"Master" and "slave" are engineering terms, though admittingly they were taken from the practice of slavery. the "Master" is the machine/computer that controls other machines/computers or the "slave". so in the case of the C3 "Master" or C3"slave"; this means that the "Master" unit sends signals to the "slave" units and the "slave" unit then acts out the orders. think of the "Master" unit as a commander, while the "slave" units are for the regular MechWarrior's. its a way for commanders to send a receive information and orders so that the unit can fight more coherently and as a group, than simply fighting as a bunch of individuals.
Only tangentially relevant, but its use in engineering is going out of style, at least in my field (building automation). We started using "manager + subordinate" so all the acronyms using M and S are still usable.
@@kevinmitchell8626 that only shifts the problem because it means managers equalls masters over slaves/subordinates, just sayin so suddenly every job with "manager" in its name becomes problematic too.
@@Spartaner251 Pendulum seems to be swinging the other way these days, so "master" and "slave" may become a non-issue again before BT devs feel pressured to change the terms. It probably helps that the playerbase doesn't seem to really like C3 from what I've seen since the network can be broken with ECM and the Master unit is ungody heavy. As a result, the C3 system doesn't get a lot of attention from insane virtue signallers. Also, practically half the factions are written as "Atrocities are Us". Who the hell cares about what C3 units are called when you have major factions outright practicing slavery, massacres, war crimes, etc etc. Especially sicne the biggest user of C3 is one of those factions?
The fact that they build battlemechs without a twisting torso doesn't make any sense to me. This is literally like a tank without a turret. From what I've seen the Vindicator also suffers from this issue. I just don't run the quirks as the original lore shows that all BattleMechs can twist their torsos unless its a quad. But quads can shift laterally.
No twist has been retconned out. All mechs like the Vindicator can torso twist! In universe, you could make an argument that mechs with no twist would he cheaper and quicker to build? Something akin to WW2 tank destroyers or SPGs. But those tank destroyers are usually equiped with guns that can't be carried by turret and that doesn't really apply to Battletech weapons. So unless they add a "hip stress" system (which is unnecessarily makes things complex really), I'd say that the retcon (even though it rids some character, not that's too important) is fine.
@@zuda_zI like to say if a mech can't torso twist,it's suffering from a malfunction or has unrepaired or poorly repaired damage. It is useful if you want some easy foes for early MechWarrior campaigns, pirates and periphery militias can't be picky so a mech with a jammed torso might still be sent into battle. Gives new players some easy kills and some options for mechs if they can get these mechs repaired.
The comparison is more really how it was developed rather than its performance. The T-90 is just an upgraded T-72. Same goes for the Grand Dragon. It's just an upgraded Dragon.
I just love the silly inconsequential teeth ontop on the 1G-S
Hail the Chancellor
"Master" and "slave" are engineering terms, though admittingly they were taken from the practice of slavery. the "Master" is the machine/computer that controls other machines/computers or the "slave". so in the case of the C3 "Master" or C3"slave"; this means that the "Master" unit sends signals to the "slave" units and the "slave" unit then acts out the orders.
think of the "Master" unit as a commander, while the "slave" units are for the regular MechWarrior's. its a way for commanders to send a receive information and orders so that the unit can fight more coherently and as a group, than simply fighting as a bunch of individuals.
Only tangentially relevant, but its use in engineering is going out of style, at least in my field (building automation). We started using "manager + subordinate" so all the acronyms using M and S are still usable.
@@kevinmitchell8626 that only shifts the problem because it means managers equalls masters over slaves/subordinates, just sayin
so suddenly every job with "manager" in its name becomes problematic too.
@@Spartaner251 Pendulum seems to be swinging the other way these days, so "master" and "slave" may become a non-issue again before BT devs feel pressured to change the terms.
It probably helps that the playerbase doesn't seem to really like C3 from what I've seen since the network can be broken with ECM and the Master unit is ungody heavy. As a result, the C3 system doesn't get a lot of attention from insane virtue signallers.
Also, practically half the factions are written as "Atrocities are Us". Who the hell cares about what C3 units are called when you have major factions outright practicing slavery, massacres, war crimes, etc etc. Especially sicne the biggest user of C3 is one of those factions?
Ya know, I'll bet War Thunder will still be around in 3042 and people will be leaking the specs of the Dragon on the HPG.
oh definitely
Using Russian tank analogy for Japanese faction mechs
Meanwhile the Russian and Chinese esque faction be like: what about us
He's used the T-34 analogy for the Capellan made Vindicator.
Ok, the T-90 good now I know to stay the hell away from it.
The fact that they build battlemechs without a twisting torso doesn't make any sense to me. This is literally like a tank without a turret.
From what I've seen the Vindicator also suffers from this issue. I just don't run the quirks as the original lore shows that all BattleMechs can twist their torsos unless its a quad. But quads can shift laterally.
No twist has been retconned out. All mechs like the Vindicator can torso twist! In universe, you could make an argument that mechs with no twist would he cheaper and quicker to build? Something akin to WW2 tank destroyers or SPGs. But those tank destroyers are usually equiped with guns that can't be carried by turret and that doesn't really apply to Battletech weapons. So unless they add a "hip stress" system (which is unnecessarily makes things complex really), I'd say that the retcon (even though it rids some character, not that's too important) is fine.
@@zuda_zI like to say if a mech can't torso twist,it's suffering from a malfunction or has unrepaired or poorly repaired damage. It is useful if you want some easy foes for early MechWarrior campaigns, pirates and periphery militias can't be picky so a mech with a jammed torso might still be sent into battle. Gives new players some easy kills and some options for mechs if they can get these mechs repaired.
So much better than the Dragon
It might be better, but a lot of the post-Helm upgrades lose their charm by just replacing the autocanmon with a PPC.
Toaster of the future?
Guys well look at the dragon 🐉 and say
"Hell yeah" in Japanese
I thought the Dragon was good?
The comparison is more really how it was developed rather than its performance. The T-90 is just an upgraded T-72. Same goes for the Grand Dragon. It's just an upgraded Dragon.