Staff Post Tracker
Changing hit-detection or only counting hipfire as headshots is unfortunetly not an option right now.
We simply don't have the manpower to work on this.
We may be able to do something in the future, but that would be very far away.
So at this moment it's either changing the headshot modifier or not. And if we don't, then the case is closed.
In this scenario there really isn't a 5th option.
Seeing the amount of votes, and the fact I'm going to increase the pool further (possibly also collect votes of newer players, I have increased the percentage of the 1st option from 35% to 40%.
As with a higher pool of votes, the poll becomes more valuable and represents a bigger percentage of the community.
I have forwarded it to the developers, they will take a look at it.
So, a few days ago I shared the news that we want to change the heavy set badge so it no longer protects the head.
This makes it more fair for everyone and with that the question becomes, how powerful should these headshots actually be?
At the moment (as far as I know), the current multiplier is set to 4. This means that every weapon in the game (below their 'range near') can headshot with a single bullet.
I will now give you 4 options to pick from and I will explain them quickly below. Please note that modificiations on weapons can change this:
- Multiplier of 4: current
Multiplier of 3: SMG"s and most pistols won't be able to headshot, Carbine family guns also can't 1 hit kill headshot (may be buffed)
At least 1 pistol per faction should be able to 1 hit kill headshot (US currently can't)
Multiplier of 3: None of the pistols should be able to headshot
- Mulitplier of 2,25: Only rifles can 1 hit kill with a headshot, maybe 1919 also with modifications, not exactly certain
Now, the amount of votes that we will get on this poll, will only be a fraction of the playerbase, so whatever the outcome is, it's always the question if it was the right pick. Details like 'headshots' is something that lives much more with the veteran community than with the regular grunt that plays his first missions, and how the changes of headshots will affect them is very difficult to tell. However, it will most likely be more beneficial to them than a disadvantage, as they receive more headshots than they hand out.
1. If 40% or more vote for option 1, we will not change the headshot multiplier
2. Option 4 will only be picked, if it gets more than 45% of the votes (and more than option 2 and 3 combine of course)
3. If option 1 falls off, and option 4 has less than 50% of the votes, a second poll will be held between option 2 and option 3.
Most players who vote for option 1, will want option 2 and 3 above option 4. That is why option 4 needs to score really high to be picked.
This last rule makes sure that the players who voted on the 1st or 4th option can still influence the role of pistols.
Do note that these changes can have a pretty large impact on gun balance, as for example the PPS-43 can't make that 1 hit kill headshot anymore, while the Johnson can, so it may require buffs or nerfs to certain guns to re-balance this.
Poll will stay open for about a week.
Little comment from my side, this poll is not an official poll so I won't necessarily hold me to whatever gets voted here.
Something to keep in mind is that it's mostly players here that own these badges, so they will have different opinions than the receiving players.
Of course I will keep a close eye on this topic, because I do think it's interesting to see the opinions of players.
I will most likely go forward with it no matter the outcome, but what percentages to put it on may change based on this poll.
No promises though, it's not an official poll.
2809 hours ago, Boreas said:
Can someone clarify how squad resource works? Its not the first time it has happened, and it seems other than infantry, every other class have this issue of running out of resources near the beginning of the game. (ie. Telling me that my squad had depleted all resources after 2 deaths when there are still 144 paratrooper reinforcements available on the board)
That sounds very odd, when this happens could you collect the MissionID and create a topic in bug hunters?
One thing that is possible, is that certain units are only on one line. When the line is closed you lose the resources.
Also if your squad changes line, you are not able to use the units from the other line.
I have not really heard about this before, so I'm not sure what it could be otherwise.
294507 minutes ago, Mastah said:
I'd say... that'll be a good change.
Perhaps in the near future you guys can phase out heavy set altogether and replace it by (not my own idea but I supported it) additional health for new players, that goes down with increasing game time. Ergo: the more experienced they get with the game the less 'need' for additional health. Vets no longer can carry heavy set / " health hack" badge.
It's no secret by now that I think it's FUBAR (actually pretty sad) seeing long time vets running around with maxed out weapons AND heavy set combined giving them skill boosts/crutches.
We did come close to a point where we wanted to get rid of the badge altogether. We however met a lot of resistance from players that have spend a lot of time grinding the badge and feel it's really unfair if we remove it.
Regarding headshots, it strongly depends on who you ask. I did a poll recently with about 200-300 votes on it, and by far the most people voted on keeping the headshots the way they are. This does however at least make the situation much more fair.
I do not know if this will be in the next build already or in the one after that, but we are going to make a small change to the heavy set.
In the future heavy set will no longer protect against headshots. Mostly a lot of smg's require 2 bullets even when making a headshot, this will now no longer be the case.
I will close this topic afterwards as I've wasted enough time on it.
I received quite a few complaints about unfair voting.
I created a rule, to make sure that if it was true, I could act on it.
There was a lot of speculation on the rule.
I therefore decided to explain why I had set it up. I did mention specifically the German faction, as that was where the complaints were about.
This is not based on my personal ideas, but on complaints from players. Otherwise I would not have even thought about placing such a rule.
There was some truth to the complaints, as I stated in my first explanation.
Certain players were simply downvoting everything that was the not agreed upon option.
However it did not happen on a big scale. And I DID NOT ACT ON THE RULE.
With that last point everything should be said. There was a rule in place against abuse of the poll.
I did not notice that much abuse so I did not enact the rule.
So this whole discussion is about a rule that has had no influence whatsoever.
I explained the rule, to show transparency. I'm not even sure I regret it despite all the complaints that came afterwards.
I try to share as much information as I can as I feel the community deserves to get that information.
I can't share everything and sometimes not as much as I want to share, but I try to give what I can.
I play the game for my enjoyment. I don't get paid for it and I do this in my own free time.
There is no one in the company that tells me that I need to play the game and I can bring my gameplay hours back all the way to 0 if I want to.
I work for the game, so I want to have experience with it and there have been times that I also did not really feel like playing and I forced myself to to keep the experience going.
I also don't love every aspect of the game and there are times I too am frustrated by certain things. I don't think our spawnsystem is ideal for example.
But overall I get a lot of enjoyment from playing the game.
A large part of my enjoyment comes from playing with a group. I dare to call at least some of them friends as I have played with them for so long.
I don't discuss development with them, I don't want their opinions on features and sometimes I just tune them out if they complain about something.
I listen to feedback for a living, so I don't need more of it during my free time.
Some people seem to have this picture of me just constantly taking notes of every word that gets said by the people I play with.
But that is simply not the case. It's also the reason why i have no intention to join other teamspeaks or discords. I know it won't be just to play with them, but to hear every complaint about the game they have. I just want to have fun when I play and nothing else.
I play a lot more than my coworkers and therefore have a much bigger understanding of many parts of the game.
I try to use my personal experiences to help the game move forward. It's easier for me to confirm certain issues.
I was able to confirm the APC production was really low, as there were just so many battles without them. I saw how almost no one used bicycles anymore as they were just too slow.
And most things I spend time on where faction-neutral things.
Before 2020, I've never had any influence on weapon balance and I did not want to have influence on it. I forwarded feedback, I mostly remember forwarding complaints about the STG-44 and the MG-42 that were underpowered (and back then they were), but also about some other guns and aspects of the game. But I kept my own opinion on it completely to myself as I of course have some bias.
The reason why I have picked it up now however, is because someone needs to do it. I try to balance in 3 groups:
- Faction balance
- Weapon group balance (SMG vs MG f.ex.)
- Player level balance (new player vs veteran)
Now, the actual results of the balancing are not for me to decide on. I can give advise but that is it.
The developer makes the actual decisions on everything. So if he feels I am wrong about something, he won't change it.
The only real bias that I have created, is because of a lot of harassment I have received over the years. Mostly German players who have attacked me, insulted me etc. based on the fact that I play on the US faction. I've never really wanted it to be a secret that I play for the US and actually want players to know that I play with an organised group and face similar struggles. But, rather than people being happy that I play on the highest level of the game, it seems that the faction is the only thing that is important to a lot of players. And I think it's a shame, because I believe it's far more benefitial for me to play the game the way I do, than it is a deficit.
Like I said, I don't have to play the game, I want to play the game.
At this point there is a second thing I really want to do.
Which is just cancel the whole poll as everyone keeps complaining how unfair it is, even though they got the result they wanted.
I won't, because I think it's good for the game to go through with it. But this certainly does not inspire to keep doing things like this and to involve the community in things.
9140001 hour ago, r2gy said:
What I want to accomplish is that influence/decisions on things like this should not based only on what information some 3rd party provides since it is very easy to manipulate it and direct accusations based on information like that should not happen at all (in my opinion). Nothing is unfair and nothing was before, I want my vote to stay, of course I was expecting RETO members to stay out of voting but since RETO option was in the poll and since you are playing and if you didn't use multiple accounts for voting I guess everything is legal.
Regarding me voting, that is perhaps the only thing I should not have done. I actually thought I was unable to see who voted on the items if I had not voted myself, but realised later I could have done so without voting. Seeing I assumed option 3 would make it anyway and it wasn't my favorite I figured I would skip that one. Which I probably should not have done that way. I figured I also had the right to give my own opinion on it this way, however did not really think about the fact this could influence people to vote the same. Or I should just have used my private account to vote so it was not as obvious.
I don't think my vote really has that kind of influence, but I can agreed that I may have given a wrong signal there.
I think that I need to specify one thing or actually only one word.
It is now 'When people breaks the rules I will act' It is 'If people breaks the rules I will act'.
I set the rule in place to make sure that if the complaints were valid I would have a way to act on it. Without that predefined statement, I would not have been able to do anything if people would ruin the validity of the poll.
I think some people did or at least tried to, or actually know they did, but most votes are simply valid and that is why I don't see any reason to enforce the rule that I stated beforehand.
I actually regreted stating with the previous poll there would be a third poll, I think two would have been enough, but seeing I promised to give the option to not change at all, I had to hold the last poll. Seeing the mentions of players they would vote against all of them, simply because they did not like one of them, I wanted to give the option to vote for each one individually. I would have liked to see all 4 options being used as I think all 4 of them were good options. I do think the 3rd one brings a bit more difficulties for the US, as their capitals are very far away from one another. It is also difficult to develop from that position.
My personal one had as main focus to put Germany in Berlin but give them more ground in the north, so they would not get sandwiched so easily and they hold more 'edge' of the map. I actually gave 2 suggestions myself, 1 with Germany in England and 1 putting them in Russia. In both situations moving the opposing factions in a way that Germany would get room to expend. My goal was to first situate Germany in a decent position and move the other factions based on that, as I think Germany has been losing too many wars and could use a good position to start from. I know that a lot of players don't believe that, but I very much want Germany to win more wars. The reason why I still do nerfs to certain German weapons as well, is because losing the RTS is for Germany not so much based on losing the FPS. They did and still do really well there.
Balancing the RTS is however much more difficult, as we simply don't assign the amount of time to it as is necessary to fix some key issues. For Germany that key issue is more than anything the matchmaker. It's something that I've been asking to get fixed for a very long time now. I have one very controversial idea about it (which I would certainly take to the forums first before pushing that into the company, I know people will dislike it, question is only how many dislike it), but I first want to see if we can get a better solution before going into that territory. I also don't want to put what I mentioned into this topic as I don't want to derail the topic even further (even though I doubt that's even possible).
My goal has never been to put a certain faction at an advantage or disadvantage, as it serves me no purpose. I rate my job quite a bit higher than my personal enjoyment. As without my job I can't afford personal enjoyment either. I'm not saying I never have wrong impressions, but that is why I don't solely base everything on my own experience. Statistics are therefore also very important. There are things, like what we did with bikes that you can now 'sprint' on those as well. That are quite easy as it affects all factions the same. But in certain situations I know that things are more benefitial for faction A than faction B.
I think that from my company I am the only person that is really part of a group of players, the others play randomly, I have no idea on which factions. I don't make decisions, other people do and they always take a look at all kinds of informations. My job in the past has only ever been to say where issues are, it was never my job to come up with solutions for those issues. There were developers who literally told me to not write down solutions but only describe the issue. As much as people like to think that, I've never had much influence on how the balance of weapons has been and which faction had what advantage. Neither did my coworkers in the past.
2020 is the first year, in which I actually have influence on the balance of the game and my goal is to make the game fun for everyone.
Balance between the factions, but also between new and old players. There are elements that are not so easy to change, like I said the RTS. But when it comes to weapon balance, my main goal is to make weapons on each faction competitive. *Snip own text for it becoming far too long*
I'm human so I make mistakes, I know that I do. But constantly bashing for 'bias' I absolutely do not agreed on. My goal with the weapon balancing and also with this poll, is to make sure that it is fair. We have 3 factions and players are alligned to certain factions, so that will affect how they look at things. And I must admit that espesially the Germany faction can be quite difficult to work with. In some aspects they are correct, once again, RTS is unbalanced against them. But in other things they are also wrong and I notice that the German faction has more difficulties hearing that they are wrong than the other two factions.
Not necessarily because they are worse people, but more because there are a lot more active German players than of the other factions. And with more players, there are also more bad apples. I need to admit though I also have had some bad experiences with the German faction also from back when I was a player. The first GE clan the 5th panzer was very toxic towards my own clan. And when I ended up getting into the RETO team, it was a German player, a person who I personally got into the Core Tester group back then, as I felt there were not enough German players in that group, who had to leak my identity. This was not the first and also not the last incident
I am a bit less trusting in the GE community than in the other two factions. There are many players on each faction that I respect very much, but most people I have issues with are with the German faction. There are also people in the US and in the SU I don't like very much. But even then, if any of them have a valid opinion on something I still listen to them. I still value them as players (and costumers) and will try to treat them with respect as much as possible. I can get angry as well if my buttons get pushed too often. But once I have taken measures against them then that is it, and the relationship starts fresh again. I also don't use different rules against Germans than against the other two factions, nor do I spend more time looking into what they are doing than the other two factions. Players from each faction also receive the same punishment for whatever infraction they do.
I don't put less value in the words of GE players and respect their opinions just as much as those of other factions and try to work on ways to make sure every faction gets what it needs and deserves. My own opinions for the rest are invalid as I need to do what is best for the game and not for me. If you insult me 10 days and on the 11th day you come with some very useful feedback, I will still look into that feedback, what I think about you is invalid at that moment.
So to come to a final conclusion, yes I did put the rule in place based on comments I received from '3rd parties'. But they have never been in place so I could VETO one faction from their opinions. I have absolutely no intention on taking such actions and I find it quite annoying my words very often get twisted in a way that suits players, just to make it look like I favor the US faction. This morning I did look into the votes a little bit and did see that some of the claims were not entirely invalid. However, not on the same scale as they were stating. So, I 'dropped the rule'. I think I've written a long enough post by now so I'll end it here, but my prime concern was to make sure this poll gave valid results, not to favor one faction over the others.
9140004 minutes ago, r2gy said:
You say that people reported german veteran-main players pretending to be mains from other factions/downvoting other options, I wonder how can those people be so sure that those "downvoters" are actually GE mains? Maybe those US/SU players who reported are the ones who are trying to set up GE players?
Okay, let's assume this is the case. Then what?
How is this of any importance to anything here?
I set up rules based on accusations that count for everyone.
I saw a lot of comments on it, so I explained why I set them up.
I did not enforce them as there was no need to do so.
If a different faction had tried to influence the poll unjust fully, I could have used the exact same rule for them.
I simply cannot understand why we are still having this discussion. The 3rd option was picked and will be used.
The 1st and 4th will be dropped just like was voted on.
What is it you want to accomplish now? The poll ended up the exact way it was voted on.
Was it still unfair? Is the fact that I was completely biased against option 3 the only reason why you voted on it and you want your vote retracted now?
What is it?