There are 2 sides pitted against one another. That is the definition of competitive. It may not be "as" competitive as other games but it is.
It's not narrow at all. It's literally THE definition of competition. You're simply pushing oppostion into competition.
Survivors and killers oppose each other, but they are not competing against each other. You do not get a higher killer rank for rushing your objective, in fact, you get punished for rushing your objective. As a survivor, you do not get a higher rank for rushing your objectives, you get punished for rushing. If the game were truly competitive, wouldnt you get rewarded for finishing your objective regardless of how you got to that state? Seriously, if the game were competitive, why is there no evidence of the game rewarding competition and even punishing people who get too competitive?
So no, just because YOU are competitive in a party game, doesnt make the party game competitive. Its an opposition, but the goal is to have fun.
This is how I feel in general about the game. I just want to have fun. This game is the only game I have encountered where the more you play the worse it gets. I just want to have casual fun. Not sweat constantly. Just by me playing casually and decent I’m up near red ranks and now it’s just a constant sweat fest. It’s gotten to the point where if I’m downed a few seconds into the match and hooked I just kill myself, hoping to depip or have fun next match. I miss when I first started playing the game. Felt like an actual horror game and didn’t feel like I was in an esports match every round.
That's only a problem IMO if the meta sucks.
"The reality is that RNG does not determine the victor in DBD, skill does. If RNG lines up for Survivors, but they can't take advantage of it(I.E. skill), they lose."
My point is assuming both sides to be capable. AKA both sides have a similar or equal skill level. In fact, in the majority of Mario Party games, they allows you to win based on skill if the others are lacking because winning all the minigames essentially allows you to win the game. My point is more that assuming both killer and survivors are equally skilled, RNG dictates the win. The difference is that often you dont realize it did because you were having fun along the way. But ever since I made this post, I have been playing purely looking at what the games have offered me and how players were playing, and you'd be surprised how often a 3k is made purely due to a lack of pallets/structures spawning in, and how often 3 people escape due to too many pallets/structures spawning in. Regardless of the skill on either side, people lose despite objectively being the better player, and people win despite being objectively worse.
"And there is something that is competed over in DBD. The Killer is competing to kill, the Survivors are competing to survive. "
And you are confusing opposition with competition. "The Killer is competing to kill" against other killers? "the Survivors are competing to survive" against other survivors? or against their teammates?
"Is baseball not competitive because each team is responsible for a different objective? No, their objectives are intertwined and in direct opposition to each other."
Except, that in baseball, YOU SWITCH SIDES, THEN COMPARE SCORES. So yes, their objectives are EXACTLY THE SAME.
No, that is opposition. Competition exists when 2 sides either have the same objectives to complete, or gain something from completing their objectives post-game. Dead By Daylight has neither, it is an oppositionary game.
"Competitive games are those in which players play against one another and where one player winning means another player loses."
First thing that pops up when you google "Define competitive game". I don't know your definition of competitive but I think we have different ideas of what that is.
And you cannot even read the sentence you posted: "where one player winning means another player loses."
In DBD, there is no defined win condition. If you go off on post-game results, every single player can gain a pip, meaning EVERY SINGLE PLAYER WINS. In fact, there are cases where everyone can lose a pip, meaning every single player loses.
In DBD, one player winning does not cause their opponent to lose. Your own definition literally proves you wrong.
And yes, I am going by the pip system, because there is no other set wincondition. 4k being a win? Sure, but you can derank from rank 1 all the way to rank 9 even if you have a 100% killrate on the killers you play. 0k being a loss? Sure, but you can rank up all the way to rank 1 having 0 kills on your name. Since you actively derank, we can all agree that a 4k is not a defined win. That is just your personal win condition.
I think the real issue is the devs haven't set a clear "what is a win and what is a loss". The pip system is an absolute joke if your killer. I've had matches where I hooked someone in the basement as trapper. People kept coming to me and stepping in my traps. I hooked everyone 3 times but my chaser was non existent because they didn't lead me on a chase. We're arguing over what's a win/loss in a broken system when we should be trying to fix it. Instead of trying to make a faulty machine work.
Even further proving my point that DBD is not a competitive game. You can act if it is, which is fine. But in the end, if your "win" condition causes you to derank, then it's not a defined wincondition.
All these problems disappear tho, when we simply follow the evidence and come to the conclusion of DBD being a party game, where winning doesnt really matter as long as people had fun. Which the pip system backs up aswell. Seems like all the frustrations about losing rank disappear once you realize the game was never a competitive one in the first place.
You made my point, "both sides have similar or equal skill." RNG has to do with balance and fairness, not competition, when skill is factored in.
And dude, you don't need the same objective to compete:
That applies to DBD, regardless of subjective objectives. You have 2 opposing sides, acting directly against each-other using skill, wit and tactics to secure a victory over the other side. Its a competion.
First and foremost, the opposite of competitive games isn't "party" or "casual" games - it's cooperative games. You are either playing against other players, or playing with other players against the game itself.
Most games have an element of luck to them. Abstract games tend to have the least amount of luck, and party games usually have the most element of luck. And because of that, in most party games, the skill ceiling is so low that newcomers can pick up the rules and mechanics so quickly that they are able to compete relatively well against players with much more experience.
So is DBD a "party" game? The fact that the luck factor usually can't make up for the difference in skill level should easily give you an answer.
So is DBD balanced for a tournament-type of play? Not by a long shot. But it should continue to strive to be more balanced. Because in the end, any and all competitive games should be well-balanced, regardless of their learning curve and ease of play, luck or no luck, so that it is fun for all players involved.
"strive to gain or win something by defeating or establishing superiority over others who are trying to do the same."
Tell me, what do you gain? What do you win? Nothing.
You win by succeeding at your objective. For Killer, thats killing and for Survivor, thats surviving. In terms of "what," you get for winning, Survivors get extra BP for an escape and Killers get extra BP for sacrifices/kills, so thats something. What do you get in most PVP games for winning, besides maybe a currency bonus or extra xp?
Oppositionary games arent always competitive. Party games arent always cooperative.
"Most games have an element of luck to them."
I clearly stated that RNG was dictating the endresult of the game more than skill would. There are many games you can play utterly perfect, making 0 mistakes and still lose. There are no competitive games where luck truly made the difference, it's always the player/team making the most mistakes that loses the game. That is not the case with DBD.
" the skill ceiling is so low that newcomers can pick up the rules and mechanics so quickly that they are able to compete relatively well against players with much more experience."
You mean like Spirit players with 50 hours being able to compete against survivors with 1000 hours and still winning? Or Freddy players with 100 hours being able to compete with survivors that have 1000 hours and still winning? Yes, this game fits that definition very well. Heck, it goes the other way also. Survivors with 100 hours each can hold their own against killers with 1000+ hours in the game.
"The fact that the luck factor usually can't make up for the difference in skill level should easily give you an answer."
Except that in a lot of cases, this is exactly the case. There are games where the skill difference is TOO large, but there are quite a lot of times where there is a lack of pallets in an area that normally has plenty, there are quite a lot of times that an area know to have few pallets suddenly has plenty. You dont recognise this easily due to not having a bird's eye view of the map. But I bet that at least a quarter of the "wins" you gained is due to RNG being significantly in your favor. Not realizing this is simply ignorance of luck.
"But it should continue to strive to be more balanced."
A game being more balanced doesnt make it competitive tho. Yes, the game should be more balanced, regardless of what type of game it is.
"so that it is fun for all players involved."
For DBD to ensure fun for all players, it would need to block killers from hooking survivors more than twice untill all survivors are hooked twice or untill more than 2 generators are finished. Yet that would not be fun for a lot of killers who sometimes need to get rid of a player quickly due to the amount of problems they cause. This alone proves that dead by daylight can never truly be balanced to be fun for all players. UNLESS it's a party game that adds a seperate section for people who DO want to play super sweaty.
Except you can get max BP as a killer with only 1 kill. You can get max BP as a survivor even if you die.
And in competitive games? You get ELO. You get rank rewards at the end of the season. You gain more xp than if you lose. You gain much more currency than if you were to lose. And if you lose, you actually lose ELO.
Besides succeeding at your objective, that can be done by getting 1 kill as a killer. That can be done by 1 survivor escaping. Both, again, very arbitrary. You wont consider 1 survivor escaping a loss. But survivors succeeded at their objectives if at least 1 survivor escapes.
Imagine a baseball game where any round is randomly generated, just like dbd. Its Rng, not competition.
Competition is fighting against each others, on the same level. Baseball yes, football yes, League of Legend yes, Street fighter yes. Dbd no.
Rank is an illusion of progression. "Skill" is just knowledge of maps. Its not competitive.
Sorry stretched res users.
I mean, DBD can be competitive, if you had a team consisting of killer+survivors facing another team of killer+survivors. Because that is essentially what baseball is. One team plays the bat side first and then the other team plays the bat side.
This still forces each team to play against the same killer at least best of 2 or best of 3 to reduce RNG being a factor as much as possible. But that is the closest you can get to a competitive scene in DBD.
"Well, folks, we've got ourselves a hot one today! The Sacramento Sluggers going up against the Texas Teabaggers!"
The game potentially might be heading towards the esports alley, which honestly I think would kill the game. I heard there was a rumor that a tournament mode would be added to the game, even though we could definitely focus more on things than doing meaningless tournaments. I'd like an actual practice mode, instead of a tournament mode.
I think you just don't understand the definition of competitive games, despite most people here trying to explain it to you in the simplest way possible. Perhaps you just don't want to understand. Any and all games in which one player is "competing" against another player, by definition, are "competitive" games. If they are not "competing," but instead playing "with" another player, it's cooperative. Party games can be both competitive and/or cooperative.
I clearly stated that RNG was dictating the endresult of the game more than skill would.
The fact that a completely new player would not be able to win, no matter how much the element of luck sides with him/her with its map or totem/pallet placement against you or I, should be an indication that it isn't on the level of a "party" game. You wouldn't just invite 4 random friends to a "party" who have had no experience with this game, and expect them to win, would you? No, of course not. That wouldn't be fun for anybody at this "party". Except, if it was, say, "Apples to Apples" or "Dixit" they would definitely have a chance to win. Because those are actual party games. That's the difference.
There are no competitive games where luck truly made the difference.
Would you categorize Poker as competitive or not competitive? How about Magic the Gathering?
For DBD to ensure fun for all players, it would need to block killers from hooking survivors more than twice untill all survivors are hooked twice or untill more than 2 generators are finished. Yet that would not be fun for a lot of killers who sometimes need to get rid of a player quickly due to the amount of problems they cause.
I don't know what you are talking about here. I've had fun in DBD games as a survivor in which the killer had tunneled or camped. I've had fun as a killer in which survivors were done with 2 generators right after my first hook. That sounds more like your personal preference than anything.
So you're claiming that because you aren't rewarded for winning, it isn't competitive, although winning/losing is in-and-of itself a core element of competition, along with the other factors I laid out above. Rewards aren't necessary for competition. I've played plenty of sports outside of a regulated format where winning netted me nothing more than the satisfaction of doing so; that was still competing.
Also, you're just moving goalposts at this point. Bottom line, if you dont want to believe that a PVP game which consists of 2 opposing sides playing against each other to secure an objective, is inherently competitive, fine; that doesn't change reality, though.
I hope DBD doesn't become an esports title.
Gross oversimplifications and falsehoods here. Competition doesn't require equal skill, a fair competition would(given balance existed within the game). Also, RNG doesn't determine the victor in this game, it does play a part in balance, though. If RNG determined the victor, the second the map loaded in, in favor of either side, the game would immediately end and give the victory to the favored side. You have to have skill and knowledge in order to utilize RNG to your advantage, at which point balance is called into question.
Skill is also not knowledge of the maps, it's understanding how to utilize said knowledge and doing so in-game. And yeah, lets disregard every other mechanic in the game and pretend map knowledge is all this game has going for it.
If they did have a competitive game mode it people won’t want to play it for long because all you’re going to see is nurse and spirit because let’s be honest no killer is going to beat a 4 stack running super meta perks with comms unless it’s a very experienced nurse or spirit player. People will just get tired of playing against the same two killers over and over. Dbd should not be a competitive game nor should it have a mmr system.
"Any and all games in which one player is "competing" against another player, by definition, are "competitive" games."
Let me quote something really quick: "Competitive games are those in which players play against one another and where one player winning means another player loses."
You play against each other, but one player winning DOES NOT mean the other player lost. Hence, the game not being competitive. I agree that the setting FEELS competitive, but its not. Who loses if everyone won? Again, the only winconditions that COULD make the game competitive, are all arbitrary. This is why even though you THINK it is simple because "PVP=competition", but that isnt the case. In a competition, you either have 1 winning side and 1 losing side OR a tie. DBD doesnt fit in there. Your 4k means nothing if you lose ranks. Your 4 escape means jack-######### if you lose ranks. Therefor, Dead By Daylight is simply NOT competitive. Regardless of how much you like to dance around it. "The community generally agrees a 4k is a killer win" so what? The community generally also thinks Legion is the weakest killer even though his winrate is quite high and he is one of the least addon reliant killers here. The community could create a third-party site where a 4k IS a killer win, but according to the game, it is not. Even though YOU compete doesnt mean the game is competitive.
"The fact that a completely new player would not be able to win, no matter how much the element of luck sides with him/her with its map or totem/pallet placement against you or I, should be an indication that it isn't on the level of a "party" game."
Spirit proves you wrong. You need a minimal amount of knowledge in Spirit to topple players that are much more skilled than you are. Let alone that there are plenty of games where people with "only" 100 hours being capable of destroying people with 1000 hours purely because RNG is in their favor. Yes, it's not as RNG heavy as something like Mario Party, but it would be more comparable to games like Worms, Bomberman, Rayman M, Super Monkey Ball, Town of Salem or Among Us("Because those are actual party games." FYI). ALL of them being party games with RNG being large enough to dictate a win if all skill is equal. A new player in any of those games would not be able to win against someone who spent hundreds of hours in the game, but with relatively minimal experience, they could. THAT is what makes DBD a party game. Minimal experience can easily push you up to red ranks.
"Would you categorize Poker as competitive or not competitive? How about Magic the Gathering?"
Luck isnt as much what makes people win or not unless everyone goes all in. Luck can be a factor, but by no means does luck dictate who wins and who does not. In Poker, bluffing is the main skill, pretending you have something better than you actually have. In Magic the Gathering, you keep cards in your hand that might be worth something later, essentially making no difference if you drew it the first round, or the round before you actually play it. You know what is in your deck, you know what strategies work with your deck, it's only RNG to some extent.
In DBD, you have NO CLUE which structures will generate where other than the shack and main structure(s), the rest is essentially RNG. Will you have access to 8 pallets, or to 18? Will you get The Game, or will you get Lery's? Will Balanced Landing be a useful perk to run this match or will you get Sheltered Woods and essentially 0 value? All this added, and you have much more RNG than a Poker game. Let alone that for a full poker game, you face the same opponents for an average of 2 hours with an average of 60 hands. In DBD, you only face your opponent for 1 game and 1 game only. All this context matters.
"I've had fun in DBD games as a survivor in which the killer had tunneled or camped."
I wasnt talking about fun, I was talking about ENSURED fun. There are enough games where you face a deathslinger who just camps and tunnels you the first moment in the game, and those games arent fun. So the only way to ENSURE fun is to prevent such a situation from ever happening in the first place.
"If RNG determined the victor, the second the map loaded in, in favor of either side, the game would immediately end and give the victory to the favored side."
This is what happens the majority of "high skill" gameplay tho. Tons of games with survivors not being able to use resources in the game due to a lack of them being spawned on, tons of games with killers being unable to reach survivors due to too many resources being spawned into the game. So yes, RNG determines the victor. The only reason you dont notice this, is because most people dont really play competitive.
Dude, you're saying RNG is what determines who wins or loses, but then you're saying "only in high-skilled games." You are literally contradicting yourself. What you are talking about is balance, RNG affects balance and can tip the game in either side's favor; that doesn't negate the role that skill plays in the game.
Pure RNG is not competitive. If I grab die and say first to roll "8," wins, thats not a competition; it's pure luck/chance. In DBD, if the map favors one side, that side can still lose based on their skill. Thus, skill is the determining factor in who wins/loses and past a certain point, the imbalance of the game and counter-productive nature of RNG becomes extremely evident.
That is why this game is competitive, but not balanced.