If they listened to the community and acted on their wishes? Survivor would be unplayable, killer would be boring and the game would be dead.
I think the game would be dead soom. By design, the survivor side is the majority, which basicly could then force any change they want.
And even if not, people who play games have no idea about game design or game balance, making them not a good advisor.
DBD has their own product owners that make the decisions about the game even when they surely do not even have 1k hours
DBD is a zero-risk game, not innovating with new game modes since was born, so repetitive and dont expect devs will listen to us
The nurse is playable wdym? Maybe she’s not the right killer for you then?
More horny skins.
More balance patches.
More unlockables through gameplay.
Probably more dumb stuff too. But it would be fun to see.
If your talking about balance! The game would probably die for the newer players!
Blizzard decided to listen to their Overwatch League player's to bring balance to the game! While at the top ranks the game was balanced, it was way unbalanced for the casual player's!
While somethings need to be addressed about the balance of the game, for example DS and NOED
You clearly haven't played nurse any time recently. She is so glitchy and broken that shes nearly impossible to play.
I disagree with all the people saying the game will die. That's what ptb's are for. They could go down the list with suggested changes, do a ptb for say, no more than 10 of those changes, and see what the players think. If they just did ptb's with minimal changes and not super big mechaninc overhauls, on a regular basis, the community would actually be listened to and actually learn why some changes wouldn't work, or be glad that other changes are good for the game. The community would become more active and happy, bringing more players into the game.
I like how you actually gave a reason why you think that and didn't just make an assertion. I see the logic in your thinking.
Couldn't happen. Too many different opinions to actually predict what would happen.
Shirtless felix and blight
i feel it would lead to an increase in gen times, instead of focusing on map design and other balance issues, and the game becoming so unbelievably boring for survivors that the game would just die
Chaos. And the Devs would overworked trying to keep up with the demands and ever changing focus of what players are whining about.
No offense but I hate to think of that, I don't want this to happen, I wnat DBD to contiue for a long time, I don't want to actually see that message every becoming true
This. Realistically speaking, this.
Should there be more communication from the devs and less secrecy? sure. but that can only work when people also manage to not go for their necks if some hype doesn't live up to unrealistic expectations.
The community is constantly fighting over solutions for the game and their side of it. Why would they listen to us if we cant even agree on anything? The only thing we can agree on is more bug fixes and better optimization and less content.
But take Minecraft for example. The community wanted lava boats for the Nether Update. Mojang took the general concept of "crossing lava" and introduced the Strider, something better for the game than "lava boats".
I'm pretty sure if the devs took more feedback from the forums and acted upon it with more vigor, it would lead to a flourishing game. The only way that games die from player feedback is if the developers aren't fulfilling their roles as the conduits.
When developers really listen to the community's needs and don't just rely on their own "gut feeling[s]" to make (imo faulty) design decisions, and when developers then take the time to really think about how they can use their knowledge as developers to fulfill those needs in ways the community hadn't considered before, then a game prospers. Gamers are often not too great at articulating what it is that drives them to want the change, but that's the developers' job, and ignoring those drives and factors leads to a lot of frustration from everyone in a playerbase.
I'm going to reply the same thing to you that I did Sonzaishinai:
"But take Minecraft for example. The community wanted lava boats for the Nether Update. Mojang took the general concept of "crossing lava" and introduced the Strider, something better for the game than "lava boats".
When developers really listen to the community's needs and don't just rely on their own "gut feeling[s]" to make (imo faulty) design decisions, and when developers then take the time to really think about how they can use their knowledge as developers to fulfill those needs in ways the community hadn't considered before, then a game prospers. Gamers are often not too great at articulating what it is that drives them to want the change, but that's the developers' job, and ignoring those drives and factors leads to a lot of frustration from everyone in a playerbase."
and I'll add something else. Taking feedback to just add more and more ores into vanilla Minecraft would be a bad idea even though that's what many players desired. Adding more and more ways to go about getting ore and using it or more things to do in the underground while getting ore is what Mojang did (save a few occasions where another ore was justified), and this solution appeased the players asking for more ores who continued enjoying the game for what it was. The devs' job is to take criticism and feedback and interpret it into a better solution for all, something the DbD devs are mediocre at (at best). If the devs actually listened to all the feedback being given, they would be able to come up with a better game. Just removing NOED or removing DS is a stupid thing to do, and even if some of the community is begging for it, actually doing so would mean the DbD devs are not listening to the community--not understanding, something very lacking rn in light of the Clown comments and the comment on the health patch among other comments.
eigther all survivors spawn on a hook or the killer does.
i dont think there would be anything inbetween...
Minecraft is a single player game were any given change isn't opposed. Nobody said "God, Screw minecraft i hate these lava boats"
DbD is a multiplayer game where every chance has an impact for the opposing side. Making it easier for one side usually make it harder for another. You can't make any meaningfull change without someone being against.
I also find some of the decisions questonable but I can't deny the game has only improved over the years so what do I know?
Chaos, absolute chaos. The community doesn't agree with each other about anything and is in a constant battle over entitlement. If they "listened" to the community they would be making constant changes, most of which are mutually exclusive of one another.
My opinion is that the devs DO listen to the community. Freddy and Legion rework are solely based on community feedback for example, they don't just go like "let's shake things up a bit". Perk reworks are more like reactions to stats, but even these are sometimes caused by community feedback.
I actually took OP like "what if they listen MORE to community". If OP is expecting devs to not listen at all, I can simply say it is not true
Depends on how much they took the community into account.
If they listened too much, the game would likely be awful. But if they listened to select individuals who know the game well, as well as taking community opinion that is agreed upon, I believe the game could be healthier.
Again, it all depends on how much they listen to the community. A healthy balance of community opinion and internal decision is needed.
That is irrelevant if its single player or not, his point is pretty clear.
Also the second thing is wrong, objectively there are going to be changes that help the game.
Sure some people with subjectively think worse about changes, however typically its not something to mind, someone tried to say cross platform hurts the game for example. No one will all decide on one thing, however that is why it is the majority over the minority.
It is very relevant that it's single player. It easy to listen to the community when they all agree on something.
What I'm saying that most the community has zero clue about what changes help the game.
Ofcourse there are changes they make the game better. I would say that almost every change the devs made made the game better. Even if i don't agree with them.
I wouldn't want to play any version of the game but the latest one
A game no one would play lol killers want everything on their side, survivors want the same for them.
You got the new people that want everything easy, you got the high rank players that want everything easy....
lol hence why the devs dont listen entirely to the community
It would vary from really good to really bad
Some players have a good sense on the game while others make rash decisions based on a match they had
and then they reach into the survivors wallet and loot it
As long as devs take actually justified suggestions and not random [BAD WORD] like "pig op I just got killed bruh", then the game could get better.