Can A Game Balance Two Modes?

Yes it is.

It's just harder to do, and at times allows certain ideas have to be foregone because it's impossible to balance for both modes - which kind of should be obvious, restrictions would have to be placed - but overall, it is possible.

Taking -em/non-em for example, one thing people fail to realize is that "early game heroes" will DOMINATE the early game, and to the extent that they can easily be several levels ahead of the opponent. Making your opponent Mortred go back to base for a minute in non-em would be maybe a level in EXP, but in em, that's 2-3 levels - which you can now use to keep him out of the lane. Towers also fall incredibly fast, and with a push team, you can end the game in (literally) 12 minutes. Which is actually counter to what people think that "late game heroes own in EM". The actual difference is that in non-em, you're allowed more mistakes as early game heroes, and less as late game heroes - where as em, it's the other way around. Which is more enjoyable depends on the crowd, and also - which is more balanced, because it's not as objective as it is subjective (In DotA, most balance changes are based around tournaments and high level games - even if a hero was considered balanced before - See: Clockwork).

The difference lies in enjoyability versus balance. A game where everyone has 1 HP, and everyone has a 10000 damage nuke is "balanced" but it's not really going to be enjoyable. The purpose of balance is to reduce frustration in higher level play, and if that's not accomplished even if it's "balanced" then it's pointless.

#1 Why do you actually WANT to balance both modes? Sometimes the point of having multiple modes is so that you have an option for non-balance when you want it. Just as you said, things that are normally underpowered or barely balanced can be godly in other modes. As long as they have counters and it's within reason so the game is still strategic, I see no problem with lacking balance.

#2 IMO, to truly balance both modes, you need to totally redo almost everything. Weapons, characters, items, etc etc. They all need balance tweaks or flat out removal and/or replacing depending on different modes.


The simplest solution that I can think of, is to simply dis-allow anything that is too powerful in global mode-specific bans. Otherwise, the strategic switch-up can be fun even when it is sometimes a bit more limiting.

When you ban, disallow or nerf the thing that is the most powerful in a game - the players will
first - bitch about it, and second - move on to the next most powerful thing in the game.

Buffing other things is preferred over nerfing - unless there is an oversight, an obvious imbalance that will throw off the entire balance (Such as heroes being too strong for towers) if everything else was buffed instead of a single nerf. People don't bitch at buffs, and the end result is similar.

Yes, but the difference is that you can ban or nerf 1-2 things, or you can buff dozens if not hundreds. When your trying to balance an alternate mode, you often want the simpler method.

I think just banning instead of nerfing is probably better anyway.

Are you familiar with the widely cited Playing to win?

It's a good article on gaming in general.

Edit: This article Balancing a Multiplayer game is also relevant.

That article doesn't seem that great. The logic is mediocre and most of the arguments are self-defeating. I feel like there may be a decent idea buried somewhere in there, but it is having trouble coming out.

How so? And did you read all three (For Playing to Win) and four (For Balancing A Multiplayer game)?

How are the arguments self defeating, how can logic be mediocre...

Logic can be mediocre if the inductive connections are not that strong because of bad examples or poor wording. Deductive logic can be mediocre only due to poor language usage, because deduction is absolute.

I haven't read the articles, I just felt like saying that.

Which leads back to the other question - How are the arguments self-defeating?

He talks about the fact that a "real" gamer will do anything to win at any cost and saying things are "cheap" is just a bad excuse. Then almost immediately afterwords, he talks about the fact that sometimes something is "too cheap" to be allowed.

Except that's not what he says? He gives conditions...