Devs, can you not be scared to add strong killers and strong survivor perks ?

People all over the place crying nerf for nurse and you're asking exactly for a Nurse.

The thing is, people don't want their looping meta shaken.

I agree with you, in the sense that there should be a lot of different playstyles available.

I agree.

What I'm trying to say though, is that your idea won't gain any ground against the mob.

Greater variety is good. Killers breaking walls? Sounds good. Killers flying? Sounds good. Nurse is great, too, in theory.

But, "if everything is OP then nothing is OP". Maybe in a game like overwatch. Super strong ultimate abilities? They are fine because both sides have them. In a game like this? Nope. Not in an asymmetrical game. Counter play is required in a game like this. Balance is equally important in a game like this compared to other genres of games.

A killer that has a non-looping, meta-breaking play style? Bring it on. Sounds fun. Another killer like nurse? Nah, that's the beginning of the end for a game like this.

last time survivors got a good perk was MoM and we all know how that went, last time we got an OP or considered OP killer by some ppl we got ghostface and you know how that went (even tho the nerfs werent big in any way you still got killers crying a lot about it)

That early prototype killer was called "smasher" right?

Hulk jr.

GhostFace isn't strong at red ranks. If you are really good at Huntress and get a good map, she can be very good.

The community for a long time asked about a killer who could vault windows and pallets, you can see where Legion was spawned from.

Legion is a nightmare to change as because of this they will always teeter on the edge of OP and UP.

The one thing you dont want to do is make another killer where a hit is always guaranteed as that is still Legion and why they had to make it so difficult to use their power to actually down someone.

Always remember this is a game, games are for fun, a challenge with learning to be better but its not to lose every match, sometimes you win games easily and sometimes you lose terribly, others will be a challenge and you come out of it thinking how great it was to get that last kill or escape and feel like this one was earned. That is what is fun about mutiplayer games the randomness the opponnents skill.

Making something OP generally only works in solo games, making that in a multiplayer game means you have just created a sceanrio where one side is fodder for the other. No one wants to be this fodder so the majority will always want to play the stronger role as they want to win and its why other games that tried this didnt last long or let you pick what side you play.

So your saying there's no such thing as something being OP, it would just be "strong". If survivors got a perk that required it took 37 hits to down them instead of 2, that would be fine, right? A perk like that would change the Meta, so yay... Except no one would wanna go against it, so ppl would quit playing and the game would die. It's healthier for the game to have a perk like Monstous shrine than it is to have a perk that's TOO "Strong".

Your saying "filler" as a catch all... They ARE buffing perks, the latest best example is PGTW. There's also PLENTY of viable perks out there, not just 4 on each side.

I don't think your logic when created/balancing some of the perks. MoM was going to be overpowered. Everyone read the perk and automatically knew it was going to be a problem.. They knew that because almost all of the meta survivor perks involve recovery or instant healing a health state and instant heals are insanely powerful for survivor. Unbreakable,Adrenaline,Decisive strike, Borrow time, heck even Deliverance. They all allow you to directly or indirectly gain an instant heal or health state by some condition. Old MoM was such reliable condition that it essentially gave survivors an instant heal med kit every trial. You can measure the strength of a perk often by looking at existing concepts in the game. Now a days, Decisive strike is more powerful then it was before the change because survivors have found a counter to slugging by running into lockers, and since it is a timer, killer who chasing other people may get hit by decisive randomly.

On flip side, perks that are likely to never be used because their concept is weak never get used. For example, how many killers run perks that modify their terror radius? The most common perk is monitor&Abuse. No one runs tinkerer. The new perks that modify terror reduce are even less consistent then old ones. For example, Dark devotion is obsession perk which makes that perk an rng perk that forces you to find an obsession for a chance to surprise someone else. Fugitive chase is another obsession perk that has so many conditions.you have to find obsession, first, than hook it , the terror radius is reduced inside of chase, instead of globally and if obsessions dies, you lose entire perk. I wonder what would be wrong if dark devotion didn't need obsession with fixed cool down and if fugitive didn't make you lose all stacks when survivor died and it just gave global terror radius reduction.

Moral of the story: Perks-types that are strong end up being overly strong and perks that are bad end up being horrifically bad. Most of the perks that are bad stay bad for entire lifespan of the game.

I never used DS, MoM or moonwalked as they felt really cheap to use. I like a challenge in games and why I dont use exhuastion perks as a survivor or the strongest addons on killer.

Where is the fun in using something that doesn't take any skill to utilise? I like to win by using my knowledge and skill and not have something which leads me by the hand to easy escapes or downs.

Peaks are pointless as the peak eventually needs flattened out. MoM and Legion are classic examples of this. While Legion was not really strong his power could be abused to guarantee an easy down and nothing the survivor did could change that against any competent player.