55 replies to this topic

[9erRed]

Greetings all,

Reference 'destroying assets to prevent enemy capture'.

IRL:
- Most if not all militaries have a plan for completing just this action on every piece of equipment in inventory.
- Detailed instructions on where and what to do to remove it from any physical use by the Enemy.

In this verse it's normally a 'thermite charge' or charges placed at critical locations that will damage the Mech to the point of it being useless except for some salvage.
- Thermite is a super hot metal melting charge device, once ignited it can not be put out. Burns through just about anything.
- And would normally be designed/mounted into the mech chassis when in Enemy territory or a combat zone for just that reason. (self destruct when all else fails, no explosion, but essential parts destroyed beyond repair.)

9erRed

[FrontGuard]

I voted yes to eject... but i think it should happen automaticly when your mech is destroyed like in previous MW games.
I voted yes to self destruct cause it gives you something to do if all your weapons were destroyed.

[BloodspatterGaming]

Voted yes to both. Don't really see the -need- for ejection without pilot risk, but its adds flavor to a sometimes tasteless game, so yes.

As to sel)f destruct: Absolutely yes. With the controls the OP put in place (5 minutes is a bit long IMO, some matches are over by then. 1-2 would be adequate) I think this adds utility, and despite naysayers it -is- canon. Per Sarna BT Wiki:

Quote

Fusion engines usually will only shut down if damaged or if heat is uncontrolled. Unlike popular belief, there is absolutely no risk of a fusion engine accidentally becoming a nuclear weapon. ^[17] There have been a number of cases of fusion engines being "over revved" and exploding with devastating force, but this is more akin to a boiler explosion than a true nuclear explosion. More often a destroyed engine will be punctured by weapons fire. Because the plasma is held in a vacuum chamber (to isolate the superheated plasma from the cold walls of the reactor; contact with the walls would super-chill the plasma below fusion temperatures), a punctured reactor can suck in air where the air is superheated. Normal thermal expansion of the air causes the air to burst out in a brilliant lightshow often mistaken for a "nuclear explosion". This thermal expansion damages anything within 90 meters of the destroyed 'Mech.

[Trashhead]

Voted yes for eject, because it sounds interesting.
Voted no for self destruct, because of trolls.

I'd like to throw in a point that always bothered my when it comes to "auto-eject when mech is destroyed":
How is this supposed to work if your mech gets destroyed while it is under a bridge or in a tunnel, like that in Forest Colony ?

I have no solution for this problem, just wanted to point that out.

[Ineffigy]

Ejection was already added to the game.

[Andi Nagasia]

Ineffigy, on 23 December 2014 - 08:31 AM, said:

Ejection was already added to the game.

well it wasnt when i created this topic,
however this is not just a simple Suicide button as CW Eject works,
my ejection system is more dynamic, with bonuses to when you eject,

[Karl Streiger]

Yes for ejection - although i would keep it with the Royal flying corps in WW I that deny there pilot the drop chute

No for self destruct

Third options like ejection but you stay in the Mech - "Strike the Flag" - permanent "shut down" game is finished for you - shooting from enemys count as "friendly" fire.

The last is really important in MWO - ever looked at the temperature? Don't want to be a pilot that eject onto a planet with 90°C

[VinJade]

I like the self destruction idea, not so much the replacing of Mech Warriors(we the player are the MW) as someone suggested
.
Running off the battlefield would be no different than blowing your own machine sky high other than you deal no damage to the surrounding location and both deprives the enemy of the kill.

I like chance to blow up the machine if I have no weapons left while the delay would be more than enough time for the enemy to destroy it before it goes boom.

@ Karl
if its the Hunch/swaybacks they would be fine as the whole head pops off if I recall correctly.
everyone else not so much

Edited by VinJade, 13 January 2015 - 09:42 AM.

[Grimolfr]

Ejecting is something already in CW, but I disagree to it being implemented into pub games.

People already work to deprive people of securing kills. On several occasions I've seen people override their mech and start shooting into a hill to heat suicide. I've seen legged lights jump jet straight up as far as they can go and keep doing so in order to attempt to take their other leg out to suicide.

Until legitimate suicide attempts are punished in the game, I will whole heartedly disagree with this.Example: count it as a TK and reduce C-bill, xp, and gxp earnings. It'd need a bit of work on the coders end to set internal rules to look for people doing certain things (overriding and firing point blank into a hillside repeatedly for example) but it is entirely doable. Similar style "arcade MMO" games already have systems in place like this.

[Alias72]

two points.

1: ejection should not deny a kill. An eject should award the mech that did the most damage with a kill. And the bonus of 100xp for a perfect last second eject is not that unreasonable or detrimental. You still blew up a million credit robot death machine.

2: self destruct. I noticed that victorious players get a salvage bonus. Though I am opposed to the idea of self destruct as a weapon the possibility of a self destruct that destroys your own mechs components and deprives the enemy of their salvage bonus does seem interesting. Of course it should be subject to penalties for use above a certain damage threshold.

[Empyrrean]

I'd like all mechs that die from overheating to cause the engine to explode and do like artillery strike-levels of damage to everyone within about 50 meters.

[VinJade]

blowing up one's own mech, running off the map, or ejecting should always be an option for those who lost all weapons or ran out of ammo but with that said the one who did the most damage should get a fourth what what they would have gotten if they managed to kill the mech but still would not get the 'kill' either as they didn't destroy the mech.

@Grim
I see people doing that type of thing(shooting hillsides for example) before a match even starts and sometimes other players get hit when they do that.

I don't think an enemy should get the kill count, the most damage should get maybe a fourth but not much more than that.

remember retreating off the map is something players can do in the table top game as well but counted as 'destroyed' and no one gets to count that as a kill.

sure running off a map can anger people but it is still a sound tactic that is used in real life as well as it saves lives and equipment.

Edited by VinJade, 11 February 2015 - 08:59 PM.

[Night Thastus]

I didn't want to comment, and I'm positive someone has already said this, but I could not stand to see you call a fusion reactor a "boiler". It is neither steam-powered nor contains anything remotely resembling it.

'Mechs use nuclear fusion reactors. They are remarkably stable, and, when pierced by enemy munitions do not ******* explode. They intake oxygen, combust it due to the high heat, and then jet it out, in a fashion almost identical to a flamer in every way (which does the exact same thing, just intentionally)

Reactors don't go critical, and couldn't be rigged to explode even if you tried. The most a pilot can do is increase the output of the engine marginally and disable the automatic shutdown, but they'll just melt themselves, destroy the equipment feeding the reaction, and shut down permentally.

Even if engines going critical was cannon (Which, as I just explained, isn't the case) it would be annoying as ****. Idiot pilots would run strait into the enemy team and explode, possibly killing several in an unfair move in an otherwise won battle. Some people would do this intentionally even if they have a perfectly fine mech just for the ******* lulz.

No. Your idea is terrible. I'm fine with ejection, but god plz no explosion.

[AkoolPopTart]

Ejection and SD would be hilarious. Especially when that one dude accidentally hits the wrong key

[Koniving]

The only issue that people will have is does the kill get credited to the enemy? If not, then it's an "F-you" device.

Pilot ejection should be automatic, because it pretty much is. The manual ejection in CW, I wish came with the animations. Laziness people, laziness.

Self destruct? I'd like it, but there's some obvious issues if it does render damage (kamikaze mechs anyone?) Personally would love that, but not if everyone starts doing it without a care in the world. R&R would keep that under control, but well... meh. So what it really does needs to be debated. Though clearly how often would you use it if you lost the mech completely (deleted from your mechbay) when you did it?

We definitely could use some mech explosions. Even ammo explosions just deposit some flares and flop over.

[Nightmare1]

We had it in MW4; why not here?

[Koniving]

Night Thastus, on 24 March 2015 - 07:22 PM, said:

I didn't want to comment, and I'm positive someone has already said this, but I could not stand to see you call a fusion reactor a "boiler". It is neither steam-powered nor contains anything remotely resembling it. 'Mechs use nuclear fusion reactors. They are remarkably stable, and, when pierced by enemy munitions do not ******* explode. They intake oxygen, combust it due to the high heat, and then jet it out, in a fashion almost identical to a flamer in every way (which does the exact same thing, just intentionally) Reactors don't go critical, and couldn't be rigged to explode even if you tried. The most a pilot can do is increase the output of the engine marginally and disable the automatic shutdown, but they'll just melt themselves, destroy the equipment feeding the reaction, and shut down permentally. Even if engines going critical was cannon (Which, as I just explained, isn't the case) it would be annoying as ****. Idiot pilots would run strait into the enemy team and explode, possibly killing several in an unfair move in an otherwise won battle. Some people would do this intentionally even if they have a perfectly fine mech just for the ******* lulz. No. Your idea is terrible. I'm fine with ejection, but god plz no explosion.

http://www.sarna.net...h_Self_Destruct

Blood of Kerensky Omnibus Epub, pp. 289-299 "Lost Destiny - Chapter Thirty-Six"

http://www.sarna.net...i/Fusion_Engine

Fusion engines usually will only shut down if damaged or if heat is uncontrolled. Unlike popular belief, there is absolutely no risk of a fusion engine accidentally becoming a nuclear weapon. ^[17] There have been a number of cases of fusion engines being "over revved" and exploding with devastating force, but this is more akin to a boiler explosion than a true nuclear explosion. More often a destroyed engine will be punctured by weapons fire. Because the plasma is held in a vacuum chamber (to isolate the superheated plasma from the cold walls of the reactor; contact with the walls would super-chill the plasma below fusion temperatures), a punctured reactor can suck in air where the air is superheated. Normal thermal expansion of the air causes the air to burst out in a brilliant lightshow often mistaken for a "nuclear explosion". This thermal expansion damages anything within 90 meters of the destroyed 'Mech.
Such dramatic failures are rare, though. It is difficult to sustain the fusion reaction and very easy to shut down. Safety systems or damage to containment coils will almost always shut down the engine before such an explosion occurs. The massive shielding of the engine (in the case of standard fusion engines, this is a tungsten carbide shell that accounts for over 2/3 of the weight of the engine) usually buys the safety systems the milliseconds needed to shutdown the engine when severe damage is inflicted.

I also note the BattleTech fusion engines are powered by Hydrogen. If you combine Oxygen into that, you make it quite explosive. Not necessarily a jet, a damn explosion. The difference between the two is that 'jetting' heat is intentional and directed, an explosion is not directed (even if it might be inclined to rush toward the exposure). See the first youtube video down below.

In nuclear physics, nuclear fusion is a nuclear reaction in which two or more atomic nuclei collide at a very high speed and join to form a new type of atomic nucleus. During this process, matter is not conserved because some of the matter of the fusing nuclei is converted to photons (energy).

Quote

Nuclear fusion is an atomic reaction in which multiple atom s combine to create a single, more massive atom. The resulting atom has a slightly smaller mass than the sum of the masses of the original atoms. The difference in mass is released in the form of energy during the reaction, according to the Einstein formula E = mc ² , where E is the energy in joule s, m is the mass difference in kilogram s, and c is the speed of light (approximately 300,000,000 or 3 x 10 ⁸ meters per second).
The most common nuclear fusion reaction in the universe, and the one of most interest to scientists, is the merging of hydrogen nuclei to form helium nuclei. This is the process that occurs in the interiors of stars including the sun. Hydrogen fusion is responsible for the enormous energy output that stars produce. The reaction involves three steps. First, two proton s combine to form a deuterium nucleus, which consists of one proton and one neutron . A positron (also called an anti-electron) and a neutrino (a particle with negligible mass but extreme penetrating power) are generated during this part of the process. Second, the deuterium nucleus combines with another proton, forming a nucleus of helium 3, which consists of two protons and one neutron. An energetic photon is produced during this part of the process, with a wavelength in the gamma-ray portion of the electromagnetic spectrum . Finally, two nuclei of helium 3 combine to form a nucleus of helium 4, which consists of two protons and two neutrons. In this part of the process, two protons (ordinary hydrogen nuclei) are released. These protons can eventually become involved in another fusion reaction.
Nuclear fusion requires extremely high temperatures, on the order of tens of millions of degrees Celsius . In addition, an intense attractive force, such as gravitation of the magnitude that occurs in the centers of stars, is necessary to overcome the electrostatic repulsion among positively charged nuclei. Scientists can generate the high temperatures and forces required to produce uncontrolled hydrogen fusion, the most notable example being the hydrogen bomb. However, sustaining these temperatures and forces indefinitely, in order to construct a hydrogen fusion reactor that can generate useful energy, has proven difficult. Research in this direction took a significant step forward in June 2005, with the announcement of an experimental fusion reactor to be built in the south of France.

Source

In Battletech, the Fusion reactors are powered by hydrogen rods. Even the fuel cell engines are powered by such (and can be refueled by water assuming you still had some fuel at the time of refueling, as you need a way to get the hydrogen out of the water).

The engine is pretty stable. The rods fueling the engine are, well, it's hydrogen. You rupture those, you get an explosion. But fun fact: Hydrogen is more stable than Hydrogen + Oxygen.

In this experiment, hydrogen when mixed with oxygen, becomes even more volatile. So if you take in oxygen with the hydrogen... heh. In a way

Of course you're talking about using the heat to heat up the oxygen, which kinda creates a pressure cooker and then expelling it which has a bit of what both kinds of reactors do. It is also used in Deuterium-Tritium fusion reactions.

However, actual reactor explosions are not nuclear for either Fusion or Fission (unless someone does something really stupid or the equipment is severely damaged -- hence the Prompt Critical in BT). [Critical just means on for nuclear reactors, SuperCritical just means increasing in power, while Prompt Critical means an explosive acceleration in force and energy]. Between the two, a Fusion Reactor is said to be 79% less likely to have catastrophic failures in the form of a Prompt Critical over a Fission Reactor. Not that they can't, just significantly less likely to occur under stressed conditions.

But, back to reactor explosions. A meltdown is actually just the core structure of the reactor melting from overheating, making it less stable. By extension physical damage would also do so. There's no explosion there, but the risk of something going seriously wrong would increase.

Here are two examples:



In this one, the partial removal (just a partial removal) of the central control rod during reaction caused the reactor to go Prompt Critical. This is something that can happen in both kinds of reactor, and all it needs is some damage like those from combat. Note: A Fusion Reactor is 79% less likely to do this than a Fission Reactor.

Quote

at Chernobyl, but the consensus is that it was more likely to have been a steam-explosion like an overloaded household water-heater but moreso). Even in that case, the reactor will explode well before the power output reaches atom bomb levels. (Designed bombs, on the other hand, go prompt supercritical.)

Both "nuclear explosions" were, in fact, Steam Explosions.


Fukushima was simply a meltdown. The "safer" outcome of a reactor engine failure in BattleTech where the engine would simply shutdown instead.

However, both are possible. Meltdown with safe shutdown (as in no boom, but radioactive issues!) and Steam Explosion (most frequently occuring prompt-critical explosive reaction to occur and in fact the only one that has ever occurred in any reactor has been a steam explosion). As are basic Hydrogen and Hydrogen-Oxygen explosions. All four are likely occurances, with the two highest probabilities being the Meltdown (safe, no boom), followed by Steam, followed by Hydrogen rupture with Oxygen, and finally Hydrogen rupture without oxygen (underwater / space vacuum).

Being that Fusion reactors are 79% less likely to have Prompt Critical reactions under normal to stressed operating conditions, that means you have a combined 21% chance of the other three occurrences or a 21% chance of something going boom to some degree.

Nightmare1, on 25 March 2015 - 08:12 AM, said:

We had it in MW4; why not here?

In MW4 it occurred on every death. Extremely excessive, even the Stackpole rule has it as a very rare occurance -- if you mean explosive deaths.

If you mean the glory device, it was removed from MW4 originally because of abuse. In BT a lot of factors will keep you from doing it (precious pilot, expensive mech, repair and rearm, permanent loss of mech, etc). In MWO there's no such things. In MW 4 there was no such things either.

So -- to have it, we need that reason to make it a very desperate move.

[Koniving]

VinJade, on 11 February 2015 - 08:56 PM, said:

blowing up one's own mech, running off the map, or ejecting should always be an option for those who lost all weapons or ran out of ammo but with that said the one who did the most damage should get a fourth what what they would have gotten if they managed to kill the mech but still would not get the 'kill' either as they didn't destroy the mech.

@Grim
I see people doing that type of thing(shooting hillsides for example) before a match even starts and sometimes other players get hit when they do that.

I don't think an enemy should get the kill count, the most damage should get maybe a fourth but not much more than that.

remember retreating off the map is something players can do in the table top game as well but counted as 'destroyed' and no one gets to count that as a kill.

sure running off a map can anger people but it is still a sound tactic that is used in real life as well as it saves lives and equipment.

I agree with this. Titan Fall was especially good about this, where the losing team's survivors had to evacuate at the end of the mission.

Tabletop, retreating is an option and is meant as a way of preserving lives and equipment, and during an R&R-enabled scenario is more than perfectly acceptable (shouldn't suddenly explode from this btw). An acceptable dock in pay for retreating can be preferable to the 12 versus 1 hazing you might receive as the only survivor when it comes to the repair bills. Unwarranted retreating would need some sort of punishment to keep it from being the first thing people do (a complete no earnings for doing it before warranted might be a good method. An enemies to allies ratio threshold could be another method of determining whether it is okay to retreat or not).

Ejection is another method, though abandoning your mech and losing meant that the enemy got your mech for salvage and you, well you lost your mech. If you ejected but win, you get your mech. Nasty risk there. Of course in BT you could eject from your mech and walk around, or abandon your mech and return to it later. Or -- in my most interesting match yet -- I took someone else's mech. Auto rifle + cockpit + 3 attempts = pilot died (pilot was already injured though). Mech was otherwise intact and it still had cockpit armor.

I personally think the pilot should get the kill, but I think the game should make a distinction between a "kill" which is to disable the mech, effectively 'killing' it from the battle... and a 'kill', as in you killed the pilot too. Taking out the pilot with the kill should net an extra reward (a sort of bonus for successful headshot or killing the pilot who had just launched from the mech toward the sky).

But we're going well into another topic with this.

[Nightmare1]

Koniving, on 25 March 2015 - 09:40 AM, said:

In MW4 it occurred on every death. Extremely excessive, even the Stackpole rule has it as a very rare occurance -- if you mean explosive deaths.

If you mean the glory device, it was removed from MW4 originally because of abuse. In BT a lot of factors will keep you from doing it (precious pilot, expensive mech, repair and rearm, permanent loss of mech, etc). In MWO there's no such things. In MW 4 there was no such things either.

So -- to have it, we need that reason to make it a very desperate move.

I'm not advocating that it be on every death; just on self-initiated destructs. I like the OP's idea to require the perpetrator to hold down the hotkey for five seconds; that would prevent spamming.

[Serpentbane]

LACMAN, on 11 August 2014 - 07:44 AM, said:

That would be cool but,if you fight someone and you are going to kill him and he self destructs and you dont get a kill.On one side it would be good,and at the other bad.

This is because kills actually counts. I think K/D should be removed from the overall stats. Instead only points should count.

Also, PGI should measure the average damage done to a chassis before a mech dies. Let's say 400dmg for chassis X. Now, dealing 400 dmg on that chassis should give the same score as a kill does today. 1/4 score should be given for the killing blow.

If 100 points (easy math) are given for a kill today, doing 400 damage on chassis x and getting the kill gives a score of 125. Doing 100dmg and getting the kill gives a score of 50. Unless it's a headshot killing the pilot, witch gives 50, or perhaps even 100 points.

This way you get the score even if he self destruct.

Edited by Serpentbane, 25 March 2015 - 11:43 AM.