I miss Old CoH and Medkits so much man..
Comments
-
"it is more often lack of coordination to heal/inability to heal for most players."
This could be changed with perk choices from the survivors but they choose not to since the maps are so ridiculously safe that it's generally considered better to them to just rush gens and they don't need to worry about being injured. If maps were not as ridiculously safe as they are and staying injured was way riskier they would actually commit to healing perks. So I would say it's absolutely a choice.
1 -
the healing perks that were viable were weakened. The two perks that were consistently good healing perks were circle of healing and old self-care+botany knowledge. survivors did use healing perks when they were effective. now they're not effective so their choice is staying injured.
1 -
They didn't use them when they were effective, they used them when they were over tuned. There are still multiple good healing perks available anyway. They are still effective, they just look not effective when compared to how fast gens can go if they ignore being injured.
The problem isn't healing perks being bad, it's healing not being necessary because maps are too safe and gens go too fast.
1 -
Console players don't get access to the PTB 🥲
0 -
There are still multiple good healing perks available anyway.
like what perks? the healing perks are not very good now which is why opt to stay injured is popular now. I don't want to say they're under-tuned, but they certainly not being used.
it's healing not being necessary because maps are too safe and gens go too fast.
People were healing before and the map have not changed. gens have remained mostly unchanged as well disregarding 6.1.0.
0 -
just imagine sloppy red bar but slower.
0 -
?
Because SC is garbage and got nerfed when it was already bad?
0 -
"healing perks are not very good now which is why opt to stay injured is popular now"
I disagree with this statement.
"like what perks?"
CoH (yes it's still extremely good, just not OP anymore), BK (yes it's still good), Desperate Measures, Inner Healing, Renewal, We'll Make It, and if healing was actually necessary in the game I would throw potentially a couple others.
The reason that so many of these "seem" (emphasis on the seem, not actually) bad is because survivors are so used to over tuned perks so it makes these look bad in comparison. However if you were to look at them from an objective level of balance, ie not comparatively, they look significantly better.
This is why so many survivor perks don't make it into the meta. It's not because all their perks are trash, it's because they have a few that are over tuned making the rest look bad in comparison. In order for a survivor perk to make it into the meta it has to be overtuned to compare with the others, it can't just be good. There are a lot of good but overshadowed perks.
"People were healing before and the map have not changed. gens have remained mostly unchanged as well disregarding 6.1.0."
They were healing before because it was way too easy and medkits were way over tuned.
3 -
a perk that does not completely heal you is not worth the perk slot imo. I would say Nickolas's cages plot twist perk is an ok healing perk maybe. we'll make it is ok because it restores health-states at a quick enough pace that if a killer is further then 45 meter away from hook and does not have mobility to return to the hook, you get to restore 1 health-state from your teammate without killer being able to interrupt it. The other healing perks do not feel good to use and make little to no difference in gameplay for survivor. that is why they are not used. they're not worth it. as a result, staying injured is the norm. inner healing(inner strength), renewal(Second wind) and COH require setup. they're not worth using because setup is not worth it over running no perks.
it's because they have a few that are over tuned making the rest look bad in comparison.
survivors will use perks that win. they're not going to use perks that do not contribute much towards winning.
0 -
"survivors will use perks that win. they're not going to use perks that do not contribute much towards winning."
Obviously. That isn't my point. The point is that the perk power ceiling for survivor is too high, not that they shouldn't use the best perks.
"they're not worth it"
They're not worth it because they're too safe without healing so it isn't required and gens go fast enough that it doesn't matter. It is not because they don't heal enough.
"they're not worth using because setup is not worth it over running no perks."
Those setups save you more time than they took to set them up in the first place, so that isn't a real statement. They're not worth it because staying injured doesn't matter.
0 -
Those setups save you more time than they took to set them up in the first place, so that isn't a real statement.
no they don't. that is why they're not used. When they do. they will get used. see old COH.
They're not worth it because staying injured doesn't matter.
this is relative to the killer. I think if killer is strong such as Blight, then staying injured does matter. It also varies to how well killer player capitalizes on survivors saying injured. relative statement.
The point is that the perk power ceiling for survivor is too high
your entitled to that opinion but I would say that power-ceiling for killer perk is to low. this is especially true has killer only have 4 perks where as survivor have 16 perks. The killer 4 perks should be very consistent and have high impact. I do not believe that this statement holds true for 90% of killer perks. even highest used perks fall under medium reward but consistent.
0 -
"no they don't. that is why they're not used. When they do. they will get used. see old COH."
No, they're not getting used because there are other over tuned perks that simply overshadow them and as I said before, the healing doesn't matter.
"this is relative to the killer. I think if killer is strong such as Blight, then staying injured does matter. It also varies to how well killer player capitalizes on survivors saying injured. relative statement."
That's an easy statement to make when you pick one of the small fraction of killers that is an exception. My point applies for like 95% of the killer roster. The maps are also so overwhelmingly safe you don't just have to play better than the survivor for being injured to matter, you have to play ridiculously better and he has to be making a lot of mistakes. This is why this all falls apart in higher mmr matches when it's good vs good players.
"your entitled to that opinion but I would say that power-ceiling for killer perk is to low. this is especially true has killer only have 4 perks where as survivor have 16 perks. The killer 4 perks should be very consistent and have high impact. I do not believe that this statement holds true for 90% of killer perks. even highest used perks fall under medium reward but consistent."
I agree the killer perk ceiling is too low as well. This is why the problem with killer and survivor perks is not the same.
Survivor perk problems are a few overtuned perks overshadowing the rest from being considered. A perk power ceiling that's too high.
Killer perk problems are that most their perks are literally just bad and they simply default to the best options there are, even though these options generally aren't great. A perk power ceiling that's too low.
Both sides do have tons of bad perks I would buff, simply speaking in generalities that the problems with both sides perks is a different one overall.
0 -
My point applies for like 95% of the killer roster. The maps are also so overwhelmingly safe you don't just have to play better than the survivor for being injured to matter, you have to play ridiculously better and he has to be making a lot of mistakes. This is why this all falls apart in higher mmr matches when it's good vs good players.
it goes to that other forum post that walks about "why bvhr does not buff weaker killers?" according to kill-stats, all the killer do fine. it is also that matchmaking is relatively lax because when it was strict, survivors dislike going against same top-tier killers over and over and the majority of killer cast was not worth playing for most killer players because the killer players find them too weak/unrewarding to play. Some killer player also dislike hard matches so that is side-note.
my conclusion is following:
Survivors refuse to improve killers and accept harder games. Instead harder games as survivor is more survivor becoming entitled and d/cing/dying on hook because X game is not going their way.
Alternatively, survivors also refuse to get nerfed in specific ways like maps so that more of the lackluster killer cast has an opportunity to win. The end result is stalemate. no killer buffs and no survivor negative changes to avoid any negative perceived unfun survivor gameplay loops.
0 -
"it goes to that other forum post that walks about "why bvhr does not buff weaker killers?" according to kill-stats, all the killer do fine."
Yeah this is one of the root problems. They rely on bad statistics. Kill rates are flawed for a multitude of reasons and shouldn't be used for balance unless they were going to add significant other criteria. The kill rates are not a good reflection of the games balance.
"it is also that matchmaking is relatively lax because when it was strict, survivors dislike going against same top-tier killers over and over and the majority of killer cast was not worth playing for most killer players because the killer players find them too weak/unrewarding to play."
The bad matchmaking is also necessary as it covers up the games balance problems. Basically if the matchmaking was perfect people would quit the game in droves because they would be forced to play so many unbalanced matches. A necessary evil currently.
"Some killer player also dislike hard matches so that is side-note."
This is kind of a pointless statement. ALL players can dislike hard matches. Generally speaking the issue is not hard matches though, that is a very, very small fraction. The majority just dislikes unfair matches.
"Survivors refuse to improve killers and accept harder games. Instead harder games as survivor is more survivor becoming entitled and d/cing/dying on hook because X game is not going their way.
Alternatively, survivors also refuse to get nerfed in specific ways like maps so that more of the lackluster killer cast has an opportunity to win. The end result is stalemate. no killer buffs and no survivor negative changes to avoid any negative perceived unfun survivor gameplay loops."
This seems accurate, I mostly agree.
The essential problem is that survivors want the "unfun" killer play styles removed but refuse to allow the game to make changes that would allow them to remove those play styles. IE we would need significant balance changes for killers. They want to keep those killers weak and the maps significantly in their favor as those loops are "fun" since being in the power role is obviously fun for anyone yet as said, this keeps the devs from being able to implement the other changes they want. Thus we stuck in a revolving circle.
I'd rather them buff the weak killers significantly, shrink maps significantly, make loop design on maps much more balanced, and then remove tunneling/camping entirely. Then both sides would get what they want. The problem is that the games balance has been done in a way for so, so long to make bad players think they're better than they are and win games they shouldn't that there's a large portion of the population that doesn't understand the games balance issues to even want to do these changes.
1 -
Old COH was outright broken and unfair, so I think it is good it was nerfed into the ground. I actually have used COH a lot lately as I need to finish the Bless 20 Hex totems achievement so I bring COH every survivor match and it is still a decent perk imo.
Medkits were also just unfair, a hit meant nothing if they could go off and fully heal really fast multiple times in one match. I far prefer how it is now and I should mention I am by far a survivor main as far as hours played in each role
3
