Dead Hard: For immunity or for distance?
Not that I expect Dead Hard to change any time soon, but out of curiosity, if hypothetically Dead Hard was changed to be either
- Give damage immunity but not give any extra movement distance
- Give the extra burst of instantaneous distance but not be immune to damage during it
would you still use Dead Hard in either case?
(I got curious about this question since it’s such a popular perk and, from what I can, the most popular Exhaustion perk, as well as often being cited as the most effective exhaustion perk. Which makes me wonder if its one aspect or the other of Dead Hard that attracts people, or truly the combination of the two effects.)
Dead Hard: For immunity or for distance? 31 votes
Comments
-
I’d still use Dead Hard if I got the same burst of distance but could be hit
Dead Hard is already strong enough as a dash. The invencibility frames are just BS and the hit validation not only makes auto Dead Hard stronger than ever but also counters a lot of killers.
Just a dash would be more than enough for it's worth.
0 -
killer main Dead is fine but funny looking.
0 -
Thanks, doesn't really answer the question though.
0 -
I’d still use Dead Hard if I got the same burst of distance but could be hit
Who even complained it wasn't fair in the first place before the buff? It was fair when it was just for distance cause atleast you can expect it happening only in loops but now it has F*ing invincibility frames.
1 -
it should'nt be changed tho.So answering no cause it's not powerful at all.
0 -
I’d still use Dead Hard if I got the same burst of distance but could be hit
Dead Hard is better for distance than avoiding hits.
2 -
Right, I get what you’re saying, the question though isn’t whether or not it should be changed. It’s about what attracts you to Dead Hard if you even use it and, if it was limited, do you like part of it enough that you’d still use it even if the defs nerfed it?
0 -
I don’t use Dead Hard currently (or just use it rarely)
I'd rather use fun perks.
1