Visit the Kill Switch Master List for more information on this and other current known issues: https://forums.bhvr.com/dead-by-daylight/kb/articles/299-kill-switch-master-list
Consumable perks
What if perks were consumable objects like the rest of the items? all of them except for the ones that are specific / original to each character (like sprint for Meg or Dying Light for Myers).
If you escape, you can keep your perks, if not, you lose them. Unless, you use an offering to prevent that.
This way you need to spend blood points to get back those perks you like the most and try to escape or please the entity to keep them. If you don't have them, you can choose from the ones you have or use those perks that are from the character you want to use, those shouldn't be consumable and you can always use them.
For example, if I use meg, I'll have Sprint, adrenaline and Quick & Quiet always there for me to use, but if I want to add self healing for example, I'll have to spend blood points to get the perk from the web and equip it. If I die, i'll lose my self heal, but if I escape, I can keep it.
Another things that I consider would be nice to have, is blood point bonus for using specific characters or perks during X days. For example, this could match with the weekly shrine. if people use the perks that appear in the shrine during that week, they get bonus blood points.
I think this could add more variety to the game and don't see the same builds over and over.
If you like ruin, get it from the web, win your matches to keep it or play hag.
Let me know what you think about this!
Comments
-
That would be awful, it's not like it takes literally ages to grind all the Perks in the bloodweb, the grind should get smaller, not bigger.
I like the bonus bloodpoints idea tho.
5 -
Not sure if that would be the case, because if you escape or please the entity, you can keep the perks. If you use an offering, you can keep them too. If not, you can play with the character that comes with those perks and if not, time to try new ones, play with what you have. Try the perks from the shrine and get bonus BP, the idea is not to be always using the same perks.
Edit: stacking them maybe? like the rest of the items.
0 -
This is the worst idea I have ever seen on this forum and there are posts that want old infinites back for reference
4 -
Care to explain that a little better?
1 -
Why would you want to increase the grind??? This is a horrible idea, we don't need them to increase the grind at all.
3 -
what else you do in the game but play matches, get BPs, spend BPs ? If that's the problem, then why not make the items unlimited too ? or remove them and just get the in match loots.
because people would be using them all the time? well, isn't that what is happening with meta-builds ?
We know that's not the case because it's normal to see people stacking 999 med kits or flashlights already. So I don't see why the "grind" is a problem. People have 1M BPs because they don't know what to do with them already.
I see people complain about players using the same builds constantly, or that there is no need to use 90% of the perks. Everything outside the meta is a meme build. At least with bonus BPs for specific perks you encourage people to change that a little.
I see the feedbacks for now are about the grind, and not about the actual idea I'm posting and how it affects the gameplay.
0 -
I see people complain about players using the same builds constantly, or that there is no need to use 90% of the perks.
So instead of making a post asking for the 90% of perks that aren't used to get buffed; you decide to make a post wanting to bring in a horrible mechanic that just makes the grind 100 times worse?
1 -
This is not a valid feedback about what is in discussion here. If you want to elaborate on why you don't like the idea besides the already mentioned grind, great.
if the bloodweb was smaller, would you be happier with this ? if not, why?
0 -
Let's look at why this is a terrible idea.
- It drastically increases the grind. Others have explained that so I'll leave it there.
- It will drastically kill Survivor diversity. I would not be even remotely surprised if this resulted in every single survivor player only ever playing whichever Survivor owned their favorite Exhaustion Perk. Meg and David would be everywhere. Poor Steve and Quinten would never get played because the only perks they keep suck.
- It will severely nerf most Killers. There are several Killers that really only get amazing with particular perks. Trapper with Corrupt Intervention comes to mind. Sure you can play Trapper without that, but it is significantly more painful to do so. Similarly, Pig's Stealth is significantly weaker and borderline unusable without Monitor and Abuse which is a Doctor perk. Then Killers also have the similar issue as Survivors where their perks are not at all equal... but don't have the recourse to just freely switch mains to one with good perks because Killers have different powers. Like... Deathslinger for example... the heck is he going to do with Hex: Retribution, Gearhead, and Deadman's Switch? Or poor Wraith with Predator, Bloodhound, and Shadowborn which should just be replaced with an FoV slider?
- It will basically kill any sort of fun, synergistic, meme builds. For example, the fun combo of Iron Will, Lithe, Dance With Me, and Quick and Quiet. It doesn't matter which survivor you play as, you'll lose 3/4 of that build every time you die and the build falls apart without all 4. Similar story of something like Make Your Choice, Furtive Chase, and Dead Man's Switch. Those perks that are iffy alone but good together won't be able to be buffed because their synergies could still happen, but you'll see them even less because you can't run them if you don't have every piece of the combo. Which will make Perk Diversity *even worse*.
- Killer on the whole will be severely nerfed. I'm assuming that we also wouldn't lose the common perks like Kindred, We'll Make It, Whispers, and Sloppy Butcher? If so... Killer is going to be so so very bad. Survivors can build a useful, reasonably strong build out of 4 of those basic perks. Kindred, We'll Make It, Spine Chill, and Resilience. Pretty solid build that with these rules could be run every game. For the Killer side... well... I hope you love facing NOED... cause the Killer base kit has no gen regression perks and most individual Killers don't have them either, so getting to Endgame is almost a foregone conclusion. Also what would they replace NOED with? Spies from the Shadows? Insidious? Iron Grasp? Monstrous Shrine? Nah, NOED is by far the best perk in the base Killer set and there's a LOT of real stinkers in there.
- This bears repeating... I really hope you like facing NOED in every game. Cause you're probably going to.
- How would Killers even keep their perks? For Survivor it's pretty clear because it'll follow the same rules as items... but... Killers never keep add ons. That wouldn't be fair. But like... "You keep 1 perk per kill" is a fantastic way to turn every single Killer into the sweatiest person on earth.
5 -
The BP you get in a match isn't much when it takes millions just to max out perks on your characters. A reason people play killer is because you can get way more BP using BBQ and a BP offering. If you made BBQ disappear after every match just like the killers add-ons killers would be pissed and less would play killer since the extra BP from a perk wouldn't be there. There's 84 perks for killer (x3 for tiers) so chance of getting BBQ would be low. Players would put all their BP into one killer to get perks they want, they'd be less likely to waste BP trying a new killer and would stick with one that is the strongest and they'll get most BP from.
There are only 18 items for survivor, there are 95 different perks (x3 for tiers). You have much higher chance of getting item you want than you do the perk you want. It takes millions of BP to get a single character with max perks without prestiging, way more if you prestige. They just want survivors to be skins so just maxing out one survivor is already a serious grind. Players will stop buying survivors because there would be no point in spreading out their BP to multiple survivors. This would also lessen the cosmetic sales - no need for cosmetics if using one survivor.
What about rift challenges that require you ti use a general perk like NOED, Monstrous Shrine, Hope, or Premonition. You have to spend BP just to do the challenge? What if you completed it but challenge glitched and you lost your perk because it wasn't a teachable. That will turn people off from wanting to participate in the rift.
The reason there are meta-builds on both sides are because 1. Rather than fix the cause they use perks as bandaid 2. A large portion of the perks are useless or weak compared to other perks. They need to rework the lesser used perks to be useful and fix game mechanics so they don't have to rely on perk as bandaid.
Also, look at the last event where survivors had to escape to get their crown, games became way more sweaty and players complained about how sweaty the other side was playing. People stopped playing because it wasn't fun. If survivors have to escape to keep their perks they are going to gen rush, killers will play more sweaty to compensate until both sides just aren't even having fun and people stop playing.
1 -
First of all, thanks for taking the time to actually write a feedback and not just an attack on me.
- Blood web is bigger than it should be, that is true. with the amount of perks, characters and items they added, it's probably a good idea to reduce it a bit. So maybe the fact of having consumable perks could come with a reduced blood web or a different system to spend the points. This is more like "A could be good if B is like this instead of this" not "A is bad because B is bad"
- I think something similar happens already when you see whatever skin with Decisive Strike / Borrow Time / sprint / adrenaline / meta perk E / Metaperk F. It's not like you won't be able to use steven or quentin, they are not attached to their perks only, they will have to get sprint just like Bill will have to, or Laurie will have to. Maybe they'll have to get more perks because theirs are not that good but it's not like you won't see them anymore and it's not like you can't play with other character in the meantime, so variety would actually increase with a varieaty of builds too. Like you mention, the survivors are just skins right now and diversity at this moment is just a diversity of skins, not a gameplay diversity. So people still use the exhaust perks they like the most only with a different skin. But those who use meg or david would have to spend BPs to add Decisive Strike or Borrow time. At least with this, you won't see them using the same build all the time with a different skin on it. It's true that some survs have perks that aren't very useful, but it's not like they won't have the rest. They just have to get them from the web. If they don't like the perks they have right now on Steve, they can use another surv who has better perks at the moment (because of base kit or because they have stacks from web), just like you switch to another surv because has BPs offering or a flashlight in the inventory.
The rest of the points kinda talk about the same, which is not entirely true because again, you can get the rest of the perks. Survs and killers are not attached to use only their original set of perks. you'll still be able to use Corrupt intervention with trapper, just not on every trapper.
NOED is something you already see on most matches too. Also, the basic perks would be spendable too, only the ones that come with a character won't be. So this way you'll actually see less NOED than now.
Maybe making people play with stinky perks would make this a more balanced game in general. You won't depend that much on perks but on what you do during the match.
0 -
I mention the bonus BPs too for using shrine related perks.
BBQ shouldn't disappear after every match, only if you don't please the entity.
If you have all perks on 1 surv, why would you play another? that is what happens now. If you have to play multiple survs because of the perks they have in the inventory, maybe people would start buying skins for different characters instead of all the skins for the only surv they use.
I didn't consider the fact that prestige deletes everything you have on a character, but that's something that already happens and not a problem related to having or not consumable perks, since they get deleted anyway. inventory removal with prestige kinda sucks to be honest, but it would be nice that it just resets your level and not your inventory, so the perks you stacked won't disappear after you prestige.
About the rift, there are challenges that require having certain character with certain perk, so I don't see the difference. If challenges get gliched, that is a problem that is not related to this. It's like saying "what if dbd gets bugged and you lose all your progress?" well... that has nothing to do with gameplay, that would kill all you have no matter if consumable or not.......
0 -
Ignore this. It's just a failled comment. Guess there's no way to remove it.
Post edited by RetroBadGamer on0 -
You seem to have misunderstood what I was getting at.
If your "normal" Survivor build includes Unbreakable and Borrowed Time... why would you ever run anyone besides Bill? Sure you can get those perks on Quinten, or... you can just play as Bill and not have to rebuy them each time you die. Which one lets your Bloodpoints go further? Obviously just playing Bill does. If you want run Dead Hard 100% of the time, playing David is the most economical choice. This is how it goes for any perk in the game. I personally can easily see this resulting in the vast majority of players playing as David, Meg, Bill, Laurie, and sometimes Feng and Nea. Everybody wants their 2nd chance perks and Exhaustion Perks, and playing those characters specifically is the only way to guarantee that you'll always have them.
Beyond that, unless you're going to buff Blood point gains to the point that they flow like the Amazon River... there's going to be times where you simply do not have the perks you actually want to use and have to wing your build. Seeing as that's literally the entire point of this change I can guess you aren't doing that. When that inevitably happens, certain killers will be significantly weaker because they're too dependent on certain perks. That's just going to happen unless you make it so easy to always get the perks you want and undermine your entire suggestion.
That means that Players are going to start playing a ton more economical. Which... what I've laid out in my first post is all the of them doing things I can see that are the result of players doing that. Survivors and Killers already do that. They bring no item or no/low quality add ons to save BP.
That's why I said NOED's popularity will absolutely spike... assuming you aren't making an even more predatory system by also making the perks that belong to noone consumable. There will 100% be a rash of Killers who are playing with NOED to conserve Blood Points. Are you OK with that?
1 -
At this moment, why would you play any other if you already have the perks you like?
with what you mention I see people moving from david, to meg, to Bill and to laurie to use their perks + others they had to buy. You wont see all megs with decisive strike, borrow, adrenaline and dead hard.
If you only only only want to play david with dead hard, then nothing of this matters and shouldn't be a problem if perks are consumable or not. You can actually call yourself a Main David.
Base perks should be consumable too, that way you won't see all NOEDs. Actually, there would be less matches with NOED since people will have to buy it, stack it, keep it.
People in rank 1 would actually earned it somehow if they could get there using any perks and not just meta builds. And staying there would be harder too if you can't depend all the time on your meta build.
I would like to see variety in the game, and not just variety of builds when people is bored. I was also considering the possibility of having a "random build generator" in game, which would pick random perks that you have and give you bonus BP at the end of the match. Just like some MOBAs have, so you pick a different character for a bonus of exp or whatever ingame currency.
0 -
So if killer needs entity pleased then the weak killers won't be played at all by casual players - why grind for BP for a perk just to lose it in one round? Then have 1 in 84 (if remove tiers) of getting it again in a bloodweb. Or will it be so easy killers just won't lose their perks? In which case how does that stop killers from using meta perks like you suggest is the point of consumable perks? If it's easy for killers to keep the perks then they'll just keep and use the meta. Also how would it be fair that survivors need to escape to keep their perks but killers have easy time?
What about how just the idea of DS makes killers reconsider tunneling a survivor out of a game? Survivor needs to escape to keep their DS, that would actually encourage killers to tunnel that survivor out because it'd mean they took away the DS that they have a 1 in 95 (if remove tiers) chance of getting that perk back. Or does everyone just start playing Laurie and BHVR loses out on money from all the cosmetics they put out for original characters.
The devs have said they like that survivors are a skin and can use perks from any others, it's why they don't have survivor specific powers or boosts for using their teachables. If they make perks consumable except for that characters teachables survivors will choose the one with the best selection of teachables and only put BP into that one character. If it's Bill then BHVR will lose out on players buying cosmetics for the other characters. The reason people play characters now is because they like their looks/cosmetics and can use any perks without worry. If they have to worry about losing perks they will choose based on teachables and not cosmetics that bring in money to BHVR.
A survivor player right now if they max out a character with perks they will start putting BP into another character, usually one that has cosmetics the player likes. The maxing out perks actually encourages using another character. If a survivor is constantly having to earn back their perks they won't give another character a second glance.
I wasn't talking about the rift challenges with teachables, I was talking about the rift challenges with general perks. Like the Premonition challenge - needing to point at killer after it goes off. It took many players multiple matches because they weren't getting the timing right. It would turn players off from the rift if they kept having to go through the bloodweb to try and get that general perk needed to keep trying to complete a challenge.
Although since you bring up rift challenges with specific character teachables - they aren't always from free characters. It takes quite a bit to save up 9000 shards, especially if you are a casual player. Basically you are locking out players from completing more of the rift because then they have to own the character to play without worrying about losing the perk at end of match or they use 2000 shards to unlock the perk but then get frustrated if they keep having to try and get the perk on their bloodweb.
0 -
At the moment, which Survivor you play as is 100% dependent on your personal tastes in asthetics... and that's fine. Good even. Honestly I see a pretty decent variety of Survivors when I play killer. Some are more common than others obviously but I still see just about everyone at least occasionally. People do switch Survivor mains sometimes. I mean, I started off maining Claudette and transferred to Zarina because I liked her better. That's fine, and healthy because it was MY choice to do so.
Here's the thing though. I don't want to main David. Have you read his lore? He's kind of a jerk. However, on my actual main, I find myself running Dead Hard fairly frequently because it fits what I'm going for. This change would likely make it so it would be far more economical for me to switch mains. As much as I like Zarina and her perks, they... aren't actually all that good. They're fun, but not good. And 2 of them kinda require reliable healing methods to function. The game would be borderline punishing me for daring to main someone with bad teachable perks. So... I wouldn't. I bet most people would do things like that too. If your plan were to be implemented, Zarina, Elodie, Yun Jin, Kate, Felix, Steve, Adam, Dwight, Nancy, Jeff, Quinten, and more would probably basically disappear from the game. Instead of frequently seeing 18-20 Survivors a decent amount of the time, we'd basically only see about 7 of the survivors out of 27. Does that sound like more Survivor variety? Cause it sure as hell doesn't to me. Sure YOU PERSONALLY would have more of a reason to switch people around... but guess what? If you are willing to invest the BP to full perk and P3 multiple Survivors... YOU CAN DO THAT. There's nothing stopping you from doing that. But forcing the playerbase at large to do it would be an incredibly terrible idea.
Beyond just the impact on the players... riddle me this. Why would anyone buy Ash? His perks are terrible and he doesn't even come bundled with a Killer. Literally anyone who knows whats up will never buy him because the game is basically punishing you for trying to play him. Also, this would hard core devalue any and all cosmetics attached to "bad" Survivors. The sales for those items would plummet. For that reason alone, Behavior will never do this. This is made even worse by the fact that now anybody who has ponied up real money for cosmetics for a character who they like how they look but hate their teachable perks now has a garbage choice to make between using those cosmetics and making the game's new economy even remotely functional for them... which will create Massive backlash like you've never seen.
You're not going to leave the generic perks as permanent? HOLY... do you realize just how bad of an idea that is? Starting off as Wraith is already a terrible idea because of how bad his teachables are. And now you're saying that players with a bad enough loss streak won't even be able to fall back Whispers + Sloppy + NOED in this ass backwards terrible system you designed? No. Just no. Congrats, you've made your proposal irredeemable.
No joke... this could just flat out kill the game if it was implemented.
2
