Enough that the forum asked questions when the BHVR made some adjustment, with out saying anything. And then BHVR came forward and told that they in fact did make those adjustments.
I mean, the soft cap still exists, streamer with thousands and thousands of hours get matched with really casual players with a few hundreds of hours and so on… It is nice that they apparently made changes, but I don't think those things have changed…
No, there's plenty of killers that are viable at top mmr. It's just there's a handful that have a guaranteed 100% winrate at high mmr because their powers are fundamentally overpowered.
Second, basekit buffs are insanely more powerful than nerfing a handful of perks because that opens up perk slots. Would you be okay if all survivors got basekit off the record and sprint burst but made the perks a lil bit weaker?
I actually think they also need to do something for survivors to basekit deal with camping and tunneling. Yeah.
They should give kindred basekit among other things, but probably need to create a mechanic that deals with tunneling basekit, then nerf/rework perks like OTR and DS.
Sorry, did you think i was an "us vs them" kind of person and don't realize both sides have problems?
BHVR have even made adjustments with out saying anything, until the forums asked questions, as a result of the game balance changing. - then they came forward and told us that they did in fact make some adjustments.
I mean to oversimplify there are 2 MMR brackets, Lower (bottom 75%), and Top (upper 25%). That means that when someone is bragging they are 'Top MMR' everyone knows they are a joke (since in all likelihood everyone here with more than 100 posts has the hours alone to constitute 'Top MMR'). That also means that the majority of the playerbase (which isn't on the forums) has a very different experience than what the rest of us are used to.
Can we please normalize giving people a written summary of a video, instead of expecting them to watch an entire video?
The problem with summaries is the points of bias. If I like the idea in a video, I might gloss over the more foolish aspects of a suggestion, and focus on the good. At the same time if I think the OP or the video maker is a dumb-dumb, then I'll paint the arguments in as bad a light as possible. In this case, the video is 8 minutes long, which means if you watch it in 2x speed (like you really should for all Youtube content nowadays), it will only take you 4 minutes. I think 5 minutes is the line where someone can take the time to actually watch the video if you want to comment on the topic, otherwise the comment will be ill-informed. Just don't comment (and find another thread) if 4 minutes is too much of your time to become informed enough to make a comment.
Conceptually, this seems like a good idea, but it creates a lot of potential issues.
1: Killer tiers - while there is agreement on the top and bottom of the scale, there is massive disagreement around the middle. Especially when factor in not just MMR, but the different regions.
2: Creates static killer meta. If we make the base kit really high to buff Trapper, then you create a meta where every Trapper runs gen kick perks to add on to that.
3: Some killers never kick. Nerfing some of the top killers gen kicks wouldn't matter, because using that time to kick is already kind of a waste when you could be chasing instead.
4: Easy to argue about, hard to notice. Slight nerfs / buffs are the things players love to argue about, and while they have effects overt the millions of DbD games that are played every week, most players wouldn't really notice. So no one is actually enjoying the game more, but the balance team is spending a lot of time on it.
2- I would argue this would be an improvement over the current state of the game. There was an older Scott joke video that describes this exact issue. (Spoiler the best build for every Killer currently is the same build.) This would merely change that each Killer has their own best build, so instead of 1 build (Pop+PR+GE+Deadlock) across all 30+ Killers, we might have 3 builds (Low/Medium/High Gen kick efficiency) across the same 30+ Killers. Even though it would still be 1 build per Killer, there would be enough of a playstyle difference between the 3 builds to feel like 3 different experiences. Not only that, but it would allow for greater Killer variety as well (instead of only the top 5 Killers in 90% of your matches).
4- I would notice significantly if I didn't have the same repeated Killers in every match over and over and over and over and over again. That is one of the major causes of burnout, is repetitive games.
I mean to oversimplify there are 2 MMR brackets, Lower (bottom 75%), and Top (upper 25%). That means that when someone is bragging they are 'Top MMR' everyone knows they are a joke (since in all likelihood everyone here with more than 100 posts has the hours alone to constitute 'Top MMR'). That also means that the majority of the playerbase (which isn't on the forums) has a very different experience than what the rest of us are used to.
The problem with summaries is the points of bias. If I like the idea in a video, I might gloss over the more foolish aspects of a suggestion, and focus on the good. At the same time if I think the OP or the video maker is a dumb-dumb, then I'll paint the arguments in as bad a light as possible. In this case, the video is 8 minutes long, which means if you watch it in 2x speed (like you really should for all Youtube content nowadays), it will only take you 4 minutes. I think 5 minutes is the line where someone can take the time to actually watch the video if you want to comment on the topic, otherwise the comment will be ill-informed. Just don't comment (and find another thread) if 4 minutes is too much of your time to become informed enough to make a comment.
2- I would argue this would be an improvement over the current state of the game. There was an older Scott joke video that describes this exact issue. (Spoiler the best build for every Killer currently is the same build.) This would merely change that each Killer has their own best build, so instead of 1 build (Pop+PR+GE+Deadlock) across all 30+ Killers, we might have 3 builds (Low/Medium/High Gen kick efficiency) across the same 30+ Killers. Even though it would still be 1 build per Killer, there would be enough of a playstyle difference between the 3 builds to feel like 3 different experiences. Not only that, but it would allow for greater Killer variety as well (instead of only the top 5 Killers in 90% of your matches).
4- I would notice significantly if I didn't have the same repeated Killers in every match over and over and over and over and over again. That is one of the major causes of burnout, is repetitive games.
2: While I get the argument, one of the defenses of a meta is it gives something to play around. The killer has strong perks, but survivors can bring perks to try and counter those. If you bring a counter to a meta perk and the killer doesn't have it, at least you know they were likely playing a weaker perk. If you brought a meta counter, but just drew the wrong killer, that would suck.
4: But I don't think people would adjust who they play. If Trapper got a buff of 2.0% to kicks his win rate would go up a few points when you take the impact of millions of games. But each person's individual experience would be highly unlikely to notice that small difference. So you create a whole new thing to balance around without really impacting the individual experience.
2: While I get the argument, one of the defenses of a meta is it gives something to play around. The killer has strong perks, but survivors can bring perks to try and counter those. If you bring a counter to a meta perk and the killer doesn't have it, at least you know they were likely playing a weaker perk. If you brought a meta counter, but just drew the wrong killer, that would suck.
4: But I don't think people would adjust who they play. If Trapper got a buff of 2.0% to kicks his win rate would go up a few points when you take the impact of millions of games. But each person's individual experience would be highly unlikely to notice that small difference. So you create a whole new thing to balance around without really impacting the individual experience.
2- I think a varied meta is better. If I bring a perk set to deal with a high Mobility Killer, then since I am not countering low Mobility Killers they fare better off. This is already the case with numerous meta perks, run DS/UB 4 matches and get tunneled/slugged the 5th when you take it off. This isn't really anything new IMO, and I would much rather have the counter for sweatlord Killers on-hand and run into a Huntress/Hag than bring Urban Evasion just to counter them. That was my main way of winning as most Killers, by never slugging and tunneling. They never get to use their perks, so I'm fully kitted and they are down 2 each. Having a fixed meta leads to stale gameplay, which leads to boredom, which leads to burnout. DBD seems to have the problem of having only 1 meta strat available at any given time. Then the meta strat gets nerfed, and something else takes its place, putting us right back where we were. I mean heck, should we delete Plague? She deletes healing perks, so if you brought any heal perks you might as well attempt your Kobes and only hold M1 on gens, because you aren't allowed to have fun the way you wanted to that match.
4- I think people notice winning and losing slightly more than before, at a greater rate than people give credit. There was one patch where a mild nerf didn't go through, and the placebo effect of the nerf alone dropped winrates. (To be fair idr if that was this game or another I play[ed], but people were complaining on the forums regardless.) Just getting more people to play the 'lesser' Killers just because they see a bigger number on the gen kick screen might be enough to play them a bit more (even if BHVR doesn't actually alter the gen numbers).
I actually think they also need to do something for survivors to basekit deal with camping and tunneling. Yeah.
They should give kindred basekit among other things, but probably need to create a mechanic that deals with tunneling basekit, then nerf/rework perks like OTR and DS.
Sorry, did you think i was an "us vs them" kind of person and don't realize both sides have problems?
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
I mean, the soft cap still exists, streamer with thousands and thousands of hours get matched with really casual players with a few hundreds of hours and so on… It is nice that they apparently made changes, but I don't think those things have changed…
I actually think they also need to do something for survivors to basekit deal with camping and tunneling. Yeah.
They should give kindred basekit among other things, but probably need to create a mechanic that deals with tunneling basekit, then nerf/rework perks like OTR and DS.
Sorry, did you think i was an "us vs them" kind of person and don't realize both sides have problems?
I mean to oversimplify there are 2 MMR brackets, Lower (bottom 75%), and Top (upper 25%). That means that when someone is bragging they are 'Top MMR' everyone knows they are a joke (since in all likelihood everyone here with more than 100 posts has the hours alone to constitute 'Top MMR'). That also means that the majority of the playerbase (which isn't on the forums) has a very different experience than what the rest of us are used to.
The problem with summaries is the points of bias. If I like the idea in a video, I might gloss over the more foolish aspects of a suggestion, and focus on the good. At the same time if I think the OP or the video maker is a dumb-dumb, then I'll paint the arguments in as bad a light as possible. In this case, the video is 8 minutes long, which means if you watch it in 2x speed (like you really should for all Youtube content nowadays), it will only take you 4 minutes. I think 5 minutes is the line where someone can take the time to actually watch the video if you want to comment on the topic, otherwise the comment will be ill-informed. Just don't comment (and find another thread) if 4 minutes is too much of your time to become informed enough to make a comment.
2- I would argue this would be an improvement over the current state of the game. There was an older Scott joke video that describes this exact issue. (Spoiler the best build for every Killer currently is the same build.) This would merely change that each Killer has their own best build, so instead of 1 build (Pop+PR+GE+Deadlock) across all 30+ Killers, we might have 3 builds (Low/Medium/High Gen kick efficiency) across the same 30+ Killers. Even though it would still be 1 build per Killer, there would be enough of a playstyle difference between the 3 builds to feel like 3 different experiences. Not only that, but it would allow for greater Killer variety as well (instead of only the top 5 Killers in 90% of your matches).
4- I would notice significantly if I didn't have the same repeated Killers in every match over and over and over and over and over again. That is one of the major causes of burnout, is repetitive games.
It sounds nice in theory but
There is also the issue, that this would need to scale with loadouts too.
2: While I get the argument, one of the defenses of a meta is it gives something to play around. The killer has strong perks, but survivors can bring perks to try and counter those. If you bring a counter to a meta perk and the killer doesn't have it, at least you know they were likely playing a weaker perk. If you brought a meta counter, but just drew the wrong killer, that would suck.
4: But I don't think people would adjust who they play. If Trapper got a buff of 2.0% to kicks his win rate would go up a few points when you take the impact of millions of games. But each person's individual experience would be highly unlikely to notice that small difference. So you create a whole new thing to balance around without really impacting the individual experience.
2- I think a varied meta is better. If I bring a perk set to deal with a high Mobility Killer, then since I am not countering low Mobility Killers they fare better off. This is already the case with numerous meta perks, run DS/UB 4 matches and get tunneled/slugged the 5th when you take it off. This isn't really anything new IMO, and I would much rather have the counter for sweatlord Killers on-hand and run into a Huntress/Hag than bring Urban Evasion just to counter them. That was my main way of winning as most Killers, by never slugging and tunneling. They never get to use their perks, so I'm fully kitted and they are down 2 each. Having a fixed meta leads to stale gameplay, which leads to boredom, which leads to burnout. DBD seems to have the problem of having only 1 meta strat available at any given time. Then the meta strat gets nerfed, and something else takes its place, putting us right back where we were. I mean heck, should we delete Plague? She deletes healing perks, so if you brought any heal perks you might as well attempt your Kobes and only hold M1 on gens, because you aren't allowed to have fun the way you wanted to that match.
4- I think people notice winning and losing slightly more than before, at a greater rate than people give credit. There was one patch where a mild nerf didn't go through, and the placebo effect of the nerf alone dropped winrates. (To be fair idr if that was this game or another I play[ed], but people were complaining on the forums regardless.) Just getting more people to play the 'lesser' Killers just because they see a bigger number on the gen kick screen might be enough to play them a bit more (even if BHVR doesn't actually alter the gen numbers).
Honestly yeah, it's shocking but in a good way.