Lets talk Details

[Brian Lewis]

There is some information available about how you are planning on doing character development. You have stated that you are planning to use the Hero System. You have also given some information about what point levels you are planning for.

I have a bit of experience with the Hero System, and would like to discuss how you plan on dealing with some of the issues. Lets address them one at a time.

1. Equipment.
  This is a Mech Game, and you are using 150pt characters. Are you planning on making people pay for their mechs? Are you planning on just ignoring equipment? Are you planning on giving players a power pool for equipment?

2. Power-gaming.
  The hero system is extremely vulnerable to power-gaming techniques. The one thing that you can truly count on is that someone (like me) will come along and min-max the system. How 'limited' are you going to be on how players can use the system?

3. Clarity of Statement.  Note: Constructive Criticism, don't get offended.
  You have gone in to some general detail about the Hero System... However you were not very clear about what it is, how it works, and you brought in many different elements that are NOT part of that system. I understand that it is often harder to EXPLAIN how things work, than to just make them work (and show someone). I do not feel that you did yourself, or your game justice, and that some clear statements could really help others to understand the situation.

[Hamilton]

No problem with the criticism.  I would rather learn and know what players want now, while things are still early and can be changed.  Rather than after release when everything has been completed and is now difficult to make those changes that players want.

1. Equipment:
The current plan is this (notice the key word, "current"):
Characters are given $10,000 credits, which has the same buying power as $10,000 US Dollars in today's real-world.  Equipment will be purchased by credits and not be character points for the most part.  Some equipment, such as mind-implants may require both.
All characters are entitled to a starting unit (Mech, vehicle, etc) buy purchasing the required amount of character points for it.  This can be as low as 1 or 2 points up to and over 50 points.  This helps to offset the drastic amount of cost of a Mech (typical in the range of millions of credits) at start-up.  Mech acquired later on will not cost character points, only credits or by combat.
Personal equipment will be available.  Personal weapons are most likely going to use a detailed system for creation by players.  Instead of using character points, weapons will be created by the resources used, the level of technology available, character skills, barrel length, weapon features, weapon weight, ammunition type and size, etc.

2. Power-gaming:
Right you are with how the system can be abused.  For one example, I have been thinking of how to make DEX and Speed (SPD) not such a "must have max" values.  One possibility is that vehicles and Mechs have their own set of stats.  Of course, then players may elect to have low to average stats and then sink all of the points into skills.  So there most likely will be a maximum to skill levels.... but, then again, we could add in an advantage or Perk (for some additional character points) to allow the maximum skill level to be exceeded.  This of course will result in what I call "Mech Slugs."  Characters who are hotshots inside of a Mech, but are a liability when outside of one (they have a better chance with their pistols of accidentally hitting their friends rather than the enemy).  I figure that will be a fair-trade off.
There will be a limitation on Powers, with the most part that no Powers will be available.  Some powers are too abusive, such as "Find Weakness".

3. Clarity
For legal purposes, we're not allowed to go into depth with the HERO System at this time.  I know this looks like an evasive answer a politician would say.  Another reason (which should read as more plausible) is that we're testing the HERO system, so changes do keep occurring.  One area are the Disadvantages and figuring out which ones can be programmed and which ones cannot.  Unfortunately most of the role-playing ones will not be possible to enforce (example: How does the computer know when a player is role-playing an over-confident character?)  Another possible change is the change up of character points from 75 Character Points and 75 Disadvantages to 100 Character Points and 50 Disadvantages.
Other Systems:
The Force of Arms Mech System was designed separately as its own system.  The problem with it, was it was a Mechanized Wargame with no role-playing capability.  A simple solution to using the HERO System would be to the Ultimate Vehicle Rules or the Robot Warriors Rules.  But neither one provides a good measure of weight, space, power, technology, maintenance, and cost.  I figure I could come up with some conversion to make that possible; but the Mechanized Wargame System already exists.  They was this system will be incorporated will be more of implementing House Rules for Mechanized Combat.  Personal Combat will be using the HERO System.
To provide a good level of detail for crafting, is most likely going to involve other systems, such as personal weapons.  Again this provides a measure for weight, space, level of technology and costs.

Did any of that help?

[Brian Lewis]

1. Equipment:
The current plan is this (notice the key word, "current"):
Characters are given $10,000 credits, which has the same buying power as $10,000 US Dollars in today's real-world.  Equipment will be purchased by credits and not be character points for the most part.  Some equipment, such as mind-implants may require both.
All characters are entitled to a starting unit (Mech, vehicle, etc) buy purchasing the required amount of character points for it.  This can be as low as 1 or 2 points up to and over 50 points.  This helps to offset the drastic amount of cost of a Mech (typical in the range of millions of credits) at start-up.  Mech acquired later on will not cost character points, only credits or by combat.
Personal equipment will be available.  Personal weapons are most likely going to use a detailed system for creation by players.  Instead of using character points, weapons will be created by the resources used, the level of technology available, character skills, barrel length, weapon features, weapon weight, ammunition type and size, etc.

You have specified two things, let me address each one separately.

First you state that you can buy mechs via points and/or cash. The problem is that points are a controlled asset, they are never lost. That means that any point investment can never be taken away (but can be temporarily neutralized by disadvantages). This makes obtaining the same things with both points and cash very unbalanced. Here is what I would suggest. Require that the players buy licences for mechs (with points). This requires some small point layout, and allows the players to expand their potential with growth. However it does not bring in the cash/point conflict. (As you cant lose your licence, but you can lose your mech).

Second, you have stated that equipment (to include mech's) is to be purchased via cash. This means that the power of the player is dependant on their IG earning potential... and not their point value. I have suggested that you use licences as a gating tool, similar to a power pool. You can also use expense as a negative skill modifier, so that more costly equipment requires higher skills to use at the same effectiveness. You also now have to be concerned about the IG economy, as this can effect the players performance, and results. What style are you looking at? Faucet/drain? Closed/Player Based?

2. Power-gaming:
Right you are with how the system can be abused.  For one example, I have been thinking of how to make DEX and Speed (SPD) not such a "must have max" values.  One possibility is that vehicles and Mechs have their own set of stats.  Of course, then players may elect to have low to average stats and then sink all of the points into skills.  So there most likely will be a maximum to skill levels.... but, then again, we could add in an advantage or Perk (for some additional character points) to allow the maximum skill level to be exceeded.  This of course will result in what I call "Mech Slugs."  Characters who are hotshots inside of a Mech, but are a liability when outside of one (they have a better chance with their pistols of accidentally hitting their friends rather than the enemy).  I figure that will be a fair-trade off.
There will be a limitation on Powers, with the most part that no Powers will be available.  Some powers are too abusive, such as "Find Weakness".

You are using a subset of the Hero Rules, to help avoid abuse. That is fully understandable. I would suggest that this be openly documented, as the more (and better) feedback you can get on this, the better your chances of avoiding problems.

In your example, you can use a variant of the vehicle rules (I assume you are treating the mech/character as a single entity during play for simplicity). Simply give the Mech its own stats (based on cost, gated by licences, and with negatives for skill use based on power levels), and only allow the player to react based on the SPD of the mech. You might allow non mech skill usage based on the character SPD (assuming it is higher), such as detections etc. However any movement, or actions would be restricted to the SPD of the mech. This allows players to hold their turns until the mech can react, or if they are fast enough, they can use one of their extra turns in-between.

3. Clarity
For legal purposes, we're not allowed to go into depth with the HERO System at this time.  I know this looks like an evasive answer a politician would say.  Another reason (which should read as more plausible) is that we're testing the HERO system, so changes do keep occurring.  One area are the Disadvantages and figuring out which ones can be programmed and which ones cannot.  Unfortunately most of the role-playing ones will not be possible to enforce (example: How does the computer know when a player is role-playing an over-confident character?)  Another possible change is the change up of character points from 75 Character Points and 75 Disadvantages to 100 Character Points and 50 Disadvantages.
Other Systems:
The Force of Arms Mech System was designed separately as its own system.  The problem with it, was it was a Mechanized Wargame with no role-playing capability.  A simple solution to using the HERO System would be to the Ultimate Vehicle Rules or the Robot Warriors Rules.  But neither one provides a good measure of weight, space, power, technology, maintenance, and cost.  I figure I could come up with some conversion to make that possible; but the Mechanized Wargame System already exists.  They was this system will be incorporated will be more of implementing House Rules for Mechanized Combat.  Personal Combat will be using the HERO System.
To provide a good level of detail for crafting, is most likely going to involve other systems, such as personal weapons.  Again this provides a measure for weight, space, level of technology and costs.

Did any of that help?

Simply stating that you are using a variant of the HERO System is a good start. Most people understand customization, and even those familiar with the rules, would understand how they would have to be tuned for any campaign. You have stated that you are under legal restrictions about discussing the Hero System. I assume that you are required to refer all technical details to the official site, and refer all discussion there.

I would suggest that you be clear about such limitations, and that you define what you can within those structures. It is not so much about giving away lots of information. It is more important to be clear about what you actually do say. If you would like help with that, I am sure you can find some volunteers (myself included).

[Hamilton]

You have specified two things, let me address each one separately.

First you state that you can buy mechs via points and/or cash. The problem is that points are a controlled asset, they are never lost. That means that any point investment can never be taken away (but can be temporarily neutralized by disadvantages). This makes obtaining the same things with both points and cash very unbalanced. Here is what I would suggest. Require that the players buy licences for mechs (with points). This requires some small point layout, and allows the players to expand their potential with growth. However it does not bring in the cash/point conflict. (As you cant lose your licence, but you can lose your mech).

I would agree with this, but we still haven't solved the issue of what happens if a player looses their first and only Mech (ie: Mechless).  Granted this should occur, but it really is no longer fun to work at that 9-5 job earning low wages to get money again to buy a Mech.  But maybe that should be the real deal and allow for some second chances, such as entering the arena to win a good deal of money or some high risk missions on foot.
So for right now, the starting Mech is considered as a vehicle that cannot be lost (can be in a state of repairs however) nor transfered.  So in that sense it would cost character points.  This adds in a safety net, but also makes the game less realistic.

Second, you have stated that equipment (to include mech's) is to be purchased via cash. This means that the power of the player is dependant on their IG earning potential... and not their point value. I have suggested that you use licences as a gating tool, similar to a power pool. You can also use expense as a negative skill modifier, so that more costly equipment requires higher skills to use at the same effectiveness. You also now have to be concerned about the IG economy, as this can effect the players performance, and results. What style are you looking at? Faucet/drain? Closed/Player Based?

Mech Certifications are to be used.  Right now they are at 3 Character Points for each specific Mech Series.  A pilot can still use any Mech, but without a Certification has penalties (-2 to skills) and limited capabilities (no special maneuvers).
We could about doing the same for other items, though I think Familiarizations would cover that.
For the economy...  that is a good question.  Basically it is to be one to support individual effort and prevent power-boosting of new players.

In your example, you can use a variant of the vehicle rules (I assume you are treating the mech/character as a single entity during play for simplicity). Simply give the Mech its own stats (based on cost, gated by licences, and with negatives for skill use based on power levels), and only allow the player to react based on the SPD of the mech. You might allow non mech skill usage based on the character SPD (assuming it is higher), such as detections etc. However any movement, or actions would be restricted to the SPD of the mech. This allows players to hold their turns until the mech can react, or if they are fast enough, they can use one of their extra turns in-between.

I believe that will be the case.

Simply stating that you are using a variant of the HERO System is a good start. Most people understand customization, and even those familiar with the rules, would understand how they would have to be tuned for any campaign. You have stated that you are under legal restrictions about discussing the Hero System. I assume that you are required to refer all technical details to the official site, and refer all discussion there.

Give me a bit of time and I'll find a way to allow for some discussions.  And by time, Am referring to about a day; not a couple of weeks....

[Robgoblin]

I read this all and nothing personal against Brian but sounds like a rules lawyer. There is a use for such people though some rub people the wrong way. I only know of one at the moment that bothers me and that is because he uses it to his advantage as a player and DM. He will push DMs when playing as a player and that is wrong. Most games state the GM has the right to make the final decision. I might not like everything the devs are planning but they are the GM and gets to decide how it works with the final say.

I hate min/max usage and like the ideas to stop that. Taking out the easily taken disadvantages makes sense.

I like the points being used to purchase vehicle or battle armor. This makes it a dual advantage/disadvantage. Generally speaking might not be able to lose character points but as I said about the devs having the final say by being the GMs that is a wonderful thought. It is a great advantage to take it at the start but if loss of such property would make it a disadvantage. Guess this is why insurance and such is something that has already been stated. There are many home grown games using gaming systems and if HERO is alright with the devs making house rules that is great with me. This actually makes me think of being a soldier attempting to earn a Mech. Probably have 2 characters if more than one slot is available. I want to do some Mech stuff at first but the idea of taking a character and earning a Mech in game seems like a lot of fun.

I don't like the idea of licenses. This seems to restrict players much more than keeping an open game. This is not a game that is going by strict rules of the HERO system or it would not work. Putting licenses into the game will help make it where there are templates that players release that are the optimal builds and other builds will have severe disadvantages. I prefer the much more open build that allows one to grow how one wants without having to be an optimal build. If licenses were included then would only be fair if was included for all fields. That includes the diplomacy and engineering fields. From what I read everyone has the ability to do everything if they take the time to. Adding licenses would make that much more difficult if not impossible for some.
I think the cheap Certificates is fine but they need to be including for everything. That would show someone spent the time learning and investing in it. I don't see a pilot with the mechanic skill doing a great job at working on the Mech though a pilot who took some courses rather than just picked up watching mechanics would have a chance of doing more. Same with diplomacy. One has to learn how to do that and not offend or at least upset too much other people.

[Brian Lewis]

I would agree with this, but we still haven't solved the issue of what happens if a player looses their first and only Mech (ie: Mechless).  Granted this should occur, but it really is no longer fun to work at that 9-5 job earning low wages to get money again to buy a Mech.  But maybe that should be the real deal and allow for some second chances, such as entering the arena to win a good deal of money or some high risk missions on foot.
So for right now, the starting Mech is considered as a vehicle that cannot be lost (can be in a state of repairs however) nor transferred.  So in that sense it would cost character points.  This adds in a safety net, but also makes the game less realistic.

This makes sense. If you are going to prevent the loss of their 'original' chassis, then paying points for it is reasonable. Let me suggest a fiction to support this:

By common consensus, all  mech chassis are registered, and tracked. No one may take possession of another's chassis. This prevents the theft of another mech, and prevents them from getting into inappropriate hands. This does NOT mean that the parts may not be stripped, only that the chassis may not be claimed.

This means that if you are defeated in battle, you can never lose your chassis, but you can have all your parts stripped. It is therefore in your best interest to claim the wreck ASAP, to minimize any looting of the mech. This also means that all stripping has to be done in the field, and that qualified staff and equipment (to haul it off) must be available to do this.

Mech Certifications are to be used.  Right now they are at 3 Character Points for each specific Mech Series.  A pilot can still use any Mech, but without a Certification has penalties (-2 to skills) and limited capabilities (no special maneuvers).
We could about doing the same for other items, though I think Familiarization's would cover that.
For the economy...  that is a good question.  Basically it is to be one to support individual effort and prevent power-boosting of new players.

In the example given above, all mech chassis are purchased via points, whereas all the equipment is purchased via cash. This prevents players from gaining a lot of money, and buying a lot of mechs. Without something like this, then there will be a tendency to have as many mechs as possible. You have to decide if you want the focus to be in quality or quantity, and then support that with game system rules, and the depth of equipment. (i.e. do you want more mech types, or more equipment types).

With the option to use cash to get bigger and better things (i.e. the equipment is not gated by availability, but rather by expense). there will be a natural desire to farm cash. In a closed loop economy, someones gain, is someone else's loss. This means you must have a very good economy structure, and it is very complex. In the classic faucet/drain economy you can get around the complexity by gating the cash flow with the NPC's.

In all honestly, unless you have already planned for a closed economy, and are up for that type of thing, you should go with the faucet/drain. Closed economies are something that has to be integral to the game by design... and are not something you can add later.

Give me a bit of time and I'll find a way to allow for some discussions.  And by time, Am referring to about a day; not a couple of weeks....

Understood. You have to realize that most people coming here will have no idea of the Hero System, and wont follow the link. There needs to be some layman's explanations, and these discussions can lead to a FAQ for this stuff.

I read this all and nothing personal against Brian but sounds like a rules lawyer. There is a use for such people though some rub people the wrong way. I only know of one at the moment that bothers me and that is because he uses it to his advantage as a player and DM. He will push DMs when playing as a player and that is wrong. Most games state the GM has the right to make the final decision. I might not like everything the devs are planning but they are the GM and gets to decide how it works with the final say.

At this time I am most definitely a rules lawyer. This is the time and place to be one. This game is being built, and if we don't ask the hard questions now... then everyone will pay for it later. I know that they don't have all the answers at this point... but I am going to take advantage of the fact that they have the time to discuss these things now. I hope that we can hammer out some basics that will turn into a FAQ, and will make this all much more clear for those that come after.

I hate min/max usage and like the ideas to stop that. Taking out the easily taken disadvantages makes sense.

The one thing you can be sure of is that someone will take advantage of every system. Every game has undesirable behaviors (Kill Stealing, Gold Farming, etc), the key is to address those early in the development, so that they are not viable when the game is released.

I like the points being used to purchase vehicle or battle armor. This makes it a dual advantage/disadvantage. Generally speaking might not be able to lose character points but as I said about the devs having the final say by being the GMs that is a wonderful thought. It is a great advantage to take it at the start but if loss of such property would make it a disadvantage. Guess this is why insurance and such is something that has already been stated. There are many home grown games using gaming systems and if HERO is alright with the devs making house rules that is great with me. This actually makes me think of being a soldier attempting to earn a Mech. Probably have 2 characters if more than one slot is available. I want to do some Mech stuff at first but the idea of taking a character and earning a Mech in game seems like a lot of fun.

Consistency is key in a game. Inconsistency's will be taken advantage of. If you could purchase mech's with either points or money, then someone would start with points, rack up as much 'value' as possible, then kill off the character, so that he can use the money to buy a mech with the next character. This nets them the advantages of both. This is but one (of many) examples of how this would be abused. The one thing that computer games don't have is intelligent moderation. Someone will always try to work the system.

I don't like the idea of licenses. This seems to restrict players much more than keeping an open game. This is not a game that is going by strict rules of the HERO system or it would not work. Putting licenses into the game will help make it where there are templates that players release that are the optimal builds and other builds will have severe disadvantages. I prefer the much more open build that allows one to grow how one wants without having to be an optimal build. If licenses were included then would only be fair if was included for all fields. That includes the diplomacy and engineering fields. From what I read everyone has the ability to do everything if they take the time to. Adding licenses would make that much more difficult if not impossible for some.
I think the cheap Certificates is fine but they need to be including for everything. That would show someone spent the time learning and investing in it. I don't see a pilot with the mechanic skill doing a great job at working on the Mech though a pilot who took some courses rather than just picked up watching mechanics would have a chance of doing more. Same with diplomacy. One has to learn how to do that and not offend or at least upset too much other people.

Licences and Certificates are used to prevent players from doing something without first spending points. They do not have to be specific, they can be very generic. For example, you could have licences for 0-100T vehicles, 101-200T vehicles, 201-300T vehicles. These are broad enough that players will eventually want all of them, but are effective in keeping new players from being overly broad.

[Robgoblin]

I like the points being used to purchase vehicle or battle armor. This makes it a dual advantage/disadvantage. Generally speaking might not be able to lose character points but as I said about the devs having the final say by being the GMs that is a wonderful thought. It is a great advantage to take it at the start but if loss of such property would make it a disadvantage. Guess this is why insurance and such is something that has already been stated. There are many home grown games using gaming systems and if HERO is alright with the devs making house rules that is great with me. This actually makes me think of being a soldier attempting to earn a Mech. Probably have 2 characters if more than one slot is available. I want to do some Mech stuff at first but the idea of taking a character and earning a Mech in game seems like a lot of fun.

Consistency is key in a game. Inconsistency's will be taken advantage of. If you could purchase mech's with either points or money, then someone would start with points, rack up as much 'value' as possible, then kill off the character, so that he can use the money to buy a mech with the next character. This nets them the advantages of both. This is but one (of many) examples of how this would be abused. The one thing that computer games don't have is intelligent moderation. Someone will always try to work the system.

I like the idea of points buying a Mech during character creation. I see no problem with being able to later buy a Mech with money earned. It has already been said that Mechs will not be cheap so will need a very large amount of capital to buy one. If one does not purchase at the start then one would have to join the military arm of a corp to even have much chance of being in one and it has been said that with being a pilot in such a way that could get promoted/demoted. There might be some dieing and inheritance happening but I would hope that there is no common banking between characters and if one has a death of a character then will already have some points taken at character creation to reflect upon what inheritance there is. With the way the game is set up will require a lot to get a character to die. Deleting a character should delete everything they have as well.

[Brian Lewis]

I like the idea of points buying a Mech during character creation. I see no problem with being able to later buy a Mech with money earned. It has already been said that Mechs will not be cheap so will need a very large amount of capital to buy one. If one does not purchase at the start then one would have to join the military arm of a corp to even have much chance of being in one and it has been said that with being a pilot in such a way that could get promoted/demoted. There might be some dieing and inheritance happening but I would hope that there is no common banking between characters and if one has a death of a character then will already have some points taken at character creation to reflect upon what inheritance there is. With the way the game is set up will require a lot to get a character to die. Deleting a character should delete everything they have as well.

Whatever the system ends up as... it has to be realized that people are going to abuse it. The example I gave is but one... and I have already thought of more. The reality is that this game is at the point of rules design. Simple, elegant designs are the least vulnerable to abuse. There is no wrong choice... only uninformed choices. If we can help by being the devils advocate, then they can decide how they want the game to work (with full understanding of both the positive and negative).

We also have to recognize that many of the answers are "I don't know". At this time all we can do is map out some intentions... how things turn out may be totally different. The reason I am asking pointed questions, is to fill in some of the unknowns. The actual game mechanics may change, but the desired effect can be laid out.

[Hamilton]

A lot of good stuff here...
I may end up posting more than once, to say time and prevent an accidentally deletion of a long post.

I only know of one at the moment that bothers me and that is because he uses it to his advantage as a player and DM. He will push DMs when playing as a player and that is wrong. Most games state the GM has the right to make the final decision.

Heh, Am a rulebook lawyer too, but not at the point of wanting to stop the action of a RPG session to debate the rules (wargames are a different issue).  I go by what the GM/DM says, even if not by the rules, well <blank> happens.  Now if Am the GM and have to deal with a rulebook lawyer, then I let them give their point once (perhaps it was an oversight on my part), but if I don't agree with it, then I end it there.  Welp, that may be how you play it, but this is what happened.  We'll talk about it later, but for now, this is how it is going to be played out. What? Your character was designed specifically for that reason?  Well, sorry your character is just having one of those bad days.

This makes sense. If you are going to prevent the loss of their 'original' chassis, then paying points for it is reasonable. Let me suggest a fiction to support this:

By common consensus, all  mech chassis are registered, and tracked. No one may take possession of another's chassis. This prevents the theft of another mech, and prevents them from getting into inappropriate hands. This does NOT mean that the parts may not be stripped, only that the chassis may not be claimed.

This means that if you are defeated in battle, you can never lose your chassis, but you can have all your parts stripped. It is therefore in your best interest to claim the wreck ASAP, to minimize any looting of the mech. This also means that all stripping has to be done in the field, and that qualified staff and equipment (to haul it off) must be available to do this.
...
In the example given above, all mech chassis are purchased via points, whereas all the equipment is purchased via cash. This prevents players from gaining a lot of money, and buying a lot of mechs. Without something like this, then there will be a tendency to have as many mechs as possible. You have to decide if you want the focus to be in quality or quantity, and then support that with game system rules, and the depth of equipment. (i.e. do you want more mech types, or more equipment types).

I think you're on to something with this.  Taking something such as the VIN number of motor vehicles and how they are registered and insured. 

[Hamilton]

Economy:
The Economy is considered primarily an open one, but is regulated.  Say like an economy that is operated by a socialist form of government.
The restriction is with trading between players, but of course there must be a form of trade to be allowed for those players preferring to be engineers or merchants; as well as, those who like to paid for services (such as escorting or smuggling).  The purpose of the restriction is prevent veteran accounts from handing over a significant portion of their earnings to a new account.  Well I should say is more of enforcement.  People in nature just don't hand over a spare car to someone they do not know well; even if that person owns seven cars and can buy another one at a whim.  Now that person may by a car for a relative or a well known friend, but rarely an outsider.

Items or services are to be exchanged at fair-market prices (which can fluctuate), with some deviation allowed.  The downside to this, is that a crafter type player cannot charge high some of credits for a given widget  The maximum/minimum would be determined by some factors (quality, supply, demand, time, resources/costs, etc).

[Brian Lewis]

A lot of good stuff here...
I may end up posting more than once, to say time and prevent an accidentally deletion of a long post.

This is clearly an attempt to artificially increase your post count...

I think you're on to something with this.  Taking something such as the VIN number of motor vehicles and how they are registered and insured. 

I forget that you are a US based developer. I try to keep examples generic, because the market is international.

If the concept of a 'chassis' is implemented, where the framework is purchased with points, and all components are purchsased with money this shifts the focus from trying to get many mechs, to trying to maximize the mech's that you have. (Presuming that money is easier to get than points).

This  creates an enviornment where the components are a key element. This means that a light mech, with very high quality components might be better than a heavier mech with lower quality components.

Economy:
The Economy is considered primarily an open one, but is regulated.  Say like an economy that is operated by a socialist form of government.
The restriction is with trading between players, but of course there must be a form of trade to be allowed for those players preferring to be engineers or merchants; as well as, those who like to paid for services (such as escorting or smuggling).  The purpose of the restriction is prevent veteran accounts from handing over a significant portion of their earnings to a new account.  Well I should say is more of enforcement.  People in nature just don't hand over a spare car to someone they do not know well; even if that person owns seven cars and can buy another one at a whim.  Now that person may by a car for a relative or a well known friend, but rarely an outsider.

Items or services are to be exchanged at fair-market prices (which can fluctuate), with some deviation allowed.  The downside to this, is that a crafter type player cannot charge high some of credits for a given widget  The maximum/minimum would be determined by some factors (quality, supply, demand, time, resources/costs, etc).

What you are describing is the game fiction for your economy... not the mechanics. The reality is that you cant enforce a fiction... but you can enforce mechanics. As with all things, the designer can make the rules... but the players will use those rules as THEY see fit... not as the designer envisioned.

I am going to make some presumptions here... because you have not provided the information. If I am wrong, just say so.

What you will have is a faucet/drain economy. Money (and items) are gained from NPC's via missions. Players may spend their money to buy equipment from NPC's. Players may trade/sell equipment to each other (within limits), or to NPC's. Player crafting and services will exist, but not as the basis for the economy. The single largest economic problem for players will be balancing expenses vs earnings. Larger mechs (w/ more equipment) and higher quality equipment will provide advantages to players, but will also have increased repair costs.

Please feel free to clarify how this does not fit your vision of the economy.

[Hamilton]

This is clearly an attempt to artificially increase your post count...

Heh, I don't care much for post counts.
Do expect a number of postings from me today on this thread.  I'll be tackling it through the day.

[Hamilton]

“What you will have is a faucet/drain economy.”
Yes

“Money (and items) are gained from NPC's via missions.”
Essentially yes, money is entered into the environment from computer based controls*.  Player may earn money from other players through means of purchases of items or by services.

“Players may spend their money to buy equipment from NPC's.”
 Yes or by other computer based controls.

“Players may trade/sell equipment to each other (within limits), or to NPC's.”
Yes


“Player crafting and services will exist, but not as the basis for the economy.”
This is going to be needed to expanded on by another post.  Allowing players’ crafting and services to affect the economy is dependent on other sub-systems.

“The single largest economic problem for players will be balancing expenses vs earnings.”
Indeed, this is another topic to bring up.  There are four methods:
- Hands-off approach: Let the players deal with it, the developer’s will take no action
- Manual Adjustment: The Developers take an active means to make adjustments to the economy in a routine manner.  This requires more administrative work.
- Auto-balancing: The computer system takes an active step in making adjustments to the system on a daily basis.
- Hard Coded: The system is rarely adjusted with the developer’s making adjustments to a few values.

From a developer point of view, the Auto-Balancer looks the most attractive as automation leads to less administrative work.

“Larger mechs (w/ more equipment) and higher quality equipment will provide advantages to players, but will also have increased repair costs.”
Yes, also slower speeds (in terms of movement); and fuel consumption, transportation, storage and maintenance costs.

* Computer Based Controls will be in the form of NPC's, terminals, Communications (no need to go to a terminal, when you can use the radio), loot/salvage generation, random events, and gambling.