Let's speak clearly of SWF: from definitions to remedies
All discussions related to the balancing or innovations of game mechanics are often polluted by objections or disputes concerning SWF mode, which derail the speech. So I open this thread to deal, once and for all, this age-old problem, focusing ideas and doubts into one "container", for the benefit of developers.
I ask everyone to respond constructively, analytically and non-controversy to the following questions:
1) PROBLEM DEFINITION: Do you consider only the teams of four members or even three or two too advantageous?
2) PROBLEM ANALYSIS: What specific difficulties or injustices have you experienced in your games?
3) PROBLEM SOLUTION: What specific and realistic remedies do you consider appropriate to bridge the gap between Solo Survivors and SWF Survivors and then balance the game?
I ask everyone to respond constructively, analytically and non-controversy to the following questions:
1) PROBLEM DEFINITION: Do you consider only the teams of four members or even three or two too advantageous?
2) PROBLEM ANALYSIS: What specific difficulties or injustices have you experienced in your games?
3) PROBLEM SOLUTION: What specific and realistic remedies do you consider appropriate to bridge the gap between Solo Survivors and SWF Survivors and then balance the game?
Comments
Even 2 pals talking to each other in voice or text can get much.
They can use perks that compliment each other, they can basically have advantages this game is not balanced around.
Even a casual group can realize they're facing someone threatening, and switch to sweaty mode.
SWF makes things easier for survivors while making things harder for killers.
2: Specifically? Them constantly knowing where I am, near impossibly fast gen rushes, ultra coordinated rescues, them scouting my perks after one died, dramatic boosts in difficulty overall vs 4 solos, bullying, and the list goes on.
3: I have 3 options. Apply some, or all.
1: a dramatic boost in BP to compensate for the blood points the SWFs efficiency eats into.
2: label SWF participants in the lobby. If there's 2 pairs, change the color of the label.
3: create a filter preventing SWFs from joining, and a filter so survivors can avoid SWF lobbies.
There's an unlikely, but popular 4th options others like.
Boost solo players to be on par with an SWF, then balance killers around that.
Personally I don't like it. It essentially means solo survivors get a free, slightly vague map of the level, and updates on the killers location for free, and unrestricted voice/text chat.
How someone balances killers around that, I don't know.
why not balance by limiting perk slots?
It's essentially what they did before SWF was added to the main play mode.
2 people doing that might not sound like a problem, but 4, and many many groups of 3, or 4?
It will add a lot to the wait times of killers and survivors.
hmm maybe but its still the best way to balance it
how about sfw cant use teachable s and they cant have the same items
People will rebel, or bypass those measures.
true but at least the sweaty swfs will be nerfed
Although I think @Rebel_Raven raises some valid points, I have issues with their solutions. No killer, given the choice, wants to play against a SWF group. Labelling them in the lobby, or preventing them from joining altogether, would just kill SWF and cause the same problems as above, but worse - people would feel cheated, it would increase queue times all round, and the issue wouldn't be solved because survivors would just circumvent the system in the same way, except now they're pissed off and therefore more likely to take out their frustrations on the killer by being bad sports. The bloodpoints idea does have some merit, however as Raven themselves mentioned, not everyone who plays SWF takes advantage of its strengths, and so it's not consistent whether the killer is being compensated for points they lost to an imbalanced system, or just receiving free bloodpoints that they didn't deserve (on top of the approximately double points they already earn compared to individual survivors). In theory, points could be awarded on a case-by-case basis rather than just a flat rate, but that sort of thing is very difficult to measure accurately.
Personally, I am firmly behind the idea of closing the gap between SWF and solo queue and only then addressing any nerfs/buffs that need to be applied. For starters, it's not only much easier to balance around one standard than two, but when all survivors are on a relatively equal playing field, changes that need to be made become much clearer in the first place, without all the "but then SWF is too overpowered" or "but then solo queue is too underpowered". Furthermore, it's the only solution in which SWF teams aren't singled out, and therefore are less likely to feel cheated and respond with increased toxicity. I haven't thought it through enough to have specific ways of closing the gap in mind, but I definitely think that it's the best way of reducing the power of SWF without making anyone feel like they're having something taken away from them. And that goes for killers, too - the main reason for not nerfing survivors right now such that SWF becomes balanced is that solo queue survivors would then be too weak. I think if SWF and solo survivors were at the same power level, survivors as a whole could be more safely nerfed, and then killers wouldn't feel the same animosity towards SWF and, more importantly, they wouldn't feel helpless playing against them.
good point and well put sadly i dont think well ever see anything done about this but we can dream
So far no one really has.
If, for an extended period of time, solos got as powerful as an SWF and killers basically stay as they are, it would severely harm the game.
We know SWF gives advantages, and the only real sanctuary from it is lobby dodging.
With every survivor as powerful as an SWF, killers may just give up in large numbers because dodging is no longer an option.
@Rebel_Raven I guess I would hope that that's what PTBs are for? So that you can have 2 weeks or so, that people can choose to participate in for testing purposes or just opt out, where all survivor players are at the same level, even if that level is more powerful than killers. And that way, hopefully, the devs can receive actual feedback and can see more easily what changes need to then be made for balance. But if solo survivors were buffed and then survivors and killers were balanced at the same time, I feel like the effects of the survivor balance would get somewhat overshadowed by the overall balance and it would be more difficult to work out what's working and what isn't than it would be if we addressed one problem at a time.
So you want the devs to punish people for playing with friend and make it not fun?
Damn, I'm glad you are not a dev. But...even if you were they would prob kick you out xD
nah its fair you really need to think about it
Just looking for a long process of balancing?
Any idea where to even start?
SWF has been a part of DBD for a while. They still have no clue? Surely they would be working on it.
Or is the answer as drastic as I fear, and the end what I predict?
The problem with putting everyone at the same level is the huge amount of info survivors will get on the entire map, the killer, the killers location, and likely their loadout.
The killer may never touch them, or even see them because a survivor can easily split before the killer splits them.
That steady increase in difficulty with 0 compensation will assuredly drive off killers, and force some into Retirement.
I mean killers dodge SWFs now. What are they going to do when dodging is basically no longer an option?
When it's no longer fun, but having to bust out OP builds because that group could be hyper sweaty? To have to meta, and abandon all but the strongest builds?
I get they aren't all like that, but too many are. Why gamble? I'm not willing to. The odds aren't in my favor.
Since when have survivors in general actually given a ######### about how the game goes for a killer?
With my ideas:
People would still vs SWF. Lots of people pride themselves on it. I see it all the time on the forums.
People may not know to turn the filter on.
If not, then there are serious issues.
I mean you're basically saying to me that SWF cannot get trials unless they basically ambush someone, or vs someone that doesn't care.
There is obviously a reason for it.
Honestly, if I got bonus Blood points/xp/etc for dealing with SWF, I'd be ok with it provided it was worth my while.
That's the bigger issue. I don't feel properly compensated for the difficulty spike.
You say there's variables to take into account if a killer deserves the bonuses or not but aside from maybe game length, and maybe certain points thresholds survivors reach there isn't much of a way to determine it. I'm willing to bet that there would be enough sweaty SWFs that the worries of less sweaty SWFs creating overcompensation is little to none.
A team that does a 3 minute gen rush and escapes consistently could have 1 bad game.
I wouldn't call it a flat rate. It depends on the size of the SWF, or if there are two.
Again, if I could be told some believable game plan on how to boost solos to SWFs, and get killers quickly back up to par, I'd be on board
@Carpemortum Unfortunately that's only part of the problem, although what you suggest is a good way to close the gap between SWF and solo survivors, which is where I think the real issue lies. But the main issue with SWF isn't pre-game coordination, but in-game coordination, usually through third-party voice chat but sometimes just through knowing your friends and how their playstyles work. There also needs to be some way for solo survivors to reach that same level of coordination without talking to each other externally.
The only way to be able to trust people like that in solo mode, is to have the entire community play to not be rude to each other, or play to farm points/sandbag people so that you know what to expect. But everyone is different and you cant always play with the same people. You also cant try to or even guarantee that an entire community will come together and not troll at all. You'll always wonder if your team will have that one random that you trust at the worst time.
@Rebel_Raven With all due respect, I'm not a developer. I don't know the game and its functions back to front, and I never claimed to have all the answers. So just because I haven't given it the necessary thought to know where to start, doesn't mean that the devs haven't. They've tested out radical ideas in PTB before, and the game hasn't exploded in a huge ball of fire. They test things, they get feedback, they either implement or they don't. That's what the PTB is for. So you test out what actually happens when you put everyone on the same level, instead of just theorising about it. You see what the actual, tangible issues are, and then you fix them.
I'm not proposing that survivors get buffed. I'm proposing a buff to solo survivors, and then a wholistic nerf to all survivors, because it may be that survivors as a whole don't care about the killer's experience (although I would caution you against generalising like that, because it really doesn't help anyone) but I happen to be one of the ones that does. I'm doing my very best to be fair to both sides in what I'm proposing, so neither survivors nor killers feel like they have no chance or like they're missing out.
I don't have a solid game plan, I've already admitted that. Maybe if I thought about it some more, I could come up with one. I'm just pointing out what I consider to be the flaws in your logic, because you seem to actually have specific ideas, unlike me, and so maybe if I help you to see the flaws in them you can develop them into something better and more viable. I'm not trying to attack you or killers in general, so I'm sorry if it came across that way. Just trying to come up with a game plan together.