Devs, another thing: Balancing the game is not: Launch Perks to balance the game and wash my hands
It seems that you continue with this ...
- Gen rush: Ruin, pop goes the weasel or LAUNCH STRONG KILLERS: Nurse..... maybe more incoming with the next chapter? STOP PLS, do something in the game not with PERKS. Touch elements of the game as numbers, encourage other things such as: Chests, totems, give more points to these objectives, or another new objective and decrease the points of repair in cooperation.
- Infinite? We launched .. bomboozle and ... another perk with the next chapter? DO NOT! That is not the solution, retouching the maps, REMOVE STRONG LOOPS "INFINITIES", it is a GREAT LOSS of time for the killers and makes the survivors do it with 0 skill. It is not the solution to balance the game WITH PERKS.
A lot of HYPE with the next DLC ... but soon it will be 2020 and the game has not changed much. The game remains the same ... without some elements that have already disappeared: PALLET VACUMM ... etc ..
Comments
-
I mean at least if you are struggling with gen rush you get more options now to deal with the gen being completed too fast.
They can't generally just nerf gen rush though, by adding a second objective for example. It would break so many things. Certain killers would become so overly op, Nurse is the main contender, Camping and tunneling would have to be nerfed as well or these strategies would become way to powerful. You could argue those strategies are already to good for the very little skill they take.
And there are a lot of other things the devs would need to look out for, including add ons. More time for example would mean Myers would have more time to get his infinte Evil Within, equipping that perk would in most cases mean an instant win.
Map reworks is the best they can do to generally balance the game. Especially since it will only buff the weaker killers. I can just hope they turn most loops on most maps into mindgameable ones. They did a fairly good job with the badham maps, though I'd argue there are still a bit too many safe, unmindgameable loops, especially against optimal survivors.
3 -
The Devs have shown time and time again that survival rate is low, I highly doubt they're going to be adding mandatory secondary objectives or making things longer.
They've been making killers stronger based around the current gen time, an any more forced time spent in match would wildly throw the balance in favour of the killers.
And y'all need to stop whining about "band aid fixes/ perk fixes". Even if every pallet was unsafe for survivors there'd still be perks based around getting through them quicker, even if gens were longer, there's still be perks based around slowing them down. Is about creating interesting tools for the players to mess around with and not balance.
You need to stop wanting everything to be unsafe for survivors, what's the point in playing as a survivor if everything you try to use is default countered by a killers speed or time to complete gens, survivors are SUPPOSED to waste your time, having a loop be long until the pallet breaks is fine because having every loop be unsafe would just be useless.
edit: some words bc i typed this on mobile.
Post edited by Seanzu on4 -
This^^^
1 -
I agree with pretty much everything you said. However, using survival rate statistics to judge the game's balance is not a good idea in my opinion. Unless they only used the data of matches where no one dc'd or killed themselves on a hook, those statistics are not represantive of the game's balance, especially at high ranks.
The fact is, if one survivor dc's, the other three survivors are much more likely to not escape as well. That however has nothing to do with the game's balancing. Same goes for survivors killing themselves on hooks. Another match where all survivors might die even though three or four maybe could have escaped. Of course, killer dc's also affect those statistics. But since there are 4 survivors and 1 killer, the chances are always much higher that a survivor will dc than a killer.
Also, if a killer dc's, in most cases it's because he would have lost anyways. When a survivor dc's, especially early on, it's just because he got downed once or got really salty. Not because the match was pretty much lost for the survivor team.
2 -
While what you said covers some valid concern there is a even bigger one with average player statistic even with rank 1 only.
Most players in any game are bad. That is true for rank 1 players in DbD as well. On top of that not everyone plays serious in every match screwing statistics even further.
What you need to balance around would be the best 4 man premade vs the best killer player (both sides playing seriously). Or at least around what other games would consider professional lvl players.
(yes i know DbD is not comparable to a real competitive game and can never be truly balanced since both sides arent exactly the same but trying to get as close to it as possible should still be what we strife for)
0 -
I love this comment! Totally agree, but ... do not you think it is time to take a step and touch things little by little so that the game changes but that it keeps maintaining the form? I mean, clearly if you introduce something that changes, clearly ... the strongest killers will rise to be stronger and you would have to modify many more things, but by that I mean ... are you going to be still longer without touching anything?
0 -
Well that's open for debate. It does make sense theoratically to balance around the absolute optimal players. But it's also important to please all kind of players, especially in a game like dbd that isn't meant to be competitive.
If it was a competitive game, I would agree. But it was definitely just meant to be a fun horror game without any competitive nature. The fact that there are so many random factors that affect the outcome of a match shows this. Items, Add ons, offerings and randomly generated maps make balancing this game to be properly competitive impossible. So personally I do think it would be wrong to try and balance the game solely base on the top level players.
0 -
I get your point and you could argue like you did and thats fine i just dont agree with it.
However regarding the survival stats the devs use my point still stands. They dont mean anything regarding game balance because of the points i made, which was one of the parts of the discussion.
0 -
Id rather not start the progress the game has made from scratch and I dont want to see the good killers gutted as a result of hasty changes..we see that too much already..the map r es working and the solo survivor projects are genius as it means they can keep their strong killers and in fact bring everything up instead of tearing it down..but it will take time..my only wish is that any new cast members be given enough to hold out till that day comes
1 -
I think right now the best they can do are the map reworks and trying to balance all killers so they are all similarly powerful and viable. I think gen time would be ok then. I don't know for sure.
Of course increasing the length of matches to then allow chases to last longer would be fun for both sides, but they would have to add a secondary objective, since increasing gen times is something pretty much nobody wants, along with all the other needed changes to keep the game balanced for both sides. And I feel like that would take a lot of work and time, and I doubt the devs would want to change up their game so much.
I'm personally hopeful for the upcoming map reworks. Especially the Coldwin and Wrecker's Haeven maps need some reworks. Less jungle jyms and unmindgameable loops, and more fair loops that have mindgames that both the killer and survivor can win. So also no loops that are literally unwinnable for survivors.
1 -
The only way I can see something like this working is if the new method is also difficult to use for Killers. Thus making it so that high skill Killers will output more pressure but low skill Killers will output the same amount of pressure.
I'm not 100% sure how exactly to go about this, but simply giving a flat increase in the amount of time it takes to open the gates from the start of the game is not it.
0 -
As the game is currently, it is very difficult to balance it for both parties as well as for killer as for survivor, as for ranks 20 as for ranks 1, the devs must think about it ... also .. very good players, players who hide The whole game (very boring), there are many problems currently in the game, which makes it ... frustrating. So, it is really difficult to balance it for one part, I don't want that either, I want everything to be right for everyone, nor make it easy for "new" players, because on the other hand the best players would abuse ...
The first thing I would do if I were dev: improve the weakest killers, then adjust the strongest killers DO NOT MISS super nerf, but adjust them, then review MAP BY MAP, reduce the strongest loops so that a survivor with 0 of skill abuse of this and ... lose the killer more than 2 minutes in pursuit ..., after that, adjust, review all the perks of the game one by one ... and improve them. Introducing changes little by little, to see how the players adapt, if I locate something OP, I put a patch adjusting numbers, I create new features for the game to make it more fun .. new objective? I would check to fit all the game fields and having all the BALANCED killers fit PERFECT, I think this is not difficult.
0 -
Balancing at any particular rank is easy if you know what you are doing. The hard part is balancing at ALL ranks simultaneously. Just changing the mechanics based off rank both defeats the point of ranking and encourages deranking in one way or another.
In any case one of these needs to happen (from best to worst in terms of my opinion):
- A: Basic mechanics have different strategies with different difficulties in terms of execution and complexity. Each level of difficulty is identical (or close enough anyways) in effectiveness to it's equivalent on the other side.
- B: All strategies are made sufficiently easy that the average survivor could be expected to execute them. This is part of the goal behind QoL changes where specific things that aren't supposed to be the games challenge are trivialized, this isn't a bad thing.
- C: Rather than re-balancing the entire games core mechanics we simply have different Killers/Perk builds, the best perk builds/Killer must also be the hardest to use and the worst should be incredibly easy to both use and counter. This means the best Killer would be balanced to face the best possible set of Survivors but that not ALL Killers would be. This isn't a great solution and is pretty close to what the game looks like right now, but it technically works.
- D: Implement mechanics such that putting in more effort than is needed is rewarded further in some way. Personally I despise this solution.
0 -
A great example of option C in action is when you compare the Hag and the Trapper. Both of their powers use the same type of strategy (put traps in choke points and loops, chase them into it, profit), but Trapper has both obvious strengths and obvious weaknesses. Playing trapper is easy, beating trapper is also easy. Yes a great trapper will wreck a bad one any day but he's hardly a candidate for top tier.
Meanwhile Hag is far less intuitive, but covers pretty much all of the obvious weaknesses Trapper has (long setup times, safe disarming, ect). Using her is harder when you are first starting, but once you get good it doesn't feel like that and you get better results for the most part.
0
