"Let's Play Killer" day for the developers
Comments
-
@se05239 said:
@Lyro92 said:
The problem is that the devs don't really care what we think.Ain't that the truth. Or well, they do care what we say, if we reviewbomb their game. "We" being the survivors who scream doom as soon as something on their side get nerfed.
Mathieu's suggestion was to play other games
I am currently enjoying MHW and it feels good being away from DbD.
Agreed, even though it has some terrible design decisions when it comes to multiplayer, they are not as horrible as in DBD and the actual game is amazing.
Just hope that the patches that already happened for PS come to PC soon
0 -
@Utna said:
@se05239 said:
That's exactly it. Right now, all they see is data and here-say from the forums. They haven't EXPERIENCED it themselves, so it's easy to shrug aside what's being said and seen.Seems like you're discarding data as a non relevent tool to understand the game. Why is that ? I guess data is the most reliable way to get real information on the game without all the drama attached to everyone's unique experience and feelings ... we're not talking real life here ... we're talking about a video game where everything was created with a purpose, and everything can be breaked down into logic algorythm.
So in the big picture, if killers sacrifice 50 % of the survivors, then obviously the game is at least roughly balanced. Experimented killers not getting the 50 % chance to kill experimented survivors or SWF, is a problem, but when compared to the big picture this is just a detail. I believe devs are working hard to even things out. Yet of course they cannot risk breaking the whole game balance just to please some veterans, because this is not their game : this is everyone's game.
I always wonder why people consider 50% kill rate balanced. Such a rate can almost everytime be achieved by hardcamping the first guy and killing a second with NOED.
On my opinion it should be rare that survivors escape, but then I am a very special guy that expects to fear the killer in an horror game, I know not everyone thinks like that
4 -
@Master said:
I always wonder why people consider 50% kill rate balanced. Such a rate can almost everytime be achieved by hardcamping the first guy and killing a second with NOED.On my opinion it should be rare that survivors escape, but then I am a very special guy that expects to fear the killer in an horror game, I know not everyone thinks like that
50% was just an example. Developers might as well think 75% kills is better ... I can't really tell.
In my personal opinion we can understand the scores in the following fation :
0 Kill : shame on the killer. (4 winner / 1 loser)
1 Kill : the killer loose, shame on him and the dead survivor. (4 winer / 1 loser)
2 Kills : that's a tie. (2 winner / 3 losers including the killer)
3 kills : both the killer and the final survivor wins (2 winner / 3 losers)
4 kills : Killer wins, shame on all his victims. (1 winner / 4 losers)0 -
@Utna said:
@Master said:
I always wonder why people consider 50% kill rate balanced. Such a rate can almost everytime be achieved by hardcamping the first guy and killing a second with NOED.On my opinion it should be rare that survivors escape, but then I am a very special guy that expects to fear the killer in an horror game, I know not everyone thinks like that
50% was just an example. Developers might as well think 75% kills is better ... I can't really tell.
In my personal opinion we can understand the scores in the following fation :
0 Kill : shame on the killer. (4 winner / 1 loser)
1 Kill : the killer loose, shame on him and the dead survivor. (4 winer / 1 loser)
2 Kills : that's a tie. (2 winner / 3 losers including the killer)
3 kills : both the killer and the final survivor wins (2 winner / 3 losers)
4 kills : Killer wins, shame on all his victims. (1 winner / 4 losers)Thats sth I could agree to. Basically the average kill rate should be 2,5 then if BOTH teams are experienced players.
However, if you look at the official tournament that kill rate is way below 2,5, especially if the killer isnt playing nurse.You might find it interesting to look at the excel statistic of the depip squad too
4 -
@Master said:
@Utna said:
@Master said:
I always wonder why people consider 50% kill rate balanced. Such a rate can almost everytime be achieved by hardcamping the first guy and killing a second with NOED.On my opinion it should be rare that survivors escape, but then I am a very special guy that expects to fear the killer in an horror game, I know not everyone thinks like that
50% was just an example. Developers might as well think 75% kills is better ... I can't really tell.
In my personal opinion we can understand the scores in the following fation :
0 Kill : shame on the killer. (4 winner / 1 loser)
1 Kill : the killer loose, shame on him and the dead survivor. (4 winer / 1 loser)
2 Kills : that's a tie. (2 winner / 3 losers including the killer)
3 kills : both the killer and the final survivor wins (2 winner / 3 losers)
4 kills : Killer wins, shame on all his victims. (1 winner / 4 losers)You might find it interesting to look at the excel statistic of the depip squad too
I found their statistics really interesting. Shows that the killers cannot do anything to combat survivors intent on winning, even if the survivors handicap themselves as much as possible.
1 -
@se05239 said:
@Master said:
@Utna said:
@Master said:
I always wonder why people consider 50% kill rate balanced. Such a rate can almost everytime be achieved by hardcamping the first guy and killing a second with NOED.On my opinion it should be rare that survivors escape, but then I am a very special guy that expects to fear the killer in an horror game, I know not everyone thinks like that
50% was just an example. Developers might as well think 75% kills is better ... I can't really tell.
In my personal opinion we can understand the scores in the following fation :
0 Kill : shame on the killer. (4 winner / 1 loser)
1 Kill : the killer loose, shame on him and the dead survivor. (4 winer / 1 loser)
2 Kills : that's a tie. (2 winner / 3 losers including the killer)
3 kills : both the killer and the final survivor wins (2 winner / 3 losers)
4 kills : Killer wins, shame on all his victims. (1 winner / 4 losers)You might find it interesting to look at the excel statistic of the depip squad too
I found their statistics really interesting. Shows that the killers cannot do anything to combat survivors intent on winning, even if the survivors handicap themselves as much as possible.
Yeah and when they actually went full tryhard mode, using comms+perks, those games were kinda pathetic....
1 -
@Master said:
@se05239 said:
@Master said:
@Utna said:
@Master said:
I always wonder why people consider 50% kill rate balanced. Such a rate can almost everytime be achieved by hardcamping the first guy and killing a second with NOED.On my opinion it should be rare that survivors escape, but then I am a very special guy that expects to fear the killer in an horror game, I know not everyone thinks like that
50% was just an example. Developers might as well think 75% kills is better ... I can't really tell.
In my personal opinion we can understand the scores in the following fation :
0 Kill : shame on the killer. (4 winner / 1 loser)
1 Kill : the killer loose, shame on him and the dead survivor. (4 winer / 1 loser)
2 Kills : that's a tie. (2 winner / 3 losers including the killer)
3 kills : both the killer and the final survivor wins (2 winner / 3 losers)
4 kills : Killer wins, shame on all his victims. (1 winner / 4 losers)You might find it interesting to look at the excel statistic of the depip squad too
I found their statistics really interesting. Shows that the killers cannot do anything to combat survivors intent on winning, even if the survivors handicap themselves as much as possible.
Yeah and when they actually went full tryhard mode, using comms+perks, those games were kinda pathetic....
It just further reinforce that SWFs are too unbalanced.
0 -
@se05239 said:
@Master said:
@se05239 said:
@Master said:
@Utna said:
@Master said:
I always wonder why people consider 50% kill rate balanced. Such a rate can almost everytime be achieved by hardcamping the first guy and killing a second with NOED.On my opinion it should be rare that survivors escape, but then I am a very special guy that expects to fear the killer in an horror game, I know not everyone thinks like that
50% was just an example. Developers might as well think 75% kills is better ... I can't really tell.
In my personal opinion we can understand the scores in the following fation :
0 Kill : shame on the killer. (4 winner / 1 loser)
1 Kill : the killer loose, shame on him and the dead survivor. (4 winer / 1 loser)
2 Kills : that's a tie. (2 winner / 3 losers including the killer)
3 kills : both the killer and the final survivor wins (2 winner / 3 losers)
4 kills : Killer wins, shame on all his victims. (1 winner / 4 losers)You might find it interesting to look at the excel statistic of the depip squad too
I found their statistics really interesting. Shows that the killers cannot do anything to combat survivors intent on winning, even if the survivors handicap themselves as much as possible.
Yeah and when they actually went full tryhard mode, using comms+perks, those games were kinda pathetic....
It just further reinforce that SWFs are too unbalanced.
Yes but devs have to experience this for their own, before you havent been bullied by a SWF, you shouldnt be allowed to be in the DBD balancing team
1 -
You guys should give more appreciation of how Queen stands up for both sides. She's a very positive influence. She always doesn't use meta at all, and she plays Killer ontop of it.
I got to agree, it seems like they don't fully immerse themselves into the game like Queen does, and that's problematic. Especially in such a competitive atmosphere.
0 -
People saw the "Play with the devs" stream? Jesus Christ..
@Master said:
@se05239 said:
@Master said:
@se05239 said:
@Master said:
@Utna said:
@Master said:
I always wonder why people consider 50% kill rate balanced. Such a rate can almost everytime be achieved by hardcamping the first guy and killing a second with NOED.On my opinion it should be rare that survivors escape, but then I am a very special guy that expects to fear the killer in an horror game, I know not everyone thinks like that
50% was just an example. Developers might as well think 75% kills is better ... I can't really tell.
In my personal opinion we can understand the scores in the following fation :
0 Kill : shame on the killer. (4 winner / 1 loser)
1 Kill : the killer loose, shame on him and the dead survivor. (4 winer / 1 loser)
2 Kills : that's a tie. (2 winner / 3 losers including the killer)
3 kills : both the killer and the final survivor wins (2 winner / 3 losers)
4 kills : Killer wins, shame on all his victims. (1 winner / 4 losers)You might find it interesting to look at the excel statistic of the depip squad too
I found their statistics really interesting. Shows that the killers cannot do anything to combat survivors intent on winning, even if the survivors handicap themselves as much as possible.
Yeah and when they actually went full tryhard mode, using comms+perks, those games were kinda pathetic....
It just further reinforce that SWFs are too unbalanced.
Yes but devs have to experience this for their own
This is the entire point of my thread.
2 -
Just bumping it as its still being relevant.
1 -
I think the 13th of each month would be a great day to play as killer.7
-
They should play both sides at R1 every Thursday/Friday, and maybe something will be changed in this game.
7 -
Just bumping this since it's still relevant.
0 -
I humbly suggest @not_Queen and other Devs to play at least ten trials as killers and ten trials as survivors before a Player Test Build is released as a new patch, against both other Devs and common players. It should help you in your great job!
0 -
@se05239 said:
Most of the time, apart from Not_Queen, it's clear that most of the developers don't play their own game and are completely oblivious to the things that's happening inside it. Old examples would be them calling killers to "get good" for complaining about looping and such.So here I come with a pretty unorthodox balance suggestion to Dead by Daylight, the developers need to have an actual play session as part of their job where they're forced to play Killer. Be it only for 2-4 hours, it'd help greatly towards them understand all the faults that Dead by Daylight suffer from.
Any opinions?
This post should be reviewed and read by some developers and they realize, that the game does not revolve around rank 20 and that many streamers as you have named knows how the game is and I have to say, that little by little it is getting better , but still a lot is missing.
1 -
This would be so embarrassing for them, probably a good lesson though.
1 -
@Entità said:
I humbly suggest @not_Queen and other Devs to play at least ten trials as killers and ten trials as survivors before a Player Test Build is released as a new patch, against both other Devs and common players. It should help you in your great job!At rank 1 against a swf
0 -
@Blueberry No, at all ranks and against all combinations of opponents. The game must sell and, to sell, must be as balanced as possible for all categories of players.
0 -
@Entità said:
@Blueberry No, at all ranks and against all combinations of opponents. The game must sell and, to sell, must be as balanced as possible for all categories of players.Balance for lower ranks means intentionally making something overpowered because you assume the player will just be stupid and use it incorrectly. That is a terrible way to balance.
1 -
Sadly that will never happen.
Because like for the insta-flashlight case, they would be left with no other choice than changing things or publicly admitting that they are willingly not doing it.
0 -
Also for the peoples talking about a potential killer strike, be careful.
Peoples used to be banned only for mentinoning it LUL.
Yeah, that's how it work since release.
There at least you can voice your opinions without being harrassed by the usual Ochidolings :
0 -
@Blueberry said:
@Entità said:
@Blueberry No, at all ranks and against all combinations of opponents. The game must sell and, to sell, must be as balanced as possible for all categories of players.Balance for lower ranks means intentionally making something overpowered because you assume the player will just be stupid and use it incorrectly. That is a terrible way to balance.
You forgive two questions:
1) both survivors and killers are inexperienced at low ranks, so why should a role be overpowered?
2) nobody reaches rank 1 without passing from rank 20: if the game is not balanced at all ranks, many people probably will give up (and new players mean new customers, who buy the gamee and convince their friends to do the same).0 -
@Entità said:
@Blueberry said:
@Entità said:
@Blueberry No, at all ranks and against all combinations of opponents. The game must sell and, to sell, must be as balanced as possible for all categories of players.Balance for lower ranks means intentionally making something overpowered because you assume the player will just be stupid and use it incorrectly. That is a terrible way to balance.
You forgive two questions:
1) both survivors and killers are inexperienced at low ranks, so why should a role be overpowered?
2) nobody reaches rank 1 without passing from rank 20: if the game is not balanced at all ranks, many people probably will give up (and new players mean new customers, who buy the gamee and convince their friends to do the same).1) Something isn't overpowered just because they're bad at the game, it's a skill issue.
2)They realize they failed because they have to learn to become better at the game. This is an entitlement issue and skill issue. Just because something is difficult you don't just lower the bar, you work harder to reach it. The most successful games apply this.0 -
@Blueberry said:
@Entità said:
@Blueberry said:
@Entità said:
@Blueberry No, at all ranks and against all combinations of opponents. The game must sell and, to sell, must be as balanced as possible for all categories of players.Balance for lower ranks means intentionally making something overpowered because you assume the player will just be stupid and use it incorrectly. That is a terrible way to balance.
You forgive two questions:
1) both survivors and killers are inexperienced at low ranks, so why should a role be overpowered?
2) nobody reaches rank 1 without passing from rank 20: if the game is not balanced at all ranks, many people probably will give up (and new players mean new customers, who buy the gamee and convince their friends to do the same).1) Something isn't overpowered just because they're bad at the game, it's a skill issue.
2)They realize they failed because they have to learn to become better at the game. This is an entitlement issue and skill issue. Just because something is difficult you don't just lower the bar, you work harder to reach it. The most successful games apply this.I agree, in theory. In practice, a too difficult game is often abandoned: videogames are not a school or a job, a player is not paid in knowledge or money for playing it, they are paid in fun. And Developers know that, and try to do a game enjoyable at every rank, which is a real issue, not to talk about "solo survivors/SWF".
0 -
@Entità said:
@Blueberry said:
@Entità said:
@Blueberry said:
@Entità said:
@Blueberry No, at all ranks and against all combinations of opponents. The game must sell and, to sell, must be as balanced as possible for all categories of players.Balance for lower ranks means intentionally making something overpowered because you assume the player will just be stupid and use it incorrectly. That is a terrible way to balance.
You forgive two questions:
1) both survivors and killers are inexperienced at low ranks, so why should a role be overpowered?
2) nobody reaches rank 1 without passing from rank 20: if the game is not balanced at all ranks, many people probably will give up (and new players mean new customers, who buy the gamee and convince their friends to do the same).1) Something isn't overpowered just because they're bad at the game, it's a skill issue.
2)They realize they failed because they have to learn to become better at the game. This is an entitlement issue and skill issue. Just because something is difficult you don't just lower the bar, you work harder to reach it. The most successful games apply this.I agree, in theory. In practice, a too difficult game is often abandoned: videogames are not a school or a job, a player is not paid in knowledge or money for playing it, they are paid in fun. And Developers know that, and try to do a game enjoyable at every rank, which is a real issue, not to talk about "solo survivors/SWF".
I guess our disagreement comes down to "too difficult" then. If it was indeed too difficult in that sense then yeah I can see where you're coming from. However, I don't think the appropriate changes the game needs would put it anywhere near the realm of your version of too difficult where they'd lose a bunch of players. No way for us to truly know I suppose though unless they actually did the changes. Guess we'll see.
0 -
@Blueberry There is no disagreement between you and me: the game is not too difficult for any of us, I find it pleasantly challenging. Maybe Devs want to help low rank people, I don't know. Aside that, the "solo survivors/SWF" issue is almost unsolvable.
0
