ghostrider
07/30/14 11:57 PM
24.30.141.170
|
It may be considered 'experimental' tech in the newer rule books, but to me it sounds like pulling crap out of the air and making it fit onto a unit.
I like the old version where anything above the whole amount of weight is rounded to the nearest half ton.
Now if you are going to use the fa for making a design, fine. Don't expect people won't have issues with it, since not everyone has the new rules. Even with some of them, I do not like some of the changes. They did not go far enough with others as well, but that is something the developers decide.
This can be said about programs being used as well. People will use what they got, but most would like some standards in what is on stats. Same should be done with building methods. Maybe having a thread called fa designs only might be an option. Then if people don't want to see anything with it, they can skip that thread.
|
skiltao
07/31/14 01:55 PM
68.77.108.100
|
???
"Fractional Accounting" is how the standard rules used to work, many years ago. Not everybody made the switch to the new, rounded values (especially since FA was presented as a Level 3 option shortly afterwards). I've always seen the new, rounded values as pulling useless mass out of the air and forcing it onto the unit.
I don't know who you're directing your post at, but if reading FA designs causes you real irritation, then tagging a thread's subject line with "[fa design]" (or something similar near the top of a post) might be an easy enough kindness.
Edited by skiltao (07/31/14 01:56 PM)
|
Karagin
07/31/14 02:41 PM
70.118.139.48
|
He is aiming at me since I did not just let it go like he wanted.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
07/31/14 03:02 PM
70.209.18.99
|
Quote:
skiltao writes:
"Fractional Accounting" is how the standard rules used to work, many years ago.
sort of. BT 2nd and 3rd edition used rounding to the nearest half ton in most cases and insisted on full tons of ammo (except MGs), and other rounding restrictions. CityTech and TR3026 did use partial fractional accounting by not rounding off vehicle component weights, so a 21-ton helicopter would have a 2.1-ton structure, 1.05 tons of controls, and 2.1 tons of lift equipment. however, you couldnt get 1.1 tons of armor or the like - there were still rounding and half ton restrictions.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
KamikazeJohnson
07/31/14 06:32 PM
50.72.218.68
|
I always felt certain items, particularly Gyro, Endo Steel, and XL Engines should be available in 0.25-ton increments. The more "fractional" you allow items to be, the trickier it is to work out a pen-and-paper design, although with design programs so readily available, that's not as much of an issue.
A few designs in both TRO:3025 and TRO:3050 use 0.25-ton increments for certain items.
Peace is that glorious moment in history when everyone stands around reloading.
--Thomas Jefferson
|
ghostrider
08/01/14 12:40 AM
24.30.141.170
|
I hate the tab key. Kicks me out of the post..
Karagin. I expected you to continue with the argument with fa considering your past history of showing your point of view. The issue I started having is the continuation of the threadjacking. I don't remember who it was, but in the last couple of years, you had taken issue with someone else using fa. Not weither it was the use of fa or just the dislike of the person doing so is suspect.
And I do think fa is borderline cheating as it allows some items to fit on a unit that would not do so with the rounding rules.
I guess the developers should pick one and stick with just that one.
Skiltao. When I looked at the construction rules in the boxed set I got back around 86 or so, it did not say anything about fractional accounting. It said round up to the nearest half ton, and ammo was always allocated in full ton lots.
Though the use of fa might explain why the original mechwarrior character creation book had 2 errors in it.
Sad thing is tanks will always suffer from rounding up.
I would think that is why the developers have not completely gotten rid of the fa use.
|
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
08/01/14 05:46 AM
208.54.32.128
|
I like FA because I love trying to make tanks as light as possible. With out FA its almost imposable to build affective armored cars under five tons. So far I have gotten a somewhat affective 3 ton armored car.
I designed a 3 ton armored car for 21K and a 5 ton for 46K that would not have been possible with out FA.
Why argue if the glass is half full or half empty, when you know someone is going to knock it over and spill it anyways.
I was a Major *pain* before
But I got a promotion.
I am now a General *pain*
Yay for promotions!!!
|
Karagin
08/01/14 10:38 AM
70.118.139.48
|
And Ghostrider I find your blatant attack as breaking the rules, but I can see the moderators didn't see anything wrong with it.
I have NOT had an issue with fractional accounting that I can recall, given that I use it a lot and have recently and in the past posted designs with it. I think you are confused here with someone and something else. As for cheating how can it be cheating when it's allowed and until folks who have worse skills in math then I do complained to FASA it was allowed in the normal design rules, for proof get the original TRO3025 and see that a lot of the mechs actually use it.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
08/01/14 11:23 AM
67.8.171.23
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
And Ghostrider I find your blatant attack as breaking the rules, but I can see the moderators didn't see anything wrong with it.
Since you made this a public issue:
Karagin, you insisted on more moderators. You got them. We now have discussions in the moderator forum over any reported problems. Since we cycle through Sarna about once per day, or a bit more often when something exciting happens, the new moderation system takes a few days to deal address anything less obvious than blatant spamming and porn.
So, please, give the moderators operating under your new, multi-moderator system a chance to discuss your concerns. It'll take a few days.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
|
Karagin
08/01/14 11:30 AM
70.118.139.48
|
I asked for moderators to avoid issues like this, and to avoid bias of a single moderator.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Cray
08/01/14 11:37 AM
67.8.171.23
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
I asked for moderators to avoid issues like this, and to avoid bias of a single moderator.
Yep, and you got several moderators who are reviewing, discussing, and voting on this matter - as they check into Sarna. So, chill and let your unbiased, multi-moderator system do its work. It takes a while.
Since you're rather agitated about this thread, Karagin, I'll shut down the topic until the other moderators can weigh in. Find something else to talk about in the mean time, or go find something more real world-y to do.
Mike Miller, Materials Engineer
Disclaimer: Anything stated in this post is unofficial and non-canon unless directly quoted from a published book. Random internet musings of a BattleTech writer are not canon.
Edited by Cray (08/01/14 11:38 AM)
|