So what happened with reassurance?
Comments
-
I run it a lot in Solo-Q and get decent value out of it. I think it could do with a minor buff like letting you use it once per hook state rather than once per hook, or increasing the range to like, 10 meters or something. Nothing too crazy. I think it's the right amount of good.
3 -
It does f* all nothing against facecamping bubba which is the one thing people wanted to shut down. He just vroom vrooms you the moment you get close enough to use reassurance.
People were like "This perk is so busted! It essentially negates any pressure from the killer! You can't do anything to counter it! It will make the EGC last 6 hours and 35 minutes if all survivors have it! Trust me, I did the math! The game is doomed!" so they nerfed it.
I have yet to see any value from reassurance. Whenever someone uses it, it's usually when they're right next to the hook and they immediately unhook anyways because the killer is not camping, so it's essentially making players run with one less perk for normal matches, which are, like, 80% of them. It's extremely situational. And even then, it's not that good in the situations where you're supposed to get the most value due to how close you have to be to proc it.
I did, however, notice a sharp drop on face camping the first couple of weeks after being released.
2 -
They broke the ways to exploit it. Don't worry, it'll become a topic again if/when basekit UB gets the greenlight in any form that does not limit number of uses.
1 -
sure but i think the perk is currently too weak at discouraging camping. i have had people use this perk against me. the perk is suppose to punish me for camping but instead, it encourages me to camp more because two people are around the hook. Its like more detrimental for the survivor to use this perk then it is for survivor to ignore hook and do gens(which is far superior tactic to countering camping).
I think the perk effect was fine in ptb, but i think it needed a max-limit on how many times it could extend the hook timer. an endless amount can create stalemates. reducing it to 1 use is way too severe of a nerf.
0 -
legit way to win you say? With the right killer and the right build its impossible for survivors to escape
Camping = hatch game
0 -
Lol absolutely not. The survivor on the hook knows Reassurance is activated and their teammates have time to do objects or plan the unhook. Survivors can kill themselves on the hook right now if they want to. Lame excuse.
0 -
With all the gen regression being ran, it's almost not worth it to run across the map to stall a hook for 30 seconds, as you either get the save which is nice, or you run to another gen wasting what little time 30 seconds is, when you could use it multiple times one person could punish one camper for a lot, forcing them to stop camping or giving the rest of the team enough time to finish gens
0 -
It is a legit way to win. Nothing you have stated disproves it from being not legitimate. Your problem is you are tying your personal bias to the rules of the game.
0 -
Easiest way to win
0 -
Doesn't stop it from being legit.
0 -
Thats my exact point I would be like the perk didn't exist. Survivors already complain about been stuck on the hook for 2 minutes and you think there just going to be ok sitting there for another 2 minutes. Nope they will opt out 99% of the time making the perk pointless.
1 -
99% of the time is what you think, doesn't make it the truth
You can't be serious lmao.
0 -
Sure 99% might be an over exaggeration. But think about what you are saying. Right now people have an out if been camped they can kill themselves on hook if they want and the reason they do this is because they don't want to just sit on a hook for 2 minutes. Now your saying to double that time at least and leave the out and survivors aren't just going to take the out all of a sudden there going to be ok doing the same thing they had a problem with but for even longer. Well be right back in the exact same situation but instead of running 4 perks your run 3 with one been pointless.
1 -
Can't convince me, at all. You are basically saying "why feed 2/3 of the world if the other 1/3 is still dying of starvation?" Makes no sense, sorry.
0
