Why devs keep saying "get better" when their game is unbalanced?

I’ll always like BHVR, just feel like they listen to reactionary members of the community who want to nerf everything rather than buffing things that really need it, they nerfed Freddy, a horror icon a week after his release and he was widely considered the worst killer until recently.

Decisive Strike was “nerfed”, yet it’s still a widely used perk.

Not saying we should never nerf things, just feel like they swing the axe too early sometimes.

It's probably because they're working on a thin line. Something good for killers is often bad for survivors. Good for survivors, bad for killers. I also don't think it's as easy as just saying "Do the thing" since so many people can't even agree on simple buffs and changes that could be helpful and they have to consider both new player experience and old player experiences. They need to think of both casual and competitive players, though this sort of game isn't really designed for competitive play. There's too many random variables. But some people are playing to have fun and some are playing to win.

Because ppl are mostly main suvirvor , and suvirvors are main buy skins in the store.... It's a question of money

I remember multiple fog whisperers and prominent youtubers saying Ghost Face was fine and BHVR changed him anyway.

It’s not hard to differentiate between players who know what they’re talking about and those who don’t, listen to the one’s who do.

It’s simple.

This is an assym balance is impossible. Even in games where balance is possible it turns out it is neither fun nor enjoyable. Take WoW for example while not very balanced still to this day they currently have a problem with class design because everybody has the same sort of stuff like same cooldowns,abilities,damage dealing stuff ect. This draws people away because classes had that niche and now they don't and a lot of people find class design unfun nowadays.

Trying to perfectly balance something can sometimes not be fun for a setting as one might think. They have also done a good job fixing a ton of issues while not balanced in any way the game sure is in a really good state right now. Where the only major thing that would need fixed would be maps and a few killers. Otherwise the game is fine. It is pretty fun currently. I'd also like to ascertain the fact that maybe the devs didn't intend for this to be a balanced game. Sure seems like it with their philosophy of if you want to play to win just play the best killers. I feel like the devs intended for DBD to be a "party" game so to speak but their community wants it to be a competitive game.

Overall I think the devs are doing fine when it comes to balance right now.

It's a common mistake to think that ones personal playtime and knowledge should lead to being good at any game.

That's like someone saying they have played LOL for 2k hours so they should be in the top rank bracket even if they aren't skillful enough at playing. It's a term used to justify most loses as personal skill is a major factor in all games and there will always be someone better or just as skilled as yourself.

Thats not to say some thing's aren't unbalanced and need worked on but I think the I lost due to the game being unbalanced argument is way over used.

The game isn’t really intended to be balanced, per se.

I’d say more FAIR, but still, it makes sense the way the powers are the way they are.

It’s supposed to be asymmetric. Both sides being completely balanced kinda doesn’t fit into what the game IS.

If they have hard data then why do they make so many obvious mistakes, like nerfing Freddy a week after release, releasing Mettle of Man busted as it was,

Either the data is flawed or they’re listening to the wrong feedback sometimes.

If BHVR’s hiring I’ll take the job, that’s my area of expertise.

I've been hearing this kind of complaining about balance since I was a preteen, playing Street Fighter and Mortal Kombat in arcades.

"Balance" is a snipe hunt. It's not easy, or even really achievable, in an asymmetrical game of any real scope. Every change has ripple effects that inevitably lead to more changes, and it is impossible for even the most savvy developer to account for every single variable in a game that has hundreds of them in countless combinations. There will always be "unbalanced" aspects on both ends of the spectrum. That's just what is.

I'm not saying that it isn't incumbent on the developer to fix the most egregious bits -- it is -- but it's more constructive to be realistic about the situation instead of resorting to this pie in the sky mentality. You are not going to wake up one day to find everything magically, perfectly balanced to whatever subjective standard is kicking around in your head.

With that in mind, what you're left with is a series of systems that you either choose to deal with as-is, or move on from if you're just that unhappy about it. My advice is to make a conscious effort to improve your play, build in a way that accentuates your strengths as a player and allows you to exploit those strengths to the fullest, and gradually develop habits and game plans to handle problem mechanics.

It's healthy to learn from mistakes, and to LEARN HOW TO LEARN from mistakes. I don't mean this in a condescending way, but I assume that a lot of people here are young, and just don't have the life experience to understand this idea -- and complaining about "balance" is an easier route to take that deflects blame. Break that habit, because otherwise it's going to follow you to other games, too.

And it's an ongoing process, regardless of whether you have 2 hours or 2000 hours in the game. Time doesn't equal mastery.

A good example of this is Adrenaline. A year and a half ago it was not the meta and no one ever considered getting it changed. After the healing change it became meta and now it needs "balanced". Once something becomes meta eventually someone will want it balanced.

This is the sort of thing that a lot of people crowing about "balance" don't understand. To those people, I say: Do a mental exercise and try to logically walk through what would happen if a meta perk, and let's use Adrenaline as an example, were "balanced," AKA "nerfed to the point that it is not considered useful enough to run on an optimized survivor build." Here's how I think it would look (perhaps slightly far-reaching in some areas, in the interest of illustrating how the meta would shift):

• Adrenaline gets nerfed. Let's say that it no longer adequately serves the purpose of providing a convenient and reliable endgame heal. Now there is a power vacuum where this is concerned.
• Survivors start running the next-best direct self-healing perk, which I hope we can agree is Inner Strength (since it is low-effort and skips Mangled mechanics).
• Iron Maiden becomes meta for killers, and survivors start complaining for a nerf to that next. Barbecue & Chili is indirectly buffed because of Iron Maiden, too. (Also, a surge of renewed complaining about Hex perks begins, because every totem on the map dies a quick death.)
• Let's say there's an Inner Strength nerf that renders it suboptimal enough to fall out of favor, and then everyone starts running We'll Make It or Deliverance. Killers start complaining about healing speed and/or their lack of empowerment to strongly endanger their hook targets. Facecamping becomes a far more prevalent thing as a deterrent to these perks.
• More survivors starts running Kindred. Killers call for Kindred nerfs, and really ratchet up the complaints about gen rushing.
• After a gen speed slowdown, survivors start bringing Prove Thyself, and in turn start complaining that Discordance is now too strong.

And so on. Like I said, some of this reaches a bit far in its speculation; my point is that the wheel is going to turn in some directions you probably would not consider, because none of these mechanics exist in a vacuum. Wouldn't you really just rather deal with Adrenaline as it exists, in this situation?

Its not an issue with the game balance, cause it doesnt work like that in every map. There are fix that needs to be done but we are looking at the overall picture not the single case

@Cardgrey Nope. Peanits addressed when that data was released that a DC is considered a death.

Agreed. I remember you, running across us during normal gameplay and stomping us into the ground as Meyers. I mean balance is subjective. What makes balance work and what doesn't.

Perks are a wild card for the game. Basically a 4-stack of cards Depending upon the cards that will be delt. Do we talk about essentially locking in perk choices before a match can be FOUND. Or do we agree that players really deserve the freedom of choice. I mean I am AWFUL at this game and complain a ton about BBQ being CHEATING.

From an Ethical standpoint BBQ it is cheating. I cannot see the player, while they see me. I chose NOT to bring perks to see the killer. Because the ones that reveal his/her location also reveal me to the killer. But at the same time, The killer can bring a LARGE variety of perks.

Perks such as "I see you when you heal". or "I 1-shot you when generators are done". I mean I can imagine that some perks are more for a Tier 1 killer and others are not. SO the whole mix-tank really is up to the survivors at this point.

To be honest. I think in order to bring MORE "balance" to the game. We really just need to flat-out have access to all perks. I mean yes, the income for the game would be NICE. Buy a character. pay to get 3 new abilities or wait 6 months for those to appear in the shrine. But in essence I feel that distortion wasn't very viable for long enough to warrant running it,. and lets be honest. Lockers for BBQ. I feel like a DWIGHT. (no offense).

Which comes down to the DC Epidemic. Players are DC'ing at an alarming rate and that has to deal with COUNTERPLAY. I think Balance is subjective, but counterplay could use some work :-). A fine example is Spies from the Shadow and Calm Spirit. Two of the most WONDERFUL ideas for this game. That IS balance.