Bungie has posted the latest Bungie Weekly Update! GO READ IT! NOW! NO SERIOUSLY STOP READING THIS AND READ THIS!

Another engineer bragged about standing his ground, and fighting off aliens with an ancient sword claimed from the grotto.

An engineering lead played so much Destiny, he missed a meeting. Then he missed lunch. From the drought of starvation grew superior firepower. Through means we cannot yet explain, he acquired his first heavy machinegun. Zero buyer’s remorse was experienced as he used it to “rock some faces” in multiplayer.

Stuff you get in single player...you can bring to multiplayer?

...With all the weapons and tactics at his disposal, Coolie made a decision that favored brute strength. “I chose to roll a Titan for this round for the beefier armor, tactical grenades, and close quarters mayhem.” This monstrous Guardian was armed with an Auto-Rifle, a Fusion Rifle, and a Heavy Machinegun that boasts a blistering rate of fire. Coolie can also tell you that choosing your weapon is as important as how you choose to use it. “I knew that to win on this map, with my build, I had to play it careful and avoid over-committing in the pursuit of a kill.” ...

Class warfare in multiplayer. Battlefield style?

...The Warlock... his fashion sense is deliciously eccentric. That’s important to me.

My character which I have chosen because of its ingame pursuit of knowledge has a wardrobe that is eccentric? Delicious.

Its like I'm already in the game.

The skybox in this image from the trailer is probably one of the coolest skyboxes I've seen in a while.

While one tester embarked on a love affair with his personal vehicle, another tester discovered the merits of the Sniper Rifle in directing the flow of traffic. Hint: the tactic involves removing the driver.

Through means we cannot yet explain, he acquired his first heavy machinegun. Zero buyer’s remorse was experienced as he used it to “rock some faces” in multiplayer.

An engineering lead played so much Destiny, he missed a meeting. Then he missed lunch. From the drought of starvation grew superior firepower. Through means we cannot yet explain, he acquired his first heavy machinegun. Zero buyer’s remorse was experienced as he used it to “rock some faces” in multiplayer.

Stuff you get in single player...you can bring to multiplayer?

Confirmed in the first podcast. They balance it by making ammo the commodity you use to fight over for map control.

An engineering lead played so much Destiny, he missed a meeting. Then he missed lunch. From the drought of starvation grew superior firepower. Through means we cannot yet explain, he acquired his first heavy machinegun. Zero buyer’s remorse was experienced as he used it to “rock some faces” in multiplayer.

Stuff you get in single player...you can bring to multiplayer?

Confirmed in the first podcast. They balance it by making ammo the commodity you use to fight over for map control.

*>_<* That's what I get for not listening to the dulcet tones of the Bungie Pod Cast.

"Forgiveness is a virtue of the brave." - Indira Gandhi

Be brave.

Another engineer bragged about standing his ground, and fighting off aliens with an ancient sword claimed from the grotto.

I've got a piece of fiction I plan to write once I'm done with NaNo that features a Guardian who favors a sword, so it's really nice to see ideas like this potentially being included in canon.

Confirmed in the first podcast. They balance it by making ammo the commodity you use to fight over for map control.

And how does that change the fact that going into it players have different guns?

Oh. Yes.

Ancient swords?

Multiplayer revives??

I won't wait.

Confirmed in the first podcast. They balance it by making ammo the commodity you use to fight over for map control.

And how does that change the fact that going into it players have different guns?

This.

Allowing people to go into competitive MP with weapons of vastly different power, which require different levels of grinding to attain, and expecting things to be balanced by having people fight over ammo is a strange idea.

You will still, presumably, be going into MP matches with weapons that must be valued differently. Put another way, you will still be matched against people with more powerful weapons (and the advantages they confer) they gained through grinding.

Relying on a paucity of ammo to balance things out doesn't sound very fun, really, if it really does succeed in balancing things. If you've got a "face-rocking" gun that overpowers what the enemy has, does it really sound like fun to lose half your battles because you're out of ammo?

I don't think the replacing of power weapons with ammo is, in truth, a balancing mechanism. Rather, I'd expect it to be a result of the fact that the idea of "power weapons" isn't really compatible with Destiny and the role of competitive MP in relation to the larger SP game. It'd be difficult to justify putting power weapons on the map when players can spawn with those same weapons (or even better ones) they've acquired through grinding. It'd be even more difficult to imagine MP-only power weapons that aren't available through the SP game.

Replacing power weapons with ammo also guarantees competitive MP matches will make full use of the (again, presumably) extensive collection of guns from the SP sandbox. Balancing the map itself will also be simplified as designers will no longer have to worry about which weapon goes where.

If we have to allow SP-grindable, "face-rocking" weapons into MP, I think the best method of balancing is adjusting the score to win, or the available lives per team or per player. This would require assigning values to each gun or accessory and saying, for example, "OK, your team's loadouts total 70 points. If you get to 50 kills, you win. The enemy team's loadouts total 130 points. If you get to 70 kills, you win."

But even so, the very idea of balancing runs afoul of the premise. People are only going to grind for things that give them an advantage. If you nullify that advantage (even if the nerfing only applies to competitive MP) via balancing, that's less incentive to grind.

Confirmed in the first podcast. They balance it by making ammo the commodity you use to fight over for map control.

And how does that change the fact that going into it players have different guns?

Different types of balance ;) my fault for using vague language.

I'm just saying that the usage of your "Heavy weapon" vs main vs. special is balanced by the usage of getting people to rely on ammo for map movement. Along that vein it seems like smart design, we'll see how it actually plays.

As for the other problem, we don't know anything about possible solutions. Good matchmaking could do a lot here, or maybe a buy in system for weapon/armor level power. There are good and bad ways to do it, and we don't know anything about how different player levels will be balanced.

Confirmed in the first podcast. They balance it by making ammo the commodity you use to fight over for map control.

And how does that change the fact that going into it players have different guns?

This.

Allowing people to go into competitive MP with weapons of vastly different power, which require different levels of grinding to attain, and expecting things to be balanced by having people fight over ammo is a strange idea.

You will still, presumably, be going into MP matches with weapons that must be valued differently. Put another way, you will still be matched against people with more powerful weapons (and the advantages they confer) they gained through grinding.

Relying on a paucity of ammo to balance things out doesn't sound very fun, really, if it really does succeed in balancing things. If you've got a "face-rocking" gun that overpowers what the enemy has, does it really sound like fun to lose half your battles because you're out of ammo?

I don't think the replacing of power weapons with ammo is, in truth, a balancing mechanism. Rather, I'd expect it to be a result of the fact that the idea of "power weapons" isn't really compatible with Destiny and the role of competitive MP in relation to the larger SP game. It'd be difficult to justify putting power weapons on the map when players can spawn with those same weapons (or even better ones) they've acquired through grinding. It'd be even more difficult to imagine MP-only power weapons that aren't available through the SP game.

Replacing power weapons with ammo also guarantees competitive MP matches will make full use of the (again, presumably) extensive collection of guns from the SP sandbox. Balancing the map itself will also be simplified as designers will no longer have to worry about which weapon goes where.

If we have to allow SP-grindable, "face-rocking" weapons into MP, I think the best method of balancing is adjusting the score to win, or the available lives per team or per player. This would require assigning values to each gun or accessory and saying, for example, "OK, your team's loadouts total 70 points. If you get to 50 kills, you win. The enemy team's loadouts total 130 points. If you get to 70 kills, you win."

But even so, the very idea of balancing runs afoul of the premise. People are only going to grind for things that give them an advantage. If you nullify that advantage (even if the nerfing only applies to competitive MP) via balancing, that's less incentive to grind.

Okay, there's a lot to unpack here, so I'll start by saying that My initial comment was vague. I meant to say that ammo limits allow balance in how maps play out, and among the types of weapon players will use within a single game. It also prompts map movement and map control. Which is a point you get at in your post, so I don't think we disagree there.

As for the other point, about how we balance people who play more against people who play less, there are a few different strategies. Buy in systems are kind of the classic (Think Myth's system of buying units) so different guns at different levels could be worth different amounts. Different match types could have maximum "points" on a player level (Max points on a team level could be another interesting twist).

Kind of gross matchmaking is another good tool. The Banner Saga has a system where you build a team, which is scored and only matched against similar strength teams.

I don't think that any kind of cap in power works against the idea of going out and getting stuff though. A core joy of systems like those isn't necessarily "I'm just better" but "how cleverly can I create a build within a limit." Especially when we start talking about a doing that best for a variety of roles and playstyles.

Either way, how this will all be balanced in a "How do I combat that fully upgraded cudgel of xanthor" isn't a question we have an answer to yet. I'm curious though.

As for the other point, about how we balance people who play more against people who play less, there are a few different strategies. Buy in systems are kind of the classic (Think Myth's system of buying units) so different guns at different levels could be worth different amounts. Different match types could have maximum "points" on a player level (Max points on a team level could be another interesting twist).

Kind of gross matchmaking is another good tool. The Banner Saga has a system where you build a team, which is scored and only matched against similar strength teams.

I don't think that any kind of cap in power works against the idea of going out and getting stuff though. A core joy of systems like those isn't necessarily "I'm just better" but "how cleverly can I create a build within a limit." Especially when we start talking about a doing that best for a variety of roles and playstyles.

Either way, how this will all be balanced in a "How do I combat that fully upgraded cudgel of xanthor" isn't a question we have an answer to yet. I'm curious though.

These are all good points. My post was originally intended to dispute that the replacement of weapons-on-map with ammo was done for balance, but I kind of digressed into a larger rant.

"Meta-balancing" by matching teams by collective value seems like the most straight-forward approach, but it would limit flexibility: you'd basically be reliant on matchmaking to get a fair game. Simply setting up a "custom" match between interested parties would necessarily involve either some extra hoops to jump through or resigning yourself to an unlevel playing field.

Will there even be customs though? Doesn't sound like LAN play is available in Destiny either

" It’s also a great way to see if territory in Destiny is becoming a thing worth fighting for."

Hmmmm... My mind wants to read into this more........ I want to draw lines to Planetside type PvP, but I am probably just reading too far into this sentence.

I don't doubt that there will be some form of custom games available, they've got to set up matches for the weekend champion somehow. Besides, who wouldn't want to just kick back and shoot your friends in the face without other people getting in the way? LAN play however, I couldn't really say, not that I would be too bothered if it wasn't there. It just doesn't seem like as much of an important feature to have like in days gone by when not nearly everyone had access to the internet.

But even so, the very idea of balancing runs afoul of the premise. People are only going to grind for things that give them an advantage. If you nullify that advantage (even if the nerfing only applies to competitive MP) via balancing, that's less incentive to grind.

There should be zero grinding required to play multiplayer optimally. ZERO. If you have to do ANY, then Bungie doesn't fucking know how to design a game properly.

I'm hoping you all are just misinterpreting the information presented, because if this is the case then it would be a blunder of the highest degree, an affront to good game design, downright offensive to players expected to do it, and the end of Bungie's reputation for quality.

Relying on a paucity of ammo to balance things out doesn't sound very fun, really, if it really does succeed in balancing things. If you've got a "face-rocking" gun that overpowers what the enemy has, does it really sound like fun to lose half your battles because you're out of ammo?

Happens to me quite regularly already.

First world problems.

But even so, the very idea of balancing runs afoul of the premise. People are only going to grind for things that give them an advantage. If you nullify that advantage (even if the nerfing only applies to competitive MP) via balancing, that's less incentive to grind.

There should be zero grinding required to play multiplayer optimally. ZERO. If you have to do ANY, then Bungie doesn't fucking know how to design a game properly.

I'm hoping you all are just misinterpreting the information presented, because if this is the case then it would be a blunder of the highest degree, an affront to good game design, downright offensive to players expected to do it, and the end of Bungie's reputation for quality.

Laughable.

I think it's a reasonably safe assumption that matchmaking will pit you against fireteams of similar rank. Within whatever such bands matchmaking will operate, *of course* you'll see other players optimizing their kits based on whatever gear is most beneficial/attainable for that rank. Be it through vendors or exploring the wilds that they accrue their gear, I'm sure there will be a number of options available for you to be able to compete.

Besides, what makes you think you won't gain experience and gear through competitive matches? There goes all your griping, right out the window. If you are rewarded no matter what you do, and it's just a matter of *which* gear you'd prefer to be using, well, go on out and get it. Competitive matches didn't earn you that sniper you want? Maybe you'll just have to buck on up and carve a path through a particularly dangerous area to do it. OH NOES, GAME BROKED.

Nothing would require it of you. And, bear in mind, Bungie's been known to promote the well-rounded player. They've specifically gotten the point across about how you'll be able to earn gear through different modes of play. As a matter of fact, I'd say that demanding a particular experience through one specific mode of play probably goes against a significant amount of effort they've put into making it a comprehensive experience, if I'm reading the tea leaves they're showing us correctly.

~m

Confirmed in the first podcast. They balance it by making ammo the commodity you use to fight over for map control.

And how does that change the fact that going into it players have different guns?

Different types of balance ;) my fault for using vague language.

I'm just saying that the usage of your "Heavy weapon" vs main vs. special is balanced by the usage of getting people to rely on ammo for map movement. Along that vein it seems like smart design, we'll see how it actually plays.

Reach's bloom was a play in favor of finesse, knowing when to pick your shots, to keep your aim steady while under pressure. Overall a small but masterful touch that I think added significantly to gameplay. Unfortunately, most people didn't seem to agree.

I think there's a bit more to the ammo thing than has been observed here. Not only does it serve those functions, but I see it as encouraging that same kind of care in a firefight. You're going to judge much more carefully when you make a shot. Your individual shots will count that much more. There's a wrinkle that that adds, simply making it a differently-flavored beast than we're used to.

As for the other problem, we don't know anything about possible solutions. Good matchmaking could do a lot here, or maybe a buy in system for weapon/armor level power. There are good and bad ways to do it, and we don't know anything about how different player levels will be balanced.

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. The decision to level the playing field would then be in the player's hands, possibly at the expense of experience or some other drawback. This could manifest as an overall damage boost, stronger shields, what-have-you. I think temporary boosts to ammo capacity would probably be in high demand. There is a lot about the way Mass Effect 3's multiplayer handles such commodities that's worth paying attention to.

~m

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.

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.

So, considering that fact that anyone can start with power weapons, does anyone think that multiplayer will turn into a game of snipers and rockets? I guess you could solve this by starting the game without power weapon ammo, but if this isn't the case I foresee a major problem.

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.

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.

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

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).

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.

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.

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

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?

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?

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

I wouldn't go so far as to say that we would have to use base weapon kits in PvP but more so base damage outputs per weapon type. You could still use your Red Death and lob grenades and such. I'm just simply suggesting that since all weapons adhere to certain types, the damage tables can be modified for all weapons that fall into that type and that in a sense would be a much easier way to balance this massive sandbox in a PvP environment.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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

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 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?