Posted by: Zincat
« on: April 28, 2022, 05:43:43 PM »I still don't see how any of this is a problem. Armor is heavily favored in the early game. In the late game, shields are more effective in general
Both still have their niches where they are useful in every period of the game, it's not like shields are useless in the midgame or armor is useless in the end game. It's just that you'll generally shift over time from an armor-heavier setup to a shield-heavier setup.
That's fine, it's called progress. I don't think that armor or shields are so unbalanced as to deserve a rebalance right now.
And if you instead go 100% armor or shields, on the ground that "I am minmaxing", you'll just have to make a sad face when you meet the hard counter to your defense choice.
There is no written rule anywhere that weapons and defenses must always keep the same balance over the course of a game. So why change it? It's fine the way it is, as your tech progresses different options become more viable.
Do you really want to have everything perfectly balanced to the point all choices are the same? I certainly don't, that simply means choosing is meaningless because the results are the same.
And if you do, I suggest the first thing that needs to be done is nerfing missiles in the early game anyway, certainly not shields in the late game. Early game missiles are the most unbalanced thing ever, compared to other weapon options.
It's the same thing as for railguns and gauss, which becomes a better PD only at high tech level. It's the same thing for cloacking, which is basically useless at low tech levels. Every technological era will have options that are generally better or worse, but so long as all are viable, that's fine. No need to stress over it.
Both still have their niches where they are useful in every period of the game, it's not like shields are useless in the midgame or armor is useless in the end game. It's just that you'll generally shift over time from an armor-heavier setup to a shield-heavier setup.
That's fine, it's called progress. I don't think that armor or shields are so unbalanced as to deserve a rebalance right now.
And if you instead go 100% armor or shields, on the ground that "I am minmaxing", you'll just have to make a sad face when you meet the hard counter to your defense choice.
There is no written rule anywhere that weapons and defenses must always keep the same balance over the course of a game. So why change it? It's fine the way it is, as your tech progresses different options become more viable.
Do you really want to have everything perfectly balanced to the point all choices are the same? I certainly don't, that simply means choosing is meaningless because the results are the same.
And if you do, I suggest the first thing that needs to be done is nerfing missiles in the early game anyway, certainly not shields in the late game. Early game missiles are the most unbalanced thing ever, compared to other weapon options.
It's the same thing as for railguns and gauss, which becomes a better PD only at high tech level. It's the same thing for cloacking, which is basically useless at low tech levels. Every technological era will have options that are generally better or worse, but so long as all are viable, that's fine. No need to stress over it.