Idea: Killer Character Filter Implementation For Survivors
Here's my idea that I would love to see implented:
I think there should be a killer filter for players playing survivor that would allow those players to avoid lobbies of matches of killers (as in killer characters) they can't stand to play against. Why should players be forced to play against killers they hate and have no fun playing against?
I know of many players (including myself) who have gotten so sick of playing against the Alien for example that they don't even want to play survivor anymore. A filter like this would only make it take slightly longer to connect to a match against another killer who is not on the filter list and even if the wait time is considerably longer, it would be worth it for those who choose to use the filter. It of course would vary from player to player because some hate for example Pinhead, others Skull Merchant, Wraith, Wesker, Knight, etc so it wouldn't be like everyone putting the same killer on their list. And if for some reason they do put a certain killer on their list, then it would show that there is indeed a problem with that killer and would be a good feedback mechanism to implement changes to make it more fun to play against such killers that get filtered out.
The filter would be optional of course so that players who like playing against all killers could continue to do so by leaving the filter empty. It wouldn't be much different than disabling crossplay which a lot of my fellow PC players do because they hate the way console players play. Those players are willing to endure longer queue times just to play against other PC players.
Like I said above, it would provide good feedback of killers that need tweaking (when too many players filter out a given killer or set of killers). I think it could save the game from players quitting it and save a lot of DCs or players killing themselves on hook and would improve the solo queue experience because playing with bots is not fun. Sure it wouldn't stop camping or tunneling, but at least it would make things more tolerable if there's a killer someone dreads going against.
I also think such a filter system should definitely allow the filtering out of players playing killer so that if you have a disgusting match against a certain killer player, you can filter that player out so you'll never face them again. I've had nights where I played against certain toxic killer players multiple times a night (sometimes even in consecutive matches) and they got more toxic the more I played against them.
And likewise a survivor filter can be added for killer players who get toxic survivors they would rather not play against again, though at least with killers, they can severely punish such survivors the next time they play them so it's not needed to the degree that a killer player filter is.
Comments
It seems like this is a really convoluted mechanism to destroy matchmaking and increase queue times drastically. Four players filtering out a Killer and a player each: when do you want a game? Christmas? SWFs would simply enter into a match with one of the top four Killers blacklisted each to all but guarantee a win/super-happy-bully-time. A player beat them anyway? Well, they can go on the blacklist as well.
And no, it would provide zero feedback on which Killers need adjusting.
Sorry I don't buy it. If there are no problems with the status quo then nobody would use it. And if they use it and want to wait, then what problem is that to you? As long as the killer(s) filtered out are shown under the survivors in the lobby (so that it's transparent to fellow survivors) if you are in one with people you know, you can choose to leave that lobby if you'd rather not wait. And if there are as many people playing the game as they would like us to think, it should have a minimal effect. During the days the queue times are small anyway.
What you're saying would only happen if it ever comes to a time where killer players are all only using 1 or 2 killers, and that would be a problem with the game, nothing else. At that point people will stop playing the game because every match will be more or less the same and might as well play another game that also only has a handful of killers to play against.
Or if a new killer that almost everyone is using for a while is being filtered because survivors hate or have gotten sick of playing against that killer, it would be up to each individual survivor player to decide what they would rather do, wait a lot longer to play against other killers or say screw it and play against that killer anyway (i.e. not using the filter). So it's a freedom of choice and I'm all for that as everyone should be. What's better shorter match times or getting into a match where someone DC's almost immediately or kills themself on 1st hook which screws everything up for other players?
Filtering out killers makes people quit the game.
You shouldn't punish players for playing with their friends and you shouldn't punish players for playing their favorite character.
If there are no problems with the status quo then nobody would use it.
There is a problem that is large enough to lengthen queue times under that suggested system. Just because your suggestion fixed a perceived slight does not make the consequences on the suggestion worth implementing. That is why its a bad idea.
However if we ARE going to have such a system, I want to be able to filter out a Survivor and their perks. ahem
I know of many players (including myself) who have gotten so sick of playing against the different perks for example that they don't even want to play Killer anymore. A filter like this would only make it take slightly longer to connect to a match against another survivor who is not on the filter list and even if the wait time is considerably longer, it would be worth it for those who choose to use the filter.
Since you are all for 'freedom of choice' you should agree and let me have that.
People playing together tend to have similar tastes and killers they can't stand because they play together and have a track record against killers. If a certain killer is always impossible for certain friends playing together to escape or do anything against to gain progression in ranks or decent blood points, then those friends would both/all very likely filter out that killer since their partnership in playing together is not working against said killer.
Likewise I can say players who don't want to play against a certain killer they have negative experiences with shouldn't be punished. If anything, that makes them quit the game, if not permanently, then at least it makes them DC or kill themselves on hook. Why should anyone bother playing a match against a killer who they know they have no chance to escape (unless that killer happens to play nice which almost never happens) or have no fun playing against because it's all the same fruitless experience 95% of the time?
If you're so worried about such a system, then it means there's a huge problem already that many here are sidestepping. And if someone's favorite character is a broken mess that makes survivor players not want to play, then that also says something about the game. Nobody is entitled to have fun at the expense of and cause misery to 1-4 other players opposing them. Those 1-4 players should have an alternative and choose not to be in such matches. Killers can see survivors and their prestige levels in a lobby and choose to leave the lobby if they so wish but survivors don't have any such luxury. I can see why they wouldn't want to reveal which killer a survivor team is going against to those survivors in the lobby (because then they would load up the perks that would counter the killer) but giving them a way to opt out of playing against killers they don't like is fair and gives them options.
There would be four players, each with a blackball. That's four Killers they can block - why would it only be a problem if people played 1 or 2 Killers?
Freedom of choice doesn't apply to skill-based matchmaking. If you can opt out of it or twist things in your favour, it isn't skill-based matchmaking.
Filtering perks would be a step too far because then that same thing would have to be given to survivors. I'm sorry but with how easy the killer experience is now, if someone can't have a good match as killer, that's on them. Survivor in the solo queue is beyond miserable and disgusting. Killer for me is disgustingly easy that I don't enjoy it anymore. Nothing in this game is fun anymore. And I have less fun as survivor because at least I can have matches where I screw around as killer and troll survivors but let them go. As survivor, all I get is the same camping or tunneling or going against a killer that has too many OP perks and other advantages in their basic power(s).
The only other thing I could recommend is splitting the game into solo mode and SWF mode where the perks would be buffed for survivors in solo mode and buffed for killers in SWF mode. If a single friend is detected amongst survivors, they would be sent to SWF mode. Other than that, this game will just get worse.
There is no skill based matchmaking. That's a lie. If that existed, survivors who are new at this game would not be paired with survivors who are veterans, which happens to me a majority of the time. It maybe used to be like that, but there is a reason why queue times are less now and that's because there's no more skill based matchmaking. It's also why they decided to take out the ranks from the player lobbies which used to be shown because it would be that much more transparent that skill based matchmaking is a farce if they left those in.
Skill-based matchmaking exists, but it's heavily influenced by a number of things. Such as people throwing the game by dying on the first hook, causing a loss and tanking everyone else's MMR. This would also give the Killer MMR they might not deserve, messing up their future matchmaking. Lobby-shopping also increases the likelihood of mismatched backfills.
The current system prioritises speed over accuracy, your system would be far slower and have zero accuracy.
All I know is something has to improve. It's not fair that a killer can lobby shop but survivors who have no control over the killers they're matched up with have no recourse when the killer already sets the pace of the match and decides who dies early and who doesn't. Having to deal with all that plus playing OP killers someone can't beat who may tunnel on top kills any fun. And as a killer player too, I don't even have fun playing such killers since it doesn't provide a challenge and I feel guilty slaughtering everyone because I know how it is on the other side.
At the very least the depip and ban time for DC'ing (as a survivor at least) should be eliminated since they added the bots. Or else remove the bots and lets go back to the old system since it makes no sense to have the bots plus depip and ban time. Right now the majority of the game, i.e. the survivor side, is being forced into playing killers they may not want to play. And instead of fixing those killers, we're told to take it or stop playing. If there's something not wrong there, then I really can't bother explaining it anymore.
I'm sorry but with how easy the killer experience is now, if someone can't have a good match as killer, that's on them.
Yeah, no granting Survivors special rights to filter but not Killer because you think playing Killer is easy is the worst logic I heard today.
And its not even past lunch. Hows that even remotely fair? You do know the people in queue changes for diffrent areas ye?
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying something isn't wrong and in need of fixing, because there certainly is and it would be silly of me to suggest otherwise. This is just an issue that I feel needs a scalpel and not a chainsaw to fix. Behaviour is already working on the lobby-shopping issue and is currently testing something out. Sometimes large problems need to change one step at a time, because anything else would invite chaos.
That still doesn't fix the problem of going against a new killer with a bugged attack that's causing survivors to get downed and hooked easily. A killer that is considered too new to killswitch so the survivors who are trying to reach Iri-1 get screwed every time they get that killer which last week was almost all the time and this week is still most of the time (in my experience). And of course killer players are abusing it to easily reach Iri-1 which was already easy enough without the bug. So I guess forget about giving survivors something to combat this nonsense with because we know it'll happen with more killers.
At this point I'd even bet the bug is intentional to lure more killer players to buy the killer and make them think this is how easy it'll always be and I'm not even convinced they will fix it. If anything, they may buff him even more like they did with Knight, Skull Merchant and Sadako.
I've gotten killers from China (half a world away from where I live), so I don't know what you mean.
Why would you getting a Killer from China mean anything regarding the queue other people get?
Go play in Comp if you think Killer is so easy then.
What's Comp?
Because if I'm getting killers half a world away why wouldn't others be getting the same if there is any consistency in the game and the way matches are made?
Needed feature imo. Since BHVR won't balance the oppressive OP killers (Nurse, Blight etc) then we need a filter list for sure.
Why would you think you getting a Chinese Killer player would make you an arbiter on difficulty in Dead by Daylight?
You getting Chinese players OR thinking that Killer is easy has absolutely no say on the truth of that matter.
There is no rational way that could be possible. That does not make sense.
Your opinions of yourself is no basis or argument for setting or denying things for others. Luckily bHVR knows this.
I have over 5000 hours in the game and have been around for long enough to know when playing killer was difficult and when it has become stupid easy as it is now. Anyone can see how the last 2+ years of killers that have been released require little to no skill to play. If you don't know that or haven't been around long enough, then it is you who are not qualified to speak on the matter because you don't have the experience to. When a player who has as many hours as I do ends up dying 95+% of the time nowadays when it was nowhere near that amount WHEN I HAD LESS EXPERIENCE, that is a huge indicator that what I'm saying is true. Especially when others I play with also say the same. I play with someone who until recently mostly played killer (as Ghostface & Wesker) and he said the same thing---the road to Iri-1 as killer is stupidly easy whereas the road to Iri-1 survivor is a miserable experience.
Me getting matched with killers from China and killers with cyrillic names (likely Russia) is proof that matchmaking is done on a much more global level. Maybe your experience is different because you have crossplay turned off. I know console players are subject to this too since one of the console players I play with was with me when we both got these killers.
And what you are saying still doesn't negate the need for a filter idea. Killers can simply leave a lobby if they don't like what they see regarding prestige levels or can simply impose a killer with bugs or mechanics that 1 or more survivors in the lobby they're in hate and don't know how to counter. Or in the case of the alien with the tail issue, CAN'T BE COUNTERED. That deserves an alternative / opt out. Or else players will opt out by not playing and then everyone gets screwed.
No.
If you seriously can't handle the chance that you will face against a killer you don't like, don't queue up as survivor. No reason to ruin matchmaking bc you feel entitled to picking your opponents
I'm not entitled to picking my opponents. There are some I don't want because they are too broken to deal with and it's the same damn thing every time (sometimes worse depending on what build they use).
It's you who are entitled to subjecting everyone to the same crap experience every time by picking the easiest & least skill-required killers to play with, with no balancing to address the issues that many players have. You know very well if such a feature was added, many of the killers you probably use would get filtered out and you'd hardly get matches. But you'd rather force your broken killers, who a large portion of the playerbase hates, on everyone than have them get fixed. Because if there was no problem, then such a feature would never be used, but you know damn well that's not the case. So instead you hide behind excuses like matchmaking instead of confessing that there's a problem.
You and your buddy saying Killer is easy does not make you arbiters of that question. You would need to demonstrate the majority of Killer players is in the top half of the MMR range, a hard claim to demonstrate. Pounding your chest regarding your skill in this game has not effect on me.
All of this from me just using your freedom argument back against you.
And what you are saying still doesn't negate the need for a filter idea.
That's true, people may indeed feel a need for a filter for Killer. And indeed, pointing out the flaws as man people have in such a system does not quell that need either. if you are tired of facing xenos nothing else can help.
However that's is why I turned your 'freedom of choice' argument back on you, there are many Killers who are equally tired and some even more so tired of certain perks, but nobody is rushing bHVR to implement relief from those, so why would Killers be any different? They are all tired, but sometimes you just cant have relief.
Well relief comes one way or another in the form of players saying the hell with it and not playing the game anymore which results in the death of the game. So if you want that, lets keep allowing the players who play killer to play the same damn killer every match.
The difference between survivor and killer is that survivors have to put up with an extra layer of crap that killers don't. As killer the only thing one may get tired of are seeing the same perks used over and over again. Survivors not only have to deal with having to go against the same damn killer perks over & over again but also going against the same damn killer over & over again. Killers have powers and each one is different unlike survivors who are all the same other than the vocal screams when you factor out perks which like for killer can be made teachable.
One idea a bunch of us have had is to put cooldowns on perks and even killers. Like once a perk is used, that perk can not be used again for another 6 hours if it's a meta (A tier) perk, 3 hours if it's the B tier down, 1.5 hours for C tier and 0 hours for lower perks. And a similar cooldown can be placed on killers to force players to switch things up so the game doesn't go stale. That's how many other games with "seasons" are set up and DBD should be no exception. It would be much more interesting if players were forced to have a perk rotation. The system would need to be thought out so new players who barely have perks won't be shut out from the game, but they could always play one of the base killers or survivors since the game comes with a bunch.
Also players who play perkless should be rewarded with big incentives. This would especially work if a good amount of iridescent shards get awarded for say, every 10 perkless matches they do. That would change things up a lot since a lot of players would want to use those shards for cosmetics, DLC characters, perks, etc.
I'm not trying to be a wet blanket but SOMETHING must be done. People who trash competing games always throw jabs how games like Friday the 13th, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Evil Dead, etc would get stale due to the lack of variety, yet when everyone plays the same killer because that killer is stupidly easy to get kills with, then how is DBD also not getting stale? It's already a game where survivors do only gens and have to get out without anything else different (unlike other games of the genre where certain supplies have to be collected & you could interact with the environment such as drawers & cabinets to find things), so it doesn't have much going for it other than the variety of killers. But when even that is gone then DBD has less going for it than its competitors do, especially when it's completely out of any semblence of balance and solo matches where ALL PLAYERS GET STARTED are a disaster. How is this game supposed to draw in more players when the solo queue, a new player's 1st exposure to the game, is a shitshow for lack of a better term? Someone would have to be a masochist to endure that and come back for more when they are just starting & have no clue how to play and gets the same killer with their broken tail that the developer refuses to fix or killswitch at the moment.
"So if you want that, lets keep allowing the players who play killer to play the same damn killer every match."
Yes, let's just stop people using the content they paid for. I'm sure that won't have an extremely negative effect on the game or Behaviour's reputation. "Y'know that Killer you bought and expected to play? Too bad! Arbitrary limitations, baby!"
My friend, you're not being a wet blanket, you're being the whole laundromat. There's wanting things to be more balanced, then there's wanting to gut everything the opposing players have because you've fallen to blind tribalism and can't see that the changes you propose will actually kill the game. Change takes time, great change takes greater periods of time, so give it time.
There is no Us and Them, there's just us. People, here, trying to play a game best we can. Let's not give in to schoolyard mentality.
Well relief comes one way or another in the form of players saying the hell with it and not playing the game anymore which results in the death of the game. So if you want that, lets keep allowing the players who play killer to play the same damn killer every match.
I dont want you to leave the game, but if you choose to leave the game because you see solutions to problems in the game and the fact other think its a bad idea or bHVR choose not to change the game in that favor. Then by your own words you want to leave.
To me, the fact people are tired of playing against certain killers means other killers are not as good or popular to play as others. It does not mean we need to implement a filter, bHVR needs to look at its past Killers and get critical.
they block those 2 killers
They block those 2 Killers and another 2 on top.
yep then it takes about 5 hours to que up
yes, The box they opened it, I CAME!
This is normally a feature for ranked modes only... however we can't opt out of MMR, so this should definitely be in the game. My usual suggestion is 1 ban per 5 characters released (disabled on the opening week of a new Killer), with a personal ban for 5 players total. You would need to play and finish a match with the person for the personal ban. (That way you can't just ban a big figure and deny them matches.) SWF uses the lobby leader's bans and ignores the rest.
It would likely need an extra Killer incentive for the rarer banned Killers. I'd have a 100% incentive for the bottom (total ban number), and a 50% incentive for the next (total ban number). For example if there would be 5 bans, the bottom 5 get 100%, the bottom 6-10 gets 50%.
Also to counterbalance Killers would get a map ban system. Similar numbers and logic given as Survivors and Killer, but for Killer and map.
No feedback for adjustment - How so? If everyone who uses the optional system (btw the beta wiggle was used by less than 50% of players, people don't check the options that much) bans Nurse, that is clear feedback people don't want to play against Nurse. It doesn't say why but it does give the what. The occasional player surveys can include questions about the top banned Killers, and peoples feedback as to why they are banned.
If you can opt out or twist things in your favor, it isn't skill-based matchmaking - I mean it already isn't skill-based matchmaking, it's kill-based matchmaking. The match where you go in with naked/no perks is at the same rating as all meta perks. The match with a juicy toolbox is rated the same as a brown medkit. The Killer can bring Clown, or they can bring Nurse. That already throws skill out the window.
Yes, let's just stop people using the content they paid for - Where would this disable a person's ability to play AT ALL? Longer queue, sure, but not a limited ban list. If you've played any game like DOTA or Rainbow 6 Siege, you can ban characters as well, does that also 'stop people using the content they paid for', not quite. Delays, maybe, but not a hard prevention. Pre-bans make it much better, because it would only put you in a lobby with someone who isn't going to ban your character mid selection process anyways.
Ruin matchmaking bs you feel entitled to picking your opponents - Killers can currently lobby shop, and that is causing baby Killers to get autofilled against the sweat Killers who didn't want to face 1 P100. This would cause no new problems, and would reduce the amount of lower quality matches.
Killer Players only playing 1 or 2 Killers - Well if some people are to be believed that is currently the issue with Wesker. I know Wesker is picked significantly more often than the average, but luckily I don't think my matches reach the 20% some people have claimed.
New Killer - Yeah it should probably be disabled (like the map repeat prevention when a new map comes out) during the first week of new Killers.
You would need to demonstrate the majority of Killer players is in the top half of the MMR range - Ok top half is 50%, so by default, 50% have to be there! There we go, we've proven the majority of Killers are in the top half! (Ok maybe a percentage point off, but good enough! Sorry I just found this part funny.)
Ruin matchmaking bs you feel entitled to picking your opponents - Killers can currently lobby shop, and that is causing baby Killers to get autofilled against the sweat Killers who didn't want to face 1 P100. This would cause no new problems, and would reduce the amount of lower quality matches.
Lobby dodging messing up quality matches is also a problem. Doesn't mean we should introduce a new problem that makes everyone's queue times skyrocket.
Can i block survivor perks? Or items? What the hell do you want. If you don't like the game, dont play it.
1) There'd also be plenty of people banning the use of Wesker or Pinhead or Plague; does that mean they're broken and need adjusting? What would a survey tell you about them? A lot of people saying they're not fun to play against for a wide variety of non-actionable reasons.
2) Just because it isn't particularly good in its implementation doesn't mean skill-based matchmaking doesn't exist. And the answer to any problems concerning it is to make it better - not defenestrate it and call it a day.
3) Did I say it would disable the ability to play at all? No, no I did not. Don't strawman me. No-one pays for DLC to be told when they can and can't play it. This isn't DOTA, this isn't Rainbow 6 Siege; this is DBD, I don't care at all what different games of different genres do. You don't, and can't, balance an asymmetrical survival game in the same way you balance a MOBA or team shooter. This game doesn't have the player-base to go around making silly choices and driving people away in the thousands.
Being able to filter out your opponents (because they're playing a killer you don't like, are a swf or whatever else) would make matchmaking worse for everyone both in time and quality.
Also, the idea that "the filter is optional so you can still play against killers if you want to" is flawed. There's four survivors per game, if a lot of them filter out Alien, SM and Nurse for example solo survivors will be much less likely to see them even if they haven't filtered them out because they'll be put in lobbies with survivors who have.
Now quote the next part of what I said, where I said, "Arbitrary limitations." Now take it in the context of what I was responding to. I was responding to someone saying Killer players shouldn't be allowed to play the same Killer every match ("So if you want that [people no longer playing the game], lets keep allowing the players who play killer to play the same damn killer every match" and, "One idea a bunch of us have had is to put cooldowns on perks and even killers"). They weren't talking about not being matched against a Killer they didn't like (i.e. a ban list, still an appallingly bad idea), they were talking about a need to prevent someone playing a Killer too many times in a row/set period of time (i.e. arbitrary limitations on purchased content).
I used the exact quote I was responding to above the sentence you copy/pasted from my post. There was no confusion to be had. You're not arguing in good faith here, are you?
I totally agree a personal cooldown on perk/Killer use would be silly. So this could be a failure of my reading comprehension, and then that would be on me. I didn't catch the reply content because the forums doesn't include the contents of quoted quotes when you are typing down here in the "leave a comment" box. Just as now I can't see my content you replied to. I skim the forums and put a bunch of replies in the bottom box to read and reply to individually afterward. Combination of user error, (on my part) and a lack of features compared to other forums that include quoted quotes, but mostly my fault.
As far as a personal ban, (as in I would be unable to re-match with a specific player) I would still defend that concept, as that is normal for basic human activities from grade school. If Joey acts like a jerk, everyone stops interacting and engaging with him. It is on Joey to stop being antisocial to the point of scaring people away in order to re-integrate. The level of anti-social behavior someone would have to engage in to be banned by EVERYONE, (when the theoretical personal ban system requires a match played with that individual, and these ban lists being limited to 3-5 people max) would be justified in that person being prevented to play in matches.
Personal ban would probably be very reasonable without a Killer ban to go alongside it.
I'd be willing to deal with a no-filter/block/ban on new killers for the first few weeks they're released. Everything you said I could get behind since it was well thought out and I think would vastly improve the game and give us a tool to enforce change.
The reason why certain killers are more popular (especially the recent ones) is because they're easy to kill with. They don't take the skill or patience that some of the older killers require. Many of them rely on abilities that get powered 100% by passive means where they don't have to do anything active (attacking survivors) to get their killer power back. Good example is Pinhead. It's piss easy to play as him. He has his box which forces players to interact with on a regular basis and passively always activates. Pinhead doesn't even have to go to it to interact with it to re-activate it after it reappears and survivors who interact with it summon him so long as the killer playing him teleports to the box. Then there are his chains which are stupidly broken (as admitted by people I've watched who main him) with the way they slow down survivors where he can deny/minimize the speed burst a survivor gets when getting injured by him. He was poorly designed and now if something is done, people will complain "I paid for him". Well people paid for the game too and many of them don't want the disgusting experience that is a Pinhead match. My idea would allow the players annoyed enough by him to not have to play against him anymore and will send BHVR a message to finally do something about him. And that's just 1 killer. I would even be happy if they limit the killer filter to a maximum of 3 so we don't have players filtering out like half the killer roster. And of course it would be optional. If others want to go against everyone, they'd be free to.
Plague is a pain to play against because she is poorly designed for this game in 2 major ways:
1. In a match against her, you are denied healing for the majority of the part. The only time you can heal (which tends to give survivors a lot of bloodpoints and a decent chance at pipping while trying to progress in the ranks) is if she hits you with her weapon or the red vomit and that's assuming you get away which has a very low likelihood. So just for the fact that she denies survivors a major source of points and their ability to progress and more importantly not lose progress shows that she is badly designed. She literally goes against a major survivor objective of the game.
2. Against Plague you are screwed one way or another. If you don't cleanse, you are always at risk of being downed in a single hit once you get sick enough. If you do cleanse, you're activating her power to so serious damage. Skull Merchant has this same problem with her drones (hack them & she knows where you are, don't hack them & either get exposed or good luck doing gens). It would be like exposing yourself to Myers to stalk you (which activates his power) if he had an ability to prevent you from healing unless he was tier 3. With Plague it's worse because she doesn't even need her red vomit active to make everyone 1 hit KO and with it, she's even stronger.
Plague would be much more tolerable if her sickness would slow down gen progress of sick survivors instead of affecting their health. They could also add other effects like causing blindness & the oblivious status effect. Or maybe it could do both where the sickness her vomit causes would have 2 phases. The 1st phase would slow survivors down from gens and the 2nd would give their gen speed back but make them 1 hit KOs as it currently does. It would take somewhere between 2-3 minutes for it to go from Phase 1 to Phase 2. That way survivors would have to decide whether to cleanse early to get gen speed back or take a risk and have slower gen progress so they hold off on activating her power. I would even add in a stipulation that each survivor would be healable 3 times when sick during phase 1 only just to allow healing and proper survivor objectives to be possible. After 3 Phase 1 heals, a survivor would be forced to cleanse if they want to return to a completely healthy state. And just to balance things, the infection time of generators, pallets, lockers, totems, etc can be increased to incentivize survivors to cleanse so that affected gens would be contaminated by her vomit for longer periods of time. That would be a very fair redesign of Plague.
Pinhead is bad for reasons I listed in my last post in this thread. Wesker is ridiculous to deal with as a result of his dashes and the questionable hits of his slam ability. Plus the fact that the spray isn't unlimited is BS. Why do survivors against Wesker get limited spray where if they run out of spray (which has happened to me) they're slowed down the rest of the match and are even prome to getting killed if he brings that add-on? By that same logic, why aren't there a limited amount of times survivors can wake up against Freddy? Why aren't survivors only given a limited amount of heals against Oni so he can have the advantage the rest of the match (much like Wesker does when there's no more spray) without them being able to do anything about it? I have similar issues with the finite vaccine against Nemesis, though that's not as bad since it doesn't slow you down at least. But being out of vaccine does make it that you can't mask the coughing anymore which makes it easier for him to find you. And with zombies on the map that almost every time show up by gens, it's not too hard to get hit by them if you're trying to hurry up after half your team is dead.
Not true because the lobbies can be based on the filter settings. What I'm saying is let's start with a max filter of 1 killer. Lobbies would be made with a priority on players who have the same killer filtered out. There may be some who get paired up who don't have that killer filtered out but that would happen if a certain time limit passes without finding 4 players with the same killer filtered out. Of course it wouldn't happen to the same player every time.
If the 1 killer max filter works out, then I'd say increase the max to 3 and see how that goes. I think most players have a bunch of killers they really hate but at the same time they would tolerate most of them (just the very worst would be filtered).
This is why my original point of having a filter is the best way to handle it. It keeps players away from a killer they absolutely hate and don't want matches against while letting the killer play against other players. Would that killer be filtered forever? Probably not. Most likely when the frequency of that killer drops the survivor who filters that killer will unblock them and just deal with it like I would even the killers I most hate. But the option should be there because not a damn thing has or is being done to change things and if the queue times have to increase somewhat for BHVR to get the message, then so be it.
You complain about player X bought a killer and can't use them due to the cooldown idea I had, yet everyone who plays this game at minimum paid the money for the base game and the ones who play survivor shouldn't be subject to playing a certain killer almost for an entire week or 2 nonstop. So you're being hypocritical. You're telling someone who wants to play DBD but avoid that killer to avoid playing the very game they paid money for until or unless that killer has a lower frequency of usage. Players should have the ability to at least block 1 killer they don't want to play against.
If you want to complain about queue times, then go and complain about all the players who have disabled crossplay who also contribute to that.
It was a rhetorical question, but thank you for proving my point.
Difference is, the people playing a Killer they bought and enjoy isn't taking away access to your content. Whether you're enjoying that content or not is a separate matter to implementing a system that denies people access to their own content on the whims of others. If you think Xeno is broken (maybe you do, maybe you don't; again, not the point, just an example), the solution is to adjust Xeno. The solution is not to implement a system where people are told they can't use their content (like your cooldown idea), or are punished to a ridiculous degree for trying to use said content (as per your ban list idea).
I very much dislike MFT and a whole host of other perks that appear incredibly often (both on Survivor and Killer side), as well as certain Killers, but I would never dream of denying people access to their own content to any degree. That's not hypocrisy. I never told anyone to do anything, I especially didn't tell people not to play the game. If we want to talk about intellectual dishonesty, let's talk about the nonsense where you just put words into my mouth.
This conversation has clearly reached a conclusion. I'm not so short on words that I need you to magic some up for me.
Xeno is clearly broken. His tail attack hits even when it misses and many people have mentioned it and even taking advantage of it yet nothing is being done. And putting a filter on a killer would not take access from anything. It would simply block players who don't have fun going against a broken killer (or even if he wasn't broken, a killer they just don't find fun) from getting that killer. Players who choose to use him would just have to play against other survivor players. So anyone mentioning people being denied content they paid for are just not telling the truth. People paid for this game too and those people want to have fun, and FUN is the most important thing. If you kill the fun, there is no game. If a certain killer that someone hates is being imposed on them over & over again, it's not fun. It is in THAT SCENARIO that someone is being denied what they paid for (i.e. a fun time), not the players playing Xeno or other killers that survivor players tend to hate.
My idea would force BHVR to do something about it. You can say the solution is to adjust Xeno, yet it's not and won't be done (if anything he will be adjusted to be worse). Just saying that and offering no alternative like you and everyone else opposed to this idea has failed to do is like being a shill for BHVR. What are your alternatives? Why is it that killers have gotten more miserable to play against?
Knight & Skull Merchant were already OP upon their release and were only made stronger after updates which has caused more abuse by players who play as them. Same with Sadako, who is beyond ridiculous now. Just yesterday I went against a Sadako WHO ONLY GOT 2 DAMN HOOKS and she was able to mori my 3 team mates because of how fast their condemned built up just from her teleporting. 75% of the match was her teleporting and landing a few hits here and there. WHEN IS THIS GOING TO BE FIXED? A killer being rewarded to instantly kill anyone just for teleporting is broken & bullshit. It should never exist in this game. At least with Myers to do that, he needs to use add-ons and do a lot of stalking and even then as a Myers main on the killer side, I'm not too crazy about it especially how easily you can get a 3-4K now with Lethal Pursuer. And this issue with Sadako wasn't even a problem until she was buffed 1-2 months ago, which goes to my point that killers these days only get adjusted to be more impossible to deal with. She was still a very OP killer before the change when you see how fast she is and compare her to Freddy and how much better her teleporting is which isn't restricted by gens that are finished. She was annoying to deal with then, but was tolerable. Now she's completely intolerable. The change they made makes it very frequent that there are not enough TVs & tapes to insert to fight off the building condemned, which should NEVER build up due to a passive action such as teleporting. And it even causes survivors to fight amongst themselves for available TVs. Everything about that change is disgusting and should've never been done. They don't even give survivors unlimited map-wide auras of TVs/VCRs to pick up & insert tapes into after implementing this garbage.
Same with Wesker's hitbox when he does his stupid dash attack where about 50% of the time I side step it and it still lands a hit. His hitbox should be like that of Huntress' hatchets or Deathslinger's gun, maybe very slightly bigger. But he keeps landing hits with them when he shouldn't. And Xeno has the same damn problem (even worse when you see how thin the tail is and how it hits air and still injures/downs survivors). You can say adjust these killers all you want, but it's not being done.
Also, what about players who want to face older killers who are not picked as much anymore? What should they say? As more & more killers are added, the likelihood of those killers showing up in a match are much lower. The smartest thing would've have been to split the game into modules---a Classic module for old style killers (which would have ended with Twins or maybe Trickster) & their survivor counterparts & perks and a Modern/New module that would begin with Trickster or Nemesis & their survivor counterparts and perks (I'd say Trickster/Yun Jin just to keep it an unlicensed original) and have that one be ongoing with new killers & survivors that get released with no mixing of perks, survivors or killers from one module to the other. Then BHVR wouldn't lose any players because fans of the classic DBD they grew to like who don't like that the game has been turning into could stick to that part of the game while modern players & even classic ones who still like what the game is releasing can play the modern module as well. There would be a crossover of course since I'm sure many new players would enjoy dealing with the classic killers, survivors and perks. Bloodpoints & shards would be shared and the rift would continue to have stuff for both sides. But this wasn't done.
Even if a killer filter isn't added, if some preference system is implemented that wouldn't block but drastically reduce the chances of it giving us killers we hate and increase the chances of connecting us to lobbies of killers we enjoy playing against, it would be a big improvement.
I'm open to ideas. One idea would be to offer significant blood points and iridescent shards (shards especially would be enticing) to players who use lesser used killers as incentives. Perhaps better/faster progression in the killer ranks too. In fact there should be a system in place where the easier the killer you play, the longer it takes with the same kills to progress through the ranks than for harder killers with those kill numbers. That would be a balanced approach that many other games have. Anyone who has played Super Puzzle Fighter II for example knows that Akuma has a drop pattern that's a real pain in the ass to deal with. But the downside to him is that it only does 70% normal damage compared to the other characters whose drop patterns are easier to counter. Even though that's a puzzle game, the point still stands that video games tend to balance these things out to make them fair so that only the most powerful attackers/characters don't get chosen. There HAS to be a downside but BHVR is too scared to nerf the OP licensed characters especially that many players play as. They don't understand that even if they nerf them, that fans of those characters will continue to play as them. If this incentive idea would fix some of the problem, I'd be for it, but it still wouldn't address the hitbox issues with Wesker & Xeno, the issues with Sadako, the issues with Knight and Skull Merchant, and many others. But I'd be more than happy to see it as an initial step with the filter idea as a followup depending on whether or not any of these issues will be fixed.
You were given an alternative idea, but you missed it in your whirlwind of needlessly responding to every keyword. The solution to a problem starts with trying to fix that problem, not by creating an entire new system that does nothing but create more problems without actually touching on the initial problem. We haven't even gotten to the Mid-Chapter patch, yet here you are not just proclaiming Xeno will go untouched but that Behaviour may intentionally make it worse to play against for no discernible reason. You're ruling out even the possibility of betterness to make your idea seem more appealing - that is not the foundation of a good idea.
By saying you want to "force" Behaviour to do something about the actual problem, you're essentially admitting your idea is so bad that Behaviour would fix all the problems the game has just to avoid using it for longer than necessary. You don't have an idea - you have a shock collar. And, I mean, honestly, is your counterargument to the denial of content issue really, "People paid for [an entirely subjective experience], and not getting that is denying them what they paid for"? You even put "that scenario" in caps like it was a big OBJECTION moment. It was not.
I don't think you are open to ideas, I think you're open to people agreeing with you, and when that doesn't happen, you just accuse people of shilling. This isn't dichotomous - I can think your idea is bad and that Behaviour needs to improve some things. If you're so desperate to respond to this post (please don't, this conversation is achieving nothing at this point and I've already told you I don't wish to continue it), don't quote it, because then I get a needless ping.