http://dbd.game/killswitch
Since survivors got all buffs to perks
I expect killer perks to get buff and no survivor perk buffs to make it fair
Comments
-
I mean, yeah, they got minor buffs to 8 underused perks that will still not be seen anywhere near as much as the meta perks, but if you want to complain about Diversion or Dance with Me getting buffed, sure.
There's a big perk update coming soon anyway, where both sides will get a bunch of perks updated.
Either way, balancing is not a zero-sum game. You don't have to go and buff a certain amount of killer perks just because some survivor perks got buffed.
15 -
Tear
1 -
Nah this patch sucked i dont trust them
0 -
Always tiring when people make trying to balance stuff an us vs them. Like I want more stuff to be viable too, but now that you've put it like that, a small part of me hopes they don't, just so they can send the message that the game's balance is not a PVP interaction between survivor players and survivor haters.
Also the way the OP was written is quite amusing to me, it sounds like a jshlat bit. "Would you rather have killer buffs but no survivor buffs, or survivor buffs but no survivor buffs"
9 -
Us vs them aka how dare we ask for balance
0 -
Also i didnt write that
0 -
my guy is complaining about some perks that are mostly used to mess around and have very little impact on the match
typical dbd killer
5 -
I play both sides ;)
1 -
Well to be fair, we also got a basekit buffs for a few killers. Besides there is gonna be an update for 20 perks in autumn and I bet there will be a killer perks into it
0 -
Every perk that is underused or doesn't perform well should be checked no matter the side. If they have to buff more survivor perks again then so be it.
That said, I'd like to see perks like beast of prey or THWACK! (As an example, there are many others) being reworked
2 -
Game is already killer sided so idk why you'd ask for killer buffs if you want balance ๐คทโโ๏ธ
8 -
Certain killers. Not killer in general i assume.
2 -
The us vs them is strong in this oneโฆ
2 -
Accounting for the full range of player skill distribution, the current balance of the game leads to favorable outcomes for killer players at higher frequencies than outcomes similarly favorable outcomes for survivor. Certain killers struggling against particularly skilled, highly coordinated or over-kitted teams or on certain maps is a phenomenon but it is an exceptional one. It is indeed "killers in general" the game favors.
11 -
I feel like Dance With Me was a very good buff though not that impactful in most games I play now. However I really don't think the changes to the shenanigans perks were significant buffs, since they just lead to people trying to force value out of more Blast Mines or Chem Traps Flashbangs but doing LESS work for the team. They really aren't any better than they were before, they straight up made Blast Mine and Chem Trap both last shorter and made you have to do less of a gen to get one. You're doing less for the team and getting less in return just to be able to use them more, these were not buffs they were NERFS.
As for Flashbang, now you're in a locker more often doing nothing but charging Flashbang and wasting more time, just like other locker perks. This was also not a buff but a nerf, because again, you are doing less gen and thus less for the team just to be able to maybe blind the Killer more often and even then only if you are good or running certain, also nerfed, perks.
People have called me nuts for this take. Maybe I am. But IMHO I can't call "perk lasts shorter in exchange for doing less for the team" a buff.
0 -
Not going to happen for awhile - it's been pro-survivor patches overall for quite some time. They'll likely get a lot more buffs until those mid to low 50% kill rates are dripping into the 40's. The biggest problem right now is that we have a couple of over-performers in regards to killers (which frankly need nerfs), but BHVR doesn't do targeted killer nerfs, really. Instead their style is blanket nerfs across the board. The weaker killers will eventually just getting lost, then BHVR will have to reconsider their balance style. They can't just keep kicking all killers in the gut just because 2 or 3 overperformers are dominators. All that's pushing is more people to jump on board the overperformer bandwagon as the weaker killers start dissipating. I don't think anyone wants to see blight\nurse to end up being in the majority of all matches - either "side".
0 -
if you think this game is killer sided well.. i got this really nice bridge to sell you.. im sure you'll love it .
1 -
No, us vs them is when someone intentionally promotes triblalism by putting people into certain groups without even knowing if thats true and generalizing these groups.
What he said:
"typical dbd killer"
0 -
Not my experience playing Pig. Sure, I dont tunnel or take more than one slowdown perk, but isnt this what a nice game should be?
Every game is a real challenge for me. Also, do I really have to document how many map offerings i see per session? You wont like the ratio.
0 -
Kill rate on nightlight's 57.7%, compared to escape rate of 42.3%.
Killer win percentage is 51.5%. You could compare that to the survivor team win percentage of 35.5% (remainin 13% are draws). You could also compare that to the rate of survivor non-hatch escapes (since hatch escapes are considered a draw for survivors) which is 37.7%
If you wanted to simplify that into raw winrate (wins plus half draws) killer would have a 58% win rate to survivors team winrate of 42% or individual winrate of 44.7%
What's more, nightlight's numbers consistently skew more in favor of survivor than the numbers BHVR releases whenever they do an official stats post, albeit only by a couple percentage points.
In any case, I'd love it if you could explain how killer metrics of success being well above 50% while survivor metrics barely struggle to reach 45% and by many measures not even reaching 40% indicates anything other than a killer favored game.
Post edited by ratcoffee on6 -
I think how many kills you get in each game would be a better thing to track than map offerings. Either you're losing as or more often than you're winning, which (respectfully) makes you an exceptional player, or you're winning more often than not, which is the only fair metric of balance.
Even better, documenting how often a large sample of players get each result would be even more helpful, because then we're looking at a more statistically representative sample of the game's player base instead of a single potentially exceptional sample space. Which is why I brought up Nightlight in my other comment that I was working on when your post came in.
2 -
Then you should try one of the four buffed killers. Dredge is way more powerful, Nemesis got some really nice buffs, and Knight feels great with the new guards on separate cooldowns too. Doc also got a buff.
0 -
To confirm you, yes. Im still winning most of my matches as pig. However, whats important is to look at why. Why is the reason important? Because your talking about overall balance.
I win because of:
- soloq - communication mistakes
- overconfidence of survivors after me losing 4 gens for one down
- survivors trying to go for flashy saves / pallet saves
- survivors going for totems / chests
- survivors going for uneccessary bodyblocks when i have stbfl
- survivors not understanding how the trap rng work
- survivors making basic mistakes in looping and pathing
- survivors misusing strong perks
- survivors giving up because they went down first
- survivors giving up because i play pig
- survivors giving up because x reason
There are cetainly some more reasons that i cant think of right now. Most of these come down to survivor mistakes. Not to me being exceptionally good at the game. I play pig. Wasting a pigs time is not hard due to her chase being awful.
The teams i relatively consistently lose against are the teams that focus on gens, never do uneccessary stuff, are all solid in looping, go to areas where there is nothing to defend for me, making me lose more time for the down than i gain, use strong items, offerings and perks and showcase good pathing. They also pre drop and shift w.
If i lose against these guys, this has nothing to do with me being so bad at dbd, its me reaching the limit of what i can do with the tools im given.
You can of course think otherwise.
0 -
I mean what you're describing here is you winning because you punished survivor mistakes harder than they punished your mistakes and losing because they made fewer mistakes than you. The capacity for misplays to happen and the level to which they affect the outcome of the game is part of the game balance, not some confounding external factor.
I once read a review for a short film that bashed it because one of the characters was a little girl, and they said the story wouldn't have had as much emotional resonance with audiences if the character was an adult man, for instance. You're not reviewing the film at that point, you're reviewing a different version of the film that you have invented and intentionally made worse. The film didn't have an adult man in that one role, so the reviewer should not have criticized it for what it would have been like if that were the case. The game's mechanics lead to survivors making mistakes, so it's wrong to discount the effects of those mistakes in discussing game balance.
4 -
No. The games mechanics dont lead to survivors making mistakes. Thats is completely wrong. If a survivor understands that gens are important, they will not do chests to get a green key. If a survivor know that they play against a weak killer power, they will beeline to shack to waste as much time as possible. The game does not tell you "dont use check spots". The game also doesnt tell you to not drop that pallet or get overconfident because you play against a trapper.
Most of the games im winning due to survivors playing bad. If we balance about survivors playing bad all the time, then the ones that dont play bad will dominate.
Highly disagree.
0 -
Idk what to tell you man that's how the game works maybe you just don't like the game ๐คทโโ๏ธ
3 -
What? I know that the game makes me win due to survivors playing badly. However, the solution to that is survivors playing better. Not catering to bad play.
0 -
Humans make mistakes. You probably make dozens of misplays a game and don't even realize it. It's up to you to recognize and punish the mistakes your opponent makes - the game isn't handing you a win because your opponents are human.
You're asking for a game where your opponents make no mistakes and you still have a fair shot of winning without feeling like you're struggling. You're asking for a singleplayer game against AI at that point.
4 -
No. You dont get it.
First: the game does not tell you to make mistakes. The players do.
Second. I dont want survivors to make 0 mistakes. I NEVER said that. However, the amount of mistakes that lead to a weak killer with one regression perk winning is substantial. Im asking for players learning, using common sense and playing better before calling something op. This goes for both sides. Killers should learn how to create pressure effectively as well as using their power optimally and survivors should understand gen agency, smart unhooking and looping.
This is the same reason why pig was on a watch list despite her changes barely being a buff. Thats why Freddy got nerfed regardless when he came out despite being a really bad killer from the get go.
I demanding playing well, not perfect by any mean but well, so much to ask for?
If i may ask, what do you propose to compensate for bad play then?
0 -
I propose killers recognize that if it takes that many survivor mistakes for them to win, they're probably making a whole lot of mistakes that they aren't acknowledging or even noticing.
4 -
Where is that a balancing suggestion?
0 -
๐
2 -
Great discussion
0 -
You said "killers need to recognize their mistakes and get better" is not a balance argument
You also said, paraphrased, "survivors need to recognize their mistakes and get better" in the context of making a balance argument.
The fact you did this in consecutive posts, and the fact you didn't realize this, and didn't realize this is what I was pointing out, speaks wonders. I truly think there's nothing I can further say to you that will help you see the reality of this game's current balance state.
2 -
You ignored my answers. The game does not tell you to make mistakes.
Your still not giving me a balancing proposal for players playing badly.
I said multiple times that i know how this game is balanced. Its balanced around:
- who makes more mistakes
- who brings the stronger stuff
I also stated that i dont think that this is fine.
Getting better is part of balancing. You try to balance around better players. I said that did I not:
"This goes for both sides. Killers should learn how to create pressure effectively as well as using their power optimally and survivors should understand gen agency, smart unhooking and looping."
I dont think this discussion leads to anything because you keep dodging my arguments.
Edit: there is a difference between making a balancing argument and making a balancing suggestion. A killer seeing their mistakes is not a balancing suggestion. A balancing suggestions is something like: "more pallets / safeer loops / better anti tunnelโฆ" because, where does it lead if the killer saw something like: "oh, i wasnt able to play around that tile. should have left"? In the next game, the killer will still not be able to play around that tile.
0 -
if you want changes maybe say the changes you want?
0 -
hmm i was told it was 60% so as a killer if i play 10 games i am Gauranteed to get a 3k on 6 out of 10 of these games? and what if i dont.. what if i get a 3k in only 3 of those matches youd say "skill issue " wouldnt you? well logic dictates that the reverse is true survivors escaping 4 out of 10 matches is a skill issue.
a team of survivors has 24 perks at their disposal ( the for they bring in and BT and deliverance for each) while the killer only has 4. if a survivor cant win when the odds are MASSIVELY stacked in their favour .. then skill issue get good .0 -
what
I don't understand please find a different way of explaining
1
