I'm actually interested in seeing how I use the new sword mechanics once the mods go away and whether I can still make them worthwhile.

Also... as a side note, I've never heard ... the word "nadir" before,

Just sayin'

If D is for Destiny then N is for...

I know, I know, that in-game as a weapon foundry it is not within context of the true actual word usage.
It helped stick in my mind knowing the word prior to seeing it on an emblem in Destiny

I always get a kick out of it when I hear someone use the word in conversation and they pronounce it like Nader, i.e. Ralph Nader :D

LOL...AH-HAHA WOW! This has to be one of the most random posts ever, and I'm not talking about just mine, but... here it is. THERE, IT IS! No recollection of this AT ALL, and knowing 2016 variant me (HUG YOUR CAT!), I was probably so intrigued by the visual similarity of the iconography that I didn't think nor consider anything about the name. Plus... I've never really cared much for Destiny emblems. Just, ain't my thing oddly enough.

Man, thank you for this post. Ain't that something. ...Aw man, Heh heh.

Also... as a side note, I've never heard ... the word "nadir" before,

Just sayin'

If D is for Destiny then N is for...

I know, I know, that in-game as a weapon foundry it is not within context of the true actual word usage.
It helped stick in my mind knowing the word prior to seeing it on an emblem in Destiny

I always get a kick out of it when I hear someone use the word in conversation and they pronounce it like Nader, i.e. Ralph Nader :D

Community feedback has been that Revoker and Beloved dominate, and looking at analytics they account for 86% of Sniper Rifle usage in the Crucible – and if we include other low-zoom Sniper Rifles, the number gets even higher.

Wow. Took you four months to figure that out, huh Bungo.

(Yeah, yeah, I know, it's the right thing. And yeah, I'm okay, long-term, with the idea of known temporary buffs like this, and I can tell the difference between this and what's happening with the vast majority of Destiny 2's weapons come September. Doesn't mean I'm not gonna be cranky in a couple of weeks.)

While I started sharding the majority of the 29 Ether Doctors I just farmed this week, I started thinking about all the other god roll weapons sitting in my vault. The vast majority of those god roll weapons have never even had their time to shine. Things like an outlaw rampage Talons of the Eagle scout rifle, or my eye of the storm, moving target Infinite Paths 8 pulse. It's sad to think that some of those weapons will never get a chance due to sunsetting.

Citations are lacking, but This ties it to a specific name, which lends it some shine of reliability.

So I got the story more less right, I was just wildly off on the date.

Appreciate you looking this up!

There's too many gun types and perk combos. You could make every weapon in Halo feel 'right' because there were like 8 of them. To do so with the weapon sandbox like Destiny is just impossible.

So maybe they should shorten the long tail on existing weapons and shrink the loot pool for new weapons?

Even that isn't enough honestly. Halo has one pistol. One Sword. One Battle Rifle. Even after sunsetting there will still be a plethora of weapons with sub archetypes and various perk combos.

There's too many gun types and perk combos. You could make every weapon in Halo feel 'right' because there were like 8 of them. To do so with the weapon sandbox like Destiny is just impossible.

So maybe they should shorten the long tail on existing weapons and shrink the loot pool for new weapons?

Rules lawyer is a very common phrase in board gaming (and I think all of tabletop, but that’s outside my experience)

I think I know what Insane is trying to say, here. Let me take a shot: People are posting it like it's a trump card. They are being a "rules lawyer" to steal a phrase from another part of gaming. So, if they are posting that with the implication that they "won" under the rules of Argue with Bungie: the Game, Insane is saying their trump card is invalid because bungie didn't technically say that about D2 so that card is from a different set and not valid for play. Also possibly, we have the "I voted for it before I voted against it" problem where people are holding that up as a flip-flopping problem or as hypocrisy, when you could instead look at it as being reasonable and changing your opinion as you gain more knowledge and experience given that the statements are separated by a fair amount of time for things to have changed. ...

...people trying to do some low-effort argument by copying in some old statements rather than taking the time to make their own argument...

OH MY GOODNESS I'M SO HAPPY! AAAA! I'm ALIVE!

...Seems to me like you should either put in more effort to be understood, or put in no effort and give up the enterprise all together...

...you trying to shut down people being a rules lawyer by finding a way to exclude them through strict and unshared interpretation of the rules (which do not have universal agreement anyway) is really just more of the problem. ...

...right now you seem to have found the nadir of value along the effort scale where what effort you do put in is largely wasted in confusion.

I'm going to say... mostly correct. The only way to get better at something is by doing. With conversations, of all types, that means I must speak. Here, I must do it with words alone. I'm not shaking hands, looking you folks in the eye, complementing a suit or a dress. Holding my back straight and true while doing some rendition in charm, should I have any. Such social bits mean nothing here. We're characters, made alive in text alone. I'm to battle the unknown interpretation of an international crowd whom find myself addressing. You can see what I mean in this thread... the responses and choices to engage are very different. Thus, I must reject some of your input, as the answer you essentially present is death.

And I did realize after the fact that the approach I made was not without irony. Made quite the chuckle after the slight slap to the noggin. As I stated... somewhere around here, I felt in the moments instance that a response was under the clock. It was this that overpowered other factors that said... to be simple... "Stop".

There is an adage; "This too shall pass". Had I stopped and not put my words under the other deadline of getting back to bed, I would of been able to speak at least with touch more... consideration. Like, in fact, I've been doing here in this text. I've edited this like... a dozen times already.

Thank you for your read and input, Vortech.

Also... as a side note, I've never heard of the phrase "rules lawyer" nor the word "nadir" before, so thanks for that too. ^_^ Gonna see if I can add that to the lexicon! (Sorry someguy.)

I think I know what Insane is trying to say, here. Let me take a shot: People are posting it like it's a trump card. They are being a "rules lawyer" to steal a phrase from another part of gaming. So, if they are posting that with the implication that they "won" under the rules of Argue with Bungie: the Game, Insane is saying their trump card is invalid because bungie didn't technically say that about D2 so that card is from a different set and not valid for play. Also possibly, we have the "I voted for it before I voted against it" problem where people are holding that up as a flip-flopping problem or as hypocrisy, when you could instead look at it as being reasonable and changing your opinion as you gain more knowledge and experience given that the statements are separated by a fair amount of time for things to have changed.

These are not my words, so maybe I'm reading Insane wrong and I'll be arguing against the wind, but That said, if I am reading it right: you trying to shut down people being a rules lawyer by finding a way to exclude them through strict and unshared interpretation of the rules (which do not have universal agreement anyway) is really just more of the problem.

And, if the problem is people trying to do some low-effort argument by copying in some old statements rather than taking the time to make their own argument in a way that people can understand what is at issue…well, I have to say that very few people seemed to understand what your argument was and in the past you have said that's essentially "Just how it comes out of you naturally" (somehow implying that means nothing can be done to improve clarity, I guess?). Seems to me like you should either put in more effort to be understood, or put in no effort and give up the enterprise all together. right now you seem to have found the nadir of value along the effort scale where what effort you do put in is largely wasted in confusion.

It's unclear to me whether the 'you' spread throughout that last paragraph is me (the person you're replying to) or Insane (the person whose argument you're trying to clarify)... but either way, I guess I understand the gist of what you're getting at.

The whole flip-flop thing isn't really a problem for me, in general; things happen that change the way other things work. However, the problem I have with this particular case is specific: they weren't apologizing for sunsetting weapons in D1, they were apologizing for doing so in a way that made us think our time was not being respected. Maybe that's a subtle difference - but to me it's a critical one.

Needing to sunset weapons for a practical reason ("we simply don't have the manpower to keep track of the interactions between 800 weapons and all of their various perks", maybe) is just a Thing That Is. If it has to happen, it has to happen.

Given, however, that they did this wrong once, and ACKNOWLEDGED that they did it wrong... maybe the most important part of the job of the community team is to communicate with the fanbase in a way that makes it clear that this is NOT happening because they don't care about us, it's happening BECAUSE they care about us. And this wasn't done. (Or at least it wasn't done in a way that lets even someone like me, who's more than happy to give them the benefit of the doubt most of the time, see that that's what they meant.)

It is happening. That much is clear. Why it has to happen the WAY it's happening, and why we're not getting a more honest "we're doing everything we can to mitigate the pain, like X, Y, and Z"... that's the part I can't explain. And the reason it matters is that statement they made 5 years ago.

I guess that's where I'm coming from.

These are not my words, so maybe I'm reading Insane wrong and I'll be arguing against the wind, but That said, if I am reading it right: you trying to shut down people being a rules lawyer by finding a way to exclude them through strict and unshared interpretation of the rules (which do not have universal agreement anyway) is really just more of the problem.

And, if the problem is people trying to do some low-effort argument by copying in some old statements rather than taking the time to make their own argument in a way that people can understand what is at issue…well, I have to say that very few people seemed to understand what your argument was and in the past you have said that's essentially "Just how it comes out of you naturally" (somehow implying that means nothing can be done to improve clarity, I guess?). Seems to me like you should either put in more effort to be understood, or put in no effort and give up the enterprise all together. right now you seem to have found the nadir of value along the effort scale where what effort you do put in is largely wasted in confusion.