Dear Killer mains, please write something constructive instead of constantly crying...
Comments
-
Here is my constructive criticism: Sawcon
But seriously, can we please buff hit validation to extend to vaults? It is unreasonable that the "server decides" whether an interaction is fair only around pallets and dead hard. Balance the game to make it fun for everyone, please and thank you.
0 -
Fun might be subjective, but we are playing a video game.
So it 100% belongs in the discussion.
In fact, it is a fruitless endeavor to balance something that is not fun.
Fair ≠ Fun
Fun ≈ Fair
0 -
This content has been removed.
-
From Nova himself, he did not mean that first nerf. He meant the one where snare count was reduced, add-ons were neutered, slowdown upon placing a snare was introduced, etc. The first Freddy nerf has nothing to do with this discussion, and if he wasn't going through something major right now I'd ask him to be here and clarify it himself.
1 -
Never mind then.
0 -
Oh the irony....
0 -
Looking at Deathslinger, Freddy
So it's not about fun now... Well, someone should told them this earlier.
Or is it only about survivor's fun?
0 -
Even though he was fun. Probably the most engaging killer at the time who also happened to be strong. Teleporting to gens, having slowdown mid-chase, the dreamworld mechanic. Look what they've done to him now.
0 -
I think arguments about fun are way better than arguments about balance sided rants.
Can killer win against most survivors? Yes
But that doesn't apply to all killers. Weaker killers still need buffs.
Is it fun? Not really
It's stressful af and usually unfun.
If you want to have fun, there will be ######### tons of escapes. Issue is that it's not going to be rewarded by survivor's reactions. You are going to eat lots of toxic reactions for playing fair.
Hey, I have let them recover, so game is longer. They escape and wait in exit gate just to teabag. Yay, so nice...
And you have no idea how much frustrating is it to lose the game just because you got validated multiple times and it's because of survivor's high ping.
0 -
You make a post asking the killers to be constructive while you are calling them cryers insteand of being constructive yourself and asking yourself why are there so many killers complaining. Is your post constructive in first place?
Simplyfing all the killer post as crying is a mock and not true.
Of course there are some post which are crypost ("remove that perk, is broken", "I don't have fun as killer I'm done with this game") but most of the other posts bring ideas on how to nerf or balance the most unbalanced and OP side (ideas on how to nerf Dead Hard, CoH, ideas on how to balance map) or how to buff bad killers, isn't that constructive?
6 -
I think it was overkill. They should have just do better add-ons pass to remove forever Freddy and reworked BT would be fine imo. I would be fine with that buffed clock mechanic too.
They did same with Deathslinger. Instead of doing small changes, they just nerf killer to the ground so survivors don't have to deal with it.
3 -
I feel like you don't actually read the forums. Cause if you actually go into those "crying" threads and read further than 120 characters like a twitter post. You'll actually find the constructive criticism and suggestions. The thing is though, these are players....not developers. Its not their job to pick every minute detail and come up with a solution that will magically solve everything. They can give suggestions in the right direction for sure. But the ultimate call should be up to COMPETANT devs.
I could sit up here all day and go, "Hexes need better spawns" <-- a comment that is echoed constantly. < BUT IM NOT A CODER SO THATS THE MOST AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK YOU'RE GOING TO GET! We cant sit up and go, "Alright guys you need to adjust like 368 of the code and algorithm for hex spawns, this will for sure fix hex spawns making them better and more fair for everyone involved." No it doesn't work like that.
I could sit up here all day and go "Hey you know pigs head traps could be a bit more consistent instead of running into tons of scenarios where the traps come off at the first check" <----THATS IT thats as far as a player can go. I can't go into the code, and theres no telling what other adjustments would need to be made to fit my suggestion into the game.
And lastly, the most commonly used phrase for balance as far as "FUN" goes, comes from survivor posts. Don't take my word for it...do the search query yourself. Now....I've given you the suggestion, given you the hint in the right direction. You can either continue believing that constructive criticism doesn't happen and ignore every word in a killer post past "X thing is broken" and think players are just crying (sorta the same way the devs have been for oooh at least 6 to 8 months now) or you could continue scrolling through those threads where killers complain and actually pick up on the constructive criticism that gets put out.....OH RIGHT you\re probably not gonna find it in general discussion because IT GETS MOVED TO SUGGESTIONS WHEN YOU MAKE SUGGESTIONS!
2 -
Me, observing this thread:
2 -
Players don't give a damn about constructive posts, for the same reason I don't think devs read or give a damn about them either. Its not click baity enough to spark a response or read so people glance over the ######### like it doesn't exist. The same phenomenon happens on youtube. Negativity is more eye catching than positive constructive feedback.
0 -
There used to be lots more killers being constructive, but they got ran off by people gaslighting them anytime they tried to use logic. It's the survivors I see not being constructive like "Deathslinger uncounterable", "Pinhead OP", and so on.
2 -
Cenobite balanced lmao 😆😆😆😆😆😆
His ultra rare addon turns him into worse ranged Legion. Did you even play it him at high MMR to call him balanced? His colision can literally break instantly the survivor chains.
1 -
Well I already put my thoughts out there but no survivor is going to accept it...
DH, BT and DS are among some of the few perks that should be limited to one person on the team. So either one person has all 3 perks or 3 people can have one of each, if that makes sense.
0
