[quote]achwas wrote...
[quote]Heavensrun wrote...
Which were a different technology from a different species, and were also serving a different function. (The glow could also be artificial to let the crew know it's working.) Regardless of whether or not you passed through any pretty blue glowy things on the way in, there is an atmosphere inside the ship. Period.
[quote]
And yeah, I do not suppose the Collector Base is somehow pressurized either, seeing that SR-2 Normandy can fly straight in - who honestly thinks Joker asked nicely at the airlock or the Collectors let Normandy in through an active forcefield ? All in mid-battle ?
[/quote]
Well, first off, it doesn't have to -be- an active forcefield, it just has to have something holding the air around the surface of the ship. Notice how shep could walk right through the "active" environmental forcefields in the prologue, as you yourself pointed out?
[/quote]
Ah well, because the "larger than human" sized collectors with heavy exodermal ridges and dermal structures fly about with tiny faerie-proportioned wings ? I have severe doubts the mass vs. lifting power ratio does actually work out, seeing how large wings would have to be that supported an actual human, nevermind the collector. Did you ever notice that the larger a bird's body gets, it wings grow almost exponentially to it to facilliate flight ? But the collectors have insectile wings which ignore physiological requirements ? Sounds..... unlikely !
[/quote]
. . . You can see and hear their wings when they fly in. Whether or not they're designed well, they have them, and they use them for limited flight. We don't actually have any information on the mass or internal structure of the Collectors. They could be full of gas bladders to make themselves lighter. Their wings could fold out from under an external carapace and be much larger than their body-size would imply (like most beetles)
And even if the standard collector drones -didn't- have wings, the seeker swarms MOST CERTAINLY DO.
[quote]
That leaves jump-pack technology, probably based on Mass Effect, ith whirring projectors.... nevermind that the collectors do not seem to naturally have these "wings" on Horizon ( nice close-up shots there) and as an aside... just how easily they die from falls if pushed off a platform.... if they had wings, I suppose they might well be able to arrest/slow their fall, much like birds do ?
[/quote]
I could call it gameplay reasoning, but it's also entirely possible that they -do-, but they can't do it fast enough to avoid injury and get back into the fight.
[quote]
As for "fire" powers : Plasma discharges, by their nature of an extremely high temperature - require no oxygen based athmosphere, actually not any athmosphere at all ! The sun does it continuously and repeatedly
[/quote]
You clearly get your definition of plasma from Star Trek.
Plasma is ionized gas. It behaves differently from normal gasses, and has unique properties, but it is not a "fire", and it does not "burn". It radiates, it behaves in certain ways, but it's not a flame, it doesn't combust.
The sun fuses hydrogen into helium due to gravitational pressure. This fusion process releases radiation, which also triggers fission, which releases more radiation. This radiation excites the star's "atmosphere", turning gas into plasma. Because the sun is made of plasma, a lot of people think, then, that plasma is "fire", because as they understand it, the sun "burns", but these are actually complete misunderstandings of what the sun is and how it works.
[quote] , if you need a real world reference. So, Iguess, "fire" might just as well be based on plasma-state-discharges...
Additionally the "guided missile" approach on "Incinerate" would possibly indicate a telekinetic field, which could conceivably contain a superheated, oxygen based exothermic reaction and deliver it even through vaccuum.
BUT !!!!
I am very loath to use ME-2s equivalent of "magic" (because even with positive and negative gravitonic fields.. and negative gravity is only a very theoretical hypothesis these days, it is a very borderline concept ----> it's so advanced it must be called magic, because in fact it is undistinguisable from it ) as a hard scientific indicator in establishing the existence of very real athmosphere. The discourse on plasma discharge was merely meant to show how easily refuted your line of reasoning actually is.
[/quote]
Actually, if you were actually paying attention, I refuted myself, because I mentioned that the fire issue wasn't really an indicator, because you used fire abilities in vacuum in ME1. It's obviously a gameplay concession.
[quote]
Even in a Sci_Fi or fantasy setting, it is far more believable to anchor the tech-level and circumstances as far as possible in real-world physics and other hard sciences as the foundation. And Mass Effect, except for the speculative biotic angle, is a very technocentric universe., only 150+ years ahead of ours.
[/quote]
If you want to talk about anchoring things in real world physics while arguing with a physicist? I'd suggest learning your physics a little better.
[quote]
Except were ingame "Style" trumps technical consistency
As for the human-tech forcefield on the SR-1. Yes it lets Shepard through - because that would be an intentional design of an emergency protection system, to facilliate actual rescue. I wouldn''t be smart to keep rescue personel from reaching injured and trapped crew , would it ?
But a forcefield designed to and capable of straining molecules in their gaseous state from hard vacuum would by its very nature (because it is so much easier too affect solid-state mass than gaseous-state one) be well capable of blocking me. a phaysical person, in very solid armour, and my weapons, very solid chunks ofmetal and cereamics, out, especially if under active sentient control. Say, like the collector general and his staff ?
[/quote]
Only if it was designed to be an active system. Systems do what they're designed to do, not what might be nice for you to be able to do in the present situation. For example, it would be nice to use a streetlight as a movie projector if I needed a movie projector, they both emit light, but they way they emit light and the way you interact with them are very different and thus a street light would make a pretty poor movie projector.
Aside from the question of whether it's an active or passive system, there's also the fact that Joker speculated that the collectors' external sensors might've been hit along with Normandy's, which would mean that the collector general wouldn't have any way of knowing to manipulate the field to prevent the Normandy from landing.
[quote]
And no, I don't think they are surprised and unaware of the human infiltration after the Normandy SR-2 blew up the Collector Cruiser right outside their base.
So,
if there actually are forcefields, the Collectors and Harbinger handle them with extreme stupidity and no tactical intelligence at all. Ok, they don't turn up with overwhelming force either but instead race to attack piecemeal with a predictable outcome, obviously they never developed strategic and tactical studies... But I should not hold gameplay requirements against them, methinks they actually do know better, but the design don't let them act too intelligent. They do get tactically smarter (not much, but still..) on higher difficulty settings though...
[/quote]
Or they're just very spread out over a very large base because they don't know, initially, where the invasion is going to come from, and you deal with them as they reach you.
But yeah, it's really about gameplay.
[quote]
Or
there just aren't any forcefields... which, by going by Occam's Razor, is the far more likely result. This means no device to keep in athmosphere ! Leading to the supposition that there is no athmosphere (anymore).
[/quote]
Occam's razor is a postulate that says the simplest solution
that fits the facts is most likely to be the correct one. Since there is clearly an atmosphere, you can't use occam's razor .
You're operating on a preconcieved notion that there isn't an
atmosphere, therefore anything involving evidence of an atmosphere can
only be a breach of continuity.
Your thinking here is completely backwards. The facts are these: Your squadmates don't need pressure suits to live there, and winged creatures fly around these environments. That says there is an atmosphere.
[quote]
And I am not even going to address the practical use - and therefore the reasoning to actually develop, install and maintain - for having a huge forcefield on the outside (!) of my base which floats in a highly irradiated part of the galaxy. Because there is _none_ except if I actually wanted to make it easy for any attackers to invade you.... in my hidden secret base...
[/quote]
I can think of a few. Not least of which is the possibility that the collectors -breathe-. You're assuming they don't need air, but there's no reason to make that assumption if they're never shown in vacuum, which they aren't. Also, they fly, with wings, which means that having a shell of atmosphere around their base could be very important for mantaining security/maintenance.
[quote]
That is, if it is not simply a design short-coming/oversight by Bioware, which, of course, is meta thinking.and does not affect ingame realism....
My money is on
"flawed design"^^ A flawed design not as obvious in ME-1
Sorry for the "wall of text"
[/quote]
(shrug) It is simply the case that the collectors fly, and use wings to do so. Therefore any environment in which we see them fly (which is every area we see them in at all) must have atmosphere.
I sincerely doubt that in the years of development and testing, it never occured to bioware to consider this issue, and it's rather disingenuous to go around suggesting that they blew it off when there is evidence in the game that none of these environments are in vacuum to begin with.
Retour en haut
