314 replies to this topic

[TimberJon]

Lightfoot, on 24 June 2012 - 01:23 AM, said:

MechWarrior is science fiction cast 1100 years in the future. Sorry to say the Tokamak reactor is an archaic device that barely functioned. A prototype fusion reactor designed to boil water for a steam turbine generator that couldn't even power itself. Stop trying to extrapolate Tokamak's design 1100 years into the future.

Your post is B-S bro. The original BT Timeline provided for the commercialization of the fusion reactor. It stands to reason that after that development, miniaturization of that same system is what provided the nearly infinite power required by BattleMechs, hovercraft, helicopters, planes and other mostly electric vehicles.

A quote here: "The ITER project is currently leading the effort to commercialize fusion power." from here:
http://en.wikipedia....ki/Fusion_power

Don't punk BOTH these entries from the BT timeline.

• 2020: First full-scale fusion reactor completed
  
• 2021: First commercially available fusion power plant developed

And reference it against the on-schedule timeline for the ITER reactor here: http://www.iter.org/proj/iterandbeyond

I will concede these two points: 1) Such a large reactor cannot be commercialized or even begin to be miniaturized within a year. and 2) I expect that if we can miniaturize a fusion reactor and increase their power output hundreds of years later, that they might just explode with alot of force, but only if they take away some of the safeties that were purposefully designed into the device at the beginning.

And why are you bashing the Tokamak design? I have seen BT concept art that showed a few toroid rings stacked that comprised the "Reactor" as a whole. http://tinyurl.com/6q9gdm2 Those are micro-toruses.

What do you think is more effective? A cylindrical body with a fusion bottle? The Tokamak or "Torus" design is the best and most plausible now, having already been proven out.

I don't think everyone realizes the impact this reactor will have when it reaches goal stability.

Edited by TimberJon, 24 June 2012 - 07:39 AM.

[Khushrenada]

debating on how a fusion reactor might be working 1100 years from now on (when we not even managed to build an effective working one ) is a waste of time...

its like putting some medieval folks together and let them debate about how to build a rocket to fly to the moon

[BFalcon]

Ranek Blackstone, on 23 June 2012 - 05:17 PM, said:

This. Mechs use hydrogen fusion reactors. Hydrogen, because you can literally suck the surrounding air into the engine, and make it work, and fusion because it's safe. Fusion reactions are NOT something nature likes having, so you have to brute force it. Shoud, for any reason, the condtions required for forcing 2 things that don't WANT to be together into unholy wedlock suddenly not exsist, your reaction goes with it. The plasma generated by the reaction will stick around until it depletes naturally, so if you breach the reactor, the contained plasma can still cook off all the ammo it can reach.

I think I'd like to see rare (unless overheating, in which case you've cooked your systems that generate the magnetic bottle and, potentially, the failsafes) explosions, but ones that are contained within the body of the mech - the seams should suddenly shine white for a brief instant as the plasma impacts the sidewall of the reactor and super-heats the metals, possibly jetting out through cracks in the reactor (remember that it would have been combat-damaged at some point in its history, quite possibly very recently). It is possible for metals to vaporise at extreme heat, but also myomer might also be combustable at extreme temperature.

All that should happen from a game balance perspective is that you need the mech go "whumph!" with smoke and light jetting from all the seams and joints and any ammo held in the mech should cook off (which might lead to a more impressive explosion, but should give all pilots a half-second to a full second of warning before it does so).

As for the ammo explosions being more of a fizz than a bang, remember the tank ammo was likely just solid rounds (which uses slow-burning explosives to provide propulsion), while the ammo used in BT tends to be more explosive (not sure if Autocannon ammo is much different to the tank ammo, but LRMS/SRMs are missiles with explosive warheads and you're looking at TONS of MG ammo in an armoured bin, so pressurised (unless it's CASE, in which case it uses blow-away panels and vents)). Differentiating between ammo types would just complicate things.

I would just simplify things and say that reactor explosion = all ammo explodes with one nominal "ammo" bin being the reactor just for the effect (and that should be just enough to damage a mech that's actually touching the exploding mech and nothing more).

That would satisfy the "I want an explosion" crowd without making it a game-killer and, if it's rare enough, shouldn't be too upsetting to those who disagree with the Stackpole version of canon.

This is one area I'm kinda torn over... the explosions for ammo should happen, I don't think many would dispute that, but the reactor explosions, to me, are something I could take or leave (but if not, there should be something other than "oh, you've overheated, so you've just shut down" as a punishment for cooking your mech, if not using ammo(the chances of ammo explosion should be additional)).

Khushrenada, on 24 June 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

debating on how a fusion reactor might be working 1100 years from now on (when we not even managed to build an effective working one ) is a waste of time...

its like putting some medieval folks together and let them debate about how to build a rocket to fly to the moon

Well, actually, it's more like 500/600 years, since technology actually goes backwards from that point, pretty much.

[Xune]

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.

learn to read then, Snipped from the text you wanted to slap in my face "but it is not a nuclear blast."

Edited by Xune, 24 June 2012 - 12:07 PM.

[Steffenximus]

Reading the title "Should a mech go nuclear...". Should it ? Should the first kill in a battle vaporize everyone else in game ? Well, if this was the case, NO ONE WOULD BE STUPID ENOUGH TO KILL ANYONE.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Khushrenada, on 24 June 2012 - 08:03 AM, said:

debating on how a fusion reactor might be working 1100 years from now on (when we not even managed to build an effective working one ) is a waste of time...

its like putting some medieval folks together and let them debate about how to build a rocket to fly to the moon

Exactly the problem with the "science today says..." argument, cause if we go with that idea, we have no battlemechs

BFalcon, on 24 June 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

Well, actually, it's more like 500/600 years, since technology actually goes backwards from that point, pretty much.

And yet the argument is still accurate...
15th century area is middle ages, rocket to the moon, 20th century
Well no its only 400 or so but still

Xune, on 24 June 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

learn to read then, Snipped from the text you wanted to slap in my face "but it is not a nuclear blast."

look in max tech. They have rules for mech reactors going boom.
and like I said, havent seen anything as to what rules theyre using or arent, or if theyre using only tournament TT stuff or not.

Edited by 514yer, 24 June 2012 - 12:29 PM.

[Dragonsbane]

shadows96, on 22 June 2012 - 06:10 PM, said:

after watching the mech warrior revision trailer and seeing at the end how the pilot's mech went nuclear when it was destroyed, it got me thinking though having a mech go nuclear when destroyed is a very poor decision (you would have many nuclear explosions happening at once that would be a disaster) but the devs brought up how when mechs overheat they shut down and the pilot can override this at the risk of having his mech's reactor melting down, so should it be that when you override and that causes your mech the melt down should it go nuclear?

No, cause reactors don't explode... fission ones just stay there radiating mortal radiation in the environment and fusion ones (the case on the game) just stop working.

[CutterWolf]

Steffenximus, on 24 June 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Reading the title "Should a mech go nuclear...". Should it ? Should the first kill in a battle vaporize everyone else in game ? Well, if this was the case, NO ONE WOULD BE STUPID ENOUGH TO KILL ANYONE.

He get's it! Those of you who voted "yes" to this threads question, "Should a mech go nuclear" because you beleave there should be some kind of explosion from a reactor melt down do to over heat ammo or compents are voting yes to the WRONG thread. We all beleave that some kind a event should happen but it should be anything other than a nuclear event.

[Cole Christensen]

Yeah yeah, fusion reactors do not meltdown like fission; that's not the point. Whatever fuel is used for the reactor should have a chance to explode, just like the ammo stored in different parts of the mech chassis (already confirmed by Dev videos). However, the explosion should not cause any real damage, just be pure eye candy, IMO.

[captn rentoshi]

well... nuke em if you got em.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

CutterWolf, on 24 June 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:

He get's it! Those of you who voted "yes" to this threads question, "Should a mech go nuclear" because you beleave there should be some kind of explosion from a reactor melt down do to over heat ammo or compents are voting yes to the WRONG thread. We all beleave that some kind a event should happen but it should be anything other than a nuclear event.

I believe there should be a big boom but no nuclear boom that hurts other people as I can see the abuse there

[CutterWolf]

514yer, on 24 June 2012 - 12:38 PM, said:

I believe there should be a big boom but no nuclear boom that hurts other people as I can see the abuse there

Of course, I fully agree hence the "Some sort of event comment"

[Suicidal Idiot]

FactorlanP, on 22 June 2012 - 06:32 PM, said:

...It escapes me why so many seem to find him to be such a fine writer.

Regarding Stackpole,

One of his secrets is in making sure to kill off at least one major character in each book. This makes things seem more realistic, and you lose the assurance that all the major characters are immortal. That makes his books significantly different from pretty much everybody else in the fantasy realm.

Edited by Suicidal Idiot, 24 June 2012 - 12:52 PM.

[Space Coyote]

My two cents after reading all these posts!
1. Stackpole is CANON, let's stop being silly.
2. Catastrophic engine failure is also CANON, see Sarna description.
3. It is not a nuclear explosion, again see Sarna.

All that said, I hope (and fully expect) to see this in game. My only caveat being that I hope it is both rare and random!

[Suicidal Idiot]

I believe 'splody 'mechs in MWO should be handled in exactly the same way as the TableTop. It was a pretty good game.

[Bundynomics]

I'm in favor of TT rules. Go with that.

[Suicidal Idiot]

CaveMan, on 22 June 2012 - 08:03 PM, said:

It's not just dumb, it's deliberately appealing to drooling idiots who only want more 'splosions and don't care why. Go watch a Michael Bay movie if you want pointless explosions.

Dude, you do realize your sig contains a caveman with an RPG?

[Suicidal Idiot]

trycksh0t, on 22 June 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

Does a fission reactor make a big boom when things get screwy? Yes, because it continues to function for up to several days after being shut down, uncontrolled, causing a massive release of energy.

Actually, fission reactors can go a bit longer uncontrolled. The boffins figure the naturally occurring reactors in Africa ran about a hundred thousand years. Chernobyl is also causing problems again, and that disaster happened a quarter century ago.

But fission reactors don't always go boom. 3 mile island didn't.

[Tincan Nightmare]

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

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

Khushrenada, on 24 June 2012 - 05:13 AM, said:

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

Yep and thats why it shouldn't be in the game, because who wants to be winning a match just to have your opponent declare Jihad and take you with them since they know they are going to lose anyway. If they put this in as just a pretty light show and a cool cgi death for the mech that doesn't effect other mechs, cool won't bother me none, but I do not want an exploit for suicide mechanics to steal victories from people.

Edited by Tincan Nightmare, 24 June 2012 - 01:43 PM.

[S n a k e]

Tincan Nightmare, on 24 June 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

Yep and thats why it shouldn't be in the game, because who wants to be winning a match just to have your opponent declare Jihad and take you with them since they know they are going to lose anyway. If they put this in as just a pretty light show and a cool cgi death for the mech that doesn't effect other mechs, cool won't bother me none, but I do not want an exploit for suicide mechanics to steal victories from people.

Indeed. Going down in a blaze of glory if one thing. Going down in a mushroom cloud kinda pees in everyones cereal.