Commander Shepard vs Master Chief

Originally posted by WO Polaski
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.

First of all, we aren't talking about stormtroopers. Secondly, stormtrooper armor has no shielding. It doesn't compare.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
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)?

I rule out gameplay that is irrelevant, like bringing up the environment, because it's a flaw.

And if I had some video to show you other than gameplay, which I don't see why the one I provided doesn't clearly show what M.E. weapons are capable of, I would certainly bring it up. I simply don't have any on hand.

Geths have shields as well. Depending on how powerful the shields or weapons are, naturally, determines the effectiveness of both. Providing a consistent basis to showcase the power of the weapons and/or shields are difficult, but the video I provided is a good norm for game (difficulty settings play their part as well).

The fact that you can upgrade your weapons in M.E. makes them better than standard. You can spec. your weapons to have a higher capacity to resist overheating for example, which allows the user to have basically, unlimited ammo. Versatility, if nothing else, gives M.E. armaments the edge.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
i never said it wasnt superior.

Good.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
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.

I know you know Shepherd wins. Though, it's not only because of the abilities that Shepherd has at his/her disposal.

MC can be taken down by a few well placed head shots. A sticky and/or a rocket can take him out. In Mass Effect, you can get nailed by a missile and remain standing, albeit, in poor shape, alive, none the less.

You've already admitted that Shepherd has the better gear and you should understand that MC's armor and shielding can only hold up to so much of an assault. Even if I cannot convince you that the weapons in M.E. are no greater than the ones in Halo, the defensive aspect is more apparent.

Originally posted by geshien
First of all, we aren't talking about stormtroopers. Secondly, stormtrooper armor has no shielding. It doesn't compare.

yes it does. im gonna give you another shot to try to understand my initial point. read the post that i had responded to, then read mine. you should understand.

I rule out gameplay that is irrelevant, like bringing up the environment, because it's a flaw.

you mean you rule out gameplay that contradicts your point but you keep what is sound to you. thats a double standard.

And if I had some video to show you other than gameplay, which I don't see why the one I provided doesn't clearly show what M.E. weapons are capable of, I would certainly bring it up. I simply don't have any on hand.

well then what are you doing? if you cant provide any canon proof and all you have is a double standard drop the point. you dont really have an argument right now because you have conflicting points,

Geths have shields as well. Depending on how powerful the shields or weapons are, naturally, determines the effectiveness of both. Providing a consistent basis to showcase the power of the weapons and/or shields are difficult, but the video I provided is a good norm for game (difficulty settings play their part as well).

but its a double standard AND its utiziling a "critical hit" which is a complete game mechanic and is only viable with "luck" and happens rarely, all of which means that it isnt what USUALLY happens with the weapons. so thats not something that you want to base the strength of the guns upon because it almost never happens that way.

The fact that you can upgrade your weapons in M.E. makes them better than standard. You can spec. your weapons to have a higher capacity to resist overheating for example, which allows the user to have basically, unlimited ammo. Versatility, if nothing else, gives M.E. armaments the edge.

only if shepard has prep before hand or can go back and mod them as he pleases. otherwise this is an irrelevant fact.

I know you know Shepherd wins. Though, it's not only because of the abilities that Shepherd has at his/her disposal.

MC can be taken down by a few well placed head shots. A sticky and/or a rocket can take him out.

tell me again how shepard is going to headshot a.k.a shoot the smallest part of a persosn body, considering said person had fast enough reflexes to punch a rocket fired from a jet fighter, sees bullets in slow motion, and can run half a kilometer in 19 seconds with a busted ankle?

and youve yet to show how powerful mass effect guns really are. care to explain why you think "a few well placed head shots" is going to tear through the chiefs shields and armor?

In Mass Effect, you can get nailed by a missile and remain standing, albeit, in poor shape, alive, none the less.

game mechanics. the force of a rocket exploding would launch a 200 pound man flying at least twenty feet if it was a direct hit. but regardless rockets are dangerous because of the heat and the kinetic damage. if you wanna talk kinetic damage the chief fell out of a spaceship from the ATMOSPHERE, hit the ground, and his armor was abrely scratched and he was compeltely unharmed. there is not a single feat within all of mass effect that can compare to that.

You've already admitted that Shepherd has the better gear and you should understand that MC's armor and shielding can only hold up to so much of an assault. Even if I cannot convince you that the weapons in M.E. are no greater than the ones in Halo, the defensive aspect is more apparent. [/B]

and i never contended any of that.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
yes it does. im gonna give you another shot to try to understand my initial point. read the post that i had responded to, then read mine. you should understand.

Do the stormtroopers have shields? Honest question.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
you mean you rule out gameplay that contradicts your point but you keep what is sound to you. thats a double standard.

facepalm

Again, that particular nuance is pointless to bring up because it's flawed. It doesn't support nor discredit anybody's argument. So, no, for it to be a double standard it would have to damage my defense.
It simply doesn't contribute.

Oh, and how can a rocket destroy air crafts and tanks, but fail to make holes in the ground in Halo? See what I did there?

And seriously, last time I go over this.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
well then what are you doing? if you cant provide any canon proof and all you have is a double standard drop the point. you dont really have an argument right now because you have conflicting points,

Except there isn't a double standard.

That and the weapons do in fact have upgrades that can be applied to them, thus making them more efficient and lethal.

Armor piercing rounds, cryo rounds, explosive rounds, yadda, yadda, yadda. You get the idea.

You can make any weapon you have, become a very versitile piece of equipment with a few modifications. This is where common sense should come in and make you think, "Hmm, my battle rifle only does short burst of concentrated fire, but his assault rifle has just as much range along with a longer rate of fire and shoots toxic rounds."

I don't need cannon material to have a point. I'm just that good.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
but its a double standard AND its utiziling a "critical hit" which is a complete game mechanic and is only viable with "luck" and happens rarely, all of which means that it isnt what USUALLY happens with the weapons. so thats not something that you want to base the strength of the guns upon because it almost never happens that way.

Critical simply means serious.

If the two were to face one another, outside the realm of vg mechanics, luck has nothing to do with it (doesn't even exist). Percentages do though.

If I aim at you with a shot gun and/or assault rifle, I'm merely going to aim in your general direction. The a.o.e. will make its mark and any effect added will provide the efficiency to immobilize.

And what? You think a Specter can't hit MC?

Originally posted by WO Polaski
only if shepard has prep before hand or can go back and mod them as he pleases. otherwise this is an irrelevant fact.

How is that?

It was never stated what kind of modifications are or are not allowed. You can call it prep if you'd like. Talking about the best armaments that either character can bring to the table isn't foul play.

Kay, no mods for Shepherd. Taking away the very thing that makes the weapons more advanced, btw.

If Shepherd had vanilla weapons, the sniper, pistol and assault rifle vs Chiefs assault rifle and energy sword (as stated by the thread starter), the advantage still goes to Shepherd. Chiefs rifle has limited range, Shepherd's has greater range and he has two more ranged weapons.

Close combat, no Vangaurd abilities, Chief makes short work of Shepherd thanks to the sword.

And that's if I throw you a bone. Mods on, Shepherd has distinct advantages. Close combat would still go in Chiefs favor, but for a majority, he's not going to be able to close the gap for that to be a factor.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
tell me again how shepard is going to headshot a.k.a shoot the smallest part of a persosn body, considering said person had fast enough reflexes to punch a rocket fired from a jet fighter, sees bullets in slow motion, and can run half a kilometer in 19 seconds with a busted ankle?

I didn't suggest that Shepherd would attempt any "headshots". A shotgun or assault rifle has a wide a.o.e. and solid range. Point and click hardware. A moderate aim would be all that is necessary, which isn't the case for a skilled elite soldier like Shepherd.

Bringing up headshots and ballistics was to explain the durability of Chief's tech vs the durability of Shepherd's tech, nothing more.

And I thought we were just discussing the tech, since we both know Shepherd wins this when you consider skills and abilities.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
and youve yet to show how powerful mass effect guns really are. care to explain why you think "a few well placed head shots" is going to tear through the chiefs shields and armor?

Been over this. I provided what was available.

And Chief can be killed in that fashion. Trust me. I've played Halo.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
game mechanics. the force of a rocket exploding would launch a 200 pound man flying at least twenty feet if it was a direct hit. but regardless rockets are dangerous because of the heat and the kinetic damage. if you wanna talk kinetic damage the chief fell out of a spaceship from the ATMOSPHERE, hit the ground, and his armor was abrely scratched and he was compeltely unharmed. there is not a single feat within all of mass effect that can compare to that.

I can agree with that. I brought that up because we were discussing comparisons. That being, MC dies when hit with a ballistic and/or grenade and Shepherd does not (though the concussive force probably should). Then again, the shields/barriers may be the explanation for that. Dunno.

MC was in a pod in that fall. We don't know exactly how far he fell outside of it.

But, if you want to talk double standards. Okay, MC can die from said ballistics, but survive a fall several thousand feet up. Medical science would disagree.

Anyways, I've made my point. Don't see it? Oh well. I'll live.

Too tired to debate anymore. G-nite.

if this is canon chief shepard gets a head shot before he can do anything

if it is just gameplay chief is probably gonna get thrown around by psychic powers

Originally posted by geshien
Do the stormtroopers have shields? Honest question.

facepalm

Again, that particular nuance is pointless to bring up because it's flawed. It doesn't support nor discredit anybody's argument. So, no, for it to be a double standard it would have to damage my defense.
It simply doesn't contribute.

Oh, and how can a rocket destroy air crafts and tanks, but fail to make holes in the ground in Halo? See what I did there?

And seriously, last time I go over this.

Except there isn't a double standard.

That and the weapons do in fact have upgrades that can be applied to them, thus making them more efficient and lethal.

Armor piercing rounds, cryo rounds, explosive rounds, yadda, yadda, yadda. You get the idea.

You can make any weapon you have, become a very versitile piece of equipment with a few modifications. This is where common sense should come in and make you think, "Hmm, my battle rifle only does short burst of concentrated fire, but his assault rifle has just as much range along with a longer rate of fire and shoots toxic rounds."

I don't need cannon material to have a point. I'm just that good.

Critical simply means serious.

If the two were to face one another, outside the realm of vg mechanics, luck has nothing to do with it (doesn't even exist). Percentages do though.

If I aim at you with a shot gun and/or assault rifle, I'm merely going to aim in your general direction. The a.o.e. will make its mark and any effect added will provide the efficiency to immobilize.

And what? You think a Specter can't hit MC?

How is that?

It was never stated what kind of modifications are or are not allowed. You can call it prep if you'd like. Talking about the best armaments that either character can bring to the table isn't foul play.

Kay, no mods for Shepherd. Taking away the very thing that makes the weapons more advanced, btw.

If Shepherd had vanilla weapons, the sniper, pistol and assault rifle vs Chiefs assault rifle and energy sword (as stated by the thread starter), the advantage still goes to Shepherd. Chiefs rifle has limited range, Shepherd's has greater range and he has two more ranged weapons.

Close combat, no Vangaurd abilities, Chief makes short work of Shepherd thanks to the sword.

And that's if I throw you a bone. Mods on, Shepherd has distinct advantages. Close combat would still go in Chiefs favor, but for a majority, he's not going to be able to close the gap for that to be a factor.

I didn't suggest that Shepherd would attempt any "headshots". A shotgun or assault rifle has a wide a.o.e. and solid range. Point and click hardware. A moderate aim would be all that is necessary, which isn't the case for a skilled elite soldier like Shepherd.

Bringing up headshots and ballistics was to explain the durability of Chief's tech vs the durability of Shepherd's tech, nothing more.

And I thought we were just discussing the tech, since we both know Shepherd wins this when you consider skills and abilities.

Been over this. I provided what was available.

And Chief can be killed in that fashion. Trust me. I've played Halo.

I can agree with that. I brought that up because we were discussing comparisons. That being, MC dies when hit with a ballistic and/or grenade and Shepherd does not (though the concussive force probably should). Then again, the shields/barriers may be the explanation for that. Dunno.

MC was in a pod in that fall. We don't know exactly how far he fell outside of it.

But, if you want to talk double standards. Okay, MC can die from said ballistics, but survive a fall several thousand feet up. Medical science would disagree.

Anyways, I've made my point. Don't see it? Oh well. I'll live.

Too tired to debate anymore. G-nite.

alright. it seems that we're running in place here. for the sake of both of our time do you want to just agree to disagree?

Originally posted by WO Polaski
alright. it seems that we're running in place here. for the sake of both of our time do you want to just agree to disagree?

👆

I don't know about this one it would depend on Shepard's TK level. But even then it's hard to stop a man who weighs over half a ton charging at 35 mph by the way that number is from the fall of reach book. Physically the chief could completely crush Shepard no matter what skills shepard gets. It would come down to whether or not the Chief could close the distance and even at a range the Chief is raised on war. His basic training as a small child involved killing people to ensure there would be no problems in the field. He is a trained killing machine through and through. Shepard is probably about as good as a person is able to be without enhancements.

Overall I have to give this one to the chief. The Mjolnir armor and his skills and strength just give him too much of an advantage. Also his shields regenerate much faster than Shepards and can withstand plasma bolts. Any telekinesis damage he takes would be minimal at best.

The only real way I see Shepard winning is a Tk followed by a Sniper Round to the face while the chief is still disoriented from meeting a telekinetic human.

Well, Shepard could just use the explosive round you get near the end of the game. It overheats your gun if you don't have the right mods, but the damage potential is at least equal to or greater than the Rocket Launcher, which kills instantly with a direct hit, or a close splash hit. And since it has higher speeds than a regular bullet, MC would have a hard time dodging it.

Shepard wins at the end of the day. And somebody said something about Shepard's tech not being higher, it obviously is, since they use Mass Accelerator tech, and it was stated in game that one of the rounds used for the pistol could be shot with force equal to a nuke.

And Shepard's TK is pretty cool, and considering how it works, Chief's weight really doesn't factor in. His TK push is just a huge blast of kinetic force, and the lift doesn't account for weight, it negates gravity around the target, so it doesn't matter if Chief is 3.5 tons or 400, he'll still float around helpless while Shepard is tagging him from the ground.

Originally posted by KingD19
Well, Shepard could just use the explosive round you get near the end of the game. It overheats your gun if you don't have the right mods, but the damage potential is at least equal to or greater than the Rocket Launcher, which kills instantly with a direct hit, or a close splash hit. And since it has higher speeds than a regular bullet, MC would have a hard time dodging it.

Shepard wins at the end of the day. And somebody said something about Shepard's tech not being higher, it obviously is, since they use Mass Accelerator tech, and it was stated in game that one of the rounds used for the pistol could be shot with force equal to a nuke.

And Shepard's TK is pretty cool, and considering how it works, Chief's weight really doesn't factor in. His TK push is just a huge blast of kinetic force, and the lift doesn't account for weight, it negates gravity around the target, so it doesn't matter if Chief is 3.5 tons or 400, he'll still float around helpless while Shepard is tagging him from the ground.

👆

Originally posted by geshien
👆

I wouldn't even put Shepard on level with canon Chief, he would get shots off at his head before shepard can even think.

if its just out of pure gameplay, chief is more than likely gonna get tossed by shepard's powers plain & simple

Originally posted by SpadeKing
I wouldn't even put Shepard on level with canon Chief, he would get shots off at his head before shepard can even think.

I wouldn't even put Shepard on level with canon Chief, he would get shots off at his head before shepard can even think.

Shepard has force fields. 😐

Originally posted by NemeBro
Lol.

after reading contact: harvest its come to my attention that there is a sniper rifle 10+ years older than the one in halo 1 that fires its inch long bullet at a speed of 15 thousand meters per second which is 43 times the speed of sound. that is certainly superior technology to any weaponry shown in mass effect no? i dont think their ships even move that fast outside of their version of light speed.

that doesnt have any actual bearing on this fight as the chief doesnt have access to that weapon but i feel its an important thing to mention when comparing their technolgoy. theres no reason to assume that mass effect technology is superior. they use magnetic fields to increase their speeds which means that theyre just using rail guns. the unsc uses the same technology on their ships. MAC (magnetic accelerator cannon) guns are nothing more then giant rail-guns that take a giant chunk of tungsten steel and accelerate it to a massive speed using electromagnetic energy.

holy shit. the super MAC gun fires a 6000 (thousand) pound chunk of tungsten steel at 120 MILLION meters per second, which is almost half the speed of light. @.@

ME weapons use mass acceleration tech. This allows rounds to have the potential to be shot at near light speeds.

Using Element Zero (technology obtained by the Protheans) allowed engineers to manipulate the mass effect field, by using the discharge (dark energy) from exposing Element Zero to an electrical current, thus either lowering or raising the mass of any object passed through it. This process enabled them to use FTL speeds.

For their hand held weapons, the gear has a recoil equal to their impact energy. This is mitigated somewhat by the mass effect fields that rounds are suspended within, but weapon recoil is still the prime limiting factor on slug velocity. Not FTL, but near light speeds are obtainable.

Like KingD19 stated earlier, a mere paint chip can be accelerated to produce the force of a nuclear weapon.

The tech that ME has is still more advanced. Though, they only need to do their job. If a sniper rifle in Halo can propel a round at that kind of velocity, then the difference won't be noticeable.

Originally posted by WO Polaski
well he has the speed to do it. just not the guns.

He said he is fast enough to do this before Shepard can THINK.

The MAC guns are the ones from Mass Effect right?

Yeah, that is pretty fvcking insane. 😐

Originally posted by NemeBro
The MAC guns are the ones from Mass Effect right?

Yeah, that is pretty fvcking insane. 😐

No, they're from Halo.

They're cannons on warships.

Ohz.

The average cannon on a Dreadnaught in ME is capable of accelerating one 20 kg. slug to a velocity of 4025 km/s (1.3% of light speed) every two seconds. Each slug has the kinetic energy of 38 kilotons of TNT, three times the energy released by the fission weapon that destroyed Hiroshima.

That's not bad.

Originally posted by geshien
ME weapons use mass acceleration tech. This allows rounds to have the potential to be shot at near light speeds.

Using Element Zero (technology obtained by the Protheans) allowed engineers to manipulate the mass effect field, by using the discharge (dark energy) from exposing Element Zero to an electrical current, thus either lowering or raising the mass of any object passed through it. This process enabled them to use FTL speeds.

For their hand held weapons, the gear has a recoil equal to their impact energy. This is mitigated somewhat by the mass effect fields that rounds are suspended within, but weapon recoil is still the prime limiting factor on slug velocity. Not FTL, but near light speeds are obtainable.

I've already read this article; in fact I went to Mass Effect's wikia before I re-read Contact Harvest. That's where I basically got the info for this:

they use magnetic fields to increase their speeds which means that theyre just using rail guns. the unsc uses the same technology on their ships.

they'res a keyword in that paragraph that you have to keep in consideration when discussing mass effect's weapons: potential. Notice it in the second sentence.

Like KingD19 stated earlier, a mere paint chip can be accelerated to produce the force of a nuclear weapon.

This is the exact quote from Wiki:

If accelerated to a high enough velocity, a simple paint chip can impact with the same destructive force as a nuclear weapon.

do you know what that means? it means it has the potential to move at that speed and be that powerful. but thats nothing special. we as in earth in real life already have weapons that have the potential to move at lightspeed and cause that much damage at such a small size. having the potential to do something and actually doing it are two different things, and that is the difference between more advanced and less advanced. lets compare what mass effect has actually done and what they can actually already do with their tech at their current level with halo's. this is what dark-jaxx has posted:

The average cannon on a Dreadnaught in ME is capable of accelerating one 20 kg. slug to a velocity of 4025 km/s (1.3% of light speed) every two seconds. Each slug has the kinetic energy of 38 kilotons of TNT, three times the energy released by the fission weapon that destroyed Hiroshima.

okay, nice. this is the specs for a MAC round:

These cannons fire a 3000-ton ferric-tungsten round at 40% the speed of light, impacting with a massive amount of kinetic energy, in the range of 21.6 Zettajoules (E=.5mv^2) which equals approximately 5867.5 Gigatons (5.8 teratons) of TNT. This is over 500 (523.8) times the combined energy of the world's nuclear arsenal circa 1982

one shot has that effect.

so lets forget about "potential" and "what they could possibly do with enough speed and time" and lets focus on what the two forces would be bringing into a fight if it was tomorrow. what weaponry does anything in mass effect have that can compare to that?