Regarding "balance" and killrate
I don't think the devs quite know what the term balance means in a competitive game. When kills aren't a huge factor when deciding if you pip or not (which actually shows if you "won" or not) you can't really say that the game is or isn't balanced just when looking at kills.
Let's take literally any other pvp game that has an objective other than Kill Your Opponents, start with League, if you decide whether a champion in League is OP because they get many kills without looking at if they actually WIN the game or not, you're doing things wrong. If you're looking at heroes in Overwatch and deciding whether they're strong or not because they get many eliminaitons and again, not on how much they actually WIN, you're doing it worng.
Instead of saying that all killers should average at 2 kills per game, why not balance them so they average at 1 pip/black pip? Change the pip system so killers with insta-downs don't get screwed over by actually getting those kills don't end up actually LOSING the game, or at best, getting a draw, when they get 2-3 kills (especially Billy).
TL;DR
Game should be balanced around pips and not kills
Comments
-
Disagree.
they will eventually rework the flawed rank system, so is pointless balancing around it.
7 -
Yeah, but will the new ranked system be based around kills? In that case it would just be the same as back in the day. And depending on when they'll rework it it might not be pointless at all since "eventually" can mean anything from next patch to 10 years from now.
And I also mentioned that it's better to change the pip system too, and not just the killers/perks/addons/whatever.
0 -
If you focus the Game purely arround Kills you force Killers to "camp" more (soo no). They should just avoid releasing meaningless Statistics like Killrate
0 -
Let's be honest, killers don't care about pipping. They just care about killing more than half the survivors and consider that winning. If the majority of the playerbase considers that winning, then shouldn't the devs consider that as well?
1 -
@xerav Not really. If survivors notice camping, they should simply stay on gens, which means the killer might get a second kill during endgame and that's it. A hardcore camper played correctly against should on average get only one kill. Super altruistic survivors that don't want a single kill to happen usually grant more kills to those.
@Atrushan88 I'd say most survivors also consider winning as at least 3 escapes. I even would say most survivors consider themselves loosing if they die. Otherwise there would be less DC on camping killers and more "I hang in here so you guys can do gens". Some time ago it was even common sense that waving on the hook means "killer is still here, stay on gens"
0 -
The problem with that is that you don't win by killing more than half of the survivors. If you don't rank up in a game with rank, it's not a win.
0 -
I've seen matches where the killer barely gets any hooks before the doors are powered, downs a survivor, and the other three survivors suicide trying to save them.
There's no incentive to survive. You can die and still pip or double pip (depending on the rank). This means survivors are more willing make risky plays at the end of matches.
1 -
Nobody ever said that the game is entirely balanced around killrates. Also killrates and pipping are two different issues. Also DbD isnt comparable to other competitive games like LoL, cause they have on both sides the same initial situation, which isnt given in an asymetrical gameplay like in DbD.
1 -
The Devs need good data and the way matches and ranks are setup, they are not getting any. There needs to be a way to messure a players skill besides kill and escape counts. If players of low skill continue to match up over time they will eventually make it to high ranks. Those same players are then matched with high skilled players and the expected outcome would occur. This gives more false data the longer the season goes as more low skill players climb the ranks on the backs of other low skilled players.
0 -
Problem is, "kill your opponents" is the objective in this game.
Games should be balanced around the win condition, just like those examples you gave. The win condition for killers in DBD is kills. Specifically, killing a majority of the survivors is considered a win.
Pipping is an entirely separate thing. The fact that people feel like they're doing something wrong if they don't pip and therefore equate pipping with winning is a flaw with the ranking system and with the community mindset as a whole, but not with the balance of the game.
2 -
???
Killers still looking for excuses to say that 70% - 75% kill rates (red ranks) are okay?
1 -
Killers dont need excuses. Killrate was over 60% even during 2016 infinite instablind instagen instaheal no hooks dstrike no exhaustion pallettown times. Basically invincible and survivors still sucked like today.
As long as boosted casuals can make it to rank 1, killers can win. Was always that way
2 -
As long as boosted casuals can make it to rank 1, killers can win. Was always that way
Correct, Rank 1 is just a ceiling which given enough time all skill levels will gather. This will become more apparent once the new rank reset takes affect.
0 -
I would prefer a simple system with 30 or 40 ranks and you never depip. What is my incentive to rise in rank if I can lose 7 pips in 7 successive matches not all due to my own incompetence. Its why in another PVP game I play I have to reach a rank of 25 (out of 100) before I may even be allowed to play ranked matches.
If this game had regular matches where the focus was on learnign the skills and expertise needed to play well in ranked matches it might be better. Also, challenges could be done in regulars.
How would that work? You would enter at the rank you are but the emblem system no matter how many points you earned, or didnt, would award a black pip. Basically kill your friends without the purples and the ability to que
0 -
Yeah sure they don't balance it entirely around killrates, but using them as a metric to say wether a killer is strong or not is imo pretty disingenuine, but only because the concept of what winning is is so vague.
Do you win when you kill a certain number of survivors? Do you win if you pip? Since it's a game that has ranks (even if the ranked system is rather shite) gaining pips should be awarded to wins. But you can get pips with 2 or less kills (under certain ranks) and you can lose pips with even 3+ kills.
So sure a killer might be getting kills but that same killer isn't "winning" in the eyes of the game since it's de-pipping/black-pipping. And because of the way the game works - sure the survivors might not be winning either but it just turns into a both-sides-lose situation instead of one wins over the other.
0 -
Yes, ever since they screwed up the way pipping works some matches feel so anti-climactic. Getting a 4k with Billy with all gens remaining, maybe 1 done, and getting "rewarded" with a de-pip/black-pip is basically the game saying you did something wrong.
0 -
You and people like you (who only look at the kill rates and not what leads to the kill rates) need to look into things more, realize what is actually going on.
Keep in mind that the charts didn't take platform into account, nor that survivor ranks are inflated because of how easy it is to reach and maintain rank 1 as survivor.
0 -
The only thing that needs changing is the pip system itself. That will fix everything you're complaining about.
0 -
Absolutely. I won't disagree that the ranking system really needs looking at - it should never be implied that playing the game efficiently is playing it badly.
0 -
I believe at least Peanits' view on pipping is that it should be harder the higher you go up to pip. If you're in red ranks, pipping should require you to be getting more kills than the average because you're a better killer than average. I don't think they see this as a flaw. I think they see this as "you're a better killer now. If you want to maintain your rank you have to go above average. If you don't pip, you are where you need to be"
0 -
I consider tough 2ks a win.
0 -
I would argue you're in the minority. But I never feel disappointed if I at least 2k as well.
0
