Which side are you?
Do you think every killer is viable in any game if played well enough?
Or do you think ultimately the killer is at the mercy of the survivors unless the killer is at a certain effectivity range?
Explain your reasoning for either side if you like, and if you are the latter, do you think the devs should do something about that?
Tagged:
Trusted
Comments
I do think every killer is strong against solos.
(I said it before) 90% of my matches against solos at red ranks are 4K or 3K with hatch escape.
But communication is too strong,thats why you'll rarely pip against good (they dont even have to be great,just good) 4 survs with comms.
Nah once you get in red ranks, a lot of killers aren’t that threatening. These killers simply don’t possess the tools for map pressure in my opinion.
Pretty much this.
The only nuance in my opinion is that you can still stomp good players on coms who are trying with any killer, but you might have to play pretty ruthless, sometimes bordering to nasty, which i don't enjoy. It's also not guaranteed that you'll get a pip with this playstyle at high ranks.
Killer is almost always at the mercy of the survivors. A survivor has the tools to loop for a long time if they are proficient enough. It really is down to the survivors to make mistakes rather than the killer having skill.
Every killer has the potential to be strong against solo players (or max 2 player SWF). EVEN THEN, most SWF's (even at red ranks) are just shooting the ######### with their friends and having a good time. The amount of "super sweaty 4 mans" that people complain about are such a small percentage of players it doesn't even matter. The issue tends to me, a killer will get put up against this kind of group...once, maybe twice in a whole week of play...and come here, or to Steam, or Reddit, and act like it's every other game, and that they should literally nerf Jesus.
Also, I should mention that using the experience content creators have on their live streams is irrelevant, because they very often get stream sniped by these sweaty mcsweatsweats; so you can't statistically take that into account.
That being said, those super sweaty SWF on comms groups do exist, and we all come across them at some point. At those times, any killer can be viable...but there is all the potential in the world AND a strong likelyhood that they won't be. Especially someone like Trapper, Hag, Demogorgon or an insidious Leatherface (which is a build I TOTALLY respect) where either their entire ability or entire strategy is negated because survivors either know where that traps and ground anus' are, or that they are hiding nearby.
You know what? this game, in my opinion, is slowly decomposing into hot red #########. But hey, I still love DBD with every fiber of my being
dead by daylight is balanced against imperfect informations: survivors don't know what their team mates are doing and thinking, totems and tiles rng, perks, even certain killer abilities (stealth, blinks, phasing...).
All this considered, every killer is viable against a very strong solo team. This doesn't mean that a very good player can win (4k, 2 pips.. whatever you want to consider a win) 100% of the time against those teams with any killer, but he will have a very high probability to succeed anyway.
This is not true against very strong and optimised swf teams. You just need an Object of Obsession, a few DS and a couple of Borrowed Time and, if they work as a team and prioritise the objective, that's game.
There are certain killers that can give you more chances than others, basically the ones with higher mobility and with powers that can lead to quick downs, like Hillbilly, Nurse, Spirit, Freddy, but killers that lack one or the other will most likely fail in certain ways.
This being said, very strong and optimised swf teams are not the norm; in fact usually the stronger a swf team, the cockier it plays, and a killer can exploit it to its advantage. You maybe won't win the trial playing as the game is meant to be played, but you'll win nevertheless.
Killer imo has the advantage at every rank if playing against solo teams. Solo isn't very fun.
The issues pop up when the survivors can come up with plan and adapt to the killers mid match over party chat/discord
It feels random to me so I normally don't really go in with expectations. I feel like if I break more than 2 pallets in one chase if I don't stop and go after someone else I'll lose.
Sometimes I beat everyone, other times it feels like I didn't have a chance. I play the same each time so I don't feel like I learned anything or got better.
I do like the end game collapse though. Good change.
Personally I'm on the fence on what side i'm on, some weeks I think yes others no... what I do think is the devs should make it to where all killers can go against those crazy swf teams or those games where survivors just rush gens and loop decently. That's what the game should be balanced to accomplish, where both sides have a chance to win.
honestly, the second one.
i just think that of all 4 survivors play together perfectly, they will beat any killer that comes their way (with exception of a godlike nurse maybe).
luckily for us, pretty much no one can play that way, so we're safe atm.
I think every killer has the potential to win most games in the right hands. That's what I call "viable". I don't think any killer is so strong that they can reliably defeat any team of survivors, and I think that's as it should be, because I don't think survivors are so strong that they can reliably defeat any killer either.
Basically, my belief is that any killer can do just as well as any other in the hands of a masterful killer player. Some are just much easier to achieve that level of mastery with, which is why tier lists exist.
It's very hard to say whether any killer, played perfectly, would win 100% of the time, nor whether a team of survivors playing perfectly would win 100% of the time because the reality is no one pays perfectly, so all we have to go on there is conjecture. But theoretically, if a perfect killer went up against four perfect survivors, the result should be either a tie or an RNG-dependent victory for one side or the other.
I don't agree with those who define a "viable" killer as one who would always win against any survivors they come up against - partly because that's not what the word "viable" means - but mainly because such a killer would be the clear winner in the above scenario and I don't think that's a balanced game.
I have 4k’d with every killer. Something that makes me think certain killers are weaker is if I find they struggle with brown add ons. I feel Clown and Wraith in particular are add on dependent in order to compete. But slap on certain add on combos and they’re very likely to do well all the sudden.
Define "viable"
I think that people who say that most all killers are fine because "I can 4k on any killer", or anything else like that, are idiots.
Just because any killer can win, doesn't mean every killer is in a good spot balance wise.
When the objective can be completed in under 5 minutes and it can take up to 2 minutes to catch a survivor, you know the game is horribly balanced toward survivor. It's like BHVR wants two different games happening at the same time. They want survivors to have lightning rounds, but they want killers to stretch it out. It's impossible to pip against gen rushers.
The maps need to be smaller, or ruin needs a major rework.
Viability isn't a matter of balance, though, it's a matter of potential. "All killers are viable" means that all killers have the potential to perform well at any rank. It doesn't mean that all killers are evenly balanced or that all killers will perform equally well on average. If anyone were arguing that, then yes, that would make them a bit of an idiot, but I've yet to meet someone who would argue such a thing. That's why tier lists exist.
I think the conception that "All killers are viable" comes from the flawed ranking system. It is far, far easier to rank up as survivor than it is to do so as killer, which often leads to complete or semipotatoes ending up in red ranks. This means playing at Red Ranks can be quite inconsistent for killer, in which some games are and breeze and others are unwinnable simply due to the high variance in survivor skill at the rank.
"Viable" is a strange term for DbD with no set win condition. If you mean "Being able to win at Red ranks", that's easy - you'll roll enough potato opponents to justify that you "can" win at red ranks. If "Viability" means that the game is within your hands - that if you play correctly you can consistently perform well- then I don't think all killers are viable. Survivors have a great many ways of wasting your time that many killers have no way to mitigate, enough that many killers rely on punishing mistakes instead of actually exerting pressure.
Tldr survivors have "Initiative" in most matchups.
Every killer is perfectly viable against the average group of solos. Some killers are definitely weaker though against very good solo players. And there are a handful of killers that you might as well not even consider taking against a 4 man on comms with OoO and meta perks. It's just a waste of your own time. As another poster alluded to, survivor objective speeds are balanced around imperfect information. When a team has voice communication, OoO, and multiple second chance perks on every survivor, the game is broken from a balance perspective.