http://dbd.game/killswitch
Killer/Map Bans
Just a small idea I had that would, I think, combat a lot of the frustration of playing the game. Killer and Map bans.
How would it work?
All players will be given one singular map ban, which works the opposite of an offering. You will never be randomly sent to X map you choose. No more Haddonfield. If someone puts in a map offering to a banned map, it can either be refunded or overwrite the ban, just to keep those in use. Would help even out the map pool and prevent certain killers from having to play on maps that really screw them over, like Legion on Mother's Dwelling, for example.
Then, Killer bans. Survivors can choose one single killer that they will not be matched against. It can only be one, and if survivors are in a SWF team, only the lead survivor's ban is counted. This would help counter the odd strings of the same killer again and again, and if there are really insta-DC killers, better to let those survivors just avoid them rather than ruin games by DCing. Can also help with frustration when survivors keep going against the same killer. If a particular killer is banned too heavily, it would impact queue times, but I think at that point that would be pretty irrefutable evidence that a particular killer is just plain unfun and should probably receive balance attention.
There could be other limits, such as only switching once a day, or exceptions for long queue times, but this is just the basic concept.
What do y'all think?
Comments
-
Hm yes, I can't wait to have infinite queue time because I play Nurse. You can't ban a killer simply because how killer matchmaking works. You choose the killer, and you can't change. This isn't like LoL when the bans happen, and you adapt. So the killer will just wait forever if he's a hated killer for X or Y reasons.
This is punishing for wanting to play a character of the game, not a good design at all.
Also, poor Haddonfield and RPD, will always be banned xD
11 -
This has been suggested numerous times. Don't you think if this were even remotely a good idea, there would have been talks about implementing it?
This idea is problematic in every aspect.
2 -
No.
- Mains of Killers Survivors dislike because they can't loop them would never find games.
- Survivors don't get to pick who the Killer plays, no matter how much they want too.
4 -
This response is for you as well as Power_Guy down there. It would make queue times a bit longer for certain problematic killers, but that is why there is only one single ban per player/group. I know, personally, my group would not ban nurse, because we enjoy going against her. There are numerous killers I could imagine a group banning. Nurse, Spirit, Deathslinger, Wraith, or even more common killers that they might just incidentally be sick of facing again and again one particular day. There are a great many killers, and single bans would not impact all of them that much. You can't ban all of them, only one, and everyone has a different opinion about which killer is the worst. Some people would ban Clown ffs.
And anyway, in my post, I made mention of exceptions for long queue times, which was meant as a solution to this exact problem. I imagine if such a system were implemented, it might still put banned killers against survivors that have banned them if the queue was getting too long. I think that's fair.
0 -
I feel bad for Spirit mains if this ever gets implemented.
0 -
I'd be down for map bans but killer bans would be a nightmare.
0 -
Again, no. Survivors should not get to pick who the Killer can and cannot play. And this is a method of doing that.
It would be like Killers being able to pan a perk (since banning a Survivor is useless); imagine if you were told you can't use DH, or BT or DS because the Killer lobby your joined banned it. Or if your queue times inflate because those perks are banned by 1000's of Killers each.
'If there are insta-DC Killers' it's because people are babies. Survivors want a Killer who is loopable for 5 minutes, or has a weak power, so they can win. So they DC against any Killer they deem 'unfair' and blame the game, the Killer, or anything but themselves instead of sucking it up like a big boy.
No.
0 -
I mean this would just allow solo ques to ban four killers which would massively extend cue times or survivors will only be able to paired with other survivors who ban the same killer as them which would quickly form a meta for who to ban or extend survivor ques.
Very bad idea that would just raise que times even more. Also killers would need something equivalent like being able to ban 2-4 survivor perks, which would also jack up que times.
0 -
Nah, while it would be nice to never see Haddonfield again all it would mean for the maps is more of the strong survivor maps in rotation as survivors get more choices for map bans
0 -
This is fair. I tried to think of a solution to mitigate this but honestly, I can't think of any. If killer bans were added, I wouldn't mind if survivors didn't get map bans in return, since I think map is more important from a killer PoV than survivor most of the time.
0 -
My point didn't have anything to do with killer bans, but I don't support those either, killers get 1 map out of 36 they don't like in exchange survivors ban the strongest 2~3 killers so they get extremely long queues or matched up against the swfs who don't get multiple bans, doesn't sound like fun, im sure all baby nurses and spirits would love to only get matched against swfs, you like playing a strong killer, while enjoy long queues and constant swfs, im frankly not for it
0 -
The intention behind this is to find a system that would increase the quality of the games all around and help combat the frustration of playing this game and getting screwed by RNG. Playing Legion and you get Mother's Dwelling? F. Playing Huntress and you get an indoor map? F. Playing solo and two of your teammates insta-DC because it's against Spirit? Nobody is going to have a good time that match at all because you're no longer really playing the game. (The DC penalty barely factors in when combatting this kind of gameplay, too.)
Since the majority opinion seems to be that killer bans would impact queue times, I will say that I may be speaking from a different PoV. When I play killer I never have a queue time for longer than a minute. I don't know if it's just where I live, or my rank, or what, but I have never had an issue with queue times, so an increase doesn't seem like a big deal to me. But! That's just me; if queue times really are that bad out there, then yeah, I think the system should make adjustments to fight against that, including overriding bans occasionally. I don't think this alone negates the entire idea because I still think it fosters a healthier game overall by lowering the number of games that are insta-thrown by pissy survivors that don't wanna go against X killer.
0 -
If a ban was overridden then that person will just dc so this system does nothing to prevent those unfun matches you were talking about.
The fact is this game is in large part based on rng, from killer you go against, to perks of the other side, maps, and pallet spawns etc... It is frustrating sometimes but it is part of the game.
I mean honestly how would you feel as survivor if the killer got to pick the exact map so you always went to the same 3-4 tiny maps. Banning killers would have a similar effect for people who play those killers, being really long ques that only end when they get a team that likely is planning to go against them and has builds for it. Or where they finally get a game but a ban had to be overridden and so that person dc's to avoid playing a match they dont want ruining any fun for that killer or the other survivors.
Also keep in mind we are not saying que times for general killers would skyrocket; just que times for hated killers: nurse, spirit, hag, deathslinger, etc...
Also if you dont ban these killers then the game will basically have to put you against them to get those killers into a match; meaning you could likely predict the killer and design a build to play against that killer and you would face the same killers over and over until you get sick of it and ban them as well (creating a meta where everyone bans the same 2-3 killers and those killers never get matches).
0 -
Yours has been the only response that I feel has pointed out a real issue that couldn't be addressed with some changes to the system. You're right that by not banning X killer, you would be more likely to get them as the system compensates for those who do ban. That is an issue and I have no idea how to solve it.
Overriding the system would still result in the DC, but it would mean this happens less often. The system would still work, it just wouldn't work 100% of the time, in exchange for keeping Queue times low. There's gotta be something to counter those people though, because the DC penalty clearly doesn't.
I still don't think this would be as terrible as people think, because consider the full list of killers who people might ban. Nurse, Spirit, Deathslinger, Hag, Twins, Pyramid Head, Wraith, Bubba, Freddy, Clown, Blight, and likely others under certain circumstances. These are just killers I have heard again and again that they are annoying to go against, and I am sure any killer might be a ban target if a particular survivor just has a bad game against one, or keeps getting them randomly. This is ELEVEN killers, so the impacts of all of this would spread out across far more killers than people seem to be thinking, meaning that the overall killer impact is less.
0 -
Killer bans don't make sense, because it's purely a one sided ban. Map bans don't make sense, because survivors have 4 people and killers have 1, meaning survivors will have a much higher chance of getting favorable maps. Plus map offerings already exist, so just use them.
Bans make sense in games where both teams are equal in number of players and each team is fighting over the same pool of characters. DBD does none of those things, so bans should never be implemented.
2 -
But survivors got no right to ban any killer
1
