How should I deal with bad suggestions?

[sautedman]

Intuition really should not be the basis for decisions. Games are mechanical and don't use intuition. You should use your knowledge of how the game works to present a reasoned argument against a proposition. I know you are saying that you reply as fully as possible, but I can't count the number of times when it hasn't been sufficient.

Perhaps even worse is when you get into a discussion and then abandon it. This has happened a couple of times, and it feels like just as a point was getting made, you lost interest. If you would like examples, I can provide them.

Sure, examples would be nice.

Games may be mechanical, but they're usually complex enough that a certain level of intuition is required. Intuition, after all, is merely the ability to estimate the result of a series of complex computations without calculating the result by hand. If you disagree with my intuition that MG borgs should win against flamer borgs in a fight, you can always test it out yourself.

As for those cases where you feel there isn't anything more to say, dig a little deeper. There has to be a reason. If there isn't, you really shouldn't be knocking down.

How can there really by anything other than "I don't know how to do this", if it's something I don't know how to do?

On intuition: it is much more than the ability to estimate. It is an imprecise tool that is subject to the mood and prejudices of the person using it. If you want people to think you are fair, don't tell them "my gut tells me so".

In general: the burden of proof doesn't have to fall on you. You can ask the poster (the person who posts, not a thing on a wall...) to provide argumentation for their point, proving how it would not be redundant, overpowered or whatever other metatheoretical notions you think should be satisfied for improving the game.

On a tangent: can someone define "balance" for me? How do we know when it is acheived?

[Assault Gunner]

When every weapon, system, etc. has a counter, and the counter has a counter, ad infinitum, until we get back to the initial weapon. In other words, where nothing is overpowered against items of a similar tech level. EX: needle gun is overpowered against L. Cannon, but they are from two completely different tech levels. Balance is present.

Theoretical instance: Needle gun is overpowered vs. Plasmite Flamer. Balance is not present, as they are same tech level, but Plasmite flamer is a heavy weapon.

However, perfect balance is almost never achieved, yet we strive for it anyways.

Devs, please add on to my explanation, as I am fairly sure that it is not complete and may be incorrect in some instances.

[Zarel]

When every weapon, system, etc. has a counter, and the counter has a counter, ad infinitum, until we get back to the initial weapon. In other words, where nothing is overpowered against items of a similar tech level. EX: needle gun is overpowered against L. Cannon, but they are from two completely different tech levels. Balance is present.

That's pretty easy to do, btw. But no one likes playing Rock-Paper-Scissors, even though it's a game in which Rock, Paper, and Scissors are all balanced.

That's the first and only priority of balance - to make a game fun. It's important to make sure every weapon has a counter, but just doing that is not enough.

Theoretical instance: Needle gun is overpowered vs. Plasmite Flamer. Balance is not present, as they are same tech level, but Plasmite flamer is a heavy weapon.

Well, actually, plasmite flamer is a relatively light weapon (lighter than Light Cannon).

[Assault Gunner]

Whoops, bad example. But still, my point remains: balance is delicate, and it is important for a game to be fun(okay, second part just got added).

[lav_coyote25]

has this gone off topic.... i cant tell... O_O