96 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

Quote

I hug a enemy mech every time i am forced into doing conquest. either i kill the enemy mech or i get killed. in any case i did my part and got out of the stupid scenario.

You do realize Conquest ends instantly now when you kill the last enemy 'Mech and get the point gain advantage, right?

No waiting. Just a fat Conquest earnings bonus and it's Skirmish With Squares.

[DarthHias]

Douglas grizzly, on 16 June 2016 - 11:13 AM, said:

I hug a enemy mech every time i am forced into doing conquest. either i kill the enemy mech or i get killed. in any case i did my part and got out of the stupid scenario.

I´m glad I never saw you in game. Let´s hope it stays that way. I pity the poor people having to suffer from playing in a match with you.

Edited by DarthHias, 16 June 2016 - 02:01 PM.

[Douglas grizzly]

DarthHias, on 16 June 2016 - 02:00 PM, said:

I´m glad I never saw you in game. Let´s hope it stays that way. I pity the poor people having to suffer from playing in a match with you.

I dont see why you would have a problem with it. as i said i am doing my part and then i get to get out of something i was forced into.

[Ted Wayz]

How many other people first read the title and thought,

"Banned for Huggin?"

Actually makes more sense than hugging.

[Alex Morgaine]

Laser Vomit Active And Firing, on 16 June 2016 - 02:02 AM, said:

yup hugging was banned people i see you do it i get you muhahahahah.

This guys wins something xD

[Afuldan McKronik]

Frosty Brand, on 16 June 2016 - 06:20 PM, said:

This guys wins something xD

Yes, a link to the CoC where the closest thing to hugging isonly applicable to friendly mechs.

[Carl Vickers]

Laser Vomit Active And Firing, on 16 June 2016 - 02:02 AM, said:

yup hugging was banned people i see you do it i get you muhahahahah.

dude

[Moldur]

Rushin Roulette, on 16 June 2016 - 02:28 AM, said:

The problem with that theory however is that following the lore, these are not fission reactors (the type we know for RL and sadly see every few years in the news such as Chernobyl or Fukushima), but small fusion reactors.

Yes yes, every few years... Dangerous nuclear power. We best stay away from that. It's not like the U.S. Navy has dozens of nuclear reactors operating without fail, safely in the bays of major cities across the world without anybody batting an eye. It is almost like not being an idiot and not being improperly regulated/forced to use 60 year old technology prevents mishaps.

[MischiefSC]

Moldur, on 16 June 2016 - 11:02 PM, said:

Yes yes, every few years... Dangerous nuclear power. We best stay away from that. It's not like the U.S. Navy has dozens of nuclear reactors operating without fail, safely in the bays of major cities across the world without anybody batting an eye. It is almost like not being an idiot and not being improperly regulated/forced to use 60 year old technology prevents mishaps.

Reality is that with a bare minimum of effort nuclear power is safer than coal or oil power. Cheaper too.

But people get scared cuz Nookular and Fallout 4. We have more mishaps from refineries than reactors and generally for very, very stupid reasons.

[Rushin Roulette]

Moldur, on 16 June 2016 - 11:02 PM, said:

Yes yes, every few years... Dangerous nuclear power. We best stay away from that. It's not like the U.S. Navy has dozens of nuclear reactors operating without fail, safely in the bays of major cities across the world without anybody batting an eye. It is almost like not being an idiot and not being improperly regulated/forced to use 60 year old technology prevents mishaps.

For ***** sake... why are all these idiots getting all riled up about one bloody example of what could happen? Serioulsy? I wrote "SUCH AS" to make a point about the difference in technology in the real world and a damn fictional technology in a made up universe to explain why mechs can not blow up but reactors we are using nowadays can blow up.

EDIT: I dont give a flying **** if you like Nuclear power or dont like it. That was not part of my post. I wasnt bashing on it, just giving real life examples of what can happen to make a point.

Edited by Rushin Roulette, 16 June 2016 - 11:29 PM.

[smokytehbear]

Rushin Roulette, on 16 June 2016 - 11:26 PM, said:

For ***** sake... why are all these idiots getting all riled up about one bloody example of what could happen? Serioulsy? I wrote "SUCH AS" to make a point about the difference in technology in the real world and a damn fictional technology in a made up universe to explain why mechs can not blow up but reactors we are using nowadays can blow up.

No they can't. Not the way people think.

Chernobyl was not a nuclear detonation. It was a steam explosion. It sent (comparatively) huge amounts of radioactive material into the atmosphere, but it's not like they re-dropped the Hiroshima/Nagasaki bomb. It takes an enormous amount of precise engineering, equipment, and intention to create a fission explosion like most people think.

And that's why people get riled up about it. A "meltdown" doesn't result in a giant mushroom cloud and shockwaves that vaporize cities instantly, it's just a meltdown. People transfer those hyperbolic stories into real life and become deathly afraid of things they don't understand, halting progress and creating all sorts of barriers. After 3 mile island construction of new nuclear plants within the US was shut down for a very long time. It's an uphill battle to convince people that nuclear power is not Satan incarnate.

Point being, even if mechs ran on fission power, the idea that it's going to explode in a nuclear detonation from damage just isn't believable. If anything the damage would be about comparable to shrapnel from pieces of it getting blown off, which in turn would be far less lethal than taking actual weapons fire.

Edited by smokytehbear, 16 June 2016 - 11:36 PM.

[Mycrus]

smokytehbear, on 16 June 2016 - 11:35 PM, said:

After 3 mile island construction of new nuclear plants within the US was shut down for a very long time.

didn't you see the movie... it was because of a duel between wolverine & 'not funny' deadpool

[Dino Might]

Rushin Roulette, on 16 June 2016 - 11:26 PM, said:

For ***** sake... why are all these idiots getting all riled up about one bloody example of what could happen? Serioulsy? I wrote "SUCH AS" to make a point about the difference in technology in the real world and a damn fictional technology in a made up universe to explain why mechs can not blow up but reactors we are using nowadays can blow up.

EDIT: I dont give a flying **** if you like Nuclear power or dont like it. That was not part of my post. I wasnt bashing on it, just giving real life examples of what can happen to make a point.

We're idiots for correcting a misrepresentation of the truth, which you cared enough to defend until it was made obvious to you that you were wrong? If your post that sparked the discussion was a "neutral" tone on nuclear power, I'd hate to see what you write when you are really against something.

As Smoky so aptly put, it's the careless ignorance that is still so prevalent that has kept us from any significant progress in energy development, reliant on fossil fuels, and killing so many people and our environment each year because of it. So yeah, it is a big deal when you misrepresent the truth and add one more drop of rain to the flood of public ignorance that is destroying us.

I'm more than happy to get online with you on TS if you'd like to discuss nuclear theory/technology.

[DarthHias]

The problem is nuclear waste. BTW German engineers from the Max Planck institute made an important step on stellarator tech if anyone is interested in that stuff:

http://mwomercs.com/...-ghost-heat-20/

http://www.iflscienc...ma-world-first/

[Widowmaker1981]

wanderer, on 16 June 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

You do realize Conquest ends instantly now when you kill the last enemy 'Mech and get the point gain advantage, right?

No waiting. Just a fat Conquest earnings bonus and it's Skirmish With Squares.

except on Polar highlands, where the cap points are so incredibly far apart that if some light pilot decides at the start of the game he wants to play running-and-standing-in-squares simulator instead of actually fighting, then he wins the game for his team regardless of how rapidly they get squashed, because it takes an eternity to reach the cap points.

I truly detest polar on conquest, which is odd for a map i like on all other modes. I dont normally mind conquest either..

[PhoenixFire55]

I've seen a guy threatening to report an SRM Commando for legging his Kodiak. There are m0r0ns, this ain't news, hardly worth a topic even if its funny as hell [/grumpypants].

Also ...

[Rushin Roulette]

Dino Might, on 17 June 2016 - 03:44 AM, said:

As Smoky so aptly put, it's the careless ignorance that is still so prevalent that has kept us from any significant progress in energy development, reliant on fossil fuels, and killing so many people and our environment each year because of it. So yeah, it is a big deal when you misrepresent the truth and add one more drop of rain to the flood of public ignorance that is destroying us.

Please quote the part where I mis-represented the "truth".

I wrote that the reactors can "Blow up" or even "pop like a balloon" in my posts. No where did I write that they would explode like a nuclear bomb. "Blow up" just means that more pressure builds up inside that the hull than it can contain. This excess of pressure gets vented out at once in a blow up. Basically anything with high pressure gasses can blow up, old steam trains were prone to blow up if certain valves stuck for example.

Again... if you had actually read and understood my post, you would have seen that it was a comparison between fission and (theoretical) fusion reactors and why Stackpoling a mech is a dumb method of a writer prone to not researching anything before publishing, nothing more, nothing less. It had absolutely nothing to do with "nuclear power is bad" and even less to do with any environmental effects compared to other non-nuclear power reactors.

Should I have given a random example of a power plant in some random year temporarily shutting down due to an electrical power line failure and attempt to say, "this would never happen with a fusion reactor" instead? Because that would have not been true, those are general problems with anything which uses electrical wiring.

[Galenit]

MischiefSC, on 16 June 2016 - 11:12 PM, said:

Reality is that with a bare minimum of effort nuclear power is safer than coal or oil power. Cheaper too.

But people get scared cuz Nookular and Fallout 4. We have more mishaps from refineries than reactors and generally for very, very stupid reasons.

Its only cheaper if you dont have to pay for storing the waste save for some time.
There is still no working storage for high radioactive waste in the world, some are in the planning phase only.

How much does it cost, if you put the storage facility and its current costs,
for lets say 1.000.000 years (Plutonium-239 has a half-life of 24.000years), in it?
Is it realy that cheap as you say?

Edited by Galenit, 17 June 2016 - 04:54 AM.

[Afuldan McKronik]

Well that escalated quickly. Can I haz popcornz now?

[Dino Might]

Rushin Roulette, on 17 June 2016 - 04:32 AM, said:

Please quote the part where I mis-represented the "truth".

I wrote that the reactors can "Blow up" or even "pop like a balloon" in my posts. No where did I write that they would explode like a nuclear bomb. "Blow up" just means that more pressure builds up inside that the hull than it can contain. This excess of pressure gets vented out at once in a blow up. Basically anything with high pressure gasses can blow up, old steam trains were prone to blow up if certain valves stuck for example.

Again... if you had actually read and understood my post, you would have seen that it was a comparison between fission and (theoretical) fusion reactors and why Stackpoling a mech is a dumb method of a writer prone to not researching anything before publishing, nothing more, nothing less. It had absolutely nothing to do with "nuclear power is bad" and even less to do with any environmental effects compared to other non-nuclear power reactors.

Should I have given a random example of a power plant in some random year temporarily shutting down due to an electrical power line failure and attempt to say, "this would never happen with a fusion reactor" instead? Because that would have not been true, those are general problems with anything which uses electrical wiring.

You misrepresented the truth by implying that reactors blow up "every few years" by excluding key information that only a handful of nuclear accidents actually result in this type of explosion (steam and/or hydrogen explosions).