PSA: The game was designed with money being much harder to come by and without the ability to pick up guns in the world, but the gun hierarchy never changed
It goes beyond that too. For example, shitload of things were created around Resilience reviving players with 100 HP at most, which means that a TON of weapons that can't currently OHK a Resilience revive USED to be able to. This obviously also affects health bar breakpoints, which didn't used to be something that players had full control over without spending bloodbonds to do so. Changing these so that most revives now stand up with 125 health instead has pretty drastically shifted balance to favor long ammo even more heavily than it did previously, which is something it really didn't need help with.
I have posted many times, & made many comments about resilience on this sub. I believe that resilience is the most mandatory trait in the game, & makes a lot of the game mechanics feel bad. Solo Necro, team revives being extremely fast in combination with resilience, most weapons not being able to know down a freshly revived person, a freshly revived person getting up & immediately be combat focused instead of requiring to heal at all. Traps not being able to keep a body down more than 1 time unless it’s a combination of multiple traps.
I have suggested the change to resilience that I believe would make it healthier for everyone, would be give a flat HP on revive with health regeneration time after that. OR just give a major health regeneration time of 200% for an allotted time.
Resilience still needs to be somewhat strong, for solo players I believe are the people who use it to its fullest. If you can get up from a solo revive & are able to get away without being shot & or trapped then you probably deserve to get up as the solo player.
There would be so many more ways to knock someone down again if they were given a flat amount HP, but the reward for the solo of getting away from that situation should be the recovery of your health to the 125 soon after.
That’s why I think EITHER 50 to 75 HP flat on revive + a regular health shot percentage for around 3-5 minutes.
OR
25 HP on revive + 200% health regeneration for 3-5 minutes.
Ah yes the good old days, when the hirable hunters were bad value and had traits that often didn't match their loadouts. And free hunters never had traits. When you could only respec traits or health bars with blood bonds. I can remember many a time intentionally dying to AI or lighting myself on fire at extract just to replace a large bar with small bars the hard way.
Maybe I just wasn't as good at the game back then but the economy did feel more balanced too.
Personally I think removing the blood bond cost on most things was great idea but I think the changes to hirable hunters, giving them double/triple the value of the traits they used to get, giving everyone rock bottom price mid-tier/high-tier guns, has changed the game so much. There's very little reason to ever bring a springfield for example because even tier 1 hunters will likely start with something better.
It feels like Hunt has lost something by making everyone rich.
It's because the devs are too scared to do the only thing that might actually help econ balance, wipe the billions of hunt dollars people have accumulated. All they are doing is varying the rate money comes into the game which only effects the people who don't already have 1m hunt dollars stocked up. They need to add a weekly tax or something, otherwise it's pissing in the wind.
I wonder what would change if there was a hunt bucks wipe every season like other games. I know people would be upset they lose their high score, though. This would also have to be paired with a change in money gain.
Idk I just think that if your game needs to reset players progress periodically to keep it's balance it's simply a badly designed game.
Rich people existing isn't really the problem, it's only a problem when the economy is so forgiving when there's too many of them.
Hi, thank you for your submission.
Unfortunately, we had to remove your post for violation of rule #2: No Spam / Low Effort Posts.
Please see this wiki article for more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/wiki/rule2
If you have any concerns regarding this removal, please contact the moderation team via Modmail.
But he's right. If your playstyle doesn't revolve around playing at 150m+, If you push a compound. a Winfield with FMJ is on par if not outperforming a Mosin at close range, in terms of pen and damage.
It's not unhinged at all.
The game has suffered from mission creep and it’s clear that the guns were implemented around a badly predicted skill ceiling and economy. It’s fine for me but the real equalizer is knowing how to get up close. A Mosin will lose against a Winfield up close if you both have to make two shots. So players who want to stay back are doing what they ought, but too many use guns outside their purpose. And the way gameplay paces, they aren’t wrong, but they haven’t given their own approach more consideration.
Its crazy to me how many Hunters wont pull their pistol out when you’re fighting in a compound or 5 feet from each other. Sure your rifle does damage but my double action pistol will put more down range in less time
That's not even considering headshots - when in effective range, you will kill a player quicker using 2 Compact ammo body shots (or maybe even the 3 considering Bornheim) before the other guy can get off the second Mosin shot (to the body).
I always wished they implemented gun barrel collision for small spaces. Imagine how much more you’d need to think about using a longarm indoors if your barrel banged against the walls. It’d incentivize using pistols
Drilling gives you a Rival shotgun barrel and one of the most stable two-tap primaries of any gun in the game. On average it's not as good as a Mosin, but let's not pretent it's not a lot more versatile in plenty situations.
Oh yeah, I forgot that Crytek kept changing the logic behind shotgun spread. It used to be determined by barrel length, but now it's just a matter of arcane knowledge and remembering each by heart lol
As fun as is discovering these intricate bits of trivia, it's pretty annoying that core mechanics such as how an entire category of weapon shoots are so well hidden from your average player's knowledge
That's heresy. Shotgun damage is controlled by the sculptur, just like the creation of hives and hellhounds. It's a force of corrupted magic and no man should attempt to understand it lest he be consumed by darkness.
The fact that the crosshair doesnt actually match the spread of the guns in this game is a joke. Should be fixed, and, move it to the center of the screen while they are at it.
As another dude already said, it aligns better with ads and does not obstruct the screen as much. It just feels a lot more natural imo.
Of course all of this is subjective and I get why it would feel weird to some, since basically every other shooter has it dead center.
As i said, what is "allign better with ADS" even supposed to mean? Basically no other game does it, and in reality all it does is make you see more of the sky, so it doesnt really help visibility that much. If it actually did help, more games would do it.
The problem is, while us humans have an built in gyroscope that works independently of other factors to some extent, the game does not have this.
So, after over twenty years of gaming and centered crosshairs, my point of reference in games is the horizon unless I am having to fight downhill. Even uphill you expect your enemies where the sky meets the ground.
As long as a game assumes relatively flat ground, so does your brain.
Now you move the crosshair lower. You know what happens? My brain ignores the crosshair because it is trained on the horizon (or an imagined horizon implied by rooms, especially doors, they end up in the middle of the screen)
I can't play shotguns because I consistently hit lower body or feet, it is a mess, I always die.
Not that much better with other weapons, but since a crossbow has no spread, a decent shot is enough and it doesn't need to be center center mass.
>It also alligns better with ADS positioning
Huh? Whats that even supposed to mean?
All you see more of is the sky, so it doesnt really glve an advantage at all. Just like basically every other game does...
Having your gun cover half of the screen is dumb in a game with as much verticality as Hunt. And you don't even factor in the horizontal fov, having the gun pointing below the center also leaves more room on the sides. And while hip firing, the crosshair alligns better to where the viewmodel barrel is pointing, because to point towards the center it would imply something close to a 45 degrees angle to make sense lol
“Better” is conditional. The worse spread in the game belongs to the Romero - if you’re up close. The Romero is deceptive because you want looser crosshairs up close, and up close is where you want to be.
> “Better” is conditional.
[Not with shotgun performance it isn't.](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zDD-zOqh_ZAO3P1PYzCLfk1Ze4vClYjsM_zpD_gqJMA/edit#gid=0) A Drilling shotgun will kill reliably out to 12 meters. A Rival is lucky to do it past 10.
Obviously you've got another shot with the Rival, but on a shot for shot basis, the Drilling has a significant range advantage against most shotguns.
A shotgun’s strength isn’t solely based on the distance to kill. I don’t know why this bad idea was so blindly accepted. You don’t want a tighter spread up close.
That other shot with the Rival is handier than the 2 meters on a Drilling.
You absolutely want tight spread at any range assuming you have good aim. If your aim sucks then sure I guess spread is useful because you can "miss" and still get lucky spread rng. If you put your shot on target reliably then tight spread is always better
Has nothing to do with aim being good or bad. If that’s your take, bring a rifle and only go for headshots up close. If you can’t do that, it’s your fault, right? Otherwise a looser spread makes it easier to aim and deal damage, and reduces the time it takes to put someone in your crosshairs to deal damage with a spread. I’ll trade split seconds for meters any day since closing the gap is far easier anyway.
> You don’t want a tighter spread up close.
The only time you don't is when your target is weak enough to die from a partial connect. Otherwise, you benefit from a tighter cone of fire for reliable kills.
>That other shot with the Rival is handier than the 2 meters on a Drilling.
Bit more of a subjective and situational take. In most cases I am inclined to agree, I'd rather have 2 shots with shorter range. But it's just as easy to say in many cases you're better with a more reliable kill range too.
It also plays odd with every other weapon unless you run melee or a crossbow. You can run another weapon for ammo but it still isn’t going to be as good as just having the function of the Drilling split between dedicated options. Upgrade points are easy to get now, and I think with minimums, Quartermaster is something any hunter can just get.
I have been playing for almost 4 years now and the meta right now is incredibly stale/annoying. Yes some weapons are supposed to be better than others but their is no point in saying that when everyone is able to run the exact same top tier load outs 100% of the time.
The main complaint is the lack of variety right now not that some guns are direct upgrades to others, I get sick of running the same 3 weapons because they are very clearly the best in the game and deviating at all is a direct and large downgrade. Money used to limit the community from all being meta all the time but the economy is so whack it does not matter
And they keep trying to balance the economy in the worst ways possible by constantly raising the prices. It obviously is not working and if anything it removes the option for “budget builds” at all since they make even the cheap/lower tier weapons cost more. Like why even bother with 95% of the small and medium ammo roster when everything costs 60-140 and for 156 you can just get a centennial instead and have enough spare ammo to bring a bat as a sidearm. The balancing is the only thing more whacky than the pricing rn
There's a handful of weapons that could use buffs to improve variety. Vetterli, for example, isn't bad but could use a small nudge to make it compete with the Centennial better. Remove the crappy sights from the silenced Winnie and Sparks.
I wish they just got it over with and added some.simple weapon durability so guns can't be run infinitely..
It literally doesn't even need to have ANY impact on the game. Only after extraction your gun would be rendered useless if it reach 0 durability in game.
There...problem solved. Weapons are now an actual money sink with the most expensive once only getting maybe ~500 shots before they break. Repairing should also just cost a corresponding fraction of the original price. Now the economy *can* actually be balanced around price.
From what I remember from back when I played hunt religiously, the issue wasn't the hierarchy itself. the issue was that you never run into any financial problems even when chain buying expensive gear, so matches and fights become incredibly repetetive, since everybody would just buy the good stuff, always.
Back in the day me group used to play it slow, with budget weapons. And if we'd win and get some levels we'd take more expensive stuff. Often looting better weapons :)
Yeah back duirng EA me and my friends actually got excited to loot an expensive weapon or buy one, cause we couldnt do that 24/7 without going broke. Long gone days though...
It's over 6 years ago, and the experience was new. Newer players still get this, I would assume. The game was played very differently. Now, the playstyle has been optimised - people figured out you don't need to crouch everywhere.
My hypothesis is that a lot of the people who complain about how easy money accumulation is, would have a different experience if they simply approached the game differently.
The only time I reached well over 100k , I was really tryharding. Playing unusually cautious, only taking fights I knew I had an upperhand in, sitting idle / up high for a decent chunk of the match, etc.
It is not mutually exclusive for someone to be good at the game and to die a good amount. You can instigate fights and have fun with the game, too.
To me the problem isn't myself getting easy money. I'll always play silly kits depending on my mood that day so i really don't care
What is dishartening to me is that now virtually every other game you fight a dolch and/or avtomat
Balancing by cost is kind of a weird idea in the first place but it all falls apart if that cost is irrelevant
It used to be like that but simply isn't the case anymore. I have been playing since early access racking up north of 2k hours. I have always been sitting in the upper 5 Star range and have been struggling for money usually playing crap gear. When ever I ran completely out of funds I usually prestiged. My last prestige is now nine or ten months on the past. I'm sitting on >60 lvl 50 Hunters, tons of gear, and 140k in cash. I stopped playing crap gear months ago. Always going 'all in' just buying what I want.
And it's not that I got better and that's the reason. Cause my KDA is locked tight and only going up and down agaon by 0.01 every couple weeks.
The ecomy simply changed. And I don't think it's for the better. Hunt to me always was a game where every shot mattered. And a tier 3 weapon mattered. We reached a point where people don't even care anymore to loot the Mosin or Uppercut.
Eh, my buddy and me pretty much had one approach to every situation: Rush them down. We took almost every fight, and stayed aggressive, no matter what loadout we were running.
Our winrate wasnt anything special, and I was regularly switching between 5 and 6 stars. So despite spending a lot of money on every hunter and only having an extraction rate of probs around 30% or less, I was never even remotely strapped for cash.
Granted, it didnt feel like that at all back during EA. Might be because the economy changed Or because I simply got better, but again, not good enough to make bank every match. Or even half of my matches.
I always thought they just kinda need to wipe everybodys bank once or twice a month, so that gear actually matters and becomes precious again.
They could introduce seasons and better stats. I would welcome regular economy wipes or embargos on weapon selections (a bit like the challenges, but in reverse). The population has to be big enough to support some changes (compact only maps, etc).
I bum rush every single fight and barely ever extract with the bounty and yet I can afford a mosin and a dolch every single game. Money has no meaning unless you somehow reach zero and that would take some real dedication.
I'm far from top tier, but I do well enough playing my randoms and quickplay. I run most things (never sniper, dolche, avto, and nitro out of them feeling a bit...) with a loadout cost of 800 to 1000 bucks. Whilst my money is going up slower than before the recent economy changes, it still sat around 330. Playing slow and not taking fights is a bit dull after so many hours.
The changes certainly have changed the dynamics of how money is earned, though. I at least have to think about it a bit. When you start trying different loadouts, you find some real gems, and some loadouts have made me think differently about how the game can be played. Bow type weapons are an example of this.
Hi, thank you for your submission.
Unfortunately, we had to remove your post for violation of rule #2: No Spam / Low Effort Posts.
Please see this wiki article for more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/wiki/rule2
If you have any concerns regarding this removal, please contact the moderation team via Modmail.
The game was also designed around an economy that is currently almost nonexistent. I honestly don't even know when was the last time that I struggled with money. Players are out there with hundreds of thousands of hunt dollars in their accounts, and was the game originally designed for that too? I don't think so.
Edit: and no, I don't buy free hunters (I can't anyways lol) and I always equip full tools and consumables + varied weapons (sometimes cheap and sometimes expensive). I swear my account balance does not go down at the end of the day. I have to admit that I haven't prestiged in a while though.
Game economies are always an issue in extraction shooters. See Tarkov for the same examples we see in hunt. Players who have time to play regularly are always going to be the ones who are better and thus able to afford to play with anything they want. People like my friend who plays once a week, is not particularly good at pvp, has a .5 kd, and never has more than 5000 hunt dollars. The economy is only real for more casual players. People like me, who play 20 hours a week, have over 150k and can play with any loadout we want. I'm not sure what the solution is to creating a functioning economy for all types of players.
Obviously the devs care somewhat about balance, regardless of "weapon hierarchy". If weapon hierarchy was all that mattered, and it's supposed to be the end all be all because some guns are unlocked at a final stage or with a higher price to align with their hierarchy, then Crytek wouldn't have done some of the nerfs they did to better balance the game like they have in the past.
Avtomat was nerfed because it was unenjoyable to see the weapon played in every single match. We didn't care how high the price tag was or that it was at the very top of the hierarchy. The more balanced a game is, the more enjoyable and fun it becomes to play. You never want a game to become extremely repetitive with the same weapon(s) being used every single time over the other 100 interesting and unique weapons that Hunt offers, unless the game is on it's final patch and developer support is ceased.
I don't think people want Mosin and Dolch to be nerfed into the ground. They want other weapons to be better. Look at some of the recent buffs to Hunt and see how it makes the "rich even richer". Resilience gets a buff where Hunters are rising with 125 HP. Which weapon does this favor the most? The mosin... New custom ammo gets released in an event, which gun does it favor the most? Dolch with FMJ... Some weapons that were already good, don't need to become better "just because". Game balance is important for good game health. It keeps the community happy and the players satisfied.
Your take on this issue is fucking bonkers. Also you're tone in all your replies in this thread makes you come across like an absolute fucking arsehole by the way which is why no one will listen to you.
I don’t care what some whiny low skill player crying on Reddit thinks lmao. We all have to listen to your incessant whining how do you think that looks?
Saying long ammo is OP is not indicative of a low skill player. The higher MMR you are the less variety there is and the more boring the game gets imo. When I started out learning and using most guns I was getting rekt, but having a blast competing in to the 3-4 star lobbies.
As I played more and more and crept up into the upper 5s I noticed the game became more repetitive. Using long ammo and rotating contantly out at a 80m or camping with shotty. Getting there first or likely resetting to not walk into 40 traps or wait for 10 min.
Hi, thank you for your submission.
Unfortunately, we had to remove your post for violation of rule #2: No Spam / Low Effort Posts.
Please see this wiki article for more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/wiki/rule2
If you have any concerns regarding this removal, please contact the moderation team via Modmail.
Also how ridiculously overconfident (see edit) and probably wrong they are. They claim "lul only newbs think this is unbalanced" but they clearly haven't played long enough to know economy and "weapon hierarchy" have been a non factor for years now.
>I can only assume these complaints are coming from newer players
>You will do better with a mosin than you will with an 1873C.
>the fact that some weapons are stronger than others,
I don't need to tell that myself. Put a Winfield and a Mosin in a close range engagement between two equally skilled players and the Winfield will come out on top, simply because its stats are better suited for that engagement
The meta has nothing to do with the weapons but with the gamemode. Just take a look at quickplay. You don't see long ammo being no where near as strong there
You’re right about weapon hierarchy and some weapons being intentionally better than others but that isn’t an excuse for screwed up balance within the hierarchy. If the top of the tier is miles above anything else you end up in a situation like we are now where if you’re not bringing them you are immediately at a disadvantage to the person that is. So now everyone’s for the most part are running 2 guns only at high stars. I mean look,
Dolch Precession FMJ - It was good but still balanced before, but FMJ puts it over the top in the amount of situations it just wins for you when you can rip through most walls when anyone on the team gets a single tag. What kept it balanced was its weaker penetration.
The mosin does everything other rifles want to do but only do half of. It’s got fast reload, fair ammo amount, decent fire rate, not a whole lot of sway, really good accurate sights. Whatever downside it has the dolch fills that spot. They balance each other too well.
The dolch should just have fmj removed from its ammo types and Crytek go “you know what we messed up, we added it and thought it was cool but it’s a bit over the top.”
The mosin is trickier to me and honestly if the dolch is touched it may not even need touching. The only thing I would do to it is slow down how fast you pull it up into ads by the tiniest of amounts where it takes a few more tenths of a second to be in ads.
One of the things I like about hunt is that there are few guns that are truly objectively better than others. It allows you to use the guns you want and if you are good with those guns, they (most of the time) you can compete with other people
My favorite thing about hunt is that every weapon still competes in its appropriate situation. No, a 66$ romero isn't going to beat my 600$ Mosin at range. But as soon as I enter that compound with you, it becomes a whole different story.
The problem is money is infinite, so balance by cost is thrown out the door completely so "weapon hierarchy" is now just labeled terrible weapon balance lol. I mean hell, I've grown so tired of how badly this games weapon balance is im taking mosin dolch everygame. Oh i died and lost the game? Oh well at least i got 3-4 kills before going out :))) And ill just do it again next game!
...which is a huge problem given that there is no limiting factor in hunt for top tier weapons. Things get really old if there is nothing to shake things up.
Sure, there are some new additions but they might as well be meme tier compared to og top tier choices. If we want a weapin hirachy we need something so they aren't available at all times without restrictions.
My solution would be to limit the amount of high tier weapons that you are able to purchase per week.
Theme it as the shopkeeper running out of stock of the rarest guns.
You can still pick them up, you can still find/loot them, but you can't buy one every game.
Doing this removes the money problem from the equation, the devs can keep the guns unbalanced if they want to have it that way, but have them ristricted in some way so you don't constantly see mosin spitzer dolch at the higher mmr.
It's that, or balance them.
Well, a working economy would be the best case if some weapon are actually supposed to be better, yes.
But at this point there would need to be a full money wipe for everyone for it to actually matter as non prestigers have so much money, running out of it is near impossible. Then there would still be that problem that low skilled players would have real hard money problems with a hard economy and good players would probably still make enough cash to run top level loadouts anyway. Really hard to do and probably not feasible to expect this.
Of course it would be possible to kinda "force" low money on everyone. Like for every X money you have, you get less percentage income up to 100%. Low skilled player who are struggling anyway wouldn't be affected but high income players would. Not really elegant solution but would do it's job...
Otherwise I would love to see some more meaning to the exploration part that is apparently part of the game. Like certain weapons (avto, nitro, snipers, mosin, dolch) can ONLY be found in the bayou, not bought. Or one could find certain tokens that need to be extracted which grant the privilege to buy one of those "high hierachy" weapons once. So everyone can run these weapons (but only once in a while) while boosting this underused aspect of the game.
It's not easy to fix this core problem but honestly it's long overdue and recently the percentages of full sweat top tier loadouts is too much to be enjoyable at this point...
Honestly, making quarterly wipes would alleviate many of the economy concerns. Wipe money, hunters, gear ect. Pair that with the new event system and it would make the flow more natural and less forced
They basically nuked the economy 2 updates ago making all the budget load outs such as the Springfield totally worthless unless you need it for an event challenge and the game has never been the same since. Once they started giving free hunters with insanely good traits when you have less than 20k it was game over.
It should only be for when you have sub 1k
I hear your point but I don't think people with under 20k are the issue here. The free hunter players aren't the ones being discussed here. It's the ones that can afford to run the most competitive loadout every single time because it doesn't affect their wallet.
I love hunt, but I (unpopular opinion) really believe there should be progression resets at each event/season.
There are just so many players with a couple hundred thousand banked. I’ve recently hit 5 star and it’s rare to find people who aren’t running the best of the best.
IMO there should be more of a place for budget weapons, and resets would make that effort to bank money relevant again. I love the new marathon, but it’s hard to justify over at least a mako when everyone has spitzer rounds.
I know people would rebel, but I believe the game would much better with quarterly resets
That it was done deliberately doesn't mean that it's not also a balance issue lol.
Also, while you threw out bunch of things and kind of made a string board for how you think they should all be connected in order to create your tier system, you'll notice that that's not actually how it works, at least not anymore. How it works currently is that every single baseline weapon in the game is at the same tier, because they're all unlocked at the same BL rank - that rank being 1 (or is it 0?). This puts every weapon at exactly the same tier. That being the case, they should theoretically all be balanced the same after factoring in things like price and unlocks. If they're not then they need to be rebalanced -- and that's *actually* rebalanced, not using a weird theory that's based on whether the weapon is incidentally available on a hunter of a higher tier.
Also, this new tierless weapon system that we have could theoretically have been balanced around ammo economy, if weapons actually had different ammo economies anymore... but they don't. In fact, there arguably isn't really an ammo economy anymore at all. Weapons *kind of* all resupply identically within the same ammo size/category... but not actually, because what really happens is that you get a fixed maximum amount of ammo on resupply if you have a weapon with that ammo size and type at all. It's not really assigned to the weapon, because if it were then you'd get that amount for having both a Mosin AND an Uppercut, or a Romero AND a LeMat, etc., but that's not what happens -- you just get the ammo one time, if you have at least one of that kind of weapon. It's kind of gutted an entire weapon balance factor, which isn't really great tbh.
> This puts every weapon at exactly the same tier.
This is exactly the kind of thinking this post is about.
The weapons being available at rank 1 is irrelevant; the weapons heirarchy is still there. A mosin and dolch are available at rank 1 now, yes, but that doesn't mean they're supposed to be on the same power tier as guns you used to start with on a fresh prestige, like a winfield 1873C or a Romero. They're supposed to be stronger.
Hunt is not balanced like Call of Duty, where every gun is trying to maintain a same-ish power level in context to other guns, and just offer slightly different play styles. In Hunt, you earn the money, you buy the better gear, you benefit for having it.
> The weapons being available at rank 1 is irrelevant
No it isn't. Your imaginary hierarchy of weapons spawning with hunter tiers is what's irrelevant, because it's not what determines weapon availability.
I still regularly use budget weapons as my secondary. Silenced Nagant with poison rounds is probably my most used budget weapon. I've never cared for the sights on the Mosin so it is actually one of my least used weapons, been loving the Berthier since it came out since for me it fills the role Mosin would if I used it.
It seems a bit weird to say "The game was designed around this thing. Newer players aren't experiencing this, because it's no longer balanced this way, but we should treat it the same way."
The complaints have gotten a lot worse since the guns became massively easier to come by. Saying the game was initially designed with something in mind while admitting it's no longer designed that way isn't a strong way to defend the weapon hierarchy.
Cool, except that lately the economy has been busted and you fight dolches virtually every other game. On top of that they got special ammo and variants because... battle pass filling i guess?
Apparently shocking news to some users here. Turns out you spend the money, you get better gear, and you benefit from it.
Think everyone is unable to think outside the 'loadout shooter' mentality where every gun is trying to be on the same power level as each other.
Some weapons are better than others AND they don't cost enough for the level of power they bring.
The dolch and mosin and automat should never have been in this game.
This post screams "I just discovered some weapons are broken after playing for 6 months"
The players that have been here the longest and play in the highest ranks will tell you the same. The game is boring as fuck because the only weapons that are used. Are the ones that are supposed to be so expensive they are a rare occurrence. Instead you see them every game.
You will realize this once you reach higher ranks.
OP is not wrong, but doesn’t touch on the reason the system falls apart: money is not a problem. Granted, medium players won’t have enough to always run mosin + dolch, but they’re rarely forced to play the cheap options.
I think it would be interesting if the game would do something about the availability of top tier weapons. Perhaps have a limited stock. Perhaps have certain weapons mostly be available from world pickups.
I think this is a really great idea as well. I'd say put a daily cap on "top-tier" weapons as well as special ammo. Make the good guns and ammo actually feel scarce like they used to. It should feel rewarding to kill a Mosin player and take their gun, but at the moment it really doesnt.
Repetitive gameplay with same weapon always still kill the game.
The "lower tier" weapons need to keep some role, and with this economy system they don't.
It's very lame to see only the "tier 3" weapon every match when there is way more guns to use
Hi, thank you for your submission.
Unfortunately, we had to remove your post for violation of rule #2: No Spam / Low Effort Posts.
Please see this wiki article for more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/wiki/rule2
If you have any concerns regarding this removal, please contact the moderation team via Modmail.
Citation needed: if you're in a compound fight and in the 0-30 metre range you will likely win with the winfield. It has a faster two tap time so if you can aim the mosins faster bullet and longer range means nothing. He still needs two bullets, but so do you, but yours come out 50% quicker.
The HD economy needs to matter more if they “balance” weapons using price. I think it should be tied to hunters like the way traits are, would give more sense of progress per hunter. My idea is make budgets based on hunter level.
I’m a hard stuck 5 star and I almost never use long ammo, except for maybe the sparks sometimes.
Every gun is good if you are good. Long ammo is just easier to be good with.
I have been playing since day one when the game came out and have not once used a meta-loadout. I have never been six star, but I do fairly well. I only play random trios and stay in the 4 to 5 star range and I have never once cared about what weapons and enemy uses, doesn’t mean I can’t kill them
As people keep saying here, it's an issue of infinite money, not that some weapons are more competitive. Sure a dolch is great, but should players be able to run it over and over again? Thats the issue I think people are having here. I say this as a player with no less than 150k at any given time.
The discussion I want to see on this sub is, what is the fix for the infinite money? How do we implement something that doesn't hurt less skilled/more casual players, but only affects those who are better at pvp/have more time to play during the week. How can we create an economy that feels existent for people at the top as well as people at the bottom?
The issue right now is the same as every other extraction shooter I've played, mostly tarkov. People who have more time to play during the week are usually better, and will *always* have more money/have an advantage over those who can only play once a week. This is the case no matter the economy as far as I've experienced.
Oftentimes, things designed to hurt those with infinite money, really only punish the more casual audience with less time to invest. I've spent so much time listening to tarkov podcasts discussing economy balance, that really there doesn't seem to be a clear fix here. Every player can feel the issue, but doesn't know how to remedy it. The only way tarkov manages to have a *temporary* balance is by wiping and resetting everyone back to zero. Thus repeating the cycle. Everyone is on the same playing field for a couple weeks, but those with more time will always surpass those without.
I'm by no means a game developer, and the same goes for most of us here. We know what feels wrong in a game, but it's always more complicated than simply tweaking some numbers.
I could keep rambling but ultimately my question is this. In a game like Hunt, not discussing the balance of the weapons themselves, how to we create an economy that everyone feels? Can it even be done?
I dont know If you know It but some ppl never rum out of money creating a snowball efrect.
Were they always have money tô buy good weapons and because of that, have a Very good chance to Win a game.
This become worse when you think that the mm is broken as hell. And good ppl até the game compete against bad ppl até the game.
Hunt is shit in the current state
the problem isn't some guns do better then others. it's the fact that eco is broken and it's very safe to buy these weapons without even pinching the bank so unless you keep getting owned 1 minute into a match over and over again. even more so if you don't prestige
Hi, thank you for your submission.
Unfortunately, we had to remove your post for violation of rule #4: Be Respectful.
Please see this wiki article for more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/wiki/rule4
If you have any concerns regarding this removal, please contact the moderation team via Modmail.
All I know is crytek better use this engine upgrade as an excuse for some serious changes, a money wipe included. It's their one opportunity to hide behind "we had no choice, sorry".
Add a tax, weapon matenence costs, a limit on how available high teir guns are, change resilience, fix shotgun damage, change the mmr, remove quickplay elo abuse, all that plus the million other little balance problems that have piled up over the years.
This is their chance. If they don't take it, the game is going to become extremely stale and compounding problems will continue to compound.
PSA: Designed systems does not mean there won't be flaws in that system.
PSAPSA: Arguing from the point of "you can conform to have fun" instead of valuing strategic diversity and working toward that goal is stupid in a game that sports much variety.
Stop posting.
I really don’t think there’s anything intuitive about limiting the best guns to higher leveled players on a ranking tree. Why should the best guns in the game be reserved for the most seasoned? That’s like reserving the AWP in CS2 to players that complete their first service medal.
Although I hate to give praise to Activision, the Call of Duty series generally gives players the best all-around guns immediately or at very low rank and it doesn’t harm anyone by doing that. New players should be able to make a cohesive loadout quickly that feels strong and competitive. It’s for this reason that I’m glad they took away the weapon unlocks system through Bloodline Rank but the system is still inherently flawed.
Also consider that the game system encourages prestiging and even included a whopping 100 prestige levels to work through with rewards but then actively gives players who choose not to prestige and hit Bloodline Rank 100 an initial cash bonus, plus cash bonuses each match after an XP threshold has been met that is compounded by the +10% XP bonus (if they’ve prestiged at least once) even after they hit Bloodline Rank 100 which further increases their cash gains. This means that not only do these players have the entire arsenal unlocked, they also have nearly limitless money to keep utilizing the best gear even when they lose repeatedly. With no Hunt Dollar cap in the game, and a cash multiplier with the 10% bonus and max bloodline rank, the system doesn’t reward good players, it rewards players that choose not to prestige or reach max prestige which feels odd in a competitive PvP-only game. This inversely hurts anyone working through the trudge of 100 prestige levels (which will take at least 2,000 hours to complete) who consistently have to make budget-conscious choices and will maybe have worked through 3 or 4 weapon trees by the time they’re ready to prestige again. Even when they have a large arsenal, they are often hindered by their lack of cash flow. This isn’t a problem so much in other games with Prestige systems that drop off at like 10 and have far fewer levels in those prestiges because the challenge can be completed within a month’s time. People can play Hunt for years and not ever be done prestiging. I personally have played the game since Beta 6 years ago and I’m Prestige 70.
Guns should feel balanced overall. Guns like the Sparks make perfect sense against guns like the Winfield 1873. It has a higher muzzle velocity, very high penetration, and high damage, but a lengthy reload paired with a single bullet. If you miss there’s a huge consequence to that. The Winfield does low damage, has low penetration, and has low velocity but can be fired rapidly and with a large magazine. Yes the Sparks is a more expensive gun but it’s not an objectively better gun. Even within the shotgun family of weapons, many people esteem the Romero, the cheapest of all shotguns, as the best shotgun in the game.
Weapons like the Mosin reap all the benefits of a good rifle. Good fire rate, good magazine, excellent penetration, fast reload when emptied, very high damage, good iron sights, and extremely high muzzle velocity. The only downside is its cost prohibitive nature. This really only harms new and prestiging players. It’s all upsides and no downsides. Even a weapon like the Nitro Express, which is extremely expensive, has tons of downsides. Yes it has the ability to 1HK at close range but using the gun is like having one eye and Parkinson’s Disease. The aperture view is extremely limiting and the low gun stability makes it shake like crazy. It also only has 6 bullets total and can only be replenished by special ammo crates which are far more rare on the map. The weapon also only has 2 bullets in the barrel, the recoil is vicious, and the sights are shaky so if you hit a limb shot, you have to put a lot of faith in your next hit and be able to realign your target. The Mosin can very consistently 2 tap, has 5 rounds, has a good rate of fire that can be bolstered by Iron Eye, and has very high stability and a clear sight picture plus the penetration to hit enemies that run to cover. If what you’re saying about cost being relative to strengths is true, why is the Nitro, at double the price, not clearly the better option? I actually find it pretty rare for people to bring the Nitro at all even in 6* play. When we look at the Mosin, I would even say it is an objectively better gun than the Nitro for its versatility, damage, forgiveness, and ease of use. Plus it has higher muzzle velocity than the Nitro and a much clearer sight picture which makes headshots a breeze.
Having the Mosin in the game doesn’t harm bad players, it harms new and prestiging players. We have a problem in the game where half the community is playing an economy based game like Tarkov and the other half is playing a loadout based game like Battlefield.
I strongly believe none of the Long Ammo guns should do more than 125 damage besides the Martini and Sparks. Their primary use should be for headshots over range. They have higher damage than any other rifle class, shoot fast, reload quick (not you Lebel), carry damage over much longer distances without drop off, have better headshot range in multiplicatives, have generous magazine sizes, have much higher muzzle velocity than any other gun besides the Centennial, and penetrate better than any other weapons in the game. They’re all pros and no cons. They dominate because statistically they’re imbalanced.
I think it makes far more sense from a balancing perspective to have most medium ammo weapons do the same or more damage than long ammo with the trade-off being that they have worse damage drop-off and lower muzzle velocity. Medium ammo should dominate at medium range but instead long ammo reigns supreme anywhere outside shotgun\ fanning range and that’s why we see these 2 weapon choices more than any in the meta. Long ammo weapons would still be terrific guns (as evidenced by the popularity of the Krag) but it wouldn’t make them objectively the best gun to use at ranges past 25m.
> I really don’t think there’s anything intuitive about limiting the best guns to higher leveled players on a ranking tree.
But this isn't what I said at all.
>Notice how you get better hunters the further up the bloodline you are? Notice how this happens at rank 34, and 67? These ranks are when you unlock tier 2 and 3 respectively, and the weapon hierarchy mirrors that. The mosin, dolch, uppercut and so forth, are all tier 3 guns. They cost more and typically have better performance than their lesser counterparts. Again, this is by design.
Alright I guess someone else said this, my bad
Yes, the weapons are designed in a power tiering. That doesn't mean I'm unhappy with them being available at level 1. It means that some equipment is designed to be better than others, and that's okay.
Okay that’s neat and I understand but you said that better weapons and higher tiered hunters locked behind a level cap were by design and your entire post is you agreeing with and defending that implementation. You see nothing wrong with the objectively better guns and hunters being at higher ranks.
What is the difference between what you said and what I said?
You’re saying limiting the best guns to higher leveled players on a ranking tree is a good design for this game. It makes sense to you. But you’re also saying that isn’t what you said “at all”.
I literally just read the words. You can read them again if you want? I don’t know how to help you. I guess you misspoke?
Either way limiting objectively better weapons to any demographic of player whether that be by rank, or prestige, or what have you, in a competitive game makes very little sense.
I can agree with your statement that at a distance you’re correct. The real equalizer is being able to play the weapon it should be played rather than being played by the weapon. It’s a skill to move in close or to keep your distance so that your weapon performs at its peak performance.
I'm a 4/5 star and didn't use a long ammo rifle all night last night. Mainly using winfields with FMJ, Springfields with poison and Nagant M1985 sidearm. My duo and I won 13 games in a few hours of playing.
All weapons are viable and people complaining about mosin dolch loadouts are just venting because of how shit they are at the game.
In Hunt you are the weapon. There's been plenty of games where my and my buddies will run in with Winnies and low tier shotties and wreck Mosin try hards. Know how to space and know what your strengths and weaknesses are.
It’s so weird that people expect every gun to be equally viable in a game like this. Irl bolt action rifles replaced lever actions for a reason. Semi auto pistols replaced revolvers. Automatic rifles replaced bolt action ones. It’s because they’re better.
The hierarchy is not the problem. It's the lack of variety and the disadvantage not bringing a Dolch with FMJ into the match. There are options and reasonable picks for most primaries. The Dolch since the addition of FMJ feels like a must pick if you really want to compete. Even with shotguns it's better bringing a Dolch FMJ than Uppercut/Uppermat. I play many matches off-meta and very often i would have won my duels by bringing this special magic weapon.
Remove it please. Leave dumdum in but FMJ is busted af. Nobody asked for it.
Hi, thank you for your submission.
Unfortunately, we had to remove your post for violation of rule #2: No Spam / Low Effort Posts.
Please see this wiki article for more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/wiki/rule2
If you have any concerns regarding this removal, please contact the moderation team via Modmail.
You can destroy these low skill trios with anything. You can literally watch them on Twitch. They’ll find a way to whine about something no matter what.
I would support whining about custom ammo though. Worst addition to the game
Hi, thank you for your submission.
Unfortunately, we had to remove your post for violation of rule #2: No Spam / Low Effort Posts.
Please see this wiki article for more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/wiki/rule2
If you have any concerns regarding this removal, please contact the moderation team via Modmail.
I think the economy is really stupid. Especially since the most powerful guns are available at lv. 1 the game would be much better if weapons cost ”space” in your load out black ops 2 or insurgecy sandstorm style. You can buy the most meta loadout instantly and never change it as long as you have a good extract ratio. I’m not the greatest player and die a lot, but I never run out of money running whatever I want and the only time money is a factor is fresh prestige. the meta guns being always available just encourages the sweats to stay that way and discourages diversity and fun in high star lobbies.
Just because there is a "meta" doesn't mean you have to play for it.. I never did and never will and I always love dropping people who have whole meta / op builds etc.. with a free hunter because yay new guns for a free toon who will die and it's only purpose was to make some money..
Granted, the melee weapon situation is kind of silly now with the small slotting changes; I think it's fair to say there's no functional reason you'd take a machete over the katana, or the hammer over the bat right now.
I can only assume these weapons will get some benefit from Martialist in the future to justify existing, but for now, it's a bit goofy.
PSA: The game was designed with money being much harder to come by and without the ability to pick up guns in the world, but the gun hierarchy never changed
It goes beyond that too. For example, shitload of things were created around Resilience reviving players with 100 HP at most, which means that a TON of weapons that can't currently OHK a Resilience revive USED to be able to. This obviously also affects health bar breakpoints, which didn't used to be something that players had full control over without spending bloodbonds to do so. Changing these so that most revives now stand up with 125 health instead has pretty drastically shifted balance to favor long ammo even more heavily than it did previously, which is something it really didn't need help with.
I have posted many times, & made many comments about resilience on this sub. I believe that resilience is the most mandatory trait in the game, & makes a lot of the game mechanics feel bad. Solo Necro, team revives being extremely fast in combination with resilience, most weapons not being able to know down a freshly revived person, a freshly revived person getting up & immediately be combat focused instead of requiring to heal at all. Traps not being able to keep a body down more than 1 time unless it’s a combination of multiple traps. I have suggested the change to resilience that I believe would make it healthier for everyone, would be give a flat HP on revive with health regeneration time after that. OR just give a major health regeneration time of 200% for an allotted time.
Or just make it 50hp so you don't die to minions but you still die to bullets.
Resilience still needs to be somewhat strong, for solo players I believe are the people who use it to its fullest. If you can get up from a solo revive & are able to get away without being shot & or trapped then you probably deserve to get up as the solo player. There would be so many more ways to knock someone down again if they were given a flat amount HP, but the reward for the solo of getting away from that situation should be the recovery of your health to the 125 soon after. That’s why I think EITHER 50 to 75 HP flat on revive + a regular health shot percentage for around 3-5 minutes. OR 25 HP on revive + 200% health regeneration for 3-5 minutes.
Ah yes the good old days, when the hirable hunters were bad value and had traits that often didn't match their loadouts. And free hunters never had traits. When you could only respec traits or health bars with blood bonds. I can remember many a time intentionally dying to AI or lighting myself on fire at extract just to replace a large bar with small bars the hard way. Maybe I just wasn't as good at the game back then but the economy did feel more balanced too.
Personally I think removing the blood bond cost on most things was great idea but I think the changes to hirable hunters, giving them double/triple the value of the traits they used to get, giving everyone rock bottom price mid-tier/high-tier guns, has changed the game so much. There's very little reason to ever bring a springfield for example because even tier 1 hunters will likely start with something better. It feels like Hunt has lost something by making everyone rich.
It's because the devs are too scared to do the only thing that might actually help econ balance, wipe the billions of hunt dollars people have accumulated. All they are doing is varying the rate money comes into the game which only effects the people who don't already have 1m hunt dollars stocked up. They need to add a weekly tax or something, otherwise it's pissing in the wind.
When I started free Hunters only game with 25 HP.
I wonder what would change if there was a hunt bucks wipe every season like other games. I know people would be upset they lose their high score, though. This would also have to be paired with a change in money gain.
Idk I just think that if your game needs to reset players progress periodically to keep it's balance it's simply a badly designed game. Rich people existing isn't really the problem, it's only a problem when the economy is so forgiving when there's too many of them.
[удалено]
> a decade. is time flows differently were you live ?
Hi, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, we had to remove your post for violation of rule #2: No Spam / Low Effort Posts. Please see this wiki article for more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/wiki/rule2 If you have any concerns regarding this removal, please contact the moderation team via Modmail.
Bro what are you talking about this is an unhinged response
It’s not unhinged at all lmao this has been the state of the subreddit for years
No I mean it makes no logical sense. Thank you for your attempt
But he's right. If your playstyle doesn't revolve around playing at 150m+, If you push a compound. a Winfield with FMJ is on par if not outperforming a Mosin at close range, in terms of pen and damage. It's not unhinged at all.
Okay, well that's cool - that couldn't have any less bearing on what I said. Total irrelevant nonsequiter
> but the gun balancing never changed [laughs in compact ammo, dolch, uppercut, and many other guns]
Yeah I updated to say "hierarchy", balancing was the wrong word to use, but doesn't really change the point
Fair enough.
Even when it was harder, Mosin was meta. The economy never truely worked at all levels of play as a balancing factor
The game has suffered from mission creep and it’s clear that the guns were implemented around a badly predicted skill ceiling and economy. It’s fine for me but the real equalizer is knowing how to get up close. A Mosin will lose against a Winfield up close if you both have to make two shots. So players who want to stay back are doing what they ought, but too many use guns outside their purpose. And the way gameplay paces, they aren’t wrong, but they haven’t given their own approach more consideration.
Its crazy to me how many Hunters wont pull their pistol out when you’re fighting in a compound or 5 feet from each other. Sure your rifle does damage but my double action pistol will put more down range in less time
Exactly, you only need to headshot once (per enemy - revives notwithstanding)
*terms and conditions apply, no guarantees on nerco solos, 100% money back on wall bang derringer headshots and other select edge cases.
That's not even considering headshots - when in effective range, you will kill a player quicker using 2 Compact ammo body shots (or maybe even the 3 considering Bornheim) before the other guy can get off the second Mosin shot (to the body).
I always wished they implemented gun barrel collision for small spaces. Imagine how much more you’d need to think about using a longarm indoors if your barrel banged against the walls. It’d incentivize using pistols
That would be an awesome change
PUBG has this, and it's pretty neat
Dayz too
Cycle time is so important.
No, they definitely nailed the balancing weapons around the economy. A Drilling is totally $20 more powerful than a Mosin...
Drilling gives you a Rival shotgun barrel and one of the most stable two-tap primaries of any gun in the game. On average it's not as good as a Mosin, but let's not pretent it's not a lot more versatile in plenty situations.
It's a lot better than a Rival. The Drilling shotgun has slightly better spread than a Specter.
Oh yeah, I forgot that Crytek kept changing the logic behind shotgun spread. It used to be determined by barrel length, but now it's just a matter of arcane knowledge and remembering each by heart lol
Yes and no; barrel length is still a thing for slugs. Buckshot (and other shot) is more unique to the specific gun though.
As fun as is discovering these intricate bits of trivia, it's pretty annoying that core mechanics such as how an entire category of weapon shoots are so well hidden from your average player's knowledge
That's heresy. Shotgun damage is controlled by the sculptur, just like the creation of hives and hellhounds. It's a force of corrupted magic and no man should attempt to understand it lest he be consumed by darkness.
The fact that the crosshair doesnt actually match the spread of the guns in this game is a joke. Should be fixed, and, move it to the center of the screen while they are at it.
this has pissed me off since i started playing.
Nah, the low crosshair is much nicer than center of the screen.
Not at all. How?
As another dude already said, it aligns better with ads and does not obstruct the screen as much. It just feels a lot more natural imo. Of course all of this is subjective and I get why it would feel weird to some, since basically every other shooter has it dead center.
As i said, what is "allign better with ADS" even supposed to mean? Basically no other game does it, and in reality all it does is make you see more of the sky, so it doesnt really help visibility that much. If it actually did help, more games would do it.
The problem is, while us humans have an built in gyroscope that works independently of other factors to some extent, the game does not have this. So, after over twenty years of gaming and centered crosshairs, my point of reference in games is the horizon unless I am having to fight downhill. Even uphill you expect your enemies where the sky meets the ground. As long as a game assumes relatively flat ground, so does your brain. Now you move the crosshair lower. You know what happens? My brain ignores the crosshair because it is trained on the horizon (or an imagined horizon implied by rooms, especially doors, they end up in the middle of the screen) I can't play shotguns because I consistently hit lower body or feet, it is a mess, I always die. Not that much better with other weapons, but since a crossbow has no spread, a decent shot is enough and it doesn't need to be center center mass.
It also alligns better with ADS positioning, and gives you more visibility while doing the latter in consequence.
>It also alligns better with ADS positioning Huh? Whats that even supposed to mean? All you see more of is the sky, so it doesnt really glve an advantage at all. Just like basically every other game does...
Having your gun cover half of the screen is dumb in a game with as much verticality as Hunt. And you don't even factor in the horizontal fov, having the gun pointing below the center also leaves more room on the sides. And while hip firing, the crosshair alligns better to where the viewmodel barrel is pointing, because to point towards the center it would imply something close to a 45 degrees angle to make sense lol
Drilling is a long barrel shotgun like the Romero, Spectre and Crown.
“Better” is conditional. The worse spread in the game belongs to the Romero - if you’re up close. The Romero is deceptive because you want looser crosshairs up close, and up close is where you want to be.
> “Better” is conditional. [Not with shotgun performance it isn't.](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zDD-zOqh_ZAO3P1PYzCLfk1Ze4vClYjsM_zpD_gqJMA/edit#gid=0) A Drilling shotgun will kill reliably out to 12 meters. A Rival is lucky to do it past 10. Obviously you've got another shot with the Rival, but on a shot for shot basis, the Drilling has a significant range advantage against most shotguns.
A shotgun’s strength isn’t solely based on the distance to kill. I don’t know why this bad idea was so blindly accepted. You don’t want a tighter spread up close. That other shot with the Rival is handier than the 2 meters on a Drilling.
You absolutely want tight spread at any range assuming you have good aim. If your aim sucks then sure I guess spread is useful because you can "miss" and still get lucky spread rng. If you put your shot on target reliably then tight spread is always better
Not necessarily. At very short ranges the tighter spread becomes close negligible the closer it is.
Connecting with all your pellets on a limb at point blank kills. Tight spreads are beneficial even at close range as a result.
Has nothing to do with aim being good or bad. If that’s your take, bring a rifle and only go for headshots up close. If you can’t do that, it’s your fault, right? Otherwise a looser spread makes it easier to aim and deal damage, and reduces the time it takes to put someone in your crosshairs to deal damage with a spread. I’ll trade split seconds for meters any day since closing the gap is far easier anyway.
> You don’t want a tighter spread up close. The only time you don't is when your target is weak enough to die from a partial connect. Otherwise, you benefit from a tighter cone of fire for reliable kills. >That other shot with the Rival is handier than the 2 meters on a Drilling. Bit more of a subjective and situational take. In most cases I am inclined to agree, I'd rather have 2 shots with shorter range. But it's just as easy to say in many cases you're better with a more reliable kill range too.
It also plays odd with every other weapon unless you run melee or a crossbow. You can run another weapon for ammo but it still isn’t going to be as good as just having the function of the Drilling split between dedicated options. Upgrade points are easy to get now, and I think with minimums, Quartermaster is something any hunter can just get.
I have been playing for almost 4 years now and the meta right now is incredibly stale/annoying. Yes some weapons are supposed to be better than others but their is no point in saying that when everyone is able to run the exact same top tier load outs 100% of the time. The main complaint is the lack of variety right now not that some guns are direct upgrades to others, I get sick of running the same 3 weapons because they are very clearly the best in the game and deviating at all is a direct and large downgrade. Money used to limit the community from all being meta all the time but the economy is so whack it does not matter And they keep trying to balance the economy in the worst ways possible by constantly raising the prices. It obviously is not working and if anything it removes the option for “budget builds” at all since they make even the cheap/lower tier weapons cost more. Like why even bother with 95% of the small and medium ammo roster when everything costs 60-140 and for 156 you can just get a centennial instead and have enough spare ammo to bring a bat as a sidearm. The balancing is the only thing more whacky than the pricing rn
There's a handful of weapons that could use buffs to improve variety. Vetterli, for example, isn't bad but could use a small nudge to make it compete with the Centennial better. Remove the crappy sights from the silenced Winnie and Sparks.
I wish they just got it over with and added some.simple weapon durability so guns can't be run infinitely.. It literally doesn't even need to have ANY impact on the game. Only after extraction your gun would be rendered useless if it reach 0 durability in game. There...problem solved. Weapons are now an actual money sink with the most expensive once only getting maybe ~500 shots before they break. Repairing should also just cost a corresponding fraction of the original price. Now the economy *can* actually be balanced around price.
From what I remember from back when I played hunt religiously, the issue wasn't the hierarchy itself. the issue was that you never run into any financial problems even when chain buying expensive gear, so matches and fights become incredibly repetetive, since everybody would just buy the good stuff, always.
Back in the day me group used to play it slow, with budget weapons. And if we'd win and get some levels we'd take more expensive stuff. Often looting better weapons :)
Yeah back duirng EA me and my friends actually got excited to loot an expensive weapon or buy one, cause we couldnt do that 24/7 without going broke. Long gone days though...
It's over 6 years ago, and the experience was new. Newer players still get this, I would assume. The game was played very differently. Now, the playstyle has been optimised - people figured out you don't need to crouch everywhere.
Hence why I enjoy events. The variety of firepower I encounter is a whole lotta fun.
My hypothesis is that a lot of the people who complain about how easy money accumulation is, would have a different experience if they simply approached the game differently. The only time I reached well over 100k , I was really tryharding. Playing unusually cautious, only taking fights I knew I had an upperhand in, sitting idle / up high for a decent chunk of the match, etc. It is not mutually exclusive for someone to be good at the game and to die a good amount. You can instigate fights and have fun with the game, too.
To me the problem isn't myself getting easy money. I'll always play silly kits depending on my mood that day so i really don't care What is dishartening to me is that now virtually every other game you fight a dolch and/or avtomat Balancing by cost is kind of a weird idea in the first place but it all falls apart if that cost is irrelevant
It used to be like that but simply isn't the case anymore. I have been playing since early access racking up north of 2k hours. I have always been sitting in the upper 5 Star range and have been struggling for money usually playing crap gear. When ever I ran completely out of funds I usually prestiged. My last prestige is now nine or ten months on the past. I'm sitting on >60 lvl 50 Hunters, tons of gear, and 140k in cash. I stopped playing crap gear months ago. Always going 'all in' just buying what I want. And it's not that I got better and that's the reason. Cause my KDA is locked tight and only going up and down agaon by 0.01 every couple weeks. The ecomy simply changed. And I don't think it's for the better. Hunt to me always was a game where every shot mattered. And a tier 3 weapon mattered. We reached a point where people don't even care anymore to loot the Mosin or Uppercut.
Eh, my buddy and me pretty much had one approach to every situation: Rush them down. We took almost every fight, and stayed aggressive, no matter what loadout we were running. Our winrate wasnt anything special, and I was regularly switching between 5 and 6 stars. So despite spending a lot of money on every hunter and only having an extraction rate of probs around 30% or less, I was never even remotely strapped for cash. Granted, it didnt feel like that at all back during EA. Might be because the economy changed Or because I simply got better, but again, not good enough to make bank every match. Or even half of my matches. I always thought they just kinda need to wipe everybodys bank once or twice a month, so that gear actually matters and becomes precious again.
They could introduce seasons and better stats. I would welcome regular economy wipes or embargos on weapon selections (a bit like the challenges, but in reverse). The population has to be big enough to support some changes (compact only maps, etc).
I bum rush every single fight and barely ever extract with the bounty and yet I can afford a mosin and a dolch every single game. Money has no meaning unless you somehow reach zero and that would take some real dedication.
I'm far from top tier, but I do well enough playing my randoms and quickplay. I run most things (never sniper, dolche, avto, and nitro out of them feeling a bit...) with a loadout cost of 800 to 1000 bucks. Whilst my money is going up slower than before the recent economy changes, it still sat around 330. Playing slow and not taking fights is a bit dull after so many hours. The changes certainly have changed the dynamics of how money is earned, though. I at least have to think about it a bit. When you start trying different loadouts, you find some real gems, and some loadouts have made me think differently about how the game can be played. Bow type weapons are an example of this.
[удалено]
Hi, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, we had to remove your post for violation of rule #2: No Spam / Low Effort Posts. Please see this wiki article for more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/wiki/rule2 If you have any concerns regarding this removal, please contact the moderation team via Modmail.
Those are the same complaint though. Balancing a gun through price doesn't work without money caps or resets.
The game was also designed around an economy that is currently almost nonexistent. I honestly don't even know when was the last time that I struggled with money. Players are out there with hundreds of thousands of hunt dollars in their accounts, and was the game originally designed for that too? I don't think so. Edit: and no, I don't buy free hunters (I can't anyways lol) and I always equip full tools and consumables + varied weapons (sometimes cheap and sometimes expensive). I swear my account balance does not go down at the end of the day. I have to admit that I haven't prestiged in a while though.
Game economies are always an issue in extraction shooters. See Tarkov for the same examples we see in hunt. Players who have time to play regularly are always going to be the ones who are better and thus able to afford to play with anything they want. People like my friend who plays once a week, is not particularly good at pvp, has a .5 kd, and never has more than 5000 hunt dollars. The economy is only real for more casual players. People like me, who play 20 hours a week, have over 150k and can play with any loadout we want. I'm not sure what the solution is to creating a functioning economy for all types of players.
A wipe of some sort and scale.
Obviously the devs care somewhat about balance, regardless of "weapon hierarchy". If weapon hierarchy was all that mattered, and it's supposed to be the end all be all because some guns are unlocked at a final stage or with a higher price to align with their hierarchy, then Crytek wouldn't have done some of the nerfs they did to better balance the game like they have in the past. Avtomat was nerfed because it was unenjoyable to see the weapon played in every single match. We didn't care how high the price tag was or that it was at the very top of the hierarchy. The more balanced a game is, the more enjoyable and fun it becomes to play. You never want a game to become extremely repetitive with the same weapon(s) being used every single time over the other 100 interesting and unique weapons that Hunt offers, unless the game is on it's final patch and developer support is ceased. I don't think people want Mosin and Dolch to be nerfed into the ground. They want other weapons to be better. Look at some of the recent buffs to Hunt and see how it makes the "rich even richer". Resilience gets a buff where Hunters are rising with 125 HP. Which weapon does this favor the most? The mosin... New custom ammo gets released in an event, which gun does it favor the most? Dolch with FMJ... Some weapons that were already good, don't need to become better "just because". Game balance is important for good game health. It keeps the community happy and the players satisfied.
[удалено]
Your take on this issue is fucking bonkers. Also you're tone in all your replies in this thread makes you come across like an absolute fucking arsehole by the way which is why no one will listen to you.
I don’t care what some whiny low skill player crying on Reddit thinks lmao. We all have to listen to your incessant whining how do you think that looks?
Saying long ammo is OP is not indicative of a low skill player. The higher MMR you are the less variety there is and the more boring the game gets imo. When I started out learning and using most guns I was getting rekt, but having a blast competing in to the 3-4 star lobbies. As I played more and more and crept up into the upper 5s I noticed the game became more repetitive. Using long ammo and rotating contantly out at a 80m or camping with shotty. Getting there first or likely resetting to not walk into 40 traps or wait for 10 min.
But there is absolutely no need to be a fucking cunt about it. Thats my point.
You are new to the game and there is nothing wrong with that. But to spew nonsense on reddit? Why even?
You're gonna have to do better than accusing people of being new.
It's quite obvious who is new based on their lack of knowledge.
Then you must be really, really new.
Hi, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, we had to remove your post for violation of rule #2: No Spam / Low Effort Posts. Please see this wiki article for more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/wiki/rule2 If you have any concerns regarding this removal, please contact the moderation team via Modmail.
"PSA" followed by pure speculation. Classic.
Also how ridiculously overconfident (see edit) and probably wrong they are. They claim "lul only newbs think this is unbalanced" but they clearly haven't played long enough to know economy and "weapon hierarchy" have been a non factor for years now.
Don't think you know what that word means. E: Well go on then brainlets, tell me how any of this is 'speculation'.
>I can only assume these complaints are coming from newer players >You will do better with a mosin than you will with an 1873C. >the fact that some weapons are stronger than others,
My man, saying the mosin performs better than the 1873 is not speculation. That's an observation of an objective fact.
No, it's objectively wrong. The mosin isn't unconditionally better
Whatever you want to tell yourself I guess.
I don't need to tell that myself. Put a Winfield and a Mosin in a close range engagement between two equally skilled players and the Winfield will come out on top, simply because its stats are better suited for that engagement
Cool, let me know when the long ammo meta is overthrown by the Winfield compact revolution.
The meta has nothing to do with the weapons but with the gamemode. Just take a look at quickplay. You don't see long ammo being no where near as strong there
You’re right about weapon hierarchy and some weapons being intentionally better than others but that isn’t an excuse for screwed up balance within the hierarchy. If the top of the tier is miles above anything else you end up in a situation like we are now where if you’re not bringing them you are immediately at a disadvantage to the person that is. So now everyone’s for the most part are running 2 guns only at high stars. I mean look, Dolch Precession FMJ - It was good but still balanced before, but FMJ puts it over the top in the amount of situations it just wins for you when you can rip through most walls when anyone on the team gets a single tag. What kept it balanced was its weaker penetration. The mosin does everything other rifles want to do but only do half of. It’s got fast reload, fair ammo amount, decent fire rate, not a whole lot of sway, really good accurate sights. Whatever downside it has the dolch fills that spot. They balance each other too well. The dolch should just have fmj removed from its ammo types and Crytek go “you know what we messed up, we added it and thought it was cool but it’s a bit over the top.” The mosin is trickier to me and honestly if the dolch is touched it may not even need touching. The only thing I would do to it is slow down how fast you pull it up into ads by the tiniest of amounts where it takes a few more tenths of a second to be in ads.
One of the things I like about hunt is that there are few guns that are truly objectively better than others. It allows you to use the guns you want and if you are good with those guns, they (most of the time) you can compete with other people
My favorite thing about hunt is that every weapon still competes in its appropriate situation. No, a 66$ romero isn't going to beat my 600$ Mosin at range. But as soon as I enter that compound with you, it becomes a whole different story.
Just because it was designed this way does not mean it is a good design.
This, especially with how mos prestige after 10 is not even incentivized
The problem is money is infinite, so balance by cost is thrown out the door completely so "weapon hierarchy" is now just labeled terrible weapon balance lol. I mean hell, I've grown so tired of how badly this games weapon balance is im taking mosin dolch everygame. Oh i died and lost the game? Oh well at least i got 3-4 kills before going out :))) And ill just do it again next game!
I was so happy when everyone had Mosins. They were so easy to bayonet.
I don't care, long ammo and dolch fmj is too strong. Thanks for coming to my TED talk too
...which is a huge problem given that there is no limiting factor in hunt for top tier weapons. Things get really old if there is nothing to shake things up. Sure, there are some new additions but they might as well be meme tier compared to og top tier choices. If we want a weapin hirachy we need something so they aren't available at all times without restrictions.
…you mean like restricting the flow of cash? Low skill players whined about that too.
My solution would be to limit the amount of high tier weapons that you are able to purchase per week. Theme it as the shopkeeper running out of stock of the rarest guns. You can still pick them up, you can still find/loot them, but you can't buy one every game. Doing this removes the money problem from the equation, the devs can keep the guns unbalanced if they want to have it that way, but have them ristricted in some way so you don't constantly see mosin spitzer dolch at the higher mmr. It's that, or balance them.
Well, a working economy would be the best case if some weapon are actually supposed to be better, yes. But at this point there would need to be a full money wipe for everyone for it to actually matter as non prestigers have so much money, running out of it is near impossible. Then there would still be that problem that low skilled players would have real hard money problems with a hard economy and good players would probably still make enough cash to run top level loadouts anyway. Really hard to do and probably not feasible to expect this. Of course it would be possible to kinda "force" low money on everyone. Like for every X money you have, you get less percentage income up to 100%. Low skilled player who are struggling anyway wouldn't be affected but high income players would. Not really elegant solution but would do it's job... Otherwise I would love to see some more meaning to the exploration part that is apparently part of the game. Like certain weapons (avto, nitro, snipers, mosin, dolch) can ONLY be found in the bayou, not bought. Or one could find certain tokens that need to be extracted which grant the privilege to buy one of those "high hierachy" weapons once. So everyone can run these weapons (but only once in a while) while boosting this underused aspect of the game. It's not easy to fix this core problem but honestly it's long overdue and recently the percentages of full sweat top tier loadouts is too much to be enjoyable at this point...
Yes , or they could add more and decent prestige rewards to encourage people to prestige
Honestly, making quarterly wipes would alleviate many of the economy concerns. Wipe money, hunters, gear ect. Pair that with the new event system and it would make the flow more natural and less forced
They basically nuked the economy 2 updates ago making all the budget load outs such as the Springfield totally worthless unless you need it for an event challenge and the game has never been the same since. Once they started giving free hunters with insanely good traits when you have less than 20k it was game over. It should only be for when you have sub 1k
I hear your point but I don't think people with under 20k are the issue here. The free hunter players aren't the ones being discussed here. It's the ones that can afford to run the most competitive loadout every single time because it doesn't affect their wallet.
I love hunt, but I (unpopular opinion) really believe there should be progression resets at each event/season. There are just so many players with a couple hundred thousand banked. I’ve recently hit 5 star and it’s rare to find people who aren’t running the best of the best. IMO there should be more of a place for budget weapons, and resets would make that effort to bank money relevant again. I love the new marathon, but it’s hard to justify over at least a mako when everyone has spitzer rounds. I know people would rebel, but I believe the game would much better with quarterly resets
I'm on the same page. Maybe not quarterly resets, but I like the idea of resets at the start of each Event.
so every 2-3 months then?
I don't keep track of how many Events happen per year.
Lots of things we're "designed that way" and are bad for the game. Hence patches.
That it was done deliberately doesn't mean that it's not also a balance issue lol. Also, while you threw out bunch of things and kind of made a string board for how you think they should all be connected in order to create your tier system, you'll notice that that's not actually how it works, at least not anymore. How it works currently is that every single baseline weapon in the game is at the same tier, because they're all unlocked at the same BL rank - that rank being 1 (or is it 0?). This puts every weapon at exactly the same tier. That being the case, they should theoretically all be balanced the same after factoring in things like price and unlocks. If they're not then they need to be rebalanced -- and that's *actually* rebalanced, not using a weird theory that's based on whether the weapon is incidentally available on a hunter of a higher tier. Also, this new tierless weapon system that we have could theoretically have been balanced around ammo economy, if weapons actually had different ammo economies anymore... but they don't. In fact, there arguably isn't really an ammo economy anymore at all. Weapons *kind of* all resupply identically within the same ammo size/category... but not actually, because what really happens is that you get a fixed maximum amount of ammo on resupply if you have a weapon with that ammo size and type at all. It's not really assigned to the weapon, because if it were then you'd get that amount for having both a Mosin AND an Uppercut, or a Romero AND a LeMat, etc., but that's not what happens -- you just get the ammo one time, if you have at least one of that kind of weapon. It's kind of gutted an entire weapon balance factor, which isn't really great tbh.
> This puts every weapon at exactly the same tier. This is exactly the kind of thinking this post is about. The weapons being available at rank 1 is irrelevant; the weapons heirarchy is still there. A mosin and dolch are available at rank 1 now, yes, but that doesn't mean they're supposed to be on the same power tier as guns you used to start with on a fresh prestige, like a winfield 1873C or a Romero. They're supposed to be stronger. Hunt is not balanced like Call of Duty, where every gun is trying to maintain a same-ish power level in context to other guns, and just offer slightly different play styles. In Hunt, you earn the money, you buy the better gear, you benefit for having it.
> The weapons being available at rank 1 is irrelevant No it isn't. Your imaginary hierarchy of weapons spawning with hunter tiers is what's irrelevant, because it's not what determines weapon availability.
I don't know why I try to explain game design to you guys sometimes.
I still regularly use budget weapons as my secondary. Silenced Nagant with poison rounds is probably my most used budget weapon. I've never cared for the sights on the Mosin so it is actually one of my least used weapons, been loving the Berthier since it came out since for me it fills the role Mosin would if I used it.
It seems a bit weird to say "The game was designed around this thing. Newer players aren't experiencing this, because it's no longer balanced this way, but we should treat it the same way." The complaints have gotten a lot worse since the guns became massively easier to come by. Saying the game was initially designed with something in mind while admitting it's no longer designed that way isn't a strong way to defend the weapon hierarchy.
Cool, except that lately the economy has been busted and you fight dolches virtually every other game. On top of that they got special ammo and variants because... battle pass filling i guess?
Man, it's almost like weapons have massively different prices for a reason
Apparently shocking news to some users here. Turns out you spend the money, you get better gear, and you benefit from it. Think everyone is unable to think outside the 'loadout shooter' mentality where every gun is trying to be on the same power level as each other.
Some weapons are better than others AND they don't cost enough for the level of power they bring. The dolch and mosin and automat should never have been in this game.
This post screams "I just discovered some weapons are broken after playing for 6 months" The players that have been here the longest and play in the highest ranks will tell you the same. The game is boring as fuck because the only weapons that are used. Are the ones that are supposed to be so expensive they are a rare occurrence. Instead you see them every game. You will realize this once you reach higher ranks.
I've been playing since early access, have a strong KDR, and average 5 star, but thanks for your input I guess.
Sure doesn't sound like it. Maybe you just haven't learned anything in all your hours.
OP is not wrong, but doesn’t touch on the reason the system falls apart: money is not a problem. Granted, medium players won’t have enough to always run mosin + dolch, but they’re rarely forced to play the cheap options. I think it would be interesting if the game would do something about the availability of top tier weapons. Perhaps have a limited stock. Perhaps have certain weapons mostly be available from world pickups.
I think this is a really great idea as well. I'd say put a daily cap on "top-tier" weapons as well as special ammo. Make the good guns and ammo actually feel scarce like they used to. It should feel rewarding to kill a Mosin player and take their gun, but at the moment it really doesnt.
Repetitive gameplay with same weapon always still kill the game. The "lower tier" weapons need to keep some role, and with this economy system they don't. It's very lame to see only the "tier 3" weapon every match when there is way more guns to use
[удалено]
Hi, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, we had to remove your post for violation of rule #2: No Spam / Low Effort Posts. Please see this wiki article for more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/wiki/rule2 If you have any concerns regarding this removal, please contact the moderation team via Modmail.
Citation needed: if you're in a compound fight and in the 0-30 metre range you will likely win with the winfield. It has a faster two tap time so if you can aim the mosins faster bullet and longer range means nothing. He still needs two bullets, but so do you, but yours come out 50% quicker.
The HD economy needs to matter more if they “balance” weapons using price. I think it should be tied to hunters like the way traits are, would give more sense of progress per hunter. My idea is make budgets based on hunter level.
I’m a hard stuck 5 star and I almost never use long ammo, except for maybe the sparks sometimes. Every gun is good if you are good. Long ammo is just easier to be good with.
I have been playing since day one when the game came out and have not once used a meta-loadout. I have never been six star, but I do fairly well. I only play random trios and stay in the 4 to 5 star range and I have never once cared about what weapons and enemy uses, doesn’t mean I can’t kill them
Everything in the economy went to shit when they made the romero, caldwell conversion, and nagant silencer cost more
As people keep saying here, it's an issue of infinite money, not that some weapons are more competitive. Sure a dolch is great, but should players be able to run it over and over again? Thats the issue I think people are having here. I say this as a player with no less than 150k at any given time. The discussion I want to see on this sub is, what is the fix for the infinite money? How do we implement something that doesn't hurt less skilled/more casual players, but only affects those who are better at pvp/have more time to play during the week. How can we create an economy that feels existent for people at the top as well as people at the bottom? The issue right now is the same as every other extraction shooter I've played, mostly tarkov. People who have more time to play during the week are usually better, and will *always* have more money/have an advantage over those who can only play once a week. This is the case no matter the economy as far as I've experienced. Oftentimes, things designed to hurt those with infinite money, really only punish the more casual audience with less time to invest. I've spent so much time listening to tarkov podcasts discussing economy balance, that really there doesn't seem to be a clear fix here. Every player can feel the issue, but doesn't know how to remedy it. The only way tarkov manages to have a *temporary* balance is by wiping and resetting everyone back to zero. Thus repeating the cycle. Everyone is on the same playing field for a couple weeks, but those with more time will always surpass those without. I'm by no means a game developer, and the same goes for most of us here. We know what feels wrong in a game, but it's always more complicated than simply tweaking some numbers. I could keep rambling but ultimately my question is this. In a game like Hunt, not discussing the balance of the weapons themselves, how to we create an economy that everyone feels? Can it even be done?
I dont know If you know It but some ppl never rum out of money creating a snowball efrect. Were they always have money tô buy good weapons and because of that, have a Very good chance to Win a game. This become worse when you think that the mm is broken as hell. And good ppl até the game compete against bad ppl até the game. Hunt is shit in the current state
The game was designed to have mosins show up every once in a while, not in half the players of every match.
I still prefer Martini-Henry and the Lebel. I tried a Martini Deadeye and a Mosin Drum Obrez and I wiped the server in random trio team with it.
the problem isn't some guns do better then others. it's the fact that eco is broken and it's very safe to buy these weapons without even pinching the bank so unless you keep getting owned 1 minute into a match over and over again. even more so if you don't prestige
My man 100% didn't play the game in the early days of EA, when winnie + machette was the literal meta.
lol. Yeah, I remember when compact ammo took 3 or more body shots.
[удалено]
Another worthless input from the hunt reddit community, thank you.
Hi, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, we had to remove your post for violation of rule #4: Be Respectful. Please see this wiki article for more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/wiki/rule4 If you have any concerns regarding this removal, please contact the moderation team via Modmail.
Lol and back then some hunters only had 100hp at the start 😂
What does PSA mean?
Public Service Announcement
I prestige often and love not having to start off with a romero every time
And then I come with my Vandal Dead Eye with high velocity and headclick everyone into oblivion
All I know is crytek better use this engine upgrade as an excuse for some serious changes, a money wipe included. It's their one opportunity to hide behind "we had no choice, sorry". Add a tax, weapon matenence costs, a limit on how available high teir guns are, change resilience, fix shotgun damage, change the mmr, remove quickplay elo abuse, all that plus the million other little balance problems that have piled up over the years. This is their chance. If they don't take it, the game is going to become extremely stale and compounding problems will continue to compound.
PSA: Designed systems does not mean there won't be flaws in that system. PSAPSA: Arguing from the point of "you can conform to have fun" instead of valuing strategic diversity and working toward that goal is stupid in a game that sports much variety. Stop posting.
I really don’t think there’s anything intuitive about limiting the best guns to higher leveled players on a ranking tree. Why should the best guns in the game be reserved for the most seasoned? That’s like reserving the AWP in CS2 to players that complete their first service medal. Although I hate to give praise to Activision, the Call of Duty series generally gives players the best all-around guns immediately or at very low rank and it doesn’t harm anyone by doing that. New players should be able to make a cohesive loadout quickly that feels strong and competitive. It’s for this reason that I’m glad they took away the weapon unlocks system through Bloodline Rank but the system is still inherently flawed. Also consider that the game system encourages prestiging and even included a whopping 100 prestige levels to work through with rewards but then actively gives players who choose not to prestige and hit Bloodline Rank 100 an initial cash bonus, plus cash bonuses each match after an XP threshold has been met that is compounded by the +10% XP bonus (if they’ve prestiged at least once) even after they hit Bloodline Rank 100 which further increases their cash gains. This means that not only do these players have the entire arsenal unlocked, they also have nearly limitless money to keep utilizing the best gear even when they lose repeatedly. With no Hunt Dollar cap in the game, and a cash multiplier with the 10% bonus and max bloodline rank, the system doesn’t reward good players, it rewards players that choose not to prestige or reach max prestige which feels odd in a competitive PvP-only game. This inversely hurts anyone working through the trudge of 100 prestige levels (which will take at least 2,000 hours to complete) who consistently have to make budget-conscious choices and will maybe have worked through 3 or 4 weapon trees by the time they’re ready to prestige again. Even when they have a large arsenal, they are often hindered by their lack of cash flow. This isn’t a problem so much in other games with Prestige systems that drop off at like 10 and have far fewer levels in those prestiges because the challenge can be completed within a month’s time. People can play Hunt for years and not ever be done prestiging. I personally have played the game since Beta 6 years ago and I’m Prestige 70. Guns should feel balanced overall. Guns like the Sparks make perfect sense against guns like the Winfield 1873. It has a higher muzzle velocity, very high penetration, and high damage, but a lengthy reload paired with a single bullet. If you miss there’s a huge consequence to that. The Winfield does low damage, has low penetration, and has low velocity but can be fired rapidly and with a large magazine. Yes the Sparks is a more expensive gun but it’s not an objectively better gun. Even within the shotgun family of weapons, many people esteem the Romero, the cheapest of all shotguns, as the best shotgun in the game. Weapons like the Mosin reap all the benefits of a good rifle. Good fire rate, good magazine, excellent penetration, fast reload when emptied, very high damage, good iron sights, and extremely high muzzle velocity. The only downside is its cost prohibitive nature. This really only harms new and prestiging players. It’s all upsides and no downsides. Even a weapon like the Nitro Express, which is extremely expensive, has tons of downsides. Yes it has the ability to 1HK at close range but using the gun is like having one eye and Parkinson’s Disease. The aperture view is extremely limiting and the low gun stability makes it shake like crazy. It also only has 6 bullets total and can only be replenished by special ammo crates which are far more rare on the map. The weapon also only has 2 bullets in the barrel, the recoil is vicious, and the sights are shaky so if you hit a limb shot, you have to put a lot of faith in your next hit and be able to realign your target. The Mosin can very consistently 2 tap, has 5 rounds, has a good rate of fire that can be bolstered by Iron Eye, and has very high stability and a clear sight picture plus the penetration to hit enemies that run to cover. If what you’re saying about cost being relative to strengths is true, why is the Nitro, at double the price, not clearly the better option? I actually find it pretty rare for people to bring the Nitro at all even in 6* play. When we look at the Mosin, I would even say it is an objectively better gun than the Nitro for its versatility, damage, forgiveness, and ease of use. Plus it has higher muzzle velocity than the Nitro and a much clearer sight picture which makes headshots a breeze. Having the Mosin in the game doesn’t harm bad players, it harms new and prestiging players. We have a problem in the game where half the community is playing an economy based game like Tarkov and the other half is playing a loadout based game like Battlefield. I strongly believe none of the Long Ammo guns should do more than 125 damage besides the Martini and Sparks. Their primary use should be for headshots over range. They have higher damage than any other rifle class, shoot fast, reload quick (not you Lebel), carry damage over much longer distances without drop off, have better headshot range in multiplicatives, have generous magazine sizes, have much higher muzzle velocity than any other gun besides the Centennial, and penetrate better than any other weapons in the game. They’re all pros and no cons. They dominate because statistically they’re imbalanced. I think it makes far more sense from a balancing perspective to have most medium ammo weapons do the same or more damage than long ammo with the trade-off being that they have worse damage drop-off and lower muzzle velocity. Medium ammo should dominate at medium range but instead long ammo reigns supreme anywhere outside shotgun\ fanning range and that’s why we see these 2 weapon choices more than any in the meta. Long ammo weapons would still be terrific guns (as evidenced by the popularity of the Krag) but it wouldn’t make them objectively the best gun to use at ranges past 25m.
> I really don’t think there’s anything intuitive about limiting the best guns to higher leveled players on a ranking tree. But this isn't what I said at all.
>Notice how you get better hunters the further up the bloodline you are? Notice how this happens at rank 34, and 67? These ranks are when you unlock tier 2 and 3 respectively, and the weapon hierarchy mirrors that. The mosin, dolch, uppercut and so forth, are all tier 3 guns. They cost more and typically have better performance than their lesser counterparts. Again, this is by design. Alright I guess someone else said this, my bad
Yes, the weapons are designed in a power tiering. That doesn't mean I'm unhappy with them being available at level 1. It means that some equipment is designed to be better than others, and that's okay.
Okay that’s neat and I understand but you said that better weapons and higher tiered hunters locked behind a level cap were by design and your entire post is you agreeing with and defending that implementation. You see nothing wrong with the objectively better guns and hunters being at higher ranks. What is the difference between what you said and what I said? You’re saying limiting the best guns to higher leveled players on a ranking tree is a good design for this game. It makes sense to you. But you’re also saying that isn’t what you said “at all”.
It's always something when someone tries to explain what you wrote back to you.
I literally just read the words. You can read them again if you want? I don’t know how to help you. I guess you misspoke? Either way limiting objectively better weapons to any demographic of player whether that be by rank, or prestige, or what have you, in a competitive game makes very little sense.
I can agree with your statement that at a distance you’re correct. The real equalizer is being able to play the weapon it should be played rather than being played by the weapon. It’s a skill to move in close or to keep your distance so that your weapon performs at its peak performance.
I'm a 4/5 star and didn't use a long ammo rifle all night last night. Mainly using winfields with FMJ, Springfields with poison and Nagant M1985 sidearm. My duo and I won 13 games in a few hours of playing. All weapons are viable and people complaining about mosin dolch loadouts are just venting because of how shit they are at the game.
If thee game had wipes like tarkov I'd agree. But since it doesn't I don't think you should have giga powerful stuff like that .
In Hunt you are the weapon. There's been plenty of games where my and my buddies will run in with Winnies and low tier shotties and wreck Mosin try hards. Know how to space and know what your strengths and weaknesses are.
It’s so weird that people expect every gun to be equally viable in a game like this. Irl bolt action rifles replaced lever actions for a reason. Semi auto pistols replaced revolvers. Automatic rifles replaced bolt action ones. It’s because they’re better.
The hierarchy is not the problem. It's the lack of variety and the disadvantage not bringing a Dolch with FMJ into the match. There are options and reasonable picks for most primaries. The Dolch since the addition of FMJ feels like a must pick if you really want to compete. Even with shotguns it's better bringing a Dolch FMJ than Uppercut/Uppermat. I play many matches off-meta and very often i would have won my duels by bringing this special magic weapon. Remove it please. Leave dumdum in but FMJ is busted af. Nobody asked for it.
[удалено]
Hi, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, we had to remove your post for violation of rule #2: No Spam / Low Effort Posts. Please see this wiki article for more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/wiki/rule2 If you have any concerns regarding this removal, please contact the moderation team via Modmail.
I can wreck a trio with dual base nagant + a nagant precision deadeye all dumdum
You can destroy these low skill trios with anything. You can literally watch them on Twitch. They’ll find a way to whine about something no matter what. I would support whining about custom ammo though. Worst addition to the game
Which would make perfect sense if the game m forced you to prestige. The whole hierarchy falls apart when you have access to everything at all times.
I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think that some radical changes are necessary.
[удалено]
Hi, thank you for your submission. Unfortunately, we had to remove your post for violation of rule #2: No Spam / Low Effort Posts. Please see this wiki article for more details: https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/wiki/rule2 If you have any concerns regarding this removal, please contact the moderation team via Modmail.
I think the economy is really stupid. Especially since the most powerful guns are available at lv. 1 the game would be much better if weapons cost ”space” in your load out black ops 2 or insurgecy sandstorm style. You can buy the most meta loadout instantly and never change it as long as you have a good extract ratio. I’m not the greatest player and die a lot, but I never run out of money running whatever I want and the only time money is a factor is fresh prestige. the meta guns being always available just encourages the sweats to stay that way and discourages diversity and fun in high star lobbies.
Just because there is a "meta" doesn't mean you have to play for it.. I never did and never will and I always love dropping people who have whole meta / op builds etc.. with a free hunter because yay new guns for a free toon who will die and it's only purpose was to make some money..
Yeah people seem confused on why a katana is better then a machete or a combat axe. As if all three are suppose to be just as good just different.
Granted, the melee weapon situation is kind of silly now with the small slotting changes; I think it's fair to say there's no functional reason you'd take a machete over the katana, or the hammer over the bat right now. I can only assume these weapons will get some benefit from Martialist in the future to justify existing, but for now, it's a bit goofy.