it makes me laugh how people complain about priestess (and even say she's absolutely op when is not like that anymore. Shes good and ofc her support is always great but is nowherr close to what she used to be) and then they have hullabaloo who's a priestess with 5 million "portals" every so little
Yeah as a priestess main she feels pretty weak in this current meta because the meta right now is full of fast hunters that can catch up to the priestess before she can use portals and hunters with good mobility/ teleports which make her portals useless. It’s mainly just certain older hunters that struggle against her and certain areas like the bridge on moonlit and hospital that make people still believe she is broken.
Ever since warp, things have changed drastically. With the new hunters and adjustments. I will say, survivors aren’t being ignored. Toy was a huge dub. My thing is adjusting survivors who have no defense whatsoever to these strong hunters.
I need the next three survs (one from cny stream and two from coa finals) to be broken we need new s tier survs its been like 2 years its actually ridiculous
@@valkyrie8383 you can just chase priestess first,anti gets countered by more than i mentioned so it’s not just one hunter ban seer isn’t as op as he used to be and it’s the same case with merc
Were Anti, Cheerleader, Fire Investigator, and Puppeteer who all came out in the last two years not enough?? Knight exists too but he isn't broken, the other survivors are what i've seen a lot of people call pretty good. Anti was a nightmare for a while. Also Priestess does not suck, Seer getting countered by the most banned hunter next to Opera does not make him bad, Merc still is one of the best rescue options you could go. You act like because a survivor gets countered, they are immediately bad. Even when Dream Witch was s tier and considered one of the most broken hunters, she was countered by multiple survivors. Even Hullabaloo has predicted counters. Hell the only really "bad" survivor that came out recently is Faro, who is kind of mid.
I only hope netease adjusts the previous characters. Change the meta! It's nice to see th new hunters are really good but I also want to see variety. I used to be very bored at the surv meta and when opera came and changed the dynamics was really refreshing. Ironically now the hunter meta is the one becoming stale while the survs get more funny adjustments, like cmon Annie is now tournament viable! Nerf and buff characters and random, allow them to be used instead of accumulating dust as the "not enough/trash" tier
Luchinosgyat speaking..I completely agree. I went against hullabaloo a good 6 times and the fact he can jump around the map with no punishment is beyond me
If 4/5 of like 30 something hunters having notable win potential is "hunter sided" and an issue then the fundamental problem isn't the hunters, it's the tournament system that's so dependent on bans to keep itself fair. The ban system is also so hunter skewed because of how laughably survivor sided the game has been historically, so you should really be advocating for a revamp of that. You can't act like hunter mains are unjust in complaining that the VAST majority of hunters have been left behind by power creep because it's literally fact. Survivor got too strong and instead of balancing the game they released busted characters like Opera to compensate, saying mains of these like 20 odd hunters should just shut up and be fine that their mains have been left behind by power creep because they're old and that there are a small handful of broken new characters isn't fair. If 90% of survivors are like A-tier or above against most hunters but balanced or weak against a small handful of exeptions then you have a far more fundamental issue than just "this game is sided towards X". There needs to be a complete balance overhaul of the game.
Welcome to power creep were older characters will preform worst against the test of time, thats how every game works. As well you need to remember that it is 4 survs per one hunter not including bans. There are only around 20 Viable survivors for tournament, so not including bans. 80% of the viable survivors are taken from four win hunters. This doesnt even include the draw hunters with high win potential like Ann and Nightwatch which then take the last 4 survivors. Hunters arent the only one that face power creep, just one side complains about more.
@@ZeusIDV Power creep isn't some inevitable fact of games lmao, it's a product of poor game balance and improper care. It can 100% be curved with proper balance and design work, not to mention that NetEase have fast-tracked it with historically terrible balance and recent band-aid solutions like Opera Singer. Also one side complains about it more because it literally effects them more. Survivor skill is generally more transferrable between characters than hunter making it easier to swap mains, characters themselves tend to simply just play more similarly to each other than hunter making swapping not that detrimental to player fun, and hunter in general just feels powercreep more because at a baseline hunters are more ability dependent because their base tools are garbage compared to base survivors who are much stronger. There aren't any survivors that are as weak or have been as powercrept as say: Hell Ember or Ripper. And again, that's tournament context. It's a fundamentally different game and most of your issues are rooted more in the ban system than anything. The game shouldn't be balanced around individual hunters being tools at a player's disposal in a tournament context because that isn't how actual IDV is played - every hunter should be individually strong and viable.
@Baileeeeeyyy power creep does in fact exist in every game where there are different characters whether its gacha or not. Secondly obviously no character is gonna face power creep like the two oldest hunters in the game, but that doesn’t mean now they all of sudden need to be made viable. Power creep exists for the sole purpose of making money. Yes it is an issue when one side keeps out powering the other especially when again there are only so many options for survivors.
@@Baileeeeeyyy firstly youre proving his point, and secondly the current state of the game isnt supporting your last statement. a team of 4 survivors is not as strong even with good communication against the latest, meta hunters.
@@sanguineschnoz it means round 1 viable. which means that i’m almost sure in the state he’s in he can perform well round 1 in a tournament which means he will be a very good hunter on par with opera and ivy
I can give you that the game is Hunter-sided but saying that Survs need to play perfect and Hunters can make mistakes and still win is ludicrous. The Hunters in tournaments are so much better than the Survs on average, Survivors can make tons of mistakes and still win. The only mistake you can’t make as a Survivor is during rescuing, you can mess up kiting, decision making, technically decoding multiple times and still be fine.
Decision making involves everything of what you just mentioned, and yes messing up any of these things can mess up a match, you mess up your layout for ciphers, now the hunter can potentially snowball off injuries because ciphers and win simply because you decoded the wrong ciphers. Rescuing is self explanatory, If you dont kite minimum 70 seconds the game is just a loss against hunters. In contrast a hunter can get damn near three cipher kited and still draw just because of presence(IE: Ivy, Opera). So yes hunters have a way bigger room for error when it comes to gameplay compared to survivors.
@@ZeusIDV I disagree that you need to kite minimum 70 seconds. I don’t have data on this but I doubt you do either, if you do I’d like to see it. Also think an Opera getting nearly 3-cipher kited would have a hard time drawing the game without Surv mistakes. If you have any examples of this I’d like to see them. Ivy is stupid, but also your original comment said that Hunters can still win despite mistakes and a draw is not a win.
@abcdefghilihgfedcba I have a whole video with that data, its called “Why idv is hunter sided”, shows the average kite time with survs against a specific hunter, etc.
@@ZeusIDV Thanks for telling me about that video. It only shows the average kite time of all games, so we don’t know the kite times of individual W/D/L games, right? Hard to say from that data but it looks to me like the statement “need 70s kite minimum or it’s lost” is wrong? That would mean that for example Opera would have 100% or close to it WR with the 61.2s kite average. Let me know if I got something wrong.
@@ZeusIDV I think both have a point. When we look at ivy and opera it's dumb how they can do this but if this situation happens with the other hunter characters 8/10 times the hunters are cooked. I see the problem this way: in tournaments the characters that matter the most are the A tiers since they have a solid kit and the S tier doesn't need explanation. A B tier character would be niche, decent but not that tournament viable. Survs have a lot more A tier characters and few S tiers for the tournaments while hunters have the extremes, a larger amount of S tiers (I'm counting goatman and hullabaloo yes) in comparison to survs yet also almost all of the other hunters are B tier. If you take away the S tiers from both sides the hunter faction will suffer since there are more A tier survs plus team communication, but as we can see in the current tournaments, when you leave the S tiers roaming and add too many surv bans (I presume in order to "balance" the difference between A/B tiers amount in both factions) they are the ones suffering cause the S tier hunters are better than the ones in surv faction and then it no matter the skills, the support or the team communication you are at a disadvantage. There's just not enough balance in both factions.
Alright so, I will be arguing why I believe the game is in fact not hunter sided and the reasons why. Firstly, we have the fact that tournament hunters need more bans than survivors because there are far more survivors than there are hunters. For example, if we gave survivors the same ban rules as hunters, then they could just immediately remove all the meta hunters while they still have a few meta survivors left over. The ban system for tournament itself is flawed, because instead of attempting to properly balance the game, the devs are instead choosing to make it harder for the survivors to make viable comps against a multitude of hunters. In fact, if you gave tournament back like COA3 or earlier tourney ban system, the game would easily shift back into people thinking it's survivor sided. And if we slap the rank ban system into a tourney, it is even more survivor sided. Since once again, the survivors can immediately ban the meta hunters and still have survivors to choose from to counter the others. Opera, Ivy, Goatman, Hullabaloo and Ann all have one thing in common: they are single hit hunters. And all of them can be countered by them. Sure, we can argue that the tournament ban system ensures that they can't get full usage out of that, but the survivors still have ways to deal with it without just burning all the bodyblock survivors. There's also survivors who counter them without even being bodyblock survivors, such as Antiquarian who can just slap all of them and they can't attack her for 12 seconds. Sure, Ivy technically counters her, but Anti also does the same; double edged sword, if you will. There are ways to create comps that counter at least 2 of them, and even if the other 2 hunters are played then you still should be fine since remember... all of them get countered by bodyblock survivors. Priestess realistically could be played still, especially since all the hunters that counter her will either not be picked or can be banned. Remember that Gardener and Lucky Guy literally became viable picks because Opera was released... Also can make an argument for so many more characters, but that would take forever. Now on to rank itself. The current way rank works is extremely flawed, in that peak tier survivors can't rank as a 4 man. Furthermore, peak tiers get reset to Griffin/Manticore, but that is a completely different issue that isn't too relevant for this topic but still should be noted. This results in Cyclops being a harder tier to be in for hunters than Hydra. It also results in hunters like Photographer and Mad Eyes having "decent winrates" in peak tier, but relatively poor winrates in Cyclops. Why? Because survivors can't rank in 4 man teams, resulting in the data being messed up and devs being unable to properly balance the game. Seriously, how can Mad Eyes possibly have the highest wr in peak tier for CN hunters, but have a relatively mid wr in tourney? Because survivors can't 4 man team. It isn't even fair to call the game hunter sided when the game doesn't even let you 4 man team in peak tier? That's like saying Naiad is OP but neglecting the fact that she is only OP in low tier, it doesn't fairly consider why the statement is the way it is. Sure, we can argue that the game is hunter sided in rank because survivors can't 4 man team, but the survivors can always just ban 2 of the meta hunters and play characters that counter the other meta hunters. What are you gonna do, ban all your counters? Hah, there's over 40 survivors in the game and you can only play 2, good luck with that. Rank is "balanced", until the ban system either allows for more characters to be banned, or survivors can 4 man team in the highest tier again. As for tournament, once again I can argue that the game balance falls to the survivors' side if the ban system was changed; and the only reason it's hunter sided is because of how many survivors get banned. In conclusion, currently we can argue that the game is hunter sided. *HOWEVER,* changing the way the ban systems work (and for rank allowing survivors to 4 man team) will reveal that the game is leaning towards a survivor sided game. Also, being forced to play the same few hunters when survivors have a lot more characters to choose from doesn't really help with the argument of a "hunter sided game".
This doesnt really disprove any of arguments tho? Out of the 40+ Survivors in the game, only around 22 of them are even round 3 viable minimum. The rest of them you wont even look out because of how niche they are or because you literally have no other choice if it is round 4. Secondly in ranked at champion level, banning two s tiers doesn’t automatically make the other S tiers now worse, they are still S tiers. They will maybe have to work a little harder but they have much room for error where survivors do not. This logic is only amplified in tournament where these hunters are presence hungry snow ball demons from hell, like I said it only takes one weak link for the game to be in the hunters favor. Hunters more often then not dont need to ban niche counters because they are niche, they can work around. Anti can in theory slap all the hunters, until ann stuns/silence, Ivy scares, goatman cages, Opera mind games, or in hullabaloos case just have red out. All simple counter play the neuter her usability. The survivors especially that came out this year cant even hope to keep up with the hunters that came out this year, not in the slightest. The game is more than definitely hunter sided with the abundance of options that hunters have now to deal with previous problems.
And that's just the issue, it's difficult to even really try to disprove your arguments with the current system being used. I realistically can't disprove your claims without saying that the system as a whole needs to be changed to prove my claims, which isn't all that great. It also just isn't great for older characters either, since if we go back to the Photographer issue, Photographer will never be tournament viable unless the current rank system changes and the devs finally realize "oh shoot, Photo is in dire need of buffs/a rework".
@@ZeusIDV yeah, I feel like if the core issue is fixed then the game would be far better balanced and we would have far more characters to choose from. Like, wouldn't it be exciting if Photographer would be an r3 viable hunter?
I personally want these hunters added for the reason that I'm bored of ivy and opera matches..... They'll adjust these hunters 100% accordingly but it takes way to long for them to be available like add goat man already so we can atleast assess their performance on an objective pro level man
I'd say that Im convinced this game is Hunter sided at tournament level but honestly some of your very points in this video kind of contraddict it being Hunter sided in rank: At one point you agreed that most of the meta Hunters have similar counters, your counterpoint was that they will get banned in lather matches and that Hunters have 15+ bans but thats just not true in rank. Rank is a best of one with two bans on each side, you can ban two of the meta Hunters and counter-comping the rest is very possible. Not to say this is an ideal situation and I do feel like something needs to be done, but honestly I think its the ban system that needs to be touched, powercreeping further by adding more S-tier characters left and right would just create more problems on the long run. Its how we got here in the first place, these S tier broken Hunters were created to deal with power-creep cuz the old ones just can't survive this meta.
@@PoliteVillain The thing with counter comping in ranked is that requires vc which you dont have in high tier ranked with a 4 stack. Its one thing to know a character counters X hunter. Its another thing to actually know how to actually utilize the character to counter X hunter
@ZeusIDV Oh yeah, I can see that, it's the reason I said the situation is still not ideal. Just it still is technically possibile. Also, another point that could be made against mine is that weird niche speciality Hunters are still a thing, taking myself as an example: I play Joker and Ivy, they could ban Goatman/Hullabaloo and pick First Officer to counter Ivy/Opera, but then I could go Joker who actually has a nice MU into FO. I just wanted to point out that this situation for Rank is more nuanced, while in Tournament its pretty clear-cut Hunter-sided.
this game has honestly been hunter sided ever since the sculptor/dw/bonbon meta years ago and it's only gotten worse over time w/ power creep, anyone who plays at any human rank and understands tournament play knows this. but the thing is in a tournament setting, why does it matter? the only thing it does is put a lot of pressure on hunters to perform and dominate games, but you still see a LOT of teams getting draws and 3escapes even at the highest level. in a solo queue environment yes it's irritating that hunters have much more control over the game than survivors do, but... in tourney, it makes things more interesting. it makes 3escapes that much more hype because they're more sparse. it gives an audience a "villain" to root against, in a competitive sense - it's much more satisfying watching your team's survivors escape if it breaks the mold. fact of the matter is, this game is more entertaining when it's hunter sided from a spectator standpoint; and at lower tiers, which make up the bulk of the playerbase, people aren't maximising the potential of their characters so the game is significantly more balanced and less skewed. the only thing this does is affect tier 7+ rank and make it less enjoyable, but it's far from counterable. the state of the game will never change and it doesn't need to change, because it's healthiest when hunters are strong. feel free to debate but i really do believe it's for the betterment of the game and netease know this well
@@perceptionidvPersonality I don't see the game as survivor sided like if I'm playing Leo of course the match is survivor sided but magically right when I pick someone like Ivy the survivors are struggling to do anything (If you know how to play her correctly) not to mention if played correctly most hunter games can be easily turned into a draw even with a 4 person end game (Before someone calls me a survivor main I'm not I mostly play hunter and I main sculptor)
My problem is that it wasn't hunter melly first
She's coming probably with aom part 3
Trust me, we are getting Sculptor survivor version before hunter Melly
Hell no. I hate bugs 😭
I hope she comes out soon and have such a cool spooky design
@@Nygy31 or surv Violetta
oh yay !! cant wait for you to release "my problem with Hunter Melly" next !! we will be waiting
@@bambiikisses next year trust
I remember back when people would laugh at the thought of this game being hunter sided and now it is
it makes me laugh how people complain about priestess (and even say she's absolutely op when is not like that anymore. Shes good and ofc her support is always great but is nowherr close to what she used to be) and then they have hullabaloo who's a priestess with 5 million "portals" every so little
Yeah as a priestess main she feels pretty weak in this current meta because the meta right now is full of fast hunters that can catch up to the priestess before she can use portals and hunters with good mobility/ teleports which make her portals useless. It’s mainly just certain older hunters that struggle against her and certain areas like the bridge on moonlit and hospital that make people still believe she is broken.
Ever since warp, things have changed drastically. With the new hunters and adjustments. I will say, survivors aren’t being ignored. Toy was a huge dub. My thing is adjusting survivors who have no defense whatsoever to these strong hunters.
I need the next three survs (one from cny stream and two from coa finals) to be broken we need new s tier survs its been like 2 years its actually ridiculous
I think you’ll be fine with the op ones you have now
@ prietsess sucks,seer gets countered by ivy,anti get countered by ivy and ann and game keeper and merc is just okay
@@Matthiaslover69 on large maps priest doesn’t suck. And everything else you mentioned can be solved w one hunter ban
@@valkyrie8383 you can just chase priestess first,anti gets countered by more than i mentioned so it’s not just one hunter ban seer isn’t as op as he used to be and it’s the same case with merc
Were Anti, Cheerleader, Fire Investigator, and Puppeteer who all came out in the last two years not enough?? Knight exists too but he isn't broken, the other survivors are what i've seen a lot of people call pretty good. Anti was a nightmare for a while. Also Priestess does not suck, Seer getting countered by the most banned hunter next to Opera does not make him bad, Merc still is one of the best rescue options you could go. You act like because a survivor gets countered, they are immediately bad. Even when Dream Witch was s tier and considered one of the most broken hunters, she was countered by multiple survivors. Even Hullabaloo has predicted counters.
Hell the only really "bad" survivor that came out recently is Faro, who is kind of mid.
I only hope netease adjusts the previous characters. Change the meta! It's nice to see th new hunters are really good but I also want to see variety. I used to be very bored at the surv meta and when opera came and changed the dynamics was really refreshing. Ironically now the hunter meta is the one becoming stale while the survs get more funny adjustments, like cmon Annie is now tournament viable! Nerf and buff characters and random, allow them to be used instead of accumulating dust as the "not enough/trash" tier
The game was supposed to be survivor sided. Now, I’m not sure.
Luchinosgyat speaking..I completely agree. I went against hullabaloo a good 6 times and the fact he can jump around the map with no punishment is beyond me
If 4/5 of like 30 something hunters having notable win potential is "hunter sided" and an issue then the fundamental problem isn't the hunters, it's the tournament system that's so dependent on bans to keep itself fair. The ban system is also so hunter skewed because of how laughably survivor sided the game has been historically, so you should really be advocating for a revamp of that.
You can't act like hunter mains are unjust in complaining that the VAST majority of hunters have been left behind by power creep because it's literally fact. Survivor got too strong and instead of balancing the game they released busted characters like Opera to compensate, saying mains of these like 20 odd hunters should just shut up and be fine that their mains have been left behind by power creep because they're old and that there are a small handful of broken new characters isn't fair.
If 90% of survivors are like A-tier or above against most hunters but balanced or weak against a small handful of exeptions then you have a far more fundamental issue than just "this game is sided towards X". There needs to be a complete balance overhaul of the game.
Welcome to power creep were older characters will preform worst against the test of time, thats how every game works. As well you need to remember that it is 4 survs per one hunter not including bans. There are only around 20 Viable survivors for tournament, so not including bans. 80% of the viable survivors are taken from four win hunters. This doesnt even include the draw hunters with high win potential like Ann and Nightwatch which then take the last 4 survivors. Hunters arent the only one that face power creep, just one side complains about more.
@@ZeusIDV Power creep isn't some inevitable fact of games lmao, it's a product of poor game balance and improper care. It can 100% be curved with proper balance and design work, not to mention that NetEase have fast-tracked it with historically terrible balance and recent band-aid solutions like Opera Singer.
Also one side complains about it more because it literally effects them more. Survivor skill is generally more transferrable between characters than hunter making it easier to swap mains, characters themselves tend to simply just play more similarly to each other than hunter making swapping not that detrimental to player fun, and hunter in general just feels powercreep more because at a baseline hunters are more ability dependent because their base tools are garbage compared to base survivors who are much stronger. There aren't any survivors that are as weak or have been as powercrept as say: Hell Ember or Ripper.
And again, that's tournament context. It's a fundamentally different game and most of your issues are rooted more in the ban system than anything. The game shouldn't be balanced around individual hunters being tools at a player's disposal in a tournament context because that isn't how actual IDV is played - every hunter should be individually strong and viable.
@Baileeeeeyyy power creep does in fact exist in every game where there are different characters whether its gacha or not. Secondly obviously no character is gonna face power creep like the two oldest hunters in the game, but that doesn’t mean now they all of sudden need to be made viable. Power creep exists for the sole purpose of making money. Yes it is an issue when one side keeps out powering the other especially when again there are only so many options for survivors.
@@Baileeeeeyyy firstly youre proving his point, and secondly the current state of the game isnt supporting your last statement. a team of 4 survivors is not as strong even with good communication against the latest, meta hunters.
his nerfs do not effect him majorly too he’s still going to be r1 viable in my opinion
What does r1 mean?
p sure it means Round 1 viable, like in the competitive scene where you always see Ivy and Opera
@@sanguineschnoz it means round 1 viable. which means that i’m almost sure in the state he’s in he can perform well round 1 in a tournament which means he will be a very good hunter on par with opera and ivy
Idv is hunter sided when i play survivor and survivor sided when i play hunter
HELLO ZEUS IDV!!! HOW IS YOUR BANK ACCOUNT!
Its doing better!!
I love dream witch
I can give you that the game is Hunter-sided but saying that Survs need to play perfect and Hunters can make mistakes and still win is ludicrous. The Hunters in tournaments are so much better than the Survs on average, Survivors can make tons of mistakes and still win. The only mistake you can’t make as a Survivor is during rescuing, you can mess up kiting, decision making, technically decoding multiple times and still be fine.
Decision making involves everything of what you just mentioned, and yes messing up any of these things can mess up a match, you mess up your layout for ciphers, now the hunter can potentially snowball off injuries because ciphers and win simply because you decoded the wrong ciphers. Rescuing is self explanatory, If you dont kite minimum 70 seconds the game is just a loss against hunters. In contrast a hunter can get damn near three cipher kited and still draw just because of presence(IE: Ivy, Opera). So yes hunters have a way bigger room for error when it comes to gameplay compared to survivors.
@@ZeusIDV
I disagree that you need to kite minimum 70 seconds. I don’t have data on this but I doubt you do either, if you do I’d like to see it.
Also think an Opera getting nearly 3-cipher kited would have a hard time drawing the game without Surv mistakes. If you have any examples of this I’d like to see them. Ivy is stupid, but also your original comment said that Hunters can still win despite mistakes and a draw is not a win.
@abcdefghilihgfedcba I have a whole video with that data, its called “Why idv is hunter sided”, shows the average kite time with survs against a specific hunter, etc.
@@ZeusIDV
Thanks for telling me about that video. It only shows the average kite time of all games, so we don’t know the kite times of individual W/D/L games, right? Hard to say from that data but it looks to me like the statement “need 70s kite minimum or it’s lost” is wrong? That would mean that for example Opera would have 100% or close to it WR with the 61.2s kite average. Let me know if I got something wrong.
@@ZeusIDV I think both have a point. When we look at ivy and opera it's dumb how they can do this but if this situation happens with the other hunter characters 8/10 times the hunters are cooked. I see the problem this way: in tournaments the characters that matter the most are the A tiers since they have a solid kit and the S tier doesn't need explanation. A B tier character would be niche, decent but not that tournament viable. Survs have a lot more A tier characters and few S tiers for the tournaments while hunters have the extremes, a larger amount of S tiers (I'm counting goatman and hullabaloo yes) in comparison to survs yet also almost all of the other hunters are B tier. If you take away the S tiers from both sides the hunter faction will suffer since there are more A tier survs plus team communication, but as we can see in the current tournaments, when you leave the S tiers roaming and add too many surv bans (I presume in order to "balance" the difference between A/B tiers amount in both factions) they are the ones suffering cause the S tier hunters are better than the ones in surv faction and then it no matter the skills, the support or the team communication you are at a disadvantage. There's just not enough balance in both factions.
I won’t say survivors have nothing but they don’t have enough. Netease please help 😭
Alright so, I will be arguing why I believe the game is in fact not hunter sided and the reasons why.
Firstly, we have the fact that tournament hunters need more bans than survivors because there are far more survivors than there are hunters. For example, if we gave survivors the same ban rules as hunters, then they could just immediately remove all the meta hunters while they still have a few meta survivors left over. The ban system for tournament itself is flawed, because instead of attempting to properly balance the game, the devs are instead choosing to make it harder for the survivors to make viable comps against a multitude of hunters. In fact, if you gave tournament back like COA3 or earlier tourney ban system, the game would easily shift back into people thinking it's survivor sided. And if we slap the rank ban system into a tourney, it is even more survivor sided. Since once again, the survivors can immediately ban the meta hunters and still have survivors to choose from to counter the others.
Opera, Ivy, Goatman, Hullabaloo and Ann all have one thing in common: they are single hit hunters. And all of them can be countered by them. Sure, we can argue that the tournament ban system ensures that they can't get full usage out of that, but the survivors still have ways to deal with it without just burning all the bodyblock survivors. There's also survivors who counter them without even being bodyblock survivors, such as Antiquarian who can just slap all of them and they can't attack her for 12 seconds. Sure, Ivy technically counters her, but Anti also does the same; double edged sword, if you will. There are ways to create comps that counter at least 2 of them, and even if the other 2 hunters are played then you still should be fine since remember... all of them get countered by bodyblock survivors. Priestess realistically could be played still, especially since all the hunters that counter her will either not be picked or can be banned. Remember that Gardener and Lucky Guy literally became viable picks because Opera was released... Also can make an argument for so many more characters, but that would take forever.
Now on to rank itself. The current way rank works is extremely flawed, in that peak tier survivors can't rank as a 4 man. Furthermore, peak tiers get reset to Griffin/Manticore, but that is a completely different issue that isn't too relevant for this topic but still should be noted. This results in Cyclops being a harder tier to be in for hunters than Hydra. It also results in hunters like Photographer and Mad Eyes having "decent winrates" in peak tier, but relatively poor winrates in Cyclops. Why? Because survivors can't rank in 4 man teams, resulting in the data being messed up and devs being unable to properly balance the game. Seriously, how can Mad Eyes possibly have the highest wr in peak tier for CN hunters, but have a relatively mid wr in tourney? Because survivors can't 4 man team. It isn't even fair to call the game hunter sided when the game doesn't even let you 4 man team in peak tier? That's like saying Naiad is OP but neglecting the fact that she is only OP in low tier, it doesn't fairly consider why the statement is the way it is. Sure, we can argue that the game is hunter sided in rank because survivors can't 4 man team, but the survivors can always just ban 2 of the meta hunters and play characters that counter the other meta hunters. What are you gonna do, ban all your counters? Hah, there's over 40 survivors in the game and you can only play 2, good luck with that.
Rank is "balanced", until the ban system either allows for more characters to be banned, or survivors can 4 man team in the highest tier again. As for tournament, once again I can argue that the game balance falls to the survivors' side if the ban system was changed; and the only reason it's hunter sided is because of how many survivors get banned.
In conclusion, currently we can argue that the game is hunter sided. *HOWEVER,* changing the way the ban systems work (and for rank allowing survivors to 4 man team) will reveal that the game is leaning towards a survivor sided game. Also, being forced to play the same few hunters when survivors have a lot more characters to choose from doesn't really help with the argument of a "hunter sided game".
This doesnt really disprove any of arguments tho? Out of the 40+ Survivors in the game, only around 22 of them are even round 3 viable minimum. The rest of them you wont even look out because of how niche they are or because you literally have no other choice if it is round 4. Secondly in ranked at champion level, banning two s tiers doesn’t automatically make the other S tiers now worse, they are still S tiers. They will maybe have to work a little harder but they have much room for error where survivors do not. This logic is only amplified in tournament where these hunters are presence hungry snow ball demons from hell, like I said it only takes one weak link for the game to be in the hunters favor. Hunters more often then not dont need to ban niche counters because they are niche, they can work around. Anti can in theory slap all the hunters, until ann stuns/silence, Ivy scares, goatman cages, Opera mind games, or in hullabaloos case just have red out. All simple counter play the neuter her usability. The survivors especially that came out this year cant even hope to keep up with the hunters that came out this year, not in the slightest. The game is more than definitely hunter sided with the abundance of options that hunters have now to deal with previous problems.
And that's just the issue, it's difficult to even really try to disprove your arguments with the current system being used. I realistically can't disprove your claims without saying that the system as a whole needs to be changed to prove my claims, which isn't all that great.
It also just isn't great for older characters either, since if we go back to the Photographer issue, Photographer will never be tournament viable unless the current rank system changes and the devs finally realize "oh shoot, Photo is in dire need of buffs/a rework".
@soIzec ah ok so the more core issue is the banning itself not persay the characters at hand, that I can see as well
@@ZeusIDV yeah, I feel like if the core issue is fixed then the game would be far better balanced and we would have far more characters to choose from. Like, wouldn't it be exciting if Photographer would be an r3 viable hunter?
Ok good fix bad decision LOL, photo would not be fun LMAO
I personally want these hunters added for the reason that I'm bored of ivy and opera matches..... They'll adjust these hunters 100% accordingly but it takes way to long for them to be available like add goat man already so we can atleast assess their performance on an objective pro level man
Issue with that is it will be the same cycle, everyone will get bored of goatman after watching him win for a month straight.
i feel like Hullabaloo gonna be the next TS king. him having no attack recovery + superspeed and dash (that trapeze ability) is my biggest problem
I love him so much!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just got s badge goatman and hope my next will be hulla
I'd say that Im convinced this game is Hunter sided at tournament level but honestly some of your very points in this video kind of contraddict it being Hunter sided in rank:
At one point you agreed that most of the meta Hunters have similar counters, your counterpoint was that they will get banned in lather matches and that Hunters have 15+ bans but thats just not true in rank.
Rank is a best of one with two bans on each side, you can ban two of the meta Hunters and counter-comping the rest is very possible.
Not to say this is an ideal situation and I do feel like something needs to be done, but honestly I think its the ban system that needs to be touched, powercreeping further by adding more S-tier characters left and right would just create more problems on the long run.
Its how we got here in the first place, these S tier broken Hunters were created to deal with power-creep cuz the old ones just can't survive this meta.
@@PoliteVillain The thing with counter comping in ranked is that requires vc which you dont have in high tier ranked with a 4 stack. Its one thing to know a character counters X hunter. Its another thing to actually know how to actually utilize the character to counter X hunter
@ZeusIDV Oh yeah, I can see that, it's the reason I said the situation is still not ideal. Just it still is technically possibile. Also, another point that could be made against mine is that weird niche speciality Hunters are still a thing, taking myself as an example: I play Joker and Ivy, they could ban Goatman/Hullabaloo and pick First Officer to counter Ivy/Opera, but then I could go Joker who actually has a nice MU into FO.
I just wanted to point out that this situation for Rank is more nuanced, while in Tournament its pretty clear-cut Hunter-sided.
Hey zeus, whats your opinion on hullabaloo's test server nerfs?
@@whomst855 tbh they do almost nothing aside from the clone nerfs
where is my boy leo :(
I'll play him godly
this game has honestly been hunter sided ever since the sculptor/dw/bonbon meta years ago and it's only gotten worse over time w/ power creep, anyone who plays at any human rank and understands tournament play knows this. but the thing is in a tournament setting, why does it matter?
the only thing it does is put a lot of pressure on hunters to perform and dominate games, but you still see a LOT of teams getting draws and 3escapes even at the highest level. in a solo queue environment yes it's irritating that hunters have much more control over the game than survivors do, but... in tourney, it makes things more interesting. it makes 3escapes that much more hype because they're more sparse. it gives an audience a "villain" to root against, in a competitive sense - it's much more satisfying watching your team's survivors escape if it breaks the mold.
fact of the matter is, this game is more entertaining when it's hunter sided from a spectator standpoint; and at lower tiers, which make up the bulk of the playerbase, people aren't maximising the potential of their characters so the game is significantly more balanced and less skewed. the only thing this does is affect tier 7+ rank and make it less enjoyable, but it's far from counterable. the state of the game will never change and it doesn't need to change, because it's healthiest when hunters are strong. feel free to debate but i really do believe it's for the betterment of the game and netease know this well
I find it interesting that Dw is lower pick than the other hunters. Bcs DW has been the 1st round hunter for how many years….
@@iammuse97 Dw hasnt been r1 lock since coa 5😭
@ jesussss what rock has i been living .
zeus pls are you streaming today
Just hate the fact that they release these broken hunters and give us survivors that are B tier at best, so fair and balanced
The game is survivor sided bc I lose a lot with hunters so it certainly is the game's fault right?
says the survivor main
This game is still survivor sided at its core but the ratio of very good hunters would make competitive on the hunter side.
How?
@@perceptionidvPersonality I don't see the game as survivor sided like if I'm playing Leo of course the match is survivor sided but magically right when I pick someone like Ivy the survivors are struggling to do anything (If you know how to play her correctly) not to mention if played correctly most hunter games can be easily turned into a draw even with a 4 person end game (Before someone calls me a survivor main I'm not I mostly play hunter and I main sculptor)
@@scarlettRed-ry4qc
If you’re turning a 4 person endgame into a draw you don’t know how to play survivor.