Two ways to be fair
A game can be fair because both sides have the same options, or because the sides have different options that are meant to be worth about the same. The first is symmetric balance and the second is asymmetric balance. Both can work, but they ask different things of designers and give players different experiences.
Why mirror matchups are easier
In a symmetric game, both players start with identical pieces, resources and abilities. Whatever one side can do, the other can too. If the rules are the same for both, then differences in outcome come from decisions, and any advantage a player has must come from how they play.
This makes the design problem narrower. There are no relative strengths to compare, because there is nothing to compare: the sides are copies of each other. Balance then reduces to checking that the shared options do not create a dominant strategy and that any asymmetry the rules still contain, such as who moves first, is small or offset.
Even perfect symmetry rarely removes every difference. In many board games, the player who moves first has a small advantage or disadvantage, and designers respond with rules like alternating the first move, a handicap or a compensation to the second player. Simple measures like these are a large part of why symmetric games are easier to keep fair, and they also make them easier to analyse, because a balanced win rate is the expected result rather than a target to be reached.
What asymmetry adds
Asymmetric designs let the sides differ in abilities, resources or goals. The appeal is considerable:
- Identity. Different factions or characters feel distinct, and players can pick one that suits their taste.
- Variety. Each matchup plays differently, so the game offers more to explore.
- Replayability. Learning every matchup takes a long time, which sustains interest.
- Expression. Players can choose a style, rather than being forced into one.
Games with rosters, classes or factions rely on this. Real-time strategy games with different races, fighting games with distinct characters and card games with different archetypes are all examples. The way build orders differ between factions is one of the clearest illustrations of how asymmetry changes the whole shape of play.
What asymmetry costs
The same differences that make asymmetric games interesting make them hard to balance.
The number of matchups grows quickly. With n options, there are n times (n minus 1) divided by 2 distinct pairings, not counting mirror matches. Five factions give 10 pairings, and ten give 45. Each pairing has its own win rate, and each must be checked, so the testing burden rises faster than the roster.
Perfect equality is a moving target. Different options are strong in different ways, so there is no single measure of power. Designers rely on a combination of data, such as matchup win chances, and judgement. Because players keep adapting, the results shift over time.
Rock-paper-scissors structures need care. An archetype triangle, where A beats B, B beats C and C beats A, can be fair at the level of the whole set, but a player stuck in the wrong matchup may feel there was nothing they could do. Counterpicks, side-switching and series formats exist to soften that. Character counterpicks in a set are a tournament-level answer to a design-level problem.
Perception is harder to manage. Players see their own side’s weaknesses clearly and the opponent’s strengths vividly. Complaints that a side is overpowered are common even when the data shows rough parity, so designers have to separate real imbalance from impression.
Information may differ. If each side plays by different rules, players must learn both their own options and the opponent’s, which raises the entry barrier.
Measuring balance in an asymmetric game
The usual starting point is a win rate table: for each pairing, how often does each side win? Designers look for pairings that are far from even and options that are consistently strong or weak across opponents. Interpreting these tables takes care. A small number of games gives noisy rates, so sample size matters, and the result for a pairing can depend on player skill and on the map or setting. Map pools can shift balance between sides, which is why map choices form part of competitive balance work.
A pairing that is 55 to 45 is not necessarily a problem. Some designers aim for every matchup to fall within a narrow band, while others accept a wider spread if the game offers ways to adapt, such as choosing a different option after seeing the opponent’s. Ranking sources like tier lists summarise the spread, though they simplify it.
Choosing between them
Neither approach is better in general. Symmetric designs suit games that value clarity, a pure test of decisions, and a low barrier. Asymmetric ones suit games that value variety, identity and long-term depth, and that can afford the work of ongoing balance. Many games mix the two: a symmetric core with asymmetric elements, such as optional characters or loadouts, so that variety is added where it is manageable.
The practical trade is straightforward. Symmetry buys simplicity and trust at the price of variety. Asymmetry buys variety at the price of a never-finished balancing job. Designers choose based on what the game is for and how much maintenance they are prepared to carry.