99 replies to this topic

[Bendajo]

Alaskan Viking, on 06 December 2011 - 03:33 PM, said:

I think that is the attitude that the OP was referring to....this a forum for a freaking free to play video game, you shouldn't need to much of any "research" to enjoy it, especially if you have already followed the series for close two decades....

If I liked something enough to follow it for two decades I probably would have took the time to pick up a book or do some "research" into the universe/lore thay surrounds it. Then again 20 years isn't alot of time.

Edited by Bendajo, 06 December 2011 - 06:44 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

What the OP brings up is a good thing to take note of, and some of the responses are just..wrong.

Go stand around a hospital some time, listen to the conversations the doctors have, it'll sound much like what we see here on these boards, esoteric and arcane words that have no meaning to the uninitiated, but the doctors understand it and if you ask them to explain, they'll probably do just that(provided they have the time). HERE..someone asks, they get a link to some site, not an explanation, and that is just plain rude.

NEXT time someone asks you to explain whatever from a post that's obviously a TT term, stop and think before you post that Sarna link as your only response. What does it cost you to take a few minutes of your time to actually explain, in simple language, what they asked about? You get to expound on something you obviously care about, and you also get the chance to instill that same love of the BTU on someone who hasn't yet had the chance to experience the BTU, maybe getting yet another convert to the cause.

Or you just be rude and lose yet another potential convert...not like we need any more of them right?

And, for the record, MechWarrior is NOT a Battletech sim, it's the Role Playing side of the Battletech game system. The first BTech computer games were the Crescent Hawk games, actual RPGs, which mixed up how you fought, you played as infantry sometimes, sometimes you piloted a Mech, and you developed skills for both, which is exactly what you do in the MechWarrior TT game, but you never actually SIT in the Mech while playing the CH games. The actual MechWarrior titles Activision started put you SOLEY in a Mech, that's where you play the game from, they were the first Mech sims, which is funny since they actually played more like BTech as opposed to MechWarrior

And, personally, the original MechWarrior games were the closest things to the TT rules for a Mech sim to date in my opinion, as they actually USED the TT rules adapted to a real time enviroment(X kph for movement meant just that, not X hexes, etc). MW3 and on..well...they were Quake with giant robots as skins. MC was a good BTech sim, not a Mech sim, and it did quite well in that aspect. Keep in mind, MW and MW2 were SIMS, not RPGs or FPSs, they were simply Battletech based Mech sims and were marketed as such, with great stories from the BTU, MW being IS based and MW2 being Clan based(orginally, Activision went back to MW for MW2:Mercs, IS again but this time during the Clan Invasion instead of 3025 tech as the original MW was) that made playing them just that much more fun for the BTech fans. MW3 wasn't a sim, it was an FPS with some sim like qualities, and MW4 was a straight up FPS game.

MY hope is that MWO will follow in the lineage of MW and MW2, a BTU Mech simulation, sticking as closely to the TT rules as possible in a real time enviroment. Twitch skills will be useful but not the be all and end all of a good MechWarrior, as there IS so much more to it then that in the BTU. So far, from what they've told us, it looks like we'll get an actual Mech sim instead of another Quake with giant robot skins like MW4, here's to them sticking with that and giving us something we've not seen in over a decade, a real Battletech Mech sim.

And if not..well..TOR is fun(got into the last 2 closed beta weekends!), so there's that for me at least But..really...honestly..I'd MUCH rather play a good Mech sim...really...I'd pay for that..again.

[Threat Doc]

I don't need to read any further. Everything I was going to say I, and several others have already said: I want an approximation of the BattleTech game and the appropriate lore that belong to BattleTech in MechWarrior Online, I don't want the board game; I want to have fun, also. Of course, those of you who are too busy beating your drum to listen will continue to argue that all I, and those of my same cut, want is the board game on my computer. Therefore, being ignorant as you are, I will leave this conversation. To those whom I agree with, and whom agree with me, I implore you to stop attempting to explain the truth's we believe in, collectively, to these folks, they will never understand it, and are arguing for the sake of argument.

[Jervinator]

Nearly every game has this happen to ask who were not part of the closed testing. Any game that had been public more than a few weeks also has this issue. How many newbie WoT players know what a Derp Gun is? Does the fact that the answer is, "Not many" scare people off? Granted, there are other issues with WoT but my point here is that it's not us old guys who have been piloting mechs since before MechWarrior even existed throwing out jargon that will scare people off.

You don't need to know about Aleksandr Kerensky or the Star League to get in a cockpit and blow things up. I am sure that we will have many great MWO players who never played the old games (video or tabletop) before.

[Kudzu]

Kristov Kerensky, on 06 December 2011 - 08:01 PM, said:

What the OP brings up is a good thing to take note of, and some of the responses are just..wrong.

Go stand around a hospital some time, listen to the conversations the doctors have, it'll sound much like what we see here on these boards, esoteric and arcane words that have no meaning to the uninitiated, but the doctors understand it and if you ask them to explain, they'll probably do just that(provided they have the time). HERE..someone asks, they get a link to some site, not an explanation, and that is just plain rude.

NEXT time someone asks you to explain whatever from a post that's obviously a TT term, stop and think before you post that Sarna link as your only response. What does it cost you to take a few minutes of your time to actually explain, in simple language, what they asked about? You get to expound on something you obviously care about, and you also get the chance to instill that same love of the BTU on someone who hasn't yet had the chance to experience the BTU, maybe getting yet another convert to the cause.

Or you just be rude and lose yet another potential convert...not like we need any more of them right?

And, for the record, MechWarrior is NOT a Battletech sim, it's the Role Playing side of the Battletech game system. The first BTech computer games were the Crescent Hawk games, actual RPGs, which mixed up how you fought, you played as infantry sometimes, sometimes you piloted a Mech, and you developed skills for both, which is exactly what you do in the MechWarrior TT game, but you never actually SIT in the Mech while playing the CH games. The actual MechWarrior titles Activision started put you SOLEY in a Mech, that's where you play the game from, they were the first Mech sims, which is funny since they actually played more like BTech as opposed to MechWarrior

And, personally, the original MechWarrior games were the closest things to the TT rules for a Mech sim to date in my opinion, as they actually USED the TT rules adapted to a real time enviroment(X kph for movement meant just that, not X hexes, etc). MW3 and on..well...they were Quake with giant robots as skins. MC was a good BTech sim, not a Mech sim, and it did quite well in that aspect. Keep in mind, MW and MW2 were SIMS, not RPGs or FPSs, they were simply Battletech based Mech sims and were marketed as such, with great stories from the BTU, MW being IS based and MW2 being Clan based(orginally, Activision went back to MW for MW2:Mercs, IS again but this time during the Clan Invasion instead of 3025 tech as the original MW was) that made playing them just that much more fun for the BTech fans. MW3 wasn't a sim, it was an FPS with some sim like qualities, and MW4 was a straight up FPS game.

MY hope is that MWO will follow in the lineage of MW and MW2, a BTU Mech simulation, sticking as closely to the TT rules as possible in a real time enviroment. Twitch skills will be useful but not the be all and end all of a good MechWarrior, as there IS so much more to it then that in the BTU. So far, from what they've told us, it looks like we'll get an actual Mech sim instead of another Quake with giant robot skins like MW4, here's to them sticking with that and giving us something we've not seen in over a decade, a real Battletech Mech sim.

And if not..well..TOR is fun(got into the last 2 closed beta weekends!), so there's that for me at least But..really...honestly..I'd MUCH rather play a good Mech sim...really...I'd pay for that..again.

To be fair, I don't think I've seen anyone ask a question relating to the BTU that hasn't been answered nicely or at least a proper link given if the explanation is really long or involved.

What the OP asked for was for those of us who have been involved in the universe for a long time to dumb down our conversations, we would rather bring him up to speed with us.

[Threat Doc]

Besides, if you put up a good link, and the individual is truly inquisitive enough to explore what they're looking for, they may also become curious about some of the other information is there and, suddenly, we have a new BT convert. Those who ask a question about what something is, if they're not intuitive enough and inquisitive enough to click on the link and find out for themselves, then they never really wanted an answer in the first place. Kristov, the problem with so many folks these days is they want instant gratification, no matter what it involves, and THAT is rude, not actually giving someone the ability to find answers on their own.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he'll eat for the rest of his life.

Give a man an answer, most likely out of context, and he'll have an answer that is not complete. Give a man a link, and tell them to read for themselves, and you open the world of BattleTech to those who actually care.

EDIT: Dangit, post 603! I was going to yell on post 600... but, I wasn't paying enough attention (ahem!) hehe

Edited by Kay Wolf, 06 December 2011 - 09:18 PM.

[EDMW CSN]

To be fair, you can totally ignore the Storyline of Btech and just become the next Solaris 7 champ or something. But for most people playing with merc groups under Houses, MWO is is essentially a re-telling of one of the major events of the Innersphere.

Your House aka GMs will give you the mission and hopefully Piranha will throw in the original fluff on the mission, but whether it succeeds or fails, it is probably up to the players themselves. Or unless Piranha sticks to established Canon and make use of authorial fiat.

For example, you won here today but Hanson RoughRiders have already breached the Capital city ! We will need to engage a fighting withdrawal and pull back to the Starport. Stuff like that.

Anyway as for scale.... It is entirely possible to have several hundreds players fighting over for a control of a single planet. After all it is kind a stretch for a single company of 12 mechs to secure a planet no ?

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 06 December 2011 - 09:41 PM.

[Xhaleon]

[EDMW]CSN, on 06 December 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

snippy snippy

It would sometimes seem strange when the top-dog most-reliable player mercenary commands are told to go fight a rear-end battle against podunk reservist flankers, while being left out of the main battle just so that <canon mercenary unit> has won the battle and taken the city. Time to retreat, guise, I'm sure you couldn't have beaten them no matter what. Suspension of belief goes to Level DERP.

[EDMW CSN]

Xhaleon, on 06 December 2011 - 09:47 PM, said:

It would sometimes seem strange when the top-dog most-reliable player mercenary commands are told to go fight a rear-end battle against podunk reservist flankers, while being left out of the main battle just so that <canon mercenary unit> has won the battle and taken the city. Time to retreat, guise, I'm sure you couldn't have beaten them no matter what. Suspension of belief goes to Level DERP.

Well it can be explained that while your lance of 4 mechs has successfully held the supply route, an entire regiment aka 180 mechs have kick down the front door. Obviously asking 4 mechs to fight even 180 Locust sounds like a bad deal.

Anyway I don't expect player Mercs to be the top dog first. Part of the fun of playing MW2: Mercs and MW4: Mercs was that you were a nobody being affiliated to Hanson's Roughriders or another big wig Merc corp of your choice. Then you work from there. That is where you get your sense of achievement.


P.S. i do hope player controlled Merc factions are NOT allowed to be greater than a Battalion in their TO&E.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 06 December 2011 - 10:01 PM.

[Hodo]

Quinn Allard, on 01 December 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

Is it just me or does the majority of people in this community BT people? Because there are MechWarrior players that are unfarmiliar with BT and the TT game. Lots of "I love the KC 34C" and "lets not forget the TRO 3025". While I love anything MechWarrior, I think BattleTech people need to bring it down a notch and put things in Layman Terms for those of us who havnt read all the TROs and dont know anything about the TableTop Game and not much about BattleTech lore and such. I'm sure there are lots of people out there like me, who've played EVERY Mech PC game, but still feel like a ****** when I am trying to join in on some conversations. Just be considerate of the community



PS I have read a few BT novels and such, but please try to see what I'm trying to say.
PSS I wonder if the Devs are going to lean towards all-out BT and TT (Since Weisman is involved), or going to bring back the magic of MechWarrior 2.

Well the answer is simple.

Mechwarrior by Activision/Microprose was HORRIBLE. It was a arcade game instead of a hardcore mech sim, it claimed to be. Dont get me wrong it had some great cut scenes, and some decent story righting. But it took the franchise basic rules, and shat on them, then decided to turn it into Armored Core 3060something.

And asking the hardcore tabletop players to tone it down for the simple man, would be like asking Star Wars fans to tone the geek down when talking about Yoda, or the Jedi Order. Or asking Trekkies to dial it back when going over the specs of the NCC-1864 USS Reliant. (yes I am a trekkie)

I occasionally geek out on Battletech. Some of you have only scratched the surface of the iceberg of Tech-geekdom here. I can remember having to study to take a test on Battletech back in 1988, to join a Battletech campaign at a local gaming store. I can still remember some of those questions.

What is the total armor of a WSP-1A, and how is it allocated?
What is the running speed of a LCT-1A in KPH?
What does FASCAM stand for?
What is the maximum range of a LRM20 in meters?
What size engine does the MAD-3R have?
How many Heat Sinks does a WHM-6R have?
What is a Highlander Burial?

There were 3 parts to the test, 10 questions each test, highest scores chose what mechs they wanted and their character rank.

[Hodo]

[EDMW]CSN, on 06 December 2011 - 09:55 PM, said:

Well it can be explained that while your lance of 4 mechs has successfully held the supply route, an entire regiment aka 180 mechs have kick down the front door. Obviously asking 4 mechs to fight even 180 Locust sounds like a bad deal.

Anyway I don't expect player Mercs to be the top dog first. Part of the fun of play MW2: Mercs and MW4: Mercs was that you were a nobody being affiliated to Hanson's Roughriders or another big wig Merc corp of your choice. Then you work from there. That is where you get your sense of achievement.


P.S. i do hope player controlled Merc factions are NOT allowed to be greater than a Battalion in their TO&E.

Actually a regiment is only 108 mechs, which is 3 Battalions of 36 mechs, which is 3 companies of 3 lances, which is 4 mechs per lance. Unless you have a reinforced company which has 4 lances.

Most regiments are only 108 mechs, and 6 Aerospace fighters or a wing of Aero.

Most Aerospace regiments are only 48 fighters.

Vehicle regiments are about 108 vehicles.

Infantry regiments are about, 756 troops.

Dropships, Jumpships, and Warships, do not fall under any force org chart.

[EDMW CSN]

Hodo, on 06 December 2011 - 10:04 PM, said:

Actually a regiment is only 108 mechs, which is 3 Battalions of 36 mechs, which is 3 companies of 3 lances, which is 4 mechs per lance. Unless you have a reinforced company which has 4 lances. Most regiments are only 108 mechs, and 6 Aerospace fighters or a wing of Aero. Most Aerospace regiments are only 48 fighters. Vehicle regiments are about 108 vehicles. Infantry regiments are about, 756 troops. Dropships, Jumpships, and Warships, do not fall under any force org chart.

There are regiments that have up to 5 Battalions in a company. But granted 108 should be the standard.
WD for example deploy 36 + 4 per Battalion.
And additional 15 mechs for the command company in a regiment.

http://www.sarna.net...echregiment.png


Even then with player involvements usually no bigger than company vs company engagements (24 players in a map), it would still be a bad idea for a battered company to fight against a Regiment anyway.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 06 December 2011 - 10:10 PM.

[Hodo]

[EDMW]CSN, on 06 December 2011 - 10:08 PM, said:

There are regiments that have up to 5 Battalions in a company. But granted 108 should be the standard.
WD for example deploy 36 + 4 per Battalion.
And additional 15 mechs for the command company in a regiment.

http://www.sarna.net...echregiment.png


Even then with player involvements usually no bigger than company vs company engagements (24 players in a map), it would still be a bad idea for a battered company to fight against a Regiment anyway.

Your talking about a hybrid merc unit in those lousy Dragoons. They also run stars of 5, and automagically turn themselves into a clan galaxy by 3053, when most of the clan warriors they originally had died over the 50 years they have been in the Inner Sphere.

Go figure.

If you want to talk about all the different force org charts, then you have the Comstar which work on levels. Level 1 = 1 mech, Level 2= 6 level 1s, Level 3= 6 level 2s, Level 4= 6 Level 3s, Level 5 = 6 Level 4s. So anywhere from 846 to 1296 units.

Then you have the clans and their use of the number 5 for almost everything except "company" level forces... Or Binaries and Trinaries, then Clusters, and finally Galaxies.

Just saying if you want to go into details of EVERY different version of the force organization charts, then you could be here all night.

Instead stick to the basics.

Lance= 4
Company=12
BN=36
Regiment=108

-EDIT- Oh and you may have got confused... "5Battalions in a company" I think you have that backwards.

Edited by Hodo, 06 December 2011 - 10:25 PM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It may well be that we are in a divergent universe - ie what we do does have an effect and can change the results. As for Wolf's Dragoons I can't see them being a playable faction.

[EDMW CSN]

On that 5 battalions in a company yeah my bad. But what I do want to see is how Piranha plays out the missions in accordance to fluff. Because many battles will be fought by player own commands but how do they take it from here ?

For example X battle is won by Y forces in Canon. But in MWO, X battle was won by Z forces. Do Piranha adhere to fluff or they will just let players decide the fate of the battle ? Or they arbitrarily apply authorial fiat to the case where superior forces have taken the core objectiv else where, thus the overall story is still X battle won by Y forces.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 06 December 2011 - 10:41 PM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Kudzu, on 06 December 2011 - 09:03 PM, said:

To be fair, I don't think I've seen anyone ask a question relating to the BTU that hasn't been answered nicely or at least a proper link given if the explanation is really long or involved.

What the OP asked for was for those of us who have been involved in the universe for a long time to dumb down our conversations, we would rather bring him up to speed with us.

I've seen a few replies that were just 'go look it up' responses without even giving a link, not a lot of them, but enough to notice. I tend to just answer the person's question, it's just a habit from the days when we only had The Company Store to give as a link and I was a Clan Loremaster I'd drop TCS after I answered a question, so they could start looking at the information themselves. Just seeing what was there was enough to make em a fan or run screaming. Just the Loremaster in me I guess

As to the storyline issues...since this isn't an MMO, there's no campaign, it's all PvP...methinks none of the big canon names will be usable. We'll be fighting each other, not AI opponents, it'll get pretty silly pretty quickly if the players are running the big names from canon and having combats that have impossible by canon end results. Rather like a redux of the Battle of Tukkayid we did...Clan won, repeatedly

We'll probably be GDI's, might be working with a House or be a detatchment from a canon name, that way we can influence the persistant world for a specific House, but the actual names..nah, that's just begging for trouble in SO many ways. We'll probably be allowed to have up to a Regiment of members, could be 5 Regiments(500, used by more then a few online games for guild size). Question is, how many of us can play together at once? I know the netcoding SHOULD be capable of handling 64, but will the game coding allow for it? Graphics alone would definately be an issue for even a good machine currently. Theoritically, they could do Regiment vs Regiment, but no one would be able to actually play It would be a sight though wouldn't it? I figure we'll end up with 2 Lances per side..maybe a Company each?

[Bloody]

I sincerely hope that this game turns out more like the BT TT rule rather than MW4. If it turns out as Mw4 then well, i will be disappointed. Do not get me wrong, i played mw4 and mercs etc and enjoyed it but 2-3 shotting a Direwolf with 2 by 2 ER Large Lasers is Counterstrike with mechs. Fun for a short time but not really that fun. I enjoyed Mechcommander more than Mw4 and look forward to the MC omnitech releases.

however i will get it if PGI go with the Mw4 route, after all it is the easy way to sell a game to the console crowd.

[metro]

Quinn Allard, on 01 December 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

Is it just me or does the majority of people in this community BT people? Because there are MechWarrior players that are unfarmiliar with BT and the TT game. Lots of "I love the KC 34C" and "lets not forget the TRO 3025". While I love anything MechWarrior, I think BattleTech people need to bring it down a notch and put things in Layman Terms for those of us who havnt read all the TROs and dont know anything about the TableTop Game and not much about BattleTech lore and such. I'm sure there are lots of people out there like me, who've played EVERY Mech PC game, but still feel like a ****** when I am trying to join in on some conversations. Just be considerate of the community



PS I have read a few BT novels and such, but please try to see what I'm trying to say.
PSS I wonder if the Devs are going to lean towards all-out BT and TT (Since Weisman is involved), or going to bring back the magic of MechWarrior 2.

Quinn, I for one admire you for you inquiry. For I too once knew nothing about BT or MW. But some of the seasoned warriors and players took me in and taught me about BT/MW.

As I stated in another post. We have all been waiting for 10 years for a new game.

I hope MWO delivers a product we will all be happy to play together.

This shouldnt be Battltetech fans versus Mechwarrior fans.

I am hoping that MWO will provide a platform where we will all come together to be a part of one of the most successful game launches in history.

I sir am at your disposal, should you have questions or need clarification on something. All you need do, is ask.

as for the remaining new MWO community....I salute you.

[Joseph Mallan]

Quinn Allard, on 01 December 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:

*SNIP*I am just trying to say that there are gobs of players that will know Mechwarrior, but dont even know what BT is or that there ever was a TT game!

But who's being the elitist? The BattleTech Player who can cite you the loadout of every Mech in TRO3025/3050 (the holy grails of Vehicle data for the video game) & who built it where.

Or the video Gamer who insists that these are the Mechs we're given and this is the best way to Mod them?

Over my 25(ish) years of playing the Genre on the table and the TV, I know the pros and cons of both sides. The wise man listens to both sides, and picks out the gems.

As for the people who are just joining the game universe now... well rookies gotta learn the ropes from the masters. A gamer geek is a gamer geek, his preferred medium doesn't matter. He/She is showing love for the game.

[Threat Doc]

[EDMW]CSN, on 06 December 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

To be fair, you can totally ignore the Storyline of Btech...

GASP! While I don't believe ANYONE is REQUIRED to learn anything, it sure would help their knowledge of the game, and thus their gameplay experience. Also, those not interested in learning even the basics should probably not speak at all.

Quote

For example, you won here today but Hanson RoughRiders have already breached the Capital city ! We will need to engage a fighting withdrawal and pull back to the Starport. Stuff like that.

Yes... story, please?!?!

Hodo, on 06 December 2011 - 09:57 PM, said:

Mechwarrior by Activision/Microprose was HORRIBLE. It was a arcade game instead of a hardcore mech sim, it claimed to be. Dont get me wrong it had some great cut scenes, and some decent story righting. But it took the franchise basic rules, and shat on them, then decided to turn it into Armored Core 3060something.

And asking the hardcore tabletop players to tone it down for the simple man, would be like asking Star Wars fans to tone the geek down when talking about Yoda, or the Jedi Order. Or asking Trekkies to dial it back when going over the specs of the NCC-1864 USS Reliant. (yes I am a trekkie)

Bravo! Nicely done, Hodo.

Quote

Dropships, Jumpships, and Warships, do not fall under any force org chart.

No, but they can surely be shoe-horned onto it to show might and total resources.

Nik Van Rhijn, on 06 December 2011 - 10:38 PM, said:

It may well be that we are in a divergent universe - ie what we do does have an effect and can change the results. As for Wolf's Dragoons I can't see them being a playable faction.

From all I've read, it seems to be something of a mixture of both the divergent universe and the canon universe. So, what non-key units do MAY end up having a wider effect than their local, but it won't be a key effect. Still, I can NOT wait to see how our hosts handle head-to-head elements; I've been assuming that the game will play most specifically like the universe, meaning the contracts you get will be set anywhere and for any reason. Because of this thread, however, I am beginning to understand the contracts will, in all likelihood, be engineered to deal with head-to-head play between live-pilot Merc Corps elements.

Bloody, on 07 December 2011 - 03:05 AM, said:

I sincerely hope that this game turns out more like the BT TT rule rather than MW4. If it turns out as Mw4 then well, i will be disappointed.

As do I, and I believe we'll get closer to TT rules than twitch, I mean MW4 play, hehe. I think the largest problem a lot of us veterans are having with believing MWO will turn out well is because a lot of us consider ourselves having been screwed by Cyberlore with MW4, AT LEAST, and there are a few who even agree that ALL of the prior MW series of games were a sham. To a point, I absolutely agree with them. If we're gun-shy and feel like we've been left behind, I think we will continue to feel this way, and understandably, until we have something that actually fits. Making this game for the widest audience possible, in this case, might actually be backwards of what is necessary for its survival.

Metro, on 07 December 2011 - 04:27 AM, said:

This shouldnt be Battltetech fans versus Mechwarrior fans.

Metro, I would love to agree with you, but in our ADD, instant gratification society, those who are arguing with the most disrespect, who don't want to learn the game, who refuse to better themselves, and only want giant-hokey-robot-combat, big stompy shooter bang-bangs, are the reason this community is split. If their folks had ever taught them to have true respect for other -read older- individuals, especially those who could teach them something, this community would be 180 degrees from what it is.

Speaking of respect... when I first came up in the BattleTech community, even if it was only at my local hobby shop, Orion Hobby between home and downtown Salt Lake City, we might have come into arguments periodically, but we respected one another, the younger learned from the older, had a thirst for the knowledge from those who'd been wargaming for years, and perhaps playing BattleTech a bit longer. It is the drugs, too much government control, and a lack of parental control over their children that has flushed basic manners, and a thirst for knowledge, right down the toilet.