feedback-discussion

[fringe bay]

@teal parcel good idea, however i would make it a special buton for instant/fast reload in shooting range (double or tripple tap reload buton or something similar)

Gives the chance for normal reload if wanted and fast if practicing shooting

[rotund obsidian]

not sure where you got this from, shredder bodytaps up to around 57m. It used to be around 66m but it was nerfed a few updates ago.

[jaunty copper]

i only know what ive read, 74 meters is supposedly the range it hits for 149 and the bleed basically kills you right after

so online its easy to find people saying it one taps to longer range with shredder

but my point holds, its doesnt one tap super far

"Shredder Ammo of the Nitro increases the One Hit Kill Range to the Torso from 42m to 74m, applies intense bleeding and has the same ammo pool as normal Nitro ammo. As downside it is suppose to have less penetration, but can penetrate through 2 brick walls which, frankly, is still more than enough."

seems to be the narrative based on peoples tests, but maybe im wrong, my point is more that the thing absolutely should not lose shredder rounds, I love the gun, but using it is already a pain

[rotund obsidian]

even post-nerf, 57m is a ludicrously long range to oneshot to body without the drawbacks of something like projectile drop.

imo shredder oneshot should be brought in line with normal nitro rounds, it already has the bleed ontop of it and maintains some penetration

[jaunty copper]

but with heinous sights and no bullets and costs a ton

across large room you have to quickscope, its wildly tough to use

[teal parcel]

its not hard to use with a dot and money was made irrelevant

[jaunty copper]

With a dot?

[balmy sparrow]

@pseudo stream ong great description
have a

[vital fractal]

It has shit pen, and no pen after 40?m

Shredder doesn’t pen metal at all, barely pens 2 pieces of wood to deal abysmal damage- sure if you’re behind a thin single wooden wall you’ll get hit hard but other than that- long has way more pen damage

Speaking of Long vs Nitro, a single NORMAL nitro shot pens a single piece of a metal to land a whopping 72 damage on upper chest at point blank… a Long does full damage

People say the penetration power of the nitro is crazy, and I guess the ability to go through brick is cool but- it’ll barely scratch you unless it’s a headshot

The only place the nitro shines is in an area without cover within 50-60m, otherwise- long ammo should scare people more than a nitro

[reef violet]

#game-ideas message might I point you to the recent dev update where they specifically mention doing exactly what you are saying. @thick sluice

[pulsar quest]

@severe fox
Hey, I just wanted to shout out a fellow Norseaphile… Should probably come up with a better name for that—anyways, I love your idea, hope it’s considered at some point. (:

[severe fox]

Thank you ^^

[dusky tapir]

#game-ideas message

this slaps

[rapid sonnet]

Does anyone know if removing certain players from being in your team while random matchmaking has ever been brought up?

[hot vigil]

@analog willow you can "easily" swap weapon skin by clicking on the weapon in the loadout screen and then use the arrow symbols to cycle them.

[tiny pivot]

#game-ideas message

No offense because I know its related to the event but I would've much rather this for the winter season than the ash bloom

[analog willow]

I guess that is a little easier Thanks!

[woeful flame]

New Trait Added that we are not aware of?

Entire team using this exploit and somehow aint patched even though it has huge impact on the overall of the game

[unborn dagger]

Unfortunately the devs dont give two shits to release patches during events.

[queen escarp]

Can u spent some money and time and make good reconnect
waiting 10 minutes for this

[hushed sage]

They need to fix the hit registration in this game, holy fuck

[queen jungle]

You have a video of any issues?

[civic furnace]

Hello , I have to say as a console player, since the update with the aim assist and the reset of the settings, the game has been completely shit! I no longer support the game! completely incompetent

[hushed sage]

yeh one sec

maybe its just me, but that looks like a solid hit

heres another but its kinda grainy

[grizzled dagger]

me when crankgun suggestion gets down voted

https://tenor.com/view/cry-crying-cat-crying-cat-cry-why-gif-27571714

guys i NEED this, you dont understand

im like a Make-a-wish kid not getting to see chris pratt before i die

[grizzled dagger]

GIVE ME A REASON!! RAHHH WHY WOULDENT IT BE GOOD?!

[civic trout]

has it been mentioned about them reducing aim assist?

[unborn dagger]

They said that they're adjusting it I think from the feedback given.

[unborn dagger]

#general-chat-console message

[grizzled dagger]

SOMEONE TELL ME WHY GATLING GUN IS BAD, PLEASE!! RAHHHH

[unborn dagger]

Never >:]

[grizzled dagger]

Boutta go supersaien from anguish

honest to lord above gatling gun would be so good

[vital fractal]

You are advocating for the addition of a high fire rate, special ammo utilizing, high ammo capacity, primary weapon with the ability to utilize special ammo, with a decently quick reload speed that adds nothing to the game beyond further spam

This gun, even with abhorrent accuracy, goes against what Hunt Showdown’s gunplay should be based on-

[grizzled dagger]

https://tenor.com/view/indeed-oui-gif-27699370

now add it

so its a crank gun right? what about more like cyclone spam fire rate, like, idk 0.4 seconds?? and if special ammos a problem why not just have base ammo right? idk im not a dev, but as a player I know I would have fun

and heck you could have the reload be similar to dolch or something where you just slowly pop in ammo through the top.

matta o' fact, i really like the idea of a slower fire rate but fully auto gun. . idk man, would be fun tho

[tiny pivot]

tbh crank gun in general is a pretty bad idea and the vast majority of hunt players seem to dislike the idea of more fast firing guns

but i am in the camp of not minding it if it was related to horses and pulled around somehow or something similar

in general i would not mind more things that are enviromental events

[grizzled dagger]

true players seem to have a stigma around auto guns

but ngl i feel like it wouldent be worse then dual bornhiem with its fire rate

like

just that but you dont have to click every round, and also did i mention the fact that its a GATLING GUN1?!!

[tulip tapir]

i dont think hunt has a real mmr, server just trying to get the servers full 🙂
i am getting mates with 50 hours in the game, 3 star playing against full 6 star lobby (8000 hours+)
server already knows who doesnt win the round XD

[subtle lichen]

The stigma is well founded tbh because if there's a semi-auto version in a particular slot, everything else that fills the same role feels crap in comparison. You need only look at guns like the Dolch to see that more semi auto guns is not the way to go.

[sudden fog]

I've met new kind of cheater. Unlimited concertina user plus wall hack and etc. What's going on with anticheat?

Is that means cheaters legal by now?

[radiant river]

Sorry that was me

[sudden fog]

Nice cheats then

[upbeat crane]

Same with nades, I sadly dont have a clip tho...
Frag was ~1,5m away from the Hunter, no hitmarker at all.
Next Time I have Scupper Map, I will provide a Screenshot for the range comparison.

[subtle lichen]

@dry dew That suggestion gives me major MW2 flashbacks with Marathon, Commando, and Lightweight builds.

[dry dew]

is that a good or a bad thing 🤔

cause i havent played mw2

[subtle lichen]

There was a build in the original MW2 where if you took those three perks, you could run faster, run for longer, and melee further. It was great fun, but resulted in people getting stabbed half way across a room it felt like.

[rotund obsidian]

especially in hunt, anything that positively affects movespeed would almost certainly be broken

especially if it was as easy as empty tool/consumable slots

I think melee-only builds are pretty much as powerful as they should be... no real reason to arbitrarily buff emptier loadouts

[subtle lichen]

I would definitely argue that if you've got into a situation where you've been stabbed by some weeb with a katana, then that's mostly on you.

[rotund obsidian]

I agree, but that's no reason to go and buff weeb katana loadout

[subtle lichen]

Not with movement speed at least.#

[rotund obsidian]

it's definitely not too strong or anything, it's a meme loadout 100%, but it should be a meme

gonna have solos just slurping bounties and being actually impossible to catch up with

[subtle lichen]

That's a good balancing point actually. If someone snags a bounty and they're "gotta go fast", then you're done. No chance of catching them.

The only way you could potentially look to balance that would be if when you have a bounty, it slows you down to regular speeds. But then you'd be screwed because all you've not is your folded nipple steel.

[dry dew]

nah letting someone slurp up your bounty is your own damn fault

getting serpented is always a risk, and you take it by not picking up

[subtle lichen]

If you're on a team? Sure. But say you're a solo and another solo takes the other token. In theory they could make a dash for the extract at minimal risk to themselves.

[rotund obsidian]

i mean the same point stands with people just picking it up and running to extract

anything that increases movespeed beyond a stamina shot would just break game balance in unforeseeable ways

[subtle lichen]

To an extent, but you have a chance to catch them at the extract as they have to sit around like a lemon for 30 seconds before they can escape. If they're like the T1000 running across half the map, they'll be long gone before you've got any chance of getting in range.

[rotund obsidian]

i mean it can be hard enough already to catch up to and stop a team that just bolts for extract even if you notice pretty fast, now imagine that they can traverse that distance a minute faster than you

[subtle lichen]

It'd be even worse than that. Take the "Highest realistic speed" of 94% in one of the suggestions. They'd be there twice as fast as you. And with that in mind, there'd be no reason someone wouldn't sprint to the opposite side of the map.

Of course, all this depends on what you want out of the game. Getting a token out is fine, but I imagine a lot of people enjoy the PvP aspect more.

[rotund obsidian]

7% per missing consumable slot 💀 actually crazy

when i first started reading i assumed they were only referring to like, missing capacity in the weapons. so running something like a small slot pistol + machete would make you faster. when i realized they meant consumables and tools? jesus

[civic furnace]

Will aim assist be removed in the future? because now you don't need any skills to kill anyone anymore! The game hasn't been as fun for a long time as it is now
today ...

[reef violet]

I’ve had many instances recently where my team makes it to bounty compound and the other team is either still inside or just on the other end. Then they run and it’s next to impossible to catch them. Not saying it’s game breaking but the extract chasing is definatly frustrating at times unless you are right on top of them when they try to run.

[subtle lichen]

So yeah, having someone able to run X% quicker than you would only make that problem worse.

I understand the sentiment about wanting to give someone who goes in with just a melee weapon something to make it seem worth it, but I agree with what @rotund obsidian said earlier. They're mostly meme loadouts. Not every single loadout needs to be viable.

[rotund obsidian]

yeah i think even like a 10% boost overall would break the game, so 7% PER EMPTY SLOT would actually be a joke. would feel like people are just speedhacking around with empty loadouts lol

[tiny pivot]

movement speed is a lot bigger of a buff in games than people realize

people in the league of legends community are malding over a 2.5 movement speed buff

you would think something like 7% is a small buff, but no, its huge, especially in a game like hunt where half the major gameplay is just running between clues

i unfortunately dont really think movement speed increases have a place in hunt. :/ unless its very slight and conditional, like something related to meleeing people

shadow leap is an interesting test, but in terms of movement, even that i feel like is very strong.

[hot vigil]

Movement speed also makes Hunters harder to hit

ADADADADADADADAD-spam meta was fucking scourge to hunt

[light mantle]

Hey guys, I cannot start Hunt Showdown. I have tried many things, Uninstalling, Reintsalling, verifying game files. And steam says "Disk write error" Cannot start it, Also its stuck on updating at 100%, and when I click ''Resume'' it says Verifiying for a second and then goes back. Cannot start the game no metter what. Any ideas?

[hot vigil]

#troubleshooting :)

[vital fractal]

The fact that hunters seem to rotate in the air with almost full control, strafe relatively well, and rotate on an off center axis relative to what you actually see makes chicken dancing WAY too effective

[solid inlet]

it's called strafing and is literally present in every shooter 💀

[hot vigil]

Ah, no this was different basically you had equal strafing speed to the sides when you were sprinting forward, so melee rush was really hard to deal with back in the days.
Also old hunt had way more sway to the guns.

https://tenor.com/view/dodging-rain-gif-25487368

Basically like this (exaggerate for the brevity of comedy)

[trail carbon]

How long ago was this? I dont remember that.

I totally believe you, but Im just curious

[solid inlet]

I assume early access, cuz I started in 2020 and it was not like this

[trail carbon]

I started in early 2019 and I don't remember it either

[hot vigil]

Early Access :)

[trail carbon]

Hilarious, was there a silly meta before quickswap meta in early access, or was it still quickswap?

[hot vigil]

It was kinda the silly meta, people were complaining about how powerful saber was

Which led to shotgun spam

Or more precisely C&K and Rival Spam

Rival used to be seen as the better shotgun over Romero

[trail carbon]

Thats funny

[signal silo]

Honestly, I don't think this is working as intended... there should be less incentives for solos... the pendulum has swung too far.

[trail carbon]

I think we should go back to solos getting more bounty reward, but far less advantages. Because, now, solos have lowered mmr, solo revive, 50m serpent, more darksight, and a couple other things

[hot vigil]

Guess the majority playerbase are solos now 🤷‍♂️

[next yarrow]

Winfield/Machete was "meta" at one point because charging machete would cover your head and limb pen hadn't been added yet. Also there was no max headshot range

[signal silo]

Yes, but should it be?

[trail carbon]

I used to play solo, but it stoppwd being fun because it would put me in 4 star lobbies

[hot vigil]

Well, we cannot choose what game people want to play or not.
But issue is that playing into randoms is super punishing as VC is open for the match.
So it kinda steer new players away from teams and into solos quickly.

That said, solos should be fine playing with solos. And if the solo playerbase is that large, having solo only lobbies might fix it somewhat.

[signal silo]

I only play teams. That match was my team vs 6 solos. I'm unsure what you mean by randoms being punishing. I've never had an issue playing with pubs.

[vital fractal]

Were the solos smurfs or genuine three stars?

And what was your team?

[subtle lichen]

I play mostly solo late at night and it seems to be mostly other solos. Which is fine tbh, it's what I would expect.

[hot vigil]

So playing teams with randoms only gives you the open voice and open text chat
so any communication is broadcasted to the rest of the server in vicinity

[subtle lichen]

If they were to add a solos only mode, I would expect a Necro nerf for it tbh.

But I don't see a solos only mode being a good idea overall.

[hot vigil]

So Necro is only broken against other solos

[hot vigil]

As an option, heard some solos want it

[subtle lichen]

I mean, dealing with a solo Necro as a team is less punishing than dealing with a Necro solo if you're also solo.

[hot vigil]

Depends on a lot of factors

But I can agree somewhat

[subtle lichen]

If you're on your own and are having to focus on whether the guy you just lit up with a flare is gonna stand up, you can't really do a lot else is what I mean. If you're on a team, the other one or two can keep an eye out for other players or whatever.

[hot vigil]

What if 1/2 of your other team-mates are downed and you are alone?

[subtle lichen]

Then yeah, that sucks.

[hot vigil]

Again, talk that have been done over and over again, but solo necro is in a state where it sucks for everyone.

So solo-mode or not, it needs a overhaul.

[subtle lichen]

I think having Necro be a burn trait would be the least worst option tbh.

[hot vigil]

Wouldn't be bad, think having a 30 second timer on the body is also good.

But it seems like most solos want to be able to lounge around for 5-10 min doing nothing.

Which solo necro weren't really meant to do.

[subtle lichen]

I think having an upper limit on how long you can wait should be a thing.

When I have Necro ready and they don't burn immediately, I can't wait to get back up, just gotta wait for the footsteps to disappear. But if they're waiting for me, I usually call it a day after getting up once.

No point in making my MMR even worse in that situation.

[hot vigil]

For sure! Yeah dunno, when necro first rolled out a lot of solos were like "yeah solo necro is good, then we don't have to waste time in lobbies!", but seeing people are willing to lay on their arse for 10 mins tells me that was never the point haha

[subtle lichen]

It was perhaps more of an issue before it got easier to keep a dollar float going. When gear was more valuable, it was perhaps worth waiting a bit and then going for a cheeky extract so you don't lose all your stuff. But now it's a bit easier to keep your dollars above 0, it's not as much of a problem if you die.

[vital fractal]

Imma be honest, now that recruitment is the way that it is- gear is kinda worthless

The only reason I hesitate sometimes isn’t because I can’t afford it, it’s just that I don’t want to be the guy who died with a avto to a Romero

[tardy rapids]

Don't bring an avto then

[vital fractal]

But I get over it and still die lmao- but the gear fear is no longer an issue

[vital fractal]

Nah that’s the thing, I don’t have to fear bringing one in due to cost at all

And this recruitment update means neither does just about anyone else

[tardy rapids]

That's a good thing

[vital fractal]

Not really

[tardy rapids]

Yes it is.

[vital fractal]

There should be some hesitancy rather than, pick best or most expensive option each time you die

[tardy rapids]

As previously people would have a shit ton of hunt dollars and just stock up on them anyway

[vital fractal]

Yeah but one of hunts premises was how hard loss of a hunter was

[tardy rapids]

The new recruitment is beautiful let's me use the skins I paid for.

[vital fractal]

Now it’s literally just click a few buttons to be where you started

[tardy rapids]

Ah you're the tarkov mindset.

[vital fractal]

Not at all but ok

I’m just saying, Hunt is veering directly away from having true punishments when you died

[tardy rapids]

It is as assumed from your statement if you went back to how "risky" things are people who prestige or don't have hunt dollars are at a disadvantage.

People with a lot of hunt dollars do not feel any punishment from dying

which is 90% of 5 to 6 stars having a butt load of money.

[vital fractal]

You only get to save up a lot of money if you manage to extract and run only cheap loadouts for the time you save up, which is fair since they put in the work for it- and could lose it

Now everyone is on their way to 100k or more lol

[tardy rapids]

I'm not here to play "I have more free time so I should have an advantage" economy it's why games like dark and darker and tarkov do not have the fun hunt has I'm very glad for the new change.

[vital fractal]

Again, Hunt is getting more casual- as you just said

[tardy rapids]

Good

[vital fractal]

I disagree with that

[tardy rapids]

If you're looking for hardcore extraction shooters play tarkov

[vital fractal]

Tarkov isn’t an option for everyone

[tardy rapids]

Hunt has been and always will be more casual compared to the others

[vital fractal]

Nor does it have the same features I desire

[tardy rapids]

You can self revive.

Revive teammates

in an extraction shooter

[vital fractal]

And, doesn’t mean it have to continue becoming more casual

[tardy rapids]

The only way to do so in a game like dark and darker is finding a revive station

[vital fractal]

Ok?

[tardy rapids]

in hunt you can revive on the spot

[vital fractal]

Ok and?

How are those games relevant

[tardy rapids]

And you lost the argument when you started typing like that.

Extraction shooter

harder than hunt

[vital fractal]

Yes, but are those Hunt?

[tardy rapids]

Hunt = more casual extraction shooter.

I'm glad the devs went the casual route

[vital fractal]

Hunt = Hunt, an extraction shooter that’s becoming way more casual than it was

If I wanted to play another game I would, but I want to play Hunt

And hunt as it was, is more attractive than where it is going for me

There’s no argument, just a discussion

[tardy rapids]

Uh good for you but I'm glad a majority have found the game to be much more fun and looking at the steam charts since the start of making the game casual the player base has gone up.

One sec I think I just found a cheater who used explosive ammo on the bornheim silencer

[vital fractal]

I don’t believe that’s due to the game becoming more casual, I believe that’s due to the increase in coverage and general lifespan of the game lol- although it may have a small impact, changes like making it cheaper, or even free on a game pass or such would/have have much larger effects on player population

[tardy rapids]

No the major impact from the game was making skins cheaper to buy on legendary hunters now if they can just fix the "op" skins god it would be so much more fun.

[vital fractal]

Ok

[tardy rapids]

That and making buying items cheaper for people to fix the economy which they have stated in previous dev blogs that they are "testing the waters"

this update is an example of that.

[unborn dagger]

Yeah I dont see the point in the economy anymore if it's gonna be this easy. It was fun having to manage your money and having to think of cheap loadouts to save money. But now I dont need to worry about that anymore which is sad :/

[plucky plover]

Get rid of the setting everything a light it’s ridiculous as a solo trying to get somewhere grrr

[balmy sparrow]

pepperige farm remembers when solos couldn't self revive and didn't worry about being burnt after death 😔

[reef violet]

To add my two cents into the casualization of hunt/economy issue. I don’t really have an issue with reduced punishment on hunter death - loss of perks, better starting preks, and so on. My issue is with the abosoleting of the “cheap” weapons. Imo the is no reason to run the single shot rifles anymore if special ammos are not going the be exclusive to them. That would make choice between high ROF or ammo guns more meaningful.

[next yarrow]

Gear fear was always stupid. There's nothing in the game where you can't just buy another one

[reef violet]

Same for the more basic single shot shotguns

[next yarrow]

The devs went away from some of the more "hardcore" aspects all the way in early access, and most of those being good changes. Tier 1s having 100 before banishing was bad.

The only gear fear that made sense was losing a hunter that you liked, and that mostly went away with legendary hunters

[spice topaz]

This exactly. And 2/3 hunters coming with iron eye + high end traits. Why play single shots? One has to browse through recruited hunters to find one without traits that would go to waste with less meta loadouts.

[next yarrow]

There was already little reason to run the Springfield or Romero, except that they were fun. This whole rebalance thing is just a symptom of the economy not mattering because people have had 5+ years to stockpile hunt dollars

Maybe they'll finally make the Springfield worth using on it's own merits, and not keep trying to balance through economy

[tardy rapids]

See this is an amazing example of describing what you mean good shit man.

[tardy rapids]

^^^^

While I'm glad it's more casual I will admit that the hardcore aspect of cheap loadouts was a good idea.

But they said in a few dev blogs ago that they are trying to fix the "economy" issue but the problem is so many people have millions of hunt dollars already that buying any loadout doesn't matter.

Even before this update buying items wasn't really that big of an issue for a majority of the players (from 4 to 6 stars).

Also exaggeration on the millions but it is definitely over 500k on average.

[next yarrow]

Yeah, if they want to make the economy matter more, they would have to do a wipe (which nobody wants) or add more hunt dollar sinks.

[vital fractal]

I would adore a wildcard contract where the total loadout budget is <$150 or Modes where the minimum is >$2000

[tardy rapids]

This is the same problem sea of thieves is facing.

There is nothing to use all the hunt dollars on

[vital fractal]

Just to use the wildcard to spruce things up

[next yarrow]

I think adding more hunt dollar sinks (an exclusive skin, maybe?) would really help with the economy not mattering

[tardy rapids]

Man I'm all for bringing back cheap loadouts but please keep legendary hunters cheap (fix the op ones).

I'm tired of running tier 2 or 3 hunters that look meh at best

[vital fractal]

There really is no reason why legendary hunters can’t be applied skins to normal hunters

[tardy rapids]

The 30% discount on items is way too good to pass on sometimes.

for tier 2 and tier 3 hunts

[next yarrow]

I like that they made tiered hunters better too, but regularly having 15+ points worth of traits is a bit much

[tardy rapids]

there is no advantage of buying a legendary hunter currently

True

[queen jungle]

@quick dragon Being able to deal with less-than-perfect circumstances is simply part of being a skilled player in Hunt and as you already wrote in your suggestion, you can always take the safe choice and use a loadout that fits most times of day.

There are some great video guides to be found on YouTube to get better at handling different times of day.

[vital fractal]

A free hunter should get no traits
tier 1 hunter should get 3 points
Tier 2 hunter get 6 points
Tier 3 get 9 points
Legendaries get 9 points too

I feel that’s fair

[next yarrow]

I'd cap recruitment hunters at like 9-10 points worth of traits max and add a random legendary hunter to the recruitment tab personally

[tardy rapids]

See here's the problem though

If you did that tiered hunter thing you just suggested what would be the point of buying a legendary hunter for 100$ hunt dollars when a free hunter always gets two weapons consumables and medkit + melee now.

Might as well just stay under 20k$ for effiency of just going into hunt with free hunters with perk points and weapons.

[vital fractal]

Well that’s my thing, maybe they can expand by adding budget limits to the hunters arsenal?

[tardy rapids]

That has been suggested and the community didn't like it

[vital fractal]

Free is a loadout under <100? And so on

[tardy rapids]

check suggestion ideas

[vital fractal]

The community doesn’t like a limit on their power, that’s always going to be a thing

[tardy rapids]

Hell this topic has been going on for 2+ years.

Man I said it earlier I'll say it again let us replace our free hunter from the previous rotation for a legendary hunter with no equipment for free.

but we can't bring a free hunter that rotation

that way you still have to spend hunt dollars for items

[brazen wave]

#game-ideas message
I think this is sort of a non issue since you can still use a scope perfectly fine in close quarters as long as you just only aim down the scope when you’re about to shoot

[tardy rapids]

And if you want to give them no perks idm

As some of the skins are op arguably but this allows for people to at least use them more and encourages people to buy more skins if they can use it especially newer players and as a community we should be bringing in more players.

[next yarrow]

I'd rather have a "high rollers" queue that you're put in if you spend more than $1000 on a loadout vs a loadout hard cap tbh

[tardy rapids]

Dark and darker did that

people just farmed better gear from it

As usually if they make a "high roller queue" there needs to be higher reward for risk

Otherwise no one will play it if people only buy avtomats and other expensive guns in that queue

[next yarrow]

I meant more of an automated thing than an opt-in

[queen jungle]

You are gonna make this into China-Ware

With your events

and me not being able to see past fog while other people can

GJ

[vital fractal]

I mean, they have the Wildcard queue- and considering how much freedom players have with their gear now, they can really try to push crazy weekday queues and non-even queues-

Extremely limited budget, High rollers only, X equipment only, X equipment Banned, fuck around with the AI in this mode, use it as a test bed for other changes- I mean they really have the chance to save some face and testing time by utilizing wildcard here

[grizzled dagger]

Huh, that seems to be true. still though ill be damned before i give up the idea

but wouldn't the price tag make it more balanced? like, ofc you can buy a cheaper gun to fulfil a hypothetical role, so wouldn't it make sense to have another option for a bigger price? right? maybe?

[humble quest]

Price as a balance point is a farce

[grizzled dagger]

ik ik but i want it to exist

but as for the time being?

[humble quest]

Youre playing the wrong game for a Gatling

[grizzled dagger]

dont say that mister frodo!!

You dont mean it!!

ok though bare with me, what do you think COULD balance it? hypothetically

[humble quest]

Being in a different game.

[grizzled dagger]

ah c'mon! humor me!

[humble quest]

There zero things that would make me say another auto gun would be good. The only way it should enter the game is in a state so bad it's unusable, and at that point it's worthless dev time.

[grizzled dagger]

yeah :/ ight

still cant shake the feeling that it wouldn't be worse to play against then dual bornhiem

[humble quest]

There's less to be done about things that exist already. We have a weapon bloat imo in a couple ways. Adding more guns that would be worse or just not adding value isn't a positive

[grizzled dagger]

gah you prolly right, woe is me ngl

has anyone suggested smoke bomb yet? what about that? dont crush that dream too!

[idle kraken]

@hot vigil you're not alone, i also fuckin hate challenges and i'm sick of playing hunt because of them

[humble quest]

Iirc the smoke was a limited by the engine and theres hope after the upgrade it can happen

[slim pollen]

I genuinely don't know if this is a joke suggestion or not? #game-ideas message

[grizzled dagger]

Thank you, i have a little hope then

[hot vigil]

Word my man, guess it is what it is

[vivid magnet]

Y'all REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEALLY need to get a handle on the halfbaked sluggish vaulting/jumping. I've been playing since 2018 and can't tell how many times I've died due to the faulty mantling mechanics.

[radiant river]

huh

[analog willow]

@somber robin #game-ideas message Interesting...

[unborn dagger]

@visual anchor it may sound that simple if an idea but it isnt. Hunt doesn't have a big playerbase like COD or BF so being able to turn off or on ash, night, fog, serpent moon, etc., etc. will not work and especially for each weather. Not to mention there are also multiple other things seperating the playerbase already like the MMR brackets.

[flat sandal]

hmmm... just went from 3 to 4 stars after a game without killing anyone. how?^^

yeah, hard agree on the challenges. I really hope they are aware that in their current form they are completely unsustainable. On top of those you are now low key pushed into playing certain loadouts by the traits. yes, I know but still, it's there and doesn't have to be 😄

[signal mural]

@hot vigil I get where you're coming from with the Challenges. This is at least the 3rd iteration of them and while the best of the three, it's still a drag.

I personally much prefer completing weekly challenges during Events for points than blood bond based "boosters", Twitch point-drops, or rat-grinding EVERY round to nickel & dime through an event. The only way I could imagine them changing this with the current systems would be via Dark Tributes; ie: a lump of Event points for every pip of the daily Dark Tributes instead of Challenges. But that raises the issue that it would pidgeon-hole players into a daily playing scenario that many cannot afford.

I think Crytek eliminating from match rewards has created or at least compounded this feeling of disdain for the weekly challenges. I feel like Challenges being the only guaranteed way to earn BBs is the core issue. But I don't think they will revert that change.

Maybe generalizing the challenges would make them less annoying? The trend seems to be going through in the opposite direction unfortunately.

[rancid pebble]

I feel like the game gives you a little MMR just for surviving a game. I’m not sure, but I had this happen too lol

[flat sandal]

yeah has to be something like that. word is that it only changes when killing or being killed so we don't seem to have the whole picture but meh.... 😄

[flat sandal]

no joke, challenges rn are the type of thing that kill a game

more ppl get annoyed of them and that, if true, would be a big red flag for a feature. I got the battle pass but can't even be bothered at all to try and grind for it doing challenges. I just want to bloody play the game. It's bothersome so I kinda don't play at all

[signal mural]

Did you pick up an assist?

[flat sandal]

no zero kills, zero fights even

just got the bounty and left

didn't stop me from dying twice though^^

I got lvl 100 in that game as well though

i think

[signal mural]

I thought bounty extraction gives a tickle, especially when it's a Clean Sweep. But they're intentionally vague about what's considered for MMR.

[flat sandal]

yeah doesn't really matter, just a strange observation^^

honestly it's weird atm. I start the game, look at my available traits, look at the challenges, realise that I'm kinda supposed to play a super specific loadout, have to manage to ignore that or shut down the game

[unborn smelt]

MMR adjusts with a short delay afaik, so likely you did getthe required kills in the game before

[signal mural]

Yeah sometimes I just log-in to Reshuffle a single challenge so that the next time I can play it might be something I don't mind playing.

[subtle lichen]

I haven't bought the battle pass because I know I won't be able to complete it, so it's a bit of a waste of time to do so.

Which is a shame because the Beekeeper skin is kinda kick ass looking.

And some of the challenges are kind of annoying to do. Like the poison damage to hunters one.

[signal mural]

The most annoying aspect of Challenges is the "RNG" of getting Challenges that you just unofficially completed as if it realizes you just completed it unofficially and now you should do it again.

[signal mural]

Sparks with poison rounds wraps that up quick enough.

[subtle lichen]

I had three Romero challenges in a row last week. Which is fine I guess, I actually like the Romero. But it does speak to a fairly shallow pool of challenges to pick from.

[signal mural]

I have to say find the Boss lair, extract with a bounty, & clean sweep are all super annoying. They should just be permanently active in addition to the other 4 challenges. That way people who really want to ignore challenges could just grind their weekly by getting bounty extractions.

[subtle lichen]

Of those, I think I've only seen the Find the boss lair one. And that's always a bit annoying when someone spawns right next to it so you don't get a chance to complete it.

[flat sandal]

maybe, I might be wrong rn but on top of things I think it was my first game

[signal mural]

Oh I forgot 'Banish a Boss'

[hushed sage]

why is crytek giving so much love to high rate of fire, low recoil weapons recently

[crystal plume]

Define "so much love"

[hushed sage]

Like more additions of weapons, variants, and ammo focused around high rate of fire weapons

[crystal plume]

Imo they have released other stuff as well at the same time enough to it not really count as "so much love" towards purely high rof low recoil weapons

Dolch got quite a bit of stuff with this event since it didn't have anything other than one variant for years

And personally I find the other end of the "spectrum" just as problematic to lean into, I face so many mosins in my matches that it kills the variety

[hushed sage]

Very fair, in my experience for my MMR, which is high 4s and low 5s. Dolch reigns supreme, which i get it hadnt been touched in awhile but its so common now its wild. Not seeing too many decent skirmishes and fights right now, just a lot of bullet spam. Could be a rank thing that tapers off in high MMR. With the addition of the new Dolchs, the new ammo for them, the cyclone, and the Bornheim. it feels like accuracy comes second to volume of fire.

[crystal plume]

Well cyclone and bornheim silencer both absolutely require accuracy due to cyclone's small clip size and recoil and bornheim's extremely low damage

Dolch has enough damage and ammo to spare for spam sure, but then again it always did

[wet saffron]

@unborn mirage Idk what you mean in your report. To me both tears/holes are visible in the two screenshots you have provided.

[hushed sage]

I dont die a lot to the Bornheim luckily, mostly added that in there as an example of why it feels like high rate of fire weapons are getting more attention than other things. The cyclone, i can agree, need to be accurate but that 2 shot potential is crazy, and your time to react is so low. Skill issue on my part for sure but the Dolch and cyclone are pretty common in my lobbies, dolchs are every round without fail, i dont think im exaggerating there rn, theyre in every match atm. Confirmation Bias im sure but its feels like 90% of my deaths are due to being mag dumped recently.

[balmy sparrow]

exactly how much i feel for you

[hot vigil]

Generalizing the challenges would help a lot. Tho still think the best version of challenges were the one that didn't pay out BB nor Event Points, it was so nice to choose not to do them.
Also my fix would be to move Event Points and BB over to accolades again, just cap it like weekly challenges are capped.

[queen jungle]

@raw forum Knowing there is nobody nearby in the beginning would take away a lot of the tension and make the game more boring. Also, forcing spawns to be as far away as possible would always give all players the information about other teams' spawn locations immediately after spawning in.

[dusky storm]

I think the spawns and visibility should be looked at and tweaked a little bit. There’s a couple of questionable spawn locations where I feel you have an advantage because of sight lines and what cover you have around you. Also, i wish it was impossible to spawn at a boss location. Being across the map entirely and having a boss go down in the first 30 seconds of a match is a bit silly. At least if you spawned a compound over from a boss, there would be decisions to make on which direction to go.

[vital fractal]

Knowing for sure boss is not at compound you spawn at would immediately mean most players would just gun it for the compound near by-

Again, it’s annoying when boss spawns otherside of map next to extract but like… it’s an equal chance that it happens for everyone, and it’s fine as is tbh

As for player spawns, you’re just supposed to assume someone’s always watching you- even at spawn

[humble quest]

@dusky storm there is a setting you can change to show the names. At the very bottom of the UI? Page I think

[raw forum]

I understand, my solution which I suggest will not work, cuz your argument right, but if it might be improved somehow, maybe some spots removed, idk. Because I had multiple games where me/my team didn't made any mistake/noise we just spawned&died. For example two teams which was spawned near us was pushing from both sides and as a result we just die with have no any chances (becuase even if you play good, good aim, taking covers, there are too much lethal weapons stuff how they can get you). And you just lose game&hunter&time because "lucky" spawn. I raising this issue, because its starting annoying me more frequently last time, as I get captured like this.

[unborn mirage]

the hole reappeared at the time of screenshot but would disappear and reappear as I was showing my friend I was playing with where I got shot from. It’s the hole on the left not on the right - the right one is consistently there.

[digital marlin]

I ran into this issue a lot when I started playing Hunt. I’ve only been playing for 2 weeks now so I’m not an expert but I love gun fights. So what I’ve done is learn where I’ve spawned with other teams the most. From there I’ve been able to adjust and win majority of my gun fights off spawn. As soon as I notice I’m at a spawn where I’ve engaged with other teams too many times, my play style is adjusted depending on the situation. I either find an area where I can scout the compound first or I slow play it by setting a mental timer of when I think someone should be at the compound by now before moving in.

But I can see how it can be an issue. Last time I spawned in with another team, my duo and I sent them back to the lobby before they were in the match for a full minute. I know if I was in their shoes, I would be pretty upset that I went through a few mins of matchmaking and bought all of my equipment just to play for 58 seconds and die.

[peak berry]

have you tried trios recently

playing with people is fun

lmao

cant even fit all the "teams" on screen

[azure parrot]

It seems seven of ten games are rain or desolation... two are fog and one is day... keeps me from wanting to play the game...

[peak berry]

i like getting the variations occasionally, but same boat ill get rain and ash 7 out of 10 games

[shadow mantle]

I just leave. Its obnoxious. Both rain and the new one. Loud, intrusive and it covers up sound ques in game, and the new one even adds "fake" ones.

[subtle lichen]

That's gotta be RNGesus at work. I didn't see Ash Bloom more than twice after they moved it to the normal contract.

Twice in a week I mean

[slate geyser]

Why am I playing on an EU server at prime gaming time and 80% of all players are Russians with absurd and unfair pings? This is getting really out of hand lately. Any plans to restrict the access?

[queen jungle]

You are aware most Russians live in Europe and the ping from Germany (where the Hunt EU servers are) to Moscow only is about 40-50 ms with a decent internet connection?

[slate geyser]

I am aware, but I am also not stupid and can see when ppl lag all over the place.

No problem with reasonable pings like you described. Why not lower the ping limit then to make sure that its fair for everyone?

[queen jungle]

The ping limit is a technical limitation and not meant to make anything "fair". It's not meant to restrict players to specific regions. The devs have always said they are aware of Hunt's international community and will not prevent people playing together.

[slate geyser]

Do not get me wrong, I like having an international community and playing with people all over the globe. But I would argue that your current system of having absolute unfair games because of huge ping differences is resulting in the exact opposite.

[balmy sparrow]

You know what should be the next weapon influenced by martialist

Bare fists

Like when you don't bring a gun

[thorny sigil]

I wanna know why this is even a thing, playing randoms, one 6*, one 5

and 1 4

they were running spitzer and dolch

all 3 6 *'s were

why is this shit even in my games?

im playing randoms and im going against a full stack fo 6 stars

[subtle lichen]

@languid cargo Don't forget the cocaine.

[wet saffron]

Crytek really needs more personell for the english tickets on their website. A week+ for a response is a chonky amount of time.

[queen jungle]

@surreal lantern That would violate Crytek's commitment to supporting an internationally grown and connected community

[surreal lantern]

yeah, It could be but the main problem is the ping @queen jungle for example a foreign players into europe server, they ping more, and this game is advantage for high ping where if i hit an hs, more times the server said to leg or feet. There was also the problem that when I killed an foreign player with a high ping, he shot me after 2 seconds when he died before. For me they can do two things:
For me they can do two things:
1)A player has 20 ms ping while a foreign player has 200 ms ping. In all games those who ping badly usually get their shot cancelled. While someone who has a low ping, all hits have to come in faster against someone who has a very high ping. (So you are ruining the experience for those who want to play well in this game). In general if a Chinese person plays on the European server, they could do so but at the risk that the hits will be cancelled. He could safely play on their servers. (This is an example)
2)Or through matchmaking where if a player has a very high ping, he is matched with others who have the same ping (similar to activision).

[unborn smelt]

and this game is advantage for high ping where if i hit an hs, more times the server said to leg or feet.
That's not an issue with the enemies ping tho...
Hunt uses Clientside hitreg, with serverside validation. That means your client sends the info of you having a hit an enemy to the server, which then doublechecks that info by "comparing" your clients game state with the servers gamestate. If the server validates your hit - the gamestate of the guy you shot as well as the server history is entirely overwritten. The one gamestate that specifically doesn't matter in that case - is the one of the person being shot at.

Hunt uses that system specifically so ping matters as little as possible for hitting your shots.

https://www.huntshowdown.com/news/the-state-of-hit-registration-in-hunt
^^ source

[surreal lantern]

Yeah, i can read this, but there are more situation where are suspicious, where the weapons is totally hitscan (mosin with spitzer), i can see directly for my HS in europe player (the hit enter, while if they are foreign (chinese or people have more lags (around 200 ms), the hs don't enter). I've 1400h on this game. Nothing problem with chinese people.

[unborn smelt]

none of the guns are "totally hitscan". A mosin with spitzer has a fast bullet, 820m/s to be exact, but that is not the same as hitscan... You'll still miss if you don't lead properly, even tho you have to lead less, seeing as it's just a roughly 35% velocity increase

I can even tell you how much you have to lead roughly

https://www.huntshowdown.com/news/inside-hunt-s-weapon-system-with-david-west

as this was written when the mosin had 800 m/s velocity baseline

so you have to lead a running target at 100m roughly 0.56m with a Mosin Spitzer

[surreal lantern]

yeah yeah it's only an example, i can read this article. only for said for hitscan or similar weapons with the same characteristics

[unborn smelt]

TBH i also provide sources here because other people might read the convo and actually believe spitzer makes the mosin actual hitscan

which would lead to them missing shots due to missunderstanding that it's just used as a hyperbole

[surreal lantern]

Here you got it right, it was me who put a weapon that is almost hitscan but isn't. I always use weapons with high velocity. However to say when a hs comes in or not, I already know that the first one is a European, and if the other then it is a foreigner. Must change the playstile.

[unborn smelt]

yeah the only thing i can say to that is - according to all the info we got from the devs (and my own experience too, but that doesn't matter much) is that enemy ping doesn't affect your ability to hit them, because of the system i described above (clientside hitreg, with serverside validation -> only your client and the server are involved in hitreg, not the one being shot at)

[surreal lantern]

yeah thank you

[unborn smelt]

have a great day still

👍

[unborn smelt]

@plush mesa The idea of the typical passive scope glint as seen in so many games is very very far from being realistic. A realistic glint only appears if the sun (or a suitable light source) is in the correct position to send light into the scope and for that to be reflected to the eyes of the one being aimed at. So it's very very dependant on the weather condition and directions of the people involved.

However what could be cool IMO, is if some light gadgets could make scopes produce a glint if used correctly. For example you could throw a flare or fusee and if a person aims close to you, with the flare/fusee being in the FOV of the shooter (or relatively close to it) the scope should produce a glint. this way you could actively check for snipers. The same could also work with the flashlight, where if you shine it at a person aiming close to you, the scope would produce a glint and give them away.

[plush mesa]

Yeah but hunt has very sunny maps is it okey for this mechanic not works with night maps. Plus game realy unplayable right now for this matter long range sniper campers in outside god knows where realy anoying and boring for all players

[crystal plume]

I wouldn't call it unplayable but I do agree with the addition of scope glint for people aiming at you from far away

[tardy rapids]

Make every sniper have a default lamp on them so when they aim in it reveals their position

Jk jk

[unborn dagger]

That's such a surprisingly good idea

Like it would actually make a flashlight worth bringing in day maps

[late quartz]

No shot anybody wastes a tool slot on a headlamp even if it causes glint lol

These are LARP/simulator mechanics not compelling meta shakeups

The idea that you'd shoot a flare, impacting your own vision or making yourself more visible to the enemy (often both) so that you can identify a player outside you effective range is uhhhh... questionable?

You're inherently harming your ability to fight back if you throw a light source near yourself since not being hit and being able to accurately shoot back are at least as important as knowing where the sniper is in the first place.

The reality is that in most situations, if you don't have a scope and the other player is using theirs effectively, you probably just shouldn't take the fight at all.
The point of glint isn't so that you can shoot back, the point of glint is so that sniping doesn't have such a large advantage on initiating a fight or locking down areas. Once you know somebody is trying to snipe you it's sort of too late for glint.

[unborn smelt]

I didn't intend for them to be META shake ups either. I think it could be a fun addition to ones toolbox.

[late quartz]

I guess so but generally the reason people suggest scope glint is because they feel that snipers aren't balanced

And adding it as aesthetic fluff would be kinda wack

[unborn smelt]

The idea that you'd shoot a flare, impacting your own vision or making yourself more visible to the enemy (often both) so that you can identify a player outside you effective range is uhhhh... questionable?
I'd argue against that tbh. If you're going about it in a smart way you don't obscure your vision with the flares, because you'd throw them " in a way that you are between the flare and where you guess the sniper would be, so the light is in the background for you.
And for making yourself more visible, i also doubt that, during night flares do a great job of blinding people that look at them, and during day they don't really make you stand out at all, since it's bright anyway.

You're inherently harming your ability to fight back if you throw a light source near yourself since not being hit and being able to accurately shoot back are at least as important as knowing where the sniper is in the first place.
I'd again argue against that. the idea of making a scope glint appear is to be able to make out a sniper to begin with - if you don't see them you never get the chance to even try to fight back. So i would value the intel regarding their position, way higher than potentially harming your option of fighting back if you don#t use the lightsource well.

Also depending on the lightsource you don't have to stay in the light to fight back... you can put the flare in one place to check for glint, if you see glint you can reposition to fight whoever produced the glint, or you can plan your route to flan / flee accordingly.

The reality is that in most situations, if you don't have a scope and the other player is using theirs effectively, you probably just shouldn't take the fight at all.
The point of glint isn't so that you can shoot back, the point of glint is so that sniping doesn't have such a large advantage on initiating a fight or locking down areas. Once you know somebody is trying to snipe you it's sort of too late for glint.
Well i see the point of glint way diffrent than you do. IMO the point of glint is not to allow you to fight back primarily - it's to provide information about the danger you're in, which then allows you to potentially fight back as a result (or rather avoid the danger if you're so inclined)

Glint is IMO there precisely to make you aware of a threat. And that's what my idea was about. I'm just not a fan of the "lazy" form of glint that gives away positions without the person being aimed at putting in any effort what so ever. That's why i'd tie the glint to a mechanic that requires some effort to actually gain the intel that allows you to make the plans going forward

[late quartz]

And for making yourself more visible, i also doubt that
I mean I almost universally feel that people are easier to see if there's a flare behind/around them that's far enough from them to not cause their screen to light up. I've had people throw flares at me to make me more visible and ruin natural camo, I've had teammate do it to great effect.
This is just something we probably have to agree to disagree on and go reassess in-game lol

if you don't see them you never get the chance to even try to fight back. So i would value the intel regarding their position, way higher than potentially harming your option of fighting back if you don#t use the lightsource well.
This is why I say that scope glint matters BEFORE you know to throw a flare in the first place. Once people are shooting at you, you have a general direction as to where they are. With a general direction you know where not to expose yourself if the best option is not to fight (which is most of the time)

IF YOU ARE in a situation where you're equipped or set up to fight back, reducing your ability to suppress or accurately hit the other player is the last thing you want. In both situations it does an inadequate job of solving the natural imbalance of encounters involving a scope. It's just not a good solution no matter how the situation is playing out.

Also depending on the lightsource you don't have to stay in the light to fight back
If a dude is shooting at you, you have adequate information to avoid their lines of sight anyway. If you're rotating away after throwing a flare you have no real reliable way to know they haven't also counterrotated or have multiple players watching escape routes. It's not consisent enough to be worth a tool slot.

it's to provide information about the danger you're in, which then allows you to potentially fight back as a result (or rather avoid the danger if you're so inclined)

I'm just not a fan of the "lazy" form of glint that gives away positions without the person being aimed at putting in any effort what so ever.

The biggest issue people have with scopes is how powerful they are at locking down areas and initiating fights at a major advantage. If you already know you're in a fight with a sniper it's too late to equalize those advantages. You know there's somebody shooting at you and you know where from. Getting glint at this point doesn't help you avoid fire because you already have the intel.

I understand in principle the idea you're expressing, that scope glint should be a counterplay measure rather than a universal nerf to scopes... in principle I understand what would lead somebody to believe that.

In practice though it doesn't actually make much sense unless it's a universal nerf because it's specifically nerfing the compounding strengths having an extremely long effective range on top of stealth. The point is generally that if somebody is trying to snipe you they shouldn't just get the first shot for free with no risk

[unborn smelt]

for the flare visibility thing - yeah. They can absolutely boost your visibility, but they can also hide you very well. That's very much a matter of skill

[late quartz]

When they hide you they also fuck your ability to shoot back

There isn't a whole lot of skill here it's just balancing drawbacks and benefits

[balmy sparrow]

which well, you don't need when you are hiding most of the time

[unborn smelt]

This is why I say that scope glint matters BEFORE you know to throw a flare in the first place. Once people are shooting at you, you have a general direction as to where they are. With a general direction you know where not to expose yourself if the best option is not to fight (which is most of the time)
I think this is the fundamental missunderstanding with what i suggest.
i do not suggest flares be thrown after you got shot at

[late quartz]

The issue is the ratio of drawbacks to benefits never really line up in a way that makes sense for this particular situation

You're always eating a drawback and you paid a full ass tool slot for it LUL

[unborn smelt]

i suggest flares be a tool to ckeck angles you suspect someone be present, before they shot you

[plush mesa]

Plus glare makes balance to camping with if you aiming to long you knew your location will bi display litle bit then this makes you not holding your aim all the time thats the base core gameplay of hunt "decision making"

[late quartz]

I really don't think preplacing flares or fusees in places where somebody MIGHT get an angle in the future at some point makes much more sense

[unborn smelt]

and that's where i disagree big time

what i suggest purely adds another possible use on top of the other uses the tool already has

i don't intend for it to be a must pick or new meta thingy

[plush mesa]

even Finals, Battlfield sniper campers has it

[late quartz]

Snipers suppressing you can be a 15+ minute ordeal, flares don't last that long, if you don't know where they are the whole "skillful" placement meme makes even less sense because once you're preplacing you're guessing about what angles you need to prioritize, meaning if you get it wrong you spent tools for the priviledge of fucking yourself over in a future fight

[unborn smelt]

yes - neither have snipers be very expensive pieces of gear and limited lives

[late quartz]

Which is exactly why snipers having such a massive advantage is worse in hunt :)

[plush mesa]

if you asking my opinon ı fınd sparks full scope all the matches

[late quartz]

Snipers are less problematic in games like BF because you can just respawn

[plush mesa]

in watch tovers has full scope snipers sparks ?

[unborn smelt]

yeah No

Snipers in BF are also "more problematic" because they could usually OHK with bodyshots

that typical sniper trope is where glint comes from

OHK to body, often hitscan

[unborn smelt]

yes they can appear in watchtowers

[plush mesa]

so that makes even plus cmon winwield full scope is a cheap as dirt

[unborn smelt]

I'm not trying to say Snipers are more problematic in general in those games - but those games require a very diffrent balancing

because they have such diffrent gamedesign

[unborn smelt]

it's also a pretty bad weapon

[late quartz]

I feel like you're sort of comparing apples to oranges and just contrasting sort of random unrelated elements to eachother

[plush mesa]

you didint saw 6 stars with speed ammo dude

[late quartz]

One hit kills in hunt =/= one hit kills in a game where you can respawn 1000 times

[unborn smelt]

the scope makes it more trait reliant, makes you strafe slower and reduces effectiveness up close

on a gun with pretty limited range

[unborn smelt]

i propably just weight them diffrently than you do

[late quartz]

Yes

In a game where you invest money into your gear and dying can mean you just lost 30 minutes of your life, snipers having such a massive advantage is more problematic than one where on the net snipers may be stronger but the impact of that strength is lower and less punishing

Saying "players paid hunt bux for the gun so it should be good" is, in my opinion, almost universally bad justification for balance in hunt

Guns should be fair IN THE MATCH they're being used in

Not in regards to the out-of-match cost

[unborn smelt]

yes - but "Fair" can mean very diffrent things in that regard

[late quartz]

Of course

This is one of the most debated topics in this community

There is clearly a sense that they're not fair

[plush mesa]

and beacue of not glare they camping and waiting with headshot that makes unbalancing too you cant saw anybody if headsman skin guy waiting for you 400 - 500m with scope you are dead

this is not about skill

[unborn smelt]

If you die to a Winnie at 500m there's an issue

the Winnie needs 2 shots, even with headshots past 160 -200m

[plush mesa]

you forgot free sparks with full scope

[unborn smelt]

also needs 2 hits past 350m

[plush mesa]

and if your pc has low options with scope you can see all the clears ways with easy ım using and thats not fair

ı can saw you 600 m with scope rifles but you cant beacuse of woods and bushes

ı shoot to many peapole with this way

[unborn smelt]

yes that is indeed an issue

[late quartz]

To be fair that's pretty hard to address

[plush mesa]

they couldnt find me but thats not fun

[late quartz]

It's more of a technical issue than a balance one

[unborn smelt]

but not a reason to nerf snipers that badly as a whole

that just needs a fix

[plush mesa]

ım beting 100 dollars ıf ı use scope rifle and full crotch postion and you was in bounty place

you cant pick 1 sec

[unborn smelt]

My big gripe with the passive glare trope, is that it's extremely low effort, IMO.

[plush mesa]

so that makes me good player ?

but ıf you has glare ı couldnt camp

beacuse you can found my location so ı try to your pick time to use my scope

[unborn smelt]

I can't pick 1 sec ?

sry i have no idea what you mean there

I've played my fair share of games against snipers

[plush mesa]

if you try found me ı immedaitly shoot you and you didnt know where bullet came

that not fair to you

you only saw kill cam that what means

[unborn smelt]

and in the vast majority of cases i didn#t get killed out of the blue, and could have just run off

[late quartz]

Fundamentally, I think the most core disagreement is whether or not scope glint is a major or overwhelming nerf for snipers.

Personally, I don't think so, because it's still very hard to fight back even if you know somebody is sniping, and they're incredibly effective at locking down areas.
Scopes don't need stealth to be effective, even if you know exactly where they are they're incredibly strong tools.

Since trait points are increasingly easy to come by, you can have quartermaster and scopesmith on your first match nearly every single game, meaning you don't even sacrifice close range power when you run a sniper.

The idea that glint would be a massive nerf to snipers effectiveness seems to be the most important thing to hash out really

[unborn smelt]

I don't need to try to find you... i run off with my bounty

and if i really want to try and find you, i moove enough so an instant HS is very unlikely

[plush mesa]

no you cant beacuse other sniper my firend will shoot you from apposite diraction both are camping

[late quartz]

Sniping is low effort. I don't think leveling the field makes the game shallow or whatever. The current state of the game just leans too heavily in one direction by giving one set of tools a disproportionate default advantage

[unborn smelt]

then we just run one of you down as a team

[plush mesa]

you have one chance you should found me or you will be dead sped bullet from sniper

[unborn smelt]

overwhelm single people by strength in numbers

[plush mesa]

thats what ı trying to say thanks for exploration ❤️

[unborn smelt]

no that's what i experience very diffrently

i usually have lots of chances, because i moove enough to not be an easy HS

[plush mesa]

ı have 1k hours in hunt and evertime this sutation hepens there is no way out if you are in troo thats makes x3 worse ı dont think this is the true hunt experince ı reciveing other matches

other games even arma has it

In real life Vasily Zaytsev most femous WW2 Sniper hates scope glares

[late quartz]

Challenging a sniper is a big risk because if they're doing their job effectively you have to cover a lot of dangerous lines of sight. You don't know how skilled they are, and they very well might be skilled enough to punish an approach even if you're moving a lot. Some people are cracked, and this will depend entirely on what bracket you're in.

Further, being hit means your team has to pause to heal and take cover, which drains resources and gives opposing teammates time to create crossfires and lock down your approach. You have to be very very lucky to have your whole team bumrush a dude sniping in a trio without something going wrong that puts the situation massively out of your favor.

[plush mesa]

he using ironsight beacuse of it

plus eating snow for breath

[late quartz]

"Just push the guy" is a really really big risk, like most aggressive plays in hunt it is not something you can just do and requires a ton of luck and a situation that makes it possible to consider in the first place

[unborn smelt]

It's also entirely unneccessary for the goal of the game

when one does so I think it's crucial they keep in mind they do it because of greed or pride or what have you. Not because you actually need to.

You can just run off if they keep you at range and take potshots

nothing forces you to take that fight

[late quartz]

I agree. Generally the right play is to just not fight the sniper

The problem is that this creates gridlock

If a sniper is in a strong position, ESPECIALLY in a 3+ team fight, sometimes it just means you can't do anything

Nobody can make any sort of play because your options are so severely limited

[charred burrow]

servers dead ?>

[plush mesa]

plus sorry ı forgot to add he shoot all snipers beacuse of glares but that real life

[unborn smelt]

and that's smth i just don't encounter myself with any semblance of regularity

to me a situation like that arises once in a blue moon

[late quartz]

If team A has bounty in boss lair, team B applying pressure at range, and you're trying to be involved in the situation, your opportunities to push either team are severely limited

[unborn smelt]

too much other info missing to generalize...

if the snipers are focused on the ones inside it just makes pushing them much much easier

[late quartz]

Push team B and team A can third party or just leave with bounty

Pushing team A already has you at a massive disadvantage because boss lairs are very defensible and they have DSB, now half your approach angles are covered by team B's snipers meaning your ability to rotate, create crossfires or pressure with your team are severely limited

[late quartz]

lol no

[unborn smelt]

chances are they give away their position eventually so i can push them from stealth

[late quartz]

Pushing boss lair when half the building is being suppressed by a sniper is not easier

It is easier to push one team in boss lair than to push that team while another team snipes

[unborn smelt]

Ofc you may get third partied... but you can also be the "Third party"

[late quartz]

You can't, because they wont initiate a fight

[unborn smelt]

which one happens is very much dependant on your skill and a hint of luck

[late quartz]

Boss lair team has no reason to push out, sniping team is sniping

Nobody is going to initiate

If you go fight the snipers you're not third partying

[unborn smelt]

no pushing the snipers is easier

because they are preoccupied stopping the lair dudes from leaving

[late quartz]

Which gives bounty team an opportunity to run or third party. You're taking the risk of fighting a team while also giving a third team a massive advantage and set of opportunities to punish

It's lose lose

[unborn smelt]

so significant amounts of their attention and firepower are not on you, but on the lair

[late quartz]

Once you draw sniper teams firepower boss lair can do whatever

Which you don't want

[unborn smelt]

yes ofc you do. But that's the point

if they third party - yor team either needs to be fast enough taking out the snipers, or maneuver in a way to get the snipers and the lair dudes fighting each other

that's simply a diffrent important skill than just aiming

[late quartz]

Why would I put myself in a situation that's overwhelmingly disfavorable to me ._.

As you just said, when you push snipers it's because you're greedy or impatient

This is just

A really foolish way to play the game

[unborn smelt]

It's not necessarily - it's just if you're too afraid

[late quartz]

Not making actively bad plays is not being "afraid"

it's being effective at the game

[unborn smelt]

yes it can go south. But it can also end up with you just nuking one team and having bairted out the second

[late quartz]

There is no compelling reason to go off and fight a non-bounty team outside of boss lair

[unborn smelt]

getting stuff moving is not necessarily and "actively bad play"

it entirely depends on your set of skills

[late quartz]

It is. That's why gridlocks happen lol

You can always break up gridlocks by being the first person to crack, but you do so at a disadvantage

"I got bored so I pushed" is the opposite of a good play

[unborn smelt]

yes if it's just that reason - ofc it's a bad play then

[vital fractal]

When I have a gridlock because I’m sandwiched between pushing team and lair team, I consider it a good play to get unsandwiched

[unborn smelt]

but that is smth very diffrent than i said

[late quartz]

How does "getting things moving" distinguish itself from "I got bored so I pushed"

[unborn smelt]

surprising one team, and baiting out the second - is IMO a very good play

[late quartz]

What's the practical difference

[unborn smelt]

as it allows you to potentially overrun one team with the element of surprise - and the other team just gave up a good position in the hopes of scoring a nice third party teamwipe

[unborn smelt]

because one happens careless, usually without a plan. The other is a calculated risk

basically "pushing out because bored" means you run out, not knowing what you're going into, with no plan how to approach it and likely no plan B either.

[late quartz]

Sure I think just walking up and headshotting everybody instantly is a good play but how likely is it that doing that works out for you?

You frame this like it might work out or it might not, it's a crapshoot. The reality is that certain situations favor players in one position more than another. You don't just have an equal shot at winning when you do any given thing.
My whole point is the strategy you're suggesting almost universally puts you at a disadvantage, exposes you to great amounts of risk, and gives you nearly no direct strategic advantage even if you succeed. Even if you kill the sniper team fully and you don't get third partied and boss lair team doesn't just run while you're busy... What did you gain? Now you're down ammo, heals, and consumables and still in a gridlock situation LOL

You're now in a WORSE position to fight the bounty team than you were before.

[unborn smelt]

if i third party a band of laircamping snipers, i usually know the position of both enemy teams, i plan my approach accordingly to give me the advatages i can reasonably get

[unborn smelt]

yes ofc i say it might not work - because that's a realistic assessment (EDIT: to add, realistic from my own experience)

there's always a chance for it to go south, but for me, it works far more often than it fails

[late quartz]

We already sort of established we agree that pushing a sniper team is generally not a good idea. You dismissed the difficulty by saying "It's not something the game requires you to do", but now it's the central pillar of your strategy to deal with how oppressive snipers are at boss lair

I'm not sure how it can both be a non-issue because the game gives you options around it

[unborn smelt]

No i never agreed to that.

[late quartz]

But then also your most potent option in one of the most universally complained about situations in Hunt's core gameplay loop lol

[unborn smelt]

there's plenty of situations when it is a good idea

it's just not always a good idea

[late quartz]

Goal of the game is... ostensibly killing other players and/or extracting with bounty

[unborn smelt]

yes - i'm saying you don't need to take a fight against a sniper

not saying it's generally a bad idea

[late quartz]

🤔

[unborn smelt]

what i'm trying to convey there is that, i do even take unfavorable fights against snipers, but if i do i accept that it's a dumb play but i do it anyway

but i don't need to take them

however that just means that actively taking a fight i deem, in that situation, unvaforable is a dumb idea

[late quartz]

So personally, I think "Well I could just extract" and "fuck it I'll do something dumb" are not in combination a way to excuse poor balance

[unborn smelt]

not that every fight against a sniper is a dumb idea

[late quartz]

So when we're talking about whether or not snipers are unbalanced, going "well you could just take a bad fight" or "I mean fuck it, extracting is an option"

Doesn't feel like a very constructive addition lol

"You don't have to take the fight" + "you can take it even if it's a bad idea" =/= snipers aren't in need of meaningful nerfs

[unborn smelt]

the point i'm trying to convey there is balance is very diffrent in this scenario depending on if you need to take that fight, or if you don't

in Hunt, the games design is in the way that you don't need to take that fight, so it's okay if snipers can excel in their intended niche to be basically untouchable, if strictly used right...

the same is also true for shotguns for example

[late quartz]

If somebody's sitting in some irrelevant location sniping people as they pass by, you don't need to take that fight.
In this type of situation the problem is that stealth + sniping compound to be frustrating and oppressive.

If somebody is sitting in a relevant location sniping, where you do generally need to be to accomplish the goal of the game (either doing PvP or getting bounty, the two widely most agreeable goals), they're frustrating and oppressive because pushing them is really really hard

We can't flip flop between "well don't take the fight if it's too hard, it's unnecessary" and "If you need to take the fight just push them lol"

[unborn smelt]

The core disagreement here seems to be that i don't think pushing a sniper is really hard...

Hunt has so much visual cover and such a cluttered map, combined with fast, low inertia movement, that dodging and weaving between pieces of cover is super easy from my experience

[unborn sandal]

Then you haven’t faced a competent sniper

[late quartz]

When I laid out why I felt it's difficult you responded with "just don't take the fight" (paraphrasing of course). I'm curious what your thoughts on my message would be then in regards to why I think they're at a strong advantage

Because if I say "it's hard to push them" and your reply is "so just don't do it", logically my next point was "what about when you sort of need to" and used boss lair camping as an example

[unborn smelt]

my response was "just don't take the fight" because that's what the game wants you to do...

[late quartz]

Which is not addressing my specific claims about why pushing a sniper is hard

[unborn smelt]

Hunt, wants people to weigh risk vs reward.

[late quartz]

Which you've just said you don't think is the case

I laid out why I think it is and you didn't really address it, then circled back to "well I just don't think it's hard"

[unborn smelt]

I personally weigh pushing snipers in generaly as rather low risk, unless i'm down ressources, most notably health bars.

[late quartz]

As you say, that's the core disagreement

[unborn smelt]

but that's because i rarely encounter issues doing it

if you deem it such a high risk, for you it may be better to avoid taking such fights

[late quartz]

I think you're dodging :P

[unborn smelt]

yes, we very much disagree with out risk assessments

[late quartz]

Right. I think I laid out why I think it's a big risk in a fairly comprehensive and straightforward way

[unborn smelt]

i personally can't agree with why you deem pushing a sniper so risky

[late quartz]

I'm curious what your thoughts on that are

Rather than just "well I don't seem to have an issue"

[unborn smelt]

because i only encounter the issues you lay out, once in a blue moon

[late quartz]

I don't personally encounter fanning very often but when I do it's still not very poggers

[unborn smelt]

so for me it makes no sense to rank them that high in the risk assessment

[late quartz]

And again, sniping is one of the most complained about issues in the game balance wise

So regardless of how often I see it, community wide it weighs heavy on the hearts and minds of many

[unborn smelt]

The basis for this is just personal perception

and thus likely heavily biased

For me, with my own bias, i see way more complaints about Hunts "spammyness" than about snipers

But i don't think we have actually unbiased information regarding that

[late quartz]

Of course it biased. All balancing decisions are biased whether they're backed up by statistics or not

Game balance/design is ultimately a subjective field

We make subjective assessments of what experience is most ideal and how best to achieve those results

[unborn smelt]

just for reference - right now i just mean our own bias, you and me

the devs are ofc "biased" towards what they want the game to be. But then again can you call that "biased" ?

[late quartz]

yes absolutely

There is no objectively correct version of Hunt Showdown

All design choices are subjective based on subjective or even arbitrary goals

If they added a tactical nuke that you could buy for 50k hunt dollars it wouldn't be "objectively bad"

I personally wouldn't like it, few people would

But there's no objective metric by which we can really say that it ought not be that way

You CANNOT derive an "ought" from an "is"

Subjectively much of the community feels the game is currently in a spot where snipers detract from the overall experience.

[unborn smelt]

yes, core point being subjectively.
I do think that Snipers are overall a bit too strong too

i just don't see passive glint as the right way to adress it

[late quartz]

It's subjective, but all design choices are. This isn't more or less subjective than any balance issue ever. Even if you had infinite stats to suggest that snipers performed badly in most matches or that having one on your team decreased your chances of winning dramatically, saying "they shouldn't be nerfed" would be subjective

because the idea that tools should have roughly neutral or similar win rates is still a subjective, biased value

[unborn smelt]

The core issue i have with Snipers, is their effeciveness when ressources are exhausted, very specificaly when missing HP bars enter the equation

that's the only time i really struggle pushing a sniper (altho not just snipers, also iron sight long ammo)

[late quartz]

I do think that Snipers are overall a bit too strong too
i just don't see passive glint as the right way to adress it
THIS IS TOTALLY FAIR.

Here's how I'd chart out this discussions

Premise: Snipers are too strong.
Prescription: Glint would reduce the power of snipers by making them easier to identify and shoot back at.

Your premise: Snipers are indeed too strong, however counterplay should be earned rather than unearned in principle, thus default glint is not a good way to balance snipers

Would you say I accurately represented your position in a general, top level sense

[unborn smelt]

In regards to specifically glint - yes

[late quartz]

So the actual disagreement isn't about whether snipers are too strong

The actual disagreement is about what types of nerfs are healthy or valid

[unborn smelt]

no, the actual disagreement is about A) the method of balancing but also B) the degree by which they are too strong

and they are kinda related IMO

[late quartz]

the issue is that you agree they are too strong and could/should be nerfed, right?

[unborn smelt]

yes

[late quartz]

So the degree to which they're too strong is largely irrelevant.

I could argue for ten thousand years about whether or not glint would be a big nerf or small one, I could even convince you that even with Glint snipers would still be very strong and versatile tools within a wider loadout

EVEN IF YOU AGREE WITH THAT

You'd still be against it because you don't like that glint would passively change the balance of snipers

[unborn smelt]

well i worded that kinda poorly

i have to admit

[late quartz]

The impresion you give is moreso that you feel glint would be too big of a nerf, and so the impulse other people will have is to defend A) that snipers are very strong and in need of a nerf, then B) that glint would not make snipers too weak to be useful.

Those are both points that you're not willing to just concede, even though you agree with the first one seemingly

I don't know if you think glint would make them too weak, you haven't touched on that

But even if you conceded, you wouldn't change your position because it's not what really bugs you about the suggestion

[unborn smelt]

Not quite - i see the role of snipers diffrently.

I'd also be happy if Snipers do have passive glint, if they are in general balanced with that in mind

[late quartz]

Hmm

[late quartz]

And you think if they added glint and nothing else changed snipers would be unbalanced by virtue of being too weak?

[unborn smelt]

Yes i think, "just adding passive glint" to snipers the way they are now, would make them too weak

[late quartz]

Why's that

[unborn smelt]

specifically because in my own experience, pushing them is already really easy and being good at stealth is a core part of how snipers are expected to combat their weakness up close (not saying sniper loadouts in general are, ofc you can add CQB weapons, but so can shotgun loadoutds add long range options.)

[late quartz]

My contention there is that sniping + stealth is not core to how they function, promotes playstyles that are often frustrating to deal with, and encourage snipers to not engage in the match as actively

And their ability to suppress or pressure areas even while their position is known is still extremely potent

[unborn smelt]

it is, altho i value it much less important than you do

from the looks of it

[late quartz]

I don't feel stealth is fundamental to their function, and in situations where they do rely on stealth it detracts from the game overall

Plus as a sort of analogue to your point about glint being passive vs non-passive

You could implement tools to improve their ability to stay hidden while gathering intel, for example encouraging players to use the spyglass until they have a good target, only then swapping to their full powered scope

[unborn smelt]

I think it is, because if you're not sealthy you just have a massive target on your face all the time, and Hunt missing bullet drop, makes using ironsights on range extremely effective

[late quartz]

Increasing the skill required to capitalize on the extremely strong power of stealthy sniping

[late quartz]

The burden on players to aim at long ranges with irons is much much much much higher than a player with a scope

[unborn smelt]

that is precisely what my suggestion tries to do, to a degree

ofc i don't try to claim it'd be balanced from the get go

[late quartz]

Right, you want to do it by keeping snipers strong and putting all the buden on the players who are already at a disadvantage

Where as this suggestion maintains snipers ability to suppress, while increasing their burden to capitalize on stealth

[unborn smelt]

but from my own experience "stealth sniping" is pretty much nonexistent with just a passive glare

it usually turns to Quickscoping or extreme range sniping with no option of retaliation

[late quartz]

So, say you need a sniper to be in the center ~30% of your screen to get glint, then add on the idea that players use the spyglass as a spotting tool before whipping out their scope. This still allows you to play stealth with a sniper but makes it about skillful positioning and timing rather than just hardscoping an angle and hoping people walk past you

[unborn smelt]

however in games with absolutely no glare it usually turns to the camping you, rightfully so, critizise

[late quartz]

Spotters are used in real life to accompany snipers, so this feels like a good larp thing too

[unborn smelt]

that's why my core idea was making the glint be smth you have to induce somehow, but in exchange you do get very powerful information regardign your enemies

[late quartz]

Right. Why should the players who are already at a disadvantage need to give up a tool slot rather than the player who wants to absolutely maximize their advantage with an already strong tool

[unborn smelt]

i'd argue the opposite tbh

using a scope to swapp and then reaim and shoot is far too slow

[late quartz]

For a long range instant kill where the other person doesn't know you're there?

[unborn smelt]

because of that people would just forgo the spyglass step and camp a spot they know they can shoot first

[late quartz]

yeah that should be hard to do lol

You shouldn't just default get to initiate a fight that way

[unborn smelt]

so more camping and hardscoping

[unborn smelt]

most long range kills arent instant from my experience

[late quartz]

I agree

[unborn smelt]

i very rarely die to an actual sniper instantly, if i don't have missing HP bars

[late quartz]

That's the situation people find problematic though

Good players who leverage this playstyle are extremely frustrating to deal with

It's not every guy who has a mosin sniper

[unborn smelt]

yes, but smth being precieved as problematic by some doesn't warrant action just because of that

[late quartz]

Nothing ever objectively warrants action

[unborn smelt]

because the same way people find shotguns being able to OHK very problematic

[late quartz]

It's always going to be a judgement call based on subjective values and assessments

[unborn smelt]

or guns having somewhat high Rof

[late quartz]

yeah I think all of those are valid problems to have with the game

If you added an AR15 it wouldn't objectively be a problem

It would be cringe but not objectively bad

[unborn smelt]

yes so were back at is it actually as frustrating for enogh people as you say it is for you

[late quartz]

Well, you think they're too strong and I think they're too strong

So probably yes there is an underlying balance issue that leads to frustration

We both agree there is some reduction in power that would improve the balance of snipers in Hunt

[unborn smelt]

I mean maybe the pretty numerous complaints in basically every direction are an indication of overall very good balance tho

[late quartz]

I don't agree with that at all LOL

If everybody is bitching that doesn't mean the game is balanced

That could equally mean the game is dogshit

I'd never go "if nobody's happy the game is fine :)"

[unborn smelt]

It's not about everybody complaining - it's about people complaining about basically every stuff roughly the same amounts

[late quartz]

But they're not

[unborn smelt]

some think snbipers are very opressive

but then there's the others that think it's the shotguns

[late quartz]

Both snipers and shotguns are poorly balanced

This is true for most games

they're notoriously hard to balance weapon types

Hunt just does an extra bad job because in the wider context of a punishing game with gear fear and permadeath it hurts a lot more when you get meme'd on by some wacky shit

[unborn smelt]

how do you come to that call after basically nullifying the validity of normative statements ?

if you can't make valid normative statements about stuff being good/ bad by deriving an ought from an is ?

[late quartz]

Because I don't have a problem making subjective assessments about game design.

All design decisions are subjective, and so the burden isn't on one to make an objective assessment, rather to make a compelling argument that your vision for a game is preferrable

[unborn smelt]

didn't you just try to calim snipers and shotguns are objectively bad in most games

because that very much reads like that

[rotund obsidian]

'poorly balanced' =/= bad

[unborn smelt]

so poor balance =/= bad balance

[late quartz]

No this is a subjectie statement, as are all statements about values in game design, I just can't couch every opinion I have with "in my opinion" or "as I see it" or "subjectively"

[unborn smelt]

genuinely trying to wrap my head around that

maybe i'm missing smth in translation there

[rotund obsidian]

you said 'objectively bad' as in, too weak? or did you mean badly balanced

because those are two different things

[late quartz]

I don't think anything is objectively anything

I hold the belief that these weapons create gameplay that runs contrary to a subjectively ideal version of hunt

I think the gameplay surrounding the extreme close and extreme long range weapons is generally unhealthy and creates a sense of hopelessness in opposing players, meanwhile the gameplay surrounding mid-range duels seems to be consistently enjoyed and sees very few complaints outside of high RPM weapons.

[unborn smelt]

as a non native english speaker the thing i screenshotted sounded very much like they claim those guns are objectively bad in most games

because "That's true for most games" didn't sound like an opinion to me (again not native english speaker)

sounded more like trying to cement it as a fact

[rotund obsidian]

'poorly balanced' means it just isn't perfect, it could mean too good or too bad or just unfair in some cases or whatever

[late quartz]

It's fairly well understood in the FPS design space that shotguns and snipers are very hard to put in your game in a way that "feels good" both to play and to fight against

[unborn smelt]

yeah - but before they challenged the validity of all normative statements

which in my understanding is statements that say "xyz is good / bad"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is–ought_problem

for reference

[late quartz]

As I say, I am not claiming this is objectively true but rather my subjective stance on the matter which seems to be shared by a lot of game designers

I just can't say "in my opinion" before every statement about design

[unborn smelt]

Yeah - then it propably was "lost in translation" because as a non native english speaker, that sounded a lot like trying to cement your opinion as fact

i usually put a lot of "IMO's" everywhere because of that

but no hard feelings either way

[late quartz]

Sure, fair enough. To clarify, no, I wouldn't try to do that because that would be fairly contradictory with my wider stance about subjectivity and game deisgn

PERSONALLY I think going "In my opinion" all the time is often but not always used as a way to deflect criticism

[unborn smelt]

I can see that

[late quartz]

And I want people to MERCILESSLY ATTACK my stances because I feel confident that I can back them up

[unborn smelt]

i usually also use it to try and emphasize what my personal opinion is and what stuff i say in my position as a mod

[late quartz]

That's fair

[unborn smelt]

basically so my opinion isn't as often attributed as "that's what crytek says/thinks"

[late quartz]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJ5xDfIjjKQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOebGm_jMLY

Here's two fun little videos about this topic

This guy isn't a developer but I think he makes some interesting points. I don't totally agree with everything but I think it's a broad strokes exploration of why it's hard to make snipers and shotguns work well

[unborn smelt]

yeah i know both of them already

[late quartz]

The most broad idea though is that the archetypal assault rifle works well in close and mid range, so to distinguish it from snipers and shotguns they need to be more powerful in the extremes

The more range you give a shotgun the more it becomes an AR with extra steps

You can't give a shotgun less range without giving it a one shot in close range or it feels inflexible to play

Why run a pump shotgun if it doesn't one shot and fires more slowly than guns with longer range? Why would I pick a two shot pump shotty vs an AR or DMR?

The weapons in the middle, in Hunt's case the rifles, are flexible and competent at so many things that it's hard to justify using niche weapons unless they absolutely dominate in their niche

[unborn smelt]

yes absolutely

they tried another approach with shotguns in EA

back then they were less deadly, but if you got tagged you had bleed applied

fair to say people hated it

[late quartz]

Flechette moment

[unborn smelt]

yeah it was kinda like more potent upclose flechette with lesser range

[late quartz]

These problems exist in all games, but Hunt being a punishing extraction shooter means that players will feel the impact of these challenging balancing issues much more strongly.

In the case of both shotties and snipers people are right to feel like they're unbalanced because they do in fact create a sense of hopelessness. "Don't take that fight" only apples in situations where they have other valid options, and "just extract" will never be a valid option in most peoples' minds because their free time is limited and spending 25~30 mins in a match just to leave without fighting is frankly a waste to them.
People want interesting dynamic combat encounters at varying range against players with varying loadouts, so the only solution being "Just don't play thre game" hurts the experience a lot.

[unborn smelt]

As far as snipers go in Hunt we at least have them not OHK to body by default

because they don't have to really compete with full auto AR's like they do in other games

[late quartz]

The goal should ultimately be to make both extremes more assailable by people with more general loadouts, while maintaining the unique strengths of each weapon class.

Running a close or far range build shouldn't make you an unwinnable fight, it should make you more specialized

[late quartz]

Snipers could definitely be worse, but they're not in a good state as is

But this is a double edged sword

[unborn smelt]

we had that in the past

[late quartz]

Most weapons being single fire means that you cant suppress or spray to damage snipers

[unborn smelt]

they changed that by popular demand

back in EA any gun could put you down with a headshot

a Winnie could put up with a sniper, if only it domed them

[late quartz]

Sure and maybe that was itself not the best solution

one shot headshot at all ranges isn't the only way to try to meet this goal

[unborn smelt]

do you have any ideas ?

[late quartz]

Yeah

[unborn smelt]

i can't think of any i've heard where i thought they might work

off the top of my head

including my own ideas, tbh

[late quartz]

For shotguns I think players need more access to consistently available, renewable utility to help dislodge players in powerful positions and disrupt defenses

[unborn smelt]

I mean we are making slow steps in that direction

inching towards an area where they give you more and more tools, yet preserving the spirit of wanting people to conserve ressources

I that regard it's just the degree of how easy that should be

and i do agree with you on the core way to approach it - i'm a fan of "more tools to deal with it" as an approach for a solution

[late quartz]

For snipers I don't actually even like scope glint that much LOL I would prefer to be more aggressive and do more of a full rework, buffs and nerfs together.

Remove the sniper variant all together, marksman being the highest zoom level.
Players have the opportunity to disassemble their scope a single time per match to turn a weapon into a normal ironsight variant if they queue into a night/fog map.
Reduce the marksman scope move speed reduction by 30~60%, play with it do some testing.
Remove the deadeye scope move speed reduction entirely or almost entirely
Limit scopes to medium ammo at most. Do not give scoped variants HV or FMJ

[unborn smelt]

I mean i like some of the ideas, not all tho.

I personally would want the option to remove a scope as a one time thing too - and it's not even far fetched. Scopes were very expensive pieces of equipment in the early days, and thus were often kept seperate from rifles to protect them. That's smth i'd really love.
I'd love the movement buffs for marksman and deadeye scopes.
I'd entirely agree with not giving HV ammo to snipers, Marksman and up.

However i am a fan of having the option for actual long range sniping, as such i think the Sniper scope should stay. But personally i would have had the sniper variants more restricted, i think just slapping that onto the already, by design, strongest ammo type was a mistake.
I personally would have had actual long range snipers be their own very niche category of guns/ammo. A few years back i put in a suggestion for spitzer ammo, which i envisioned as having a long enough HS range to rivel long ammo and good velocity, but just meh dmg on bodyshot and very very punishingly low dmg on limbs. Still very much a niche thing, but not nearly as powerful as just slapping a scope on long ammo. (As a result long ammo would always have a chance to fight back, and most rifles would have a way within reasonable ranges, while being just OHK'd out of nowhere would be rather uncommon as you'd really really need that HS when you snipe)

And FMJ should just have a stronger effect on MV and it'd be fine for sniping IMO - like if you look at long ammo, noone bothers to take FMJ due to the low upsides vs the MV drop.

[late quartz]

And FMJ should just have a stronger effect on MV and it'd be fine for sniping IMO
Balancing these guns is hard enough as is, so i feel that their MV and range should simply be tuned once. Needing to tune two separate dropoff curves is needlessly complicated. Measure twice balance once.

However i am a fan of having the option for actual long range sniping
The issue I have here is Marksman scopes are already really quite good for 200~300m fights. Snipers are sort of overkill and discourage players from participating in the match.
The "actual long range sniping" option is always relative, the longest range scope we have is always going to be the best tool for long range fights. My assertion here is that the marksman scope still allows this playstyle, while also encouraging players to feel more comfortable in mid~close range fights.

Sniper variants are sort of... randomly distributed? Usually as more of a drawback then as a benefit. The ranges at which a sniper scope really outcompetes a marksman scope are those where half the weapons with sniper scopes completely lose their ability to one shot headshot even with FMJ.

The Winny C sniper would be a universally stronger weapon with a marksman scope because it would still excel at mid~long range pokes and harassment while being much easier to use and more flexible in close~mid range encounters. It's there as a nerf to the scoped light ammo rifle not to create a dedicated long range sniping tool

Same for the centennial sniper. It would be almost universally better as a marksman variant because its effective range is ~200m

[unborn smelt]

it's propably bias, but i personally can't stand the marksman scopes

i enjoy the sniper copes a lot, and i love the deadeye scope

[late quartz]

Any particular reason?

[unborn smelt]

can't put my finger on it

[late quartz]

Deadeyes are fucking worthless rn because of the -50% move speed

[unborn smelt]

deadeyes aren't great - but for some reason i just enjoy them a lot and even do really good with them

maybe because i usually enjoy the extremes much more than having loadouts that all play and feel kinda the same

[late quartz]

Deadeyes aren't impactful enough on your ability to take long range fights to really majorly change your playstyle

And MASSIVELY fuck you over in the range they're most suited for, because other people have a much easier time clicking on you now

They definitely got overnerfed

Deadeyes are nice because they don't let players feel ultra comfortable at a range where people without a scope can't fight back

You're always still in that mid range duel sweet spot

[unborn smelt]

personally i think ironsigts are really comfortable for basically all ranges that happen for like the vast majority of shots...

[late quartz]

More or less yeah

[unborn smelt]

talking about up to 150m , maybe even 200m

[late quartz]

150 is pushing it imo but up to 100~ meters sure

[unborn smelt]

so i'm very comfortable with a deadeye on that range too

[late quartz]

At 1080p 100 meters makes players heads

3 pixels wide

And I don't think most people can achieve 3 pixel accuracy with sway consistently

[unborn smelt]

most people can't

but most people aren't menaces with current snipers either

[late quartz]

So if the other dude is running a marksman or sniper at that range the difference in the burden on their mechanical skill is like

Huge huge unbridgeable

It's night and day

[unborn smelt]

yeah if you try to take a sniper head on without a scope in their niche yes

but then again i think that's entirely fine

[late quartz]

I don't think snipers need to exist because once you get into 200+ meter fights we're really talking about something that almost nobody will ever consistently be able to challenge

And the marksman still does great there

If we never got a sniper scope and only had hte marksman, we'd sitll be like "wow long range sniping is a thing in hunt"

We just happened to get a bigger one also, but it's not needed for that gameplay to exist

[unborn smelt]

yeah but almost none of the 200+m fights are actual dangers if you don't force it

[late quartz]

Right... so why do we encourage and enable players to sit at those ranges where they're not really participating in the match in any meaningful way?

If you're a third of the map away you're never moving up to fight, and you can't really be a real threat so it's like

that's just not compelling gameplay

[unborn smelt]

long range sniping has been a thing in Hunt with only basic ironsights and massively more sway too

[late quartz]

What do you mean

[unborn smelt]

In EA we had far more sway and for quite some time, no scopes

long range sniping, was a thing with almost all guns, because we also had like 300m HS range on all guns

[late quartz]

It seems like this speaks to my point that sniper scopes aren't needed to maintain this type of gameplay

They could be removed and marksman scopes would comfortably take their place and we'd lose nearly nothing

[unborn smelt]

they aren't, no. But it sure as hecc was not faster paced either

or better for general gameplay

[late quartz]

maybe, maybe not

It's hard to say because so much else has changed around the game, and players are generally better meaning the tensions and tolerances for certain gameplay dynamics may be very different from how they were in 2018

But nobody seems to want a longer one shot headshot range so

[unborn smelt]

yes tonns of stuff changed

for example we also start with 150 hp now, so long ammo doesn't OHk to body anymore

The issue i expect to pop up if scopes were to be removed or greatly weakened, people would just go back to run mosin all the time.

which may be great for those that enjoy more of a "well rounded" gameplay experience where you have an option to really compete in every scenario.
but that also comes at a hefty cost - because it also really muddles every loadout together into largely the same blob of kinda capable on every range, but mostly midrange, loadout

which would suck for those that strife more for the typical "rock - paper - scissors" approach, that is known from so many other games with their close range, balanced, longrange stereotypes

admittedly, the latter creates more enjoyable gameplay for myself

[late quartz]

The thing is the mosin is already the best counter-sniping weapon that isn't itself a sniper

We're not exactly in a state of tons of diversity as is

[unborn smelt]

what i'm trying to point at is that we come from a pretty long period of mostly lonf ammo rifles, and pistols.

[late quartz]

The mosin already dominates, which is its own issue, but at least with fewer snipers we'd see more people actually fighting eachother LOL

[unborn smelt]

and it really took a large chunk out of the enjoyment of Hunt for me, when every single fight i could bet on people bringing an uppercut, and usually at least 1-2 long ammo rifles

so i'm very much biased in that regard

[late quartz]

Sure but I don't think this is a problem with scopes this is a problem with long ammo being perpetually unbalanced

[unborn smelt]

and i get far more enjoyment out of the recently increased diversity i experience

[late quartz]

I'd argue the recent diversity is because of buffs to things like the centennial through special ammo and the increased pressure to run off-meta items from event challenges

And not because people are camping with scopes lul

[unborn smelt]

oh yeah i'm not saying it's because people camp with scopes

but i think the occasional camper, even scope or shotgun camper is still part of a divers play experience

[late quartz]

Diversity isn't necessarily good if the gameplay it brings is unhealthy

But values differ I guess

[unborn smelt]

which to me is overall more fun than, singles instances of camping can take out the fun

[late quartz]

I think we should encourage players to create interesting dynamic gameplay. Gridlock may be out-of-the-norm but it's not interesting or dynamic

[unborn smelt]

that's the main point.

[late quartz]

I think if you enjoy gridlock you are definitely in a very very very small minority

[unborn smelt]

some people swear by gameplay ehere everyone in the lobby runs the same sweaty loadout competing for "best aim" etc.
Some people just want to have fun and experience a variety of diffrent cool things

[unborn smelt]

that's where our experiences differ greatly - the existence of the occasional sniper gridlock, does not lead to overly many entirely gridlocked games for me

[late quartz]

I think it's, at most

5% of matches for me

It's not like ALL THE TIME

One per session probably

But it's a gigantic waste of my time

It just shouldn't happen even 1% of the time

It's always bad lul it's never interesting or a cool puzzle

[unborn smelt]

yeah that's simply where i put my priority entirely diffrent

i'm fine with 1-2 gridlocks a day - if that means i get to enjoy all the other games because they're not the same reapeating scenario with people playing the exact same stuff over and over.

[late quartz]

I don't think it's either or lol

You can have diversity and also not gridlocks

[unborn smelt]

from my having been with hunt since EA launch, i don't really believe that

[late quartz]

And taking a small risk of maybe making fewer people run snipers is worth it because you can always buff them again later. Face the problems as they exist now and deal with future ones as they emerge

[unborn smelt]

mostly because the gridlock is the inevitable part in my experience

i've seen them when everyone and their mothers ran mosin+Uppercut, i've seen them when everyone ran shotguns, and i see them still when people run lots of variety

[late quartz]

Sure but... they hadn't fixed all the other crap that lead to gridlocks around this one issue either

The game has never been perfectly balanced

[unborn smelt]

because i think these gridlocks are not smth regarding actual balance - they are purely based on peoples loss aversion holding them back

[late quartz]

It never will be

[unborn smelt]

kinda like gear fear

[late quartz]

Loss aversion is mitigated by balancing risk vs reward

Shotguns have always been really strong

Gridlocks happen for multiple reasons

And the fact that multiple changes are needed to address them isnt' a reason to touch none of them

[unborn smelt]

the thing i'm tryint to conves is i've been with hunt through what 5 years (?) of changes to address that issue - an yet it never left

[late quartz]

I think they've done a very bad job at trying to address it

Some changes have been good, DSB, angry clues/bosses etc.

[unborn smelt]

and by now i'm very convinced it won't ever leave without hunt loosing it's hardcore aspects - because that same risk is what keeps people from overcoming their fear

[late quartz]

I'm not as doomer because I think they're pretty conservative about changes

And so yes, camping has always existed in varying amounts

Do people camp clues? Not really. Why? Because of anti-camping changes

[unborn smelt]

yes but people still camp none the less

[late quartz]

Is extract camping a major issue? No, because of anti-camping mechanics

Lair camping is a big issue because the anti-camping mechanics aren't strong enough, and secondary meta elements create a feeling of hopelessness in players regardless of loadout or position

Camping will exist in some form, but it can be lessened dramatically to be less problematic

[unborn smelt]

i'd even argue that the other anti camping measures increased the lair camping

because those that camped extracts, or clues likely didn't stop camping because of the measures

they changes how they camped

[late quartz]

I think that's incredibly hard to prove or find any sort of evidence for lol

[unborn smelt]

if people are warned if you camp near the clue, you camp the extract instead...extracts give warnings too, okay then they camp the boss.
Boss gives a warning, they camp the tokens. They add snek, so they camp with the picked up tokens.

[late quartz]

Yeah I don't think there's any evidence that there is a static amount of camping players who will camp no matter what

I think there are certain gameplay elements that encourage camping, and players will capitalize on those gameplay elements

If you make the gameplay itself discourage this behavior, people wont do it as often

[unborn smelt]

ofc there is no evidence available to us

but that goes both ways

[late quartz]

Lair camping isn't something most people do because they're having a good time or want to

Lair campers tend to VoIP at you and call you slurs for not pushing

They want you to fight them too

[unborn smelt]

yeah but you potentially also loose the spirit of the game - that which sets it apart from so many others out there

[late quartz]

They just dont' feel like they have any good reason to be the first person to push

[unborn smelt]

question is, if that's worth it

[late quartz]

Totally disagree. None of the other anti-camping mehcanics have done this

We can't life in paranoia that Hunt will become CoD if we change anything

[unborn smelt]

yeah because they never wen't far enough to actually prevent camping, i'd argue

people just camped diffrently

As, IMO, evident by the lots of iterations where they incrementally added more and more anti camping measures regarding the latest thing that was camped instead of the just adressed one...

[late quartz]

The thing is, none of the places where they've added anti-camping mechanics get camped anymore

Clues, extract, unbanished bosses, tokens

There's essentially a 100% success rate with preventing camping on everything other than boss lairs.

Once you address people with bounty sitting in one spot... what's the next frontier of camping? Where are people going to go?

[unborn smelt]

I can't tell where they're gonna camp next. That depends on what option they might open.
But likely, still the bounty, because thats reliable.

[late quartz]

The goal is to make it unreliable

[unborn smelt]

Its marked on the map and an objective most people arent happy to let go

[unborn smelt]

Camping itself is konda unreliable.

I meant it more in a "the bounty will always be a place people go to, so camping likely has some effect" way of reliable

Unlike clues, which were a reliably camping spot way back in EA, because the game only showed you one clue

[late quartz]

The bounty is a place people go, yes

[unborn smelt]

So staying near it is a reliable method to get pwople towards you

[late quartz]

The similarity between clues, extract, boss lair, and bounty are that they're all objectives that players want to go towards, camping becomes a problem when players are able to put themselves between other players and that objective and create an advantage for the passive player

[unborn smelt]

And that is very much intended

[late quartz]

The team that wants the objective has to go through the camping team, and the camping team wants that because they create an advantage for themselves

Camping isn't a problem when positioning yourself between another set of players and their goal is disadvantageous to you

The bounty exists to get players to do PvP, I think that's pretty hard to argue

But the issue is when the team that controls bounty holds it hostage and prevents PvP from happening

[unborn smelt]

Yes
The point of camping is getting any advantage - as is kinda the point of the entire game

Some have an advantage because they aim better

Some are good at setting up ambushes

[late quartz]

Making this broad generalization doesn't help anything. Of course in PvP games you want the advantage... so what?

The question is not whether or not getting an advantage is good, the question is whether or not getting an advantage via camping is good

The problem isn't that people can create advantages

it's that this set of advantages detracts from the rest of the game

[unborn smelt]

That is to be expected - and last i heard noting crytek wants to change

They never intended to stop camping, just make it a bit easier to deal with

[late quartz]

True

That's why "camping is inevitable" isn't on my radar of reasons not to balance camping lol

I don't care if some players camp some times

I think the specific way the game encourages and incentivizes camping in specific situations is unhealthy

[unborn smelt]

I think camping is pretty balanced by now

Altho i'm admittedly used to how camping used to be in Hunt

[late quartz]

It doesn't seem that this reflects the community's feeling on the matter

The whole "shotgun vs snipers" meme is, again, one of the most widely debated topics in the community

[unborn smelt]

It is a widely debated topic

But i don't think camping itself is the issue

Because both sides keep complaining its the others fault and they have it way easier

I still see the issue in peoples fear of loosing effectively paralyzing them.
Leading to both parties "camping" and wishing thered be a mechanic that'd force the other side to have to take the L and run into their own camping arms

[late quartz]

Sure. I think the "shotgun vs snipers" framing is inherently kind of misguided, but I think it highlights real issues with the game

[unborn smelt]

Funny enough if you propose to them a mechanic that forces their side to make a disadvantageous moove - they all of a sudden don't want that anti camping mechanic anymore

[late quartz]

"Fear of losing" Is not a skill issue it's a natural part of PvP games. You don't want to do stuff that will make you lose if there isn't a good payout.

Players are fine with taking risks if they're worthwhile, the game tends to punish risks more than it does reward them though.

Personally, as a player who favors close range and shotguns

I think it is unquestionably the burden of the team with bounty to make the first move

because they chose to take bounty

[unborn smelt]

Yeah then people camp around the alive boss

Been there done that

[late quartz]

That's fine

Because sitting in boss lair with a living boss forces players out of power positions naturally

[unborn smelt]

People heccin hated it

[late quartz]

You HAVE to move around, you have to make noise, you leave yourself vulnerable

You can't create perfect crossfires and setups to deny entry and pushes

[unborn smelt]

People camped around the lair

Not inside

[late quartz]

Positions outside of boss lair are almost universally weaker and harder to control than the lair itself

[unborn smelt]

Basically trying to get close got you a shotgun shell to the face/back

[late quartz]

You can't really cover a whole compound without spreading your team thin and opening them to be overwhelmed

Fights outside of boss lair are naturally more dynamic than fights within boss lair

[unborn smelt]

And if you tried to make a moove pn the boss you were just thord partoed by the campers

[unborn smelt]

Depending on the specific lair, sometimess yes - sometimes no

The core issue still stands however

People still camp their asses off.

You sit next to a blinking boss knowing full well any corner you round may have been the last, and you can't really progress the game either as when you attempt to kill the boss, you'll just be shot in the back

We tried that way back in EA and the result was what's quickplay today.

Thats why quickplay has a mandatory objective, to extract

[late quartz]

So, this feeds into the fact that the game needs more consistent renewable pushing tools

One single factor will not solve a deeply imbalanced game

But I don't advocate for one single panacea change

It feels like you lean heavily on the conservative side because issues are complex, but I don't think never touching complex issues is how the game will grow and improve

[unborn smelt]

To facilitate the mandatory objective, they had to make people not loose so much gear, and so you get the "classes" of free gear

[late quartz]

DSB, angry clues and bosses all made the game better despite not solving camping entirely

I don't think any one thing solves the problem, it's a process

[unborn smelt]

And all of a sudden in an attempt to solve the issue lpts of humta core feeling was lost

Which is what i critizised as a potential price to pay from the very beginning

[glass shuttle]

@hot acorn you can't make bear traps actually trap you
Look how strong just have barb trap with poison is
With the bear trap it would be a free kill
And free kills ruin the game

[late quartz]

Right but it's not an either-or situation

[unborn smelt]

Because they were never meant to