Why is killers being weak suddenly okay?
I keep seeing people say "Killers being C tier is perfectly fine!" And I can't help but wonder why you'd think that? Killers being at C tier literally cannot win and seeing as you're forced into constantly being matched against people who are great at escaping specifically you (MMR) I don't see why its okay for a killer to be in a bad position. Wasn't the standard previously "Every killer should be A tier."?
Comments
Because some people like challenge. No one is forcing you to play killers you find challenging.
Calling back to past discussions because you're still doing that same behavior. You opened up with saying how bad we are because we disagree with you so ofc Im gonna call back to them because they're still relevant not too insult you its just I don't wanna debate or argue with you if its gonna be the same stuff each time.
There is no challenge there because it's all about how bad survivors are and not how good killer players are.
It seems like idea that winning and having fun is not the same thing to some people. Just because you lack imagination how someone can have fun in a way that you personally don't have fun in, doesn't mean that it's impossible. I wish there were less tryhards in this game, but that's not possible unfortunately, as they think that every match is a tournament with a huge prize.
Calling back to past discussions because you're still doing that same behavior
oh no, i was calling back to past discussions to say you did the exact same thing hence hypocrisy bestie
and yes, when you say that one of the best anti-loop killers in the game has terrible anti-loop, i will call you bad at him because that's the best case scenario for you to have this belief. like i will gladly call someone bad who thinks legion is op, or nurse is bad. because all of these things are factually incorrect.
I don't think theres a single killer like that in the roster. All killers have something of equal or stronger strength that they can bring to the table.
I don't mind challenge but theres challenge and poor balance.
Playing Huntress is challenging. She can be a monster but when you're first learning her chances are you're pretty bad and not gonna get kills.
Pig is poor balance. Even at top tier play she still remains to be a very easily looped M1 killer who needs an initial down to activate her true power (the RBT).
Playing Hillbilly (Despite how much I hate him) Is challenging. When first playing him he's not that amazing. Decent mobility but you can't utilize his chainsaw much. But once you master him he's insanely good and can pull off great tricks which end chases instantly.
Sadako (Despite how much I love her) is poor balance. She's a very fun stealth killer but in the competitive aspect (or even if you just find winning fun) shes very weak. She has no chase power but great stealth and while some people like me LOVE that style, its just not viable with the game in its current state and I don't think it ever will be.
None of what you said makes any sense. Watch Otzdarva, see how many matches he wins, and then tell me how his skill doesn't matter. It might help you with your victim syndrome.
Didn't say he had terrible anti-loop just when VSing survivors who have the same skill level as you they'll win most likely 100% of the time because survivors can predict you and the amount of time you spend winding up and down and attacking with his M2 allows them enough time to properly react to whatever you can throw at them.
And I'm aware I did that in the past but I've been working on it and AFAIK haven't been doing it recently. And see you're getting condescending with the whole 'bestie' thing like dude you're doing the exact thing I said is the reason I don't wanna debate with you then trying to claim you don't or justify it.
Tbf in a lot of them he does go against really bad survivors. He shows the most intense and challenging matches but he also runs meta perks. The game shouldn't be 'only balanced if both teams run entirely meta perks'. (Not saying OTZ is bad I know he's great just pointing it out)
Define "poor balance".
>but in the competitive aspect (or even if you just find winning fun) shes very weak.
that's what I'm saying. It's challenging to win with her. If you don't like that challenge, than don't play her. I like it and I will play her. I get average kill rate over 3, so I'd love to finally stop dominating survivors and actually have to work for a win.
So it's okay that a killer doesn't have the tools to deal with something because your too lazy to change your play style like your suppose to in a pvp game?
wait, I thought A was "powerful", B was "solid" S was "OP" and D was "underpowered".
I also thought that most of the balancing issues were on the survivor side of things.
Poor balance being things that just aren't balanced. I'm not sure how to describe it I gave good examples.
And while I don't believe it I'm not you so I won't say its true but I will say she's ofc gonna be my new main because I love Ringu and the horror aspect Sadako brings, however I can still acknowledge that there's challenging and there's bad balancing and while you can find it 'challenging' to play a poorly balanced character, its still a poorly balanced character and needs to be adjusted as such.
We that's not my fault tell that to the devs who can't make a match making system, can't make a level up system and can't even balance their game. Also since you want to take shots at me because of the "fun's what matter" bullshit argument I guess you never felt buyer's remorse from this game and tell me what's more fun
1. A fair and balanced match.
2. A squash match where even before starting the game you are at a lose lose scenario and then have the degrade you more.
Fun is subjective and I want more option it's just that this game doesn't give those options at a stage where it's worth the price.
I know most people used to say A was viable, B was good but needs some tweaks, C was just underpowered, D borderline terrible, and F was useless.
Of course he goes against really bad survivors, because that's the reality of current matchmaking. I also go against bad survivors most of the time, which is why I'm saying that having more challenge could be fun. And no, he doesn't run meta perks all the time. Look at his todays stream for example: no way out, noed, pain resonance, deadlock. Is this considered meta now? It's strong, but no way I'd call it meta. I can think of a few much stronger builds.
im talking about the videos where he does the win streaks. If you meant just in general I wouldn't know as I don't watch his actual streams outside of the ones where he does the 50 win streak since I find those fun to watch.
He literally got a unbelievably fat loss with sadako despite all the skill he have, LOL
"fun's what matter" is not an argument. This is what matters to me and that's a fact. I don't argue that it should matter to you.
>Fun is subjective and I want more option
And you have more options. There are weak and strong killers. Use the strong ones if challenge upsets you.
We literally just got Artist who is pretty comfortably a high A to S tier killer.
Onryō is still on PTB. Literally chill out.
Of course he plays different during streaks, as it obviously requires tryharding, than he plays normally. Watch his normal stream and see for yourself how he wins most matches without tunneling, camping, or meta perks. I don't fine win streak fun to watch because I don't like watching tryharding. My personal win/loss ratio from last count was 4.41, which means that survivors win less than 1 out of 4 games and I play with all killers almost equally, so tell me again which killers are too underpowered.
I feel it's relevant to mention Otz has said before that survivors at some of the hours he plays at are notably worse than average.
He got a fat loss with killer that just came out yesterday? Wow! Unbelievable! How could anyone need to actually take time to practice new killer in order to get good with her? No way!
Well.. there is literally no mechanical depth or strategical depth in her power, so yes, not possible.
He already concluded her as "c tier at most" and which is literally an objective truth everyone agrees with.
That is the attitude of killers being C tier is bad, those kind of peoples are not saying "this is just PTB and wait for change", they are literally saying sadako is fine as is.
Everyone knows it... Or at least I thought so... You don't need Otz to say that, do you? Anyway, how is it relevant?
Because it appears someone is trying to use otz as some example of skill mattering, so it is relevant that he plays against weaker players that make a lot of mistakes. I think you'd be better off using tru3talent as an example as he plays at the hours shown to have harder survivors.
And? I disagree about the depth, especially strategic, but I don't see how it's relevant. Okay, C tier, so what? As I said before, if you find C tier too challenging, play S tier. I personally find fun to play all tiers, including F. And I have many wins with all killers, but I have fun even when I don't. C tiers obviously made for people like me, not like you.
You don't have any factual information to back up your opinion.
Of course skill matters. I'm using his as an example because you can easily compare his matches to matches if some random killer on twitch that has 5 viewers. Than tell me if you see any difference between them playing at the same time of day.
I can't use tru3talent because he is far less skilled than Otz. I get frustrated watching True making too many mistakes that are obvious even to me. Btw, not a bad example of skill mattering.
I mean, I think both are fun. They just have qol issues.
No one, except devs, has any information to back up our opinions, including you. We don't have access to stats.
Im sorry but anecdotal evidence of "I win more than I lose at the highest ranks without even trying." Is not a valid argument. If what you state is true then we must nerf killers and we all know thats no where close to true.
So because we have a strong killer we're not allowed to have another strong killer? Can there not be more than 1 strong killer released a year or something? And my complaint wasn't about Sadako (despite her needing an extreme buff) it was about the idea killers being bad and not viable is perfectly okay.
Im sorry but this is just not true. At high level play most of the roster becomes unplayable and you should always balance towards the top if you ever want a balanced game.
that rings a bell, for sure.
No, I never said "at highest ranks", but the rest of it is true. No one, except devs or hackers know what our MMR is, so I would not claim what I can't confirm. I win not because killers OP, but because matchmaking is crap and often matches me with babies. The killers are fine, as proven by stats released by devs, maybe a tiny bit OP, as the current average kill rate is above 50%. It's the matchmaking that is the problem.
Imagine actually dealing with obvious bait troll like this.
Yes, it's perfectly okay to have weaker killers. Some people enjoy challenge.
Are you allowed to have more strong killers? Yes.
Are you entitled to have more strong killers? No.
So a killer cant be strong and challenging its only one or the other? And if you're not playing at highest ranks then why does you winning matter? Ofc any killer can stomp baby survivors but that shouldn't be what we balance the game around.
How is what Im saying bait or trolling at all?
Oh I apologize I thought you meant what I was saying. No I don't believe him I just wanna be civil and try to hear him out even if hes a possible troll since some people would actually believe it and try using it as a "see!" kinda point.
You seemed to be missing couple points:
No one know at what "ranks" (you mean MMR?) we are playing. That information is not displayed by the game. So the discussion of it is irrlevant.
My winning matters because if you buff some killers, than people like me will win even more matches. If I already win more than three quarters of my games, do you not agree that it would be ridiculous if I won even more? Should survivors I'm matched with have even less chance?
Well Im sorry but I am having an extremely hard time believing you are the greatest DBD player in existence. If thats your only argument please don't continue since you keep saying the same point of "Well I win every single game with no trouble so therefore no killers need a buff."
Seeing Kate and Jill get destroyed hurt lmao. But that was an awesome pyramid head power display. I suck playing as him
Something seems different….. I can’t tell
All i see is 3.5 minutes of animation locks or confined spaces + terrible survivors that run into it instead of watching you. Every shot around a corner can easily be avoided. Especially when they have sight of you. The only other explanation for their ... stupidity? is your ping masks your shots and they get hit before they see it.
There is no need to descend into strawman territory.
Imo my opinion I don't think none of the killer's are below C tier.
Most matches really just seem situational. Such a SWF running 3 BPN DH,Leader etc. On RPD it's mainly because how the game is set up and if survivors have map knowledge then you're in for a ride.
But it's some people who don't really use their and rely on other mechanics or certain um "modded" conditions that it doesn't even matter how good you are you want catch them.
Anybody can become good with any killer in the game but nerfing the character doesn't help but you can manage with putting time into or just being an idiot savant.
The killer should always have a powerful ability or powerful add ons killers are balanced it's just how some things in game work makes the killer seem useless.