Game balance in 4v1 asymetry style
I'd like to share my thoughts on dead by daylight gameplay, and how (in my opinion) frustration is created by losing a game. Let's start with the fact that dbd is an asymmetric game where 4 survivors try to escape from a killer who wants to sacrifice them.
Everyone knows about it.
So it's a 4v1 game… well, not really.
Survivors' goals are not consistent. Everyone fights for themselves and even if there are altruists here, by the standards of the game, they will be sacrificed, and lost, so we do not play in the 4v1 group, but in the (1v1v1v1) v1 groups. This is a significant difference, directly influencing the game balance - the killer should be as strong as 4 survivors, but he cannot be stronger than 1, so that everyone has a chance to win in an average of ½ matches ... see the paradox?
Survivors should work together in a group of 4, and even 1 player's escape should be a victory for all 4 survivors, so that even that one altruist who has been distracting the killer throughout the match feels that he has done something. Currently, this only happens in pre-arranged groups, and in very rare solo-q cases. This would also mean that the killer must be strong enough to have a chance to kill all survivors, as leaving at least one alive could result in his failure.
Currently, for a killer to win, he has to sacrifice 4 survivors, sacrificing 1 does not mean victory for the killer, but loss for survivor, and if someone is still in that one unfortunate case, he can get very frustrated.
If we assume a 60% killrate for the killer (as officially stated), it means that in 10 matches, 24 survivors will be sacrificed, which means at least 2 survivors per game. This means that for a single survivor to win, he MUST compete with at least two other survivors for him not to be sacrificed… should a 4v1 game look like this? Do these 4 have to compete with each other instead of working together? What about the one who was always working for a team but as a distraction for the killer? According to the devs, he has to die, and if not him, then the one of those he protected (at least 2 deaths per match) and he will lose.
For each survivor to win on average once every 3 games, even 4 games, their survival rate has to be 0.25, but then the killer must have a killrate of 0.42 (0.75 ^ 4). To achieve the assumed 60% killrate, the chance of winning for the survivor is less than 12%, i.e. a statistical survivor will escape from 1 of more than 8 matches (8.33)... and it is known that some will be below the statistics ... Does it really have to be this way? There is really nothing you can do?
Personally, I think it is possible. It is possible not only to equalize the chances of winning the killer and the survivors (but also to improve the overall balance, but more on that below).
This thread concerns only the problem, in the next post I will write how I see the solution, because the example is not the main thread.
Comments
Its a "comment" so noone will mistake example with suggestion
In my opinion, and the way to solve the asymmetry problem, is to add to the survivors a common goal, not to escape a single survivor, but to get rid of the killer. Yes, the survivors will get weapons and it will actually be a fight. After repairing 4 generators, two switches (now gates) activate, activating both of them means the killer is consumed by the entity and the group of survivors is victorious. Each survivor who has been “sacrificed” will be sacrificed and will give points for the killers, only if the survivors do not get rid of the killer.
If there is only one survivor left on the battlefield, a hatch will open on the map, running through the hatch means "tie".
Thanks to this solution, the balance will be able to go much more towards 4v1, instead of (1v1v1v1)v1.
This is so wrong on so many levels. WHY WOULD ANYONE EVER?!?!? consider 1 out win for survivor? I am 1000% sure you never played survivor. It's such a bad feeling (understatement) to be camped and tunneled so much that just 1 of your teammates gets out - and that is if by some miracle that 1 escapes.
If anything there are only 2 fair outcomes. 2 out to have equal chance of escapes (so 50% kill rate). Or 50% chance to have 3 out vs 4 out (meaning 87.5% escape rate). The reason for the second one is emotional one. You would not consider it win if any of your friends or family were killed by someone. You would be sad about it to the rest of your life. So killer killing anyone is then and there killer's win and game should balance around this one.
The alternative that I would actually prefer is to balance around 50% kill rate where everyone has exactly the same probability to survive or to be sacrificed. Killer killing 2 out of 4 means he got 50% of all his objectives so he was 50% successful = draw. This is actually fair to all parties. 60% kill rate is already unfair and killer get more kills then their fair share. That's also reason why "nobody wants to play survivors" meaning why killer Q times are that much longer even if you can't play with friends when playing killer outside custom games.
And this has nothing to do with you 1v1's. It has to do with overall fairness. The game is already unfair to survivors as is.
Or to say it differently. I have same validity of statement if I just say "1 survivor dying is fail for survivor group and killer win". The difference between me and you is, that I at least provided a reason that supports it. You just stated it as a "fact" that is 100% wrong and it would be obvious if you ever cared to play more then 1 survivor game for every 100 killer games you play
If you want this, then go play VHS. Oh you can't because the game died. No survivors should never get any guns or any ability to kill the killer. Also there is exactly 0 reason to stuck to a game where killer sacrificed you. You are permanently out of the game. There's no reason why I should stay around and root for the rest of survivors. If there was a way how to resurrect, then it would be something different. But the game would be fully different and I am pretty sure it would be inferior version to current DBD
Tell me, when, while being 1st sacrificed survivor, you concidered game won? Even if rest of survs escaped? According to your argument, yous hould feel pride, because killer lost the game, he didnt make to sacrifice 2 or more survivors.
Even if we would make killer killrate to 50% instead of devs 60%, it still means its 2 kills per match, and to concider game won, survivor have to compete with 2 other survivors, to not be one of 2 sacrificed. In this case its (2v2)v1.
And last thing is about example
I dont want to give survivors a "weapon" like flashlight.
I wish to change their goal from individual, which is escape, to common, which is to banish the killer. Conditions are the same - repair gens, turn the switches. Gameplay is the same. Only* difference is outcome, and all survivors will reach is at the same time.
*- there is one more difference, or two more:
Go play VHS.
Wait, it’s dead.
I wonder why no one played Monster in that game.
Maybe it’s because in any game where it results in a binary condition (Monster dies or wins) it will always feel ######### for the losing team, and when the roles are asymmetrical, why not take the most engaging/relaxed one? (Which Monster is not)
In DBD the Killer hardly ever outright loses (4E), and survivors have an escape plan (Hatch, which needs some love and care).
It’s usually a mixed bag, and there are no clearly defined winners outside of your own set goals.
This is how it should stay.
You know why it's fair from survivor's perspective? Because if survivor is same skill level as killer (and no luck takes place - so same strength of items/addons, neutral map, his team is as strong as he is, etc), he gets 50% chance to survive. If he is weaker or is in weaker team or is weaker within his team (so killer will take interest in him), he will probably loose.
On the other hand - reverse is also true. And I can shrug it off as a unlucky death when I was just unlucky (this is fine and next time I will get away because of same conditions). If I am weaker, I am not really angry. Because someone better beat me which is DUH, expected.
But if I consistently loose against bad killer (the one that just holds W behind me and does not see anything around him) and he wins the game by this.... Makes you want to stop playing the game. 39% escape rate goes a bit to this direction. I mean at least it's not that extreme. But still
You want to change the game so you have to repair four generators, then hit both switches and then they win. Why not just say they instead of coaching all this in bizzare language with weapons?
In any case, it's got a plethora of obvious issues. Repairing four generators is trivial. This would make matches much quicker. No more three gens, you'd have to patrol a four gen which is impossible for most killers.
This tacitly buffs blight, spirit, nurse and artist. No other killers have the ability to patrol both exit gates. In fact I'd say those are the only viable killers remaining in the roster after this change.
You expect a survivor that's out of the game early to what? Wait around until the other survivors win and they get awarded a participation medal? Nobody wants to do that. They want to reque and play.
You should rejigger your philosophy toward what a win is. You want survivors to work together, but you obviously don't think of yourself as part of the team. If I make space by looping and the other survivors get out, that's a win for me. I feel good about it. If there's a god looper keeping the killer occupied for four gens and they get facecamped and I go 1 for 1 and they get out? That's a win for my team. It feels good.
Are You aware that only few sentences from last paragraph are connected to whatever i have said? Or You are making a strawman totally unconsciously?
I facecamp first survivor in basement and get another one down who tried rescue which secures 2K. Get third one down later and last get hatch survivors won...
Depending on changes that supposed to be made. But balance things aside.
The point is, that survivors should have their common goal, not individual goals.
If they have 1 goal, syrenght of killer is balance around their 4 cooperation
If they have 4 individual goals, then balans is imposible. Balancing killer to be weaker than 4 survs to make them win sometimes, will turn killer to never winning. Balancing killer to be as strony as they 4 will make survivors win dramatically rarely. (Yes, group of survivors will win more-less even with killer, but individuals will loose even if they side won)
I think you are the only person who would consider 1 out as survivors won. If you "fix" this, you would see the game is almost balanced. We just need to nerf killers a little so that we get fair 50% and it's done. As I already stated 1 out considered survivor win is a little bit (but not by much) more crazy then considering 3 out as survivor lost (as a group).
Meaning it should be doable to balance the game around 2 out being a draw