BUFFS VS NERFS
I've been lurking in the forums for a while and decided to finally post. I've been wondering since a lot of people have been asking for changes to characters/ perks, does anyone think its better to bring things up to similar levels as other things (like they did with diversion) or bring things down (like they did with the pop). I'm not saying whether or not the changes were good, I am just saying would it be better to up perks or bring them down. I guess it is a better question would be where do you think the power level should lie?
Comments
I think that all depends on what level we want perks to be.
If say you want all killer perks to be monstrous shrine level or all survivor perks to be as strong as DS. Then no one would play the game.
I want perks to be viable, useful but not powerful. I want them to be good enough to be able to get practical use out of them but I don't want them to be must picks. The survivor meta is a prime example. Those perks clearly trump all others yet there are plenty other perks that are good but are overshadowed by the meta.
Neither buffs nor nerfs, uninstall ftw.
From a developer standpoint; in design, it is better and easier to make a character too strong than too weak.
However BHVR will leave something broken overpowered for weeks, months, even years- but give things that are too weak the tiniest of buffs that also take weeks, months, or even years.
The result isn't bad moves so much as improper action planning.
I think that they should buff or nerf depending on the situation, and what they are in relation to. Sometimes things are truly OP and need to be nerfed, and some things are truly underpowered, and need to be buffed. Most of the times nerfs are made far too liberally. If something has the slightest appearance of being OP, they waste no time nerfing it. Buffs are usually slower in coming.