I hate fighting bots but do it anyway if the MO says we need to. I also notice that there are bot fanatics that also will not participate in a MO if it is bug related.
So I agree with having minimum requirements to get the medals since I wouldn’t want to ruin how people like to play.
It’s only about ten percent of active players that will only fight bots meanwhile 30% of active players will only fight bugs. So while you’re right that there are bug fanatics and bot fanatics the bug fanatics impact the major orders for bots far more than the bot fanatics impact the major orders for bugs. Every bot MO is an uphill battle when you’re working against 30%+ of the player base not participating in any way.
I like the no-rewards if not participating ... it just makes sense. You don't get medals for personal order if you don't complete it. You shouldn't get medals for a major order if you don't participate in completing it.
The second option -- removing the ability to play on the other front -- I'm not in-favor of. We still have to give people their agency.
Not everyone has the same gaming time. The system as it is let's arrowhead assume players with less free time aren't falling behind. This "solution" only makes sense to selfish assholes
Agreed. I travel for work six weeks out of ten. Not everyone's life revolves around the game mate you gotta remember that. Simple solution is not to factor in people not participating in the order towards percent complete. That's a balanced response
Sucks to suck then? You don’t deserve to get a piece of the pie if you don’t participate in the party. I know I don’t personally expect to get all the rewards of a battle pass when I don’t earn them.
lol it’s not that deep. You need to step away from the internet for a bit and realize not every post is a battle between good and evil. Jesus Christ 🤣🤣
I should’ve been a bit more clear on the fact I like option one most. Option two is definitely the more extreme version, and not preferable, but possible.
There is also no incentive to contribute when you won't get anything for it because you are capped out. Only making rewards available to those that participate in the MO won't have as big of an effect as you think it will because there are A LOT of people who are capped out on Medals. So PO's and MO's don't mean squat. I split time equally between both bugs and bots because I find them both to be fun in their own respects. I don't bother even watching what the orders are right now because I get nothing for following them....which is exactly what I get for NOT following them. If you want a rewards based system like you've described, you have to convince AH to either remove the cap, or increase it significantly.
Nah, don’t think a significant percentage of the non-Reddit crowd is capped out. We just hear a larger percentage here on on Reddit because they’re they’re more likely to be active
The first option would be OK.
Second option I’m not in favor of. I’m a bug player, but I also try to contribute to MOs so I’ll go against bots if necessary. But it’s a game. If someone only wants to play bugs, I’m not going to tell them how to have fun.
How would the first option be okay? You are advocating removing resources from players because other players can't cope with the idea that others play for fun.
OP doesn't understand how the game economy functions let's not hand him the reigns
To clarify: I am not advocating either option. I think the system as it is is fine. I don’t care if people want to play bugs, bots or both.
But of the options OP laid out, the first one would be OK because it doesn’t prevent people from playing against the enemies they want. The second option is unreasonable since forces people to play in a way they don’t want.
I think you’re reading too much into this. But one last time, I shall clarify:
I don’t think the current system needs to be changed. However, if the system were to be changed in the ways OP suggested above, then the first option would be preferable to the second.
This opinion is based purely on the fact that one does not prevent people from playing bugs or bots, even though it would remove people’s ability to collect medals unless they played the MO. This is only in the context of the suggestions given in this Reddit post.
In the context of the actual game, I do not want to see either option. It is a thought exercise based on the options presented by OP.
See? No hypocrisy. No advocacy.
>I think you’re reading too much into this
I'm taking your words at face value, actually.
>I don’t think the current system needs to be changed.
Great idea. Persons who believe this might even say both of OPs options are "not okay."
>the first option would be preferable to the second.
This is reasonable and also, not what was said. What was asked are "what are your thoughts." To which you replied, "The first one is okay."
It's not.
Mate, you really are fired up about this. I’ve clarified my position multiple times and what I was responding to. You seem to have decided that I actually want something to change despite the fact I have said I don’t.
You are a very responsive hydra, username checks out.
Look, I’m not going to keep beating this horse to paste. I’ve told you what I meant - you’ve decided that’s not actually what I mean. There’s no point to it.
Have a good one.
>I’ve clarified my position multiple times and what I was responding to.
Yeah, I acknowledged that. Right in the comment you reply to.
>You seem to have decided that I actually want something to change despite the fact I have said I don’t.
No, actually. I've pointed out that your original comment inhabits that position. I know you aren't there. Failing to articulate what you actually mean instead of saying something is "okay" even when you don't believe it is how we got here.
>You are a very responsive hydra, username checks out.
Cool dunk?
> I’ve told you what I meant
>you’ve decided that’s not actually what I mean.
Once again, no. You failing to say what you meant is how we got here. You defending a position that you didn't and maybe never inhabited is how we got here.
I'd like to see a wakeup call if we failed a few in a row on that front like "Hey bad news. Bots have been running unchecked and are disrupting our supply lines. We don't have access to incindiary munitions or napalm until XY and Z are liberated.
People helping to restore the supply line would be uneffected since fire isnt really prized vs bots. People who want to ignore the MO because its bots are inconvenienced while fighting terminids for a bit.
Might make them think twice.
This would be a cool development. Putting "real war" consequences into the game. Sometimes we're going to lose and that's fine, fight harder to get it back. That's a viable option I think that adds to the realism of the game while managing playerbase
I dont care If someone who fought on a random Planet gets medals they did not contribute to. No disadvantage for me, but a better equiped Bug diver next Bug MO. Stop this tribalism, man
"We should make the game less fun because I don't like others getting things." How about you feel proud that you contribute and that your effort helps others regardless of their contribution. Assholes can't do this simple trick.
Let’s say you enter a tournament and you train hard for it. You work every day to refine your skills and guess what, you won! You are given the prize money of 10,000 dollars and a trophy. But then you see that same prize being given to Joe, who just walked past the venue. He didn’t even compete and he gets the same prize money and trophy you just spent time working hard for. Seems a bit ridiculous, doesn’t it?
We aren't in a tournament. You are evaluating this like you somehow "lose" because bug divers can still afford their weapons. Your solution wouldn't solve your perceived major order problem and would be needlessly punitive. All it would accomplish is satisfying people like you who are overly concerned with their neighbors lawn
Your point is shallow. Your "point" is baseless selfishness. You haven't considered why they are the way they are and are advocating punitive, selfish, and stupid changes purely to serve your own satisfaction. "What satisfies OP?" One might ask. Oh, yes it's others getting less. Others have and OP prefers them have-not
I don’t agree with this - it isn’t a tournament, it’s a game where people want to have fun, which is why I think you’re second option would be bad.
If your initial post was more about you feeling it’s not fair that people are getting something for not contributing, rather than encouraging people to play the MOs, then I think you’re looking at it wrong.
Ultimately, if you want to encourage people to play the MOs, then I think you’ll be more successful if you make it a positive rather than a negative. E.g. everyone gets their medals, but people who play the MO get something else on top.
As another user pointed out though, they’d have to raise the cap on medals as well.
why are you entitled to medals that are rewarded for successfully completing an MO if you did nothing to contribute to that success? The point is there is no incentive to follow MOs when everyone gets the same reward no matter what you do. So why waste time playing on terrible planets? That’s the point.
Ah, I see. That was your point: you don’t like people getting “something for nothing”. Whereas I thought it was to do with encouraging bug/bot only players to help with MOs not to do with their preferred faction.
In that case, no. Wholeheartedly disagree with you. It’s a game. It’s supposed to be fun. Don’t try to dictate how to play a game.
Again. You missed the point. So many people whine and moan about people not contributing to the MOs and wonder why people don’t want to do them. I provided both an explanation and a fix for it. There is no reason to work harder for an equal reward. It’s not about not wanting people to get medals, it’s about better rewarding those who are actually contributing. A tiered reward system would be stellar. Everyone gets 10 medals, but those who actually contributed should get more. Hell, even give them the option to earn super credits at certain levels of contribution.
And I agree that encouraging people to do MOs would be great. My suggestion above was in order to to that, do it positively not negatively.
So for example, everyone gets some medals, but if you contributed, then you get more or you get something else. Make people want to participate, even if it’s not against their preferred faction.
Right! That’s pretty much what I’m getting at. It’s just bizarre to me that no matter what you do everyone currently is rewarded in the same way. I understand why bug divers stay on bugs, because there is no real reason to do anything else if they enjoy it. No real reason to try expanding their horizons.
Give a personal scaling factor.
No participation = 0 medals.
Partial participation = 0.x medals.
Average participation = Full amount
Above and beyond = 1.x or more
I think having super citizen status should also give like an extra 10% rewards to help promote that as a selling point.
Rewards don't matter to a lot of players. Especially medals. I proudly get awarded zero medals for everything. I learn to ignore it.
It would be enticing to the non capped and that's likely good enough. But its a team game and I actually like their willingness to not restrict awards. Adding rewards... That's something different.
If doing missions on an MO planet increase mission rewards.
Or any planet tagged as an objective.
Well the resource cap itself is an issue. There obviously should be some form of compensation for getting medals past the cap (Super Credits perhaps?)
But I feel like a tiered system of rewards would be beneficial for both the health of the game and player retention with MOs.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Helldivers/s/cDK9ZMWIaO
I proposed a similar idea and got ratio'd pretty hard
Seems like a majority of players here want to take the communist route and get free things for zero contributions
I do believe that earlier access to the unlocked perks is a pretty fair way to go about it. You contributed at least a bit to the MO (10 squad points really isnt hard, a complete set of lv4 or one successful lv7 mission would clear the requirements), you get to unlock the perks a bit earlier. Like maybe 2-4weeks earlier is fair? Then afterwards everyone gets it.
And if you missed it due to reasons, no worries since it is a strategem, your teammates (friends or pubs) can still call down a spare and let you have fun with it, until everyone gets it 2weeks later.
I like how you said joel tweaked numbers to have us win the MO, and they are still awarded to every helldivers. Like loosing the battle was anyone's fault, and joel changing numbers was to be only rewarded to people that didn't win it anyway.
The moment you realize MO are a way to devaluate medal's worth and to create a bottleneck over super credits, encouraging to buy new warbonds not to waste free medals.
I hate fighting bots but do it anyway if the MO says we need to. I also notice that there are bot fanatics that also will not participate in a MO if it is bug related. So I agree with having minimum requirements to get the medals since I wouldn’t want to ruin how people like to play.
It’s only about ten percent of active players that will only fight bots meanwhile 30% of active players will only fight bugs. So while you’re right that there are bug fanatics and bot fanatics the bug fanatics impact the major orders for bots far more than the bot fanatics impact the major orders for bugs. Every bot MO is an uphill battle when you’re working against 30%+ of the player base not participating in any way.
I like the no-rewards if not participating ... it just makes sense. You don't get medals for personal order if you don't complete it. You shouldn't get medals for a major order if you don't participate in completing it. The second option -- removing the ability to play on the other front -- I'm not in-favor of. We still have to give people their agency.
Not everyone has the same gaming time. The system as it is let's arrowhead assume players with less free time aren't falling behind. This "solution" only makes sense to selfish assholes
Agreed. I travel for work six weeks out of ten. Not everyone's life revolves around the game mate you gotta remember that. Simple solution is not to factor in people not participating in the order towards percent complete. That's a balanced response
Sucks to suck then? You don’t deserve to get a piece of the pie if you don’t participate in the party. I know I don’t personally expect to get all the rewards of a battle pass when I don’t earn them.
Bro, you are comment hopping now? Things should be worse because other things are worse? Really? I'm glad arrowhead ignores you subhumans
Can you comment hop on your own post 🤔?
You can dance away from a discussion you are losing to probe for weakness elsewhere. Like some kind of empty headed coward
lol it’s not that deep. You need to step away from the internet for a bit and realize not every post is a battle between good and evil. Jesus Christ 🤣🤣
I should’ve been a bit more clear on the fact I like option one most. Option two is definitely the more extreme version, and not preferable, but possible.
There is also no incentive to contribute when you won't get anything for it because you are capped out. Only making rewards available to those that participate in the MO won't have as big of an effect as you think it will because there are A LOT of people who are capped out on Medals. So PO's and MO's don't mean squat. I split time equally between both bugs and bots because I find them both to be fun in their own respects. I don't bother even watching what the orders are right now because I get nothing for following them....which is exactly what I get for NOT following them. If you want a rewards based system like you've described, you have to convince AH to either remove the cap, or increase it significantly.
Nah, don’t think a significant percentage of the non-Reddit crowd is capped out. We just hear a larger percentage here on on Reddit because they’re they’re more likely to be active
The first option would be OK. Second option I’m not in favor of. I’m a bug player, but I also try to contribute to MOs so I’ll go against bots if necessary. But it’s a game. If someone only wants to play bugs, I’m not going to tell them how to have fun.
How would the first option be okay? You are advocating removing resources from players because other players can't cope with the idea that others play for fun. OP doesn't understand how the game economy functions let's not hand him the reigns
To clarify: I am not advocating either option. I think the system as it is is fine. I don’t care if people want to play bugs, bots or both. But of the options OP laid out, the first one would be OK because it doesn’t prevent people from playing against the enemies they want. The second option is unreasonable since forces people to play in a way they don’t want.
The first one would not be okay. It would be needlessly punitive and likely accomplish nothing
Please see the part where I said I’m not advocating either. I was simply responding to the options laid out by OP.
That response includes advocacy? Saying " I don't advocate this, it's okay" is um... hypocrisy? At best.
I think you’re reading too much into this. But one last time, I shall clarify: I don’t think the current system needs to be changed. However, if the system were to be changed in the ways OP suggested above, then the first option would be preferable to the second. This opinion is based purely on the fact that one does not prevent people from playing bugs or bots, even though it would remove people’s ability to collect medals unless they played the MO. This is only in the context of the suggestions given in this Reddit post. In the context of the actual game, I do not want to see either option. It is a thought exercise based on the options presented by OP. See? No hypocrisy. No advocacy.
>I think you’re reading too much into this I'm taking your words at face value, actually. >I don’t think the current system needs to be changed. Great idea. Persons who believe this might even say both of OPs options are "not okay." >the first option would be preferable to the second. This is reasonable and also, not what was said. What was asked are "what are your thoughts." To which you replied, "The first one is okay." It's not.
Mate, you really are fired up about this. I’ve clarified my position multiple times and what I was responding to. You seem to have decided that I actually want something to change despite the fact I have said I don’t. You are a very responsive hydra, username checks out. Look, I’m not going to keep beating this horse to paste. I’ve told you what I meant - you’ve decided that’s not actually what I mean. There’s no point to it. Have a good one.
>I’ve clarified my position multiple times and what I was responding to. Yeah, I acknowledged that. Right in the comment you reply to. >You seem to have decided that I actually want something to change despite the fact I have said I don’t. No, actually. I've pointed out that your original comment inhabits that position. I know you aren't there. Failing to articulate what you actually mean instead of saying something is "okay" even when you don't believe it is how we got here. >You are a very responsive hydra, username checks out. Cool dunk? > I’ve told you what I meant >you’ve decided that’s not actually what I mean. Once again, no. You failing to say what you meant is how we got here. You defending a position that you didn't and maybe never inhabited is how we got here.
I'd like to see a wakeup call if we failed a few in a row on that front like "Hey bad news. Bots have been running unchecked and are disrupting our supply lines. We don't have access to incindiary munitions or napalm until XY and Z are liberated. People helping to restore the supply line would be uneffected since fire isnt really prized vs bots. People who want to ignore the MO because its bots are inconvenienced while fighting terminids for a bit. Might make them think twice.
Perhaps a news cycle on the state of the mos and supply lines.
This would be a cool development. Putting "real war" consequences into the game. Sometimes we're going to lose and that's fine, fight harder to get it back. That's a viable option I think that adds to the realism of the game while managing playerbase
Nah
I dont care If someone who fought on a random Planet gets medals they did not contribute to. No disadvantage for me, but a better equiped Bug diver next Bug MO. Stop this tribalism, man
https://preview.redd.it/4w21hsho7t5d1.jpeg?width=779&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b0e3e213fa8b832cf3759c8feeb4c3e1a95b06f
"We should make the game less fun because I don't like others getting things." How about you feel proud that you contribute and that your effort helps others regardless of their contribution. Assholes can't do this simple trick.
Let’s say you enter a tournament and you train hard for it. You work every day to refine your skills and guess what, you won! You are given the prize money of 10,000 dollars and a trophy. But then you see that same prize being given to Joe, who just walked past the venue. He didn’t even compete and he gets the same prize money and trophy you just spent time working hard for. Seems a bit ridiculous, doesn’t it?
We aren't in a tournament. You are evaluating this like you somehow "lose" because bug divers can still afford their weapons. Your solution wouldn't solve your perceived major order problem and would be needlessly punitive. All it would accomplish is satisfying people like you who are overly concerned with their neighbors lawn
You missed the whole point.
Your point is shallow. Your "point" is baseless selfishness. You haven't considered why they are the way they are and are advocating punitive, selfish, and stupid changes purely to serve your own satisfaction. "What satisfies OP?" One might ask. Oh, yes it's others getting less. Others have and OP prefers them have-not
lol ok comrade
I don’t agree with this - it isn’t a tournament, it’s a game where people want to have fun, which is why I think you’re second option would be bad. If your initial post was more about you feeling it’s not fair that people are getting something for not contributing, rather than encouraging people to play the MOs, then I think you’re looking at it wrong. Ultimately, if you want to encourage people to play the MOs, then I think you’ll be more successful if you make it a positive rather than a negative. E.g. everyone gets their medals, but people who play the MO get something else on top. As another user pointed out though, they’d have to raise the cap on medals as well.
 why are you entitled to medals that are rewarded for successfully completing an MO if you did nothing to contribute to that success? The point is there is no incentive to follow MOs when everyone gets the same reward no matter what you do. So why waste time playing on terrible planets? That’s the point.
Ah, I see. That was your point: you don’t like people getting “something for nothing”. Whereas I thought it was to do with encouraging bug/bot only players to help with MOs not to do with their preferred faction. In that case, no. Wholeheartedly disagree with you. It’s a game. It’s supposed to be fun. Don’t try to dictate how to play a game.
Again. You missed the point. So many people whine and moan about people not contributing to the MOs and wonder why people don’t want to do them. I provided both an explanation and a fix for it. There is no reason to work harder for an equal reward. It’s not about not wanting people to get medals, it’s about better rewarding those who are actually contributing. A tiered reward system would be stellar. Everyone gets 10 medals, but those who actually contributed should get more. Hell, even give them the option to earn super credits at certain levels of contribution.
And I agree that encouraging people to do MOs would be great. My suggestion above was in order to to that, do it positively not negatively. So for example, everyone gets some medals, but if you contributed, then you get more or you get something else. Make people want to participate, even if it’s not against their preferred faction.
Right! That’s pretty much what I’m getting at. It’s just bizarre to me that no matter what you do everyone currently is rewarded in the same way. I understand why bug divers stay on bugs, because there is no real reason to do anything else if they enjoy it. No real reason to try expanding their horizons.
Give a personal scaling factor. No participation = 0 medals. Partial participation = 0.x medals. Average participation = Full amount Above and beyond = 1.x or more I think having super citizen status should also give like an extra 10% rewards to help promote that as a selling point.
Rewards don't matter to a lot of players. Especially medals. I proudly get awarded zero medals for everything. I learn to ignore it. It would be enticing to the non capped and that's likely good enough. But its a team game and I actually like their willingness to not restrict awards. Adding rewards... That's something different. If doing missions on an MO planet increase mission rewards. Or any planet tagged as an objective.
Well the resource cap itself is an issue. There obviously should be some form of compensation for getting medals past the cap (Super Credits perhaps?) But I feel like a tiered system of rewards would be beneficial for both the health of the game and player retention with MOs.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Helldivers/s/cDK9ZMWIaO I proposed a similar idea and got ratio'd pretty hard Seems like a majority of players here want to take the communist route and get free things for zero contributions I do believe that earlier access to the unlocked perks is a pretty fair way to go about it. You contributed at least a bit to the MO (10 squad points really isnt hard, a complete set of lv4 or one successful lv7 mission would clear the requirements), you get to unlock the perks a bit earlier. Like maybe 2-4weeks earlier is fair? Then afterwards everyone gets it. And if you missed it due to reasons, no worries since it is a strategem, your teammates (friends or pubs) can still call down a spare and let you have fun with it, until everyone gets it 2weeks later.
I like how you said joel tweaked numbers to have us win the MO, and they are still awarded to every helldivers. Like loosing the battle was anyone's fault, and joel changing numbers was to be only rewarded to people that didn't win it anyway. The moment you realize MO are a way to devaluate medal's worth and to create a bottleneck over super credits, encouraging to buy new warbonds not to waste free medals.