That's it...
Comments
-
I´ll have to take a look.
0 -
You can get a 4k with every killer in the game, some are just harder to use than others. Trust me, there a more viable killers than those two.
2 -
And you're not seeing the matches others are playing. If I win 10 games as Sadako, and you lose 10 games, that does not mean Sadako isn't viable. You just had a bad 10 games.
1 -
So many words just to say "I have a major skill issue". Impressive.
7 -
I disagree. Nobody excepts a killer to do well, but if a killer doesn't get even a 2k, they probably had a bad match. It's not expectations, its the standards for a "good" match, which are understandable.
0 -
So, you think that the most meta Killers would lose horribly to the most meta Survivors?
Or are you saying something different?
1 -
Oh quite the contrary, I'm still perplexed about some streamers getting bad survivors that allows them to play even with meme builds... If they found tryharder on 3 matches out of 10, for me it's the inverse
0 -
And that's why 90% of the dbd tournaments have Only Nurse and Blight and the survivors have massive perk/item restrictions.
This makes me think that you've never actually watched a tourney. That is not the case, and a contemporary example is a team won a two day tourney with ghostface - https://www.twitch.tv/videos/1721290991?filter=archives&sort=time - and even in other ones 'low tier' killers still do fine a lot of the times.
Not only do survivors have perk/item restrictions, killers are heavily restricted too - perks and addons. And as Pulsar mentioned earlier there are tourneys that have had no restrictions and killers do just fine too.
Game will be played best 2/3 on random maps (no picking). Addons will be limited (no iri, 1 max purple/green per player) and you can't run addons more than once for the 3 game set.
They aren't random maps, they are picked per killer to give an equal chance for both sides and give the least chance for rng.
That being said none of this matters because most tourney's don't even use kills as the win condition (this is of course per tourney but most ones I've watched use that sort of system.) they use a scoring based on hook states and gens done, and even if it did matter, you aren't running into comp teams in pub matches almost ever and survivors and killers play completely differently than people do in pub matches anyways.
3 -
If anything it just shows the game is heavily rng-based, and with rng it will never be 100% balanced. Also, as I stated in my other post, killers + survivors play completely differently in comp than a normal pub match, even if we ignore restrictions. Killers and survivors heavily play the macro game more than your average player in pubs.
0 -
Survivors are content with 40% escape rate.
Killers are the one that not satisfied with 60% kill rate.
No survivor asking for 4 escapes match all the time. They want half a match that they can escape. It would the same as Killers would want half of survivors they can kill. Which, return to the quote: Killers are the one that not satisfied with 60% kill rate.
9 -
Is that from 2018? Because Peanits released updated stats in 2022 that were more like what I shared.
1 -
Wait 40% is okay? I faintly remember there being an outrage when the official number was ~39%.
Well not that i have any clue myself, but what would you consider more "correct" ( tchnically they both could be):
- A fair game would be: Killer player win chance (chance for >2 kills) = survivor player win chance (each individual survivor chance to escape)
- Fair would be: Killer player win chance (chance for >2 kills) = survivor team win chance (chance for >2 escapes)
Its quite hard to pinpoint what a fair 50:50 is supposed to be in this game . Especially since we cant decide if survivors are a team or what a killer win is lol. Because according to community killing half the survivors isnt even a win for killers. While 2 escapes either means a draw or 2 survivors winning.
Im currently too tired and probably salty to try such math riddles lol.
0 -
There's no insta heals in this game for years... what u talking about? takes a long time to heal youself with the red add on, enough to get a down if you're playing most of the killers.
I agree that most killers now are kinda weak but not cus of the perks but map design, like huntress, 90% of her loops were nerfed so u can't hit through gaps anymore or snipe peoeple... bhvr even put a invisivle wall on the sky so u can't throw into the sky to make a arc.
There's plenty of players showing that no matter what killer u choose u can easily get streak of wins without much trouble but try to make a win streak playing solo as survivors...
This thread looks way more a skill issue than survivors being op, i do play a lot of surv and most of the time in solos i jump into the match and after 30s there's already two people down, even on high mmr, if u just camp u can easily win, nobody runs reasurance so this ins't even a thing.
We need stronger killer but this is not the way, making bosted perks it's bad for both sides.
0 -
-"When both sides bring meta, the game is pretty balanced."
Meta for killer means nurse/blight for most people. Sure if you are CoconutRTS you can bring Huntress but most people just are not on that level.
Nowhere in that tournament (if it is the one I am thinking ) does anyone pick Doctor - and that's exactly my point.
Anyone who thinks this game is fair need only look at the Marth experiments - thank you for reminding me. I will say overall killer was better during that time than it is now with a few exceptions. What did a DBD dev from the time say regarding those experiments? "We weren't trying to make a fair game."
That raises the question why not. We can only assume the answer :
- To make more money by placating the survivors.
I have one friend who is better at survivor than me. He plays with people who are all better at survivor than me. He told me they like to stack things like deliverance, boons, unbreakable, etc with only the best items. I momentarily humbled him when I asked him if they really needed all that to win. I asked if his squad would be interested in a "comp rules" style match with one yellow one brown addon (yellow items) with no perks/items/characters repeated.
He said : we've never played like that.
And this is the point I was making earlier to someone else : Pub matches played by very good players are far more punishing than comp play.
Imagine for a moment if we had the "open handed "rule. It would go something like this: if all 4 survivors bring no items then the killer cant bring any addons; if the killer brings no addons then the survivors cant use their items. If either team triggers the open handed rule then the opposing side's items/addons would be returned to their inventory.
Survivors would absolutely hate this because many of the killers play massively better than survivors with no items. I would play every game as Nemesis with no addons (because his addons are nearly useless) and I would never play against survivors with items. This would completely invalidate most survivor builds - hows that hyperfocus w/o a toolbox?. How's that DH build with no way to medkit?
3 -
It's probably far worse than you think. Did you know there is a way to fall and skip the recovery animation into a fast vault if a certain window is open? Needless to say it makes the main building an actual infinite if you know how to "shift tech".
-"ALL killers are perfectly viable"
Are you trying to say : All killers are perfectly viable at every possible level of play? That is clearly false. And the proof is that nobody has ever played Doctor in a tournament where they had unlimited access to Nurse/Spirit/Blight.
-"Just because you don't win every game doesn't mean a killer is not viable."
This is an empty statement with almost no value. The truth of this statement is : if you lose a game as killer then that does not mean the killer is bad/has no redeeming value. But the reverse is also true - Just because you beat up on some noobs using Doctor does not mean that killer chassis is viable at top levels of play.
I will remind you about a paraphrased quote from the Developer Dave : "DBD DLC killers are pay to lose".
Yes by the way he actually said something equivalent to those words (somewhere between 2016-2018 if I remember correctly).
-"Doctor was top performing killer at all ranks."
What are you trying to say with this statement? Please tell me if you believe any of the following are true
- Doctor is the best killer in the game
- Doctor has better movement/map pressure/quick chases/anti loop compared to Nurse/Blight
- Doctor has "amazing" addons compared to Nurse/Blight Best in slot options.
- Doctor can be played in a very strong way with no addons vs survivors with best in slot items.
- Doctor has an easy time playing against Comp level survivors vs SWFs on all maps.
Most people would say that all of these sentences are false (not only that but for Good Nurse/Blight players you could make the checklist with their name and everything is very possibly true) . If you agree that the majority of these statements are true (signaling that Doctor is in fact amazing) then that gives us the conclusion :"how many kills a killer gets is a poor reflection of the health of that killer".
This raises the question how could that be possible?
- Kills are a poor metric of killer performance. A better metric would look at how often the killer gets meaningful hits that lead to a down. A better metric would look at how quickly relative to generator speeds the killer downs survivors; a killer that trades 1.5 downs/hooks for 1 generator would be better than a killer that trades 1 hook for 1 generator. Another good metric to look at is how often does a strong killer interrupt heals, saves and generators vs good players?
- The doctor stats are possibly skewed in some way. How could that be possible? Recently I made the argument: why pick "fist" as a weapon when guns were an option. Some people play doctor because they like doctor and are good at doctor. Some people play doctor for the daily but are in a MMR pool where you can literally win with anything and have fun with meme builds. Some people never touch doctor because they realize Doctor is a "fist" and other killers are "guns". Therefore I present the question: Is it possible that the people who are playing Doctor regularly are some of the very best Doctors? Maybe for example almost nobody in a difficult MMR bracket plays Doctor except for the people who are really good. Furthermore what happens when we get the top 3 doctors in the world and have them play the best 3 survivor teams in the world. How do those doctor players compare to the best 3 Nurse/Blight Players in the world? The answer is : the Doctors get made to look foolish because Doctor is an inferior platform.
3 -
-"This makes me think that you've never actually watched a tourney."
I've watched many. Yes the rules have changed overtime but generally speaking both sides have restrictions. Generally speaking the survivor rules are : no character/item/perk repeats (especially after base kit borrowed time..... but in the past this allowed to be the one perk that could be repeated).
-"They aren't random maps, they are picked per killer to give an equal chance for both sides and give the least chance for rng."
So you're not getting it. I said let's play on Random maps because overall the majority of maps in DBD favor the survivors. I want all the maps to be fair and having the game set to "random" goes to show more clearly the unfair nature of the game. Point for me - thank you.
-"and even if it did matter, you aren't running into comp teams in pub matches almost ever and survivors and killers play completely differently than people do in pub matches anyways."
This is where you are wrong. You can see on his streams where Truetalent often plays with and against comp players when they grace the pub queue.
I am at the MMR bracket where I normally see people from comp teaams practicing in public matches. Sometimes you find a group that is a comp level team and they are bullying. The last group that I played immediately went for a "comp" win and did not try to save the person on the hook. Most SWF teams playing "normally" will try to save a player on the hook and in so doing get destroyed by 8 stacks of STBFL.
There is a relevant quote from Truetalent's stream today : " When I play killer against survivors on my level I get 2-3 hooks".
A few days ago I played against a comp level team who had 2 people in their 4 man swf on different platforms to make it look like they were not a SWF. Someone brought a Halloween medkit addon with an instant heal - to tell you what level of BS they thought they needed.
You can only speak falsely when you say: "Your games go like this," because you have never seen me play.
The second to last game I played today had a 3 man team where one player had 9000 hours who actually was a weaker looper than the player with a private profile. Not to say their looping was "weak" but I had no trouble beating them in chase. They were actually quite good - but not by far the best player I had seen for the day.
The truth is that most people do not regularly play against teams of people who have 5000-10000 hours played. I am not saying I play against that every game but it is more likely I play against someone with 5000 hours than someone with 500 hours (unless that person is on a second account).
1 -
I've watched many
Then you should know that nurse and blight are not the only ones that can win tourneys/matches.
So you're not getting it. I said let's play on Random maps because overall the majority of maps in DBD favor the survivors. I want all the maps to be fair and having the game set to "random" goes to show more clearly the unfair nature of the game.
I want maps to be more balanced too, but that wasn't what I was replying to either. You said this: "Game will be played best 2/3 on random maps (no picking).", and I was explaining that wasn't the case. That just simply isn't what tourneys do.
Point for me - thank you.
No need to be snarky, this isn't a game show where we are getting points for a prize..
This is where you are wrong. You can see on his streams where Truetalent often plays with and against comp players when they grace the pub queue. I am at the MMR bracket where I normally see people from comp teaams practicing in public matches
To be honest, I find it unlikely that it is that often. Comp teams don't practice in pubs, that doesn't even make sense. They practice in scrims against each other and other teams. You are far more likely to see a comp killer practicing in pubs than a survivor team, and if a team is playing around in public matches they are probably not practicing, they are probably dicking around. Or 'bullying' as you put it.
Most SWF teams playing "normally" will try to save a player on the hook and in so doing get destroyed by 8 stacks of STBFL.
Perhaps they noticed your stbfl and thought it wasn't worth the risk? Tbh neither of those scenarios are that out of the ordinary in pubs. Because this game is random, you don't know what will happen.
I am at the MMR bracket
To be upfront, this means absolutely nothing to me. mmr barely works (still better than ranks tho) and your mmr bracket means nothing. This game is too lenient with the mmr ratings and matching.
The second to last game I played today had a 3 man team where one player had 9000 hours who actually was a weaker looper than the player with a private profile. Not to say their looping was "weak" but I had no trouble beating them in chase. They were actually quite good - but not by far the best player I had seen for the day.
How is this relevant to anything? Time != skill. This is why I think dodging based on prestige and hours is stupid.
You can only speak falsely when you say: "Your games go like this," because you have never seen me play.
Yes, this is why I constantly ask people to record there games if they are struggling, or make weird claims. I just think people over-exaggerate a lot on the forums. I have trust issues. I've said this many many many times in my posts here that this game is really subjective. Likewise, you don't know what is going on in my games, you don't know what I face against regularly.
2 -
-"Then you should know that nurse and blight are not the only ones that can win tourneys/matches."
Show me the team winning tournament game in the finals where Team A won with Doctor and team B lost with Nurse. It doesn't exist. Most of the killers could be deleted next week and it would not really change the state of the game as long as their perks remained.
-"That just simply isn't what tourneys do."
And the reason I listed the rules in that way was to highlight the broken nature of DBD.
When I play Torment Creek the game is already lost when I play a non mobility killer if the team knows which three gen to break. This map is more unfair than most because the loops are strong - but there are many maps like this (Azarov's, Suffo pit, Haddonfield, Thompson House, Dead Dog, Father Campbell's chapel (since there is no longer a 3 gen in the carnival anymore), etc.
I love when people use "The Game" offering when I am playing Nemesis; but if I am playing Trapper that offering crashes my game (it's funny how those bugs happen).
Maps should not be an "I win" button. It should be a fun exciting choice because of nostalgia/scenery or something like that. You should not see survivors picking Ormond because it is an easy map to win. Likewise killers should not need to rely on "3 gen or gtfo tactics."
DBD will always be an unfair game if we have M1 killers that lose because maps larger than 9000m² exist. But small size does not automatically mean fair and Coal Tower is a perfect example of why not. That map has way too many linked tiles that allow a strong looper to loop for a long time without using any resources.
Look at Rancid Abattoir vs every other farm map. RA is small, has about 8 pallets (that are all very strong) and a "meh" main building that is usually not very helpful in chase. There are usually multiple places where the killer can control a three gen. Most of the tiles do not link well and require pallets to be used early. I would say this map is "fair" to killers with some anti loop but it can still break a killer like Pig. Even the cornfield in RA is small and not very good for hiding.
Why does small matter? First it matters because shift+w exists. If every killer had some kind of "wesker dash" to use to initiate chases (before a chase starts) it might be a different story. Second it matters because small maps organically create scenarios you start the chase against one person and interrupt another person on a generator mid chase. That just doesn't happen on large maps; if you need an explanation as to why you can look at the gas laws in physics for a very simple explanation.
I would love to see an experimental week where killers that have no movement power/teleport ability stopped being able to see maps larger than 9000m² (unless the killer used an offering to select such a map). Imagine if survivors picking a farm map vs most of the killers and it automatically sent them to Rancid Abattoir.
0 -
I'm pretty sure I saw Ghostface, Plague and Pinhead in the DBDLeague finals.
3 -
Sorry if it wasn't clear. I was just doing a general reply to the original poster. Wasn't trying to reply to you. I only read the top post and made that reply.
However, now I will reply to you. No, killers are absolutely not forced to play in the way you described to do well. A lot of killer players think they are better than they are. A lot of survivor players think that too, of course. But they often die because solo queue is a scary place to be. But those killer players who think they are better than they are? They can fall back on camping the first hook, tunneling the first person out very quickly. That strategy works for a LONG time all the way up to the highest mmrs. A lot of those killer players always play that way, and think they are really good for it.
It is a real failure in game balance that playing that way is so well rewarded so often, meanwhile quickly ending chases on multiple survivors while not camping or tunneling is rewarded less so.
Most games, if you are actually as good a killer as you think, are easy wins at the top mmr. That's just fact. Watch every top killer streamer get win after win. I'm a top killer on the Korean server. I've been as high as top 5 in hatches closed worldwide, and really high on Perfect Games on the stats website.
For the games against the top survivors all together (which are so, so rare), yes, of course you will have to play optimally (doable with most killers). But, and I think this is something you need to really think about, that survivor team needs to play as optimally as possible to win against me, too. One mistake against me? I win.
If you don't have that confidence as killer, I don't know why you think you should be able to win against the top survivors? If I wasn't as good as I am at survivor or killer I wouldn't expect to be able to win as much as I do.
And, maybe I am misunderstanding your point about the Nemesis game. You said you got a 3k against experienced survivors while using weaker addons, and you don't consider that a win? What? Yes, that is a win. Like, what...? A 3k is a win no matter how you look at it. I never slug the 3rd survivor looking for the 4th, so most of my games are 3k's with gens left and the last survivor jumping out the hatch.
Just a last comment: the players who are top killers in the game will be amazing at every killer with few exceptions (for example, I feel confident I can go head to head with top survivor players as most killers except Pinhead or Pyramid Head. Those killers require a lot of time to get better at for me and I can't be bothered.) Your last sentence leads me to believe you can still practice the killer role and get better at it. Maybe that will relieve some of the tension you are feeling towards the role.
I feel like I rambled a bit...In short, yes, optimal killer gameplay is boring as heck. Yes, optimal survivor gameplay is boring as heck too. That's why I go for 12 hook no camping, no tunneling games. In the very rare games where I do get matched up with equally top-skilled survivors then yes, I do have to play optimally to win which is, believe it or not, possible on the majority of killers. If you feel like you must camp and tunnel every game to win it means you are at a higher mmr then your actual skill set is. Top killers are, factually, winning the incredible majority of their matches (easy evidence: top killer streamers) just playing normally.
0 -
I think your post is being misinterpreted. I think what your complaining about is that killer power are not VIABLE in terms of FUN. You can only win survivor that play poorly with other killers. With Nurse and Blight, you have more opportunity to win off your own accord and can play the chasing hook-game.
The other killers cannot win by chasing and hooking because the killer power are not balanced for chasing and hooking. there is lack of skill expression in using killer power to produce a winning outcome. Why is that the case? Its because casual survivors complain that x killer power is OP so dev have to make killer power weak so the majority complain less. I remember when Billy was a respected killer for going for chases but where is he now? A shadow of his former self. I personally miss playing deathslinger the most but that is water flowing under the bridge. For killer to be more relevant in the game, The survivor player-base has to accept losing but currently the survivor player-base does not accept losing so by contrast, the killer player-base has to accept losing when playing killer.
0 -
I will ask the question again in a more clear way.
Did you ever see a team use Doctor instead of Nurse when Nurse was available and Nurse was the better pick for that map? The answer is no.
1 -
In a scenario where survivors have everything at their disposal (from map offerings, to perks and items/addons) and know what they are doing? Probably, but that's not the point, the point is that you simply cannot play the game aganist people who play in a certain way unless you are using the 2 killers that i've mentioned and even then it will be impossible to get a result that will exceed the 2k (i had matches that despite i was using the nurse with her best addons and i didn't miss a single blink, the genspeed was FASTER than my chases, partially cause also for the 2nd chances perks and partially cause they were using broken items/addons)... i had matches aganist premades that despite the broken stuff that they had i had somewhat the time to do something (clearly i was FORCED to tunnel/camp from the beginning if i was using weak killers), but the matches that i did yesterday were SO FAST that i couldn't do literally nothing about it (predrop and chaining loops that cannot be mindgamed): a single down that require at least 90 seconds (the time to start the trial, walk through the map, find and chase a survivor, pick him up and hook him) and 3 gen already pop, start a new chase and in the meantime another gen is completed and another one is already half repaired, hook the 2nd survivor and all the gens are already repaired, add also the fact that now adrenaline is pretty much granted because gens will be ALL repaired most of the times and they can even rush while injured, they have dead hard that grant them another health state (in high mmr this perk CAN'T be baited, you like it or not this is the truth since people will use it near pallets, not to mention that dead hard script user are MORE common that you can think), and you'll get whay playing killer rn is MISERABLE
0 -
-" No, killers are absolutely not forced to play in the way you described to do well. A lot of killer players think they are better than they are. That strategy works for a LONG time all the way up to the highest mmrs. "
This is the same strategy used all the way to comp play. Survivors are efficient on gens so killers have to be efficient removing people from the game.
-"Most games, if you are actually as good a killer as you think, are easy wins at the top mmr. That's just fact."
There is a limit to how well you can play with weaker killers. If you must play trapper - no matter how good you are there is a limit to how skilled of a player you can win against. You're saying- that's not true. I'm sorry but you are not being honest or you are delusional. Nurse is massively more effective than Trapper.
-"And, maybe I am misunderstanding your point about the Nemesis game. You said you got a 3k against experienced survivors while using weaker addons, and you don't consider that a win? What? "
I am thinking English is your second language so that makes sense you might have some trouble understanding me. They were the ones who said I lost because one player of their 3 man SWF escaped.
"the players who are top killers in the game will be amazing at every killer with few exceptions. Sorry but that's just not true either."
Marth - one of the oldschool best Nurse mains ever sucked at Huntress. CMWinter used to play only pig and pretty much sucked as most of the other non M1 killers. Otz used to suck with a few killers until he did a 50 win streak to practice them and get better.
0 -
What are you trying to say with this statement?
I'm trying to say that Doctor was best performing killer at all ranks.
Sure, Blight and Nurse could probably beat out his performance with enough practice, but cross-referencing ease of access with performance resulted in Doctor being best performing killer.
As for the rest of your weird 'rebuttal', you're stuck in a logic loop.
- Nurse and Blight are the only viable killers
- Other killers have worse maximum potential than them
- Therefor other killers are not viable
- Therefor Nurse and Blight are the only viable killers
The issue you're having is that you're equating 'top pick' with 'viable', while there's a huge gulf between the two. Just because a killer isn't the incontestable best pick doesn't mean they're non-viable.
Therefore I present the question: Is it possible that the people who are playing Doctor regularly are some of the very best Doctors?
Quite possibly. But that doesn't change anything about the argument. Anything they can do with Doctor, you can, too. So if they can make Doctor perform well, so can you. Therefor, Doctor is, by definition, viable.
Furthermore what happens when we get the top 3 doctors in the world and have them play the best 3 survivor teams in the world
We don't know, because Doctor didn't get picked. For all we know, if someone had picked Doctor, they could've smoked them. But you immediately jump to the conclusion that Doctor is non-viable from him not getting picked in a tournament. Problem with that is that
A) No one plays tournament level anyway, so that's a really bad balancing benchmark.
B) Even the top scene can make mistakes or overlook things. Any other competitive game, you'll find, mostly in international competitions, that one pro scene gets surprised by picks from other pro scenes that they thought were non-viable or never even considered. A small example of this with DBD is that Otz, in his analysis of the killrate stats from October, was surprised to see Sadako perform so well. Now, Otz is a very competent player, but he did not see that coming and could not explain it. So if Otz were to play in a tournament, would he pick Sadako? Not likely. Would that mean Sadako is bad? Evidently not, considering she performs well at high ranks.
I also want to highlight this from your other post:
There is a relevant quote from Truetalent's stream today : " When I play killer against survivors on my level I get 2-3 hooks".
This is a really bizarre quote. If you can only get 2-3 hooks against them, it would seem to me that they are obviously not on your level, but above it. How exactly do you come to the conclusion, when you get absolutely demolished in a match, that you are just as skilled as the people who smoked you?
Is this why half the killer playerbase is in the top 5% killer ranks?
4 -
Incredibly rude, and honestly a bit strange to suggest English is someone's second language after your first post was littered with grammar mistakes, and the only reason you made a post directed at me is because you misunderstood what I was saying in the first place. Try to be a bit more considerate.
As for the rest, Trapper not being anywhere near as good as Nurse isn't really relevant to anything, so...
I've read enough of your posts to know that me replying any more won't be a good use of my time. You have picked your 'side': killer, and can't be convinced that, no, things are not dire for the killer role, even with actual top players telling you otherwise and top killer streamers showing you otherwise.
Are there things to fix for both sides? Yes. Is killer a weak role? No. Does a great killer player have the potential to win in all but the most extreme situations? Yes.
2 -
I have zero clue why you're so fixated on doctor.
It's weird and I'm just gonna let it go. There have been multiple examples given of Killers far weaker fhan Nurse used to win in a comp setting.
2 -
-"I'm trying to say that Doctor was best performing killer at all ranks."
And as I said before that statement means nothing. The metrics the devs use to balance the game are largely empty.
-"The issue you're having is that you're equating 'top pick' with 'viable', while there's a huge gulf between the two."
It's not a logic loop but it is a very simple idea. Because SWF exists and the maps we have are balanced for very low skill players - there are only two killer who are "fair" to play if you are playing people who are "good" or better at playing survivor in a SWF.
-"Therefor, Doctor is, by definition, viable."
Doctor might be viable the second top team A beats top team B where both teams can use Nurse and Team A uses Doctor while Team B uses Nurse. That will not happen without years of map/swf/killer rebalancing. It could theoretically happen. You could also theoretically have a solid gold meteor the size of a bus land harmlessly in your back yard.
-"We don't know, because Doctor didn't get picked"
Doctor will never get picked in the current balance because Doctor is at least 2 if not 3 categories weaker than Nurse. It's like you're trying to say : maybe fist wins at 100m if the other person with the gun is blindfolded.
In terms of ability to counter a SWF : doctor is not viable.
In terms of moving around a 11,000m² map : doctor is not viable.
In terms of getting quick downs : doctor is not viable.
Compared to other stronger killers with good anti loop: doctor is not viable.
Doctor has high marks in detection. That's great and all but a killer who has played for thousands of hours has good game sense and can find people just fine without "wasting" their power for that. Doctor is essentially pathetic in all the categories I mentioned. Let's get some top notch survivors and have them play the best Doctor in the world. Then we can have Hens come play Nurse. The best doctor in the world will look terrible.
Then we can walk it down a few notches. We take the best doctor in the world and we have them play some experienced/good survivors. We invite someone who is a good Demo player and once again Demo will make Doctor look bad.
If we walk it down again and have a mid tier killer played by just an "ok" killer main against mediocre survivors then sure maybe the Doctor would look good.
To make a long story short : We know the DBD metrics are essentially worthless when Doctor is the highest performing killer when he is easily in the bottom 8 section of "weakest killer" in the game.
0 -
First off, the Killers in that hypothetical tournament are real. That tournament was real, it had no restrictions.
Guess what? The most meta Killers do fine against the most meta Survivors. They had a 2.16 Kill rate.
Likewise, if it takes you 90 seconds to get a down, that's unfortunately a skill issue. Everybody saying DH scripts are common is coping imo.
All your rant did was solidify that you need some solid coaching, but you could end up being a very good player. You certainly seem like you have the drive to do so.
It isn't super hard to keep a winrate of well over 80% in pubs.
3 -
-"Incredibly rude, and honestly a bit strange..."
Twice you have failed in the area of : reading comprehension. You mentioned playing in Korea so I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I meant no offense but you are clearly not reading what I write.
-"Trapper not being anywhere near as good as Nurse isn't really relevant to anything"
This is an error in logic because Trapper ends up in the same "pool" as Nurse. Consider a tabletop game where a tank might cost you 50 points while an entire squad of infantry might cost 20 points. Generally speaking the tank is much better and everyone knows it is better so it is treated differently. In the tabletop game it costs more points.
Trapper would be fine if it had special rules to balance out the fact that Trapper is weaker than Nurse. Why should you ever play Trapper if Nurse exists and you play both well - assuming you want to win.
-"if they can make Doctor perform well, so can you. Therefor, Doctor is, by definition, viable."
That is a logic error. Never has there been a tournament where people could pick Nurse and instead picked Doctor and won with Doctor while the enemy team picked Nurse. Why has it never happened? Everyone knows that if you picked Doctor then your team would lose because you picked Doctor.
The limit of Doctor being viable is much lower than a lot of the killer cast. This is why I keep mentioning Doctor. His power is completely defeated by latency.
-"even with actual top players telling you otherwise and top killer streamers showing you otherwise."
You can find Videos of Hens playing Nuse and Blight against top tier players with no addons and even no perks on survivor sided maps. There are no videos of him playing Doctor doing the same thing. Why not? Because it's not possible to do the same thing with a much weaker killer. The best doctor in the world with no perks/addons loses to a strong SWF on a survivor sided map.
I pick on Doctor because he is a weak killer. Also I know with certainty there has never been a case where a "surprise" Doctor pick won against a Nurse/Blight. The fact that it has never happened pretty much tells you that Doctor sucks in comparison to Nurse.
0 -
My kill rate isn't nearly as high, particularly because I can't use headphones and a lot of sound cues are just lost to me, but it is really unusual for me to not get at least a 2k.
This is what frustrates me about the hyperbolic "THERE IS LITERALLY ONE KILLER AND ONE BUILD VIABLE IN THIS GAME, AND EVEN THEN I NEED TO SLUG, CAMP AND TUNNEL EVERY GAME". Like, I can count with one hand how many times per week I've felt like I was the one at a massive disadvantage and I'd still have fingers to spare. Yeah, those matches suck, but by no means are the rule that's supposed to lead balancing.
1 -
And as I said before that statement means nothing. The metrics the devs use to balance the game are largely empty.
They're better than what you've got, which is -absolutely nothing-. Everything you say is conjecture.
It's not a logic loop but it is a very simple idea. Because SWF exists and the maps we have are balanced for very low skill players - there are only two killer who are "fair" to play if you are playing people who are "good" or better at playing survivor in a SWF.
Except that idea has already been broken down when the 'no holds barred' tournament was brought up where more than just Blight and Nurse were successful.
This kind of goes back to what @C3Tooth was saying earlier in the thread: Your standards for what is 'viable' are simply misconstrued.
Doctor might be viable the second top team A beats top team B where both teams can use Nurse and Team A uses Doctor while Team B uses Nurse. That will not happen without years of map/swf/killer rebalancing. It could theoretically happen. You could also theoretically have a solid gold meteor the size of a bus land harmlessly in your back yard.
At this point, you're so far off track that you're not even talking about DbD anymore. Under what circumstance would Doctor and Nurse be pitted directly against each other? Is there a new killer vs. killer gamemode that I missed somewhere along the way? Because from my understanding of DbD, having played it a few times, killers go up against SURVIVORS, not other killers.
Why are you pitting Doctor versus Nurse when that has nothing to do with viability? Again: You are conflating 'top pick' with 'viable'.
Doctor will never get picked in the current balance because Doctor is at least 2 if not 3 categories weaker than Nurse. It's like you're trying to say : maybe fist wins at 100m if the other person with the gun is blindfolded.
Again: 'Top pick' =/= 'Viable'.
'Viable' for a killer is NOT "Can you beat Nurse?". 'Viable' means "Can you beat SURVIVORS?". By all metrics we have, it is evident that he can. We've not seen the best Doctor player in the world against the best survivor players in the world, but you're jumping to the immediate conclusion that he can't win based on nothing but your gut feeling.
To go with your 'fist' vs. 'gun' analogy: You're essentially claiming that, since a gun is a more effective weapon, it is physically impossible to kill anyone with a fist.
4 -
Again, BOLD OF YOU (and mostly arrogant) to assume my skills without even seeing one of my matches... If you think that's doable searching a survivor, chasing and down a survivor who play safe and throw pallets or that can links loops without troubles (all this paired with an awful map rng, dead hard and other bs stuff) in less than 90 seconds with a killer that isn't the blight or the nurse then I've a news for you: you are facing bad survivors. Period
1 -
I've literally played in beginner comp and Community Cups.
If it takes you a MINUTE and a half to down Survivors in pubs, that is entirely on you. Unless you're playing a set-up Killer.
2 -
And in those matches there are certain rules about perks/items/skins used... Say what you want, but "comp" plays is definitely EASIER compared to pub matches IF survivors have more or less THE SAME skill since there are no rules in pub matches that deny the use of the strongest stuff... (not to mention that in pub there are also a lot of hidden cheaters)
0 -
Aye. Fair enough
0 -
-"that idea has already been broken down when the 'no holds barred' tournament"
And how many killers actually got used? It was around 8-10 if I recall. So that means ~21 killers were not worth picking/considering. What does that tell us? It means about 2/3 of the killer cast would be ineffective in such an environment. If you want to put that another way : they are not viable.
-"Under what circumstance would Doctor and Nurse be pitted directly against each other?"
Doctor and Nurse are pitted against each other every time a Doctor with the same MMR as a Nurse player enter the queue. It's a mockery of game balance. There is no scenario where Doctor and Nurse are an even pick. You sometimes want to agree to this point and other times not.
-'Viable' means "Can you beat SURVIVORS?"
Since the Doctor did not appear in the "anything goes" tournament we can assume Doctor was not a viable choice.
I am saying: Doctor in an ineffective killer against very good players. Take your favorite streamer and donate 100$ and do the same for the members of a tournament team have them play a nice scrimmage match. Streamer XYZ playing the comp team with "anything goes" will be a one sided game with 3/4 escapes. Clown is better than Doctor in such an arena because he has one hit downs with a skillshot. Doctor has no "skillshock" for damage addon.
You can say whatever you like about "maybe doctor is fine" but at the end of the day he has :
- No movement power (making him weak on large maps)
- Weak anti loop (making him weak on most map tiles)
- Ineffective chases (because of previous mentioned problems)
- A power giving detection (which good killers already have via many hours played)
- a weak power without addons and has no real " punishing" addons like pinky finger/tombstone piece
Put this all together and you reach the conclusion that Doctor is not effective when compared to Nurse/Blight when considering playing against tough opponents. And that is why nobody has ever considered using him in a tournament when Nurse was available.
The conclusion I am making is along the lines of : Doctor should have some kind of "protected" match making when queuing for a game.
0 -
And how many killers actually got used? It was around 8-10 if I recall. So that means ~21 killers were not worth picking/considering. What does that tell us? It means about 2/3 of the killer cast would be ineffective in such an environment. If you want to put that another way : they are not viable.
No, it means they weren't picked. Anything else you infer from that is YOUR conjecture.
You've never seen how well a Doctor performs against survivors, and you are using that absence of data to state, positively, as matter of fact, that he is unviable. You do not know that. You have no data on which to base that assertion. You are literally saying 'I have no data on this, therefor I know, for a fact, that...'. It's the opposite of logic.
Doctor and Nurse are pitted against each other every time a Doctor with the same MMR as a Nurse player enter the queue. It's a mockery of game balance. There is no scenario where Doctor and Nurse are an even pick. You sometimes want to agree to this point and other times not.
Oh no, I fully agree they're not on the same level.
What I am pointing out to you, repeatedly, is that your argument is 100% irrelevant. Yes, Blight and Nurse are stronger than Doctor.
But that does not mean that Doctor is unviable.
Going by your first 'point', if there were 6-8 other killers that WERE picked for the no-holds-barred tournament, then surely, those are viable, correct?
Even though NONE of those, by ANY stretch of the imagination, are as strong as Nurse and Blight.
Since the Doctor did not appear in the "anything goes" tournament we can assume Doctor was not a viable choice.
No, we can't. You are SO eager to go there, but you can't. Just because he didn't get picked doesn't mean he's non-viable. There are a myriad of other factors that you would have to eliminate before you can come to that conclusion.
It also goes back to the exact same point: Not being a top pick DOES NOT MEAN IT'S NOT VIABLE.
Would you also say that Lithe is non-viable because Dead Hard is top pick?
You can say whatever you like about "maybe doctor is fine" but at the end of the day he has :
He has intel, anti-loop and slow-down, along with a stealth option on his add-ons. Instead of lambasting a purely theoretical vision of the killer, have you considered
that YOU specifically, don't know how to play him?
Because other folks are doing fine with him.
4 -
The 50:50 rule is simple on survivor's side. 50 escape and 50 death.
On killer's side is more complicating. If apply 50:50 from survivor's side, it would be 50 kill and 50 escape.
Though many killers think its 50 win and 50 lose, and to each of their own, win conditions are different, some only see 4K as winning. Means two match, having 3K each match considered 2 loses. But to Devs they're already far exceed the kill rate that they should be (75%).
Survivors are getting use to 40% escape, what makes them complain is tunneling,camping, and recently with new found 3 Gens.
0 -
just like killers aren't complaining about getting tot kills par match, but the fact that they are FORCED to play in that way if they want reach their goal, not to mention that some people should be punished for the toxicity showed in matches but since we know that devs on that matter won't ever punish someone for this (i did so MANY reports with screenshots as proofs, where people were using slurs, death threats and even some of them admitting that they were cheating... all of them unanswered obviously). The perfect examples was the 2 matches that i did 2 days ago with Wesker and another 2 that i did yesterday: one in rpd where i played with the survivor's rules (going for mixed hooks, not camping and not tunneling), got a 0/4 despite short chases (would have been shorter if wasn't for the usual dead hard that all the survivors in that match had) because they actually played to be optimal (finishing gens almost completed despite i was at 2 meters from them, bodyblocking for denying a successful chase, etc etc)... they had fun, but for me it was only frustrating seeing people tryharding so much and having their asses saved by perks (put also adrenaline into the equation)... 2nd day i still was rather annoyed for being punished for playing well so i went again for the usual playstyle that survivors hate (occasional proxicamping and focusing on tunneling the 1st survivor out from the game asap...). Perks, survivor's skills and items/addons were similar to the previous matches, but wanna know what changed? i actually had a better result on everything, both in kills (3/4 and 4/4) and in hooks (11/12 hooks and 6 hooks for the 2nd one cause in that match i wasn't giving importance to hooking people due to their speed at doing generators aganist the 6 and 4 hooks of the 1st day) by playing in a way that i DON'T ENJOY (but generally speaking i doubt that people enjoy this playstyle generally speaking) than by playing in the way that this game is "supposed" to be played.
P.s: this is another reason why i made this thread: if developers are giving tools for countering the unfun tactics that killer can use it could be ABSOLUTELY fine IF they'll compensate by making viable the GOOD GAMEPLAY, but this is not the case unfortunately and personally speaking i'm tired to being forced to play in that way in order to keep up the pace aganist good survivors... i play for having fun, not for work like streamers do... i should have also a screenshot of one of those matches...
for those that think that i'm not a good killer btw mind you that i was playing with a nerfing addon since usually i play with those ones for chilling (few people on this forum will probably have the guts to do those things btw)... a pity that the survivors that i'm aganist won't EVER do the same thing (especially since they'll abuse map offering whenever they had the chance)
0 -
What exactly is this supposed to show?
We have no idea how good or bad the Survivors were. I'd wager on bad, considering they didn't get many points and are running some pretty meh stuff.
4 -
No actual good killers are complaining about how op survivor is or how they need to camp and tunnel to win games. Hexy is a good killer that sweats on lower tier killers and is complaining that they need to nerf killer because the role is disgustingly overpowered. He basically wins every game he plays as killer. He even wins games that he shouldn't but gets the 4k because he camps and tunnels. Even talks about how the game is boring right now because soloq is bad and killer is too easy.
Lets go over the picture. First off the team in the picture looks to either be a 4 soloq or 2 solo and a duo. Can infer this by looking at the survivor perks and see the top 2 scoring survivors running a more soloq build. I would call your build just bad. If you play at the soft cap you would know deadlock by itself is not a very good perk. This is because smart survivor teams will 99 a gen and have your deadlock always proc on that gen. You either run deadlock to camp or pair it with a regression perk like PR to counter the 99 strat. If you find DL to be strong as a solo game delay then you are just not facing good survivors. Lightborn is just XD why would you run that perk and enfury I find to not be worth the perk slots outside of m1 killers.
1 -
just like killers aren't complaining about getting tot kills par match, but the fact that they are FORCED to play in that way if they want reach their goal
What IS your goal?
Because if your goal is anything that's not 'win literally as much as possible, no matter what', you are absolutely not forced to tunnel or camp or anything of the sort.
Did you ever consider the possibility that your reliance on an overly powerful tactic has inflated your MMR to a rank where you aren't supposed to be?
5 -
that was an example: if survivors are good they'll give you an hard time even without the usual bs (but still they were a premade, with the map choosed by them and a brand new part and 2 dead hard aganist a NERFED wesker with only deadlock as gen defense)... those ones were extremely fast to do gen and they were decent at looping, but as i said before i won because at a certain point i didn't wasted time by hooking, just slugging everyone of them cause they were too much efficent with the genspeed (this explain why everyone here made few points, me included). If i wanted to put a screenshot about survivors that were bad but they were EXTREMELY annoying due to all the BS that they used, then i've another screenshot that will tell you without doubt that those survivors were bad just by looking at the killer that i was using and the map that they putted
(nerfed trickster with a build that was made for the purpose of farming together with the others btw)
0 -
if survivors are good they'll give you an hard time even without the usual bs (but still they were a premade, with the map choosed by them and a brand new part and 2 dead hard aganist a NERFED wesker with only deadlock as gen defense)... those ones were extremely fast to do gen and they were decent at looping, but as i said before i won because at a certain point i didn't wasted time by hooking, just slugging everyone of them cause they were too much efficent with the genspeed
So they pulled out all the stops and you purposely held back and you still came out with a 4K where the survivors didn't stand much of a chance.
You're making a really good case for this stuff being OP as heck, dude.
2 -
1 as I said I'm trying to have chill matches so unlike the other people I'm using NON META STUFF (hence why this build with those addons), is that hard to understand?
2 just because a streamer say something doesn't mean that the streamer speak the absolute truth, quite the contrary... Also see my previous supposition about streamers mmr...
3 did I say that deadlock is strong? Never said that, but it's the only perk that killer have that's GRANTED unlike the scourge hooks (can be denied by simple map rng, placing them in places that you'll never go or by simply Sabo the hook) or overcharge/cob combo (a single skill check will completely counter 2 perks, think how much is strong /s)
4 in certain loops wesker IS a m1 killer, there's no way that you can play around certain loops due to being too much safe or having messed up hitboxes...
0 -
1 as I said I'm trying to have chill matches so unlike the other people I'm using NON META STUFF (hence why this build with those addons), is that hard to understand?
You're not playing chill though! You're busting out whatever you need to pull out the win, that's not playing chill, that's sweating!
If you always sweat, the MMR isn't going to suddenly drop off a cliff just because you swapped Overcharge for Gift of Pain. It's going to take time for the score to recalibrate as it tries to estimate how competent you are -without- camping, tunnelling and slugging.
Once it does that, you'll have your chill matches.
2 -
No because I usually don't do those tactics, but if you don't, you can bet that survivors will have an easy time to finish all the gens (the killer is only 1 while survivors are 4: if you are busy with a survivor, there will be 3 of them free of doing generators, but even in the case you have 2 survivors always busy due to keeping them busy to do saves, 2 survivors will finish all the generators in less than 4 minutes... This is pure and simple math) while you'll end the match with few points/hooks...
0 -
Not to pull out the win, TO GET POINTS and the time needed to play this cursed game! Is that so hard to understand? Back in 2019 I could do those kind of matches without resorting to those tactics, but nowdays I can't anymore, and I'm tired of all the UNFAIR chances (especially if we consider the awful map design) that survivors bring with them...
0
