Headshot bonus damage should decrease

I would agree. Massively missing my target was MY newb mistake.

Ok so when you said this you were just lying right?

Or you have a really bad idea of "average TTK".

Now I could go point by point through the rest but reading through it I see one particular thing missing: There is no reason given as to why the headshot multiplier should be around 2x.

There are some weapons that could still use a 2x multiplier, but most should simply not have one. While you proclaim that the other skills are still useful, and they are up to a point, they don't hold a candle to headshots. The weight of going for headshots is so high that other skills barely matter.

And yes you don't learn a single skill in a vacuum... Except for headshots that could be learned this way. Removing the headshot multiplier wouldn't actually devalue or invalidate many weapons in the game. In fact (yes actual fact) if you look at the amount of weapons that would have increased value versus weapons that would be devalued or invalidated you would see most weapons would actually have increased value.
But again, the goal is to make everything closer in value. And since you've given zero reason besides "but others do it" and "but if we remove it completely everything goes to hell!" which is only true if all you do is headshots and nothing else IE learned no other skills which should be impossible as you don't learn in a vacuum there is actually no reason not to reduce the headshot multiplier and weigh other skills closer to it.

And again because you seem to miss the point. Just because I'm for reducing a headshot multiplier doesn't mean I'm for reducing it for everything. There are still weapons and items that should benefit from a high headshot multiplier. It's actually similar to a CQC weapon like a shotgun: It offers a particular playstyle that should be rewarded. And some weapons specifically designed for headshots (not every weapon with long range accuracy but designed for headshots) should have a good multiplier.
Naturally it's fun to look at what happened to the CQC shotgun playstyle. They kept that perfectly intact ofcourse and didn't nerf it so that it barely kept ahead of normal guns that didn't sacrifice their range potential... Right? Now let's not go down the shotgun road and nerf headshot multipliers to hell. But what we can do is reduce the headshot multiplier so that non-accurate weapons that can't chain headshots are actually as useful as a headshot weapon if you learn how to use them.

Okay, recap time:

This is where this whole debacle starts. It is simply a list to establish a baseline and to show that no, actually PS2's modifier is pretty common.

Your response, claiming the TTK's are still 'wildly' different.

And here is my response that you quoted above, stating that the difference in TTK is only really notable in a relative sense, and that given the average reaction time of a human not enough to make a significant difference in an ambush scenario. Please note how this statement and this one:

Have exactly zero relationship to one another. At this point I have not yet brought up the example of a game with TTK values over a half-second like Planetside, nor have I once mentioned success. That comes in my response to Adam:

Specifically in response to to his assertion that no other games punish bodyshots like Planetside does. Bad Company 2 not only proves this is false, but it's popularity and robust playerbase imply that this is a system players are not opposed to. Contrasting with the current title was to contest the theory that the industry knows anything at all about what 'works'.

You apparently decided this meant that fast TTK games are not popular and do not retain a playerbase, which led to this rebuttal:

In short: changing the gunplay has no great effect on player retention, because that isn't why they are staying.

Reading comprehension fail. One (1) game mentioned by me as specifically possessing a long TTK, two (2) with short TTKs. "Yet all three were incredibly popular and retain respectable playerbases to this day." You quoted this sentence in the same post you made the statement above in, then followed it up with

What basically amounts to a dressed up 'no u'. At this point I am starting to suspect the scent of a small, grey rodent has wafted to my nostrils.

So I ask for clarification

And I have now received my answer.
Recap over, moving on.

Yes. It's almost like the burden of proof doesn't lie with me.

Citations needed

For all the times you've referenced that line from me you still don't seem to understand its purpose or its significance. Positioning skill takes longer to develop than aiming skill. Thus players with good positioning skill are typically going to actually be more experienced, thus are savvy enough to know the importance of aiming for headshots, thus decreasing their TTK against an unsuspecting enemy, thus unless they potato their shots they should win even against someone with far better aim.

Your hypothetical 'learned aim in a vacuum' player is simply fodder in this game. If you have no game sense there are too many things that can and will kill you without giving a whit how good of a shot you are.

Fun fact: the words "actual fact" do not count as such, and in absence of corroboration do not add weight to an argument.

You do know how Burden of Proof works, right?

Please find a quote of me saying this that exists outside of your head canon.

I belive this statement:

on page 3 shows quite the opposite, actually.

Reading through it, this was the only interesting thing that has any bearing on the discussion I found. Gunplay has no great effect on player retention? Gunplay is what can make or break a game! Hell, just the sounds of the guns can make or break a game. Good gunplay is incredibly important, and being able to condense gunplay to "I have more skill in accuracy and therefore your skills don't matter half as much" is not a good way to build a game like PS2. It works wonders for arena-based games and it should stay there, but it shouldn't poison games where other gunplay elements are supposed to shine.

You realize that the burden of proof is on everyone who makes a claim? You can't say "ah but you claimed something first, now I can claim anything I want and the burden of proof is still on you".
Just imagine if say Einstein and Rosenveld had done this type of argument. "Nope mister Einstein, you claimed something, so you have to prove it and I'm not going to prove my point of view!". Imagine that conversation.
No instead they both claimed something, and knew the burden of proof was on themselves to prove it. How to prove it? By trying to disprove their own hypothesis. If you cannot disprove your own hypothesis, you have to conclude that it is right.

Now this is an internet forum, and we shouldn't be held in the same high standards as the scientific community if only because most of the people on the internet don't have the capability to do so, case in point right here in this discussion. But we can make logical leaps and use stats and things to prove it. What do we know? We know that headshots are held in extremely high regard but other skills are barely if ever mentioned. Why aren't they mentioned? Because as you yourself admit going for Headshots is weighed much more and thus rewarded more than any other skill you can learn in the game. Again in an Arena style game this isn't a bad thing, most of the weapons are designed to make use of this. PS2 however is not designed for it, most of the weapons aren't designed to chain headshots with, so rewarding chain headshots more with specific weapons than the skills required to make the non-headshot weapons work is a bad thing.

A **** off is needed. "Hey space is big", Kane: "Citation needed!".

People with positioning skill (like me) know the significance of headshots allright. And when I look at what positioning skill has gotten me versus learning headshots I know that I've been shafted. Headshots reward you much more than positioning, so much so that many veterans who learned it don't even bother with positioning skill. Just take 5 minutes in game and you can verify that for yourself.

And that's the point you seem to gloss over again and again, headshots reward you much more than any skill. You might not learn every skill in a vacuum, but you always divide your attention and what you learn across multiple skills, and if you are like me and aurax different weapons and try to make all of them work instead of focussing on a single weapon category (accurate weapons) and going with that for the entire game, then I am learning a lot of skills that don't pay out half as much of a reward as going for headshots and accurate weapons would have done me.

Headshot multiplier rewards more than any other skill. Get it? Understand it? Do you get that I know that you learn other skills as well but that focussing on one specific part of the game will reward you much more than any other part of the game? Just imagine a poor sod who tried to learn inaccurate CQC weapons exclusively vs a guy who went for accurate weapons exclusively, if they are equally skilled than the second guy will win most engagements simply because his particular field rewards him more.

Ok **** you and putting words in my mouth. You keep talking about "learned in a vacuum" while I'm talking about what you can learn overall in-game. Just look at this post:
https://forums.daybreakgames.com/ps...s-damage-should-decrease.252357/#post-3535970

It tells you pretty much everything you should need to know. But for some reason you are too dense to understand that if I talk about how much singular skills reward that I'm not necessarily talking about them in a vacuum. Ofcourse you learn more skills on the side! But someone who focusses on learning this one skill is going to be much much better than any other skills you can learn because it rewards much more than other skills.

Fun fact, you've given nothing at all so far but nitpicking an half-arsed answers.

Better than you apparently. But don't feel bad, it seems to be an epidemic that people think they can just say "nooo I disagree but the burden of proof is on you I don't have to do anything to prove you wrong I can just be a dick and say nooooooooooooo".

Hey! This has no value whatsoever! It also holds no burden of proof! And it doesn't matter what you use the most, as long as you are protecting the wrong thing that is holding the game back, you are still wrong!

Judging from the quality of your response, I wouldn't be surprised to learn it was the only thing you read. Within the spectrum of examples I provided? Yes. Three games with widely varied gunplay shared equal success due to the quality of the overall gameplay. Gunplay changes from high to low TTK showed no great affect on either success or enduring popularity. Is English your first language?

Actually no it doesn't, and the fact that you don't know this means you really need to research your answers properly before reaching for your keyboard. I don't need to provide proof to keep the status quo. You, as the one who wants to change it, does. QED

Next.

Profanity: the easy alternative to providing evidence.
A reminder that this is regarding headshots making other skills irrelevant, which so far in this discussion has been supported by a whopping "Because I said so" and not much else.

Personal experiences and anecdotes are not evidence. Mathematically, shooting from ambush means you have a high likelihood of securing the kill no matter how good your target's aim is, simply from the TTK numbers alone*.

*500-600ms bodyshot TTK minus avg. human reaction time (250ms) + avg. net latency (50ms) means the defender has to either react perfectly, have perfect headshot accuracy, have significantly quicker reflexes than average, or some combination of the three just to have a chance of reversing the fight. With the "most heavily weighted skill in the game". Occam's Razors suggests that you just muffed up your ambush because you missed shots, bud.

I'll tell you what, I'll stop glossing over the "point" when you stop glossing over the whole "proof" of said point. Deal?

Well, I guess it was worth a shot.

And this, boys and girls, is what irony looks like.

A highly fantasized and idealized portrayal of the skills required of a "CQC" player. On the flip side one could take the position that all that is required of such a player is knowing what dark corners to hide in, and that while aiming is one skill it is much harder to master than any of the others on that list. The truth of course, is somewhere in the middle.

Snark doesn't count as facts either, just in case you were wondering.

Later, when you look up the definition of Burden of Proof and specifically how it relates to the status quo, you'll look at the above statement and know you were wrong. You won't admit it, but you'll know it.

Concession accepted.

Citations needed.

Hey Kane, I quite literally learned scientific fields and if there is one thing that always 100% of the time has to be done, it is to prove your point no matter how you present your point. The only exception is when there is an accepted and proven status-quo.

You might think you are on the side that has the status quo, but there is nothing proven about headshots in your favor and your examples of games are barely even circumstantial.

Also i have no idea what you read, but it sure wasnt this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

Or this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

I mean that last one even specifically says this:
"The burden of proof is the obligation of a party in an argument or dispute to provide sufficient evidence to shift the other party's or a third party's belief from their initial position. The burden of proof must be fulfilled by both establishing confirming evidence and negating oppositional evidence. Conclusions drawn from evidence may be subject to criticism based on a perceived failure to fulfill the burden of proof."

Now neither of us is going to offer fully scientific evidence as that would require copious amounts of data from DBG that they probably dont even have. But I've given logic as to why headshots are rewarded much more, and you've been squirming including even saying that gunplay isnt very importsnt for the gameplay so we could just as well say why dont we change the HS multiplier if gunplay isnt that important?
Also we have the community. The number 1 reason people say they got good? Headshots. It requires the least effort and skill as you require just the weapon knowledge to pick an accurate weapon and the skill to be accurate. It is obvious to you and everyone else long ago, headshots are rewarded more than anything else (and you admitted to this when you reasoned it should be rewarded for... reasons I guess?). There is no reason to reward headshots this much, it was a desperate attempt to encourage the MLG scene at the cost of the average player and it failed. It should have been solved then but SOE did not have the balls to come back on changes they made.

I can see that most wepons will be ok if you lower the headshot damage but snipers need that damage to make change on the battlefield and i do see why you bring this up its becouse the meta is geting stail and you all want a change up i get it.

It's always fun to see this formula.

>Be me
>Create Topic
>Have a few people comment on topic
>Respond to said people
>Have people respond to eachother's post
>HereWeGo.jpeg
>Have huge walls of text for multiple pages arguing the viewpoints
>Have said walls inevitably devolve into one or more parties include colorful metaphors to validate their points
>Have each party try and get the last word
>Have an innocent bystander comment something like "I agree with OP" while blissfully ignoring walls of text

The last word is always Demigan's word
I dont agree with OP. Havent read allo the text walls ))

P.S. You better play better. Thats it.

I too agree.

The devs want to make the game more appealing to new players - to me one of the most frustrating things about this game is getting the drop on a vet and pumping half a magazine into their back, only for them to turn around and insta-ping you in the head and your deathscreen shows they were only down to half health.

Headshots should confer a small bonus, but they are far too OP at the moment. Vet's are good enough without being made godlike if they are headshot experts.

There is an easy fix to that though. Just make it so that shields cannot be activated whilst taking damage and have a short cool down afterwards, even 1/2 a second would do it. I'd even be happy for HAs to lose the movement penalty they currently get with shields to make up for this.

A short delay would mean a HA would need to use their shields much more tactically than they do now, engaging them before making their move to breach a room or take on a frontal assault, rather than just using them as an "I win" button which most HAs seem to do.

A HA caught with his pants down should be as vulnerable as most other classes.

How do you even compare skills like that? Having the "exact same amount of skills" in Aiming compared to say, Player Base Builders, or A2A Pilots or A2A Daltoneers or even Mine Layers?

Even if we strictly limit it to infantry only, should someone who knows how to exploit the frame-rate to jump up walls be as rewarded as someone who can aim their gun really well?

The gigantic headshot multiplier is one of the reasons this game doesn’t grow. It’s why the player population is stagnant and constantly declining.

Hey, I have no problem farming newbies with headshots because I have more skill, but I want this game to grow.

The devs are dumb.

Since the skills arent very easy to define in numbers, even accuracy isnt easily caught in a % as it depends on where you aim, the weapons you use and your playstyle, the only thing we can do is trial and error. At what point is someone who spent about as much time and effort into one particular skill as good as someone who did another skill?
There are ofcourse many little skills with low skill ceilings. These small skills should cumulatively be as good as any other skill, and where possible the skill ceiling should be stretched. And as I've said before, it should matter as little as possible how you spread your skills, as long as you've spend an equal amount of time and effort to learn them you should never be at a disadvantage against someone who learned mostly one skill.
And I hope this wasnt an attempt to do "if you cant define it we shouldnt do it", because in that case can you properly define why headshot damage should stay as is compared to other skills?

As for someone skilled in using exploits or bugs, ban them and fix the exploit. If the exploit is very popular, make it a full on feature so everyone can easily learn and use it.

Obviously bolt guns need to keep their OHK ability. This drastic ttk difference between head and body shots mostly revolves around automatics. I actually think the headshot multiplier should be reduced along with a corresponding health reduction, or damage increase. This keeps the same headshot ttk, which I think is in a good place, but let's body shots be viable. The entire point is to make going for body shots not a death sentence. At the same time, headshots should stay highly rewarded. It's a tricky balance, and I think removing nanoweave and the HA shield might even be enough. And maybe dropping the modifier to 1.9x.

What has that got to do with the price of tea in China?

Picking fly **** out of the black pepper trying to score a point does not impress or amuse me.

First, status quo is literally "the way things currently are". Go ahead and argue that the current mechanics which have been in place since launch do not meet this criteria.

Second, as previously stated this game has used and maintained the same gunplay mechanics for the last 7 years. Said mechanics contain many features present in many successful AAA titles, in particular the HS modifier. In that time it has also remained financially feasible enough to perpetuate a playerbase long after most of its peers have fallen by the wayside. By all unbiased accounts that qualifies as accepted and proven.

No, you haven't. You have given say-so evidence and personal anecdotes, called it evidence, then thrown a magnificent tantrum every time someone disagrees with you. This is barely even discourse, let alone logic.

I quite specifically addressed this in the post you 'responded' to above:

Now if we put our thinking caps on, we'll realize the answer to this question:

should be very, very obvious. However, given your track record, I'm going to elaborate:
1)Historically, as long as the gameplay is good, FPS games have been successful whether based on a high or low TTK model
2)This implies players will stick with a game if they enjoy the gameplay, and learn the gunplay as they go
3)Therefore, changing the gunplay has a low likelihood of bringing in more new players, since if they already dislike the gameplay, altering the gunplay is unlikely to retain them.
4)The only possible reason you have to make changes to the gunplay at this stage is personal preference.

Yes, the community has never been wrong about anything.

Welcome to modern most first person shooters.

Ohhh, you just need skill? And it isn't even hard, Demi said so! Holy crap why doesn't everyone just hit their shots? How hard can that possibly be?

Reasons I have stated previously, which you have responded to and apparently never read. Regardless I cannot be bothered to reproduce them now as it has become obvious the level of effort required of me from this point forward.

Because you say so.

Citations needed.

Citations needed.


Next.

You don't. Equal is not the same as equivalent. Two players can be equally skilled without having equal effect on the battlefield.

To me, in the game right now position and aim are functionally equivalent. If you define the terms of the engagement the advantage you take into that firefight is such that the only way for you to lose is either for your opponent to react incredibly quickly, incredibly accurately, some a combination of the two, or for you to miss shots. I don't have a problem with this, because it requires that both players operate skillfully and means an ambusher doesn't just get to disengage their brain because of where they started a fight from.

Given two players of equal aim? Position is key. The sticking point is how much of the latter is needed to overcome a difference in the former, and how much harder is it to build skill in one vs another. Unfortunately these are things that are incredibly difficult for him to quantify which is what led to the current meaningless sideshow on Burden of Proof.

Maybe to him it will be, but he'll have to leave before I finish typing.

To be honest I don't disagree with your intent regarding NWA but that is mostly due to the way it soft-counters 200dmg guns and stuff like the Underboss. I'm firmly opposed to removing the HA shield, however. Practically speaking if you remove the Shield you will be compelled to alter the Jetpack and the Cloak as well unless you can offer some serious changes to the HA to make up the difference.

Check it out. Reddit seems to agree with removing nanoweave.

Remove the HA shield and let the heavy have 3 suit slots.

After reading it all you are basically trying to get away with semantics rather than offer an actual argument. Grow up man and offer an actual reason as to why headshots should stay the way they are.

I'm with you on the headshot or go home meta being a general problem for this particular game. I don't know if the headshot multiplier needs to be lowered, or if simply removing nanoweave, symbiote, and the HA shield would set things right.

One philosophy you should reconsider is CQC weapons being on par with headshot hunters. If we're talking high skill vs high skill players, the headshot hunter should always win. I see CQC automatics as somewhat of a crutch for those who can't land headshots. They should be viable, but not on par. I use AA weapons as most of my examples because that's the part of the game that I understand the most, so here we go... Despite its niche nature, the Ranger needs to yield noob results thanks to its ease of use. The Walker should beat it in every way with a good shooter. So the Tomoe with headshots should beat a CQC carbine with body shots every time.

That's a pretty boring game you're imagining where everything is decided quite a while before any engagement occurs.