How viability is determined for Killers and why...
Understandably, a lot of topics of the forums tend to consist of folks clamoring for a more enjoyable and balanced experience while playing the game. Topics include: Killers are too strong or weak, maps are too large or small, or perks are too good or niche. People compare these things all the time. Let's talk little a bit about why "meta" or "viable" Killers are so easily identified and popular. I will purposefully be excluding variables beyond measure, such as: Personal Skill, Opponent's Skill, Map Tile Variation, and/or Luck .
Players determine a Killer's viability based on it's ability to kill (sacrifice) all four Survivors because many players have decided that rank (the emblem system) is no longer a priority and/or rewarding pursuit. To enable and/or ease players' pursuits, a Killer must be able to rapidly reach a desired level of "map pressure". I like to call this desired level "the point of no return". The point of no return speaks for itself, but it's when the Survivors can no longer recover from the scenario they now face (without the use of "meta" Perks). Ultimately, your ability to apply map pressure is determined by your TTK (time to kill), movement speed (time it takes to respond to an unhooking and/or capitalize on mistakes by traversing the map quickly), and map size.
Examples of variables that affect TTK:
- Number of attacks required to inflict Dying State (Exposed, Broken, Saws, Oni, Trapper's Traps)
- Time between attacks (Save The Best For Last, Huntress hatchet followed by melee attack)
- Gap closers (Oni Dash, Nurse Blink, Demo Lunge, Freddy Snare, Hag Traps, etc.)
- Ability to preemptively break Pallets (Billy Saw, Demo Lunge)
Let's start with an easy example... The most common "snowball" Killers: The Hillbilly and the Oni. The idea that the combination of dying state attacks and movement speed is unhealthy is absolutely true for an important reason: Map Size. To prove my point, these two Killers are able to reach (be within 24m) 4 second Aura revealed Survivors across most maps before or just as the Aura vanishes. This reasonably common combination of short TTK and increased movement speed makes balancing this game around map size incredibly difficult. Despite this fact, maps still remain a thing that a lot of players want(ed) to see changed. Again, the Killer community desires this combination for one particular reason: This combination renders map size nearly irrelevant. We've recently seen some larger maps reduced in size. While this may alleviate the problems "weaker" Killers are having, it may increase the power of Killers that weren't heavily affected by map size. Allow me to explain.
When you improve two of these three variables (TTK, Movement Speed, and Map Size), the other one becomes almost entirely irrelevant.
Shorter TTK + increased movement speed = map size doesn't seem to matter as much. (Reason Nurse, Spirit, Hillbilly, Oni, Wraith, Freddy, and Demo are popular.)
Shorter TTK + decreased map size = movement speed doesn't seem to matter as much. (Reason quality of life varies for Trap Killers and Ranged Killers.)
Increased movement speed + decreased map size = shorter TTK doesn't seem to matter as much. (Killers from the first example will become stronger while "weaker" Killers reap the full benefits of smaller Maps)
This is the part where we agree, disagree, or agree to disagree down below. Is this something you can easily agree or disagree with? I'd really like to know.
Comments
-
Well like you said,viability of killers are mostly measured by checking whether the killer is able to end chases quick and if it has some form of map pressure/ability that help to move faster from one point to the other.
The way you explained is more or less right
-Quick chases + Map pressure/movement speed = Map size isn't much of a problem (That applies to Billy and Freddy but only partly for nurse,spirit,oni,wraith)
-Short chases + decreased Map size = movement speed doesn't matter much (That one is pretty obvious,killers like Huntress and Dearhslinger suffer from the lack of movement speed so their one big weakness is obsolete when map sizes gets decreased)
-Increased Movement speed + decreased map size = short chases (That one,in my opinion,is completely wrong.The reason why decreased map size is so good for not only the top killer but the rest as well is because the can start their chases much faster than before.It doesn't mean chases will be quicker but there will be more of them in shorter time spans.It also narrows the gap between the top killers and the rest.
But yes,ultimately smaller maps are also a direct buff to the top killers.
1 -
I'd like to add a bit to this as well. This is what I use to determine my "tier list" but instead of using the niche lettered tiers I based mine off scores from 1 - 10 in some categories mainly affected by the things you explained.
There's one more factor, in my honest opinion, is also very important to consider and it might be the only thing that keeps the "weaker" killers, as some would call them; in a position that in terms of viability and its position in my "tier list".
What I am referring to is the Killer's ability to make a "comeback" which focuses entirely on momentum halts and momentum flips. This could be in the form of 3-gen locks or performance where survivors are either already hooked or dead. While any killer can technically do these and fit in this section, they don't really **focus** or **rely** on this category. Hence why killers like Trapper and Hag have a much higher rating here (9.5-10)... So it keeps an average score that places them above some killers, making them still be viable, and even strong killers.
This is one of the main things that I feel a lot of people overlook. Setting up 3 gen locks is a very strong tactic against survivors whom you feel are "gen rushing".
0 -
Most of the community sees viability as how easily one can get a 4k. Nothing more, nothing less. This is why Nurse is and always will be considered the strongest killer in the game. She has the shortest chase time, and therefore fastest and easiest kills without taking personal skill into account.
Most people also don't care about the Emblem ranking system, which is why Legion is always so low on tier lists, and Hillbilly is seen WAY higher than he should be.
1 -
For me, "viable" means playing and doing well with that Killer depends on my personal skill. No need to depend on luck nor someone else making mistakes. This doesn't mean that the Killer is GOOD or not. A Killer for me can be viable but still weak in the meta. Should still earn wins more often that not, but those wins will need effort in learning and using that Killer's power.
Clown is an example of a non viable Killer. His power does little to help in Survivor location or to end chases. Doing well with Clown often depends on Survivors making mistakes or being unskilled. A great player with the Clown, is still just the Clown.
Deathslinger is an example of a viable Killer. His power allows a Deathslinger to do well based solely on the player controlling him. If you can aim and mind game, odds are you WILL do well. Survivor mistakes help, but aren't needed if the Killer's skill is good enough.
If anyone cares, here is my opinion on viable and non viable Killers and why.
Viable-
Hillbilly. Mobility, one hit downs, and all without any real downsides.
Nurse. Mobility, pure unfiltered mobility that allows a Nurse to bypass ANYTHING in her way.
Hag. Insane amounts of defense. 1/3 to 1/2 of any given map can be controlled by a Hag if allowed.
Huntress. Ranged attacks are simply god tier in melee based games.
Nightmare. Teleporting to gens gives instant mobility and his snares give help in chases.
Spirit. It's 100% her mind game potential. With added mobility.
Plague. Keeping everyone wounded, having the ability to punish cleansing with a ranged attack, and added tracking.
Ghost face. The king of stealth. Never underestimate how good being able to turn off your terror radius and red stain is.
Demogorgon. Tunnels offer map travel plus a time sink for Survivors and Shred has both ranged and mind game potential.
Oni. Slow to start, but some of THE best snowball potential once he gets going.
Deathslinger. A near instant ranged attack and Deep Wound for a forced time sink.
Non viable-
Trapper. Too slow to setup and too dependent on Survivor mistakes.
Wraith. He is basically a M1 Killer that might get a jump on someone with cloak.
Shape. The stealth helps but he takes a long time to build up, can't snowball well, and is a M1 Killer.
Doctor. Anti and negative stealth builds work very well, but he ends up as another M1 Killer.
Cannibal. He is a slower Billy, not much else to say.
Pig. Ambush is near worthless, her stealth slows her down, leaving Pig with depending on M1.
Clown. He has next to nothing to work with.
Legion. GREAT at getting information like Doctor, but Legion must fall back on M1 as his only means to down.
0 -
I think I agree with the general principle. However:
It would be worth elaborating on what you mean by "time to kill", since it's a rather vague term with no real explanation given. You speak as though it's something we should implicitly understand, but I for one have a lot of questions about it.
I also think you're making a mistake by assuming that all players determine killer viability in the same way. Most think of viability in terms of how good a killer is at 'winning', but since people have different ideas about what that means, that can lead to varying opinions on which killers are most viable. For example, Wraith is one of the top killers if you judge a killer's strength by their ability to pip, but you're likely to think of Hillbilly as being far stronger if you judge a killer by their ability to get kills. Your system seems to be generally geared towards kills as a win condition, even if you don't state it outright, and I happen to agree with that, but it's worth noting that not everyone will look at it the same way.
2 -
A killers viability is simply how effective they are at counterplauing what survivors do, and how fast they can do it to prevent gen speeds from spiraling
0 -
"That one,in my opinion,is completely wrong.The reason why decreased map size is so good for not only the top killer but the rest as well is because the can start their chases much faster than before.It doesn't mean chases will be quicker but there will be more of them in shorter time spans.It also narrows the gap between the top killers and the rest.
But yes,ultimately smaller maps are also a direct buff to the top killers."
I guess I did forget to mention that decreased map size would benefit the Killers that went unmentioned. I definitely agree with that part. I'm not sure I completely agree with the gap being narrowed between the Killers, at least not in a very significant way. The "meta" Killers would certainly get stronger, but with rapidly increasing diminishing returns. Weaker Killers would simply get stronger.
Yes, the gap would be smaller, but the ceiling of power would also be raised. If we could quantify it, I'm not sure how much closer the overall gap would be.
0 -
I simply see Trapper and Hag as having the potential to reduce their TTK (time to kill) in a chosen area. I'm not saying that using a 3 Generator strategy isn't a thing. I just didn't want strategies to affect the generalized variables in my example(s).
0 -
I think viability in dbd is an extremely difficult concept to grasp on and apply to each killer, because it's no way black and white. I generally agree with you however I don't think its really possible to determine an exact tier list based of viability and exact strengths. There's just too many variables when it comes to the survivor's plays, map layouts and the killer's play. One failed mindgame can cost you an entire game yet you won't even realise it. I think it may be possible to say one killer is stronger than another but yet again its situational and player dependant. I do gotta disagree with the Oni point though. Oni has to earn his ability and it's main purpose isn't for dashing across the map. Good oni's wont use their power unless they see a healthy person. Using it to get across the map is a huge waste considering the short duration of the power. Also, Oni is a great example of how small variables durastically affect a killer's outcome. Not getting hits early could make you think that oni is weak, yet at the same time you might be downing survivors instanty with your power and not coming across a survivor who knows how to counter oni. I just don't even know where to start with all of the little variables which durastically affect the outcome. A simple little one could be when comparing huntress and deathslinger. It could all come down to whether the survivor runs one side or another side of a loop, and one side allows you to shoot the survivor and down them where as another side doesn't have the right angle, and at the time you would think dang huntress is so much better she could hit the survivor over the pallet. I'm starting to believe that if you make the right plays on everything and have a decent build, you can win with every killer. O
0 -
It's so weird to see someone say nightmare instead of freddy :p...
You have a weird bar for viable.
Trapper is like hag but the traps hurt, they both set up and control an area. But I honestly think trapper does it best(the control, not the setup. Hags setup is way better). You herd the survivors to traps, not really dependant on survivor mistakes.(unless you trap random spots for the lols) Also, the best there is at egc, bar none.
Wraith, with bone clapper or soothing bell is incredibly oppressive. + speed addon... it's actually really good. Base is indeed not as good.
Shape..."can't snowball well"... did you seriously say that? He's one of the few killers where snowball is literally built into their base kit.
Doctor, is maybe the best at anti looping. Watch a good doctor play and you'll see. It's insane how little you can do against a good doctor. Pallet dropped or not.
Pig, has real good slow down on her kit. Having stealth is never worse than not having stealth. Certainly could use a buff, but nowhere near almost useless.
Legion, is amazing at keeping people injured. And when people are injured, they go down in one hit.
But really, what's with this "must rely on m1" thing?
You know who must rely on m1? Nurse, spirit, ghost face... literally anyone that isn't billy, oni, plague, demogorgon or bubba. Hell, oni needs to hit someone with m1 to even get his power.
If you wanna say "bad at loops", say "bad at loops".
2 -
When I think of viability I think of it as if that killer can keep up with the top teams without relying on mistakes. Most of them cannot, a good killer player can create situations where mistakes are made (like hooking in basement in the middle of your 3 gen) but if the survivors play it well theres not a lot you can do with a lot of the killers.
0 -
"Most of the community sees viability as how easily one can get a 4k. Nothing more, nothing less. This is why Nurse is and always will be considered the strongest killer in the game. She has the shortest chase time, and therefore fastest and easiest kills..."
I agree with this assessment of the community viewpoint (4k only) and The Nurse.
"...and Hillbilly is seen WAY higher than he should be."
Based on my variables, The Hillbilly is quite efficient when it comes to getting a 4k.
0 -
It’s also about what you do with what you got, because it doesn’t matter if you have a small map or loads of amount of information if you have no idea how to play that killer or adapt your playstyle to the perks the survivors ha e chosen to bring.
0 -
My remark about the Hillbilly, though, is more on the fact that the Hillbilly is terrible for the emblem system with his instant-down chainsaw. Yes, he can easily get a 4k, but the fact is that he doesn't perform on emblems, which is a factor to consider. If we start adding emblems into viability, then Myers, Ghostface and Hillbilly all take a pretty big drop in terms of viability.
0 -
"For me, "viable" means playing and doing well with that Killer depends on my personal skill. No need to depend on luck nor someone else making mistakes. This doesn't mean that the Killer is GOOD or not. A Killer for me can be viable but still weak in the meta. Should still earn wins more often that not, but those wins will need effort in learning and using that Killer's power."
I've edited my OP to show that I did not take personal skill or luck into account. While I recognize that a certain level of skill is required to repeatedly succeed, I'm not sure how to measure the diminishing returns of skill. For one, personal skill and luck cannot be accurately measured from match to match. Also, personal skill and luck can change. Examples of personal skill being fluid instead of static would be preparation (personalizing and/or adjusting settings in a new location or on new equipment) and warming up (last time you played and for how long). I still acknowledge and appreciate your sentiment. 😁
0 -
Viability is a pretty bad concept IMO. People think that if they are bad with one killer, nobody can do well.
For instance, I don't play a lot The Clown but when I do, I usually 3/4k on red ranks. But people keep saying he is one of the worst killers...
0 -
Your post has prompted me to make a few additions to my OP.
You were right. I did make quite a few assumptions. I was trying to be brief while still keeping my overall explanation intact. As far as time to kill is concerned, I probably should have given a few examples. In all honesty, I was attempting to keep my post from becoming a wall of text.
Anyways, many of the concerns you had have been addressed in an edited version of my original post. Instead of having you reread the entire post, I'll list a few of them here. 😅
Examples of variables that affect TTK:
- Number of attacks required to inflict Dying State (Exposed, Broken, Saws, Oni, Trapper's Traps)
- Time between attacks (Save The Best For Last, Huntress hatchet followed by melee attack)
- Gap closers (Oni Dash, Nurse Blink, Demo Lunge, Freddy Snare, Hag Traps, etc.)
- Ability to preemptively break Pallets (Billy Saw, Demo Lunge)
Many players have decided that rank (the emblem system) is no longer a priority and/or rewarding pursuit. I can only speak from my own experiences, but many Killers I've faced haven't been concerned with rank. They've wanted to secure a 4k as easily and as quickly as possible. I know it may be a leap, but I'd wager many of them find more satisfaction in fulfilling the killer fantasy (killing everyone/4k) than they do in post match emblems and scoring. I understand that there is a possibility that a silent majority does find satisfaction in the emblem system. With that in mind, I did mean for kills to be considered the win condition.
1 -
Doc has a chase tool lol
1 -
Let's be honest when most people are talking about viability what they're really basing it on is whether or not they've mastered that killer. I think few people are able to remove their own skill and biases from the equation. People say Clown, Legion, Wraith, Demo, Trapper, etc are not viable and yet I regularly see them 3-4k at rank 1. (And no, not just against "potato" survivors. There's no point in going down that rabbit hole)
Some killers, like Hillbilly, are seen as viable because they are powerful and easy as ######### to learn and you can rely on their incredibly strong power to compensate for your lack of skill and/or mistakes.
And then there are people out there who genuinely believe Hag is a trash killer. Why? Not because she's actually bad, but because they refuse to learn her.
Every single killer in this game is viable. Are some better than others? Of course. But aside from tweaking every killer to have some sort of sprinting/teleporting and ability to one hit KO, it's just not possible or frankly even necessary to get the game to a point where every killer is equally good.
0 -
I'd like to see a clown beat an optimal swf. Would be a fun watch.
0 -
YouTube. Twitch.
0 -
No results :(
0 -
Lol ok.
0 -
Ok as in "ok I was wrong"? Imo a killer isn't viable if they can't beat an optimal swf w/o iridescents.
0 -
How does Clown synergize with bbq or PGTW?
0 -
No, a dismissive "lol ok." You responded roughly a minute or less after I said that. You either did not search at all or you searched poorly. Either way.. lol ok.
0 -
Not much searching needed when the screen literally says "No results found" on both websites.
0 -
👍
0 -
To keep it short, here's what parameters define a killer as viable to my eyes :
- Ability to get into a chase quickly
- Ability to end the chase quickly
- Ability to apply pressure on the map and maintains it
- Counterplay
- Ability to counter looping
The best example here would be Nurse, because she checks all boxes. She can get in a chase quickly because of her mobility and can pretty much end it as fast. She doesn't have that much counterplay (at least if you know what you are doing as nurse), and doesn't care about loops. All of this combined leads to the map pressure that can be insane because of her ability to get in chases quickly.
The worst example here, it depends on your opinion of the worst killer, but I'll take Clown here as I think he is terrible. He has nothing to help him finding chases quickly, can't end chases quickly and therefore, can't apply a good pressure. We could say his power can counter looping, but his counterplay his too important and can literally cancel your power.
0 -
Thanks for including the info in the comment, I appreciate it 😊 And also for clarifying what you're defining as the win condition. As I said, I happen to agree with you, but I have run into a lot of people that would passionately disagree, so it's good to set that baseline.
It sounds like Time to Kill could be otherwise described as Chase Length or Chase Potential (the ability to end chases quickly). In that case, I would like to suggest an additional factor to be considered, which is passive slowdown ability (the ability to put pressure on the survivors indirectly, such as through the use of Pig's bear traps or by forcing them to mend as Legion). It's not as important as some of the others, but it is still relevant, I think.
0
