245

Helldivers 2 boss apologizes for 'horrible' dev comments, says Arrowhead has 'taken action internally to educate our developers' (www.pcgamer.com)

submitted 8 months ago by Goronmon@lemmy.world to c/games@lemmy.world

89 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] chakan2@lemmy.world 24 points 8 months ago

It was the patch that got me to stop playing. Why you would nerf weapons in a non-competitive game rather than make poor preforming weapons viable is beyond me.

It's akin to Steve Jobs telling everyone they're holding their phone wrong.

[-] The_Vampire@lemmy.world 51 points 8 months ago

It's to keep design space open and to minimize developer work.

Let's say we decide to keep an overperforming gun. It does all the things. It has all the ammo, all the damage, all fire rate, all the reload speed. Now, all future weapons have to be made with that as a consideration. Why would players choose this new weapon, when there's the old overperformer? The design space is being controlled and minimized by the overperformer. Players will complain if new weapons aren't on the level of the overperformer.

Now, let's say we have ten weapons with one clear overperformer. Now, we can either nerf a single weapon to bring it in line with the others, or buff nine weapons to attempt to bring them up to the level of the overperformer. Assuming the balance adjustments of each weapon are the same amount of work, that's 9x the effort. However, if we assume we do this extra work to satisfy players, now we have ten overperforming guns and players find the game too easy, so now we also have to buff enemies to match. However, the game isn't designed to handle these increase in difficulty. Players complain if we just add more health to enemies, so we have to do other things like increase enemy count, but adding more enemies increases performance issues. It's a cascading problem.

I consider nerfs a necessary evil. It's absurd to ask developers to always buff weapons and give them so much work when they could be developing actual additions to the game. Sometimes, a weapon really does need a nerf.

[-] Delphia@lemmy.world 10 points 8 months ago

Thank you so fucking much.

If you want the game to have long term viability, you have to have nerfs. Otherwise in 3 years everyone who has been playing since day 1 has a mech with a gattling cannon that fires nukes and is fighting gods.

[-] Tattorack@lemmy.world 6 points 8 months ago

Average anime protagonist progression.

[-] tb_@lemmy.world 5 points 8 months ago

*Cough* Warframe *cough*

[-] peak_dunning_krueger@feddit.de 10 points 8 months ago

Also, I'm not sure how much this applies to helldivers specifically, but from what I've seen, teams didn't really teamwork. Because they didn't have to.

This can be very bad because if it follows these steps:

game is easy, no teamwork required, players learn to play the game without teamwork
game gets harder, but some people can still manage solo, complain about "newbs" and tell them to "git gud"
game gets even harder, now it's impossible to play "quasi solo" but the environment is no longer fit to learn teamwork in the context of this game. "How" to work together effectively.

Then people will complain, justly, that they don't have the tools and methods to beat the challenge. Which is correct. They don't. But you can't just tell people to "go play easy mode and learn the game", when they are "max level" and put 40-100 hours into the game.

Of course the synergy tools still have to exist and I'm not knowledgeable about helldivers whether they do.

There is no good choice to "encourage" teamplay, except via creating "natural" funnels that people will "end up at" "organically", and putting a challenge in front of them that they can only work with teamwork. But that means the challenge has to beat them, until they get it. And that may never happen.

One game I have found exceptional as a case study for what is "overpowered" and what isn't, and why, is magic the gathering. All the "code" is public. The complaints are public. The bans are public, and explained. So if anyone here wants to nerd out about balance and doesn't know mtg yet, there is a rabbit hole for you.

[-] Katana314@lemmy.world 2 points 8 months ago

I remember an incident in Red Orchestra where we were on a tank map. A teammate hopped in a tank. So, I did too. He jumped out of the tank and into another; so I joined. He jumped out and started shooting at me, basically insisting I get my own tank. Apparently, his level of tactical sense and reflexes in a tank vastly outweighed the value of having a second player in the gunner’s seat; even though the game was realistically meant to depict tank crews cooperating.

[-] Lesrid@lemm.ee 5 points 8 months ago

It's a common issue with lots of team play games. The other player decided that it was better to have two people operating separate mortars than to have one of them provide small arms cover on the flanks of the tank.

Helldivers 2 has a similar problem where some players can help other players reload their larger weapons at a much faster rate than typically; however the player base decided that it's better to fan out and each operate the weapon solo because shots do not need to be made so rapidly and clumping together increases the odds both players die.

[-] GTG3000@programming.dev 7 points 8 months ago

Preach.

The game does have a bit of a balance problem, but as usual the players are not the best at designing the solution.

Railgun was overpowered, since it did literally everything without any risk. The funny thing is - you can still do things it did before, you just need to actually use the unsafe mode.
The armoured bugs are a bit overtuned, the devs have announced they will be looking at them, but just giving you an OP gun is not a way to fix that.
Shield was probably alright as it was, but the current iteration of armour doesn't really make up for the lack of it.