Revert Deathslinger Nerf
Comments
-
Deathslinger also has to shoot in the direction he's looking into so I don't get this argument.
Maybe you should stop thinking that every Slinger player is a god with an aimbot and start to think of places he will often shoot. The harpoon has a very tiny hitbox, and unlike Huntress he only has 1 chance of getting a shot, and if you're injured, he must guarantee the reel is going to confirm a hit. Most Slingers will only shoot when you are passing near corners, corridors or doorways, because these places it's easier to confirm a shot. These places I guarantee you most of the average/slightly good Slingers will take the bait and waste a shot on them. Again, that's called prediction. It's not a guess because I'm not randomly thinking "hmm he's going to shoot now".
There's no reason to run erratically in the open because very few are going to risk the massive slowdown that is missing a shot, especially when it can be dodged by the slightly wiggle of your character (which doesn't really make you lose distance.
0 -
The argument is that the thing you have to predict for those examples is direction, and since they have to be using their power in the direction that they're facing, there are limited options for them to employ, so you can actually reasonably predict it.
Whereas for Slinger, what you had to predict was timing, and there was no cue for that. I will grant you that for below average Deathslingers this doesn't come into play, but even just competent ones would make use of this. Don't assume I have a personal stake in this- I don't play survivor at all and I rarely play Slinger, this isn't a biased personal rant. I've just like, watched people play him, understand the concepts, and have formed a take based on those.
You are right: A Deathslinger is not guaranteed a hit in those scenarios because they might miss, but that's basically it. You can't react to it, you can't predict it, you just have to guess right or get lucky. It wasn't good game design.
0 -
I have a question for you. Why should Survivors be able to beat every single Killer the same way? Why shouldn't there be Killers who crush the 1v1 but flounder in the 1v4? Why shouldn't there be Killers who's 1v4 is fantastic, but their 1v1 is lackluster? I would think that having both those extremes and ones in the middle too obviously would make the game a much more fun and varied thing.
0 -
There shouldn't be killers who are unbeatable in the 1v1 because that one survivor deserves a chance to actually play the game and not have all their agency taken away. If the game moved to a more explicitly teamwork-focused state then I could see killers that require two survivors to take their attention, but right now, you shouldn't load into a match and realise that you essentially don't get to do anything if you're the unlucky bastard getting chased.
That's not to say there shouldn't be killers who are strong in the 1v1, but survivors do still need to have some kind of agency in the chase beyond guessing and getting lucky.
Obligatory reminder that I don't think Slinger is in a good spot now and just recognise what his problem areas were.
0 -
So you never play survivor and rarely played Slinger? Do you want me to take you seriously at all? HOW the hell can you even say something like "you can't predict it" when you never even played against him? Do you really form your opinion by watching some random streamer? That's ridiculous.
Again, you never needed cues, even current Slinger doesn't have cues at all (no, you still can't react to a 0.4 seconds ADS). He was never that hard to go against like everyone pretends he was. If anyone who complained about old Slinger thinks the current version is okay is being a HYPOCRITE, because you still can't react to a quickscope.
The difference is that the devs made the worst decision they could ever make to a killer: they made him unfun to play as. Would have been better to straight up delete the character and refund the shards/cells honestly.
But whatever, I can't really take seriously someone who writes so much about a character that you never really played against and barely played as, you clearly don't understand how this killer works at all.
0 -
The ability to analyse and the ability to play are separate skillsets. If I told you that I played a ton of Deathslinger, that wouldn't lend any more weight to my arguments, despite what some people might think. You're welcome to debate with me or you're welcome to drop the topic, I'm not expecting anything on that front.
Obligatory reminder that I don't think current Slinger is okay, I just am aware of and recognise what his problem areas were.
0 -
I don't even want to play against him. He is one of those killers that just upsets me and feels like he just has too much. Why should he be able to down survivors with one shot / hitting you with his gun? Why won't the chain break when I go around a corner? He is already powerful enough in his current state I think.
0 -
No thanks, I already deal enough with people who don't know anything talking about the area that I work on. Don't need to deal with that on a videogame as well.
0 -
Ok, so a couple things to set the stage.
Firstly, Killers do in fact need to be unbeatable in the 1v1... eventually. That's why the Entity Blocker and Bloodlust exist; actual infinites have mostly gotten removed from the game; also, Survivors can't rebuild pallets. A perkless Trapper who's not using traps on Fractured Cowshed or Haddonfield still needs to be able to eventually down anyone. Why? Because in a 1v4 game, a member of the 4 should not be able to survive the undivided attention of the 1 without assistance forever. If they can, then that's a massive problem that needs fixed.
Secondly, despite what I just said above, there should not be a killer who is guaranteed to get a down in X seconds and there's nothing a Survivor can do to extend that time. To the best of my knowledge the only time we've had a killer like that, was when Old Legion existed. They got reworked for a reason and mostly can't do that anymore.
Now... with that established... I would argue that nothing in the game falls into either obviously unhealthy extremes anymore. Beyond that, everything is subjective. I'm sure you've seen the threads on here where people are asked about their favorite and least favorite killers to face. There's some names that show up more often than others, but there's a wide spread of answers every time those threads pop up and some of them conflict. It is my opinion then that there's nothing in the game so egregiously "unhealthy" that it needs to be changed ASAP no matter the cost.
Old Deathslinger was not an exception.
Did he maybe need changes? Maybe, maybe not. However, since he isn't in the position of "So bad that it needs to be replaced ASAP", any change made to him needed to be very careful to not remove what people found fun about him. Essentially deleting things people found fun to use for a nebulous and subjective "unfun to play against" literally never goes over well. That will piss players off and they will never forget that that happened. Like that is not an exaggeration even a little bit. I've been part of a community where the Devs messed up in this way and 3-4 years later the community still brought it up. That doesn't mean that the Devs can't make nerfs and changes to killers. Far from it. They just need to understand why players use certain parts of their game and not make changes that break that thing. For Spirit, I'd argue they were perfectly successful. They gave the Survivors more info but didn't break the fun of playing Spirit. For Deathslinger, they were not even remotely close to being successful.
They need to walk back at least the quickscope changes and if necessary, add more counter play to the reeling mechanic or somewhere else.
0 -
I agree with all of your setup, to be clear, no arguments there.
That being said, old Deathslinger did warrant changing. It wasn't quite as OP as some make it out to be - you may be in a lose/lose situation in chase, but that didn't exactly help him in the long run, he was still a weak killer - but it was cheap, unfair, and unengaging, it was a badly designed mechanic that needed some changing.
Otherwise... I find it really weird how often people retread why the devs ######### up to me here. I know that? I agree with that? How many times do I have to say that I think they messed up before it becomes the last time I say it lol
I do think his ADS speed needs looking at. He shouldn't be able to spam fire as quickly as he did before, but there's no excuse for how clunky and slow he feels right now. The quickscope itself is a bit less of a problem when it's balanced with no ADS faking and a slight cooldown before you can raise the gun back up again, but he should still have to fully raise his gun, even if we speed up how quickly he can do that.
0 -
He should have been changed very carefully in such a way as to not ruin the reason for picking him in the first place. Honestly that goes for literally every single Killer, Perk, and... well... Survivors are skins, but if they weren't it'd go for them too.
This thread and others like it is proof that that did not happen. So... step 1 in fixing it is reverting the changes. Step 2 is figure out a different way to address the problematic aspects without breaking player enjoyment. Honestly, I think the delay on Deathslinger lowering his gun could easily stay/be present in attempt #2.
Now, as for why people keep acting that you don't get that the Developers messed up... you keep saying that the nerf that gave him the 0.4s delay in firing was a good/necessary one. It wasn't. That is THE change largely responsible for Deathslinger not being fun anymore. Full stop. That's the terrible choice people are objecting to. You keep supporting it. So... people are going to keep explaining why that change was the Devs messing up. Because it was.
1 -
But I'm not saying that it was a good change, that's what's so uniquely frustrating about this endless debate. What I'm doing is pointing out that the reasons they said they changed him were legitimate, and people seem to think that because I'm arguing with them on that point, that means I must therefore be arguing with them on all points. It's exhausting.
I'm even saying that his ADS speed is the area they should be looking when they go to revisit these changes, so long as he can't ADS spam/quickscope again.
I appreciate the rundown on where this communication has failed, though, that's legitimately helpful.
0 -
yeah some people have agreed it’s a problem, besides if the devs went the pyramid head route and just kept quick scopes and had a slower times to lower sights it’d be g
1
