Are players starting to control what the devs do too much now?
Don't get me wrong, it's good for a game to get feedback on problems in a game buttt I think it's going to far.
Think about it, the devs are trying their best to make sure the game has a steady rate of players by brining in new chapters ect. But everyone always complains that this killer and that killer need a nerf- which I can understand how some do, but a lot of times they don't.
For example everyone wants the spirit to get nerfed when she is, in my opinion, a very balanced killer.
KILLERS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE STRONGER THAN THE SURVIVORS.
A lot of killers are skill based, you just have to figure out your own way to work around killers and their powers.
This is just my opinion, so don't get butt hurt over what I'm saying-
Comments
-
Devs shot themselves with that bullet a while ago when they reversed their decisions to disallow friend groups. All the way during the first few months of release.
SWF was an implementation done out of popular request. And you see how well this game stood that test.
11 -
It made a ######### ton of money. Which is the goal of every developer.
2 -
... It gathered a lot more players?
Without SWF I wouldn't have given this game a second glance nor would have recommended it to any of my friends.
6 -
I wouldn't call increasing the player base shooting yourself with a bullet. Most people probably wouldn't be playing DBD if you couldn't play with friends.
8 -
He's wrong, anyway. The idea that the community 'forced' SWF into the game is just a myth.The devs always planned to have an SWF feature at some point; which is common sense, because no one could possibly not expect friends to want to play together, or that people wouldn't try to find a way to play together without a dedicated feature.
And to the OP, no, the devs take any community feedback with a grain of salt. As you can see after every patch goes live and this forum generally erupts in a chorus of whining "You didn't listen to us!!!"
4 -
Only in DbD communities will people argue for money over game health.
Its only been a point of frustration since the launch of SWF.
But what do I know; everyone knows that having a quality salad is nothing compared to throwing a bunch of garbage on it just because its more stuff.
If this game was built and designed in a way to make friend groups balanced, we can talk about the benefits that it brought to the table. But they didn't, and its an issue that has yet to be synergized with the game since. The amount of attention and pressure a Killer has to put in Red Ranks and SWF groups is greatly outweighed by the pressure survivors can put with just one player. Killers have to be near impossibly efficient to pull off against full SWF groups.
No, not every group you go up against will be full 4-man SWFs, but that's beside the point; until that issue gets addressed, which it has yet to be, it'll be a point of contention in the community.
IDK about you, but I would much rather have a smaller community than a toxic one.
4 -
I don't know any other community that touts on about "playerbase".
People only care about playerbase when it gets to the point where they are straight up no longer able to play.
But when you're playing your favorite multiplayer, do you honestly care about "playerbase"? Are you actively playing matchings thinking, "Gee, I'm sure glad the playerbase is so vast!". No. Nobody thinks like that. You'll be glad for shorter queue times, that's beyond the immediate effects you'll feel from increased playerbase.
As I said, I'd rather have a smaller community than a toxic one. And Dead By Daylight's community is infamously known for the latter portion.
You claim things I never said; I didn't say they were forced to implement SWFs. By no means is BHVR innocent victims of this mistake.
But BHVR actively prevented the ability to play with friend groups in the Beta. And during early launch. You couldn't even voice chat in certain sources as the game would outright block certain voice com channels.
If they had planned for SWF groups, then why didn't they include these things in the beta when the testing was going on and they could do something to fix it? Ran out of time? Didn't think it would matter? Either way, nobody in the community bothered to foresee the issue until it was already enabled, and BHVR didn't bother to let us see how it functions earlier before putting it in the full game.
I played the Beta, even attempted for hours to join with a friend in the same match. I remember how many people were lobby dodging to try and get in the same match.
That doesn't make SWFs that much of a good idea. Especially when it wasn't given to the community for balance testing around the game's fundamentals and ESPECIALLY when you don't bother to fix or address (and in many ways, attempt to embrace) the issue at hand.
So no, I'm not wrong; BHVR put it in out of popular request. Because either they were so incompetent they would not be able to see how such a feature would not fit into the fundamental construction of their game type, or because they were more concerned about people playing with their friends then they were about game health.
2 -
Think of it from the devs perspective how is this shooting themselves in the foot again? More players = more $$$ you might not want it but in the end the $$$ is what matters.
0 -
Imagine genuinely arguing for corporate greed as a consumer.
You act like, because I don't agree with the decision, I don't know why BHVR made the decision; of course I know why they made the decision. I really don't give a damn
1 -
That's just being elitist. A larger playerbase doesn't inherently make a game more toxic. People would still be complaining about how overpowered perk/killer/ability XYZ was.
It being a point of frustration is irrelevant if it was needed to keep the game alive.
More players increases the longevity of the game. You can't both have an extremely small playerpool and still have enough funding to continue to push out updates to keep people coming back to the game.
Especially for games like this. The smaller the player pool the worse matchmaking gets. The worse matchmaking gets, less people will join and more people will leave.
Multiplayer only games easily die once enough people stop playing and it can't gather enough new faces.
This will never be a completely balanced game. It's a 4v1. SWF is here to stay and the game is better for it. Implementing a nerf to specifically people who queue with friends will drive away people who want to play their games with friends.
1 -
Without a good sized player base a game dies. See F13 as a great example. So while nobody specifically thinks it, a large player base does matter for a multiplayer game. That doesn't mean swf doesn't cause issues. But it added a bunch of success to this game as well.
0 -
F13th had a party system. It still died. That doesn't bode well for your argument.
DbD came out on top despite being released FIRST without the party system, not counting the beta. F13th had it since the beginning, and still did not live longer than DbD.
And you're trying to tell me that party systems are what make and break playerbases in games? Bullcrap.
Either your argument is that games RELY on Party Systems to have strong playerbases, which is contradictory toward what happened between F13th and DbD, or your argument is reduced down where a game is able to compete and outlive other games based on merit alone, which goes against what everyone here is trying to claim.
Which is it? Are Party Systems absolutely 100% necessary as soon as a game releases or it will die months later? Or can a game make some distance based on its merit or comparative quality?
I disagree entirely. Large playerbases -inevitably- create toxic playerbases. The amount of toxicity that's created varies, but I've had almost no issues with small communities being friendly, whereas I've had numerous with larger ones. Its just math; the larger your playerbase is, the bigger chance your game has, intentionally or not, attracted less than friendly figures. Depends on a lot of factors, but don't kid yourself; large playerbases are likely going to be more toxic than smaller ones, its just about margin and other factors.
Furthermore, you and many others have yet to demonstrate, in any period of this game's lifespan, that the game would have died without SWF being implemented months after launch. And until you do, then what log do you have to stand on? I've already shown above in my first reply that you don't need a party system from the get-go to have a stronger playerbase. So already, the mere fact of having a party system doesn't keep a game from dying.
Lastly, "It's asymmetrical so it's always going to be unbalanced" is just an excuse for those who don't want to think about the intricacies of the game. I don't argue with people who don't want to think. Stop making excuses and start thinking of the implications of mechanics added to games, or just stop arguing, because at this point you're not trying to defend or attack a position, you're just trying to completely devalue the topic altogether.
4 -
"Furthermore, if you and many others have yet to demonstrate in any sense of this game's lifespan that the game would have died without SWF being implemented months after launch. And until you do, then what log do you have to stand on? I've already shown above in my first reply that you don't need a party system from the get-go to have a stronger playerbase. So already, the mere fact of having a party system doesn't keep a game from dying."
So you're taking the stance that no multiplayer is the only way that a game can lose players? That's a strange log to stand on. There are many ways for a game to lose players. Not allowing friends to play together in an obvious multiplayer cooperative game is one of them.
No playing with friends -> far fewer players.
Far fewer players in a multiplayer only game -> dying game.
"Furthermore, if you and many others have yet to demonstrate in any sense of this game's lifespan that the game would have died without SWF being implemented months after launch. And until you do, then what log do you have to stand on? I've already shown above in my first reply that you don't need a party system from the get-go to have a stronger playerbase. So already, the mere fact of having a party system doesn't keep a game from dying."
There is no one aspect of a game that can keep a game from dying. But there are several aspects that can cause a game to die.
Lack of interesting gameplay, lack of replay-ability, performance issues, and so on.
As I stated and have others. I simply would not have ever picked up the game without SWF.
"Lastly, "It's asymmetrical so it's always going to be unbalanced" is just an excuse for those who don't want to think about the intricacies of the game. I don't argue with people who don't want to think. Stop making excuses and start thinking of the implications of mechanics added to games, or just stop arguing, because at this point you're not trying to defend or attack a position, you're just trying to completely devalue the topic altogether."
Stop making excuses that SWF is poor for the game when it has been great for the game. The advantage of communication can just as easily be gained from someone posting their discord link in chat. The topic is devalued from the start because the idea that the game would be better-off without SWF has no value.
1 -
I think they're taking way too much survivor-sided feedback, but not enough killer feedback. Especially high level play feedback. Spirit wasn't game breaking in the slightest. A bad Spirit and a Bad Nurse will lose most of the time. Punishing killers who play well with their limitations doesn't really help the situation of the game as a whole, and I wish survivor mains would see that.
4 -
"devs do what ever the f they want, if they feel it's the right thing for their game. show me literally one proof that the devs just do everything the community asks." @Nhekii
DS changes, MoM changes, Nurse Changes, Legion Rework, Upcoming Spirit changes, Upcoming changes to Haddonfield, Changes to Bedham... those were all about changes that the consumers (players) wanted.
Sure, the entire community didn't agree on these changes (I still think DS is too strong, and that they went overboard with Nurse and Spirit), but they were made with them in mind.
0 -
I want you to spend the next 24 hours playing as any killer lower than High Mid-Tier against 4 man SWF teams, and I want you to tell me with a straight face that this sort of gameplay is healthy for the game.
If this was the type of gaming experience to be expected, nobody would play this game. The only solace is that experiences in this game are about as random a portion of its mechanics. That's what keeps most people playing.
Also, I enjoy the False Dilemma you craft from this; the fact that if a game has less players it automatically means its dying. Nothing like devaluing the meaning of the term "dying game" than to spin any loss of any amount of players into a game that's on lifeline.
I don't know a single person who plays killer with any sort of seriousness who talks about Survive With Friend groups with no distain in their tone. And its no wonder.
You completely ignore game health in favor of "Well it got them a lotta players and money" which is ironically the issue most games in this industry have when approaching their games; bottom line.
2 -
It's both side though. Balanced landing has a nerf coming etc.. No one is ever happy. If the devs played it smart they'd make the buffs and debuffs via rank. BL cuts at Red etc. If you're good enough for red rank you can handle these cuts and either not be red or skilled red. Same for killers. Power drops at rank color changing makes the most sense.
Also adding something survivors could do, repair pallots. Takes them off gens for a bit, no progress to getting out but helps them get more points and killers can run across them more often in chases lol. Think about it, that change would benefit killers more and survivors with something new to do. Those are the kinds of changes I expect to see honestly.
0 -
"I want you to spend the next 24 hours playing as any killer lower than High Mid-Tier against 4 man SWF teams, and I want you to tell me with a straight face that this sort of gameplay is healthy for the game."
If I face a lot of SWF teams that just reinforces my argument that SWF is bringing a lot of players.
"If this was the type of gaming experience to be expected, nobody would play this game. The only solace is that experiences in this game are about as random a portion of its mechanics. That's what keeps most people playing."
Strange that many people continue to play the game despite how much you're making SWF to be then.
"Also, I enjoy the False Dilemma you craft from this; the fact that if a game has less players it automatically means its dying. Nothing like devaluing the meaning of the term "dying game" than to spin any loss of any amount of players into a game that's on lifeline."
That's the truth of a multiplayer only online game. I didn't see you claim that Friday the 13th was going great. Multiplayer only online games are greatly harmed by dropping player counts.
"I don't know a single person who plays killer with any sort of seriousness who talks about Survive With Friend groups with no distain in their tone. And its no wonder."
I don't know a single person that would still be playing the game if SWF wasn't available. Like I said, this game wouldn't have even been considered by me or any of my friends had there been no option to queue together.
"You completely ignore game health in favor of "Well it got them a lotta players and money" which is ironically the issue most games in this industry have when approaching their games; bottom line."
Making sure that the game is enjoyable for a lot of players IS for the health of the game.
You completely ignore the health of the game in favor of only appeasing a much smaller subset of it.
There are other methods of bridging the gap that voice-comms give other than straight up alienating people who play with friends. The Kindred change is a good example of that.
1 -
"Strange that many people continue to play the game despite how much you're making SWF to be then."
The rest of what you're saying basically conjecture; suggesting that because you don't know anyone who would play the game solo means that you and your friends are the only caste of people in this game that keeps it from dying. It's own form of hubris if you ask me.
And no, party systems isn't game health. Game health is assuring that the game is fair, fun, functional, and replayable. Not all of this criteria needs to be met for a game to be unhealthy. SWF makes games unfun for those who have to face larger teams of them, and it breaks the functionality of the game. Again, ignoring everything else that SWF straight up BREAKS because it gives you the motivation to play.
In truth, the only reason DbD has lasted as long as it did in the market is because it has no real competitors. Other horror games of a similar genre taste fail due to financial trouble or too small of design teams.
DbD may have started off kicking out competition by merit, but its clearly affected its overall health as a game. I know for sure that if another game came out of the spotlight, even with the loads of money I spent on cosmetics on this game, I would jump ship in a heartbeat. That's why I got my eye on the Hide Or Die rework coming up.
Also, you keep acting like I want to completely remove party systems in this game; I don't. What I want, is the game's fundamentals to make going against SWF groups VIABLE without relying on Spirit or Nurse.
I want the issue FIXED. Not removed.
2 -
Ah yes. A meme. Okay, not bothering to read the rest. We'll just have to agree to disagree.
1 -
I mean survivors are the one's controlling BHVR on what killer they need to nerf by dc'ing
2 -
Most people wanted spirit changed or reworked, not necessarily nerfed. Some of the recent changes were nice but it didn't really fix much. You can make spirit legion tier and people will still complain if she is annoying and unfun to go against.
Devs are listening to the players and they get the problems right but in the end, they don't do the right thing to fix them most of the time.
0 -
Um... have you ever seen the game at 2015? Those were necessary for game balance and player retention. A lot of changes have been for survivor benefit, and some changes didn't happen for ages that should've happened because of enough criticism (DS took 2 years, and Freddy only got their rework in a year).
A lot of changes as of late (Nurse and Spirit changes) are definitely survivor sided (especially survivor only players who don't bother to learn counters and only want to mindlessly loop all the time). They only changed balanced landing so they wouldn't look as bad.
1 -
If it wasn't for swf and custom game, me nor any of my friends would have even considered dead by daylight. Dude honestly your arguments are laughable about swf. Does it have it's issues, sure. However the fix isn't removing swf. You would lose a huge portion of players. I have yet to see a single argument fr you with any rationality as to why devs work the way they do on this game, or why they implemented swf in the first place. I'm so sick and tired already (only being on these forums for a couple days) blaming people for wanting a way to play a game together and wanting a basic feature like voice chat in a multiplayer game for why the game has balance issues. It's honestly kinda idiotic to come to that conclusion.
2 -
They sure did. It was called KYF. And then SWF was added latter because people where screaming and crying to be able to play with smaller groups of friends without caring how it would unbalance the game. And the devs went along with it, because back then they gave into every survivor demand as quickly as possible.
1 -
Survivor with friends is THE most broken function in this game BAR NONE. You just can't argue otherwise you just can't. Luckily I play on PS4 and I hear that SWF is more rare than on PC.
1
