Lights out is fun and the reason the perk system has to go
Perks are making the game clunky and difficult to balance. Survivors with unique ability/abilities (like killers without perks, it should go for them too ofc) are more characterized and focused on their role, more gamewise efficient, promote cooperation, stimulate the game variety and are NOT skins with... Skins. Not to mention it's an easier system to balance.
I'm so happy about Lights out and so happy about this root playstyle it's gushing out.
Comments
-
Perks are a lot of what make the game fun, imo. Even if some of them are too strong at times, or annoying, I'd rather have a game with perks than without. It'd get stale quick if they were removed.
Also Perks are like a significant part of each DLC's content. You can't fully remove them as that would remove content people had paid for.
It's fine as a modifier but removing Perks from the base game as a whole is out of the question entirely.
2 -
No perks = tunneling. Lights Out made this VERY clear.
6 -
That's why I talked about unique ability/abilites for survivors, just like the killers.
Then we can work out a solution, as I said: it's easier without perks. And as I said, again: no perks BUT unique abilities.
0 -
BHVR seem to be very adamant on their stance regarding tunneling which is unfortunate. Your idea would be really cool for sure.
1 -
ain't no way bro said perks gotta go
this the guy tunneling you off hook
5 -
The game would be boring without any perks. The fun in this game is using different builds.
3 -
Lol I wish you a killer like me ten times in a row, so you're gonna get toxic-free games and maybe even easy wins (?).
How many builds are actually used in game?
DBD lacks in roles and it doesn't identifies survivors at all. Imagine a STRONG survivor basekit to counter tunneling and one unique ability for each survivor that makes them special and give them a specific purpose in game. I'm not saying that tunneling is not a problem in Lights Out (or in game in general) and I condemn every killer (no, let me correct myself, every player) that abuse any single game mechanic flaw to ruin the fun of others. That's why I'm saying this: without all the variabilies that the perk systems brings, problems are easier to solve, and it's even more sustainable in the long run.
0 -
If you want to remove perks, than every survivor needs to have their own skills. Like a champion we choose to play
0 -
Absolutely yes, that's wait I said from the start. Works on shooters, works on mobas, it should work on DBD too.
0 -
The problem with survivors having their own build, is that some characters would be tunneled more than others. For example: If someone play Dwight or Claudette Morel, he will probably have a hard time and be primary targets.
0 -
One of the problem with the "Lights Out" is that killers can see gen's aura. So they can just go "kill shopping" by going to a gen to another until they find someone. If the killer was as blind as survivors, that would be more interesting, because you will actually need to use your senses: ears, eyes, memory, orientation etc.
I had fun for around 12 games, after that, as a survivor or a killer, I was getting bored by the same stories.
As a killer at the end I started messing around and just giving points, because I thought it was more fun than actually chasing and killing, the survivors and I were trying to find the pallets XD so I could get stun and break them.
0 -
Nothing stopping you from playing without perks now. I do it sometimes.
1 -
if perks went i'd quit dbd. trying new builds every so often is literally all that keeps me interested in the game because they do so little events anymore.
0 -
So cut an entire mechanic, an entire library, and a literal staple of the game... from DBD? No thanks, perks allow for replayability in this game.
1 -
If you want unique abilities for survivors I'd suggest playing Identity V. That's basically guaranteed to never happen in DBD.
1 -
Well I said what I felt to say. c: I can understand the point of view of everyone against this, but, as my last answer, I'll ask you to be less conservative about the game and more open to possible and radical game changes, for the benefits of the game itself. I can be wrong btw, but until I can't see it fail, for me, this is a good idea.
It's not the same thing and not what I talked about.
Oh, thanks! I was interested in that game several years ago, I'll follow your tip!
0
