vvumper
vvumper
About
- Username
- vvumper
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@MongolPSR said:
I'd like to point out how this thread has managed to stay up eventhough people are naming and shaming. I thought we didn't do that here? 🙄
I'm a fan of Truetalent and watch him daily. The point of MY thread wasn't to shame anyone. If one or two people said something, just ignore them. The majority of the thread is constructive.
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2310170#Comment_2310170
The game being balanced does not inherently mean that there won't be enough Survivor players. It just means that the people going for their their preferred roles won't be as likely to leave.
You fill the deficit by providing bonus rewards to whichever side is lacking in players. Not enough Killers? Play more Killer to get extra bonus rewards. Not enough Survivors? Play more Survivor to get extra bonus rewards.
That's a good point. Thanks for sharing.
-
If even 3 out of every 5 people preferred/mained survivor, match making would quickly break. The only solution I see is to make killer weaker so people are guided to playing survivor. If you have some alternate logic that explains how to fill this deficit, by all means
-
@TAG said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2308035#Comment_2308035
Here's the problem with this logic: You need both sides in order to play the game. It doesn't matter that there are four Survivors for every one Killer because if either side decides that they don't want to play, then you have long wait times that's going to upset the side that DOES want to play. If you make too many Killers leave, you end up with too many Survivors stuck in long queue times. The same applies vice versa. You need to keep things as balanced as possible for BOTH sides so that as few people as possible from either side stops playing out of frustration.
4 times as many survivor players need to be found per game. If there are 1000 games starting at once, you'd need 4k survivors and 1k killers at that particular moment. If both sides were as easy/fair to play as one another, wouldn't there be an unmeetable demand for survivors?
-
@ObscurityDragon said:
If survivors are stronger in the "4v1" scenario
They shouldnt be able to be stronger then the killer in the 1v1
Yet a very good survivor will be stronger then most killer characters in a 1v1
A very good survivor team can win in the 1v1 and 4v1 games
Yes the game is not easy to balance, but you shouldnt make the killer feel worthless for chasing 1 survivor and loosing 2-3 gens or more cause the survivor could win the 1v1 thanks to the loop rng
The survivor shouldnt feel worthless cause they took 4 hooks before 1 or 2 gens popped because the map rng allowed for the killer to get an easy catch
Tbh killer shouldnt even feel like sweating half as much as what you do in high ranks because of the lack of sevoundary objectives to give the killers time in the current meta
Survivors shouldnt have to put on the most tryhard perks to win cause the killer is sweating to play thanks to the meta
In the end what you do on one side, affects directly the other, the more one side is sweaty/toxic the more the other become the same
Oh and the game shouldnt be balanced around slowdown perks for killer neither, thats a bad choice and may block some people to try to have fun with weird build
Well, I agree with you about all that. Really I do. You're talking in-game balance, and I don't contest that perhaps the state of in-game balance is done poorly.
This thread isn't about the short comings of in-game balance, though, really.
It's about how when I hear Truetalent talk about in-game balance, he fails to point out how the lopsided nature of match making might affect how the developers have to balance out the two different aspects of the game to keep match making healthy.
People tend to rant about the shortcomings of killer or the OP'dness of survivor without ever considering that for every game 4 people are needed on one side, and that may require that the side requiring more players be more appealing to play.
-
@FregglesFred said:
The fact that some people hate Tru3 on here because he has a different opinion is kinda hilarious.
Its obvious survivors have a bigger competitive role. If you don't see that, then. Dang.
I have only ever really watched Truetalent as far as DbD goes. I think he's a great player.
That being said, I prefer it when he just plays the game and enjoys himself without ranting about game balance or toxicity. I am finding his constant ranting in game to be hard to listen to, and hope that this thread is perhaps food for thought as to why this game is inherently difficult to balance due to the need to keep match times somewhat sane
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2308466#Comment_2308466
To me, any advantage that breaks the overall balance of the game would be considered "unfair," regardless of whether some people think it's only 'slight' or not.
Like I said earlier, you can always manipulate the proper 4-1 ratio by rewarding the less played roles with some thing (BP, etc), and increasing the reward depending on how much the role is needed. Or even by giving extra challenges in the less played role. All of this can be done without messing with the overall balance of the game.
I am not for or against any advantage. I am for not being ignorant of the importance of keeping match making times sustainable. It would seem to me that the only way to do that in a game with lopsided teams would be to make the side that needs more players be more appealing. How else you gonna balance it?
-
@SweetTerror said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2308448#Comment_2308448
SWF, while fun, is indeed busted. Killers that can hide their terror radius (Wraith, Ghostface, Myers, Pig) is rendered useless so long as your team has proper communication. Even stronger Killers in the hands of professional streamers like Dowsey's Twins proved to be no match for Oracle because of their strong communication and teamwork.
As you know, the game doesn't allow audio chat built in for survivor teams. To me this really suggests that using comms is outside of the game's design and thus balance decisions. And therefore, this game, and it's balance, is and always will be fundamentally busted af
-
@knell said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2308430#Comment_2308430
"I don't see how match making can be healthy though if there isn't a very slight net advantage given to playing survivor on account of match making."
To me, that just seems like an assumption on your part. What I'm saying is that the 4-1 ratio for matchmaking can be maintained without needing to give any advantage to one role or the other. Like I said, 1. there are plenty of reasons to pick one role over another besides giving unfair advantages to one side and 2. there are ways to adjust for matchmaking ratio without needing to break the balance by giving a "slight net advantage" to a specific role.
Well it doesn't have to be an unfair advantage. Perhaps just an advantage? I have been saying slight advantage and I do mean slight. "Unfair" denotes "more than slight", to me at least.
If you have to find 4 people to play on one side, yet only 1 on the other, how are you going to get enough people to go on the side with 4 if they didn't think that doing so was going to be "the better game experience". I feel like there has to be some sort of tacit psychology going on to coerce people to pick survivor, but perhaps you're right and that's not needed
And I'm using quotes here because I really don't know how to balance this problem. It seems to me like this game would be really impossible to balance.
-
@SweetTerror said:
Playing as Killer is very much a 1v1 game, but a coordinated SWF can absolutely destroy the Killer since the game is not meant to be a 1v4. Tru's recent games against Oracle proved that. Yes I fully acknowledge the team is one of the top competitive DBD groups in the world, but it goes to show just how powerful a SWF with proper communication can be.
I understand and agree that SWF is busted. My previous/last reply to Tsulan I think is relevant to what you're saying.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2308387#Comment_2308387
You seem to forget that survivors are the ones with the long queues. NOT killers.
As you said, you need survivors, so this game can be played. Yeah, but you also need killers. For over the last 6 months, the game had a problem with unbalance of the survivor killer ratio. Where we had way to many survivor players and to few killer players.
I am not forgetting that at all. Really.
There are 3 possible team combinations cases here in regards to in-game balance
1) 4 solo survivors vs killer
2) Mixed SWF and solo survivor
3) Pure SWF vs killer
My belief is that the **base case** for in-game balance ought to be so that the appeal of playing survivor with **4 solo survivors** be slightly more appealing than playing solo killer.
SWF thus breaks this and the imbalance it creates is actually just because this game is fundamentally broken from a balance point of view, and always will be
By pointing out that the queues are longer you are saying that there needs to be more appeal to playing killer, thus a buff. And I would agree, then.
That doesn't change the point that killer needs to be fundamentally less appealing overall to any player wanting to play this game
-
@knell said:
This assumes that players only choose the Survivor role based on how powerful they are.
Maybe players choose roles that are more "fun" to them, and not because they are easier to win. Maybe they simply like the characteristic of that role (e.g. - being chased vs chasing, playing alone vs playing with others). Maybe they are tired of playing one role, and want to try another. Maybe they want to challenge themselves. Maybe they want shorter wait times in lobby. There are many reasons why players could choose one role over another - not just because that role has an unfair advantage.
Every good game should be properly balanced. The role of Survivors doesn't need any unfair advantage in fear of lopsided matchmaking. If the matchmaking is lopsided, then simply make the less favored roles more appealing without breaking the balance - e.g. for roles that are more needed at any given time, give them increasingly more BPs (or other rewards) the longer they have to wait during matchmaking, or give extra challenges in the less played roles, etc. All of this can be done while striving to make the game more balanced and fair for everyone.
Sure, that's a good point. I actually did start of this thread by saying that the combined appeal of playing survivor must be slightly more than killer. This morning I changed it to "combined power", but perhaps appeal is better.
I agree that every game needs to be balanced. I don't see how match making can be healthy though if there isn't a very slight net advantage given to playing survivor on account of match making.
If we are talking about solely in-game balance, then yes, the game is not balanced, and SWF is broken. Perhaps though since the lopsideness isn't going away, and the overall appeal of survivor has to be accounted for, that this game is straight up never going to be fairly balanced
-
@reeves7 said:
Survivors are very strong,not only strong. They are the power role
Okay, well the gist is that the combined power of 4 solo survivors should be slightly more than the power of 1 solo killer as the base case for keeping match making healthy.
SWF breaks this, but I am not sure that SWF should even be apart of the equation.
-
@Tsulan said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2308327#Comment_2308327
Yeah, no. Thats not how this works.
Survivors already are way stronger than the killer when they play SWF. This didn´t help the survivor queue at all.
You're assuming that the game ought to be balanced to account for SWF. I don't know if that's possible.
It's possible that in order to keep match making healthy, that SWF can't even be factored. I wish I could see some sort of solution to this.
This is a 1v4 game, with micro transactions no less. New and/or casual players should slightly favor playing survivor over killer, and thus keep match making going.
I wish that weren't the case, that the game could be balanced in such a way that the OPed-ness of playing SWF at a high level could be balanced for. I am having a hard time even imaging how to balance the game given how much of an unfairness there is to SWF versus solo survivor.
-
@Seraphor said:
The problem is less than 20% of players "take on the challenge" of playing killer, it seems to be more like 10%. And that's for a reason, because playing killer at higher levels is not a good experience.
I agree it should be balanced in such a way so that 20% of players pick killer. I don't really have a solution to that.
My thread is to point out that there must be an imbalance of power to keep match making going. How that imbalance is or should be implemented, I am not sure the answer. It's my opinion that in-game balance will always be skewed because match-making requires 4 people to decide that the survivor role is what they want to play. Balancing for that seems... hard, to say the least.
-
@Tsulan said:
The game is 4 vs 1. Which means that the 1 player should be as strong or even stronger than the 4 players combined.
I would agree if match making weren't a thing. If I was talking about solely balancing the game via what happens in game, then I'd be on the same page as you.
But the reality is different. Match making is inherently lopsided and attracting people to play survivor means there must be an imbalance
In other words, the combined power of 4 survivors should be slightly more than the power of 1 killer.
If killer was slightly more powerful than the combined power of 4 survivors, match making would suffer tremendously. If killer was perfectly balanced to the combined power, I believe it would too suffer, since the imbalance is still present. This is a 1v4 game.
It's only when killer is slightly weaker does the issue of how to keep match making going smoothly seem resolved imo
-
@Gwinty said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2307886#Comment_2307886
My personal experience confirms this.
I like playing Killer but as soon as my two friends are online we play survivor together. It is just more fun that way. True sometimes one of us plays Killer alone while the others are online but that is mostly when one is eating, we provide the entertainment to to others.
The balance problem is that you can not balance this game around a 1 vs 4. It is more like a 1 vs 1, 2, 1 or 1 vs 1 , 3. So you do not even have a stable number of "vs" here as it splits. The difference between a 1 vs 4 and a 1 vs 3 , 1 is massive assuming all players are on the same skill level. However not even this is true as you can play against a bad 4 SWF or against 4 brilliant single survivors.
My most feared set up is it when all 4 survivors start the trial seperated and I frist chase that one very good survivor. Then I drop chase because nothing comes from it and search the next one, two gens pop, and the next one is also good. Not finding the "weak link" early dooms me harder than any 4 SWF. Because even if there is a bad survivor I just wasted 2/4 gen chasing the good ones. 4 SWF tend to often be ultra altruistic for their "weak link" and you can abuse that.
Aye, the gist is that there must always be an imbalance. In other words
The combined power of 4 survivors must always be slightly more powerful than playing killer, but never too much so, otherwise, match making just couldn't happen. It follows that a slight disadvantage for killer is inescapable. Therefore, talks about in-game balance require acknowledging this reality.
So in regards to Truetalent, and he talks about in-game balance a lot, but I never hear him talk about this point regarding match making.
-
@MadLordJack said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2308054#Comment_2308054
Anything is a competitive game if it's relatively balanced. eSports has little to do with it compared to mindset.
That's not wrong at all. I agree
My point remains is that people looking for completely fair balance are never going to find it in this game, ever.
That's because the advantage of the *combined* power of 4 survivors must always be slightly more powerful than the power of playing solo killer solely to attract enough people to play survivor and keep match making healthy.
And it is my belief that a failure to acknowledge this makes the subject of "is survivor too powerful?" or "are killers too weak?" hard to talk about it when the lopsidedness of match making requirements isn't being included in the equation.
As far as competitiveness is concerned, this game is definitely that. But anyone playing killer needs to understand what sacrifices to the in-game balance that need to be made in order to keep the queue moving along.
-
@MadLordJack said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2307949#Comment_2307949
Not really. Balanced games attract the competitive scene that people play games like DbD to avoid.
Yes, and they're usually 1v1 or 3v3 or 5v5. A game that has lopsided teams like DbD can't be balanced for competitive play as well as casual play like a game that has equal teams. Because unlike a game where both sides have the same number of people, DbD requires that one side by more appealing than the other in order to keep the matches going. In that respect, DbD will always be a bad choice for an esports game.
-
@Chagi said:
It's a fokin' horror game, how many good horror movies go in favour of the survivors? (except conjuring universe). Currently killers are underwhelming AF. Do you have any idea how fast gens are done at red ranks?
I agree with you completely. That is how ideally it should be if the game were to be balanced towards making it like how it is in a horror game.
But that's not the reality of how a game that needs to find 4 people to be on one team while only 1 on the other needs to be balanced.
If killer was stronger than survivor, then match making would never happen. Because it's human nature to wanna pick the OP side, and if everyone wanted killer, there wouldn't be enough people to fill the survivor side... ever
-
@Orion said:
This game is 1 v 4 and therefore must be slightly biased towards favoring survivor
In order for matches to be made, playing survivor has to be slightly more appealing than playing killer.
Therefore survivors should be given a minor advantage to keep match making going smoothly.
It's literally the opposite. People will gravitate toward playing a multiplayer game with other people if they can, and if the game is to be balanced, it must favor killers in 1v1 situations. Otherwise, you're going to be waiting in that queue for a long, long time.
No, I don't believe I have this wrong.
Because in-game balance must always account that 4 times as many people need to play on one team than the other. Which means that the team which has the more people, survivor, must be more appealing to 4 out of 5 people in order to keep match making healthy. The conclusion is that killer must then be slightly weaker in order to make that a reality.
-
@Zozzy said:
You know wait times got so bad for survivor that they even admitted there was a killer shortage on stream right? This was followed up by the decisive nerf to attempt to bring back some killer players. The only time they ever do meaningful updates to the killer side is when the survivor q time gets too long.
You're not wrong at all
What I am trying to say isn't really changed though. Sacrifices have to be made to in-game balance in order to maintain match-making balance.
How that plays out, or how it's playing out, I don't have the answers to that
I watch a fair bit of True over the years, and he seems to talk quite a lot about in-game imbalance without ever acknowledging the lopsided nature of match making. He's not wrong that it is imbalanced to favor survivor, but is missing the point that it has to be in some way
-
@Zozzy said:
You know wait times got so bad for survivor that they even admitted there was a killer shortage on stream right? This was followed up by the decisive nerf to attempt to bring back some killer players. The only time they ever do meaningful updates to the killer side is when the survivor q time gets too long.
You're not wrong.
The gist of what I'm trying to convey isn't really changed though. That the teams are lopsided and sacrifices to in-game balance will always need to be made because of this.
I believe it's an error for anyone to be talking about in-game balance without weighing matchmaking balance, too. In-game balance does not exist in a vacuum
I have watched a lot of Truetalent. I think he's a good player. However I get frustrated hearing him talk solely about in-game imbalance without considering the lopsided nature of match-making.
-
@Pulsar said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/2307415#Comment_2307415
Mathematically though, Survivors can win with less skill than Killers.
It isn't even close. Survivors need to average like, 30-45 seconds in a chase and the Killer will LOSE if they don't tunnel.
Each game has to attract 4 survivors for every 1 killer. And this is a game with micro-transactions, too, which creates another subtle bias. Sadly it just means that killers inherently have to get the short end of the stick forever. There's really no way around it. However that manifests in-game is always a thing, but match making balance takes precedence over in-game balance when the teams are lopsided.
I like to think of it this way
Survivor - Normal Mode, Killer - Hard Mode
Than to think of the game as something that can be balanced properly
-
The gist is the same though. This game is a 1v4 and balance can't be thought of like a 5v5 or 1v1 game.
If Killer is too weak, then match making gets broken, too
Survivor has to be just slightly stronger, but not so much that no one plays killer. And that is a hard thing to balance