Not every killer needs to be strong
I think if MMR and matchmaking is properly implemented, not every killer needs to be strong.
Depending on the selected killer and the player rating for the selected killer, the matchmaking could end up usually working like this:
strong killer + good player = good survivors
strong killer + bad player = medium survivors
weak killer + good player = medium survivors
weak killer + bad player = bad survivors
Yes, it could mean that most often the best survivors would never face the weakest killers and the worst survivors would never face the strongest killers.
What do you think?
Comments
-
Even if a killer is weak good killer fundamentals will carry you against even good solos
15 -
That's why not just the killer strength is taken into account, but the player skill as well. But still you would get most likely a bit weaker survivors compared to if you choose a strong killer.
1 -
I’m not sure how I feel about this to be honest and what defines a weak killer? Every killer in the game is strong, in the right hands. Are some easier to pick up than others? Sure. But my point still stands. Plus, if Michael, for example, is classed as a weak killer but I’m classed as a good survivor, would that mean I’d never go against him? As that would be awful. I love going against him and don’t want to be going against Spirit 24/7.
4 -
In theroy works but ultimatly dbd is gonna match you with the team that has been stuck in queue for 15 minutes because someone has to play with the group of experianced survivours.
I dont think that element of matchmaking is going to change and unfortunately this is very common judging from all the yellow/green killers I'm hitting with my group and no there often usually incapable of performing well.
3 -
What I am saying is:
It is not necessary to make every killer the same strength.
The automatic MMR system would classify the killers + players and match up suitable survivors.
If a killer is weak (i.e. only a few players can get 4kills, many hooks, etc.) then most likely that killer will appear for bad survivors, because only a few players can play the killer good. Of course a player who is a pro with that weak killer would play against good survivors.
If a killer is strong (i.e. many players can get 4 kills, many hooks, etc) then most likely this killer will appear only for good survivors who know how to fight good against the killer.
3 -
Yeah, of course matchmaking works good only if there is enough killer and survivor players to choose from. If there is an imbalance in the number of players, then matchmaking can't do good matching, because there is just simply not enough players to choose from.
1 -
Correct, but every killer needs to be viable
17 -
There's an MMR?
0 -
Good fundamentals carried me as I learned just about every 115 killer. I don't think it's possible to overstate just how useful they are.
Hells, even on 110 killers they're decent. No-one expects Huntress or Deathslinger to suddenly mindgame like an m1 killer. Same with Trickster.
0 -
And what's the point of playing that killer? He will get stomped against good survivors.
7 -
This is a longstanding issue. It creates a vicious cycle of newer killers dropping the role because of these awful experiances. I can't count the number of times I asked my friends why dont you play more killer? Who usually respond with the statement I don't play killler because I keep getting player who are way more experienced then I am.
This is not some exceptional circumstance the regularity at which this occurs is awful. Why introduce an mmr system when whats needed most right now is a less steeper learning curve or better ways to teach newer killer players important fundamentals?
1 -
Sure, but fun killers are usually the strongest killers. I'd rather a killer be good than bad, I'm sure literally everyone would agree with that statement.
6 -
This post is not about if MMR is needed, but why killer strength is not so important if MMR is used. So I don't want to steer the discussion this way.
I agree with what you say that killers need to be able to learn the skill, but I think it does not interfere with also having an MMR.
Also note that MMR and good matchmaking is not the same thing. A good matchmaking is when all the players are enjoying the game, because they probably have +- equal skill. However just for MMR purposes matching up a noob with a pro is also possible: Simply if the pro wins the rating won't really change, because it was expected that the pro wins. But I guess a match like that would not be enjoyable, so it would be a bad matchmaking.
These bad matchmakings happen when there are not enough killers or survivors to choose from. But for the MMR system it doesn't matter, it will still calculate the scores correctly.
0 -
...Yes they do? It's a 1v4 horror game, you should be afraid of a killer because they're strong or capable of things, not because they're weak or only fun because you're a survivor who likes easy wins and it's fun for you. "Fun" only gets you so far before you start getting annoyed of being curbstomped every game so you never play them again.
4 -
If you are matched up with suitably skilled survivors, every killer would feel the same strength. For strong killer you would get more skilled survivors, so you would not be able to kill/hook them so easily.
0 -
If you play weaker killer you would get less skilled survivors, so they would be scared.
0 -
That's not my point though. You can do well with every killer at red ranks, yeah, but why would I play the weak killers like Legion and Myers that aren't nearly as fun as killers like Blight, Demo, Deathslinger etc, killers that have options and have stronger powers that let me do more with them? I'm not talking about how viable a killer is or how matchmaking will work, I'm literally asking what's the point of playing bad killers when they're not as fun as the strong ones?
1 -
Even weak killers kill rates are decent. Clown even before rework was sitting on an okay pick rate and decent kill rate
You have to show the survivors you’re capable for them to fear you
0 -
I think that this comes down to personal preference. You like powerful killers, I am sure that many people will like the other killers as well for other reasons. Yes, probably there will be more popular killers, but that would be always the case.
My point is that regardless of how powerful killer you play, you will be able to achieve the same results thanks to the correct matchmaking.
0 -
Smurfing would be a problem even if all killers are equally powerful. So it is unrelated to this discussion.
Yeah, then maybe a weaker killer is going to be less popular for skillful players. But I think it is not a big problem, there are many powerful killers to choose from. And there are many not that skilled players who would like the killer.
And I am not saying that there should be some totally trash killers. I am saying that some power difference is not a problem.
0 -
why would anyone play a killer that gets stomped every match? there is a reason we don't see plague or billy.
4 -
I think the best way to solve this would be bots. This would give new killers a chance to learn the basics.
0 -
Killers could be seen in tiers of difficulty. It's much more satisfying to do well with a killer you are less good at (or has a weaker power) than to win consistently with a powerful killer. In the variety is the opportunity to challenge yourself and have fun. For me, to use the same perks on the same killer day-in/ day-out would bore me to Hell. Others may like it, and that's their choice. Ultimately, for me it's less about whether a killer is good; moreso it's over how fun a killer is to play, or how I can make it more fun.
With enough practice, any killer has potential once truely mastered. Even then, there's more to learn as newer perks and styles arise.
1 -
With my proposal weaker killers would be matched up usually with slightly less skilled survivors (of course also depends on the killer player skill). So it would make those weaker killers able to kill/hook again.
0 -
But strong is viable.
-----
Dbd killers suffer from there being ~ 5 tiers of killer strenght, and many people being more interested in nerfing the top than buffing the bottom.
----
I laugh at the argument of getting bored facing the same (strong) killers all the time. If the others werent as bad, they'd be played more often lol.
Close the killer tier gap by buffing the bottom.
2 -
We have 5 tiers, but all the killers are viable in proper hands.
With my suggestion these tiers would not be very important anymore. Good survivors would get and E tier killer only if the killer player is a pro. And as a consequence, since there aren't that many pro players, good survivors would get an E tier killer less often, but when they get it, it would be a challenge, regardless of the tier.
0 -
This is a pipe dream.
MMR for BHVR has already been a complicated mess.
Now add a subjective tier list to that.
(Remember guys clown had hidden potential pre-buff that was never found)
3 -
There is no subjective tier list fed into the system. There is only an automatic rating calculated for the given player and killer, based on the previous games of that player with the given killer. As a consequence it is not necessary that all killers are equally powerful.
0 -
That is not what the person I was responding to was proposing.
What you are proposing is what BHVR is doing with MMR.
0 -
This is the design philosophy of the developers too. “You don’t need to win or get any hooks to have fun, just let the survivors tbag you at every pallet for 3 minutes then tbag you at the end and tell you to die of (insert disease) and if they all had a good time then everyones a winner!”
0 -
I guess you just read the title.
0 -
Yes, because survivors are just different skins and audio.
Killers have different powers, so it is hard to make them equal. What I am saying is that is not going to be a problem with mmr and good matchmaking.
0 -
Tbh, I'd rather more fun killers to play/vs then strong. You can see it right now, most people would agree the twins are pretty strong & like 23 people play them.
1 -
That completely ignores the unique elements of certain killers.. for the vast majority of maps and killers, they need to be able to deal with some inherent disadvantage they have, such as Plague being super tall and therefore easy to see coming from a mile away.
Killers don't have to be OP, they need to justify their existence. We can't have a killer weaker than trapper, for instance, just because he has a novel concept (not saying that's the case for the new killer, I won't know that till release... But O find it hard to believe there is a worse killer than Trapper).
1 -
Killer fundamentals are more important than power knowledge imo.
1 -
This is not a good reason to intentionally design weak killers...
3 -
This would be god awful. Basically if your too good as a survivor your never gonna go against a variety of killers. As it stands at least in a day I see a variety of killers. Just spirits, the odd nurse and maybe hag sounds garbage. Not to mention if someone gets good at a weak killer they're eventually gonna get to facing those amazing survivors so the problem would just happen their. Weak killers shouldn't exist. End of story. Survivors grow and get better. They eventually start facing strong killers but start off facing weak ones. That's how it should be. Limiting killers you can verse is extremely dumb.
0 -
Definitely not all killers are strong.. unless you are a bad survivor..
Also none are weak, unless you are a bad killer..
An algorithm similar could entice killers to varying their playable killer.. at least me, once I get to red rank I only use my top 3... unless just for fun I use a lesser skilled killer which stops being fun when skilled survivors text "ez" after the game ends..
0 -
You would go LESS against weak killers. You would face weak killers only if the player is very skilled with it. But I would not say that you would face only nurse or spirit if you are a good survivor. Maybe only the top 1% of survivors could be affected by less killer variability, but if it would happen the system can be fine tuned to enable greater ranking differences in those high rankings.
If somebody gets good at weak killer then they should go against good survivors. What's your problem with that? There should be always a challenge. And if the system sees that you can't handle good survivors it will lower your ranking for that killer and you will face a bit weaker survivors.
Btw I am just amazed how negative some people are, refusing proposals immediately as dumb, coming up with exaggerated or unrealistic counterarguments. No wonder BHVR does not discuss anything with the community.
0 -
Issue with that theory is that experience/decision-making is such a huge factor in how well a killer does. I often 4k with Huntress on the rare occassions I play her, yet I rarely land a hatchet.
0 -
You would go LESS against weak killers. You would face weak killers only if the player is very skilled with it. But I would not say that you would face only nurse or spirit if you are a good survivor. Maybe only the top 1% of survivors could be affected by less killer variability, but if it would happen the system can be fine tuned to enable greater ranking differences in those high rankings.
If somebody gets good at weak killer then they should go against good survivors. What's your problem with that? There should be always a challenge. And if the system sees that you can't handle good survivors it will lower your ranking for that killer and you will face a bit weaker survivors.
Btw I am just amazed how negative some people are, refusing proposals immediately as dumb, coming up with exaggerated or unrealistic counterarguments. No wonder BHVR does not discuss anything with the community.
0 -
It is not a ranking for killer. Each killer player will have their own ranking for each killer.
0 -
The better MMR would be giving survivors MMR based on killers they face, essentially giving survivors 23 different elo's.
0 -
At high mmr you wont see certain killers, just due to the fact they're too weak to compete. Hopefully they balance killers for high mmr or I'll stop playing, I enjoy versing all killers not the select few... it's a shame I hardly see certain killers as it is and rank means very little atm but no one is going to want to play those weaker or lack luster killers, people wanna feel somewhat strong or powerful as killer and I respect that as a survivor, it's not fun to easily win either
0 -
Your first 2 sentences contradict each other so much lol. It’s nothing to do with being a bad or good killer, but some people are better with other killers than others and that’s fine. People like different things. For example, I hate playing as Billy, Oni and Spirit. They just do nothing for me and I wouldn’t say I’m the best at them, but that doesn’t mean I’m a bad killer, because I can wipe out lobbies as Michael, Clown, Deathslinger, Legion, Demo and The Twins. Even though most of the killers I play as are classed as ‘low-tier’ I do well as them and I got to Rank 1 by playing them as I understand their strengths and how to utilise them.
To answer your second paragraph you shouldn’t need variation if you don’t want it. Not everybody wants to play as the entire roster and that’s fine. There’s some killers I just don’t have fun playing as, so why should I play as them?
0 -
I'm pretty sure he's a 110% movement speed killer, which really is not that bad. I'm not really sure as to how people assume Plague is a terrible killer, she has great snowball potentials, and I have the feeling this killer will as well. Looking at the PTB isn't a good way on how to gauge a killer's skills. Let's not all forget deathslinger when he came out on the PTB and everyone said he was a weaker huntress.
All in all, every killer has a different strength and weakness, I don't think people should be judging this new one or say "he's a trash killer because x reasons." I have faith, and I love playing Plague, this killer gives me the same vibes, so I'm naturally going to learn how to curb stomp with him.
0 -
To call your idea dumb you act is like a personal attack. It's not. That's where you and the devs go wrong. Harsh criticism? Heck yeah! We don't have to pepper every sentence with a half compliment to make you feel better. Grow up!
Again. I don't refer to you as dumb nor do I the devs. It's like if I said Oh that was a dumb decision, your choice was dumb not you as a person. Secondly my totally insane criticism was this is never gonna happen. DBD as itself just could not work like this. Isolating any part of the community is terrible. Things that aren't even related get affected which you haven't considered or spoken about. Cue times, swf across skill levels, different opinions(theres no definitive tier list), unlimited variables a system like you suggest that happen in a match that break the system.
Here's an idea. Why not just match new players.....with new killed players. Weak killer players...with weak survivors. Forgot oh it's okay this whole character is weak. Nah. They shouldn't be weak. Its dependent on the players skill. Not the killer. A killer can be in your view good but a new killer player could play awful. This isn't the only hole in your idea but that's one.
I love that you try and defend behaviours lack of communication basically saying we as a community are too mean. I don't know how old you are but I know behaviours employees age range. Their adults. No. There a company, a business. If they can't handle not having their backside kissed then they shouldn't be in the business. Theres no excuse for terrible communication.
0 -
Honestly give the game a ranked mode for people who want sweaty games and just open up the flood gates for all kinds of players. I just want to get into matches at this point. I love playing survivor but the queues are so horrendous its just not happening. And having to sweat every game you play is not very fun either. Variety is good and I would hate to be in the upper MMR and only face the same 5 top tier killers only and not see the others. And while not all killers need to be nurse or spirit level. All killers should be viable to let the skill of a killer shine and give you a chance against good teams. If the power is mostly avoidable or controlled by the survivors then I wouldnt say the killer is too viable.
0 -
maybe the killer is fun to play or you just like the character. I keep on playing Wraith although he is one of the more weaker killers right now.
0 -
No....just no. This shouldn't even be a debate.
0
