Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.
Access the survey HERE!
Should survivors be able to ban one killer?
I feel like every player has one killer that they really hate and just cannot stand (spirits *coughs*), being able to ban just one killer so the system wont pair you up with that type of killer would be awesome, atm the game as a lot of killers and banning just one shouldnt be a problem.
NB: if there is a swf (4 man for instance) the system should only ban the killer that the party leader choose.
Thoughts?
EDIT: Looks like people have very split meanings about this, so there are some things I want to clarify.
Altough I agree with the argument: "Learn and get better to play against that particular killer", it's not just about not being able to counter against some spesific killers. The idea is also supposed to back up many other reasons, such as: banning a killer because its just BORING to go against, or that in that particular state of game the killer is just too unfair and strong (like freddy getting 3/4 kills every match before his nerf), (or spirits because she has less counterplay than other killers) , and instead of waiting for BHVR to nerf that killer, we could just put that killer on pause for ourselves.
another argument I see a lot is that queue will take a lot longer. which I don't think it will do, it will take a bit longer sure but not a whole longer. I wouldn't suggested this back in 2019 becuase there were to few killers but now I feel like we have enough (24). I know I said in a comment that banning a killer would take 1/24 more time, Which is not right and im sorry (but not that far off either) But lets look at the pick rates.
As we look at the pick rates (keep in mind this was just before twins got released, so its probably a bit more even than it shows on the picture) the killer various from 3% to 6.5 %. (Yes I know huntress has 9.41% pickrate but I dont think she is that much hated to get banned that much, and keep in mind that trickster got released after these stats, which has a lot of similar playstyle has her, a lot of huntress players probably moved on to trickster, her addons also got a fair rework) .
Now we see that top most pick rated killers has around 6% pickrate of all players. Lets just take an example where we have 4 solo q where every player banned a different killer that has a 6% pickrate, which results in 24%. So, if your q times is 10 minutes (for me its unlikely that I get 10 minutes), your q time will then be around 12-13 minutes instead, and that is at the very longest. (let me know if my math is off)
But if this is still to long, will this idea work better when the game has 40-50 killers? Which it probably will if it continue like this.
BUT all in all, the game is moving towards a better and balanced game, killers that are to OP gets nerfed and killers that are just too weak gets buffed, and maybe the banning one killer option shouldnt be a thing if thats the case. But I thought that maybe this idea would stop certain players to just DC or killing themselves on hook right away when they find out who the killer is, becuase that just ruins the game for everyone and I would rather wait a bit longer than experiecing a DC early game.
Comments
-
It sounds really fun, but i think this would result in ultra long queue times for spirits and nurses.
7 -
This would just result in both extremely long survivor and killer queues.
As the match making would have to work with up to 4 killers being banned and thus greatly slowing down how fast survivors get games.
Meanwhile it effects all killer queue times as someone hates any specific killer more then the rest even if it is for petty reasons.
So this would probably make survivor queues easily 20 mins+ once the current event is over and the queues return to normal.
Also SWF would abuse this to try to always get even easier games with 4 bans.
3 -
I would settle for blocks actually doing some thing. Yes, I hate some killers more than others, but I would prefer just not having to face killers that are being dickheads over and over again. If they don’t want to make it so we just don’t face that player anymore, at least give us a flag or something.
2 -
there are 24 killers which is why I suggested this, average it would only take 1/24 longer than normal, which isnt that much longer if you think about it, if 4 solo q bans different killers then it would only take 4/24 longer, which is 1/6 longer on worst case scenario. 5 min q will be around 6 minutes. not "easly 20 min+". The only problem I can see is people playing hatable killer have to wait longer such as spirit, deathslinger, bubba and freddy.
I also suggested problem solver for SWF, iguess u didnt read it.
0 -
i hate the spirit ... and i hate freddy .... but playing against them stimulates me to improve! for me the problem is not the killers, but the toxic way to use them!
3 -
I wish that if you block a person in dbd that you will never be made with this person again, so he cannot enter the lobby you are in ... I swear I would block so much noobis lul
I mean mainly crossplay off, it used it earlier, to be so much fun, very good survivor against very good killer (Nurse, Blight) players, it was just alive, but today there are so many bins in it ... and if you are looking for a lobby you often get that same bad survivors, if you could block them somehow, it would be such a dream
1 -
This could be actually great, I'd like to block certain players
0 -
Thats not how it works so ill explain it in more detail
If something like this was implemented there would never be an "average" queues wouldn't take "longer by 20% for all killers what would happen is 2-3 killers will be blocked by 90% of players and take their queue times rise to 20 minutes until you slip through some of the banned killer cracks
Its not some law of averages that would work itself out to not be that bad, its an asymmetrical game with a asymmetrical roster all that would really happen is that the top of the killer roster would be banned by 90% of players, sure mr baby dwight who is "wraith op because he invisible" might throw away his ban on wraith (bless his baby dwight soul) but most people will just take advantage over the fact that they never have to go against strong killer x and y every again or learn how to play against them and people who use or main those killers would suffer
And although you addressed the problem yourself you don't seem to get the fact that nobody deserves this, there is both no reason to cause these players grievances and no reason to specifically make a new system just to cause them these problems
4 -
Now that I think about it, would it help if survivors were able to see which killer they are matched before the start of the game? Just like the killer is able to see the players + items the other band carry
0 -
Problem, the fact that some perks completely demolish killers and now the survivors can prepare for it in lobby to tailor builds to each killer
All lobbies against doctor are now 4x calm spirit
All lobbies against trapper bring maps and dh to go over traps
All lobbies against hag bring flashlights and maps
All lobbies against nurse bring dh
All lobbies against spirit bring lucky break iron will
All lobbies against myers bring spine chill
All lobbies against hillbilly bring an indoor map offering like rpd so he doesn't get half his power (mobility)
All lobbies against bubba bring kindred and toolboxes so they can slam gens if he even dares think of camping
you get the picture, it just leads to unfun killer matches through tailored builds since they know what killer they are going against, and the only way to make it balanced would be to either buff the killers massively to compensate that people have the counter perks and make them overtuned against players who don't have the perks or remove the perks and take away survivor options so they can't counter killers
wouldn't work
4 -
I would not feel bad for hag players: they have chosen to play this ass-broken killer, they just deserve to have longer queues. period.
1 -
Ehhhhhhh no
2 -
Okay, if killers can ban one perk they don't want to go against as well.
3 -
It shouldn't work with killer because you play against him, only if you have blocked him you won't see anything he writes (because of the fact that you blocked him) only with him as a survivor you will no longer be made :D
survivor the toxic goods would notice that they should be nicer, survivors that were completely usless in the round ...
0 -
The moment you queue up you're accepting going against any of the 24 killers. If you don't want to go against Spirit, go play another game. Imagine BHVR trying to sell a DLC but "hey, everybody hates this killer, so you'll have to deal with 30 minute queues when you play this killer that you like".
0 -
This calculation only works if every killer is played by an equal amount throughout all ranks. 1/24 of all available killer players needs to play Pig, 1/24 needs to play Billy and 1/24 needs to play Spirit, equally distributed through all ranks.
Out of 24 games in red ranks, how many Spirits, how many Freddy's and how many Billiy's do you verse?
1 -
People really don't think of consequences when making suggestions such as these.
2 -
they should just rework extremely unfun killers/perks instead of creating useless and overcomplicated mechanics to let players fix their game design flaws
0 -
No. 99% of the Survivor base would ban Nurse and Spirit, so they would almost never get matches.
Also no. Survivors would always pick the best perks for the Killer they see. The whole point of playing Survivor is to do one of the following:
- Use general perks that help in all situations
- Use perks that help your strengths
- Use perks that mitigate your weaknesses
Survivors are not meant to be able to counter every Killer every time they log in to a match.
2 -
"Sorry, the community doesn't really enjoy the killer you main. Hope you enjoy 50+ minute queue times"
This is the stupidest idea i have ever heard by far, and were on the dbd forums, home of stupid ideas. Are you drunk or just that daft?
3 -
No thanks.
0 -
how about you try to improve about that
0 -
yep
1 -
Only if killers get to ban one survivor. Who do you main by the way?
1 -
How is hag a broken ass killer hag is not that hard to vs
0 -
He probably thinks hag has no counterplay despite having a lot of it. It's easier to complain about killers than learn to play against them.
1 -
yep it is you are right about that
0 -
Really? Do you have flashlights? Do you have eyes? Can you predict where you would place traps, if you were being the Killer?
Oh look; so many counters. But I understand; Survivors believe any Killer who gets 1 or more Killers per match is broken & needs nerfs. True balance is 0 kills a match.
1 -
You forgot "Can you crouch walk?" as a counter ;)
1 -
I’ve tried to discourage a friend or two of mine from doing things like disconnecting when they happen to face a certain killer.
The example I use is something like Leatherface but my example can be applied to any killer someone got for free, bought, or spent shards they worked for to save up..
I say.. imagine you are a huge Texas Chainsaw fan and all you want to is to play as your favourite character because it brings you joy but your chances to enjoy yourself are taken away because people constantly quit the game simply because somebody playing survivor dislikes the killer you’re using… all you want is to have fun taking on the role of your favourite killer yet you are robbed of that joy each and every time somebody quits.
It saddens me when they respond with something like “so what? I’ll just go straight into another match”. With zero regard for what impact this will have on another human being out there.
So to better help put it into perspective.. imagine if over and over again killers disconnected because you were playing as your favourite survivor or wearing your favourite skin but killers constantly refused to play with you.. matches become harder to find or impossible to truly enjoy, all because you chose your favourite character or cosmetic.
In short.. I would never support a ban outside of competitive play.
0 -
This will not slow queue times if done correctly. The killer is placed into a match no matter who is banned, the survivors won’t choose who to ban until all players are loaded in, at which point the survivors will vote on who to ban, and then the killer picks his/her killer. Of course BHVR will have to include this kind of feature so, it would take a bit more work then just, “banning a killer”. All in all though, it would add some interesting concepts to the game and I’m all for being spontaneous, I agree with this post.
0 -
And at that point, the Killer lobby-dodges when they can't pick the Killer they want to play.
I don't lobby-dodge, but if I wanted to play Bubba or Spirit or Nurse, and that Killer got banned; I'd switch lobbies. I'm not about to let MY OPPONENTS decide who I can and cannot play.
Why do Survivors think they have some sort of divine right to decide who the Killer can play? What's next; Survivors get to pick the Killer's perks?
No.
2 -
I agree. Ill take longer queues for it. Some killers like Spirit are broken and unbalanced so since BHVR wont balance them, let us ban them.
0 -
but survivors got no right to ban any killer
1
