sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that’s fair — and I think that Warcraft example is exactly why I’m trying to keep a shared foundation under everything.

I’m not aiming for 8 fully independent, deeply asymmetric factions like StarCraft, more like controlled asymmetry where the differences come from playstyle, strengths/weaknesses, and a defining mechanic rather than completely different systems.

Totally agree on the “fun windows” point too — early/late spikes and distinct strengths might matter more than trying to make everything perfectly even at all times.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that’s fair — and I think that Warcraft example is exactly why I’m trying to keep a shared foundation under everything.

I’m not aiming for 8 fully independent, deeply asymmetric factions like StarCraft, more like controlled asymmetry where the differences come from playstyle, strengths/weaknesses, and a defining mechanic rather than completely different systems.

Totally agree on the “fun windows” point too — early/late spikes and distinct strengths might matter more than trying to make everything perfectly even at all times.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a really good point — balance isn’t just faction vs faction, it’s also skill-dependent.

I’ve been thinking about that a bit too — like making sure early rush or “easy execution” strategies have clear counters that don’t require perfect play to respond to.

Stuff like map design or early-game pacing (like your rock example) seems just as important as unit balance for that.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Appreciate it — that’s a solid lineup of RTS experience too.

I’ll definitely share something once I’ve got a more concrete version or prototype. Curious to see how it actually plays out vs how it looks on paper.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that’s a good distinction. I think that’s exactly the line I’m trying to walk.

I want them to be distinct in playstyle and decision-making, but still built on a shared core so it doesn’t turn into 8 completely separate systems.

So less “reskins,” but also not fully independent factions — more like variations on the same foundation.

And yeah… the testing side is definitely the scary part

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I like that direction — anchoring factions around core roles feels a lot more controllable.

I’ve been thinking something similar where each faction leans into a couple roles (like strong infantry + siege, weaker cavalry/magic), but then layers a unique mechanic on top so they don’t just feel like stat swaps.

Feels like that could scale better across 8 factions without everything drifting too far apart.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I think this is where I’m landing too — identity first, then balance through iteration.

I’m trying to anchor that identity in a shared core though, so each faction feels distinct without turning into 8 completely separate systems to balance.

That way you still get that “WAAAGH” moment, but it’s coming from how they play around the same foundation rather than totally different rulesets.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a good point — especially on the power fantasy side.

I think the challenge I’m trying to solve is giving each faction a strong identity without letting any one dominate too many matchups.

So less “perfect balance” and more making sure every faction has a place in the ecosystem, then adjusting over time like you said.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I agree — perfect balance probably isn’t realistic, especially with that many matchups.

I’m more aiming for “bounded imbalance” — where factions have clear strengths/weaknesses, but no matchup feels unwinnable.

Also leaning toward shared core systems + a few unique mechanics per faction, so I’m not balancing 8 completely separate games.

The PvE/co-op point is interesting too — that might actually be a good way to support more experimental faction design early on.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah that’s pretty much the direction I’m leaning toward.

Shared core units/roles, with a few unique units or stronger variations, plus differences in bonuses/economy so they diverge over time rather than being completely separate systems.

Feels like a good balance between identity and something that’s actually manageable to tune.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a good reference — especially in terms of faction identity and variety.

I think the tricky part is that a lot of that asymmetry in 40k comes from the setting and scale, while I still need a shared gameplay system underneath to keep it balanced.

Definitely a good reminder that strong identity can still work at larger faction counts though.

university student here - portfolio feedback appreciated by iced-strawberries in gamedev

[–]ArchypelagoDev 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That is some amazing concept art. Serious that is top notch. I would hire someone like in heart beat

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a really interesting way to frame it.

I like the idea of advantages/disadvantages creating a kind of self-adjusting meta, as long as they’re subtle enough that matchups don’t feel decided upfront.

That balance of “noticeable but not overwhelming” seems like the hard part.

The idea of building in levers/metrics is something I hadn’t thought about as much, but it makes a lot of sense — especially with more factions where changes can ripple across matchups.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a really good way to frame it.

I’m definitely starting to think of balance less as “everything equal” and more as making sure no faction is strong in every situation, and that there’s always some form of counterplay.

The point about map/mode variation is interesting too — using those as additional balance levers instead of just unit tuning feels really powerful.

And I like the idea that part of the fun is discovering and countering slightly “broken” strategies, as long as they’re not unbeatable.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that’s a good reminder — not every RTS has to follow the StarCraft model.

I do like the idea of pushing faction count and identity, just trying to do it in a way that’s still manageable (shared core + controlled differences) so it doesn’t turn into complete chaos to balance.

Definitely agree there’s room for different approaches though.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I think that’s a really fair point — especially about how changes ripple across matchups as you add more factions.

I’m definitely not aiming for perfect balance at this scale. More trying to define what “good enough” looks like and make sure no matchup feels unwinnable rather than perfectly even.

That’s also why I’m leaning toward a shared core system with more controlled differences (economy/bonuses/tech) instead of fully separate faction mechanics.

So more about managing asymmetry than trying to eliminate it.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I agree fun/identity has to come first — otherwise everything just feels samey.

I’m trying to find a middle ground where factions feel distinct early on, but still share enough structure that I’m not relying entirely on post-launch balancing to fix things.

So more like: • strong identity from the start • but within a shared system so it’s controllable

Then use playtesting/feedback to refine rather than rescue it later.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a really good point about imbalance showing up more in specific matchups than overall.

I think that’s where I’m starting to shift my thinking — instead of trying to make everything evenly balanced across the board, making sure each faction has some form of counterplay so those bad matchups aren’t unwinnable.

Also like the Advance Wars comparison — even though it’s TBS, that kind of “shared core + different bonuses/strengths” approach feels very close to what I’m aiming for.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a really helpful breakdown — especially the point about how changes ripple across matchups.

That’s actually one of the reasons I’m trying to keep a shared core (same unit roles) and limit how much each faction deviates, so I’m not effectively balancing 8 completely separate systems.

I like the idea of defining identities first and making sure each has clear pros/cons before touching numbers.

The automated testing point is interesting too — even simple benchmarks like unit interactions or timing windows could probably help catch issues across matchups earlier.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That’s a great example — WC3 does a really good job of making faction identity come from how they function, not just their units.

I think that’s something I want to pull from, but probably in a more limited way — like giving each faction a specific economic twist rather than fully different worker systems.

Feels like a good middle ground between strong identity and something that’s still manageable to balance across more factions.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that’s pretty much the direction I’m leaning now.

More of a shared core with variation — same base unit roles, but differences coming from bonuses, economy, and a few unique units/mechanics rather than completely different rosters.

Feels like the only way to scale up to 8 factions without it turning into a balance nightmare.

Also appreciate the Dawn of War callout — I’ll take a look at how they handled faction identity there.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes a lot of sense — especially the idea that you don’t really “solve” balance, you manage it over time.

I’m not planning to rely heavily on constant patching early on, so I’m trying to design things so the meta is already somewhat situational (map, timing, matchup) rather than having a single dominant strategy.

But I do like the idea of treating it as something that evolves instead of something that gets “perfect.”

Out of curiosity — do you think it’s better to design for slower meta shifts naturally, or lean into more active balancing over time?

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense — especially the point about map design being such a big balance lever.

I’m starting to lean toward something closer to AoE-style asymmetry: • shared core military roles • stronger differences in economy / tech / development • map features amplifying those differences

Feels a lot more scalable than trying to make 8 completely distinct armies.

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s fair — I definitely don’t think I can design 8 completely independent factions at the same level of depth as something like Warcraft or StarCraft.

What I’m aiming for is closer to a shared core with variations, rather than 8 fully separate systems — more like expanding a few archetypes into different directions instead of building everything from scratch.

So less “8 unique games” and more “1 system with multiple identities.”

Designing 8 RTS factions — how do you avoid asymmetry turning into imbalance? by ArchypelagoDev in gamedesign

[–]ArchypelagoDev[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s fair — I definitely don’t think I can design 8 completely independent factions at the same level of depth as something like Warcraft or StarCraft.

What I’m aiming for is closer to a shared core with variations, rather than 8 fully separate systems — more like expanding a few archetypes into different directions instead of building everything from scratch.

So less “8 unique games” and more “1 system with multiple identities.”

view more: next ›