Gradual perk nerfs and buffs
What would you think about the following:
Every 2 weeks devs check the 10 most used and 10 least used perks (survivor and killer separately). Then the devs slightly nerf the numbers on the most used perks and buff the numbers on the least used perks.
Example: Pop goes the weasel is used a lot, so we nerf it down from 25 percent regression to only 22.5 percent.
What do you think about this?
(Possible issues: If a killer perk is not used often if we look at the total numbers, but it is used extremely lot on a single or a few killers. Then this approach could maybe buff this perk even more. So maybe the buffed perk must not be in the top 10 of any killer.)
Comments
-
To weaker perks being buffed? Yes.
To stronger perks being nerfed? In most cases not.
Some perks also aren’t necessarily weak or strong, but niche or meme. So they’re not always going to be popular picks.
0 -
A perk being used a lot doesn't always mean the perk is problematic. In this case it means that the base gameplay mechanics are not well established and those perks are necessary to fix problems caused by this. For example:
- For survivors nerfing Decisive would increase tunneling, nerfing BT would increase camping and tunneling, nerfing Unbreakable would lead to more killers like Nurse or Oni going for mass slugs etc.
- On the killer side even with the best regression perks killers are at a disadvantage against survivors, nerfing those would only make this worse. Also everyone uses BBQ and nerfing it would just not be cool.
If you want to increase perk variety, you do it by fixing these problems. Give killers a basekit way to slowdown the game and nerf the slowdown perks to even it out. Give survivors basekit ways to prevent tunneling/camping/slugging and nerf their respective perks to even them out.
2 -
Yeah, I agree, that the perks you mentioned are quite important. And probably the game should be put in a state when you could play the game perkless and still have fun (e.g. not have to worry about constant tunnel).
On the other hand my suggestion could lead to the emergence of multiple META and maybe you wouldn't even miss the current META perks. But yes, each change has to be double checked because many things could go wrong if this process would be automated.
0 -
Or alternatively. the meta wouldn't change. Current meta perks are used because of their effects. Making it a lower number wouldn't... change that much in theory. Unless you want to go on the route of "nerfing it and buffing other things till it's super dead"
0
