Define Balance for This Project
“Both abilities should be equally strong” is not a testable goal. State the judgment players should make and the observation that would remove it. Urgency may prioritize time; sustained activity may prioritize resources. If the same action saves both in every listed situation, the intended tradeoff may be absent.
NovelToGame asks each project to define meaningful differences and failure observations, without universal multipliers, win rates or turn counts. This page compares strategies across situations. For paying return and final costs on one route, see resource costs.
| Decision | Record |
|---|---|
| Goal | What must be completed and what counts as a result |
| Action rule | Preconditions, costs, timing and committed effects |
| Visible basis | What players know before acting |
| Falsifier | What would show the promise has failed |
Original Rules: Spend Time or Energy on a Repair
This is a paper design, not a measured balance result. Each repair fixes one identical fault; there is no travel, charging, random failure or extra reward.
- Quick repair costs 3 energy and 1 turn, fixing one fault.
- Careful repair costs 1 energy and 2 turns, fixing one fault.
- Before acting, require sufficient energy and completion within the deadline. Reject invalid actions without spending energy or advancing time.
- Fixing every fault completes the task. Remaining energy, turns and both costs are visible before choice.
Situation A: 2 faults, 6 energy and a 2-turn deadline. Two quick repairs cost 6 energy and 2 turns, completing the task. Two careful repairs need 4 turns; a mixed pair needs 3. Neither fits.
Situation B: 3 faults, 6 energy and a 5-turn deadline. Three quick repairs need 9 energy; three careful repairs need 6 turns. One quick plus two careful repairs costs 5 energy and 5 turns, completing the task. Order is interchangeable with no bonus.
Both situations require completed repairs, while A rewards turn economy and B requires combining actions. These values belong to this fictional level, not a universal ratio.
Track Balances and Rejections From the Same Start
Walk Situation B: a careful repair leaves 5 energy after 2 turns. Another leaves 4 energy after 4 turns, with 2 faults fixed. A third careful repair would finish on turn 6 and is rejected. A quick repair instead leaves 1 energy after 5 turns and fixes the final fault.
A disabled button without the deadline reason conceals the basis for choice. Spending energy before rejecting would implement a different rule. Compare committed results rather than an AI’s statement that the repair succeeded.
After changing values, replay the same path. If quick repair costs 1 energy and still 1 turn, it becomes faster at equal cost in these situations; careful repair loses its advantage. Restore the difference, revise the promise or remove the redundant action without adding an unrelated system merely to preserve a button.
Separate Rule Comparison From Player Experience
Use this manual design brief:
Compare [strategies] under [rule version, starting state and goal]. Track resources, time, completed work, eligibility and feedback at every step. Test [declared failure observation], then recalculate in [another situation]. Change only located values or rules, identify affected paths and add no new system. Do not present calculations as playtest conclusions.
After implementation, replay the faulty path and an adjacent path, checking buttons, settlement and failure feedback against the same rules. Control randomness when it affects results; a deterministic design need not acquire a random seed.
Player comprehension, choice weight and long-term resource flow require observation in a build. Finding no dominant strategy in limited situations supports only those situations.
FAQ
Does equalizing all rewards create balance?
Not necessarily. Choices can trade time, resources, knowledge or opportunity. Unequal rewards can support decisions, while equal outcomes may leave duplicate buttons. Compare actual paths against project goals.
Do it with the skill
In a project with SOURCE_BIBLE.md, a chosen CONCEPT.md and PRODUCT_BRIEF.md, use /game-world-design or $game-world-design in Codex with the rules and situations. numeric-design-method supplies budget and falsification methods. Deliver design before separately validating the build and player experience.
Read the method: Resources, reachability and strategy comparison · Changing situations and deletion tests · Test paths against design promises