Dead Hard - What are your problems with it?

What you describe is precisely why the perk needs to be reworked entirely. You shouldn't say "it should be strong because sometimes it doesn't work because of lag" they should fix both aspects of it because that is dumb.

Secondly, when i talk about tunnel, i mean right off the hook. If someone hits me with dead hard, the best play is for me to down them, and the proxy camp near a 3 gern, and then as soon as they get unhooked, i immediately hit them to get them into deep wounds, then hard tunnel them right off the hook, so i don't have to deal with the dead hard.

But we don't know that since we don't have the data. From a purely subjective viewpoint I don't see a large difference in survival between DH users and SB or Lithe users when playing Killer. I don't use DH as a survivor because I suck at it but, pre 6.1, I would use it at Iri grades to help pip up and I did notice a huge difference in survival rates. It was definitely a crutch and OP then.

Now using DH over SB hurts my survival rates when playing Survivor. It might be much better but I don't see it in my matches as Killer. Maybe I'm just better at countering it now since I have a few more months of experience I didn't have then

The team idea is interesting but it's too small of a sample size to really draw any inferences. Realistically the playerbase does not have enough data to draw a clear inference one way or another.

Press a button to save a health state every 40 seconds, why would anyone have a problem with that?

First, Otz and TruTalent are way too small of a sample size to draw inferences.

Second of all you misread my other point. I see DH all the time. I don't see DH provide a significant survival advantage over SB. If I didn't see DH often then I wouldn't have needed to say maybe I'm just better at countering it (DH) now to explain why it could still provide a significant advantage but I don't see that advantage. I have no idea if your guesses are accurate but, on the Killers I don't farm with, I don't really see a large difference between the survivors I face and the survivors I see streamers face when I have the time to watch their videos

To be honest, I really doubt you face 5K to 10K hour tournament players most games and think that's an exaggeration. The softcap is too low for the top tier death squads every match. That's evidenced by how long the queue times were before the softcap.

I might be wrong and there might be enough 5K to 10K tournament players that are only at 1600 to 1800 MMR to be regularly encountered. I don't check profiles before matches since I don't care to so I have no idea how many hours the people I face have nor do I know the names of DbD tournament players as, for me personally, I feel that paying attention to tournament DbD would be a waste of time that I can put to better use. I do get 4 person TTV SWFs (which are more obvious since they have TTV in their names) fairly regularly if that means anything.

It sounds more like you have a personal agenda against DH. That's fine but it doesn't change the fact that any evidence out there for or against is entirely anecdotal and that there is no data available to the general playerbase to show if DH does provide an overly significant statistical survival advantage. That's an objective, not subjective, statement. BHVR hasn't released the data and they're the only ones that have it.

Against SB & Lithe you're not stuck in the attack cooldown while they're running for 3s with 150% speed.

On DH you're slowed down while they get the normal injured 1.8s speedboost despite them already being injured.

M1's and M2's both suffer more from DH than any other exhaust perk.

for ex. Victor getting the attack cooldown and being kicked due to how telegraphed his attack is.

Pinhead's meme addon Original Spain ended up being his best addon due to how it functions against new DH, OTR & other Endurance perks.

-"If you think that two people constitute a sufficient sample size for DbD then you don't understand statistics."

Let's do some math. Two skilled plaeyrs with 8-9k hours playing 15-20 games per day. Let's say 30 games a day between the two of them over 30 days. After 90 days you have a sample size of 2,700. That's definitely an "ok" sample size for looking at high level play.

-"Another possibility is that I'm just better at reading people and countering DH than you are"

You're projecting. I could say : well maybe Im just better at telling when to let go of a generator so I never get hit with an eruption.

As an idea DH has a fundamental higher potential than both SB and Lithe in the same way that Nemesis has a higher potential than Trapper (and likewise Blight has over Nemesis).

-"The reality is that neither of us know if DH is fine or not"

Before 6.0 and After DH was being used way too often by the very best players. Ruin has been hard nerfed twice as a result.

For something like 4 years DS was in a really oppressive place where it could be weaponized by good players. Now it's on par with some of the other perks liek flip flop where if everything goes perfectly wrong for the killer then they might not get a hook. That's good balance.

DH needs to be risky and offer more reward than SB/Lithe or it needs to be a lot weaker in terms of game impact but stronger with a single use. Making it work once per game would potentially put it weaker in some ways/stronger in others when compared to SB/Lithe.

1. You see it in every game.
2. Its very good.
3. its not in line with usage of other Survivor perks.

A better solution to Dead Hard is...Separate Endurance Qualities into two effects

Flight = Speed boost after a damaging hit, after unhook or from regular Exhaustion Perks.

Endurance or Braced = the Ability to take a hit without going down, Dead Hard and after unhook.

Dead Hard keeps Endurance, but you dont get to have a speedboost AND a hit negation.

This should easily bring Dead Hard down to level with other Exhaustion Perks.

It's not a sufficient sample size and, even if it were, that would be a different issue as the issue would now be should BHVR balance around the top players? On that my position is that they're a factor but not the only factor and the other factors would have to be considered as well.

Maybe, if Dead Hard is an issue, BHVR can use your balancing idea. I really don't care if DH gets changed or not. I almost never use it, and I don't personally see it as a problem, but it might be a problem. My entire main point in our discussion has been nobody, outside of BHVR, knows if it is or not. The data is just not available to us.

Honestly, your arguments are very similar to the more vehement anti-Nurse posters whom I've argued with that say Nurse needs a full rework and is uncounterable and totally 'broken'. She's not broken in my opinion and there is no data available to show she is but the more vehement anti-Nurse posters continue pulling at whatever anecdotes they can as 'evidence'. This is what you're doing with DH.

There is no data available showing DH is an issue. The data may exist but we don't have it. There are other reasons why DH is run more and why people complain more about DH such as DH is more fun for the survivors than SB but also less fun for the Killer. Due to how incredibly OP it was pre 6.1 more people might like it due to familiarity than they like SB. It might be perceived as more of a skill expression than SB, regardless if it is or not, and a significant amount of gamers are vain about skill.

Are these major factors in the pick rate? I don't know and neither do you.

If your opinion is that it should be nerfed because it's widely used that's your opinion. I disagree because I feel that Pop Goes the Weasel pre 6.1 promoted healthier gameplay than the current meta and that Ruin at 200% regression with the current deactivation conditions would be the ideal anti-gen perk for both sides and the regression should have never been nerfed. I don't think shaking up the meta just to shake it up should be the only goal but, if it matters to you, BHVR disagrees with me and agrees with your opinion about high usage rates and it's their game so they may nerf it in the future on that basis anyway.

To return to my main point, though, we don't have the data. If your goal is to try to convince me that DH is an issue that won't happen unless we see data and is kind of irrelevant anyway as BHVR will make their decision regardless of if individual posters agree or not.

-"your arguments are very similar to the more vehement anti-Nurse posters"

Where is this coming from? It's irrelevant and unrelated. DH had a high use vaules before the perk rework and it has high use after the perk rework by the best players. Nurse has counterplay but requires the survivors to do something besides mindlessly running the loop like they can vs killers with no antiloop.

The only argument to keep DH strong that had any merit was that pre-nerf nurse with stupidly broken addons left zero room for counterplay. Well that nurse element is gone b/c those addons do not exist anymore (and rightly so).

Pop was unfairly gutted. DH was made stronger in some ways and weaker in others. If Pop had gotten the DH treatment it would hit a generator at 95% for like 40% total progress removed.

I agree with you that Pop was healthy for the game. In fact I believe Pop should have been base kit at something like 15% progress. And then let people use and extra 20% total (not current progress) if they take the perk.

-"There is no data available showing DH is an issue."

Look at the vods of good streamers and look how many survivors use it to good effect. It's common to see 3/4 players playing with or against True using it. That is dumb. Look at the website tracking perk use in DBD. We can se DH has an absurd pick rate.

-"it should be nerfed because it's widely used"

This all on its own is problematic reasoning. Wide spread use however is often a symptom of a problem that should be looked at. There is no scenario where you can make DH worse than Head On. Head On is actually not bad; if you use it in the right scenario it can be extremely rewarding but has more risk. Over the majority of games however DH is easier to use and not only that it is easier to create a lot more wasted time for the killer.

The bottom line is that DH should not be wasting more time than any other exhaustion perk - we know that it does. Therefore the perk should either get nerfed to make it in line with all the others OR it should have a penalty to make someone think twice about using it. Needing +100% longer to heal would be a big penalty and that would go a long way to prevent the third health state.

-"we don't have the data"

Ok sure whatever. You can throw your head in the sand if you want. For 4-5 years we were told : SWF offers no advantage. And then on the 6th year we learned that SWF offers up to a 15% increased escape rate. That's an insane difference. Freddy was absolutely ruined for having a 4% higher kill rate.

And what do survivors get? Nerfs to SWF? No they get bufs to make everyone have massive info as if they were in a SWF. What do killers get : nothing except lots of stress and annoying games.

Well, we all know you get to take a hit AND get speed boost from that hit, if you hit a Dead Hard. buts its way to easy to pull off. With a little bit of skill you can get some real good value out of it. My suggestion is to make sure Dead Hard only has one of those two.

Its essentially a third health state for survivors about 3 out 4 survivors runs it.

Its extremely annoying to deal with, its overpowered and needs a proper nerf, makes chases last very long

-"Just because you have a problem with DH doesn't mean everyone experiences the same thing."

Dead Hard is an overtuned perk similar to the way that NOED was overtuned in 2016 (not quite as much though). I can recognize that the perk is too strong and not have a "personal problem" handling it.

My favorite counter to dead hard is hard tunneling+STBFL+ hitting people as soon as they get off the hook. What dead hard? If you tunnel someone like this they get to use the perk once per game. You should not need to play that way against the perk.

Furthermore DH should not be able to give you a third health state.

-"You still don't understand what a sample entails"

Generally speaking 1000 is a moderately decent sample size. I think it's you who has the issue with statistics.

-"similar to saying DH can't be countered when it can be"

Imagine you're chasing me at a pallet and you can lunge to hit me before I get to the pallet. If you choose to attack then I use DH and you get nothing. Where's the counter? You don't swing and I don't use my DH so I just go around the loop again.

The only time you can counter DH is when they are out in the open and you've gotten so close that you can do an m1 tap. Almost nobody can really react that fast due to latency. And if they do react well then I have STBFL. The tiny distance doesn't matter because they are in the open and I will hit them again in a few seconds.

But here's the issue with all that: knowing that DH exists makes most killers wait 5-7 seconds of close distance and sometimes another 2-3 seconds for hesitation. In other words - just because Dead Hard exists it can waste 7-10 seconds per chase. If each game has 10 chases then that is 70 seconds wasted without a successful dead hard. That's completely ridiculous.

Before DH existed you got in range for a lunge and you attacked. Most of the time you immediately hit the player. DH ruined the chase experience in a lot of ways just because it exists.

Imagine if there were a killer power that removed skill checks. You can't use Hyeprfocus anymore because there are no skillchecks. You don't get to reduce the generator time by 1.2 seconds every time you hit a great skillcheck. You can't use autodidact anymore (not that anyone is really using it). Strangely enough it would be a decent perk vs good players because you would make them take about ~40 seconds longer to finish all the generators on average.

All this might sound really dumb but a lot of people don't really stop and think about how much DH changed the game.

You have an issue with DH and don't like the perk. That's fine but, once again, that's your opinion and it may or may not reflect reality. I work with data all the time but, hey, if you think a few streamers constitute a sample size that's representative of DbD as a whole you do you. You're only really discrediting your own arguments by going 'No!!! DH is such a problem!' to somebody who is neutral about the issue.

Streamers do not represent the entirety of DbD's skill levels unless you're arguing that DbD should be balanced exclusively around streamers. They're not a representative population.

As well, you're not showing the survival rates of survivors with the same level of experience with SB or Lithe versus the survival rates of survivors with DH.

Instead, cherry picked situations are being described instead of using actual escape rates to show how DH over SB or Lithe increases survival rates in a statistically significant manner. Somebody could also describe cherry picked situations in which SB, Lithe or BL is better than DH but that means nothing either.

You can't because the data hasn't been released and so, instead of data, we get statements that are false such as 'DH is a third health state' which precludes the possibility of the Killer countering DH or the DH user messing up. DH can give an extra hit but it quite often doesn't.

If you want to say you can 'prove' DH is OP then get a sample of Killers that is representative of the DbD playerbase, compare survival rates between the survivors that use DH and those that use SB and Lithe, determine if there is a statistically significant difference in survival rates between those groups and if there is a variance in survival rates in different MMR groups and make inferences about game balance from there (and also let the data lead you to a conclusion instead of trying to make the data fit a conclusion).

If that sounds impossible that's because that's exactly my point. We don't have the data. We can't access or collect the data. BHVR has the data. All we have are opinions.

If you cannot admit the possibility that perhaps your opinion on whether DH is overpowered is wrong then you have a bias and attempting to argue you have facts when you have opinions that just discredits your arguments as you're not even trying to be objective. I mean, I've stated multiple times that I haven't seen a huge issue with DH in my games but there's a possibility it still needs a nerf and yet I'm getting constant arguments from people who can't accept someone who takes a neutral stance on the subject based on their own personal experiences. You think DH is op. That's your opinion. That's cool. You might be right. However, you only have an opinion, not a fact. That's my entire point. I'm not even defending DH. I'm relating my personal experience and saying I haven't seen the issue but there could still be one and it might (or might not) need a nerf. Why is that so hard to accept?

Your thought experiment has no relevance to DH though. DH, at no point in time, grants invulnerability for the entire match. It can be countered and is countered whereas your thought experiment perk has no counter and is entirely RNG based. To compare apples to apples DH needs to be compared to other chase perks. It's not a perk like Object Of Obsession either. Being in a SWF doesn't automatically make DH better. It's a chase perk. I don't experience any issues with DH users over SB users which is a comparable perk. Apples to apples.

Also, the streamers themselves are not representative of any group but streamers and people at their MMR. In any event, you still don't have any data showing how many DH users escape over how many SB users escape. Saying that streamers are not representative of the entire population is a fact as the majority of players are not at 2000 MMR or up.

Even if you want to use the survivors at the soft cap, which is probably a third of the player base but that's just a guess using the population distributions of other elo games, they aren't representative of the entire survivor population. Unless, of course, you're saying lower MMRs shouldn't be considered. That, in my opinion, would be an error and an example of why would be VHS which did balance for the top lost so many players and has only just started to feel better ever since they began to make changes to make their game more accessible. Balancing for the top, if your revenue is based on participation instead of spectators, is a mistake if your goal is a growing player base.

That's fine, though, and you sound like you're basing your opinion as an opinion on DH and you believe it's OP. As I said, I'm neutral on that. I don't see it in comparison to pre 6.1 DH but that could simply be because I'm more experienced now than I was before. I haven't seen anything in my own personal experience that makes me feel like it's OP but I'm just one player. All my discussions in this thread have really been about is me relating my personal experience, saying that I don't see DH as OP but I could be wrong and there is no data out there to prove me wrong or right. There are other people in this thread that also said they don't see a problem with DH so, if people want to argue about DH, their time might be better served arguing with someone who has a position on the subject instead of someone who is neutral and just pointing out there is no concrete data available to support or debunk DH being OP. It's okay if people have different opinions.

-"I work with data all the time"

You could have fooled me with the way you want to present any discussion about statistics.

DH is a powerful perk when used by skilled players. It's probably too good compared to the other exhaustion perks. When we look at two very skilled killer mains we can see a variety of good players using the perk in their games.

There is no way you are presenting a neutral front on DH. You clearly don't want the perk to be nerfed. If DH had been nerfed in a balanced way then you would not see something like a 60-75% pick rate in high tier play vs try hard teams.

One of the biggest problems with DBD is that majority of balance changes affect middle and low rank play. A good game adjusts for ALL levels of players. DBD isn't very fun to play as most of the killer cast because survivors can basically do whatever they want against M1 killers.

This causes a shift where people stop playing the weak killers. Over time they get better at the game and play harder opponents and then once again they are forced to play better killers to compete. That should not be a thing. The best killer and the worst killer should be no more than 15% apart in terms of power level.

Largely speaking if the average player can loop for 25 seconds before getting hit then the best players in the world should last no more than 35 seconds before taking a hit. But that's not the game we have. Sometimes players can make a chase last 90 seconds betwen hits and that completely breaks the game.

VHS messed up because the devs are actually good at their game. They balanced the game around limits that work when everyone is highly skilled but those same limits make low tier play intolerable. This is the exact opposite of DBD actually. People can play DBD for 2-12 months and think the game is great. Then they get good at the game and realize that the "endgame" is incredibly poorly balanced.

High skill dbd is basically only Nurse/Blight. If you find some rare other killer then they are going to hardcore tunnel and play in a very cheap way because their killer is grossly inferior to the best two killers.

For Huntress and Trickster its even worse, as you need to purposely throw a hatchet/knife on ground or on a wall to bait out the DH

What are you on about? Evidently, it's bothering you way more lol. I'm here vibing. I've said my piece. You're the one still tagging me and going on about it.

Sure, there are other metrics. And DH might be OP. Are you attempting to argue it is OP or is it your position that the other aspects of DH make it OP regardless of its effect on survival rates?

Edit: Please don't take this the wrong way but I'm tired of responding. It's not your arguments; you've presented them in a rational and respectful fashion but I honestly don't care enough about the issue to keep responding to people on this thread.

Personally, even with the other aspects of DH, I don't see how it's OP. 'Flick the camera up' tech almost always works and DH users can't just DH over traps anymore. Generally, DH users in my matches get one, or two if I'm tired, uses of the perk off and that's it. DH is a perk and can't be useless; it requires some value.

Once again not directed at you but I've just related my personal experience and have spent far more time discussing an issue I have little to no interest in than I care to. You might be right and DH might be OP but, as I've stated, I don't have a position on the issue as I don't have the data and I don't see it personally. No matter how much people want to argue they can't change what I personally experienced and I've been clear from the start that my personal experience only reflects my experience.

The only time I use DH is as a challenge as I suck horribly at it, I don't have a problem with it when I play Killer and I honestly don't care if it gets changed or not. Once again, not specifically directed at you, but I've been clear I'm relating my personal experience and I'm tired of being pinged and using up my time on a thread about an issue I don't really care about. The only time that I would care that much is if DH got the Eruption treatment as I'm of the position we don't need more useless perks.

A perfect example of how DH ruins the game. The perk repeatedly creates uncounterable situations for a M1 killers being played by a 7k plus hour streamer.