459 réponses à ce sujet

[Mirrman70]

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'. 

 

But see the problem with your argument is that you are asking them to add something you want because you want it. what it all boils down too is that you want something and I don't want it. your argument of "giving people more options for the sake of options" argument is about as good as my "use the resources to make the existing things better" argument. I can accept riot shields. I can accept a species like the krogan having melee weapons. what I can't accept is human space ninjas. Krogans make since because they are simply living tanks, like how the elcor soldiers are described as living artillery. humans have no significant degree of physical supremacy and thus have no reason to be forgoing high-powered firearms in exchange for melee weapons. what can a sword do against something like a Mako? or an airborne enemy?

[Gamedam Meister]

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

That's not really a fair request. While there are blades made of material that can slice through modern combat armor(being an important part in how said armor is made), nobody has made a sword out of it.

[Killroy]

That's not really a fair request. While there are blades made of material that can slice through modern combat armor(being an important part in how said armor is made), nobody has made a sword out of it.

 

Show me any blade, swung by a person, cutting through modern combat armor.

[Gamedam Meister]

Show me any blade, swung by a person, cutting through modern combat armor.

Which modern combat armor material are you referring to? I'll see if I can find anything so the argument can be put to bed. 

[Master Warder Z_]

Show me any blade, swung by a person, cutting through modern combat armor.

Mmm until we get vibration tech miniaturized or thermal output portable tech in melee weaponry you won't see much in that regard.

Thermal lances are bulky drills and vibroblades are fictional at the moment.

[Dalakaar]

Here are a few points to consider...

 

It's generally a rule of thumb that the ability to destroy will always be easier than the ability to defend. Thus arms races exist, typically with defensive measures losing to increasingly capable offensive measures.

 

Guns are advantageous because they offer ranged capability to destroy.

 

Defensive capabilities in the Mass Effect universe (and other sci-fi/fantasy settings) are capable of mitigating that previous rule of thumb I mentioned. They are at a technological point in their arms race where barriers, shields, etc, can completely negate certain types of damage.

 

Vanguards have this thing called Biotic Charge.

 

Your primary advantage of having a gun, range, is entirely useless against an enemy that can instantaneously close the distance. Or has strong enough shields/barriers/regenerative health to sustain your incoming fire and still be capable when he/she/it has closed to c.q.c.

 

Now think about that sword that's being swung at you instead of a bullet fired from across the map.

 

If that sword that's being swung at you happens to have biotic enhancements like say the Krolord's hammer in MP what do you think is going to do more damage?

 

A sword swung by a cybernetic and biotically enhanced ragemonkey of a Vanguard, or single shot from let's say a mattock.

 

Really grasp this, all the benefits of a gun are potentially mitigated by things that already exist in the ME:U.

 

For melee to be as unfeasible as some of the anti-melee posts I've read, guns need to get a serious buff, and people need a way to counteract beings that can Biotically Charge themselves across a field.

 

Show me any blade, swung by a person, cutting through modern combat armor.

Arguments like this, you aren't dealing with today's technology, you're in the Mass Effect Forums talking about a couple hundred years in the future.

 

You aren't talking about a person, you're talking an enhanced human with biotics, cybernetics, and god knows what else.

 

You aren't talking about a "Blade" you're talking about a 1.5m long singularity, or an omni-molecular blade that could cut through armour without any pressure at all.

 

***

 

The problem with melee isn't it's feasibility, it's already here, it's already done. They just need to expand on it, and balance it. And balancing it will be the hard part.

[Natureguy85]

Here are a few points to consider...

 

It's generally a rule of thumb that the ability to destroy will always be easier than the ability to defend. Thus arms races exist, typically with defensive measures losing to increasingly capable offensive measures.

 

Guns are advantageous because they offer ranged capability to destroy.

 

Defensive capabilities in the Mass Effect universe (and other sci-fi/fantasy settings) are capable of mitigating that previous rule of thumb I mentioned. They are at a technological point in their arms race where barriers, shields, etc, can completely negate certain types of damage.

 

Vanguards have this thing called Biotic Charge.

 

Your primary advantage of having a gun, range, is entirely useless against an enemy that can instantaneously close the distance. Or has strong enough shields/barriers/regenerative health to sustain your incoming fire and still be capable when he/she/it has closed to c.q.c.

 

Now think about that sword that's being swung at you instead of a bullet fired from across the map.

 

If that sword that's being swung at you happens to have biotic enhancements like say the Krolord's hammer in MP what do you think is going to do more damage?

 

A sword swung by a cybernetic and biotically enhanced ragemonkey of a Vanguard, or single shot from let's say a mattock.

 

Really grasp this, all the benefits of a gun are potentially mitigated by things that already exist in the ME:U.

 

For melee to be as unfeasible as some of the anti-melee posts I've read, guns need to get a serious buff, and people need a way to counteract beings that can Biotically Charge themselves across a field.

 

Arguments like this, you aren't dealing with today's technology, you're in the Mass Effect Forums talking about a couple hundred years in the future.

 

You aren't talking about a person, you're talking an enhanced human with biotics, cybernetics, and god knows what else.

 

You aren't talking about a "Blade" you're talking about a 1.5m long singularity, or an omni-molecular blade that could cut through armour without any pressure at all.

 

***

 

The problem with melee isn't it's feasibility, it's already here, it's already done. They just need to expand on it, and balance it. And balancing it will be the hard part.

 

 

You could also add in that the "bullets" in ME are being fired at relativistic speeds and would penetrate rather that expand or explode inside the target, thus potentially being less effective, no? Or am I thinking of it wrong?

[Gamedam Meister]

Another thing to consider are what kinds of blades they are and the type of attack they do. Both Omni-Blades and the physical swords we have seen are described to be monomolecular, meaning they are one molecule wide. While armors tend to do pretty well with being slashed, they are less effective when it comes to thrust attacks. This has shown to be the case throughout history, including today, so will no doubt be the case in the future. The effectiveness of the thrust is dependent on the blade's profile, mainly how wide it is. The thinner the blade, the better the chance and depth of puncture. Now the blades of Mass Effect are as thin as a blade can get, so their thrust attacks would be understandably devastating since they are able to cut literally between the molecules of the armor. The Phantom's kill animation has them thrust their blade into the player rather than slice for the kill, so Bioware seems to have realized this and utilized that knowledge. 

 

Go to 0:22 for the kill animation.

[Oni Changas]

Eating animals isn't a necessity.


Wrong.

 

"For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat 3."
 

-King Maddox

[Dalakaar]

You could also add in that the "bullets" in ME are being fired at relativistic speeds and would penetrate rather that expand or explode inside the target, thus potentially being less effective, no? Or am I thinking of it wrong?

Yup, same way a .22 can actually do more damage to a person than a thirtyoddsix by ricocheting off bones and slicing up our internal bits instead of leaving an entry/exit wound.

[Master Warder Z_]

Yup, same way a .22 can actually do more damage to a person than a thirtyoddsix by ricocheting off bones and slicing up our internal bits instead of leaving an entry/exit wound.

Flechettes aren't pretty.

You figure those would be a good Mass Effect round given you could cram twenty of those things rounds between a wad of buckshot and basically stop anything short of a machine or krogan.

I don't care what are your wearing or what sort of biotic Superman you think you are.

Take a half dozen of those to the chest and see if you can even scream while you die.

[SardaukarElite]

The problem with arguments for swords isn't making swords effective, it's how ridiculously effective ranged weapons are. You can make a sword cut through a tank, explode on impact and give it's wielder the ability to teleport and monstrous shields, but if guns are the predominant weapon in a setting, if they're high velocity, rapid fire railguns, then they're supposed to kill people very quickly. If you can kill someone very quickly at range they will not get close enough to use their fancy melee weapons most of time. 

 

Every advantage you can give to a melee weapon a ranged weapon already has. Every advantage you could give to the wielder to help them close could also be given to the wielder of a ranged weapon to help them extend. 

 

You can of course use cop out justifications 'only swords can pierce shields' if you want, but you're making ranged weapons less cool to do it. If that's the path we go down then I think you're better off making every combatant have some kind of close combat weapon. 

 

Of course if we're going to be logical about then I guess Mass Effect fields should allow some truly terrifying gunships, and infantry wouldn't be nearly so important. 

[Killroy]

"For every animal you don't eat, I'll eat 5.
 
-King Maddox

"Hey, everybody! Look how stupid I am!"

-every person who is proud of eating meat

[Natureguy85]

The problem with arguments for swords isn't making swords effective, it's how ridiculously effective ranged weapons are. You can make a sword cut through a tank, explode on impact and give it's wielder the ability to teleport and monstrous shields, but if guns are the predominant weapon in a setting, if they're high velocity, rapid fire railguns, then they're supposed to kill people very quickly. If you can kill someone very quickly at range they will not get close enough to use their fancy melee weapons most of time. 

 

Every advantage you can give to a melee weapon a ranged weapon already has. Every advantage you could give to the wielder to help them close could also be given to the wielder of a ranged weapon to help them extend. 

 

You can of course use cop out justifications 'only swords can pierce shields' if you want, but you're making ranged weapons less cool to do it. If that's the path we go down then I think you're better off making every combatant have some kind of close combat weapon. 

 

Of course if we're going to be logical about then I guess Mass Effect fields should allow some truly terrifying gunships, and infantry wouldn't be nearly so important. 

 

Now there's an idea. Vanguard cat and mouse. One charges and the other jumps back.

 

 

"Hey, everybody! Look how stupid I am!"

-every person who is proud of eating meat

 

No, but I don't care if someone else doesn't eat meat. More for me. It's soooooo tasty. I have bacon wrapped cheese poppers right here!

[N7-MB]

The problem with arguments for swords isn't making swords effective, it's how ridiculously effective ranged weapons are. You can make a sword cut through a tank, explode on impact and give it's wielder the ability to teleport and monstrous shields, but if guns are the predominant weapon in a setting, if they're high velocity, rapid fire railguns, then they're supposed to kill people very quickly. If you can kill someone very quickly at range they will not get close enough to use their fancy melee weapons most of time.

Every advantage you can give to a melee weapon a ranged weapon already has. Every advantage you could give to the wielder to help them close could also be given to the wielder of a ranged weapon to help them extend.

You can of course use cop out justifications 'only swords can pierce shields' if you want, but you're making ranged weapons less cool to do it. If that's the path we go down then I think you're better off making every combatant have some kind of close combat weapon.

Of course if we're going to be logical about then I guess Mass Effect fields should allow some truly terrifying gunships, and infantry wouldn't be nearly so important.

You're defeating your own argument here
We're not discussing efficiency of melee weapons vs range weapons in modern combat here but their eventual usefulness.
Yes range weapons would be prevalent in a combat setting, & they are in me3
Your opinion as I understand it is that killing at range makes melee obsolete, but biotic charge makes that point irrelevant as they teleport in your face
if there was a few elite(in game except for asaris biotics are rare) soldiers would could teleport to the enemy like say a vanguard, giving them advanced deadly melee weapons would make sense, & given their rarity this would be an advantage as most soldiers wouldn't have learned really efficient melee combat to counter it as part of their "range is prevalent" training

[Master Warder Z_]

You're defeating your own argument here
We're not discussing efficiency of melee weapons vs range weapons in modern combat here but their eventual usefulness.
Yes range weapons would be prevalent in a combat setting, & they are in me3
Your opinion as I understand it is that killing at range makes melee obsolete, but biotic charge makes that point irrelevant as they teleport in your face
if there was a few elite(in game except for asaris biotics are rare) soldiers would could teleport to the enemy like say a vanguard, giving them advanced deadly melee weapons would make sense

The right ammunition negates pretty much everything.

I don't care whose charging try breathing when you have six stakes of steel or nano tubed plastic if you want to be futuristic in your chest.

Really that whole biotic charge thing is overhyped to all hell.

[N7-MB]

The right ammunition negates pretty much everything.
I don't care whose charging try breathing when you have six stakes of steel or nano tubed plastic if you want to be futuristic in your chest.
Really that whole biotic charge thing is overhyped to all hell.

What an an argument: "I don't care it's an overhyped thing"...
It's part of the mechanics so in game it's legit
Well anyway from your answer I can see you don't leave any place to debate & compromise so I'll stop discussing

[Han Shot First]

You're defeating your own argument here
We're not discussing efficiency of melee weapons vs range weapons in modern combat here but their eventual usefulness.
Yes range weapons would be prevalent in a combat setting, & they are in me3
Your opinion as I understand it is that killing at range makes melee obsolete, but biotic charge makes that point irrelevant as they teleport in your face
if there was a few elite(in game except for asaris biotics are rare) soldiers would could teleport to the enemy like say a vanguard, giving them advanced deadly melee weapons would make sense, & given their rarity this would be an advantage as most soldiers wouldn't have learned really efficient melee combat to counter it as part of their "range is prevalent" training

 

Dedicated melee weapons for vanguards still wouldn't make sense, because they're a one trick pony. They can only be used for melee while firearms can be used at both range or close quarters to equal or greater effect. Why switch out a superior weapon for the inferior one? 

[SardaukarElite]

You're defeating your own argument here
We're not discussing efficiency of melee weapons vs range weapons in modern combat here but their eventual usefulness.
Yes range weapons would be prevalent in a combat setting, & they are in me3
Your opinion as I understand it is that killing at range makes melee obsolete, but biotic charge makes that point irrelevant as they teleport in your face
if there was a few elite(in game except for asaris biotics are rare) soldiers would could teleport to the enemy like say a vanguard, giving them advanced deadly melee weapons would make sense, & given their rarity this would be an advantage as most soldiers wouldn't have learned really efficient melee combat to counter it as part of their "range is prevalent" training

 

No, my point is that right now guns are really effective, you can make up reasons why in the future swords could claw back some of the advantages guns have over them but that's looking at it from the perspective of justifying melee weapons not effectively applying these made up rules to combat.

 

Let's use your example. You have a vanguard, they can charge let's say 500m inside a second, so closing isn't an issue for them under certain conditions. You also have a sword that can kill people in a single thrust. So you have a guy that can appear in someone's face, stab them, and win right? But this is a setting that also has railguns, railguns that fire streams of supersonic sharpened metal, is there really a good reason why a sword could kill someone in a single thrust and the railgun couldn't in a burst? 

 

You could give the vanguard a sword and they could blink in from 500m and kill someone, or you could give them a railgun and they could blink into the railgun's range and kill someone from that (which could be over 1500m), they could blink out of someone else's gun range, or if it made sense they could blink right up to them and shoot them from sword range, or just outside sword range. One vanguard can kill instantly inside of 500m, the other can kill instantly inside of 2000m. If you want to change the maths then you need to make the railgun less lethal inside of 500m, but that basically requires ignoring how physics work. 

[N7-MB]

Dedicated melee weapons for vanguards still wouldn't make sense, because they're a one trick pony. They can only be used for melee while firearms can be used at both range or close quarters to equal or greater effect. Why switch out a superior weapon for the inferior one?

earlier post I spoke of tueller drill: at less than 20 feet a knife wielded always gets his opponent before he can shoot him (check the article on Wikipedia, mythbuster experience)

Also if you get there, current one shot missile launchers used in military are also anti armor one trick ponies, doesn't make them less useful

It all tricks down to this: the right tool for the right job

[N7-MB]

No, my point is that right now guns are really effective, you can make up reasons why in the future swords could claw back some of the advantages guns have over them but that's looking at it from the perspective of justifying melee weapons not effectively applying these made up rules to combat.
 
Let's use your example. You have a vanguard, they can charge let's say 500m inside a second, so closing isn't an issue for them under certain conditions. You also have a sword that can kill people in a single thrust. So you have a guy that can appear in someone's face, stab them, and win right? But this is a setting that also has railguns, railguns that fire streams of supersonic sharpened metal, is there really a good reason why a sword could kill someone in a single thrust and the railgun couldn't in a burst? 
 
You could give the vanguard a sword and they could blink in from 500m and kill someone, or you could give them a railgun and they could blink into the railgun's range and kill someone from that (which could be over 1500m), they could blink out of someone else's gun range, or if it made sense they could blink right up to them and shoot them from sword range, or just outside sword range. One vanguard can kill instantly inside of 500m, the other can kill instantly inside of 2000m. If you want to change the maths then you need to make the railgun less lethal inside of 500m, but that basically requires ignoring how physics work.

Agreed, but:
1- following your reasoning, the problem is actually with vanguard. THEY don't make sense in such a setting & I agree. But they're there
2- this assumes you saw said vanguard before he jumped on you

[Master Warder Z_]

earlier post I spoke of tueller drill: at less than 20 feet a knife wielded always gets his opponent before he can shoot him (check the article on Wikipedia, mythbuster experience)

Also if you get there, current one shot missile launchers used in military are also anti armor one trick ponies, doesn't make them less useful

It all tricks down to this: the right tool for the right job

Why wouldn't the opponent fire? Your in his field of fire directly, unless if they go for a instantly lethal thurust(in which case you'd have to explain how that weapon can be instantly in a position to deliver said attack) you have a time period for when you can eat with some weapons literally dozens of rounds in the space of actually attacking with a bladed weapon.

[Natureguy85]

earlier post I spoke of tueller drill: at less than 20 feet a knife wielded always gets his opponent before he can shoot him (check the article on Wikipedia, mythbuster experience)

Also if you get there, current one shot missile launchers used in military are also anti armor one trick ponies, doesn't make them less useful

It all tricks down to this: the right tool for the right job

 

Yeah but the Tueller drill deals with drawing a holstered weapon, not a readied one.

[Master Warder Z_]

Yeah but the Tueller drill deals with drawing a holstered weapon, not a readied one.

Mid combat is very different from unexpected combat.

[SardaukarElite]

Agreed, but:
1- following your reasoning, the problem is actually with vanguard. THEY don't make sense in such a setting & I agree. But they're there
2- this assumes you saw said vanguard before he jumped on you

 

That assumption only matters if the argument is 'could a vanguard with a sword beat a vanguard with a gun', I'm arguing you would be better off equipping your vanguards with guns to begin with. If a vanguard jumps you with a gun then it would be the same result, only with a gun they could jump from a lot further away.