Hot take: Unviable killers is a myth
Comments
-
That's pretty much all I was saying without wanting to dive into what people believe balance is but I guess we kind of have to have that conversation to explain what I believe everyone is viable. 2 kills as far as I'm concerned is a win.
If you're judging the ability to 12 hook, 4k a team then obviously there are certain killers that aren't as capable of pulling that off compared to others (and again, I think it's OKAY that killers are different strengths). You don't need to get a 4k to win as killer (and it should be a rarity, not the norm). You likewise do not need all 4 people to escape to win as survivor (nor should all survivors escaping be the norm, it should be a rarity).
I firmly believe every killer is EASILY capable of getting 2 kills in their sleep (not literally) and if being slightly sweaty, a 3k. Assuming they're played by a capable player. If you get blown out and get no kills at all in a match, that's a skill issue and I can't think of an argument where you can't get a kill or two with any killer in this game.
0 -
With unbalanced maps, unbalanced perks.....no matter how good of a killer player you are you can still lose against unbalanced things like that.
0 -
It goes like this,...
"Otz can get 50 wins in a row with any killer you just suck"
But,... he couldn't do it with Trickster and needed noed to even get the 36 he fought valiantly for
Just watch how Otz goes from easy streak to can barely get 36 wins, but yeah all killers are super OP. LOL
3 -
Another "hot take":
One game has a working matchmaking with all people queueing up for the same 100 people 1-4 team free for all.
The other has something that goes out the window ones the queue times go too long since one side has a few hundred or less in queue and the other a few THOUSAND.
Also if killer like trapper just can't perform as well as others then they should NEVER be matched with 4 men swf except the worse ones aka working but in DBD nonexistent matchmaking.
(Disclaimer never played apex so the example of squad sizes and amount of player in one round might be wrong and are taken from other BR game like PUBG or Fortnite, which i also never played, just not my genre without friends that play it.)
0 -
Bullspit because even the top level players in this game will tell you maybe half the cast is viable. Go watch Otz, Coconut, Umbra, etc. Play Sadako and they will tell you all the long while how they feel about the lower half of the cast (and they don't even consider Sadako the worst).
0 -
Oh yeah that is my same mindset too and I completely agree, any killer can do exceptionally well in most situations and most people complaining are just usually coping
0 -
You say 36 wins in a row like that's a small feat. If you're winning more than 3 matches in a row, you're overperforming as far as I'm concerned. The fact that he can win that many matches in a row with a killer most people deem to be unviable means the killer isn't unviable. The players and the matchmaking system are.
And at what point did anyone use the term OP???? What I said was every killer DOES have different levels of strength and I'm okay with that and think it should stay that way. I don't want Myers and Blight to have the same map pressure. I don't want a Wraith to have the same hook pressure as a Hag does. They should all play at different levels based on their character design
0 -
I mentioned his Trickster because if we go by what you said, Otz should have no problem getting 50 wins in a row, considering he lowered win requirements. But he couldnt, he simply could not. Why? I thought Trickster was viable
You missed the point. If all killers are so viable, how come he could not do 50 wins with Trickster? If like you say, he should be able to get 3k by "slightly sweating" and those are your words.
3 -
They should all play at different levels based on their character design
You should've just said you don't want good Killers
3 -
Getting 36 wins in a row shows viability. Getting 10 wins in a row shows viability. If you can consistently get wins like that with a character, they are viable. I don't know what point you're trying to make.
When did 50 straight wins become the standard of viability? You just told me he won 36. 30 + 6. Thirty six matched IN A ROW but the character somehow ISN'T viable because he didn't make it to 50? What are you on about?
Viable does not mean on equal standing with every other killer. I acknowledged in my original post and throughout this thread that killers are on different tiers and some killers are stronger than others AND I think that's OKAY. Being on different tiers is not equivalent to being unviable
2 -
LOL Well that's a stretch if I've ever seen one. Did I ask for a nerf for Nurse, Blight, or Huntress (arguably the 3 strongest killers at their max potential)?
No, in fact, those are the killers I love playing against the most. I distinctly said I don't think ANY killers should be nerfed or buffed but I guess you'd have to read to see that.
0 -
No one said you wanted Killers nerfed, but you don't want weak Killers buffed, because you think Killers should be weak, which is just a weird mindset.
Huntress 3rd best Killer? Which game are you playing?
7 -
2. Yes it does. It doesn't matter which side you play.
I am not a killer main but your projection shows me the mentality I need to know.
Now explain to me in which universe are m1 killers viable against decent survivors. Explain how to deal with safe tiles and unmindgameable loops that everyone runs to and gen efficency during chases. How do I end every chase in 5 seconds so I can pressure gens as pig please do tell.
If you had any experience or watched good killers play this game often you would realise that m1 killers can't compete at top level as long as you are human and not alien or something more advanced. You can win some games sure but only if survivors get too cocky and make mistakes. But if they play efficiently, cold headed and if they are on comms, with that much info you might as well try to move the mountains with your bare hands.
There is a reason why my surv games are a breeze when I end up with competent teammates or 3man swf. Yesterday I only died in one game out of 10 because my teammates were on point.
Survivors messing around is the only reason kill rates are so high.
6 -
Flawed. There are much fewer very skilled killers out there vs. Survivors who are skilled, ergo the middling cream floats to the top. There simply aren't enough killers at higher MMR to go around, hence why Lobbies for survivors tend to take longer because it takes longer to find killers who can match (or the que takes a crap because you've waited too long and now it gives you any random killer)
Also skill does not make up for mechanical disadvantage. A killer that can go through walls will always be 100% stronger than a killer who can't, no matter how strong the player is. It's about making the outcomes closer, not giving everyone the same exact tool, but that would require the playbase to have the patience to actually learn to play against every killer in a very different way (of which most, especially low tiers, have the exact same counterplays and little ways to shore up their weaknesses in chase, which is basically the defining factor for how good a killer can even potentially be).
3 -
Your argument makes no sense. You can't put words in my mouth and make the claim that I think Killers should be weak literally after I just said I'm okay with different killers at different power levels and my favorite matches are against Nurses, Blights, and Huntresses..... The way you're trying to twist my words is the only thing weird here.
And yes, a top tier Nurse who can snipe across maps is more of a menace than the majority of killers in the game. Maybe indoor maps mess her up, but who would you say is a stronger killer NOT including Blight and Nurse (played at the peak of their potential)
0 -
I'm okay with different killers at different power levels
That literally means you want every Killer to remain as is, good Killers, the minority, remaining good and weak ones, the majority, remaining weak.
And yes, a top tier
Nurse(Huntress) who can snipe across maps is more of a menace than the majority of killers in the game.That's if Survivors don't know how to dodge/predict Hatchets, which most do as Huntress is one of the oldest Killers and most Survivors know her counters
4 -
I literally played comp and won matches so yes, I am as good as I think I am.
3 -
No one ever argues the fact that at the top of it all, Nurse is basically THE most balanced killer. She doesn't beat the best survivors by just being picked, but people who aren't as skilled as the player playing her get destroyed, which should be what we would want for every killer tbh (considering the person playing has been practicing with that particular killer for a fair investment period, which is something almost wholly unique to the nurse anyway)
I'd say she's strong in areas where other killers don't need to be, but I don't think she needs any changes at this point, and I don't think it's fair to say we shouldn't strive for the vast majority to be close to her strength, because again, her strength is basically that if you put time into learning her, you can actually play the game without relying solely on survivors mistakes, A.K.A. she actually plays the game.
Again, look at the trends, hear what is said often... "Blight and nurse get to play the game how they want", "oh how come only blight and nurse can play around with perks and add-ons?"
3 -
I never stated you were a killer main. What I said was by your argument, would that same logic apply to a killer main? It was (i thought) a simple yes or no question because it seems silly to invalidate someone's opinion on a game based on which side they play more. I also don't have to create post about killer complaints because
- I play killer less and therefore don't care as much about losing or winning when I play it
- The forums are primarily filled with killer complaints as it is and doesn't need another drop in the metaphorical bucket. Why do I need to complain about map sizes if there's already 10 posts doing the same thing??
0 -
I'm sorry, you said Nurse is the most balanced killer. A pro Nurse, and I mean someone who has MASTERED the character can slap any team, probably with no perks, no matter how good the survivors are, what perks they bring, or what items they use. She's literally been at the top of any tier list created since she was introduced to the game
0 -
There will always be a top regardless. Top is not synonymous with overpowered. She performs at an average of 2K consistently in even skill match ups. What you claim is just blatantly incorrect. If you take things one step further (into tournament play level), she averages a negative kill rate (less than 2/match) when all restrictions are completely removed.
0 -
I agree, 36 wins in a row is great and I am not knocking Otz, I even described his feat as "valiantly." However, what you said earlier was:
"I firmly believe every killer is EASILY capable of getting 2 kills in their sleep (not literally) and if being slightly sweaty, a 3k. Assuming they're played by a capable player."
So again if we go by what you said, killers should never lose and someone like Otz should have no problem, or maybe sweating slightly and easily get the 3k.
The problem is,... he couldn't.
So is Otz unskilled now? I thought if he could do it we all could,...
1 -
yea unfortunately having to be god tier to have a chance at making the other 75% of the roster work isn't a fair thing to ask of players
3 -
Strong killers (S or A tier): Nurse, Blight, Hag, Huntress, Spirit, Plague, Nemesis, Billy (maybe he's B tier but the overheat didn't hurt the actual good Billy players)
Average killers (B or C tier): Wraith, Deathslinger, Pyramid Head, Artist, Cenobite, Bubba, Freddy, Legion, Ghostface, Demogorgon, Clown, Twins, Oni
Weak(er) killers (D or lower): Myers, Trapper, Pig, Doctor, Trickster, Onryo
Idk if I missed any but the majority of characters are realistically average, not low tier.
0 -
Tier lists are subjective, but Nemesis and Billy in S/A tier confirms you don't understand what good Killers are
5 -
Nemesis is easily stronger than every killer I listed on that mid tier list
0 -
No, especially not PH, Artist, Demogorgon and Oni. Those are objectively better
4 -
If we wanna bring out the big names... Aaron was on a 25 escape streak yesterday... solo. Before that he only got to 20, that streak is on youtube.
So, solo queue is alright I assume? No need to buff solo survivors? Good, I'm glad we agree.
3 -
Every killer is viable, yes.
Every perk can also be viable.
But it's the amount of value and consistency of it that differs.
In case of killers, some (if not most) are more map/add-on/perk dependant than others.
2 -
Playing both sides often helps a lot to see some things, that is what I meant. People playing killer only can be biased as well, I understand that.
You still didn't answer my questions tho. How do m1 killers compete at top level, what makes them viable there? You said all killers are viable I just want to understand what makes you think that and see your own perspective on it since you didn't really explained much.
2 -
All killers are viable at low skill levels and not all killers are viable at mid and high skill levels. That's the Balance for killers. Some are designed to be top tier others aren't. The only problem with this is people get better while the character (killer) doesn't. At some point you'll face better and better opponents as you also get progressively a better and better player yourself and those better opponents will simply outclass your killer if that killer isn't a top tier killer.
Look at the past 2 years of killer releases and all you see is killers with Range/Zoning abilities. Why? Because the game doesn't give other sort of killers a chance. M1 killers have no chance at mid to high skill level. You need to play the match so well that you make no mistakes and you have to pray to get and recognise your opponents making mistakes.
I'll just give you an example: Ghostface - BHVR hasn't touched the Reveal Mechanic, his stealth and Stalking are still connected, meaning if you get spotted while using Nighshroud you also can't stalk, so you lose everything and gain nothing plus you have one of the highest cooldowns on a killer that is so dependant on using his power for everything and even when using it is at no advantage at all because Maps are designed for killers. The amount of times you'll 1 shot someone is pretty low for such heavy downsides and he has no zoning, no movement abilities. You can't expect to play GF at high level and be confident you can win. You might do so in some remote region of the world but not in the most populated regions.
4 -
The forums aren't ready for this discussion lol. They'd rather blame SWF's than say "i messed up this is what i could've done". Unless you somehow go against survivors who play comp and never take unnecessary risks, at one point in the game you can make a comeback. I can personally attest to this by the amount of games I've won after losing 5 gens.
I think most people just feel entitled to a win. They don't want to put the effort into winning, but believe they should regardless of the circumstances. If survivors are good they're going to beat you. If killers are good they're going to kill you. Obviously there is nuance to that, but in the scenario that everyone is playing on even grounds, the outcome is clear.
Many DbD players deflect responsibility. It's not their fault they made a bad play, it's yours, and now they're going to try and spite you in anyway possible. The community has a deep rooted problem of pettiness that can often times go too far. Whether through death threats, racial slurs, dog pilling, or even some cases doxxing. The community in general around this game can be super immature and usually turns away a lot of new or older players.
2 -
Solo queue is fine actually imo. I play a majority of my games solo. Solo queue is only an issue when you come across teammates who are just plain stupid, or are toxic. I've had solo queue teammates who are better than the friends I play SWF with WHILE having comms.
The thing that most people fail to acknowledge is that SWF (with or without comms) can't compensate for game sense, knowledge of tiles, and mechanical skill. I can tell my teammates everything they need to know and they can (and do) still fail spectacularly because
- They aren't as good as I am at the game
- They don't like to be backseated and I've had 2 friends I can think of say they had an issue with me constantly telling them things like when to run or hide or when to go for a save, even though from my perspective, I just knew more and was trying to help the team (going off on a slight tangent)
- Me telling my teammate the killer is going their way means nothing if my teammate doesn't know how to loop a Pyramid Head or doesn't know to not drop pallets with a Huntress right behind them.
All that to say that a SWF only really has an advantage if all 4 of the team are at the same or similar skill level. Otherwise, you're better off with 4 skilled solo players.
0 -
Ask the guy earlier who told me about Otz going on a 36 game win streak with Trickster. Like I said, I'm not and nor have I ever claimed to be a killer main. I would probably get stomped by most survivor teams but that's because I haven't put the hours into getting good at killer. My inability to play a character efficiently however does not make the killer unviable. It just means I'm not the one who is good enough to play them viably
0 -
I agree with your post. I've never liked this idea of all Killers being as powerful as the top tier Killers, and I genuinely like the variety we get because of it. (The absolute lack of variety is why I didn't like so many of the recent chapters, as Nemesis, Pinhead, and Artist all felt way too similar to me.)
I think, if anything, some of those higher-tier Killers need adjustments to be a little worse- because specifically, I don't really like how Killers like Blight have such insane add-ons while Killers like Ghostface are only just now getting good add-ons after being out for three years, despite being a worse Killer by far. I also don't think though that every Killer has to have insane add-ons or be insanely strong. The idea of having to balance solely around these occasional 4-Man SWFs with every meta perk known to ever exist would just make the game a struggle for everyone. It's why the current MMR makes the game feel more stale, besides some perks having poor base design (Specifically CoH and Deadlock.)- it's just a competition between who has better perks. It's always been like that, and it just feels worse now more then ever because you feel more pressure now to run meta perks. You face them more often, you play with people who have them more often, and you feel like you have to bring it to stand a chance. (Basically, there's too big of a gap between meta perks and non-meta perks, and too big of a gap between casual players and what I'll call more.. 'Competitively Driven' players. Those being the people who don't play comp DBD in any form, but like to play like every pub match like it's a tournament for 30 trillion dollars.)
1 -
If you notice he avoids questions that seem to contradict what he said previously. Now he is referring you to me, instead of answering either one of our questions using his own quotes back at him.
4 -
Trickster is not m1. And someone making a streak doesn't prove much when you don't take all of the factors into account.
Did they played all of those games against top level? Did survivors throw? Were they efficient?
I am sorry but you are not ready for this discussion if you are going to just dodge everything and not go deeper into it.
And yeah otz also made his tier list and he doesn't think every killer is viable.
2 -
While I do think there's a certain pettiness to the community as a whole I don't think that's really the whole situation in this discussion. The statement that all killers are equally viable isn't true in the slightest.
4 -
He did a 50 win streak with the Clown and Legion as well (and yes, I know they both have their own m2 as well but they're essentially m1 killers to get downs). And streaks do matter because it shows that with enough skill, you can consistently perform well with a killer.
Again it doesn't make sense to ask me who does not main killer, what a killer should do in order to perform well. That isn't my strength in this game. But to claim a killer is unviable because you or I can't win consistently with them means nothing when there is someone out there who can
0 -
What question from you did I avoid answering because I'm pretty sure I responded to you?
0 -
And here's the place where I think some of you are confused. I never said EQUALLY viable in my statement. If I did, I misspoke. Viable does not equate to all killers being equal. Viable just means that if you play them with enough skill, you can do well in a match. Period. That's all their is to viability, no more no less
0 -
I don't agree with the thought that all killers should be buffed to be as strong as nurse or blight. That'd be ridiculous since one of them literally defies game logic with her power. I do however think that the weaker killers should be buffed to where they're closer to B tier, around the demo and doctor range. And the high tier killers should be nerfed until they're brought within that range. Right now the gap between the highest and the lowest is too big. Is every killer able to win and 4k right now? Sure, in the right circumstances. But the goal should be to bridge the gap as much as possible, and then balance around that. Especially since MMR exist now, you want as small of a gap as possible.
Look at other multiplayer games. Even at league. The difference between the meta and non meta is between 2-4% at almost all times. So while this non meta champ may have a 50% Winrate at all ranks, which is still great and easily useable, this other one has a 52% Winrate. It's that small advantage. So yes you'll always have certain killers be naturally stronger than others, you want the range as close as possible for balancing purposes.
0 -
Do you realise that streaks are not made instantly without fail? And what about other things I mentioned, caliber of survivor in the games, their actions?
You are not adressing anything and just jump around topics over and over.
Streaks are not proof of anything because I would be a god survivor then which I'm not. For streaks to support your claim that every killer is viable at top level, they have to include top level.
Have you ever watched oracle? I know this is extreme example but there is no m1 killer in the world who can beat them if everything goes and they play seriously. Even with torunament rules they destroy most of the time.
There is just no way and enough time to win as m1 killer against good survivors, especially on comms. It is not possible unless some serious mistakes happen and you capitalise on it.
And I will leave it at that, I don't feel like going further when you just jump all over the place. It is tiresome and unproductive.
9 -
Weren't those pre-SBMM, which means the Survivors he faced weren't guaranteed to be any good?
8 -
That's what being viable is about though. We want what you're claiming, for all killers to have that chance to beat any team long as we put in the work. That's not the case though.
M1 killers as a whole are outclassed with any amount of teamwork. Trapper, clown, and meyers will not perform as well as a blight, nurse, or oni across the board, because they're not on even ground.
The whole "if you play good enough" argument just is a simple out, as it's not an answer, it's a hollow response.
8 -
This guy in a nutshell:
"All killers are viable. Anyone who can't 2k every match is just lacking skill. You can 3k with slightly sweating."
"Don't ask me about killer strategies, I don't play killer and it's not my specialty."
LOL
15 -
pre-SBMM and pre CoH
2 -
Yeah unfortunately. That's why I'm done. I wanted to see his perspective but he keeps running in circles without saying much.
His main argument is flawed because I could be a Peter Pan then with enough skill. You can't just say that without explaining how.
2 -
"You're nit good enough/git gud" wouldn't be that bad of an argument (still bad tho), if there was something to be good at in this game.
Survivor barely takes any skill to play, Killer is overall even easier. There are 5 Killers off of the top of my head that actually require skill to play, those being: Hillbilly, Blight, Artist, Nurse and Huntress
3 -
I believe that can go for killer S Tier to B Tier. But against 4 competent survivors C Tier and F Tier stand no chance. Like Trapper or Pig
0
