Official Thread Destiny 2 - Final Shape

Rate this Game

  • ☆☆☆☆☆

    Votes: 2 50.0%
  • ☆☆☆☆

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • ☆☆☆

    Votes: 2 50.0%
  • ☆☆

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4
It is disappointing that the PVP won't have servers. p2p will keep it from being a decent comp game.
Doesn't need it. It is only 4v4. All it needs is a decent matchmaking system and a decent host picking system.
 
haters.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Registered User 1
I can't decide of 4v4 is going to be better or worse. I think it is an improvement as 6v6 wasn't very good on the smaller maps on D1. It was ok for randoms to mess around, but that's about it. 3v3 was always the big jump. You better be good before you jump into 3s or you're going to get thumped.

My big worry is that it is going to be tough to eliminate teams in modes with revives.
 
PVP vs Halo?
Easily better IMO.. in popularity?Fact
After all the years worth of content released...Starting with Taken King the game turned out pretty incredible.
You don't agree?That's fine but its my opinion and I am entitled to it.
Have some concerns being the critic I am but overall think D2 looks great.
Kind of hard to tell if D2 will be anygood. Way too many changes that could be horrible. Take the new weapon system for example, it makes sense for PvP but could be horrible in PvE where unleashing your uber weapon was half the fun...the ammo limitations bought in during mid to late yeaer 2 had drastic and negative. impacts oh PvE fun and enjoyment.

Even the 4v4 change has a big impact, cause. now all modes will be Osiris competive and that wont be fun for casual players.

The first change above also implies the PvE will once again feel the effects of PvP changes, which is not good...not good at all. The best we can hope for is the new gunsystem and PvP player count changes will mean far less drastic changes and far oess tweaks overall.
 
Last edited:
So why are fire teams still three people but PvP is four?
 
It's that type of unexplained and frankly strange decision that worries about the amount of joined up thinking that is happening behind the scenes.
To be fair they are different modes. You don't need them to match. Having said that, it does make logical sense to have everything the same, well except for raids the raids.

I think the idea is to get groups to play with loners via guided games.
 
I think there were two reasons for the change to PVP - one the netcode and two, keeping the majority of people in fewer playlists. Once the player base gets spread out, they are forced to compact things. In D1, you had people like me who never did any PVP beyond 6s.

The weapon changes will be fine as long as they stop using ammo scarcity to balance the game. They painted themselves in a corner and then made poor decisions from then on.
 
I think there were two reasons for the change to PVP - one the netcode and two, keeping the majority of people in fewer playlists. Once the player base gets spread out, they are forced to compact things. In D1, you had people like me who never did any PVP beyond 6s.

The weapon changes will be fine as long as they stop using ammo scarcity to balance the game. They painted themselves in a corner and then made poor decisions from then on.
Andyet neither of those are the main reason. The main reason is balaning. It is far easier to balance 4v4 than it is 6v6...and balancing isthe biggest in in PvP for Destiny 1.

The net code is just terrible and has very little to do with 6v6.

And they have used ammo scarcity to help balance the game.
 
Andyet neither of those are the main reason. The main reason is balaning. It is far easier to balance 4v4 than it is 6v6...and balancing isthe biggest in in PvP for Destiny 1.

The net code is just terrible and has very little to do with 6v6.

And they have used ammo scarcity to help balance the game.

I would think 3v3 is harder to balance. 6v6 was more chaos and harder to notice the issues. You can run just about any decent in in 6s, but in 3s you better be using the meta.

I'm hoping they completely revamp the gun perks and stats (hopefully that's why they didn't carry over). The balance was terrible because too many guns and perks were just broken.

The big problem is they would create a gun like a super high rate of fire pulse rifle that had nearly max stability. This gun type dominated for so long. The gun basically has nearly zero recoil with the right perks. How do you balance that? You don't create it.
 
I would think 3v3 is harder to balance. 6v6 was more chaos and harder to notice the issues. You can run just about any decent in in 6s, but in 3s you better be using the meta.

I'm hoping they completely revamp the gun perks and stats (hopefully that's why they didn't carry over). The balance was terrible because too many guns and perks were just broken.

The big problem is they would create a gun like a super high rate of fire pulse rifle that had nearly max stability. This gun type dominated for so long. The gun basically has nearly zero recoil with the right perks. How do you balance that? You don't create it.
Cause the meta = balanced when everyone uses it. And the difference between 3v3 and 6v6 has little to do with the meta. People use the meta cause the players are better in general. Plus, you have twice as many people in 6v6, which means more targets and less attention on you, which is why non meta set ups are viable. Less attention, more targets, lower quality of players in general.

Not sure what weird logic you used to come to that determination, but fewer players = easier to balance.

No you balance it by adding recoil and lowering fire rate.
 
It's that type of unexplained and frankly strange decision that worries about the amount of joined up thinking that is happening behind the scenes.
Also, notsure if you noticed, but the old supers are not the same.

Fist of Havoc now has 6 fist slams, and it now has a barrier to deploy that blocks pathways for ashort time, or you can hide behind it.
 
Also, notsure if you noticed, but the old supers are not the same.

Fist of Havoc now has 6 fist slams, and it now has a barrier to deploy that blocks pathways for ashort time, or you can hide behind it.

You're right. I didn't notice that.
 
As far as the programmers it's not them being incompetent it's the choices they make.

If they choose to have a toolkit that requires 8 hours to load their map, 20 minutes to open it, ten seconds to move an object and then a 15-20 minute recompiler, that's a choice they make too. Choices can be bad.
 
Another Digital Foundry video where Richard talks about 30 fps on consoles and says again that both the Pro and Scorpio weren't meant to double framerates but raise fidelity which is the truth. The CPU's just didn't get a big enough boost to run this game at 60 fps when the PS4/X1 versions always targeted 30 fps to begin with.

 
Another Digital Foundry video where Richard talks about 30 fps on consoles and says again that both the Pro and Scorpio weren't meant to double framerates but raise fidelity which is the truth. The CPU's just didn't get a big enough boost to run this game at 60 fps when the PS4/X1 versions always targeted 30 fps to begin with.



Yep. The "EVERYTHING 60fps" dream died when it was clear we weren't getting a modified Ryzen CPU in Scorpio; granted that would've been complete overkill compared to what we have.
 
Yep. The "EVERYTHING 60fps" dream died when it was clear we weren't getting a modified Ryzen CPU in Scorpio; granted that would've been complete overkill compared to what we have.

Yeah there is no way it was ever going to be a Ryzen CPU, I know a lot of people let their hopes cloud their minds and actually expected it to be one but there were many reasons why it never made sense to have that expectation. These aren't new gen consoles they are meant to make current gen games look better and maybe make them more stable but not double the framerate. Console gamers have been fine with 30 fps for a long time now so while 60 fps is nice when it can be achieved I think most would agree that nearly all of the games on their top 10 lists that they've played were 30 fps to begin with so it's really not that big of a deal. I think most people would still go for a solid 30 fps and better graphics over things being taken out to get 60 fps, if you are a PC gamer with a nice rig you don't have to choose but for those of us who play on a $399 machine we can't expect the world, or at least we shouldn't anyway.
 
Another Digital Foundry video where Richard talks about 30 fps on consoles and says again that both the Pro and Scorpio weren't meant to double framerates but raise fidelity which is the truth. The CPU's just didn't get a big enough boost to run this game at 60 fps when the PS4/X1 versions always targeted 30 fps to begin with.



That guys hand movements always annoy me...

But hey at least the parity talk nonsense and Bungie are a bunch of liars can stop or do DF not count this time?