Why not change map design depending on the Killer?
It's a pretty well known issue at this point that maps often tend to be one of the most disliked parts of modern DBD design, behind maybe matchmaking. The complaint I tend to hear the most being all the clutter added to new and reworked maps, and I can't say I disagree.
As Hillbilly it really does suck maneuvering around three Nostromo ship parts only to collide with one you could hardly see cause of the overcharge visual effect and the fact it's at knee level. But as Ghostface, it also kinda sucks loading into the maps with trees added specifically so he could stalk people from them and still not being able to because of how they bungled leaning awhile ago and that the trees needed to be skinny so Huntress could still throw through them.
The point is, with the wide array of different killer designs and traits, maps can never be designed in such a way that they don't create a poor experience for at least a section of the killer cast. This creates issues for balancing, as you have to make all your changes to killer with both their worst and best maps in mind. A Hillbilly with the right add-ons is going to feel incredibly stronger on MacMillan Estate than he is on Lery's, for instance.
The suggestion is, create alternate designs of maps to be used depending on the killer type, as to better control map variables for healthier balance changes in the future, alongside creating a more fun user end experience as each killer can be played as and against in an environment at least somewhat designed around their power.
Thoughts?
Comments
-
It would be great.
For example:
• More grass when playing as Trapper/Hag
• Less clutter when playing as Huntress/Billy/Singularity
• More clutter/LOS blockers when playing as Myers/Ghostface/Wraith/Nurse
3 -
This is a really unreasonable idea because this would mean they would need to create multiple versions of each map AND balance every new map with that in mind. This is tons of extra work which can just be avoided by accepting that not every Killer is great on every Map.
(As an example - they got rid of the Moonlight-Offerings because it was too much work and balancing work to create multiple lightnings. And this would be far less work than creating multiple versions of the same map for each map in the game)
5 -
Probably because it's too much work to maintain for 35 killers and 40+ maps. This is just not realistic.
Also, there is nothing inherently bad about some killers being worse on some maps and better on others. It adds a bit variety to the game. I'd rather they only look at the most extreme cases where a killer absoutely doesn't work on a map or another becomes pretty much unbeatable.
Take The Game for example. It's a pretty terrible map for both sides but a killer with designated build for it becomes almost undefeatable. That map desperately needs a rework.
5 -
I don't think it would be too much work, especially the clutter stuff, since you can just include that in an algorithm or make like 3-4 versions of the map. It is not like the have to change the entire map or balance too much.
Just accept bad stuff is not a good argument. The other option that is way less time consuming is just to make it so a killer gets specific maps only, like they do it in comp, so the killer is not hindered too much by the map. That would no be much effort and result in the same result, the killer does not get hindered my unfortunate map design.
0 -
I mean getting an advantage/disadvantage just by a specific map which is random or decided by offerings and unable to blacklist is an inherently bad thing if you want to have a balanced game.
0 -
There is nothing wrong with ending on a bad map as Killer. Giving Killers basically built-in Map Offerings by only sending them to Maps where they are good on is really just wrong.
2 -
I did not say good for them, I just said not terrible.
"there is nothing wrong by having an uneven match just by getting a specific map" is a really weird statement when trying to get a balanced game design isn't it?
0 -
The only thing I will give you on that is that it is debatable how much of an imbalance is still acceptable, because making a map that is perfectly balanced would be pretty hard. Give the goal of a 60% kill rate maps should probably be slightly killer sided overall? If we decide the balance of a map only by its escape rate ofc, otherwise I would prefer a balanced map with like 3-5% leaning towards either side.
0 -
In most competitive games that I know of, there are things that work really well with some other mechanics and not very well with others. That is part of it. Not everything should be 100% consistent.
No map should be so horrible or so good, that a killer can basically never win / lose on it but if we take Billy for example you can still play on Lery's and do reasonably well even though this is one of the most extreme cases. Don't get me wrong, I do think Lery's could use a few changes to make it more interesting to play on for both sides but it's not a guaranteed loss just because you played the wrong killer. Quite the opposite, if you play stealth Billy.
0 -
Which is why I said the maps should not be terrible for the killer. Indoor maps for Singularity for example, new Blight on Lerys (where you will probably bump on everything and so on). However I did not say I want only 50 50 win loss rate maps. Just that map are all somewhat balanced and don't have an inherent advantage/disadvantage for a specific killer.
100 % consistancy cannot be achieved anyway. But it is still somewhat of a goal to aim for isn't it? Just because perfection cannot be reached does not mean we shouldn't try to do it anyway.
0 -
I mean, the game should not be balanced. If it should be balanced, they would not aim for a 60% Killrate. If it should be a perfectly balanced game (in theory), both sides should have the same odds to win, which is not the case by design.
And yes, I dont see any issue with Maps being survivor- or killersided for example. Same I dont see an issue if a Hillbilly is bad on Lerys, but amazing on Rotten Fields. As long as it is not too extreme (which mainly applies for survivor- and killersided), it is alright.
0 -
Just that maps are somewhat balanced and don't have an inherent advantage/disadvantage for a specific killer.
That can never be achieved though. An outdoor map will always be better for a Huntress than an indoor map because it allows her to use her power in more ways. I agree of course that no map should be absolutely terrible or a free win for any killer but that is not the case currently. We'll see how Blight turns out on Lery's. I hope it won't be too bad.
I don't think consistency is perfection. The more consistent a game, the more predictable it is as well. This is already a problem for DBD. And while I think that all killers should be fully functional on all maps, I don't want them to rework every map to be the same. I don't play Singularity enough to know, if it absolutely doesn't work on indoor maps or if it's only a skill issue on my part but I know of a way to fix it without redesigning maps. Allow biopods to slipstream survivors that are partially visible. That would definitely help me.
I think we're really on the same page here. A match should not be pre-decided by the map, no matter the killer but it is fine that some killers are better on some maps than they are on others simply because their powers interact differently. Every killer has their strenths and weaknesses (sometimes more of one than the other) and every killer can use some things to their advantage that others might struggle with, which is good as long as the ones that struggle are still fully functional, which seems to be the case currently (again, I cannot speak for Singularity).
0 -
Well that's where we disagree, I think it should be balanced and the teams should win or lose as one, including the removal of hatch with also taking a look at all the rng that stands in the way of balance.
The problem with the 60% killrate is, among other reasons that hatch sometimes turns 4ks into 3ks and killers being able to usually secure at least 1k in endgame. And I think both of those things should be looked at for the sake of balance.
1 -
Like I said the question is how much better or worse the killer is on a specific map, and I can for tolerance a bit, but some things are just ridiculous. As for Blight just look at old videos of him on PTB, he bumped against everything, people put him in B tier because it was that bad...
I dislike indoor maps for a big variety of reasons and I think they don't fit well, because they disable some mechanics that are quite good and well implemented for no reason, for example tracking via crows and scratch marks in the distance. You just don't get rewarded the same way for looking for those small things, and I think that among other reasons is why indoor maps are just not good in general.
1 -
Changing maps based on the killer would be a bit too much work.
However, I generally think that there should be more map variations. If every map in the game had a least two variations, then they could be designed to be: survivor sided and killer sided, or favouring LoS killers and LoS blocking killers.
Then even when a map offering is played, there's still a fair RNG element so it's not a guaranteed advantage, and you could give weighting depending on the killer. If it's a stealth killer, you get the version with the most LoS blockers, etc.
1 -
A much better take than mine imo, as most maps don't really need to be catered to a specific killer, but rather just have certain aspects of design that favor a killer type. It's much more feasible that they design a map variation designed around ranged killers, chase/burst killers, and stealth killers respectively and then swap between them depending on the match.
Tbh though, I think an inevitable thing that would happen with this change is the devs put in a killer with the wrong variation and for some reason don't change it back for years like they sometimes do. Watch Dredge players be put in the stealth maps despite his directional phasing or smt.
0 -
It sounds like a good idea and all, but that adds many more layers to game balancing when they can barely keep up as is
0
