67 replies to this topic

[Pht]

Volume, on 04 February 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

I actually read about 70% of it and tried to give it a shot, but I WANT to be able to control weapon convergence, I WANT to be able to aim, to track targets, I WANT the game to have that raw physical skill and endurance of a pilot. I know it's too much to have a 360 degree view compressed or something, but maybe field of view zoom should be dynamic and modifiable. Maybe sensors and such just being line of sight is fine.

Um, you can control weapon convergence; just not directly. As far as "aim" - you do, unless you mean "aim" in the sense of directly controlling whatever weapon, which makes zero sense as relates to piloting a battlemech, which by it's basic nature *must* do the physical aiming and its computers must crunch the flood of sensor information; it's simply impossible for the pilot. As far as raw physical skill... it's there. Your mech won't hit what you want it to if you don't use the reticule well... or also think well for you mech.

It seems you are bringing some expectations to MW that simply don't fit the genre.

Quote

... and RNG-based "did my shot hit" is not fun for a fanbase who is used to things going where they aim.

Did you read where I specifically addressed RNG based rules and firing?

Edited by Pht, 04 February 2012 - 07:17 PM.

[Ravn]

Pht, on 04 February 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Your point?

My point is that I use Ad hominem exclusively to argue with Philosophy students. It drives them crazy

[Pht]

Ravn, on 04 February 2012 - 07:04 PM, said:

My point is that I use Ad hominem exclusively to argue with Philosophy students. It drives them crazy

Well, you've failed ... ... I'm not a philosophy student, and ad hominem arguments are ok, as long as they're valid. I don't mind if you call me a name, as long as you can show how it's valid and that you did it for a good reason...

Edited by Pht, 04 February 2012 - 07:09 PM.

[Vexgrave Lars]

Pht! Nice, concise, worth the price... I had to read it twice.

I thought you didn't take much advantage of anything, very well on the spot. Normally I'd feel compelled to troll the Hades Cluster out of you for being so smart, good grammar and all that. But in this case, your veneration of our "disbelief suspender", past and future cannot be chastised in any taste, and your love of the game as well as hopefulness are pretty clear. Though long winded, and brutally painful to consume at any resolution as this was, it was very, very, very good.

Like an extra large 30lb Ultra supreme pizza challenge, eat it all and win.

Well Done!

Vex

[Pht]

LOL!

I don't know why vexgrave, but I'm not sure if your reply might not be a hidden snark! *chuckle*

Either way, thank you. I got a laugh out of it (at your post, not you).

[VYCanis]

2 things

please for the love of God, Buddha, Athe, Allah, Thor, Zeus, Asmodeus, Azathoth, and every diety in between, just these 2 things



1. Can we please not argue Philosophy 101 and Debate 101 when it comes to mw/bt?
2. Can we PLEASE stop quoting and responding to each individual sentence in each other's posts individually? If you're gonna reply, reply to the post at large and spare the rest of us from an exponentially growing argument where people are quoting quotations of quotations just to respond, and the point gets lost in among that mess.

Edited by VYCanis, 04 February 2012 - 07:20 PM.

[Alaskan Viking]

TL;DR

BUT!

Anyone nerdy enough to write a freaking thesis about Mechwarrior like that is alright in my book! Drinks on me.

[Randal Waide]

Well, he did say it was a Manifesto. I can't think of any short manifestos...

[FinnMcKool]

I think we can agree this is for those who like to think things threw very carefully, are you a Proff. ? or Lawyer ?

let me shorten it for folks:

Im pink, therefore Im spam .

a Mechwarrior is therefore spam in a can.



sorry the admin hat verbotten mine spreke,

Edited by FinnMcKool, 04 February 2012 - 07:35 PM.

[Pht]

VYCanis, on 04 February 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

2 things

please for the love of God, Buddha, Athe, Allah, Thor, Zeus, Asmodeus, Azathoth, and every diety in between, just these 2 things



1. Can we please not argue Philosophy 101 and Debate 101 when it comes to mw/bt?
2. Can we PLEASE stop quoting and responding to each individual sentence in each other's posts individually? If you're gonna reply, reply to the post at large and spare the rest of us from an exponentially growing argument where people are quoting quotations of quotations just to respond, and the point gets lost in among that mess.

Well, to keep you happy that I replied to you in a non-philosophical manner with no quote usage ...

No.

FinnMcKool, on 04 February 2012 - 07:33 PM, said:

I think we can agree this is for those who like to think things threw very carefully, are you a Proff. ? or Lawyer ?

let me shorten it for folks:

Im pink, therefore Im spam .

a Mechwarrior is therefore spam in a can.

... no, I'm not a professor or a lawyer. I'm actually a flat-broke poor dude because i have to stay at home and help take care of a severely disabled family member ... and I never finished college.

Edited by Pht, 04 February 2012 - 07:37 PM.

[Kaemon]

Manifesto checklist:

1. insanely long for no reason - CHECK
2. meandering thought process requiring multiple re-reads - CHECK
3. Barely concealed underlying agenda exposed - CHECK
4. Summation can be done in 200 words or less - CHECK
5. OP more about arguing/post count inflation than actual constructive building of community - CHECK

Manifesto Check Complete.

[Pht]

Kaemon, on 04 February 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

Manifesto checklist:

1. insanely long for no reason - CHECK
2. meandering thought process requiring multiple re-reads - CHECK
3. Barely concealed underlying agenda exposed - CHECK
4. Summation can be done in 200 words or less - CHECK
5. OP more about arguing/post count inflation than actual constructive building of community - CHECK

Manifesto Check Complete.

6. Someone thinks they can reply to an argument in a compelling way with vague scoffing and no real counter argument - CHECK.

Edited by Pht, 04 February 2012 - 08:01 PM.

[Kenyon Burguess]

k, I think i got a basic understanding of what your trying to say, and most of it is on par with the rest of the community. unfortunately your post is written on a level that tends to lose most readers concentration long before the end. the world needs to write in the fashion of a mcdonalds menu to be heard, not Domaine de chateauvieux.

[Lorcan Lladd]

Uh, could someone please tell me what is the basic premise of or point made in this tome?
Because I'm not sure I follow, I mean, I know the OP said something about tabletop rules and targeting...
...And as I understand it, there is simply no 'targeting' in tabletop.

Edit.


Books, they have summaries don't they... Your manifesto could use one.

Edited by Lorcan Lladd, 04 February 2012 - 08:11 PM.

[Pht]

Bah. People should watch tv less and read more... than they'd have the patience to read stuff beyond 42 words... People would be more interesting if they did. *wanders off to find an online tester for "reading level."

Edited by Pht, 04 February 2012 - 08:04 PM.

[Mims]

i see what you did there OP. !!!! i also see what you did there Lorcan.

Edited by Mims, 04 February 2012 - 08:12 PM.

[S3dition]

I didn't know it takes 5500 words to say absolutely nothing 0.o

By the way, humidity is independent of snow and rainfall. The word you were looking for is precipitation.

[Pht]

Ok; here's my summary: You won't get anything useful out of it if you don't read it.

[Pht]

S3dition, on 04 February 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

I didn't know it takes 5500 words to say absolutely nothing 0.o

That would only be true if I had been contradicting myself... and I didn't.

Surely there are better ways to make your point than snarking?

Edited by Pht, 04 February 2012 - 08:21 PM.

[Ghost]

Is there any good argument to be had against my intention to close this thread on the grounds that it is, in fact, yet another discussion of "Battletech vs. Mechwarrior"?