whole year now
0 -
yes and no, Bh surely isn't playing their game, but the reason why this game balance is so unbalanced( survivor sided game, msotly) is because survivors are the majority of players, that's all, ah yes, and survivor side is more fruitful and way easier to sell skins/stuff, than the killer side.
0 -
I do, and probably there are more that also care. And Imo its a curse and not a blessing that the devs ignore almost all feedback.
4 -
I play both sides and i want the game to be balanced. However i find myself constantly siding with killer mains. Not because i am bias but because i feel they are getting shafted the most and in need of adjustments.
10 -
Competitive players reap the benefits of good balance, and casual players are (or should be) indifferent to the balance.
2 -
Technically the game isn't supposed to be "Even".
Its A-Symmetrical meaning the killer should at all times, absolutely, without a doubt be a serious risk to be around. With the caveat of that 1 killer having to overcome 4 survivors. You have a full team of people vs 1 person. Its not supposed to be even.
The problem of this simple concept goes in the trash when the devs allow too much power creep on either the killer or survivor side. On top of that, this game has a huge roster. Having 1 killer be too strong is easily fixable because its 1 object 1 ruleset being adjusted. BUT. Having survivors power creep too far doesn't just ruin 1 dynamic, it ruins matches across the board for that huge killer roster forcing you to re-adjust 24+ elements of the game instead of the 1. AKA you end up like Evolve Stage 2. I bring extra emphasis to this game as much as I can because that game didn't have to die, but it did because the developers let the hunters side power creep harder than they could make adjustments to monsters fast enough. So by the time we got to the point where the game went free to play it was already so messy that nobody wanted to play monster anymore. People stopped buying expansions, stopped buying monsters and skins, queue times went up to the moon, more people started quitting, then people stopped buying hunter skins, and it eventually got to the point where the game couldn't keep itself up financially and that was the end of it.
It didn't die because of greed, it didn't die because the concept wasn't attractive to players.....it died because it was developed into death. It killed itself with its own adjustments to "balance" by power creeping itself to death. And eventually lost sight of its original vision. And I bring it up, because this can happen to ANY of these Asymetrical games including DBD....
3 -
I disagree. Yes its an asymmetrical game but that doesn't mean that one side should have too much power and completely dominate one side. The equality comes when 1 killer is equal to 4 survivors not 1 killer completely destroying 4 survivors with very little effort and vice versa. That is and should be even
3 -
It is one of the possible dbd fates. That's why i think they should have a dedicated feedback team that play both sides daily, or at least not casually to understand the issues in the game.
1 -
If they made the favor of putting MMR I want a balanced game for the same reason. A bubba camping the **** out of everybody while a trapper getting a 3/4k doesn't deserve the same amount of MMR imo. But to each their own. It already is a unbalanced mess.
0 -
Thats cool and all, but realistically that doesn't happen. What happens, and has happened and is still happening in the case of DBD is, Instead of leaving killers powerful, you end up with power creep on survivors side.....which would be fine, if you had the studio capable and fast enough to adjust the entire killer roster in tandem to deal with the power creep...... <---But that doesn't happen. So you end up with a small handful of viable killers, and the rest of the roster largely ignorable because they've been creeped out of any kind of competent play.
Fixing an issue with a killer being overtuned is easy. Fixing an issue with a survivor/hunter is not easy in the slightest, because you have to adjust (in this games case) 20+ other killers to make up for what you added. I'm all for adding more content and new content, but when you ignore all the previous content and don't account for it when adding the new stuff it makes the game miserable. This games perk system is the best example of that. Perks are well beyond being just some additional bonus for your characters. They are now to the point where they ARE the game. They simply have too much weight in some instances.
1 -
Yeah like I just want what's best for the game. But it can only be so balanced.
I do agree, honestly these days killer mains have become so unbearable with wanting everything gutted for survivors and its the same when survivor mains be like that about killers.
People take the game so serious and that's also why good balancing is difficult. Killer mains being like 'remove dead hard, change boons, nerf medkits further etc...' and survivors being like 'delete noed, follow the rulebook etc...' it's so beyond dumb at this point.
I just want what is best for the games health honestly.
(Also this is all my opinion! Do not come to argue with me just incase you're a killer main or survivor main and you're butthurt about a comment I made, thanks).
1 -
Yes because I play both sides, enjoy both sides, but am still willing and able to spot issues and potential improvements which could be made to either side to progress the game towards its best potential state.
1 -
Yes, the community here isn’t the greatest at trying to figure out something to create more balance. But do you wanna know who should be? THE DEVS! They made the dang game they should know how to balance it but they can’t even do that in the slightest.
Maybe the devs don’t have to listen to us, but they gotta listen to somebody…
0 -
Yes
But the only ways to do it are:
Force Each Killer to Only play it's Own map, so it becomes easier to balance the amount of Pallets/Windows/Breakablewalls for him.
Nerf every Addon to the ground:
Common increase things only by 1%
Uncommon by 2%
Rare by 3%
VeryRares by 4%
UltraRares by 5%
none of them changing powers in weird ways, example: causing status effects, become inmune to things, change the power completely etc, these sings should be basekit or don't exist.
Each Survivor Carry an exclusive Item, wich would be it's own "power" and cannot run out of charges or dropped, making them more unique.
Matches can't start if there are two or more of the same survivor.
Similar threatment to perks, where them only increase speed things by a small amount, like resilence does, no mechanic adding, like Dead Hard, Borrow Time or Decisive Strike, these things are basekit or don't exist.
0 -
Balance is practically impossible in a 4v1 game, especially like this. There's nearly no way to truely measure balance between the sides (even a 2 escape, 2 stay result doesn't reflect a true balance).
The best thing to strive for instead is "Fairness", which can be achieved through adjustments. But as has been seen, even a fair change can be met with hostile intent. Also, some people may see fairness from a purely subjective viewpoint (which, ironically, is biased!).
In short, the devs can only do what they think is best for the game's health. If they continually reacted to everyone's complaints or concerns, this game would be a complete mess.
0 -
Yes.
Believe it or not, it is not impossible to achieve a good state when it comes to balance.
0 -
Not necessarily. You could take away every killer's power and make them all base MS, base terror radius killers, remove every perk from the game and it would be more balanced than it is now. It would not be more fun. Balance is not synonymous with fun. Watching blizzard systematically butcher every hero in overwatch for the sake of "balance" has taught me this.
0 -
See, problem is - a lot of what constitutes being 'fun' in DBD comes down to who feels in control
For a lot of people Killer is 'fun' when they feel in control of the trial. When they are downing people left and right, when they have strong perks up that stop survivors doing generators and so on.
The same goes for survivor, people consider it a lot more 'fun' when they run the killer for a long time and making sure the Killer is in a lose lose situation where they either try to play dirty (In which case, survivor perks come into play) or they try to solder on and play 'fair' in which case they will still lose.
Nobody likes being killed at 5 gens and nobody likes losing 5 gens after 2 chases have happened.
I'm not saying this is 100% how it is, but sometimes when I'm playing Killer I feel like due to some factors outside of my control the match was a lost cause and when I'm playing survivor I'm put in situations where I go down once and I'm basically out the match already; be it because it's an S tier killer tunnelling to get someone dead asap or it's a bubba who's facecamping.
4 -
You are right for real, it is really sad to see a community so determined in their "fight for balance" while also either suggesting the worst ideas ever, or just plain not knowing how things actually work
1 -
Hahaha, this is an excellent point. You're right, it's boring and you don't get to play the game sitting on a hook for 2 minutes until dead, but sitting in the exit gates during the entire 4 minute EGC in the hopes you get to give the killer the finger is somehow not boring and playing the game
0 -
Personally I would be ok with either a unbalanced party game or a balanced competitive game if the devs were capable of making up their ######### minds on what they want the game to be
because at the minute they are trying to do both simultaneously and failing
2 -
I see the same, but understand that it's mostly due to a difference of perception. Is the player a Killer or Survivor main? Do they mostly play solo? Do they mostly play SWF/KYF? Are they experienced? They may be experienced but are they skilled? Are they knowledgeable of the game? How has their recent matches gone?
All these factors and more contribute to peoples ideas, and reasoning for those ideas. It's not easy finding someone who is right when they are right at a certain perspective.
It's almost like this is an asymmetrical game.
0 -
They are called Fog Whisperers and never listened to 😂
1 -
I actually don't want the game "balanced". At least from a competitive standpoint. This is what I want from both roles...
Survivor: I want to enjoy a tense and dramatic game where I legit fear for the safety of my character. I'm looking for a horror exprience from the experience of a victim. The killer being near me should send chills up my spine. Surviving should be exilerating and satisfying.
Killer: I want to feel like a predator. Hunting, stalking, killing. Survivors should know that any interaction with me could result in the end of their game.
Both Roles: You should have a sense of accomplishment regardless of what role you play. You currently get this quite a bit as survivor(there's almost nothing you do that can be undone). The experience should be fulfilling regardless of you escaping, dying, or getting X kills.
This isn't a competitive game and it shouldn't pretend to be. It should be fun and scary and tense. Right now it's not really any of those things.
4 -
For me balanced means fun for both sides. Apparently 50/50% balance is not fun
0 -
You can never have a 1:1 balance ratio with an asymmetrical game like DBD. What the aim should be is a type of circular imbalance where both sides have very strong tools, some hard counter, some soft counter but ultimately it comes down to the execution of the strategies over all, determined by individual player skill.
Plague is a decent example of this in particular. Her green vomit is a strong tool against medkits, but survivors can still soft counter Plague in return by not cleansing and giving her her red vomit. The individual player skill being how well does one perform with only one health state.
1 -
I think most people want this game to be as balanced as possible.
Problem is this game having perfect balance is impossible.
0 -
I think that balance can come from anything
Making maps easier to play on is one thing
Getting the servers up to snuff is another
Then we can talk about perks
But yea... I feel the same way about some of my own ideas
0 -
Maybe not so much balance that I set my sights on as much as a lowering of pressure.
Baked in anti-tunnelling and anti-camping paired with changes to make pressuring gens easier and make gens be a bit slower. Though at this point, I think the game's main concern should be anti-cheat.
0 -
A balanced game is a game that's played and supported by players.
0 -
Yes, balanced would be better.
0 -
I mean. yeah.
0 -
I guess I'm the only one who thinks the game is pretty balanced right now.
4ks and 4 out every game is not balanced . Nor realistic.
You win some and you lose some. Is everyone else losing more than winning????
0 -
Not anymore.
I used to want a balanced game where the competitive aspect between killer and survivor could be treated more seriously. But nowadays I've just accepted this game has found success in a casual market and am enjoying the power discrepancy in both roles depending on my mood.
Wanna fool around and have fun? Survivor.
Want to try hard and put yourself under pressure? Killer.
If this concept works for them financially, and allows them to continue expanding the roster and game content, then I don't care as much about a fair and equal game anymore.
0 -
Majority of people in this community do not actually want balance in practice or don't know what they're talking about.
Even in this topic, there's people that go "I mean, yeah" without realizing that they might be the subject being mentioned.
1 -
The thing is even in party games there is a sense of balance. You don't load into maroi party and one player has a huge advantage and the other three just have to eat the loss because hey its a party game and is casual. I don't get the idea people have that just because its a casual game that mean is ok its a complete unbalanced mess and we people ask for balance I notice no one ask for esport level of balance but everyone wants to act like that's what was said.
0 -
The asymmetrical Mario Party games are horribly imbalanced and some games you know it’s an instant loss based on your role within that particular game. These forums are generally a den of awful ideas when it comes to the health and balance of this game, and it’s mostly just baseless whining and logical fallacies. However can be good at identifying unfair mechanics perks etc, like how whack DS was.
0 -
I've never played an asymmetrical Mario game. I agree 100% that most the time balance ideas are someone lost to something and it must be op or unfun because I couldn't do anything about it. This game is terrible imbalanced to one side though and to make matters worse is its the group that the game favors so the one is going to have a tougher time and that start to make that side non casual because because they are now playing a up hill battle and that competitiveness will bleed over into the other side then they complain relax its only casual have fun nerf deathslinger btw he's to much to handle once out of 15 games
0 -
I certainly do. I get that it's really difficult for an asymmetrical game to achieve balance, but surely it can do better than this.
0 -
The game doesn't need to be balanced. However certain things should still be stronger anyways. Like killers. Some are ridiculously weak. Even if people don't care about balance it's still a crime for characters like Legion to suck so hard.
0 -
so long as it's fun for both sides, that is. honestly, I appreciate it's more devoted to horror than it is to being an E-sport.
1 -
I have to agree. There are things that need to be tweaked, but most games are like that. I actually think the game is pretty much balanced, its the level and experience of players that
The main problem is like you said, people want the side to play to be easier. It's the win at any cost mentality. It's a game, you can't win every game or get kills every game. I would much rather be a killer and lose to a good team, even if they have perks, because I do, then go for the easy game.
Maybe the only problem is the MMR, where low killers are getting high survivors and visa versa
1 -
honestly probably not
I've noticed this when any new perk that could be possibly meta
nope gotta nerf it and have the same stagnant meta for the past 3 years
0 -
I feel like DBD is not a game that can be casual and unbalanced like other games are because of how punishing it is to die. Lets look at titanfall 2, an unbalanced mess i love. If in that game you get killed by an op weapon (car smg) you are back to playing in less than 5 seconds, and you dont need to interact with the other team to have fun
0 -
U clearly don't understand PvP meaning and what is competition.
Every single PvP game is competitive. Even if it's 8 years old children playing football. They compete to kick goal and win.
DbD is not on eSports level, But players compete against each other for escape/kills. It's not interesting if u remove kills escapes and push everyone to farm which will remove competitive element. I don't want brain-dead games with Bp farming.
Solo vs bots is not competitive. Vs People it's always competitive. If u want to play as potato, u still compete but on very very very low level.
0 -
"Both sides"
----
That's the problem with balancing: there are not just two sides.
- Killers
- Survivors (solo)
- Survive With Friends (comms)
Can't buff killers without screwing over solo survivors. Can't buff survivors without comms screwing over killers.
Changes first need to be made that tremendously help solo surivors, yet only slightly help SWF. Once every match feels like a SWF match for killers then balance changes to perks and mechanics can be made to balance for the killer. Changes like these:
1 -
If the killer were a huge deal, and truly balanced, then 50% of players would play killer. That means if 1,000 ppl were playing, there would be 500 killers queued while there are only enough survivors playing to fill 125 lobbies. The other 375 killers get to sit around and wait for survivors to die or escape and re-queue.
By having things like Playing With Freinds, or making the Killer experience more frustrating, it shifts the player count to the Survivor side.
0
