Home Dead by Daylight Forums Discussions General Discussions

I think Truetalent is wrong about game balance being this game isn't 1v1 or 5v5

2

Comments

  • vvumpervvumper Member Posts: 26

    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.

  • vvumpervvumper Member Posts: 26

    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

  • SeraphorSeraphor Member Posts: 3,000

    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.

  • TsulanTsulan Member Posts: 11,493

    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.

  • vvumpervvumper Member Posts: 26


    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.

  • vvumpervvumper Member Posts: 26


    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.

  • vvumpervvumper Member Posts: 26

    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.

  • TsulanTsulan Member Posts: 11,493

    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.

  • knellknell Member Posts: 563

    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.

  • vvumpervvumper Member Posts: 26

    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

  • SweetTerrorSweetTerror Member Posts: 2,318

    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.

  • vvumpervvumper Member Posts: 26

    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

  • vvumpervvumper Member Posts: 26

    I understand and agree that SWF is busted. My previous/last reply to Tsulan I think is relevant to what you're saying.

  • knellknell Member Posts: 563
    edited June 2021

    "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.

  • Edgars_RavenEdgars_Raven Member Posts: 1,236

    Even if this were true, clearly theres an issue since survivir ques are so long.

  • vvumpervvumper Member Posts: 26

    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.

  • VikingWilsonVikingWilson Member Posts: 789

    Tru3talent is just all around wrong

  • SweetTerrorSweetTerror Member Posts: 2,318

    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.

  • vvumpervvumper Member Posts: 26

    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

  • knellknell Member Posts: 563

    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. 

  • vvumpervvumper Member Posts: 26

    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?

  • vvumpervvumper Member Posts: 26

    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

  • RumaRuma Member Posts: 1,931

    Never ever start do develope games. You know nothing about it.

  • MoundshroudMoundshroud Member Posts: 4,460

    Do you know how little I am interested in hearing what people think about what OTHER people think on these Forums? :) Even if the source of your idea is a Streamer, can't any of you formulate your own thoughts, put it into your own words and apply critical thinking skills? The Streamers are just people, and ones with their own biases and ulterior motives to boot.

  • KebekKebek Member Posts: 3,676

    Neither side should be just passively stronger, having bigger chance to win matches overall. Better players should win more often, that's how it should be for both sides. Large portion of that is also map balance, if maps aren't balanced favoring one side too much, that isn't fine either.

    Besides, survivors generally aren't stronger in average red ranks match, they lose more often (as you can see in the kill rates) which is caused by matchmaking, putting at least 1 bad survivors into almost every game, allowing killer to snowball the match. Here killers is usually favored to win unless he makes too many bad decision or if all 4 survivors know how to play their role which is somewhat rare.

    Ideally, both sides should have about the same chance to win, making the skill and decision making of both sides the deciding factor in who's going to win.

  • knellknell Member Posts: 563

    ?

    Is my post not showing up in its entirety? I've already mentioned other ways to keep matchmaking times sustainable without breaking the balance of the game.

  • reeves7reeves7 Member Posts: 304

    Even 2 strong survivors(solo or swf,doesnt make a difference)can win the game by themselves. At red ranks survivors are way more powerful than it needs to be.

  • MunqaxusMunqaxus Member Posts: 2,522

    Mathematically, Killers have a 60%+ kill rate, as shown by the Developers.

    Where is your "math" coming from?

Sign In or Register to comment.