Adridos, on 02 June 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:
I see you are a master of the ancient human skill of talking for straight hours/ writing entire pages of text and say absolutely nothing at all...
Battlemechs don't go nuclear...
Yes, it is around 120°C. That's why they have cooling vests and pass out regularly while piloting mechs.
I have never ever mentioned modern military. If you want to base a game where everything is as powerful as it is in real world, then good luck, it would be a game of who fires his tac nukes, ICBM and who knows what sooner. MY argument was about having to actually aim instead of using modern technology to do it for you, taking the fun away (as this is all in all a game).
As far as miniguns are concerned, did it cross your mind I never mentioned that you'll be holding it? Didn't matter to you, I see, becuase obviously I couldn't know anything about those things....
Then you go and start talking about the superiority of modern army over BTech... which is something this discussion never had anything to do with and the non-realness of the BTech is an accepted fact.
For the last nail to the coffin, you bring up the good ol' ad hominem fallacies about my age...
You are acting like a kid and well under the level you should be if your age is as high as I assume, therefor you are fit for being called a kiddie.
P.S. Yes, I played all the BTECH games with the exception of the MW4: Black knight and those two Crescent Hawks.
For the minigun thing, what are you even talking about man? Seriously. There's only two ways a minigun is ever envisioned to be used: mounted on a platform of some sort (mobile or static) or held by a guy in an action film, which isn't realistic, for obvious reasons.
A minigun requires a generator of some sort to spin the barrel. Unless you got an engine bloc strapped to your back you're gonna be heavin around like 8 car batteries, literally. Then there's the 3000 RPM it does, which is some serious ****, you'd need the rounds to be able to actually fire it, but 20 seconds would be enough for an A-10 to do a nice strafing run (maybe two) so that'd be 1k rounds. That's probably a lot too. I mean those things take out tanks.
But that's not gonna happen. So, the only ot her option is mounted, which would be computer assisted, as most weapons systems now are computer assisted (barring simple rifles and such). So "good ole fashioned joystick" is ******** as that stopped being a thing after WW2. Modern aircraft have safety as well as flying and aim assisting
Your entire argument was based around a combination of an appeal to probability, as well as an appeal to ignorance (the assumption that, were your stupid comparison in real life, I would not only have supreme difficulty pilotting a battlemech, but the mech in question would be a complete PoS that kills it's pilot from heatstroke whenever it fires it's weapons - which is not the discussion at hand. The argument I made was that BT pilots are awful, and it makes no sense considering the technology involved.
This is why I talked about modern military and strategies. There is NO realism involved in how BT mechs operate performance wise, or their pilots - they're either unbelievably tough at times, or unbelievably useless at times, it's ridiculous. The comparison is my main argument, which is why I mentioned the M1 Abrams MBT. Again, a 21st real world example that is vastly superior from a logistics, ease of use, and manufacturing stand point.
My argument can be summarized as such: 21st Century MBTs are accurate, powerful and hardy as ****, thus one can surmize that a main stay form of armored warfare in the 31st century (battlemechs) would be comparably accurate, powerful, and useful, otherwise there'd be no point in using them if tanks were vastly superior due to numbers, ease of fielding them, and military prowess.
Even generals of olden naval battles could see follies such as this; the ancient cannon'd battleships of the world's navies were massive, and could field hundreds of cannons. However, they could be easily destroyed by vastly smaller, more manueverable ships, as well as ships that were incredibly cheap in comparison. Thus these massive battleships fell out of favor, as their power could easily be replicated by numerous smaller ships for an easier cost. Even now, no navy fields battleships, and very few even field battlecruisers, as there is no need and the associated possible loss is not worth the cost.
In time these massive weapons of war were meant more as a symbol of a nation's wealth and military might - not any actual real weapon of power. Which is the exact role mechs would have IRL if they functioned like BT lore states (inaccurate, no range to speak of, kills pilot due to terrible design philosophies, expensive, vulnerable, difficult to field and repair)
I'm not saying that these things need to be changed. I'm saying that games shouldn't be balanced around realism, but they also shouldn't go out of their way to undermine player skill.
My point is that your argument is idiotic, as not only is it not grounded in reality, it's detrimental to game balance.
No body likes being nerfed by a computer RNG, which is what people ask for whether they realize it or not when they whine about weapon convergance and pin point accuracies. But the second you take away player countrol, the second any chance of a lasting competitive community dies, no E-Sports scene will arise, and MW as a series will once again get stuck on the back burner for years, because it's not markatable except towards a niche audience (not worth it unless you can charge them absurd amounts of money, which won't last).
And no, there is no problem with my ad hominim, as it was not the basis of my argument. I never said you were wrong because you're a 16 year old who doesn't know anything about military force or tactics, and equally knows little about machinery or ordinance. And yes it's relevant. BT is a hard sci-fi lore that draws from actual aspects of modern military strategy, as well as actual modern revelations in science (myomer fibers are actual things and fusion reactors are swell, for instance). I did however point it out because you threw the first stone.
However, your argument can be summed up as such:
Ad hominim
Failure to address main argument
Appeal to Ignorance/probability
You called me a child, assumed atlas was my mech of choice, then assumed that any real world counter part to a mech would be a giant PoS, you assumed I would have no ability to control it (which let's face it, if you have experience operating one piece of heavy machinery, some of that transfers over), and then using this as the basis of your argument, you failed to properly address my main point: which is that BT lore is insulting to players who are not only competent, but much more tactically and strategically motivated and capable than the average BT mech pilot.
And yes they do go nuclear, it happens all the time. It might not actually radiate the land (they'd be outlawed if that were the case). No one would use a piece of equipment that has the possibility of accidentally wiping out an entire city blokc once it's incapacitated. It's too dangerous to personell on site as well as any civilians.
Even with some sort of cooling jacket you can't survive tempetures you can toast bread in. hat you're talking about is absurd. If the ambient temperture in a mech cockpit was 250 degrees you would be dead in minute.
The human threshold for pain in the first layer of skin is about 112F, which is 44C.
I feel you would be hard pressed to find any man or woman who would stay in the ambient temperture of 250F/120C for long. They would eject and risk capture by enemy than being roasted alive, which I suppose is the case according to you? Who knows - but it's totally inaccurate. Hold your hand in a toaster oven set to 250F, see how long it lasts. (please don't, I know you're young and impressionable).
Air isn't the best conductor, so I imagine it could take as many as 5 seconds? for your skin to stop feeling good and just come off. Not in the toaster mind you, the source of heat is too small. A welder's flame could be upwards of 11k C (usually an ark) or 45k C (plasma cutter), but the point of heat was so small it didn't roast everything alive. But an oxyacetelyne torch with way too much acetelyne is basically a small flamer. Can't quite remember the temp for that, but with oxygen added it was 6k if I remember? at the tip at least. So it was probably more like 2k but I doubt it was that high.
But that sure got you hot; and it was the reason you weren't in a small enclosed area with it. Imagine being in a 4x3x3 box and suddenly your 102F cockpit is pushin 230F. You'd eject after 3 seconds. Your skin would start to crack if you didn't.
I was a welder for a few years. Fire was a dangerous friend. So I know from expierence this ****. dawg. I got paid and went to college. They paid me to GO to college. At one point I got paid to tell other people they sucked and knew nothing about metallurgy, heat transfer, and whatnot, and that THEY should go to college, but that was only for a couple days.
The only way this would be the case would be if all BT pilots wore cooling gear akin to hazmat suits, which they don't, as lore wise many pilots go in shorts.
You also once again prove little knowledge in the subject you want to debate: modern military strategies do not revolve around "fire the nukes" and they never will because as ****** as it is, MAD is a fairly sound strategy.
All of this boils down to the same thing: BT pilots are so bad it's insulting to the average player. It's a thousand years into the future. Why have engagements scaled down to knife fights? Why do they revolve around equipment that can bankrupt a nation? Why are they so weak and inaccurate? Why are they designed to flush heat into the cockpit, ruining battle effectiveness as well as putting the pilot at unnecessary risk?
None of these make a lot of sense from a lore perspective either; especially once you take into consideration how a standard tank should be more durable (legs vs treads) have a smaller profile, as well as be able to mount stronger, more stable weaponry - some mechs can knock themselves over from recoil, for instance. I assure you no military would field something like that.
I'm not asking for anything to change. I'm asking for it to stay the same. My initial post was a complaint about how often fluff in things like this inaccurately portray what's being shown off for the purpose of building hype. You went out of your way to bring up something that was pointless (I bet you can't do IRL what they can do lore-wise in books)/
In game none of these present themselves as a problem, as most fights in any game outside of military sims like arma are incredibly close due to the nature of game and map balance. Player's are capable of doing adequate damage accurately on the fly, as should be the case.
And yeah, I type a lot, because I can actually offer some indepth analysis of an argument and attempt to form an articulated counter argument.
Sadly most people on these forums don't seem to want to want to do that, if they're even capable of doing so.
By purposefully leaping to outlandish conclusions, attacking the person, ignoring the main reason of an argument, bringing up irrelevant topics, putting no thought into a discussion, etc, you do nothing but muddle the discourse that happens on these forums. And quite frankly, by doing so you and everyone else who does the same is doing nothing but serving as an insult to the intelligence of this community, as well as its wellbeing and the game's wellbeing.
When people just purposefully behave dumb and poorly, when they're inept at properly reasoning, the less respect and concern it will have in media, advertising, new members, and even the game devs. No one cares what a small group of idiots think, basically. Which is how some people on this forum present themselves and their arguments.
I'm just an angry ******, it's not comparable.
7
This topic is locked
