I'm guessing you're talking about the game conductor. I'm not sure it's supposed to work for PvP, they only mentioned it for PvE.
Since the announcement of PvP, the only thing I hear is "look at L4D!". Since when did L4D become the absolute reference? It's really not a good example and certainly not a reference. I always considered KF1 vastly superior to Valve's title, and I definitely don't want KF2 to be inspired by L4D. "valve created a PvP mode" has nothing to do with what TWI should or should not be doing
L4D Versus was amazing fun. That's probably why.
You may not have enjoyed it but a whole lot of other people did. So no, TWI shouldn't make design decisions just because Valve did something. But I don't think anyone said that. They just said that Versus was a brilliant design concept and it was very well balanced, despite the obvious asymmetrical design.
And, TWI are hardly new to asymmetric PvP, are they?
However, they will need to pull out their very best asymmetrical design stops here, there's no question of that. First, L4D Versus is inherently balanced for PvP because both teams take turns to play survivors. I've not played it for years but I recall that, unless you modified the server, survivors had it much easier in Versus than Infected. In general, Survivors were expected to survive and it just came down to who did it better. That did change with L4D2 (it was much tougher to survive in those maps, at least initially). But my point is, L4D Versus needed tweaking but was still always, at its base, balanced. The tweaking just made it more fun. But it was never asymmetrical, because everyone got to pay survivors and infected.
TWI don't appear to be using the same approach. They're going full on asymmetrical. This will present more issues (one major one being no one will want to pay survivors, particularly to begin with). The other being getting the balance right. The interesting thing is, Valve couldn't do it. L4D Versus wasn't the first design, it was originally going to be Coop but where players controlled the Infected. Valve felt it wasn't fun so they created Versus instead.
TWI managed it with RO:RS. Although some maps were really not balanced (a problem with any team based shooter, mind).
It'll be a bigger challenge here though. But the only thing that matters is if people want it. You apparently don't. And that's fine. But you can't just proclaim the game doesn't need it because you don't like it and then claim the game's development will negatively impact you because of it.
It's happening. People obviously want it. I doubt there will be any impact on weapons in Survival. And whatever impact there is on development time is worth it if it is played by people.
This isn't the first time a developer received negative feedback for daring to introduce something totally new instead of focusing 100% on bugs and expanding what we already have. That's because some people think the game should be designed the way only they want.
