It was the patch that got me to stop playing. Why you would nerf weapons in a non-competitive game rather than make poor preforming weapons viable is beyond me.
It's akin to Steve Jobs telling everyone they're holding their phone wrong.
this post was submitted on 07 Mar 2024
245 points (96.6% liked)
Games
32570 readers
1537 users here now
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Weekly Threads:
Rules:
-
Submissions have to be related to games
-
No bigotry or harassment, be civil
-
No excessive self-promotion
-
Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
-
Mark Spoilers and NSFW
-
No linking to piracy
More information about the community rules can be found here.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It's to keep design space open and to minimize developer work.
Let's say we decide to keep an overperforming gun. It does all the things. It has all the ammo, all the damage, all fire rate, all the reload speed. Now, all future weapons have to be made with that as a consideration. Why would players choose this new weapon, when there's the old overperformer? The design space is being controlled and minimized by the overperformer. Players will complain if new weapons aren't on the level of the overperformer.
Now, let's say we have ten weapons with one clear overperformer. Now, we can either nerf a single weapon to bring it in line with the others, or buff nine weapons to attempt to bring them up to the level of the overperformer. Assuming the balance adjustments of each weapon are the same amount of work, that's 9x the effort. However, if we assume we do this extra work to satisfy players, now we have ten overperforming guns and players find the game too easy, so now we also have to buff enemies to match. However, the game isn't designed to handle these increase in difficulty. Players complain if we just add more health to enemies, so we have to do other things like increase enemy count, but adding more enemies increases performance issues. It's a cascading problem.
I consider nerfs a necessary evil. It's absurd to ask developers to always buff weapons and give them so much work when they could be developing actual additions to the game. Sometimes, a weapon really does need a nerf.
Also, I'm not sure how much this applies to helldivers specifically, but from what I've seen, teams didn't really teamwork. Because they didn't have to.
This can be very bad because if it follows these steps:
- game is easy, no teamwork required, players learn to play the game without teamwork
- game gets harder, but some people can still manage solo, complain about "newbs" and tell them to "git gud"
- game gets even harder, now it's impossible to play "quasi solo" but the environment is no longer fit to learn teamwork in the context of this game. "How" to work together effectively.
Then people will complain, justly, that they don't have the tools and methods to beat the challenge. Which is correct. They don't. But you can't just tell people to "go play easy mode and learn the game", when they are "max level" and put 40-100 hours into the game.
Of course the synergy tools still have to exist and I'm not knowledgeable about helldivers whether they do.
There is no good choice to "encourage" teamplay, except via creating "natural" funnels that people will "end up at" "organically", and putting a challenge in front of them that they can only work with teamwork. But that means the challenge has to beat them, until they get it. And that may never happen.
One game I have found exceptional as a case study for what is "overpowered" and what isn't, and why, is magic the gathering. All the "code" is public. The complaints are public. The bans are public, and explained. So if anyone here wants to nerd out about balance and doesn't know mtg yet, there is a rabbit hole for you.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Thank you so fucking much.
If you want the game to have long term viability, you have to have nerfs. Otherwise in 3 years everyone who has been playing since day 1 has a mech with a gattling cannon that fires nukes and is fighting gods.
*Cough* Warframe *cough*
Average anime protagonist progression.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Lack of further content and wanting to lock the little content they do have behind the premium bonds, which will drive people to buy credits since they don’t have time to grind out the credits needed.
Making all the weapons overpowered to match ruins the intended difficulty.
I dont know what everyone is so upset about, the shotgun feels fine, the recoil doesnt feel bad, and the mag size isnt a huge problem for me.
Plus the flamethrower buff and laser cannon buff are super nice. Im usually in favor of the whole "buff everything else, no debuff" but this honestly feels fine.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(19 replies)
The dev comments are hilarious, and they were obviously trolling
Agreed, Agreed and they still shouldnt have done it. Sometimes I say shit I know I shouldnt to customers because they are being assholes. They complain, the boss tells me off, I say "Fair enough" and I dont do it again for a while. But I know when I say the thing I shouldnt that "I'm gonna get a talking to for this" fortunately I'm government employed and I'm union so I know that a little backtalk isnt going to result in outright dismissal.
Ultimately the company could have turned around and sacked them all because I'm sure the company has a social media policy that basically says "if you do anything we dont like, we can fire you" and they would have had to fight it. They took a risk and I'm glad they didnt get fired (yet) but with all the layoffs in this space at the moment I wouldnt have.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
"I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?"
Honestly, I don't think it's a big deal. But it's just stupid as a developer to act like this.
I often ask about risk vs reward in these situations. What were they going to gain by acting like this and what were they going to risk by acting like this?
They're humans, too.
Eh. I went and looked at the comments. Sometimes people get a little lippy and it's whatever? Shit happens. But basically telling the customer 'i get off on you crying about this' is definitely going to cause some issues for the company.
Yeah, that's a line you don't cross in PR ever. "Cry more, I like it" is just not the message you want to send.
Could just as well have gone the other way though. Sassy CM telling some loud, annoying, entitled brat to git gud or cry more? Instant cool-dev meme. But if a lot of people feel similarly you get outrage and controversy. Just depends on the local culture on that particular day in that particular place.
It's cool to be rude as long as you also feel that it's warranted. It's cool to offend people you don't like or deride ideas you think are stupid. ~~Everyone is~~Most people are always just one wrong audience away from being a horrible person.
Of course CM or PR staff have different expectations, but I can understand why they might make a gamble sometimes trying to be cool and causual.
Will, first and foremost, these were devs not CMs. Shouldn't have been posting in the first place for exactly this reason.
But in my experience in the industry, it's never worth the risk to try to look cool. You lose more often than you win, even when you think it's the right time. Because even if people agree with the sentiment, there will always be people who object to the tone itself and that tips the scales against you
/Kleenex has entered the chat
Goddammit, enjoy your upvote 😆
Sure? But actions have consequences.
Seems like a major case of Redditors being able to dish it out but not take anything in return.
Right? I just assumed the developer said the N word or something.
This is exactly it.
Seems like a major case of Redditors being able to dish it out but not take anything in return.
Nah, this was Reddit just trolling the developers, that means it's all part of the joke and not a problem.
Some people can't take a joke I guess.
I was watching Mo1st play Helldivers the other night and he mentioned someone's comment about it having the kernel anti-cheat, and one of his buddies immediately said "that guy's a redditor."
I had never felt more attacked yet agreed with something so much.
I don't know if this makes me "a redditor" somehow or what, but....
As a dev, I am deeply troubled by the gaming industry so calmly walking into kernel anti cheats. It's insane and being tossed around like it's nothing.
Helldivers especially, since they picked one of the sketchiest ones and it's a game that entirely doesn't need it.
I have no idea if Reddit has suddenly picked up on this, but I've been pissed since at least Valorants release, but have seen more YT videos talking about it recently.
It was something I was aware of and against when I was on Reddit ever since I first heard of them.
And they don't even make cheating impossible. Cheats don't need to be running on the OS that is running the game. It could be running in a VM. I believe many VM implementations will let the guest OS know that they are running on a VM, but that isn't mandatory. Other hardware in the system can have full access to the memory space and do reads/writes without the OS knowing (though caches complicate this). Some cheats just act as a display and mouse, processing the display as it passes through the device to the monitor, and modifying the mouse input to correct aim based on what it sees. If it spoofs a monitor and mouse, nothing in the kernel will necessarily see any difference.
I really do not understand how server anti cheat is not way easier. I feel like devs are caught up on realtime anti cheat and not willing to do anything asynchronous. Or they really like paying licensing fees for client-side anticheat. I just don't understand how any competent software engineer or systems admin or architect trusts the client so fervently.
I really do not understand how server anti cheat is not way easier.
In a clean slate, it is. It's also way more effective (except for things like wall hacks, aim bots, recoil suppressors, etc, but most of those things are only really important and popular in competitive FPS). It's also much simpler to understand and to leave no "holes" behind. It also lives in the developers domain so it can't be "compromised" or circumvented.
The thing is that client side "anti cheat" can be commoditized. Every game with server authority/anti cheat needs specific server software to run their game logic. Client anti cheat is basically "look at everything else running on the system and see if any of it seems suspicious". As such, there's not really anything "game specific" to these - they basically are just a watch dog looking for bad actors - so as such, one company can come along, make one, and sell it to other devs.
This being "off the shelf" and not something the dev team has to think about besides a price tag means that management is just going to buy a third party solution and check off the "anti cheat" box on their task list.
I feel like devs are caught up on realtime anti cheat and not willing to do anything asynchronous.
First, this is a management problem and not the devs. Any dev worth their salt knows this isn't really a good solution.
But I'd say the more relevant and prominent thing here is that game companies just don't want to have to run servers anymore. It's a cost, requires dev time, and requires maintenance, and they don't want to do that. If these games had servers running the game world like games used to, they'd inherently have their own "anti cheat" built in for free that wouldn't necessarily catch everything but would do a better job than some of these. And it could be enhanced to cover more bases.
But studios don't want to do this anymore. It's easier to make the game p2p and slap an off the shelf anti cheat and call it a day.
Some games still require matchmaking servers etc, but the overhead there is way lower.
Or they really like paying licensing fees for client-side anticheat.
Not that I agree with the decision, but it is definitely cheaper and faster than the alternative. But picking something like nprotect totally fucking baffles me. There are better options.
I just don't understand how any competent software engineer or systems admin or architect trusts the client so fervently.
In some ways, same. Every project I've been on that has gotten anywhere near client side trust I've fought adamantly about avoiding it. I've won most arguments on it, but there are some places where they just utterly refuse.
But then there are things like New World.... I don't know how the fuck that shit released like it did. The number of things trusted to the client were absolutely baffling. I expected Amazon's first foray into gaming to be a fucking joke, but I was totally appalled at how bad it turned out. They even touted hiring ex blizzard talent to get my hopes up first.
Game servers are incredibly expensive, and server side anticheat is more costs.
Whether or not the studios can afford it (they can.) is irrelevant, it's simply cheaper to go for flawed client side because the client will do most of the processing.
Any software developer worth their salt simply does not trust the client, but management is gonna manage and the engineers have to come up with a solution to "we must have anticheat because we said so, and you must keep server costs per user below x". It's easy to forget that most implementation choices in video games aren't made by developers who like games, they're made by middle managers who view games as a money-generaring industry.
load more comments
(1 replies)
If people knew what devs said (justifiably) about players when nobody is looking, the internet would implode.
Like, I'm not trying to be an asshole, but holy fuck gamers are the worst about actually knowing how games are made or the consequences of various decisions they want made.
I don't know why 80% of gamers think playing games means they know how to make games, but it infuriates many of us to no end. We get that it's just misguided desire to see the games improve but jfc it makes life incredibly difficult (especially for the CMs)
EDIT: Imagine someone told an architect "You should just remove that load bearing wall. This other building doesn't have one in that position and it's great. Why is it so hard for you?"
"If people knew what devs said (justifiably) about players when nobody is looking, the internet would implode."
I feel that applies to every profession. Im a mechanic and sure we get a bad wrap on the internet for all the dodgy work and ripping off we do.
But when we're dealing with customers and their cars are filthy gross and full f rubbish and they're in for the dumbest of shit you just wish you could come back at them with facts and keep your job.
I totally believe it. Just based on complaints in gaming subs and communities I've seen over the years, I can confidently say there isn't enough money in the world to convince me to make a game and have to deal with all the grief from certain types of gamers lol.
Oh they definitely say that, and some are dumb enough to shop around for engineers they can bully. Just look at the Millennium Tower in San Fran. Idiot investors found engineers they could bully, built an inadequate foundation, and are now trying to save the building. A huge building they just built.
Yeah, and anyone with an ounce of common sense will point at that and be like "See? This is what happens." But an outrageous chunk of gamers seem incapable of applying the same logic to game development 🤷
Edit: btw this is why knowing how to give good feedback is a really good skill to learn
Bad feedback: "You should remove this button, it sucks and I don't want it"
Good feedback: "It disrupts my experience when I go to press button A but accidentally press button B because it's so close."
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)