[xamuel]

I think mybe part of why it doesn't work so much for modern games is that modern games are constantly being patched and updated. You could write a big detailed guide and then the next day, the devs push an update which changes everything.

This makes modern games less "real", in a pseudo-physics sense: experiments that you perform in them do not replicate over time, due to bugfix patches etc. Sort of like if, after physicists announced the results of the double-slit experiment, God force-installed a "fix quantum mechanics glitches" patch to make it no longer work.

[dota_fanatic]

Definitely. Still though, many modern games' players would be well served by the FAQs of old instead of ad-laden, poorly researched wikis. And even for those games frequently updated, eventually they do tend to crystallize into a final version after 3-5 years. It's only games like Dota 2 which are constantly getting balance* patches which are a constant sync battle of development and documentation.

* more like humans are incapable of balancing a game of Dota 2's complexity. The cynic in me thinks they don't want to balance it, that that's part of their monetization strategy. Long term I think a balanced game is more fun for everyone, though.

[im3w1l]

One way to balance a game like Dota 2 would be a continuous rebalancing. Parametrize each hero's stats by a "power-parameter". This doesn't have to crank all the stats up equally. One hero could benefit in one way by more power, while another hero benefits in a different way. Then automatically adjust the power-parameter based on win-rates in different skill segments and how often a hero is chosen. The targets should not necessarily be equal, you may want say beginner friendly heroes that lose steam at the upper level. In the end, the goal should be a fun meta.

Like if you were to balance rock-paper-scissors, and you want a meta where rock is played the majority of the time, you might want to give rock an adjustable chance of beating paper.