Let another issue in the field of balancing the game:
Strength-to-skill ratio. This issue focuses on what skills the player has and how it gives him strength. Usually, the skill held by the player should not translate directly into his power. Especially visible in multiplayer games.
On this primitive chart, we can see how the player's skills tend to increase over time. There is a time in which he learns to better use known tactics and moments in which his strength grows violently, or time in which he learns something new. Maybe it is not super visible in this picture, but the Skill does not translate directly into force in the ratio 1:1 or rather 3:1. This is of course an indicative value and does not mean that something that is just a little better should be threefold harder to perform.
For example, let me (again) use World of tanks. In this game there are many vehicles that do not require much skill to be able to compete with better players. In order not to play only those vehicles in the game also added vehicles that have greater capabilities, but are also more difficult to use.
Another example: Mortal Kombat. One of the easiest moves to master was the /+ punch or chin of Przykucu. He had a lot of power and was easy to lead, but in the game there were many other moves that were a little more complicated and allowed to play more effectively.
But why is it in Multiplayer games? For everyone to be happy. Players with small skills receive something that allows them to compete with those more experienced so you do not discourage to the game, and hence will have the opportunity to learn these more advanced techniques of the game.
In a nice way with this issue copes Heroes of the Storm, which in choosing the form clearly gives the player information about how hard to play each of the characters.
Another issue is how complicated is the strategy/movement that is to be done by the player to gain an advantage. If the strength obtained is too small in relation to the difficulty of execution, then hardly anyone will try to do it, but if it is the opposite, that is, when the strength of the strategy will be too big, and it will require low skills, we are going to create a strategy Also known as Foo strategy (First Order Optimal strategy). Something like that took place in StarCraft when Zerg Rush was developed.
FOOSy carry with them another threat, that is, stopping the player from the development of the game and the desire to discover other more complicated skills. As a designer, you need to gradually develop the player, so as not to rely on one technique, because the time you get bored. Nor can you give him a super heavy challenge where the only strategy he knows will not work, thinking, "After all, I have given him a lot of other opportunities, he could use them and learn them before." Could not because I had no need! How do you encourage a player to learn other strategies by the way without forcing him to do so? Many games apply achievements that increase the scores. For example, in Hitman we get better grades when we are not recognized by anyone or we will not kill anyone.