forum attitude towards visualizing the game

[skiltao]

You're taking it too seriously. The original numbers were pulled out of the game designer's places where the sun shines not. We've already had an ex forumite go off the deep end trying to rationalise game stats to physical constants, and it would give me no pleasure to see this happen again. Please feel free to play with ideas, within reason, but there can be no physical validity to anything you pull from game stats, except by random chance.

It's like the 90m max range for machine guns. It can be fun for a while to invent rationalisations for why this should be, but at the end of the day, it's "because", and always will be. To presume there's a coherent rationale behind any of it verges on paradoelia.

W.

1: Examining a thing in detail does not equate to taking that thing seriously.

2: You give the devs too little credit. When you're practiced and have good reflexes, even the numbers you pull from your *** tend to be coherent enough for scrutiny.

3: A lot of early numbers hold together with surprising exactness. Not all and not perfectly, by any means, but certainly more and better than you'd have us believe.

4: Many things in BattleTech don't stand up to scrutiny (especially materials science), true, but there is a danger of going off the opposite deep end trying to convince people that none of it is coherent or rational.

5: It's reasonable to caution people against burning out, but it's probably best not to mention that the topic is futile. That's true of virtually all topics, and self-evident to boot; in this it's no different from painting minis or pushing chits across a sand table.

6: Your point *is* a good one to keep in mind, and you've put it well. But this was the third time it was raised in that thread and it doesn't actually contribute to the discussion. Is there perhaps a better, less disruptive place to make it?  :-\

[Beazle]

I don't see anything wrong with multiple people expressing the same opinion in the same thread.

I see threads as a way of polling the public opinion of a topic.  If I see the same thought expressed by multiple people, I then that opinion carries much more weight with me than any other single opinion, no matter how well put.

[worktroll]

Folks,

that's not a forum attitude, that's worktroll's attitude (and I should know). Forum staff are allowed to participate in the forum community.

Don't agree? No worries, as the natives here say. But disagreement is allowed, as long as it's consistent with the forum rules. If you feel the post's breaking rules, hit the "Report to Mods" button.

If you have a concern over such being handled to your satisfaction, I recomment contacting the CGL Observer (observer@catalystgamelabs.com, IIRC), who has oversight over all forum staff, including admins.

Cheers,

W.

[Paul]

Yeah, I'm not sure why this thread is in here.

[skiltao]

The issue isn't that people expressed an opinion. It's that, instead of contributing new information or a new way to approach the topic, their "opinion" was that the topic itself is wholly invalid and people should stop being interested in it.

That attitude is pernicious. This forum should be a place to cultivate interest in BattleTech, not turn it away.

I addressed specific aspects of worktroll's post in order to point out how flimsy his rationalization was. That distracted you guys from the main issue, and for that I apologize. Mea culpa. My remarks aren't aimed worktroll or the staff especially; I meant to discuss an attitude I've seen from many people over the years, including regular users. Please read my above post as being the same in tone and intent as the one it's responding to.

[Paul]

I think you're taking that too seriously, as well. You'll note, for example, that the thread is still alive and doing well. Seems to me that his post was then wholly unsuccessful in turning interest away, as you put it. Presuming that was the intent.

Meanwhile, it's good to remember that the Report button is the best way to flag behavior that you think may be violating the rules.

[Kitsune413]

Worktrolls comment isnt a prohibition against the topic. He is just pointing out that the conversation has been debated before. Constantly. From having witnessed it in the past I will share my own views.

A realist will point out some fact like how a machine gun in real life can shoot far, in battletech they cant ahoot past 90 meters.

An idealist like myself will point out that because the bullets will spread and battletech armor is so wicked awesome that it probably makes machine guns inneffective at long distances.

Then they will point out that machine gun rules are the same for shooting a car. So ecm and wicked armor cant be to blame.

There are a few undeniable truths:

The system is an abstraction. The developers admit this. Its made for gameplay.

Second, battletech weapons are based off of real world ideas. The abstracted weapons are made to simulate something. So an argument in their hypothetical plausibility is always possible.  Is battletech armor insane? Of course it is. Is battletech armor hypothetically possible in a universe with possibly undiscovered materials with science that may make ours look like we still believe the world is flat? Of course it is.

But the thing is, if you are trying to debunk the setting ive loved my whole life that im idealistic about im going to get upset.

And if im going to try to prove you wrong about something you have conviction in and you know you are right you are going to get upset.

Its an intellectual trap because as an abstraction of real world ideas its hypothetically relevant... and is practically designed to make people miserable.

[skiltao]

Kitsune413, worktroll remarked on the topic being a rabbit hole. Not a can of worms, nor a dead horse. (Obviously the topic can be all three of those things at times. I'm not contesting that.)

Paul, I'm taking it no more seriously than worktroll took his point - he wasn't commenting on a rules violation, and neither am I. You can't seriously think my reaction is disproportionate unless his was as well. And if his post was an overreaction, then a post cautioning against such overreaction (as mine did) should be welcome.

[Paul]

Sweet, so we agree there's no forum issue here. Always great when consensus is achieved.
Thread locked.