97 réponses à ce sujet

[Dethateer]

MAs that would fit on a space fighter would do exactly no damage to a planet and likely to ships as well, depending on how far the round travels. That officer was talking about the main gun on dreadnoughts. You don't eyeball THAT monstrosity.

Modifié par Dethateer, 08 avril 2010 - 04:17 .

[Lord_Tirian]

ReconTeam wrote...

Exchanging missile and railgun fire at a thousand kilometers would be rather boring to watch.

I'm not too sure - it's a lot like a submarine fight, meaning you can concentrate on the crew-side of the combat... which is perfect for a game like Mass Effect. And for boring to watch: with dumb missiles, perhaps, but AI (or in the ME-universe: VI) missiles could essentially work like fighters, just without the meat inside and could make a bit of a show. Attack missiles trying to hit the enemy vessel, while defensive missiles (with submunitions and lasers) try to take out attack missiles.

Visually, that's very likely to look impressive. On the human side: Well, that depends on how well you can play up the drama.

And - by the way - the ME codex gave a very "hard" sci-fi-esque explanation of space battles, just the cutscene looked *very* different.

[Cross1280]

While a Spaceship comabt sim i think is an intresting idea.
 
I personally think it would be better to do it as an offshoot game instead of trying to incorporate it into ME3.
 
This way they could focus entirely on the mechanics of doing a great space combat sim more akin to the origianl X-wing or Tie fighter space sims, and not just something that is done half-assed and takes time away from refining the Combat and RPG elements of ME3.

[nikki191]

manned fighters are a part of space opera. no they dont make much sense, its almost at the stage where they dont make much sense in real life either

i wouldnt mind seeing a strategy/space sim based on the mass effect universe

Modifié par nikki191, 08 avril 2010 - 04:33 .

[Dethateer]

nikki191 wrote...

manned fighters are a part of space opera. no they dont make much sense, its almost at the stage where they dont make much sense in real life either

Except that living pilots are much better at combat than drones.

[Drakron]

nikki191 wrote...

manned fighters are a part of space opera. no they dont make much sense, its almost at the stage where they dont make much sense in real life either

i wouldnt mind seeing a strategy/space sim based on the mass effect universe

I recall that before Vietnam that was the notion in the west that dogfights were a thing of the past, that aircraft would became nothing more that plataforms to fire missiles, in fact many aircrafts developed at that time did not not had a internal weapon anymore.

Notice how the aircraft developed during and after vietnam war all have a internal gun? (With a notable exceptions, the F-117).

Fact is we dont know how war in space will be fought, small craft have some advantages over larger craft ...

[Drakron]

Dethateer wrote...

Except that living pilots are much better at combat than drones.

Maybe but drones are expandable as you just thrown at the enemy without a care besides inventory.

Drones are good for things like point-point defense as getting close to enemy means they will be affected by jamming and eletronic warefare.

[Dethateer]

Drakron wrote...

nikki191 wrote...

manned
fighters are a part of space opera. no they dont make much sense, its
almost at the stage where they dont make much sense in real life either

i
wouldnt mind seeing a strategy/space sim based on the mass effect
universe

I recall that before Vietnam that was the
notion in the west that dogfights were a thing of the past, that
aircraft would became nothing more that plataforms to fire missiles, in
fact many aircrafts developed at that time did not not had a internal
weapon anymore.

Notice how the aircraft developed during and
after vietnam war all have a internal gun? (With a notable exceptions,
the F-117).

Fact is we dont know how war in space will be fought,
small craft have some advantages over larger craft ...

Ah, yes, and most missiles missed their targets due to primitive tracking systems, then the USAF Phantoms got dragged into dogfights with the Vietnamese fighters... dogfights during which they got torn to shreds, since the Phantom "handles like a rock".

Modifié par Dethateer, 08 avril 2010 - 04:50 .

[Lord_Tirian]

Dethateer wrote...

Except that living pilots are much better at combat than drones.

Talk about that at 20G acceleration again. And need less food, storage space and money, so you can throw a dozen drones at every living pilot, power through numbers - and speed, because the 20G turn just transmuted your pilot into pulp, the drone keeps chugging along happily. And in the ME-universe, VIs are ubiquitious, they're freaking everywhere, even in your suit, so they're also pretty portable. Human pilots won't have a faster reaction time in 100 years. Computers, however, will be much smaller and more powerful by then.

EDIT: That's also the reason why drones etc. start to pop up in the military a lot, lately. They're only inventory - nobody cries over their "death" and they're smaller. Humans are important in administrative positions (in the CIC, for example), but the grunt work? And it's not like infantry (which is different, because humans are living on land), where robots would less useful/more expensive, it's space - humans die within seconds out there without bulky and expensive life support.

Modifié par Lord_Tirian, 08 avril 2010 - 04:58 .

[Dethateer]

VIs may be everywhere (and drones stronger and faster, true), but humans have ingenuity. Granted, you could solve that by making the drones remotely controlled, but where's the fun in flying like that?

Modifié par Dethateer, 08 avril 2010 - 04:59 .

[Lord_Tirian]

Dethateer wrote...

VIs may be everywhere (and drones stronger and faster, true), but humans have ingenuity.

That's why they're building proper AIs (like EDI), which do the job for them!

EDIT: Okay, if it's about fun and the drama of having pilots in fighters - yes! But having human pilots is, ultimately, only something because of the Rule of Cool, not because it's "better" in a realistic way (and it doesn't keep me from loving space fighters with pilots, they're way more fun than drones).

Modifié par Lord_Tirian, 08 avril 2010 - 05:02 .

[Dethateer]

You don't want to build a sapient AI irl, unless you want it to realize we're an incredibly primitive and destructive species and take action.

[Lord_Tirian]

Dethateer wrote...

You don't want to build a sapient AI irl, unless you want it to realize we're an incredibly primitive and destructive species and take action.

Side note: I never really knew where this "AIs destroys puny humans"-thing is coming from. Sometimes it's very telling that we so often assume that an AI would try to wipe us out. Because, really, why should an AI want to do that?

If it's un-emotional/logical, then working with us is more efficient anyway - we're not exactly competing for an ecological niche or potential mates with them, so cooperation is probably beneficial for both sides.

And if it is emotional, why shouldn't it like us? In general (apart from puberty), we like our parents and want to see them happy, wouldn't it be the same with an AI?

Or, if you're building omnicidal KillSlaughterBot... you probably suck at the whole AI thing, because such an AI is, more or less, the equivalent of a psychopath, nobody wants that (not even the AI, because once it runs out of humans, it's going to be terribly bored).

[Dethateer]

DrathanGervaise wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

You don't want to build a sapient AI irl, unless you want it to realize we're an incredibly primitive and destructive species and take action.

I don't understand how you can call Humanity primative since we really have nothing to base our advancement on besides ourselves and a few other homonids that died out over a million years ago.

That argument has never made sense to me.

Well, let's see, we barely have the technology to prevent a meteor strike (the universal IQ test, which our scaley friends failed), we still act exactly like animals, even though we like to pretend we're civilized, we still believe ancient tales designed to explain everyting before there was a scientific explanation... want me to go on?

Lord_Tirian wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

You
don't want to build a sapient AI irl, unless you want it to realize
we're an incredibly primitive and destructive species and take
action.

Side note: I never really knew where this "AIs destroys
puny humans"-thing is coming from. Sometimes it's very telling that we
so often assume that an AI would try to wipe us out. Because, really,
why should an AI want to do that?

If it's un-emotional/logical,
then working with us is more efficient anyway - we're not exactly
competing for an ecological niche or potential mates with them, so
cooperation is probably beneficial for both sides.

And if it is
emotional, why shouldn't it like us? In general (apart from puberty), we
like our parents and want to see them happy, wouldn't it be the same
with an AI?

Or, if you're building omnicidal KillSlaughterBot...
you probably suck at the whole AI thing, because such an AI is, more or
less, the equivalent of a psychopath, nobody wants that (not even the
AI, because once it runs out of humans, it's going to be terribly
bored).

That would be mostly because we use up a f**kton of resources, plus we always run the risk of nuking the ourselves (and, by extension, everything else on the planet) into extinction. True, nobody wants that, but s**t happens due to stupid accidents.

Modifié par Dethateer, 08 avril 2010 - 05:22 .

[Canned Bullets]

Where did you see that? But yeah, it looks too small.

[Dethateer]

DrathanGervaise wrote...

Guess what, your argument was thought up by humans.

We can't actually know for sure until we meet a different species.

So, wait, we need to meet another species to realize that we're still acting like animals, although in a different enviroment?

[Dethateer]

We're not the only sentient form of life on the planet, we're the only sapient form of life on the planet. There's a difference. A big one.

[Dethateer]

Uh, no. That would be if the words were synonyms. Sapience is the ability to think. Wisdom, if you will. Sentience is the ability to dislike or like something, which even dogs have.


Back to the initial argument, there's not enough data if you see the level of advancement as requiring a comparison.

Modifié par Dethateer, 08 avril 2010 - 05:43 .

[Dethateer]

We don't have a species to compare ourselves with, but we do have the ability to recognize what we can and can't do with modern science.