Aaron DeChavilier, on 16 June 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:
this is a fun one, I've been told up and down this forum by some of the most vocal clan players here, that all or most of all the players that play clan are here for the story, not the tech. Maybe you're getting confused as to what I actually said.
you're not countering my original example though. I said, in WW1, the Germans had no problem retrofitting British tanks to suit their purposes despite how brand new the entire device was. That was what I said, and I said it to give you a real-world example of how there's no such thing as 'tech one side can't figure out.' But again, you willfully ignore it.
::I do apologize for the anecdotal evidence; but I was not in the internet or tourny scene of 40k, so its all I know, even at local hobby shops what I encountered was the same.::
So...you're point is? TT games cost money? I dunno about you, but when I started 40k with my friends, no one complained about losing cause they couldnt afford stuff - they made do with what they could buy. Yes, let's keep going, cause I'm still seeing no point to what you are saying.
Where did I interchange the words 'faction' and 'tech.' I said multiple factions draw from the same pool of wargear, are you even trying to use comprehension at all? And again you sound off with the whingy "oh if they b-b-b-balance it then we're dooomed!" junk, c'mon man. Also, US vs Soviet; you're still on that idea? wasn't it said somewhere that Battletech != real life? I'm starting to agree with Clock on this, you seriously do have trouble distinguishing fiction from reality - implications unpleasant. The 'numbers vs high damage' thing is not 'part and parcel' of gaming. 40K is an example of this, let's have space marines fight Eldar. oooooo but the fluff says Eldar are way more advanced than the dirty old Imperium. So how come a battle of 1000 pts, both sides are almost equal in number of models? how come both sides have a fair shot at winning? Seriously man, its not 'part and parcel' you just need to go play other games.
Your point? you're whining as hard as 'they' are, just because they 'started it' doesn't mean you're exempt from your actions. Also to generalize IS players so quickly, well is it any wonder you get mad when clan players are generalized? How can a player of a game talk about player skill, when they're playing the game with the equivalent of a stacked deck? If you can somehow justify this one, I'd actually be impressed. Another thing is that you refuse to even consider any sort of accommodation or middle ground, like some sort of extremist, you'll only calm down when everything goes your way.
Thought so, meanwhile Clan LRMs somehow work fine inside the minimum range..you don't need 3 centuries to figure that one out which only shows how bad some of this writing can be to try and justify stat boosts.
Games work best when: the fiction is written to reflect the gameplay, NOT the gameplay written to reflect the fiction.
who the hell cares who started it, you're being just as bad. Making an issue about something like " care to say clanners started the name calling? " seems more like you'll take any fight, rather than talk about the issue at hand. It's also hard to take your request of 'keeping the facts straight' seriously when you yourself seem to ignore large portions of what other people post, and their historical examples they bring up. Also, why the 'incident counting' and how come you're only counting when somone you don't agree with does it? your bias condemns your arguments.
1. Your view of the game might say game fiction might reflect gameplay. The game has the fiction backing the game play. The core rules were out in 1990. Wolf Source book 1991. This was when the clans came out. I have the books and know the copyrights. So, what about that? Again, your trying to balance something that was engineered and made the game flavor what it is. If it was that broken, 22 years and several revisions it hasn't been "balanced" to one tech or one that's watered down to IS tech. The game has survived rather well. I see players that want it changed. All I am saying is why? If it was that broken, people would have left the game to die.
2. You seem to forget that the IS had lost lots of tech. They were set up as a scavenger society. The survivors of horrendous WMD wars. Read Succession war 1 and 2. Your going to say that's fiction, but it was written to back game play.
3. Reread my previous post of what you said about factions drawing their wargear from the same source. This again isn't Counter Strike. Or any other FPS. It's based off TT Battletech.
4. Whining? LOL! Just countering what your saying. Stacked deck that's rich. An IS player wants clanners to fight with a numerical disadvantage with nothing to adjust for that? Talk about double standard. 10 v 12 is a stacked deck. Or worse 5 v 12. If the piloting skills are the same, how to balance if not for tech? That's where BV comes into play. Sorry, that will keep coming into play due to seeing it work countless times in other games. Does it work perfectly? No, but it works for what the game can control. Balancing units for their respective strengths.
5. I ignored that tech of WW1 for one reason. Can you fix a car? Is that hard to learn? Not compared to fixing something more complicated such as a Tank of today or a nuclear armed warship. In that day of WW1, the idea of a tank hadn't been thought of by the Germans, but tracked vehicles existed in the early 1900s, aka bulldozers. The tanks steer roughly the same. What I mean by that is the basic principle of stopping or slowing one track to turn or starting one track is the same. Engines, simple to figure out, weapons, not that hard when it's BASIC. It's combining the techs that make it harder.
Can you create a tank with the current skills you have? Can you know what weapons, suspensions, engines and such will work together in that application? I don't know you personally, so I am guessing might not. The principle is the same. Clans have developed the Star League tech for 200+ years without ANY and I repeat any contact with the IS. Operating systems, connectors, simple basic things will be different.
An IT person will tell you integrating different computer systems that were built differently, have different operating systems, different work programs, is at times a nightmare to intergrate. We don't know the nuts and bolts of the clan differences. You seem to think that they should work exactly the same. I disagree. 200+ years of isolation will most likely create a different path even if the ancestor tech is the same.
6. You know, it's funny your calling me an extremist. There is no middle ground between IS and Clan tech. They are different techs, the fiction was written AFTER the tech came out. So, there we have it. My example of US and USSR tech is the same basic thing. They are different, it's what give any game that uses said tech some of the flavor. You seem to want just one tech for everyone to play. If that was the winning way, the TT would have done that ages ago. But it don't sell.
7. If the game don't sell, it don't stay in business. How many games that were TT based are still around 28 years after they were introduced and still getting new updates? Not as many as there are others that aren't.
D&D is the only one that I am aware of that's that old or older and it's not TT based.
40k Getting close
Shadowrun. Getting there.
Star Fleet Battles is older. But not very commonly played.
They are a few.
So who is biased? I am biased in keeping the game as it is. It's proven to work for 22 years with the clans with minor tweaking. I have heard it all about the clans being OPed for decades. If it wasn't working, why hasn't it been tweaked? Ranges changed, minimums changed, that's right that old nemesis, BV comes roaring in and takes care of that. Player skill cannot be counted. Unless your tested daily the clan way to be in that game to play your mech. And I think I can safely say majority of players would not stand for that.
Your biased in wanting the game to become IS based by adding minimums and such. Again, why? Due to every game that has 2 or more techs having choices that appeals to a wider demographic of players they tend to be more successful. You have to appeal to a wider demographic of players. Not everyone wants to play just IS or clan. But they want the choice. I run mechs that I run due to them working for me. I don't care for LRM boats, can run them, but just don't care for them. Same thing with assaults, I prefer mediums and heavies. For me, gives me the striking power I want with the mobility and armour that I desire.
The game isn't out, we don't know how the balance will come out, and we don't know how the clans will be worked into the game. Those are facts. BV works in TT. It works even if there are multiple players on each side. If each player has 30k Bv and there are 10 players total, 5 per side, balanced. Even if 5 players are using IS and 5 clan. It's really fun when those 10 are mixed between sides. Very interesting fight. Why change things in a video game unless it can't be made to work? Then you open up the can of worms of having to rebalance EVERYTHING.
You want me to compromise on my ideas. Sorry, I disagree with what your saying and will not change at this time. I have played CBT since 1990. Played both IS and Clans. BV is something that's going to be there, just have to deal with it. I am not going to compare this game, MWO, to any previous Mech game due to most of them not following the main cores of CBT TT. For example, and I think this is funny, since when do techs repair a mech to full armour while in a battle zone? They wait for it to come back to the repair shops. If it's disabled, they go out and drag it back before working on it. When the shooting stops 9 times out of 10. Those repair bays in the middle of combat like the full health restores in FPS crack me up.
Counter Strike isn't based of 31st Century mech combat. It's not based off a TT system like MWO is. It's a FPS that's based off more a infantry versus infantry game. My point that a 20 ton mech won't react like a person stands. Something called inertia and the fact that the game even reflects gravity and inertia with skidding, piloting checks, etc.
Play other games:
Flames of War
Battletech
D&D
12 o'clock high
Navyfield. MMO naval warfare WW2
Boothill
STO Currently play that as well
Nelson's war
Victory at Sea
Played 40k a couple of times, didn't strike my fancy
Evony
Mobsters
Shadowrun
oh another, Babylon 5
Star Fleet Battles
Star Fleet Command 1, 2, and orion pirates.
how many more do you want me to list? Aaron, your walking into something you don't want to go there. I played CBT back in 1990. I played it as an adult then. Do the math. If you haven't played the TT version, for a while, throw out the MW series. They changed a lot of the core concepts of the TT to make it more FPS. Resupply of ammo while in combat, repair of damage while in combat, neither of these things are in TT CBT. You fight with what you brought into the game. When the ammo's gone, either withdraw or tough it out. I won't say they won't do that here, kinda hope they don't. That's one thing I don't agree with.
I am a gamer. I play what gets my interest up and keeps it. I liked Warmachine but it's basically a WYSIWYG game and didn't like it enough to get into the game.
Edited by phelancracken, 16 June 2012 - 09:51 PM.
2
)
