The real issue with the game is not the HUD-Buff, but the Killer-Pool
Thats my honest opinion. The HUD, even the Gen-Progress-HUD, is actually a pretty interesting thing we need to wait out. I can understand, that the devs want Solo gets closer to SWF (lets be honest: they can never be at the same level as Voice-Chat-Communications and perfect coordination).
Thats not the main issue. Deadhard or Eruption etc. arent the big issue either.
The biggest issue in the game is the Killer-Pool itself.
A lot of people complain about the "OP-Killers" or whatever, but only a few understand that "The Killers" is the wrong idea.
The killers are too FAR away from each other.
All "M1-Killers" suck heavily compared to high-mobility-killers in gen-defense and in the chase itself.
The biggest mission is to bring all the killers more or less at the same Power-Level. If u are good at Wesker for example and you have a player which is good at Freddy next to him against the same survivor-group, the Wesker-Player always has the much higher chances of winning than the Freddy-Player, because Weskers Kit is just far better than Freddys.
The same goes for B-Tier v C-Tier-Killers. Lets say you have a Nemesis v a Pig-Player at the same level. I think the Nemesis-Player has far more chances of winning. The only way the Pig can maybe catch up is by using the Videotape, so he has all his traps in the game before the 5th gen is completed, because the Traps are useless after the gens are done.
Peanits said, if I remember correctly, that they want to adjust the killers after their goal of bringing Solo closer to SWF is achieved.
BUT:
I am very worried that the devs cannot manage this. Not because they dont have a clue or whatever, Im pretty sure they have, but maybe they just dont have enough time to adjust 30+ Killers (next one is coming) all together after Solo / SWF is closer together, just because of numbers in the team or other stuff. If THIS happens, I can really imagine playing killer gets less and less interesting and more players switch over to more survivor (we all play both roles more or less - the Matchmaking Incentives already show me a switch over to survivors, I can see far more ofter Incentives on Killer, which is a big thing, because u need just 1 guy playing killer while u need 4 to play survivor!).
Comments
-
Played 4 solo survivor games last night and 1 killer game.
I waited to find a game for at least 5 minutes for each of the solo survivor games. I waited 5 seconds to find one for the killer game. Does that mean more people were queuing for survivor than killer in that 2.5 hour period? I'm not sure.
0 -
Killer-Queues are always fast at nighttime, because most players play at the evening and then they play together with their friends.
After work, after homework, after Fitness and other stuff. The majority always plays in the evening/late evening, which is kinda obvious, right?
1 -
That's weird. For me it's still always on survivor with exception to evenings.
I agree with you about most of the post. One detail though - survivor games on average are shorter. Thanks to tunneling which is something you see more often then not, survivor games are shorter then killer's. On average I guess you need 3x the number of survivors for each killer.
Also I would not underestimate the other problems (gen kicking meta being so strong you can sometimes hold the game until server shuts down if you have the patience & build).
0 -
The game can’t ever have actual normalized killer performance, because the skill caps on the killers are too different. A few killers are allowed to be really strong, because their skill caps are so high that most people can’t overperform while playing them. It’s important for there to be a good distribution of killers across the MMR levels, and if the low skill cap killers are buffed too much, then there would be too many people over performing with them.
The only way BHVR can fairly normalize killer performance is via MMR, by normalizing the kill rate percentage across the various killers, which they already do.
0 -
The killers are really only that far from eachother at a top level, and I'm not even talking top 5%, I mean top 1%.
In the stats BHVR did release, for all mmrs, and top 5% MMRs, the killers weren't that far off from eachother. Ironically, nurse actually is the worst killer if we use all MMRs for statistics, because you can't not use her power and it's hard to aim on console.
If you ask me, the reason they're so close is because the average killer plays pretty dirty and tunnels and proxy camps a lot. When you do that, even killers like trapper become extremely effective. Otzdarva even did a perkless challenge demonstrating this, where he still achieved a good kill-rate overall due to playing like a war criminal. The actual average survivor is awful at looping too, so them being basic m1 killers doesn't hurt THAT much.
I think that's why really good killers lean towards using the best killers, because they're powerful enough that you can win while still playing fair and not stacking slowdown.
0 -
I'm in Europe. So my evenings are afternoons in America.
0 -
me2
0 -
what is wrong with lower skill-cap character being effective? lower skill-cap killer already over-perform because their opponent is playing the game poorly. Do note that there will always be hierarchy in video games in term of prefer characters because some character are always going to be that 1% better. There is always going to be that meta-killer so to speak but generally the idea of balance is revolves around making killer as close as possible to each other. You always look to shorten gaps but not necessary entirely remove them. I do not know how to explain this topic.
0 -
Imo it's not even a lower skill-cap thing
Tier lists in most games actually tend to be topped by relatively simple characters with super high skill-cap ones being mid-tier because people generally agree that they aren't worth it. It's why no one plays Billy, if you mastered billy he'd probably be a good A-tier killer. But it's just not worth it.
You cannot look me in the eyes and honestly tell me that nurse, blight, spirit, plague, PH, etc. are particularly hard. In fact, they're vastly easier than the low tier killers to do well with at a high level.
Although I actually disagree on the idea that games need to make it so that every character is close in balance with eachother. In my opinion, games first-and-foremost should provide a *fun meta,* which is not synonymous with a balanced meta. Basically, the strongest options should be those that are both fun to play and fun to play against. Like people didn't mind Crack Billy back when he was S-tier (instasaw was messed up tho.)
0 -
In higher level play, You can’t expect to win as Myers, Pig, Clown, Trapper, Wraith for eg and the reason why is because most m1 killers if not all of them take little to no skill to play you’re just tapping and hold buttons in such a braindead way to get hits/ downs on survivors.
Blight, Hillbilly,Nurse and Huntress for example require developed mechanical skill to outplay good Swfs in such a unique way that you’ll often come out on top compared to the majority of killer arsenal when you get over that skill gap.
1 -
I would moreso lean towards Billy and Huntress being more skillful, mainly Billy. I am a bit bias, but Id say they are the most difficult Killer in the game to play at the moment.
1 -
It's why no one plays Billy, if you mastered billy he'd probably be a good A-tier killer. But it's just not worth it.
I don't think so. you can master billy and he will not be good. tier list generally are meant to express the player opinion(or community opinion) on higher possible ceiling for that character vs highest possible ceiling. The reason for example that otz put billy at C-tier is because billy played at highest possible skill-ceiling is in fact a C-tier killer. It is not arbitrary listing. Its figuratively what otz believes and you can choose agree or disagree with his opinion.
You cannot look me in the eyes and honestly tell me that nurse, blight, spirit, plague, PH, etc. are particularly hard. In fact, they're vastly easier than the low tier killers to do well with at a high level.
difficulty in games is subjective. it depends what you mean by difficult because there two types of difficulties. You could say that getting 3 kills as Sadako is more difficult then getting 3 kills on Blight. Is that because sadako is more difficult to play then blight or is it because she is weak? In respect to this context, this is refer to as artificial difficulty. Artificial difficulty is numerical difficulty. Its like playing a dungeon crawler game and if enemy has 50 hp on low difficulty but if you turn the difficult up, the enemy has 100 hp and therefore is harder to kill. Yes its technically harder to beat the game but how you would beat the game at lowest is no different would be similar to how you beat the game on hardest difficulty. The other type of difficult is called mechanical difficulty. mechanical difficulty is your ability to perform a sequence of planned actions in the game. For example, in the context of blight, if you need to do 4 consecutive bounces in particular order to get a hit on survivor, some player might find this too difficult. As a result, players might label Blight as more difficult character then Sadako. They are not referencing how hard it is to 4k with blight vs Sadako, They are referencing the mechanical skill-ceiling to perform well vs blight compare to Sadako.
I think most killers in the game are not mechanically too difficult, but they are artificially too difficult. they are ineffective at doing what they are suppose to excel at. They are too easy to outplay. I think the reason why this is the case is that for more casual survivors, the survivor game is too artificially difficult for them. It is too difficult for them to coordinate 1-2 decent chases and complete 5 generators simultaneously while the killer applies kill pressure. To match survivor's competency at playing vs killers, the dev in my opinion make the killers artificially weaker so that they are easier to escape on average. The changes they are doing in regards to Icons is lower the artificial skill-cap of working together to defeat killers in soloq. In other words, you will need less game-sense to play survivor. You should naturally play better as a team because it is easier to do so.
With all artificial difficulty being lowered for survivor, Killer is artificial difficulty in playing killer can be lowered. The killer power can be a little stronger and more engaging to use because survivor can concentrate more on doing well in the micro chase and focus less on macro play.
2 -
It's not just Killers Tunneling... it's the Survivors doing the same thing with Gens
Don't take this the wrong way but... what's the Killer supposed to do
No Camping- Survivors complained about it
No Tunneling- Survivors complained about it
No slugging- Survivors complained about it
No 4 Slowdowns- Survivors complained about it... and on top of that No Eruption
No AFK- Survivors complained about it
But what about from the Killers perspective....
Gens being Tunneled... but can't run perks to help... and on top of that base Gen regression being what it is
Quick saves- but can't Camp and can't Tunnel (again)
No Slugging... but healing is a small issue
Can't AFK.... cause Survivors don't get points
The Gen kick "meta" is a big deal cause there are perks that synergize... the same as all of the other "metas": Hit & Run, Ruin & Pop, Ruin & Undying... and Survivors running "second chances", Gen speed
0 -
This game has always been about information, pressure, and fear. Now that there is so much information for survivors, there is less pressure and less fear. This means the killer is weaker, causing less pressure and less fear. The entire unique experience this game had is dying fast, and to most people can no longer be considered a horror game. Hell, the terror radius is supposed to make you wonder if the killer is coming towards you, now we have cross-map spine chill because if those talons are twitching 80% of the time the killer isn't going to sneak up on you.
1