Radekin Gaming

WiseGuyVito recently posted a YouTube video discussing whether Helldivers 2 has become too easy, especially at Difficulty 10. You can watch his video here: https://youtu.be/vylVTAaPCLQ?si=fOaNW2G_aIs-ExQY

I want to frame this clearly from the start: this is not meant as a callout or personal attack. I think he did a good job keeping the discussion reasonably civil, and he raises several points worth taking seriously. I also agree with his broad starting concern that D10 could use more difficulty.

Where I disagree is with some of the framing.

In particular, I do not agree with treating one preferred form of difficulty — mostly higher enemy volume — as the “real” or “intended” difficulty of Helldivers 2. I also think there is a major contradiction in criticizing the game for being too easy while demonstrating gameplay where the squad is heavily split across the map, because Helldivers 2 is explicitly designed and advertised as a squad-based tactical shooter.

So this is my response: partly agreement, partly rebuttal, and partly my own attempt to offer creative solutions instead of just criticizing someone else’s critique.

D10 can be harder. I am all for that.

But if we are going to talk about the intended design of Helldivers 2, then squad-based teamwork needs to be at the center of that conversation.

I Agree That D10 Could Be Harder

Let me start with the agreement, because it matters.

I do think D10 could use more pressure. The hardest difficulty should feel like the hardest difficulty. It should test your loadout, your awareness, your positioning, your teamwork, and your ability to recover when the mission starts falling apart.

I do not want Difficulty 10 to become a casual stroll through the battlefield. I like chaos. I like being swarmed. I like needing to think fast. I like missions where the squad barely extracts and everyone knows we survived because we actually played well.

So if the basic point is, “D10 could be harder,” I am on board.

But the details matter.

“More Enemies” Is a Preference, Not the Only Real Difficulty

One argument I keep seeing is that the “real” difficulty of Helldivers 2 is more enemies. More enemies means more target prioritization, more breakpoint knowledge, more aiming, more ammo pressure, more stratagem timing, and more battlefield chaos.

That can be true.

More enemies can absolutely be a good difficulty lever. I enjoy high enemy density. I enjoy missions where the squad has to carve its way through a wall of enemies and use every tool available to survive.

But more enemies are not the only legitimate form of difficulty.

Helldivers 2 can create difficulty through enemy numbers, enemy composition, visibility, weather, fog, mission timers, objective pressure, resource scarcity, patrol routes, reinforcement timing, terrain, extraction holds, and squad coordination. All of those are valid difficulty levers.

So when someone says that enemy volume is the “true” difficulty of Helldivers 2, I think that needs to be challenged.

That is not objective truth. That is a preference.

It may be a good preference. It may be a preference I partially share. But it is still a preference.

I am completely fine with someone saying, “I want D10 to throw more enemies at us.” I may even agree. But I do not agree with pretending that every other form of difficulty is fake, bad, or invalid just because it is not your preferred version of the challenge.

“Lower the Difficulty” Is Fair, But It Can Become Lazy

The “lower the difficulty” argument is also fair in some cases.

If a player is on Difficulty 10 and simply does not want D10 levels of pressure, then yes, they should probably lower the difficulty. That is what the difficulty slider is for. Not every player needs to play at the highest level, and there is nothing wrong with playing where the game feels most fun.

However, “lower the difficulty” can also become a lazy answer.

Not every balance complaint is secretly a complaint that the game is too hard. Sometimes players are talking about bugged spawns. Sometimes they are talking about enemies that are annoying rather than challenging. Sometimes they are talking about ragdoll chains, bad mission scaling, poor enemy readability, or mechanics that do not feel properly tested.

So yes, “lower the difficulty” is a valid response to some players. But it is not a magic answer to every criticism.

Mission Pressure Is a Good Idea

One point I do agree with is that some missions could use more objective pressure.

If we are launching an ICBM, it makes sense that the enemy should try harder to stop it. If an objective is strategically important, the mission should sometimes make that importance felt mechanically. Enemies should not always be content to simply wander into our kill zones while we casually complete the objective.

I would like to see more missions where enemies threaten the objective itself, not just the players.

Make us defend the missile.

Make us protect the terminal.

Make us hold a position under real pressure.

Make failure possible in ways that are not only tied to running out of reinforcements.

That would be a good way to add difficulty without making weapons feel worse or enemies feel artificially tanky.

That said, I still see mission pressure as a secondary issue. It matters, but I do not think it is the main reason D10 can feel too easy. The bigger issue is how players are interacting with the spawn system and how often high-level teams optimize the squad-based part of the game out of the mission entirely.

Dynamic Spawns Are a Good Idea, But Splitting the Squad Is the Bigger Issue

I also like the idea of more dynamic spawn behavior.

If every enemy reinforcement wave funnels into the same predictable location, then of course players are going to erase it with orbitals, eagles, barrages, and sentries. More flanking pressure, rear pressure, and multi-angle reinforcement would make fights more demanding and less predictable.

That is a good idea.

But I think this misses a major part of the current difficulty conversation:

Player splitting disrupts the spawn experience more than almost anything else.

When four players scatter across the map, the game often does not pressure the team the same way it does when everyone moves together. Enemy attention gets divided. Battlefield pressure gets diluted. Objectives get rushed. Spawns become less concentrated. The mission starts to feel less like a squad fighting a war and more like four solo players doing chores on the same map.

That matters.

If someone spends most of a mission split away from the rest of the squad, then uses that gameplay as evidence that D10 is too easy, that is not a clean test of the game’s squad-based difficulty. That is partly a test of how much the current spawn system can be manipulated by player spacing.

I am not saying players should never split. Splitting into two fireteams can be valid. Sending one player to grab a nearby point of interest can be valid. Adapting to the mission is part of the game.

But if all four players are scattered across the entire map for most of the mission, that is a very different experience from moving as a coordinated unit.

So before declaring that D10 is simply too easy, I think the fair question is:

Are you actually playing the squad-based tactical shooter as a squad, or are you optimizing around spawn behavior and then blaming the game for feeling less intense?

The “Intended Design” Argument Is Ironic

This is where the conversation gets especially ironic to me.

Some of the same arguments about difficulty also talk about the “real” difficulty of Helldivers 2, the “intended” design, and how players are supposedly meant to engage with the game.

But Helldivers 2 is explicitly a squad-based tactical shooter.

The game tells you this everywhere. Its mechanics scream it at you. Reinforcements, resupplies, stratagem coverage, buddy doors, team reloads, objective defense, extraction holds, armor/loadout synergy, and enemy pressure all point toward squad-based play.

Yes, the game allows you to split up. Yes, skilled players can optimize around that. Yes, splitting can be efficient.

But I would view that as an allowance, an optimization layer, or a freedom the game gives you — not the clearest expression of the intended squad-based experience.

Someone might argue that Helldivers 2 does not incentivize sticking together enough. I can see that argument. Helldivers 1 physically constrained the squad through its top-down camera and shared screen space. Helldivers 2 gives players much more freedom.

But that is exactly the point.

The game gives you freedom.

You can split up, optimize the map, disrupt spawn pressure, and speedrun objectives if you want to. That is allowed. But if you knowingly play that way every mission, knowing it reduces or distorts the enemy pressure, then it seems a little strange to turn around and complain that the game is not hard enough.

At some point, the player has to look in the mirror and ask:

Am I actually engaging with the squad-based tactical shooter the game advertises itself as, or am I optimizing around one of its weakest spawn behaviors and then blaming the game for the result?

If you want the game to feel harder, try moving as a team. Use coordinated squad movement. Cover each other. Fight the concentrated pressure that comes from everyone being in the same area.

Use an LFG. If you are a YouTube creator with your own audience, you almost certainly have people who would be willing to squad up and play that way.

And frankly, when I drop into mid-range difficulties, I often see players sticking together more naturally than many high-level players do. And guess what? It is often more fun. The fights are more focused. The chaos is more concentrated. The team actually feels like a team.

So yes, I agree D10 could be harder.

But I think it is contradictory to make broad claims about the intended difficulty of Helldivers 2 while ignoring one of the clearest design pillars in the game:

Squad-based teamwork.

Fog Is Not Fake Difficulty Just Because Some Players Dislike It

The performance discussion also deserves some nuance.

Despawning issues are valid. If enemy bodies, wreckage, or parts are hanging around too long and causing stutters or crashes, that is a real technical issue. That should be addressed.

But I disagree with treating fog as if it is automatically bad difficulty.

I love fog in Helldivers 2.

I love it aesthetically, and I love it mechanically. Fog adds atmosphere. It creates uncertainty. It makes the battlefield feel hostile. It changes how you move, how you scan, how you engage, and how you react.

That is not fake difficulty to me.

That is battlefield friction.

Now, if fog causes major performance issues on some systems, that is a separate concern. Optimize it. Give people graphics options. Make sure it is not tanking frame rates unnecessarily.

But “I do not like fog” is not the same thing as “fog is bad design.”

On PS5 Pro, performance has largely not been an issue for me. So from my own experience, fog is not some unbearable technical problem. It is part of the game’s identity, and I would hate to see Helldivers 2 lose that atmosphere just because some players want every battlefield to be clean, clear, and perfectly readable at all times.

War is supposed to be messy.

Fog helps sell that.

Surges and Subfactions Could Be Stronger

I am open to the idea that surges and subfactions should feel more extreme.

A Hulk Surge should feel meaningfully different from a normal Automaton mission. Mindless Masses should probably feel like a true zombie flood. Predator Strain should feel fast, aggressive, and distinct.

That is a fair point.

But again, context matters.

If the squad is split across the map, a surge or subfaction may naturally feel less overwhelming because the team is not absorbing that pressure together. That does not automatically mean the surge is strong enough or weak enough. It means the gameplay context matters.

So my position would be:

Yes, strengthen surge identity where appropriate. Make subfactions feel more distinct. Make Mindless Masses actually feel like a mass of enemies.

But do not evaluate the intensity of the game while playing in a way that systematically reduces concentrated pressure.

Creative Difficulty Idea: Reinforcement Proximity

Now, I do not want this to be purely criticism. I do think there are creative ways Arrowhead could make higher difficulties more squad-focused without simply making guns worse or enemies more annoying.

One idea would be a reinforcement proximity system.

If a Helldiver dies more than 70 meters away from any living teammate, that player cannot be reinforced immediately. Instead, their death location creates a visible beacon on the map and HUD. A surviving teammate must move within 70 meters of that death beacon before the fallen Helldiver can be reinforced.

Likewise, if I am alive and a teammate dies far away from me, I should not be able to instantly reinforce them from across the entire map. I would need to move close enough to their death location first.

That creates an actual cost for splitting away from the squad.

You can still do it.

You can still take the risk.

But if you die alone, your team has to recover your position before bringing you back.

Why 70 Meters?

I would use 70 meters specifically because one minimap grid square in Helldivers 2 is roughly 70 meters by 70 meters. That makes the rule feel grounded in the game’s own spatial language rather than being some random number.

In practical terms, this would mean players still have room to spread out within a fight. You could flank, reposition, grab nearby samples, cover different angles, or approach an objective from another side.

But if you die more than a grid square away from the rest of the squad, you were not really moving as part of the unit anymore. At that point, the game should treat your death as a squad recovery problem, not something that can be instantly erased by a reinforcement call from across the map.

This would preserve freedom while making separation carry meaningful risk.

Safeguards for the Reinforcement Proximity System

Obviously, this system would need safeguards.

If a player gets ragdolled, launched, or bugged hundreds of meters outside the playable area, the game should not make the squad chase an impossible death marker. In that case, the death beacon should reset to the nearest reachable edge of the map.

If the entire squad wipes, then everyone should reinforce normally, just like the current system. The point is not to create unwinnable punishment loops. The point is to make reckless separation more dangerous.

This also does not need to apply equally across every difficulty. It could be a high-difficulty mechanic, a D10 modifier, an operation modifier, or even part of a future hardcore-style difficulty layer.

The important part is the design principle:

The game should not remove player freedom, but it can make reckless separation less free.

The Super Destroyer Theme Fits Too

Thematically, this also fits the way Helldivers 2 already presents stratagem deployment in actual gameplay.

When an individual player calls in a stratagem — especially an orbital offensive stratagem — that attack visibly fires from that player’s own Super Destroyer in the skybox. That part is not ambiguous. The gameplay clearly shows each Helldiver receiving direct fire support from their own ship.

The only unclear part is the lore interpretation of deployment.

When players join another player’s mission, everyone is visually shown aboard one Super Destroyer and deploying from that ship’s Hellpods. So it is not totally clear whether, in-universe, each Helldiver is always deploying from their own individual Super Destroyer, or whether that shared-ship presentation is partly a gameplay convenience.

But for stratagem support itself, the visual language is clear:

Each player’s orbital support comes from their respective Super Destroyer.

A reinforcement proximity system could use that same general logic. If a Helldiver dies too far away from the squad, their replacement cannot simply be dropped anywhere on the map by a teammate on the opposite side of the battlefield. The squad would need to recover the fallen Helldiver’s location, re-establish a viable reinforcement zone, and then call the replacement in.

That makes the mechanic feel grounded both mechanically and thematically.

You are not just adding an arbitrary punishment for splitting up. You are saying that reinforcement requires battlefield recovery, squad proximity, and enough local control for Super Destroyer support to safely redeploy another Helldiver near the fight.

Other Creative Ways to Raise Difficulty

The broader point is that Helldivers 2 does not need to rely on weapon nerfs or cheap frustration to become harder.

There are better options.

Give higher difficulties more dynamic reinforcement angles.

Make extraction holds more intense.

Make certain objectives destructible or interruptible.

Make surges more distinct.

Make subfactions more extreme.

Make enemy pressure respond better to squad cohesion.

Make splitting up riskier without making it impossible.

Make D10 demand actual teamwork instead of just more individual optimization.

That is the kind of difficulty increase I would be excited about. Not “your gun feels worse now.” Not “this enemy takes longer to kill for no interesting reason.” Not “you got ragdolled six times in a row, congratulations, that was difficulty.”

Give me pressure. Give me chaos. Give me meaningful choices. Give me consequences for poor teamwork.

That is where Helldivers 2 shines.

Authority Is Not Analysis

One side note here: I do not think “the CEO said it” should be treated as the end of the discussion.

That does not mean the CEO’s opinion is worthless. Obviously, someone in that position may have access to internal goals, player data, development priorities, and the general direction Arrowhead wants for the game. That perspective matters.

But being the CEO does not automatically make someone the best gameplay analyst, designer, balance expert, or high-difficulty field tester. A CEO can have useful insight and still be wrong about specific gameplay conclusions.

The same is true for YouTubers, streamers, Reddit posters, or anyone else discussing the game. Having a large audience does not automatically make someone’s analysis strong. Having a title does not make an argument correct.

And to be clear, that standard applies to me too.

I would not expect you, dear reader, to accept everything I say here just because I wrote it on Radekin Gaming, or because I make Helldivers 2 videos, or because I have a blog and a YouTube channel. My arguments need to stand on their own too.

So if the claim is “D10 should be harder,” I am willing to hear that. I may even agree. But I am not going to accept it just because an executive said it, just like I would not accept it just because a popular content creator said it, and I would not ask anyone to accept my counterargument just because I said it either.

Good analysis needs reasoning, context, and evidence. Authority can make a point worth listening to. It does not make the point automatically correct.

Final Thoughts

Overall, I agree with the broad idea that D10 could use more difficulty. I agree that more enemies can be fun. I agree that dynamic spawns, stronger surges, and better mission pressure could improve the game. I also agree that weapon nerfs are not the best way to make the game harder.

But I disagree with the way some of these arguments present one preferred difficulty model as the “real” or “intended” difficulty of Helldivers 2.

That is too narrow.

The game has many valid difficulty levers, including visibility, objective pressure, enemy composition, resource management, spawn behavior, and squad coordination.

Most importantly, I think it is deeply ironic to talk about the intended design of Helldivers 2 while spending most of the mission split away from the squad. This is a squad-based tactical shooter. If you are bored because you and your team are constantly scattering across the map, disrupting spawn pressure, and optimizing the challenge out of the mission, then maybe the first adjustment should not be demanding that the game change.

Maybe the first adjustment should be playing like a squad.

D10 can be harder. I am all for that.

But let’s be honest about the whole picture.

Do we want Helldivers 2 to be harder?

Good.

Then let’s talk about better mission pressure, smarter spawns, stronger subfactions, meaningful reinforcement rules, and actual squad cohesion.

Because if the hardest difficulty is supposed to test anything, it should test the thing Helldivers 2 has been built around from the start:

Four Helldivers trying to survive together.