We Need Greater Levels Of Mech Explosions.
#21
Posted 13 October 2014 - 04:45 PM
#22
Posted 13 October 2014 - 04:49 PM
#23
Posted 13 October 2014 - 04:53 PM
#24
Posted 13 October 2014 - 05:02 PM
Xtrekker, on 13 October 2014 - 04:45 PM, said:
Here you go, right at 4:10 you can see the missile cook-off effect.
https://www.youtube....yNAwUUsc0#t=240
And again at 4:40...
https://www.youtube....yNAwUUsc0#t=270
#25
Posted 13 October 2014 - 05:13 PM
Yoseful Mallad, on 13 October 2014 - 02:51 PM, said:
Tell me something I dont know.
+1 for reactors going critical and a small mushroom cloud thats worth of the title Mechwarrior!!!! Well maybe a medium sized mushroom cloud. Make it a 5% or even 2% chance! Throw us a bone here.
Make it a stealth addition on top!!
I can already see the chat now. "^%&$& *&#^#^@ @^#^@#&*$ @*#&$^ did you see that?"
Edited by Johnny Z, 13 October 2014 - 05:18 PM.
#26
Posted 13 October 2014 - 06:36 PM
The reason? Well the controls are are jacked and the engine is mostly unharmed but no longer being regulated and it meltdown into a big BOOM! Maybe like 100-200 meters of 10-20 dmg? Obviously it wouldn't be instant but like 5-10 seconds after the hit?
Maybe even get an achievement for killing some one with the explosion call it collateral?
#27
Posted 13 October 2014 - 06:40 PM
Yoseful Mallad, on 13 October 2014 - 02:38 PM, said:
I mean Ammo explosions.
Yes we already have ammo explosions in the game and you do have them happen, but we need different levels of explosions.
For example, If a missile mech is caring 6 tons of ammo and something causes that Ammo to cook off, chance hit by enemy fire, pilot error and running too hot... whatever! If 6 tons of any ammo cooks off, why dont we see a mech explosion that rips throughout the mech?
Yes we have some light and mediums that can be missile mechs but for the most part, your dedicated big boy missile mechs are in the heavy and assault classes. And whats usually the best way to kill them? Get within their minimum range where they cant be that effective right? Now... what if you run up on a missile or even ballistic boat that WE ALL KNOW is filled to the brim with as much ammo as they can carry, and you are hugging it and laying into it and kill it? BUT... there is that chance that you hit his ammo and a catastrophic explosion ripps through him and the explosion can actually do damage to you or even take you down?
Would you not think twice before ALWAYS getting in close to kill that missile or ballistic boat?
I think different levels of explosions in the game, like engine, Ammo or even flamer fuel should be present and have a chance to happen and even do damage to other mechs too close to the explosion.
People brawl and HUG each other because there are NO real threats or repercussions for doing so. No explosions to do damage to anyone caught in the blast and no knockdowns.
Put these two things in the game and watch how fast the brawling tactics change up and how cautious some people get with the smash mouth brawling we see SOOOOO MUCH OF!
Ammo explosion force dependant upon ammo tonnage remaining in mech section (rounded up to nearest tonnage for each ammo type) creating not only a great visual effect but outward damage above a threshold and increasing beyond that would be pretty great. I'd love to hear PGI's opinion on something like this.
#28
Posted 13 October 2014 - 06:44 PM
More badda boom is always interesting.
Whether or not the guy dry humping the exploder should take damage... well....
#29
Posted 13 October 2014 - 07:02 PM
Yoseful Mallad, on 13 October 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:
The second tank had 3 of the exploding tank's HP rounds rip into its side, disabling its track and engine and would have killed crew in the second tank. So yes, it does happen.
I was not suggesting it happen ALL THE TIME in the game but there should be a chance for it.
And for those worried that someone would use a mech as a kamikaze mech, that's why I suggested to put knockdown a back in. Mech should fall and should be able to be knocked down. And if someone was willing to try this tactic, I say let them. More times than not, the ammo would not cook off by way of ramming. But ramming to an extent is and should be a viable tactic. In cannon Battletech/MW lore, factions like Liao had fanatical units that did just this.
The Abrams carries its ammo in an armored storage unit that has blow off panels designed to vent any explosion upwards away from the crew (kinda like CASE in MWO). During Desert Storm, there was one Abrams that got bogged down and the decision was made to destory it in place. 3 shots later from a friendly Abrams at close range, they retrieved the tank and brought it back to base as it wasn't destroyed, and even sent the turret back home for study. So how did this ammo explosion occur and damage a tank next to it, especially as the rounds are stored pointing upwards so how did 3 shoot sideways to hit another tank?
And considering how many times I've had to deal with infantile players deciding how hilarious it is to shoot their own team at the begining of a match, I'd rather not tempt fate by giving them the chance to explode next to me as well. Kamikaze tactics should be left out of MWO.
#30
Posted 13 October 2014 - 07:23 PM
#31
Posted 13 October 2014 - 09:05 PM
Tincan Nightmare, on 13 October 2014 - 07:02 PM, said:
The Abrams carries its ammo in an armored storage unit that has blow off panels designed to vent any explosion upwards away from the crew (kinda like CASE in MWO). During Desert Storm, there was one Abrams that got bogged down and the decision was made to destory it in place. 3 shots later from a friendly Abrams at close range, they retrieved the tank and brought it back to base as it wasn't destroyed, and even sent the turret back home for study. So how did this ammo explosion occur and damage a tank next to it, especially as the rounds are stored pointing upwards so how did 3 shoot sideways to hit another tank?
And considering how many times I've had to deal with infantile players deciding how hilarious it is to shoot their own team at the begining of a match, I'd rather not tempt fate by giving them the chance to explode next to me as well. Kamikaze tactics should be left out of MWO.
Abrams tanks aren't powered by reactors. I like to imagine that the ammo explosion is really just the trigger and the explosion that kills the mech is the core. Honestly, if you have to rationalize the explosion, you're missing the point.
#32
Posted 13 October 2014 - 09:09 PM
Dock Steward, on 13 October 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:
Abrams tanks aren't powered by reactors. I like to imagine that the ammo explosion is really just the trigger and the explosion that kills the mech is the core. Honestly, if you have to rationalize the explosion, you're missing the point.
The explosion that kills the mech is DEFINITELY not the core. If it were, it would be likely that all the mechs in that match would be destroyed from the core meltdown as a result of its meltdown. From what I can tell of the lore I've read, core meltdowns are very rare and extremely catastrophic if they occur.
#33
Posted 13 October 2014 - 09:10 PM
MauttyKoray, on 13 October 2014 - 09:09 PM, said:
You're missing the point too.
#34
Posted 13 October 2014 - 09:16 PM
It will bring back some memories.
Edited by Whatzituyah, 13 October 2014 - 09:16 PM.
#35
Posted 13 October 2014 - 09:17 PM
Dock Steward, on 13 October 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:
Abrams tanks aren't powered by reactors. I like to imagine that the ammo explosion is really just the trigger and the explosion that kills the mech is the core. Honestly, if you have to rationalize the explosion, you're missing the point.
Of course their missing the point, they are trolling making stuff up as they go regardless if it is reasonable or not in a completely fictional game.
Look at the game Fallout 3 for example. Those cars went boom and it was even more unrealistic but it added to the game. Whats being talked about here is a rare occurance that would add some realism and variety to the game. These mechs are powerfull machines that shouldnt always just fall over like nothing.
Edited by Johnny Z, 13 October 2014 - 09:21 PM.
#37
Posted 13 October 2014 - 09:21 PM
Dock Steward, on 13 October 2014 - 09:19 PM, said:
Is it exploding, or time traveling?
http://www.sarna.net...i/Fusion_Engine
Quote
So yeah a fusion engine explosion.
Edited by Whatzituyah, 13 October 2014 - 09:22 PM.
#38
Posted 13 October 2014 - 09:26 PM
Whatzituyah, on 13 October 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:
Guys, the point is EXPLOSIONS ARE AWESOME AND WE WANT MOAR! I don't care how you have to explain it to yourselves.
The pilot was strapped with a bomb and told his wife that if his mech lost its left leg one more time, he was just going to kill himself and anyone in a five block radius.
A chemical reaction between the ammo ignitor and the coolant created a shock wave of epic proportions.
Nanobots are possessed by the devil and also...KABLAAAAAMMM!!
It doesn't matter why. More explosions would be amazing.
EDIT: Good call on the link, though
Edited by Dock Steward, 13 October 2014 - 09:29 PM.
#39
Posted 13 October 2014 - 09:26 PM
"No because then people would form 12-man teams of Locusts with 10 tons of ammo each, creating a chain reaction that would destroy teh whole univarse!"
How about this? When someone suggests an idea, try to imagine all the ways that would make this idea work, instead of the one worst case scenario that would make it not work. For example, don't let mechs equip AC20 ammo unless they have an AC20. Boom. No more kamikaze Locusts. NEXT!
#40
Posted 13 October 2014 - 10:56 PM
Yoseful Mallad, on 13 October 2014 - 04:31 PM, said:
The second tank had 3 of the exploding tank's HP rounds rip into its side, disabling its track and engine and would have killed crew in the second tank. So yes, it does happen.
I was not suggesting it happen ALL THE TIME in the game but there should be a chance for it.
And for those worried that someone would use a mech as a kamikaze mech, that's why I suggested to put knockdown a back in. Mech should fall and should be able to be knocked down. And if someone was willing to try this tactic, I say let them. More times than not, the ammo would not cook off by way of ramming. But ramming to an extent is and should be a viable tactic. In cannon Battletech/MW lore, factions like Liao had fanatical units that did just this.
Congratulations on starting this argument comparing what happens to a lightly armored combat vehicle. Your entire point sits on that the cooked rounds actually hit the second tank. Correct me if I am wrong but I am also assuming that they weren't HEAT rounds and instead you are referring to high kinetic rounds? High Penetration rounds isn't being clear enough for me.
If just general explosives where effective against tanks then we would be hearing losses of tanks due to cars filed with explosives plowing into them and detonating. Unshaped explosive charges? Heavily armored combat vehicles like tanks don't care.
Alistair Winter, on 13 October 2014 - 09:26 PM, said:
"No because then people would form 12-man teams of Locusts with 10 tons of ammo each, creating a chain reaction that would destroy teh whole univarse!"
How about this? When someone suggests an idea, try to imagine all the ways that would make this idea work, instead of the one worst case scenario that would make it not work. For example, don't let mechs equip AC20 ammo unless they have an AC20. Boom. No more kamikaze Locusts. NEXT!
Never said anything about 12 mans forming of it, telling you what griefing it may promote. Your solution still does nothing to address how this mechanic would randomly punish mechs built for CQC in a game that has had Long Range weapons being the dominant choice for a long, long time.
Whatzituyah, on 13 October 2014 - 09:21 PM, said:
Correct me if I am wrong but isn't that light show only able to deal damage to lighter armored units, like non-power armored infantry?
Tincan Nightmare, on 13 October 2014 - 07:02 PM, said:
The Abrams carries its ammo in an armored storage unit that has blow off panels designed to vent any explosion upwards away from the crew (kinda like CASE in MWO). During Desert Storm, there was one Abrams that got bogged down and the decision was made to destory it in place. 3 shots later from a friendly Abrams at close range, they retrieved the tank and brought it back to base as it wasn't destroyed, and even sent the turret back home for study. So how did this ammo explosion occur and damage a tank next to it, especially as the rounds are stored pointing upwards so how did 3 shoot sideways to hit another tank?
And considering how many times I've had to deal with infantile players deciding how hilarious it is to shoot their own team at the begining of a match, I'd rather not tempt fate by giving them the chance to explode next to me as well. Kamikaze tactics should be left out of MWO.
Thank you. The entire "3 rounds of cooked off ammo struck the second tank" didn't sound right to me.
Edited by SuckyJack, 13 October 2014 - 11:11 PM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users