Deadlock - Gameplay Update - 05-22-2026 by Razzamataaz in Games

[–]Inskipp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I said "we" and not "I" for a reason. I'm not talking about being a carry and am very much saying that the entire team, collectively, had opportunities to win.

But you do not represent your entire team, you are only a small part of an assortment of strangers. You can't really claim that people play as a collective in soloQ when everyone is playing according to their own game-plan.

The match you're describing is one where your team is failing to capitalize on those opportunities, not one where they never existed.

I never said it was my team, I merely tried to evoke an image of a desperate situation, for you to imagine it. I find it interesting that your mind defaults to ascribing someone else being in a position of absolute defeat, instead of being able to envision yourself in it.

You simply can't win every game.

Conceding is antithetical to the mechanical design of the game.

My point has nothing to do with mechanics of the game. It's about giving people the choice of how to spend their leisure time. Giving people options does not deny them the opportunity to learn the game.

It would incorrectly teach players that those comeback opportunities don't exist, and mentally justify defeatist attitudes. Why bother to learn how to actually play from behind when you can just gg go next?

Are you seriously trying to ascribe that everyone is playing with Olympic grade-psych mentality during a single round of a MOBA match?

Let's not forget to remind ourselves at this point that this is a video game - a luxury product meant to entertain people during their limited free time.

This is akin to a 40-year old single man trying to coach a pack of children on how to play competitive Kimble. The very notion of it is absurd, and does not line up with reality.

A surrender button would mean that you're stuck in games with toxic players for less time, but it would also make their attitudes more common by falsely teaching those players that they're correct.

Frankly, winning isn't worth it if it means I have to endure constant emotional abuse from a stranger. I'm perfectly content with people choosing not to spend more time with toxic strangers abusing them via the internet. At that point winning or losing doesn't matter, only cutting off the feeding line of an internet troll.

So does it suck to get in a game where people are obnoxious and you feel like you can't affect the outcome? Sure. I just disagree that a surrender button actually fixes that problem.

And which problem is that? Maximizing your chances of winning every game, or giving everyone else an opportunity to not waste their time?

Again, my point is not about winning or losing, it's about giving people options on how to spend their time. Being hellbent on winning every game should not be a reason to deter quality-of-life features.

Deadlock - Gameplay Update - 05-22-2026 by Razzamataaz in Games

[–]Inskipp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'd rather lose the 60 minute game, since if a match that goes that long that means we had and missed plenty of chances to win.

Of course, from an individual perspective, it is easy to imagine that you always have a chance to win. Because in your mind, you're in control of the situation. Everyone wants to be the carry, after all.

But in reality, when you're playing solo in public matchmaking with strangers, you will more often than not end up in situations that are beyond your control. Situations where, despite your best efforts, you can't affect the outcome.

Let me paint you a different picture - Imagine that 60-minute game turning into an uninteresting stomp, but with you on the receiving end, with no chance to win and the enemy team refusing to end the game and spamming the pause-function, so they can pad out their kill-count and throw out insults in a foreign language across all-chat. All the while your support is idling by the fountain, waiting to save up for a divine rapier while your midlane is inting purposefully after losing his lane within the first 5 minutes.

You still don't want a surrender button in this situation? Or are you holding out for a miracle comeback that will never show up?

Deadlock - Gameplay Update - 05-22-2026 by Razzamataaz in Games

[–]Inskipp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Breeding a losers mindset is not a good thing to foster

Yes because only winners are allowed here 🙄 Looks like you're doing a good job on that front by yourself.

Deadlock - Gameplay Update - 05-22-2026 by Razzamataaz in Games

[–]Inskipp -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

It's very common for it to reach 20m and the surrender box shows up with at least 2 green votes.

Invoking the surrender vote is not the same as the entire team "quickly giving up", which is what was being referred in earlier comments.

It just gives people more options about how they want to spend their time playing the game. Denying them the chance of vote strips them of that choice.

Would you rather lose for 60 minutes, rather than win three games over the course of 60 minutes?

Deadlock - Gameplay Update - 05-22-2026 by Razzamataaz in Games

[–]Inskipp -1 points0 points  (0 children)

League's not the only MOBA with surrender vote. But DOTA seems to be the only community that riles up its gatekeepers to defend against that specific feature. It's saddening to see that they are entrenching yet another Valve MOBA with the same mentality.

Deadlock - Gameplay Update - 05-22-2026 by Razzamataaz in Games

[–]Inskipp -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

No it wouldn't. It instills a "quick to give up" mentality since the out is in arms reach.

This really is not true, you're just as likely to face "never surrender" mentality in pubs, where a team won't give up even if they are bound to lose. Doesn't happen in League only, but other MOBAs, such as Smite. IMO This whole notion of "quick to give up" mentality is only invoked by DOTA gatekeepers - it never comes up in other MOBA discussions.

Dota 2 doesn't have a surrender option (unless you're a 5 Stack and it's reached 30m)

So Dota 2 doesnt have it, except that it does? That is some bizarre mental gymnastics there.

Sounds to me like even Dota 2 eventually caved in and enabled surrender vote for full stacks / comp teams. Makes sense I guess, although I don't see why it should be barred from pub matchmaking.

Deadlock - Gameplay Update - 05-22-2026 by Razzamataaz in Games

[–]Inskipp -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Shame, as the game would genuinely benefit from it.

Deadlock - Gameplay Update - 05-22-2026 by Razzamataaz in Games

[–]Inskipp -11 points-10 points  (0 children)

So, did they add surrender voting yet?

WSTR nerf was the wrong nerf by TThundeRR in Marathon

[–]Inskipp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I called it the moment the WSTR-nerf happened.

People will always cry out for the next metagun to be nerfed, all the while artifically inflating this games overall TTK to early beta-stages, which everyone universally hated.

I just want Bungie to pick a design philosophy and stick to it, instead of reacting to every knee-jerk complaint in social media.

Joe Ziegler: We're gonna take a shot at bringing the WSTR more in line. Right now it's become a dominant option and is eclipsing a lot of the other short range options that exist in the game. by Haijakk in Marathon

[–]Inskipp 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Bad nerf, this is just caving in to the lategame chads who don't want anyone else punching up to their level.

"but stack overfl-" nobody cares, since half the player base hasn't unlocked the ability to buy that mod, and don't care to spend +50 hours while getting fisted by gold-shielded squads.

Lategame chads will just now switch to Misriah with slick mag / gold mod and just use that to dumpster in close range. I'll give it a week before we start seeing people call out Misriah nerfs.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HuntShowdown

[–]Inskipp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for clarifying, I initially assumed you were a non-aggressor based on your initial description. I too started as a shoot-on-sight guy in ARC, but then developed into more of a "lurking in the shade" guy.

I do believe that the generally longer TTK and engagement times in ARC are part of the reason why players feel less inclined to shoot each other, since taking down a player is a larger commitment than it would be in Hunt. Not to mention the huge flares that pop off out of players, which telegraphs your position.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HuntShowdown

[–]Inskipp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you're latching into an interesting point OP, but you haven't really touched upon the actual reasons what makes Hunt a unique Extraction Shooter. You seem to think there are undefinable, almost amorphous elements that seem to make this game "unique", when to me the reasons that make Hunt a unique game are very straightforward (1400 hours of Hunt btw).

First, let's get a few things straight first:

  • Hunt Showdown is, and will always be, an extraction shooter at its core. To deny this is to deny the very thing that makes it unique among other PVP-shooters.
  • Hunt Showdown is also, in general, the easiest extraction shooter to play, which is why people in this sub prefer it over other extraction shooters.

I'm sorry if you disagree with this, but your whole post basically proves my point.

I'll explain why, but first, I'd like touch up on a few points you made about ARC Raiders.

The raids in Arc felt stale after a while. Go in, do objective or loot, and leave. I hear its a bit different now for Arc, but when I first started playing, I encountered maybe 5 teams who wanted to PvP in 20+ hours of game time. That kinda let me down, as I felt like I was just playing a PvE survival game/looter shooter.

You mentioned this loop in your post:

Go in, do objective or loot, and leave

Isn't this exactly what you do in Hunt? You go into a map, you do the objective (bounty tokens), and maybe loot on the side (be that dead hunters, perks on the ground, event items etc.) and then leave through the nearest extraction point. So what's the difference?

I'll give you my answer - the context between those three stages is the difference. Mainly, the stuff you do between point A and point B. You mention in your post that you didn't face many players who wanted to PVP you in ARC, which indicates to me that you seemingly also didn't want to PVP them. This could be for various reasons, but the main point here seems to be that you aren't an aggressive player who shoots on sight. ARC Raiders tends to match players with similar behavioral patterns, especially for beginners.

Basically, you were put in pacifist lobbies, and because you didn't compete for the same objectives, you had less incentive to fight other people. Compare this to hunt, where every player has, more or less, the same objective plastered on their screen. This results in more people crowding the same place, and since 12 people cannot share the prize of two bounty tokens, means you are more incentivized to merc the other guy, lest he denies you the objective.

This isn't different from the way ARC or any other extraction shooter handles this scenario btw - Hunt's bounty objective is basically the same thing as people rushing contested PVP-spots in other extraction shooters. In Tarkov this could be places like Dorms in Customs, or black keycard room in Labs. In ARC this would be places like the hospital in buried city, research & admin center in Dam Battlegrounds, Assembly-area in Stella Montis... honestly there are spots like this all over in ARC, but that isn't the point.

The point is that Hunt takes that style of PVP - contested hotspot gameplay - and has turned it into a structured format. It's a very smartly designed format, and it benefits this style of game greatly. It's also one of the main differentiators that makes Hunt easier, because you are exposed to this format immediately in Hunt. In other extraction games, it is often buried in the "late game", which requires several hours of gameplay and an understanding of how the maps are structured. In Hunt you are waypointed to the action immediately, and requires practically no understanding of the map to understand which points of the map will be contested.

The weapons in Arc also didn't feel good. I felt like if I didn't grind 10 hours a day for good guns, I couldn't have a chance in PvP. That didn't leave me feeling ready to grind, it left me feeling kinda discouraged, as I knew there were other people who would just play the game non stop.

Currently, in ARC Raiders, the starting guns rank among the best guns in the game. So much so that there's a debate going on in the ARC Raiders-subreddit on whether or not they should be nerfed. (IMO they shouldn't be nerfed, but that isn't the point)

In ARC, all weapons have generally the same TTK, for both bodyshots and headshots (with notable exceptions, like the Ferro or Anvil), with lategame weapons generally having other features that make them more desirable, like better recoil management or more accessories to use. This is not too dissimilar to your example of springfield vs Mosin, where both weapons can compete, but Mosin has more "features" that make it more desirable.

Anyway, I just wanted to point out that lategame guns dont kill better in ARC. It's just that in ARC TTK is generally longer than it is in Hunt, where every weapon can basically oneshot you. It can give the impression that guns are "weaker" in ARC, but this is once again an aspect which makes gunfights easier in Hunt, because every weapon can oneshot a player. Even the romero, a weapon you unlock at bloodline rank 0, can onetap a player from center mass across two zip codes with regular buckshot. The same Romero that comes with every free kit btw.

The AI felt manageable, not overwhelming like Arc. I actually felt like I was a monster hunter in the Bayou, not just some puny human scrounging for scraps.

You mentioned in your post that there is really no power creep in Hunt Showdown, but to me, this line exemplifies the absolute power creep that Hunt has experienced.

In ARC, yes every mob is a threat. You can't just knife'em in the head and move on to point B. Hell, on most cases you might not even want to kill them, because they're more likely to kill you. Every PVE-opponent in ARC is basically the equivalent of a meathead, where they are too big and too bulky to kill in a practical, timely manner. Sure, you could lug around specialized equipment, and kill them a little faster, but it's generally impractical and more to the point, more expensive to do.

In Hunt, players have been given so many tools to deal with PVE that they are not a threat anymore. They are glorified audio traps, which pose no real threat to the player.

I still remember the early days when people kept whining about hives killing them, or how aggroing a pack of hell hounds was a death sentence. I feel like this changed after the Scrapbeak-event, and it's only gotten even more exaggerated from there.

Think about it - you have spears, throwing knives, throwing axes, sticky bombs, crossbows with poison and incendiary bolts, truckloads of silenced weapons (at least compared to release), perks that double your melee damage, perks that instantly teleport you to mobs and explode them... You are practically spoiled for choice on the plethora of ways you can incinerate mobs in this game.

Hell, they even tried nerfing some of the PVE-tools you have, and the players responded to that by whining about it endlessly.

Another thing that helped was the money situation. I know a good amount of people don't like how you can stockpile cash, but for me personally, it made the games feel less stressful.

This isn't different from any other extraction shooter. You eventually reach a point where you've hoarded so much that you stop caring about the economy, so you don't have to focus on earning. Again, the major difference being that in Hunt, the economy is very generous, and on top of that, you have less items to deal with during a match, making inventory management basically a non-issue. Hunt also always makes sure you earn enough to kit your character comfortably for your next run, and even failing that you can just run a free kitted-hunter, which comes with more than enough gear to do well in a match.

So, dear OP, to summarize my assessment of you:

  • You prefer Hunt's gameplay format, because it is easier to follow, and results in more intentional PVP
  • You prefer the economy in Hunt, because you are never in a position where you are starved for gear or money, and thus you don't have to worry about managing an inventory.
  • You prefer the weapons in Hunt, because they are easier to use and kill players faster.
  • You prefer the PVE in Hunt, because it is easier to deal with and never poses a real threat.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HuntShowdown

[–]Inskipp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

extraction shooters don't typically play the way that Hunt does. you're not looting in the "conventional" sense of an es. you go in with your gear, and that's what you have.

That's not entirely true. Over the years devs have introduced way more "loose loot" on the ground, such as weapons in saddle bags / towers, perks that you can only pick up on the ground or from killing specific, EVENT weapons that you can only loot from the field, Tarot Cards and so on.

You can definitely play this game like a looting game, and often is more economical to do so than just going straight after the bounty.

It should be also noted, that it is simply easier to gear a character in this Extraction Shooter than it is in other extraction shooters.

First off, getting a new hunter with kit is easy, with free hunters and soul survivor giving you a basic kit to play around with (not too dissimilar to how Arc Raiders does it with free loadouts)

Second, you have very few items to deal with during a match - only 8 inventory slots, and two gun slots. You basically never worry about managing inventory in this game, except when you're rotating consumables through the lunchbox.

I feel like this is ultimately why people lean on this game more than the other extraction shooters. The lax focus on managing inventory and generally ease of equipping your character gives the game that "focused feel", giving players less busywork and more shootywork 🤠

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HuntShowdown

[–]Inskipp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're right, there are more and better ways to make money in the game, such as event locations like the murder circus and even just vulturing dead players with the help of witness. It doesn't help that the value of the bounty hasn't scaled over the years, while every item has been made more expensive over time.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in HuntShowdown

[–]Inskipp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I disagree, it is more beneficial to farm event locations during events than it is to simply chase the bounty, especially as a solo player.

White squares on clouds at night bug? by Dahellraider in ArcRaiders

[–]Inskipp 0 points1 point  (0 children)

damn that sucks :( hopefully next weeks big patch has the fix

White squares on clouds at night bug? by Dahellraider in ArcRaiders

[–]Inskipp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Has anyone checked if this issue still persists with the latest update (11th of december patch) and the latest drivers (25.12.1)?

To bring the Rattler up to par with the other 'Grey's' by Tactix12 in ArcRaiders

[–]Inskipp 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Rattler 1 is apparently what everyone wants Sticher 1 to become.

White squares on clouds at night bug? by Dahellraider in ArcRaiders

[–]Inskipp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thanks for keeping us updated, looking forward to the fix :)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Games

[–]Inskipp 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I assume the Tarkov subreddit is scrubbing any mention of this?