http://dbd.game/killswitch
What would you think about a perk buff vote?
Currently there are a lot of perks in the game that nobody runs. Let‘s imagine a situation where behavior decides to change that and let’s the community vote/decide at which perks they should look at for some buffs. Now to not get some already strong perks unnecessarily buffed, it would only include perks that have a lower than 2-3% pick rate. After the vote ends behavior would look at the 5-10 most voted perks of each side and adjust them.
Would you like something like that to happen every few months?
Comments
-
That honestly sounds great
It would give the community a voice and say what perks are the least used while giving BHVR a idea of what to do with the certain perks
10 -
Absolutely, definitely, undoubtedly no. I know this community.
-5 -
What do you think will happen?
6 -
Are we suggesting that BHVR listen to its playerbase? Laughable.
The most toxic, unhinged, maniacal community in all of video gaming. COD, Battlefield, and even R6S aren't as bad as DBD players - even if the three were combined. DBD players are their own breed.
-2 -
Literally this community is kinda tame. Like people are losing their minds of survivors dances in the exit gates. I think you've just only been here to long.
-3 -
Catastrophe. I mean, I understand that bhvr won't judge only based on these "polls", but community in its majority has horrible vision on bigger picture on what affects what.
I'll remind you what community considers "weak": Boons, Reassurance, pretty much all altruistic healing perks, self-care. Hell, even StB. And all of these not just "strong" perks, they are game changing perks in right hands.
Some people still ask bring back old DH, CoH, how do you think they rate 99% of perks in this game? Yeah, right, "it's not press-button-to-win, so it's useless".
Pick rate on top of this means completely nothing. It's impossible to have all perks with equal pick rate, there always will be some favourites. And pick rate doesn't show how good or strong perk is. My favourite soloq perk is Any Means Necessary. And it's insanely good perk. Useful every match, map wide info about where killer is, where chase is going, what resources are used and pallet resets without cooldown on top of it. And it has 1,69% pick rate and on 50th place on NL right now. Tell me, to what degree we should buff this already strong perk, so community starts to take it as often as runtoyellow perk?
We had Background player, which was buffed, I believe, because of one single post here on forum after its release, where some guy said that "this perk never will be good unless it will be 200%". You know what happened next.
We have now Vigil, fine niche perk before with average pick rate, which was buffed because of… I don't know why it was in first place. Now it's probably most busted perk in the game right now, what, once again, community will never admit, because it's "fun". Haha, I can run away from killer every 30 seconds, don't worry about half of his perks and turn Freddy and Clown into powerless killers. Oh and now all teammates on map has these effects too. Yeah, fun. But not balanced.
Look at first 20 survivor perks on NL. Do you see a single perk, which requires some input or work to activate it? Yeah, zero. So to what degree you believe we should buff, let's say, my favourite perk for now, Clean Brake (0,15% pick rate), to make average survivor take this? Let's be honest, you will never achieve this, because this is a perk you need to work for. Not much at all, just average altruistic healing. And why should me, when I can equip syringe, press one button in every moment without any work or input and win 30-60 seconds for nothing?
Some perks can't be buffed by design. Like what will you do with Mirrored Illusion? Power Struggle? It's not popular perk, but it's nice niche perk if you dedicate build for it. Make it so you insta stun killer, if he picks you up under a pallet? Yeah, good luck with it.
Some perks are only good for SWF, again, by design, you won't make it more popular by any means, just because soloq will never use it. Teamwork perks, for example, which are not bad at all, when you use it with friend.
So yeah, "let the crowd judge" was never a good idea in human history.-3 -
This would be nice. But I would imagine it would be rigged to bits, I’d love it to be in a way of being only able to vote with certain requirements. A certain hundred hours on said role to vote. 100 hours vote 1 perk, 250 vote 2 perks, 500 hours vote 3 and maybe 750 to vote four. It should also be account linked to prove.
0 -
Interesting, but I can‘t say I agree with everything.
Let‘s say people vote for shoulder the burden. They wouldn‘t have to buff the main effect and instead could add a secondary effect.
My main idea behind it was more to bring attention to perks behavior seems to have forgotten about. In the end the community would have no power in how the changes would turn out.
To come back to some of the perks you mentioned. Mirrored Illusion could have a bot illusion run around that does stuff and the gen illusions could be infinite. Power struggle could get a secondary effect, but it shouldn‘t get a buff to its current effect. Teamwork stealth could just work in a 16 meter range when a teammate is in it. Clean break is a solid perk, but it wouldn‘t hurt to reduce the time it takes for the heal as it takes ages. Circle of healing could get self care with 45% back and before you jump at me, the only problem circle of healing had was being way too fast, otherwise self care would be considered OP.
3 -
You are probably right, but your restrictions seem a bit unfair and would create an unnecessary backslash. Additionally they are too complicated to point that many people would probably rather not participate.
2 -
Not sure if we want to be subjected to the "dictate of the majority" any more than we want to be subjected to BHVR's "dictate of the statistics". Bear in mind that, at any point, if the queue times were to be balanced, there'd need to be 4x more survivors than killers.
1 -
I see it as a fun little community event, that could spark excitement.
About the last part, don’t know what it has to do with this topic.
Bear in mind that, at any point, if the queue times were to be balanced, there'd need to be 4x more survivors than killers.
-1 -
Maybe not every few months but yeah
0 -
I like the idea, but I'm leery about the execution. Let's not forget that we'd be putting the buff in BHVR's hands. After "buffs" like Wake Up and Calm Spirit, I don't know that I need them doing that to my niche perks that I still enjoy running.
2 -
It'd be conceivable, that, in a game of 1v4, the majority of the players would have to be playing the "4" role the majority of the time. That's why I mentioned it. You could imagine that might swing the vote. Even when the queue isn't balanced (which, it rarely is), survivors still outnumber killers.
Post edited by WalterBlack on0 -
I'll take the unpopular side and say no. I see a few problems that emerge.
1: We already have a voting system that is much more accurate, what perks people actually choose. If perk X is being run one in a 1,000 games its pretty clear people don't like it.
2: Some perks have low pick rates but accomplish a niche purpose. Like Mettle of Man doesn't need a buff, its just going for a body blocking build is something not a lot of people are going to do.
3: If a perk has a low pick rate, but BHVR's data indicates it is strong, and the people choose to buff it, what does BHVR do? Just go ahead with the vote and put something broken in the game?
4: Which perks are good or not is subjective. One of the things that makes DbD enjoyable is there are lots of different ways to play and disagreements on what are actually effective builds. The most obvious example of this is Self Care, which is considered throwing in US/Europe and is an S Tier perk on the Asian servers.
5: If BHVR is willing to consider a perk should be buffed, why not just do it? If BHVR had a list of ten perks they thought worthy of buffs, just PTB the buffs to all ten.
6: Community blowback. How much of a buff are we talking? If we have a whole voting system and StB wins and exposed drops by 2 seconds, its going to feel pretty underwhelming.
7: You have a clear divide in interests. Do people vote to buff perks they don't use but would like to, but buff perks they already use and want to be stronger?
1 -
I think the majority of players plays both sides and they will vote for perks that could be fun with a buff or ones that are so bad that no one runs them. Even if players would vote for worse perks it would be a win and maybe behavior turns it into a fan favorite.
0 -
- After that logic there shouldn’t be any bad perks left in the game, because there are perks that are bad for years already.
- I will just say it would be the community who would decide and if behavior doesn‘t want to buff the main effect they can always add a second effect.
- No idea.
- True, but I think buffing self care by 5% wouldn‘t hurt.
- That‘s a question for the devs.
- It should be something that makes a difference, not Borken, but people should be more encouraged to pick it.
- Both I guess.
2 -
I think that stance, while nice, is very naive.
-1 -
1: You miss the point. It's no secret that some perks are bad. BHVR doesn't address them. Either the issue is they don't know how or they don't think it fits into their schedule. A voting system is just an inferior way of addressing that.
2: Majority doesn't inherently lead to correct decisions. It's like the idea of reworking Twins. Not that many people like playing Twins, but some really do. Something doesn't have to be liked by the majority to create a better game.
Also, secondary effects are massive buffs. Like I struggle to see how you could add a secondary effect to StB that wouldn't make the perk obviously overpowered or so pointless as to just be annoying to have.
5: Kind of circles back to my first point.
7: But if people can behave in both of those manners, it defeats the goal of a voting system. If people primarily vote to buff perks they are already using we just get far more of a divide between which perks are good and bad.
1 -
I dunno man, I tried R6S on a free play period and got so much impatient toxic BM so quickly. DBD is often a little bit more justified in my experience
1 -
I could see the intent behind a pitch like this, but I'd have a few reservations.
The first and biggest is that "low pick rate" isn't the same as "low strength". Plenty of genuinely quite good perks don't get picked often, and that's because pickrate is a number influenced by a hundred different factors- strength is only one of those factors, and it isn't particularly more impactful than the others.
If BHVR were to do something like this, they'd have to pick the perks from a list that they'd feel could actually be buffed safely instead of using pickrate as the metric.The second leads on from that, which is that if BHVR have this list already, they might as well work on all of them. All the vote would do is give them a priority list, which is something but I feel maybe not worth the effort.
If I were to pitch a version of this idea that I'd say has more practical use, it'd probably be something like BHVR having a list of let's say twenty perks, ten for each side, that they want to address in some way. They'd then ask the community to vote on if the perk needs a tweak (number change), an update (shuffling around how the perk works without making it do something entirely different), or a rework (just flat out changing the effect entirely).
I'd also say BHVR shouldn't try this for every perk that needs changes- it'd be more of a community event like the Grimoire on a smaller scale, not a step in the usual balancing pipeline. Just every once in a while, polling for community feedback.1 -
No. Thats just another excuse for the devs to be lazy. They could adjust hundreds of perks each update just by tweaking numbers and yet they still refuse to do this for years. You cannot expect anything from bhvr regarding changes to make the game better. Theyre just maintain the game with false perception.
1 -
- That‘s why I suggest this vote. If they‘d do something like that, they‘d have to do something and couldn‘t ignore some perks anymore like they did for years.
- True, but the question would be whether or not they are able to keep the identity and what people like about something and still make it better for the majority.
Secondary effects aren‘t massive buffs. Like look at calm spirit.
7. Well perks with a under 2-3% usage rate aren‘t used that much. So if they buff them and get used more it wouldn‘t be such a bad thing to shake up the meta. Behavior could also only let us vote for perks with less than 1% usage rate if that‘s too high.
1 -
I used pick rate as an example for it, because if behavior only gives us a chosen pool they are able to ignore buffing perks for even longer. Like I have suggested buffing hex two can play and calm spirit plenty of times and they are still mostly useless. Now imagine behavior gives us a list that still doesn‘t include those perks.
Even if they buff perks that are strong, they could change them in a way they are more appealing to use without really buffing its strength.
All the vote would do is give them a priority list
That‘s basically what I want. Being able as a community to prioritize some perks to receive a buff, because if we aren‘t able to do that, behavior will just continue to ignore these perks.
They'd then ask the community to vote on if the perk needs a tweak (number change), an update (shuffling around how the perk works without making it do something entirely different), or a rework (just flat out changing the effect entirely).
That would be nice, but they should only use the terms buff and rework. Update makes it unnecessarily complicated.
BHVR shouldn't try this for every perk that needs changes- it'd be more of a community event like the
Agree that they should just buff some perks even without the vote, but in terms of the vote the community should have a big not too restricted pool to vote from.
Just every once in a while, polling for community feedback.
That would be nice. I don‘t know whether you know Clash Royale? They do a balance preview before every set of balance changes, where they can give feedback on what is good/bad, what else should be prioritized for buffs/nerfs instead or what should be scrapped. I think this would be a great thing in dbd. You will probably say that‘s the PTB, but when being honest, the ptb is more for hype than actual feedback. The only things they change from ptb are things that cause huge backslash or things they feel like they want to change.
0 -
While I agree they could be a lot faster with buffing perks, if they did this they wouldn‘t have an excuse to ignore some perks even longer and it would mean a lot of work.
0 -
I don't see a reason for holding a vote on what perks to rework when they'd already have the data on the least popular perks in the game as it is. Popular streamers would likely manipulate votes to yield the results they want anyway.
0 -
I would do separate pools for survivor/killer perks, but otherwise sounds as great idea to me.
1 -
I'd like if they did what the binding of isaac did, ask players what they think the most useless perks and killer add-ons are and go from there.
0 -
That‘s why I suggest this vote. If they‘d do something like that, they‘d have to do something and couldn‘t ignore some perks anymore like they did for years.
Ideas like this come up every now and then. There is something that someone/the community wants BHVR to do, but BHVR doesn't want to.
Coming up with an idea that involves more steps to achieve that goal isn't going to work. If BHVR doesn't want to take the obvious route, they aren't going to take one that creates more possible problems.
2:
Secondary effects aren‘t massive buffs. Like look at calm spirit.When a perk is designed around it, sure. But that's different than perks that have a purpose and would have a secondary effect added on to it.
0 -
Changing the numbers on hundred perks would take what? Half a week of work? Sure, definitely too much for BHVR. But they would need a certain degree of game knowledge, which they clearly lack.
0 -
The ration of Survivor to killer is roughly 1:4. Only Survivor perks would realistically get buffed.
0 -
I mean, that's pretty fixable. If BHVR just shortlists a number of perks that are on their radar and have a separate vote for killer perks and survivor perks, buffing the top two or three from each category, you'd get an equal distribution of buffs.
0
