Home Dead by Daylight Forums Discussions General Discussions

Truetalent vs Oracle team, what do you think?

15681011

Comments

  • DodgingbearsDodgingbears Member Posts: 252

    I have seen several videos with him complaining about strong swf when he makes a ton of mistakes ... then he blames swf strength or builds... its very prevalent. No one can play perfectly all the time... and 4 people have a better chance to help cover mistakes than 1 person does.

    The room for error as a killer is smaller, no doubt. Resorting to blaming "swf" when you have no idea if they are swf... and he has been wrong several times... is not good either. It gives a bad look to the community who doesnt pay as much attention.

    I used to watch him a lot, but the whining overtook the value of seeing the gameplay to me. Just my opinion, but unless you play near perfect, then introspection is probably the best course of action.

  • VerconisspVerconissp Member Posts: 1,282

    Ight. if the game is killer sided. Go bring the Meta perks rn, go Face Oracle rn, As both Nurse / spirit,

    Go ahead. i'll wait for your response,

  • MrSmashemMrSmashem Member Posts: 161

    I said the exact thing earlier in the thread and it got completely overlooked, as it seems your comment has been. This is what needs to happen before anything; you need to bridge the gap between SWF and Solo.


    Comms need to be implemented for Solo, including non-verbal stuff like a ping system. I think making builds/items visible to other Survivors in the lobby would help, as well.


    Once the gap is bridged, then we can talk about balance.

  • MarcoPoloYoloMarcoPoloYolo Member Posts: 508

    Then the game will die earlier than it would otherwise, especially if they commit to MMR but don't make drastic changes. No one is going to get good and want to alternate between ok survivor teams and god squads if the cap to killer's ability remains in place. At a certain point, the gameplay won't be satisfying.

    Honestly, games can make drastic changes. The issue is if BHVR will do so or not. While this wouldn't fix competitive alone, A. Fixing spawns including making survivors spawn closer to the killer B. Reworking hooks to something that spawns to a killer's location after pickup would be things that speed up killers to deal with the objective time disparity while not making the survivor objective longer and more miserable. When you really think about it, Pop only partially refunds you the time you took to hook a survivor in most circumstances.

  • aroellaroell Member Posts: 477
  • aroellaroell Member Posts: 477

    Yes, I think I will. But I would feel bad for them because they would stand no chance against me.

  • FrostySealFrostySeal Member Posts: 503

    Yes, I know he would've lost either way but with a more competitively viable build he could've done much better. The game should be balanced for good players, but there is a MASSIVE difference between balancing between good players and a 4 man comp SWF team that have been playing the game for years trying their hardest to win. Balancing for the 1 percent of the game would destroy the game, it would require so many changes that it would just change the game into something unrecognizable. Watch ScottJund's video on why you can't balance around the 1 percent in DBD.

  • FrostySealFrostySeal Member Posts: 503

    I watched the video and I explained earlier, Wraith was easily one of the worst options he could've picked. Wraith heavily relies on a hit and run playstyle which works just fine in regular games but in a competitive scene it falls apart. There is no point in having ruin or any perk for that matter if you aren't able to apply pressure to survivors. Hell, even if he picked Trickster he could've probably done better, Trickster is a great camper and he would've been able to secure 1, maybe even 2 kills.

  • woundcowboywoundcowboy Member Posts: 1,039

    I watched it. I have also been a competitive gamer for years. Balancing around top players doesn’t affect the playerbase in any other game.

  • FrostySealFrostySeal Member Posts: 503

    Like I said with the other guy, big difference between balancing for good players and a 4 man comp team that are trying their hardest to win. You can't balance around pro players in asymmetrical games because asymmetrical games are impossible to balance and forcing it to be a competitive game will kill it extremely fast. Most players in DBD are casual players and forcing the game to be put in a competitive scene will force them to leave the game, leaving the extremely small percent of people who play the game seriously, and guess what? Those players will leave too because the game has now become so unrecognizable that they're completely off put by it. Plus most pro players spend their time on games like Valorant, CSGO, etc because those games are actually somewhat balanced, all asymmetrical games are unbalanced meaning you can lose just because you had bad RNG. It's for that reason any asymmetrical game that has tried to be competitive (like deathgarden) die early on.

    You can watch Scott's video on why you can't balance around the top 1 percent in DBD for more examples.


  • FrostySealFrostySeal Member Posts: 503

    Go ahead, explain to me how would BHVR be able to "fix" the top 1 percent players without killing their game, I'll wait. I've already brought up examples in my earlier replies to different people so I won't repeat it but any attempt to balance the game around the top 1 percent, especially in an asymmetrical game will cause the game to die extremely quickly.

  • FrostySealFrostySeal Member Posts: 503

    Because those game aren't asymmetrical are they? Look at any example of an asymmetrical game trying to be competitive and you'll see a pattern real damn quick. Look at deathgarden, BHVR's attempt at making a competitive asymmetrical game. Explain to me how that game is doing right now. Like I sad earlier, most players in this game are casual players and as such forcing the game into a competitive scene will put those players off the game which will kill most of the playerbase. Then the remaining few players will be put off by the extremely long queue times and the fact that in order to win a game of DBD now you'll have to play extremely competitively.

    Scott has made a video's explaining how balancing around the top percent of DBD will kill the game fast. Watch it.

  • thrawn3054thrawn3054 Member Posts: 4,684

    Aren't they like one of the absolute best survivor teams in the world? Facing a guy using Wraith and never plays comp himself? Why wouldn't he get annihilated?

  • Midori_21Midori_21 Member Posts: 644

    One of the devs explained in his stream that in-game chat was something they talked about in the beginning days of dbd, and they decided it was not the direction they wanted to go.

  • FrostySealFrostySeal Member Posts: 503

    Kinda funny how you just refused to acknowledge the part where I explained that those competitive games aren't asymmetrical huh? Go ahead, show me one competitive ASYMMETRICAL game that hasn't died out and is in fact bustling with players. I've already explained why it won't work but your not listening.

  • nicnc82nicnc82 Member Posts: 316

    My survivor que at red rank doesn't suck. We get games in about 3 minutes max

  • syainsyain Member Posts: 267

    Pretty much what I expected. Just think it's kinda funny to see people acting as if vsing Oracle-tier teams is a real thing you should fear willl happen to you with any frequency at all and therefore is something the game should be balanced around. It's a Wraith, no kidding he's gonna do terrible against the best team in the world.

  • MarcoPoloYoloMarcoPoloYolo Member Posts: 508

    Well, if they fix the top 1 percent and MMR is functioning and on, bad survivors won't match up with the good killers as often until they get better. The DBD community is the only community I know that's like "Oh god, you can't possibly balance around players that know how to play the game!!!!!" What makes you think that killers only killing survivors because they are outright bad at the game won't eventually kill the game? It's boring to have your limits determined mainly by the skill of the other side (and killer is more stressful, so that makes it worse). It can make you feel like your a passive actor rather than an active one. Now, there are the top tier killers where this is not the case. However, this is 4 killers in the roster at best, 2 at the worst, making it boring in another sense. Why do you think survivor queues are bad?

    As for the video you posted, Scott's logic is incredibly flawed. The path forward is so obvious, and he somehow didn't process it. It's not a monumental task to balance the game. Balance the game around the general level of mid/high-tier killers, buff the low-tier killers, and nerf the high-tiers down to that level. I don't think anyone in their right mind has ever been saying that Nurse and Spirit should remain unchanged if survivors got nerfed. The reason why they're ok at all is because survivors are just so overpowered against the other killers. So the game could be in a far more healthy state in about 4 chapters.

  • KIKI_KIKI_ Member Posts: 135

    You are assuming balancing around that single match would punish the other 999 games. That's a pretty big assumption to make. Watch other competitive games. Take Dota 2 for example. Dota's complexity is beyond what dbd could ever aspire and yet it is a balanced game. Take a guess. Yes, they balanced around top percent. Casual and average people still enjoy and still play the game.

    Stop trying to predict the future. "It wont work" you say. You don't know that. It works in other games far way more complex than dbd. Why would not work in dbd?

  • woundcowboywoundcowboy Member Posts: 1,039

    I am listening just fine. Neither you nor anyone else in the community has provided evidence that asymmetrical would be different. It's just a talking point that people think justifies itself, and so it gets spammed.

  • Edgars_RavenEdgars_Raven Member Posts: 1,236

    So survivor has been hooked twice theyre invincible? Killers would just slug them. Good killers get rid of the weakest chasers first because any moron can hold m1 and it generates pressure on the rest of the team. If i cant remove them from the game their getting slugged so that they cant do gens and so it creates pressure on the rest of the team. Instead of ending that poor persons game you want them to spend 10 minutes staring at dirt and somehow thats better?

  • VerconisspVerconissp Member Posts: 1,282

    I will personally laugh when you get gen rushed to high heaven and back then my guy,

  • FrostySealFrostySeal Member Posts: 503

    Yes, MMR would fix a decent amount of the issues, but like I stated a million times, there is a difference between balancing for good players and balancing around the top 1 percent. And you are heavily underestimating how much work it would take to balance Killers around a high level, perhaps if BHVR weren't so slow it would take less time.

    Lets assume BHVR took on the monumental task of making every Killer at the bare minimum an A-tier killer, this would require so much work to do it isn't even funny. Some Killers like trickster are fundamentally flawed meaning they need a full on rework and other Killers would need a lot of buffs including addon reworks and other things. This means that assuming BHVR doesn't mess up on a single Killer rework it would take well over a year to make every Killer strong, and this isn't even touching upon how they may add new Killers during that time and that they were all strong and didn't come out weak. Also not assuming all the map reworks that would need to happen due to some (like haddonfield or disturbed ward) being too strong for survivor, also not including the amount of perk reworks that would need to be done in order to bring the game into a more balanced state. Combine all of that and it'll take BHVR minimum one and a half years (once again assuming they don't mess up) and I haven't even talked about to sheer amount of bugs that would need to be taken care of resulting in even more time coding.

  • WeederickWeederick Member Posts: 1,065

    Gotta be honest: The devs could atleast try and balance out the issues at both low- and highranks.

    There is a difference between, lets say, 2016 dbd and todays dbd. Or between dota 1 and dota 2. Just calling them impossible to balance doesnt cut it. Its an excuse. It should be a path where both sides get closer and closer by experimenting with new mechanics.

    Just leaving bad mechanics as they are, just cause the game is asymmetrical, is lazy and uncreative. We're all pretty happy that instamoris, instagens, omeganurses and instaDS are gone. Just take it a step further and work on the main objective issue. Potatoes dont work on gens, while vets rush gens. Potatoes fall for camping, while vets rush gens. Maybe work out a way to make personal time on gens less relevant. Im sure you can make things better than not caring about it.

  • FrostySealFrostySeal Member Posts: 503

    I just brought up Deathgarden, a competitive asymmetrical game that you apparently choose to either not read about or accidently skip over. Oh yeah, what about that other infamous game Evolve? The asymmetrical game that tried to be competitive but also failed?

    Also the difference between those competitive games with casual players and DBD is that DBD started out and still is a casual game, those games started out as competitive games so players knew what they were getting themselves into. Turning DBD into a competitive experience would require so much work and effort that by the time everything was done (hypothetically) most players would be turned off by how much the game would have changed and how it is STILL imbalanced. I've told you this multiple times but it is impossible to balance asymmetrical games, you can't ever do it. The only way you would ever make DBD into a competitive game is if you removed every map except for coal tower, removed all the RNG from that map and made it static, kept only Nurse, Spirit, Blight, and Hag, and made it so they can only have the most competitive build, and the same thing for survivors too. Does that sound like a fun game to you? Do you think that people would still play DBD if it turned into that?

Sign In or Register to comment.