Cap SWF at 3 people :)
I was thinking about the statistics the devs dropped a few days ago and the one with the % of people solo and in groups got me thinking.
Since 4-mans are the goto boogeyman for killers in that players will actively try to avoid them if at all possible AND 4-mans are the smallest % of groups made in dbd, why don't they just cap SWF groups at 3 people?
Fears about splitting the playerbase would be unfounded since it's the smallest group and people who still wanted to group up could still do so with 2 or 3 people while at the same time alleviating some of the issues killers have when going up against a full group of 4.
Survivability of those groups isn't the issue, the frustration caused by those matches are.
A thread highlighting a streamer 4-man bullying a killer was completely deleted but not before I was able to check it out. In this match, the group bullied the killer in its entirety and in the end admitted to letting the killer get a 4k.
This 3 person cap would help with situations that those players had to deal with also.
Just a random thought while at work. let's hear your thoughts on it!
Comments
-
Sounds unnecessary
7 -
I have more than two friends.
3 -
We’d still have the same problem. People would just dodge 3-man groups.
4 -
No.
1 -
4 stacks aren't a big enough problem to warrant a change really
2 -
Survivor with friends is never going to go away and nor should it, it brings people into the game. The only way to 'deal' with the issue that killers have is to give them an incentive to play against them.
No killer enjoys games where they get rekt or bullied, so maybe a nice little bonus BP for dealing with the advantage that SWF have (voice comms).
0 -
Doesn't matter if folks have more than two friends. Behavior decided to make the only mode a Ranked mode, so it's time they started treating it as such, instead of an off-the-cuff Quick Play mode.
Other games I play cap pre-made groups at 2 or 3 in Ranked mode as of certain Ranks. Got more friends than that and are at those ranks? Don't play Ranked together.
Oh . . . wait . . . the genius design on this game only has this one mode. Great job there, Behavior. Is it any wonder people call Rank here a joke?
I'm sorry, and I mean no disrespect, but the longer I play this game, the more it starts to look like a first-year game design class project that would have received a mediocre grade.
1 -
Their ranked mode is closer to a quick play mode. Also can you give some examples of team games that don't allow a full team of friends? Cause it certainly isn't the norm.
0 -
@ClogWench I had to edit my post to explain that it starts at certain ranks, so keep that in mind as I answer. And that two the come to immediate mind are Paladins, which caps pre-made size depending on your rank, and Overwatch as of the current season that just started, which now caps pre-made size to 2 players starting at GM rank.
I also believe Heroes of the Storm just implemented that as well, though I will have to double check.
0 -
Nothing that encourages de-ranking is a good idea.
0 -
@TreemanXD Dead by Daylight players don't need encouragement to de-rank. It's done because there is absolutely zero punishment for it. It's a failure on the game developers.
As I said elsewhere, they created only a Ranked mode, but it's an insult to ranked modes everywhere. It's nothing but a glorified Quick Play mode.
0 -
@TreemanXD Well, yes they can. They just choose not to. Go into Heroes of the Storm or Overwatch and start throwing matches to purposefully de-rank. And once you're reported, see how long before you can't enter Ranked again. Same with many other PvP games in a Ranked mode.
They choose not to do so here because they chose to only have a Ranked mode. And a ban from Ranked here is a game ban. And given the de-ranking issue, they'd pretty much kill their own game.
And again, that comes down to very poor design decisions. Which has allowed DbD to become a game where the inmates run the asylum.
0 -
Wasn't aware Overwatch did that. Still, because DbD doesn't have nearly a competitive scene, nor as wide a scale in terms of ranks, I don't think its a tactic that would be good in DbD.
2 -
@ClogWench Overwatch just started it with Season 16, which started in the past week or so. Paladins, though, has always done it that way.
Oh, and I agree it wouldn't be good with current DbD. But then again, I'm a huge advocate that a Ranked mode should never be the only mode. Not ever. As someone who's worked in game design, I have a lot of issues with design choices in DbD. It's why I only play it as an occasional side game. I simply cannot devote my full gaming attention to these design decisions.
0 -
1) Survivors will just do what they did before SWF... que up and try to get all 4 in the same game. So longer wait times and all that stuff.
2) Considering how infrequent 4 man squads are, and the rather minuscule difference between escape rates of solo and 4 man squads, why even bother? You're just ######### up the game to account for a very small minority of players. A big change with a rather small payout = not worth development time/resources.
1 -
@Kilmeran games that limit party sizes at higher ranks/in ranked in general usually have actual rewards for reaching high ranks or at the end of season based on your placement. Like Paladins for example, where if you play enough games you get a loading screen frame based on your highest rank in the season as one example. DBD has nothing like that.
The "ranked" aspect is a matchmaking variable and absolutely nothing else.
0 -
What the stat don't show is how many 2x2SWFs are playing together.
2x2SWFs are still a pain to play against as well as 3 men SWFs.
If you play survivor 3 men SWFs can be extremely toxic because some tend to abuse the solo as bait and cannonfodder.
Against using or exploiting a ingame mechanic to ruin the enjoyment of others.
0 -
destroying someones experiences is not how you improve a game. That's how you kill a game. A possibility would it be to adjust the solo players. Totem counter in the HUID, being chased icon on the bottem left, built in Kindred and so on. This would allow to improve the killers way better. You could balance perks, abilities and maps way better because survivors were one unity and not: teamspeak SWF and solo player.
Also. The way solo survivor works could be an extern mode. Maybe with some more changes like "no aura reading anyway" ^^
Your idea is suicide and sorry i dont see any reason to forbid people to play with all their friends together. That's mean.
0 -
Bring solo survivors more in line with swf and buff killers respectively is the correct way to balance swf. Not this.
1 -
With the idiocy that you will find in todays randoms even on rank 4 this is just not a good idea. I don't play in a 4-man swf because I want to rush gens and get out as fast as possible. I play 4-man swf because I will escape once in a while and don't get wasted by dcing and suiciding randoms that go down within seconds.
0 -
Killers are stronger than ever before they don't need any general buffs. Some specific killers need them but not killers in general.
0 -
Nah sorry. Just a little reminder for the future: As long bloodlust is a thing, maps, and killer abilities aren't balanced enough to remove this.
As bloodlust were intodruced it was kind of a "emergency balance fix". Back in the days dbd had big issues. Really highend balance issues. That they nerfed it some months ago is a little sign that they fixed major things.
So yea, there are some issues left especially the map design. But that's pretty hard to fix because there are low ranks, mid ranks, high ranks AND there is a huge difference between solo low/mid/high ranks and swf1 2/3/4 man low/mid/high ranks.
It's really important fixing this gap^^ Survivors would play way more efficient und organized. In this way the devs could see where the problems at. What is too strong, what exactly needs adjustments and fixes because the survivor gameplay would become one unity.
So
what weve learned today?
Make shout outs for solo q fixes with regard of balance tweaks.
1
