Why is it ok for one side to create lose/lose situations but not the other?
The devs have never given us an answer. Why the double standards?
Comments
-
Because evil devs hate poor good boy, play good killers and nerf them so they can profit from the cosmetic buying experience ruining evil survivor mains.
1 -
depends on how it was created. If it's DS Unbreakable, there's always the option of camping each survivor and preventing the situation from arising (far from a solution, but it's a possibility for a killer caused response). If it's Thanatophobia and Sloppy Butcher, not getting hit often isn't an option for many survivors and so is not being found but still progressing the game (negligible survivor input).
The devs have created so many stupid, unavoidable (from one survivor's actions) lose/lose situations for both killer and survivor, and I hate playing survivor because of it. Playing killer is a little more bearable just because of how I play.
1 -
Because 1 bad thing doesn't justify the existence of another
12 -
Some are easier to "fix" than others. Then there are the ones nobody really complains about or they're accepted. All you have to do is complain about them enough and I'm sure they'll get to it eventually.
0 -
Camping someone with DS and UB is still a lose lose since you waste alot of time.
But i do camp the DS locker abusers to punish them, i dont really care if i lose then, but still.
2 -
And what does justify it that the one thing doesnt get changed?
Nice double standards again.
1 -
I'm sorry but what are you referring to?
3 -
It isnt and no-one has ever said that it is.
0 -
Can you read? Because if you can, you would see i referred to both sides having lose-lose situations as bad.
All should be fixed, but it comes with time, 1 thing being broken does not justify another being brokem.
but nice argument lol
0
