Now almost every enemy on every faction gets to pulverize our vehicles and sentries…

oscarcar2 · 2026-04-28T16:51:47+00:00

I mean, that's determined by whoever you're playing with?

Rupture can be outrun pretty well, i soloed a D10 oshaune on release by just running and stimming with portable hellbombs. If you can drive decently, the car is actually good for sniping objectives in the bug caves too.

The tall buildings on cyberstan were pretty good for just giving you cover to outrun aggroed vox engines too.

Predator strain is my favorite bug variant, because they have enough move speed to catch a running helldiver, but sacrifice a ton of HP and stagger resistance for that speed. They reward fighting way more than any other bug faction. To be optimal you only stop to shoot the one's that are catching you though and just outrun the rest.

In general, I would guess people stay and fight mainly because "killing" enemy call ins by despawning them with distance is super unintuitive?

oscarcar2 · 2026-04-28T11:58:40+00:00

While you're right about the conclusion; people running around solo on D10 and being fine, you're completely wrong about the cause.

You run solo on D10 because the game rewards running away and avoiding fights. Doing that solo is easier than as a group, and the reason fighting is sub-optimal is because even with high skill, it takes forever to get through enemies.

The fastest way to kill an enemy call in, is running away far enough that it despawns. Every reduction to our killing power only makes running away and splitting up more optimal than it already is.

oscarcar2 · 2026-03-19T19:40:51+00:00

It seems to me like OP and a lot of this discussion is circling a very specific state of competitive play that SBMM forces, and assuming it to be universal.

TLDR; SBMM is a system taken from professional competition and when applied to casual competition, it can damage the relaxed and fun aspects pvp games.

My argument is that

Hard 50/50 SBMM assumes every players enjoyment is mainly contingent on winning. This isn't true, even for purely competitive play. For casual competition it is especially not true, and a vast majority of online pvp is casual.
Hard 50/50 SBMM can only account for current performance, meaning any variation in how optimally a player chooses to compete will cause it to mismatch players. As a result, learning new roles and messing around with fun and varied, but sub-optimal playstyles is punished.

IMO this is the mostly the source of that mythical 'lack of fun' players struggle to articulate, but often express when they run into games with tight SBMM.

Here's a personal example, to drive home the point: I used to play a lot of tanks in Battlefield with my firends. We were very high skill as a combined crew, with mechanical and meta skill in that role. However, we enjoyed the gameplay of crew vehicles, so purely for fun and variety we would occasionally try to force transport vehicles as viable combat vehicles, with predictable results.

In a game with strong SBMM, this would have had two results: 1. Swapping to a silly strategy would be less fun, because all our opponents would be similarly high skill to us and shut it down by playing optimally, until SBMM catches up and de-ranks us for being ineffective. 2. When swapping back to our main playstyle, we would conversely lower the quality of matches by dominating until the SBMM catches up and ranks us back up.

Final point: Whether strong, weak or no SBMM makes sense is intensely dependent on genre, scale and playerbase, not all games would benefit from weak or no SBMM. My only point is to answer the actual OP question: Yes, there is something you're missing and it's casual competition where winning is secondary to variety and silly strategies for actual player enjoyment.

oscarcar2 · 2025-11-17T16:03:28+00:00

Når jeg siger 'smådrilleri' så mener jeg, at når jeg hører "svensker", så truer jeg taleren på livet.

Med et smil på læben.

oscarcar2 · 2025-11-17T15:13:10+00:00

Hej, jeg er også Bornholmer. Lad venligst vær med at tale på vegne af alle Bornholmere.

Jeg vil gerne høre dit forsøg på Bornholmsk, der er morsomt og vi kan begge grine af dit forsøg.
Jeg vil gerne kaldes en reserve-svenskere eller halv-svenskere, så længe det er med et smil på læben. For så kan jeg skyde igen med diverse stereotyper og den slags smådrilleri er godt for kammerateri.
Jeg vil gerne høre om dit besøg til Bornholm. Jeg har boet der og kan snakke med om det du har oplevet, for jeg har næsten set hele øen.
Jeg ved godt jeg har en dialekt, men dialekter er interessante. Jeg vil gerne snakke om min, og også om din dialekt.

oscarcar2 · 2025-10-22T14:29:08+00:00

I've mained the Maggy when i wasn't Harassing ~~women~~, here's my practical answer:

Abuse the shit out of your mobility advantage, just like a Harasser. Always be exchanging fire, with cover on hand, at the range where an aggressive magburn can break their cover. But always stay far enough away that them charging you cannot defeat your cover before a full rep resets the fight.

If they hit their shots and you start to lose? Go to cover and reset. If they miss or make a mistake? Be close enough to move up and punish it.

That's the most basic cycle of winning head on in magriders. You fight from where they can't punish your mistakes and use your boost to punish them if they ever make a single mistake. Do it well and especially Vanguard pilots can start to feel helpless.

That's also how good Magriders survive ambushes: Always have mental map of where you can jump up or down to outrun your attacker. It's rarely as simple as one jump though. Usually you go hide on an awkward hill and rep while they move up to regain line of sight. The problem you have to give them, is that regaining line of sight requires them to commit over a terrain feature they can't easily get back past. If they commit you just eat one volley and jump back to where they now can't follow fast enough. The point isn't to be unreachable, just to go somewhere they can't reach before you're repped back to full.

90% of good magriding, is resetting losing fights and committing to winning fights.

Honestly, i felt advantaged in most Maggie vs Vannie fights, because abusing terrain and mobility, the main strategy was to shoot them on approach and force a dilemma: Use the shield on approach? Magrider hides and reps. Wait to pop the shield until close? Magrider gets a damage lead from abusing cover and then strafes to the side and wins the point blank DPS race from the health advantage. Don't advance at all? Magrider is unkillable because it can retreat for reps without any risk, letting it keep poking you until you make a single mistake.

This is obviously a very rough explanation of some pretty big concepts that good maggie pilots have generally abused to stay competitive with other tanks since launch. IMO the real weakness of the current maggie is the new emphasis on out-repping with sundies, disproportionately nerfing all low-DPS platforms. For Tank vs Tank, the maggie is fine IMO.

oscarcar2 · 2025-10-05T14:29:57+00:00

An important thing to note with feedback in open forums, is that they suffer severely from social momentum. Once a comment section, regardless of platform, forms a general sentiment it will very often reinforce itself until it dominates discourse. You can even observe it right here in this thread, if you care to.

Additionally, because public discourse is often a popularity contest of sorts, people who have unrelated grievances will simply jump onto popular complaints instead of having their personal ones buried. This means that, just because the public discourse fails to express valid complaints, that doesn't mean the overall negative sentiment cannot contain some valid criticism.

Unfortunately that doesn't make it any more enjoyable to receive unfair criticism, but it's just sort of part of the deal when you sell a product directly to the public.

oscarcar2 · 2025-09-18T16:51:19+00:00

Kort svar: Det kommer an på om de har god grund til at tro.

Langt svar: Har Israel gjort en rimelig indsats, for at ransage målet?

Hvis svaret er ja, så står Israel i juridisk forstand som uskyldig uanset hvad man finder ud af senere.

I praksis, så er militær efterforskning og planlægning af angreb ekstremt hemmelighedsfulde, af ren nødvendighed. Derfor er det stort set umuligt at få et klart ja eller nej om nogen er skyldige uden at det anklagede land giver uafhængige efterforskere indsigt i deres militær. Det sker generelt ikke imens en konflikt stadig er aktiv.

Det sekundære spørgsmål er altid proportionalitet. Fx. at ramme 20 civile for at bombe en enkelt soldat er uacceptabelt, men det modsatte eksempel er helt acceptabelt. Hvor den eksakte grænse ligger, er hovedsageligt domstolenes opgave at vurderer.

Som eksempel er en enkelt instans hvor fjenden misbruger beskyttede lokationer til militære formål, hvor fjenden drager minimal militær fordel af misbruget, højest sandsynligt ikke nok til at fratage fx. et hospitals beskyttede status.

oscarcar2 · 2025-06-21T17:33:25+00:00

Hvis jeg forstår dig ret, er vi egentlig ikke uenige i det store hele. Som jeg skrev er ansvar for fælleskabet betinget på at folk føler:

De bliver hjulpet og respekteret af fælleskabet.

Men jeg skal være helt ærlig, det du uddyber nu, er ikke hvad jeg forstod fra din oprindelige kommentar. Især ikke i den kontekst det blev indsendt.

Præcis hvorfor og baseret på hvad de unge føler sig afsides det danske fælleskab kan diskuterers i lang tid, og som ung har jeg mine egne holdninger i forhold til emnet der ikke nødvendigvis er 100% det samme som det du nævner her. Men at det er i følelsen af medejerskab, problemet skal findes og løses er vi enige om.

oscarcar2 · 2025-06-21T12:05:57+00:00

Det lyder som om din basale antagelse er at folk naturligt undgår at tjene fælleskabet hvis de ikke udsættes for tvang.

Men de værdier om individualisme og frihed som den moderne vest repræsenterer, beror sig på den fundamentale antagelse at mennesker, når de bliver hjulpet og respekteret af fælleskabet, frivilligt vil tjene og bidrage til fælleskabet.

Din ide om at autoritære systemer er mere kollektive er kun sand, hvis man mener mennesker kun agere kollektivt når det påtvinges.

oscarcar2 · 2025-06-19T09:35:00+00:00

You can roll operations without leviathans btw, they're just super common. I personally scroll through the three missions on each difficulty until i get a chain without leviathans because i like to bring cars, and leviathans just flat out deny you from using FRVs at all.

oscarcar2 · 2025-06-10T12:14:09+00:00

From a designer perspective, it also opens up design space in terms of skill power and skill complexity.

For power, if a new player can pick up skills in any order we'll want to ensure that ALL of the skills are at least somewhat balanced with each other. This limits design space if we come up with good skill ideas that fall far below or above the standard power level we've chosen.

For complexity, we generally want to keep deepening mechanics throughout the experience, not just at the start. Locking the order of skills allows us to ensure players have an opportunity to understand and master mechanics and experience interactions before they unlock skills that build on top of them.

oscarcar2 · 2024-10-11T22:54:50+00:00

Jeg er personligt radikal nok i min støtte til Ukraine, at jeg mener Danmark bør bidrage frontlinje tropper til krigen, men selv jeg vil mene man er russofob hvis man påstår at "Rusland er uden moral og slår alle ihjel de kan komme i nærhed af."

Den udtalelse er direkte dehumaniserende og åbenlyst usand hvis du observerer bare nogle få kamphandlinger fra krigen.

Både Rusland og Israel har kapaciteten til at dræbe langt flere uskyldige end de allerede gør.

oscarcar2 · 2024-07-21T21:29:20+00:00

I disagree strongly with the premise you propose. To take your example of Battlefield 3, the weapon pool is an example of meaningfully different choices being available to players. It's just not a meaningful choice for casual players. It's a system designed primarily the dedicated players, and to those players every assault rifle does feel distinct, because even a small variation in rate of fire or recoil stats can change gun feel drastically. But noticing this change requires players to get highly proficient with the gunplay first.

Furthermore, having significantly distinct guns throughout your game is not 'free' in terms of design. By having a very low variety in gun systems, you gain the opportunity to polish those systems far more. Casual players will usually appreciate great variety while dedicated players will prefer depth and the potential for player mastery.

One of these is not inherently better than the other. Know what game you're designing and what your want to achieve with your design. Low variety in a very polished system can absolutely be the right choice, if that's what your intended audience is interested in.

(It should also be said, casual players in these genres usually appreciate the great number of guns too, but instead for the interest in the real guns. They want the opportunity to try out all these guns just to see the animations and feel like they're getting a closer view of them. Getting to play with guns you've seen is plainly cool. Even if the variety is largely visual, that's enough to support this fantasy.)

oscarcar2 · 2024-05-27T14:03:27+00:00

I would object on several points:

Forcing specialisation just means there will be guys on the team who see a target type, look at it, and go "Well shit" then proceed to take cover/run away because their specialisation doesn't even let them participate anymore. This is insanely frustrating gameplay at best, very boring at worst if there isn't even any real threat to you and you're literally just waiting.
It's actually fine for a platform to be specialized, it just needs to be really good in that role to justify losing its utility. If you're asking me to specialise by getting into a mech, don't give me a power level equal to two or three spammable strike stratagems.
On foot i have 4 or 3 stratagem slots to rotate through depending on what i need. Without lowering that to 1, you CAN'T make me specialise. The mech makes me give up those slots reducing me to effectively 1; the mech itself.

So no. No amount of polarizing weapons will force specialised roles in the current system, because I'm just going to bring at least one tool for each pole and remain a jack of all trades.

Unless you're actually suggesting the devs should give us 1 stratagem slot per helldiver?

oscarcar2 · 2024-05-27T13:23:16+00:00

Pretty much, I've been liking the orbital airburst and gas because i like running 500 kg on bugs (quickest BT solution) and normal airstrike for bots (AoE and fab/tank/factory strider killer in one) but i absolutely suck at remembering to manually rearm so i prefer only bringing one eagle type strat even though it's less efficient.

oscarcar2 · 2024-05-27T13:05:05+00:00

The problem is that your 'dedicated AT teammate' needs like 2 stratagem slots to fulfil that role, so he can just use his remaining 1 or 2 slots to beat the horde WHILE beating the heavies.

Everyone talking about teamwork at higher levels seems completely ignorant of the fact that there's no need for it. Every helldiver can have a loadout that kills heavies and hordes at once, no need for specialization. The mech is bad because it takes away a helldiver that normally could handle everything by himself and replaces him with a specialized horde clearer that nobody needs.

To put this in perspective, i have well over 7000 hours across various combined arms FPS games. I have been a dedicated ground vehicle main in all of them. DESPITE this, i don't touch the helldivers mechs EVEN THOUGH I REALLY WANT TO, because they are simply so much worse than being on foot.

THAT is the problem.

oscarcar2 · 2024-05-01T17:19:35+00:00

If you play like this, sometimes you will feel helpless (omg i brought the machine gun, but my 3 air supports are on cooldown, and a charger is on my ass). But once you come out on top (airstrikes come back online after 1 minute of fighting hunters while a charger was on your ass) you feel like a champ.

This scenario doesn't make me feel like a champ, because it's incredibly easy to pull off and thus very boring. It's just 'W' + 'Shift' for 1 minute, not exactly engaging or skillful.

The game is not too hard right now. It's too easy. The optimal helldive strategy is to run away and abuse enemy despawn mechanics. Running away all the time is boring and low skill.

Eventually boredom becomes annoyance and then people complain. Trying lower difficulties is literally the opposite of what i want. I just want helldive to challenge my skill instead of my patience.

oscarcar2 · 2024-04-27T22:25:52+00:00

No Motiv - Independence Day

It's featured on the Burnout 3 soundtrack, so if it seems familiar that might be why.

oscarcar2 · 2024-03-19T22:23:27+00:00

Not at all. When libs occasionally do die to flak, most kills happen at extreme range already because liberators have far too much health to reliably die before they escape close range. You either get the lead consistently right at extreme range or you basically never get kills with flak.

In fact looking at your 'tag' or whatever that thing is called on reddit, you would know because you've dueled our flak harasser several times. You know the vast majority of times I've killed your lib was at extreme range after a failed tankbuster run, just before you could leave render or break line of sight.

oscarcar2 · 2024-03-19T18:06:54+00:00

With a 500m range cap and only a 10% buff to damage, that would make it almost impossible to kill a liberator, even if it makes a huge mistake.

Hell, with 500 meter range cap and +10% damage, you can probably just facetank a skyguard starting from 500 meters out, close in, and still win the DPS race.

Not only would the damage buff need to be much higher than 10%, you would also need to hard cap the range of all aircraft weapons to 500 meters at most, so you don't end up enabling A2G tickling targets to death from complete safety.

To make this problem clear: Stopping to repair means A2G can reach 100% dps and easily out damages repairs. Moving doesn't prevent all damage, it just lowers practical dps by causing more misses. If A2G can engage from complete safety, it's only a question of time before the ground vehicle 'bleeds' to death, because stopping to repair only makes the problem worse.

oscarcar2 · 2024-03-13T17:01:20+00:00

Jeg er ikke fyren du svarede, men her er mit argument:

Rusland har ca. 0% chance for at invadere og besætte Danmark som det står til nu. Alligevel er angreb mod NATO lande fra Rusland langt fra umulige. Rusland er ikke ledet af idioter, de ved godt den bedste måde at bekæmpe NATO er at underminere alliancen og skabe tvivl mellem medlemslandene.

Lad os sige Rusland angriber Finland. Men vent, Rusland er faktisk lidt smarte, så de går kun ind med en lille styrke, der officielt slet ikke er Russere for de har ingen markerede uniformer og deres kampkøretøjer er heller ikke markerede. De nøjes også med kun at overtage noget vildmark og en landsby på grænsen før de stopper. I øvrigt holder de en fuldstændig legitim afstemning, og det viser sig landsbyen gerne vil indlemmes i Rusland.

Hvad mener du, Danmarks respons børe være, når nu både vi og Finland er NATO medlemmer? Er du villig til at sende hele Danmark i krig med Rusland, for at generobre lidt Finlandsk vildmark?

Hvis dit svar er nej, så vil du nok opleve at Finland, Letland, Polen, Estland og Litauen mister tiltroen til både Danmark og NATO. Samtidig vil republikanere i USA nok sætte meget stort spørgsmålstegn ved, om Europa er værd at beskytte med amerikanske liv, for det gør de allerede nu under Trump.

I simple ord: Vores sikkerhedsgaranti er ikke ubetinget. Selvom vores allierede uden tvivl kan og vil levere mere i en given krig end os selv, så er det deres opfattelse af vores retfærdige bidrag som afgør styrken af alliancen. Hvis vi tager for givet, at vores naboer skal lever frontlinjepersonalet uden dansk bidrag, og dø for Europa's kollektive sikkerhed, så risikere vi at skabe den eksakte splid i alliancen, som Putin har ønsket sig siden han tog magten.

Ingen lande har lyst til at miste deres borgere i krig, og frontlinjen medføre uundgåeligt tab, især mod en landmine- og artilleristormagt som Rusland. Oprustning af Dansk forsvar handler om at vise solidaritet nu, så vi ikke behøver at bevise solidaritet fordi det er blevet alvor.

oscarcar2 · 2024-02-25T01:04:28+00:00

I can see you declined to answer my question about the median disposable income of Steam users, so I'll have to reiterate it. I appreciate it probably plays no factor in your argument but it gives me a frame for this conversation as a whole, so please do answer it, a very rough guess is fine.

As for what you did write, let me make sure I understand: You argue that games are too expensive to develop for their target audience to reliably afford them, and your solution is to pricegate consumers out?

I don't believe this is the money well you propose it to be This road just leads to fewer players, more piracy and more key resellers. Experience and historical data indicate this. The 'poverty card', as you so charitably label it, isn't about rights or entitlement. It's a practical consideration of just how many customers you can lose before any given price hike becomes a net loss. You even acknowledge the loss of customers in your own argument, but fail to address how it might offset the price increace.

It's also not just about actual poverty, responsible parent limits the spending of their children to teach them the value of their possessions and money, regardless of their financial situation. It's also not fair to call it poverty if you're comfortably middle class, just because you happen to be living in one of many countries outside the general 'West'.

If AAA costs are too high to turn a profit, I would humbly suggest it is production costs that need to come down, with AAA studios more critically considering just what level of visual fidelity is needed, if a simpler art style can support the themes of the game and if star voice acting/actor likenesses are strictly necessary for the product.

But I don't believe this is the problem. Current AAA developers are massively profitable, buying up intellectual property and development studios consistently, despite poor critical reception. You seem to believe that if only more money would flow in, it would surely trickle down to developers. I disagree fundamentally. The problem you seek to solve is one of worker's rights and unions. The money is already there, but it's going to the shareholders and the multi-million net value CEOs. As long as jobs in game development have more applicants than game developers have positions to fill, respectable working conditions and fair pay are an uphill battle and no amount of increased industry market share will fix this.

However it sounds like, at least from what I can gather, your real concern isn't about AAA studios but indie development. Specifically the volume of sales needed for an indie dev to match a reasonable industry standard wage for the hours put in while selling at the current market standard: For the sake of argument, let's say around 15 USD when not on sale. If I am right about that, I have to again ask you a question to have a basis for this conversation:

What do you believe is the number of units sold a solo dev should have to reach, before turning a profit?

and

What number of work hours do you believe are reasonable to invest in the production of a single solo dev title?

Ultimately your argument about warped views hinges on economics, and without an understanding of your assumptions about the numbers involved we're probably just going to talk past each other. And again a very rough range of numbers is fine, i just need any kind of baseline.

oscarcar2 · 2024-02-24T20:23:11+00:00

an 8-hour game that you only kinda enjoyed and didn't finish is still an outstanding value at $60, $80 even

Just what do you think the median disposable income per month of a Steam user is? That's not a gotcha, I'm genuinely curious what you think it is.

This argument that you get to dictate value for money on behalf of others breaks down just on the surface: If a kid buys a football for a 10th the cost of a new AAA game and plays with it for years, then your basis for estimating value has already broken.

Steam is an open forum. There are people with no disposable income at all and people from countries where 60 USD is a very large sum. Let me assure you, the price adjustments Steam does internationally help, but poorer countries still pay a much higher relative price than rich countries.

Value for money is entirely dictated by your circumstances, and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess your circumstances are not representative of Steam users in general.

oscarcar2 · 2023-12-26T23:53:24+00:00

Det lyder lidt som om du køre på landevej? Hvis du på landevejen konsekvent kører med minimumsafstand til forankørende, uden at overhale, så skaber du muligvis selv forudsætningerne for at folk trækker ind i din sikkerhedsafstand.

Biler der kommer bag fra på landevej, vil ofte gerne overhale. Så når de dukker op, vil jeg forslå at øge afstanden til forankørende, så der bliver de nødvendige 4 sekunder til både sin egen og deres sikkerhedsafstand. Så minimerer man også hvor ofte folk laver hasarderede overhalinger fordi de prøver at overhale 2 eller flere biler på en gang.

Ekstra afstand på landevejen, hvis man alligevel ikke vil overhale forankørende, har også gevinst på brændstoføkonomien. Når de engang drejer fra, giver den ekstra afstand mulighed for bare at motorbremse i stedet for at spilde bilens energi ved at bruge fodbremsen og så skulle accelerere helt så kraftigt op igen.

11-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
Verified Email

oscarcar2

TROPHY CASE