Headshot bonus damage should decrease

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by karlooo, Aug 24, 2019.

  1. adamts01

    Please quote ANYONE on this thread who asked for the removal of headshots.

    Are you off your meds?
  2. AllRoundGoodGuy

    • Up x 2
  3. Tumdaydar

    I think i found a bug last night its hard to tell. I was on purple faction and the first hour was me just medicing the team no issue. We made it to a few bases and then i see a heavy i got advatage and half clip in them but they shot once and instkill me with one round and a lmg its fishy they can do that. If i try what they do i get smaked like a bad ****. Is this how its to be working or was the team cheating? I also saw smg and ar seem to just one shot but i have nano weave maxed so i should not to one shot exsept for snipers or shotguns.
  4. That_One_Kane_Guy

    What an absolutely poetic display of missing the thrust of my statement, coming to the correct conclusion, and then torpedoing your own logic in a mad dash for ad hominem ammunition. All in the space of three sentences.

    Yes, in fact it was me I was referring to who was delusional in thinking you were reading my posts. The number of times in this discussion that the point of what I am saying has completely eluded you is so high it is either that or reading comprehension failure.

    There is evidence in this very thread that proves otherwise. Also, don't confuse observation with insult. If you have **** on your face telling you so doesn't constitute a personal attack, it means you should probably consider seeking a towel.

    You really cannot handle someone disagreeing with you, can you? Telling you an argument has gone over your head when it has clearly done so is not a personal attack.

    Coming from someone who was appealing to the inviolate wisdom of the Planetside 2 Community literally 1 page ago.

    Some of my first posts on this thread commented on the differences between the TTK values of various games in comparison to this one. Specifically examples where the differences were quite small. I would make another comment about your lack of reading my posts, but at this point it's getting redundant.

    Again, you say this based on which evidence? You have literally no idea if it will improve anything. Not once have you given any indication that there is any more support for this change than 5 people on an internet forum.

    Based. On. Which. Evidence? You cannot keep saying this over and over again with nothing more to support it than your bloody say-so. Positional play is rewarding:
    Headshots don't help you if you never get the chance to pull the trigger.

    Just to be clear, those "~50%" (REF) weapons won't get any better without a high HSM. Short-ranged weapons won't magically become better with a lower HSM, they'll just have more time to run away since the other person's headshots matter less. As the range decreases relative weapon accuracy matters less and less until the DPS is all that matters.

    Personal experiences and anecdotes are not evidence. Until you get that through your head and offer something more substantial than 'because Demigan says so' we aren't getting anywhere from this position.

    ...you literally think removing headshots from the game would only cause a small number of players in this game to leave? I won't even bother asking for any sort of evidence to back this claim, it doesn't exist. How rare of an ability do you think this is?

    You can't have your cake and eat it too. If they're easy and pervasive then the 'vets who use it' constitute a significant fraction of your playerbase. But if they're so insignificant that removing those players from the game is barely a blip on the radar then aiming skill isn't as easy and imbalanced as you say it is.

    It's a lose-lose situation.

    Every time you try to be snarky, I get the mental image of Wile E. Coyote about to engage in a bit of self-immolation with an ACME product.
    You sought this out, you started the personal attacks, you started the cursing. Don't presume to criticize my forum etiquette.

    Has nothing to do with my argument. This is a video game forum, not a political debate.

    Such an odd way of putting 'based on observable evidence from other FPS franchises and their player retention, changing the HSM is unlikely to affect the playerbase in a meaningful way, while changing core mechanics of the infantry gameplay is more likely to cause a backlash in the community something which has already happened once causing a player loss we are still yet to recover from' but in for a penny I guess.
    Might be worth looking at the difference no nanoweave makes before other changes are considered.
  5. adamts01

    100%. It's a fine balancing act. As posted earlier, the industry standard is a 1.6x to 2x headshot multiplier, with some games offering a 2x multiplier with the equivalent 20% body shot reduction with armor and an associated penalty, which nanoweave doesn't have. Combining nanoweave and an HA shield essentially gives PS2 more than a 3x headshot multiplier. That's why I think nanoweave is counterproductive, and the overahield is flat out awful.
  6. Demigan

    Hey again a post with zero reasons or proof, or even logical statements, that prove that we should keep the status quo. Great! So all you keep doing is stating its fine but providing nothing as to why its fine beyond "its like this now and its like this in other games".

    Just look at how you handle the idea of people leaving over a change like this. You proclaim I am wrong... but provide no proof, reason or logic of how many people would leave then. And this is the template of all your arguments so far.
  7. Johannes Kaiser

    That might have been a latency thing. Even with a decent ping that happens sometimes.
    The reason why you only "received one shot" is because of lag compensation all shots your opponent fired were registered as a single one combined. You basically noticed only the last shot, but suddenly all the damage was there. It's annoying as hell, but not quite fixable. Fortunately, it only happens once or twice every 2 hours or so.
  8. Tumdaydar

    Ok but that was for like 30 min strat that it happened. Was it thare lag or a server lag that coused becouse i have 100ms all the time.
  9. adamts01

    With no evidence to present, it feels to me like the servers have short hiccups like that.
  10. Crayv

    This is why game companies shouldn't listen to "pro" players. They will insist the game be changed to benefit them the most.... because their playstyle obviously requires the most skill and therefore should give the biggest reward.
    *Glares at Wrel*
    It's one of the things that bothers me most about gaming; players hate being taken out of their comfort zone, even if the status quo is a decade(s) old game mechanic that exist solely because of the limitations of that time. This is why going into a saturated genre is bad *cough*Planetside Arena*cough* if you go out of the comfort zone gamers won't even give it a chance but if you maintain it then your game is just a clone of existing ones and there is no reason to play it over the others.
    • Up x 3
  11. Tumdaydar

    As a old gamer meaning playing sega and nes you make a good point but the deves alwas have a hard balec act for pro and noobies. If the noobies and the pros agree on something chace of a chage is good. Like i think if the remove nanoweave and give it to the shield and it reduces the damage of head shot but only with the shield. This will bring in more virity to the game and is one of the nutral way for pros and noobies to feel reworded.
  12. UberNoob1337101

    You forgot to mention one thing, and that's that with Nanoweave armor, PS2 HSM is exactly ~2.5 (some weapons like Tomoe have it even higher, some like Hunter QCX have it lower). It's a bit higher compared to the games you're comparing it to.

    Also, the "effective" headshot multiplier should also be mentioned, i.e the fact that at most ranges with Nanoweave, bolt-action "effective" HSR is actually 3x, since they stop 2-shotting to the body past ~50m, yet retain their headshot OHK until 200/250m.

    To briefly cover this :

    A 200 damage weapon needs 5 bodyshots or 3 headshots to kill, effectively a 1.67x headshot multiplier
    A 167 damage weapon needs 6 bodyshots or 3 headshots to kill, effectively a 2x headshot multiplier
    A 143 damage weapon needs 7 bodyshots or 4 headshots to kill, effectively a 1.75x headshot multiplier
    A 125 damage weapon needs 8 bodyshots or 4 headshots to kill, effectively a 2x headshot multiplier
    et cetera et cetera...

    But with Nanoweave Armor's 20% small arms damage resistance, the dynamic changes

    A 200 damage weapon needs 7 bodyshots or 3 headshots to kill, effectively a 2.33x damage multiplier (0.66 increase)
    A 167 damage weapon needs 8 bodyshots or 3 headshots to kill, effectively a 2.66x damage multiplier (0.66 increase)
    A 143 damage weapon needs 9 bodyshots or 4 headshots to kill, effectively a 2.25x headshot multiplier (0.5 increase)
    A 125 damage weapon needs 10 bodyshots or 4 headshots to kill, effectively a 2.5x damage multiplier (0.5 increase)

    There's nothing really wrong with the non-nanoweave HSM, but Nanoweave really screws with the TTK in more ways than one. Not only do headshots become a lot more valuable, they are disproportionately so (200-167 weapons require the same amount of extra bullets as the faster firing 143-125 damage weapons do, thus bloating the bodyshot TTK for them and encouraging headshots even more). This is most obvious with my bolt-action example where snipers at most ranges have a 3x headshot multiplier, having anywhere between a 2.2s-3s TTK with bodyshots and an instant kill with a single headshot.
    AFAIK BF1 has the sweetspot mechanic where certain snipers within certain range OHK their targets even with bodyshots, and BF4's bolt-actions OHK in CQC, no?
    In comparison, PS2 in this case really is "headshots or go home".

    Now, as for the percentage of players using nanoweave, I do remember old polls from 2015/2016 saying something around 40%/50% use the slot, accounting for vehicle users who probably don't use nanoweave, with speculation I think there's about ~70% of infantrymen using this slot most of the time, then again it's just speculation, but we can be certain that throughout the game's lifetime Nanoweave was and is the most popular suit slot by a great margin, thus I think that the 2.5x HSM is more accurate.

    TL : DR : You forgot to mention Nanoweave, and I think it's really the only problem concerning TTK in general in this game. I'm in support of removing it and letting other more specialized and unique slots take it's place, as it's a bit too powerful, universally useful and kinda screwing with the balance of high-damage weapons. Headshots are fine as they are and are ultimately fair (i.e there is counter-play to it : rapid movement, aggressive peeking...), but Nanoweave diminishes the value of bodyshots.

    PS: To those bringing up the "cheaters" argument : don't **** with the honest players by gutting game mechanics, suggest getting a proper anti-cheat instead and advocate getting rid of easy, literally-modified-one-file hacking.
    • Up x 5
  13. That_One_Kane_Guy

    I think we're on the same wavelength.

    I am not having another BoP argument with you, that's a hill you have already died on.

    This was from what, two pages ago? I notice this is another one you didn't bother reading as your response to this post was to
    claim I never offered an argument at all, immediately try shifting the burden of proof, and on top of it all having the gall to tell me to 'grow up'.

    It so happens we already have a precedent for the effect of core changes on that order of magnitude in this game, which is something I mention in the post you so cunningly 'snipped' above:
    "...while changing core mechanics of the infantry gameplay is more likely to cause a backlash in the community something which has already happened once causing a player loss we are still yet to recover from."

    The 12 months post-CAI essentially saw the evaporation of 20% of the playerbase, and the only time we have seen pre-CAI numbers in the last year or so was immediately following the DX11 patch. Those were changes affecting vehicle players only. To say changes affecting the vast majority of the playerbase in the way you suggest may cause player loss is not far-fetched.

    You are correct. As I've said I am not opposed to removing it as it screws with certain weapons and adds inconsistency. I think a lot of the issue with NW being so popular is that it's hard to make another utility as attractive as a straight health bonus.
    • Up x 1
  14. Demigan

    You mean to say "I still dont want to provide any actual proof for what I'm saying".

    As I've already pointed out those titles mean nothing. Its comparing apples with oranges. Maybe this will help the point across:

    Unreal Tournament is a twitch shooter. Its weapons are designed to be a twitch shooter weapon. It does not have to balance individual weapons so some weapons are more useful than others, but they all have something to enhance the core twitch-based gameplay. Some weapons can damage around corners, others put down temporary mines and charged up can potentially OHK even shielded enemies, others create streams of moving plasmaballs as a wall to hedge the enemy in etc.
    Now if you added some PS2 type weapons to that it wouldnt work. The mechanics of PS2 weapons do not fit a twitch gameplay for the most part. Theres much more to consider in recoil, COF, damage falloff, range etc compared to the Unreal weapons. So if they had added PS2 weapons to Unreal then it wouldnt have fit the game and they would have been much less useful than the standard Unreal fair.

    PS2 has a large range of weapons and mechanics on those weapons. Weapons differ from each other by changing how much a mechanic impacts the weapon, this way they can control the weapon's range and playstyle and intended role. If one of these weapons has a superior reward for being used while not actually taking more skill, then that weapon is devalueing the other weapons. And therefore that weapon or category of weapons needs to be put in line or the other weapons buffed so their mechanics mean as much as the rest.

    That is pretty much the point you are avoiding all the time. You admit that people get more rewards for headshots, but ignore that this is a problem. You provide nothing as to why the current headshot multiplier should stay as it is, aside from "but these games were successful with them". Newsflash: PS2 isnt those games.

    Allright my bad, you never offered any viable proof. Also hoe do I "shift the burden of proof"? The accepted status quo that you also admit to is that headshots are the go-to thing in the game to get ahead, and it doesnt take much to figure out that weapons and mechanics that do not favour headshots are therefore inferior. So if you want to keep the standpoint that current headshot multipliers are OK then you have to come with a viable argument and facts as you hold just as much burden of proof as I do, except that your burden of proof doesnt have any groundwork to start from.

    It so happens we already have a precedent for the effect of core changes on that order of magnitude in this game, which is something I mention in the post you so cunningly 'snipped' above:
    "...while changing core mechanics of the infantry gameplay is more likely to cause a backlash in the community something which has already happened once causing a player loss we are still yet to recover from."[/quote]

    Are you seriously trying to compare a vehicular change that many misunderstood from the start to a change to headshots? I mean just the opening comments talk about how certain cannons were nerfed while much of the changes they rage about is just the change in health and damage profiles to make it more clear how much damage something does against targets, not an actual nerf.

    Also if that is already a "precedent", shouldnt we bring up the changes of 0,75ADS as well? Oh the horror that was going to be, those affected weapons were nerfed into the ground!
    They didnt even change 1% in their performance after the change.

    This precedent is ofcourse to show how little the players knoe of their own game, and how I was one of the only people who said from the beginning that 0,75 ADS mattered not half as much as people made it out to be.

    So a complete breakdown of the playerbase not understanding the changes, as well as the fact that there are more mass player losses and even bigger that you dont touch for some reason, is proof that headshots will impact the game IN THE SAME WAY as vehicle changes?
    How would they have the same effect as vehicle changes? Why? You dont say that, you just point and say "DOOOOOOOOOOM" and hope that's enough to convince.
  15. Scatterblak


    Agreed. There needs to be a much greater reward system for squad and outfit participation, mentoring, etc. Also, Killcam for BR 20 and under, maybe some other boost or assist for the youngins.

    Terrible idea, akin to using a circular saw to deal with a hangnail. DBG already has it's collective hands full with game balance as it is - changing a major factor like headshot would screw it up for years to come. In any case, headshots reward those who have the skill and/or have put in the practice, and penalizes those who aren't taking the necessary precautions. I get headshot about once every two weeks, and I play every night - but I *never* stop moving, I'm always thinking about cover, and I stay on the periphery of larger battles because I'm old and slow and fat now (luckily, old age and treachery will generally beat youth and skill). This is a core dynamic that the entire balance structure across classes depends on. If DBG was great at managing balance, maybe. They're not. Let it go, and look for a simpler fix.

    Honestly, and truly no offense, but it sounds like you hate getting headshot, and you've come up with a lot of reasons to get rid of it. The sheer complexity of this game - the learning curve alone - is, in my humble opinion, *much* more likely to make new players quit. The first 10 times they die, I wonder how many are due to head shots? Not a lot, I posit, but I don't know for sure. In any case, I think you could accomplish the same thing by reducing the xp kill reward for players under BR 30 proportional to their level (LVL 1-5 worth 1 xp, for instance) and mark them somehow. We all know that *anyone* on the field is a potential target, and we don't care if they're BR 2 or BR 120. We might even make the really new guys (1 - 5) negative xp's.

    There's a solution, and I absolutely acknowledge the problem you've identified, but I think that changing headshot damage isn't going to be the most efficacious way to address it. Just my very humble $0.02.
  16. That_One_Kane_Guy

    Stop confusing my position with your own.

    'Comparing a car to a truck is apples to oranges, because look how different the truck is from this motorcycle.'

    Yes, Arena Shooters have different weapons and mechanics than other more conventional shooters. This is hardly the Big Brain Discovery of the Day.

    I'm sorry, are you saying this would somehow be different for the weapons of Battlefield, or Call of Duty, or Destiny, or CS? Or are you under the impression that Planetside is somehow unique from its peers in that it has other factors to consider when you press Mouse 1? There are plenty of Planetside weapons you could happily take into (and be competitive with, in) Battlefield and vice versa.

    None of this has anything to do with proving that my comparison is apples to oranges.
    You've described in detail the mechanics of a game that has literally nothing to do with either title and somehow tout it as evidence. I don't even think you know where you're going with this anymore.


    Obviously because I don't think it is one. You have now successfully identified your opponent's position. Cheers for that one, Sherlock.

    Read here: "nothing that I will accept". Newsflash: trends in gaming can occur irrespective of the specific sub-genre to which they ascribe.

    You have not offered any good reasons for it to change aside from "I want it to".

    Again, read: "none that I will accept".

    Of course I "admit" it, I was the one who brought it up. Just what exactly is it you read before you respond to my posts?

    Already addressed previously:

    Obviously not if you don't read it I guess.

    Well spotted.

    You are missing the forest for the trees, bud. The details of what changed are irrelevant. Notice how those players are still gone, whether the changes were misunderstood or not? That's the precedent I am talking about. And again, we're talking about something that affects a far larger percentage of the playerbase than vehicles.

    Except as you have been proclaiming for the last several pages, headshots DO matter.
    It's really poor sport if you're going to defeat your own arguments for me.

    Which as pointed out above, are immaterial to the point I was making.

    No, I simply chose the most current example. This is not rocket science.

    No. It is a theory based on a trend. Not one time have I said "this is guaranteed to happen". The most likely result, perhaps, but not guaranteed by any means. Certainly more likely than bringing in a huge influx of new players.

    Because the scale of those affected by the changes is much greater. Not every Planetman uses vehicles, but unless they changed things just today, every player still spawns into the game with a gun.
    I honestly thought this was plenty obvious, but alas.
  17. pnkdth

    The real culprit is a lack of focus from DBG. Instead of creating the best massively multiple online FPS game they threw in a pointless construction system in there (cause minecraft) and then a battle royale (cause that's cool and stuff, right?). Now we're sitting here trying to fiddle with any and all knobs we can find to explain why the game is bleeding players.

    For me, it is simple (and since I believe it super convincing to me), they lost their USP (unique selling point) and that's why new players come into this game and go "what the hecking heck am I supposed to do here? Do I upgrade myself? buy a building? A weapon? Oh, vehicles too! Implants? What is ISO? Errrr, how do I get over there?" and so on.

    The risk in changing HS modifiers for DGB is huge though as they risk alienating their entire player base. We have already seen the effects and "warm" reception of the vehicle changes.
  18. iller

    First time this Whiner has ever be correct about something.

    Massive HeadShots crits simply SHOULD NOT come from full automatic weapons..
    Keep them on the Burst variants and Trap/Vandal? FINE, GREAT! Hell, you can even leave it on the UBGL...

    ...But the FUNDAMENTAL argument comes down to how fast is the fully Auto Headshot TKK versus the game's own Round Trip Latency?.... HINT: most times it's FASTER overall when you also account for the 220ms required for human Cognition reaction time....

    In layman's terms it means you're already down to 300 hitpoints or less remaining by the time you even mentally processed the first bullet hitting you! (depending on where you live and how Trashy the Server usually is) ....this is the main reason that so many competitive outfit players run VPN

    well... AND ads/strafe since every KD farmer's #1 tactic is rush corner peeking and right click on-bead at heads. ...a Tactic I might add, that MASSIVELY rewards undetectable Trigger Botters like Nuc. I'd LOVE to see the game fix this abusive behavior by making the Server itself set a Random "Disruption" vector on every full auto RightClick (whether you're 1x Scoping or NOT) which then impedes the player from CLIENTSIDING (& Lagswitching) the beginning of every single engagement and instead rewards the most adaptive players who WAIT for that Server packet to arrive first and THEN aim-correct just like in real life.