Equating Se4 to Rock/paper/scissors is a compliment for Se4, not a criticism. It demonstrates that every strategy you could choose in SE4 will beat some strategy, and lose to some other strategy. There is no perfect strategy.
It's a good analogy and is particularly appropriate for a discussion about balance in the game.
Of course Se4 has a multitude of strategies and techs to choose from, and RPS only has three. But it's an analogy. It's finding a common point between two things that appear different and using their commonality to demonstrate a particular point. Nobody is trying to say they are the same game, or should be.
For me this discussion about balance always ends up being a disagreement over semantics. I think different people have different things in mind when they say balance. Because to me balancing SE4 would mean that you could choose any weapon and have a chance of beating any other weapon in a straight up fight. I don't think that is something we should strive for. If balance means something other than that to you, then we may not be disagreeing, even though we think we are cause one of us wants balance and the other doesn't.
Weapons have strengths and wealnesses in different areas that make a damage per KT comparison difficult at best, and meaningless at worst. Cost to research and cost to construct and maintain particularly.
So weapon A can't beat weapon B in a straight up fight, but it can beat C. And C loses to A, but it beats B. Rock/Paper/Scissors.
But most of the differences in weapons don't even have to do with that tiny example. It isn't about beating some opponent in a straight up fight. It's about using your weapons choices advantages to put your self in a posiiotn where you aren't in a straigh up fight. Cause you have more ships than he does in a particular place.
Victroy doesn't go to who has the better ships. Victory goes to whichever one destroys all the other guys ships first, by whatever means nessecary.
Geoschmo
[ December 26, 2002, 12:21: Message edited by: geoschmo ]