I think we should only get 2 perks per character in upcoming chapters
It often seems like new characters get perks, that are designed to be bad and just have a third perk to have a third perk
Comments
-
I've been thinking this as well. It'd give the devs a little breathing room to make more interesting perks.
4 -
Or maybe the amount of chapters per year could be made smaller.
In my opinion, ir's better when we get 3 better polished and more thought out chapters, than 4 full and 2 half-chapters filled with mediocre content.
No hate to bhvr, ofc.
2 -
Their business model is based around 4 chapters a year, it's their main income stream outside of cosmetics. I doubt they're likely to want to cut that by 25%.
However characters with a third less perks are going to be less desirable and probably shouldn't be priced as high. So it's a tough call to make.
But I agree the character and perk roster is getting a bit unmanageable now. New playrs have no hope of learning everything.
0 -
I would like to see them merge perks, so every character has only 2.
0 -
So anyway, getting back to things that might actually happen... 😏😏😏😏
J/k, but at this point how do you reverse this?
- People who buy/bought DLCs for perks now get fewer perks on new characters, you can bet that'll be a complaint.
- How do you handle Adepts? 2 perks now?
- Fewer opportunities to introduce something new/shake up the meta. Make chests better? They suck why bother. Invocations? Not strong enough. Are obsession or Hex perks? They are crud, don't use em. If every perk is meta, that means every perk has to extend chase/self heal or have strong auras/slow down gens. How many flavours of the same crud do we have to have?
Having 3 perks gives 3 chances for something interesting to stick. 2 perks means fewer chances to innovate and more pressure to ensure a perk is strong in the meta...
We're seeing weaker perks getting buffed to shake up the whole game constantly right now... there is always meta for those want to be boring and not think about builds, but this game is very fun to bulld new things around... not sure why we want to diminish that.
1 -
Having 3 perks gives 3 chances for something interesting to stick. 2 perks means fewer chances to innovate and more pressure to ensure a perk is strong in the meta...
We don't realistically get 3 chances though. They always play it safe with one or two of the perks on a new character, and in fact the last few years that safe perk has usually just been a slight variation on an existing one.
I know it's not particularly realistic for other reasons, but from a gameplay/variety angle there wouldn't be anything of value lost by going down to 2 perks. There's just so much chaffe to sort through as it is and we could do with culling more of it.
The only way I can think of pulling it off is to find some way of doubling up on perk effects that doesn't rip people off. Like new characters come with 2 new perks plus a new flavour of an old one. But that would require a new mechanic whereby you can toggle different versions of the same perk. E.g. Flashbang and Firecracker, mechanically identical but one gives you a firecracker effect instead of the flash grenade. However there's probably only so far you could take that, there may only be half a dozen perks that could work for.
0 -
Do you not think we're at kinda a turning point though?
Credit where credit ia due, perks have been getting updated up the wazzoo recently... I dunno about you, I feel like BHVR are being a little bit more adventurous and brave with perks over the past few months, and they actually seem to mostly listen to feedback from the PTB now, so busted stuff like Corrective Action doesn't make it to live, and they seem.to be fairly balanced on the final results.
Like Draculas new Hex perks have some pretty ugly combos, Belmont got a slower acting medkit syringe and a Survivor Lethal Pursuer.
I mean yeah, meta redefining perks haven't really come through, but when people usually mean meta perks, they mean something on MFT level, which personally I'd rather avoid. I'd take 3 decent perks over 1 stupid broken one any day.
0 -
If all 3 perks would be interesting, then I wouldn’t complain, but most times there are always one or more perks on a character that are bad from the beginning. With only 2 perks they could focus on 2 and make them good instead of making 3 mediocre perks.
Make chests better? They suck why bother.
I already suggested a chest/luck buff/rework multiple times. Same with hexes and other stuff.
0 -
I'm not so sure I agree with the reasoning here, I don't think newer perks are really suffering in terms of strength or design for the most part- and when they do, there's usually another reason to point to rather than there just being too many new perks.
The last truly bad perk we had on release was Sable's Weaving Spiders, and I'd argue the reason that was in such a mediocre state - especially on its PTB - was because BHVR are wary of introducing a new mechanic and having one of its perks be immediately overpowered, like what happened with Boons and Circle of Healing. Also, even that perk is pretty okay now after a few rounds of changes.
Sure, some perks like Still Sight and Illumination are under-tuned to the point where it's hard to justify running them, but I'd argue there's a huge difference between "this perk has a good design but too low numbers" and "this perk was designed in a way that fundamentally makes it bad".
BHVR are, I think, aware of how volatile the meta in this game is and how easily things can snowball out of hand, so I can understand why perks are released with safer numbers- but even with that in mind most of them are just "decent", hardly "bad".
0 -
Yeah fair enough, looking back, it wasn't clear I was speaking in hyperbole there... I'm someone who likes to try different builds and play around with various perks to see if I can find unique and interesting combos.
In that post I was pointing out how a lot of people react to perks... which is usually, is it isn't broken, it's ######### 😁
0 -
I wouldn't call feedback about corrective action a win in terms of devs hearing us out. They should have known about this synergy and not wasted time on the changes, even then it made it to PTB where it became clear it was not going to live no matter what (rightfully so).
adventurous perks is a stretch, most new perks are situational and useless. Fun in a gimmicky sense but no value whatsoever to further the match or enhance your survival (drac had a perk to kick chests and Trevor had a perk where you had to waste time opening two chests for the chance to heal after 60 seconds).
useless perks are a result of too many chapters. We constantly get perks that function similarly to older perks but fulfill their functions much better.
I rarely see any Dracula DLC perks in my lobbies; at best someone brings Wretched Fate 1/100 games, Trevor's perks? forget about it
1 -
What I don’t understand is; why they take ages to fix strong or weak perks and when they finally touch the strong ones, they are ruined. Like MFT would have been fine if they tried it with 2% after a month instead of reworking it into trash. Next is weave attunement (which I find weak), but they could have tried fixing it earlier instead of ruining it (my prediction). COH same here why didn’t they try lower numbers and straight up removed the self healing part, with only 45% self heal instead of 100% it would have been fine.
1 -
whose to say that 2 perks won't be bad. at least with 3 perks, maybe they magically make a strong perk and if they do, they'll just weaken it anyway so whatever.
0 -
I'd like to see more meme perks. Like Bardic Inspiration. I'm more interested in new fun perks than anything. Strong perks usually tip the balance too far one way or another and it just turns into years of complaining. My only complaint about Bardic is that there's a cooldown on playing the lute when the perk only needs a cooldown on the effect.
2
