Survivor New Perks are Laughable
Comments
-
It is, they just copy and pasted or just made a perk cocktail with already implemented in the game. This is just another Cash Grab.
0 -
your opinion, its not even out yet lmao
0 -
This is just another Ash Situation, bring in a popular franchise cash in on it and rinse and repeat. Watch it happen again.
1 -
I'm pretty sure cosmetic design and game balance are two different departments. Wouldn't it be weird to have an art director working on game design, or a game designer trying to create skins? Do you even consider what you're posting before you post it?
1 -
So you're telling me there's more people in the cosmetic design department because developing cosmetics takes a while as long as game balance does. So FROM WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME, the devs focus their time in energy into Cosmetics over Game Balance.
0 -
as a Ash main I will say sure the MoM nerf was really sad but he is still my current favorite character. Just being able to play ash is cool enough to spend 5$ lmao
0 -
I think some of you are severely underestimating how strong some of these perks will be in combination with other perks we already have. I can see lots of potential builds out of these and I think it will switch up the meta a bit which is MUCH needed.
2 -
Now, I don't want to sound like I'm defending Behaviour too hard here, because I too have a serious issue with how long it takes them to push through relatively small (read: number tweaking/very little design burden) updates and changes. I think they should be able to, say, fix serious exploits faster, and prioritize important quality-of-life changes more rapidly than they currently do.
That said, I don't think the art team's output is tied to the balance team's output, so it's not fair to blame that. I'm sure a lot of people here have worked at companies that have multiple teams handling multiple types of tasks, where one team is hitting various milestones and one team is maybe not moving at the same pace (whether out of ineptitude or just a different set of internal expectations). I imagine it's not too different at Behaviour.
0 -
Meta wont change a bit, cause exchanging two seperately working perks with a combo is weaker. New perks are just for stupid fun perk builds. nothing more.
0 -
I think the perks are pretty decent. They aren't S rank or god tier, and likely won't be meta perks, but they aren't terrible.
0 -
I expressed that point. It's a band-aid fix, not something worth while. You should read the full hearted text before replying but I agree.
0 -
In all honesty, you people aren't gonna be happy with any perk they add, for real... If it's really good then it's OP and u cry day and night, and if they're mediocre or less they're 'laughable' and worthless. So tell me where the medium ground is because like the devs, I'm lost at what u people want??????????
0 -
these works seem extremely exciting! I can’t wait wait for Nancy! Bye Claudette!!! You’re getting replaced!
0 -
They literally work around the issue, they don't give the community what they want unless it makes them money, people say im not getting more pressure because I get gen rushed so quickly, what the devs do? Add perks you have to buy with real money instead of balancing the game, survivors ask for something to be done for camping, what the devs do? Add perks you have to buy with real money instead of balancing the game. BALANCING THE GAME IS THE MIDDLE GROUND.
0 -
Yay I guess.
0 -
You're laughable. If you can do better, put your money where your mouth is. Better yet send you're resume to Behaviour Interactive to see if they hire you since you have so many original ideas and experience making games. Smh.
0 -
I'm glad I could make you laugh, just means you're in denial and it's okay. That's the first step to realizing your game is dying. I'm an American and I'm not sure you noticed but BHVR is in Canada my guy, unless you're willing to pay my plane ticket over there I can't really do much but post here. Like I say they're working around the problem instead of fixing the problem.
0 -
Don't make fun of my empathy I like knowing survivors are in a chase halfway across the map so I don't have to keep one eye on spine chill lol
0 -
Nancy’s perks all seem good, Steve’s not so much.
0 -
I would not like being in a match with you, I feel you would look for hatch and let me die on the hook.
0 -
Lol no that's only if I see the killer is camping you and even then I've been known to trade places on the hook
0 -
0 -
This game IS being balanced lmao. Like all the time... Balancing this game is in their own interest too if they want to make money...
There’s undetectable for stealth killers now for example, the bloodweb changes is a great QoL change. Just because they don’t address the things you want, doesn’t mean they’re not doing anything. They have been trying to make to make totems a secondary objective to prevent gen rush and they just tried making it a semi primary objective with this perk. It’s the survivors who refuse to do totems that cause the problems in this scenario. Camping is an issue they hardly can do anything about. If they started punishing for it, then there wouldn’t be any killers left to play the game because people call you out all the time for camping whether you actually did it or not, whether you had the intention or not.
Though, I’m sure if you come up with an amazing alternative solution and made a thread about it then they would think about adding it to the game
1 -
If the devs can sit there and address vaulting, healing, pallet vaccums, and etc. They can address camping, if I as survivor can accept the killer hitting me despite me vaulted and already in the clear, if I can accept not getting to the other side to the pallet, accept healing nerfs, then I'm sure killers can accept any changes to camping. If they have a problem with it but expect survivors to be complacent that's pretty hypocritical.
0 -
It's literally one thing, one thing most people want address which is camping, nobody unless trash survivors want killer nerfs, no perk nerfs except for noed, nothing but camping to be address. They are buffing killers but you can't buff killers and have camping still around, you can't have your cake and eat it too. The fact the outcome of the game is dictated by whether the killer wants to camp or not is unfair, you can have your buffs you can have your noed, but they need to stop camping.
0 -
So what do you suggest they do?
0 -
Simple the killer stay 10m of a hooked survivor the hook progression slows down, incentivizing killers to not camp sorta like when multiple work on the gen there's a 10% penalty. If you're a good killer you have no reason to camp mid-game If it's endgame it's fair game.
0 -
Pretty sure they tried this but it didn’t work out as it got abused.
0 -
They did the one where it stopped hook progression and it was based on terror, that went so badly but a small penalty on hook progression isn't so bad.
0 -
No, not really because a good survivor could still loop the killer around for quite some time around the hooked survivor and I can imagine it being a real issue against a well organised SWF group, unless you make the penalty not crazy, but then campers wouldn’t care and just sit there with hook penalty. Besides, I can see the campers proxy camping to avoid the penalty as well.
0 -
True I'm trying to keep both killer and survivors in mind here, make it to where you can still camp but the punishment is dire, and survivors still have some kind of chance to unhook. 10m is enough distance for proximity camping which I don't see as necessarily bad but just a last resort method. You can try to loop the killer around the survivor but that's just bad play the better solution is running distraction and allowing another to unhook.
0 -
That would depend on the penalty. If it’s supposed to actually hurt the camper and it’s dire then no it’s smart for a survivor to loop around them so that others have extra time to do gens. They could always lead the killer away later after all. SFW groups would abuse it badly.
If it doesn’t hurt the camper, then they’re not going to care obviously.
0 -
Fair point.
1 -
The perks that i like to use its babystting and 1 that heals you fully in locker
0 -
With the popularity of Noed I'd argue the opposite. I'm hoping lots of players run that perk so it encourages totem cleansing.
0 -
It seems pretty strong so it makes since
0 -
If you cleanse at the start of the match you'll have it active until you need it.
It's a good perk.
1 -
Killer can just give up the chase, as with any good looper at a strong loop the correct play is to drop the chase and protect your gens.
0 -
And give them a free escape?
0 -
They don't get a free escape if you just protect the gens and prevent them from getting them done, go after the weak ones and kill them first.
0 -
But what if they aren't any weak survivors ?
0 -
Then do this technique you force the survivors on one side of the map let them complete those gens, keep the three generators that are close together untouched meaning keep them away. Once they pop all the other gens except for those three, they're forced to work those gens that are close together. I did this a few nights ago against a sweaty swf and let's just say I recieved 4 hate mails calling me a no life killer.
0 -
But survivors can avoid 3 gens strats + if they are 4 survivors alive, a 3 gen strat will do nothing, because you still need to down and kill the survivors, but if survivors put enough pressure on gens, you won't succeed.
0 -
That's if you're impatient, patience goes a long way. If you're insecure you can run Surveillance which makes this strat strong, if they don't play by your rules they just make it harder on themselves. If you catch them working on any of the gens just hit them and force them away, if they're feeling frisky they're more likely to return to that gen and more than likely they will screw up. I do this strat especially against swf groups and I always get a 4k out of it.
0 -
So if the killer sees a survivor running towards a hooked survivor and enters this zone, then the killer should leave him? So basically a safe zone for survivors where they can run whenever they feel like.
0 -
Yeah, cause that's a good idea. Safe spots on the map where a Survivor can 1v1 a Killer. In a 1v4 game, there should be spots where 1 person on the TEAM OF 4 can 1v1. That isn't a "correct play", that's called giving up because broken mechanics/ areas allow to change the balance of the game.
0 -
I just love blood warden
0 -
You still can't put enough pressure on 4 survivors. It doesn't matter that you have a 3 gen strat, if 4 survivors are still alive, they gonna get the gens done. And the 3 gens strats is just survivors fault that they didn't spread out the gens.
0 -
I would agree if I failed this repeatdly at rank 1 but I don't so sounds like your issue at this point. If plenty other can pull it off then you should be able to, and at that point one survivor should be dead if you haven't kill one person yet well I don't know what to tell you.
0 -
I saw plenty of survivors escaping 3 gen strats are rank 1, so your point is invalid. But how you kill 1 person ? Because you said to abandon chases with strong survivors to chase weak survivors. But if in that team aren't any weak survivors, who you chase then ? How you kill them then ?
1
