130 réponses à ce sujet

[JowyXXV]

Not really, if it was a small ship vs. a dreadnaught. Any race losing a dreadnaught would be a crippling blow to their military, except for the Turians. (only cause they have the most by far)

[Archereon]

JowyXXV wrote...

Not really, if it was a small ship vs. a dreadnaught. Any race losing a dreadnaught would be a crippling blow to their military, except for the Turians. (only cause they have the most by far)

The problem with relativistic weapons however, is that they are a massive investment.  While they'll destroy absolutely everything in their path, the energies required to get objects going that fast are staggering.

[Phaedon]

I think that we can conclude that this isn't a plot hole, right ?

[Archereon]

Phaedon wrote...

I think that we can conclude that this isn't a plot hole, right ?

It's a plot hole in ANY Science Fiction that includes interstellar travel.  One of the unfortunate consequences of space travel is that the velocities involved, especially in interstellar travel that's plot convinient, are so absurdley high that using such a craft as a weapon, or creating a relativistic weapon and using it would be the be all end all of warfare.

[Phaedon]

Archereon wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

I think that we can conclude that this isn't a plot hole, right ?

It's a plot hole in ANY Science Fiction that includes interstellar travel.  One of the unfortunate consequences of space travel is that the velocities involved, especially in interstellar travel that's plot convinient, are so absurdley high that using such a craft as a weapon, or creating a relativistic weapon and using it would be the be all end all of warfare.

I thought that for a bit we agreed that ME universe's FTL plotters aren't advanced enough to allow the starship to ram an enemy ship at FTL speed. Using starships on FTL to attack planets make sense, but most of the known spieces follow the integalactic law.

[kstarler]

I'm no physicist, and I admit that I only read the first and last page of this thread, but it seems to me that the story is a kind of 9/11 comparison, where terrorists use high speed, high mass fliying vehicles to inflict as much damage as possible. If so, then can't the argument be made that, because it is not a common occurence with aircraft today, that there is something, even an unknown, that keeps it from being common? As I understand it, the Kamikaze attacks during World War II didn't start until Japan had switched to the defensive and they were growing desperate. If that is the case, then it would seem that this is a tactic that could be used in desperation, but otherwise wouldn't be seriously considered by the vast majority of militaries in the ME galaxy.

Or maybe I'm missing the point or over simplifying?

[Archereon]

Phaedon wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

I think that we can conclude that this isn't a plot hole, right ?

It's a plot hole in ANY Science Fiction that includes interstellar travel.  One of the unfortunate consequences of space travel is that the velocities involved, especially in interstellar travel that's plot convinient, are so absurdley high that using such a craft as a weapon, or creating a relativistic weapon and using it would be the be all end all of warfare.

I thought that for a bit we agreed that ME universe's FTL plotters aren't advanced enough to allow the starship to ram an enemy ship at FTL speed. Using starships on FTL to attack planets make sense, but most of the known spieces follow the integalactic law.

It's a plothole not for ship to ship combat, but for ship to planet combat, since you'd only need a few relativistic weapons to annihilate a shinning galactic empire, and the person who fires first in that kind of war usually wins.  Besides, you wouldn't ram an opponent at FTL, since it makes no difference whatsoever.  (Short version of the reasoning behind that is that if going FTL did make a difference beyond radiation and such, the mass effect would violate the conservation of kinetic energy, effectively allowing for the creation of free energy.  Which is bad.)

[Phaedon]

kstarler wrote...

I'm no physicist, and I admit that I only read the first and last page of this thread, but it seems to me that the story is a kind of 9/11 comparison, where terrorists use high speed, high mass fliying vehicles to inflict as much damage as possible. If so, then can't the argument be made that, because it is not a common occurence with aircraft today, that there is something, even an unknown, that keeps it from being common? As I understand it, the Kamikaze attacks during World War II didn't start until Japan had switched to the defensive and they were growing desperate. If that is the case, then it would seem that this is a tactic that could be used in desperation, but otherwise wouldn't be seriously considered by the vast majority of militaries in the ME galaxy.

Or maybe I'm missing the point or over simplifying?

What keeps it from becoming common is the protocols that are hardcoded on the FTL plotter. Facinus (the terrorists) just used a really old and rare plotter or something like that.

[Phaedon]

Archereon wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

I think that we can conclude that this isn't a plot hole, right ?

It's a plot hole in ANY Science Fiction that includes interstellar travel.  One of the unfortunate consequences of space travel is that the velocities involved, especially in interstellar travel that's plot convinient, are so absurdley high that using such a craft as a weapon, or creating a relativistic weapon and using it would be the be all end all of warfare.

I thought that for a bit we agreed that ME universe's FTL plotters aren't advanced enough to allow the starship to ram an enemy ship at FTL speed. Using starships on FTL to attack planets make sense, but most of the known spieces follow the integalactic law.

It's a plothole not for ship to ship combat, but for ship to planet combat, since you'd only need a few relativistic weapons to annihilate a shinning galactic empire, and the person who fires first in that kind of war usually wins.  Besides, you wouldn't ram an opponent at FTL, since it makes no difference whatsoever.  (Short version of the reasoning behind that is that if going FTL did make a difference beyond radiation and such, the mass effect would violate the conservation of kinetic energy, effectively allowing for the creation of free energy.  Which is bad.)

Well, I don't disagree with you, but which race would do something like that ? The Heretics ? The Collectors ?

[Archereon]

Phaedon wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

Archereon wrote...

Phaedon wrote...

I think that we can conclude that this isn't a plot hole, right ?

It's a plot hole in ANY Science Fiction that includes interstellar travel.  One of the unfortunate consequences of space travel is that the velocities involved, especially in interstellar travel that's plot convinient, are so absurdley high that using such a craft as a weapon, or creating a relativistic weapon and using it would be the be all end all of warfare.

I thought that for a bit we agreed that ME universe's FTL plotters aren't advanced enough to allow the starship to ram an enemy ship at FTL speed. Using starships on FTL to attack planets make sense, but most of the known spieces follow the integalactic law.

It's a plothole not for ship to ship combat, but for ship to planet combat, since you'd only need a few relativistic weapons to annihilate a shinning galactic empire, and the person who fires first in that kind of war usually wins.  Besides, you wouldn't ram an opponent at FTL, since it makes no difference whatsoever.  (Short version of the reasoning behind that is that if going FTL did make a difference beyond radiation and such, the mass effect would violate the conservation of kinetic energy, effectively allowing for the creation of free energy.  Which is bad.)

Well, I don't disagree with you, but which race would do something like that ? The Heretics ? The Collectors ?

If certain real life scientists are right (including Steven Hawkings), any and all races would do that, for 3 reasons that are pretty much guaranteed to be included in their psychology regardless of how evolution progresses on their world.

Here's a long thing on that...

When we put our heads together and tried to list everything we could say with
certainty about other civilizations, without having actually met them, all that we
knew boiled down to three simple laws of alien behavior:

1. THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL.If an alien species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It
is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being
self-sacrificing.

2. WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS.No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given planet
will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

3. THEY WILL ASSUME THAT THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US.Because of those reasons, contact between two civilizations leads to a prisoner dilema.


If one race attacks, and the other doesn't, it will be too late to do anything about it, and the defender will be exterminated.  If neither attacks, they are in constant violation of rule 1, essentially risking their own survival on the hope that the other race will do the same.  If both attack, they are both devastated, but not destroyed.

The only way that would be avoided is if one race were vastly superior to the other, to the point where the inferior race poses no threat to its inferior (ex: compare modern humans to, lets say cavemen.), however, that's not how it worked in mass effect, 1 race didn't rise and uplift all the others, they gradually trickled in.

IRL, the Asari and Salarians would have wiped each other out almost as soon as they discovered each other's existence.

Modifié par Archereon, 05 septembre 2010 - 03:23 .

[Phaedon]

Point taken. If a race builds it's ships on it's own it could do that easily, I guess.

[Archereon]

Phaedon wrote...

Point taken. If a race builds it's ships on it's own it could do that easily, I guess.

Yeah, and that's the problem with most science fiction.  In my own personal setting, a single race was responsible for the uplifiting of all the known civilizations.  That civilization was us.  (I didn't want it to be set so far into the future that a technological singularity would be inevitable, and that gives us maybe a 500 year window.)

[Phaedon]

I think that they would have to build ships specific for this reason, though. Most races are probably buying the FTL plotters from the same manufacturers.

[Archereon]

Phaedon wrote...

I think that they would have to build ships specific for this reason, though. Most races are probably buying the FTL plotters from the same manufacturers.

I was more refering to the problem with first contact.  Before communication is established, which could takes centuries, there is a window of time in which you have no idea whether the other race is plotting your destruction as you assume they are making gestures of peace.  It's in that window of time that its most likely the relativistic weapons will be launched.

[kstarler]

Archereon wrote...

If certain real life scientists are right (including Steven Hawkings), any and all races would do that, for 3 reasons that are pretty much guaranteed to be included in their psychology regardless of how evolution progresses on their world.

Here's a long thing on that...

When we put our heads together and tried to list everything we could say with
certainty about other civilizations, without having actually met them, all that we
knew boiled down to three simple laws of alien behavior:

1. THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL.If an alien species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It
is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being
self-sacrificing.

2. WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS.No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given planet
will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

3. THEY WILL ASSUME THAT THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US.Because of those reasons, contact between two civilizations leads to a prisoner dilema.


If one race attacks, and the other doesn't, it will be too late to do anything about it, and the defender will be exterminated.  If neither attacks, they are in constant violation of rule 1, essentially risking their own survival on the hope that the other race will do the same.  If both attack, they are both devastated, but not destroyed.

The only way that would be avoided is if one race were vastly superior to the other, to the point where the inferior race poses no threat to its inferior (ex: compare modern humans to, lets say cavemen.), however, that's not how it worked in mass effect, 1 race didn't rise and uplift all the others, they gradually trickled in.

IRL, the Asari and Salarians would have wiped each other out almost as soon as they discovered each other's existence.

Far be it from me to question Steven Hawking on all things galactic, but, as our good friend Legion would point out, that is assuming human characteristics are predominant in all galactic species, which is prejudiced. Or something.

[Archereon]

kstarler wrote...

Archereon wrote...

If certain real life scientists are right (including Steven Hawkings), any and all races would do that, for 3 reasons that are pretty much guaranteed to be included in their psychology regardless of how evolution progresses on their world.

Here's a long thing on that...

When we put our heads together and tried to list everything we could say with
certainty about other civilizations, without having actually met them, all that we
knew boiled down to three simple laws of alien behavior:

1. THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL.If an alien species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It
is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being
self-sacrificing.

2. WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS.No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given planet
will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

3. THEY WILL ASSUME THAT THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US.Because of those reasons, contact between two civilizations leads to a prisoner dilema.


If one race attacks, and the other doesn't, it will be too late to do anything about it, and the defender will be exterminated.  If neither attacks, they are in constant violation of rule 1, essentially risking their own survival on the hope that the other race will do the same.  If both attack, they are both devastated, but not destroyed.

The only way that would be avoided is if one race were vastly superior to the other, to the point where the inferior race poses no threat to its inferior (ex: compare modern humans to, lets say cavemen.), however, that's not how it worked in mass effect, 1 race didn't rise and uplift all the others, they gradually trickled in.

IRL, the Asari and Salarians would have wiped each other out almost as soon as they discovered each other's existence.

Far be it from me to question Steven Hawking on all things galactic, but, as our good friend Legion would point out, that is assuming human characteristics are predominant in all galactic species, which is prejudiced. Or something.

Those 3 conclusions are based upon characteristics that we can be 99.9% (exagerated, we have no idea what the chances are, but we can be reasonabley sure its nearly 1:1) sure are universal among all life due to natural selection, any life that evolved to intelligence would have an instinct for self preservation and preservation as a species (point 1), and point 2 is also pretty much assured, the most intelligent, aggressive, and ruthless species tend to rise to the top in terms of civilization...

Considering that they will have those two traits, its seems logical they would realize nearly all, if not all other life would share it with them. 

Modifié par Archereon, 05 septembre 2010 - 03:50 .

[kstarler]

You know, tied into this (or so I suppose) is the fact that certain weapon projectiles in the ME universe are being accelerated to or past the speed of light. If that is the case, why do we see projectile travel? If it is moving at the speed of light, shouldn't impact be instantaneous, at least provided the distance is not beyond physical sight? Or am I confusing the acceleration to involve forward velocity when it in fact means something else entirely?

Edit: Rather, shouldn't it be instantaneous provided it's a short enough distance, like 100,000KM or less.

Modifié par kstarler, 05 septembre 2010 - 03:56 .

[Archereon]

kstarler wrote...

You know, tied into this (or so I suppose) is the fact that certain weapon projectiles in the ME universe are being accelerated to or past the speed of light. If that is the case, why do we see projectile travel? If it is moving at the speed of light, shouldn't impact be instantaneous, at least provided the distance is not beyond physical sight? Or am I confusing the acceleration to involve forward velocity when it in fact means something else entirely?

Its gameplay and story seggregation.  In real life, weapons with such velocity would have no visual signs beyyond maybe a trail of ionized or burning air, and would impact instantaneously as far as any human was concerned.  (though in reality, they would have a travel time.)

PS: By the way, an FTL weapon in Mass Effect would be no more useful than the same projectile outside of an ME field.  By the conservation of kinetic energy, the decrease in mass of an ME'd object would have to corrospond either to a realease of energy, or an increase in velocity.  (most likely the latter from what I know.) 

Modifié par Archereon, 05 septembre 2010 - 03:58 .

[Phaedon]

Archereon wrote...

kstarler wrote...

You know, tied into this (or so I suppose) is the fact that certain weapon projectiles in the ME universe are being accelerated to or past the speed of light. If that is the case, why do we see projectile travel? If it is moving at the speed of light, shouldn't impact be instantaneous, at least provided the distance is not beyond physical sight? Or am I confusing the acceleration to involve forward velocity when it in fact means something else entirely?

Its gameplay and story seggregation.  In real life, weapons with such velocity would have no visual signs beyyond maybe a trail of ionized or burning air, and would impact instantaneously as far as any human was concerned.  (though in reality, they would have a travel time.)

I have to disagree here. Mass Accelerator Slugs are known to accelerate up to 1% of light speed, according to Mr. Newton-Is-The-Deadliest-SOB-In-Space,

[kstarler]

Archereon wrote...

Its gameplay and story seggregation.  In real life, weapons with such velocity would have no visual signs beyyond maybe a trail of ionized or burning air, and would impact instantaneously as far as any human was concerned.  (though in reality, they would have a travel time.)

PS: By the way, an FTL weapon in Mass Effect would be no more useful than the same projectile outside of an ME field.  By the conservation of kinetic energy, the decrease in mass of an ME'd object would have to corrospond either to a realease of energy, or an increase in velocity.  (most likely the latter from what I know.) 

Thanks for the clarification. I know this is a no spoilers thread, so let's just say I was a little disappointed when I chose one of the heavy weapons for the first time and fired it, only to watch it travel slower than a bullet toward its intended target.

[Archereon]

Phaedon wrote...

Archereon wrote...

kstarler wrote...

You know, tied into this (or so I suppose) is the fact that certain weapon projectiles in the ME universe are being accelerated to or past the speed of light. If that is the case, why do we see projectile travel? If it is moving at the speed of light, shouldn't impact be instantaneous, at least provided the distance is not beyond physical sight? Or am I confusing the acceleration to involve forward velocity when it in fact means something else entirely?

Its gameplay and story seggregation.  In real life, weapons with such velocity would have no visual signs beyyond maybe a trail of ionized or burning air, and would impact instantaneously as far as any human was concerned.  (though in reality, they would have a travel time.)

I have to disagree here. Mass Accelerator Slugs are known to accelerate up to 1% of light speed, according to Mr. Newton-Is-The-Deadliest-SOB-In-Space,

Unless mass effect creates free energy, then a Mass Effect'd shell would be no more effective then a non me'd shell, because the two would need to have identical kinetic energy (which is, in rough terms, the determining factor in how much damage a projectile does.) for the conservation of energy to be obeyed.

(If you don't obey C.O.E, then everything gets REALLY weird...Its sort of like turning on the improbability drive, though not THAT extreme.)

Modifié par Archereon, 05 septembre 2010 - 04:03 .

[kstarler]

Archereon wrote...

(If you don't obey C.O.E, then everything gets REALLY weird...Its sort of like turning on the improbability drive, though not THAT extreme.)

That line made me laugh.

[Phaedon]

Well, here's what the Codex says about that:



A mass accelerator propels a solid metal slug using precisely-controlled electromagnetic attraction and repulsion. The slug is designed to squash or shatter on impact, increasing the energy it transfers to the target. If this were not the case, it would simply punch a hole right through, doing minimal damage.

Accelerator design was revolutionized by element zero. A slug lightened by a mass effect field can be accelerated to greater speeds, permitting projectile velocities that were previously unattainable. If accelerated to a high enough velocity, a simple paint chip can impact with the same destructive force as a nuclear weapon. However, mass accelerators produce recoil equal to their impact energy. This is mitigated somewhat by the mass effect fields that rounds are suspended within, but weapon recoil is still the prime limiting factor on slug velocity.

[Archereon]

kstarler wrote...

Archereon wrote...

(If you don't obey C.O.E, then everything gets REALLY weird...Its sort of like turning on the improbability drive, though not THAT extreme.)

That line made me laugh.

well, its sort of true.  Quantum fluctuations go crazy if you violate the conservation of energy, creating very strange effects.

The only known example of COE being broken in the universe is a singularity, the actual object in a black hole.  The reason black holes do that is because they divide by zero.  No, seriously, a black hole, or rather, the singularity, is a zero dimensional object, no volume at all, so that means its density is whatever ungodly high mass the black hole has divided by zero...

(hence the memetic image of dividing by zero creating a black hole.)

[Phaedon]

Archereon wrote...

kstarler wrote...

Archereon wrote...

(If you don't obey C.O.E, then everything gets REALLY weird...Its sort of like turning on the improbability drive, though not THAT extreme.)

That line made me laugh.

well, its sort of true.  Quantum fluctuations go crazy if you violate the conservation of energy, creating very strange effects.

The only known example of COE being broken in the universe is a singularity, the actual object in a black hole.  The reason black holes do that is because they divide by zero.  No, seriously, a black hole, or rather, the singularity, is a zero dimensional object, no volume at all, so that means its density is whatever ungodly high mass the black hole has divided by zero...

(hence the memetic image of dividing by zero creating a black hole.)

My calculator still says 'MATH ERROR'