Home Dead by Daylight Forums Discussions General Discussions

Dead By Daylight is NOT a competitive game

13»

Comments

  • PredatedPredated Member Posts: 2,446

    If there is a seperate mode for it, why would they leave it? They could easily play "casual" games when they get tired of facing the same 2 killers over and over again, you know, the same reason players play casuals in any game with a competitive scene because they get tired of facing the same meta over and over again.

    We're literally talking giving players who WANT to play competitive a place to be competitive. If they dont want to play competitive, they dont have to join the competitive mode.

    There is a semi-option for steam players right now: turn crossplay off. You'll only face people who play meta perks and play optimal. So there already is a place to go for some players to play more competitive. And you'll see that not only Nurse and Spirit have the power to beat a 4 stack with comms, as there are other killers like Oni, Freddy, Hag, Huntress, Blight, Bubba, Doctor, Plague and Twins that are quite effective there too. And I am talking people who mained those killers for 1500 hours+, so optimal aim, optimal timing, optimal placement and optimal hunting, especially since DS has been nerfed. They might not all get 4k's, sure, but 3k's are within the realm of possibilities if you constantly prepare for a 4 stack with comms.

    Because that's the biggest thing why most killers cannot handle a sweatstack with comms: they are not preparing to face one at all times. If you're not prepared to face a 4-stack with most killers, then sure, only Spirit and Nurse stand a chance. But a competitive scene where 4-stacks would be the norm? You bet your ass that a lot of killers have builds dealing with that. The only thing that a competitive scene needs is unlimited addons and all perks unlocked, essentially Kill Your Friends.

    There simply is a demand for a competitive scene, as long as the competitive scene is seperate from the normal scene, how is that ever a bad thing?

  • xEcoLog1cDuk3XxxEcoLog1cDuk3Xx Member Posts: 441

    Not a competitive game and yet we have Ranks???

  • danielmaster87danielmaster87 Member Posts: 6,151

    I've learned that "playing for fun" means you don't care for winning at all, and will most likely sink the whole team with your inexperience and nonsensical map awareness. This is why we need a ranked and a casual mode, so they can please the competitive and non-competitive people.

  • TicTacTicTac Member Posts: 2,168

    I asked that wrong. I meant what is the consequence if dbd is a party game? Does it matter?

  • JagoJago Member Posts: 1,418

    Rank in DbD is just an illusion of progression.


    Pick leatherface and facecamp. It might take a bit, but you'll end up Rank 1.


    Were you a good player ? No. But the game tells you you're good enough to keep playing.

  • PredatedPredated Member Posts: 2,446

    No, playing for fun doesnt mean you dont care for winning. It means you dont care if you lose. I am not going to turn my frustrations up 9000000% just because I could win if I did. I win 80% of my games as survivor, meaning my version of winning which is most of my team walking through the exit gate. I win 90% of my killer games, meaning my version of winning where most of the survivors do not exit through the gate.

    I could win 99% of my killer games, and I could win 95% of my survivor games if I played sweaty, I only lose 10-15% more games but in exchange I have 200% more fun on average.

    As for inexperience and nonsensical map awareness, excuse me, I have 2.5k hours in the game. Having fun matters more at this point than getting wins that doesnt mean ######### anyway. If there is 2 dc's I could end the match early and "win" or I can ######### around with survivors and have some fun. I know maps, I know vanilla distances and know which addons are used when there is a discrepancy in distances. I can 99% of the cases fully predict what the killer is using before the second generator is popped. So me "playing for fun" doesnt mean I dont care for winning, I still try to win while having fun, but I am not gonna sacrifice fun just to get a shallow, meaningless win.

  • PredatedPredated Member Posts: 2,446

    Oh, it's just that the playerbase shouldnt play as competitive as they currently do. No reason to sweat games for utterly meaningless things like bloodpoints or rank and just start having fun instead. Stop actively ruining people's days for no reason than ruining their days, and just have fun scaring the ######### out of them. This is why a lot of people enjoy facing or playing T1 Myers, while competitive players absolutely despise him.

    If you stop thinking about the most optimal way to face your opponent and instead go for the most fun way to face your opponent, the endresult wont matter(which, if you already noticed, doesnt matter anyway). It would change the mindset of overall players.

  • CountVampyrCountVampyr Member Posts: 1,050

    Many times if I play killer I’ll have survivors message me things like “EZ” if they escape, but they’re always assuming that I was out to “get” them. Sometimes I am, but most often I’m playing for rift points, which means that what I’m really after isn’t what they “think” I’m after. I mean, I can’t destroy as many pallets and damage gens as possible in a round if I kill everybody, now can I? My win conditions often don’t involve whether or not they survive, but sure, if a player is an easy hook while I’m performing my main objective then yeah I’ll hook ya.

  • FrenziedRoachFrenziedRoach Member Posts: 2,585

    "You cannot choose to play casual games or competitive games, therefor the default goes to casual."

    blinks

    What?!

    *blinks in confusion again*

    Say again? NO..... dude.... There's no such thing as a "Casual" mode in any game. Just ranked and unranked. Sweaty players like myself can still play unranked. Soooo....... your reasoning is flawed.

  • papabear2009papabear2009 Member Posts: 115

    There were 69 comments made on this thread but I don't allow anyone to have nice things.

  • PredatedPredated Member Posts: 2,446

    Oh, you mean ranks that you can gain by killing 0 survivors? Ranks you can climb with 0 escapes?

    In what competitive game do you GAIN ranks for failing to complete your objectives? In what competitive game can you achieve the highest rank by losing?

    Let's take the easiest example: online chess

    If you defeat your opponent, your rank increases based on elo difference, if you get defeated, your ranking decreases based on elo difference. If you tie, your elo rarely changes unless the elo difference is too large(essentially, landing a tie with someone who has 600 elo while you have 1200 elo tends to slightly decrease your elo).

    Now, how does DBD fit in here? You can defeat your opponent, and lose your ranks. You can be defeated and gain ranks. That's not how a ranking system works.

  • PredatedPredated Member Posts: 2,446

    Yes, and the default for unranked is casual, even if YOU decide to play sweaty.

  • knellknell Member Posts: 563

    "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."

    There is nothing arbitrary about the win condition of DBD. "As a Killer, your goal is to sacrifice as many Survivors as possible. As a Survivor, your goal is to escape and avoid being caught and killed." Those are the only game objectives. From that official wording, it's straight forward for survivors, but for killers, it may seem a bit questionable to determine how many sacrificed survivors constitutes a "win." But given how the developers have already determined game balance by establishing "2 Kill/2 Escape average" as the overall target, it's easy to conclude that killing more than 2 survivors would be a win for killers. If the players meet their objectives, they win; if they don't, they lose. Sure, there are some atypical game results where one survivor may win (escape) with the killer (3 deaths) and vice versa, but that is simply the result of the unusual decision by the developers to make this asymmetrical game with a player-elimination format. All of this has nothing to do with the fact that this game (and all pvp) is still a competitive game, given that players must compete against someone else. And "Rank" has nothing to do with the wincon of this game - it's simply used as a way to matchmake people (albeit in the most inefficient manner) in its current form.

    "Even though YOU compete doesnt mean the game is competitive."

    *blinks* Ok...

    "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. "

    So if I bring a random friend who has never played DBD before, have her play the tutorial and read through Spirit's power, she would then be able to beat you and three of your friends playing SWF? Perhaps that speaks more about you and your friends than about how strong the Spirit is. But let's say, for the sake of argument, that Spirit is overpowered. Then that is a problem with the game balance that needs be fixed - it has nothing to do with the fact that it's an unbalanced, competitive game in which the player using the Spirit is "competing" against the other players to win.

    "ALL of them being party games with RNG being large enough to dictate a win if all skill is equal."

    'If all skill is equal?' See, this is the part of where you are misunderstanding. Generally party games don't require much skill at all because of how easy they are to pick up and learn. Everyone pretty much has an equal chance of winning despite the difference in skills or experience at the game because RNG can often dictate the win regardless. That's why they can be played, here it comes... at a party.  DBD don't fall into that category.

    "All this added, and you have much more RNG than a Poker game."

    Then your definition of whether a game is competitive is determined by your personal feelings on how "luck-based" the game is. I see. So in your world, all games that you feel goes above a certain threshold of RNG is a "party game," and all games you feel that goes under that threshold is a "competitive game." Ok then. And by your definition, a game of Poker does not have much RNG, so it's a "competitive game," but DBD have too much RNG for your tastes so it is a "party game."

    ...alrighty then. I think I got everything I needed to know about your understanding of 'games' from here.

    "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."

    No one can be ensured fun. Fun is very subjective. Even the best games will have critics with differing opinions on what they find fun. But all good games are balanced, and balanced games often raise the probability for fun for everyone, and not just for the chosen few.

    Look, this is ultimately a discussion about whether DBD is tournament-ready, or even tournament-suited. If that is the discussion you want to follow, then in my opinion, DBD is certainly not tournament-ready, and it's very questionable about how it can even be tournament-suited. But right now you are deterring everyone, yourself included, from having that discussion because you want to interchange "tournament-ready" or "tournament-suited" for the word "competitive" when that word already has a specific meaning in the gaming setting - "competitive vs cooperative." And "party games" are just a subgenre of game, just as "shooting games", "fighting games", "abstract games", "resource management games", "card-drafting games", "hidden movement games", etc. are.

  • DemonDaddyDemonDaddy Member Posts: 3,270

    When one side's fun is in opposition to the other's, I consider that competitive.

  • PredatedPredated Member Posts: 2,446
    edited April 2021

    "There is nothing arbitrary about the win condition of DBD. "As a Killer, your goal is to sacrifice as many Survivors as possible. As a Survivor, your goal is to escape and avoid being caught and killed." Those are the only game objectives. From that official wording, it's straight forward for survivors, but for killers, it may seem a bit questionable to determine how many sacrificed survivors constitutes a "win." But given how the developers have already determined game balance by establishing "2 Kill/2 Escape average" as the overall target, it's easy to conclude that killing more than 2 survivors would be a win for killers."

    And aaaaaaalll this text is useless, because you could get a 4k within 1 minute and derank. Therefor, the goal to sacrifice as many survivors as possible simply cannot be the win condition. Winning doesnt make you lose progress. So there are other things you need to balance it out with.

    Let alone that dying as a survivor early on DOES make you lose progress, but dying later on in the match you gain progress. This has been true since release, regardless of the wording. Progress has never agreed with the wording. Even the victory cube had you "win" as a killer by sacrificing all survivors and still count as a loss.

    They are objectives, but finishing your objectives does not guarantee an increase in progress. THAT is what makes any competitive view on this game worthless.

    "*blinks* Ok..."

    I can compete in dying as quickly as possible with a tumor, does that make having a tumor a competition just because I say so? No, it does not. Therefor, YOU wanting to compete doesnt make something competitive. Me and another person having a tumor could both make a competition out of it, but that's 2 parties agreeing to participate in said competition. In DBD, you do not agree prior to the match. This is why the "killer rulebook" and "survivor rulebook" are considered memes, even though both "rulebooks" do make the game more fun to play for either side and anyone breaking those "rules" is considered a sweaty #########. People dont need to adhere to those "rules", but there is plenty of room in a match to respect those.

    Essentially, its a soft agreement between respectful players that you do not work on 3 generators at the same time as a survivor, just as you dont rush out a survivor when there is no obsession in the game. Both those actions adhere to the "rules" of either side, but they are not enforced. Yet survivors splitting 3 gens early(4 initially, untill you find one of them) instantly are considered ######### just as much as killers that rush kills are. In both cases, we have people being competitive towards their opponent without their opponent having agreed to participate in there.

    "have her play the tutorial and read through Spirit's power, she would then be able to beat you and three of your friends playing SWF?"

    No, but she'd only need 50 hours playing Spirit alone to be able to get a 3k if RNG is a tiny bit in her favor. Just because you cant instantly win due to RNG doesnt mean it's not a party game. Among Us is a party game too. Yet if you're new in a group that has 50% of the players being 1000 hours in, you simply wont win as an impostor. Yet, 50 hours in, you know enough about the game to win. You need minimal skill to realize how you can gain an advantage. Same applies to DBD. You can be a rank 1 killer within 100 hours of having bought the game, even though you're facing players who have played this game for 2000 hours. Does that make that killer super skillful within 100 hours(50 hours if you only play Spirit), or is the skill requirement to take advantage of RNG low? How is this not a party game? In what other game can you see players with only 100 hours consistently defeat players with 10x the amount of hours they made? A chess player with 100 hours will not get lucky and defeat a chess player with 1000 hours. Yet in DBD, 100 hours is enough to hold your own against people with 2000 hours. So how is it different from a party game? Your definition of party games essentially only limits it to games of chance.

    "it has nothing to do with the fact that it's an unbalanced, competitive game in which the player using the Spirit is "competing" against the other players to win."

    A huntress with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, a doctor with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, a nurse with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, a deathslinger with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, do I need to go on? All these are cases where one player has 10x less experience than their opponent, and still is capable of defeating them. Does that not fit your definition of party games, or are you going to stick with games of chance that have near true randomness as party games?

    "Generally party games don't require much skill at all because of how easy they are to pick up and learn."

    100 hours vs 1000 hours. That's easy to pick up and learn. The skill floors in DBD are not as high as you think they are.

    "That's why they can be played, here it comes... at a party.  DBD don't fall into that category."

    Oh, so that's why DBD players tend to fill up a custom game if they have 5 players, you know, as if they were at a party? Just because you're all playing over a program like Discord doesnt make it less of a party game, in fact, people play it at LAN parties. You know, being a party game.

    "Then your definition of whether a game is competitive is determined by your personal feelings on how "luck-based" the game is. I see."

    No, the definition goes by how much RNG tends to make the difference between a win or not. In Poker, only the final hands are dictated by luck, but your way up to the final hands are mainly dictated by skill. In DBD, your game can be won or lost without you even realizing due to RNG being so heavy in your favor, this is exactly why RNG altering offerings and perks are considered the strongest ones(map offerings, hook offerings, old undying, Trapper's traps RNG even being changed to be less RNG because it was too RNG, infinite T3 myers, because encountering survivors is RNG aswell, even if you have an educated guess). THAT is what makes it a party game. But if we go by the definition of games played at parties, then DBD also falls into that catagory. Or do we go by the definition where someone with significantly less experience can defeat someone with significantly more experience? Because, again, 100 hours, 1000 hours. If you play 1 hour a day, that's 3 months vs 3 years of experience. Do you really think someone with 3 months experience in a game is capable of defeating someone with 3 years of experience consistently if it were not a partygame?

    Or do you now suddenly want to change your definition of a party game? Because DBD fits all your definitions too.

  • immortalls96immortalls96 Member Posts: 4,652

    Sounds like half baked excuses tbh

  • danielmaster87danielmaster87 Member Posts: 6,151

    I'm saying players in general, maybe not you, who want to "play for fun" will not play optimally and belong in the lower ranks. They irk me only when I am getting matched up with them as I am playing competitive, and their mistake(s) directly causes our team to lose momentum and lose the match. That's why I would prefer if we had a ranked and unranked (casual) mode, which would help with the division in the community. If you need more details, I think swf and pink items/add-ons/offerings should be banned from the casual mode. If we have to split the matchmaking for it, so be it.

  • TicTacTicTac Member Posts: 2,168

    I dont think so. Some people just have the most fun when they try their hardest to win. Everyone can decide for himself what is the most fun.

  • knellknell Member Posts: 563

    "And aaaaaaalll this text is useless, because you could get a 4k within 1 minute and derank. Therefor, the goal to sacrifice as many survivors as possible simply cannot be the win condition. Winning doesnt make you lose progress. So there are other things you need to balance it out with."

    I've already stated that ranking has nothing to do with the wincon of this game - it's simply used as a way to matchmake people in its current form. Do you not read? Why should you make any progress to face more difficult opponents when your previous opponents didn't do anything to challenge or prove your skill? A high school soccer team champions obliterating a peewee soccer team doesn't mean that they should then next be matched with a professional soccer team, despite having a "win."

    "I can compete in dying as quickly as possible with a tumor, does that make having a tumor a competition just because I say so? No, it does not. Therefor, YOU wanting to compete doesnt make something competitive. Me and another person having a tumor could both make a competition out of it, but that's 2 parties agreeing to participate in said competition. In DBD, you do not agree prior to the match."

    In your tumor example, it is in fact a competition if both sides agree to all the rules to that 'game' since you guys are the ones making it up. But a game that is already made by someone else has its own rules - you and your friends are simply participants who have agreed to play by those rules.  And if the creator of that said game states, "As a Killer, your goal is to sacrifice as many Survivors as possible. As a Survivor, your goal is to escape and avoid being caught and killed," then that is obviously the objective of the game. It's not difficult to understand.

    "No, but she'd only need 50 hours playing Spirit alone to be able to get a 3k if RNG is a tiny bit in her favor. Just because you cant instantly win due to RNG doesnt mean it's not a party game. Among Us is a party game too. Yet if you're new in a group that has 50% of the players being 1000 hours in, you simply wont win as an impostor. Yet, 50 hours in, you know enough about the game to win."

    I don't know what kind of parties you are used to, but needing 50 hours to have a chance at winning, or even learning the basics, isn't a party game. In any type of hidden role games (like Among Us, or even Werewolf/Mafia/The Resistance), where you are divided into teams, you really don't need any experience at all to win. I've seen plenty of games in which completely new players just happen to win because they were in a right place at the right time, or picking a random person to kill off, and just happens to be the right person, or if they are on the other side, made themselves as obscure as possible. And even when you don't win, you never feel like you didn't have any chance at winning, unlike DBD.

    "A huntress with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, a doctor with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, a nurse with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, a deathslinger with 100 hours is capable of defeating survivors with 1000 hours, do I need to go on?"

    First 50 hours, and now 100 hours? Definitely not a party game. Personally, if I can't get a handle on a game within the hour, I don't think I would qualify it as a party game. People don't have that much patience to learn games while they socialize and drink.  

    "Oh, so that's why DBD players tend to fill up a custom game if they have 5 players, you know, as if they were at a party?"

    Are you seriously now saying that if you have a player-count of 5, it's immediately a party game?

    "Because DBD fits all your definitions too."

    It really doesn't.

  • TragicSolitudeTragicSolitude Member Posts: 5,455

    DbD needs a little questionnaire to help it match players together: "Do you care about escaping/killing? Y/N"

    Survivors who only care about escaping when I'm not even trying to kill are going to have a boring match against me. Killers who are out to kill when survivors are memeing get a 4k with 5 gens left with like no BP and a de-pip.

    Everyone's definition of fun is different, and the game has no way of knowing that and putting the right players together. You can't tell someone their way of having fun is wrong, but when their definition of fun doesn't mesh with their teammates'/opposition's definition of fun, everyone has a bad match, and that's bad for the game as a whole because both casual and competitive players feel cheated out of a good time.

  • fatbabyslayerfatbabyslayer Member Posts: 105

    I been trying to have fun in the game with other killers like trickster but the toxic survivors teabagging me and calling me ######### in post game chat among other more vulgar things every day for weeks has caused me to go back to tryharding and sweating I love when dbd is fun and every once in a while I like good a challenge but when every ######### game is a sweatfest I just want to DC instantly.

  • ZagridZagrid Member Posts: 999

    Yes.

    And anyone who tries to argue otherwise has not seen Suffocation Pit spawn with only 7 pallets, 1 being shack and 4 being completely unsafe.

    RNG can literally decide the outcome of a match before the players even have control of their character.

  • KatzengottKatzengott Member Posts: 531
    edited April 2021

    As long both sides playing their objectives (gens and hooks), they're playing competitive, no matter if they "just want to have fun".

    DbD is competitive, it's just still balanced around R10 and not on high level play.

  • PredatedPredated Member Posts: 2,446

    "I've already stated that ranking has nothing to do with the wincon of this game"

    Except that a 4k is not a win condition. 4 survivors being removed from the match is the condition for the game to end. Ending the game does not equal a win. Examples:

    Football is a 90 minute game, lasting the full 90 minutes ends the game, lasting the whole game does not mean you win.

    Quidditch, while it is a game from a fantasy world, it IS a game, catching the snitch is the endcondition, not the wincondition.

    Stalemates in chess is an ending condition, yet it does not win you the match.

    You are not being scored by your ability to kill survivors, therefor, it is not a wincondition. Killing all 4 survivors ends the game, but doesnt mean you won. In tournaments, sure, it might, but DBD is not a tournament by default. Ranking has nothing to do with skill, but it does have to do with the winconditions. The only way to change this, is for a system that ranks up killers who kill survivors and a system that deranks survivors that "lose" to a 3k. Yet the game isnt balanced that way, killers gain a massive advantage as soon as 1 survivor has died, snowballing easily into a win. Which is why the killrates are not averaged at 2. Survivors keep their momentum as long as they all live, but they will lose all their momentum just because 1 teammate died. Killing survivors ends you the match as a killer, but does not equal a win. There are many more factors in the game that matter.

    Dead By Daylight has an endgame conditions, where nobody wins, one where nobody loses, one where everyone wins, and one where everyone loses. You are free to personally interpret the "nobody wins" as a win or the "nobody loses" as a loss. You would be wrong, as the game has never truly been in a state where a 4k was a win regardless of the situation without there being a heavy imbalance at play(coughcoughdyinglight+ruincoughcough)

    "it is in fact a competition if both sides agree to all the rules to that 'game' since you guys are the ones making it up. But a game that is already made by someone else has its own rules - you and your friends are simply participants who have agreed to play by those rules. "As a Killer, your goal is to sacrifice as many Survivors as possible. As a Survivor, your goal is to escape and avoid being caught and killed," then that is obviously the objective of the game. It's not difficult to understand."

    Oh, the irony. You do realise that sacrificing 1 survivor because its the only survivor you can possibly sacrifice completes your objective as a killer? Because you literally sacrificed as many survivors as you possibly could? Making a 1k a win? You completed your objective, you sacrificed as many survivors as you possibly could. Were there more survivors you could have potentially sacrificed? Sure, but that wasnt possible. Therefor, you still finished your objective and "won". Congratulations.

    "but needing 50 hours to have a chance at winning, or even learning the basics, isn't a party game."

    To have a chance at winning against someone with 1000 hours*. I never even stated learning the basics of the game. And yes, that is a party game. Skribble is a partygame, I'm sure you would agree, but there is no chance you with 50 hours of drawing skills will defeat someone who has 1000 hours of drawing skills. Still a party game.

    "I've seen plenty of games in which completely new players just happen to win because they were in a right place at the right time, or picking a random person to kill off, and just happens to be the right person"

    And in how many of those games were those players facing people with 1000 hours that just let them go on even though they were actually quite obvious? Because you'd be surprised how many people hold back for the sake of having fun together. I could grab examples of video's where people who had hundreds if not thousands of hours simply ignore evidence they would use to get someone else out, simply because they were new at the game and wanted them to have fun. Just like 99% of the games you play in DBD, where people dont tend to sweat because they want to have fun in the game and they want their opponent to have a chance to have fun in the game. If DBD wasnt a partygame, this would never be the case.

    "And even when you don't win, you never feel like you didn't have any chance at winning, unlike DBD."

    Eh, there have been many, MANY cases in games like Among Us where you dont feel like you have any chance at winning. Like people constantly stacking together in Among Us, making it impossible to make kills. Or in Town of Salem where you instantly notice your teammates are terrible and you essentially have to carry your team to even find a possibility at a chance of winning. So yeah, the feeling of not having any chances at winning exist in party games.

    "First 50 hours, and now 100 hours? Definitely not a party game."

    TO WIN AGAINST PEOPLE WITH 1000 HOURS, ######### HELL, DO YOU EVEN READ.

    "Personally, if I can't get a handle on a game within the hour, I don't think I would qualify it as a party game."

    You can get the hang of this game within 10 minutes, you can play this game with friends and succesfully win games within 30 minutes. So you would qualify it as a partygame.

    "Are you seriously now saying that if you have a player-count of 5, it's immediately a party game?"

    No, I am saying that you can play this game with friends only instantly if you have 5. You literally do not read.

    ""Because DBD fits all your definitions too." "It really doesn't."

    Yes, it does:

    -"if I can't get a handle on a game within the hour, I don't think I would qualify it as a party game"

    You can get the handle of it within 10 minutes.

    -"As a Killer, your goal is to sacrifice as many Survivors as possible. As a Survivor, your goal is to escape and avoid being caught and killed,"

    Sacrificing 0 survivors because it was not possible to sacrifice 1 survivor, is sacrificing as many survivors as possible. Escaping is only 1 of the 2 objectives that can only succeed of you succeeded the second one first, which, is an endless request untill you actually die.

    -"it is in fact a competition if both sides agree to all the rules to that 'game'"

    Your rules are that 3k+ equals a win, the game rules do not state that. Therefor it is not a competition.

    -"People don't have that much patience to learn games while they socialize and drink."

    Like, people socializing and drinking while playing DBD together

    So yes, I would argue that dbd being a party game DOES fill your requirements.

  • PredatedPredated Member Posts: 2,446

    Balancing around rank 10? So undying being nerfed because it was totally broken on half the killers was it being balanced around rank 10? Sure, keep dreaming

    And no, both sides playing objectives does not equal competition. Mario Party has you play objectives like reaching the star. You're competing for that star, but by no means is Mario Party competitive even though there is an actual competition around objectives. Then you have games like Among Us, which is by no means a competitive game, even though both sides have seperate objectives(tasks and kills).

    YOU can be competitive in the game, that doesnt mean the game is competitive. All that means is that you're just a player trying to please your own wincondition, most commonly through playing sweaty even though you absolutely do not need to, nor do you get rewarded for that kind of play.

  • MercêsMercês Member Posts: 320

    I don't care if the game isn't competitive. I'll be still playing it competitively, BHVR balancing around that or not. 😀

Sign In or Register to comment.