111 réponses à ce sujet

[Deebo305]

Riot shields are a good idea, so are combat knives.

The omni blade makes no sense to me, it should be too fragile to be effective as a slashing / stabbing weapon.

Omni-Xbow is an obvious case of the rule of cool, an omni tool is perfectly capable of launching projectiles without resorting
to ancient ideas like an Xbow.

You mean the diamond hard blade created from the literal future swish army knife with capabilities of firing off flames, cryogenics, and electricity makes no sense hmm

I imagine the Omni Bow is going about the same principle which is why it works

[yolobastien6412]

If you want to play a sci-fi game set in space that includes all kinds of "old" weapons, I suggest Warframe. It's basically space ninjas in space. It's really great and all but I don't see that working in the ME universe anytime soon.

I could of course be wrong and be pleasantly surprised by bioware, but atm, I suggest not to. It would not fit with the gameplay well enough.

In Warframe, your shields and health allow you to take significant damage, making melee a vital part of gameplay. In ME, only ME3 had that type of stuff for CQC, but that was not enough to actually run or leap towards your enemies to slash and dash them with your omni-blade. 

[Ahglock]

Hey unimaginatives. Wanna know why melee weapons are still viable in MEU? Ballistic shields don't stop blades or other blunt force weapons. The shields are supposed to block against projectiles.

As pointed out in me2/3 that went away. It makes sense that they could change what speeds it activated at. Unless your ass is massively calloused you sit down far far slower than a punch or any other borderline useful melee attack.

The very idea that someone puts down their tank destroying pistol to stab someone is absurd to me. but yes they could have a plasma sword or a warp dagger or something that might make it viable in limited situations. So I'm not against some effort being put into this. But 3rd person melee is awkward in this games perspective choice IMO.

[CHRrOME]

The thing with ME Universe is that it's kinda based on a possible futuristic setup. Swords and whatnot are no use anymore, just like irl.

Why people use Assault rifles on battle instead of running with claymores and katanas? because we are not in 400 A.D. anymore. The assault rifle is more efficient, more accurate, more reliable, has actual range, and quite a few more et ceteras.

 

It's just as people say "why you brought a sword into a gun fight?" The omni-blade in ME3 is not that bad if you look at it as you look at a combat knife, but running around with space hammers and swords... Warhammer 40k already does that, and does it pretty well, but it's a different lore on a different game.

And Star Wars is great, but Mass Effect is Mass Effect, not Star Wars.

[Larry-3]

I do not always want efficient; I like to challenge myself and stand out while doing it. Turning up the difficulty does not do much after awhile. I think it would be hilarious if my squad was pinned down taking cover from some boss, trying to shoot him. I come up, use some type of jump pack, and in mid air I pull out something like a energy sai and stab the thing in the chest. When he falls down, I win.

Squad: Well that is one way of doing it.

Me: Yup.

[Former_Fiend]

Larry does have a point in that people aren't always rational, efficient individuals. They often choose style over substance, and preference over effect. 

 

I'm still not particularly in favor of a bow and arrow configuration in a ME game. A shadowrun game? Sure, I'd rock it there. But not in ME. Just give me my omni-bow and I'm happy.

[Helios969]

Toothbrush?

Ah, yes.  Traynor's "toothbrush"  

[Larry-3]

Is something like a quaterstaff that can cut through metal, omni-bow, or a lightsaber-is weapon really that bad of a concept? I get it, guns are more efficient, they are. But I do not want to keep doing the same think over and over again: shoot enemy, kill enemy, reload; shoot enemy, kill enemy, reload; shoot enemy, kill enemy, reload. That gets boring after awhile. I want to beat someone senselessly with an glowing energy staff. You mother (slams with staff) effing (slams with staff) pyjack (impales with staff). While every is firing their big loud rifiles, I want to pull out a quiet futuristic bow and fire a fire a single arrow and watch a hugh explosion kill like 10 enemies at once.

And no they do not have to be like early human history weapons. For example, a bow would not need rope or even kenetic energy to fire, and a trident does not need to be made out of metal. A long metal dagger? What metal? This baby is made from pure energy that can cut through suit armor when you grip the hilt.

Drones and various gun with different damages, are nice, but it gets mundane after awhile. If they give us a more power gun, I am still just pulling the trigger. Shooting is fun, but it needs more to compliment it.

And plus, like I stated before, I do not always want efficient; I like to challenge myself and stand out while doing it... well, in ga message anyway. I would not mind bioticly charging, slicing something with a tomahawk, kicking the other guy, then slicing the last thing.

[Indigenous]

 

And how much scorn and derision has that drawn? Have I defended Fail Leng or his phantom harem? Like I said above you need to keep weapons appropriate or make them cool enough to make us overlook their problems. ME3 didn't pass the threshold. The Metal Gear Sold series' cyborg ninjas, which I suspect were at least part of the influence did, for the most part anyway. But whether you think they were cool or not, the setting of MGS was already more amenable to outlandishly improbably characters. It's that mix that makes it a pass or fail. But whether it's realistic or not is never in serious debate.

 

You're mistaking can for ought to when it comes to Bioware putting weapons in the game. Can they make bows usable in combat? Sure. Should they? That's the discussion.  A lot of people say no.

 

This is nonsense and you know it.  I don't need to be a "futurist" or a weapons designer to know that everything you can do with a bow you can do better with a gun, and that it's illogical to go backwards in development. The modernization of archaic weapons is irrelevant to this discussion because we are talking about combat and none of them are being used in combat.

 

These arguments were just as valid before ME3 as they are now. The reason katanas are in ME3 is because Bioware didn't give a damn about them. They banked on them being cool enough to overlook, only they weren't.

How old are you? Sorry to appear condescending, or insulting, but this is not how you argue if you want an argument to mean anything. I am not calling you fat. This is what I meant by don't get hostile. Every point you made I have countered but instead of acknowledging that you use a common internet argument technique which is to 'move the goalposts'. Simply put you make a new argument.

 

You asked for the lore required for 'bows and arrows, among other suggested weapons, to appear in Andromeda.

I believe the Mass Effect universe is an alternate future to our reality and that it shares our history. So, I claimed if their are bows and arrows today when they are pretty redundant there may be bows and arrows in the future or any fictional future.

 

Then you claim the lore doesn't really matter it is whether or not the weapon is used as a primary weapon in any modern military.

I pointed out if that was a determinating factor in what weapons Bioware choose to implement in the Mass Effect universe that Katanas would not be a part of the game.

 

This is how extreme your argument has gotten. You are suggesting it doesn't really matter what Bioware can do, it is what they ought to do that matters. And what they ought to do will be decided by popular decision?

You see the pattern? Whether I respond to this new argument or not won't allow you to acknowledge the holes in your argument.

 

It is not like this new argument makes any sense. Who is a lot of people? The reason I suggested not to make futurist arguments is because then you would have to do some research, if not it is 'what they ought to do?' which is just your opinion. No longer right or wrong, just words. We are not in a future with Mass Effect technology so you can comment on what is not possible as much as you want. The argument was can because that has an answer.

 

It is highly unlikely these weapons will appear in Andromeda but I doubt it is for any reason you have put forth.

 

 

I understand this is the internet but these arguments shouldn't be based on endurance. If we can't agree on this we should give up trying to.

[Former_Fiend]

Is something like a quaterstaff that can cut through metal, omni-bow, or a lightsaber-is weapon really that bad of a concept?

 

Well, as a point, quarterstaves don't cut, they bludgeon. So, yeah, that's actually pretty flawed on a conceptual level.

[Larry-3]

Well, as a point, quarterstaves don't cut, they bludgeon. So, yeah, that's actually pretty flawed on a conceptual level.

Former_Fiend, what if it is so hot, it burns through it?

[Indigenous]

Ok, so here is a question about the bow idea: The purpose of a bow is to propel a projectile by putting tension on a string and then release it, right? Why would anyone use this rather archaic design in an age where projectiles are usually propelled with magnetic accelerators (which in the case of mass accelerators are augmented with ME fields). With a magnetic accelerator you can precisely determine the speed of the projectile and if you don't propel it to speeds that are high enough to really mess with air density around them (say the same as a bow could), they will even be silent as well. You can also propel any projectile as long as you add some form of magnetic material to it, even better than a bow could. And your ammo management is going to be way more efficient than a quiver, that's for sure.

So why on earth (or beyond) would anyone use a bow over a mass accelerator?

Don't want to get into another argument but can I just point out I don't think anyone was suggesting an actual bow we may see today.

 

I believe 'the bow' in Andromeda would be a reskinned gun that looked like a bow with a trigger mechanism similar to that of a bow.

[Former_Fiend]

Former_Fiend, what if it is so hot, it burns through it?

 

Well that is also not cutting, that's burning, but that's semantics at this point.

 

Still isn't a particularly great concept, though. Quarterstaff is a large weapon, not easy to carry or conceal. You could make it telescopic but that opens up questions as to structural integrity, and that isn't even getting started on the energy requirements to heat the thing to the point that it can melt through armor, and if you can make a staff out of a material that can withstand being heated to that point, why not just make armor out of that material so the staff can't melt through it.

 

I could keep going, really, but I think I've gotten the point across.

[Larry-3]

Well that is also not cutting, that's burning, but that's semantics at this point.

Still isn't a particularly great concept, though. Quarterstaff is a large weapon, not easy to carry or conceal. You could make it telescopic but that opens up questions as to structural integrity, and that isn't even getting started on the energy requirements to heat the thing to the point that it can melt through armor, and if you can make a staff out of a material that can withstand being heated to that point, why not just make armor out of that material so the staff can't melt through it.

I could keep going, really, but I think I've gotten the point across.

Hmmm... good point.

[Former_Fiend]

Still, like I said, I'm perfectly in favor of them including the full range of omni-weaponry that featured in ME3 multiplayer, including the full range of omni-blades, the omni-gauntlet of the batarians the omni-claws of the vorcha, the N7 demolisher's omni-grenades, the N7 Paladin's omni-shield, and of course, my favorite, the Talon Mercenary's omni-bow. 

 

I think all of these were very fun to play around with in multiplayer and I'd like to see them expanded upon in single player in Andromeda, but for the most part I think they should remain as secondary weapons.

[SpaceLobster]

that was not enough to actually run or leap towards your enemies to slash and dash them with your omni-blade. 

Three things: Krogan (espacially the Warlord), Vanguard (in ya face) and Geth Juggernaut.

[Mirrman70]

I want a revolver. uses six heat sinks in a revolving mechanism to fire high power rounds... (do they still use caliber?)

[StealthGamer92]

I want a revolver. uses six heat sinks in a revolving mechanism to fire high power rounds... (do they still use caliber?)

No idea anymoe. ME1 everything shot "sand grain sized sliver's of metal shaved from an internal ammo block ussually made of tungsten" then for ME2 lore was completely shatered and all we got was the projectile's were larger and thus required a expendable heatsink with no ability to fire if out of heat sink's because you know it's fine if our troop's die because their gun's turn into oversized collapsing paper weight's.

[In Exile]

No idea anymoe. ME1 everything shot "sand grain sized sliver's of metal shaved from an internal ammo block ussually made of tungsten" then for ME2 lore was completely shatered and all we got was the projectile's were larger and thus required a expendable heatsink with no ability to fire if out of heat sink's because you know it's fine if our troop's die because their gun's turn into oversized collapsing paper weight's.

 

I find it hilarious how people defend one nonsense mechanic designed to justify the game not being a proper shooter versus the second nonsense mechanic designed to justify the switch from the first nonsnse mechanic to the game being a proper shooter.

[Han Shot First]

I'd rather Bioware stuck to futuristic firearms. 

 

Melee weapons like swords don't make a lot of sense in a setting where people possess high powered firearms. Modern firearms have made those weapons completely obsolete, so someone running around with a samurai sword in the Mass Effect universe (I'm looking at you, Kai Leng) is a bit of an anachronism. 

 

This is what should happen to any character that brings a sword to a gunfight.

 

Weapons like bows or crossbows would face similar suspension of disbelief issues, in that why would someone (or a military organization they belong to) choose to equip themselves with weapons that are antiquated and far inferior to firearms in firepower, reload rate, and the ability to penetrate futuristic body armor? Arrows should bounce right off the body armor worn by soldiers in Mass Effect considering that same armor and/or shields, manages to occasionally protect from fired rounds travelling at supersonic velocities.

 

I'd rather they kept the melee weapons limited to the futuristic bayonets and the omni tool weapons that already exist in the lore. 

[We'll bang okay]

I could see a crossbow what could fire a some kind of special modern (in the mass effect sense of modern) arrow what could puncture the enemies armour what could poison them and emp there shields and other armour functions.

 

And to the people who say don't bring a sword to a gun fight I think you should look up Jack Churchill. yes he is a real guy and one bada$$ mofo. if for some reason you don't want to look him up his motto is 'any officer who goes into action without his sword is improperly dressed'

[Wulfram]

I think the most logical Mass Effect melee weapons would either be attachments to ranged weapons, like a bayonet or that electric thing you could put on pistols, or if you're looking to get more exotic some sort of gun that can turn into a melee weapon.

 

It's silly to have a melee weapon that you have to drop your gun and then draw to use.   In a tight spot where you actually need a melee weapon, you can't afford the time for all that.

 

Sort of on this subject, I hope we get proper animations for bayonets this time.

[Han Shot First]

I could see a crossbow what could fire a some kind of special modern (in the mass effect sense of modern) arrow what could puncture the enemies armour what could poison them and emp there shields and other armour functions.

 

And to the people who say don't bring a sword to a gun fight I think you should look up Jack Churchill. yes he is a real guy and one bada$$ mofo

 

The Japanese also routinely brought blades to gunfights. Swords were carried by officers and some NCOs, and early in the war they attempted to turn most gun battles into a bayonet fight, where they believed their superior 'Yamato spirit' would vanquish their inferior barbarian enemies. It worked so long as they were facing poorly trained and equipped Chinese peasant conscripts who'd often break in the face of a massed bayonet charge...not so much once they started facing better trained, equipped, and disciplined soldiers that would stand firm. The Japanese largely abandoned the banzai charge as a tactic by the middle of the war because of its ineffectiveness against both Western Allied troops and some of the better Chinese formations, except in situations where the goal was no longer a great victory but rather a blaze of glory mass suicide as defeat loomed.

 

Google Saipan and banzai charge. It was the largest banzai charge conducted by the Japanese during the war, involving about 4,000 men. By the time it was over nearly all of the men who participated in the attack were dead or dying compared to about 650 total casualties (wounded and killed) for the Army and Marine defenders. The defenders also held their ground.

 

Jack Churchill was undoubtedly a badass, but his carrying a sword on D-Day was more about inspiring his own men by his 'mad' bravery than the weapon's effectiveness versus modern firearms. 

[Broganisity]

No idea anymoe. ME1 everything shot "sand grain sized sliver's of metal shaved from an internal ammo block ussually made of tungsten" then for ME2 lore was completely shatered and all we got was the projectile's were larger and thus required a expendable heatsink with no ability to fire if out of heat sink's because you know it's fine if our troop's die because their gun's turn into oversized collapsing paper weight's.

The size of the rounds never changed.

The change Lore-Wise occurred starting with the Geth, that realized that battles were ultimately won by the side that could send the most bullets down range. Since soldiers were frequently having to fire in short bursts or sit around while guns overheated, the Geth found a workaround that everyone else eventually adopted. The 'overheat' mechanic was removed as having both would increase the weight of all guns considerably, thus standard military weapons did not contain both. They should but that's another story all on its own. . .I mean, you think the geth wouldn't worry about encumbrance. . .and that mercs would customize their guns to save money on clips in the long run. . .and other such things. . .

[We'll bang okay]

The Japanese also routinely brought blades to gunfights. Swords were carried by officers and some NCOs, and early in the war they attempted to turn most gun battles into a bayonet fight, where they believed their superior 'Yamato spirit' would vanquish their inferior barbarian enemies. It worked so long as they were facing poorly trained and equipped Chinese peasant conscripts who'd often break in the face of a massed bayonet charge...not so much once they started facing better trained, equipped, and disciplined soldiers that would stand firm. The Japanese largely abandoned the banzai charge as a tactic by the middle of the war because of its ineffectiveness against both Western Allied troops and some of the better Chinese formations, except in situations where the goal was no longer a great victory but rather a blaze of glory mass suicide as defeat loomed.

 

Google Saipan and banzai charge. It was the largest banzai charge conducted by the Japanese during the war, involving about 4,000 men. By the time it was over nearly all of the men who participated in the attack were dead or dying compared to about 650 total casualties (wounded and killed) for the Army and Marine defenders. The defenders also held their ground.

 

Jack Churchill was undoubtedly a badass, but his carrying a sword on D-Day was more about inspiring his own men by his 'mad' bravery than the weapon's effectiveness versus modern firearms. 

I never knew about the Japanese thing the more you know I guess. 

 

But Wouldn't you think we should do the same inspirer our own solders, I know I would of like to carry a sword or something similar   on the suicide mission and priority earth, and maybe some bagpipes. the little details matter.