Blueberry
Blueberry
About
- Username
- Blueberry
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289824#Comment_3289824
But only the way they work can make them weaker to swiffer than solos.
Well yeah that's the end goal and what were trying to figure out a solution here to accomplish. A difficult one.
-
Ruin, Pop, Thanata meta was way better than what we have now. Those at least all required you split pressure (more fun for survivors) and actually be skilled enough to get downs.
This is why we want perks that incentivize killers to split pressure and reward them for playing well to be the meta.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289776#Comment_3289776
So tell me, how are these weak to swiffer specifically?
I was saying end up weak. Meaning having them balanced at a level for solo which in turn makes them weaker vs swf. In other words, the balancing of them make them weaker vs swf, not in a literal sense of how they work.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289773#Comment_3289773
Not everyone wants to speak to random players, especially in a game as toxic as this. By building comms into the game by default, you then put the onus on the non-talking players to take up the offer of voice comms. This means players who don't opt-in to voice comms are making the decision to handicap their team, and will be treated as such by lobby dodging or harassment from the 'talkers'.
What's the other option?
-
@JPLongstreet said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289773#Comment_3289773
They aren't likely to add in comms, for varying reasons some good some weak af, but the biggie being it would be a nightmare to police and moderate. No way they want to have to do that as well.
Well that's the thing I don't think they should be moderating it. It's an online game, people need to toughen up. They already moderate way too heavily on the forums in post game chat. If people are going to interact with random people online they need to expect a level of trash talk, that's just baseline with all online games. None of these solutions are great, just the best I think we have the option of unfortunately.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289735#Comment_3289735
You didn't.
Isn't everything a solo queue crusher?
If anything is made not to be too strong in solo queue doesn't that end up making it quite weak against swf?
"doesn't that end up making it quite weak against swf"
I did.
-
@JPLongstreet said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289737#Comment_3289737
Hmmmmmm. The only way I can fathom is a change so that comms wouldn't matter either way.
The trigger for Eruption is the down, which comms can work around but solos cannot. That's the part needing attention, but what exact change so the perk wouldn't suddenly suck monkey ballz I do not know.
It's a tough one.
I personally would just like either comms built into the game for solos or information queues like they were planning and then simultaneously buff killers to swf level.
That would make it much easier to balance these perks.
-
@JPLongstreet said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289515#Comment_3289515
If possible I believe we should seek balance so no perk, item, ability, etc. proves to be a crusher for solos. Or newbies either.
I do recognize the use of comms presents unique challenges to making changes. However what shows itself to be a problem needs to be looked at regardless.
"If possible I believe we should seek balance so no perk, item, ability, etc. proves to be a crusher for solos. Or newbies either."
I agree. My post is basically trying to theorize how we would accomplish that without making swf stronger.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289702#Comment_3289702
No, by -your- standard. Pop still works fine. Thanatophobia still works, on the right killer. Coulrophobia still works with the right build. You asked for examples of perks that aren't hindered by comms, I gave you some. Just accept that the answer to the question you posed is not what you wanted to hear.
I said perks that are still good and not hindered by comms. Those perks are not good. Anyone with a decent amount of hours on both sides will tell you that.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289710#Comment_3289710
I dont mind, you seem to have something in mind, so just go ahead. Want to see all those strong pesky Survivor Perks which are so much better than Eruption.
You clearly didn't actually read my posts.
Where did I mention a single thing about literally any survivor perks whatsoever?
You're so quick to try and turn this into a survivor vs killer thing. All we talked about was that some killer perks are bad, that's literally it. Are you trying to just pick an argument out of nothing?
"all those strong pesky Survivor Perks which are so much better than Eruption."
No where on this post have we talked about any of this. My posts didn't even mention Eruption or survivor perks.
-
@Aven_Fallen said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289702#Comment_3289702
I want to have a good laugh, so please calculate.
Sure, which perks are you wanting to compare.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289641#Comment_3289641
Good perks by YOUR standard. But if you're comparing them all to Eruption, you're starting off on the wrong foot.
Not my standard. Objectively.
You can literally look at the numbers for each perk and calculate their impact compared to the rest.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289626#Comment_3289626
But that's not gonna do you any good.
Also, just because you think the perks are bad doesn't mean they don't qualify as perks that aren't countered by comms.
My point is to give me an example of a perk that is good that isn't countered by comms since that's the entire point of what you're wanting. If they aren't good perks then that defeats the point.
-
@Firellius said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289515#Comment_3289515
There's plenty of perks that comms don't affect, like PGTW, Coulrophobia, Thanatophobia, Bamboozle and way more. I'd say the majority of perks are not affected by comms. At the very least, not to the extent that Eruption is.
I mean no uses Pop anymore since it's bad, no one uses Coulrophobia since it's bad, no one uses Thanata anymore since it's bad. Bamboozle is the only good one and that is effected by comms because as soon as one survivor sees it he tells the whole team.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
Exactly, the unhealthy part of the perk should be looked at.
And I didn't word it well, but the "remove Eruption if regression hits zero" would be in addition to any of the other changes to the perk. I focus on that because once a gen hits zero it's impossible to even tell a "fully regressed gen" from "gen that has never had progress". So getting hit with the incapacitation when just starting a fresh gen is extra annoying.
Yeah the numbers are a bit weird to tweak there, and I didn't run any numbers beforehand. But you're right, the debuff would have to be like 100% slower speeds or much longer, which could still be annoying. But if it's instead only debuffing gen repair speed, you could choose to wait it out doing something else more productive potentially. Running rough numbers, you get 25s incapacitated time and about 7% regression during that window as is right now, so it's about 40.3 seconds to break even to before the eruption hit, if you start working on it immediately as incap ends.
With just a gen speed debuff tho, you'd have to buff the initial hit to account for no regression window, so 17%ish off the top. If you do 100% slower gen speed you break even at the end of about 30.6 seconds. So even 100% slower speed isn't quite enough to keep the numbers the same. But still might be an option, since it actively encourages the survivor to do anything else other than that gen.
And yeah, I think Blast Mine is actually balanced pretty well, even if the reasons Blast Mine are "fair" aren't exactly translatable to Eruption.
Those numbers would be close enough that I'd be alright with that change then. They'd make zero gen progress but at least during that time they could heal, boon, rescue, stop it from regresssing, ect.
I actually think more people hate it for the lack of counter play rather than the unhealthy "can't do anything" part though. I think that even with our change people would still hate the perk.
-
Hmm I see. So I'm gathering that the issue you have with it is less the lack of counter play or more so that it stops you from playing the game correct? IE get rid of the unhealthy part of the perk in other words
Wouldn't making the perk deactivate on the gen that reaches zero not actually be solving any of the perks problems though? All that would really be doing is just making it weaker and I feel like our objective isn't actually to weaken it, just to make it more healthy.
The first option as you mentioned is basically just Jolt but actually much worse so not too much a fan there.
The second one is probably the best option I've seen.
"this could be tuned numbers-wise to give Eruption the same amount of gen progress "lost""
This seems like it would be really hard to do though since to make 50% slower come out equal to being Incapacitated which would be even more than zero progress since it continues to go down while you can't do anything, you'd have to either make the initial explosion make the gen lose a lot more or make that 50% slower literally last like an entire minute or more to come out even. Still probably the best option though if hypothetically tuned right.
Third option I'd be fine with but I feel like most people already know it's been kicked from seeing the killer do it so most people would probably say this isn't enough.
I like Blast Mine as a perk and counters the meta for killers, I'd actually buff it more and make it activate quicker. I could see this perk becoming a living nightmare though if 4 survivors were running the buffed version though lol. Hilarious to watch I'm sure.
I feel like a token system like that would kill the perk tbh.
-
@Archol123 said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3288464#Comment_3288464
I actually think it is kind of fair that crouching can prevent a hit, because what else are you supposed to do? There is really not much you can do to prevent getting hit with it... I like the one about making zombies faster, maybe they will be more usefull then...
Would you be okay if you could crouch to avoid PH's ranged attack?
-
Bad.
The game was better before. You can even see this in the player base number fluctuations. The matchmaking was more all over the place, but that was a good thing because it helped cover up how ridiculously unbalanced the game is. SBMM brings that to the surface which hypothetically would be good if it was used to better balance things but since DBD doesn't balance top/down it's basically useless information that doesn't get used and just leaves high mmr games as much less fun.
Facing 2-4 SWF groups every game at high mmr isn't fun for most people.
-
@JPLongstreet said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/357403/stop-complaining-about-eruption
The vast majority of the complaints aren't due to perk synergy but from being more of a solo-queue crusher.
Isn't everything a solo queue crusher?
If anything is made not to be too strong in solo queue doesn't that end up making it quite weak against swf?
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289495#Comment_3289495
You still aren't understanding my point. Things that *remove a player from normal gameplay* that have no interaction or telegraph:
- Eruption.
Please add to the list.
I see what you mean by your criteria then.
So by that criteria what type of change would you be asking for as an example then?
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289466#Comment_3289466
I think I stated it pretty clearly: if you're going to remove the ability for a player to play the game, it should involve some kind of counter play. Most things in the game already do this because they involve interacting with another player: hooks, pallet and flashlight stuns, victor pouncing you, as examples.
There are some other things that can remove you from play that aren't directly interactable, usually things like killer powers. So Pinheads chain hunt, trapper traps, and pig reverse bear traps aren't directly interacting with a player, but these also have counter play and/or telegraphs. Even things like oppression don't trigger until you hit a skill check, which by default has a notification sound.
Incapacitated is inflicted by Pinheads chain hunt, victor pounce, and eruption. Eruption is the exception to this currently, where a player can be removed from normal gameplay without interacting with the killer or killer's power at all, and without a way to play around that.
Eruption is the outlier and the problem currently. And the example is there solely to reiterate how OP this effect is. If the "survivor version" is OP, then so is eruption, by your own admission.
No need to get sarcastic I literally just asked for clarity on your point.
"And the example is there solely to reiterate how OP this effect is. If the "survivor version" is OP, then so is eruption, by your own admission."
No, you didn't read what I typed correctly. Your example was an illustration of lack of counter play, not to the degree of how powerful the effect was. Also no, that isn't an equal comparison at all. Stop strawmaning. The effect you listed and Eruption are completely different things.
I'm trying to stay on topic here but you're being hyperbolic and misdirecting from the point of the conversation.
There are literally tons of things in the game without counter play that lack interaction. If you agree that everything should have counter play then why wouldn't you just say okay I agree with your post that everything should have counter play? I feel like you're trying to be combative when we're overall in agreement on counter play.
-
@AmpersandUnderscore said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289342#Comment_3289342
Remotely incapacitating a player via eruption isn't even interaction with the killer, it's just a 26 second stun, essentially randomly, even if you know for a fact the gen is affected by it. The only counter-play is "don't do that gen" which isn't always possible, especially if you're trying to avoid (or already in) a 3-gen scenario.
From a game development standpoint, the devs really need to think hard about including these kinds of non-interactive elements, especially when the stun lasts so long. If anything in the game needs counter-play, this is the kind of perk that should have it.
Or maybe I'm looking at it wrong and survivors should just have an identical perk: After healing any survivor for one health state (taking time to regress the killer's objective) the perk activates. Once you work on a gen for at least 8 seconds (doing your objective, in a way that can be done indefinitely), the killer (wherever they are) is stunned for 6.5 seconds and the perk deactivates. That sounds stupid and oppressive to me, but that would be the equivalent of current eruption.
So is your argument then that everything needs counter play? If that's the case then I'm fine with adding counter play to the perk, just understand that as I mentioned you're talking about needing to now add counter play to a TON of things in the game that already exist without counter play. If adding adding counterplay to Eruption means were adding counter play to everything else I'll take that trade. I just want standards were applying here to be applied evenly across the board.
I think you're example is pretty bad though. You're example isn't bad because there's no counter play as you're trying to make an example with, it's bad because the effect is OP. Those are two very different things.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289448#Comment_3289448
I play in the most disorganised, ineffective SWF on the occasion I do (and for that reason I'm usually against the "SWF are always OP" camp) but even we can, almost without fail, call out when we're going down 2-3 seconds before we do.
Your 90% is grossly overestimated.
We're just gonna have to disagree then.
-
@Seraphor said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3289434#Comment_3289434
It would be just as effective as a gen slowdown perk.
It would be a buff because instead of having a 50% success rate (only solos, never SWF) it would have a 100% success rate (no survivors can repair a blocked gen)
Are you ok with this perk being OP against solos and useless against SWF?
As a killer, I'm not, which is why I never run it. And why I hate it when I play solo survivor.
"It would be a buff because instead of having a 50% success rate (only solos, never SWF) it would have a 100% success rate (no survivors can repair a blocked gen)"
Even the vast majority of swf sweat squads are not organized enough to give the exact moment they're going down. So rather than a 50% as you mention you're looking at more of a 90%+ at least even against those groups. Also, for the that small margin of effective dodging by the swf the gen continues to regress while they cannot touch it with its current iteration. You are not getting that regression while blocked. Lastly as I already mentioned they are now able to heal or work on another gen if that gen was simply blocked instead.
We can talk about whether you want the perk changed or not that's fine, but saying it would be just as effective if not even better against swf by receiving that change is just objectively not true.
"Are you ok with this perk being OP against solos and useless against SWF?"
Why even ask a silly question like this that you already know the answer to? No one actually thinks this. It's also not even remotely in the atmosphere of useless against swf. The groups you're talking about are like the top .5%
-
@Seraphor said:
It doesn't need to be nerfed, it needs to be reworked so that it doesn't completely screw solo survivors while having virtually no effect on SWF.
Surely every killer main wants their perks to be effective against SWF?
If it blocked gens instead of inflicting incapacitated, it would be just as effective against SWF as it is against solos, without suffering any kind of nerf. It would actually be a buff.
"it would be just as effective against SWF as it is against solos, without suffering any kind of nerf. It would actually be a buff."
You mean that now instead of standing there they could heal instead?
How is that just as effective and how would that be a buff?
-
@Sonzaishinai said:
The fact that it works so much better vs solo's while doing almost nothing vs swf alone is enough reason for a change
Doesn't even matter if it's overperforming or not
Doesn't that basically apply to nearly every single perk in the game?
-
I can see people’s argument of no counter play, however does everything need counter play? There are literally tons of things in this game that don't have counter play. Instead of counter play things can have downsides or skill requirements. For example, current DH has no counter play as they can activate in your weapon lunge time which is why you can see killers literally wait out 10+ seconds on the survivors back and they still get it off timed correctly. Did this require a lot of skill in the timing from the survivor? Yes it did, but there wasn’t actually counter play from the killer there. The killer is just hoping for the survivor to mess up and use it early. Does Empathy need counter play? No, it doesn’t. It’s just an okay effect that isn’t too strong to warrant a counterplay. Eruption has the downside of having to waste time kicking all the gens you want it to effect, risking the chance of that being wasted time if the gen gets completed before you down someone AND requiring you to play well enough to down someone in the first place, ie doing nothing if you aren’t good. So my point is does everything need counter play? If your answer is yes then we have a TON of redesigning across the board to do, not just with Eruption. I’d argue not everything needs counter play. Some things can just have risks or downsides instead.
-
Infection needs to actually mean something.
Extra zombies aren't going to happen, they've already stated this. The best alternative route is trying to make those 2 we have, much better.
Firstly just at base kit, zombies need to move faster, have a larger detection radius and field of view. They also need to improve their AI detection. I shouldn't be able to work on a gen with the zombie on the opposite side and he have no idea, just silly.
- Per infected survivor zombies move 25% faster, gain increased field of view and detection radius
- Tentacle hits for infection shouldn't give a speed boost to the survivor
- Crouching shouldn't prevent getting hit by the tentacle. This is just stupid and shouldn't never existed in the first place.
- Cases should take longer to open and vaccines take longer to use
-
@EntitySpawn said:
Gen defense is needed as soon as people are slightly gen efficient and can loop.
You decide what level that is but it's how it goes, and The higher you go the more gen defense you need inorder to have a chance.
And if you go even higher then "scummy" tactics are needed.
I dont blame killers for using the perks because I understand if my team is even close to my skill then its usually a easy win if the killer doesnt have stacked slowdown.
Theres 0 reason to loose verse a killer with no gen defense unless you are way way lower than the killers skill. Most of the games I do lose are down to a very bad team, DC or suicide over the killer being really good or "op perks" as people say
Spot on.
-
@BougieBlackChick said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3288059#Comment_3288059
It’s not irrelevant tho. It’s irrelevant TO YOU. That’s my entire point. You can feel that way but others don’t snd their feelings are no less valid than yours just because you don’t think it’s a big deal.
By that argument everything in existence is "relevant". We try to be more objective though and term relevance in comparison. In comparison it would not be relevant by significance.
If you want to give some reasons as to why it is indeed significant I'm listening, but none has been presented thus far.
-
@brokedownpalace said:
"If you so desperately want killers not to run antigen builds, then your best bet is to make antigen perks base kit and remove anti-gen perks completely from the game."
That would literally kill the game.
I don't think he means literally "all" anti-gen perks but speaking in a more generality.
Using 4 anti-gen perks is how much slower the games should be going at base honestly. They do nothing to slow the game down if the killer is bad anyway.
-
@apathyinc said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/357296/4-antigen-perks-are-actually-good-thing
This seems a bit out of touch. All the things you have listed under "WITHOUT ANTIGEN BUILDS" happen now with most killers running 4 antigen perks.
There's a difference between "happen now" and "would happen more".
-
@ProfessorDunwich said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3288051#Comment_3288051
It’s all FOMO. Both event cosmetics and time limited cosmetics in the store demand that you stay engaged. What would happen if legacy cosmetics were in the store? I suspect a lot more people would have and enjoy them along with more money for BHVR. The only people who win with the current model are original players who enjoy their artificially scarce item. I have never understood the mindset of people who get joy out of something because others can’t have it, especially something that can easily be replicated.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3288055#Comment_3288055
That is not a justification. Also Neopets appears to be Free to Play. BHVR is employing F2P tactics in an honestly expensive game.
Why is it not? FOMO makes games more money, that just makes sense. They should do this.
Whether the game is free to play or paid is irrelevant to have FOMO sales. You're paying for the game, not a cosmetic.
-
Well said.
Also to add to that. Most all the anti-gen perks only give value if you play well, IE pressuring and getting downs. A bad players sees very, very little value out of any of those perks.
So if those anti-gen perks are actually slowing gens down significantly, it's because the survivors are getting outplayed significantly.
If people don't want perks rewarding killers for chases you will see more camping/tunneling.
The game is also all about time efficiency and as it stands most information/chase perks are way undertuned and don't save as much time as gen slow down perks do. This should illustrate how there's a lot of chase/information perks that need buffs to make them more competitive.
-
- Irrelevant. Just because they haven't been that way till now doesn't matter whatsoever. Games change directions all the time.
- Yes they shouldn't have backtracked so suddenly like that as it causes confusion/mistrust to players but people can and do change their minds. It happens. It's not a big deal. People are allowed to change their minds even if how it went down could have indeed been done better.
It went down poorly and should have been done differently but people are blowing this into way more than it actually is. Yes FOMO makes companies more money, not a surprise, most companies do this, they need to make money. Not a big deal. Honestly for how critical of BHVR I am they are extremely generous when it comes to their game pricing, like 70% of the game (not even getting into all the free cosmetics as well) you can even acquire for free through play time. They didn't need to do that.
This is wild for literally just some skins that can even be bought right now if people care about them so much.
People aren't ignoring the points people are making on this topic as the original post says, they're literally pointing out why it isn't a big deal.
-
Medkits and toolboxes are an issue, otherwise I agree. They say they want synergy but the only real synergies they let exist are garbage ones that no one uses anyway. Every time we get a decent synergy it gets nerfed out of existence. Bar some off exceptions it’s why you see the same cookie cutter build on every killer.
-
@Grandpa_Crack_Pipe said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3287982#Comment_3287982
It's been a year, man.
It wasn't your fault.
You have to forgive yourself and move on. You have to wake up.
Not sure what you’re talking about
-
It’s quite simple really. She used to be good enough to compete against really good survivors and then she was overly gutted and now she’s not. That’s it. Not viable anymore. She used to be able to make plays happen and now she’s in the other 90% of the killer roster that relies on survivor mistakes to win. She also used to feel rewarding since you felt like you felt like it was a mind game between the two players but now since they can hear you the whole time there is literally zero mind game whatsoever. All you’re doing doing is trying to phase faster than they can react since they now know where you are the entire time, hence why people run the speed addons on her during phase now. There used to be some unique game play in her design and it’s now a shell of that. The “ real spirit players play her now and the nerfs just removed the players that wanted easy wins” thing that tends to get regurgitated ad nauseum on the forums is not true whatsoever even though I’m sure you’ll hear it. People just have a loathing hate for Spirit and it’s easier to make excuses than it is to take responsibility for not knowing how to play against spirit. She’s still better than a large portion of the killer roster, that’s just not saying much.
-
The maps are significantly unbalanced. That’s probably the most blatant imbalance in the game.
-
Yeah hexes have been badly designed and undertuned for years. They whole hex system and hex perks in general needs a thorough rework.
-
Survivor sided and it’s not even close. Pretty much anyone with high play time on both sides will agree with this.
-
Seems justified to me, I’d let them bleed out too. They’re laying there for a reason which would make me suspect that build. If they didn’t want to bleed out they would move, that’s fair and the option is theirs. Same goes for the people that crawl to the far corner of the map where there isn’t a hook in range to wiggle off.
-
@C3Tooth said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3285993#Comment_3285993
So you mean put me in Swf and I win more
- Because suddenly good?
- Or because from the info I get?
Because you significantly increase your teammate quality by bypassing the rng of solo queue and that you have more information. Just because swf gives more info and that’s part of what gives that advantage it doesn’t mean solo queue needs it. The game game is currently balanced for solo queue, not swf, so if we were to go give solo queue swf info then killers would need significant buffs simultaneously but no one really talks about that, they just want solo queue buffs. The problem is that even if we were going to hypothetically buff killers simultaneously the amount of changes that would need at bhvrs pace of work is literally yearsss. Ie it doesn’t seem quite feasible.
-
@Devil_hit11 said:
I think its because if you give soloq base-kit kindred or base-kit global bond, it invalidates a large chunk of survivor perks in the game that you now need rework. My suggestion is to purpose all those perks into killer wall-hack perks that briefly show the killer aura. I think its just a lot of work.
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286249#Comment_3286249
I mean they buffed trapper last year. they gave him 2 traps base-kit and reworked his add-on's. It fixed absolutely nothing for what is wrong with trapper, but hey, it's progress I guess. Main problem with most of the killer is lack of skill expression in using their ability. Most of the killer have one dimensional powers with shallow skill-floors. Take Otz who is supposedly trapper main. How much better is Otz trapper compare to another player who has played trapper for 50 games? There is like no additional potency that makes you go like: Wow this guy is leagues above all other trappers! You can put a high MMR killer that is good at playing m1 killers and get them all to play trapper and there will not be much difference in performance level for trapper. Its like that for like 80% of the killers in the game. Repressed skill-cap on their ability.
Part of it is just wee-bit over tuned wraith. Survivor baby rage.
yeah that sounds pretty accurate to me. Most killers need a much higher skill cap. This gives them potential against good players but doesn’t hurt the lower players.
-
@ByeByeQ said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286001#Comment_3286001
But is he boring?
Besides having a 10 answer limit I didn't think to put Deathslinger on the list because I certainly don't find getting shot with a gun boring.
Extremely boring. Just hugging walls to keep constant loss of LoS and then randomly wiggling at random times in case he shoots is very boring and takes a lot of skill out of the interaction to me. This is different to say Huntress who does give reaction time to try and juke her at the right moment, that is fun.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286238#Comment_3286238
90% of the killer roster are not F tier, and that 10% are oppressive. The "X killer is viable against good survivors" usually translates to "I can destroy anyone except the 4man comp SWF that comes 1 every 100 games".
I wasn’t saying 90% are F tier, I was referencing Trapper since that’s what you mentioned. Except for a really good nurse the top 10% are not oppressive at all. I don’t mean viable by a 4 man comp squad, I mean viable by just an equally skilled survivor group.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286194#Comment_3286194
The issue is also that the 10% are also killers with extremely Game-breaking powers, Overpowered addons, laughable counterplay if use effective.
There is no buff possible that could ever make a trapper or a ghostface be at the same level to current Nurse or Blight.
They’ll never be a nurse but that also isn’t what anyone is asking for, simply to take them from F tier to A which is reasonable. I also wouldn’t say those 10% aren’t nearly as oppressive as you make them sound, most those top 10% are simply viable against good survivors.
-
@Rovend said:
https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/3286099#Comment_3286099
It depends. I dont see the stronger killers being affected by soloQ improvements.
But they really need to buff those weak M1 killers like trapper and ghostface
Well the issue is when we say “weaker killers” that’s like 90% of the killer roster.
-
Because they know they would simultaneous need to release significant killer buffs. That’s a lot to prepare for one patch.