This sentence made me intrigued (Destiny)

by Schooly D, TSD Gaming Condo, TX, Saturday, November 16, 2013, 19:58 (4031 days ago) @ electricpirate

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.

These are all good points. My post was originally intended to dispute that the replacement of weapons-on-map with ammo was done for balance, but I kind of digressed into a larger rant.

"Meta-balancing" by matching teams by collective value seems like the most straight-forward approach, but it would limit flexibility: you'd basically be reliant on matchmaking to get a fair game. Simply setting up a "custom" match between interested parties would necessarily involve either some extra hoops to jump through or resigning yourself to an unlevel playing field.