http://dbd.game/killswitch
Personal Killer Blacklist: The Most Rational Fix You’re Ignoring
Give survivors the ability to block just two killers from their matchmaking pool. That’s it. Two. No match bans, no draft picks, no shared veto system. Just a personal opt-out list.
My queue. My experience. My sanity.
This one feature would massively reduce early quits, rage DCs, and self-hooks at 5 gens. Why? Because people don’t quit when they’re losing — they quit when they know exactly how the next 5 minutes will feel: miserable, hopeless, and totally unfun.
“But that’ll ruin queue times!”
No. It’ll rebalance them.
If certain killers get blocked disproportionately, that’s not a queue issue — that’s a design warning. You’re getting actual behavioral feedback, not forum noise, not winrate spreadsheets.
If 25% of the playerbase blocks Nurse, the problem isn't the players — it's Nurse.
“But what if a full SWF bans 8 killers?!”
Then cap bans at the party level. Two shared bans per SWF group. Easy.
If necessary, remove the feature entirely for 4-stacks. That’s a design tweak, not a reason to trash the whole system.
You don’t remove fire alarms just because some idiot pulls one for fun.
“But killer mains will have longer queue times!”
If you play a killer who warps through walls or dashes across the map like physics is optional, then yes you might wait longer. That’s called consequence.
Power should come with responsibility. If you want Nurse-tier dominance, you don’t also get speed-lobby convenience.
“This isn’t about balance, it’s about fun.”
Exactly.
And that’s why your numbers will never solve it. The issue isn’t strength — it’s gameplay feel.
Some killers erase space, delete chase interaction, and turn “stealth” or “running” into irrelevant relics. That’s not a challenge. That’s a scripted loss.
I’ve played this game for 5 years. And here’s what’s broken:
You keep adjusting numbers to fix emotional responses.
You nerf stats but never ask: Does this killer respect the player’s agency at all?
Blight will always feel oppressive because his design bypasses the game’s core rules. No nerf fixes that.
“Just learn to counterplay.”
Some killers don’t have counterplay. They have execution thresholds. You either pre-learn their angles, tiles, hitboxes, and muscle-memory techs — or you die. That’s not counterplay. That’s an entrance exam.
“But it’s just a game…”
Exactly. And that’s why players should be allowed to filter out content they actively dislike.
No other game forces you to queue into experiences you know you’ll hate.
This isn’t a test of grit. It’s a video game. Let people enjoy it.
TL;DR:
- It’s not a shared ban system. It’s personal filtering.
- If queue times shift, they shift toward health, not chaos.
- If certain killers become near-unplayable, that’s a sign they should be reworked.
- If SWFs exploit it, limit it for solo queue only.
- If players are quitting matches, it’s because you’re not giving them any other option.
Want fewer DCs? Fewer throw matches? More retention?
Then give people the freedom to say: “Not this killer.”
Don’t coerce players into pain and call it balance.
Don’t punish burnout and pretend it’s a skill issue.
Respect your players, or lose them.
Simple as that.
Comments
-
if we had a killer block system survivor que would be hours long and killers don't want to play L simulator if they don't have to. why not just learn to counterplay
-2 -
This would drastically increase wait times, and also potentially block people from playing against killers that they do like going against just because they're unpopular with the community.
Think of it this way: as a survivor, you're one of 4 people. If 25% of the community is blocking Nurse, statistically speaking there will always be someone in a lobby who has her blocked and she'd be pretty much impossible to play.
It also greatly benefits SWFs, who essentially have 8 bans they can now spread out accordingly.3 -
Funny. The numbers say otherwise.
In the last 3 months, Dead by Daylight has seen a consistent increase in player count:
– April: +30.65%
– May: +1.78%
– Last 30 days: +7.75%So let’s be clear: people are playing. And they’d play even more if they weren’t being funneled into matches they actively dislike. A killer block system wouldn’t “destroy queue times”—it would improve player retention, which matters more than forcing short-term queue efficiency.
Also:
Survivors already deal with constant role imbalance, matchmaking roulette, and wildly unfun mechanics. Asking for two blocked killers isn’t “avoiding challenge.” It’s asking to opt out of misery. That’s not cowardice. That’s sanity.And the “just learn to counterplay” argument? That’s tired. Some killers don’t have counterplay for casual players. They have patterns. Patterns you memorize or you die. That’s not skill expression. That’s repetition under pressure.
You want competitive players? Treat them like people, not cannon fodder.
0 -
thanks for the feedback guys :)
-2 -
Devs already know people don't like playing against her, they don't need to add a ban system for that.
1 -
“It greatly benefits SWFs.”
Then limit it. That’s not a hard problem.
You want fairness? Fine—just cap the blocklist at the party level. If you queue as a SWF, the team gets two shared bans, not eight.
Or none at all, if that’s what it takes.That’s a mechanical fix, not a reason to discard the whole system.
You don’t scrap a fire alarm because some people might use it wrong—you tune it.1 -
Did ai write this?
-4 -
“Devs already know people don’t like playing against her.”
Exactly. And yet—they do nothing. No limiter. No opt-out. No adjustment to player experience.That’s the problem.
It’s not about “informing the devs” anymore.
It’s about protecting the rest of the playerbase from being dragged through miserable matches that cause them to ragequit or self-hook at 5 gens just to get out.Because when someone doesn’t want to play against a killer like Nurse, and you force them to anyway, you’re not just giving them a bad match—you’re ruining the match for all 4 players.
The rest of the team suffers because one person gave up.
And that person gave up because you refused to give them a way to avoid that scenario in the first place.This isn’t about bans for fun.
It’s about avoiding psychological burnout in a game that’s supposed to be tense—not depressing.Dead by Daylight isn’t a suicide simulator.
But it starts feeling like one when “######### on first hook” becomes a meta exit strategy for bad matchups.Give people the right to say “not this killer”—and watch the matches get better for everyone, not worse.
2 -
Let me have this so I can avoid Ghoul please, bored of him.
4 -
If each of the 4 survivors bans 2 killers, up to 8 bans can occur per match. With 40 killers in total, the chance of any specific killer being banned is about 18.6%. This doesn’t directly mean that matchmaking times increase by 18.6%. However, killers like Nurse or The Ghoul are banned far more frequently due to their strength or popularity. For players who rely on those killers and prefer not to switch, this can lead to repeated matchmaking retries — effectively increasing wait time.
That said, maybe this kind of system makes sense in today’s gaming culture.
After all, it’s just a game — people want to keep things casual, avoid discomfort, and skip anything that isn’t fun.-2 -
You're missing the point.
This isn't about banning killers from a match.
It's about letting individual players avoid a couple of matchups they personally find miserable. My blocklist affects my queue, not yours. There’s no “8 killers banned per game” scenario unless you’re imagining some shared draft system which no one asked for.And even if Nurse or Blight get blocked often? Good. That’s feedback the devs can actually use. Not whining, not guesswork—real data on what players consistently want to avoid. That's not a balance problem. That’s a design signal.
"But then killer mains might have longer queues!"
Yes. That’s called a tradeoff. If you play high-mobility, high-control killers that routinely frustrate players, you don’t get to act surprised when people start opting out. You chose power. Now deal with the responsibility that comes with it.
This isn’t about dodging skill.
It’s about respecting the player’s time.
You can’t say “it’s just a game” and then force people to endure experiences they actively dislike.Give players agency. Track the data. Learn what feels bad not just what wins.
That’s how you make a better game.-1 -
You do realize that survivors will also have long queues with this system. Like it's not just killers who will face long queues. You basically are asking for BHVR to kill the game.
1 -
How about no?
If I play Hag, it's not my fault that people don't know what to do against her and get stomped.
Thanks to your genius plan, killers like Hag or Twins never get to play just because the community can't play against anything but the classic dashslop killer or an M1 trapless Trapper.
Imagine killers could ban perks. No DS, no Shoulder the Burden or Duty of Care.
But that's unfair! You could say.
Maybe the issue is the design?
Really, if you flip the mirror and you get a nightmare, maybe the plan is not good.
0 -
“How about no?”
How about you read the system before panicking.
Nobody said you can’t play Hag.
Nobody is banning her from the game.
What we’re asking for is the ability to personally opt out of killers that make the match feel miserable. If enough people block Hag or Twins, that’s not sabotage — that’s organic feedback.Let’s break this down.
“If I play Hag, it's not my fault that people don't know what to do against her and get stomped.”
True. It’s not your fault.
But it is the game’s fault if it keeps forcing players into matchups they find exhausting, gimmicky, or outdated — with no option to say “not today.”If your killer thrives on inexperience, then don’t pretend it’s pure skill.
You’re playing a trap-heavy, setup-dependent killer that punishes players for movement itself — not decisions, not awareness, but movement. That’s design abuse, not outplay.“Thanks to your genius plan, Hag or Twins never get to play just because the community can't play against anything but dash killers or M1 clowns.”
Wrong. They’d still get played — just not against people who hate facing them.
If Hag and Twins get blocked so often they vanish from queues, that’s not injustice. That’s proof that their design needs rethinking.
If entire killer archetypes are only viable when forced on unwilling players, maybe they were never viable at all — just tolerated.
You can’t hold people hostage for your niche killer choice and call it “diversity.”“Imagine killers could ban perks. No DS, no Shoulder the Burden or Duty of Care.”
Yes, imagine it.
Want to block Adrenaline, Made for This, Decisive Strike?
Do it.
Because survivors would gladly trade those if it meant never crawling through 9 Hag traps just to get to basement unhook #1 while you sit crouched in the corner with a grin.-2 -
You do realize survivors already deal with long queues, right?
This idea doesn’t introduce long queues — it reveals the imbalance that causes them.
If certain killers get avoided so often that it creates a matchmaking slowdown, that’s not a reason to kill the feature.
That’s a design exposure. A stress test. And long overdue.“You’re asking for BHVR to kill the game.”
No. I’m asking BHVR to save it.
Players aren’t quitting because matches are too hard — they’re quitting because they’re too miserable.
They’re being funneled into killer matchups they find unfun, oppressive, or just flat-out exhausting, with no opt-out, no compromise, no alternative.The result?
– Self-hooks at 5 gens.
– Disconnects mid-chase.
– Burnout.
– Toxic lobbies.
– Rage reports.All because the game forces people to endure content they already know they hate.
If giving survivors the right to filter out two killers breaks the system — then the system was fragile to begin with.
You don’t protect a broken machine by pretending it’s fine.
You let it crack, and then fix what leaks.1 -
Not enough slots to block all post Wesker slop killers so no.
3 -
A lot of words to just say that you don't understand how queueing for a game in DBD works.
Killers pick the killer and then queue up. The game tries to match people based on their MMR and how long they've been in queue. If you have a system that also checks to make sure X killer isn't matched up against you, you also have to remember that other survivors also have this added check. If 3 people didn't block clown, and a 4th person blocked clown. Someone queued as clown cannot match with the lobby. And if there's 3 survivors and a clown in lobby and a person not in lobby blocked clown, they cannot join the lobby.
Basically everyone suffers and we already know that everytime queue times get too long people complain because players just want to get into games quickly.
Plus you're not even addressing any perceived problems. You're just rewarding entitlement. If you can't stand playing against parts of the rooster, just don't play.
1 -
Then block your top two.
You don’t need to eliminate every killer you dislike , then you need to eliminate the ones that make you alt+F4 on sight.This isn’t about filtering the whole roster.
It’s about triage. Sanity management. Two red flags, not twenty.And if you’re saying, “There are too many unfun killers post-Wesker”
Thanks. You just made my point for me.Because if the killer roster has grown so bloated with anti-fun mechanics that two blocks feel like a drop in the ocean, then the problem isn’t the blocklist system.
It’s the design trend behind the killers.
1 -
I understand it just fine.
You queue with your killer. The game finds survivors.
If one of those survivors has you blocked? You don’t match. Simple.This isn’t complicated logic — it’s the same principle used in dozens of modern matchmaking systems.
If one player in a party has you muted, the game doesn’t throw you into voice chat together.
If one player blocks another in competitive matchmaking, the system respects that.
Why? Because it preserves player experience.You’re arguing that honoring player limits is somehow impossible.
In reality, it’s just inconvenient for you.“If 3 survivors don’t block Clown, but 1 does, the Clown can’t play that match.”
Correct. And that’s how it should work.
That 4th survivor would rather not play than face Clown — and you think the solution is to force them into it anyway?
That’s not game design. That’s coercion wrapped in lazy matchmaking.
Let’s be clear:
If a killer is blocked frequently enough to cause noticeable matchmaking friction, then you’ve found the design problem.The answer isn’t to ignore it.
The answer is to listen.“Everyone suffers when queues are longer.”
False
Short queues mean nothing if the matches are garbage.
People don’t quit games because they wait 30 seconds longer.
They quit because they load into a match, see the killer, and immediately regret pressing Ready.You want fewer DCs? Fewer throw matches? Less burnout?
Then give people the ability to avoid the handful of killers that personally ruin the game for them.0 -
This system isn't going to add 30 seconds. You're going to be looking at 10+ minute long queues for both sides and entitled survivors will still give up, because you can't fix entitlement.
1 -
It kinda makes sense to me. That 1 person blocked clown thing^ makes everyone suffer longer que times, but when that 1 person gets clown they are gonna throw the match or barely try so there goes the quicker round u got into anyway. And if the matchmaking feels too slow then turn off ur killer block options. This alredy kinda exists but in the form of opting to not play with crossplay enabled.
1 -
No matter how hard I try, I just can’t understand your logic.
You say, “My blocklist affects my queue, not yours” — but in a match with 4 survivors and 1 killer, if each of you blocks 2 killers, that’s still up to 8 killers effectively excluded from the pool, isn’t it?
If that truly were a special privilege reserved just for you, I might understand.
But the reality is, these individual choices combine to shape a shared outcome — one that directly limits the killer’s character options and increases their effective wait time.That said, don’t worry.
The devs have never turned their backs on honest, pure-hearted survivors.
So don’t give up — just keep asking for whatever you want as survivors. I’m sure they’ll give it to you eventually.0 -
Let me break it down again — slowly.
“If each of you blocks 2 killers, that’s up to 8 killers effectively excluded from the pool, isn’t it?”
No. It isn’t.
This isn’t match-based banning.
This is account-level preference filtering.
My blocklist doesn’t affect the current match. It affects who I can be matched with at all.There’s no moment where 4 survivors each ban two killers and 8 are excluded from the match. That’s a fantasy model you made up to sound dramatic.
What really happens:
- A killer queues.
- The system looks for 4 survivors who haven’t blocked them.
- If it finds them, match proceeds. If not, the killer queues longer — same way high-MMR killers do already.
“These individual choices combine to shape a shared outcome.”
Yes — just like every player choice does.
Map offerings shape outcomes. Perks shape outcomes. Killers shape outcomes.
So does opting out of bad matchups.This isn’t unique. This is how every matchmaking system adapts to player behavior.
If certain killers get filtered more often? That’s not oppression.
That’s a trend. A signal that players are mentally done with them0 -
I hate to jump in here with an unrelated comment, but was your response generated by ChatGPT? Everything from your syntax to your liberal use of bold screams ChatGPT to me.
4 -
No. Stop playing the game if you don't like it. Its a multiplayer game. Other people are going to play stuff you don't like. Deal with it.
You wouldn't accept killers banning perks they don't want to go against. Cause you better believe I would never allow another sprint burst or lithe to be in my games again.4 -
I totally agree with OP, good thread.
We should be able to opt out of unfair or unfun experience IN A GAME. Yes, games should bring us fun.
What's the point of playing, if it doesn't bring you fun?
The idea of killer bad system is actually good.
Why should I force myself to play out a match, possibly destroy experience for other people?
And I want to point out that yes, if a lot of people are banning one exact character it is a yellow card - rework or tweaks should be considered.
It would be a great QoL system.
Kaneki fatigue exist. Blight fatigue exist.
Additionally I would like to say, that high mmr in Europe means you are playing 90% of matches against blight, kaneki, nurse, spirit, hillbilly and wesker.
Games actually feel repetitive. My weekly hours after kaneki dropped from 50 to 15-20. Burn out is real and I still love the game.
-3 -
If playing DBD isn't bringing you fun, stop playing DBD.
3 -
But it does.
But going against same things all the time is not a good thing. Especially when we have 39 killers already out.
There is 39 killers but we play against 6 all the time.
-1 -
No matter how it’s explained, I still can’t follow the logic that account-level killer blocks are somehow acceptable. Match-based or not, the outcome is the same — fewer killer options and longer queues, which most would agree leads to a worse gameplay experience.
But sure, you’re absolutely entitled to ask for whatever you want.There’s no need to keep persuading me.
The devs have a long track record of implementing features that, to me, feel like short-sighted, band-aid fixes lacking coherent reasoning, all in response to persistent survivor feedback.
So by all means, keep voicing your wishes as a proud survivor.
At this point, I’m mostly curious to see how the devs will respond to your request.
-1 -
After reading your response to me, I agree to every thing you said. Fair play.
-1 -
😌
-3 -
Let me put it in a way that might finally land:
Imagine Dead by Daylight’s matchmaking is like a ride-sharing app.
- Killers are drivers.
- Survivors are passengers.
- The matchmaker is the algorithm matching them together.
Now — you, as a passenger, get to say:
“I don’t want to ride with this specific driver.”
That’s your blocklist. You're not banning them from the road. You're saying:
“Not for me.”
So the algorithm just... doesn’t put you in their car.
And that’s it.The driver still gets matched with plenty of passengers who didn’t block them.
But if too many people say no to the same driver, it’s not the algorithm’s fault.
It means the driver needs to take a look at what makes them get blocked.Maybe it’s their driving.
Maybe it’s the smell.
Maybe it's blasting Slipknot at 110 decibels in a minivan.But whatever it is — it’s real feedback, based on real choices, from real people.
-1 -
- Most people play to win. People would ban the strongest killer as long as there is a strongest killer. If they nerf Nurse in response, they'll block Blight. If Blight gets nerfed, they'll block Hillbilly. If Hillbilly gets nerfed, they'll block Dracula. Etc… Even if there was a 99% escape rate there would still be a strongest killer. You cannot make it so that all killers are equally strong while still being different.
- You underestimate how dedicated some people are to win. If you gave SWFs ANY disadvantage over soloqueue, people would queue up at the same time and requeue until they are in the same lobby so they can get freely get an advantage. Some would even install hacks to make sure they all end up in a lobby together.
- Why not introduce the same for killers and perks? "If you want to use DS or Off the Record to become temporarily immortal that comes with consequences." People should be allowed to play whatever they want without being disadvantaged. Just because your favourite Killer happens to be strong, doesn't mean you should be punished for it.
- All killers have counterplay. And the entire game is muscle memory. All chases are. Even against killers with no chase power.
- "No other game forces you to queue into experiences you know you’ll hate." Just going over some games I know. Hearthstone doesn't let you ban heroes. Hypixel Skywars doesn't let you ban classes. Magic the Gathering Arena doesn't let you ban colors. TF2 doesn't let you ban classes. Escape from Tarkov doesn't let you ban items. Splatoon doesn't let you ban weapons. Yugioh Master Duel doesn't let you ban anything. Etc… Even for the games that let you ban Heroes, like Overwatch, Lol and Marvel Rivals you a) are symetrical team sizes where both sides ban an equal amount, b) are designed around having a competitive scene and c) ban them once you are in a lobby.
1 -
The other players want to have fun too tho? And sitting in a queue for 3 hours is not really fun.
-1 -
You’re not arguing against the system. You’re arguing against players having a choice.
And that tells me everything I need to know.Let’s break it down.
“People will just block the strongest killer. Then the next. Then the next...”
Exactly.
That’s not a flaw — that’s the entire point.If players consistently block Aura-Reading One-Shot Nurse or 3 gen Slugmerchant, then that’s not abuse.
That’s measurable, behavioral data — not complaints, not forum whining — but players taking direct action against mechanics they’re done with.And no, it doesn’t instantly fix anything.
But here’s what you’re ignoring:The devs take forever to nerf or rework anything.
Spirit was pure mind gaming for years.
Nurse only stopped being an Exposed combo machine because they reclassified Blink hits as Special Attacks.Meanwhile, more killers drop every few months — some fun, some overtuned, some just exhausting — and survivors are forced to deal with all of them.
A blocklist doesn’t delete killers.
It just gives players a filter — while waiting for BHVR’s usual 9–12 month balancing delay.“Players will abuse the system.”
You mean like:
- SWFs running full-gen-rush meta with voice comms
- Players closing game in Task manager because they see Spirit or Nurse in loading screen
- DC chains that ruin entire lobbies — wasting everyone’s time
This already happens.
And it’s not caused by too much player freedom. It’s caused by not giving players any tools to avoid miserable experiences.A blocklist would actually reduce this behavior.
It lets people say “no thanks” at the matchmaking level, instead of forcing them to ragequit mid-match — taking 3 other people down with them.
“Let killers block survivor perks too!”
Sure. Let them block Dead Hard, Made for This, Off the Record.
But perks don’t define the match.
Killers do.You don’t queue into “Off the Record.”
You queue into Nurse with Lethal Pursuer and Starstruck on RPD.The killer is the match.
The perks are side dishes.
Stop pretending they’re equivalent.“All killers have counterplay.”
Nurse doesn’t challenge your mechanical skill.
She bypasses it — blinks through walls, sees your aura, deletes chase before it starts.You don’t “learn” to counter that.
You just get used to hoping she screws up.That’s not interaction. That’s acceptance.
“Other games don’t let you ban content either.”
Really?
Let’s talk about that.
- League of Legends lets you ban champions before the match even starts — because certain picks are unfun to play against, even if they’re not broken.
- Overwatch introduced role queue and hero bans in competitive because too many people ragequit when stuck in unbalanced matchups.
- Rainbow Six Siege has operator bans because some defenders/attackers are simply too oppressive in certain maps — and players need the ability to shape the tactical experience.
- Dota 2 has bans in every draft mode — because even in perfect balance, players deserve agency.
Dead by Daylight is the outlier here — a game that:
- Locks you into 10–15 minutes against a single killer
- Doesn’t let you counterpick
- Doesn’t let you adapt mid-match
- Doesn’t offer rematch, reroll, or swap
- And punishes you for leaving a matchup you hate
So no — DBD isn’t like other games.
And that’s exactly why a blocklist isn’t just reasonable.It’s necessary.
-1 -
I am not going to argue against ChatGPT, espcially considering you are misconstructing my points.
Here are just some things you got wrong.
- "
Players closing game in Task managerbecause they see Spirit or Nurse in loading screen" You can only do that the first three matches, after that you don't see the Killer anymore. Then you get a DC penalty. - "DC chains that ruin entire lobbies — wasting everyone’s time" DC chains aren't a thing due to the DC penalty.
- "Spirit doesn’t offer counterplay. She offers
a guessing game." Not really. You can clearly hear where she is coming from. Yeah she relies on mind games, but so does every killer. - "Other games don't let you ban content." That is not remotely what I said. I said that there are plenty of other games that do not let you ban content. After you said that "No other game forces you to queue into experiences you know you’ll hate."
Edit: Also Starstruck is a terrible perk on Nurse.
0 - "
-
With posts like these I think they might have to ban ChatGPT, instead.
-1 -
Crazy how the suggestion of two block slots has people screaming for AI bans.
Imagine the meltdown if survivors ever got actual influence over their experience.-2 -
Your idea itself is bad enough, made especially egregious when you can't even argue your own points!
1 -
new chapters bring in new people and the new people generally want to play the new killers
also if you're in high elo or at least played killer a lot in high mmr the game is heavily in the survivors favor
1 -
Mmm yes heavily in the survivors favor
0 -
if they let us block killers we don't like it'll also force them to balance them, coz they'll see it on their end.
It's about time they address the S-Tiers, tired of the skill ceiling excuse.
Dead Hard was removed, DS was nerfed, why can't nurse/blight/Kaneki not be nerfed?1 -
Obvious ai post is obvious. Do you really need chat gpt to make your arguments for you? Without even getting info correct? One shot nurse and chess merchant have not been a thing in years
-1 -
So you are playing blight with meta perks, tunneling at 5 making the game miserable for 4 other poeple just so you could have fun? And not consider those 4 people fun.
Maybe that's not a case for you, but in Europe server's it's so common.
0 -
If such a thing were to be implemented, a preference for non repeats of killers would be a better system.
Simply add a rule to matchmaking that means there is a preference for matchmaking against a killer you haven't faced in your previous 2 games, which also works for SWFs as well, since you can take the same rule for the top 2 killers that have appeared most between all players. If no alternative can be found within an acceptable MMR limit, then hard cheese.
This is a much fairer and less abusable system than allowed people to control which 2 killers they don't want to face.
This system would also help mitigate issues for people with accessibility issues (and even phobias) which a lot of discussion has been about lately.
0 -
You are not just banning tunneling Blight with meta perks. You are banning baby Blight running enduring fury. You are banning meme blight running placebo pill. You are banning a new player trying to get a feel for the killer. You are banning the completionist just trying to get adept.
0 -
For 10k hours I played I can count placebo pill blights with one of my hand.
Blight is fun, I get it - gives out free wins, most of the time. But it is problematic on a deeper level - going against him is repeatable and most of the time you are losing that.
Solo que going against blight? Good luck winning
There is like almost 2000 winstreak with blight. Do you undestand, that no one should ever be able to get such winstreak with a killer, right? It is not fine.
You can't compete against blight if you are not a part of decent, well coordinated SWF.
Even after all those nerfs he is on top of the tier list.
It's better after nerfing his addons, I agree - we used to go against ring + (stronger) speed addon with hug tech available. It was worse, but now isn't ideal too, don't get me wrong.I still don't understand how we can have characters as blight or nurse and still not work on nerfing them.
-2 -
This is now a completely new argument. This is not "should the blight be nerfed?" It is "should we introduce a killer block list for survivors?"
-1 -
Oh yeah, that's a little bit offtopic. But we can still agree, that blight is one of 3-5 killers that people want to block killers.
0
