13 replies to this topic

[Seanamal]

STOP. Just STOP.

I am putting a further ban on:

1: Comparing any aspect of in game physical science ( How ECM works, Lasers work, ballistics work, etc.) to REAL WORLD SCIENCE and/or technology.

Virtually nothing in this game resembles how it would work in the real world. Making any such comparison is patently absurd. If you even try to argue this point I will make sure you do not further contaminate the genepool.

2: Comparing Gameplay elements of the Tabletop game to Mechwarrior Online.

One is a turn based strategy game that uses two six sided dies for randomization. The other is a full speed quasi-simulation of giant robot combat. You are comparing Risk by Hasbro to ARMA 2. It is ridiculous to compare the two.

I've been guilty of offense two, but usually as a counter argument to someone else quoting TT rules. That said It has to stop. Make arguments about gameplay elements in terms of how they affect play. Not "how it's supposed to be."

[Kaspirikay]

I am Kaspirikay and I approve of this post.

[DocBach]

Seanamal, on 24 February 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

STOP. Just STOP.

I am putting a further ban on:

1: Comparing any aspect of in game physical science ( How ECM works, Lasers work, ballistics work, etc.) to REAL WORLD SCIENCE and/or technology.

Virtually nothing in this game resembles how it would work in the real world. Making any such comparison is patently absurd. If you even try to argue this point I will make sure you do not further contaminate the genepool.

2: Comparing Gameplay elements of the Tabletop game to Mechwarrior Online.

One is a turn based strategy game that uses two six sided dies for randomization. The other is a full speed quasi-simulation of giant robot combat. You are comparing Risk by Hasbro to ARMA 2. It is ridiculous to compare the two.

I've been guilty of offense two, but usually as a counter argument to someone else quoting TT rules. That said It has to stop. Make arguments about gameplay elements in terms of how they affect play. Not "how it's supposed to be."

The ECM rules from the tabletop could easily be implemented in this game, and it'd make it better not because "thats how its suppose to be," but because it'd add actual layers to information warfare beyond just ECM. Right now information warfare is ECM, tag and.... PPCs?

I guess suggesting that Beagle get a boost to match its board game capabilities should be null and void. I mean, who'd want active radar that can locate targets out of line of sight? How could that even be implemented?

[Seanamal]

DocBach, on 24 February 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

The ECM rules from the tabletop could easily be implemented in this game, and it'd make it better not because "thats how its suppose to be," but because it'd add actual layers to information warfare beyond just ECM. Right now information warfare is ECM, tag and.... PPCs?

I guess suggesting that Beagle get a boost to match its board game capabilities should be null and void. I mean, who'd want active radar that can locate targets out of line of sight? How could that even be implemented?

You are proving my point.

[DocBach]

....actually, disproving. Do you even know anything about how the board game handled electronic warfare?

And don't copy paste entries from sarna.net.

[Tennex]

how about comparing what ECM does for 1.5 tons. to other items of equal tonnage.

like the BAP, the AMS. ECM is clearly inbalanced.


quoting TT is just a proposed solution. and it just so happened that in TT,, ECM wasn't wildly OP. or any other mw game for that matter

Edited by Tennex, 24 February 2013 - 06:08 PM.

[Royalewithcheese]

I dunno what you're talking about, GIANT WALKING ROBOTS SHOOTAN BALLS OF LIGHTNING is totally a realistic simulation of the weapons that the human race will fight with in the 31st century.

[Adrienne Vorton]

Royalewithcheese, on 24 February 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

a realistic simulation of the weapons that the human race will fight with in the 31st century.

there won´t be any humans fighting in 31st century anyway...

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 24 February 2013 - 06:13 PM.

[Seanamal]

Tennex, on 24 February 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

how about comparing what ECM does for 1.5 tons. to other items of equal tonnage.

like the BAP, the AMS. ECM is clearly inbalanced.

This is a rational argument. I disagree, but continue.

Tennex, on 24 February 2013 - 05:52 PM, said:

quoting TT is just a proposed solution. and it just so happened that in TT,, ECM wasn't wildly OP. or any other mw game for that matter

This is where you compare an apple to the Demon Core, because they are both roughly the same shape and dimensions.

FAIL

[GoManGo]

I need to ask a question about ECM mechs.I just changed my catapult C4 from ssrm6 to 4 streak2 but I can be nose to nose with some mechs and it wont lock even if I have them targeted? is it the ECM? I mean it makes my streak2's pretty useless.

[Seanamal]

GoManGo, on 24 February 2013 - 06:37 PM, said:

I need to ask a question about ECM mechs.I just changed my catapult C4 from ssrm6 to 4 streak2 but I can be nose to nose with some mechs and it wont lock even if I have them targeted? is it the ECM? I mean it makes my streak2's pretty useless.

Assuming you are not trolling, YES this is most likely due to ECM. Streak short range missiles aka SSRMs, not to be confused with conventional short range missiles aka SRMs, possess a guidance system that once locked on guarantees a hit. This system can be jammed however by ECM. This works as intended due to people loading up on streaks and auto hitting as long as they could keep the enemy in front of them.

[GoManGo]

Thanks seanamal I truly did not understand how well ECM worked but thanks for the reply it just shocked me when im 10-50 meters away and could not get a lock with my streaks.Also I did not know the lock is also broke when the enemy mech is shut down and you have to retarget them and relock the streaks .Hey thanks again for the reply.

Edited by GoManGo, 24 February 2013 - 07:03 PM.

[Fabe]

Seanamal, on 24 February 2013 - 05:04 PM, said:

STOP. Just STOP.

I am putting a further ban on:

1: Comparing any aspect of in game physical science ( How ECM works, Lasers work, ballistics work, etc.) to REAL WORLD SCIENCE and/or technology.

Virtually nothing in this game resembles how it would work in the real world. Making any such comparison is patently absurd. If you even try to argue this point I will make sure you do not further contaminate the genepool.

2: Comparing Gameplay elements of the Tabletop game to Mechwarrior Online.

One is a turn based strategy game that uses two six sided dies for randomization. The other is a full speed quasi-simulation of giant robot combat. You are comparing Risk by Hasbro to ARMA 2. It is ridiculous to compare the two.

I've been guilty of offense two, but usually as a counter argument to someone else quoting TT rules. That said It has to stop. Make arguments about gameplay elements in terms of how they affect play. Not "how it's supposed to be."

Well I can agree with you on the first point trying to add realism in a game like this is almost laughable . As for the second point while I agree there is a difference between table top and a video game I don't think we should completely ignore TT. While we might not always be able to port it over 100% it can still be useful as a rough guild.

[Amity45]

Risk and Arma 2 have nothing to do with each other.

This game is a computer simulation of the tabletop game. If it's simulating the world created by the tabletop game ... wouldn't it make sense to compare the simulator to the fiction it is supposedly simulating?

Video games are supposed to have reasonably predictable outcomes to player actions. If equipment's operation doesn't resemble a possible reality, how could its operation be predictable to a reasonable person?