314 replies to this topic

[Stormlight666]

Flat-out NO! Reactors don't go nuclear when they melt down, the rods go in and neutralize the whole she-bang before it goes BANG.

If they didn't, then no one outside of the Clans, would send mechs into a civilized area they plan on taking over, etc. Why NUKE your own people? Or a colony you want to take over.

Now i'm okay with a lesser explosion of ammo, etc. But no big nuclear boom. Otherwise you'll get people exploiting that left, right and centre (and I don't just mean the Goons). Because otherwise that ammo-laden light mech is going to race up into your group and explode taking you all out suicide-vest style.

BUT, if someone decides this should be the way reactors explosions go, that you choose to override the safety features, then your mech should be destroyed and you have to buy a new one. But then again, I point to the exploiting of this feature that'll be rampant.

[Forren]

Alex Wolfe, on 24 June 2012 - 03:40 AM, said:

In your rush to use a meme, you've missed the point.

What isn't supported by rules is what this thread is asking: "go nuclear when the reactor goes down". Key word "nuclear", not merely "explode". Both mech canon and conventional knowledge lend no support here, so while a "huge mech explosion" may be in the cards, I guess it's a "no on mushrooms". Is "nuclear fallout that renders a patch of land uninhabitable"... critical... to your "fun"?

Well it's cool, but all those explosions (supported by rules) are still conventional heat explosions, and those in trailers may as well be conventional explosions rather than mini-nukes (hard to tell from just looking). Sure, let's have those once in a blue moon (so that they cannot be exploited). Why not.

I did not miss the point, as I can adequately differentiate Fission (Nuclear reactors) from Fusion (Sol's core, BattleMech Engines). It is, however, common that the uninformed mistake the two as being the same. Where did I ever say that I specifically want radioactive fallout? It was a jab at people taking this setting far to seriously, and should be taken as such.

Edited by Jazeera, 24 June 2012 - 04:29 AM.

[Alex Wolfe]

Jazeera, on 24 June 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

I did not miss the point, as I can adequately differentiate Fission (Nuclear reactors) from Fusion (Sol's core, BattleMech Engines). It is, however, common that the uninformed mistake the two as being the same. Where did I ever say that I specifically want radioactive fallout? It was a jab at people taking this setting far to seriously, and should be taken as such.

My point was that pointing out the difference between the two isn't contrary to the idea of fun itself, it's just that nothing in BT itself supports a "nuclear" reaction to a breached fusion core. So, no to the OP's question. Myth busted.

If you really wish to engage in sophistry to justify the use of "NO FUN ALLOWED" meme on a perfectly normal conversation (where do people "take it seriously", I thought we all operate on the paradigm that it's just for-fun fantasy talk about a fantasy world, so such "jabs" seem unnecessary), I'll just answer with a question: "where did I specifically say that you said that you want that?".

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 24 June 2012 - 04:42 AM.

[Forren]

Alex Wolfe, on 24 June 2012 - 04:39 AM, said:

My point was that pointing out the difference between the two isn't contrary to the idea of fun itself, it's just that nothing in BT itself supports a "nuclear" reaction to a breached fusion core. So, no. Myth busted.

If you really wish to engage in sophistry to justify the use of "NO FUN ALLOWED" meme on a perfectly normal thread (where do people "take it seriously", I thought we all operate on the paradigm that it's just for-fun fantasy talk about a fantasy world, so such "jabs" seem unnecessary), I'll just answer with a question: "where did I specifically say that you said that you want that?".

Alex Wolfe, on 24 June 2012 - 03:40 AM, said:

Is "nuclear fallout that renders a patch of land uninhabitable"... critical... to your "fun"?

Now that we've settled that, I've said my piece and I'm out.

[Fl3tcher]

While it would be somewhat amazing to see half of the mechs on the field wiped out by a huge incandecent explosion of raging hydrogen plasma, it would kinda suck if I was caught in it

Vote no to reactor explosions with the Mech of your choice!

[Khushrenada]

actually i don`t really care, if a fusion reactor ia able to explode (it is not i know), but if you have ever played living legends, you might know, that the nuclear explosion of destroyed mechs from time to time (not every mech goes down in a hughe fireball) just looks awesome.

hell, if you all go the way of "hey this and that is not possible by the law of physics", we wouldn`t have battletech at all!
no jump ships, that are able to travel through space, since you simply can`t produce that much energy to rupture a hole into space.
mechs would be absolutely of no use on modern battlefields, since ONE modern tank could take it out with armor piercing ammunition, or with one hit of modern day missiles... not one weapon in the battletech universe carries armor piercing warheads, which would make perfectly sense, cause all those long battles would be over in one exchange of fire, which would make the fights boring, so they only carry high explosive rounds that can be blocked with layers of armor....

so much for all the lovers of physic accuracy

its a game, its sience fiction, its supposed to be fun, not neccessarily correct to every law book of physics! give it some shiny special effects? hell, why not

[Alex Wolfe]

Alex Wolfe, on 24 June 2012 - 03:40 AM, said:

Is "nuclear fallout that renders a patch of land uninhabitable"... critical... to your "fun"?

It's a question, not a statement . I believe the answer to that in a conversation would be "yes, it is" or "no, it isn't" rather than getting defensive with "where did I say that?". It's not putting words in your mouth, but an inquiry to gauge the other party's thoughts on the matter. I wonder who's taking this

Jazeera, on 24 June 2012 - 04:27 AM, said:

far to seriously

now...?

Have a good day all the same!

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 24 June 2012 - 05:09 AM.

[MrMasakari]

If your too close to your enemy when you die, YES you damn right should be punished for it. However that being said it should not be some sort of martyrdom, just something nice like MW4 mercs, if your in the vicinity, you take 1/8 of your total hp as damage , if your sat right next to them its more like 1/6 /1/4 (depends on mech size iirc)

Otherwise its going to turn into some kind of retarded Nuclear martyrdom as Reoh said, sure it would look amazing and probably be a huge laugh, but it would also suck if your caught in it lol

[Latriam]

FactorlanP, on 22 June 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Fusion reactors don't go out of control like fission reactors, quite the opposite. The process is delicate and finely tuned. Messing with that balance should cause the reaction to stop, not go out of control.

really so tell the people in chernobyl how you explain that radiated mess of an area????(yess fission)
if the reactors control rods fail to drop they dont exactly explode but the heat is so high it melts anything and everything (and lets not forget all the ammo and explosives these mechs carry) so why wouldn't they explode again.

fission fusion who cares this is a game and the mech explosions have always been part of it so keep it in. its not like every mech does it just those that push heat to an extreme then receive a critical engine hit (more like 3 crits)

its part of the risk of doing close combat. Heck when I was all red on armor and about to bite it I used to charge others to take them with me

Edited by Latriam, 24 June 2012 - 05:04 AM.

[Khushrenada]

Latriam, on 24 June 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

really so tell the people in chernobyl how you explain that radiated mess of an area????
if the reactors control rods fail to drop they dont exactly explode but the heat is so high it melts anything and everything (and lets not forget all the ammo and explosives these mechs carry) so why wouldn't they explode again.

just as side note, chernobyl was fission and batteltech is fusion... if you read some of the physic professors` posts here earlier you knew what both reactions do when something bad happens

[Alex Wolfe]

Latriam, on 24 June 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

really so tell the people in chernobyl how you explain that radiated mess of an area????
if the reactors control rods fail to drop they dont exactly explode but the heat is so high it melts anything and everything (and lets not forget all the ammo and explosives these mechs carry) so why wouldn't they explode again.

It's explained by Chernobyl reactor being fission type rather than the (currently not at a level feasible for energy production) fusion type, naturally.

EDIT: ninja'd. I'll have my revenge after launch.

Edited by Alex Wolfe, 24 June 2012 - 05:03 AM.

[Xando]

Latriam, on 24 June 2012 - 04:57 AM, said:

really so tell the people in chernobyl how you explain that radiated mess of an area????
if the reactors control rods fail to drop they dont exactly explode but the heat is so high it melts anything and everything (and lets not forget all the ammo and explosives these mechs carry) so why wouldn't they explode again.

Chernobyl was a fission reactor, not a fusion reactor. The two work in different ways.

Alex Wolfe, I feel your pain.

Edited by Xando, 24 June 2012 - 05:04 AM.

[Alex Wolfe]

Xando, on 24 June 2012 - 05:03 AM, said:

Alex Wolfe, I feel your pain.

I know, right? Post-launch let's gang up on Khushrenada's tin can and see if *it* goes "nukular" indeed .

[Khushrenada]

if you dare come close to my centurion, i`ll give you a sweet long hug when i`m about to go critical

[CutterWolf]

FactorlanP, on 22 June 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

Fusion reactors don't go out of control like fission reactors, quite the opposite. The process is delicate and finely tuned. Messing with that balance should cause the reaction to stop, not go out of control.

+1 This is correct

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Teralitha, on 23 June 2012 - 10:19 PM, said:

A suicide squad will be useless against a coordinated team, sorry to say. waste 4 or 5 members of your team just to take down 1 enemy... real smart... not.

Funny thats what they say in EVE

Aegic, on 24 June 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

Cool it says there is a small chance they will explode tearing a mech apart if the reactor takes too much damage too fast for the safeties to react. Even though at the same time it says it is an urban legend.

This means it happens, but is very rare.

About half way down the page. http://www.sarna.net...Mech_Technology

Its actually IN the books but its level three rules as I said and as I said people seem to think lvl 3 rules wont be included even though the devs have said no such thing

Which is by the way funny given that some of the lrm ammo ppl WANT is lvl 3 rules based. If you want it in its ok if you dont, its lvl 3 s it wont be allowed. I dont think it SHOULD be in the game but thats to limit griefing/exploiting lol

Edited by 514yer, 24 June 2012 - 06:20 AM.

[DarthVR]

My two pennies: Whatever you call it, the chance that a critically damaged mech will explode and cause exponentially decreasing damage in a tight radius around it was a big part of the TT when I played it. I recall that effect being caused by internal ammo after a critical hit, so that the Phoenix Hawk I drove wasn't at risk, being stacked with beam weapons. A Rifleman however, la boom.

So I voted yes, but don't call it a fusion reactor explosion. That's not science.

[Giverous]

Fusion reactors wouldn't "go nuclear" the way you're thinking. The main explosive force encountered when a reactor goes critical is in our current power stations - the water used as a coolant reacts with the zirconium can around the fuel pellet. This releases hydrogen gas which is obviously explosive. I believe the main nuclear elements of the reactor are not explosive.

One would have to hope that by the time someone slapped a reactor in every mech on a battlefield, they'd have replaced the zirconium with something non-reactive

*edit* typo

Edited by Giverous, 24 June 2012 - 06:28 AM.

[CutterWolf]

Ok, I'm going to break this down into what I like to call the, "Doh" factor. Who in their right minds would ever put a reactor into a mult-billon C-bill Mech knowing that if it took a hit that it would go nuclear killing it and everything else around it?? Answer: Doh! that would be dumb as hell! Ya kill one of the 5 mechs and it take out the other 4 long with Aero, infantry and tanks Woooooo! Hoooooo! great idea!! So if you voted "yes" I suggest you go back and re-vote no since this is about a "NUCLEAR explosion" Not a "AMMO" explosion. Now if the OP wants to go back and add in or change this to a discusion about "AMMO explosion" then we would be talking about something with in the realm of possiblitys which is why "Case" came about.

[ice trey]

To put it quickly:

Mechs should not explode in a huge fireball from a fusion engine hit. That doesn't make any sense and is a stackpole'ism.
What they should have to explode in huge fireballs is the classic AMMO EXPLOSION! Too much ammo on a mech and it's a walking crate of TNT.

Definitely want to see a 'mech with CASE go off. Huge, Crippling explosion coming out the back of the 'mech, but it keeps on ticking.

Edited by ice trey, 24 June 2012 - 06:52 AM.