New Testingstan

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:42 pm**

starku wrote:they said turn based rules simply will not work

This bit could be interpreted in so much different ways...

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:44 pm**

the faq on the website is sooooooooo funny

they are yanking their cocks so hard over how simulationist and complex and deep and super amazing the btech rules are

and i really hope they know they're lying :V

Q. Will LRMs in MechWarriorÂ® Onlineâ„¢ be guided or unguided?

A. LRMs will be semi-guided. What the heck does that mean? You will be able to lock on to your target but it doesn't mean the actual missiles will home directly to the target. The chance of missing will still be part of LRM gameplay. Use of the Artemis IV system and subsequent munitions, will narrow the area of damage by focusing the flight paths of the missiles. We're finding that this is a good balance between gameplay and staying true to the BattleTech canon.

TRUE TO BATTLETECH CANON

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:48 pm**

you could just have head vulcans or head lasers

like those shows you keep stealing from

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:55 pm**

Q. How loyal will MechWarriorÂ® Onlineâ„¢ be to the tabletop rules (heat management, melee, armor penetration, etc.)?

A. We are adhering very closely to the BattleTechÂ® tabletop rules. Some mechanics in the tabletop version of the game do not translate well into a videogame and we are coming up with our own rule sets that mitigate these differences in an intuitive and fun manner.

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2012 10:57 pm**

I have to give my cohost on the recent podcast for this line

"Battletech replaces fun with math."

Posted: **Wed Jan 25, 2012 11:59 pm**

Since our key platform is the PC, it only makes sense to really bring the simulation control system back for seasoned players, with the option to have easy access configurations for newer players. When dealing with controls, we really want to bring skill back into combat rather than heavily assisted combat as seen in most modern day first person shooters.

shooters are for babies

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:06 am**

starku wrote:
Since our key platform is the PC, it only makes sense to really bring the simulation control system back for seasoned players, with the option to have easy access configurations for newer players. When dealing with controls, we really want to bring skill back into combat rather than heavily assisted combat as seen in most modern day first person shooters.
shooters are for babies

if you're using any less than 20 different buttons it's consolified

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:18 am**

Have any of these guys actually played a Mechwarrior game

cuz I played all of them

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:55 am**

VF5SS wrote:Have any of these guys actually played a Mechwarrior game

cuz I played all of them

Do you like self-inflicting pain to yourself, or is there something you feel guilty about ? [/internet psychologist]

(honestly, I never played any BT game, on PC, console or tabletop. Is it as awful as it seems, or is it possible for "normal" people to have fun with it ?)

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2012 12:58 am**

if you check the previous page I did it for the subject of a podcast

cuz I like robots and video games about robots

I want to catalog them and discuss how they work and what was good and what wasn't

so what better way to set the scale than to discuss the worst robot series ever made

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:06 am**

That's what I thought, yeah.

(sorry if my attempt at a jock made me sound like a jerk, I guess I just shouldn't post when I'm so fucking tired)

Posted: **Thu Jan 26, 2012 1:11 am**

I mean I've had fun playing Battletech and some of the Mechwarrior games

it's just I moved on

but the robo-mormons wouldn't stop whining

so fine

I will play your game and show you how stupid it is

Posted: **Wed Feb 01, 2012 10:50 pm**

FANART

Posted: **Thu Feb 16, 2012 2:04 pm**

now I never have to play this game again.

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:00 pm**

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/02 ... f-thunder/

hahah

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:05 pm**

Man veef reporting from ignorance is totally okay

Also have you read this

Lots of analysis

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:16 pm**

The point is well to show just how strong B-tech weapons and armor is.

ok which one of these guys is Painrack

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:19 pm**

If you read the awesome analysis and novel-mining later on

I think they're ALL painrack

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:20 pm**

he is legion

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:22 pm**

My fave is lrms weigh about the same as a modern AT missile if we use simplistic division
Ergo they are essentially modern AT missiles in all ways

QED BITCHES

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:54 pm**

So do you think people will bitch less about this new MechAssault now that it doesn't have some expectations of being part of a shitty franchise?

Also what does simple division say about a robot armed with like twelve CLAN machine guns being able to chew through armor

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:56 pm**

it says the bullets must be finding the teeny tiny gaps in the invincible armour (or something)

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:09 pm**

I think the lethality of melee combat with bare fists and kicks disproves the invincible armor thing

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:16 pm**

aha but it is custom elite composites that frackulate incoming bullets!

but shatter from fistos (also trees)

see i can make shit up to justify any number of stupid design decisions

Posted: **Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:33 pm**

Oh lol it's Nebfer

New Testingstan

btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech

Re: btech