We have temporarily disabled The Houndmaster (Bone Chill Event queue) and Baermar Uraz's Ugly Sweater Cosmetic (all queues) due to issues affecting gameplay.

Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on these and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
The Dead by Daylight team would like your feedback in a Player Satisfaction survey.

We encourage you to be as honest as possible in letting us know how you feel about the game. The information and answers provided are anonymous, not shared with any third-party, and will not be used for purposes other than survey analysis.

Access the survey HERE!

I think it's time to diversify!!!

FSB75
FSB75 Member Posts: 474
in General Discussions

Teachable perks have made for cookie cutter survivors and killers.

I'd like ot see teachable perks remain.....BUT with a reduced effectiveness. Native perks to survivors and killers need to be as powerful as possible. However, there is no need for Nurses Calling to be as powerful when used by Doc. Self Care shouldn't be as effective on anyone than Claudette.

Number 1 rule in gaming...never take away. Change, rework, add....but it's an unwritten cardinal sin to completely remove. So don't. Just let Dweet be Dweet, and let Billy be Billy.

Comments

  • Tensor
    Tensor Member Posts: 254

    Problem is, you give Claudette a perk and not Meg. Fine.

    Do it the other way around. RACISTS.....RACISTS EVERYWHERE

  • twistedmonkey
    twistedmonkey Member Posts: 4,297

    It's been discussed many times.

    The problem with that idea is it doesn't cause diversity as players will still pick the strongest character with the strongest perk they want and some have the upper hand on that.

    For example who would play ace or kate? Billy and ,urse also become stronger and you nerf no terror radius Myers due to monitor and abuse not being as good on him.

    Because of some chars having stronger default perks it may actually cause the opposite of diversity.

    The other idea was to give slight passive to survivors and killers with what something in there base kit is.

    For survivors Claudette heals slightly faster faster, meg is quite doing actions, jake is quiter when injured not by a huge amount say 5% or less.

    Killers trapper breaks pallets faster, Billy recovers from stuns faster, nurse sees survivor further when healing maybe even 10% for killers.

    Just a couple of examples and something to make them different but not by way of nerfing the actual perks themselves as some killers could become even weaker in comparison to others.

  • FSB75
    FSB75 Member Posts: 474

    I'm just thinking tier II would be the teachable. I do think it would create diversity. Not everyone can loop the same, or hit skill checks. Some people just want to live and hid ALL THE TIME....others actively seek out the killer.

    My declarative statement is that some diversity is better than none. And that's currently what we have....all survivors are equal and play no specific role by character.

    Meg is Killer control, Claudette is on heals, Dweet is objectives manager, and David is just a soft warm pillow!

  • CornChip
    CornChip Member Posts: 540

    Skins are all survivors have. Don't force them to play a character they dont want to just for the sake of perk power please.

  • TheGameZpro3
    TheGameZpro3 Member Posts: 699
    edited April 2019

    I'm sorry, but this idea is just... god awful.

    Like someone mentioned, this would cause the complete opposite of diversity. Why would anyone play Kate? What would she do? Make her useless perks slightly better?

    And why would anyone not play Claudette? Not only will she be invisible, but not she is the only survivor with Tier 3 (objectively) best perk in the game! Ace... Ace will just be a meme now, if he wasn't already. The best way to diversify is by making everyone play Claudette, Ash, Meg, and Laurie? What?

    Bet: The only 4 survivors being played if this happened would be Claudette (Self Care), Ash (MoM), Meg (SP and Adrenaline),and Laurie (DS).


    And I don't want to play a survivor with no skins, Actually I have no problem with Ash, Meg, and generic (in my opinion) Claudette.



    Also... Did you seriously spell Dwight like Dweet… you know what, I'm snipping that.

    Dweet.PNG


    Post edited by TheGameZpro3 on
  • Tensor
    Tensor Member Posts: 254
    https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/comment/450233#Comment_450233

    You know exactly what I mean

  • moonlunn
    moonlunn Member Posts: 170

    I kinda agree with you I feel like the perks make the character who they are but literally any survivor or killer can have any perk and it makes it like why even have character certain perks in the first place then? I always thought it would be a great idea if the perks for the certain character would work stronger or forcing you to use atleast one of the teachable perks that character has

  • Elegant
    Elegant Member Posts: 443

    It wouldn't create diversity. It would just change up what is and isn't meta. People are always going to gravitate towards what's the strongest at the time. Making this change would just further enhance characters like the nurse and make some survivors completely unplayable in high ranks. The way game is never going to be diverse because the meta perks will always exist. A change like this wouldn't change up the cookie cutter builds. It would just nerf the cookie cutter builds and force everyone onto a few characters like Claudette or Meg/etc. Diversity will never happen in DBD unless every single perk becomes niche and only fits a certain type of gameplay that isn't related to survival/chases.