Game is perfectly balanced: prove me wrong
Sooooo many threads NERF that, BUFF that. Look, it's very simple: don't sweat and you will get opponents who don't sweat.
Tagged:
Mod
Sooooo many threads NERF that, BUFF that. Look, it's very simple: don't sweat and you will get opponents who don't sweat.
Read THIS post.
Tldr: This is an archived version of the DBD forum, it has all posts, comments and media. The archived data will be published at the end of October. This site is not in any way affiliated with or endorsed by Behaviour Interactive.
Comments
You are claiming that I a very average player, that has played for what 400h, am in the top 10% of the world... what do you base these fictional numbers on. Because I am going to burst your bubble here and make the grand claim that the balance between equally skilled players is not just off set in the top... but includes the vast majority of people.
I'm sorry, i just don't agree with you.
Just to make sure, we both talk about Dead By Daylight, Right??
"Prove me wrong" normally means "I won't change my opinion".
100%. They're not going to change their opinion. There's no point in arguing with this person because they've come here purely to argue, which is only part of the process of changing your opinion. They have not come here to actually be proven wrong. You can immediately see it.
If what you're saying is that you've only played 400h, then you are very likely an average player. You do not have nearly enough experience to have an educated opinion on DBD's balance, no matter how you try to spin it.
Hmm so your reasoning is this: Just don't try so hard and you will not get survivors or killers that do the same.
I guess people like me who try my hardest in a video game to win are screwed...
Nobody in their right mind would get repeatedly stomped and call that fun...they screwed the pooch when it came to assigning individual sbmm starting levels.
Well, yes, that's what I'm saying. You don't get to screw other people without getting screwed yourself. Sounds fair to me.
You came to this thread just to call me "toxic and condescending"? Do you have anything to say on topic? If not, please read the forum rules.
You have any proof of that 80%? I'll wait for it.
Man on the Moon. Proved you wrong. Does this type of proof make any sense?
BHVR should just make a test for a weekend where Perks are disabled. See how it goes.
"Were it so it would be balanced in all aspects, " nope, not claiming that every individual part is balanced. Just the average, meaning that 50% AVERAGE win rate is the perfect balance.
Never said it was official stats.
Just took those numbers as you said if you loose a few games, derank and then win a few games, it's balanced but it's not.
Balance is high level vs high level = 50% chances of loosing.
If someone is loosing all his trials or most of them at top MMR, derank and then at a rank a little lower win all his trials or most of them, his win rate is 50% but the game is not balanced at all.
A game will never be balanced at all levels of play. A game must be balanced around Top MMR (top players). Why ?
Because you can't balance a game around ppl that don't know how to play good as no matter what you will do, they will still play badly.
You have to take in account only players that know how to play the game optimally. :)
"his win rate is 50% but the game is not balanced at all." Win rate 50% is how I define word balanced. You can have your own definition, but then we would be arguing about apples and oranges.
I agree that maps heavily sided on one side shouldn't exist, but that doesn't contradict that the game is balanced. I'm not claiming that the way the game is balanced is fun or pleasant.
Really, funnily enough my opinion and analysis seems to match the overall consensus that it is survivor sided and the experiences that the top are having are relatively equal to what I am seeing.
Before you want to flaunt your hours and tell someone they are unqualified to having any insights and understanding how game balance is achieved and what elements contribute to it... maybe put that ego away. If all you have to show is hours played... who exactly is more educated? If you want a pedigree check, be my guest... but I for sure have an actual background in the gaming industry... do you? Hours played and education are not one and the same. Dismissing peoples opinions on a forum is beyond rude, if you claim more knowledgable... educate me.
So, are you going to claim that the game is balanced and all fine as your fellow xK hour player frind or killer sided? Because funnily enough at my MMR the experiences they describe are pretty common at this level as well... yet somehow they believe that equally skilled at not the top 10% of the world are far removed from the balance state they experience. At equal level and decent players... the game already shows and displays the character of the games balance. Yes, I don't face Oracle level survivors, because at that level even camping and tunneling have limited chances of success. I have seen them play, even from their perspective and heard their coms... you don't need to be able to play at that level to achieve an understanding of the game balance, just equally skilled players. They want to down rank, to face lower skilled players... yet while facing these good ones... they are able to stand their ground and keep their MMR? See the flaw in the logic there?
Get off your high horse and use logic, actual argumentation and use that experience you have to counter my points instead of just attacking my person...
So, let's take another exemple.
Let's take Soccer. Take a Premier league team, this team looses 3 games in Premier League, we drop them to second league and the team wins 3 matches. 50% win rate. So is it balanced ?
Balance is in ONE TRIAL between the best survivors vs the best killer, both have 50% chance of winning.
Balance is not you take the best killer, match this killer against unbeatable SWF and then put the same killer against garbage SoloQ to artificially create a 50% win rate.
A balance game would be : the best killer is top MMR and get an average of 2 kills/50% win rate at this MMR level without droping in lower rank.
Fact is at high MMR you cannot win on a regular basis, it's impossible unless you camp and tunnel, which is lame in my opinion.
Next time you can just post a link to relevant fallacy and let people educate themselves instead of wasting your effort:
https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Appeal-to-Authority
"Fact is at high MMR you cannot win on a regular basis, it's impossible unless you camp and tunnel, which is lame in my opinion." You are not supposed to win on regular basis. Just half the time. Yes, agree, camp and tunnel. Yes, agree, not fun. I never claimed it's fun how it's balanced. But... If you don't like to camp and tunnel to win, than stop doing it. It's in your hands. All you have to do is stop insisting that you win more than 50%. I removed all slowdown perks and now my games are still same win ratio, but are much more fun. It's that simple.
Even half the time, you won't win. You can take the best killer on DbD vs the best SWF, the killer will never win or almost.
I'd love to see a proof of that. I'm serious: if you have a twitch link to team that wins all or almost all (your words) of their games, I would love to see it. This would definitely prove me wrong.
There have been plenty of tournaments to the point they had to restrict survivors perks/items/add-ons to balance it.
I play survivor at high MMR in soloQ and i win (3 escapes or more) 3 times out of 4 lol... Go up in skill as a survivor and you will see it, gens are done in less than 5 minutes, everyone is spread on the map, 1st chase = 3 gens, 2nd chase/3rd chase = All gens done, door is at 99%.
Gonna be honest, I misread your original comment. I agree with your stance; I had thought you flipped sides and were flaunting your skill level with a low amount of hours, which I found to be a stupid comment to add to your reply, as it comes off cocky and uneducated (alas, that is NOT what you were intending to do) and were using your hours as one of the main points in YOUR argument, thus using it against you, with the way I read your comment, made sense, as we were both arguing on the same level. My mistake, I own up to it. Carry on.
Tournaments didn't have game balancing mechanism on: SBMM.
Edit: to cut it short, just post a link to your twitch channel and I'll count your wins over a long period of times (at least 30 matches). Sounds simple, right?
Which is where it's intended to be and should be imo.
The competitive scene plays counter to the way the game is (seemingly) designed to be played, so it makes sense that they're not getting the experience they want compared to the casual majority.
Tournaments were the best killer vs the best SWF, why do you talk about SBMM ? SBMM = high skilled survivors are put together. I tell you on my side, the killer rarely has more than 5 hooks when 3+ survivors escape.
You don't believe it ? It means you are playing on a low MMR. Ask every good survivors here, they will tell you exactly the same, killers are loosing almost all their games.
It's not because you cant do it at your level that it is impossible lol. Looping with a killer 80 seconds, are you able to do it during most of your chase ?
If yes, then 1 chase = 3 generators. It's as simple. And yes, good survivors can loop a killer 80 seconds without sweating...
Check OhTofu, Dowsey, Truetalent and Otzdarva when they play survivor and count.
How do you know they were best?
"You don't believe it ? It means you are playing on a low MMR. Ask every good survivors here, they will tell you exactly the same, killers are loosing almost all their games." Ahh, No True Scotsman fallacy combined with Appeal to Authority fallacy. Nice one!
I watched their channels and didn't see them winning consistently after their SBMM stabilized. I didnt have time to count their wins yet, but I will.
Apology accepted, the written word and misinterpretations happen. 😅
Because the whole community know that in some tournaments the best killers and SWF were present. ######### is wrong with you trying to argue about everything ?
I know it cause i have been playing DbD almost since launch and i have lived every update, i have been around when all the best players were still playing and i have watched some tournaments.
It's not an argument of authority. If you play soloQ and you and the survivors you are matched with are loosing most of your trials, it means you are at a fairly low MMR as at high MMR, survivors are almost always winning.
So now, you go check the streamers i gave you, and you will see it.
All the top players of the community are saying that the game is survivor sided at high level but you come here to try to convince everyone it's not true cause it looks like you have a hard time winning lol...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv2bElLrx0YOne of the best survivor DbD has known. Enjoy. It's individual escapes in the old system but he mostly played with friends.
You will notice they are all escaping most of the times :) (all alive when doors are open). He did this live on twitch, red rank killers. Now convince me it's balanced.
How is this thread still going? What did I miss?
Even if there were a way to balance an asymmetrical game that could be anything from a 4v1 to a 1v1v1v1v1 (there's not), did someone provide actual proof one way or the other to substantiate or disprove @tester 's idea of balance?
From what I've seen, @tester is saying that if there are 2 kills and 2 escapes, then it's balanced. That's what the devs want, so that's the goal. But... @tester didn't post stats to prove him right, no one else has posted stats to prove him right, and no one has posted stats to prove him wrong. There's been no concrete evidence to support any claim posted by anyone.
So, until someone has actual concrete numbers to post, which seems to be the only proof he would accept, why is this even a discussion? He can't prove his claim, no one can disprove his claim, and I have yet to see anyone who says "prove me wrong" to be anything other than puerile in a discussion.
The devs' idea of balance is their goal. That's what they go for when making decisions on what to add or change in their game. It's a concrete thing to strive for that they can put actual numbers on. We, as players, do not have to give a crap about the devs' goal in terms of applauding them if they reach it. Our goal is to have fun.
The devs have concrete goals and metrics to use because things like "fun," "immersive," and "optimized" are experiences, they're what you hope those goals achieve. Are the majority of players having fun right now? That's what matters to us. The 50/50 balance goal is for the devs.
No he is not stating that 2K/2E is balanced.
He says that if you win 50% of your trials it's balance even though it would be like : you loose 3 trials at top MMR, you derank and then at this lower rank you win 3 trials in a row then for him it's balanced...
Which is not what we call balance, you can't compare two different trials to say it's balanced.
Here:
Edit: Sorry, I probably should've also replied to your comment about the SBMM and MMR and how it affects individual matches. But, I haven't actually witnessed SBMM work that way. For me, as a survivor, I had a bunch of good trials where I had decent teammates, and then I died once (on purpose, no less, to save someone else) and after that I do nothing but die. I have not experienced 50/50, I haven't won a few then lost a few then won a few. As a survivor, it seems the more I die the more I die. As killer, I 0k every match (I don't go for kills) and I still get the same kind of survivors many, many hours later. I don't notice SBMM working in the way it's been claimed to work.
its both
If you play soloQ and you and the survivors you are matched with are loosing most of your trials, it means you are at a fairly low MMR as at high MMR, survivors are almost always winning.
Now convince me it's balanced.
I make no claims that the balance is fine. When focus is targeting inexperience/casual skill it begins excluding those that overcome their personal mistakes. I also wouldn't dismiss those statements of continously facing high rated survivors. It has been stated that que times will overstep sbmm when necessary.
Everyone should be skeptical of what is considered a loss worthy of sbmm reduction. When emblems/score screen gives a brutal over displeased with zero hooks, how crushing does the defeat need to be?
A killer that struggles may never go up in the top bracket, but they may do just enough that they don't leave it either.
Given my personal test findings; forcing yourself to drop out is not all that viable either. Losing is not a garuenteed downgrade.
look at the other asymmetrical multiplayer games...oh look, a bunch of corpses and one currently trying to claw it's way out of the dirt!
"Prove me wrong" is code for "Nothing anyone says will convince me because I treat my opinion as fact." Prove me wrong.
(DBD isn't balanced IMO).
I very much disagree.
It's nearly universally agreed that lower-ranks are Killer-sided, mid-ranks are balanced and high ranks are Survivor-sided.
The game shouldn't be balanced around them, but it should be balanced for them.
We need more Killers like Blight. High skill cap so that lower MMR players cannot abuse them, but high MMR players can keep up with good players.
Due to some comments being rather argumentative, this thread is being closed. There is no need to attack others for giving their opinions, and if there is a difference in opinion, please remember to keep those differences civil and respectful; both to the idea, and to the person.