Is the game really unbalanced?
I'm always seeing survivor and killer mains complaining about how one side is too OP or too weak but don't both sides have their pros and cons. Doesn't everything have a counter? I think the game is balanced IMO. I'm a survivor main that's in the range of rank 2-4 and around 70% of the time I don't survive. The only thing that should be fixed is the ranking and matchmaking. What do you guys think?
Comments
-
Just starting out. Killers are in the favored position. As survivors get more acquainted with the game it becomes survivor sided heavily.
20 -
But how? What do survivors have that makes the game lean to favor them more than the killer? I haven't experienced anything in my 2 years of playing this game that made me think that with the exception of the original MoM.
3 -
I would argue map design is for the most part in Survivors' favor. Because new players can't take advantage of map design, the Killer ends up being favored against those new players.
10 -
Most map design favors Survivor's. Various perks that help extend chases. Time itself. The Killer needs to have 12 hook events to kill everyone. There are four Survivors and one Killer, so numbers too.
3 -
I would say things are relatively balanced. The only thing that breaks the balance is coordinated SWF with comms, which the devs can’t control. In such instances, when you get info from the outside that you wouldn’t have access to if you follow the game’s parameters, survivors end up with a huge advantage.
3 -
Yes. Massively so infact. See, at lower ranks (I'd even argue up to around rank 8ish) survivors with less experience don't usually have a 'game plan' or ever bothered to learn or understand loops and as such, as a killer are quite easy to catch up to and 'mindgame'. However, as stated above, due to the map design, game mechanics and enough experience of both, survivors can optimise EVERY single aspect of their game. Now, the problem isn't that killers also cannot optimise their game plan and play efficiently (and I feel this might be the point you're getting stuck on) but rather that there are more saftey nets for said survivors. Add co-ordinated swf group who can all loop with MAXIMUM efficiency, know all possible totem spawns, cooldown timers etc and I'm sorry but you're a plaything. Sure, there are great killers out there but more often than not, you're waiting for a mistake. Those mistakes happen less and less at high ranks and yes, the result is, in my opinion, MASSIVE unbalance.
7 -
I think that we tried to iliminate as many variables as possible, we'd have a better look at the actual balance. Currently the biggest ones I think are: Individual skill of each player involved, the perks they decide to run and how they stack up against the other perks/killers ability, voice communications, over all play style, and of course maps.
It would be interesting to have a group of experienced killers do like a round Robin against a group of experience survivors. Keeping the teams, killer chosen, perks, and map the same. Then analyzing the data from that to see the story it tells.
My opinion is that certain conditions can vastly out match the other sides set up, going both ways, and to every truly have 100% balance at all times would be very hard and probably quite stale. The best would to make things powerful but also counterable, either directly or passively. Also have a more dynamic means of escaping could go a long way, but thats starting to get off topic.
1 -
The influx in map knowledge and accessible perks throughout a survivors gametime will increase, and as such, killers will have their difficulty increased by more than half because of the skill ceiling survivors have gotten to. The ranks they usually get their organized map awareness is around mid-green ranks. Ie; (Rank11-10).
1 -
I can understand the map design in a way but how could the maps be redesigned to be more balanced? And as for perks, there are some that help extend the chase but the killer also has perks that can shorten the chase.
1 -
I personally think the game is in quite a good spot right now. There is still lots of room to improve though.
Maps are one big problem. The main problem is that a lot of maps have a lot of safe pallet loops that survivors can simply run around and then drop the pallet if the killers gets too close. That's one of the game's biggest problems. Loops that buy survivors time without the killer being able to have any counterplay. And killers don't have a lot of time to waste. If survivors win multiple mindgames and extend chase time by that, than that's fair. But wasting a lot of the killers time simply by running around safe pallet loops is not that great design.
I do hope that we soon get more and more maps that have more mindgameable loops that can be won by both killer and survivor, so that skilled killers in general have more chances for counterplay and chances to down survivors fast enough. Some maps are also too big for many killers to apply proper map pressure. I also hope that reworked maps will allow for more stealth and juke possibilties, so that survivors have a slightly better chance to stay hidden from the killer and to be able to lose the killer, in exchange for having less safe pallets that survivors can easily use to waste the killers time.
Another problems is the balance gap between solo and swf, solo survivors really need some buffs so they receive a lot more of the information swf survivors have. And then there are also simply a bunch of weak killers that need some kind of buffs as well.
3 -
It really comes down to map design combined with perks that extend chases or straight up grant extra chases. That, combined with things like instaheals and tool boxes, really don't give killers a chance. Not to mention the extraordinary amount of windows and pallets on some maps (autohaven maps and haddonfield lane). If you play a killer outside of nurse, hillbilly, and maybe huntress and spirit, you are not going to win.
0 -
So one big thing I'm getting from this is map design which is something I can agree on. I think more mind gameable pallets should be a thing. I don't think perks or addons are an issue though
Toolboxes are a thing but so is hex ruin
Intsaheals are(were) a thing but so are instadowns
I honestly think the debate of who is too OP or weak stems from the players skill level, who they are matched with and, now from what you all have convinced me, map design.
0 -
I am rank 3 of survivor. I started playing killer this week ... I realized how easy it is to win matches as a killer, it's more op.
In my opinion and experiences of my matches
0 -
Ruin only works on bad survivors.
Instadown is limited to extremely harsh circumstances. Most killers won't have them readily available to them.
1 -
Making loops more unsafe. Getting rid of Haddonfield. And yes, there are perks that shorten chases, Spirit Fury and Enduring come to mind, but there are always more pallets and a good Survivor can loop regardless.
0 -
Mainly the issue is swf. Comms grant a massive advantage. OoO too.
Perks can be an issue, sometimes. But not too much. Imo, adrenaline does way too much. And it also ignores any exhaustion + turns Freddy's power off for a duration. (Imagine being in a winning situation at endgame which happens a lot, but 2-3 fully heal) But killers have stuff like...nothing really OP, tbh.
Overall the game is pretty fair most of the time, but it is heavily survivor sided if they abuse mechanics correctly.
0 -
Well we don't need to worry about instaheals anymore since that is going away. But I don't think ruin works against bad survivors. I think really skilled survivors don't worry about ruin because they are just good at hitting great skill checks which just boils down to their skill level. Ruin will slow down the game unless you can hit every great skill check and it slows gen progress so much that almost everygame I get the killer uses ruin which leads me to conclude that the speed at which gens can be done is an issue. Killers shouldn't feel the need to bring one perk that could make or break the game.
0 -
So reduce the amount of loops and windows? If so how would you balance that? I mean there are only so many loops and windows that can be used before they become useless.
0 -
I said, make them unsafe.
0 -
I see. Unsafe how though?
0 -
This is the argument that is always made. And yet the statistics do not support it. Even in red ranks survivors only survive about 50% of the time. The game is much more balanced than most people would acknowledge. I suppose that really is the crux of the argument though. What is balanced in this game anyway? If you hypothetically had 5 players of exactly even talent, what would the outcome of the game be that would be "balanced"? Let's say these hypothetical players had 100 matches. What should the results be?
2 -
Safe pallets are pallets where you can run around with view of the killer but tall enough to protect from huntresses hatchets and if the killer does not destroy the pallet, you can go around many times without getting hit. Unsafe ones are ones where even if you drop it the killer has an alternative to get around and perhaps land a hit to punish not stunning them or where if you stand behind and try to vault repeatedly will definitely land a hit. an example of such a pallet would be ironworks of misery's "infinite" has a pallet along the path between the building/a medium-sized tract. if you drop it while the killer chooses to run the outside of the tract, you're now stuck inside the pallet vault area and are assuredly going to take a hit.
0 -
Rank 1 was supposedly having a escape rate of 80% in January of this year according to the Devs.
My experience says when I first played killer I dominated then it got more even. Then it leaned towards them. Then I got a lot better and more creative and I do significantly better.
My friends have all had similar experiences.
1 -
Easier to mindgame, like the new Badham maps.
0 -
As a Killer Main, I win 70% of matches mostly because I'm more experienced and know how to cut off MOST loops. I believe The more experienced Players become with the game, the more balanced it will become.
0 -
That data was skewed. The reason for it is because rank 1 only has 1 pip. If a player died then there was a very high chance that they de-ranked and the death % was counted as if the player was rank 2. I'm surprised that the % wasn't higher actually. That means that 20% of the rank 1 survivors that died managed to not lose a pip. You'll also notice that on that same data that rank 2 has an odd dip in death %. The devs have commented on this before. The actual survival rates for both rank 1 and 2 are closer to the results of rank 3.
1 -
I always figured it was from the tiny time sample they used.
Still I know people experience what I have so I'll at least stick to that logic regardless. Rank 1 has roughly 2 types of killers. Boosted Animals and Monsters.
0 -
I'd use to say the opposite before the matchmaking rework: 1 red with a bunch of noobs will of course pip easier than a killer who can't choose how they match with others. Post I happen upon 3 groups now: super tryhards ~15% of the time, a mixture ~60% of the time (includes 1 down ragequits and such) and the new survive with 1-2 good friends for the rest.
0 -
Playing killer will feel OP when you're playing at low rank. Once you get to red ranks is where you realize how weak most killers really are and understand the balance issues in the game.
As others have mentioned the key imbalances come the most from extremely poor map design where most of them favor survivors significantly.
2 -
Here is the data post. If you discount the rank 1 results (which you should), you'll see even red rank survival rate hovers around 55%. That seems fairly reasonable. Are there changes to both sides that I would personally make? Yeah, tons. But who is to say that I would be right and the devs would be wrong? That goes back to the original question I asked. What is balanced?
0 -
It's actually 70-80 on the stats they gave
0 -
Those stats were taking their rank AFTER the match, which made the number inflated.
3 -
The game is WAY more balanced than it used to be. It still needs some work and many Killers are still very under-powered. But it cannot be overstated just how far the game has came since even just a year ago.
The majority of Killers are at least usable at red ranks ect ect ect.
3 -
I'm pretty sure that I said to discount the rank 1 results and gave the reason why you should do so. If you look at rank 2-3 you'll see a more accurate result. At rank 2 PC is around 60%, Xbox 57% and PS4 54%.
0 -
It's in a pretty good spot if both sides are roughly equally skilled. There's only a few really OP things left in the game (instaheals, keys, mori's, DS, spirit/nurse, etc etc) and it looks like they are slowly being nerfed away as it is.
0 -
That's 60, not 55. Also, notice the steep difference between 2-1 which should very much not be taken out even given your reason. Xbox and PS4 will have lower stats because the type of controllers hinders the survivors quite a bit.
0 -
There are also a multitude of factors that artificial deflate the numbers as well. Rank 1 should not be excluded.
0 -
I cant argue that since it's about what I feel like i get as killer. These are how I play Killer as well.
On PS4 I almost exclusively play Green Ranks and Lower Purple. Only going to Red Ranks to do random Runs with specific conditions and handicaps.
On PC I almost exclusively play Red Rank and Upper Purple. I used to stay Green Rank if I knew a event was coming up, but since I got all my Killers P3 all perks I dont even bother anymore.
As for Survivors side.
PS4 I have one survivor fully maxed and red rank after a couple days after reset if I can get on. My favorite rank is honestly Purple though. A lot of my friends play DBD on ps4 so we SwF a lot.
PC I dont play survivor on PC in the slightest outside dailies and occasionally rarely playing with a friend. My highest survivor lvl might be 10.
0 -
Okay, let's ignore all that for a few minutes. Let me ask you a question. If a killer plays the "perfect" game. He makes the absolute smartest possible strategic decisions and makes the most precise movements humanly possible with his controls. Should that killer get 100% survivor kills in every game he plays? Should the results be the same with every available killer? What if all 4 survivors also play at the absolute pinnacle of a human's abilities? What should the results of those games be according to Blueberry if the game was perfectly balanced?
0 -
"Should that killer get 100% survivor kills in every game he plays?"
No, who in the world would agree with that rofl
"Should the results be the same with every available killer?"
No.
"What if all 4 survivors also play at the absolute pinnacle of a human's abilities?"
They shouldn't be able to all survive just like the killer scenario
"What should the results of those games be according to Blueberry if the game was perfectly balanced?"
Same as the devs point out, 50%
0 -
In general yes. But for rank 1 specifically the effect was large enough to outweight that by a HUGE margin.
55% is the number when you do the check properly.
There are still those artificial deflation stuff like DC's ect, but I'd be shocked if DC's alone were enough to account for 30% of all results, since DC's don't even end up being the deciding factor for 100% of Survivors in games where there is a DC.
1 -
"But for rank 1 specifically the effect was large enough to outweight that by a HUGE margin."
What are you referencing specifically in order to come to that conclusion? In other words if this is conjecture or based on something concrete.
"55% is the number when you do the check properly."
I don't see what information we have to make this assumption
"but I'd be shocked if DC's alone were enough to account for 30% of all results,"
Heck even 10% would be massive in effecting our conclusions here. There are also multiple other factors excluding DC's as well.
1 -
if the number is deflated by 10% then it's still closer to the 55% corrected figure the devs gave rather than the 80% given with the "post game rank" check.
0 -
Well like I mentioned there are still multiple other factors excluding the DC's so even we assumed 10% I still think it would be brought higher than 55%.
Regardless though, at this point we're getting into a lot of guessing and assumptions so it won't really serve us to much of a conclusion.
My main point is just that we shouldn't really use the data for anything because of how extremely flawed it is by a multitude of factors and unknowns.
0 -
Sure but you brought up 80% as a counter argument to the 55% even though 55% was the more accurate number.
I'm not drawing any conclusions based off that number and from what I've heard neither are the devs.
1 -
I brought up 80% only because another person was using the same flawed stats. I do not believe 55% is more accurate.
0 -
Well it is for the reasons I just mentioned.
Just because it isn't 100% perfect doesn't mean it isn't more accurate.
0 -
I don't think the aforementioned things denote 55% as being more accurate.
I'm not saying 80% is more accurate either, just simply that we don't have enough data to make that assumption either way.
Multiple factors also make the kill stats at rank 1 (even if they were indeed 100% accurate) not useful for determining balance anyway.
Before I would trust it either way (for balance or simply rank 1 survival rate) I would want a lot more data from a few different areas.
0 -
Another problem with balance is apparently they aim for 2k, 2 escape. Dbd has way, WAY too many variables to make that a legit target.
0 -
The large number of variables isn't the fundumental issue with the 2k goal.
That just makes it harder to implement but it doesn't make it impossible nor does it make it any less valid of a goal.
The REAL issue is that the goals provided to the player means that for the game to have a 2k average and be balanced (because those are not the same thing) you need the game to be insanely swingy such that there are only easy victories and crushing defeats with nothing inbetween.
0
