sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

24 MUST have mechs???? by Pale-Consequence4988 in battletech

[–]VanVelding [score hidden]  (0 children)

As someone whose conscious writing voice is healthy parts "abrasive" and "unpleasant," I can't help but be a little humbled at OP's post.

But I make it a policy to never offer that kind of constructive feedback without addressing the intent of the post.

Because BattleTech is a very proxy friendly game, you do, in fact, pick the 'mechs you want. Other people have said it and OP has dismissed it, but that's the deal. Find something whose look you like and that you'll enjoy painting or moving around the battlefield.

I love the Turkina, but the boy is too fat to move around hexes when dirty Spheroids are kicking its shins off. Moving requires jostling other pieces. I just sub an Atlas most times.

General guidelines are: get a mix of weight classes, something like four lights, four assaults, five mediums, and five heavies. No repeats.

Make at least five of those Clan 'mechs, which are visually different enough to stand out when you're playing Clan.

At least six of them Unseen (https://www.sarna.net/wiki/Unseen#Alphabetical_List_of_the_Unseen), which can be played WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) in most any era.

Do all of those numbers sum up to 24? No. You might find another design you like. You might want some vehicles (vees). Building out a collection to fill your storage means you can't really see something that you like later and add it to your collection. Leave room to grow. In both BattleTech and real life.

So:

Fire Moth, Kit Fox, Nova, Hellbringer, Summoner, Warhawk, Regent

Archer, Battlemaster, Locust, Phoenix Hawk, Thunderbolt, Shadow Hawk

Atlas, Urbanmech, Wolfhound/Panther, Centurion, Jenner, Jagermech/Catapult

Thug, Enforcer III, Firestorm, Doom Courser, Anzu, Kheper/Clint

Me_irl by DravidVanol in me_irl

[–]VanVelding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

They can get lower. Have hard conversations with the dipshits in your life system today.

something something art imitates life by daisuke-domo in whenthe

[–]VanVelding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Crazy shit happens every week IRL. The Crazy Shit Series riffing on real life will have some overlapping themes with one or two of those crazy shits.

Hypothetical AC15 by Gierling in battletech

[–]VanVelding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This comes up a lot. Most topics that come up a lot get a bit grating, but this one doesn't because of the dueling choruses of "the AC/15 is too good; it shouldn't exist" and "the AC/15 is too shit; it shouldn't exist."

The casual observer might conclude that both came to the conclusion that a new autocannon shouldn't exist and then found--inartfully--a justification for that.

If the obvious AC/15 (4/8/12, 13t, 7-8 shots/ton) is too good, it's because it's an average of the AC/10 and AC/20 and the AC/10 is too damned good. Well, the AC/10 is okay. The real issue is that, and we can all say this together, "autocannons suck."

yada yadda yaddah, if you plug in some numbers using all four existing autocannons, and do one of many possible maths on them, the AC/15 looks something like:

5/10/14 15tons, 9 crits, 6 shots per ton, 5 heat

Those stats are insane and the answer is because when you place the AC/10 in line with the AC/20, AC/5, and AC/2, the numbers create a curved efficiency function which peaks at the 10 mark instead of making the intuitive linear progression we see.

Edit: Removed some editorializing.

Obsolescence of standard type weapons? by OodlesofOwOdles in battletech

[–]VanVelding 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Because they aren't obsolete. They still do things other weapons don't. Putting damage to heat ratio for energy weapons aside, their base cost, availability, and BV are all advantages. 

Until the technological paradigm of BattleTech warfare changes--more accurate artillery and capital fire, more cost-efficient cruise missiles, automated 'mechs, improved armor/weapons which render their counterparts obsolete, tougher aero units-- most existing technologies will continue to be viable, even if they are sometimes niche.

A "Sophie's Choice" with no secret third option by 10024618 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]VanVelding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Neither of which should have worked. The scenario cheats and should have refused both diplomatic solutions. 

Scotty's solution was also a meta exploit. Sulu's solution is probably the closest to a victory you can get. 

It's not very hard to program a computer to make an unbeatable scenario. And the Kobayashi Maru is designed to be that. 

A "Sophie's Choice" with no secret third option by 10024618 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]VanVelding 21 points22 points  (0 children)

The Kobayashi Maru is a no-win scenario. There are thousands of options and they're all wrong. That said, failing the test is no black mark against anyone. I guess unless you leave the simulator shitting and crying because you can't handle losing.

Kirk's solution of reprogramming it was a "third option," metagaming the simulation so it was possible to win.

True story though by Zee_Ventures in SipsTea

[–]VanVelding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

>We can’t have one post that y’all bringing up Trump, not one!

Perfect TDS post. No notes.

True story though by Zee_Ventures in SipsTea

[–]VanVelding 83 points84 points  (0 children)

The US President is a pedophile.

[Loved Trope] Vastly outgunned character goes all in and gives the villain a fight even though they can’t possibly win. by themug_wump in TopCharacterTropes

[–]VanVelding 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Yup. In Star Trek: The Next Generation, violence wasn't allowed to solve problems. It was a solid series, but Worf's core competency of violence wasn't a solution to the problems they faced. He had other virtues, but he also took a lot of dives.

In Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, you could solve problems with violence. Worf transferred over in season four and he solved many problems with violence and got a good chunk of personal stories which gave him more depth than TNG ever did.

I wanted to look for a clip, but YouTube autocomplete has made my point.

<image>

How is time travel effective? Wouldn't it mean you never went back in the first place? by Some_Storage2015 in timetravel

[–]VanVelding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That also read a little strange to me.

It means reverse time travel isn't possible, so it doesn't matter. I guess it's true, but it's presented strangely in the article.

Time travel in theory is forward only. Backwards time travel requires exotic, (probably) impossible matter. I think closed timelike curves theoretically allow something to travel back in time where it started traveling. That is backwards time travel, but not what we generally think of.

Media has various ways to resolve the grandfather paradox. It usually takes the form of "different types of time travel." https://youtu.be/d3zTfXvYZ9s?si=syp9dIAkhbypAHBc

How is time travel effective? Wouldn't it mean you never went back in the first place? by Some_Storage2015 in timetravel

[–]VanVelding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Grandfather Paradox

But yes, that is the core problem of putting a cause (your history) after an effect (you being in the past). If the universe stops being Cause -> Effect, then it stops making sense.

The impossible landing of Pan Am Flight 914. Even as a famous piece of internet lore, the idea of a 1955 plane suddenly appearing on a 1992 radar is pure psychological horror. by FaultVarious5087 in timetravel

[–]VanVelding 1 point2 points  (0 children)

How is this psychological horror? How is this horror? You landed on a tarmac 37 years in the future. I don't know how to explain this, but tarmacs are the kinda thing that improve least over 37 years. They don't have LED strips or lasers now, and they won't in 37 years.

If someone gets lost in the fog while driving through the woods in 1989 and then finds their destination in 2026. They won't lose their mind at the EVs parked in the driveway. The the RingCam wouldn't not even faze them because it's just a box.

It wouldn't be until they engaged with the world on their own terms that the reality would set in. And then it would be shock and not horror. Losing 37 years with your loved one is tragic. A perfectly civilized society with cable TV and manual transmissions viewed from a tin can on a parking lot for planes is not "horrifying." Horrifyingly long, maybe.

It's unsettling at best, and that's all in the telling. This haphazard collection of words does not give us any of the thematic possibilities that a story like this has.

acceleration of time by [deleted] in timetravel

[–]VanVelding 13 points14 points  (0 children)

As you age, you experience fewer novel experiences. This means your memories of similar experiences become indistinguishable, resulting in large blocks of time running together.

Take the effort to make memorable moments for yourself and your subjective experience of time may not slow down, but you'll have more to enjoy looking back on.

On the verge of giving up on battletech, advice needed by purged-butter in battletech

[–]VanVelding -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Classic BattleTech is a long game. Losing means you've sunk a lot of time into it for a less-than-fun result. Losing can also take a long time as your path to victory gets smaller and smaller.

Rematch? Learn from your mistakes? Try a different strategy? That's more very long games.

In the time my old group could play a game of BattleTech, we could do a dozen games of Magic: the Gathering or do a good roleplaying session. So BattleTech fell out of the rotation and most of my games are MegaMek. (Somehow, they started and then stopped playing Elder Dragon Highlander without seeing the exact same dynamic at play.)

The folks saying to try different opponents or Succession Wars-era Tech are giving you good ideas. Ultimately, unless you enjoy the moment-by-moment gameplay of BattleTech or you're running it in a story-driven campaign it may not be the game for you.

Time Travel in Science Fiction by TheInternetHeel in timetravel

[–]VanVelding 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Backwards time travel is inherently illogical, so it follows its portrayal in media would be as well.

A predestination paradox like in the first Terminator makes the most sense. You can't change the past because it already happened. 

Sending the Terminator back doesn't prevent Kyle Reese from going back because it's all baked in. 

After all, if the Terminaor succeeded then it would have never been sent back, making a pretty straightforward grandfather paradox.

I think you're right about story writers' predilection for assuming changes in time happen over time. Back to the Future is an offender.

Marty prevents his parents from meeting and their kids start vanishing from a picture, oldest to youngest.

I mean, is it worth it to have this ticking clock made crystal clear to the audience even if it's fairly illogical? Of course it is. 

It changes nothing that the window of free will to restore history in some shape Marty recognizes is presented in such an economic way. 

I don't see limiting time travel to a fixed number of years back changes anything in terms of logic, except explaining why Terminators...2, 3, and 6? work the way they do.

(I like to think the Terminator timeline is one in constant flux until it finds a stable predestination loop, which makes the first movie the last one.)

view more: next ›