Introducing the DBD Political Compass! | Where do YOU stand?
A quick and easy way to tell the devs the overall state of the game! Do you think DBD is fair? Is it unfair? If it's unfair, who does it favour more? Do you think fun should be prioritized over balance, or do you think fun and balance are intertwined? Cast your vote now!
As a quick example, here are my beliefs:
- I believe that, overall, DBD's balance favours Survivors.
- However, I don't think that Killers are completely helpless. I believe any B tier Killer (middle of mid tier) and above can do consistently well at high ranks, against your average four survivors. Against a coordinated SWF, A tier (top of mid tier) and above. Against a coordinated SWF running meta perks, S and S+ (top tier) only.
- I believe that fun and balance are intertwined; I think that if DBD is balanced, it will be more fun than if it were unbalanced.
- However, I accept that some things, if they were balanced properly, would be incredibly unfun to play against (Bubba, Clown, etc.)
Therefore, I would place myself here on the compass:
What do you think?
Comments
I share your opinion for high tier play.
For low tier play it's more killer favored.
I agree that dbd is very Survivor sided but I don't think balance makes the game much more fun. A few things like iri head can be annoying but I can easily use it myself so it's not so bad.
Maybe, but I think Iri Head is both unfun and unbalanced.
I think I would be more towards the bottom left of the grid, not because i want over powered killers. I think the one thing Friday 13th game had over this one was survivors felt like they were actual survivors, not just 4 people to do an objective and leave. Jason in that game made you feel an adrenaline rush when you were being chased, this game has turned it more into a moon walking game of tag.
As it's an asymmetrical game, imho real balancing depends on reducing complexity (you can not balance a game with 500 variables (read: Perks, Addons, Items) that somehow depend on each other or do have synergies).
It means to either remove things from the game that extremly skew the favor into one direction, or to make things like perks/items/addons much weaker (as we've already seen). By doing that, you remove depth and "drama" from the game. Ultimately, this means that the game will become a lot more shallow, hence more boring.
So if you want the game to become more balanced, you have to accept that it's highly likely that it will also become more boring.
And while I'm pro on balancing, the drama is what makes the game so "fun and interesting".
Not going to comment on other points.
The game would be much more fun if it was balanced much more. The game is far too survivor sided. Maps always go against the killer, Gens speed is too fast, considering a killer can only keep 1 Survivor off a gen, 3 others are popping 3 of them. Survivors have so many second chances for every mistake they make, but a killer can't make a single one or the game is done for them. Then, there is SWF, possibly the most unbalanced aspect of the game. As long as this exists, Killers are screwed. Not to say it needs to be removed, but the Devs need to stop pretending there isn't an issue with it. Solo players are easy targets for a reason: They can't know the killer is coming for them. SWF essentially have a map-wide radar and the killer will never get the surprise on them for this reason. Overall the game has gone so far to the Survivors, it's no wonder so many killers have left. If they actually focused more on helping killers with buffs, and actual balancing of maps, then maybe the game would be more fun.
I believe in the beginning of dbd, the killer has all the power. However once your experienced the game flips on it's head and the survivors hold all the power. That's why I hate it when the devs cater to the new players. They have all the tools needed to escape they just don't want to learn.
The fact that Dead by Daylight has a political system of it's own is kinda terrifying.
But overall, I have most of the same opinions as OP:
I agree 100% with your SWF and death squad points. It kinda saddens me that people still whine about SWF. Yes, they are inherently more powerful because of communications, but each individual player also needs to be good. I personally think that voice comms should be added into the base game (with the option to mute, of course, since this is DBD) - this way, BHVR can address how broken a death squad can be without utterly screwing over solo queuers.
With your point on second-chance perks, I disagree somewhat. It's not that it feels like you're losing pressure, you absolutely are. That 5 seconds really isn't just 5 seconds; that's just their headstart - depending on how good that survivor is at being chased, you can very well lose up to a whole minute. There's a second-chance perk for everything:
Not all of these perks need to be changed - the only two that do, in my opinion, are DS and Unbreakable - but it really does make you feel like a punching bag more than a killer.
You mentioned that you don't mind how powerful the second-chance perks are. I agree. It's the second-chance aspect that makes these perks genuinely frustrating. You could buff every single one of them, but if you removed the "lol my mistakes don't matter" part, I'd be quite happy, and I think a lot of killers would agree with me there.
I'm smack dab in the middle. There are far too many variables to determine a match. All second chance perks exist to counter an effective killer strategy, and vice versa. Effective killer perks counter survivor strategies. If I brought insta-down Clown into every match he'd be seen as either op, evenly matched, or weak as ######### depending on loadouts and map.
And since there's no way to know who is bringing what into where, as it's all shrouded in mystery till the actual game starts.
Killer is genuinely more frustrating at higher levels and people will just say "Oh it's because you're probably not that good" but in my opinion is that it's just way harder to play killer and the killer can't do everything and be everywhere at once and so the killer is limited in what they can do and they can get steamrolled.
Also the difference in perks are astounding. I watched Otz's video on killer perks and he only named like 5~ really good/excellent perks that survivors easily have 2 for each. But obviously the biggest contenders are exhaustion perks and second chance perks.
Second chance perks are just for the sloppy and they really make me think when someone talks about skill in the game. Some are honestly necessary like DS but things like BT, Unbreakable seem like they deserve a punishment for what they can offer, but nope they're just straight power.
Exhaustion perks like DH also just seem they help people with their mistakes and Sprint Burst can be devastating for killers who don't have all the abilities to end chase. Adrenaline can also be seen as a kick to the balls for the killer but NOED exists aswell, I wouldn't mind if both of these perks were gone from the game.
A big thing for my vertical decision-making is that I believe people love competition and winning. That's one of the most fun things all around that even casual gaming can't fulfill. This doesn't really relate but playing Rainbow Six Siege, playing Casual is fine and all but Ranked is so much more fun when you're competing for a hard fought victory. Winning is fun, it brings competition which is also nice and whether you say it is on paper or not, Dead By Daylight was pretty competitive until they removed Ruin and threw the balance all over the place. So more balancing would make the game fun in a competitive and objective aspect.
Call me trash or stupid for my opinions or whatever, I don't care.
Before reading below, please keep in mind that this information is based on my average games, I am specifically overlooking the rare 4 man Swat Style SWF teams. Because as killer, I just accept that I will lose that match and just try to enjoy the chases as much as possible.
I think this game is fairly killer sided at least by my standards of a win. Probably the biggest factor that makes me feel this way is that the game should result in a 2k 2 Escape. As I move down in ranks, I manage to get 4 kills a game on average until I hit red ranks, in which I still manage to average 3 kills a game. Which is what I believe is above what I should be averaging assuming I am playing with survivors of my same or similar skill level.
Basically if you are playing with four survivors of a similar skill level you shouldn't manage to get 4 kills unless they are just making stupid mistakes all game long. Now the problem because when you include SWF (Please keep in mind, I rarely ever play solo survivor, I always play SWF), because a 4 man SWF that is playing optimized and are being very objective focused will crush me.
My problem is statistically those games are 1 outta 10, meaning to balance the entire game around those uncommon matchups would just be ridiculous, it would make it so that I would basically 4k 9 outta 10 games and get maybe a 2k 1 outta 10.
So basically if you are trying to play this game at your skill level, you should be getting roughly 2 kills a game. If you are getting more, in my opinion at least you are playing with survivors under your skill level or using playstyles / perks that buff that for you statistically and most likely making your games more stressful for yourself as a killer.
Couple questions (friendly, I'm not after a fight):
I'm not OK with the "North/south" premises. You can have fun on a balanced game and also on an unbalanced game. I play wraith, I know about it.
Don't worry about, I try not to start them either.
So to answer your second and third question, I am going to explain my reasoning and why I feel this way. Starting off you asked the following:
Why do you consider a 2k to be a win?
I think I can see where you misunderstood me on this as I said:
I think this game is fairly killer sided at least by my standards of a win. Probably the biggest factor that makes me feel this way is that the game should result in a 2k 2 Escape.
Which re-reading seems to imply that I think a win, is a 2k 2 Escape, when I really only consider that a Tie, however, I don't consider a Tie a loss. So I guess technically it is a win. But to be clear, I consider a 3+ kills game as a win, a 2k game as a tie and 0-1 kills a game a time.
Now onto you much more complicated question.
If I said that a killer needs to be more skilled than the survivors they go against in order to win, would you agree with me? Why or why not?
This really depends on the tactics you use during your game, for example, if you heavily rely on Tunneling, Slugging and Camping/Proxy Camping, then No, you don't have to be more skilled to win, These general tactics will on average award you between 2-3 kills at least per game. However if you do not use those tactics, I believe you do have to be a better skilled player to win more games on average.
Now, don't get me wrong, I've totally Tunneled and Camped (not sure I ever slugged for a 4k) before. However this is not my general playstyle. I would in general consider myself a fair killer. I am generally in red ranks with the builds listed above without using those type of tactics. However, it probably takes me slightly longer to get back to that rank due to the fact that I tie more games then I win or lose.
Lastly, here is my argument why you shouldn't consider a tie as a loss and consider it a win. If you are playing survivors of equal skill of you, should you win every single game? Of course not, if you are winning every single game, you are not playing survivors of equal skill are you? Should you lose every single game, of course not. You should tie more often then win or lose if you are playing against survivors of equal skill. Now keep in mind, mistakes happen on both sides, meaning a can still win and lose when playing against people of equal skill, but it should be rarer than tieing.
Now think back on that, if you are winning more often than tieing, why is that? Could it be your choice in perks? Because old Ruin + Pop really carried some killers past their skill levels. Could it be your choice in playstyle? Because slugging for a 4k or tunneling everyone off hook, will insure easy kills. Not kills earned via skill.
As a side note, I would like to point out, I rarely ever see negative comments on my steam profile (I think I've got 2) nor do I see people crap talking in End Game Chat. I even actually complain way more about killer related perks than I do survivor related perks. For example, I have zero issue with Borrowed Time, DS and Unbreakable. Since they rarely impact my games. Since I chase the rescuer, Borrowed time isn't an issue for me, Since I rarely slug, Unbreakable rarely happens (I actually love when I see an unbreakable play, like the other day, I had two survivors escape because one used tenacity to crawl out and the other used unbreakable and I freaking loved that). As for DS, my only real issue with this perk is when someone either runs at me, does a gen in front of me, or uses it in the exit gate.
This is about where I stand.
I also main Wraith, and that means your view is most likely smack dab in the middle of north/south.
Agreed. That's why I hover at low-green on purpose.
1. Skipping over the first point as I think we have clarified, I am not playing just top tier killers. Moving onto the other points
Ahhh, I see now. Personally, I think classifying a tie as a win or a loss defeats the entire purpose of having a tie in the first place - in my eyes, a tie is a tie, no more and no less.
2. You are correct, a tie is a tie, it's not a win or a loss. However I believe this is where you and are having a different opinion, so let me ask you. Assuming a killer is playing with survivors of equal skill level should they win, lose, or tie more often? Because if you ask me, they should tie more often then either losing or winning.
3. Alright this is a big one, so let me break it into sections. First of all, both camping and tunnelling nets you kills. There is very little argument against this. If you camp someone for two stages, you netted a kill. I think you meant to say, camping and tunneling don't net you a win. And I will disagree with that, but really only with camping. Because unless the survivors are being bad and trying to go for the save, camping someone should net you between 1-2 kills per game.
However, tunneling is a little different. Tunneling is a little different because how many kills it nets you is more based off the perks the survivors run. For example, if you have your standard meta survivor build of BT and DS, then tunneling is going to net you around 2-3 kills most likely. However if the survivors are not running those or really only running one of them, this number is more likely to be 3-4 kills a game. It's simply easier and quicker to down the injured survivor off hook than to chase a fully healed survivor.
Now for your last point, slugging. Ignoring you called me an unskilled killer simply because I don't want to rely on a tactic that inflates my winning statistics, This once again goes back to my first statement, Assuming a killer is playing with survivors of equal skill level should they win, lose, or tie more often? Because if you go with the logic that on average a killer should tie more often than not, then no slugging is not something you need to rely. It's only something needed to rely on if you are trying to get a 4k. Everyone one of those killers 4k more often than not because for some reason they feel entitled to a win instead of a tie.
4. This once again becomes a point of "winning". People seem to get upset over unbreakable because it is such a hard counter to slugging. Which as you said before, many "high" skilled killer rely on for 4k. However, slugging is a "legit" tactic, unbreakable clearly shows that the devs don't think it is entirely a fair tactic. The devs have many survivors based perks that hard counter "unfun" killer tactics such as Tunneling and Slugging, and they provide little to no perks that encourage it on the killer side. I see this more as the devs saying, "Sure tunneling, camping and slugging are legit tactics you can use, but we want you to use other tactics so were given survivors the ability to counter these tactics".
5. I mostly agree with this, because it is annoying to catch the last second of someones DS. However, they would have to balance that. Because it shouldn't deactivate if you slugged them, then hooked someone else. Otherwise killers would just slug the DS person, hook the rescuer real quick and then pick up the DS player, basically making the whole perk pointless. However, if the DS person is healthy or injured and you hook someone else, yeah, it should deactive.
Really in short, if you want to narrow why we feel differently about the game and our talking points, you are going to have to explain to me why a killer should win (3-4 kills) more often than tieing (2-3 kills). Because the reason I consider the game more killer sided and mostly balanced, is because on average I get 2-3 kills a game (I probably average around 3 kills a game). Which means on average I am tieing more often than losing and winning. If a game is balanced and fair, shouldn't the fact I tie, prove that? If not, why? Even using your example of killers, do you think if they didn't slug, they would get 0-1 kills on average per game, or do you think they would average 2-3 kills per game?