PBlackII
PBlackII
About
- Username
- PBlackII
- Joined
- Visits
- 0
- Last Active
- —
Comments
-
Can we not? Stranger Things sucks.
-
I've heard many argue that both of them actually have the shining, but Jack being corrupted; so eh. Also, I would imagine that Stephen King would probably not mind a video game using his character, especially if it's additional revenue.
For expeditious recovery, the intent is that the perk is applied to when there is progress, not when it's paused. I suppose though an alternate is removing the time it takes to recover from a failed skill check.
Ultimately I would enjoy more spooky killers, they're the ones that are fun to play against. I felt they were getting closer with ghost face, but there are some drawbacks to him that prevent him from being as scary as say a tier 1 myers in the game. Since BHVR doesn't seem to have a problem with putting powers more or less in the hands of survivors, the core killer concept would seem like an actual possibility—even if it's not manifested as the characters from the Shining.
-
Stealth killers are not remotely OP due to their inability to handle pallet loops effectively or apply map pressure, this is why the killer tier list is in its current state. I completely disagree that silent builds are anywhere remotely 'overpowered', I think they make it fun because removing the cues actually makes the game spooky (e.g. tier i myers). Furthermore, I wish that the red stain was only a thing at ranks 20-11 and would disappear in ranks 10-1. I say this as a high level survivor main with many hours into the game.
Yes, I would have each survivor have their own independent shining meter. But I should clarify through an example with how the ability would work:
Survivor has a shining meter that goes up as long as they're outside of the terror radius. Once it increases past 50%, they personally cannot tell if they're in the terror radius or not; however, their meter would still decrease if they're within the terror radius. If it goes under 50%, they resume hearing the terror radius.The effects are only active so long as the meter reaches a certain threshold.
I wouldn't do only the hedge maze for a few reasons: (1) by itself it would be pretty boring aesthetically, (2) lack of open space makes for pretty frustrating game play and would probably encourage tunneling, (3) the maze itself in the movie is actually quite massive, so having it only partially available would be more feasible.
-
This is pretty common now, in the past few hours I've lost three pips as a result of this.
-
Basically:
-
@FinnishMoose said:
First off, I'm happy to see you took the time to write a well-thought out post, it's great to read genuine feedback. I'm also sorry when people aren't constructive in return, but what can you do.Anyways, my thoughts on this:
I'm a Killer main (rank 1 whenever I get to play for a decent amount of time, for whatever that's worth), and I play a good amount of Hillbilly and not much at all of Nurse. That being the case, I can't speak much to Nurse, but in my opinion she is very unique and is a challenging killer to learn and play, so I feel that her powerful, unique strengths are justified by her difficulty. I don't really like the idea of hindering her blinks because it would be pretty hard to get her power into the sweet spot between being an irrelevant change that isn't meaningfully different from her current state and making Nurse feel hobbled due to restrictions on her power (which, by design, she is incredibly reliant on). It's a tough balance but in my experience, I think she is alright as she is. Changing her power is tough because Nurse relies on her power more (arguably the most) out of any killer in the game. Thus if a really in-depth rework to her isn't an option, I feel like it's best to leave her as is.As for Hillbilly, I agree that close-range chainsawing is a little lame but the 12 meter minimum doesn't seem like the best solution to me. Instead, I think his power should have "charge" akin to Legion and Spirit. Whenever the chainsaw is revving-up or is being used for sprinting, the power gauge should drain. Whenever that isn't happening, it recharges. He can use it anytime but only for as long as the power gauge allows (ie. He doesn't need a full gauge to use it, unlike Spirit). I like this solution because it limits his map pressure a bit - as he would have limited charge to patrol the whole map as he currently can - and it means that he can't just chase survivors with a revved-up chainsaw until he spots a good chance to unleash the one-hit at close range. By tying his power to a gauge, he would need to choose his usage of the Chainsaw more wisely. I also think the implementation of a gauge makes for fun add-ons, like "Your power gauge fully recharges when you hit a survivor" or "hitting an obstacle refunds some of your power gauge," fun stuff like that which would be more worth trying than just add-ons that reduce the noise of the chainsaw or whatever.
Just my thoughts! Thanks again for your feedback.
Thank you, this is a good response overall and would be glad to respond. In general, I don't sense that the nurse is good as is. I acknowledge she has a large learning curve, but I think that curve is the vast majority of that difficulty. I guess for me I want to reward nurse players not for knowing nurse well, but rather playing the game well. I disagree with the notion that the change wouldn't be meaningfully different, as it mostly targets spammy blinks and forces nurses to be mindful of their resources, but I would agree that a good nurse main wouldn't have much issue adjusting to this.
Just so we are clear, are you essentially saying that he can only use his chainsaw so long as he has fuel? I do actually have an objection if that is your suggestion. I would think that this actually encourages the strategy that I see as problematic such that I probably wouldn't use the ability to traverse the map and would only save it to down a survivor. Additionally this detracts from the uniqueness from Leatherface in that now you have two killers that would mostly use their ability for close range, so I would like to instead encourage Hillbilly to have his ability to focus on his map pressure strength. So ultimately I'd like both killers to feel uniquely different from each other in terms of their core game play. I do like the recharge on hit idea, though if one implemented your suggestion, I think that recharge should be built in rather than purely through add-ons. Just a reminder though, I'm only saying that the requirement for instant down is 12 metres; this by no means that you couldn't down an injured survivor with it—in case one is worrying about deviousness points.
@rapido said:
PLEASE NERF NURSE
I DONT UNDERSTAND WHY DEVS IGNORE THIS CANCER"lol git gud"
I mean, I just don't think securing her mechanics should be a golden ticket to domination.@Tru3Lemon said:
@PBlackII said:
@Tru3Lemon said:
i do agree that billy and nurse needs to balance
billy:needs to be slow while hes charging the chainsaw
nurse: nerf her omegablink or rework itthats it
He's already slow as he's charging. As far as that nurse suggestion goes, that's why my proposed idea does. It would force her to manage her max blinks at a time rather than reliably wait for the wither to wear off and have at it again to secure any failure.
@RushingSnipeBob said:
So with those changes we need to "balance" survivors too:- survivors can run only when in the 12m radius of the killer
- survivors can use pallets/windows based on tokens, so they need to manage this.
Seems fine?
Nah, the dynamic for the survivors is fundamentally different as they don't really have abilities inherent to each character. Tokens on survivors for pallets and windows is already limited with entity blocking consecutive window vaults and having a finite number of pallets. Good attempt on the trolling though.
wrong billy dosent go slow while charging dont defend that subject cuz its not the only penalty that he has its hitting objects thats it i can sense that you are defending killers since i see that you are a killer main
He moves at 100 ms when charging up his chainsaw.
-
It would appear reasonable to give a base movement speed boost to nurse if a token system was implemented.
-
@Mister_xD said:
@PBlackII said:
@Mister_xD said:
@PBlackII said:
It's insulting to not read what I have painstakingly explained and just vapidly regurgitate the same response as every other troll, what makes you think I'll treat you nicely?oh, i have not been insulting to you in any way. i just made my point clear, that it is the wrong move to nerf killers in order to get a balance between all of them. instead, you should bring every killer up to their level, so it didnt really matter if i read the whole post or not, i just said that i disagree with the nerfs to certain killers. and there is a big ptoblem with your post there, making it seem like your only after nerfs, but ill come to that a little later.
There are already countless threads for how to boost other killers. I limited the discussion to the title of the thread—I know, what a crazy concept.
what if i told you, that i did the same?
see, this is the big problem i was talking about. your whole headline only promises us balance suggestions for nurse and billy, and so do your suggestions. none of these actually refer to the other killers in any way. also, i have seen countless of these "nerf killer XYZ" threats, so i was not in the mood to read a huge wall of text, just to get the same result as in any other of these threats: killer XYZ needs a nerf. so i, and many others too, read the title and already knew what i was going to write. it would be something like "stop asking for nerfs until this whole mess of a game is balanced". however, i decided to read into your text a little, up to the point where you mentioned that you want all the killers to be on the same level. this was, where i scrolled down to your actual suggestions, the things that the headline promised me to find. and as ive expected from the very start, you asked for nerfs.
at that time i wrote my first comment.Unfortunately, a lot of the initial responses demonstrated an acute lack of reading comprehension so I was pretty much forced to create a wall of text to replace the original neutral/simple post.
and as ive stated before, this is where you lost a lot of us.
next time, just rename the whole discussion into something like "my ideas to fix the overall killer balance" and only take nurse, billy and maybe a weak killer who should be buffed as examples. that way, you would have gotten many more to read this wall of text. however, thanks to the irritating headline, that did not happen.Thus I'm keeping my scope mostly to Hillbilly and Nurse within this discussion and would entertain boosting the killers that most regard as currently #########.
then make this clear asap. make clear that you want to balance every killer and not only nerf the top two.
While theoretically I agree that getting a perfect balance among different kits among killers isn't going to happen, I can say you can always strive towards that direction—especially if there already exists fairly clear distinction of tiers; in essence, I don't agree with the argument: differences will always pose challenges to balancing, so don''t bother balancing.
i never said that you shouldnt try to balance the killers out. i simply stated that it will not be possible to get every killer on the exact same power level. the perfect example would be survivors: every survivor is the exact same, however, many players prefer claudette over other survivors. why is that so? she has the exact same stats as any other survivor out there. the answer is easy: she has an advantage over the others simply by her design. and it will be the same with killers. lets just assume that every killer in this game would have the exact same stats and no power available. guess what? you would almost exclusively see pigs, hags, legions and freddys. why? because they are smaller than other killers and harder to spot on the distance, giving them an advantage over the other killers just by their design.
i never said you shouldnt try to aim for a better balance though. you completely took that out of context.Concerning Hillbilly, I don't agree that landing his chainsaw would be impossible. Survivors seldom move "randomly", they typically try to create a pattern to mislead the killer and try to determine how to fake them out with their movements—even if they are panicked. It is up to the killer then to pick up on this and down them. I witness Billies downing good survivors with their ability that isn't at extremely close proximity—it generally happens a couple times in each match. Every player has tendencies, a good player can read those tendencies and adjust their game play.
believe me: being forced to be at least 12 meters away from them would make this a pretty impossible task against and decent survivor. this would give billy the exact same problem leatherface has with his chainsaw: he could only take down players when he cathes them in an open field. or how do you expect me to get a chainsaw hit, if there is even a freakin corner near them? 12 m is a lot. its half the hags terror radius. and all survivors would have to do to avoid getting hit would be making a 90 degree turn to the left or right and you wont hit them, due to the miserable steering ability billy has with the chainsaw. again: billy would drop into low mid tier at best with this nerf.also, i like how you said that "good players simply adjust their gameplay". have you ever tried to adjust your chainsawsprint when someone 90 degree turns you? id like to see that.
Nurse being a beast is pretty common knowledge at this point, and if a player is new to the game, they generally quickly figure that out—all it takes is for them to face one good nurse to make them go "holy [BAD WORD]." I am highly dubious of the claim that a token system would make the task too daunting, especially since it mostly punishes spamming behavior. I just don't think she should be a god once you figure her out.
i dont know why you thought you'd have to bring this up, but yes. everyone knows that she is the strongest killer. however, only very few can actually play her. and by scaring away newer players i didnt mean sacring them away cuz they think the killer is #########, but because they cant handle the killer. nurse is extremely hard to master and the lease effective killer in the game when you cant play her, so making her even more difficult will only make a baby nurses life more painful, while a godlike nurse will still easily dominate the entire game. a really good nurse doesnt need these fast chainblinks you are trying to prevent. they blink twice and they hit you. one blink for getting close and one blink for catching you, thats what they do. only bad nurses actually use the "blinkspam", because they [BAD WORD] up and need to adjust their mistake, so you would only end up punishing them.
this is a problem i adress a lot when people say that nurse needs nerfs: nurse is already extremely hard to play and you need to think of the newer players too.
and btw, this is the same argument that is brought up by survivors all the time when its about nerfing something like pallets or windows: that the majority of the playerbase is not as good with these things as the person who asked for the nerf claims and that he should think about the lower ranked survivors too.
exact same argument.i hope you made it through my own little wall of text (:
pls try to not be insulting in your answer, if you will answer that is, and thanks in advance ^^No, you're doing it again, your "point", as in, 'no man, don't nerf them, boost the other killers to their level' has been said over and over. And I explained many times why it doesn't matter either way if you nerf or boost them, what matters is the level of burden created by choosing which killers to nerf and boost; e.g. it is more work to boost 12 killers than it is to nerf 2 of them, you clearly didn't read because you would've known that I made this point multiple times. So yes, it is insulting and continues to be insulting because you're effectively communicating "I'm just going to cherry pick the points I know how to argue" even though if you remove its context then it effectively creates a strawman. That part that you skipped over was a pretty important rationale behind the choices, and while you do admit to being a lazy reader, it doesn't suddenly forgive you for needlessly being ######### and dodging the context of my arguments.
The post initially began with only the Nurse and Hillbilly suggestion, it was quoted earlier. Unfortunately, the knee jerk response is to shitpost and admonish any thread that remotely suggests a nerf to these precious two killers. As a result, I had to articulate each step of my arguments and deconstruct shitposts as they came by, and eventually that too creates a wall of text that nobody wants to read through, so I edited the original post to include further context and justification for my approach to the nerfs. It's annoying that I do that to actually help readers, but then they essentially go, "tl;dr stop asking for nerfs and git gud lulz".
In regards to your balance platitude and pedantry, it's a "no [BAD WORD] #########, sherlock" point to say the perfect balance is unachievable. Who the [BAD WORD] tries to argue that? Nobody here is asking for perfect balance. You trying to even further explain such a trite statement by saying choosing graphically less noticeable killers creates imbalance is childishly shortsighted and an example as to why I'm not taking anything out of context. If you notice that a killer is visually less apparent then you find ways to make them more apparent so long as that is the only thing that is contributing to their greater success rate. What a thought!
For your other point for Hillbilly, you are essentially arguing "but Billy might miss because it's hard!" There should generally be a chance factor involved, with proper strategy and skill you learn to sway the probability in your favor. This isn't rocket science. Yes, there will be scenarios where you will miss, yes there are scenarios where then the chainsaw wouldn't down them instantly with the nerf I suggested but instead only injure them; but to pretend that a survivor will never be in a scenario where they can be hit with a distanced chainsaw is being intellectually dishonest. Hook survivors in areas where the pallet loop gets exhausted or in open areas whenever possible, catch survivors that are searching for generators, catch them when they accidentally find themselves in a route where the pallets have been used, catch them when they make mistakes, these are all scenarios where a 12m requirement for an instant down is not impossible.
There are a lot more competent nurse players than you think. Yes, good ones don't necessarily rely on spamming teleports, but they can always be safe since that is a resource available to them; i.e. there's very little punishment for if they mess up. I completely understood you when you said that baby nurses would be scared off because they would find this additional requirement daunting because the learning curve for her is already difficult, but I don't see any compelling reason to support that. The nerf is essentially just saying "hey, manage your blinks, don't spam them," not a level of Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes internalized into a killer.
I should add I'm not particularly ardent on the exact figures provided itself, as they are more or less to convey a general idea than a strict stat. So when I say 12 metres, I think that's fairly reasonable because it allows reaction timing for survivors and aiming for the Hillbilly, as opposed to mindlessly running up behind them and just holding down that M2 for that sweet unavoidable chainsaw instadown. When I say have nurse recharge blink tokens at 8 seconds, it's because I figure that would probably be enough to a blink set iteration of three, two, then one if it were spammed. Rather than three, three, three, etc.
so in short:
you repeated your previous arguments and completely ignored / misinterpretated mine.
you put words in my mouth i've never said (like this "but to pretend that a survivor will never be in a scenario where they can be hit with a distanced chainsaw is being intellectually dishonest.")
and you dont seem to have a good knowledge over the killer side of this game.i will not continue this pointless discussion, as you've proven to not be able to handle critisism on your idea.
i still wish you a good day / night, cuz i am actually a nice person
and i will (hopefully not) see you around.No, my idea as a whole has not been argued, I have only seen strawman or inane arguments. I didn't ignore any of your arguments nor misinterpreted them. Saying that 12 metres is too far because the survivor might suddenly dodge the ability because hillbilly is hard to steer—which is literally moving your mouse left or right—is hardly a point. What? A survivor dodging? Why I never! It's frustrating to have to repeat my previous points because you'd purposefully and willfully cherry picked without the context—you even stated you skipped over stuff from laziness. I have played all the killers, all of them are prestiged for me, so saying I don't have a 'good knowledge over the killer side of this game' is also a hasty assumption.
It's also pretty ######### to say that I can't handle criticism to my idea when it's never actually been presented. People have stated pointless statements like "nah, dont nerf billy and nurse, boost everybody else" or variations of that repeatedly. I provide well reasoned arguments back to specifics and the response is "well, you obviously don't play killer"—which cool attack me not the argument, neat strategy. So in some weird irony you say you're a nice person and then exit the thread by saying that you won't hopefully not see me around which is also pretty ######### behavior, but it's okay, I guess I've come to expect ######### people to do ######### things.
-
@Mister_xD said:
@PBlackII said:
It's insulting to not read what I have painstakingly explained and just vapidly regurgitate the same response as every other troll, what makes you think I'll treat you nicely?oh, i have not been insulting to you in any way. i just made my point clear, that it is the wrong move to nerf killers in order to get a balance between all of them. instead, you should bring every killer up to their level, so it didnt really matter if i read the whole post or not, i just said that i disagree with the nerfs to certain killers. and there is a big ptoblem with your post there, making it seem like your only after nerfs, but ill come to that a little later.
There are already countless threads for how to boost other killers. I limited the discussion to the title of the thread—I know, what a crazy concept.
what if i told you, that i did the same?
see, this is the big problem i was talking about. your whole headline only promises us balance suggestions for nurse and billy, and so do your suggestions. none of these actually refer to the other killers in any way. also, i have seen countless of these "nerf killer XYZ" threats, so i was not in the mood to read a huge wall of text, just to get the same result as in any other of these threats: killer XYZ needs a nerf. so i, and many others too, read the title and already knew what i was going to write. it would be something like "stop asking for nerfs until this whole mess of a game is balanced". however, i decided to read into your text a little, up to the point where you mentioned that you want all the killers to be on the same level. this was, where i scrolled down to your actual suggestions, the things that the headline promised me to find. and as ive expected from the very start, you asked for nerfs.
at that time i wrote my first comment.Unfortunately, a lot of the initial responses demonstrated an acute lack of reading comprehension so I was pretty much forced to create a wall of text to replace the original neutral/simple post.
and as ive stated before, this is where you lost a lot of us.
next time, just rename the whole discussion into something like "my ideas to fix the overall killer balance" and only take nurse, billy and maybe a weak killer who should be buffed as examples. that way, you would have gotten many more to read this wall of text. however, thanks to the irritating headline, that did not happen.Thus I'm keeping my scope mostly to Hillbilly and Nurse within this discussion and would entertain boosting the killers that most regard as currently #########.
then make this clear asap. make clear that you want to balance every killer and not only nerf the top two.
While theoretically I agree that getting a perfect balance among different kits among killers isn't going to happen, I can say you can always strive towards that direction—especially if there already exists fairly clear distinction of tiers; in essence, I don't agree with the argument: differences will always pose challenges to balancing, so don''t bother balancing.
i never said that you shouldnt try to balance the killers out. i simply stated that it will not be possible to get every killer on the exact same power level. the perfect example would be survivors: every survivor is the exact same, however, many players prefer claudette over other survivors. why is that so? she has the exact same stats as any other survivor out there. the answer is easy: she has an advantage over the others simply by her design. and it will be the same with killers. lets just assume that every killer in this game would have the exact same stats and no power available. guess what? you would almost exclusively see pigs, hags, legions and freddys. why? because they are smaller than other killers and harder to spot on the distance, giving them an advantage over the other killers just by their design.
i never said you shouldnt try to aim for a better balance though. you completely took that out of context.Concerning Hillbilly, I don't agree that landing his chainsaw would be impossible. Survivors seldom move "randomly", they typically try to create a pattern to mislead the killer and try to determine how to fake them out with their movements—even if they are panicked. It is up to the killer then to pick up on this and down them. I witness Billies downing good survivors with their ability that isn't at extremely close proximity—it generally happens a couple times in each match. Every player has tendencies, a good player can read those tendencies and adjust their game play.
believe me: being forced to be at least 12 meters away from them would make this a pretty impossible task against and decent survivor. this would give billy the exact same problem leatherface has with his chainsaw: he could only take down players when he cathes them in an open field. or how do you expect me to get a chainsaw hit, if there is even a freakin corner near them? 12 m is a lot. its half the hags terror radius. and all survivors would have to do to avoid getting hit would be making a 90 degree turn to the left or right and you wont hit them, due to the miserable steering ability billy has with the chainsaw. again: billy would drop into low mid tier at best with this nerf.also, i like how you said that "good players simply adjust their gameplay". have you ever tried to adjust your chainsawsprint when someone 90 degree turns you? id like to see that.
Nurse being a beast is pretty common knowledge at this point, and if a player is new to the game, they generally quickly figure that out—all it takes is for them to face one good nurse to make them go "holy [BAD WORD]." I am highly dubious of the claim that a token system would make the task too daunting, especially since it mostly punishes spamming behavior. I just don't think she should be a god once you figure her out.
i dont know why you thought you'd have to bring this up, but yes. everyone knows that she is the strongest killer. however, only very few can actually play her. and by scaring away newer players i didnt mean sacring them away cuz they think the killer is #########, but because they cant handle the killer. nurse is extremely hard to master and the lease effective killer in the game when you cant play her, so making her even more difficult will only make a baby nurses life more painful, while a godlike nurse will still easily dominate the entire game. a really good nurse doesnt need these fast chainblinks you are trying to prevent. they blink twice and they hit you. one blink for getting close and one blink for catching you, thats what they do. only bad nurses actually use the "blinkspam", because they [BAD WORD] up and need to adjust their mistake, so you would only end up punishing them.
this is a problem i adress a lot when people say that nurse needs nerfs: nurse is already extremely hard to play and you need to think of the newer players too.
and btw, this is the same argument that is brought up by survivors all the time when its about nerfing something like pallets or windows: that the majority of the playerbase is not as good with these things as the person who asked for the nerf claims and that he should think about the lower ranked survivors too.
exact same argument.i hope you made it through my own little wall of text (:
pls try to not be insulting in your answer, if you will answer that is, and thanks in advance ^^No, you're doing it again, your "point", as in, 'no man, don't nerf them, boost the other killers to their level' has been said over and over. And I explained many times why it doesn't matter either way if you nerf or boost them, what matters is the level of burden created by choosing which killers to nerf and boost; e.g. it is more work to boost 12 killers than it is to nerf 2 of them, you clearly didn't read because you would've known that I made this point multiple times. So yes, it is insulting and continues to be insulting because you're effectively communicating "I'm just going to cherry pick the points I know how to argue" even though if you remove its context then it effectively creates a strawman. That part that you skipped over was a pretty important rationale behind the choices, and while you do admit to being a lazy reader, it doesn't suddenly forgive you for needlessly being ######### and dodging the context of my arguments.
The post initially began with only the Nurse and Hillbilly suggestion, it was quoted earlier. Unfortunately, the knee jerk response is to shitpost and admonish any thread that remotely suggests a nerf to these precious two killers. As a result, I had to articulate each step of my arguments and deconstruct shitposts as they came by, and eventually that too creates a wall of text that nobody wants to read through, so I edited the original post to include further context and justification for my approach to the nerfs. It's annoying that I do that to actually help readers, but then they essentially go, "tl;dr stop asking for nerfs and git gud lulz".
In regards to your balance platitude and pedantry, it's a "no ######### #########, sherlock" point to say the perfect balance is unachievable. Who the ######### tries to argue that? Nobody here is asking for perfect balance. You trying to even further explain such a trite statement by saying choosing graphically less noticeable killers creates imbalance is childishly shortsighted and an example as to why I'm not taking anything out of context. If you notice that a killer is visually less apparent then you find ways to make them more apparent so long as that is the only thing that is contributing to their greater success rate. What a thought!
For your other point for Hillbilly, you are essentially arguing "but Billy might miss because it's hard!" There should generally be a chance factor involved, with proper strategy and skill you learn to sway the probability in your favor. This isn't rocket science. Yes, there will be scenarios where you will miss, yes there are scenarios where then the chainsaw wouldn't down them instantly with the nerf I suggested but instead only injure them; but to pretend that a survivor will never be in a scenario where they can be hit with a distanced chainsaw is being intellectually dishonest. Hook survivors in areas where the pallet loop gets exhausted or in open areas whenever possible, catch survivors that are searching for generators, catch them when they accidentally find themselves in a route where the pallets have been used, catch them when they make mistakes, these are all scenarios where a 12m requirement for an instant down is not impossible.
There are a lot more competent nurse players than you think. Yes, good ones don't necessarily rely on spamming teleports, but they can always be safe since that is a resource available to them; i.e. there's very little punishment for if they mess up. I completely understood you when you said that baby nurses would be scared off because they would find this additional requirement daunting because the learning curve for her is already difficult, but I don't see any compelling reason to support that. The nerf is essentially just saying "hey, manage your blinks, don't spam them," not a level of Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes internalized into a killer.
I should add I'm not particularly ardent on the exact figures provided itself, as they are more or less to convey a general idea than a strict stat. So when I say 12 metres, I think that's fairly reasonable because it allows reaction timing for survivors and aiming for the Hillbilly, as opposed to mindlessly running up behind them and just holding down that M2 for that sweet unavoidable chainsaw instadown. When I say have nurse recharge blink tokens at 8 seconds, it's because I figure that would probably be enough to a blink set iteration of three, two, then one if it were spammed. Rather than three, three, three, etc.
-
@Mister_xD said:
@PBlackII said:
@Mister_xD said:
honestly, nerfing killers in order to get more killer variety in this game is the wrong path.
buff the others instead.
as an example, you will see a lot more hags at rank 1, as she got really good with her buff.Already addressed this, learn to read.
oh i do read.
your title says you have suggestions for nurse and billy.
when i came, i saw a huge wall of text, read some of it and then jumped to the interesting parts:
your suggestions.
and you only suggested nerfs for billy and nurse, but no buffs for weaker killers, which would have been essential for a threat that aims for a balane between the killers that puts all of them in the same spot.besides that, its literally impossible to have every killer do something else while all being on the exact same power level. you will ALWAYS have a better and a worse killer, no matter what. and if it was just by design. someone might be darker, someone might be smaller, etc.
now, lets take a look at your suggestions:
the 12 meter thing for billy is something i do not like at all. it would be way too hard to actually hit a chainsaw now. with other words: the chainsaw would only be able to get used for map pressure and getting deviousness points with it would be very hard, almost impossibe.
you can avoid the chainsaw attack already, just by moving unpredictable in front of him, so he runs in a wrong direction. good billys might still hit though.
you would literally remove a huge aspect of billys power with this nerf and probaply make him one of the worst picks, especially with killers like spirit, huntress or myers around.the nurse one is one where i cant rly say much about, as im not a nurs eplayer myself. however, she does need a nerf. im just unsure how this would affect baby nurses. nurse is already a very hard character to play, making her even harder might scare newer players away, as the learning curve for nurse is extreme. you start as a joke, but end up as a god.
happy now?
i gave you a full feedback.PS: try to be less insulting next time (:
It's insulting to not read what I have painstakingly explained and just vapidly regurgitate the same response as every other troll, what makes you think I'll treat you nicely?
There are already countless threads for how to boost other killers. I limited the discussion to the title of the thread—I know, what a crazy concept. Unfortunately, a lot of the initial responses demonstrated an acute lack of reading comprehension so I was pretty much forced to create a wall of text to replace the original neutral/simple post. Thus I'm keeping my scope mostly to Hillbilly and Nurse within this discussion and would entertain boosting the killers that most regard as currently #########. While theoretically I agree that getting a perfect balance among different kits among killers isn't going to happen, I can say you can always strive towards that direction—especially if there already exists fairly clear distinction of tiers; in essence, I don't agree with the argument: differences will always pose challenges to balancing, so don''t bother balancing.
Concerning Hillbilly, I don't agree that landing his chainsaw would be impossible. Survivors seldom move "randomly", they typically try to create a pattern to mislead the killer and try to determine how to fake them out with their movements—even if they are panicked. It is up to the killer then to pick up on this and down them. I witness Billies downing good survivors with their ability that isn't at extremely close proximity—it generally happens a couple times in each match. Every player has tendencies, a good player can read those tendencies and adjust their game play.
Nurse being a beast is pretty common knowledge at this point, and if a player is new to the game, they generally quickly figure that out—all it takes is for them to face one good nurse to make them go "holy #########." I am highly dubious of the claim that a token system would make the task too daunting, especially since it mostly punishes spamming behavior. I just don't think she should be a god once you figure her out.
-
@xllxENIGMAxllx said:
I stop talking in this thread i never seen so much BS in one place don't tag me again.Just making a blanket statement saying it's all BS with literally zero valid counterarguments is the strategy of an incompetent troll.
@Mister_xD said:
honestly, nerfing killers in order to get more killer variety in this game is the wrong path.
buff the others instead.
as an example, you will see a lot more hags at rank 1, as she got really good with her buff.Already addressed this,,
@ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:
@PBlackII said:
KingB said:No. Billy's chainsaws would be impossible to land unless playing a braindead survivor. And his chainsaws are already hard to hit against good survivors unless they are caught in the open. Nurse is the hardest killer to play in game, she's supposed to be rewarding.
They are not "impossible" to land, and you're essentially arguing at this point that the only way to land his chainsaw is to be right next to the survivor. As far as nurse goes there should be reward in playing the character successfully, not necessarily having done the learning curve and crutching on the mechanics.
bloxe said:
Have you ever played with any of them?? I'm a rank 1 killer and I hate both those killers because of how easy it is to counter them. Combine that with the learning required, and you see that they are good because people put effort to learning and evolving them.
Easy to counter them? Are you high? They're literally played the most because they're the easiest to get the most success with the least effort. The thing about learning curves is once you pass it, the challenge begins to disappear. I'm not saying that the challenge is forever gone, but you remember the strategy and it makes it easier to deal with survivors without having to put too much thought into it. There is a reason why there are countless memes of killer mains going "good thing I have ol' reliable" with images of bloody nurses and billies, because it is certainly much easier to get the desired result with them than the other killers.
Stop twisting the words. Those two killers are the strongest and saying "the challenge goes away" makes no sense it's called practice makes perfect and Billy can get destroyed by the right team which makes nurse the only one to win against the best survivors. Even going really close to survivors with Billy it's still difficult to land the chainsaw and if someone practices enough they get better at it. Stop complaining about things that aren't problems. You obviously have never played Billy or nurse if you have posted this. If people learn how to handle very hard mechanics like blinking and hitting survivors trying to evade the chainsaw they should be rewarded for it because it's skill.
I'm not twisting anything, I'm calling it as it is. To put it generously, you repeatedly and purposefully give the least charitable interpretations of what I'm saying as exemplified by your most recent post. It's more nuanced than saying "the challenge goes away," it's more that the challenge of controlling the killer goes away, not challenge of strategizing against a survivor; that's an obvious premise considering nobody wants a solved strategy for either side. These are very present problems considering that threads and memes glorifying one's bloody Hillbilly and Nurse persist, let alone the sheer numbers of Billies and Nurses that populate advanced matches. Don't complain because you have an apparent struggle with reading, thinking, or coping with completely valid arguments. It's apparent at this point that you don't even care about the game like I do and are here because you're butt hurt about being wrong—hence why you don't know how to (1) actually articulate what I'm arguing and (2) actually support your claims. I have supported my rationale pretty clearly, but I can't help you if you refuse to read.
-
Pallet Loops are a separate issue along with how killers individually fare against survivors, I specifically address killers versus survivors in one of the paragraphs and why it isn't my concern.
-
Edited the original post.
-
Hmm, I will update the original post with diagrams and rationales that were already expressed along with presenting what I'm not arguing so that the distinction is clear and I don't have to constantly reiterate myself for people who refuse to read and/or think.
-
@Tru3Lemon said:
i do agree that billy and nurse needs to balance
billy:needs to be slow while hes charging the chainsaw
nurse: nerf her omegablink or rework itthats it
He's already slow as he's charging. As far as that nurse suggestion goes, that's why my proposed idea does. It would force her to manage her max blinks at a time rather than reliably wait for the wither to wear off and have at it again to secure any failure.
@RushingSnipeBob said:
So with those changes we need to "balance" survivors too:- survivors can run only when in the 12m radius of the killer
- survivors can use pallets/windows based on tokens, so they need to manage this.
Seems fine?
Nah, the dynamic for the survivors is fundamentally different as they don't really have abilities inherent to each character. Tokens on survivors for pallets and windows is already limited with entity blocking consecutive window vaults and having a finite number of pallets. Good attempt on the trolling though.
-
@Master said:
@PBlackII said:
@bloxe said:
The problem with that is that nurse and billy arent that strong, theyre barelly good. Its the other killers that need buffs, either you like it or notThey're not "barely good", stop insisting on being purposefully stupid. Whether I 'like it or not' is irrelevant, it's about what's probable and easier to balance. So here, let me spoon-feed you the logic by explaining this again. You can balance a game through boosting or nerfing. The problem I see is that among the killers there is a balance issue in terms of success and the upkeep required to play a killer well. Therefore, I'm suggesting nerfing Billy and Nurse so they are even with the other killers. After you do that, you can then worry about killers success as a whole against survivors and make necessary changes; i.e. nerf survivors—probably by extending the time it takes to complete objectives.
The problem is that survivors nerfs wont be accepted by the majorty of the community (survivors), thus they need to buff the weaker killers
Any sort of change will make the majority of survivor mains whine and snivel because that's what they do, regardless of it being an approach by nerfing or boosting. Your point is weak at best.
@Raptorrotas said:
Wow, Proposing stupid changes without details and then being rude when being pointed out its stupid changes, good to know what to expect.Just "have it on a charges system" for blinks as a single change would nerf the nurse hard, especially if she stays~ 96% speed.
For the Hillbilly change... just no. HB is where most killers should be.
This is a clear example of an idiot posting and here's why:
(1) They qualitatively assess the claim without bothering reading or going over any of the arguments I've provided which leads to the next point.
(2) I have exhaustively provided arguments and details with how it would work, so to say "without details" shows either a clear lack of literacy or a willfully stupid position. Even within the original post, I give a very specific value for distance in that it requires 12 metres to instadown a survivor with Hillbilly ability and included a rationale many times throughout this thread. Giving a nurse tokens for her blink wouldn't "nerf her hard", it would still be possible to triple blink, you just wouldn't be able to spam it with each set of the iteration, you'd have to wait for them to recharge over time which would then force nurse players to manage their blinks better.
(3) Nobody "pointed out" how it's stupid, people have set up their own strawman arguments that were emphatically not what I was arguing. Again, you would know this if you actually had reading comprehension skills.
(4) Provides zero rationale other than what is essentially 'because I think it's balanced' without ever truly addressing any counterarguments; i.e. rests solely on axioms.
(5) Expecting any sort of politeness or pampering when obnoxiously and snidely regurgitating the same things that have been stated over and over again, learn to read and maybe I'll be nicer to you. -
If the first was feasible, then that would be desired; but doing thought experiments in the pursuit of discussion type two could be interesting. I'm just against making any sort of qualitative conclusion at this time.
-
Entertaining separate builds is an entirely different matter than flat out saying it works towards the killer's disadvantage, which is a pretty unreasonable thing to assume considering there has been zero testing or discussion upon various builds. Allow such conclusions to come after data or fleshing out of rationale.
Now if we were going to talk about what sort of survivor build I'd be inclined to do first, I would probably do the following:
Perk Tier I: Sprint Burst, Urban Evasion
Perk Tier II: Decisive Strike, Deliverance
Perk Tier III: Self Care, DistortionIf I was killer, I'd probably do something like this:
Perk Tier I: Discordance, Enduring
Perk Tier II: Hex: Ruin, Spirit Fury
Perk Tier III: Barbecue and Chili, Nurse's Calling -
@NoShinyPony said:
@PBlackII said:
It could, but if it's applied to both teams is too hard to really tell, hence why I said opening the floodgates.Why do you believe it's too hard to tell? When you suggested bringing 6 perks, did you think about which perks were most likely to be equipped?
Considering that it would be 6 perks against 6 perks at varying tier choices, to have any sort of definitive answer would be dishonest. Of course certain perks would be chosen over others. I'd expect killer to probably at least equip BBQ and Chili, Nurse's Calling, Hex:Ruin; but you'd also would expect survivors to run self-care, an exhaustion perk of their choosing, decisive strike, distortion, whatever suits them.
-
It could, but if it's applied to both teams is too hard to really tell, hence why I said opening the floodgates.
-
Like it would automatically make the perk into tier ii. So you'd essentially have a primary/secondary/tertiary selection of perks.
-
@jackmadrox said:
@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.
We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.
Sounds to me like you're proposing nerfs to the game's 2 most effective killers. Uh, no. I don't think that's a good idea at all.
Maybe read and you wouldn't regurgitate such a dumb comment, just a thought.
-
@bloxe said:
The problem with that is that nurse and billy arent that strong, theyre barelly good. Its the other killers that need buffs, either you like it or notThey're not "barely good", stop insisting on being purposefully stupid. Whether I 'like it or not' is irrelevant, it's about what's probable and easier to balance. So here, let me spoon-feed you the logic by explaining this again. You can balance a game through boosting or nerfing. The problem I see is that among the killers there is a balance issue in terms of success and the upkeep required to play a killer well. Therefore, I'm suggesting nerfing Billy and Nurse so they are even with the other killers. After you do that, you can then worry about killers success as a whole against survivors and make necessary changes; i.e. nerf survivors—probably by extending the time it takes to complete objectives.
-
@Master said:
@PBlackII said:
@Master said:
@PBlackII said:
@xllxENIGMAxllx said:
stop with all the nerfing Billy and Nurse thread instead ask buff for other killers. those are the only one who truly destroy SwF with efficiency.A competent killer can still kill an efficient SwF, it shouldn't be guaranteed.
@bloxe said:
xllxENIGMAxllx said:
Thats the problem. The survive with boyfriends players are sad that someone beat them.Again, that's not what I'm arguing, at all. My main argument from the beginning was to essentially put those killers on the same level as the other killers. Once that is established, then it's much easier to then nerf survivors if needed—which is a very obvious following conclusion.
A competent killer player can only manage a competent SWF if he plays nurse, the official tournament has shown that pretty well
Any person that is using that "tournament" as a reference is already being laughably absurd, get out of here.
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
Saying Hillbilly is loopable isn't a "very valid point" for the following reasons:
(1) It's a trite statement that is literally being denied by nobody in this discussion. Killers don't forever exist in a pallet loop with a survivor, so it's important to make considerations of the ability outside of this scenario.
(2) Pallet loops are handled by Leatherface and Hillbilly in the same way: they either wait for the survivor to drop the pallet so they can chainsaw it down, or they manage to melee the survivor. Seldom will they use their ability to down the survivor in a pallet loop unless the survivor really messes up.
Therefore if he is loopable and the ability is mostly used to just break the pallet anyway, then the impact it has for downing a survivor is less relevant under this context; i.e. you're choosing a scenario that isn't of particular interest and thus doesn't raise a valid point. The point I'm making is that ultimately Hillbilly's ability has both a vastly superior utility with what is practically the same downing ability as Leatherface, which puts Leatherface in this odd situation where he's just clearly not as strong of a pick. Therefore by making the change to Hillbilly where his ability is more situational, it not only creates more distinction for Leatherface to shine, but it removes Hillbilly's overall dominance over Leatherface's qualities.I'm not being kind to people that say "just no", or gives a bunch of platitudes under the guise of advice; especially after the toxic cloud of users on here purposefully giving wrong and/or uncharitable interpretations of what I was saying to stroke their own weird egos.
Thats why Leatherface is known as 1 of the weakest killers on the game, they should buff the weaker killers instead of nerfing the viable one's.
Everyone knows that Leatherface is a meme, and you want to nerf Hillbilly to his lvl, so that leatherface can shine?
Get all the killers on an even playing field, then nerf survivors so the killers feel stronger by making gens take longer. It's a much simpler and elegant solution than trying to boost 12 killers just right so that they're all viable. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
I think that its much easier to just buff those weaker killers a little bit, instead of nerfing some viable killers.
And please do not exagerate, not all 12 of those other killers need boosts.
Nurse, Hillbilly, Huntress, Hag and Spirit----All these are very viable killers.
Myers, Clown, Wraith, Legion and Trapper--------These are very average, they are not good, but they are not bad either.
Leatherface, Freddy, Doctor and Pig-----These 4 are very weak.
They only need to buff those 4 killers that are on the bottom, and maybe tweak a little those average one's.
There is NO "... than trying to boost 12 killers just right so that they're all viable.""If you have played the game as much as you claim to, you should already know all that i posted.
Edit: Yeah my english sucks, its not my native language, so im not able to put actual insults into nice words like you do.
And im actually thinking that you might be lying about your hours on the game, and that you are just someone who is new and dont know how to play against those 2 killers you mentioned. Because a grand majority(if not all) of the people that have that amount of hours into the game like you do, they DO know that Hillbilly is not as strong as you claim it to be.
Im done with this post, i though it was someone serious, but its just some BAIT but put into nice words.
No, you can't have it both ways, you can't argue that only two of them are viable, but then backpedal going oh, but only four of them actually need boosts. The definition is capable of using successfully, so quit purposefully trying to have a capricious personal definition of viable as it means being successful, not being dominant in the killer tier list. My argument is to work on getting the killers on the same tier list, if it is true that Nurse and Billy are the only viable killers, then it means that 12 killers need to be boosted. This is just how words work.
Also, don't try to scapegoat your lack of language skills for your ######### arguments, it takes a particularly weak individual to do that. And to do that as you snidely insinuate that I'm lying because you find you can't reasonably way to argue for your points or against mine is a particularly ######### thing to do. I have all my characters at minimum prestige one along with several maxed out characters, I'm not sure what else you want as proof that I'm an experienced player. I probably know more about the basic mechanics and balance challenges than you. My goal isn't to insult you, it's to reasonably argue my points; but I'm not going to let trollish behavior like yours or others here be the things that bury otherwise reasonable suggestions.
Well what other source do you want to refer then?
When you bring up the depip squad, survivors will claim that they only versed boosted killers at rank 1 that didnt try to win.An opinion based on the aggregate testimony and tendencies of game play. If you spend as much time with advanced players as I have, then you would know what that high tier of this game looks like. All you have to do is look at reviews for that tournament to see why it was bad. In any case, let's pretend that the tournament wasn't p r o b l e m a t i c and say that it showed nurse was the only viable killer. Cool, then nerf her and then appropriately nerf the survivors so that the killers are even and then scaling them against survivors becomes easier.
-
@Master said:
@PBlackII said:
@xllxENIGMAxllx said:
stop with all the nerfing Billy and Nurse thread instead ask buff for other killers. those are the only one who truly destroy SwF with efficiency.A competent killer can still kill an efficient SwF, it shouldn't be guaranteed.
@bloxe said:
xllxENIGMAxllx said:
Thats the problem. The survive with boyfriends players are sad that someone beat them.Again, that's not what I'm arguing, at all. My main argument from the beginning was to essentially put those killers on the same level as the other killers. Once that is established, then it's much easier to then nerf survivors if needed—which is a very obvious following conclusion.
A competent killer player can only manage a competent SWF if he plays nurse, the official tournament has shown that pretty well
Any person that is using that "tournament" as a reference is already being laughably absurd, get out of here.
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
Saying Hillbilly is loopable isn't a "very valid point" for the following reasons:
(1) It's a trite statement that is literally being denied by nobody in this discussion. Killers don't forever exist in a pallet loop with a survivor, so it's important to make considerations of the ability outside of this scenario.
(2) Pallet loops are handled by Leatherface and Hillbilly in the same way: they either wait for the survivor to drop the pallet so they can chainsaw it down, or they manage to melee the survivor. Seldom will they use their ability to down the survivor in a pallet loop unless the survivor really messes up.
Therefore if he is loopable and the ability is mostly used to just break the pallet anyway, then the impact it has for downing a survivor is less relevant under this context; i.e. you're choosing a scenario that isn't of particular interest and thus doesn't raise a valid point. The point I'm making is that ultimately Hillbilly's ability has both a vastly superior utility with what is practically the same downing ability as Leatherface, which puts Leatherface in this odd situation where he's just clearly not as strong of a pick. Therefore by making the change to Hillbilly where his ability is more situational, it not only creates more distinction for Leatherface to shine, but it removes Hillbilly's overall dominance over Leatherface's qualities.I'm not being kind to people that say "just no", or gives a bunch of platitudes under the guise of advice; especially after the toxic cloud of users on here purposefully giving wrong and/or uncharitable interpretations of what I was saying to stroke their own weird egos.
Thats why Leatherface is known as 1 of the weakest killers on the game, they should buff the weaker killers instead of nerfing the viable one's.
Everyone knows that Leatherface is a meme, and you want to nerf Hillbilly to his lvl, so that leatherface can shine?
Get all the killers on an even playing field, then nerf survivors so the killers feel stronger by making gens take longer. It's a much simpler and elegant solution than trying to boost 12 killers just right so that they're all viable. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
I think that its much easier to just buff those weaker killers a little bit, instead of nerfing some viable killers.
And please do not exagerate, not all 12 of those other killers need boosts.
Nurse, Hillbilly, Huntress, Hag and Spirit----All these are very viable killers.
Myers, Clown, Wraith, Legion and Trapper--------These are very average, they are not good, but they are not bad either.
Leatherface, Freddy, Doctor and Pig-----These 4 are very weak.
They only need to buff those 4 killers that are on the bottom, and maybe tweak a little those average one's.
There is NO "... than trying to boost 12 killers just right so that they're all viable.""If you have played the game as much as you claim to, you should already know all that i posted.
Edit: Yeah my english sucks, its not my native language, so im not able to put actual insults into nice words like you do.
And im actually thinking that you might be lying about your hours on the game, and that you are just someone who is new and dont know how to play against those 2 killers you mentioned. Because a grand majority(if not all) of the people that have that amount of hours into the game like you do, they DO know that Hillbilly is not as strong as you claim it to be.
Im done with this post, i though it was someone serious, but its just some BAIT but put into nice words.
No, you can't have it both ways, you can't argue that only two of them are viable, but then backpedal going oh, but only four of them actually need boosts. The definition is capable of using successfully, so quit purposefully trying to have a capricious personal definition of viable as it means being successful, not being dominant in the killer tier list. My argument is to work on getting the killers on the same tier list, if it is true that Nurse and Billy are the only viable killers, then it means that 12 killers need to be boosted. This is just how words work.
Also, don't try to scapegoat your lack of language skills for your ######### arguments, it takes a particularly weak individual to do that. And to do that as you snidely insinuate that I'm lying because you find you can't reasonably way to argue for your points or against mine is a particularly ######### thing to do. I have all my characters at minimum prestige one along with several maxed out characters, I'm not sure what else you want as proof that I'm an experienced player. I probably know more about the basic mechanics and balance challenges than you. My goal isn't to insult you, it's to reasonably argue my points; but I'm not going to let trollish behavior like yours or others here be the things that bury otherwise reasonable suggestions.
-
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
Saying Hillbilly is loopable isn't a "very valid point" for the following reasons:
(1) It's a trite statement that is literally being denied by nobody in this discussion. Killers don't forever exist in a pallet loop with a survivor, so it's important to make considerations of the ability outside of this scenario.
(2) Pallet loops are handled by Leatherface and Hillbilly in the same way: they either wait for the survivor to drop the pallet so they can chainsaw it down, or they manage to melee the survivor. Seldom will they use their ability to down the survivor in a pallet loop unless the survivor really messes up.
Therefore if he is loopable and the ability is mostly used to just break the pallet anyway, then the impact it has for downing a survivor is less relevant under this context; i.e. you're choosing a scenario that isn't of particular interest and thus doesn't raise a valid point. The point I'm making is that ultimately Hillbilly's ability has both a vastly superior utility with what is practically the same downing ability as Leatherface, which puts Leatherface in this odd situation where he's just clearly not as strong of a pick. Therefore by making the change to Hillbilly where his ability is more situational, it not only creates more distinction for Leatherface to shine, but it removes Hillbilly's overall dominance over Leatherface's qualities.I'm not being kind to people that say "just no", or gives a bunch of platitudes under the guise of advice; especially after the toxic cloud of users on here purposefully giving wrong and/or uncharitable interpretations of what I was saying to stroke their own weird egos.
Thats why Leatherface is known as 1 of the weakest killers on the game, they should buff the weaker killers instead of nerfing the viable one's.
Everyone knows that Leatherface is a meme, and you want to nerf Hillbilly to his lvl, so that leatherface can shine?
Get all the killers on an even playing field, then nerf survivors so the killers feel stronger by making gens take longer. It's a much simpler and elegant solution than trying to boost 12 killers just right so that they're all viable. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.
-
Saying Hillbilly is loopable isn't a "very valid point" for the following reasons:
(1) It's a trite statement that is literally being denied by nobody in this discussion. Killers don't forever exist in a pallet loop with a survivor, so it's important to make considerations of the ability outside of this scenario.
(2) Pallet loops are handled by Leatherface and Hillbilly in the same way: they either wait for the survivor to drop the pallet so they can chainsaw it down, or they manage to melee the survivor. Seldom will they use their ability to down the survivor in a pallet loop unless the survivor really messes up.
Therefore if he is loopable and the ability is mostly used to just break the pallet anyway, then the impact it has for downing a survivor is less relevant under this context; i.e. you're choosing a scenario that isn't of particular interest and thus doesn't raise a valid point. The point I'm making is that ultimately Hillbilly's ability has both a vastly superior utility with what is practically the same downing ability as Leatherface, which puts Leatherface in this odd situation where he's just clearly not as strong of a pick. Therefore by making the change to Hillbilly where his ability is more situational, it not only creates more distinction for Leatherface to shine, but it removes Hillbilly's overall dominance over Leatherface's qualities.I'm not being kind to people that say "just no", or gives a bunch of platitudes under the guise of advice; especially after the toxic cloud of users on here purposefully giving wrong and/or uncharitable interpretations of what I was saying to stroke their own weird egos.
-
Meanwhile on Steamladder:
-
Edited
-
@NoShinyPony said:
@PBlackII said:
Saying "just no" isn't a sincere counter argument to the points I've previously laid out.I only wrote 1,5 lines concerning Hillbilly and you still overread my point why I wrote "just no". So I'll just write it again: Hillbilly is loopable.
@PBlackII said:
As a rank 1 survivor I already know how to generally deal with Hillbilly. Yes, there is a factor of luck involved—what were the pallet spawns, which ones were used, etc.; but this is significantly different than just running up and using an instant down since there's little to no thought process behind that.New players can reach rank 1 in their first season, it doesn't tell us anything about your skill and experience level. From your opinion on Hillbilly I'd say this might not be your first month but you're still relatively new to the game. So don't take it wrong, it is meant as a serious, friendly advice: Learn to play Hillbilly yourself. You will then know in which situations he can use the chainsaw and when not. As you climb the killer ranks, you will meet players that know how to loop the Hillbilly. That will benefit you greatly when you play surv.
I have 2.7k hours in the game over the span of many months, getting high rank quickly; but I've already went over this point. I understand this game better than the majority of people. Saying "just no" is not any sort of reasonable counter and provides zero constructive discussion which signals that you're only interested in derailing conversation. Saying hillbilly is loopable is a red herring at best—absolutely nobody here would deny that so it's childish to think that's a reasonable counterargument.
@Grim said:
@PBlackII said:
@Grim said:
Thank you, this is a more reasonable response I would be happy to clarify. So ultimately balancing is either an effort of boosting or nerfing, the reason I suggest the latter is because it would be a less messy approach. Ideally you'd want killers to perform at relatively the same success rate despite their different strategy/game play, and then balance that against the survivor since all the survivors share the same mechanics—I guess there is variance in how noticeable each are, but I digress. Anyway if each of the killers are actually balanced, then it makes the job of tweaking the survivors against them that much easier. There are many "correct" ways of balancing a game, but when somebody says to just boost 12 killers it sounds naive to the likely plethora of unforeseen issues that would arise—hence why I say nerfing is more likely since it's ultimately less work for the developers. I also kept my suggestions on the simple side and they would have fairly novel effects on how the killers strategize as a result of them. My suggestions are not with the stipulation that survivors remain the way they are despite how much some of these illiterate users weirdly imply that with their "learn how to play survivor" or "stop saying billy and nurse are OP" comments.
I don't wish to engage in the pedantry of the impact rank has on game play. It's quite obvious that I acknowledge that there are good players in lower ranks, and ######### ones that are in higher ranks; it was initially brought up as a point that I am not a random ######### survivor main as I get into high ranks fast—usually a couple days after the rank reset—which even by the standard you laid out would at the very least suggest that I'm probably a competent survivor player. I would say that rank definitely has a correlation on the gaming experience in that when I play with friends who are in my tier that I will see nurse or billy a clear majority of the time that will usually try their hardest to get a 4K, and when I play with my friends who are those wonderful low tiers are usually much more meme filled and populated by not so experienced killers that are easy to mess with.
I agree, people whine about touching billy and nurse because they feel like they couldn't compete successfully against the time constraints imposed by an efficient SWF team. However the answer then is just nerf the survivors by increasing the time it takes to complete a generator.
Oh, I see where you're coming from. When I said buff the other killers, I thought you meant under the premise that survivors would remain the way they are. That's my mistake. In which case, I agree with your mode of thought. This game suffers from no small amount of imbalances, so whichever method the devs take to sort this is fine by me.
Yeah no, I wouldn't say 'leave survivors as they are, they're perfect little angels' because we all know that's a full-of-######### premise.
-
@Grim said:
@PBlackII said:
@Grim said:
OP, the solution is not to nerf the only two viable killers, it is to buff the weaker ones.Saying you can do well with weaker killers at high ranks is irrelevant as rank isn't an indicator of skill, but of time spent this season. With the current ranking system, anyone can get to red ranks, even bad survivors. The reason why Billy and Nurse are considered viable is not because they consistently do well at red ranks, it is because they do better against efficient teams.
But let's assume you're right, and they both get nerfed to remove these "braindead" strategies. Then please tell me when we can expect you to advocate for the removal of the pallet loop or perks such as Sprint Burst.
Again, you are much less likely to buff 12 killers than you are to nerf 2 of them. Rank is a correlate to skill—or at the very least a competency of player tendencies beyond the basic mechanics of the game. Are there good players that purposefully lower their rank or have not played in a while? Of course, that's a pretty obvious point, but it's incredibly misleading to suggest that there is no correlation whatsoever between rank and ability. Therefore in a weird way, we actually agree that viability does concern itself towards a killer gearing themselves against an efficient team. I say high rank though because it generally suggests that we are at the very least mostly working with competent survivors, and an efficient team is usually made of competent survivors.
Now onto your tangential hypothetical, what would I do about strategies specifically geared towards pallet loop or a perk such as sprint burst. The latter is pretty easy to assess given the previous logic I presented in that an ability that requires less upkeep should provide less reward—so if I had to really change sprint burst specifically, I'd probably would just slightly lower the duration of the speed burst so that reward isn't as advantageous to more strategically used perks. As for the former, I find it surprisingly easy to solve the pallet looping ordeal: monitor if a survivor is retracing their steps over a period of time and introduce progressive punitive measures for doing a loop. The game already has a method of tracking the trails that survivors making as evidenced by scratch marks, so it would be pretty simple to add in things like "If a survivor exists on x portion of their own scratch marks for t seconds, then decrease movement speed by m%." This is an example of an approach, but I'm sure the point is clearly made and how one decides to make the process more creative.
Suggesting that 2 killers be nerfed instead simply because it's more likely doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do, so I fail to see the argument behind this point. Could you clarify?
Unfortunately, due to how easy it is to rank up, rank has a very weak correlation with skill. This is because even bad survivors can rank up given time. They may understand the basic premise, but their tendencies demonstrate very little understanding of how to execute it effectively. The only exception to this being early on in the season as the decent survivors tend to rank up quicker. As the season progresses, the knowledge gap in red ranks only grows.
Whilst I find your suggestions interesting and I think diversity would ultimately benefit the game, I feel people defend Billy's instadown and Nurse's blink because it helps alleviate the issue all killer's experience: Time, or lack thereof. Billy can end a chase quickly -- or before it even begins -- and Nurse can ignore entire mechanics of the game with very little counterplay.
Thank you, this is a more reasonable response I would be happy to clarify. So ultimately balancing is either an effort of boosting or nerfing, the reason I suggest the latter is because it would be a less messy approach. Ideally you'd want killers to perform at relatively the same success rate despite their different strategy/game play, and then balance that against the survivor since all the survivors share the same mechanics—I guess there is variance in how noticeable each are, but I digress. Anyway if each of the killers are actually balanced, then it makes the job of tweaking the survivors against them that much easier. There are many "correct" ways of balancing a game, but when somebody says to just boost 12 killers it sounds naive to the likely plethora of unforeseen issues that would arise—hence why I say nerfing is more likely since it's ultimately less work for the developers. I also kept my suggestions on the simple side and they would have fairly novel effects on how the killers strategize as a result of them. My suggestions are not with the stipulation that survivors remain the way they are despite how much some of these illiterate users weirdly imply that with their "learn how to play survivor" or "stop saying billy and nurse are OP" comments.
I don't wish to engage in the pedantry of the impact rank has on game play. It's quite obvious that I acknowledge that there are good players in lower ranks, and ######### ones that are in higher ranks; it was initially brought up as a point that I am not a random ######### survivor main as I get into high ranks fast—usually a couple days after the rank reset—which even by the standard you laid out would at the very least suggest that I'm probably a competent survivor player. I would say that rank definitely has a correlation on the gaming experience in that when I play with friends who are in my tier that I will see nurse or billy a clear majority of the time that will usually try their hardest to get a 4K, and when I play with my friends who are those wonderful low tiers are usually much more meme filled and populated by not so experienced killers that are easy to mess with.
I agree, people whine about touching billy and nurse because they feel like they couldn't compete successfully against the time constraints imposed by an efficient SWF team. However the answer then is just nerf the survivors by increasing the time it takes to complete a generator.
-
@xllxENIGMAxllx said:
@PBlackII Killers are kind of balanced perks are the problem and gen rush too if there need some nerf it's those.Gen rush would be solved by future perks that are initiated by gen requirements whether that's a gen being completed, the total number of gens done, or gens done within a given time frame. As it currently stands the killers are not 'kind of balanced', there's a reason why some killer mains will say things like 'I would destroy you if I was billy" or they turn to 'ol' reliable' bloody nurse. You can't argue that they're balanced and that they're the only viable ones, those are contradictory. I would nerf those two, and then start dealing with ways of making it harder for survivors to do things like pallet looping, gen rushing, or whatever strategy you kids deem toxic these days.
What's odd is that the suggestion I provided is highly reasonable and you guys are acting like it's the end of the god damned world and that I'm only trying to make it easier for survivors when all I'm wanting is actual variety of killers among advanced players. lol
-
As much as I would like him to be a killer, what would their game play look like? Ability? Perk ideas?
-
So this is how I would describe Pinhead's ability visually. He would charge his ability and upon release it would throw the hook. How long the player would charge the ability would increase the distance away from him as represented by the red line (yes, much like nurse). But what's different here is that the projectile path is represented by the blue line where it intersects at the end of the red line. It would stop upon collision or at the end of the hook radius—and maybe a red meme addon would make it so it ignores the objects. Does this make more sense? This is why saying it's just an instahook huntress might be a little misleading. -
@xllxENIGMAxllx said:
stop with all the nerfing Billy and Nurse thread instead ask buff for other killers. those are the only one who truly destroy SwF with efficiency.A competent killer can still kill an efficient SwF, it shouldn't be guaranteed.
@bloxe said:
xllxENIGMAxllx said:
Thats the problem. The survive with boyfriends players are sad that someone beat them.Again, that's not what I'm arguing, at all. My main argument from the beginning was to essentially put those killers on the same level as the other killers. Once that is established, then it's much easier to then nerf survivors if needed—which is a very obvious following conclusion.
-
I mean should we denounce ideas that involve precision due to what ought to be temporary issues on console? And yeah, somewhat similar to nurse blinks, maybe I should diagram it though to clarify.
-
@Grim said:
OP, the solution is not to nerf the only two viable killers, it is to buff the weaker ones.Saying you can do well with weaker killers at high ranks is irrelevant as rank isn't an indicator of skill, but of time spent this season. With the current ranking system, anyone can get to red ranks, even bad survivors. The reason why Billy and Nurse are considered viable is not because they consistently do well at red ranks, it is because they do better against efficient teams.
But let's assume you're right, and they both get nerfed to remove these "braindead" strategies. Then please tell me when we can expect you to advocate for the removal of the pallet loop or perks such as Sprint Burst.
Again, you are much less likely to buff 12 killers than you are to nerf 2 of them. Rank is a correlate to skill—or at the very least a competency of player tendencies beyond the basic mechanics of the game. Are there good players that purposefully lower their rank or have not played in a while? Of course, that's a pretty obvious point, but it's incredibly misleading to suggest that there is no correlation whatsoever between rank and ability. Therefore in a weird way, we actually agree that viability does concern itself towards a killer gearing themselves against an efficient team. I say high rank though because it generally suggests that we are at the very least mostly working with competent survivors, and an efficient team is usually made of competent survivors.
Now onto your tangential hypothetical, what would I do about strategies specifically geared towards pallet loop or a perk such as sprint burst. The latter is pretty easy to assess given the previous logic I presented in that an ability that requires less upkeep should provide less reward—so if I had to really change sprint burst specifically, I'd probably would just slightly lower the duration of the speed burst so that reward isn't as advantageous to more strategically used perks. As for the former, I find it surprisingly easy to solve the pallet looping ordeal: monitor if a survivor is retracing their steps over a period of time and introduce progressive punitive measures for doing a loop. The game already has a method of tracking the trails that survivors making as evidenced by scratch marks, so it would be pretty simple to add in things like "If a survivor exists on x portion of their own scratch marks for t seconds, then decrease movement speed by m%." This is an example of an approach, but I'm sure the point is clearly made and how one decides to make the process more creative.
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
To further illustrate this point, let's take trapper vs. hillbilly.@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@Master said:
@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.
We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.
Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....
By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all
You're being highly dramatic for no reason and bandwagoning with the rest here. Each killer has strategies to be viable at rank 1, viability doesn't mean securing 4K the majority of games. I don't agree with that point within the dev's philosophy either, but applying these changes wouldn't suddenly make these killers not viable.
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:@PBlackII said:
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.
No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.
Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.
Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.
Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.
A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.
When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)
Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.
Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.
Experienced survivor here checking in to let you know that you have a reading comprehension problem—I'm not saying that Hillbilly and Nurse are "omg so op, nerf plz", I'm saying that they're too easy to use and thus are preferable over the other killers. Also, you're being very disingenuous when you suggest an experienced survivor will consistently never be found since at high rank play an experienced killer will find you. Are there games where that occurs? Sure, and some survivors strive for that, but it usually does not happen despite one's best efforts to some things like circumstances and perks.
Looks like you also have a reading comprehension problem where did i say that an experienced survivor will never be found?
What i said, is that you wont be able to consistently catch a experienced survivor with their pants down, they will see you coming and move towards a pallet loop before you reach them.
You are saying that these 2 killers are too easy to use, so they should nerf them both. its not really that different than "omg so op, nerf plz" You are asking for nerfs.
You say that they are easy to use, but the general consensus on the Nurses case, is that its the hardest killer to learn, but once you learn it it is the best.
About Hillbilly, alright lets look at it this way, lets see if you understand that its not that strong.
We all agree that Leatherface is 1 of the worst killers on game right? Well, Hillbilly is just Leatherface but with the ability to move from point A to point B really fast on certain maps(and on the maps that he can do it, he cant take all paths, there are obstacles, etc), his ability when downing people is worse than Leatherface's, Hillbilly can only down 1 survivor at a time, also on the worst case scenario(you run out of loops), you can spin on him when he is using his chainsaw, since the movement becomes sluggish when he revs up his chainsaw and is easy to make him miss(cant do that to Leatherface unless the killer player is really boosted).Stop asking for nerfs to Hillbilly, he is just an ordinary M1 killer with a bit better mobility.
Looks like you still have a reading comprehension problem. You said that an experienced survivor 'won't let him get close to them', which suggests that a survivor main will never be found consistently because you are (1) characterizing a high rank survivor has a quality of successfully evading the killer and (2) suggests a level of control in the hands of the survivor by using the word 'let'. The first component is more of an ever-existing goal that sometimes manifests itself into reality, but is usually not the case, and the second component is clearly false since the survivor doesn't really have an upper hand to 'let' the killer do anything. In other words, your statement leaves very little interpretation to suggest otherwise, so while you will not explicitly state a good survivor will never be found, you suggest it. So to try to snidely say I have a reading comprehension problem shows a particular sense of malice that is unwarranted because at least I have the decency to say 'suggest' and be honest with my usage of words.
Yes, survivors will generally communicate with each other in order to maintain a certain level of awareness of the killer's whereabouts and thus will utilize a pallet loop if needed. This is just a part of basic strategy and ought to be a part of the calculation of the killer. The difference is that for hillbilly it just boils down to "get real close and press M2 real big-like!" rather than use his ability and aim—there are still situations where that would be successful even against experienced survivors.
It is profoundly different if I'm saying usage is too easy versus saying that they're OP. Let's go back to the example I provided earlier with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. In that game Diddy Kong is a high tier character where it required conscious effort and continual strategy to keep up his game play; meanwhile you have Metaknight who was literally "spam his B moves and they'll eventually slip up". Huntress would be somebody like Diddy Kong, and Hillbilly and Nurse are akin to Metaknight—there isn't much effort into the upkeep of their game play once you have it figured out. So while somebody like the hardest killer to learn is the nurse—which honestly is more like the hardest to get used to her mechanics—once it is learned it's easy to secure preferable results. When I say nerf, it means I'm not going to sugar coat the suggestion and try to deceive people, but nerf does not mean unplayable or unviable. Saying something is OP means that a character possesses a quality that makes the game solved in their favor despite the opposition's best efforts—which is not what I'm suggesting at all.
But hell, let's run with your logic in your Leatherface and Hillbilly comparison. I would have to argue then that Leatherface's ability does not have nearly as much downing potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough and would keep close to a pallet loop—particularly if he's involved with another survivor. So the fact that he can down multiple people becomes less relevant since experienced survivors won't let that scenario happen. Furthermore, because the Hillbilly's mobility allows him to cover more ground and prevent objectives it makes his ability more powerful in the grander scope of the game, while Leatherface just has a better chance against sick 360 plays. Therefore in terms of 'downing' potential both can realistically only down one survivor at a time, Leatherface might be able to secure it better in the event of a 360, but Hillbilly still has much better utility; so I don't see how this is any real meaningful counterargument when it's actually just a deceptive whataboutism.
When i said "A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him..." i mean it in the same way as when you say "...potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough..." I didnt suggest anything, i just assumed that you would understand the context (In chase, not talking about finding the survivor) as i understand when you use almost the same phrase in your argument, but i guess ill specify next time.
** I would have to argue then that Leatherface's ability does not have nearly as much downing potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough and would keep close to a pallet loop**
Same could be said about Hillbilly. Hillbilly and Leatherface have the same downing potential when playing against an experienced survivor that never lets him close enough and always keep close to a pallet loop.
If the survivor knows what he/she is doing, both these killers are just M1 killers that move at 115% speed.The only thing Hillbilly does better than Leatherface is the ability to move from A to B quickly(REMEMBER that he cant do that on all maps) as i said before.
As i said there is no need to nerf Hillbilly.
The quote you pulled from me was literally headed under a paragraph that said, "But hell, let's run with your logic..." as in I am entertaining for a moment that we are working with your idea that the survivor has the capacity to force the killer into a pallet loop is true. This is ultimately a premise I completely disagree with, while certainly desired as a survivor main, does not manifest itself to be a ready strategy in most scenarios as it is only effective for as many pallets are readily available at a given time. Hence such phrasing is a reaction and mimicry of the reasoning that you have provided. When you now say that this is under the context of chase specifically, then that's just backpedaling as I consider abilities to meaningful outside of chase scenarios, which brings me to my next point.
Back to Hillbilly and Leatherface. You are seriously downplaying the mobility of Hillbilly and the ramifications his ability has on the progression of the game. If Leatherface and Hillbilly have the same downing potential and Hillbilly has greater mobility—which has a huge impact on preventing survivor objectives—then Hillbilly is clearly much more advantaged than leatherface. If Hillbilly and Leatherface have essentially the same gameplay as each other in that you instadown a survivor with your chainsaw, but Hillbilly gives you an extreme mobility advantage, then why would a killer pick Leatherface? Therefore I suggest making Hillbilly's ability more situational in that there are situations that can and will happen where you do happen to down survivors—even if they are competent. This would put both Hillbilly and Leatherface on a more even playing field.
-
To further illustrate this point, let's take trapper vs. hillbilly.
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@Master said:
@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.
We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.
Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....
By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all
You're being highly dramatic for no reason and bandwagoning with the rest here. Each killer has strategies to be viable at rank 1, viability doesn't mean securing 4K the majority of games. I don't agree with that point within the dev's philosophy either, but applying these changes wouldn't suddenly make these killers not viable.
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:@PBlackII said:
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.
No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.
Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.
Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.
Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.
A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.
When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)
Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.
Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.
Experienced survivor here checking in to let you know that you have a reading comprehension problem—I'm not saying that Hillbilly and Nurse are "omg so op, nerf plz", I'm saying that they're too easy to use and thus are preferable over the other killers. Also, you're being very disingenuous when you suggest an experienced survivor will consistently never be found since at high rank play an experienced killer will find you. Are there games where that occurs? Sure, and some survivors strive for that, but it usually does not happen despite one's best efforts to some things like circumstances and perks.
Looks like you also have a reading comprehension problem where did i say that an experienced survivor will never be found?
What i said, is that you wont be able to consistently catch a experienced survivor with their pants down, they will see you coming and move towards a pallet loop before you reach them.
You are saying that these 2 killers are too easy to use, so they should nerf them both. its not really that different than "omg so op, nerf plz" You are asking for nerfs.
You say that they are easy to use, but the general consensus on the Nurses case, is that its the hardest killer to learn, but once you learn it it is the best.
About Hillbilly, alright lets look at it this way, lets see if you understand that its not that strong.
We all agree that Leatherface is 1 of the worst killers on game right? Well, Hillbilly is just Leatherface but with the ability to move from point A to point B really fast on certain maps(and on the maps that he can do it, he cant take all paths, there are obstacles, etc), his ability when downing people is worse than Leatherface's, Hillbilly can only down 1 survivor at a time, also on the worst case scenario(you run out of loops), you can spin on him when he is using his chainsaw, since the movement becomes sluggish when he revs up his chainsaw and is easy to make him miss(cant do that to Leatherface unless the killer player is really boosted).Stop asking for nerfs to Hillbilly, he is just an ordinary M1 killer with a bit better mobility.
Looks like you still have a reading comprehension problem. You said that an experienced survivor 'won't let him get close to them', which suggests that a survivor main will never be found consistently because you are (1) characterizing a high rank survivor has a quality of successfully evading the killer and (2) suggests a level of control in the hands of the survivor by using the word 'let'. The first component is more of an ever-existing goal that sometimes manifests itself into reality, but is usually not the case, and the second component is clearly false since the survivor doesn't really have an upper hand to 'let' the killer do anything. In other words, your statement leaves very little interpretation to suggest otherwise, so while you will not explicitly state a good survivor will never be found, you suggest it. So to try to snidely say I have a reading comprehension problem shows a particular sense of malice that is unwarranted because at least I have the decency to say 'suggest' and be honest with my usage of words.
Yes, survivors will generally communicate with each other in order to maintain a certain level of awareness of the killer's whereabouts and thus will utilize a pallet loop if needed. This is just a part of basic strategy and ought to be a part of the calculation of the killer. The difference is that for hillbilly it just boils down to "get real close and press M2 real big-like!" rather than use his ability and aim—there are still situations where that would be successful even against experienced survivors.
It is profoundly different if I'm saying usage is too easy versus saying that they're OP. Let's go back to the example I provided earlier with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. In that game Diddy Kong is a high tier character where it required conscious effort and continual strategy to keep up his game play; meanwhile you have Metaknight who was literally "spam his B moves and they'll eventually slip up". Huntress would be somebody like Diddy Kong, and Hillbilly and Nurse are akin to Metaknight—there isn't much effort into the upkeep of their game play once you have it figured out. So while somebody like the hardest killer to learn is the nurse—which honestly is more like the hardest to get used to her mechanics—once it is learned it's easy to secure preferable results. When I say nerf, it means I'm not going to sugar coat the suggestion and try to deceive people, but nerf does not mean unplayable or unviable. Saying something is OP means that a character possesses a quality that makes the game solved in their favor despite the opposition's best efforts—which is not what I'm suggesting at all.
But hell, let's run with your logic in your Leatherface and Hillbilly comparison. I would have to argue then that Leatherface's ability does not have nearly as much downing potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough and would keep close to a pallet loop—particularly if he's involved with another survivor. So the fact that he can down multiple people becomes less relevant since experienced survivors won't let that scenario happen. Furthermore, because the Hillbilly's mobility allows him to cover more ground and prevent objectives it makes his ability more powerful in the grander scope of the game, while Leatherface just has a better chance against sick 360 plays. Therefore in terms of 'downing' potential both can realistically only down one survivor at a time, Leatherface might be able to secure it better in the event of a 360, but Hillbilly still has much better utility; so I don't see how this is any real meaningful counterargument when it's actually just a deceptive whataboutism.
-
@Master said:
@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.
We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.
Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....
By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all
You're being highly dramatic for no reason and bandwagoning with the rest here. Each killer has strategies to be viable at rank 1, viability doesn't mean securing 4K the majority of games. I don't agree with that point within the dev's philosophy either, but applying these changes wouldn't suddenly make these killers not viable.
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:@PBlackII said:
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.
No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.
Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.
Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.
Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.
A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.
When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)
Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.
Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.
Experienced survivor here checking in to let you know that you have a reading comprehension problem—I'm not saying that Hillbilly and Nurse are "omg so op, nerf plz", I'm saying that they're too easy to use and thus are preferable over the other killers. Also, you're being very disingenuous when you suggest an experienced survivor will consistently never be found since at high rank play an experienced killer will find you. Are there games where that occurs? Sure, and some survivors strive for that, but it usually does not happen despite one's best efforts to some things like circumstances and perks.
-
Saying "just no" isn't a sincere counter argument to the points I've previously laid out. As a rank 1 survivor I already know how to generally deal with Hillbilly. Yes, there is a factor of luck involved—what were the pallet spawns, which ones were used, etc.; but this is significantly different than just running up and using an instant down since there's little to no thought process behind that.NoShinyPony said:@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.Just no. Hillbilly is fine as he is. You can still loop him. Take your time and learn which routes you need to run.
@PBlackII said:
Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.She already has to manage her ability. She has to charge and she has a fatigue time.
@PBlackII said:
We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.The solution to that problem is to buff the other killers, not the other way around.
When it comes to nurse, that's not managing her ability, it's just waiting for her wither to wear off. That's hardly a consequence due to the short duration. If I play nurse and spot a survivor, then I know I will secure the down fairly quickly because I generally know what they are likely to do—I don't have to worry about my usage of blinks and I don't think it's a concern that crosses any nurse main's mind.
Again, you are less likely to see a buff for 12 killers than a "nerf" for 2. I use nerf pretty lightly as it is more about managing an ability than a direct stat adjustment.
-
KingB said:No. Billy's chainsaws would be impossible to land unless playing a braindead survivor. And his chainsaws are already hard to hit against good survivors unless they are caught in the open. Nurse is the hardest killer to play in game, she's supposed to be rewarding.They are not "impossible" to land, and you're essentially arguing at this point that the only way to land his chainsaw is to be right next to the survivor. As far as nurse goes there should be reward in playing the character successfully, not necessarily having done the learning curve and crutching on the mechanics.
Easy to counter them? Are you high? They're literally played the most because they're the easiest to get the most success with the least effort. The thing about learning curves is once you pass it, the challenge begins to disappear. I'm not saying that the challenge is forever gone, but you remember the strategy and it makes it easier to deal with survivors without having to put too much thought into it. There is a reason why there are countless memes of killer mains going "good thing I have ol' reliable" with images of bloody nurses and billies, because it is certainly much easier to get the desired result with them than the other killers.bloxe said:Have you ever played with any of them?? I'm a rank 1 killer and I hate both those killers because of how easy it is to counter them. Combine that with the learning required, and you see that they are good because people put effort to learning and evolving them. -
To add greater clarity, I'm not saying, "As a survivor, I don't like playing against Hillbilly or Nurse because I usually lose against them because it's easy to play as them." I'm saying that I want those killers to be more engaging to play as—they are currently the most played because it is easiest to play them and get the greatest amount of success. This doesn't have to do with viability as viability refers to a minimum capacity for achieving a threshold of success; e.g. a killer who requires a ton of effort and still only provides about 1K on average versus a killer who played on average garners you about 2K per game with the capacity of 4K with advanced level game play.
-
@ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:
@PBlackII said:
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.
No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.
Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.
Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.
Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.
-
I didn't lie at all, and I'm not sure why you guys are so ravenously trying to defend killers that are easy to play. I mean you guys are saying that you can't play other killers because you get 'bullied' or it's 'not viable' when that just communicates that you guys are (a) bad at killer or (b) not wanting to put in effort to get a 4K—either case not really a compelling argument.
I'm not saying nerf Hillybilly and Nurse because I find them oh so hard to deal with, I'm saying nerf them because it's a noticeable majority of the games in high rank because they're easy to play at the higher level. Furthermore, these suggestions do not nerf them to the point where they can't be used at all, it just puts them even with the rest of the killers.
You guys are following up by pouting that other killers aren't viable and should be boosted, but the reality is that they are. You can get a 4k with them against a SWF group; it's not supposed to be easy, but it's certainly possible with all of them given the right mechanics, mind games, and other circumstances. Am I saying that absolutely no other killers need buffs? Of course not. Perhaps somebody here can define what 'viability' means with respect to killers. Is it securely getting a 4K for the majority of games? Getting half of the survivors? Doing enough to get the safety pip?
-
I'm not making the other killers more viable, they are viable if you can play them well. Hell, I've seen 4K freddies at top rank. What I'm saying is adjusting two killers who are easy to play at a high level so that they're on par with the others.
I'm going to refer to another game to highlight this issue. Back in ye old days of Super Smash Bros. Brawl of being a thing, the character that absolutely dominated the tier list was Metaknight, mostly because it was easy to keep up obnoxious play in "high level" play. Sure, this didn't mean that we never saw any other players—but it was pretty obvious that most players favored him as a character because it guaranteed the most success with the least amount of effort; i.e. less upkeep.
In the same sense, Nurse and Hillbilly are much like Metaknight. It's not that we never ever see other killers and that they're absolutely unbeatable, it's just much much easier to play them and secure at least a 3K for the majority of games provided you played them enough. The nerfs I'm suggesting are not even boring stat changes, they're practical mechanic changes that would force them to strategize a bit more so that they require the same effort to get the same success as the other killers.
-
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.
-
The other killers are viable at high ranks, you must be pretty ######### at this game to not know that. The problem is that there are two killers that require a way less effort than the others in order to get the same level of success. Again, these are not drastic nerfs and really good killers would be able to strategize with these sort of changes.
Rather than be toxic and not constructive in any way whatsoever, give a reason that these nerfs would ruin these killers. Playing Hillbilly as it is is really easy, you run up close enough and just use your power; no thought whatsoever. Nurse? Run three blinks and you’re good, no need to worry about if you mess up because you’ll be back with three blinks to compensate. Neither of these presents a sincere mind game. -
And you guys are acting like these suggestions would nerf them into unusability. They would only eliminate cheesy no brain plays.
-
As somebody with around 2.6k hours on this game and who usually gets rank 1 within the first couple days, I can definitely say that you guys are confusing mind games with luck. There is really little mind games going on for the killer side, just the drudgery of “is the survivor going to try faking me this time so I can easily secure the down”? I want killers to actually think about their ability rather than just crutch on it. And yes you are more likely to get successful results out of nerfing these two rather than hope you buff the rest of the killers correctly.
-
And why not? The whole point is so we see different killers at high rank.