While reading r/starcraft threads on the recent zerg drop changes in the beta, I started to wonder how much lore figures into balancing a game. A lot of the comments seemed to be digging down into resource costs and timing, but some spoke more generally to the nature of how the races play. Specifically, in this case, referring to zerg being (in the original author's words) turtle-y compared to the expected aggressive playstyle of the race based on lore. Nothing new here, the topic has been covered a lot.
Say a developer of a game has an element of lore that three playable races in said game are equally matched (ie. empirical result is they are balanced), but very different in [technology]/[biology]. At what point does the qualitative evidence from testing the game show that the lore needs to change to account for what actually happens in-game? In the case of SC2, if one ignores campaign mode, at what point would you decide data shows zerg is "turtle-y" and make lore changes to match? Are there examples of developers who have done something comparable?
-Reference: Reddit: http://redd.it/3axtal
Edited to convert link to active