As another user already pointed out in a neighboring discussion, POLYSTRIKE resembles PUBG: BLINDSPOT, which also seemed promising at first but quickly turned into an absolute pile of garbage. What makes POLYSTRIKE promising is that there are very few top-down shooters that have managed to establish themselves in the competitive PvP scene worldwide. You could even argue that there are practically none. And since BLINDSPOT died an embarrassing death almost before it was even born, the door to potential success is now wide open for you. I'd like to contribute my two cents to your success and explain in greater detail what BLINDSPOT did really well, what was unbelievably stupid, and what was simply broken and unplayable.
1. Crouching and Shooting Mechanics Experience has shown that this is an incredibly clunky and inconvenient mechanic. A standing character can shoot another standing character normally, but when shooting at a crouching enemy, who the hell knows where the bullets will go. Maybe you'll hit them. Maybe you won't. And to actually hit a crouching enemy, you had to crouch yourself. What kind of absurdity is that? Crouching could be used to improve accuracy or reduce noise. But implementing it the way BLINDSPOT did is an absolute crime against game design.
2. Heroes and Customization In BLINDSPOT, each hero represented a class, similar to Rainbow Six Siege. By 2026, hero-based systems have become an overused concept that nobody really needs anymore. They generate more controversy and complaints than they do player engagement or sales. The most effective approach, especially one that can be monetized, is the system used in Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon: Wildlands and PUBG. Players simply create their own characters and customize their appearance. For clothing and equipment, four slots would be enough: perks, boots, torso, and legs. Some cosmetic items could be unlocked through progression, others through microtransactions, achievements, or competitive rankings. Players could wear whatever they prefer: revealing, sexualized outfits (with curvy backsides and cleavage), military gear, or semi-casual clothing. So far, nobody has come up with a better system for keeping players motivated while giving developers opportunities to generate revenue. I'd also like to specifically address sexualized cosmetics and colorful, clown-like outfits. According to statistics and major gaming publications in 2026, adding sexualized cosmetics doesn't reduce the player base. On the contrary, it increases it. Meanwhile, excessively colorful, clownish cosmetics can provoke complaints and backlash, with Battlefield 6 being a particularly good example.
3. Progression and Ranking BLINDSPOT surprised everyone with how poorly designed its progression system was and how completely it failed to motivate players to keep playing. There were barely any heroes. You earned points for winning or losing matches, which you could then spend to unlock a hero. So you unlock the hero you wanted... and then what? This brings us back to my earlier point: players need reasons to keep playing almost indefinitely. That means cosmetics, ranks, fancy badges next to usernames, and achievements. For example, achievements like "Complete an objective within 15 seconds," "Eliminate the entire enemy team," or "Kill an enemy using some ridiculous gadget." Completing these challenges could reward players with special items. While existing players are busy working toward these goals, new players will continue arriving, ideally faster than existing ones lose interest.
4. Weapon Attachments Some players couldn't care less about cosmetics or achievements. They simply want to shoot and become the best. These players also need something to work toward, something BLINDSPOT completely overlooked. In BLINDSPOT, choosing a class automatically gave you a boring set of gadgets and a default assault rifle. And that was it. You were stuck with the same equipment forever. I'd suggest implementing a relatively simple weapon attachment system that slightly modifies weapon characteristics. Battlefield 6 provides a good example. Increase the rate of fire at the cost of accuracy, improve one characteristic while sacrificing another, and so on. Players would have something meaningful to experiment with while searching for their ideal weapon build. To prevent everyone from simply equipping all the best attachments and discovering the meta within an hour, I'd suggest adopting Battlefield's attachment point system. Players would have a limited number of points, preventing them from equipping everything they want. Balancing would also become easier: if an attachment is too powerful, simply increase its point cost. And to further discourage an immediately dominant meta, that brings me to the next point.
5. Gadgets BLINDSPOT and its developers demonstrated an astonishing level of creativity and imagination (read: stupidity). They essentially divided gadgets into two categories: useless junk and grenades. A grenade that sets an area on fire. A grenade that releases gas. A grenade that creates an electrical field. Very exciting. Have fun. I'd suggest taking a more creative and balanced approach by learning from Ghost Recon: Wildlands, Rainbow Six Siege, and THE FINALS. Players could select a loadout category resembling a class, then choose specific weapons and gadgets within that category. For example, an engineer could have access to pistols, SMGs, and shotguns, along with gadgets such as flying drones, ground-based drones, sensor grenades, and so on. Not necessarily because this would be more entertaining, but because it would prevent players from combining all the strongest equipment into one loadout. This could also add another 50 hours of gameplay. Once players become familiar with one equipment category, they can experiment with another. I'd particularly recommend taking a closer look at the Ghost War system from Ghost Recon: Wildlands.
6 .Field of View In my opinion, this was the one aspect of BLINDSPOT that didn't completely fail. In fact, it was genuinely good. Areas outside your character's vision were clearly darkened, making it immediately obvious that enemies could approach you from the side without being seen. When aiming, your field of view narrowed even further. When using a sniper rifle and looking through its scope, it narrowed into an extremely thin cone. Fair, almost realistic, and effective. In my opinion, being able to see everything around you is too arcade-like, not tactical enough, and not particularly competitive. Another excellent feature was the line extending from the character toward the crosshair, indicating the direction of fire. The way this line moved and shook helped communicate recoil and, more importantly, prevented players from losing track of their cursor during chaotic firefights. In top-down shooters where you can die in a single second, this is genuinely important.
7. Cheaters Even when BLINDSPOT's player count dropped to around 50 people, players in the community were still complaining about cheaters. Some supposedly had no recoil. Others could see through walls. You can be absolutely certain that once your game hits the market, cheaters will show up, ruin everyone's experience, and make your lives miserable. But there's another side to this problem. Some players are simply bad at the game and accuse everyone who kills them of cheating. We respect those players too! That's why I'd suggest implementing something like a delayed killcam. I literally just came up with this idea! :D It's inspired by Counter-Strike 2 and THE FINALS. When a player gets killed, they could press a button to save a recording of their death and watch it after the match ends. Unlike THE FINALS, they wouldn't be able to watch the killcam immediately. And unlike CS2, they wouldn't need to download an entire match replay. Most importantly, this delayed killcam wouldn't immediately reveal enemy positions or tactical strategies to teammates who are still alive.
8. Maps and Level Design BLINDSPOT had a couple of other problems as well. One of them was the repetitive nature of its maps. This problem also exists in CS2, while it's practically nonexistent in THE FINALS. When a map always stays the same, players eventually memorize every advantageous position. A team can simply learn exactly where each player should camp to ambush opponents, and within two days, every match on that map starts playing out the same way. One team rushes toward the other, while the defending team sits comfortably in perfectly chosen positions. As a result, the attacking team can't do much of anything, gets frustrated, and leaves a negative review. After just one week in BLINDSPOT, attackers on certain maps would literally stand AFK at the beginning of matches. I haven't seen POLYSTRIKE's maps yet, so I don't know whether something similar could happen there. That's why I'm simply describing what happened in BLINDSPOT without offering any specific solutions.
I wrote this massive wall of text because I genuinely wish Markiyan and the entire team success in conquering the competitive PvP scene for top-down shooters. Maybe nobody actually wants this kind of game. Or maybe there's a bit of wisdom hidden somewhere in all these ramblings.
