@LorenzoGatti Oh yeah, you definitely are right about that. Back then, I decided I wanted "the fastest" character, what ended up happening was my character could only move at top speed for 2-3 seconds before blowing up from the sheer heat cost of having the highest output boosters. Sure, anything could be dodged, but only in 1 second spurts. Normal boosting is usually continuous, lasting for 15 to 20 seconds on an efficiently built character before you stop to regain back lost energy. The "heat" mechanic was a "soft cap" to prevent people going all out in speed without paying the price in some way. I took the niche anyway and was able to build a viable play style that allowed me to beat any but the most competitive of players. I miss games like that, which let you build your own stats within their system, and the "cost" of all your actions would be determined based on numerical values that gave pros and cons to your character. They probably did tweak an initial formula and play tested the game enough that they determined the high speed from a 29,000 output booster was worth the high drain{and heat}. Maybe the original formula gave it a lower cost, but after much testing, they tweaked some variable to increase the cost non-linearly the higher it went. {11,000 output gave about 210 to 270 kph speed while 22,000 output on the same character gave 530 kph, roughtly around those areas.}
@Kylotan Oh in the case of RTS, i can't imagine there would be any sort of linear formula that could balance unit stats. For example, I like how they determined 100 mineral cost gave either 4 zerglings at 35 hp, 5 damage melee, 2 marines at 40 hp, 6 damage with range, and 1 Zealot, with 60 shields, 100 hp, and 16 damage melee{delivered in bursts of 8 damage, which means 1 armor would be -2 to the 16.} To have figured that out I imagine they pitted these units against each other in various situations. At choke points, open areas, hit and run, and all other sorts of strategies that a single unit can accomplish.
Yes, I can't imagine a formula to create such results. I was thinking more along the lines of a game like Armored Core, where certain areas can be tweaked seperately from others{and each area is simple to understand, but when all are combined, creates for a complex game}, for example, I can imagine projectiles getting their own tuning/editing, to increase their velocity yet decrease damage at same cost, or increase all stats, but the cost of it going up immensely, with the design idea for such a move being "Betting it all in one shot", which is probably the motto for why a formula increases cost of higher stat things more than when they are lower dis-proportionally.
Well, in RTS, I guess if you could edit their stats, it would either effect the cost or stats, but since a single unit doesn't have a linear function like a projectile or boosting in a physics based game, you have to consider all the possible outcomes for that single unit in various situations, which is what makes it hard to balance. The very nature of current RTS is the reason why stats have to be play tested in order for them to be balanced.
Usually the source of inbalance is "infinity" in some aspect of the game. Remove it and you should be able to create a game that can eventually have even a formula for determining the constant cost of motion. {But I think there is some confusion, I just want to emphasize, I'm talking about action games with stats, constant motion, and constant draining of a meter as important aspects within the game, which allows the possibility of the exploration of "energy loss".