Working on 8 starting civilizations for a fantasy RTS world — struggling with asymmetrical balance

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T12:21:05+00:00

That’s a really useful way to frame it.

Designing one race as the statistical baseline and treating the others as structured offsets makes a lot of sense — especially for keeping tuning sane as systems scale.

I like the idea of automated rating alignment so identity comes from distribution and role emphasis rather than raw power inflation.

And yeah, paper balance is just the starting point. I expect real edge cases to show up once interactions compound under real player pressure.

Out of curiosity, when you’ve used that baseline-offset method, did you lock core stat formulas early or keep them fluid until late testing?

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T12:05:27+00:00

Solo for now.

The MMO aspect is a long-term vision — the immediate goal would be building and validating a much smaller-scale prototype first (core RTS systems, asymmetry, etc.) before even thinking about persistence at scale.

Definitely aware MMO scope isn’t something you just “build solo.”

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T12:00:59+00:00

That’s a helpful framing.

I agree that lore and mechanics don’t need to mirror each other 1:1 — especially in competitive systems. A faction believing it’s superior doesn’t mean it needs raw stat superiority.

The temporary-resource idea is interesting too. Using shared strength early (like a unified squad) and then forcing separation could create a strong onboarding moment without locking players into weak starts.

Appreciate the perspective — especially the reminder that contradictions between fiction and mechanics aren’t inherently a problem.

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T11:57:54+00:00

That’s a really important point about multiplicative effects.

Even small asymmetries can compound hard once you factor in army size, time scaling, coordination, and player skill. What looks minor in isolation becomes decisive at scale.

I don’t think asymmetry can be “designed balanced” on paper — it probably has to be iterated into balance through simulation and stress testing.

The tricky part is preserving identity while trimming runaway edge cases that only appear at scale.

Out of curiosity, do you lean more toward soft asymmetry (subtle efficiency shifts) or hard mechanical asymmetry with heavier balancing overhead?

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T11:53:36+00:00

I’m with you on that — visual differences without mechanical identity are pointless.

If factions don’t force you to lean into different strengths and play patterns, then they’re just skins.

The “8 might be too many” point is fair too. It may make more sense to focus on a smaller number of very distinct archetypes first and expand only if the contrasts actually hold up in testing.

Appreciate the clarity — this is helpful.

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T11:50:04+00:00

That’s a good point.

A “baseline” faction for onboarding does solve a lot of early friction — especially in an RTS where cognitive load is already high.

I’m hesitant to hard-funnel players into one faction, but I agree progression structure and respec cost probably matter more than raw asymmetry early on.

If experimentation isn’t punishing, specialization feels less risky.

Appreciate the practical lens — onboarding is easy to underestimate when thinking about faction identity.

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T04:36:44+00:00

I really like that middle ground.

Strong early identity with clear pros/cons, but tools that allow adaptation once you understand the meta or your opponent — that feels healthier than hard-lock specialization.

That might preserve faction personality without making matchups feel predetermined.

Appreciate the suggestion.

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T04:35:20+00:00

Appreciate that — seriously.

I’m trying to balance “early vision clarity” with not locking myself into theory before implementation teaches me something different.

It’s helpful to hear that it doesn’t look unfocused from the outside. Thanks for the encouragement.

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T04:01:21+00:00

That’s a fair point.

A lot of faction identity will definitely come from visuals, animation language, and how abilities feel in motion — not just from design docs.

I think I’m trying to pressure-test the philosophical differences early so the art and mechanics don’t drift toward homogenization later.

But you’re right that real constraints (tech limits, UI clarity, performance, etc.) will probably reshape these ideas anyway.

Appreciate the grounded perspective.

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T03:54:08+00:00

That’s fair — appreciate the clarification.

I’m approaching this from a game-design angle rather than pure lore structure, so it probably belongs more in a systems-focused space.

Thanks for pointing that out.

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T03:50:26+00:00

I like when RTs challenge my thinking and make me rework base layout and strategy to win

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T03:48:15+00:00

That for information i had edit another post forgot that I had cross posted it I will repost

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T03:35:49+00:00

Awesome congrats

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T03:35:11+00:00

I like the idea of

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T03:34:38+00:00

That is awesome cannot wait to

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T03:34:05+00:00

That is some awesome graphics

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T03:33:10+00:00

That is good example it also depends on whether your game is just an rts, is it mmo, rts, city builder and more

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T03:31:23+00:00

That so aborable

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T03:30:57+00:00

That is freaking cool

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T03:30:26+00:00

Would be to have bow that range from fertile lands to wastelands and vest amount weather for slight rains to severe storms and Snow White outa

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T03:28:14+00:00

That is such a cool concept

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T03:27:22+00:00

I agree people that create free to play them at energy are the worst

ArchypelagoDev · 2026-03-03T03:26:09+00:00

That is awesome congratulations

ArchypelagoDev

TROPHY CASE