ll_Exile_ll's forum posts

#1 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (2155 posts) -

@mamba219 said:

@ll_exile_ll: It bothers me because there's no good reason backwards compatibility isn't available on said system. They even use the same proprietary format. It's greed, pure and simple.

Are you talking about PS4? Because if so you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Having the same disc format has nothing to do with backwards compatibility. The hardware architecture of the PS3 is incredibly complex and notoriously unintuitive to develop for, taking emulation off the table as a backwards comparability option. The only other option to get PS3 backwards compatibility onto a PS4 would be basically shove PS3 hardware into the console itself, which make the box much larger and probably about $100 more expensive.

Anyway, you bringing up backwards compatibility shows you completely ignored what I said. Don't view these ports as things people that already have the game are meant to be buying again. The games are being put on systems that they weren't on previously and people that have those systems can now buy them if they didn't previously have access to them. I just don't get this idea that a port of a game shouldn't exist because it's already available on another system.

#2 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (2155 posts) -

@barrock said:
@ballsleon said:

@crembaw: Last of Us was barely 1 year old

GTA V too. Borderlands: The Pre-sequel.

None of these were okay, either.

What is wrong with a game being ported to a system it wasn't available on originally? Distance yourself from the idea that those are "HD Remasters" and view them as what they are: ports that also happen to take advantage of the capabilities of the system they're being ported to. I agree that in the case of The Last of Us and Borderlands, them being marketed as remasters is kind of dumb, but that doesn't really change their validity as ports of recent games to new systems.

#3 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (2155 posts) -

@hh said:
@oursin_360 said:
@zolroyce said:

I love space and science stuff, but I'm not that great with understanding it all, does anyone know how far away that is in, like, regular earth years? As far as the speed of the shuttles we have now? Is that like, we would need to invent faster travel then we have now for it to be even remotely visitable? Or like build some sort of massive space ship that can support life for generations so like, our kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids kids can see it?

Light year is a how fast light can travel in a regular earth year, so it's not a measurement of time.

http://www.convert-me.com/en/convert/length/lightyear.html

Even if it took 1,400 years that's too long to survive in space. And i don't think faster than light travel will happen tbh

it's my understanding the faster than light travel is impossible according to the laws of physics, however it is theoretically possible to design a spacecraft that can last long enough in space, and get there over many many generations, but what i'm wondering is will information ever be able to travel faster than light? like, will the news on earth 1 ever be relevant to earth 2? that planet could have been destroyed 1399 years ago and we wouldn't find out about until next year. so in human terms it could only ever be like two completely separate universes, right? more or less completely irrelevant to eachother.

Faster than light travel through conventional means in normal space time (as in, accelerating via propulsion to reach and exceed the speed of light) is physically impossible. However, even though we're nowhere near having the capabilities of actually trying anything, there are theories that travelling faster than the speed of light could be possible by means other than conventional thrust and propulsion. The Alcubierre Drive being the most notable proposal.

#4 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (2155 posts) -

@shatteringlast: I guess that is up to the community. What do you guys want? Do we wanna do the knockout round best of three each round, or just one game each round?

I would definitely vote best of three for each round, maybe best of five for the finals.

#5 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (2155 posts) -

@carlos707: Apparently the devs are going to patch in that exact feature, although they haven't announced when it is coming.

I put together this little form. If you're interested in the tournament, please fill it out!

You should edit the OP and include a link to that entry form.

#6 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (2155 posts) -

Sounds like a great idea. How would the teams be set up? Random draft or are we coming in with our teams?

#7 Edited by ll_Exile_ll (2155 posts) -

@hestilllives19 said:

The Bad: Ice Breaker and Black Hammer changes.

Ice Breaker's 5 seconds already felt like a very long time between rounds if you were actively using it, which is why many have stopped using it. But, I haven't pulled mine out in ages, and this doesn't change that I guess. Black Hammer pulling rounds from your inventory is fine, but only a 3 round increase in capacity is a joke. To compensate for basically neutering Black Hammer, they could have at least added 10 rounds instead of 3 to it's capacity. It's probably much more useful now to use another high impact sniper with quick reload perks.

Overall I think these changes are pretty positive for Destiny, I just wished they were dropping before September.

I think the Ice Breaker changes were made because of the many ways it's ammo regeneration can be used to cheese and exploit the game. In an E3 interview (I forget which one), a Bungie employee said they internally refer to Ice Breaker as "Game Breaker," so clearly they aren't a fan of the many less than savory ways it is used. It's too bad it hurts people that want to use it legitimately, but Ice Breaker was never a weapon you could use exclusively. Ideally, you're switching to Ice Breaker for key situations where you need it, unloading on a big target, and then switching back to your primary. That playstyle will still be completely viable, but now you can't as easily use Ice Breaker to refill ammo for a different special weapon or do oracles from up top.

On the topic of Black Hammer, I admit I will be sad to see it go, but realistically it is way too strong for a legendary. As it is now, Black Hammer is better than almost every exotic special weapon, which is kind of crazy. They even list it under the exotic weapon changes in the update. I think the real shame is that they used this great idea for a weapon on a legendary, when ideally they would have made an exotic with these abilities. Who knows, maybe they will.

#8 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (2155 posts) -

You know how you fix this? Just Delete Destiny. Free yourselves from the shackles of this mediocre game.

If you don't want to actually talk about the game, don't post anything. There's no need to antagonize those of thus that want to actually discuss the game and these upcoming changes.

#9 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (2155 posts) -
@fredchuckdave said:

@kishinfoulux: The balance changes on the whole are weird but adjusting a few overwhelmingly popular weapons seems like a fine decision, those graphs are pretty hilarious and point to how boring the playerbase is (and most modern playerbases to be fair); of course something else will take the place of the nerfed guns.

But why make them useless? If someone likes using "X" gun, why make it obsolete for them? Some of the changes are also just lolwut (Icebreaker and Black Hammer). Like business wise I totally get it. You want people to get Taken King to get shiny new weapons, but if I like using something from vanilla Destiny I should still be able to.

@ll_exile_ll said:

All of these changes are absolutely fantastic. Thorn was overpowered and needed to have it's PVP time to kill slowed (it's actually getting a slight PVE buff). Gjarllarhorn completely breaks end game PVE and it needed to be taken down. Despite what some ill informed people may say, Gjallarhorn is in no way being killed. All rockets of the same attack rating do the same base damage. The only reason Gjallarhorn is so much better is because the wolfpack rounds do bonus damage on top of the base damage. Since the wolfpack round damage is being reduced and not removed completely, Gjallarhorn will still do more damage than any other rocket launcher in the game. (Dragon's Breath and cluster bomb legendaries may have quirky scenarios where they do as much or more damage than Gjallarhon, but neither are remotely consistent whereas as Gjallarhorn does full damage every time.)

They also seem to be learning that they need to balance PVE and PVP more separately, since several of the weapon types are getting changed differently for PVP and PVE. As someone that plays more Destiny than is reasonable, I can't see a single adjustment in these notes that I disagree with. Not to be insulting, but my knee jerk reaction about anyone upset by these changes is that they don't want to see their crutch overpowered weapons made less powerful.

Destiny has serious balance issues in both PVE and PVP at the moment, and these changes will go a long way towards fixing most of them.

The reason Gally is super sought after is because it makes the bullet sponge bosses go by faster. If they want to nerf Gally go for it, but then nerf boss HP as well. Hell I remember in vanilla Destiny bosses were the god damn worst. Now they seem to take an appropriate amount of time (with or without Gally). Also I think we all knew the Thorn nerf was coming. The Gally one is actually a bit surprising since I don't recall them ever mentioning it and it's also the Unicorn of this game. Nerfing seems to be a weird thing since it's such a carrot on a stick for so many people. A lot of people will lose interest in even wanting one since they'll only have a short time to experience it's "true" power. Ultimately we'll see what happens and I hope they get it right this time, but I feel like we might be in for a shit show.

Unless they completely remove wolfpack rounds (which they aren't doing), it is impossible for the Gjallarhorn nerf to be a "shit show." As I said, the very nature of the weapon means it will pretty much always be the most damaging rocket launcher unless they changed core fundamental aspects of it beyond tweaking damage values; they would have to change the functionality of the weapon to ruin it. Gjallarhorn will still be very good at killing bosses, it just won't be quite as ridiculous anymore. I also don't think they idea that a clearly overpowered weapon serves as incentive for people to play the game is any justification for it to remain overpowered. In fact, one would think it would be in the Bungie's financial best interest to keep the weapon as an elusive powerhouse that people want to keep playing in order to chase, but instead they're doing the right thing for the balance of the game. You'd think that would engender some goodwill, but I guess the Destiny communities outrage at Bungie "taking away their toys" wins out.

I guess I just don't really understand what in this update you take so much issue with. You're talking in generalities about them making the same mistakes again or not understanding what they're doing, but the specifics of the changes being made completely contradict this idea. If you think these changes are so bad for the game, please elaborate specifically which changes you disagree with and for what reasons, I'd love to know.

#10 Posted by ll_Exile_ll (2155 posts) -

I think all of the changes are smart. As far as stats go, I guess we'll have to get our hands on it to really say. Thorn is actually stronger, you just need more hits to get the full effect. Hopefully Gjally isn't nerfed too hard, but it is kind of ridiculous how overpowered it is.

I think it's fine that certain guns are more popular than others, but those graphs were pretty telling. Every weapon should be "equal" but different.

Yeah, the Thorn change is actually really smart. It now has a higher overall DPS in the long term, but takes 1 additional shot to kill in PVP. It's a really smart way to balance the gun for PVP without hurting it in PVE (it is actually better in PVE now). That kind of change shows they have learned from their past mistakes in terms of PVP balance hurting PVE, and they put some serious thought into how to avoid that with future changes.