Instalar Steam
iniciar sesión
|
idioma
简体中文 (chino simplificado)
繁體中文 (chino tradicional)
日本語 (japonés)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandés)
Български (búlgaro)
Čeština (checo)
Dansk (danés)
Deutsch (alemán)
English (inglés)
Español de Hispanoamérica
Ελληνικά (griego)
Français (francés)
Italiano
Bahasa Indonesia (indonesio)
Magyar (húngaro)
Nederlands (holandés)
Norsk (noruego)
Polski (polaco)
Português (Portugués de Portugal)
Português-Brasil (portugués de Brasil)
Română (rumano)
Русский (ruso)
Suomi (finés)
Svenska (sueco)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraniano)
Comunicar un error de traducción
Normas y directrices sobre discusión
Denunciar este mensaje
I know this will make you unhappy, but if I shorten it out, basically, I'm saying people can learn on their own, and it's more fun - I and one friend figured it out very quickly with about three Charger encounters (Where the first was a pathethic horror show of running around in panic and dying for 2 minutes and the third took about 3 seconds of calmly standing in one spot and feeling bad for the big fella), without any help, people will get there too.
Where you say people are stupid and can't hold attention for longer than 5 seconds, so they will not only not figure it out, but will repeatedly fail, get angry and leave, unless the game handholds like crazy or someone tells them the solution.
What scares me is that you very well might be right, even tho I'm still holding onto that there is no misleading design and anyone who is of sound enough mind to own a Steam account legally, should be able to figure it out. And if they can't they should swich to something simpler.
The game literally gives you a weapon that has in an instruction video tied to it -playing on endless loop - where they fight, very specifically, a Charger with it, shooting it head on to the front. So you don't even have to read. At that point, you really should figure out something. If not immidiatelly, then after a couple chargers you really should.
I think that is a bit different to the nail an hammer example.
I am sorry, but I will mostly skip this one, as I can feel the need to start being snarky, but let's just say I disagree, because I'm not looking for anyther angry argument.
Short: Yes, the wiki with 10 years of work on it has ALL the info you can possibly ever need, the info for the two weeks old game is not all there yet.
But you get the numbers in game for weapons and armor, so I'm still not sure what you mean - plus, it's the very nature of this game that you will not know untill you try, and since you will sonner or later unlock everything, making an extra informed decision is not that important anyhow. This game gives you the very basics of what you need to know and then nudges you to go fight, die and figure it out. Both with gameplay and lore.
Ironically,this is in the game. It's not even "with small details", it's pretty explicit, much like the weapon video.
Medium difficulty (so one before Chargers spawn as regular enemies) has a "Kill the Chargers" mission, which lets you kill couple Chargers separated from other enemies to test out what they are and how to kill them. There is in fact the same kind of mission for Bile Titans before they start spawning in game later on.
Buuuut... most people skip it, because "Hurr durr, gotta go to higher diffuculty, already know it all".
I fundamentally disagree with forcing what people equip to what mission tho.
One solution in my mind would be not unlocking better difficulty untill you do for example 3-5 mission types in the previous one. Not missions, mission TYPES. And the one on killing Chargers and Bile Titan I would make mandatory.
People rush, rush, rush and then fail and rage. I ultimately agree with your previous point, it's hard to learn about how to peel off armor and how each weakspot reacts when you are currently in a fight with 4 chargers and 3 Stalkers. But noone forced you to play higher difficulty. That is why you should stay in one, untill you know all the new things and try all the new weapons and then move on. This is like someone in LoL playing their first game against E-sports team and then complaining it's too hard. Well... You designed your own fail, congratz.
I posted this in another thread, but - I'm not saying these things off the top of my head. I teach programming classes at the local university. I can tell you from experience that even incredibly intelligent people can be incredibly dumb about solving novel problems and finding the information with which to do so. Most people need help. Not hand-holding, just to head that off at the pass, but instructions and a base of knowledge to go off of. They need some amount of guided experience to lean on.
The difference between a person clicking gears inside their head and "getting it", and a person who's frustrated and gives up, is razor-thin. Most people are very easily discouraged when they don't even know where to start. Even just a little bit of help can send them on the way to improving their own knowledge and ability.
The Automatos do that quite well, as all of their enemy designs telegraph their weak points and behaviour reasonably well. The Bugs, on the other hand, actively hamper players' ability to understand how they work. I'm glad you and your friends were able to figure it out. Myself and my friends weren't until I had it explained to me and passed it along.
It's important not to fall for "the curse of knowledge". Once you yourself understand a thing, it's easy to forget what it was like before, and what it took to figure it out. I'll give you a particularly embarrassing example. I played Warframe up to Mastery Rank 9 before I realise that I could Bullet Jump straight up. I came from a background in Titanfall, where wall jumps and other long jumps had a fixed horizontal trajectory. It never even occurred to me that the jump followed my mouse direction. It would have cost Warframe nothing to tell me this, but a combination of new systems retrofitted into a dated tutorial and buggy early-game level design meant I'd been frustrating myself for probably 60-100 hours for no reason.
Game design informs player behaviour. If you want players to learn and adapt, be transparent with them about how the game works.
Right, but consider what you just said: the video shows a player shooting a Charger "head on to the front". That's not how you kill Chargers with rockets. In fact, you can dump easily 5-6 rockets into a Charger's armoured crown and not bring it down. I was being hyperbollic about his butt being his strongest spot, but the head legitimately IS the Charger's strongest spot. As far as I can tell, you can't even shred his head armour. You just deal minor chip damage through it shooting rockets.
The "proper" way to kill a Charger with EAT-17 rockets is to shoot his front leg, strip the armour and then shotgun his kneecaps. The video doesn't show that. More to the point, this makes absolutely no sense. The leg is not a vital organ for the Charger. Plenty of other bugs can lose legs and still function mostly OK. Hell, Starship Troopers itself joked about it in one of their infomercials, about how a bug can lose a limb and still retain 80-some% combat effectiveness.
If you follow the video and shoot the Charger in the head with rockets, you will die. Best case scenario, you'll blow through all of your rockets and potentially still not kill it. A Recoilless Rifle duo MIGHT be able to take one down like that, but a player using EAT-17s is just going to fail. You have to know that the Charger will take substantially more damage to shredded armour spots than to the butt, and that it'll die from leg damage before losing a leg. That's not intuitive.
This is why I joked about hammering nails with an iPhone. That's not how anyone uses smartphones, so expecting people to deduce this is setting many up to fail. What you get is a cavalcade of players complaining about Chargers being too tough and Anto-Tank weapons being too weak. I spent a significant amount of time experimenting with EAT-17s and Chargers, shooting them just about everywhere, but apparently not the legs. I tried hitting them in the broken armour bits, but that was against broken side armour which is difficult to hit since only a small portion of the visual break is actually unarmoured. You can land shots on yellow guts and still get a bounce.
Consider this: If players are meant to shoot the Charger's legs, would it hurt to make the legs a slightly different colour? Maybe make the leg armour appear weaker or chipped? Would it hurt to telegraph that specific weak point in any way?
Most people "skip it" because it doesn't show up. I saw precisely one Kill Charger mission and I think three Kill Bile Titan missions before both of those were common enemies. Not to mention - again - that that encounter does a poor job of communicating how to actually fight those enemies. By the time I was running Bile Titan hunt missions, I had access to the Orbital Laser. Since the mission will only ever spawn one of them, it was simple enough to Laser it and not bother learning how to fight the thing.
Those things become incredibly common even on Difficulty 4. My introduction to Chargers was dropping into a Difficulty 4 mission right near a Charger, spawning a Bug Breach and eventually getting swarmed by 4 of them, all the while I'm still trying to figure out how to fight the thing. Granted, that basically told me to "bring anti-tank or GTFO", which I already knew from Helldivers. It's very "lock and key" design.
The thing is... It's not as simple as "bring anti-tank", because neither the Recoilless Rifle nor EAT-17s are particularly good at killing Chargers if you don't know about the leg. We weren't able to do decent 4+ missions in my friend group until the free Railguns showed up, and even then we were shooting them in the head - like the videos taught us.
You run into issues of practicality that way, though. By requiring players to do a specific mission, you're effectively locking their progression behind RNG. Not all mission nodes spawn all of the time. I've not seen a "boss" mission in ages, and there was a while when Defence missions just weren't spawning. I also don't think there's an equivalent "boss" mission for the Automatons, though I don't know that for a fact. If there is, I haven't run into it.
I'd argue that JUST requiring X number of unique mission objectives on the previous difficulty would be enough. It doesn't even have to be separate missions - just separate objectives should work, since some objectives are shared between mission types.
I never claimed to be good at the game, or even good at learning game mechanics. Quite the opposite - I have a lot more to learn. I just wish learning those things through gameplay was more feasible without hours of trial and error and failed runs for stupid reasons.
Let me put it this way: a game's challenge should not reside in finding information about core mechanics, enemy design or mission scripts. I shouldn't need to dig through Reddit threads to know that there is a cooldown on bugs spawning Breaches, what the weak point on the Bile Titan is (does it even have one?), what the Booster which helps Helldivers "resist injury" actually does, etc.
Maybe you figured all of this out on your own, in which case cool. You're smarter than me. But my point stands - teach players how to play your game first, then challenge them to use that knowledge after.
The issue is that the Railgun is the optimal weapon to deal with them and higher difficulties will easily spawn 3 or 4 at the same time, often from one breach. So you deal with one and there's another and another and another and...
What?!!?! Higher difficulty makes the game actually more difficult? Refunded...
You work at tech university and so you believe humanity to be somewhat stupid. Sometimes, it's better to not know things too deeply, isn't it, haha.
I agree, yet it all happened quite recently, so I remember clearly how long it took me to figure it out. Even if we, for some reason, consider me above average, if a gaming problem takes me 3 tries to solve, it should not be unsolvable to most. We are not calculating some deep, complex thing here, much like the automatons, where I agree the hits give you very clear feedback - Big tank bug. Explosion goes boom. Armor flies off. Shoot the fleshy parts. ... Or at least shoot the butt.
If you follow the video you inevitably see when getting the weapon - and shoot a chargin' charger head on, you will notice he's still alive AND that he staggered and the armor got torn off, possibly even th bleed. At that point, you should get the "lightbulb moment" as to how this works. In couple more, you should even realise naturally, that it's better to go for the smaller moving parts than the forehead. Am I crazy here? I am drunk half the time I play and I still got there in a couple tries and so did my friend, without even talking.
The armor color, I don't know, it makes it feel very gamey. Might as well go all the way and get rotating red rectangles on weakspots when you look at an enemy, and that would make the game less fun for sure.
You know, like 50 hours later and I still don't focus the legs really. It's... not as critical as you make it out to be. Even the super-unoptimal yet-very-fun solutions like going full auto with autocannon from the side work just fine. So does well placed autocannon turret. Or random, panicked shots with railgun. All of this also staggers the chargers, so you get more time to figure it out.
EAT works tho, just feels inconvinient, due to the one shot only - but one person shooting the rocket and other finishing by hitting the freshly un-armored area works.
This is why I say 3-5 tho. There always are at least 3-4 mission types avaliable whenever you open the map, without even moving to other planets. We could just make the "boss" pop out more.
And yeah, I'm honestly not sure about automatons either, despite the playtime, I had minimal interactions there.
Ultimately, I think people are rushing - and paying the price. The charger, weapons... it's not hard to figure it out, unless you willingly move forward when you shouldn't and end up being mobbed by difficult enemies you never saw, because you played 10 missions in your life and are in Hard+.
And if you fire at that part with weapons with Explosive Trait it dies easier than when you break its armor.
Because its armor is ablative, and if you do not hit the same spot twice it won't do full damage, but just shaves off armor.
And know what you can hit for a kill shot? The big "glowing" weakspot on its behind. If you blow up its abdomen, it will bleed out in short order, making it a spot, when hit right, that takes only a single missile.
And the "shedded spots" also turn into "glowing" parts. I am not sure where this contradiction in visual design is.
I don't agree with this, but sure.
Except it is. It again needs Explosive Trait weapons to do full damage and a single grenade can kill the Spitters, when you hit these weakspots in the right spot.
Would have to test it, but i don't feel the head takes less shots than the sides. The main difference is that the Spewers have an armored part along their spine, making it more difficult to hit the sides from the front than it head.
Two AT missiles to the head will kill the charger, provided you hit the same spot twice. I've decapitated enough chargers with my Recoilless Rifle. Especially when you narrowly miss the leg as it charges past you... it can be more beneficial to just aim for the broken bodypart than try to force the kill via legs.
It actually is the fastest way to kill them. Sure you can shoot off their legs, but that takes a lot more shots than decapitating them. Yes, when they get decapitated they do a final charge, which is easily evaded. After all you know its coming. And more importantly, if you focus on their head, you can kill them before their charge even reaches you. Unlike the legs, where i have seen enough Warriors and Brood Commanders still crawling on 2 legs across the battlefield. Sure they are a minor threat at that point, but they are still alive. Compared to the head, where... sure they charge, but they are dead within a few shots.
And how is any of their design misleading? I feel like you just went into "i am going to just talk about to kill them mode". Because the Hiveguard very obviously have armored heads and you forgot their most glaring fault. You can shoot at them once or twice, force them to turtle and then walk past them to shoot into their squishy side, which is clearly marked as squishy.
No? They are all weakpoints. They are not weakpoints every weapon can exploit but they are all weakpoints. And you are also not exploiting weakpoints by going through heavily armored sections with stronger weapons. You can kill a charger by shooting its bum. Yes the AT route is quicker, but you can kill it with primary and secondary non explosives when you hit its weakspot. It's bum is a weakspot, regardless of it doing reduced damage with non explosive trait weapons.
I am honestly surprised you didn't complain about the Bile Titan in this, given that its Abdomen only stops it from spewing, once its destroyed... but meh.
Doesn't matter where you shoot them. They die as quickly and easily as scavener bugs.
And if you have medium armor penetrating weapons, like the starting MG, you can shoot between their legs from the front. Which is the same thing as with "Chargers" where you can learn "hey they have a non obvious weakspot"... both rewards you for experimentation and acquiring knowledge.
Yet you completely fail to complain about this here, because... ?
Shooting their weapons doesn't kill them.
Still doesn't kill them to shoot their weapons.
Shooting the weapons doesn't kill them and shooting the head requires medium armor penetration.
Except it doesn't as i highlighted with the example of the Strider. There are a few other bots that have non obvious weakspots that can quickly kill them. Much more easily, arguably, than shooting at them. To make another example: The shieldbots with the Gattling for example will die super quick when you shoot at their ammo pack on their back.
Both enemy types have obvious and non obvious weakspots.
So that other people don't have to go through what I did. Generally speaking, I'm a stubborn individual who's willing to dump a lot of time into fundamentally un-fun activities trying to troubleshoot ways of overcoming them. Most people aren't. And that's not to say "Look at me, I'm S'SMRT!" Quite the opposite - even trying to troubleshoot, I still needed to be told how these enemies work before I was able to beat them reliably.
An issue with the game doesn't need to be an issue to me personally in order to be worth addressing. I'm not colour-blind (that I know of), but I'm not opposed to adding colour-blind options, just as a random example. This isn't an issue of "I can't beat high difficulty". I can. Been doing Difficulty 7 missions relatively fine with absolutely no interest in going higher. It's the road which got me there that's really worth reconsidering.
Let me try to be a tad more positive, then :)
I believe that most people are inherently a lot smarter than we give them credit for. With some help, most people can grasp pretty complicated subjects quite well, but getting there requires a little effort. This is something I've tried to drill into my students' heads: You can understand this. Pay attention to what I'm showing you, work through it yourself, ask me if you run into any trouble. The MOST rewarding aspect of teaching classes is pushing students from a point of blindly writing down what I say, to that "Oh, so that's how it works!"
To go off on a bit of a tangent - THE single point of failure in pretty much every education system I've run across has been "rote memorisation". Take these facts, memorise them, regurgitate them during exam, on to the next. This actively makes people worse at problem-solving in such fundamental ways that they carry that into adulthood. They're taught to look for solutions, not systems.
To bring this back around to Helldivers, this is why I like the design of the Automatons. Though their units are quite varied, they all follow the same overall pattern. Dark metal bits are armour, glowing red bits are weak points, glowing yellow bits are extra-weak points. As long as you know the pattern, you can find the weak points on Automaton units yourself.
The Terminids, on the other hand, follow no pattern that I can determine. This isn't me exaggerating to the tune of "It doesn't make sense!" I genuinely can't find any rules which apply to more than a couple of enemies at a time. If you have any, please let me know - I'd live to free up some mental bandwidth from the rote memorisation I've had to do in order to fight them.
The game already uses colour like that, though. Hive Guards have dark-coloured armour plates over bright-coloured flesh. This is a distinct armour colour from that of the Charger, whose armour is lighter in colour. The Bile Titan, which is similarly heavily armoured, uses the same armour visual. Having fought a Charger, I didn't need a Wiki entry to tell me that the Bile Titan would require anti-armour weapons. Similarly, having fought Hive Guardians, I didn't need a Wiki entry to tell me that the Artillery Spitters would be heavily armoured, as they have similar plates.
Where this logic breaks down is that Brood Commanders have the same dark brown armour as Hive Guards, but aren't Medium Armoured. Additionally, the less "elite" Bile Spitters have the same character model as the Artillery ones, but their plates are also not Medium Armour. No single visual component within the Bugs faction is consistent enough for me to actually use visual information as a cue. I need to holistically memorise every unit and their characteristics without overlap.
So consider the following proposal for the bugs: Light armour is chalk white. Medium armour is red. Heavy armour is dark black. Super-heavy armour (armour that can't be shredded) Is black with red highlights/streaks. So a Charger would have black armour on the outside of his legs and his back, black/red armour on his head and red armour on the inside of his legs, with the same orange gut. I'll probably have to grab a screenshot and tint it just as a mock-up, I don't think it would look bad. At the same time, it would tell the player all they need to know - which bit is what armour.
Would you be against that?
This is true, though it's also somewhat off-topic. I'm personally of the opinion that both the auto-difficulty-increase and the way Super Samples are acquired combine to push players into burning themselves out and sandbagging other people's lobbies. If people could just keep to Difficulty 4-5 and putter along, a lot of the "low level" issues would address themselves.
Depends on the weapon, but generally - you don't. It takes reduced damage from Light Armour weapons anyway, so it's a bit of a trap. It does take normal damage from explosives, so the basic Grenade Launcher can do work with butt shots, as can the Autocannon. I'm told that anti-tank weapons can strip the coating on the butt and make it normally vulnerable to bullets.
But normally? Yeah, bring anti-tank. Trying to take out Chargers with Light Armour weapons is not a good way to go about it.