So hypothetically, consider a mirror match where ever member is equally skilled. Would you consider that to be a balanced match, if it's a given that every player is in fact of equal skill? Neither side has any advantages over the other, so it should be 50:50 on which side wins right?
Now suppose you give one side a small advantage. Still assuming all players of exactly equal skill and it's a mirror match so scaling on either side is the same, how should that impact the results of the game? They're equal skill by assumption, so one side can't outplay the other, but now one side has an advantage (some gold/xp or extra stats or similar). Does the side with the advantage win 100% of the time then? After all, the team with the advantage now wins every trade on a raw stat check basis, and nobody wins on a raw skill check since they're equal by hypothesis. Every trade one builds into a further advantage, and so it seems like in a perfectly fair match, things should snowball into an utter stomp.
Is it appropriate that if one side has an advantage they should win? Or should something be done to prevent snowballs, so advantages don't necessarily translate to bigger ones?
Like I think we all have a rough intuitive feel for what a 'balanced' match feels like, but it seems hard to pinpoint how to produce those matches if putting 10 equal skill players together doesn't produce such a match. Putting mismatched skill players together might produce swingier games that 'feel' more balanced, but intentionally putting people of different skills together seems antithetical to an ideal matchmaking system.
