Balancing with drawbacks is a bad idea

While I don’t think drawbacks are inherently a bad idea, I will agree that some things have drawbacks which are not necessary. The downsides on Last Will and Deer Lung for instance could be removed. Surge also shouldn’t require a basic attack.

That all said, what would be the point of Engineer’s Fang if it didn’t injure? That’s the whole point of it.

Weighing upsides and downsides is actually quite good game design. It makes you consider whether you'll get enough value from the upside to overcome the downside, or whether you're comfortable changing your playstyle to even use the thing to begin with - something like Plague's Prayer Tablet clearly exists to alter your playstyle, not to have a strong effect that's balanced with a downside.

There are downsides that exist in this game that aren't particularly interesting, but that would be the problem. It's perfectly fine for an addon or even a perk to give you an upside and a downside, so you can weigh whether the tradeoff is worth it, if you can change your playstyle to accommodate the thing that's been made harder, and so on.

When it's done well, it's elevating decision making, and emphasising both choice and playstyle.

(Also, some of the things you've listed are just... cooldowns? Cooldowns aren't inherently a downside, they're just a regular balance decision.)

how else would there be balance? Everything is a give and take, that’s how balancing works. Maybe you’ve never played against a pinky finger clown with 4 base bottles who is fairly decent at throwing them. The bottle slows your speed a great deal giving clown an easy insta-down. Why should that be a thing? Isn’t that unbalanced? It’s just an add-on, not even a perk or anything close to base-kit power.

I strongly disagree that cooldowns are a "drawback", if that's the case than anything you do to balance an effect is a drawback. Cooldowns are just how often you can use it, something that it makes perfect sense to limit if the effect is particularly strong. Are there perks that don't deserve their cooldown? Yes, but it's case-by-case.

Moving on...

So we're on the same page about playstyle-defining drawbacks, but I still think drawbacks like Engineer's Fang and Pinky Finger are totally reasonable. Pinky Finger a little less so, I mostly think that addon is just badly designed in general and should be reworked alongside a total addon pass and basekit buffs since Clown is the worst killer in the game, but we can focus on others for now.

I think that idea of drawbacks is just an extension of playstyle-defining, and some of them are a test of skill- take Huntress' Iridescent Hatchet. What that addon is there to do is let you chew through survivors if you're confident in hitting every single hatchet. Is that an objectively strong, always useful addon that'll consistently help you win? No. Is it trying to be? I'd argue, also no. Engineer's Fang is similar. It asks, what value can you get from a ranged injure but dramatically less slowdown? Can you pair this with other tools to maximise its potential? If not, use other addons.

(Slightly stymied by Pinhead's addons not being very good, but that's its own problem.)

It's okay if not everything is a straight upgrade to help you win. Sometimes things in games exist to be fun, or to provide a unique challenge, or to alter the way you play for more variety. Obviously not every addon that comes with a downside fits any of these categories, but the fault lays with specific addon design, not the idea of giving drawbacks with upsides. Tons of games use this concept, it's really obviously fine.

...But they're not? They're not even close to being a majority balanced this way.

There are no perks with built-in downsides that I can remember off the top of my head (requirements/cooldowns don't count as they're necessary balance elements), and the addons that have downsides are very firmly in the minority. It's just that occasionally there'll be an addon designed to bolster a specific playstyle, or to give a huge boost in one area but a downside in another.

Also, it's not "casual enjoyment and uniqueness rather than balance". They're still balanced (or at least, they're trying to be), they're just not trying to be the absolute most objectively good pick- they're trying to be viable picks for people who like the sound of the gameplay they encourage. That still requires balance.

The fact that Pop is still a very powerful Meta perk speaks otherwise. But your opinion is your own!

Dragon's grip is in a very, very bad place - because if you push it one way or another, it breaks. There are more ways to punish survivors for being greedy with generators. Besides, exposing survivors in these instances is super weak, especially when used with Special Attack killers such as the blight. There must be a better solution to better repel would-be gen jockeys without stacking numerous conditions for limited returns in particular situations... with a cooldown.

I mean, if you're using it in an LT or a long loop - like the main building of Ironworks. But that's not Bamboozle's job. It's not supposed to block off a window forever, or even secure a chase, it removes the window for your next play. If you mess up that play, the survivor can go back. You have a powerful start with the faster vault speed, and with this perk - you can shut down MANY loops, including shack.

1 hit downs with pinky finger are just back-rev versions of IR Head from Huntress. Engineer's Fang could allow Cenobite players to end chases in under 10 seconds. These are disgusting addons regardless of High MMR. Good survivors are... well... GOOD - but they aren't good enough to overcome exposure and Hinderance all at once, nor are they good enough to make yanking chain animations go any faster. Engineer's fang in its current rendition is still stupefying in strength, as it turns the Cenobite into Discount Legion update, punishing survivors for healing, where RHPF Clown is just a discount IH Huntress addition to his basekit.

In addition, MMR is a completely different subject. But how you take your defeats and your demeanor does not demonstrate what MMR level you're playing at. This being said - playing against strong survivors and/or good SWF bully squads at high MMR with those stream-worthy games where you can play flawlessly and still come up short... that has absolutely no bearing on individual cases of balance. If you can recall the wisdom learned from Statistics class, the amount of variables you put into a test sample drastically muddle the conclusions that you can reliably draw upon. There are many aspects to asymmetrical play that are cerebral if not philosophical in nature where balance is concerned, trying to use the current meta of 16 survivor perks, 4 items with 8 attachments shared and map offerings with a Killer that has a unique power, 2 attachments, and 4 perks with both sides having unique interactions, resource pools, objectives, and time economies? That's not hard - it's downright incompatible.

If you want to talk MMR and meta plays, we absolutely can - but I hope I wasn't mistaken when I thought we were talking about the nature of balancing elements in the context of 'drawbacks'.

Factually untrue.

While killer perks are more precious than survivor perks - survivors without perks have no defining traits, abilities, or aspects of usefulness. Killers, however, always have powers that they can rely upon to circumvent the means of gameplay a survivor otherwise enjoys. If killers were 'Machete men' and moved at 4.6 with 32m terror radius and had not but their M1 to guide them - then I'd be inclined to agree. However, let's look at the extremes. If no players bring perks - not survivors nor killers - who TYPICALLY has the advantage? Killers have the baseline advantage in terms of 1v1. In absence of exhaustion perks, Endurance, healing items, information - survivors have nothing but the basic interactions to find their way through, which is enough in many cases. Killers, however, have powerful tools baked into their identity. Because killers have specific and drastically different abilities that completely modify the methodology of the match, it shifts the balance.

I'm not saying that survivors rely on their perks, far from it.

We've all been there where we get to the post game screen and see a really good survivor having run the no-perk no-item challenge.

But to assume that perk slots for survivors are EQUALLY as valuable, or even LESS as valuable than a perk slot for a killer is to be willingly ignorant of the asymmetrical nature of the game.

Killers only have 4 perks while all survivors have a cumulative 16, it's true. But Killers will always have their power to rely on, survivors with no perks have absolutely nothing to rely on to assist them in the game.

To a Killer, perks AID in their gameplay. Few perks inform gameplay or altar it in a meaningful way.

To a Survivor, perks DEFINE their gameplay. Survivors, generally, must be careful with what they select as perks have very particular applications.

Sure, a Killer may go out of their way for a scourge hook - then hurry along to make sure they get their Devour Hope stacks.

But a survivor with BT and Deliverance it will be COMPELLED to go for a risky unhook, because their perks allow for the opportunity, and they are otherwise wasting their perks. A Survivor with Resilience and Prove Thyself will be COMPELLED to work on generators and forego healing. A survivor with Inner Healing and Counterforce will be COMPELLED to search out your Hex totem. A survivor with Dead Hard and Iron Will will be COMPELLED to greed pallets. A survivor with Head On and Urban Evasion will be COMPELLED to play more stealthy and cautious.

BBQ and a few other killer perks may insist on their actions, but they are mere suggestions. Hooking all survivors once isn't a niche and requires no specific context. Seldom to killer perks do more than simply Inform and reward certain behavior with bulky and devastating rewards.

To a Killer, perks are secondary to the killer's ability. (Nobody takes scourge hook on Executioner for good reason)

To a Survivor, perks completely define how you intend to play the match ahead.

Eh - saying there aren't any drawbacks to Unbreakable is kinda reaching for it.

Not only does it have the possibility of contributing 0 value to the match, but if it does - it only gets to once.

If Dead Hard was only able to be activated ONCE to save yourself, then this would be considered a 'Drawback' by all intent.

The Drawback of Slippery Meat is you have a 2/3 chance of putting yourself in phase 2.

That and the fact is isn't at all guaranteed value.

If your friend was nearby and promptly unhooks you - dead perk. If you unhook yourself but are quickly out down again - Dead perk. If you get camped - Dead perk. If you aren't hooked until the very end - Dead perk.

Having only a 1/3 chance of working and a 2/3 chance of blowing your legs into the struggle phase is a pretty big drawback to the perk's desired effect.

Deterrence - yes. The existence of a perk changes killer behavior, indeed. But this is not, by merit, additional strength, it is the presence of such particular strength that it influences others. A fire is strong, but it does not become stronger because you know of it and are trying not to get burned - as if it's Schrodinger's firepit. Strong things will always have a profound effect on others in spite of their existence, but the nature of that effect does not, by merit, increase its strength. Unless you're Freddy Kruger... who becomes stronger because people fear him. But you're not Freddy Kruger, Hahaha! . . . Right?

DS has the drawback of afflicting you with a soft 'Incapacitated' once you are unhooked. You interact with anything, the perk is dead. If the killer leaves you well enough alone, or you have the audacity to... you know... play the GAME, it's a dead perk. What's the Drawback of the anti-tunnel perk? To get the best value, you have to put yourself at risk - or neglect the benefit of your team.

Borrowed Time has three primary Drawbacks that are small - but add up. It paints a target on YOUR back to begin with, if it procs - it still takes time to mend, and it doesn't even have guaranteed value. What's the drawback? If the killer can count to 8 or knows how to grab. Doesn't always work, might get you killed, and - in the best case scenario - you gotta spend several seconds picking up the pieces. They aren't MASSIVE, the perk is still on the top of the food chain - but it's blissful to suggest that Borrowed Time does not have its sense of Drawbacks, especially when it's discovered.

I think I see where you're coming from with all of this, but I believe you're approaching things from the wrong angle.

Your issue with survivors playing around the SH:PR/DMS combo is to release early.

That's like a survivor main complaining that killers can count to 8 before hitting a survivor to counter BT - or that a Bubba can overtake an open-field Sprint Burst - or that XYZ perks generally aren't useful.

Perks are perks, they are not always going to find paramount value in a match. Perks that grant guaranteed value have low returns, perks with higher returns have higher risk. That's just how the cookie crumbles.

If the drawbacks are getting to you, it may serve you well to take some killer perks without 'drawbacks' baked into them.

Go Tinkerer, Agitation, Thanataphobia, Monitor and Abuse - killer perks that give actual value without any perceived drawbacks.

If the gambling life is getting you down, it's time to cash in your chips and save up for when it sounds fun to come back to the risky playstyle. Besides, having perks that you typically don't have to work around or fuss about is a bit less as stressful overall. :)

I feel like you're shifting the goalposts a little here, friend.

It doesn't much matter whether they are viable right now, the point is that the concept of designing addons that have an upside and a downside is perfectly fine, because they're not all trying to be the objectively best pick or even just an objective upgrade. Some of them are viable, mind - Engineer's Fang is still a phenomenal pick - but it wouldn't matter if they were all garbage tier; all that would prove is that BHVR did a bad job designing them, not that the core concept of upside + downside is unworkable.

As for your example of Myers, I don't know why you would use his browns. But his actual upside + downside addons, the mirrors, are quite popular because they're a ton of fun.

Myers' browns don't have drawbacks, though? Does he even have a meme addon? The Mirrors are purple, not brown, so bringing up those addons is a little weird- they're just weak, they're not weak because of drawbacks.

And again, they do have to be viable. The point is that drawbacks don't inherently make them unviable- Engineer's Fang is a very good addon because it's a ranged injure through walls and because you aren't loading into the match with only that addon equipped, you can match it with other tools. The Mirrors are just viable enough to be fun even if they are weaker than bringing more Tier-3-oriented addons. Plague's Prayer Tablet and the addon that gives you Vile Purge when a generator is completed at the cost of how long it lasts are viable addons. Even Iridescent Head and Pinky Finger are viable, they're just kind of boringly designed.

Some of them aren't! Most of the meme addons are just straight downgrades, and there are definitely a few upside/downside addons that are quite questionable, but the core design philosophy is perfectly valid. We aren't talking about all addons here, we're talking about the ones designed with drawbacks, and those actually tend to be pretty good on average.