Survivors! We continue to share our comments to your feedback on the game balance. This is the final part of the comments.
We have not changed the wording of your suggestions, retaining the authors’ original spelling and grammar. We have also tried not to publish repeated or similar questions and answers, and did not consider suggestions that violated the established rules of writing.
1. Punji (fences). Their weakness as an independent weapon, that is, their dependence on builds. The thing is that fences are almost exclusively used on special builds, which can catch enemies (a U-shaped build) and prevent them from moving, then surround them with fences. And as for the fences themselves, they're not very good... Do they stop enemies? Yes. But if they don't, they don't really pose a threat.
2. Why do I think this is a problem... I don't want to be harsh, the weapon is very unusual and interesting in the way it changes the battlefield! It works well to stop the red wave of enemies by blocking their escape routes and allowing allies to save themselves (works great against “toilet” movement), but unfortunately, smart players understand that the fences are not that dangerous, and they either easily break one stake and drive through (if there is only one Punji), or take a risk and simply drive through the fence (!).
3. When passing through the fence, the armoured car should take periodic damage to all parts for a certain amount of time, and the higher the speed of the enemy armoured car, the greater the damage afterwards. And the more the enemy comes into contact with the fences, the less damage they will take. (While retaining the previous parameters and perks, of course). This will prevent players from using special builds to deal constant high damage with fences.
As for the stakes...
The stakes can be given more HP. Or you can add a couple more stakes to be automatically installed between the first one and the second last one (with one Punji module). This way, enemies will stay at the fences longer to deal with the stakes...
Additional ideas for Punji:
You can make it so that the longer the fences are activated, the more damage they will deal to passing armoured cars (Naturally, there will be less damage at the very beginning.) This way, U-shaped builds lose their usefulness.
Another idea is to make the fences transparent, and as soon as an enemy passes through them, the invisibility of the fences is reset to really surprise the enemies.
P.S. I shared a couple of ideas, and if you want, you can add something to them, remove something, or maybe mix them up, and maybe something good will come of it, I don't know...
It's a shame about the weapon that changes the battlefield and makes the game more interesting, but is so useless...
Comment: thank you for the interesting suggestions, but unfortunately technical nuances severely limit the possibility of implementing them. We will look into other ways to make driving through the “Punji” field less safe.
1. Drones AD-12 Falcon, AD-13 Hawk, MD-3 Owl
2. Low efficiency in comparison with other support weapons
3. Since adding damage is dangerous because it can cause a new wave of “drone carriers,” my idea is to add a custom invisibility module like the SD-15 Vulture drone. Unlike the legendary drone, invisibility can be limited in time. This should be similar to the duration of the invisibility modules for the Beholder cabin (for AD-12 Falcon), Chameleon (for AD-13 Hawk) and Chameleon MK2 (for MD-3 Owl). This will allow you to deal damage from stealth for a while, compensating for the weak damage. This will result in particularly interesting gameplay with the Beholder cabin. This will allow you to attack the enemy while being completely invisible (including drones) for several seconds. The enemy will first need to understand (pay attention to the “halo” of invisibility) where the attack is coming from. This will deal additional damage to inattentive players, but experienced survivors will be able to shoot down drones as before...
Comment: thank you for this interesting suggestion, we will test the possibility of adding this feature as a perk for “MD-3 Owl” and “AD-13 Hawk”. However, in the case of “AD-12 Falcon”, we believe that such a feature would be excessive.
1. Weapons stop firing in burst mode and immediately reload when blocked by parts.
2. The Devourer is the only weapon in the game that can continue firing in burst mode after being blocked by parts if less than 2 seconds have passed. Because of this, other weapons that do not have this feature (such as Jormungandr, Cricket, Locust, Athena, etc.) must be mounted on builds so that other parts don’t ever block them (leading to “bunker” and “fire slit” builds), which means that such weapons can only be used well with omnidirectional movement parts. If you have wheels, you can't use Jormungandr well, because you spin around the enemy, blocking your own weapon, and because of this, you don't deal full damage to the enemy.
3. Add this devourer feature to all weapons that fire in bursts in a single volley.
Comment: this feature is part of the original design of the “Devourer”, as its burst fire is significantly longer than that of any other weapon, and stopping it greatly affects its overall efficiency. Unfortunately, adding this ability is extremely difficult for weapons that were not designed with it in mind.
1. Shields and defenses
2. ALL shields have 2 downsides: limited durability and slow-flying projectiles pass THROUGH the shield. First, there are a lot of weapons that can quickly disable shields, dealing a decent amount of damage to them, and then they simply turn off. Everything is clear with Nova and Aegis shields, but the “Barrier 9” shield is more complicated, as there are no indications that the shield is about to overload, and after that the “drone” just stands around, wasting time.
At the moment, all slow-flying projectiles that can be intercepted are dealt with by means such as Argus, Spark, and Flash, but even they do not always work properly. Argus needs time after launch, it does not immediately begin to attack its targets. Its attack radius is too small, and it does not even manage to shoot down some projectiles, such as Yongwang’s spheres and “Fortune” wheels, and they easily reach their target, even Flash does not always has time to counter them.
3. I suggest the following:
Give a shield durability indicator to all shields, similar to the perks of some movement parts (where the percentage of their perk accumulates from speed) and preferably in percent “%”, as well as, if possible, give the “Barrier 9” drone a perk, for example: the more allies in the shield's area of effect, the faster the shield regenerates its durability, max stack 4
Increase the damage dealt by the “Argus” drone, or reduce the durability of slow-flying projectiles, in exchange for which their damage can be increased.
Comment: we have plans to implement visual display of shield durability in one of the future updates. We will consider other ways to display shield durability if possible. Regarding your suggestions for balance, the current efficiency of shields is sufficient and they do not require additional buffs.
1. Easy ways to raise build’s durability
2. The latest updates added many “half-mesh” parts, such as the mounting bracket, Saya, left and right radiator bonnets, and the like. These parts have a lot of good parameters, making them almost essential for any build.
-Mass to durability ratio: These parts have an unimaginable mass/durability ratio of almost 1/1.
-Form factor: Many of these parts are quite small and easy to use, but in terms of durability, they can compete with larger examples of other structural parts.
-Usability: Due to their high durability and 50% damage let-through, these parts absorb damage well, while also adding a good amount of durability to the build, making them useful in every build, especially those where the cabin takes all the damage.
3. As a solution to this problem, I can suggest reducing the durability that these parts give to the cabin by 50% (for example, instead of adding 100 durability, add 50). At the same time, you can also review the parameters of these parts, especially the “radiator bonnet”, because it has (in my opinion) an impressive amount of durability for such a small model, as well as the PS of the part: in comparison with the “mounting bracket”, the bonnet has 24 less PS, but at the same time 20 more durability.
Comment: we will consider the need to change the parameters of this type of parts.
1. Mines and drone turrets of allies.
2. If you hit them in a wrong way, you either flip over, crash and lose speed, or get stuck on them until they disappear. People with turrets in your team are more annoying than in the enemy team.
3. Disable the collision of allied mines and turrets and prevent them from shooting if they are inside an allied build, so people don't try to place turrets and cover them with their builds as a shield.
Comment: we have already considered the possibility of dividing collisions into friendly and hostile, but rejected it because its implementation would significantly worsen the game’s optimization.
1. Maxwell and Doppler
2. Two modules, different rarity, but unfairly equal energy consumption. In my opinion, if both modules consume 2 energy, then in most cases the player will choose Doppler. Because for the same energy, it is better and more profitable.
3. Give Maxwell 1 energy to increase its competitiveness compared to Doppler, as a radar with 1 energy consumption will be used more often. If both modules consume 2 energy, then the player will almost always choose Doppler. Or maybe it is necessary to make the difference between these modules not through energy, but through their parameters and perks, so that they have almost equal abilities in terms of usefulness, but different in essence.
Comment: both of these modules are popular within their PS ranges, so there is no reason to revise their parameters. If the situation changes in the future, such a change will be possible.
1. Widget wheels and their ability to drive on walls
2. Widget wheels can drive onto vertical walls, causing the build to stand on its rear, and they cling to the walls, often causing the build to flip over. There is a lack of surface traction and some kind of physics that would prevent the wheels from sticking to the walls.
3. Add more stability to the Widget wheels, possibly surface traction, and remove the problem of wheels driving onto vertical walls.
Comment: this problem is caused by the physics of interaction between the “Widget” wheels and the surface on which they move, which differs from other wheels. We have plans to refine the physics of interaction and movement of this movement part.
1. The most global balance issue is the durability of all weapons.
2. Due to the constant inflation of damage (which significantly outpaces any changes in the game related to defense), even the most durable weapons (such as Mastodons) have to be hidden in the so-called “slit” (a meta that has been around for years, where weapons are placed behind the cabin in a slot above each other), because in any other position, even with modules/cabins that increase defense, weapons last only a few seconds and manage to fire one or two volleys or a short burst during their lifetime. Indirectly, this meta has, in principle, devalued the importance of weapon durability, because it is equally difficult to destroy weapons in such builds, regardless of whether they are durable or fragile. In essence, the survivability of weapons in this meta largely depends on the length of their barrel, since the longer the weapon, the more it protrudes from the slit. The Scorpions on a “slit” build are harder to destroy than Typhoons, even though the latter are more durable, simply because Typhoons have a huge barrel that cannot be hidden, and the durability of the weapon is not high enough to compensate for this. In my opinion, from a balance point of view, this has led the game to a dead end, which is why we have had the same concept/engineering solution for builds for years.
Important note: the problem mentioned above is most relevant for ground builds with low mobility; hovers are saved by Nova and their mobility. On the other hand, it is worth acknowledging that the pool of relevant weapons for hover builds is currently quite modest for a number of other reasons not related to this topic.
The problem mentioned above is less relevant for mobile builds with a Fin whale, which gives 50% resistance to weapons, but this gives rise to another problem: many builds are dependent on a single module.
3. I would like to propose several solutions:
3.1. Make the durability of weapons dependent on the total durability of the build (not HP!), so that every n units of total durability add n% units of durability/resistance to the installed weapons.
For example, with a build of 16000 total durability, a bonus to weapon durability is given in the amount of 1.5% per 400 units of total durability. As a result, weapons with this build will receive +60% to weapon durability. !The data and numbers are provided solely as an example of how the mechanics work and are not a proposal for implementation in this form.
3.2. Rework the Averter and Omamori modules.
3.2.1. In the case of the Averter, the resistance value should depend on the medium durability of one unit of weaponry installed on it, so that every n units of durability increase the resistance provided by the Averter by n%.
Example (for weaponry of different durability, as the most complex and clear option): as a baseline, Averter gives 20% resistance to weapons (30% resistance to other attached parts remains unchanged) and for every 50 durability points of the weapon installed on it, it increases the amount of resistance by 2%. So the example build has Typhoon (1045 durability) and Tsunami (903 durability) on the Averter, the medium durability of one unit of weaponry installed on the Averter is 974. As a result, weapons with such medium durability installed on the Averter will receive 59% resistance (rounded). !The data and numbers are provided solely as an example of how the mechanics work and are not a suggestion for direct implementation in this form.
3.2.2. In the case of Omamori, the resistance remains 50%, but the amount of absorbed damage depends on the average durability of one unit of weaponry installed on it, if the durability of the weaponry is greater than n units, so that every n units of durability above that increase the amount of damage absorbed by the Omamori by n%. For balance, you can add a rule that if a cabin and/or modules are attached to Omamori, the bonus amount is reduced.
Example: as a baseline, Omamori absorbs 300 damage. If the durability of the weapons installed on the Omamori is greater than 400, then for every 50 durability units above this value, the amount of absorbed damage increases by 25%. Two Scorpions are installed on the Omamori, the medium durability of one unit of weaponry installed on the Omamori is 552 units, therefore, the Omamori with Scorpions installed on it will absorb 525 damage before being disabled. !The data and numbers are provided solely as an example of how the mechanics work and are not a suggestion for implementation in this form.
Note: in the case of changes related to the parameters of the Averter and Omamori, it will most likely be necessary to disable the symbiosis of these modules with Fin whale. Solution option: when the Fin whale perk is activated, the bonuses from the Averter/Omamori to weapon resistance are disabled.
Comment: we monitor weapon survival statistics and make adjustments as necessary. At this time, we see no reason for global changes in this area. Your suggestions have many “radical” solutions and would create many other balance issues.
1. Low number of points for destroying enemy's weapons in battle.
2. The problem concerns competitive modes, BFU and CW. The focus on weapons, one way or another, during battle IS and WILL BE in these modes.
And in battle, if you destroy weapons of several enemies, you are not awarded even the minimum number of points, I consider this unfair. At least 40 points should be awarded for this, as it is very disappointing to disarm several enemies and not receive a reward for victory and participation in battle, even though your contribution to victory in that battle was very significant...
3. Increase the number of points for destroying enemy weapons, or make the minimum 40 points.
Our comment to a similar suggestion was published here
1. No 1 energy generator.
2. A 1 energy generator must be added. Big G does not always fit the PS, and adds unnecessary energy and extra PS to the build, which could be spent on armor, even if it is a small difference of 100 PS. This will help make builds more focused on durability or help install more suitable modules to fit within a certain PS limit in the case of, for example, BFU or Clan confrontation. A 3 energy generator, as well as 1 energy generator, is necessary not only for low-PS builds, but also for high-PS builds. It makes sense in a game where hardware and cabins have an odd amount of energy.
3. Add a 1 energy generator to the game.
Our comment to a similar suggestion was published here
1. Topic: Assembler.
2. Problem: Reduction in weapon rotation speed during prolonged charging. This debuff makes it difficult to shoot when using an armoured car with directional movement parts (wheels, tracks), even with the Oppressor engine installed.
3. Solution: I suggest removing this debuff from the Assembler. A similar change was previously implemented for the Kaiju weapon.
Comment: we will test this suggestion in one of the upcoming balance changes.
1. Tank tracks are too ineffective compared to other tracks.
2. Tank tracks lack resistance to blast damage, which is present in their counterpart, Armored tracks. Because of this, these tracks are very easy to lose in battle, unlike all other tracks. They also have a very large model, but their durability only increases slightly. Tank gameplay is generally difficult with this track, because you have to be afraid of getting hit, as the track is very easy to destroy, although, as I understand from playing with other tracks, the point of them is that they are quite durable, and the tank track is probably one of the most ineffective in the lineup. This also limits the ability to create effective or beautiful builds with it.
3. Give the tank tracks 25% damage resistance to blast damage. At your discretion, you can also increase its durability by 5-10%.
Comment: we will look into the survival statistics for this track and make changes if necessary.
1. Many parts have no perks
2. In the July update announcement, the development team touched on the topic of hovers not having perks. But many other parts don't have them either — special, epic, legendary, and relic parts: if you take a couple of similar weapons, for example, Mandrake and Heather, Incinerator and Jotun, Porcupine and Ripper, the first weapon in the pair does not have a perk (the mechanics of operation of the weapon itself are written as a perk), while the second one does.
This does not seem entirely fair to those who use parts without perks.
3. Add some perks for parts that do not have them so that they can somehow complement and/or diversify the gaming experience, as was done, for example, for Fortune.
Comment: we have plans to add perks to old parts. Hovers are not an isolated case. New perks are added when there is an opportunity to do so. Speaking of “Mandrake”, “Incinerator”, and “Porcupine”: in the next update, they will receive a perk in the form of increased damage and heating to movement parts, similar to the “Ripper” perk.
1. Rebalance weak/unplayable relic weapons
2. 1) Punisher: significantly increase projectile speed with perk; perk charging is not reset on misses
2) Breaker (and Hammerfall, similar changes): reduce energy to 9 pts. (Without the Aegis + Omamori + Fin whale build, it poses no danger)
3) Jormungandr: each of the 3 shots in a volley charges the perk and can heat up parts; reduce energy to 7.
That is, 2 out of 3 hits of the first volley will have heating (the “drive in, damage, drive out” weapons often only have the first volley to deal full damage, and the weapon does not deal much to groups of parts); Jormungandr is also highly dependent on accuracy (and harmonizers, Omamori, and Aegis. There is no energy for all this, and there won't be, but at least 2 positions would then be filled (for example, 2 harmonizers + Cyclops + Aegis)
4) Devourer: add a dependency of modules/cabins/ups that speed up reloading to the burst discharge speed. That is, the Charger’s -10% to the cooldown will make the burst take not 5 seconds, but 4.5, etc. The Devourer has a dependency on the flash debuff, so the reduced cooldown buff seems logical. Since the weapon is for 13 energy, it will never get the maximum bonus on a build.
5) Nemesis: the perk is charged not for 1.5 sec, but for 0.75-1 sec of no firing. The weapon allows you to go wild since it doesn’t depend on power units, but it also causes significant discomfort in situations where you have only charged up half of the perk, fired a couple of shots, and then you have to go back to a long cooldown of 1.5 seconds.
6) Helicon: increase the heating from a volley of heating rockets from 33% to 40%, increase durability from 422 to 511 (build +20% HP — anti-oneshot).
The weapon has no damage without Catalina/100% heating/200 m. Meanwhile, Helicon is destroyed at the beginning of the battle.
7) Porcupine: increase blast damage by 7%, projectile speed by 10%. Revert the unnecessary changes.
3. All of these positions have certain problems that cannot be fully described here. But they all have one thing in common: they require players to tolerate stuff. Fix this, make the relic segment complete.
Comment: we will consider all your suggestions in one of the upcoming balance changes.
1. I believe the current frequency of balance changes is a problem.
2. This is a significant issue because it allows and encourages players to adopt and follow the meta almost immediately, knowing it will likely remain unchanged for an extended period—sometimes even exceeding six months.
3. I think a good solution would be to implement more frequent but smaller balance changes. Ideally, this could happen every two weeks, though that might be too ambitious. A monthly balance pass would still be very welcome and likely appreciated by many players.
There are two main reasons I believe this approach would improve the current model:
First, if players know that balance changes are coming regularly, they may be less likely to gravitate toward the strongest weapons. Instead, they might feel more comfortable using what they enjoy or aiming for weapons that are simply "good" rather than "top-tier." These "good" weapons are also less likely to be heavily adjusted, giving players more time to optimize their builds and improve with them.
Second, more frequent updates would reduce the risk of weapons being over-buffed or over-nerfed. Smaller, incremental changes would naturally be less disruptive per patch and allow for a more measured approach to balance. It would also help gradually bring underused items back into relevance. For example, this month Assemblers could receive both a 10% HP and damage increase—not enough to make them overpowered, but potentially enough to encourage players to try them and give you useful data for future adjustments.
I won’t provide more examples, as I believe the idea is clear. Thank you for doing these Q&A sessions—they’re very helpful and show a genuine effort from the dev team to improve the game’s balance.
Comment: We have no plans to significantly increase the frequency of balance changes. Gathering statistical data, working out the necessary changes and their testing take a lot of time.
1: Weapons being left and forgotten without receiving any buffs for way too long
2: There are dozens of weapons that are so underpowered they aren't even considered close to viable. whether it's a catastrophic nerf that left it forgotten, or being overshadowed by all the new insanely powerful weapons such as Split, Commit, Jupiter, Triton, and more. Here, why don't we try and make a list of unused weapons: Median, Nagual, Flute, Lucifer, Yongwang, Slaughterer, Prometheus V, Helios, Assembler, Yokai, Morta, Phoenix, Toadfish, Tempura, Mandrake, Heather, Skadi, Gungnir and Nothung, Emily, Corvo, Summator and Argument, Adapter, and to top it off, Literally every single drone, shotgun, and machine gun (except for Fatums, Reapers and of course, the new stars of the meta show: Split and Triton. ) Don't you think that it's crazy how around 80 weapons are considered not viable at all by basically the entire community?!? Never in all my time playing Crossout have i ever seen ANYONE using vultures. Not a single person. what does that say about the balancing of this game?
3: A solution I would propose is to just for a short time stop releasing new overpowered weapons and just look back and try to make everything at least somewhat viable and make the things that are one shot deframing people on a miss a little bit weaker (aka. Jupiter). Personally I think that it would be reasonable to say that and epic weapon should be equal in viability to another epic weapon, and a legendary weapon should be equal in viability to another legendary weapon. It's not that complicated so maybe try not to get that mixed up next time.
Comment: to call the weapons on that list “not viable” is a great exaggeration. Most of the parts you named are quite efficient within certain PS ranges, and others have recently received buffs, including in a recent update. There are a number of PvP modes in the game and a large range of PS brackets; many weapons are used in the PS ranges or modes that you don’t play in, and therefore you don’t encounter these parts in battles. We do not have the ability or the goal to make all parts relevant across all modes or all PS ranges.
The nest and the trombone + steppespider. The combo of these elements make the missiles too agile.
It is a problem because the guided missile arent suposed to be able to reach an enemy that is directly in contact with the player that fire the missiles. But with the steppespider perk, you can hit someone that is directly in contact with you and that is unballanced because that make thoses build too effectives.
Nerf steppespider perk / Put a minimum distance to be able to lock the enemy to shoot missile (make it minimum 10meters or something...)
Comment: we will look into any issues with this combination and, if necessary, make changes as part of one of our future balance patches.
Omamori is now almost not used anymore because of the Finwhale that is litterally a better omamori + the best engine in the game for 2 energy consuption while the omamori is just a omamori for 3 energy consuption.
It is unbalanced because the module was super effective when is was released because of the meta at the moment but now its completely useless because of new module and cabin that came out and do better than the omamori. (mainframe, finwhale, machinist, goliath, golden eagle, etc...) Now the omamori feel useless and its 3 energy consuption witch is very high. Its more effective to use an averter witch is effective (30% damage reduction is really good) and its only 2 energy consuption) and it is an EPIC module. The LEGENDARY version of it must be significantly more effective. + you can use only 1 module with power node, the jackie is WAY MORE INTRESTING to use than the omamori in almost any situation.
Make the Omamori 2 energy consuption or Boost the omamori (65% protection or reload perk faster for exemple) or Add another perk to it (1sec of 100% damage protection when it hit 300damages absorbed before reloading for exemple)
Comment: it’s not really valid to compare “Omamori” to, for example, “Goliath” or “Machinist”. Those are completely different parts that have no effect on “Omamori’s” popularity whatsoever. “Fin whale” and “Averter” provide alternatives to “Omamori”, not completely displace it. “Omamori” does not require any additional buffs at this point.
NOX cabin when used with Scorpion is too strong
Nox alternative perk for Scorpion is too strong (its visible in CWs). It can basically 1 shot any generator protected by Goliaths or MLs or Grinders or any durable movement parts. Even through 2-3 of them in same time. It just make any HVY builds useless and its visible in ClanWars where almost every clan use some Nox Scorpions along with "tankers" so tankers tank and nox just one-shot any generators easly then.
Just make scorpion use Nox perk same way as other weapons use - it is - vs structural parts only.
Comment: this synergy was made weaker in the last update. At the time of collecting feedback, this change was not announced, as we made a decision about it after mass testing.
Waltz need a buff
They're the most under-performing legendary rocket launchers in the game. It requires charging, has a slow projectile speed, and its gimmick spiral trajectory makes it clip into terrain too often to land a full salvo. It also has a very low survivability, even Lucifer has more durability than Waltz. The underwhelming performance of waltz is reflected accurately on its market price compared to the rest of the legendary rocket launchers.
Keep the gimmicky spiral trajectory, but change its perk of "The impulse and blast damage of each following rocket in the salvo increases by 100% and 25% accordingly". Change the bonus from Impulse to blast radius and increase the perk of blast damage from 25% to 30%, slightly buff its damage by 10%, and increase its projectile speed.
Comment: “Waltz” is a fairly efficient weapon that has one of the highest damage to energy ratios, and therefore this ratio cannot be increased further. The weapon is not as popular as it could be due to the specific features of its gameplay, which is not to everyone’s liking. We will be looking at ways to slightly improve the comfort of its use in one of the upcoming balance changes.
All machine guns (except "Miller", "Reaper" and "Devourer") needs a huge buff and the current proposed one is insufficient.
Since the removal of hit-scan mechanism, all machine guns other than Miller, Reaper and Devourer ("Tracing MG(s)" for short) has been absolutely wiped from ever seeing the battlefield ever again, with few individuals still stubbornly using them on strafing movement parts with camera steering (so they can focus on leading the shot while the game steer for them). Tracing MGs has a damage fall-off scale to distance, which caused most of the MG fights took place at a range of 150m and less. Hitscan on machine guns are very realistic and wasn't really needed to be removed in the first place. Tracing MGs are now completely useless and overshadowed by Rapid firing Autocannon (RfAC) (Therm/Joule and Starfall) because RfACs simply don't have any of the disadvantage of Tracing MG, on top of having blast radius for each projectile to take out more parts per hit.
The easiest solution would be to add hit-scan back to the Tracing MGs, giving them the strength of what they're designed to do with. Alternatively, drastically increase their projectile speed and reduce their damage fall-off, so that they can actually deal effective damage at range.
Comment: after removing the hitscan, machine guns received 2 major buffs related to damage, projectile speed, accuracy, perks, etc. Despite these changes, this had minimal effect on their efficiency, so we decided to try an unconventional solution that previously had a positive effect on the balance of shotguns.
The PS of decorative elements is too high
Despite the fact that it’s been years since decorative elements were a scourge on the game, they still suffer from having overly high power scores. It's ridiculous that headlights, spoilers, and other decorative elements add several hundred points to a car's power score. Especially considering how much more effective armor has become compared to decorations. Considering that increasing reputation is practically useless for experienced players, the extra PS hurts new players. The current PS of decorative items would be justified if they gave bonuses to seasonal reputation or progress in clan challenges.
Significantly reduce the PS of decorative items; an 80% reduction would be fair for most, only some large decorative items could remain with the current PS. Additionally, remove the 25% limit on reputation gain, it’s not needed either.
Comment: our plans include a complete overhaul of the decorative elements parameters, including their power score.
That’s all for now. We would like to thank you for your active participation and for sharing your ideas. Good luck in battles!