Jump to content


Photo

Master Chief vs Commander Shepard vs Marcus Fenix


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#1 Younggunna

Younggunna

    Cannon Fodder

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 30 October 2010 - 08:47 AM

3 top Video game characters.

Who wins this 3 way all out fight?

#2 Jason Redfield

Jason Redfield

    Believes Han shot first

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,262 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 October 2010 - 09:55 AM

3 top Video game characters.

Who wins this 3 way all out fight?


Marcus goes down in the beginning. He's not quite in the same league as the other two.

At that point it's Shepard vs. Chief... and I really don't feel like going through that again: http://www.electricf.......0&hl=suites

#3 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 30 October 2010 - 01:27 PM

Wow this thread looks familiar, scroll down the page and you'll see another one just like it. except with Jack Ryan in the mix.

#4 ricrery

ricrery

    Part of the Rag-Tag Fugitive Fleet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 October 2010 - 09:15 PM

It's a fight between Shephard and Master Chief. Master Chief is a supersoldier and Shephard isn't, however, Master Chief has weapons no better than modern day ones, whereas Shephard's have improved significantly. If they have the force of a glock (8.55 grams at 285 m/s), and have a mass of 5 grains per bullet, each bullet would have to be traveling at 10,280 meters per second, which has a KE of 17 kilojoules per bullet.

#5 Skirmisher

Skirmisher

    Field Marshal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elysium City, Eridanus II
  • Interests:The Halo Universe, Warhammer Fantasy and 40K, Deconstructing the Hype of Star Wars, Still Like Star Wars though...

Posted 30 October 2010 - 11:05 PM

It's a fight between Shephard and Master Chief. Master Chief is a supersoldier and Shephard isn't, however, Master Chief has weapons no better than modern day ones, whereas Shephard's have improved significantly. If they have the force of a glock (8.55 grams at 285 m/s), and have a mass of 5 grains per bullet, each bullet would have to be traveling at 10,280 meters per second, which has a KE of 17 kilojoules per bullet.

Except your argument is flawed.

Halo uses much better Recoil absorption technology and as such can field much harder hitting rounds than Modern Day weapons. As such they have assault rifles that fire Heavy Machinegun rounds. Not only that but they have a significantly better grade of propellant than modern weapons as shown in their higher Muzzle Velocity.

Example: NATO 7.62x51 round has an average Muzzle Velocity of 820m/s whereas the same type of bullet in Halo's time has a Muzzle Velocity of 905m/s and comes standard issue Armour Penetrating, which usually means that it has significantly higher weight than "Standard" rounds due to the presence of Super Dense materials such as Tungsten, Steel or Depleted Uranium.

Same thing with the Sniper Rifle, but actually much greater. The Same type of round used today that is used in Halo's sniper rifle is the 14.5x114mm round which has an average Muzzle Velocity of 1000m/s, whereas the Halo Sniper Rifle Round has a Muzzle Velocity of 1450m/s, and not only that is an Armor Piercing, Fin-Stabilized, Discarding Sabot type round.

As for Mass Effect weapons, No they do not use real bullets. Their bullets are literally the size of grains of sand, made from whatever is loaded into the clip. Meaning that their bullets are more like a hundredth of a gram rather than the 8.55g that you propose. Which would mean that if these rounds were traveling at 10,280m/s then their KE would be less than that of a BB gun, meaning that they would have to have significantly higher Muzzle Velocities than that.

#6 Jason Redfield

Jason Redfield

    Believes Han shot first

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,262 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 October 2010 - 11:40 PM

Except your argument is flawed.

Halo uses much better Recoil absorption technology and as such can field much harder hitting rounds than Modern Day weapons. As such they have assault rifles that fire Heavy Machinegun rounds. Not only that but they have a significantly better grade of propellant than modern weapons as shown in their higher Muzzle Velocity.

Mass Effect weapons are explicitly stated to have recoil-dampening systems in place. The fact that they're able to launch such high-velocity projectiles means that technology must be impressive indeed (Conservation of Momentum and all).

Example: NATO 7.62x51 round has an average Muzzle Velocity of 820m/s whereas the same type of bullet in Halo's time has a Muzzle Velocity of 905m/s and comes standard issue Armour Penetrating, which usually means that it has significantly higher weight than "Standard" rounds due to the presence of Super Dense materials such as Tungsten, Steel or Depleted Uranium.

I already called you on this last time. Hell, I'll just copy + paste from our previous argument:

Nice try, but I read up on the Halo wiki. It states that they are FMJ rounds at one point, and then later calls them "Full Metal Jacket Armor Piercing Rounds" in the actual article. No idea what the hell that means, as those are contradictory terms. Semi-armor piercing, maybe? Either way, the fun part comes later on in the article:

"Energy shields drastically reduce the effectiveness of this round, as it does not have enough kinetic energy to significantly drain the shields."

"it is not significantly armor-piercing"

Hmm.

As for Mass Effect weapons, No they do not use real bullets. Their bullets are literally the size of grains of sand, made from whatever is loaded into the clip. Meaning that their bullets are more like a hundredth of a gram rather than the 8.55g that you propose. Which would mean that if these rounds were traveling at 10,280m/s then their KE would be less than that of a BB gun, meaning that they would have to have significantly higher Muzzle Velocities than that.

Ugh. No, no, no. They are not all the size of "grains of sand". It is again, explicitly stated that a computer shears of an appropriate sized projectile for the situation. They're definitely small, but not always THAT small. Regardless, it doesn't matter. You always act like having rounds that small are a bad thing. If you know anything about physics and ballistics, you'd know that extremely high velocity + small surface area + good sectional density = amazing penetration. Luckily for Shepard, mass accelerator rounds have all of these in spades.

#7 ricrery

ricrery

    Part of the Rag-Tag Fugitive Fleet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 30 October 2010 - 11:54 PM

Except your argument is flawed.

Halo uses much better Recoil absorption technology and as such can field much harder hitting rounds than Modern Day weapons. As such they have assault rifles that fire Heavy Machinegun rounds. Not only that but they have a significantly better grade of propellant than modern weapons as shown in their higher Muzzle Velocity.


Except, their vehicles and specs (from the Encyclopedia) are just terrible.

1) UNSC MA5 Assault Rifle (2500): 300 meters
M-16 (1963): 550 meters
M4 carbine (1997): 500 meters
FN F2000 (2001): 500 meters

2) UNSC M41 Vulcan cannon (2500): 100 meters
GAU-8 Avenger (1977): 1.2 kilometres
M61 Vulcan (1959): 1.1 kilometres

3) UNSC M301 40 mm grenade launcher (2500): 30 meters, in comparison, modern soldiers are expected to be able to lob grenades 35 meters.
M203 under-barrel launcher (1969): 150 metres

4) UNSC .30 calibre light machine gun (2500): 30 metres
FN MAG (1958): 800 metres
M60 LMG: 1.1 kilometres

The list contains the UNSC's weapons distance and their 500 year old equivalents. The latter having far more distance than the former.

Example: NATO 7.62x51 round has an average Muzzle Velocity of 820m/s whereas the same type of bullet in Halo's time has a Muzzle Velocity of 905m/s and comes standard issue Armour Penetrating, which usually means that it has significantly higher weight than "Standard" rounds due to the presence of Super Dense materials such as Tungsten, Steel or Depleted Uranium.


Which wouldn't be too hard to quantify if we knew the metal it was made of and the actual specs on the bullet.

Same thing with the Sniper Rifle, but actually much greater. The Same type of round used today that is used in Halo's sniper rifle is the 14.5x114mm round which has an average Muzzle Velocity of 1000m/s, whereas the Halo Sniper Rifle Round has a Muzzle Velocity of 1450m/s, and not only that is an Armor Piercing, Fin-Stabilized, Discarding Sabot type round.


Alright, that gives it a mass of >60 grams. At 1,400 m/s, the KE is 60 kilojoules. Now, while impressive, we know the assault rifles of Mass Effect can generate as much, or more, from a single bullet to a full volley, depending on the numbers used.

As for Mass Effect weapons, No they do not use real bullets. Their bullets are literally the size of grains of sand, made from whatever is loaded into the clip. Meaning that their bullets are more like a hundredth of a gram rather than the 8.55g that you propose. Which would mean that if these rounds were traveling at 10,280m/s then their KE would be less than that of a BB gun, meaning that they would have to have significantly higher Muzzle Velocities than that.


8.55 grams is actually for the glock. I doubt that a glock would have as much force as the amount that you see Shephard receive when firing his gun. I'd say it's closer to an M4. If it was 10 milligrams, like grains of sand, it would have to move at 353,600 meters per second to achieve the equal the amount of newtons an M4 firing has, no joke. The kinetic energy for that is 625,165 joules, or 36 times more from my original calculation. See, the less mass it has, the more velocity it must have, thus more kinetic energy. Grains and grams would give it less kinetic energy... but milligrams would give it a large amount of it, and that's why mentioning that bullets are tiny and have little mass was a bad idea for you :P

#8 Skirmisher

Skirmisher

    Field Marshal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elysium City, Eridanus II
  • Interests:The Halo Universe, Warhammer Fantasy and 40K, Deconstructing the Hype of Star Wars, Still Like Star Wars though...

Posted 31 October 2010 - 12:25 AM

Mass Effect weapons are explicitly stated to have recoil-dampening systems in place. The fact that they're able to launch such high-velocity projectiles means that technology must be impressive indeed (Conservation of Momentum and all).

I wasn't even talking about Mass Effect weapons. I was talking about Halo weapons.


I already called you on this last time. Hell, I'll just copy + paste from our previous argument:

Nice try, but I read up on the Halo wiki. It states that they are FMJ rounds at one point, and then later calls them "Full Metal Jacket Armor Piercing Rounds" in the actual article. No idea what the hell that means, as those are contradictory terms. Semi-armor piercing, maybe? Either way, the fun part comes later on in the article:

"Energy shields drastically reduce the effectiveness of this round, as it does not have enough kinetic energy to significantly drain the shields."

"it is not significantly armor-piercing"

Hmm.

Also note that Mass Effect shields and Halo shields work on Significantly different properties. IIRC it is theorized that Halo shielding works on a Plasma Shielding principle, while Mass Effect Shielding works by Repulsing things with a Mass Effect field.

As such Both Shields and the very principle of having a shield would "Drastically Reduce the Effectiveness of..." well Any round, after all that what a Shield is there for... as for the next part of not being significantly AP, that's in light of Energy Shields being the New Armour. If Energy Shields as the new type of armour stop Armour Piercing rounds then that would mean that such rounds while being perfectly suited to pierce armour, have a significantly reduced effect against shields.

As well if you want to Nit-Pick that Plasma Weapons are much better against Shields then they'd be just as effective against Mass Effect shields. The Plasma is Forced at targets in a Confined Magnetic bottle, and as seen in specialized Electromagnetic rounds within Mass Effect, which would have the same effect as being hit with a Magnetic Bottle, except the Lethal part about it is not the confinement, but the Heat it confines. Which would scorch through Shields and Armour in Mass Effect. The Whole effect would be much better at killing Mass Effect soldiers then Halo Shielded soldiers.


Ugh. No, no, no. They are not all the size of "grains of sand". It is again, explicitly stated that a computer shears of an appropriate sized projectile for the situation. They're definitely small, but not always THAT small. Regardless, it doesn't matter. You always act like having rounds that small are a bad thing. If you know anything about physics and ballistics, you'd know that extremely high velocity + small surface area + good sectional density = amazing penetration. Luckily for Shepard, mass accelerator rounds have all of these in spades.

Also, the "Grain of Sand" explanation is found in the journal entry within Mass Effect 1 IIRC... I'd have to go and find the exact quote though, but that's basically it. It's why you never run out of ammo in the game, because they literally use a small block of solid metal and shave sand grain sized bullets off of it to fire.

It also states Specifically that they shape these bullets to Purposely Squash against targets...

"The slug is designed to squash or shatter on impact"

Meaning that while it would have had Amazing Penetration, due to it's Squashing and/or Shattering, this Amazing Penetration is significantly Reduced, as seen with Modern Body Armour using Ceramic Plates to shatter AP bullets thereby defeating them.

#9 Skirmisher

Skirmisher

    Field Marshal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,026 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Elysium City, Eridanus II
  • Interests:The Halo Universe, Warhammer Fantasy and 40K, Deconstructing the Hype of Star Wars, Still Like Star Wars though...

Posted 31 October 2010 - 12:36 AM

Except, their vehicles and specs (from the Encyclopedia) are just terrible.

1) UNSC MA5 Assault Rifle (2500): 300 meters
M-16 (1963): 550 meters
M4 carbine (1997): 500 meters
FN F2000 (2001): 500 meters

2) UNSC M41 Vulcan cannon (2500): 100 meters
GAU-8 Avenger (1977): 1.2 kilometres
M61 Vulcan (1959): 1.1 kilometres

3) UNSC M301 40 mm grenade launcher (2500): 30 meters, in comparison, modern soldiers are expected to be able to lob grenades 35 meters.
M203 under-barrel launcher (1969): 150 metres

4) UNSC .30 calibre light machine gun (2500): 30 metres
FN MAG (1958): 800 metres
M60 LMG: 1.1 kilometres

The list contains the UNSC's weapons distance and their 500 year old equivalents. The latter having far more distance than the former.

1) Studies show that 300m (actually less) is Optimal Range for most engagements. This is due to a number of factors, such as a soldiers Aim, Perception of the Enemy, and Bullet Speeds. This is why Mikhail Kalashnikov designed the AK-47 with such a low range compared to US rifles. A Greater Optimal Range is Redundant when you never fight at those ranges, and UNSC Marines being Marines who fight at Close Quarters of less than 300m would never need the additional 200m granted by modern rifles. Your Point Fails.

2) The M41 is not a Vulcan Cannon, as well no range is Stated for the weapon. Not only that but "Recoil from sustained fire is prodigious and negatively impacts accuracy at long range." Not sure why all other weapons but this one benefit from their advanced recoil dampening. As well, you are comparing a Machinegun that fires the equivalent to Advanced .50 cal BMG rounds... to 20mm and 30mm Anti-Vehicle rounds. Not only that but you are only comparing Effective Range, which would be significantly reduced in light of Armour Advances in the past 500 years for Halo, with Better armour and the advent of Shields Significantly Reducing the "Effective Range" of weapons

3) Where the hell are you getting your numbers on these weapons? Please Provide Sources.

4) See #3


Not only does your list Fail, your argument fails to even compare the Actual Damage that these rounds would do. I have provided evidence in earlier posts that Halo weapons outstrip Modern Weapons from as low as 10% to as much as 100% more powerful, and that's just a Base Estimate, we don't know how "Molecularly Strengthening" a material would affect it's mass, but all signs point to an Increase in mass. Not only that but you were comparing Ranges Only, sometimes even getting the Wrong Weapons match up, or just outright Inventing Numbers for Halo's weapons Just to Prove your point.


Which wouldn't be too hard to quantify if we knew the metal it was made of and the actual specs on the bullet.

But we do know, or at least the bare Minimum. We know the weight and density of Tungsten, however if the UNSC can strengthen Titanium at the Molecular Level to get Titanium-A then who says that they can't do that for other metals and make Super Dense Tungsten, making their bullets many times heavier than conventional bullets while retaining their Higher then conventional speeds. This would make them Much, Much more powerful and harder hitting than Modern weapons.


Alright, that gives it a mass of >60 grams. At 1,400 m/s, the KE is 60 kilojoules. Now, while impressive, we know the assault rifles of Mass Effect can generate as much, or more, from a single bullet to a full volley, depending on the numbers used.

Once again, you assume to know everything about the bullet, this is at the most a Minimum amount of Force.

You also over exaggerate the effectiveness of ME bullets. I have heard fairly credible arguments based on quotes from the novels that state that ME rounds are in the couple thousands of KJ, rather than the several Tens of thousands of joules that you seem to think.

Perhaps you should stick to Evidence rather than Wild Ass Guesses... unless you would care to Actually for once Support your arguments.


8.55 grams is actually for the glock. I doubt that a glock would have as much force as the amount that you see Shephard receive when firing his gun. I'd say it's closer to an M4. If it was 10 milligrams, like grains of sand, it would have to move at 353,600 meters per second to achieve the equal the amount of newtons an M4 firing has, no joke. The kinetic energy for that is 625,165 joules, or 36 times more from my original calculation. See, the less mass it has, the more velocity it must have, thus more kinetic energy. Grains and grams would give it less kinetic energy... but milligrams would give it a large amount of it, and that's why mentioning that bullets are tiny and have little mass was a bad idea for you :P

Ok... What? Make Sense, for once in your life please make sense.

"8.55 grams is actually for the glock." ~ Ok I got that, but why would you assume that ME guns use Glock sized bullets, The round is 9x19mm, meaning that if you were to have thousands of rounds as the ME guns would have then you'd end up with a drumclip the size of a Man. So that would mean that the bullets are Many, Many times smaller and as such many many times lighter than a Glocks round...

But here is where you loose me, and I would think just about everyone else...

"I'd say it's closer to an M4." ~ What is, how his gun looks or the damage he deals with it or the bullet sizes?

"If it was 10 milligrams, like a grain of sand, it would have to move at 353,600 meters per second to achieve the equal the amount of newtons an M4 fire has, no joke." ~ Ok, basic principle here... and you get it wrong... The M4 Carbine fires the 5.56x45mm NATO round which has a KE of almost 1700joules. For a 10mg bullet to equal that energy it would have to be moving at 18,439 m/s, not 353,600m/s.

"The kinetic energy for that is 625,165 joules, or 36 times more from my original calculation. See, the less mass it has, the more velocity it must have, thus more kinetic energy." ~ This is Pseudo Logic, The original number you get is not based on any hard evidence except for your own wild allegations of what you think must be right. Then you break Physics by stating that Less Mass automatically equals Higher Velocity, thus literally pulling Additional energy out of thin air. If I were to apply 1700 joules of KE to a 4g mass it would travel at about 900m/s, if I were to apply the Same energy (1700 joules) to a 0.01g mass then it would travel at 18,439m/s, not your Magical 353,600m/s...

As well, you seem to mistake "A Grain of sand" for the actual Grain Measurement, then make the mistake of confusing your metric Prefix's...



Please hang up and try your call again.

#10 The Phenom

The Phenom

    I like it on Omicron Ceti III, Jim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 255 posts
  • Location:From the underworld
  • Interests:Me<br />Myself<br />I<br />Movies<br />food<br />me<br />Being lazy<br />Myself.

Posted 31 October 2010 - 07:14 AM

Mass effect weapons have really bad recoil and shooting.

#11 The Phenom

The Phenom

    I like it on Omicron Ceti III, Jim

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 255 posts
  • Location:From the underworld
  • Interests:Me<br />Myself<br />I<br />Movies<br />food<br />me<br />Being lazy<br />Myself.

Posted 31 October 2010 - 07:15 AM

So its.


Master Chief

Marcus Fenix

Shepard.

#12 Jason Redfield

Jason Redfield

    Believes Han shot first

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,262 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2010 - 09:24 AM

I wasn't even talking about Mass Effect weapons. I was talking about Halo weapons.

I know. And I was bringing up that Mass Effect weapons are also good at absorbing recoil.


Also note that Mass Effect shields and Halo shields work on Significantly different properties. IIRC it is theorized that Halo shielding works on a Plasma Shielding principle, while Mass Effect Shielding works by Repulsing things with a Mass Effect field.

As such Both Shields and the very principle of having a shield would "Drastically Reduce the Effectiveness of..." well Any round, after all that what a Shield is there for... as for the next part of not being significantly AP, that's in light of Energy Shields being the New Armour. If Energy Shields as the new type of armour stop Armour Piercing rounds then that would mean that such rounds while being perfectly suited to pierce armour, have a significantly reduced effect against shields.

Actually, no. Armor piercing and shield piercing are two different things. Why would they be mentioned separately? Besides, I believe that statement about it not being "significantly armor-piercing" was specifically speaking on solid armor.

As well if you want to Nit-Pick that Plasma Weapons are much better against Shields then they'd be just as effective against Mass Effect shields. The Plasma is Forced at targets in a Confined Magnetic bottle, and as seen in specialized Electromagnetic rounds within Mass Effect, which would have the same effect as being hit with a Magnetic Bottle, except the Lethal part about it is not the confinement, but the Heat it confines. Which would scorch through Shields and Armour in Mass Effect. The Whole effect would be much better at killing Mass Effect soldiers then Halo Shielded soldiers.

Not sure why you brought this up. Of course energy weapons would be more effective than solid rounds which the shields are built to resist. That being said, tell that to the kinetic barriers which blocked hits from a particle beam as well as multiple flame-based and plasma-based thermal weapons. In fact, about the only thing I know for a fact that ME shields don't react to is lasers.

Also, the "Grain of Sand" explanation is found in the journal entry within Mass Effect 1 IIRC... I'd have to go and find the exact quote though, but that's basically it. It's why you never run out of ammo in the game, because they literally use a small block of solid metal and shave sand grain sized bullets off of it to fire.

I said not all of them are the size of grains of sand. And I'm well aware of how the weapons work.

It also states Specifically that they shape these bullets to Purposely Squash against targets...

"The slug is designed to squash or shatter on impact"

Meaning that while it would have had Amazing Penetration, due to it's Squashing and/or Shattering, this Amazing Penetration is significantly Reduced, as seen with Modern Body Armour using Ceramic Plates to shatter AP bullets thereby defeating them.


You need to look up the specifics of hypervelocity impacts. When an object moving at hypervelocity (extremely supersonic speeds) hits something else, both objects tend to explode in a dramatic way. Besides, it's logical to assume that they'd get good penetration before squashing, otherwise there'd be no point in the specialized armor-piercing/tungsten rounds...

#13 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 31 October 2010 - 09:28 AM

How the hell did I not get this argument in my thread, which was the EXACT same? CBUB confuses me.

#14 Jason Redfield

Jason Redfield

    Believes Han shot first

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,262 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2010 - 09:41 AM

1) Studies show that 300m (actually less) is Optimal Range for most engagements. This is due to a number of factors, such as a soldiers Aim, Perception of the Enemy, and Bullet Speeds. This is why Mikhail Kalashnikov designed the AK-47 with such a low range compared to US rifles. A Greater Optimal Range is Redundant when you never fight at those ranges, and UNSC Marines being Marines who fight at Close Quarters of less than 300m would never need the additional 200m granted by modern rifles. Your Point Fails.

No, his point doesn't "fail". You're desperately grasping at straws in an attempt to justify the shortcomings of the UNSC's "highly-advanced" weaponry. Regardless of whether most engagements take place within that range ask ANY real-life soldier if he'd want a weapon that can only reach out that far. I'm relatively sure you'll get a unanimous "hell no". There have been numerous incidents already with soldiers getting out-ranged by Taliban insurgents armed with higher-caliber weapons. Even if you're not expecting to make precision shots at ranges longer than 300 meters, you still want the capability for a multitude of purposes.

Besides, the MA5 uses a 7.62 NATO round. That is a round designed for mid-to-long range shooting. There's no excuse for the UNSC neutering it in such a way.

2) The M41 is not a Vulcan Cannon, as well no range is Stated for the weapon. Not only that but "Recoil from sustained fire is prodigious and negatively impacts accuracy at long range." Not sure why all other weapons but this one benefit from their advanced recoil dampening. As well, you are comparing a Machinegun that fires the equivalent to Advanced .50 cal BMG rounds... to 20mm and 30mm Anti-Vehicle rounds. Not only that but you are only comparing Effective Range, which would be significantly reduced in light of Armour Advances in the past 500 years for Halo, with Better armour and the advent of Shields Significantly Reducing the "Effective Range" of weapons

Again... .50 BMG rounds have extremely long range IRL. To see them with such a low range makes no sense. I'll give you a modern-weapon that is PERFECTLY comparable to the M41: the GAU-19 rotary heavy machine gun. It's basically a .50 caliber minigun. It's effective range? 1,800 meters.

And you're making it sound like the "effective range" of a weapon is determined by the distance at which a round is expected to still do damage. That's not the proper usage of that term at all. It's the range at which a soldier armed with the weapon is expected to still make hits on a man-sized target, IIRC. That's why there's the distinction between an effective range for point and area targets.


Not only does your list Fail, your argument fails to even compare the Actual Damage that these rounds would do. I have provided evidence in earlier posts that Halo weapons outstrip Modern Weapons from as low as 10% to as much as 100% more powerful, and that's just a Base Estimate, we don't know how "Molecularly Strengthening" a material would affect it's mass, but all signs point to an Increase in mass. Not only that but you were comparing Ranges Only, sometimes even getting the Wrong Weapons match up, or just outright Inventing Numbers for Halo's weapons Just to Prove your point.

Impressive power is worthless without the range to back it up. And it's definitely not as useful when he's going against Shepard.

But we do know, or at least the bare Minimum. We know the weight and density of Tungsten, however if the UNSC can strengthen Titanium at the Molecular Level to get Titanium-A then who says that they can't do that for other metals and make Super Dense Tungsten, making their bullets many times heavier than conventional bullets while retaining their Higher then conventional speeds. This would make them Much, Much more powerful and harder hitting than Modern weapons.

See above. And this hardly makes sense. Increasing muzzle velocity = increased range. But not for the UNSC, it seems. And it would take some SERIOUS increases in muzzle velocity to fire a "super-dense" tungsten round at high velocities like you're proposing, and the recoil involved in doing so would be ridiculous. Not to mention that amount of chamber pressure, the fatigue on the soldier carrying all that ammo, etc., etc. But I'm willing to assume the UNSC can use technobabble to hand-wave those things aside. In any case, you're grasping at straws again. Are they ever explicitly stated to have the super-tungsten you're proposing?

#15 Jason Redfield

Jason Redfield

    Believes Han shot first

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,262 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2010 - 09:46 AM

Mass effect weapons have really bad recoil and shooting.


Wow. Just... wow.

#16 Younggunna

Younggunna

    Cannon Fodder

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 48 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago

Posted 31 October 2010 - 10:00 AM

Wow... i see there is a big debate here!

#17 ricrery

ricrery

    Part of the Rag-Tag Fugitive Fleet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2010 - 02:52 PM

*snip list*


It's not a list that I made, but a list made to compare the UNSC to their older equivalents. I didn't even a lot of these specs excluding the ones brought up from the Halo Encyclopedia.

But we do know, or at least the bare Minimum. We know the weight and density of Tungsten, however if the UNSC can strengthen Titanium at the Molecular Level to get Titanium-A then who says that they can't do that for other metals and make Super Dense Tungsten, making their bullets many times heavier than conventional bullets while retaining their Higher then conventional speeds. This would make them Much, Much more powerful and harder hitting than Modern weapons.


We also know that the Covenant have superior weapons to the UNSC, with standard bolts at 5 kJ. Really, I don't see how a MA5 can be that much stronger than 5 kJ if the Covenant have weapons that laugh all over it.

Once again, you assume to know everything about the bullet, this is at the most a Minimum amount of Force.


No, the force is 84 Newtons. That would throw an 80 kilogram person back by a whole meter.

You also over exaggerate the effectiveness of ME bullets. I have heard fairly credible arguments based on quotes from the novels that state that ME rounds are more in the 10's of KJ, rather than the 100's that you seem to think.


And if they were in that range, then the recoil would be pretty low.

Perhaps you should stick to Evidence rather than Wild Ass Guesses... unless you would care to Actually for once Support your arguments.


Alright, proof of high recoil.

#18 ricrery

ricrery

    Part of the Rag-Tag Fugitive Fleet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 31 October 2010 - 02:53 PM

Their automatic fire makes assault rifles perfectly designed for taking down enemies quickly or providing cover fire, but due to their high recoil, sniping with assault rifles is very difficult. Short, controlled bursts and a crouching stance are required to hit anything at long range. At close range, spraying bullets into a target is effective, if not as quick as a shotgun blast


Sniper rifles.

Notice the list mentioning rifles with high recoil?

High recoil requires a large mass for each bullet, or a high muzzle velocity for each bullet. Since Mass Effect has teeny tiny bullets, they don't have a lot of mass, so they need to be traveling at tens of thousands of meters per second just to match a modern day weapon's recoil and force. If they are traveling at a slow velocity of hundreds to even low thousands of m/s, then the recoil will be pretty low, possibly not even equivalent to 1 Newton.

Ok... What? Make Sense, for once in your life please make sense.

"8.55 grams is actually for the glock." ~ Ok I got that, but why would you assume that ME guns use Glock sized bullets, The round is 9x19mm, meaning that if you were to have thousands of rounds as the ME guns would have then you'd end up with a drumclip the size of a Man. So that would mean that the bullets are Many, Many times smaller and as such many many times lighter than a Glocks round...


1) I made no such claim about ME bullets being the same mass of glock bullets. I was stating that to match a glock's force, they need to traveling at a very high velocity because of their small mass.

2) If they can fit thousands of bullets into a single weapon, while having so much recoil that sniping with an assault rifle is out of the question, and enough momentum to send mindless zombies who only want to kill you back several paces, wouldn't you think that they would need to be traveling at thousands of meters per second to actually do damage similar to that of a modern day hand pistol?


But here is where you loose me, and I would think just about everyone else...

"I'd say it's closer to an M4." ~ What is, how his gun looks or the damage he deals with it or the bullet sizes?


Their weapons tend to show of recoil from firing, which prevents any possible sniping from occurring, which couldn't happen unless they had the recoil of several Newtons.

"If it was 10 milligrams, like a grain of sand, it would have to move at 353,600 meters per second to achieve the equal the amount of newtons an M4 fire has, no joke." ~ Ok, basic principle here... and you get it wrong... The M4 Carbine fires the 5.56x45mm NATO round which has a KE of almost 1700joules. For a 10mg bullet to equal that energy it would have to be moving at 18,439 m/s, not 353,600m/s.

"The kinetic energy for that is 625,165 joules, or 36 times more from my original calculation. See, the less mass it has, the more velocity it must have, thus more kinetic energy." ~ This is Pseudo Logic, The original number you get is not based on any hard evidence except for your own wild allegations of what you think must be right. Then you break Physics by stating that Less Mass automatically equals Higher Velocity, thus literally pulling Additional energy out of thin air. If I were to apply 1700 joules of KE to a 4g mass it would travel at about 900m/s, if I were to apply the Same energy (1700 joules) to a 0.01g mass then it would travel at 18,439m/s, not your Magical 353,600m/s...


1)No no, that's energy, I'm talking about force and momentum. See, a 10 mg pellet traveling at 18,439 m/s only creates a force/momentum of .18439 Newtons/.18439 kg*m/s. Do you think THAT is capable of throwing back things that weigh dozens of kilograms or even make an assault rifle incapable of actually sniping a target because of the recoil? That is absolutely nothing.

2)Force and momentum are not effected by kinetic energy at all. An example would be from Halo 3. Look at the scene where the rock traveling at 3.5 km/s cuts through the SoI like it was tissue paper. It was around 100 meters in diameter, and even assuming bone density, the KE is 1.14 megatons, and the momentum is 2.747499993E^12 kg*m/s. To match this momentum, a 600 ton MAC slug would have to traveling at 4,579 kilometers per second, with a KE of 1.5 gigatons.

#19 ricrery

ricrery

    Part of the Rag-Tag Fugitive Fleet

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,074 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 November 2010 - 03:45 AM

Thus far, I haven't seen any proof that Master Chief is even a problem for Shephard, when a single bullet from any of his weapons can annihilate him, with Master Chief's weapons, by they light or heavy weapons, would be incapable of defeating Shephard's shields.

#20 Jason Redfield

Jason Redfield

    Believes Han shot first

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,262 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 November 2010 - 09:42 AM

Thus far, I haven't seen any proof that Master Chief is even a problem for Shephard, when a single bullet from any of his weapons can annihilate him, with Master Chief's weapons, by they light or heavy weapons, would be incapable of defeating Shephard's shields.


That might be a going a little overboard. Shepard wouldn't be able to wade through concentrated fire with impunity. I just think he has an advantage, albeit a slight one.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users