Should SURVIVORS know which KILLER they're queued up against in the lobby?

AshInTheTallGrass
AshInTheTallGrass Member Posts: 1,679
edited May 27 in Polls

(Your answers will be anonymous)

Possible "pro" arguments:

A videogame is, in essence, something to be done for fun. If there is a Killer who someone hates, the game should give players an option to know that they're going to face them so they can leave those lobbies. It would also give BHVR more stats that could help them in creating better Killers (ex: high Survivor opt in for Billy vs low opt in for the Skull Merchant). Avoiding boring or frustrating Killers could also give Survivors a chance to play more often against Killers they want to get better against, since there are fewer options to face, and that will make people want to play more. It would also allow Survivors to not waste perk slots (ex: removing Self Care and Botany Knowledge if they know they're facing a Plague). This would also be more inclusive, as some people are triggered by certain aspects of Killers (like those who have emetophobia). Lastly, it would create a better solo queue experience, as a lot of players will kill themselves on the hook or go AFK if they're facing a Killer they dislike.

Possible "anti" arguments:

A videogame is, in essence, something to be done for fun. It's not fair or fun to Killers to have longer queue times just because Survivors don't want to face them. Many challenges and daily challenges focus around completing an action as a certain character, so unless BHVR modified that, that is also unfair. If a Survivor knows who they're facing, they can custom tailor their build and that'll be too strong in a 4 v 1. It also could throw a wrench into MMR, because maybe the Killers a Survivor doesn't want to queue against are a good match, and the ones they do are too high or too low. BHVR already improved solo queue by instating bots, so there's still a relatively fair chance that the solo queue players can escape even with a rage DC teammate. It could even backfire, and be used as a way to have a sweaty SWF group bully a certain Killer with perks and items. Overall, it would cause more harm than good and make the gaming experience worse for everyone.

Possible "hybrid" arguments:

A videogame is, in essence, something to be done for fun. So to keep some variability and fun, Survivors should not know who they're queued up against, but BHVR should give them a chance to opt out of queueing against certain (maybe 5) Killers in advance. This will cut down on lobby dodging (if people saw who the Killer was), help people be more invested in their matches, and be more inclusive. While BHVR shouldn't guarantee a Survivor never faces a certain Killer, it should offer the option to reduce the odds. Balancing queue times and MMR compatibility should be the goal.

Should SURVIVORS know which KILLER they're queued up against in the lobby? 76 votes

Yes
6% 5 votes
No
64% 49 votes
Maybe
1% 1 vote
Survivors should NOT know who they're facing, but they should have an option to opt out against a few Killers so they're never (or rarely) queued in the same lobby.
15% 12 votes
I think they should do a beta test and see what happens. If it's a hot mess, no. If it makes the gaming experience better, yes.
11% 9 votes
Post edited by AshInTheTallGrass on

Comments

  • xltechno
    xltechno Member Posts: 1,026

    Killer abilities are like items in survivor. On the other hand, survivor's abilities are based on perks, not items.

    In other words, for the survivor to know the killer means to know the killer's abilities, so as an equivalent exchange, the killer should know the survivor's perk.

    If both parties could opt out of what they don't want, this is what would happen. Survivor: ”I don't want to match up with artists and skull merchants.'' Killer: "Then I'll set it up so that I don't play against survivors who have DS and OTR.''

    Maybe that's very pointless, and you should know that there's a difference between enjoying a game and having the game take care of you.

  • AshInTheTallGrass
    AshInTheTallGrass Member Posts: 1,679

    Interesting point. Glad you added it as a consideration.

  • moputopia
    moputopia Member Posts: 150

    I think there are way too many ways to optimize your build against certain Killers. For example, against a Trapper or Hag using a map with the Red Twine and Crystal Bead add-ons that show all "killer belongings", including traps, to all Survivors. Or knowing you're against Cenobite, so you bring Fixated, which lets you break his chains faster. Or even using the same character and cosmetics on several players against Ghostface, so he's not sure who he has 99% stalked. Many of these perks or items are currently not an issue only because it's an unlikely combination to have a Survivor using them go against that specific Killer.

    The game is already built to be very RNG based, from map generation to skillchecks etc. I think this is just a core part of it now, you might get lucky with your build or you might not.

    I do understand the idea of reducing the odds of certain Killers from your matchmaking, especially due to phobias. It might create some interesting stats. Though making the game consider the Killer as well as MMR might complicate matchmaking a lot, especially if you have all the Survivors rule out different Killers. Maybe a better way would be to add more accessibility options, to for example mute or replace the vomiting sounds in Plague matches.

  • AshInTheTallGrass
    AshInTheTallGrass Member Posts: 1,679

    Good comment—and that's a good idea about adjusting the sounds for Plague.

  • mysticlux
    mysticlux Member Posts: 1

    I think that survivors shouldn't know who they're going against as I think it messes with the playstyle of certain killers. Ex; knowing you're against a stealthy killer at the beginning of the map, people would be more hyper aware of their surroundings and people would probably be hesitant to even start gens and stuff in solo queue. I like the idea of being able to choose a few killers to opt out of playing against, I think a number of 3 would be good. I also don't think that it should be a 100% chance to not match vs them, but just a way, way lesser chance.

  • AshInTheTallGrass
    AshInTheTallGrass Member Posts: 1,679

    Yes, there certainly are some anxiety issues for some people. Some of that might be bettered by continuously facing/confronting the issue, but sometimes, that might make it worse. Everyone is different.

  • SoGo
    SoGo Member Posts: 1,233

    I think that no, they shouldn't. Lobby dodging is already bad, this would make it worse.

    Imo, removing the pre-game lobby altogether would be better, as it solves lobby dodging and the "unfair advantage" that the killer can have.

  • Starrseed
    Starrseed Member Posts: 1,774

    I think that any form of trying to ban a killer for whatever reason is bad for the game. If we are honest the biggest part of the players would just ban whatever killer is number one on "insert content creator"s list of the top 5 strongest killer.

    TThis Would make it so bhvr has to constantly nerf killers that dont really need a nerv but one killer is always the best so for the survs to stop banning that killer every match they would need to nerf that killer anyway. Then another killer gets the crown and now that killer is constantly banned.

    All this would do is make it so killer players have killers they have payed for and would like to play but they cant/need to wait long ques.

    Whenever that topic is on the table survs like to say they would willingly take longer ques to not face killer x but they completely ignore the fact that this means killer x will also get longer ques if enough people dont want to face that killer and like I said thats not unlikely.

  • LeFennecFox
    LeFennecFox Member Posts: 1,239
    edited May 29

    Play pinhead and 4 survs put on fixated sounds really really fun for the killer player or sending billys/blights/ranged killers to indoor maps. This would just introduce survivor lobby shopping for weaker killers or people would just bring builds that work too good against specific killers.

  • oxygen
    oxygen Member Posts: 3,320
    edited June 1

    No. But if the removal all info besides survivor picked, outfit equipped and item selected isn't removed from the lobby (so no more prestige, absolutely no more profile access, preferably not even names visible to the killer) isn't gonna happen then they should get to snoop on the killer's prestige and profile too.

    I VASTLY prefer the former option of removing info but hey.

  • duygu
    duygu Member Posts: 333

    Yes, it would reduce hook suicides.

  • Emeal
    Emeal Member Posts: 5,114

    We do not need to make lobby dodging worse than it is.

  • Tyler3
    Tyler3 Member Posts: 194

    It would be good if we could maybe choose a few killers that we don't want to be matched with. Being able to see who the killer is could be good, if you saw you have Nemesis everyone in the lobby could switch to RE skins!

    But something fun about loading up into a match is the surprise and suspense of who the killer will be, not to mention if you know it's The Plague, you're obviously not going to equip healing perks, which is maybe a little unfair. They would have to make it so that you couldn't change your perks once you got to the lobby.

  • VantablackPharaoh91
    VantablackPharaoh91 Member Posts: 580

    Hard counters stealth Killers for no good reason and promotes DCing if you hate the Killer. No.

    But I guess a test is worth a shot. It WILL be a hot mess though.