Forums of the Megaverse®

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2011 8:07 pm**

got some questions I am looking for some insight from you guys
A) One of the biggest mistakes palladium has ever made, or THE biggest mistake palladium has ever made?
B) What MDC/SDC conversion system do you use?

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2011 9:38 pm**

KillWatch wrote:got some questions I am looking for some insight from you guys
A) One of the biggest mistakes palladium has ever made, or THE biggest mistake palladium has ever made?
B) What MDC/SDC conversion system do you use?

A) Neither.
B) 1:100 MDC/SDC

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:04 pm**

So killer, what do you do when you run balrogs in an SDC setting

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:49 pm**

KillWatch wrote:So killer, what do you do when you run balrogs in an SDC setting

I don't believe I've ever done so, but if I did, I'm pretty sure I could find what I need in the PFRPG books.

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2011 10:49 pm**

KillWatch wrote:So killer, what do you do when you run balrogs in an SDC setting

I imagine it would be the same thing I do and use the PFRPG version.

Posted: **Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:17 pm**

A) No, but the implementation in my opnion is poorly thought out. It worked as is for Robotech but it had the built in excuse of WOW WE GOT REALLY SUPER AWESOME ALIEN TECH TO PLAY WITH. Rifts not so much imo.

B) I persoanlly use a 10-1 because I have issues with how we got from 1500sdc Abrams tanks to 77000sdc (770mdc) 10' tall PA's in the next 80 years (100 years dating back to Rifts Release)

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:27 am**

KillWatch wrote:got some questions I am looking for some insight from you guys
A) One of the biggest mistakes palladium has ever made, or THE biggest mistake palladium has ever made?

MDC isn't a mistake, in any sense of the word.

KillWatch wrote:B) What MDC/SDC conversion system do you use?

30 : 1.

EDIT: answer A, as before I didn't understand it.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:49 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
KillWatch wrote:got some questions I am looking for some insight from you guys
A) One of the biggest mistakes palladium has ever made, or THE biggest mistake palladium has ever made?
B) What MDC/SDC conversion system do you use?

A) Neither.
B) 1:100 MDC/SDC

Pretty much this, though I follow the Megaversal Builder's suggestions regarding super-tech MDC gear in dimensions that don't support MD physics, generally multiplying by 2 in SDC.

jaymz wrote:I persoanlly use a 10-1 because I have issues with how we got from 1500sdc Abrams tanks to 77000sdc (770mdc) 10' tall PA's in the next 80 years (100 years dating back to Rifts Release)"

That's not so much an issue to me considering that the basis of the Golden Age, and subsequent cold war, was the truly revolutionary nature of the developments, amazing quantum leaps in sciences and manufacturing beyond what anyone was prepared for.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 7:58 am**

Killer Cyborg wrote:
KillWatch wrote:So killer, what do you do when you run balrogs in an SDC setting

I don't believe I've ever done so, but if I did, I'm pretty sure I could find what I need in the PFRPG books.

Can also use the Minion War Hades and Dyval Rifts dimension books as both M.D.C. and S.D.C. values are present for all the demons/devils

I use 1:100, never had a problem with it (Skirmish fighting). I might use a HIGHER 1:500 or 1:1000 if I ever did something with huge things (like starships, etc.)

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 9:26 am**

Armorlord wrote:
jaymz wrote:I persoanlly use a 10-1 because I have issues with how we got from 1500sdc Abrams tanks to 77000sdc (770mdc) 10' tall PA's in the next 80 years (100 years dating back to Rifts Release)"
That's not so much an issue to me considering that the basis of the Golden Age, and subsequent cold war, was the truly revolutionary nature of the developments, amazing quantum leaps in sciences and manufacturing beyond what anyone was prepared for.

To me 10-1 is more than enough of a revolutionary nature of development.

Posted: **Mon Mar 14, 2011 2:30 pm**

A: Niether, they have done way worse.
B: 100 to 1

MDC is hardly their orginal sin, and it works fine as a entry level mechanic / hat trick goes, it could have been made into something better I agree, either with a 10 to 1 ratio by default to allow some cool interaction between classes and unarmored combat (Juciers / Crazies can now fight against light weapons without armor!)

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:54 pm**

KillWatch wrote:got some questions I am looking for some insight from you guys
A) One of the biggest mistakes palladium has ever made, or THE biggest mistake palladium has ever made?
B) What MDC/SDC conversion system do you use?

A) Neither. There are bigger mistakes in the megaverse than this. IMHO, that is.
B) 1:100

jaymz wrote:B) I persoanlly use a 10-1 because I have issues with how we got from 1500sdc Abrams tanks to 77000sdc (770mdc) 10' tall PA's in the next 80 years (100 years dating back to Rifts Release)

What issues? Think about the advancements in technology during the first 70 years of the 20th century. From automobiles, to flight, to space flight. Computers. ENIAC. The beginnings of what would eventually become networking and the internet. Microwave ovens, the trans-atlantic cable, telephone...the list goes on. In a span of 70 years we went from the opening of the industrial revolution to the moon. It's not so out of this world to think we could go from 1500 sdc tanks to 77000 sdc suits of PA in an 80 year span.

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:12 pm**

Severus Snape wrote: It's not so out of this world to think we could go from 1500 sdc tanks to 77000 sdc suits of PA in an 80 year span.

THAT is a matter of opinion since we have no frame of reference as to how or why it got there other than "golden age of science" which tells us nothing.

Posted: **Wed Mar 16, 2011 8:29 pm**

A) Not really a mistake at all.
B) Depends on the dimension and what's being converted.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 12:41 am**

Severus:
well our weapon capabilities are much better than 80 years ago, but the armor isn't that much better. We do have kevlar and we are now developing lighter composite materials, but we are getting lighter and not much stronger. Cars today run much better in the short run today, but cars made earlier in the 20th century were made to last. Now we have planned obsolescence where the things we buy aren't suppose to last 10 years, much less hand down to our children.
I don't know if the 80 year span is technically correct but I will work with it. According to HU, class 4 has like 200 SDC and 18 AR, which I don't understand because its full body,.. but whatever. 200 is for the entire suit. Looking at the complete Gladiator body armor; 70+45+45+25+25+45+45= 255 MDC=25,500. 200 to 25500 in 80 years? and even if you accept that, what about the cost? Its about the same cost credits v dollars.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:20 am**

I feel I should touch on my old pet peeve about trying to compare what we have now on our Earth to what Rifts Earth may have had at a similar period, and also trying to judge their tech progress from there. Going at length again would derail things a lot, but what brought it up was that somewhere along the line Rifts Earth, particularly the military, threw planned obsolescence out the window, and in some cases threw obsolescence and scrapping out the as well. Obsolescence itself became obsolete by the time of the Coming of the Rifts thanks to MD science, and it seems they were trending that way for some time before that advent.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 1:49 am**

KillWatch wrote:got some questions I am looking for some insight from you guys
A) One of the biggest mistakes palladium has ever made, or THE biggest mistake palladium has ever made?
B) What MDC/SDC conversion system do you use?

A) The munchkin in me would say something like "HOw Dare you say MDC is a ***** ing mistake, MDC is Cool Awesome...etc...etc..." They rest of me would say getting away from the KISS principle is their biggest mistake.
B) if you mean "how many SDC ruffly relates to 1 MDC?" 100 to 1, if you mean "when going from an SDC setting to a MDC setting how do you figure out the amount of MDC?" HP+SDC=MDC most of the time.

KillWatch wrote:So killer, what do you do when you run balrogs in an SDC setting

Use the stats from the setting they started out in. The PFRPG setting. They are ether in the back of the PF2 book or in the back of the Dragons and gods book.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 3:38 am**

Drewkitty:
I know that is one of the ways the books says to do conversions, but that isn't how they practice, if ever.
It would be nice to have a collected book of all the outer planar beings in a single tome for SDC worlds. The MDC Conversion books have no base in the SDC realms, giving SDC notes in parentheses and completely forgoing any mentioning of an AR
And the SDC Balrog in PF2 is weak sauce. If it wasn't for the spells a balrog would be done in half a melee against low level heroes. With the spells and summonings it will take a minute or two. And this is one of the greater demons. An evil ageless being of power and pain. AR 4 DC 200 (HP and SDC combined) PPE 400 and all fire spells 1-4. The spells might be more impressive if they allowed for overcasting, but they don't. The MD version has 800 MDC. Still not REALLY impressive but something to take notice of and not to take lightly.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 6:14 am**

Baal-Rog: Natural AR 14, HP 3D4x10+PE, SDC 2D4x10+80.
Never forget that Natural AR, KillWatch. That's what makes the MDC numbers higher.

Posted: **Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:56 pm**

ArmorLord:
how do you figure? That NAR isn't great. I mean if it was a natural roll without bonuses then sure, but it isn't. And they don't take it into account for conversion. Gleba flat out replied that there is no system for conversion. And even if there was, the conversion books don't even pay attention to AR when absently giving SDC values.

Splynns:
Interested. Could you elaborate?

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:34 am**

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:o yeah & when they started talkin about "mdc materials" as if its a concept that exists IN THE GAME it was an epic facepalm.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MDC MATERIALS THERE IS JUST OBJECTS SO TOUGH & BADASS THAT THE BEST WAY TO STAT THEM IN AN RPG IS TO USE A DAMAGE SCALIN MECHANIC! WRITE THIS ON THE BLACKBOARD ONE HUNDRED TIMES!

This is wrong. Write that on your blackboard.
'As if it is'? It is a concept in the setting, hell it is an entire field of science and the basis for all the super-technology in that universe. MD physics and research is the whole reason there was a Golden Age of revolutionary science to segue into the new cold war and subsequent high-energy skirmish and Great Cataclysm.
Without MD physics, Rifts Earth just doesn't function correctly.

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 6:06 pm**

Armorlord:
Enlighten met. Not trying to be snide or sarcastic, just curious how see things

Posted: **Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:19 pm**

Armorlord wrote:
Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:o yeah & when they started talkin about "mdc materials" as if its a concept that exists IN THE GAME it was an epic facepalm.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS MDC MATERIALS THERE IS JUST OBJECTS SO TOUGH & BADASS THAT THE BEST WAY TO STAT THEM IN AN RPG IS TO USE A DAMAGE SCALIN MECHANIC! WRITE THIS ON THE BLACKBOARD ONE HUNDRED TIMES!
This is wrong. Write that on your blackboard.
'As if it is'? It is a concept in the setting, hell it is an entire field of science and the basis for all the super-technology in that universe. MD physics and research is the whole reason there was a Golden Age of revolutionary science to segue into the new cold war and subsequent high-energy skirmish and Great Cataclysm.
Without MD physics, Rifts Earth just doesn't function correctly.

Actually all it is, isthe creation of super tough matrial and high powered energy. It isn't particularily MD physics. Normal physics is what would have created the MD tech.

I think the point being made is ther eis no middle ground of Today and the day of the great cataclysm in terms of tech. Logic woudl dictate that there would have been stepping stones. Say an Improved Damage Capacity (IDC) that had a 10-1 ratio of SDC-MDC before teh MDC revolution came along.

Robotech didn;t need it as it was alien supe science and it was much more easily explained. Rfist just says TADA HERE IT IS! When tehre needed to be more back ground for such an in depth hisotry and world. I just don;t think PB thought that far ahead to think they would need such an explanation is all.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:00 am**

I've been toying with the idea that new weapon advancements should do different damages, if that doesn't sound obvious. but here is what I have been playing with
Lasers: x 2
Plasma: x 5
Ion: x10

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 1:22 pm**

A) It's not a mistake at all
B) 100:1 - If you have a hard time with it, you're using it wrong.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:22 pm**

SkyeFyre wrote:A) It's not a mistake at all
B) 100:1 - If you have a hard time with it, you're using it wrong.

That is a matter of opnion not fact and to be honest rather insulting.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 10:52 pm**

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:
Armorlord wrote:'As if it is'? It is a concept in the setting, hell it is an entire field of science and the basis for all the super-technology in that universe. MD physics and research is the whole reason there was a Golden Age of revolutionary science to segue into the new cold war and subsequent high-energy skirmish and Great Cataclysm.
Without MD physics, Rifts Earth just doesn't function correctly.

& if u cant understand why makin that canon is TERRIBLE writing then i have to worry for u. 'MD physics'? materials that are magicaly bulletproof & coud stop armor piercin rounds if they were paperthin just coz theyre made from magic supermetals? puh-lease

Nano technology is terrorfying. Hopefully your right and it's not capabable of this and worse.

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:50 pm**

Jaymz:
That's what it takes to insult you? wow? I mean was MDC your idea? and do you not watch the colbert report? Doesn't matter I guess. take it any way you want

Posted: **Sat Mar 19, 2011 11:58 pm**

Kill - actually it was rather pointed at you since you are the one having hte hardest time with MDC.

I guess you LIKE being told you're doing something wrong because you have a hard time with it?

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:38 am**

Jaymze
Yeah I uh Figured that it was pointed at me since this is my thread and I am making the most noise about MDC so yeah, "I guessed"
as for being wrong, haven't seen it yet and besides this is largely my opinion anyhow

soooo ......?

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 7:57 am**

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:& if u cant understand why makin that canon is TERRIBLE writing then i have to worry for u. 'MD physics'? materials that are magicaly bulletproof & coud stop armor piercin rounds if they were paperthin just coz theyre made from magic supermetals? puh-lease

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble placing your thought process on this. Next to the magical shape-shifting dragons or the mental ability to conjure a force field?

See, I think you're trying to create M.D. Physics in your head, which you already dislike the concept of. You can't rationalize this concept in our world. You have to suspend disbelief for this.

Just like I do for an alien that sits in the sun and is invulnerable to armor piercing rounds.

Or a mutant who can regenerate from a drop of blood.

They don't make sense in a real world scenario, but they have concepts that support them in their world.

If you can't suspend your disbelief, then I think you're putting up a NO FUN ZONE sign in front of your house.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:14 am**

KillWatch wrote:Jaymze
Yeah I uh Figured that it was pointed at me since this is my thread and I am making the most noise about MDC so yeah, "I guessed"
as for being wrong, haven't seen it yet and besides this is largely my opinion anyhow

soooo ......?

Ok foret it then I wasn;t defendin myself I was defending your position about it since apparently he thinks you are incapable (as is anyone else who thinks MDC isn;t a good idea) of understanding MDC even though you do and have a different opinion about it. Forget I said anything.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:17 am**

Joseph Kerr wrote:See, I think you're trying to create M.D. Physics in your head,

You reasoning is flawed in that physics is physics. There is no S.D. physics or M.D. physics. They are both the same physics. One is just incredibly tougher than the other. The Physiscs is whatevr the physics of tha particular world is, not M.D. or S.D. and that is why they explain ed inte h megaversal builder book that different worlds have a different "matrix" of sorts, or rather thier own "physics".

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:46 pm**

this has gotten convoluted and misinterpreted

There wasn't a stepping stone from SDC to MDC and that is the lapse in cognition. You don't have to start out not liking tonot like it

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 2:22 pm**

KillWatch wrote:There wasn't a stepping stone from SDC to MDC and that is the lapse in cognition.

While generally technology doesn't develop that way, it's not impossible.
It could well be that we stumbled onto some kind of scientific advancement that opened up a world of new, super-durable materials, all at once.

(Though I'd personally like to see more of the middle-ground stuff, and think it's more likely that there would indeed be some)

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:20 pm**

jaymz wrote:
Joseph Kerr wrote:See, I think you're trying to create M.D. Physics in your head,

You reasoning is flawed in that physics is physics. There is no S.D. physics or M.D. physics. They are both the same physics. One is just incredibly tougher than the other. The Physiscs is whatevr the physics of tha particular world is, not M.D. or S.D. and that is why they explain ed inte h megaversal builder book that different worlds have a different "matrix" of sorts, or rather thier own "physics".

I agree with you. There is no distinction in reality. I was trying to say that the concept, even if it doesn't make sense and you can't rationalize it in our world, is what you have to suspend disbelief with. Just like a guy who heals himself from a drop of blood.

Posted: **Sun Mar 20, 2011 9:26 pm**

the problem is that we have experience with technology. We've seen it progress in amazing ways, even in our lifetime, and then not even close close to what those in 1950 thought we'd be able to do, like interplanetary travel, system bases on moons throughout Sol. So we have expectations and projections.

I am going to wager that not many of us have experience with magic, aliens, powers, where we can more easily accept the improbable.

i accept that all things are possible, but improbability factors hinder us

but the progression of technology reasoning means we can have MDC weapons and armor in SDC settings, if all it is technological progress.

Posted: **Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:53 pm**

A) Neither
B) 100 SCD = 1 MDC

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2011 8:56 am**

Since when is telling someone that they are using something incorrectly an insult? If people were never corrected they would never learn. All I was saying was that if you had a hard time using MDC then it was being used wrong as I feel it is a mechanic that can be challenging to use right. I never once said that anyone was "incapable" of even understanding it. You can be completely capable of using it but due to one reason or another you simply may not be using it right. It could be because of improper representation in the text, the desire to use it in another way than was intended by the writer. I'm not calling anyone stupid, I'm just saying that the mechanic works well when used correctly. Stop being so defensive.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2011 9:23 am**

SkyeFyre wrote:Since when is telling someone that they are using something incorrectly an insult? If people were never corrected they would never learn. All I was saying was that if you had a hard time using MDC then it was being used wrong as I feel it is a mechanic that can be challenging to use right. I never once said that anyone was "incapable" of even understanding it. You can be completely capable of using it but due to one reason or another you simply may not be using it right. It could be because of improper representation in the text, the desire to use it in another way than was intended by the writer. I'm not calling anyone stupid, I'm just saying that the mechanic works well when used correctly. Stop being so defensive.

Sorry but in this case it comes across as "if you have aproblem with it, then you are doing it wrong and don't understand it"

In that context, having a problem with it is a matter of opinion. There are many threads on these forums about the issues people have with MDC and it's implementation. Not because they are doing it wrong but they have certain issues.

If you have no issues with it then just say so don't blanket all who have an issue with it as those who are doing it "wrong" because for this there is no "wrong" answer or way to do it. I haven't seen anyone else who likes MDC as it is say the rest oif us are doing it "wrong".

I can play it fine as is by RAW but I think it was poorly implemented or thought out for Rifts. I think it is fine as is for Robotech. My issues are not because I am doing it "wrong" and I think I can safely say that is the case with most people who have issues with it. THAT is the part that can be seen as insulting since it essentially says you think anyone who has an issue with it doesn't understand it and is doing "wrong".

This isn't a sensitivity issue for me. It is a matter of getting tired of having someone declare (and it has happenned in many threads on these very forums) that because someone has issues with some of the rules, or the setting or anything for that matter, that that person doesn't "get it" doesn't "understand" or is "doing it wrong".

Most peoel just simply answered the questions but you felt the need to take a jab of sorts at those who don't like it and change it. Not sure why but whatever floats your boat.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:26 pm**

Guys, just remember: Rifts is probably one of the most wide open and easily customizable games ever made. If you dont like something you can not only change it, but probably continue playing like that with your group indefinitely. No one who enters should have a big hissy fit when they learn about your house rules. In fact they may even suggest more.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:13 pm**

I like AR. I'd be happy to play in SDC Rifts game.

However, I have no problem with 100:1 for SDC/MDC, but if the players needed 10:1 for their feeling of immersion, I would have zero problem with that too.

I'm Old School. There are no rules, just guidelines for me to use to maximize the fun in my games. If a RPG rule ever gets in the way of the fun, the rule goes away and the fun continues.

Posted: **Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:55 pm**

Spinachcat wrote:I like AR. I'd be happy to play in SDC Rifts game.

However, I have no problem with 100:1 for SDC/MDC, but if the players needed 10:1 for their feeling of immersion, I would have zero problem with that too.

I'm Old School. There are no rules, just guidelines for me to use to maximize the fun in my games. If a RPG rule ever gets in the way of the fun, the rule goes away and the fun continues.

Posted: **Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:58 am**

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:
Shorty Lickens wrote:Guys, just remember: Rifts is probably one of the most wide open and easily customizable games ever made.

so uve never played GURPS then. or BESM, FUDGE, or any of a bunch of games with rules that rly ARE built to be universal & customisable. all Pally is is an oldschool dungeoncrawl rpg ruleset thats had the word 'megaversal' attached to it.

Palladium was ahead of its time.
TSR had D&D, Gamma World, Boot Hill, Star Frontiers, and other games in different Genres... but the rule systems were all different.
Other companies were the same.

I'm not sure if Palladium was THE first company to make a wide variety of games that were all compatible, but they were certainly one of the first.
They may be behind the times now, but they deserve more credit than you're giving them in that post.

As for what systems are the most "wide open" and "customizable," that depends on what you mean by the words.
In some senses, the simplest systems are the most customizable and wide open, because they have the fewest restrictions.
In other senses, those games are the least customizable and wide open, because they have the fewest permissions: any time you want to do something not covered in the rules, which is most things, you have to just make it up yourself.

Posted: **Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:04 pm**

Splynnys Girlfriend wrote:so basicly if i dont think pallys stuff is the bestest game system in the entire universe then im not allowed in the pally treehouse coz theres no way id be able to enjoy any of it?

what sort of stupid crap is that? thats not an argument in defense of the mdc concept. that u admitin that its crap & then claimin that i lose the argument coz i was the first one to point out that its crap.

I'm not sure where you got the "Pally stuff is the bestest game system in the entire universe." Nor where I said that you couldn't play it. Your words, not mine. No one's telling you how to play or anything, I could care less if you go left or right with this. I enjoy Marvel and DC even though they have a load of crap that's dumb. All I'm saying is that there are stupid things going on, but I'm not letting that stop me from having fun. You can dislike it, pitch a fit, or whatever you want to do, but it's there. Fix it in your games and propose your fix here, if you want.

Also, your argument of "Magically thin metal that can stop armor peircing rounds" is stupid when you're talking about a world that has all sorts of kooky things going on. I'm ok with the idea of a metal so dense/strong that it's impenitrable by normal, older, means. I'm no physicist by any stretch, so maybe I just don't care if an Apachi Helicopter can be taken down with one MDC Laser Pistol. There are plenty of movies that show case older tech Vs future tech. Iron Man takes a tank round. Pistols unloading into an alien spaceship bounce off harmlessly, while one of their blasters takes out a tank. In short: You be wack, yo'.

:clown:

I'm really not that invested in this topic. I can't convince you otherwise. You have problems with some of the world aspects of Rifts. S'cool.

Posted: **Sun Mar 27, 2011 1:54 pm**

We all like or even love palladium. There are some things we dislike or even really cause us to go into frantic rantings (not pointing the finger at anyone-namely me), but this discussion is meant to ferret out a reason for MDC, or express your findings with its shortcomings. Saying "because" is pointless because we know it's in the books. I wanted to know if I was alone in my consternation, or if someone could satisfactorily explain it-which I just wasn't counting on but it could happen

Posted: **Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:45 pm**

KillWatch wrote:this discussion is meant to ferret out a reason for MDC, or express your findings with its shortcomings.

I didn't even get a hint of that first part from the initial post.
What sort of reason are you looking for?

Posted: **Sun Mar 27, 2011 2:50 pm**

It may be just a matter of progression to MDC as opposed to TADA WE HAVE MDC.

Posted: **Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:06 pm**

jaymz wrote:It may be just a matter of progression to MDC as opposed to TADA WE HAVE MDC.

I get where you're coming from, but I don't have a real problem with there being a big jump in technology like that.

"There are two kinds of scientific progress: the methodical experimentation and categorization which gradually extend the boundaries of knowledge, and the revolutionary leap of genius which redefines and transcends those boundaries. Acknowledging our debt to the former, we yearn, nonetheless, for the latter."
-Academician Prokhor Zakharov, "Address to the Faculty"

Look at it this way: where's the slow steady progress between TNT and a thermonuclear explosion?
We had a revolutionary leap of technology that changed the world, coming up with something unfathomably more powerful than anything the world had ever seen before, and there wasn't really any middle ground.
It happens sometimes.

You can either see it as a flaw: "It doesn't make any sense for there to be a sudden leap in technology instead of a slower progression without the huge gaps"
Or you can see it as a feature: "How would a world deal with such a sudden advance in technology, and/or such a gap in firepower? What would people think? How would they react? What would they do?"

The first is a dead-end complaint.
The second fleshes out the game world and makes it more real.

And the first isn't that big of a deal anyway. If you think it's that mysterious how humans suddenly went from SDC to MDC without any Deca-Damage in-between, come up with an explanation.
Maybe we finally cracked some of the tech from that spaceship that crashed in Rosewell.
Maybe somebody made a pact with aliens, demons, or beings from another dimension.
Maybe the Naruni or Splugorth or another race covertly seeded our planet with the secret of making mega-damage items in order to twist it to their own gain in the future.
There are any number of ways that such a gap could be easily and sufficiently explained, if indeed it really needs to be.

Posted: **Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:22 pm**

KC - I agree.....but what I mean is not neccessarily the progression from SDC to MDC per se but in how MDC was implemented over time.

IE Where are the really low end MDC combat vehicles and PA's that there were likely many of lying around in various National Guard depots etc? These would have been the first and possibly still reproduced MDC units out there.

I honestly don't have a problem over all with poof we have MDC (other than things we have previously spoken about and my assertion that 10-1 is just as power increasing in most respects as 100-1 but that is a different debate altogether

) just the haphazard way it seems to be implemented through the game is all but that is my position on it. This is KillWatch's thread so I'll let him define what he is looking :lol:

Forums of the Megaverse®

MDC

MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC

Re: MDC