General Discussions
General Discussions
Survivor Choice Matters?
I was thinking about how all survivors are basically just cosmetic. Their perks are all interchangeable and really it just comes down to who you like the look of. I imagine this idea would just be shot down, BUT what if it didn't have to be that way?
The idea is that when you pick a survivor that in your load out you would need to pick 1 perk from that particular survivor. So for David you can choose Dead Hard, No Mither, or We're Going to Live Forever. The other 3 perks would be up to you and could come from anywhere, but 1 perk would have to be from the survivor you choose.
At least that way the person you choose matters as a survivor. Right now I play Jane but use none of her perks. I use Sprint Burst, Adrenaline, Spine Chill, and DS. I should just play Meg instead. Me noticing that sparked this idea and I wanted to see how people saw it. Thoughts?
Comments
-
Then only survivors with teachable meta perks would be played.
5 -
Wouldn't it promote more balance changes to make everyone more appealing? Idk I just think it sucks how 1 dimensional all survs are. Different skins with all the same builds
0 -
It would be David or Laurie spam.
2 -
I mean anyone could still pick DS or Dead Hard I'm just saying that if I play Jane I could choose Solidarity and still use DS and Dead Hard, but 1 perk came from Jane
Edit: grammar
0 -
Why would I play Steve, who has 3 garbage teachables? It would be objectively worse to play a character I like.
2 -
There is more to picking a survivor than just their teachables or them being a skin. Each character has their own volume for their screams, and their physical size does also matter for visual detection.
Female characters are physically smaller but have louder cries of pain, while male characters are physically larger but have quieter grunts of pain.
1 -
Well it would mean you could diversify your playstyle by using 1 of his perks no? Not one of Steve's perks is worth even considering?
0 -
That would just make it impossible to play with 4 general perks.
2 -
I don't know anyone that really takes this into account when picking a survivor though. Maybe that's just my friend group
0 -
Second wind is his only perk worth using. Even then it's very gimmicky compared to a bunch of other perks I like to use such as Spine Chill, Resilience, Botany, Dead Hard, etc.
I like to be diverse, but in high ranks a perk like Second Wind just holds you back.
0 -
Well I understand that it isnt as generally useful but then wouldn't it promote adjusting perks more frequently so that more survs are appealing? After all it is just 1 perk slot and at some point you'll go for the adept achievement
0 -
It's why the Blendette exists. She is darker skinned and smaller. Generally speaking, nobody else is taken into account for that sort of thing by a majority of the playerbase, but it is something that people should consider.
0 -
1 perk slot can be the difference between escaping or getting your ass shoved in.
1 -
Adding something more to your survivor choice would be cool, but this specifically would end up annoying people.
1 -
Yeah I was just wanting to think of ways to shake things up
0 -
I said this before but you could play anyone and use DS. I'm just saying if you pick Laurie one of her perks would have to be used. You could play David and elect to use Dead Hard as your 1 required David perk, then DS, Spine Chill, and Unbreakable as the other 3
0 -
I think giving survivors their own unique items that only they can use would be a cool way of making survivors different.
For example David could get a rugby ball and if thrown from a certain distance it would stun the killer.
idk about other survivors but I think new items would freshen up the game a ton
0 -
Absolutely not.
0
