Why No Killer is Fundumentally Overpowered/Underpowered
In order for something to be fundamentally unbalanced it needs to be impossible to use purely numbers to make them balanced. For example if someone's power was to instantly hook all 4 survivors at the same time and puts them in stage 3 then if they had enough time to pull it off before the survivors could possibly escape it would be broken OP regardless of other stats. However if he was too slow and the survivors could escape before it would ever trigger then it would be UP due to being literally useless.
So the proof:
Take ANY Killer in the game right now. For example Freddy. Next pick one of his stats, it must be able to be changed continuously and have a continuous effect on the balance of the killer. I'm going to chose his movement speed.
Now. Lets say hypothetically that with no other changes Freddy had a movement speed of 200%. Utterly broken right? He would win every time no matter how good the survivors are because there is no way you could possibly get away from that. The map pressure alone would be insane not to mention the chase potential.
Ok so obviously we can make him broken OP. So now for the other way around. What if we made him have a movement speed of 10%? Now he's so UP that he would never win a single game no matter how good the killer playing him is.
Here is the thing. Since we have shown that winrate can be a function of movement speed that means we could graph the relationship where you plug in the MS and return the WR. Since the MS is continuous that means it should also be able to produce ANY winrate between 0 and 100 (since we established that it can be EXACTLY those 2). Thus you can always find a MS that will give whatever the ideal winrate is. Thus it is POSSIBLE to balance him or any other killer for that matter.
What about the ones where this doesn't work? The hypothetical instant win killer is just as strong with a 0% MS as he is with a 115% MS because his power is just that busted.
Or in a more realistic sense I cannot honestly say that a Nurse with 0% MS would always lose.
However I kinda lied at the start. Because the amount of time needed for the survivors to escape is somewhat random due to map generation. So that means that the time it takes to use the instant win ability works just like MS for Freddy in that it is a continuous function. There will always be some number you can use that works exactly x% of the time where x is whatever number you feel like.
For nurse the variable to edit would be her blink range. Literally from one end to the other side of the map is a free win while literally 0 distance is a guaranteed loss.
Pick ANY Killer or even almost any hypothetical Killer and you will be able to do this.
Now keep in mind that doesn't mean a Killer can't be fundamentally problematic. Just that balance is always at worst a numbers game. If you can balance a literal win button then you can balance anything.
Comments
-
The most BROKEN killer is nurse because she breaks the conventions of the game.
"But muh skill"
I dont mind nurse all that much honestly but you can't say she isnt ridiculous.
1 -
No, just no.
You cant just take a stat and make it 0% and have another stat at 100%, It would break the game.
115% movement speed is almost universal killer speed because all killers can kill you without using their power (except Freddy unless you catch people inside lockers but that's never gonna happen).
If you buff their movement speed they'll M1 you without using their power which takes away the fun aspect of playing killer.
If you nerf their MS they'll abuse their power which should be super powerful to catch up on a chase, this would lead to more Nurse tier characters, something nobody wants.
A killer is balanced when he must use both M1 and power to down you.
2 -
No No No. A killer is balanced when his winrate fits with an arbitrary ideal. In most games that's 50% for any given role.
You are falsely conflating balance with fun. As while balance is a strong indicator of fun it is NOT a guarantee of it.
Thus when talking about balance it is perfectly valid to change whatever numbers you feel like to reach the desired end. And if you actually did that then you would likely not end up with that ridiculous of a number. For example while yes 200% MS freddy is insane a 120% MS freddy is potentially interesting.
But yes I can absolutely have 1 stat be 0% and another stat be 100%. In fact for survivor's their run speed is 100% and their DPS is 0%. In fact any stat that is not applicable is 0% so there are an infinite amount of those. In any case the point I'm making is that pointing out balance flaws is NEVER sufficient grounds for a rework or removal. But instead you have to demonstrate that either fixing it will always create a non-balance problem or that there already IS a non-balance problem.
And your claim afterwards is also false since buffing or nerfing someone's MS does not have to imply anything about their power, instead it just happens to have a tendency to do so because reducing MS is a great way to counterbalance movement based killer powers when doing the numbers game I've been talking about.
Do not forget that balance is a numbers game and thus should always only be considered AFTER establishing that something doesn't have problems in area's besides balance
0 -
Not saying what you're saying is false, but it does prove that you lack adaption at this game.
Just because she negates your defenses does not mean there isn't counterplay with The Nurse. I respect your opinion, but I do see the failure to adapt to how a Killer is played and how to play against them. I'll leave it as that.
Good Survivors can destroy anyone, SWF or solo, and a good Killer can destroy a set of survivors, SWF or solo.
In the current state of DbD, excluding a few... mistakes (legion haha funny jok) I find it a evermost battle of mindgames between the killer and I, and how that does down is dependent on the Killer and the power and playstyle of such; and how well I can play against that and out-mindgame them.
1 -
Absolutely. The whole idea behind skill is that while the overall winrates between killer's perks ect needs to be consistent it shouldn't be evenly distributed among players. Or in other words worse players should win less than better players. And thus your winrate compared to the global winrate should often not match up for better or worse.
That doesn't mean a killer can't be unbalanced. In the case of nurse the issue isn't that she can beat survivor's but rather that she does so more often than freddy, at which point the choice of nerfing the nurse, buffing freddy or both is arbitrary. And of course the nurse can also be unbalanced by winning more than is statistically expected with ideal balance.
If every killer won every game 100% of the time then despite being completely consistent it would still be OP and a bit past the "get gud" argument. Same for a 0% winrate in reverse. Again there would be a hypothetical midpoint where this isn't a problem anymore and we call that point "balanced". So if the nurse is above that point then she is overpowered. If she or any other killer like freddy is below that point then they are underpowered.
1 -
I've said it once and I'll say it again-----> OP imo means "anyone can use said item/character and have great success regardless the experience of the player" ..... so in this case the only character that even comes close to being "OP" is Legion .... because a week 1 noob can hop on them and play them to pretty much max potential and abuse the chase mechanic sooo...
Every other killer is not OP and requires some learning curve
0 -
Except that isn't the widely excepted definition. Overpowered usually means "Too powerful" predictably enough. Which has nothing to do with skill curve and in the context of balance (which ALSO doesn't concern itself with skill curve) only cares about the sum of all games with no greater context required.
This fact is why we can even HAVE killers like nurse. Since while they are potentially insane they also require more skill to use at their max level compared to other killers. Thus the nurses overall winrate remains balanced. For other killers like legion the winrate is less effected by rank. This is STILL balance (assuming the numbers are correct)
Remember. A coin toss is balanced when it lands on heads 50% of the time. No skill is involved in a coin toss and it is extremely unfair and unfun. It is still balanced
0 -
Should probably mention that what I just said is a problem for the legion. Since skill curve is a non-balance issue that means it CAN be a fundamental problem with the Killer
0 -
If every killer won every game 100% of the time then despite being completely consistent it would still be OP and a bit past the "get gud" argument. Same for a 0% winrate in reverse. Again there would be a hypothetical midpoint where this isn't a problem anymore and we call that point "balanced".
I don't know; keeping the equation to just one variable (movement speed in this case) seems like oversimplification to me.
Let's say for instance, there is a certain type of survivors (Group A) that a killer can win 100% of the time. But there is also another type of survivors (Group B) that this killer plays against with a win rate of 0% because they magically have a movement speed of 400%. If you play both types of groups equal amount of time, then by your definition, you would argue that the killer is balanced since it hits the arbitrary ideal 50% mark. But if you are strictly viewing from Group B's perspective, the killer is definitely not balanced. Nor is it from Group A's perspective, but from the other end of the spectrum.
Now let's say there is a killer that can get a 50% win rate against Group B, as well as 100% win-rate against Group A. From the perspective of Group B, the killer is balanced, but from Group A's view, the killer is not balanced (as in the previous example). From killer's perspective, it's a 75% win rate, so it also would not be viewed as balanced.
But is it the killer that's not balanced, or is it the survivors (Group A and B)?
0 -
All right when it comes down to killers numbers don't really matter because most of them are constants. Let me explain what I mean and try to add something to the conversation then just a bunch of goddamn children crying in the comment section.
Here's the thing. When I say constant I mean movement speed in every base thing a killer can do. If you modify those numbers it won't really make much of a difference because of one thing.
The ability
Now I'm not trying to sound snobbish in any possible way. Please understand that now. When I say the ability of the killer I literally just mean their power. Certain Killers can be fast as Usain Bolt but if their power is absolute garbage then they won't really get as far as people think they would. If you're insanely fast then what good would it do you if survivors can learn to adjust to that speed and pallet Loop you like any other killer...
Look at the legion. I know a lot of people love whining about this killer but when it comes down to speed if you know how to deal with it then the Killer is just as useless has Freddy.
When it comes down to a power. It has to be simple and to the point to bring survivors down quickly or complex to waste as much as their time as possible to help you get some hooks.
When it comes down to the number on a Killers ability or power we usually have add-ons to fix that particular problem unless it's a serious glaring issue.
I'll leave you with an example Trapper and the hag got a serious power buff to make setting traps a lot easier and even buffed the add-ons for the power as well... Trapper and hag I played a lot more frequently now
0 -
Are you suggesting you can loop a 200% movement speed killer like you can a 115% killer?
0 -
What you have just described is the mathematical equivalent of a coin toss. Which I already established IS in fact balanced.
I wouldn't even consider such an example to be a problematic implication since the explanation would be that Group A is better than Group B at the game. If Group A is the norm then the Killers should be able to handle them and if Group A is not the norm then it might be ok if they can't.
Of course ideally both killer's and survivor's get better with skill at an equal rate. However that's beyond the scope of this thread.
Imagine a bucket full of coins for coin tosses. It just so happens that exactly half of the coins are weighted to always land on heads. But the other half are weighted to always land on tails.
Balance just asks the question of "how often did a coin picked from the bucket land on heads?". The answer is 50% so the bucket is balanced even if the coins are not.
That being said if you meant that the Killer only has 400% MS against Group B then that is still equivalent to something that actually happens. Here let me define a bunch of relevant terms:
Balance - An objects global winrate. This should be equal for all comparable objects ideally
Swing - The variation of an objects winrate given randomness throughout a single game. This should be as low as possible but usually not actually 0, having a killer get 400% MS against only half of the groups would be an example of this
Skill gap - The difference in winrate between the best and worst players (in terms of winrate) using an object. This should be fairly high but not as high as you might think because of how matchmaking works
Interactiveness - How much more likely is a random player to beat the worst opponents compared to the best opponents. Too high and winning is out of your hands. Too low and the game is eventually functionally singleplayer.
Freddy has a problem with balance
Pig has a problem with swing
Legion has a problem with Interactiveness and Skill gap
My hypothetical win button killer has a problem with Swing, Skill gap AND Interactiveness
0 -
The issue with this entire post is the simplification.
1 -
You seem to forget that this is a videogame. Your point is valid if we talk about competitions but we are talking about a videogame, and it's crucial to have fun while playing. If you dont have fun you just quit playing.
Would you play a killer that is perfectly balanced but is boring to play as? I wouldnt honestly, and Im sure a lot of people wouldnt want to either.
0 -
This is true. In fact that is ultimately the point of the thread.
Specifically that balance doesn't matter since it can always be artificially established after the fact and thus is the one issue you can outright ignore when designing a Killer power ect.
This isn't me saying that all Killers are fine or even that any killer can be fine. I wouldn't want to play as an instant win killer and neither would you. The point is that you can't dismiss an idea for balance reasons and that you should always prioritize non-balance issues over balance issues when you have to.
0 -
I think you misunderstood me. In my example from the previous post, I meant that Group B Survivors always have 400% movement speed against the killer, and therefore the killer always have a win rate of 0%.
Maybe I should be less metaphoric in my examples. Let's say The Trapper has a 100% win rate against a group of Solo Survivors. Let's also say that The Trapper has a 0% win rate against a group of SWF Survivors. If The Trapper plays an equal amount of times against both groups, he would have have 50% win rate, and as your weighted coin example suggests, you can state that The Trapper is balanced against survivors. But does that mean no further balancing needs to be done?
I can bring up a similar example from the survivors point of view. Let's say SWF Survivors has a 50% Win Rate against The Hillbilly, therefore is balanced from the perspective of the SWF players.
But as in the previous example, SWF Survivors have a 100% Win Rate against The Trapper. So although you can state that SWF Survivors are balanced against The Hillbilly, you wouldn't be able to say that SWF survivors are balanced against killers in general - given the 75% Win Rate.
To fix this, now let's add The Nurse. Let's say that SWF Survivors have a 0% Win Rate against The Nurse. So now when you take the results from The Trapper, The Hillbilly, and The Nurse, SWF players have an overall win rate of 50% - balanced. But would The Trapper players with their 0% win rate against the SWF players be satisfied with that? Would the SWF players with their 0% win rate against The Nurse be satisfied with that?
Now let's go back to the Solo players, who have a 0% Win Rate against The Trapper. If the movement speed is the only variable, then they would also have a 0% Win Rate against The Hillbilly and The Nurse, which in itself would still bring about a question of balance.
So should we be balancing the general Survivors vs Killers, where specific types of survivors and killers don't matter?
Or should we be balancing specific types of survivors and killers individually, ignoring the overall win rate for general survivors and killers (and if that's the case, can we even do that if there is only one variable and whenever this variable makes Solo Survivor stronger, it also automatically makes the SWF even stronger as well.)
3 -
Ah I see. In the example of SWF vs Solos the Trapper would be balanced assuming that 50% is your ideal and your other killers had a similar WR. However SWF and Solos are elements too. So they would each be unbalanced.
Hypothetically you can have a similar unbalance work. Basically you need to have any given element (killer) work against the average of all opposing elements (solos + SWF) and those opposing elements are balanced under the same reasoning. So you can have the trapper be effective against a specific survivor who is effective against a specific non-trapper killer who is effective against a different kind of survivor who is effective against the trapper. A loop like this is not only viable but also common for competitive games such as Melee and CSGO as well as many strategy games.
Of course as you rightly pointed out this isn't enough. If the difference is too extreme then it stops being skill. This is because balance does not guarantee fun and you need to look at other factors. So in the case you mentioned the issue would be reflected in how interactive the matchups are. It would be too narrow a range showing that there is a dominant strategy that can't be countered by the other side once the game has started.
And what you said about solos vs SWF is completely true as well. My proof works on killers and would probably work on perks to an extent but not on SWF since there isn't a way to mathematically distinguish between SWF and Solos. It's still possible to balance it but it's not as simple as what I did in this thread.
Also in practice you wouldn't actually limit yourself to a single variable. Doing so just makes it clear that there is some ideal point you could reach for any power that is effected by MS
1 -
And yes you would balance each killer separately. Possibly even individual builds
0
