100 replies to this topic

[Jabilo]

Reactors should blow up but only one time in 500 hundred (VERY rare).

However, when they go up they should create an enormous explosion 500m in diameter. There should be a huge mushroom cloud and a huge crater.

Mechs within 500mm should take huge damage.

Mechs near the explosion should have other effects: falling over, HUDs going down, ears ringing / bleeding.

Now don't you think that would be fun?

[nostra]

I'll tell you what happened, it became too damn common! It got so bad that by the time Mechwarrior 4 and Mechassault came around, EVERY SINGLE 'mech that got destroyed went thermonuclear! Even in the fiction it was never that common, most of the time a 'mech will get cored, and the reactor shuts down as an emergency precaution to avoid a meltdown. This usually happens when the reactor shielding and internal structure have been breached, and then a mechwarrior's only options are to A) override and risk that thermonuclear explosion and sudden, horrible flaming death, Leave the 'mech shut down, blow the cockpit hatch, and step out with hands in the air or a white flag, or C) Eject from the 'mech, leave it on the battlefield and hope he gets picked up by friendly forces.

[Volthorne]

blinkin, on 01 February 2013 - 11:07 AM, said:

Science stuff

So you got me on some points (explosions can be both controlled and uncontrolled, so I'd be willing to admit stalemate on that one - controlled explosions are how modern guns work, after all), assuming we are talking real life. Fortunately for me, we're not talking about real life, we're talking about a fictional universe in which bipedal war machines use Cold-fusion engines as a power plant. The only way you're going to get a cataclysmic explosion from such an engine is if ALL - and I *cannot* stress this enough - ALL of the shielding and containment components were to be removed simultaneously, such as by a very large quantity of weapons fire. Then the "explosion" would be immediate, with no warning and no way to avoid getting hit if you're within the immediate vicinity (in the case of TT, it was the adjoining hexes), and it would dish out a crippling amount of damage to any affected 'Mechs.

So, would you care to continue arguing for engine explosions, knowing that the Devs would almost definitely use the TT rules for such events (all engine shielding in CT must be destroyed at the same time, is immediate, and only affects within 30m)?

Edited by Volthorne, 01 February 2013 - 12:02 PM.

[blinkin]

Volthorne, on 01 February 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

So you got me on some points (explosions can be both controlled and uncontrolled, so I'd be willing to admit stalemate on that one - controlled explosions are how modern guns work, after all), assuming we are talking real life. Fortunately for me, we're not talking about real life, we're talking about a fictional universe in which bipedal war machines use Cold-fusion engines as a power plant. The only way you're going to get a cataclysmic explosion from such an engine is if ALL - and I *cannot* stress this enough - ALL of the shielding and containment components were to be removed simultaneously, such as by a very large quantity of weapons fire. Then the "explosion" would be immediate, with no warning and no way to avoid getting hit if you're within the immediate vicinity (in the case of TT, it was the adjoining hexes), and it would dish out a crippling amount of damage to any affected 'Mechs.

So, would you care to continue arguing for engine explosions, knowing that the Devs would almost definitely use the TT rules for such events (all engine shielding in CT must be destroyed at the same time, is immediate, and only affects within 30m)?

i originally started out declaring that explosions were "sudden releases of energy" it then devolved into just any uncontrolled release.

i do agree that the bright glow with several seconds of warning BEFORE the explosion is completely unrealistic, but i was willing to accept that for the purposes of balance and fun.

i think if the containment partially failed it would act very much like a shaped charge however. still violently exploding, but the explosion would be directed towards the hole in the containment.

like cannedwolf stated before i think many of us have lowered our IQ during the course of this argument, myself included.

i give you major points for at least reading and trying to understand my side.

to reitterate: i think these explosion should be rare (to the point that it is somewhat surprising when they occur). there should be plenty of time and warning for brawlers to escape the blast radius (this is unrealistic, but important for fun and balance).

[Ken Fury]

Garth Erlam, on 29 January 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

Just my opinion here, but R(andom)N(umber)G(enerated) kills are terrible, and having a dead ally randomly nuke half your team, while amusing when witnessed from afar, is not cool from close range. Again though, this is just my opinion. I don't think that deaths that you couldn't have really avoided (don't be near team mates in-case they die!) are fun; I can avoid missiles, use cover, leg Ravens with ECM, pick off the Missile Pods of A1's before they get to me, etc. But I can't 'not' die to this, and I think it would be frustrating.

Also it's open to Abuse, you do not want this feature in a multiplayer game.

[blinkin]

Tank Boy Ken, on 01 February 2013 - 12:24 PM, said:

Also it's open to Abuse, you do not want this feature in a multiplayer game.

R A R E everyone who is advocating this wants it to be a less than 5% chance. let players suicide 20 times (or more) so that they can "abuse" this mechanic ONCE.

[canned wolf]

It's good to see good old fashioned repetition doesn't give way in the face of silly things like facts and evidence.

[Max Fury]

I guess everyone missed my post on page 2. You can have a sizable explosion IF you consider more than just the reactor. Put bluntly a runaway reactor is still being cooled, but the cooling is insufficient, the coolant gets to a flashpoint where you end up with a steam explosion. This is what happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima and to a lesser extent 3-mile island (however the explosion was contained.) A steam explosion is one of the most horrific explosion types out there; this is because just one milliliter of water can be flash steamed to over 2000 times its original volume.

For myself I think I would rather have some logic to the explosions then pure random chance. Doing a full alpha strike using 2 Gauss Cannons on a mech when the CT is full depleted, yeah it might go critical, but being killed by a small laser, not likely.

[Volthorne]

blinkin, on 01 February 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

R A R E everyone who is advocating this wants it to be a less than 5% chance. let players suicide 20 times (or more) so that they can "abuse" this mechanic ONCE.

I'd stake my life on a 5% chance. 5% is actually really good odds, so to make explosions even remotely reasonable, I'd say start with a 0.1% chance and go down from there if they still happen too often.

[blinkin]

Volthorne, on 02 February 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

I'd stake my life on a 5% chance. 5% is actually really good odds, so to make explosions even remotely reasonable, I'd say start with a 0.1% chance and go down from there if they still happen too often.

5% is good odds? you do realize this is 1 in 20 right? maybe one per match. this is the extreme upper end of what is being suggested. everyone who wants this also thinks it should give plenty of time and warning for brawlers to escape.

wtf are you smoking? if this is an exploit it is the most ineffective exploit to ever exist in a game.

[CG Oglethorpe Kerensky]

Max Fury, on 01 February 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

I guess everyone missed my post on page 2. You can have a sizable explosion IF you consider more than just the reactor. Put bluntly a runaway reactor is still being cooled, but the cooling is insufficient, the coolant gets to a flashpoint where you end up with a steam explosion. This is what happened at Chernobyl and Fukushima and to a lesser extent 3-mile island (however the explosion was contained.) A steam explosion is one of the most horrific explosion types out there; this is because just one milliliter of water can be flash steamed to over 2000 times its original volume.

For myself I think I would rather have some logic to the explosions then pure random chance. Doing a full alpha strike using 2 Gauss Cannons on a mech when the CT is full depleted, yeah it might go critical, but being killed by a small laser, not likely.

There is NO WAY that a fusion reactor could have a 'runaway' situation. Maintaining fusion is like balancing a ball bearing on a razor blade, just keeping it going is mind-bogglingly difficult.

Now lets consider the amount of fuel you are talking about, it works out to around what 0.01 to 0.001 grams of fuel per second? This is a tiny amount of actual matter we are talking about, not giant pools like a fission reactor, not even enough for a single drop of water.

Once the reactor destabilizes the reaction stops, the energy production immediately halts and that 0.001 grams of fuel starts to cool down.

[Volthorne]

blinkin, on 02 February 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:

5% is good odds? you do realize this is 1 in 20 right? maybe one per match. this is the extreme upper end of what is being suggested. everyone who wants this also thinks it should give plenty of time and warning for brawlers to escape.

wtf are you smoking? if this is an exploit it is the most ineffective exploit to ever exist in a game.

And my critical rate in TL2 is about 7%, yet I've scored three criticals in a row about 50 times now (chances of that happening are 0.000343%, which are ****-poor odds, but THAT HASN'T STOPPED IT FROM HAPPENING 50 TIMES OVER A 10 HOUR TIMESPAN). I will take the chance of something happening as a common occurrence if the chance is greater than ONE PERCENT. Why? Because even 1% is a ******* good chance.

Edited by Volthorne, 02 February 2013 - 11:57 PM.

[blinkin]

Volthorne, on 02 February 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:

And my critical rate in TL2 is about 7%, yet I've scored three criticals in a row about 50 times now (chances of that happening are 0.000343%, which are ****-poor odds, but THAT HASN'T STOPPED IT FROM HAPPENING 50 TIMES OVER A 10 HOUR TIMESPAN). I will take the chance of something happening as a common occurrence if the chance is greater than ONE PERCENT. Why? Because even 1% is a ******* good chance.

yes statistical anomolies exist, but the fact is for someone to "abuse" this THEY HAVE TO DIE. assuming they are really good and manage to consistently kill 3 mechs when their suicide bomb actually goes off their average KD is still going to be slightly over 1:7 <-do these numbers look threatening to you? i know i would not be the least bit concerned by these stats, and they definitely do not scream "nerf" at me. i find it unlikely this would last as a play style.

as far as your example: imagine now if the only time you did damage was when you got a critical. now also imagine what it would be like if you died after every attack whether you got a crit or not. that is what we have here.

CG Oglethorpe Kerensky, on 02 February 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

There is NO WAY that a fusion reactor could have a 'runaway' situation. Maintaining fusion is like balancing a ball bearing on a razor blade, just keeping it going is mind-bogglingly difficult.

Now lets consider the amount of fuel you are talking about, it works out to around what 0.01 to 0.001 grams of fuel per second? This is a tiny amount of actual matter we are talking about, not giant pools like a fission reactor, not even enough for a single drop of water.

Once the reactor destabilizes the reaction stops, the energy production immediately halts and that 0.001 grams of fuel starts to cool down.

you do realize things tend to stop working as intended when you shoot them full of holes right? i would explain more but i have already given several physics lectures within this thread. if you want to be less of a moron read some of the old posts or actually look things up for yourself.

i have no more patience for the same arguments that have been beaten down a dozen times already.

Edited by blinkin, 03 February 2013 - 12:15 AM.

[Volthorne]

blinkin, on 03 February 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

as far as your example: imagine now if the only time you did damage was when you got a critical. now also imagine what it would be like if you died after every attack whether you got a crit or not. that is what we have here.

That's essentially how single-player in Elite difficulty works out in TL2, except with slightly less dying unless you're fighting a boss, so yeah... Can't really say it would feel much different...

[Noth]

blinkin, on 03 February 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

you do realize things tend to stop working as intended when you shoot them full of holes right? i would explain more but i have already given several physics lectures within this thread. if you want to be less of a moron read some of the old posts or actually look things up for yourself.

i have no more patience for the same arguments that have been beaten down a dozen times already.

The only thing that happens is that air rushes into the bullet hole, get super heated and expands back out the hole or holes. With no holes (as with the rarity of over revving the engine) it's more like a boiler explosion. No nuclear explosion any where.

[blinkin]

Noth, on 03 February 2013 - 12:23 AM, said:

The only thing that happens is that air rushes into the bullet hole, get super heated and expands back out the hole or holes. With no holes (as with the rarity of over revving the engine) it's more like a boiler explosion. No nuclear explosion any where.

okay since i have already said almost everything i am going to default to just quoting myself. at least until someone presents some sort of argument that is new to this thread.

blinkin, on 31 January 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

i will agree it is not a full scale hydrogen bomb type reaction, but no one is advocating destroying the entire field. there is still enormous amounts of energy to be released. have you ever had to worry about engine size when powering your weapons or other components?

blinkin, on 01 February 2013 - 12:47 AM, said:

also NO ONE IS SUGGESTING FULL ON NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS. neither Chernoble nor Fukushima created full nuclear explosions, BUT they did release large amounts of energy when they failed.

not all explosions associated with fission or fusion are nuclear, in fact most aren't. these giant fighting machines utilize power sources that create vast quantities of energy. do you know what an uncontrolled release of energy is? IT'S A FRIGGING EXPLOSION.

[Noth]

blinkin, on 03 February 2013 - 12:34 AM, said:

okay since i have already said almost everything i am going to default to just quoting myself. at least until someone presents some sort of argument that is new to this thread.

And I'm saying that any explosion like suggested in this thread makes no sense. We can't over rev the engines, and puffs of flames out a few holes is not an explosion.

Edited by Noth, 03 February 2013 - 12:41 AM.

[Volthorne]

And that is it, the thread is down for the count, it's over, it's over, the argument has come full circle!

/thread.

[blinkin]

Noth, on 03 February 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

And I'm saying that any explosion like suggested in this thread makes no sense. We can't over rev the engines, and puffs of flames out a few holes is not an explosion.

ok this is a new argument. i apologize. i am more than a little tired of the willful ignorance that has largely taken hold of this thread.

but i do have a response directly from sarna.

http://www.sarna.net...i/Fusion_Engine :
"a punctured reactor can suck in air where the air is superheated. Normal thermal expansion of the air causes the air to burst out in a brilliant lightshow often mistaken for a "nuclear explosion". The Thermal Expansion damages anything within 90 meters of the destroyed 'Mech.
Such dramatic failures are rare, though. It is difficult to sustain the fusion reaction and very easy to shutdown. Safety systems or damage to containment coils will almost always shut down the engine before such an explosion occurs. The massive shielding of the engine (in the case of standard fusion engines, this is a tungsten carbide shell that accounts for over 2/3 of the weight of the engine) usually buys the safety systems the milliseconds needed to shutdown the engine when severe damaged is inflicted."

Volthorne, on 03 February 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

And that is it, the thread is down for the count, it's over, it's over, the argument has come full circle!

/thread.

this argument has been chasing it's tail since the first page. where have you been?

Edited by blinkin, 03 February 2013 - 12:51 AM.

[Noth]

blinkin, on 03 February 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:

ok this is a new argument. i apologize. i am more than a little tired of the willful ignorance that has largely taken hold of this thread.

but i do have a response directly from sarna.

http://www.sarna.net...i/Fusion_Engine :
"a punctured reactor can suck in air where the air is superheated. Normal thermal expansion of the air causes the air to burst out in a brilliant lightshow often mistaken for a "nuclear explosion". The Thermal Expansion damages anything within 90 meters of the destroyed 'Mech."

The air would go back out the holes or any other cracks and opening it comes to as all explosions take the path of least resistance. At most it would be like a flamer, probably weaker. It still is not an explosion. The only explosion is an extremely rare boiler type explosion caused by essentially over revving the engine, which we cannot do.

Edited by Noth, 03 February 2013 - 12:52 AM.