game-balance-check

Map every currency faucet and sink with flow rates, then calculate net accumulation. A slight positive flow reset by periodic major purchases is healthy; sustained positive flow causes inflation while negative flow makes players feel poor.

Build a matchup or build win-rate matrix and check thresholds: matchups between 45-55% are healthy, while any option above 60% or below 40% signals imbalance. Any strategy with all matchups above 52% is overpowered and needs a direct nerf.

Use Monte Carlo simulation when randomized systems interact, such as loot plus crafting plus upgrade chances, or when edge cases could create degenerate experiences. Run at least 10,000 iterations, or 100,000+ for events under 1% probability.

Healthy matchups fall between 45-55% win rate, preserving rock-paper-scissors dynamics. Builds below 30% win rate feel unplayable and need buffs, while pick rates above 70% indicate a stale meta regardless of actual power.

Skip balance validation for pure narrative games without mechanics, or during early prototyping when systems are not yet defined. Also avoid it when the problem is structural design failure, since tuning numbers cannot fix a fundamentally broken system.

Detect flat sections in the power curve where players gain nothing meaningful for extended periods. Eliminate them by adding intermediate rewards, splitting large rewards into smaller distributed ones, or adding progress indicators toward the next milestone.