Vote for a knocking system or instant death.


  • Founders

    Community, please vote on this poll https://strawpoll.com/98zb2x65 for a knocking-system or instant death in Mavericks. Some people want a knocking system and some just don't like that you can revive people who already consist of 50% lead. Your opinion will matter.


  • Founders

    I voted for knockouts, but I'd like to see players punished more significantly for going down.

    Something as simple as increasing the bleed out rate would probably be enough for me. I think by the third knock, a player should basically be dead instantly unless a teammate is within arm's reach and ready to revive.

    I absolutely do not want instant kills. Some of the best moments in my thousands of hours playing and watching PUBG have been during those chaotic situations where you have to make the split decision to put yourself in harm's way to go on a rescue mission. Also, instant deaths would result in so many more players "quitting out" of games early on because they've already lost a couple of squad mates, and that's certainly not a good thing.


  • Founders

    I'd 100% go for knockouts like PUBG/FN. Knockout without finishing sounds like the worst idea, are people just supposed to stay knocked until all teammates are dead or can revive. Would be such a hassle to go after that 1 last guy who ran away to keep his team in the game knowing that you can't loot the guys you already knocked out and couldn't finish.


  • Founders

    They would still bleed out @Thooom-0001 so after a little bit of time you could loot them just like in PUBG.


  • Founders

    Definitely the knock system with bleed. There was a reason why the PUBG community requested and got that feature, which is to better tactical play. The posts above demonstrate that exact point. I would hope the devs already took this into account, though, it seems like such an essential thing.


  • Founders

    Knock out with bleed and the ability to finish them off.

    The choices available lead to far more diverse confrontations and outcomes.

    You down a guy, do you finish him off ensuring he doesn't get back up which could cause more problems for you, or do you leave him and use him as bait as his friends are forced to leave cover in order to get to him?
    Your teammate get's downed, do you break cover and try to save them as you need the additional firepower, or do you hold off and try to win the engagement before attempting to revive them?

    etc etc.

    As much as I like the 'realism' that 'realistic' focused games try to emulate, that does need to be balanced against gameplay quality.

    A game where you take a bullet out of nowhere and that's it, you're dead will lead to many squads quitting out of a match if they lose a member early on, which isn't in the spirit of the game at all and will hurt the gameplay experience of everyone else when the mid-game is underpopulated and boring.

    Not being able to finish downed enemies is to put it bluntly, a bit silly in my opinion. Downing a player only to have them become an immortal scout for your enemy seems more of a negative than a positive to me.
    If you blind or immobilise the downed player then you make it unreasonably difficult for their teammates to get in a position to revive them.
    Having the downed player mobile but vulnerable is the best balance for this situation:

    • For the attackers, they still have the chance to secure a kill and prevent them becoming a problem again, and the downed player is less of a risk of giving his team constant updates on their positions as they will need to take cover if they want to get back up.
    • For the defenders, they have a better chance of being able to get into a position where a revive may be advantageous before the fight is over. They may also be able to get some limited information on what the enemy is doing from the downed players viewpoint if the player is careful.