random loot = good playeres feeling ripped and makes me not want to play the crucible

Catering to your sense of entitlement does not a better game make.

It's not a sense of entitlement. It can be counter productive, i have already bumped into a few players joining the game and then AFK. I'm not saying people who do poorly shouldn't be rewarded with gears but at the moment a purely RNG system is definitely not the ideal method.

i swear most you people dont even know the definition of the word entitled... you think it means that the person believes they are owed something when really it just means the person has rank or legal rights. which i do... as for what you think it means yes i believe a game with the catch phrase "earn your loot" should reward the people actually doing the work.

A sense of entitlement, however, is the belief that you have that claim or right, which you have demonstrated. In this case, as I was implying, it is a false sense - especially since denying progress to lower performing players can prevent them from becoming better performing players, or lead to other negative outcomes.

denying progress to some one who is not good enough to progress is a way of life. you dont give some one who failed a drivers test a license, and a car. animals who are not fit to survive in the wild die. thats just they way things are. if they want the better gear they should have to make themselves worthy of it. especialy in a game with the catch phrase "earn your loot" and besides how is it helping them? if you just give some one all the answers they will never learn to solve the problem, just like giving shity players good gear wont help them be better players.

In case it's not obvious, better gear provides an advantage - hence "better". Besides that, these are some pretty basic tenets of game design. Further, your false analogies will not help you here.

my analogies are true first of all.animals unfit to survive do die in the wild, people who fail their drivers test do not get a license, and always getting the answers from other people will not help you learn the equations. and second, the better gear has no effect in the crucible, every one is levelled out evenly as soon as you reachs lvl 5 and get a cydonia ar3 and a shot gun with decent fire rate you are set to kick but in the crucible. the damages dont matter and the armour ratings dont mater the only thing that does is player skill. and if you are lacking player skill no amount of numbers that have no effect in the crucible will make you better in the crucible.

You're comparing a game to real life? Thought I'd seen it all. lol

Your analogies are false in that they are not analogous to this situation. As for better gear, it does have an effect - a better Attack/Defense score does not, but better gear does. Or, put another way, go look at Bad Juju (http://destiny.wikia.com/wiki/Bad_Juju) and tell me it's no better than any other Pulse Rifle.

its no better in crucible then any other pulse rifle. and my analogies are accurate to the situation. just because you say they are not does not make it so. come back when you have something intelligent to say rather then just saying that every i am saying is false without grounds for the claim.

First off, your analogies are not applicable - what we require before granting someone control of something incredibly dangerous is not relevant here; natural selections is an explanation of how things get to be the way they are, and only that (your usage of it here is far, far beyond the scope); and this isn't any sort of exam (though I question the accuracy of your analogy here, because it is in part of question of what you're trying to teach - there's a difference, for example, in trying to teach someone how to generate an answer versus teaching them mathematical reasoning). As for the Bad Juju, you either didn't bother to look at the weapon, or you don't know this game's mechanics the way ou think you do. The Crucible normalizes Attack/Defense, but that's it. Attack doesn't have anything to do with your weapon's damage - it just helps you actually deal your weapon's damage to higher level targets. Damage is derived from Impact, which along with the other main weapon attributes (Rate of Fire, Stability, Range, Reload, and Magazine Size) is not in any way normalized. Knowing this, let's take a look at the Bad Juju: It has a pretty high impact for its weapon type, along with decent Range and Stability. Rate of Fire isn't great, but it's not as much of a loss as you'd expect given the other stats. So of the gate, it's better than the average Pulse Rifle, specially when you consider that the thing it's losing out on isn't that big a deal for Pulse Rifles. However, there's more to the weapon than that - there's also the weapon skills you unlock. Now, how Full Auto interacts with the RoF of this weapon, I can't really say - it may or may not be pretty insane. Setting that aside, though, you have the option to improve the Range and Impact (at the cost of more recoil, but with a Pulse Rifle you account for that regardless), which you can then combine with improved hip fire accuracy (with no trade-off), and then you can get more of a bonus to Impact with the Relic Iron or Fieldwire rounds. So then, even without geting into the weapon's unique benefit, it's significantly better than almost any Pulse Rifle. But String of Curses is pretty big, because instant reload and increased damage (which, doubtlessly, would be in a Crucible-effective form) triggered by kills is a very substantial benefit. Or, to put it another way: I'm not the one who's failing to offer something intelligent to the conversation.

impact has nothing to do with weapon damage. it efects the ability to stager enemies. the only thing that makes a diff in crucible is the rof and range, other then then that all the weapons of the same class do the same dps. with that being said i will take you back to one of main points that you seem to have overlooked. even if the damages and all that mattered even if one of these shity players had a gun that could one hit other players, it would not do a lick of difference to help them out if they do not have the skill to hit a single person. giving bad players good gear DOSE NOT help them become better players

To quote the game's tooltip: [quote] IMPACT Increases the damage inflicted by each round. [/quote] So, again, you don't know the game's mechanics as well as you think you do. You can verify this by testing in-game, by the way - grab a weapon with swappable mods that raise and/or lower impact, and see what the damage value is against the same enemy with lower and higher impact. And as for your false dichotomy that players are either shitty or already successful without regard to gear, you're not going to bait me into an argument based upon a false premise. The fact is, beteen two equally skilled players, the one with the more effective weapons will generally win. Which means that fresh level 20's will tend towards the bottom of the ranking, overall, if they're in a lobby filled with higher level (AKA better geared) players.

i was at the top with a lvl 7 hunter so thats false. and even if the impact increases damage per shot all the guns with high impact have less fire rate with means the dps is still about the same. once again cant get kills if you cant hit your target

First, you'll notice I said "in general" - player skill is still a factor, but not the only one. I'll note, however, that not all weapons (see: the specific one you were asked to take a look at) have an equal Impact/RoF tradeoff, but more importantly that you can [i]directly raise the impact of your weapon, without necessarily reducing rate of fire[/i], which is part of what makes better weapons more effective. And that's just looking at weapons; we haven't even touched armour benefits.

you are not even arguing my point... my point is that crucible should reward players based on how they do in the crucible. your point was that kids that do bad still need loot so they get better. my counter point is that it doesnt matter how good your loot is if you suck at the game your still going to do bad, so better gear wont make bad players good players. rendering your "they need the gear to become better" idea inert

And my point is, and remains, that doing badly against people with better gear doesn't mean you are worse than those people. This is all setting aside the point that in the system you'd prefer, the game would fail to retain new players. Your suggestion is also liable to diminish cooperation and objective-based play, along with a host of other flaws. Your point is fundamentally flawed, though, because it proceeds from a false premise: that only bad players are ever at the bottom of the chart, and that those players are automatically so bad that they can't ever improve and thus shouldn't be encouraged to stick around. You might like it better, but it would decidedly be bad for the game.