Hillbilly and Nurse balance suggestion
Problem: There is not enough variety of killers at higher levels of play as it is mostly dominated by Nurse and Hillbilly.
Causes: The core mechanics—while the initial learning curve
may be a hurdle—of these killers ultimately lead to more secure success over
using other killers*. As a result, they
are more streamlined and thus perceived as more viable against efficient SWF
teams.
*Nobody is saying that learning the initial mechanics to the killer is easy,
but rather that once one is familiar with them, then the challenge of using the
killer are negligible.
Intention: Level the tiers among the killers to encourage variety and create more necessity for strategic use for the killers’ abilities.
Visual Representation:
The diagram below is more or less the current tier list among killers such that the top represents killers that can effectively deal with SWF teams, or what some of you are confusing as the term, viability; while the bottom are the killers which seem the least effective. Nevertheless, I see the problem as the unbalance among killers themselves. So ideally I would like to change it towards the latter image where all of the killers exist on the same tier where the core mechanics are not what dictate the outcome of the game, but rather the killer’s skill.
Therefore the most important thing is making the necessary adjustments to move all the killers into the same tier and understand the reasoning behind it. We could technically choose to move all the killers ability to the red tier by nerfing the ######### out of each one of them, which most of you snowflakes would endlessly cry over. Oddly enough, a lot of you argue that we should instead focus on boosting all the killers into the yellow tier. While yes, both of these are technically solutions, we have to concede at some point or another that making adjustments to twelve other killers is a lot more work than adjusting the top and bottom tier towards the middle since the difference between the green and blue tiers could probably just be solved with stat tweaking. This is my proposal for addressing the top tier of killers and how to make them into middle tier.
Before I go into each of these, I want you guys for a moment to suspend success of killers versus survivors as a whole, as I’m more interested in the relative success among the killers. I will say that the benefit of having all the killers on the same tier list is that it makes the task of balancing against survivors much easier since survivors have the same game play. Therefore if all the killers are struggling against survivors, then you just increase the time it takes to complete a generator or unlock a gate—something that gives killers more time to succeed at their objective.
My Suggestions:
Hillbilly
Background: Hillbilly is a really strong killer, due to his sheer mobility and
the chance to instantly down survivors with his chainsaw. While there is a bit
of a learning curve to controlling his chainsaw, it gets easier with practice
and you will eventually not have too many issues with directing him. However,
he has a very convenient and effective strategy which is run up to the survivor
close range and use his ability. This seems like a rather cheesy strategy
mostly in relation to our precious Bubba boy. While technically Bubba boy can
in fact down multiple people at once, his potency for his ability is usually
limited to one survivor since most experienced survivors know at this point to
generally stay clear of a chase. Therefore, the downing potential for both
Hillbilly and Leatherface are effectively the same, the difference then being
that Hillbilly has vastly superior mobility and is thus much more able to apply
map pressure, defend gens, guard hooked survivors, monitor gates, etc.
Change: I argue that we can get rid of this close range strategy and force Hillbilly to aim his ability more so that downing a survivor doesn’t feel like an inevitability but more of a result of successfully reading what the survivor will do. I propose giving Hillbilly a requirement to cover 12 metres with his ability to instantly down a survivor into dying state, otherwise it puts a healthy survivor into injured state and an injured or deeply wounded survivor into a dying state. The novel effect is that Leatherface gets a distinctly close-range advantage over his chainsaw brother. I suggest 12 metres because it’s still fairly close enough to give a survivor anxiety about a Hillbilly reving up his chainsaw, but far enough for survivors to not feel completely helpless; furthermore, it rewards Hillbilly for successfully aiming their ability and reading where survivors are moving.
Nurse
Background: Nurse is generally agreed to be the strongest killer in the game,
and also has the highest learning curve. Similarly to Hillbilly, it takes a
while to learn her basics, but once you have her figured out then using her
ability generally becomes second nature. Typically speaking, once an
experienced nurse sees a survivor, they will down them. She is essentially
immune to the golden strategy that survivors covet so much, pallet looping. I
think the core issue of her mechanics however is that the only real consequence
to her ability is being fatigued. While this is a great first step, an
experienced nurse is not going to have to adjust as much for failure to
adequately use her blinks—they’re good as new the moment the fatigue wears off.
Change: I argue that Nurse blinks should be on a token system. The blinks ought to be base one, meaning that she will always have the capacity to blink at least one time once the fatigue wears off. A token would take time to recharge—let’s softly say 8 seconds to gain one token as this could be changed. This would then mean that a nurse with three blinks could initiate with three blinks, but would probably only be able to do two blinks if she spams her blink, and then eventually she will only be able to blink once if she continually spams it. This means then that the nurse would have to manage when she blinks order to correctly strategize the number of tokens available to her.
What I am not arguing: Hillbilly and Nurse are too OP! I am not concerned with how they fare against survivors since that is an ever-changing battle that is generally fixed with minor stat tweaks. I am more concerned with how they fare in comparison to other killers and I believe the problem is generally rooted in a lack of engagement for their abilities in some of the strategies that they use.
What I would like to see: Ultimately I can only argue from my own testimony and observe the aggregate experiences of others. I am certainly experienced at this game and while I don’t claim to be the best that there ever was, I can say that I can definitely do well. I know that rank is not a 1:1 correlation to skill, but for lack of other readily available metric, me quickly getting into high ranks is all I can truly offer in saying that I’m not a random survivor main that doesn’t know how to cope with Billy and Nurse. What I would like to see in order to either verify my suspicions regarding the killer tier list in practice versus a proposal is data showing the relative success of each killer; e.g. Hillbilly wins x% of games against survivors which escape y% of times in z-specific tier (there’s probably a better formula for gauging success, but this is to give a rough idea). I think also having a specific idea of what viability is among the community would also be ideal since it gives a clear goal of how to balance killers such that if a killer is getting 4K 75% among a majority of the players, then it means we know to tone them down, or they’re getting 0K 75% of the time, then give them boosts; i.e. I would like to hear viability expressed in terms of kill counts for a certain percent of games.
Comments
-
Love facing them, only killers that provide a really challenge and deny crutches.8
-
No.
/thread8 -
They’re kinda boring when you’re against an experienced billy or nurse who will easily get a 3K minimum due to favorable mechanics rather than strategy.1
-
And why not? The whole point is so we see different killers at high rank.0
-
For god sakes no. I like playing against strong killers such as nurse and billy because they make me a better player and it feels satisfying when you outplay them. There is not a better feeling in this game then when you mind game the ######### out of a nurse. Billy and Nurse are fine as they are and their capabilities show who truly is a good survivor and who is a boosted nub that needs to ........
6 -
@PBlackII said:
And why not? The whole point is so we see different killers at high rank.You want to see different killers at higher rank? Ok i can agree with that but you dont do that by nerfing the good killers. You do that by buffing the bad ones so they are viable in high rank games.
6 -
LOL, no no no.. hillbilly will be more weak than freddy ;-; and nurse i dont know..
1 -
As somebody with around 2.6k hours on this game and who usually gets rank 1 within the first couple days, I can definitely say that you guys are confusing mind games with luck. There is really little mind games going on for the killer side, just the drudgery of “is the survivor going to try faking me this time so I can easily secure the down”? I want killers to actually think about their ability rather than just crutch on it. And yes you are more likely to get successful results out of nerfing these two rather than hope you buff the rest of the killers correctly.0
-
And you guys are acting like these suggestions would nerf them into unusability. They would only eliminate cheesy no brain plays.0
-
"Hey guys, there's only two viable killers at the highest level of play, we should nerf them so that people will gravitate toward other killers. Y'know, variety!"
DBD Killer has left the lobby.
4 -
Yes, let's nerf the only viable killers against good survivors, it will certainly make the game better!
2 -
@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.
We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.
Smart player: buff other killers so they aren't so weak compared to hillbilly and nurse and we get more variety then just the same 2 killers.
Idiot survivor main: I only get nurse and hillbilly please nerf them.
Logic.2 -
If the killers are good enough to get a majority of kills then that makes for an interesting and challenging match. If they are using "cheap mechanics" then it should be an easy game since you know what to watch for.0
-
The other killers are viable at high ranks, you must be pretty ######### at this game to not know that. The problem is that there are two killers that require a way less effort than the others in order to get the same level of success. Again, these are not drastic nerfs and really good killers would be able to strategize with these sort of changes.
Rather than be toxic and not constructive in any way whatsoever, give a reason that these nerfs would ruin these killers. Playing Hillbilly as it is is really easy, you run up close enough and just use your power; no thought whatsoever. Nurse? Run three blinks and you’re good, no need to worry about if you mess up because you’ll be back with three blinks to compensate. Neither of these presents a sincere mind game.0 -
try to improve and learn how to play the game instead of crying for nerfs all the time. this nerf billy and nurse threads make me cringe inside everytime time.
0 -
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.1
-
no
0 -
@PBlackII said:
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.you don't make other killers more viable by nerfing the good ones
all you get then is nobody wanting to play killer anymore1 -
I'm not making the other killers more viable, they are viable if you can play them well. Hell, I've seen 4K freddies at top rank. What I'm saying is adjusting two killers who are easy to play at a high level so that they're on par with the others.
I'm going to refer to another game to highlight this issue. Back in ye old days of Super Smash Bros. Brawl of being a thing, the character that absolutely dominated the tier list was Metaknight, mostly because it was easy to keep up obnoxious play in "high level" play. Sure, this didn't mean that we never saw any other players—but it was pretty obvious that most players favored him as a character because it guaranteed the most success with the least amount of effort; i.e. less upkeep.
In the same sense, Nurse and Hillbilly are much like Metaknight. It's not that we never ever see other killers and that they're absolutely unbeatable, it's just much much easier to play them and secure at least a 3K for the majority of games provided you played them enough. The nerfs I'm suggesting are not even boring stat changes, they're practical mechanic changes that would force them to strategize a bit more so that they require the same effort to get the same success as the other killers.
0 -
@PBlackII said:
I'm not making the other killers more viable, they are viable if you can play them well. Hell, I've seen 4K freddies at top rank. What I'm saying is adjusting two killers who are easy to play at a high level so that they're on par with the others.I'm going to refer to another game to highlight this issue. Back in ye old days of Super Smash Bros. Brawl of being a thing, the character that absolutely dominated the tier list was Metaknight, mostly because it was easy to keep up obnoxious play in "high level" play. Sure, this didn't mean that we never saw any other players—but it was pretty obvious that most players favored him as a character because it guaranteed the most success with the least amount of effort; i.e. less upkeep.
In the same sense, Nurse and Hillbilly are much like Metaknight. It's not that we never ever see other killers and that they're absolutely unbeatable, it's just much much easier to play them and secure at least a 3K for the majority of games provided you played them enough. The nerfs I'm suggesting are not even boring stat changes, they're practical mechanic changes that would force them to strategize a bit more so that they require the same effort to get the same success as the other killers.
ah so you're just lying so you get easier games
opinion discarded1 -
No0
-
@PBlackII said:
As somebody with around 2.6k hours on this game and who usually gets rank 1 within the first couple days, I can definitely say that you guys are confusing mind games with luck. There is really little mind games going on for the killer side, just the drudgery of “is the survivor going to try faking me this time so I can easily secure the down”? I want killers to actually think about their ability rather than just crutch on it. And yes you are more likely to get successful results out of nerfing these two rather than hope you buff the rest of the killers correctly.If they nerf Nurse, it won't make me play other killers at high ranks. It'll just make me stop playing the game, because I don't like being bullied by experienced SWF groups for the 3 minutes that the gens haven't been absolutely eaten alive.
2 -
I didn't lie at all, and I'm not sure why you guys are so ravenously trying to defend killers that are easy to play. I mean you guys are saying that you can't play other killers because you get 'bullied' or it's 'not viable' when that just communicates that you guys are (a) bad at killer or (b) not wanting to put in effort to get a 4K—either case not really a compelling argument.
I'm not saying nerf Hillybilly and Nurse because I find them oh so hard to deal with, I'm saying nerf them because it's a noticeable majority of the games in high rank because they're easy to play at the higher level. Furthermore, these suggestions do not nerf them to the point where they can't be used at all, it just puts them even with the rest of the killers.
You guys are following up by pouting that other killers aren't viable and should be boosted, but the reality is that they are. You can get a 4k with them against a SWF group; it's not supposed to be easy, but it's certainly possible with all of them given the right mechanics, mind games, and other circumstances. Am I saying that absolutely no other killers need buffs? Of course not. Perhaps somebody here can define what 'viability' means with respect to killers. Is it securely getting a 4K for the majority of games? Getting half of the survivors? Doing enough to get the safety pip?
0 -
@PBlackII said:
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.
1 -
The only thing I would change is to give Hillbilly the revving speed of Leatherface (and viceversa) and make the hitbox slightly narrower. Currently he does everything LF does (except multi-downs) but better, without requiring much more skill.
About the Nurse I would change her addons to make them more balanced and interesting (3-4 blinks or insane range with basically no downside is kinda stupid), but her base power imo is fine.0 -
@ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:
@PBlackII said:
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.
No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.
Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.
Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.
Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.
0 -
To add greater clarity, I'm not saying, "As a survivor, I don't like playing against Hillbilly or Nurse because I usually lose against them because it's easy to play as them." I'm saying that I want those killers to be more engaging to play as—they are currently the most played because it is easiest to play them and get the greatest amount of success. This doesn't have to do with viability as viability refers to a minimum capacity for achieving a threshold of success; e.g. a killer who requires a ton of effort and still only provides about 1K on average versus a killer who played on average garners you about 2K per game with the capacity of 4K with advanced level game play.
0 -
No. Billy's chainsaws would be impossible to land unless playing a braindead survivor. And his chainsaws are already hard to hit against good survivors unless they are caught in the open. Nurse is the hardest killer to play in game, she's supposed to be rewarding.1
-
Have you ever played with any of them?? I'm a rank 1 killer and I hate both those killers because of how easy it is to counter them. Combine that with the learning required, and you see that they are good because people put effort to learning and evolving them.0
-
KingB said:No. Billy's chainsaws would be impossible to land unless playing a braindead survivor. And his chainsaws are already hard to hit against good survivors unless they are caught in the open. Nurse is the hardest killer to play in game, she's supposed to be rewarding.They are not "impossible" to land, and you're essentially arguing at this point that the only way to land his chainsaw is to be right next to the survivor. As far as nurse goes there should be reward in playing the character successfully, not necessarily having done the learning curve and crutching on the mechanics.
Easy to counter them? Are you high? They're literally played the most because they're the easiest to get the most success with the least effort. The thing about learning curves is once you pass it, the challenge begins to disappear. I'm not saying that the challenge is forever gone, but you remember the strategy and it makes it easier to deal with survivors without having to put too much thought into it. There is a reason why there are countless memes of killer mains going "good thing I have ol' reliable" with images of bloody nurses and billies, because it is certainly much easier to get the desired result with them than the other killers.bloxe said:Have you ever played with any of them?? I'm a rank 1 killer and I hate both those killers because of how easy it is to counter them. Combine that with the learning required, and you see that they are good because people put effort to learning and evolving them.0 -
@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.Just no. Hillbilly is fine as he is. You can still loop him. Take your time and learn which routes you need to run.
@PBlackII said:
Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.She already has to manage her ability. She has to charge and she has a fatigue time.
@PBlackII said:
We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.The solution to that problem is to buff the other killers, not the other way around.
1 -
Saying "just no" isn't a sincere counter argument to the points I've previously laid out. As a rank 1 survivor I already know how to generally deal with Hillbilly. Yes, there is a factor of luck involved—what were the pallet spawns, which ones were used, etc.; but this is significantly different than just running up and using an instant down since there's little to no thought process behind that.NoShinyPony said:@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.Just no. Hillbilly is fine as he is. You can still loop him. Take your time and learn which routes you need to run.
@PBlackII said:
Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.She already has to manage her ability. She has to charge and she has a fatigue time.
@PBlackII said:
We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.The solution to that problem is to buff the other killers, not the other way around.
When it comes to nurse, that's not managing her ability, it's just waiting for her wither to wear off. That's hardly a consequence due to the short duration. If I play nurse and spot a survivor, then I know I will secure the down fairly quickly because I generally know what they are likely to do—I don't have to worry about my usage of blinks and I don't think it's a concern that crosses any nurse main's mind.
Again, you are less likely to see a buff for 12 killers than a "nerf" for 2. I use nerf pretty lightly as it is more about managing an ability than a direct stat adjustment.
0 -
@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.
We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.
Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....
By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all
0 -
@PBlackII said:
@ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:@PBlackII said:
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.
No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.
Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.
Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.
Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.
A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.
When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)
Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.
Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.
1 -
@Master said:
@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.
We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.
Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....
By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all
You're being highly dramatic for no reason and bandwagoning with the rest here. Each killer has strategies to be viable at rank 1, viability doesn't mean securing 4K the majority of games. I don't agree with that point within the dev's philosophy either, but applying these changes wouldn't suddenly make these killers not viable.
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:@PBlackII said:
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.
No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.
Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.
Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.
Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.
A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.
When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)
Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.
Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.
Experienced survivor here checking in to let you know that you have a reading comprehension problem—I'm not saying that Hillbilly and Nurse are "omg so op, nerf plz", I'm saying that they're too easy to use and thus are preferable over the other killers. Also, you're being very disingenuous when you suggest an experienced survivor will consistently never be found since at high rank play an experienced killer will find you. Are there games where that occurs? Sure, and some survivors strive for that, but it usually does not happen despite one's best efforts to some things like circumstances and perks.
0 -
@PBlackII said:
@Master said:
@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.
We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.
Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....
By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all
You're being highly dramatic for no reason and bandwagoning with the rest here. Each killer has strategies to be viable at rank 1, viability doesn't mean securing 4K the majority of games. I don't agree with that point within the dev's philosophy either, but applying these changes wouldn't suddenly make these killers not viable.
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:@PBlackII said:
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.
No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.
Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.
Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.
Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.
A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.
When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)
Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.
Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.
Experienced survivor here checking in to let you know that you have a reading comprehension problem—I'm not saying that Hillbilly and Nurse are "omg so op, nerf plz", I'm saying that they're too easy to use and thus are preferable over the other killers. Also, you're being very disingenuous when you suggest an experienced survivor will consistently never be found since at high rank play an experienced killer will find you. Are there games where that occurs? Sure, and some survivors strive for that, but it usually does not happen despite one's best efforts to some things like circumstances and perks.
Looks like you also have a reading comprehension problem where did i say that an experienced survivor will never be found?
What i said, is that you wont be able to consistently catch a experienced survivor with their pants down, they will see you coming and move towards a pallet loop before you reach them.
You are saying that these 2 killers are too easy to use, so they should nerf them both. its not really that different than "omg so op, nerf plz" You are asking for nerfs.
You say that they are easy to use, but the general consensus on the Nurses case, is that its the hardest killer to learn, but once you learn it it is the best.
About Hillbilly, alright lets look at it this way, lets see if you understand that its not that strong.
We all agree that Leatherface is 1 of the worst killers on game right? Well, Hillbilly is just Leatherface but with the ability to move from point A to point B really fast on certain maps(and on the maps that he can do it, he cant take all paths, there are obstacles, etc), his ability when downing people is worse than Leatherface's, Hillbilly can only down 1 survivor at a time, also on the worst case scenario(you run out of loops), you can spin on him when he is using his chainsaw, since the movement becomes sluggish when he revs up his chainsaw and is easy to make him miss(cant do that to Leatherface unless the killer player is really boosted).Stop asking for nerfs to Hillbilly, he is just an ordinary M1 killer with a bit better mobility.
0 -
To further illustrate this point, let's take trapper vs. hillbilly.
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@Master said:
@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.
We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.
Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....
By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all
You're being highly dramatic for no reason and bandwagoning with the rest here. Each killer has strategies to be viable at rank 1, viability doesn't mean securing 4K the majority of games. I don't agree with that point within the dev's philosophy either, but applying these changes wouldn't suddenly make these killers not viable.
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:@PBlackII said:
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.
No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.
Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.
Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.
Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.
A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.
When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)
Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.
Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.
Experienced survivor here checking in to let you know that you have a reading comprehension problem—I'm not saying that Hillbilly and Nurse are "omg so op, nerf plz", I'm saying that they're too easy to use and thus are preferable over the other killers. Also, you're being very disingenuous when you suggest an experienced survivor will consistently never be found since at high rank play an experienced killer will find you. Are there games where that occurs? Sure, and some survivors strive for that, but it usually does not happen despite one's best efforts to some things like circumstances and perks.
Looks like you also have a reading comprehension problem where did i say that an experienced survivor will never be found?
What i said, is that you wont be able to consistently catch a experienced survivor with their pants down, they will see you coming and move towards a pallet loop before you reach them.
You are saying that these 2 killers are too easy to use, so they should nerf them both. its not really that different than "omg so op, nerf plz" You are asking for nerfs.
You say that they are easy to use, but the general consensus on the Nurses case, is that its the hardest killer to learn, but once you learn it it is the best.
About Hillbilly, alright lets look at it this way, lets see if you understand that its not that strong.
We all agree that Leatherface is 1 of the worst killers on game right? Well, Hillbilly is just Leatherface but with the ability to move from point A to point B really fast on certain maps(and on the maps that he can do it, he cant take all paths, there are obstacles, etc), his ability when downing people is worse than Leatherface's, Hillbilly can only down 1 survivor at a time, also on the worst case scenario(you run out of loops), you can spin on him when he is using his chainsaw, since the movement becomes sluggish when he revs up his chainsaw and is easy to make him miss(cant do that to Leatherface unless the killer player is really boosted).Stop asking for nerfs to Hillbilly, he is just an ordinary M1 killer with a bit better mobility.
Looks like you still have a reading comprehension problem. You said that an experienced survivor 'won't let him get close to them', which suggests that a survivor main will never be found consistently because you are (1) characterizing a high rank survivor has a quality of successfully evading the killer and (2) suggests a level of control in the hands of the survivor by using the word 'let'. The first component is more of an ever-existing goal that sometimes manifests itself into reality, but is usually not the case, and the second component is clearly false since the survivor doesn't really have an upper hand to 'let' the killer do anything. In other words, your statement leaves very little interpretation to suggest otherwise, so while you will not explicitly state a good survivor will never be found, you suggest it. So to try to snidely say I have a reading comprehension problem shows a particular sense of malice that is unwarranted because at least I have the decency to say 'suggest' and be honest with my usage of words.
Yes, survivors will generally communicate with each other in order to maintain a certain level of awareness of the killer's whereabouts and thus will utilize a pallet loop if needed. This is just a part of basic strategy and ought to be a part of the calculation of the killer. The difference is that for hillbilly it just boils down to "get real close and press M2 real big-like!" rather than use his ability and aim—there are still situations where that would be successful even against experienced survivors.
It is profoundly different if I'm saying usage is too easy versus saying that they're OP. Let's go back to the example I provided earlier with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. In that game Diddy Kong is a high tier character where it required conscious effort and continual strategy to keep up his game play; meanwhile you have Metaknight who was literally "spam his B moves and they'll eventually slip up". Huntress would be somebody like Diddy Kong, and Hillbilly and Nurse are akin to Metaknight—there isn't much effort into the upkeep of their game play once you have it figured out. So while somebody like the hardest killer to learn is the nurse—which honestly is more like the hardest to get used to her mechanics—once it is learned it's easy to secure preferable results. When I say nerf, it means I'm not going to sugar coat the suggestion and try to deceive people, but nerf does not mean unplayable or unviable. Saying something is OP means that a character possesses a quality that makes the game solved in their favor despite the opposition's best efforts—which is not what I'm suggesting at all.
But hell, let's run with your logic in your Leatherface and Hillbilly comparison. I would have to argue then that Leatherface's ability does not have nearly as much downing potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough and would keep close to a pallet loop—particularly if he's involved with another survivor. So the fact that he can down multiple people becomes less relevant since experienced survivors won't let that scenario happen. Furthermore, because the Hillbilly's mobility allows him to cover more ground and prevent objectives it makes his ability more powerful in the grander scope of the game, while Leatherface just has a better chance against sick 360 plays. Therefore in terms of 'downing' potential both can realistically only down one survivor at a time, Leatherface might be able to secure it better in the event of a 360, but Hillbilly still has much better utility; so I don't see how this is any real meaningful counterargument when it's actually just a deceptive whataboutism.
0 -
OP, the solution is not to nerf the only two viable killers, it is to buff the weaker ones.
Saying you can do well with weaker killers at high ranks is irrelevant as rank isn't an indicator of skill, but of time spent this season. With the current ranking system, anyone can get to red ranks, even bad survivors. The reason why Billy and Nurse are considered viable is not because they consistently do well at red ranks, it is because they do better against efficient teams.
But let's assume you're right, and they both get nerfed to remove these "braindead" strategies. Then please tell me when we can expect you to advocate for the removal of the pallet loop or perks such as Sprint Burst.
2 -
@PBlackII said:
To further illustrate this point, let's take trapper vs. hillbilly.@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@Master said:
@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.
We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.
Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....
By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all
You're being highly dramatic for no reason and bandwagoning with the rest here. Each killer has strategies to be viable at rank 1, viability doesn't mean securing 4K the majority of games. I don't agree with that point within the dev's philosophy either, but applying these changes wouldn't suddenly make these killers not viable.
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:@PBlackII said:
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.
No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.
Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.
Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.
Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.
A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.
When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)
Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.
Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.
Experienced survivor here checking in to let you know that you have a reading comprehension problem—I'm not saying that Hillbilly and Nurse are "omg so op, nerf plz", I'm saying that they're too easy to use and thus are preferable over the other killers. Also, you're being very disingenuous when you suggest an experienced survivor will consistently never be found since at high rank play an experienced killer will find you. Are there games where that occurs? Sure, and some survivors strive for that, but it usually does not happen despite one's best efforts to some things like circumstances and perks.
Looks like you also have a reading comprehension problem where did i say that an experienced survivor will never be found?
What i said, is that you wont be able to consistently catch a experienced survivor with their pants down, they will see you coming and move towards a pallet loop before you reach them.
You are saying that these 2 killers are too easy to use, so they should nerf them both. its not really that different than "omg so op, nerf plz" You are asking for nerfs.
You say that they are easy to use, but the general consensus on the Nurses case, is that its the hardest killer to learn, but once you learn it it is the best.
About Hillbilly, alright lets look at it this way, lets see if you understand that its not that strong.
We all agree that Leatherface is 1 of the worst killers on game right? Well, Hillbilly is just Leatherface but with the ability to move from point A to point B really fast on certain maps(and on the maps that he can do it, he cant take all paths, there are obstacles, etc), his ability when downing people is worse than Leatherface's, Hillbilly can only down 1 survivor at a time, also on the worst case scenario(you run out of loops), you can spin on him when he is using his chainsaw, since the movement becomes sluggish when he revs up his chainsaw and is easy to make him miss(cant do that to Leatherface unless the killer player is really boosted).Stop asking for nerfs to Hillbilly, he is just an ordinary M1 killer with a bit better mobility.
Looks like you still have a reading comprehension problem. You said that an experienced survivor 'won't let him get close to them', which suggests that a survivor main will never be found consistently because you are (1) characterizing a high rank survivor has a quality of successfully evading the killer and (2) suggests a level of control in the hands of the survivor by using the word 'let'. The first component is more of an ever-existing goal that sometimes manifests itself into reality, but is usually not the case, and the second component is clearly false since the survivor doesn't really have an upper hand to 'let' the killer do anything. In other words, your statement leaves very little interpretation to suggest otherwise, so while you will not explicitly state a good survivor will never be found, you suggest it. So to try to snidely say I have a reading comprehension problem shows a particular sense of malice that is unwarranted because at least I have the decency to say 'suggest' and be honest with my usage of words.
Yes, survivors will generally communicate with each other in order to maintain a certain level of awareness of the killer's whereabouts and thus will utilize a pallet loop if needed. This is just a part of basic strategy and ought to be a part of the calculation of the killer. The difference is that for hillbilly it just boils down to "get real close and press M2 real big-like!" rather than use his ability and aim—there are still situations where that would be successful even against experienced survivors.
It is profoundly different if I'm saying usage is too easy versus saying that they're OP. Let's go back to the example I provided earlier with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. In that game Diddy Kong is a high tier character where it required conscious effort and continual strategy to keep up his game play; meanwhile you have Metaknight who was literally "spam his B moves and they'll eventually slip up". Huntress would be somebody like Diddy Kong, and Hillbilly and Nurse are akin to Metaknight—there isn't much effort into the upkeep of their game play once you have it figured out. So while somebody like the hardest killer to learn is the nurse—which honestly is more like the hardest to get used to her mechanics—once it is learned it's easy to secure preferable results. When I say nerf, it means I'm not going to sugar coat the suggestion and try to deceive people, but nerf does not mean unplayable or unviable. Saying something is OP means that a character possesses a quality that makes the game solved in their favor despite the opposition's best efforts—which is not what I'm suggesting at all.
But hell, let's run with your logic in your Leatherface and Hillbilly comparison. I would have to argue then that Leatherface's ability does not have nearly as much downing potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough and would keep close to a pallet loop—particularly if he's involved with another survivor. So the fact that he can down multiple people becomes less relevant since experienced survivors won't let that scenario happen. Furthermore, because the Hillbilly's mobility allows him to cover more ground and prevent objectives it makes his ability more powerful in the grander scope of the game, while Leatherface just has a better chance against sick 360 plays. Therefore in terms of 'downing' potential both can realistically only down one survivor at a time, Leatherface might be able to secure it better in the event of a 360, but Hillbilly still has much better utility; so I don't see how this is any real meaningful counterargument when it's actually just a deceptive whataboutism.
When i said "A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him..." i mean it in the same way as when you say "...potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough..." I didnt suggest anything, i just assumed that you would understand the context (In chase, not talking about finding the survivor) as i understand when you use almost the same phrase in your argument, but i guess ill specify next time.
** I would have to argue then that Leatherface's ability does not have nearly as much downing potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough and would keep close to a pallet loop**
Same could be said about Hillbilly. Hillbilly and Leatherface have the same downing potential when playing against an experienced survivor that never lets him close enough and always keep close to a pallet loop.
If the survivor knows what he/she is doing, both these killers are just M1 killers that move at 115% speed.The only thing Hillbilly does better than Leatherface is the ability to move from A to B quickly(REMEMBER that he cant do that on all maps) as i said before.
As i said there is no need to nerf Hillbilly.
0 -
@Grim said:
OP, the solution is not to nerf the only two viable killers, it is to buff the weaker ones.Saying you can do well with weaker killers at high ranks is irrelevant as rank isn't an indicator of skill, but of time spent this season. With the current ranking system, anyone can get to red ranks, even bad survivors. The reason why Billy and Nurse are considered viable is not because they consistently do well at red ranks, it is because they do better against efficient teams.
But let's assume you're right, and they both get nerfed to remove these "braindead" strategies. Then please tell me when we can expect you to advocate for the removal of the pallet loop or perks such as Sprint Burst.
Again, you are much less likely to buff 12 killers than you are to nerf 2 of them. Rank is a correlate to skill—or at the very least a competency of player tendencies beyond the basic mechanics of the game. Are there good players that purposefully lower their rank or have not played in a while? Of course, that's a pretty obvious point, but it's incredibly misleading to suggest that there is no correlation whatsoever between rank and ability. Therefore in a weird way, we actually agree that viability does concern itself towards a killer gearing themselves against an efficient team. I say high rank though because it generally suggests that we are at the very least mostly working with competent survivors, and an efficient team is usually made of competent survivors.
Now onto your tangential hypothetical, what would I do about strategies specifically geared towards pallet loop or a perk such as sprint burst. The latter is pretty easy to assess given the previous logic I presented in that an ability that requires less upkeep should provide less reward—so if I had to really change sprint burst specifically, I'd probably would just slightly lower the duration of the speed burst so that reward isn't as advantageous to more strategically used perks. As for the former, I find it surprisingly easy to solve the pallet looping ordeal: monitor if a survivor is retracing their steps over a period of time and introduce progressive punitive measures for doing a loop. The game already has a method of tracking the trails that survivors making as evidenced by scratch marks, so it would be pretty simple to add in things like "If a survivor exists on x portion of their own scratch marks for t seconds, then decrease movement speed by m%." This is an example of an approach, but I'm sure the point is clearly made and how one decides to make the process more creative.
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
To further illustrate this point, let's take trapper vs. hillbilly.@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@Master said:
@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.
We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.
Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....
By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all
You're being highly dramatic for no reason and bandwagoning with the rest here. Each killer has strategies to be viable at rank 1, viability doesn't mean securing 4K the majority of games. I don't agree with that point within the dev's philosophy either, but applying these changes wouldn't suddenly make these killers not viable.
@inkedsoulz said:
@PBlackII said:
@ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:@PBlackII said:
As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.
No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.
Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.
Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.
Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.
A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.
When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)
Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.
Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.
Experienced survivor here checking in to let you know that you have a reading comprehension problem—I'm not saying that Hillbilly and Nurse are "omg so op, nerf plz", I'm saying that they're too easy to use and thus are preferable over the other killers. Also, you're being very disingenuous when you suggest an experienced survivor will consistently never be found since at high rank play an experienced killer will find you. Are there games where that occurs? Sure, and some survivors strive for that, but it usually does not happen despite one's best efforts to some things like circumstances and perks.
Looks like you also have a reading comprehension problem where did i say that an experienced survivor will never be found?
What i said, is that you wont be able to consistently catch a experienced survivor with their pants down, they will see you coming and move towards a pallet loop before you reach them.
You are saying that these 2 killers are too easy to use, so they should nerf them both. its not really that different than "omg so op, nerf plz" You are asking for nerfs.
You say that they are easy to use, but the general consensus on the Nurses case, is that its the hardest killer to learn, but once you learn it it is the best.
About Hillbilly, alright lets look at it this way, lets see if you understand that its not that strong.
We all agree that Leatherface is 1 of the worst killers on game right? Well, Hillbilly is just Leatherface but with the ability to move from point A to point B really fast on certain maps(and on the maps that he can do it, he cant take all paths, there are obstacles, etc), his ability when downing people is worse than Leatherface's, Hillbilly can only down 1 survivor at a time, also on the worst case scenario(you run out of loops), you can spin on him when he is using his chainsaw, since the movement becomes sluggish when he revs up his chainsaw and is easy to make him miss(cant do that to Leatherface unless the killer player is really boosted).Stop asking for nerfs to Hillbilly, he is just an ordinary M1 killer with a bit better mobility.
Looks like you still have a reading comprehension problem. You said that an experienced survivor 'won't let him get close to them', which suggests that a survivor main will never be found consistently because you are (1) characterizing a high rank survivor has a quality of successfully evading the killer and (2) suggests a level of control in the hands of the survivor by using the word 'let'. The first component is more of an ever-existing goal that sometimes manifests itself into reality, but is usually not the case, and the second component is clearly false since the survivor doesn't really have an upper hand to 'let' the killer do anything. In other words, your statement leaves very little interpretation to suggest otherwise, so while you will not explicitly state a good survivor will never be found, you suggest it. So to try to snidely say I have a reading comprehension problem shows a particular sense of malice that is unwarranted because at least I have the decency to say 'suggest' and be honest with my usage of words.
Yes, survivors will generally communicate with each other in order to maintain a certain level of awareness of the killer's whereabouts and thus will utilize a pallet loop if needed. This is just a part of basic strategy and ought to be a part of the calculation of the killer. The difference is that for hillbilly it just boils down to "get real close and press M2 real big-like!" rather than use his ability and aim—there are still situations where that would be successful even against experienced survivors.
It is profoundly different if I'm saying usage is too easy versus saying that they're OP. Let's go back to the example I provided earlier with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. In that game Diddy Kong is a high tier character where it required conscious effort and continual strategy to keep up his game play; meanwhile you have Metaknight who was literally "spam his B moves and they'll eventually slip up". Huntress would be somebody like Diddy Kong, and Hillbilly and Nurse are akin to Metaknight—there isn't much effort into the upkeep of their game play once you have it figured out. So while somebody like the hardest killer to learn is the nurse—which honestly is more like the hardest to get used to her mechanics—once it is learned it's easy to secure preferable results. When I say nerf, it means I'm not going to sugar coat the suggestion and try to deceive people, but nerf does not mean unplayable or unviable. Saying something is OP means that a character possesses a quality that makes the game solved in their favor despite the opposition's best efforts—which is not what I'm suggesting at all.
But hell, let's run with your logic in your Leatherface and Hillbilly comparison. I would have to argue then that Leatherface's ability does not have nearly as much downing potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough and would keep close to a pallet loop—particularly if he's involved with another survivor. So the fact that he can down multiple people becomes less relevant since experienced survivors won't let that scenario happen. Furthermore, because the Hillbilly's mobility allows him to cover more ground and prevent objectives it makes his ability more powerful in the grander scope of the game, while Leatherface just has a better chance against sick 360 plays. Therefore in terms of 'downing' potential both can realistically only down one survivor at a time, Leatherface might be able to secure it better in the event of a 360, but Hillbilly still has much better utility; so I don't see how this is any real meaningful counterargument when it's actually just a deceptive whataboutism.
When i said "A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him..." i mean it in the same way as when you say "...potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough..." I didnt suggest anything, i just assumed that you would understand the context (In chase, not talking about finding the survivor) as i understand when you use almost the same phrase in your argument, but i guess ill specify next time.
** I would have to argue then that Leatherface's ability does not have nearly as much downing potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough and would keep close to a pallet loop**
Same could be said about Hillbilly. Hillbilly and Leatherface have the same downing potential when playing against an experienced survivor that never lets him close enough and always keep close to a pallet loop.
If the survivor knows what he/she is doing, both these killers are just M1 killers that move at 115% speed.The only thing Hillbilly does better than Leatherface is the ability to move from A to B quickly(REMEMBER that he cant do that on all maps) as i said before.
As i said there is no need to nerf Hillbilly.
The quote you pulled from me was literally headed under a paragraph that said, "But hell, let's run with your logic..." as in I am entertaining for a moment that we are working with your idea that the survivor has the capacity to force the killer into a pallet loop is true. This is ultimately a premise I completely disagree with, while certainly desired as a survivor main, does not manifest itself to be a ready strategy in most scenarios as it is only effective for as many pallets are readily available at a given time. Hence such phrasing is a reaction and mimicry of the reasoning that you have provided. When you now say that this is under the context of chase specifically, then that's just backpedaling as I consider abilities to meaningful outside of chase scenarios, which brings me to my next point.
Back to Hillbilly and Leatherface. You are seriously downplaying the mobility of Hillbilly and the ramifications his ability has on the progression of the game. If Leatherface and Hillbilly have the same downing potential and Hillbilly has greater mobility—which has a huge impact on preventing survivor objectives—then Hillbilly is clearly much more advantaged than leatherface. If Hillbilly and Leatherface have essentially the same gameplay as each other in that you instadown a survivor with your chainsaw, but Hillbilly gives you an extreme mobility advantage, then why would a killer pick Leatherface? Therefore I suggest making Hillbilly's ability more situational in that there are situations that can and will happen where you do happen to down survivors—even if they are competent. This would put both Hillbilly and Leatherface on a more even playing field.
0 -
stop with all the nerfing Billy and Nurse thread instead ask buff for other killers. those are the only one who truly destroy SwF with efficiency.
0 -
Thats the problem. The survive with boyfriends players are sad that someone beat them.xllxENIGMAxllx said:stop with all the nerfing Billy and Nurse thread instead ask buff for other killers. those are the only one who truly destroy SwF with efficiency.
0 -
@xllxENIGMAxllx said:
stop with all the nerfing Billy and Nurse thread instead ask buff for other killers. those are the only one who truly destroy SwF with efficiency.A competent killer can still kill an efficient SwF, it shouldn't be guaranteed.
@bloxe said:
xllxENIGMAxllx said:
Thats the problem. The survive with boyfriends players are sad that someone beat them.Again, that's not what I'm arguing, at all. My main argument from the beginning was to essentially put those killers on the same level as the other killers. Once that is established, then it's much easier to then nerf survivors if needed—which is a very obvious following conclusion.
0 -
@PBlackII Killers are kind of balanced perks are the problem and gen rush too if there need some nerf it's those.
0 -
@xllxENIGMAxllx said:
@PBlackII Killers are kind of balanced perks are the problem and gen rush too if there need some nerf it's those.Gen rush would be solved by future perks that are initiated by gen requirements whether that's a gen being completed, the total number of gens done, or gens done within a given time frame. As it currently stands the killers are not 'kind of balanced', there's a reason why some killer mains will say things like 'I would destroy you if I was billy" or they turn to 'ol' reliable' bloody nurse. You can't argue that they're balanced and that they're the only viable ones, those are contradictory. I would nerf those two, and then start dealing with ways of making it harder for survivors to do things like pallet looping, gen rushing, or whatever strategy you kids deem toxic these days.
What's odd is that the suggestion I provided is highly reasonable and you guys are acting like it's the end of the god damned world and that I'm only trying to make it easier for survivors when all I'm wanting is actual variety of killers among advanced players. lol
0 -
@PBlackII said:
@Grim said:
OP, the solution is not to nerf the only two viable killers, it is to buff the weaker ones.Saying you can do well with weaker killers at high ranks is irrelevant as rank isn't an indicator of skill, but of time spent this season. With the current ranking system, anyone can get to red ranks, even bad survivors. The reason why Billy and Nurse are considered viable is not because they consistently do well at red ranks, it is because they do better against efficient teams.
But let's assume you're right, and they both get nerfed to remove these "braindead" strategies. Then please tell me when we can expect you to advocate for the removal of the pallet loop or perks such as Sprint Burst.
Again, you are much less likely to buff 12 killers than you are to nerf 2 of them. Rank is a correlate to skill—or at the very least a competency of player tendencies beyond the basic mechanics of the game. Are there good players that purposefully lower their rank or have not played in a while? Of course, that's a pretty obvious point, but it's incredibly misleading to suggest that there is no correlation whatsoever between rank and ability. Therefore in a weird way, we actually agree that viability does concern itself towards a killer gearing themselves against an efficient team. I say high rank though because it generally suggests that we are at the very least mostly working with competent survivors, and an efficient team is usually made of competent survivors.
Now onto your tangential hypothetical, what would I do about strategies specifically geared towards pallet loop or a perk such as sprint burst. The latter is pretty easy to assess given the previous logic I presented in that an ability that requires less upkeep should provide less reward—so if I had to really change sprint burst specifically, I'd probably would just slightly lower the duration of the speed burst so that reward isn't as advantageous to more strategically used perks. As for the former, I find it surprisingly easy to solve the pallet looping ordeal: monitor if a survivor is retracing their steps over a period of time and introduce progressive punitive measures for doing a loop. The game already has a method of tracking the trails that survivors making as evidenced by scratch marks, so it would be pretty simple to add in things like "If a survivor exists on x portion of their own scratch marks for t seconds, then decrease movement speed by m%." This is an example of an approach, but I'm sure the point is clearly made and how one decides to make the process more creative.
Suggesting that 2 killers be nerfed instead simply because it's more likely doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do, so I fail to see the argument behind this point. Could you clarify?
Unfortunately, due to how easy it is to rank up, rank has a very weak correlation with skill. This is because even bad survivors can rank up given time. They may understand the basic premise, but their tendencies demonstrate very little understanding of how to execute it effectively. The only exception to this being early on in the season as the decent survivors tend to rank up quicker. As the season progresses, the knowledge gap in red ranks only grows.
Whilst I find your suggestions interesting and I think diversity would ultimately benefit the game, I feel people defend Billy's instadown and Nurse's blink because it helps alleviate the issue all killer's experience: Time, or lack thereof. Billy can end a chase quickly -- or before it even begins -- and Nurse can ignore entire mechanics of the game with very little counterplay.
0 -
@Grim said:
@PBlackII said:
@Grim said:
OP, the solution is not to nerf the only two viable killers, it is to buff the weaker ones.Saying you can do well with weaker killers at high ranks is irrelevant as rank isn't an indicator of skill, but of time spent this season. With the current ranking system, anyone can get to red ranks, even bad survivors. The reason why Billy and Nurse are considered viable is not because they consistently do well at red ranks, it is because they do better against efficient teams.
But let's assume you're right, and they both get nerfed to remove these "braindead" strategies. Then please tell me when we can expect you to advocate for the removal of the pallet loop or perks such as Sprint Burst.
Again, you are much less likely to buff 12 killers than you are to nerf 2 of them. Rank is a correlate to skill—or at the very least a competency of player tendencies beyond the basic mechanics of the game. Are there good players that purposefully lower their rank or have not played in a while? Of course, that's a pretty obvious point, but it's incredibly misleading to suggest that there is no correlation whatsoever between rank and ability. Therefore in a weird way, we actually agree that viability does concern itself towards a killer gearing themselves against an efficient team. I say high rank though because it generally suggests that we are at the very least mostly working with competent survivors, and an efficient team is usually made of competent survivors.
Now onto your tangential hypothetical, what would I do about strategies specifically geared towards pallet loop or a perk such as sprint burst. The latter is pretty easy to assess given the previous logic I presented in that an ability that requires less upkeep should provide less reward—so if I had to really change sprint burst specifically, I'd probably would just slightly lower the duration of the speed burst so that reward isn't as advantageous to more strategically used perks. As for the former, I find it surprisingly easy to solve the pallet looping ordeal: monitor if a survivor is retracing their steps over a period of time and introduce progressive punitive measures for doing a loop. The game already has a method of tracking the trails that survivors making as evidenced by scratch marks, so it would be pretty simple to add in things like "If a survivor exists on x portion of their own scratch marks for t seconds, then decrease movement speed by m%." This is an example of an approach, but I'm sure the point is clearly made and how one decides to make the process more creative.
Suggesting that 2 killers be nerfed instead simply because it's more likely doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do, so I fail to see the argument behind this point. Could you clarify?
Unfortunately, due to how easy it is to rank up, rank has a very weak correlation with skill. This is because even bad survivors can rank up given time. They may understand the basic premise, but their tendencies demonstrate very little understanding of how to execute it effectively. The only exception to this being early on in the season as the decent survivors tend to rank up quicker. As the season progresses, the knowledge gap in red ranks only grows.
Whilst I find your suggestions interesting and I think diversity would ultimately benefit the game, I feel people defend Billy's instadown and Nurse's blink because it helps alleviate the issue all killer's experience: Time, or lack thereof. Billy can end a chase quickly -- or before it even begins -- and Nurse can ignore entire mechanics of the game with very little counterplay.
Thank you, this is a more reasonable response I would be happy to clarify. So ultimately balancing is either an effort of boosting or nerfing, the reason I suggest the latter is because it would be a less messy approach. Ideally you'd want killers to perform at relatively the same success rate despite their different strategy/game play, and then balance that against the survivor since all the survivors share the same mechanics—I guess there is variance in how noticeable each are, but I digress. Anyway if each of the killers are actually balanced, then it makes the job of tweaking the survivors against them that much easier. There are many "correct" ways of balancing a game, but when somebody says to just boost 12 killers it sounds naive to the likely plethora of unforeseen issues that would arise—hence why I say nerfing is more likely since it's ultimately less work for the developers. I also kept my suggestions on the simple side and they would have fairly novel effects on how the killers strategize as a result of them. My suggestions are not with the stipulation that survivors remain the way they are despite how much some of these illiterate users weirdly imply that with their "learn how to play survivor" or "stop saying billy and nurse are OP" comments.
I don't wish to engage in the pedantry of the impact rank has on game play. It's quite obvious that I acknowledge that there are good players in lower ranks, and ######### ones that are in higher ranks; it was initially brought up as a point that I am not a random ######### survivor main as I get into high ranks fast—usually a couple days after the rank reset—which even by the standard you laid out would at the very least suggest that I'm probably a competent survivor player. I would say that rank definitely has a correlation on the gaming experience in that when I play with friends who are in my tier that I will see nurse or billy a clear majority of the time that will usually try their hardest to get a 4K, and when I play with my friends who are those wonderful low tiers are usually much more meme filled and populated by not so experienced killers that are easy to mess with.
I agree, people whine about touching billy and nurse because they feel like they couldn't compete successfully against the time constraints imposed by an efficient SWF team. However the answer then is just nerf the survivors by increasing the time it takes to complete a generator.
0 -
@PBlackII said:
Saying "just no" isn't a sincere counter argument to the points I've previously laid out.I only wrote 1,5 lines concerning Hillbilly and you still overread my point why I wrote "just no". So I'll just write it again: Hillbilly is loopable.
@PBlackII said:
As a rank 1 survivor I already know how to generally deal with Hillbilly. Yes, there is a factor of luck involved—what were the pallet spawns, which ones were used, etc.; but this is significantly different than just running up and using an instant down since there's little to no thought process behind that.New players can reach rank 1 in their first season, it doesn't tell us anything about your skill and experience level. From your opinion on Hillbilly I'd say this might not be your first month but you're still relatively new to the game. So don't take it wrong, it is meant as a serious, friendly advice: Learn to play Hillbilly yourself. You will then know in which situations he can use the chainsaw and when not. As you climb the killer ranks, you will meet players that know how to loop the Hillbilly. That will benefit you greatly when you play surv.
1 -
@PBlackII said:
@Grim said:
Thank you, this is a more reasonable response I would be happy to clarify. So ultimately balancing is either an effort of boosting or nerfing, the reason I suggest the latter is because it would be a less messy approach. Ideally you'd want killers to perform at relatively the same success rate despite their different strategy/game play, and then balance that against the survivor since all the survivors share the same mechanics—I guess there is variance in how noticeable each are, but I digress. Anyway if each of the killers are actually balanced, then it makes the job of tweaking the survivors against them that much easier. There are many "correct" ways of balancing a game, but when somebody says to just boost 12 killers it sounds naive to the likely plethora of unforeseen issues that would arise—hence why I say nerfing is more likely since it's ultimately less work for the developers. I also kept my suggestions on the simple side and they would have fairly novel effects on how the killers strategize as a result of them. My suggestions are not with the stipulation that survivors remain the way they are despite how much some of these illiterate users weirdly imply that with their "learn how to play survivor" or "stop saying billy and nurse are OP" comments.
I don't wish to engage in the pedantry of the impact rank has on game play. It's quite obvious that I acknowledge that there are good players in lower ranks, and ######### ones that are in higher ranks; it was initially brought up as a point that I am not a random ######### survivor main as I get into high ranks fast—usually a couple days after the rank reset—which even by the standard you laid out would at the very least suggest that I'm probably a competent survivor player. I would say that rank definitely has a correlation on the gaming experience in that when I play with friends who are in my tier that I will see nurse or billy a clear majority of the time that will usually try their hardest to get a 4K, and when I play with my friends who are those wonderful low tiers are usually much more meme filled and populated by not so experienced killers that are easy to mess with.
I agree, people whine about touching billy and nurse because they feel like they couldn't compete successfully against the time constraints imposed by an efficient SWF team. However the answer then is just nerf the survivors by increasing the time it takes to complete a generator.
Oh, I see where you're coming from. When I said buff the other killers, I thought you meant under the premise that survivors would remain the way they are. That's my mistake. In which case, I agree with your mode of thought. This game suffers from no small amount of imbalances, so whichever method the devs take to sort this is fine by me.
0
