I believe speculation is exactly that. (Destiny)

by Kahzgul, Saturday, February 11, 2017, 06:24 (2888 days ago) @ Ragashingo

There's a third, sadder option, and that's that bungie is using a metrics-bases approach to game balance. This seems to be the case, since they LOVE to trot out the metrics and show us charts about which classes have the higher K/Ds etc.. The problem with a fully metrics-based approach is that if your metrics are off at all, you screw up the balance. For example, Bungie is showing us that Defenders have the lowest K/D and says "so they need a buff." No. No they don't. Your metrics aren't looking at how having a defender on the team improves the K/D of the surrounding players. K/D is not everything. If you pretend it is, then your balance will suck. This is, imo, the most likely scenario. Everyone means well, but the methodology they put in place to determine balance is fundamentally flawed and no one is going to bother to fix it at this stage in the game's life. Des2ny *might* go differently, but I have zero hope that D1 will. It's just too much work to fix with too little return.

We at least have an idea that Bungie looks at more than just the stats. Your (hypothetical?) example of the Defender, for instance, is exactly 100% opposite of what actually did happen. Bungie acknowledged that the Defender was getting a lower k/d in their subclass chart but then noted that teams with Defenders tended to fare better in terms of wins. That's why the only buffs the Defender got was an instant restock of grenades and melee when using Ward of Dawn instead of something more significant.

Another example was a refusal to do much to change the MIDA Multi-tool. They said that yes, it was pretty good and (at least at one point in time) was being widely used, but even though the chart showed it to be a gun that was getting used a lot they also recognized that it was actually a pretty well balanced gun that didn't need a nerf.

Totally agree though that they should update more frequently. This whole thing with the Clever Dragon being superior at any range for months really got on my nerves. But I don't think your sad third option is the way things actually work at Bungie. At all.

It's totally fair to think that, and I see your points. I have a differing guess as to what's going on, but they're all guesses. I'm an expert at testing methodology, but am also not a mind-reader or soothsayer and I have no idea what is truly going on behind closed doors. I strongly doubt it's the sort of machiavellian conspiracy that reddit sometimes postulates. I also doubt that Bungie is following what I would consider to be best practices when it comes to design, testing, and implementation of an FPS PvP test plan. For what it's worth, I'm certain that my idea of best practices is not the same as anyone else's idea; this is all just opinion and conjecture with no real evidence to back up any of it.

That being said, I think your MIDA example is an interesting test case. You're using it to illustrate that a metrics-based approach showed MIDA is fine. I accept that. I do, however, believe that the fact that MIDA is fine is being used to ignore the fact that, in all cases, MIDA is a superior scout rifle to every other scout rifle in the same damage archetype. That, I believe, is not at all fine. Why have any legendary low damage scouts if they are just completely outclassed by this one gun? Why balance the entire archetype around an exotic, locking out players who wish to use a low damage scout from using an exotic special or heavy weapon if they want to be as powerful the metrics indicate they should be in pvp?

Of course, I'm assuming Bungie would want legendary scouts in the low-damage archetype to be viable because I would want legendary scouts in the low-damage archetype to be viable. This appears to not be the case.

Occam's razor tells me that either Bungie's design goals for pvp are for the number of viable weapons to be a tiny fraction of the number of available weapons (in which case they're pretty much nailing it), or that Bungie's play balancing practices leave much to be desired.

Since the communication out of Bungie has really told us nothing about their pvp sandbox philosophy, we don't know if they want pvp to be "bring your favorite guns" or "bring the guns we've decided should be viable" or even "there should only be one viable spec per class, gun per slot, and style of play, period." We don't know. I think the first option is the most fun and the most inclusive, thus encouraging the most players to play the pvp game, and so that's the one I am constantly rooting for, but - as you say - I may very well be in error where the truth is involved.