We need an option to choose 1 killer to avoid in your lobbies
Exactly what it says in the title. I kept track of every single match I've played since the new chapter released, and of the 65 matches I've played, 38 of them have been against Wesker. And of the other 27, 15 of them has been against Nurse. In fact, my killer distribution has been:
Wesker: 38
Nurse: 15
Blight: 2
Legion: 2
Spirit: 2
Ghostface: 2
Doctor: 2
Pinhead: 1
Twins: 1
I understand Wesker just released this week, and I understand Nurse is a popular killer, but I HATE these killers with an absolute passion, and I know there are people who find specific killers unfun, unfair or boring to go against.
Therefore, I am proposing an option in our lobbies where before we ready up, we can choose a killer that the game will then avoid putting us up against. Just 1 killer. This would make it so that 4 killers at max could potentially be avoided (any more than 1 per survivor would potentially make certain killers unplayable because those killer players would never find a match). This would cut back on the amount of people letting go on hook because they don't want to be forced into a match with a killer they really dislike, and would also provide the devs with information on which killers survivors like the least, which they could use to make balance changes.
In addition, the devs could even make the "avoid this killer" option cost a certain amount of BP per each time you use the option if it sounds like too convenient of a change to make for free. For example, you either spend 10,000 BP to avoid going against Nurse, or perhaps the game tells you that if you choose not to go against Nurses, you earn 10% less BP during the matches which you have the option on. I don't really think a cost is necessary, but it sounds like a fair exchange if there absolutely NEEDS to be some sort of cost to this option.
Now, this would obviously come with the risk that you increase your own queue times, but as someone who doesn't want to go against a 39th Wesker, I would rather wait in a longer queue than get sent into another match with one, and I am sure lots of other people feel the same way. At any rate, the game should warn you about the longer queue times if you do decide to turn on the option.
When a new map releases, many people complain about being forced onto the new maps often because the devs increase the likelihood of going to that map. The remedy for it is to use a map offering/sacrificial ward. But for the 10,000 bug-ridden Wesker players we're forced to endure, we have no remedy. We just have to resign ourselves to playing against a single killer until the heat death of the universe, or die on first hook and move on. That kind of design I believe is unhealthy and needs to be altered to make the game more enjoyable for both survivors and killers who want to play a fair match where survivors aren't constantly dc'ing or letting go on hook.
Comments
-
They’ll never do that. It would punish killer players just for trying to play the game, and let four survivors block up to four unique killers of their choosing. Increased queue times for everyone. Not happening.
18 -
Nah, queue times would be much longer.
4 -
This your first time playing after a new chapter?
4 -
No, it's my last time playing the game lol. I'm tired of every match being Nurse, and then every time a new chapter comes out, it's nothing but x killer.
1 -
Only if i can block items as killer
5 -
And survivors aren't punished for being forced against the same 3 killers every match with no way to change it? There are supposed to be over 25 killers in DBD, yet in over 50 matches, where are they?
0 -
Are serious? You really can't find the answer for yourself?
2 -
The answer is "not in your lobby, unlucky".
0 -
Honestly, I’d love to see a base kit change to the game where no more than 2 of the same item can be brought into a match. No more 4 toolboxes, no more 4 medkits, 4 flashlights, etc. if there are 2 people already running medkits, bring pharmacy. Already 2 flashlights? Bring Haddie’s perk.
0 -
Try playing those killers yourself for the answer.
3 -
Instead of making an avoid killer button - what the game needs is to make all the killers roughly balanced. Instead of having S, A, B,C,D tiers the devs should aim to make all Killers A or B ranks.
2 -
No i want to block items period all of them
0 -
I wholeheartedly agree, balance is key. I don’t think it would solve the issue of going against the same killers over and over, however. I think get where you’re coming from, or maybe where you’re going with this - that is to say if all the killers are balanced, then there’s less incentive to exclusively play Nurse or Blight or whatever the strongest killer is, and that would create more variety among killer players. But consider, for example, Wesker ends up being the most popular killer (because who doesn’t love Resident Evil), even if Wesker is balanced, many people would complain about going against such a large amount of Weskers every play session. There’s also bound to be a portion of the player base that doesn’t enjoy Wesker’s gameplay and would rather face off against the rest of the cast in the game. Giving players the slightest bit of control over what would otherwise be RNG could be the difference between having a thrilling and fun match, or loading into a match, seeing a first aid chest and yeeting out of the game.
It’s not always that people want to avoid a killer because they’re unbalanced or too strong, yknow? I find that people complain the most about Legion. Lots of people don’t like Legion because you spend 40% of your match mending deep wound. He’s not a particularly strong killer by any means, nor does he necessarily need any major balance changes to make him stronger, but people just find his hit and run style of gameplay boring and tedious. Maybe it’s not a problem for some, but it’s definitely an issue for a lot of others. I don’t mind Legion personally, but if you hate him that badly, I believe you should have an in-game solution to avoid that specific killer without A. Disconnecting B. Letting go on hook or C. Just accepting you’re going to have an unfun match based on RNG, because at the end of the day, everyone is going to have their own preferences and balance changes may not always result in the most fun matches.
Sorry for the super long response. May your eyes and brain find rest after reading this.
0 -
Unlike most people I'm not afraid of words and I love a well thought out reply - especially when it has paragraphs /gasp.
People play Nurse and Blight because those killers put you in control of the chase. Once upon a time there were 3 killers.
Trapper got picked because:
1) he could shut down the Killer Shack when it had 2windows.
2) If you put a trap in a "lane" on an old Autohaven Wreckers tile you could not avoid the trap because it had "suck in". In other words the trap completely blocked a lane. That was powerful in the old times but is no longer the case.
3) You could put traps at people's feet that took about 8 seconds to disarm. It was not possible to rescue them without disarming the trap unless another survivor was in the process of disarming it for you.
Wraith got picked because
1) NOED lasted forever and was not a totem
2) It was easiest to find people with him (stealth used to be a thing - go look at shelter woods in 2016)
Billy got picked because :
1) he had instant downs the whole game
2) once upon a time he could flick his saw at the end of a sprint to make an attack at angles beyond 90°.
3) There were no indoor maps. Imagine a time when you could zoom from any one generator to any other generator with almost nothing to really keep you from getting there via saw sprint. It was common for me to have saw srpints that gave 2000 points. It goes without saying that the saw once had no overheat. *Quick aside* : while we are here the old Billy angle saw flick was total BS that needed to go. Every other nerf against Billy was not necessary.
Trapper had a lot of map control but didn't put you in control of the chase because you were depending on traps that could be broken with sabotage or a toolbox (be aware that Sabotage was once one of the main meta perks because it broke hooks forever). Wraith was great at finding people but had no real control in a chase. Billy had control in chases because he moved so dang fast.
0 -
That’s not a super helpful response. This is the feedback section, yknow? Where people make suggestions. If you don’t like what I’m suggesting, a helpful dialogue to get your point across does wonders for me.
So the way I’m seeing it is playing killer doesn’t help me find more variety in my survivor matches. That’s sort of like the “be the change you wish to see in the world” kind of approach. Survivor mains aren’t going “This is the 7th match of Blight I’ve had in a row, let me switch to killer and play Huntress so the other survivors can go against someone who isn’t Blight.” they’re going to keep playing survivor and pray for a different killer to face or just stop entirely.
With an option to avoid a specific killer, you eliminate this problem entirely. Yes queue times get longer, but when you opt into something like that, it’s with the expectation that you’re going to have to wait a little longer to find a match. With 29 killers in the game, finding one of the 25 others shouldn’t be a problem.
2 -
They're never going to have a "banned killer" option.
Also give it a week and the Wesker numbers will go down to something more normal.
0 -
I’ll admit I’m not super well versed in the olden days of DBD. I’ve seen gameplay and read things about the older builds of the game, but I was never able to experience it myself, unfortunately.
In a game with only 3 killers like olden DBD was, the suggestions I’m making would be really bad. Your suggestion of balance would definitely be the only solution besides adding new killers that also put you in control of chases. As you add more and more competent killers, naturally the variety between killer choices would increase and you would ideally see a healthy amount of players choosing all of the characters.
There are a whole lot of factors for killer choice, whether it’s how strong they are, their ease of use, how easy they are to obtain (free, paid dlc, buyable with iri shards) etc. As you balance killers and bring them to more similar levels of strength, these factors get narrowed down even further, you get down to: How fun is the killer to play? How easy are they to unlock? How cool do they look / how cool are their cosmetic options / are they a fan of a specific killer because it’s a character from their favorite movie/game/etc?
When the killers are balanced to a point where people play certain characters based on cosmetic preference and or how fun a character is, you’re going to naturally have people gravitating towards the most popular IP’s or original characters in the game with the greatest cosmetic variety, particularly with licensed killers and or killers that are free from the start of the game, and that’s where I think we’ll still have issues with people bunching up playing the same characters and eventually seeing people having to go against the same killers over and over again.
When you look at a killer like Freddy, he’s from a popular IP, but is (according to a lot of people) weak, paid DLC, and has no cosmetic variety, so many people choose to pass over him. People who play Freddy are most likely variety killers, people who enjoy Nightmare on Elm Street, or people who just enjoy Freddy without caring too much about his other qualities.
But when you look at a character like Nurse, she is free, has many cosmetics, and she is a top tier killer. This makes her a very easy and popular choice. Her advantages are availability, strength and variety in appearance.
Whether this is all good or bad or if it even matters is subjective, of course, but I do think we should have a bit of input in deciding how our matches are formed, based on the fact that people will always gravitate towards a specific group of killers, regardless of the state of balance in the game. Perhaps there’s another way to address the problem and incentivize killer variety in matches, but I figured I’d try to come up with a solution rather than doing nothing and keeping my concerns to myself.
0 -
That'd be fair
0 -
Then you did not play 4 years ago. In red ranks it was basically just Nurse, Billy and later Spirit.
Welcome to my start in dbd. Yes it was annoying. But I used this time to try and get better against these killers.
0 -
Only if you match punishing people for playing killers they like with allowing the killer to avoid swf and 'punish people with friends!!11'
0 -
There are many posts about making harsher dc's. Many threads about nerf (specifically) nurse.
Also keep in mind - whats's your preference? 10m wait for match, get instadc, super easy/boring game and wait another 10 minutes? Or wait 12 minutes for good match?
I think simple ban system to remove single killer would be beneficial - for variety, for soloQ, for game health and ultimatelly for future balance changes.
It might even reduce queue times because some survivors might play more (because less dc frustrations)
Not the same thing. We have 5 item types. Not 29. This would be way too limiting. It would be the same as allowing to ban one addon or maybe one specific item (like violet medkit) - which would be really useful only against rainbow maps (that nobody uses anyway).
0 -
Actually since 4 killers can potentially be blocked that also covers lets say 20 addons/killer so 80 addons being blocked. I would say thats completely fair, but fine block 4 item types then, so the 1 item i would not put on my ban list will be flashlights cause i can remove them with lightborn.
0 -
it does not work that way. There are no different types of survivors. By the same logic - blocking 1 type of item X 33 "different" survivors. Waaay too punishing...
Or OK. Block 1 survivor - it sounds like it gives no benefit, but it does. If someone mains 1 survivor and that one is banned, he will not get access to his perks/items. It's very negligible, but it does something. Does that sound bad? Of course it does. Because it is bad. Same as banning 1 of 5 (but in fact 1 in 3 - because maps and keys are totally worthless) item types. Or OK. maybe 1 of 6 because I should probably count firecracker as distinct item from flashlight (but that ain't so for lightborn).
0 -
If the survivors get to dictate what killers they get to face, then killers should be able to dictate what items are allowed.
Survivors block potentially 4 killers with a multitude of addons, lets say some people have the same and average it at 2 blocked killers.
Killers should get to block 2 item types then. No medkits or tool boxes for me thanks.
You might still get lucky and find them in chests
0 -
I think a simpler idea would be to just reduce your chances to go against a specific killer if you have gone against them quite a few times in whatever span of time. (They would have to exempt brand new chapter killers from this though or queuing would be an absolute nightmare on launch weeks).
1 -
And you take lightborn.
That means survivors are not allowed to take any item into lobby. Keys are useless after hatch nerf (good riddance) to the point that removing the item from the game would actually buff survivors and maps give very little value as stealth/hatch tracking got obsolete. But to be fair, they still help locate hexes so some minor value is still present.
If we include like at least 3 new USABLE item types, then sure. Ban system for item types would be viable.
0 -
Hell no. Grow a pair and stop DCing
1 -
Revert 6.1 killer buffs and DC will be gone.
You can't change everyone. The game is no longer fun for casuals in soloQ. You need to mitigate this somehow and harsher punishments for DC (because cheaters, game crashes, bugs and stuff like steam maintenance) would only mean you need 200%+ BP bonuses for survivors at this point.
I think ban system would be still very soft "killer nerf" that would actually make DC's way better - even for "crybabies". Just a little longer wait time for much higher quality game. I call that win/win
0 -
Most Survivors already adapted to 6.1.0. The patch didn't even change that much.
The game is no longer fun for casuals in soloQ.
That has nothing to do with 6.1.0, it's because of bad players that can't take losses.
Cheaters are rare. I haven't seen one in a while, and you probably haven't aswell.
Game crashes don't happen anymore. I've yet to see anyone complain about crashing and then getting a DC penalty.
Game-breaking bugs are really rare, if they even exist anymore. Wesker is really buggy but I've yet to get a game where I've had to DC.
Stop making up excuses for bad players. They either grow up, or get a DC penalty (and should probably get a van aswell if they DC too often)
0 -
Dude, I merely suggested you try playing as the killers you aren’t facing, if you really wanted to know why you’re not versing them as survivor. If you can bear the long queues, praying that no one DCs before the match begins to have to go through another extended queue, just to be getting hook numbers you can count on one hand before the gates are powered.. then you’re the exception.
You won’t understand this if you don’t play killer, though.
1 -
Most survivors didn't adapt. They just swapped to less stressful role which for a first time in dbd is killer. Hence incentives and insta-survivor lobbies.
Also you can't change people. So "grow a pair" means you are long-term satisfied with current state. I for one am not. But all I need to be happy is "vote surrender" button (requirement to be unanimous) to be not forced to play lost game (which I presume would not be to the liking of most camping/slugging/hard-tunneling killers)
0 -
Most Survivors have indeed adapted. Games are harder than they were a few days after 6.1.0's release.
I can't change people, only they change themselves, but they don't want to, so they should get punished. Simple as.
A surrender option wouldn't be bad, but it wouldn't be good either. "Oh wow, a Nurse. Let's surrender" is something that will cross a lot of people's minds
0 -
Punishing people for playing a specific killer makes zero sense. There’s a variety of reasons they might be playing that killer. Maybe it’s for a Daily. Maybe it’s for a Tome challenge. Maybe it’s for Adept/killer-specific challenge. Maybe it’s cause they want to play that specific character in general. So on and so forth.
This is like advocating for letting killers opt to avoid SWF, which itself also boils down to just people playing with friends. Neither makes sense. If you don’t like facing a part of the game, that’s fine, but you need to either get over it or not queue up.
3 -
Or some people will solve it by DC/suicide. You can't force people to play.
But if you don't want to liten to it, so be it. Devs will work it out if/when people stop playing the game (or don't if I am wrong).
1 -
Then those people can waste their own time. The rest of the community will just play even if they aren’t thrilled about it. The amount of people that quit/suicide aren’t going to kill the game. Besides, any online versus game has stuff of the sort.
0 -
1 dc in soloQ means wasted game. Get 3 games like this in a row and I get why you have temper and DC out of spite because killer was e.g. nurse (I am not saying that's right). Now take into account that survivors Q are instant so suicides are basically rewarded (you can do so again in a minute to spoil another 4 players lobby).
I don't know about you, but I see the game being boring/broken.
1 -
This would be a good idea too. I considered it, but I would still say it might not work against newly released killers since the amount of people using that killer would be so high, you'd still be going against them.
0 -
Exactly, that's why I would say it should just not work for new killers since its not going to do anything and if it somehow did it would just make longer queues for everyone (plus if your playing on launch week you presumably want to go against the new killer).
1 -
How is the killer being punished if I ban Nurse from my matches? That Nurse would simply be put in a lobby that doesn't have Nurse banned. And if Nurse is being banned so often that the player can't find a match (which would probably be unlikely), that speaks to poor game design, no? It means no one wants to play against Nurse because they find her unbalanced, unfun, boring, etc. and the devs would be able to look at that information and make changes based on that.
On another note: killers have and will complain about SWF's in their matches, the devs have seen it, and according to them, it's on their list of priorities.
Avoiding SWF and avoiding a specific killer is not the same. Killers dislike SWF's because they're too strong and break the balance of the game, not because of their playstyles, perks, or items, because survivors are skins of each other, nothing makes them wholly unique. They have no special abilities or qualities that make them tangibly different from solo survivors. Beyond more information, which both the community and BHVR have said need to be leveled between SWF and solo queue, survivors are all the same.
Killers have their own unique attributes and playstyles, add-ons and powers, many of which certain people don't find engaging or fun to play against. Killers like Trapper and Hag whose powers facilitate camping for example, may be boring to survivors. Maybe Nurse is unpopular among survivors because she breaks the rules of the game. At the end of the day, survivors collectively get to ban 4 out of the 29 existing killers. Not even 15% of all killers.
Banning certain characters isn't new to video games. Games like League of Legends lets you ban characters in ranked. In League, it's definitely a strategic choice, but strategic banning doesn't work in DBD. If for example, you're playing in a SWF at high MMR, most of your matches will be against the "top tier" killers of the game, Nurse, Blight, ect. If the SWF bans their top 4 killers, they end up with such long queue times, they may be unable to find matches at all. The strategy completely backfires. There is no real downside to allowing survivors to choose to avoid a certain killer when there is so much variety in killer options, beyond making your own queue times slightly longer.
0 -
Friendly reminder that League has 161 characters to play and is balanced around competitive where draft 10-bans are a thing.
If people don't want to face a part of the game, they should not queue up in the first place. Subjective opinions do not determine balance. What some find fun, others will find unfun, and vice-versa. Furthermore, there is no objective way to make something "more fun" because the standard itself is inherently subjective and differs from person to person. Changing something purely off certain portions of the playerbase finding something unfun is a middle finger to the other portion that finds it fun. Which is why it is not good game design to do so.
Is it fun for supports in Overwatch who are at risk of Tracer killing them in a single clip in around a second before zooming out? Probably not. But counterpicks and counterstrategies both exist. For instance, anti-flank picks, or having tanks cover for the supports. So should it be changed just because of the people that find it unfun? No, and similarly, if Tracer was overpowered, it should not be immune to changes just because it is fun for a group.
SWF does not mean good. SWF means they can communicate information to each other. Whether they can play well enough in the first place is not dependent on SWF. 4 good solo players will outdo a 4-man mediocre SWF on voice comms.
0 -
Yes please, id love to completely block clown from my games.
0 -
Subjective opinions DO determine balance. BHVR especially does this. When people complain about something in the game, even when said aspect isn't broken or unbalanced, they make changes, and they do affect balance. That's what many of their quality of life changes are for.
Franklin's Demise used to consume items in patch 4.1, and people complained about it a lot because their items were basically gone forever. Now the item just empties. Does that affect balance? Yes, in a small way. If someone is running Built to Last, they get their item back and can refill it, when previously, the item would have disappeared forever. Does Franklin's do as good a job as it did previously? Yes. Functionally, it works the exact same way. Franklin's never has been nor will be a strong perk, but complaints about interactions in the game between perks and addons and many other things have been changed based on people's opinions. That happens when you make a game for other people. You have to be flexible. You have to make concessions.
Gating people from the game just because they don't enjoy 1 killer out of almost 30 in the game is super exclusionary and is such a negative way to look at the situation. "Changing something purely off certain portions of the playerbase finding something unfun" is exactly what this suggestion solves. You don't have to make changes to any aspect of the game. If a small group of people hate Nurse, they don't have to face her because they can choose to avoid her. But if everyone starts avoiding Nurse en masse, you know either Nurse is too strong, unfun or just generally needs changes. No one likes hearing things may need changing, but that's how video games are now. BHVR wants to make the game accessible for everyone: veterans, new players and returning players alike. These kinds of changes help to bring the game to a place where everyone can enjoy playing the game, not just people like you who believe you should just suck it up and play the game how it is.
1 -
If we are being super honest I think DBD was a fluke. It was a happy accident that they sold a million copies and it is an even bigger surprise that people are still playing the game.
DBD will never be a "balanced" product as long as the devs are ignoring high level play.
Freddy was at one point the killer with the highest win rate by 4% and the result was that he was scheduled for a nerf. The reality is that without old tinkerer and pop he could go back to how he was before he last got nerfed. Freddy was only strong because he could always know which gen to go kick at a moment's notice and set it back by 20% after a down.
One of the biggest balance concerns with DBD is that Nurse and Blight are by far the best killers with no addons. And yet they have some of the strongest addons that can add 20-40% boosts to their powers. #########?
Meanwhile before her rework Pig had an addon that increased crouching speed by 1.5%.
1 -
The idea works in theory if you think about it on an individual basis, like 'oh I'm tired of Wesker so I'm going to opt out of his matches for a bit.' But when you think of the entire DbD community as a whole - then you have 40,000 people avoiding Nurse, and anyone who wants to play Nurse is sitting in queue for an hour. In reality it does not work, and will not be implemented. It would essentially allow the community to vote killers out of the game.
1 -
Or rebalance them.
I think there should be 0 S-tear killers (and I would add 0 D-tear and probably just very few meme/learning/other niche C-tear killers)
1
