http://dbd.game/killswitch
Ranked League (with Bans and Picks]
There already are tournaments with it's own rules like banning killers, banning perks, picking unique items and perks on each survivor. Why wasn't it implemented in the game and nobody even talks about it?
How would the game look like
- Step 1. Lobby is found. It shows the map which was generated randomly.
- Step 2. Each survivor is banning 1killer and 1perk.
- Step 3. Killer bans 4perks.
- Step 4. One Survivor picks it's character, item and 4 perks (other survivors will not be able to take any of those anymore). Killer picks one perk.
- Step 5-7. Same as Step 4.
- Step 8. Killer picks his character (can be even hidden from Survivors, so Wraith/Ghostface etc. aren't in disadvantage?)
Perks would finally become strategic desicion instead of blind hope for counter Killer perks. Also picking the Killer as last step gives the option for a twist.
How would you imagine it? And would you even want to have ranked league?
Comments
-
I am not sure I undestand you point.
Survivors ban 4 perks in sum. Killer bans 4 perks in sum. In the end it is 4 banned perks for each survivor.
0 -
Comp rules don't work for random lobbies. Cause you'd have 4 random people all trying to go their own builds but get cucked because someone else wants some combination of the same stuff. It only works in comp matches because the teams can actively coordinate and delegate roles to members. This guy is in charge of being chased, this guy unhooks and gets deliverance plays, this guy runs the boons, ect.
It also wouldn't be good because 4 killer bans is enough to wipe all of the strong killers off the table. Bye bye nurse, blight, huntress, and spirit. And other killers just aren't strong enough to be competing at try hard levels. Maybe it'd work for low and mid elo but once you get to high elo GL beating a good team with Pyramid head or some crap.
And that doesn't even touch the problem that is perk balancing atm. With gen regression perks thrown into the dumpster killer only has so many perks that actually impact the game anymore. Every game would see Bamboozle, Corrupt, and Devour banned at the least.
Your proposed system looks balanced on paper but heavily favors the survivors more than the killer, exactly how the game functions as skill levels rise and both sides get better at their roles.
0 -
- If ranked league will not be balanced then it means that the game is not balanced. But we are speculating about what Killers and perks are stronger than the others. Ranked league statistics (bans, picks, win ratio etc) has always been the biggest help for balancing competitive titles.
- You face the unorganized chaos in Soloq because nobody had a chance to "pick the role". Noone knows what other players pick so you can not adjust. All builds that killers and survivors go are completely blind. That is the reason why we see the same solid perks being so popular. Devs claim perks to be balanced because they counter each other. Very ironic.
1 -
- If ranked league will not be balanced then it means that the game is not balanced. But we are speculating about what Killers and perks are stronger than the others. Ranked league statistics (bans, picks, win ratio etc) has always been the biggest help for balancing competitive titles.
- You face the unorganized chaos in Soloq because nobody had a chance to "pick the role". Noone knows what other players pick so you can not adjust. All builds that killers and survivors go are completely blind. That is the reason why we see the same solid perks being so popular. Devs claim perks to be balanced because they counter each other. Very ironic.
0 -
Banning killers would be pointless. Just about every tournament team would ban nurse, blight, spirit, and some random killer (assuming they don't know who they are playing).
Banning 4 killers would be obnoxious and I don't see many killer players being okay with it
0 -
myres aura build
0 -
Please add a rule not to touch Cursed Totem for a certain period of time
0 -
So... would Ranked League work for you if there were no perk bans and survivors could pick same builds?
0 -
I don't find it pointless. In your words killers pick only those 3 characters. That is horrificly bad. So banning them would bring other killers to the game.
But also If everybody is afraid of those 3 killers than obviously killers need balance.
Other option is to have "party leader" who would ban only 1 killer. Or limit bans to 2 killers in sum.
1 -
It's not just that those killers are considered strong by many, but imagine you as a killer player play primarily 2 or 3 killers and esch get banned (even if it's not those I mentioned). That is a really miserable experience. Banning killers doesnt work
1 -
Character bans only work in games where all the players share the same list of characters.
Character bans in this game would just heavily favor survivors, because the killers won’t be able to make any comparable bans for the survivors.
0 -
Literally enjoy playing against nurse because if she doesnt play exceedingly well she doesnt do well, which should be the case in general but its not. The other 2 not so much. Spirit isn't so bad though
0 -
So I can only play m1 killers in this ranked mode? Nah I’m solid.
1 -
Doesn't matter. Even if you limit the ban a killer feature to two, or just one, then most likely Blights will never get a match ever again.
0 -
If BHVR makes DBD2 then they can code the game better and make some better choices
Then they can have their own tournaments (sponsorship only... cause OWL kinda ruined it for everyone else)
So I guess it works out
0 -
So what you are actually saying is that you love my idea but would like to nerf Blight to correspond other Killers? Give Vote Up then.
0 -
By intoducing killer bans it would force Killers to try new ones. And as I said previously, number of Killer character bans may be less than 4.
But tell me how would you imagine ranked league. This was mine suggestion and I think it is OK if community improves it.
0 -
Killers shouldn't be forced to try different killers. This is a one sided game advantage that is massively survivor sided.
1 -
I do not like your idea. It pushes the game towards some crazy competitive mode that I don't want at all. And while some of Blight's add-ons do need tweaking, his basekit seems fine to me.
Players should be able to run what you like, in both roles. There's no doubt the devs feel the same as well. Your limitations are some attempt to "balance" the game in a harsh restrictive way imo.
They do not primarily look to the most efficient sweaty players when considering changes. This should be obvious to all, and disagreeing with that approach is another thread entirely.
0 -
I think everything else I'm cool with outside of killer bans
1 -
So in other words.. you don't want to have any ranked league under any circumstances because you don't want it to be too competitive. Also you don't like restrictions = bans of pers nor killer.
0 -
The ideal "ranked" area for this game would somehow be a mix of just the better players sweating with each other, bringing whatever they want.
Since the game's design tends to fall apart when the efficients duke it out, much work would be needed on maps in particular, as well as perks and add-ons. We'd also need a way to keep the casuals from the sweats, and not hurt queue times either.
Seems like too much of a miracle to get all that going. Prolly have to wait for DBD2, if that ever happens.
0 -
Yes, the game is not balanced. This is literally a well known fact. The perks aren't balanced, items aren't balanced, and killers aren't balanced.
They aren't failing to balance the game because they don't have enough statistics. If anything they use statistics too much. It's because an asymmetric comp game can never be balanced, and frankly these guys aren't even competent enough to try it to begin with.
DBD was a casual party game with a fun theme that falls apart at the seams once either side starts trying to win. At which point it becomes a nuclear arms race of each side utilizing progressively more bullshit mechanics until you hit the tip top. At the peak of DBD survivor beats out killer, and that's WITH killer using the strongest killers, addons, and perks that they possibly can. So any system where survivor could remove those options would just turn it into a one sided slaughter regardless of what the killer removes from the survivors in turn. Cause removing any one thing the survivors use would never be as strong as for instance banning Nurse from being played.
And if you remove the whole coordinated banning system then at which point you just have regular DBD. And anything you could think of adding to the gamemode would instead be better implemented as a general mechanic.
Finally, they don't want to make the game more competitive. The devs know full well how terrible the game gets once you have 2 very skilled sides fighting each other tooth and nail to win. That's why MMR was such a failure and is forever on and off with them. Keeping the games somewhat random artificially balances things out.
0 -
It can be balanced. But you need solid statistics, not those which are taken from "for fun" and "somewhat random artificially" games.
Devs need to know what sweatty players are capable of doing and balance it accordingly. Also lowering the gaps between "easy win" and" hard lose" games within the same skill range is important. Currently luck is overall too influential.
0
