They should all play at different levels based on their character design
You should've just said you don't want good Killers
Getting 36 wins in a row shows viability. Getting 10 wins in a row shows viability. If you can consistently get wins like that with a character, they are viable. I don't know what point you're trying to make.
When did 50 straight wins become the standard of viability? You just told me he won 36. 30 + 6. Thirty six matched IN A ROW but the character somehow ISN'T viable because he didn't make it to 50? What are you on about?
Viable does not mean on equal standing with every other killer. I acknowledged in my original post and throughout this thread that killers are on different tiers and some killers are stronger than others AND I think that's OKAY. Being on different tiers is not equivalent to being unviable
LOL Well that's a stretch if I've ever seen one. Did I ask for a nerf for Nurse, Blight, or Huntress (arguably the 3 strongest killers at their max potential)?
No, in fact, those are the killers I love playing against the most. I distinctly said I don't think ANY killers should be nerfed or buffed but I guess you'd have to read to see that.
No one said you wanted Killers nerfed, but you don't want weak Killers buffed, because you think Killers should be weak, which is just a weird mindset.
Huntress 3rd best Killer? Which game are you playing?
2. Yes it does. It doesn't matter which side you play.
I am not a killer main but your projection shows me the mentality I need to know.
Now explain to me in which universe are m1 killers viable against decent survivors. Explain how to deal with safe tiles and unmindgameable loops that everyone runs to and gen efficency during chases. How do I end every chase in 5 seconds so I can pressure gens as pig please do tell.
If you had any experience or watched good killers play this game often you would realise that m1 killers can't compete at top level as long as you are human and not alien or something more advanced. You can win some games sure but only if survivors get too cocky and make mistakes. But if they play efficiently, cold headed and if they are on comms, with that much info you might as well try to move the mountains with your bare hands.
There is a reason why my surv games are a breeze when I end up with competent teammates or 3man swf. Yesterday I only died in one game out of 10 because my teammates were on point.
Survivors messing around is the only reason kill rates are so high.
Flawed. There are much fewer very skilled killers out there vs. Survivors who are skilled, ergo the middling cream floats to the top. There simply aren't enough killers at higher MMR to go around, hence why Lobbies for survivors tend to take longer because it takes longer to find killers who can match (or the que takes a crap because you've waited too long and now it gives you any random killer)
Also skill does not make up for mechanical disadvantage. A killer that can go through walls will always be 100% stronger than a killer who can't, no matter how strong the player is. It's about making the outcomes closer, not giving everyone the same exact tool, but that would require the playbase to have the patience to actually learn to play against every killer in a very different way (of which most, especially low tiers, have the exact same counterplays and little ways to shore up their weaknesses in chase, which is basically the defining factor for how good a killer can even potentially be).
Your argument makes no sense. You can't put words in my mouth and make the claim that I think Killers should be weak literally after I just said I'm okay with different killers at different power levels and my favorite matches are against Nurses, Blights, and Huntresses..... The way you're trying to twist my words is the only thing weird here.
And yes, a top tier Nurse who can snipe across maps is more of a menace than the majority of killers in the game. Maybe indoor maps mess her up, but who would you say is a stronger killer NOT including Blight and Nurse (played at the peak of their potential)
I'm okay with different killers at different power levels
That literally means you want every Killer to remain as is, good Killers, the minority, remaining good and weak ones, the majority, remaining weak.
And yes, a top tier Nurse (Huntress) who can snipe across maps is more of a menace than the majority of killers in the game.
That's if Survivors don't know how to dodge/predict Hatchets, which most do as Huntress is one of the oldest Killers and most Survivors know her counters
I literally played comp and won matches so yes, I am as good as I think I am.
No one ever argues the fact that at the top of it all, Nurse is basically THE most balanced killer. She doesn't beat the best survivors by just being picked, but people who aren't as skilled as the player playing her get destroyed, which should be what we would want for every killer tbh (considering the person playing has been practicing with that particular killer for a fair investment period, which is something almost wholly unique to the nurse anyway)
I'd say she's strong in areas where other killers don't need to be, but I don't think she needs any changes at this point, and I don't think it's fair to say we shouldn't strive for the vast majority to be close to her strength, because again, her strength is basically that if you put time into learning her, you can actually play the game without relying solely on survivors mistakes, A.K.A. she actually plays the game.
Again, look at the trends, hear what is said often... "Blight and nurse get to play the game how they want", "oh how come only blight and nurse can play around with perks and add-ons?"
I never stated you were a killer main. What I said was by your argument, would that same logic apply to a killer main? It was (i thought) a simple yes or no question because it seems silly to invalidate someone's opinion on a game based on which side they play more. I also don't have to create post about killer complaints because
I'm sorry, you said Nurse is the most balanced killer. A pro Nurse, and I mean someone who has MASTERED the character can slap any team, probably with no perks, no matter how good the survivors are, what perks they bring, or what items they use. She's literally been at the top of any tier list created since she was introduced to the game
There will always be a top regardless. Top is not synonymous with overpowered. She performs at an average of 2K consistently in even skill match ups. What you claim is just blatantly incorrect. If you take things one step further (into tournament play level), she averages a negative kill rate (less than 2/match) when all restrictions are completely removed.
I agree, 36 wins in a row is great and I am not knocking Otz, I even described his feat as "valiantly." However, what you said earlier was:
"I firmly believe every killer is EASILY capable of getting 2 kills in their sleep (not literally) and if being slightly sweaty, a 3k. Assuming they're played by a capable player."
So again if we go by what you said, killers should never lose and someone like Otz should have no problem, or maybe sweating slightly and easily get the 3k.
The problem is,... he couldn't.
So is Otz unskilled now? I thought if he could do it we all could,...
yea unfortunately having to be god tier to have a chance at making the other 75% of the roster work isn't a fair thing to ask of players
Strong killers (S or A tier): Nurse, Blight, Hag, Huntress, Spirit, Plague, Nemesis, Billy (maybe he's B tier but the overheat didn't hurt the actual good Billy players)
Average killers (B or C tier): Wraith, Deathslinger, Pyramid Head, Artist, Cenobite, Bubba, Freddy, Legion, Ghostface, Demogorgon, Clown, Twins, Oni
Weak(er) killers (D or lower): Myers, Trapper, Pig, Doctor, Trickster, Onryo
Idk if I missed any but the majority of characters are realistically average, not low tier.
Tier lists are subjective, but Nemesis and Billy in S/A tier confirms you don't understand what good Killers are
Nemesis is easily stronger than every killer I listed on that mid tier list
No, especially not PH, Artist, Demogorgon and Oni. Those are objectively better
If we wanna bring out the big names... Aaron was on a 25 escape streak yesterday... solo. Before that he only got to 20, that streak is on youtube.
So, solo queue is alright I assume? No need to buff solo survivors? Good, I'm glad we agree.
Every killer is viable, yes.
Every perk can also be viable.
But it's the amount of value and consistency of it that differs.
In case of killers, some (if not most) are more map/add-on/perk dependant than others.
Playing both sides often helps a lot to see some things, that is what I meant. People playing killer only can be biased as well, I understand that.
You still didn't answer my questions tho. How do m1 killers compete at top level, what makes them viable there? You said all killers are viable I just want to understand what makes you think that and see your own perspective on it since you didn't really explained much.
All killers are viable at low skill levels and not all killers are viable at mid and high skill levels. That's the Balance for killers. Some are designed to be top tier others aren't. The only problem with this is people get better while the character (killer) doesn't. At some point you'll face better and better opponents as you also get progressively a better and better player yourself and those better opponents will simply outclass your killer if that killer isn't a top tier killer.
Look at the past 2 years of killer releases and all you see is killers with Range/Zoning abilities. Why? Because the game doesn't give other sort of killers a chance. M1 killers have no chance at mid to high skill level. You need to play the match so well that you make no mistakes and you have to pray to get and recognise your opponents making mistakes.
I'll just give you an example: Ghostface - BHVR hasn't touched the Reveal Mechanic, his stealth and Stalking are still connected, meaning if you get spotted while using Nighshroud you also can't stalk, so you lose everything and gain nothing plus you have one of the highest cooldowns on a killer that is so dependant on using his power for everything and even when using it is at no advantage at all because Maps are designed for killers. The amount of times you'll 1 shot someone is pretty low for such heavy downsides and he has no zoning, no movement abilities. You can't expect to play GF at high level and be confident you can win. You might do so in some remote region of the world but not in the most populated regions.
The forums aren't ready for this discussion lol. They'd rather blame SWF's than say "i messed up this is what i could've done". Unless you somehow go against survivors who play comp and never take unnecessary risks, at one point in the game you can make a comeback. I can personally attest to this by the amount of games I've won after losing 5 gens.
I think most people just feel entitled to a win. They don't want to put the effort into winning, but believe they should regardless of the circumstances. If survivors are good they're going to beat you. If killers are good they're going to kill you. Obviously there is nuance to that, but in the scenario that everyone is playing on even grounds, the outcome is clear.
Many DbD players deflect responsibility. It's not their fault they made a bad play, it's yours, and now they're going to try and spite you in anyway possible. The community has a deep rooted problem of pettiness that can often times go too far. Whether through death threats, racial slurs, dog pilling, or even some cases doxxing. The community in general around this game can be super immature and usually turns away a lot of new or older players.
Solo queue is fine actually imo. I play a majority of my games solo. Solo queue is only an issue when you come across teammates who are just plain stupid, or are toxic. I've had solo queue teammates who are better than the friends I play SWF with WHILE having comms.
The thing that most people fail to acknowledge is that SWF (with or without comms) can't compensate for game sense, knowledge of tiles, and mechanical skill. I can tell my teammates everything they need to know and they can (and do) still fail spectacularly because
All that to say that a SWF only really has an advantage if all 4 of the team are at the same or similar skill level. Otherwise, you're better off with 4 skilled solo players.
Ask the guy earlier who told me about Otz going on a 36 game win streak with Trickster. Like I said, I'm not and nor have I ever claimed to be a killer main. I would probably get stomped by most survivor teams but that's because I haven't put the hours into getting good at killer. My inability to play a character efficiently however does not make the killer unviable. It just means I'm not the one who is good enough to play them viably
I agree with your post. I've never liked this idea of all Killers being as powerful as the top tier Killers, and I genuinely like the variety we get because of it. (The absolute lack of variety is why I didn't like so many of the recent chapters, as Nemesis, Pinhead, and Artist all felt way too similar to me.)
I think, if anything, some of those higher-tier Killers need adjustments to be a little worse- because specifically, I don't really like how Killers like Blight have such insane add-ons while Killers like Ghostface are only just now getting good add-ons after being out for three years, despite being a worse Killer by far. I also don't think though that every Killer has to have insane add-ons or be insanely strong. The idea of having to balance solely around these occasional 4-Man SWFs with every meta perk known to ever exist would just make the game a struggle for everyone. It's why the current MMR makes the game feel more stale, besides some perks having poor base design (Specifically CoH and Deadlock.)- it's just a competition between who has better perks. It's always been like that, and it just feels worse now more then ever because you feel more pressure now to run meta perks. You face them more often, you play with people who have them more often, and you feel like you have to bring it to stand a chance. (Basically, there's too big of a gap between meta perks and non-meta perks, and too big of a gap between casual players and what I'll call more.. 'Competitively Driven' players. Those being the people who don't play comp DBD in any form, but like to play like every pub match like it's a tournament for 30 trillion dollars.)
If you notice he avoids questions that seem to contradict what he said previously. Now he is referring you to me, instead of answering either one of our questions using his own quotes back at him.
Trickster is not m1. And someone making a streak doesn't prove much when you don't take all of the factors into account.
Did they played all of those games against top level? Did survivors throw? Were they efficient?
I am sorry but you are not ready for this discussion if you are going to just dodge everything and not go deeper into it.
And yeah otz also made his tier list and he doesn't think every killer is viable.
While I do think there's a certain pettiness to the community as a whole I don't think that's really the whole situation in this discussion. The statement that all killers are equally viable isn't true in the slightest.