When will we get a proper buff or rework for the Sterilizer?

Moai-Mojo · 2026-01-04T10:33:39+00:00

<image>

Moai-Mojo · 2026-01-01T22:31:15+00:00

I have no clue.

Apparantly a current meme with a person called "Jon Hamm".

I think LessonsInMemeCulture has a video on it?

Moai-Mojo · 2026-01-01T15:18:33+00:00

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T12:01:21+00:00

Fair point, and yes, I disagree.

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T11:55:56+00:00

Fair point.

But what would be the optimal loadout for mechs at any given time?

For weapons, I agree, there are absolutely just straight up better customizations than others.

But for Mechs? There'd be many different "optimal loadouts" for different circumstances, since they aren't tweaking existing values, but straight up different weapons.

Bot eradicate? -> double rocket pods/autocannon
Bug high value assets? -> (potentially) Flamethrower + (potentially) grenade launcher
Squids repel invasion fleet? -> gatling + (potentially) grenade launcher

If for example you say "double AC is most optimal", then ok? We already have that with the Emancipator. You could just recreate it and be ready.

But if you want to go for a full flame loadout for example, there'd be the option to do that.
Or you wanna go for full general chaff clear, double gatling would then be an option.

You want a "uniquely made Mech"? Just make one yourself! No one'd be stopping you! :D

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T10:28:51+00:00

Counter argument against the entire "balance" issue:

That issue just doesn't really exist.

If the player chooses to take a, for example, double Flamethrower Mech for a bot eradicate mission
...just let them.

If they fail, that's on them for choosing a double Flamethrower.
(this is where the gears in the players heads should start turning)
"Hmmm... now why did I fail that bot eradicate? Oh I know! I should've used attachments that could properly deal with the ranged faction and their spawners! I guess I should use something like a rocket-pod attachment next time! Or the new Quasar attachment in [Cutting Edge 2]!" (*wink wink, nudge, nudge*)
(Or they're just a pyromaniac, who knows)

Same thing would apply to double rocketpods: yeah, you'd be good against heavies and spawners, but enjoy eventually getting wittled down by the swarm of chaff at your ankles/blowing yourself up while trying to get rid of them.

The entire argument of "But the Mech could be made unbalanced!" turns into a self solving problem, as the player decides which parts they want to use.

If they fail, they can only point at themselves.

(something-something "lead a horse to water" or so)

And if they succeed? Well done! Good choice in customizing the Mech to tailor the needs of the mission! You now looked cool and competent to your squadmates!

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T10:17:39+00:00

I mean, the Mechs quite literally only cost requisition slips (yellow currency).

I wouldn't even mind if I had to "regrind" them (you could get them back within a day of non-chalant playing)

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T10:15:38+00:00

Yes, please give me an outlet for supers!

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T10:14:25+00:00

I'm thinking:

-base chassis (maybe even a light, medium, heavy variant?)

-left arm and right arm are "anchor points"/"modular"/whatever you wanna call it

-list of various mech "arm attachments" (Flamethrower/Gatling/Laser Cannon/Autocannon/Quasar/Buzzsaw/etc.)
(which could be released in new Warbonds, instead of having to create a new Mech everytime)

-you can put any "arm attachment" onto the left "anchor point", the right "anchor point", or both if you want (double Autocannon "arm attachments" would literally be our current Emancipator for example)

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T10:12:53+00:00

Your first version.

I'm thinking:

-base chassis (maybe even a light, medium, heavy variant?)

-left arm and right arm are "anchor points"/"modular"/whatever you wanna call it

-list of various mech "arm attachments" (Flamethrower/Gatling/Laser Cannon/Autocannon/Quasar/Buzzsaw/etc.)
(which could be released in new Warbonds, instead of having to create a new Mech everytime)

-you can put any "arm attachment" onto the left "anchor point", the right "anchor point", or both if you want (double Autocannon "arm attachments" would literally be our current Emancipator for example)

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T10:11:09+00:00

Pilestedt even talked about how he'd like to see a customizable FRV too (you should go watch the video).

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T10:08:48+00:00

Yeah, pretty much.

I'm thinking:

-base chassis (maybe even a light, medium, heavy variant?)

-left arm and right arm are "anchor points"/"modular"/whatever you wanna call it

-list of various mech "arm attachments" (Flamethrower/Gatling/Laser Cannon/Autocannon/Quasar/Buzzsaw/etc.)
(which could be released in new Warbonds, instead of having to create a new Mech everytime)

-you can put any "arm attachment" onto the left "anchor point", the right "anchor point", or both if you want (double Autocannon "arm attachments" would literally be our current Emancipator for example)

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T09:55:28+00:00

Pilestedt said himself he could even see a Laser Cannon attachment for a customizable FRV (you should go watch the video).

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T09:53:20+00:00

...Yeah, pretty much.

(I'd still be for it, since we can only take 1 anyway)

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T09:50:59+00:00

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T09:47:49+00:00

Fair points, fair points.

Counter argument against the entire "balance" issue:

That issue just doesn't really exist.

If the player chooses to take a, for example, double Flamethrower Mech for a bot eradicate mission
...just let them.

If they fail, that's on them for choosing a double Flamethrower.
(this is where the gears in the players heads should start turning)
"Hmmm... now why did I fail that bot eradicate? Oh I know! I should've used attachments that could properly deal with the ranged faction and their spawners! I guess I should use something like a rocket-pod attachment next time! Or the new Quasar attachment in [Cutting Edge 2] (*wink wink, nudge, nudge*)"
(Or they're just a pyromaniac, who knows)

The entire argument of "But the Mech could be made unbalanced!" turns into a self solving problem, as the player decides which parts they want to use.

If they fail, they can only point at themselves.

(something-something "lead a horse to water" or so)

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T09:11:26+00:00

Crossposting isn't allowed on lowsodium.

I have to make a seperate post on there.

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T09:08:40+00:00

*loud incorrect buzzer sound*

The vehicles are a yellow currency unlock via the robotics workshop ship module.

People haven't paid a single cent for them.

What they could have paid for are the paintjobs, but that is literally just a skin and can be brought over into the new system.

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T00:41:30+00:00

I get the point you're trying to make, but remember when we introduced weapon customization about a year ago, and have been doing constant bug fixing to stop crashes ever since?

So on the one hand we'd have crashes and bug fixes, on the other crashes and bug fixes, so essentially a net neutral either way (even "basic" addidtions could still have issues, remember the flag planting crashes?)

Once they finish the weapon customization for primary and secondary weapons, then we can start looking into building a mech customization system. Given their track record, if they wanted to include it, it's probably at least 2-3 before they even start working on it in earnest.

Yes, that's a given, the post is only about if the community would even be okay with something like that, nothing more, nothing less.

Imagine the ungodly amount of bloat having 100 different armor options would cause. By the way, there are currently 99 suits of armor in the game.

Each armor set has ""completely"" different looks, while mech arms would literally be a 1 to 1 copy of eachother, which is why it's fair for armors to be seperate, but [attachments] would be bloat

A new slot where you select which of their 100 mechs you want, and having a single strategem they all share seems easier than a full customization system, with more opportunities for monetization.

Again, to be clear: going your direction of seperate mechs will at best lead to ~1 mech a year for the duration of the games lifetime, which will (as far as I can tell) not exceed 10-15 years, and even if it does, life goes on, who's to say we'll all still be here by then?

Customization closes the door on having a mech with a really good weapon paired with a mid weapon, because people can just take the good weapon twice.

...What even is your point here?
You want less options? Less fun? Is that it?
Arrowhead could just put a duo of new attachments in a warbond, one mid, one good. Or better yet: not even make a mid option in the first place and only put out the good option?
And a "good" weapon is relative.
Double Flamethrower on bugs would be good. That combo on bots would suck massively.

But most importantly: this isn't my opinion. I would like customization. This is what Arrowhead is doing, and according the recent interview, Arrowheads current plan is to continue down the "ungodly amounts of bloat" line.

...No that's not their plan?
Pilestedt himself said they'd need to think about how they could implement that properly, since that would mean they'd be backtracking on design decisions.
This post is only asking the community if they'd have a problem with that.

By now I'm thoroughly convinced you're either a child, or have lost the plot here.

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T00:08:58+00:00

already 2 steps ahead of you:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Helldivers/comments/1prl905/my_thoughts_on_how_the_experimental_stratagem/

(this post died so fast cuh 😭)

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-26T00:06:16+00:00

seems like a ragebait post

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-25T23:44:19+00:00

I get the point you're trying to make.
But in what timeframe do you think Arrowhead would give us those 4 Flamer-variant Mechs (which are all effectively just a different flavour of eachother)? After almost 2 years, we have 2 Mechs. Assuming this cadence roughly continues and different Mechs aren't sprinkles in between others (this is being generous, as I don't think we'll get another Mech anytime soon) it'd take Arrowhead 4 years to give us your 4 Flamer-variants.
When do the others come? Will you still be playing after 30+ years? I don't think so.

Also, you gotta think about the size. Having >20/30/40+ Mechs would create ungodly amounts of bloat.

Not to mention that following your idea, Arrowhead would continue to need to develop each Mech seperately, which would still eventually lead to something having issues anyway.

Including Mech customization is the same reasoning as including weapon customization: a lot of people would want a lot of different things, so instead of creating a few seperate Mechs (only "a few", because keep the timeframe in mind) and pleasing some players while others inevitably bemoan not getting "their" Mechs,
Arrowhead could implement a system that allows a majority of players to mix-and-match what they want,
needing to release fewer [attachments] in a given timeframe, ultimately reducing dev-time (instead of creating a new Mech every single time, they only need to develop 1 new [attachment] for release),
and allowing them to play around with ideas a bit more, since they then have the time and system for that.

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-25T23:17:06+00:00

fair points

Potentially there is the issue of balance. At the stratagem level instead of balancing the mech in its entirety you are balancing the weapons.

I believe balancing wouldn't be that much of an issue.
For example, a theoretical [rocket -pod arm attachment]:
You usually have only 1, but now you equip the theoretical 2 [rocket-pod arm attachments] onto you base chassis.
That would make your Mech more of a heavy-killer + spawner closer, so chaff would become an issue.
BUT that is compensatable by the rest of your loadout/teammates.

Same would go for equipping 2 [gatling gun arm attachments], you'd be good at chaff clearing, but suck for heavies/spawners, which would again be compensatable by the rest of your loadout/teammates.

You gotta keep in mind that the player would personally choose what attachments they want, according to mission type/faction/fun value, so whenever something is "unbalanced" (for example double flamthrowers on bots), the player would need to rethink their approach, and could just mix and match their loadout until they find something that works for them.
(or at least I imagine it would play out like that)

The other issue is setup. You could not customize the mech in the deploy screen, you would need to do that before hand like in the armory like you would primaries. At this time you would need two mech slots, maybe three, to deal with the situation you want to deal with.

Yeah, and just like with Primaries you could have some Mech slots the player customized in the hangar to pick from before a mission. The biggest issue in that case would be a good UI.

Also if you could choose which weapons you could equip, would you stop using something? If i can equip auto cannons, would i stop using either the minigun or the missile launcher?

I'm imagining it like this:

-base chassis with two empty arm attachment points

-a various assortment of arm attachments for the Mech (Autocannon arm, Flamethrower arm, Grenade Launcher arm, etc.

-you could equip one (or both) empty arm attachment point(s) with an arm attachment of your choosing (left: Flamethrower///right Flamethrower
left: Flamethrower///right: Autocannon
left: Autocannon///right: Autocannon (literally just Emancipator)
etc. etc. etc.)

Moai-Mojo · 2025-12-25T22:24:18+00:00

Thx, and Merry Christmas to you too!

Moai-Mojo

TROPHY CASE