What the fuck is "asymmetric balance"? How does it

>>50195432
Rock Paper Scissors

>>50195432
You break down classes into roles.
And make everyone fill a role or two.

File: BALANCE.jpg (53KB, 575x279px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 575x279px

>>50195432
There are two types of balance: symmetrical and asymmetrical. In symmetrical balance, if an imaginary line is drawn through the center of the work, both sides are exactly the same, and balanced in that way. In asymmetrical balance, the two sides are not identical, but differ from one another. However, the elements are arranged so that there is a sense of balance.

>>50195432
I believe it's a fancy word for "Everyone's good at different things, instead of being equally good at one thing." Fantasycraft is a good example- noncombat classes are viable, and a few of the specialties are pretty unorthodox. There's a class whose whole purpose is to know things

>>50195432
Asymmetric balance is actually sort of the default for many games.

In Symmetric Balance, both sides or the same. This is stuff like Chess or your typical FPS where both teams have the same number of the same pieces to work with.

Asymmetric balance is games where the pieces are different at a basic level and often have a different number as well. If you look up the game Evolve, it's a good example, with 4 players being humans with guns and the 5th playing against them as a single giant monster.

However, this is mostly used in a PvP context. PvE games are technically asymmetrically balanced to begin with, as it's usually a handful of strong player characters against many smaller, weaker enemies or bigger stronger ones.

>>50195432
I generally point to the old coc games as a demonstration of asymmetrical balance
gdi/nod
or soviets/allies
have clearly defined differences in their build order and style of play. Namely the latter is fas, with a good earily game to mid game and uses speed and numbers while the former is often slow with more powerful or advanced units.
Both have ways of surviving during each stage of the game despite their limitations and specializations.
essentially it specialization that results in stability between two entities.

>>50195432
...

Are you from the thread this morning?

>>50195432
Its when one side has far inferior equipment and/or numbers, and yet can still have a chance of winning, usually through guerrilla tactics, or some other such tactics.

Muhajadeen vs Soviets in Afghanistan for example. Soviets have far superior equipment - tanks, APCs, helicopters, all the latest weapons, and yet a force of largely untrained locals with inferior equipment, no tanks or helicopters can still win the war just using the terrain and utilizing guerrilla tactics.

NZ Land wars is another example - Maori had far inferior equipment but managed to inflict massive defeats just using tactics like hidden rifle pits, and genius earthwork defense systems.

Vietnam is another example - the VC didn't have massive air power or helicopter troops, and had a much smaller production (being a smaller country) than the US, and yes was still able to make the US lose support for the war with massive casualties and then take over the country once the US left - all through guerrilla tactics, booby traps and secret movement.

Writing systems for these kind of games can be challenging, and it takes a lot of playtesting to get right. Essentially one side will have technology and the other side will have tactics/hidden deployment or movement, and other guerrilla elements.

>>50195432
It's balanced because they're different.
See anima.

>inb4 math-illiterates