Editing BattleTechWiki talk:BattleMech Portal
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision
Your text
Line 22:
Line 22:
== Roles == == Roles ==
*Okay, I've completed building the Roles section for Alternates, and I've added the cat tags to all 'Mechs so identified in the ''CBT Introductory Rulebook''. Several things I've noticed: 1) We probably really need to decide how we best want to organize the variants issue soon, so that it doesn't become a cluster 'foalup' when the mobs arrive. Some of the roles I applied probably fit better under the correct variants page, rather than the base model. 2) Without having dissected it too much, on the surface it looks like some 'Mechs can fill more than one role (which I have no problem with). However, I could see some people saying, "I use it for a skirmisher," without giving too much thought as to how a skirmisher and a striker might differ. I'm thinking that a 'decision' tree might be helpful, in categorizing the 'Mechs into those roles. However, I also think, it'd be best to have the variants articles almost completed, before undertaking this role, as roles are dependent upon the weapons loadout of the variants. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 10:48, 13 November 2006 (CST) *Okay, I've completed building the Roles section for Alternates, and I've added the cat tags to all 'Mechs so identified in the ''CBT Introductory Rulebook''. Several things I've noticed: 1) We probably really need to decide how we best want to organize the variants issue soon, so that it doesn't become a cluster 'foalup' when the mobs arrive. Some of the roles I applied probably fit better under the correct variants page, rather than the base model. 2) Without having dissected it too much, on the surface it looks like some 'Mechs can fill more than one role (which I have no problem with). However, I could see some people saying, "I use it for a skirmisher," without giving too much thought as to how a skirmisher and a striker might differ. I'm thinking that a 'decision' tree might be helpful, in categorizing the 'Mechs into those roles. However, I also think, it'd be best to have the variants articles almost completed, before undertaking this role, as roles are dependent upon the weapons loadout of the variants. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 10:48, 13 November 2006 (CST)
−
− ::Cut to 15 years later...I understand that the Roles listed here are from a source that is now considered obsolete/deprecated. However, looking at the roles pages, I do see Alpha Strike stuff in there, which I believe is still considered current? In any case, [[Ambusher]] is an Orphan, and it seems to be the only one not listed here. Can we add that, and perhaps update to the "current" ruleset for those? AND, very related question, but different page (and one I am allowed to edit I think), any objections to me adding the relevant Aerospace Fighter Roles in similar fashion to the top of [[:Category:Aerospace Fighter classes]]? Or should that go somewhere else? All Orphans or effectively so. [[User:Talvin|Talvin]] ([[User talk:Talvin|talk]]) 21:59, 14 February 2022 (EST)
==Categorisation== ==Categorisation==
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
== Roles == | == Roles == | ||
*Okay, I've completed building the Roles section for Alternates, and I've added the cat tags to all 'Mechs so identified in the ''CBT Introductory Rulebook''. Several things I've noticed: 1) We probably really need to decide how we best want to organize the variants issue soon, so that it doesn't become a cluster 'foalup' when the mobs arrive. Some of the roles I applied probably fit better under the correct variants page, rather than the base model. 2) Without having dissected it too much, on the surface it looks like some 'Mechs can fill more than one role (which I have no problem with). However, I could see some people saying, "I use it for a skirmisher," without giving too much thought as to how a skirmisher and a striker might differ. I'm thinking that a 'decision' tree might be helpful, in categorizing the 'Mechs into those roles. However, I also think, it'd be best to have the variants articles almost completed, before undertaking this role, as roles are dependent upon the weapons loadout of the variants. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 10:48, 13 November 2006 (CST) | *Okay, I've completed building the Roles section for Alternates, and I've added the cat tags to all 'Mechs so identified in the ''CBT Introductory Rulebook''. Several things I've noticed: 1) We probably really need to decide how we best want to organize the variants issue soon, so that it doesn't become a cluster 'foalup' when the mobs arrive. Some of the roles I applied probably fit better under the correct variants page, rather than the base model. 2) Without having dissected it too much, on the surface it looks like some 'Mechs can fill more than one role (which I have no problem with). However, I could see some people saying, "I use it for a skirmisher," without giving too much thought as to how a skirmisher and a striker might differ. I'm thinking that a 'decision' tree might be helpful, in categorizing the 'Mechs into those roles. However, I also think, it'd be best to have the variants articles almost completed, before undertaking this role, as roles are dependent upon the weapons loadout of the variants. --[[User:Revanche|Revanche (admin)]] 10:48, 13 November 2006 (CST) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
==Categorisation== | ==Categorisation== |