32 replies to this topic

[Shivaxi]

KamikaziChaser, on 10 February 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:

As fun as it would be, that's not how these reactors work. They're not like hydogen bombs. They are a plasma based, emag contained, high temp fusion powerplant. Breaching the reactor would not cause all of the fuel to fuse; on the contrary, it would cause the reactions to instantly stop. There would be high temp plasma ejected, but that would be like a very weak ppc and mostly just damage the interior of the mech.

Yeah, I've played all the games that showed the big explosions, but they're not based on any physics. Now, things such as ammo explosions SHOULD have a visible external effect and could plausibly damage nearby mechs.

Actually I've already seen visual proof of ammo explosions. My friend uploaded a video here of it:



If you notice, Gumpy takes the Stalker's arm and side torso out, which immediately begins shooting flames. I've only ever seen this twice.


--------------------------------------------------

Garth Erlam, on 29 January 2013 - 07:59 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.

--------------------------------------------------


@Garth (or Garth's quote anyway and others on this topic): A lot of people are acting like it's something that will kill you outright. It doesn't have to...it could just do a bit of damage. Also there could be some kind of warning or indicator to tell you that a mech is about to go critical...MWLL did it...even MW4 has that stupid blue light beam thing every time a mech died lol. Could be something simple like that.

The way MWLL did it was perfect. It was cool, looked great, made gameplay fun, and from what I remember, I cant recall ever seeing someone get killed by the explosion directly. Everybody always knew when it was coming so they got teh f*** out of there =P

[Ivory Spider]

Toong, on 10 February 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:

If I take damage because some fool near me stuck his head out and got blitzed even once, that will be one time too many. I really don't like the idea of any explosions, no matter how rare. I see it only causing headaches in the game.

I see your point but I will counter with "The time a fool stood too close to a fool who stuck his head out too far and got blitzed and was damaged by the resulting explosion" If mechs have a chance to explode it would stand to reason that standard battle tactics would involve staying away from those threats. Do you complain in other shooter games when you stand too close to a red barrel and it explodes cause someone shot it? I would hope not because you should know better than to stand near the red barrels.

I don't want to sound like a jerk or troll at all with this statement I was just hoping to explain why the opposite of your opinion is also a valid argument. I'm not saying either of us is right only that neither of us are wrong. I personally would welcome a 5% mishap chance on a downed mech to add a bit of surprise in some of my matches but I won't cry if it's not implemented, this is one feature I could live with or without.

The overly grindy and forcing you to buy unwanted variants of a mech you bought xp trees on the other hand I think need a major overhaul... but this isnt the thread for that lol

[Darwins Dog]

I agree with what Garth said about the ransom chance, but if it were something like it only blows up after say 6 engine criticals (as in more than necessary to destroy the engine), it might actually work.

If nothing else it would put a stop to the face-hugging SRM boats.

[Ropya]

Maybe instead of direct damage have the blast be a heat wave that would cause a slight heat spike?

And if nothing else, the visual effect of it would be bad a**.
Id vote for the visual effect even if the damage/heat effect didn't happen.

I just have MW2 (IIRC ) of the atlas ejecting because the clanner in front if em went critical.
I know its bs, but it looks cool.
And we all like to blow stuff up.
Come on, admit it.

[Edustaja]

I could live with rarely occurring short jet of plasma that would cause minor damage or a bit of heat.
Would make a nice additional visual effect for either CT engine destruction or XL engine destruction.

[CG Oglethorpe Kerensky]

We are talking about an extremely small amount of plasma here, less than a gram. Most of that energy is going to be absorbed right into the reactor walls, what is left and the superheated air is going to vent out of the hole in the chamber, once it hits the atmosphere the cloud of superheated air will behave just as hot air does, rapidly rise and dissipate. It is about as dangerous as a jet of steam.

I think standing in the caldera on Caustic Valley would be more hazardous to your mech.

[Toong]

Ivory Spider, on 10 February 2013 - 11:29 PM, said:

I see your point but I will counter with "The time a fool stood too close to a fool who stuck his head out too far and got blitzed and was damaged by the resulting explosion" If mechs have a chance to explode it would stand to reason that standard battle tactics would involve staying away from those threats. Do you complain in other shooter games when you stand too close to a red barrel and it explodes cause someone shot it? I would hope not because you should know better than to stand near the red barrels.

You're forgetting that red barrels are static. The difference is, I can choose whether or not a red barrel is near me. I cannot choose whether or not someone decides to follow close to me, and it's not fair to expect me to run away from my own teammates. Also, it's good tactics to stick together, and adding explosions would only serve to break up the team. I am not in favor of forcing a team to keep all its members at arm's length.

[focuspark]

<palmface /> been there done this... NO

[Soda Popinsky]

Ropya, on 11 February 2013 - 07:19 AM, said:

Maybe instead of direct damage have the blast be a heat wave that would cause a slight heat spike?

And if nothing else, the visual effect of it would be bad a**.
Id vote for the visual effect even if the damage/heat effect didn't happen.

I just have MW2 (IIRC ) of the atlas ejecting because the clanner in front if em went critical.
I know its bs, but it looks cool.
And we all like to blow stuff up.
Come on, admit it.

I was thinking the bright flash would be pretty cool, and even blinding for a second (similar to being hit by PPC(?)) currently. Maybe getting a little bit of heat if right next to it (like a flamer), but no damage.

[XSerjo]

It's a game. Lasers don't work as real, ballistics, missiles, armor ... Why should reactors work as "real"? =)

Edited by XSerjo, 11 February 2013 - 10:16 AM.

[Wolf Ender]

I liked the splash damage mechanic in MW4 when you died.
it punishes people who crowd the target too much.
gives you a last "F U" to the enemy if you know you're about to die.
once on a blue moon it caused hilarious multiple deaths.


I think the argument posed by Garth that it would take out half your team is just trying to discredit the idea by scaring people with an extreme example that is totally avoidable. obviously the devs could tweak such a mechanic so that it is a tactical factor to think about, but not devastating enough to harm gameplay. they could easily do it so that it only happens if you die from an engine hit, or they could even make it so that only XL engines "blow up"...lots of possibilities here.

i think the idea has merit.

[blinkin]

Wolf Ender, on 11 February 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

I liked the splash damage mechanic in MW4 when you died.
it punishes people who crowd the target too much.
gives you a last "F U" to the enemy if you know you're about to die.
once on a blue moon it caused hilarious multiple deaths.


I think the argument posed by Garth that it would take out half your team is just trying to discredit the idea by scaring people with an extreme example that is totally avoidable. obviously the devs could tweak such a mechanic so that it is a tactical factor to think about, but not devastating enough to harm gameplay. they could easily do it so that it only happens if you die from an engine hit, or they could even make it so that only XL engines "blow up"...lots of possibilities here.

i think the idea has merit.

most seem to be suggesting that it have a very low chance of happening (%5 or less or less than 1 out of every 20 mechs that die)

this is the general idea of what i specifically think reactor explosions should be like:

• give enough time for most reasonable mech builds to get out of the explosion radius (a stock build atlas should be able to escape most situations)
  
• give lots of warning (other games have done this by making the exploding mech glow brightly for several seconds before any damage is dealt)
  
• explosions should be rare enough that people are surprised when a mech around them explodes, but common enough that people will be wary of dieing mechs.

[focuspark]

XSerjo, on 11 February 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

It's a game. Lasers don't work as real, ballistics, missiles, armor ... Why should reactors work as "real"? =)

Actually... the laser, as depicted in MW:O, are rather good depictions based on what I know of military grade laser weaponry. It seem you can see a laser when it's fired (it plasma's the air it passes through) with red wave lengths traveling less distance than blue ones.