Solo Q Ban 1 Killer to Play Against
We have 40 killers and are always adding more. Personally, I don't mind going against them but there are a lot of "I hate going against ____ killer" all the time or you just keep getting the same killer over and over. What if there was a feature where a survivor can ban a killer to always run into 1v4 in solo q? Please comment what the pos/neg you think this would bring to the game. I'd personally like to see this feature to see maybe it might help those people who just can't against a certain killer. 😻
Comments
-
Sounds like a great idea, but would just make queue times worse for everyone. And isn’t that helpful when you consider that the roster is so big now that most people have multiple killers they dislike.
2 -
this is fair considering the killers possibly see the survivors items, profiles, character before they even load into the match.
so they get to dodge lobbies for years or switch perks if the survivors all had one item.
ideally you could just hide all of this or not show it but, bhvr does a pretty good job at breaking its games.
instead of a ban list survivors could enable, i would personally love an anti-killer repition system,
so instead of facing the same one killer over and over, you get immunity for 3 matches, possibly having mulitple stacked up.
that way survivor gameplay isnt just the same 1-3 killers, but actually some variety, this would punish meta killers and enpower the low tiers significantly with queue times.-5 -
Conceptually it isn't bad, but I don't think it would work for a game like DBD. It would decimate every new chapter release at this point.
3 -
No. We all know it'll be abused to just ban the actually enjoyable killers to play 99% of the time.
4 -
How would you feel if the killer was able to ban four surv perks, OP?
0 -
It could have like a 2 week grace period where you can't perhaps.
1 -
How so? There's lots of killers people don't like and they only chose one, if they chose any at all.
0 -
That's true. But after that period, it could still be an issue. Their go next prevention was in part to address something like another Skull Merchant fiasco, which this system would only bring back. Personally I think the game has been in such a bad state that punishing players for not wanting to go against certain Killers is silly, but I'm trying to view this from BHVR's perspective and what they'd likely be willing or unwilling to do.
0 -
Honestly, this is the kind of idea that shows why the “random killer every match” system just doesn’t work anymore. Survivors get no agency, and when the dice roll gives you Legion five times in a row, it doesn’t feel like “horror,” it feels like a slot machine that ate your quarters.
A ban system (or even just an anti-repetition mechanic like Philscooper suggested) wouldn’t just be about comfort picks, it would naturally improve variety. If half the lobby bans Legion, queue times for Legion get longer, which incentivizes people to pick other killers. Same thing would happen for Huntress, Blight, etc. Suddenly the underplayed killers — Pig, Clown, Doctor — show up more because they aren’t clogging survivor queues.
And the “what about new chapter killers” concern? That’s just BHVR’s identity crisis in action again. If a killer is designed well and actually fun/scary to play against, people won’t mass-ban them. People only want to dodge killers that feel miserable or boring. If your release can be killed by a ban system, maybe the problem is the design, not the players.
At the end of the day, survivors don’t need full control over who they face — but giving them some agency (whether it’s one ban, or just protection from repeat killers) would go a long way toward making the game feel less like random coin flips and more like a proper horror anthology.
1
