We want to thank all of you who took part in our live test for increased lobby sizes earlier this month. The amount of feedback we received across all our channels was overwhelming. We are always amazed by how passionate you are about this game. We knew this would be a notable change, and we wanted to make sure you were with us every step of the way as we tested it together.
As part of our next step, we would like to share our findings with you. As always, thank you for sharing your feedback via the survey and our social channels. Your feedback helps us shape what’s in store for the future of Hunt: Showdown 1896. So, equip your Gator Legs and let's jump into the deep end!
Overall Sentiment
Let us start by looking at the bigger picture. Below, you can see how the community responded to the increased lobby size changes across each queue type. As shown, two-thirds of respondents did not have the opportunity to test the changes in Soul Survivor. For this blog post, we will focus only on Duos and Trios lobbies.
Around 57% of Trios players were satisfied with the increased lobby size. For Duos, however, the reception was much more mixed. When comparing satisfaction ratings across variables such as hours played, MMR, platform, and survey language, we observed the following:
- Players on Russia, South America, and Oceania servers responded more positively than those on Europe and US servers.
- Lower-MMR players rated this change more negatively.
- Console players viewed Duos lobbies slightly more positively than PC players.
- Players with more hours in the game tended to be more critical of the Duos lobbies.
As an important note, sample sizes across these different variables varied significantly, which may have influenced the ratings.
While many players appreciated the test and praised the change for freshening up the experience, it was clear from the comments that its current implementation still had issues. Many of these concerns were explained in detail through your survey responses and across our online channels.
All of this indicated that we still have work and playtesting to do. Below, you will find our key findings and the steps we are taking to address the issues that were raised.
Number of Spawn Fights Increased
The most critical piece of feedback was that this change increased fights around spawn areas. Many players were frustrated by being killed before they had a chance to settle into the game. Some enjoyed the change, as it kept tension high, but more often it led to long, drawn-out fights near spawn areas. Many of you made a crucial point: quick action feels more like Bounty Clash, whereas Bounty Hunt should maintain its own identity. Both survey data and telemetry data show the impact of the increased lobbies happening in the opening stages. Our telemetry data showed that the average number of deaths in the first three minutes of a Mission increased after more teams were added to the lobbies.
Around 56% of responses indicated that the early stage of the Mission was where the impact of the increased lobby size was most felt. This sharp increase in early engagements was particularly harsh on newer or lower-skilled players. Even if a skilled or lucky player survived these prolonged opening fights, they often ended up on the “wrong” side of the map relative to the Boss Target compound. This understandably led to more demands for retaining double Boss Target Missions in larger lobbies, to spread out fights and make the experience feel less like a “team deathmatch” or “Bounty Clash with extra steps.”
Next Steps
We will continue exploring solutions that allow us to better control team spawns in higher-player-count maps. Our goal is to reduce the chance of adjacent team spawns, shifting encounters toward mid and late-game stages. We also plan to link minimum and maximum player or team counts to specific MMR brackets, as well as to double Bounty Target Missions.
Passive/Ambush Playstyles Became Dominant
The increased lobby size introduced a new playstyle within Missions. Players who initiated fights were often ambushed by other teams, who in turn were ambushed themselves. As more teams joined that specific location, it became increasingly difficult for players and teams to make safe rotations or disengage, resulting in longer, more extended fights at one location.
These prolonged encounters depleted resources such as ammo, Health Chunks, and Consumables. To conserve resources, players and teams often used a more passive approach, waiting to ‘third-party’ teams. This strategy offered two advantages: reduced resource consumption and the chance to loot dead Hunters from other players’ efforts.
In Duos lobbies, the number of teams was often too high to track effectively—or survive. As the data below shows, around 37% of players reported feeling overwhelmed by the number of opponents or teams, while 32% felt that the additional action did not add meaningful gameplay. Another factor shaping players’ strategies was the balance of risk and reward that came with these larger encounters which we will get into our next finding.
Next Steps
For those who may not be aware, prior to the survey, the team implemented a maximum limit of seven teams in Duos lobbies. We heard from many of you that this change improved the experience for those who encountered it. Our telemetry data also shows a positive impact: the Hunt Dollar economy drain decreased, and the number of deaths and fights near spawn areas was reduced.
Looking ahead, we want to create a more dynamic and flexible mix of minimum and maximum player combinations. We also aim to schedule these settings for specific regions and times to better match server populations. Additionally, we want to improve the visibility of the number of players and teams that can be encountered in a Mission when selecting the game mode.
Finally, we will be reviewing the availability of world resources to ensure players can engage multiple successive teams without needing external resupply.
Same Rewards, More Risks
From the graph above, we can see that only 24% of players felt satisfied with the current rewards for successfully extracting with a Bounty Token. With deaths occurring more frequently during the opening minutes of the Mission, we also observed a drop in the average Hunter Dollar balance, with Trios experiencing the largest losses.
To try to recoup their losses, players increasingly focused on looting dead Hunters using the Vulture Trait. Many of you mentioned that this playstyle provided more tangible rewards. To maximize their looting opportunities, players often ambushed ongoing fights to clean up defeated teams, as noted earlier. This led to a lot of fights away from the Boss Target compounds.
For many players, the Bounty Token’s value felt underwhelming as a reward. It is difficult to determine how many already held this perception prior to our experiment, but regardless, players expressed that extracting the Bounty Token did not feel sufficiently rewarding and wanted greater incentives.
Next Steps
We will be looking into increasing the value of the Bounty Token. As for non-Bounty Token rewards, we are still reviewing potential adjustments and evaluating what those changes would mean for the game.
Conclusion
None of these findings and action points would be possible without your clear feedback and will now go into our plans for a future test. We’re not ready to announce our next playtest yet but rest assured, we will inform you in advance via our Discord and other social channels. We want to make sure your feedback is part of the process every step of the way. Follow our us on social for more updates later this summer…unless you do not survive the oncoming fiery updates we have in store.
Your Hunt: Showdown 1896 Team
