1470 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

Archonsg wrote...

@ianpolaris

That is what I thought as well.

As for the discussion of energy, its conversion or use of and the matter x is required for x amount of force or kinetic energy applied, doesn't it really boils down to what is able to produce said energy rather than how much is used. Aside from thermodynamics which in the MEU kinda steps over with "Mass Effect Fields" (wow I have no idea. ;-)) wouldn't the issue be what can produce the amount of energy and how such a weapon is deployed (was it a dooms day one shot weapon for example) be of interest to the Alliance? Answers that *could* help it fight the Reaper or develop newer weapon or systems.

/shrugs

Well, like I said, if I were in charge of the Alliance Navy, I certainly wouldn't count on getting much useful from the Klendagon Cannon, but I'd certainly detail a scientific expedition complete with engineering team in the off chance that we might learn something useful.  After all a cannon powerful enough to crack a planet and defeat a reaper is something that would get my attention if the logistical and engineering problems could be solved.  It would at least be worth a careful look.

-Polaris 

[IanPolaris]

Reorte wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

To start with, I don't consider the Crucible or Catalyst a DEM. But in answering your question, it took the entire Alliance fleet to take down one Reaper.

BUT THEY DID DEFEAT IT  Not only that, but remember that Sovereign was backed up by the entire Geth fleet as well.  Once you know you can beat the a Reaper, then the rest is detail.  Granted the devil often lurks in those details, but ME1 showed us that the Reapers could be beaten.  I note again that the reapers themselves believe this, otherwise there would be no need to decapitate the galactic govt at the start of each harvesting cycle

.

A 18th / 19th century army could probably take out one single modern tank too. If you're going to have the Reapers beatable you also have to come up with a convincing explanation as to why they've curbstomped every previous cycle. Hitting the Citadel first would be an important but hardly completely necessary step.

Actually an 18th/19th century army would be helpless against a modern tank...until that tank ran out of ammo and fuel.  It wasn't until the very end of the 19th century that true artillery was invented (and that would be the mimimum to even scratch the paint of a modern battle tank with DU armor).

That tells me that the effective technological difference between the Reapers and the civilized galaxy is a lot less than the Reapers would want you to believe, and the fact the Reapers go to great lengths to completely cripple the C3I of each cycle before they harvest also implies this.

Given all of that, with enough preperation, and with a slightly different plot and timeline, I don't see why a victory that doesn't involve a "Reaper Off switch" is so hard to believe.    It was Bioware that wrote themselves into this corner...and they didn't have to.

-Polaris

Edit:  In fact an 18th/19th century army wouldn't even know how to make a Molotov cocktail or realize why one would be useful (since internal combustion engines weren't invented until the very tail end of the 19th century), and Kerosene/Alchohol almost certainly wouldn't burn hot enough or penetrate enough to threaten a modern battle tank.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 11 mai 2013 - 11:03 .

[David7204]

A conventional victory shouldn't have to rely on stupid tactics and science, choices counting for nothing, and heroism that doesn't matter. And winning the war because we built a bunch of super-ultra guns that get their power from fairy dust would be exactly that.

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

That's the signal to control the husks. Completely different from whatever the Leviathans did to take out the Reaper. (Which I'm fairly sure was intended to be the same technology as Destroy. Not sure how many people caught that.)

[Citation Needed]

There is no reason why the signal to control husks is that different (if any different) from the one to control Reapers.  In fact the Cerebus research seems to indicate that they are closely related if not the same.  The difference in scale would be enoromous, but that becomes an engineering problem not a conceptual problem at that point.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

A conventional victory shouldn't have to rely on stupid tactics and science, choices counting for nothing, and heroism that doesn't matter. And winning the war because we built a bunch of super-ultra guns that get their power from fairy dust would be exactly that.

The Klendegon Cannon is only one possibility.

-Polaris

[David7204]

No, you've got it backwards. There's no reason aside from the Cerberus research to suggest the signals should be at all the same. (And the Cerberus research doesn't indicate much.) We need to assume, by default, that the signals are different. The burden of proof is to prove that they're similar.

And even if it is only a difference in scale, it sounds to like squishing ant is nothing but a difference in scale from squishing a Reaper?

Also, being passive-aggressive with your little "citation needed' signs is just pointless and annoying. As is your little sign-off at the end of every post, frankly.

If you've thought up other possibilites, I'm listening.

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 11:14 .

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

No, you've got it backwards. There's no reason aside from the Cerberus research to suggest the signals should be at all the same. We need to assume, by default, that the signals are different. The burden of proof is to prove that they're similar.

And even if it is only a difference in scale, it sounds to like squishing ant is nothing but a difference in scale from squishing a Reaper?

Also, being passive-aggressive with your little "citation needed' signs is just pointless and annoying. As is your little sign-off at the end of every post, frankly.

Except that the Cereberus research already done tells us that the signals are at least simiiar if not the same.  There is also the fact that we know that the orbs are activated in the same way when controlling Husks as when controlling/destroying Reapers. 

As for [citation needed], I put that in for a reason.  There seems to be some confusion in your posts as to where your head-canon ends and when the canon for the game begins.  That is what I am getting at.

-Polaris

[Archonsg]

David7204 wrote...

That's the signal to control the husks. Completely different from whatever the Leviathans did to take out the Reaper. (Which I'm fairly sure was intended to be the same technology as Destroy. Not sure how many people caught that.)

At the conclusion of the mission where Shepard met the Leviathans, you are *shown* the orbs flash into life via manipulation by the Leviathans and they "kill switched" the incoming Reaper ship.

Which signal were you refering to?

[David7204]

The 'Cerberus research' (by which you mean "two lines of dialogue") doesn't indicate anything of the sort. And this is all assuming the Leviathan uses the same methods as Cerberus at all, which is far from proven.

So your little [citation needed] is not only pointless, it's complete nonsense. You need to be the one providing proof, and you haven't even come anywhere close. You understand the concept of 'burden of proof?' You haven't met it. Your insistance that Leviathan must be destroying Reapers the same way Cerberus controls husks because of two lines of dialogue? That is delusion as to where your head-canon ends and when the canon for the game begins. Citation? 

I know exactly what you're trying to get at. My point was that being passive-aggressive to do is annoying.

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 11:25 .

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

The 'Cerberus research' (by which you mean "two lines of dialogue") doesn't indicate anything of the sort. And this is all assuming the Leviathan uses the same methods as Cerberus at all, which is far from proven.

So your little [citation needed] is not only pointless, it's complete nonsense. You need to be the one providing proof, and you haven't even come anywhere close. You understand the concept of 'burden of proof?' You haven't met it. You're insistence that Leviathan must be destroying Reapers the same way Cerberus controls husks because of two lines of dialogue? That is delusion as to where your head-canon ends and when the canon for the game begins. Citation? 

I know exactly what you're trying to get at. My point was that being passive-aggressive to do is annoying.

I am not the one making extraordinary claims.  You were the one saying that things were or were not possible, and making positive statements that the Leviathan signal was or was not the same for the husks as for the reapers.  If you do that then it's appropriate for me to ask were you are getting this from. 

I am not saying that the Cerberus research proves the signals are the same, but it certainly suggests they are similiar.  Also as was already noted, the orbs flash the same way in both cases, so it seems plausible.  Certainly it's worth looking into, and certainly it would not be universe inconsistant if the signals were the same...or close enough to the same for it to be an anti-Reaper weapon. 

-Polaris

[Morlath]

IanPolaris wrote...

Except it doesn't.  If you can arbitrarily alter a slug's mass, then Newton's third law doesn't apply, and if Newton's third law (action/reaction) doesn't apply, then Converservation of energy doesn't either.

It's not at all obvious (nor should it be) nor something I worry about in a FICTIONAL universe, but Energy Conservation is not honored.

-Polaris

Well it's pretty much cannon that there's a mass/energy ratio and the so the more mass you need to alter the greater the energy required to do so.

The conservation of energy is shifted from the object being moved to the mass effect field being created. More a pencil? Small energy required to change small mass. Move a ship? Great mass effect fields which indicate greater energy input/output.

It's not iron-clad physics but it's not THAT filled with holes once  you suspend belief in relation to eezo.

[David7204]

Archonsg wrote...

At the conclusion of the mission where Shepard met the Leviathans, you are *shown* the orbs flash into life via manipulation by the Leviathans and they "kill switched" the incoming Reaper ship.

Which signal were you refering to?

Leviathan also says the orbs are windows to look into the galaxy with. They could just be activating as sensors. Or they could just be lighting up as a by-product of whatever Leviathan is doing. Or it could be they're doing something else to the Reaper while the Leviathan takes out. It could be that they did take it out, but can only do so in close proximity of Leviathan. There's any number of plausible reasons.

The point is, the Reapers can't be taken out by an orb, and it would be incredibly cheap if they could be. .

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 11:33 .

[David7204]

IanPolaris wrote...

I am not saying that the Cerberus research proves the signals are the same, but it certainly suggests they are similiar.  Also as was already noted, the orbs flash the same way in both cases, so it seems plausible.  Certainly it's worth looking into, and certainly it would not be universe inconsistant if the signals were the same...or close enough to the same for it to be an anti-Reaper weapon. 

You could certainly write the story that way, if you wished. But in the current game, it's clear that the orbs are not an instant solution.

[nos_astra]

David7204 wrote...

The 'Cerberus research' (by which you mean "two lines of dialogue") doesn't indicate anything of the sort. And this is all assuming the Leviathan uses the same methods as Cerberus at all, which is far from proven.

It doesn't have to be proven. Without a firmly established reason that it's completely different and why there is enough leeway to write it any way you want.

No one forces a writer to incorporate three different types of "mind" control that are completely unrelated to each other.

[David7204]

Yes, that's true. And it could easily be made plausible from a lore standpoint. I just have a lot of doubts on how good it could be from a narrative standpoint.

[IanPolaris]

Morlath wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Except it doesn't.  If you can arbitrarily alter a slug's mass, then Newton's third law doesn't apply, and if Newton's third law (action/reaction) doesn't apply, then Converservation of energy doesn't either.

It's not at all obvious (nor should it be) nor something I worry about in a FICTIONAL universe, but Energy Conservation is not honored.

-Polaris

Well it's pretty much cannon that there's a mass/energy ratio and the so the more mass you need to alter the greater the energy required to do so.

The conservation of energy is shifted from the object being moved to the mass effect field being created. More a pencil? Small energy required to change small mass. Move a ship? Great mass effect fields which indicate greater energy input/output.

It's not iron-clad physics but it's not THAT filled with holes once  you suspend belief in relation to eezo.

There's a lot more to it than that.  It turns out that Energy and Momentum are inextricably linked in what's called "The Stress Energy Tensor"  it is this via Einstein's Equation that determines the space-time curvature.  This is a Rank 2 Tensor equation with second order partial differential equations (and usually has to be solved numerically with a computer).  The problem is if a simple current is allowed to alter one element in that stress energy tensor, then the invarience that permits for energy conservation vanishes.

I hate to say, "Take my word for it", but unless you are willing to take grad school courses in both classical Field Theory and General Relativity (along with courses in Differential Geometry), you're going to have to take my word for it.  By violating Newton's third law, the Mass Effect in the MEU also breaks energy conservation (along with momentum conservation).

-Polaris

Edit PS: The upshot is this:  Anything involving Eezo and the "Mass Effect" is rubber-science and should be regarded as such, and you should put your "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" hat on in such cases.  If the codex says an Eezo/Mass-Effect technology works a certain way, then it does, regular physics be damned.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 11 mai 2013 - 11:42 .

[Little Princess Peach]

give the Hudson guy a reward for being a nice guy, but really did he really learn his lesson or is the ME3 ending effect going to carry on forever until we can't speculate anymore?

[nos_astra]

David7204 wrote...

Yes, that's true. And it could easily be made plausible from a lore standpoint. I just have a lot of doubts on how good it could be from a narrative standpoint.

That it could be made plausible with enough backflips doesn't mean it has to.

The Leviathans created the Catalyst who created the Reapers: It's not implausible to assume that the Catalyst simply used the Leviathan's method. And Cerberus reverse-engineered Reaper tech to control husks. Again ... not implausible to assume that this may be related to the Reaper's way of controlling them and therefore related to the Leviathan's method of control.

Sure, you can come up with a rationalization why at least one faction decided re-invented the wheel instead of building on what was already there. But why would you do that? To make the plot unnecessarily convoluted? To justify the current writing?

Modifié par klarabella, 11 mai 2013 - 11:43 .

[Morlath]

IanPolaris wrote...

There's a lot more to it than that. It turns out that Energy and Momentum are inextricably linked in what's called "The Stress Energy Tensor" it is this via Einstein's Equation that determines the space-time curvature. This is a Rank 2 Tensor equation with second order partial differential equations (and usually has to be solved numerically with a computer). The problem is if a simple current is allowed to alter one element in that stress energy tensor, then the invarience that permits for energy conservation vanishes.

I hate to say, "Take my word for it", but unless you are willing to take grad school courses in both classical Field Theory and General Relativity (along with courses in Differential Geometry), you're going to have to take my word for it. By violating Newton's third law, the Mass Effect in the MEU also breaks energy conservation (along with momentum conservation).

-Polaris

Edit PS: The upshot is this: Anything involving Eezo and the "Mass Effect" is rubber-science and should be regarded as such, and you should put your "Willing Suspension of Disbelief" hat on in such cases. If the codex says an Eezo/Mass-Effect technology works a certain way, then it does, regular physics be damned.

I knew there was more to it but I was pretty much going with your edit PS.

Eventually details like that need to be...allowed for.... in order to enjoy a game/film or else things start coming apart very quickly. After all in the beginning of ME2 we went from the vacuum of the CIC being deadly quiet to hearing explosions once Shepard is blasted free of the bridge.

[Archonsg]

@david

Fact : A Reaper was taken out.
Fact : The Orbs were involved.
Fact : Leviathan were involved

Everything else is up for speculation and conjecture.

My point is that Bioware *did* write a scenario where a Reaper Capital ship was taken out in mid air *without* firing a single shot.
And as the information from playing the Leviathan DLC suggest, and actually points out, is an active signal used by the Leviathans to disable *any* ship coming into atmospheric range of its hidey hole.

Whatever or not its "cheap" does not matter as much as it *already exists* in game, through a DLC true, but it's there.

Modifié par Archonsg, 11 mai 2013 - 11:57 .

[David7204]

I could argue that we can't prove the orbs are involved just because they lit up, but that's beside the point. Sure, I agree.

But I mean...so what? Yeah, the Leviathan takes out a Reaper, but does that mean anything for the story?

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

I could argue that we can't prove the orbs are involved just because they lit up, but that's beside the point. Sure, I agree.

But I mean...so what? Yeah, the Leviathan takes out a Reaper, but does that mean anything for the story?

If a Leviathan can take out a Reaper this way, then hypothetically anyway, the rest of us could as well.

-Polaris

[nos_astra]

David7204 wrote...

I could argue that we can't prove the orbs are involved just because they lit up, but that's beside the point. Sure, I agree.

But I mean...so what? Yeah, the Leviathan takes out a Reaper, but does that mean anything for the story?

Have you trouble focussing or something?

Why would anyone in Mass Effect want to take out a Reaper with no casualties ... na, we'd rather not find out whether we could reapeat this.

Modifié par klarabella, 11 mai 2013 - 12:04 .

[David7204]

I don't think a nonconventional solution based on the Leviathans would work very well.

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

I don't think a nonconventional solution based on the Leviathans would work very well.

Why not?  Why dismiss it out of hand?  [Yes the Leviathans are dangerous, but that IMO would be even more reason to try to understand/use how they control other beings]

-Polaris