Hillbilly and Nurse balance suggestion

Meanwhile on Steamladder:

@Master said:

@PBlackII said:

@xllxENIGMAxllx said:
stop with all the nerfing Billy and Nurse thread instead ask buff for other killers. those are the only one who truly destroy SwF with efficiency.

A competent killer can still kill an efficient SwF, it shouldn't be guaranteed.

@bloxe said:
xllxENIGMAxllx said:
Thats the problem. The survive with boyfriends players are sad that someone beat them.

Again, that's not what I'm arguing, at all. My main argument from the beginning was to essentially put those killers on the same level as the other killers. Once that is established, then it's much easier to then nerf survivors if needed—which is a very obvious following conclusion.

A competent killer player can only manage a competent SWF if he plays nurse, the official tournament has shown that pretty well

Any person that is using that "tournament" as a reference is already being laughably absurd, get out of here.

@inkedsoulz said:

@PBlackII said:

@inkedsoulz said:

@PBlackII said:
Saying Hillbilly is loopable isn't a "very valid point" for the following reasons:
(1) It's a trite statement that is literally being denied by nobody in this discussion. Killers don't forever exist in a pallet loop with a survivor, so it's important to make considerations of the ability outside of this scenario.
(2) Pallet loops are handled by Leatherface and Hillbilly in the same way: they either wait for the survivor to drop the pallet so they can chainsaw it down, or they manage to melee the survivor. Seldom will they use their ability to down the survivor in a pallet loop unless the survivor really messes up.
Therefore if he is loopable and the ability is mostly used to just break the pallet anyway, then the impact it has for downing a survivor is less relevant under this context; i.e. you're choosing a scenario that isn't of particular interest and thus doesn't raise a valid point. The point I'm making is that ultimately Hillbilly's ability has both a vastly superior utility with what is practically the same downing ability as Leatherface, which puts Leatherface in this odd situation where he's just clearly not as strong of a pick. Therefore by making the change to Hillbilly where his ability is more situational, it not only creates more distinction for Leatherface to shine, but it removes Hillbilly's overall dominance over Leatherface's qualities.

I'm not being kind to people that say "just no", or gives a bunch of platitudes under the guise of advice; especially after the toxic cloud of users on here purposefully giving wrong and/or uncharitable interpretations of what I was saying to stroke their own weird egos.

Thats why Leatherface is known as 1 of the weakest killers on the game, they should buff the weaker killers instead of nerfing the viable one's.

Everyone knows that Leatherface is a meme, and you want to nerf Hillbilly to his lvl, so that leatherface can shine?

Get all the killers on an even playing field, then nerf survivors so the killers feel stronger by making gens take longer. It's a much simpler and elegant solution than trying to boost 12 killers just right so that they're all viable. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

I think that its much easier to just buff those weaker killers a little bit, instead of nerfing some viable killers.

And please do not exagerate, not all 12 of those other killers need boosts.

Nurse, Hillbilly, Huntress, Hag and Spirit----All these are very viable killers.

Myers, Clown, Wraith, Legion and Trapper--------These are very average, they are not good, but they are not bad either.

Leatherface, Freddy, Doctor and Pig-----These 4 are very weak.

They only need to buff those 4 killers that are on the bottom, and maybe tweak a little those average one's.
There is NO "... than trying to boost 12 killers just right so that they're all viable.""

If you have played the game as much as you claim to, you should already know all that i posted.

Edit: Yeah my english sucks, its not my native language, so im not able to put actual insults into nice words like you do.

And im actually thinking that you might be lying about your hours on the game, and that you are just someone who is new and dont know how to play against those 2 killers you mentioned. Because a grand majority(if not all) of the people that have that amount of hours into the game like you do, they DO know that Hillbilly is not as strong as you claim it to be.

Im done with this post, i though it was someone serious, but its just some BAIT but put into nice words.

No, you can't have it both ways, you can't argue that only two of them are viable, but then backpedal going oh, but only four of them actually need boosts. The definition is capable of using successfully, so quit purposefully trying to have a capricious personal definition of viable as it means being successful, not being dominant in the killer tier list. My argument is to work on getting the killers on the same tier list, if it is true that Nurse and Billy are the only viable killers, then it means that 12 killers need to be boosted. This is just how words work.

Also, don't try to scapegoat your lack of language skills for your ######### arguments, it takes a particularly weak individual to do that. And to do that as you snidely insinuate that I'm lying because you find you can't reasonably way to argue for your points or against mine is a particularly ######### thing to do. I have all my characters at minimum prestige one along with several maxed out characters, I'm not sure what else you want as proof that I'm an experienced player. I probably know more about the basic mechanics and balance challenges than you. My goal isn't to insult you, it's to reasonably argue my points; but I'm not going to let trollish behavior like yours or others here be the things that bury otherwise reasonable suggestions.

@Master said:

@PBlackII said:

@Master said:

@PBlackII said:

@xllxENIGMAxllx said:
stop with all the nerfing Billy and Nurse thread instead ask buff for other killers. those are the only one who truly destroy SwF with efficiency.

A competent killer can still kill an efficient SwF, it shouldn't be guaranteed.

@bloxe said:
xllxENIGMAxllx said:
Thats the problem. The survive with boyfriends players are sad that someone beat them.

Again, that's not what I'm arguing, at all. My main argument from the beginning was to essentially put those killers on the same level as the other killers. Once that is established, then it's much easier to then nerf survivors if needed—which is a very obvious following conclusion.

A competent killer player can only manage a competent SWF if he plays nurse, the official tournament has shown that pretty well

Any person that is using that "tournament" as a reference is already being laughably absurd, get out of here.

@inkedsoulz said:

@PBlackII said:

@inkedsoulz said:

@PBlackII said:
Saying Hillbilly is loopable isn't a "very valid point" for the following reasons:
(1) It's a trite statement that is literally being denied by nobody in this discussion. Killers don't forever exist in a pallet loop with a survivor, so it's important to make considerations of the ability outside of this scenario.
(2) Pallet loops are handled by Leatherface and Hillbilly in the same way: they either wait for the survivor to drop the pallet so they can chainsaw it down, or they manage to melee the survivor. Seldom will they use their ability to down the survivor in a pallet loop unless the survivor really messes up.
Therefore if he is loopable and the ability is mostly used to just break the pallet anyway, then the impact it has for downing a survivor is less relevant under this context; i.e. you're choosing a scenario that isn't of particular interest and thus doesn't raise a valid point. The point I'm making is that ultimately Hillbilly's ability has both a vastly superior utility with what is practically the same downing ability as Leatherface, which puts Leatherface in this odd situation where he's just clearly not as strong of a pick. Therefore by making the change to Hillbilly where his ability is more situational, it not only creates more distinction for Leatherface to shine, but it removes Hillbilly's overall dominance over Leatherface's qualities.

I'm not being kind to people that say "just no", or gives a bunch of platitudes under the guise of advice; especially after the toxic cloud of users on here purposefully giving wrong and/or uncharitable interpretations of what I was saying to stroke their own weird egos.

Thats why Leatherface is known as 1 of the weakest killers on the game, they should buff the weaker killers instead of nerfing the viable one's.

Everyone knows that Leatherface is a meme, and you want to nerf Hillbilly to his lvl, so that leatherface can shine?

Get all the killers on an even playing field, then nerf survivors so the killers feel stronger by making gens take longer. It's a much simpler and elegant solution than trying to boost 12 killers just right so that they're all viable. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

I think that its much easier to just buff those weaker killers a little bit, instead of nerfing some viable killers.

And please do not exagerate, not all 12 of those other killers need boosts.

Nurse, Hillbilly, Huntress, Hag and Spirit----All these are very viable killers.

Myers, Clown, Wraith, Legion and Trapper--------These are very average, they are not good, but they are not bad either.

Leatherface, Freddy, Doctor and Pig-----These 4 are very weak.

They only need to buff those 4 killers that are on the bottom, and maybe tweak a little those average one's.
There is NO "... than trying to boost 12 killers just right so that they're all viable.""

If you have played the game as much as you claim to, you should already know all that i posted.

Edit: Yeah my english sucks, its not my native language, so im not able to put actual insults into nice words like you do.

And im actually thinking that you might be lying about your hours on the game, and that you are just someone who is new and dont know how to play against those 2 killers you mentioned. Because a grand majority(if not all) of the people that have that amount of hours into the game like you do, they DO know that Hillbilly is not as strong as you claim it to be.

Im done with this post, i though it was someone serious, but its just some BAIT but put into nice words.

No, you can't have it both ways, you can't argue that only two of them are viable, but then backpedal going oh, but only four of them actually need boosts. The definition is capable of using successfully, so quit purposefully trying to have a capricious personal definition of viable as it means being successful, not being dominant in the killer tier list. My argument is to work on getting the killers on the same tier list, if it is true that Nurse and Billy are the only viable killers, then it means that 12 killers need to be boosted. This is just how words work.

Also, don't try to scapegoat your lack of language skills for your ######### arguments, it takes a particularly weak individual to do that. And to do that as you snidely insinuate that I'm lying because you find you can't reasonably way to argue for your points or against mine is a particularly ######### thing to do. I have all my characters at minimum prestige one along with several maxed out characters, I'm not sure what else you want as proof that I'm an experienced player. I probably know more about the basic mechanics and balance challenges than you. My goal isn't to insult you, it's to reasonably argue my points; but I'm not going to let trollish behavior like yours or others here be the things that bury otherwise reasonable suggestions.

Well what other source do you want to refer then?
When you bring up the depip squad, survivors will claim that they only versed boosted killers at rank 1 that didnt try to win.

An opinion based on the aggregate testimony and tendencies of game play. If you spend as much time with advanced players as I have, then you would know what that high tier of this game looks like. All you have to do is look at reviews for that tournament to see why it was bad. In any case, let's pretend that the tournament wasn't p r o b l e m a t i c and say that it showed nurse was the only viable killer. Cool, then nerf her and then appropriately nerf the survivors so that the killers are even and then scaling them against survivors becomes easier.

@bloxe said:
The problem with that is that nurse and billy arent that strong, theyre barelly good. Its the other killers that need buffs, either you like it or not

They're not "barely good", stop insisting on being purposefully stupid. Whether I 'like it or not' is irrelevant, it's about what's probable and easier to balance. So here, let me spoon-feed you the logic by explaining this again. You can balance a game through boosting or nerfing. The problem I see is that among the killers there is a balance issue in terms of success and the upkeep required to play a killer well. Therefore, I'm suggesting nerfing Billy and Nurse so they are even with the other killers. After you do that, you can then worry about killers success as a whole against survivors and make necessary changes; i.e. nerf survivors—probably by extending the time it takes to complete objectives.

@jackmadrox said:

@PBlackII said:
Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.

Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.

We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.

Sounds to me like you're proposing nerfs to the game's 2 most effective killers. Uh, no. I don't think that's a good idea at all.

Maybe read and you wouldn't regurgitate such a dumb comment, just a thought.

@Master said:

@PBlackII said:

@bloxe said:
The problem with that is that nurse and billy arent that strong, theyre barelly good. Its the other killers that need buffs, either you like it or not

They're not "barely good", stop insisting on being purposefully stupid. Whether I 'like it or not' is irrelevant, it's about what's probable and easier to balance. So here, let me spoon-feed you the logic by explaining this again. You can balance a game through boosting or nerfing. The problem I see is that among the killers there is a balance issue in terms of success and the upkeep required to play a killer well. Therefore, I'm suggesting nerfing Billy and Nurse so they are even with the other killers. After you do that, you can then worry about killers success as a whole against survivors and make necessary changes; i.e. nerf survivors—probably by extending the time it takes to complete objectives.

The problem is that survivors nerfs wont be accepted by the majorty of the community (survivors), thus they need to buff the weaker killers

Any sort of change will make the majority of survivor mains whine and snivel because that's what they do, regardless of it being an approach by nerfing or boosting. Your point is weak at best.

@Raptorrotas said:
Wow, Proposing stupid changes without details and then being rude when being pointed out its stupid changes, good to know what to expect.

Just "have it on a charges system" for blinks as a single change would nerf the nurse hard, especially if she stays~ 96% speed.

For the Hillbilly change... just no. HB is where most killers should be.

This is a clear example of an idiot posting and here's why:
(1) They qualitatively assess the claim without bothering reading or going over any of the arguments I've provided which leads to the next point.
(2) I have exhaustively provided arguments and details with how it would work, so to say "without details" shows either a clear lack of literacy or a willfully stupid position. Even within the original post, I give a very specific value for distance in that it requires 12 metres to instadown a survivor with Hillbilly ability and included a rationale many times throughout this thread. Giving a nurse tokens for her blink wouldn't "nerf her hard", it would still be possible to triple blink, you just wouldn't be able to spam it with each set of the iteration, you'd have to wait for them to recharge over time which would then force nurse players to manage their blinks better.
(3) Nobody "pointed out" how it's stupid, people have set up their own strawman arguments that were emphatically not what I was arguing. Again, you would know this if you actually had reading comprehension skills.
(4) Provides zero rationale other than what is essentially 'because I think it's balanced' without ever truly addressing any counterarguments; i.e. rests solely on axioms.
(5) Expecting any sort of politeness or pampering when obnoxiously and snidely regurgitating the same things that have been stated over and over again, learn to read and maybe I'll be nicer to you.

Edited the original post.

Pallet Loops are a separate issue along with how killers individually fare against survivors, I specifically address killers versus survivors in one of the paragraphs and why it isn't my concern.

@xllxENIGMAxllx said:
I stop talking in this thread i never seen so much BS in one place don't tag me again.

Just making a blanket statement saying it's all BS with literally zero valid counterarguments is the strategy of an incompetent troll.

@Mister_xD said:
honestly, nerfing killers in order to get more killer variety in this game is the wrong path.
buff the others instead.
as an example, you will see a lot more hags at rank 1, as she got really good with her buff.

Already addressed this,,

@ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:

@PBlackII said:
KingB said:

No. Billy's chainsaws would be impossible to land unless playing a braindead survivor. And his chainsaws are already hard to hit against good survivors unless they are caught in the open. Nurse is the hardest killer to play in game, she's supposed to be rewarding.

They are not "impossible" to land, and you're essentially arguing at this point that the only way to land his chainsaw is to be right next to the survivor. As far as nurse goes there should be reward in playing the character successfully, not necessarily having done the learning curve and crutching on the mechanics.

bloxe said:

Have you ever played with any of them?? I'm a rank 1 killer and I hate both those killers because of how easy it is to counter them. Combine that with the learning required, and you see that they are good because people put effort to learning and evolving them.

Easy to counter them? Are you high? They're literally played the most because they're the easiest to get the most success with the least effort. The thing about learning curves is once you pass it, the challenge begins to disappear. I'm not saying that the challenge is forever gone, but you remember the strategy and it makes it easier to deal with survivors without having to put too much thought into it. There is a reason why there are countless memes of killer mains going "good thing I have ol' reliable" with images of bloody nurses and billies, because it is certainly much easier to get the desired result with them than the other killers.

Stop twisting the words. Those two killers are the strongest and saying "the challenge goes away" makes no sense it's called practice makes perfect and Billy can get destroyed by the right team which makes nurse the only one to win against the best survivors. Even going really close to survivors with Billy it's still difficult to land the chainsaw and if someone practices enough they get better at it. Stop complaining about things that aren't problems. You obviously have never played Billy or nurse if you have posted this. If people learn how to handle very hard mechanics like blinking and hitting survivors trying to evade the chainsaw they should be rewarded for it because it's skill.

I'm not twisting anything, I'm calling it as it is. To put it generously, you repeatedly and purposefully give the least charitable interpretations of what I'm saying as exemplified by your most recent post. It's more nuanced than saying "the challenge goes away," it's more that the challenge of controlling the killer goes away, not challenge of strategizing against a survivor; that's an obvious premise considering nobody wants a solved strategy for either side. These are very present problems considering that threads and memes glorifying one's bloody Hillbilly and Nurse persist, let alone the sheer numbers of Billies and Nurses that populate advanced matches. Don't complain because you have an apparent struggle with reading, thinking, or coping with completely valid arguments. It's apparent at this point that you don't even care about the game like I do and are here because you're butt hurt about being wrong—hence why you don't know how to (1) actually articulate what I'm arguing and (2) actually support your claims. I have supported my rationale pretty clearly, but I can't help you if you refuse to read.

@Mister_xD said:

@PBlackII said:

@Mister_xD said:
honestly, nerfing killers in order to get more killer variety in this game is the wrong path.
buff the others instead.
as an example, you will see a lot more hags at rank 1, as she got really good with her buff.

Already addressed this, learn to read.

oh i do read.
your title says you have suggestions for nurse and billy.
when i came, i saw a huge wall of text, read some of it and then jumped to the interesting parts:
your suggestions.
and you only suggested nerfs for billy and nurse, but no buffs for weaker killers, which would have been essential for a threat that aims for a balane between the killers that puts all of them in the same spot.

besides that, its literally impossible to have every killer do something else while all being on the exact same power level. you will ALWAYS have a better and a worse killer, no matter what. and if it was just by design. someone might be darker, someone might be smaller, etc.

now, lets take a look at your suggestions:
the 12 meter thing for billy is something i do not like at all. it would be way too hard to actually hit a chainsaw now. with other words: the chainsaw would only be able to get used for map pressure and getting deviousness points with it would be very hard, almost impossibe.
you can avoid the chainsaw attack already, just by moving unpredictable in front of him, so he runs in a wrong direction. good billys might still hit though.
you would literally remove a huge aspect of billys power with this nerf and probaply make him one of the worst picks, especially with killers like spirit, huntress or myers around.

the nurse one is one where i cant rly say much about, as im not a nurs eplayer myself. however, she does need a nerf. im just unsure how this would affect baby nurses. nurse is already a very hard character to play, making her even harder might scare newer players away, as the learning curve for nurse is extreme. you start as a joke, but end up as a god.

happy now?
i gave you a full feedback.

PS: try to be less insulting next time (:

It's insulting to not read what I have painstakingly explained and just vapidly regurgitate the same response as every other troll, what makes you think I'll treat you nicely?

There are already countless threads for how to boost other killers. I limited the discussion to the title of the thread—I know, what a crazy concept. Unfortunately, a lot of the initial responses demonstrated an acute lack of reading comprehension so I was pretty much forced to create a wall of text to replace the original neutral/simple post. Thus I'm keeping my scope mostly to Hillbilly and Nurse within this discussion and would entertain boosting the killers that most regard as currently #########. While theoretically I agree that getting a perfect balance among different kits among killers isn't going to happen, I can say you can always strive towards that direction—especially if there already exists fairly clear distinction of tiers; in essence, I don't agree with the argument: differences will always pose challenges to balancing, so don''t bother balancing.

Concerning Hillbilly, I don't agree that landing his chainsaw would be impossible. Survivors seldom move "randomly", they typically try to create a pattern to mislead the killer and try to determine how to fake them out with their movements—even if they are panicked. It is up to the killer then to pick up on this and down them. I witness Billies downing good survivors with their ability that isn't at extremely close proximity—it generally happens a couple times in each match. Every player has tendencies, a good player can read those tendencies and adjust their game play.

Nurse being a beast is pretty common knowledge at this point, and if a player is new to the game, they generally quickly figure that out—all it takes is for them to face one good nurse to make them go "holy #########." I am highly dubious of the claim that a token system would make the task too daunting, especially since it mostly punishes spamming behavior. I just don't think she should be a god once you figure her out.

@Mister_xD said:

@PBlackII said:
It's insulting to not read what I have painstakingly explained and just vapidly regurgitate the same response as every other troll, what makes you think I'll treat you nicely?

oh, i have not been insulting to you in any way. i just made my point clear, that it is the wrong move to nerf killers in order to get a balance between all of them. instead, you should bring every killer up to their level, so it didnt really matter if i read the whole post or not, i just said that i disagree with the nerfs to certain killers. and there is a big ptoblem with your post there, making it seem like your only after nerfs, but ill come to that a little later.

There are already countless threads for how to boost other killers. I limited the discussion to the title of the thread—I know, what a crazy concept.

what if i told you, that i did the same?
see, this is the big problem i was talking about. your whole headline only promises us balance suggestions for nurse and billy, and so do your suggestions. none of these actually refer to the other killers in any way. also, i have seen countless of these "nerf killer XYZ" threats, so i was not in the mood to read a huge wall of text, just to get the same result as in any other of these threats: killer XYZ needs a nerf. so i, and many others too, read the title and already knew what i was going to write. it would be something like "stop asking for nerfs until this whole mess of a game is balanced". however, i decided to read into your text a little, up to the point where you mentioned that you want all the killers to be on the same level. this was, where i scrolled down to your actual suggestions, the things that the headline promised me to find. and as ive expected from the very start, you asked for nerfs.
at that time i wrote my first comment.

Unfortunately, a lot of the initial responses demonstrated an acute lack of reading comprehension so I was pretty much forced to create a wall of text to replace the original neutral/simple post.

and as ive stated before, this is where you lost a lot of us.
next time, just rename the whole discussion into something like "my ideas to fix the overall killer balance" and only take nurse, billy and maybe a weak killer who should be buffed as examples. that way, you would have gotten many more to read this wall of text. however, thanks to the irritating headline, that did not happen.

Thus I'm keeping my scope mostly to Hillbilly and Nurse within this discussion and would entertain boosting the killers that most regard as currently #########.

then make this clear asap. make clear that you want to balance every killer and not only nerf the top two.

While theoretically I agree that getting a perfect balance among different kits among killers isn't going to happen, I can say you can always strive towards that direction—especially if there already exists fairly clear distinction of tiers; in essence, I don't agree with the argument: differences will always pose challenges to balancing, so don''t bother balancing.

i never said that you shouldnt try to balance the killers out. i simply stated that it will not be possible to get every killer on the exact same power level. the perfect example would be survivors: every survivor is the exact same, however, many players prefer claudette over other survivors. why is that so? she has the exact same stats as any other survivor out there. the answer is easy: she has an advantage over the others simply by her design. and it will be the same with killers. lets just assume that every killer in this game would have the exact same stats and no power available. guess what? you would almost exclusively see pigs, hags, legions and freddys. why? because they are smaller than other killers and harder to spot on the distance, giving them an advantage over the other killers just by their design.
i never said you shouldnt try to aim for a better balance though. you completely took that out of context.

Concerning Hillbilly, I don't agree that landing his chainsaw would be impossible. Survivors seldom move "randomly", they typically try to create a pattern to mislead the killer and try to determine how to fake them out with their movements—even if they are panicked. It is up to the killer then to pick up on this and down them. I witness Billies downing good survivors with their ability that isn't at extremely close proximity—it generally happens a couple times in each match. Every player has tendencies, a good player can read those tendencies and adjust their game play.

believe me: being forced to be at least 12 meters away from them would make this a pretty impossible task against and decent survivor. this would give billy the exact same problem leatherface has with his chainsaw: he could only take down players when he cathes them in an open field. or how do you expect me to get a chainsaw hit, if there is even a freakin corner near them? 12 m is a lot. its half the hags terror radius. and all survivors would have to do to avoid getting hit would be making a 90 degree turn to the left or right and you wont hit them, due to the miserable steering ability billy has with the chainsaw. again: billy would drop into low mid tier at best with this nerf.also, i like how you said that "good players simply adjust their gameplay". have you ever tried to adjust your chainsawsprint when someone 90 degree turns you? id like to see that.

Nurse being a beast is pretty common knowledge at this point, and if a player is new to the game, they generally quickly figure that out—all it takes is for them to face one good nurse to make them go "holy [BAD WORD]." I am highly dubious of the claim that a token system would make the task too daunting, especially since it mostly punishes spamming behavior. I just don't think she should be a god once you figure her out.

i dont know why you thought you'd have to bring this up, but yes. everyone knows that she is the strongest killer. however, only very few can actually play her. and by scaring away newer players i didnt mean sacring them away cuz they think the killer is #########, but because they cant handle the killer. nurse is extremely hard to master and the lease effective killer in the game when you cant play her, so making her even more difficult will only make a baby nurses life more painful, while a godlike nurse will still easily dominate the entire game. a really good nurse doesnt need these fast chainblinks you are trying to prevent. they blink twice and they hit you. one blink for getting close and one blink for catching you, thats what they do. only bad nurses actually use the "blinkspam", because they [BAD WORD] up and need to adjust their mistake, so you would only end up punishing them.
this is a problem i adress a lot when people say that nurse needs nerfs: nurse is already extremely hard to play and you need to think of the newer players too.
and btw, this is the same argument that is brought up by survivors all the time when its about nerfing something like pallets or windows: that the majority of the playerbase is not as good with these things as the person who asked for the nerf claims and that he should think about the lower ranked survivors too.
exact same argument.

i hope you made it through my own little wall of text (:
pls try to not be insulting in your answer, if you will answer that is, and thanks in advance ^^

No, you're doing it again, your "point", as in, 'no man, don't nerf them, boost the other killers to their level' has been said over and over. And I explained many times why it doesn't matter either way if you nerf or boost them, what matters is the level of burden created by choosing which killers to nerf and boost; e.g. it is more work to boost 12 killers than it is to nerf 2 of them, you clearly didn't read because you would've known that I made this point multiple times. So yes, it is insulting and continues to be insulting because you're effectively communicating "I'm just going to cherry pick the points I know how to argue" even though if you remove its context then it effectively creates a strawman. That part that you skipped over was a pretty important rationale behind the choices, and while you do admit to being a lazy reader, it doesn't suddenly forgive you for needlessly being ######### and dodging the context of my arguments.

The post initially began with only the Nurse and Hillbilly suggestion, it was quoted earlier. Unfortunately, the knee jerk response is to shitpost and admonish any thread that remotely suggests a nerf to these precious two killers. As a result, I had to articulate each step of my arguments and deconstruct shitposts as they came by, and eventually that too creates a wall of text that nobody wants to read through, so I edited the original post to include further context and justification for my approach to the nerfs. It's annoying that I do that to actually help readers, but then they essentially go, "tl;dr stop asking for nerfs and git gud lulz".

In regards to your balance platitude and pedantry, it's a "no ######### #########, sherlock" point to say the perfect balance is unachievable. Who the ######### tries to argue that? Nobody here is asking for perfect balance. You trying to even further explain such a trite statement by saying choosing graphically less noticeable killers creates imbalance is childishly shortsighted and an example as to why I'm not taking anything out of context. If you notice that a killer is visually less apparent then you find ways to make them more apparent so long as that is the only thing that is contributing to their greater success rate. What a thought!

For your other point for Hillbilly, you are essentially arguing "but Billy might miss because it's hard!" There should generally be a chance factor involved, with proper strategy and skill you learn to sway the probability in your favor. This isn't rocket science. Yes, there will be scenarios where you will miss, yes there are scenarios where then the chainsaw wouldn't down them instantly with the nerf I suggested but instead only injure them; but to pretend that a survivor will never be in a scenario where they can be hit with a distanced chainsaw is being intellectually dishonest. Hook survivors in areas where the pallet loop gets exhausted or in open areas whenever possible, catch survivors that are searching for generators, catch them when they accidentally find themselves in a route where the pallets have been used, catch them when they make mistakes, these are all scenarios where a 12m requirement for an instant down is not impossible.

There are a lot more competent nurse players than you think. Yes, good ones don't necessarily rely on spamming teleports, but they can always be safe since that is a resource available to them; i.e. there's very little punishment for if they mess up. I completely understood you when you said that baby nurses would be scared off because they would find this additional requirement daunting because the learning curve for her is already difficult, but I don't see any compelling reason to support that. The nerf is essentially just saying "hey, manage your blinks, don't spam them," not a level of Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes internalized into a killer.

I should add I'm not particularly ardent on the exact figures provided itself, as they are more or less to convey a general idea than a strict stat. So when I say 12 metres, I think that's fairly reasonable because it allows reaction timing for survivors and aiming for the Hillbilly, as opposed to mindlessly running up behind them and just holding down that M2 for that sweet unavoidable chainsaw instadown. When I say have nurse recharge blink tokens at 8 seconds, it's because I figure that would probably be enough to a blink set iteration of three, two, then one if it were spammed. Rather than three, three, three, etc.

@Mister_xD said:

@PBlackII said:

@Mister_xD said:

@PBlackII said:
It's insulting to not read what I have painstakingly explained and just vapidly regurgitate the same response as every other troll, what makes you think I'll treat you nicely?

oh, i have not been insulting to you in any way. i just made my point clear, that it is the wrong move to nerf killers in order to get a balance between all of them. instead, you should bring every killer up to their level, so it didnt really matter if i read the whole post or not, i just said that i disagree with the nerfs to certain killers. and there is a big ptoblem with your post there, making it seem like your only after nerfs, but ill come to that a little later.

There are already countless threads for how to boost other killers. I limited the discussion to the title of the thread—I know, what a crazy concept.

what if i told you, that i did the same?
see, this is the big problem i was talking about. your whole headline only promises us balance suggestions for nurse and billy, and so do your suggestions. none of these actually refer to the other killers in any way. also, i have seen countless of these "nerf killer XYZ" threats, so i was not in the mood to read a huge wall of text, just to get the same result as in any other of these threats: killer XYZ needs a nerf. so i, and many others too, read the title and already knew what i was going to write. it would be something like "stop asking for nerfs until this whole mess of a game is balanced". however, i decided to read into your text a little, up to the point where you mentioned that you want all the killers to be on the same level. this was, where i scrolled down to your actual suggestions, the things that the headline promised me to find. and as ive expected from the very start, you asked for nerfs.
at that time i wrote my first comment.

Unfortunately, a lot of the initial responses demonstrated an acute lack of reading comprehension so I was pretty much forced to create a wall of text to replace the original neutral/simple post.

and as ive stated before, this is where you lost a lot of us.
next time, just rename the whole discussion into something like "my ideas to fix the overall killer balance" and only take nurse, billy and maybe a weak killer who should be buffed as examples. that way, you would have gotten many more to read this wall of text. however, thanks to the irritating headline, that did not happen.

Thus I'm keeping my scope mostly to Hillbilly and Nurse within this discussion and would entertain boosting the killers that most regard as currently #########.

then make this clear asap. make clear that you want to balance every killer and not only nerf the top two.

While theoretically I agree that getting a perfect balance among different kits among killers isn't going to happen, I can say you can always strive towards that direction—especially if there already exists fairly clear distinction of tiers; in essence, I don't agree with the argument: differences will always pose challenges to balancing, so don''t bother balancing.

i never said that you shouldnt try to balance the killers out. i simply stated that it will not be possible to get every killer on the exact same power level. the perfect example would be survivors: every survivor is the exact same, however, many players prefer claudette over other survivors. why is that so? she has the exact same stats as any other survivor out there. the answer is easy: she has an advantage over the others simply by her design. and it will be the same with killers. lets just assume that every killer in this game would have the exact same stats and no power available. guess what? you would almost exclusively see pigs, hags, legions and freddys. why? because they are smaller than other killers and harder to spot on the distance, giving them an advantage over the other killers just by their design.
i never said you shouldnt try to aim for a better balance though. you completely took that out of context.

Concerning Hillbilly, I don't agree that landing his chainsaw would be impossible. Survivors seldom move "randomly", they typically try to create a pattern to mislead the killer and try to determine how to fake them out with their movements—even if they are panicked. It is up to the killer then to pick up on this and down them. I witness Billies downing good survivors with their ability that isn't at extremely close proximity—it generally happens a couple times in each match. Every player has tendencies, a good player can read those tendencies and adjust their game play.

believe me: being forced to be at least 12 meters away from them would make this a pretty impossible task against and decent survivor. this would give billy the exact same problem leatherface has with his chainsaw: he could only take down players when he cathes them in an open field. or how do you expect me to get a chainsaw hit, if there is even a freakin corner near them? 12 m is a lot. its half the hags terror radius. and all survivors would have to do to avoid getting hit would be making a 90 degree turn to the left or right and you wont hit them, due to the miserable steering ability billy has with the chainsaw. again: billy would drop into low mid tier at best with this nerf.also, i like how you said that "good players simply adjust their gameplay". have you ever tried to adjust your chainsawsprint when someone 90 degree turns you? id like to see that.

Nurse being a beast is pretty common knowledge at this point, and if a player is new to the game, they generally quickly figure that out—all it takes is for them to face one good nurse to make them go "holy [BAD WORD]." I am highly dubious of the claim that a token system would make the task too daunting, especially since it mostly punishes spamming behavior. I just don't think she should be a god once you figure her out.

i dont know why you thought you'd have to bring this up, but yes. everyone knows that she is the strongest killer. however, only very few can actually play her. and by scaring away newer players i didnt mean sacring them away cuz they think the killer is #########, but because they cant handle the killer. nurse is extremely hard to master and the lease effective killer in the game when you cant play her, so making her even more difficult will only make a baby nurses life more painful, while a godlike nurse will still easily dominate the entire game. a really good nurse doesnt need these fast chainblinks you are trying to prevent. they blink twice and they hit you. one blink for getting close and one blink for catching you, thats what they do. only bad nurses actually use the "blinkspam", because they [BAD WORD] up and need to adjust their mistake, so you would only end up punishing them.
this is a problem i adress a lot when people say that nurse needs nerfs: nurse is already extremely hard to play and you need to think of the newer players too.
and btw, this is the same argument that is brought up by survivors all the time when its about nerfing something like pallets or windows: that the majority of the playerbase is not as good with these things as the person who asked for the nerf claims and that he should think about the lower ranked survivors too.
exact same argument.

i hope you made it through my own little wall of text (:
pls try to not be insulting in your answer, if you will answer that is, and thanks in advance ^^

No, you're doing it again, your "point", as in, 'no man, don't nerf them, boost the other killers to their level' has been said over and over. And I explained many times why it doesn't matter either way if you nerf or boost them, what matters is the level of burden created by choosing which killers to nerf and boost; e.g. it is more work to boost 12 killers than it is to nerf 2 of them, you clearly didn't read because you would've known that I made this point multiple times. So yes, it is insulting and continues to be insulting because you're effectively communicating "I'm just going to cherry pick the points I know how to argue" even though if you remove its context then it effectively creates a strawman. That part that you skipped over was a pretty important rationale behind the choices, and while you do admit to being a lazy reader, it doesn't suddenly forgive you for needlessly being ######### and dodging the context of my arguments.

The post initially began with only the Nurse and Hillbilly suggestion, it was quoted earlier. Unfortunately, the knee jerk response is to shitpost and admonish any thread that remotely suggests a nerf to these precious two killers. As a result, I had to articulate each step of my arguments and deconstruct shitposts as they came by, and eventually that too creates a wall of text that nobody wants to read through, so I edited the original post to include further context and justification for my approach to the nerfs. It's annoying that I do that to actually help readers, but then they essentially go, "tl;dr stop asking for nerfs and git gud lulz".

In regards to your balance platitude and pedantry, it's a "no [BAD WORD] #########, sherlock" point to say the perfect balance is unachievable. Who the [BAD WORD] tries to argue that? Nobody here is asking for perfect balance. You trying to even further explain such a trite statement by saying choosing graphically less noticeable killers creates imbalance is childishly shortsighted and an example as to why I'm not taking anything out of context. If you notice that a killer is visually less apparent then you find ways to make them more apparent so long as that is the only thing that is contributing to their greater success rate. What a thought!

For your other point for Hillbilly, you are essentially arguing "but Billy might miss because it's hard!" There should generally be a chance factor involved, with proper strategy and skill you learn to sway the probability in your favor. This isn't rocket science. Yes, there will be scenarios where you will miss, yes there are scenarios where then the chainsaw wouldn't down them instantly with the nerf I suggested but instead only injure them; but to pretend that a survivor will never be in a scenario where they can be hit with a distanced chainsaw is being intellectually dishonest. Hook survivors in areas where the pallet loop gets exhausted or in open areas whenever possible, catch survivors that are searching for generators, catch them when they accidentally find themselves in a route where the pallets have been used, catch them when they make mistakes, these are all scenarios where a 12m requirement for an instant down is not impossible.

There are a lot more competent nurse players than you think. Yes, good ones don't necessarily rely on spamming teleports, but they can always be safe since that is a resource available to them; i.e. there's very little punishment for if they mess up. I completely understood you when you said that baby nurses would be scared off because they would find this additional requirement daunting because the learning curve for her is already difficult, but I don't see any compelling reason to support that. The nerf is essentially just saying "hey, manage your blinks, don't spam them," not a level of Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes internalized into a killer.

I should add I'm not particularly ardent on the exact figures provided itself, as they are more or less to convey a general idea than a strict stat. So when I say 12 metres, I think that's fairly reasonable because it allows reaction timing for survivors and aiming for the Hillbilly, as opposed to mindlessly running up behind them and just holding down that M2 for that sweet unavoidable chainsaw instadown. When I say have nurse recharge blink tokens at 8 seconds, it's because I figure that would probably be enough to a blink set iteration of three, two, then one if it were spammed. Rather than three, three, three, etc.

so in short:
you repeated your previous arguments and completely ignored / misinterpretated mine.
you put words in my mouth i've never said (like this "but to pretend that a survivor will never be in a scenario where they can be hit with a distanced chainsaw is being intellectually dishonest.")
and you dont seem to have a good knowledge over the killer side of this game.

i will not continue this pointless discussion, as you've proven to not be able to handle critisism on your idea.
i still wish you a good day / night, cuz i am actually a nice person
and i will (hopefully not) see you around.

No, my idea as a whole has not been argued, I have only seen strawman or inane arguments. I didn't ignore any of your arguments nor misinterpreted them. Saying that 12 metres is too far because the survivor might suddenly dodge the ability because hillbilly is hard to steer—which is literally moving your mouse left or right—is hardly a point. What? A survivor dodging? Why I never! It's frustrating to have to repeat my previous points because you'd purposefully and willfully cherry picked without the context—you even stated you skipped over stuff from laziness. I have played all the killers, all of them are prestiged for me, so saying I don't have a 'good knowledge over the killer side of this game' is also a hasty assumption.

It's also pretty ######### to say that I can't handle criticism to my idea when it's never actually been presented. People have stated pointless statements like "nah, dont nerf billy and nurse, boost everybody else" or variations of that repeatedly. I provide well reasoned arguments back to specifics and the response is "well, you obviously don't play killer"—which cool attack me not the argument, neat strategy. So in some weird irony you say you're a nice person and then exit the thread by saying that you won't hopefully not see me around which is also pretty ######### behavior, but it's okay, I guess I've come to expect ######### people to do ######### things.

It would appear reasonable to give a base movement speed boost to nurse if a token system was implemented.