[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] D Deity [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TH3_AV3NG3R [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 Gun progression is fine, but it should be like in WoW where once you get to those high ranks you have to go fight a boss battle (as an example) to attain that better gun or go and kill something or buy it from someone who did for an outlandish price. Not just "you're [i]this[/i] experience level now, so you have an unlimited supply of this weapon..... magically..... space-magic... it's a thing...." ©[/quote] It is a MMOFPS not a MMORPG. You are confusing the two.[/quote]So like Shadowrun?[/quote] If it is a MMOFPS more like Planetside 2. Think big places with huge battles having up to more than 100 players. Of course, it could be a MMORPG but this thread is about IF it is a MMOFPS. I hope it is a MMOFPS because there isn't much of them out there.

Op it isn't a mmofps. The game will NOT be server based. The game will find players near you on the map like Journey (PSN). I can't post more because of leaked content.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TH3_AV3NG3R [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] CrazzySnipe55 Gun progression is fine, but it should be like in WoW where once you get to those high ranks you have to go fight a boss battle (as an example) to attain that better gun or go and kill something or buy it from someone who did for an outlandish price. Not just "you're [i]this[/i] experience level now, so you have an unlimited supply of this weapon..... magically..... space-magic... it's a thing...." ©[/quote] It is a MMOFPS not a MMORPG. You are confusing the two.[/quote]So like Shadowrun?

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Googlz I personally enjoyed the system in Reach and Halo 3. No tools, just bling.[/quote] This! Just look at Dota 2. That game is super competitive and stuff you can buy or earn by playing is just bling that didnt influence the gameplay itself but it still keeps players happy who like that kind of stuff. I actually think that The Arena in Reach was a good idea but didnt work out that well.

I'd really like this, actually. [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] lime013 Yes, please. Make it a currency based system with markets where you can buy better armor/weapons or upgrade your own. [/quote]

Yes, please. Make it a currency based system with markets where you can buy better armor/weapons or upgrade your own.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] ChorrizoTapatio I think I speak for everyone when I say we all want armor lock in Destiny. [/quote]Get out!

It will be the new, revolutionary table tennis game!

Bungie Knows, to keep Originality.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TH3_AV3NG3R If it is a mmofps, please do not make it have custom loadouts where you have to progress in rank to get a different or better gun, perk, etc. This stuff is literally killing FPS gaming for me and I really am having a hard time finding a new FPS game that doesn't have these things in their multiplayer. I am having a hard time finding a FPS game that really stands out anymore.[/quote] i agree i think its dumb as -blam!- and i hate. yorkie

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] TH3_AV3NG3R If it is a mmofps, please do not make it have custom loadouts where you have to progress in rank to get a different or better gun, perk, etc. This stuff is literally killing FPS gaming for me and I really am having a hard time finding a new FPS game that doesn't have these things in their multiplayer. I am having a hard time finding a FPS game that really stands out anymore.[/quote]I'm with you on that. Games nowadays are getting cheap, trying to hard to make gamers to feel rewarded, and by doing so it just feels less and less rewarding to [i]win[/i]--for me anyway. Shooters are usually tightly balanced, just a couple of more points on a weapon, etc, and it becomes too easy to defeat an opponent of the same skill as oneself, in a one on one battle. I do however believe in some sort of individual progress, but more in the sense of allowing the devoted and experienced to be more flexible; have the system reward risk, if risk is taken, and the higher the level someone has, the more risk one should be allowed to [i]play[/i]. [Edited on 12.01.2012 9:57 AM PST]

I personally enjoyed the system in Reach and Halo 3. No tools, just bling.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SkilPhil Frankie said he didnt want visible ranks because it encourages cheating and boosting, although they will be adding a visible rank viewable only on Waypoint soon.[/quote]There's always going to be cheating, cheesing, boosting, and so on and so forth so long as you have any sort of visible statistic. People still hold the objective to boost their kill to death ratios. People play Infection to bring that number up. There's plenty of stuff that goes on. The solution isn't to hide ranks, either in game or hiding it away on some obscure part of your stat tracking website, you need to design your system so that it is as resilient to metagaming as it possibly can be. I can't imagine that in the four years since Halo 3 that there hasn't been any innovations with ranking systems which could help prevent nefarious cheating.

I just remembered, and this should be said again. In the contract the game was said to be: A Sci-Fi Action-Shooter with MMO parts, or something. Why is it that people are forgetting long-known facts left and right, or have the people who don't know all come out of the woodwork? [Edited on 12.01.2012 9:33 AM PST]

I promise you, this game WILL standout.

The thing with halo 4 is that they use true skill - just like halo 3, its just that your rank is hidden, so you are still matched with people of roughly the same skill. I think it works well too since alot of games come down to the wire. Frankie said he didnt want visible ranks because it encourages cheating and boosting, although they will be adding a visible rank viewable only on Waypoint soon.

A ranking system is a great way to separate competitive players from casual players. On Reach and Halo 4 I never know what I'm up against. Levels mean nothing on those games. I personally like to know what I'm up against. As was stated before there will always be ass hats with or without a ranking system. And the ass hats aren't always the high ranking people. The harassment went both ways on Halo 3. Lower ranks weren't Angels. I got my 50 on the beginning of H3 and ever since I had it people harassed me. Did I give a damn? no and it didn't make me wish there wasn't a ranking system. I'm just used to the internet. People shouldn't take offense from randy's online. [Edited on 11.30.2012 11:41 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Cpl Crosseyes Reach's community still had plenty of threads full of flames and trolls but no fights were started over one person having a more validated e-peen than the other. Fights were over stuff like armor lock and weapon balance without nearly as many wars being started over how "valid" one persons opinion was over another because of their rank.[/quote]I remember things quite differently. There were plenty of competitive players who criticized many different aspects of Reach's multiplayer. Some were more civil than others, but they were always met with strong resistance by a group of people who insisted that the game was fine, and that the players simply needed to "adapt" to the new era. You can imagine that nobody wants to be told that their problems are imaginary and that they are simply bad at the game, but players especially didn't want to hear it from players who are statistically worse at the game than they are, which was often the case. Jaded and bitter, the next obvious step was to point out the irony of "Why should I adapt to the game when I have better stats? If anything I'm doing a better job at adapting than you are", and from there, fighting broke out. The moral of the story is that arguments should be won by being backed with solid reasoning and logic. Falling back on rank to prove a point is poor, and so is assuming that the game is perfect while calling into question the skills of the other player.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Bungie Sam Understandable, but how do higher-ranking players feel better about themselves if their arsenal isn't as advanced?[/quote] There is no need for high rankers to "feel better" about themselves due to low self esteem.

I think I speak for everyone when I say we all want armor lock in Destiny.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Hylebos Is that a bad thing?[/quote]IMO, yes. [quote]Such utter nonsense. Selfish people will always find a way to put themselves above others. A rank is nothing more than a statistic which allows you to track your progress against the rest of the entire online population. If a ranking system truly is "toxic" and "poisons the community", then you might as well take out all the other statistics as well so there's no way to prove if a player is better than another without actually playing that person. But that still wouldn't solve your problem. Asshats are always going to find a way to be an asshat, and taking away a perfectly good feature from players who want to track their improvement against the population just to spite those asshats doesn't make a ton of sense. The only thing that truly bothered me about Halo 3 was that you didn't need to maintain your rank once you reached 50. I feel it really stagnated the system, it shouldn't be a drastic change to the point where "You don't play for a week? You start over!", but ranks should naturally degrade if you don't play.[/quote]There are still ways to keep statistics and things like that for those who want them. Like I mentioned something similar to the old ranked playlists without showing global rank anytime other than in said playlists would be great for those who wanted them. However I think that the simple way of Halo 3's ranks gave an easy way to give those selfish people a reason to be -blam!-s to those who wanted no part of it. Along with giving people who normally would not be -blam!-s a reason to who would not have done otherwise. No concrete way to prove any of that, but it's my feelings on it. Reach's community still had plenty of threads full of flames and trolls but no fights were started over one person having a more validated e-peen than the other. Fights were over stuff like armor lock and weapon balance without nearly as many wars being started over how "valid" one persons opinion was over another because of their rank. [Edited on 11.30.2012 11:18 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Cpl Crosseyes [quote]On Bungie's next game I think it would be good if they had pretty much the same ranking system Halo 3 had. Have a handful of playlists for competitive players (Ranked) and social for the casual players. And as far as unlocking armor etc, they would make it so you can unlock everything from the social playlist. The ranking playlists wouldn't unlock anything it would just be there so you can rank up and play with people that are close to your skill level. Halo 2 also had a good ranking system, H3's is very similar to it. Halo 2 owned any game on xbox originals and I believe the ranking system helped with that. [/quote]No no no, Halo 3's was toxic to casual players. It forced casual players into being competitive at some level.[/quote]Is that a bad thing? [quote]IMO Halo 3 had the most popular ranked experience for absolutely terrible reasons. You give anonymous people a skill based ranking against other anonymous people and it bred a really unpleasant online atmosphere. You couldn't escape from it. Lobbies, forums, fileshares... everywhere was filled with people obssesing over their trueskill E-peen. It's probably, in my opinion, why arena failed. Only a very tiny minority cared about their own personal rank aspect and they way they got people to care in 3 was by forcing it on everyone so that you had it whether you wanted it or not. So if Destiny has some form of ranking system involved in it it's a lesser of two evils to keep it isolated and low population for those that want it instead of poisoning the community as a whole to make it more mandatory to avoid being trolled and flamed.[/quote]Such utter nonsense. Selfish people will always find a way to put themselves above others. A rank is nothing more than a statistic which allows you to track your progress against the rest of the entire online population. If a ranking system truly is "toxic" and "poisons the community", then you might as well take out all the other statistics as well so there's no way to prove if a player is better than another without actually playing that person. But that still wouldn't solve your problem. Asshats are always going to find a way to be an asshat, and taking away a perfectly good feature from players who want to track their improvement against the population just to spite those asshats doesn't make a ton of sense. The only thing that truly bothered me about Halo 3 was that you didn't need to maintain your rank once you reached 50. I feel it really stagnated the system, it shouldn't be a drastic change to the point where "You don't play for a week? You start over!", but ranks should naturally degrade if you don't play. [Edited on 11.30.2012 11:09 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Verachi I think Halo 3 had the best ranking system, it catered to competitive and casual players. There is a reason why Halo 3 has been on the top 20 almost every month since its been out. Just look at Reach it's not that old and it's already falling off the chart.[/quote]So long as Reach remains above Halo 3 both of their populations prove nothing we don't already know. Reach, the more newer version always had more players than Halo 3. 3's longevity definitely speaks to its quality but it's because it's the original Halo on the 360 and some people always stick with the original. Combine that with Halo's big fanbase and that tiny minority still eclipses many other games. [quote]On Bungie's next game I think it would be good if they had pretty much the same ranking system Halo 3 had. Have a handful of playlists for competitive players (Ranked) and social for the casual players. And as far as unlocking armor etc, they would make it so you can unlock everything from the social playlist. The ranking playlists wouldn't unlock anything it would just be there so you can rank up and play with people that are close to your skill level. Halo 2 also had a good ranking system, H3's is very similar to it. Halo 2 owned any game on xbox originals and I believe the ranking system helped with that. [/quote]No no no, Halo 3's was toxic to casual players. It forced casual players into being competitive at some level. IMO Halo 3 had the most popular ranked experience for absolutely terrible reasons. You give anonymous people a skill based ranking against other anonymous people and it bred a really unpleasant online atmosphere. You couldn't escape from it. Lobbies, forums, fileshares... everywhere was filled with people obssesing over their trueskill E-peen. It's probably, in my opinion, why arena failed. Only a very tiny minority cared about their own personal rank aspect and they way they got people to care in 3 was by forcing it on everyone so that you had it whether you wanted it or not. So if Destiny has some form of ranking system involved in it it's a lesser of two evils to keep it isolated and low population for those that want it instead of poisoning the community as a whole to make it more mandatory to avoid being trolled and flamed.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] SkilPhil [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Verachi [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Hylebos [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Verachi [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Hylebos A ranking system would do wonders.[/quote] Since Halo 3 we haven't had a legit ranking system. I personally think that a legit ranking system helps keep the game interesting. [/quote]What was wrong again with Arena? I'm curious.[/quote] The real question is what wasn't wrong with Arena.[/quote]I think the majority of gamers dont like ranks. Im obviously including casuals too. In halo 3 I enjoyed ranking up in lone wolves, but eventually you hit a skill wall and begin losing ranks which put me off. It is only a small minority who will actually get to the top. It is only very skilfull gamers that will trully enjoy it, which unfortunatley for them are the vast minority, onyx rank i think was the top 1%, that leaves alot of gamers, even quite competative, bummed. This is why I think leagues are the way forward, and I am glad to see they are getting more popular in online gaming - it means if you suck you can still see improvement and compete with other people more closely within in your skill gap. Rather than just being silver tier, you can be no1 in silver tier. You can still be crap but have a little pride left. Ofcourse there will still be people who still perform badly, but it pushes towards a majority who feel a sense of accomplishment within their relative skill gap, rather than chasing an impossible goal, and the top tier, very skilled gamers dont lose out because of it.[/quote] I think Halo 3 had the best ranking system, it catered to competitive and casual players. There is a reason why Halo 3 has been on the top 20 almost every month since its been out. Just look at Reach it's not that old and it's already falling off the chart. On Bungie's next game I think it would be good if they had pretty much the same ranking system Halo 3 had. Have a handful of playlists for competitive players (Ranked) and social for the casual players. And as far as unlocking armor etc, they would make it so you can unlock everything from the social playlist. The ranking playlists wouldn't unlock anything it would just be there so you can rank up and play with people that are close to your skill level. Halo 2 also had a good ranking system, H3's is very similar to it. Halo 2 owned any game on xbox originals and I believe the ranking system helped with that. [Edited on 11.30.2012 10:39 PM PST]

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] PVSpartanL36 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] purpledinosaur0 [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Elem3nt 117 This is even [b]assuming[/b] that Destiny has competitive multiplayer in the first place; We have no idea if it does.[/quote] I really don't think it will. Bungie already said they're going for a social (assuming that means not competitive) experience.[/quote]I can't see Bungie making a game without some competitive element. It's their bread-and-butter. Technically the term "social" could represent any kind of player interaction. Competitive and cooperative MP are both social, but in different ways.[/quote]This is true, but the way they presented it made it seem like it's not about PVP gunplay this time. They mentioned 'social at its core' and 'exploring with friends,' along with 'mythic adventure.' Those all seem to hint at the MP being more co-op than PVP. That's the way i took it at least. Not to say there wont be competitive elements, i just doubt there will be the typical searching for CTF of slayer matches most shooters have. As for the OPs topic, i agree and disagree. I think it's stupid when an FPS gives out weapons based n rank/requirement. I prefer the Halo 1-3 style of all players spawning with the same weapon and battling over power weapons. But even light RPG elements changes that. If it is an RPG, that suggest customization, and if everyone has access to the same customization it would be a little dull, i think. I'd hope for some sort of loot system. The weapons/kit you used are earned somehow, non just awarded for rank.

[quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Verachi [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Hylebos [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Verachi [quote][b]Posted by:[/b] Hylebos A ranking system would do wonders.[/quote] Since Halo 3 we haven't had a legit ranking system. I personally think that a legit ranking system helps keep the game interesting. [/quote]What was wrong again with Arena? I'm curious.[/quote] The real question is what wasn't wrong with Arena.[/quote]I think the majority of gamers dont like ranks. Im obviously including casuals too. In halo 3 I enjoyed ranking up in lone wolves, but eventually you hit a skill wall and begin losing ranks which put me off. It is only a small minority who will actually get to the top. It is only very skilfull gamers that will trully enjoy it, which unfortunatley for them are the vast minority, onyx rank i think was the top 1%, that leaves alot of gamers, even quite competative, bummed. This is why I think leagues are the way forward, and I am glad to see they are getting more popular in online gaming - it means if you suck you can still see improvement and compete with other people more closely within in your skill gap. Rather than just being silver tier, you can be no1 in silver tier. You can still be crap but have a little pride left. Ofcourse there will still be people who still perform badly, but it pushes towards a majority who feel a sense of accomplishment within their relative skill gap, rather than chasing an impossible goal, and the top tier, very skilled gamers dont lose out because of it. [Edited on 11.30.2012 9:51 PM PST]