Indoorsman, on 11 January 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:
I guess you forgot the part where you called your opponents(the no voters) stupid.
----
I don't see a numbered list, all I see are 2 very long sentences.
I haven't done this.
----
So now, a list can't be a list if it doesn't use numbers? You seem to have a strange way of defining the word "
list."
Indoorsman said:
1. WHAT is wrong? WHY is that bad? HOW to make it right.
What is wrong - answered that - "It seems the to-hit modifiers for the individual weapons and the hit-location tables have not been implemented."
Why is it wrong - answered that - "and that has led to drastic consequences for combat (dual reticles, doubled armor, weapons damage vs armor ratios out of whack, etc)."
How to make it right - answered that - or are you
seriously going to tell me that nobody can make the
valid deduction (figure it out) from the content of the post that the way to fix it is to implement the two combat mechanics that were mentioned? Or that people reading this thread haven't noticed my multiple mentions of the fix elsewhere?
Quote
No it is you who has proving to do, because you are in the minority.
----
People who are against having this game use TT values are defending the system AS IS. You are saying to CHANGE the system and make it like TT, another reason it is you, not us, who has proving to do.
So, If you're in the majority, you don't have to bear the burden of proof for your arguments... and if you're wanting to keep the status quo, you don't have to bear the burden of proof... ?
... interesting
rationalizations.
The reason I asked after his argument is because he made a claim which, by the way he made it, indicates that he should have some specific rules/mechanics in mind AND why they wouldn't work. If he has these mechanics in mind AND he
wants to prove that they can't be converted over to the MW format... why *wouldn't* he list them out?
Quote
Saying it is not like TT and here's how to make it like TT, is not proving anything.
Not the argument I've been making.
What I have been doing:
I've said that it's wrong to not use the TT combat mechanics, shown that it's wrong to do so by pointing out the *necessary results* from doing what they're currently doing with the combat system, and pointed out how to fix it.
... and here's more of what I've actually been arguing:
Pht, on 31 December 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:
... I thought it was clear that I wanted (and I presume most of the other "don't arbitrarily ignore the TT") guys want is not tt2.0 - we want mechwarrior.
It's just that we realize that you can't have invalid or double standard when you choose what to port over and what not to port over.
You can't grab half the combat system values and none of the combat mechanics built to work with them and expect those numbers to work in a different combat system.
... and I've done more, too, and in direct interaction with you:
Pht, on 31 December 2012 - 07:42 PM, said:
When someone says they're making a Mechwarrior video game they mean they're making a game that simulates what it's like, in first person, to pilot a battlemech from the BTUniverse.
The behavior of the BTU battlemechs is set and defined by the "mechs" in the TT system - EDIT: btw, this is not just my opinion. This is how the IP owners have done things since the days of FASA. To the point that the novelists are annoyed by it. If you don't believe me, ask them at the bt site.
This game is not simulating what it's like to pilot a battlemech from the BTU. It is not working.
The above quote being yet another argument as to why it's wrong to use
invalid standards for choosing what to port over from the TT...
Pht, on 31 December 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:
If you name your game something that carries a definitive meaning and you've not met that definition than you've not made the game you said you were going to make.
I than a few pages later posted the reference from TechManual where it's directly said that, yes, Ineed, it's the 'Mech that aims and brings the weapons to bear.
Pht, on 05 January 2013 - 04:58 PM, said:
I would normally agree with you, but when they don't make the game they promised to make - the game implied by the very name of said game - something's seriously out of whack.
A MechWarrior video game in which the combat capability of the 'Mech is not simulated - this is an oxymoron.
...
Here, I'll even go a step further:
"Way back when" some people decided it would be cool to "be" the MechWarrior themselves; and the most capable means they had at hand for suspending their disbelief for a bit of MW escapism were video games.
So, just what does "MechWarrior" mean, by definition and in the context that it is used in?
"Mech" - In this case shorthand for BattleMech, an upright walking armed and armored combat unit from the Battletech Universe/Lore.
"Warrior" A person that makes war, usually by the means of combat.
So, "MechWarrior" means someone that pilots the aforementioned armored combat unit called a BattleMech in armed conflict.
Obviously, what follows,
of necessity, from this definition and the motivation for making the MW video games in the first place is that an MW video game is a game built to simulate what it is like to pilot a BattleMech in combat, in such a manner as to give the player just enough suspension of disbelief so that they can have a good time by mentally "escaping reality" into the BTUniverse for a little while.
If a game claims to be a MechWarrior game but doesn't follow the above definition and pursue the above goal, it's not a MW game.
Furthermore, the novelists have been *forced* to make the way they write the 'Mech combat up to comply with the
boundaries set by the tabletop rules system; to the point they complain about it and call it "heavy handed," so appealing to the novels and the fluff text doesn't work as a counter argument either, because those sources also comply with the TT system.
Edited by Pht, 12 January 2013 - 05:30 PM.
6
