Can we stop saying any killer can be "good"
A common thing I hear from players of both sides is that any killer can be "good" at any rank if "played right" and "with the right builds". This simply is not true unless you consider bringing in all pink add ons with an ebony mori (even then some killers will struggle lol). But lets consider the fact that there's really no such thing as a "good leatherface" or a "good doctor" for example. Theres only so much these mid-low tier killers can do against good, experienced survivors. A solid perk build and some mind games might help but that is not the killer getting the downs, its the perks (take enduring + spirit fury). And if you're getting downs by mind games or because a survivor made a mistake, that is not your skill that killed them, its the survivors lack of skill. Survivors have total control if they can just run to each safety pallet after safety pallet lol. Falling for mind games = bad survivor.
The skill cap among many of the killers in this game is just too low to even have competition at red ranks. I know some of you in this community already know all this, but I just want to make a post clarifying that theres really no such thing as "a good doctor". I knew some dude that bragged about being "the best leatherface" and I thought it was silly. The only killers where players can compete regarding their skill level is nurse and spirit. The others are just too low skill cap. Billy is braindead ez to play with instasaw but still gets looped at pallets for days. When I do win with mid-low tier killers at red ranks, I always know I won because the survivors made too many mistakes and/or did not gen rush. I never feel like my skill outplayed them like I do with nurse or spirit.
Comments
-
Wrong. There are tons of Doctor mains at red ranks who do very well. I main Freddy and I do very well against red rank survivors, even when they pop ruin in 2 seconds. All killers can be good given enough time too master them, but that doesn't make them viable at red ranks. Usually if a killer HAS too run ruin, they aren't viable.
17 -
Anecdotal evidence is useless. There is an objective measure to what makes a good killer in this game. You saying you see good doctors at red ranks and main Freddy at red ranks means nothing. Again, against good survivors, you'll never win with those killers.
9 -
And when I just get thumbed down but no replies, it usually means the other side has no argument lol
7 -
Maybe it is you that isn't good at red ranks ;-)
12 -
I do well with the best killers (nurse, spirit, billy, huntress)... Even clown has some good games depending on the map. Again, key word is skill cap.
0 -
Freddy actually has a higher skill ceiling then most people think and isn't the worst killer in the game like many think Freddy can be a competent killer
9 -
You can when with Freddy and Doctor against good survivors if you're good...
Low skill cap is a meme.
There is a big difference between a good and bad LF as well.
5 -
If you keep people asleep and the survivors are not running self care, he is alright since he delays the game. Still gets looped easy though.
1 -
It’s very hard and requires very specific adds; but a Doctor is capable of dominating good survivors at rank 1.
That being said, no build will let you do that as Trapper, Wraith, Cannibal, etc.
4 -
If you put the "best" doctor or Freddy against the best survivors, the survivors will win 90% of the time.
2 -
Freddy needs his ultra rares for Rank 1 imo.
1 -
This’s more 50 50 for Doctor with good add ons.
1 -
What exactly can the doctor do against the best survivors who gen rush, loop well and don't fall for mind games? The doctor can hardly stop loops with his power since the survivor can just keep running. He can try to get a 3 gen strat but good survivors will not let that happen. If he does get that, it just stalls the game tremendously which is annoying. He's pretty much just an m1 killer with an annoying ability; not a deadly one.
2 -
Every killer can be good. ;)
5 -
Should a killer not 4k when faced with survivors who don't gen rush, can't loop well, and fall for mind games? What's the expected result every game?
0 -
So the tldr of this post is:
Killer skill, good or bad, doesn't matter
Survivor skill, good or bad, somehow does matter.
Lol okay. So me getting 4ks with Doctor, Trapper, Huntress, and Wraith around ranks 5-8 were not a result of me being good, but somehow every survivor i played against being bad..... yeah okay sure
Every killer can be good in the right hands
4 -
Any killer should do well against survivors who don't do those 3 things. But at red ranks, you'll find teams who do all 3...
0 -
Every killer can be good
2 -
So you're basically saying every killer is bad unless you get a 4k with no perks and addons consistently?
Quote: "A solid perk build and some mind games might help but that is not the killer getting the downs, its the perks"
1 -
I mean huntress does take skill to play so theres that. Those other killers you mentioned are ez to play and if you're constantly killing survivors with them, they are not good survivors. That is what I am saying.
0 -
Im saying most of the killers and their powers are objectively weak. Only strong perk builds and add ons will help but only to a certain extent. They'll still get looped and gen rushed easily against good teams at red ranks.
0 -
The doctor has extremely good antilooping with add ons that give extra shock range. They’re essentially mandatory at high ranks though.
0 -
People say pig is bad and low tier but I'm doing pretty well in purple and red ranks
1 -
But he just proved to you that he can... And so can I... I've 4k'ed with Freddy, I've 4k'ed with Doctor... And this was all at Red Ranks... When people say that you need the right person to use these Killers its not too far from the truth, because most Killers derive from their roots, the M1. If you're good with a M1 Killer, you can "git gud" with pretty much all Killers, except ones with more wonky powers.
1 -
Its not extremely good lol. He's is slower when shocking and the survivors can just keep running. He only stops short, unsafe loop spots. The clown is much more effective at stopping loops. He has no slowdown when holding a bottle to throw, his gas slows and blurs them, and it covers a decent amount of area. That is why you will find clown over the doctor on most tier lists.
0 -
You guys need to take a logic class or something lol. Anecdotal evidence is not sufficient because it does not address the facts about objectively weak powered killers verse top survivors... like I've said multiple times now, if you're constantly killing survivors with those killers, its because the survivors are bad; not because you're good.
1 -
And there is the problem with finding 'balance' in an asymmetrical game. So survivors get good and can do all three, so we buff killers to make that even harder (and really there are always going to be outliers from either side that transcend). This decimates the lower ranks who probably won't even last long enough to develop said skills. They say to hell with this, and the 1% elite is left supporting a team of devs.
What I'm getting at is if 4 people get together and are that good, it is like facing a god tier player who has mastered their killer. Do we suddenly make it tougher for one side? How many god tier survivors should you be able to kill no matter what?
0 -
I just want them to add skill based killers like spirit. Nurse breaks the game but is fun to destroy survivors with. I want more killers who don't just run circles around pallets helplessly.
1 -
I generally agree with your statement -- anecdotal evidence is useless -- with regard to most things, because empirical evidence is going to tell the real story. But, like, what empirical, unimpeachable evidence do we really have about... anything in this game?
Broadly speaking, everything about this game lends itself to the anecdotal. There are no tournaments or high-level standards a la fighting games or whatever, because DBD isn't really made to be that kind of game. We can't look at an aggregated match-up chart and make data-driven conclusions. There are a limitless number of variables in every single match -- more than a dozen different character choices on each side, 125 different perks, a grand total of 20 (mystery) perks in play during any given match, procedural generation across more than a dozen different maps, items, add-ons, offerings. It's a roulette every time you queue up for a new match.
There's no real standard for what constitutes a success or a failure, either; everyone has their own goalposts. Some players look at pips (regardless of escaping or killing), some players consider it a loss unless they escape or kill everyone, some players are just in it for Bloodpoints. There's no sharply defined measure of victory or defeat that everyone embraces. If I only killed a couple of people as Freddy, but I got a pip, is that a victory? Who knows?
We have tons of anecdotal evidence that tells us Nurse, Hillbilly, and Spirit are roughly the killers that perform the best, in skilled hands. We also have plenty of anecdotal evidence from killer mains who perform very well at red ranks with "bad" killers such as Wraith, Freddy, Trapper, etc. Our most empirical developer-provided statistics come from the May 3, 2019 data sheets (https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/61114/data-sheets-community-requests) -- and according to those, Hag, Hillbilly, and Trapper have the highest kill rates.
So how do we even come to any non-anecdotal conclusions here?
0 -
I'll vote up for that. When I loop it's because I'm given no other choice - either that or the hook, and the hook sucks.
0 -
Everything is subjective, the player, the survivors going against, their items, the map....
So much time spent arguing when you can never really comparing apples to apples on here. Learn a new language, write a screenplay, pick up a musical instrument, workout...
✌️
1 -
Thank you for the intelligent reply. It's true; everyone has their own goals on what's considered a success or failure. To me, killing 3-4 survivors is a success. It's almost impossible to 2 hook everyone at red ranks considering how quickly gens go.
My main point is there is an objective measure as to what makes a good killer in this game at a competitive level. Can they stop loops well? How is their mobility? Do they have an instadown ability? Are they heavily reliant on mindgames and certain perks? These are the questions that determine how good a killer is when facing the best. This is why nurse is the best killer; simply for ignoring all defenses and getting around the map fast like billy.
Im not saying you can't win with the other killers. Its obviously happening. But when you face a team that gen rushes, loops and does not fall for mind games, you are screwed as these mid-low tier killers. I know not every team plays optimal but at red ranks, many do.
0 -
To say that the low skill-ceiling on most killers 'is a meme' is to basically deny or ignore the extraordinary difference between Nurse's performance at each end of the rankings.
3 -
It is extremely good lol; and he can do several other things with his kit that the Clown cannot.
0 -
People preform well with sub-par equipment all the time. There are good low-tier killers. It doesn't mean that the killer isn't faulty, but that they are good compared to the standard of what's expected of that killer.
4 -
If you take a highest level killer player and put him against 4 highest level survivor players who are playing efficiently (doing gens alone, optimizing chases) and not memeing, every single M1 killer will lose 95% of the time.
Purple rank solo survivor memesters aren't the standard for high level play in the game. Even I can pick up Trapper or Doctor and 4k at purple ranks sometimes because 1. they aren't hard to play and 2. those aren't high level survivors taking the game seriously.
0 -
you couldn't possibly be more wrong about there being no "good" leatherface or doctor players at high ranks
0 -
Of course there are. And they can perform very well if survivors don't play tryhard style and they get a decent map RNG.
All killers can be 'good'. Not all killers can be as good as a coordinated group of survivors. Most can't really.
If you're talking about casually good survivors playing for fun, all killers can compete.
0 -
the main issue is map design
improve maps and more killers will become viable against better groups of players
0 -
I mean, maybe.
Things will improve, but the issue of how optimal doing gens by yourself in different extremes of the map won't be solved.
I know it's a rare scenario so I'm not complaining. I'm just saying that's the peak of efficiency for survivors and killers with no mobility can't really deal with that strat.
But for your average daily play, even at red ranks, the map reworks will probably go a LONG way in improving low tier killer viability.
0 -
yeah, survivors spawning on different gens is kind of a death sentence. i've always found it funny that the shroud of separation is a killer offering when it invariably helps survivors to secure a strong early game
that being said, chases lasting far longer than they should because subpar survivors have absurd setups to work with is what really seals the deal. even if the first 3 gens pop, the game is still perfectly winnable for any killer provided chases don't last long, and a survivor should actually have to be good at the game in order to run the killer for longer periods
spirit and nurse do so well because they don't care about these setups
a toddler can run a killer through the middle of the suffocation pit map, for example
Post edited by miaasma on0
