203 réponses à ce sujet

[CuseGirl]

mango smoothie wrote...
Multiplayer is a completly optional thing that does not need to be done to get best ending.

::virtual sigh of relief:: word, got it........It's crazy, in college, i actually traded in my PS2 so I could get an Xbox 360 and Halo 2, played it for 3 months, got bored, got Halo 3, got bored in 15 minutes and went right back to PS3. And then the multiplayer craze got REALLY huge, I do not understand the addiction to it......

As for ME-3's story and how their gonna kill these Reapers, I think there's gonna be some type of "killing the head of the snake kills them all type" storytelling, I mean, it's not like only 5 or 6 Reapers are coming. It's like hundreds right? And yes, technology has gotten more advanced (as far the story can tell) but it still took alot of people to take down an already distracted Reaper. 

[chaosomegas]

reapers aren't invincibility thats way they watch all space traveling races so no one to smart and makes a reaper destroyer weapon and they hide in dark space for a reason.

[CuseGirl]

onelifecrisis wrote...

I wonder if ME3 is heading for a LotR ending, in which the galaxy fleets combine not in an attempt to win, but in an attempt to buy Shepard just enough time to throw the ring into the fires of Mount Doom (i.e. upload the virus, or whatever).

like Independence Day? i was thinking that too.....maybe some virus or false command to tell all the Reapers to blow up their ME cores? or something a little less cancer producing

[Mclouvins]

CuseGirl wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I wonder if ME3 is heading for a LotR ending, in which the galaxy fleets combine not in an attempt to win, but in an attempt to buy Shepard just enough time to throw the ring into the fires of Mount Doom (i.e. upload the virus, or whatever).

like Independence Day? i was thinking that too.....maybe some virus or false command to tell all the Reapers to blow up their ME cores? or something a little less cancer producing

That's sort of a necessity from a gameplay perspective because if nothing like that existed it doesn't seem like there would be any kind of final boss.

[Mclouvins]

[/quote]

Good point, but if nukes are mountable on fighters (like disruptor torpedoes) the fighters could potentially get in close enough to fire a nuke. They'd have to FTL out of there pretty quickly, but it's a tactic that could get a few Reapers in space. Planet-side it would work every time, but at the cost of said planet.

[/quote]

Frankly it doesn't even matter. Nukes are not altogether disimilar from conventional explosives in that they both require a pressure wave to do most of the damage, which does not exist in space since ther is no matter, and no matter also equals no fission of fusioin chain reaction. Need to stick to scifi energy weapons that don't exist or kinetic weapons like thunder tubes or mass accelerator weapons.

[Dean_the_Young]

Nearly all Mass Effect weapons are mass accelerator weapons of various scale. Your shotgun/pistol/sniper rifle/assault rifle/smg are mass accelerator weapons.

[111987]

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

111987 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

111987 wrote...

Not even close. Dreadnaught fire is in the kiloton range (appox 36-40 for most dreadnaughts).

During the Cold War, there were many nukes in the megaton range (1 megaton=1000 kilotons). The largest was 50 megatons.

All that power isn't channeled to one spot, though.

Of course, but still it should be more than enough to kill a Reaper. After all kinetic barriers don't protect against heat or radiation. And if Reaper shields can be brought down by sustained fire from kiloton range weapons, a single megaton-yield nuke should do the trick.

You will have to get a nuke literary inside the reaper in order for it to do any damage, I space a fission bomb will go of in a spherical detonation meaning that any target near(and it will have to be very near) will only get hit by a mere fraction of the potential power - in fact unless the nuke is inside the reaper  the potential hit will be by orders of magnitude smaller than a hit from a dreadnoughts main gun.

This is the primary reason that most sci-fi and even most sci-adventures uses directed energy weapons (kinetic or other types).

The nuke would definitely would have to be close to the Reaper. But the heat from the blast would likely fry the Reaper's electronics and hull. The nuke in space wouldn't be useful for it's kinetic energy, but its heat and radiation.

[chaosomegas]

we have to get past reapers kinetic shields thats it. we have destroy reaper with no shields
kinetic barriers does not protect against extremes of temperature, toxins, or radiation.

[General User]

The destructive potential of a nuclear device needn't be omnidirectional. The Americans developed techniques to shape and direct the nuclear blasts and their energy during the Cold War.

What they found was that if a nuclear device were to be encased in an X-ray opaque material (say uranium) save for a channel of beryllium oxide, then upon detonation much of the EM radiation of the blast would be forced through the channel, where it would be converted into heat. If a plate of some metal (say tungsten) were to be placed on top of that beryllium channel, the incredible heat and radiation would convert it into a "cone-o-death" of heat, radiation, and (most importantly) high energy plasma.

Essentially it was a nuclear version of the Explosive Formed Projectile weapons first developed in WWII and currently used by insurgent/terrorist groups in the Middle East against Western armored vehicles. This lends this weapon system the additional gravitas of having the fundamentals of a combat doctrine for their use already partly in place.

[111987]

General User wrote...

The destructive potential of a nuclear device needn't be omnidirectional. The Americans developed techniques to shape and direct the nuclear blasts and their energy during the Cold War.

What they found was that if a nuclear device were to be encased in an X-ray opaque material (say uranium) save for a channel of beryllium oxide, then upon detonation much of the EM radiation of the blast would be forced through the channel, where it would be converted into heat. If a plate of some metal (say tungsten) were to be placed on top of that beryllium channel, the incredible heat and radiation would convert it into a "cone-o-death" of heat, radiation, and (most importantly) high energy plasma.

Essentially it was a nuclear version of the Explosive Formed Projectile weapons first developed in WWII and currently used by insurgent/terrorist groups in the Middle East against Western armored vehicles. This lends this weapon system the additional gravitas of having the fundamentals of a combat doctrine for their use already partly in place.

That's some really interesting information.

I guess we now have a solid tactic to use against the Reapers.

[111987]

Mr.X.Pen wrote...

Couldn't do much harm (in space) to try a nuke but as stated the ship firing the warhead would have to leg it and fast but since it's a Reaper you may need a few hundred depending on the size of the Reaper.
Since when did we start talking about nukes?

A few hundred what? Nukes?

No way. A single megaton-level nuke could kill a Reaper. In our world today, we are capable of producing bombs that generate 50 megatons of energy. You could kill several dozen Reapers (f they're in close proximity to one another) with that kind of firepower.

[111987]

Mr.X.Pen wrote...

111987 wrote...

Mr.X.Pen wrote...

Couldn't do much harm (in space) to try a nuke but as stated the ship firing the warhead would have to leg it and fast but since it's a Reaper you may need a few hundred depending on the size of the Reaper.
Since when did we start talking about nukes?

A few hundred what? Nukes?

No way. A single megaton-level nuke could kill a Reaper. In our world today, we are capable of producing bombs that generate 50 megatons of energy. You could kill several dozen Reapers (f they're in close proximity to one another) with that kind of firepower.

Yea nukes. But they could be made even more powerful since it's the 22nd century. I was always thinking it was their sheilds that caused them to survive heavy attacks, (like Sovereign and the Fifth Fleet) but as I said it couldn't hurt to try it as a last resort of cource.

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding me, or i'm misunderstanding you. Our nukes TODAY could destroy the Reapers. Nukes 200 years from now would in all likelihood be more powerful and/or sophisticated.

[General User]

Not to mention smaller and easier to deploy. Given the use of portable mass effect fields and the availability of antimatter for military applications, there's no reason 50+ megaton nuclear devices couldn't be small enough to fit in a backpack.

[chaosomegas]

then add technology upgrades for the 175 years. yes your math is right 111987. so we could have 200 megaton warhead by year 2186.

[General User]

Mr.X.Pen wrote...

Couldn't do much harm (in space) to try a nuke but as stated the ship firing the warhead would have to leg it and fast but since it's a Reaper you may need a few hundred depending on the size of the Reaper.
Since when did we start talking about nukes?

Why use a ship?  Why not use a "kamikaze" drone whose pilot is on the opposite side of the galaxy and guiding his package in via a QE link?

[BloodyTalon]

Reverse enegerneering of reaper tech won't take long if you all think about it, all tech in the mass effect universe is based on their tech anyhow if I recall something form ME 1 correct.

[CptBomBom00]

All this Tech and if we win the war, what will they do after? It is simple there will be peace for 10-20 years and then here we go again, we will have galactic war, because some scientists made a break through in Reaper tech so they need to test out their new toys.
Because what else will there be to do after the war? PLant flowers on Persidum or try to make Tuchanka green?
Of course there will be a war or something at some point.

[111987]

Mr.X.Pen wrote...
It's just me as I haven't read the whole nukes argument. I'm just saying nukes in their time would be "overkill" in simple terms but the question is when will they be used? As a last resort? Or will it be during the fight? If during the fight then it would be pointless of Shepard simply gathering allies.

I think it will depend on the situation. Planet-side I doubt it would be a first option (unless we're in the wastelands of Tuchanka or something, as their planet is already so inhospitable, I doubt a few nukes will make it much worse).

But say for example, London is all but lost. Only a few thousand holdouts remain, while a dozen Reapers march around unchallenged, collecting humans. Like the COG in Gears of War, I could see the Alliance being forced to make the tough decision to sacrifice those thousands of humans and nuke London, killing those dozen or so Reapers.

In space, I think it should be a first option. It's the only known weapon capable of one-shotting a Reaper (besides the defunct Klendagon weapon).

[chaosomegas]

using nukes most like 3rd last plan