Adressing Recent Changes (Objectively)

Buckingham Palace Suggestions
1

Hello everyone,

The recent balance adjustments to firearm combat were intended to make eliminations more rewarding by lengthening gunfights. According to the logs, all available weapons were adjusted to deal less damage to achieve this. While the general concept of balancing the weapon system is valid, the current implementation misses the mark; instead of creating true balance, it has simply shifted an unfair advantage to the other side.

As always, there are two sides to every coin. Some argued that civilian guns were too strong, while others felt the SIG/HK rifles were overpowered. However, systemic weapon balance must be objective and fair. Because the majority of the QA team consists of Specialists (since QA applications were exclusively offered to them), it is incredibly difficult for them to maintain an unbiased perspective on this matter.

Let me share my findings after testing the recent hotfix:

  • MO19 Loadout: Every single MO19 officer gets access to the new vehicle kits. This means a single car has access to 4 smoke grenades and 2 stun grenades (or CS gas and multi-stuns for TST).

  • The SIG MCX: This rifle doesn’t seem to have been nerfed at all. It deals 11–12 damage in close quarters and, bafflingly, 13–14 damage at longer ranges against unarmored targets.

  • The Solo Officer Reality: A lone MO19 officer can deploy with 50% body armor, a weapon dealing up to 12+ damage per shot, 4 smoke grenades, and 2 stun grenades.

By contrast, let’s look at the civilian investment:

  • Civilian Cost & Loadout: A civilian who spends roughly 1,500 Robux, 300k in-game cash on an MP10, and 200k on a vehicle spawns with just 25% body armor.

  • The Deficit: The MP10 (which remains the best civilian option available) only deals 9 damage. Furthermore, the vehicle’s bulletproof armor, which costs 100k alone, is completely shredded by just two magazines from the officer’s SIG MCX.

Don’t get me wrong; police is meant to have a slight advantage over civilians. However, the development team needs to look at these “balance” changes objectively. If an officer is outnumbered by a coordinated, armed group of civilians, they shouldn’t automatically win.

To reiterate my point: without civilians, the game ceases to be fun for any team. If the average civilian has to spend 1,500 Robux and 500k in-game cash just to still be placed at such a massive disadvantage, it shouldn’t be a surprise why the game’s player count is steadily declining with more and more civilian mains quitting. And I don’t want to glaze myself here but I heard from so many people that without INFERNUS, MO19 wouldn’t have anything to do and that it would be “so boring”.

Cheers,

sumtax

12

Hello Alfie,

First, I would like to thank you for reopening this post so I can clarify my original point and share my thoughts on your response. To make this structured, I will address the points you brought up individually and expand on my original feedback with some suggestions for the future.

Regarding your point that there are still better options capable of competing with or outperforming the MP10, I assume you are referring to the FAMAS and the KRISS Vector as they are the most expensive ones. On paper, this might be true if you recently buffed their stats. In reality, however, these guns actually perform worse than the MP10, and arguably worse than cheaper options like the UMP or AK-12, despite costing five to ten times as much. Please refer to the videos attached below, which demonstrate how the most expensive civilian gun (costing 450k) is somehow worse than the SIG.

You also brought up the argument of officers “being killed before they have time to react.” While this wasn’t in my original message, I still want to address it. Situational awareness is a major part of policing; an officer cannot sit AFK in the open at Buckingham Palace and then complain about being ambushed. Furthermore, the vast majority of firearm incidents occur while an officer is inside their vehicle, meaning the “no time to react” argument only applies to a small minority of encounters. A logical solution to this would be to nerf the damage firearms deal to vehicle armor, rather than reducing overall player-to-player damage.

Regarding the QA team, it makes sense that it is primarily composed of Specialists, as they are already held to a high standards. However, this creates a situation where testers naturally bring their own biases to the table. When testing, they inevitably express negative attitudes toward changes that could detriment their own faction. As a result, the decision-making process for new features is heavily skewed toward what the police want, rather than maintaining an objective view of both perspectives.

Now, I would like to get to my main point. After multiple conversations with you, it is apparent that the developers want to shift the game away from gun violence and prioritize melee/riot combat. The reality is that BP is already far too deep into the “gun meta.” Nearly every gamepass provides a firearm (ARV, CP, Sniper, HG, etc.), not to mention the permanent guns civilians have already purchased. Why force a massive gameplay shift onto a community that has repeatedly shown they don’t want it? Why not save these melee/riot-focused ideas for future projects like Hampshire, and let the BP community continue enjoying the game for the reasons they actually play it?

Additionally, I want to address your specific approach to balancing the game Alfie, which differs heavily from past developers before you came back. Previously, if there was an imbalance, developers would resolve it by adding benefits to the disadvantaged team. This kept both sides happy: one side gained a new tool, and the other side didn’t lose anything. Your approach, however, relies heavily on actively nerfing the stronger side.

For example, when civilians complained that PAVA was overpowered, you nerfed PAVA instead of giving civilians a countermeasure, like a purchasable mask that made PAVA less effective or something like that. As a result, MPS were frustrated, and civilians didn’t actually gain anything new. Another example is the supercar nerf. Police were at a disadvantage because civilian vehicles were too fast and robust. Instead of giving the MPS an advantage by buffing their car speeds or adding new interceptors, you nerfed civilian cars by making them break insanely fast, giving them slower top speeds, and worse handling. The civilians who spent real money on those cars were pissed, while the police didn’t gain anything new to use.

Ultimately I would like to remind you of something: Civilians are the ones making the game enjoyable for everyone. MPS, LAS, and RG would have absolutely nothing to do without civilians committing crimes, and LAS would have no medical role in combat because no one dies to a knife or a bat when PAVA exists. Why make the civilian experience frustrating by nerfing the main thing they can do, which is shooting? MPS absolutely should have an advantage, but they already have one: better armor, free gear, access to utility, radios, vehicle kits, and more. Civilian guns should deal the same damage as MPS guns, especially since the police get theirs for free.

Moving forward, please stop nerfing teams and instead give additions to the disadvantaged side; you will see people stop complaining after every hotfix. At the end of the day, it is just a Roblox game, but please do not force changes based on your personal preferences when the paying and playing community clearly wants something else.

Cheers,

sumtax

Links:

Video 1: Clip_-_30062026_164927 - Clipped Imported with Medal.tv
Video 2: Will be attached below as “New users can only attach 1 link per post”

1 Like
2

Lowering damage across all teams doesn’t create balance—it removes the civ team’s only real advantage, which is winning fights quickly before MET can fully respond.

Previously, civilians relied on fast, decisive engagements to avoid MET’s strengths. If the fight ended quickly, MET couldn’t organise, reinforce, or stabilise control, so civs could win through execution and burst damage.

Increasing TTK removes that win condition. Longer gunfights give MET time to regroup and reinforce, turning small fights into extended engagements where MET’s coordination and numbers naturally take over.

A major factor is mid-gunfight healing. MET officers with medkits can now heal during active combat much more effectively. This is more powerful than it seems—it lets officers reset fights, re-peek, and recover from damage that would previously have been lethal pressure. Civs don’t have the same consistent sustain, so they can’t match this.

Lower TTK also strengthens MET’s non-lethal tools. With higher survivability, officers can rush with tasers and PAVA with fewer consequences. Instead of being punished for closing distance, they can push through damage, disorient targets, and win close-range fights more consistently.

Overall, lowering damage removes the civs’ only real advantage—fast fights—and shifts combat toward MET’s strengths in sustain, healing, and aggressive PAVA/taser pushes.

3 Likes
4

Well said!

SMILE SOMETHING
SMILE SOMETHING474Ă—477 10.1 KB

1 Like
3

i agree with you. lowering everything for everyone doesnt make it balanced.

1 Like
6

Lowered damage for everything except the Sig and Hk

2 Likes
7

yes okay good suggestion

2 Likes
8

wow that’s so lit :fire:

14

Whilst it was just an assumption, I am generally confused why weapons would not be better when they are way more expensive than others. Like, I do not get why those would be forced at such a high price during restocks when cheaper options are stronger.

I understand the reasoning behind this; however, it is often hard to find the right timing to engage when there are multiple officers outnumbering you, which is the case in most scenarios. Additionally, you are speaking about a map with “open angles” and saying that those with “weapon accuracy” should be rewarded. This does not add up with the damage drop-off over distance, especially since you require better aim and recoil control at a distance than in close-up combat.

While that is true, the opinions of the developers are still influenced, even if it isn’t directly visible. It is also often not about what is being added, but how it is being implemented. Those testers would automatically tend to give feedback based on how changes would affect them on their respective teams.

Changes such as reducing gun damage that make the overall gunplay longer and more annoying are kind of forced, as they are added by the developers without asking the community first. If you put out a poll (as you did for body armor) asking the community something like, “Would you prefer guns dealing less damage across all teams or keep it as it was?”, then I guess we would have a say in what is actually being added. However, those hotfixes (comparable to dynamic clamping, higher respawn times, etc.) are forced onto the community. I never spoke about removing permanent guns, as this would obviously be the last thing to happen before all the civilians quit the game fully.

Valid. I still think that the nerfs being pushed are too rough. People would probably prefer having a slighter change instead of weapons being nerfed into the ground. This would also allow you guys to see if the community enjoys or agrees with it, or if the original nerf should be more severe.

After testing it personally, I can at least say that the SIG specifically does not feel like it got nerfed, but more like it got buffed, which could be a result of civilian weapons being nerfed more. Either way, it gets to a point where individuals from MO19 messaged me about how they are suddenly winning 1v3s with ease when you spoke about “rewarding good aim and tactical gameplay.” So clearly, a few guns have been nerfed more than others, whereas I do not see a nerf to the SIG’s damage at all compared to what it was before. It is also dealing more damage at range, which makes no sense when looking at the “damage drop-off” suggested in the update log.

Please let me know what you think about this. At the end of the day people who are actually skilled want to have a chance in showing that by being able to win which is not possible when the other side is at such advantage where it is not possible to.

15

The main issue regarding this is because individuals believe civilians are overpowered, mainly due to the “INFERNUS” OCG. No other groups of individuals are generally considered dangerous within BP and hence why many of the “overpowered” comments are due to INFERNUS activity as we are more skilled and organised than the average criminal (considering a majority of our users have a microphone which allows for far far far far superior communications which a large majority of MO19 cannot do. This is an external advantage and is therefore why we can be so organised, .despite having no radio or similar sort of feature)

But I’d like to pose this question, how did that become? An OCG is naturally not a very exciting part of the game to join, there are no real in-game perks compared to specialists and I am not saying OCGs should get support from development. However, individuals fail to recognise that civilian is, and has always been, gameplay which is entirely self-funded and is therefore expensive which decreases its popularity. There will always be a constant and high supply of specialists since it is more attractive. However, those who do choose to play civilian are often those purchasing gamepasses, in-game cash or other items (e.g. snipers) in order to make their gameplay better, albeit at a financial cost. Many items which MET/RG are given automatically (especially the medical bag) are taken for granted by MET/RG when realistically most civilians do not purchase them due to their high cost.

It is not easy to get an OCG to such high numbers and members solely join based on wanting to be a part of the OCG and be involved in such activities. As I have said before, there are no real perks to attract members (unlike for example a cool car or game accessory). When there are loads of armed civilians around you, you shouldn’t expect to win. Just like how if there are many ARV (let alone MO19) around you, civilians don’t expect to win the fight. The nature of any shooting or combat game is numbers and if you’re able to outnumber the other side, you’re probably going to win. Any reasonable person understands this and is therefore why each side tends to modify the situation in order to increase their numbers which is entirely fair and entirely down to game sense. The main issue is that some people tend to just give up in these outnumbered situations whereas police need to realise that any hit on us is damage for the next fight since it’s unlikely we’ll be healed before then due to reasons I’ve stated below. This is different for police where they can cheaply heal up and completely regain their armour.

Police officers may be more reactionary in terms of first responders but that simply isn’t true for those who respond after. One or two officers may have to shoot first but those who arrive after simply get another angle and get a free kill where the civilian needs to react to a threat from a new angle. This goes for both ways. There may be a majority of situations where officers need t obe reactionary but civilians need to react too in many situations. This could be from armed officers flanking, a covert officer approaching or a sniper on the roof. Numbers matter.

What I’m trying to explain here is that one side may win more than the other side because of skill and numbers. Not everything is because of a game imbalance. The SIG MCX was already on par, if not slightly better, than the MP10 upon side-by-side informal testing. The gun was never the issue. A 3v3 between INF and TST will half of the time (or more) result in a win for TST and the other proportion being a win for INF which is fair.

The damage nerfs do not seem to be proportional and clearly advantages police guns. A former 11-damage MP10 is now reduced to 9 damage, so why is the SIG still at 12 damage? This disadvantages bad aim for civilians but changes nothing for MO19? The game was already balanced beforehand with there being no complaints about the MP10 or SIG MCX from either side because it is known they are relatively equal. The fact that the MP10 loses at its most ideal range (close range) when compared to a rifle does not make sense. An SMG is designed for CQB. A rifle is designed for long range. I’m not saying the MP10 should be vastly better than the SIG at close range but it certainly shouldn’t be vastly worse either (the previous stats were perfectly fine).

Currently, there is a vast difference in bullets required in order to kill an officer, versus a civilian. It takes 17 MP10 bullets (@ 9 damage) to kill an MO19 officer whereas it takes 9 SIG MCX bullets (@ 12 damage) to kill a civilian. That means MO19 need to hit half as many bullets (I could understand a similar difference for a TST gun but not for all 120 MO19 members who can patrol whenever). That is not fair, especially considering how even if a civilian hits 16 out of 17 bullets, the MO19 can just heal up back to 100% (before anyone decides to say civilians can do that too well the med bag is already 500 quid so no one buys that and plus if you get hit with 10 bullets you can go back into cover but with a civilian you don’t even have 10 bullets of health to react since you’re already dead lol?). Not to mention LAS specialists which team up with MO19 to provide advanced medical assistance within around 3 seconds of getting hit. Picking the right time was already a huge advantage before the update and this update did not make it more of an advantage. There is typically a small window from when players are peaking, that’s already called picking the right time to shoot them. From clicking 1 to actually being able to shoot someone, there is already a small delay which enables officers to already react and most of the time being able to shoot at pretty much the same time since officers typically chase individuals with their weapons out for that reason.

I truly think that this doesn’t encourage skillful play for both sides. There is no definition of skill with these vast differences.

Now something for discouraging firearms crime. I truly believe this is impossible. The game dynamic is set and there are far too many firearms officers to accomodate any sort of melee crime. The vision of BP ever becoming melee focused is too far-fetched considering the main attraction of the game being BP and that beig impossible to go to with a melee since literally everyone is armed there. PAVA is (realistically) no skill at close range and gives no chance for those attempting to go close range to conduct a melee attack. Perhaps the effects of PAVA can be weakened if you are holding a melee rather than a firearm.

Heres the current gameplay with a melee:

Pull out a melee → perchance hit an officer one time → somehow don’t get pavaed → chase after the officer with your melee → somehow don’t get tased → land a second hit → officer continues to run away whilst backup is called → somehow don’t get tased x10 → get shot in the back by another officer

Be advised that this situation depends on you not getting tased/pava’ed which is like impossible at that range. I ask anyone who says to do melee crime to actually try to do it and stream your gameplay to me. Let’s see how quickly you’ll get tased.

16

Yeah I agree with this suggestion, we have enough armour, anyways. Nerfing the sig mcx won’t be an issue for me

5

This is needed :slight_smile:

13

Your assumption is incorrect and we would advise you to check out all of the weapons available to civilians to figure out which ones are considered more powerful.

This isn’t necessarily correct and the information that we have would not correlate. The issue is that civilians naturally have an advantage against the police as the police are entirely reactionary and, in most circumstances, cannot engage first. Civilians have the natural advantage of being able to begin dealing damage first, especially as soon as somebody turns around. With the map being full of open angles, we want to encourage more skillful play - those who are skilled with weapon accuracy and picking the right timing are rewarded, as opposed to the sole factor previously which was getting a jump on someone.

QA don’t determine what’s added to the game. As I’ve stated, they are responsible for testing content added and helping us identify and resolve bugs.

We haven’t indicated that this would be forced onto players, but expressed interest in pushing it as a more viable option to discourage solely firearm crime. We have no intention on removing permanent weapons or firearms from the game.

This is and always has been a poor approach which is why we have adapted. Whilst it is nice to add new content where feasible to counter one side that’s too strong, this sole mentality results in teams consistently being buffed and buffed to a point where they’re wholly unrealistic and “everybody is OP”. This also makes it far more difficult to get into the game as a new player, and generally makes it far more difficult to plan and develop content and gameplay loops.

We understand that “nerfs” aren’t always what people want to hear, especially when they’re passionate about the game. We always encourage players to provide feedback on the games latest changes to help us get an idea of what players are thinking. Balancing changes are difficult, because we can only get a real picture of how it will behave after it’s pushed to the live game. It’s impossible to fabricate gunfights in a test environment.

All guns were nerfed, not just civilian weapons.

17

Hey there, love this suggestion. I have so many things to say to back this up but I’ll keep it short. Alfie you keep saying things like “I suggest you check out all the weapons” but you won’t tell us as it’s obviously true that you haven’t got any civilian guns that are better than the SIG. if your referring to the AWP well Thats just stupid as it’s worth 80 robux and Thats a developer item meaning it’s a sort of gamepass unlike the other guns we use. The MP10 is nerfed, the AK is horrible, the PPSH has a lot of ammo but really low damage rate, the ump is about the same as an mp10 (idk as I don’t use it much) and then the tec 9 is good but you gotta have all headshots and it’s just not for everyone (not everyone can hit headshots and yes it might be a skill issue but that’s not the point)

I don’t get why you won’t just tell us what gun it is and you’re clearly very biased alongside the MET team. Instead of being a developer who is listening to all our ideas and making it fair for us all, your go for the MET team. The whole civilian team isn’t built up from Infernus and you should realise that. It’s so easy to just make it more balanced.

Alongside this even some Mo19 members said nerfing the SIG is fine whilst everyone in the CO team want to stay as it is. It’s kind of obvious how one sided this is and no civilian suggestion that actually benefits us has been heard apart from Pava which took months whereas most MET suggestions are being listened to. So please, for once just let the civilians have an upgrade and make the game more balanced for us all

9

The MP10 has been nerfed however there are still better options available for civilian players that compete (or are better) than the SIG MCX.

To address the suggestion that civilian players used to “have an edge above the police by being able to kill them faster than they were able to respond to”, this is the entire reason the change was made. Your attacks on the police need to be methodical and thought out, rather than simply being a case of opening fire before they have chance to react.

Our QA Team is, as you correctly identified, currently comprised primarily of players who are specialists. None of the testing conducted was to influence the specific stat changes for this reason - solely to ensure the weapons were functioning.

We will continue to adjust these stats over time, using data we have collected from real gunfights ingame.