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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I remember an incident in Red Orchestra where we were on a tank map. A teammate hopped in a tank. So, I did too. He jumped out of the tank and into another; so I joined. He jumped out and started shooting at me, basically insisting I get my own tank. Apparently, his level of tactical sense and reflexes in a tank vastly outweighed the value of having a second player in the gunner’s seat; even though the game was realistically meant to depict tank crews cooperating.
It’s a common issue with lots of team play games. The other player decided that it was better to have two people operating separate mortars than to have one of them provide small arms cover on the flanks of the tank.
Helldivers 2 has a similar problem where some players can help other players reload their larger weapons at a much faster rate than typically; however the player base decided that it’s better to fan out and each operate the weapon solo because shots do not need to be made so rapidly and clumping together increases the odds both players die.
The game does have a bit of a balance problem, but as usual the players are not the best at designing the solution.
Railgun was overpowered, since it did literally everything without any risk. The funny thing is - you can still do things it did before, you just need to actually use the unsafe mode.
The armoured bugs are a bit overtuned, the devs have announced they will be looking at them, but just giving you an OP gun is not a way to fix that.
Shield was probably alright as it was, but the current iteration of armour doesn’t really make up for the lack of it.
Did you ever played Payday 2, where powercreep made us go from guns with all the best attachments could maybe kill the toughest enemy in the game in half a mag, or about 15 shots, to the devs needing to implement 3 (technically 4) more difficulty levels with new enemies that were just old enemies with more resistances or 10 times the health as their stock launch counterparts, and those things dying in 2 hits from all the meta build weapons. All because they kept introducing more powerful weapons, more attachments that made launch guns more and more obsolete, and general more power creep through skill tree expansions and entirely new jobs for perks. The player counts for that game dove off a cliff after players realized each DLC was just pay 2 win garbage and even using stuff you could get only from the base game and free updates left every weapon feeling samey with the same tactics being used and things not in the meta utterly ignored by anyone playing end game content. Because instead of reigning in the things that overperformed and broke the balance curve, they just kept powercreeping new items into the game.
You’re missing the point. Player counts for that game dived because despite fairly regular new content and replay value, the meta and power creep pushed all players into using very similar functioning builds with everything that could be considered an alternate playstyle being so underperforming many people couldn’t even make them work in the 2-3 difficulty range. HD2 has much better variance in maps and enemies, so as long as devs keep the trickle of new content and powercreep under control this game easily has a 6-8 year shelf life. Community will trickle downwards like all games do as they age and new games pop up. But as long as the devs don’t fall into the trap of caving to vocal minority of players demanding any exploits they find stay in the game, we could easily have 100k-200k regular pops a year from now.
If there was a gun that 1 tapped every enemy in the game and had infinite ammo and maybe even auto aimed for you, that would suck a lot of the fun out of the game wouldn’t it?
Would you not want that gun to be nerfed or would you want every gun in the game to become a 1 tap super weapon?
that would suck a lot of the fun out of the game wouldn’t it?
Good thing you get to choose which gun you use. I personally would love that weapon. I’ve got two kids and a full time job. I need a nerf mode. The rest of y’all can use whatever other guns you like. But give me the BFG and let me have my fun.
So what. Let me be bad at video games and still enjoy it. Not everything needs to be a side hustle, maxed out, semi-pro, rise and grind. I just want to have a hobby, even if I’m shit at it forever, because it’s fun.
You should try it sometime. It’s a much less stressful and actually enjoyable way to live.
Yea, that’s why difficulty easier than “impossible” and “helldive” exist, so that you can enjoy the game on your time.
But when other players want their guns to be of roughly equal value, so that they don’t feel pressured to not take the meta, that’s not a bad thing imo
That’s what the difficulty mode selection is for. If you want an easy One-Shot experience just play on the easier modes. Overpowered over tuned weapons just create assholes in the higher difficulties kicking people out of games for not taking “the correct” load out.
Those of us with a little more time or a little more skill or a little more both enjoy the harder difficulties actually being… Difficult. Imagine that, the correct place to give people the ability to have a Nerf mode is in the difficulty slider which thankfully the developers have done!
Instead of complaining about weapon balance just turn down the difficulty and enjoy your easy experience
Nope, I want a balanced sandbox. If I went into a lobby and everyone was using the 1 tapper (because why wouldn’t they) Then the game would be way too easy and I would have to do closed lobbies and go out of my way to find people that want to run the game without the 1 tapper, just to have fun.
If you’re bad at games you can just play on easy mode.
No part of that guy’s comment is valid. He’s not even the barest bit subtle about how badly he is distorting the facts.
Nobody is talking about any of these things: a gun that 1 tapped every enemy, infinite ammo, auto aiming, wanting every gun to become a 1 tap super weapon. It’s not even part of the discussion. All of these are imaginary things this person made up. Somehow people are just looking at it and nodding instead of calling out the bullshit.
The guy I replied to said it’s always better to buff under performing weapons than nerf OP weapons. I employed a line of logic called a “logical extreme” where I devise an extreme scenario that both follows the original logic and is also an untenable position, thus showing that the original logic does not hold up and therefore shouldn’t intrinsically apply to the realistic scenario.
Because in both my extreme and the real scenario, you have a weapon that was so good it made most other weapons not worth using and made the game easier than intended. In that scenario you could either go and buff almost every other weapon in the game and then make sweeping enemy balance changers to make them harder in the face of all the buffs, or you can simply nerf the one OP weapon. And I think the more sensible option is clear.
The weapons in premium war bond aren’t really good. Also, if it’s a nudge at the premium part being a money grab… I’m lvl 17 and I have the premium unlocked without spend any real money.
I’ve been playing since launch. I played a lot last night. I do not see the problems. I play on hard difficulty. I have a good time whether winning or losing.
There are players that take the game far more seriously than I and honestly they make the game more tense than it needs to be. They make it feel competitive, in that if I’m not doing what they think a “good” player should then I’m unwelcome.
I think the vast majority of complaints stem from these players. I lament that another Call of Duty is not coming out sooner so that the community can diminish into relative obscurity, hopefully populated with like minds that view this as a game and not an e-Sport.
Oh boy! Can’t wait for my grandchildren to use AI to customize the sponsorship logos on Cyborg-Messi’s Jersey or change the hue of the football pitch to a slightly more artificial green in EA Sports FC 2077!
It’s unfortunately a case of developers being required to stay “on mute” because of their inherent power - much like being rich, male, and white.
I play a lot of Dead by Daylight, and many friendly content creators will offhandedly say comments like “If you can’t outrun a Hag who’s not using her traps on Garden of Joy, you should probably uninstall.” It’s an exaggerated sentiment, definitely in a mean spirit; but unfortunately that brand of sarcasm won’t work with everyone, and in the case of most people, they could react with “Well, fine, I don’t care about YOU - surely the developers agree with me.” But people feel MUCH more powerless when developers speak, even if it’s for a topic the community has consensus on. Even Dead by Daylight had its period of outcry when the developers effectively stated through changes “Camping survivors that are downed is not fun and we’d like to discourage it.”
It’s unfortunately a case of developers being required to stay “on mute” because of their inherent power - much like being rich, male, and white.
How does the quote go? “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.”
Ridiculous comparisons aside, primary issue is that there are basically no upsides and a lot of potential downsides to a developer actively like an ass in customer facing channels.
And feeding the cycle of “clapbacks” isn’t going to do the community any favors.
While I’m very much on board with the equality quote for the white-male thing (If you’re privileged, you shouldn’t be making comments about welfare and employment), I don’t know if that has so much equivalence to being a game dev. In the end, a small team of people are the ones with the control to make and update the popular game, and that power will never be spread among its playerbase.
The thing is, as obvious as it sounds to say “never act like an ass”, conversational spontaneity is unpredictable, and the simplest and fastest way to achieve that is with the directive “Never speak”. I’ve even seen that issue with coding standards - the best way to never be blamed for a bug is to just never put up any code changes. In social settings, if people try to act in ‘honest’ ways, that can involve sometimes speaking in slightly inflammatory ways towards concepts that they think the group should agree are bad. In this very comment chain, for instance, we’ve made metaphors to oppressive patriarchy from controlling white men. (I’m a white guy with above-average income, by the way, and I’m very okay with that comparison)
So, these developers decided to be more vocal than others in the past (think of every publisher that responds with stock “We recognize your concerns and appreciate your feedback”) and, this unfortunately can be the consequence of that. I know it seems plausible to expect them to be perfect, but they’re human - not much different from all other internet commenters. I’d even question whether everyone here knows the full context of the comments that are receiving complaints. Quite often, when people are putting attention on you, they can selectively quote you to make you seem terrible. (“I KILLED EARL MILFORD.”)
If your position is simply “Devs shouldn’t speak outside of patch notes and press releases”, that’s kind of a fair stance, I just want to make sure that’s what you intend.
Honestly, I don’t personally think that developers stop speaking to players directly. But doing so can have consequences, especially if you decide to take a more antagonistic attitude. And dealing with those consequences is the price you pay for more direct communications.
All of this drama is dumb for many reasons. It was dumb for the original comments from players that were insulting towards the devs. It’s dumb for a developer to respond in kind. And it’s dumb that people get so worked up in turn for the developer’s comments (especially the “they should be fired” cries).
But the clear point in the chain that can be severed here is on the developer’s shoulders. We’ll never get rid of 100% of the negativity/toxicity in gaming, but we can limit how much it becomes a part of the community.
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?
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.
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 isMost 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
“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?”
Larian Studios does technically have a single shareholder in Tencent—which owns around 30% of the company. However, an important piece of context is that Tencent appears to own what’s called a “preference” share, meaning that Tencent doesn’t have voting rights when it comes to Larian’s decision making. The rest of the company belongs to CEO and Founder Swen Vincke and his wife.
Few people do because Larian keeps lying about it. Part of me understands you don‘t go around telling people a Chinese government asset has big money in your company, given the ongoing genocide and all (speaking of toxic work environment eh) but it‘s publicly accessible information anyway. They‘ve been so consistently dishonest about it that I can‘t take them all that serious about anything anymore. Because alternatively to lying they could just… shut up and keep making great games. They don‘t need that sugar coating.
Tencent own preference stock. They could sell their stock, which could potentially harm the company, but they hold no voting rights and carry no decision making power.
I am not a fan of China, nor Tencent, but spewing bile without understanding the context does NOT help this discourse.
Well, penny stocks exist. It’s possible that Tencent suddenly liquidating their 30% share could bottom out the share value temporarily. If the market decided that Tencent liquidating their holdings was a sign that the company was going under, that should drive the price down, correct?
Can’t see how it would harm the company. Stocks and shares are just a way to raise money in a company. I’ll sell you x% for $yk and own that amount now.
Even with normal shares 30% is a minority stake especially if a single entity owns the other 70% (ie. You can express your opinion but I outvote you every time). Unless Larian are planning to raise additional funds by selling equity and need the stock price to remain high for that reason, Tencent are free to sell their portion without any impact to Larian. (Heck a drop might even let Larian buy itself back)
They’re not publicly traded, and the only shares are the ones that Tencent owns. The shares are worth whatever someone buys them for. The price doesn’t fluctuate because there’s no market with which they are traded on
It is true that a non publicly traded firm won’t see an immediate effect if one of the shareholder leave the ship, but businesses work on trust. If Tencent sell its share, it is a sign that it doesn’t trust the studio anymore. Thus, potential private investors, like banks, will be more hesitant to work with them, and will ask for higher rates to compensate for that perceived lose of trust. Thus, hurting the Studio.
Shareholders have a right to sell their shares. If there is no other buyer, then the company will have to pay them for it. They may not have enough liquid capital to pay off 30%. Other assets might have to be sold off, which may make it difficult to operate.
I did a little more research, and it tends to be only specific circumstances and shareholder agreements, but there are times when a shareholder can force a company to buyback the shareholder’s stock.
It’s so irritating to see how eager people come to defend Larian on their lies every time someone calls it out. You’re acting like I said Tencent has Larian on the leash. I mean you’re not even disagreeing with anything I said. Tencent holds shares. They are shareholders, as the article states. Maybe read it again? Do you also claim Larian didn’t receive funding from Tencent? Because Larian was very vocal about not receiving any funding, playing dumb when people wondered how Larian even made such a huge game.
Rumors have it Hasbro’s gonna sell D&D and Tencent is the most likely buyer. We’ll see how much of Larian’s soul will be left when they get approached to make a huge D&D mobile gacha or whatever Tencent comes up with.
I’m getting whiplash from your logic. You just accused another user of acting like you said tencent had larian on a leash, which we can all agree is not true. Then you go on to say Larian is going to lose its soul when tencent approaches them with a gacha game, as if larian would take them up on this like Tencent has any say in what Larian does.
Also, Hasbro isn’t selling DnD. Tencent is attempting to buy adaptation rights to the DnD IP, which may not even be true. By all accounts, WotC is the most profitable division of Hasbro. Sounds like you read another headline and didn’t read the article…
No, I am saying Larian will do it on their own accord rather than losing out on money in the end. It‘s a tale as old as the gaming industry. We‘ve seen so many downfalls that parallel this pattern and if they‘re already this dishonest at their peak, then I‘m really worried how bad it will be when they‘re at the bottom. Even CDPR didn‘t show nearly as many red flags prior to the Cyberpunk debacle.
Oh yeah if Habro says so it must be true… boy oh boy.
This is great but my fear is that one day he will go public and not share the profits with the employees. I worked at a company like that. Said they would never sell until they did for a record amount that they didn’t really share with the employees.
Surface-level article, Nintendo’s main angle of attack here is financial, they’re pointing to a lot of evidence on Yuzu’s Patreon, such as posting Xenoblade DC running well a day before official release, and subscriber money doubling around TOTK launch. This approach to emulator lawsuits is new territory apparently.
It was fairly quickly demonstrated IIRC that Yuzu could emulate TOTK at higher res and 60fps. So it’s entirely possible to me that Yuzu’s Patreon sub soared because users wanted to play their purchased game on better hardware.
I hope the courts find in favor of Yuzu and set the legal precedent that it’s legal to dump secret numbers and purchased software from a device you own.
Love how the courts are framing this. “ROMs are illegal software.” “Emulators are for playing pirated software.”
Fuck you, Nintendo. You made $1.6bil in profits last year. I bet the number of pirated copies of Zelda: TotK barely amount to a fraction of a percent of that.
Love how the courts are framing this. “ROMs are illegal software.” “Emulators are for playing pirated software.”
Ngl I kinda want them to use this logic and see what happens when they try to apply it to Nintendo’s own Virtual Console, which are emulators playing ROMs basically.
Hell, the games you can play in Animal Crossing are literal emulators with ROMs since they found iNES data in the headers.
Emulation has already been litigated to hell and back. It's very clearly legal, including relying on users pulling a blob or two from their hardware for the whole thing to function.
Yeah that would make sense except you missed a key point:
Connectix’s development strategy was based upon reverse engineering the PlayStation’s BIOS firmware, first by using the unchanged BIOS to develop emulation for the hardware, and then by developing a BIOS of their own using the original firmware as an aid for debugging.
The whole point here is that Connectix used Sony’s BIOS to develop their own BIOS. Yuzu is not doing that. They don’t have their own BIOS they are providing to their users. They are telling people to use Nintendo’s bios, but that they aren’t providing it.
This. This seems to be the argument that Nintendo is hinging on. In order for Yuzu to play the games properly you need a prod.keys file. I guess Nintendo is claiming that the keys in this file are owned by them and it’s illegal to have that number much in the same way the number used to represent the C code for decoding DVD copy protection is illegal: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illegal_number#Illegal_pr…
I am no lawyer but seems tenuous when you can run a program to get the prod.keys from your own console. Especially when that code is legal and exists on GitHub: github.com/Decscots/Lockpick_RCM
I am legally allowed to make backups of my hardcopies. I can very legally buy TOTK and dump a ROM for Yuzu. In fact, that is precisely what I did to get my copy for Yuzu.
pcgamer.com
Aktywne