Okay, let's try someting else about the writing:
The Virmire Survivor's odd hostility and Shepard's oddly emotionless responses.
Why, Bioware, why?
Chekhov's Unfired Guns: Mass Effect 2 Writing and Story Discussion
Débuté par
Sable Phoenix
, nov. 19 2010 08:17
Retour en haut
#127
Posté 21 novembre 2010 - 10:29
Mir5
-
- Members
- 253 messages
iakus wrote...
Okay, let's try someting else about the writing:
The Virmire Survivor's odd hostility and Shepard's oddly emotionless responses.
Why, Bioware, why?
I think we had enough emo moments in Mass 2 already. These people are soldiers, mercenaries and murderers. Not your average spoiled teenagers.
Here's a one:
If I had been resurrected by an organization which goals and methods are at least questionable in more than few ways,
and one of the first things this sociopath b... woman tells me is: "Yeah, you totally don't have a control chip in your brain."
I have earlier witnessed how one of the toughest soldiers in galaxy got mind-controlled without even knowing about it.
I can't leave this organization even if I wanted, and every time the boss calls me, I automaticly go answer the phone, immidiately, although with the Citadel council I had the option to ignore them.
Am I really supposed to just drop the concern of being mind-controlled, and never mention it again?
I probably am going to break my mouse if this turns up as a twist in Mass3.
#128
Posté 21 novembre 2010 - 10:30
Rekkampum
-
- Members
- 2 048 messages
Iakus,
It's a spontaneous moment. It made perfect sense to me. If I thought a person I knew and cared for was deceased for two years and they showed up working with a rogue group we'd previously been fiercely engaged with, I don't think I could put a word to the mix of emotions I'd have, the strongest of which would be betrayal, relief, compassion, and confusion. I found that part to be written well in terms of Ashley/Kaiden's remarks. As for Shepard, perhaps he was a little subpar emotionally, because he lacked a true sense of time. The guy had mysteriously been rebuilt and in terms of "felt time" had not experienced his absence from the world spatially. This of course is why he treated the reunion so casually, but I do agree that more attention should have been placed on events that had happened while he was dead to accentuate this.
It's a spontaneous moment. It made perfect sense to me. If I thought a person I knew and cared for was deceased for two years and they showed up working with a rogue group we'd previously been fiercely engaged with, I don't think I could put a word to the mix of emotions I'd have, the strongest of which would be betrayal, relief, compassion, and confusion. I found that part to be written well in terms of Ashley/Kaiden's remarks. As for Shepard, perhaps he was a little subpar emotionally, because he lacked a true sense of time. The guy had mysteriously been rebuilt and in terms of "felt time" had not experienced his absence from the world spatially. This of course is why he treated the reunion so casually, but I do agree that more attention should have been placed on events that had happened while he was dead to accentuate this.
Modifié par Rekkampum, 21 novembre 2010 - 10:32 .
#129
Posté 21 novembre 2010 - 10:46
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 345 messages
Mir5 wrote...
Here's a one:
If I had been resurrected by an organization which goals and methods are at least questionable in more than few ways,
and one of the first things this sociopath b... woman tells me is: "Yeah, you totally don't have a control chip in your brain."
I have earlier witnessed how one of the toughest soldiers in galaxy got mind-controlled without even knowing about it.
I can't leave this organization even if I wanted, and every time the boss calls me, I automaticly go answer the phone, immidiately, although with the Citadel council I had the option to ignore them.
Am I really supposed to just drop the concern of being mind-controlled, and never mention it again?
I probably am going to break my mouse if this turns up as a twist in Mass3.
I do confess that when Ash mentioned that Cerberus might be controlling me, I did pause a moment to wonder about that. But Bioware wouldn't really go that route, would they?
#130
Posté 21 novembre 2010 - 10:52
Rekkampum
-
- Members
- 2 048 messages
iakus wrote...
Mir5 wrote...
Here's a one:
If I had been resurrected by an organization which goals and methods are at least questionable in more than few ways,
and one of the first things this sociopath b... woman tells me is: "Yeah, you totally don't have a control chip in your brain."
I have earlier witnessed how one of the toughest soldiers in galaxy got mind-controlled without even knowing about it.
I can't leave this organization even if I wanted, and every time the boss calls me, I automaticly go answer the phone, immidiately, although with the Citadel council I had the option to ignore them.
Am I really supposed to just drop the concern of being mind-controlled, and never mention it again?
I probably am going to break my mouse if this turns up as a twist in Mass3.
I do confess that when Ash mentioned that Cerberus might be controlling me, I did pause a moment to wonder about that. But Bioware wouldn't really go that route, would they?
I'd say we look at their previous offerings. Come to think about it, the exact same thing happened with Revan, and it was the Jedi who were controlling him ironically. I think the technological implants Cerberus used on Sheperd will play into the next one in terms of theme and identity, but I expect Bioware to create a twist that isn't directly cannibalized from KOTOR.
#131
Posté 21 novembre 2010 - 11:01
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 345 messages
Rekkampum wrote...
Iakus,
It's a spontaneous moment. It made perfect sense to me. If I thought a person I knew and cared for was deceased for two years and they showed up working with a rogue group we'd previously been fiercely engaged with, I don't think I could put a word to the mix of emotions I'd have, the strongest of which would be betrayal, relief, compassion, and confusion. I found that part to be written well in terms of Ashley/Kaiden's remarks. As for Shepard, perhaps he was a little subpar emotionally, because he lacked a true sense of time. The guy had mysteriously been rebuilt and in terms of "felt time" had not experienced his absence from the world spatially. This of course is why he treated the reunion so casually, but I do agree that more attention should have been placed on events that had happened while he was dead to accentuate this.
Given that this individual is someone who had been through Eden Prime, tracked down a rogue Spectre, committed mutiny with Shepard, as well as seen and done all sorts of crazy things a couple of years ago, the first thing that should have popped into their heads is why. Not just assume Shepard's turned into some kind of puppy-eating terrorist.
I'm not saying they should immediately want to sign up, or even approve of working for Cerberus, That I could understand. But to immediately brand Shepard (and Garrus, of all people) a traitor? I mean, what kind of rumors has Cerberus been circulating?
As for Shepard "a little subpar" is putting it mildly. He's awakened in a world where his warnings have been entirely forgotten about. Cerberus is the only group willing to help. He's being dragged around the galaxy collecting a gaggle of misfits to fight a race he's never heard of, Here is one of seven (six if Wrex is dead) people alive in the world who truly understands the Reaper threat. You're last memory of this person is watching them escape the Normandy in an escape pod, shortly before you suffocate and die. This may very well be your LI, by the way, and your response is "Hey Ash/Kaiden. It's been too long"
I seriously wanted to reach into my screen and smack Shepard on the back of the head. We got a more realistic response from Nassana Dantius!
#132
Posté 21 novembre 2010 - 11:05
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 345 messages
[quote]Rekkampum wrote...
I do confess that when Ash mentioned that Cerberus might be controlling me, I did pause a moment to wonder about that. But Bioware wouldn't really go that route, would they?[/quote]
I'd say we look at their previous offerings. Come to think about it, the exact same thing happened with Revan, and it was the Jedi who were controlling him ironically. I think the technological implants Cerberus used on Sheperd will play into the next one in terms of theme and identity, but I expect Bioware to create a twist that isn't directly cannibalized from KOTOR.
[/quote]
In KOTOR, they weren't controlling Revan so much as messing with his memories, more akin to Babylon 5's "death of personality" punishment. Or Bester's "The Demollished Man"
What I paused to consider is: What if there is a sort of control chip. Not something that turns Shep into some kind of indoctrinated zombie, but something that subtly nudges his reactions, to keep him isolated by preventing him from reestablishing old connections. I mean, it could explain his reactions. But that would be seriously cheesy.
I do confess that when Ash mentioned that Cerberus might be controlling me, I did pause a moment to wonder about that. But Bioware wouldn't really go that route, would they?[/quote]
I'd say we look at their previous offerings. Come to think about it, the exact same thing happened with Revan, and it was the Jedi who were controlling him ironically. I think the technological implants Cerberus used on Sheperd will play into the next one in terms of theme and identity, but I expect Bioware to create a twist that isn't directly cannibalized from KOTOR.
[/quote]
In KOTOR, they weren't controlling Revan so much as messing with his memories, more akin to Babylon 5's "death of personality" punishment. Or Bester's "The Demollished Man"
What I paused to consider is: What if there is a sort of control chip. Not something that turns Shep into some kind of indoctrinated zombie, but something that subtly nudges his reactions, to keep him isolated by preventing him from reestablishing old connections. I mean, it could explain his reactions. But that would be seriously cheesy.
#133
Posté 21 novembre 2010 - 11:15
Moiaussi
-
- Members
- 2 890 messages
Sable Phoenix wrote...
Alright, this is turning into an argument and it's also getting way off-topic. The Collectors detected the Normandy easily before the stealth systems were engaged. Heck, in ME1, Engineer Adams even says the stealth systems won't work if the ship goes into or comes out of FTL, because it blueshifts the emissions too high for the internal EM sinks to absorb them. But the Collectors didn't even need the FTL flare, it's impossible to hide a ship in space under normal circumstances. You could light an engine out past Pluto's orbit and it would be easily detectable on Earth. This website explains why.
Let's get back to talking about the games' writing.
And yet, strangely, although they FTL into countless occupied systems INCLUDING ILOS (where the Geth had considerable fleet strength), that has never been an issue before. And you haven't explained why it was impossible for the Normandy to detect the Collector vessel first even though it was appearantly using active scanners, which I have already explained are very easily detectable.
Take your pick. Is it bad writing when the Normandy isn't detected then? Or a Chekov's gun when it is detected by the Collectors? You can't really have it both ways.
But I take it that we are only to talk about the portions of the writing that you consider worth discussing? I didn't realize that posts needed your stamp of approval....
#134
Posté 21 novembre 2010 - 11:20
schneeland
-
- Members
- 548 messages
Sable Phoenix wrote...
Alright, this is turning into an argument and it's also getting way off-topic. The Collectors detected the Normandy easily before the stealth systems were engaged. Heck, in ME1, Engineer Adams even says the stealth systems won't work if the ship goes into or comes out of FTL, because it blueshifts the emissions too high for the internal EM sinks to absorb them. But the Collectors didn't even need the FTL flare, it's impossible to hide a ship in space under normal circumstances. You could light an engine out past Pluto's orbit and it would be easily detectable on Earth. This website explains why.
Let's get back to talking about the games' writing.
While not directly related to this thread: Thanks a lot for providing the link to project rho - it is really interessting reading matter.
#135
Posté 21 novembre 2010 - 11:24
Rekkampum
-
- Members
- 2 048 messages
Iakus,
I don't consider disobeying orders to prevent a well-known threat mutiny. That may be a little extreme. Even if the Council or Alliance did not recognize the threat of the Reapers, they respected the threat that Saren and Sovereign posed.
Any prolonged exposure to vacuum conditions causes irreparable brain damage, hence the joke about Sheperd having a "redundant nervous system" when speaking to Wrex on Tuchanka. This brings up another interesting concept that was mentioned earlier: the question of Sheperd's personhood and existence. It's obvious a significant portion of Sheperd's identity and personality, no matter how similar to the original, is manufactured by Cerberus. This, of course, was only alluded to twice: in the beginning during audio logs found in the base and during the speech on Horizon, if I'm correct. What I think should have also been a major theme is whether or not he is ultimately in control of who he was, or how he acted.
As for KOTOR, I don't see how manufacturing someone's memories and changing their entire identity does not qualify as mind control. Perhaps it's semantics, but the fact remains that Revan himself ultimately had no control over who he was existentially. It wasn't until Revan learned the truth about himself that he had any semblance of freedom from the powers of the Jedi and control over his own destiny.
The control chip theory seems interesting. I won't be surprised if Bioware uses this fear to their advantage.
I don't consider disobeying orders to prevent a well-known threat mutiny. That may be a little extreme. Even if the Council or Alliance did not recognize the threat of the Reapers, they respected the threat that Saren and Sovereign posed.
Any prolonged exposure to vacuum conditions causes irreparable brain damage, hence the joke about Sheperd having a "redundant nervous system" when speaking to Wrex on Tuchanka. This brings up another interesting concept that was mentioned earlier: the question of Sheperd's personhood and existence. It's obvious a significant portion of Sheperd's identity and personality, no matter how similar to the original, is manufactured by Cerberus. This, of course, was only alluded to twice: in the beginning during audio logs found in the base and during the speech on Horizon, if I'm correct. What I think should have also been a major theme is whether or not he is ultimately in control of who he was, or how he acted.
As for KOTOR, I don't see how manufacturing someone's memories and changing their entire identity does not qualify as mind control. Perhaps it's semantics, but the fact remains that Revan himself ultimately had no control over who he was existentially. It wasn't until Revan learned the truth about himself that he had any semblance of freedom from the powers of the Jedi and control over his own destiny.
The control chip theory seems interesting. I won't be surprised if Bioware uses this fear to their advantage.
Modifié par Rekkampum, 21 novembre 2010 - 11:26 .
#136
Posté 21 novembre 2010 - 11:30
Moiaussi
-
- Members
- 2 890 messages
iakus wrote...
In KOTOR, they weren't controlling Revan so much as messing with his memories, more akin to Babylon 5's "death of personality" punishment. Or Bester's "The Demollished Man"
What I paused to consider is: What if there is a sort of control chip. Not something that turns Shep into some kind of indoctrinated zombie, but something that subtly nudges his reactions, to keep him isolated by preventing him from reestablishing old connections. I mean, it could explain his reactions. But that would be seriously cheesy.
I don't think there needs to be. Shep has had a tendancy to hold the idiot ball from time to time even in ME1. He has this strange complete lack of discretion, running about exclaiming 'OMG, REAVERS!', and wondering why he has trouble getting people to take him seriously.
He doesn't actually try to build up a real case, or point out that there are other threats out there, or say 'you might be right, but shouldn't we investigate just in case?.' He doesn't try anything resembling subtlety, even if he is an infiltrator. He just rants about it as if everyone should believe anything he says regardless of who they are.
#137
Posté 21 novembre 2010 - 11:57
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 345 messages
Rekkampum wrote...
Iakus,
I don't consider disobeying orders to prevent a well-known threat mutiny. That may be a little extreme. Even if the Council or Alliance did not recognize the threat of the Reapers, they respected the threat that Saren and Sovereign posed.
Exactly! It was done for a reason, to save the galaxy! But from the outside looking in, it sure looked like mutiny, doesn't it? The Virmire Survivor, be it Ash or Kaiden, would understand that, and one would think, understand that Shepard may be in a similar bind this time around!
Any prolonged exposure to vacuum conditions causes irreparable brain damage, hence the joke about Sheperd having a "redundant nervous system" when speaking to Wrex on Tuchanka. This brings up another interesting concept that was mentioned earlier: the question of Sheperd's personhood and existence. It's obvious a significant portion of Sheperd's identity and personality, no matter how similar to the original, is manufactured by Cerberus. This, of course, was only alluded to twice: in the beginning during audio logs found in the base and during the speech on Horizon, if I'm correct. What I think should have also been a major theme is whether or not he is ultimately in control of who he was, or how he acted.
This brings us back to how Shepard's ressurection was handled. If in fact Shepard isn't "exactly" Shepard again, despite assurances to the contrary, it should have been made clear and explored in detail. Perhaps using teh Horizon incident as a jumping off-point.
As for KOTOR, I don't see how manufacturing someone's memories and changing their entire identity does not qualify as mind control. Perhaps it's semantics, but the fact remains that Revan himself ultimately had no control over who he was existentially. It wasn't until Revan learned the truth about himself that he had any semblance of freedom from the powers of the Jedi and control over his own destiny.
I don't consider it precisely mind control because while a new set of memories was provided, the no one could dictate what kind of person Revan ultimately turned out to be. They changed Revan, but could not control Revan.
#138
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 12:57
adam_grif
-
- Members
- 1 923 messages
[quote]So... despite the fact that the collector vessel only changes course
to an intercept course with the Normandy, which is well after stealth
was activated, you maintain that the Collectors knew the position of the
Normandy right from system entry? f they were already 'moving to pursue', wouldn't they already have been
'on an intercept course?' How do you explain the Normandy not seeing the
Collector vessel?[/quote]
If you could take some time out of your busy schedule of straw manning my argument and ignoring my points, you may notice that I suggsted that they spotted the SR2 on IR scopes, and then they stealthed, so they lost their position. They moved to the general area they think they are in and started scanning with either active sensors or optical sensors, and this let them pick the Normandy up again, where they changed course to intercept, got a weapons lock and then fired.
Notice how they change course after we detected them? This implies that any changes to their course they made before we detected them went unnoticed. Because we hadn't detected them yet. This scenario is not complicated, yet several posts in you've still managed to misunderstand it.
[quote]Or noticing the LADAR bouncing off the hull? Do you even know what LADAR
is? It is the equivalent of shining a large flashlight into space and
then watching for reflections.[/quote]
The question is: do you know what LADAR is? It's a "flashlight" in the same way that a laser pointer is, and if none of that flashlight gets into your eyes you never notice it. This "flashlight" could be on just about any wavelength of light, and you need specific sensors to detect different wavelengths. There are no "one size fits all" light detectors. They wouldn't have noticed it if they didn't have the right detectors for the wavenelght they were using (and how could they have known in advance what they would use?), and even if they did, the laser has to bounce off said detectors to get spotted. So unless the entire ship is literally blanketed in them, there's minimal chance of getting noticed.
This isn't like Radar or Sonar where it's omnidirectional and easy to pick up. Has somebody ever shone a visible spectrum laser pointer at your chest or back? The spot is so narrow that unless it gets in your eyes or you actually notice the emmitter itself you won't see it. Now consider that it won't be visible wavelength, and could be just about anything!
[quote]Do you have any idea how large that flashlight has to be to get a meaningful reflection at the ranges we are talking about?[/quote]
The ranges we are talking about? You mean the couple of kilometers shown on screen?
Your silly "laser at the moon" example involves firing lasers from the base of an atmosphere onto a rock 1.282 lightseconds (>350,000,000 meters) away, bouncing off the surface and then returning through an atmosphere to the detectors. Atmosphere makes lasers bloom far more than the vacuum of space does, and partially absorbs it.
[quote]"Visible wavelength optics' are likewise problematic, since there they
would be dealing with reflected light from other sources. [/quote]
You mean like how telescopes in orbit around the Earth have trouble with reflected light from other sources? Oh wait. No. They actually can see stupendous distances and have no problems with any such things. Even the Mark 1 Human Eyeball can see the moon, during the day time (early morning and late afternoon) fairly regularly in my city, despite THE SUN being right near it to obscure it.
You are quite literally making mountains out of molehills here and have no legs to stand on. The SR1 cannot have been more than 20 Kilometers away, the kind of range that you could see the other ship with your own two eyes. We know this, because we can see both ships on the camera at the same time. LADAR gets ranges of thousands of kilometers without breaking a sweat, and any kind of small telescope gets similar ranges on optical sensors.
IR scopes are the same as optical scopes, just looking at IR wavelengths. So it's not like they don't have telescopes onboard.
[quote]A sector is big and the world is barren and uninhabited.[/quote]
A sector has undefined size (it is not a real unit of measurement), and only a few significant astronomical bodies (i.e. planets). They had been patrolling said sector for days, and the Collectors had been ambushing ships for weeks. The fact that the two ran into each other is NOT surprising. IR sensors are stupendously long ranged, even when the ship's main drives are not active.
[quote]You seem to be suggesting that ships FTL into that system, and
inexplicably drop FTL long enough to be ambushed even though there is
nothing really in the system that would warrant that. It makes sense for the Normandy to be there since the Geth were setting
up bases on remote barren worlds in ME1, so it might be a location for a
Geth or pirate stronghold or depot, but random shipping?
[/quote]
Smaller ships land on planet surfaces to discharge their FTL drives, larger ones discharge into the atmosphere of Gas giants. They were using it as a hiding spot, the actual useful part of that system that other ships wanted could have been elsewhere, it's not like the collectors would have had trouble tracking them down even if they went to another major celestial body in the system instead of that planet.
[quote]Active sensors exist and are used, but it if you actually read the detail: [/quote]
You mean short range like tens of kilomters? Yes.
[quote]LADAR is used in Alliance and Council fleets, and you figure noone is
smart enough to have passive sensors along the hull of the ship? You are
essentially saying 'the writing isn't bad, all allied ship designers
are merely idiots,[/quote]
Yeah, why wouldn't they design their ships so they could detect an active scan even though every other ship in the known galaxy isn't Stealthed like they are, so they can always see the enemy on IR scopes anyway and would thus have no need to detect getting scanned because any enemy close enough to scan them would already be detected! Those idiots!
What benefit do they get for knowing they're being scanned by relatively short range sensors anyway? Oh right, none. They can just assume that they are being scanned and nothing changes. Knowing for sure makes no difference to them at all. And even if they did want to include those sensors for whatever reason, they would include them on the wavelength that Council ship LADAR uses, or possible Geth/Batarian ones. They have no clue what the collectors are using and therefore can't have engineered that years in advance.
[quote] As for looking out a window... sigh... look out a window of your house
at night and point out any of saturn's moons. With a telescope, do so
simply by scanning the sky. I repeat. Space is big. Looking at all of it
at once is problematic.[/quote]
That might be perdinent information except that they actually could have just looked out a window because that's how gorram close they were to each other. As you can see in the cutscene.
Space is big, but they were mighty close.
[quote]As for the suggestion that the Normandy has no sensors because they
would compromise the stealth, the Normandy's stealth is based on masking
its EM signature. If it operated the way you claim, then LADAR really
would be useless in the same way that radar bounces off a stealth
fighter or bomber (which can still detect radar lock, btw).[/quote]
Wow.
You totally misunderstand the SR1 stealth. It is stealth based on TRAPPING HEAT INSIDE IT and NOT RADIATING HEAT. It has NOTHING to do with conventional RADAR stealth, which consists of absorbing the incoming radio waves so they don't bounce back. The Internal Emissions Sink on the SR1 just traps heat, FFS. The other component of the system is a reactionless drive using the Tantalus core so they don't have to turn on their main drive to move around.
[quote]An aside: The codex seems to have changed on sensors too... now
appearantly passive sensors can detect ships in FTL whereas before (in
ME1) ships in FTL were completely invisible. Interesting revision.....[/quote]
They didn't change anything. They weren't invisible at FTL, they can't be spotted before they arrive while going at FTL, because they're moving faster than the light that is bouncing off them. This is exactly how you can't hear a super-sonic aircraft until it has already passed overhead, because it's moving faster than the sound it generates is.
to an intercept course with the Normandy, which is well after stealth
was activated, you maintain that the Collectors knew the position of the
Normandy right from system entry? f they were already 'moving to pursue', wouldn't they already have been
'on an intercept course?' How do you explain the Normandy not seeing the
Collector vessel?[/quote]
If you could take some time out of your busy schedule of straw manning my argument and ignoring my points, you may notice that I suggsted that they spotted the SR2 on IR scopes, and then they stealthed, so they lost their position. They moved to the general area they think they are in and started scanning with either active sensors or optical sensors, and this let them pick the Normandy up again, where they changed course to intercept, got a weapons lock and then fired.
Notice how they change course after we detected them? This implies that any changes to their course they made before we detected them went unnoticed. Because we hadn't detected them yet. This scenario is not complicated, yet several posts in you've still managed to misunderstand it.
[quote]Or noticing the LADAR bouncing off the hull? Do you even know what LADAR
is? It is the equivalent of shining a large flashlight into space and
then watching for reflections.[/quote]
The question is: do you know what LADAR is? It's a "flashlight" in the same way that a laser pointer is, and if none of that flashlight gets into your eyes you never notice it. This "flashlight" could be on just about any wavelength of light, and you need specific sensors to detect different wavelengths. There are no "one size fits all" light detectors. They wouldn't have noticed it if they didn't have the right detectors for the wavenelght they were using (and how could they have known in advance what they would use?), and even if they did, the laser has to bounce off said detectors to get spotted. So unless the entire ship is literally blanketed in them, there's minimal chance of getting noticed.
This isn't like Radar or Sonar where it's omnidirectional and easy to pick up. Has somebody ever shone a visible spectrum laser pointer at your chest or back? The spot is so narrow that unless it gets in your eyes or you actually notice the emmitter itself you won't see it. Now consider that it won't be visible wavelength, and could be just about anything!
[quote]Do you have any idea how large that flashlight has to be to get a meaningful reflection at the ranges we are talking about?[/quote]
The ranges we are talking about? You mean the couple of kilometers shown on screen?
Your silly "laser at the moon" example involves firing lasers from the base of an atmosphere onto a rock 1.282 lightseconds (>350,000,000 meters) away, bouncing off the surface and then returning through an atmosphere to the detectors. Atmosphere makes lasers bloom far more than the vacuum of space does, and partially absorbs it.
[quote]"Visible wavelength optics' are likewise problematic, since there they
would be dealing with reflected light from other sources. [/quote]
You mean like how telescopes in orbit around the Earth have trouble with reflected light from other sources? Oh wait. No. They actually can see stupendous distances and have no problems with any such things. Even the Mark 1 Human Eyeball can see the moon, during the day time (early morning and late afternoon) fairly regularly in my city, despite THE SUN being right near it to obscure it.
You are quite literally making mountains out of molehills here and have no legs to stand on. The SR1 cannot have been more than 20 Kilometers away, the kind of range that you could see the other ship with your own two eyes. We know this, because we can see both ships on the camera at the same time. LADAR gets ranges of thousands of kilometers without breaking a sweat, and any kind of small telescope gets similar ranges on optical sensors.
IR scopes are the same as optical scopes, just looking at IR wavelengths. So it's not like they don't have telescopes onboard.
[quote]A sector is big and the world is barren and uninhabited.[/quote]
A sector has undefined size (it is not a real unit of measurement), and only a few significant astronomical bodies (i.e. planets). They had been patrolling said sector for days, and the Collectors had been ambushing ships for weeks. The fact that the two ran into each other is NOT surprising. IR sensors are stupendously long ranged, even when the ship's main drives are not active.
[quote]You seem to be suggesting that ships FTL into that system, and
inexplicably drop FTL long enough to be ambushed even though there is
nothing really in the system that would warrant that. It makes sense for the Normandy to be there since the Geth were setting
up bases on remote barren worlds in ME1, so it might be a location for a
Geth or pirate stronghold or depot, but random shipping?
[/quote]
Smaller ships land on planet surfaces to discharge their FTL drives, larger ones discharge into the atmosphere of Gas giants. They were using it as a hiding spot, the actual useful part of that system that other ships wanted could have been elsewhere, it's not like the collectors would have had trouble tracking them down even if they went to another major celestial body in the system instead of that planet.
[quote]Active sensors exist and are used, but it if you actually read the detail: [/quote]
You mean short range like tens of kilomters? Yes.
[quote]LADAR is used in Alliance and Council fleets, and you figure noone is
smart enough to have passive sensors along the hull of the ship? You are
essentially saying 'the writing isn't bad, all allied ship designers
are merely idiots,[/quote]
Yeah, why wouldn't they design their ships so they could detect an active scan even though every other ship in the known galaxy isn't Stealthed like they are, so they can always see the enemy on IR scopes anyway and would thus have no need to detect getting scanned because any enemy close enough to scan them would already be detected! Those idiots!
What benefit do they get for knowing they're being scanned by relatively short range sensors anyway? Oh right, none. They can just assume that they are being scanned and nothing changes. Knowing for sure makes no difference to them at all. And even if they did want to include those sensors for whatever reason, they would include them on the wavelength that Council ship LADAR uses, or possible Geth/Batarian ones. They have no clue what the collectors are using and therefore can't have engineered that years in advance.
[quote] As for looking out a window... sigh... look out a window of your house
at night and point out any of saturn's moons. With a telescope, do so
simply by scanning the sky. I repeat. Space is big. Looking at all of it
at once is problematic.[/quote]
That might be perdinent information except that they actually could have just looked out a window because that's how gorram close they were to each other. As you can see in the cutscene.
Space is big, but they were mighty close.
[quote]As for the suggestion that the Normandy has no sensors because they
would compromise the stealth, the Normandy's stealth is based on masking
its EM signature. If it operated the way you claim, then LADAR really
would be useless in the same way that radar bounces off a stealth
fighter or bomber (which can still detect radar lock, btw).[/quote]
Wow.
You totally misunderstand the SR1 stealth. It is stealth based on TRAPPING HEAT INSIDE IT and NOT RADIATING HEAT. It has NOTHING to do with conventional RADAR stealth, which consists of absorbing the incoming radio waves so they don't bounce back. The Internal Emissions Sink on the SR1 just traps heat, FFS. The other component of the system is a reactionless drive using the Tantalus core so they don't have to turn on their main drive to move around.
[quote]An aside: The codex seems to have changed on sensors too... now
appearantly passive sensors can detect ships in FTL whereas before (in
ME1) ships in FTL were completely invisible. Interesting revision.....[/quote]
They didn't change anything. They weren't invisible at FTL, they can't be spotted before they arrive while going at FTL, because they're moving faster than the light that is bouncing off them. This is exactly how you can't hear a super-sonic aircraft until it has already passed overhead, because it's moving faster than the sound it generates is.
#139
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 12:59
wookieeassassin
-
- Members
- 255 messages
I don't think this thread has ended up being about unfired guns, but just a bunch of people saying that things don't make sense in either of the two games and other people trying to make whatever it is make since.
Regardless, the way I feel about it is there are too many plot holes, inconsistencies, logic errors, etc. in both of the games for them to be truly "fixed" in Mass Effect 3. I'm not saying either game is bad because I enjoyed both of them a lot (the combat, side missions, lore) but I don't even know if I can truly be all that interested in the main plot anymore.
Buy anyway, as for unfired guns I'd say:
Why do the Reapers do the cycle?
What is causing dark energy to warp Haestrom's sun?
Possible Quarian war with the Geth?
Rachni rebuilding?
Geth heretics?
Why do **some** Reapers look like their parent species?
Why was a new Reaper being created?
Regardless, the way I feel about it is there are too many plot holes, inconsistencies, logic errors, etc. in both of the games for them to be truly "fixed" in Mass Effect 3. I'm not saying either game is bad because I enjoyed both of them a lot (the combat, side missions, lore) but I don't even know if I can truly be all that interested in the main plot anymore.
Buy anyway, as for unfired guns I'd say:
Why do the Reapers do the cycle?
What is causing dark energy to warp Haestrom's sun?
Possible Quarian war with the Geth?
Rachni rebuilding?
Geth heretics?
Why do **some** Reapers look like their parent species?
Why was a new Reaper being created?
#140
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 01:07
Rekkampum
-
- Members
- 2 048 messages
iakus wrote...
Exactly! It was done for a reason, to save the galaxy! But from the outside looking in, it sure looked like mutiny, doesn't it? The Virmire Survivor, be it Ash or Kaiden, would understand that, and one would think, understand that Shepard may be in a similar bind this time around!
Cerberus is an avowed enemy of the Council. There's plenty of reason for them to see him as committing mutiny. The most their other actions could be seen as is an act of disobedience requiring disciplinary action, as they did not "leave" the Citadel to join the people they were fighting against in the first game. Sheperd siding with Cerberus, an already established enemy of the Citadel, is a different story entirely. Of course blaming Sheperd would also be unfair, but from the squadmates' perspective, one can't help but feel the slightest bit of sympathy for their reactions due in no large part to their discovery that Sheperd was still alive - and note how they weren't aware of the context in which he survived.
This brings us back to how Shepard's ressurection was handled. If in fact Shepard isn't "exactly" Shepard again, despite assurances to the contrary, it should have been made clear and explored in detail. Perhaps using teh Horizon incident as a jumping off-point.
I wouldn't say Sheperd isn't "Sheperd" in terms of a philosophical perspective, but I would say that alot of him may be influenced in a way that we as an audience have not been led to believe. I think we agree that this is an issue worth exploration in the third Mass Effect.
I don't consider it precisely mind control because while a new set of memories was provided, the no one could dictate what kind of person Revan ultimately turned out to be. They changed Revan, but could not control Revan.
Then perhaps by that definition, it wasn't mind control. "Voluntary duress" maybe, lol. How do you feel the writers handled the Suicide mission?
Modifié par Rekkampum, 22 novembre 2010 - 01:12 .
#141
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 01:15
Rekkampum
-
- Members
- 2 048 messages
wookieeassassin wrote...
I don't think this thread has ended up being about unfired guns, but just a bunch of people saying that things don't make sense in either of the two games and other people trying to make whatever it is make since.
The OP mentioned that other aspects of Bioware's writing could be discussed in addition to Chekhov's unfired guns concept as it pertains to the ME universe.
#142
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 02:24
Iakus
-
- Members
- 30 345 messages
Rekkampum wrote...
Cerberus is an avowed enemy of the Council. There's plenty of reason for them to see him as committing mutiny. The most their other actions could be seen as is an act of disobedience requiring disciplinary action, as they did not "leave" the Citadel to join the people they were fighting against in the first game. Sheperd siding with Cerberus, an already established enemy of the Citadel, is a different story entirely. Of course blaming Sheperd would also be unfair, but from the squadmates' perspective, one can't help but feel the slightest bit of sympathy for their reactions due in no large part to their discovery that Sheperd was still alive - and note how they weren't aware of the context in which he survived.
Shepard outright says to Anderson "Stealing the Normandy is mutiny" and later to the LI"I probably shouldn't even be wearing this uniform"
Navigator Pressly: "I can't believe we stole the Normandy! I know we'll all be court-martialed if this doesn't work out, but part of me loves it!"
Dr Chakwas "It's strange, being a fugitive from the Alliance. The crew has sacrificed everything for you, Shepard, don't let us down
What would the Alliance and the Council have to say about Shepard's actions? They stole the most advanced warship in the Alliance fllet and took it on a joy ride. If Ilos didn't pan out, for whatever reason, the entire crew would likely be facing lengthy prison sentances. And that's best case scenerio. That was the enormity of the actions they took. They bet everything on Shepard's vision. That's what hit me so hard on Horizon. Shepard put everything on the line once, who is to say he's not doing it again? Could they at least have not done something to learn the context? Even ask questions?
I wouldn't say Sheperd isn't "Sheperd" in terms of a philosophical perspective, but I would say that alot of him may be influenced in a way that we as an audience have not been led to believe. I think we agree that this is an issue worth exploration in the third Mass Effect.
Indeed. If true, this is one gun that really needs to be fired. Spending an entire game toying with a player's character is just mean. It's worse than clunky gameplay controls.
Then perhaps by that definition, it wasn't mind control. "Voluntary duress" maybe, lol. How do you feel the writers handled the Suicide mission?
Good in concept. Mediocre in execution. I would have preferred more and harder challenges. Maybe splitting in to two or three groups and control each of them as they set out on seperate goals. I wanted a reason why I recruited everyone. It turned out I only needed maybe half of them.
Modifié par iakus, 22 novembre 2010 - 02:24 .
#143
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 03:14
Moiaussi
-
- Members
- 2 890 messages
[quote]adam_grif wrote...[/quote]
Ah, the 'post an image' arguement... that never works.
[quote]If you could take some time out of your busy schedule of straw manning my argument and ignoring my points, you may notice that I suggsted that they spotted the SR2 on IR scopes, and then they stealthed, so they lost their position. They moved to the general area they think they are in and started scanning with either active sensors or optical sensors, and this let them pick the Normandy up again, where they changed course to intercept, got a weapons lock and then fired. [/quote]
I am not ignoring your points. You are too entrenched in them to think them through. You on the other hand completely dismissed my point that active sensors are literally giant searchlights. Optical sensors at that range are needle in a haystack searching. Both methods, including noticing the vessel entered the system in the first place would be available to every ship the Normandy magically avoids. It it was as easy as you believe, why wouldn't everyone use such techniques? I notice you discuss the range issue lower down, so will respond to that there....
You also have suddenly given the collector vessel stealth capacity of its own. Where is that even hinted at other than in your rationalization of the encounter?
[quote]Notice how they change course after we detected them? This implies that any changes to their course they made before we detected them went unnoticed. Because we hadn't detected them yet. This scenario is not complicated, yet several posts in you've still managed to misunderstand it.[/quote]
Pardon, but we don't notice changes to course they make in ME1 either. We don't notice them because... they are out of range! If they have the stealth tech you now seem to be attributing to them, why does the Normandy even spot them on long range sensors? Forget telling me I am not paying attention to your arguements, listen to them yourself.
[quote]The question is: do you know what LADAR is? It's a "flashlight" in the same way that a laser pointer is, and if none of that flashlight gets into your eyes you never notice it. This "flashlight" could be on just about any wavelength of light, and you need specific sensors to detect different wavelengths. There are no "one size fits all" light detectors. They wouldn't have noticed it if they didn't have the right detectors for the wavenelght they were using (and how could they have known in advance what they would use?), and even if they did, the laser has to bounce off said detectors to get spotted. So unless the entire ship is literally blanketed in them, there's minimal chance of getting noticed.
This isn't like Radar or Sonar where it's omnidirectional and easy to pick up. Has somebody ever shone a visible spectrum laser pointer at your chest or back? The spot is so narrow that unless it gets in your eyes or you actually notice the emmitter itself you won't see it. Now consider that it won't be visible wavelength, and could be just about anything! [/quote]
ROFL, do you know how difficult it is to hit something as small as the Normandy, at the ranges we are talking about, without knowing where it is in the first place? Keep in mind it is moving too. Either you have a searchlight, or a rapidly sweeping beam, but either way, you are not simply 'pointing the light at someone's chest' because you don't know where their chest is in the first place. You would be doing a systematic scan, which means at some point you would be shining it in their eyes (assuming they were looking in the right direction, which isn't that hard for a scoutship that would by its nature be designed with 360 degree passive sensors).
[quote]The ranges we are talking about? You mean the couple of kilometers shown on screen?
Your silly "laser at the moon" example involves firing lasers from the base of an atmosphere onto a rock 1.282 lightseconds (>350,000,000 meters) away, bouncing off the surface and then returning through an atmosphere to the detectors. Atmosphere makes lasers bloom far more than the vacuum of space does, and partially absorbs it.
"You mean like how telescopes in orbit around the Earth have trouble with reflected light from other sources? Oh wait. No. They actually can see stupendous distances and have no problems with any such things. Even the Mark 1 Human Eyeball can see the moon, during the day time (early morning and late afternoon) fairly regularly in my city, despite THE SUN being right near it to obscure it.
You are quite literally making mountains out of molehills here and have no legs to stand on. The SR1 cannot have been more than 20 Kilometers away, the kind of range that you could see the other ship with your own two eyes. We know this, because we can see both ships on the camera at the same time. LADAR gets ranges of thousands of kilometers without breaking a sweat, and any kind of small telescope gets similar ranges on optical sensors.
IR scopes are the same as optical scopes, just looking at IR wavelengths. So it's not like they don't have telescopes onboard.[/quote]
The moon is rather a lot larger than the Normandy, you do realize that don't you? Where the Collector ship is when we see it in the cut scene is misleading because by that time it has already changed course and had time to close, and for ships capable of FTL, closing the distance between long range and your '20 km' estimate (which has no actual basis other than a random guess on your part) would easily have happened.
Step back, take a breath, and look at the situation (and your arguements) more objectively.
[quote]A sector has undefined size (it is not a real unit of measurement), and only a few significant astronomical bodies (i.e. planets). They had been patrolling said sector for days, and the Collectors had been ambushing ships for weeks. The fact that the two ran into each other is NOT surprising. IR sensors are stupendously long ranged, even when the ship's main drives are not active. [/quote]
Actually we know for a fact based on the Normandy's navigational controls, a sector consists of 3 to 4 solar systems. If it was just one solar system, they would call them 'solar systems' instead of 'sectors.' You still haven't explained why those 'stupendously long range sensors' can see the Normandy, but the Normandy can't see the Collector ship until much later, and why the Collector ship shows up on 'long range sensors' even though you maintain it is actually within short range sensory range.
[quote]Smaller ships land on planet surfaces to discharge their FTL drives, larger ones discharge into the atmosphere of Gas giants. They were using it as a hiding spot, the actual useful part of that system that other ships wanted could have been elsewhere, it's not like the collectors would have had trouble tracking them down even if they went to another major celestial body in the system instead of that planet.[/quote]
I'll concede your point on that with respect to the codex, although it is interesting that the Normandy never seems restricted at all on which systems it travels between, how far apart they are, etc.
[quote]You mean short range like tens of kilomters? Yes.[/quote]
Again, you are ignoring the fact that they saw the collector vessel on long range sensors, not short range.
[quote]Yeah, why wouldn't they design their ships so they could detect an active scan even though every other ship in the known galaxy isn't Stealthed like they are, so they can always see the enemy on IR scopes anyway and would thus have no need to detect getting scanned because any enemy close enough to scan them would already be detected! Those idiots!
What benefit do they get for knowing they're being scanned by relatively short range sensors anyway? Oh right, none. They can just assume that they are being scanned and nothing changes. Knowing for sure makes no difference to them at all. And even if they did want to include those sensors for whatever reason, they would include them on the wavelength that Council ship LADAR uses, or possible Geth/Batarian ones. They have no clue what the collectors are using and therefore can't have engineered that years in advance.[/quote]
Because it is a scout, and because there are things in space called 'bases' that don't have loud thrusters or FTL drives. Why would any given sensor only pick up a specific wavelength? Most pick up ranges. Again, it is a scout vessel, and regardless, the Collector vessel is seen on long range scans, which you keep ignoring.
[quote] That might be perdinent information except that they actually could have just looked out a window because that's how gorram close they were to each other. As you can see in the cutscene.
Space is big, but they were mighty close.[/quote]
At that point yes, but they were pretty much in weapons range by that point. Again, the dialogue (which you keep dismissing) was 'Long range scan' 'course change to intercept', a period of dialogue (while the ship was closing), then the cut scene showing it at close range closing to weapons range. You seem to be starting at the end, with them at point blank range, and using that to explain the whole encounter.
[quote]Wow.
You totally misunderstand the SR1 stealth. It is stealth based on TRAPPING HEAT INSIDE IT and NOT RADIATING HEAT. It has NOTHING to do with conventional RADAR stealth, which consists of absorbing the incoming radio waves so they don't bounce back. The Internal Emissions Sink on the SR1 just traps heat, FFS. The other component of the system is a reactionless drive using the Tantalus core so they don't have to turn on their main drive to move around.[/quote]
And yet, the Normandy's sloping would limit the effectiveness of LADAR just the same, even if that isn't the primary stealth mechanism. But of course any concept that doesn't fit your arguements is irrelevant, right?
[quote]They didn't change anything. They weren't invisible at FTL, they can't be spotted before they arrive while going at FTL, because they're moving faster than the light that is bouncing off them. This is exactly how you can't hear a super-sonic aircraft until it has already passed overhead, because it's moving faster than the sound it generates is.
[/quote]
And yet, going at light speed or near light speed (i.e. not FTL), the Normandy is appearantly easy to track after engaging stealth? They knew precisely which planet it was headed for and thus where to look? You completely ignored my point that the ship was moving while the dialogue happened between leaving FTL and the Collector ship showed up on long range sensors. According to you, the Collectors guessed right, and somehow went to exactly the right planet, looked in exactly the right place, and closed to point blank without being detected (ignoring the 'long range sensor' comments).
Ah, the 'post an image' arguement... that never works.
[quote]If you could take some time out of your busy schedule of straw manning my argument and ignoring my points, you may notice that I suggsted that they spotted the SR2 on IR scopes, and then they stealthed, so they lost their position. They moved to the general area they think they are in and started scanning with either active sensors or optical sensors, and this let them pick the Normandy up again, where they changed course to intercept, got a weapons lock and then fired. [/quote]
I am not ignoring your points. You are too entrenched in them to think them through. You on the other hand completely dismissed my point that active sensors are literally giant searchlights. Optical sensors at that range are needle in a haystack searching. Both methods, including noticing the vessel entered the system in the first place would be available to every ship the Normandy magically avoids. It it was as easy as you believe, why wouldn't everyone use such techniques? I notice you discuss the range issue lower down, so will respond to that there....
You also have suddenly given the collector vessel stealth capacity of its own. Where is that even hinted at other than in your rationalization of the encounter?
[quote]Notice how they change course after we detected them? This implies that any changes to their course they made before we detected them went unnoticed. Because we hadn't detected them yet. This scenario is not complicated, yet several posts in you've still managed to misunderstand it.[/quote]
Pardon, but we don't notice changes to course they make in ME1 either. We don't notice them because... they are out of range! If they have the stealth tech you now seem to be attributing to them, why does the Normandy even spot them on long range sensors? Forget telling me I am not paying attention to your arguements, listen to them yourself.
[quote]The question is: do you know what LADAR is? It's a "flashlight" in the same way that a laser pointer is, and if none of that flashlight gets into your eyes you never notice it. This "flashlight" could be on just about any wavelength of light, and you need specific sensors to detect different wavelengths. There are no "one size fits all" light detectors. They wouldn't have noticed it if they didn't have the right detectors for the wavenelght they were using (and how could they have known in advance what they would use?), and even if they did, the laser has to bounce off said detectors to get spotted. So unless the entire ship is literally blanketed in them, there's minimal chance of getting noticed.
This isn't like Radar or Sonar where it's omnidirectional and easy to pick up. Has somebody ever shone a visible spectrum laser pointer at your chest or back? The spot is so narrow that unless it gets in your eyes or you actually notice the emmitter itself you won't see it. Now consider that it won't be visible wavelength, and could be just about anything! [/quote]
ROFL, do you know how difficult it is to hit something as small as the Normandy, at the ranges we are talking about, without knowing where it is in the first place? Keep in mind it is moving too. Either you have a searchlight, or a rapidly sweeping beam, but either way, you are not simply 'pointing the light at someone's chest' because you don't know where their chest is in the first place. You would be doing a systematic scan, which means at some point you would be shining it in their eyes (assuming they were looking in the right direction, which isn't that hard for a scoutship that would by its nature be designed with 360 degree passive sensors).
[quote]The ranges we are talking about? You mean the couple of kilometers shown on screen?
Your silly "laser at the moon" example involves firing lasers from the base of an atmosphere onto a rock 1.282 lightseconds (>350,000,000 meters) away, bouncing off the surface and then returning through an atmosphere to the detectors. Atmosphere makes lasers bloom far more than the vacuum of space does, and partially absorbs it.
"You mean like how telescopes in orbit around the Earth have trouble with reflected light from other sources? Oh wait. No. They actually can see stupendous distances and have no problems with any such things. Even the Mark 1 Human Eyeball can see the moon, during the day time (early morning and late afternoon) fairly regularly in my city, despite THE SUN being right near it to obscure it.
You are quite literally making mountains out of molehills here and have no legs to stand on. The SR1 cannot have been more than 20 Kilometers away, the kind of range that you could see the other ship with your own two eyes. We know this, because we can see both ships on the camera at the same time. LADAR gets ranges of thousands of kilometers without breaking a sweat, and any kind of small telescope gets similar ranges on optical sensors.
IR scopes are the same as optical scopes, just looking at IR wavelengths. So it's not like they don't have telescopes onboard.[/quote]
The moon is rather a lot larger than the Normandy, you do realize that don't you? Where the Collector ship is when we see it in the cut scene is misleading because by that time it has already changed course and had time to close, and for ships capable of FTL, closing the distance between long range and your '20 km' estimate (which has no actual basis other than a random guess on your part) would easily have happened.
Step back, take a breath, and look at the situation (and your arguements) more objectively.
[quote]A sector has undefined size (it is not a real unit of measurement), and only a few significant astronomical bodies (i.e. planets). They had been patrolling said sector for days, and the Collectors had been ambushing ships for weeks. The fact that the two ran into each other is NOT surprising. IR sensors are stupendously long ranged, even when the ship's main drives are not active. [/quote]
Actually we know for a fact based on the Normandy's navigational controls, a sector consists of 3 to 4 solar systems. If it was just one solar system, they would call them 'solar systems' instead of 'sectors.' You still haven't explained why those 'stupendously long range sensors' can see the Normandy, but the Normandy can't see the Collector ship until much later, and why the Collector ship shows up on 'long range sensors' even though you maintain it is actually within short range sensory range.
[quote]Smaller ships land on planet surfaces to discharge their FTL drives, larger ones discharge into the atmosphere of Gas giants. They were using it as a hiding spot, the actual useful part of that system that other ships wanted could have been elsewhere, it's not like the collectors would have had trouble tracking them down even if they went to another major celestial body in the system instead of that planet.[/quote]
I'll concede your point on that with respect to the codex, although it is interesting that the Normandy never seems restricted at all on which systems it travels between, how far apart they are, etc.
[quote]You mean short range like tens of kilomters? Yes.[/quote]
Again, you are ignoring the fact that they saw the collector vessel on long range sensors, not short range.
[quote]Yeah, why wouldn't they design their ships so they could detect an active scan even though every other ship in the known galaxy isn't Stealthed like they are, so they can always see the enemy on IR scopes anyway and would thus have no need to detect getting scanned because any enemy close enough to scan them would already be detected! Those idiots!
What benefit do they get for knowing they're being scanned by relatively short range sensors anyway? Oh right, none. They can just assume that they are being scanned and nothing changes. Knowing for sure makes no difference to them at all. And even if they did want to include those sensors for whatever reason, they would include them on the wavelength that Council ship LADAR uses, or possible Geth/Batarian ones. They have no clue what the collectors are using and therefore can't have engineered that years in advance.[/quote]
Because it is a scout, and because there are things in space called 'bases' that don't have loud thrusters or FTL drives. Why would any given sensor only pick up a specific wavelength? Most pick up ranges. Again, it is a scout vessel, and regardless, the Collector vessel is seen on long range scans, which you keep ignoring.
[quote] That might be perdinent information except that they actually could have just looked out a window because that's how gorram close they were to each other. As you can see in the cutscene.
Space is big, but they were mighty close.[/quote]
At that point yes, but they were pretty much in weapons range by that point. Again, the dialogue (which you keep dismissing) was 'Long range scan' 'course change to intercept', a period of dialogue (while the ship was closing), then the cut scene showing it at close range closing to weapons range. You seem to be starting at the end, with them at point blank range, and using that to explain the whole encounter.
[quote]Wow.
You totally misunderstand the SR1 stealth. It is stealth based on TRAPPING HEAT INSIDE IT and NOT RADIATING HEAT. It has NOTHING to do with conventional RADAR stealth, which consists of absorbing the incoming radio waves so they don't bounce back. The Internal Emissions Sink on the SR1 just traps heat, FFS. The other component of the system is a reactionless drive using the Tantalus core so they don't have to turn on their main drive to move around.[/quote]
And yet, the Normandy's sloping would limit the effectiveness of LADAR just the same, even if that isn't the primary stealth mechanism. But of course any concept that doesn't fit your arguements is irrelevant, right?
[quote]They didn't change anything. They weren't invisible at FTL, they can't be spotted before they arrive while going at FTL, because they're moving faster than the light that is bouncing off them. This is exactly how you can't hear a super-sonic aircraft until it has already passed overhead, because it's moving faster than the sound it generates is.
[/quote]
And yet, going at light speed or near light speed (i.e. not FTL), the Normandy is appearantly easy to track after engaging stealth? They knew precisely which planet it was headed for and thus where to look? You completely ignored my point that the ship was moving while the dialogue happened between leaving FTL and the Collector ship showed up on long range sensors. According to you, the Collectors guessed right, and somehow went to exactly the right planet, looked in exactly the right place, and closed to point blank without being detected (ignoring the 'long range sensor' comments).
#144
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 03:16
Moiaussi
-
- Members
- 2 890 messages
wookieeassassin wrote...
I don't think this thread has ended up being about unfired guns, but just a bunch of people saying that things don't make sense in either of the two games and other people trying to make whatever it is make since.
I consider the Collector ship finding the Normandy so easily and despite stealth an 'unfired gun.' It is not neccessarily bad writing unless the Normandy's stealth suddenly starts working against reapers again.
Modifié par Moiaussi, 22 novembre 2010 - 03:17 .
#145
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 05:10
Sable Phoenix
-
- Members
- 1 564 messages
The Collector ship was not out of range of the Normandy. They were within visual range of the human eye. We see them both on the screen simultaneously. Being in the visual range of the human eye is the shortest detection range possible in space. Everything else, from IR through radio waves or from UV through ionizing radiation, heck, even visual range with high mag telescopes, is far far longer than this range, on the order of billions of kilometers. I'd say billions of kilometers qualifies as long range. It is completely plausible that, even if the Normandy's stealth shrouds the IR emissions from the Collector sensors, that the Collectors picked them up some other way and are tracking them with that.
Regardless of this, I think that the implication of the scene is pretty clear that the Normandy's brand of stealth is completely useless against whatever Reaper-technology sensors the Collectors were using. When they detected them is immaterial, they have the ability to locate and track them whether the stealth systems are engaged or not, and that makes perfect sense given the other technology at their disposal.
Let's call this subject closed. I wouldn't mind discussing it if it were not already an argument. Arguments were something that the OP mentions should be avoided. I'd prefer we don't come back to this thread to find a mod has stomped all over it because two people couldn't refrain from sniping at each other.
Regardless of this, I think that the implication of the scene is pretty clear that the Normandy's brand of stealth is completely useless against whatever Reaper-technology sensors the Collectors were using. When they detected them is immaterial, they have the ability to locate and track them whether the stealth systems are engaged or not, and that makes perfect sense given the other technology at their disposal.
Let's call this subject closed. I wouldn't mind discussing it if it were not already an argument. Arguments were something that the OP mentions should be avoided. I'd prefer we don't come back to this thread to find a mod has stomped all over it because two people couldn't refrain from sniping at each other.
Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 22 novembre 2010 - 05:11 .
#146
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 05:19
Sable Phoenix
-
- Members
- 1 564 messages
Rekkampum wrote...
This brings us back to how Shepard's ressurection was handled. If in fact Shepard isn't "exactly" Shepard again, despite assurances to the contrary, it should have been made clear and explored in detail. Perhaps using teh Horizon incident as a jumping off-point.
I wouldn't say Sheperd isn't "Sheperd" in terms of a philosophical perspective, but I would say that alot of him may be influenced in a way that we as an audience have not been led to believe. I think we agree that this is an issue worth exploration in the third Mass Effect.
See, this is, I think, the biggest true Chekov's Gun that the story presents us with, and the reason why it's ultimately somewhat unsatisfying. The second game sets up the clear implication right from the very first moments that this Shepard we're playing is a different Shepard, somehow, somewhere, than the Shepard we played in the first game. That gun is never ever fired, and as such the entire story comes off as vaguely unsatisfying.
I wish the writers had settled on a theme for the game's story. There is no theme at all, and thus the story is directionless. "What it means to be human" would've been a great theme to use, especially if they had explained or investigated the meaning behind the "salvation through destruction" stuff Harbinger spews and set up a conflict between Shepard, now largely artificial, having to make a choice in some kind of quandary related to "saving" the human race by the desctruction of the physical fleshly "human" part of it, or keeping it in its current state of an aggregate of fleshy individuals but consigning it to annihilation by some other means.
They may just be going this route in ME3. I hope it's touched on somehow. But it should've played a bigger, more explicitly presented part in ME2. If it had the whole game's story would've felt like it had direction, rather than like a collection of Burn Notice episodes.
#147
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 05:21
Moiaussi
-
- Members
- 2 890 messages
Sable Phoenix wrote...
Regardless of this, I think that the implication of the scene is pretty clear that the Normandy's brand of stealth is completely useless against whatever Reaper-technology sensors the Collectors were using. When they detected them is immaterial, they have the ability to locate and track them whether the stealth systems are engaged or not, and that makes perfect sense given the other technology at their disposal.
The why matters, though. I consider it a Chekov's Gun, and thus relevant to this thread. You seem to be dismissing that concept.
Let's call this subject closed. I wouldn't mind discussing it if it were not already an argument. Arguments were something that the OP mentions should be avoided. I'd prefer we don't come back to this thread to find a mod has stomped all over it because two people couldn't refrain from sniping at each other.
It may be worth discussing in a new thread. I do suggest you take a break from it though, and later re-watch that opening sequence with fresh eyes. The initial shots are interior with no indication of the Collector ship's position other than the comment it was detected by 'long range sensors.' Anyway, take a break and come back to look at it with fresh eyes.
#148
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 05:37
adam_grif
-
- Members
- 1 923 messages
[quote]Ah, the 'post an image' arguement... that never works.[/quote]
It's not an argument. It's an indication of my frustration when dealing with you.
[quote]I am not ignoring your points. You are too entrenched in them to think them through. [/quote]
Irony up in this post
[quote] You on the other hand completely dismissed my point that active sensors are literally giant searchlights.[/quote]
Because they're not. Or rather, only some of them (RADAR) are. For active sensors to be "like a giant searchlight" (in the sense that they give your position away) they have to be giving off easily detectible signals. Unlike the active sensors used on Earth, Sonar for submarines and Radar for the above ground stuff, LADAR does not unless the target has specific detectors for those wavelengths on them.
This was absolutely adressed in my post, and you apparently missed this.
[quote]Optical sensors at that range are needle in a haystack searching.[/quote]
There is no horizon to hide behind in space and they already knew the approximate position of the SR1. Automated scanning and tracking of space objects is already trivial with contemporary technology. One of my professors last semester built such a thing in the early 1990's for automated tracking of satellites in orbit.
[quote]Both methods, including noticing the vessel entered the system in the
first place would be available to every ship the Normandy magically
avoids. It it was as easy as you believe, why wouldn't everyone use such
techniques? I[/quote]
They require such sensors existing in the first place (it is noted that "most ships don't have optical sensors" in the codex) and spotting them when they dropped out. IR sensors are long ranged but you have to be looking in the general direciton, the window of opportunity for detection is quite small. It's entirely possible that both ships have been in close physical proximity before and never noticed each other for this reason.
[quote]You also have suddenly given the collector vessel stealth capacity of
its own. Where is that even hinted at other than in your rationalization
of the encounter?[/quote]
Excuse me? Stealth capability? They were directly in front of a major celestial body, obscured by the sun. If the Normandy had dropped out of FTL on the other side of the planet, the two ships never would have seen each other unless the SR1 flew around the other side of the planet.
Whatever the justification, the SR1 did not detect the Collector ship until after it had detected the Normandy.
[quote]
Pardon, but we don't notice changes to course they make in ME1
either. We don't notice them because... they are out of range! If they
have the stealth tech you now seem to be attributing to them, why does
the Normandy even spot them on long range sensors? Forget telling me
I am not paying attention to your arguements, listen to them yourself. [/quote]
I'm laughing out loud right now. Apparently you think that any craft with no stealth is instantly known to everybody else within a gajillion miles, as opposed to only being detected when the IR sensors actually capture images of the region of space they are in, then again a few seconds later, and notice that they have moved. Because that's how IR detection works! They can't scan the entirety of space around them in real time, although they can scan reasonably fast (with real life technology circa 2004, a full detail scan takes less than 24 hours but in Mass Effect it is apparently much, much faster, on the order of tens of seconds). You also apparently failed to take into account that there could possibly be any other reason for not immediately detecting something, like giant sunrise that they flew out of in the cutscene which inevitably occlude IR sensors.
[quote]ROFL, do you know how difficult it is to hit something as small as the
Normandy, at the ranges we are talking about, without knowing where it
is in the first place? [/quote]
They do know where it is to within a fairly small margin of error, and they will be firing numerous laser beams all over the region in very short spaces of time. LADAR is by definition capable of IMAGING objects, i.e. rapid scans all across a region.
[quote]Keep in mind it is moving too. Either you have a searchlight, or a
rapidly sweeping beam, but either way, you are not simply 'pointing the
light at someone's chest' because you don't know where their chest is in
the first place. You would be doing a systematic scan, which means at
some point you would be shining it in their eyes (assuming they were
looking in the right direction, which isn't that hard for a scoutship
that would by its nature be designed with 360 degree passive sensors).[/quote]
Based on the assumption that their sensors can even pick up on that specific wavelength, and even exist at all.
[quote]Where the Collector ship is when we see it in the cut scene is
misleading because by that time it has already changed course and had
time to close, and for ships capable of FTL, closing the distance
between long range and your '20 km' estimate (which has no actual basis
other than a random guess on your part) would easily have happened.[/quote]
So you are simply assuming they must have been out of range of any other sensors, because you declare it so, even though that perfectly explains the situation and is what happens on screen?
As for magically accelerating across gargantuan distances, we have never seen or heard of any ship having such an ability in the entire ME universe. "Going to FTL" in the game is like going to hyperspace, you can't just go "a little bit" to get super fast sublight acceleration. "Oh god they suddenly jumped 20,000 KM and are now right behind us" is kind of the thing they would be reporting in the middle of a battle, and if such abilities existed then the entire cutscene at the end of ME1 would be irrelevant because Sovereign could have just pseudoFTL'd past the entire fleet. And combat in the universe would feature unstoppable, uninterceptible super fast missiles and fighters would be useless. And striking targets at long range with guns would be impossible because the distant targets would just pseudoFTL around to dodge all incoming fire.
[quote]Actually we know for a fact based on the Normandy's navigational controls, a sector consists of 3 to 4 solar systems.[/quote]
So it is absolutely perfectly plausible that they would run into each other after 2 days of constant patrolling when the collectors are ambushing ships? Glad you agree.
[quote]and why the Collector ship shows up on 'long range sensors' even though
you maintain it is actually within short range sensory range.[/quote]
Long range sensors don't stop being long range sensors if they pick up something relatively close to you.
You're reading too much into the statement, considering the "they were at super long range" basically doesn't fit with anything else we see in the MEverse or this scenario.
[quote]
I'll concede your point on that with respect to the codex, although
it is interesting that the Normandy never seems restricted at all on
which systems it travels between, how far apart they are, etc.[/quote]
Well, we all know what the truth is anyway...
FROM: Codex@Bioware.com
TO: Cutscene@Bioware.com
SUBJECT: What is going on with those story boards?
ATTATCHMENT(S): codexexperts.docx
Hey guys, just wanted to let you know that the story boards for the opening cutscene don't really fit with the lore. It's pretty clearly in contradiction with the codex. Could you revise it before it goes into production? I've included the relevant entries and some suggestions in the attached document.
Cheers, Codex department.
----------------------------
FROM: Cutscene@Bioware.com
TO: Codex@Hiobware.com
SUBJECT: RE: What is going on with those story boards?
We recieved your document, but have decided to ignore it on the grounds that we don't give two ****s what you have to say. We'll do whatever we goddamn well want to, you sweaty little nerds. If I hear one more peep out of your department before we go gold, we're going to send security down to kick the **** out of you like that time you wanted changes made to the Battle of the Citadel cutscene.
Sinserely, Cutscene department.
---------------------------
[quote]Again, you are ignoring the fact that they saw the collector vessel on long range sensors, not short range.[/quote]
The only short range sensors they have are active ones like LADAR, which they don't use for primary detection (again, codex). Of course they picked them up on long range sensors. They never actually specify how far away they are, and given what we see on screen...
Even then, it's only "short range" in comparison to the enormous range of IR sensors, whose detection distance is limited only by the thermal output of the craft being detected.
[quote]Why would any given sensor only pick up a specific wavelength[/quote]
Because sensors are real world devices, and do not run on magic. Although Star Trek has magical sensors that can "detect lifesigns" and other vague things that don't make sense, in the real world you detect something by measuring an interaction with something else.
Different wavelengths of light interact with different things, microwaves can't be detected in the same way that UV rays are. Lasers can be generated in theory at any wavelength although in practise engineering limits it to certain ones. Regardless, there are huge numbers of possible wavelengths from nanometer length ones up to centimeter or larger.
[quote]And yet, the Normandy's sloping would limit the effectiveness of
LADAR just the same, even if that isn't the primary stealth mechanism.
But of course any concept that doesn't fit your arguements is
irrelevant, right?[/quote]
I'm actually quite confused now. Are you saying that the fact that Normandy has curved surfaces means that LADAR is ineffective at detecting it? Light bounces off curved things just fine, and actually stealth aircraft geometry is often blocky and sharply angular, not curved. Even then, the gemotery is only good at deflecting certain kinds of radiation, and does not apply to nearly all of the others (which is why you can still see the stealth aircraft, it does nothing to visible wavelengths).
[quote]And yet, going at light speed or near light speed (i.e. not FTL), the
Normandy is appearantly easy to track after engaging stealth?[/quote]
Since when was the Normandy traveling near lightspeed? Have we ever been given any indication that it can travel at relativistic speeds at all? If the SR1 was traveling at near-lightspeed, it would have been impossible to track, get a target lock and hit with any kind of weapon because of relativistic effects.
And if they saw it on IR, they know where it was at that time. Unless the Normandy herself changed course after engaging stealth, even though they can't see it they know where it will be at all points in the future thanks to equations of motion. Even if it did change course with its reactionless drives, there would still be a "range" of possible positions of the ship, based on its performance characteristics (i.e. how fast it can accelerate).
This provides a section of expanding 3D space in which the SR2 "might" be. They don't know its exact performance characteirsitscs so it's more guesswork than usual, but regardless of that, they have significantly narrowed the range of search possibilities.
This implies that they can head in the direction of this area and can look around in it to pick up the SR1 with modes of detection other than IR (since they suddenly disappeared from IR). That is what I have been proposing this whole time, they move to where the SR1 was last seen and look around for its updated position with other sensors.
[quote]They knew precisely which planet it was headed for and thus where to look?[/quote]
Um, what? The collectors were ambushing all sorts of ships in the sector, for weeks. The SR1 then came looking for the collectors (they didn't know it was the collectors, but you know what I mean), for the past 2 days. This implies many failed attempts to find them. But they were in the same regions of space at the same time... and you think it's unlikely they would bump into each other?
[quote]According to you, the Collectors guessed right, and somehow went to
exactly the right planet, looked in exactly the right place, and closed
to point blank without being detected (ignoring the 'long range sensor'
comments).[/quote]
No, according to me the collectors were ambushing any and all ships (and were not after the SR1 specifically, or if they were, they baited a trap for it and it eventually worked), saw the SR1 during its breif window of vulenrability (this was partially luck), and then closed to where it last was while finding other ways to detect it (which they did). I'm also proposing that they were very close initially, it's YOU that proposes they were a large distance away and went undetected.
It's not an argument. It's an indication of my frustration when dealing with you.
[quote]I am not ignoring your points. You are too entrenched in them to think them through. [/quote]
Irony up in this post
[quote] You on the other hand completely dismissed my point that active sensors are literally giant searchlights.[/quote]
Because they're not. Or rather, only some of them (RADAR) are. For active sensors to be "like a giant searchlight" (in the sense that they give your position away) they have to be giving off easily detectible signals. Unlike the active sensors used on Earth, Sonar for submarines and Radar for the above ground stuff, LADAR does not unless the target has specific detectors for those wavelengths on them.
This was absolutely adressed in my post, and you apparently missed this.
[quote]Optical sensors at that range are needle in a haystack searching.[/quote]
There is no horizon to hide behind in space and they already knew the approximate position of the SR1. Automated scanning and tracking of space objects is already trivial with contemporary technology. One of my professors last semester built such a thing in the early 1990's for automated tracking of satellites in orbit.
[quote]Both methods, including noticing the vessel entered the system in the
first place would be available to every ship the Normandy magically
avoids. It it was as easy as you believe, why wouldn't everyone use such
techniques? I[/quote]
They require such sensors existing in the first place (it is noted that "most ships don't have optical sensors" in the codex) and spotting them when they dropped out. IR sensors are long ranged but you have to be looking in the general direciton, the window of opportunity for detection is quite small. It's entirely possible that both ships have been in close physical proximity before and never noticed each other for this reason.
[quote]You also have suddenly given the collector vessel stealth capacity of
its own. Where is that even hinted at other than in your rationalization
of the encounter?[/quote]
Excuse me? Stealth capability? They were directly in front of a major celestial body, obscured by the sun. If the Normandy had dropped out of FTL on the other side of the planet, the two ships never would have seen each other unless the SR1 flew around the other side of the planet.
Whatever the justification, the SR1 did not detect the Collector ship until after it had detected the Normandy.
[quote]
Pardon, but we don't notice changes to course they make in ME1
either. We don't notice them because... they are out of range! If they
have the stealth tech you now seem to be attributing to them, why does
the Normandy even spot them on long range sensors? Forget telling me
I am not paying attention to your arguements, listen to them yourself. [/quote]
I'm laughing out loud right now. Apparently you think that any craft with no stealth is instantly known to everybody else within a gajillion miles, as opposed to only being detected when the IR sensors actually capture images of the region of space they are in, then again a few seconds later, and notice that they have moved. Because that's how IR detection works! They can't scan the entirety of space around them in real time, although they can scan reasonably fast (with real life technology circa 2004, a full detail scan takes less than 24 hours but in Mass Effect it is apparently much, much faster, on the order of tens of seconds). You also apparently failed to take into account that there could possibly be any other reason for not immediately detecting something, like giant sunrise that they flew out of in the cutscene which inevitably occlude IR sensors.
[quote]ROFL, do you know how difficult it is to hit something as small as the
Normandy, at the ranges we are talking about, without knowing where it
is in the first place? [/quote]
They do know where it is to within a fairly small margin of error, and they will be firing numerous laser beams all over the region in very short spaces of time. LADAR is by definition capable of IMAGING objects, i.e. rapid scans all across a region.
[quote]Keep in mind it is moving too. Either you have a searchlight, or a
rapidly sweeping beam, but either way, you are not simply 'pointing the
light at someone's chest' because you don't know where their chest is in
the first place. You would be doing a systematic scan, which means at
some point you would be shining it in their eyes (assuming they were
looking in the right direction, which isn't that hard for a scoutship
that would by its nature be designed with 360 degree passive sensors).[/quote]
Based on the assumption that their sensors can even pick up on that specific wavelength, and even exist at all.
[quote]Where the Collector ship is when we see it in the cut scene is
misleading because by that time it has already changed course and had
time to close, and for ships capable of FTL, closing the distance
between long range and your '20 km' estimate (which has no actual basis
other than a random guess on your part) would easily have happened.[/quote]
So you are simply assuming they must have been out of range of any other sensors, because you declare it so, even though that perfectly explains the situation and is what happens on screen?
As for magically accelerating across gargantuan distances, we have never seen or heard of any ship having such an ability in the entire ME universe. "Going to FTL" in the game is like going to hyperspace, you can't just go "a little bit" to get super fast sublight acceleration. "Oh god they suddenly jumped 20,000 KM and are now right behind us" is kind of the thing they would be reporting in the middle of a battle, and if such abilities existed then the entire cutscene at the end of ME1 would be irrelevant because Sovereign could have just pseudoFTL'd past the entire fleet. And combat in the universe would feature unstoppable, uninterceptible super fast missiles and fighters would be useless. And striking targets at long range with guns would be impossible because the distant targets would just pseudoFTL around to dodge all incoming fire.
[quote]Actually we know for a fact based on the Normandy's navigational controls, a sector consists of 3 to 4 solar systems.[/quote]
So it is absolutely perfectly plausible that they would run into each other after 2 days of constant patrolling when the collectors are ambushing ships? Glad you agree.
[quote]and why the Collector ship shows up on 'long range sensors' even though
you maintain it is actually within short range sensory range.[/quote]
Long range sensors don't stop being long range sensors if they pick up something relatively close to you.
You're reading too much into the statement, considering the "they were at super long range" basically doesn't fit with anything else we see in the MEverse or this scenario.
[quote]
I'll concede your point on that with respect to the codex, although
it is interesting that the Normandy never seems restricted at all on
which systems it travels between, how far apart they are, etc.[/quote]
Well, we all know what the truth is anyway...
FROM: Codex@Bioware.com
TO: Cutscene@Bioware.com
SUBJECT: What is going on with those story boards?
ATTATCHMENT(S): codexexperts.docx
Hey guys, just wanted to let you know that the story boards for the opening cutscene don't really fit with the lore. It's pretty clearly in contradiction with the codex. Could you revise it before it goes into production? I've included the relevant entries and some suggestions in the attached document.
Cheers, Codex department.
----------------------------
FROM: Cutscene@Bioware.com
TO: Codex@Hiobware.com
SUBJECT: RE: What is going on with those story boards?
We recieved your document, but have decided to ignore it on the grounds that we don't give two ****s what you have to say. We'll do whatever we goddamn well want to, you sweaty little nerds. If I hear one more peep out of your department before we go gold, we're going to send security down to kick the **** out of you like that time you wanted changes made to the Battle of the Citadel cutscene.
Sinserely, Cutscene department.
---------------------------
[quote]Again, you are ignoring the fact that they saw the collector vessel on long range sensors, not short range.[/quote]
The only short range sensors they have are active ones like LADAR, which they don't use for primary detection (again, codex). Of course they picked them up on long range sensors. They never actually specify how far away they are, and given what we see on screen...
Even then, it's only "short range" in comparison to the enormous range of IR sensors, whose detection distance is limited only by the thermal output of the craft being detected.
[quote]Why would any given sensor only pick up a specific wavelength[/quote]
Because sensors are real world devices, and do not run on magic. Although Star Trek has magical sensors that can "detect lifesigns" and other vague things that don't make sense, in the real world you detect something by measuring an interaction with something else.
Different wavelengths of light interact with different things, microwaves can't be detected in the same way that UV rays are. Lasers can be generated in theory at any wavelength although in practise engineering limits it to certain ones. Regardless, there are huge numbers of possible wavelengths from nanometer length ones up to centimeter or larger.
[quote]And yet, the Normandy's sloping would limit the effectiveness of
LADAR just the same, even if that isn't the primary stealth mechanism.
But of course any concept that doesn't fit your arguements is
irrelevant, right?[/quote]
I'm actually quite confused now. Are you saying that the fact that Normandy has curved surfaces means that LADAR is ineffective at detecting it? Light bounces off curved things just fine, and actually stealth aircraft geometry is often blocky and sharply angular, not curved. Even then, the gemotery is only good at deflecting certain kinds of radiation, and does not apply to nearly all of the others (which is why you can still see the stealth aircraft, it does nothing to visible wavelengths).
[quote]And yet, going at light speed or near light speed (i.e. not FTL), the
Normandy is appearantly easy to track after engaging stealth?[/quote]
Since when was the Normandy traveling near lightspeed? Have we ever been given any indication that it can travel at relativistic speeds at all? If the SR1 was traveling at near-lightspeed, it would have been impossible to track, get a target lock and hit with any kind of weapon because of relativistic effects.
And if they saw it on IR, they know where it was at that time. Unless the Normandy herself changed course after engaging stealth, even though they can't see it they know where it will be at all points in the future thanks to equations of motion. Even if it did change course with its reactionless drives, there would still be a "range" of possible positions of the ship, based on its performance characteristics (i.e. how fast it can accelerate).
This provides a section of expanding 3D space in which the SR2 "might" be. They don't know its exact performance characteirsitscs so it's more guesswork than usual, but regardless of that, they have significantly narrowed the range of search possibilities.
This implies that they can head in the direction of this area and can look around in it to pick up the SR1 with modes of detection other than IR (since they suddenly disappeared from IR). That is what I have been proposing this whole time, they move to where the SR1 was last seen and look around for its updated position with other sensors.
[quote]They knew precisely which planet it was headed for and thus where to look?[/quote]
Um, what? The collectors were ambushing all sorts of ships in the sector, for weeks. The SR1 then came looking for the collectors (they didn't know it was the collectors, but you know what I mean), for the past 2 days. This implies many failed attempts to find them. But they were in the same regions of space at the same time... and you think it's unlikely they would bump into each other?
[quote]According to you, the Collectors guessed right, and somehow went to
exactly the right planet, looked in exactly the right place, and closed
to point blank without being detected (ignoring the 'long range sensor'
comments).[/quote]
No, according to me the collectors were ambushing any and all ships (and were not after the SR1 specifically, or if they were, they baited a trap for it and it eventually worked), saw the SR1 during its breif window of vulenrability (this was partially luck), and then closed to where it last was while finding other ways to detect it (which they did). I'm also proposing that they were very close initially, it's YOU that proposes they were a large distance away and went undetected.
#149
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 05:47
PauseforEffect
-
- Members
- 1 022 messages
What I'd love to know is about the statues on Ilos. I went through that whole mission wondering what the deus did a Prothean look like and ME2's Codex image compared to the Collectors left me feeling yanked around.
*huddles in corner*
For mercy's sake, are the Protheans really giant bugs!? Or is it just armor-oh I'm so confused...
*huddles in corner*
For mercy's sake, are the Protheans really giant bugs!? Or is it just armor-oh I'm so confused...
#150
Posté 22 novembre 2010 - 05:55
PauseforEffect
-
- Members
- 1 022 messages
What I'd love to know is about the statues on Ilos. I went through that whole mission wondering what the deus did a Prothean look like and ME2's Codex image compared to the Collectors left me feeling yanked around.
*huddles in corner*
For mercy's sake, are the Protheans really giant bugs!? Or is it just armor-oh I'm so confused...
*huddles in corner*
For mercy's sake, are the Protheans really giant bugs!? Or is it just armor-oh I'm so confused...
