Originally posted by WO Polaski
adrenaline doesnt mean hes able to mvoe at even a tenth of the chiefs speed (exagertion)...
Whatever the differential in speed really is, I don't imagine it's enough for MC to get a majority here.
It depends how Shepherd is spec.'d If he's a Nemesis he can use master Lift and Warp and he has a higher offensive in some of his weapons.
If he's a Shock Trooper, he has greater durability/health and can utilize the adrenaline boost more often.
Either way, Shepherd is just too stacked.
MC isn't going to take a guy out who can "force push" (as well has hold someone in stasis), has overshields x3 and can destroy shields and regen with the warp ability.
Plus, the weapons that Shepherd has are more advanced.
Originally posted by WO Polaski
i dont know what type of metal they use but the weaponry doesnt seem able to pierce through what seem to be relatively weak objects as you can use them as cover. they seem to have the same piercing power and speed as bullets.
Game mechanics. Nothing more.
A critical shot can turn a hostile into goo or ash.
In game combat, showing a Vanguard doing work. The first Geth is incinerated.
Originally posted by WO Polaski
how are you going to dismiss what I said on the grounds that its game mechanics then state that that is canon? thats hypocritical...i can state that what you posted is just something flashy that they put in the game for kicks while mine is realistic while you can say the opposite.
I'm just pointing out that in combat the weapons work.
Most games don't have geographical modifications like say, Red Faction. I'm not being a hypocrite, I'm just using common sense.
Do you really think a palm tree that is a part of the map is more durable than a force field that is an in game mechanic?
i'm not talking about palm trees though if it's a thick enough palm tree yeah. I'm talking about things like overturned tables, pillars in a room, etc. Those are all things that even real bullets can be stopped by, and so do the lasers in the game. besides if they only vaporize with critical hits how does that work? do they have to hit a certain spot? no its just a percentage gimmik. how could that be used in vs. fight if it only happens 1/10 times and the other 9 times it functions in a much weaker way?
Originally posted by WO Polaski
i'm not talking about palm trees though if it's a thick enough palm tree yeah. I'm talking about things like overturned tables, pillars in a room, etc. Those are all things that even real bullets can be stopped by, and so do the lasers in the game. besides if they only vaporize with critical hits how does that work? do they have to hit a certain spot? no its just a percentage gimmik. how could that be used in vs. fight if it only happens 1/10 times and the other 9 times it functions in a much weaker way?
shrug
I didn't design the game, nor do I think destroying the environment is an integral part of this discussion or in the development of Mass Effect. I would suspect that if the game were more real to life, the guns could just vaporize/melt anything in their path, but they simply didn't implement that into a game. I'm sure the developers had other things in mind. Again, I think it's common sense that it's a game and not everything can be perfect.
If the weapon can penetrate shields and high-tech armor, I doubt the surroundings are going to be any more resistant. I really don't see why we're still discussing this.
Game mechanics aside, a bullet that can disintegrate its target just needs to hit its mark, if you were to ask me.
Each weapon can be modded as well, so it depends. If you have the right equipment you can make a gun uber powerful. A one shot killer.
Originally posted by geshienIf the weapon can penetrate shields and high-tech armor, I doubt the surroundings are going to be any more resistant.
why do you think this? a shields strength is shown by the strength of the weapon it protects against not the other way around. and high tech hardly matters like i showed in the swvf stormtrooper armor from starwars can be pierced by wooden arrows wita lot of bullets but a few whacks from a gun will cancel it out. know what i mean?
Originally posted by WO Polaski
why do you think this? a shields strength is shown by the strength of the weapon it protects against not the other way around. and high tech hardly matters like i showed in the swvf stormtrooper armor from starwars can be pierced by wooden arrows wita lot of bullets but a few whacks from a gun will cancel it out. know what i mean?
I'm sorry, but stormtroopers have no shields and they jobbed to Ewoks.
And I don't think I understand where you're coming from about the shields...
"a shields strength is shown by the strength of the weapon it protects against not the other way around."
Did I say something to suggest otherwise?
The fact that the weapons can be that powerful is a case for the weapons, not the shields. Although, the shielding in Mass Effect can vary.
Now, if you're referring to me stating if a weapon can blast through shields, but somehow not damage the surroundings, it's because, again, the game mechanics. It's pointless. Lets move on from that.
Moreover, the shields in Mass Effect can be stacked. This is not necessarily the case with the Halo series. In Halo, you have the suits standard shielding and then you can obtain a temporary over-shield. In Mass Effect you can level your shielding defense and even create barriers over that. The overall tech in Mass Effect compared to Halo, is superior.
In the end, you know I'm right, even if you deny it, that doesn't change the fact that Shepherd still wins this fight.
Originally posted by geshien
I'm sorry, but stormtroopers have no shields and they jobbed to Ewoks.
to the former you missed my point. to the latter youre incorrect. while the stormtroopers themselves may have jobbed their technology didnt. prior to the battle a trooper was knocked out by a judo throw so their armor isnt all that grand.
"a shields strength is shown by the strength of the weapon it protects against not the other way around."Did I say something to suggest otherwise?
The fact that the weapons can be that powerful is a case for the weapons, not the shields. Although, the shielding in Mass Effect can vary.
how are they that powerful? since you want to rule out gameplay can you provide a canon showing of the power of one of their conventional weapons(conventional meaning a weapon not designed to take out tanks or attached to a vehicle)?
Moreover, the shields in Mass Effect can be stacked. This is not necessarily the case with the Halo series. In Halo, you have the suits standard shielding and then you can obtain a temporary over-shield. In Mass Effect you can level your shielding defense and even create barriers over that. The overall tech in Mass Effect compared to Halo, is superior.
i never said it wasnt superior.
In the end, you know I'm right, even if you deny it, that doesn't change the fact that Shepherd still wins this fight.
his technology isnt advanced enough to give him any sort of advantage over the chief but youre right in that his psychic abilities or whatever they are is what will give him the win.
with all due respect to you what the heck are you talking about? i never said the chief would win i already stated hed lose. my point was that he doesnt lose because sherpard has better technology. shepards technology isnt so advanced and powerful that the chief would succumb to it. THAT was my primary point. my other point is that there is no reason to think that the blaster bolts are much more deadly then a bullet and youve yet to provide canon proof to the contrary.