Further nerfs on survivors can really hurt the playerbase
Comments
-
Survivors need a lot of what they have gutted, including garbage like Dead Hard.
However, they also need new features added to the game that are actually fun to use.
0 -
Yeah.
But I do except that killer mains will blame mmr, even though the true reason without swf is lot harder to survive anymore.
When solo becomes unplayable thanks to survivor nerfs, the number will decrease at alarming rate
1 -
Those who said survivor need alot should really play killer
2 -
The same can be said for high MMR survivors, it goes both ways. They aren't lowering the soft cap just for killers.
The game is too stressful for killers? so instead of addressing the piss poor balance and excessive time crunch they're looking for the easy way out as usual.
Post edited by Sludge on2 -
I actually vaguely agree. Why did they nerf boil over? I mean, I know why, but as a console player, I feel the problem was a bit overstated, and even if not, why wasn't it given a compensation buff? Very strange.
2 -
"slight"... a sweaty swf will beat any killer of the game, especially when they stack 2nd chances perks and broken stuff such as brand new part, map offerings (actually 3/4 of the maps on dbd are survivor side), styptic agents, anti-hemorrage syringes, etc etc... you can cry about survivors being weak, but if you think so i deduce that you aren't playing aganist/with players who actually know how to loop properly. Only solo survivors could have some troubles, but it isn't killer's fault for sure: when i play solo i see the other survivors trolling around, spamming vault animations in your location in order to attract the killer here, straight up dc/suicide on the hook cause they don't like the killer/being outplayed despite they have dead hard/map that they don't like/other stupid and selfish reasons. The moment that i've somewhat decent people in my team, usually will result in a complete loss for the killer with only a single kill if he/she's lucky...
2 -
The thing is nerfing meta perks does not affect the casual playerbase. Anyone who has played in both low and high MMR would know this. Casual players don't run meta perks. Even in mid range MMR you might only see 2 dead hards per game. It's only the top 10-20 percent that are running dead hard, ds, unbreakable, circle, etc every game. Casuals wouldn't even notice if you nerfed dead hard. If you have a high MMR killer and one that is lower then you can see this for yourself. All these OP perks do is serve the highest level players who are already good.
1 -
If you’re a bad killer you would.
2 -
Please 4k a good SWF that wants to escape on Badham as Trapper, please do
7 -
I have mained trapper, I’ve found it hard to begin with but just took some time getting better at mind games and trap placement, few YouTube videos watching how others play him, advice on this forum and some better perks later and I’m golden against swfs, even in bad matches I’ll managed to take 2 down which to me is a win seeing as I’m still not great with trapper, he’s fun to play against as well if you get a good trapper.
One of my favourite killers as a survivor, falling into one of their traps after a mind game is hilarious.
Wouldnt say he’s the easiest of killers to master though, Wraith is where I got my training wheels to begin with.
0 -
So the best you can do 2 downs? That's far from 4k'ing.
And no, no mindgames or trap placements will save a Trapper against a good SWF, especially if they're using meta Perks
7 -
In a bad game, nice try man, I’m up for a good discussion be least try and keep it civil instead of pointless attacks. Don’t let it live rent free in your head man, this game does things to people haha
0 -
"Pointless attacks" "If you’re a bad killer you would."
Seems a bit hypocritical, if you ask me.
What would be a good game to you as Trapper against a good (keep in mind, good, not the ones that kill themselves trying to save their friend during EGC) SWF? The best I can see is a few downs and at most 1 Sacrifice
7 -
Well yea if you’re a bad killer you would just give up wouldn’t you, just like a bad survivor would die in the hook straight away or dc? Like I said I’m not a great killer and I still try, learned a lot from the forums, streamers and just playing but I’m not the best trapper however I’m definitely comfortable and wouldn’t give up as soon as I got a 4 swf.
I said before worst case is 2 kills, my best is 4, generally 4 in most games (70% if I had to guess), I’m no trapper expert and I’ve seen amazing trapper plays, just takes a good trapper and someone dedicated to learn.
1 -
I totally believe you
0 -
okay
0 -
On the forum killer mains saying that under 90% 4K games the killer is unviable, and needs buffing
2 -
Oh dear man, I’m not sure where that mentality comes from, I think some people have serious competitive issues, I’m happy with just 50% wins if I can, but I’ll call it a day if not or play another game hah
2 -
I don't think you understand that when someone says "you might aswell give up", it means there's barely a chance of winning, not that giving up is the only choice.
4k against a good, and I'll say this again, GOOD SWF is not something I'll believe but ok.
Continue the 'Us vs Them', as if that will do anything other than showing your true bias
8 -
If the swf or solo q team play better than me or in your case you call them “good” then I’ll accept it, nothing wrong being outplayed man, you win some you lose some, learn from it and play better next game etc.
The mmr is being reworked or whatever so I imagine whatever bad games you’re getting might get fixed soon if that’s what you’re getting at
0 -
No one said anything about losing being bad, what I'm saying is that over 90% of the Killer roster is unviable
4 -
In general?
Or do you mean just in swf that 90% of killers are unviable?
2 -
In general, it's probably around 70-80%
1 -
The difference is usage. Dh is on demand, while a skilled sb user needs to learn how to 99 sb or not have it up. Lithe you have to find a window or pallet to vault. But with dh, just press a button and viola.
2 -
Unviable means 90% of the roster is unplayable which is not true. The entire roster is playable and can get plenty of 4ks because of the MMR system.
No matter what you do to Demogorgon, you can never get Demogorgon to the Nurses level of play without losing Demogorgons essence, it's not doable. And who would you play against if all the Killers are as broken as Nurse and Blight. Between 68% to 95% of players cannot play against Killers that broken.
You would literally never find a match if all the killers where that stupidly overpowered.
4 -
Yeah 66-90% of the survivor playerbase would leave the game or switch to become a killer main.
DbD got one thing right in the genre, solo is somewhat viable way to play.
DbD clones tend to assume everyone on the comms, so since solo play is unviable in those games, never get popular and die a months/year later
0 -
Every Killer is playable, most aren't viable. Just because the SBMM system pairs weak Killers like Trapper with weak Survivors, even if the Trapper player is good at the game, doesn't make Trapper viable.
Not every Killer had to be Nurse/Blight levels, but every Killer should be A tier, which most aren't
4 -
If you are using the Tier system, Tiers A - C are all viable tiers. S Tier is the tier that gets nerfs and the D Tier is the tier that gets buffs. If you look at the average tier rating of killers from these forums, almost all killers fall within Tiers A - C, which means forum users sees a large majority of killers as viable.
And I know forum users hate it when I bring this up, but you have people like Otz, that has a youtube video in which he plays every single killer and gives the survivors a 30 second head start and doesn't use any perks and still gets 4ks. We know he plays at the highest MMR and he's able to beat high MMR survivors with Trapper, Trickster, Clown and all the other killers people say aren't viable.
If he can beat high-MMR survivors without perks and with a 30 second head start, then people can definitely use those killers at high MMR with perks, addons and a 30 second head start.
The problem people need to realize is it's not how good the killer is, it's how good the player is. Not everyone is a top MMR player, in fact, only about 2.5% of people are top MMR players.
On top of that, Nurse is just flat broken, everyone knows that. You can't judge other killers on a killer as broken as Nurse.
2 -
A-C isn't viable. At most you could say A-mid B is viable, but C isn't viable.
C tier Killers are usually situational at best.
Otz's test proved the "meaner"(smarter) side wins, not that every Killer is viable.
I disagree with "how good the player is". It's plain out wrong. At some point, you won't get better at the game with most Killers, you'll only be able to play smarter, which not even that will save you sometimes, not against smart Survivors anyway.
Nurse is not broken, her Add-ons are. Her base-kit is fine, the winner comes down to who plays smarter
3 -
100% agree, also as seeing that survivors have more of the player base 4 survivors > 1killer in that perspective.
1 -
You know something, there really isn't an easily findable solid definition of the current Tier list that everyone uses, LOL. Not even on Tiermaker.com.
So everyone is making these stupid Tier lists for games and no one actually knows what each tier means. I tried some google-fu and didn't see a single definition for what each tier means. Even the Wiki doesn't have a definition for each tier. (I didn't go past 2 pages but I find that absolutely amazing that every keeps making these Tier lists and there doesn't seem to be an explanation for what each tier means).
0 -
Tbh, tier lists are subjective. There's only 3 Killers almost everyone agrees with, those being Nurse, Blight and Spirit
1 -
Everyone uses it as a method to communicate what they think about killers, but if everyone has a different idea for which each tier means, then it's an absolutely useless form of communication.
For example, you view Tier-C as situational while I view it similar to getting a "C" in school, which is passing.
It's just interesting to me how many communication problems could be solved by just offering a definition before presenting a new idea or concept.
Another example is face-camping. Some people see it as a killer standing right in front of you, while other people see it as a killer being within striking range of you but moving around.
0 -
Watch. someone will just say a streamer name can do it on their stream then the rest of the killers got to play like them.
2 -
And I know forum users hate it when I bring this up, but you have people like Otz, that has a youtube video in which he plays every single killer and gives the survivors a 30 second head start and doesn't use any perks and still gets 4ks. We know he plays at the highest MMR and he's able to beat high MMR survivors with Trapper, Trickster, Clown and all the other killers people say aren't viable.
If he can beat high-MMR survivors without perks and with a 30 second head start, then people can definitely use those killers at high MMR with perks, addons and a 30 second head start.
Someone already did
1 -
Oh... :(
0 -
I said that if one of the best players can get 4ks with every single killer without perks, add ons and giving survivors a head start, then the top players can also do the same with meta perks, addons and without giving players a head start.
I know some killers are weaker than other killers but the differences between the killers is not as massive as everyone is saying. (Except for Nurse who is horribly broken). Someone who is a great player and plays Trapper constantly will be able to get 4ks at the highest MMR with Trapper, it's a proven fact.
It's not the killer that's that determines if a player can get to the highest MMR in this game, it's the player's own skill. Not everyone is not in the top 1% of players in this game. It just isn't going to happen. There are people that are faster, hear better, think quicker and just have skills that make them the best players in DBD.
No amount of playing this game is going to make you better than these people.
1 -
Yeah. do let me know how fair it is for someone who just started the game against all this perks.
There's a reason why everyone is running all those perks instead of something else.
0 -
The killer-player in this example got 3 kills using only 3 perks, while the survivors hardly got any points, indicating that the killer easily got kills and wont the match. If you are trying to show that killers are overpowered, then you have successfully done that.
BTW, random screenshots of matches don't indicate anything.
0 -
Was the killer overpowered... Or survivors were just dumb? Look at the points for each side... This match could be ended in 3 minutes with all generators done but the killer could have camped and killed 3 survivors with 3 hooks just because they were too much greedy to left one of their owns to die... I can kill an entire team perkless and addon less if they are so dumb... As you said most of the times screenshots prove nothing... They can gave hints how a match could be ended, but it's start and end here...
0 -
I'm being sarcastic. Screenshots are a stupid way to prove a point.
1 -
Mb (to my defense, you didn't put the /s at the end)
0 -
:)
0 -
It's sad to see survivor players that feel disadvantaged.
On one side, it's very easy to poke fun at them and try to enlighten them to the massive world of amazing tools they have that can turn the tide in their favor.
But, at the end of the day, someone IS feeling marginalized.
It's sad because survivors have a clear advantage in many situations - but they feel the sting of such light nerfs.
What change could possibly please everyone?
0 -
Ok, I'm letting you know. That player got a 3k against people more or less their same skill level as determined by MMR.
However, in reality new players don't actually face teams like that though. For one it takes a long as time to grind out all those perks on separate characters. And if those players know how to use their perks (whichever ones they are using well) their MMR will climb beyond the newbie ranks.
0
