Otz Makes A Fair Point In Regards To Perks... (And Probably My Worst Take Ever)
I think this can be said about both sides.
With DBD, it can be really hard to tell if the Survivor or Killer is using a certain perk, and if it becomes a requirement to play around it but you do not have enough information to know when/if you are suppose to play around it, it can create unfair scenarios.
Coup De Grace is just a single example, at least presented by Otz, but I can think of many other perks that function with that kind of issue.
With CDG, when a Generator is completed, you know they will have two stacks, the issue here is that once time has passed since the Generator is completed, you are unable to tell if the stacks have been used or not until it becomes too late. It turns the game into a guessing game as to rather you get hit or not.
CDG is not a strong perk anyways, but the counterplay to it is weird and awkward (sometimes even unfun) because of this issue.
Likewise, some Survivor perks have a similar issue.
Any Means Necessary is a decent example of it.
As Killer you have no way of telling this perk is in play at the start of the match. Sometimes you just leave dropped pallets around if it means you can get a hit or get into a chase that is beneficial, but it often can work against you and make things more difficult since Survivors can just reset the dropped pallets.
This perk can be both weak and strong depending on the situation and Killer, but it has a similar problem to CDG where the counterplay can be awkward, or in AMN's case, sometimes the counterplay can lead to future missed hits, downs, and hooks.
I think this can pose an issue with new players especially. The player onboarding process is already really bad, and having to learn hundreds of perks, dozens of Killer powers and items, addons to modify such, as well as seeing how perks interact with those things, it can be absolute hell for new players.
And for experienced players, it can also just be frustrating. You get punished for having a lack of information when the game is not giving you the information you need to begin with, and for many, it can just feel unfair and/or unfun.
EDIT: I do have some replies that at least make a bit more sense. Dear God what was a cooking when I made this post?
Comments
snowball is somewhat highly exaggerated on both sides however i cannot be bother to go into detail to why I think it is exaggerated.
Otz clearly states we should know of a perk's existence before it takes effect. I don't need the game to tell me everything. Once a perk is used and made clear I can use my own knowledge and brain to try and counter it.
Devour Hope was an example because it catches you out of nowhere sometimes and if the game told me the killer had that from the get go there's no use in it nor fun factor. This example parallel to Otz's statement.
So a part of my argument isn't that nothing should have a counterplay but rather let the player come up with it instead of exposing eachother's perks to one another for the sake of a guaranteed outplay.
Where do you draw the line with which perks need to be shown? Fun and fairness is very subjective in DbD.
Are we going to select these perks according to Otz and what he finds fun and fair?
in a case by case basis.
in this case, the perk needs a tell that it activated.
that simple
"You are wrong, but i can't be bothered to actually prove it, so i'm just gonna say you are wrong with no proof and leave, but believe me"
Yeah ok.
You're so delusional it hurts. Can't expect much else from an Otz fanboy though.
which perks then? you are informed of dissolution and i think even that's too much. that's just nerfing non meta killer perks because i don't know what perks would give that info other than spirit fury or coup.
"this specific perks needs a tell that it activated"
i personally think it's already omega obvious that a perk is in play for the most part. even info perks like aura reading and discordance. it can only be a new player friendly feature but alas, they need to be familiar with perks and it'll take some time.
"which perks then?" is a question that does not follow from what I said.
I agree, dissolution should not inform the survivors of it's existence. you should see the effect, and be aware of it later.
this one, is not obvious. you just have to assume it is there or spend a bunch of time in chase to "confirm" it. it can and will give several false positives and negatives.
other haste perks are obvious, you just look at the survivor and they are zooming.
3% is not easy to tell unless you spent A LOT of time in the game. and the other haste perks, have an obvious activation window, this one is just on.
the tell could be as simple as a survivor with made for this having a slighty different running animation. but something has to show it is in play
What prevents me from saying "Dissolution isn't obvious to me and I want the game to inform me if the killer has that perk because I find it unfun"? Do you see what I mean when I say where do you draw the line with Otz's idea? It's all subjective and nobody in this community has the unbiasedness to decide "in a case by case basis".
you get hit, and a pallet breaks after you vault it.
the tell is there and is quite obvious.
even if you are unnaware of the perk, you will see that the pallet broke, and you can check the end game screen to read the perk that caused it.
so, basic awareness and reading perks is what prevents you from saying it.
I do not see what you mean cause your example is just terrible.
"So basic awareness and reading perks is what prevents you from saying it."
Thank you. You proved my point.
only if your point makes no sense.