Hillbilly and Nurse balance suggestion

24

Comments

  • PBlackIIPBlackII Member Posts: 62
    KingB said:
    No. Billy's chainsaws would be impossible to land unless playing a braindead survivor. And his chainsaws are already hard to hit against good survivors unless they are caught in the open. Nurse is the hardest killer to play in game, she's supposed to be rewarding.
    They are not "impossible" to land, and you're essentially arguing at this point that the only way to land his chainsaw is to be right next to the survivor. As far as nurse goes there should be reward in playing the character successfully, not necessarily having done the learning curve and crutching on the mechanics.
    bloxe said:
    Have you ever played with any of them?? I'm a rank 1 killer and I hate both those killers because of how easy it is to counter them. Combine that with the learning required, and you see that they are good because people put effort to learning and evolving them.
    Easy to counter them? Are you high? They're literally played the most because they're the easiest to get the most success with the least effort. The thing about learning curves is once you pass it, the challenge begins to disappear. I'm not saying that the challenge is forever gone, but you remember the strategy and it makes it easier to deal with survivors without having to put too much thought into it. There is a reason why there are countless memes of killer mains going "good thing I have ol' reliable" with images of bloody nurses and billies, because it is certainly much easier to get the desired result with them than the other killers.
  • NoShinyPonyNoShinyPony Member Posts: 225

    @PBlackII said:
    Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.

    Just no. Hillbilly is fine as he is. You can still loop him. Take your time and learn which routes you need to run.

    @PBlackII said:
    Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.

    She already has to manage her ability. She has to charge and she has a fatigue time.

    @PBlackII said:
    We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.

    The solution to that problem is to buff the other killers, not the other way around.

  • PBlackIIPBlackII Member Posts: 62
    edited January 10

    @PBlackII said:
    Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.

    Just no. Hillbilly is fine as he is. You can still loop him. Take your time and learn which routes you need to run.

    @PBlackII said:
    Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.

    She already has to manage her ability. She has to charge and she has a fatigue time.

    @PBlackII said:
    We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.

    The solution to that problem is to buff the other killers, not the other way around.

    Saying "just no" isn't a sincere counter argument to the points I've previously laid out. As a rank 1 survivor I already know how to generally deal with Hillbilly. Yes, there is a factor of luck involved—what were the pallet spawns, which ones were used, etc.; but this is significantly different than just running up and using an instant down since there's little to no thought process behind that.

    When it comes to nurse, that's not managing her ability, it's just waiting for her wither to wear off. That's hardly a consequence due to the short duration. If I play nurse and spot a survivor, then I know I will secure the down fairly quickly because I generally know what they are likely to do—I don't have to worry about my usage of blinks and I don't think it's a concern that crosses any nurse main's mind.

    Again, you are less likely to see a buff for 12 killers than a "nerf" for 2. I use nerf pretty lightly as it is more about managing an ability than a direct stat adjustment.
  • MasterMaster Member Posts: 7,214
    edited January 10

    @PBlackII said:
    Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.

    Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.

    We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.

    Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....

    By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all

  • inkedsoulzinkedsoulz Member Posts: 88

    @PBlackII said:
    @ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:

    @PBlackII said:
    As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.

    To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.

    No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.

    Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.

    Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.

    Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.

    A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.

    When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)

    Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.

    Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.

  • PBlackIIPBlackII Member Posts: 62
    edited January 10

    @Master said:

    @PBlackII said:
    Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.

    Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.

    We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.

    Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....

    By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all

    You're being highly dramatic for no reason and bandwagoning with the rest here. Each killer has strategies to be viable at rank 1, viability doesn't mean securing 4K the majority of games. I don't agree with that point within the dev's philosophy either, but applying these changes wouldn't suddenly make these killers not viable.

    @inkedsoulz said:

    @PBlackII said:
    @ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:

    @PBlackII said:
    As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.

    To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.

    No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.

    Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.

    Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.

    Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.

    A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.

    When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)

    Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.

    Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.

    Experienced survivor here checking in to let you know that you have a reading comprehension problem—I'm not saying that Hillbilly and Nurse are "omg so op, nerf plz", I'm saying that they're too easy to use and thus are preferable over the other killers. Also, you're being very disingenuous when you suggest an experienced survivor will consistently never be found since at high rank play an experienced killer will find you. Are there games where that occurs? Sure, and some survivors strive for that, but it usually does not happen despite one's best efforts to some things like circumstances and perks.

  • inkedsoulzinkedsoulz Member Posts: 88
    edited January 10

    @PBlackII said:

    @Master said:

    @PBlackII said:
    Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.

    Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.

    We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.

    Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....

    By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all

    You're being highly dramatic for no reason and bandwagoning with the rest here. Each killer has strategies to be viable at rank 1, viability doesn't mean securing 4K the majority of games. I don't agree with that point within the dev's philosophy either, but applying these changes wouldn't suddenly make these killers not viable.

    @inkedsoulz said:

    @PBlackII said:
    @ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:

    @PBlackII said:
    As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.

    To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.

    No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.

    Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.

    Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.

    Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.

    A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.

    When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)

    Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.

    Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.

    Experienced survivor here checking in to let you know that you have a reading comprehension problem—I'm not saying that Hillbilly and Nurse are "omg so op, nerf plz", I'm saying that they're too easy to use and thus are preferable over the other killers. Also, you're being very disingenuous when you suggest an experienced survivor will consistently never be found since at high rank play an experienced killer will find you. Are there games where that occurs? Sure, and some survivors strive for that, but it usually does not happen despite one's best efforts to some things like circumstances and perks.

    Looks like you also have a reading comprehension problem where did i say that an experienced survivor will never be found?

    What i said, is that you wont be able to consistently catch a experienced survivor with their pants down, they will see you coming and move towards a pallet loop before you reach them.

    You are saying that these 2 killers are too easy to use, so they should nerf them both. its not really that different than "omg so op, nerf plz" You are asking for nerfs.

    You say that they are easy to use, but the general consensus on the Nurses case, is that its the hardest killer to learn, but once you learn it it is the best.

    About Hillbilly, alright lets look at it this way, lets see if you understand that its not that strong.
    We all agree that Leatherface is 1 of the worst killers on game right? Well, Hillbilly is just Leatherface but with the ability to move from point A to point B really fast on certain maps(and on the maps that he can do it, he cant take all paths, there are obstacles, etc), his ability when downing people is worse than Leatherface's, Hillbilly can only down 1 survivor at a time, also on the worst case scenario(you run out of loops), you can spin on him when he is using his chainsaw, since the movement becomes sluggish when he revs up his chainsaw and is easy to make him miss(cant do that to Leatherface unless the killer player is really boosted).

    Stop asking for nerfs to Hillbilly, he is just an ordinary M1 killer with a bit better mobility.

  • PBlackIIPBlackII Member Posts: 62
    edited January 10

    To further illustrate this point, let's take trapper vs. hillbilly.

    @inkedsoulz said:

    @PBlackII said:

    @Master said:

    @PBlackII said:
    Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.

    Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.

    We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.

    Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....

    By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all

    You're being highly dramatic for no reason and bandwagoning with the rest here. Each killer has strategies to be viable at rank 1, viability doesn't mean securing 4K the majority of games. I don't agree with that point within the dev's philosophy either, but applying these changes wouldn't suddenly make these killers not viable.

    @inkedsoulz said:

    @PBlackII said:
    @ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:

    @PBlackII said:
    As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.

    To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.

    No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.

    Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.

    Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.

    Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.

    A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.

    When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)

    Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.

    Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.

    Experienced survivor here checking in to let you know that you have a reading comprehension problem—I'm not saying that Hillbilly and Nurse are "omg so op, nerf plz", I'm saying that they're too easy to use and thus are preferable over the other killers. Also, you're being very disingenuous when you suggest an experienced survivor will consistently never be found since at high rank play an experienced killer will find you. Are there games where that occurs? Sure, and some survivors strive for that, but it usually does not happen despite one's best efforts to some things like circumstances and perks.

    Looks like you also have a reading comprehension problem where did i say that an experienced survivor will never be found?

    What i said, is that you wont be able to consistently catch a experienced survivor with their pants down, they will see you coming and move towards a pallet loop before you reach them.

    You are saying that these 2 killers are too easy to use, so they should nerf them both. its not really that different than "omg so op, nerf plz" You are asking for nerfs.

    You say that they are easy to use, but the general consensus on the Nurses case, is that its the hardest killer to learn, but once you learn it it is the best.

    About Hillbilly, alright lets look at it this way, lets see if you understand that its not that strong.
    We all agree that Leatherface is 1 of the worst killers on game right? Well, Hillbilly is just Leatherface but with the ability to move from point A to point B really fast on certain maps(and on the maps that he can do it, he cant take all paths, there are obstacles, etc), his ability when downing people is worse than Leatherface's, Hillbilly can only down 1 survivor at a time, also on the worst case scenario(you run out of loops), you can spin on him when he is using his chainsaw, since the movement becomes sluggish when he revs up his chainsaw and is easy to make him miss(cant do that to Leatherface unless the killer player is really boosted).

    Stop asking for nerfs to Hillbilly, he is just an ordinary M1 killer with a bit better mobility.

    Looks like you still have a reading comprehension problem. You said that an experienced survivor 'won't let him get close to them', which suggests that a survivor main will never be found consistently because you are (1) characterizing a high rank survivor has a quality of successfully evading the killer and (2) suggests a level of control in the hands of the survivor by using the word 'let'. The first component is more of an ever-existing goal that sometimes manifests itself into reality, but is usually not the case, and the second component is clearly false since the survivor doesn't really have an upper hand to 'let' the killer do anything. In other words, your statement leaves very little interpretation to suggest otherwise, so while you will not explicitly state a good survivor will never be found, you suggest it. So to try to snidely say I have a reading comprehension problem shows a particular sense of malice that is unwarranted because at least I have the decency to say 'suggest' and be honest with my usage of words.

    Yes, survivors will generally communicate with each other in order to maintain a certain level of awareness of the killer's whereabouts and thus will utilize a pallet loop if needed. This is just a part of basic strategy and ought to be a part of the calculation of the killer. The difference is that for hillbilly it just boils down to "get real close and press M2 real big-like!" rather than use his ability and aim—there are still situations where that would be successful even against experienced survivors.

    It is profoundly different if I'm saying usage is too easy versus saying that they're OP. Let's go back to the example I provided earlier with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. In that game Diddy Kong is a high tier character where it required conscious effort and continual strategy to keep up his game play; meanwhile you have Metaknight who was literally "spam his B moves and they'll eventually slip up". Huntress would be somebody like Diddy Kong, and Hillbilly and Nurse are akin to Metaknight—there isn't much effort into the upkeep of their game play once you have it figured out. So while somebody like the hardest killer to learn is the nurse—which honestly is more like the hardest to get used to her mechanics—once it is learned it's easy to secure preferable results. When I say nerf, it means I'm not going to sugar coat the suggestion and try to deceive people, but nerf does not mean unplayable or unviable. Saying something is OP means that a character possesses a quality that makes the game solved in their favor despite the opposition's best efforts—which is not what I'm suggesting at all.

    But hell, let's run with your logic in your Leatherface and Hillbilly comparison. I would have to argue then that Leatherface's ability does not have nearly as much downing potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough and would keep close to a pallet loop—particularly if he's involved with another survivor. So the fact that he can down multiple people becomes less relevant since experienced survivors won't let that scenario happen. Furthermore, because the Hillbilly's mobility allows him to cover more ground and prevent objectives it makes his ability more powerful in the grander scope of the game, while Leatherface just has a better chance against sick 360 plays. Therefore in terms of 'downing' potential both can realistically only down one survivor at a time, Leatherface might be able to secure it better in the event of a 360, but Hillbilly still has much better utility; so I don't see how this is any real meaningful counterargument when it's actually just a deceptive whataboutism.

  • GrimGrim Member Posts: 30
    edited January 10

    OP, the solution is not to nerf the only two viable killers, it is to buff the weaker ones.

    Saying you can do well with weaker killers at high ranks is irrelevant as rank isn't an indicator of skill, but of time spent this season. With the current ranking system, anyone can get to red ranks, even bad survivors. The reason why Billy and Nurse are considered viable is not because they consistently do well at red ranks, it is because they do better against efficient teams.

    But let's assume you're right, and they both get nerfed to remove these "braindead" strategies. Then please tell me when we can expect you to advocate for the removal of the pallet loop or perks such as Sprint Burst.

  • inkedsoulzinkedsoulz Member Posts: 88
    edited January 10

    @PBlackII said:
    To further illustrate this point, let's take trapper vs. hillbilly.

    @inkedsoulz said:

    @PBlackII said:

    @Master said:

    @PBlackII said:
    Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.

    Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.

    We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.

    Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....

    By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all

    You're being highly dramatic for no reason and bandwagoning with the rest here. Each killer has strategies to be viable at rank 1, viability doesn't mean securing 4K the majority of games. I don't agree with that point within the dev's philosophy either, but applying these changes wouldn't suddenly make these killers not viable.

    @inkedsoulz said:

    @PBlackII said:
    @ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:

    @PBlackII said:
    As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.

    To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.

    No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.

    Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.

    Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.

    Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.

    A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.

    When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)

    Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.

    Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.

    Experienced survivor here checking in to let you know that you have a reading comprehension problem—I'm not saying that Hillbilly and Nurse are "omg so op, nerf plz", I'm saying that they're too easy to use and thus are preferable over the other killers. Also, you're being very disingenuous when you suggest an experienced survivor will consistently never be found since at high rank play an experienced killer will find you. Are there games where that occurs? Sure, and some survivors strive for that, but it usually does not happen despite one's best efforts to some things like circumstances and perks.

    Looks like you also have a reading comprehension problem where did i say that an experienced survivor will never be found?

    What i said, is that you wont be able to consistently catch a experienced survivor with their pants down, they will see you coming and move towards a pallet loop before you reach them.

    You are saying that these 2 killers are too easy to use, so they should nerf them both. its not really that different than "omg so op, nerf plz" You are asking for nerfs.

    You say that they are easy to use, but the general consensus on the Nurses case, is that its the hardest killer to learn, but once you learn it it is the best.

    About Hillbilly, alright lets look at it this way, lets see if you understand that its not that strong.
    We all agree that Leatherface is 1 of the worst killers on game right? Well, Hillbilly is just Leatherface but with the ability to move from point A to point B really fast on certain maps(and on the maps that he can do it, he cant take all paths, there are obstacles, etc), his ability when downing people is worse than Leatherface's, Hillbilly can only down 1 survivor at a time, also on the worst case scenario(you run out of loops), you can spin on him when he is using his chainsaw, since the movement becomes sluggish when he revs up his chainsaw and is easy to make him miss(cant do that to Leatherface unless the killer player is really boosted).

    Stop asking for nerfs to Hillbilly, he is just an ordinary M1 killer with a bit better mobility.

    Looks like you still have a reading comprehension problem. You said that an experienced survivor 'won't let him get close to them', which suggests that a survivor main will never be found consistently because you are (1) characterizing a high rank survivor has a quality of successfully evading the killer and (2) suggests a level of control in the hands of the survivor by using the word 'let'. The first component is more of an ever-existing goal that sometimes manifests itself into reality, but is usually not the case, and the second component is clearly false since the survivor doesn't really have an upper hand to 'let' the killer do anything. In other words, your statement leaves very little interpretation to suggest otherwise, so while you will not explicitly state a good survivor will never be found, you suggest it. So to try to snidely say I have a reading comprehension problem shows a particular sense of malice that is unwarranted because at least I have the decency to say 'suggest' and be honest with my usage of words.

    Yes, survivors will generally communicate with each other in order to maintain a certain level of awareness of the killer's whereabouts and thus will utilize a pallet loop if needed. This is just a part of basic strategy and ought to be a part of the calculation of the killer. The difference is that for hillbilly it just boils down to "get real close and press M2 real big-like!" rather than use his ability and aim—there are still situations where that would be successful even against experienced survivors.

    It is profoundly different if I'm saying usage is too easy versus saying that they're OP. Let's go back to the example I provided earlier with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. In that game Diddy Kong is a high tier character where it required conscious effort and continual strategy to keep up his game play; meanwhile you have Metaknight who was literally "spam his B moves and they'll eventually slip up". Huntress would be somebody like Diddy Kong, and Hillbilly and Nurse are akin to Metaknight—there isn't much effort into the upkeep of their game play once you have it figured out. So while somebody like the hardest killer to learn is the nurse—which honestly is more like the hardest to get used to her mechanics—once it is learned it's easy to secure preferable results. When I say nerf, it means I'm not going to sugar coat the suggestion and try to deceive people, but nerf does not mean unplayable or unviable. Saying something is OP means that a character possesses a quality that makes the game solved in their favor despite the opposition's best efforts—which is not what I'm suggesting at all.

    But hell, let's run with your logic in your Leatherface and Hillbilly comparison. I would have to argue then that Leatherface's ability does not have nearly as much downing potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough and would keep close to a pallet loop—particularly if he's involved with another survivor. So the fact that he can down multiple people becomes less relevant since experienced survivors won't let that scenario happen. Furthermore, because the Hillbilly's mobility allows him to cover more ground and prevent objectives it makes his ability more powerful in the grander scope of the game, while Leatherface just has a better chance against sick 360 plays. Therefore in terms of 'downing' potential both can realistically only down one survivor at a time, Leatherface might be able to secure it better in the event of a 360, but Hillbilly still has much better utility; so I don't see how this is any real meaningful counterargument when it's actually just a deceptive whataboutism.

    When i said "A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him..." i mean it in the same way as when you say "...potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough..." I didnt suggest anything, i just assumed that you would understand the context (In chase, not talking about finding the survivor) as i understand when you use almost the same phrase in your argument, but i guess ill specify next time.

    ** I would have to argue then that Leatherface's ability does not have nearly as much downing potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough and would keep close to a pallet loop**

    Same could be said about Hillbilly. Hillbilly and Leatherface have the same downing potential when playing against an experienced survivor that never lets him close enough and always keep close to a pallet loop.
    If the survivor knows what he/she is doing, both these killers are just M1 killers that move at 115% speed.

    The only thing Hillbilly does better than Leatherface is the ability to move from A to B quickly(REMEMBER that he cant do that on all maps) as i said before.

    As i said there is no need to nerf Hillbilly.

  • PBlackIIPBlackII Member Posts: 62

    @Grim said:
    OP, the solution is not to nerf the only two viable killers, it is to buff the weaker ones.

    Saying you can do well with weaker killers at high ranks is irrelevant as rank isn't an indicator of skill, but of time spent this season. With the current ranking system, anyone can get to red ranks, even bad survivors. The reason why Billy and Nurse are considered viable is not because they consistently do well at red ranks, it is because they do better against efficient teams.

    But let's assume you're right, and they both get nerfed to remove these "braindead" strategies. Then please tell me when we can expect you to advocate for the removal of the pallet loop or perks such as Sprint Burst.

    Again, you are much less likely to buff 12 killers than you are to nerf 2 of them. Rank is a correlate to skill—or at the very least a competency of player tendencies beyond the basic mechanics of the game. Are there good players that purposefully lower their rank or have not played in a while? Of course, that's a pretty obvious point, but it's incredibly misleading to suggest that there is no correlation whatsoever between rank and ability. Therefore in a weird way, we actually agree that viability does concern itself towards a killer gearing themselves against an efficient team. I say high rank though because it generally suggests that we are at the very least mostly working with competent survivors, and an efficient team is usually made of competent survivors.

    Now onto your tangential hypothetical, what would I do about strategies specifically geared towards pallet loop or a perk such as sprint burst. The latter is pretty easy to assess given the previous logic I presented in that an ability that requires less upkeep should provide less reward—so if I had to really change sprint burst specifically, I'd probably would just slightly lower the duration of the speed burst so that reward isn't as advantageous to more strategically used perks. As for the former, I find it surprisingly easy to solve the pallet looping ordeal: monitor if a survivor is retracing their steps over a period of time and introduce progressive punitive measures for doing a loop. The game already has a method of tracking the trails that survivors making as evidenced by scratch marks, so it would be pretty simple to add in things like "If a survivor exists on x portion of their own scratch marks for t seconds, then decrease movement speed by m%." This is an example of an approach, but I'm sure the point is clearly made and how one decides to make the process more creative.

    @inkedsoulz said:

    @PBlackII said:
    To further illustrate this point, let's take trapper vs. hillbilly.

    @inkedsoulz said:

    @PBlackII said:

    @Master said:

    @PBlackII said:
    Hillbilly: require a minimum distance of at least 12 metres to instadown.

    Nurse: have blinks based on tokens so that she has to manage her ability better to be successful.

    We’re all tired of these two being the only killers at high rank, and these are pretty simple fixes.

    Some survivors really wanna see the game burn....

    By the way, the devs said that not every killer is meant to be viable at high rank (A philosophy I disagree with btw), but that doesnt mean that there should be no viable killers at all

    You're being highly dramatic for no reason and bandwagoning with the rest here. Each killer has strategies to be viable at rank 1, viability doesn't mean securing 4K the majority of games. I don't agree with that point within the dev's philosophy either, but applying these changes wouldn't suddenly make these killers not viable.

    @inkedsoulz said:

    @PBlackII said:
    @ThirdSealOPplzNerf said:

    @PBlackII said:
    As stated before, I have 2.6k hours and reach high ranks quickly. I’m not complaining that they’re too hard, I’m complaining that their greater ease at achieving the desired results makes it where other killers are not nearly as played. Because it’s easy and straightforward to do well with them, I’m then suggesting a mechanic change to make it a little less brain dead.

    To say playing nurse and hillbilly is easy and braindead makes you sound braindead. Nurse is really difficult to play and Billy is hard to play when survivors are trying to evade the chainsaw nothing is is easy even with the top tier killers.

    No, certain strategies with them are pretty braindead, I'm trying to get rid of those strategies. If you are an experienced nurse and you are running three blinks and you spot a survivor, then you will get them pretty handily—this is absolutely no surprise to any nurse main. If you are Billy it's incredibly easy to just run up close to a survivor and just chainsaw them and not have to deal with hitting them. There is literally no thought process behind this, and the problem is that crutching on these strategies is rewarded. If you don't think doing so is easy, then you have not played enough of either of them.

    Clearly explain to me why having a nurse with blinks running on tokens is a bad idea? I didn't say that tokens are not rechargeable or that they charge slowly; but it's pretty obvious that the point is to make a nurse main manage their blinks more wisely. This doesn't mean that they can't ever triple blink, it means they can't spam it relentlessly because they know missing the first round isn't a big deal.

    Why is having a distance requirement for an instadown bad on hillbilly? It is then forcing them to think about where to aim. That doesn't make them useless, it makes it where they have to play differently and actually use their head when using their ability. He still has excellent map coverage and it would still be possible to down survivors with it.

    Again, I'm not complaining that "nurse and billy are too hard to play against waaaah," that was never my argument. I'm saying that it's too easy to play them effectively so people choose them over the other killers. People who don't think they can't get a good game out of the killers just reveals to me that you guys aren't particularly good with the other killers.

    A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him, and if he does get close, then the survivor can force billy to M1 by using windows and pallets.

    When playing against good survivors, Hilbilly is just a M1 killer with the ability to move from point A to point B pretty fast(can only do it efficiently on certain maps)

    Hillbilly only looks OP to newbies that still have no idea on how to loop or to people that might not pay attention to their surroundings, and gets caught on an open area.

    Things might be a little bit different if the Hillbilly is using addons to have instasaw, on that case a lot of windows become unsafe, but he is still loopable.

    Experienced survivor here checking in to let you know that you have a reading comprehension problem—I'm not saying that Hillbilly and Nurse are "omg so op, nerf plz", I'm saying that they're too easy to use and thus are preferable over the other killers. Also, you're being very disingenuous when you suggest an experienced survivor will consistently never be found since at high rank play an experienced killer will find you. Are there games where that occurs? Sure, and some survivors strive for that, but it usually does not happen despite one's best efforts to some things like circumstances and perks.

    Looks like you also have a reading comprehension problem where did i say that an experienced survivor will never be found?

    What i said, is that you wont be able to consistently catch a experienced survivor with their pants down, they will see you coming and move towards a pallet loop before you reach them.

    You are saying that these 2 killers are too easy to use, so they should nerf them both. its not really that different than "omg so op, nerf plz" You are asking for nerfs.

    You say that they are easy to use, but the general consensus on the Nurses case, is that its the hardest killer to learn, but once you learn it it is the best.

    About Hillbilly, alright lets look at it this way, lets see if you understand that its not that strong.
    We all agree that Leatherface is 1 of the worst killers on game right? Well, Hillbilly is just Leatherface but with the ability to move from point A to point B really fast on certain maps(and on the maps that he can do it, he cant take all paths, there are obstacles, etc), his ability when downing people is worse than Leatherface's, Hillbilly can only down 1 survivor at a time, also on the worst case scenario(you run out of loops), you can spin on him when he is using his chainsaw, since the movement becomes sluggish when he revs up his chainsaw and is easy to make him miss(cant do that to Leatherface unless the killer player is really boosted).

    Stop asking for nerfs to Hillbilly, he is just an ordinary M1 killer with a bit better mobility.

    Looks like you still have a reading comprehension problem. You said that an experienced survivor 'won't let him get close to them', which suggests that a survivor main will never be found consistently because you are (1) characterizing a high rank survivor has a quality of successfully evading the killer and (2) suggests a level of control in the hands of the survivor by using the word 'let'. The first component is more of an ever-existing goal that sometimes manifests itself into reality, but is usually not the case, and the second component is clearly false since the survivor doesn't really have an upper hand to 'let' the killer do anything. In other words, your statement leaves very little interpretation to suggest otherwise, so while you will not explicitly state a good survivor will never be found, you suggest it. So to try to snidely say I have a reading comprehension problem shows a particular sense of malice that is unwarranted because at least I have the decency to say 'suggest' and be honest with my usage of words.

    Yes, survivors will generally communicate with each other in order to maintain a certain level of awareness of the killer's whereabouts and thus will utilize a pallet loop if needed. This is just a part of basic strategy and ought to be a part of the calculation of the killer. The difference is that for hillbilly it just boils down to "get real close and press M2 real big-like!" rather than use his ability and aim—there are still situations where that would be successful even against experienced survivors.

    It is profoundly different if I'm saying usage is too easy versus saying that they're OP. Let's go back to the example I provided earlier with Super Smash Bros. Brawl. In that game Diddy Kong is a high tier character where it required conscious effort and continual strategy to keep up his game play; meanwhile you have Metaknight who was literally "spam his B moves and they'll eventually slip up". Huntress would be somebody like Diddy Kong, and Hillbilly and Nurse are akin to Metaknight—there isn't much effort into the upkeep of their game play once you have it figured out. So while somebody like the hardest killer to learn is the nurse—which honestly is more like the hardest to get used to her mechanics—once it is learned it's easy to secure preferable results. When I say nerf, it means I'm not going to sugar coat the suggestion and try to deceive people, but nerf does not mean unplayable or unviable. Saying something is OP means that a character possesses a quality that makes the game solved in their favor despite the opposition's best efforts—which is not what I'm suggesting at all.

    But hell, let's run with your logic in your Leatherface and Hillbilly comparison. I would have to argue then that Leatherface's ability does not have nearly as much downing potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough and would keep close to a pallet loop—particularly if he's involved with another survivor. So the fact that he can down multiple people becomes less relevant since experienced survivors won't let that scenario happen. Furthermore, because the Hillbilly's mobility allows him to cover more ground and prevent objectives it makes his ability more powerful in the grander scope of the game, while Leatherface just has a better chance against sick 360 plays. Therefore in terms of 'downing' potential both can realistically only down one survivor at a time, Leatherface might be able to secure it better in the event of a 360, but Hillbilly still has much better utility; so I don't see how this is any real meaningful counterargument when it's actually just a deceptive whataboutism.

    When i said "A experienced survivor wont let billy get close to him..." i mean it in the same way as when you say "...potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough..." I didnt suggest anything, i just assumed that you would understand the context (In chase, not talking about finding the survivor) as i understand when you use almost the same phrase in your argument, but i guess ill specify next time.

    ** I would have to argue then that Leatherface's ability does not have nearly as much downing potential as Hillbilly's ability because an experienced survivor would never let him close enough and would keep close to a pallet loop**

    Same could be said about Hillbilly. Hillbilly and Leatherface have the same downing potential when playing against an experienced survivor that never lets him close enough and always keep close to a pallet loop.
    If the survivor knows what he/she is doing, both these killers are just M1 killers that move at 115% speed.

    The only thing Hillbilly does better than Leatherface is the ability to move from A to B quickly(REMEMBER that he cant do that on all maps) as i said before.

    As i said there is no need to nerf Hillbilly.

    The quote you pulled from me was literally headed under a paragraph that said, "But hell, let's run with your logic..." as in I am entertaining for a moment that we are working with your idea that the survivor has the capacity to force the killer into a pallet loop is true. This is ultimately a premise I completely disagree with, while certainly desired as a survivor main, does not manifest itself to be a ready strategy in most scenarios as it is only effective for as many pallets are readily available at a given time. Hence such phrasing is a reaction and mimicry of the reasoning that you have provided. When you now say that this is under the context of chase specifically, then that's just backpedaling as I consider abilities to meaningful outside of chase scenarios, which brings me to my next point.

    Back to Hillbilly and Leatherface. You are seriously downplaying the mobility of Hillbilly and the ramifications his ability has on the progression of the game. If Leatherface and Hillbilly have the same downing potential and Hillbilly has greater mobility—which has a huge impact on preventing survivor objectives—then Hillbilly is clearly much more advantaged than leatherface. If Hillbilly and Leatherface have essentially the same gameplay as each other in that you instadown a survivor with your chainsaw, but Hillbilly gives you an extreme mobility advantage, then why would a killer pick Leatherface? Therefore I suggest making Hillbilly's ability more situational in that there are situations that can and will happen where you do happen to down survivors—even if they are competent. This would put both Hillbilly and Leatherface on a more even playing field.

  • xllxENIGMAxllxxllxENIGMAxllx Member Posts: 40

    stop with all the nerfing Billy and Nurse thread instead ask buff for other killers. those are the only one who truly destroy SwF with efficiency.

  • bloxebloxe Member Posts: 81

    stop with all the nerfing Billy and Nurse thread instead ask buff for other killers. those are the only one who truly destroy SwF with efficiency.

    Thats the problem. The survive with boyfriends players are sad that someone beat them.
  • PBlackIIPBlackII Member Posts: 62

    @xllxENIGMAxllx said:
    stop with all the nerfing Billy and Nurse thread instead ask buff for other killers. those are the only one who truly destroy SwF with efficiency.

    A competent killer can still kill an efficient SwF, it shouldn't be guaranteed.

    @bloxe said:
    xllxENIGMAxllx said:
    Thats the problem. The survive with boyfriends players are sad that someone beat them.

    Again, that's not what I'm arguing, at all. My main argument from the beginning was to essentially put those killers on the same level as the other killers. Once that is established, then it's much easier to then nerf survivors if needed—which is a very obvious following conclusion.

  • xllxENIGMAxllxxllxENIGMAxllx Member Posts: 40

    @PBlackII Killers are kind of balanced perks are the problem and gen rush too if there need some nerf it's those.

  • PBlackIIPBlackII Member Posts: 62

    @xllxENIGMAxllx said:
    @PBlackII Killers are kind of balanced perks are the problem and gen rush too if there need some nerf it's those.

    Gen rush would be solved by future perks that are initiated by gen requirements whether that's a gen being completed, the total number of gens done, or gens done within a given time frame. As it currently stands the killers are not 'kind of balanced', there's a reason why some killer mains will say things like 'I would destroy you if I was billy" or they turn to 'ol' reliable' bloody nurse. You can't argue that they're balanced and that they're the only viable ones, those are contradictory. I would nerf those two, and then start dealing with ways of making it harder for survivors to do things like pallet looping, gen rushing, or whatever strategy you kids deem toxic these days.

    What's odd is that the suggestion I provided is highly reasonable and you guys are acting like it's the end of the god damned world and that I'm only trying to make it easier for survivors when all I'm wanting is actual variety of killers among advanced players. lol

  • GrimGrim Member Posts: 30

    @PBlackII said:

    @Grim said:
    OP, the solution is not to nerf the only two viable killers, it is to buff the weaker ones.

    Saying you can do well with weaker killers at high ranks is irrelevant as rank isn't an indicator of skill, but of time spent this season. With the current ranking system, anyone can get to red ranks, even bad survivors. The reason why Billy and Nurse are considered viable is not because they consistently do well at red ranks, it is because they do better against efficient teams.

    But let's assume you're right, and they both get nerfed to remove these "braindead" strategies. Then please tell me when we can expect you to advocate for the removal of the pallet loop or perks such as Sprint Burst.

    Again, you are much less likely to buff 12 killers than you are to nerf 2 of them. Rank is a correlate to skill—or at the very least a competency of player tendencies beyond the basic mechanics of the game. Are there good players that purposefully lower their rank or have not played in a while? Of course, that's a pretty obvious point, but it's incredibly misleading to suggest that there is no correlation whatsoever between rank and ability. Therefore in a weird way, we actually agree that viability does concern itself towards a killer gearing themselves against an efficient team. I say high rank though because it generally suggests that we are at the very least mostly working with competent survivors, and an efficient team is usually made of competent survivors.

    Now onto your tangential hypothetical, what would I do about strategies specifically geared towards pallet loop or a perk such as sprint burst. The latter is pretty easy to assess given the previous logic I presented in that an ability that requires less upkeep should provide less reward—so if I had to really change sprint burst specifically, I'd probably would just slightly lower the duration of the speed burst so that reward isn't as advantageous to more strategically used perks. As for the former, I find it surprisingly easy to solve the pallet looping ordeal: monitor if a survivor is retracing their steps over a period of time and introduce progressive punitive measures for doing a loop. The game already has a method of tracking the trails that survivors making as evidenced by scratch marks, so it would be pretty simple to add in things like "If a survivor exists on x portion of their own scratch marks for t seconds, then decrease movement speed by m%." This is an example of an approach, but I'm sure the point is clearly made and how one decides to make the process more creative.

    Suggesting that 2 killers be nerfed instead simply because it's more likely doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do, so I fail to see the argument behind this point. Could you clarify?

    Unfortunately, due to how easy it is to rank up, rank has a very weak correlation with skill. This is because even bad survivors can rank up given time. They may understand the basic premise, but their tendencies demonstrate very little understanding of how to execute it effectively. The only exception to this being early on in the season as the decent survivors tend to rank up quicker. As the season progresses, the knowledge gap in red ranks only grows.

    Whilst I find your suggestions interesting and I think diversity would ultimately benefit the game, I feel people defend Billy's instadown and Nurse's blink because it helps alleviate the issue all killer's experience: Time, or lack thereof. Billy can end a chase quickly -- or before it even begins -- and Nurse can ignore entire mechanics of the game with very little counterplay.

  • PBlackIIPBlackII Member Posts: 62

    @Grim said:

    @PBlackII said:

    @Grim said:
    OP, the solution is not to nerf the only two viable killers, it is to buff the weaker ones.

    Saying you can do well with weaker killers at high ranks is irrelevant as rank isn't an indicator of skill, but of time spent this season. With the current ranking system, anyone can get to red ranks, even bad survivors. The reason why Billy and Nurse are considered viable is not because they consistently do well at red ranks, it is because they do better against efficient teams.

    But let's assume you're right, and they both get nerfed to remove these "braindead" strategies. Then please tell me when we can expect you to advocate for the removal of the pallet loop or perks such as Sprint Burst.

    Again, you are much less likely to buff 12 killers than you are to nerf 2 of them. Rank is a correlate to skill—or at the very least a competency of player tendencies beyond the basic mechanics of the game. Are there good players that purposefully lower their rank or have not played in a while? Of course, that's a pretty obvious point, but it's incredibly misleading to suggest that there is no correlation whatsoever between rank and ability. Therefore in a weird way, we actually agree that viability does concern itself towards a killer gearing themselves against an efficient team. I say high rank though because it generally suggests that we are at the very least mostly working with competent survivors, and an efficient team is usually made of competent survivors.

    Now onto your tangential hypothetical, what would I do about strategies specifically geared towards pallet loop or a perk such as sprint burst. The latter is pretty easy to assess given the previous logic I presented in that an ability that requires less upkeep should provide less reward—so if I had to really change sprint burst specifically, I'd probably would just slightly lower the duration of the speed burst so that reward isn't as advantageous to more strategically used perks. As for the former, I find it surprisingly easy to solve the pallet looping ordeal: monitor if a survivor is retracing their steps over a period of time and introduce progressive punitive measures for doing a loop. The game already has a method of tracking the trails that survivors making as evidenced by scratch marks, so it would be pretty simple to add in things like "If a survivor exists on x portion of their own scratch marks for t seconds, then decrease movement speed by m%." This is an example of an approach, but I'm sure the point is clearly made and how one decides to make the process more creative.

    Suggesting that 2 killers be nerfed instead simply because it's more likely doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do, so I fail to see the argument behind this point. Could you clarify?

    Unfortunately, due to how easy it is to rank up, rank has a very weak correlation with skill. This is because even bad survivors can rank up given time. They may understand the basic premise, but their tendencies demonstrate very little understanding of how to execute it effectively. The only exception to this being early on in the season as the decent survivors tend to rank up quicker. As the season progresses, the knowledge gap in red ranks only grows.

    Whilst I find your suggestions interesting and I think diversity would ultimately benefit the game, I feel people defend Billy's instadown and Nurse's blink because it helps alleviate the issue all killer's experience: Time, or lack thereof. Billy can end a chase quickly -- or before it even begins -- and Nurse can ignore entire mechanics of the game with very little counterplay.

    Thank you, this is a more reasonable response I would be happy to clarify. So ultimately balancing is either an effort of boosting or nerfing, the reason I suggest the latter is because it would be a less messy approach. Ideally you'd want killers to perform at relatively the same success rate despite their different strategy/game play, and then balance that against the survivor since all the survivors share the same mechanics—I guess there is variance in how noticeable each are, but I digress. Anyway if each of the killers are actually balanced, then it makes the job of tweaking the survivors against them that much easier. There are many "correct" ways of balancing a game, but when somebody says to just boost 12 killers it sounds naive to the likely plethora of unforeseen issues that would arise—hence why I say nerfing is more likely since it's ultimately less work for the developers. I also kept my suggestions on the simple side and they would have fairly novel effects on how the killers strategize as a result of them. My suggestions are not with the stipulation that survivors remain the way they are despite how much some of these illiterate users weirdly imply that with their "learn how to play survivor" or "stop saying billy and nurse are OP" comments.

    I don't wish to engage in the pedantry of the impact rank has on game play. It's quite obvious that I acknowledge that there are good players in lower ranks, and shitty ones that are in higher ranks; it was initially brought up as a point that I am not a random shitty survivor main as I get into high ranks fast—usually a couple days after the rank reset—which even by the standard you laid out would at the very least suggest that I'm probably a competent survivor player. I would say that rank definitely has a correlation on the gaming experience in that when I play with friends who are in my tier that I will see nurse or billy a clear majority of the time that will usually try their hardest to get a 4K, and when I play with my friends who are those wonderful low tiers are usually much more meme filled and populated by not so experienced killers that are easy to mess with.

    I agree, people whine about touching billy and nurse because they feel like they couldn't compete successfully against the time constraints imposed by an efficient SWF team. However the answer then is just nerf the survivors by increasing the time it takes to complete a generator.

  • NoShinyPonyNoShinyPony Member Posts: 225

    @PBlackII said:
    Saying "just no" isn't a sincere counter argument to the points I've previously laid out.

    I only wrote 1,5 lines concerning Hillbilly and you still overread my point why I wrote "just no". So I'll just write it again: Hillbilly is loopable.

    @PBlackII said:
    As a rank 1 survivor I already know how to generally deal with Hillbilly. Yes, there is a factor of luck involved—what were the pallet spawns, which ones were used, etc.; but this is significantly different than just running up and using an instant down since there's little to no thought process behind that.

    New players can reach rank 1 in their first season, it doesn't tell us anything about your skill and experience level. From your opinion on Hillbilly I'd say this might not be your first month but you're still relatively new to the game. So don't take it wrong, it is meant as a serious, friendly advice: Learn to play Hillbilly yourself. You will then know in which situations he can use the chainsaw and when not. As you climb the killer ranks, you will meet players that know how to loop the Hillbilly. That will benefit you greatly when you play surv. :)

  • GrimGrim Member Posts: 30

    @PBlackII said:

    @Grim said:

    Thank you, this is a more reasonable response I would be happy to clarify. So ultimately balancing is either an effort of boosting or nerfing, the reason I suggest the latter is because it would be a less messy approach. Ideally you'd want killers to perform at relatively the same success rate despite their different strategy/game play, and then balance that against the survivor since all the survivors share the same mechanics—I guess there is variance in how noticeable each are, but I digress. Anyway if each of the killers are actually balanced, then it makes the job of tweaking the survivors against them that much easier. There are many "correct" ways of balancing a game, but when somebody says to just boost 12 killers it sounds naive to the likely plethora of unforeseen issues that would arise—hence why I say nerfing is more likely since it's ultimately less work for the developers. I also kept my suggestions on the simple side and they would have fairly novel effects on how the killers strategize as a result of them. My suggestions are not with the stipulation that survivors remain the way they are despite how much some of these illiterate users weirdly imply that with their "learn how to play survivor" or "stop saying billy and nurse are OP" comments.

    I don't wish to engage in the pedantry of the impact rank has on game play. It's quite obvious that I acknowledge that there are good players in lower ranks, and shitty ones that are in higher ranks; it was initially brought up as a point that I am not a random shitty survivor main as I get into high ranks fast—usually a couple days after the rank reset—which even by the standard you laid out would at the very least suggest that I'm probably a competent survivor player. I would say that rank definitely has a correlation on the gaming experience in that when I play with friends who are in my tier that I will see nurse or billy a clear majority of the time that will usually try their hardest to get a 4K, and when I play with my friends who are those wonderful low tiers are usually much more meme filled and populated by not so experienced killers that are easy to mess with.

    I agree, people whine about touching billy and nurse because they feel like they couldn't compete successfully against the time constraints imposed by an efficient SWF team. However the answer then is just nerf the survivors by increasing the time it takes to complete a generator.

    Oh, I see where you're coming from. When I said buff the other killers, I thought you meant under the premise that survivors would remain the way they are. That's my mistake. In which case, I agree with your mode of thought. This game suffers from no small amount of imbalances, so whichever method the devs take to sort this is fine by me.

  • PBlackIIPBlackII Member Posts: 62

    @NoShinyPony said:

    @PBlackII said:
    Saying "just no" isn't a sincere counter argument to the points I've previously laid out.

    I only wrote 1,5 lines concerning Hillbilly and you still overread my point why I wrote "just no". So I'll just write it again: Hillbilly is loopable.

    @PBlackII said:
    As a rank 1 survivor I already know how to generally deal with Hillbilly. Yes, there is a factor of luck involved—what were the pallet spawns, which ones were used, etc.; but this is significantly different than just running up and using an instant down since there's little to no thought process behind that.

    New players can reach rank 1 in their first season, it doesn't tell us anything about your skill and experience level. From your opinion on Hillbilly I'd say this might not be your first month but you're still relatively new to the game. So don't take it wrong, it is meant as a serious, friendly advice: Learn to play Hillbilly yourself. You will then know in which situations he can use the chainsaw and when not. As you climb the killer ranks, you will meet players that know how to loop the Hillbilly. That will benefit you greatly when you play surv. :)

    I have 2.7k hours in the game over the span of many months, getting high rank quickly; but I've already went over this point. I understand this game better than the majority of people. Saying "just no" is not any sort of reasonable counter and provides zero constructive discussion which signals that you're only interested in derailing conversation. Saying hillbilly is loopable is a red herring at best—absolutely nobody here would deny that so it's childish to think that's a reasonable counterargument.

    @Grim said:

    @PBlackII said:

    @Grim said:

    Thank you, this is a more reasonable response I would be happy to clarify. So ultimately balancing is either an effort of boosting or nerfing, the reason I suggest the latter is because it would be a less messy approach. Ideally you'd want killers to perform at relatively the same success rate despite their different strategy/game play, and then balance that against the survivor since all the survivors share the same mechanics—I guess there is variance in how noticeable each are, but I digress. Anyway if each of the killers are actually balanced, then it makes the job of tweaking the survivors against them that much easier. There are many "correct" ways of balancing a game, but when somebody says to just boost 12 killers it sounds naive to the likely plethora of unforeseen issues that would arise—hence why I say nerfing is more likely since it's ultimately less work for the developers. I also kept my suggestions on the simple side and they would have fairly novel effects on how the killers strategize as a result of them. My suggestions are not with the stipulation that survivors remain the way they are despite how much some of these illiterate users weirdly imply that with their "learn how to play survivor" or "stop saying billy and nurse are OP" comments.

    I don't wish to engage in the pedantry of the impact rank has on game play. It's quite obvious that I acknowledge that there are good players in lower ranks, and shitty ones that are in higher ranks; it was initially brought up as a point that I am not a random shitty survivor main as I get into high ranks fast—usually a couple days after the rank reset—which even by the standard you laid out would at the very least suggest that I'm probably a competent survivor player. I would say that rank definitely has a correlation on the gaming experience in that when I play with friends who are in my tier that I will see nurse or billy a clear majority of the time that will usually try their hardest to get a 4K, and when I play with my friends who are those wonderful low tiers are usually much more meme filled and populated by not so experienced killers that are easy to mess with.

    I agree, people whine about touching billy and nurse because they feel like they couldn't compete successfully against the time constraints imposed by an efficient SWF team. However the answer then is just nerf the survivors by increasing the time it takes to complete a generator.

    Oh, I see where you're coming from. When I said buff the other killers, I thought you meant under the premise that survivors would remain the way they are. That's my mistake. In which case, I agree with your mode of thought. This game suffers from no small amount of imbalances, so whichever method the devs take to sort this is fine by me.

    Yeah no, I wouldn't say 'leave survivors as they are, they're perfect little angels' because we all know that's a full-of-shit premise.

  • NoShinyPonyNoShinyPony Member Posts: 225

    @PBlackII said:
    I have 2.7k hours in the game over the span of many months, getting high rank quickly; but I've already went over this point. I understand this game better than the majority of people. Saying "just no" is not any sort of reasonable counter and provides zero constructive discussion which signals that you're only interested in derailing conversation. Saying hillbilly is loopable is a red herring at best—absolutely nobody here would deny that so it's childish to think that's a reasonable counterargument.

    Concerning the 2.7k hours, I just have to take your word for it. I explained several times why I wrote "just no" and Hillbilly being loopable is a very valid point if you say that his current chainsaw power is too strong. I was giving you good advice and you reply with insults. That tells me all I have to know.

  • PBlackIIPBlackII Member Posts: 62
    edited January 11

    Edited

    Post edited by PBlackII on
  • PBlackIIPBlackII Member Posts: 62

    Meanwhile on Steamladder:

  • PBlackIIPBlackII Member Posts: 62

    Saying Hillbilly is loopable isn't a "very valid point" for the following reasons:
    (1) It's a trite statement that is literally being denied by nobody in this discussion. Killers don't forever exist in a pallet loop with a survivor, so it's important to make considerations of the ability outside of this scenario.
    (2) Pallet loops are handled by Leatherface and Hillbilly in the same way: they either wait for the survivor to drop the pallet so they can chainsaw it down, or they manage to melee the survivor. Seldom will they use their ability to down the survivor in a pallet loop unless the survivor really messes up.
    Therefore if he is loopable and the ability is mostly used to just break the pallet anyway, then the impact it has for downing a survivor is less relevant under this context; i.e. you're choosing a scenario that isn't of particular interest and thus doesn't raise a valid point. The point I'm making is that ultimately Hillbilly's ability has both a vastly superior utility with what is practically the same downing ability as Leatherface, which puts Leatherface in this odd situation where he's just clearly not as strong of a pick. Therefore by making the change to Hillbilly where his ability is more situational, it not only creates more distinction for Leatherface to shine, but it removes Hillbilly's overall dominance over Leatherface's qualities.

    I'm not being kind to people that say "just no", or gives a bunch of platitudes under the guise of advice; especially after the toxic cloud of users on here purposefully giving wrong and/or uncharitable interpretations of what I was saying to stroke their own weird egos.

  • inkedsoulzinkedsoulz Member Posts: 88

    @PBlackII said:
    Saying Hillbilly is loopable isn't a "very valid point" for the following reasons:
    (1) It's a trite statement that is literally being denied by nobody in this discussion. Killers don't forever exist in a pallet loop with a survivor, so it's important to make considerations of the ability outside of this scenario.
    (2) Pallet loops are handled by Leatherface and Hillbilly in the same way: they either wait for the survivor to drop the pallet so they can chainsaw it down, or they manage to melee the survivor. Seldom will they use their ability to down the survivor in a pallet loop unless the survivor really messes up.
    Therefore if he is loopable and the ability is mostly used to just break the pallet anyway, then the impact it has for downing a survivor is less relevant under this context; i.e. you're choosing a scenario that isn't of particular interest and thus doesn't raise a valid point. The point I'm making is that ultimately Hillbilly's ability has both a vastly superior utility with what is practically the same downing ability as Leatherface, which puts Leatherface in this odd situation where he's just clearly not as strong of a pick. Therefore by making the change to Hillbilly where his ability is more situational, it not only creates more distinction for Leatherface to shine, but it removes Hillbilly's overall dominance over Leatherface's qualities.

    I'm not being kind to people that say "just no", or gives a bunch of platitudes under the guise of advice; especially after the toxic cloud of users on here purposefully giving wrong and/or uncharitable interpretations of what I was saying to stroke their own weird egos.

    Thats why Leatherface is known as 1 of the weakest killers on the game, they should buff the weaker killers instead of nerfing the viable one's.

    Everyone knows that Leatherface is a meme, and you want to nerf Hillbilly to his lvl, so that leatherface can shine?

  • PBlackIIPBlackII Member Posts: 62
    edited January 11

    @inkedsoulz said:

    @PBlackII said:
    Saying Hillbilly is loopable isn't a "very valid point" for the following reasons:
    (1) It's a trite statement that is literally being denied by nobody in this discussion. Killers don't forever exist in a pallet loop with a survivor, so it's important to make considerations of the ability outside of this scenario.
    (2) Pallet loops are handled by Leatherface and Hillbilly in the same way: they either wait for the survivor to drop the pallet so they can chainsaw it down, or they manage to melee the survivor. Seldom will they use their ability to down the survivor in a pallet loop unless the survivor really messes up.
    Therefore if he is loopable and the ability is mostly used to just break the pallet anyway, then the impact it has for downing a survivor is less relevant under this context; i.e. you're choosing a scenario that isn't of particular interest and thus doesn't raise a valid point. The point I'm making is that ultimately Hillbilly's ability has both a vastly superior utility with what is practically the same downing ability as Leatherface, which puts Leatherface in this odd situation where he's just clearly not as strong of a pick. Therefore by making the change to Hillbilly where his ability is more situational, it not only creates more distinction for Leatherface to shine, but it removes Hillbilly's overall dominance over Leatherface's qualities.

    I'm not being kind to people that say "just no", or gives a bunch of platitudes under the guise of advice; especially after the toxic cloud of users on here purposefully giving wrong and/or uncharitable interpretations of what I was saying to stroke their own weird egos.

    Thats why Leatherface is known as 1 of the weakest killers on the game, they should buff the weaker killers instead of nerfing the viable one's.

    Everyone knows that Leatherface is a meme, and you want to nerf Hillbilly to his lvl, so that leatherface can shine?

    Get all the killers on an even playing field, then nerf survivors so the killers feel stronger by making gens take longer. It's a much simpler and elegant solution than trying to boost 12 killers just right so that they're all viable. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

  • MasterMaster Member Posts: 7,214
    edited January 11

    @PBlackII said:

    @xllxENIGMAxllx said:
    stop with all the nerfing Billy and Nurse thread instead ask buff for other killers. those are the only one who truly destroy SwF with efficiency.

    A competent killer can still kill an efficient SwF, it shouldn't be guaranteed.

    @bloxe said:
    xllxENIGMAxllx said:
    Thats the problem. The survive with boyfriends players are sad that someone beat them.

    Again, that's not what I'm arguing, at all. My main argument from the beginning was to essentially put those killers on the same level as the other killers. Once that is established, then it's much easier to then nerf survivors if needed—which is a very obvious following conclusion.

    A competent killer player can only manage a competent SWF if he plays nurse, the official tournament has shown that pretty well

  • inkedsoulzinkedsoulz Member Posts: 88
    edited January 11

    @PBlackII said:

    @inkedsoulz said:

    @PBlackII said:
    Saying Hillbilly is loopable isn't a "very valid point" for the following reasons:
    (1) It's a trite statement that is literally being denied by nobody in this discussion. Killers don't forever exist in a pallet loop with a survivor, so it's important to make considerations of the ability outside of this scenario.
    (2) Pallet loops are handled by Leatherface and Hillbilly in the same way: they either wait for the survivor to drop the pallet so they can chainsaw it down, or they manage to melee the survivor. Seldom will they use their ability to down the survivor in a pallet loop unless the survivor really messes up.
    Therefore if he is loopable and the ability is mostly used to just break the pallet anyway, then the impact it has for downing a survivor is less relevant under this context; i.e. you're choosing a scenario that isn't of particular interest and thus doesn't raise a valid point. The point I'm making is that ultimately Hillbilly's ability has both a vastly superior utility with what is practically the same downing ability as Leatherface, which puts Leatherface in this odd situation where he's just clearly not as strong of a pick. Therefore by making the change to Hillbilly where his ability is more situational, it not only creates more distinction for Leatherface to shine, but it removes Hillbilly's overall dominance over Leatherface's qualities.

    I'm not being kind to people that say "just no", or gives a bunch of platitudes under the guise of advice; especially after the toxic cloud of users on here purposefully giving wrong and/or uncharitable interpretations of what I was saying to stroke their own weird egos.

    Thats why Leatherface is known as 1 of the weakest killers on the game, they should buff the weaker killers instead of nerfing the viable one's.

    Everyone knows that Leatherface is a meme, and you want to nerf Hillbilly to his lvl, so that leatherface can shine?

    Get all the killers on an even playing field, then nerf survivors so the killers feel stronger by making gens take longer. It's a much simpler and elegant solution than trying to boost 12 killers just right so that they're all viable. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

    I think that its much easier to just buff those weaker killers a little bit, instead of nerfing some viable killers.

    And please do not exagerate, not all 12 of those other killers need boosts.

    Nurse, Hillbilly, Huntress, Hag and Spirit----All these are very viable killers.

    Myers, Clown, Wraith, Legion and Trapper--------These are very average, they are not good, but they are not bad either.

    Leatherface, Freddy, Doctor and Pig-----These 4 are very weak.

    They only need to buff those 4 killers that are on the bottom, and maybe tweak a little those average one's.
    There is NO "... than trying to boost 12 killers just right so that they're all viable.""

    If you have played the game as much as you claim to, you should already know all that i posted.

    Edit: Yeah my english sucks, its not my native language, so im not able to put actual insults into nice words like you do.

    And im actually thinking that you might be lying about your hours on the game, and that you are just someone who is new and dont know how to play against those 2 killers you mentioned. Because a grand majority(if not all) of the people that have that amount of hours into the game like you do, they DO know that Hillbilly is not as strong as you claim it to be.

    Im done with this post, i though it was someone serious, but its just some BAIT but put into nice words.

  • PBlackIIPBlackII Member Posts: 62
    edited January 11

    @Master said:

    @PBlackII said:

    @xllxENIGMAxllx said:
    stop with all the nerfing Billy and Nurse thread instead ask buff for other killers. those are the only one who truly destroy SwF with efficiency.

    A competent killer can still kill an efficient SwF, it shouldn't be guaranteed.

    @bloxe said:
    xllxENIGMAxllx said:
    Thats the problem. The survive with boyfriends players are sad that someone beat them.

    Again, that's not what I'm arguing, at all. My main argument from the beginning was to essentially put those killers on the same level as the other killers. Once that is established, then it's much easier to then nerf survivors if needed—which is a very obvious following conclusion.

    A competent killer player can only manage a competent SWF if he plays nurse, the official tournament has shown that pretty well

    Any person that is using that "tournament" as a reference is already being laughably absurd, get out of here.

    @inkedsoulz said:

    @PBlackII said:

    @inkedsoulz said:

    @PBlackII said:
    Saying Hillbilly is loopable isn't a "very valid point" for the following reasons:
    (1) It's a trite statement that is literally being denied by nobody in this discussion. Killers don't forever exist in a pallet loop with a survivor, so it's important to make considerations of the ability outside of this scenario.
    (2) Pallet loops are handled by Leatherface and Hillbilly in the same way: they either wait for the survivor to drop the pallet so they can chainsaw it down, or they manage to melee the survivor. Seldom will they use their ability to down the survivor in a pallet loop unless the survivor really messes up.
    Therefore if he is loopable and the ability is mostly used to just break the pallet anyway, then the impact it has for downing a survivor is less relevant under this context; i.e. you're choosing a scenario that isn't of particular interest and thus doesn't raise a valid point. The point I'm making is that ultimately Hillbilly's ability has both a vastly superior utility with what is practically the same downing ability as Leatherface, which puts Leatherface in this odd situation where he's just clearly not as strong of a pick. Therefore by making the change to Hillbilly where his ability is more situational, it not only creates more distinction for Leatherface to shine, but it removes Hillbilly's overall dominance over Leatherface's qualities.

    I'm not being kind to people that say "just no", or gives a bunch of platitudes under the guise of advice; especially after the toxic cloud of users on here purposefully giving wrong and/or uncharitable interpretations of what I was saying to stroke their own weird egos.

    Thats why Leatherface is known as 1 of the weakest killers on the game, they should buff the weaker killers instead of nerfing the viable one's.

    Everyone knows that Leatherface is a meme, and you want to nerf Hillbilly to his lvl, so that leatherface can shine?

    Get all the killers on an even playing field, then nerf survivors so the killers feel stronger by making gens take longer. It's a much simpler and elegant solution than trying to boost 12 killers just right so that they're all viable. This isn't a hard concept to grasp.

    I think that its much easier to just buff those weaker killers a little bit, instead of nerfing some viable killers.

    And please do not exagerate, not all 12 of those other killers need boosts.

    Nurse, Hillbilly, Huntress, Hag and Spirit----All these are very viable killers.

    Myers, Clown, Wraith, Legion and Trapper--------These are very average, they are not good, but they are not bad either.

    Leatherface, Freddy, Doctor and Pig-----These 4 are very weak.

    They only need to buff those 4 killers that are on the bottom, and maybe tweak a little those average one's.
    There is NO "... than trying to boost 12 killers just right so that they're all viable.""

    If you have played the game as much as you claim to, you should already know all that i posted.

    Edit: Yeah my english sucks, its not my native language, so im not able to put actual insults into nice words like you do.

    And im actually thinking that you might be lying about your hours on the game, and that you are just someone who is new and dont know how to play against those 2 killers you mentioned. Because a grand majority(if not all) of the people that have that amount of hours into the game like you do, they DO know that Hillbilly is not as strong as you claim it to be.

    Im done with this post, i though it was someone serious, but its just some BAIT but put into nice words.

    No, you can't have it both ways, you can't argue that only two of them are viable, but then backpedal going oh, but only four of them actually need boosts. The definition is capable of using successfully, so quit purposefully trying to have a capricious personal definition of viable as it means being successful, not being dominant in the killer tier list. My argument is to work on getting the killers on the same tier list, if it is true that Nurse and Billy are the only viable killers, then it means that 12 killers need to be boosted. This is just how words work.

    Also, don't try to scapegoat your lack of language skills for your shitty arguments, it takes a particularly weak individual to do that. And to do that as you snidely insinuate that I'm lying because you find you can't reasonably way to argue for your points or against mine is a particularly shitty thing to do. I have all my characters at minimum prestige one along with several maxed out characters, I'm not sure what else you want as proof that I'm an experienced player. I probably know more about the basic mechanics and balance challenges than you. My goal isn't to insult you, it's to reasonably argue my points; but I'm not going to let trollish behavior like yours or others here be the things that bury otherwise reasonable suggestions.

Sign In or Register to comment.