http://dbd.game/killswitch
Dear devs, What is the reason...
Behind the 2 kill 2 escape balance focus?
Many people like myself believe that it's a very ineffective philosophy in that it gives experienced players too much power which in turn creates very frustrating experiences.
We don't have to look any further than Mcote's match in Korea. The frustration was obvious and while the issue was resolved, many aspects of the game continue to create unfun frustrating situations.
I can go on quite awhile about this, but I'm genuinely curious as to why this is where balance is focused and what the overall goal is behind it.
Giving us some insight might also help those of us who have concerns voice them in a way that you can understand and give us an opportunity to provide useful feedback regarding the many issues that still exist.
Comments
-
Sounds about right.
I'm more intrigued as to what Mr SpaceCoconut wants the game to be balanced around, does he think balancing the game around 3K/4K is the better way?
Why does he not think that 2Ks with the potential to be below that and above that sounds fair?
Sounds like they're trying to make a game that is fun and not a game where you're more likely to fail/win.
14 -
Consider that the current philosophy sounds like killers should never truley win in an "even" fight..because two kills is at best a for them and a win for whomever escapes, therefore technically the killer still loses in that case ...seems like a rather distasteful idea to think about
0 -
I think we should balance around hooks
0 -
If the killer in question wants to perform some mental gymnastics to make themselves feel bad in the event of what is essentially a tie, not a loss, that's their business. But they might have a better time if they think of it as what it is, rather than telling themselves that 2 or even 3 kills is not good enough because "some of the survivors escaped which means I lost".
10 -
To be fair, MCote was a baby killer when those matches took place, and the people playing survivor were really good. Also this was back when there was a LOT more in survivor's favor. Like any player in any game in that kind of situation is going to have a bad time.
I wouldn't really use those games as a talking point.
7 -
Balancing around two escape two kills is meaningless when surviving isn't a requirement. There are plenty of survivors who would rather die trying to save one survivor off a hook than leaving them and escaping. I've seen too many times where a three escape turns into a three kill. The difference between underperforming and overperforming by the Devs standards.
If there were a greater emphasis on surviving we would see 5 minute matches with 3 or 4 escapes become more common.
4 -
Two escape two kills this is -0 or almost depip for killer
1 -
I feel like games should be balanced around a feast or famine playstyle, which means lots of 0Ks and 4Ks that balance out to a 2K.
Therefore, 50% of games are 4Ks and 50% of games are 0Ks. 😁
Why do I want this?
Mainly player satisfaction.
The killer player can feel like they are a true beast sometimes, but the survivor players can have moments where their teamwork is what pulled them all to a victory.
If you're on the receiving end, you know that there's always room for improvement and will keep trying until you get the win you worked for. 🤗😁
3 -
Well this is a personal opinion but I would be ok if it was centered around a 3 Kill average as a Survivor but that's because I want the game to be scary. I grew up playing Silent Hill and RE so Survival Horror is what I live for and this barely has it despite the context. A Survivor dying, for me of course, should feel average and Escaping should be a great victory that is not often but MUST be done through hard work and hopefully fear and stress. That would be my ideal game because it would feel like a real horror game instead of what we got now, I don't feel threatened by any of the Killers unless they're a stealth Killer or it's Hillbilly because I know the tricks and I know the strats and I know the Killer can be easily duped into losing if my team is competent.
I know this is an opinion a lot of players feel strongly against and that's why I stress it's my ideal spot for this game as that would be more fun for me.
5 -
You dont seem to be getting the point....
0 -
I think people need to reevaluate what a victory is in this game. I sometimes have 0k matches that I enjoyed. Especially if I still make out with the most BP in the end. Same goes for matches as survivor where I don't make it out. I think the bp for escaping should be lower, with other scoring events in the survival category being higher. With a 5k bp reward for escaping, of course that makes it feel like a victory, and a loss if you miss out on it.
3 -
I suspect I'm not the one who isn't getting the point, but it's possible that I'm wrong, of course. Please, explain what the point is that I'm not getting.
6 -
In most scenarios evenly matched opponents will eventually result in a victory of 1 side or the other..but in this case the implication is that in an ideal scenario of the same type the killer at max could not achieve more than a 2k in that same scenario..therefore..that automatically puts the game in survivor hands at all times..1 little mistake and the killer will flat out be demolished because said killer only has the strength to prevent 2 from escaping in an evenly matches scenario..The games current balance has proven that this is indeed the case and the whole system is flawed severely
0 -
I think you're misunderstanding how the 2k average is supposed to apply to balancing. Yes, with a killer and four survivors who are equal in skill level, theoretically that match should end in a tie. In the same way that theoretically, a soccer game where both teams are equal in skill should end in a tie. If one side wins, that means they were better, or at least played better. That's how it works in every competitive game in existence (competitive being here defined as "a game in which players compete with one another").
Realistically, though, even if both sides are equal in skill level, there are many other factors that can influence the outcome of the match, from one player being off their game to simple random chance. But if all players are equally skilled, on average, their matches should be ties. That doesn't mean that every game should be a 2k, it means the killer should get a 3k or 4k about as often as they get a 0k or 1k, and individual survivors should escape about as often as they die.
In short, it's not that a 2k is the "ideal scenario" for either side, or that the killer is only strong enough to achieve a maximum of 2 kills, but it's where the median should sit.
5 -
This would only be true if the games own rank system reflected it. a 2k is usually a depip or black pip. even a 3k is a black pip most of the time
The game is literally telling you that you did bad when you meet the expected goal of 2-2
2 -
Ranking up is not the win condition. In order to rank up, you have to demonstrate that your skills surpass the rank that you are at. If you're getting black pips, that means you're where you're supposed to be in the rank system.
Not pipping does not mean you didn't play well, it just means you didn't exceed expectations for the rank you're at. The fact that so many people confuse pipping with winning and therefore think they've done something wrong if they don't pip is the reason why so many believe that nothing under a 4k is an acceptable match result.
11 -
personaly victory is alrdy defined by the game
for killer: killing the survivors of which their are 4
for survivor: escape (not powering 5 gens but powering 5 gens AND getting out of the exit gates back to the campfire)
i mean its not that hard to understand in my opinion
1 -
so the win condition for survivor is that you escape, while the win condition for killer is that you participated and had "fun"?
2 -
Um... no. I didn't say anything like that. The win condition for killer is killing the majority of the survivors. In both cases, as you yourself implied, the clue is in the name. And in the in-game rules.
3 -
Because 2 kills and 2 escapes is an equal outcome for both sides? You should obviously aim for the midpoint so that both sides stand a competitive chance at the most equal levels possible. All other alternatives would be aiming to favour one side.
5 -
Only one issue..most killers are considered underpowered despite apparently every single one breaking that average....so that throws that theory to the wayside
0 -
Well then bluntly put we have a long way to go...
0 -
This guy gets it. Survivors aren't actually supposed to survive 50% of the time, like most of the classic horror movies that inspire this game, as well as all the horror games that came before, their should be a Max of one survivor...
Well this would work in theory if the game were fun enough on it's own, but gen repair sim does not make for an engaging game... So basically if the framework for a fun horror game from the outset existed, and it was just exciting/fun enough to exist in this game as survivor, then you could potentially make the higher death rate work as surviving wouldn't matter quite as much as the quality of time you spent in the matches...
Think about Call of Duty black ops zombies mode, you know you'll never survive, you'll have to die at some point, but you still attempt the Easter eggs and see how far you can go and have fun doing just that.
1 -
DBD isn't an endless wave game, though. That kind of thing works if you're just trying to see how long you'll last against an AI, but I doubt there are many people out there who are interested in competing against another player knowing they'll lose every time.
4 -
I like this idea. Honestly at red ranks if i'm not playing my best Killer or loadout, I feel like i'm signing up to lose. Even then with some Killers I love (Legion, Clown, Doctor) I feel like i'm just going in to let the Survivors do gens and leave.
1 -
3 of 5 people do not achieve their goal (escape/kill all survivors) in a 2:2 scenario.
The ones doing mental gymnastics into turning this into a win are cmaybe 3/4-man swf's.
I agree that if a 2man swf both escape it's totally their win.
0 -
That's because it's an asymmetrical game, with different numbers of players on each team.
In a 2k situation, two people on one team didn't achieve their goal, two other people on that team did, and the one person on the other team achieved 50% of their goal. In other words, both teams got halfway there. If we want to look at it another way, 2.5 people out of 5 achieved their goal.
Nobody said that a 2k was a win - what everyone is saying is that it's a tie, and the maths checks out.
1 -
What I'm saying is I go into a game as survivor with nothing but aura perks thinking "Let the games begin" because I know no matter what I can be effective and usually are
As killer..if I dont have decent perks AND addons..I feel more like
" Alright I gotta get this done quick or I'm screwed "
0 -
This game can not be compared to games like Resident Evil. This is a multiplayer game, people don’t play with the feeling they are versing a monster, they are facing another player as their opponent. That’s why it will never be scary no matter what. You want to beat that opponent. Contrary to what people on the forum might claim, most people do just consider escaping as a win, or at the very least they die but the other 3 survive. Killer is 3-4 K. So why should the game be balanced to where the killer is constantly winning? It doesn’t make sense and is the complete opposite of balance. People like Mr coconut I’m afraid, don’t get it. The game would die if they had it their way. Survivors aren’t interested in playing kill simulator, this isn’t a horror movie. Each side has to get their share of wins (equal or at least somewhat close to it) in order to keep players on both sides.
0 -
I see your opinion and I disagree. The game is advertised as a horror game and it can be made that way with many strenuous tweaks that would take ages and isn't worth making because the game is far too along to make them. I have a dream of a horrifying and scary brutal game with this formula and it may not actually work but who knows, maybe it will and we don't know. Games like Dark Souls are difficult and made to be that way but also rewarding, those games aren't for everyone hell no, it takes someone who enjoys that for those games to be popular. Something like that and my dream horror game takes a special audience, possibly a small audience but an audience nonetheless.
1 -
Good point, I think it would work with a more engaging central objective for Survivors though. Like think of it as a game where the survivors aren't actually directly competing with the killer, but instead have to engage with some objective that grows as the game progresses.. like say they had an infinite number of creatures outside of the killer that they could fight, kill, etc. And they have to balance the objective of killing as many of them as they can, receiving points towards level up, special items, whatever to make their time feel well invested and productive. Reward them for playing the survivor role and doing well rather than having it be so dependent on survival as the goal... But of course that's not exactly a possiblity for this game at this point so it's just me making a game up in my mind at this point lol.
0 -
This. Killers can black pip after a 3K or even a 4K at times. But survivors can die and still pip up. The currrent rank balance of the game is an issue. If the balance philosophy is 2 escapes 2 kills, then the ranking system needs to black pip killers who 2K, pip killers that 3k, and double pip killers that 4k. The current system is not feasible. I've gotten 3k's that follow with "brutal killer" and 2K's that follow with "ruthless killer" and 4k's that result in "entity displeased".
The ranking system is ######### for killers. So we view the 3K and 4K as our only salvation in this cursed game. Make 2K's a draw in terms of ranking, and then we have a solution. But the balance philosophy cannot be 2-2 if 2-2 is a loss for the killer in terms of ranks.
1
