Basically, the arrows traps will shoot multiple arrows in a row. 
I’ve recently noticed you could sometimes survive arrow traps because the player’s hitbox is just enough to be in between arrows. Now, this is quite handy as a runner, but if you’re a death, it’s pretty annoying. So, I want there to be sets of arrows.
Interesting proposal.
And if programmers don’t want to add it to all the maps, that’s fine, but at least add it to one map please, just one, ONE, one, 1, ¹, 
Voted
Couldnt you see the dodging as an high skill tech
the game should be favored towards runners not towards deaths imo, this is an absolute no from me.
It’s already hard enough for the runners.
Well, kinda, but it’s very inconsistent and in maps where there is a high frequency of arrow traps (like seaside), like i said earlier,
Plus, in your logic (no hate), it adds a layer of skill since it shoots multiple times. 
The win conditions of the deaths are harder. Besides, runners complete 75% of the time, and almost 100% if they are decent enough. Honestly IMO, arrow traps are one of the easy traps, along with the parkour, rolling log, and falling ceiling traps.
I may be delusional but I think it is in Flora? I’m not sure lol.
If that’s the case then it should be added to other maps. 
No way bro actually thinks the deaths are intended to have a chance to “win”. The timer is only a thing to stop afk players from causing the game to never end.
This would be like arguing that the human team in ghost invasion should get aimbot for every other shot since it’s so hard and “impossible” for them to win.
I never said anything about timers, tho. Deaths have to stop 8 runners from finishing to “win”. Also, if deaths were intended to not “win”, then why could they “win” anyways? It sounds contradictory to me. 
Also why are you stating GI? It is in fact possible for humans to win, even without aimbot, In fact, I’ve seen them win multiple times!
I don’t think you’re trying to be rude but
This kinda hurt me. 
Please provide a photo of the deaths on the 1st and 2nd podium, then I’ll believe you.
I agree, because you contradicted yourself.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to. Also, pro tip, you don’t need to @ people, you can just hit the reply button on the comment and they’ll get a notification.
In this post it basically explains the
Also I’ve noticed you commented on that post.
Okay so the first one is when i replied to you
and the other one is on a whole different comment. The background of the comment matters.
And by the way I accidentally did not click reply so…
Anyways, I don’t want to be that guy but… shall we just agree to disagree? 
The first half of your response is barely related to the subject. They didn’t provide proof of that claim either in the post. Just because I commented a bad take a month ago doesn’t mean I remember this, I forgot it existed until you brought it up.
Both were fair game to be used for a counter-argument. This is just straight up down standards at this point. You think it’s ok to bring up that post from a month ago, but me referencing your counter-arguments in this post isn’t okay?
uhhh were was it a counter argument ?
He said : the conditions of winning for death are harder
And he said : If the deaths were to not intended to win, why could they even win ?
That just means that the death can “win”, so it was intended that they win, its just harder.
Is what exactly was said. He initially proposes that deaths were not intended to win, but could win. Which yeah, if he left it there, it makes sense to me. But then he added on the second part and it was really confusing in the moment.
So yeah, you summed it up perfectly.
You missed the “IF”.