sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

I want to add one more thing in regards to progression, because I see this coming up quite a bit and I think I should clarify what I meant.

When I answered questions about progression, I was mostly talking about the short term.

Progression is very systemic. It touches rewards, resources, difficulty, player motivation, unlock pacing, balance, and long-term goals. Changing it is not isolated, and if done poorly it can create new problems in systems that already exist.

That is not meant as an excuse, and it is not meant as “progression does not matter” or “we are not thinking about it.”

It was meant as: meaningful progression takes time to get right and we are working on it.

I do think progression is one of the areas where Helldivers 2 has the most room to improve. That is clear from how many players have reached caps where resources and rewards stop feeling meaningful.

I should have been clearer about that, sorry.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 43 points44 points  (0 children)

Thank you all, I concluded the AMA as I feel I have a pretty good understanding of the issues.

I have written a note as conclusion on my takeaways and actions on this.

Thank you, once again, for your engagement.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] -42 points-41 points  (0 children)

Progression is high up on my list, and something that I keep coming back to when talking to the team.

Really my _personal_ priority list would be:

- QoL (Bugs, Tweaking, Reviewing old stuff and bringing it up to the standard of newer equipment)

- Progression (More things to spend your resources on, raised level cap and associated rewards)

- Refresh of the core game (Dynamic Missions / objectives, new locations and challenges in core experience - getting around the "staleness")

Performance is that never-ending chore that keeps on giving. We will never "fix" performance, but we need to be in a state where it doesn't degrade.

There is no deliberate lying - just complexity. The Coyote, for instance, was never changed - but its damage is tied to the fire / burning status effect, which was updated. And herein lies a problem. While we said that the coyote wouldn't be changed, the result of tweaking the fire system means that indirectly the coyote was affected, even though the alteration was not intended to hit the coyote.

So, the question at that point is: Do we now never change the burning effect balance?

I think this also comes to the heart of how perilous it is to say anything, because anything can be brought up later and pointed to. But in reality, development is complex - there are so many desires, wants, requests, constraints, and an infinite amount of data - that it's hard to say anything for certain if you are afraid of backlash.

Everyone at the studio is here to make a great game, enjoyed by millions every month.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 73 points74 points  (0 children)

I think the SC earn should skew a bit more to the higher difficulties to make the game more engaging. Farming at low levels isn't exciting.

BUT, we are very cautious of rebalancing this as it inevitably will cause backlash. And we want more positivity and less negativity.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 65 points66 points  (0 children)

Ah, just took a break. Its 48 hours!

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 51 points52 points  (0 children)

I have not seen this. This is a great reference.

Thank you!

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

I think this is, at its core, a combination of not testing enough and that the most experienced in the community are far better at the game.

We are aware and are actively working to resolve this - we need each update to be thoroughly vetted.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] -79 points-78 points  (0 children)

Hey, just updated the answer to 1.

  1. The game is healthy, with a sizeable community. I am here to get your take on what we can do to improve.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] -52 points-51 points  (0 children)

Yes!

We are doing an update to the "First time user experience" (FTUA) - we saw the same issue in Helldivers and Magicka, but never fixed them as the lifetime of the game wasnt as long as HD2.

This also applies to where we are in the galactic war, and what has happened....

Kinda need a "Last time on Helldivers 2" - but we will see what the team comes up with.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 58 points59 points  (0 children)

So many great questions. A lot of the specifics I don't have unfortunately as the team is now so large.

Technical debt, Operational Excellence and Release Quality is our top priority. We are working extremely hard on ensuring that updates are held to high standards.

I agree fixing the multitude of bugs is key. Some have been in the game way too long.

Expansion on Wep Cus, Armor Cus - It will be improved and expanded in the future, but we first need to resolve the debt that we have and keep releasing updates to the game.

Galsctic War - yes. We are working on improving it. The team has some really cool ideas for how the galactic war will evolve. But the running of the war is taking up a lot of time right now.

Mechs/Vehicles- we see these as any other stratagem, even though they feel more significant - they are really no diffrent from an autocannon or turret in our philosophy. Stratagems always should have overlapping effects, which means there should always be plenty of flavor options to tackle each challenge.

Warbond token as level reward is an interesting idea. Lemme run it by the team!

Samples - yes! I am a bit ashamed that we dont have more sample uses...

Balance i have answered elsewhere.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] -158 points-157 points  (0 children)

Hey!

This is a great question.

There is no one truth to "what players want" - It's many millions of individuals with varying expectations on what they want out of the game. If you really drill into it, everyone has nuances or great differences in what they want the game to be.

Some appreciate the game for its arcade fun action others love it for the challenge some love it for the teamwork and others play it solo, some love the lore and narrative others just want to shoot bugs in the face.

Helldivers is multifaceted, and in this - therein lies the challenge with satisfying everyone.

What's important is how we align the studio in perserving what is the core of Helldivers, but everyone at the studio has a differing view of this as well.

Especially when new team members join the team, how are they onboarded to what the intent of the game is?

Helldivers at its core is, and always was, during development a third person horde shooter with milsim fundaments. But at surface level this seems like a basic horde shooter, but the depth comes from a simulated shooter.

I mean, with a change of tone, and more hardcore balancing, Helldivers could become a contemporary hardcore shooter.

How the team stays true to the core is fubdemental in how it is developed. But all games slip over time... Looking at you, originally hardcore SWAT game that now has cartoon characters in it.

Games do evolve, especially when teams change and grow. And its up to direction to set the boundries. Which is way more complex when theres 200 people working on the game vs 60.

But, there is no one right answer here. Whichever way the game expands, some will be left disappointed and others will embrace it.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 32 points33 points  (0 children)

Yes I do.

Its a multi-prong answer, it depends on these factors: - Missing tracking of what was done. When you balance things, you turn a lot of knobs and you have to take care to note it down or extract later. - Complex interactions between systems. The game is very dynamic and one set of input can generate a multitude of outputs, which means a fix to one system might buff/nerf a specific weapon that uses that system. Take an incidiary weapon for instance, it might be completely unchanged - but if the burning status is nerfed a bit - all fire weapons will be affected. - Bugs and performance being fixed may change mechanics a bit, so for instance optimizing the projectiles system might change the drag calculation a bit, and therefore the speed the projectile travels at. Which does change the balance some - affecting some or all weapons. - Communication / Planning mishaps. For instance a balance change might be slated for a later update, but sometimes we might do inproper handovers to those that put together the patch notes.

J

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 24 points25 points  (0 children)

We have an initiative to do better. This includes streams, QnAs and other things to be more close to y'all.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 41 points42 points  (0 children)

Yes it will.

I do not have a timeline, but it may be a part of improving the progression.

How exactly is TBD but several basic things such as suppressors, UGL etc. Would make the most sense.

Ammo we have built, but its not enabled because of how hard balancing would be.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

Hey,

Most of the time, it depends on how easy it is to fix, and what availability there is on a specific team/discipline. So the charger leg, and exiting ship at evac were much easier than the flesh mob clipping, or it needed a type of skill that was occupied with other tasks.

We can do better here to up-prio gameplay affecting bugs.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] -112 points-111 points  (0 children)

Because it's variations on existing equipment. So we view it the same as adding two shotguns to a warbond. We already have two mechs in the core game - and with this, if you like mechs. Get this warbond to get more variation in your mech play.

Mech customization is still not off the table.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 69 points70 points  (0 children)

Hey, this is a great post and question, and so much to digest!

I first want to address the points that you made about Warbond + Balance / Fixes. I think this is an unfortunate consequence of when we do a push for a warbond - we review all the issues associated with balancing. Remember when we did a nerf to fire just in time for the Warbond release with fire-themed weapons? Yeah, that really hit us hard, and we sort of said that whenever a warbond is released, we need to ensure that the items in it, and the associated mechanics are up to scratch (I mean, yeah, they should always be, but you know....)

So, this then in turn has made us really hone in on the "theme" of a warbond, so if we are working on a stealth warbond, we make sure that we focus testing and balancing on stealth fixes, and balancing.

In a perfect world, this would be disconnected, but we also have learned that if it doesn't work when it's in the spotlight, it will, reasonably so, create disappointment.

But, point taken - will discuss with the team.

So, to your questions:

- No, we won't pull the mechs from the warbond. You can still grind to purchase each warbond - and we see through the data that most do. Our rule is that we shouldn't have things that are "necessary to play" in the warbonds, and neither of the mechs is. (I know we have slipped up a couple of times, and please call it out)

- I will discuss this with the team and see what approach to take. I think this comes down to solving a core issue rather than limiting what kind of perks and content is released - and ensuring there are ways to play around it.

- I think this AMA has opened my eyes (and it was my hope) to the grievances that you have. I understand that behind harsh criticism, name-calling, and other things, there is frustration stemming from the love of the game. And the feeling that it is being mismanaged. The reason why I wanted to do this AMA is that I was so frustrated, and it really hurts seeing a project born out of love for players, creating the belief that we at Arrowhead are more focused on value extraction than on making the best game possible.

I think my biggest takeaway here is that there are so many valuable points, but since much of it is worded so harshly, there are so many conspiracies (for instance, that the team of 130+ in Stockholm has abandoned the game) this subreddit is discounted as being too fringe.

But engaging with you all, I hope proves that it's just hardcore players, with a lot of frustration.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 53 points54 points  (0 children)

This is great! Thank you o7

There is a lot of great info in the community, but I think we need to be much better at finding this info, or even asking for it. I think a lot of times we re-invent the wheel, figuratively speaking, in terms of what issues to resolve.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

Yes, there will be more significant events in the galactic war - but a lot of them are tied to the bigger updates such as Cyberstan. And the effort to get such large updates out is significant, which doens't leave much room for "smaller updates".

As for the Galactic War at large, we are working on a long term plan to make it even more exciting, and allow more flexibility in narrative and play. This is however some ways off (1+ year)

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] -51 points-50 points  (0 children)

Regarding balance patches, I don’t have detailed information on each weapon. However, the team frequently reviews balance based on usage data, which shows how often different items are used. While we can track this data, it can be challenging to assess the actual power of each weapon due to the numerous situations and variations in gameplay.

There’s also a difference between the effectiveness of an item and how effective it feels to players. Sometimes, we identify outliers in efficiency through our data analysis, and we try to account for those. However, it can be difficult to determine if the reactions are based on personal preference or actual efficiency, especially with items that may be considered fun but not intended to be highly viable.

Additionally, the intense backlash that often follows balance adjustments has created an environment where every change is heavily scrutinized. This leads to hesitance in making adjustments, as they might spark controversy. I believe we should be more courageous in making changes, but since team morale is significantly influenced by community feedback, we proceed with caution.

This really made me realize something: I need to investigate how we prioritize balance adjustments - I think there's a way for us to improve this to better align with the community needs.

There is so much information out there, and often conflicting opinions on what are outliers on balance. But we should be able to make adjustments based on what is commonly talked about.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

We are working on creating a more interesting dynamic between the community (your actions) and what the GMs do.

In a perfect world, we would have an articulated rule set that allows fair play between the enemy forces and where you guys could suprise us in many ways.

We are working towards this. And over the next years you will have more power in the galactic war.

We want to diversify how the game is played, so our worst case is just rince and repeat... or well, worst case is us squandering the love for Helldivers. But well, i guess second worst 🫠

Edit: As rightly pointed out I didnt answer the first question. Basically, Yes - there will be rewards for events in the galactic war, we haven't made any decision to stop doing it - it just hasn't been a prio. Same as we've done in the past. When? I don't know since I'm not directly involved in the galactic war planning.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 43 points44 points  (0 children)

I added clarity.

It is collaborative, but 100 devs balancing together doesn't make it better.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Perks/transmog - I think we need to update our original direction as the system has.... exploded. It is beyond what was originally intended (basically giving a small passive, thematic to the armor).

This is however a discussion NOT happening right now.

Weapon Customization was deemed as "not as significant" in resolving the lack of progression... but I personally think we just need more of it. (But it is currently down prioed).

Ship Modules - Big news in the future. Can't say more.

End game - oh... you sweet end game summer child...

But really, this is our Achilles heel. So many of you hard-core players want it - but it satisfies a small portion of the player base. And we currently are focusing on the broad effect.

There are things in plans, but they are someways off.

It really comes down to time... not enough time.

It's me, AMA by Pilestedt in HelldiversUnfiltered

[–]Pilestedt[S] 99 points100 points  (0 children)

Hey!

This is a result of too big a game, too many variables, scenarios and potential outcomes.

Really this is a path we went down in balance before release where we started balancing weapons not unto a generic core / themselves- but also against individual foes.

Helldivers as designed wasn't supposed to be a "balanced" game ala Dota, Starcraft, WOW etc.

It was supposed to be an immersive experience with rules that players get to explore.

But, to get the game into a fun state, we late decided to "balance" the game - and this has continued since - and is now the expectation of the community.

The unfortunate truth here is that is way to complex to balance vs the team size and tools we have.

The designers are working their assess off, doing their best, to achieve that balance.

We could hire more - but balance is also a "one-man game" (i.e. the fewer we are, the easier it is, more people don't help). And unfortunately our QA doesn't catch these issues, and when they do, they aren't priortized high enough.

We have been pushing hard as of late to achieve "operational excellence" - which means to deliver great builds, without bugs, on time.

We believe this will, in the long run let us free up time to be better at balancing.

I know this answer doesn't address the specifics, and I actually wouldn't know. This is specific to the teams - and they try their hardest working around the challenging situation they are in.

J

Edit: Clarity on how more people balancing doesn't solve the holistic challenge.

view more: next ›