158 replies to this topic

[mercenarie]

CCC Dober, on 10 June 2012 - 04:23 AM, said:

@merc
That intro was a perfect demonstration of Arrow IV ownage. But it definitely looked like the poor Shadow Cat got ammo racked.

yep, that's what I was thinking about. At the end of this intro you can see the vulture exploding nearby enemy mechs, but it doesn't seem to be a nuclear explosion to me, despite the fact he was directly shot many times by a PPC/ AC to the hull.. btw, @01:07 USB ports FTW

Edited by mercenarie, 10 June 2012 - 04:35 AM.

[Nev]

mercenarie, on 10 June 2012 - 04:34 AM, said:

btw, @01:07 USB ports FTW

The quality of a 'mech is determined by the number of USB ports it has. That's pretty basic knowledge right there!

Edited by Nev, 10 June 2012 - 04:39 AM.

[CCC Dober]

LOL
You may scoff at USB ports in MW, but imagine a mechanical computer in the 40th millenium called 'cogitator'. WH40K state of the art technology ... no comment >.>

[Dragon Lady]

Teralitha, on 09 June 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

Do you have a problem with people LIKING big explosions? Or do you prefer.. shoot enemy mech... (small puff of smoke) enemy mech falls over, or even just sits there like a statue,( or just vanishes to the compost) is that fun for you? Why would you even want to play this game.

There is a principle in fiction called "suspension of disbelief." The idea is that the audience is generally willing to not say "the real world doesn't work that way," as long as the author, director, game designer, or other artist doesn't violate the proverbial laws of the fictional universe.

The Battletech Universe is relatively hard science fiction. That is, with the exception of FTL travel and communications, everything in the BT universe is based on actual physics, and technology that exists today, or has the potential to exist in the near future.

Aerospace fighters, in space, don't act like fighter planes it atmosphere, they will move along their last vector until acted upon another force. Why don't they act like that, when it would be easier to model them that way? Because the physics don't work that way.

Dropships don't cruise through space like ships cruising on the surface of an ocean, they thrust towards their destination (or more accurately, where their destination will be at the end of the journey) until the halfway point, flip around, and then thrust away for the rest of way. If the defenders want to intercept an incoming invasion force, then they not only need to get to a particular point in space, but match their velocity. Why doesn't the space navy act like a wet navy? Because the physics don't work that way.

Artificial gravity doesn't exist, so the only way to get the effects of gravity in space is either through thrust or rotation. There also isn't any anti-gravity. Hovercraft operate by blowing air towards the ground, VTOLs operate through either thrust, or rotational lift. Aerospace fighters fly either via lift, or more often brute thrust. Why doesn't artificial gravity and anti-gravity exist in the BT universe? Because the physics don't work that way.

Fusion reactors don't blow up when damaged. Why? Because the physics don't work that way.

If you want fusion engines that go nuclear when damaged, play another game. Me? I want to play a Mechwarrior game that is as true as possible to the Battletech Universe (with a few concessions to the necessities of an online game, like FTL travel that violates the speed of FTL travel in the Battletech Universe).

Edited by Dragon Lady, 10 June 2012 - 04:59 AM.

[Lightfoot]

It's all science-fiction. And some types of fusion reactors do explode if things go wrong, it's a kinetic explosion rather than a fusion reaction. They just don't spread radioactive fallout so they are fail-safe. Travel between the stars taking anything less than decades for the people on the planets is complete fiction without some type of space warp/gravity drive. Weapons of the caliber on 'mechs can actually shoot 5-30 miles and I think any missile made can reach more than 640 meters unless it's a bazooka or something. So all this unreality is canon, but a mech exploding from the classic core breach is "completely unrealistic." Well, ok, uhh sure....

Edited by Lightfoot, 10 June 2012 - 06:19 AM.

[Kazzamo]

Lightfoot, on 10 June 2012 - 06:08 AM, said:

It's all science-fiction. And some types of fusion reactors do explode if things go wrong, it's a kinetic explosion rather than a fusion reaction. They just don't spread radioactive fallout so they are fail-safe. Travel between the stars taking anything less than decades for the people on the planets is complete fiction without some type of space warp/gravity drive. Weapons of the caliber on 'mechs can actually shoot 5-30 miles and I think any missile made can reach more than 640 meters unless it's a bazooka or something. So all this unreality is canon, but a mech exploding from a core breach is "completely unrealistic." Well, ok, uhh sure....

Canon says it doesn't happen, and if there is a "core breach" that ends in a pretty light show the only thing that might get hurt by it is unarmored infantry. If you're going to accept the weapon ranges then accept that too. Unless your pointing this out to make all the weapons much longer range.

Another issue with core nukes. If you're in a mech designed for closer range combat it flat out removes one of your 3 ways to stop a mech. In MWO you either shoot out the cockpit, take out the center torso where the engine is (left and right torso also if they are running an XL engine), or take out the legs. And from the example before even with core nukes two lights sandwiching an assault too tall to hit them point blank still wouldn't be at risk. They could just leg the assault, that is unless you want the core to explode when it didn't even get shot once.

Edited by Kazzamo, 10 June 2012 - 06:17 AM.

[Leskon]

150 Billion deg. plasma, no magnetic field -> explosion. Tritium and Deuterium are fuel for the fusion-reactor, like Uran for fission-reaktor.
Tritium is radioaktiv and a small fallout would be there, if the reaktor explodes.

We had a simple rule add to the tabletop, is you roll a 1 or 2 after a mech got destroyed , it explode. If not the plasma runs out and nothing happen. The damge was only given in a small rangen and a small mech makes less damge. it is connected to the size of the Reaktor.

If you finish an Atlas, you should run!

[NinjaCool]

I remember in one of the Battletech cartoon eps in a fight with Clanners. 1 of the Steiner’s notices a clan Hunchback IIC that’s been running uphill awhile to get to the battlefield. He calculated it must be close to overheating so attacks it with his Axeman. The Hunchback armed with 2 pairs of Devastator Ultra AC/20s rips one of his hands right off, and causing his Axeman to get a Heat Malfunction and Critical Failure in 15sec. He then charges right up to the Hunchback while his Axeman overheats. The resulting explosion and heat from the Axeman causes the Hunchback to overheat and explode as well!

It would be interesting if the Heat caused by explosions, like Ammo racks or a total Critical Failure would temporarily cause mechs real close to experience a jump in heat besides the damage itself.

Edit Found the Video, just watch it at 7.20 and you can see what I mean.
http://tinyurl.com/d8rzhyq

[Kazzamo]

Leskon, on 10 June 2012 - 06:31 AM, said:

150 Billion deg. plasma, no magnetic field -> explosion. Tritium and Deuterium are fuel for the fusion-reactor, like Uran for fission-reaktor.
Tritium is radioaktiv and a small fallout would be there, if the reaktor explodes.

Wrong. "A BattleMech's fusion engine can usually last for decades on a few kilograms of hydrogen. Unlike the research reactors of the real world, a Battlemech's fusion engine runs on "light" hydrogen, protium, rather than hydrogen's heavier isotopes deuterium and/or tritium."

Edited by Kazzamo, 10 June 2012 - 06:38 AM.

[Lightfoot]

Kazzamo, on 10 June 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

Canon says it doesn't happen, and if there is a "core breach" that ends in a pretty light show the only thing that might get hurt by it is unarmored infantry. If you're going to accept the weapon ranges then accept that too. Unless your pointing this out to make all the weapons much longer range.

Another issue with core nukes. If you're in a mech designed for closer range combat it flat out removes one of your 3 ways to stop a mech. In MWO you either shoot out the cockpit, take out the center torso where the engine is (left and right torso also if they are running an XL engine), or take out the legs. And from the example before even with core nukes two lights sandwiching an assault too tall to hit them point blank still wouldn't be at risk. They could just leg the assault, that is unless you want the core to explode when it didn't even get shot once.

Well ok, but you are talking to the wrong person. You need to speak with FASA, Microprose, PGI, and all the other game developers and writers who keep throwing 'Mech Core Breach explosions into the MechWarrior lore. And all I have ever said is that it could be a random occurance in MWO to enhance the roleplay. That's how they pitch it in the lore, an unusual, but possible event. And it wouldn't hurt, "brawling", it never did in MW4 and 'mechs always caused splash damage in that one.

Edited by Lightfoot, 10 June 2012 - 06:48 AM.

[MacKoga]

1) Here's why the science and engineering arguements don't really work for me:

We don't know how to build an energy-positive, stable fusion engine; particularly one that is small, portable, and surive the trauma of being used on the battlefield. As with real-world technologies, sometimes what ends up actually working in practice is radically different from the technological approach that an industry and its scientists had originally expected.


2) On close-range gameplay dis-incentives:

This is perhaps the strongest arguement against giant core reactions happening all the time, from all mechs. This also applies to ammo explosions causing splash damage.

I want to get in close with an AC20, and really want melee to eventually be added to the game, so that would work best if at the moment of defeat, every single mech took out everything around them.


3) What I'd like to see and would probably be tolerable by both camps:

3.1) Most mech destructions would not be particularly dangerous to be around.

Plus:

3.2) Some mech destructions, <30%, and maybe some critical heat-overriding mechs, would have ammo explosions that damage the exploding mech, and maybe some rounds might hit something next to it. CASE would mitigate this. Also, not all exploding munitions should be properly armed, so loosing an AC20 bin should NOT be nearly as deadly as suddenly firing all remaining AC20 ammo in random directions.

There should probably be some way that other players have early visual warning that a mech they want to close in on is having trouble holding all its ammo in. Also, while this could be bad for attacking at point blank range, on the other hand, if you rush in with an AC20 and fail to use up all your ammo and are beaten by your enemy, there's a chance that your ammo may explode and get vengence for you.


3.3) Some mech destructions would have some sort of reactor critical failure <15%. There should be visual and audio warnings that make clear to nearby players that that mech's going to go. Whether it's some kind of implosion, or if the reactors have high pressure and it's a high pressure blast possibly sending some parts flying, a bunch of heat, or a classic explosion, probably doesn't matter so much to most of the pro-breach crowd so much as having something along these lines.

The damage and heat should relate to the size of the mech and probably also torso & engine damage.

[Lokust]

I voted for moderate damage with sensor interruption.

I feel that the way this is presented in the novelization lore is superior to how it is presented in the core rulebook. The psuedoscience really doesn't have much bearing on a world with 100 ton mechs that somehow don't sink into the ground.

I feel that this makes for an interesting gameplay consideration from a tactical point of view, and anything that gives the player something else to think about is a good thing, particularly if it avoids incentivising derp tactics like running directly into someone and firing constantly while holding the throttle forward and bumping into them.

[Skarhedin]

One of my favorite things in mechwarrior 4 was to load up a maurader with 6 ppc fire them all at once and watch the big firey explosion as my core went nuke from the heat generated.

[Alcatraz968]

Blu C, on 09 June 2012 - 04:41 PM, said:

My only problem with this is that the canon is very mixed about what exactly happens when the core is breached. For instance the tech manuel seems to imply that it really shouldn't cause much damage at all, if any, because the reaction gets quashed by the flood of cold air before it can run out of control. By contrast it is quite common in the books to read about some 'Mech exploding with horrible results.

Personally I think if they do put it in they should make it VERY rare and the damage very dependant on proximity with some sort of warning that it is going up (so people can try to clear out) but have the damage caused be significant. When I say very rare I mean it should be something that usually happens only once every 3 or 4 matches (assuming company on company battles).

I have to agree with what you said. Make it a @#$% Moment, but not something you can get use to.

[Lokust]

I also agree it shouldn't happen on every kill. Only on that third engine critical.

[Frostiken]

Well, if they were to have it, I would handle it like so:

- Exploding mech must be at a sufficiently high heat level, to indicate high reactor load. If mech is not at high heat, it does not explode spectacularly.
- Mech must take engine destruction criticals by way of an extremely high amount of engine-destroying damage in an extremely rapid amount of time. Usually from a massive alpha strike.
- That is to even qualify for a chance to explode, and even then the chance is very low.

This should make them extremely rare events, as you would stand no chance of getting a crit by blasting off the engine with a few SRMs, you'd have to hit it with a PPC barrage or something. Additionally, with the high heat requirement, you further reduce the odds of it happening.

Edited by Frostiken, 10 June 2012 - 07:52 AM.

[Banshee Bullet]

Frostiken, on 09 June 2012 - 05:28 PM, said:

Actually it'd be a lot more interesting if ammo explosions weren't the massive ridiculous internal nukes they are in tabletop, but caused your ammo to constantly cook off like a burning ammo can. Much of it would burn and explode internally, but a decent chunk would be shooting AC/20 rounds and missiles out randomly.

OK so this is a good point. My first thought was: the ammo is most likely all oriented the same direction for easier loading. However, how likely is it that ammo maintains that orientation after the first explosion? about zero to none. The initial explosion and subsequent weapon fire will disorient the nearby ammo causing a chain reaction... blah blah blah, you all know where I'm going with this. Also, why would the ammo be pointed inward towards internals? I would think it would be facing the same direction as the weapon (forward) for, again, easier loading. So if ammo does get cooked off then it would shoot forward out of the mech.

Missiles would be a different story, they would probably just blow. But ac ammo for example would shoot out, the explosion would cause minimal damage, it's not that large. The damage would be from the metal slug propelled by said explosion. The velocity of which would be notably reduced due to the lack of a barrel/mechanism containing and directing said explosion. Gauss ammo shouldn't explode at all since it's just a chunk of metal.

Back to the topic at hand. As a physicist it was very hard for me to read most of the "scientific" explanations of fusion reactors/reactions, i.e. MRI machines quenching explosions... So I'm going to ignore it.

I voted minor to moderate damage based on proximity w/sensor disruption (and heat). I voted for it as a game mechanic. Otherwise you could just ram into mechs and fire away, and if you get them from the side or the back there's not a thing they can do about it. One difficulty in mw4 was that if you ended up right next to a mech, say you ran into them while you were twisted, you couldn't kill them right there. You would have to get some distance between you or else you'd fry with them. If you could take out a mech when another enemy was right next to it you would do serious damage to said enemy. This forces you to use tactics. If you had critical damage one technique you could employ was to get in close, making them hesitate hitting you ct inside a certain range.

Edited by Banshee Bullet, 10 June 2012 - 08:06 AM.

[Crozekiel]

Lightfoot, on 10 June 2012 - 03:27 AM, said:

Core Breaches are a famous part of the MechWarrior gaming lore at this point having been utilized to promote the interactive game for many interations. So it has become part of the iconic roleplay now. It's one of the first things you expect when watching a MechWarrior intro. Roleplay is not confined to good things that happen to players or things under the players control. Quite often the most reinforcing elements of roleplay are those beyond the players control. And only a TT player would know Core Breaches were only canon by an alternate rulesset.

Also, I am not sure a Core Breach would level a city block. In the vids they don't, but then again wouldn't 'mechs fighting in a city cause high collateral damage? Stray SRMs and AC20 rounds, etc.

So... we should expect the developers to throw universe canon away and use promotional materials as the basis for their game? Great, like the videos posted in this thread alone, we can have a single salvo of LRMs leveling an entire hangar including several mechs. A mech getting completely destroyed by 2 hits from some kind of missile, probably arrowIVs. Legs being taken out instantly when shot with a single laser. And finally, when you get destroyed, you explode to heroically finish off the person that shot you.

Also, maybe I am hallucinated, but didn't the developers for this game already mention they wanted to stay as close to the TT rules as they could? If so, I applaud them. I think the people that have clearly only been exposed to MechWarrior 4 should keep playing that and stop trying to convince all future MechWarrior game developers to simply remake MechWarrior 4 on a new engine.

[Oswin Aurelius]

LordDeathStrike, on 09 June 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

Fusion reactors implode, causing a micro singularity that briefly exists severly dmging or destroying anything near it, when it collapses theres a vacuum near it that air rushes to fill making the mushroom cloud similar to nuclear detonations. theres no fallout from a fusion implosion but its massively destructive in a small area, compared to a nuclear weapon causing mech dmg in a wide area and massive poisenous fallout that fouls the ground for eons.

...no, it doesn't. You're trying to say an imploding fusion reactor makes a mini-black hole then a mushroom cloud, with no fallout. You must be trolling, because none of those actually happen.

[CCC Dober]

Crozekiel, on 10 June 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

So... we should expect the developers to throw universe canon away and use promotional materials as the basis for their game? Great, like the videos posted in this thread alone, we can have a single salvo of LRMs leveling an entire hangar including several mechs. A mech getting completely destroyed by 2 hits from some kind of missile, probably arrowIVs. Legs being taken out instantly when shot with a single laser. And finally, when you get destroyed, you explode to heroically finish off the person that shot you.
...

All of the above can and will happen under the right circumstances. You can blow a hangar when you hit it while the ammo is being loaded everywhere. You can annihilate a Mech with just a single ArrowIV - they are meant to do that. Legs will freeze when actuators are turned into scrap metal or power lines are cut. The movie just showcased almost everything what can go wrong on the battlefield in the most spectacular fashion. There is nothing wrong with that. If anything, these vids draw people into the game because of the entertainment value of said events. Pays to keep that in mind.