The wrong POV of "compensate"
Hello. How's everyone? I hope you've been well... this thread is not a rant nor anything... just to say. There were many stuff that were considered OP in dead by daylight (and still there are a few) but when someone wants a nerf, I always see the "then, you should add this effect to compensate" , if a perk is nerfed, it is or should be because it's overperforming, this means is stronger than intended, so there's no need to "compensate", because when you say compensate, you mean to add a buff... basically, not wanting the perk// add-on to lose his power, but the main idea is that said perk or effect becomes bearable, somehow...
Of course, there are balance issues and there will always be in DbD but there are also perks underpowered and those don't need a nerf to "compensate", because that's what underpowered means... so if a perk is called OP in the survivor side and people are calling for a nerf... your argument should be why this perk/add-on is not OP and not... ok, then let's compensate... or what is worse, okay, then let's nerf this killer perk too. It's fair. Isn't it?
Have a great one, guys and gals!
Comments