[quote]I think sunsetting would be far less hated if the level cap were raised once per year and then remained static until the next DLC. Gear could then remain static for that year while giving players a reason to invest in builds and chase loot without the impending expiry date every season.[/quote] ☝I agree with this. ☝This is what's ideal for the game now considering where the game stands right now after all these years. But remember, Destiny didn't start this way. They've made a ton of changes before it got where it is now. When Destiny first launched, it wasn't like the other games. Do you know why? Because it was a copycat of everything you see in the market that got popular at that time. Destiny had no identity because they copied different aspects and strengths of different other games and combine them to form a game we now know as Destiny. They were trying to create something new by incorporating everything from other different games into a single game. They copied styles like loot based games from Borderlands (looter shooter), Space Magic shooter like Mass Effect, and MMO aspects like Final Fantasy Online and World of Warcraft, and progression systems like Borderlands with a yellow progress bar that used to indicate progression of our power. They made it their own by incorporating gear power which could only be acquired through end game activity, hence the Forever 29 slogan that occurred after that. They combined all of these and then they made it into a live-service game. They weren't just trying to make a game, they were also trying to capitalize on it, milk it so to speak. That's where all the issues started to come out. The problem is, Bungie have no experience making this type of game. Before it came out 6 years ago, the head honcho chopped the game up 1 year before it's launch because he probably really wanted to make the game a sustainable milking Live-Game service but it wasn't what Staten has planned for originally. Remember, this was Staten's brain child. It was his concept, well, at least according to what publications out there said. Then after D1 launched, that's how the game's progression system started to changed and evovled until it got here to where it is now. This idea of yours that Progress Caps and Gear Caps should stay one year may be the ideal way for the game for what it has become now. But I doubt they will do that now. This model will be less sustainable, Moneywise for them at this point. Maybe if it was still supported by Activision, it would be feasible. But Bungie is self sustaining this game now. They will not do this. The seasonal model is their milking grace. And they will stick to this resetting progression on a seasonal basis because that's what they think will milk them Money and gamers coming back every 3 months to redo things over and over again while throwing money at the screen. Less effort for maximum profit. In their eyes, this is a win-win. Even the sunsetting scheme is incorporated into this plan. Guns and gear resetting and capping in sync with seasonal content. It's perfect! After 6 years, they've finally have a working plan to milk your money while they do other projects. That's called "Fantasy Land" vision with the sole purpose of throwing your money at the screen. Looking ahead though, I wouldn't be surprised if they'll make a game in the future with this idea of yours keeping progression cap levels and gear cap levels together on a yearly basis. I can see them doing this in their future projects. Too bad I don't buy it as they've destroyed their credibility with what they did to this game called Destiny. Shame.

Half-right for a bit there. This festering disease of a game franchise was Jason Jones’s brainchild. He wanted it to be an always-online game and the live-service bullshit came in after. Staten only came up with the original vision for the world, story and lore before it was all thrown away. His “mistake” was the same as all the many old Bungie devs that saw the writing on the wall and were pushed away during the hideous conception of Destiny. He tried to get Bungo to stick with a consistent plan. Unfortunately by that point, Bungie was Bungo, and you know what Bungo’s relationship with consistency is.

In other words, the "successor to Halo" vision that Staten is seen as champion of. Halo is a dying franchise.

Oooooh, joy! Now YOU’RE here for some reason! Come the time of Halo: Reach, the moment when Bungie malformed into Bungo, Staten’s days on Halo were already behind him as he toiled for the shitshow-to-be. I honestly have not a single clue what you’re trying to say with the whole “successor to Halo” bit, but I’m just going to assume you mean whenever anyone at Bungo claimed that Destiny would be a successor to it before it reared its disgusting head to the world. Heheheheheh. Laughable claims, even now. Eh. Who knows what’ll happen to Halo now. It has been through so much change and iteration now that it’s merely something entirely different than what it began as. Certainly not gonna die though. One of those “too big to fail” type of deals at this point. In case you haven’t noticed by this shitshow, people ain’t exactly packin’ in the standards department when it comes to FPSs! Anyway, I have no idea what you're trying to say with your comment here. But thanks for stopping by!

Sing the praises of Halo all you want. There hasn't been a Halo game that has been able to hold my attention for more than an hour. The Halo Universe is a rich universe for storytelling, but as a video game it left me cold.

Uhhhhhhh. I don't care. Doesn't change that its an objectively good FPS. At least, for the first three. One can't simply lump all the Halos together. There's three types. Bungie Halo, Bungo Halo and 343 Halo. I don't even know why you're bringin' any of this here. None of this has anything to do with the tale of Destiny's grotesque birth! HAH!

[quote]Uhhhhhhh. I don't care.[/quote] You have that luxury. Bungie doesn't. Because Bungie needs to make money and stay in business. [quote]One can't simply lump all the Halos togethe[/quote] Yes I can. I found them all equally boring to me as a player. [quote]There's three types. Bungie Halo, Bungo Halo and 343 Halo. I don't even know why you're bringin' any of this here.[/quote] Doesn't matter. You might as well try to talk about the fine distincitions of eating diffrent kinds of liver. To me they all taste like you're chewing on aluminum foil. I was 30 years old, and had been a PC gamer for serveral years when Halo: CE dropped. To gamers of my generation, Halo was nothing special as a video game. Especially if you already gamed on PC. What made it special was that it was a new experience for YOUNG players who played on CONSOLE. That has always been Bungie's talent. To take what is a common experiernce in one part of the gaming world....repackage it, and present it in a fresh and creative way to players for whom that experience is new. But to someone who was playing shooter games like Planetside on PC when Halo was making its name on console? It jsut wasn't anything special. Though I respect the importance it had for Millennials.

[quote]Half-right for a bit there. This festering disease of a game franchise was Jason Jones’s brainchild. He wanted it to be an always-online game and the live-service bullshit came in after. Staten only came up with the original vision for the world, story and lore before it was all thrown away. He was just one of many old Bungie devs that saw the writing on the wall and were pushed away during its hideous conception.[/quote] I've read a different story. Staten have the idea of a new game post Halo era. It was a different concept as what we have now, it even has a different name. During development, about a year before it's release, that's when head honcho chopped up the game and made it into an always online live-service game. It was Staten's brainchild first. Staten wanted to make great games, Bunyon head honcho and Activision wanted a milking cow game. And that's what we got, a milking cow game. That's what I've read. I didn't make this story. I just read it. Peace Brother!

[quote]Staten have the idea of a new game for a post-Halo era. It was a different concept as what we have now, it even has a different name.[/quote] That is false. That wasn't Staten. It was Jaime Griesemer, and the concept's name was Dragon Tavern, a fantasy third-person game where players could find and join up to complete quests in a "shared-world experience". Wasn't quite going to be an MMO, though. That's because every player would have their own private tavern instance where they would congregate between quests. [quote]During development, about a year before it's release, that's when head honcho chopped up the game and made it into an always online live-service game.[/quote] No. That's what happened to Destiny. Dragon Tavern was just a set of ideas that Griesemer came up with before the higher-ups sat him down and said "Look, we don't have enough manpower and resources for both of your games, and we're going to make Jason's." What was Jason's idea? Well, he wanted it to be a sci-fi FPS that "fixed" a problem that he thought Halo had. Essentially, the one thing Jones hated about Halo was that according to him, there were no incentives to go back and replay the campaign and didn't like how linear it was. He wanted to make a sci-fi FPS where players could play together and access a whole bunch of nonlinear content. That more-or-less lined up with Griesemer's ideas. So when the higher-ups axed Griesemer's dream, the creature to be known as Destiny absorbed his dream's ideas. Even so, both their ideas at the time were very theoretical. At least now we know how terrible the ideas on one side of this metastasized.

By the way, who was Staten then and what did he do again, and why everyone is saying this was his game initially?

One. Joseph Staten was the head writer and cinematics director for the original Halo trilogy and the would-not-be head writer for Destiny. Two. Because people are dumb and misinformed.

[quote]One. Joseph Staten was the head writer for the original Halo trilogy and the would-not-be head writer for Destiny. Two. Because people are dumb are misinformed.[/quote] Gotcha! Now I remember. That's right. The Halo writer. I love his stories. I remember now. It was his story. Initially, I think Staten and his team also wrote Destiny's storyline. It's called the "Super Cut", right? I remember now. That's when Head honcho Jonsey chopped it up and put up a new team, one amateur one who doesn't make games and sometimes sleep while his character is being leveled up by others. Yeah, I remember now. It's Staten's story they fecked up! Yep. I remember. Greed. From the beginning. It was all about Greed.

Greed and hubris. It was screwed from the beginning.

[quote][quote]Staten have the idea of a new game for a post-Halo era. It was a different concept as what we have now, it even has a different name.[/quote] That is false. That wasn't Staten. It was Jaime Griesemer, and the concept's name was Dragon Tavern, a fantasy third-person game where players could find and join up to complete quests in a "shared-world experience". Wasn't quite going to be an MMO, though. That's because every player would have their own private tavern instance where they would congregate between quests. [quote]During development, about a year before it's release, that's when head honcho chopped up the game and made it into an always online live-service game.[/quote] No. That's what happened to Destiny. Dragon Tavern was just a set of ideas that Griesemer came up with before the higher-ups sat him down and said "Look, we don't have enough manpower and resources for both of your games, and we're going to make Jason's." What was Jason's idea? Well, he wanted it to be a sci-fi FPS that "fixed" a problem that he thought Halo had. Essentially, the one thing Jones hated about Halo was that according to him, there were no incentives to go back and replay the campaign and didn't like how linear it was. He wanted to make a sci-fi FPS where players could play together and access a whole bunch of nonlinear content. That more-or-less lined up with Griesemer's ideas. So when the higher-ups axed Griesemer's dream, the creature to be known as Destiny absorbed his dream's ideas. Even so, both their ideas at the time were very theoretical. At least now we know how terrible the ideas on one side of this metastasized.[/quote] Yes, that's the one. Dragon Tavern. Pardon my ignorance. I may have forgotten between Staten and Griesemer. I'm only here to play really, and wasn't interested with who made what, until they all screwed it up and now I'm here investigating into why this sh°t happened and who fecked it up!😂 But you are correct. It started as Dragon Tavern. If you say it was Jonesy's final brainchild that got chosen, then I would give him the shadow of a doubt that it probably started with good intention to make a good game initially. But then fecked up its implementation. The game was good and shooting mechanics and gunplay was one of the best at it's time back then. It's still good. But greed got the best of them. Both for Activision and Bunyon. They made a great game and then screwed it up. Look where we are now, them still screwing up and greed still showing up. Reap what you sow. Always has been.

But don't those games usually have a large amount of new gear to replace them? The major problem with Sunsetting was how poorly it was implemented in this game. They just dropped 8 seasons worth of weapons, and there's not enough new or reissued gear to replace what they made obsolete. It's left many weapon types with gaps in both damage type and archetype. There's a lack of variety, particularly in Void weapons, and some archetypes have none remaining, like Rapid-fire and Aggressive-frame Pulse Rifles. There are others that have 1 weapon left (e.g. Steelfeather Repeater), but they're season 9 weapons that aren't even in the loot pool, and expire at the end of this season. It was so bad they actually had to reissue a few more weapons mid-season. For those of us who use more than just 6-8 weapons, it's very limiting. It sucks having to wait for them to, hopefully, fill those gaps. They should have went down a list, and carefully picked out some weapons to not sunset until they had replacements.

Yes. Which is why Sunsetting isn’t the problem. The problem was a failure to increase the game’s ability to generate loot along with implementing sunsetting. A problem that Bungie was able to ignore before sunsetting, because letting the game bloat with YEARS of accumulated loot created an ILLUSION that the game had sufficient loot. When the fact is that the game has the same amount of [i]relevant[/i] loot this year as it did last year during Shadowkeep. It just feels like there is less because you can’t drag loot that you hoarded from previous years out of your vault to fill in the gaps left by the new loot Bungie created. But the fact of the matter is that these games can’t survive what Bungie was trying to do. Which is why the were ultimately forced to walk it back, when they could abandon this game after three years like they did Destiny 1.