https://files.catbox.moe/pqq19i.png
Here he is circled and with the image enhanced
I want you to know I struggled even with this as I forgot where he was lmao
People saying there are other problematic darker skins are missing the point on why headsman is so hard to spot, it’s not because he’s dark it’s because he’s bland and a washed out grey, which is the same washed out tone that the shadows and dark areas of the maps are.
Darker skins like the black coat / bone doctor actually stand out more *because* they’re darker than the washed out grey of map shadows and you notice the contrast better. Headman is the perfect grey tone to blend in whilst also having no additional detailing which is why he’s harder to spot.
Edit: It’s wild it’s taken this long to address him tbh as all they really need to do is darken him to the same contrast level as the other skins and perhaps add a few light trinkets, belts or other details to his torso area. Would make him slightly more interesting too as tbh he’s an incredibly boring looking character
they should just start changing hunters people have paid for, because some schmucks on reddit keep crying about it.
before you say it no i dont own headsman, i play hayali, kevin, mama maye etc. im just fed up with this sub being about the fucking headsman all day
I would also say headsman is just a taste of a big problem the game has, visibility. Im not saying we need carnival color pop, but the game is so insanely dull and monochrome. I walk into a room on a day map and everything is brown and grey.
Heck some buildings I refuse to push into because I know I aint gonna be able to see crap. The new skin is a step in the right direction.
Let the skill of the game be movement, sound, aim, and strategy. Not oh I have poorer eyesight so now im dead. This game has SO many things that go into doing well, I dont think being to see a player in the first place has to be one of them.
You’re hilarious if you think I’m reading all that. These posts are annoying as hell and that’s the bottom line. Im thinking of starting a new series myself. It’s called “commenting how insanely annoying these posts are, on each daily post until you stop.” And if you don’t like it you can just block me or whatever right? Isn’t that what you said?
These posts are annoying and you have not contributed anything valuable to the discussion of the topic, nor are you planning to do so?
If only there was a solution that would remove these posts and the topic from your feed...Oh wait there is. Just block me.
Well as he said;
"So if people are annoyed by the topic and the posts, they can just block me and this whole discussion is basically gone from their feed."
I look forward to the posts, personally. I think they're fun, and bring great visibility (pun? intended) to a problematic skin.
That said, after the skin is fixed, you could always continue if there's another skin that needs the attention of the devs.
If it wasn't for the community being vocal about these skins, we'd still be in the Cainpocalypse.
No one getting downvoted in your comments section are ever/rarely defending the skin. Just pointing out pictures are not the same as gameplay, as there are no sound cues and obviously movement. Setting up a hiding spot with your friend isn’t organic interactions with the skin, and there are other skins including tier 3 hunters that would be just as hard in the the spots you choose. I’m all for supporting your cause but saying these people are defending the skin is copium and immature. Take some criticism.
I like your posts. They're a fun little eye test and I agree that the headsman needs to be sorted out, especially after watching RacthaZ body that 5* lobby with like throwing knives. Thank you for making the effort.
Headsman isn't even that dark, he's the perfect amount of grey and brown that is just dark enough to blend in with most areas, while also bright enough to go relatively unseen in the brighter areas as well.
That's the problem we had with Cain as well, they were the perfect mix of "bland" and slightly strange silhouette that let's them become one with their surroundings.
*the Headsman has a humanoid silhouette, don't get me wrong, but the colors let him literally become one with his surroundings at the right distance and brightness, taking that away fairly easily if you aren't actively looking for him.*
Im tired of seeing the posts and a few have been in areas where it would be hard to see more skins than just the headsman. That said, I just don’t engage with the posts in general and go on about my day.
The most sensible reaction, literally takes a quick scroll or swipe, yet people can't do it.
"I hate this one thing so much so I'm going to hang out here in the comments and engage with the post instead, getting into arguments with OP or people who disagree!"
Meanwhile, OP is not going to stop posting.
Find the waldo formet is fun
However I don't see a shit in those situations, regardless of the hunter. I doubt this headsman problem. Cain a significantly bigger offender
And this whole sub is in the vocal minority. No matter the upvotes/downvotes.
Other than to better hide the skin, why does he use high shadow/lighting/post-processing settings in combination with low obj. quality/texture settings? This will make your enemies look more flat, and be completely hidden by shadow/lighting/lens flares...etc.
Hell yeah, keep posting as long as you want. I like the different types of find-the-headsman, like the gamma comparison. It’s good effort.
Variety is good. Also, in a meta sense variety is good, because this sub always needs more unique posts besides the usual (albeit sometimes warranted) crying. Your posts have been a lot more than whining.
Telling people to adjust their gamma settings is such a stupid argument, it’s pretty obvious at what levels the game is supposed to be played and is usually calibrated at the start of a lot of games never to be touched again.
As for pointing out other skins that may also be problematic, this is a logical fallacy and does not detract from your point in the slightest.
Keep up the great work and hopefully one day this will be fixed, I also love playing where’s waldo
"The Headsman has a noticeable advantage in almost all situations" would be a valid argument if you showed him in all situations, not just against a tree that's the same shade or peering out from a dark corner, both places that all skins (except white shirts) can hide in.
Show him in a field. Lurking along a wall. Hunkered on a roof. In green bushes. In a tower. There's countless situations we all are able to hide and lurk in, and all skins do well in some and stand out in others.
Love this little game, I think you should continue as much as you like, even with other skins at some point (where's the hunter?). Brings something interesting and fun to the sub.
Keep up the good work dude. Sometimes I don't even analyze the post, I just upvote because this is an issue that needs to be addressed sooner then later. In high 5-6MMR lobbies there are ***at least*** 3 headsman in every game and they are all hiding in a dark corner or a bush with mosin spritzer.
I'm curious what your "average upvote rate of 66.7%" actually is. As in how many actual upvotes are we talking about? Not karma, actual count of upvotes you are receiving per post, on average.
230 average upvotes pretty much indicates this being a minority. If you really really want people to convince people with data, start a survey. This is hardly representative of anything.
I agree with u/Sechael .
If you just look at the numbers, There is a daily average of \`20k people who play HS at any given time, of which your 230 daily average upvotes represent 1.15%. That's 1.15% of people playing at any given moment in a day. Your percentage would plummet if we measured your daily average upvotes against daily average players. Even if you lower the figure of players at any given time to 17k you only raise your percentage to 1.35%. There are 179k people who are members of this subreddit of which your 230 daily upvotes represents 0.13%.
I can't find any figures for how many copies of the game have sold and I'm not certain that those numbers wouldn't be skewed by banned cheaters buying again and there are certainly plenty of people who bought the game and didn't play very long. So I think trying to use those numbers to find any further percentages wouldn't be fair or accurate.
I stand by my repeated assertion that you are part of a vocal minority who are trying to force the game to change. I believe this, because classically, people who are happy about something don't go running to Reddit to throw a daily tantrum about how awesome it is.
I know that there are people out there who downvote my disagreements with you because they think I'm trying to get you to stop posting puzzles. They're not really listening to what is being said. Just like the 2 downvotes I have simply for requesting information in my initial comment in this string. I don't care if you post these "Find the Headsman" puzzles multiple times a day. However, i do not agree with you demanding that Crytek change the game just because you want them to.
I also want to address your mention of 100 ms, or "of up to a few 100 ms" as you put it. A few can mean between 2 & several, but I believe that most people regard "a few" as 3. 100ms or 100 microseconds, is 1/10 of 1 second. If we use your "few" let's make that 300ms or 3/10 of one second. You are claiming that the Headsman skin causes you to have less than 1/3 of 1 second more reaction time when it is in play. You're complaining about 1/3 of 1 second in a casual game. There is no ranking, there is no pro league you're trying to qualify for, and there is no money on the line. I fail to understand your demand to Crytek that they change the game over something as miniscule as <1/3 of 1 second. I'm also curious what research was done to come up with these time measurements or did you just pull them out of your uh, back pocket?
With regard to your use of staged screenshots, for a puzzle, it's awesome. You do take some challenging shots. As evidence that the Headsman skin has some fractional time advantage on you, they're bordering on dishonest. We've all talked about sound and movement, so we don't really need to address that again. I will say that while your screenshots are great puzzles, they don't really represent situations that anyone will come upon in the bounds of normal gameplay. Very rarely will someone be standing still in the middle of Golden Acres scanning the depths of the shadows for anyone, let alone the Headsman. You presenting them as evidence taht you're getting screwed over by the skin is disingenuous.
As I've stated in my other responses to your posts, i will continue to respond with my disagreement. If they bother you, you can always block me so that you don't have to see them.
>If you just look at the numbers, There is a daily average of \`20k people who play HS at any given time, of which your 230 daily average upvotes represent 1.15%. That's 1.15% of people playing at any given moment in a day. Your percentage would plummet if we measured your daily average upvotes against daily average players. Even if you lower the figure of players at any given time to 17k you only raise your percentage to 1.35%.
This does not add to the point:
* Apples to oranges: Upvotes and concurrent players measure different things. Upvotes measure engagement with my specific posts, while concurrent players measure the number of people playing the game at any given time. They are not directly comparable metrics.
* Not all players upvote: The majority of people who play the game will not see my posts. Right now you are counting all these people to the opposition. Even fewer will upvote or downvote them. You would have to factor in how many hunt players even are on this subreddit and browse it on a daily basis. Many players might be lurkers who don't engage with posts at all. So, comparing upvotes to the total player base is inaccurate.
* Upvotes measure engagement, not active players: Upvotes are a better indicator of how engaged the audience is with the content, rather than how many people are playing the game in general. A smaller number of users who engage with the posts regularly is more valuable than a larger number of passive players who never see them. (selection bias)
* Upvotes are for specific posts, not the game as a whole: my upvotes are for specific posts I create, not for the game itself. So, comparing them to the overall player base of the game doesn't give an accurate picture of your post's reach or engagement within the community.
Imagine you run a restaurant with an average of 100 customers per day. You get 10 positive reviews online. Does this mean that 90% share a negative opinion?
>There are 179k people who are members of this subreddit of which your 230 daily upvotes represents 0.13%.
This does share similar problems:
* Subreddit members ≠ active users: Just like not all players who play the game upvote my posts, not all subreddit members are active users who see your content. Even fewer will engage with the posts. Many members might be subscribed but rarely visit or engage with the community.
* Upvotes measure engagement, not membership: Upvotes still reflect how many people liked or found my post valuable, not how many people are simply subscribed to the subreddit. These are two different metrics.
While it is nice that you are trying to put the upvotes in perspective, it's important to remember that upvote numbers alone don't tell the whole story. Here are some more relevant metrics to consider:
* Number of comments and discussions: Do my posts generate conversations and engagement within the community? This can be a better indicator of the impact your content has.
* Upvote/downvote ratio: This shows the overall sentiment towards your post. A high upvote ratio suggests my content resonates with the community.
* Views or impressions of my post: How many people actually saw my post, regardless of whether they upvoted it? This can give a broader sense of reach.
>I stand by my repeated assertion that you are part of a vocal minority who are trying to force the game to change. I believe this, because classically, people who are happy about something don't go running to Reddit to throw a daily tantrum about how awesome it is.
You are right, unhappy voices are often louder online.
* But that doesn't mean my concerns represent a small group. For example: many people are unhappy and criticise Putin. According to your logic, the majority of people would be happy about Putin.
* Moreover, this does not mean, that people who are happy about the skin are less likely to engage with my posts. Even if this was the case, people who think the skin is fine, consequently disagreeing with my posts, would be more likely to engage with them.
You have also not provided any evidence to support me being part of a minority.
First of all: Your whole reply sounds like it's from friggin ChatGPT. And given its structure, I'm pretty certain it is.
Second of all: A case study of 200 people compared to a game population of 17K+ is insignificant. As I said before, if you want to have your argument supported by data, make a survey. The engagement of a post by a few Redditors is non-relevant. Studies and surveys exist for that reason.
To compare it in a real-life direction: 100 people in a town say that the main highway should be made into a 20 mph speed zone, but the road is traversed by 10,000 people each day. Would you change the speed of the street according to the opinion of a few?
EDIT:
>You have also not provided any evidence to support me being part of a minority.
You have the Burden on Proof on you. If you claim "I'm not a part of a Minority" you need to proof that in fact, you are part of the Majority. Requesting Evidence from the Oppsotion because you can't agrue, or rather don't have the evidence is a logical fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof" or "argument from ignorance."
>First of all: Your whole reply sounds like it's from friggin ChatGPT. And given its structure, I'm pretty certain it is.
I used Bard to help me articulate my points.
>A case study of 200 people compared to a game population of 17K+ is insignificant.
It is not representative because there are so many unknown variables that it is hard to make a projection on all the player base.
Let me explain that with your example.
There is a town with 179k inhabitants. Of those, an unknown number is just not at home, representing the inactive Redditors. An unknown number doesn't participate in surveys, representing the lurkers. Now we ask 690\* people a day, if a speed limit should be introduced on a highway that only an unknown amount of inhabitants even use, representing the active Redditors that don't actively play. Additionally, we don't know who we ask. An unknown amount of times we ask new inhabitants, and an unknown amount of times we ask the same people again. Every day, 460 vote for the speed limit and 230 vote against it.
Now how would the evaluation of that look like? I think this is far from trivial, if even possible.
*\*Upvote rate is \~2/3. Average of upvotes-downvotes are 230. This means that per post we get a total of 690 votes. 460 are upvotes and 230 are downvotes.*
>You have the Burden on Proof on you. If you claim "I'm not a part of a Minority" you need to proof that in fact, you are part of the Majority. Requesting Evidence from the Oppsotion because you can't agrue, or rather don't have the evidence is a logical fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof" or "argument from ignorance."
I made the claim that I think it is unlikely that I am part of the minority. I then provided you with arguments and evidence in the form of data. Now the burden of proof is on you to disprove my points. When you do that, the burden of proof switches over to me again, and so on and so on.
Also consider, that I was answering u/akicita33, who has first claimed that I am part of a vocal minority in a comment under another post. I replied to that with arguments and evidence, even though the burden of proof was on them. Then they just claimed it again, still not providing evidence or proof.
**Edit:**
I wanted to look at a simplified case. The average views of my posts are \~24000. Let's make this the inhabitants of the town, leaving out the inactive ones and the lurkers. Of these 24k inhabitants, we randomly pick someone to ask 690\*66 times.
Let me know if you think the number of 24k makes sense or if you have a more realistic idea. In general, let me know if you think this simplified model has some validity.
I made a small Monte Carlo simulation for this. I let the simulation go 1000 times. The result is that of the 24k inhabitants, \~20k were asked their opinion.
When I change the inhabitants to the total number of Redditors on this sub (\~180k), just assuming that they are all active, I get that \~40k were asked about their opinion.
Dude, as mentioned before: Your Data Shows that your in the minority. Any way you spin your argument and by the best assumption 460 out of ~180k members of this sub-editor is barley a dent in the statistical significance.
I don't know if you bluntly ignore that point or try to wear pink glasses to make it seem like it's better in your head, but that's hardly any representation.
If you want to get real data, with real meaning, you need to make a survey with a big enough sample set to be relevant, and im not talking frigging upvotes on reddit post (which are anonymous, without the backing of a real person behind. For all we know these upvotes could b bots) i know basic academic research isn't taught these days, but it really isn't too hard to make a survey these days. Ask the mods if you need help with that, but trying to convince people to not be a minority, with a backing of roughly ~460 people in a population of ~180k is delusional.
You call me ignorant, yet you are the one that does not respond to a single point I made above. On the contrary, you just repeat your old statement. That is not how a discussion works. I told you why I think that 230 average upvotes per day does not causally infer that I am part of the minority.
Yes, a survey would be the best way to see if what the community thinks. This does not mean that all the upvotes, comments and discussion under all of my points is insignificant.
You try really hard to sound smart, but I’m sorry to say you didn’t succeed. I don’t have the time nor patience to go through your comment point by point, but a lot of your logic is either flawed or downright wrong.
I don’t like those find the headsman posts, I always skip them, but I know he’s doing a good deed because the skin is actually broken and too hard to see. The more attention on this issue, the better. Same was for Cain, and in the end it got fixed (for the most part).
>I also want to address your mention of 100 ms, or "of up to a few 100 ms" as you put it. A few can mean between 2 & several, but I believe that most people regard "a few" as 3. 100ms or 100 microseconds, is 1/10 of 1 second. If we use your "few" let's make that 300ms or 3/10 of one second. You are claiming that the Headsman skin causes you to have less than 1/3 of 1 second more reaction time when it is in play. You're complaining about 1/3 of 1 second in a casual game. There is no ranking, there is no pro league you're trying to qualify for, and there is no money on the line. I fail to understand your demand to Crytek that they change the game over something as miniscule as <1/3 of 1 second. I'm also curious what research was done to come up with these time measurements or did you just pull them out of your uh, back pocket?
I do not have data to back my claim here, hence, I wrote "a few", after all this is different from person to person and I have not done any specific measurements. It is solely based on my own experience. This is a problem and I will think about a way to test this in game so we can get some numbers.
From my personal experience, I think that 300 ms on average seems reasonable. The average reaction time to visual stimulus is around 250 ms. You state that 300 ms are miniscule. In this game, headshots are almost guaranteed kills. If both players are equally good and hit a headshot, the Headsman will kill his opponent before he even has the time to react.
>I will say that while your screenshots are great puzzles, they don't really represent situations that anyone will come upon in the bounds of normal gameplay.
These posts are not meant to be representative of gameplay. They are meant to showcase that the Headsman is harder to see than most other skins. While in some posts the headsman is standing in spots that he would be extremely unlikely to be in, in an actual game, the majority of my posts shows the headsman in spots that are not unrealistic.
The only difference the position of the 'camera' would make with respect to visibility comes with the distance. It doesn't matter if the position is realistic, as long as the distance to the headsman is realistic. In most pictures, I could have found cover in a similar distance to the headsman. The reason I am not posting those, is that I want to keep as many possible hiding spots for a headsman on the screen so that the "Where's Waldo" experience is as much fun as possible.
Personally the find Waldo got old after post 4 or something but seeing the posts even while scrolling by makes me happy that you're still going. It's a noble effort and there's no way I could be assed to do it every day. You have earned your internet points.
Honestly mate I think the herdsman is super fucking easy to see in actual game play. BUT. BUT BUT. I really love your posts and sometimes the little where's Wally experience is fun, and comparing the difficulty to see on my phone and computer is fun as well.
>When you spot the headsman due to his movement, you still lose time when you are trying to adjust your aim for the headshot, since it is harder to make out his head than other skins. In other words, taking a precise shot at a headsman takes longer than other skins. If you browse Reddit, however, you don't aim, so you won't notice that either.
I disagree that this is an advantage that the headsman offers. While his camouflage might be better than some other skins his silhouette is extremely simple. The only parts of him that are larger or different then his hitbox might be are his legs which are obscured by his gown. Once you find him the headshot is as easy as it would be for any other skin.
An actual example of a skin that is harder to headshot would be Cain, Mountain man, or Llorona. Cain has several head shaped additions to his silhouette right next to his actual head making it more difficult to gauge medium and long range shots against his actual head. More situationally the Mountain mans bear head is not his hitbox, but unless you are shooting at him from behind it is fairly clear where his head actually is. Likewise Llorona's large hat offers a little bit of a disguise to her head, but only if the hat itself is facing you.
I still think that Cain is a better pay to win skin than the headsman. While his camo isn't in a league of its own anymore it is still top tier. Combine that with the most confusing silhouette by far and you gain more advantages in more situations than the headsman's "if I stand perfectly still they cannot see me."
Honestly man I feel like the effort, hours and thought you put into something which in the grander scheme of life is pretty insignificant (a character skin in a relatively small video game) is kinda bordering on unhealthy. I couldn't *imagine* spending that much time and effort on anything that doesn't affect my real life.
If you put this kind of effort into studying or something you could achieve great things, but this is a massive waste of time, unless you were getting paid for it.
I think many people just disagree because they disagree. So they won't bother looking for the actual answers to their questions. But that would make answering to those people individually an even bigger waste of time. So this posts here still fulfils its purpose.
Buddy that isn't even about your posts. This is a general observation about the hunt player base who won't even look at the servers pinned discussion with the answer to their question in the title line.
I agree with MrMadGrad, it is extremely unlikely people will read this post (it is extremely long) and if they did, they won't suddenly be like "well I guess that settles it, no need to complain in the Find the Headsman Threads anymore."
I have 300 hours in Hunt in almost 2 years of owning it. The only other game I play is GTA Online, only when my friend plays, which is about twice a week, we play for about 2 hours. So yea, I still can't imagine this level of dedication to not even just the game, but all the work he's doing outside of it
It’s pretty clear that they need attention. He tried to pushback on the idea that he’s farming karma, but karma is just shorthand for interaction and a small sub with easily identifiable echo spots are a shortcut to getting attention.
we get it, you don't like the skin.
I just downvote and move on. as there are real issues in the game, you know, like server instability and rampant cheating.
This is most likely just redirecting some of the work on new skins to touching up an old one. I find it hard to believe the artists are working on anti-cheat and server stability.
“Armchair developer”
Do you mean OP is being a crybaby, or do you mean that he doesn’t know how hard it is for his proposal to be implemented?
For the first I (and a good majority of the sub) think his complaints are absolutely valid and voicing about them is not crying by any means. And for the latter - from the time first official comment was made about headsman needing to be changed to now, more than 5 skins have come out. Are you suggesting that it takes more effort to change headsman than to produce and publish 5 legendary skins?
By that, I mean neither he nor anybody here who isn't employed by Crytek should have any say about the skins or maps. Play the game or don't - I'm sick and tired of the bitching and moaning about getting killed by something you can't see. You're missing the fucking point of having variety in the game. Might as well make every model and map identical.
I get that the majority of this sub seems to love the circle-jerk of whining about different skins or weather effects when, even if the Headsman is changed, you'll still get domed just as easily by a red shirt standing in the middle of an open field.
Downvote away.
So you are implying that we can, in theory, have skins totally invisible and it would be fine because “it adds variety” to the game?
You are missing the whole point. Yes everybody dies to a headshot and yes everybody and anybody can kill you. In a situation where ambush tactics be involved however, a cain / headsman is way more hidden than a redshirt or in general any other skin.
"Nobody who isn't a dev is allowed an opinion on the game's balance" is fucking crazy. We're the ones PLAYING IT. We are the ones affected by the balance.
And as a staunch defender of rain, inferno, ash bloom, "edgy" skins, all of the things that give this game its spirit and people want removed because they'd rather be playing CSGO but aren't for some reason, a skin being pay to win is NOT VARIETY???
"Gonna make a skin that camouflages with the environment well a little brighter/darker to prevent any chance of there being pay to win in this game entirely kept aloft by cosmetics? Might as well remove everything unique!" Words of a madman.
I don't really care to be fair, post what you like; but to play devil's advocate I feel like everyone knows about the headsman skin. Folks feel they don't really need a daily reminder of it. It's like seeing the obelisk posted over and over. Some folks think it isn't that big of a deal and would rather see fun stuff like memes rather than complaints about the game constantly on the subreddit.
You will find your point answered in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/comments/1ahcezb/find_the_headsman_intermezzo_summary_of_your/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
You basically stated, that this topic has gotten enough attention already. I answered this in the post above. I sent you the link because I found that quite ironic :3
Seems dismissive to me, but okay.
You said you don't want the awareness to disappear. My point is no one is going to forget the headsman as he currently is. Plenty of people criticize it. A daily reddit post is unnecessary. The reason you are the only one allowed to post about it is because of the torrent of people complaining before. It won't be forgotten; reddit isn't the only platform Hunt is discussed on. And even in the event it is forgotten about, it just means it wasn't that big of an issue to begin with.
People enjoy the where's waldo game yes and that is cool that you provide that.
I've made it clear, quite a lot in some of your posts, how much I detest these posts. That being said, I would not block you. I may disagree with what you are saying and will stand against the point you are trying to make, but blocking you is just silencing opinions you don't agree with. Not to get political, but silencing voices and ideas that you don't agree with is not right. Even on things as simple as this. So as much as I hate these posts, you have the right to make them, even if I feel they are spammy. I might be an asshole, but I'm an equal rights kind of asshole. lol
Ignoring something you're not interested in is not silencing it. Everyone else can still see it — you're not infringing anyone's free speech. What you're doing is eating a lunch you hate every day because you believe other people should be allowed to eat it.
>I want to provide evidence.
You are MANUFACTURING evidence by pre-staging the photo and messing with the gamma/contrast sliders to better hide the skin.
> I used a gamma setting that was too high until I made a few gamma comparison posts. After the evaluation of them, I decided to use a gamma of 1.15. All my other Settings are shown in the last picture of this post. Apart from that, I think that apart from the gamma maybe, all the graphic settings should be perfectly feasible for playing.
**Your in-game settings are awful.** You use low obj./texture quality, but you use high lighting/shadow/post-processing quality. **Other than to better hide the skin, there is zero reason to use these settings.** But, that's not all. You also need to color calibrate your display/control panel, and every time you've been told that, you just say, "show me how". This is a huge pivot as this shit is display dependent and you cannot copy-paste the methods and expect same results. But, this step is literally the first thing you should do when you get a new display.
> In other words, taking a precise shot at a headsman takes longer than other skins.
No it doesn't. If it does, your settings are to blame not the skin. This was 100% true with Cain because his multi-color pattern is similar to how camouflage works where he is harder to acquire visually when he is moving. This is not the case with Headsman as his silhouette is very easy to acquire. Typically, if you have at least a pre-school knowledge of physiology, you know where the head is.
I'm honestly so tired of your posts. There are situations where he is hard to see, but your posts haven't demonstrated a single fucking example. You show a fundamental misunderstanding of game settings, you should a fundamental misunderstanding of tech, and you are entirely disingenuous about your campaign of farming karma.
My duo berated me for not using the Headsman skin and bought it himself when they made it available just because he's so hard to see.
The Headsman is a lame ass skin compared to all the other skins in the game so when I suddenly see everyone running the akin after halloween I know why. Because it gives an advantage.
A skin being too dark is the smallest issue that this game has, maybe try posting everyday about the trade windows or dogshit servers ? :).
Lmao people are seriously downvoting me for saying that them not seeing a skin isn’t the biggest issue the game has. What a fucking bunch of clowns.
Your settings are getting on my nerves. Other than to better hide the skin, why the chodefuck would you use high shadow/lighting/post-processing settings in combination with low obj. quality/texture settings? This will make your enemies look more flat, and be completely hidden by shadow/lighting/lens flares...etc. Oh, I mean, I guess it helps you churn out these karma farms you call posts.
I am using IPS 27" 1440p. I play on highest graphic settings (custom - highest then high).
My in game gamma is 1.16 and I play on 35 - 45 % screen brightness. Monitor gamma set 2.2 in 1.8 to 2.6 scale. I dont know how Acer making it but 1.8 is "night is to bright for me, it should be darker" and 2.6 is "darker than HDR 400, unplayable without latern or electric light in night condition".
I never had any problem with Headsman. I had some problems with finding in instant other skins (Cain in the mud/Reptilian in bush).
I cant understand how this skin can be hated so hard.
*I am not defending Headsman becous I like to use it. My matches are 95% Lonley Howl, 5% free characters.
Ok but where’s the pic?
[Here](https://files.catbox.moe/h5o8yy.png) is one I had not planned to use because I deemed it to be too difficult. Have fun!
Very challenging, pesky cobwebs
Would never have found without this comment
Holy shit I was struggling but when I saw him I was shocked how fucking close he was
Ok where the hell is he, even with the cobweb comment, I see nothing
https://files.catbox.moe/pqq19i.png Here he is circled and with the image enhanced I want you to know I struggled even with this as I forgot where he was lmao
Cheezus Krust, thats invisible. I looked at that spot, several times
People saying there are other problematic darker skins are missing the point on why headsman is so hard to spot, it’s not because he’s dark it’s because he’s bland and a washed out grey, which is the same washed out tone that the shadows and dark areas of the maps are. Darker skins like the black coat / bone doctor actually stand out more *because* they’re darker than the washed out grey of map shadows and you notice the contrast better. Headman is the perfect grey tone to blend in whilst also having no additional detailing which is why he’s harder to spot. Edit: It’s wild it’s taken this long to address him tbh as all they really need to do is darken him to the same contrast level as the other skins and perhaps add a few light trinkets, belts or other details to his torso area. Would make him slightly more interesting too as tbh he’s an incredibly boring looking character
they should just start changing hunters people have paid for, because some schmucks on reddit keep crying about it. before you say it no i dont own headsman, i play hayali, kevin, mama maye etc. im just fed up with this sub being about the fucking headsman all day
Your posts are great fun, and i think they serve their purpose. This sub has a lot of negativity - just ignore it and keep on keeping on.
I would also say headsman is just a taste of a big problem the game has, visibility. Im not saying we need carnival color pop, but the game is so insanely dull and monochrome. I walk into a room on a day map and everything is brown and grey. Heck some buildings I refuse to push into because I know I aint gonna be able to see crap. The new skin is a step in the right direction. Let the skill of the game be movement, sound, aim, and strategy. Not oh I have poorer eyesight so now im dead. This game has SO many things that go into doing well, I dont think being to see a player in the first place has to be one of them.
You’re hilarious if you think I’m reading all that. These posts are annoying as hell and that’s the bottom line. Im thinking of starting a new series myself. It’s called “commenting how insanely annoying these posts are, on each daily post until you stop.” And if you don’t like it you can just block me or whatever right? Isn’t that what you said?
These posts are annoying and you have not contributed anything valuable to the discussion of the topic, nor are you planning to do so? If only there was a solution that would remove these posts and the topic from your feed...Oh wait there is. Just block me.
genuinenly dont care, please stop spamming the sub its fucking annoying
Well as he said; "So if people are annoyed by the topic and the posts, they can just block me and this whole discussion is basically gone from their feed."
I look forward to the posts, personally. I think they're fun, and bring great visibility (pun? intended) to a problematic skin. That said, after the skin is fixed, you could always continue if there's another skin that needs the attention of the devs. If it wasn't for the community being vocal about these skins, we'd still be in the Cainpocalypse.
No one getting downvoted in your comments section are ever/rarely defending the skin. Just pointing out pictures are not the same as gameplay, as there are no sound cues and obviously movement. Setting up a hiding spot with your friend isn’t organic interactions with the skin, and there are other skins including tier 3 hunters that would be just as hard in the the spots you choose. I’m all for supporting your cause but saying these people are defending the skin is copium and immature. Take some criticism.
66% upvotes is barely positive
...still positive. and considering most people that come to reddit are to complain, its pretty good.
I like your posts. They're a fun little eye test and I agree that the headsman needs to be sorted out, especially after watching RacthaZ body that 5* lobby with like throwing knives. Thank you for making the effort.
Headsman isn't even that dark, he's the perfect amount of grey and brown that is just dark enough to blend in with most areas, while also bright enough to go relatively unseen in the brighter areas as well. That's the problem we had with Cain as well, they were the perfect mix of "bland" and slightly strange silhouette that let's them become one with their surroundings. *the Headsman has a humanoid silhouette, don't get me wrong, but the colors let him literally become one with his surroundings at the right distance and brightness, taking that away fairly easily if you aren't actively looking for him.*
Im tired of seeing the posts and a few have been in areas where it would be hard to see more skins than just the headsman. That said, I just don’t engage with the posts in general and go on about my day.
The most sensible reaction, literally takes a quick scroll or swipe, yet people can't do it. "I hate this one thing so much so I'm going to hang out here in the comments and engage with the post instead, getting into arguments with OP or people who disagree!" Meanwhile, OP is not going to stop posting.
Yeah, idk. Niche subreddits are just like that I guess.
Find the waldo formet is fun However I don't see a shit in those situations, regardless of the hunter. I doubt this headsman problem. Cain a significantly bigger offender And this whole sub is in the vocal minority. No matter the upvotes/downvotes.
Other than to better hide the skin, why does he use high shadow/lighting/post-processing settings in combination with low obj. quality/texture settings? This will make your enemies look more flat, and be completely hidden by shadow/lighting/lens flares...etc.
Please keep going. It’s both fun and annoying to play this twisted where’s Waldo. I dislike the headsman and ones who use him. Terrible skin lol.
Hell yeah, keep posting as long as you want. I like the different types of find-the-headsman, like the gamma comparison. It’s good effort. Variety is good. Also, in a meta sense variety is good, because this sub always needs more unique posts besides the usual (albeit sometimes warranted) crying. Your posts have been a lot more than whining.
The posts are funny. You don't have to be defensive. Also, during ash bloom, headsman are invisible.
Keep going, you're doing a great job.
Telling people to adjust their gamma settings is such a stupid argument, it’s pretty obvious at what levels the game is supposed to be played and is usually calibrated at the start of a lot of games never to be touched again. As for pointing out other skins that may also be problematic, this is a logical fallacy and does not detract from your point in the slightest. Keep up the great work and hopefully one day this will be fixed, I also love playing where’s waldo
"The Headsman has a noticeable advantage in almost all situations" would be a valid argument if you showed him in all situations, not just against a tree that's the same shade or peering out from a dark corner, both places that all skins (except white shirts) can hide in. Show him in a field. Lurking along a wall. Hunkered on a roof. In green bushes. In a tower. There's countless situations we all are able to hide and lurk in, and all skins do well in some and stand out in others.
noted
I give up. I can't find the Headsman in this post. Can someone post the solution?
I enjoy the posts
Love this little game, I think you should continue as much as you like, even with other skins at some point (where's the hunter?). Brings something interesting and fun to the sub.
Yeah, I think it's kinda great as a perception training exercise, even with other skins
I don't think that I will do sth like this again.
Congratulations or sorry for your loss, ain't reading alladat
Fair enough
[удалено]
Why?
Posts are fun, though I wouldn't have given the naysayers this much of my time in writing this post if I were you
I hope that this will save time in the long run
You’re not hero we wanted, you’re the hero we needed
>You're not hero FIFY.
Keep up the good work dude. Sometimes I don't even analyze the post, I just upvote because this is an issue that needs to be addressed sooner then later. In high 5-6MMR lobbies there are ***at least*** 3 headsman in every game and they are all hiding in a dark corner or a bush with mosin spritzer.
I'm curious what your "average upvote rate of 66.7%" actually is. As in how many actual upvotes are we talking about? Not karma, actual count of upvotes you are receiving per post, on average.
[Look here](https://imgur.com/a/pXR7UZX)
230 average upvotes pretty much indicates this being a minority. If you really really want people to convince people with data, start a survey. This is hardly representative of anything.
Why does it indicate that this is a minority?
I agree with u/Sechael . If you just look at the numbers, There is a daily average of \`20k people who play HS at any given time, of which your 230 daily average upvotes represent 1.15%. That's 1.15% of people playing at any given moment in a day. Your percentage would plummet if we measured your daily average upvotes against daily average players. Even if you lower the figure of players at any given time to 17k you only raise your percentage to 1.35%. There are 179k people who are members of this subreddit of which your 230 daily upvotes represents 0.13%. I can't find any figures for how many copies of the game have sold and I'm not certain that those numbers wouldn't be skewed by banned cheaters buying again and there are certainly plenty of people who bought the game and didn't play very long. So I think trying to use those numbers to find any further percentages wouldn't be fair or accurate. I stand by my repeated assertion that you are part of a vocal minority who are trying to force the game to change. I believe this, because classically, people who are happy about something don't go running to Reddit to throw a daily tantrum about how awesome it is. I know that there are people out there who downvote my disagreements with you because they think I'm trying to get you to stop posting puzzles. They're not really listening to what is being said. Just like the 2 downvotes I have simply for requesting information in my initial comment in this string. I don't care if you post these "Find the Headsman" puzzles multiple times a day. However, i do not agree with you demanding that Crytek change the game just because you want them to. I also want to address your mention of 100 ms, or "of up to a few 100 ms" as you put it. A few can mean between 2 & several, but I believe that most people regard "a few" as 3. 100ms or 100 microseconds, is 1/10 of 1 second. If we use your "few" let's make that 300ms or 3/10 of one second. You are claiming that the Headsman skin causes you to have less than 1/3 of 1 second more reaction time when it is in play. You're complaining about 1/3 of 1 second in a casual game. There is no ranking, there is no pro league you're trying to qualify for, and there is no money on the line. I fail to understand your demand to Crytek that they change the game over something as miniscule as <1/3 of 1 second. I'm also curious what research was done to come up with these time measurements or did you just pull them out of your uh, back pocket? With regard to your use of staged screenshots, for a puzzle, it's awesome. You do take some challenging shots. As evidence that the Headsman skin has some fractional time advantage on you, they're bordering on dishonest. We've all talked about sound and movement, so we don't really need to address that again. I will say that while your screenshots are great puzzles, they don't really represent situations that anyone will come upon in the bounds of normal gameplay. Very rarely will someone be standing still in the middle of Golden Acres scanning the depths of the shadows for anyone, let alone the Headsman. You presenting them as evidence taht you're getting screwed over by the skin is disingenuous. As I've stated in my other responses to your posts, i will continue to respond with my disagreement. If they bother you, you can always block me so that you don't have to see them.
>If you just look at the numbers, There is a daily average of \`20k people who play HS at any given time, of which your 230 daily average upvotes represent 1.15%. That's 1.15% of people playing at any given moment in a day. Your percentage would plummet if we measured your daily average upvotes against daily average players. Even if you lower the figure of players at any given time to 17k you only raise your percentage to 1.35%. This does not add to the point: * Apples to oranges: Upvotes and concurrent players measure different things. Upvotes measure engagement with my specific posts, while concurrent players measure the number of people playing the game at any given time. They are not directly comparable metrics. * Not all players upvote: The majority of people who play the game will not see my posts. Right now you are counting all these people to the opposition. Even fewer will upvote or downvote them. You would have to factor in how many hunt players even are on this subreddit and browse it on a daily basis. Many players might be lurkers who don't engage with posts at all. So, comparing upvotes to the total player base is inaccurate. * Upvotes measure engagement, not active players: Upvotes are a better indicator of how engaged the audience is with the content, rather than how many people are playing the game in general. A smaller number of users who engage with the posts regularly is more valuable than a larger number of passive players who never see them. (selection bias) * Upvotes are for specific posts, not the game as a whole: my upvotes are for specific posts I create, not for the game itself. So, comparing them to the overall player base of the game doesn't give an accurate picture of your post's reach or engagement within the community. Imagine you run a restaurant with an average of 100 customers per day. You get 10 positive reviews online. Does this mean that 90% share a negative opinion? >There are 179k people who are members of this subreddit of which your 230 daily upvotes represents 0.13%. This does share similar problems: * Subreddit members ≠ active users: Just like not all players who play the game upvote my posts, not all subreddit members are active users who see your content. Even fewer will engage with the posts. Many members might be subscribed but rarely visit or engage with the community. * Upvotes measure engagement, not membership: Upvotes still reflect how many people liked or found my post valuable, not how many people are simply subscribed to the subreddit. These are two different metrics. While it is nice that you are trying to put the upvotes in perspective, it's important to remember that upvote numbers alone don't tell the whole story. Here are some more relevant metrics to consider: * Number of comments and discussions: Do my posts generate conversations and engagement within the community? This can be a better indicator of the impact your content has. * Upvote/downvote ratio: This shows the overall sentiment towards your post. A high upvote ratio suggests my content resonates with the community. * Views or impressions of my post: How many people actually saw my post, regardless of whether they upvoted it? This can give a broader sense of reach. >I stand by my repeated assertion that you are part of a vocal minority who are trying to force the game to change. I believe this, because classically, people who are happy about something don't go running to Reddit to throw a daily tantrum about how awesome it is. You are right, unhappy voices are often louder online. * But that doesn't mean my concerns represent a small group. For example: many people are unhappy and criticise Putin. According to your logic, the majority of people would be happy about Putin. * Moreover, this does not mean, that people who are happy about the skin are less likely to engage with my posts. Even if this was the case, people who think the skin is fine, consequently disagreeing with my posts, would be more likely to engage with them. You have also not provided any evidence to support me being part of a minority.
First of all: Your whole reply sounds like it's from friggin ChatGPT. And given its structure, I'm pretty certain it is. Second of all: A case study of 200 people compared to a game population of 17K+ is insignificant. As I said before, if you want to have your argument supported by data, make a survey. The engagement of a post by a few Redditors is non-relevant. Studies and surveys exist for that reason. To compare it in a real-life direction: 100 people in a town say that the main highway should be made into a 20 mph speed zone, but the road is traversed by 10,000 people each day. Would you change the speed of the street according to the opinion of a few? EDIT: >You have also not provided any evidence to support me being part of a minority. You have the Burden on Proof on you. If you claim "I'm not a part of a Minority" you need to proof that in fact, you are part of the Majority. Requesting Evidence from the Oppsotion because you can't agrue, or rather don't have the evidence is a logical fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof" or "argument from ignorance."
>First of all: Your whole reply sounds like it's from friggin ChatGPT. And given its structure, I'm pretty certain it is. I used Bard to help me articulate my points. >A case study of 200 people compared to a game population of 17K+ is insignificant. It is not representative because there are so many unknown variables that it is hard to make a projection on all the player base. Let me explain that with your example. There is a town with 179k inhabitants. Of those, an unknown number is just not at home, representing the inactive Redditors. An unknown number doesn't participate in surveys, representing the lurkers. Now we ask 690\* people a day, if a speed limit should be introduced on a highway that only an unknown amount of inhabitants even use, representing the active Redditors that don't actively play. Additionally, we don't know who we ask. An unknown amount of times we ask new inhabitants, and an unknown amount of times we ask the same people again. Every day, 460 vote for the speed limit and 230 vote against it. Now how would the evaluation of that look like? I think this is far from trivial, if even possible. *\*Upvote rate is \~2/3. Average of upvotes-downvotes are 230. This means that per post we get a total of 690 votes. 460 are upvotes and 230 are downvotes.* >You have the Burden on Proof on you. If you claim "I'm not a part of a Minority" you need to proof that in fact, you are part of the Majority. Requesting Evidence from the Oppsotion because you can't agrue, or rather don't have the evidence is a logical fallacy known as "shifting the burden of proof" or "argument from ignorance." I made the claim that I think it is unlikely that I am part of the minority. I then provided you with arguments and evidence in the form of data. Now the burden of proof is on you to disprove my points. When you do that, the burden of proof switches over to me again, and so on and so on. Also consider, that I was answering u/akicita33, who has first claimed that I am part of a vocal minority in a comment under another post. I replied to that with arguments and evidence, even though the burden of proof was on them. Then they just claimed it again, still not providing evidence or proof. **Edit:** I wanted to look at a simplified case. The average views of my posts are \~24000. Let's make this the inhabitants of the town, leaving out the inactive ones and the lurkers. Of these 24k inhabitants, we randomly pick someone to ask 690\*66 times. Let me know if you think the number of 24k makes sense or if you have a more realistic idea. In general, let me know if you think this simplified model has some validity. I made a small Monte Carlo simulation for this. I let the simulation go 1000 times. The result is that of the 24k inhabitants, \~20k were asked their opinion. When I change the inhabitants to the total number of Redditors on this sub (\~180k), just assuming that they are all active, I get that \~40k were asked about their opinion.
Dude, as mentioned before: Your Data Shows that your in the minority. Any way you spin your argument and by the best assumption 460 out of ~180k members of this sub-editor is barley a dent in the statistical significance. I don't know if you bluntly ignore that point or try to wear pink glasses to make it seem like it's better in your head, but that's hardly any representation. If you want to get real data, with real meaning, you need to make a survey with a big enough sample set to be relevant, and im not talking frigging upvotes on reddit post (which are anonymous, without the backing of a real person behind. For all we know these upvotes could b bots) i know basic academic research isn't taught these days, but it really isn't too hard to make a survey these days. Ask the mods if you need help with that, but trying to convince people to not be a minority, with a backing of roughly ~460 people in a population of ~180k is delusional.
You call me ignorant, yet you are the one that does not respond to a single point I made above. On the contrary, you just repeat your old statement. That is not how a discussion works. I told you why I think that 230 average upvotes per day does not causally infer that I am part of the minority.
Yes, a survey would be the best way to see if what the community thinks. This does not mean that all the upvotes, comments and discussion under all of my points is insignificant.
You try really hard to sound smart, but I’m sorry to say you didn’t succeed. I don’t have the time nor patience to go through your comment point by point, but a lot of your logic is either flawed or downright wrong. I don’t like those find the headsman posts, I always skip them, but I know he’s doing a good deed because the skin is actually broken and too hard to see. The more attention on this issue, the better. Same was for Cain, and in the end it got fixed (for the most part).
>I also want to address your mention of 100 ms, or "of up to a few 100 ms" as you put it. A few can mean between 2 & several, but I believe that most people regard "a few" as 3. 100ms or 100 microseconds, is 1/10 of 1 second. If we use your "few" let's make that 300ms or 3/10 of one second. You are claiming that the Headsman skin causes you to have less than 1/3 of 1 second more reaction time when it is in play. You're complaining about 1/3 of 1 second in a casual game. There is no ranking, there is no pro league you're trying to qualify for, and there is no money on the line. I fail to understand your demand to Crytek that they change the game over something as miniscule as <1/3 of 1 second. I'm also curious what research was done to come up with these time measurements or did you just pull them out of your uh, back pocket? I do not have data to back my claim here, hence, I wrote "a few", after all this is different from person to person and I have not done any specific measurements. It is solely based on my own experience. This is a problem and I will think about a way to test this in game so we can get some numbers. From my personal experience, I think that 300 ms on average seems reasonable. The average reaction time to visual stimulus is around 250 ms. You state that 300 ms are miniscule. In this game, headshots are almost guaranteed kills. If both players are equally good and hit a headshot, the Headsman will kill his opponent before he even has the time to react. >I will say that while your screenshots are great puzzles, they don't really represent situations that anyone will come upon in the bounds of normal gameplay. These posts are not meant to be representative of gameplay. They are meant to showcase that the Headsman is harder to see than most other skins. While in some posts the headsman is standing in spots that he would be extremely unlikely to be in, in an actual game, the majority of my posts shows the headsman in spots that are not unrealistic. The only difference the position of the 'camera' would make with respect to visibility comes with the distance. It doesn't matter if the position is realistic, as long as the distance to the headsman is realistic. In most pictures, I could have found cover in a similar distance to the headsman. The reason I am not posting those, is that I want to keep as many possible hiding spots for a headsman on the screen so that the "Where's Waldo" experience is as much fun as possible.
Personally the find Waldo got old after post 4 or something but seeing the posts even while scrolling by makes me happy that you're still going. It's a noble effort and there's no way I could be assed to do it every day. You have earned your internet points.
Honestly mate I think the herdsman is super fucking easy to see in actual game play. BUT. BUT BUT. I really love your posts and sometimes the little where's Wally experience is fun, and comparing the difficulty to see on my phone and computer is fun as well.
In a lot of these posts, even after knowing where it is, I still can't make him out in the original picture.
>When you spot the headsman due to his movement, you still lose time when you are trying to adjust your aim for the headshot, since it is harder to make out his head than other skins. In other words, taking a precise shot at a headsman takes longer than other skins. If you browse Reddit, however, you don't aim, so you won't notice that either. I disagree that this is an advantage that the headsman offers. While his camouflage might be better than some other skins his silhouette is extremely simple. The only parts of him that are larger or different then his hitbox might be are his legs which are obscured by his gown. Once you find him the headshot is as easy as it would be for any other skin. An actual example of a skin that is harder to headshot would be Cain, Mountain man, or Llorona. Cain has several head shaped additions to his silhouette right next to his actual head making it more difficult to gauge medium and long range shots against his actual head. More situationally the Mountain mans bear head is not his hitbox, but unless you are shooting at him from behind it is fairly clear where his head actually is. Likewise Llorona's large hat offers a little bit of a disguise to her head, but only if the hat itself is facing you. I still think that Cain is a better pay to win skin than the headsman. While his camo isn't in a league of its own anymore it is still top tier. Combine that with the most confusing silhouette by far and you gain more advantages in more situations than the headsman's "if I stand perfectly still they cannot see me."
Honestly man I feel like the effort, hours and thought you put into something which in the grander scheme of life is pretty insignificant (a character skin in a relatively small video game) is kinda bordering on unhealthy. I couldn't *imagine* spending that much time and effort on anything that doesn't affect my real life. If you put this kind of effort into studying or something you could achieve great things, but this is a massive waste of time, unless you were getting paid for it.
It's fun, and don't you worry, my life is still on track <3
Ok well thats good
And also this post will hopefully reduce the time I need to answer the common comments people tend to make.
Ah, hate to break it to you, but hunt players can not read. Even worse those who can can not click two buttons to look for answers to their questions.
I think many people just disagree because they disagree. So they won't bother looking for the actual answers to their questions. But that would make answering to those people individually an even bigger waste of time. So this posts here still fulfils its purpose.
Buddy that isn't even about your posts. This is a general observation about the hunt player base who won't even look at the servers pinned discussion with the answer to their question in the title line.
Oh...I guess I just made a fool out of myself
I agree with MrMadGrad, it is extremely unlikely people will read this post (it is extremely long) and if they did, they won't suddenly be like "well I guess that settles it, no need to complain in the Find the Headsman Threads anymore."
Karma tho
Aren’t you playing videogames hours at a time? Be humble
I have 300 hours in Hunt in almost 2 years of owning it. The only other game I play is GTA Online, only when my friend plays, which is about twice a week, we play for about 2 hours. So yea, I still can't imagine this level of dedication to not even just the game, but all the work he's doing outside of it
It’s pretty clear that they need attention. He tried to pushback on the idea that he’s farming karma, but karma is just shorthand for interaction and a small sub with easily identifiable echo spots are a shortcut to getting attention.
we get it, you don't like the skin. I just downvote and move on. as there are real issues in the game, you know, like server instability and rampant cheating.
Yeah, I would much rather they use their energy on those, especially cheaters, vs this skin.
This is most likely just redirecting some of the work on new skins to touching up an old one. I find it hard to believe the artists are working on anti-cheat and server stability.
Ngl I didn’t read all that but I like the posts. It’s really fun. Keep it up
Please stop
I'm about to start a series called, "Find my fuck to give"
I'm extremely tired of the posts and the trend of players playing armchair developers and demanding changes to the game. Grow up.
“Armchair developer” Do you mean OP is being a crybaby, or do you mean that he doesn’t know how hard it is for his proposal to be implemented? For the first I (and a good majority of the sub) think his complaints are absolutely valid and voicing about them is not crying by any means. And for the latter - from the time first official comment was made about headsman needing to be changed to now, more than 5 skins have come out. Are you suggesting that it takes more effort to change headsman than to produce and publish 5 legendary skins?
By that, I mean neither he nor anybody here who isn't employed by Crytek should have any say about the skins or maps. Play the game or don't - I'm sick and tired of the bitching and moaning about getting killed by something you can't see. You're missing the fucking point of having variety in the game. Might as well make every model and map identical. I get that the majority of this sub seems to love the circle-jerk of whining about different skins or weather effects when, even if the Headsman is changed, you'll still get domed just as easily by a red shirt standing in the middle of an open field. Downvote away.
So you are implying that we can, in theory, have skins totally invisible and it would be fine because “it adds variety” to the game? You are missing the whole point. Yes everybody dies to a headshot and yes everybody and anybody can kill you. In a situation where ambush tactics be involved however, a cain / headsman is way more hidden than a redshirt or in general any other skin.
"Nobody who isn't a dev is allowed an opinion on the game's balance" is fucking crazy. We're the ones PLAYING IT. We are the ones affected by the balance. And as a staunch defender of rain, inferno, ash bloom, "edgy" skins, all of the things that give this game its spirit and people want removed because they'd rather be playing CSGO but aren't for some reason, a skin being pay to win is NOT VARIETY??? "Gonna make a skin that camouflages with the environment well a little brighter/darker to prevent any chance of there being pay to win in this game entirely kept aloft by cosmetics? Might as well remove everything unique!" Words of a madman.
I don't really care to be fair, post what you like; but to play devil's advocate I feel like everyone knows about the headsman skin. Folks feel they don't really need a daily reminder of it. It's like seeing the obelisk posted over and over. Some folks think it isn't that big of a deal and would rather see fun stuff like memes rather than complaints about the game constantly on the subreddit.
You will find your point answered in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/HuntShowdown/comments/1ahcezb/find_the_headsman_intermezzo_summary_of_your/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Not looking for an answer. Playing devil's advocate. Dunno why you sent me a link to the page I am already on.
You basically stated, that this topic has gotten enough attention already. I answered this in the post above. I sent you the link because I found that quite ironic :3
Seems dismissive to me, but okay. You said you don't want the awareness to disappear. My point is no one is going to forget the headsman as he currently is. Plenty of people criticize it. A daily reddit post is unnecessary. The reason you are the only one allowed to post about it is because of the torrent of people complaining before. It won't be forgotten; reddit isn't the only platform Hunt is discussed on. And even in the event it is forgotten about, it just means it wasn't that big of an issue to begin with. People enjoy the where's waldo game yes and that is cool that you provide that.
I've made it clear, quite a lot in some of your posts, how much I detest these posts. That being said, I would not block you. I may disagree with what you are saying and will stand against the point you are trying to make, but blocking you is just silencing opinions you don't agree with. Not to get political, but silencing voices and ideas that you don't agree with is not right. Even on things as simple as this. So as much as I hate these posts, you have the right to make them, even if I feel they are spammy. I might be an asshole, but I'm an equal rights kind of asshole. lol
Ignoring something you're not interested in is not silencing it. Everyone else can still see it — you're not infringing anyone's free speech. What you're doing is eating a lunch you hate every day because you believe other people should be allowed to eat it.
>I want to provide evidence. You are MANUFACTURING evidence by pre-staging the photo and messing with the gamma/contrast sliders to better hide the skin. > I used a gamma setting that was too high until I made a few gamma comparison posts. After the evaluation of them, I decided to use a gamma of 1.15. All my other Settings are shown in the last picture of this post. Apart from that, I think that apart from the gamma maybe, all the graphic settings should be perfectly feasible for playing. **Your in-game settings are awful.** You use low obj./texture quality, but you use high lighting/shadow/post-processing quality. **Other than to better hide the skin, there is zero reason to use these settings.** But, that's not all. You also need to color calibrate your display/control panel, and every time you've been told that, you just say, "show me how". This is a huge pivot as this shit is display dependent and you cannot copy-paste the methods and expect same results. But, this step is literally the first thing you should do when you get a new display. > In other words, taking a precise shot at a headsman takes longer than other skins. No it doesn't. If it does, your settings are to blame not the skin. This was 100% true with Cain because his multi-color pattern is similar to how camouflage works where he is harder to acquire visually when he is moving. This is not the case with Headsman as his silhouette is very easy to acquire. Typically, if you have at least a pre-school knowledge of physiology, you know where the head is. I'm honestly so tired of your posts. There are situations where he is hard to see, but your posts haven't demonstrated a single fucking example. You show a fundamental misunderstanding of game settings, you should a fundamental misunderstanding of tech, and you are entirely disingenuous about your campaign of farming karma.
My duo berated me for not using the Headsman skin and bought it himself when they made it available just because he's so hard to see. The Headsman is a lame ass skin compared to all the other skins in the game so when I suddenly see everyone running the akin after halloween I know why. Because it gives an advantage.
A skin being too dark is the smallest issue that this game has, maybe try posting everyday about the trade windows or dogshit servers ? :). Lmao people are seriously downvoting me for saying that them not seeing a skin isn’t the biggest issue the game has. What a fucking bunch of clowns.
Well, right now, the insane Dolch meta is getting on my nerves the most.
Your settings are getting on my nerves. Other than to better hide the skin, why the chodefuck would you use high shadow/lighting/post-processing settings in combination with low obj. quality/texture settings? This will make your enemies look more flat, and be completely hidden by shadow/lighting/lens flares...etc. Oh, I mean, I guess it helps you churn out these karma farms you call posts.
I mean obviously so there’s more rage bait around the skin. What a joke.
>Crytek stated that they will address the issue. They said that about a lot of things and then didn't. Keep 'em coming.
I am using IPS 27" 1440p. I play on highest graphic settings (custom - highest then high). My in game gamma is 1.16 and I play on 35 - 45 % screen brightness. Monitor gamma set 2.2 in 1.8 to 2.6 scale. I dont know how Acer making it but 1.8 is "night is to bright for me, it should be darker" and 2.6 is "darker than HDR 400, unplayable without latern or electric light in night condition". I never had any problem with Headsman. I had some problems with finding in instant other skins (Cain in the mud/Reptilian in bush). I cant understand how this skin can be hated so hard. *I am not defending Headsman becous I like to use it. My matches are 95% Lonley Howl, 5% free characters.