What is Balance

In League of Legends there are 160+ champions. How does Riot ensure almost all of them appear in pro play? The answer lies in understanding different types of balance.

• **StarCraft** - 25 years of balancing three asymmetric races to a near-perfect 33/33/33 at the pro level
• **Dota 2** - intransitive balance through counter-picks instead of nerfing strong heroes
• **Pokemon** - the type chart creates a complex intransitive network of 18 types

Symmetric Balance

**Symmetric balance** - when all players start with the same capabilities. Chess (almost symmetric), checkers, Go - classic examples. Each player has the same pieces, moves, resources.

Symmetry ≠ fairness. In chess, White has a statistical advantage (~55% wins at the top level), even though the positions are symmetric.

**Advantages of symmetry:** - Easy to understand and explain the rules - Sense of fairness for players - Simpler to balance (one side) - Skill determines the winner

Asymmetric Balance

**Asymmetric balance** - players have different capabilities but equal chances of winning. This is harder to create but more interesting to play. StarCraft with three races is the gold standard of asymmetric balance.

Asymmetry creates **replayability**. In a symmetric game you've seen everything in one match. In an asymmetric one - you need to master each side.

**Types of asymmetry:** - **Starting conditions** - different initial resources, positions - **Abilities** - unique mechanics for each side - **Goals** - different win conditions (asymmetric victories) - **Information** - one side knows more (hidden role games)

Transitive Relationships

**Transitivity** - if A is better than B, and B is better than C, then A is better than C. This is a linear power hierarchy. In RPGs a sword +10 is always better than a sword +5, which is always better than a sword +1.

Transitivity creates **notably better choices**. This works for progression (sense of growth), but kills meaningful choices.

**The problem with transitivity:** - Only one 'right' choice at each level - The meta stagnates - everyone plays one build - Low-level content becomes useless - No reason to experiment

Intransitive Relationships

**Intransitivity** - cyclic relationships. A beats B, B beats C, but C beats A. The classic example - rock-paper-scissors. There's no 'best' choice, everything depends on the opponent's choice.

Intransitivity creates **metagame** - a game of predicting the opponent's actions. This adds depth without complicating the rules.

**Intransitivity in games:** - **RTS:** Infantry → Vehicles → Air → Infantry - **Fighting games:** Attacks → Throws → Blocks → Attacks - **MOBA:** Burst → Sustain → Poke → Burst - **Pokemon:** Fire → Grass → Water → Fire

Key Ideas

• **Symmetric balance** - equal capabilities, skill decides. Simpler to balance, but less replayability
• **Asymmetric balance** - different capabilities, equal chances. Harder, but more interesting and deeper
• **Transitivity** works for progression (levels, gear). **Intransitivity** - for meaningful choices and metagame

Related Topics

Balance is the foundation for many game design systems:

• Mechanics Atoms (MDA) — Balance determines what dynamics emerge from mechanics
• Math of Balance — DPS, TTK, EHP formulas for quantitative analysis

Вопросы для размышления

• Recall a game with poor balance. Was it transitive (dominant build) or broken intransitive (no counter)?
• Which type of balance do you prefer as a player - symmetric or asymmetric? Why?
• How would you add intransitivity to a game with fully transitive gear progression?

Связанные уроки

• gt-01