Should the meta change every 3 months?

If there were to be a regular meta-shift, I don't think that either of your proposed timeframes would really work. Maybe every year or so?

That's not to say that no changes should be made between the shakeups, but if you're talking about something like 6.1, that definitely shouldn't be happening with any real frequency.

I'd be pretty okay with a meta shakeup every year or so, even if it's smaller than 6.1 was.

One thing I would really like to see around midchapters is lesser-used perk overhauls, kinda like they're doing with the specific killer passes. Pick three or four perks, and revamp them in more detail than just a minor buff or tweak, to try and make them more appealing in the modern state of the game. They'd easily have a few patch's worth of contenders already.

The goal should be buffing things that are too weak and nerfing things that are too strong to create more variety and options, not simply just trying to change the meta for the sake of something different.

Why change the meta when you can try to make all perks equally good..?

3 months might be too much for huge mass perk changes especially with so much other new content. I would say small tweaks to a few things every 3 months and bigger changes meant to shift the meta every 6 months. It's been about 6 months since the big update and I think we've had our fill of gen kick meta atp.

Every 3 months feels a little short. 6 mo to a year would probably be better. I'd love to see them regularly tweak the most and least used perks to encourage different builds.

I think they could look into adapting the meta every now and then - but full on reworks are unviable.

Imo, the Survivor meta is pretty balanced and not OP at the moment. I'm not seeing anywhere as much use of Dead Hard, Prove Thyself etc these days. Also much less use of CoH and way more use of Self Care despite the massive nerf ironically.

I think the Killer meta could use a tweak tbh. There is a lot of use of Lethal Pursuer now. BBQ and Corrupt are as overused as they ever were - I'm not really bothered about those though as I feel the combining of gen locking/regression perks is more of an issue at the moment. Especially with the increase in killers who can teleport round the map/move round the map quickly enough to ensure three gens and therefore an endless game.

Tbh, I think the problem with Killers is the lack of variety in interesting perks. They need to really pull their finger out in the future to think outside the box to make that more fun in the future I think.

I don't think the meta changing is significant unless the core philosophy towards the concept of meta changes. BHVR nerfed Decisive Strike into the ground but buffed Off The Record because they still want surviors to dedicate a perk to anti-tunneling, but wanted to change the perk itself so that they could say the meta had changed and that the game was fresh. They didn't want to actually do anything about tunneling or the need for anti-tunneling perks. They changed gen regression from passive to an active, kicking playstyle. They're now pushing gen-rush perks in every DLC. The core hasn't changed, only the method. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Ideally the game should be balanced so that so that there is no meta outside of the most tryhard tournament settings. Perks should be more about playstyle rather than "I need this to have a chance at winning, or to counter the utter nonsense my opponent has".

None of the above meta is cringe just run perks you find fun I don't care if it's light born , Franklins or iron grasp if you're having fun run it. meta is just "ooo I wanna be like the CoOl KiDs and kick Gens and hold the match hostage 1hr+ until everyone DC's🥲"