26 replies to this topic

[Sean Lang]

There will be no Stackpolling in MW: O. This was an attempt to create more explosions, when in fact battlemechs do not go supernova at all.

[rareth]

Battlecruiser, on 22 July 2012 - 02:45 AM, said:

would it be theoretically possible to overload a reactior to the point of a damaging explosion?


Kamikaze should always be an option

nothing on a nuclear scale, depending on the breach, you could get a sudden release of plasma, heat and radiation. which could cause secondary explosions from ammunition detonations.

Even a Fission reactor won't give a nuclear explosion, meltdown yes, mushroom cloud.. nope.

[Graxus]

We really dont need unrealistic features like exploding reactors.

[Donovan Jenks]

I think that it is best that they leave out the possibility of reator meltdown explosions as it would be too easy for people to start using it as a gimp tactic in matches.

If a Commando has the same chance to plow as an Atlas people could start trying to use them as bombs and take out a bunch of the opposition. same reason why you would not want people to be able to "set reactor to blow," run into the fray, and then eject.

[rareth]

Computer set Self-Destruct! authorization Alpha 1121

[Captain Fabulous]

Minsc, on 21 July 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

The game is going to stick as close to it's Battletech roots as possible. That means no reactors going critical, no mushroom clouds, and no taking massive damage from killing an enemy. This also means that like the table top game, it leaves room for more tactics such as death from above, ramming, and hopefully sometime after release full blown melee combat (seeing as how half the mechs out there have CQC capability, with some better than others).

There are both engine and ammo bin explosions in the TableTop.

[JFlash49]

i dont think it will but it would be fricken awesome..