{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/1/2015 1:34:07 AM
18
Just stop. Things like fatebringer are inherently too strong and allowing it to be ascended to 365 was dumb of bungie. So stop trying to bring forward boring guns that are too strong to not use.
English
-
Don't try to silence his opinion. First off, all the weapons now that you get from HOW and including exotics are all 365. Second, you play how you want and we will play how we want.
-
The damage numbers dont address my point at all, so I'm not sure what your point is there. Your other point to let you play the way you want is also confusing. By bringing forward overpowered top of weapon class guns you're removing my choice to play the way I want to stay competitive in endgame pve or things like iron banner/trials
-
How does a choice being given impact you, exactly? Just curious.
-
Because by keeping weapons designed for a different encounter design (spongy high health bosses/many adds) will mean that bungie will have to keep with that design in part to keep content challenging (from their perspective) which would result in the new weapons not being used or being limited in design choice to keep up with the way the encounters are balanced. The alternative would be nerfing stats on old weapons or their perks being changed.
-
So you honestly think that the weapons themselves were designed specifically for bullet sponge bosses? And that the existence of said weapons are supposedly the root cause of all the bosses being like that and that is, according to you, the reason they must be left behind? o_o
-
No they're not the cause, but a product of the vanilla destiny encounter design choices. They were designed around such encounters and tuned for that. With year two bungie is trying to improve both their encounter and weapon design to be more enjoyable and unfortunately as the current year 1 raid guns stand many of them would need a redesign from what they currently are to avoid gimping them so they don't overpower content. I know destiny isn't an MMO, but it's the first really successfully persistent world fps/rpg hybrid and it's obviously gone through a serious amount of teething. It's not perfect by a very long shot but to rectify bad design choices and improve long term enjoyment of the game there are some things that shouldn't be brought forward because they don't belong in the now slightly more defined design ethos Bungie has worked out for themselves. I think that allowing etheric light to ascend old gear was a bad idea, as the current poe weapon rewards themselves are by no means objectively bad but have seen next to no use because compared to some of the brute force perks on earlier stuff(ie firefly on a handcannon, really?) they just don't cut it. Having more nuanced perks as seen with the poe weapons and armor is actually beneficial for the game's variety and choice. In the end it's just my opinion but really I would welcome the change as a new beginning from Bungie, because clearly over the past 2 content patches they have been trying to work out how to manage a persistent world game. Hopefully they work out that much more frequent balance patches are needed (ala MMORPGs /MOBAS) to prevent stale pve / pvp metagames. I don't want to see a situation where 1 exotic is the best for almost a year(looking at you gjallarhorn) or a raid weapon is top 3 non exotic primary for current content throughout a whole year cycle (ie voc, fatebringer). Not bringing the last years guns through allows bungie to be really experimental with fun and different perks and just not bring forward a lot of flat out damage/performance/stat perks.
-
Edited by Malphisto: 9/1/2015 4:58:03 PMActually, if you ignore the Halo aspect of Destiny, this game was not the first successful attempt at doing such a thing. The first ever console online game beat it to the punch decades ago back on the old Sega Dreamcast, a game series called Phantasy Star Online with its second incarnation Phantasy Star Universe. They managed to achieve practically everything and in many ways Destiny is an attempt to TRY (its thus far failing horribly at doing so...) and recreate that experience. That aside, the guns weren't being altered to match the encounters. The encounters were being altered because of poor QA on Bungie's part. There were plenty of people who played the Alpha Build of the game and got to see it (myself included) who had made mention of the general bullet sponge nature of said bosses. Yet nothing was done to rectify this. No, simply put PvP has been the one thing consistently impacting the weapons of Year 1 because people demand nerfs or buffs and so a game that was originally balanced was made unbalanced and continues to do so. Just like now you see people complaining that class abilities like Shoulder Charge for Titans need to be nerfed because they died from it in the Crucible. And instead of these changes ONLY impacting PvP,, they are carried over to the PvE side of things as well. Etheric Light did nothing wrong. It gave people a choice and something to do. In fact the majority of House of Wolves was spent by people farming the stuff to pick and choose weapons and armor to ascend. It was possibly the first real time anyone actually felt as if they had real variety in the game. Honestly, in my opinion Reforging is just bad. It takes away the power of the developers to be creative with weapon elements and perk combinations to design unique builds.
-
Edited by WoundedBdgr0317: 9/1/2015 10:26:57 AMUmm actually, if I don't play with you then it affects nothing in regards to you except for things like IB and ToO and only those.....maybe. But you are in fact taking away my choice for pve end game content by taking it away.
-
-
Strong argument...
-
Wasn't arguing, lol
-
Argument: a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong. Your right... "No" is quite pathetic and doesn't qualify.
-
An argument is also an act which requires at least two individuals. I saw no reason to do so.
-
You engaged by replying. "No" sounds like how my 3 year old might respond because they could not come up with a decent argument.
-
Not at all. You are assuming I cared enough to give a thought out reason behind my response. In actuality, the simplicity of my reply to what he said without all the bells and whistles attached all surmounted to a resounding no, either which way. I find very little cause to go beyond that unless specifically requested to do so. More curious though is your candid interest in my response, however. What vested interest is there for you in this, I wonder?
-
Just pointed out your lack of response to a valid, logical argument in opposition to your own.
-
According to you, at any rate. But then you are entitled to your opinion, I suppose. Good day.
-
Good day to you as well.
