People usually understand the term game balance as the fairness of the matches. However, there are many other factors that may affect the overall players’ engagement. Usually, each extreme causes a different problem, making it hard to find the perfect middle ground.
Even though some factors don’t fall under the general game balance definition, they can still be an important aspect of the game. I will list multiple factors, briefly describing them. In the future, I will make more detailed articles about particular game balance types.
Factors related to match fairness
Win chance
Players need to feel that in every game with a set goal, that goal is achievable. The odds of winning may depend on the player’s skill and performance, so it’s okay for players to lose the game if there is still room for improvement. However, in multiplayer games, the situation gets tricky, as players want similar chances for everyone. If one game element (e.g., faction, deck, class, character) is overall superior to other game elements, players may get frustrated, especially when they play against it.
Matchups
Even if all game elements are overall similarly strong, each strategy may have weaknesses that make it vulnerable to certain other elements. If they’re locked in before the match starts, the match may not feel fair for the players who are accidentally countered. Since players usually stick to their favorite strategies, they will see the game balance only from the perspective of particular matchups, making the game feel unbalanced. In extreme cases, you may see players having opposite opinions about the strength of some strategies, just because they experienced them in different environments.
Balancing the matchups can be problematic, as each change results in a popularity shift among available tools. Sometimes a dominating strategy holds back other dominating strategies, meaning that nerfing it may cause more issues than it fixes.
Learning curve
The game should offer mechanics that are fairly easy to grasp for newcomers. On the other hand, veterans usually crave interesting twists that often complicate the game’s rules. A newcomer who tries such tools may become overwhelmed by their complexity, which is why games usually give new players access mostly to easy tools, making complex tools accessible later. It initially boosts their performance, but creates other problems, such as different tool popularity among different player groups or a lack of experience in playing against complex game mechanics. It creates multiple different environments, where each one seems to be balanced differently.
Difficulty
Just because something is easy to learn, it doesn’t mean it’s easy to master (and vice versa). Strategies that are difficult to perform are an interesting challenge for veteran players who desire to hone their skills. However, newcomers may struggle with executing them, which may lead to their frustration. This is why players should always have access to a variety of tools, so they can choose them accordingly to their skills.
Difficulty also depends on external factors, such as maps or enemies. A well-designed difficulty won’t leave the player hopeless, as they will always find a way to improve. If they fail to improve, then the game may be missing aspects meant to teach players how to improve.
Skill level
In competitive games, the strength of each play style may heavily depend on the skill of players using it and those facing it. It may create a discrepancy in the fairness on different skill levels. For example, if a certain play style is easy to counter, it will be inferior at the top level of play, but may become superior at the lower skill bracket, where players aren’t skilled enough to counter it properly. On the other hand, a character that requires great cooperation skills will work badly at the lower skill brackets, but may perform well at the top level of play.
If some strategy seems to be too strong from the perspective of a newcomer, that player may resign without giving themself a chance to see how weaker it becomes once they improve. It’s important to ensure that no strategy is overwhelming at any skill level.
Synergies
Some game elements may become much stronger when combined with other elements. Not every synergy is designed intentionally – some of them are discovered by players, and may create an unexpected win rate spike, ruining the fairness of the game. Bringing the balance back to the game is tricky, as nerfing a synergy component may result in making it terrible on its own, effectively reducing the pool of competitive strategies. It may become even more troublesome in team-based games, as it would increase the importance of cooperation, making it less useful in the hands of newcomers.
Perception
Players often perceive the game differently than it really is. For example, people often tend to memorize the most extreme scenarios, even if they’re unlikely to happen again. Even if some play style has an overall bad win rate across all skill levels, players may perceive it as overpowered if they happen to see it a few times in a scenario that favors that play style the most. Players not only may struggle with an objective judgment, but they may also omit important factors or phrase their opinions in a misleading way.
Technically, you may prove such players wrong by explaining to them why their judgment is off, but it misses the point, as they want to play a game that feels fair instead of a game that actually is fair.
Matchmaking
Matchmaking system may reduce the impact of other problems (such as matchup problems), but it greatly extends the waiting time in the search queue, especially if the game is not popular. If the system is too strict, it may also create new kinds of problems that may infuriate players, such as a feeling that the match’s results depend on the rigging rather than their own skills.
Other match-related factors
Interactivity
Players often complain about play styles that, for them, seem much less interactive than other choices. For example, if your enemy can always interrupt your actions by stunning you, you may feel like you’re denied the right to play the way you want. Ironically, the lack of interactivity on your side was caused by the interactivity from the opponent’s side. This scenario doesn’t necessarily mean that such matchup is a lost cause, as there may be a chance to outperform that enemy in different areas, but it may be irritating.
Fun
As simple as it sounds, play styles should be fun for both sides. Each player may define fun differently, meaning that sometimes one player may consider fun something that is annoying for another player. For example, people often complain about play styles meant to purposefully stall the game. Even if such play styles may be legitimate strategies with a fair chance of winning, not everyone enjoys them. Such problems can be dealt with in many ways, for example, by releasing separate game modes, implementing pre-selection bans, or adding tools that may enforce particular play styles on opponents. Each solution comes with a different price.
Variety
While everyone has their favorite play style, everyone will eventually get bored with it. If the game doesn’t offer any other interesting play styles, bored players will most likely abandon the game. If the variety of play styles is locked behind the progression system, designers should strike a balance to make them accessible enough to avoid boredom, but inaccessible enough to make the progression desirable.
Opponents’ popularity and variety
Some strategies will be more popular than others, which may be an issue in multiplayer games. If they are fun to play against, people usually won’t mind, but they will eventually get tired of repetition. Higher frequency of certain play styles becomes more frustrating if they combine with other problems (e.g., lack of interactivity), effectively increasing the frequency of other problems. Developers can address this issue by influencing the popularity, which may be a tough task, as they will need to figure out what drives people toward particular choices. An example of a commonly used solution is a daily quests system that encourages players to try different strategies every day.
Other factors
Pacing
Some scenarios, such as boss fights, may be much more intense for players compared to other scenarios. If the game is too intense for an extended period, it may become exhausting for players. Technically, players can make a break on their own, but not everyone does. This is one of the reasons why designers usually create a gameplay loop consisting of phases with different intensities (e.g., separating some combat encounters with dialogues, travel, or shopping).
Progression curve
Many players enjoy the feeling of progression. If there is no more content to progress, the game will become less enjoyable for them. On the other hand, if progression is too time-consuming, newcomers may feel like it’s impossible to catch up with veterans, which is especially frustrating in competitive games. Games usually try to make a compromise by boosting the early game progression while keeping the late-game progression slow, usually making the game completion impossible.
There are also players classified as completionists, for whom maximum progression is the main goal. Such players are a different target audience and require a different design approach.
Progression speed
In some games, your progression speed may heavily depend on your play style. For example, if players progress by getting experience from killing enemies, then players specialized in dealing damage will progress much faster than players with other specializations (such as healers). It may occasionally create a huge discrepancy between players’ progressions, which won’t feel fair if both play styles seem to be equally important. The progression system should be designed to take different play styles into account, making sure that none are left behind.
Economy
The rarer the items are, the more valuable they become. If items are too rare, collecting them may feel like a mundane job. Making them more common will make them much more convenient, but they won’t be appreciated. The issues related to the economy are higher in games that include a trading system. It increases accessibility of items and may make some games too easy compared to the desired experience. In extreme cases, it may also lead to inflation, completely removing the value from some items. It’s especially problematic in collectible games, where players take pride in their wealth, but they can’t do that if the value of their items drops rapidly.
Monetization
The more money developers have, the better game they can make. However, people will be less likely to pay for the product if the access to the game is too expensive for them. Generous games usually have a good reputation, attracting a larger player base, but reputation alone may not pay the bills. Greedy policies may drain a lot of money from a single customer, but will discourage most players from playing the game. Companies try to come up with solutions that are not perceived as invasive, yet generate enough money to drive growth. The most successful companies usually make the product slightly inconvenient for non-paying users, which is good enough to keep them around, but also bad enough to make them consider paying for improvements.
Player needs
Each player has different needs. For example, some players may play games to socialize with friends, others may play it to hone their skills and prove themselves, and others may play it to express their creativity. Satisfying one player group is much easier than satisfying everyone, but it will also mean that the player base will be much smaller than it could be. Investing in new features may let you reach audiences, but veterans may feel neglected if it means less attention to their own needs.
New releases
People are more willing to invest in games that evolve over time, as such games are more likely to stay fresh and less likely to become boring. However, if too much content is being pushed too frequently, players may struggle with catching up with it. If the game requires too much effort to keep up with, it may start feeling like a job instead of being an entertainment.
High frequency of releases is especially controversial for people who seek consistency, as they often desire to be able to return to the game they “know”. If the game changes too often, it may be barely recognizable for them, making them feel like they have to start everything from scratch.
Summary
Choices in game design rarely come without a price to pay. Sometimes it feels like choosing a lesser evil, or choosing a portion of both evils at once. Balancing every aspect of the game may require a lot of effort, but it’s necessary to achieve a product of the highest quality.
Game Anatomy 
Leave a comment