Void Angel, on 01 January 2013 - 01:06 AM, said:
I shall decline to deal with your two-part megapost point-by-point, since that would be even MORE unreadable. I shall instead cover a couple of highlights!
... I guess that's one way to cover one's backside when you can't find a valid way to answer objections in detail
Quote
This is precisely what you are asking for, and precisely the objection that has been raised repeatedly by myself and others - since half of "the combat system" is indeed valid for this play format.
----
Mouse-aiming allows targeting in ways that break the tabletop range and movement difficulty system, and this really does destroy game balance if the weapon numbers are slavishly copied.
----
This is what, as you have been repeatedly advised, prompted the devs to embark on the tweaks and adjustments which have led the game to where it is. They started from the very numbers you want them to go back to - and made the adjustments they made for logical reasons they have talked about elsewhere.
----
How can you be surprised when you discard all the real data about how the game worked (and they have real data - you have theorycraft based on a tabletop game) because you tell them they didn't try hard enough? If you were simply bringing up concerns based on actual fact and gameplay
"This" what? What, exactly, are you trying to attribute to me here? "This" that you just quoted from my post or something else that you're presuming and not actually putting on the forums?
----
I've posted nothing that says or means that mouse aiming doesn't break things. What you (and many others) appear to be completely missing is that the current (and past) MW video games allow the players to do things that are impossible to do in a BattleMech.
All of the MW video games have, instead of simulating the
'Mech's ability to calculate where to actually physically aim the weapons and than use its various mechanical and computer systems to align the weapons to hit what the Mechwarrior is aiming at... No, instead of simulating the 'Mechs from the BT lore ... in a game that's supposed to be about piloting 'Mechs from the BT lore ... we've been given anything but.
It's not mouse aiming that breaks the system; it's that the hit location tables -
(which, again, simulate the 'Mech's ultimate ability to get multiple weapons to align on a mobile 'Mech sized target, not Mechwarrior aiming skill)
- haven't been ported over - in any form at all. This lack of porting the hit location tables over plus pixel-perfect aiming means the entire TT damage assessment system will not work; thus we see, say, double armor, and endless weapons damage tweaks.
----
You seem to have a habit of thinking that attaching abusive ad-hominems to me will somehow stand in for valid argument from true premises. "Theorycraft."
So, what's the
meaningful difference between the data that makes up the TT combat system and the data that makes up the MWO implementation? ... Or will this be another of those details you choose to ignore?
----
Quote
The rules for standard Battletech (the relevant game materials have been quoted to you verbatim)...
----
....are a generalization of the second-to-second decisions the pilot is making over the course of ten seconds.
----
However, there is a ruleset which, like the double blind rules, is applicable to the second-to-second decision scale we're using here - and it implements the differing rates of fire for the "canon" weapons.
----
So even if you were correct that we could somehow transport only half the rules and somehow have game balance, the item rules which actually apply to the type of Battletech game we are playing still say you're wrong.
They have? Where? Or are you confusing me with someone else?
----
No, they aren't, not in any meaningful sense at all. I suppose if you decide to abuse the english language, you could make an attempt to make them such, though.
----
I'll presume you're making reference to the solaris box set (which I suspect you've never even skimmed; it's not an easy set to find) - it does not allow for the weapons to be fired on a different set of recycle times. It simply allows them to be fired every 2.5 instead of 10 seconds; nothing else was changed, as far as weapons numbers, besides the quicker recycle times.
----
You really aren't reading my posts, are you? ... I was *
complaining* that only half of the combat system was ported over, instead of the whole thing (minus the piloting dice rolls and the pilots gunnery skill rolls).
Quote
No matter how you squirm, no matter how many times you pull partial quotes out of context, misconstrue arguments made against you, or ignore points that have already been made to you and not rebutted;
There is a quote function. You can use it when you make these sorts of accusations; but I expect that you won't, because once you finally bother read my posts, you'll realize that I've not pulled anything you've posted out of context, that I've not misconstrued anything you've posted, or ignored anything you've posted, either.
It's fun to bluster. It's not so fun to show everyone that there's something more than bluster to you.
Quote
you cannot get around the simple fact that your own logic defeats you because it is inconsistent.
Again, ... got quote? Got name of fallacy? ... or just fast fingers?
Quote
This is the point which I made to you pages ago, which you quote in your double-long megapost on page 9 of this thread. You cannot claim, for example, that you are championing the "pure" item lists, then in almost the same breath claim that laser raking is ok (since it's in all the supporting fiction and rulebook vignettes) - because by the same item rules you're asking for, lasers deal all their damage to a single location.
Yes, the lasers rake - just enough to cross a single location.
Quote
Also on the subject of semantics, unless you are sharing your account and co-writing these posts, a single person. Thus, when I speak of "people," I cannot refer to only you, since I'm using the
plural.
Your attaching the plural before a string of quotes from only one person - me - and than replies directly to what I had posted - will not get you off of the hook.
No honest person would think you were referring to a group of people instead of only me with your string of quotes and replies to them.
Furthermore, you did not do anything in the language of your post to indicate that you had changed your discussion to someone else with your mention of mechcommander. Furthermore, the very next sentence was in reference to my comment about MW:tactics. In fact, nowhere in your post is there any indication in your language that you were replying to someone else.
You were replying to me, not to someone else, and not to a group; and if you're going to say that you really were, but your couldn't get your language straight ... I'm not going to presume you're that ignorant.
Quote
Despite it being pointed out to you that your standards are inconsistent ("you can't import half the TT system and expect it to be balanced," but "we're not asking for a complete conversion, just the equipment stats")
You won't
ever find me posting anywhere that we should just port over the equipment stats. This includes at mektek and everywhere else I've discussed how to convert TT to MW.
Void Angel, on 01 January 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:
PS: Hit location tables are a generalization (already quoted you the canon reference) of overall targetting efficiency.
----
The thing they're actually simulating is the fact that you don't always hit what you're aiming at - computer control or no.
----
Also, if the to-hit numbers were only related to the Battlemech's ability to align the weapons on the target, pilot skill wouldn't reduce the to-hit numbers.
Even if I fully granted you this point it would still not mean they should not be used in the MW video game format and it would still
not mean that the hit location tables
do not describe a BattleMech's ultimate ability to get it's weapons to concentrate under the reticule vs a mobile 'Mech sized target.
----
They're not simulating what you're saying they are; and even if they were, it still wouldn't matter, because they're not simulating the 'Mechs ability to bring it's weapons to bear to hit what the Mechwarrior is indicating.
----
I should have been more clear: I was referring to the +/- modifers that the individual weapons have attached to them.
A Mechwarrior can't make a pulse laser -3 instead of -2; a pulse laser is always and only -2; nor can a MechWarrior make a clan heavy laser not be +1.
Quote
Is it as relatively difficult to hit things at increasing ranges with most weapons as it was in TT? Assuming the target is standing still, no, it's not.
----
But the attenuation of weapon damage at long ranges fulfills the exact same function as target hit probability in regard to weapon balance.
----
Everything on this point comes back to the criteria used to select which rules to follow and which to discard. Most of you guys say you just want the equipment lists, because "the numbers were balanced and all was right, Amen." but the numbers don't balance without the range, movement, and piloting modifiers, and the heat modifiers, and so on. The introduction of mouse aiming and real-time decision-making breaks a true conversion of tabletop numbers.
Battletech (the lore, the tabletop, the video games, etc) and "reality," never shall the two be joined.
False comparison.
----
Weapons damage attenuation is the same thing as hit percentages and does not fulfill the same function in a game's damage resolution system.
----
You really *haven't* been reading my posts, have you? I've been complaining on these forums from nearly the first day these forums were online that you can't use the damage numbers without the to-hit numbers mechanics (minus the pilots gunnery and piloting rolls) and the hit location tables mechanic.
Edited by Pht, 01 January 2013 - 05:31 PM.
6
He does not.
