141 réponses à ce sujet

[Zkyire]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

SNascimento wrote...
.
So, if you are saying that the best use for your greatest  war asset is to throw it away trying to rescue a few civilians is the right thing to do, there is nothing more to say.
.

But plase, think about it. You have eight dreadnoughts, are you going to commit them in a IMPOSSIBLE RESCUE operation in a city under siege by the reapers where the main strengths of the ship are totally annulled? Can this even make sense?
.
Whatever... 

If, by not using your military, you abandon the civilians that make up your country, you gain nothing.  So committing all your dreadnoughts is phyrric.  Commiting one to rescue the people that the dreadnoughts possible is not.  That's all the Alliance did on Earth... protected who they could by sacrificing only who they needed to.

Except that they protected nobody and nothing because Drednoughts are completely useless in atmospheric, close-combat fights.

Modifié par IEatWhatIPoo, 06 novembre 2011 - 04:13 .

[Shinannigan]

SNascimento wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

So, you are saying Earth is not a low gravity planet? How can you support that? That definition is a Mass Effect thing, so if they can classify Earth as they want to.

Oh my god, nevermind.

.
What? You think I don't know what gravity is? Your the problem involving a massive ship landing on a planet?

The Mass Effect codex uses g as a measurement for gravity, just as we do today, taking the gravity of earth (9.81 m/s²) as the standard, giving earth a gravity 1 g. Now other inhabited planets have a similar gravitational pull:
Illium: 1.2 g
Noveria: 0.81 g
Tuchanka: 1.14 g
...

So with around 1 g being standard comfortable gravitional pull for most species (not Elcor, of course) and what's more: being the standard measurement, i.e. not high, not low, but normal, it doesn't make sense to define Earth as a low gravity world. If you want low gravity, then Clogon (0.12 g), Loki (0.22 g) or the moon (0.1654 g) would be more your cup'o'tea.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

I would like some of the loremaster over at BioWare to clarify about that can't enter =/= can't land dilemma.

Signed.

The codex mentions "millions of tons [...]" regarding the weight of a dreadnought. Theer amount of energy it would need to be able to not drop like a rock of the same weight are beyond the definition of the word "tremendous".

[snips]
I would even say that is the least problem. Just imagine the sheer damage the dreadnought's thrusters would cause. Blasting out at millions of degrees Celsius does no good to the surrounding, [snips] because that much energy to keep a dreadnought in position WILL be going somewhere once the ship is being destroyed. That is both destruction AND Eezo contamination in a scale that might cause whole countries becoming inhabitable for a looong time unless Eezo is perfectly not harmful to the natural environment of an  inhabited planet.

Totally agree...  but I've always taken it that a eezo field actually counteracts gravity... Which would mean that you don't have to fight gravity with thrusters and jets and such.  You just weaken the mass effect in the direction you want to go and let gravity tug you along that direction.

Either way as I look at it, the cost of committing a dreadnought into atmospherical fight does exorbitantly outweight any good it could do, especially when you note how useful that asset will be if preserved.

In-universe-wise, it is a most idiotic and suicidal decision if that really is a dreadnought, that is not in the slightest minored by the hypothetical save of human lifes, even if those numbers might be in the millions.

In hindsight, yes, it was a waste.  I suspect they were desperate (and maybe a little arrogent) and figured they could take a couple punches for a fifteen or twenty minutes while people escaped.  They were very, very wrong. 

[Robhuzz]

Shinannigan wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...
In the leaked beta, Andersson says the Reapers cut right through their defences. Indicating that the Alliance ships did try to stop the Reaper invasion but (obviously) failed.

.
He also says them didn't get an message from Admiral Hackett, so he has no idea what happed to the fleet that was guardian Earth.

The defense committee also says they lost contact with everything beyond Sol Relay and they seem only worried about a couple of colonies, since they don't mention that that means they have lost contact with Alliance Gouvernment, Admiralty and presumably most of the Allied Fleet on Arcturus Station.

So how Hackett survived if the Reapers have reached Earth, meaning they had to come by Arcturus Station, is anybody's guess.

Looking at Sovereign during ME1, it's possible the Reapers planned the attack so most of the Reapers would just soak up the fire from the alliance ships and proceed to  use the relay while leaving a few Reapers behind to deal with the defenders at arcturus station. Similar to how Sovereign proceeded to take over the citadel while leaving the Geth ships to engage the citadel fleet. The fact they got past the arcturus fleet doesn't mean every ship there was destroyed, some could've escaped when they saw they couldn't damage the Reapers.

[Shinannigan]

SNascimento wrote...

.
From I understood, the main fleet repositioned itself on Earth's orbit. And that is where admiral Hackett is. 

Seems feasible, but we don't know.
If that is true, it would mean that at least a fraction of the ships in Earth's orbit could escape (since we know Hackett survives), but it would also be rather dumb.
Earth only has one accessing Relay, Charon (at least as far as the Alliance knows), and Arcuturus is right on the other hand of that relay, positioned at a crossroads with several other relays. Now since Arcuturus is an important bottleneck not only to the Sol System but also to several other systems, it would make more sense to me to defend the station instead of waiting at Earth for an attack. Also, it's a better point to gather your fleet, since ships from further systems will need to jump through one less Relay.
But well, we knew Bioware wanted to show us Earth, so...

[ODST 5723]

The "can it or can't it enter atmosphere" reminds me of the same argument over on B.net and the Halo Wars forums about whether the Pillar of Autumn (pre-Reach) could have escaped Halo if it's engines were intact since it wasn't rated for atmosphere.

[chris2365]

So, who much did the Alliance lose in the initial attack on Earth? We know that we lost contact with Admiral Hackett, who was with the fleet, and a dreadnought was destroyed

Modifié par chris2365, 06 novembre 2011 - 04:22 .

[Anacronian Stryx]

Just wanna do a comparison - A Saturn V rocket has a mass of 2,300,000 kg and can leave Earth's gravity but a Dreadnought build 200 years later with a mass effect core and much better thrusters cant?

Now a dreadnought has a mass of around a thousand times that of the rocket but the again it also have thrusters that can sustain thrust and the ability to lower it's mass hundreds of times(you have to able to do that in order to FTL at the speeds ME states).

[goofyomnivore]

Tactically it doesn't make sense. I'd argue lore wise too. I think it is just a "wow" moment they wanted to add in to show how powerful the Reapers are.

[Symji]

The reason the dreadnought is near the surface is simple, it needed to be at such an angle to be able to use it's main gun on the Reapers without fear of hitting the planet. If it had stayed in space, it would have needed to be at an extremely obtuse angle to the planet just to get a clear shot that any time a Reaper moved it would have had to reposition by hundreds or even thousands of miles just to take another shot.

[SNascimento]

Shinannigan wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

Saphra Deden wrote...

SNascimento wrote...

So, you are saying Earth is not a low gravity planet? How can you support that? That definition is a Mass Effect thing, so if they can classify Earth as they want to.

Oh my god, nevermind.

.
What? You think I don't know what gravity is? Your the problem involving a massive ship landing on a planet?

The Mass Effect codex uses g as a measurement for gravity, just as we do today, taking the gravity of earth (9.81 m/s²) as the standard, giving earth a gravity 1 g. Now other inhabited planets have a similar gravitational pull:
Illium: 1.2 g
Noveria: 0.81 g
Tuchanka: 1.14 g
...

So with around 1 g being standard comfortable gravitional pull for most species (not Elcor, of course) and what's more: being the standard measurement, i.e. not high, not low, but normal, it doesn't make sense to define Earth as a low gravity world. If you want low gravity, then Clogon (0.12 g), Loki (0.22 g) or the moon (0.1654 g) would be more your cup'o'tea.

.
This make sense.
.
But considering you can't have a gravity smaller than 0 but you can have huge gravitational pulls, would it be absurdo to classify low gravity worlds from 0 to 2, for exemple?
.
My point is that this definition is open. You presetend a very logical way to classify it and I presented another. There is no correct one... so, they can choose what fits their need better.

[Anacronian Stryx]

strive wrote...

Tactically it doesn't make sense. I'd argue lore wise too. I think it is just a "wow" moment they wanted to add in to show how powerful the Reapers are.

Hell they can make up any sort of story about that dreadnought, Perhaps the crew mutineered and fighting broke out on board - the mutineers captured the bridge and brought the ship down in order to make the rest of trip with jump packs... lalala and so on.

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Keep in mind Earth is not the only planet populated by humans. There are many more to save in which that ship would quite possibly of better use, as in being of any tactical use at all, like has been elaborated already in this thread.

There are times in which decisions mean you doom a lot of people to certain death if it means you stand a chance to save the other few.
Facing extinctions warrants the strategy to abandon billions of people if you can save at least enough to sustain a feasible population for reproduction (which are a lot less you'd need). You don't throw away the few only assets you have in a futile attempt to save others if the potential gain you get is neglectably marginal at best, and the possibility to gain anything in that situation is down the floor already.

Recovering people from the capital and most important world in the Alliance isn't a marginal gain.  If the dreadnought expected to be able to hang around in the fight for sometime, the evacuations could have save a lot of people.  They must have believed it would be worth the cost.  They were wrong, of course, we know that now, in hindsight.  Never mind that with Shepard on trial, there have to be luminaries from all over the Alliance and maybe even the Council at that trial.

To keep this discussion on fair grounds, neither have you any factual backing that dreadnoughts can viably enter the atmosphere of a planet besides a cinematic and the word of a dev that this vessel is a dreadnought.

That means we have a healthy basis for speculation in which the better arguments should have more weight than the evident lack of proof to support them.

Totally agree!  Proof validates an argument. 

"Dreadnoughts cannot enter an atmosphere."  versus "Dreadnoughts can enter an atmosphere."

Proof for Cannot -- Hyperlink to a wiki entry that implies a relationship between ME fields and the Mako.

Proof for Can --  Points at the dreadnought hovering over Seacover.  Then does this.

[Shinannigan]

SNascimento wrote...

.
This make sense.
.
But considering you can't have a gravity smaller than 0 but you can have huge gravitational pulls, would it be absurdo to classify low gravity worlds from 0 to 2, for exemple?
.
My point is that this definition is open. You presetend a very logical way to classify it and I presented another. There is no correct one... so, they can choose what fits their need better.

Well, technically, "low gravity" can be infinitely small: 0.000000[...]0000001, it's just that the leaps between the gravitaional numbers of planets are smaller than with high gravity worlds... well, in fact, they are wider (get it, "gravity", "leaps" heheherpderp)

But I can't argue with your logic either, I just don't see it as true for me personally, since I consider humanity to be so terracentric that they'll probably consider anything that's higher or lower than the Earth norm to be a deviation of the standard.

[Anacronian Stryx]

RinpocheSchnozberry wrote...

"Dreadnoughts cannot enter an atmosphere."  versus "Dreadnoughts can enter an atmosphere.

There is no Versus - it's there it's in the game a Dreadnought CAN enter a atmosphere.

People can like it or not but it's there.


It's like a person arguing that the sun couldn't possibly exist - just point to the sky and say "it's there dude your arguments are faulty".

Modifié par Anacronian Stryx, 06 novembre 2011 - 04:34 .

[goofyomnivore]

If that things mass effect core hiccups once it would drop like a rock. Possibly the lore implies that nobody has tried it yet due to the consequences of said "hiccups". I doubt it would be able to fire its main guns either. So possibly it isn't a fact that it can't physically be in the atmosphere, but more of a it doesn't make any god dam sense for it to be in the atmosphere.

However I personally believe it couldn't enter the atmosphere anyways. However if it could I don't see any reason for it to do it.

Modifié par strive, 06 novembre 2011 - 04:39 .

[Anacronian Stryx]

Saphra Deden wrote...

If large ships could easily land on any world they wouldn't make special note of the very small worlds that are small enough for cruisers to land on. Dreadnoughts are bigger than cruisers and thus would require even smaller worlds for landing. Earth is definitely not one of those worlds as it is far too big even for a cruiser to land on much less a dreadnought.

1. the dreadnought didn't land.
2. It's there dude.

Modifié par Anacronian Stryx, 06 novembre 2011 - 04:40 .

[RinpocheSchnozberry]

Saphra Deden wrote...

If large ships could easily land on any world they wouldn't make special note of the very small worlds that are small enough for cruisers to land on. Dreadnoughts are bigger than cruisers and thus would require even smaller worlds for landing. Earth is definitely not one of those worlds as it is far too big even for a cruiser to land on much less a dreadnought.

There was no landing.  Besides the crash landing.  And the fire.  And the explodingfulness.


Edit:  Also, what Stryx said!

Modifié par RinpocheSchnozberry, 06 novembre 2011 - 04:40 .

[HK01]

I don't.....I'm so confused. Do people not pay attention during ME and ME2? It was clearly stated that the Normandy can only enter the atmosphere of planets and go in low enough to drop off the Mako because it is so small and that cruisers and larger ships can NOT land on planets or fly in the lower atmosphere...

[HK01]

Oh, and:

"Cruisers cannot land on medium or high-gravity worlds, but do possess the ability to land on low-gravity planets."

"Dreadnoughts are so large that it is impossible to safely land them on a planet, and must discharge their drive cores into the magnetic field of a planet while in orbit. The decks of large vessels are arranged perpendicular to the ship's axis of thrust, so that the "top" decks are towards the front of the ship and the "bottom" decks are towards the rear of the ship."

There you go. Landing and hovering so low are essentially the same thing since the same energy is required. In fact, a slow decent and then just sitting on the ground takes less energy.

Also, all the people on the ship would be unable to work when affected by the gravitational pull of a planet because the decks are arranged vertically.

[Belisarius09]

i think it was a criuser. a dreadnaught entering atmosphere makes no sense. the decks are perpendicular to the axis of the ship. meaning once earths gravity kicked in all the crew would fall to the wall.

"The decks of large vessels are arranged perpendicular to the ship's axis of thrust, so that the "top" decks are towards the front of the ship and the "bottom" decks are towards the rear of the ship. "

also this "Dreadnoughts are so large that it is impossible to safely land them on a planet, and must discharge their drive cores into the magnetic field of a planet while in orbit." if you discharge your drive core, whats powers your ship to keep it hovering in atmosphere?

source: http://masseffect.wi...ps#Dreadnoughts

Modifié par Belisarius09, 06 novembre 2011 - 04:56 .