Not ALL unviable killers need to be buffed to be viable.
Title
The reason I think this is because every killer has a different playstyle. As such, this results as some killers being much easier than others. (Onryo, Clown, etc)
This is also the reason why someone like Clown doesn't need to be on the same skill level as someone like nurse. This would make the game unfun and unfair.
Comments
-
Not every Killer needs to be competitively viable, no.
But every Killer should be casually viable.
If you want that on a tier list, every Killer should be around Demo levels of power, ideally. Some could be stronger, but Demo should be the baseline imo.
37 -
Maybe if SBMM was actually per-killer and didn't give you the exact same survivors on Clown as you got on Nurse I would agree with that
7 -
I would argue that every killer is casually viable. I play Trapper plenty and can do fine with him, even though he's considered low tier.
5 -
There's a reason you never see Demo and it's not because of the license fiasco.
I bet survs wish every killer was same power level as Demo, imagine that.
11 -
I agree to an extent. Having weaker characters in a game isn't a bad thing, it allows for players to challenge themselves by picking a weaker character.
But I don't think you a very strong understanding of "viable" vs "unviable." It doesn't mean "strong" vs "weak," it's "can" vs "can't."
So imagine a team of very good survivors, say, equal to the skill level of whoever is reading this right now (that means you, Mr. Lurker). They send you to Ormand and bring four Commodious Toolboxes with Wire Spool + BNP, and there's no weak link. Assuming the survivors don't make any extremely grievous mistakes like unhooking in your face and three-genning themselves, which killers can you bring and reasonably expect to get at least a 2k?
Every killer that is "I can 2k" is viable, and every killer that is "I can't 2k" is not viable. As you get to higher and higher skill brackets, the "I can't" killer list becomes longer and longer.
6 -
Ideally every killer would be B tier and above but balancing will never be like that
4 -
I totally disagree with you.
Instead, the killers not viable any need improvement to be viable and therefore playable, especially without additional modules.
Take the trapper.
Without its existing add-ons, it is simply not sustainable.
That's why nobody plays the trapper over a long period without add-ons.
And that's even why we rarely seen.
Certainly not as rare as the twins.
But rare anyway.
It should therefore update this killer so they are not dependent on these modules.
And I have a specific and viable idea to improve it.
Concerning the clown the only improvement he would need is to change the yellow potion so that it only benefits him.
I suggest he drinks the potion yellow instead of throwing, which is a huge waste of time.
The drink is more cost effective and even logic.
Regarding the pig, it must be improved or rework.
These reverse bear trap and the box should have more impact on survivors and less RNG.
Again a killer must be viable and not depend on these additional modules.
These beings are bonuses.
The icing on the cake.
3 -
yep,...2k is not a win, and at higher levels, 3k often is not a pip either.
Gotta 4k to pip more often than not because you simply cannot play 12 hook friendly game at higher levels. Survivors who talk about "viability" of killers, have usually not even played the complete killer roster at high levels of gameplay.
I love playting CLown, but I can feel the difference between playing Clown and Twins at higher levels. Love clown but I would choose Twins over Clown if it was gonna be a sweaty game anyday
3 -
Every killer having a different playstyle is the exact reason why you have to periodically buff them to be at a viable state.
Since each killer more or less has different needs to consider their playstyle a success, you have to give them the tools to actually be able to make that playstyle work. It's not unfun or unfair to make a killer who is clearly underperforming better. For instance look at Sadako, she still needs help because the playstyle the devs have crafted for her isn't really working. Her playstyle isn't even all that unique as a stealth hit and run killer is a style used repeated in this game.
3 -
Oh, no, it's not about being able to win with a 3k or 4k. It's "if I'm playing xzy killer in a situation like this, is it possible for me to do something other than lose horribly? Do I have a fighting chance?"
But I feel similarly. Many of my swf friends have only played killer once or twice, but have 1k+ hours. They'll constantly complain about camping and tunneling killers and I just say "Eyrie of Crows, two gens left, M1 killer, and he only has one hook", or whatever the situation is. I'm personally a killer main, I play something like 10 killer matches to every 1 survivor match.
I love Clown, Trapper, and Doc, but I mostly play Slinger, Twins, and Bubba (who I also love). Sometimes, you just straight up can't do much more than camp one guy and get a 1k with a less viable killer.
4 -
fun fact
the only killer ive looped for 5 gens is demo
3 -
all killers are viable because otherwise their kill rate would be in the 5%'s not 50's. 'S Tier' Killers can still lose against the fabled SWF Death Squads just as much as a killer like Clown can win against them. Theres too many factors involved in what causes a win or loss, including what an individual player even classes as a win/loss.
Once you start buffing Killers that are the lowest on peoples tier lists all you're gonna get is a never ending power creep where someone new takes lowest spot until they're buffed, knocking everyone back down 1 slot and the cycle repeats.
1 -
Every killer needs:
1) to be FUN TO PLAY. It doesn't matter if the killer has a 100% win rate, if it feels like pulling nails trying to use their power, that's a bad design.
2) to be able to get downs. No matter the power, killers MUST be able to hit and down survivors. If they can't do it, that's bad design.
3) to have a power that feels like it is doing something helpful. If you're almost always better off just holding W instead of using your power, that's bad design.
That being said, in a GOOD game, every killer would be A-tier, with the super-hard-to-play ones being S-tier to compensate for the increased difficulty. Intentionally setting out to make C and D-tier killers like Sadako is a great way to get people to not buy your content. And nerfing A and B-tier killers like Freddy or Deathslinger down to C and D-tiers is a great way to get your killer players to quit playing your game.
6 -
The unfun and unfair part depends on the perspective. Don´t you think? Clown being weak, certanly makes the game fun and fair in the eyes of the survivors he´s playing against.
1 -
"Once you start buffing Killers that are the lowest on peoples tier lists all you're gonna get is a never ending power creep where someone new takes lowest spot until they're buffed, knocking everyone back down 1 slot and the cycle repeats."
Dead By Daylight has one HUGE difference that changes the equation: Killers play against Survivors, not other Killers. When an individual Killer is buffed or nerfed, other Killers are not made relatively better or worse because the Survivors function the same across the board. How viable a Trapper is against Survivors has no bearing on how viable the Hillbilly is against Survivors. If you suddenly gave Ghostface unlimited insta-kill projectiles, the Clown doesn't become better or worse against those Survivors. If the second lowest tier Killer still does well enough against Survivors while the lowest tier Killer is wholly unviable, then buffing the lowest tier Killer to be one of the best Killers in the game doesn't make the second lowest Killer suddenly bad and unviable.
3 -
IMO every killer should not only be viable but should be pre-rework no-blink-recharge nurse-tier.
0 -
I think balancing maps is also super important. Gideon is ridiculous for m1 killers. I don't mind some killers stay simple m1 killer, it makes variety.
0 -
Uh, no?
Every killer needs to be viable. Viable doesn't equate to super easy to play but there should not be a case where the answer to "Should I try this killer out?" is "No, there's no point to trying that character."
3 -
which is exactly why once killers reach red grades, they stop playing killers other than who they have the best chance to win with.
When I hit new red grades, I always play clown a few matches because losing a pip will not force me down a grade.
Losing pips is one of the main reasons you only see blight and nurse at high levels, for many killers, you simply cant perform as good with Clown as you can with your main.
For example, I never play Doctor, dont even have him leveled but I have the "shock 4 with madness" daily, I wont do it until after I hit iri 1 ths month, because doing so may result in pips lost. I try to play both surev and killer to iri 1 every month.
Devs should remove pip loss and survs would see a major change in killers played at higher levels, I dont mind losing, but I need to get Iri 1 for the BP bros!
3 -
That's just not true. Take Pig and Nurse as an example. Pig's RBTs kill low MMR survivors quite handily and she has a high kill rate at low MMR while being terrible at high MMR. Nurse has a low kill rate at low MMR since she's hard to learn while being the strongest killer at high MMR. I don't think anybody could reasonably complain if Pig were a bit less lethal at low MMR while given buffs to help at higher MMR.
People would like to play certain Killers since they enjoy the playstyle. What they don't like is losing at the character loading screen since they picked a weaker killer. The weaker killers need to be buffed so there isn't as great a difference between them and the S Tier Killers. That would organically give more variety in killers as it's not entertaining to play better than your opponents but still get stomped simply because game mechanics favour your opponents.
1 -
i get what you are saying but i disagree with what you are saying
if there was an ideal tier list i believe the final results should be
hard to play killer
---------
Killer that have some learning curve
--------
easy to pickup and play killers
however my big issue with this game is there is no reliable practice mode where you can learn maps or killers, meaning players are relying on forums and content creators for information so a lot of time it takes long time before the community can get an accurate grasp on the overall state of the balance.
0 -
with mmr no, every killer should be viable. unless you like to get bullied by survivors 8/10 of your matches
3 -
Yeah I forgot to include that MMR never should have been added. The game simply isn't balanced enough for it
0 -
Ranks and grades don't impact matchmaking... Did I miss something?
0 -
Thread is about winning a match (being viable)
If you want to reach red grades, you are going to have to push through winning pips in red grades against higher MMR.
I know people think grades dont matter, but if you are trying to win 80 matches in a row, viability most certyainly comes into play because I often get stuck between Grade 3-1 Iri. I will 4k one match, then no lose a pip, then 2k, then 4k, over and over almost going nowhere when you consider I can 3k 10 hook and still not pip.
Viability is about winning the match and to win you gonna need to pip, and pipping gets more difficult the higher your MMR, in essence continuing to get harder and harder. Meaning you wont be playing clown anymore this month.
How does this not make sense? Summed up, killers play killers they can pip with. Survs can literally die and pip, I know I often do. But killersd, you gotta win.
Do you play killer to red grade monthly? Curious.
0 -
Grades still don't matter either way. So I don't care about a dumb grade.
0
