Best Of
Re: Should Dredge and Unknown be the next killers for 2v8?
The Unknown (i main him Btw) is a very Difficult killer to add. Thry would need to do alot of changes to make him function. But if they ever do ill play him only in 2v8.
Should Dredge and Unknown be the next killers for 2v8?
I'm suprised both killers arent already in the mode, Unknown should be easy to implement. Dredge might be a bit tougher to add as you would have to worry about locker spawns on bigger maps, and some 1v4 maps have iffy spawns for him to begin with. As for buffs for them, i'm just spittballing here but Dredge being able to teleport to any locker without a range limit or a massive range limit at least. As for unknown maybe have his projectile have a increased radius or something idk, point is i feel like these two should come in as the next duo added as they arent as a much a migraine compared to Plague and Singularity.
Re: Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now.
At the extreme upper end, SWFs are, and always have, going to out perform an equally skilled soloq by a little bit (edit to add: the biggest uncertainty is over how big that difference is).
If that's what you're arguing:
1: Most of your early posts don't make sense given that conclusion, such as the focus on all out gen rush builds.
2: Everyone knows that.
Re: 2v8 always genrush
I've played like 8 rounds and have only had 1 loss so far as killer, so... I'm gonna have to disagree.
Re: 2v8 Legion and Hand Holding Game Design.
This is completely ignoring the fact that there are 2 killers in this mode (one which greatly benefits from injured people) and the fact that as a result of their power. You are being chased far less than normal.
Yes, Legion on their own isn't the issue. But nobody wants to play an amplified mend simulator because that's what Legion was best at. Keeping everyone injured for their teammate. Which meant you weren't chasing individual survivors for very long.
It sucks we lost Legion. But if we included them again, I'd frankly rather they have a different kit exclusive to 2v8, like a disguise killer as shown in their trailer. As while a 1v4 disguise killer would suck, in 2v8 they'd be able to pass off as a survivor far more consistently due to the sheer number of survivors. Add a sice ability to help in chases and the devs would have a great way to test the reception to a disguise killer and how they'd work. (This will never happen though)
Let killer Surrender when the last generator is done.
As the title says. If the last generator is done, or even if the exit gates are open, give killer the ability to surrender. I am so sick of having to sit here and wait while survivors sit at the exit t-bagging over and over; waiting till the last second to leave.
Re: Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now.
Do you not see how much the person I responded to has been complaining about gen perks? The post I responded to literally states a 24 second gen time which isn't possible without perks. Four survivors on a gen completes one in ~41 seconds and then there were four survivors on one generator, wildly inefficient. If there are no perks to support "gen rushing" then there can be no gen rush, the killer was simply unable to effectively pressure the survivors. Skill issue.
Re: Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now.
The game is so imbalanced now that in solo queue you already know the outcome the moment you determine which killer you're playing against.
Re: Damn playing a low tier killer is Horrible right now.
Except I'm not inventing what they didn't say. They literally never said those things.
lmao what?
It's a relatively easy concept, based upon your one sided demands for evidence.
It's been a mildly long discussion, so I'll walk you through it.
In BHVR's posts, that you provided, they say they are happy with the kill rates. These same posts also link the 48.3 kill rate.
You then ask - "Where did they say they were happy about the difference in group sizes in high elo or it fell in line with their balance?" (sidenote - this question pretty clearly indicates you think they are unhappy with it, it doesn't make sense to ask someone for proof of a stance you agree with)
I say - "Where did they say they weren't?"
I also say - "I'm not pretending to know what goes inside BHVR's heads."
You're demanding I prove something, but what your demanding I prove isn't my argument. I'm trying to show that your statements are unfounded. We have no absolute knowledge of their view of the 48.3 because they never directly say anything on it. Though I'd say there is pretty heavy evidence from their posts about a focus on overall averages and that they've had plenty of opportunities to address the high MMR SWF disparity, but passed on saying anything, that it doesn't actually fall outside their balance targets.
