Asymmetry - one of the most underrated yet best ways to design a unique position

Almost every single position I see is symmetrical, or at least appears to be following some aesthetical conventions. People tend to like aesthetic positions over chaotic ones. Yet the thing is, a chaotic position that is well-designed is usually way more balanced than a symmetrical position. Zugzwang is too unlikely to occur in teams or to a greater extent, FFA. However, BG may stand an equal chance against RY if they have asymmetrical armies. 

Let me elaborate on some ideas that are commonly discarded by creators for being "unaesthetic", "weird" or "likely unbalanced":

FFA variants:

1. A slight handicap for green. I am talking about a very slight handicap, like a slight positional advantage or an extra weak piece in some positions. Since teaming is likely to occur at a high level, and good coordination is absent, a slight handicap that is too difficult to use in lower levels is a good idea.

2. Different armies for RY/BG. This is pretty interesting, yet highly difficult to implement in practice. However, the weaker side should have more defensive capabilities so that a strong player may carry out in case of poor coordination. It is also important to have an equal promotion for all players. Making such a game without rather quick promotions (i.e. 6 squares to promotion) is highly difficult.

3. Four completely different armies, or three different armies. Basically, these two are highly similar yet incredibly difficult to implement. The gameplay must be balanced in all stages for all players, which is nearly impossible to accomplish. Still, this type of position is incredibly broad and can have a whole ton of different position concepts subsumed. This is like the "other side" of positions, something untouched but having even more flying space.

Teams:

1. Two different armies, symmetrical armies for each. Each team has a symmetrical army, however, two teams have generally different armies. One of the most unique, easier-to-implement, and exciting games.

2. Two versus one team: one player is effectively useless, the other has a single stronger army. However, two other players have weaker pieces but are on the same team. This concept is contrary to a common misconception, not an FFC, but rather a highly difficult concept. The long-term issue of two players being on a team is a highly vital one, that's why the single player should usually be notably stronger.

3. Entirely different piece setup for each player on a team: this is the most difficult thing to implement in teams, yet the most interesting one: there are incredibly many imbalance possibilities, various concepts, and ideas to be implemented. This is way easier to implement the FFA counterpart, yet notably more difficult than the previous types-of-a-kind. This field subsumes a lot of concepts and is less restricted than the FFA counterpart due to the general absence of more game stages where an imbalanced start plays a larger role.

Antichess counterparts of this are also present, yet I won't really enumerate them here due to extreme difficulty of implementing them and overall due to difficulties of implementing balanced antichess FFA or teams position.

The 2nd point on 'Teams': We all know how it feels to be the king in save my king

Asymetrical positions are very interesting, but they can be very hard to make. If bsrti makes FFA variant with 4 totally different armies and it gets accepted, then I will stop to annoy Box.

Two years ago I made a position where one side was all pawns, one was all riders, one was all elephants and hawks, and one was all queens. It was pretty dumb lol

What abou hnfnfnf or whatever it is called

4 lol

I'm working on a position that involves asymmetry and introduces a very interesting concept, which I am not willing to reveal yet, but a few people know about it and especially @qilp, who helped me make testing games so thanks for the pointers @bsrti

maybe