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
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!
Is it time we had more perk slots?
We get 4 perk slots, killers and survivors. However, is that really enough at this point of the game?
With new killers, abilities, perks, add ons that keep getting added, it naturally gets harder to counter what your opposition can bring into a game. Back when there was just a handful of each side, then yes 4 perks was enough, as you could cover most scenarios of killer/survivor with them. But now, with 18 killers and over 60 perks against 20 survivors with over 70 perks, is 4 perk slots really enough now? I think not.
Firstly, you're not going to counter EVERy combination of killer/survivor loadouts, as you shouldn't. But, how can you expect to compete when perks and characters available has more than doubled? How many times as a killer have you really wished you had NOED or bloodwarden at end game? Or as a survivor, wished you had brought unbreakable or self care? Or any other perks for that matter.
It's not like what's being suggested here, favours any side. It's balanced as both get the extra slot. All its doing, is giving extra quality of life to a game that would possibly be getting stale to some and adding a new factor, that can only help improve the tactical side of the game.
I am undecided as to when the 5th slot becomes available, but I am leaning towards somewhere around the point you get teachables, but that's probably more of a minor detail at this point.
Be interesting to see what other players think and why.
Comments
-
I don't know my opinion on adding more perk slots.. Its just that you can use different perks on different characters, but then again some perks are "required," while others fit your strategy more..
3 -
We don't need any more perks. We need better balancing and bug fixes. We also need faster map reworks as well as an improved matchmaking(doubt it will get better).
3 -
I don't think that would be a bad idea. A lot of Perks do work against each other, while some compliment each other wonderfully. I don't think it'll be game breaking at all.
1 -
"Required" is subjective to your playstyle and players play differently.
Personally, I like to change my survivor and killer loadouts, depending on how much of a ######### i want to be during that play session. If I am playing with friends, then my perk choices change depending on how many and who I am playing with.
0 -
Elaborate that a bit. One can argue that there's plenty of 4 game perk combinations that break the game, at least in the teary eyes of the killer/survivors mains that like to voice their opinions here
1 -
I think survivors should have had a unique only to them perk or skill. They are all just skins right now, all the same.
3 -
I will completely agree that bug fixes should always be the main priority and matchmaking is currently #########, so definitely needs fixing. I don't buy into the need for map reworks, but I do understand that some players struggle on certain maps.
0 -
Everyone will just play the op character. we already see this with claudette.
3 -
I don't think it would be game breaking, it's just a way to help both sides have more counterplay to a larger availability of perks from both sides.
Yes, some perks combos have great synergy while some are counter intuitive.
0 -
Yes, I do kinda agree with this. What's the point of playing a survivor just for their skin, when each survivor can learn all the others perks. However, some survivors and killers have dogshit perks that rarely get used, so it would be unfair to force them to play a character they like the look/ability of, but then be limited because their perks suck.
0 -
I absolutely agree, especially since there are a lot more Perks now than what the game originally started out having. It would make sense to increase it.
1 -
The game wasn't designed with four perk slots just because there weren't a lot of perks. It was designed that way for balance reasons. Most things in the game, from the perks themselves to the killer powers, are balanced around the four-perk system. If a fifth perk slot were added, everything would have to be rebalanced to compensate. Not that it couldn't be done, but it's much more than just a quick change, and DBD would probably be quite a different game afterwards.
1 -
I like the perk tree idea, but we are taking about BHVR, so let's not push too hard.
I get your point, I think BHVR should have enough data to know which perks are exceptionally strong and which aren't, so maybe have some kind of total perk points to use and each perk having a perk slot value to help mitigate any potential to run 5 exceptionally strong perks is something that could be added, but as a purist, I always like to have no limits to how creative someone wants to be help them win.
0 -
I am not saying it was implemented because that's what was available. I am suggesting that now there's much more available, the game should evolve to reflect that.
A survivor can't possibly have all the bases covered with 4 perk slots v 18 killers each with their own strengths/abilities/perks and add ons to bring into game. And to expect killers to carry only 4 perks against a group of survivors using upto 16 different perks, coupled with their differing playstyles is just as ridiculous.
Yes, further considerations on how to make other gameplay changes around it would need to looked into aswell, it's not as easy as just coding in and extra perk slot. But at this point, its just more about an idea to help shake the game up a bit and make it a little less predictable.
Post edited by gamerscrybecauseofme on0 -
Then all the killers will just play the OP killers? Yet they don't? Why is that? Because there is more to the game than that, and ideally they would be balanced-ish if BHVR did not mess it up.
I mean, they already do this with killers though, so any argument used on this really would apply to them too. So I don't see the harm in it. The only thing they have to watch for that is different is that there are 4 survivors so they would need to be careful their powers didn't combo TOO much ( a little is okay, if it is too strong they can buff killers globally), and that they don't have powers that stack or overwhelm if all people run it at once.
2 -
Will both team sides have the same number of perks finally ?
I'd like to have 12 perks as the killer like survivors do. People seem to be against that for some reason
2 -
If more perk slots are implemented they should only activate depending on the number of generators/Survivors remaining.
For example, you have your 4 standard perk slots on the loadout screen, but now there are now 5 Bonus Perk Slots for the Killer and 3 Bonus Perk Slots for the Survivors. Where you assign perks to these new slots is key because they will always activate in order.
The Killer will start the trial with all 4 perks activated, and 1 Bonus Perk Slot is activated with every generator completed (starting with the left-most / first Bonus Perk Slot).
The Survivors start the trial with only 4 perks activated, and 1 Bonus Perk Slot is activated with every Survivor sacrificed (starting with the left-most / first Bonus Perk Slot).
1 -
I think so, yeah. There are so many more perks in the game than there were in the beginning, and it sucks that we can't play more with our loadouts. I doubt that balance would be thrown off either. Both sides getting an extra perk is a buff to both sides, and that power boost would about cancel them out. It would just be more fun for each side.
1 -
Would you consider the game balanced if there were four killers instead of one?
That's why people are against that idea. It's ludicrously unbalanced. Just because the numbers are different doesn't mean it's unfair.
0 -
I am not sure how Claudette is considered overpowered, but since the current forum meta is survivors are OP, I will let it slide, into some long grass, where no one worth mentioning will see it
0 -
Yes, I responded to something similar with an idea of each perk having a "value" and the players could only use a certain total value of perks.
As an example, let's say DS, BT, Adrenaline, unbreakable, iron will, we'll make it, are given a max value of 3 points each, but a survivor could only use 13 value points of perks, that would stop them using 5 really strong perks. It would also make them choose to either run a low value perk or swap out a higher value perk for medium value perks, and so on and so forth.
For killers, give BBQ+C, NOED, PGTW, Sloppy butcher 3 points each and they have the same 13 points total perk value applied, they too then can decide if they want a low value perk or run 2 medium value perks jnstead, and so on and so forth.
No penalties for killer add ons, offerings and power aswell as survivors items, offerings and add ons. At least not now, as is really subjective how those things help/hinder the game, without data to back it at least.
0 -
Sure, the moment survivors move at the same speed and have an unlimited resource to use consistently to help them survive, then let's do it.
0 -
Oh good, they already have sprint burst and tools so all that's left is giving killers 8 more perks :D
2 -
I am not sure how we jumped from one extra perk slot each to suddenly everyone getting even more perks, but I will entertain it.
As an idea, it's not too bad. If the game is sloping in favour of one side over the other, then having a "back up" perk kick in to help the losing side gain an advantage isn't too bad really. However, at what point does this kick in? Playing both sides, I have experienced lots of scenarios where it seems impossible to win (killer having 3 gens pop before a hook, and survivor when 2 ######### DC and there's still 4 gens to pop) but have still won the game (my idea of winning is purist, so I get my 4k as killer or I escape as survivor through the gate, hopefully others do too) Both ends look impossible, but are doable. It would have to be done right, as too soon really those off game balance and too late is useless. It might be something to really look into when bhvr get a better understanding of how the game goes and what the data can show them as genuine difficulty for the one side.
0 -
Yes, simply put it's not particularly favouring any side. Maybe it benefits more tactically minded players, but honestly what's the harm in that?
However, if the game design is loosely based around 4 perks each, then game design would need to be checked again. I would also imagine that 4 perks slots is something that is very embedded into the core game programming, or platform itself. So to do it right, would be a task in itself
1 -
Sure, while we are at it, David king should be able stun killers with a death stare and knock out potato team mates, give him and Jane a synergy perk where she sits on the knocked out survivor until they die and nea flashes whatever it is that gives her those bumps under her T-shirt at the killer to instantly turn them back into the little children they were before life made them into killers while Feng and yui jump off the walls with wing chun attacks. Sounds perfectly balanced to me
0 -
The game's current state is far worse than what I proposed.
The devs have said that they aim for 2 survivors escaping and two survivors being sacrificed. If the gens go too fast, all 4 escape. If the gens go too slow, no one escapes.
Their method is hit or miss instead of anti-snowball
2 -
I was gonna disagree with you and how rude that was. because we all know nea is a killer and killers should be nerfed so I can escape every time without being hooked because being hooked hurts. And I dont need that kinda stress in life playing survivor
but fang and yui should have wall kick moves.
And if we gotta buff nea for wall kick ninja moves then that's what we gotta do.
1 -
The Devs idea of 2 die 2 escape is based as an average across all the games played. It's like their "fair" idea as they insist the game isn't competitive.....
Yes, the game IS on a knife edge, most games are literally down to a few mistakes either side being the difference between winning and losing. Be it a killer choosing the wrong gen to go check or survivor getting wrong footed in a loop, and all kinds of other factors, that the other side need to capitalise on.
0 -
If we are nerfing killers, then maybe the potato sack survivors seem to crawl out of could be placed over her head
0 -
Idk though my thought is if the killer is against 4 suvivers an the pick four different perks that's 16 perks for a team of friends killers against so I would say killer deserves at least one more slot... I love playing suviver and killer tho I always can say suvivers don't fear killers an this is supposed to be a horror game so I think you should make it more likely that suvivers get scared an I think killer with one more perk slot an objectives being slowed down a bit in game wise I think suvivers might be a little more scared it okay if suvivers escape just think thier should be a way where they should be more nervous an be afraid like if it was a horror movie when im killer I see that when a survivor See's me coming at them thier not scared they will stay on gen then run an try to finish it right thier with killer around lol tho that's my though
1 -
Slightly off topic. Of course, as survivors play more and grow in confidence, they will become less fearful of killers, that's natural. However, the base instinct of trying to survive against a persistent opponent, brings its own emotional energy. Just as much as killers like chasing, survivors like evading, using the map, jukes and pallets to help assist them against a faster moving and lethal killer, that has his base attack and power to assist him. I don't buy into the need for killers needing more against survivors, across the general field of play, but the game does take a different a sharp turn away from killer competence when facing 4 man SWF squads of competent players.
0
