Obviously its not fine. If it was fine there wouldnt be so many people who like the simple statement of "how much should it be rewarded?". Lets ignore most of your crap and non-existant proof (seriously? 4 profiles that dont even prove your point?) And get right to the core of things: You want to keep the current HS %. I want to change it. You act like just because I want to change it, 100% of the effort needs to come from me. This is a twisted version of the scientific method: the accepted premise (say relativity versus quantum theory/string theory) does not need to be proven, the new theory needs to be proven. The problem here is: It hasnt been proven that the current HS % is good. Even when the new HS% was created by removing nanoweave protection it wasnt sure by the players why and the explanation of the devs was iffy at best. Remember this was during the same time that the devs would overbuff or overnerf everything they touched and never go back on a decision once made. The next problem is: I have shown how theoretically the HS% can work and favor one weapon or another depending on the HS%. Suspiciously those weapons are used more often by people who go more for headshots. I also advocate increasing the skill requirements for other skills so the infantry game becomes more varied than "headshot headshot headshot". The last problem is: if the HS% isnt as important as you say, why are you so adamant that it should stay? And why would every post on high-skill since the change to the HS multiplier be almost exclusively about headshots? Shouldnt the other skills be more important there? No ofcourse not because headshots are so dominant that other skills are secondary, if not tertiary.