459 réponses à ce sujet

[SNascimento]

Because one precludes the other.

In modern day combat maybe, not in games. 

[The Real Pearl #2]

OmniSwords

OmniSwords

OmniSwords

OmniSwords

OmniSwords

OmniSwords

Bioware please. It makes sense. Last night i broke a phantoms sword with a saber. How can they penetrate Armour FFS

[Lucca_de_Neon]

There's a reason why your character doesn't wear socks and sandals.

There's also a reason why your character doesn't bring a knife to a gunfight.

[Laughing_Man]

There's a reason why your character doesn't wear socks and sandals.

There's also a reason why your character doesn't bring a knife to a gunfight.

 

Yup, melee makes more sense as a secondary option - like an omni blade / combat knife / biotic punch in CQC.

[Lucca_de_Neon]

Yup, melee makes more sense as a secondary option - like an omni blade / combat knife / biotic punch in CQC.

That's a whole different thing and i agree! a melee weapon would make sense in that scenario! the omni blade/biotic punch would be my favorite options! 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

 

Because one precludes the other.

Yeah, it's not like the enemy soldiers have shields designed to stop bullets. Oh wait a minute, that's exactly what they have. So no, one does not preclude the other. 

[Hanako Ikezawa]

OmniSwords

OmniSwords

OmniSwords

OmniSwords

OmniSwords

OmniSwords

Bioware please. It makes sense. Last night i broke a phantoms sword with a saber. How can they penetrate Armour FFS

The fact a high-caliber shell from a Saber can break a blade does not mean that blade cannot puncture armor. By that logic why have armor since a Saber round can penetrate that too?

 

There's a reason why your character doesn't wear socks and sandals.

There's also a reason why your character doesn't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Lack of player choice?

[The Real Pearl #2]

The fact a high-caliber shell from a Saber can break a blade does not mean that blade cannot puncture armor. By that logic why have armor since a Saber round can penetrate that too?

More importantly the space katana is an inferior weapon to the saber. So why use it? if you can be disarmed in one shot? The saber can achieve the same effect as the space katana at a greater range and more frequently. Personally i think bioware just forgot that omni tech was a thing when designing the Cerberus goons. All they had to do was make the damn katana orange and then it would be sensible space magic.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

More importantly the space katana is an inferior weapon to the saber. So why use it? if you can be disarmed in one shot? The saber can achieve the same effect as the space katana at a greater range and more frequently. Personally i think bioware just forgot that omni tech was a thing. All they had to do was make the damn katana orange and then it would be sensible space magic.

The Saber-wielder can be disarmed in a single shot too. Just shoot them in the hand. A hand is an easier target than a blade. So why use it? 

The argument of a weapon's flaws will result in every single weapon's use being brought into question. Every weapon is inferior to another in some way, shape, and/or form.

Instead the question should be: Is the weapon useful in the hands of the wielder? If so, then the wielder should be allowed to use it. 

 

If you don't like it, don't use it. Simple solution for simple problem. 

[Lucca_de_Neon]

Lack of player choice?

 

I would call it common sense but i guess the definition of common depends on the individual

[Catastrophy]

More importantly the space katana is an inferior weapon to the saber. So why use it? if you can be disarmed in one shot? The saber can achieve the same effect as the space katana at a greater range and more frequently. Personally i think bioware just forgot that omni tech was a thing when designing the Cerberus goons. All they had to do was make the damn katana orange and then it would be sensible space magic.

The Saber can run out of ammo...

[Master Warder Z_]

Yeah, it's not like the enemy soldiers have shields designed to stop bullets. Oh wait a minute, that's exactly what they have. So no, one does not preclude the other.

:/

That's like saying guns are worthless now because of body armor and kevlar. Protection that can fail or not even offer protection is no point to stand behind

[MrObnoxiousUK]

:/

That's like saying guns are worthless now because of body armor and kevlar. Protection that can fail or not even offer protection is no point to stand behind

Kevlar vests are not bullet proof only bullet resistant and without the ceramic inserts they will struggle to even offer resistance.

[Killroy]

Yeah, it's not like the enemy soldiers have shields designed to stop bullets. Oh wait a minute, that's exactly what they have. So no, one does not preclude the other.

Current, real soldiers have armor designed to stop bullets but I don't see any enemy combatants with katanas. Because that would be stupid.

[Master Warder Z_]

Kevlar vests are not bullet proof only bullet resistant and without the ceramic inserts they will struggle to even offer resistance.

Oh I'm aware.

I wore a standard tactical rig for nearly a decade, it had four hard plates for the chest, stomach and back in the mesh, they needed to be replaced a few times due to warping and impact trauma.



You never forget the face of the man who shot you near point blank, so close you can smell burning gunpowder on your gear and his expression when you just sort of stagger back a step and just realign yourself.

Oh yes, body armor is a good thing, I just wish you didn't have to pay for it...The Interceptor platform is solid though, it stopped that 9mm like it was a bb.

I remember the old PDA rig they were issuing back in my day and how you could be floored by a mid range chest shot from a rifle, even if it didn't penetrante.

Oh yes we could have a conversation on body armor and its evolution throughout the past twenty years or so. I've wore a vest or two, and I will say the modern stuff works pretty good against most handgun, shotgun and hunting rifle cartridges, its only when you go into military spectrums does its effectiveness become questionable.

[N7-MB]

Um actually no. A pistol or other short barreled weapon would be quicker, easier, less risky etc. and if you are talking large melee weapons almost any gun would be easier to use. You don't aim at 3 feet.

Actually yes, double yes: look at Wikipedia article on Tueller drill (can't send link, on phone)

[Hanako Ikezawa]

:/

That's like saying guns are worthless now because of body armor and kevlar. Protection that can fail or not even offer protection is no point to stand behind

I never said it was worthless. I said one does not preclude the other. Preclude is defined as "prevent from happening; make impossible", and the situation in Mass Effect as defined by the lore means that does not apply. 

 

Current, real soldiers have armor designed to stop bullets but I don't see any enemy combatants with katanas. Because that would be stupid.

We aren't talking current, real soldiers are we? We are talking about how the soldier is outfitted during the time of Mass Effect. 

[Puddi III]

I'm a little late to the Force Awakens party, but I'm all about the TR-8R and his spinning electro tonfa.

ME:A should rip that off.

[Master Warder Z_]

I never said it was worthless. I said one does not preclude the other. Preclude is defined as "prevent from happening; make impossible", and the situation in Mass Effect as defined by the lore means that does not apply.

Because melee combat is prevalent in mass effect. You could get stabbed by a steak knife two thousand years from now and I still wouldn't have soldiers bringing swords into combat.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Because melee combat is prevalent in mass effect. You could get stabbed by a steak knife two thousand years from now and I still wouldn't have soldiers bringing swords into combat.

Then don't take the option. But at the same time, why deny the option to people who want it?

[Killroy]

I never said it was worthless. I said one does not preclude the other. Preclude is defined as "prevent from happening; make impossible", and the situation in Mass Effect as defined by the lore means that does not apply.

A gun doing the job and a sword not doing the job means guns would preclude the effectiveness of swords.
 

We aren't talking current, real soldiers are we? We are talking about how the soldier is outfitted during the time of Mass Effect.

The same logic applies. Armor that can stop bullets(that are many, many times more deadly than our current bullets) but not edged weapons? It's entirely moronic.

[Mirrman70]

Then don't take the option. But at the same time, why deny the option to people who want it?

 

because we would rather the resources go elsewhere.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

A gun doing the job and a sword not doing the job means guns would preclude the effectiveness of swords.

Again, you're not using the term preclude correctly. There are jobs both can do better than the other. Neither make the other impossible or prevent from happening.

 

The same logic applies. Armor that can stop bullets(that are many, many times more deadly than our current bullets) but not edged weapons? It's entirely moronic.

We have blades now that can cut through things bullets can't.

 

because we would rather the resources go elsewhere.

This argument has lost all validity. How is it that there are so few resources that nothing can be done that you don't want, and yet all the resources in the world for the things you do. At least be honest and say "Because I don't want it" then hiding behind the empty excuse of 'resources'. 

[Master Warder Z_]

Then don't take the option. But at the same time, why deny the option to people who want it?

Because melee combat really has no role in modern combat, why wouldn't that apply centuries from now? Knives that are issued can go entire service lives without usage, training in that field is supplemental at best, sans bayonets.

There is no role that a blade can fill that ranged weapons don't already cover. Even point blank guns still do their job, often more gruesomely and violently then from distance but the difference between velocity of cartridges traveling sixty feet or six isn't that great.

[Killroy]

Again, you're not using the term preclude correctly. There are jobs both can do better than the other. Neither make the other impossible or prevent from happening.

Yes, I am. In the scenario that a bullet will do the trick there is no use for a sword, precluding the effectiveness of swords.
 

We have blades now that can cut through things bullets can't.

Show me the sword that can slice through modern combat armor.
 

This argument has lost all validity. How is it that there are so few resources that nothing can be done that you don't want, and yet all the resources in the world for the things you do. At least be honest and say "Because I don't want it" then hiding behind the empty excuse of 'resources'.

How is saying "I don't want X taking resources away from things I want" not exactly that argument?