Suggestion: Quality of life changes
Remove the end game chat.
To prevent toxicity, I believe the end game chat should be removed entirely. Evidently, there are too many in the community who can't play nice, can't get over it and move on without verbally insulting people. To add a compensation for this, the option to give players 'props' should be added, which could be displayed on their profile/displayed for friends... Perhaps after obtaining a certain amount of props, you get some type of cosmetic or reward for it.
Furthermore, to prevent those individuals who feel the need to go out of their way to verbally insult people VIA steam profile or console messages, an option to 'hide identity' should be implemented in the settings to give players more anonymity. Sorry if this is already in game and I'm just not aware of it.
Even myself as a survivor main, I'm sick of seeing team mates cuss out the killer in the chat and vice a versa. There is no need for it at all, so the only option is to pretty much take this toy away from the toddlers.
Restrict teachable perks for killer & survivor
I believe in order to balance the game more effectively, restrictions need to be taken in place.
My personal belief is that as well as the developers, the community can equally be responsible for the game's downfall... and I'm not just referring to toxic behaviour, but I am talking about min-maxers.
What I am proposing is; restrict teachable perks to their original survivors and killers so they are no longer shareable with each other. No more grabbing dead hard from David and using it on Nea, no more using BBQ and chili for the clown.... Just restrict these perks so min-maxers can stop sucking the fun out of the game by being overly efficient.
Comments
-
If this post is being serious, I don't think these would really do much for QoL changes.
You can already hide the chat feature so you don't see what people type. Disabling the chat for everyone isn't really a solution. Yes, probably most of the time the chat might have salt, but there is still a lot of times where it's just ggs from everyone or actual wholesome chats. They already have it where you can hide the chat if you don't want to see it, so taking the chat from everyone seems unnecessary.
Getting rid of the idea of teachable perks would probably make games a lot worse and potentially kill the game more. The thing that makes DBD fun is that you can run fun perk combos and do meme builds. Getting rid of teachable perks both gets rid of sharing meta perks and fun meme perks. There's also the problem where a lot of the killers' perks don't really compliment themselves that well and work much better on other killers. It would definitely drive away a lot of the killers and playing survivor would also have some variety issues. You would just have many more survivors that play Bill, David, Meg, or other characters with meta perks. Also, killers would be able to predict what the survivor is running, so this would lead to more tunneling and slugging.
I also guarantee you that if teachable perks on killers were limited to just the killer who has the teachable perks, then the run rate of NOED will definitely increase. On some killers, having that much restriction on perks, NOED becomes one of your better options because it is a strong perk.
Restricting teachable perks would most likely make perk variety even less sadly.
1 -
I play on console so I can't pitch in for the end-game chat, but if it's that bad, they can implement a pre-text system with simple dialogue: "gg", "good luck next time", etc.
Although the chat seems to be okay for most PC users. Many say to leave the match to avoid end-game chat toxicity so there's that.
Restricting teachable perks would promote more meaningful character differences especially in survivors, but I doubt the community would be okay with that.
0 -
Restricting teachables would a good way to kill killer/survivor variety as some of them have god awful perks.
Ace would be Jeff level rare and Jeff would become an urban legend.
2 -
That's where the beauty comes in where people would be torn between...
A.) Playing their favourite survivor, puckering down and getting on with it and making do with the variety of shareable perks
OR
B.) Play a survivor they absolutely hate for the sake of slightly min-maxing and having a microscopic advantage over other survivors/killer
Yes, this would change the min-maxers meta, but nothing can be as bad as the current meta which hasn't changed in years.
0 -
Yay lets dodge every lobby with David, Laurie, Bill and Meg!
1 -
People already have the option to hide the end game chat on PC, so anyone who doesn't want to see it doesn't have to. But as far as restricting survivor and killer perks, no disrespect, but that's a terrible idea. It takes away so much customization from the game, but also removes the entire grind of the game, which turns off the collectionists of the community. It also makes the balance issues of the game that much worse, and killer/survivor variety goes down massively. I imagine BHVR created teachable perks precisely for these reasons.
0 -
The problem is that restricting shareable perks wouldn't have a microscopic effect. It would have a really big effect on killers and survivors because you know that certain killers and survivors can only have certain perks. You can narrow down what hexes the killer might have and basically guess the survivor's build as well.
0 -
I do understand where you're coming from, and I see why people fear this implementation will ruin players current 'unique perk layout', but at the moment majority of survivors and killers use very similar perk layouts as it is... Which defeats any sense of uniqueness. Nowadays, I just expect killers to have BBQ and Chili and survivors tend to have DH, DS, SH or COH.
I still retain the belief that this change will give the different survivors more identity and their own contribution to each match.
In this case, we will agree to disagree :) Thank you for your comment amazing_grace, I appreciate your feedback.
0 -
I definitely agree it would make the survivors more unique and make the survivors more than just a cosmetic change, I just don't think that change would be overall healthy for the game. I wish the survivors had more to them than just their perks. I literally have all the perks on Bill and just play fun builds on Bill always unless I have a daily for someone else.
The one thing I think we can definitely agree on is that if shareable perks were locked to only their unique character, then there will be a lot more Bubbas because of the grind. Although I love going against a good Bubba, there are a lot of Bubba's who are less savory in character. I personally don't want an influx of BBQ/NOED bubbas because people are desperate for the BP grind.
Trust me, I would love to see more variety as well. I love running non-meta perks as survivor.
0 -
In terms of wanting to "encourage build diversity", I think rewarding players for playing with diverse builds would be a lot more productive than forcing them to play with diverse builds.
For example, instead of limiting what perks people are using:
- Give each player a set of random 'daily perks', 3 or 4 for both killer and survivor, unique to each player.
- Pick these perks from the whole perk pool, so that players can potentially try out perks they don't have, or perks they don't have unlocked on a particular killer.
- Give the player some kind of bonus or incentive (XP, BP, shards, etc.) for playing with some or all of the 'daily perks'.
- (optional, potential for lots of negative side effects) In addition to MMR, attempt to matchmake players with players who are using a similar amount of 'daily perks'. People who are running a standard build will be put with other standard builds, and people playing randomized builds will be put with people playing randomized builds.
This is just an idea, and it has some problems, but I think it demonstrates that giving people reasons to play off-meta can be much more interesting, rewarding and engaging than just changing the limiting factor on build diversity from 'the meta' to 'the characters'.
1 -
No.
0 -
Cant do anything with this I'm afraid, I'm gonna need you to elaborate :) Or at least bounce off my idea and propose a more fair option.... Blunt replies don't really contribute much.
0 -
I do like this idea! Thank you for your comment.
0 -
No means no.
But if you want further explanation:
- The chat changes that are needed are not removing it, but optimizing it. Make an option to permanently disable it, remove or repair the chat filter (something utterly stupid got blocked for me yesterday, think it was a perk name), and allow it be used cross-platform.
- Restricting teachable perks to the survivor they originate with not only kills the entire concept of teachable perks, but also removes survivor variety from trials. It also lets a killer know exactly what perks they can or cannot expect to see on every survivor, which is just stupid.
So, again: no.
0 -
For your first point, I don't deem the chat necessary overall. I don't consider 'gg wp' a means to keeping the chat around, other than that people use it for aggressive behaviour or VERY rarely, using it for banter.
As I said to amazing_grace earlier, survivors and killers now are majoritively running the same meta builds as it is... There's no uniqueness, at the moment I'm expecting killers to be using BBQ and Chili, I'm expecting survivors to have DH and DS, there's no variety if everyone's just using meta teachable perks to create an ultra overpowered build.
We will agree to disagree, thank you for your comment :)
0
