Truetalent vs Oracle team, what do you think?

I think this represents how powerful it is to face a team of 4 survivors.And as only spirits AND nurses They are the only killers that can stand up to swf Because the other killers don't have enough skill


https://youtu.be/x6p4OtdwOy0

Tagged: Mod

Comments

  • @bobateo said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2285118#Comment_2285118

    I'm not say they're exact. But the sentiment remains the same. How many survs in this game are going to reach Oracle level skills? Not very many. How many are going to not only reach that level of skill, but also have a highly coordinated group to play with? Even less. By that same token, should all Killers be balanced around the potential of Spirit & Nurse? Around the absolute best of the best Killer players? I hear a lot about how the game should be balanced around the absolute best SWF survs, and nearly nothing about Killer side. Facing an extremely good Killer is a bloodbath for average survs.

    Should either roll be balanced around maps like Lery's? Should they be balanced around the worst RNG maps for surv or Killer? The best?

    Let's see the flip side of a highly skilled Wraith against a decent but not the best SWF. How different is that outcome. Trying to base balance off a select few instances is not the way to go.

    But every other multiplayer game balances around those top level players even if most people aren't going to reach that level of skill. There is a reason you do that for EVERY multiplayer game.

  • @Munqaxus said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2284129#Comment_2284129

    I really don't think Tru is a top killer, to be honest. He makes a lot of mistakes. On top of playing Wraith. And he's playing against a group that represents less that .00001% of the player base. And I guarantee the best Nurse, Spirit, Blight, Billy and Hag can beat that team, which in all honesty, that team shouldn't be beat by any Killer.

    Honestly, Dowsey playing the Twins could probably decimate that team. That guy is an amazing Killer player.

    Dowsey also played against them and had similar results.

  • @Midori_21 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2284940#Comment_2284940

    Because DBD isn't designed like "most" PvP games. In many PvP games, each side has the same goal. Both strive to win, and each side usually has equal access to resources to help them win, with the same set of options. Which makes it easier to balance around fairness. But DBD is asymmetrical. Asymmetrical games have different roles with different goals, and only a few similarities between them. Each side shares basic abilities, but their abilities and tools to work with are very different. You have to think about what you have, what your opponent has, and your opponent's mindset. There's more coming into play than just "I'm better at this one thing than you are", simply because of how many different variables there are in play.

    In Asymmetric games, one side will always inherently be stronger than the other, simply by design. And at the top level of DBD, survivors dominate every game against every killer except for Nurse and Spirit. You can't balance around the top% in DBD because if you did, you'd have to make drastic changes to both sides that would completely change the game, which is not going to happen. If you for example made generators take longer, sure weaker killers would have a better shot, but the game would just be even easier for the killers who were already really strong. No matter what you do with a change like that, you'll always be screwing over one side. So the only way to balance around the top% would be to bring the weaker killers up to the level of the strong killers, where every killer has a chance to win regardless of how strong the survivors are, as long as the killer plays well. But that's not what the devs are doing, and not how they plan on balancing the game.

    So overall, the reason this game shouldn't be balanced around the top%, is because this game isn't designed around the top%. There are lots of different killers in this game that can do well in a casual setting, but none of them stand a chance in the top%. If the only 2 killers in this game were nurse and spirit, and the survivors were the ones being given new powers every chapter, then maybe it would work. But that's not how it works.

    If only 2 killers are viable at top level play, and the other 22 are not. Then you make base mechanics changes that buff all killers, then go nerf the 2 killers. You don't make changes in a vacuum and then just ignore everything else.

  • @ScottJund said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286157#Comment_2286157

    You are proposing such drastic changes to the fundamental mechanics of DBD that its almost pointless to entertain them, unfortunately.

    I think the point is that BHVR can do SOMETHING, even if it's not a redesign. Right now they are making changes that actively hurt the game and make it worse.

  • @woundcowboy said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2284121#Comment_2284121

    The build is irrelevant: he would have lost either way. The game needs to be balanced to prevent games like that from happening. By not balancing for good players, BHVR is pretty much saying they don’t care about people who have really put alot of time and money into their game. Why should a killer wanna play in matches that they have no chance in? There is a reason survivor que sucks.

    I have seen several videos with him complaining about strong swf when he makes a ton of mistakes ... then he blames swf strength or builds... its very prevalent. No one can play perfectly all the time... and 4 people have a better chance to help cover mistakes than 1 person does.

    The room for error as a killer is smaller, no doubt. Resorting to blaming "swf" when you have no idea if they are swf... and he has been wrong several times... is not good either. It gives a bad look to the community who doesnt pay as much attention.

    I used to watch him a lot, but the whining overtook the value of seeing the gameplay to me. Just my opinion, but unless you play near perfect, then introspection is probably the best course of action.

  • @Verconissp said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2284481#Comment_2284481

    Game is survivor sided. Don't lie,

    Don't even defend that stance either,

    The game is killer sided.

  • Ight. if the game is killer sided. Go bring the Meta perks rn, go Face Oracle rn, As both Nurse / spirit,

    Go ahead. i'll wait for your response,

  • @KIKI_ said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2285882#Comment_2285882

    It only takes to allow voice chat in-game. Provide the same tools swf have and further develop into better teamwork mechanics. You solve solo vs swf disparity and then balance accordingly. That's it. Such a drastic task. Clearly we need privileged minds for such pursuit

    I said the exact thing earlier in the thread and it got completely overlooked, as it seems your comment has been. This is what needs to happen before anything; you need to bridge the gap between SWF and Solo.


    Comms need to be implemented for Solo, including non-verbal stuff like a ping system. I think making builds/items visible to other Survivors in the lobby would help, as well.


    Once the gap is bridged, then we can talk about balance.

  • @ScottJund said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286157#Comment_2286157

    You are proposing such drastic changes to the fundamental mechanics of DBD that its almost pointless to entertain them, unfortunately.

    Then the game will die earlier than it would otherwise, especially if they commit to MMR but don't make drastic changes. No one is going to get good and want to alternate between ok survivor teams and god squads if the cap to killer's ability remains in place. At a certain point, the gameplay won't be satisfying.

    Honestly, games can make drastic changes. The issue is if BHVR will do so or not. While this wouldn't fix competitive alone, A. Fixing spawns including making survivors spawn closer to the killer B. Reworking hooks to something that spawns to a killer's location after pickup would be things that speed up killers to deal with the objective time disparity while not making the survivor objective longer and more miserable. When you really think about it, Pop only partially refunds you the time you took to hook a survivor in most circumstances.

  • The game is killer sided unless the killer is bad.

  • @Verconissp said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286340#Comment_2286340

    Ight. if the game is killer sided. Go bring the Meta perks rn, go Face Oracle rn, As both Nurse / spirit,

    Go ahead. i'll wait for your response,

    Yes, I think I will. But I would feel bad for them because they would stand no chance against me.

  • @aroell said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286348#Comment_2286348

    Yes, I think I will. But I would feel bad for them because they would stand no chance against me.

    Make sure to stream it.

  • @woundcowboy said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2284121#Comment_2284121

    The build is irrelevant: he would have lost either way. The game needs to be balanced to prevent games like that from happening. By not balancing for good players, BHVR is pretty much saying they don’t care about people who have really put alot of time and money into their game. Why should a killer wanna play in matches that they have no chance in? There is a reason survivor que sucks.

    Yes, I know he would've lost either way but with a more competitively viable build he could've done much better. The game should be balanced for good players, but there is a MASSIVE difference between balancing between good players and a 4 man comp SWF team that have been playing the game for years trying their hardest to win. Balancing for the 1 percent of the game would destroy the game, it would require so many changes that it would just change the game into something unrecognizable. Watch ScottJund's video on why you can't balance around the 1 percent in DBD.

  • @Callmehandsome said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2284121#Comment_2284121

    You didn't watch these videos clearly. They had rule that they aren't allowed to cleanse ruin and Tru3 still got stomped lmao

    I watched the video and I explained earlier, Wraith was easily one of the worst options he could've picked. Wraith heavily relies on a hit and run playstyle which works just fine in regular games but in a competitive scene it falls apart. There is no point in having ruin or any perk for that matter if you aren't able to apply pressure to survivors. Hell, even if he picked Trickster he could've probably done better, Trickster is a great camper and he would've been able to secure 1, maybe even 2 kills.

  • @FrostySeal said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2284170#Comment_2284170

    Yes, I know he would've lost either way but with a more competitively viable build he could've done much better. The game should be balanced for good players, but there is a MASSIVE difference between balancing between good players and a 4 man comp SWF team that have been playing the game for years trying their hardest to win. Balancing for the 1 percent of the game would destroy the game, it would require so many changes that it would just change the game into something unrecognizable. Watch ScottJund's video on why you can't balance around the 1 percent in DBD.

    I watched it. I have also been a competitive gamer for years. Balancing around top players doesn’t affect the playerbase in any other game.

  • @TAG said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2284121#Comment_2284121

    I don't understand this mentality that strong players shouldn't be the point that a game is balanced around. Pro players are a very small portion of many PvP, and yet those games still usually try to balance around that very small portion of players. DBD is exempt from this because...what? Asymmetrical? More than 2 players?

    Like I said with the other guy, big difference between balancing for good players and a 4 man comp team that are trying their hardest to win. You can't balance around pro players in asymmetrical games because asymmetrical games are impossible to balance and forcing it to be a competitive game will kill it extremely fast. Most players in DBD are casual players and forcing the game to be put in a competitive scene will force them to leave the game, leaving the extremely small percent of people who play the game seriously, and guess what? Those players will leave too because the game has now become so unrecognizable that they're completely off put by it. Plus most pro players spend their time on games like Valorant, CSGO, etc because those games are actually somewhat balanced, all asymmetrical games are unbalanced meaning you can lose just because you had bad RNG. It's for that reason any asymmetrical game that has tried to be competitive (like deathgarden) die early on.

    You can watch Scott's video on why you can't balance around the top 1 percent in DBD for more examples.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIOQ0G7LcGY


  • @Reinami said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2284121#Comment_2284121

    Just because it is rare doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.

    Imagine if a killer offering existed, that only had a 0.1% chance to appear in the bloodweb. This means it would appear in about 1 out of every 1000 games. Now, let's say this offering:

    • Makes the killer get max 32k bloodpoints
    • Killer moves at 200% movement speed
    • Survivors are permanently exposed
    • Survivors auras are permanently revealed to the killer.

    Would that offering be balanced? It only appears in 1 out of every 1000 games. So the offering is fine, right?

    Go ahead, explain to me how would BHVR be able to "fix" the top 1 percent players without killing their game, I'll wait. I've already brought up examples in my earlier replies to different people so I won't repeat it but any attempt to balance the game around the top 1 percent, especially in an asymmetrical game will cause the game to die extremely quickly.

  • @woundcowboy said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286395#Comment_2286395

    I watched it. I have also been a competitive gamer for years. Balancing around top players doesn’t affect the playerbase in any other game.

    Because those game aren't asymmetrical are they? Look at any example of an asymmetrical game trying to be competitive and you'll see a pattern real damn quick. Look at deathgarden, BHVR's attempt at making a competitive asymmetrical game. Explain to me how that game is doing right now. Like I sad earlier, most players in this game are casual players and as such forcing the game into a competitive scene will put those players off the game which will kill most of the playerbase. Then the remaining few players will be put off by the extremely long queue times and the fact that in order to win a game of DBD now you'll have to play extremely competitively.

    Scott has made a video's explaining how balancing around the top percent of DBD will kill the game fast. Watch it.

  • Aren't they like one of the absolute best survivor teams in the world? Facing a guy using Wraith and never plays comp himself? Why wouldn't he get annihilated?

  • @FrostySeal said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286426#Comment_2286426

    Because those game aren't asymmetrical are they? Look at any example of an asymmetrical game trying to be competitive and you'll see a pattern real damn quick. Look at deathgarden, BHVR's attempt at making a competitive asymmetrical game. Explain to me how that game is doing right now. Like I sad earlier, most players in this game are casual players and as such forcing the game into a competitive scene will put those players off the game which will kill most of the playerbase. Then the remaining few players will be put off by the extremely long queue times and the fact that in order to win a game of DBD now you'll have to play extremely competitively.

    Scott has made a video's explaining how balancing around the top percent of DBD will kill the game fast. Watch it.

    Most of the playerbase in competitive games is casual. Again, they don’t leave. This idea that balancing for top level will kill the game is baseless.

  • @MrSmashem said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2285906#Comment_2285906

    I said the exact thing earlier in the thread and it got completely overlooked, as it seems your comment has been. This is what needs to happen before anything; you need to bridge the gap between SWF and Solo.

    Comms need to be implemented for Solo, including non-verbal stuff like a ping system. I think making builds/items visible to other Survivors in the lobby would help, as well.

    Once the gap is bridged, then we can talk about balance.

    One of the devs explained in his stream that in-game chat was something they talked about in the beginning days of dbd, and they decided it was not the direction they wanted to go.

  • @woundcowboy said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286472#Comment_2286472

    Most of the playerbase in competitive games is casual. Again, they don’t leave. This idea that balancing for top level will kill the game is baseless.

    Kinda funny how you just refused to acknowledge the part where I explained that those competitive games aren't asymmetrical huh? Go ahead, show me one competitive ASYMMETRICAL game that hasn't died out and is in fact bustling with players. I've already explained why it won't work but your not listening.

  • @woundcowboy said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2284121#Comment_2284121

    The build is irrelevant: he would have lost either way. The game needs to be balanced to prevent games like that from happening. By not balancing for good players, BHVR is pretty much saying they don’t care about people who have really put alot of time and money into their game. Why should a killer wanna play in matches that they have no chance in? There is a reason survivor que sucks.

    My survivor que at red rank doesn't suck. We get games in about 3 minutes max

  • Pretty much what I expected. Just think it's kinda funny to see people acting as if vsing Oracle-tier teams is a real thing you should fear willl happen to you with any frequency at all and therefore is something the game should be balanced around. It's a Wraith, no kidding he's gonna do terrible against the best team in the world.

  • @FrostySeal said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286086#Comment_2286086

    Go ahead, explain to me how would BHVR be able to "fix" the top 1 percent players without killing their game, I'll wait. I've already brought up examples in my earlier replies to different people so I won't repeat it but any attempt to balance the game around the top 1 percent, especially in an asymmetrical game will cause the game to die extremely quickly.

    Well, if they fix the top 1 percent and MMR is functioning and on, bad survivors won't match up with the good killers as often until they get better. The DBD community is the only community I know that's like "Oh god, you can't possibly balance around players that know how to play the game!!!!!" What makes you think that killers only killing survivors because they are outright bad at the game won't eventually kill the game? It's boring to have your limits determined mainly by the skill of the other side (and killer is more stressful, so that makes it worse). It can make you feel like your a passive actor rather than an active one. Now, there are the top tier killers where this is not the case. However, this is 4 killers in the roster at best, 2 at the worst, making it boring in another sense. Why do you think survivor queues are bad?

    As for the video you posted, Scott's logic is incredibly flawed. The path forward is so obvious, and he somehow didn't process it. It's not a monumental task to balance the game. Balance the game around the general level of mid/high-tier killers, buff the low-tier killers, and nerf the high-tiers down to that level. I don't think anyone in their right mind has ever been saying that Nurse and Spirit should remain unchanged if survivors got nerfed. The reason why they're ok at all is because survivors are just so overpowered against the other killers. So the game could be in a far more healthy state in about 4 chapters.

  • @ScottJund said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286086#Comment_2286086

    You're making a false dichotomy. It would be more accurate to have an offering like that and then punish the other 999 games that don't have the offering in order to make that one match fair. That's the issue. We know its broken.

    You are assuming balancing around that single match would punish the other 999 games. That's a pretty big assumption to make. Watch other competitive games. Take Dota 2 for example. Dota's complexity is beyond what dbd could ever aspire and yet it is a balanced game. Take a guess. Yes, they balanced around top percent. Casual and average people still enjoy and still play the game.

    Stop trying to predict the future. "It wont work" you say. You don't know that. It works in other games far way more complex than dbd. Why would not work in dbd?

  • @FrostySeal said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286515#Comment_2286515

    Kinda funny how you just refused to acknowledge the part where I explained that those competitive games aren't asymmetrical huh? Go ahead, show me one competitive ASYMMETRICAL game that hasn't died out and is in fact bustling with players. I've already explained why it won't work but your not listening.

    I am listening just fine. Neither you nor anyone else in the community has provided evidence that asymmetrical would be different. It's just a talking point that people think justifies itself, and so it gets spammed.

  • @Reinami said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2284573#Comment_2284573

    Sure, fix that too. Camping and tunneling isn't healthy for the game because it's not fun for 4 other players. Make camping and tunneling either impossible or bad. My idea is to make it so you can't eliminate survivors at all until they all have been hooked 2 times.

    So survivor has been hooked twice theyre invincible? Killers would just slug them. Good killers get rid of the weakest chasers first because any moron can hold m1 and it generates pressure on the rest of the team. If i cant remove them from the game their getting slugged so that they cant do gens and so it creates pressure on the rest of the team. Instead of ending that poor persons game you want them to spend 10 minutes staring at dirt and somehow thats better?

  • @aroell said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286348#Comment_2286348

    Yes, I think I will. But I would feel bad for them because they would stand no chance against me.

    I will personally laugh when you get gen rushed to high heaven and back then my guy,

  • @MarcoPoloYolo said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286460#Comment_2286460

    Well, if they fix the top 1 percent and MMR is functioning and on, bad survivors won't match up with the good killers as often until they get better. The DBD community is the only community I know that's like "Oh god, you can't possibly balance around players that know how to play the game!!!!!" What makes you think that killers only killing survivors because they are outright bad at the game won't eventually kill the game? It's boring to have your limits determined mainly by the skill of the other side (and killer is more stressful, so that makes it worse). It can make you feel like your a passive actor rather than an active one. Now, there are the top tier killers where this is not the case. However, this is 4 killers in the roster at best, 2 at the worst, making it boring in another sense. Why do you think survivor queues are bad?

    As for the video you posted, Scott's logic is incredibly flawed. The path forward is so obvious, and he somehow didn't process it. It's not a monumental task to balance the game. Balance the game around the general level of mid/high-tier killers, buff the low-tier killers, and nerf the high-tiers down to that level. I don't think anyone in their right mind has ever been saying that Nurse and Spirit should remain unchanged if survivors got nerfed. The reason why they're ok at all is because survivors are just so overpowered against the other killers. So the game could be in a far more healthy state in about 4 chapters.

    Yes, MMR would fix a decent amount of the issues, but like I stated a million times, there is a difference between balancing for good players and balancing around the top 1 percent. And you are heavily underestimating how much work it would take to balance Killers around a high level, perhaps if BHVR weren't so slow it would take less time.

    Lets assume BHVR took on the monumental task of making every Killer at the bare minimum an A-tier killer, this would require so much work to do it isn't even funny. Some Killers like trickster are fundamentally flawed meaning they need a full on rework and other Killers would need a lot of buffs including addon reworks and other things. This means that assuming BHVR doesn't mess up on a single Killer rework it would take well over a year to make every Killer strong, and this isn't even touching upon how they may add new Killers during that time and that they were all strong and didn't come out weak. Also not assuming all the map reworks that would need to happen due to some (like haddonfield or disturbed ward) being too strong for survivor, also not including the amount of perk reworks that would need to be done in order to bring the game into a more balanced state. Combine all of that and it'll take BHVR minimum one and a half years (once again assuming they don't mess up) and I haven't even talked about to sheer amount of bugs that would need to be taken care of resulting in even more time coding.

  • Gotta be honest: The devs could atleast try and balance out the issues at both low- and highranks.

    There is a difference between, lets say, 2016 dbd and todays dbd. Or between dota 1 and dota 2. Just calling them impossible to balance doesnt cut it. Its an excuse. It should be a path where both sides get closer and closer by experimenting with new mechanics.

    Just leaving bad mechanics as they are, just cause the game is asymmetrical, is lazy and uncreative. We're all pretty happy that instamoris, instagens, omeganurses and instaDS are gone. Just take it a step further and work on the main objective issue. Potatoes dont work on gens, while vets rush gens. Potatoes fall for camping, while vets rush gens. Maybe work out a way to make personal time on gens less relevant. Im sure you can make things better than not caring about it.

  • @woundcowboy said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286529#Comment_2286529

    I am listening just fine. Neither you nor anyone else in the community has provided evidence that asymmetrical would be different. It's just a talking point that people think justifies itself, and so it gets spammed.

    I just brought up Deathgarden, a competitive asymmetrical game that you apparently choose to either not read about or accidently skip over. Oh yeah, what about that other infamous game Evolve? The asymmetrical game that tried to be competitive but also failed?

    Also the difference between those competitive games with casual players and DBD is that DBD started out and still is a casual game, those games started out as competitive games so players knew what they were getting themselves into. Turning DBD into a competitive experience would require so much work and effort that by the time everything was done (hypothetically) most players would be turned off by how much the game would have changed and how it is STILL imbalanced. I've told you this multiple times but it is impossible to balance asymmetrical games, you can't ever do it. The only way you would ever make DBD into a competitive game is if you removed every map except for coal tower, removed all the RNG from that map and made it static, kept only Nurse, Spirit, Blight, and Hag, and made it so they can only have the most competitive build, and the same thing for survivors too. Does that sound like a fun game to you? Do you think that people would still play DBD if it turned into that?

  • @ScottJund said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286145#Comment_2286145

    Right but you aren't addressing the fact that at the highest level people don't even loop. There is no "god loop" at high level because people just throw down pallets as soon as they get to them because there is no downside to doing so when your team can end the game in 3 minutes.

    that video you posted is like one of the worst videos ever. The reason that is the case is because survivors aren't tested on their looping skill because they never needed to loop well with how fast the objective goes. With how safe pallets are, they are barely ever tested on making any reads. Its almost like... the game is balanced around casual play..... Its almost as if they want new players to be able to escapes good killers such that when the bad survivors become good, they break the game. wow... who would guessed that one. Your suppose to run out of pallets if you play like that but the game badly balanced in regards to objective time which in my opinion is the reason why killers use slowdown perks. It is because they can't impact the loops with most of the killers, so their only real way to impact the match is to kill survivor's resources until none exists because they can't really challenge the loops.

    Its a bit funny how DBD evolved because it used to be that in early stages of DBD, windows used to be.... well broken. now a days its pallets that are broken because it turns out that you don't need reusable loops to win. just enough safe pallets to win.

  • @FrostySeal said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286556#Comment_2286556

    Yes, MMR would fix a decent amount of the issues, but like I stated a million times, there is a difference between balancing for good players and balancing around the top 1 percent. And you are heavily underestimating how much work it would take to balance Killers around a high level, perhaps if BHVR weren't so slow it would take less time.

    Lets assume BHVR took on the monumental task of making every Killer at the bare minimum an A-tier killer, this would require so much work to do it isn't even funny. Some Killers like trickster are fundamentally flawed meaning they need a full on rework and other Killers would need a lot of buffs including addon reworks and other things. This means that assuming BHVR doesn't mess up on a single Killer rework it would take well over a year to make every Killer strong, and this isn't even touching upon how they may add new Killers during that time and that they were all strong and didn't come out weak. Also not assuming all the map reworks that would need to happen due to some (like haddonfield or disturbed ward) being too strong for survivor, also not including the amount of perk reworks that would need to be done in order to bring the game into a more balanced state. Combine all of that and it'll take BHVR minimum one and a half years (once again assuming they don't mess up) and I haven't even talked about to sheer amount of bugs that would need to be taken care of resulting in even more time coding.

    I disagree, most killers only need a few tweeks to be A tier.


    Trickster: lacerations no longer decay in their own, instead survivors have to spend 1 second per knife that landed to pull them out, and hes now a 115 killer. Boom. A tier.

    Trapper: Traps are in a locker, he can carry 3 at base, 10 traps total can be on the map, trap setting time is cut in half. Boom. A tier.

    Legion: The first 2 survivors stabbed by feral frenzy recieve deep wounds only, 3rd recieves deep wounds and is mangeled until healed, 4th recieves deep wounds, mangeled and is broken for 30 seconds, 5th survivor and beyond can be downed by feral frenzy stabs. All status effects are only applied to survivors not effected by deep wounds and only during the same iteration of FF. Mending now takes 10 seconds to remove by the survivor. Pools of blood show up bright while in FF (like Victor). Boom. A tier.

    I cant think of any killer that needs a full rework to be in A tier or even S.

  • @Midori_21 said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286349#Comment_2286349

    One of the devs explained in his stream that in-game chat was something they talked about in the beginning days of dbd, and they decided it was not the direction they wanted to go.

    Yeah, which I get, but the reality is that players are using comms regardless and it's creating massive balance issues. It doesn't matter what they do or who they balance for, someone is going to get screwed over until they bridge the gap between SWF and Solo; and probably the most significant reason for said gap is comms. Coordination is part of it, but that applies to any game; teams will almost always perform better than randoms. Give Solo the same tools and it will at least bring them up to similar capabilities, then balance will be easier to work on.


    The Devs need to adapt and stop holding on to the pieces of their vision that are clearly unhealthy for the game, especially when those pieces are already being subverted and they aren't doing anything to prevent it. It's just silly.

  • This is why I only play nurse.

  • @KIKI_ said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286138#Comment_2286138

    You are assuming balancing around that single match would punish the other 999 games. That's a pretty big assumption to make. Watch other competitive games. Take Dota 2 for example. Dota's complexity is beyond what dbd could ever aspire and yet it is a balanced game. Take a guess. Yes, they balanced around top percent. Casual and average people still enjoy and still play the game.

    Stop trying to predict the future. "It wont work" you say. You don't know that. It works in other games far way more complex than dbd. Why would not work in dbd?

    And every single one of those games is not asymmetrical. People REALLY underestimate how much that changes things.

  • @Verconissp said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286372#Comment_2286372

    I will personally laugh when you get gen rushed to high heaven and back then my guy,

    Oh you can laugh all you want, when you get the opportunity to do that. I personally know I will be shitting on them because you know… best player ever here. Btw there is no such thing as gen rush.

  • @SleepyWillo said:

    I don't think Truis as great as he thinks he is...

    But nobody could compete with what we saw. It doesn't matter if it's him or someone different.

  • @NoOneKnowsNova said:

    Cant we also reverse it then and say competitive swf are the only teams that can win against a good spirit or Nurse?

    No.

  • @FrostySeal said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286607#Comment_2286607

    I just brought up Deathgarden, a competitive asymmetrical game that you apparently choose to either not read about or accidently skip over. Oh yeah, what about that other infamous game Evolve? The asymmetrical game that tried to be competitive but also failed?

    Also the difference between those competitive games with casual players and DBD is that DBD started out and still is a casual game, those games started out as competitive games so players knew what they were getting themselves into. Turning DBD into a competitive experience would require so much work and effort that by the time everything was done (hypothetically) most players would be turned off by how much the game would have changed and how it is STILL imbalanced. I've told you this multiple times but it is impossible to balance asymmetrical games, you can't ever do it. The only way you would ever make DBD into a competitive game is if you removed every map except for coal tower, removed all the RNG from that map and made it static, kept only Nurse, Spirit, Blight, and Hag, and made it so they can only have the most competitive build, and the same thing for survivors too. Does that sound like a fun game to you? Do you think that people would still play DBD if it turned into that?

    Smash bros is a party game too, yet they still balance that.

  • @ScottJund said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286577#Comment_2286577

    And every single one of those games is not asymmetrical. People REALLY underestimate how much that changes things.

    I work with game designers. just because it is asymmetrical does not mean it can't be done. All sorts of games have some level of asymmetry. Hell even CS:GO is hella Asymmetrical. Both sides have entirely different objectives to win, and have different weapon sets. Yet somehow that game is balanced. Sure, they both shoot things, but that's really the only thing that is the same for both sides, shooting and movement. the actually gameplay and strategy for both sides is vastly different.

  • @aroell said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286616#Comment_2286616

    Oh you can laugh all you want, when you get the opportunity to do that. I personally know I will be shitting on them because you know… best player ever here. Btw there is no such thing as gen rush.

    Ight. now you're just a survivor main.

    Not gunna argue a point with you because your entitlement is getting in the way,

    Should leave it by the door,

  • @Verconissp said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286772#Comment_2286772

    Ight. now you're just a survivor main.

    Not gunna argue a point with you because your entitlement is getting in the way,

    Should leave it by the door,

    And you are a killer main. I’m still arguing with you though.

  • Just do what f13 did and make it that you can't use private chat lol

  • @aroell said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286828#Comment_2286828

    And you are a killer main. I’m still arguing with you though.

    I play both sides.

    This game is 100% Survivor Favored. by a Long Shot,

  • @AVoiceOfReason said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2284404#Comment_2284404

    I've been teaching my dude but I'm more of a surprise and hit kind of Wraith that never gives you a chance to relax. Bamboozle for windows and such, STBFL to gain stacks so they get less and less distance and if someone blocks me, they get punished for it at later stacks, BBQ (Or for competitive DBD, Whispers) to find someone quickly after a hook so I can see if they're on a gen or not, and Pop Goes The Weasel due to his speed. I use the windstorm add-ons and faster decloak add-ons so I can catch them sooner, block them if need be or get ahead of them quickly if they try to escape and finally, I see where they are and I try to position myself at a favorable position, usually at the tip of what they were doing and start uncloaking. They have 2 seconds to choose left or right before my speed boost hits them. What he was doing was just letting them have free pallet throws. You can't do that as Wraith against a competitive team.

    (Edit: I can do a video of how I play Wraith at Rank 1 if you want. I'm starting to think that I play differently than most Wraith players XD)

    A video would really be great. Its easier to learn for me that way.

  • @ScottJund said:

    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2286577#Comment_2286577

    And every single one of those games is not asymmetrical. People REALLY underestimate how much that changes things.

    I'm not underestimating the asymmetrical aspect. I'm taking it into consideration and stating that even that is not enough to match dota's complexity. There is a reason why you can win millions of dollars playing dota and not the other way around. And dota 2 works just fine. So just saying that it is impossible, unachievable or tedious because of the complexity that the asymmetrical aspect provides is vague and unfounded since there are more complex games out there already doing it

1 … 3 4 5 6