

Disappointing mech death.
#21
Posted 05 July 2012 - 04:46 PM
AFAIK there are no explosive devices or substances other than ammo (and the funk in the sweaty cockpit) onboard a mech.
I guess i can shoehorn the idea in if i pretend every mech is fitted with sabotage charges, incase the pilot has to abandon the vehicle and wants to deny the enemy a piece of machinery..
*boom*
Yeah.. i think that can work.. just link the charges to the pilot's life-signs.. if the pilot disconnects or flatlines the mech goes at least sort of 'splodey.
which begs the question...
Self-destruct buttons ?
Do we want or need such a thing?
#23
Posted 05 July 2012 - 09:51 PM
#24
Posted 05 July 2012 - 09:52 PM
Edit: Aparently the site edits out X-X-X minus the -'s
Edited by Skadi, 05 July 2012 - 09:54 PM.
#25
Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:21 PM

#26
Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:50 PM
As for the mechs simply falling over... I like it... I think it has a simplistic beauty to it.
#27
Posted 05 July 2012 - 10:59 PM
But perhaps taking it to the "next level" would be fun too.
Think about leaking reactor fuel, making it damage your mech if you decide to take cover behind a shot down one.
#28
Posted 05 July 2012 - 11:03 PM
Vaktor, on 05 July 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:
As for the mechs simply falling over... I like it... I think it has a simplistic beauty to it.
Unless there is ammo that has a chance of exploding, the mech should not explode. Fusion reactors (I'm not sure about the ones in BattleTech though) are not able to have catastrophic failure due to how finicky a fusion reaction is. If anything prevents the environment from being perfect, the reaction will not happen.
If our mechs are outfitted with demolitions in case of capture, then I will be fine with explosions, but otherwise, no catastrophic reactor meltdowns please, it's not physically possible.
#29
Posted 05 July 2012 - 11:11 PM
Of course, if ammo explosion occurs, there needs to be some explosions and flashs and stuff, but as of now I like it the way it is
#30
Posted 05 July 2012 - 11:11 PM
1st: it´s not final, and i´m sure there are more important things for now to look at.
2nd: i´d rather have mechs stay as wrecks on the field than go boom in a hollywood-style effect or just dissapear magically...
well, unless it dies by ammo-explosion, that might be a different story

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 05 July 2012 - 11:13 PM.
#31
Posted 06 July 2012 - 10:04 AM
Read the 4th and 5th paragraphs. It says Boiler Explosion so still big, but not a nuke. Also the intake of air, that should just be a light show.
#32
Posted 06 July 2012 - 10:18 AM

#33
Posted 06 July 2012 - 10:37 AM
Vaktor, on 05 July 2012 - 10:50 PM, said:
Falling over or a less dramatic approach for a unit going inoperable would be cool, keep it on the field. Others have mentioned the rarer demises being more extravagant and that's a great idea.
Given the dev effort vs. result equation...they can disappear in a pink poof of pixy dust at release as long as everything leading up to that moment has the bugs worked out.
I'd like to be able to pick up a shot off arm and go Babe Ruth style on an enemy if I had to.
-Edit wonky formating-
Edited by 00seven, 06 July 2012 - 10:38 AM.
#34
Posted 06 July 2012 - 11:34 AM
#35
Posted 06 July 2012 - 11:39 AM
MW3 got it right, the 'Mech falls down and catches fire.
#36
Posted 06 July 2012 - 11:46 AM
that it could rest on near by objects like building and such, could provide a tactical death
like which is seen in WoT on occasion.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users