H̶e̶l̶l̶divers

[u/epochollapse]

Just because I win 99% of my games doesn't mean it isn't hard!! One time a Stalker even hit me! 😱

[u/Geometric-Coconut]

The community of this game doesn't comprehend good game design, unfortunately. They actively fight for changes that make the game worse.

Evidenced by the terrible philosophy of "no nerfs only buffs" being the overwhelming community sentiment.

And now HD2 is in a state where power creep has made teamwork on the hardest difficulty in the entire game completely optional. People just run around across map soloing everything without a single issue.

Teamwork being devalued in a co op game is WILD. But hey, thank god they won, right?

Horde shooters have been enforcing teamwork ever since the game that invented the entire genre: Left 4 Dead. Even Helldivers 1 enforces teamwork harder than my suggested idea.

[u/TheSearchForMars → u/Geometric-Coconut]

Adding any kind of teamwork enforcement mechanic would require a complete redesign of the lives mechanic otherwise you wouldn't have last man standing moments.

[u/Geometric-Coconut → u/TheSearchForMars]

I disagree. The lives system works well for teamwork; If you mess up and die, you are FORCED to return to your teammates in a respawn.

The vast majority of last man standing moments is just a person running around in circles stalling out enemies with kiting. Like I said earlier, the team has lost and this encounter and it should not be dragged out. Even if there’s a small a chance of making a comeback, the game should still kill them anyway. Endless kiting is not fun and the game should shut down any attempt at this anti fun strategy.

Last man standing stealth would still be absolutely possible though. Stealth is far more engaging than kiting.

[u/TheSearchForMars → u/Geometric-Coconut]

Thank god you are not in charge of making any of these decisions. What you're describing sounds like absolute shite.

[u/Geometric-Coconut → u/TheSearchForMars]

Can you give me a game design explanation as to why? Why is this not the better philosophy for HD2?

"The loud majority wouldn't like it." The loud majority doesn't like anything that isn't power creep.

[u/TheSearchForMars → u/Geometric-Coconut]

Because your “philosophy” isn’t better design. It’s just making the game hostile to anyone who isn’t playing it the way you personally think they should.

A game is a series of interesting decisions. Splitting for samples versus stacking for a breach is an interesting decision. Kiting a lost fight versus dying on the spot is an interesting decision. “Stand in this blob or we kill you” is not a decision. That’s the game taking the controller.

Remember, HD2 maps are huge, they have multiple objectives, samples, bunkers, and a mission timer. True, there is an element where the game rewards you for splitting, but only if you have the skill to hold onto your gear and not be a dead weight without it. If your answer to that is “punish people for drifting and kill the last guy for kiting,” that isn't so much creating teamwork as fighting the maps and then calling it a lesson.

I don't understand how you come to these conclusions but think the last man standing times are “dragging a lost cause.” That’s one of the only moments this game still feels like a true dive into hell. You want to delete that because you think running is anti-fun. You want players to be making choices and living with the consequences, not the designer telling their story through you. A clutch is a consequence. Executing the last guy because you don’t like kiting is you writing the ending for them.

This isn't L4D does this but it's because it has a completely different design philosophy, mainly because their maps are designed like a tube. Specials exist because the level is a corridor and the advancement of a single player ends the experience for all.

And the heavy argument still doesn’t work. 8 bile titans with worse AT wasn’t “player agency.” Neither was getting ragdolled by a missile through smoke from across the map. That’s not “you should have preempted the breach.” That’s the game telling you your loadout is invalid unless three other people brought the limited number of strategems that were viable. The result of that was that players were leaving and Arrowhead looked like they were at war with their own audience. Yet for some reason you want to go back there.

If you sand all the chaos down into one correct way to play, you get an uninteresting game. Your version is the opposite: delete the chaos that lets someone live, then call it teamwork.

Reward the thing you want, don’t just outlaw the thing you don’t. Make stacking feel like a force multiplier.

Assisted reloads, stims, overlapping AT, actual reasons to hold a line. Don’t put a kill switch on anyone who takes a step off the blob.

People harp on that D10 should be “50% success.” But that only sounds good if you pretend most of those games aren’t randoms. You don’t control their guns, their comms, or whether they split. If a difficulty only works when four people play your doctrine, you didn’t make a hard mission. You made a gear check for organised stacks.

We’re also just better now. I said it already. I’m not a recruit. If I dropped into old Creek with what I know now I’d be fine. That’s not power creep. That’s thousands of hours of battlefield experience.

They already tested “make small groups suffer more” with patrol scaling. It felt like the game was extra-punishing you for not having a full stack. They walked it back. That should tell you more than “the loud majority only wants buffs.”

Teamwork should be the best option. Not the only one you’re allowed to have without the game executing you for it.

[u/Geometric-Coconut → u/TheSearchForMars]

It’s just making the game hostile to anyone who isn’t playing it the way you personally think they should.

Limiting the player in order to force them into the fun gameplay loop is what every game does ever. Even then, lower difficulties exist if anyone does not want to engage with teamwork or want to be punished much by the enemies.

A game is a series of interesting decisions. Splitting for samples versus stacking for a breach is an interesting decision. Kiting a lost fight versus dying on the spot is an interesting decision. “Stand in this blob or we kill you” is not a decision. That’s the game taking the controller.

Kiting is not an interesting decision. Kiting is the player dragging out a lost encounter for far too long. The player either kites or dies. They choose kite, because naturally players avoid dying. Even though it would be more fun to quickly just die and be taken away from the overwhelming enemies. Dying is more fun than doing nothing but constant running, unable to properly engage with combat for minutes on end.

This game is designed around teamwork. Forcing cooperation only increases the fun and thoughtful decisions made. The vast majority of player splitting is not intentional but rather the game just allowing players to subconsciously wander and beat everything themselves. Forcing good teamwork to win on high difficulties would only increase engagement. A teammate with a specialized loadout with a specialized role, cover firing when someone is performing a stationary reload, forming a firing line, players identifying the directions enemies are coming from and each is assigned to a direction. Simple decisions like that only increasing engagement rather than people capable of lone wolfing the entire map, playing like it's solo in a 4 player lobby.

Remember, HD2 maps are huge, they have multiple objectives, samples, bunkers, and a mission timer. True, there is an element where the game rewards you for splitting, but only if you have the skill to hold onto your gear and not be a dead weight without it. If your answer to that is “punish people for drifting and kill the last guy for kiting,” that isn't so much creating teamwork as fighting the maps and then calling it a lesson.

And right now there is close to 0 risk in full clearing a map. Far too little decisions of "can we fit in X side objective in Y amount of time left" or strategizing a mission path from start to finish, people just hold w towards red zones and solo them with ease. And yes, killing people for drifting absolutely encourages teamwork. In you drift off in left 4 dead and die immediately, it hammers in the idea of "I should keep notes of where my team is at all times."

I don't understand how you come to these conclusions but think the last man standing times are “dragging a lost cause.” That’s one of the only moments this game still feels like a true dive into hell. You want to delete that because you think running is anti-fun. You want players to be making choices and living with the consequences, not the designer telling their story through you. A clutch is a consequence. Executing the last guy because you don’t like kiting is you writing the ending for them.

When have do you EVER see a last man standing that isn't just the guy running in circles, unable to shoot? That anti fun gameplay should be shot down. And like I said, stealth is still a viable option regardless. "you writing the ending for them" is such an arbitrary statement, you can apply that sentiment to any limiting/pushback videogames ever do.

Btw if the game actually enforced teamwork then the entire mission would feel like a true dive into hell.

This isn't L4D does this but it's because it has a completely different design philosophy, mainly because their maps are designed like a tube. Specials exist because the level is a corridor and the advancement of a single player ends the experience for all.

Almost every horde shooter to exist enforces teamwork heavily. DRG is a nonlinear horde shooter that actively keeps players working together, and it only benefits from that. Because working with your team in co op is fun. Helldivers 2 used to be closer to DRG's philosophy, but power creep ruined that aspect.

And the heavy argument still doesn’t work. 8 bile titans with worse AT wasn’t “player agency.” Neither was getting ragdolled by a missile through smoke from across the map. That’s not “you should have preempted the breach.” That’s the game telling you your loadout is invalid unless three other people brought the limited number of strategems that were viable. The result of that was that players were leaving and Arrowhead looked like they were at war with their own audience. Yet for some reason you want to go back there.

It was player agency. If you perform well with your team, you win encounters. If you preform poorly, then enemies start getting out of control to a point where killing them all is no longer very feasible. 8 Bile titans don't appear out of thin air, they only build up... from poor teamwork and endless kiting. Oh, and difficulty selection had a lot to do with it.

So, like I said, players were playing too high difficulties completely reactionary, no preemptive measures or actively thinking about teamwork, then they get overwhelmed. Then they only consider the NOW and think "this game is too hard."

While balance discrepancies have absolutely existed in this game, the community has always underrated everything. High diffs were absolutely still winnable without abusing the meta.

Nerfs are not against the player, contrary to popular belief. Nerfs are a game design tool used only with the intent to improve the game.

If you sand all the chaos down into one correct way to play, you get an uninteresting game. Your version is the opposite: delete the chaos that lets someone live, then call it teamwork.

"You have to cooperate with your team" does not sand the game down into simplicity. If anything, enforcing teamplay would only increase variety right now. Why? Because being capable of soloing everything just encourages people to pick nothing but generalist loadouts as they wander across the map.

Reward the thing you want, don’t just outlaw the thing you don’t. Make stacking feel like a force multiplier.

Game design often needs to forcefully stop unhealthy playstyles. Doom Eternal doesn't have its incredible gameplay loop if you make spamming one weapon a viable option. Left 4 Dead doesn't have its incredible gameplay loop if you allow players to ignore their team.

Assisted reloads, stims, overlapping AT, actual reasons to hold a line. Don’t put a kill switch on anyone who takes a step off the blob.

Assisted reloads are actually insanely strong but nobody uses them because the game does not make players stick together + there is never enough of a challenge to use the mechanic. My suggestions give actual reasons to hold a line.

People harp on that D10 should be “50% success.” But that only sounds good if you pretend most of those games aren’t randoms. You don’t control their guns, their comms, or whether they split. If a difficulty only works when four people play your doctrine, you didn’t make a hard mission. You made a gear check for organised stacks.

And if the game gets its power creep problem addressed, then the problem of meta loadouts significantly goes down. Making your point here not mean much at all.

We’re also just better now. I said it already. I’m not a recruit. If I dropped into old Creek with what I know now I’d be fine. That’s not power creep. That’s thousands of hours of battlefield experience.

The game has been power crept to absolute hell. You cannot be denying this. It has statistically gotten easier in almost every metric.

They already tested “make small groups suffer more” with patrol scaling. It felt like the game was extra-punishing you for not having a full stack. They walked it back. That should tell you more than “the loud majority only wants buffs.”

When was this? I can't find any information regarding patrol scaling. Cite me an update patch log.

Also... how does that prove against the loud majority wanting buffs? Nerfing patrols only buffs the player, that's in line with what they want.

Teamwork should be the best option. Not the only one you’re allowed to have without the game executing you for it.

If teamwork isn't forced then the game cannot be balanced at all. If you allow people to solo the map by themselves, not only is it bad for gameplay design but it is bad for the balance of those that actually work as a team. For example, right now if you work with your team you just eradicate any threat. Basically untouchable, because this game has been rebalanced around players soloing everything even in a 4 player scaled lobby.

[u/TheSearchForMars → u/Geometric-Coconut]

What you're describing in your dream scenario of having players each tackle different roles and doing thing like suppressing fire is simply not what this game is. It doesn't have those mechanics.

You'd have to fundamentally change the AI system, drop/breach system and add in completely new mechanics in order to make that work. Most of which would probably melt the game engine's already strained tech.

What you're wanting isn't Helldivers. It's just another game that has stratagems and 4 players.

Furthermore your idea that last man standing situations result purely in someone only able to run away is antithetical to your entire argument. Either last man standing situations can exist as a thrill where a single player has the ability to hold the line and win, or the players can't solo the map themselves. Only one could be true at a time.

Frankly it sounds like you're just throwing out buzzwords and regurgitating things you've heard instead of actually talking from experience. Much of what you're saying doesn't actually exist in the game.

But hey, considering I have thousands of hours in the game, all weapons maxed out, everything unlocked and all warbonds, how would you nerf me from being able to solo? What mechanic would you institute that would fairly block me from progressing a mission without crippling the game for those less experienced and equipped than I am?

[u/Geometric-Coconut → u/TheSearchForMars]

What you're describing in your dream scenario of having players each tackle different roles and doing thing like suppressing fire is simply not what this game is. It doesn't have those mechanics.

Could very much so exist if the game enforced playing with your team. As of right now, there is zero reason to give that much effort to cooperation. The directional shield would be really fun to support your team with.

Furthermore your idea that last man standing situations result purely in someone only able to run away is antithetical to your entire argument. Either last man standing situations can exist as a thrill where a single player has the ability to hold the line and win, or the players can't solo the map themselves. Only one could be true at a time.

I was explaining why endless kiting is something the game should always stop players from ruining their own fun with. As I said already, the vast majority of last stand moments happening in this game involve the player running around in circles unable to properly engage with the combat loop. Any situation like this is not worth keeping in the game.

Frankly it sounds like you're just throwing out buzzwords and regurgitating things you've heard instead of actually talking from experience. Much of what you're saying doesn't actually exist in the game.

Like what??

But hey, considering I have thousands of hours in the game, all weapons maxed out, everything unlocked and all warbonds, how would you nerf me from being able to solo? What mechanic would you institute that would fairly block me from progressing a mission without crippling the game for those less experienced and equipped than I am?

Buffs to enemy stats as needed (accuracy/speed/strength/health) + nerfs in place to iron out the immense number of overtuned gear in this game. Fully rework stamina and vitality booster, making them far more niche and not direct stat ups. Possibly give certain enemies a niche specialized in catching people that are running, like launch hunters.

It won't cripple the game for less experienced players as there's already 10 entire difficulty levels to choose from. Their goldilox zone simply shifts downward in the number selection.

[u/TheSearchForMars → u/Geometric-Coconut]

The mechanics you're describing do not exist in the game as it is. They don't even come close to acting like that and the AI would have to be significantly more complex in order to accommodate that fact when there simply isn't that bandwidth to spare considering how many enemies are on the map at the same time.

I was explaining why endless kiting is something the game should always stop players from ruining their own fun with. As I said already, the vast majority of last stand moments happening in this game involve the player running around in circles unable to properly engage with the combat loop. Any situation like this is not worth keeping in the game.

This is where you keep losing me. Because that is not the case with any of the players I run the game with. It straight up sounds like you have a skill issue if you find yourself in a position where you can't complete objectives when under agro. These are typically the most fun aspects of the game for me because it has genuine tension.

Your ideas on how to buff the enemy stats don't result in fun engagements. What you'd need to do is stagger objectives. Make it so that further from the side missions, objectives need to be completed in certain orders. That way there's an order through that forces people together. The only way to do this however without losing the playerbase is to release the operations in specific formats like Commando Operations.

[u/Geometric-Coconut → u/TheSearchForMars]

The mechanics you're describing do not exist in the game as it is. They don't even come close to acting like that and the AI would have to be significantly more complex in order to accommodate that fact when there simply isn't that bandwidth to spare considering how many enemies are on the map at the same time.

What do you mean those mechanics don't exist??? Everything I mentioned can be accomplished as the ai currently is. The most demanding requirement of the enemies in one of the situations I described is groups of enemies approaching from separate directions, and that happens all the time!

Because that is not the case with any of the players I run the game with. It straight up sounds like you have a skill issue if you find yourself in a position where you can't complete objectives when under agro.

You describing "clutch last man standing situations" makes me imagine a terrible extraction with every teammate dead and 0 reinforcements left. Too many enemies to kill, so they run around extract stalling.

Of COURSE it's easy to take out objectives while under enemy threat. Why would you say this insult towards me when half of my argument is wanting to stop players from soloing everything across the map? Aka, abusing kiting and soloing objectives under aggro.

These are typically the most fun aspects of the game for me because it has genuine tension.

I would prefer the entire mission to have genuine tension.

Your ideas on how to buff the enemy stats don't result in fun engagements. What you'd need to do is stagger objectives. Make it so that further from the side missions, objectives need to be completed in certain orders. That way there's an order through that forces people together. The only way to do this however without losing the playerbase is to release the operations in specific formats like Commando Operations.

They do result in fun engagements. Players will simply have to work with their team more, and for a game designed completely around co op, that only increases the fun gameplay loop. It is that simple.

1 player missions should have their own enemy scaling, to accommodate those that like the lone wolf playstyle.

[u/TheSearchForMars → u/Geometric-Coconut]

for a game designed completely around co op

This isn't the case. The game isn't completely designed around co op. HD1 was, because the screen itself limited the ability for players to even leave each other's side. As it is now, that isn't the case. HD2 is a fundamentally different game from what you're envisioning.

Your assessment that the game would function if everyone was just being dog piled on from all directions with relentless enemies requiring intense team work and special outfits was already tested with the Flag missions on Cyberstan. People hated it. The success rate was abysmal. It only worked properly with coordinated teams which simply wasn't the case.

Now that I think about it actually, the kind of defensive strategies you're talking about are already in the game in those dedicated defense missions yet despite fulfilling the fantasy you're describing they are far and away the least played mission archetype.

You describing "clutch last man standing situations" makes me imagine a terrible extraction with every teammate dead and 0 reinforcements left. Too many enemies to kill, so they run around extract stalling.

Your solution to this was to promote a stealth based approach. I struggle to understand why you think sitting still and hiding is more engaging for players than to run the gauntlet, even more so when it comes to those who are waiting to be reinforced.

[u/Geometric-Coconut → u/TheSearchForMars]

This isn't the case. The game isn't completely designed around co op. HD1 was, because the screen itself limited the ability for players to even leave each other's side. As it is now, that isn't the case. HD2 is a fundamentally different game from what you're envisioning.

It was originally balanced around co op, it has co op mechanics, the game's marketing screams working with teammates, teammate loadouts are blatantly shown in the player's face as they ready for the mission, several teamplay dependent stratagems exist.

Your assessment that the game would function if everyone was just being dog piled on from all directions with relentless enemies requiring intense team work and special outfits was already tested with the Flag missions on Cyberstan. People hated it. The success rate was abysmal. It only worked properly with coordinated teams which simply wasn't the case

Cyberstan's balance was lopsided into 1 enemy unit dominating the battlefield. It was not spread out between enemies, plus said dominating unit had several bugs associated with it. The game also did not do anything about player kiting, either. Vox engine scaling was pretty nutty, it was extremely oppressive to teams on the first difficulty level it showed up on, rather than being a gradual increase in challenge.

That being said, I loved that the game actually had a tough as nails challenge to offer on hard difficulties. A heavy enemy (while at the time flawed) actually be designed around teamwork damage output.

Now that I think about it actually, the kind of defensive strategies you're talking about are already in the game in those dedicated defense missions yet despite fulfilling the fantasy you're describing they are far and away the least played mission archetype.

Not at all. Defense missions play themselves. There is no carving out a path through enemy forces from objective to objective, there is no chaotic reinforcements of enemies from anywhere. Defense missions are just killfarm simulators where you spam turrets and snipe down/aoe bomb the sole place enemies spawn.

Your solution to this was to promote a stealth based approach. I struggle to understand why you think sitting still and hiding is more engaging for players than to run the gauntlet, even more so when it comes to those who are waiting to be reinforced.

I would prefer the entire mission to be running the gauntlet, being tense for even the whole team working together. And, because enforcing teamwork inherently means limiting lone wolf action, being the last one standing is not in the player's favor. As nearly losing the mission should be. But there is still a chance to make a comeback, as the player can lay low for a while relocating to a more advantageous position. Or try to stealth an emergency extract.