72 replies to this topic

[Strum Wealh]

CCC Dober, on 02 August 2012 - 04:07 AM, said:

Alright ladies and gentlemen, I want to show you how current autocannons look like in the real world. Fast forward to 4:25 and enjoy the show =)




When you compare this video with past MW games and the MWO footage we have seen so far, you may start to scratch your head and wonder why there is such a disparity between what you see on screen and what you can see in reality. First of all, the dual autocannons seen here have a tremendous rate of fire. The bigger tank cannon (technically not an autocannon, but comparable) has a much bigger boom IRL and the result of pulling the trigger is a lot more satisfying than anything we have ever seen to date. Take notice, this is 21st century tech and it really makes 31st century ballistics look bad and outdated in comparison. There is more to immersion than just stats and lore, it's also about how the weapons come across on screen and compare to real world examples. Nobody is taking plink weapons, such as the AC2/5s, serious in MW games, unless boated in obscene numbers. But the video above shows this weapon to be much more deadly and desirable than any MW could before.

PGI can definitely bring in some real world flavor into this game, thanks to the possibilities offered by the CryEngine. We have all seen what it is capable of and the stuff shown above is mere childs play in the hands of a special FX designer. What say you? More Dakka or what?

Yet, I was thinking that, say, a generic large AC-20 would be more similar to an auto-loading version of the M115 Howitzer - especially since they are similar in terms of overall mass (14.0 tons for the AC-20, versus 14.5 tons for the M115) and caliber (203mm (as reported for the Cauldron-Born A-Configuration's UAC-20) versus the M115's 8.0"/203mm bore).


(Skip to 2:20 or 2:48 marks to see it firing.)

By contrast, an AC-2, in my mind, is more similar to something like the Bofors 40mm L/70 Anti-Aircraft Autocannon (which massed 5.1 tons, versus the 6.0 tons of BattleTech's AC-2) while an AC-5 would be more similar to something like the 88mm Flak 36 Gun (which massed 7.4 tons, versus the 8.0 tons of BattleTech's AC-5) and the AC-10 would be something like the Type 10 120mm AA Gun (which massed 8.5 tons, versus the 12.0 tons for BattleTech's AC-10).

Given that BattleTech was made in the mid-1980s, it should come as little surprise that what elements it borrowed from reality would be more similar to WWII through the Cold War than to the modern era, yes?

Edited by Strum Wealh, 02 August 2012 - 07:10 AM.

[Traejun DiSanctis]

Maverick01, on 29 July 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

Autocannon/2 (Selector Switch)
Single Fire: 1 round
Burst Fire: 3 rounds

Autocannon/5 (Selector Switch)
Single Fire: 1 round
Burst Fire: 2 rounds

That's basically what a U-AC does. 1 or 2 rounds per cycle.

Perhaps later they will introduce the RAC/2 and RAC/5. I loved the nearly full auto capability of those weapons. Insane damage at pretty good range - and absolutely vicious close in when you don't miss. I single trigger hold can basically annihilate a light mech in seconds. Then again, so can an AC/20.

[CCC Dober]

@Strum
It does not really matter anymore what RL era inspired BT. Take the Gauss Rifle as example. Years ago it was an awesome sight to behold. Then Arnold Schwarzenegger came along and dual wielded the damn thing like it was nothing special. See how that movie affected the visuals for the Gauss Rifle of MW4? Now in 2012, you have to show people something better than that or at least something that can keep up with RL expectations, like Autocannons that aren't a joke but fierce and deadly instead.

But that weapon alone isn't really what makes BT/MW so special. It's about highly advanced technology and having equipment and guns we don't have, which look, sound, perform and feel better than everything we have (seen) to date. Mechs are safe for now, so that's good news at least. But if the Gauss Rifle is old news by now, one of the most advanced weapons in the BT universe, then it can't be the poster child of BT/MW weapons technology anymore. PGI/We have to find something that makes people want it as badly as the old Gauss Rifle. It was causing quite a stir in other games as well, so it's not a MW exclusive phenomenon. Also, if current tank guns and Autocannons are already better than their BT/MW counterparts, then it is high time to give them a well deserved overhaul. Do we really want actual real world tank commanders play MWO and laugh about the guns on offer? Or do we want to see them go nuts about something they have never seen or tried before and rather play MWO because RL weapons are boring in comparison?

My impression is that currently outlawed LVL3 techology can barely meet todays expectations because it is either nothing new or totally unimpressive. Who cares about Special ammunition, Angel ECM, Streak LRMs, Long Toms, Hardened Armor, C3i, Enhanced Imaging or Composite Interals Structure nowadays? Every tank or helicopter can do better than that, right now in the 21st century. No need to wait for the 31st century at all. BT/MW has lost a lot of appeal as far as techhnology goes. The stuff listed above was cool in the 90s, but that was more than 20 years ago. Man, I really wish the guys responsible for all the BT weapons and equipment would have gone with the times instead of remaining stuck in the WW2/Cold War eras of technology. Bloody shame it is.

[SuperBall]

I voted no because if AC cannons get an extra mode then people are going to want an extra mode with every weapon. Such as overcharged ppcs/lasers or something.

[Skylarr]

Quote

Background

Succession Wars, differing greatly in methods and mindset, have the following common characteristics:

• they involved near-constant warfare between all five Successor States,
  
• they were fought over the reestablishment of the Star League under the supremacy of the victor.
  
• scientific knowledge was set back to the level of pre-spaceflight Terra

I am sure there are several games out that that you can play were the Technology was not lost through several hundered years of constant wars.

[zorgoth]

so, who here disables their ppc capacitor for close quarters combat? gotta love a little risk eh?

i say let 'em burst fire. just ah... having to clear a jam or cool the weapon after as a garanteed effect wouldn't be a bad balance. don't want a jaegermech walkin' around the field throwin' around untold ammounts of ordinance, and murderin' atlasses left and right. i'd hate to see a common strategy revolving around jamming a bunch of ac 20s on a mech and burstfiring 'til they ran dry (then resorting to dfa or charging).

ah yes, as a reminder, though i doubt most of you need it, autocannons are rarely actually fire one round, but rather a bunch that'll do roughly the same damage. so with burst fire, firing 2 to 3 sets of that, which is already a burst, could present quite the danger for jamming or overheating the weapon, so the balance won't be lost if its done right.

Edited by zorgoth, 02 August 2012 - 01:44 PM.

[Lightdragon]

hey moron... burst fire is what an ultra autocannon is for.,.. READ THE LORE

[Strum Wealh]

CCC Dober, on 02 August 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

@Strum
It does not really matter anymore what RL era inspired BT. Take the Gauss Rifle as example. Years ago it was an awesome sight to behold. Then Arnold Schwarzenegger came along and dual wielded the damn thing like it was nothing special. See how that movie affected the visuals for the Gauss Rifle of MW4? Now in 2012, you have to show people something better than that or at least something that can keep up with RL expectations, like Autocannons that aren't a joke but fierce and deadly instead.

But that weapon alone isn't really what makes BT/MW so special. It's about highly advanced technology and having equipment and guns we don't have, which look, sound, perform and feel better than everything we have (seen) to date. Mechs are safe for now, so that's good news at least. But if the Gauss Rifle is old news by now, one of the most advanced weapons in the BT universe, then it can't be the poster child of BT/MW weapons technology anymore. PGI/We have to find something that makes people want it as badly as the old Gauss Rifle. It was causing quite a stir in other games as well, so it's not a MW exclusive phenomenon. Also, if current tank guns and Autocannons are already better than their BT/MW counterparts, then it is high time to give them a well deserved overhaul. Do we really want actual real world tank commanders play MWO and laugh about the guns on offer? Or do we want to see them go nuts about something they have never seen or tried before and rather play MWO because RL weapons are boring in comparison?

My impression is that currently outlawed LVL3 techology can barely meet todays expectations because it is either nothing new or totally unimpressive. Who cares about Special ammunition, Angel ECM, Streak LRMs, Long Toms, Hardened Armor, C3i, Enhanced Imaging or Composite Interals Structure nowadays? Every tank or helicopter can do better than that, right now in the 21st century. No need to wait for the 31st century at all. BT/MW has lost a lot of appeal as far as techhnology goes. The stuff listed above was cool in the 90s, but that was more than 20 years ago. Man, I really wish the guys responsible for all the BT weapons and equipment would have gone with the times instead of remaining stuck in the WW2/Cold War eras of technology. Bloody shame it is.

Which example are you referring when you say that "Years ago [the Gauss Rifle] was an awesome sight to behold"?

I ask, considering that the first known operational examples of coilguns (aka "Gauss Guns", after German physicist Carl Friedrich Gauss) were built in 1903 under the supervision of a Norwegian physicist named Kristian Birkeland.
Birkeland's "elektriske kanon" was functional, but only had a muzzle velocity of 100 m/s and a range of about 1 kilometer.

Behold the "elektriske kanon", the original Gauss Rifle (which may or may not have actually been rifled...)!




Better than a century later (2006), DARPA published a report in which they state that they're considering a coilgun-based mortar system, while the US Navy tested high-powered railguns (another type of electromagnetic accelerator with vastly different operating principles) at about the same time.

So, just because Gauss Guns (rifled or otherwise) are over a century old, are they no longer "cool"?

-----

"But that weapon alone isn't really what makes BT/MW so special. It's about highly advanced technology and having equipment and guns we don't have, which look, sound, perform and feel better than everything we have (seen) to date."

Actually, I would disagree; is that's what makes the BT/MW franchise special, then what makes it different from, say, Gundam (generally considered the progenitor of the "non-super-robot" mecha paradigm) or Macross (from which the visual depictions of many of the original BattleMechs originated) or Star Wars or Earthsiege or Armored Core?

IMO, part of what makes BT/MW unique - and what was borrowed by other franchises like Heavy Gear or Front Mission or Chromehounds - is the juxtaposition of advanced technology (combat-worthy mecha, crystalline data storage units) with more modern, or even retro, technology (weapon systems based on modern or older real-world weapon concepts) in a setting that, like the BattleMechs themselves, is as modern/retro as it is futuristic.

So, the Atlas is a big stompy humanoid-tank-thing with some lasers (because "lasers are cool"), missiles from the 1960s (if, mass-wise, LRMs are basically Redeye missiles and SRMs are basically Stinger missiles) and an artillery piece from WWII (if the AC-20 is basically a large-bore howitzer) piloted by a Space Knight in the service of his/her feudal lord.

Sure, it could be modernized and/or made even more futuristic... but, then, would it really still be the BT/MW that so many hold in such high regard?

[Kiril007]

it would take the longer fights away, witch makes it less even battles! for excample u see an atlas come to you shoot 3 round at your arm, it explodes because to much dmg at once --> no fun to it, u might even disconnect ...

or am i wrong here:D (got no beta so probably wrong)

[Aggravated Assault Mech]

Performance of real life weaponry has precisely nothing to do with Battletech.

Autocannon sizes are absolutely vague categories. They exist purely to classify a vast array of different weapon systems into rough approximations of power. An AC/20 might be a low-velocity, rapid-fire 100mm cannon, or it might be shooting a HV 200mm discarding sabot with a ROF of 10 RPM.

The only thing that AC/2s are good at is shooting at long range. If you want to make them some rapid fire chain gun, go ahead, but understand that the change will be purely aesthetic, because AC/2s do completely ****** damage by design. Deal with it.

Trying to translate Battletech canon into real-world numbers (or real world technology into Battletech numbers) will make your brain explode. Don't do it.

Edited by vnlk65n, 03 August 2012 - 05:53 AM.

[kyune mikawa]

The various Mechwarrior games (and Battletech MUXes, which tend to operate closer to the board game rules) traditionally handle this issue by having a faster recycle time on lower-strength AC weapons. I see no reason why this trend would change (or really needs to, for that matter).

Edited by kyune mikawa, 03 August 2012 - 07:35 AM.

[CCC Dober]

@Strum
You're missing the point mate. Once this technology was scaled down sufficiently and got sufficient media attention (in games/movies), it wasn't special anymore. The movie Eraser did just that and other games like the Fallout series and Stalker either did it before or afterwards. It's not a BT/MW exclusive weapon by any means. So when people see it on Mechs, they already know it from somewhere else.

What's the selling point in terms of weapons now? Hyper Assault Gauss Rifles? Rotary AC20? Plasma Cannon?
And if so, what kind of armor do we need to cope with some of these monsters? Hard kill anti ballistic solutions? Advanced reactive armor? Shield systems? Otherwise TT rules and technology aren't even remotely prepared for weapons like that.

It's like this game forgot all about progress when it got stuck with LVL2 crap tech, never daring to go beyond LVL3 and people getting angry at the Clans with their supposedly superior tech which is essentially just a rehash of the same old same old. I didn't see this game moving forwards very much in the past. Real innovations got cockblocked by strict LVL2 tournament rules and those in favor of fighting with both hands tied behind their back, preferring to deny the existence of advanced technology and would sooner head butt each other rather than help to bring the game to the next level. It's like the whole game was captured and run by orks/trolls. I'm rather disgusted of this turn of events.

Nevertheless, that was the past and TT to boot, so I hope we do not have to suffer the same fate in MWO.

[Strum Wealh]

CCC Dober, on 03 August 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

@Strum
You're missing the point mate. Once this technology was scaled down sufficiently and got sufficient media attention (in games/movies), it wasn't special anymore. The movie Eraser did just that and other games like the Fallout series and Stalker either did it before or afterwards. It's not a BT/MW exclusive weapon by any means. So when people see it on Mechs, they already know it from somewhere else.

Why is it necessarily an issue if Gauss Rifles - or any other weapon/weapon-concept, for that matter - are not wholly exclusive to the BT/MW franchise? Why does it matter if people might have heard the term "Gauss Rifle" or encountered the concept elsewhere?

So Eraser (released in 1996) had a railgun (and the "EM-1" featured in the film was stated to be a railgun, rather than a true Gauss Gun (that is, a coilgun)).
So Fallout (1997), S.T.A.L.K.E.R. (2007), and Crysis (2007) each have weapons they call "Gauss Rifles" (though, unlike Eraser's EM-1, most of these seem to actually be proper coilguns).

However, the first mention of the Gauss Rifle in BattleTech comes from TRO 2750, which was published in 1989 (thus predating all of the above).
So, for whatever it might be worth, BattleTech had Gauss Rifles - with BT Gauss Rifles being coilguns rather than railguns, at that - first (of the items listed thus far).

CCC Dober, on 03 August 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

What's the selling point in terms of weapons now? Hyper Assault Gauss Rifles? Rotary AC20? Plasma Cannon?
And if so, what kind of armor do we need to cope with some of these monsters? Hard kill anti ballistic solutions? Advanced reactive armor? Shield systems? Otherwise TT rules and technology aren't even remotely prepared for weapons like that.

MWO starts in 3049 in the BT/MW universe.

HAGRs don't come into the (canon) BT/MW universe until 3068.
There is no such thing in BT/MW canon as a RAC-20; even the Clans are canonically limited to their versions of the RAC-2 and RAC-5, and neither of those come into the BT/MW universe until 3062 (for the IS version; 3069 for the Clan version).
Plasma Rifles (for the IS) and Plasma Cannons (for the Clans) don't come into the (canon) BT/MW universe until 3068 and 3069, respectively.

Defensively, there are a wide variety of armor types (though, many are not available until much later in the timeline), AMS, ECM suites, and special defensive systems (including Laser-Inhibiting Warheads, Blue Shield Particle Field Dampers, Retro-Streak Warheads, Nemesis Pods, Chaff Pods, and so on; note, though, that many of these items are not widely available until much later in the timeline).

To put your own question back at you, why does MWO - a project whose creators have repeatedly stated will be very heavily based in BT canon - need to have an "exclusive gimmick" or a "signature weapon"?
What's wrong with MWO being "a game set in the BattleTech universe, from the year 3049 onward", even if it does mean being a little "retro"?

CCC Dober, on 03 August 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

It's like this game forgot all about progress when it got stuck with LVL2 crap tech, never daring to go beyond LVL3 and people getting angry at the Clans with their supposedly superior tech which is essentially just a rehash of the same old same old. I didn't see this game moving forwards very much in the past. Real innovations got cockblocked by strict LVL2 tournament rules and those in favor of fighting with both hands tied behind their back, preferring to deny the existence of advanced technology and would sooner head butt each other rather than help to bring the game to the next level. It's like the whole game was captured and run by orks/trolls. I'm rather disgusted of this turn of events.

Nevertheless, that was the past and TT to boot, so I hope we do not have to suffer the same fate in MWO.

It's less that MWO "forgot all about progress" than the fact that MWO is set to take place in a specific era within a long-established franchise where certain technologies, in a form that would be effective on that era's battlefields, does not (yet) exist, and MWO is attempting to take all reasonable measures to be true to that franchise.

Change for change's sake - such as complete removal of the AC-2 and renaming the remaining ACs, replacing the PPC with weapons from the Terminator franchise, "redesigning" the missile pods, introducing non-canon 'Mechs/tech, or even "just" introducing canon 'Mechs/tech before their time - is neither necessarily good nor fitting with the apparent goals of MWO and its creators.

Again, is there something inherently wrong with MWO being "a game set in the BattleTech universe, from the year 3049 onward", even if it does mean being a bit "retro" in some respects?

[Felicitatem Parco]

Threads like this are useful for telling the difference ebetween "people who know a lot about BattleTech", and "people who know a lot about BattleTech and pay attention to details when having discussion."

For instance, a Burst Fire AC2 that fires only 1/3 as frequently as a normal AC/2 fails to meet the criteria for either an Ultra AC/2 or a Rotary AC/2 because both of those weapons are able to deal out more than 2 damage per firing turn when averaged over time: The UAC/2 can deal 4damage per turn on average because it shoots twice as quickly as a normal AC/2 and you can shoot it every turn, and the Rotary AC/2 can deal up to 12 damage per turn, on average, because it can shoot 6 rounds in a turn and you can shoot it every turn. HOWEVER, a burst-fire AC/2 that shoots 3 shots, then has to cool down for 3 turns, will average an output of only 2 damage per turn over time.

A burst-fire AC/2 is still an AC/2 because it deals damage at a rate that matches the forumula of "Sustained Damage Points delivered = 2X number of firing turns over time." In six turns, you can shoot a pair of 3-shot bursts which deals 12 damage. That's an AC/2; not an Ultra or a Rotary, it's just an AC/2.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 04 August 2012 - 10:08 AM.

[Ryokochan]

Strum Wealh, on 02 August 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

Yet, I was thinking that, say, a generic large AC-20 would be more similar to an auto-loading version of the M115 Howitzer - especially since they are similar in terms of overall mass (14.0 tons for the AC-20, versus 14.5 tons for the M115) and caliber (203mm (as reported for the Cauldron-Born A-Configuration's UAC-20) versus the M115's 8.0"/203mm bore).


(Skip to 2:20 or 2:48 marks to see it firing.)

By contrast, an AC-2, in my mind, is more similar to something like the Bofors 40mm L/70 Anti-Aircraft Autocannon (which massed 5.1 tons, versus the 6.0 tons of BattleTech's AC-2) while an AC-5 would be more similar to something like the 88mm Flak 36 Gun (which massed 7.4 tons, versus the 8.0 tons of BattleTech's AC-5) and the AC-10 would be something like the Type 10 120mm AA Gun (which massed 8.5 tons, versus the 12.0 tons for BattleTech's AC-10).

Given that BattleTech was made in the mid-1980s, it should come as little surprise that what elements it borrowed from reality would be more similar to WWII through the Cold War than to the modern era, yes?

I see the M115 Howitzer as a towed, manualy loaded Sniper Artillery Piece. The vehical/Mech mounted version has an autoloader that adds the extra 5 Tons. I also see the Thumper Artillery Piece as a 155mm range weapon and the Long Tom Artillery piece as a 280mm weapon. Of coarse others might have a diffrent view.

Edited by Ryokochan, 04 August 2012 - 11:03 AM.

[Deceptor]

Skylarr, on 02 August 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

[b] [b]

I am sure there are several games out that that you can play were the Technology was not lost through several hundered years of constant wars.

you know, I understand this is a mainstay of the lore, but I can see no other reason it was implemented in the first place other than to keep people from dreaming up super-powerful game breaking weapons, so that there was no "lava cannons" or anything like that. In all seriousness, the story that hundreds of years of years would destroy technology is ludacris. Wars IMPROVE weapons technology, and has been the case since we were ever organized enough to coordinate mass attacks as a species. Duh.

[CCC Dober]

@Strum
Now that begin to realize that the Gauss Rifle is not special anymore because it was featured in other games and eraser (technically a rail gun, but the effect carried over to MW4 nevertheless), why not accept the fact that it does the game no good?

Put yourself out of your limited perspective for a second and consider this: you want to show this game to somebody who has never played it. You have like 60 seconds to sell it real good. Back in the old days, you just pointed at the Gauss Rifle and it was rather impressive. Lasers, missiles and other ballistics were rather unimpressive. Now the Gauss magic is gone, what are you gonna do now?

Next one: timeline and technology

You obviously realize that most of the supposedly advanced stuff is not so advanced today as it was back in the 90s. In fact it's a joke for the most part and I'm being kind here. The only exception, being the RAC10/20s introduced by MechForce UK are so incredibly over the top because there is no armor to counter that kind of firepower. And that's basically the only reason speaking against them. That would be the kind of weapon, along with the HAG40 and Plasma Cannon that would make people go nuts (in a good way). But no, the TT rules are cockblocking again and the ingrained mindset in the more religious following. Totally unacceptable given our modern times and the competition.

The only thing wrong with MWO would be if the awareness of the declining technologgical appeal would not sink in eventually. That would be wrong. Canon and the timeline do not help a lot in this regard, but some critical thinking and an outside perspective/open mind.

[cinco]

no. it should just have a faster rate of fire.

[Deceptor]

cinco, on 04 August 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

no. it should just have a faster rate of fire.

That

[Strum Wealh]

Ryokochan, on 04 August 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

I see the M115 Howitzer as a towed, manualy loaded Sniper Artillery Piece. The vehical/Mech mounted version has an autoloader that adds the extra 5 Tons. I also see the Thumper Artillery Piece as a 155mm range weapon and the Long Tom Artillery piece as a 280mm weapon. Of coarse others might have a diffrent view.

Alternatively, the BT/MW Long Tom Artillery Piece might have been modeled on the real-world Long Toms (155mm field guns from WWII)?
Likewise, the Sniper Artillery Piece and Thumper Artillery Piece would represent similar or slightly lighter/smaller field guns, with the still-lighter "artillery cannon" variants of each representing much lighter field guns?

-----

CCC Dober, on 04 August 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

@Strum

Now that begin to realize that the Gauss Rifle is not special anymore because it was featured in other games and eraser (technically a rail gun, but the effect carried over to MW4 nevertheless), why not accept the fact that it does the game no good?

Put yourself out of your limited perspective for a second and consider this: you want to show this game to somebody who has never played it. You have like 60 seconds to sell it real good. Back in the old days, you just pointed at the Gauss Rifle and it was rather impressive. Lasers, missiles and other ballistics were rather unimpressive. Now the Gauss magic is gone, what are you gonna do now?

Firstly:
The "good" of the Gauss Rifle is that it fulfills a particular niche (hard-hitting, long-range, low-heat direct-fire weapon, offset by low ammo-per-ton counts, high weight, and (presumably) reasonably-long recycle times) within the BT/MW universe.
That other media have since used Gauss guns and similar devices - and that the very concept was physically demonstrated over a century ago - is arguably both irrelevant and immaterial in relation to the fact that it fulfills its designated role in BT/MW as well or better than the alternatives.

Secondly:
To address the hypothetical, I would not point to the single weapon but to those things that have always worked to sell the franchise - the combination of the 'Mechs themselves, the customizability of said 'Mechs, the setting and the underlying story, and the gameplay that generally lends itself to a much more considerate and tactical style of gameplay than the typical "run-and-gun" shooter.

Expecting a single weapon/item/concept - one that can and will be copied by other media if/when they get the chance - to drive a whole franchise (especially a mecha-based war-game franchise, which by its very nature tends to draw the exacting and technically-minded sort) is at best extremely naive and at worst just as daft (if not more so).

CCC Dober, on 04 August 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

Next one: timeline and technology

You obviously realize that most of the supposedly advanced stuff is not so advanced today as it was back in the 90s. In fact it's a joke for the most part and I'm being kind here. The only exception, being the RAC10/20s introduced by MechForce UK are so incredibly over the top because there is no armor to counter that kind of firepower. And that's basically the only reason speaking against them. That would be the kind of weapon, along with the HAG40 and Plasma Cannon that would make people go nuts (in a good way). But no, the TT rules are cockblocking again and the ingrained mindset in the more religious following. Totally unacceptable given our modern times and the competition.

The only thing wrong with MWO would be if the awareness of the declining technologgical appeal would not sink in eventually. That would be wrong. Canon and the timeline do not help a lot in this regard, but some critical thinking and an outside perspective/open mind.

BattleTech could have very-easily have been designed to incorporate the modern weapons and associated equipment of its day into the game.
However, that would not have been conducive to the goals of the game.

• "Real-world primary main battle tank weapons have operational targeting ranges in excess of 4,000 meters. Because Classic BattleTech mapsheets are only seventeen hexes long, recreating real-world ranges on a table would require more than seven mapsheets laid end to end, for a playing space greater than twelve feet in length. Not many people have that type of table space, nor would it provide players with any tactical maneuvering room. Anywhere a player might move a unit on the map, an attacker could hit that unit."
  
• "Classic BattleTech has always been about “in-your-face” combat, which works best with closer ranges."

Both of the above statements are from page 38 of the modern edition of the BattleTech rulebook, Total Warfare.

Granted, the MechWarrior computer games don't have the space concerns of the parent system, but they do share the same aesthetic concerns; even something as relatively straightforward as "just" increasing the weapons' effective ranges to the more-realistic BattleForce values (by multiplying the CBT ranges by six), the game changes from "in-your-face dogfights" to "firing as much as possible from barely inside standoff range for as long as possible" - much the same change, as it happens, that took place in the arena of real-world aerial combat.

As I pointed out before, MWO is set to take place in a specific era within the long-established BattleTech franchise where certain technologies, in forms that would be effective on that era's battlefields, do not (yet) exist, and MWO's creators are evidently attempting to take all reasonable measures to be true to that franchise while also providing a fun (for us) and profitable (for them and their investors) product.

Adopting kitschy gimmicks and "change for change's sake" that run contrary to those evident goals would, IMO, arguably hurt them and us more, in both the short and long terms, then it could ever be expected to help...