Just thinking of a possible house rule

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)
Karagin
04/08/16 09:54 PM
61.40.222.5

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Yet Donkey you can't apply that to the crew and such on warships. Okay fair enough. Then again I am still looking for the magical advantage vehicles seem to have that many here keep claiming and how they could destroy the mechs dominance over the game if changes had that give them the same access to technology as mechs have. Won't aerospace fighters be a big challenge to the mechs then?

I seem to recall the game having a combined arms idea at one point, must have been back in the day when things were less critical and such.
Karagin

Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/08/16 10:45 PM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I am interpenetrating rules that exist in a different way than others do I am not out right braking them and creating my own rules to replace them.

I have also stopped posting designs that have my different interpenetration of the rules when one signal person namely Prince_of_Darkness objected at what I was doing. Though PoD has not been active here for three and a half years I have no intention to post another hover craft that has my different interpenetration of the rules do to the objection that he had put forth.
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!!!
ghostrider
04/09/16 11:40 AM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
I agree with the concept of using a fusion engine rated with the ICE weight requirements. Not canon, but then not everything is correct with canon ideas. The newer rules seem to show more holes opening up, that were minor when the game started.

The combined arms seemed to be pushed when the successor states were not 'able' to create a new mech regiment every month, and cover combat losses for 3 more from each state in that same time.

The idea for the non canon design thread was to try and lessen the issues with the canon concepts, and allow some new ideas into the forums.

And to address the issues of aerospace fighters, they did threaten mechs. The strafing run was nerfed to avoid a single fighter from being able to destroy a company or more of units. Haven't tried the new rules with them, but I do agree the old ones were a little too much.
I believe this is why they have kept fighters from being exploited, because as a few have suggested, the game would not work if you can't reach the surface of the planet for attacks. The sds system would be the best thing for all to have, but would not allow new forces onto a world with one of them in working order. Focus would change from pure damage combat to spec ops and such.

I do agree with trying to keep an open mind, but I failed there for a while. Power gaming units got under my skin, and I allowed myself to try to shut them down. As long as it says in the beginning of the stats, it is not canon or has some alternative take on it, it should be handled as such, without much bias. It will get some, as all designs do, but with a reasonable explanation, it should pass.
And yes, reasonable comes down to point of view, so there will be issues with that interpretation.
Akalabeth
04/09/16 04:01 PM
108.180.183.124

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Retry writes:

There's an alternative rule that modifies a mech's PSR based on it's weight class.

I think it's +1/0/-1/-2 for light/medium/heavy/assault classes.



Quote:
wolf_lord_30 writes:

I personally didn't like the alternative rule. Some of these light mechs have so little armor, they don't need the extra disadvantage of falling over easier. It felt as if it gave an unfair advantage to the heavier, and more armored, mechs.



That's because the rule is pretty dumb. I think a better, albeit more complicated rule, would be to simply change the physical threshold for damage taken. Maybe a light mech needs a PSR on 15 damage, not 20, a heavy on 25 and an assault on 30.

That way, it's harder to knock an assault down but not because the pilot is suddenly of elite rating. But if you're facing an assault mech, or two of them are dueling, it's not far fetched for them to be throwing 30 damage into each other anyway.
ghostrider
04/09/16 06:20 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
With the idea that the foot pads of a heavier unit is larger then a smaller one, and the actuators would be stronger, I could see the thresh hold of damage being changed. A ton of armor loss for a light is alot more pronounced then an assault unit.
Now there are instances, like running, that a heavier unit might be caught on the wrong foot being put aside at this moment, it does make more sense a meer ton off an assault mech might not be noticed, but for a light mech, where maybe 6 to 7 tons is maxed armor for the 35 ton unit, while 19 tons for an assault max is a huge difference.

Even being hit with something like a gauss slug or ac 20 would almost be assured of taking out a light mech, an assault is more likely to just shrug it off.
Speed of the unit, including jumping would make a big difference as well. I do agree lighter units suffer more, while heavier units are not as bad, but this does make sense.

Now before people get in an uproar, this is house rules conversation, and not canon.
Though if the tpb do decide on something like this, I would suspect it would be optional or advanced rules, not something in the core game.
Akirapryde2006
04/11/16 12:18 AM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

I am interpenetrating rules that exist in a different way than others do I am not out right braking them and creating my own rules to replace them.




Others being the majority of community which plays this game?

I guess your right. Forming your own interpenetration of the rules is different from ignoring a rule while trying to find a better way to execute the spirit of that rule which makes zero sense are two different things.

Oh wait, generating your own interpenetration of the rules is cheating as well by your own previous admission. Don't worry we wont hold it against you, Donkey cause its another "Highass" Double Standard.
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey
04/11/16 01:51 AM
70.122.160.150

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

I am interpenetrating rules that exist in a different way than others do I am not out right braking them and creating my own rules to replace them.




Others being the majority of community which plays this game?

I guess your right. Forming your own interpenetration of the rules is different from ignoring a rule while trying to find a better way to execute the spirit of that rule which makes zero sense are two different things.

Oh wait, generating your own interpenetration of the rules is cheating as well by your own previous admission. Don't worry we wont hold it against you, Donkey cause its another "Highass" Double Standard.



It really does helps your argument a lot when you take things out of continence like just out right ignoring more than half of my post. Namely the following..

"I have also stopped posting designs that have my different interpenetration of the rules when one signal person namely Prince_of_Darkness objected at what I was doing. Though PoD has not been active here for three and a half years I have no intention to post another hover craft that has my different interpenetration of the rules do to the objection that he had put forth."

It would go even farther if you edit what I say too.
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!!!
Akirapryde2006
04/11/16 02:35 AM
108.9.214.19

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

Quote:
Akirapryde2006 writes:

Quote:
His_Most_Royal_Highass_Donkey writes:

I am interpenetrating rules that exist in a different way than others do I am not out right braking them and creating my own rules to replace them.




Others being the majority of community which plays this game?

I guess your right. Forming your own interpenetration of the rules is different from ignoring a rule while trying to find a better way to execute the spirit of that rule which makes zero sense are two different things.

Oh wait, generating your own interpenetration of the rules is cheating as well by your own previous admission. Don't worry we wont hold it against you, Donkey cause its another "Highass" Double Standard.



It really does helps your argument a lot when you take things out of continence like just out right ignoring more than half of my post. Namely the following..

"I have also stopped posting designs that have my different interpenetration of the rules when one signal person namely Prince_of_Darkness objected at what I was doing. Though PoD has not been active here for three and a half years I have no intention to post another hover craft that has my different interpenetration of the rules do to the objection that he had put forth."

It would go even farther if you edit what I say too.



Kind of like the same thing you did to me? What's good for the goose right?

I have no argument to make nor defend. Merely pointing out your double standard and allowing others come to their own conclusions.

Though I am not sure what you mean by continence in your statement.
(Continence: 1: self-restraint or abstinence, especially in regard to sexual activity; temperance; moderation.
2. Physiology. the ability to voluntarily control urinary and fecal discharge.)

Um maybe you meant context? Or am I taking that out of context? Or am I ignoring something else?
ghostrider
04/11/16 12:46 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Honestly, it sounds like what I did for a while. Forgetting that opinions here can be barbed if you don't think about it from the other side.
Done it myself.

Might be a good time to ask the admins and nic if things the do not conform to the rules is allowed.
With or without disclaimer.
I would think with a disclaimer there isn't any issues, (selfish push for new area) this could remove alot of issues with an area devoted to new ideas and non canon designs.
The wiki isn't completely free of non canon cheats, as the kanga-x and the upgraded condor have fusion engines which violates canon rules for weight are present. I am sure there are others, and this is not a dig for those that keep the wiki clean. It is simple statement of fact.
ghostrider
04/18/16 08:55 PM
66.74.61.223

Edit Reply Quote Quick Reply
Would it be worth coming up with a movement for mechs that followed the mechwarrior editions idea of the evasion run?
Most would consider it a dodge, but frankly, a mech does have superior movement capablilities, and this would help enhance that.
Vehicles would not be able to really use it unless they turn harshly, which would cause issues. Mech can turn their torsos as well as take odd steps to throw off tracking.

It is a thought to increase the mechs movement abilities.
There are things you can do, like aiming penalty while doing so, or maybe a piloting roll needed to avoid falling during a maneuver.
If you want to go further for down sides, any internal damage to legs or leg actuators might allow for legs to snap.
I thought +1 to be hit, but +2 might work for a successful evade.
Not sure about return fire, but it's a thought.
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | (show all)
Extra information
0 registered and 82 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is enabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Topic views: 31625


Contact Admins Sarna.net