Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Ashiraya wrote:
That's the Widow, again. Are you sure it is not a feature unique to the high-powered sniper rifles?

Yes. I've also gotten it with the Harrier, Carnifex, Paladin, Executioner, plus numerous shotguns (I play Vanguard a lot). The Claymore in particular will almost always instagib the head on a headshot, because it's so damn powerful, which is why I suspect it has more to do with the damage done to the head over the damage threshold than being linked to any particular kind of weapon-- even after the -50 damage per pellet (8 pellets) on Gold or Platinum difficulty, the Claymore can still make a Geth Pyro's (which is armored, thus the damage reduction) head explode, as I've seen countless times. Also seen it quite frequently with the shotgun I use the most, the Disciple (though given that the Disciple uses pellets packed with explosives that detonate on impact, that's hardly surprising).

Actually the Claymore is SO overpowered that it will one-shot phantoms with a headshot... and gib the head for good measure. And that's a distinctively Krogan weapon

Hmm. I'd rate ME weapons as good as a Lasgun if not somewhat better due to their stopping power while Krogan shotguns being somewhere between a human shotgun and a Astartes shotgun. Probably closer to the Astartes shotgun.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Hmm. I'd rate ME weapons as good as a Lasgun if not somewhat better due to their stopping power while Krogan shotguns being somewhere between a human shotgun and a Astartes shotgun. Probably closer to the Astartes shotgun.

Krogan are generally the same size as Space Marines, not to mention the fact that the shotguns manipulate gravity to shoot out thick metal shavings. What makes the Astartes shotgun superior?

Yep, having just checked up with a friend I know who knows a lot more about physics than me, Melissa's "plasma torch" argument is completely bunk. Heat is largely worthless when it comes to the power of plasma weapons. What matters is the actual energy of the weapon, IE joules.

Although the line of argument was shoddy to begin with as she is using outdated game mechanics that don't even exist anymore.

 dusara217 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Hmm. I'd rate ME weapons as good as a Lasgun if not somewhat better due to their stopping power while Krogan shotguns being somewhere between a human shotgun and a Astartes shotgun. Probably closer to the Astartes shotgun.

Krogan are generally the same size as Space Marines, not to mention the fact that the shotguns manipulate gravity to shoot out thick metal shavings. What makes the Astartes shotgun superior?

That very much depends on your source, actually.

Krogan are 7'.

Odinsgrandson has a thread on Marine heights, and the average of all sources makes Astartes ~ 7'6", and there plenty of sources showing them as 9' or even almost 10'.

 Ashiraya wrote:

That very much depends on your source, actually.

Krogan are 7'.

Odinsgrandson has a thread on Marine heights, and the average of all sources makes Astartes ~ 7'6", and there plenty of sources showing them as 9' or even almost 10'.

Space Marine height is variable, just like human height. You have normal people who are 7'6", just like you have people who are 3'6". Having Astartes who are 11' tall and others who are 7' makes just as much sense, as well. The average Krogan height is 7', but you are almost certain to have specimens who are significantly taller.

 dusara217 wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Hmm. I'd rate ME weapons as good as a Lasgun if not somewhat better due to their stopping power while Krogan shotguns being somewhere between a human shotgun and a Astartes shotgun. Probably closer to the Astartes shotgun.

Krogan are generally the same size as Space Marines, not to mention the fact that the shotguns manipulate gravity to shoot out thick metal shavings. What makes the Astartes shotgun superior?

Height doesn't have much to do with how well someone can handle recoil nor does the technology behind ME weaponry automatically make them inherently better than conventional firearms. It just solves logistical issues. My reasoning is that since Space Marines are stronger than Krogan they would be given a weapon that would be stronger than the Claymore. I have no concrete evidence to back up my beliefs but neither does the opposition to my argument. So it is just a feeling I have based on a lot of assumptions. Par the course for this thread really.

 dusara217 wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:

That very much depends on your source, actually.

Krogan are 7'.

Odinsgrandson has a thread on Marine heights, and the average of all sources makes Astartes ~ 7'6", and there plenty of sources showing them as 9' or even almost 10'.

Space Marine height is variable, just like human height. You have normal people who are 7'6", just like you have people who are 3'6". Having Astartes who are 11' tall and others who are 7' makes just as much sense, as well. The average Krogan height is 7', but you are almost certain to have specimens who are significantly taller.

So, we're going with the average between 7' and 11' then (9')?

Fine by me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So it is just a feeling I have based on a lot of assumptions. Par the course for this thread really.

You just summed up 12 pages in 2 sentences.

Good lad.

Threads like this are more or less popularlity contests. If you asked who would win between a Executor class Super Star Destroyer or an Emperor class battle ship people's answers would depend on what franchise they liked more. Some could cite how Executor Star Destroyers have a ton of Turbo Laser batteries and Turbo Lasers are the equivalent of Lance batteries because of insert baseless assumption here. Others would say that the Emperor class battleship has shield technology unlike anything in Star Wars rendering the firepower of the Executor moot. It always struck me as strange how invested nerds (including me) get in basically opinion driven debates like this.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Threads like this are more or less popularlity contests. If you asked who would win between a Executor class Super Star Destroyer or an Emperor class battle ship people's answers would depend on what franchise they liked more. Some could cite how Executor Star Destroyers have a ton of Turbo Laser batteries and Turbo Lasers are the equivalent of Lance batteries because of insert baseless assumption here. Others would say that the Emperor class battleship has shield technology unlike anything in Star Wars rendering the firepower of the Executor moot. It always struck me as strange how invested nerds (including me) get in basically opinion driven debates like this.

Or you just pull out firepower calcs. In the old EU of Star Wars for example we know that according to crazy ICS numbers turbolasers on Acclamator ships pump out 200 gigatons per shot at maximum firepower. While this definitely never meshed with the movies, it was a starting point. Although now with the retcon Star Wars ships would be threatened by modern day nuclear weapons if they got too close to Earth according to the Clone Wars.

 Wyzilla wrote:
Yep, having just checked up with a friend I know who knows a lot more about physics than me, Melissa's "plasma torch" argument is completely bunk. Heat is largely worthless when it comes to the power of plasma weapons. What matters is the actual energy of the weapon, IE joules.

A stupid objection; Heat IS energy.

 Melissia wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Yep, having just checked up with a friend I know who knows a lot more about physics than me, Melissa's "plasma torch" argument is completely bunk. Heat is largely worthless when it comes to the power of plasma weapons. What matters is the actual energy of the weapon, IE joules.

A stupid objection; Heat IS energy.

No. Heat is the transfer of energy.

 Melissia wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Yep, having just checked up with a friend I know who knows a lot more about physics than me, Melissa's "plasma torch" argument is completely bunk. Heat is largely worthless when it comes to the power of plasma weapons. What matters is the actual energy of the weapon, IE joules.

A stupid objection; Heat IS energy.

....No it isn't. As custom said, it's the transfer of energy. Specifically the transfer of energy from a hot object to a "cooler" object.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Yep, having just checked up with a friend I know who knows a lot more about physics than me, Melissa's "plasma torch" argument is completely bunk. Heat is largely worthless when it comes to the power of plasma weapons. What matters is the actual energy of the weapon, IE joules.

A stupid objection; Heat IS energy.

....No it isn't. As custom said, it's the transfer of energy. Specifically the transfer of energy from a hot object to a "cooler" object.

So you're going to try to claim that something as hot as a cutting torch is not very energetic, now?

Heat is a form of energy, specifically, "a form of energy arising from the random motion of the molecules of bodies, which may be transferred by conduction, convection, or radiation." It is energy, a kind of energy measured in joules, BTUs, and calories.

You're really grasping hard for straws, here.

A 5kg object that is 1000 degrees Fahrenheit does not have as much energy as a 500kg object that is 1000 degrees Fahrenheit. That is where your cutting torch argument falls apart.

Heat is not the same thing as energy. Your quote isn't necessarily wrong but it isn't a complete explanation. Energy can take different forms, yes, such as kinetic and potential but movement itself isn't energy.

 Melissia wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Yep, having just checked up with a friend I know who knows a lot more about physics than me, Melissa's "plasma torch" argument is completely bunk. Heat is largely worthless when it comes to the power of plasma weapons. What matters is the actual energy of the weapon, IE joules.

A stupid objection; Heat IS energy.

....No it isn't. As custom said, it's the transfer of energy. Specifically the transfer of energy from a hot object to a "cooler" object.

So you're going to try to claim that something as hot as a cutting torch is not very energetic, now?

Heat is a form of energy, specifically, "a form of energy arising from the random motion of the molecules of bodies, which may be transferred by conduction, convection, or radiation." It is energy, a kind of energy measured in joules, BTUs, and calories.

You're really grasping hard for straws, here.

No, the problem is that you have zero data. Heat tells us nothing without either feats of destruction, speed of the projectile, and its mass/density. Not only does heat not supply the total equation for how powerful an energy weapon is, it only plays a small part when it comes to its total energy content. You could have an object burning at millions upon millions of degrees, but unless it has any significant mass it won't do anything.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:
Yep, having just checked up with a friend I know who knows a lot more about physics than me, Melissa's "plasma torch" argument is completely bunk. Heat is largely worthless when it comes to the power of plasma weapons. What matters is the actual energy of the weapon, IE joules.

A stupid objection; Heat IS energy.

....No it isn't. As custom said, it's the transfer of energy. Specifically the transfer of energy from a hot object to a "cooler" object.

So you're going to try to claim that something as hot as a cutting torch is not very energetic, now?

Heat is a form of energy, specifically, "a form of energy arising from the random motion of the molecules of bodies, which may be transferred by conduction, convection, or radiation." It is energy, a kind of energy measured in joules, BTUs, and calories.

You're really grasping hard for straws, here.

No, the problem is that you have zero data. Heat tells us nothing without either feats of destruction, speed of the projectile, and its mass/density. Not only does heat not supply the total equation for how powerful an energy weapon is, it only plays a small part when it comes to its total energy content. You could have an object burning at millions upon millions of degrees, but unless it has any significant mass it won't do anything.

Not necessarily true. you heat something up enough, it will burn through virtually anything you throw it at (my old auto-shop teacher once told a story about a quarter-sized hunk of metal that burned straight through concrete and rebar) . But, yes, you are right about heat. Heat = energy no more than acceleration = velocity.