Suggestion to fix the game's snowball balance
The longer the game goes on the less pallets there are, the less survivors there are, and the less gens (ground) that the killer has to protect. The longer the game goes on the more the killer is favoured. The ONE anti-snowball mechanic is the hatch but it is poorly designed. Because the killer sees which generator is completed, if there are two survivors left the most optimal way to get an escape is to let your teammate die so you can get the hatch instead of doing a generator and revealing your position since the hatch still won't spawn after you finish a gen.
From any one survivor's perspective, their chance to escape looks like this dependent on the number of survivors still alive:
When it should look like this:
This is because the objectives (generators) never change to accommodate the number of survivors remaining, so if 3v1 is balanced the moment you add or subtract a survivor it becomes imbalanced. 1v1 was so imbalanced the devs noticed and added the hatch but they never addressed 2v1. The hatch is a band-aid solution.
My preferred anti-snowball mechanic would be to add an additional generator/objective onto the map every time a player dies because it would mean every time a player dies the killer has to cover more ground to compensate for there being less survivors. It would still only take 5 gens to open the gates. However, this is too developer-resource intensive because they would have to find a balanced place for this generator to spawn. So instead, we use the exit gates which always already spawned as "fill-in" generators:
Exit Gates: Whenever a survivor is sacrificed to the entity, an Exit Gate is powered. If both Exit Gates are already powered, an Exit Gate is opened. Powered exit gates now take (180s?) to open, up from 20s.
Hatch: Removed. (An exit gate will already be open if 3 survivors die according to the prior change, replacing this mechanic)
Generators: When 5 generators are completed, both Exit Gates become powered and opened.
You could decrease the time it takes to open an exit gate from 180s (two gen's time) if you could make the progress on it regress as the killer.
Comments
-
First of all, your first graph is inaccurate because the killer is generally favored when one survivor remains because they have a better chance to find the hatch when it spawns (faster movement, no hiding required) and defending the gates once the hatch is closed generally favors the killer too. (The survivor has no chance to open a gate if they spawn close together.)
I don't think your suggestions produce your "ideal" second graph as an exit gate just popping open when the second-last survivor dies would actually give the survivor better odds to survive than the mechanics currently present in the game. The killer can't close a gate and most killers would not be able to stop a healthy survivor within 50m of an open gate from escaping.
2 -
Games potentially ending as soon as someone dies or ragequits and eliminating the viability of every endgame perk or build in the game (aside from, basically, Adrenaline and Hope) to counter 'the Killer has an advantage in winning the fewer people are left' is not a good balance change.
1 -
I wouldn't claim that the suggestion creates the "desired" graph, but it would be a lot closer than what we currently have. I don't have the stats on the current endgame collapse but I'd say it's relatively close to 50/50. Killers have more movement speed especially if it drags but survivors are more likely to be in position (like at shack) to look for it, (killer busy hooking someone else), have movement speed perks for the first little bit, can a lot of time take a hit before going down getting that speed boost, plus survivors do have the chance to get the gates open once it's closed however small. The point is it's relatively balanced, not perfect.
I think you're right that the last survivor would be more advantaged, but this is a worthy trade because we're trying to encourage more 2-3k games and less 0-4k games. It's a reasonable concession to making a 2 remaining survivor escape scenario actually feasible.
0 -
I don't have stats on the current endgame collapse but I don't think it's that far off from 50%. Hatch is slightly killer favoured by Killers having increased movement speed, but that's made up for by whatever percentage survivors end up opening the exit gate instead.
I don't think the suggestion creates the "ideal" graph but it's a lot closer than what we currently have. I agree that the last survivor would have much better odds to escape, but seeing as how we're supposed to be discouraging 0k-4k and encouraging 2k-3k that's an acceptable loss to me if it means 2 remaining survivors actually have a reliable chance to escape together and we're smoothing out that graph.
0 -
Games would not end as soon as someone dies or ragequits. If the first person DCed, the killer would essentially just have one more "generator" to patrol in the form of an exit gate. The exit is powered, not open, and takes a very long time to open manually instead of doing the generators which opens them automatically. If the first and second people DCed the killer would have two more "generators" to patrol. If three DCed, the remaining survivor would basically have an easier hatch.
Endgame perks would have to be reworked, but I'm not sure what you expected when we're talking about fixing fundamental issues with the game. Frankly, that's much lower a cost than other solutions to the problem. Endgame perks would still exist, they would just function differently
0 -
So now you're contradicting yourself. It's really hard to have a discussion about your idea when your imagery is misleading and does not reflect your suggestions.
Even if the current survival rate of last-remaining survivors is 50% (I'm betting it's closer to 40%) usually that's a hatch escape which doesn't affect the MMR of the killer or survivor. They essentially had a draw in terms of MMR and the killer gets full credit for a 3k.
If you delete the hatch, and the killer skillfully murders 3 survivors with 5 gens left and the last survivor exits via the gate the game counts that as a "win" for that survivor and the killer would get on 2 kills of MMR gain.
This would be bad for the game and result in more slugging for the 4k as less killers would take their chances with the hatch.
0 -
Hatch isn't anti-snowball mehcanic. If hatch spawns then it means killer was successful, hatch cannot stop the killer from getting 3k. (which is considered a win cause it raises your MMR as killer) . An anti-snowball mechanic would have to trigger when a killer is doing too good (like say have 4 hooks at 4 gens left)., currently there is no such mechanic for survivors as far as I can recall.
Killers though do become stronger by end-game because resources become scarcer (items run out, pallets are destroyed, survivors have gained hook-states, space can become smaller if gens are close together and sometimes even perks become useless: Flashbang, Smash-hit, Gen-repair perks, boons can become useless if your teammate destroys all of them). Of course one could say that end-game perks can be good on survivors, but I just wanna remind people that end-game perks come into effect ONLY if the survivor makes it to end-game, while killer always does.
So killer without end-game perks can still grow stronger as end-game approaches, but survivors (outside of perks) mostly grow weaker.
0 -
I'm not contradicting myself, you're just struggling with reading comprehension. I never said that the "ideal" graph is what my suggestion matches. You came up with that yourself. What I said is that my suggestion is closer to the ideal graph than the current game is, which it is. The image is relevant because whatever we replace the current system with should be moving towards the ideal graph and we need to all agree on that.
Currently, killers are incentivized to slug the last two people because every moment the second-to-last survivor is bleeding out is another second the killer can look for the last remaining person without worrying they will go through the hatch. Therefore, the worse the hatch is for the survivor the less likely the killer is going to slug. So I agree that more killers would be incentivized to slug the second-to-last survivor because the hatch is worse for them than it was before.
But a truly optimal killer currently always slugs every game. It is only through boredom that they currently don't. This is not a problem with fundamental exit gate mechanics, it's a fundamental problem with downed survivors being "alive" even though they're really already dead. It's not a problem with exit gates, it's a problem of slugging. Someone needs to propose an alternative patch to fix slugging directly rather than by doing things like changing the balance of the hatch to deal with slugging.
You can keep the existing MMR system, where a survivor that escapes alone does not increase MMR.
0 -
The MMR system is not the goal of the game, the MMR system is a way of organizing players of even skill. Escaping is the goal of the game. As a survivor, your goal is to not die. As a killer, your goal is to kill. The hatch kicks in when there is only one survivor left offering them the opportunity to not get killed. It's a hail-mary olive branch that only extends when you are in the worst possible position. It functions as an anti-snowball mechanic because it stop the killer in their most powerful position (the big snowball) from guaranteed destruction of the remaining survivor.
There is actually one more anti-snowball mechanic that isn't directly tied to a perk and it's that hooks are destroyed when a survivor is sacrificed on them. But it's really not reliable and highly situational.
0 -
Read closer. Games would not end the moment someone dies or ragequits. Exit Gates would take a LOT longer to open and would function as quasi-generators. Endgame perks would need a rework but we're making a fundamental game design change so I'm not sure why one would expect nothing would need a rework. In fact, reworking a few endgame perks doesn't take nearly as much dev time as some alternative methods of stopping the snowball (like reworking the balance of all the various killers' powers, survivor perks, loops etc.)
0 -
Don't insult my reading comprehension when you are trying to push a not fully fleshed out idea.
Your first graph presents the data point for 1 survivor remaining on the balanced line and your "ideal" graph moves that data point to the killer side of that line while your suggestion clearly buffs that last survivor's chances of survival.
That is a clear contradiction. "my suggestion is closer to the ideal graph than the current game is" is an outright lie in relation to that data point.
I also don't agree that your "ideal" graph actually is ideal and you'll have a hard time getting a consensus on what the ideal graph even should be. DbD is almost too random for any such graph to even be relevant.
0 -
Short answer: No.
Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.
Actual answer - this would be absolutely brutal for killers. It would mean that survivors have a pretty automatic way to get some escapes, and finishing all 5 gens is an instant 4 out. Killers...just screwed - especially considering how often games come down to the wire at the exit gate phase.
Here's how things work in reality. The early game is massively survivor favored, which gradually becomes easier for the killer as resources get used up and the number of gens decreases.
If you wanted to futz with things further in favor of survivors, you'd need to do more for killers after each gen is completed.
3 -
survivors are supposed to get stronger as the game goes on and survivors die. why should a killer get weaker as the eliminate the team? It should not be easy to escape as a survivor.
1 -
Game is balanced in a 3v1 confirmed
0 -
You've nailed my main concern which is the generators. It's a flat huge buff to survivors to have both exit gates open the moment generators are done. I'm not sure how deal with that. The reason it's in there is because generators become pointless if dying survivors power exit gates and you have to open the increased-time exit gates anyway. Unfortunately the only thing I could think of was taking the time it currently takes to do both exit gates (40s) and distributing it across all generators, increasing the time it takes to do a generator by 6s.
0 -
Survivors do not get stronger as the game goes on and survivors die. They get weaker because pallets get used up and there are less friendly survivors to heal you, do gens, unhook etc. And every time the survivors get weaker the killer gets stronger. We want to tone down just how ridiculously OP the killer is lategame (and ideally buff their early game a bit).
0 -
It's possible your reading comprehension sucks and my idea is not fully fleshed out. In fact, I'd say that's exactly what's going on here. Yes, the last survivor having an easier time is a downside of the suggestion because it doesn't align with the ideal game state. That's not a contradiction. Overall the suggestion meets the line better, and meets the line at more important points, than the existing system.
The ideal game state is pretty clearly something approximately balanced throughout the whole game, but given that's virtually impossible due to the intrinsic nature of permanently diminishing objects like pallets, generators, and survivor's themselves, one side is going to have to start stronger and get weaker as time goes on. In this case the survivors start strong and happen to get exponentially weaker as time goes on with the exception of the band-aid hatch. We're trying to smoothen that curve out.
I would say so, at the very least saying that's what we should be aiming for right now. One for getting hooked, one for unhooking, one for generators. 2v1 sure isn't the template, the moment you unhook the killer has knowledge of where every player on the map is and that generators are not progressing.
0 -
You again start with an ad hominem attack (attacking my reading comprehension again) and continue to argue in bad faith.
Your idea would not significantly improve gameplay. It would not make the the game more enjoyable or more balanced.
Your idea is difficult to implement. It would require significant changes to base game mechanics and reworks of several perks. It does not provide enough upside to justify the effort required to make the changes.
Your idea, the presentation of it and your defense of it all suck.
1 -
Eh...
Here's the thing.
Survivors start strong but get weaker as the game goes on, both losing hook states and members, and also having less to work with.
Killers start weaker, but get stronger as the game goes on.
If, as a killer, you've got 4 survivors up with 1 gen left, you've lost - if you're willing to be a bit cheesy, you can sometimes secure 1, maybe 2 kills in endgame. With your changes, there would be no endgame.
If I absolutely had to suggest a catch-up mechanic it would be something like:
- For every generator done, the killer gains a 2% stacking buff to speed and action speed. X stacks are removed for every dead or slugged survivor.
- For every dead survivor, the remaining survivors gain a 3% stacking buff to repair speed and opening speed. This bonus is removed once all generators are completed.
It's...inelegant, but the best I can do.
1 -
No, I read it.
It instantly devalues working on gens. The time for 3 people to do multiple gens is objectively longer than the time for one person to sit on a gate even under your proposed logic. It becomes infinitely more sensible for Survivors to immediately drop gens and waste the Killer's time in such a scenario, especially if the map is unfavourable. And if the Killer keeps having to check a gate? Well, now they're free to do gens, because you just put a huge WE WIN button right on the edge of the map.
And reworking every perk that goes 'when the exit gates are powered' is not easier than introducing this ridiculous change.
0 -
Agree -- if the problem we're trying to solve is "people have no incentive to keep playing once it's clear they're going to lose," I think a system where the other team gets a buff when your team's doing well is better, since it lets people feel like they still have a chance to make a comeback and do their objectives without fundamentally changing the flow of the game.
1 -
If you’re going to expend the effort to refer to a fallacy by name, you might find it prudent to use the term correctly. Any old insult is not an argumentum ad hominem. I would have to be dismissing some substantive point on the basis that you’re an idiot for that to be true. Instead, I am dismissing you as being an idiot due to some substantive point. Not fallacious.
You are entitled to those opinions, but they don’t help fix fundamental issues in the game that at some point need to be addressed.
0 -
Killers do not need a catch up mechanic. They already grow stronger the longer the game goes on.
The repair suggestion is a less radical solution, but it also doesn’t really solve the core problems. The last survivor can’t ever reasonably do the gens and open the exit gates. The last two survivors aren’t going to have more of a chance to do that either because of a 9% repair speed buff imo, there’s just too few generators where the killer can control and concentrate their attention. That said, it’s certainly a lot easier to implement.
0 -
You can’t have it both ways. First you say “generators are useless then, nobody will do them”. Then you say “the exit gates will be camped, meaning gens can be done easily”. Pick a lane. If the killer camps exit, do gens. If he’s patrolling gens and the exit, great, that’s the intended effect (to add a quasi-generator). If he’s patrolling only gens, do the gate. That part is not the radical part.
0 -
Giving survivors a catchup mechanic kinda negates that, especially if their mechanic is essentially skiping the entire concept of how killers get stronger.
0 -
What you describe is exactly the intended effect of the suggestion. Every time the killer kills a player, the remaining players get buffed since another objective is unlocked they can use to escape that the killer has to patrol (the newly powered/ opened exit gate).
0 -
Survivors are perfectly capable of getting most of the gens done before the first survivors dies.
0 -
This is what I don't understand. I'm all for normalizing the extremes of the power dynamic in the game, but that means both of them. A lot of killers run deadlock specifically because it feels like the only viable defense against early game efficiency. Aside from, well, tunneling people out asap to put a hard cap on it and reduce the damage done.
0 -
They would, if you futz with the balance like you're requesting. A lot of kills are gained at the 1gen/gates phase.
But okay, let's assume this for the sake of the argument.
BHVR implements your suggestion, verbatim, tomorrow.
Kill rates go down...I'd predict maybe 10-15%.
What do you think happens next? Remember, they just buffed killers pretty substantially because the rates were too low.
0 -
That’s not the problem. Getting the majority of the gens done is meaningless. Getting ALL of the gens is the only thing worth anything if there is more than one survivor. And this becomes virtually impossible when there are only two survivors remaining because a killer is never going to struggle patrolling 3 generators against 2 survivors. Now 5 possible generators, where 2 are more important than the others and generally spawn separate from each other, is far more reasonable for 2 survivors to do.
0 -
Getting the last done in a 3v1 isn't that difficult. It only becomes difficult for the survivors when the killer outplays them and gens don't get done.
0 -
being outmanned is certainly part of the dynamic shift, and it can get to an unwinnable degree before the match is over. The tug of war in the middle of the two power extremes is the number of remaining gens itself, which is why there is so much importance to how many gens are finished vs how many survivors are dead. If there is only one gen left and there is a wide distribution of gens, it is considerably more winnable for 2-3 survivors than having to complete 3 with no progress. This is why survivors start so strong, and why they can complete 2-3 gens in the first chase in many cases, the early game extreme is designed to prevent or minimize the late game opposite extreme. Its also why many killers feel the need to tunnel one out asap, to put a hard cap on that "burst window" of efficiency potential.
Both extremes suck. Unfortunately they would need to be normalized simultaneously, as focusing on one or the other would make the opposing one not have a counterbalance for the opposing side. It's likely a big part of why the devs scrapped an "early game collapse" idea, they could have possibly been unwilling or unable to create a matching normalization for the last survivors that achieved parity in its effect on the dynamic.
As an aside, even 2 survivors left doesn't have to mean that the killer will assuredly get one of them. Its possible to both buy enough time and escape from a killer in that scenario, but only if you're objectively looking at possibilities: If you want to assume its impossible because the killer is nurse or blight or noed or all the pallets are gone or whatever worst case scenario you can think of, you also have to acknowledge that either (or both) of the remaining survivors could be skilled enough to do it, the resources around the map may not have been used up, adrenaline and/or hope can be in play, etc. This game has almost no constants in it, so cherry picking for smoke testing is different than cherry picking to invalidate others.
0 -
What does your idea actually fix?
What fundamental issues do they address?
How does it improve the game?
Why is graph 2 more ideal than graph 1?
0 -
No, you CAN perfectly well have it both ways.
If the killer doesn't obsessively check the powered gate, nobody has an incentive to do gens: just keep the killer occupied whilst the one guy hops on the gate and does it.
If the Killer does keep checking the gate, that's such an attention sink (especially if the gate is nowhere near uncompleted gens) that it buffs the survivors when someone dies.
In both cases, you're verging on making it easier for survivors to win the instant someone dies, and bypassing the normal mechanics of the game entirely.
1 -
I am actually okay with the game having a snowball effect for either side. Killer has more options to counter the survivor snowball (gen-slowdown, slugging, tunneling, etc.).
Anything else from the devs to counter snowballing would just slow the entire match down. I love DbD because matches are short.
0
