- Everyone can just play with the same gun/classes/gear/etc or cutting OP content= balance.
In it’s simplest form it works, but no one wants to remove the dynamic elements of this game. I agree with adjustment based on maintaining the variety of the base game (try to make it work before its cut). The one thing no one wants is your standard “uber gun+gear” forcing anyone wanting to survive to shut out the rest of the content. If balance is achieved, then there is no reason anyone will need to hesitate when they choose how to play the game.
Setting rules for matches however is a tricky matter and needs to be recognized as separate from initial game balance… ie class/weapon limits etc for league play. You could have a full team of uber snipers that make the gun seem like it is too powerful, or any gun for that matter. Or perhaps an annoying medic train that seems unkillable. I think that any of these things are reasonable strategies accompanied by obvious weaknesses. One thing to think about though is that when a specific variable is difficult to determine as needing some restrictions or possibly complete removal, is what competitive limitations actually achieve. A certain weapon/class may not be removed, but instead limited to a certain amount. It doesn’t cut the content necessarily, but instead gives it more importance. For example you usually see something like 1 sniper allowed. This actually causes that 1 sniper position, if chosen to be used of course, to increase in strategical importance as it is now solely unique to what it provides. This whole subject can be very arguable, but in a sense it doesn’t really do much harm and somehow delivers much cleaner game play. Essentially it encourages a more saturated lineup of the standard class/gun layout while allowing the option for a specific amount of the “situationally more powerful” stuff to be mixed in.
It’s a much more complicated process than most think, and it sucks how much the term “competitive” get’s generalized or flat out hated on. I might also point out that most “comp haters” tend to (1) become addicted to defective game elements as they are important to their performance Or (2) completely disregard the intensive analysis and consideration that is in play when the “competitive state” of a game is being determined. I just hope that anyone who decides to enter such discussions are thinking in the best interest of the game and not simply on their impulses; don’t get me wrong that that goes for everyone on both sides.
Thats why some slight restrictions in number of weapon / classes is a good thing IMO, see it as a specialist VS generalist unit for instance. The specialists are harder to grasp well but they do many many unexpected damages (hear broad range of tactics) when used correctly, while the generalist are more easy to grasp, but the range of tactics they can cover is pretty limited. So here it add some tactical point, because if everyone can choose to start with 5 rocket launcher the specialist/generalist thingy is becoming null and void : i.e drop in diversity.