Where do I even begin? This entire diatribe is one straw man after another - you're even doing the same thing I told you I wasn't going to let you get away with (playing with definitions) while complaining about my objections!
TigridMorte, on 29 December 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:
"Fallacious logic is bad thought" So I am committing a thought crime by not accepting this bastardization as cannon? Wow, enjoy that koolaid. Fallacious means based upon deception or falsehood. Sorry, but the fallacy is on the other end of my argument.
No, by using fallacious logic, you are committing a fallacy. Many, in fact, including this straw man. That's where you try to put words in my mouth ("thought crime?" really?) so that you can triumphantly defeat "my" pretend logic and discard my real viewpoint. Debunking a point I never made just makes you look like a Sophist - because you are practicing sophistry. "Fallacious,"
again, means what it means, not what you want to pretend it means. The primary definition of "fallacious" is "containing a fallacy; logically unsound."
http://dictionary.re.../fallacious?s=t
TigridMorte, on 29 December 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:
Just because you wish to enshrine glowing pixels on an alter does not change that it is barely different than little physical miniatures on a map. And to drive that home, battletech the miniature wargame is a 3D mech simulation game. Zero difference there. The only variance in mechwarrior is that it is single mech first person. Otherwise mechwarrior is the same game.
To make it simple; other than your learning to adjust to the presentation to influence the roll of the die, nothing is different than if this were on a table with measuring tape and minis.
Again, no. Tabletop has the much the same relationship to a true 3D simulation as a square has to a cube. Tabletop tries to simulate 3D; MWO
is a virtual 3D space. They both attempt to simulate a fictional reality, but they are different
kinds of simulations. You're trying to say there's no difference in drawing a ship and making a model of one - that a cube is the same as a square because "regardless of the number of lines, the right angles remain."
TigridMorte, on 29 December 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:
Where this version is failing to be battletech is in the math. Regardless of single or multiple mech simulation, the math remains. And this game abandoned it. Active choice, admitted by dev.s whose intent is on their vision, not on making a battle tech based game.
A sub 300 meter brawler is nothing, repeat, nothing like battletech.
Does not make it a bad game, just not mechwarrior.
Now we come to the real heart of the matter; it all comes back to wanting "the math" to be "followed," but only in the ways you like. As the devs told you when they "admitted" the obvious (that they changed the Holy Word of Fasa to make a real-time game actually work,) they deviated from the Prophet Weisman because when they started internal testing, the mechanics just didn't balance out. This is information you have ignored throughout our debate.
TigridMorte, on 29 December 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:
Licensed can mean, "we take the names and do what we want." and that is what they have done here.
" "Battletech game" can only refer to a game made with a 1-1 conversion of the tabletop rules "
No, but it must be based upon the rules or it is an different game. When heat does not work as designed, when weapons don't work as designed, when equipment does not work as designed, when the tiny suffocating terrain would only be chosen for an engagement by a suicidal mad man, it is not battletech.
" - in other words, it can only be the game you want" Well isn't that special. It is the game Jordan Weisman designed, with more than 40 years of play testing, which is in question. Not what I wanted. I like lots of games. I just want "licensed" product to be true to the license. Not, "yeah, we know but we wanted to tell a different story."
I just think if you want to tell a different story you should not use some one else's cover for your book.
Designed? Jordan Weisman designed a 3D computer simulation of Battletech more than a decade before Battledroids was released in 1984? I was unaware of this phenomenon. On the off chance that you are referring to the tabletop game:
again, you cannot use tabletop rules to beat people over the heads about making
this game how you want it to be - or claim that this game isn't a
real "Battletech" simply because it doesn't follow inapplicable rules for a different kind of game. The story they're following is the one that's been told through the game expansions and media. "Story" doesn't mean "converting the rules the way I want them." Saying "but,
math!" doesn't cause an insistance on using rules that don't apply to become valid.
TigridMorte, on 29 December 2012 - 11:17 PM, said:
Shake your virtual fist at my purist dogma all you like, this game is not battletech other than names.
No hate, no rage, just accepting that I am enjoying a non-Btech game much like I enjoyed the movie "Arnold the Barbarian" rather than Conan as written by Robert E. Howard.
Kindly follow your assumptions of superior status, simply because it has moving pictures, down the rabbit hole. A miniature wargame remains one, even with mobile graphics instead of painted miniatures. Zero diff.
'nuf said. Good day.
Once again, re-defining words to suit yourself does not magically change the definitions of those words. A tabletop game and a computer simulation are
similar things; they are not identical categories. The Conan movies starring Ahnold are still Conan movies. It may not be the ones you like; it may not be
good Conan movies as such - but it's still Conan, just as the Lord of the Rings movies are still LotR movies despite their flaws. Same goes for the several horrible Fantastic Four movies. The problems with the Fantastic Four was that it was
done poorly, not that it wasn't the Fantastic Four.
This game is not done poorly, and once again, there's a lot more to Battletech than the minutae of tabletop game rules. The giant, hulking war machines are there; the iconic weapons are there; heat management, loadout space, tonnage requirements (including tonnage numbers for equipment,) engine sizes: all the variations on the theme called "Battlemechs," -
it's all there. You can't claim that the developers never implemented the "right" numbers; they did, and you've even referenced that information in your own argument. You can't claim that they changed the numbers for arbitrary reasons; the numbers as written in the Holy Word of Fasa didn't work for this game format, and so the devs began a series of adjustments that led us to where we are.
Once again, waving the rulebook for a
separate Battletech game around like a club to bully people into agreeing with your point of view is invalid reasoning - and it hasn't worked.
Edited by Void Angel, 30 December 2012 - 05:56 PM.
6
