Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

I'm like a lot of players. I played the heck out of Helldivers 2 during launch month, enjoyed it, and then hit a wall. I unlocked all the upgrades that interested me and I stopped being entertained by the maps & AI enemies due to repetition. Haven't gone back since.

How do you fix this problem without taxing the development team with a substantially greater workload?

Resources need to be expendable / finite...like they are in real life. In other words, Helldivers 2 should have copied the Extraction Shooter framework more closely. This solves so many of the core issues with Helldivers 2...

1. Missions become more entertaining because there's more innate risk and players are always grinding for a chosen goal. Helldivers 2 really suffers from players not caring due to a lack of risk & reward after a certain point.

2. Choosing mission difficulty becomes more interesting due to player grinding strategy. Do I want to grind on lower difficulty planets for longer to build my war chest, or can we reach our goals quicker on a lvl 8 difficulty planet?

3. Arrowhead Studios could have made "stronghold missions" that almost requires a team of fully kitted out players to have a chance. If you fail certain "stronghold missions" then you have to go back to grinding to build your characters power level back up. Having everything available to the player at all times reduces "big moments". The current experience mirrors the drug everyone takes in Christian Bales Equilibrium.

4. Upgrade diversity could have been strengthened due to OP items being finite. Arrowhead could have created more interesting, more powerful upgrades knowing that players wouldn't have access to them at all times.

TLDR: There's a reason why 99.978 percent of romantic movies take place before marriage. It's because risk and reward are innately more interesting than a framework designed to lock you in long term.

 

[HogIsland]

Is it not an extraction shooter? Im extracting a whole lot of Rare Samples.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Is it not an extraction shooter? Im extracting a whole lot of Rare Samples.

Not really...sort of?

Extraction Shooters typically play with risk & reward to a significantly greater degree than Helldivers 2.

 

[vaibhavpisal]

A lot of wishful thinking in OP.

Would be better if they did … this … this ….

Reminding me of Halo Infinite.

Anyways, I think if you played 80 hrs+ and had your fill, maybe look at new games.

 

[Insanemaelstrom]

No. What you are talking about would make the game even worse. Helldivers thrive on friendly damage and the action fantasy of fighting hordes of bugs and even bigger bugs. By adding more risks it takes focus away from the actual game and forces min-maxing. Not to mention doing what you suggested would require big changes in the game framework, especially due to how many things are one hit kill.

The main reason for loss in player base is due to balancing issues, and if you add your suggestions on top of that, you are just going to piss off the player base even more. Not to mention how players who depend on randoms will have an even harder time.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Anyways, I think if you played 80 hrs+ and had your fill, maybe look at new games.

Oh trust me, people bounced off Helldivers 2 to play other games the moment the fun to time played equation reached a certain point.

The thought experiment is really from the perspective of game developers and players wanting the game to have better legs.

 

[Ultros]

I'm going to enact Betteridge's law and simply say: no!

 

[SScorpio]

Oh trust me, people bounced off Helldivers 2 to play other games the moment the fun to time played equation reached a certain point.

The thought experiment is really from the perspective of game developers and players wanting the game to have better legs.

When is the last time you played? Arrowhead made the game much more punishing and removed the power fantasy fun from the game. The game now has 10% of the players from the number that were after the post launch drop.

They have a big patch coming I believe on the 17th that will be reworking most things. Hopefully they remove things like the current armor system. Oh you are using a light armor penetration weapon against a light armored enemy? You do 50% damage, less penetration does 0% damage. Oh that big fleshy different colored spot on the back of the charger? That's not a weak point it's a durable spot and your primary weapon does zero damage to it. Or hey here's an AT rocket, it does a good job but you have very limited shots, long reloads, and long call in. Have fun against the 20 rocket enemies with zero reload time that fire a rocket at you every 5 seconds which launches you across the map.

The game was changed to Tarkov difficulty. And the player base left because it stopped being fun.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

No. What you are talking about would make the game even worse. Helldivers thrive on friendly damage and the action fantasy of fighting hordes of bugs and even bigger bugs. By adding more risks it takes focus away from the actual game and forces min-maxing. Not to mention doing what you suggested would require big changes in the game framework, especially due to how many things are one hit kill.

The main reason for loss in player base is due to balancing issues, and if you add your suggestions on top of that, you are just going to piss off the player base even more. Not to mention how players who depend on randoms will have an even harder time.

Let's walk through point by point.

- Helldivers thrives on friendly damage - I'm not so sure about that. I'm also not so sure an increase in risk reward would impact friendly fire to any real degree.
- Helldivers thrives on fighting hordes of bugs and bigger bugs - This would still be the focus on Helldivers. It wouldn't turn into a Hitman like stealth immersive sim based on more risk and reward.
- It would take the focus away from the actual game. How does risk reward take away focus from the game?
- It would encourage min maxing. Very easy solution as planets and mission types would encourage different playstyles to discourage min maxing.
- It would require big changes in the framework. I'm not sure if that's true. It actually feels like a relatively light change in framework that would yield significant results.
- The main loss in player base is due to balancing issues. We all know this is bogus. Player loss is the result of the overly repetitive nature of the game. Fortnite always goes through weapon and item rebalancing and its player count has risen over the years.
- Players that rely on randoms will have a harder time. Maybe, but giving randoms stronger incentive to play intelligently may also improve the experience.

 

[Johnny Concrete]

If it would be a true extraction shooter it would mean PvP and I don’t think Helldivers 2 PvP would be a fun thing somehow and it would be hell to balance.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

When is the last time you played? Arrowhead made the game much more punishing and removed the power fantasy fun from the game. The game now has 10% of the players from the number that were after the post launch drop.

They have a big patch coming I believe on the 17th that will be reworking most things. Hopefully they remove things like the current armor system. Oh you are using a light armor penetration weapon against a light armored enemy? You do 50% damage, less penetration does 0% damage. Oh that big fleshy different colored spot on the back of the charger? That's not a weak point it's a durable spot and your primary weapon does zero damage to it. Or hey here's an AT rocket, it does a good job but you have very limited shots, long reloads, and long call in. Have fun against the 20 rocket enemies with zero reload time that fire a rocket at you every 5 seconds which launches you across the map.

The game was changed to Tarkov difficulty. And the player base left because it stopped being fun.

Difficulty isn't really the topic here.

Integrating risk and reward is. Those are two different issues. Cuphead has a high degree of diffuclty with very little risk reward.

I haven't played since launch month, but I've vaguely been keeping up with the new additions and nothing compelling enough has been added to get me to jump back in. Perhaps when the 3rd enemy type is added.

I'm looking at the Steamcharts player trends and don't see a point when player retention drops off due to a change in difficulty. Player retention has likely been an issue since month 2 on the market.

 

[ViciousAgenda]

They should have made Concord into an extraction shooter.

 

[RoadHazard]

I don't even know what an extraction shooter is. So maybe.

 

[Insanemaelstrom]

Let's walk through point by point.

- Helldivers thrives on friendly damage - I'm not so sure about that. I'm also not so sure an increase in risk reward would impact friendly fire to any real degree.
- Helldivers thrives on fighting hordes of bugs and bigger bugs - This would still be the focus on Helldivers. It wouldn't turn into a Hitman like stealth immersive sim based on more risk and reward.
- It would take the focus away from the actual game. How does risk reward take away focus from the game?
- It would encourage min maxing. Very easy solution as planets and mission types would encourage different playstyles to discourage min maxing.
- It would require big changes in the framework. I'm not sure if that's true. It actually feels like a relatively light change in framework that would yield significant results.
- The main loss in player base is due to balancing issues. We all know this is bogus. Player loss is the result of the overly repetitive nature of the game. Fortnite always goes through weapon and item rebalancing and its player count has risen over the years.
- Players that rely on randoms will have a harder time. Maybe, but giving randoms stronger incentive to play intelligently may also improve the experience.

1. When there is a greater risk than just mission failure, friendly fire goes from fun to rage inducing. Some people already rage when killed, even though there isn't much risk, how do you think they will react when more is at stake? Also arrowhead games are defined by random fun and friendly fire, play any magicka game, as an example.

2 & 3. When there is great risk or reward, the focus of players shifts from completing objectives to getting the best reward they can, it shifts the focus. One of the draws of Helldivers 2 is the ongoing narrative, by making the focus shift to risks and rewards, it causes the narrative to lose its significance.

4. Helldivers 2 already has low planet and mission type variety, the current variety that exists won't stop min-maxing. Also, your suggestion is again against the core narrative layout of the game, which is the standout feature of the game. At any point in time, only few planets are in focus. You may have a lot of variety but because access is limited to few, it will always cause min-maxing.

5. Most enemies, heck most things, in the game can one-shot you. it is already irksome when you are killed by a rocket from nowhere, how do you think players will react when there are more things at stake? Dying and only losing your life( maybe mission and time as well) is not as annoying as losing actual progress and resources. In order to have a proper risk-reqard extraction stuff, arrowhead will need to work their logic and enemy behaviour even more. Heck, maybe even preventing enemies from one-shot killing you. It will change the identity of the game.

6. The major loss in player base started when they reworked enemy spawn rate and started meeting weapons. Check out Helldivers subreddits or any forums about the game, the main complaint is always about balancing. There is a reason why arrowhead is currently focusing solely on reworking balancing. The bad balancing is also the main reason why I stopped playing the game, the main reason why many people in the forum's give as to why they stopped playing. Heck, it is the main reason why the latest expansion didn't have much effect on the playerbase.

7. That will just cause griefing.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

1. When there is a greater risk than just mission failure, friendly fire goes from fun to rage inducing. Some people already rage when killed, even though there isn't much risk, how do you think they will react when more is at stake? Also arrowhead games are defined by random fun and friendly fire, play any magicka game, as an example.

When you tie everyone to the same boat, you de-incentivize griefing and sloppy play.

2 & 3. When there is great risk or reward, the focus of players shifts from completing objectives to getting the best reward they can, it shifts the focus. One of the draws of Helldivers 2 is the ongoing narrative, by making the focus shift to risks and rewards, it causes the narrative to lose its significance.

Completing objectives would be tied to receiving rewards.

4. Helldivers 2 already has low planet and mission type variety, the current variety that exists won't stop min-maxing. Also, your suggestion is again against the core narrative layout of the game, which is the standout feature of the game. At any point in time, only few planets are in focus. You may have a lot of variety but because access is limited to few, it will always cause min-maxing.

The mitigation to min maxing would be to require different strategies to different missions / planets, so in effect, this would increase mission variety.

5. Most enemies, heck most things, in the game can one-shot you. it is already irksome when you are killed by a rocket from nowhere, how do you think players will react when there are more things at stake? Dying and only losing your life( maybe mission and time as well) is not as annoying as losing actual progress and resources. In order to have a proper risk-reqard extraction stuff, arrowhead will need to work their logic and enemy behaviour even more. Heck, maybe even preventing enemies from one-shot killing you. It will change the identity of the game.

This is accurate but you ignore the two sides to the coin your describing. Getting one shot (you can get one shot in the incredibly successful Escape from Tarkov) can be annoying, but Helldivers 2 offers players a number of respawns and it does suffer from "been there, done that" vibe that loses players.

6. The major loss in player base started when they reworked enemy spawn rate and started meeting weapons. Check out Helldivers subreddits or any forums about the game, the main complaint is always about balancing. There is a reason why arrowhead is currently focusing solely on reworking balancing. The bad balancing is also the main reason why I stopped playing the game, the main reason why many people in the forum's give as to why they stopped playing. Heck, it is the main reason why the latest expansion didn't have much effect on the playerbase.

This is just egregiously wrong. Look at the Steamcharts trend and you can't see a correlation between enemy respawn rates and player retention. Never go to a subreddit to learn as they're almost always a hive a scum and villainy.

7. That will just cause griefing.

I played Overwatch in 2016 as my main game. Then I played Fortnite in 2017 as my main game.

The griefing in Fortnite was significantly lower than the griefing in Overwatch because incentives were tied to team performance. In Overwatch, no one really cared about throwing a game or two because there was relatively little risk/reward. In Fortnite, killing your teammate significantly reduced your chances at getting a VR.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Game is exactly where it should be numbers of player-wise. They never intended it to be the sort of titles that attracts millions of player per month, its just the initial successful was a lot bigger than they imagined.

10k-20k ccu per day is good enough, and you'll see other similar games have more or less this amount of players as well.

 

[Spyxos]

Isnt it an extraction shooter? Or do you need pvp for that?

 

[Killjoy-NL]

They should have made Concord into an extraction shooter.

Why?

We will have Marathon for that. And now that I'm playing Hunt Showdown, I'm curious to see what Bungie will bring to the table.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Game is exactly where it should be numbers of player-wise. They never intended it to be the sort of titles that attracts millions of player per month, its just the initial successful was a lot bigger than they imagined.

10k-20k ccu per day is good enough, and you'll see other similar games have more or less this amount of players as well.

I can assure you, the creatives at Arrowhead Studios and PlayStation are having deep conversations about improving player engagement numbers going forward. "Good enough" isn't in a creatives mindset. Improving is.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I can assure you, the creatives at Arrowhead Studios and PlayStation are having deep conversations about improving player engagement numbers going forward. "Good enough" isn't in a creatives mindset. Improving is.

If a "creative" is trying to "improve numbers" of their "creative product" like its some ice cream manufacturer line, they'll fail.

 

[Gojiira]

Yeah no, literally the only issue Helldivers 2 has is Reward Progression, theres no long term goals or unlocks or anything to work towards it. The Warbonds are too small to really be all that rewarding. No it needs something more substantial to work towards as well as a reason to keep collecting Samples.
They need to fix that first and foremost. Then variety of objectives, the fact theres no dedicated Horde-type mode or whatever is ridiculous. Just make a node on each active planet,and its just wave after wave with rewards for certain milestones, throw in optional objectives and interactive elements like battlements etc and it would be perfect.

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

Fucking uuughh!!!!

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

If a "creative" is trying to "improve numbers" of their "creative product" like its some ice cream manufacturer line, they'll fail.

Tell that to Haagen Daz and Ben and Jerry's.

 

[Mobilemofo]

Don't want any more extraction shooters. Period.

 

[SScorpio]

Difficulty isn't really the topic here.

Integrating risk and reward is. Those are two different issues. Cuphead has a high degree of diffuclty with very little risk reward.

I haven't played since launch month, but I've vaguely been keeping up with the new additions and nothing compelling enough has been added to get me to jump back in. Perhaps when the 3rd enemy type is added.

I'm looking at the Steamcharts player trends and don't see a point when player retention drops off due to a change in difficulty. Player retention has likely been an issue since month 2 on the market.

It hasn't been out long enough to really see trends. But it levels out a bit in June, and then it started to slide. In August there was an uptick with the latest patch which applied more nerfs and messed with difficulty and even more players left than what were playing before the patch.

Since you last played, the game had multiple mission types added, along with new items including mechs. If you only played in the first month the game is very different from what you played. Arrowhead claimed to be fixing issues to get the game working to their "vision" which seems to align with what you are asking for. But from the drop in players, it seems like more people don't agree. The general consensus seems to be Arrowhead accidentally made a really fun game while wanting a hardcore sim. Any bug or glitch in the player's favor is fixed quickly while long standing issues with enemies remain unfixed for months.

But at its core the game is PvE, it doesn't have nor need the PvP component that full looters have. But to this day you'd still run into players that have hundreds of hours in the game based on their player level. Who team kill to be the ones to extract with the samples. Even though everyone gets credit for what's extracted with no split in any form. Some people just like toxic games, and HD2 wasn't made for them.

 

[kevboard]

Helldivers 2 would have been better if it wasn't a live service game.

this game would have needed a campaign so bad. it could have been a campaign that still uses the planet map with emergency missions that are semi-random and which you need to complete to progress, and optional missions that maybe unlock special stuff etc. but also have unique story related missions and boss battles.

the live service design leads to the me feeling extremely unmotivated to progress in it. the weapons aren't all that interesting either, so unlocking more stuff just feels boring to me as well. it also being pretty slow to progress doesn't helt either.

i am having way more fun with Earth Defence Force 6, even tho they recycled a lot of EDF5 at the beginning, simply because I am constantly progressing towards a goal, constantly unlock new weapons ranging from normal stuff to wacky stuff, and because I can play the game at my own pace with my friends without having the feeling that we missed something while taking a break.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

It hasn't been out long enough to really see trends. But it levels out a bit in June, and then it started to slide. In August there was an uptick with the latest patch which applied more nerfs and messed with difficulty and even more players left than what were playing before the patch.

HELLDIVERS™ 2 - Steam Charts

An ongoing analysis of Steam's player numbers, seeing what's been played the most.

steamcharts.com

When the Wright brothers made an early iteration of the airplane, they certainly developed a models that flew on a similar trajectory to the one above. I'm not sure if anyone at Arrowhead Studios or PlayStation thinks the last 7 months isn't long enough to be worth studying.

Since you last played, the game had multiple mission types added, along with new items including mechs. If you only played in the first month the game is very different from what you played. Arrowhead claimed to be fixing issues to get the game working to their "vision" which seems to align with what you are asking for. But from the drop in players, it seems like more people don't agree. The general consensus seems to be Arrowhead accidentally made a really fun game while wanting a hardcore sim. Any bug or glitch in the player's favor is fixed quickly while long standing issues with enemies remain unfixed for months.

I'm sure Arrowhead is solving the issues that they see in their metrics. The problem I see is that they don't have a true airplane or functioning ship. The core design of Helldivers 2 just isn't meant to fly long term based mostly on it's poor progression systems. You can bail water out of a ship using a few red solo cups, but if the ship is taking in enough water, your red solo cups aren't going to keep the ship afloat.

Helldivers 2 likely represents a successful failure in that they recieved gobs of cash for it, and learned a great deal about what made players stop playing. I assume their next title will improve upon the formula in a number of ways.

But at its core the game is PvE, it doesn't have nor need the PvP component that full looters have. But to this day you'd still run into players that have hundreds of hours in the game based on their player level. Who team kill to be the ones to extract with the samples. Even though everyone gets credit for what's extracted with no split in any form. Some people just like toxic games, and HD2 wasn't made for them.

I don't think risk reward is inherently toxic. I also don't think Helldivers needs to be a PvP game to solve most of its issues. (Though an asymetrical 4v1 PvP mode could be fun).

 

[Wildebeest]

I can tell you just from looking at Helldivers 2 that the core gameplay loop has problems. Kiting enemies and chipping away at them with basic shooter weapons, forever, is not fun. What is fun in the game is goofing around with other players, calling in fire support, or whatever. What they have in game now should have been a tutorial for a larger scale game mode that feels more like a fixed battle. Let's call it "Siege". You and 20-50 other players hold a fortress with layers of defence. The fortress has side jobs like restoring and arming cannons which make a big impact on the battle. Do stuff that people find fun and goofy in other games, like adding musical instruments in the game. This sort of thing appeals way more to the sort of people who would stick with a game like Helldivers than mechanics from games like Eve or Tarkov, which border on attracting toxic sociopath type player personalities.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

I can tell you just from looking at Helldivers 2 that the core gameplay loop has problems. Kiting enemies and chipping away at them with basic shooter weapons, forever, is not fun. What is fun in the game is goofing around with other players, calling in fire support, or whatever. What they have in game now should have been a tutorial for a larger scale game mode that feels more like a fixed battle. Let's call it "Siege". You and 20-50 other players hold a fortress with layers of defence. The fortress has side jobs like restoring and arming cannons which make a big impact on the battle. Do stuff that people find fun and goofy in other games, like adding musical instruments in the game. This sort of thing appeals way more to the sort of people who would stick with a game like Helldivers than mechanics from games like Eve or Tarkov, which border on attracting toxic sociopath type player personalities.

Interesting premise but when you create larger teams, the players sense of impact on outcome diminishes drastically. I think that's a really hard long term sell to keep players engaged.

 

[Wildebeest]

Interesting premise but when you create larger teams, the players sense of impact on outcome diminishes drastically. I think that's a really hard long term sell to keep players engaged.

Wrong. If you get 20 people behind a wall all focus firing at a big bug that a 12-year-old kid is screaming at them to shoot at, they not only feel engaged and that they are making a difference, but it is probably something they will remember for a long time.

 

[Sooner]

Out of all the games to "fix"...

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Out of all the games to "fix"...

You don't think Toyota tries to fix the problems of all their models? This is called progress my friend.

 

[HoodWinked]

of all the outcomes there are, games being this successful are a fluke/rarity. changing a major part of the game would only have caused it have been completely irrelevant.

in the alternate reality where the game was different, people would be saying "there was a helldivers 2?"

 

[poppabk]

As the palworld guy said (paraphrase)- it's OK to be done with the game and move on to something else.

 

[Corian33]

I stopped playing because of the anti-fun balancing more than anything. I also expected them to release more mission types, biomes, third enemy faction, etc. much faster. They add lots of weapons, but most are unusable due to the terrible balancing at anything above the medium difficulty levels.

It’s really a head scratcher that the company which released this game is the same as the company that’s been patching it since then. Like they don’t even understand why people loved it in the first place.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

As the palworld guy said (paraphrase)- it's OK to be done with the game and move on to something else.

This philosophy, over a length of time, will die out like the dinosaurs. Engagement is the unstoppable steamroller of progress. Those who get good at it become kings.

 

[Sooner]

You don't think Toyota tries to fix the problems of all their models? This is called progress my friend.

I'm not your friend, buddy

 

[Danjin44]

I'm not your friend, buddy

 

[bitbydeath]

I’m not sure what an extraction shooter is but what they need to double down on is the explosions and theatrics.

That’s what made the game special and standout, all the nerfing has been taking away from that.

 

[Judge Magister]

I’m not sure what an extraction shooter is

 

[bitbydeath]

I see.
It could be added as a mode but I can’t see how it’ll have much impact on the core design.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Seems like the issue with Helldivers 2 is that they just pushed out the game at launch and didn't make any content for it after

That's not a fundamental game design issue

 

[Judge Magister]

I see.
It could be added as a mode but I can’t see how it’ll have much impact on the core design.

I was just kidding since MGSV is somehow a TPS and you fulton extract alot.

I'm not into this stuff but i think you basically enter > complete goal/kill/loot > leave through extraction point with the stuff you gathered - if you die you lose the items

 

[rsouzadk]

Just stop nerfin.. ehh.. srry, just stop balancing the game is enough.

 

[POKEYCLYDE]

The game was a massive success. Not every game is meant to keep players playing for years and years.

Trying to figure out "How could we have kept players interested for years?", is futile. We'll never know one way or the other what changes to the game before it's release would have done.

Your examples might have made the game even less successful. We can never know.

 

[phant0m]

Anyways, I think if you played 80 hrs+ and had your fill, maybe look at new games.

1000% this and I don't know why everyone is obsessed with needing to play the same thing forever. I got like 65 hours in the game, had a blast, moved on.

When they come with a big content update (eg new enemies, new weapons/strikes, vehicles) I'll hop back in but there's a ton more stuff to play.

 

[ap_puff]

New post by OP soon: "Would Astro Bot have been better served as an extraction shooter?"

 

[Kiya's Guard]

Imo people should stop demanding constant content for live service games, change the mindset. Left 4 dead was one of the first horde shooters and it barely had maps, yet we didn't complain. Not every game should give you a thousand hours of content

 

[rm082e]

I think the only problem to be solved is the expectation from some players that a single game should keep them endlessly entertained.

There are very few games that can keep pumping out content and changes that keep people interested. And most players aren't content to just play one game even if it's amazing. Getting some number of hours out of a game and then moving onto something else is normal - even if the game has some sort of live service behind it.

 

[hlm666]

I'm not into this stuff but i think you basically enter > complete goal/kill/loot > leave through extraction point with the stuff you gathered - if you die you lose the items

Yeh tarkov is an extraction shooter. Other examples hunt showdown, gray zone, arena breakout.

What's funny is hd2 is already considered an extraction shooter on steam from user tags soooooooooooo
I think it would have done better as an overwatch clone, I hear they are extremely popular currently and sony should get on that.

Extraction Shooter

Steam Store Hub

store.steampowered.com