Does Competitive belong in Dead by Daylight?

by



Read more Dead by Daylight ➜ https://deadbydaylight.mgn.gg

Does Competitive belong in Dead by Daylight? https://www.twitch.tv/CoconutRTS

source

47 thoughts on “Does Competitive belong in Dead by Daylight?”

  1. It's so funny how strict MMR has been forced upon the entire gaming community, in literally every single video game, despite nobody ever asking for it. If I want to sweat I'll play a Ranked mode, otherwise I'll take my chances with a grab bag of opponents/teammates. Forced SBMM has killed my enjoyment of sooo many franchises. Halo, GoW, Smash Bros, DbD, probably even Mario Party.

    Reply

  4. I think the game should stray more into the casual element and let people who want a more competitive scene create their own. Asymmetrical 4v1 games are hard to balance because each side has separate goals. If you look at competitive games like shooters, fighting games and MOBAs, both players/teams have the same/similar end goal. But in DBD the killer has to kill and survivors have to escape. Two objectives that are connected but have different requirements for completion. This makes it so that if you buff/nerf an aspect of one side, it will always nerf/buff the other because there is no overlapping in their win conditions. You nerf gen speed and the killer has more time to kill. You buff healing and you take away the killer’s pressure. There is no “single” change that can be made in which only one side would benefit/suffer from. Unlike a MOBA where you can buff/nerf a character to make them more fair. There will always be a back and forth in balancing in DBD and that makes it very difficult for competitive.

    Reply

  7. I wish there would be a new game, a hybrid between DbD and Identity V. One thing that makes me bored in DbD is survivor. It becomes really dull and MMR did not help at all. On one hand you get competent teammates but the killers variety is much lower + plus the gameplay is a lot less interesting. Lots of camping, slugging, one hooking. Identity V on the other hand, survivor and killer gameplay are entertaining on the same level, however one thing I hate about IV is the lack of strategy. Most efficient way of playing is tunnel 1 survivor after another and try to prevent a rescue. No defence of the cipher machines like DbD has with gens. The thing that made me lose interest in IV is the repetitevness and predictibility of games. Same maps & spawns, same gameplay from killer with little differences to each character. DbD is now slowly but surely transforming to the same stupidity IV has. Survivors objective becomes ridiculously fast, killers best strategy is camp and tunnel survivors 1 by 1.

    Reply

  8. This is an opinion that I have not heard from content creators in the DBD community. I personally take the radical stance of anti-competition. I think balancing around competitive players is a disastrous thing to do for the casual player base as it will suck the fun out of the game for them. A game that is not similar to DBD, but I think has a similar playerbase, is TF2. And one of the worse updates for that game added a competitive mode that was dead on arrival and balanced several weapons to make them more balanced in competitive. As a consequence these weapons went from being very fun silly weapons in casual to completely useless weapons.

    Further, as you showed in this video a bent towards competition cratered DBD's playerbase indicating to me that it is even more casual than TF2's playerbase (given that the competitive update was a net neutral for TF2). Therefore, any change geared towards the competitive side of DBD's community should be viewed with great suspicion. The community needs to realize that DBD is a casual game and talking about balance with the myopic focus of top level survivors and killers is not only honing in on a vast minority of the community, it actively harms the great majority of players.

    Reply

  9. I kinda rather them just work on making the current modes as good as they can be rather to making new modes. New game modes would divide the community more than it already is with MMR being in the game. I think DbD is fine without that kinda stuff.

    Reply

  10. Identity V is competetive asym. game. It can be played on mobile and PC. Also I think all the changes they are currently implementing into DBD is due to MMR and suddenly 7000 players came back to the game, so MMR at the end of the day has to be doing something right.

    Reply

  11. I kinda disagree with you saying Identity V not being big or having a competitive scene. It has a pretty big player base mostly due to it's collabs but still notable. And it has tournaments hosted by the developers that have way bigger prize pools than any DBD tourneys have had. It also has a ranked mode with clear win or lose conditions. Do I think that their ranked mode is good or should exist in an asymmetrical game? No, but the thing is if a player base is large enough there is gonna be a desire to compare yourself to others. Ranked modes are just the result of that mindset. Regardless of how many modes you add or how casual or competitive they're meant to be, it won't change a thing. The players are the ones who make things competitive or casual. Not the modes. So I do agree with not having a ranked mode in Dead by Daylight but for different reasons

    Reply

  12. Technically speaking, baseball is an asymmetrical game. It's just they swap sides each inning, a bit like how competitive DBD has a team play both survivor and killer. You can solve for the asymmetrical aspect, it's a lot harder to solve the sheer imbalance of the game.

    Reply

  15. Idk how to tell you this but.. Among Us does have a healthy competitive scene. Left 4 Dead versus is also extremely competitive and still going years later.

    The problem with DBD isn't the existence of competitive play, it's that it forced everyone to play competitively with the introduction of MMR. So there is no casual way to play unless you have 5 people for customs beforehand. Trying to block out the portion of the playerbase thay wants to play competitively or force them to be in the same games as people who play DBD as a social/party game will help nobody.

    What we really need is more casual options, like a quickplay where it puts you in a lobby with 5 people and it picks the killer randomly for example. A competitive mode wouldn't really do anything because the only way to play is already the competitive mode.

    Reply

  16. imho, I think a game becoming competitive or not is something that needs to happen naturally and not be forced by the devs, which is sorta what happened with DBD. Tournament DBD already exists and is played for prize pools and BHVR had nothing to do with it, they just saw people were like it and wanted to go "Okay, how do we introduce more people to that type of setting?" which brought in the infamous SBMM. I'm personally not even against a comp/tournament mode for DBD. (or BHVR could host actual tournaments and put in some money for the prize pool if they wanted).
    I don't think the argument "No, the game was meant to be casual" is at all valid since the best comp games are the ones that were NOT made to be competitive games. Look at Overwatch. It was designed from the ground up to be an esport and it's dead. Look at counter-strike. It's predecessor wasn't made as an esport, just a casual shooter. Now its one of the biggest esports. LoL & DotA as well, weren't originally designed to be esports. Their communities just happened to love being competitive in the most general sense and the devs accepted and embraced it.
    I'm not saying BHVR should do the same, but I still don't think a "tournament"/"competitive" game mode for DBD would be a bad thing like people believe and say.

    Reply

  17. Competitive DBD doesn’t work super well because a lot of it is RNG dependent (totem spawns, tile generation, scourge hook spawns, etc). The less RNG dependent a game is, the better chance is has at being a more competitive game due to the only change factor being skill and game knowledge. Id love to see more gamemodes being added to DBD though. Prop hunt would be super fun and I think it would do well. Maybe testing a competitive mode with fixed RNG factors would be cool too.

    Reply

  18. 1) I don't agree and I want competitive as a secondary mode. The best satisfying close and clutch games happen only when both teams are very close in skill and perform at their best. When there is no build limitations and no mmr – one side always crushes another and gets the toxicity instead of a reward. Being helpless and not seing a clear aim of the match – that is what makes people toxic to the opponent.

    2) Weakminded people never feel their loss was fair. Even if you with no perks or addons still win against them, they will find an excuse. And the game accumulated a lot of such player just by not having a clear win condition.

    Reply

  19. Civilization VI is somewhat close in terms of being asymmetrical, although it still doesn't hit the mark.

    Even with competitive balancing mods and spawns there's still RNG with the spawn locations and different abilities between Civilizations in a 4v4 comp match.

    Spawn next to Alexander the Great as Mali with no teammates nearby? 3v4 by turn 60, if the game hasn't already been conceded by then.

    Reply

  22. I disagree in some ways if the game gets a competitive mode right now it would be a worthless implementation cause the only killers who would win games is nurse spirit and blight and survivors would just steamroll every other killer however after this update if they do another map passover to balance the game then assuming they do a good job on the maps which is high hopes I know but if that happens a competitive mode would be fine especially with special skins you can earn by climbing the ranks but for all of this to work the game needs to be balanced in a way that ALL killers are viable at high level it's just sad that most killers can't compete at high level after so many years

    Reply

  23. DBD Players: I hate sweaty games!

    Also DBD Players: Plays to win every game by any means necessary, and complains later that their matches are too sweaty because they have a high MMR skill-level due to winning too much.

    Reply

  26. Before mid chapter
    Survivors: we have to do gens quickly, killer might have noed

    After mid chapter
    Survivors: we have to do gens quickly bcoz it takes 90 seconds to do gen

    Reply

  28. Evolve is an unfair comparison. Evolve was basically the first big asymmetrical and paved the way for asymmetrical games. It was out before DBD and those other asymmetrical game that you mentioned. Its development started back in 2005, I believe. It had a rocky journey with publishers. 2k was not the right one for the job. It was experimental. Asymmetrical games were in the infancy. They didn't learn until the end it with stage 2 evolve but then they had too much backlash. Evolve was ahead of its time. DBD is somewhat carried by its Licensed killers. I have played DBD and it was somewhat because of the licensed killers. That is probably the biggest thing as to why it hasn't died. If another game like evolve was released it would do well. Perhaps there will be in late 2023.

    Reply

  30. its not fair to say they lost players when made it competitive. there wasn't an alternative and its not for everyone. lots of players on both sides want a challenge and some people want to have fun. the problem was everyone was grouped together and those that just want fun. being competitive and trying hard with only strong meta perks is fine but it wouldn't hurt to have that as its own separate game mode.

    Reply

  35. Has coconut never played identity V? It has a ranked mode. It is the closest thing to showing what ranked dbd would be like. Saying its on mobile isn't really an argument.

    Reply

  36. Evolve didn't die because of the competitive it died due to severe lack of content, terrible plan for dlc/micro transactions, and hunters who refused to learn the mechanics and actually get good at them. The actual competitive side of evolve was actually fairly well balanced. Of course it did have it's issues like Amy game will but it was overall quite well done and especially if you get into their later balance patches.

    So I think saying evolve failed is a little disingenuous because it was the competitive aspect that caused that.

    Reply

  40. Dead by daylight competitive just make a complete new game focused for called dead by daylight extreme or something so people shur up about it because we all know how bad forced comp mmr was even if those small few who benefited from it won't admit it

    Reply

  42. I basically agree. This game dies when focused on competitive and when the wait times are too long. They can’t make the base game competitive and they can’t add new modes. Their hands are kinda tied.

    Reply

  44. It feels like a lot of developers try to aim at being competitive when a game easily works for casual. I really wish more devs would try and create casual game modes

    Reply

  45. I think, one big problem is, how the game handles different counters. The game is full of them, examples:
    -urban evasion counters hag, demo, twins
    -calm spirit counters doctor, spies from the shadows(, spirit)
    -iron will counters spirit (not only, but as an example)
    -cleansing totems counters noed
    -shattered hope counters boons
    -unbreakable counters slugging
    -decisive/bt counter tunneling
    -anti dead hard perks counter dead hard
    -anti gen rush perks counter gen rush
    All these perks and strategies (there are probably many more, I just stop here) counter specific other perks or strategies. But theres no gameplay involved. You take the perk/go the strategy or not. And you have to make the decision without knowing anything about the enemy.
    When you take urban evasion, you are really strong against hag and such, but have no big advantage when playing against other killers then the named above. So it generally not worth so you don't take it. Same with calm spirit: Really worth when playing against doctor making his power incredibly weak, but in every else situation you wanna take another perk.
    The thing with counters is this: You will take them, when the strategy/perk they block becomes too strong and often used (decisive, bt, anti dead hard, regression perks). This gives a natural balancing to the game by making strong strategies weaker due to counter perks/strategies, giving weaker strategies better chances, because they aren't countered. But the more of these perks/strategies with according counters you add, the more you make the game to be focused around these systems (since you only have 4 perks and maybe you wanna counter 4 different systems) which means, you have less perks to use to give other utility, because everything focuses on meta and counters. In other words: You have to take counters in order to block certain dominant perks/strategies in order to have chance, which takes away room for you to try different strategies.
    Gen rushing is like not a particular strategy, but a good example. The strategy to mainly focus on gens is very strong, so you take anti gen rush perks, so you can make this strategy weaker, giving you 1 perk slot less. Then you may take Fearmonger to stop dead hard, now you have 2 perk slots left. In this dynamic theres not much place for fun perks like Devour or Insidious.
    In short: the more dynamics you add the more counter perks/strategies become only aids for bad balancing. To make the game more fun again, you have to balance the game again (the mid chapter changes are a step in the right direction in my opinion). This makes the counters useless, since the strategy/perk they counter aren't that dominant anymore.
    If you have less dynamics, these perks can become gameplay themselves. If you would know, that with a reasonable certainty the killer has noed, you may clear all totems to prevent noed from going on. So taking noed itself becomes a gamble, because you don't know whether the survivors just cleanse all totems. Both sides have to make a decision in some sense. But with 20 different systems, this goes away, since bothers taking the counter, since nobody in 19 of 20 games goes the strategy the counter counters.
    Ok, I guess, I made my point clear, have a nice day 🙂

    Reply

Leave a Comment