I don't know what's so hard to understand here.
It's a Reaper, with a large gun on it's back.
It's the same idea as the Ostwind Flakpanzer, which was a tank, with an AA gun.
You thus kill a Reaper with a CAIN.
So...about that reaper we killed with the Cain.
Débuté par
Aaleel
, juil. 19 2012 11:48
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 12:31
RadicalDisconnect
-
- Members
- 1 895 messages
The Angry One wrote...
Aaleel wrote...
Man I never thought it would take legs like this. I was just trying to say something I noticed because I've seen other people as well talking about the inconsistency because of killing one with a Cain.
There are inconsistencies all over. See just a little later with the conduit Destroyer:
Tanks: "We can't kill a Reaper with tanks!"
Shepard: "I will use missiles!"
Reaper: "HAR HAR the missiles do nothing!"
Shepard: "Oh well, hey tanks, kill the Reaper please."
*tanks proceed to kill the Reaper*
Tanks: "Well that was surprisingly easy! Why didn't we do that in the first place?"
Well, in the defense of that scene, the missiles were guided to strike directly into the firing chamber and "eye." It was identified as a weak spot earlier. I would guess that was enough to screw over the destroyer.
As for the Hades Cannon, the codex said that it's mounted on a destroyer chassis, not specifically a destroyer. If you look at the Hades Cannon from the back, you'll notice that the much of the upper hull found on a destroyer is missing.
Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 20 juillet 2012 - 12:38 .
#53
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 12:34
Aaleel
-
- Members
- 4 427 messages
D24O wrote...
What does it even matter whether the canon is a reaper or not?
Well it really doesn't to me. I just thought it was inconsistent that it took a theasher maw or a fleet to kill a reaper in one instance but then you do it with a Cain.
But upon watching it again, it seems it was just a mounted canon. Not matter where you aim, the shot goes up and destroys the actual canon, and the rest it just disabled. Like I said earlier I didn't think it would turn into this serious a conversation.
#54
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 12:35
D24O
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
So, why don't we just get Vegeta do destroy some reapers?
#55
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 12:35
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
The Codex doesn't say that. An entry on the Mass Effect wiki says that.
#56
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 12:37
mongoosephantom
-
- Members
- 226 messages
Exactly as i mentioned before the Cain didnt really damage the Reaper but rather destroyed the cannon which probably caused the Reaper to malfunction.Aaleel wrote...
D24O wrote...
What does it even matter whether the canon is a reaper or not?
Well it really doesn't to me. I just thought it was inconsistent that it took a theasher maw or a fleet to kill a reaper in one instance but then you do it with a Cain.
But upon watching it again, it seems it was just a mounted canon. Not matter where you aim, the shot goes up and destroys the actual canon, and the rest it just disabled. Like I said earlier I didn't think it would turn into this serious a conversation.
#58
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 12:38
Jadebaby
-
- Members
- 13 229 messages
darkchief10 wrote...
you're logic, it hurts meB)Taboo-XX wrote...
It was a big ass gun that I blew up.
It wasn't that difficult to figure out.
It's amazing what two pictures of Miranda can do for someone, don't yout think?
#59
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 12:41
Taboo
-
- Members
- 20 234 messages
Jade8aby88 wrote...
darkchief10 wrote...
you're logic, it hurts meB)Taboo-XX wrote...
It was a big ass gun that I blew up.
It wasn't that difficult to figure out.
It's amazing what two pictures of Miranda can do for someone, don't yout think?
Don't get me wrong, the endings are still bollocks but at least I can think about it without risking a stroke.
**** YEAH ART.
#60
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 12:42
v3paR
-
- Members
- 300 messages
Ticonderoga117 wrote...
I don't know what's so hard to understand here.
It's a Reaper, with a large gun on it's back.
It's the same idea as the Ostwind Flakpanzer, which was a tank, with an AA gun.
You thus kill a Reaper with a CAIN.
so by your logic those are both tanks right?
http://upload.wikime...90_Tank_-_2.jpg
http://www.laugh-quo...s/IMG_46983.jpg
because the only real difference is the top part?
#61
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 12:46
Jadebaby
-
- Members
- 13 229 messages
Taboo-XX wrote...
Jade8aby88 wrote...
darkchief10 wrote...
you're logic, it hurts meB)Taboo-XX wrote...
It was a big ass gun that I blew up.
It wasn't that difficult to figure out.
It's amazing what two pictures of Miranda can do for someone, don't yout think?
Don't get me wrong, the endings are still bollocks but at least I can think about it without risking a stroke.
**** YEAH ART.
That's only because you choose to believe it works. If Shepard actually died in every ending, would it make your hurt worse by BioWare putting in extra pictures of Miranda? Say as opposed to what you received in the original?
Like looking up into the sky like Shepard is gone forever?
#62
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 12:49
Taboo
-
- Members
- 20 234 messages
Jade8aby88 wrote...
That's only because you choose to believe it works. If Shepard actually died in every ending, would it make your hurt worse by BioWare putting in extra pictures of Miranda? Say as opposed to what you received in the original?
Like looking up into the sky like Shepard is gone forever?
I'm beginning to wonder if the reason we don't have a reunion scene is because of the IT.
The scene is meant to tell you that Shepard is alive. That's the breath of someone regaining consciousness.
Basic theatrical conventions then take root.
If you show it, it must have purpose.
The point is that Shepard is alive and capable of being rescued.
You just have to do that in your head.
This happens in films ALL the time.
#63
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 12:52
Ticonderoga117
-
- Members
- 6 751 messages
v3paR wrote...
so by your logic those are both tanks right?
http://upload.wikime...90_Tank_-_2.jpg
http://www.laugh-quo...s/IMG_46983.jpg
because the only real difference is the top part?
Both have a tank chassis. It certainly doesn't make the latter image JUST a missle launcher like how the Destroyer at the beginning of Priority Earth isn't JUST an AA gun.
#64
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 12:53
ArikadOdakirA
-
- Members
- 58 messages
D24O wrote...
So, why don't we just get Vegeta do destroy some reapers?
Why didn't Frodo just fly the Normandy through the conduit?
#65
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 01:00
MetioricTest
-
- Members
- 1 275 messages
I might get laughed at for this... But why does everything have to have a set "strength"?
Nobody got angry that Kai Leng is harder to kill than Thorian possessed Scientist NPC #5.
Because they were different people of different strengths with different experiences.
Some Reapers are weaker than others. We know that from the outset. Some have presumably taken damage already during the war, others haven't.
Nobody complains that the Victory Fleet is inconsistent because various ships get destroyed with different levels of ease.
It really wouldn't bother me in the least if one Reaper was killed with a Cain and another needed a whole fleet.
By comparison we can kill NPCs with one shot from a pistol, but what do we need to take down Shepard?
Nobody got angry that Kai Leng is harder to kill than Thorian possessed Scientist NPC #5.
Because they were different people of different strengths with different experiences.
Some Reapers are weaker than others. We know that from the outset. Some have presumably taken damage already during the war, others haven't.
Nobody complains that the Victory Fleet is inconsistent because various ships get destroyed with different levels of ease.
It really wouldn't bother me in the least if one Reaper was killed with a Cain and another needed a whole fleet.
By comparison we can kill NPCs with one shot from a pistol, but what do we need to take down Shepard?
#66
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 01:02
devSin
-
- Members
- 8 929 messages
The idea that Reaper pieces are basically scrap is really offensive to me for some reason.RadicalDisconnect wrote...
As for the Hades Cannon, the codex said that it's mounted on a destroyer chassis, not specifically a destroyer. If you look at the Hades Cannon from the back, you'll notice that the much of the upper hull found on a destroyer is missing.
They just build their useless ship bodies and sit inside them? And they sometimes have surplus, so they stick other inanimate objects on them?
That'd be like me cutting your body in half at the waist and putting a tray on it so that I can have a walking hors d'oeuvre tray for my party.
How does that in any way fit into the Reaper mythos?
#67
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 01:02
D24O
-
- Members
- 7 579 messages
Why don;t the Valar send some Istari to magic the Covenant and some NOVA bombs into Reaper controlled systems?ArikadOdakirA wrote...
Why didn't Frodo just fly the Normandy through the conduit?
#68
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 01:03
David7204
-
- Members
- 15 187 messages
The Codex does not bloody say that. The only thing that says that is the Mass Effect wiki, which anyone can edit.
#69
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 01:07
v3paR
-
- Members
- 300 messages
Ticonderoga117 wrote...
v3paR wrote...
so by your logic those are both tanks right?
http://upload.wikime...90_Tank_-_2.jpg
http://www.laugh-quo...s/IMG_46983.jpg
because the only real difference is the top part?
Both have a tank chassis. It certainly doesn't make the latter image JUST a missle launcher like how the Destroyer at the beginning of Priority Earth isn't JUST an AA gun.
well i dare to say that they are two completely different design. the only common thing is the way they move. im pretty sure that interiors and most of the targeting electronics are completely different. becasue they are used to different tasks. you can't shoot from missile launcher to other tanks the way the regular tank does it.
the AA gun and Destroyer share some of the design (like the tank and missile launcher) but are two completely different units for different tasks on the battlefield (and if this AA gun is infact modified Destroyer i'm pretty sure it would move around for better targeting and perhaps defend itself)
#70
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 01:07
devSin
-
- Members
- 8 929 messages
The discussion is the assertion that the cannon would just be pieced together from a Reaper body (instead of a Reaper with the cannon mounted on its back). The source is irrelevant.David7204 wrote...
The Codex does not bloody say that. The only thing that says that is the Mass Effect wiki, which anyone can edit.
And it's clearly part of a destroyer in the game. You can blame asset reuse if you think that's most likely, but you can't deny that it's the actual model for the cannon.
Modifié par devSin, 20 juillet 2012 - 01:08 .
#71
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 02:57
RadicalDisconnect
-
- Members
- 1 895 messages
It's really simple guys. Here's a modern analogy.
M1A1 Abrams tank:
M104 Wolverine
Notice how these vehicles both have the same chassis, but different superstructure. On the M1A1 Abrams, the superstructure is a gun turret that houses the bulk of the vehicle's firepower and armor. This would be analogous to the reaper destroyer. The M104 Wolverine shares the same chassis as the M1A1 Abrams, but its purpose as an assault bridge is vastly different from the Abrams; it lacks the tank's heavy armor and cannon. The M1A1 and M104 have as much in common as a reaper destroyer and Hades Cannon.
M1A1 Abrams tank:
M104 Wolverine
Notice how these vehicles both have the same chassis, but different superstructure. On the M1A1 Abrams, the superstructure is a gun turret that houses the bulk of the vehicle's firepower and armor. This would be analogous to the reaper destroyer. The M104 Wolverine shares the same chassis as the M1A1 Abrams, but its purpose as an assault bridge is vastly different from the Abrams; it lacks the tank's heavy armor and cannon. The M1A1 and M104 have as much in common as a reaper destroyer and Hades Cannon.
Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 20 juillet 2012 - 02:58 .
#72
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 03:04
RadicalDisconnect
-
- Members
- 1 895 messages
Just so you guys can see the difference, here are various views of both the reaper destroyer and Hades Cannon. Credits to Troodon80 of DeviantArt
Destroyer:
Hades Cannon:
Destroyer:
Hades Cannon:
Modifié par RadicalDisconnect, 20 juillet 2012 - 03:05 .
#73
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 03:26
Dendio1
-
- Members
- 4 804 messages
The chassis isn't what makes the reapers durable, its their shielding. Hades cannon lacks reaper shielding
#74
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 03:38
Clayless
-
- Members
- 7 051 messages
Can you shoot through kinetic shielding? I'm sure to shoot a weapon it can't have a shield in front of it, which would explain why Destroyers weak spots are their weapons (2 Destroyers heavily damaged by shooting there), and why Capital ships have their weapons protected by their arms.
It would also explain why a Cain bullet shot down the barrel of a Hades Cannon was able to destroy it: No shielding.
It would also explain why a Cain bullet shot down the barrel of a Hades Cannon was able to destroy it: No shielding.
#75
Posté 20 juillet 2012 - 03:44
inko1nsiderate
-
- Members
- 1 179 messages
The Angry One 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.
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.
The cain actually flies underneath the flaps that cover the side of the gun before exploding. That isn't exactly hitting it dead center, it is more of like sending a guided missle around the giant armor plates that protect the gun from small arms fire, and blowing it up where it is less armored.
