468 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Tombstoner, on 02 April 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

This question was asked by
Syllogy, on 27 March 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:
If slapping a modifier on a pilot is so easy, what is my modifier vs. yours?

I provided a way to abstract TT gunnery onto real world gunnery.

I understood that was what you were doing.

I was addressing the idea in general that there should be a modifier added to someone's shots that, in the TT, represent the Pilot's human gunnery skill. You never know when someone will selectively skim a post and get a wrong idea from it...

Those things should not be ported over in an MW video game; especially not considering that all of the things that make up gunnery skill in a BTU mech are doable from a PC.

Quote

First part... not every thing in TT that works well and makes for a great TT experience, would translate into awesome game play for a FPS. strict adherence to TT is not a good idea.

Ok, what parts (besides those that simulate the pilot's human skill, which we ALL agree should be left out) "wouldn't translate" ?

Quote

Second part.... please list any claims that need backing up and any words you find ambiguous. I will attempt to expand on my meaning for greater clarity.

It was a general comment not directed at you in particular. But I'm happy to see at least ONE person posting as if they care what other people actually mean (instead of like some others in this thread, who make false assumptions, jump on the caps button, and start flaming).

Quote

Piloting skill roles have effectively been removed form the game for good reason. But it left a hole in game balance, specifically in the heat table aspect of heat management. I cant see a useful translation for MWO.

Are you referring to the avoid rolls on the heatscale? Those don't involve the neurohelmet, so we can do anything "with the mech" that the pilot can do in the fictional lore.

Quote

Gunnery skill roles have been abstracted into player skill. This again leaves a hole in game balance. One that is currently filled by double armor. but adds in the ability to utilize convergence with little to no penalty. a huge flaw in my opinion.

There's nothing abstract about it - we can, with our computer controls and information from our computers, do everthing that the MW does that makes up "gunnery skills" in a battlemech. This is one of the reasons it's possible to pull the other combat mechanics that *don't* represent player skill into the real-time first person armored combat format that MW is.

[blinkin]

Pht, on 03 April 2013 - 10:32 AM, said:

I'm the one immune to logic?

What do you call this:



... ?

Do you really expect us to accept your conclusion that you have been operating on, that "asking what parts of something are broken" is the SAME THING as "asking someone to prove the imperfection of the tt?"

You can not have gotten your basic conclusion here from the text of my post - you had to add it with no justifcation from my posts.

Yet you feel safe accusing me of being a "moron" and "Immune to logic" when virtually your entire argument with me has been based upon a "moronic" and illogical conclusion you falsely inferred from my posts... when all you had to do was ask what I meant BEFORE you turned on the all-screaming caps button on your flamethrower.

vv

blinkin, on 23 March 2013 - 12:20 AM, said:

the ignorant extremists on both ends make this debate awesome.

HIM: ALL THINGS MUST BE TABLE TOP RULES EVERYTHING ELSE IS BROKEN!!!11!!!!111!!1

YOU: ANYTHING THAT HAS TO DO WITH TABLE TOP RUINS THE GAME!!!!!111!!!!!!11!!!!1!!

this game is based on the original table top rules. all mechwarrior games have drawn from table top, some more than others.

BUT

table top is itself broken in many respects. my brother attempted to balance some of the issues with the game, and a friend of ours looked at the notebook my brother had been using. he described it as "the rantings of a mad man".



so how about we stop making sweeping generalizations like morons, and take the parts that work while abandoning the parts that don't. stop throwing out things off hand because they are somehow related to table top, and stop assuming that table top is the pure essence of a perfect game.

you attacked me for making a basic call to reason. i am sorry that reason is so offensive to you.

you have been trying to hammer a moronic point home because you were offended that i suggested that just maybe TT needed some improvement. i am not going to bother trying to defend the little anecdote i threw in for flavor. the story about the notebook DOES NOT MATTER. i never put any emphasis on it.

i do not have PDF filese stored on multiple hard drives of the notebook nor do i have a recorded quote of what our friend said in response. you are either incredibly dumb (not ruling this out especially with the mounting evidence) or you are using underhanded arguing tactics to draw attention away from the argument that really matters. <-neither case earns you anything but my disdain.

imperfect thing (like table top) have flaws. there are aspects of tabletop that are not fun. there are parts that just outright don't make sense, the whole frigging concept of giant robots fighting ground wars.

FLAWED IMPERFECT THINGS HAVE BROKEN PARTS or FLAWS. i am sorry you cannot recognize such a simple truism. i have no interest in proving basic truisms true for you any more.

SO FOR THE THOUSANDTH TIME, MY MAIN POINT IS:
so how about we stop making sweeping generalizations like morons, and take the parts that work while abandoning the parts that don't. stop throwing out things off hand because they are somehow related to table top, and stop assuming that table top is the pure essence of a perfect game.

i was attempting to use the flamethrower to burn away the stupid, but the infestation is far too pervasive. i am sorry, but you cannot be saved.

Edited by blinkin, 03 April 2013 - 11:02 AM.

[Pht]

Tombstoner, on 03 April 2013 - 05:09 AM, said:

Sadly it really doesn't matter what we think on this topic. PGI is set to leave BETA and unless the entire community is up in arms over something like ECM and cool shots noting will change. The things that concern me are fixed and its why this game is becoming MW4O.

The only thing that will change their minds for sure, that we know if, is hitting them in the wallet.

If you really, really have a problem with what they're doing.

Play on their servers as much as possible... but don't pay for a darned thing... and AFTER you have started doing so, make sure they know it... and than... KEEP IT UP... and while doing so, make certain to warn away any potential paying players from the game who would only otherwise be interested in playing AND paying if you mentioned it to them.

Drive their costs up... and tell them why you're doing it.

We've made and are continuing to make the counter-arguments to the way they've ignored and/or misinterpreted the combat mechanics from the TT and thus given us a game that's messed up and NOT mechwarrior in anything but visual, audio, storyline, and mech-movement performance.

The Mechs in MWO don't equate into the combat in anything but the slightest way, when they should equate into the game ... no, they should virtually BE the game - skill in 'Mech piloting and 'Mech gunnery - not skill in manipulating a slightly slower reticule for some of your weapons.

This has been pointed out time and time again and rather rigorously demonstrated over and over, and by all appearances - from what we can see - the developers are ignorant of this fact, or they know of it and don't agree (and I will say, at least ONE of them knows it, and copped-out on discussing it... you know who you are) and refuse to discuss their disagreements... or, they simply know, and don't give a darn.

I would love to be actually and validly proven wrong on this last point. They were making sounds like they actually realized these problems and wanted to fix them, some time back.

I'm wondering what, if anything, has changed, or how they could have been saying those things and than come to nearly opposite actions to those required by the way they were talking of how they wanted to get MW right this time around.

Edited by Pht, 03 April 2013 - 11:09 AM.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 03 April 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

you attacked me for making a basic call to reason.

I have not. I have attacked you because you make statements that are BASIC and foundational to your "call to reason" which you flatly refuse to discuss, and because you have decided that I meant something by my questions that I flatly said, repeatedly, that I did not, and than used those false conclusions to flame, instead of engaging in honest discussion.

Quote

you have been trying to hammer a moronic point home because you were offended that i suggested that just maybe TT needed some improvement.

I have not been "hammering you" because you said that the TT is imperfect and could be improved.

I have been hammering you because you won't even discuss what you think could USE IMPROVEMENT.

Quote

i am not going to bother trying to defend the little anecdote i threw in for flavor. the story about the notebook DOES NOT MATTER. i never put any emphasis on it.

Even ignoring the notebook the questions still stand - you say things can be improved - that things are broken (and you have poted this repeatedly) - and you refuse to discuss what could or should be improved. Instead, you do the type version of screaming and having a temper tantrum and than start calling people names that don't apply.

Quote

... or you are using underhanded arguing tactics to draw attention away from the argument that really matters.

So, pointing out that you say things that require you to have some basic knowledge, pointing out that you're begging people to realize some things are broken, and could be improved ... and than pointing out that you flatly refuse to discuss those things... this is underhanded?

I have not misquoted you or taken anything you've posted out of context or called you any names that you did not earn for yourself by your repetitive behavior.

Quote

FLAWED IMPERFECT THINGS HAVE BROKEN PARTS or FLAWS. i am sorry you cannot recognize such a simple truism.

Is it so HARD for you to realize that "asking what is broken"

IS NOT


"asking you to prove the tt is imperfect"

AND DOES NOT

require me to presume, as a premise of even asking the question, that the TT is perfect?

Especially when I have REPEATEDLY posted that I do not think the TT is perfect, and that I did not imply that the TT is perfect?

You said that the TT is imperfect and thus has broken parts. I AGREED WITH YOU ON THIS, AND HAVE DONE SO REPEATEDLY. I than asked you which parts you think are broken.

For which I get flamed and called names that don't apply!

Edited by Pht, 03 April 2013 - 11:22 AM.

[Anony Mouse]

1. Doubling Armor
Points per ton changes don't allow lights to carry any more than canon, comparatively speaking, the maximum armor tonnage is the same, thus the maximum armor points are equitable.

2. Tripling weapon RoF
Agree 100%, but its not TT so this was an inevitability. Poorly balanced with current heat setup.

3. No guidance on SRMs.
Agree 100%

4. Treating ECM like Stealth Armor, AECM, and a regular ECM all at the same time.
Agree 100%

5. Treating BAP as... a targeting system?
BAP does not counter or nullify ECM, it is in fact nullified by ECM, the only interaction between the two is BAPs awereness of being jammed.

6. Streak SRMs always hit.
SSRMs function perfectly speaking in regards to canon. Except the Guardian ECM does not effect them.

7. Unjammable U/AC-5s
Technically speaking if ultra class autocannon jams were canonical, they would never unjam. Be glad for this feature.

8. Machineguns not doing 2 damage.
Agree 100% They have tried to make machine guns function match its use in TT. Crit seekers. Which is lame and they need to go back to damage.

9. Less than Double Double Heat Sinks.
Agree its broken but not for your reasons. Simple fact of the matter the triple fail of RoF Heat capacity and heat disipation is a major hang up. The whole set up should be revised.

10. No heat scale effects.
Agreed but I do believe this a planned feature for some point, remember, in Beta.

Continue to ignore canon Piranha, I'm sure it will end up just as well as Duke Nukem Forever did.
Its already better than Duke Nukem Finally Forever, they'd have to... I don't know......come to each of our houses and kick us in the balls to make it as bad as Duke Nukem Forever.

Edited by Anony Mouse, 03 April 2013 - 11:33 AM.

[blinkin]

here is a list of all of the improvements that i have suggested in the past:
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 this did draw some basic inspiration from TT rules (the parts that work)
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 most certainly not related to TT although i have heard these effects are described in the BT fiction.
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 table top would have them jam once then you are screwed for the rest of the match.
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 BB is not TT but it is much needed player feedback
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 this was just an experiment i did to see if i could sway general opinions on the forums without any actual change
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 last i saw TT doesn't have any mech upkeep rules so extended campaigns are at best unrealistic
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 money is only mentioned as flavor text in TT and is not used in any major way.
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 TT has no accidental mech collisions, guess what ACCIDENTS HAPPEN.

so how about we stop making sweeping generalizations like morons, and take the parts that work while abandoning the parts that don't. stop throwing out things off hand because they are somehow related to table top, and stop assuming that table top is the pure essence of a perfect game.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 03 April 2013 - 11:37 AM, said:

here is a list of all of the improvements that i have suggested in the past:
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 this did draw some basic inspiration from TT rules (the parts that work)

Streaks would be fine if they behaved as they do in the lore and the TT rules; no hard lock when firing, no fire. If you have hard lock, they fire; and you can't aim the missiles at any particular part - they aim themselves, they're homing munitions.

Only advanced ECM should make streaks behave like regular SRMS.

Quote

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 most certainly not related to TT although i have heard these effects are described in the BT fiction.

Possibly worth testing, once major concerns about the lack of 'Mech simulation are addressed.

Quote

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 table top would have them jam once then you are screwed for the rest of the match.

Yes, and?

If crap happens ... um, crap happens... just not very often. You don't roll 2s very often. Besides which, the only times when you're really running a high risk of jamming in the TT is when you're asking your AC's to do something the weren't designed to do.

Quote

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 BB is not TT but it is much needed player feedback

BB is fine and a part of the lore. I presume you can even program the thing to your wants and needs in the lore.

Quote

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 this was just an experiment i did to see if i could sway general opinions on the forums without any actual change

While I don't agree on the idea that flamers are a part of information/e warfare, I do agree that they're not very well understood.

They're meant to either roast infantry, set fires, or add just enough heat to a mech with not much heat sink capacity to lower its ROF.

Quote

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 last i saw TT doesn't have any mech upkeep rules so extended campaigns are at best unrealistic

They exist. Where, exactly, I forget, but I have seen them. I'll go look through my books.

Quote

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 money is only mentioned as flavor text in TT and is not used in any major way.

In the TT combat game, no, not directly. However, pick up a mercs source book - money is insanely important. For instance, most small starting units can't even really afford dropship transportation and basically have to sell their souls to the company store.

Quote

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1 TT has no accidental mech collisions, guess what ACCIDENTS HAPPEN.

It does. The stacking rules, domino effect rules, the sliding/skidding rules, and even accidental fall from above rules... and I'm probably forgetting a few others.

Quote

so how about we stop making sweeping generalizations like morons,...

You keep repeating this and yet I've not been making any sweeping generalizations, moronic or otherwise.

Quote

...and take the parts that work while abandoning the parts that don't.

And when do we get to know what doesn't work? Or at least, what works? ... and God forbid, why things work or don't?

How can we even have this discussion when everyone flatly refuses to discuss in any sort of detail what's wrong... or even what's right?

[Gman1211]

"So you've ignored canon stats. How's that working out for you?"

Its working pretty damn well. Thanks for asking.

[blinkin]

Pht, on 03 April 2013 - 12:03 PM, said:

(random TT fanatacism BS)

how about you explain to me how a system as extensive as BT with god only knows how many books and rules, managed to make it through decades of iterations and changes WITHOUT breaking something. <-how about you defend your blind fanatacism.

you admit it isn't perfect but somehow nothing is broken, incomplete, flawed, or doesn't have any parts that don't work?

yes you are making moronic generalizations when you claim that nothing in BT is broken. it was made by people, people screw up on occasion. i am done trying to convince you that basic truisms are true, you are obviously far too stupid to grasp that basic logical concept.

this was intended to calm down the moronic tabletop fanatacism, and also get people to stop rejecting TT ideas without any justification. here is my simple basic call to reason:
so how about we stop making sweeping generalizations like morons, and take the parts that work while abandoning the parts that don't. stop throwing out things off hand because they are somehow related to table top, and stop assuming that table top is the pure essence of a perfect game.

Gman1211, on 03 April 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

"So you've ignored canon stats. How's that working out for you?"

Its working pretty damn well. Thanks for asking.

there are definitely kinks to work out, but the game is pretty fun.

i would like repair and rearm back though T-T

[Gman1211]

Ya I actually liked the repair and rearm, I made a lot more CB back then.

[CloaknDagger]

Anony Mouse, on 03 April 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

1. Doubling Armor
Points per ton changes don't allow lights to carry any more than canon, comparatively speaking, the maximum armor tonnage is the same, thus the maximum armor points are equitable.

2. Tripling weapon RoF
Agree 100%, but its not TT so this was an inevitability. Poorly balanced with current heat setup.

You can't double the armor and have everything else stay balanced. Doubling armor has a HUGE impact in weapon balance. The armor changes are almost as bad as the RoF changes.

Anony Mouse, on 03 April 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

9. Less than Double Double Heat Sinks.
Agree its broken but not for your reasons. Simple fact of the matter the triple fail of RoF Heat capacity and heat disipation is a major hang up. The whole set up should be revised.

Again, even if everything else is same as canon, this throws it out of whack completely once again. Weapons are made around 20 dissipation base + 1 ton for 2 more dissipation.

Changing that breaks everything.

[blinkin]

Gman1211, on 03 April 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

Ya I actually liked the repair and rearm, I made a lot more CB back then.

i did too, but mostly because i played more. the game was more interesting and challenging back then. i miss the days when i was the only SRM catapult on the field, because no one else was good enough to run them without hemorraging money.

[Pht]

blinkin, on 03 April 2013 - 03:11 PM, said:

how about you explain to me how a system as extensive as BT with god only knows how many books and rules, managed to make it through decades of iterations and changes WITHOUT breaking something. <-how about you defend your blind fanatacism.

I've stated bluntly, several times now, in several posts, that the TT system isn't perfect...

and you STILL think that I'm trying to somehow prove that the TT isn't broken anywhere?

...

Do I really HAVE to show you how asking what someone thinks is broken ONLY MEANS YOU'RE ASKING WHAT THEY THINK IS BROKEN, and NOTHING else?

Quote

you admit it isn't perfect but somehow nothing is broken, incomplete, flawed, or doesn't have any parts that don't work?

No. I don't.

Quote

yes you are making moronic generalizations when you claim that nothing in BT is broken.

I haven't made this claim.

Are you so hung up on flaming me, for no good reason, that you find you can't stop doing so? Are you really that small?

Quote

it was made by people, people screw up on occasion. i am done trying to convince you that basic truisms are true, you are obviously far too stupid to grasp that basic logical concept.

You mean, you're trying to convince me that the TT isn't perfect - whic I've been posting repeatedly IN AGREEMENT with you now for multiple pages in this thread?

[P e n u m b r a]

no real time games worked balanced round turn, they rolled with canon stats on release never worked...

Edited by Le0yo, 03 April 2013 - 06:34 PM.

[CancR]

Quote

money is only mentioned as flavor text in TT and is not used in any major way

Spoken like someone with ZERO Battle Tech or previous Mechwarrior games.

In both money is massively important, as you have to save up to buy your first mech that isn't a POS loaner, repairs and re-arms, and dropships rides.

Why must you insist on talking about things time in and time out I prove you know nothing about?

[blinkin]

Pht, on 24 March 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

First - every game system breaks at some point.

Second - do you have that notebook? How about, instead of posting a sweeping generalization and expecting us to just take your word, you ... say ... demonstrate how what you're saying is true?
-------------
I have NOT admitted that the tabletop is "broken."
-----------------------
"Fails/breaks at some point" means that all (which I good and well know applies to BT:TT, and have never assumed doesn't) gaming systems have to stop adding rules at some point - particularly in this discussion to in relation gaming combat systems - meaning it's impossible for a gaming system to truly recreate combat, or "life" (imagine how many rules there would have to be in the "game of life") or whatever other end any particular gaming system is pursuing.

and

"I have not posted that the TT is broken"

--^^so it breaks but isn't broken. is this an homage to Toaism?
----------------------------------------------------------
Even IF you had meant the same thing by "broken at some point" as I did above well ... yes ... and? Again, every gaming system suffers the exact same limitation.)

If you didn't mean the same thing (and your previous posts give a context seem to indicate that you didn't) than you have attributed to me that I had said that the TT combat system doesn't function (in part or in whole) as it was designed to function; or perhaps that it doesn't (in part or in whole) function as a combat gaming system - both meanings which I have never agreed with on these forums or anywhere else.
--^^so it breaks like all games do but everything works perfectly fine when it breaks? i was under the foolish assumption that you used the basic english definition of break: e : to render inoperable <broke his watch>
http://www.merriam-w...ictionary/break
none of the other definitions seem to relate in any way but feel free to look.
----------------------------------


I have already pointed out that when I use the word simulation in relation to a video game genre all that I mean is that said genre is about imitating something... and to further clarify; also imitating what it is like to interact with some object, be that object fictional or "real."

--^^this defeinition is completely useless 99.99% of games imitate something. is the Zelda series a simulator, because it imitates sword play?

Again, which parts are broken such that they, in your words "Don't work?"
--^^most broken things don't work that is why they are defined as BROKEN-- see dictionary definition "break"

... and I never posted in any way that the TT is perfect.
--^^no you just claim that "If you didn't mean the same thing (and your previous posts give a context seem to indicate that you didn't) than you have attributed to me that I had said that the TT combat system doesn't function (in part or in whole) as it was designed to function; or perhaps that it doesn't (in part or in whole) function as a combat gaming system - both meanings which I have never agreed with on these forums or anywhere else."
--so it isn't perfect but it never fails
----------------------------
We know that you've been saying that parts of it are broken.
--^^and you have confirmed that statement several times
--------------------------------
especially when that someone has repeatedly posted that some parts of the TT are broken, that his brother wrote up a book of such "broken parts," and has ALSO written that we should use some parts of the TT to enhance the MW video game.
--^^this would be because good ideas can come from anywhere and i never said that the whole of everything TT was broken. there are parts that could be useful in this or many other games. it doesn't have to be a simple binary all of TT or none of TT. we can use SOME, the parts that fit in and work well while abandoning the parts we don't like.
------------------
Are you aware that the maintainers of the Lore built many "bad" mechs on purpose?
--^^just because they intentionally broke it, does not mean it is any less broken.
------------------
Or: Clan Tech is supposed to be better.
--^^just because they intentionally broke it, does not mean it is any less broken.
-------------------------
Ok, what parts (besides those that simulate the pilot's human skill, which we ALL agree should be left out) "wouldn't translate" ?
--^^yeah just those few things like to hit rolls, scatter dice, pilot skill rolls for movement, and pretty much anything that includes dice. but it's ok you can completely take the dice out of a table top dice based game and everything will work just fine.
--------------------------
Yes, and?

If crap happens ... um, crap happens... just not very often. You don't roll 2s very often. Besides which, the only times when you're really running a high risk of jamming in the TT is when you're asking your AC's to do something the weren't designed to do.
--^^and when you do roll 2s you usually have several other mechs at your disposal instead of being locked in one mech that is down 9 tons + ammo worth of equipment. and they were designed for the higher rate of fire but the technology is new and incomplete. you have an amazing sense of what makes for good gameplay.

CancR, on 03 April 2013 - 07:45 PM, said:

Spoken like someone with ZERO Battle Tech or previous Mechwarrior games.

In both money is massively important, as you have to save up to buy your first mech that isn't a POS loaner, repairs and re-arms, and dropships rides.

Why must you insist on talking about things time in and time out I prove you know nothing about?

i said tabletop. i will admit my tabletop experience is limited but the only thing i have ever seen or heard of mentioned there is battle value. link some rules (LIGITIMATE not some house rules you made up) that clearly define some sort of long term campaign and i will admit i am wrong. it's pretty reasonable considering just how many rule books there are. a quick search of sarna for either "cbill" or "money" gives nothing major beyond the PC games.

i got my start on the mercs series and that is why i specified "TT" or table top.

[Karl Streiger]

Have taken a look to most BatteTech implementations in the last couple of years.
I started with some weapons:
maybe some ammunition for ya, maybe not...me for my part think that the MWLL solution of this problems had the most potential.
What you see not in the figures: is projectile speed (MW 2 Gauss was faster as the Laser)
You don't see kinetic impact or splash damage...so had the AC20 of MWLL an additional splash damage value.

[blinkin]

living legends does tend to be the source for many examples of mechwarrior done right. and i generally agree. it was difficult to get it to run properly on my computer though and after a while there seemed to be an average of less than 100 players on at any given time there were only two or three truly active servers.

they should have hired the whole LL team from the start.

[Xerxys]

Pht, on 01 April 2013 - 05:22 PM, said:

I genuinely want to know ... do you know what a "perfectly lined up shot" IS in the lore/TT?

Do you realize that it doesn't just consist of keeping the reticule exactly over the spot you want to hit... and that it is the 'Mech that actually calculates the lead, in real time?

Do you know that the being able to make the "perfect shot" requires you to know how your 'Mech is going to react to the conditions that are occuring when you want to make the shot... i.e. how well your 'Mech can calculate the lead and than actually physically align it's weapons to hit that point?

I believe a lot of people don't realize that these things are what "gunnery skill" in a 'Mech consists of, and beause of this, they bring expectations to the MW genre that aren't proper for the genre.

These factors are what I've been advocating be in the game.

I know what you're talking about with the mechs targeting computer doing all the calculations. When I spoke of a perfectly aimed shot from ~800 meters I was talking about how the game works now. The fact that I missed my perfectly aimed shot b/c a targeting computer didn't have enough time to calculate properly therefore causing a miss would in fact **** me off, but I could live with that. Most people playing this game could not.

[Pht]

Le0yo, on 03 April 2013 - 06:33 PM, said:

no real time games worked balanced round turn,...

You know this ... how?

Quote

they rolled with canon stats on release never worked...

canon stats but NOT the combat system those stats were built for.