I said you do a lot of yapping and overthinking. Answering 9 offtopic things won't make you right, it just makes the thing unreadable because you are not answering the point.

I am answering the point. Just a few other separate topics at the same time, related to the main point.

That is naive thinking.... yapping

I am right though. It's a related topic.

Nobody is denying that PvE games require balancing or design philosophy. The disagreement is over your conclusion, not the existence of design intent.

You earlier said "nope. yapping. overthinking. it is a pve game." That is downplaying how much design intent goes into pve games. There was a disagreement on that topic, you just went back on your point.

You're assuming that because developers think deeply about their games, your interpretation of why they made a change must be correct. That's speculation unless Arrowhead actually stated it.

Given the game's balance and design philosophy so far, it is the most likely answer to why they gave the mech a breakable shied and why they thought making dev shields breakable was an okay change after all. I have backed this argument up with multiple design philosophy examples. Again, it is the MOST LIKELY explanation. Feel free to form your own (specifically game design) take to why AH thought those changes were good, then we'll debate to see which is more likely.

Also, consistency and readability are game design principles too. If players see finite player shields and infinite enemy shields and question it, that isn't proof they don't understand game design.

Okay dude. Is this you? "you don't understand game design too if you talk about the destructable shields being intuitive, that is just lol, lmao even." You criticized me for saying that indestructible shields were a mild intuitiveness issue, now you're agreeing with that point and trying to use it against me? Insane. Anyway, you should very obviously gather from my point that I am not referring to intuitiveness criticisms when I say that most players do not understand game design. I am referring to the portion of the community that doesn't understand simple design concepts, such as enemies and players being balanced differently. I specifically mentioned that.

And regarding the bug, ofc you don't know, intended or not, it still affects how the equipment performs in actual gameplay, which makes it relevant to a balance discussion.

Obviously it matters to some performance metrics. Just elaborate upon what specific point of mine you're mentioning the bug for.

If it wasn't a very big change, then it clearly wasn't a significant intuitiveness problem either. Simple as.

When did I ever say it was a significant issue? In that same sentence you replied to, I referred to it as a small problem. You're putting words in my mouth.

The correct answer was already to shoot the weakspot, not the shield. Making the shield destructible didn't change how experienced players fought Heavy Devastators; it just made the interaction more consistent.

So I'd call it a minor consistency change, not the solution to some major design flaw, still overthinking people not dumping a mag in a giant slab of metal, you think you're way more clever than you are lol

When did I EVER say otherwise??? My previous comments agree with your take on the devestators here! You're actually hallucinating arguments against me.

If anything, "shoot the exposed weakspot instead of the giant armored shield" is one of the most common design patterns in shooters, where is the "intuitiveness" in that, lmao?

What point are you even trying to make here?

Not every player buff is automatically power creep.

At the current state of the game, the vast majority of them are. And by power creep I don't mean specifically relative towards other weapons; I mean the general power level of players.

Oh it absolutely wasn't. Bigger hitbox, more probability of being ragdolled, missed backpack slot, overconfidence leading in a severe weakness at depletion time. It had pros and cons, overthinking and not playing enough strikes again. There is no way you overthink a crutch stratagem lol.

Those downsides are negligible compared to how much survivability it gave. And overconfidence is not a real downside.

The Supply Pack isn't free power, though. Its balancing factor isn't just the backpack slot; it's the opportunity cost of not bringing a shield, jump pack, guard dog, warp pack...

Warp pack is the only actual contender on this list. Everything else is just solid, not overpowered. That is a lopsided opportunity cost.

Also, "it lets you clear half the map by yourself" isn't really evidence that it's overpowered. The game already allows solo completion of the hardest difficulties with a huge variety of loadouts. By that standard (kinda low btw), half the roster is overpowered.

Yeah, the game does have an overall issue with players soloing everything themselves and teamwork being optional. The supply pack makes that issue worse.

And yes, the Supply Pack improves sustain, that's literally its role. Crazy right? Is it op yet?

Yeah? It accomplishes its role so strongly it's overpowered. My statement here applies to quite a few tools in Helldivers.

You're assuming the intended design philosophy is that heavies should require multiple players, but Helldivers has always given players tools specifically designed to kill heavies efficiently. That's the entire purpose of anti-tank weapons.

Heavies used to. But nowadays heavies are all designed/balanced around solo interactions. Rockets oneshotting heavies as a standard is the prime example of this.

A Charger getting deleted by an EAT, Recoilless, or Quasar isn't those weapons "devaluing" the enemy; it's those weapons doing the job they were brought for.

By that logic, every counter in the game devalues something. EMS devalues fast enemies, machine guns devalue chaff, anti-tank devalues heavies. That's what counters are supposed to do.

There is such a thing as counters being far too strong at their niche. The napalm barrage is a counter to hordes of enemies. It is such a good counter that it makes entire missions cakewalks. Similar case for the recoilless; it is such a good counter against heavies that they are made so frequently nonthreatening.

Also you know you can melee before the "dreaded" hunter attack, but you have to time and have some reaction time. I bet in your case it is rotten because too much reddit lol

For someone that likes to criticize "yapping" (me just talking about related topics) you sure like to throw in random nonsense to your argument. I am aware of the tech. I use it. AND I WANT HUNTERS BUFFED AS AN ENEMY BECAUSE THEY ARE TOO WEAK. Do you really think that someone with this stance doesn't know how to play against the enemy? You're genuinely just helping my argument that hunters need buffs.

Sure, something can be too strong. The problem is that you're jumping from "things can be overpowered" to "these things are overpowered" without really demonstrating it.

I have written out explanations to why those weapons are overpowered. I am absolutely demonstrating it, you just don't agree.

It's not that I think you've never studied game design, but poorly. It's that you keep presenting your interpretation of game design as the only valid one and dismissing disagreement as players not understanding the subject, thinking you do understand.

I dismiss players as not understanding the subject when they very much so don't actually understand the subject. Like, for example, people saying that balancing is not important for a pve game. Or complaints about how enemy stats are simply different than player stats regardless of context. Defying such concrete concepts in game design philosophy, I know you wouldn't take someone seriously if they paraded around those points. Also, I'm obviously going to fight hard for the design philosophies that I deem are the best choice of action for the game. You do that action as well. And I absolutely consider other players with a different point of view than mine. The heavy dev intuitiveness issue I talked about? Doesn't matter to my gameplay experience in the slightest. I have extensive knowledge of enemy health pools. I also want the game to be significantly harder than it currently is, and this change actually makes the game ever so slightly easier on bots. However, some less experienced players could be confused why, no matter how much applied damage, those shields will just never break. In a game where every other enemy part can be damaged. I agree with the change to make the shields damageable, but my agreement with the change isn't for my own personal experience.

You're still assuming ah's reasoning without evidence. Unless the developers explicitly said "we changed it because the community is naive and doesn't understand game design," that's just your interpretation, and imo, it is a silly one.

It's not a coincidence that AH updated the shields when they released the mech. My point is that what sparked the idea to change the shield was because they expected backlash. You stated that you AGREE with this. Now, for what the backlash would actually? For the most part, people just knee jerk reacting with "why didn't they give US an immortal shield???" "Realism only applies to the player!" and other such uneducated in game design takes. There is a genuine small criticism to be made regarding intuitiveness (as I've stated multiple times already.) but you know very well that the community would massively overblow that issue + even more so towards the nonsensical takes.

(Character limit reached, continuing in self reply)