Reactor Overload!
#1
Posted 10 February 2013 - 03:58 PM
When you mech gets destroyed, it has a 15-25% chance of reactor overloading and doing damage to any mech (enemy and friendly) within 10-25 meters from where your mech is.
would be interesting to see this.
#2
Posted 10 February 2013 - 04:01 PM
#3
Posted 10 February 2013 - 04:17 PM
#4
Posted 10 February 2013 - 04:25 PM
#5
Posted 10 February 2013 - 05:10 PM
It happened 100% of the time and was just a part of the game. It was awesome and required pilots to have better environmental awareness. I think having it happen, at least some of the time, would only add to the experience of playing MWO.
Edited by Mech The Dane, 10 February 2013 - 05:12 PM.
#6
Posted 10 February 2013 - 05:30 PM
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.
#7
Posted 10 February 2013 - 05:38 PM
KamikaziChaser, on 10 February 2013 - 05:30 PM, said:
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.
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.
#8
Posted 10 February 2013 - 05:51 PM
Garth Erlam, on 29 January 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:
Mister Garth hit the nail on the head. It would not be as fun as you think it would.
Also, according to the sourcebooks for the tabletop, there have been like two cases of stackpoling in the entire history of fusion engines.
Edited by Toong, 10 February 2013 - 05:56 PM.
#9
Posted 10 February 2013 - 06:10 PM
i'm asking for a chance for something critical to happen when a reactor blows up.
Enough to make any mech wander into an enemy's face to attack it.
This would be a game changer. But like i said 15-25% chance. Very slim but for it to happen, it will prevent all these mechs running into teach other and bear huggin each other.
#10
Posted 10 February 2013 - 07:18 PM
As I sad previously, they did that in Mech Assault and it worked well.
#11
Posted 10 February 2013 - 07:19 PM
blinkin, on 10 February 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:
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.
Yes, that's what it says, but that's not what would happen. There is absolutely no physical effect that would create a draw. It would be quite the opposite. Again, this has been included in pretty much every BT game in some form, but it's not even close to being good physics.
#12
Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:05 PM
Mech The Dane, on 10 February 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:
As I sad previously, they did that in Mech Assault and it worked well.
I don't have a problem with it happening randomly. I have a problem with it happening at all. It's not Battletech. The only reason it's a thing is because a couple authors decided to throw it into their novels for dramatic effect, and previous games decided to roll with it. Taking damage because one of your teammates died is bad game design. It takes control away from the player and punishes them for something someone else did.
#14
Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:40 PM
KamikaziChaser, on 10 February 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:
Yes, that's what it says, but that's not what would happen. There is absolutely no physical effect that would create a draw. It would be quite the opposite. Again, this has been included in pretty much every BT game in some form, but it's not even close to being good physics.
i don't feal like giving yet another physics lecture tonight. this thread has a complete explanation of why a large (non-nuclear) explosion is a reasonable possibility with high energy fusion reactors (please read this thread):
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1
Edited by blinkin, 10 February 2013 - 08:41 PM.
#15
Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:47 PM
Mech The Dane, on 10 February 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:
As I sad previously, they did that in Mech Assault and it worked well.
Don't mention mech assault around these parts, it's punishable by being burnt at the stake.
#16
Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:56 PM
Are you getting your *** kicked? Go facehug an enemy as a final "**** you".
#17
Posted 10 February 2013 - 08:59 PM
blinkin, on 10 February 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1
I think it's pretty safe to say that it's complete folly to argue physics when it comes to battletech. If you're going to argue so heatedly in favor of reactor explosions, why not also argue that Atlases should weigh a couple thousand tons? Why not argue that every 'mech should get themselves hopelessly stuck in the ground because of their weight?
Whether or not something is physically possible has never had a huge impact on whether or not something is included in Battletech. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Besides, when developing a game, it's more important to go with what enhances the game, rather than what is realistic. And reactor explosions are not an enhancement. They're nothing more than you getting punished every time someone close to you dies.
Edited by Toong, 10 February 2013 - 09:09 PM.
#18
Posted 10 February 2013 - 09:50 PM
2. I disagree with the assertion that "taking damage because your ally died is bad game design".
A. There are various environmental/external situations that you cannot directly control - but can manipulate. For example, overheating. You might die because you overheat, your ally might die because he overheated, you might die because your ally who was supporting you overheats, or your enemy dies because he overheats. This is a factor that exists beyond 'point and click', but the mastery of it only grants you greater competence and depth in the game. Its existence is not, 'bad game design'.
B. Having to be aware of where mechs would be just one more environmental/external situation. You could ignore it, and probably get caught up in some explosion and die. Same as if you ignored your 'Mech's heat and overheated and got wasted. However you can also learn about it and use it to your advantage. Kill an enemy Mech when he is, foolishly, right ontop of his friend. Or, uh oh, your friend. You and your teammates learn to avoid situations where you explode ontop of each other, and you also learn to manipulate situations where enemies explode on top of each other. The mastery of it only grants you a greater level of competence in the game.
3. Kamikaze Mechs: Yeah. People attempted to do that in Mech Assault 2. If you're gonna die, you might as well take your enemy with you. No one actually went in battle with the express purpose of being a Kamikaze Mech - the cost benefits of such a strategy don't really add up. Anyways, those "Kamikaze Mech"'s have to be heavily injured. It's not easy to be a walking bomb, when you're already a heavily beat up walking target. Usually, you don't have the time or the...timing to succeed in such an endeavor and end up just turning yourself into more cannon fodder. Thus making it even less restrictive of a strategy. Maybe if you're in some sort of death grip with a mech that you almost manage to kill..but manage to gimp, you can lean on him before he gets away and 'Boom'. But that is just possible circumstance - not a build or team function.
#19
Posted 10 February 2013 - 10:18 PM
Toong, on 10 February 2013 - 08:59 PM, said:
I think it's pretty safe to say that it's complete folly to argue physics when it comes to battletech. If you're going to argue so heatedly in favor of reactor explosions, why not also argue that Atlases should weigh a couple thousand tons? Why not argue that every 'mech should get themselves hopelessly stuck in the ground because of their weight?
Whether or not something is physically possible has never had a huge impact on whether or not something is included in Battletech. Therefore, the argument is moot.
Besides, when developing a game, it's more important to go with what enhances the game, rather than what is realistic. And reactor explosions are not an enhancement. They're nothing more than you getting punished every time someone close to you dies.
he started it!
for the most part i agree. i just don't like it when people use bad science and false logic to justify things.
as for your last comment: They're nothing more than you getting punished every time someone close to you dies.
most people who seem to advocate mech explosions (myself included) think that mech explosions should be very rare. the concensus among supporters of reactors going critical seems to be: 5% or less chance that any destroyed reactor will go critical.
the chance of it happening should be low enough that it is surprising when it happens, but high enough that people are wary of any mechs that die near them.
#20
Posted 10 February 2013 - 10:45 PM
blinkin, on 10 February 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:
for the most part i agree. i just don't like it when people use bad science and false logic to justify things.
as for your last comment: They're nothing more than you getting punished every time someone close to you dies.
most people who seem to advocate mech explosions (myself included) think that mech explosions should be very rare. the concensus among supporters of reactors going critical seems to be: 5% or less chance that any destroyed reactor will go critical.
the chance of it happening should be low enough that it is surprising when it happens, but high enough that people are wary of any mechs that die near them.
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.
5 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users