Jump to content

Venator_X21J

Members
  • Content count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Venator_X21J

  • Rank
    Newbie
  1. Vendetta Against Savini Jason?

    Ah the harassment, gotta love it... I guess I’ve been fortunate that I haven’t had to deal with people messing with me as councilor so far. Even still, sorry you’ve had to go through that.
  2. Vendetta Against Savini Jason?

    I can understand people taking the game more seriously or seeing it as some sort of “event” since he isn’t commonly seen, especially outside PlayStation (cuz they messed up), it’s just when people try to be assholes about it that it annoys me. The match I mentioned where the one player was yelling to kill me, they managed to get almost the entire lobby on board so I had a group of like 6 councilors that I simply couldn’t do anything against. That being said, I hope Jason gets buffed appropriately so he’s back to being an actual threat because right now he simply isn’t one except for very specific circumstances... Which obviously goes against the developers original design philosophy regarding balancing.
  3. Vendetta Against Savini Jason?

    Ah, well I’ll glad I’m not just being paranoid or somehow conceited about it then. Still, it’s a bit childish that people would go so crazy just because someone has it haha. Like yeah, someone is running around with Savini (not that it really matters since Jason is so weak at the moment) but how is that person a “pay2win asshole” (I’ve also been called that) for helping fund the game’s development? I guess I shouldn’t expect better from people, but it’s still a shame. (And makes me less eager to play him over other versions of Jason, since it’s hard enough without people purposefully griefing)
  4. This may be presumptuous of me, but it seems like whenever I’ve used my Savini Jason in a lobby, people tend to try harder/grief more? Is it just a matter of people being salty about it or? Like I’ve literally been in matches where someone screams “Savini! Let’s kill him!” Has anyone else encountered similar?
  5. That’s what I’m saying though, normal melee is often the way to go because there are so many pocket knives floating around. But meleeing is less effective against decent councilors because they can just play against Jason’s slow attack speed and easily out-maneuver him and his poor hitbox... not to mention that they typically have perks to reduce damage taken for when they actually get hit as well as healing sprays out the wazoo (and perks that needlessly buff them). The healing perks and damage reduction also mean that a player can simply take a hit from Jason with no worries just to get a stun off. As I said in my original post, the only way a Jason is going to accomplish anything against a group of players is if those councilors are simply bad at the game or lack their heals/pocket knives. But even that it isn’t a guaranteed thing, as nothing is going to stop all of the other councilors from casually walking up to Jason and stunlocking him, especially if they have the ideal perk/character combos. Jason just isn’t a force to be reckoned with against anything other than the worst players or those who were unlucky enough to not have heals/pocket knives at the time of encounter. Because it’s a game, I understand the necessity of councilors needing an opportunity to win as well, but the nature of the game as well as the franchise it’s based on means that the odds shouldn’t be stacked in their favor, especially not by the significant margin that they are currently. It should be a challenge to survive and I honestly feel that the developers have strayed from their original design philosophy just to appease those who prefer to play councilor. This is also what happened to Dead by Daylight to an extent, actually, and had a negative effect on matchmaking speed because less people wanted to play Killer. I predict similar will happen in Friday the 13th (matchmaking is already slow on PC), except in this case people will simply leave the lobby if they’re chosen to be Jason as there are no punishments for quitting a game and they don’t feel like being griefed for 10+ minutes. (I’d also add that part of why matchmaking is slow on PC is because the game costs about $20 more than it should. Atleast, that’s what is preventing the 8+ people I know that are actually interested in the game from getting it or me from buying it for them.)
  6. TLDR at the end. So I'm sure it has been mentioned countless times since these updates have hit, but I've gotta ask. Why is Jason less dangerous now than the councilors? Why can I get stunlocked, and every person I grab just happens to have a pocket knife? Why aren't pocket knives actually rare? I've been running into players regularly who have more than one, which is awful considering the increased difficulty of actually landing a grab since a previous update. I seem to recall the devs saying over and over that Jason is supposed to be "overpowered" yet the only way he poses any kind of threa now is when someone happens to lack a damn pocket knife and is caught by themself. The only way to play around that is to melee people instead, but unfortunately the hitboxes are all kinds of awful and councilors can both start with and have increased healing from med sprays, which should also be rare. The med sprays only matter if you manage to damage someone, because the odds are higher that you'll simply get stunned over and over, even in combat stance. Before posting this I played a match where I was literally stunned every single time I got hit and every person I grabbed had a knife.; actually, in the last 4 games I've played as Jason, only a single person I grabbed didn't have a pocket knife. As for melee in general, Jason's mask can be knocked off very quick by melee characters with the right perks, and if a decent group sticks together and has the sweater, it's incredibly unlikely that you can play against it. Between the stuns, horrid hitbox, the inability to use sweeping attacks to hit multiple people, and the fact that you can get ganged up on without any repercussions as a councilor (because the poor decision to remove friendly fire was made) it's near impossible to play against a group of people unless they're absolutely awful. Now you might say that Jason shouldn't go after a group, but when all of the survivors have managed to come together, you're left with no choice. The game is so in favor of councilor now that I've lost almost all enjoyment for playing Jason. The main draw of this game is Jason and to kill or be killed as him, so I can't help but wonder why the hard earned money I spent backing this game by buying the underwhelming Steelbook edition and DLCs went towards decisions that made Jason so laughably weak? Don't get me wrong, it's possible to do very well as Jason, but if you're playing against a good group of individuals or even a very average group that sticks together, chances are high that you won't accomplish much. I'll keep playing the game, but I definitely won't have Jason as my preferred spawn anymore. The short version is that the game is highly in favor of councilors and they have far too many options to utilize against Jason. Pocket knives and med sprays should be rare, and the healing perks are absolutely broken. The ability to stunlock and grief a Jason player is depressingly easy to do and makes him a non-threat so long as you have one or more get out of free cards (pocket knives and healing sprays). Melee in general is too much for councilors, and it's near impossible to play against a half decent group that sticks together and intends on using the sweater strategy. Jason isn't a threat 1v1 in most cases and is simply a joke vs groups, which isn't always avoidable.
  7. Progression systems have been the norm for over a decade now and they aren’t going anywhere, so you might want to go ahead and accept that. Secondly, it’s not as if the progression systems in multiplayer games caught on because the majority of gamers didn’t like them. Most people enjoy having a goal/something to work towards, it’s when people have nothing else to do when multiplayer games start to go downhill and people get bored. Now I’m aware that a lot of that doesn’t seem to apply to you, but that still means you’re in the smallest minority and therefore not the type of player that most companies will cater to. And to be realistic, a progression system in multiplayer isn’t all that different from a single player game locking off weapons or abilities until you PROGRESS far enough into the game’s campaign/story. Now you could argue that these unlocks could correlate to the game’s story itself, but that reasoning doesn’t hold up in the inevitable New Game Plus modes. As for comparing a game to a car... You’d know if the car had a working radio or not beforehand? Same as how you’d know whether or not a game had a progression system. So... The problem with Friday the 13ths progression is what people have already mentioned before: there are too few unlocks and the gaps between many of them are far too large. The reasoning for the executions is apparently to give incentive to the people who had already hit level 100, but this does nothing for those between whatever level you unlock Part IV and level 100+.
×