Headshots actually do 250% damage

^^^^^^

It does hold true for other aspects of the game. ZOE was heavily contested by the VS as being fair and balanced. The Vulcan Harasser is according to TR mains still a balanced and fair vehicle. The Magrider is still being touted as the worst by VS mains. Thermals were heavily defended by the vehicle players despite their obvious OPness, as were the AOE of early HE, HEAT and AP canons.

The risk is far smaller with certain weapons. There is also an inherent risk in taking less accurate weapons that force you to use more skills in positioning (to compensate for lower accuracy), burst control (less accuracy means more control needed), better aim (you are more likely to miss so you need better aim to compensate), better movement (you need to avoid shots for longer to get the kill).

In other words, you need more skills at everything to handle a less accurate weapon compared to an accurate headshot machine. Weird how that works?

Game design for both. You should look into that somentime.

You are ignoring that this isn't just about headshots, it's about weapon choices and the skills needed to operate. Going for headshots with a CQC carbine at long range is going to require more skills than bodyshots, true. But using an accurate weapon that can chain-headshot someone to death before any of the COF, recoil, movement etc really has a big effect on the battle?

I want to increase the skill cap.

An example is a fighting game like a swordfight simulator with a deep amount of movesets, counters etc. The game is perfectly balanced except there is one trick in the game that forces your enemy to move somewhere. The trick is a bit more difficult to pull off compared to the other movesets but it has one big advantage: Move your enemy into a killzone (say off a ledge into a pit with spiked) and you immediately win the game. Compared to the slow and long whittling down of your enemy with "easier" movesets the forced-move techniques would be far superior, and players who learn those exclusively do not have to worry about all the other movesets half as much.
In other words, they require less skill overall.

That is what headshots are. They make it possible with certain weapons to ignore much of the other skills you can learn.

Also you are ignoring that I even said we should increase the requirements to use the other skills. Because that doesn't fit your narrative right?

Really? What's this then? And JibbaJabba says the same thing with his "eliminating it?".

Your belief that they matter more is baffling.


Here's an example:
Let's say we make headshots OHK's for any weapon. Some games have done this. In PS2's game design it would be the high-ROF weapons that become superior choices in the overal game. A few quick bursts at headheight can kill several players in quick succession and the high ROF increases the chances of hits. The high amount of hits required for bodyshot kills also means that headshots is pretty much the only tactic that works in the game.

Well that's too much of a reward for headshots as it completely ruins weapon choice right? So we reduce the amount of damage so it doesn't OHK anymore.

Now high-ROF weapons aren't the best choice anymore. Their COF and recoil is too unpredictable to score enough headshots unless you are in extreme CQC. This makes accurate longer ranged weapons the go-to choice. This is actually where the game is at right now.
This could be balanced by other factors like positioning. When a less accurate weapon gets in CQC it should start becoming more useful than the accurate weapon due to hipfire accuracy differences. Unfortunately there's two problems there: Accurate weapons aren't half as much punished for CQC hipfire combat as inaccurate weapons and an accurate weapon can kill you before positioning matters, or the COF bloom etc. The inaccurate weapon will also face problems with how it engages: You are better off firing early as you approach, meaning that you need more trigger discipline to engage the other player as you get closer and when you are close it often takes more time to settle your COF and go headshots than it is to simply keep shooting bodyshots.
As can be seen here, accurate weapons are less punishing for the player to use in all situations and reward more in most situations where a firefight happens.

Now we reduce the amount of headshot damage even more. It's still useful, it will still achieve superior TTK's and the risk/reward will still be worth it. However because headshots isn't so important that you can forget about other skills the other skills become more important. Is that so hard to understand for you?

Now I have a goal with how rewarding headshots need to be: To make sure the infantry game isn't dominated by using one skill (as people have put it since forever: headshots headshots headshots). But you fail to provide any context how powerful headshots need to be aside from "I like it the way it is" and some misinformation about how other skills are more important for headshot users while ignoring points made.

Pretty good point. Headshots, especially when combined with connection issues currently allow sneaky light assaults like me to flank a room with the failstorm, and basically wipe out everyone with headshots before they even have time to turn around or activate their abilities.

The problem is that by drastically cutting down the ttk, headshots allow for almost instant kill scenarios, and it gets better/worse depending on connection. And this is perhaps the toughest thing about planetside 2, especially for new/inexperienced players. We've all encountered scenarios where a player sees us first, and we die almost instantly (and often behind cover) simply because of hitreg and headshots.


The players that stuck around learned to deal with it, and take advantage of it. That's not the issue. The issue is the players who don't stick around because of stuff like this, and since they constitute a majority, it should at least indicate there should be some reflection as to what is causing the game to bleed players. The effectiveness of headshots have almost always been a complaint about the new players that I've encountered in game and in the forums.

It boils down to the following: If you can go for headshots (taking into account personal skill, weapon and circumstances) and do that, you'll win almost any engagement, unless one of the aforementioned factors is even more beneficial to your opponent. If you can't or don't you'll most likely lose, unless your opponent can't or won't do it either.
Tried that a bit with going for them and not going for them. In the first case I won neatly, even against multiple enemies with only minor difficulties. When not trying, I died to just about everyone and their chicken.

And that means that for everyone who does not have the benefit of all three factors the deck is stacked severely against them, which is - as many mentioned here before - a serious problem concerning player retention. Because only after learning quite a bit about the game and its mechanics players will know which one of the three failed them instead of thinking "wtf happened?" and leaving frustrated.

i think headshot multiplier should be 1.5,
in a direct fight the MLG360noscope dude will win,
but if you get the drop on him and start filling his back with bullets he won't be able to 180 and 2 shot you.

As far as I'm concerned, a lower Headshot multiplier coupled with a higher base damage at long range would make for a more intereting gameplay, especially for non-snipers.

I have given it some extra thought, and came up with a "system" that's probably too big of a change for PS2, but could work in a sequel or another sci-fi shooter.

HP Stats for a character would be:
-Health - you die at 0
-Armor - negates a portion of damage based on a formula
-Shield - absorbs an amount of damage up to it's value

Additionally:
Headshot multiplier is assumed to be 150%
Armor does not protect the head of a character (exceptions for certain perks/suits).
Shields do not receive a Headshot multiplier or Armor reduction.

Let's say a basic character has 500 Health, 250 Shields, and 50 Armor (33% damage reduction) so an EHP of 1000 points against "raw" damage.

Stats for weapon Damage would be.
-Impact - damage dealt to an unprotected target or when armor is fully penetrated
-Penetration - how much armor is ignored when calculating damage

Both values would drop at weapon specific ratios, e.g.: a sniper rifle may have 500 Impact that never drops with range, but it's Penetration value would drop from 40 @ 10m to 10 @ 100m, while an AR would have 200 Impact with up to 10m that steadily drops to 125 @ 100m with a consistent Penetration of 25.

The idea is that you would generally be protected from at least 1 headshot (shields have lower values, but no multipliers), fights up close are less headshot-centric (because penetration rules make them less important at short range), and there is more statistical/mechanical design space for various weapon and suit/class interactions to give each a meaningful niche.

Q F T

(especially when sneaky little client side Mods, VPN'ing, and packet manip Scipts are all so extremely easy to create while being nearly impossible to detect/enforce against)

PS: I HAD a better solution to offer than simply "just reduce the Multiplier" but I'm kinda holding onto it all till I get the Motivation to make a whole youtube video about this problem.... (with visual aids and animations, etc) ...plus I just forgot what it is an never had it written down in notes... I'm good with graphics, heh, but I'm a terrible Writer

Both sides have a point but in the end I still say that changes at this stage will be either too minimal for new players to notice the difference or drastic to the point where you are just as likely to push away old players as you are to draw in new ones. Looking at the current numbers the game seems perfectly capable of drawing new players once the Dev Team breathed a little life into it, skill gap or no.

Part of this game's appeal lies in its difficulty and in my opinion players that stay because they picked up the gauntlet the game hurled into their face are more likely to stick around than those who rage quit in the first hour. A small but robust playerbase to me is more appealing than a bloated but fleeting one, and punishing mechanics means there is always room to improve because there's always someone better than you.

That's all from me, everything else I have to say on the subject I have said already.

We don't seem to have a deficiency of players so long as there is a queue.

But yes, MANY players tap out of this game. Like an epic amount. Look at the new character creation vs persistent players.

But we still have thousands and thousands who have stuck it out and kept playing. Some have gone the get-gud route with headshots and infantry and whatnot. Others have become support mains, vehicle or air mains. Some just plain suck but that's ok because the game still has fun at every turn.

I think it's being implied that if we make the game easier that new players won't get frustrated and leave. Perhaps so.

But we also make the game less compelling, and lower the skill ceiling. Veteran players will get bored and leave. You finally get good enough at the game to dunk on people and then suddenly aren't allowed to? Yeah right. You better hope those new players stick around because the old ones sure aren't....and they are the ones been paying to keep the lights on.

1. Nobody can take those 5k hours away. It was a blast.
2. Clearly the end hasn't come yet because...y'know... 5k hours and still going.
3. I assume I'll be playing planetside 3 when planetside 2 shuts down. Same as with Planetside 1.
4. Last checked long time ago and it was 4k hours. 5 is a guess.

I had a whole response, but I honestly don't feel like arguing back and forth, so I deleted it. If it means anything, I do believe you think your idea would be an increase to the skill ceiling, but I think you are wrong, based on my experiences in this game and others.

So let me ask you this instead:

How would you go about proving/disproving your theory that reducing HS % would increase the skill cap within -this- game?

I'll bring up one direct counter-point, for example, to your low acc weapons theory:

https://imgur.com/a/J77AEaJ?

Apart from some of the guns I used when I first started, the acc/hsr of all my guns is very consistent. My KDR is pretty consistent. The only thing i've been really improving is KPM (slowly), but while still retaining roughly the same stats.

I'm sure if you look at other players, who are way better than me, you will see the same trend.

To further this point (left it on edit, forgot, ran out of time):

Some random players from the top activity atm:

https://ps2.fisu.pw/player/?name=scarjorvs&show=weapons
- Actually has relatively the same acc but lower HS than me
- Despite that, nearly twice as good as I am
- If acc is the same, HSR is a little lower, why are they so much better?

https://ps2.fisu.pw/player/?name=zyros&show=weapons
- Consistent stats

https://ps2.fisu.pw/player/?name=motormakertr&show=weapons
- One of this player's highest acc is actually the Tar, while still being similar other stats

As well as Vanguard is being touted as the worst MBT by NCs

I think this game is about headshots. Once you can place headshots you win (consider K/D ratio, not objectives).
For example try SVA88 LMG with suppressor and grip as a headshot machine. You'll be surprised when your average session k/d sill be raised to 6. Or try Tomtoe. Or ArtemisVX26.
No other skill is required to have a great k/d ratio but ability to aim the head ^)

What devs can do:
add more strafe acceleration and speed to infantry and don't increase much the cone of fire while strafing.
It will be much harder to headshot an enemy while he is strafing and shooting at you.

There are two types of complexity. The first type is the development of a mechanical skill. The second is tactics, the ability to use the situation to your advantage.
Both types of difficulty in theory can create interest in the game, but this is only in theory.
Tactics completely depend on the actions of the player. Mechanical skill is highly dependent on external factors such as ping and FPS. Therefore, if in the game mechanical skill is more important than tactics, a player from a remote region from the server, or who does not have a powerful PC, will NEVER be effective. And such players are the majority.
Also, there are many other games for developing a mechanical skill, many of which are better suited for this. For example, Overwatch, which consists entirely of repeated repetitions of the same type of actions and their development to the state of the robot.

or were the majority. Many left, and most of those that checked out the escalation update are in the process of leaving again. The instability in Planetside 2's player numbers suggests that people want to play the game, but there's determining factors that drive them away each time they give it (another) chance.

Really sad, because we have a potential playerbase that could be much larger (and generate much more revenue for the game), but it's being held back by difficulties like these that have never been properly addressed.


It's great to have a hs multiplier, but if there's no one to shoot at, it does f**k all for me. The number of servers this game has lost is depressing. I'm pretty sure between losing a bit from the hs multiplier and actually getting stuff to shoot at, maybe people from those dying servers would have chosen the later.

One thing that could really help this game thought is trusted streamers; player who have the skill and are able to show that they are NOT cheating on Twitch. That would inspire faith in people that it is possible through human skill alone to get that good.

(Unless you really are all just botters and aren't telling the rest of us. I don't know im a relatively new return to the game myself...)

Literally earlier today Im with this outfit of relatively new players. And they're in Hossin and they're getting wiped over and over again by ONE GUY. And im listening to them in the Discord and it progressed from "I can't believe how good he is!" to "Naw… I don't believe it. One time maybe but an entire squad over and over again like this. You shoot him once in the back and then he turns around and headshots you and he's still got full health. He's got to be cheating".

Honestly I kinda think he might have been cheating. Its my gut feeling; one guy against a whole squad and they can't even kill him. If people have aimbots what would it even be worth playing? I don't want to be the entertainment dish for some guy who's just got the bot. I imagine that's one very strong weakness for why people leave. Im just sharing my personal experience.

they could (and I would love it if they did) add a new armor slot equipment choice called something like reinforced helm or something that removes the head shot bonus all together or severely reduces it like 25 - 50% reduction. I bet most people would be running that as their armor slot choice instead of nano weave or flak armor. Would give new players a valid armor choice to help survive against old seasoned pro's at the cost of generic body shot protection or explosion protection. The fact that there is absolutely no counter to head shots as far as armor goes is disgusting and makes no sense.

I understand people who are skilled enough to get head shots consistently feel they need to be rewarded but like Demigan said earlier " Arena shooters are best suited for the high accuracy headshot combat. PS2 on the other hand is a far more tactical ahooter (despite its failings). Protecting a one-trick-pony playstyle isnt the way to go especially in PS2 that has so many factors that you can consider between COF, COF growth/shrinkage, recoil, damage degradation, muzzle velocity, ammo capacity, reload speed, stance and movement that focussing on just letting aiming for heads dominate is basically letting the game commit suicide. " I agree with that statement completely. Encouraging head shots as king only makes aim boting that much more tempting to potential cheaters and they have been a constant and persistent problem since beta.

This is hypocritical. I've asked you several times to give any good reason why the current headshot % is good, you've ignored that and now tell me to do so.

Now I've already done so actually with logic and reasoning. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what weapons would be superior if all headshots were OHK. Then if we lower that headshot % from a OHK to "very high headshot %" we see another weapon type taking over, which doesn't take a genius to figure out either. Considering that on average PS2's HS ratio is 2.5 rather than 2 and That_Kane has helpfully provided some headshot modifiers from other games that show that PS2's 2.5 is a high number (and even 2 is a high number) we can see that yes PS2's headshot modifier is in the "very high" category. Which weapon type was it again that would dominate in such an environment?


Onwards to your misinterpretion of data. You use several players and say that the HSR and accuracy of many guns is consistent, but also the key here: Despite all your accuracy and HSR being consistent your KPM has improved.
And that last bit disqualifies what you are trying to do. You are trying to pass off your accuracy and HSR being stable as proof that you are improving in other area's, but that isn't the case.

Look at the data given: All players you list show the same trends (and my own stats mirror those). automatic weapons will generally be between 25 to 35% for most players, with players who dedicate themselves to games more often having 30+% accuracies. Weapons with lower ROF's like semi-auto's and sniper rifles will often hang around 50% with top players sometimes hanging around 70%. A good example of this in action is for example your own Bishop: It's not a sniper but it's also not an automatic weapon so it is quite literally in the middle of the accuracy ratings.
Players get an idea of when to engage a target so they have a solid chance to kill them. On average yours seems to be around 33%. Now imagine you are improving your skills and you get to shoot heads more accurately... You'll now be firing on a target sooner than before and have a better chance of killing the target, but your HSR doesn't go up because at the same rate you improve your also changing how you engage! Only when the average environment doesn't allow you to change how you engage (or you pick one engagement style and farm with it) will your HSR start improving.

And don't forget that inbetween that your playstyle is incredibly important. A person twice as skilled as you but always trying to break chokepoints or fight when outnumbered is almost guaranteed to have worse stats than you despite that!


So: Your listed data doesn't prove your point. You haven't answered why the current HS % is good besides basically saying "I like it the way it is" and you try to deflect things onto me despite me just giving you the answer.

Because it's fine.

And yet, they don't. Prove your point, I already showed you that those 'accurate' automatic weapons aren't dominating.

No, it isn't.
The consistency of guns, whether accurate or not, means that they effectively are no different.
Your theory assumes that these weapons would be harder to use, and/or sacrifice KDR/KPM for acc/hsr with the current mechanics. They don't.
The consistency of these weapons trends among nearly every player above potato.
The part about KPM means I am choosing either safer or better spots to shoot from. If not, i'd be putting myself in far more danger and would lose KDR (or possibly acc/hsr if I was only shooting from long range).

That's for all automatic weapons, and the discrepancies are smaller, while still sporting consistent HSR/KDR/KPM despite being CQC vs. longer range or more accurate weapons.

Where did semi-auto and bolts come into this? This is why you think HS % needs to come down?
The only time anyone thinks Battle/Scout rifles are even remotely strong is on infil or open fields.
And while sniping is an issue, it's more the infil/CQC bolters parts that most people complain about.

Almost like positioning and knowledge is basically as important as aim, and more specifically aiming for the head?

Does that mean putting less emphasis on safe positioning and movement actually affects you just as much, if not more, than slightly better acc/hsr?

You haven't proven it doesn't.
You've claimed that low acc weapons suffer in this game (needs more control/burst control/whatever else), they don't suffer.
You've claimed high acc weapons (I'm going to assume, please don't let me down, that you aren't talking about BRs/SRs being the dominant weapons) dominate low because of the HS %, yet the stats show consistency despite this.
You've claimed that positioning/movement is barely important as HSR is far too strong, but i've shown that a player who is less accurate overall is still so much better than me.
You've claimed that the above is simply due to playstyle, as if it isn't a combination of everything - where you move, why you move, what your objective is, what your aim tendency or weapon choice is, etc, etc.

Because i'm not asking for it to be changed. YOU think the mechanic needs to be changed. Why is this such a hard concept for you to understand?