Honestly, I think all maps should basically be the same...
Okay okay, not the "same" as in aesthetically. They should be different aesthetically. It keeps new and old maps interesting.
But, I don't think we should have maps like Ormond or Red Forest that are utterly HUGE compared to others, or maps like The Game with crazy pallet counts.
I think that if every map had the same size, pallet count, window count, breakable wall count, things would be easier to balance and nobody would have to worry about shotty pallet distribution, survivor/killer sided maps (to a degree), three gens, etc.
I know the different aspects of a map make things more interesting, but I feel like the broad aspects of maps would benefit from being essentially the same. We've seen time and time and time again that the most different maps are considered the most difficult to play on or just unfair.
I don't know why BHVR chose to rework the maps, and then improve very few on a practical, not visual, level.
Ormond is still Ormond. The Game is still The Game. Red Forest is still Red Forest. etc.
The new Autohaven maps look more balanced, not sure why the others dip and jump in quality.
I don't know if this is a crazy take or not.
Comments
-
The maps are the most unbalanced part of present dbd,and to be honest it has always been an issue.While i would love for all the maps to be balanced,their map design philosophy obviously isn't concerned with balanced.Every map in recent history,new or reworked has been designed to favor survivors.
On top of being impossible to alter all the maps,you would make the game insanely monotonous and repetitive,as unbalanced as they may be,every realms feels refreshing and aesthetically pleasing.
11 -
"On top of being impossible to alter all the maps,you would make the game insanely monotonous and repetitive,as unbalanced as they may be,every realms feels refreshing and aesthetically pleasing."
I agree with you on how maps should feel refreshing and aesthetically pleasing, but I feel that making them the same on a gameplay level would go a long way to reduce imbalanced aspects. There could still be variants of maps, but the changes in pallet/windows/etc. count should be super small. Variants would still give players something less monotonous while also increasing balance.
1 -
I actually love the game.
Ok, pallets are a pain in the ass, but the more you play, the stronger the killer is.
And there is no "thing"-wall to run around like a brain dead zombie.
0 -
It always surprises me to see Ormond brought up in conversations about map size as an example of a map that's too big, when it's like, dead centre/average in terms of map sizes. Comparatively, it's really not that big at all.
Regarding the actual point, though- I think there's a middle ground between complete standardisation and what we currently have, and that's where I think the devs should be aiming. Something like Ormond's average size should become the largest a map can be, or at least close to it, but the size should still vary between that and whatever the smallest map is.
Same with pallet distribution. While some of the extreme edges could be reigned in, I think it's generally fine to have outliers like Lery's being windows central and Gideon's having more pallets but like, literally four windows.
TL;DR: Variation is genuinely fine, it's the extreme edges that need to be sanded down.
3 -
Maps the size of coal tower, wreckers yard or dead dawg saloon are prob the right size a map should be and there should prob only be about 8-12 pallets per map.
1 -
100% agree that certain bigger maps need to be cut down.I do however believe a more important attribute than size is for every map to have a strength and weakness, map shouldn't just full throttle in the favor of one side.
Its fine for a map to be big as long as its a 3 gen map,with a narrow centre,where you can prevent access by just staying in the middle.
Its fine for a map to be big as long as the pallet density remain similar to other smaller maps,in turn making it harder to chain tiles,and deadzones more prevalent and worrying.
Its fine for maps to be small as long as strong loops are provided or its easy to chain loops or gens are difficult for the killer to defend
The strength of the main building should also be taken into account when balancing maps.
Ormond is a good example of such a map.Not only is the map big(its not average,since most maps don't use the edges of it in gameplay,while ormond does),it has a strong main building,a well placed killer shack ,gens are spread out so even the best 3 gen is a stretch at best,its filled with tiles and filler pallets to chain them.The main building spawns at least 2 god pallets,and 2 strong windows untill you break the walls,on top of potentially spawning another god pallet(or bloodlustable one).Did i mention its in the middle of the map,so you can always find shelter and potentially chain it in your chase?
2 -
I believe if they averaged the map size to a sweet spot and hand tailored each variation instead of using procedural generation, it would go a long way.
0 -
The maps are very unbalanced. There are some maps that make hiding traps for Trapper impossible. There are some maps that don't have enough lockers for killers like Dredge. There are some maps that have too many obstacles in the way for someone like Billy. There are some maps that have no adequate pallet or gen placements for survivor. While there is some thought put into the general gameplay, the maps clearly aren't design to satisfy everyone. As of late, they are more focused on the aesthetic feel of the maps.
0 -
You cant necessarily do this without completely ruining the identity of certain maps tho. Its basically impossible to make a killer like Billy have the same performance on Lery's and Wreckers Yard.
What needs to be done instead is have every killer have a certain realm pool. This way a killer like Billy would never have to worry about going to Lery's, RPD, etc. If a map offering is played, and the killer doesnt have that realm in their pool, the offering gets rejected.
This would make every killers performance become WAY more consistent, making statistics much more accurate and would also be a great change in terms of how it feels to play a certain killer.
0 -
Honestly I think that maps could be bigger... it offers:
Pros:
Gens to be farther apart
More creative ways to make loops
Cons:
More deadzones
More pallets (probably)
0 -
That might suck for killers since if you favor a particular killer then you'll be playing a lot of the same map.
0 -
Doesn't suck as much as getting an indoor map 3 times in a row and then swamp as Huntress
Map pool could also rotate say every mid chapter to keep things fresh
0 -
Removing 90% of the gameplay variety is not a good idea, no matter if it makes balance easier.
At that point, the only thing differing from match to match is what character the Killer player picked.
0 -
as much as i'd love every map to be balanced, this sounds super boring. only a few but some maps are killer sided and some are survivor sided so it's just luck. but the problem is this luck shouldn't be able to be altered (map offerings).
0 -
I'd like to see less RNG. It would allow them to balance maps much more effectively. Something as simple as shack window orientation being tied to RNG can wildly swing the balance of an entire corner of a map. Shack window facing inside towards a jungle gym vs shack window outside towards the map wall is a vastly different set up and not currently accounted for in map balance. That's just one example with one tile. They need more static tile spawns to control balance.
Pallet count is a bit more nebulous. 8-12 pallets might be fine but on the thin side vs Pig, but it's way too few against a killer like Blight/Bubba/Billy/etc. You could go through 8 pallets in the first chase of the game against Bubba and it wouldn't necessarily be a bad play on the survivor's part. I think the spacing and orientation is much more critical than the pallet count itself. Having a lot of crappy pallets is annoying for everyone but playable. Having functionally infinite god pallets like Gideon's is not ok.
2
