Do you think the Devs should rebalance Meta Perks more often?
I feel often as if DBD is the most played out when the same Meta has been around for years, and I think at this point the limit is really being reached. A universal meta balance that maybe even occurs annually could do a lot to freshen up the game, and encourage players who have dropped it to maybe circle back if they can expect a different meta when they return later, as of now it just feels like the game runs in a stagnant direction before suddenly pivoting in a direction that's either good or bad for the game.
Do you think the devs should rebalance perks more often?
Comments
-
So when they started messing with the meta back in update 6.1, I was actually very supportive of it. I've changed my mind since. I purposely avoid meta perks, and have done so for a long time now. People don't have to play meta perks, and there's a reason they do (ie they help obtain their personal goal). If the devs want to add some variety to the meta then I'd rather they looked at the least used perks and made them better, rather than looking at the most used perks and making them worse.
11 -
Any real dev team would be on a far faster patch cycle(excluding reworks[bhvr doesn't make real reworks LOL])
2 -
I feel like they need a mix of both. Gigabuffing perks just causes more annoying issues like Buckle Up, Background Player, and Grim Embrace because in order to compete with the most used perks the buffed perks need to be buffed massively to the point they border on overpowered or overbearing.
3 -
Is there an issue with those perks individually, or do you mean their synergy with other perks? I know BU+FTP, BP+FB, and DMS+GE are complained about, but I don't see alot of complaints about them on their own.
BHVR seem to be okay with perk synergies, at least until it has a noticeable negative impact on gameplay (ie the gen kick meta, that led to Incapacitated being all but removed, plus the 3 gen mechanic). Their response to GE+DMS was that they're taking a wait and see approach, and I assume they do that with other synergies. Ultimately they have the means to break synergies that are having a large negative effect on gameplay, so I'm still keen to see them focus more on buffing bad perks but I do understand your concerns.
0 -
I think Background Player is an issue on its own. Grim Embrace is an issue because it's another slow down that can stack with PR/Pop. It's synergy with DMS isn't the issue with it, it's how well it pairs with every slow down.
Buckle Up is only an issue with FTP, but it is the problematic part of that combo which is why I listed it.
Synergies are fine, but it's the same issue as I mentioned - in order for them to compete they need to be borderline overpowered. Whether they need to be strong on their own or together is irrelevant. You can have balanced synergies such as Enduring + Spirit Fury, but these ones were buffed too much in my opinion and why I think just buffing things isn't the best way to go.
0 -
Grim Embrace is meant to synergize with Pain Res, they come from the same killer.
0 -
So did Pentimento, is it really that necessary or healthy for the game to design two currently S Tier slowdown perks to work alongside each other just because they're from the same killer? Especially when the other perk in her kit distinctly doesn't have this limitation, although Pentimento can be problematic in its own right.
4 -
They should rather buff weak Perks, while also nerfing stronger Perks. Because buffing weak Perks will most likely work for Survivor, but not for Killer since equipping 4 Slowdowns is always the easiest way to play the game. And even if they bring attractive alternatives for Killers, they would probably just need to be stronger Slowdown-Perks in order to have a change in builds, but this is not really a change in the Meta.
When it comes to buffing, I think they should pick 10 Perks from each side and work on those. And once they are done, they should be brought to a Chapter or Midchapter and the Devs should monitor how they are received. If they are fine after the Buffs, they leave the "Rotation" and other Perks replace them so that we are on 10 Perks for each side again. If they are still to weak, they stay in rotation and the Devs buff them further.
And when it comes to those Buffs, they should buff them to a significant amount. Something like they did with Background Player for example or with Grim Embrace. Bringing a Perk from "meh" to "Meta/almost Meta" is just the right thing to do. If they overshoot it, they can nerf them again a bit, the game will not die if one side has an OP-Perk for a few weeks (the game survived original MoM for a few weeks and buffed Eruption for months).
Because this is another thing - the Devs are not only slow in Buffs and Reworks of Perks, but they are also super-cautious with those and only do small number changes which often enough are just not enough.
1 -
If they really want to shake up the meta they have to re-evaluate perks regularly. Otherwise it was just a one-off to mostly try fixing busted perks which arguably could or should have happened much earlier on smaller scales. Believing use of perks stays dynamic for years after a one-time change would be exceptionally optimistic. Though for (casual) survivor it kind of works currently, for killer not so much.
I would appreciate a yearly round of smaller tweaks to perks and addons where appropriate.
0 -
Honestly, it doesn't matter how perks are individually they need to be treated and how they are used at their strongest when deciding to nerf them otherwise they will be dominant forever unless a stronger synergy comes along and you get stuck in the catch-22 situation of deciding whether you want power creep or a stale meta. To have neither you gotta nerf them or break the synergy.
1 -
I mean when we get like 2 bad perks per 3 months to get small buffs... No wonder the meta is stale and same no metter how offten you change it.
2 -
A gradual rotation of perks, mainly focusing on bringing weaker perks to more viable positions (what happened to the "This Is Not Happening" perk change mentioned months ago, for example. That just slipped away!).
On occasion, a strong meta perk can be weakened, but his shouldn't be as common as buffs or simple rebalancing.
I'd think of perks like a wrestling federation: You bring up underdogs and new comers and - whilst the top guys enjoy their position - the other perks can come up to threaten, and on occasion an OG wrestler/perk gets "rested" for a bit. It keeps things interesting, but has to be done right. People can get annoyed if theur fan favourite gets mistreated.
3
