I don't think they are grindish, since the game gives out exp as you progress specific story events. In other words, you can't really go back and play the same thing over and over in order to get more exp (grind). You basically get what you get and have to distribute accordingly.

Not really. You can easily miss some skill points, but I see your point.

What if weapons are the same in Destiny? I.e., there's only one way to obtain each one of them, and they're always obtained with exactly the same attributes. You might miss them, if they're off the beaten path, but they are there.Kind of like Dark Souls, if what I gathered from it is true.

Wouldn't that draw a parallel to what you described the skill points as?

Deus Ex's attributes (not augs, attributes) are exclusively grind-ish. What's your word on them?

I don't think they are grindish, since the game gives out exp as you progress specific story events. In other words, you can't really go back and play the same thing over and over in order to get more exp (grind). You basically get what you get and have to distribute accordingly.

I mean, games like Skyrim, Far Cry, the Arkham games. They all have some sort of unlockable upgrades. Are you, by the same principle, against them too or can you see some situations where they apply as good implementations of locked-away content?

There are plenty of situations where they can work if done properly. Vanquish. Deus Ex. I've explained the difference elsewhere.

If they are integrated in such a way that make the game more interesting, than that's a benefit:

Deus Ex: Augmentations are scarce and mutually exclusive, as well as open up new avenues for play. Strategic decisions about which augs to use and mix make the game more interesting than either having no augs, or playing with all augs 'unlocked'. You also do not earn them by grinding, but rather in set places.

Vanquish: The weapon upgrade system forces you to make tradeoffs and play differently to upgrade your weapons.

Bu then again, such thing aren't really unlockables then, are they? It's just a part of the game challenge.

So yeah, I guess no. Unlockables always suck.

It's not a real limitation, since all you have to do is spend time to get around it.

Sounds like a real grind to me...

It would mean stripping all traits from unlockables and earned kit down to aesthetics.

Yes, it would. At the very least. Depending on how you read it, you could take Cody's argument to be suggesting that all aesthetic traits should be unlocked from the start as well.

Cody has been aggressively backing this stance toward unlocks since forever.

<3 Cody, I just love to argue with people who are articulate and consistently wrong ;).

My favorite is to play with his absolutism and myopic arguments. Once we got him to prove himself wrong.

Wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrong.

Having every weapon unlocked and available right away may create such a system. But having to unlock them is not a strategic choice, since if you want access to all the weapons and choices YOU HAVE TO GRIND AND EARN THEM. That is the opposite of meaningful choice; you are practically required to do it.

Halo's two weapon limitation is beneficial BECAUSE YOU CAN'T WORK AROUND IT. The limitation of having a small weapons set unless you earn them CAN BE BYPASSED BY SPENDING THE TIME TO EARN THEM. Once you earn weapons it's no longer limiting you down! It's not a real limitation, since all you have to do is spend time to get around it.

If you have a system that greatly reduces any advantage from having a longer playtime (Point draft system for equipment, handicapping, counter system, weapons could have in game costs, I dunno, but it's been done before) so that two players face off on relatively even footing. At this point, what weapons you choose *is* a strategic choice, and one that is limited by what you've earned, and how they fit with your goals.

All it takes are some ways to limit the power you bring into a match, and boom. there you go. Along side that, with Destinies apparently huge variety of arms and abilities, you basically guarantee a logarithmic power scale. With so many tools, there's bound to be one that will work. So, when you go back to multiplayer, you make decisions based on a competent, but not optimal set, just like everyone else. There ya go, there's your strategic choice that would be lost if they just made everything available at the start.

There's nothing wrong with having asymmetric options for each player either, as long as the tools to balance them are done well.

This is correct, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with unlocking weapons and grinding for rewards. You can easily have asymmetric options without having grinding. Ever play a fighting game with different characters, or an RTS with different races?

Once again, we are talking about how destiny could work in a PVP enviroment that limits the firepower any character can bring into a fight. That kind of system limits the importance of grinding and focuses the player on making decisions about how to structure a build and what to pursue.

No it does not. Players should not have to play an inferior version of a game (where they have little weapon choice) just to later get to the real version (where they have lot of weapon choice). The real version is what you should play from the start.

Halo's 2 weapon system, and limiting the available weapons by what you've earned are the same abstract concept. They are both about creating more meaningful choice by limiting down from a wide variety of options.

Wrong. Wrong Wrong Wrong.

Having every weapon unlocked and available right away may create such a system. But having to unlock them is not a strategic choice, since if you want access to all the weapons and choices YOU HAVE TO GRIND AND EARN THEM. That is the opposite of meaningful choice; you are practically required to do it.

Halo's two weapon limitation is beneficial BECAUSE YOU CAN'T WORK AROUND IT. The limitation of having a small weapons set unless you earn them CAN BE BYPASSED BY SPENDING THE TIME TO EARN THEM. Once you earn weapons it's no longer limiting you down! It's not a real limitation, since all you have to do is spend time to get around it.

There's nothing wrong with having asymmetric options for each player either, as long as the tools to balance them are done well.

This is correct, but I fail to see how this has anything to do with unlocking weapons and grinding for rewards. You can easily have asymmetric options without having grinding. Ever play a fighting game with different characters, or an RTS with different races?

Trying to maximize an imperfect set of options for a situation prompts far more interesting decisions than having all the best option available to you. For instance, that was one of the core innovations that made Halo's combat so good (Two weapon system, limited ammo etc).

This isn't the same at all, and what I am talking about.

Everybody in Halo spawns with the same two weapons.

You didn't make that argument in the thread I responded too (and I've said my bit with examples on ways to get that balance right). I can't argue against the magical arguments in your head. Here, let's reference the things you are saying!

No it does not. Players should not have to play an inferior version of a game (where they have little weapon choice) just to later get to the real version (where they have lot of weapon choice). The real version is what you should play from the start.

Halo's 2 weapon system, and limiting the available weapons by what you've earned are the same abstract concept. They are both about creating more meaningful choice by limiting down from a wide variety of options.

There's nothing wrong with having asymmetric options for each player either, as long as the tools to balance them are done well.

It would mean stripping all traits from unlockables and earned kit down to aesthetics.

Yes, it would. At the very least. Depending on how you read it, you could take Cody's argument to be suggesting that all aesthetic traits should be unlocked from the start as well.

Cody has been aggressively backing this stance toward unlocks since forever.

Either way though, balancing the sandbox in a PvP setting is a very very fine line and at least to me it seems a better move to have everyone somewhat level then having someone complain that another Red Death is better than theirs and then begin to hate the game for that reason. Now on the flip side of that, it could motivate that person to get their weapon to a higher status, but, again, very fine line.

I want to earn gear that lets me customize a build that maximizes *MY* fun.

How about just letting you customize your gear straight out the gate so you can maximize your fun right away, instead of playing with sub maximal fun until you get what you want?

In what way can what you're defending be ANY better?

I'm still trying to decide if you're knee-jerking right at the point you disagree with my responses, which tends to be maybe one half-idea into one of my replies; or you're cherry-picking tidbits out and over-focusing on them. Because you're not acknowledging half of what I'm laying down, even if you disagree.

And I don't think playing a game of Competitive Tastes is really what we're about...are we? At least that's not what I'm here for.

I can tell you if I have access to that whole arsenal out of the gate, I want it spawning ingame so I can switch things up. Maybe we'll have the option to switch classes between respawns and we'll have the whole gamut available to us in terms of PvP builds, but with the emphasis on customizable gear and a player's investment in their character, I really don't see the kind of experience I think you want being what we get. It would mean stripping all traits from unlockables and earned kit down to aesthetics.

~m

Due to the fact that you can bring weapons from campaign into multiplayer, has anything been mentioned about normalization of weapons? Equalizing weapons would greatly simplify matchmaking since you avoid variables created by disparately equipped teams. Also, normalization of weapons would completely remove any incentive to grind for multiplayer, which would be a huge benefit for people who hate that sort of thing.

Unfortunately, not much aside from strategic ammo placement has been mentioned. However, since you bring up normalization, I can see something like that being extended not only to weapons but to the entire sandbox for competitive multiplayer. Setting up base stats for each type of weapon, armor and vehicle would seem to be the best option and the easiest as you're not trying to balance each and every weapon against each other and then also against different types of armor. You could still have your amazingly powerful exotic weapons in co-op play, but when it comes to the competitive stuff, my normal auto rifle wouldn't be outclassed by someone with say an exotic auto rifle.

And what if classes unlock power variants at certain levels? You might as well say all powers, weapons, attachments, grenades, etc. are available from the word go in competitive matches. I highly doubt that will be the case.

And what is going to differentiate weapons besides base weapon type? Your suggestion is to use base kit weapons for all of PvP? Again, doubt levels in the extreme.

~m

I want to earn gear that lets me customize a build that maximizes *MY* fun.

How about just letting you customize your gear straight out the gate so you can maximize your fun right away, instead of playing with sub maximal fun until you get what you want?

In what way can what you're defending be ANY better?

Earning gear that changes gameplay at all will introduce such an issue regardless.

Then. Don't. Do. It.

There are no upsides, and plenty of downsides.

That is but one man's opinion.

I want to earn gear that lets me customize a build that maximizes *MY* fun. The game is built around that concept in all other aspects. Why would it not apply in multiplayer? I think the market that Bungie is catering to, by and large, would prefer earning gear that affects the gameplay.

Otherwise they'd be saying "here's this great big beautiful universe to run around and get lost in, but if you ever want to go PVP, you're restricted to chess." Not that I have any issues with chess. But Destiny isn't chess.

~m

Earning gear that changes gameplay at all will introduce such an issue regardless.

Then. Don't. Do. It.

There are no upsides, and plenty of downsides.

Trying to maximize an imperfect set of options for a situation prompts far more interesting decisions than having all the best option available to you. For instance, that was one of the core innovations that made Halo's combat so good (Two weapon system, limited ammo etc).

This isn't the same at all, and what I am talking about.

Everybody in Halo spawns with the same two weapons.

Besides, what makes you think you won't gain experience and gear through competitive matches? There goes all your griping, right out the window.

No it does not. Players should not have to play an inferior version of a game (where they have little weapon choice) just to later get to the real version (where they have lot of weapon choice). The real version is what you should play from the start.

Trying to maximize an imperfect set of options for a situation prompts far more interesting decisions than having all the best option available to you. For instance, that was one of the core innovations that made Halo's combat so good (Two weapon system, limited ammo etc).

Agreed. Something as simple as a one-time/limited-use mod purchasable with ingame (or real) currency from a vendor in order to compete in a higher band of play could work.

That is the stupidest thing ever.

That is some super useful feedback, though.

It's merely one approach to a solution, pretty easily arrived at. Say you want to compete at a level other than what your guardian is capable of. Earning in game currency to spend on such things by completing matches makes this a viable, self-perpetuating cycle so that one is never out of said commodity for more than a match or two, based on the the rates of earning/how well a player plays. Add to that a tapering-off effect per character level of the potency of the mod, or simply the price of effectiveness has a steep curve and you've fairly handily addressed the concern about the gap between levels in competitive play. There are many ways to skin a cat.

Earning gear that changes gameplay at all will introduce such an issue regardless. There will be people ahead of you with different gear, whether they've played more pvp than you have, or earned gear in other ways. You can only be so surprised. I fail to see how requiring investment in other modes of play breaks the competitive slice of Destiny. You're going to have to break down your stance to more than your opinion.

~m