The 3.4.2 hotfix is starting to roll out on PC and consoles. For the release schedule and patch notes, click here: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/112060/
We have updated our Forum Rules. Please take a moment to read through them: https://forum.deadbydaylight.com/en/discussion/87004/

The problem with NOED [RANT]

123457

Comments

  • CyanideCandyCyanideCandy Member Posts: 31

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @CyanideCandy said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @thesuicidefox said:

    @FireHazard said:
    Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?

    It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.

    If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.

    There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.

    Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.

    You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.

    You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?

    If they display toxicity in the post-game chat, you can report them.

    How can they know, in advance, that you're a lot worse at the game than they are? Or do you expect them to swap out perks mid-game?

    Since when does that make me for example a lot worse at the game than they are? If anything it shows they're an ass by snuffing out any hope of survival in their match. And it strengthens the point if they also show this toxicity in post-game chat or literally in game...

    This has nothing to do with my skill vs theirs, it has to do with their closed mind approach to how a match goes in their eyes. But I guess its OK it just demolish an entire team without a second thought while assuming you're good. This goes for people who out right display this, NOT newbies who need the perk or what have you. I still don't know why you two miss this point.

    Your example was about you being demolished. You don't get demolished unless you're significantly worse than the guy you're facing. So, how's the guy you're facing supposed to know, in advance, that he's gonna demolish you?

    Do you understand the definition of an example? Its a scenario, I didn't imply it was a reality. Not everything I say is referring to me... Not sure where this is coming from.

    The point still stands: How is the killer supposed to know, in advance, that they're gonna demolish the survivors?

    They don't? But what I pointed as an example is just that... AN EXAMPLE, is it possible? MAYBE... Is it common? No.

    Your argument is that it's toxic to use NOED when you demolish the survivors, since you didn't need it to win, yet you also acknowledge that the killer would need the power of foresight or time travel to know if they were going to need NOED or not. Do you not see the problem with this line of thought?

    So you're saying because of the possibility that their match might possible not go as I say, and turn out to be horrible, makes my point null?

    That and the fact that you're not a telepath and don't automatically know someone's motivation for using a perk.

  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 4,435

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @CyanideCandy said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @thesuicidefox said:

    @FireHazard said:
    Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?

    It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.

    If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.

    There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.

    Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.

    You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.

    You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?

    If they display toxicity in the post-game chat, you can report them.

    How can they know, in advance, that you're a lot worse at the game than they are? Or do you expect them to swap out perks mid-game?

    Since when does that make me for example a lot worse at the game than they are? If anything it shows they're an ass by snuffing out any hope of survival in their match. And it strengthens the point if they also show this toxicity in post-game chat or literally in game...

    This has nothing to do with my skill vs theirs, it has to do with their closed mind approach to how a match goes in their eyes. But I guess its OK it just demolish an entire team without a second thought while assuming you're good. This goes for people who out right display this, NOT newbies who need the perk or what have you. I still don't know why you two miss this point.

    Your example was about you being demolished. You don't get demolished unless you're significantly worse than the guy you're facing. So, how's the guy you're facing supposed to know, in advance, that he's gonna demolish you?

    Do you understand the definition of an example? Its a scenario, I didn't imply it was a reality. Not everything I say is referring to me... Not sure where this is coming from.

    The point still stands: How is the killer supposed to know, in advance, that they're gonna demolish the survivors?

    They don't? But what I pointed as an example is just that... AN EXAMPLE, is it possible? MAYBE... Is it common? No.

    Your argument is that it's toxic to use NOED when you demolish the survivors, since you didn't need it to win, yet you also acknowledge that the killer would need the power of foresight or time travel to know if they were going to need NOED or not. Do you not see the problem with this line of thought?

    So you're saying because of the possibility that their match might possible not go as I say, and turn out to be horrible, makes my point null?

    No, I'm saying your point is null because they can't know, in advance, how the trial is going to go. They can't know, in advance, if they might need NOED or not. They can't know, in advance, what the survivors are going to do. They can't know, in advance, how good the survivors are.
    You're essentially calling them toxic for not being able to see the future.

    So you want me to rewrite the entire post and title (again) to appease you or something?

  • mcNuggetsmcNuggets Member Posts: 767

    Even if it's for noobs, still not overpowered

  • The_CrusaderThe_Crusader Member Posts: 3,688
    Why do people use it on Billy and Nurse? Easy, because they want to win. They want to ensure their victory.

    I don't think anyone would argue that NOED isn't a noob perk. Kind of fitting on Billy though since he's a noob killer.
  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 4,435

    @mcNuggets said:
    Even if it's for noobs, still not overpowered

    I never said it was.

  • OrionOrion Member Posts: 11,721

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @CyanideCandy said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @thesuicidefox said:

    @FireHazard said:
    Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?

    It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.

    If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.

    There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.

    Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.

    You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.

    You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?

    If they display toxicity in the post-game chat, you can report them.

    How can they know, in advance, that you're a lot worse at the game than they are? Or do you expect them to swap out perks mid-game?

    Since when does that make me for example a lot worse at the game than they are? If anything it shows they're an ass by snuffing out any hope of survival in their match. And it strengthens the point if they also show this toxicity in post-game chat or literally in game...

    This has nothing to do with my skill vs theirs, it has to do with their closed mind approach to how a match goes in their eyes. But I guess its OK it just demolish an entire team without a second thought while assuming you're good. This goes for people who out right display this, NOT newbies who need the perk or what have you. I still don't know why you two miss this point.

    Your example was about you being demolished. You don't get demolished unless you're significantly worse than the guy you're facing. So, how's the guy you're facing supposed to know, in advance, that he's gonna demolish you?

    Do you understand the definition of an example? Its a scenario, I didn't imply it was a reality. Not everything I say is referring to me... Not sure where this is coming from.

    The point still stands: How is the killer supposed to know, in advance, that they're gonna demolish the survivors?

    They don't? But what I pointed as an example is just that... AN EXAMPLE, is it possible? MAYBE... Is it common? No.

    Your argument is that it's toxic to use NOED when you demolish the survivors, since you didn't need it to win, yet you also acknowledge that the killer would need the power of foresight or time travel to know if they were going to need NOED or not. Do you not see the problem with this line of thought?

    So you're saying because of the possibility that their match might possible not go as I say, and turn out to be horrible, makes my point null?

    No, I'm saying your point is null because they can't know, in advance, how the trial is going to go. They can't know, in advance, if they might need NOED or not. They can't know, in advance, what the survivors are going to do. They can't know, in advance, how good the survivors are.
    You're essentially calling them toxic for not being able to see the future.

    So you want me to rewrite the entire post and title (again) to appease you or something?

    I'm just pointing out the flaws in your logic. What you do with them is up to you. You can either cling to your accusations of toxicity based on people not having the power to see the future, or you can try to see things from a different perspective.

  • thesuicidefoxthesuicidefox Member Posts: 5,793
    edited February 3

    @FireHazard said:
    There's a lot of ways to pressure in those situations. And the same can be applied to having the perk itself, how would you know the games gonna go good for you or not...

    LOL if survivors split the map there isn't a whole lot you can do to apply pressure. Not to mention like every killer perk is designed to apply pressure in some way. What makes NOED any different?

    Clearly you're just a salty survivor at this point. NOED isn't that big of a deal. Maybe killers are being toxic to you because you REEEEEE in end game chat.

  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 4,435

    @thesuicidefox said:

    @FireHazard said:
    There's a lot of ways to pressure in those situations. And the same can be applied to having the perk itself, how would you know the games gonna go good for you or not...

    LOL if survivors split the map there isn't a whole lot you can do to apply pressure. Not to mention like every killer perk is designed to apply pressure in some way. What makes NOED any different?

    Clearly you're just a salty survivor at this point. NOED isn't that big of a deal. Maybe killers are being toxic to you because you REEEEEE in end game chat.

    Can I REEEEEEE you?

  • thesuicidefoxthesuicidefox Member Posts: 5,793

    @FireHazard said:

    @thesuicidefox said:

    @FireHazard said:
    There's a lot of ways to pressure in those situations. And the same can be applied to having the perk itself, how would you know the games gonna go good for you or not...

    LOL if survivors split the map there isn't a whole lot you can do to apply pressure. Not to mention like every killer perk is designed to apply pressure in some way. What makes NOED any different?

    Clearly you're just a salty survivor at this point. NOED isn't that big of a deal. Maybe killers are being toxic to you because you REEEEEE in end game chat.

    Can I REEEEEEE you?

    You've been doing that this whole thread bro.

  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 4,435

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @Orion said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @CyanideCandy said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @thesuicidefox said:

    @FireHazard said:
    Don't you think if a killers getting 4k every match (for example) and still uses post-gen perks to make sure the team dies is not overkill? Or to the very least makes them look like an ass?

    It is overkill but they have no way to know before hand. Some games go super fast and NOED is almost necessary, other games it's not needed but procs anyway. I always feel bad for the groups where 1 or 2 of them barely make it to end game, but that's offset by the groups that blaze through gens and now I kind of need it to keep pressure.

    If you need the pressure then use it. If you for example play fine without it than clearly you don't need it.

    There's a difference between needing something and not needing something, but I guess that points never looked on.

    Kind of like how you keep overlooking the fact that you have no real way of 100% guaranteed knowing exactly what motivated a killer to use no-ed? Or how either way, need it or not, there's nothing inherently toxic about using the perk? Your entire argument is based on your assumption and you're using it to slap the toxic label on someone else and have twice now encouraged people to treat each-other badly over the perk.

    You make it sound like I just call out every NOED user, perhaps I should of added that I know when they're intentionally being toxic when they display it post game.

    You can also tell they're being toxic from how they play, if you're being demolished by then do they really need the perk?

    If they display toxicity in the post-game chat, you can report them.

    How can they know, in advance, that you're a lot worse at the game than they are? Or do you expect them to swap out perks mid-game?

    Since when does that make me for example a lot worse at the game than they are? If anything it shows they're an ass by snuffing out any hope of survival in their match. And it strengthens the point if they also show this toxicity in post-game chat or literally in game...

    This has nothing to do with my skill vs theirs, it has to do with their closed mind approach to how a match goes in their eyes. But I guess its OK it just demolish an entire team without a second thought while assuming you're good. This goes for people who out right display this, NOT newbies who need the perk or what have you. I still don't know why you two miss this point.

    Your example was about you being demolished. You don't get demolished unless you're significantly worse than the guy you're facing. So, how's the guy you're facing supposed to know, in advance, that he's gonna demolish you?

    Do you understand the definition of an example? Its a scenario, I didn't imply it was a reality. Not everything I say is referring to me... Not sure where this is coming from.

    The point still stands: How is the killer supposed to know, in advance, that they're gonna demolish the survivors?

    They don't? But what I pointed as an example is just that... AN EXAMPLE, is it possible? MAYBE... Is it common? No.

    Your argument is that it's toxic to use NOED when you demolish the survivors, since you didn't need it to win, yet you also acknowledge that the killer would need the power of foresight or time travel to know if they were going to need NOED or not. Do you not see the problem with this line of thought?

    So you're saying because of the possibility that their match might possible not go as I say, and turn out to be horrible, makes my point null?

    No, I'm saying your point is null because they can't know, in advance, how the trial is going to go. They can't know, in advance, if they might need NOED or not. They can't know, in advance, what the survivors are going to do. They can't know, in advance, how good the survivors are.
    You're essentially calling them toxic for not being able to see the future.

    So you want me to rewrite the entire post and title (again) to appease you or something?

    I'm just pointing out the flaws in your logic. What you do with them is up to you. You can either cling to your accusations of toxicity based on people not having the power to see the future, or you can try to see things from a different perspective.

    I re-edited the post. I hope its more level headed. Rather than a rant being hypocritical its more of a warning now.

  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 4,435

    @thesuicidefox said:

    @FireHazard said:

    @thesuicidefox said:

    @FireHazard said:
    There's a lot of ways to pressure in those situations. And the same can be applied to having the perk itself, how would you know the games gonna go good for you or not...

    LOL if survivors split the map there isn't a whole lot you can do to apply pressure. Not to mention like every killer perk is designed to apply pressure in some way. What makes NOED any different?

    Clearly you're just a salty survivor at this point. NOED isn't that big of a deal. Maybe killers are being toxic to you because you REEEEEE in end game chat.

    Can I REEEEEEE you?

    You've been doing that this whole thread bro.

    I wasn't thinking clearly, please re-read the post and tell me what you think.

  • NikkiwhatNikkiwhat Member Posts: 1,002
    Ah, the old zombie of complaining about NOED has risen again. The perk is fine, the game has other issues and topics that need to be looked at. 
  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 4,435

    @Nikkiwhat said:
    Ah, the old zombie of complaining about NOED has risen again. The perk is fine, the game has other issues and topics that need to be looked at. 

    True, but those issues usually won't be fixed also till maybe like 2020 lmao. Jokes aside yes, there are bigger issues than NOED at the moment. But those issues won't really be addressed like most things until awhile later.

  • NikkiwhatNikkiwhat Member Posts: 1,002

    @Nikkiwhat said:
    Ah, the old zombie of complaining about NOED has risen again. The perk is fine, the game has other issues and topics that need to be looked at. 

    True, but those issues usually won't be fixed also till maybe like 2020 lmao. Jokes aside yes, there are bigger issues than NOED at the moment. But those issues won't really be addressed like most things until awhile later.

    Can't argue about the timeframe for things getting fixed...took forever for Survellaince to be made even viable to pick....not to mention other well known issues *slowly shrugs*
  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 4,435

    @Nikkiwhat said:
    FireHazard said:

    @Nikkiwhat said:

    Ah, the old zombie of complaining about NOED has risen again. The perk is fine, the game has other issues and topics that need to be looked at. 

    True, but those issues usually won't be fixed also till maybe like 2020 lmao. Jokes aside yes, there are bigger issues than NOED at the moment. But those issues won't really be addressed like most things until awhile later.

    Can't argue about the timeframe for things getting fixed...took forever for Survellaince to be made even viable to pick....not to mention other well known issues slowly shrugs

    in-general whatever breaks takes 2 patches later to fix. Than that patch breaks something else, which takes another 2 patches to fix. Than the cycle continues.

  • Paddy4583Paddy4583 Member Posts: 864
    I’m sorry but I just don’t get the whole premise of the argument, they use it but don’t need it.
    How is it possible, wouldn’t you have killed everyone by the time NOED would even be if any use if you didn’t need it?
    Its not an argument at all is flawed logic 
  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 4,435

    @Paddy4583 said:
    I’m sorry but I just don’t get the whole premise of the argument, they use it but don’t need it.
    How is it possible, wouldn’t you have killed everyone by the time NOED would even be if any use if you didn’t need it?
    Its not an argument at all is flawed logic 

    Are you talking about the edited version that's currently up, or the older versions?

  • Paddy4583Paddy4583 Member Posts: 864

    @Paddy4583 said:
    I’m sorry but I just don’t get the whole premise of the argument, they use it but don’t need it.
    How is it possible, wouldn’t you have killed everyone by the time NOED would even be if any use if you didn’t need it?
    Its not an argument at all is flawed logic 

    Are you talking about the edited version that's currently up, or the older versions?

    Oh I see it’s been edited again lol.

    I tell all new players always expect NOED and always assume NC.
    Cleanse before gens
    Never heal in heartbeat 
      
  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 4,435

    @Paddy4583 said:
    FireHazard said:

    @Paddy4583 said:

    I’m sorry but I just don’t get the whole premise of the argument, they use it but don’t need it.

    How is it possible, wouldn’t you have killed everyone by the time NOED would even be if any use if you didn’t need it?

    Its not an argument at all is flawed logic 

    Are you talking about the edited version that's currently up, or the older versions?

    Oh I see it’s been edited again lol.

    I tell all new players always expect NOED and always assume NC.
    Cleanse before gens
    Never heal in heartbeat 
      

    It was edited again with a uh... Less salty attitude. The perk itself is manageable it just depends who really uses it, and for what reason. But also it can be an issue especially on solo survival since nobody bothers to expect it anymore.

  • XxAtomicAlfiexXXxAtomicAlfiexX Member Posts: 395

    you said it your self. NOED is fine> @Lateral said:

    One shot down from 100% health is a toxic crutch that takes out all semblance of skill, nuance and strategy in place of babied Killer hand-holding and needs to be removed from the game.

    But it wont because /favouritism.

    @Aari_Piggy66 said:
    Sorry but if your whole team gets downed and killed because of noed you guys are just as nooby as you claim the killer is.

    There, translated. Fixed that for you:

    how is a perk that can be removed before its even in use a toxic crutch? if the survivors die because they didn't cleanse the totems then it's just natural selection. also your attitude is disgustingly toxic and unneeded.

  • NMCKENMCKE Member, Trusted Posts: 6,086
    Orion said:

    Yes, NOED is a perk that affects noob Survivors who don't know they should break the totems.

    Here's the thing, it also punishes survivors who break totems. You're talking about an asymmetrical horror game here so it's gonna be difficult to face the killer alone. Therefore, you might not be fast enough to cleanse 5 dull totems before your teammates completes all the generators. Suddenly, the game is now 1 v 1 v 3 in a sense because your teammates are working against you now.

    Real Life Scenario

    I was running Pharmacy, Ace in The Hole, Urban Evasion, and Small Game in this game. I managed to keep a mental counter on how many dull totems I cleansed to make sure NoED wouldn't activate. Right when I cleansed the fourth totem, the Wraith captured me and hooked me beside the final dull totem. To my horror, the final generator was completed and the totem transformed into a Hex totem. Luckily I was unhooked and I was able to cleanse it but I could've gotten punished for cleansing totems since he could've camped to bait survivors.

    Lesson Learned? NoED should be threatening for both SWF and solo Q survivors... Not just one survivor party.
  • FenrirFenrir Member Posts: 533
    Noed is the lifeblood for this event so is ruin
  • EntityDispleasedEntityDispleased Member Posts: 1,449

    Make another rant about the problems with you and why you can't counter noed, even though you're given a very clear and free counter to it.

  • mcNuggetsmcNuggets Member Posts: 767

    @The_Crusader said:
    Why do people use it on Billy and Nurse? Easy, because they want to win. They want to ensure their victory.

    I don't think anyone would argue that NOED isn't a noob perk. Kind of fitting on Billy though since he's a noob killer.

    These arguments.
    Just because a perk can save your ass when you get gen rushed like a hag, doesn't mean it's for noobs.

    I use it mysql, just like I use decisive strike as survivor.
    TO win, it grants me an additional kill most of the time, just like decisive strike ensures my escape.
    Decisive strike however is way more overpowered, because you can use it at any time and by 4 survivors in different situations.

    NOEd however can completely be annulated or destroyed after it activated.
    Even then you have to chase someone down.

  • The_CrusaderThe_Crusader Member Posts: 3,688
    mcNuggets said:

    @The_Crusader said:
    Why do people use it on Billy and Nurse? Easy, because they want to win. They want to ensure their victory.

    I don't think anyone would argue that NOED isn't a noob perk. Kind of fitting on Billy though since he's a noob killer.

    These arguments.
    Just because a perk can save your ass when you get gen rushed like a hag, doesn't mean it's for noobs.

    I use it mysql, just like I use decisive strike as survivor.
    TO win, it grants me an additional kill most of the time, just like decisive strike ensures my escape.
    Decisive strike however is way more overpowered, because you can use it at any time and by 4 survivors in different situations.

    NOEd however can completely be annulated or destroyed after it activated.
    Even then you have to chase someone down.

    They're both incredibly overpowered. More balanced games don't have perks this ridiculous. They drastically lower the amount of skill required to win.

    Not that there'd anything wrong with taking them. I've gone back to NOED myself sometimes just because the other 4 survivors aren't going to stop taking all their meta perks and have me dealing with 4 DS and 4 Adrenaline. DS helps the survivots get to endgame and Adrenaline can really hurt the killer at the endgame.
  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 4,435

    @EntityDispleased said:
    Make another rant about the problems with you and why you can't counter noed, even though you're given a very clear and free counter to it.

    I can counter it actually, and have in the past. The issue itself is my teammates (Specifically in Solo survival) that don't think ahead of this.

    Did you even read the post?

  • XavierBoah17XavierBoah17 Member Posts: 204
    If they removed the speed buff and instead added a penalty to using the perk. Like increased terror radius.
  • OrionOrion Member Posts: 11,721

    @XavierBoah17 said:
    If they removed the speed buff and instead added a penalty to using the perk. Like increased terror radius.

    Like the survivors being able to disable it before it even activates?
    ...Wait.

  • friendlykillermainfriendlykillermain Member Posts: 3,166

    @Orion said:

    @XavierBoah17 said:
    If they removed the speed buff and instead added a penalty to using the perk. Like increased terror radius.

    Like the survivors being able to disable it before it even activates?
    ...Wait.

    or what if, what if survivors just wait for it take their lumps and deal with it like everyone else

  • FireHazardFireHazard Member, Trusted Posts: 4,435

    @friendlykillermain said:

    @Orion said:

    @XavierBoah17 said:
    If they removed the speed buff and instead added a penalty to using the perk. Like increased terror radius.

    Like the survivors being able to disable it before it even activates?
    ...Wait.

    or what if, what if survivors just wait for it take their lumps and deal with it like everyone else

    That takes too much forward thinking to do apparently...

Sign In or Register to comment.