32 replies to this topic

[Rocket2Uranus]

How about this.

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.

[Jarl Dane]

I agree, that would be really nice. Adds one more element to the overall battle you need to be aware of..

[Edustaja]

Stackpoling, not even once.

[Shivaxi]

MechWarrior Living Legends did this. Massive nuclear explosion. Very rare chance for reactor to go critical. I want to see this so bad so +1

[Jarl Dane]

In Mech Assault whenever a Mech was destroyed its explosion was extremely deadly. You needed to back away from a dying Mech, or risk being pulled in..and possibly destroyed as well.

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.

[Omar Ravenhurst]

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.

[blinkin]

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.

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.

[Toong]

Boooo, bad idea.

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.

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.

[Rocket2Uranus]

I'm not asking for thermal nuclear action when a reactor blows.
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.

[Jarl Dane]

and if you a problem with it being random, then don't make it random. Make it happen all the time so all pilots just anticipate it as part of the consequence of destroying a 'Mech.

As I sad previously, they did that in Mech Assault and it worked well.

[Omar Ravenhurst]

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.

[Toong]

Mech The Dane, on 10 February 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

and if you a problem with it being random, then don't make it random. Make it happen all the time so all pilots just anticipate it as part of the consequence of destroying a 'Mech.

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.

[FrostCollar]

Do you ever kill light mechs near you? How would you like it if sometimes they detonated and killed you anyways?

Edustaja, on 10 February 2013 - 04:17 PM, said:

Stackpoling, not even once.

+1

[blinkin]

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.

[Skadi]

I don't wanna relive getting 5 TK's like I did in MWLL so I'm going to pass :x

Mech The Dane, on 10 February 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

and if you a problem with it being random, then don't make it random. Make it happen all the time so all pilots just anticipate it as part of the consequence of destroying a 'Mech.

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.

[MegaBusta]

You wanna know why this is a horrible idea? It will make the concept of the suicide jihad 'mech (doesn't have the same ring as "jihad quad" sadly )all too much of a reality.

Are you getting your *** kicked? Go facehug an enemy as a final "**** you".

[Toong]

blinkin, on 10 February 2013 - 08:40 PM, said:

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

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.

[Jarl Dane]

1. Mech Assault 2 was awesome. It wasn't a sim like the MW series, and played fast and loose with a few things. But it was a fun team based game that rewarded skill and working together. I am sorry if people who play this game have a problem with it, but I am fairly certain it never did anything to them.

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.

[blinkin]

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.

[Toong]

blinkin, on 10 February 2013 - 10:18 PM, said:

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.

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.