> A perfectly balanced game would be impossible to create, given strategy X compared to strategy Y, X will always seem abusive, but then strategy Z might seem a

> A perfectly balanced game would be impossible to create, given strategy X compared to strategy Y, X will always seem abusive, but then strategy Z might seem abusive to X, to which Y seems abusive, etc. I'm sorry, but within a reasonable margin of fairness you're just not right. > It's a bit like rock-paper-scissors, if someone starts using paper, stop using your rock and replace it with a scissor. Usually what happens is a grenade is revealed into the RPS dynamic and everyone has to concentrate on the grenade or very specific strategies to counter the grenade. The entire game ends up revolving around a combination that has an elevated winrate unless specifically countered. This has happened in the international a year or two ago, it happened in League, it happened even in little spaces like Fractured Space, it happened during the overwatch beta (haven't been keeping up since launch). It happened in smash wii (oh god pre-patch Luigis were everywhere and you had to have specific options ready just for them). And it's worth noting it's a negative feedback loop: games struggle to keep engagement (because the market is flooded), so the game companies flood their games with new content. This content can almost never be brought into perfect balance with the game dynamics as is, so they redefine it. This is viewed as "an active game" and gamers are taught they should prefer "active" games. For PvE games, this is usually fine (inasmuch as the only people affected are the diehard super-optimizers). For PvP, this redefines the game and invalidates the meta everyone has to play.