This sentence made me intrigued (Destiny)

by electricpirate , Saturday, November 16, 2013, 19:13 (4023 days ago) @ Schooly D

Confirmed in the first podcast. They balance it by making ammo the commodity you use to fight over for map control.

And how does that change the fact that going into it players have different guns?

This.

Allowing people to go into competitive MP with weapons of vastly different power, which require different levels of grinding to attain, and expecting things to be balanced by having people fight over ammo is a strange idea.

You will still, presumably, be going into MP matches with weapons that must be valued differently. Put another way, you will still be matched against people with more powerful weapons (and the advantages they confer) they gained through grinding.

Relying on a paucity of ammo to balance things out doesn't sound very fun, really, if it really does succeed in balancing things. If you've got a "face-rocking" gun that overpowers what the enemy has, does it really sound like fun to lose half your battles because you're out of ammo?

I don't think the replacing of power weapons with ammo is, in truth, a balancing mechanism. Rather, I'd expect it to be a result of the fact that the idea of "power weapons" isn't really compatible with Destiny and the role of competitive MP in relation to the larger SP game. It'd be difficult to justify putting power weapons on the map when players can spawn with those same weapons (or even better ones) they've acquired through grinding. It'd be even more difficult to imagine MP-only power weapons that aren't available through the SP game.

Replacing power weapons with ammo also guarantees competitive MP matches will make full use of the (again, presumably) extensive collection of guns from the SP sandbox. Balancing the map itself will also be simplified as designers will no longer have to worry about which weapon goes where.

If we have to allow SP-grindable, "face-rocking" weapons into MP, I think the best method of balancing is adjusting the score to win, or the available lives per team or per player. This would require assigning values to each gun or accessory and saying, for example, "OK, your team's loadouts total 70 points. If you get to 50 kills, you win. The enemy team's loadouts total 130 points. If you get to 70 kills, you win."

But even so, the very idea of balancing runs afoul of the premise. People are only going to grind for things that give them an advantage. If you nullify that advantage (even if the nerfing only applies to competitive MP) via balancing, that's less incentive to grind.

Okay, there's a lot to unpack here, so I'll start by saying that My initial comment was vague. I meant to say that ammo limits allow balance in how maps play out, and among the types of weapon players will use within a single game. It also prompts map movement and map control. Which is a point you get at in your post, so I don't think we disagree there.

As for the other point, about how we balance people who play more against people who play less, there are a few different strategies. Buy in systems are kind of the classic (Think Myth's system of buying units) so different guns at different levels could be worth different amounts. Different match types could have maximum "points" on a player level (Max points on a team level could be another interesting twist).

Kind of gross matchmaking is another good tool. The Banner Saga has a system where you build a team, which is scored and only matched against similar strength teams.

I don't think that any kind of cap in power works against the idea of going out and getting stuff though. A core joy of systems like those isn't necessarily "I'm just better" but "how cleverly can I create a build within a limit." Especially when we start talking about a doing that best for a variety of roles and playstyles.

Either way, how this will all be balanced in a "How do I combat that fully upgraded cudgel of xanthor" isn't a question we have an answer to yet. I'm curious though.