I don't get why some people want all killers to be equal in viability across all ranks
Edit:
I respect every answer here but the question is:
Despite the fact that people prefer to see/use variety of killers in higher ranks
Why can't some people just accept that some killers have their limit, and what's your opinion on implementing a bonus for lower tier killers achieving in higher rank matches as a way to reward the diversity and skill of the killer player and encourage killer diversity?
--------
Original:
Why can't some killers just be great against the best swf and anything else and why can't some killers just not be okay against the best swf or survivor teams in general? Why do they need to be equal in power, skill required for use, and what sort of builds they can equip? I understand wanting to fix Freddy so he's actually a playable character and doesn't need to run noed to get 1 kill without tunneling and camping most of the time but other than that. Why do killers have to have their most fun/mains be equal with other killers? Why do angsty teenagers, an emotionally unstable idiot who thinks she can't be out-witted by survivors or her master (when she can), and a finger fetishist have to have power equal to an 8 foot tall primal minded killing machine and killers with supernatural abilities? I don't have a problem with it happening, but I don't see how that kind of alternative balance can reward skilled killers. I think if anything, people should get bonuses for winning with lower tier killers on higher ranks.
Best Answers
-
Well if you listen to any popular survivour streamer a lack of diversity is killing there interest in the role. So they want other killers to play against. However a large amount of killers are built to be "fun" and not meant to be competitive. Which means currently only about 3 killers are really capable of facing high rank survivours.
Of course there will be exceptions where a really good player is styling on other high rank survivours with a crap killer purely because they make no mistakes and get lucky with a map. But as said they are not the average game for that killer.
17 -
There's enough complaints of people not liking to go against Nurses and Hillbillies for 28 days.
Then their ranks reset and they face those Killers + a few others on mid ranks.
Then they get to high rank and it's just those 2 Killers again.
Another reason is that some people really like how 1 specific Killer plays, but because of how they play can easily limit how well they'll perform.
13 -
I just give you a example:
I like pig.
I dont main pig, because she isnt viable in high rank.
I hate Billy.
I only play Billy, because he is viable in high rank.
Do you think Im happy with this?
That I know I can lose with pig and it doesnt matter, if I have more skill than the survivors?
21 -
"I dont wanna play rank 1, only sweaty nurses and billies.... devs pls fix"
12 -
I love playing Leatherface but as long as all killers are a joke compared to Hillbilly and Nurse I'll stick to playing Billy. Even a slight buff to most killers would motivate me to play someone else than Billy but survivors don't want to play against anything but Hillbilly and Nurse I reckon.
9 -
It would be funny, but too strong.
But the problem by pig are reverse beartraps and addons.
Both are useless or RNG.
Btw I made a balance discussion for pig:
7 -
"Why can't some people just accept that some killers have their limit"
Because People don't want to hear that the better they get with a low tier killer the worse they will do. Everyone wants to hear that by improving at something they will do better and not the opposite. This question may as well be "why cant people accept that they will be punished for doing well at something?"
14 -
I'm sorry excuse me?
Have you even played an actual moba?(Not OW like DOTA2 or LoL)
The whole point of having a wide selection of characters in a video game is for their variety and play style. Like how do you fail to see this??!
It's not that players want ALL KILLERS TO BE CURBSTOMPING KILLING MACHINES...(Which i will admit when i first played back in the day of release I honestly thought every killer needed to be this way.)
But then it dawned on me like a purple flashlight in my retinas...
We want KILLERS TO BE VERSATILE
The reason why nurse is literally the best killer ever created is not only can her blinks basically destroy survivors in less than 20secs it's the fact that you can literally slap on ANY perk with her and not have to worry about the outcome of the game IF you fully understand her limits(like addons, stun, teleport range, and areas that block her TP)Add all that with hours in game and map knowledge and you basically got yourself a legacy nurse player on your hands.
Each character should be viable at high ranks like nurse because if you learn their strengths and weaknesses you yourself know how to counter them when someone uses that specific character against you.
For example, Doctor suffers super hard to looping so most people will most likely run (Brutal, Ruin, enduring, SF, and NOED) if they feel like he's gonna have a hard time. But that is the issue with majority of the killers you need to run certain perks on certain killers in order for them to stand a chance at high ranks when the player should just pick what THEY need! NOT! What they need to bring to counter a certain playstyle.
I digress though, this leads to another topic that most killers suffer to looping except a few whose ability allows them to instantly destroy pallets, or completely avoid them, or make the pallet area dangerous
12 -
I just see the different killers as being different difficulty settings in the game :D
2 -
This content has been removed.
-
It's boring, and all you see at high ranks are just Spirits, Nurses, Billys and Hags. There's no variation.
4 -
I wish I saw something besides LEGION. That seems to be the only killer I go against. Legion, Billy, a couple of Spirits, and the off chance of a Leatherface or Myers. There is rarely Nurse players on PS4...not that I can say I blame anybody, she is super hard to control on console.
I’m super bored of Legion and Billy. I find both of them to be the most boring snoozefest killers
2 -
It's always something i really questioned about the Devs, It's a decision that hurts the game and they wont change their stance on it.
The Devs spend all this time creating these unique powers and amazingly designed Killers just to chose to make them weaker knowing full well they wont be used as much as the stronger killers, It's a complete waste.
Variety is Desperately needed in a game like this, Facing the same few killers over and over because their the only viable ones while also doing the same objective of generators over and over makes the game go stale very quickly. It gets boring.
There's also the fact that a lot of people who would play the game longer don't because they don't enjoy the very few viable killers on the list and enjoy the playstyle and powers of weaker ones but just can't put up the same fight.
The Game would be so much better if all killers were viable for everybody.
4 -
I think its ok that a killer or two is not optimal for high rank play but to have them mostly be bad is not good design. They need to rethink their design philosophy.
5 -
Indeed. It's fine to have "noob killers" that are easy to learn and basically just serve to teach you the ropes (like the Trapper). It's not OK to have that be the majority of killers.
10 -
Killers in general should (they currently don't) fall into 1 of 3 catagory's
1: Strong - this should be the majority of Killers and they simply exist to be played with no ulterior motive. They need to be viable at mid-high level play in order to work
2: Easy - Killers that can be picked up easily and work as a baseline when you are getting into the game. Legion is a good example.
3: Teaching - Killers that look really good but have a deliberate fatal flaw which can be identified and then generalized to other killers when played. For example the trapper takes too long to set up his traps and can be wrecked by survivors due to his lack of fast pressure. This teaches players the importance of time management for ALL Killers and improves the learning curve. Those who want the same niche but as a strong Killer will instead play hag who wouldn't be accessible to a noob due to the pay wall.
2
Answers
-
Edited.
0 -
@PeepingPeacock More like "Why should we get rid of killer tiers?" instead of just asking them to make more high rank killers and give bonuses to lower tier killers who perform well at higher ranks in the meanwhile.
@ItsYourBoyGuzmaI don't know what you mean by an actual moba but the mobas I know of do have tier lists too.
@Bongbingbing I like how you worded that, especially saying "people get tired of putting up with the same fight". I felt like I understood the struggle on a personal level.
Yeah I don't get why they continue to make weaker killers either. I guess plague isn't so bad, should get a minor buff imo but Legion without his add ons is....idddkkk, I've seen some good ones on video but never in game. If the devs do decide to keep a hierarchy they need to add more high tier killers seriously.
0 -
Variety is the spice of life, or in this case death.
Playing as or against the same killer over and over results in redundant and boring gameplay. The same strats, the same chases, everything. A blinking nurse or a charging billy is what you will see.
Not all killers need to pack the power of these two, but many need some sort of boost to make them VIABLE to use. The skill ceiling is only so high with some killers just because they lack map pressure and/or good chase powers. You can be the best trapper in the world and still get stomped by average survivors. This when it becomes a problem.
2 -
I know DBD doesn't have the player base to support a casual/rank split but the "fun" aspect of the game is lost for some when you are constantly being forced to stare at a ranking/performance review after every single match you play. I'm not competitive in this game so it isn't a huge bother but I can easily see how this could bring out a more competitive nature (thus wanting everything to be viable) in some players.
1 -
Unlike survivors where they are all interchangeable and can perform without perks or items, killers are more limited. Choice of killer alone can determine how dependant on addons you are and whether certain perks will even work. Killers want long term viability cause putting in the effort of learning/leveling a character only to be replaced later is an annoyance. Survivor choice is purely cosmetic, killer determines the basis for your tactics and carries limitations regardless of skill.
1 -
Not all killers are ever going to be high tier, but we have killers who are actually borderline useless for some of the strangest reasons. Also being told by devs that some killers aren't meant to be viable, but just for fun is plain aggravating. At that point I feel like we need to sit down and just sort out what kind of game DbD is. Is this meant to be a game purely for fun's sake or is it meant to be a competitive game with all the trappings that entails.
If it is just a fun game then fine. The killers can stay however you want them to be. If the game is meant to be a competition game then at no point can you leave a sizable portion of the killer roster in a place where they are not viable.
3 -
The "limit" is set by the devs through their design decisions.
Player skill should determine killer viability, not the mechanics of the killer.
Freddy's dream transition is a good example.
No matter how good the killer is, they can't affect the survivor until after the transition ends.
The survivor can capitalize on this transition setting Freddy behind.
Trapper must spend a lot of time retrieving and setting traps that can be disarmed faster than they can be set without risk (w/o addons).
This time can be used by survivors to complete gens quickly since the trapper isn't able to create much pressure early on.
Leatherface lacks mobility which creates a lack of map presence allowing survivors to finish gens quickly.
These are design decisions that influence a killer's viability which can't be circumvented against equally or higher skilled opponents.
This creates the situation where a survivor might run into the same killer several times in a row because they are designed well and "viable" through skill.
This is why they should be equally viable: To create a variety of matches with all killers that are available and to allow players to play their favorite killer instead of only a "top tier" killer if they want to do well.
5 -
We definitely need steppingstone killers but most should be good killers that take time to learn.
2 -
Because I want to enjoy my killer I bought with hard-earned cash at any rank above 14?
-Freddy
0 -
Every killer should be as good as every other killer, in their own unique way.
1 -
The reason is simple, this game is built on the idea that every match is supposed to be different where 4 survivors end up on a random map against a random killer with random perks/addons so that there is always a different experience, ideally this is what we should end up with.
Problem is, we aren't in that ideal circumstance where every killer is equally as good and because of that people often complain about only getting hillbilly, spirit & nurse. The complaint however generally isn't that they're strong (with the exception of specific addons) but rather that you don't see other killers getting used. If you look at killers like Clown, Doctor, Leatherface, Trapper & Pig they get curb-stomped by competent survivors especially on a bad map like let's say disturbed ward or the coldwind farm maps.
For me, I like to play as many killers as I can but where I dump most of my bloodpoints into Spirit, Wraith & Legion I often just simply cannot afford to keep getting addons on my other killers as many of them are addon dependent. Having a lack of variety means that both sides are going to end up getting bored faster because the gameplay will generally be the same. Viability should be kept in mind for both killers and perks while fun should be kept in mind for actual base-game features (and to an extent, both killers and perks should be fun to deal with).
2 -
When you design killers to be "fun", as Behavior does, then their performance suffers.
1 -
You simply can't balance killers/survivors across all ranks with a single change. Making a killer viable at rank 1 will completely destroy lower rank play. It's like ruin means nothing at rank 1 but can be a complete game changer at rank 15.
Or even worse, a good nurse vs a good rank 1 swf = somewhat balanced. A good nurse vs lower rank survivors = complete destruction and matches that end within a single minute.
Don't get me wrong some killers DO need buffs but you can't just buff them and hope that it works for both low and high ranks.
0 -
But you can and should balance for the top ranks. Thats what every other damn multiplayer game is doing.
New players will not feel the need to get better if the game keeps handholding them, regardless of teams.
If the damn matchmaking was working correctly, the oh so dreaded rank1nurse wouldnt be able to be matched with noobs.... Or more likely noobs wouldnt be able to use swf to get to be matched with such nurses.
Unrelated i love the notion in all similiar comments that its only highrank killers stomping noobs of the other team, interesting, isnt it.
3 -
Just using 2 out of like 12 killers is totally fun and balanced.
3 -
I'm with @Raptorrotas on this one. To paraphrase Uncle Dane: ", . . . balance (in Dead by Daylight) and most high skill ceiling video games for that matter should be balanced around the highest level of play first. In other words we should always be looking at a (killer) like this, if it is balanced for the highest level of play then it will be balanced for everything else beneath it."
Also, from Greg Street: ", It's worth pointing out that the more skilled players, and especially professionals . . . are the best at breaking your game; as they'll be better at exploiting balancing problems.
4 -
Because balance is more fun for everyone. Survivors want to see a variety of killers. And killers like myself want to be able to pick any killer and not be punished for it. Unless I check steam profiles, I don't know if I'm facing a SWF, and I don't have fun when I get my *** handed to me. I really like Freddy and Clown, but they're garbage against non-potatoes at high rank. Spirit is my SWF killer by necessity.
2 -
@Spectro why limit yourself to 1 change? No one makes one change and stops (if they are competent) at most they make one change at a time to monitor the effects in isolation to get data for follow up changes
0
