133 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

One of the problems I had with how Bioware handled the reapers was in inconsistency in their strength, mainly due to the fact that we took one out with a Cain.

But after playing through the ending again, I realized that it wasn't a reaper at all.  It's only referred to as an AA gun, or a turret; even after you destroy it they say turret down, last of the AA canons destroyed.  It never moved, never tried to defend itself, and didn't have the armor plates that opened to reveal the canon.  All it does is continuously fire out that huge turret on top of it, which no regular reapers have.

So I have to admit my mistake on this one.  Didn't realize it wasn't actually a reaper until now.

[David7204]

Good for you. Any other things we can clarify for you? Maybe the thermal clip 'issue' that really isn't an issue?

[Hey]

Well, in your defense, it did look a lot like a destroyer. 

Modifié par Festae9, 19 juillet 2012 - 11:51 .

[The Angry One]

Yeah it just happens to look exactly like a Reaper by sheer coincidence.



Ever think it's not defending itself because it's busy shooting things in the sky?

[devSin]

They probably only make the least popular Reapers do turret duty.

How demeaning to be reduced to putting on a big old light show from out your butt.

[elitehunter34]

I really never understood why people said we destroyed a Reaper with a Cain. It was a gun turret. It's not as armored and it didn't have shields.  Besides, stuff like that is mostly done for gameplay purposes, the strength and durability of enemy units during gameplay isn't canon.

Modifié par elitehunter34, 19 juillet 2012 - 11:55 .

[The Angry One]

elitehunter34 wrote...

I really never understood why people said we destroyed a Reaper with a Cain. It was a gun turret. It's not as armored and it didn't have shields.

It has exactly the same armour as a Destroyer. If we shot it in the cannon you may have a point, but we hit it dead center.

Modifié par The Angry One, 19 juillet 2012 - 11:55 .

[D24O]

elitehunter34 wrote...

I really never understood why people said we destroyed a Reaper with a Cain. It was a gun turret. It's not as armored and it didn't have shields.

Reapers that are planetside are much more vulnerable because they have to reduce their mass and shields to be on the surface. Reaper or not, it's not the best example anyway.

[Baronesa]

From the wiki


"The Hades Cannon is an anti-aircraft weapon of Reaper design. It is a massive directed-energy cannon, capable of being mounted on the four-legged chassis of a Destroyer-class Reaper. Several Hades Cannons were utilized by the Reapers during their assault and occupation of Earth. They are highly accurate as well as powerful, as they are capable of shooting down craft as small and nimble as a UT-47A Kodiak Drop Shuttle. During the final battle for Earth, Commander Shepard destroyed one of these Cannons using a M-920 Cain to clear the way for the galactic fleet's ground forces, codenamed "Hammer", to land."

Modifié par Baronesa, 19 juillet 2012 - 11:56 .

[The Angry One]

D24O wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...

I really never understood why people said we destroyed a Reaper with a Cain. It was a gun turret. It's not as armored and it didn't have shields.

Reapers that are planetside are much more vulnerable because they have to reduce their mass and shields to be on the surface. Reaper or not, it's not the best example anyway.

This only applies to capital ships because they're huge. Destroyers are relatively tiny.

[David7204]

Well ****.

[Hey]

Nyoka wrote...

Probably they're as strong as the race they're based on and that one was a pyjak Reaper or something.

LOL

[Jadebaby]

The Angry One wrote...

Yeah it just happens to look exactly like a Reaper by sheer coincidence.



Ever think it's not defending itself because it's busy shooting things in the sky?

http://masseffect.wi...ki/Hades_Cannon

First of all, notice it's the exact same picture.

Second of all, it says it's capable of being mounted on a destroyer reaper, so the question is, is that what we're seeing in this picutre? Or does something that big attach itself onto a destroyer reaper with it's four legs?

If it's the former, maybe it's because the Cain bullet was filled with.... this

[David7204]

Wait. I just checked that myself. It's not in the Codex, it's just a wiki entry. So that's not backed up by the game.

[The Angry One]

Eh. The whole concept of the Hades cannon is ludicrous in the extreme.
I mean, maybe if it were an anti-dreadnought weapon. I could buy that. But they use it to shoot down shuttles. Eh?

Last I checked a Destroyer can shoot down small craft just fine by itself. But I guess big blue lasers are so much more artistic. Or something.

[D24O]

IMO gameplay > lore in this case, they probably didn't care that much and didn't think we'd read into this so much.

[David7204]

Gee, maybe we should stop issuing soldiers guns because tanks can shoot just fine by themselves and they have bigger slugs.

[The Angry One]

David7204 wrote...

Gee, maybe we should stop issuing soldiers guns because tanks can shoot just fine by themselves and they have bigger slugs.

Maybe you should stop making nonsensical analogies.
Though amusingly in this case, what the Hades cannon does is exactly what you're describing. They're using tanks to shoot soldiers. Forgive me for thinking that ruthlessly efficient machines from beyond the galaxy shouldn't overdesign their stuff to make it appear that they're overcompensating.

Modifié par The Angry One, 20 juillet 2012 - 12:05 .

[David7204]

Surely you're not arguing that tanks have never been used to shoot soldiers.

[Jadebaby]

The Angry One wrote...

Eh. The whole concept of the Hades cannon is ludicrous in the extreme.
I mean, maybe if it were an anti-dreadnought weapon. I could buy that. But they use it to shoot down shuttles. Eh?

Last I checked a Destroyer can shoot down small craft just fine by itself. But I guess big blue lasers are so much more artistic. Or something.

I always thought that it was for dreadnaughts, I mean, as you said, it could take the shuttles down just fine as a destroyer, and it would be more maneuverable too.

[Jadebaby]

David7204 wrote...

Wait. I just checked that myself. It's not in the Codex, it's just a wiki entry. So that's not backed up by the game.

Are you kidding? The comics never happened in the game, obviously. But they quite clearly shaped the story.

1/10.

[The Angry One]

David7204 wrote...

Surely you're not arguing that tanks have never been used to shoot soldiers.

I'm arguing that using tanks exclusively to shoot soldiers is inefficient.
Especially if in this case you're compromising the safety of the Reaper to mount a giant cannon for no other purpose than to do what it already can do without it.

A better analogy would be taking a soldier who can shoot other soldiers perfectly fine with a gun, and mounting a cruise missile launcher on their back, then using those cruise missiles to shoot soldiers. It's ridiculous and pointless overkill.

Modifié par The Angry One, 20 juillet 2012 - 12:10 .

[Taboo]

I thought that thing was just a huge ass turret.

It wasn't a Reaper.

[Jadebaby]

David7204 wrote...

Surely you're not arguing that tanks have never been used to shoot soldiers.

No, she's arguing that tanks weren't designed to shoot soldiers.

If the Reapers are as superior as they seem, you think it'd be becaue they are efficient, excuse me for thinking this contradicts that.