Balance Philosophy
Balance is one of the most misunderstood concepts in videogame design. It doesn't mean "everything is equal." It means "everything is right for the experience you're creating." Balance is a philosophy, not a formula.
What Does "Balanced" Mean?
Balance has multiple, sometimes conflicting meanings:
Fairness: No player/option has unfair advantage. "Balanced" = "not broken."
Variety: Multiple strategies are viable. "Balanced" = "diverse meta."
Intentional Hierarchy: Some things are supposed to be better. "Balanced" = "power curve is correct."
Felt Rightness: It feels fair, even if numbers aren't equal. "Balanced" = "satisfying."
A videogame can be balanced in one sense and imbalanced in another. The first question: balanced for what?
Balance Is Context-Dependent
| Game Type | What "balance" means |
|---|---|
| Competitive | No dominant strategy; skill decides |
| Cooperative | Each role contributes; no one carries alone |
| Single-player | Challenge matches player progression; fair difficulty |
| Asymmetric | Different sides have different strengths; overall match is even |
| Casual | Feels good; specifics don't matter much |
Chess needs different balance than Mario Kart. League of Legends needs different balance than Stardew Valley.
Perfect Balance Is Impossible (And Maybe Undesirable)
Reasons perfect balance fails:
Complexity: Any system complex enough to be interesting is too complex to perfectly balance analytically.
Player Diversity: Different players have different skills. "Balanced for pros" does not equal "balanced for casuals."
Meta Evolution: Players discover new strategies. What's balanced today is broken tomorrow.
Discovery Value: Finding what's strong is part of the fun. A perfectly flat meta is boring.
The goal isn't perfect balance. It's good enough balance - where imbalances don't ruin the experience.
The Balance Process
1. Set Goals: What experience are you balancing for? "Competitive fairness" vs. "power fantasy" vs. "strategic diversity."
2. Identify Pain Points: What's actually breaking? Not everything needs tuning. Tune what hurts the experience.
3. Change One Thing: Single variable changes. If you change multiple things, you won't know which fixed (or broke) it.
4. Playtest: Theory doesn't catch everything. Watch real players. Especially skilled ones.
5. Iterate: Balance is never done. Especially in live games. Expect ongoing tuning.
Balance Tools
Numbers: Stats, damage, cooldowns, costs. The obvious levers.
Access: When you can get something. A powerful item is less dominant if it comes late.
Counters: Rock-paper-scissors. Strength A beats B beats C beats A. Nothing dominates.
Opportunity Cost: Choosing X means not choosing Y. If X is strong but costs more, that's balance.
Skill Requirement: Powerful things that are hard to use are self-balancing. Skill floors and ceilings.
Information: Knowledge as balance. A strategy that works only if opponents don't know about it.
Imbalance as Design
Some imbalance is intentional:
Power Curve: Early videogame is weak; late videogame is strong. That's the point.
Asymmetric Design: Different factions/classes should feel different. Equal is boring.
Discovery: If everything is equally viable, there's nothing to discover. Some imbalance creates exploration.
Narrative: Story might want you to feel weak, then strong. "Balance" undermines the arc.
The question: is this imbalance serving the design or breaking it?
The Metagame
Metagame = the strategies players converge on given current balance.
A "healthy meta" has:
- Multiple viable strategies
- Counters to dominant strategies
- Room for innovation
- No single dominant "solved" approach
An "unhealthy meta" has:
- One or few dominant strategies
- High barrier to competing
- Stagnation
- Player frustration/exodus
Balance patches reshape the meta. But heavy-handed patching alienates players who invested in now-nerfed strategies.
Balance vs. Feel
Numbers can be balanced but feel wrong.
A 50% win rate option that feels terrible to play is "balanced" but bad.
Feel matters more than math. Players experience feel, not numbers. If it feels broken, it's broken - even if the spreadsheet says otherwise.
Exercise: Balance Autopsy
Find a videogame with a notorious balance problem (any competitive videogame will do). Research:
- What was broken?
- How did players discover it?
- How did designers respond?
- Was the fix successful?
Why Teach This
Balance is often taught as math. We teach it as philosophy first, math second. Students who understand why balance matters make better decisions than students who know formulas.
The Provocation
"Perfect balance is not the goal. Good enough balance that serves the experience is."
This challenges students who think balance means spreadsheet perfection.
Common Misconceptions
"Balance = equality"
Students often think balanced means everything is the same power level. But asymmetric balance, power curves, and intentional hierarchy are all valid.
"Math will solve it"
Spreadsheets can't capture feel, strategy, or player psychology. Playtesting is irreplaceable.
Assessment
- Can students articulate what "balance" means for different game types?
- Can students identify whether an imbalance serves or breaks a design?
- Can students propose balance changes and predict their systemic effects?
Teaching Exercise: Asymmetric Balance
Design a 2-player asymmetric videogame where players have completely different abilities. Playtest for fairness. What makes it feel fair even when capabilities differ?
Key insight: Balance is about player experience, not spreadsheets.
Key References
David Sirlin - Playing to Win. The competitive player's perspective on balance. What it means for a videogame to be "solvable."
Extra Credits - Their series on balance is accessible and solid.
Frank Lantz - Writings on elegance and depth. Sometimes imbalance creates depth.
The "Balance for What" Question
Balance isn't an objective property - it's relative to goals. The same videogame might be balanced for casual play and unbalanced for tournament play.
Resisting Common Approaches
The nerf-hammer approach: Constantly adjusting based on complaints. Sometimes players are wrong. Sometimes the meta needs time to develop.
The "math will save us" fantasy: Spreadsheets can't capture feel, strategy, or player psychology. Playtesting is irreplaceable.
Unresolved Questions
- How do you balance for different skill levels simultaneously?
- When is imbalance acceptable? When does it become unacceptable?
- How do you know when to trust player complaints vs. when to wait for the meta to evolve?
Related
- Player Psychology - feedback loops often cause balance problems; why balance feels the way it does
- Economy & Resources - economic balance
- Emergent Behavior - emergence complicates balance
Glossary Terms
- Metagame - dominant strategies in competitive play
- Power Creep - gradual strengthening over updates
- Rock Paper Scissors - balance through counters
- Skill Floor - minimum skill to use something effectively