Douglas Reichel, on 27 July 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:
So...I've noticed here and in a number of other threads people keep mentioning that weapons in mechs before a certain year were permanently mounted, and required special jury-rigging to remove and mount different weapons.
Unfortunately, as is the case with most Sci-Fi now, we've passed BT technology in certain areas, and the 'verse has to be updated to compensate, or it looks ********. Like how we have smartphones now that put both communicators and tricorders in Star Trek to shame.
Even in a worst case scenario, it's been a thousand years in the BT 'verse, there is no possible way their tech will ever be WORSE than what we have now, but yet still capable of building 'mechs and interstellar ships and advanced weapons. Those technologies require broad and cross-disciplinary sciences, and well established and advanced infrastructure to support.
Do I expect the game to be realistic? Well actually...yeah, I do. But I understand no game can be completely realistic...yet. But I do insist on at least a basic level of consistency in the story. If it's told from the perspective of being our future...then it has to abide by the fact that we can now do things they can't, meaning they MUST become able to do them, retroactively.
Hey...at least I'm not going on and on like I could about how PPCs should require ammo and how both they and Gauss weapons would both use microscopic ammo.
Hm...but the BT tech was and is totally unrealistic, measured on technology available now (2012) and considering what we know about possible technology like Energy Weapons. I loved BT/TT. But one must realize and accept that BT is actually some sort of better steampunk game with a lot of nice looks and effects (huge mechs, sizzling energy weapons) but almost nothing in the game makes sense if you look closer at it. It's all game mechanics not "world mechanics". If you would take the BT parameters and throw them into a compuer simulation, the whole thing would go down the drain completely.
So if you talk about realistic games, you should not even think about MWO. It works and is great fun, though, as long as you accept, that the mechanisms (especially mechlab) are GAME mechanics. They are red lines drawn by the "gamemasters", they are not the result of a complex but balanced "realistic" system of laws, a system that could evolve on it's own as soon as the gamemasters stop retuning it constantly.
The whole readout catalogues of TT were sort of a restrictions lawbook. They never presented a believable or even realistic system of working weapon systems. Every mech factory in the IS would have done what has been described her earlier with other games, that allowed free mech design without limitations other than tonnage and size. No mech designer would ever have created the 200 and something mech variants where every design was totally unflexible and you could not even change a small laser into a machinegun afterwards. In the end a set of about a dozen well working models would have been produced in greater numbers, combining speed, armor, damage output and so on. In games we are complainign about power gamers, if you think about it, in war every faction is a power gamer, you have to win! And you don't wnat to do it in a balanced, fair or nice way.
That's where all the problems arise... war is no
t about fun. And there would not be much fun in (really) realistic wargames either. No heroics, no daftness, no crash boom bang. Efficiency, cost reduction, actually power gaming, that is war. So you cannot ask for realism without power gaming (or with fun). That's my opinion, only