Page 2 of 3

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Fri Nov 05, 2010 9:08 pm UTC
by Echochamber888
Even going by the movies, a Sta rWars star destroyer's light turbolasers vaporized an asteroid large enough for the event to be in the high kilotons.

Basically, Star Wars light turbolasers (numerous of which are on a star destroyer, with a high rate of fire) = several times the firepower of the HEAVY gun of a dreadnought (of which there is only ONE gun like that per dreadnought)

A medium turbolaser = 200 gigatons. A heavy turbolaser scaled linearly = many teratons. A single shot from a turbolaser would vaporize any Mass Effect ship, including a Reaper.

Even going by the movies, the shield durability of a star destroyer is so high (calculated multiple ways, including the asteroid field event, given that star destroyers stayed in an EXTREMELY high collision asteroid field and did not suffer any noticeable damage with a single exception) that the entire Mass Effect Citadel fleet could fire at the star destroyer for a week and not do any damage. Seriously. A week has about 600,000 seconds. The entire Citadel fleet's 25 kiloton guns firing non stop for a week would not equal the firepower of a SINGLE shot from a star destroyer. This isn't taking into account the fact that star destroyers tend to have over 20 turbolaser batteries, a huge complement of fighters (many with megaton range weapons more powerful than the huge guns on the Mass Effect dreadnoughts...and these are often times SINGLE MANNED fighters) and other weapons such as proton torpedo launchers. In fact, star destroyers could probably simply ram into the Mass Effect dreadnoughts; the impact would destroy the dreadnoughts but the star destroyers would be completely unaffected.

Therefore, a single star destroyer effectively destroys the entire Citadel fleet and all the known Reapers in a single space battle without getting a scratch through their shields.



Taking into account industrial production, Star Wars is thousands of times bigger in terms of numbers of planets and literally billions of times more populated, and the Empire completed the Death Star 2 to 60% completion in 6 months. All the Citadel races still couldn't repair the Citadel after 2 years. The Death Star is FAR larger than the Citadel, and yet Star Wars built it from scratch faster than than the entire Citadel alliance repaired the still almost completely intact Citadel.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Sun Nov 07, 2010 7:31 pm UTC
by nowfocus
Echochamber888 wrote:200 gigatons

Echochamber888 wrote:teratons

Echochamber888 wrote:25 kiloton

Echochamber888 wrote:megaton


This is just silly. Your entire argument is "Star Wars decided to use bigger units, therefore Star Wars wins".

Maybe I should write a book where the lazas are all googleplex squared tons then it will be the best eva!

I interpret these threads a bit differently. Rather than looking at which writers decided on a higher value for X, where X satisfies power = 10^X, I prefer to put units aside and look at the tactics and strengths and weaknesses of each universe.

Mass Effect characters use real tactics. Star Wars don't. Elite Star Wars troopers are easily defeated by fuzzy bears using stone age technology. Star Wars also can't seem to deal with projectiles effectively (never saw a good reason why projectile weapons aren't used as common energy shields wouldn't block them). Having a ship be able to kinda-withstand slowly moving rocks doesn't count.

At the end of the day, if you were going on a mission, you would want a mass effect crew that knew how to use cover, sniper rifles, grenades, and biotics/the force effectively rather than a crew whose best skill seems to be shooting blindly while running away.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Sun Nov 14, 2010 9:54 pm UTC
by Lime
Qyygle wrote:Knights of the Old Republic, Malak, and Taris were several millions years in the past by the time you get to A New Hope. A Leviathan class Sith Cruiser would be owned 10 times over by a Victory Star Destroyer, and that's 1/3 the size of the Imperators. It's like comparing the USS Ronald Reagan to the Normandy because they're both human ships. :[

Not true, KOTOR takes place 4000 years before A New Hope, and as we can see from other technology such as blasters, lightsabers, and thermal detonators, destructive power hasn't been advanced a whole lot. I'd put the Leviathan on par with a Star Destroyer, and it clearly took several shots to destroy a single civilian building, and they were even told to level the entire planet, so they were not holding back.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:41 am UTC
by Ideas sleep furiously.
I'd have to say Star Wars, because Mass Effect probably got ideas from Star Wars (Not nessecarily directly) or if not, something else that ripped off Star Wars.
There is some merit to originality.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:49 pm UTC
by SlyReaper
Oh give over. Sure, Mass Effect was probably inspired by some stuff Star Wars did, but Star Wars was itself inspired by other things. You don't get points for being first.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Wed Nov 17, 2010 9:40 am UTC
by nqdp
I have to side with ME on this one, mostly because ME actually makes a reasonable attempt at realism. Sure, there's this mass effect that allows FTL and biotics, but it has very rigidly defined rules about what it can and can't do, which is something that you don't find in SW. There's even an ME Codex entry on heat management. Heat management! Yes, real spaceships have real problems with trying not to overheat (because burning your engines and firing your lasers generates heat, and you can't dump it anywhere, because space is pretty empty). In the SW book The Bacta War, it is specifically stated that decreasing the ambient temperature of a space station saves money. In fact, that would cost more money than allowing the temperature to rise.

Some SW supporters have been saying that SW wins because Star Destroyers have guns rated in tetratons. You know what else is measured in tetratons? The total solar energy that hits the earth every day. The total energy output of a small star every second. Stuff like that. I don't see how it's remotely possible for a Star Destroyer to produce that kind of firepower and not vaporize itself due to heat generation. Go find some more reasonable numbers for the power of a turbolaser, the strength of SW shields, and how SW ships maintain a comfortable temperature, and then we can talk about SW vs. ME.

Oh, and to work like it does on screen, the Death Star needs a peak reactor output of something like 1400 Suns. Riiiiiiight. I'm getting my numbers from http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunconvent.php

...unfortunately, SW could probably win based on numbers alone, even if their entire military consisted solely of Stormtroopers on dewbacks, and Z-95 Headhunters. :(

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:04 pm UTC
by Echochamber888
nqdp wrote:I have to side with ME on this one, mostly because ME actually makes a reasonable attempt at realism. Sure, there's this mass effect that allows FTL and biotics, but it has very rigidly defined rules about what it can and can't do, which is something that you don't find in SW. There's even an ME Codex entry on heat management. Heat management! Yes, real spaceships have real problems with trying not to overheat (because burning your engines and firing your lasers generates heat, and you can't dump it anywhere, because space is pretty empty). In the SW book The Bacta War, it is specifically stated that decreasing the ambient temperature of a space station saves money. In fact, that would cost more money than allowing the temperature to rise.

Some SW supporters have been saying that SW wins because Star Destroyers have guns rated in tetratons. You know what else is measured in tetratons? The total solar energy that hits the earth every day. The total energy output of a small star every second. Stuff like that. I don't see how it's remotely possible for a Star Destroyer to produce that kind of firepower and not vaporize itself due to heat generation. Go find some more reasonable numbers for the power of a turbolaser, the strength of SW shields, and how SW ships maintain a comfortable temperature, and then we can talk about SW vs. ME.

Oh, and to work like it does on screen, the Death Star needs a peak reactor output of something like 1400 Suns. Riiiiiiight. I'm getting my numbers from http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/spacegunconvent.php

...unfortunately, SW could probably win based on numbers alone, even if their entire military consisted solely of Stormtroopers on dewbacks, and Z-95 Headhunters. :(


Strawman. The topic wasn't about which side was more realistic, it was about which side WINS in a war, which is obviously Star Wars. A single star destroyer could literally destroy the entire Citadel fleet with ease.

As to realism, neither series is that realistic, but the idea that Mass Effect is somehow more realistic than Star Wars is false. The ME codex does a reasonable job at trying to explain things, but fails in others. How does lowering the mass of a ship possibly cause it to go FTL? A 0.00000000001 nanogram object still can't go FTL. Besides, that violates conservation of mass. The fact that humans are somehow able to compete with other Citadel races despite those races having been spacefaring for thousands of years is also highly unrealistic. It's like the rest of the galaxy stagnated to wait for us humans to catch up.

Star Wars is super advanced because it's a space faring galaxy that's been around for a very, very, very long time. Therefore, it predictably has teratons level weapons and power generation. Therefore, it destroys Mass Effect.

No offense to Mass Effect though; Mass Effect 1 and 2 are awesome.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 6:38 am UTC
by nowfocus
Echochamber888 wrote:The topic wasn't about which side was more realistic, it was about which side WINS in a war

Says who? 'Vs' can imply any number of things beyond a one-on-one war. Could be a squad against squad fight, or a debate, or which universe is cooler. If the title where 'Celtics versus Lakers', would you assume the two teams were fighting to the death?
Echochamber888 wrote:As to realism, neither series is that realistic, but the idea that Mass Effect is somehow more realistic than Star Wars is false. The ME codex does a reasonable job at trying to explain things, but fails in others. How does lowering the mass of a ship possibly cause it to go FTL? A 0.00000000001 nanogram object still can't go FTL. Besides, that violates conservation of mass. The fact that humans are somehow able to compete with other Citadel races despite those races having been spacefaring for thousands of years is also highly unrealistic. It's like the rest of the galaxy stagnated to wait for us humans to catch up.


Not only is Mass Effect more realistic, its has boundries. In Star Wars, technology and the force don't seem to have any real boundry. Technology them build 1000000000000000000 ships with 100000000000000000000000000 megawatt lazers. The force lets Yoda smash them into each other. Watching infinitely powerful things be infinitely powerful is boring.

Thats how you should view the realism between the two games. Sure, Mass Effect has a few things that don't make sense by today's science, but it lays out the rules of the game fairly clearly and sticks by them. The rules are that Mass Effect fields allow for a few, but not all, physical laws to be broken in limited ways for a limited period of time. Doing so requires a rare and expensive material that needs to be replaced. In Star Wars...pretty much anything goes.

Oh - and humanity caught up to the rest of the citadel races relatively quickly because of the discovery of prothean artifacts on Mars. All technology is based on it, and ultimately hasn't progressed much beyond that. Further, after the relay 314 incident, the Turians had to give the Alliance heavy reparations, and the humans learned a lot from the other council races.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Mon Nov 22, 2010 9:28 pm UTC
by Xanthir
Echochamber888 wrote:As to realism, neither series is that realistic, but the idea that Mass Effect is somehow more realistic than Star Wars is false. The ME codex does a reasonable job at trying to explain things, but fails in others. How does lowering the mass of a ship possibly cause it to go FTL? A 0.00000000001 nanogram object still can't go FTL.

FWIW, this is because the mass effect does more than just manipulate mass (the name is a slight misnomer). It also affects gravity and forces, and can alter the structure of spacetime in limited ways. The former is what biotics are based on, while the latter is what allows FTL (the relays produce "corridors" of altered spacetime between each other).

Besides, that violates conservation of mass.

Yes it does. Physics is amended suitably, in ways that are not elucidated in-game.

The fact that humans are somehow able to compete with other Citadel races despite those races having been spacefaring for thousands of years is also highly unrealistic. It's like the rest of the galaxy stagnated to wait for us humans to catch up.

A large point of the story is that they *did* stagnate. I can spoil ME1, right? None of the advanced technology that the galactic civilization is built on was invented by the current races; it's all Reaper technology designed specifically to catch races early and force them to develop in predictable ways. The Reapers always come in and clean things up before the races get advanced enough to start doing real science on the mass effect (the Protheans were *just* starting to mess around with it). Stagnation, at least for a while, seems like a plausible result of having a ton of hyper-advanced technology dumped on you which is effectively magic in its operation. Combine that with the traditional long-lived conservative race that advances slowly (the Asari), and it becomes quite believable.

Plus, as nowfocus said, we humans got catapulted up to a similar level due to us discovering a bunch of Prothean technology, and then we got a bunch of reparations that helped build us up into an interstellar economy.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:34 pm UTC
by Echochamber888
nowfocus wrote:The OP quite clearly implies that the battle is in the form of a fight.


Not only is Mass Effect more realistic, its has boundries. In Star Wars, technology and the force don't seem to have any real boundry. Technology them build 1000000000000000000 ships with 100000000000000000000000000 megawatt lazers. The force lets Yoda smash them into each other. Watching infinitely powerful things be infinitely powerful is boring.



Star Wars does have tech limits; it's just that they're far, far, far higher than Mass Effect, hence the curbstomp. A single shielded star destroyer from Star Wars would quite literally be completely invincible to any Mass Effect ship, possibly including the Reapers (no offense to the OP, but the claim that adding in the Reapers making it unfair is rather ignorant; it simply means that Star Wars would take a little longer to curbstomp Mass Effect.


Thats how you should view the realism between the two games. Sure, Mass Effect has a few things that don't make sense by today's science, but it lays out the rules of the game fairly clearly and sticks by them. The rules are that Mass Effect fields allow for a few, but not all, physical laws to be broken in limited ways for a limited period of time. Doing so requires a rare and expensive material that needs to be replaced. In Star Wars...pretty much anything goes.



...what? Since when is it ok to "allow for a few, but not all, physical laws to be broken in limited ways for a limited period of time?" Star Wars does that to; it still follows the laws of physics with just a few exceptions such as the Force, hyperdrive and hypermatter.

Oh - and humanity caught up to the rest of the citadel races relatively quickly because of the discovery of prothean artifacts on Mars. All technology is based on it, and ultimately hasn't progressed much beyond that. Further, after the relay 314 incident, the Turians had to give the Alliance heavy reparations, and the humans learned a lot from the other council races.


That's unrealistic that the Citadel races would stagnate for thousands of years.

Either way, Mass Effect stands about as much of a chance against Star Wars as the Roman Empire would against the United States.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:29 am UTC
by nowfocus
Echochamber888 wrote:The OP quite clearly implies that the battle is in the form of a fight.

Perhaps a fight, but not necessarily an all out war. We're not really arguing about squad based combat because it so obvious who would win.

Echochamber888 wrote:Star Wars does have tech limits; it's just that they're completely irrelevant than Mass Effect, hence the curbstomp.

Fixed.
Echochamber888 wrote:...what? Since when is it ok to "allow for a few, but not all, physical laws to be broken in limited ways for a limited period of time?" Star Wars does that to; it still follows the laws of physics with just a few exceptions such as the Force, hyperdrive and hypermatter.

Those aren't limited exceptions. Hyperdrives let you travel to and from any point at an arbitrarily fast without any notable concern for fuel. Mass Effect drives left you travel within a system in a reasonable time, all long distance travel has to be through relays. Fuels is expensive, element zero drives need to discharged, and jumps require skill.

The force can basically do anything. I don't even read much star wars, but I know Yoda could smash two ships together, and there was time travel, healing, stealth, a sort of immortality, immunity to poison...basically enhanced everything you can think of. Biotics let you move small amounts of matter (pull, push, warp, and singularity), and some mind control (which was lame). Biotic users have to consume additional calories, and need special amplifications. They aren't much more powerful than well trained soldiers.

And hypermatter...basically has enough power to power anything.

Star Wars doesn't have technological limits - and that's not a good thing.
Echochamber888 wrote:That's unrealistic that the Citadel races would stagnate for thousands of years.

They didn't stagnate, but there technological level didn't progress significantly past Prothean technology. Lets also not we never see Alliance technology before they became part of the galactic community.


The force can basically do everything, hyperdrives

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:49 am UTC
by bobjoesmith
Again, those who haven't really followed expanded universe (and I gave up after Luke lost his wife :'( ) don't get the scale of Star Wars. Don't get me wrong, Mass Effect is probably my 3rd favorite game of all time, but it is simply improbable that they could ever win.

Quite simply, Star Wars has millions and millions of inhabited planets: if they were going to go head to head, the Mass Effect universe would run out of mass (haha get it?) before the Star Wars universe ran out of people to toss the mass at. [this could potentially be a hyperbole, but the point stands] Even factoring in tactics, if a swarm of 72 TIE fighters attacked the Normandy, not even N-7 could save it: do all the evasive maneuvers you want, but theres a reason why everyone died in 300. You can take the Greek phalanx, and all the heart you want, but they were fcking outnumbered... by a lot. If you try and "base trade," each Mass Effectian planet is worth far more, because quite simply, there aren't as many of them. Who cares if you have biotics? Orbital bombardment... I mean get the Sun Crusher with its invincible armor and its sun supernovaing technology and bust a few systems apart and see how fast the council surrenders.

More realistically any conflict would be small scale, until they realized the vastness of the Star Wars universe and the Mass Effect universe would probably coexist happily and develop technology far faster.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:27 am UTC
by Thesh
The problem with talking about the power of the force star wars is that the idea of the force in episode 4 didn't seem to stick, and it seemed to change as the series progressed. In episode 4, the extent of the force was darth vader choking someone, luke skywalker being able to block the training remote with something covering his eyes, and obi-wan being able to persuade or trick people.Then in episode 5, they say "Oh, BTW, the jedi have telekinetic powers" which makes you wonder why obi-wan didn't just move something with his mind to prove to han solo that the force is real.

Now, episode 6 comes along and "If you embrace the dark side and become strong enough, you can shoot lightning bolts!" Then apparently the expanded universe comes along and makes them even more powerful, but I haven't really followed it myself.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Tue Nov 30, 2010 9:31 am UTC
by SlyReaper
bobjoesmith wrote:Again, those who haven't really followed expanded universe (and I gave up after Luke lost his wife :'( ) don't get the scale of Star Wars. Don't get me wrong, Mass Effect is probably my 3rd favorite game of all time, but it is simply improbable that they could ever win.

Quite simply, Star Wars has millions and millions of inhabited planets: if they were going to go head to head, the Mass Effect universe would run out of mass (haha get it?) before the Star Wars universe ran out of people to toss the mass at. [this could potentially be a hyperbole, but the point stands] Even factoring in tactics, if a swarm of 72 TIE fighters attacked the Normandy, not even N-7 could save it: do all the evasive maneuvers you want, but theres a reason why everyone died in 300. You can take the Greek phalanx, and all the heart you want, but they were fcking outnumbered... by a lot. If you try and "base trade," each Mass Effectian planet is worth far more, because quite simply, there aren't as many of them. Who cares if you have biotics? Orbital bombardment... I mean get the Sun Crusher with its invincible armor and its sun supernovaing technology and bust a few systems apart and see how fast the council surrenders.

More realistically any conflict would be small scale, until they realized the vastness of the Star Wars universe and the Mass Effect universe would probably coexist happily and develop technology far faster.


All that just means is that the Star Wars writers have written win button into their universe. At least Mass Effect has rules about what's possible and sticks to them.

And let's not forget that the Star Wars universe was dominated by an evil empire which was thwarted by things that look like teddy bears with pointy sticks.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 5:12 pm UTC
by Stormhawk
First of all, I will say that I am very unfamiliar with the ME universe, but from what I am gathering in this thread, their weapon systems are mainly based on Kinetic energy weapons, much like the Halo universe. I will point out that at least in a Halo vs Star Wars type of battle, I would imagine that any range advantage of magnetic accelerator cannons would be negated by simply firing a volley of proton torpedoes at it. Proton torpedoes are nuclear weapons. A sizable barrage should obliterate a impact weapon, or at least rob it of a sizable chunk of it's energy.

However, the Star Wars universe I am much more familiar with. About Malak's Leviathan, the ship is 600 meters long. An Imperial Star Destroyer is 1600 meters long, a Victory-class destroyer is 900 meters long. It is an extremely primitive ship as far as capital ships go by the Battle of Yavin. Second, keep in mind the planetary bombardment was reduced by Taris' atmosphere, probably reducing a majority of the Turbolasers' energy.

Last, as mentioned before, there is the question of numbers. At one point, Admiral Pellaeon mentions that at the peak of the Empire's power, there were over 15000 Star Destroyers. Again, due to my unfamiliarity with the ME universe, such a numerical strength would seem to lend the advantage to Star Wars at least in space combat, but land combat does not seem like it would be a large factor in a galactic war.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 2:47 am UTC
by Lime
Stormhawk wrote:First of all, I will say that I am very unfamiliar with the ME universe, but from what I am gathering in this thread, their weapon systems are mainly based on Kinetic energy weapons, much like the Halo universe. I will point out that at least in a Halo vs Star Wars type of battle, I would imagine that any range advantage of magnetic accelerator cannons would be negated by simply firing a volley of proton torpedoes at it. Proton torpedoes are nuclear weapons. A sizable barrage should obliterate a impact weapon, or at least rob it of a sizable chunk of it's energy.

However, the Star Wars universe I am much more familiar with. About Malak's Leviathan, the ship is 600 meters long. An Imperial Star Destroyer is 1600 meters long, a Victory-class destroyer is 900 meters long. It is an extremely primitive ship as far as capital ships go by the Battle of Yavin. Second, keep in mind the planetary bombardment was reduced by Taris' atmosphere, probably reducing a majority of the Turbolasers' energy.

Last, as mentioned before, there is the question of numbers. At one point, Admiral Pellaeon mentions that at the peak of the Empire's power, there were over 15000 Star Destroyers. Again, due to my unfamiliarity with the ME universe, such a numerical strength would seem to lend the advantage to Star Wars at least in space combat, but land combat does not seem like it would be a large factor in a galactic war.

Oh absolutely, in sheer numbers the Star Wars universe is unfairly stacked. Lucas doesn't seem to realise the actual density of liveable planets in a real galaxy and just filled it to the brim with a species in every system. And in Mass Effect the number of Dreadnaughts, the most powerful capital ships is limited by a treaty. Furthermore, Humanity has only been on the galactic scene for 20ish years. Despite abusing the loophole in the ship treaty that allows for carriers, they simply haven't had enough time to amass any significant amount of ships. I'm talking, and I'm sure most are talking about a fight on a case-by-case instance.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:34 pm UTC
by Endless Mike
As we well know there is no life in the universe, so whatever density he filled the galaxy is irrelevant. ;)

But anyway, the big key here is that Star Wars is science fantasy while Mass Effect is science fiction. Fantasy will always win because it doesn't have to play by any rules.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 11:04 pm UTC
by nowfocus
Yeah, basically this is a case of Star Wars fans saying Star Wars wins because of numbers, Mass Effect fans saying star wars doesn't play the/any rules, and if you look at the technology its actually quite susceptible to stone age weapons, and then Star Wars fans saying Star Wars wins because of numbers. There just isn't enough consistency or limits to the Star Wars universe to actually have this discussion.

I can't even think of anything that couldn't happen in Star Wars. As they keep writing more of these EU books, they'll just keep trying to out do each other.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 4:26 pm UTC
by Endless Mike
Yeah, and when Lucas tries to make rules in the most canon of canon, it just ends up being worse from both story and logic viewpoints. (See: midichlorians.) (And I say this as someone who loves Star Wars and only hates 1.5 of the prequels.)

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 4:28 am UTC
by bobjoesmith
...star wars does have the win button. so? it wins rite?

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:53 pm UTC
by nowfocus
bobjoesmith wrote:...star wars does have the win button. so? it wins rite?

No - it doesn't get to play. You can't have an argument about Star Wars in this context because there is no logic to the universe.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2011 12:34 pm UTC
by CinnamonOne
See, when the winner for any confrontation is so obvious that even the baby gets it, he/she/it is left out of the game for a "fair fight"

Firstly, in the meta sense (which is basically what this battle has degraded to), SW would win. Why? SMA SMA SMA. And Kyle Katarn

It's true that SW is a mess, but blame that on the size of SW. It is too big for any one team to monitor. The fact that med lasers are at least at the low gigaton rate is explainable. Seeing how advanced SW is, one cannot guess the power source of SW (my personal argument against reverse engineering SW tech). That what powers SW is like Element Zero, just with a whole lot more juice.

200 gigatons is not likely though. Where did that number come from. That number for your average turbolaser seems to be more like 250 megatons per shot, with two per second. Considering that SW likely has a very good energy source aside from hypermatter (1 vial powered the Death Star), this is acceptable. Ballistics won't work, as those asteroids hitting the ISDs are both very fast and very heavy. And this happened probably not for one or days, but one or two weeks. This, and surviving 500x200 megaton blasts per second show the sheer durability of both shielding and armor of SW ships.

An ISD has way over 200 guns, with an average of 500 megatons per second. Know wonder BDZs actually worked.

Size matters not. SW outnumbers ME, period.

Oh, and the force is far stronger than biotics. Force storms, mind rape, and 19 ISDs light years away are just glimpses. The Vong would decode biotics extremely easily.

Oh, and never trust any clone wars infomation. Maybe aside from the ability of the Nulls and Republic Commandoes The Game

Oh, and Tactics wise, there may only be three words. Grand. Admiral. Thrawn.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2011 12:43 pm UTC
by zmatt
You can't have a Star Wars v. X discussion ever because Star Wars fans have an inconsistent and massive "canon" to draw from that makes just about anything possible. Nobody ever runs out of ammo, or fuel, or grunts to throw at you, but at the same time planet destroying space stations can be blown up by some asshat in a fighter that isn't designed for anti-ship warfare.

Yeah

Right


Give me a break. If you have to have a discussion involving Star Wars then you have to set some ground rules like, only things in the movies count for example. And even then Star Wars tech and logic is retarded. Hyperdrives are quite possibly the worst method of FTL I have ever heard of based on plausibility. And the Death Star laser, don't get me started on converging lasers to make one big laser.


ME has rules, has technology that while beyond our reach seems plausible and has a set way of doing what it does, that while being SciFi is adhered to as a law in the context of the game. Star Wars effectively has no laws of physics, or they are enforced by the most apathetic mother nature ever. I would like to see the Normandy be beat by teddie bears with rocks. You know what? They wouldn't be, because they are competent soldiers.


CinnamonOne wrote:See, when the winner for any confrontation is so obvious that even the baby gets it, he/she/it is left out of the game for a "fair fight"

Firstly, in the meta sense (which is basically what this battle has degraded to), SW would win. Why? SMA SMA SMA. And Kyle Katarn


What does a Really Hot Chick Have to do with anything?

CinnamonOne wrote:It's true that SW is a mess, but blame that on the size of SW. It is too big for any one team to monitor. The fact that med lasers are at least at the low gigaton rate is explainable. Seeing how advanced SW is, one cannot guess the power source of SW (my personal argument against reverse engineering SW tech). That what powers SW is like Element Zero, just with a whole lot more juice.


I blame that on Lucas deciding that any and everything is canon. Which is BS. I refuse to consider books written by people other than him simply because it makes things a mess. Star Trek doesn't have this issue, and neither does the Bible. They have rules as to what is and isn't canon.

CinnamonOne wrote:200 gigatons is not likely though. Where did that number come from. That number for your average turbolaser seems to be more like 250 megatons per shot, with two per second. Considering that SW likely has a very good energy source aside from hypermatter (1 vial powered the Death Star), this is acceptable. Ballistics won't work, as those asteroids hitting the ISDs are both very fast and very heavy. And this happened probably not for one or days, but one or two weeks. This, and surviving 500x200 megaton blasts per second show the sheer durability of both shielding and armor of SW ships.

An ISD has way over 200 guns, with an average of 500 megatons per second. Know wonder BDZs actually worked.


Who said this and where? I don't remember Tarkin or anyone explaining this in the movie.

CinnamonOne wrote:Size matters not. SW outnumbers ME, period.


having an arbitrarily large "galactic" empire is not a valid. There is no way the Empire could ever field all of this at once, and it obviously didn't matter because the rebellion beat them. And they were always under equipped and under manned.

CinnamonOne wrote:Oh, and the force is far stronger than biotics. Force storms, mind rape, and 19 ISDs light years away are just glimpses. The Vong would decode biotics extremely easily.


And we aren't saying it isn't. Just that it is indistinguishable from "magic", has no place in a work that calls itself SciFi and therefore is bull s****.

CinnamonOne wrote:Oh, and never trust any clone wars infomation. Maybe aside from the ability of the Nulls and Republic Commandoes The Game


And before you ask why I decided to "arbitrarily" limit SW to the movies, let he who is without sin cast the first flamewar.

CinnamonOne wrote:Oh, and Tactics wise, there may only be three words. Grand. Admiral. Thrawn.


Who?

Oh you mean this poorly photohsopped guy, who wasn't in the movies.
Image

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Sat Apr 23, 2011 6:22 am UTC
by CinnamonOne
The numbers are from ESB Hoth asteroid scene

So is SMA

Even without EU, The original trilogy imply enough to defeat ME.

Just leave the force out of it, and there would be the same outcome.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Sun Apr 24, 2011 10:00 pm UTC
by nowfocus
CinnamonOne wrote:Even without EU, The original trilogy imply enough to defeat ME.


No it doesn't. Asteroids don't move near light speed. According the original trilogy wooden logs can crush imperial armor. Super Star Destroyers are taken down by small projectiles.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:27 am UTC
by CinnamonOne
Asteroids may not move at lightspeed, but that says nothing. Some move at bullet speed. With a continuous volley after volley for weeks, one thinks twice after such a decision.

The AT-STs blew up when the concussion grenade launcher blew up, which compromised the armor (that scene has no logic at all. George just took away the plot armor, as well as reason)

The SSD was taken down by barrages of 4-hiroshima x 200 x [no. of ships] fire. As well as bombing runs and lots of other stuff. ALL DIRECTED AT THE BRIGE. That was the shield. The unarmored bridge took only one suicide craft (yeah, that was how the A-wing was designed) to blow up. With that, and the fact that the second bridge was 'mysteriously' absent, caused the gravity of the DS 2 to (BOOM)

Even if there was a second bridge on station, Palps would probably not have let go of his battle meditation, and the SSD would still be floating space junk.

Before you ask, the DS 2 was not heavily defended at all, and the ISDs were ordered not to attack the larger crafts.

[EDIT] The AT-STs are Scout Walkers. The reason why they defend the bunker was because Palps was arrogant.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 4:54 am UTC
by nowfocus
CinnamonOne wrote:Asteroids may not move at lightspeed, but that says nothing. Some move at bullet speed. With a continuous volley after volley for weeks, one thinks twice after such a decision.


Can you recognize a difference between being pelted by ping-pong bombs being tossed at your and ping pong balls hitting you at near light speed? Any piece of wood can handle light tosses - basically nothing can handle it moving at light speed.

CinnamonOne wrote:The AT-STs blew up when the concussion grenade launcher blew up, which compromised the armor (that scene has no logic at all. George just took away the plot armor, as well as reason)

This is how many feel about the entire trilogy - nothing makes sense. You can't say star wars is all powerful and then have the super teched out army be beating by a group of teddy bears with stone age weapons.

If the SSD was being attacked by so many weapons, then why was it the kamakaize that took it down? You'd think any one of those lasers would do a similar amount of damage - yet it happens to be this one ship that makes any noticable impact. You know what the chances the lasers were doing similar damage are? Less than one-in-a-million. If the lasers were such a big deal, they would have blown the ship long ago.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 1:10 pm UTC
by CinnamonOne
Considering the technology level of Star Wars, if mass drivers were really of any use in SW, they would be used. We can therefore automatically assume the tech of SW to be good enough to surpass MD somehow.

And its true about mc2. So what? It's another stupid foolish SW gap, and it wasn't my point. The point is, a bunch of terraton+ pingpong balls per second going mach 20 will dent most shields. And it would happen faster to ME. In any case, considering the resources of the Empire, were mass d. weapons to have a future (save for the galaxy gun), they would be in the sights of R&D.

And btw: only the bridge shields were down, and the rebels didn't know that. They assumed that the shields still held. It only takes a lucky doomed kamikaze to blow up the bridge.

And whats the best explaination for Endor:
It's George Lucas' falt. I don't fancy that scene myself.
The conc grenade launcher blowing up is a pathetic excuse. The scene was one of the many reasons why ROTJ never made the big-time charts. Lucas just went downhill from ESB. Somethings make sense, but Ewoks and Jar Jar do not. Megaton weapons make sense. But ENDOR does not.

Seriously, what squad of measly troopers did they place there? A bunch of rookies straight from SMA? They may be the emperor's best troops, but they are definately not Vader's.

And it isn't laser weaponry. It's turbs, ion cannons, and blasters. Entirely different.

P.S. Sry for errors. I was in a rush
P.P.S. At least you guys are smarter than the trekkies. It's good to stimulate the mind. (I so hope I don't sound sarcarstic, honestly)

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 2:42 pm UTC
by zmatt
CinnamonOne wrote:Considering the technology level of Star Wars, if mass drivers were really of any use in SW, they would be used. We can therefore automatically assume the tech of SW to be good enough to surpass MD somehow.


No we don't. The use of directed energy weapons and not mass drivers was a stylistic choice on Lucas' part.

CinnamonOne wrote:And its true about mc2. So what? It's another stupid foolish SW gap, and it wasn't my point. The point is, a bunch of terraton+ pingpong balls per second going mach 20 will dent most shields. And it would happen faster to ME. In any case, considering the resources of the Empire, were mass d. weapons to have a future (save for the galaxy gun), they would be in the sights of R&D.


[citation needed]

CinnamonOne wrote:And btw: only the bridge shields were down, and the rebels didn't know that. They assumed that the shields still held. It only takes a lucky doomed kamikaze to blow up the bridge.


Pretty sure any reasonable description of how energy shields work do not fit this this. Then again Star Wars is about as far form hard scifi as you can get. So anything goes.

CinnamonOne wrote:And whats the best explaination for Endor:
It's George Lucas' falt. I don't fancy that scene myself.
The conc grenade launcher blowing up is a pathetic excuse. The scene was one of the many reasons why ROTJ never made the big-time charts. Lucas just went downhill from ESB. Somethings make sense, but Ewoks and Jar Jar do not. Megaton weapons make sense. But ENDOR does not.


There was close to 2 decades between ROTJ and TPM. I don't think you can really compare them like that. Also I would venture to say that most of the wtf in SW is Lucas' being a bad write,r and given that very few if any hard numbers are given in the movies then I refuse to accept your multi gigaton appraisals of Imperial weaponry.

CinnamonOne wrote:And it isn't laser weaponry. It's turbs, ion cannons, and blasters. Entirely different.


You have two main types of directed energy weapons, lasers of some type (I am including all EM spectrum devices, microwaves, "heat guns" etc) and charged particle weapons. "Blasters" really don't fit well with science. We have a thread that talks about this. IMO they operate with a gauss rifle firing a "bolt" of plasma.

CinnamonOne wrote:P.S. Sry for errors. I was in a rush
P.P.S. At least you guys are smarter than the trekkies. It's good to stimulate the mind. (I so hope I don't sound sarcarstic, honestly)


hey whats wrong with star trek?

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Mon Apr 25, 2011 11:48 pm UTC
by CinnamonOne
Where would psionic weapons fit.

And anyway, we are debating the antics of SW. What about ME.

Is this a meta-discussion, or a scientific discussion.

And, btw, how much energy is needed to melt the entire surface of a large planet in less than an hour?

And, no offense trekkies. It's just that I had an argument with some neighbour trekkies, some who splurted out random numbers. They beeped me off quite a bit. My annoyance is not universal; it just was inflated at the time.

[EDIT]

1. When will Lucas actually release a good game that isn't a scam?
2. When will there be a smart SW fans in this world?

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:37 am UTC
by nowfocus
CinnamonOne wrote:Considering the technology level of Star Wars, if mass drivers were really of any use in SW, they would be used. We can therefore automatically assume the tech of SW to be good enough to surpass MD somehow.


You really can't - this is a universe where people started using swords (!) to start countering energy shields. Why wouldn't they use ballistic weapons? It just doesn't seem to exist in the universe, just like blaster pistols don't exist in ours. The pistols shown in Star Wars seem significantly less lethal then your average assault rifle.

CinnamonOne wrote:The point is, a bunch of terraton+ pingpong balls per second going mach 20 will dent most shields.

Oh? How many shields have you observed to make that judgement? The Mass Effect kinetic barriers can absorb impacts much, much greater than that, and in general it's easier to stop large things going slowly than small things going quickly.

CinnamonOne wrote:And btw: only the bridge shields were down, and the rebels didn't know that. They assumed that the shields still held. It only takes a lucky doomed kamikaze to blow up the bridge.

I thought the bridge shields were down because they shot that orb (with like...two shots btw). Wasn't the whole rebel army firing at that ship? Of all those lasers none were targeted at the bridge?[/quote]

CinnamonOne wrote:It's George Lucas' falt. I don't fancy that scene myself.

CinnamonOne wrote:It's another stupid foolish SW gap, and it wasn't my point.

This is the crux of the disagreement - you're catergorizing anything that doesn't fit your view into a 'foolish SW gap'. For us, this is evidence that the basic facts of the universe aren't defined, and you can't include it in these discussion.

This is like arguing with a religious fanatic who says something 'the bible is infallible', and when you point out contradictions or totally crazy passages they say 'Well I don't observe that part'.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:17 am UTC
by CinnamonOne
Srry, the previous post was just an experiment.

Well, it does seem that nobody is saying much about Mass Effect. Which is funny, but understandable.

It's true that Star Wars has little, if any logic. To add logic would be like filling WW I trenches with corpses. What seems to work, but only in the short term.

A better comparison to Star Wars is Star Trek. Not because the numbers make them evenly matched, but the fact that they are both large universes that are too big for their own good.

Soon Halo's going to be like that.

If given the chance, most successful series end up that way.

i say Lazy Man time, then meta issues.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2011 2:34 pm UTC
by zmatt
CinnamonOne wrote:Srry, the previous post was just an experiment.


really now?

CinnamonOne wrote:Well, it does seem that nobody is saying much about Mass Effect. Which is funny, but understandable.


Mainly because, as we have said ME has set rules that it follows, but your argument for SW has been a fallacious one. The only things we have had to address up to this point have been the hole sin your SW argument. There is no rebuttal needed if one does not mount an effective attack.

CinnamonOne wrote:It's true that Star Wars has little, if any logic. To add logic would be like filling WW I trenches with corpses. What seems to work, but only in the short term.


The arguing the technical or numerical superiority of the SW universe is ultimately silly yes?

CinnamonOne wrote:A better comparison to Star Wars is Star Trek. Not because the numbers make them evenly matched, but the fact that they are both large universes that are too big for their own good.


I disagree, I have seen those arguments before and they go down the same way this has. ST has slightly stronger rules than SW, however the enterprise can always manage to travel, at warp factor plot.

CinnamonOne wrote:If given the chance, most successful series end up that way.


I disagree. It all depends on how dedicated the creators are to holding a canon and making sense of it all. SW is an example of the creator being greedy and not giving a damn.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Mon May 30, 2011 8:36 pm UTC
by Gregarious Raconteur
Though I never read the ME codexes too closely, IIRC, there are little to no directed energy weapons in the ME universe, so wouldn't all of their defensive tech be designed to withstand Kinetic weapons, and be extremely vulnerable to DE weapons?


Even if you ignore the EU, even the first death star would be able to handily destroy the citadel and the mass relays, crippling the ME universe's transportation and communication capabilities.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Wed Jun 01, 2011 10:39 am UTC
by CinnamonOne
Well, regarding the test, I was going to make some outrageous flame content thingy after the second post after mine. It took a little longer than I expected, and so the power would be wasted. I was going to demonstrate how things go out of control, but I don't think it is necessary.

Anyway, as I said before, the discussion has gone far of into meta. Would it be safe to presume that SW wins in actual combat?

Any objections?

Or maybe specific, unit v unit examples, rather than universe v universe

EDIT: Regarding universes becoming too large, look at Halo.

Cryptum just made the human race a bunch of brainwashed geniuses. And the Covenant just became even more idiotic.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:07 pm UTC
by nowfocus
Gregarious Raconteur wrote:Though I never read the ME codexes too closely, IIRC, there are little to no directed energy weapons in the ME universe, so wouldn't all of their defensive tech be designed to withstand Kinetic weapons, and be extremely vulnerable to DE weapons?


Could probably say the same thing about Star Wars and Kinetic Weapons - anytime something is hit with a kinetic blast it seems to go down in star wars.

Gregarious Raconteur wrote:Even if you ignore the EU, even the first death star would be able to handily destroy the citadel and the mass relays, crippling the ME universe's transportation and communication capabilities.

It's not clear what the range of the death star actually is. It seems to need to wait for a while to attack Yavin IV, which makes me think the range is rather short. Would it be able to get anywhere near the citadel? I don't think that's a given - especially when a single fighter could take the bloody thing down.
CinnamonOne wrote:Would it be safe to presume that SW wins in actual combat?

I'm not sure you get the point here - the issue is that whether or not SW wins in actual combat depends on which rule set Star Wars happens to be using that day. Army versus Army, elite storm trooper lose to teddy bears throwing rocks. Even blaster shots don't seem fatal.

Tactically, Star Wars doesn't seem to have any tactical sense. Mass Effect has a variety of weapons, use of cover, grenades etc. Star Wars rarely uses these elements effectively in combat. Storm Troopers fighting the sand people seem to run up directly to their tank and fire from like 20 feet away. And it works. You couldn't get away with that in Mass Effect. Storm Troopers boarding Leia's ship at the begining of episode 4 walk single file into a hallway where rebels have cover, throwing no grenades. And when one gets shot, the one behind him leans down and checks his pulse. What was the plan if he had a pulse? Or didn't? These are supposed to be uber soldiers trained from birth to be effective?

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 9:44 am UTC
by CinnamonOne
You can't really debate a point like that. ME doesn't have enough bullets to kill everybody in SW.

And, in either way. SW is a Movie. ME is a game. Games need balancing. Movies need fuzz. And plot leads. Each will have loop holes and furry points.

What about the Endor Holocaust? Why is it not there? Because it would spoil the mood and kill off the heroes.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:35 pm UTC
by nowfocus
CinnamonOne wrote:You can't really debate a point like that. ME doesn't have enough bullets to kill everybody in SW.

And, in either way. SW is a Movie. ME is a game. Games need balancing. Movies need fuzz. And plot leads. Each will have loop holes and furry points.

What about the Endor Holocaust? Why is it not there? Because it would spoil the mood and kill off the heroes.


ME doesn't have bullets - the guns shoot teeny-tiny pieces of metal off of a block. Ammo is never an issue in the ME universe.

So you want to talk about movies versus games eh? Have you played KOTOR?

Even though both ME and KOTOR were made by bioware, there is no tactical sense in KOTOR. The optimal strategy for non-force users is to run up to people shooting energy weapons with a freaking sword - not a lightsaber, a sword - even if you don't have any kind of shielding. The highest damage character in the game is a 14 year old girl with 'street smarts'. No one uses cover, guns basically suck, and 3 people could easily take out the most heavily defended areas.

An Asari hit squad would cut through them like butter.

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2011 8:38 am UTC
by CinnamonOne
I'm not talking about it in that perspective.

So do we compare unit to unit. Or universe to universe. Because there are definitely not enough dreadnought shells to take down SW (I didn't mean small arms fire).

And there are definitely not enough guns. You can't dish out the fire fast enough. Also, if simple paddings are enough to stop particles in ME...

The thing about Mass drivers in ME is that they are overrated. They don't ever come close to the speed of light. Sure they are far better that what we have today, but that is within logistics. The overall damage output is not increased too much in relative. One shot kills in most galaxies, and so it makes little difference. And the fact that only soldiers use ARs (meta-wise) severly limits MEs combat abilities.

And the mechanics between KOTOR and ME are extremely different. Comparing them without taking in meta perspectiveis no different to comparing ME with the movies.

What about a specific discussion, not prodding into one random corner of the galaxy. Like Biotics vs Force?

Re: Star Wars vs Mass Effect

Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2011 6:00 pm UTC
by Obby
CinnamonOne wrote:The thing about Mass drivers in ME is that they are overrated. They don't ever come close to the speed of light. Sure they are far better that what we have today, but that is within logistics.

How do you figure? Stars are usually several light years apart, and the mass relays allow ships travel the distance in what seems like a few minutes, on average. Unless I'm forgetting something, stars in the ME universe would have to be extremely close together in order for the mass relays not to propel ships at FTL speeds.

Unless you're talking about other methods of propulsion in the ME universe aside from the mass relays.