Should slowdown perks be limited to 2 slots but be buffed across the board
Just a bit of a thought experiment, what if you could only bring 2 slowdown perks but they were buffed across the board
Some examples of perks that count as slowdown and a buff they might get (or perks being buffed into being viable slowdown)
Ruin now gives 200% regression
Huntress lullaby now hides skillchecks completely and rekindles itself after X hooks
Surge (pity buff) always affects at least 1 generator if none were within 40m or could be affected within 40m
Some perks that count as slowdown (if they have a * after them that means I think they should be buffed if along with this change), Ruin*, Surge*, Pop, Pain res, Thanatophobia*, Dying light*, Pentimento, Call of brine*, Overcharge*, Corrupt*, DMS, Deadlock, Eruption, Grim embrace, Oppression******, Thrilling tremors*, Undone******
And now to keep this a bit fair to the perks that support slowdown but aren't quite slowdown themselves
For example
Undying only counts as a slowdown IF you have another slowdown hex perk (so undying + devour doesn't count against your 2 slowdown slots)
What do you think though would this be an interesting direction to take dbd
No this isn't meant to be an us vs them its just meant to be a thought experiment, yes I might eventually create one for the survivor side with this exact same message
Should slowdown perks be limited to 2 slots but be buffed across the board 14 votes
5 votes
6 votes
3 votes
Comments
-
Sounds silly
Would limit synergy and people probably would only run the to two out of them anyway.
0 -
Sounds interesting
the problem here is… strong killers wouldn't be affected and the weaker killers would only become more weak. And for exemple, allow trapper to have 3/4 slowdown perks, it would become an artificial way to balance the game, because Nurse an Blight would have 1 or none at all, that would suck.
1 -
Sounds interesting
I mean, it would affect the strong killers, since they too can run 4 slowdowns. Saying they wouldn't be affected at all isn't true when there are people out there in matches running 4 slowdowns on Nurse, Spirit and Blight.
As for the OP, I do think there needs to be some limitation on stacking slowdown. It makes the perks trickier to balance and makes the average length of generators far too varied.
However, I do appreciate that it's going to be very difficult to do something like that design-wise. Limiting perks like that opens up a ton of complexity and issues by itself. But I do think something needs to be done in some way. I don't think we'll ever see a "perk type limit" in any form, though.
0 -
Sounds silly
That would be silly because little do people know but two slowdowns is probably the optimal number to bring anyway.
0 -
Other
Ok, survivors should only get one gen perk per build, or a toolbox
1 -
Sounds interesting
True but that has a balancing of its own, most weaker killers end up using m1 attacks while most stronger killers are dominantly m2 attacks so they both use hook perks the same but m1 killers use the m1 perks better, so if m1 perks were better than hook perks only the weaker killers so not billy, blight, and nurse (spirit might be a problem) would get the stronger m1 perks.
0 -
Sounds interesting
Again this isn't an us vs them this is just its own self contained idea, the opposite side of the coin of gen speed perks, vs second chance esc perks has its own discussion to be made.
0 -
Other
I'd argue inherently arguing for one side to be limited without balancing the other side of the equation is "Us vs them"
0 -
Sounds interesting
This isn't arguing its a thought experiment, as much as I want to make a 2 page text post to make sure its not an "us vs them" oh wait a minute
0 -
Sounds interesting
This should work, BUT do you remember why people complained about STBL? None of the strongest killers used it, only M1, but still was asked to be nerfed…
1 -
Sounds interesting
That's because people are silly and don't like when their playtime with a weak killer is cut short or ends up with them losing
1 -
Sounds interesting
100% agree.
0