What Happened To Reactors Going Critical?
#61
Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:37 AM
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?
#62
Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:47 AM
#63
Posted 01 February 2013 - 12:00 PM
blinkin, on 01 February 2013 - 11:07 AM, 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)?
Edited by Volthorne, 01 February 2013 - 12:02 PM.
#64
Posted 01 February 2013 - 12:19 PM
Volthorne, on 01 February 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:
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).
#65
Posted 01 February 2013 - 12:24 PM
Garth Erlam, on 29 January 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:
Also it's open to Abuse, you do not want this feature in a multiplayer game.
#66
Posted 01 February 2013 - 12:44 PM
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.
#67
Posted 01 February 2013 - 03:32 PM
#68
Posted 01 February 2013 - 03:48 PM
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.
#69
Posted 02 February 2013 - 07:38 PM
blinkin, on 01 February 2013 - 12:44 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.
#70
Posted 02 February 2013 - 08:09 PM
Volthorne, on 02 February 2013 - 07:38 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.
#71
Posted 02 February 2013 - 09:22 PM
Max Fury, on 01 February 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:
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.
#72
Posted 02 February 2013 - 11:57 PM
blinkin, on 02 February 2013 - 08:09 PM, said:
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.
#73
Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:10 AM
Volthorne, on 02 February 2013 - 11:57 PM, said:
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.
#74
Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:19 AM
blinkin, on 03 February 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:
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...
#75
Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:23 AM
blinkin, on 03 February 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:
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.
#76
Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:34 AM
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:
blinkin, on 01 February 2013 - 12:47 AM, said:
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.
#77
Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:40 AM
blinkin, on 03 February 2013 - 12:34 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.
Edited by Noth, 03 February 2013 - 12:41 AM.
#78
Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:40 AM
/thread.
#79
Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:49 AM
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:
/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.
#80
Posted 03 February 2013 - 12:52 AM
blinkin, on 03 February 2013 - 12:48 AM, said:
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.
45 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 45 guests, 0 anonymous users